|
-
30th July 09, 03:28 AM
#1
 Originally Posted by kiltimabar
All these battlefields are war graves--even if picked clean of bones, they are where the soldiers fought, died, and left their blood. They should be respected as such.
I disagree. If there isn't anyone buried there, they aren't graves. We shouldn't have to say, "This is a war grave; therefore, be respectful." They should be respected because they are places where men fought and died in a war. But are they all "war graves?" No. "Grave" has a meaning, and if we just say any battle field is a grave, that word has lost its meaning.
-
-
30th July 09, 05:53 AM
#2
 Originally Posted by Scotus
I disagree. If there isn't anyone buried there, they aren't graves. We shouldn't have to say, "This is a war grave; therefore, be respectful." They should be respected because they are places where men fought and died in a war. But are they all "war graves?" No. "Grave" has a meaning, and if we just say any battle field is a grave, that word has lost its meaning.
And I respectfully disagree -- the I way I interepreted the OP was that battlefields should be respected in the same way as war graves (or any other grave, for matter) should be. And while no one may be buried there, men did lose their lives there, which is worthy of our respect alone.
T.
-
-
30th July 09, 07:23 AM
#3
 Originally Posted by cajunscot
And I respectfully disagree -- the I way I interepreted the OP was that battlefields should be respected in the same way as war graves (or any other grave, for matter) should be. And while no one may be buried there, men did lose their lives there, which is worthy of our respect alone.
T.
But that's not what was written. It was stated that, "All these battlefields are war graves." If there are no bodies buried, then it isn't a "war grave," which is what was stated. In your statement, you say that "battlefields should be respected in the same way as war graves." That's different than saying they are war graves.
-
-
30th July 09, 07:30 AM
#4
 Originally Posted by Scotus
But that's not what was written. It was stated that, "All these battlefields are war graves." If there are no bodies buried, then it isn't a "war grave," which is what was stated. In your statement, you say that "battlefields should be respected in the same way as war graves." That's different than saying they are war graves.
On "my" battlefield, we have a sinkhole that contained the bodies of 34 Union soldiers hastily buried after the battle. The remains were later exhumed and removed to the National Cemetery in Springfied. While not technically a grave, I always asked visitors to treat it as such, because soldiers killed at Wilson's Creek had been buried there at one time, and therefore had "hallowed" the ground in a sense.
T.
-
Similar Threads
-
By sirdaniel1975 in forum Kilts in the Media
Replies: 4
Last Post: 21st April 09, 08:55 AM
-
By 12stones in forum Kilts in the Media
Replies: 3
Last Post: 21st July 08, 05:45 AM
-
By timber in forum Kilts in the Media
Replies: 2
Last Post: 1st January 07, 08:57 AM
-
By Mr. Kilt in forum Kilts in the Media
Replies: 3
Last Post: 21st March 06, 08:54 PM
-
By Riverkilt in forum Kilts in the Media
Replies: 3
Last Post: 2nd October 05, 10:26 PM
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules
|
|
Bookmarks