Read the forum code of contact
By: - 4th May 2010 at 21:07 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/afghanistan/article7113916.ece
What makes it even more amazing is that is was a standard sniping round.
The Canadian (Previous record holder) was using a sniping 50 cal. with specially adapted US Army bullets. And of course, he took out two baddies and the weapon....not just one. So it was 3 accurate shots over a distance that most people would drive!
By: - 4th May 2010 at 21:35 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
For a glimpse at the modern enlightened "Western World", read some of the posted comments to the story.
One that got a lot of attention reads:
Have I woken up in 1898 or something? This kind of nasty news makes me ill. Killing is killing. Killing of men is not sport. Its not akin to cricket or a game of ruggah. You might get medals and brisk handshakes but most rational people see what you are - a murderer. Someone who lives to take life, for the kick of it. Call it your job, or your duty, or just your 'calling'. It still defines you as an example of regressive DNA. You can argue someone has to do it, that I don't 'understand' because I wasn't there. I can just as easily argue someone needs to stand up and say 'no' to the manipulators and the liars and the robber barons and the oil oligarchs who create wars for no other reason than profit. Always have, always will. You are not a hero outside of their world view. You are not a hero to me. You are just a cog in that evil enterprise. You are not defending your country. You are not defending your hearth or your kin. Your country has not faced invasion for 60 years and is 3, 000 miles away, which is where you should be! Raising your kids and doing something noble with the meagre handfull of years you've been given instead of this evil. As if there was anything lower than a self professed 'professional' murderer, truly, a sniper is it. A murderer and a coward. Two for one. War it may be, but there's no honour to it, hasn't been since courage became the cheapest and most common of all commodities. War is still just what it always was. Harry Patch had the right idea God bless him. He lived long enough to work it out for himself and he died ashamed of himself and of his species - and he was fighting for his 'country' too. Absurdly he lived longer than it did!
The poster has every right to his views, and over 100 readers marked the post as "Recommnded".
Similarly, many revisionists call Harris, Churchill, Roosevelt or LeMay murderers.
That kind of open thought and discourse demonstrates the West's tolerance, greatness and compassion...but those strenghts may well become its undoing in the face of barbaric enemies.
To defeat a savage foe, civilized man must sometime lower himself.
It's the simple truth and it's not attractive, but then war isn't.
By: - 4th May 2010 at 22:47 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
If the sniper had picked off two Afghan farmers innocently walking their goats then maybe the idiot commentor who posted the above diatribe might have had some points worth 'recommending' but as these were two combatants manning a machine gun they were fair game. I wonder if the prat actually read the piece or just trawled up the usual Stop The War Coalition crap...
By: - 5th May 2010 at 23:38 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
If the sniper had picked off two Afghan farmers innocently walking their goats then maybe the idiot commentor who posted the above diatribe might have had some points worth 'recommending' but as these were two combatants manning a machine gun they were fair game. I wonder if the prat actually read the piece or just trawled up the usual Stop The War Coalition crap...
You seem to miss the point. He didn't want to point out (but rather used it for larger picture) exact act of killing the two Taliban, but mostly the hype that was created after this event has occurred. There's nothing to be proud in killing somebody. And it isn't noble to talk of it in front of the whole world. I know the story has been pushed to the front pages for the sake of altering moral of the troops employed over there. But it has been done in such a "Machiavelistic" way which may only bring benefits to those who are moving the pawns on the big chess board.
And that guy's not an idiot. He just has very much different thinking of most of the things in this world than yourself. Is that a crime? Or you think that kind of behavior should be punished? Or limit such person in a society, ie. from voting or participating in any decision making processes?
You have to accept that we are all very different and try to live with that, and not change somebody to think the way you would like him/her to.
Most of the special forces' operations still remain classified regardless how spectacular they might have been. But those are classified for a multitude of reasons.
Although this specific event wasn't a SpecOp this "regular guy" has done extraordinary things that will certainly find him a place in the books and articles of modern warfare. But this guy will remain "exposed" till the rest of his life. For some he will be a hero and utterly skilled sharpshooter, while for the others a villain and a murderer. And for some (J Boyle) a "necessary evil".
@J Boyle,
I do find it justified to fight when attacked or facing a credible treat. But not to cross that line. The other point the poster (whom you quoted) was trying to make was the necessity of this war. But that's an entirely different topic and such a vast field where we could discuss for weeks without big success (and that would be finding a consensus). And 99,99% of our arguments/facts/insinuations would be those placed/found in the media. And there are so many contradicting claims and stories and much less credible authors of those. All of us are creating a picture of an event or a person upon information we receive. What creates a headache is that many of those we can't fairly check and accept as an utter truth but rather take each of them with a grain of salt. And for a normal man (one that's not absorbing fully what's being placed in the media) digesting that type of info becomes a real pain in the a$$.
By: - 6th May 2010 at 03:21 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
And for some (J Boyle) a "necessary evil".
@J Boyle,
I don't believe I used that term.
I think you misunderstood me.
Don't get me wrong, the troops fighting abroad are going good work, I support them wholeheartedly.
If I gave you the idea that the was is a "necessary evil", I'd say the same about WWII. There are some wars that need to be fought.
The "evil" part is simply in a perfect world, there would be no war (or crime, disease, or anything else bad)...but sadly the world isn't perfect, and I have it on good authority it never will be.
By: - 6th May 2010 at 07:52 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
What makes it even more amazing is that is was a standard sniping round.Not only that but his second hit was on a moving target, I'd be hard pushed to hit a stationary target at 500 metres, let alone a moving one at 2400.
The Canadian (Previous record holder) was using a sniping 50 cal. with specially adapted US Army bullets. And of course, he took out two baddies and the weapon....not just one. So it was 3 accurate shots over a distance that most people would drive!
By: - 6th May 2010 at 08:59 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You seem to miss the point. He didn't want to point out (but rather used it for larger picture) exact act of killing the two Taliban, but mostly the hype that was created after this event has occurred. There's nothing to be proud in killing somebody. And it isn't noble to talk of it in front of the whole world. I know the story has been pushed to the front pages for the sake of altering moral of the troops employed over there. But it has been done in such a "Machiavelistic" way which may only bring benefits to those who are moving the pawns on the big chess board.And that guy's not an idiot. He just has very much different thinking of most of the things in this world than yourself. Is that a crime? Or you think that kind of behavior should be punished? Or limit such person in a society, ie. from voting or participating in any decision making processes?
You have to accept that we are all very different and try to live with that, and not change somebody to think the way you would like him/her to.
Whether this incident was latched on by the MOD press office/Liebour press office as a tiny ray of moral boosting "good news", as opposed to the daily announcements via the news channels headline straps, I don't know.
I am of the opinion that we shouldn't be in that sandpit and our servicemen and women have been badly let down by this useless shower in power. History has shown that Afghanistan is a hard place to win battles.
...most rational people see what you are - a murderer. ....It still defines you as an example of regressive DNA....As if there was anything lower than a self professed 'professional' murderer, truly, a sniper is it. A murderer and a coward.
He exposed himself as an idiot, in my humble opinion, when he stated the above...
I guess laying roadside bombs or using sniping methods if you wear a black turban doesn't make you a murderer or coward, just a freedom fighter...
"Yay, give me a "T", give me an "A", give me an "L", give me...."
(Hunt for Taliban sniper who has shot dead seven British troops in 5-month killing spree...)
Using the 'language' of the anti-war zealots and describing the soldier in question as he did, I found galling - he could easily have made his point without insulting the soldier, who is out there experiencing things that the 'commenter', safe at home in his armchair on the internets, couldn't even imagine...
Snipers do more than just 'slot' "innocent" machine gunners... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/south_west/8457313.stm
And those who aren't able to vote today... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8579889.stm
By: - 6th May 2010 at 10:03 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
My view is that it is irrelevant whether we agree or not with any war to which the Parliament of the day has committed us.
We should at all times give our total support and succour to the troops involved. They have volunteered to do a job in the full knowledge that they will be required to fight a war. That is what being a soldier, sailor or airman implies.
It saddens me that with the loss of a "common" enemy during the Cold War the populace no longer perceives the defence of our country in the widest context as important or significant, whereas it is in fact one of any government's prime responsibilities to its citizens. None of the political parties appears to defer greatly from this position. And our committed and loyal servicemen will suffer as a result.
By: - 6th May 2010 at 10:53 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
My view is that it is irrelevant whether we agree or not with any war to which the Parliament of the day has committed us.We should at all times give our total support and succour to the troops involved. They have volunteered to do a job in the full knowledge that they will be required to fight a war. That is what being a soldier, sailor or airman implies.
Very well said.
By: - 6th May 2010 at 15:25 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Well I will pause for a minute in respect of those who have laid down their lives in the service of their country before I ponder where my X will end up on the ballot paper.
Certainly not a freedom that the Taliban have set down in their manifesto...
By: - 7th May 2010 at 01:16 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
J Boyle and Bob,
the point I was making (and the original poster himself) was the necessity (perhaps validity would be a more suitable word) of this war. He obviously doesn't find it necessary nor valid, and that is the starting point of his thinking. There lies the whole difference between him and you. If he has such an attitude (and that would obviously be a negative one) towards the foreign policy of his country he will find almost every step the Government takes as wrong and unjustified.
Using the 'language' of the anti-war zealots and describing the soldier in question as he did, I found galling - he could easily have made his point without insulting the soldier, who is out there experiencing things that the 'commenter', safe at home in his armchair on the internets, couldn't even imagine...
And there he went a bit off with his comments about Cpl. Harrison.
I guess laying roadside bombs or using sniping methods if you wear a black turban doesn't make you a murderer or coward, just a freedom fighter...
I never said the Taliban were the freedom fighters, although the US has labeled, or better said, were marketing them as such in the 80s... And then, after some time we live to see the heroes becoming the villains ... how tricky it gets;)
IMHO, they are a regressive force that shouldn't exist at all... but despite my wishes for some reason(s) they are still there, with their, for us awkward, picture how the world should look alike (and with a probable aim of "removing" or converting all of us, infidels:D ).
As a guy who used an AIAW (.308) and some other high tech sniper rifles, and a guy who uses wide range of firearms on a weekly basis (for practicing), I can only take my hat off to the Cpl. Harrison for his skill. But I find his media adventure as completely unnecessary and naive. And I think that was the focal point of J Boyle's "poster". Killing a men is not a sport and something that should be talked about around. It's something that you shouldn't talk to the mainstream media, but if you feel a need for that you should talk to your superiors or team members. And that is where all the talk should end.
By: - 7th May 2010 at 11:51 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I never said the Taliban were the freedom fighters, although the US has labeled, or better said, were marketing them as such in the 80s... And then, after some time we live to see the heroes becoming the villains ... how tricky it gets;)
Sorry, wasn't implying that was your view - it was meant to reflect the sometimes naive views of the likes of the Times online commenter - they see us as oppressing invaders raping, butchering babies and torturing innocents which validate the actions of the local "freedom fighters"....
And I'll refer you back to the first paragraph in my previous reply to you to give you a small sense of my stance on the subject. The difference is I don't insult those at the sharp end, just the donkeys sitting in their plush offices in Whitehall...
By: - 8th May 2010 at 13:56 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Setting aside any moral arguments about killing in a war,I have nothing but admiration for this soldier.
My paper this week carried a report of the inquest into the death of a soldier killed by an IED in Afghanistan,which his mother attended.
This young man,only twenty years old,had both his arms and legs blown off.
An army surgeon who'd tried to resuscitate him estimated that it had taken him from ten to fifteen minutes to die from catastrophic blood loss.
If I had a son who was a soldier I'd far rather he'd died instantly from a sniper's bullet.
By: - 13th May 2010 at 08:13 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
That's my thinking too. At that range they were dead before they even knew the shot had been fired.
By: - 14th May 2010 at 13:57 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
from one blue red blue to another, nice one!!!:diablo:
By: - 14th May 2010 at 22:19 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
And his answer would likely be "Just doing my job"
By: - 17th May 2010 at 13:29 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I never said the Taliban were the freedom fighters, although the US has labeled, or better said, were marketing them as such in the 80s... And then, after some time we live to see the heroes becoming the villains ... how tricky it gets;)
I was under the impression that the Taliban were originally a group of foreigners in Afghanistan not associated with the groups receiving U.S. aid during that period.
By: - 24th May 2010 at 16:06 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Similarly, many revisionists call Harris, Churchill, Roosevelt or LeMay murderers.
That kind of open thought and discourse demonstrates the West's tolerance, greatness and compassion...but those strenghts may well become its undoing in the face of barbaric enemies.
To defeat a savage foe, civilized man must sometime lower himself.
It's the simple truth and it's not attractive, but then war isn't.[/QUOTE]
They'd be moaning if we were living under the tyrannical rule of Nazis as well, some people can't be pleased can they? Churchill was ace, just the man we needed.
As for the story, wow that's far!
Mod Edit: Unacceptable foul language removed. Please don't use language like that again!
By: - 24th May 2010 at 22:34 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I was under the impression that the Taliban were originally a group of foreigners in Afghanistan not associated with the groups receiving U.S. aid during that period.
To the best my recollection the Taliban were and are mostly native Afghans, and Wikipedia - for however much it's worth - seems to bear me out.
They overthrew the Northern Alliance, and I think that the latter comprised most of the US-supported groups.
Posts: 1,190
By: Al - 4th May 2010 at 18:42
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/afghanistan/article7113916.ece