Marines locked in deadly combat with the Taliban!!

Status
Not open for further replies.
one can justify the life and death issue simply

by accepting the fact that anytime a military person is in combat it is a life and death situation. It would not be journalistly inaccurate to use life and death as an attachment to any story where live rounds are evident.
 
What is fake, IMHO, is the whole life and death hero story crafted around the photo.
Click to expand...

Please expand on what specifically constitutes a "life and death hero story" and why you believe the story as presented is fake?
 
Please expand on what specifically constitutes a "life and death hero story" and why you believe the story as presented is fake?
Click to expand...
I do not believe for one second this picture was taken while "locked in deadly combat with the Taliban!" or a fire fight of any kind with any enemy.
 
I do not believe for one second this picture was taken while "locked in deadly combat with the Taliban!" or a fire fight of any kind with any enemy.
Click to expand...

Would you care to conjecture on the circumstances in which the pictures were taken? (Note that the pictures in question were part of a multi-day series of Reuters photos.)
 
I think I already did...
Click to expand...

If you mean your statement that:

I do not think it is a staged pic. I think a photographer got lucky and got a shot of a soldier getting a face full of dirt and falling down.
Click to expand...

Please expand on what you believe caused the soldier to be "getting a face full of dirt and falling down."
 
Please expand on what you believe caused the soldier to be "getting a face full of dirt and falling down."
Click to expand...
read the previous posts and read the statement I was responding to and my full statement.

Then how about you belly up some supporting analysis.
 
(sigh) Okay, here is my supporting analysis:
- Marines are in a combat zone and somebody shoots at them (not particularly unusual).
- Incoming fire hits an adobe wall, kicking up an impressive cloud of debris (with some big chunks inconsistent with muzzle blast).
- A nearby Marine ducks for cover.
- A photographer gets lucky and shoots photos of the above.

No bravery or heroism here, just a record of the instinct for self-preservation. What is it that you see that I am missing?
 
This is crap.

Soldiers get shot at. Some are raised to the level of hero because there might happen to be a photographer there.

If it's true, he's no more a hero than anyone else just because there happened to be a photographer there.

If it's overstated, well, propaganda happens.

There's only so much analysis you can do.
 
That is all conjecture and not supporting evidence. That is making up a story to go with a pic instead of analyzing the pic itself.
Click to expand...

Combat zone - Marine - adobe wall - cloud of debris. Maybe the Marine was just pelted by dirt from an over-active gopher, but the odds are in favor of the firefight explanation provided by the Reuters photographer.

At any rate, it is your turn to provide some "supporting evidence" and analysis to the contrary.
 
Can we agree that the picture is of a Marine, an adobe wall, and a cloud of debris? If so, then it is your turn to provide some "supporting evidence" as to what the pictures show.
Click to expand...
Actually, it looks more like a trench to me than a wall and I see nothing in the blast or in the actions of the surrounding persons that indicate incoming fire.
 
Track the largest chunk of debris in the first three pictures (superimposed in the fourth picture). It looks too large to be kicked up by muzzle blast, but its trajectory looks a lot like those of clods of dirt that are thrown up when I shoot into a berm.


Marine.jpg
 
How do you explain the fact that the small dust particles seem to be more advanced than the large chunks?

If they were knocked upward by a bullet strike the larger hard particles would show advanced movement beyond the lighter dust cloud.
 
Track the largest chunk of debris in the first three pictures (superimposed in the fourth picture). It looks too large to be kicked up by muzzle blast, but its trajectory looks a lot like those of clods of dirt that are thrown up when I shoot into a berm.
Click to expand...

For all we know there could be another Marine throwing dirt at the one taking the dive to simulate a bullet impacting a earthen wall. You know so the photographer can get the shot for his big payday from The right wing Bush loving Fox news. :eek: Its a conspiracy I tell you. :D

Seriously this thread has gone so far off the rocker it should be closed. It is insulting to see people insinuate that this Marine is some fool for not wearing is gear and on top of that a conspirator in some grand scheme to drum up support for the war. :barf: Its time for this childish crap to come to an end. I have never seen such a bunch of arm chair commandos in one place.
 
Seriously this thread has gone so far off the rocker it should be closed. It is insulting to see people insinuate that this Marine is some fool for not wearing is gear and on top of that a conspirator in some grand scheme to drum up support for the war. Its time for this childish crap to come to an end. I have never seen such a bunch of arm chair commandos in one place.
Click to expand...


I couldn't agree more.
 
Seriously this thread has gone so far off the rocker it should be closed. It is insulting to see people insinuate that this Marine is some fool for not wearing is gear and on top of that a conspirator in some grand scheme to drum up support for the war
Click to expand...
I will help you with your reading apprehension for a second. :)

No one is calling the marine a fool. He is probably doing just what he is supposed to do. People seem to be ignoring the fact that he is not the only one in the pic without battle gear on...which makes me believe this is not a battle scene.

Also, the marine in not the conspirator. He is just the guy in the pic. The conspirators are the administration, which have been caught multiple times selling completely fabricated stories in the past, and Fox News, who has admitted in court to making up news stories and saying they have the right to continue to do so.
 
He is probably doing just what he is supposed to do. People seem to be ignoring the fact that he is not the only one in the pic without battle gear on...which makes me believe this is not a battle scene.
Click to expand...
Yeah, it’s an unwritten but well-known rule of warfare that a surprise engagement can catch only one person by surprise. So if you see one guy without full gear, it could be true. But more than one? Definitely fake.
Also, the marine in not the conspirator. He is just the guy in the pic. The conspirators are the administration, which have been caught multiple times selling completely fabricated stories in the past, and Fox News, who has admitted in court to making up news stories and saying they have the right to continue to do so.
Click to expand...
Actually, it’s not Fox News on this one. It’s Reuters. The photographer’s name is Goran Tomasevic. But it doesn’t matter. Once Fox News carries a story, it becomes fake. Good catch on your part.

Why don’t you e-mail Goran Tomasevic, Reuters, and Fox News and let them know you are on to their game? You just might be able to blunt the tide of propaganda these three tools of the Bush Administration are pumping out.

While you’re at it, why don’t you contact Sgt. Bee’s mother and father? They are Sue Casey, who lives in Wooster, OH, and Roger Bee, who lives in Apple Creek, OH. Let them know not to worry about their son. He’s not really in danger; he’s just part of a faked photo and propaganda story. Although according to you, he’s not the conspirator, he’s just the guy in the pic. I’m a little unclear how he can be part of a conspiracy that centers on him without him being one of the conspirators, especially when he’s “probably doing just what he is supposed to do,” which apparently is to participate in a faked photo and propaganda story. But I’m sure you have that one figured out.
 
Last edited:
WhyteP38

When you can't argue with the issue sarcasm is a way to go I guess.

That shows no indication to me of being a battle ground scene. I would love to hear accounts on attacks on non-combat areas of US installations. Iknow I have not seen any and that would be the only place I could imagine seeing non-combat dressed personnel wandering around.

Also, care to show were Reuters originated the text of this story?
 
There is no arguing with you because even your own statements are internally inconsistent. Witness your comments regarding the Marine and the photo.

The original story starts here, where Reuters specifically states “... the unit came under fire from Taliban fighters May 18, 2008.”
http://blogs.reuters.com/photo/2008/05/19/close-enough/

Where did the background story on Sgt. Bee come from? Difficult to say, but this source is probably it (no mention of Fox News, but it does mention Reuters).
http://www.the-daily-record.com/news/article/3837211

When I look at the debris cloud, I see an oblong pattern that seems consistent with something striking from right to left. The impact appears to be above and slightly forward of the rifle’s scope, the most visibly obscured part of the first photo. The cloud begins near the front sight of the rifle and stretches nearly to the left edge of the photo. Leaves and branches on the tree around the muzzle area are clearly visible, but the leaves and branches on the tree are obscured on the left side. This debris cloud is not centered around the impact area, but instead stretches far to the left of it, which is consistent with something striking from right to left.

You criticized gc70 as using “all conjecture and not supporting evidence,” but you based your so-called analysis on conjecture. The photos clearly show one guy in the background wearing a helmet, and a less-defined image of someone in the background not wearing a helmet. From the meager “evidence” of two guys not wearing helmets and one guy wearing a helmet, you believe that the photo is not of a battle scene. But there is nothing in any of that to reach a valid conclusion. Your belief is based on conjecture.

You mention your distrust of Fox twice, but you don’t mention Reuters at all, which is the source of the photos, not Fox. You’re using a “Fox” lens to analyze “Reuters” photos.

So now it's your turn. Please explain how the Marine can be part of a conspiracy that centers on him without him being one of the conspirators, especially when he’s “probably doing just what he is supposed to do,” which according to your theory is to participate in a faked photo and propaganda story.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top