GregS
Gold Member
- Joined
- May 6, 2008
- Messages
- 6,022
-
The BladeForums.com 2024 Traditional Knife is ready to order! See this thread for details: https://www.bladeforums.com/threads/bladeforums-2024-traditional-knife.2003187/
Price is$300$250 ea (shipped within CONUS). If you live outside the US, I will contact you after your order for extra shipping charges.
Order here: https://www.bladeforums.com/help/2024-traditional/ - Order as many as you like, we have plenty.
Gurkha does his job and is going to be punished for it.
- Thread starter KRBurke
- Start date
The discipline in this case sounds a bit harsh to me also, but the British have always stressed out over such things. In the old days they switched their bullet lube grease from beef tallow to pork tallow because it offended Hindus in India (sacred cow component). Then when they became involved in North Africa the pork tallow offended Muslims, so they had to go with paraffin, IIRC.
Winston Churchill claimed: "If you have to kill a man, it cost nothing to be polite." However, such courtesy never was either cheap or uncomplicated.
Winston Churchill claimed: "If you have to kill a man, it cost nothing to be polite." However, such courtesy never was either cheap or uncomplicated.
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2008
- Messages
- 947
I still warn people that the Daily Mail is a sensationalist newspaper that frequently misrepresents the facts. I've not seen any other news agencies running this story, that says something to me...
Cpl Punishment, thank you for taking the time in making long replies, I appreciate that very much because it means you're interested and you care about the subject. I can understand your frustration and agree with what you say. But part of me also sees things differently and leaves me feeling a bit torn.
Al Qaida and the Taliban aren't covered by the Geneva Convention. I shouldn't imagine the IRA were covered either. The British government could've death squaded them in a couple of months, totally wiped them out...but for obvious reasons they couldn't. So instead, the bodies of those murdered by the IRA were stacked up because of political sensibilities, mainly US sensibilities...
Even a convicted murderer has some rights and I suppose the Taliban do as well(?).:grumpy:
If this Gurkha actually did what he did then to be honest it's a non-event, when the British public get behind him it'll all get ironed out in his favour.
Cpl Punishment, thank you for taking the time in making long replies, I appreciate that very much because it means you're interested and you care about the subject. I can understand your frustration and agree with what you say. But part of me also sees things differently and leaves me feeling a bit torn.
Al Qaida and the Taliban aren't covered by the Geneva Convention. I shouldn't imagine the IRA were covered either. The British government could've death squaded them in a couple of months, totally wiped them out...but for obvious reasons they couldn't. So instead, the bodies of those murdered by the IRA were stacked up because of political sensibilities, mainly US sensibilities...
Even a convicted murderer has some rights and I suppose the Taliban do as well(?).:grumpy:
If this Gurkha actually did what he did then to be honest it's a non-event, when the British public get behind him it'll all get ironed out in his favour.
@ the Cpl.
I understand what you're saying and i totally agree. But you seem to be missing my point, which could be my fault. What i'm trying to say is that: whatever action we take we must always be on the moral high ground in the eyes of the world, otherwise this war is just terror vs. terror. A good part of the world already feels that the U.S. is imperialistic and should not be flexing it's muscles in that area. Never mind that we were attacked on our own soil first. By doing things that could be percieved as callous or disrespectful we would stand the chance of losing the respect and backing of those nations that support us (however much or little), which would end up with the entire immense process and cost of this war squarely on our backs. Not all parts of wars are fought on the battlefield, The world(even war) is not Black and White and as the VietNam conflict has proved public opinion does matter greatly.
No, i myself never had the opportunity to serve. VietNam pretty much nixed that for me. After watching my older brother get drafted, serve and the way he was treated when he returned, it pretty much disheartened me on serving unless uncle sam drafted me.
Members of my family, though, have served in every war since the civil war, and were active personnel in the queens military before then. The most recent being my favorite nephew doing a tour each in Iraq and afghanistan as a combat medic and is considering returning to the sandbox for a third.
As far as this Young Ghurka- I don't believe he did anything wrong and i don't believe he should be prosecuted. I do think that the British Gov't is handling this rather poorly and that is par for the course, but i do understand why the powers that be do not wish to aggravate the sensiblities of law abiding muslims, or any other religions for that matter. As i said previously, just because they have no respect for us and do nasty things, it does not give us a free pass to practice the same animalistic behaviour. We must at the very least be percieved as having Honor, Integrity and caring about more than just obliterating the enemy.
I understand what you're saying and i totally agree. But you seem to be missing my point, which could be my fault. What i'm trying to say is that: whatever action we take we must always be on the moral high ground in the eyes of the world, otherwise this war is just terror vs. terror. A good part of the world already feels that the U.S. is imperialistic and should not be flexing it's muscles in that area. Never mind that we were attacked on our own soil first. By doing things that could be percieved as callous or disrespectful we would stand the chance of losing the respect and backing of those nations that support us (however much or little), which would end up with the entire immense process and cost of this war squarely on our backs. Not all parts of wars are fought on the battlefield, The world(even war) is not Black and White and as the VietNam conflict has proved public opinion does matter greatly.
No, i myself never had the opportunity to serve. VietNam pretty much nixed that for me. After watching my older brother get drafted, serve and the way he was treated when he returned, it pretty much disheartened me on serving unless uncle sam drafted me.
Members of my family, though, have served in every war since the civil war, and were active personnel in the queens military before then. The most recent being my favorite nephew doing a tour each in Iraq and afghanistan as a combat medic and is considering returning to the sandbox for a third.
As far as this Young Ghurka- I don't believe he did anything wrong and i don't believe he should be prosecuted. I do think that the British Gov't is handling this rather poorly and that is par for the course, but i do understand why the powers that be do not wish to aggravate the sensiblities of law abiding muslims, or any other religions for that matter. As i said previously, just because they have no respect for us and do nasty things, it does not give us a free pass to practice the same animalistic behaviour. We must at the very least be percieved as having Honor, Integrity and caring about more than just obliterating the enemy.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2008
- Messages
- 947
You still believe the word of The Daily Mail?
I guess you still believe UK Scouts are banned from carrying knives?
As we're now getting into politics I would expect your post to have a mod flag on it, just as my save an "Iranian woman" thread was locked...
But to answer you, yes I welcome any American investigation into BP lobbying the British Government.
That the decision to release the Libyan was taken by the Scottish Government seems to be outside your level of reasoning, it wasn't the British Government that took it....
But yes, I would love to know what level of lobbying US (and other) groups have over (and have had over) US Senators and the US Government.
Good luck on that one! :thumbup:
That Topic of yours was closed mostly due to the fact that it was solicitation, which is not allowed without prior approval from the site owner.
Lets all please try to stay as close to the original topic as possible.
Last edited:
That soldier was doing his job and diplomats need to hold back when it comes to hot battles such as this one.
The soldier was involved in a fierce firefight with a lethal enemy. He put his life on the line defending the British way of life and took the horrible but necessary steps to fight this battle and gather intelligence. Under the circumstances I don't see he had much of a choice as they were not going to let him remove the whole heavy body.
It is not his fault that their traditions were not respected those taliban soldiers did not give him any other alternative. A hot fire fight where your life and the lives of others are on the line is not the place were local traditions are to be given priority.
Proof that a taliban leader was killed is important potentially life saving intel and this soldier does not need to be hassled for it because others decided on the spur of the moment that they would like to add civility to a horrible terrible war (by that I mean all wars in general are horrible and terrible.)
This is a typical case of blaming the military for the wars they are forced to fight.
British leaders need to decide whether or not they are going to commit to fighting this war. Scapegoating soldiers is bad for moral and unwise considering that these are the people on the frontline protecting their societies.
Save the court martials for those who CLEARLY NEEDLESSLY KILL (thats murder,) and rape as that is also bad for troop moral.
While war does not give the military the right to operate recklessly without accountability, it still is war and it is not going to be civil.
In a critical situation such as a war there is no place for political or diplomatic grandstanding.
The soldier was involved in a fierce firefight with a lethal enemy. He put his life on the line defending the British way of life and took the horrible but necessary steps to fight this battle and gather intelligence. Under the circumstances I don't see he had much of a choice as they were not going to let him remove the whole heavy body.
It is not his fault that their traditions were not respected those taliban soldiers did not give him any other alternative. A hot fire fight where your life and the lives of others are on the line is not the place were local traditions are to be given priority.
Proof that a taliban leader was killed is important potentially life saving intel and this soldier does not need to be hassled for it because others decided on the spur of the moment that they would like to add civility to a horrible terrible war (by that I mean all wars in general are horrible and terrible.)
This is a typical case of blaming the military for the wars they are forced to fight.
British leaders need to decide whether or not they are going to commit to fighting this war. Scapegoating soldiers is bad for moral and unwise considering that these are the people on the frontline protecting their societies.
Save the court martials for those who CLEARLY NEEDLESSLY KILL (thats murder,) and rape as that is also bad for troop moral.
While war does not give the military the right to operate recklessly without accountability, it still is war and it is not going to be civil.
In a critical situation such as a war there is no place for political or diplomatic grandstanding.
Last edited:
- Joined
- May 5, 1999
- Messages
- 3,065
Since this post first appeared I have continued to search the web for any confirmation from a source other than the Daily Mail, and found none. Google "Gurkha beheads Taliban" and you get six pages of hits - all either forums or blogs decrying the Daily Mail report, or newspapers copying the Daily Mail article word for word, with or without attribution. No story on BBC, London Times, Guardian, Observer, New York Times, CNN, Washington Post. No reference on the Ministry of Defence website, which carries current events on British military affairs in Afghanistan right up to today. Google Colonel Richard Kemp and you get plenty on the IDF, nothing recent on Afghanistan. No reference on leftist anti-war blogs, which would be expected to raise hell. I am not yet ready to call BS on this, but I would like to get some reportage from a source whose front page doesn't cater to the checkout lane impulse buyer:
-MailOnline - news, sport, celebrity, science and health stories
Update: The MoD blog did reference the Daily Mail article without comment. The Sunday Times carried the same article under a byline, but without any additional detail or corroboration so far as I can tell from the free portion of their website.
Update2: Now over thirty pages of Google hits, all based on the original Daily Mail article. Universal indignation at the idea that such an injustice to a brave soldier could occur, lots of British government bashing, Simon Hengle thinks it's because Obama is a Muslim, Ansar Al-Mujahideen headlines the story: "British Terrorist Removed From Duty For Beheading Dead Taliban Commander During Battle". Lots of heat, very little light on this murky story.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2008
- Messages
- 308
yorkshire boy hello
im glad you pointed out the one glaring mistake of ac's that it was the scots government not the british that released the lockerbie bomber thanks sorry guys but it had to be said the wrong people were getting blamed for it
mick
im glad you pointed out the one glaring mistake of ac's that it was the scots government not the british that released the lockerbie bomber thanks sorry guys but it had to be said the wrong people were getting blamed for it
mick
Well, it seems the "daily mail" is kinda like England's version of the National Enquirer. <sigh> As has been mentioned, most everything about this only points back to "The Daily Mail". No independant verification.
I'd hate to think they'd just make this up outta the blue. Guess we'll have to wait and see. I started this thread, so if I jumped the gun, I'm sorry.
I'd rather be right than righteous.
Kev
I'd hate to think they'd just make this up outta the blue. Guess we'll have to wait and see. I started this thread, so if I jumped the gun, I'm sorry.
I'd rather be right than righteous.
Kev
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2001
- Messages
- 2,170
yep, I blew it... sorry about that. I got the news of our gov't grilling the PM about BP's possible deal with Libya and got it all confused. I'm getting old in my old age...
How large do you think those Kuks in the photo are? They look tiny to me, not more than 15-16" perhaps and thin too.
Is it just my imagination and does anyone have any info on what standard issue army kuks are like? If there is standard issue at all instead of privately purchased kuks for each gurkha.
thanks,
alex
Is it just my imagination and does anyone have any info on what standard issue army kuks are like? If there is standard issue at all instead of privately purchased kuks for each gurkha.
thanks,
alex
- Joined
- May 5, 1999
- Messages
- 3,065
Very informative, thank you. Especially liked the part on M43 since I just sharked one earlier today.
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2009
- Messages
- 6,234
Another example of ancient tradition and skill meets modern warfare. Despite logical thinking, battlefield necessity etc. the media still only cares about dramatization for entertainment's sake, not the actual facts. I guarantee this wouldn't be an issue if the media didn't have a field day with it. All that really matters anyway is that your comrades in arms know the true story...
My feeling on this story, is one of disinformation. As much as I would applaud, ( for somewhat personal regard ), the beheading of an talib by an "mushrikun" , the overwhelming disregard of this byline by the liberal main stream medias is instructive of itself. Its a "shark bump", designed to elicit public responces, to which ' talking heads' can denounce or support, according to a prescipted agenda.
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2008
- Messages
- 947
I say this story is an utter lie.
Don't you think it rather odd that there's been no other mention of this story in the press. No Muslim or human rights organisations calling foul, nothing mentioned in Parliament....
The Daily Mail is not a liberal newspaper, it's a sensationalist rag for the middle-classes in South East England to get worked up over the "injustices" of the world. They frequently misrepresent the facts and even lie, then let the story quietly drop.
It's a paper that is frequently quoted on American sites like this to "show" what Britain is like, with the inevitable outcome of Brit bashing carried out by many.
Don't you think it rather odd that there's been no other mention of this story in the press. No Muslim or human rights organisations calling foul, nothing mentioned in Parliament....
The Daily Mail is not a liberal newspaper, it's a sensationalist rag for the middle-classes in South East England to get worked up over the "injustices" of the world. They frequently misrepresent the facts and even lie, then let the story quietly drop.
It's a paper that is frequently quoted on American sites like this to "show" what Britain is like, with the inevitable outcome of Brit bashing carried out by many.