Brit Rifles From 1880 Massacre Found

[woodybrighton]

http://www.thelanesarmoury.co.uk/shop/shop.php
there you go no pics up as yet

 

[matt87]

They got some good prices on antique arquebuses...

 

[Calibre44]

mainmech48 wrote:
"If you're wounded and left on the Afghan plains,
When the women come out to cut up your remains,
Roll to your rifle and blow out your brains
And go to your God like a soldier."

Rudyard Kipling

From the same poem:

"When 'arf of your bullets fly wide in the ditch,
Don't call your Martini a cross-eyed old bitch;
She's human as you are -- you treat her as sich,
An' she'll fight for the young British soldier.
Fight, fight, fight for the soldier . . ."

 

[AlaskaErik]

When I was in Afghanistan there were all kinds of old rifles for sale at the bazaar. Since I knew nothing about 130 year old British rifles I never did anything but look at them.

 

[Sans Authoritas]

Would love to have one of those rifles!

'Tis better to die on ones feet than to live on the knees.

Hope I can go out as well as those men when it's my time.

You hope you can go out slaughtering men who are justly defending their land, fighting for an unjust cause?

-Sans Authoritas

 

[Irwin]

Quote:
Would love to have one of those rifles!

'Tis better to die on ones feet than to live on the knees.

Hope I can go out as well as those men when it's my time.

You hope you can go out slaughtering men who are justly defending their land, fighting for an unjust cause?

-Sans Authoritas

Dont think the British soldiers died slaughtering the afgans as they were out numbered 5 to 1 they were the ones getting slaughtered, whats better being tortured then killed or charging your agresseros head on and killing as many as possible. This was still in the days were people were proud to server the crown and looked foward to a fight.
Irwin

 

[Sans Authoritas]

Would love to have one of those rifles!

Quote:
'Tis better to die on ones feet than to live on the knees.

Hope I can go out as well as those men when it's my time.

Sans Authoritas wrote:

You hope you can go out slaughtering men who are justly defending their land, fighting for an unjust cause?

-Sans Authoritas

Irwin wrote:

Dont think the British soldiers died slaughtering the afgans as they were out numbered 5 to 1 they were the ones getting slaughtered, whats better being tortured then killed or charging your agresseros head on and killing as many as possible. This was still in the days were people were proud to server the crown and looked foward to a fight.
Irwin

You'd do well to consider who the aggressor really was in Afghanistan.

The logic you use is atrocious. You want to put yourself in their shoes? The cause for which you fought was unjust to begin with, and you're about to be justly overrun by the enemy, and you think it's suddenly all right to compound your initial act of unjust aggression, in your last moments on this earth, by slaughtering more just defenders? Freakish logic, and freakishly immoral. Not at all unlike the logic used by the S.S. guards of concentration camps, who machine-gunned the survivors as the Allies closed in. Why? Because what they had done was horrible, and they might as will mitigate any future repercussions for their actions, should they happen to be taken prisoner. The end justifies the means, right?

The majority of people are still proud to "serve the crown." Yet a crown is merely a symbol for "those who have power." Never mind if the crown's causes are just. Never mind if they are wise, prudent or moral. Somehow, by some twisted torture of logic, "serving the crown" for whatever cause is de facto honorable.

Yes. If you ever find yourself fighting for an unjust cause, it is better to recognize that you are the aggressor, and to cease prosecuting your unjust aggression. These men had no right, just because they were about to die, to kill more justified defenders whom they never had a right to kill in the first place. How can you claim that such an action is logical, let alone just? If one fails to use logic to see things the way they actually are, he is subscribing, to a greater or lesser degree, to insanity.

Have men learned nothing from history? From the first day after the Fall to this Godless day, whenever men hear a war drum, it sends their hearts and minds into a robotic trance of nationalism that suddenly considers the objective moral law rooted in our human nature a malleable entity.

A subversive, damnable idea then, and a subversive, damnable idea now.

-Sans Authoritas

 

[Mr_Rogers]

The logic you use is atrocious.

Yes SA, that clearly describes your post.

I was going to discuss your post point by point but I decided this was of no value since you clearly have never experienced the feeling of duty of a soldier to his comrades. Nations cannot be brave, nations cannot be heroes, only individual soldiers can be heroes. They are heroes because they find inside themselves, and in conjunction with their comrades, the ability to suppress the fear of death and carry out some valiant act.

The act may be pointless, the act may even be wrong, but that does not tarnish the heroism of a man who acts in a manner that has always been considered by the human race as good and honorable.


PS It would also appear your knowledge of Indian Sub-continental history is rather sketchy.

 

[Irwin]

I think mr Rogers summed up what I have for the past hour been trying to say (curse that evil pub who take all my money)
Irwin

 

[Mr_Rogers]

And here's to the Scots who are as good as any.

 

[AndyC]

Aye, I'll drink tae that *hic*

 

[Rachen]

Cosmoline, do you know that if you posted what you posted on Mainland China Baidu Forums, there will be so much opposing viewpoints posted against you that the web server would freeze? 99 percent of Tibetans love their country, that is China. The 1 percent is the one that is causing 99 percent of the problems.

Don't want to get this thread locked, but I just have to say that I am against all kinds of imperialists actions.

Also, someone said that "they were just building an empire, it's all right to build your empire?" Imperialists are just like armed robbers entering a house and forcing the occupants to go against their will. WHAT WILL YOU DO IF SOMEONE DECIDES TO INVADE YOUR HOUSE, AND TAKE YOUR PRIZED BELONGINGS? I mean, they are just claiming "to build their empire, or in their case, more loot for the night", right?

 

[Sans Authoritas]

Mr Rogers wrote:

Yes SA, that clearly describes your post.
I was going to discuss your post point by point but I decided this was of no value since you clearly have never experienced the feeling of duty of a soldier to his comrades.

And this is of no value to me because you ultimately rely on "feelings," and not logic. You rely on the emotions and "feelings" of duty, not the "reality of duty," or to Whom duty is ultimately owed, before any other duty, real or otherwise.

Emotions cannot replace reason as a cause for doing violence. Feelings do not justify unjust aggression.

Mr Rogers wrote:

Nations cannot be brave, nations cannot be heroes, only individual soldiers can be heroes. They are heroes because they find inside themselves, and in conjunction with their comrades, the ability to suppress the fear of death and carry out some valiant act.

There is nothing valiant or brave about any actions that are carried out on behalf of an unjust cause. There was nothing valiant or brave about individual S.S. men fighting the resistance, was there?

Mr Rogers wrote:

The act may be pointless, the act may even be wrong, but that does not tarnish the heroism of a man who acts in a manner that has always been considered by the human race as good and honorable.

The end does not justify the means. If one's end is unjust, whatever means one uses are meaningless. There is no such thing as an honorable man who fights on behalf of an unust cause.

"Skilled" does not equal "honorable."

-Sans Authoritas

 

[Cmdr. Gravez0r]

I feel obligated to point out that I am witnessing extreme historical schizophrenia in this thread. The soldiers in question did not have NEARLY the historical context we do, and we do them dishonor by calling them bloodthirsty invaders when their historical, social, and cultural context called upon them to do these things.

For instance, no one is looking back calling individual Persian soldiers who fought in the Greek and Persian wars evildoers. Their bravery can still be appreciated even though their larger cause was unjust (though opinions differ, I am told, in Persia).

And what about the Greeks under Alexander? Very brave, very smart. Probably caused the deaths of many innocent people. But we still appreciate their skill at arms.

That is all.

 

[Sans Authoritas]

Nobody's judging their hearts. We're judging their actions. What they were, in fact, fighting for, whether they knew it or not.

Traversing thousands of miles to put down a "grave and immediate threat" to the British Isles (war being only justifiable as a macrocosm of the principles of self-defense) should be a tip-off to most sane people that what you are doing is not bravely preventing your country's women and children from having their throats slit by Hashishins. It's empire-building. And most of them knew it, even then. Read Kipling.

-Sans Authoritas

 

[Cmdr. Gravez0r]

When someone goes on trial, motive must be considered. Heck, even the Afghans gave them kudos. Isn't that enough?

 

[Sans Authoritas]

They respected their skill. Not their cause. As has been previously stated, being skilled does not equal being honorable.

-Sans Authoritas

 

[Cmdr. Gravez0r]

I think we've gotten as close to agreeing as we're going to.

This forum is a little reminder that somewhere on the interwebs, gentlemen can still disagree in a friendly manner.

 

[Poor East Texan]

Whatever SA.

I'd STILL like one of them there rifles.

And I STILL hope when I go I go on my feet rather than on my knees.

 

[Mr_Rogers]

SA

Nobody's judging their hearts. We're judging their actions. What they were, in fact, fighting for, whether they knew it or not.

SA How beautifully simplistic is your view of the World. In the World Wars and a dozen colonial wars the British army included thousands upon thousands of volunteers from conquered nations. Where was the bitterness we could fully expect from a subject people? Indians fought in Europe, believe it or not, Zulus fought in South East Asia. Frequently, various Afghan tribes fought with the British against their neighbors. During the Indian Mutiny the Sikhs remained loyal to the British against their countrymen. The Ghurkas fought for the British in many wars. Tell me, did these conquered volunteers decide to fight with their hearts, or their minds, or with their pocketbooks?

Men are, thank Heaven, not all sheep ruled by greed or egotism. Some men, and I would call them honorable, fight for their beliefs. Some times, in the light of history, we later imagine these beliefs were improper but the men involved had no way of making this judgment at the time. Therefore they fought, and died, for what they believed in and to soil their memory as you do is the height of intellectual arrogance.

When a man fights for a belief that is wrong he may be culpable on a legal level but he is still, under the right circumstances, entitled to be called heroic.

In a WW1 military graveyard, in Belgium I believe, that was built by the victors of the war there is a small burial ground with a sign that says something like:

"Here lie brave men who fought for their ideals and country"

The men buried there are Germans. Perhaps, when the judgment is made by people who have lived through the fight the opinions tend to be rather less opinionated than your own.


TAMAM

 

[Sans Authoritas]

Mr Rogers, believing in a cause, any cause, does not create a blanket exception for a man's actions, nor can they cause a man's intrinsically wrong actions to be honorable.

-Sans Authoritas

 

[Mr_Rogers]

SA
What you fail to see my blinkered friend is that ideas of right and wrong depend which side you are on. As has been said "One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist".


TAMAM SHUD

 

[Sans Authoritas]

What you fail to see is that an objective right and wrong exists, no matter what idea people may have of it. If a rapist and the one who is raped has a different idea of what is right, does that mean both can be right about the same thing at the same time? Can A also be non-A?

Kheir.

-Sans Authoritas

 

[meef]

It is no man's duty to unjustly invade the land of other men. Men have a duty to God not to initiate aggression.

-Sans Authoritas

Assuming you are not Native American, or Indian or however you want to say it... I would presume your sense of duty to God will have you packing your bags and heading back to wherever your sinful, aggressive other-men's-land-invading ancestors came from?

Seems only right.

 

[Sans Authoritas]

Meef, I am not responsible for the actions of my ancestors. Neither are you responsible for the actions of your ancestors. I am responsible for my actions, and I do not aggress against the life, liberty and property of other men.

-Sans Authoritas