Posted on 01/21/2008 2:05:24 PM PST by Westlander
MONROVIA, Liberia - One of Liberia's most notorious rebel commanders, known as Gen. Butt Naked, has returned to the nation his troops terrorized to confess, saying he is responsible for 20,000 deaths.
The civil war, which killed an estimated 250,000 people in this nation of 3 million, was characterized by the eating of human hearts and soccer matches played with human skulls. Drugged fighters waltzed into battle wearing women's wigs, flowing gowns and carrying dainty purses stolen from civilians.
Before he led his fighters into battle, wearing only a pair of lace-up boots, Blahyi said he made a human sacrifice to the devil.
The sacrifice was typically "the killing of an innocent child and plucking out the heart which was divided into pieces for us to eat," he told The Associated Press on Saturday.
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
This was a very unusual story. Worth the look see.
Gen Butt Naked,....I thought they were talking about ole Bubba Billy Jeff, “I did not have sexual relations or is with THAT woman” Clittoon, excuse me Clinton.
This general was last seen in the company of the notorious Cambodian warlord, Wan Huang Lo.
If it’s wrong to celebrate diversity, then I don’t want to be right.
Charging into battle stark naked was very popular among the ancient Celts.
Freaked the Romans out at first, but then they settled down and fed the naked guys through their sausage machine. Turns out naked guys are easier to kill than guys wearing armor.
or the despot from Djibouti, Hugh Jass.
Now, I have never understood this. In the first place, you'd think that in the chill of Ireland and Scotland, there would be a substantial shrinkage effect on the Celtic warriors, making them less than impressive. In the second place, why would the Romans, or the Liberians, or anybody else be freaked out by the sight of a bunch of naked guys? I mean, presumably the Romans had seen naked guys before and there's nothing very scary about a naked guy; on the contrary, you'd think they'd burst out laughing and freak out the naked guys rather than the other way around.
FWIW, the Romans never got to Ireland, but your point is well taken.
OTOH, a naked guy painted blue running at you while foaming at the mouth, hair done up in spikes and swinging a five foot sword might be just a little disconcerting.
Anyway, it worked well enough for the Celts to conquer Rome and to raid and settle all the way from Ireland to central Asia Minor.
I know the Romans never got to Ireland, but I also know that the Irish spent a lot of time fighting each other, fighting the English, fighting the Vikings, fighting whoever was handy. So at some point they must have been a bunch of naked guys fighting non-naked guys.
Personally I find that pointing at a threatening, scary naked guy and laughing tends to, uh, take the wind out of their sails. But I admit I have not tried that technique on anybody painted blue.
Insofar as “shrinkage” goes, it may not have been that much of an issue. Apparently a lot of the naked guys found combat exciting, if you catch my drift.
The Irish have always been renowned for fighting, each other if nobody else is around.
On the other hand, a platoon of Amazons, like Hilllary Clinton or Janet Reno, (sans pantsuit) would scare the sh*t out of even the most battle-hardened soldier.
Please, I’d rather not contemplate Ambition Incarnate, naked or blue or any combination of the afore said.
Minor quibble but it's a pet peeve of mine. The term is "Buck" naked. Buck is shaved and preserved deer hide. Since it is hairless, the expression "Buck Naked" makes sense.
All they’re missing is a bone through the nose and a couple of straw shields. This is a “civilization” that hasn’t progressed since men were scratching on cave walls.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.