"Instant of Death" - photojournalist in Syria captures incredible photograph - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Kalibos2;37582078]I don't understand this post. Are you new to humanity? I'll agree that war is terrible, but I definitely wouldn't say that it is fruitless. War gets shit done.[/QUOTE] violence instigates more violence and it all stems from ignorance. it's unnecessary and wasteful.

[QUOTE=soccerskyman;37585450]Because these things had no chance of discovery/invention outside of America.[/QUOTE] Those fine looking fellows in the photographs aren't American. That's the point of the post. It's a little thing called sarcasm.

That's what they'll get for being daft terrorist dumbarses. Syria's government should keep up and stop these hate mongering people.

[QUOTE=soccerskyman;37585450]Because these things had no chance of discovery/invention outside of America.[/QUOTE] I believe you missed the joke. Neither of the men he used as examples were American.

[QUOTE=sonerin;37586156]That's what they'll get for being daft terrorist dumbarses. Syria's government should keep up and stop these hate mongering people.[/QUOTE] lol you have got to be fucking kidding me

[QUOTE=NoDachi;37583488]Then why make such a fucking stupid comment as 'war gets shit done', with no means to prove what you just said. Of course you're just going to regurgitate the same thing above by going 'herp well there were many technological achievements in WW2...' even though 'gets shit done' is not a substantive noun for 'lets trade countries and murder millions for 6 years until things go back to a nearly pre-war map except for a massive west vs east polarisation that leads to the cold war.'[/QUOTE] first off, calm your shit. you're acting like I insulted your mother or something second, again, I don't know what you're meaning to convey. accomplishment can mean any number of things in different context. in ww2 for example other than driving forward technology and sociological ideas (the elimination of an authoritarian state and the subsequent post-war resurgence of capitalism as a major popular philosophy) there was a major concerted effort of production (nevermind that it was of war materials. the fact that it was a HUGE driver of concentrated effort after the great depression is evidence enough of accomplishment - again, it depends how you define accomplishment) I mean yeah if you're speaking about accomplishment strictly in the context of military conquest then sure it doesn't always do anything. but the fact is that war is almost always a major driver of production and ironically unity

Guys, they're not photos... they're stills from a video. Just so you know. It's still terrifying when you see them broken down like this, but considerable less impressive in my eyes. I know that's not really the point, but the thread title puts specific emphasis on the fact they're photos. Whereas it doesn't actually mention it in the article, it only mentions "filming". "Photojournalism" includes video as well.

It's fascinating that at the instant when the flames were shown, their bodies had already sustained a lethal amount of concussion and/or shrapnel.

[QUOTE=Furioso;37587102]lol you have got to be fucking kidding me[/QUOTE] Fun fact: They're terrorists, and they're ruining the country and harming civilians.

[QUOTE=sonerin;37587539]Fun fact: They're terrorists, and they're ruining the country and harming civilians.[/QUOTE] So Assad's government is the savior of the land according to you then?

That is some mean imagery, it reminds me of those 'photos that shook the world' [editline]8th September 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=sonerin;37587539]Fun fact: They're terrorists, and they're ruining the country and harming civilians.[/QUOTE] You don't really keep up with the news out of Syria do you? I'm thinking no. Which leads me to ask why exactly you're posting your half baked opinions and ideas when you clearly have only the vaguest idea of the situation.

[QUOTE=Profanwolf;37587581]So Assad's government is the savior of the land according to you then?[/QUOTE] Nothing was wrong with the Syrian government before the buttdevastated Islamists began rioting and attacking people. Syrian civilians are actually complaining about the "freedom" fighters, they're not fond of them. [url]http://weaselzippers.us/2012/08/31/syria-islamist-rebels-publicly-behead-man/[/url] [url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-19083915[/url] [url]http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/christians-flee-from-radical-rebels-in-syria-a-846180.html[/url] [url]http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/01/video-said-to-show-execution-by-syrian-rebels-stirs-debate/[/url] Yeah, that will surely bring some freedom to Syria, as if people were opressed before the riots. They're doing it because they want a Sharia controlled Syria, because Syria is secular at the moment. I say, terrorists in Syria deserve what they get. They are doing nothing but harming their own people and country, and the Syrian army is trying to stop them but in a harsh way since the terrorists are armed and dangerous. Just because they're anarchists and against the government doesn't mean they're right.

You think people weren't oppressed before now? You should probably read up on the Damascus Spring, or the 1982 Hama massacre, or any number of other things that the Assad regime has done to protesters and dissidents prior to 2011. And if Syrian civilians are "complaining" about the rebels and don't agree with them, then why is the army systematically targeting civilians and doing things like the massacres in Houla, Tremseh and al-Qubeir? If the civilians are on their side then it seems like a pretty dumb thing to do. Finally, you say that the rebels are anarchists, but also that they want to impose sharia law on Syria. As far as I can see, both of these statements can't be true.

[QUOTE=smurfy;37587762]You think people weren't oppressed before now? You should probably read up on the Damascus Spring, or the 1982 Hama massacre, or any number of other things that the Assad regime has done to protesters and dissidents prior to 2011. And if Syrian civilians are "complaining" about the rebels and don't agree with them, then why is the army systematically targeting civilians and doing things like the massacres in Houla, Tremseh and al-Qubeir? If the civilians are on their side then it seems like a pretty dumb thing to do. Finally, you say that the rebels are anarchists, but also that they want to impose sharia law on Syria. As far as I can see, both of these statements can't be true.[/QUOTE] The country is in a civil war. Terrorists are amongst the civilians. The Syrian army never kills civilians intentionally, there might be a few accidents here and there since the so called "freedom fighters" are civilians themselves. You won't see the Syrian army intentionally harming civilians, the country is in a massive war. Civilians get hurt, not intentionally. And finally, they are anarchic against the current government. They'd happily fondle a pair of Islamic balls if the country was Sharia controlled. As for the Hama massacre™, Islamist terrorists were targeted. It's not a massacre. Everything was alright before the Arab Spring. The terrorists are the cause to the civilian deaths in Syria. The government didn't opress its civilians.

The UN Human Rights Council's [url=http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/RegularSession/Session21/A-HRC-21-50.doc]report on Syria[/url] disagrees with your claim that the army "never kills civilians intentionally". Paragraph 66 states that soldiers were ordered "to open fire on civilians", and they repeatedly state that there was a "widespread and systematic" attack on civilians by the regime, and that this was a "state policy". [quote=UN Human Rights Council]57. There are also reasonable grounds to believe that the documented incidents constituted the crime against humanity of murder. In towns and villages where there was a pattern of blockade, shelling, ground assault and house-to-house searches, [B]the conditions for a widespread or systematic attack against a predominately civilian population were met[/B]. The scale of the attacks, their repetitive nature, the level of excessive force consistently used, the indiscriminate nature of the shelling and the coordinated nature of the attacks led the commission to conclude that [B]they had been conducted pursuant to State policy[/B]. 85. The commission found reasonable grounds to believe that torture was perpetrated as [B]part of a widespread attack directed against civilians by Government forces and Shabbiha who had knowledge of the attack[/B]. It concludes that torture as a crime against humanity and as a war crime was committed by Government forces and Shabbiha members. Members of security forces, in particular military and air force intelligence, appear to be primarily responsible for torture and ill-treatment.[/quote] As for rebels being "amongst the civilians", well so are the army, because they have positioned military assets near or inside civilian buildings so that when the rebels attack they can say "wow look at that, they attacked civilians" [quote=UN Human Rights Council]123. The commission finds reasonable grounds to believe that Government forces acted in violation of international humanitarian law by targeting members of the Syrian Arab Red Crescent. These acts may also be prosecutable as a war crime. [B]Furthermore, by positioning its military assets, which are legitimate targets of enemy forces, inside civilian objects, Government forces are violating the international humanitarian law principle of distinction.[/B] Government forces have also violated international humanitarian law by deliberately shelling field clinics.[/quote]

[QUOTE=smurfy;37588023]The UN Human Rights Council's [url=http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/RegularSession/Session21/A-HRC-21-50.doc]report on Syria[/url] disagrees with your claim that the army "never kills civilians intentionally". Paragraph 66 states that soldiers were ordered "to open fire on civilians", and they repeatedly state that there was a "widespread and systematic" attack on civilians by the regime, and that this was a "state policy". As for rebels being "amongst the civilians", well so are the army, because they have positioned military assets near or inside civilian buildings so that when the rebels attack they can say "wow look at that, they attacked civilians"[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]UN[/QUOTE]

The 3rd and 4th photos look so surreal...

[URL=http://filesmelt.com/][IMG]http://filesmelt.com/dl/Death1.gif[/IMG][/URL] It really is amazing how fast this was, you can see that the second the guy in front puts his foot down everything explodes.

On the not so bright side; at least the round in the guys RPG didn't detonate from the blast, or last one probably wouldn't have survived.

[QUOTE=Chernarus;37584664]If there was no America we would still be stuck in the pre-american revolution era.[/QUOTE] I think you're a bit mixed up. [editline]8th September 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=sonerin;37587869] As for the Hama massacre™, Islamist terrorists were targeted. It's not a massacre.[/QUOTE] 40,000 Islamic terrorists? and it's Islamic, not Islamist. You literally are deluded as fuck. [editline]8th September 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=sonerin;37587869]Syrian army never kills civilians intentionally[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jun/12/syrian-forces-killing-children-un[/url] Yeah you're right, they don't kill and rape children. Do you have a Pol Pot poster on your wall?

[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;37595652]I think you're a bit mixed up. [editline]8th September 2012[/editline] 40,000 Islamic terrorists? and it's Islamic, not Islamist. You literally are deluded as fuck. [editline]8th September 2012[/editline] [/QUOTE] Islamism and Islamic differ. Islamic means something Islamic, Islamism means spreading Islam and Sharia. Islamism is an ideoloy. And Islamist means someone who is the follower of the Islamism ideology. [QUOTE=Governor Goblin;37595652][URL]http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jun/12/syrian-forces-killing-children-un[/URL] Yeah you're right, they don't kill and rape children. Do you have a Pol Pot poster on your wall?[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Guardian.uk]says UN.[/QUOTE] They are the ones who constantly dig up reasons to invade the Middle East for oil. They want to make simpletons like you feel nice and patriotic once they "intervene" the civil war. I don't believe in news articles such as these.

Looking at that photo is strange. It looks like it's photoshopped with "overdone effects" but it isn't.

[QUOTE=sonerin;37600055] They are the ones who constantly dig up reasons to invade the Middle East for oil. They want to make simpletons like you feel nice and patriotic once they "intervene" the civil war. I don't believe in news articles such as these.[/QUOTE] I believe you've mixed up "US" and "UN".

[QUOTE=Aesir;37601095]I believe you've mixed up "US" and "UN".[/QUOTE] Guess who is collaborating with who and who is going to profit from a civil war.

Are the journalist and the other guy really lucky they survived, or where they like an actual safe distance from the tank round? I feel like they were very damn lucky because they were so damn close, but then again, one tank round can't clear a whole alley.

[QUOTE=NO ONE;37602034]Are the journalist and the other guy really lucky they survived, or where they like an actual safe distance from the tank round? I feel like they were very damn lucky because they were so damn close, but then again, one tank round can't clear a whole alley.[/QUOTE] the one survivor probably would have been killed if he were closer. he was lucky he only got a wounded arm.

[QUOTE=Cone;37602058]the one survivor probably would have been killed if he were closer. he was lucky he only got a wounded arm.[/QUOTE] and from the pictures it seems the camera man was a reasonable distance from the explosion, further away than the rest of them so I'm sure he got away with no injuries or just a few cuts or something...and the thought of multiple people being blown up right in front of you which will probably not go way for a long time.

This is the 2nd tank encounter Tracey Shelton had... check this video of the first encounter, you need to have the biggest luck to still be alive: [url]http://www.globalpost.com/video/5709614/syria-rebels-stave-government-assault-video[/url]

[QUOTE=Kalibos2;37583400] like for example world war 2 and the [b]cold war[/b] are good examples of technological innovation driven by war, whereas world war 1 didn't accomplish as much in the same way but it did serve to wind the world down out of the "we want a good old fashioned imperial war!" mentality and advance archaic military tactics in a short period of time[/QUOTE] I hate to be nitpicky, but... The Cold War wasn't really a war. :eng101:

[QUOTE=The_J_Hat;37607719]I hate to be nitpicky, but... The Cold War wasn't really a war. :eng101:[/QUOTE] it was a proxy war if I remember correctly. :eng101: