NFSW (very graphic) :Wikileaks releases video footage of journalist killings

Page 14 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

theflyingpig

Banned
Mar 9, 2008
5,616
18
0
You just posted a picture of a lens... not a camera.

I don't think you have any idea what you are talking about.

-John

lol. With this single post you have proven just how vast the chasm of your stupidity really is. You could fill oceans with what you don't know. You are truly the Fool of Fools.
 

Sclamoz

Guest
Sep 9, 2009
975
0
0
I think you are confusing fiction and reality...

All of the radio talk was air-planes... nobody was close to the people that were murdered.

-John

There were NO US men close by on the ground.

-John

14:53 Bushmaster or element. Which Element called in Crazyhorse to engage the eight-elem- eight-men team on top of a roof.
15:02 Bushmaster Six; this is Hotel Two-Six. Uh, I believe that was me.
15:07 They uh had AK-47s and were to our east, so, where we were taking small arms fire. Over.
......
16:19 Hey, whoever was talking about rooftops, know that all the personnel we engaged were ground level. I say again ground level.
16:27 Roger I copy ground level. Over.
16:30 One-Eight roger.
 

Zorkorist

Diamond Member
Apr 17, 2007
6,861
3
76
14:53 Bushmaster or element. Which Element called in Crazyhorse to engage the eight-elem- eight-men team on top of a roof.
15:02 Bushmaster Six; this is Hotel Two-Six. Uh, I believe that was me.
15:07 They uh had AK-47s and were to our east, so, where we were taking small arms fire. Over.
......
16:19 Hey, whoever was talking about rooftops, know that all the personnel we engaged were ground level. I say again ground level.
16:27 Roger I copy ground level. Over.
16:30 One-Eight roger.
Obviousley not related to our people being murdered,

-John
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,251
8
0
You just posted a picture of a lens... not a camera.

I don't think you have any idea what you are talking about.

-John
Dude! I have thousands of dollars worth of camera equipment. I know what I am talking about.

I have a lens similar to the one in the photo and I have a camera bag like the one in the thread too.

Long lens like the one he is holding do NOT mount to a tripod via the camera, they mount via a collar mounted on the lens itself. Which is what that photo shows, a lens collar.
Here are some examples:
00Czmr-24839784.JPG

4067390880_c322571501_b.jpg

nikon-70-200.jpg
 

Zorkorist

Diamond Member
Apr 17, 2007
6,861
3
76
[What is positive identification?]

… Positive identification is a targeting term that's used against a declared hostile. For instance, we'll take a notional rules of engagement … where our command authority at a high level will designate terrorist group ABC as a designated hostile.

To engage that person, all one needs to do is ascertain positive ID -- in other words, to reasonably believe that that particular person is a member of the ABC terrorist group. We're unconcerned about whether or not that person is presenting an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury. It matters little under the law or tactics.

For instance, if I'm a combat force of the United States, I can walk into a barracks room filled with ABC members sleeping in their bunks, and I can shoot them where they lie -- without concern whether they presented an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to me -- solely because of their status as a designated hostile under the rules of engagement. … That's where PID is relevant.

PID is nearly always irrelevant when it comes to responding to an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury in a self-defense capacity. I don't care whether or not the person shooting at me is a member of ABC terrorist group. I don't care if, in fact, they're an insurgent. All I care about is, by their actions, are they presenting an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to myself or friendly forces? That's all the legal authority I need to engage them. So too oftentimes this PID term is incorrectly sprinkled into what is, in fact, a self-defense scenario.

Now, what I do need to try to do is have aimed effective fire against an actual threat. That's where problems can arise. That is where actions by our adversaries of using human shields, using civilian houses, using mosques as platforms to fire from, can create nearly untenable situations for us as the good forces to respond to.

Because you could have an insurgent firing from behind human-shield walls of children and non-combatants. How do you return fire against that person without causing unnecessary civilian casualties? That's a very, very tough situation, and it's one that our forces face on a near daily basis in theater.

-John
 

xj0hnx

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2007
9,262
3
76
No There were'nt.

-John

Are you stupid? The soldiers were on camera within five minutes, and were on the radio talking to the helicopter crew about stopping firing so they could go into the area. They were a couple block away and had been taking fire. I suggest you actually listen to the radio traffic.

And combat journalist almost never carry around a fucking tripod, you think a guy that is running around covering firefights is going to be lugging around a tripod? We had two embeds and neither had a tripod. Maybe back in their hotel, but not running around covering firefights.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,251
8
0
Zorkist is just trolling.

It is a shame the mods don't do something about his behavior.

We have some dead people and soldiers accused of murder and the best he can do is troll.
 

elitejp

Golden Member
Jan 2, 2010
1,080
20
81
I thought of this picture when thinking of the pilots trying to distinguish who didnt have weapons in a military zone in the midst of those who did.
http://www.tcnj.edu/~hofmann/humor/Misc/peach.htm

Its a shame they died but you would have to be pretty ignorant to not think that you would be fired upon when travelling with heavily armed insurgents. In other words this is "DANGEROUS".
 

IcePickFreak

Platinum Member
Jul 12, 2007
2,428
9
81
Well, if you don't want to get run over by a car, you don't stand in the middle of the road. If you don't want to get shot by an Apache gunship, you don't stand in the middle of a war zone surrounded by other people with guns - much less take your freakin kids along with you.

As for the guy commenting on running over a body, umm not even a minute before that a Bradley APV driver said he couldn't get in because they weren't suppose to run over any bodies. I think the guy in the Hummer was saying it more as an "Oh shit". Besides, these guys are in the middle of a warzone for months/years on end, they have to make light of the situation. Would you rather our soldiers vomit and curl up and cry every time they kill someone?

I honestly see nothing wrong with the actions of the military here. If you do, you may as well petition to have the military disbanded. In the parallel universe where that happens and when your neighborhood gets invaded, feel free to pick up a camera and run around the war zone with kids in tow.
 

ss284

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
3,534
0
0
ProfJohn,

You are a fake and a fraud. I caught you so shut up.

-John

Are you being serious about the whole lens thing? I am not into photography, but I do know simple concepts such as balancing things on the center of gravity.
 

PJABBER

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2001
4,822
0
0
Ran across this update and thought it worth including it in the discussion on this topic.



Soldier arrested in WikiLeaks classified Iraq video case

Army Spc. Bradley Manning has been arrested in connection with the April release of classified footage of a US helicopter mistakenly shooting Iraqi civilians to website WikiLeaks.

By Peter Grier, Staff writer
posted June 7, 2010 at 3:39 pm EDT

The US Army has arrested Specialist Bradley Manning, a soldier deployed in Iraq with the 10th Mountain Division, on charges that he allegedly released classified information. The military is looking at a possible connection between Spc. Manning and WikiLeaks, an online whistleblower organization which in April published a graphic video of an Apache gunship mistakenly shooting civilians, according to Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman.

“The Department of Defense takes the management of classified information very seriously because it affects our national security, the lives of our soldiers, and our operations abroad,” said a statement released by the Pentagon.

The Manning case marks the third time during the Obama administration that authorities have arrested a suspected leaker.

This “seems to reflect an increasingly aggressive response to unauthorized disclosures of classified information,” writes Steven Aftergood, director of the Project on Government Secrecy for the Federation of American Scientists, on his Secrecy News blog.

Manning is in pretrial custody in Kuwait, according to the Army. Wired.com reported that he was caught after he boasted to a former computer hacker of leaking hundreds of thousands of classified documents and the combat video footage, including the gun camera videos of the deadly 2007 Baghdad incident subsequently posted on WikiLeaks.

The former hacker, Adrian Lamo, turned Manning in to the FBI, according to Wired, which broke the news of the arrest.

The Army video published by WikiLeaks is 38 minutes of an aerial mission over Baghdad in which a gunship crew follows and then fires upon a group of men it believes to be militants. In fact, at least two members of the group were civilians – Iraqi natives employed by Reuters as journalists.
The Reuters employees were killed in the attack.

Manning’s arrest may be the result of a Justice Department crackdown on leaks to the press.

In May, FBI linguist Shamai Leibowitz was sentenced to 20 months in prison after pleading guilty to passing classified information to a blogger.

In April, former National Security Agency senior executive Thomas Drake was indicted on charges related to the possession of classified information and obstruction of justice. The indictment alleges that in 2006 and 2007 Drake passed along highly classified data to a newspaper reporter, who wrote a series of articles about the NSA based on the information.

The Obama White House would be far from the first administration bedeviled by leaks.

At a May 12 hearing of a Senate Judiciary Committee subcommittee on terrorism, former CIA general counsel Jeffrey Smith noted that every administration in which he had served had suffered from leaks he considered to be harmful.

“And every administration has struggled to solve the problem, but none has had much success,” said Mr. Smith.

Absent a guilty plea, as occurred in the case of Mr. Leibowitz, leak prosecutions are notoriously difficult.

Finding the leaker in the first place is hard, said Kenneth Wainstein, a former Assistant Attorney General for National Security, at the May 12 Senate hearing. Producing incriminating evidence is also difficult, since in most cases prosecutors are reluctant to subpoena the receivers of leaks – members of the press.

Agencies from which the information was leaked are often not eager to prosecute, on the theory that open court proceedings might simply reveal more classified information. Plus, leak cases are often marked by zealous and novel legal defenses.

“For all these reasons, leak cases, especially leak cases to the media, are exceptionally challenging,” said Mr. Wainstein.
 

Noobtastic

Banned
Jul 9, 2005
3,721
0
0
so now the US military is hunting soldiers who have the audacity to speak up against our extremely liberal and disgusting ROE towards Iraqi/Afghani civilians.