[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
orion wrote:
AlisaV wrote:
Yes, I know it’s bad to rejoice at someone’s death, but that’s an amazing story, and I’m glad he got the guy.
Hurray, one more Afghani businessman dead.
That will teach them to do business instead of killing occupiers.
Maybe next in line is bombing some schools in order to further literacy?
I’m afraid that the Taliban (that Pashtun political expression begun circa the late 1980s that you blame on the United States) is the one deliberately bombing schools - mostly girl schools.
But this was about killing a “drug lord”. Surely this drug lord is not part of the Taliban since drugs are forbidden by Allah and the Taliban profess only to follow the word of Allah…?
[/quote]
What do you know of what Allah has said? A bunch of the Taliban are drug dealers. It’s perfectly legal under shari’ah to traffick in drugs, as long as they’re being trafficked to the kuffar. It’s not legal to use them yourself if you’re Muslim. Also, a great number of things are legal when you’re waging jihad vs. when you’re not. Mehsud was another Taliban drug trafficker who is now dead. You and Orion should mourn him in sack cloth and ashes.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
orion wrote:
AlisaV wrote:
Yes, I know it’s bad to rejoice at someone’s death, but that’s an amazing story, and I’m glad he got the guy.
Hurray, one more Afghani businessman dead.
That will teach them to do business instead of killing occupiers.
Maybe next in line is bombing some schools in order to further literacy?
I’m afraid that the Taliban (that Pashtun political expression begun circa the late 1980s that you blame on the United States) is the one deliberately bombing schools - mostly girl schools.
But this was about killing a “drug lord”. Surely this drug lord is not part of the Taliban since drugs are forbidden by Allah and the Taliban profess only to follow the word of Allah…?
What do you know of what Allah has said? A bunch of the Taliban are drug dealers. It’s perfectly legal under shari’ah to traffick in drugs, as long as they’re being trafficked to the kuffar. It’s not legal to use them yourself if you’re Muslim. Also, a great number of things are legal when you’re waging jihad vs. when you’re not. Mehsud was another Taliban drug trafficker who is now dead. You and Orion should mourn him in sack cloth and ashes. [/quote]
I mourn the loss of jobs he provided – you know the stuff people have do to feed their families…?
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
orion wrote:
AlisaV wrote:
Yes, I know it’s bad to rejoice at someone’s death, but that’s an amazing story, and I’m glad he got the guy.
Hurray, one more Afghani businessman dead.
That will teach them to do business instead of killing occupiers.
Maybe next in line is bombing some schools in order to further literacy?
I’m afraid that the Taliban (that Pashtun political expression begun circa the late 1980s that you blame on the United States) is the one deliberately bombing schools - mostly girl schools.
But this was about killing a “drug lord”. Surely this drug lord is not part of the Taliban since drugs are forbidden by Allah and the Taliban profess only to follow the word of Allah…?
What do you know of what Allah has said? A bunch of the Taliban are drug dealers. It’s perfectly legal under shari’ah to traffick in drugs, as long as they’re being trafficked to the kuffar. It’s not legal to use them yourself if you’re Muslim. Also, a great number of things are legal when you’re waging jihad vs. when you’re not. Mehsud was another Taliban drug trafficker who is now dead. You and Orion should mourn him in sack cloth and ashes.
I mourn the loss of jobs he provided – you know the stuff people have do to feed their families…?[/quote]
For everyone of these guys dead, there’ll be 2 to replace him. Rejoice.
I couldn’t find any info on this particular guy, so I’ll plead some ignorance.
But a Talib is not just a businessman. Afghanistan was hell under the Taliban. There is such a thing as terrorism, no matter how little you or I might like the way the “war on terror” has been prosecuted, and terrorists kill innocents, so there’s good reason to stop them if we can.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
MaximusB wrote:
This is funny to me, as I watched “Shooter” last night. I bet that sniper rifle is a beautiful thing.
It’s okay.
What is the range on that beast? How far can it shoot? I am assuming it is a single shot bolt action yes?[/quote]
Barrett rates the max effective range of this weapon at 1850 meters, which is about 400 meters farther than Billy Dixon was when he knocked that Comanche off his horse with his Sharps rifle. But then, Billy himself admitted that it was an extremely lucky shot. The maximum range of the .50 BMG cartridge is over 4 miles, so a modern day Billy Dixon could probably use his rifle as a light artillery piece to shell enemy camps.
The weapon in the picture I posted is the model 99, which is, indeed, a bolt-action single shot rifle. Corporal Reynolds was likely using the 82A1, which is a semi-automatic with a 10-round magazine.
In my humble opinion, the single-action bolt action is perfectly adequate, as I can’t imagine a situation in which you’d need a quick second shot with a .50 BMG sniper rifle. If you miss at a mile, your target will be alerted and running like hell for cover. In the time it takes to get back on target, he may be gone, so that immediate follow-up shot opportunity won’t likely be there. Even if he’s still visible, you can no longer aim at where he is, rather where he might be in two seconds, which is how long it takes for a .50 bullet to reach its target 1500 meters away, while also taking into account such things as cross-wind and bullet drop. A semi-automatic will certainly not help you shoot, and it weighs eight pounds more than the bolt action. Eight pounds is the equivalent 30 rounds of .50 BMG ammunition. I know that I’d rather have 30 more rounds and a lighter, slightly slower rifle, all else being equal.
Corporal Reynolds actually missed twice before taking out his man, but I’ll bet he could have done the job just as well with a bolt gun.
I mourn the loss of jobs he provided – you know the stuff people have do to feed their families…?
I understand.
It’s been a long time but I too mourn the day Charles Manson was unmercifully tossed in prison. He too provided jobs for his followers.[/quote]
Really?! That’s the analogy you are going to go with?! I think you are misinformed and mixing up two completely unrelated endeavors.
Besides, poppies provide a good base for other drugs besides opium. They are a viable, productive commodity no matter what the flag waving do-gooders think. And it provides needed jobs to support these people who are only allowed the hope of democracy to feed their empty bellies.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
For everyone of these guys dead, there’ll be 2 to replace him. Rejoice.
[/quote]
But doesn’t this just waste resources trying to find out who will get to be the next drug lord – NOT TO MENTION MORE INNOCENT BLOODSHED IN THE PROCESS?
Just a thought on the irony of Britain and the United States prosecuting a “drug war” in Afghanistan.
Before the Soviet occupation, Afghanistan exported approximately zero percent of the world’s opiates. The opium trade was encouraged, even abetted, by the CIA, in order to raise funds for the Mujahideen. After the Soviet pullout, the business continued, until the Afghanistan surpassed even Burma in production in 1991. This all changed, however, with the Taliban takeover in 1996.
The New York Times noted on May 24, 2001, that the Taliban achieved the end of opium production “without the usual multimillion-dollar aid packages that finance police raids, aerial surveillance, and crop subsidies for farmers.” Abdul Hamid Akhundzada, the director of the Taliban poppy ban, explained, “We used a soft approach. When there were violations, we plowed the fields. At most, violators spent a few days in jail, until they paid for the plowing.” One farmer explained, “No one dared disobey. If they catch you, they blacken your face and march you through the bazaars with a string of poppies around your neck.”
Of course, shortly after the United States invaded and booted the Taliban out of power, the business started back up again with a vengeance, and today Afghanistan supplies the world with between 80 and 90 percent of its heroin and other opiates.
Of course, the United States and the United Kingdom are the biggest importers of Afghan opium, just as the US is the biggest importer of Mexican cannabis and Colombian cocaine.
So while it’s impressive to see a great marksman take out a mote from Afghanistan’s eye, perhaps we’d better concern ourselves with the planks in our own.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Jesus, there is a gun that shoots 4 miles? I bet the recoil on that thing could tear your shoulder apart. [/quote]
No, we’re still talking about the Barrett .50 caliber sniper rifle. The maximum range is 6800 meters, meaning that if you hold high enough, the projectile will strike approximately 6800 meters from the muzzle, which is 4.2 miles. Recoil is stiff, but the rifle, remember, is between 25 and 35 pounds, which dampens some of the recoil, and more is dampened by the muzzle brake. So if you can handle a .300 magnum or even a hot .30-06, you’ll likely have no problem with the recoil of a .50 rifle. Muzzle blast is another matter, however. A .50 is not just loud, it’s fucking loud, and the muzzle brake amplifies the sound by channeling the blast in your direction.
All told, I guess I’d still rather have my M14. I’m impressed by the technical achievement of killing a man at nearly a mile away, with an $9000 rifle, a $3000 range-finding computerized scope, spotter, and air support, but I’m still more impressed by a sniper who can slither through the grass, take out his target with a .308, then get away again, undetected.
It’s like the old Indian saying about the white man fire and the red man fire: “white man build big fire and stand back; red man build little fire and sit close.”
[quote]pushharder wrote:
I seriously doubt this guy was taken out solely because of drug lord status. C’mon, people, think for crying out loud.
He was a TALIBAN. Now what does even the most ignorant T-Nationeer know about the TALIBAN? What type of nefarious activities might a TALIBAN engage in besides the cultivation, harvesting and transport of the lowly poppy? Where might the profits from Senor Poppyman’s business be invested? Do we need to get our coloring books out now, class?
Good fuckin grief. I swear some of you people got dropped on the head from a high altitude when the stork was bringing you to your mamas.[/quote]
Prove to me from an unbiased source he was a member of the Taliban who committed real crimes.
Until you can his murder will be considered nothing more than target practice.
Oh, gosh, I don’t know, they might bring order to provinces previously controlled by corrupt, criminal warlords. They might hunt down and execute murderers and rapists of children. They might negotiate with American gas companies to build pipelines. And most shocking of all, they might ban the opium trade, effectively eradicating the cultivation, harvesting and transport of the lowly poppy.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
pushharder wrote:
I seriously doubt this guy was taken out solely because of drug lord status. C’mon, people, think for crying out loud.
He was a TALIBAN. Now what does even the most ignorant T-Nationeer know about the TALIBAN? What type of nefarious activities might a TALIBAN engage in besides the cultivation, harvesting and transport of the lowly poppy? Where might the profits from Senor Poppyman’s business be invested? Do we need to get our coloring books out now, class?
Good fuckin grief. I swear some of you people got dropped on the head from a high altitude when the stork was bringing you to your mamas.
Prove to me from an unbiased source he was a member of the Taliban who committed real crimes.
Until you can his murder will be considered nothing more than target practice.
Prove to me from an unbiased source he was not a member of the Taliban who committed real crimes.
Until you can the death of this worthless sack of shit will be considered nothing more than the death of a housefly with a blackened soul.[/quote]
The burden of proof is always on the accuser. I make no accusations.
