IGX

This is a website containing photos taken by a Green Beret. His name is Alex Manne. His Dad, Jay, is a local Miami photographer. They recently had a showing of some his work in Fort Lauderdale.
This is the website. http://www.alexinafghanistan.com/index.html
Hope you enjoy it.

Nice Tom. Thanks.

It'd be a cool place to visit if not for all the sand niggers.

It's traumatic enough to see your offspring go to a war-zone, but to be packing two bulky cameras AND all his lenses with him to my way of thinking, was... unthinkable.

What a vag. I thought the poster was the kid's Mom, but No. This is a post by "Jay," the Dad, I assume.
No wonder Alex went SF...his Dad probably never let him have a cap pistol.

PS - some good photos.

In some places incredibly beautiful.

In all places incredible waste of time, talent, and treasure.

We are only there now because Obama the Magnificent claimed it was the smart war to be fighting, and nobody questioned that because he is so smart.

And so it continues...

powerlifter54 wrote:
In all places incredible waste of time, talent, and treasure.

We are only there now because Obama the Magnificent claimed it was the smart war to be fighting

I recall endless references to "Bush's War," Iraq. But no one uses the term, "Obama's War" to refer to Afghanistan.
Hmm.

Probably because we invaded Afghanistan under Bush, rather than Obama.

No, probably not. Following the Bush Iraq Surge model, Obama doubled down on Afghanistan.

Who was President when we invaded Afghanistan?
Oh, right...

It's delusional to pretend that the seven and a half years of Dubya's Presidency in which we were at war in Afghanistan don't count because you hate Obama.

milosz wrote:Who was President when we invaded Afghanistan?
Oh, right...

When a President not only continues, but doubles-down on an activity that is in his power to completely stop, doesn't he own it?
Or do you refer to the Vietnam War as "Eisenhower's War"?

johno wrote:

milosz wrote:Who was President when we invaded Afghanistan?
Oh, right...

When a President not only continues, but doubles-down on an activity that is in his power to completely stop, doesn't he own it?
Or do you refer to the Vietnam War as "Eisenhower's War"?

"Your President who is bought and paid for by the military industrial complex is the cause of this conflict"

"No, your President who is bought and paid for by the military industrial complex is responsible"

Query for Johno, BB et al.

In a world where you're not supposed to talk about fast roping and other little trinkets of the trade, how in the hell does one get photos like these published?

I'm pleased that theses photos are out there, way more interesting that semi fictional biographies and hollywood propaganda films but the way people get in a lather about operational security long after the fact, how does this work?


Dopes DOD get a head nod on each one? is there a presumption that you won't do anything naughty with your camera?

Blaidd Drwg wrote:Query for Johno, BB et al.

In a world where you're not supposed to talk about fast roping and other little trinkets of the trade, how in the hell does one get photos like these published?

I'm pleased that theses photos are out there, way more interesting that semi fictional biographies and hollywood propaganda films but the way people get in a lather about operational security long after the fact, how does this work?


Dopes DOD get a head nod on each one? is there a presumption that you won't do anything naughty with your camera?

What's classified changes with time. Fast roping and little birds equipped with pods for personnel transport were classified in my day yet I have pictures of them, the people and other training we did at the time-this is even well before the advent of the cell phone. Now they're all over the internet and have been for years.

Some of it is upon the soldier himself to exercise judgement but also don't assume that because this guy's SF he's doing anything classified. And given the camera he has he'd conspicuous if he were out of line. Cell cameras are harder to control. Nothing I see posted by him is a problem. Filming stuff, that's an animal of a different stripe.

So it's largely just individual discretion? Some of the Youtube vids I run across I think, holy shit, if i did that at my job I'd be shittcanned in a minute.

From where I came, if you went live, cameras of any ilk were forbidden. As was any personal information. Entirely sterile. Usually it was physically inspected for, other times you were just asked-woe be if you got caught lying though. The rest of the time it was soldier and small unit leader discretion. So if you took a picture of a little bird with 4 paks on it in those days and it got out, you would be courts martialed. Not so sure today. Video you have to be more careful with. Some can be submitted to PA before release.

It's not just OPSEC these days, either,it's dumb asses recording shit they shouldn't be doing and then posting it. That's such a special sort of stupid there isn't even a word for it yet.

I googled him out of curiosity. He's a civilian now, but also a Guardsman. From an interview...sounds like he did his due diligence on what pix to share.

I'm not actually assigned as a photographer. I have a regular MOS (Military Occupational Specialty). Which sometimes made it difficult to get the best shots and be in the best spots because I had to focus on security and doing my job first. However, my photography skills ultimately served a purpose to our mission. As someone who is not assigned as a photographer, there are no restrictions, other than using good judgement, to what I can shoot. However, the army has restrictions and guidelines on what I can make public.

Blaidd Drwg wrote:Query for Johno, BB et al.

In a world where you're not supposed to talk about fast roping and other little trinkets of the trade, how in the hell does one get photos like these published?

A lot of times if you run it through your immediate command, SJA (lawyers), and PAO (public affairs) and get their blessing, you're good-- they'll run it through the proper channels. Sometimes you have to do a little extra paperwork, but it's not a huge deal. The DOD likes good publicity.

Sua Sponte wrote:

Blaidd Drwg wrote:Query for Johno, BB et al.

In a world where you're not supposed to talk about fast roping and other little trinkets of the trade, how in the hell does one get photos like these published?

What's classified changes with time.

I figured it was safe to talk about fast roping after I saw it in the umpteenth movie. The Final Option (British SAS) was the first one I recall seeing it in.

In my time, the Army didn't give much guidance as to what was OPSEC, except that we weren't supposed to discuss planned deployments.


********

Related topic: PERSEC (personnel security) - Today's News Tribune made me scratch my head - on the front page was a photo of Task Force 160 "Nightstalkers" climbing Mt. Rainier. I guess there's no more war, so it's OK to publish their faces? It shocked me.

Not allowed to take any pictures at my current job. But i can google just about anything i want to display and it is on the webz already.

johno wrote: When a President not only continues, but doubles-down on an activity that is in his power to completely stop, doesn't he own it?
Or do you refer to the Vietnam War as "Eisenhower's War"?

So what you're saying is, prior to 2009, we only had 'advisors' on the ground in Afghanistan?

milosz wrote:

johno wrote: When a President not only continues, but doubles-down on an activity that is in his power to completely stop, doesn't he own it?
Or do you refer to the Vietnam War as "Eisenhower's War"?

So what you're saying is, prior to 2009, we only had 'advisors' on the ground in Afghanistan?

Just like we only had advisors on the ground prior to 68?

Trying to think of the word used for people that look down on/mistrust/deny the value of a proper education.....


GOT IT! Niggers.

milosz wrote:

johno wrote: When a President not only continues, but doubles-down on an activity that is in his power to completely stop, doesn't he own it?
Or do you refer to the Vietnam War as "Eisenhower's War"?

So what you're saying is, prior to 2009, we only had 'advisors' on the ground in Afghanistan?

I'm saying when a President not only continues, but doubles-down on an activity that is in his power to completely stop, he owns it.
It is now "Obama's War."

I like the dog pics.

Dogs are dogs.