Scalping is a disgusting act. I'm going to have to assume that anyone who participates in it is a godless maniac who poses a serious threat to other human beings.
Why not gnaw off some fingers, while you're at it, like the Iroquois?
Good luck with your "tit for tat" tactics. They've always worked out so well in human history.
The French settlers taught the Native Americans, including the Canadian tribes, to scalp their victims -- at the time, competitors of the French, meaning the English and occasionally the Spanish. Remember the French and Indian War? Rules required every scalp to include the crown area to prevent dividing one into several to get more bounty money. The whorl pattern of the hair roots is located there. Ears make a nice necklace, it is said, and the smaller bones are always attractive. Shakespeare talks in many plays about putting aside the gentlemanly and making stern one's face for war. Having seen the burnt bones of children from Mt. Carmel at Waco, I dig it.
Gosh, Abstemio... war is a disgusting act- almost as disgusting as being a slave. If it comes to taking scalps or being a slave, I've got my knife sharpened. You, of course, are going to enjoy your chains. Cut off some fingers... hmmmm, that might be interesting. I'd rather just skin them, and plan on doing so to any U-N troops encountered. I'll send you the fingers, they'll go good with your wussy whine. Shy III
The Nazis had a real mass-production system going to harvest gold teeth, watches, jewelry, clothes, shoes from the millions of innocent dead. The original "asset forfeiture." I read that the Jew-skin lampshades were real, but just an SS anomaly, not a real trend, but the attitude was there. Our opponents are the ideological heirs of those inhuman bastards, not us. Elsewhere, Nancy Pelosi wants an investigation of the people who oppose that NYC mosque planned for two blocks from the hole where the World Trade Center used to be, ground to be broken for construction on 9/11/10. Talk is no longer cheap; it gets you Big Sister's notice. I am the most peaceable person you can imagine. When a punk at school punched me in the head -- twice -- I urged him to come with me to the office. His answer was to punch me again. We BOTH were suspended for fighting. That was the most educational moment I had in grade school. The Jews who survived the Holocaust remember: "He who is kind to the cruel is cruel to the kind."
The purpose of war is to stop an aggressor by physical means.
When you enter the dark realm of terrorism (intending to stop the opponent by means of psychological terror,) then you're no better than the broadcasting BATF and HRT scumbags at Waco blaring the sounds of rabbits being slaughtered, over loudspeakers. You'll be no better than the animals from the FBI who said to Randy Weaver, "We're having blueberry pancakes for breakfast this morning. What's your wife making, Randy?" when they knew his wife was dead on the floor. But what they did was only wrong because their cause was unjust, is that it? Your moral compass was manufactured in the Bermuda Triangle if you think that is the case.
Where will you stop, once you've started? I know human nature. You won't stop anywhere. It's an easy slide from scalping, right down into torturing their children, and raping their wives. Maybe you'll burn down their houses with their families within them. But whatever it takes, right?
I'd rather be a slave or a dead man with a little moral integrity than someone who thinks that the ultimate purpose of life is to preserve his liberty or physical existence at any price, including the loss of his immortal soul.
Golly, Abstemio- where is the "moral integrity" in cowardice? As to the immortal soul- that's in God's hands- and He has condemned the coward already- easy to find the verses- and he has condemned the man who will not defend his home and family- again, easy to find the verses. "Freedom at any price." I like that. Exactly the reason Jesus gave His life on the cross- Freedom, at any price. Cowardice is cowardice, I don't care what terms are used to justify it. Shy III
Was Jesus a coward when, asked by the disciples "Do you want us to call down fire upon the city to destroy them, Lord?" he responded "You do not know what spirit you are of?" The disciples wanted to use violence to prove a point. Jesus told them to stand down. Was Jesus a coward when he told Peter to sheathe his sword? The Apostles wanted to use violence to prove a point. There is a time and a place for violence, and there is a legitimate and an illegitimate use of violence.
Violence to stop a threat is morally acceptable. Desecrating bodies is a vile, gratuitous act that simply breeds more hatred and strengthens resolve. It is a bestial act belongs to the followers of the Prince of this world.
From a purely pragmatic approach, do you really think that scalping the enemy will suddenly cause them to lose heart and give up the fight? Dream on. That isn't how it works. It will do nothing but strengthen their resolve and hatred. They will harden their hearts, and fight all the more savagely, just as the Czechs did after the Lidice massacre, perpetrated by the Germans in retribution for the assassination of Heydrich.
When you call me a coward, you don't know who you're talking to.
Abstemio said: "When you enter the dark realm of terrorism..."
Terrorism is defined by who wins the fight. Was the firebombing of Dresden terrorism? Well, you said terrorism is -and I quote- "intending to stop the opponent by means of psychological terror...".
By your definition, Dresden was terrorism. So is the US' "shock and awe" warfare tactics. So were Hiroshima and Nagasaki. By your logic, the US is a nation that uses terrorism to get its way. Do you think that?
I'm staying out of the scalping discussion, but I'll just say to watch how you use the word terrorism, as it usually can be applied to any force, by anyone, at any time. Terrorism is a term used by the Goliaths to refer to the Davids. 4GW.
Speaking of David, he was a terrorist, too. He desecrated Goliath's body. Samson was as well... and what about what they did to Jezebel?
You bring religion into this discussion, well, many "heroes of the faith" were, by your definition, terrorists and savages.
So, long story short, lay off the Iroquois. :-) The Bible is full of terrorist savages.
Abstemio said: "I'd rather be a slave or a dead man with a little moral integrity than someone who thinks that the ultimate purpose of life is to preserve his liberty or physical existence at any price, including the loss of his immortal soul."
Yet David was a man "after god's own heart", despite being considered a terrorist savage who has lost his immortal soul by Abstemo.
I won´t pretend to try to tell anyone else what to do or not do. But would like to point out something here. If either side of this coming conflict were to start desecrating bodies, the propaganda machine of the other side would be sure to jump on those acts to villainize and dehumanize the perpetrators of these desecration's.
I think I will consider the risk of Unintended Consequences, by refraining from such actions.
I agree with you. In this day and age, scalping may be seen as an act of barbarism.
May.
The actions taken and atrocities committed in Rwanda, Bosnia, and Darfour were approved of for the most part by the public the peoples committing them. American bodies drug through the streets of Mogadishu were done so with great fanfare and approval by the locals. The people who drug the bodies of the private security operatives through the streets, burnt them, and hung them from a bridge did so in broad daylight, and received public support.
For the most part though, you are right. Desecration of the enemies' corpses in this day and age will likely result in a propaganda win for the enemy. But, circumstances change. "Acceptable" changes based on circumstance.
We humans are infinitely capable of savagery and acts that defy the imagination. It doesn't take much to go from "civilized" to scalping and worse.
Justin, the US is not a nation. The United States is a collection of states. One state, really. A state is a type of government. I am not a "part" of a government. I am a productive individual. A nation is a group of individuals that share cultural and religious traits. A state is an idea: a political institution, not a group of individuals.
Now, were the deliberate firebombings of Dresden, Hamburg and Tokyo, intended to slaughter tens of thousands of civilians, terrorist acts? Absolutely. The United States government attacked people (civilians, no less) as a means of forcing the government to change its policy. It's a textbook definition of terrorism. Of course, in a world where "we do not torture" means "we waterboard, we bind people in agonizing positions for days at a time, we blare ear-damaging noise and deprive other human beings of sleep for weeks at a time" (things which were sure considered atrocious acts of torture when the Japanese and Vietnamese committed them!), mere words have kind of lost their meaning, haven't they?
Moving on to your Bible examples: is every act performed by anyone in the Bible automatically a moral act? I would answer with an emphatic "no."
Next, was David "a man after God's heart" because he murdered Uriah, or despite the fact that he murdered Uriah?
Now, why did David chop the head off of Goliath? Was it to terrorize the enemy, as you intend scalping to do? On the contrary, it was probably intended to show the Philistines that their leader was not just unconscious after having been hit with a little stone, but rather to show them he was actually dead, so they might as well give up the fight. Was it justified? Who knows? The Bible just said that he did it. It also says Noah got drunk, and that Judah had sex with his daughter, who he thought was a whore, and that a man offered his wife to a mob to be raped, instead of his guest. These stories are all recorded in the bible. Does that mean they were all moral?
You are absolutely right: many people in the Bible did some savage things. You are what you do. If you lie, you are a liar. If you steal, you are a thief. If you commit savagery, you are savage.
Yes, Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and shock-and-awe were all terrorism. And yes, the US is a global bully that uses terrorism to get ITS way--which is not MY way, even though I'm forced(more terrorism) to pay for it.
Whether used "preemptively" or as "justified" revenge, terrorism is wrong.
In our own courts, the difference, in intent, between killing or stopping an assailant can mean a life sentence. There is a distinction there that Abstemio understands.
I'm the guy who said, By the way, I'm a scalper. Yeah, I know, moral high ground, hope for the future, the thing, the thing, the thing, yadda, yadda, yadda. Fine. I really don't care what anyone thinks about me, or what they would do. When it's MY TURN to give the bastards a little of what they've been giving me and mine, I'll take a few scalps, and I don't give a rats ass about PR, propoganda, or any GD moral high ground. You go do it your way, I'm going to do it mine. And yes, Abstemio, I pose a serious threat to other human beings.
You don't have it quite right, "The purpose of war is to stop an aggressor by physical means. "
The purpose of war is to stop an aggressor by any and all means at your disposal, period.
True all out war, the type of war Sherman taught us, is a little more brutal, then the cake walk the first revolutionaries had, and we better prepare the dark places in your hearts, if out children are to be free.
The purpose of war is to bend the enemy to your will, to make him do something he would otherwise not have done, as a result of some action or actions that you have taken. The actions you take can be as simple and non-violent as simply moving an aircraft carrier battlegroup into range of their territory, and can go all the way up to nuking their cities.
I would suggest that in this day and age that scalping one's enemies would do your own side a great deal more harm than good, leaving out altogether the morality of the thing. Look, if we're talking about prosecuting a war with an eye toward success, what you want to do is to REDUCE the tools that the enemy has at hand to harm you. Giving them a huge propaganda victory by using such a method would, IMHO, backfire big time...and probably it SHOULD. Emulating the enemy because they've done something horrid means that they've won, hasn't it - haven't they made you betray your own principles, turning you into them in the process?
Remember, the goal is to win - NOT to exact revenge. To borrow a phrase from another context, don't let the little head think for the big one. Put simply, if you have to eliminate an enemy soldier, just shoot him - period. Twice or 10 times if need be, but JUST shoot him. Forget the scalping, just as the Mooselimbs would be smart to eliminate the beheadings (especially the ones with dull knives broadcast on YouTube). If you have to shoot or bombard 500,000 or 5 million of them, just do it without the savage theatrics - war is horrible enough all by itself without getting "creative."
PREVAIL. Leave the savagery to the other side, then you'll prevail sooner.
OK, the anti-scalpers have me convinced, for now. After all, our opposition would be donating their weapons, ammunition and boots, and their future years of enabling tyranny. That will get a message across.
If Sherman is the type of warrior whose example you aspire to live up to, go ahead. He was an animal.
Texan, not even God Himself will force anyone to comply with His all-wise and all-good will. Who do you think you are?
The purpose of war is to defend against aggressors. War is a macrocosm of the principles of self-defense. In self-defense, you neutralize the threat by physically stopping it. You do not escalate. You do not attack non-aggressors as a means to your end. You do not attack to "prove a point." True ideas in and of themselves, are not defended with violence, because ideas are immaterial. You cannot shove an idea into someone's head with a bayonet. You can only stop the person from imposing his idea on you by force. Physical violence can only be used to stop physical aggression.
If Sherman is the example of a true warrior you aspire to emulate, go for it. The man was an animal.
The purpose of war is to defend against an unjust attack by an aggressor. War is the macrocosm of the principles of self-defense. You do not unnecessarily escalate a conflict. You do not attack non-aggressors as a means to the end of stopping the real aggressor. You do not fight to "prove" anything. You use violence to directly neutralize the physical threat.
If your children are to be free, you'd better start adhering to the Truth and teach them to do the same. Because the Truth will set you free.
A Texan,
Not even God Himself will force any man into compliance with His will, which is all-wise, and all-good. Who, I ask, do you think you are, to do what God Himself refuses to do?
Next, on what grounds would the enemy use the butchery of scalping against your side? They would only be able to make a case against you on moral grounds, which you have forsaken for "practical" considerations. You make a false dichotomy between "practicality" and "morality." Living a moral life, even at the cost of your physical existence, is the most practical thing in the universe. As Some Guy once said, "What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world, yet loses his soul?"
Ain't nothing wrong with putting a bullet through a true aggressor's skull. I have no moral qualms about that. But I will never slice a blade across the top of it.
Scalping takes too much time to do during an engagement & indeed will be used by the propaganda outlets of the Imperium against its opposition. The thing is, EVERY act committed by the Imperium's opponents will be used to denigrate them & gin up popular sentiment against said opposition &, if this Imperium follows the path of its predecessors, will engage in atrocities of its own that WILL be attributed to its opponents. Look @ what the Russian/subsequent communist regimes have done/still do, & how the Imperium presented the attacks on the Weavers/Branch Davidians/M.O.V.E., & you should have all the evidence you need to understand that you'll be labeled a 'domestic terrorist'/racist/anti-Semitic/etc the moment you stand up, tell our 'bettahs'/their minions NO, & then back up that refusal to submit w/ force.
That doesn't mean, however, that one should use the aforesaid as a license to indiscriminately indulge one's inner Jack the Ripper, but that hypocritical fact of political warfare also shouldn't cause one to eschew judicious use of barbaric tactics & while it's true that such acts will cause some to fight even harder against one, it's also true that such acts are effective in persuading other less resolute individuals to quit. Also, it's funny to see 1 particular commenter express his timid disagreement w/ corpse 'desecration' given his support elsewhere for taking the heads of Imperium flunkies. Guess such things are okay when espoused by someone you like & celebrated by other followers, kinda like when Price joined the rest of the barracks in beating on Sefton.
Thumbs. Easier to carry, usually don't rot away if cared for properly, can be strung on a line if taken correctly, & have the benefit of a positive ID of the former owner via the print! Another thing is that such parts aren't immediately recognized as what they are & so can usually be kept & later be placed w/ other mementoes of one's wartime exploits if/when things settle down.
Comment posted in response to this note:
Scalping is a disgusting act. I'm going to have to assume that anyone who participates in it is a godless maniac who poses a serious threat to other human beings.
ReplyDeleteWhy not gnaw off some fingers, while you're at it, like the Iroquois?
Good luck with your "tit for tat" tactics. They've always worked out so well in human history.
The French settlers taught the Native Americans, including the Canadian tribes, to scalp their victims -- at the time, competitors of the French, meaning the English and occasionally the Spanish. Remember the French and Indian War?
ReplyDeleteRules required every scalp to include the crown area to prevent dividing one into several to get more bounty money. The whorl pattern of the hair roots is located there.
Ears make a nice necklace, it is said, and the smaller bones are always attractive.
Shakespeare talks in many plays about putting aside the gentlemanly and making stern one's face for war.
Having seen the burnt bones of children from Mt. Carmel at Waco, I dig it.
Gosh, Abstemio... war is a disgusting act- almost as disgusting as being a slave. If it comes to taking scalps or being a slave, I've got my knife sharpened. You, of course, are going to enjoy your chains.
ReplyDeleteCut off some fingers... hmmmm, that might be interesting. I'd rather just skin them, and plan on doing so to any U-N troops encountered. I'll send you the fingers, they'll go good with your wussy whine.
Shy III
The Nazis had a real mass-production system going to harvest gold teeth, watches, jewelry, clothes, shoes from the millions of innocent dead. The original "asset forfeiture." I read that the Jew-skin lampshades were real, but just an SS anomaly, not a real trend, but the attitude was there.
ReplyDeleteOur opponents are the ideological heirs of those inhuman bastards, not us.
Elsewhere, Nancy Pelosi wants an investigation of the people who oppose that NYC mosque planned for two blocks from the hole where the World Trade Center used to be, ground to be broken for construction on 9/11/10. Talk is no longer cheap; it gets you Big Sister's notice.
I am the most peaceable person you can imagine. When a punk at school punched me in the head -- twice -- I urged him to come with me to the office. His answer was to punch me again. We BOTH were suspended for fighting.
That was the most educational moment I had in grade school.
The Jews who survived the Holocaust remember: "He who is kind to the cruel is cruel to the kind."
The purpose of war is to stop an aggressor by physical means.
ReplyDeleteWhen you enter the dark realm of terrorism (intending to stop the opponent by means of psychological terror,) then you're no better than the broadcasting BATF and HRT scumbags at Waco blaring the sounds of rabbits being slaughtered, over loudspeakers. You'll be no better than the animals from the FBI who said to Randy Weaver, "We're having blueberry pancakes for breakfast this morning. What's your wife making, Randy?" when they knew his wife was dead on the floor. But what they did was only wrong because their cause was unjust, is that it? Your moral compass was manufactured in the Bermuda Triangle if you think that is the case.
Where will you stop, once you've started? I know human nature. You won't stop anywhere. It's an easy slide from scalping, right down into torturing their children, and raping their wives. Maybe you'll burn down their houses with their families within them. But whatever it takes, right?
I'd rather be a slave or a dead man with a little moral integrity than someone who thinks that the ultimate purpose of life is to preserve his liberty or physical existence at any price, including the loss of his immortal soul.
Golly, Abstemio- where is the "moral integrity" in cowardice? As to the immortal soul- that's in God's hands- and He has condemned the coward already- easy to find the verses- and he has condemned the man who will not defend his home and family- again, easy to find the verses.
ReplyDelete"Freedom at any price." I like that. Exactly the reason Jesus gave His life on the cross- Freedom, at any price.
Cowardice is cowardice, I don't care what terms are used to justify it.
Shy III
Was Jesus a coward when, asked by the disciples "Do you want us to call down fire upon the city to destroy them, Lord?" he responded "You do not know what spirit you are of?" The disciples wanted to use violence to prove a point. Jesus told them to stand down. Was Jesus a coward when he told Peter to sheathe his sword? The Apostles wanted to use violence to prove a point. There is a time and a place for violence, and there is a legitimate and an illegitimate use of violence.
ReplyDeleteViolence to stop a threat is morally acceptable. Desecrating bodies is a vile, gratuitous act that simply breeds more hatred and strengthens resolve. It is a bestial act belongs to the followers of the Prince of this world.
From a purely pragmatic approach, do you really think that scalping the enemy will suddenly cause them to lose heart and give up the fight? Dream on. That isn't how it works. It will do nothing but strengthen their resolve and hatred. They will harden their hearts, and fight all the more savagely, just as the Czechs did after the Lidice massacre, perpetrated by the Germans in retribution for the assassination of Heydrich.
When you call me a coward, you don't know who you're talking to.
Abstemio said:
ReplyDelete"When you enter the dark realm of terrorism..."
Terrorism is defined by who wins the fight. Was the firebombing of Dresden terrorism? Well, you said terrorism is -and I quote- "intending to stop the opponent by means of psychological terror...".
By your definition, Dresden was terrorism. So is the US' "shock and awe" warfare tactics. So were Hiroshima and Nagasaki. By your logic, the US is a nation that uses terrorism to get its way. Do you think that?
I'm staying out of the scalping discussion, but I'll just say to watch how you use the word terrorism, as it usually can be applied to any force, by anyone, at any time. Terrorism is a term used by the Goliaths to refer to the Davids. 4GW.
Speaking of David, he was a terrorist, too. He desecrated Goliath's body. Samson was as well... and what about what they did to Jezebel?
You bring religion into this discussion, well, many "heroes of the faith" were, by your definition, terrorists and savages.
So, long story short, lay off the Iroquois. :-)
The Bible is full of terrorist savages.
Justin
III
Abstemio said:
ReplyDelete"I'd rather be a slave or a dead man with a little moral integrity than someone who thinks that the ultimate purpose of life is to preserve his liberty or physical existence at any price, including the loss of his immortal soul."
Yet David was a man "after god's own heart", despite being considered a terrorist savage who has lost his immortal soul by Abstemo.
Justin
III
I won´t pretend to try to tell anyone else what to do or not do.
ReplyDeleteBut would like to point out something here. If either side of this coming conflict were to start desecrating bodies, the propaganda machine of the other side would be sure to jump on those acts to villainize and dehumanize the perpetrators of these desecration's.
I think I will consider the risk of Unintended Consequences, by refraining from such actions.
Dennis
III
Texas
Dennis308-
ReplyDeleteI agree with you. In this day and age, scalping may be seen as an act of barbarism.
May.
The actions taken and atrocities committed in Rwanda, Bosnia, and Darfour were approved of for the most part by the public the peoples committing them. American bodies drug through the streets of Mogadishu were done so with great fanfare and approval by the locals. The people who drug the bodies of the private security operatives through the streets, burnt them, and hung them from a bridge did so in broad daylight, and received public support.
For the most part though, you are right. Desecration of the enemies' corpses in this day and age will likely result in a propaganda win for the enemy. But, circumstances change. "Acceptable" changes based on circumstance.
We humans are infinitely capable of savagery and acts that defy the imagination. It doesn't take much to go from "civilized" to scalping and worse.
Justin
III
Justin, the US is not a nation. The United States is a collection of states. One state, really. A state is a type of government. I am not a "part" of a government. I am a productive individual. A nation is a group of individuals that share cultural and religious traits. A state is an idea: a political institution, not a group of individuals.
ReplyDeleteNow, were the deliberate firebombings of Dresden, Hamburg and Tokyo, intended to slaughter tens of thousands of civilians, terrorist acts? Absolutely. The United States government attacked people (civilians, no less) as a means of forcing the government to change its policy. It's a textbook definition of terrorism. Of course, in a world where "we do not torture" means "we waterboard, we bind people in agonizing positions for days at a time, we blare ear-damaging noise and deprive other human beings of sleep for weeks at a time" (things which were sure considered atrocious acts of torture when the Japanese and Vietnamese committed them!), mere words have kind of lost their meaning, haven't they?
Moving on to your Bible examples: is every act performed by anyone in the Bible automatically a moral act? I would answer with an emphatic "no."
Next, was David "a man after God's heart" because he murdered Uriah, or despite the fact that he murdered Uriah?
Now, why did David chop the head off of Goliath? Was it to terrorize the enemy, as you intend scalping to do? On the contrary, it was probably intended to show the Philistines that their leader was not just unconscious after having been hit with a little stone, but rather to show them he was actually dead, so they might as well give up the fight. Was it justified? Who knows? The Bible just said that he did it. It also says Noah got drunk, and that Judah had sex with his daughter, who he thought was a whore, and that a man offered his wife to a mob to be raped, instead of his guest. These stories are all recorded in the bible. Does that mean they were all moral?
You are absolutely right: many people in the Bible did some savage things. You are what you do. If you lie, you are a liar. If you steal, you are a thief. If you commit savagery, you are savage.
Scalping is a savage act.
Justin,
ReplyDeleteYes, Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and shock-and-awe were all terrorism. And yes, the US is a global bully that uses terrorism to get ITS way--which is not MY way, even though I'm forced(more terrorism) to pay for it.
Whether used "preemptively" or as "justified" revenge, terrorism is wrong.
In our own courts, the difference, in intent, between killing or stopping an assailant can mean a life sentence. There is a distinction there that Abstemio understands.
Dave
I'm the guy who said, By the way, I'm a scalper. Yeah, I know, moral high ground, hope for the future, the thing, the thing, the thing, yadda, yadda, yadda. Fine. I really don't care what anyone thinks about me, or what they would do. When it's MY TURN to give the bastards a little of what they've been giving me and mine, I'll take a few scalps, and I don't give a rats ass about PR, propoganda, or any GD moral high ground. You go do it your way, I'm going to do it mine. And yes, Abstemio, I pose a serious threat to other human beings.
ReplyDeleteAbstemio
ReplyDeleteYou don't have it quite right, "The purpose of war is to stop an aggressor by physical means. "
The purpose of war is to stop an aggressor by any and all means at your disposal, period.
True all out war, the type of war Sherman taught us, is a little more brutal, then the cake walk the first revolutionaries had, and we better prepare the dark places in your hearts, if out children are to be free.
The purpose of war is to bend the enemy to your will, to make him do something he would otherwise not have done, as a result of some action or actions that you have taken. The actions you take can be as simple and non-violent as simply moving an aircraft carrier battlegroup into range of their territory, and can go all the way up to nuking their cities.
ReplyDeleteI would suggest that in this day and age that scalping one's enemies would do your own side a great deal more harm than good, leaving out altogether the morality of the thing. Look, if we're talking about prosecuting a war with an eye toward success, what you want to do is to REDUCE the tools that the enemy has at hand to harm you. Giving them a huge propaganda victory by using such a method would, IMHO, backfire big time...and probably it SHOULD. Emulating the enemy because they've done something horrid means that they've won, hasn't it - haven't they made you betray your own principles, turning you into them in the process?
Remember, the goal is to win - NOT to exact revenge. To borrow a phrase from another context, don't let the little head think for the big one. Put simply, if you have to eliminate an enemy soldier, just shoot him - period. Twice or 10 times if need be, but JUST shoot him. Forget the scalping, just as the Mooselimbs would be smart to eliminate the beheadings (especially the ones with dull knives broadcast on YouTube). If you have to shoot or bombard 500,000 or 5 million of them, just do it without the savage theatrics - war is horrible enough all by itself without getting "creative."
PREVAIL. Leave the savagery to the other side, then you'll prevail sooner.
OK, the anti-scalpers have me convinced, for now. After all, our opposition would be donating their weapons, ammunition and boots, and their future years of enabling tyranny. That will get a message across.
ReplyDeleteHollywood,
ReplyDeleteIf Sherman is the type of warrior whose example you aspire to live up to, go ahead. He was an animal.
Texan, not even God Himself will force anyone to comply with His all-wise and all-good will. Who do you think you are?
The purpose of war is to defend against aggressors. War is a macrocosm of the principles of self-defense. In self-defense, you neutralize the threat by physically stopping it. You do not escalate. You do not attack non-aggressors as a means to your end. You do not attack to "prove a point." True ideas in and of themselves, are not defended with violence, because ideas are immaterial. You cannot shove an idea into someone's head with a bayonet. You can only stop the person from imposing his idea on you by force. Physical violence can only be used to stop physical aggression.
Hollywood,
ReplyDeleteIf Sherman is the example of a true warrior you aspire to emulate, go for it. The man was an animal.
The purpose of war is to defend against an unjust attack by an aggressor. War is the macrocosm of the principles of self-defense. You do not unnecessarily escalate a conflict. You do not attack non-aggressors as a means to the end of stopping the real aggressor. You do not fight to "prove" anything. You use violence to directly neutralize the physical threat.
If your children are to be free, you'd better start adhering to the Truth and teach them to do the same. Because the Truth will set you free.
A Texan,
Not even God Himself will force any man into compliance with His will, which is all-wise, and all-good. Who, I ask, do you think you are, to do what God Himself refuses to do?
Next, on what grounds would the enemy use the butchery of scalping against your side? They would only be able to make a case against you on moral grounds, which you have forsaken for "practical" considerations. You make a false dichotomy between "practicality" and "morality." Living a moral life, even at the cost of your physical existence, is the most practical thing in the universe. As Some Guy once said, "What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world, yet loses his soul?"
When the Really Bad Things start happening, I want savage sonsofbitches at my side and behind me.
ReplyDeleteThe drawers of tidy moral and philosophical distinctions, I submit, will be, at best, an operational liability.
Good luck to all.
We're going to need it.
Concerned,
ReplyDeleteAin't nothing wrong with putting a bullet through a true aggressor's skull. I have no moral qualms about that. But I will never slice a blade across the top of it.
Consider me what you will.
Abstemio:
ReplyDeleteI would share a foxhole with you anytime. And I applaud you for making the moral case against scalping and other trophytaking.
Really.
Abstemio/similar,
ReplyDeleteScalping takes too much time to do during an engagement & indeed will be used by the propaganda outlets of the Imperium against its opposition. The thing is, EVERY act committed by the Imperium's opponents will be used to denigrate them & gin up popular sentiment against said opposition &, if this Imperium follows the path of its predecessors, will engage in atrocities of its own that WILL be attributed to its opponents. Look @ what the Russian/subsequent communist regimes have done/still do, & how the Imperium presented the attacks on the Weavers/Branch Davidians/M.O.V.E., & you should have all the evidence you need to understand that you'll be labeled a 'domestic terrorist'/racist/anti-Semitic/etc the moment you stand up, tell our 'bettahs'/their minions NO, & then back up that refusal to submit w/ force.
That doesn't mean, however, that one should use the aforesaid as a license to indiscriminately indulge one's inner Jack the Ripper, but that hypocritical fact of political warfare also shouldn't cause one to eschew judicious use of barbaric tactics & while it's true that such acts will cause some to fight even harder against one, it's also true that such acts are effective in persuading other less resolute individuals to quit. Also, it's funny to see 1 particular commenter express his timid disagreement w/ corpse 'desecration' given his support elsewhere for taking the heads of Imperium flunkies. Guess such things are okay when espoused by someone you like & celebrated by other followers, kinda like when Price joined the rest of the barracks in beating on Sefton.
Cassandra (of Troy)
Defender @ Aug 21/9:21PM,
ReplyDeleteThumbs. Easier to carry, usually don't rot away if cared for properly, can be strung on a line if taken correctly, & have the benefit of a positive ID of the former owner via the print! Another thing is that such parts aren't immediately recognized as what they are & so can usually be kept & later be placed w/ other mementoes of one's wartime exploits if/when things settle down.
Cassandra (of Troy)