Inappropriate trophy photos

[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]

Morality and the Military

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]

Taliban

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 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=7fc_1302790601&comments=1

[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.