www.ditl.org

My understanding is that it's quite illegal to try and take a trophy home.

As far as taking one back to base and reporting it. I guess I don't know. I know the Navies of older were big on that for sub warefare. They wanted confirmed kills and probably wanted some info on the effectiveness of different weapons systems. So after making an attack on a sub they'd hang around and see if any body parts floated up.

So at least there is some precident...

Up to some level, the Afghan mission is also meant to be PR to the local population in order to allow the building of the nation.

Mutilating corpses won't really make us seems like the good guys, AFAIK.

Agreed.

Deepcrush wrote:Its not about reward, its about proving that not only did you kill the enemy but that you got close enough to bring a piece of them back.

Who cares about such proof? A soldier's job is to go perform a mission, often including killing the enemy - turning yourself into a sick fuck for the sake of bragging rights around the bivouac have nothing to do with it.

More to the point, that has NOTHING to do with this. These guys weren't taking trophies from battlefield kills, they were hunting and murdering civilians and then defiling the corpses. That's not being a soldier, that's being a twisted fuck with a severe personality disorder.

WRT the idea of it being useful in terms of knowing how many bad guys were killed, it's pretty irrelevant. This isn't supposed to be a war - it's supposed to be a peacekeeping operation. Keeping the locals happy is a higher priority than being able to confirm that you did indeed kill five insurgents, and snipping bits off the corpses is one way to make the locals pissed at you.

Also, Mikey's correct that this has wandered quite a bit off topic. The charges laid against the guys in the OP was for allegedly murdering civilians. That's just fucked up regardless of whatever way you look at it, and heads definitely need to roll just to set an example that you most certainly don't do that sort of thing when you're supposed to be protecting the local populace.

Sionnach Glic wrote: Also, Mikey's correct that this has wandered quite a bit off topic. The charges laid against the guys in the OP was for allegedly murdering civilians. That's just f***ed up regardless of whatever way you look at it, and heads definitely need to roll just to set an example that you most certainly don't do that sort of thing when you're supposed to be protecting the local populace.

Deepcrush kinda skipped the "Horrible monster" part of the article, and started defending the action of mutilating bodies. (Which might, or might not be acceptable. At some point, he makes his case that might be reasonable for, let's say, a medieval-era bouty hunter)

I really don't like the idea of my military having such practice. But then again, I don't know how good it does to them, psychologically-wise. Since our military is exposed to some very, very unpleasant psychological hardship, there might be "traditional" ways of venting out some of the bad feelings while on the battlefield to prevent long-term PTSD. But I am not a psychiatrist, so I won't actively try to make a case either way.

SolkaTruesilver wrote:Deepcrush kinda skipped the "Horrible monster" part of the article, and started defending the action of mutilating bodies. (Which might, or might not be acceptable. At some point, he makes his case that might be reasonable for, let's say, a medieval-era bouty hunter)

I never defended anyone for killing civilians, I simply pointed out this isn't an uncommon deal. Read before you speak.

Sionnach Glic wrote:WRT the idea of it being useful in terms of knowing how many bad guys were killed, it's pretty irrelevant. This isn't supposed to be a war - it's supposed to be a peacekeeping operation. Keeping the locals happy is a higher priority than being able to confirm that you did indeed kill five insurgents, and snipping bits off the corpses is one way to make the locals pissed at you.

Not sure how that "Its not a war" bit is supposed to work as it just lacks sense. As to keeping count of kills, that isn't irrelevant to soldiers. As a matter of fact its very important.

Mikey wrote:Who cares about such proof? A soldier's job is to go perform a mission, often including killing the enemy - turning yourself into a sick f**k for the sake of bragging rights around the bivouac have nothing to do with it.

Soldiers care, its part of war. Your job is to go out and kill people... men, women and children. Part of that is going crazy and blowing off steam.

Mikey wrote:More to the point, that has NOTHING to do with this. These guys weren't taking trophies from battlefield kills, they were hunting and murdering civilians and then defiling the corpses. That's not being a soldier, that's being a twisted f**k with a severe personality disorder.

They took it to far and now they'll pay for their actions. Simple solution since its a warcrime. They'll be put on trial and sentenced to either life in prison or the firing squad if they aren't executed on the way home.

SolkaTruesilver wrote:Up to some level, the Afghan mission is also meant to be PR to the local population in order to allow the building of the nation.

Mutilating corpses won't really make us seems like the good guys, AFAIK.

PR is a pretty limited thing over there. We'll make more out of this ordeal then they will.

sunnyside wrote:My understanding is that it's quite illegal to try and take a trophy home.

Very true, you're not allowed to bring anything home that may offend the at-home population. War is supposed to be a peaceful PR stunt according to most standards these days.

Deepcrush wrote:Not sure how that "Its not a war" bit is supposed to work as it just lacks sense. As to keeping count of kills, that isn't irrelevant to soldiers. As a matter of fact its very important.

That Afghanistan isn't a war does not mean there are not still combat operations going on.

And whether it's relevant to the soldiers or not is in fact irrelevant. What's relevant is not pissing off the locals, and mutilating their dead, regardless of whether the dead guy had just previously tried to kill someone, is one sure way to piss people off. When you're trying to occupy a country that, at the best of times, can be said to have a poor relationship with you, such actions are rather counter-productive.

Deepcrush wrote:

SolkaTruesilver wrote:Deepcrush kinda skipped the "Horrible monster" part of the article, and started defending the action of mutilating bodies. (Which might, or might not be acceptable. At some point, he makes his case that might be reasonable for, let's say, a medieval-era bouty hunter)

I never defended anyone for killing civilians, I simply pointed out this isn't an uncommon deal. Read before you speak.

I never stated that you defended killing civilians, I simply pointed out that you skipped over the "killing civvies" part and addressed the issue of mutilating corpses, defending that specific issue.

Read before you speak.

Sionnach Glic wrote:That Afghanistan isn't a war does not mean there are not still combat operations going on.

Two nations fighting, check. Armies clashing, check. Lots of people dying, check. How is it not a war?

Sionnach Glic wrote:And whether it's relevant to the soldiers or not is in fact irrelevant. What's relevant is not pissing off the locals, and mutilating their dead, regardless of whether the dead guy had just previously tried to kill someone, is one sure way to piss people off. When you're trying to occupy a country that, at the best of times, can be said to have a poor relationship with you, such actions are rather counter-productive.

Again, killing a few of their people doesn't really cause a problem with the locals over there. Its more a News/Government PR deal. I'm not saying what those soldiers did was right, we know its not, but saying that something that's relevant to the situation is no long relevant because you don't like it is pretty silly.

SolkaTruesilver wrote:

Deepcrush wrote:

SolkaTruesilver wrote:Deepcrush kinda skipped the "Horrible monster" part of the article, and started defending the action of mutilating bodies. (Which might, or might not be acceptable. At some point, he makes his case that might be reasonable for, let's say, a medieval-era bouty hunter)

I never defended anyone for killing civilians, I simply pointed out this isn't an uncommon deal. Read before you speak.

I never stated that you defended killing civilians, I simply pointed out that you skipped over the "killing civvies" part and addressed the issue of mutilating corpses, defending that specific issue.

Read before you speak.

I get you're not the brightest shit in the box but you should read your own posts. I got involved over the question about "taking trophies".

Deepcrush wrote: I get you're not the brightest s**t in the box but you should read your own posts. I got involved over the question about "taking trophies".

Again, please read the part you, yourself, highlighted. The only argument you've been saying the whole thread is that "it's not that uncommon", "it's standard practice", etc... I actually stated that you haven't adressed the issue of killing civilians, so you weren't condoning/condemning this specific issue. But you were certainly putting arguments regarding mutilating bodies.

Why are you even arguing about it? "Taking trophies" = mutilating bodies, at least in the way you describe it. You even went into about cutting up the ears.

And starting to throw insults around won't help you case, so calm down.

Deepcrush wrote:Two nations fighting, check.

Wrong. Lots of nations fighting, but all on the same side.

Armies clashing, check.

Wrong. Armies dealing with criminals. Well armed and well trained criminals, hence the need for proper soldiers to deal with them rather than police, but criminals nonetheless.

Lots of people dying, check.

Lots of people died in NI. It wasn't a war.

How is it not a war?

Because the "enemy" are a bunch of criminals, not soldiers. In many ways its the same as Mexico - the drug cartels have become so powerful that police are simply incapable of dealing with them. In Afghanistan the problem in ten times worse, partially because of the terrain, partially because of the skill and firepower of the Taleban, partially because the ANP is shit and the ANA, while considerably better, is still only half-trained. That doesn't change the fact that the problem is one of criminality.

Captain Seafort wrote:Wrong. Lots of nations fighting, but all on the same side.

So the Afghans loyal to the Taliban are on our side?

But you're right numbers, its not just two nations.

Captain Seafort wrote:Wrong. Armies dealing with criminals. Well armed and well trained criminals, hence the need for proper soldiers to deal with them rather than police, but criminals nonetheless.

Being criminals doesn't mean they were soldiers.

Captain Seafort wrote:Lots of people died in NI. It wasn't a war.

Ask the Irish who you invaded and see if they agree.

Captain Seafort wrote:Because the "enemy" are a bunch of criminals, not soldiers. In many ways its the same as Mexico - the drug cartels have become so powerful that police are simply incapable of dealing with them. In Afghanistan the problem in ten times worse, partially because of the terrain, partially because of the skill and firepower of the Taleban, partially because the ANP is s**t and the ANA, while considerably better, is still only half-trained. That doesn't change the fact that the problem is one of criminality.

Wrong, while they are criminals, Afghanistan is still a country that we invaded and that makes it WAR.

SolkaTruesilver wrote:And starting to throw insults around won't help you case, so calm down.

Since I consider you inferior to even the compost pit at the local dumpyard. I feel free to insult you anytime I want, mood of sorts not required.

Captain Seafort wrote:Because the "enemy" are a bunch of criminals, not soldiers. In many ways its the same as Mexico - the drug cartels have become so powerful that police are simply incapable of dealing with them. In Afghanistan the problem in ten times worse, partially because of the terrain, partially because of the skill and firepower of the Taleban, partially because the ANP is s**t and the ANA, while considerably better, is still only half-trained. That doesn't change the fact that the problem is one of criminality.

I have a question about this issue. When do you draw the line between a criminal organisation that rules a piece of land, and an overthrown government in exile that fights in its own territory to get back in power?

I mean.. until 2001, the Talebans were a somewhat legitimate faction of Afghanistan. There were diplomatic channels open with some authorities, even if the country administration was very, very decentralised. It was, all in all, a civil war between rebels and government. How do you decide what is legitimate and what is merely criminal?