This is considered a gross insult to the Muslims of Afghanistan, who bury the entire body of their dead even if parts have to be retrieved.Don't pick fights with those who fight back, then! Stick to blowing up women and children...
Naturally, the British Army is standing behind the perfectly reasonable actions (under those circumstances) of their ma...
Oh:
A source said: ‘Removing the head in this way was totally inappropriate.’Let me guess?
That's 'a source' safely ensconced in a London air-conditioned office who is responsible, between lunches, for issuing orders about ensuring they've killed the right man, but who would probably wet himself if a car backfired outside the Afghanistan Hilton. Should he ever get posted there?
Thought so.
The Gurkha now faces disciplinary action and a possible court martial. If found guilty, he could be jailed.Poor sod should have Fed-Exed the thing straight back to the chap who issued those orders...
30 comments:
Just about to comment on this when Isaw the red rag to a bull - the word "feminist" on the last post so shall zip over to that now.
unless of course they're the ones doing the beheading
Any we kill should be buried with bits missing and a dead pig. Soon see just how many want to take on the squaddies then.
Honouring the dead is for civilised armies, not guerillas/terrorists.
Like in that film "7even"?
I can't believe this is genuine. DOH! Sorry, of course it is, this is the UK and we send soldiers in to fight people with a human rights lawyer tied around one leg.
I suspect there's a bit of military 'spin' on this story to placate the squeamish.
Could there be drinks all round in the mess? I hope so - drink up lads!
"Removing the head in this way was totally inappropriate.’"
Yeah using a knife to remove the head was inappropriate, he ought to have used a saw.
Perhaps they could advise us as to the appropriate way to remove it? The Saudi system perhaps?
This is considered a gross insult to the Muslims of Afghanistan, who bury the entire body of their dead even if parts have to be retrieved.
So what is the problem? Has any one said they can NOT go to the nearest army base to collect their mates....bits?
Or is there some other reason why they would not wish to go into a British army base full of Gurkhas I wonder?
Post cards to...
My best friends dad was a Major in the Gurkhas in WW2. The tales he had to tell about their fighting prowess was er, headraising!
The hero in question should use the "It's my culture innit!" Excuse.
Because it is.
Oh I forgot, you are not allowed to use that one if you are fighting FOR us.
Well, well, well.
So they're saying that they go into the aftermath of all the suicide bombings they commit and make sure they collect the torn apart bodies of their comrades in arms (and legs)?
Never knew that.
I wish there was some way we could demonstrate our support for this serviceman, and our contempt for the desk-jockey who has summoned him home.
Monty
That's what I want and expect I Gurkha to do. They wanted id - here's a head. Your problem? I don't give a flying fuck which tosspot Taliban that offends. if they don't like people being dismembered, fuck off out of the way of the Gurkhas, and stop doing suicide bombings by the way.
Political correct bollocks.
G the M
And somebody writing in the Mail expected the Gurkha to be carrying a camera, so he could take pictures of corpses. Imagine, for a moment, the uproar if any soldier did such a thing - they'd probably be accused of necrophilia!
Anyhow, did the Taliban ever sign up to the Geneva Convention? If so, they must have made a bit of a mistake when they beheaded a Polish hostage last year - and filmed it for all to see.
http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/196260.php
Soldiers killing people? Whatever next?
Now, now, let's not lose our heads!
A Taliban spokesman has threatened a mass strike over demarcation. It is clearly stated that ONLY members of the Taliban and amlgamated Tea Towel Wearers and their affiliate Trades Unions are allowed to commit such barbaric acts and if these offences against the unions continue then a general strike will be called immediately. A total walkout, where will your infidel running dogs of capitalism be then eh?
I'll get my coat...
TTFN :)
@RAB,
The hero in question should use the "It's my culture innit!" Excuse.
Because it is.
Oh I forgot, you are not allowed to use that one if you are fighting FOR us.
Evidently, you're an Uncle Tom if you're fighting for the white man.
I am sure that a similar story was going around in the 1970s. Not sure where it happened, could have been Aden.
- - -The head of a Pathan sniper, stalked and killed by Gurkha scouts and then placed on a cairn built on the desolate stretches of the Khyber Pass, was a grim warning to other snipers of their possible fate if they attacked British posts.- - -
That was in 1919. Plus ca change.
"Like in that film "7even"?"
That's where the title quote comes from.. ;)
"The hero in question should use the "It's my culture innit!" Excuse."
That would be AWESOME! Can you imagine the consternation that would cause amongst the desk jockeys?
"Anyhow, did the Taliban ever sign up to the Geneva Convention?"
No, so we're justified in shooting them out of hand whenever we find them, aren't we? Instead, we conduct military operations as if they were indeed a foreign nation's standing army. Madness.
"A Taliban spokesman has threatened a mass strike over demarcation. It is clearly stated that ONLY members of the Taliban and amlgamated Tea Towel Wearers and their affiliate Trades Unions are allowed to commit such barbaric acts..."
:D
"Evidently, you're an Uncle Tom if you're fighting for the white man."
And to think, they tried their best to refuse entry to the UK for these soldiers. Yet, we let in all the enemies of our society! More madnes..
"That was in 1919. Plus ca change."
Indeed!
The Marines in Aden took heads. I've seen the pictures. The Arab terrorists did not like it up 'em, and cried good and hard about it, but they ran scared afterwards. Our response to the Taliban should be less 'cultural sensitivity' and more along the lines of depopulation of areas where they are rife. A kukri is designed for the taking of heads (as well as a being a general-purpose bloody great chopping tool). Decapitating Mohammedan savages is its raison d'etre. Disciplining this Gurkha for beheading a piece of Taliban filth (after he was dead, no less, and so he could be identified!) makes roughly the same amount of sense as disciplining someone for taking a DNA swab after a sniper's been enamelled on a wall with a Javelin ATGW (this happens, and if you're in a room when an anti-tank warhead goes off, you are instantly converted into a pulpy amalgam of bone, blood and flesh, which is then flash-fried).
Quite honestly I think the outraging of Islamic sentiment is a feature, not a bug. We need to state unashamedly and unequivocally that we'll not kow-tow to their ridiculous chauvinism. Let them know we find them contemptible. The message should be: leave us alone and we might not kill you, yet, but be aware that while you might get our forbearance, you won't get our respect. And we might just kill you later anyway for the hell of it.
It seems a bit of a bugger, but our soldiers do operate under the auspices of the Geneva convention even if the Taliban and others don't. Interfering with a dead enemy like that is against the rules. A few photos would no doubt have been OK. Taking the head for identification obviously wasn't. We don't hold ourselves as superior for nothing.
Don't you think they have enough kit to carry, without having to carry a bloody camera as well? WHICH, for identity and evidence, is virtually useless any way unless they a) HAVER a perfect (for ID purposes) photo already, and b) the soldier is capable enough, ie TRAINED to a sufficient standard of evidence photography, to take one in the middle of a bloody battle.
They are SOLDIERS, NOT beat or SOCO coppers.
The Geneva conventions are clear that you don't have to abide by them if the other side doesn't. You do have to abide by them if the other side does, even if they haven't signed the convention.
The Mughal empire used to execute Jihadists by trying them to a cannon and blowing them to bits. A practice briefly revived after the Indian mutiny.
In 1917, I think, Pershing used to wrap dead Jihadists in pig skins and bury them in unmarked graves, also seems to have worked in reducing Jihadist violence.
Pershing? In 1917?
I thought he was busy sorting out the Frogs. Or the Germans. Depending on whether your allies are more trouble than your enemies.
Perhaps you could elucidate?
And this is why we are very, very glad the Gurkhas are on our side.
The article is complete rubbish, though: the Geneva Conventions apply only to uniformed soldiers in a regular army, not guerillas/insurgents hiding amongst the population. Those get the same protection as spies: none whatsoever. Plus, of course, if push comes to shove this isn't actually a war, what with there being nobody to declare war on...
"The Arab terrorists did not like it up 'em..."
They never do, when the boot's on the other foot.
"...our soldiers do operate under the auspices of the Geneva convention even if the Taliban and others don't."
But as Steve T and King of Wrong both point out, we're under no obligations to do so wrt the Taliban.
"We don't hold ourselves as superior for nothing."
We shouldn't hold ourselves superior if we handicap our fighting forces for the sake of preeening and strutting at the various multinational peace shindigs, either.
"And this is why we are very, very glad the Gurkhas are on our side."
I certainly am!
This is why we will never win any conflict in Afghanistan, despite the best efforts of our Armed Forces (not saying they would have won mind, as history would tend to argue otherwise, in that bit of the world) because our guys and gals are hamstrung with political correctness, 'elf and fafety and all the other tripe that has no place when some bugger is TRYING TO KILL YOU!! I agree on the comments re the Gurkhas. They are fabulous, and to think those slimy Labourites tried to screw them over about coming to the UK... Why do they bother, I wonder, its enough to make them join the other side! Thank goodness for Joanna Lumley. By the way a kukhri is DESIGNED to be able to lop off your opponent's napper. Bloke was doing his best. Only in the UK would be try to penalise one of our bravest for applying common sense.
"Only in the UK would be try to penalise one of our bravest for applying common sense."
I wonder if this would have happened in the US? Probably.
The Righteous are everywhere now...
Post a Comment