Inappropriate trophy photos

[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.

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.