Sixty Minutes- Boer War this Sunday

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 271

Breaker Morant had issues around Charters Towers in the late 1880's, was apparently accused of cattle theft/livestock from a station,in somewhat dubious circumstances....
My oldies and relations come from that area,and it is a little bit of local knowledge lost in a big tale of folklore that not many people know.

---

Cattle duffing was rife in the 1800's.Many large mobs were bred up from duffed cattle by the most prominent of citizens.A lot of properties were unfenced and surrounding owners had an un-written pact of 1st in 1st served to getting to the cleanskins and their subsequent legal branding. One classic example is that of the trial in Roma Qld of Capt Starlight ( Book Robbery under Arms) and his acquittal by the local jury of cattle duffing. With the duffed cattle, he pioneered the birdsville track when taking the stolen cattle to Adelaide to sell.
So if Breaker got into a bit of duffing..he joined many in that art. It still goes on today,ask the Qld Police Stock Squad they have their hands full.
A funny thing about the Charters Towers incident is that it was not mentioned in the book on his life that I read.
Cheers

To not take prisoners or to shoot prisoners are 2 very different things.

If the enemy wishes to surrender, you can decide to accept there surrender and thus become responsible for there welfare and safety. OR you can decide not to accept there surrender leaving them with the responsibility of there welfare IE they will shoot back.

But to accept surrender and then shoot them is murder. Plane and simple.

Kitchener’s orders (if true) were to not accept prisoners. You can not take prisoners, you Take captives.



Prisoners by definition offer them self’s to the enemy usually by the act of surrender.

Its so simple. So what’s the debate about?

One thing I wondered about while watching the documentary story last night on TV--How can we over 100 years later actually know every bit of the story, so how can we make a judgment today whether or not he should be pardoned. Certainly Kitchener was probably in the wrong, but we cannot be absolutely certain, so cannot make such a Judgement.

Only God can Judge what is right and wrong in that case at this time--
"For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he has done, whether it be good or bad." 2 Corinthians 5:10.

"But why do you judge your brother? or why do you set at nought your brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ." Romans 14:10,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clean32

To not take prisoners or to shoot prisoners are 2 very different things.

If the enemy wishes to surrender, you can decide to accept there surrender and thus become responsible for there welfare and safety. OR you can decide not to accept there surrender leaving them with the responsibility of there welfare IE they will shoot back.

But to accept surrender and then shoot them is murder. Plane and simple.

Kitchener’s orders (if true) were to not accept prisoners. You can not take prisoners, you Take captives.




Prisoners by definition offer them self’s to the enemy usually by the act of surrender.

Its so simple. So what’s the debate about?

---

The debate is that they chose just 3 out of the hunderds that actioned the same orders as scapegoats .

According to diggerhistory.info the order that was given was that boar soldiers in english uniforms were to be killed maybe it got confused on the way down the line does not explain women, children and a missonary though. 60 min last night the south africans count him with 34 killed not just the 12 he was charged with and hes definatly not a hero over there. Just been looking at his general history and he was proberbly not a real nice chap.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by THE BOOGER

Breaker Morant was only following a verbal order from Kitchener which the same man would not own up to.(disco44)
Just a thought but we didnt let the Japs or germans use that excuse we hung or shot them and i dont think breaker ever got to talk to Kitchener personally so the verbal order was given to morant by someone else not much arguent about what they did as they admitted to the killings so forgetting the british part was the death penalty right or wrong at the time?:confused:

---

It's a complicated issue all right but there are a few clear facts.

The British Government had a history of orchestrating and supporting genocide, you only have to look at what happened in Scotland and Ireland to see that. I assume similar happened in all their rambles into foreign territory. However, they were certainly not alone as most Imperialistic Governments and armies were the same. The Boers themselves if you believe what has been written, had scant regard for the lives of their perceived invaders (AKA the British) and the local natives.

I guess the thing for me is this. If the orders were real and Kitchener had the authority to give them, then both he and the British Government (at the time) were guilty of war crimes. If Breaker Morant followed them, so was he. As stated above by The Booger, the Germans and the Japs had no recourse with these claims either. As in modern times, if the perpetrators were Serbian or African or Middle Eastern, the Hague would wait regardless of rank or station. Why then is it different for an Aussie and the Brits?

I don't think we should let patriotism and the old anti-British rebel streak get in the way of the facts.

It would be distasteful for Australia to try to force the British government to pardon Morant and Co, just on the bases of him following orders. The act was just as much a crime as the order. Of course, if he wasn't following orders, it's a no brainer….same result…..War Criminal.

Maybe they should pursue the British Government for an apology for being the way they were.....

Morant was following orders to execute Boer prisoners, the Boers took no prisoners either, it was a political murder and Australian soldiers were made the scapegoats, same thing happened in the first World war, Australian soldiers had to be ordered to bring back prisoners, one of the reasons they were so feared by the Germans, 2nd World War was no different. look what has been hapening in Iraq where you see American soldiers butchered in the streets and displayed for all to see, ****ed if I would take any prisoners, seen an interview with a WW1 Digger about taking prisoners, He said "never, imagine charging a German machine gun, having a dozen or more of your mates cut in half and when you jump into the trench the Bastards say Surrender, Surrender be ****ed, then shove a bayonet into their guts". What would you do, Regards Frank.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tank

Morant was following orders to execute Boer prisoners, the Boers took no prisoners either, it was a political murder and Australian soldiers were made the scapegoats, same thing happened in the first World war, Australian soldiers had to be ordered to bring back prisoners, one of the reasons they were so feared by the Germans, 2nd World War was no different. look what has been hapening in Iraq where you see American soldiers butchered in the streets and displayed for all to see, ****ed if I would take any prisoners, seen an interview with a WW1 Digger about taking prisoners, He said "never, imagine charging a German machine gun, having a dozen or more of your mates cut in half and when you jump into the trench the Bastards say Surrender, Surrender be ****ed, then shove a bayonet into their guts". What would you do, Regards Frank.

---

Oh it's a **** situation....no doubt about it. It would be hard to not hose prisoners down under certain circumstances. However, women and children? The reality for some would be damned if you do, damned if you don't. Working for commanders like that would be a death-kiss....don't follow orders, you're dead...follow orders you're a war criminal and get sentenced to death.

Great choices!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by THE BOOGER

................. Just been looking at his general history and he was proberbly not a real nice chap.

---

looks like Kitchener wasn't either

have a look at wikipedea

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by loanrangie

The debate is that they chose just 3 out of the hunderds that actioned the same orders as scapegoats .

---

Wrong

They chose the 3 who disobeyed orders not to accept prisoners and accepted prisoners. Then they murdered them. All this would have probably gone unnoticed if AND ONLT IF they didn’t shoot and murder a German Missionary who was a witness to the previous murders.

So what you say. Well to kill a missionary. Is that OK? if so why don’t you just wander down to your local Catholic, Anglican, born-again bible bashers, Hay how about a Rabbi and don’t forget the mosc and bump of a cleric, why not if Morant should have been allowed to do it then why not you ??

Oh and don’t forget, the Crimean War which was not that long before, and involved Russia Turkey France and England. Was justified because a couple of priests got killed