Since this is the no-bullshit MMA site get your facts straight Phrost.
The Ghurkas were never ordered to bring back the body only to get a positive ID on the target.
A Ghurka private took his own initiative to decapitate the body.
Decapitation is a violation of the Geneva Convention.
My personal opinion is that it’s hilarious that the dude cut off the man’s head but your soft assertions in your post that the Chain of Command somehow engendered this beheading by giving them an order that unnecessarily endangered the soldiers and caused this action is wrong. The guy decided to cut off the head on his own.
Secondly, the British government literally had no other option in this case. The man beheaded a fallen enemy combatant contrary to modern rules of engagement. Armchair generals can posture on the Internet but we and our allies adhere to the Geneva Convention for the protection of our own soldiers. Yes the Taliban are barbaric but unless you are okay with 1 billion muslims plus the Chinese plus whatever other future adversaries cutting the heads off our boys as a matter of course go easy on the He-Man jingoism and racism about those camel jockeys.
Agree on the other stuff about the ghurkas guess you read the Daily Mail article judging from your post.
Did you ever hear about the ’ Kris’? some weird magical weapon from indonesia.
A familymember took a couple of them with him when he came back from the politional actions over there.
appearantly the previous owners were dead so he could take em.
ever since bad things happened, accidents, illnesses, etc.
as soon as they got rid of the knife it stopped.
its one of those weird stories that run in the family.
[quote=shalom;2426035]Since this is the no-bullshit MMA site get your facts straight Phrost.
The Ghurkas were never ordered to bring back the body only to get a positive ID on the target.
A Ghurka private took his own initiative to decapitate the body.
Decapitation is a violation of the Geneva Convention.
My personal opinion is that it’s hilarious that the dude cut off the man’s head but your soft assertions in your post that the Chain of Command somehow engendered this beheading by giving them an order that unnecessarily endangered the soldiers and caused this action is wrong. The guy decided to cut off the head on his own.
Secondly, the British government literally had no other option in this case. The man beheaded a fallen enemy combatant contrary to modern rules of engagement. Armchair generals can posture on the Internet but we and our allies adhere to the Geneva Convention for the protection of our own soldiers. Yes the Taliban are barbaric but unless you are okay with 1 billion muslims plus the Chinese plus whatever other future adversaries cutting the heads off our boys as a matter of course go easy on the He-Man jingoism and racism about those camel jockeys.[/quote]
The simplest response here is:
The Taliban are not covered by the Geneva Convention.
Also, fuck you for implying I’m a racist. Seriously. Fuck. You. There is no racism whatsoever in this article, unless you’re one of the assholes who like to whip out a rubber race card in any situation they feel it’d be useful to support their weak arguments, stretching it out so far that it’s thin enough for anyone with half a brain to see through.
The Taliban are not a race, nor are they a uniformed military.
Excellent choice Phrost…these guys are badass as badass gets.
Whoever the douche was that decided to put this guy up on charges - I hope he gets a pencil jammed up his bureaucratic ass.
As you stated…the Taliban are not protected by the Geneva Convention because they are a terrorist group and do not represent any form of recognized government. Besides, there was no reason for this incident to even become privy to the general public. The Officers in charge of this group should have quietly reprimanded the soldier behind closed doors and told him not to do it again , and then forgotten about it.
I’m not sure if this even violates the Geneva conventions. As I understand, it mostly pertains to living soldiers, and while mutilating corpses for shits and giggles is bad, I can see why bringing an assassinated leader’s head back for positive ID would be a valid reason.
Part of the stink being raised is about this being somehow insulting to the general Afghan population, who bury all the parts of the deceased they can find. I’m wondering if anyone from the actual Afghan population supposedly insulted actually minds.
I personally think that under certain conditions there’s nothing wrong with taking the killed enemy leaders head for identification, if there’s no better way to do it - I think who seriously f*cked up here is the person who sold this story to the media.
Phrost, I think shalom deserved fewer f*ck you-s, as I view his/her post a postive one. After all, officially we are the good guys who don’t do barbaric acts in a war. Media boo-hoo about stuff like this can hurt this picture, if it can be hurt any more nowadays.
Second Geneva convention 1949 article 18: Art 18. “After each engagement, Parties to the conflict shall, without delay, take all possible measures to search for and collect the shipwrecked, wounded and sick, to protect them against pillage and ill-treatment, to ensure their adequate care, and to search for the dead and prevent their being despoiled.”
Meaning: Decapitating, cutting off ears, hanging-drawing-and-quartering and any abuse or mockery of enemy corpses is a violation of the Geneva convention.
The Taliban were defined by the US as “enemy combatants”, not soldiers, IIRC, which made them exempt from Geneva Convention treaties. The Allies could do whatever the fuck they want with them, as long as our media never got wind of it it would have been considered par for the course. This looks like an event that the media sniffed out, therefore the Gurkha got turfed.
The Taliban, Haqqani, Al Qaeda, IMU, and other insurgent groups are in fact considered enemy combatants, and not soldiers of any uniformed services. While I personally believe that the decision to apply the Geneva Conventions and Hague Accords to insurgents is required by common decency and respect for human life, it was/is a courtesy, and not a requirement. According to said Conventions and Accords, anyway.
A moral conscience is what separates civilized people from cavemen.
I do not support the wholesale desecration of the corpses of our enemies. In this specific incident as it has been presented to the public, yes, I think it was expedient and practical. But that is a far cry from suggesting it be done casually, or as a common practice.
I completely realize we need to win the hearts and minds of the people of Afghanistan, and help them rebuild their nation rather than simply occupying them. I also realize that a significant portion of that effort is playing politics and fighting on the battleground of culture. And in that kind of battle, the enemy always has the advantage because every cultural taboo, no matter how obscure or antiquated, is a potential weapon of mass destruction.
The Gurhkas are awesome. Period.
Once heard a story about severed heads stinking out quarters following the Falklands, but likely just more of the head-hunter myth.
Anyone seen the Gurkhas at Singapore Changi Airport?
Tiny, immaculate guys with sub-machine guns in hand, revolvers on the hip and kukri on the belt.
I was far more intimidated by the knife than the firearms
[quote=Cassius;2426525]The Taliban, Haqqani, Al Qaeda, IMU, and other insurgent groups are in fact considered enemy combatants, and not soldiers of any uniformed services. While I personally believe that the decision to apply the Geneva Conventions and Hague Accords to insurgents is required by common decency and respect for human life, it was/is a courtesy, and not a requirement. According to said Conventions and Accords, anyway.
A moral conscience is what separates civilized people from cavemen.[/quote]
Two things. You are being a lawyer, stop it. The Taliban can’t be insurgents because they live there.
However, I recently read Decline And Fall Of The British Empire and unless Afghanistan has come on a long way since the 1860s, the un-named Gurkha probably had the right idea. The book states that the British were neither ruthless enough to intimidate the Afghans (“a race of tigers stalking the alleyways of Kabul”) nor prepared to buy off the local leaders. It ended badly.
