Inappropriate trophy photos

[Sun Who]

BBC News - Pictures appear to show RAF man posing with dead Taliban fighter (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27346071):(

Sun.

[sandozer]

So unlike the libtard bbc to grasp on that one.

[Genstabler]

I can't for the life of me understand what the fuss is about. There was a firefight. Our guy won. Thumbs up. Why should the MoD be hugely embarrassed? The next step will be huge embarrassment when we celebrate Battle of Britain Day because it might offend the Luftwaffe. Give me strength!

[500N]

As you say, typical.

Why do they even bother printing it.

[NutLoose]

Yup, thumbs up for adventure.... Don't people realise when you send people to kill people, those people will all have different ways of dealing with it.

[500N]

The thumbs up could well be just a "phew, it was me versus him
and luckily I came out on top".

[Old Ned]

Unfortunately, the government is keen to see the photographers of such pics answer in court. It doesn't matter what else happened, as far as the lawyers are concerned here is a chance to show just how blood thirsty the evil soldiers/airmen/sailors really are.


They give Irish murderers "get out of jail free" cards, yet they want the military personnel involved in Blood Sunday, decades ago, up in court for murder.


Rum old world. The moral seems to be, if you take such pics (and after such a dreadful experience it must be a great temptation to do so) keep them close hold and tell nobody you would not trust with your life. We all know that Chatham House Rules after the old dining-in nights were always kept. But today, you can be on Facebook/YouTube in seconds.

[melmothtw]

The next step will be huge embarrassment when we celebrate Battle of Britain Day because it might offend the Luftwaffe.

Would it be offensive if a photo appeared of an RAF pilot standing over the body of a dead German pilot he had shot down some time earlier with his thumbs up and smiling at the camera?

[strake]

Given a government has decided that it will release its armed troops to use deadly force against an enemy in what ever possible way they can - the ultimate insult to another human being - how can they be so hypocritical to criticize the same troops when they show a fairly subdued level of relief at having survived the conflict they have been ordered to undertake?

[melmothtw]

The moral seems to be, if you take such pics (and after such a dreadful experience it must be a great temptation to do so) keep them close hold and tell nobody you would not trust with your life. We all know that Chatham House Rules after the old dining-in nights were always kept. But today, you can be on Facebook/YouTube in seconds.

To me the moral seems to be don't take such pics, but then I'm old fashioned like that.

[melmothtw]

Given a government has decided that it will release its armed troops to use deadly force against an enemy in what ever possible way they can - the ultimate insult to another human being - how can they be so hypocritical to criticize the same troops when they show a fairly subdued level of relief at having survived the conflict they have been ordered to undertake?

Because it's a slippery slope strake. It's trophy photos such as this one day, and filming post battle executions on helmet-cams the next day.

[500N]

I tend to agree, either don't take them, if you do you can take it without the thumbs up and keep them to yourself.

[melmothtw]

If folks still aren't sure about the right and wrongs of this, then imagine its the Taliban standing over the dead bodies of British soldiers, smiling and with their thumbs up. I wonder how many would be excusing it as a 'subdued level of relief'.

[Boudreaux Bob]

In the scheme of things....this is just one "Ho Hum!" Kodak Moment.

Bluntly, I hope there are shed loads of "Trophy Photos" like this....our guys smiling and the Taliban serving as a back drop. Perhaps after several Thousand of these splashed all over the local newspapers they might tweak to the danger of going up against a first rate Military.

Understanding the lack of Literacy in that part of the World....we cannot think a simple paragraph or two would get the message across....but photos are easily understood even by the Village Idiot.

[melmothtw]

In the scheme of things....this is just one "Ho Hum!" Kodak Moment.

And if it was a dead US soldier lying there Boudreaux Bob? Would that be just another ho-hum Kodak moment?

[melmothtw]

Understanding the lack of Literacy in that part of the World....we cannot think a simple paragraph or two would get the message across....but photos are easily understood even by the Village Idiot.

Absolutely, which is exactly why when you're trying to win hearts and minds photos such as this can set a counterinsurgency campaign back years. But I guess we're beyond that now and just treading water until the end of the year, so no harm done eh.

[racedo]

What kind of D**khead allowed the photo to be taken and then published.
Do they know that camera come with a delete key.

[smujsmith]

I am no sympathiser with the Taliban, or any enemy of our Armed Forces. I do though question the common sense of so called "intelligent" modern soldiers in allowing themselves to be compromised in this way by a compulsion for social media gratification. In my day, what happened "down route" stayed " down route", and so it should remain. I'm sure that previous posters also have it correct in that none of us would trivialise a photograph showing a Taliban fighter posing over a dead Regiment airman. Perhaps its time that some people started to realise the ramifications of modern social media.

Smudge

[Torque Tonight]

The people who are most upset by these photographs are those who have never put themselves in harm's way and who have never experienced the feeling of having an enemy actively trying to kill them, people who never have and never will stand up to fight, physically, for what is right. People who live blissfully in an insulated little bubble of safety and security which since the dawn of time has been provided with the blood of servicemen. Under these circumstances I am really struggling to give a toss about the faux outrage Islington liberals spluttering into their lattes over photos of morbid reality.

Certainly it would be more convenient for many if such photos didn't exist. However maybe a glimpse of the reality of armed conflict is a helpful reminder to government and population alike. The modern trend for servicemen putting their lives on the line for this country is die if you lose, get prosecuted if you win.:ugh:

[melmothtw]

The people who are most upset by these photographs are those who have never put themselves in harm's way and who have never experienced the feeling of having an enemy actively trying to kill them, people who never have and never will stand up to fight, physically, for what is right. People who live blissfully in an insulated little bubble of safety and security which since the dawn of time has been provided with the blood of servicemen. Under these circumstances I am really struggling to give a toss about the faux outrage Islington liberals spluttering into their lattes over photos of morbid reality.

I wouldn't bet your mortgage on that Torque.

[NutLoose]

A photo is a glimpse in time and you simply do not know what happened why it happened or what happened afterwards....

To put this in context please click on this link

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/shocking-photos-famed-crime-photographer-weegee-gallery-1.1282477

You will see a picture of a girl smiling over the body of her dead boyfriend on the beach as lifeguards try to revive him, looking up she sees the camera and reacts without thinking by smiling, hence the photograph that is totally out of context as to what was going on... I do hope those judging them also have an open mind as to photography.

And if you think the rocks images are bad, check out the other images by weeegee on the link.

[melmothtw]

Are you suggesting that we've misunderstood the context of these photos Nutloose, and that these RAF Regt soldiers are not really standing, smiling and with thumbs up, over the bodies of insurgents they have just killed?

[Sun Who]

It's not a question of being 'upset' by photos like this, it's a question of recognising that they're not helpful in terms of realising national strategy - which is the point of our forceful engagements in foreign lands.

If we want the deaths of serviceman to have been for a reason, then we should do everything we can to ensure that their deaths achieve the desired outcome. The desired outcome (in this particular punch up) is establishing the conditions in Afghanistan that will minimise the likelihood that exportable terrorism will come to the UK. To do that we need to separate insurgents from the general population whilst avoiding the creation of martyrs. This sort of thing runs contrary to that end, and is therefore not helpful. Hence conduct like this being against direct orders.

Tactical events have strategic impact in the modern, inter-connected world.

This is not a criticism of the rocks in question.

Sun.

[NutLoose]

Yes, it is totally possible, if you were squatted down and the photographer said are you ok, a natural reaction could be to smile and give a thumbs up to say yes.... You just don't know with a photo, as it's a single second in time.

[Sun Who]

NutLoose,

Taking photos with dead enemy combatants is expressly against UK orders.

Sun.

[melmothtw]

I agree with you Sun Who, except that I would add that there is a fundamental moral problem with photographing the bodies of dead enemy combatants in such a way that goes beyond national strategy, but that's just my opinion.

Nutloose, you're defending the indefensible, but I understand your reasons for doing so - they're British soldiers, and no one wants to believe/admit that we could be in the wrong (the marine executing the insurgent elicited much the same response on this forum).

[DD24.5C]

On a slightly different note, has anybody from within the RAF and the RAF Regiment been held to account for the security failings as was recommended by the Defence Select Committee?

[NutLoose]

Melmothtw, not defending the photographer as he is the one in the wrong but he could be from anywhere, but those in the images without a before and after, sorry you just don't know.

[melmothtw]

You have to make a judgement call on the balance of probabilities Nutloose. If you believe that what happened here is that these soldiers were administering some sort of last rites to the dead Taliban, and the photographer asked them if they were ok, and they then looked up, smiled and gave a thumbs up to say they were ok, at which point the photographer took a photo which then made its way into the public domain, and that there is nothing untoward going on here, then that's your prerogative I suppose.

[Willard Whyte]

No thumbs up from me. I'd have opened a bottle of Chamagne and feasted on pork chops.

[glad rag]

And what did you do during the war uncle?

Lets be totally blunt here, does anyone actually believe that, at this stage, these sort of photographs will have an affect on "hearts and minds"? :ouch: No.

If they are going to hate us they will be hating us already....

[melmothtw]

No thumbs up from me. I'd have opened a bottle of Chamagne and feasted on pork chops.

Some might consider such a reaction to having allowed the Taliban to infiltrate the largest coalition base in the region, destroy however many Harriers on the flight line, kill two US Marines, and nearly take-out the (then) third in-line to the throne to be rather crass...but not me.

[BEagle]

Would it be offensive if a photo appeared of an RAF pilot standing over the body of a dead German pilot he had shot down some time earlier with his thumbs up and smiling at the camera?

I could not conceive of such an event. Each side respected fallen pilots of the other side with due decorum and chivalry.

Although when Hptm Josef Zwernemann was shot down in a dog fight and bailed out of his aeroplane on 8 Apr 1944, the victorious USAAF Mustang pilot promptly murdered him by machine gunning him as he parachuted to earth - an act which would nowadays be considered to be a war crime.

[melmothtw]

I could not conceive of such an event. Each side respected fallen pilots of the other side with due decorum and chivalry.

My point exactly BEagle.

[Roland Pulfrew]

There's an awful lot of faux indignation here. The photos do not show any of the bodies being degraded in any way. They show some pictures of military personnel who have just overcome a determined and well armed foe wearing Allied uniforms, following a lengthy fire fight, over exposed terrain, on one of the darkest nights of the year, in a combat zone. There's bound to be some relief in the victors faces. How do we know that these photos weren't taken as part of the follow up "evidence" collection? The stupidity here is in the smile and the thumbs up, but, as NutLoose says, we do not know the context in which these photos were taken. Not deleting the photos, particular after so many other incidents that have occurred in Afg, is somewhat stupid though.

Google dead soldier images and you will find lots of pictures of victors with dead enemies from almost every conflict in history since the camera was invented. That doesn't make it right, but it is a fact. At least the Taliban bodies weren't mutilated the way that certain Western soldiers have been out there; in Iran; in Somalia etc etc

As for
nearly take-out the (then) third in-line to the throne That's a "headline" worthy of The Sun or The Mirror! Let's have a little sense of reality here, the bad guys didn't get across the runway.

[melmothtw]

Let's have a little sense of reality here. the bad guys didn't even get across the runway.

Go tell it to the families of the US Marines that were killed Roland -

Indefensible Conduct at Camp Bastion | National Review Online (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/360368/indefensible-conduct-camp-bastion-michelle-malkin)

Google dead soldier images and you will find lots of pictures of victors with dead enemies from almost every conflict in history since the camera was invented.

I can Google a lot of things that are morally indefensible Roland, but what's your point?

There's bound to be some relief in the victors faces.

'Relief in the victors faces' isn't what's at issue here Roland, don't be so obtuse.

I could go on but I'm tired now, and to be frank if you don't get it by now you never will. As the saying goes, there are none more blind than those that choose not to see....

[Tankertrashnav]

The people who are most upset by these photographs are those who have never put themselves in harm's way and who have never experienced the feeling of having an enemy actively trying to kill them, people who never have and never will stand up to fight, physically, for what is right. People who live blissfully in an insulated little bubble of safety and security which since the dawn of time has been provided with the blood of servicemen. Under these circumstances I am really struggling to give a toss about the faux outrage Islington liberals spluttering into their lattes over photos of morbid reality.


Anyone who calls me an Islington liberal* has got a very nasty shock coming. I have put myself in harm's way, and funnily enough, in the same corps as the airmen involved in these photographs. Although I have been on the receiving end of armed attack I will admit that I have never been in an intensive firefight on the scale of the Bastion attack. That said, I can't imagine the stupidity of these guys taking that photo. In my time of course instant cameras and phones which took pictures did not exist, but any airmen under my command who acted in a similar way as these guys apparently did would have found themselves in deep clag.

*Oh and by the way - I hate lattes!

[Roland Pulfrew]

Don't be so obtuse Mellie. I am not denigrating the losses sustained by the USMC that night in anyway. Indeed they and we were very lucky that there were not more losses that night. Have a look at the rest of the pictures, they are out there. Most of them could well be evidence pictures that have been leaked for God knows what reason. Let the P'n'SS/police investigation do its job first.

My point is that in this modern world we seem very quick to criticise and claim things that aren't factually true regarding what happened in WW1, or WW2, or Korea, or Vietnam, or Palestine, or I could go on. But as you say, there's none so blind.

[melmothtw]

Well, as I said previously Roland, I wonder if folks would be quite so ready to offer mitigation if it were Taliban standing over dead British soldiers.

Yes, let's see what the investigation turns up.

[Davef68]

There is nothing new in photographs of dead enemies. This was happening a hundred years ago:

KING CECIL CAPTAIN (Q 58680) (http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205307850)

KING CECIL CAPTAIN (Q 58681) (http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205307851)

SULLIVAN W (Q 110306) (http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205259900)

There are many WW1 images of this nature, albeit most show a sober reflection rather than a smiling face and a thumbs up. However, most show the 'victors' in the same shot as the deceased.

[Boudreaux Bob]

Beagle,

Of the hundreds if not thousands of such events against Allied Airmen...you pick one about an American Pilot shooting a German?

Might I remind you of how the game was played during WWII....it was no where as dignified as you wish to think.

Shall we remind you of the "Commando Order", the Murder of RAF Officers during the Great Escape, and all the other Atrocities committed by German Forces against Allied Airmen and Soldiers? Ever read up on the atrocities committed against Allied Bomber Crews after they parachuted from damaged and downed aircraft?

Get your head out of your Butt....you can call such actions War Crimes....but in the scheme of things....it amounts to nothing.

The Germans and Japanese were murdering Tens of Millions of Human Beings....and you get some begotten notion about the Chivalry between Airmen?

Do spare me will you....War is about killing the enemy forces personnel and rendering as many as possible Combat Ineffective. Killing them dead accomplishes that.

[Two's in]

Melmoth,

I am astounded at the vitriol and denial your response has generated. Clearly those who have not had to deal with battlefield fatalities are unable to imagine the lurid consequences of taking such photographs. Anyone stupid enough to take such pictures deserves everything they get and more. Anyone defending such actions while still serving or retired is a disgrace to that uniform. We are not fighting the Taliban so we can all act like crazed lunatics, we are trying to demonstrate that moral fortitude and ethical conduct are societal norms in a civilized group. This behavior is beyond the pale and will hopefully be dealt with as such. This is not the moral high ground, this is a basic tenet of social responsibility.

[wg13_dummy]

What astounds me is how close the Taliban got to the EFi. If not, that couldnt possibly be a member of the RAF Regt.

Twos in, I'm guessing youve never served on the ground or even on an Op tour? Are you the PR rep of the RAF? If not, you're coming across as the typical Crab politico.

[Mozella]

Given a government has decided that it will release its armed troops to use deadly force against an enemy in what ever possible way they can - the ultimate insult to another human being - how can they be so hypocritical to criticize the same troops when they show a fairly subdued level of relief at having survived the conflict they have been ordered to undertake?

But you're talking about old fashioned warfare. Now we have "new warfare" where we Americans are sending ground troops to fight wars without killing anyone, except for a few unlucky folks targeted by special presidential drones. Snipers, for example, used to be a two man team, a shooter and a spotter. Now it's the shooter teamed up with a lawyer and (where communications allow) a link to a religious sensitivity consultant. :ugh:

[vascodegama]

BB

2 wrongs do not make a right. The example BEags gave us was a war crime then. The fact that other crimes were committed does not excuse the act described. If butt extraction is required then others need to do so.

[Daysleeper]

I can't really see why there is a fuss about these pics. In neither published picture is the body being touched or degraded in any way. Yes it is against the MoD rules, so some minor ticking off. But this is in no way comparable with previous incidents involving both our friends and our enemies and certainly does't seem to be a geneva convention breach as the BBC suggested.

If anything the first image on the BBC looks quite innocent.

Kneeling in position when someone asks "have you checked that body" turns to say yes with a thumbs up as photo taken. No case to answer - move along.

[Training Risky]

Well, as I said previously Roland, I wonder if folks would be quite so ready to offer mitigation if it were Taliban standing over dead British soldiers.

Well in that case we'll just have to appeal to the shadow Taliban government for a thorough and comprehensive investigation into possible Taliban war crimes. Oh really, we can't do such a thing? I wonder why not...?

There has been a lot of hand-wringing and holier-than-thou preaching on this thread already over our need to be whiter than white in Afghanistan against a perfidious enemy a la Bastion Attack 2012.

This is an enemy who doesn't respect international law, Amnesty, Chami Chakrabarty and Phil Shiner et al, the Geneva Conventions or at the least, Mumsnet.

These bodies were not urinated on or defaced. It was just some pictures. Let the lads who are pulling out of that sh*thole do it in the best way they see fit, without the dubious 'glory' of being the last Serviceman to die in 2014-5.

We are in a new paradigm of waging war it appears, against a type of enemy throughout the developing world that will stop at nothing to kill me and mine. Still only 18 months before I retire and the war is over for me. I wonder how long the Great British Public will remember me and my ilk after the GWOT...2, 3, 4, years? I wonder if H4H will be just a quaint icon that flashes up on ipad quiz games...:mad:

[BEagle]

Boudreaux Bob, most of the recorded instances of violence against crews who had bailed out of their aircraft were perpetrated by non-combatants.

As for the murder of the Stalag III escapees, Göring, Keitel, Westhoff and von Graevenitz (who was head of the department in charge of prisoners of war), all argued against any executions as a violation of the Geneva Conventions. Hitler then ordered Himmler to execute more than half of the escapees. Himmler passed the selection on to General Arthur Nebe.

Regarding the Kommandobefehl, some commanders such as Rommel refused to enforce it. All captured German officers who had ordered execution of commandos following this order from Hitler were found guilty of war crimes and most were executed following sentence at Nuremberg.

Boudreuax Bob wrote: Do spare me will you....War is about killing the enemy forces personnel and rendering as many as possible Combat Ineffective. Killing them dead accomplishes that.

And your excuse for My Lai and the subsequent cover up?

As vasco. hinted, perhaps you might need to apply some of your own product:

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a341/nw969/BB_zpsa05a80bd.jpg (http://s14.photobucket.com/user/nw969/media/BB_zpsa05a80bd.jpg.html)

Daysleeper wrote:I can't really see why there is a fuss about these pics.

Whether or not this constitutes violation of the Geneva Conventions in that they might be considered 'desecration' remains to be established. But the utter stupidity of those posing for or taking the photographs is abundantly clear.

[Old Ned]

As we are all equal in the eyes of the law, may we expect to see the Taliban taking their fighters to court for the appalling atrocities practised by them against Allied military personnel? Thought not!

[Tourist]

I seem to have got my moral compass skewed.
Can Ppruners please help me with a compass swing?

Can posters just confirm we all agree on these statements please?

1. Taking photos next to dead bodies of combatants in post fight adrenaline rush is reprehensible.
2. Gun camera footage and guided bomb footage showing actual kills is good and suitable for transmission on the news.
3. Shooting pilot under parachute post dogfight is bad because he cannot fight back despite the fact that when he lands he will get in another aircraft and be used against you.
4. Shooting pilot of enemy transport plane is good despite the fact that he cannot fight back because the materiel or personnel on board will be used against you once they land.
5. Carpet bombing cities full of unarmed women and children is good and bomber command deserved a medal.
6. Spending your entire career as a V force pilot waiting to nuc Russian cities full of non combatants is good and praiseworthy.
7. Anti personnel mines are bad because they maim.
8. Bullets are good because they kill.
9. Torture is a bad thing and anyway studies show it doesn't work.
10 The Germans used torture to roll up French resistance networks and our military assumes that knowledge you have will be compromised after capture because torture works if you are a bad guy.

I'm sure I missed a few.

[Tourist]

11. Drop JDAM on unarmed, undefended Taliban bomb maker as he mopeds his way across the countryside good.
12. Shoot IRA guys after they drop their weapons bad.

[Exascot]

Maybe he was just trying to thumb a lift :ok:

[Genstabler]

The guys in the photographs had just been in a violent, terrifying fight to the death at night with a fearless and determined enemy and had eventually won. They are pumped up with adrenaline, elation and relief at still being alive. A smile and a thumbs up are entirely understandable and not in the slightest reprehensible. They should not be disciplined.

The crime, if there is one, lies with the photographer who recorded the event and subsequently sold the pictures to the media sharks to exploit. He and the media are the ones who have disrespected the enemy dead, if anyone did. It is they that should be investigated and punished.

What are the odds though?

[Faithless]

Also the intended punishment is possibly to protect the guilty idiots involved. Mr Taliban is not going to let this go. Post Afghan they could possibly seek revenge on said idiot in photo or even worse, his family.

Remember the enemy can travel too and they are not all stupid!. I for one would now forever be looking over my shoulder if it were me in the photo. You just dont do it. It can also be used in propaganda tactics.

Rule number one just dont expose yourself to the unnecessary. Another big threat to the services is social media.

[melmothtw]

There is nothing new in photographs of dead enemies. This was happening a hundred years ago:

No one is arguing that these soldiers were the first to take such images. the argument revolves around whether it is right or not. There was a lot of reprehensible stuff going on hundreds of years ago, but I'd have hoped we'd be just a little more civilised in the 21st century.

I am astounded at the vitriol and denial your response has generated.

Sadly, I'm not Two's in. Much the same thing happened in the thread about the Royal Marine executing a Taliban prisoner. Like I said, I understand people's need to justify such actions - we're the good guys after all, right?

In neither published picture is the body being touched or degraded in any way

Well, so long as you'd be happy with your loved one being treated in such a way, then I guess there's no problem here.

Tourist, I agree that there are many grey areas when it comes to morality in the conduct in war, but can we not agree that taking trophy photographs of dead enemy combatants is just plain wrong?

Kneeling in position when someone asks "have you checked that body" turns to say yes with a thumbs up as photo taken. No case to answer - move along.

I think my comment to Roland earlier about there being none more blind than those who choose not to see applies here.


Well in that case we'll just have to appeal to the shadow Taliban government for a thorough and comprehensive investigation into possible Taliban war crimes. Oh really, we can't do such a thing? I wonder why not...?

We're the good guys here, right. We really shouldn't be employing Taliban-standards of behaviour in how we conduct ourselves.

The crime, if there is one, lies with the photographer who recorded the event and subsequently sold the pictures to the media sharks to exploit

The usual Pprune refrain - blame the media. It would be too easy to talk about shooting the messenger, so I won't.

[sitigeltfel]

The crime, if there is one, lies with the photographer who recorded the event and subsequently sold the pictures to the media sharks to exploit.+1

Remember the enemy can travel too and they are not all stupidTravel not required. They have plenty support within the UK.

[Old Ned]

13. Disabling helmet camera before giving two fingers to a Taliban corpse who has just shot your mates a good thing.

[vascodegama]

Tourist

No 3-no the shooting of the pilot in those circumstances is a crime. Admittedly there are anomalies in the GC but that won't help at the subsequent trial.

[Tourist]

"Tourist, I agree that there are many grey areas when it comes to morality in the conduct in war, but can we not agree that taking trophy photographs of dead enemy combatants is just plain wrong? "

My personal opinion is that compared to the morality of war in general, the immorality of taking a picture by a body disappears in the noise.

Vasco

I am well aware it is a crime. I am also aware that it was not a crime to drop on Hiroshima.
Just because a committee decided the legality of some events does not make them right or wrong.

[melmothtw]

Well, so long as you'd be equally able just to shrug it off if it was your son/father lying there....

[Tourist]

melmothtw

"Well, so long as you'd be equally able just to shrug it off if it was your son/father lying there.... "

Well, when you put it like that....

You are quite right. The most distressing thing about my loved one dying would be the victory pic, not the fact that they had died:rolleyes:

I really have no interest in my or anybody elses body after death, it is the essence not the vessel I am interested in.

[Hempy]

PC madness. A 30 second news grab that goes in one of average Joe's ears and out the other, talked about on Pprune for a month and then promptly forgotten about by everyone except the people directly involved.

One wonders what the reaction would be with a different caption..

"Army News:

Bloody Battle ends in victory.

Cpl A Nonymous poses in front of the body of a Taliban commander after a vicious and bloody firefight last Wednesday.

Cpl Nonymous was part of a three man squad cut off for more than 3 hours from Allied support by a enemy force estimated at over 50 after Taliban forces ambushed their patrol.

Cpl Nonymous, as the only member of the squad not wounded, made a desperate and courageous charge at what he had identified as the enemy command group, during which he managed to kill both the Taliban commander and his radio operator, breaking up the attack and causing confusion among the enemy. The timely arrival of air assets broke the attack completely resulting in a Taliban withdrawal.

Cpl Nonymous returns to the UK next week to his wife and five children."

[Finningley Boy]

The people who are most upset by these photographs are those who have never put themselves in harm's way and who have never experienced the feeling of having an enemy actively trying to kill them, people who never have and never will stand up to fight, physically, for what is right. People who live blissfully in an insulated little bubble of safety and security which since the dawn of time has been provided with the blood of servicemen. Under these circumstances I am really struggling to give a toss about the faux outrage Islington liberals spluttering into their lattes over photos of morbid reality.

Actually, I'm not so sure you're right about those who are taking issue, many people who haven't seen action or served in the armed forces and who would run from a fight every time would be just as likely to defend the actions of their armed forces as they feel more grateful to them.

The people who are most likely to complain, as you also allude to, are those who hold nothing but contempt for the old institutions such as the military establishment. The Liberal left, certainly a catch all title which covers such people and their smug self superior belief in their own better intellect and moral standing, are the usual offenders. Those with an axe to grind against the establishment, they are the ones plus those with a sheltered simple understanding of conflict. This is why today we have a military establishment which reacts in a way they think serves them well in terms of media and therefore, political and public support. So they over react to stories like this one reaching the public domain in the vain hope they will strike the right cord. Hopefully there will always be a retired officer on hand, with nothing to lose, such as Col Dewar today on the BBC, who put matters rather more into perspective.

FB:)

[melmothtw]

The people who are most likely to complain are those who hold nothing but contempt for the old institutions chief among which is the military establishment. The Liberal left, certainly as catch all title covers such people and their smug self superior belief in their own better intellect and moral standing. Those with an axe to grind against the establishment, they are the ones plus the sheltered simple understanding of conflict by others.

Apart from the fact the last sentence doesn't even make sense, I wouldn't be too sure about your over simplistic assessment of those who might take issue with these photos Finningley Boy.

"Army News:

Bloody Battle ends in victory.

Cpl A Nonymous poses in front of the body of a Taliban commander after a vicious and bloody firefight last Wednesday.

Cpl Nonymous was part of a three man squad cut off for more than 3 hours from Allied support by a enemy force estimated at over 50 after Taliban forces ambushed their patrol.

Cpl Nonymous, as the only member of the squad not wounded, made a desperate and courageous charge at what he had identified as the enemy command group, during which he managed to kill both the Taliban commander and his radio operator, breaking up the attack and causing confusion among the enemy. The timely arrival of air assets broke the attack completely resulting in a Taliban withdrawal.

Cpl Nonymous returns to the UK next week to his wife and five children."

That reads more like a wet dream you had last night Hempy, than a reasoned contribution to this discussion.

[Hempy]

Don't go confusing your own nocturnal fantasies with anyone else's champ, although I'm tipping if that was the case there would be a donkey and leather involved as well.

My point being that the media (left and right) can spin anything anyway they like.

All I see is a photo of a soldier and a dead dog.

[Genstabler]

Hempy does have a point though. A still photo is open to a myriad of interpretations by the viewer, hence the popularity of caption competitions. The publishers of these photos ascribe callous triumphalism to them and that is the reason for the perceived, and lucrative, outrage from the media and the liberal left.

That may be the case, but it should be acknowledged that there are many other possibilities. Don't the soldiers who were there doing their duty deserve some wriggle room?

[Party Animal]

Assuming the guys in the photos took part in the action that involved killing the enemy, I would like to shake their hands, buy them beers and congratulate them on a job well done.

For the f'wit who took the photos, I'd charge him for having a personal camera in-theatre and against orders. In my eyes, all blame lies squarely on his shoulders. Full stop.

Good to see Col Dewar defending this 'nothing event'. It would be nice to hear from a retired starred Regt officer with similar views. Of course, under our liberal democracy, everyone is entitled to comment on these photos. However, if you have not been there, seen it, or done it, don't be surprised if many of us serving don't give a sh1t about your own personal opinions.

For anyone in the RAF Regiment, don't let this minor hiccup detract from the pride you should feel for the work done over the last decade. Great effort and huge respect from those of us who understand your position. :ok:

[Finningley Boy]

Melmoth,

To explain that last line, what I'm trying to say is the media expect an outraged reaction to such photos, that's why it gets displayed, so that those among us who might think such things are beyond the limit as far as British soldiers are concerned will be outraged and demand an over the top response, or perhaps more likely, just as those publishing the photos hope they will. There is a fair amount of prodding and pushing here to get everyone thinking the same way. The comments on the BBC and ITV news have been delivered in grave tones about how the two in the photos have been suspended from operations. The R.A.F is reported to be taking this very seriously indeed and there's further sentiment from them about just how unacceptable it all is. They've got to say something now they're in the spotlight over it.

What about all the trophies brought back from foreign fields on the two world wars and other conflicts? where does anyone imagine the steel helmets, SS caps and lugers really came from? clothing stores and the armoury at the Hamburg Garrison?

FB:)

[Genstabler]

What is the MoD's ethical policy on painting mission symbols on aircraft involved in combat? Is there really any difference?

[Hempy]

Well, so long as you'd be equally able just to shrug it off if it was your son/father lying there....

That statement is so 'soft', on so many levels. It's not my son/father lying there, it's a dead enemy. He's dead because the Government of the person who killed him (i.e the people of the UK) decided that not only did he deserve to die, but they paid billions to equip this soldier and thousands of others to travel to his county to try and kill him. His intent was to end the lives of these soldiers, by extension to end the lives of those who sent them too. So now he's dead, and his poor father and son grieve for him, and they might be outraged by a photo showing his dead body and the man who killed him smiling about it.

Bad luck. He deserved it. Surely you see that, you sent his killer over there.

So why the sentimentality? 'Hearts and minds'? Killing fathers/sons is acceptable and will win the locals over but taking a photo of it isn't and wont?

Go and find a nice big tree to cuddle, just make sure you dont step on any ants..

[Genstabler]

Remember the photo of Lt David Morgan in his Harrier, giving the thumbs up after returning from killing some Argies in the Falklands? Was he investigated and disciplined by the MoD, or was he given a medal?

[Boudreaux Bob]

Beagle....The My Lai thing was stopped by a Helicopter Crew upon the Aircraft Commander ordering his Door Gunner to shoot any Soldier who attempted to harm a civilian....who then reported the killings....and after the cover-up was exposed by members of our Military....there were prosecutions.

You may recall a certain Army Major was part of that cover-up....and later became Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and Secretary of State.

Now as to the British Military and its long record of Atrocities since you seem to think it is the Yanks that have a monopoly on such things.....do we need to bring out the Laundry List you folks have run up in the past?

I don't suppose you have even heard of Bloody Sunday?

Take your smart assed arrogant remarks and shove them up your stern tube old Bean....and use plenty of Paste to soothe your hind end.

You kicked off yet another Yank/Tea Bag fuss by your comments.....Congratulations on disregarding the request by the Mods we ALL try to avoid such exchanges.

Care to explain why you just cannot help but stir things up by making remarks that any half wit knows would be insulting?

No...it is not "Banter".

No...It was not a mistake in your typing.

Yes...it was offensive and served no other purpose other than to show your crass arrogant attitude.

[Mickj3]

I'm with Hempy, Party Animal & Genstabler 100%. Who is to say that the guy giving the thumbs up hasn't just been asked to confirm that the guy is dead ie thumbs up (affirmative). I'm getting really p****d off with tree hugging, ant crushing liberals and hope I'm around when the inevitable backlash against these holier than thou prats happens.

Rant over, What about the war artists WE commission to paint conflict for posterity.

Rant back on, I only hope some RAF VSO with a few stars on his/her shoulders has the balls to back these individuals.

[Tourist]

Since the beginning of time, successful men have punched the air with joy when successful in competition, whether that competition be in skill at arms, hunting a beast or that modern allegory of war, sport.


We take modern western kids, nurtured in the soft coddled health and safety tree hugging world we now live in.
We train them to kill and tell them it is ok as long as ordered by a higher officer.
So we tell them killing is ok, but somehow they mustn't celebrate when they do it, so is it something to be ashamed of?
Otherwise, surely they would celebrate?

It's no wonder that our troops PTSD rate is so high with this lefty bullsh1t coming at them from the media.

I think that we should encourage them to celebrate, to help them believe that what they have done is a good thing not a shameful act.

If there is anything shameful about war it is that politicians let it happen. The protagonists should not walk about feeling bad about it.

[thing]

I only hope some RAF VSO with a few stars on his/her shoulders has the balls to back these individuals.Well yep, you'll only hope...

[Brewers Droop]

I must admit to being torn about these events. It seems very easy to be in the “oh no not again” camp and condemn them for what appears a Trophy of War photo of dead enemy combatants. It also is easy to join the "you haven't done combat - you don't know" brigade. But with some retrospect, like other recent events, I can’t help feeling very uncomfortable in doing either.
Firstly, as already said, it’s a photo, a snapshot in time. Our reaction is to what we perceive and not what the reality may be.
Secondly, once more we are engaging in trial by public and media opinion - these individuals already seem to have been condemned in the public eye (and many in this forum) even if they are subsequently found to have done no wrong. Should we condemn the soldier in front of the photo, the soldier taking the photo, whoever gave it to the media, anyone off photo not intervening etc?
Thirdly, I also find great discomfort in that they are once more being judged by people looking from the context of our safe part of the civilized world. Not the eyes of individuals who have just gone through the reality of upfront face-to-face combat, possibly for the first time. We seem to be increasingly living in a society that judge troops behavior in such environments as no difference to if it had happened in a UK High Street on a Saturday afternoon. The watchful eye of the media, civilian legal establishment and HSW etc waiting for one false step so they can condemn, sue and even imprison. The establishment having the benefit of months and even years of hindsight to look at high resolution pictures or even glorious HD footage frame-by-frame and then condemn through pure a black or white western legal and regulatory viewpoints while ignoring the context of what was a decision made between shades of grey. We used to tell a soldier that if the uniform facing them was blue and spoke French you shot it. We now tell them that they have to be a lawyer, HR expert, PR guru, HSW ninja (oh, and a soldier) and that the person shooting at you doesn’t even wear a uniform or follow any "rules". And then we are quick to condemn a few who make an error of judgment (if indeed it is) while high on adrenalin having just faced combat.
Fourthly, if I was there at that time, young again and in the aftermath of such an incident would I have been in such a photo. Its very easy to say no but….
Perhaps the only view I have is that I've always been comforted and reassured knowing the RAF Regt are risking their lives providing a force protection bubble to operate and live within. And still do.

[Tashengurt]

Looks like they broke the rules on photographing enemy casualties and carrying cameras. Let's see them punished then. A reprimand should do it. Job done, move on.


Posted from Pprune.org App for Android

[Finningley Boy]

Brewer's Droop,

My own reaction earlier on this thread may not convey quite the same sentiment, but I agree with you entirely. My Nephew was serving with the very unit in question at the time, I doubt he was connected with the photos, I've just spoken to my Brother and he never said a word about it, mind you we were discussing more pressing family issues at the time.

FB:)

[Navaleye]

The guy should be given a promotion and medal for killing the enemy. That's what he's paid to do. Shame there weren't more.

[barnstormer1968]

Can I just ask anyone tho try to make sense of this ridiculous comment:

Well, so long as you'd be equally able just to shrug it off if it was your son/father lying there....

I've not seem anyone here, or any other forum simply shrug at this.

If this were my loved one I'd be VERY grateful that nothing bad had been done to the body, based on what often happened to western/soviet dead in Afghanistan, and has appeared on many photos or videos.

I don't expect the rocks or anyone else to show respect to someone who very recently had been trying to kill them, as it's not natural or useful.

Will the Taliban care, yes but they can't really make much PR from western troops DOING NOTHING to their dead after an attack!

As to whether it was a western soldier who was dead...........this pic followed a battle and people do die in battles.

Would I be upset if this pic showed a loved one of mine, well yes I would, but I'd be upset seeing ANY pic of a loved one who had died whether it was from a car accident or falling off a ladder while building a new school for Afghans.

Looking back to when I've been shot at or been in adrenalin fuelled situations I don't remember ever looking unhappy after the event.

So, what did I miss..................an outcry over two year old pics, when the daily TV news are still showing dead bodies from all conflicts around the world.

There are strategic reasons for not showing pics like these, but that often would not be the most prominent thing in the mind of a young rock at a time like this.
When the Brits leave Afghanistan this time round I think the afghans left behind will get massacred rather than the British and what's actually been going on in theatre will be more relevant than the odd picture.

[Haraka]

That was actually Flt. Lt. Dave Morgan RAF ( Before he defected back to the Senior Service :) )

With modification from a previous conflict photo quote In ( another) -Theatre


"If you can't take a joke , you shouldn't have joined the Taliban".

I realise the sensitivities incurred and fully appreciate the stupid and inappropriate forwarding of this image in to the Public domain.

Yeah.

[barnstormer1968]

Melmothtw

Here's a pic just for you. Not a smile or thumbs up in sight (so nothing offensive then).
It does show someone's loved one, but also shows the world isn't a rosy place where everyone considers everyone's else's feelings at all times :)

http://i736.photobucket.com/albums/xx9/barnstormer1968/f29f73086611bc9e4eaf4e3d259f62e2.jpg

[Navaleye]

Frankly I don't give a shi1t what the family of a murdering insurgent/terrorist (call them what you will). The only good one is a dead one. Well done to the chap concerned for despatching yet another enemy.

[Pontius Navigator]

So Victory rolls, V-signs, and Jolly Rogers are out too?

Everyone will remember Conqueror returning from the Falklands.

[Biggus]

PN,

"Everyone will remember Conqueror returning from the Falklands"

When you consider that it was approximately 32 years ago, quite a few people reading this thread might not actually 'remember' the incident you refer to....

[ShotOne]

No, pontius, there are two very big differences; firstly the close proximity of human remains-and, like naval eye, I don't care about his family either. But it's still clearly the wrong thing and gifts a (small) propaganda advantage to our enemies. More importantly, we lost most of our deployed fast jets! It can't, even with the most positive spin be described as a victory.

[melmothtw]

Those who think a photo of a dying British soldier being given the last rites by a priest has the same moral equivalence as that of a British (or whatever nationality) soldier gloating over the dead body of an enemy combatant don't get the point.

Those who think that celebrating a successful combat mission with a thumbs-up on the return to your ship, or by raising the Jolly Roger on return to your home port is the same as gloating over the dead body of an enemy combatant don't get the point either.

The issue here isn't the posting of a picture of a dead body, or of a picture of servicemen celebrating a successful mission, the issue (and the only one) is of serving British soldiers gloating over the carcass of a dead human being (not a dog, as one poster referred to them as).

I think most folks here actually do get that (as evidenced by that raft of strange and rather bizarre alternative explanations coming forward as to what the thumbs-up might actually mean - why come up with alternative explanations if giving a thumbs-up over a corpse is ok?)

Anyhow, I've said all I have to say on the subject, and as some folks agree with me and some clearly don't, I'll leave it there. I've read that the internet is good for two things - looking at pictures of cats and arguing with strangers. I don't want to spend my Saturday night arguing with strangers, so am going to look at some photos of cats....

[Genstabler]

Well that's a relief!

[Navaleye]

I've got a picture of me holding a dead rat that I shot as a kid. Difficult buggers to hit and I have more respect for them than I do the Taliban. Is that wrong?

[ShotOne]

Why not post a copy?...if you feel it has any relevance to the thread

[Navaleye]

I can't be asked, but if I'm able to bag one of the new Super Rats I will.

[Hempy]

It's pretty hard for us all to 'get the point' when clearly you don't have one in the first place.

[Mil-26Man]

His 'point' Hempy is that it's wrong for British soldiers to take trophy photos of themselves gloating over the bodies of dead enemy combatants. Or did I miss something?

[Training Risky]

Those who think a photo of a dying British soldier being given the last rites by a priest has the same moral equivalence as that of a British (or whatever nationality) soldier gloating over the dead body of an enemy combatant don't get the point.

I don't think you quite understand the intricacies of a counter-terrorist campaign. Back to your knitting - there's a good boy.

[Mil-26Man]

You're going to have to explain that one Training Risky, don't follow your thread.



Absolutely, which is exactly why when you're trying to win hearts and minds photos such as this can set a counterinsurgency campaign back years.


Speaking as someone who does understand the intricacies of a counter-terrorist campaign, I'd say he got it about right on post #16.

[BEagle]

melmothtw, well posted!

And just for you:

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a341/nw969/Tabby_zps10ec8635.jpg (http://s14.photobucket.com/user/nw969/media/Tabby_zps10ec8635.jpg.html)

One of my neighbours' friendly little cats.

[ShotOne]

Yes, and thank goodness we have impressive (former) senior officers such as Col. Kemp to put forward a reasoned and sympathetic defence case and not some of the buffoonish comments here -with notable exceptions such as melmoth.

[barnstormer1968]

Melmothtw said:

Those who think a photo of a dying British soldier being given the last rites by a priest has the same moral equivalence as that of a British (or whatever nationality) soldier gloating over the dead body of an enemy combatant don't get the point.

Assuming that refers to the pic I posted, then clearly NO I don't think it has the same moral equivalent..............which I suppose is why I pointed out the differences (no one is gloating in my pic, but I'd wager it had a much bigger effect on policy at local and strategic level, both in military and political terms)!
I also wouldn't choose to assume I knew the feeling of the rock in the picture. He may have been gloating but he may not, and MAY have just been happy not to be dead.
There are similar things which I also pointed out in that the pics show that people don't always consider each other's feelings.

One of the major differences is that some of the people who may have rejoiced in the condition of the British solder in the pic I posted were given 'get out of jail free' letters by HMG and later even got invited to dine with the queen.

Melmoth may have seen a lot more dead soldiers than me, may have seen a lot less, but I can only speak from my own perspective of things and after a very stressful situation I've seen people do all sorts of funny things.

Conflict is an odd thing, and its rules are not always sensible IMHO. A British soldier in WW2 who theoretically shot a German baby in the head would be guilty of a crime, while the deaths of many hundreds of women and children during the dam busters raids were fair game. In fact the whole thing was so approved of the Brits made a film of the raid with one of the saddest parts being the death of a dog!

[SARF]

Lol.. Really is that it. It's not like he had his foot on his head.. He was in town to kill whoever he saw.. He came second. Tough ****.. When did war get soooo bbc

[Hempy]

His 'point' Hempy is that it's wrong for British soldiers to take trophy photos of themselves gloating over the bodies of dead enemy combatants. Or did I miss something?

Oh I see, thanks for that. And here was me thinking that the most degrading thing you could possibly do to someone is to take their life away from them. 'Morals' in a firefight??

So it seems you are happy with killing bit, you just don't want any photos implying you are happy about it? In fact, please just dont remind us of the killing they are doing at our behest at all?

And don't even start with this 'hearts and minds' rubbish. It worked well in Malaya, but everyone knows it's been nothing but a political millstone ever since.

[500N]

Hempy

"the most degrading thing you could possibly do to someone is to take their life away from them."

Why is it degrading ?

If the guy is trying to kill you, I wouldn't call it degrading.

Maybe I am misreading it.

[oldpax]

Have a look on U tube or Pathe news at WW2 and you can see loads of bodies from all sides so its nothing new .Only that everyone nowadays has a camera on their person.Remember that picture of a viet cong being executed by a viet police chief who lived happly ever after in the USA?For example!

[Basil]

I'm a retired British Officer. I cannot get worked up by a Regiment soldier giving a 'thumbs up' with his dead enemy in the background. Well done that man! Pity there arent a couple of dozen in the background.
The idea of war, for those of you who have difficulty understanding, is to kill the other lot until they stop killing you.
As for the PC mob in the Mil and PC politicos: well, not wishing to be banned, I shall reserve comment.

[Hempy]

Hempy

"the most degrading thing you could possibly do to someone is to take their life away from them."

Why is it degrading ?

If the guy is trying to kill you, I wouldn't call it degrading.

Maybe I am misreading it.

To quote Clint Eastwood in 'Unforgiven'

"It's a hell of a thing, killin' a man. You take away all he's got, and all he's ever gonna have."

Yes they were both trying to kill each other, and I doubt anything was going through either of their minds other than the immediate action. My point is that the bleeding hearts who are complaining about the degrading nature of the photo seem to be suggesting that the fact that the photo was taken is in some way more degrading to the dead guy or his family than the fact that he was dead in the first place...but they have no problem with him being dead.

You can't go feeling sorry for someone after lawfully killing them; and by that I don't mean the soldiers doing the shooting - I mean the politicians (and by extension the voters) who sent them there. It's called 'hypocrisy'...

[500N]

Understand

And agree with the last sentence !

Pollies
Send troops in with the incorrect or no gear and
then get all uppity when it goes pear shaped or
gets dirty.

[melmothtw]

Well, having spent a very pleasant evening looking at pictures of cats I am now back to argue with strangers. Many thanks for the picture BEagle, by the way, and thanks also to those that have PM'd me support - it's nice to know I am not (completely) pi##ing in the wind here.

While I said I had nothing more to say on the matter, and my underlying argument remains the same, I hope you'll humour me addressing some of the specific points raised since last I 'spoke'.


I don't think you quite understand the intricacies of a counter-terrorist
campaign. Back to your knitting - there's a good boy.


Setting aside the incredibly patronising tone of your sign-off, it's exactly because I do understand the intricacies of counterinsurgency/terrorist campaigns that I can recognise the dangers that such images can cause (to our ongoing efforts in Afghanistan and beyond).


Assuming that refers to the pic I posted, then clearly NO I don't think it
has the same moral equivalent..............which I suppose is why I pointed out the differences


You assume correctly barnstormer1968, and I am puzzled as to why you would post it given that you already seem to know that it is not the same as a photo of British soldiers gloating over the bodies of dead enemy combatants. If it is to show me that bad things happen in war, I get it already.


but I can only speak from my own perspective of things and after a very
stressful situation I've seen people do all sorts of funny things.


Yes they do, and that is why there are rules governing behaviours on the battlefiled and why military discipline needs to be maintained. Trophy pics are the thin edge of the wedge on a slippery slope that ultimately leads to Mai Lai or to soldiers walking into Afghan villages and machine gunning civilians (not looking to disparage any Americans reading this - other massacres are avialable, but these are two of the most notorious and well known).


Have a look on U tube or Pathe news at WW2 and you can see loads of bodies from all sides so its nothing new


Oldpax, please read all the posts before commenting, I have already said that the posting of dead bodies isn't what's at issue here, it's the standing over them with thumbs up (and no, I don't believe they were thumbing a lift - A comment I think that was made in jest, but it's hard to tell on here sometimes).


I'm a retired British Officer. I cannot get worked up by a Regiment soldier
giving a 'thumbs up' with his dead enemy in the background. Well done that man! Pity there arent a couple of dozen in the background.


Did they not teach you about the rules of war in Sandhurst Basil, or is that seen as acceptable behaviour? Was military discipline not important in your outfit?

To quote Clint Eastwood in 'Unforgiven'

:ugh:

Don't you have any Clausewitz or Sun Tzu you can hit me with Hempy? I mean, Clint Eastwood?? Well, seeing as you don't seem to be able to tell the difference between Hollywood and real-life, I'll come back at you with an Eastwood quote of my own; "Man has got to know his limitations." (Dirty Harry). I think you've found yours.

As a final reflection, I'd like to reproduce the speech made by Colonel Tim Collins ahead of the Iraq War. It makes no mention of denigrating your enemies after death, or the taking of trophy photos, and there is nothing'PC' or 'tree-hugging' in his words.

The overriding theme of this speech (to me at least) is to fight hard, but not to lose sight of common human decency to your fellow man, enemy or not, and to treat them with respect at all times (bold mine).

"We go to liberate, not to conquer.
We will not fly our flags in their country. We are entering Iraq to free a people and the only flag which will be flown in that ancient land is their own.
Show respect for them.
There are some who are alive at this moment who will not be alive shortly.
Those who do not wish to go on that journey, we will not send.
As for the others, I expect you to rock their world.
Wipe them out if that is what they choose.
But if you are ferocious in battle remember to be magnanimous in victory.
Iraq is steeped in history.
It is the site of the Garden of Eden, of the Great Flood and the birthplace of Abraham.
Tread lightly there.
You will see things that no man could pay to see
- and you will have to go a long way to find a more decent, generous and upright people than the Iraqis.
You will be embarrassed by their hospitality even though they have nothing.
Don't treat them as refugees for they are in their own country.
Their children will be poor, in years to come they will know that the light of liberation in their lives was brought by you.
If there are casualties of war then remember that when they woke up and got dressed in the morning they did not plan to die this day.
Allow them dignity in death.
Bury them properly and mark their graves.
It is my foremost intention to bring every single one of you out alive.
But there may be people among us who will not see the end of this campaign.
We will put them in their sleeping bags and send them back.
There will be no time for sorrow.
The enemy should be in no doubt that we are his nemesis and that we are bringing about his rightful destruction.
There are many regional commanders who have stains on their souls and they are stoking the fires of hell for Saddam.
He and his forces will be destroyed by this coalition for what they have done.
As they die they will know their deeds have brought them to this place. Show them no pity.
It is a big step to take another human life.
It is not to be done lightly.
I know of men who have taken life needlessly in other conflicts.
I can assure you they live with the mark of Cain upon them.
If someone surrenders to you then remember they have that right in international law and ensure that one day they go home to their family.
The ones who wish to fight, well, we aim to please.
If you harm the regiment or its history by over-enthusiasm in killing or in cowardice, know it is your family who will suffer.
You will be shunned unless your conduct is of the highest - for your deeds will follow you down through history.
We will bring shame on neither our uniform or our nation.
It is not a question of if, it's a question of when.
We know he has already devolved the decision to lower commanders, and that means he has already taken the decision himself.
If we survive the first strike we will survive the attack.
As for ourselves, let's bring everyone home and leave Iraq a better place for us having been there.
Our business now is North.


I look forward to reading your responses (it would be a dull forum if we all agreed all the time). Best, MTW.

[Sun Who]

My OP appears to have polarised the PPrune community somewhat, which is interesting because it can get a bit homogeneous on here.

I think there's a sensible discussion hidden amongst some of the posts, and it revolves around a (natural) tension between the following two factors:

1. The human issues associate with a young man not being dead and being glad that his enemy is (which seems fine to me).

2. The suggestion (which I agree with) that taking photos of the enemy that can be construed (rightly or wrongly) as celebratory, is wrong.

It's a recognition of this tension that resulted in the moratorium on taking photos like this. The senior leadership acknowledged this tension and acted to remove the risk by issuing an order that photos of this nature were not to be taken. That order was intended to protect everyone; servicemen and women, the dignity of a poorly educated, mislead (but still deadly) enemy and, most importantly, the UK's strategic intent.

The interesting thing to me is not that young men take stupid photos, but that the order was ignored. If the rocks in question are to be punished, that's what it should be for - disobeying an order. I hope being found guilty would come with a proportionate punishment.

Sun.

[Hempy]

Sun Who

I agree entirely that anyone found guilty of breaking orders here should be disciplined. I do not agree that the subject of the photo should be disciplined unless he was complicit in the breaking of said orders.

melmoth

I wont dignify your post with a reply other than to say that I have extended you the same courtesy you seem to have extended others...I didn't read it after the first line.

[Mil-26Man]

I wont dignify your post with a reply other than to say that I have extended you the same courtesy you seem to have extended others...I didn't read it after the first line.




Well, having spent a very pleasant evening looking at pictures of cats I am
now back to argue with strangers.


Why wouldn't you dignifiy the first line of melmoth's post with a reply? I don't get it.

[Hempy]

Why? Because it seems he got all caught up on the origin of the quote I used rather than concentrating on the substance if the quote itself. Which is fine I guess, if that suits his agenda, but it also shows the underlying strength of his argument.

[Mil-26Man]

Ah, I get it. So you didn't read it after the 24th line, is what you mean to say.

[melmothtw]

Because it seems he got all caught up on the origin of the quote I used rather than concentrating on the substance if the quote itself.


Hempy, a quote only has substance if its origin is credible - you can't divorce one from the other.

A quote from a fictional Hollywood movie has no credibility in relation to the topic being discussed here, and therefore no substance.

You get that, right?

[melmothtw]

So let's put your quote aside then Hempy, and look at what you said after:





Yes they were both trying to kill each other, and I doubt anything was going through either of their minds other than the immediate action. My point is that the bleeding hearts who are complaining about the degrading nature of the photo seem to be suggesting that the fact that the photo was taken is in some way more degrading to the dead guy or his family than the fact that he was dead in the first place...but they have no problem with him being dead.

You can't go feeling sorry for someone after lawfully killing them; and by that I don't mean the soldiers doing the shooting - I mean the politicians (and by extension the voters) who sent them there. It's called 'hypocrisy'...


Would you call Colonel Tim Collins a 'bleeding heart'? You can read his views on the treatment of dead enemy combatants in my post (you say you haven't read it, but I suspect you have). There is no hypocrisy in the mantra of fight hard, but show respect to the dead.

[oldpax]

Is this what you are alluding to with Colonel Tim Collins ?Good for him but I have not read the Talibans "rules of engagement?I recall the RAF issuing "Gooly" chits to pilots ,I suppose that made them feel better should they fall into the hands of the enemy .Its the same old sh.t only more technology involved but in the end its all dirty fighting and blood being spilt .The photos mean nothing ,only to the person who was involved.

[melmothtw]

I'm not alluding to anything with my reference to Colonel Tim Collins, except to shoot down the misguided and incorrect notion that you have to be a 'bleeding heart liberal' to advocate showing respect for the dead.

I haven't seen the Taliban's rules of engagement either, but this discussion isn't about the Taliban but how British (and by extension Western) soldiers conduct themselves on the battlefield.

I'm sorry, but the ramifications of these photos are likely to have an impact far beyond those persons directly involved in them, in terms of showing to those we are trying to win over (not just in Afghanistan) our values as a society.

It's actually quite surreral to have to be explaining this, is it not self-evident and blindingly obvious?

[perthsaint]

Yes, it is self-evident and blindingly obvious.

There have always been stupid people and always will be.

[CoffmanStarter]

I just hope and pray that we don't have another Lee Rigby type "retaliation" here in the UK as a result of these pictures ... which is almost certainly a heightened risk now.

[Hempy]

Ah, I get it. So you didn't read it after the 24th line, is what you mean to say.

Solid response.....

yes champ, you are right. Although I meant the 'first line addressed to me', grammatically I should have said 'the 24th line'. To be honest, unlike you I had neither the inclination nor paucity of argument to feel bothered to actually count, but thanks to your valuable contribution the world is a better place. Kudos.

meltmoth, millions who quote the bible would disagree, but again, from the comfortable, government provided first world safety of your living room it must be easy to assume an intellectual superiority as well as moral one. Write a letter...in fact why not visit a combat unit in person and express to the warriors there your displeasure, I'm sure they'd appreciate your opinions on the subject.

[melmothtw]

in fact why not visit a combat unit in person


I have done, several times. I have nothing but respect for what the soldiers have been doing and continue to do out in Afghanistan and elsewhere. Images such as this are only going to make their job harder.

[Sun Who]

Following up on the observation I made a few posts ago, that this debate seems polarised, I make the following additional observations:

1. Those who see no issues with the images in question seem also to think that those who do are 'bleeding heart liberals' and that assertions suggesting the photos are inappropriate or wrong, in some way suggest weakness or a lack of combat experience on the part of those making the suggestion. The implicit assumption there is that anyone who has seen combat would be bound to agree there's nothing wrong with the images. When this turns out not to be the case, a strong and indignant response seems to follow.

2. Those who do see issues with the images, seem to think that those who don't are stupid, ignorant, or unaware of the subtly and nuance of COIN/modern warfare/grand strategy (take your pick). The implicit assumption in this position, is that holding an alternative view necessarily makes people stupid. It doesn't.

It seems to me that neither position is particularly useful. There is an inescapable duality in the need to be both strong, ruthless and smart when pursuing politics by violent means. I think Col Collins understood that and his words reflected it.

What are the odds that we can continue this discussion without any more ad hominem posts?

Sun.

[kaikohe76]

Is the most Senior RAF Officer & other high ranking brass going to stick with & support their own personnel, or as I suspect may happen, those who place their lives on the line each day, will be hung out to dry.

[Tourist]

Normally I would agree that ad hominem attacks bring nothing to a discussion, however in this case they are relevant.

Posters on here are attacking the character of the person in the photo, thus the character of the posters are themselves pertinent.

Who the hell are they to impugn the name of a soldier who has just killed the enemy in combat from the safety of their armchair?

When a debate involves facts rather than opinion then ad hominem brings nothing to the table.

When cowards snipe from coddled and anonymity then character is reasonable as a point of discussion.

[Finningley Boy]

Its a very sticky matter Kaikohe, on the one hand it isn't a good thing for soldiers to convey a sense of gratification at the death of an enemy, however, they may feel inwardly. On the other hand, I get the feeling that neither was gloating or making a circus out of it. I find much easier to honestly believe any smiles, if they are indeed smiling, will be prompted by a sense utter relief that they've just survived a particularly nasty shoot out, and on the winning side, which at one point would have appeared to be going all the wrong way. As for the air staff, they have to be careful which way the media will jump, if in an attempt to place the matter in a more rounded perspective, someone on the BBC or Sky manages to radically twist their words. The next stage may even be calls for resignation, such is the way of things these days. "Trial by media" never were more true words spoken.

FB:)

[melmothtw]

Tourist, by its nature this forum is an anonymous platform so I'm not sure what your beef is with us discussing events that are of interest to us. It's rather rich to call us cowards from behind the veil of your own anonymity.

FB, this story hasn't been orchestrated by Sky News or the BBC, and there is no trial by media here. The media has reported the story (which is their job to do), and these soldiers will be judged by their senior officers. All we are doing here is discussing the issue.

[langleybaston]

Did they not teach you about the rules of war in Sandhurst

So, what are they, other than "get there firstest with the mostest and kick **** out of them?"

Yes, I know my Clausewitz, and indeed Machiavelli, and that "obstacles not covered by fire are not obstacles", and the schwerpunkt, and defeating the main body of the enemy in defence of his capital, assymetric warfare and the rest of it.

But which rules of war are in question here? Geneva Convention? Not signed by Taliban. Not honoured by any enemy we have fought since 1900. Rules of Engagement?

[melmothtw]

The clue is in the title if this thread langleybaston; 'Inappropriate' trophy photos. The reason this is a story and that we are discussing it at all is that to most right-minded people these pictures are not right.

I am curious, for those who can't see anything wrong with these images, what has a British soldier got to do before you say; "Hang on, that's just not right"? Trophy photos don't seem to be an issue, and neither does executing prisoners (as evidenced by the reaction to the marine helmet-cam footage some months back). Is there a point where you stop making excuses, or are you blind to any and all transgressions by our armed forces?

[Boudreaux Bob]

Armchair Generals....known Huggy Fluffs...all seem to see something sinister in these innocuous photos.

You see far worse photos from Traffic Accidents or Motorcycle wrecks.

Some folks just have nothing else to do than look for something to be offended by when we see photographic proof of Good Guys winning over Bad Guys.

We should determine their motives for their wailing and crying.

It shall not be flattering to them when we do.

[Hempy]

Spot on langley. Apparently though, according to melmoth, our russian helicopter friend and some random half bird, its ok for the soldiers we've sent into harms way to blow some Afghan peasants brains all over Kandahar province, as long as his empty corpse is treated as a sacred object. Anyone would think the subject in the photo had decapitated his victim, eaten the heart out of his chest, and was pictured pissing into his dead skull..

The hypocrisy is choking.

[melmothtw]

This is all becoming just a bit circular now, so will give it a couple of days to see if someone has anything new to add. Best, MTW.

[Sun Who]

This is all becoming just a bit circular now, so will give it a couple of days to see if someone has anything new to add. Best, MTW. Ditto.

Sun.

[langleybaston]

Mel mouth: I did ask a question based on one of your assertions.

It was:

But which rules of war are in question here?

You may choose not to answer.

[melmothtw]

Go on then langleybaston I'll have a quick bite (though note my moniker is Melmothtw).

The UK Military Manual (1958) states: “The dead must be protected against … maltreatment.”
The manual further states that “maltreatment of dead bodies” is a war crime."
In its chapter on internal armed conflict, the manual states: “The dead must not be … ill-treated.”*

Now what constitutes maltreament is open to interpretation and will ultimately be up to senior officers/the courts to decide. Regardless, many will find such trophy pictures as unacceptable and reprehensible.

Best.

[Genstabler]

The Uk Military Manual (1958) states........

Intersting. Is that manual the current moral authority on how to wage war? It sounds a bit dusty. Are you sure that it hasn't been updated or replaced by a more recent document?

Perhaps the latest PC version states that, if, in this age of universal media coverage, you are photographed in proximity to the corpse of an enemy you have just killed in a deadly firefight, under no circumstances must you look pleased, because that can lead to a public perception that you are dishonouring your erstwhile mortal enemy, and that will upset some elements of the public, on whose behalf you killed him at risk of your own life.

[Finningley Boy]

FB, this story hasn't been orchestrated by Sky News or the BBC, and there is no trial by media here. The media has reported the story (which is their job to do), and these soldiers will be judged by their senior officers. All we are doing here is discussing the issue.

Indeed, Melmoth old chap, we are merely discussing the issue, but my take on this is that, I can't help feeling that if the CAS or Commandant R.A.F.Regiment were to pop up in the press in the next couple of days to offer an explanation along the lines of young men still high on adrenalin after the battle, the reaction is unlikely to be to accept the explanation but more likely raised eye brows and calls from the more subjective commentators for him to resign for taking such a dismissive attitude.

I'm not saying that behaving like some redneck Deer Hunter posing with his successful kill is the way to carry on, certainly not, but these lads may well have been acting with that sense of sudden relief which catches us all behaving, shall we say, in a rather embarrassing manner at times. In any case I understand they've been returned operational service since hopefully we'll hear no more about it.

FB:)

[Two's in]

Quite what the emotions of these people were after the engagement is immaterial the moment some numbskull decided to take a picture. The behavior might well have been heat of the moment, but capturing it on film is not. It is desecration of the dead, plain and simple. You don't have to be Christian, Muslim or non-affiliated looney to understand the repercussions this type of photograph brings.

If you don't understand that common decency is not only what separates us from the barbarism of those we fight, but defines who we are, there's probably a lot more about a civilized society that will be lost on you. As you suspect Melmoth, this thread is like pig-wrestling, the pig loves it and you get covered in ****e.

As for the armchair warrior pitch, if you have to tell people you're in charge, you're not in charge.

[Tourist]

Show me a definition from anywhere that says taking a picture whilst smiling next to a dead body is desecration. I challenge you.

[Two's in]

Maybe you should read and consider your post in a quieter moment.

[Mil-26Man]

Show me a definition from anywhere that says taking a picture whilst smiling
next to a dead body is desecration. I challenge you.


:ugh: The mind boggles!!!

[kaikohe76]

Finningley Boy,

Many thanks for your reply to my post, well thought out & absolutely correct.

[Pontius Navigator]

Biggus, fair point, but I admit to thinking that Conqueror's Jolly Roger was inappropriate at the time as the fuss over the Belgrano was just ramping up but I don't think anyone commented then.

For those that remember, was the Sun headline appropriate then?

The real rat is the one who posted the pictures.

[Navaleye]

I disagree over the Belgrano. Although a 200nm exclusion zone had been declared, on April 26th, the government announced that any Arg warship acting in a manner potentially hostile to UK forces outside the 12 mile limit could be sunk. This is what happened and rightly so. Many of us at the time regret the fact that Conx did not attack and sink the two escorting destroyers. Even worse, if Splendid had not been mis-managed by Northwood, we could have sunk:

25 de Mayo
Hercules
Santissima Trinidad
Belgrano + plus two escorts

All in one day. Effectively the total destruction of the enemy navy which is what every Naval officer is trained to do since Nelson. It could have been a 20th Century Trafalgar, but a missed opportunity. Every Naval officer in war is trained to sail the sea lanes like pirates sinking the enemy wherever you find them. Hence the Jolly Roger.

[500N]

"For those that remember, was the Sun headline appropriate then?"

Caused a bit if a stir from memory.


Edit
Just remembered - wasn't it "Gotcha" in big, bold letters ?

[Navaleye]

Only among BBC lefties and HM Disloyal opposition :}

[longer ron]

Not too many detractors on here Navaleye - probably !

If I remember correctly the large loss of life was mainly due to their own incompetence with watertight doors etc !

rgds LR

[500N]

Yes, not many detractors here I would think.

And not too many in the UK at the time, although I was at school
and got all my info from the newspapers.

The only debate I remember was the legit of sinking it where it was.

[Navaleye]

Yes that is true. If you plan to attack an enemy and are positioned to do, it is reasonable to assume that your opponent might notice and pre-empt. Belgrano was not at action stations. If she had been she may have stayed afloat.

[500N]

She was at sea and maneuvering to attack our task force / get into a better position, I haven't read the Captains views but am surprised they didn't expect British Subs to be in the area and prone to attack.

Re the water tight doors, did they just not do the right thing when struck
and close them or was it too far gone straight away ?

[Navaleye]

They knew we had SSNs down there. 7 boats at one point. They thought that they could float around and not be attacked. Belgrano was not closed up, but by the way neither was Sheffield 2 days later. Procedure has been tightened since that silly mistake. It won't happen again.

[Genstabler]

This incident, and the reaction to it, is really about morality. What is morally acceptable, to whom and in what circumstances? I suggest that there has to be a different, not lower, standard of morality applied to the military to enable them to function effectively in applying lethal force when necessary in defence of our national interests. That standard may be difficult for a non-combatant to understand and accept.

Is it morally acceptable for a soldier ever to be photographed with the body of a dead enemy? Of course it is. So what makes it become morally unacceptable, reprehensible, illegal, even punishable? Clearly not the fact that the photograph was taken at all. The fact that is was taken by another soldier instead of by an accredited media journalist? The fact that it was published in the public media? The fact that the soldier looked pleased? The fact that the photographs have subsequently been labelled by someone as "trophy photos", there-bye unleashing the inevitable stereotype of the bloodthirsty, insensitive, immoral, brutalised soldiery so beloved of the liberal left?

All would be well, of course, if senior military commanders showed some balls, stood up to unreasonable political PC micro-management and robustly defended their foot soldiers. On recent form that seems unlikely to happen.

[500N]

"7 boats at one point."


Jesus, never knew we had that many down there.
I thought 2 !

While talking about Subs, the question that I just can't seem to find the
answer to is, did an Argie sub fire a torpedo at our ships and / or aircraft carrier and did it hit a ship or the carrier ?

I vaguely remember reading on here that the carrier had a dent
from the impact of a Torpedo.

Any comments ?

[Navaleye]

I believe we had six SSNs and the SSK Onyx on station in the 2nd half of the conflict. their is no morality in naval war. You are there to sink the enemy nothing more.

Re enemy torpedo attacks. Little doubt that Alacrity was attacked by San Luis. Invincible claims a suspected torpedo attack but I have seen no conclusive evidence to support to this. More tomorrow.

[oldpax]

After all these posts I looked at the photo again and realized no Taliban could afford trainers like the ones on the alleged body,its a faked photo!!!!

[Basil]

melmoth, Did they not teach you about the rules of war in Sandhurst Basil, or is that seen as acceptable behaviour? Was military discipline not important in your outfit?
Your arrogant response barely deserves an answer but:
The dead enemy is in the picture. His body is not being degraded, mutilated or urinated upon. What's your problem? Are you posting on behalf of the enemy? Are you an International Marxist Lefty Liberal?

p.s. Although I served in the REME, I have not been an Army officer so, apart from reports from Army acquaintances, have little idea of what is taught at Sandhurst.

[Tourist]

Mil26 and twos in

I'll take that as a "no" then.

My own search tends to suggest that only a sacred object can be desecrated, and dead bodies are not sacred in any religion I know of, plus smiling next to does not meet the Wikipedia or any dictionary online definition that I can find.

[Scottie66]

Amazing how heated this thread has become and all over a photo…and we wonder why the media loves to publish such things…

Unless any of the posters on this thread were actually there when the photo was taken, we cannot KNOW the context in which it was taken. It could be a “trophy” picture taken, or it could be a soldier (RAF Regt) confirming that the enemy is dead, or it could be something else. We don’t actually KNOW.

But ask yourselves this: how many of you have seen WSV of a kinetic event and cheered or clapped or smiled when the weapon impacts on the enemy target? Is that any different to a [assumed] trophy photo? Is it, in fact, worse?

[melmothtw]

Ah, evoking the 'Wiki' defence eh Tourist? Well, so long as Wiki finds no fault then I guess we're all ok then.

I can't believe I really have to say this (again) but here goes; this isn't about semantics as to what does and does not constitute desecration/ill treatment, or whatever you want to call it. We know you don't consider dead bodies to be worthy of respect or protection in any way


I really have no interest in my or anybody elses body after death,


and that when a loved one of yours dies you throw them in a landfill, or wherever. However, I would wager that most right minded people (including many here who see no problem with these images) would disagree strongly with that, as demonstrated by the repatriation scenes at Wootton Basset and lately Carterton.

To most people outside of PPrune Land (you can label them International Marxist Lefty Liberals, or whatever you please - I prefer 'normal' people), trophy photos of British servicemen gloating over the bodies of dead enemy combatants is wrong, irrespective of the semantics of what constitutes desecration or not.

Basil,

p.s. Although I served in the REME, I have not been an Army officer so, apart from reports from Army acquaintances, have little idea of what is taught at Sandhurst

My apologies, when you said in your previous post I'm a retired British Officer. I took that to mean you used to be an army officer. So you were at Cranwell then? Do they have different standards regarding the conduct of troops than Sandhurst teaches?

With regard to the comments about the Belgrano, I have nothing to add to those as that is not the issue being discussed here, except to reiterate my earlier position that celebrating a successful military mission is not the same as celebrating over dead bodies of men. I would have taken issue with the Belgrano celerations had HMS Conqueror surfaced and its crew taken trophy photos of the dead Argentine sailors floating in the water, but they didn't.

As to the usual refrain of 'you weren't there, you don't know!', no, I wasn't there. As everyone is doing here I am commenting on the story as it has appeared in the open source media. I would be happier than most to find out that this was all a big misunderstanding, and that these soldiers were quite innocently thumbing a lift or whatever.

[melmothtw]

For those still unsure, go to about 4m20s for a lesson in the proper treatment of dead enemy combatants LiveLeak.com - Burial of a Sea Harrier pilot. 4th May 1982 (comments)

[BEagle]

Frankly, I'm appalled and astonished that anyone could see any justification whatsoever for being photographed grinning and giving a 'thumbs up' gesture by the corpse of an enemy combatant.

There is no legitimate excuse for such behaviour and I doubt whether those involved can expect any leniency. Nor should they be shown any.

[Basil]

BEagle, Frankly, I'm appalled and astonished that anyone could see any justification whatsoever for being photographed grinning and giving a 'thumbs up' gesture by the corpse of an enemy combatant.

There is no legitimate excuse for such behaviour and I doubt whether those involved can expect any leniency. Nor should they be shown any.
Regret to say that I utterly disagree.

[melmothtw]

BEagle,



Quote:




Frankly, I'm
appalled and astonished that anyone could see any justification whatsoever for
being photographed grinning and giving a 'thumbs up' gesture by the corpse of an
enemy combatant.

There is no legitimate excuse for such behaviour and I
doubt whether those involved can expect any leniency. Nor should they be shown
any.


Regret to say that I utterly disagree.


I think we'll just have to concede that our moral compasses are all alligned somewhat differently.

[Genstabler]

Now that's more like it!
And Tourist is an ex RN aviator by the way. You've insulted him twice!

[melmothtw]

And Tourist is an ex RN aviator by the way. You've insulted him twice


Then frankly I'm even more astonished. Three times?

[Boudreaux Bob]

Melm....hewing to False North are you?

Beags....I don't suppose your being photographed next to a dead Enemy Combatant will ever be possible....or has in the past for that matter....Thumbs or no.

It's a very long way from the Mess or Club to where that kind of thing happens.



Only Article 3 of the Geneva Accords (Convention) is required to be complied with during Operations in Afghanistan while in combat with the Taliban.


In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:

(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed 'hors de combat' by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

(b) taking of hostages;

(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;

(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

(2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.

An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.

The Parties to the conflict should further endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the present Convention.

The application of the preceding provisions shall not affect the legal status of the Parties to the conflict.

[melmothtw]

Nothing wrong with my moral compass Bob.


Thumbs or no


Actually, it is the thumbs-up that goes to the very heart of this matter. No one is saying that it is improper to be photographed in the vicinty of a dead body in the middle of a war zone (even International Marxist Lefty Liberals like me get that). The issue (and again, the ONLY issue) is when such photographs are staged to denigrate the dead (with thumbs-up in this case) - intentional or not.

I mentioned it earlier, but let me ask you the question - would it have been acceptable for HMS Conqueror to have surfaced for its crew to take trophy photos of dead Argentine sailors floating in the water? ('acceptable' from a moral standpoint, not an operational one of surfacing a submarine in a war zone)?


It's a very long way from the Mess or Club to where that kind of thing
happens.


It was a very long way from the Mess for the Argentines in the video I posted. Most of them were likely just conscripts, and yet they showed how dead enemy combatants should be treated.

Edited to add: If you can't decide for yourself what is right or wrong, and need a set of accords to tell you how you should or should not behave Bob, I'd suggest it is you who is hewing to False North.

[Party Animal]

Ignoring the east v west of the moral compass argument for a moment and also ignoring the individual who took the photos (who we all perceive as being guilty of disobeying orders). Just what order, rule, Queens Regulation or article under the Air Force Act, has been broken by the guys in the photo? Is their anything that states they should not be smiling with a thumbs up next to the carcass of a dead enemy?

If the claim is of 'denigration', then this is a subjective argument and short of mutilating the corpse etc, is clearly subject to a difference of opinion by several individuals on here. So for those outraged, just what would you charge them with?

[Navaleye]

Argentine soldiers shot at the crew of an army Scout helicopter after it ditched. This is in breach of the Geneva convention is it not?

[melmothtw]

Argentine soldiers shot at the crew of an army Scout helicopter after it ditched. This is in breach of the Geneva convention is it not?

Yes it is. I read about that incident, and I read that senior UK military officials attributed it to the actions of 'peasant conscripts' and not indicative of the wider Argentine armed forces. Still, it was in breach of the Geneva convention and so should be condemned (and no doubt was).

What is your point in relation to this thread though? Is it to suggest that my highlighting the respectful and proper behaviour of those Argentines at the funeral of the dead British pilot is null-and-void because of the reprehensible action of a different group of Argentine soldiers?

By that reasoning, all UK servicemen in Afghanistan should be judged by the actions of those in these photographs, which would not be correct.

What are your thoughts on my HMS Conqueror analogy Navaleye?

[melmothtw]

If the claim is of 'denigration', then this is a subjective argument and short of mutilating the corpse etc, is clearly subject to a difference of opinion by several individuals on here. So for those outraged, just what would you charge them with?

Hello Party Animal. I am not current on the tenets of military law I'm afraid (beyond that which I can Google), and so couldn't comment on what (if any) charges these soldiers should face. My 'outrage' isn't based on a breach of military law, but in the immoral act of denigrating the corpses of dead enemy combatants.

Yes, it is highly subjective.

[barnstormer1968]

Melmothtw

Going back to post #106 you said:

You assume correctly barnstormer1968, and I am puzzled as to why you would post it given that you already seem to know that it is not the same as a photo of British soldiers gloating over the bodies of dead enemy combatants. If it is to show me that bad things happen in war, I get it already.

Why are you puzzled? Are you stuck in a rut or unwilling to think about whom is doing what in the pic I posted.
Spend some time looking at both pics again and it may become obvious to you, but have a look with an open mind............that way you may not say 'gloat' for a third time when you have no idea what the gunner was thinking, and may realise the thread is about a gunner and not a British soldier. Who knows the dead Taliban fighter could be from the UK and so would technically be a British (born) soldier. :)

Out of interest, as you seem to feel there was disrespect Shown in the Afghan pic what are your feelings of the later arrangements for the Taliban fallen after the pic where NOTHING was actually being done to the corpse.


Edit:
The whole disrespect thing within British forces always amused me. I was allowed to blow someone's brains out in front of his wife and kids if he was a threat, but wasn't allowed to call him a rude or insulting name as that was against the rules.

[melmothtw]

Are you stuck in a rut

I am getting a certain sense of Groundhog Day!

Right, to the photos (the one you posted and the one that is the subject of the thread).

The one you posted is a moment captured in time of a brutal and violent incident in which a man died. The photo is not staged, and not meant to denigrate the poor chap who is receiving the last rites.

The other photo is staged by British soldiers in which they denigrate (intentionally or not) the bodies of dead enemy combatants.

Yes, both images are brutal and emotive and show and capture the horrors or war (the Northern Ireland image more than the Afghan image as it happens), but there can be absolutely no comparison made between the 'intent' behind the two images, and that is where the morality of the issue comes in.

Please tell me you get that.

what are your feelings of the later arrangements for the Taliban fallen after the pic where NOTHING was actually being done to the corpse.

I'm not sure what it is you're referring to here, but so long as the corpse was being treated respectfully I have no issues. I think that's been my position throughout.

[Navaleye]

Melmothtw,

If you Google "Bismarck survivors photo" you will see a picture of those that made it off the Bismarck being picked up by the Dorsetshire. Most didn't make it and some are clearly dead. The picture is a matter of historical record. Is that wrong? Dorsetshire was credited with sinking the Bismarck as per your analogy.

[melmothtw]

If you Google "Bismarck survivors photo" you will see a picture of those that made it off the Bismarck being picked up by the Dorsetshire. Most didn't make it and some are clearly dead. The picture is a matter of historical record. Is that wrong?


Naveleye, I refer you to my previous post below:


No one is saying that it is improper to be photographed in the vicinty of a
dead body in the middle of a war zone (even International Marxist Lefty Liberals like me get that). The issue (and again, the ONLY issue) is when such photographs are staged to denigrate the dead (with thumbs-up in this case) - intentional or not.


Now, you tell me. Were the sailors aboard the Dorsetshire being photographed giving the thumbs-up with dead German sailors floating in the background? If not (as I suspect is the case), then no, it is not wrong.

Really, if all I have to do to answer new questions is to copy-and-paste answers I have already given to old questions, then I think it really is time to let this thread run on for a bit before checking back in a couple of days (again) to see if anyone has come up with something new.

Best, MTW.

[Boudreaux Bob]

it was in breach of the Geneva convention and so should be condemned (and no doubt was).

But not like a fellow named Morant and his Chum, however.

[langleybaston]

I am confused here. Are we on about Rules [as have been alluded to but none quoted that fit the bill] or morality, which necessitates a belief system?

I am a practising Christian. The 39 articles of faith assure me it is lawful for Christian men, at the commandment of the Magistrate, to wear weapons, and serve in the wars. So killing the bloke is OK by me, totally OK.
Being pleased about it? Yes, OK by me. I am pleased too.
Thumbs up? No problem here.
Photo taken, ditto.
Publication not a good idea, gets the fluffies all upset, best not go there.

Lesson to be learned: kill Taliban, be happy, don't take pictures.

[melmothtw]

Last edited by langleybaston; 12th May 2014 at 16:17. Reason: inaccuracy

You said it

Sorry, couldn't resist ;-)

[Party Animal]

My 'outrage' isn't based on a breach of military law, but in the immoral act of denigrating the corpses of dead enemy combatants.




Melmothw - to be fair, I think the vast majority of us would agree with you completely about the comment above. However, in this particular case, there are many on here who do not agree with you that we think the photos denigrate the dead enemy in any way, shape or form.

I also do not think any rules have been broken and therefore I hope their is no case to answer - apart from the photographer of course.

[langleybaston]

Sorry, couldn't resist ;-)


perhaps a little self discipline would be a good thing?

I have you down as a troll, and have now given up attempting to educate you, as I suspect have others.

If I need a laugh, I shall pop back and have another look.

m
Meanwhile be grateful that there are those who are busy protecting your fluffy arse for you.

[Mil-26Man]

So thats how it is then now? If you don't agree with the PPrune party-line you're a troll? Doesn't sound like a forum I want to be a part of, to be honest.

On the subject of trolling langleybaston, it's you who has been throwing the personal insults around (fluffy arse, Mel Mouth) not melmoth.

[melmothtw]

Melmothw - to be fair, I think the vast majority of us would agree with you completely about the comment above.

The evidence of the last 178 posts tells me differently I'm afraid Party Animal.

However, in this particular case, there are many on here who do not agree with you that we think the photos denigrate the dead enemy in any way, shape or form.

On that, we'll just have to agree to differ.

I also do not think any rules have been broken and therefore I hope their is no case to answer - apart from the photographer of course.

If no rules have been broken, there's no case for the photographer to answer. No?

I have you down as a troll

Yep, you've got my number langleybaston. I joined Pprune just so that I could wait three years for you to join, just to wait a further five years so that I could troll you. Well done you for calling me out.

[Wrathmonk]

langleybaston

There used to be a warning on the home page of PPRuNe about journalists using this site to gather quotes or statistics from "aviation professionals" to support a story line (quote marks deliberately used as many on here are not aviation professionals [and on this board in particular have no current, or previous, connection whatsoever with Military Aviation]).

The warning seems to have been removed.

melmothtw, by his own admission, is a journo.

Just saying ;)

Mil-26Man

Doesn't sound like a forum I want to be a part of, to be honest

Bye. Your contribution will be missed.....

[melmothtw]

Yes, I am a journalist and have always been upfront and open about it. Specifically, I am a defence correspondent with my specialism in military aviation (hence my participation in this forum since 2006).

You don't have to worry about me lifting your comments for quotes, as I always attribute my sources and only interview people who know what they're talking about.

For the all the flak I cop on here sometimes, it's always amusing to see my work regularly posted by others as an informed reference for discussion given I'm regarded by some as a troll. It's even funnier when I get shouted down for not knowing what I am talking about when commenting on my own stories!!

[Whenurhappy]

MM,

I for one, who is still serving, agree with your exposition you gave several pages back. The photo is inappropriate at many levels and those who claim the 'thumbs up' was a confirmatory sign to show the body was clear are being disingenuous, or stupid, or both. Whether the photo, or any acts or ommissions surrounding it, constitute a 'war crime' is best left to the SPA and the chain of command. I would say, though, that both the photographer and the airman in the photo know the rules and equally, should have known the impact such photos would have. It smacks of immaturity, and probably little else.

For all those countering the allegation of a war crime with lines about the Taliban behaviour are missing the point completely. It is not part of the British Military culture to celebrate killing the enemy; surely someone acting professionally should realise this and have acted in a grown-up manner. Perhaps the individuals involved in taking the photo may have been 'pumped up' and thus this affected their judgement; these arguments are best given in mitigation but not as an excuse. I think the use of the 'innapropriate' is proper; this hardly rates as the descreation of bodies as sadly witnessed elsewhere or the unconscionable execution of a wounded EP by Marine Sgt A.

During my tour in AFG I saw body parts on the street after a suicide bombing, during a visit to a Ministry in Kabul. It was not my first reaction to whip out my camera and take photos of dismembered limbs, and a little way off, a decapitated head (probably that of the bomber), but it was a feeling of pity that a young man had been subborned into believing that he could help his fellow Muslims by killing himself and innocent bystanders. Admittedly I had not been in a TIC with this guy, but if I had slotted the guy I still don't think I would have raced over and got my mates to take a 'wish you were here, Mum' photo.

Those who know me also know a bit about my professional and personal interest in COIN and COIN-related intelligence from a historical perspective. Whether we like it or not, photos like this will get exploited by the bad guys and reinforce the image that the West is on a Crusade. Arguably there is more damage done in the West with images along these lines; I was talking to a friend yesterday and he said the image simply reinforced the notion of 'thick squaddies' out of control in AFG. Possibly a photo like this could have a slight deterrent effect amongst EF but let's phrase it another way: would good do photos like this do?

[melmothtw]

I appreciate your comments Whenurhappy. They mirror a number of those that have been PM'd to me over recent days, and it is very reassuring to note that a large percentage of those getting in touch to let me know their thoughts are also serving military with recent combat experience.

Like I said previously, I have nothing but respect for what our (and others) servicemen have been doing out in Afghanistan, and photos like this don't help our cause.

Best, MTW.

[Sun Who]

Melmothtw,

I started this thread and i think I've been broadly in agreement with the vast majority of what you've said. I've seen little need to contribute meaningfully as you've been doing a better job of presenting my perspective than I think I would have. You've certainly showed more stamina.

You've persisted manfully (please God don't someone tell me that's an inappropriate phrase) against willful stupidity from some and genuine disagreement from others - repetitively.

At heart, I think it's a very straightforward contention: Taking a photo of someone celebrating the death of an enemy in this way is disrespectful to the enemy (you don't have to like 'em to respect 'em. In fact, the more you hate 'em, the more you should try to respect 'em - it doesn't mean you won't happily kill 'em) and not helpful to HMTQ's strategic intent. If you need a manual to tell you that, you're beyond argument.

It reminds me of the scene in A Few Good men where Tom Cruise asks the USM PFC to show him where in the manual it shows the route to the mess. Some things you just know.

So,

I'm standing by to be rebuked, flamed, SHOUTED at etc. And I ain't answering. Na, na , na, na, na.

Kind regards,

Sun.

[melmothtw]

Again Sun Who, appreciated. Whether folks agree or not, I'm happy to have the discussion/argument to thrash it out. That's what we're all here for, right? As I said before, it would be a dull forum if we all agreed all the time.

[Vendee]

MTW, like Whenurhappy and others, I also agree with your comments.

I'm a keen amateur photographer. I still shoot b&w film and I admire some of the great war photographers like Robert Capa and Don McCullin but their work, gruesome as it was, reflected the horrors of war without triumphalism and without being disrespectful to the subjects of those photographs.

[melmothtw]

Appreciate that Vendee. I've also studied Don McCullin - about as far from a tree-hugging leftie as it's possible to get, but he never lost sight of the humanity of his subjects. Best.

[Navaleye]

I think we've listened to as much liberal/left wing claptrap as is possible.

Here is a picture to consider, so what is the difference to the original?

http://us.cdn4.123rf.com/168nwm/scrappinstac/scrappinstac0704/scrappinstac070400003/854422-grossed-out-young-boy-holding-a-dead-rat.jpg

Answer:None

Both are vermin, neither are human and I have a more respect for that rat. Well done to the Rock for shooting it.

[Sun Who]

De-humanising the enemy takes you one step closer to sharing their views.

And before you accuse me of being 'soft' or 'liberal', I'm not a journalist and have put myself in harm's way.

It's too easy to let disgust become contempt.

Sun.

[melmothtw]

I think it's time to walk away from this one Sun Who. In his final post Navaleye appears to have made it clear that he has no intention of taking this discussion forward (I suspect the same is true of others also), so probably best to knock it on the head now.

[Navaleye]

Take what forward? You asked for opinions and you got them. As a civilian I would not expect you to understand the position of any serviceman as you have not been trained accordingly. I know very little about how the Army or the RAF train their people, but the Navy emphasises aggression above anything else. Anything short of that gets you killed. Imagine the picture the other way round.

[Hangarshuffle]

I haven't even had the time to read it yet, thought this was off limits anyway?
I didn't actually feel any embarrassment or inappropriateness with the photo, in some ways, at first.
Its in the spirit of the age, in the young peoples way of doing things. The whole young world is now doing things like this.
I wouldn't hang these young RAF lads out to dry on this, no way. Your bo-locking the wrong people if you do.


And yet in a different way, on the other side of the coin, there is a photo in a WW2 book I saw of a small group of German civilians around the body of a dead RAF aircrew, probably bomber crew - fellows parachute didn't open, lying dead in a field. Its a sickening photo and I felt real outrage and disgust as a young curious lad looking at it. At the Germans that is, for it.


You cant teach the young....how to feel. And yet there's a satisfactory savagery in most of us to feel some sort of.... you know..? When a hated enemy is seen to be dead.
This is in us. No denying it.


Deep down dare I say, if you are in the serving military and you see a photo like that, you should have a part of you that says, yes! One less to fight? One less who will have a pop at me?

[melmothtw]

Imagine the picture the other way round.

Post 13

If folks still aren't sure about the right and wrongs of this, then imagine its the Taliban standing over the dead bodies of British soldiers, smiling and with their thumbs up.


Post 15


And if it was a dead US soldier lying there Boudreaux Bob? Would that be just another ho-hum Kodak moment?

Post 39

Well, as I said previously Roland, I wonder if folks would be quite so ready to offer mitigation if it were Taliban standing over dead British soldiers.

Do keep up Naveleye, I've been saying that from the get-go! Night.

[Hangarshuffle]

Yep, even non comms like me were trained to have aggression, even in the Navy.
Perhaps this faux ******* horror everyone now feels at the sight of the blood of the enemy is a sign or an indicator of how we are losing wars and conflicts?
You wont see or hear the ******* IRA sobbing about people they killed, ever. Not saying we should ever be like them.
But we started it, we invaded Afghanistan.
Wouldn't hang those RAF lads out. Give them a pat for fighting and surviving then gently remind them to show some decorum>?

[melmothtw]

Welcome to the thread Hangarshuffle, but be kind enough to read all of the posts before commenting. That way we won't all be needing to go over old ground again. Best.

[Sun Who]

So, this is my last shot, cos it is getting tedious.

Navaleye said The Navy emphasises aggression above everything elseAssuming you mean the RN, no, it doesn't. From memory (I wasn't in the RN or RM but worked extensively with them) the RM ethos was (and I believe still is):

Individual Commando Spirit + Collective Group Values

Excellence, Integrity, Self-Discipline, Humility, Courage, Determination, Unselfishness and Cheerfulness.


Of particular relevance in this context are Integrity and Self-Discipline.


That's it, my next post will be on a different thread.


Melmothtw, I look forward to a chat on other topics.


Sun.

[Navaleye]

Melmothtw,

I am sure you understand that I am not attacking you personally , but I am taking a counter position on a view I believe to be flawed and fundamentally wrong. Nothing more.

[Hangarshuffle]

RAF fighter pilots posing with buggered up bits of enemy plane? They do so, did so, always. Trophy.
Gun camera photos of people and planes blown to pieces.....this is or was show as entertainment as recently as GW1. Trophy.
The modern world has given us the camera everywhere. Soon, or perhaps already now the vision we see will be seen everywhere, via these new internet linked recording spectacles everyone will soon have.
I'm sorry, but this is just the tip of the media iceberg.

[Roland Pulfrew]

I'm happy to have the discussion/argument to thrash it out. That's what we're all here for, right? As I said before, it would be a dull forum if we all agreed all the time.

But unfortunately this is now a pointless discussion/argument. You and others strongly feel there is something wrong with these photos, whilst others strongly feel that there is nothing wrong with the images and the enemy are not being desecrated. There are lots of statements on here which are somewhat dubious - 'war crime' being one of them. Last time I was in AFG it was not 'illegal' to take a personal camera into theatre as some have claimed - maybe things have changed. Perhaps it is time to let this thread die a natural death and leave it to the police investigation; neither side is likely to persuade the other!!

[Navaleye]

I agree that we will never agree so happy to wind this one up. This has been a good debate and as always its interesting to hear both sides of the argument. Well done all.

[Whenurhappy]

Hardly left-wing twaddle!

I've just reached for Harris's 'International Law', only to realise that it's packed up again in anticipation of my next move. In essence, conventions requires States Parties (albeit erga omnes) to respect the dead (including appropriate bural rites) and thus treat bodies with dignity. I'm not sure having a grinning twerp in front of a body is particuarly dignified, so loosely, very loosely, these photos could be construed as scampering around the outer edges of undignified treatment. As I mentioned before, more a measure of immaturity of the SP involved, rather than an act to denigrate the dead - whoever they are. Whether some of the contributors to this thread like it or not, we live in a Rules-based society, even more so in the Services.

But why, oh why, do people take pictures like these - especially as there was a high chance that they'd hit the streets? Photos like these do no good to anyone; comparing them with, say, WWII images is disingenuous as well - different times, different mores. 'We didn't have women fighter pilots in 1940, therefore we shouldn't have them now' is the similar logic that has been displayed. The world has moved on guys; where I work now, a simple swear word such as 'bollox' will cause heads to turn and engender a swift rebuke. Repeated swearing could see me RTU'd without appeal, and claiming that we always used to swear at work is absolutely no defence. A colleague recently got sacked from post for circulating a very mild, sexist joke. Again, different times, different mores.

[Basil]

A colleague recently got sacked from post for circulating a very mild, sexist joke. Again, different times, different mores.
. . and I can't help feeling a degree of regret for the change.

Thank goodness my old colleagues still circulate non-PC humour :ok:

[Basil]

Whenurhappy, wasn't, perchance, this one?

A mother took her five-year-old son with her to the bank on a busy lunchtime.

They got behind a very fat woman wearing a business suit complete with pager.

After waiting patiently for a few minutes, the little boy said loudly,
"Wow, She's fat!”

The mother bent down and whispered in the little boy's ear to be quiet..

A couple more minutes passed by and the little boy stretched his arms out as far
As they would go and announced; "I'll bet her bum is this wide!"

The fat woman turned around and glared at the little boy.

The mother gave him a good telling off, and told him to be quiet.

After a brief lull, the large woman reached the front of the queue.

Just then her pager began to emit a "beep, beep, beep"
The little boy yelled out, "Run for your f*****g life, she's reversing!!"

[West Coast]

Basil

That sounds like my son.

A few years ago when he was about 7-8 we went to a diner for lunch. A very large man walked into sight. The think it, don't say it filter malfunctioned as he said to no one specifically, but within earshot of many, "that dudes huge"

The next stop was the Doctors office to have his sister's arm cast looked at. As we walked in the office, the boy saw a man without a leg, again, to no one in particular but at an elevated voice he said "that's bad". Thankfully the gentleman and his companion got a kick out of his honesty.

Next day we were in a very minor car accident. Rear ended by a young teen driver who was only in her second month of driving. Given she was new, she became very emotional and apologized profusely for rear ending us. My son, speaking this time specifically to her accepted her apology and then said " you're not a very good driver"

It's taken a few years to see the humor in it, surely didn't at the time.

[Mr C Hinecap]

Thank goodness my old colleagues still circulate non-PC humour

because those grand old traditions of misogyny, sexism and casual racism need to be maintained?

I know - it's because of the likes of me that we haven't got an Empire any more, the sun never set, gawd bless 'the Queen Muvva, etc.

[Basil]

because those grand old traditions of misogyny, sexism and casual racism need to be maintained?
Got it in one! Must go cut a withy to spank the wife for speaking back to me when she was cleaning the floor :}

[Training Risky]

because those grand old traditions of misogyny, sexism and casual racism need to be maintained?

Hardly. More the fact that freedom of expression and opinion has not (yet) been consigned to the dustbin of British history in order to satisfy such attention-seeking, perpetually-offended statists such as yourself.

You know...the ones who re-invent the definitions of such terms quoted above to suit their political needs, and constantly go looking for imagined transgressions in normal society while ignoring the real examples of oppression found around the world.:ugh:

[effortless]

Intruding on private argument here and from an outsider's perspective. What I find hard is the abject lunacy of having your identifiable mug photographed and allowing it to be posted in such a stupid way. Even worse, the moron who thought it funny to post it. Do these people not read the guardian?

[Wander00]

The world has gone mad my brothers, witness the poor guy on BBC Devon, and now we have sandwich shops who will only do halal so as not to offend the muslims, which is as daft as only selling vegetarian sandwiches in a general sandwich shop.


But to continue the thread drift on child-speak, 20 years ago Mrs W was parking the car on a steeply sloping car park in Honiton. After sweating at a few "forward and backwards" she was in, at which point Master W, then 5, said" Mum, if you had reversed in you would not have had that trouble". Mrs W speechless (now there's a one-off!)

[Hempy]

You know...the ones who re-invent the definitions of such terms quoted above to suit their political needs, and constantly go looking for imagined transgressions in normal society while ignoring the real examples of oppression found around the world.:ugh:

This is the most accurate thing I have read on this whole sorry thread, and exactly what I mean when I call them hypocrites.

If they are so outraged about a smiling soldier next to a dead enemy surely then they MUST be positively apoplectic about all the innocent civilians killed every day in Iraq for example?

I actually think it's simply a piss weak intentional self delusion because they don't have the emotional or moral courage to actually look at the real ugly world and their own part in it. Unfortunately though by taking on a self promoted, ersatz, moral high ground, they are inadvertently advertising their own weakness.

Oh, and don't argue your opinion with them, they will simply scream their mantra loud and often (count the posts in this thread by author. Despite 'leaving' several times, who comes out on top?) in an amazing imitation of a 2 y/o with his fingers in his ears yelling "I'm not listening to you!"

Don't expect them to consider another point of view, it would require too much introspection. It's fine to look down on them though...they'll be indignant of course, but they wont ever actually DO anything.

Except write to the editor.

[Hempy]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/10820149/Images-of-war-must-be-seen-in-context.html

Those at home who are eager harshly to condemn these servicemen for poor judgment, in circumstances where such men have themselves faced the possibility of death, might first want to contemplate walking through a Taliban firefight in their boots.

Some don't have the fortitude to even contemplate it; arrogance breeds assumption.

[melmothtw]

Some don't have the fortitude to even contemplate it


And others do and have Hempy, so just drop it now eh?

[Mr C Hinecap]

the ones who re-invent the definitions of such terms quoted above to suit their political needs

How else would you define 'non-PC humour' then? I have no political agenda, other than the imagined one you have afforded me. I just see little to be celebrated in perpetuating the 'standards' you seem to uphold. Your harrumphing and knee-jerk reaction to my post do make me smile, and at least you posting here is saving a letter to the Daily Mail.