Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,918 Year: 4,175/9,624 Month: 1,046/974 Week: 5/368 Day: 5/11 Hour: 0/2


EvC Forum ⇒ Side Orders ⇒ Coffee House ⇒

US war crime as free speech issue (help holmes sort this out)

Thread ▼ Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   US war crime as free speech issue (help holmes sort this out)
Tal
Member (Idle past 5708 days)
Posts: 1140
From: Fort Bragg, NC
Joined: 12-29-2004

Normal Thread Display
Message 34 of 80 (248822)
10-04-2005 10:36 AM 		Reply to: Message 32 by Silent H
10-04-2005 7:08 AM

Re: Army takes a stand against spying (please don't, please?)
quote:
What's interesting is that you may note in the following that he never comes out and tells them to quit with the war crimes, in fact he totally avoids mentioning that where it should be which is point #1.
​
That's because the subject of of this message was about OPSEC (Operational Security), specifically, sensitive photographs.
​
What war crimes are you referring to?
​
Oh, and he's not telling us to practice good OPSEC so we don't offend anyone. It is so we don't place soldiers on the ground at greater risk and degrade the effectiveness of our operations.
​
"Damn. I could build a nuclear bomb, given the fissionable material, but I can't tame my computer." (1VB)Jerome - French Rocket Scientist
This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Silent H, posted 10-04-2005 7:08 AM Silent H has replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Silent H, posted 10-04-2005 11:23 AM Tal has replied
  
Tal
Member (Idle past 5708 days)
Posts: 1140
From: Fort Bragg, NC
Joined: 12-29-2004

Normal Thread Display
Message 36 of 80 (249074)
10-05-2005 10:34 AM 		Reply to: Message 35 by Silent H
10-04-2005 11:23 AM

Re: Army takes a stand against spying (please don't, please?)
The crimes we can't possibly be commiting since we're americans. Have you read the thread?
​
Answer the question. Generalizations avoid specifics.
​
You have no opinion on the actions of these (particular) soldiers, nor the astounding lack of security protocols within the theater of operation?
​
My opinion of these particular soldiers is that they are dirtbags and have been convicted and sentenced. My point is that you can't pull 1 memo about 1 subject and conlude that covers every topic in the military.
​
"Damn. I could build a nuclear bomb, given the fissionable material, but I can't tame my computer." (1VB)Jerome - French Rocket Scientist
This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Silent H, posted 10-04-2005 11:23 AM Silent H has replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Silent H, posted 10-05-2005 10:51 AM Tal has replied
  
Tal
Member (Idle past 5708 days)
Posts: 1140
From: Fort Bragg, NC
Joined: 12-29-2004

Normal Thread Display
Message 38 of 80 (249548)
10-06-2005 1:42 PM 		Reply to: Message 37 by Silent H
10-05-2005 10:51 AM

Re: Army takes a stand against spying (please don't, please?)
This was posted by soldiers stationed within the region about what the recent military stance is.
​
Posting this is an OPSEC violation in itself.
​
(U/FOUO)
​
FOUO means For Official Use Only.
​
If you have something else please share, otherwise I'll trust the guys that are there and posting this, rather than you.
​
Not sure what you mean here. I was there. I've read the memo.
​
"Damn. I could build a nuclear bomb, given the fissionable material, but I can't tame my computer." (1VB)Jerome - French Rocket Scientist
This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Silent H, posted 10-05-2005 10:51 AM Silent H has replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Silent H, posted 10-06-2005 4:23 PM Tal has not replied
  
Date format: mm-dd-yyyy
Timezone: ET (US)
  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024