Text 6199, 69 rader
Skriven 2004-12-12 11:57:00 av RICHARD HELM (1:123/140)
     Kommentar till en text av BJÖRN FORSSTRÖM
Ärende: Breaking News!
======================
On 12 Dec 10, BJöRN FORSSTRöM wrote to SEAN DENNIS:
on the subject: Breaking News! 


 SD>> Put up or shut up, Bjorn.  I was in the Army for eight years in
 SD>> active duty and I'd not once ever heard that, even when I worked in 
 SD>> the JAG office as a clerk.

 BF>  Just because you haven't heard of it doesn' mean it isn't true.

Have you considered that what you heard and then wrote about was either
incomplete or inaccurate?   You've already shown a tendency to be criticial
of U.S. positions and jump at any thing that suppports your already biased
opinion.

Here are the original words you wrote that has created this thread.

     "I even heard on the news a member of the US Army saying it was a
     terrible thing to do and is against US law for soldiers to even take
     pic:s in a war and they are going to investigate it."

Don't you see something that just dosn't fit with other facts you know to
be true?  Like "is against US law for soldiers to even take pic:s in a war"
Soldiers have been taking pictures, in wars, ever since there have been
cameras.  Soldiers take pictures of each other, of where they've been and
so on for ever.  Logic alone should give you a clue that there is something
wrong with your statement above.  Think about it.

 BF> I have heard it from, whatever his name was, an higher officer in US 
 BF> Army and for me his words are a bit heavyer then yours AND from other 
 BF> high officers in that case about the guy who took pic;s at Guantanamo 
 BF> and did get a convicition for doing so.

Now you have a couple of different issues here.  One is that the soldier
that took the pictures in Gitmo may have been violating *local* regulations
about photographing restricted areas.  Not a US law.  Gitmo is NOT a war
zone.  

Second, and maybe more important, is that you have taken on the word of
several in this forum that have great amounts of personal experience with
military matters.  Including enforcing the various rules and regulations
that govern the armed forces of the United States.  You rely on a TV
program to give you information about things that were our jobs.  Our
professions.

Sean, for instance, says that he worked in the a JAG office.  The JAG is
where the legal eagles of the military hang out.  His job would have
included doing the paperwork that delt with such violations.  Something
that he would have been exposed to on a routine basis and he says isn't
true, you refuse to accept because of a brief comment on a Swedish TV
program.

Does it make sense to you to hear someone say "it's against US law for
soldiers to take pictures in war" and then see dozens of pictures, taken
by soldiers, of various landmarks around their locations?  You should have
conflicts within your own thinking when you hear one thing that you know
is happening on a routine basis.  

Either you misunderstood what was said on that TV program or you have
allowed your prejudices to over rule logic, or both.

Richard 
 rlhelm@radiks.net
 http://rlhelm.home.radiks.net

... If you're not making waves, you're not rowing the boat
 * Silver Xpress V4.5/P [Reg]
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5
 * Origin: Try Our Web Based QWK: DOCSPLACE.ORG (1:123/140)