World's most bad-ass sniper is British!

[Tev]

I mean really, sniping two targets at one and a half miles away??? (http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/sniper_kills_qaeda_from_mi_away_sTm0xFUmJNal3HgWlm EgRL)

It was silent but deadly.

A British sniper set a world sharpshooting record by taking out two Taliban soldiers in Afghanistan from more than a mile and a half away -- a distance so great, experts say the terrorists wouldn't have even heard the shots.

Craig Harrison killed the two insurgents from an astounding distance of 8,120 feet -- or 1.54 miles -- in Helmand Province last November firing an Accuracy International L11583 long-range rifle.

"The first round hit a machine-gunner in the stomach and killed him outright," said Harrison, a corporal of horse in the British Army's Household Cavalry, the equivalent of a sergeant in the American military.

"The second insurgent grabbed the weapon and turned as my second shot hit him in the side. He went down, too," Harrison told the Sunday Times of London.

The shots -- measured via GPS -- surpassed the previous record held by Canadian Army Cpl. Rob Furlong, who killed an al Qaeda gunman from 7,972 feet in 2002.

Harrison's shots were roughly equal to the distance between the Statue of Liberty and Battery Park.

Experts called Harrison's sharp shooting as perfect as it gets.

"When you are shooting that far, if you miss by a hair, you miss by a mile," said John Plaster, a retired US Army sharp-shooting instructor and author of "The Ultimate Sniper." "That is about as precise as any marksmen on the planet could shoot."

He said Harrison's targets likely never knew what was coming.

"At a distance like that they cannot even see anyone and they would not even hear the muzzle report," Plaster said.

Harrison, who fired the bullets while his colleagues were under fire, said perfect weather helped him nail the perfect shot.

"[There was] no wind, mild weather, clear visibility," he said.

Harrison learned of his record nine days ago, when he returned to England. In the weeks after his record shot, he suffered a minor gunshot wound and broke his arms when his vehicle hit a roadside bomb.
We gotta step it up America! The Brits are gettin' all "Quigly Down Under" on us!

[Amake]

I bet this won't make Guinness Book of Records.

Gives me a bad taste in my mouth, really. The article makes no attempt to sound like killing isn't a sport.

[A Zarkin' Frood]

When it comes to snipers Simo H?yh? (http://www.badassoftheweek.com/hayha.html) is still my favorite. (Sorry, this article doesn't make killing seem like a sport, more like olympics)

EDIT: Damnit, when will we get accents on top of our letters again?

[Amake]

If you can see these letters, feel free to copy and paste: [Edit: Never mind, I can't even see them.]

Now, the story of Simo H. is much more palatable. Maybe because it was so long ago, maybe because he did all that stuff in defense of home and country, maybe because it's not written as a news article in a reputable newspaper. Also he's about 250 times more badass.

[Seil]

There's a few here who are more palatable than this guy. (http://www.cracked.com/article_17019_5-real-life-soldiers-who-make-rambo-look-like-bitch.html)

[A Zarkin' Frood]

See, I really like Jack Churchill, but Simo H?yh? is still my favorite non-fictional Killing machine..
Besides that, we were talking snipers.

EDIT: two As with umlauts.
Can't have exotic names without at least two of them.

[Osterbaum]

What it should really say is "The worlds most accurate sniper", not bad-ass or any other adjective. Also what IQ said.

[Tev]

"Bad-ass" alliterated better with "British." But yes, calling him most accurate would be more....accurate.

[The Artist Formerly Known as Hawk]

Yeah Simo is still the best sniper that ever lived, though this guy gets props for the sheer range. Makes me proud to be British.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Makes me proud to be British.

Election night will fix that right up.

[Fifthfiend]

What a great leap forward in the field of shooting people in the head.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Taliban couldn't pull that shit off!

[TDK]

Fuck yeah White Death!

Although shooting two people from over a mile away is pretty hardcore too.

See, I really like Jack Churchill, but Simo H?yh? is still my favorite non-fictional Killing machine..

What?

[Magus]

I bet this won't make Guinness Book of Records.

Gives me a bad taste in my mouth, really. The article makes no attempt to sound like killing isn't a sport.

Are you serious? It's a story about a war-time action. Did the article really require a paragraph about how sniping soldiers is totally morally wrong or something for you? I'd prefer my news to simply deliver information instead of an opinion, one way or the other. That's the problem with journalism in the modern age, too many opinions of the writer stuck in at the end of an article. It's the New York Post, not the Huffington Post.

What a great leap forward in the field of shooting people in the head.

Gah.

Look. Some people are in the military. Some people have extremely great skill at sniping. Soldiers don't control where their countries send them to fight or who their countries declare war on, and the two men he killed were clearly attempting to kill other members of his squad with a machine gun. This was an act of incredible skill that saved his fellow soldier's lives. Complain all you want about the war in Afghanistan, it doesn't mean this guy doesn't deserve recognition for what he's done.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Why not? Because he's heaps better at murdering people than other people we should be proud of him and write sweet articles in the newspaper about it.

[Tev]

Why not? Because he's heaps better at murdering people than other people we should be proud of him and write sweet articles in the newspaper about it.Short answer: yes. We write other articles on how other people are awesome at killing. What do you have against giving this guy his props?

[Magus]

If you can't draw a distinction between murder and killing to defend a member of your military unit I'm not sure there's a point in attempting to discuss the point with you, Barrel.

EDIT: I mean in the absence of your socialist utopian space colony we've discussed before in other threads. :P

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Care to explain the difference to me? Cause I don't get it.

[tacticslion]

Why not? Because he's heaps better at murdering people than other people we should be proud of him and write sweet articles in the newspaper about it.

Smarty, murder (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder), and killing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing) (also here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kill_(disambiguation)), especially military uses) are different things... as explained by manslaughter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manslaughter). Military action (self defense and defense of those important to you, including your comrades in arms) is hardly the same as murder.

Note: NINJA'd by Magus

EDIT: look at the links. Justified killing heavily depends on the circumstances, intent, and net result. Killing is never preferable, but it is occasionally necessary. Hunting, for instance, is the killing of a creature for food. Similarly, when in a war situation, a person who kills during that war situation is wholly justified in the general sense (in specific, it depends on who/what they are killing for and how much they understand about it; ex: Nazi death camps = bad war killing because of racism; WWII Allies shooting Nazis = good war killing for liberation).

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Just because our laws invented by a bunch of rich dudes to justify sending poor people to slaughter each other for thier kicks say they are different doesn't mean they are.

[Osterbaum]

Killing is basically murder, any reasons don't change that. You can (try to) justify it, but don't just use man-made terms made-up to make murder not sound like murder.

Also, the article very clearly has this sort of "Killing is a sport" -thing going for it. "Wow, this guy can totally get a headshot from like really far away". I'm not critizising the sniper himself, I just have a problem with the style of the article (and killing in general obviosly).

[tacticslion]

justify sending poor people to slaughter each other for thier kicks

I don't think you quite get the purpose of war.

In war, "Rich" don't send "Poor" to slaughter each other. War is caused for a large number of reasons, and historically the rich have been the warriors, and have been expected to pay for it. It is fairly recently that the "poor" have been the primary element of the military (they've long been the source for "mass numbers" but were rarely the primary "warriors") insomuch as they are fully trained but retain their low income - in these oligarchic societies, officers recieved a pay cut and so were expected to be able to handle it because they were rich. It is, however, modern military that these "poor" (or rich, it doesn't matter) can earn full wages by becoming warriors in a more meritocratic (instead of oligarchic) society that is the modern military. I have no illusions - politicians are almost always more wealthy than those that are sent to war. But soldiers aren't sent to war just for kicks and giggles or because they're "poor" - there is always a driving force that seemingly demands the use of force of arms, either from the aggressor or the defender. What that driving force is changes heavily with each war. At any rate, this topic deserves its own thread - this thread is about the fact that currently a solider in Britain has the record (and the record exists for many reasons) in long-range sharp-shooting.

[Hanuman]

I heard somewhere that Canada has the best trained sniper core worldwide.


and historically the rich have been the warriors
You mean in the time of kings? Kings are pretty rich, they own armies.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

I don't think you quite get the purpose of war.

In war, "Rich" don't send "Poor" to slaughter each other. War is caused for a large number of reasons, and historically the rich have been the warriors, and have been expected to pay for it. It is fairly recently that the "poor" have been the primary element of the military (they've long been the source for "mass numbers" but were rarely the primary "warriors") insomuch as they are fully trained but retain their low income - in these oligarchic societies, officers recieved a pay cut and so were expected to be able to handle it because they were rich. It is, however, modern military that these "poor" (or rich, it doesn't matter) can earn full wages by becoming warriors in a more meritocratic (instead of oligarchic) society that is the modern military. I have no illusions - politicians are almost always more wealthy than those that are sent to war. But soldiers aren't sent to war just for kicks and giggles or because they're "poor" - there is always a driving force that seemingly demands the use of force of arms, either from the aggressor or the defender. What that driving force is changes heavily with each war. At any rate, this topic deserves its own thread - this thread is about the fact that currently a solider in Britain has the record (and the record exists for many reasons) in long-range sharp-shooting.


War has historically and continually been either land disputes between the rich and or as distraction to the poor to prevent them revolting. I'm boozed as fuck right now but I can't think of any war I can't classify like this.

[Osterbaum]

I'm boozed as fuck right now...
When are you not?

[tacticslion]

Killing is basically murder, any reasons don't change that.

So... self-defense that results in the death of the person doing the assault is murder? I understand your point, but killing does not always equal murder.

You can (try to) justify it, but don't just use man-made terms made-up to make murder not sound like murder.

Sorry, but no. See, both "killing" and "murder" are man-made terms - they are concepts we've created (evolved or were divinely inspired, dependant upon your view) to justify our own morality and mental construct of how society should function. Saying that "man-made" terms obscure the facts simply because they're man-made is like saying "language hides the truth because it's man-made". I do see what you're going for (and that your point is different from what I've just refudiated), however I'm letting you know that I both disagree with your point (mental constructs that differentiate one kind of death from another are useless) and the way you've said it for the simple fact that collectively agreed upon mental constructs are what society is based on in general.

I just have a problem with the style of the article (and killing in general obviosly).

This I can understand and mostly agree with. While I'm would submit that murder and killing are different, I don't like killing in general - in fact I believe it's in all of our best interests to avoid it wherever possible. Sometimes, however, killing is necessary and justified - and military action is potentially one of those times (not all military action is justified).

You mean in the time of kings? Kings are pretty rich, they own armies.

No, I mean knights, samurais, Roman warrior-generals and the like.

War has historically and continually been either land disputes between the rich and or as distraction to the poor to prevent them revolting. I'm boozed as fuck right now but I can't think of any war I can't classify like this.

Whelp, I'm out of time, otherwise I'd continue this - I'd recommend a new thread for this though, as we are seriously getting off-topic.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

No, I mean knights, samurais, Roman warrior-generals and the like.


I really think you need to look up how feudal societies work. They are not the little honour-bound egalitarian funfests they are made out to be. I'll start another thread i morning if I rember.

[Tev]

You mean in the time of kings? Kings are pretty rich, they own armies.In a roundabout way....knights. You know, back in the day when a rich-guy's kids had three choices: Government, Church, and Military service (usually in that order.)

Really, it wasn't until the British started giving peasants longbows, and later guns, did the poor really matter on the field of battle. At best they were a horse's speed-bump.

[Magus]

Killing is basically murder, any reasons don't change that. You can (try to) justify it, but don't just use man-made terms made-up to make murder not sound like murder.

Also, the article very clearly has this sort of "Killing is a sport" -thing going for it. "Wow, this guy can totally get a headshot from like really far away". I'm not critizising the sniper himself, I just have a problem with the style of the article (and killing in general obviosly).

Well, we could quit using man-made terms like murder, too. In nature you kill whatever you want and take stuff that doesn't belong to you.

Your moral definition of murder differs from mine, I dig it. If most everyone thought like you there wouldn't even be wars, although there would be an upswing in jailing people for defending themselves or others with the use of deadly force, so I can't really get behind it 100%.

Having a problem with the style of the article is okay, I guess, I didn't really take it the same way.

EDIT: Ninja'd.

Yes, wars are fought by the poor for the sake of the rich. I'm just not going to call some random soldier a murderer because I disagree with the political reasons behind the conflict he is currently fighting in.

[Osterbaum]

So... self-defense that results in the death of the person doing the assault is murder? I understand your point, but killing does not always equal murder.
Ok. Killing always equals killing. Same end-result. My point is, that using different names for what is basically the same thing, doesn't really change anything. And when something is in the law/is a law in itself it is, in my opinion, one of the poorest justifications for anything ever.

"language hides the truth because it's man-made"
In a way it does. And in a way that's a different conversation alltogether, so I'm not gonna go further into it.

EDIT:
In nature you kill whatever you want and take stuff that doesn't belong to you.
As a biologist I object to this statement. It's an over simplification.

Your moral definition of murder differs from mine, I dig it. If most everyone thought like you there wouldn't even be wars...
I actually believe killing to (possibly) be justified in certain situations. Not a good thing, but justified.

[Geminex]

War has historically and continually been either land disputes between the rich and or as distraction to the poor to prevent them revolting. I'm boozed as fuck right now but I can't think of any war I can't classify like this.
Thing is, while this can probably be said of one side in almost any conflict, it isn't true for both. While I don't think there's ever an absolute agressor in war, I would imagine that certain parties contribute more to starting (and continuing) a conflict than others do. As such, would a defensive war not be... justifiable? And would the use of such skills in a defensive war not be equally justified?
I'm not saying that Iraq or Afghanistan are defensive wars, mind you, just saying that war isn't absolutely unjustifiable.

[Magus]

It's not always the same end result, because he changed who got killed. I get that that is entirely a perspective thing but from his perspective it was definitely a positive change he created. Obviously from the Taliban's perspective it was a negative. The whole concept of killing someone else is tragic but once again soldiers don't choose where they serve or how they serve or when they serve.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Re: Geminex That is true. There are defensive wars that are justifiable. Not all of them but some of them.

[Hanuman]

No, I mean knights, samurais, Roman warrior-generals and the like.
Oh.
Knights an Samurai are nobles, they are elitist peacekeepers meant to manage peasants, if a soldier is rich because he is of noble class then good on him, but that doesn't make him rich by being a soldier, it makes him rich by being a noble.

Generals are rich because they send the poorer people to their death fyi.

[Fifthfiend]

Oh look Magus posts sperging at people for not being enthusiastic enough about death and violence, haven't seen one of those in five or six minutes.

EDIT

go back to your ~*SOCIALIST UTOPIA*~, LIEberals

[Fenris]

Oh look Magus posts sperging at people for not being enthusiastic enough about death and violence, haven't seen one of those in five or six minutes.

EDIT

go back to your ~*SOCIALIST UTOPIA*~, LIEberals

Man words don't even describe how wrong dumb this post is. Like I tried to write one but was just like

whelp

e:

I don't think anybody here is arguing that war isn't inherently a terrible godawful thing but I'm not really gonna lose sleep over the fact that a british dude is awesome with a sniper rifle and killed a couple terrorists who were in the process of trying to kill his compatriots.

[Tev]

Really I'm just disappointed that "~*SOCIALIST UTOPIA*~" didn't sparkle.

[Hanuman]

Really I'm just disappointed that "~*SOCIALIST UTOPIA*~" didn't sparkle.

~*SOCIALIST UTOPIA*~

[Fifthfiend]

I don't think anybody here is arguing that war isn't inherently a terrible godawful thing but I'm not really gonna lose sleep over the fact that a british dude is awesome with a sniper rifle and killed a couple terrorists who were in the process of trying to kill his compatriots.

Whelp.

EDIT: Like literally none of this has anything to do with anything I've said.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

I don't think anybody here is arguing that war isn't inherently a terrible godawful thing but I'm not really gonna lose sleep over the fact that a british dude is awesome with a sniper rifle and killed a couple terrorists who were in the process of trying to kill his compatriots.

Even if you don't condemn it I find it hard t oaccept that we should celebrate it with newspaper articles about how awesome he is.

[Fifthfiend]

Even if you don't condemn it I find it hard t oaccept that we should celebrate it with newspaper articles about how awesome he is.

Whoa, check out this simple, obvious point.

EDIT The war in Afghanistan is a terrible fucking catastrophe of death and suffering that's gone on for years beyond any imaginable justification for it and pretty much everything done in the name of perpetuating it is terrible, the fact that I don't blame soldiers for the unarguably terrible shit their bosses require them to do doesn't mean I have to celebrate it, going ~*THE TERRORISTS*~ every time we kill one of the many people who pose literally no threat to our country or anything beyond the miserable ass-end of the world where we've decided to spend eight years killing people doesn't actually justify it, every time Magus writes another post about the LIBERAL SKY-SATELLITEI want to throw up and shit and then throw up again, peace, picture me rollin', sunglasses.

[Julford Hajime]

Even if you don't condemn it I find it hard t oaccept that we should celebrate it with newspaper articles about how awesome he is.

Yes, because (http://www.nypost.com/p/blogs/popwrap/best_and_brightest_at_the_white_VNqtDXFNULB5BRgnIB usQJ) newspaper articles (http://www.nypost.com/p/pagesix/celebrity_photos/celebrity_photos_may_pzW4ZjLXo6ZVIFpoaqjd1L?photo_ num=7) are an (http://www.nypost.com/p/pagesix/gossip_growth_xZmNZQDPuP65v6evYDYhTM) inherently holy thing (http://www.nypost.com/p/pagesix/gun_for_sale_eXDEZrxkKJLedyMLpNgtzH) and are never (http://www.nypost.com/p/pagesix/mom_can_bear_gummy_bear_wwfESKMUncD36brj6bY6lI) wasted on crap. (http://www.nypost.com/p/pagesix/usher_hot_date_woFlaRriLx5U0aMrRcKUsM)

CLEARLY we should be arguing about the merits of this article and it's value to society.

[Magus]

Oh look Magus posts sperging at people for not being enthusiastic enough about death and violence, haven't seen one of those in five or six minutes.

EDIT

go back to your ~*SOCIALIST UTOPIA*~, LIEberals

I disparage people for saying I shouldn't be enthusiastic about violent sports/entertainment with willing participants, but that is a different thread in a different section of the board and I was being less serious in it.

War doesn't have willing participants and isn't a sport and isn't entertainment (except in movies) so the point is null.

My bringing up the socialist utopia thing was just a joke based on a long-running theme of what people say to Barrel from earlier threads, I don't think he is a commie pinko because he dislikes war, I just think it's unrealistic to call a soldier a murderer for sniping an enemy soldier in a war zone who was clearly targeting his fellow soldiers because I don't think distinctions are just meaningless semantics, there is a difference in my opinion between what this soldier did and murder.

EDIT: As for the tone of the article I didn't take it that way but obviously lots of people did, yes, it isn't cool to go and make articles about how totally awesome it is to blow people's heads off, that wasn't the point anyone really ended up arguing.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

To be fair I totally am a commie pinko in a socialist utopia.

[POS Industries]

Basically you're all retarded.

[Magus]

No you!

I admit I am probably contradictory in a lot of my beliefs, and probably have faulty logic in applying this to that but not that and saying they're different because of the context and circumstances and perspective and my personal take on things.

But you all do that too and you're stupid and wrong so there! Take that! Argument won!

EDIT: But I'm all over this burqa issue (since we're bringing up other topics in this topic).

[Geminex]

Argument won!

THIS ARGUMENT ISN'T OVER UNTIL SOMEONE MENTIONS HITLER.

[Marc v4.0]

THIS ARGUMENT ISN'T OVER UNTIL SOMEONE MENTIONS HITLER.

Tag! You're It!

[TDK]

War doesn't have willing participants

Nope, no one has ever volunteered for military service or very purposefully started wars for religious reasons, everyone ever has been drafted and forced into service

Oh wait

[Bob The Mercenary]

I just find it crazy how a guy could lay prone on top of the Statue of Liberty and hit someone standing by the WTC site (or the equivalent). Like I was just past there the other day, the distance is insane, the statue is literally a little larger than a dot on the horizon from there.

[Krylo]

Basically you're all retarded.

Yeah. They keep saying he shot them in the head.

[Tev]

I just find it crazy how a guy could lay prone on top of the Statue of Liberty and hit someone standing by the WTC site (or the equivalent). Like I was just past there the other day, the distance is insane, the statue is literally a little larger than a dot on the horizon from there.I know right!? I mean what got me about this whole thing is that you only see shit like this in movies.

Yeah. They keep saying he shot them in the head.Indeed. People who read the article would know it was a guts shot at best.

[Kyanbu The Legend]

Yeah though they are not bragging about his kill. They are bragging about how he was able to shot so far and hit a almost unnoticeable target. Had he not, his allies would be dead by now.

War is a unfortunate part of individuality. So long as individuality exist there will always be conflict. It's something that can not be avoid without invoking a hive mind over the human race.

he best we can do is reduce the damage caused by war.


EDIT: Truth be told. This thread was a bad idea to be posted on here with that title. It was bound to cause problems and it did.

[Osterbaum]

Indeed. People who read the article would know it was a guts shot at best.
Yes, because where he shot them was the whole point of both the article and every argument made in this thread? Also, headshots are pretty hard to make and there's really no reason to try one unless you're absolutely sure you can make the shot.

EDIT: Truth be told. This thread was a bad idea to be posted on here with that title. It was bound to cause problems and it did.
It caused a (somewhat heated) debate. I don't really see that as a problem.

[Mesden]

I disparage people for saying I shouldn't be enthusiastic about violent sports/entertainment with willing participants, but that is a different thread in a different section of the board and I was being less serious in it.

War doesn't have willing participants and isn't a sport and isn't entertainment (except in movies) so the point is null.

My bringing up the socialist utopia thing was just a joke based on a long-running theme of what people say to Barrel from earlier threads, I don't think he is a commie pinko because he dislikes war, I just think it's unrealistic to call a soldier a murderer for sniping an enemy soldier in a war zone who was clearly targeting his fellow soldiers because I don't think distinctions are just meaningless semantics, there is a difference in my opinion between what this soldier did and murder.

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah Holy crap that is so far from the point. No one is even slightly arguing with how you view the situation in which killing is done, it's that you glorify ANY situation in which killing is done.

see this is what bothers:



Look. Some people are in the military. Some people have extremely great skill at sniping. Soldiers don't control where their countries send them to fight or who their countries declare war on, and the two men he killed were clearly attempting to kill other members of his squad with a machine gun. This was an act of incredible skill that saved his fellow soldier's lives. Complain all you want about the war in Afghanistan, it doesn't mean this guy doesn't deserve recognition for what he's done.

No, doesn't deserve recognition. Romanticizing killing, murder, whatevs, is wrong in and of itself. No one even registers whether you consider it murder or not, it's a completely moot point.

[Tev]

Yes, because where he shot them was the whole point of both the article and every argument made in this thread?No, I was just funning with Krylo. It actually has no relevance at all to anything.

No, doesn't deserve recognition. Romanticizing killing, murder, whatevs, is wrong in and of itself. No one even registers whether you consider it murder or not, it's a completely moot point.
Which is why everyone should drop whatever video game they are playing now and stop reading stories where the main character kills anyone for any reason.

[Osterbaum]

No, I was just funning with Krylo. It actually has no relevance at all to anything.
I'm glad you're willing to admidt your own failures in life.

Which is why everyone should drop whatever video game they are playing now and stop reading stories where the main character kills anyone for any reason.
You know what's wrong with that argument yourself.

[Tev]

You know what's wrong with that argument yourself.Well on the one hand, sure an argument could be made for the fact that there is a clear difference between fake violence and real. Also it's a reasonably good thing to acknowledge that fake violence doesn't beget real violence.

On the other hand, the very reason this thread was made was because I saw the article and thought of the movie Quigly Down Under (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uRKUMUPcR7k&feature=related), a movie about a really cool sniper. A movie glorifying that particular brand of violence. If we didn't make movies or games glorifying these things, maybe my first thought wouldn't have been "Hey, it's like in the movies! That's awesome!"

Maybe I'm just a bad person?

[Amake]

Ah, it turns out the topic is really about the difference between reality and fiction. I've been thinking about that topic a bit myself, lately. I'm feeling a bit left out because I've never been able to blur the line between the two even for a single solitary moment.

Do people in fact let fictional stories inform their perception of the real world? That is the question, as I see it in, let's admit it, a deep and rapturous state of caffeine overdose. I don't understand if people do. I learned that difference when I was five years old and I've never, ever doubted it. Even when it's harshly blocking my own path to self-realization.

[Tev]

Do people in fact let fictional stories inform their perception of the real world? That is the question, as I see it in, let's admit it, a deep and rapturous state of caffeine overdose. I don't understand if people do. I learned that difference when I was five years old and I've never, ever doubted it. Even when it's harshly blocking my own path to self-realization.
For me it was more of an awe for life imitating fiction. It means I now have to re-adjust where I drew the line on what was "cool but impossible." In this instance it means that all the cool snipers I knew from various movies, games, and anime are all less cool now that some guy was actually picking off people from over a mile and a half away.

[DFM]

Wouldn't the most badass sniper be the one who likes shoots the giant chandelier out from above the Taliban and it falls around them like a cage and then the ricochet hits the side and pushes them over and they roll down the stairs into their pool?

[Osterbaum]

Maybe I'm just a bad person?
I don't know, but to clarify; I wasn't trying to say you were. You didn't write the article, for one.

Well on the one hand, sure an argument could be made for the fact that there is a clear difference between fake violence and real. Also it's a reasonably good thing to acknowledge that fake violence doesn't beget real violence.
Also it should be noted that not every piece of entertainment tries to glorify killing.

Wouldn't the most badass sniper be the one who likes shoots the giant chandelier out from above the Taliban and it falls around them like a cage and then the ricochet hits the side and pushes them over and they roll down the stairs into their pool?
That's like a Home Alone -sniper.

[Fifthfiend]

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah Holy crap that is so far from the point. No one is even slightly arguing with how you view the situation in which killing is done, it's that you glorify ANY situation in which killing is done.

Honestly I'm not even doing that. If someone wants to glorify some guy who shot Nazis or the Red Army or anyone who posed any imaginable threat to my existence then I'm not gonna rain on that parade. But this is just crowing about a guy shooting two people in the head for no reason, because the soldier shouldn't have been within a thousand miles of there in the first place and there's no reason for him to have been so. I mean maybe the two people he shot in the head were the SuperEvil Terrormenz of Evil who if we hadn't invaded would have completed their plot to suitcase-nuke every orphanage and puppy shelter in the world. Or maybe they were just two guys who joined the taliban because they're pissed off that we keep bombing their countryside and because the Taliban pays better than whatever's left of whatever existed in the first place of the Afghanistani economy. And this is even me being really generous and assuming this story happened as reported and what actually happened isn't that a couple of soldiers got gun-happy around a wedding party or whatever.Which I mean I'll give Obama a smidgen of credit in that this story indicates that he's sticking with his plan of cutting back on the random bombings in favor of sending actual humans to see that who we're killing is actually who we want to be killing, although that still doesn't make up for the fact that we really on the whole shouldn't be there at all. And like I said, I don't blame the soldier or think he's a murderer. But I also don't think what he did was "bad-ass" or anything other than a stupid, pointless thing that shouldn't have happened.

Whatever. 20x more words than I had any intention of saying about this subject, TLDR: my first post in this thread, this is a big accomplishment in the field of people shooting other people in the head, whoop whoop.

[POS Industries]

See, the problem with us not being there at all is that it doesn't actually fix anything either. We're still fighting the organization that harbored and funded the dudes who totally were a direct threat to American lives while ruling over one of if not the most brutally oppressive theocracies of the modern era for no real reason except they all wanted to make millions off the opium trade, and us just throwing our hands up and going "fuck it" will most likely just hand the country back over to them, making it just as much a threat to us as it was 10 years ago.

That's not to say I'm a gigantic flag-waving supporter of the war and I honestly have no idea how to actually accomplish the greater intended objective of the place at this point due to years of crippling mismanagement by the previous administration. I just recognize that neither course of action is particularly good for us and that unfortunately continuing the war is probably the lesser of two evils, especially considering that if we do pull out we're just going to have to back in and do it again the next time they start trying to blow up our shit again.

And the two theoretical Nazis or Red Army grunts you mentioned would have just been some joe blow poor guys who were drafted into their armies and sent off to fight some guys that had never done shit to them either, so really in any case trying to glorify any of it is a shitty thing to do. That said, it's still pretty impressive that something like that could be pulled off from a mile and a half away.

[Archbio]

We're still fighting the organization that harbored and funded the dudes who totally were a direct threat to American lives while ruling over one of if not the most brutally oppressive theocracies of the modern era for no real reason except they all wanted to make millions off the opium trade

You must be thinking (http://opioids.com/afghanistan/index.html) of someone else.

[POS Industries]

You must be thinking (http://opioids.com/afghanistan/index.html) of someone else.
It seems there are conflicting reports. (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/19/world/asia/19taliban.html?_r=2&hp)

[Fifthfiend]

See, the problem with us not being there at all is that it doesn't actually fix anything either. We're still fighting the organization that harbored and funded the dudes who totally were a direct threat to American lives while ruling over one of if not the most brutally oppressive theocracies of the modern era for no real reason except they all wanted to make millions off the opium trade, and us just throwing our hands up and going "fuck it" will most likely just hand the country back over to them, making it just as much a threat to us as it was 10 years ago.

Leaving doesn't fix anything because we have no capacity to fix anything in Afghanistan, all we are fundamentally capable of doing there is making things various degrees of worse while watching political and religious extremism born of our pointless violence spread to neighboring countries as well, which is what staying there and continuing to wage the War On WTF does, and probably the only way it's not going to go back to being awful when we leave is if we nuke the entire country on our way out the door. If we actually cared about doing something that would make these people better off we'd go back in time and not do the century of colonial oppression that lead to all of this in the first place, but until the Hardon Collider fucks a hole into spacetime that option's off the table.

Generally speaking basically I feel that the overall problem with the "if we leave it'll get worse" argument is that we know staying will make things worse because of the ten years we've spent staying there and having worse happen whereas not being there has the benefit of having not demonstrably failed.

I mean it's possible that getting out of there could somehow end up being more-worse than the worse we're already getting by staying people, but I'm willing to gamble that the option that doesn't involve killing people might end up being the less-worse way to go.

And the two theoretical Nazis or Red Army grunts you mentioned would have just been some joe blow poor guys who were drafted into their armies and sent off to fight some guys that had never done shit to them either, so really in any case trying to glorify any of it is a shitty thing to do. That said, it's still pretty impressive that something like that could be pulled off from a mile and a half away.

Spending more time in this thread saying that I didn't say things I didn't say, I never said they weren't, and I never said their dying wasn't terrible, just that in that case being two average jerks doesn't change that they were two average jerks in a large hostile organized army that had the stated intention of overthrowing the legitimate governments of and ruling other countries by way of armed invasion and the bombing of civilian populations, so I don't personally feel like I would overwhelmingly be inclined to say anything to someone else who wanted to say hooray if someone killed one of them in a super-rad way, even though I myself might feel it was kind of awful.

Yet another paragraph I have had to write to explain that in making the simple point that shooting two people ina stupid pointless war is not badass, I was not making some entirely different point that I wasn't making.

Words words words wrods owrds worodordsorr dorws drows drizzt tylerdurden.

[Archbio]

Conflicting reports?

Yes, I would imagine that reports about two different things in two separate periods of time might conflict.

You were suggesting drug profits as the motive for the Taliban regime (!,) and this recent article is about the Taliban's insurgency being funded partially by drug profits. By the same reasoning you could say that the defunct Taliban regime was in fact a kidnapping ring because the insurgency is partially funded that way?

[POS Industries]

Leaving doesn't fix anything because we have no capacity to fix anything in Afghanistan, all we are fundamentally capable of doing there is making things various degrees of worse while watching political and religious extremism born of our pointless violence spread to neighboring countries as well, which is what staying there and continuing to wage the War On WTF does, and probably the only way it's not going to go back to being awful when we leave is if we nuke the entire country on our way out the door.
On the other hand there have been great social strides forward for a great deal of the Afghan citizenry that would be left to the wolves if we did just up and leave, and I'm personally rather hesitant to throw out the baby with the bathwater on that one. I also have to say I disagree that we can't fix things considering that we actually did have things well in hand up until our dumbass sudden left turn into Iraq.

Conflicting reports?

Yes, I would imagine that reports about two different things in two separate periods of time might conflict.

You were suggesting drug profits as the motive for the Taliban regime (!,) and this recent article is about the Taliban's insurgency being funded partially by drug profits. By the same reasoning you could say that the defunct Taliban regime was in fact a kidnapping ring because the insurgency is partially funded that way?
Well, considering that they didn't actually ban opium production until five years into their reign after they'd most undoubtedly made a killing from it already and only did so the very year that they needed to keep as little heat from the US on them as possible, and did so in such a way that really only accomplished keeping the poor crippled so that they wouldn't have a chance of getting into power themselves, I can't say I find the sincerity of their gesture absolute.

[Archbio]

Okay, okay. So, the Taliban were evil drug lords for five years, then then were evilishly oppressing the opium farmers by (unsincerely) banning opium growing (to keep them from getting the power that the Taliban want to keep to... make profit off of drugs?;) and now I guess that the only reason that they're in the "insurgency biz" in order to get at that sweet, sweet drug moneys?

Hey, I'm sure Western backed anti-drug policies would never Afghan farmers hard, and that the Karzai government doesn't profit from drugs at all! Only, whoops: (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/27/magazine/27AFGHAN-t.html?hp)

Over the next two years I would discover how deeply the Afghan government was involved in protecting the opium trade — by shielding it from American-designed policies. While it is true that Karzai’s Taliban enemies finance themselves from the drug trade, so do many of his supporters. At the same time, some of our NATO allies have resisted the anti-opium offensive, as has our own Defense Department, which tends to see counternarcotics as other people’s business to be settled once the war-fighting is over. The trouble is that the fighting is unlikely to end as long as the Taliban can finance themselves through drugs — and as long as the Kabul government is dependent on opium to sustain its own hold on power.

Hey, might this just be one of those complex situations I hear about?

[POS Industries]

I don't recall ever saying Karzai wasn't a corrupt asshole. I'm sorry if not specifically noting him as part of the "crippling mismanagement by the previous administration" wasn't clear enough for you.

[Archbio]

I think Karzai's backed by your current administration, too!

But really, the important and original point is that it seems extremely doubtful that the Taliban's motivation for running a regime even more theocratic and oppressive that the average Afghan regime might be was to profit off of the opium trade. Because damn, they sure did do a bad job of it if that was the case. A worse job that Karzai, so far, it seems to me.

Have fun!

[POS Industries]

Well, since we can't actually prove that Karzai rigged the vote enough for him to get reelected, we can't just go in and kick him out without further adding to the shitstorm. So yes, in the sense that the current administration has decided to back the democratically-elected President of Afghanistan, it backs Karzai until the Afghan people manage to elect someone better.

This is still all quite different from putting Karzai into power in the first place, which is what the Bush administration did with glee.

But really, the important and original point is that it seems extremely doubtful that the Taliban's motivation for running a regime even more theocratic and oppressive that the average Afghan regime might be was to profit off of the opium trade. Because damn, they sure did do a bad job of it if that was the case. A worse job that Karzai, so far, it seems to me.
Well, then why don't you go ahead and tell me why anyone would want control over a piece of shit plot of land like Afghanistan if it isn't for the money?

[Archbio]

Well, since we can't actually prove that Karzai rigged the vote enough for him to get reelected, we can't just go in and kick him out without further adding to the shitstorm. So yes, in the sense that the current administration has decided to back the democratically-elected President of Afghanistan, it backs Karzai until the Afghan people manage to elect someone better.

So. Huh. You can't think of any options between "kicking out" and "backing and treating as 100% legitimate?" I can think of at least one.

Oh, and electing someone better through rigged elections is actually a neat feat perfected by Harry Houdini.

Well, then why don't you go ahead and tell me why anyone would want control over a piece of shit plot of land like Afghanistan if it isn't for the money?

If you're just making general point about human nature and the nature of political power then I fail to see what point, if any, you were actually making about the Taliban regime in particular when you portrayed them as motivated solely in their (frankly counterproductive) theocratic oppression-making by the collection of drug profits.

However, it does seem that there was a tiny weensy bit of an ideological and nationalistic component to the Taliban's actions, but maybe you've just missed it because of all the fucking fanatics.

Also: I think they kind of picked Afghanistan because they're locals, or something like that? I mean personally I would have moved around a bit, shopping for which country to make a coup in. Maybe Peru.

[POS Industries]

So. Huh. You can't think of any options between "kicking out" and "backing and treating as 100% legitimate?" I can think of at least one.

Oh, and electing someone better through rigged elections is actually a neat feat perfected by Harry Houdini.
And if that gets uncovered--which it probably would because suspicious election results are pretty easily noticed in our modern era--we deligitimize everything we've done and further splinter the nation into a more horrible and multifaceted civil war. The entire populace hates us instead of a minority, we have no choice but to pull out since we've lost all trust and credibility with the people, and the much more heavily armed Taliban retakes control in the chaos.

But please, keep pulling those keys out of your ass, Mr. Houdini.


If you're just making general point about human nature and the nature of political power then I fail to see what point, if any, you were actually making about the Taliban regime in particular.

However, it does seem that there was a tiny weensy bit of an ideological and nationalistic component to the Taliban's actions, but maybe you've just missed it because of all the fucking fanatics.

Also: I think they kind of picked Afghanistan because they're locals, or something like that? I mean personally I would have moved around a bit, shopping for which country to make a coup in. Maybe Peru.
Oh, yes, I'm well aware there were many reasons. If you'd like, I can thank you for correcting me on the exaggeration of my claim. But really, when you boil it down, it's still always going to be about the money. The nation's economy was built on the drug trade. The Taliban wanted control of the nation and its economy. They gave sanctuary to Al-Qaeda and helped fund them with the money they'd made from the drug trade.

Only when it became convenient to halt it did the Taliban decide to do so, and when it became convenient to cash in on it again, they did. They can go on and on about their homeland and the will of Allah and whatever the fuck all day, they know none of that means squat without the cash to finance it.

[Wigmund]

Plus we're also kinda at fault for the Taliban existing.


Thank you Ronald Reagan and the CIA for funding and arming Afghan extremists during the Soviet invasion back in the 80s.

[Archbio]

But please, keep pulling those keys out of your ass, Mr. Houdini.

I think you may have misread.

You were laying down the responsability of getting rid of Karzai on the Afghan electorate ("it backs Karzai until the Afghan people manage to elect someone better"), and I sarcastically retorted that it's not something that's easy to do when the elections are rigged.

But really, when you boil it down, it's still always going to be about the money.

As I was saying, that really says nothing about the Taliban regime specifically. You just pulled the opium thing out, much like Houdini, because it looked pretty in your tirade against those evil baddies.


They gave sanctuary to Al-Qaeda and helped fund them with the money they'd made from the drug trade.

So, basically, it's all about the money... unless it's about international terrorism. It's about the opium trade, unless it's about not making the US hostile, unless it's about sheltering international terrorists (which made the US hostile?) You'd think that if the paramount goal was making money they'd probably have chosen to cross the US on the drug trade rather than on the terrorists.

I think the Taliban weren't properly informed of their "true motivations."

And with that, I'm out.

[POS Industries]

I think you may have misread.

You were laying down the responsability of getting rid of Karzai on the Afghan electorate ("it backs Karzai until the Afghan people manage to elect someone better"), and I sarcastically retorted that it's not something that's easy to do when the elections are rigged.
Well, we can do our best to work with the Afghan government (perhaps the parliament in this case rather than the president) to aid them in running a secure, honest, and transparent election process, which would be difficult on one hand because we'd have to try extra hard to convince the populace that we ourselves aren't trying to co-opt and rig their elections but could still be workable if the Afghan government wanted to avoid a major controversy like they had in the previous election.

We can offer to help, and if they don't accept then that's all there is to it.

As I was saying, that really says nothing about the Taliban regime specifically. You just pulled the opium thing out, much like Houdini, because it looked pretty in your tirade against those evil baddies.
Well, I actually noted it in a list of several things that were pretty horrible about them but I guess you decided to nitpick just the one thing about opium.

So, basically, it's all about the money... unless it's about international terrorism. It's about the opium trade, unless it's about not making the US hostile, unless it's about sheltering international terrorists (which made the US hostile?) You'd think that if the paramount goal was making money they'd probably have chosen to cross the US on the drug trade rather than on the terrorists.

I think the Taliban weren't properly informed of their "true motivations."
I really don't have any idea where you're going with this unless it's to get me to admit that it's not about the money at all and the Taliban are totally all about just wiping out the infidel western culture in the name of Allah or whatever, which actually makes them way the fuck more evil and threatening to the rest of the world than even I was willing to give them credit for.

Either that or it gives us room to agree that the Taliban aren't particularly competent, and have really only gotten to where they are now through the errors of even less competent US leaders.

But then I guess that kind of opens up this whole new can of worms about Afghanistan being a mess that we created a long time ago and whether or not "you break it, you bought it" applies to the situation.

And with that, I'm out.
Later!

[The Sevenshot Kid]

So... That Brit's a pretty good shot, ain't he?

[Tev]

So... That Brit's a pretty good shot, ain't he?I thought so.

[Funka Genocide]

To be fair I totally am a commie pinko in a socialist utopia.

Basically you're all retarded.

You know I wanted to stay away forever, but it's gems like this that keep me coming back.

The tone of the article is completely ridiculous, using the term "badass" which would be totally applicable if it were discussing the recent exploits of a 16 year old Halo enthusiast, just doesn't give proper gravity to the fact that these men and their adversaries were fighting and dying for something more important than headlines. It's sort of sick really.

The skill showcased by the sniper was likely at the pinnacle of human endeavor, but in all seriousness its little more than a footnote in the long history of war that human race has written throughout the ages.

Men have possessed extraordinary capability to kill each other since the first use of the bone club. Its not like those shots "won the war" or anything. Just an obscure oddity of death.

[Osterbaum]

War. War never changes.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

War. War never changes.

It does in the glorious future of communist utopia.
Just so that you know.

[Osterbaum]

Not according to Fallout!

[Professor Smarmiarty]

I not played Fallout but imma assume it's not really a communist utopia because if there is war it pretty much can't be by definition.
Also game is clearly imperialist propaganda.

[Kim]

War. War never changes.

But Solid Snake told me "War... has changed." Obviously, something is afoot here.

[A Zarkin' Frood]

War just loves to screw with people like that.

[bluestarultor]

War does change, but only in the sense we get more and more creative in how we kill each other.

[Tev]

War has too changed...

When was the last time you saw small tribes running around beating each other with sticks? Or large forces of thousands standing on hills and yelling at one another before running into a valley or plain to stab at each other? Or stood in lines twenty yards apart and took turns shooting at one another? Or people making it a point to aim for the guy who was clearly the commander? Or dug trenches?

Hell we hardly even have guerilla wars anymore. Not when we can let some kid back in the states pilot a remote control robot to drop its payload where the space satellites tell us the enemy is. The only thing that hasn't changed yet is that people still die and the only reason that's not happened yet is because we keep getting into fights with people who aren't our technological equals. It's only a matter of time before the fighting leaves the battlefield all together and is either all robot on robot action or cyber fighting with the casualties being a Nation's financial and social infrastructures. Treaties will be signed because we want out internet back or because our laundry machines all shut down. China will take our Farmville accounts hostage. You know, slippery slope stuff like that.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

The only thing that hasn't changed yet is that people still die and the only reason that's not happened yet is because we keep getting into fights with people who aren't our technological equals.

When I used to play hockey if the other side was getting hammered we would give them some of our players, it was only fair. You should give the other side some nukes and some robot planes before you start. Otherwise it's not fair.

[Tev]

To be fair, Russia beat them up first....and Britain before that....and the Romans did before that....and I forget if Egypt ever laid the hurt on the Persian people or not. The people there have been fighting forever. They've got experience. If we gave them our toys they'd rule the playground in a week.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Hahaha, the US are pussies. This is why you always join at the end of wars that other people have already mostly won for you (and yet still sometimes fuck them up). Amiright or amiright?

[Tev]

Eh, for the most part. We've grown pretty soft over the years.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

What do you mean over the years? Even the revolution was finishing off the Seven Years war. IN fact, I think ever major American war, except Mr Korea, was basically America piggying back off of the work of France. How low can you get?

[Tev]

I'm pretty sure the Spanish-American War was all us and some Cubans vs. Spain.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Like the fuck that counts as a war.

[Osterbaum]

The people there have been fighting forever. They've got experience.
I think this is one of the major problems with the US. Not having had any wars fought on your soil for such a long time has made people forgett what it means.

[Tev]

Like the fuck that counts as a war.
I bet you count the War of 1812 just because you can tie France to it don't you?

I think this is one of the major problems with the US. Not having had any wars fought on your soil for such a long time has made people forgett what it means.Yeah but now that we're the undisputed naval power of the world it's hard to get a good invasion going when the enemy's choices are driving in through Canada or Mexico.

[krogothwolf]

I bet you count the War of 1812 just because you can tie France to it don't you?

Still a little bitter about that? It's not like you didn't get to rebuild the White House after wards.

Yeah but now that we're the undisputed naval power of the world it's hard to get a good invasion going when the enemy's choices are driving in through Canada or Mexico.

Yeah, there's a problem there. Either the army will be to drunk or to poor and drugged up to invade depending on the route they take.