Georgian Reporter shot on live TV (VIDEO)

Originally posted by TheRepublic
reply to post by Maxmars

 

2 results for: riffle

Roget's II: The New Thesaurus
Main Entry: browse
Part of Speech: verb
Definition: To look through reading matter casually.
Synonyms: dip into, flip through, glance at, leaf, run through, scan, skim, thumb


Roget's II: The New Thesaurus
Main Entry: shuffle
Part of Speech: verb
Definition: To mix together so as to change the order of arrangement.
Synonyms: jumble, scramble



thesaurus.reference.com...

Btw, the ATS spellchecker didn't pick up riffle as a misspelled word.



[edit on 14-8-2008 by TheRepublic]

I stand corrected. Doesnt change a thing about my argument though.

[edit on 8/14/2008 by cautiouslypessimistic]

[edit on 8/14/2008 by cautiouslypessimistic]

reply to post by Maxmars


these irregulars were on the side of the georgian government. the reporter was sitting with russian troops when the georgians came up and confronted them.

i agree its hard to know for sure what is going on over there. i suppose you could just not believe any of the reporters, but that was my point in the firstplace. i think this video was contrived by georgia to try and bolster support as propaganda it is my opinion from looking at the video.

i do not trust the reporters or the georgian government. they have both been caught in many lies over this conflict. that is why i am skeptical of the claim that this women was shot by the russians on live TV. I think propaganda makes much more sense.

EDIT: also no missles were involved it was gunfire.

[edit on 14-8-2008 by TheRepublic]

reply to post by jsobecky


Thank you jsobecky.

As embarrassed as I am that I can’t spell, I am more embarrassed that I got dragged into debate with an obvious troll over it.

Originally posted by cavscout
reply to post by jsobecky

 

Thank you jsobecky.

As embarrassed as I am that I can’t spell, I am more embarrassed that I got dragged into debate with an obvious troll over it.

Ya know, it's funny...you haven't been able to actually argue anything here, you state something and expect me to buy it as fact, then back it up by calling me a troll because I actually study.

Typical deflection of a liar.

Originally posted by cautiouslypessimistic
Ya know, it's funny...you haven't been able to actually argue anything here, you state something and expect me to buy it as fact, then back it up by calling me a troll because I actually study.

Typical deflection of a liar.

I don’t lie. Period. My Lord forbids it.

This is my last post to you. After this I'm done feeding you. You would do well to understand that this is not a debate forum, it is a discussion forum. We are not here to argue with each other.

The only reason I am continuing to this is that the capabilities of a sniper and his weapon are directly relevant to the possibility that this was set up for propaganda reasons.

I have provided proof of my service record to members of ATS in the past, probably years before you even began lurking. I will not put my DD-214 up as an avatar, you will have to take my word for it.

There is no argument about it. In the Army our sniper and squad designated marksmen weapons are 1 MOA. That means that at 100 yards our bullets will hit within 1 inch of each other IF they are locked into a bench vise. An exceptional marksman can put 3 rounds in 1.5 inch group with such a weapon at 100 yards.

At 800 yards that same weapon opens up to 8 inch groups on a bench and 12 inches fir an exceptional marksman. This is why center of mass shots are, as a rule, the rule.

So, lets assume that the shooter was firing a 1 MOA rifle from 100 yards (the shots sounded even further.) If the weapon was locked into place and the woman was capable of her arm PERFECTLY still, half of those rounds fired would have hit the woman’s arm directly instead of grazing her.

My 13 year old daughter understands that she can never exceed the capabilities of her weapon, why cant you?

Why does all this matter? Because she would not be grazed for propaganda unless they were prepared for the possibility of multiple rounds actually hitting the woman, possibly in the torso depending on the weapon, the marksman, and the distance. This greatly decreases the odds that they would set this up for a propaganda flick, assuming that the blood we saw was indeed caused by a riffle round.

Now please, don’t ever direct your posts at me again.

reply to post by cavscout


I will direct my posts where i want, when I want. And as for it being a discussion forum, you cannot have proper discussion without debate, nor can you ever see all sides without opposing points of view. So sorry if you dont like it, but debating whther or not I agree with a post and what that post presumes is something I will continue to do.

Once again, you are making my argument for me. I have said, 4 times now, that THERE WOULD BE NO POINT TO A GRAZING SHOT. It is asinine.

And again, there are thousands of instances of visual proof to dispute your claims of impossibility, so no need to argue it.

Bottom line, you are missing the point completely, and trying to prove your superiority as opposed to looking at the topic at hand. Maybe you really were military afterall....

Originally posted by TheRepublic
reply to post by Maxmars

 

these irregulars were on the side of the georgian government. the reporter was sitting with russian troops when the georgians came up and confronted them.

Well who's to say they were firing at the reporters? They are still considered to be fighting, despite the French's attempts at diplomacy. These wouldn't happen to be 'embedded' reporters would they? Just curious.

i do not trust the reporters or the georgian government. they have both been caught in many lies over this conflict. that is why i am skeptical of the claim that this women was shot by the russians on live TV.

I trust no reporter, or media message. Everything must be questioned and evaluated.

I think propaganda makes much more sense.

There defninitely is propaganda involved in this case. Problem is, where is it hiding?

EDIT: also no missles were involved it was gunfire.

I'm certain the reporter said '..., firing missiles at us...,"

Originally posted by Maxmars

I'm certain the reporter said '..., firing missiles at us...,"

There is no "t" in missiles. He clearly said pistols.

No, if the reporter was sitting with Russian troops who were in the act of harassing Georgian citizens, couldn’t it be possible that the Georgian soldiers were firing at the Russian soldiers.

Sorry reporters, the world, including its wars, don’t stop because of your presence. You sit with side A troops in a hostile fire zone, expect to get fired on by side b's troops.

You aren’t covering a new ride at Disney Land, this is combat.

reply to post by cavscout


What was your unit armorer doing trying to go to jail by having people not sign for their weapons or did yall use weapons cards? (I was a unit armorer for about a year in one of my units)

I dont think the video was setup though, something is just weird about it.

Originally posted by MikeboydUS
What was your unit armorer doing trying to go to jail by having people not sign for their weapons or did yall use weapons cards? (I was a unit armorer for about a year in one of my units)

Weren’t you an MP? You guys carry personal weapons every day. A little different.

When we would go to the range our weapons would be there waiting for us. We would get a weapon, zero it, qualify, and turn it back in. No person left the range until all weapons were accounted for.

The next day, up at the troop, we would just walk up to the arms room and the armorer would hand us a weapon to clean. That simple.

Now when I went to Iraq we carried our weapons with us on the plane because we zeroed them stateside. Before we left, we did indeed sign for our weapons.

Funny thing, now that I think of it we would have to sign out PVS-7s and other sensitive items so it is strange that we didn’t personally sign for weapons 100% of the time.

Be nice if you could back me up on some of this other crap, anyone who had to qualify should understand what I am saying.




[edit on 14-8-2008 by cavscout]

Originally posted by TheRepublic
i bet its a georgian propaganda set up
if she was supposed to be hit her head would have been blown off.
the whole thing looks suspicious to me.

I'm thinking the same thing. I've seen real people get shot in front of my eyes, even just grazed, and this reporter acted nothing like any of them. She just seems to brush it off - in fact you can't even see it happening on the video, and don't see the wound until after she rushes back to the van.

I bet she rushed back to the van to have her camera crew apply fake blood on her arm.



And any way, the whole video was totally anti-climatic.

reply to post by TheRepublic


I can definitly agree with the reasons why they would make this propaganda. Its just so hard to believe any person trained to be a sniper would graze her arm once and miss 5 other shots when there were obviously other targets there.

I do not wish to go off topic but
I noticed the link used in the OP was from a particular
british newspaper which I truly despise and it is of course
only a link relating to the thread subject matter
which is of course shocking in itself.

I just want to use this opportunity to educate everyone about the british
S*n newspaper.
I utterly loathe the paper with every ounce of my being. The S*n isn’t the only media tool used by the regressive right to mislead the masses, but it's one of the most powerful & vulgar. This 'newspaper' trades on the pretence that it’s the rag of the common man, when in fact, it’s a mouthpiece of an intolerant and hateful elite. The Scum treats its readers with the utmost contempt by insulting its collective intelligence & feeding its prejudice. It has a fundamental opposition to reason, & as such, should be challenged.
I dislike The S*n intensely because it has a responsibility to its readership to present the truth on the issues that effect the UK and the world, rather than propagating myths, fiction and propaganda. Its readers use it (many people may doubt this but that's plain snobbery) as a source of knowledge and information on a wide range of issues. It's about time The S*n stepped up to the plate and acted like a newspaper, rather than as an extension of the Rupert Murdoch machine.
Think of it as almost like the Fox News in tabloid newspaper form.

Perhaps i should have started a thread on the subject, apologies again for going a little off topic.


Please see the following link in my signature which of course relates
to the most important reason for what I have written above
and the inspiration for my avatar.

Thanks for reading.


If you're looking for news stay away from this trash

why does it HAVE to be a Russian Sniper?

Who says it wasnt an amateur S. Ossetian Separtist Guerrilla?

reply to post by TheRepublic


I agree, the whole thing looked like a set up..... What are the chances of a grazed bullet?

IT's total BS.

Originally posted by cavscout
reply to post by jsobecky

 

Thank you jsobecky.

As embarrassed as I am that I can’t spell, I am more embarrassed that I got dragged into debate with an obvious troll over it.

hey mate Don't sweat it .. I can't spell worth a damn ether And if cautiouslypessimistic isn't a troll hes a 13-15 year old who knows absolutly nothing about firearms etc.

I enjoy shooting long range matches myself . (1000 yards) Usualy with my M1 on open sights. Great practice for matches.

As for whoever shot the bullet (If there even was one) There is absolutely no way to tell and anyone who does voice an opinion on this is purely speculating.

Short of doing bullet comparison (forensics) of every rifle within a mile or more of that location we will never know who fired the shot.. (Again.. If there was even a bullet in the first place)





[edit on 14-8-2008 by wolfmanjack]

reply to post by brettcal82


An close acquaintance of mine is a sniper in the Army Rangers...he doesn't miss. If this was a trained sniper in a military, he would not have missed. I am not saying whether it was Russia or Georgia, of that we cannot be certain, but this girl is more than likely alive because she wasn't supposed to have been killed in the first place.

it is 2008 people. Trust me when I say this...SNIPERS DO NOT MISS their target...yet alone just graze them on the arm.

seriously, I dont know if she is in on it or not..but use your common sense and logic.

First of all, no one in that group heard shots fired - if they did, they would have all scattered for cover. The sound you hear is the microphone she has bumping/scratching after she gets hit.

More than likely she was just super unlucky/lucky and got hit by a stray bullet probably fired from over a mile away. They are near hostile activities afterall.

So, no it wasn't a sniper.
No, it wasn't propaganda (except it could be used that way if they tried to imply it was a "Russian sniper!")
It was just bad luck or good luck, depending on which way you look at it.

Originally posted by harrytuttle
First of all, no one in that group heard shots fired - if they did, they would have all scattered for cover. The sound you hear is the microphone she has bumping/scratching after she gets hit.

More than likely she was just super unlucky/lucky and got hit by a stray bullet probably fired from over a mile away. They are near hostile activities afterall.

So, no it wasn't a sniper.
No, it wasn't propaganda (except it could be used that way if they tried to imply it was a "Russian sniper!")
It was just bad luck or good luck, depending on which way you look at it.

Ive said this many times in this thread..... People though want to make a mole hill into a mountain here though.