Live data from Hacker News

Photos of Mosul 2017

petapixel.com

121–130 of 136 posts

Re: Photos of Mosul 2017

#121
post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are armed and fight. Look at the OP photos, or Google for news coverage. Fighting armed Christian groups fits perfectly with the ISIS narrative of a religious war.

There is nothing in the OP that shows them fighting. Couldn't find anything on Google either, or on their website. If you have any actual specific evidence of what you claim, show it. Otherwise I'd have to conclude you're either delusional or deliberately defaming a humanitarian group.

At 15 second it shows them firing on ISIS: http://www.nbcnews.com/video/dave-eubanks-free-burma-rangers...

As far as the OP photos go, this one here shows them as a well armed militia: https://petapixel.com/assets/uploads/2017/07/J9bqC3X.jpg

In Burma they fought for sure:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/myanmars-free-burma-rangers-are...

https://www.outsideonline.com/1910476/jesus-kissed-war-fring...

Re: Photos of Mosul 2017

#122
post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is nothing in the OP that shows them fighting. Couldn't find anything on Google either, or on their website. If you have any actual specific evidence of what you claim, show it. Otherwise I'd have to conclude you're either delusional or deliberately defaming a humanitarian group.

At 15 second it shows them firing on ISIS: http://www.nbcnews.com/video/dave-eubanks-free-burma-rangers... As far as the OP photos go, this one here shows them as a well armed militia: https://petapixel.com/assets/uploads/2017/07/J9bqC3X.jpg In Burma they fought for sure: http://www.thedailybeast.com/myanmars-free-burma-rangers-are... https://www.outsideonline.com/1910476/jesus-kissed-war-fring...

Covering fire while they're visibly rescuing wounded? Your "well armed militia" is two out of twelve carrying weapons in a group photo? News stories that repeat others' complaints about FBR members being armed, but still no evidence of a single person ever having been hit by an FBR bullet? And yet you put them in the same category as ISIS. You're going way out of your way to exaggerate what you from your comfy armchair see as problems with how they go about saving lives.

Yes, FBR allows members to arm themselves. They provide training that might be militarily useful to anti-government groups in Burma. They're clearly not pacifists. They're clearly not as genocidal-government-friendly as ICRC. Maybe you disagree with their methods philosophically, but that's no excuse for basically making stuff up.

Re: Photos of Mosul 2017

#123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ISIL (or something like it; the name/identity couldn't be predicted) as a substantial force with territory, was a foreseeable consequences of the US invasion of Iraq, the inadequate allotment of troops for occupation compared to pre-invasion expert-identified requirements, and bungling of details of the occupation like de-Baathification, particularly the wholesale and disorderly dismissal of security services. The US…

I want to believe that this result was foreseeable. I want to believe that some people at least are wise enough to see consequences of actions. Can you point to some piece of writing explaining this prior to or contemporaneous with the US invasion?

James Fallows was one of the better known journalists and he got a lot of attention:

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2002/10/proceed... https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2002/11/the-fif...

There's a LONG list of people referenced here, including a number of military, intelligence, and foreign policy experts:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_to_the_Iraq_War#Opp...

A key part to understanding this is remembering that blaming it on intelligence failures was the defense which the George W. Bush administration settled on to replace their earlier failed excuses. Before the invasion started, the intelligence claims used to justify it had fallen apart and the U.K. & U.S. Senate reports noted that significant pressure was placed by the White House on the intelligence agencies to justify what they were already planning to do.

(The former Treasury Secretary noted that is was planned starting before 9/11: http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/10/oneill.bush/)

The Downing Street memo (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downing_Street_memo) had a similar conclusion, quoting the Foreign Minister:

> Bush wanted to remove Saddam Hussein, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy

The pattern through all of this was the White House choosing to ignore, override, or replace professional civil servants with political appointees who would produce the desired results. When the CIA and other analysts would not support those claims, Donald Rumsfeld setup a sham intelligence unit which did produce the claims they later used (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Special_Plans).

This happened with the planning for the invasion and occupation.

When the military sensibly pointed out that they needed to plan for the occupation:

> In fact, said Brig. Gen. Mark Scheid, Rumsfeld said "he would fire the next person" who talked about the need for a post-war plan. > > Rumsfeld did replace Gen. Eric Shinseki, the Army chief of staff in 2003, after Shinseki told Congress that hundreds of thousands of troops would be needed to secure post-war Iraq.

http://articles.dailypress.com/2006-09-08/news/0609080088_1_...

When the State Department accurately predicted that the invasion and occupation would not be a cake-walk, it was largely ignored. As one example, that was the conclusion in 2003 — well before the full scope of the botch had become clear:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/19/world/struggle-for-iraq-pl...

Re: Photos of Mosul 2017

#124
post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At 15 second it shows them firing on ISIS: http://www.nbcnews.com/video/dave-eubanks-free-burma-rangers... As far as the OP photos go, this one here shows them as a well armed militia: https://petapixel.com/assets/uploads/2017/07/J9bqC3X.jpg In Burma they fought for sure: http://www.thedailybeast.com/myanmars-free-burma-rangers-are... https://www.outsideonline.com/1910476/jesus-kissed-war-fring...

Covering fire while they're visibly rescuing wounded? Your "well armed militia" is two out of twelve carrying weapons in a group photo? News stories that repeat others' complaints about FBR members being armed, but still no evidence of a single person ever having been hit by an FBR bullet? And yet you put them in the same category as ISIS. You're going way out of your way to exaggerate what you from your comfy armcha…

I disagree completely with civilian groups arming themselves and entertaining war zones when their posture is no longer defensive only.

They put themselves on the front line and fire on the enemy. I agree with their goals, but that's precisely the definition of an armed combatant.

This isn't a media conspiracy, it's the groups own video footage.

I don't see anything indicating that the charity money isn't being used to pay for weapons.

What's with the aggressive accusations of (not sure what exactly)? I'd note that what I said is precisely true. You seem to be reading a lot of things I didn't say into your reaction.

Again, I'm not making things up here.

Re: Photos of Mosul 2017

#125
post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are armed and they are religious, but they don't seem to be acting as combatants. The article you cite doesn't indicate that FBR members participated in any fighting. Yes, they actively seek out firefights because - rather obviously - that's where their services are likely to be needed. There are arguments for and against being armed in such an environment, but none of that suggests they're an "armed religious g…

Not being armed in such an environment is insane. I spent most of a decade in Iraq and Afghanistan, and unless I was on US bases with vastly better security, was armed in any situation where it was possible (there were a couple exceptions in Afghanistan and they were horrendously stupid.) (Not religious, and not a "security contractor" -- we ran wifi and satellites and such -- but zero interest in being kidnapped and…

Aside from the political/ethical discussion here: logistically, how did you arm yourself when abroad as a private citizen in the Middle East?

I'm guessing you get blessing from Iraqi and/or American embassies in advance? How do you ship arms without falling afoul of carrier and export issues? Or are there arms corporations that allow for pickup on location (or on US bases)?

Re: Photos of Mosul 2017

#126
post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Covering fire while they're visibly rescuing wounded? Your "well armed militia" is two out of twelve carrying weapons in a group photo? News stories that repeat others' complaints about FBR members being armed, but still no evidence of a single person ever having been hit by an FBR bullet? And yet you put them in the same category as ISIS. You're going way out of your way to exaggerate what you from your comfy armcha…

I disagree completely with civilian groups arming themselves and entertaining war zones when their posture is no longer defensive only. They put themselves on the front line and fire on the enemy. I agree with their goals, but that's precisely the definition of an armed combatant. This isn't a media conspiracy, it's the groups own video footage. I don't see anything indicating that the charity money isn't being used…

> their posture is no longer defensive only

Covering fire is defensive, and that's all the video shows. They're not initiating any action, they're not even aiming directly at an enemy, and there's no evidence anyone was even harmed. That fits a pedant's definition of "armed combatant" perhaps, but using that to put them in the same category as ISIS just isn't useful. Note also that they were victims of a war crime, specifically firing upon those providing succor to the wounded. Is it your position that they don't even have a right to defend themselves against war crimes?

> I don't see anything indicating that the charity money isn't being used to pay for weapons.

You mean despite the repeated statements, in things you've cited yourself, that they don't arm recruits? They're very clear that they only let recruits arm themselves. You're making a pretty strong accusation there, contrary to rational expectation, with not even an attempt at proof. That's not "precisely true" at all.

So you think aid groups should be so "neutral" and "apolitical" that they effectively let governments - even the worst ones - decide when and how and to whom they provide aid? Wonderful. That's the ICRC's position. It's defensible, but they've also drawn criticism for it. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Hell of a position to put people in while they're trying to save lives. If you had just said that you believe FBR is wrong for adopting the methods that they have, that would be fine, but making up new wrongs still isn't going to fly.

Re: Photos of Mosul 2017

#127
post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree completely with civilian groups arming themselves and entertaining war zones when their posture is no longer defensive only. They put themselves on the front line and fire on the enemy. I agree with their goals, but that's precisely the definition of an armed combatant. This isn't a media conspiracy, it's the groups own video footage. I don't see anything indicating that the charity money isn't being used…

> their posture is no longer defensive only Covering fire is defensive, and that's all the video shows. They're not initiating any action, they're not even aiming directly at an enemy, and there's no evidence anyone was even harmed. That fits a pedant's definition of "armed combatant" perhaps, but using that to put them in the same category as ISIS just isn't useful. Note also that they were victims of a war crime, s…

It's your words that pit them in the same category as ISIS, not me (or rather you keep claiming that is what I'm doing, but it isn't what I've said anywhere).

Your claims have gone from they don't fight to you can't prove that they killed anyone when they fight. Mine has been they fight, and I'd note you seem to have conceded that, and yet still are accusing me of making stuff up.

I think that there is a difference between the work a hypothetical charity which pays for bodyguards for protection, and this, where charity workers are laying down covering fire.

There another version of that footage around where they are clearly aiming at ISIS snipers when providing covering fire. To me that doesn't make any difference, but perhaps it does to you?

I'd be interested in your views on the various Hamas and Hezbollah affiliated charity groups? To me they are clearly terrorist groups, but if I'm reading you correctly they are legitimate because they provide medical aid?

Re: Photos of Mosul 2017

#128
post #81

These shots capture the harshness of human conflict and how we (human beings) change in the face of it. Thank you. I disagree with people saying these are good shots. In the collection another user posted ( http://www.kainoalittle.com/mosul ) there are better shots technically and artistically. Yet that the photographer chose these shots for the article speak tons. These aren't photographs to make you feel better, th…

I have to (respectfully) disagree. These pictures are good, but imo they are still arguably war porn- lots of concrete rubble and men in the heat of battle (videogame stuff essentially). They don't really capture the true consequences or horrors of war. Pictures like the Napalm girl in Vietnam or more recently the picture of the drowned refugee boy on the beach[1] and that picture of that Syrian boy covered in blood…

For me it works a bit differently. The photographs you referred to (and I do know them) make me very sad but also it is difficult to relate (not sure if it is the proper verb), maybe because I don't have kids.

The shots from this story though, I can relate. I can imagine myself (as a middle aged male) in a war going against live rounds and it is very scary. I can imagine both being a civilian, unable to do anything or a soldier going at the heart of the conflict and I hope I will never have to be in such a position.

Re: Photos of Mosul 2017

#129
post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not being armed in such an environment is insane. I spent most of a decade in Iraq and Afghanistan, and unless I was on US bases with vastly better security, was armed in any situation where it was possible (there were a couple exceptions in Afghanistan and they were horrendously stupid.) (Not religious, and not a "security contractor" -- we ran wifi and satellites and such -- but zero interest in being kidnapped and…

Aside from the political/ethical discussion here: logistically, how did you arm yourself when abroad as a private citizen in the Middle East? I'm guessing you get blessing from Iraqi and/or American embassies in advance? How do you ship arms without falling afoul of carrier and export issues? Or are there arms corporations that allow for pickup on location (or on US bases)?

In Iraq in 2003-2004 it was "send one of my guards to the market to see what was on offer". I spent the entire time I was there trying to get a Sig or Glock; had a Browning Hi Power pretty early on, then upgraded to a CZ 97B once I found a way to get .45acp ammo. Also spent the entire time trying to get a decent AKM, never found one, ended up with an RPK. I saw some MP5s as well, but they were $3-5k, and 9mm isn't really a great round in FMJ, so I never got one. Obviously everything remained in country when I left.

I was locally contracted with DOD/etc and had letters from my customers authorizing me to be armed. (There was policy that such authorization had to come from the combatant commander, but in reality it got delegated pretty far down, and even if people in my customer orgs were not individually authorized to sign, no random MP would challenge those orgs.) It was a pretty ambiguous situation, but being American, I was essentially exempt from local law, and private citizens (Iraqis) were allowed one rifle for self defense in any case. There were some US bases where I wasn't allowed to carry, but the commanders were able to authorize that as well. The absolute worst thing that could happen from the US side would be "sent back to the US", but there was really no risk of that, and the most routine thing was at worst "please deposit your weapons with our office until you leave our base, if you don't have weapons authorization" on the biggest bases toward the end of the occupation -- and those are the places where I would have just secured it anyway in an armory because I didn't want to carry it around, and in any serious incident I would have been around professionals or could have picked up M4s off the ground.

Most private contractors were prohibited by their US issued contracts and their insurers from being armed, unless they were security companies. Many outside the wire contractors still armed themselves the same way I did.

The international shipping of arms is really the only problem; within a country like Iraq it really isn't a big deal. I did end up learning to do armorer level maintenance on the AK and Hi Power platforms while there, and made friends with a gunsmith.

Post reply on HN