Rushup Posted August 17, 2011 Share Posted August 17, 2011 So Hitler personified the whole Christian world did he ? No. I have not suggested this is the case either. If you want to go on wearing blinkers then go ahead. It seems that you would never be capable of seeing and appreciating the good things that Christianity has done for the world through nursing and charity work in countries like Africa and providing shelter' food and care for children orphaned by war. I on the other hand regard myself as being luckier than you for the simple reason I see the whole picture... the good as well as the bad instead of choosing to think "I hate religion therefore in my mind it's gotta be all bad and every bad thing that men do is all because of religion" You are of course welcome to regard yourself as luckier than anyone; I shouldn't have to point out that I have made no reference to my personal views on religion in this thread, nor tried to deny any positive elements of their organisations. Using people such as Hitler to justify the condemnation of religion is just plain silly You brought up Hitler, not me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted August 17, 2011 Share Posted August 17, 2011 No. I have not suggested this is the case either. You are of course welcome to regard yourself as luckier than anyone; I shouldn't have to point out that I have made no reference to my personal views on religion in this thread, nor tried to deny any positive elements of their organisations. You brought up Hitler, not me. Not quite so. You printed a whole tract from Mein Kampf stating that he quoted from the scriptures. I mentione Hitler in a much earlier post along with the Klu Klux Klan. They are not by any stretch of the imagination Christians Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rushup Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 [/b]I mentione Hitler in a much earlier post along with the Klu Klux Klan. I know. They are not by any stretch of the imagination Christians Perhaps Hitler and the unspecified members of the Ku Klux Klan you mention are/were not Christians in the sense of adopting the tenets of the bible word for word, but then the vast majority of self-proclaimed Christians are unlikely to be Christians in this sense either; it does not mean they do not hold core Christian beliefs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 I know. Perhaps Hitler and the unspecified members of the Ku Klux Klan you mention are/were not Christians in the sense of adopting the tenets of the bible word for word, but then the vast majority of self-proclaimed Christians are unlikely to be Christians in this sense either; it does not mean they do not hold core Christian beliefs. Well, we seem to have gone somewhat off track on the thread subject so I'll just repeat what I've stated in earlier posts. The Gurkha was wrong IMO to decapitate the head of the Taleban insurgent, terrorist or whatever you want to call him. Gurkhas carried out decapitations during WW2 but that was a different kind of war entirely. If anyone believes that there is still a chance of winning hearts and minds in Afghanistan this is not the way to achieve it. The Taleban could use the incident to show Afghans that "the enemy who call us barbarians are themselves barbarians" Secondly such acts endanger the lives of coalition soldiers who may fall into the hands of the Taleban. The Taleban may respond in kind. This war in the long run is unwinnable anyway and sooner or later we will have no choice but to make some kind of a deal with the Taleban "declare Victory" and pull out. Too bad for the women of Afghanistan but there's not much that can be done about that. The original purpose of the operation in Afghanistan was to get Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. Not take on a long running war with the Taleban Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArchViz Posted August 18, 2011 Author Share Posted August 18, 2011 Well, we seem to have gone somewhat off track on the thread subject so I'll just repeat what I've stated in earlier posts. The Gurkha was wrong IMO to decapitate the head of the Taleban insurgent, terrorist or whatever you want to call him. Oh dear here we go again. You can't decapitate a head. You can be decapitated or you can decapitate. So it should read '...decapitate the Taliban insurgent...'. Just thought I'd make that clear before you start ranting about ignorance, meat heads and such. Gurkhas carried out decapitations during WW2 but that was a different kind of war entirely. So you are saying it was OK in WWII? They also carried them out in Sarawak in the 60's was that OK as well? If anyone believes that there is still a chance of winning hearts and minds in Afghanistan this is not the way to achieve it. The Taleban could use the incident to show Afghans that "the enemy who call us barbarians are themselves barbarians" Secondly such acts endanger the lives of coalition soldiers who may fall into the hands of the Taleban. The Taleban may respond in kind. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/8708338/Taliban-bombs-kill-25-in-Afghan-attacks.html I would imagine the ordinary Afghan population already know who are the barbarians and the families of their victims, in your words, wouldn't give a fiddlers fart about a dead Taliban commander being beheaded for identification back at base. This war in the long run is unwinnable anyway and sooner or later we will have no choice but to make some kind of a deal with the Taleban "declare Victory" and pull out. That's a separate issue, I thought you didn't like the thread going off track! Too bad for the women of Afghanistan but there's not much that can be done about that. The original purpose of the operation in Afghanistan was to get Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. Not take on a long running war with the Taleban I'm sure Hitler would have loved that response from the Allies in 1939, 'Too bad for the Poles and Jews but there's not much that can be done about that.' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quinnwok Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 This soldier did his job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 I'm sure the Gurkha felt little concern about removing the man's head. The Gurkhas I knew in Malaya used to decapitate goats with their little knives just for sport. How about a non-Gurkha soldier however? Little Private Freddie Hardcastle from Salford Lancs. for example Platoon Sgt: "Ardcastle chop the 'ead off that dead Taleban over there Hardcastle: Me sarge! Why me? Sgt: 'Cos I bleddy well said so and that's an order ! Hardcastle: Er! What do I use for a knife ? Sgt: Go ask that Gurkha Corporal over there if you can use his Hardcastle: Cant he do it hisself Sarge? Sgt: No he bleddy well can't. This is part of a training exercise. Now do it you 'orrible little man or you'll be on a Fizzer Hardcastle comes back with the knife and stands over the dead Taleban his lips quivering. Sgt: WELL? DO IT. What's the matter? You a bleddy pooftah laddie? Slice that knife in there, all the way ! Don't mind the blood and put some elbow grease in when you cut through the neck bone, Go on! Grab his hair with the left hand ! Harcastle: Oh God. I think I'm going to throw up !!!! What's the purpose in all the above B.S ?? I wonder how many of you Forum fireside warriors would have the Cajones to do it if you had the chance? Not a one of you I'll bet. All wind and pi*ss from a bunch of Heroes who never saw a shot fired in anger !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quinnwok Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 I'm sure the Gurkha thought little removing the man's head. The Gurkhas in Malaya used to decapitate goats with their little knives. How about a non-Gurkha soldier however? Little Private Freddie Hardcastle from Salford Lancs. for example Platoon Sgt: "Ardcastle chop the 'ead off that dead Taleban over there Hardcastle: Me sarge! Why me? Sgt: 'Cos I bleddy well said so and that's an order ! Hardcastle: Er! What do I use for a knife ? Sgt: Go ask that Gurkha Corporal over there if you can use his Hardcastle: Cant he do it hisself Sarge? Sgt: No he bleddy well can't. This is part of a training exercise. Now do it you 'orrible little man or you'll be on a Fizzer Hardcastle comes back with the knife and stands over the dead Taleban his lips quivering. Sgt: WELL? DO IT. What's the matter? You a bleddy pooftah laddie? we used to take the heads off sheep with one blow, still i was in a decent regiment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.