The Iranians tapped into the Rover downlink. Rover is a one way line of sight video downlink of the imagery produced by the MQ-9’s electroptical sensor turret. (Google “remote video terminal” for more information on Rover)

The operational control datalink was not compromised as it is heavily encrypted and uses the directional satcom link that points upward towards the satellites, not down towards the Iranian operatives on the ground.

Thanks that’s more than I’ve been able to gather from the news so far. What you say is a little reassuring. This story is not quite as significant as it might seem.

This is part of the reason that I’m against making airliners and a large percentage of our military forces to be RPVs. I feel as this bolsters my arguments that the commercial airliners should have a human pilot in the loop and that a significant percentage of our military aircraft should have a human pilot. I think this also bolsters my argument that remote control ability should not be commonly placed on commercial or a large proportion of our military.

I thought a good samaritan is someone who comes to the aid of a stranger? :confused:

I often use the term good Samaritan to anyone that does a good deed.

However in an abstract way the more conventional definition that you used may apply. Suppose this individual left the gun in his garden and went to call the police or went on foot to notify the police. Suppose that during that time a child came into his yard and picked up the gun and loaded it and shot himself or some other children. Wouldn’t you think in an abstract way that keeping guns out of the reach of children would be coming to the aid of the children and their parents. In an abstract way promoting safety is coming to the aid of strangers.

I edited the original title as it was completely over the top, even by GD standards.

(Cue the “freedom of speech” rant…… )

So telling an unpleasant truth is unacceptable to you?

On the point of the chap with his shotgun-in-a-bag how many of us would go and pick the thing up, on discovering what was actually in the bag, and go tootling off up the High Street with it slung over our backs?.

Wouldn’t that depend on the circumstance? Perhaps he didn’t have a phone to call from? Perhaps he didn’t want to leave the gun unattended as he went to report it.

It sounds like he’d been working in the garden and he may have been hot and tired and his judgment may have been affected so he may have not made the best decision. He may have panicked or been scared or may have been excited by the find and the emotion may have also contributed to him apparently not making the best decision. Do you always make the best decisions? I don’t know of anyone that does.

By picking up the gun he was breaking the law; however if he would’ve left the gun unattended and it fell into nefarious hands because he left it unattended then wouldn’t that be worse? It was probably a bad decision to pick up the gun because it could possibly be considered tampering with evidence. However to leave a gun and ammunition around unsecured and unsupervised could be considered public endangerment. So there necessarily isn’t no perfect answer.

5 years inside for the ‘offence’ mentioned is plainly absurd and, one would hope, an appeal could be fairly easily mounted on the grounds that the gentleman in question is no threat to the public at large and therefore is undeserving of a custodial sentence. That said though it would seem that the message does need to transmit not to do bloody stupid things like picking up dumped firearms and wandering round town with them!. 😮

It depends on the circumstances. If the story is as told I don’t think he should get any punishment at all. I think he should have his record cleared and be given a commendation for doing his civic duty, though perhaps he should wear a dunce hat during the ceremony.

he has behaved with monumental stupidity.

Do you know what all the circumstances were? How do you know for sure that what he did wasn’t the most appropriate action? If stupidity is a crime; then the whole human race should be in prison. Everyone in our lifetime has done many things of monumental stupidity. Take a good look at yourself.

I also gather from a discussion on this subject on another forum elsewhere that the bloke in question is alleged to be…. ahem…. “known to his local constabulary” and that this may have coloured the attitude of the local Police towards him.

So we should judge him based on rumors? Even if it’s true that he had a shady past does that mean he should be punished for apparently trying to do the right thing?

From what I gather the bloke was not a fugitive. I’ve lived in a rough neighborhood that was like a step up from a halfway house; there’s was lot of convicts that have served their time some of them were even registered sexual predators. Sure some of them are scum; but many of them are scared and try to stay on the right side of the law and many of them have had an honest change of heart and are trying to do the right thing. Many of them are good people. If they do the right thing I support them; if they do the wrong thing then I criticize them and or report them.

I agree with you that there is probably more in this story than meets the eye, but whether that justifies the sentence remains to be seen.

There is always more to the story than what is publicly known. We have to make our judgments based on the information that is available.

He probably kept it for some months after finding it.

I don’t see how you think it is a high probability. However let’s say he did keep it several months before reporting it; if so why: perhaps he was afraid because of his alleged past that the police might trump up some charges against him. If that’s the case he was right to have those suspicions.

If the police treat someone this badly; that is doing good deeds by voluntarily turning a gun in to the authorities that might otherwise end up in the hands of nefarious people and endanger the public. Then why should people trust and cooperate with the legal authorities? The legal authorities are just being shortsighted politically correct fascists.

=======
Some say he was convicted by a jury of his peers; therefore it couldn’t be fascism. Didn’t Nazi Germany, Fascisti Italy, and Stalinist Russia have some show trials by jury by peers? So I guess some of you think that they weren’t fascist? Political correctness, media coverage, shysters, cronies and pressure from government can often encourage juries to do the wrong thing. To a lesser extent I think kangaroo courts are fascist because they often don’t give you the time plead your case and present your evidence.

I think most if not all juries are read instructions to the effect that they are to determine guilt and not decide whether the prosecution and conviction is justifiable. (Which I think can be wrong in some cases)

Just because the jury found him guilty does not mean the prosecution and conviction is justifiable.

George Soros seemingly participated with railroading Jews. Just because there is a facsimile of a judicial process does not mean it is just.

=====

Just because someone is in violation of the law doesn’t necessarily mean there should be a prosecution or conviction.

Suppose a living quarters catches on fire at night and people don’t have time to put on their clothes many of them flee the building naked. If the locality has laws against nudity; then using this fascist standard they should be cited or arrested for public nudity. I think a more appropriate response would be to put out the fire, give people medical attention, try to get them clothing and temporary housing.

Suppose someone is struck by lightning. Sometimes when people are struck by lightning their sweat turns to steam essentially exploding their clothing leaving them naked. So if police are called to the scene where an individual was hit by lightning do you arrest them for public indecency; or do you get them medical attention? I feel arresting or citing them for public indecency under such extenuating circumstances is fascist.

Suppose if someone with Tourette’s syndrome is subpoenaed to a court hearing and the witness has disruptive and sometimes profane verbal outbursts. If the verbal profane outbursts are a result of the witness’s medical condition; a fascist/bureaucrat would go ahead and cite or arrest the patient with contempt of court.

In some places there are still laws on the books that make it illegal to be out on the road at night without a lit oil lantern. These laws are largely outdated due to the invention of things like electric light. A fascist/bureaucratic “letter of the law” response would be to cite everyone that is on foot, bicycle, horse or horseless carriage that is out on the road at night without a lit oil lantern; after all they are in clear violation of the law.

Fascists/bureaucrats/tyrants get caught up in the letter of the law; and I notice that they also unfairly give themselves a wide berth of the law yet they expect others to be in strict compliance. To me what is more important is the intent of the law rather than the letter of the law. I feel that people that want to enforce the letter of the law are fascists/tyrants. There should be some reason/morality/judgment involved in law enforcement and in prosecution.

In some places it’s against the law to bring a dog into an area that sells food. For the most part that law makes sense. However suppose a blind person wants to go to the store or restaurant with their seeing-eye dog; should the blind person be cited or arrested?

In most places the law requires people to pick up their dog’s solid waste. Suppose the dog is a seeing-eye dog; and the owner can’t see the solid waste therefore can’t find it to clean up after the dog? Suppose the owner of the dog is physically handicapped and the dog is a helper dog (opens doors, flips light switches, pulls a wheelchair, etc…) if the owner can’t bend over and pick up the dog poop; should the disabled person to be cited or arrested?

Suppose there’s a water emergency and there is an order that water can only be used for drinking, doing laundry and flushing toilets. The neighbors house catches on fire and you used your garden hose to suppress the fire and to contain the fire till the authorities arrive. Suppose that using your garden hose to hose down your neighbor’s house and the perimeter you may have saved some lives and prevented the fire from spreading to other houses. Should you be cited or arrested for violating the water emergency law?

In my town it is legal to own a firearm; yet it is illegal to discharge a firearm within city limits. Yet there is a firearms range; should I file a complaint with the police and tell them that everyone on the firing range should be prosecuted and convicted of discharging a firearm and that the owner of the firearms range should be prosecuted for conducting an illegal business?

If someone breaks into my home and threatens my life and if I shoot the criminal in self-defense; should I be prosecuted for discharging a firearm in the city limits? While it may be a violation of the law to discharge a firearm in the city limits; the right of self-defense should supersede such laws.

====
Suppose this individual the turned in the gun didn’t have a phone, then how could he call it in? Suppose he didn’t want to leave the gun unattended to make a report; as maybe he didn’t want the gun to fall into the hands of someone nefarious? Suppose he didn’t have a car and after a long day of gardening he didn’t want to have to make a long walk into town and then to face a long probable interrogation. In all probability he was probably shocked and scared by the situation and like most people may have not quite have a full deck; so he probably didn’t make the best decision. It seems his intentions were good; therefore I think the charges should be dropped, his record should be cleared, he should be given a public apology and he should be given a commendation. It seems he didn’t make the best decision; however is intent and results were good; he shouldn’t be convicted on a technicality or suspicion. It seems the individual naïvely assumed that if he did the right thing morally; that so would the legal system.

Sure there’s probably more to the story; there almost always is. How come almost everyone that suggests that there’s more to the story seems to be trying to slant the story one way or the other.

I feel “blind justice” is an oxymoron. A legal system that does not take into account extenuating circumstances and does not take into account the intent of the law and does not make sensible exceptions is not justice. You cannot serve justice unless you keep your eyes open to the facts and the extenuating circumstances.

Shira Law in the UK
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XE0jRtvr45w

(C-130 stratopig)

Herky Cannonball
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=batLVtumizU

You guys don’t like him/?

The video seems to be somewhat gay.

Isn’t Loren oftain a male name?
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Loren

If Loren is a male, perhaps he left because he was healthy and afraid of this guys advances. (Sometimes a fear of homosexuals is not unfounded)

If Loren is a female, perhaps she left because she realized that this guy was a latent homosexual.

In either case I would be like others and suggest. Run Loren run, never turn back.

The video did seem to be somewhat touching and romantic; however I was repulsed at the possibility it might be homosexual.

Run Loren run, never turn back. Run like H…

I liked the cliff scene. I wonder where it was filmed? It looks like some of the wonderful places I love; like Red River Gorge, Colorado, West Virginia, Canada (Superior region).

(I know some of you are going to claim the use of pronouns like “her” suggest it was a woman; however that’s not always true. Now days looks or even a crocodile Dundee check sometimes isn’t even enough. When I was dating I insisted on three forms of ID; drivers license, birth certificate, and childhood photos before getting serious.) hehe

You very well know that this is being sold to the public as a tool to prevent nuclear warheads to be used against America or Europe.

There is nothing wrong with that. It’s the way it should be. Did not Hitler and Japan have plans to attack the US with dirty bombs; and if we would’ve allowed them enough time fission bombs. During the Cuban missile crisis Castro was having a hissy fit trying to get the Soviet commander in Cuba to launch his tactical nuclear missiles.

A missile does not have to hit the mainland US to be an attack on the US. An attack on our embassies; overseas military bases and craft and our allies and our interests; any of those can be considered an attack on the US.

For people that are too narrow minded to accept that; and insist an attack on the mainland North America or Europe is necessary for threat to be worthy of confronting.: take for instance Iran that many shallow minded people think cannot threaten Europe or American soil with their missiles, therefore like fools they scoff at any threat from Iran. Iran has practiced launching ballistic missiles from barges; therefore a country like Iran or North Korea can threaten any nation that is coastal or near the coast of any ocean.

People need to start thinking with more depth and start thinking outside of the box; the enemy is not going always going to be so stupid or ignorant. Using the shallow minded logic; Al Qaeda was no threat to the twin towers. Cast aside the shallow minded rhetoric: think deeper, take an honest look at history; think outside of the box. The threat is real. There is more threats and more danger than most can comprehend.

Even poor technologically primitive countries/organizations can be a threat. Here is an animation that may help some of you understand.

THAAD Interception of Ship-Launched SCUD
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dz1-qAjWIm8

In fact this reminds me of how Bush “sold” America on the Iraq War. An over-reaction to a threat that did not exist. Let me guess…You supported that misadventure as well.

There was over 500 WMDs documented in Iraq. There was enough highly refined uranium to make a nuclear bomb. They had and concealed centrifuge(s) for enrichment (we even have them on tape trying to hide a centrifuge from inspectors). They had hundreds of tons of raw uranium. They concealed and hidden components, information, materials and programs to be revived at later dates. The Iraqis even fired so-called “SCUDs” at the coalition. There was even one cruise missile that struck a shopping mall. There was even coalition soldiers that got sick from chemical weapons that were being used as IEDs. Yet some people are such pathological liars that they say that there wasn’t any WMDs. Some people completely ignore what the experts have told us and the UN findings and instead choose to believe the incompetent biased fascist liberal media.

In the first Gulf War Saddam Hussein used a scorched earth policy with the Kuwaiti oil fields; he did that using conventional weapons. It decimated much of the Kuwaiti industry and disrupted the world oil supply.

Now imagine that with oil shortage there is nowadays; if Saddam Hussein attacked other Arab countries and decimated the oil fields using much more powerful WMDs, that have a much longer lifespan. What do you think would happen to the world’s economy and to the state of peace if all of the Arab oil fields were put out of production for several decades? Do you think there might be worldwide starvation, that might trigger instability and even more war? I think it’s guaranteed, if something like that was to happen.

Saddam’s scorched earth policy was one of the biggest financial and environmental disasters in history.
.

Oh so its not worth defending cities against conventionally armed ballistic missiles then? Because Such weapons have never killed anyone?:rolleyes:

Again I agree with you

Why would one assume that only conventional ballistic missiles would be used. That would even more reckless than assuming OBL couldn’t threaten the twin towers.

If someone is threatening you with ballistic missiles; I think it’s wiser to assume or plan for the worst; rather than being weak and idealistic. I would rather overestimate a threat then underestimate it.

You do realise that the existence of a BMD system actually prevented the launching of ICBM missiles on at least one occasion?

It may have done much more; it may have prevented a nuclear war that may have escalated into the Apocalypse.

And still decades away from actualy threatening continental USA.

That’s clearly not true. Actually they have been threatening the United States for decades; you just haven’t woke up and smelled the coffee. Whether it be ignorance or denial.

Using your logic someone like OBL is/was even less of a threat and couldn’t possibly threaten the continental United States. Never forget 9/11. Never forget Pearl Harbor. Be careful not to underestimate a potential enemy.

Regardless of the cost issue, the F-35 has turned out to be the best candidate for future service in the RNoAF.

Well, that’s for the Norwegians to decide, but anyone who really believes it’s anywhere near as inexpensive as Gripen is deluded.

Isn’t that hypocritical?:cool:

So it’s okay for you to criticize the cost; but it’s not okay for Primate to voice his opinion that the JSF is the best candidate for Norway’s needs?