Film, Media & TV1 min ago
British Servicemen Posing With Dead Taliban.
94 Answers
http://
Gruesome maybe, but this is an entirely different world to what most of us are accustomed to.
If you had see your comrades killed and mutilated, and your squad had finally dispatched one of the perpetrators, wouldn't you feel like giving the (result) thumbs up?
This is just one more instance of trying to turn those that have to do the dirty work on our behalf, into some kind of social workers. And those who send them out to do this work then can't wait to grab hold of a situation like this to try and prove to the rest of the world that "our troops don't behave in such a manner, and we take it very seriously if they do".
WHY?????????
Gruesome maybe, but this is an entirely different world to what most of us are accustomed to.
If you had see your comrades killed and mutilated, and your squad had finally dispatched one of the perpetrators, wouldn't you feel like giving the (result) thumbs up?
This is just one more instance of trying to turn those that have to do the dirty work on our behalf, into some kind of social workers. And those who send them out to do this work then can't wait to grab hold of a situation like this to try and prove to the rest of the world that "our troops don't behave in such a manner, and we take it very seriously if they do".
WHY?????????
Answers
Oh you wonderful AB armchair warriors ready to leap down the throat of Tommy Atkins.Sit back and view the scenario from a wider picture. At the time of the event an unknown number of enemy insurgents enter,
14:43 Sat 10th May 2014
Baldric
/// Aog, as an Ex RM, there is only one side I am on, and that is our Armed Forces side, if there is any confusion it exists only in your head! ///
Then why all the opposition and rudeness over my thread?
You start off with
/// You seem to change your tune according to the weather AOG! ///
Then
/// The dear old boys idea is to stimulate discussion, And to score as many imaginary 'points' as he can along the way, and to hell with keeping the Thread on line! ///
Then
/// And here we go, Off Topic already. Well done AOG! ///
Then
/// Straw Clutching again AOG! ///
And so on, you just turned my thread into a personal attack against me for some perverse reason.
Why did you find it necessary to do so, and why do you also find it necessary to repeatedly tell us that you served in the Royal Marines in the Falklands, there are some that don't talk much about such things?
/// Aog, as an Ex RM, there is only one side I am on, and that is our Armed Forces side, if there is any confusion it exists only in your head! ///
Then why all the opposition and rudeness over my thread?
You start off with
/// You seem to change your tune according to the weather AOG! ///
Then
/// The dear old boys idea is to stimulate discussion, And to score as many imaginary 'points' as he can along the way, and to hell with keeping the Thread on line! ///
Then
/// And here we go, Off Topic already. Well done AOG! ///
Then
/// Straw Clutching again AOG! ///
And so on, you just turned my thread into a personal attack against me for some perverse reason.
Why did you find it necessary to do so, and why do you also find it necessary to repeatedly tell us that you served in the Royal Marines in the Falklands, there are some that don't talk much about such things?
Having never been in battle, and not even being British, perhaps I should not comment. But I think that the MoD investigating these "gruesome" and "graphic" photos (I thought all photos were graphic) taken in the stressful, confusing aftermath of a night-time engagement against an infiltrating enemy whose objective is to kill you is absolutely ludicrous. Perhaps the MoD will charge these soldiers with smoking whilst on duty?
Exactly retrocop.
Those who pontificate and criticise are invariably the one's who could never summon the courage to even walk through a Recruiting Office doorway, but will gladly languish in the security and democracy provided ultimately by HM Forces.
Now you are just spouting random ***, childout. You don't know enough about Answerbankers to make a statement like that.
Those who pontificate and criticise are invariably the one's who could never summon the courage to even walk through a Recruiting Office doorway, but will gladly languish in the security and democracy provided ultimately by HM Forces.
Now you are just spouting random ***, childout. You don't know enough about Answerbankers to make a statement like that.
Baldric
/// Given the above, taken from your OP I'm guessing you have never seen active service! ///
You have no idea whatsoever what I have done or not done simply because unlike you
I never divulge such information, since on sites such as this many are only too eager to find out as much as they can about one, and then twist it round to suit their own agenda.
completely out of it retrocop...
//out if that apparent fallen soldier is indeed an insurgent in the guise of a US marine OR indeed a genuine US marine."Cover me chalkie while I check that body over.Ok Chalkie(Phew,a relieved smile and a thumbs up)He's one of theirs". //
and so we photo the scene to show - to show he's dead and not moving ? to show he's in a US stolen uniform ? to show what ?
because if what retrocop says is true - the accused has a perfect defence - I took the photo for evidential reasons.
Oh retrocop you wonderful AB defence lawyer - your defence doesnt stand up because it doesnt make sense....
a defence should be a reasonable explanation not a fairy tale...
//out if that apparent fallen soldier is indeed an insurgent in the guise of a US marine OR indeed a genuine US marine."Cover me chalkie while I check that body over.Ok Chalkie(Phew,a relieved smile and a thumbs up)He's one of theirs". //
and so we photo the scene to show - to show he's dead and not moving ? to show he's in a US stolen uniform ? to show what ?
because if what retrocop says is true - the accused has a perfect defence - I took the photo for evidential reasons.
Oh retrocop you wonderful AB defence lawyer - your defence doesnt stand up because it doesnt make sense....
a defence should be a reasonable explanation not a fairy tale...
maggiebee - "Whether you agree with the picture or not - and whether you agree with the "war" or not, this man was a son and possibly a husband, father, brother etc. He fights for what he believes in just as our troops fight for what they believe in."
I disagree - yes the Afghan solider fights for what he believes in - the right to live in his country without another country invading it to force him to live as it thinks he should.
But the British soldiers do not fight for what they believe in - they fight because it is their job. They are professional soldiers who volunteer to be trained to kill people, and be sent to wherever the world this government decides it needs people to be killed, and off they go.
Their beliefs in the justice of what they are doing are not sought, or considered by that government - and that is what makes this action even more abhorrent -to gloat over the death of another human being when you have no vested interest in the issues that have led to what either of you are trying to kill each for is morally bankrupt.
That is why, since I have debated our invasions on this site, I have always, and will continue to take issue with the notion that they are 'our' troops - personally I want nothing to do with them.
And before anyone starts typing "If the Afghans invaded here you'd soon want 'our boys and girls' to defend you - that is not the issue we are debating, so save yourself the trouble.
I disagree - yes the Afghan solider fights for what he believes in - the right to live in his country without another country invading it to force him to live as it thinks he should.
But the British soldiers do not fight for what they believe in - they fight because it is their job. They are professional soldiers who volunteer to be trained to kill people, and be sent to wherever the world this government decides it needs people to be killed, and off they go.
Their beliefs in the justice of what they are doing are not sought, or considered by that government - and that is what makes this action even more abhorrent -to gloat over the death of another human being when you have no vested interest in the issues that have led to what either of you are trying to kill each for is morally bankrupt.
That is why, since I have debated our invasions on this site, I have always, and will continue to take issue with the notion that they are 'our' troops - personally I want nothing to do with them.
And before anyone starts typing "If the Afghans invaded here you'd soon want 'our boys and girls' to defend you - that is not the issue we are debating, so save yourself the trouble.
andy-hughes
/// And before anyone starts typing "If the Afghans invaded here you'd soon want 'our boys and girls' to defend you - that is not the issue we are debating, so save yourself the trouble. ///
It is the issue when you put "personally I want nothing to do with them".
Let us hope you will not live to regret what you have put.
Had you been around in 1940, would you have had the same disregard for our armed forces?
Or say the Russian / Ukraine conflict was to escalate and came knocking at our door, what then Andy?
/// And before anyone starts typing "If the Afghans invaded here you'd soon want 'our boys and girls' to defend you - that is not the issue we are debating, so save yourself the trouble. ///
It is the issue when you put "personally I want nothing to do with them".
Let us hope you will not live to regret what you have put.
Had you been around in 1940, would you have had the same disregard for our armed forces?
Or say the Russian / Ukraine conflict was to escalate and came knocking at our door, what then Andy?
THECORBYLOON
/// BALDRIC, ANOTHEOLDGIT served in the RAF in the Fifties, (can't think immediately if it was the middle or late) so I am guessing it was
National Service. ///
You are guessing all of it, you haver got this from Gromit and both you and him know nothing of my service record only the one fact that I have divulged and that is that I was in the RAF.
And don't think you are going to draw me to tell you or anyone else any other information.
On the other hand Baldric was born in 1952 so he must have been 30years old at the beginning of the short Falklands conflict, and he served a little under 20 years.
/// BALDRIC, ANOTHEOLDGIT served in the RAF in the Fifties, (can't think immediately if it was the middle or late) so I am guessing it was
National Service. ///
You are guessing all of it, you haver got this from Gromit and both you and him know nothing of my service record only the one fact that I have divulged and that is that I was in the RAF.
And don't think you are going to draw me to tell you or anyone else any other information.
On the other hand Baldric was born in 1952 so he must have been 30years old at the beginning of the short Falklands conflict, and he served a little under 20 years.
I understand what Andy is saying, and I don't think it's particularly hypocritical.
He's admitting that should the UK come under threat, he would expect the armed forces to protect him (it being their job and everything). But that's really not particularly relevant to the subject under discussion - which is the standards of behaviour we expect of those who protect us.
Now, one school of thought is that we expect few/no standards because of the dire situation they are in. The other is that they are not just fighting for our protection, but our values, and are thus expected to act according to them.
Both are arguable. But all the rather venomous "treachery"/"hypocrisy" rhetoric going around is a bit silly because whether you'd want them to do their job if the UK came under attack is really quite irrelevant to what this debate is about.
He's admitting that should the UK come under threat, he would expect the armed forces to protect him (it being their job and everything). But that's really not particularly relevant to the subject under discussion - which is the standards of behaviour we expect of those who protect us.
Now, one school of thought is that we expect few/no standards because of the dire situation they are in. The other is that they are not just fighting for our protection, but our values, and are thus expected to act according to them.
Both are arguable. But all the rather venomous "treachery"/"hypocrisy" rhetoric going around is a bit silly because whether you'd want them to do their job if the UK came under attack is really quite irrelevant to what this debate is about.
Latest Posts
News4 mins ago
ChatterBank8 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles9 mins ago
Vitamins For Macular Degeneration
Body & Soul11 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.