Lawrence of Arabia - "You know what they'll do to him if they catch him alive"

[Chlodio]

"THAT , I can agree with . ... now that it is corrected ."

All that negative energy for nothing. We agreed all along. We just didn't realize it. Rather than a snarky comment (Are you joking?) you could have just asked a clarifying question and I would have cleared the murkiness right up.

"More guesses then ! I am actually a student of comparative religions ...."

The reason I was guessing until now is because very little of what you said gave me any insight into your authority or expertise on the subject. Anyone can say 'Christians? Are you joking?' and most people in this forum who do say that sort of thing don't say it from your point of view. You don't have to cite your resume everytime you post, but you could say something that indicates you've given some serious thought to the subject.

"Dude - I also linked you to the wiki article as Saladin, where that name is clearly shown. "

Yes, but I almost didn't follow that up. Your initial post in this thread did nothing to pique my intellectual curiosity. It was snarky, combative, and contained a name I didn't recognize. I would have blown off everything you had to say on this subject except at the time I was feeling a little combative myself. So I decided to comat you right back. It wasn't because you piqued my interest intellectually. Saladin I would have recognized and may have responded to intellectually. Not necessarily though.

"I have no interest in trying to impress you "

If you're not impressing me, you're boring me, and we're both wasting our time. I was trying to convey the idea that responding to a claim of mine with a lone contrary example never convinces me to change my mind. In the future, you might have more luck with a different style of argument.

The reason I said you 'almost implied' is because by that point I knew you were responding to an argument I never made or at least never intended so I stopped following what should have been a non-argument. If I had intended to say that WW1 Muslims were incapable of chivalry, I would have rejected your Saladin argument on grounds of faulty logic. Saladin had no more influence on the WW1 Ottomans than those unchivalrous crusader knights you mentioned had on Lawrence.


By the way, is it your opinion that Bushido as it was practiced in Japan during WW2 contained provisions for the respectful treatment of POWs?

 

[Laurence Kueffer]

British Servicemen have been issued with "Goolie chits" since the late 18thC right up to, at least, 1976 to my personal knowledge. Perhaps, as you have such an insight into the wonderful, gentle world of Islamic PoW camps you you would like to mention JUST ONE SINGLE Muslim military that has not tortured, beaten or ill-treated its PoWs in a manner that makes the WW2 Japanese and Nazis look like Carmelite nuns. There was a 70% mortality rate among Western prisoners of the Turks in WW1 compared to 27% incarcerated by the Japanese in WW2. The mortality rate of those taken prisoner by Afghans and unransomed in the the 19thC was 100%. Even with the lessons of the 20th C in the potential value of a televised "confession" we all remember pictures of the brutalised captives of Iranians, Somalis, Iraqis--even in the Pakistani Army, where the officer class prides itself on being oh so "correct" and started off with 200 years of European instruction--they just can't help themselves ( see Saurabh Kalia - Wikipedia ).
The biggest question may be why Muslims are so obsessed with genitals and men's bottoms.

I agree that the Turks were every bit as brutal as you claim, my point was that we shouldn't measure the brutality of them all as one and the same as the Ottoman Turks. I was saying that the Ottoman Turks were the worst of the lot, but didn't mean to say that Muslims in general are alien to mistreating those in their custody, because such brutality is obviously not exclusively a Turkish thing. I didn't know that there has been an Islamic obsession with castration and emasculation of men, but it doesn't surprise me. I posted that last August, and it's a bit hard to recall why I put it that way, but I may have been tired at the time.

 

[Laurence Kueffer]

How else does one explain the goolie chit? I was under the impression that bailing out anywhere over north Africa would get you that sort of treatment. Blood chit - Wikipedia pilot memoirs would certainly attest this result. It may not have happened in every Middle Eastern county but it was certainly common enough to warrant the nickname 'goolie' on the paper.

You're right, and your point is well taken. I posted that last August. All I was saying is that the Ottoman Turks were the pinnacle of brutality, I wasn't making excuses for the others, but wanted to put it into perspective. No one in the Middle East or North Africa could surpass the brutality of the Turks.

 

[rvsakhadeo]

The idea that prisoners of war should be treated with respect and dignity is derived from Medieval chivalry which in turn was heavily influenced by Christianity. It shouldn't surprise us that countries and cultures with different traditions don't understand or practice chivalry. The same explanation applies to Japanese treatment of POWs in WW2 - chivalry is not part of the bushido tradition.

The opposite is also true: soldiers coming from a tradition of chivalry would be especially appalled at the lack of chivalry practiced by their enemies and might be inclined to exagerte the threat.

The ancient Indians, rather the Hindus in early India, had also the tradition of treating the prisoners of war very respectfully. Hindu religion, is by its very spiritual nature, is kindly not only towards humans but also towards all animals.
Contrast this with the tortures on captives effected in the days when Moghuls/ Afghans/ Turks /Arabs invaded India and when these people took prisoners. As an example, see how Sambhaji, the King of Marathas after, Shivaji the Great, was tortured as a prisoner by Aurangzeb, the Moghul emperor. Sambhaji refused to convert to Islam, and was, therefore, skinned alive, his eyes torn out and tongue cut before he was beheaded. Guru Teg Bahadur of the Sikhs was sawn off into two by the same Aurangzeb for refusing to convert to Islam.

 

[turing]

Christians didn't threat their prisoners with respect. They threated them like rest of the world, meaning torture/abuse/execution when felt like. Moreoever, chopping heads/sexual and other organs isn't limited to ME. Chopped heads of Turks decorate the walls in Austria, talk more about civilization. At least Turks limited that kind of "art" to miniaturs... Now savagery is in human nature and isn't limited to a certain geography. Some of you need to drop nationalism. It's boring.

 

[aggienation]

Christians didn't threat their prisoners with respect. They threated them like rest of the world, meaning torture/abuse/execution when felt like. Moreoever, chopping heads/sexual and other organs isn't limited to ME. Chopped heads of Turks decorate the walls in Austria, talk more about civilization. At least Turks limited that kind of "art" to miniaturs... Now savagery is in human nature and isn't limited to a certain geography. Some of you need to drop nationalism. It's boring.

So Turkish heads decorated Austrian battlements in the 20th century? Because I'm pretty sure Lawrence of Arabia was tortured and raped some time after whatever time period you're discussing.

 

[turing]

So Turkish heads decorated Austrian battlements in the 20th century? Because I'm pretty sure Lawrence of Arabia was tortured and raped some time after whatever time period you're discussing.

It is an irrelevant point. A good portion of worst mass slaughters this world has ever witnessed were perpetrated in 20th century. From China to Europe.

 

[aggienation]

It is an irrelevant point. A good portion of worst mass slaughters this world has ever witnessed were perpetrated in 20th century. From China to Europe.

Sure, horrible things happened in the 20th century. But were prisoners routinely tortured, raped, and as you claim, beheaded, in the 20th century by western nations? You can argue about the savage times beforehand when there was little difference in conduct, but by the 20th century a British captain captured by the Germans wasn't going to be gang raped. Same can not be said about the Turks.

I guess they didn't get that memo.

 

[turing]

Sure, horrible things happened in the 20th century. But were prisoners routinely tortured, raped, and as you claim, beheaded, in the 20th century by western nations? You can argue about the savage times beforehand when there was little difference in conduct, but by the 20th century a British captain captured by the Germans wasn't going to be gang raped. Same can not be said about the Turks.

I guess they didn't get that memo.

What evidence there is about Turks constantly raping/torturing prisoners? This isn't a rhetorical question.

 

[aggienation]

What evidence there is about Turks constantly raping/torturing prisoners? This isn't a rhetorical question.

turks abuse of prisoners