A ground unit, Hotel 26, was fired on from this area. A gunship came in and destroyed a group of armed men. The cameramen were embedded in that enemy unit. Reporters who want to live to be great grandfathers don't generally become part of an armed unit.
Those reporters who are embedded in the US military's various units face the very same risks that the reporter in the video faced. They can get just as dead, just as easily.
I'm glad you have that figured out. But, I must point out that few civilians understand the moral decisions that a soldier must make. Nothing immoral happened in that video, if that is what you are referring to. The gunship was called in by a ground unit (Hotel 26) which had taken fire from that area. When the gunship arrived, they found armed men in the area from which the ground unit had been fired on. In fact, the reporters were embedded in an enemy unit. That enemy unit was destroyed. Not much of a moral dilemma here.
Parent is incorrectly modded flamebait. In fact, it's as insightful a post as I've read today. Pansies and lamers find it easy to reap the rewards of our military's dedication and sacrifice, while badmouthing the very same men and women who have sacrificed for them.
You're obviously an ass. I detest Bush, and I detest all the lies told by the Bush administration to "justify" the invasion of Iraq. But, painting the soldiers with your broad brush of treason and murder is every bit as dishonest as Bush's reasons for invading Iraq.
Get a clue: a soldier is sworn to obey the lawful orders of his lawfully appointed superiors. The men in Iraq are doing so. Now, pull your head out of your arse, and attack the morons who were in the position to authorize and order an invasion. That would include almost everyone who was part of the Bush administration, as well as almost every senator and congressman.
I understand "why" Congress authorized the war, but it was still wrong.
A CD drive? Huh? Are you serious, or are you just posting FUD? If you are serious, and you have a CD drive which works under windows that does not work with Linux, then I would suspect that the drive is faulty somehow. I mean, this isn't 1995 anymore.
Maybe you should re read the story, then you might consider changing your statement. The grandmother has "custody". The mother has not been stripped of parental rights. That is a distinction that some people might miss. Had the court ruled that mother was an unfit parent, then the court could have revoked her parental rights. In this case, the mother voluntarily put the son into another home where he could receive better care, than in her own dysfunctional home.
From a legal standpoint, she is still his mother, and the kid needs to be bitch slapped for his frivolous lawsuit, along with the reasons I've already mentioned.
I've always believed that photographers outright sold their work to authors and/or the publishers. Quite likely that isn't the case with all photographers. Magazines come readily to mind as an exception. Authors who sold works to old pulp fiction magazines often retained the rights to their works, and had those works published again, in other forms, years later.
But, for the most part, I suspect that photos and images contained in old physical tree books were actually bought and paid for, and the photographer retains no rights to the images.
Whatever - I foresee another huge silly mess in the courts. Yet another group of "intellectual property" owners wants to assert rights that have never existed before.
"Maybe there are ubuntu purists out there who would look down on you for that and would care to distinguish between the two, I don't know."
Actually, I kind of look down on dual booting. It's rather silly, now that we have several methods of running virtual machines. Especially since running a VM means that you need almost no AV and malware security software running. If I get a drive-by infection, I can shut down the VM and restore it to a snapshot - no need to jump through hoops for half a day to clean the infection.
But, that's just my opinion. I suppose that if I were even a half serious gamer, and I needed to get my machine's ultimate output in FPS and DirectX crap, I would find VM's to be inadequate.
Actually, there is an "opt-in" phone home process. Ubuntu has an option to participate in a software popularity contest thing. Those who opt in not only can be counted as using *buntu, but the poll tracks which software packages are installed.
And, it is really "opt-in" because you are asked if you WANT TO participate or not. I'm almost certain that it defaults to "no", you have to click the "yes" button to participate.
So, if this popularity thing tracks "x" million computers, it's pretty simple to double or triple that number, and claim "x times 3" installations.
Try Google Earth. Arkadelphia is actually a college town. It isn't far from Little Rock.
Oh - wait - you think that everyone in Arkansas is an inbred illiterate, right? And, where are you from?
For your information, I moved to Arkansas 22 years ago to donate my DNA toward the prevention of inbreeding. Tens of thousands of other men and women have done the same. Inbreeding isn't a problem here any more.
Again, where are you from? I'm sure that other responsible people will be willing to inject some good DNA into the women in your part of the world.
The title should be "Son needs to be bitch slapped for ignorance, then bitch slapped again for stupidity"
Mom did everything right, IMO. Yeah, the family is dysfunctional, but Mom is still Mom. And, leaving the computer unattended, without logging out of your account? FFS, he was BEGGING to be "hacked". Any moron who doesn't understand that leaving an account open and accessible to anyone who walks by needs to be embarassed.
Bitch slap that little punk until he stops whining and sniveling. Then, he may grow a pair, and stop racing his car or truck just because some girl says something he doesn't like.
Steam propulsion doesn't make a boat into a ship either. Tugboats were steam powered before marine diesel and gas turbine engines were invented. A lot of riverboats were steam powered, back in the day.
I give you a point though, for pointing out that nuclear powered craft are still steamers. A lot of people don't realize that you can't hook atoms directly to a reduction gear to move the ship or boat - the energy has to be converted and transmitted to the gearing somehow!
"Apart from the fact that that is how the US Navy designates them, how are you defining ship and boat? "
Naval tradition, as much as anything. And, size is not the deciding factor. Barges can be huge, but they will never be classified as a ship. I checked the link Q-Hackis gave, and I find no "submersible ship" even when I follow the links.
IMO, anyone who refers to a submarine as a ship is a land lubber.
But, you're not addressing the real question. Isn't it pretty easy to make a mockup of some warheads? Basically, the whole thing is based on trust. The world believes that we are complying with the treaty, and showing them everything we have - or they don't believe.
I'm one who believes in having an "ace in the hole". I don't even tell anyone where my backup weapons are at home. If someone breaks in in the middle of the night, they might find my weapons cache is, but they can't know that they have ALL my weapons. All that they can be reasonably sure of, is that they've found all my long guns.
Alright - I hate pedantic clods - but, where did you get "submersible ship"? Subs aren't ships, they are boats. No one in the US Navy has ever referred to a sub as a ship, that I'm aware of. I've done a few googles now, and I can't find any reference to "submersible ship". I find no readily available definition of "SS" as used by the Navy, and most other sources say that a ship designated as "SS" is a steam ship. Obviously, that doesn't apply to the Navy. DD's and FF's were almost exclusively steam powered, today many are powered by gas turbines. Most larger warships are nuclear powered. As for power, SS's were traditionally diesel powered, today they are exclusively nuclear powered.
Anyway - I'm curious where you got that term, and how credible the source is. Military terms and acronyms aren't always obvious, after all.:^)
So - how exactly are Russia and all the rest going to verify that all our nukes are in one place or another? Seems to me the whole thing is based on trust, right? And, if you trust the other parties, you have no need to verify. Little catch 22 here, don't you think? Or, is it just propaganda, playing on people's naivete?
One more time, for your benefit, I'll point out what everyone is missing. Watch that film again, and pay attention to the radio traffic. The gunship was called to that location BECAUSE troops on the ground were taking fire from that vicinity. Based on what I see and hear in the video, the gunship was justified in opening fire the first time. It's less clear that they were justified in shooting up the van, but neither is it clear that they were unjustified.
Go, watch again, and pay attention. The troops aren't wrong here. They may have been mistaken, but not wrong.
The part that so many commenter miss entirely, is that the gunship was called in by ground troops who were FIRED ON. Watch the video again, and pay attention to the chatter. Read the captions. Hotel 26 was fired on from this location, or from a location so close to it that it looked like this particular place. When the gunship came over, they spotted multiple people armed with AK-47 rifles, and one who appeared to be armed with an RPG. Moments before the gunship opened fire, that RPG was aimed toward Hotel 26, and that was the reason they maneuvered quickly into a good firing position. They were reacting to a percieved threat to their troops on the ground.
Go ahead, watch again, and pay attention to the radio traffic.
Later, when they opened fire on the van, their reasoning is less clear, but there was chatter between the gunship, their commander, and Hotel 26. I need to watch it again, and try to understand all the chatter - the reason for firing again may become clear.
Was it the "right" decision? Maybe not - but it was almost certainly NOT WRONG.
At 23:16 I see a trooper carrying the child from the van - probably a medic. This is the first time that I see an image identifiable as anything other than a hostile and/or unidentified combatant.
It was much less clear to me that the people in the triangular building were combatants - but then, I'm not one who is Monday morning quarterbacking this operation, and calling the participants murderers. It seems from the chatter that Crazyhorse recognized some of the individuals who entered that building, and that is good enough for me. I don't need proof that each and every individual was armed.
OK, who actually listened to the chatter, and read the captions? An element, H26 (Or, Hotel two six) took fire from that vicinity. It seemed during much of the chatter that H26 was infantry, but they seemed to be far to mobile for infantry - possibly mounted infantry, or cav. They took fire, and that's why the gunship was called in. Crazyhorse went to the location from which H26 took fire, and spotted multiple armed men. I have counted 4 AK-47's in the film, for certain, and I think there were two more. The RPG I can't really call. Is it a camera, or an RPG? But, I can most definitely identify 4 AK-47's.
And, I certainly have not seen an image which I can identify as a "child" or "female child" at this point. That van looked like it was occupied by multiple adult males to me.
I'm still watching the video - but things need to be put in perspective.
I do not see murder here. I most certainly see troops using their judgement to engage hostile and/or unidentified forces in a location from which they took fire. I'm at 21 minutes, out of the 39 minutes of the film. I'll have more to add when I finish watching.
Greetings, dick. I see that you're also illiterate. I explained further down, in other posts, that I drove that automagic tranny in 1999. Another poster suggests that today's trannies are better, and I conceded that maybe they are. Incompetence? Gee, thanks a lot. I lived through the computer's blunder, so maybe I'm not all that fucking incompetent?
And, oh yes. What they do with BIG equipment is often applicable to small equipment, and vice versa. Perhaps you're familiar with the term "scale", as it pertains to both computers and hardware?
"They experience traumatic stress at higher levels than those who are on the front lines."
That is preposterous. The boys on the front line feel the banging of their own weapons, right down to their bones. And, that's when the fight is going their way. Sometimes, they feel the banging of the enemy's weapons as well, right down to the bones. Then, someone has to stuff a buddy into a body bag.
The guys flying the drones are disconnected from impact, recoil, noise, screaming, smell, everything, in fact, except some imagery.
Don't even try to sell that Post Traumatic Stress stuff here. The gubbermint is still trying to deny PTS to real combat veterans.
"What really got me was that they used a GUNSHIP on HUMAN TARGETS."
Alright, I'm still downloading the video, and haven't yet read TFA. But, hey, WHAT THE FUCK DID YOU THINK A GUNSHIP WAS FOR?!?! Yeah, you can use a gunship for blowing "things" up - but bombs and missiles, and tank rounds are much better suited to that purpose. A GUNSHIP is primarily an anti-personnel weapon platform. It's designed to put a zillion rounds into a small or large area, obliterating soft targets. That was the plan since way back before the Cobra or the Huey went into production.
Slashdot Mirror
What war crime? Define war crime.
A ground unit, Hotel 26, was fired on from this area. A gunship came in and destroyed a group of armed men. The cameramen were embedded in that enemy unit. Reporters who want to live to be great grandfathers don't generally become part of an armed unit.
Those reporters who are embedded in the US military's various units face the very same risks that the reporter in the video faced. They can get just as dead, just as easily.
I'm glad you have that figured out. But, I must point out that few civilians understand the moral decisions that a soldier must make. Nothing immoral happened in that video, if that is what you are referring to. The gunship was called in by a ground unit (Hotel 26) which had taken fire from that area. When the gunship arrived, they found armed men in the area from which the ground unit had been fired on. In fact, the reporters were embedded in an enemy unit. That enemy unit was destroyed. Not much of a moral dilemma here.
Parent is incorrectly modded flamebait. In fact, it's as insightful a post as I've read today. Pansies and lamers find it easy to reap the rewards of our military's dedication and sacrifice, while badmouthing the very same men and women who have sacrificed for them.
You're obviously an ass. I detest Bush, and I detest all the lies told by the Bush administration to "justify" the invasion of Iraq. But, painting the soldiers with your broad brush of treason and murder is every bit as dishonest as Bush's reasons for invading Iraq.
Get a clue: a soldier is sworn to obey the lawful orders of his lawfully appointed superiors. The men in Iraq are doing so. Now, pull your head out of your arse, and attack the morons who were in the position to authorize and order an invasion. That would include almost everyone who was part of the Bush administration, as well as almost every senator and congressman.
I understand "why" Congress authorized the war, but it was still wrong.
Alright, I can sort of understand a USB problem. Maybe that's what GP meant, but I have no way of knowing so I asked.
USB mostly works today with Linux, but I have had a couple wierd things happen on my machines too.
A CD drive? Huh? Are you serious, or are you just posting FUD? If you are serious, and you have a CD drive which works under windows that does not work with Linux, then I would suspect that the drive is faulty somehow. I mean, this isn't 1995 anymore.
Maybe you should re read the story, then you might consider changing your statement. The grandmother has "custody". The mother has not been stripped of parental rights. That is a distinction that some people might miss. Had the court ruled that mother was an unfit parent, then the court could have revoked her parental rights. In this case, the mother voluntarily put the son into another home where he could receive better care, than in her own dysfunctional home.
From a legal standpoint, she is still his mother, and the kid needs to be bitch slapped for his frivolous lawsuit, along with the reasons I've already mentioned.
I've always believed that photographers outright sold their work to authors and/or the publishers. Quite likely that isn't the case with all photographers. Magazines come readily to mind as an exception. Authors who sold works to old pulp fiction magazines often retained the rights to their works, and had those works published again, in other forms, years later.
But, for the most part, I suspect that photos and images contained in old physical tree books were actually bought and paid for, and the photographer retains no rights to the images.
Whatever - I foresee another huge silly mess in the courts. Yet another group of "intellectual property" owners wants to assert rights that have never existed before.
"Maybe there are ubuntu purists out there who would look down on you for that and would care to distinguish between the two, I don't know."
Actually, I kind of look down on dual booting. It's rather silly, now that we have several methods of running virtual machines. Especially since running a VM means that you need almost no AV and malware security software running. If I get a drive-by infection, I can shut down the VM and restore it to a snapshot - no need to jump through hoops for half a day to clean the infection.
But, that's just my opinion. I suppose that if I were even a half serious gamer, and I needed to get my machine's ultimate output in FPS and DirectX crap, I would find VM's to be inadequate.
"'We have no phone home or registration process,"
Actually, there is an "opt-in" phone home process. Ubuntu has an option to participate in a software popularity contest thing. Those who opt in not only can be counted as using *buntu, but the poll tracks which software packages are installed.
And, it is really "opt-in" because you are asked if you WANT TO participate or not. I'm almost certain that it defaults to "no", you have to click the "yes" button to participate.
So, if this popularity thing tracks "x" million computers, it's pretty simple to double or triple that number, and claim "x times 3" installations.
Try Google Earth. Arkadelphia is actually a college town. It isn't far from Little Rock.
Oh - wait - you think that everyone in Arkansas is an inbred illiterate, right? And, where are you from?
For your information, I moved to Arkansas 22 years ago to donate my DNA toward the prevention of inbreeding. Tens of thousands of other men and women have done the same. Inbreeding isn't a problem here any more.
Again, where are you from? I'm sure that other responsible people will be willing to inject some good DNA into the women in your part of the world.
The title should be "Son needs to be bitch slapped for ignorance, then bitch slapped again for stupidity"
Mom did everything right, IMO. Yeah, the family is dysfunctional, but Mom is still Mom. And, leaving the computer unattended, without logging out of your account? FFS, he was BEGGING to be "hacked". Any moron who doesn't understand that leaving an account open and accessible to anyone who walks by needs to be embarassed.
Bitch slap that little punk until he stops whining and sniveling. Then, he may grow a pair, and stop racing his car or truck just because some girl says something he doesn't like.
Steam propulsion doesn't make a boat into a ship either. Tugboats were steam powered before marine diesel and gas turbine engines were invented. A lot of riverboats were steam powered, back in the day.
I give you a point though, for pointing out that nuclear powered craft are still steamers. A lot of people don't realize that you can't hook atoms directly to a reduction gear to move the ship or boat - the energy has to be converted and transmitted to the gearing somehow!
"God help us if a bunch of kids learned their driving skills from Need for Speed Underground series...."
Wait - this is a trick post, right? I thought ALL kids learned to drive exactly as you describe!
"Apart from the fact that that is how the US Navy designates them, how are you defining ship and boat? "
Naval tradition, as much as anything. And, size is not the deciding factor. Barges can be huge, but they will never be classified as a ship. I checked the link Q-Hackis gave, and I find no "submersible ship" even when I follow the links.
IMO, anyone who refers to a submarine as a ship is a land lubber.
But, you're not addressing the real question. Isn't it pretty easy to make a mockup of some warheads? Basically, the whole thing is based on trust. The world believes that we are complying with the treaty, and showing them everything we have - or they don't believe.
I'm one who believes in having an "ace in the hole". I don't even tell anyone where my backup weapons are at home. If someone breaks in in the middle of the night, they might find my weapons cache is, but they can't know that they have ALL my weapons. All that they can be reasonably sure of, is that they've found all my long guns.
Alright - I hate pedantic clods - but, where did you get "submersible ship"? Subs aren't ships, they are boats. No one in the US Navy has ever referred to a sub as a ship, that I'm aware of. I've done a few googles now, and I can't find any reference to "submersible ship". I find no readily available definition of "SS" as used by the Navy, and most other sources say that a ship designated as "SS" is a steam ship. Obviously, that doesn't apply to the Navy. DD's and FF's were almost exclusively steam powered, today many are powered by gas turbines. Most larger warships are nuclear powered. As for power, SS's were traditionally diesel powered, today they are exclusively nuclear powered.
Anyway - I'm curious where you got that term, and how credible the source is. Military terms and acronyms aren't always obvious, after all. :^)
So - how exactly are Russia and all the rest going to verify that all our nukes are in one place or another? Seems to me the whole thing is based on trust, right? And, if you trust the other parties, you have no need to verify. Little catch 22 here, don't you think? Or, is it just propaganda, playing on people's naivete?
One more time, for your benefit, I'll point out what everyone is missing. Watch that film again, and pay attention to the radio traffic. The gunship was called to that location BECAUSE troops on the ground were taking fire from that vicinity. Based on what I see and hear in the video, the gunship was justified in opening fire the first time. It's less clear that they were justified in shooting up the van, but neither is it clear that they were unjustified.
Go, watch again, and pay attention. The troops aren't wrong here. They may have been mistaken, but not wrong.
The part that so many commenter miss entirely, is that the gunship was called in by ground troops who were FIRED ON. Watch the video again, and pay attention to the chatter. Read the captions. Hotel 26 was fired on from this location, or from a location so close to it that it looked like this particular place. When the gunship came over, they spotted multiple people armed with AK-47 rifles, and one who appeared to be armed with an RPG. Moments before the gunship opened fire, that RPG was aimed toward Hotel 26, and that was the reason they maneuvered quickly into a good firing position. They were reacting to a percieved threat to their troops on the ground.
Go ahead, watch again, and pay attention to the radio traffic.
Later, when they opened fire on the van, their reasoning is less clear, but there was chatter between the gunship, their commander, and Hotel 26. I need to watch it again, and try to understand all the chatter - the reason for firing again may become clear.
Was it the "right" decision? Maybe not - but it was almost certainly NOT WRONG.
At 23:16 I see a trooper carrying the child from the van - probably a medic. This is the first time that I see an image identifiable as anything other than a hostile and/or unidentified combatant.
It was much less clear to me that the people in the triangular building were combatants - but then, I'm not one who is Monday morning quarterbacking this operation, and calling the participants murderers. It seems from the chatter that Crazyhorse recognized some of the individuals who entered that building, and that is good enough for me. I don't need proof that each and every individual was armed.
OK, who actually listened to the chatter, and read the captions? An element, H26 (Or, Hotel two six) took fire from that vicinity. It seemed during much of the chatter that H26 was infantry, but they seemed to be far to mobile for infantry - possibly mounted infantry, or cav. They took fire, and that's why the gunship was called in. Crazyhorse went to the location from which H26 took fire, and spotted multiple armed men. I have counted 4 AK-47's in the film, for certain, and I think there were two more. The RPG I can't really call. Is it a camera, or an RPG? But, I can most definitely identify 4 AK-47's.
And, I certainly have not seen an image which I can identify as a "child" or "female child" at this point. That van looked like it was occupied by multiple adult males to me.
I'm still watching the video - but things need to be put in perspective.
I do not see murder here. I most certainly see troops using their judgement to engage hostile and/or unidentified forces in a location from which they took fire. I'm at 21 minutes, out of the 39 minutes of the film. I'll have more to add when I finish watching.
Greetings, dick. I see that you're also illiterate. I explained further down, in other posts, that I drove that automagic tranny in 1999. Another poster suggests that today's trannies are better, and I conceded that maybe they are. Incompetence? Gee, thanks a lot. I lived through the computer's blunder, so maybe I'm not all that fucking incompetent?
And, oh yes. What they do with BIG equipment is often applicable to small equipment, and vice versa. Perhaps you're familiar with the term "scale", as it pertains to both computers and hardware?
"They experience traumatic stress at higher levels than those who are on the front lines."
That is preposterous. The boys on the front line feel the banging of their own weapons, right down to their bones. And, that's when the fight is going their way. Sometimes, they feel the banging of the enemy's weapons as well, right down to the bones. Then, someone has to stuff a buddy into a body bag.
The guys flying the drones are disconnected from impact, recoil, noise, screaming, smell, everything, in fact, except some imagery.
Don't even try to sell that Post Traumatic Stress stuff here. The gubbermint is still trying to deny PTS to real combat veterans.
"What really got me was that they used a GUNSHIP on HUMAN TARGETS."
Alright, I'm still downloading the video, and haven't yet read TFA. But, hey, WHAT THE FUCK DID YOU THINK A GUNSHIP WAS FOR?!?! Yeah, you can use a gunship for blowing "things" up - but bombs and missiles, and tank rounds are much better suited to that purpose. A GUNSHIP is primarily an anti-personnel weapon platform. It's designed to put a zillion rounds into a small or large area, obliterating soft targets. That was the plan since way back before the Cobra or the Huey went into production.