ScottRiqui
New member
Unless you think that's a staged photo (not out of the question with Reuters, I grant you), it looks like he was in combat when the picture was taken. What's your definition of "combat"?
What Is Wrong With This Picture?
- Thread starter Bartholomew Roberts
- Start date
Unless you think that's a staged photo (not out of the question with Reuters, I grant you), it looks like he was in combat when the picture was taken. What's your definition of "combat"?
Double Naught Spy
New member
I don't know how you can determine from the image that he is in combat. Sort of like with the difference between a shooting and a gun fight, a shooting is where only one party fires on the other. A gunfight is when shots are exchanged between parties. I am not arguing with you Bart and saying your information is wrong. I am just saying that for disucssing the picture itself that the information we would need to know that he is in combat isn't there. Had the picture covered a larger area, it might have been clear that he was in combat.
What I see in the image is a shooter the size of John Candy with a tiny AR15/M16 variant being shot into the air with such concentration that his tongue is stuck out between his lips, in a banzai dew rag, no hearing protection, and apparently wearing somebody else's gear as it does not look like it fits him. I see no combat. There is no opposing force and no indication that he is under fire in any way form opposing forces or that opposing forces are threatening him in any manner.
That the gun isn't shouldered really doesn't bother me. He might be able to point shoot just fine without it shouldered properly. The unseen forces (if there) may be airborne or up in a building that we can't see. We don't know that he is hoping for divine help to land his bullets on ground targets as he may actually have an elevated target he is trying to hit. That he isn't using his scope may mean that the threat is too close to be able to use the scope quickly.
I can't tell from any of the damage behind him that the damage was caused by combat or that he is simply in a rundown area. For all I know, he is in a 3 gun match and is outside the shoot house, transitioning to the tires barricade and engaging a fast moving trolley target on a wire before it makes it to safet behind the building, the upward angled shots being backed up by a steep bluff or mountain.
What I see in the image is a shooter the size of John Candy with a tiny AR15/M16 variant being shot into the air with such concentration that his tongue is stuck out between his lips, in a banzai dew rag, no hearing protection, and apparently wearing somebody else's gear as it does not look like it fits him. I see no combat. There is no opposing force and no indication that he is under fire in any way form opposing forces or that opposing forces are threatening him in any manner.
That the gun isn't shouldered really doesn't bother me. He might be able to point shoot just fine without it shouldered properly. The unseen forces (if there) may be airborne or up in a building that we can't see. We don't know that he is hoping for divine help to land his bullets on ground targets as he may actually have an elevated target he is trying to hit. That he isn't using his scope may mean that the threat is too close to be able to use the scope quickly.
I can't tell from any of the damage behind him that the damage was caused by combat or that he is simply in a rundown area. For all I know, he is in a 3 gun match and is outside the shoot house, transitioning to the tires barricade and engaging a fast moving trolley target on a wire before it makes it to safet behind the building, the upward angled shots being backed up by a steep bluff or mountain.
TimeRegained
New member
This is just a moment captured in an instance of footage.
It's like looking at a photo of Wayne Gretzky flat on his back on the ice and never having heard of him say, 'Well, this guy must be a terrible hockey player...'
This photo is NOT the bigger picture of what is actually going on.
It's like looking at a photo of Wayne Gretzky flat on his back on the ice and never having heard of him say, 'Well, this guy must be a terrible hockey player...'
This photo is NOT the bigger picture of what is actually going on.
ScottRiqui
New member
Here's the article associated with the photograph:
http://english.al-akhbar.com/node/7313
The caption says "An Islamist militant fires during clashes at the Bab el-Tabbaneh neighborhood in Tripoli, northern Lebanon, 13 May 12012 [sic]. (Photo: Reuters - Stringer)"
Like I said before, Reuters has had a habit in the past of publishing staged/doctored photographs, or photographs with inaccurate or misleading descriptions, so I'm not going to swear that the shooter in the picture was truly under fire when the picture was taken, but this should at least provide a little context for the thread.
http://english.al-akhbar.com/node/7313
The caption says "An Islamist militant fires during clashes at the Bab el-Tabbaneh neighborhood in Tripoli, northern Lebanon, 13 May 12012 [sic]. (Photo: Reuters - Stringer)"
Like I said before, Reuters has had a habit in the past of publishing staged/doctored photographs, or photographs with inaccurate or misleading descriptions, so I'm not going to swear that the shooter in the picture was truly under fire when the picture was taken, but this should at least provide a little context for the thread.
I recall a short video on the evening news several years ago of an Israeli army patrol that was approaching a building. It was three or four stories high but it looked like it was abandoned and perhaps damaged (don't remember that well). Anyway, as the patrol approached the building, the sprayed the windows with shots, with hardly all of the shots going through the windows. That's what you call reconnaisance by fire. Then they went on to the building.
I'm not saying that's what this guy was doing, since for one thing, you only see the one person. But the important thing is the fire your weapons as you advance. If you just sit or stand in one spot and fire when you think you see the enemy, you aren't accomplishing anything.
It is also highly likely to be a staged photo, although the very presence of a camera will tend to creat a sort of staged photo, no matter what is going on. I think that cameras on the scene affects people's behavior one way or the other, for better or for worse. I am also informed by someone (my wife's first cousin) who has spent a lot of time in foreign lands (he's in Kabul now) that news photographers are good targets). The photo could be staged only in the sense that he is showing off for the camera.
Is he a good guy or a bad guy?
I'm not saying that's what this guy was doing, since for one thing, you only see the one person. But the important thing is the fire your weapons as you advance. If you just sit or stand in one spot and fire when you think you see the enemy, you aren't accomplishing anything.
It is also highly likely to be a staged photo, although the very presence of a camera will tend to creat a sort of staged photo, no matter what is going on. I think that cameras on the scene affects people's behavior one way or the other, for better or for worse. I am also informed by someone (my wife's first cousin) who has spent a lot of time in foreign lands (he's in Kabul now) that news photographers are good targets). The photo could be staged only in the sense that he is showing off for the camera.
Is he a good guy or a bad guy?
Tom Servo:
"And he's right. If I didn't know the context of that picture, I'd assume "fat suburban mall ninja, about to get kicked off the range for acting like a doofus."
That's exactly what I thought when I saw it. In fact thats exactly what we did at our club recently -- Threw a guy out of the club.
"And he's right. If I didn't know the context of that picture, I'd assume "fat suburban mall ninja, about to get kicked off the range for acting like a doofus."
That's exactly what I thought when I saw it. In fact thats exactly what we did at our club recently -- Threw a guy out of the club.
ScottRiqui
New member
In someone's eyes, I guess so. Not sure what you mean by "bad guy", though.
Uncle Buck
New member
I get what Bart is saying.
During a training exercise, I remember getting our butts chewed for not staying behind cover, not "properly" timing our shots, not wearing all our proper protective gear, etc, ad nauseam...
It seems like it did not matter that our team achieved our objective with-out losing a member. The "enemy" team all died. They did everything our instructor chewed us out for not doing. He was an "EXPERT".
The few times I did engage in a gunfight I remembered the basics of what I was taught (Mostly counting your shots and keep moving), but not the particulars. I am just glad the experts were not there to critique me afterwards.
The only wounds I ever recieved was a ricochet to the leg (A little to the right and I would have become Auntie Buck
), soiled under-britches and an increase heart rate.
I was taught to use suppressive fire (Spray and pray) to help the team move. I would point in the general direction of the enemy and fire, trying to keep their heads down so either myself or my team mates could move to a better position. I was also taught to make your shots count. I was not a sniper, so the "One shot one kill" did not apply to me.
One of the reasons I enjoy this forum is because most people here are very knowledgeable, but few of them consider themselves experts. The arm chair commandos seem to not stick around too long once they realize they are chatting with real people with real experience.
People confuse experience with knowledge. Every situation is different and what worked for me may end up getting you hurt.
During a training exercise, I remember getting our butts chewed for not staying behind cover, not "properly" timing our shots, not wearing all our proper protective gear, etc, ad nauseam...
It seems like it did not matter that our team achieved our objective with-out losing a member. The "enemy" team all died. They did everything our instructor chewed us out for not doing. He was an "EXPERT".
The few times I did engage in a gunfight I remembered the basics of what I was taught (Mostly counting your shots and keep moving), but not the particulars. I am just glad the experts were not there to critique me afterwards.
The only wounds I ever recieved was a ricochet to the leg (A little to the right and I would have become Auntie Buck
), soiled under-britches and an increase heart rate.I was taught to use suppressive fire (Spray and pray) to help the team move. I would point in the general direction of the enemy and fire, trying to keep their heads down so either myself or my team mates could move to a better position. I was also taught to make your shots count. I was not a sniper, so the "One shot one kill" did not apply to me.
One of the reasons I enjoy this forum is because most people here are very knowledgeable, but few of them consider themselves experts. The arm chair commandos seem to not stick around too long once they realize they are chatting with real people with real experience.
People confuse experience with knowledge. Every situation is different and what worked for me may end up getting you hurt.
Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
To use another example, I once had a brain dump and gave a totally implausible description for how the M16 worked because I didn't have the rifle in front of me and my mind decided that the parts fit together this way. Even a tiny bit of rational analysis on my part would have shown that there was no way the rifle could have worked that way because it would have required the bolt carrier to extend into the barrel several inches - that is how far off base I was.
Despite that, several experienced people deferred to my explanation because they respected my opinion (despite the fact it was blatantly wrong in this case) based on past experience.
Luckily, I was able to correct the bad information I put out there. However, I see a lot of cases of people who should know better (like myself) occasionally giving out bad information. I am sure many of you can think of plenty of examples of that phenomenon just reflecting on military instruction or some of the firearms instruction you have had in the past.
I think it is important we continue to scrutinize the information we are provided and question it and not simply accept it because of who said it - and that doesn't even go into the whole "What proportion of claimed combat experience, naval special operators, etc. etc. are 13yr olds with too much time on their hands?" question - which as summer rolls around again is always an ever-present issue on gun forums.
Despite that, several experienced people deferred to my explanation because they respected my opinion (despite the fact it was blatantly wrong in this case) based on past experience.
Luckily, I was able to correct the bad information I put out there. However, I see a lot of cases of people who should know better (like myself) occasionally giving out bad information. I am sure many of you can think of plenty of examples of that phenomenon just reflecting on military instruction or some of the firearms instruction you have had in the past.
I think it is important we continue to scrutinize the information we are provided and question it and not simply accept it because of who said it - and that doesn't even go into the whole "What proportion of claimed combat experience, naval special operators, etc. etc. are 13yr olds with too much time on their hands?" question - which as summer rolls around again is always an ever-present issue on gun forums.
I understand the OP's point. There is indeed alot of old draftee and younger enlisted unchallengeable "expertise" around which is only eclipsed by suburban police officers' and mall security guards'. I balance everything everyone, anyone, says. Basic Training and The Academy don't carry much weight with me personally for, I think, good reasons...
BlackJackID
New member
OP...I get your point and agree 100%.
I know that there are those with combat experience or training that DO know what they are talking about, but simply being there does not an expert make. I am in the auto parts business..and I dont know anything really about being a mechanic.
The problem with "firearms experts" is, there is VERY little of the field that is not based on opinion or very narrow sets of circumstance..we all like to THINK we know things, but really, more often than not, these are just our own opinions based on what we have personally experienced, or choose to glean from other peoples experience.
A guy I work with, argues that the .308 is incapable of killing a deer at 50 yards, simply because he shot one through the vitals at that range and had to track it for almost a mile..he wont listen to anyone say its a great deer round, because he "has seen it".
Personally..like another poster said..I will beleive I am right and the other guy is wrong, if I am the one still standing..until then..I just have opinions...
I know that there are those with combat experience or training that DO know what they are talking about, but simply being there does not an expert make. I am in the auto parts business..and I dont know anything really about being a mechanic.
The problem with "firearms experts" is, there is VERY little of the field that is not based on opinion or very narrow sets of circumstance..we all like to THINK we know things, but really, more often than not, these are just our own opinions based on what we have personally experienced, or choose to glean from other peoples experience.
A guy I work with, argues that the .308 is incapable of killing a deer at 50 yards, simply because he shot one through the vitals at that range and had to track it for almost a mile..he wont listen to anyone say its a great deer round, because he "has seen it".
Personally..like another poster said..I will beleive I am right and the other guy is wrong, if I am the one still standing..until then..I just have opinions...
Well, here's another 100% free opinion.
Armies and police departments are not full of the most highly trained individuals on earth. There isn't time to make everyone perfect. You give them the basics, some more advanced stuff, and it's off to the beat or the field. Everything else has to be learned on the job. No army has ever taken to the field that was perfectly equipped with the very latest equipment and manned by the best, brightest and fittest young men that were available and trained to the nth degree. If any army waited until they were perfectly ready and perfectly equipped, they would be waiting still.
That doesn't mean some weren't well equipped and it doesn't mean that some armies weren't better than others, although to those on the front line, which was better may not have been all that apparent. The winner usually has the say about how great they were and how bad the enemy was, when it was just as likely a closely run affair. Even so, it may have still been a foregone conclusion. The German campaign in Poland in 1939 is a good example. The Germans took lots of casualties and suffered the loss of a surprisingly high proportion of their armored force. It was not a walkover. But the Poles lost even more and once the Soviets invaded, it was hopeless.
Either way, if you have to be in a war, try to be on the side that's going to write the history of it.
Armies and police departments are not full of the most highly trained individuals on earth. There isn't time to make everyone perfect. You give them the basics, some more advanced stuff, and it's off to the beat or the field. Everything else has to be learned on the job. No army has ever taken to the field that was perfectly equipped with the very latest equipment and manned by the best, brightest and fittest young men that were available and trained to the nth degree. If any army waited until they were perfectly ready and perfectly equipped, they would be waiting still.
That doesn't mean some weren't well equipped and it doesn't mean that some armies weren't better than others, although to those on the front line, which was better may not have been all that apparent. The winner usually has the say about how great they were and how bad the enemy was, when it was just as likely a closely run affair. Even so, it may have still been a foregone conclusion. The German campaign in Poland in 1939 is a good example. The Germans took lots of casualties and suffered the loss of a surprisingly high proportion of their armored force. It was not a walkover. But the Poles lost even more and once the Soviets invaded, it was hopeless.
Either way, if you have to be in a war, try to be on the side that's going to write the history of it.