Just read this article, and I’m actually a bit disgusted with the fact that our government are worried about offending the Taliban because they bury the entire body, as per the Muslim religion. :blink:
The main gyst of the story is that the Gurkha’s were sent on a mission to kill this Taliban leader, and that they were to bring the body back for a positive ID. The patrol achieved their objective, killed the Taliban leader, and then came under heavy fire, making it impossible to carry out the body.
So, one of the Gurkha’s, realising the importance of identifying the body, pulled out his kukri and chopped the head off the body and brought it back to the base to identify.
So, poor little Johnny Gurkha is now sat in his barracks at Shorncliffe, worrying about a courtmarshal, when he should be with his fellow Gurkha’s and receiving a medal for his actions!
I’m pretty sure that the Taliban leader wasn’t thinking about the offence he causes everytime one of our boys is sent home in a f**king messtin!.. :crazy:
Dosen’t supprise me in the least. Last year England had to stop playing Christmas music on the radio incase it offeneded anyone. I hate Christmas music but that’s just a load of bull.
Mate, it’s got fck all to do with the way it’s laid out! It’s the quotes from senior members of the military, and the way the guy has been thrown to the wolves for doing nothing more than using his head! (No pun intended!)
It doesn’t matter who wrote it, or how they wanted it to be read, it’s about the rediculous attitude of this country when it comes to trying to please everybody, including the very people we are fighting! :crazy:If they’re that bothered about the guys family wanting to bury the head with the rest of the body, the simple solution is to just drop the fckers head out of a helicopter over the guys village! Job done, and they get the message that we really don’t like the Taliban!
The idea wasn’t that it was made up, but instead that the tone of the peice is by design set to annoy and irritate, that is what the Daily Mail does, it riles up its readers. Which it appears to have achieved.
I also googled and searched the Telegraph website and could find no reference to the story.
The whole tone of the piece is set out to outrage you, look at the way it portrays the actions as being bad because we don’t want to offend the Afghanistani people or the Taliban…barely mentions the fact that what the soldier is ACTUALLY in trouble for is “possibly” breaking the Geneva Convention.If the piece was actually balanced and spoke about the fact that beheading your enemies is not acceptable in the British Army as it breaks international treaties that we are signed up for, in a considered and sensible way, I doubt you would be as upset.You are upset and rightfully so, because the piece set out to upset you. That is what the Daily Mail does, it outrages its readership.
Ok, lets put this in a way which you couldn’t possibly misunderstand… I DON’T CARE ABOUT THE DAILY MAIL, OR THE WAY YOU THINK IT HAS WRITTEN THE ARTICLE!!! I CARE ABOUT THE FACT THAT THEY WERE UNDER ORDERS TO RETRIEVE THE BODY FOR IDENTIFICATION WHEN THEY LEFT, AND THAT THE ONLY WAY OF FOLLOWING THE ORDER WITHOUT SUSTAINING CASULATIES WAS TO TAKE THE HEAD SO THEY COULD FORMALLY ID THE GUY! AND NOW THE SAME PEOPLE HAVE SENT HIM HOME IN DISGRACE, SAYING HE HAS POSSIBLY GONE AGAINST THE GENEVA CONVENTION!!! IT’S REDICULOUS!!!Please stop trying to make it look like I am merely cheesed off because the Daily Mail has duped me in some way to thinking how they want me to. I’d be equally as p**sed off if it had been reported by any news agency! It’s the whole principle of the matter! :crazy:
As for telling me what is acceptable in the British Forces, don’t bother! I gave 8 and a half years of my life to it, and know the conventions and rules of engagement off by heart!
This is a classic case of the Daily Beast always going for the narrow knee-jerk reaction story rather than attempting to give it’s readers an insight into the bigger picture.
Sending this guy home was probably an operational descision made for operational reasons within the context of a campaign which has been overtly and publicly designed to ‘win hearts and minds’ - by commanders who are acutely aware of the importance of gaining the support of the local people - acutely aware because it is they and their men who will experience the consequences of a whole district turning against them in the form of IED and sniping attacks.
Most Taliban fighters are drawn from the local population - but are not as ideaologically driven as the hardcore fighters coming out of N.Pakistan - consequently they are capable of being turned and coming over to the Afghan Government/NATO - however if word gets around that NATO troops are mutilating the bodies of their dead (regardless of the precise reasons the Ghurka decided to remove this guys head) then that is a propaganda victory for the Taliban and might harden the anti-NATO position of the locals.
If a British officer can tell local leaders who bring this subject up that the individual was sent home - and if that appeases local opinion - then they will be furthering their operational objectives.
With respect Roadrunner - the U.S. lost in Vietnam the minute they started dropping Vietnamese ‘suspects’ out of helicopters onto their villages.
I’m not going to nitpick about this, but I wasn’t suggesting throwing live “suspects” over the villages. I’m just less than sympathetic towards the way they get the guys head back. Especially knowing that the same guy wouldn’t flinch if it was one of his men cutting the head off one of our troops corpses! For that matter, they don’t flinch when they cut the head off a live person either! :doze:
There has been an accusation of a breach of an international treaty which the Army has incorporated into its own regulations. Yes this soldier has been sent home to be investigated, but the investigation may well find him innocent of any breach!
What will you be upset at then? That the army dared to investigate something?..think about that for a second. You have no other reason to be upset at this stage. The army MUST investigate all such issues that arise. We can’t have them just ignore possible breaches.
I give up! Of course, you must be right! Not only do you understand the way the upper echelon of the military work when they realise the public might be a bit upset at the way our military sometimes works, you also know exactly what goes on in my mind!
I bow down to your superior knowledge and experience of the military! :doze:
How did I possibly think that I could be capable of independant thought on the matter, when it is obvious that I am just so dumb that I let a newspaper article make me think such terrible things! :blink:
Anyway, I’m going to go and boil my head now, as there was an article in the Daily Mail saying that although you end up with permanent scarring and lose all your hair, it’s actually really good for you! :hehe:
This is a classic case of the Daily Beast always going for the narrow knee-jerk reaction story rather than attempting to give it’s readers an insight into the bigger picture.Sending this guy home was probably an operational descision made for operational reasons within the context of a campaign which has been overtly and publicly designed to ‘win hearts and minds’ - by commanders who are acutely aware of the importance of gaining the support of the local people - acutely aware because it is they and their men who will experience the consequences of a whole district turning against them in the form of IED and sniping attacks.
Most Taliban fighters are drawn from the local population - but are not as ideaologically driven as the hardcore fighters coming out of N.Pakistan - consequently they are capable of being turned and coming over to the Afghan Government/NATO - however if word gets around that NATO troops are mutilating the bodies of their dead (regardless of the precise reasons the Ghurka decided to remove this guys head) then that is a propaganda victory for the Taliban and might harden the anti-NATO position of the locals.
If a British officer can tell local leaders who bring this subject up that the individual was sent home - and if that appeases local opinion - then they will be furthering their operational objectives.
With respect Roadrunner - the U.S. lost in Vietnam the minute they started dropping Vietnamese ‘suspects’ out of helicopters ontotheir villages.[/ quote]no they lost because when they should have started teh war as there were in the years just before they pulled out…small SF teams…not a whole army, guerilla warfare is one of teh hardest forms of warfare to fight and defeat.
maybe next time if they just cut his face off might be ok.
i agree its ridiculous, its war and maybe they should get done for blowing people up and loosing there legs etc.
USA didnt start the vietnam war, it was the french due to the vietnamese helping the french out and france promising vietnam independancy from french rule but the french renegged on it and war was started, USA got involved when the french were getting there arse kicked and the USA saw it as a war against communism, again.
