NationStates Jolt Archive

You guys will appreciate this, from independent journalist Michael Yon who is embedded with 1/24 Marines in Iraq.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Yarmuk traffic circle is fantastically dangerous. On the first mission I ran in Mosul, we lost two soldiers and an interpreter, all killed by a car bomb. Others were horribly burned, scarred for life. Many of our wounded and killed soldiers got it right here, or in the immediate vicinity. The ISF takes serious losses in this part of town. But it's not entirely one-sided--the Deuce Four has killed well over 150 terrorists in this neighborhood in the past 10 months. But almost none of those made the news, and those that did had a few key details missing.

Like the time when some ISF were driving and got blasted by an IED, causing numerous casualties and preventing them from recovering the vehicle. The terrorists came out and did their rifle-pumping-in-the-air thing, shooting AKs, dancing around like monkeys. Videos went 'round the world, making it appear the terrorists were running Mosul, which was pretty much what was being reported at the time.

But that wasn't the whole story. In the Yarmuk neighborhood, only terrorists openly carry AK-47s. The lawyers call this Hostile Intent. The soldiers call this Dead Man Walking.

Deuce Four is an overwhelmingly aggressive and effective unit, and they believe the best defense is a dead enemy. They are constantly thinking up innovative, unique, and effective ways to kill or capture the enemy; proactive not reactive. They planned an operation with snipers, making it appear that an ISF vehicle had been attacked, complete with explosives and flash-bang grenades to simulate the IED. The simulated casualty evacuation of sand dummies completed the ruse.

The Deuce Four soldiers left quickly with the "casualties," "abandoning" the burning truck in the traffic circle. The enemy took the bait. Terrorists came out and started with the AK-rifle-monkey-pump, shooting into the truck, their own video crews capturing the moment of glory. That's when the American snipers opened fire and killed everybody with a weapon. Until now, only insiders knew about the AK-monkey-pumpers smack-down.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------


Word of the day: "AK-monkey-pumpers smack-down." :p :D

w00t.

<snip>

They planned an operation with snipers, making it appear that an ISF vehicle had been attacked, complete with explosives and flash-bang grenades to simulate the IED. The simulated casualty evacuation of sand dummies completed the ruse.

The Deuce Four soldiers left quickly with the "casualties," "abandoning" the burning truck in the traffic circle. The enemy took the bait. Terrorists came out and started with the AK-rifle-monkey-pump, shooting into the truck, their own video crews capturing the moment of glory. That's when the American snipers opened fire and killed everybody with a weapon. Until now, only insiders knew about the AK-monkey-pumpers smack-down.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------


Word of the day: "AK-monkey-pumpers smack-down." :p :D

nice tactic.

lol

hmmmm

more LOL :D

Hey, better than that time American snipers were snuck up on and taken out by insurgents.

Hey, better than that time American snipers were snuck up on and taken out by insurgents.

source?

Your title is misleading. You are talking about Marines, don't disgrace them by lumping them under US Army.

Hey, better than that time American snipers were snuck up on and taken out by insurgents.
Yeah, read about that in the Guardian a few days back, some ace sniper who has been taking out US troops. One hit was four US snipers apparently. The US soldiers even have a nickname for him, which sadly I can't recall. He must be a pretty awesome shot, to place a shot through someone's armpit or lower spine, avoiding the body armour.

Terrorists came out and started with the AK-rifle-monkey-pump, shooting into the truck, their own video crews capturing the moment of glory. That's when the American snipers opened fire and killed everybody with a weapon. Until now, only insiders knew about the AK-monkey-pumpers smack-down.


Shooting rifles into the air is now an offense punishable by death without trial in Iraq?

We wipe the floor with the insurgents. Our troops are trained and kitted out with hundreds of dollars worth of equiptment and the insurgents have at best a Saddam-era conscript's training and an AK-47. The reasons that insurgent deaths aren't reported in the press are because a) it's hard to distinguish an insurgent from a civilian, b) we kill a hell of a lot of them (dog bites man vs. man bites dog) and c) the AMERICAN press cares more about AMERICAN deaths. Body counts don't win wars anyway. Remember how many times we beat the Viet Cong?

Shooting rifles into the air is now an offense punishable by death without trial in Iraq?
Like the article said, in Iraq, only terrorists carry guns.

I'd like to see that applied in the US. :p :sniper:

Like the article said, in Iraq, only terrorists carry guns.

Not quite: "In the Yarmuk neighborhood, only terrorists openly carry AK-47s," which is somewhat different, but hardly puts my mind at rest.

Yeah, read about that in the Guardian a few days back, some ace sniper who has been taking out US troops. One hit was four US snipers apparently. The US soldiers even have a nickname for him, which sadly I can't recall. He must be a pretty awesome shot, to place a shot through someone's armpit or lower spine, avoiding the body armour.

No, the snipers were deployed and someone snuck up behind them with a pistol and shot them in the back of the head.

Shooting rifles into the air is now an offense punishable by death without trial in Iraq?

If you're a monkey-pumping Ak terrorist shooting around a burning ISF vehicle, yes. :sniper:

If you're a monkey-pumping Ak terrorist shooting around a burning ISF vehicle, yes. :sniper:

Lets start from scratch here: shooting at an empty wrecked vehicle is punishable by death?


***

A foreign force invades your country and seizes power by force...
you resist them by arms directed against their military...
...and that makes you a terrorist?


***
"dancing around like monkeys."
"AK-monkey-pumpers"

Shall we just ignore the racist overtones here? First thing you do in war is dehumanise the enemy and make it seem like you aren't actually killing real people.

Yeah, read about that in the Guardian a few days back, some ace sniper who has been taking out US troops. One hit was four US snipers apparently. The US soldiers even have a nickname for him, which sadly I can't recall. He must be a pretty awesome shot, to place a shot through someone's armpit or lower spine, avoiding the body armour.

FYI, there was an instance where a US army medic was shot (at 75 yards, hardly "Sniper" distance) by an insurgent wielding a Dragunov, which FYI, fires a REALLY big bullet, the 7.62x54R. It hit the medic and was stopped by his trauma plate. He fell down, got back up, and took cover on the other side of the humvee. The 2 insurgents were later captured, and it was that SAME medic that gave them first aid.

I have the video and I'll post it here in a minute, I just need to dig it up off of my hard drive.

Another thing-the insurgents aren't known for accuracy. Spray and pray and the Beirut off-hand are the most common styles of shooting.

Lets start from scratch here: shooting at an empty wrecked vehicle is punishable by death?


***

A foreign force invades your country and seizes power by force...
you resist them by arms directed against their military...
...and that makes you a terrorist?


***
"dancing around like monkeys."
"AK-monkey-pumpers"

Shall we just ignore the racist overtones here? First thing you do in war is dehumanise the enemy and make it seem like you aren't actually killing real people.

If a police car were to be bombed, and I were to be standing around shooting my AK into it, wouldn't it be a fair guess that I'm one of the ones who did it? Heck, I'd be fair game.

If my goverment was responsible for the deaths of millions of my countrymen and openly claimed to be Christian while murdering my fellow citizens, I'd support my goverments demise.

Found the video, link hosted below. This dude's a real trooper for sure!

Also, sorry to get the Marines and Army confused, but please know that the article wasn't my work. As I said (I'm pretty sure) it's Michael Yon's, who happens to be a correspondant with the Army in Iraq. I would not dare call a marine a soldier. ;)

All I see here is that those who want to do damage to the US forces will simply adapt their tactics. Plant your IEDs and don't bother showing your faces afterwards. Who knows, they might be able to use a similar trick in the future (baited traps).

Not going to change much.

Here is the video (http://media.putfile.com/CG55)

Lets start from scratch here: shooting at an empty wrecked vehicle is punishable by death?


***

A foreign force invades your country and seizes power by force...
you resist them by arms directed against their military...
...and that makes you a terrorist?


***
"dancing around like monkeys."
"AK-monkey-pumpers"

Shall we just ignore the racist overtones here? First thing you do in war is dehumanise the enemy and make it seem like you aren't actually killing real people.


You'ld rather the vehicles be manned I take it?

*****

Let's look at it another way:

A foriegn force enter your country and topples a dictator that has been responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of his own people due to starting wars or blatantly massacring them.

You respond by primarily attacking civilians, including children, and using schools, hospitals, and mosques as shields and supply houses.

That makes you a terrorist.

***

Have you ever seen the dance? For people that blow up children accepting candy, there's no dehumanizing necessary.

All I see here is that those who want to do damage to the US forces will simply adapt their tactics. Plant your IEDs and don't bother showing your faces afterwards. Who knows, they might be able to use a similar trick in the future (baited traps).

Not going to change much.

They lost quite a few bodies as a result of their stupidity. When they change their ways, Deuce 4 will change theirs to accomodate them.

Putfile removed the video, something about "Vulgar, illegal, copyrighted" content.

I'll go find a new host here in a minute. Or maybe one of you guys could host it?

here the video is again (http://www.zippyvideos.com/40057977887885.html)

If a police car were to be bombed, and I were to be standing around shooting my AK into it, wouldn't it be a fair guess that I'm one of the ones who did it? Heck, I'd be fair game.

Falls down on the point that it was the US forces who 'did it', or in your example the police who blew up their own police car.

If my goverment was responsible for the deaths of millions of my countrymen and openly claimed to be Christian while murdering my fellow citizens, I'd support my goverments demise.

I honestly don't follow the 'claimed to be Christian' bit here. Saddam Hussein was all but secular. Obviously I have missed your point.

You'ld rather the vehicles be manned I take it?

Nope.

Let's look at it another way:

A foriegn force enter your country and topples a dictator that has been responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of his own people due to starting wars or blatantly massacring them.

You respond by primarily attacking civilians, including children, and using schools, hospitals, and mosques as shields and supply houses.

That makes you a terrorist.

My concern here is that these individual may just be 'young turks' who despite their bravado and display are no more responsible for such actions than a flag waving patriot in a coalition nation is responsible for the individual acts of the soldiers which they endorse.

Have you ever seen the dance? For people that blow up children accepting candy, there's no dehumanizing necessary.

Nope, I haven't seen the dance. Are you claiming that these individuals are responsible for all the actions of those they are allied to? If so then that casts a pretty dark shadow of the US of the 1980s and its various highly dubious allies... I'll leave it to you to work out to whom I'm refering.

Word of the day: "AK-monkey-pumpers smack-down." :p :D

national AK-monkey-pumpers smack-down day = way better than flag day

If you find yourself in a war zone and you aren't actively involved in it, the first thing you have to do is not dress like a participant. It's entirely up to you, it's a fact of life.

While cars loaded full of explosives are daily driving into crowded streets, they aren't going to pull over at the sight of a flashing light and the sound of a siren... Unlike police officers, soldiers in a war zone don't have to identify themselves during a battle, they're allowed to fire first.

I think Grampus doesn't understand the difference. A non-participant who places themselves in the company of the participants doesn't get a trial to prove their innocence before being shot at, that’s an absurd proposition, if you place yourself in the company of the participants (on either side), you put yourself in harms way.

Falls down on the point that it was the US forces who 'did it', or in your example the police who blew up their own police car.



I honestly don't follow the 'claimed to be Christian' bit here. Saddam Hussein was all but secular. Obviously I have missed your point.

Saddam pleaded for the aid of muslims to help fight the "Crusading infidels". Just listen to any of Baghdad's bobs broadcasts.

The American troops took an ISF vehicle, laid down some flashbangs, and the AK-monkey-pumping Hadjis came out of the wood work to do their thing, and they got blasted. I don't see a problem here.

Nope.



My concern here is that these individual may just be 'young turks' who despite their bravado and display are no more responsible for such actions than a flag waving patriot in a coalition nation is responsible for the individual acts of the soldiers which they endorse.



Nope, I haven't seen the dance. Are you claiming that these individuals are responsible for all the actions of those they are allied to? If so then that casts a pretty dark shadow of the US of the 1980s and its various highly dubious allies... I'll leave it to you to work out to whom I'm refering.

I read the part highlighted in bold. WHAT do you not get? These guys are the ones responsible for IEDs, Car bombs, Blowing up candy-seeking kids!

:rolleyes:

The American troops took an ISF vehicle, laid down some flashbangs, and the AK-monkey-pumping Hadjis came out of the wood work to do their thing, and they got blasted. I don't see a problem here.

and more importantly, neither would the Geneva convention

Like the article said, in Iraq, only terrorists carry guns.

I'd like to see that applied in the US. :p :sniper:

Only in blue states.

Heck I walked into a gas station once (Going hunting) with my SKS slung over my shoulder. It's legal where I live to carry a rifle with you, on your person. The guy looked at me and went back to his Field and stream magazine. I think it says that you have to have the bolt open though, or it must be unloaded...

and more importantly, neither would the Geneva convention

Geneva convention only applies to Prisoners of war of an Enemy uniformed army, not hadjis. That's why you can be rough on them and not be against the geneva convention.

Or did you mean the other way...?

Or did you mean the other way...?

I ment the other way, there was nothing about the American battle tactics that violates the rules of war and in the end it is they and not our personal opinions that actually matter

Only in blue states.

Heck I walked into a gas station once (Going hunting) with my SKS slung over my shoulder. It's legal where I live to carry a rifle with you, on your person. The guy looked at me and went back to his Field and stream magazine. I think it says that you have to have the bolt open though, or it must be unloaded...


What state do you live in? I know in Michigan I can walk down the road during hunting season with a loaded rifle but I know I cannot take one in a store even unloaded.

Actually let me clarify my previous post. I could take a gun into a sporting goods store for work on it if I have it in a gun case. :D and is unloaded.

What state do you live in? I know in Michigan I can walk down the road during hunting season with a loaded rifle but I know I cannot take one in a store even unloaded.

Texas. I know the Black Panthers marched into Dallas once with their rifles slung over their shoulders into city hall and intimidated a bunch of people...

I ment the other way, there was nothing about the American battle tactics that violates the rules of war and in the end it is they and not our personal opinions that actually matter

I see now.

Texas. I know the Black Panthers marched into Dallas once with their rifles slung over their shoulders into city hall and intimidated a bunch of people...


I knew Texas had different laws when it came to carrying guns but sheesh thats insane for them to go into city hall like that.

They lost quite a few bodies as a result of their stupidity. When they change their ways, Deuce 4 will change theirs to accomodate them.


Mmm, but not before a number of casualties are taken. It's to be expected really. Group A will use some tactics which result in casualties given. Group B will adapt and gain the advantage. Group A changes tactics. etc, etc.

Long story? Both sides end up slowly bleeding to death.

i don't see the problem here. militaries must adapt to the situation. bad things happen in war, especially when the enemy chooses to fight in such a way as to make the line between civilian and hostile practically non-existent. if an army hopes to be effective against those tactics, it's inevitable that some civilians will be killed. now, if someone starts firing their AK-47 in the air and at a crippled united states military vehicle, does that mean they're a terrorist? not necessarily. but if you take on the appearance of a terrorist in that situation, then expect to pay the consequences. you can disagree as to whether or not the war should have been fought, but a successful military must be expected to adapt their tactics, sometimes losing assurance that they aren't accidentally engaging a non-combatant.

I knew Texas had different laws when it came to carrying guns but sheesh thats insane for them to go into city hall like that.

I'm surpised they didn't get shot on the spot. Had I walked into City hall I would have, for sure. I'm not a specially privileged minority, so I guess thats why.

FYI, We've lost approximately 1863 personnel in Iraq in about 1 1/2 years of operations. FYI in WW2 we were losing almost 400 people a DAY in France fighting the germans.

FYI, We've lost approximately 1863 personnel in Iraq in about 1 1/2 years of operations. FYI in WW2 we were losing almost 400 people a DAY in France fighting the germans.

Your point being? A number wank? I suppose if you want to look at it like this consider this. The only way people found out about the casualty rates in WWII was via "Regret to inform you" letters. That more or less limited the knowledge of just how many people were actually dieing in the first place to the select few in the military. Ignorance is bliss they say, and when it comes to pacifying a population, there's nothing better than limiting what they know.

Yeah, read about that in the Guardian a few days back, some ace sniper who has been taking out US troops. One hit was four US snipers apparently. The US soldiers even have a nickname for him, which sadly I can't recall. He must be a pretty awesome shot, to place a shot through someone's armpit or lower spine, avoiding the body armour.
Or:

The view through the camera is dusky, jerky and terrifying: a platoon of U.S. Marine snipers trudges up a barren hill with nothing--not a rock, not even a shrub--for cover. Unaware that they are being watched, the Marines think they are on the hunt. An Arabic scrawl across the screen explains that the Marines are laying a trap for insurgents. The video cuts to a pickup truck, supposedly carrying jihadi fighters, racing along a dirt track through some palm trees. It quickly becomes clear that the trap being set is for the Marines, not the other way around. The next scene shows the Marines on the hill falling and dying, dust kicking up around them from the spray of enemy bullets. (Time Europe, 33 2005)

Or:

The view through the camera is dusky, jerky and terrifying: a platoon of U.S. Marine snipers trudges up a barren hill with nothing--not a rock, not even a shrub--for cover. Unaware that they are being watched, the Marines think they are on the hunt. An Arabic scrawl across the screen explains that the Marines are laying a trap for insurgents. The video cuts to a pickup truck, supposedly carrying jihadi fighters, racing along a dirt track through some palm trees. It quickly becomes clear that the trap being set is for the Marines, not the other way around. The next scene shows the Marines on the hill falling and dying, dust kicking up around them from the spray of enemy bullets. (Time Europe, 33 2005)
Well, the vast majority of Iraqi insurgents are either home-grown amateurs or foreign nutcases who blow up the Iraqi police and anyone else in the area, so it's good to see there are a few out there doing a proper job without the usual war crime stuff. :)

Hur hur!

Tha onleh good sand ****** is a dead sand ******, AHUR!

The reason we are killing more than loosing is nothing to do with vastly better equipment, communications etc, but because Americans are the master race and inherantly better soilders!

Well, the vast majority of Iraqi insurgents are either home-grown amateurs or foreign nutcases who blow up the Iraqi police and anyone else in the area, so it's good to see there are a few out there doing a proper job without the usual war crime stuff. :)
Odd. But refreshing :)

More from the same article

Two days later, 14 Marines, nine from that outfit, were killed by a triple-strength antitank bomb that flipped their amphibious assault vehicle into the air, igniting the fuel and ammunition inside and incinerating all but one of the occupants. The two attacks brought the death toll for U.S. troops to 29 in the space of a week and served as a grisly reminder of how brutally efficient and adaptive the insurgents are.

In the war's constantly shifting game of one-upmanship, it was the insurgents who notched a new level of deadliness last week.

In Baghdad, U.S. commanders emphasized selected statistics to put the best face on the war, telling reporters that the number of suicide car-bomb attacks during the last week of July was the lowest since April. That showed "the tempo is decreasing," said Air Force Brigadier General Donald Alston, the command's spokesman. "This is not an expanding insurgency."

That depends on how you count. The Marines were killed not by suicide bombers but by the ubiquitous improvised explosive devices that remain the deadly bane of military patrols. The frequency and virulence of different kinds of attacks have ebbed and flowed, but since the beginning of the year, the average number of insurgent attacks has remained at a steady 60 to 65 a day. And what's happening in Iraq is no longer about just raw numbers. The sophistication, explosive power and lethality of the bombs that detonate have increased dramatically.

The enemy is, in the words of a recently returned Iraq veteran, disciplined, professional and constantly evolving.

Like the article said, in Iraq, only terrorists carry guns.

I'd like to see that applied in the US. :p :sniper:

I'll call you. Pick any city you wish and shoot your AK 47 into the air within the city limits.

In two to five we'll talk about how legal your jail sentence was.

Ah, so an American who shoots a gun into the sky gets a few years in jail - an Iraqi who does the same gets shot to death without trial?

Sounds fair. Hail the master race of Americans!

The piece about the insugent's sniper can be found here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1542824,00.html

Nice tactics from Duece Four, made a refreshing read :)

Edit - the rifle referred to in the Guardian piece is mis-spelled, it should be 'Tabuk'; similar to the Dragunov but with a smaller round.

The piece about the insugent's sniper can be found here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1542824,00.html

Hmmm, this Juba appears to be quite the change from the usual insurgency. What do you people think?

Although I wouldn't be quick to say that it's only one person doing this sniping. It could be a few people with the same MO drummed into their heads. Aim, fire, don't touch that trigger a second time. But then again, I wouldn't really know.


Edit - the rifle referred to in the Guardian piece is mis-spelled, it should be 'Tabuk'; similar to the Dragunov but with a smaller round.

I'm kind of wondering how they know its a Tabuk. Analysis of the rifle cartridge during post mortem?

Hmmm, this Juba appears to be quite the change from the usual insurgency. What do you people think?

Although I wouldn't be quick to say that it's only one person doing this sniping. It could be a few people with the same MO drummed into their heads. Aim, fire, don't touch that trigger a second time. But then again, I wouldn't really know.
If there is more than one, it requires a hell of a lot of discipline on the part of those particular rebels, to stick to procedures with such consistency.

I think Grampus doesn't understand the difference. A non-participant who places themselves in the company of the participants doesn't get a trial to prove their innocence before being shot at, that’s an absurd proposition, if you place yourself in the company of the participants (on either side), you put yourself in harms way.

We managed to deal with Northern Ireland quite well without bringing in a shoot to kill policy, no?

Saddam pleaded for the aid of muslims to help fight the "Crusading infidels". Just listen to any of Baghdad's bobs broadcasts.

Yes, I wasn't sure if you were refering to this or not: he would paint himself as a secular leader or a religious one as best suited him.

I read the part highlighted in bold. WHAT do you not get? These guys are the ones responsible for IEDs, Car bombs, Blowing up candy-seeking kids!

:rolleyes:

No: all that has been shown is that these individuals are responsible for firing automatic rifles at a burning vehicle.

You guys will appreciate this, from independent journalist Michael Yon who is embedded with 1/24 Marines in Iraq.

< snippage >

Word of the day: "AK-monkey-pumpers smack-down." :p :D
That's the way it's done ... adjust, adapt, innovate. :D

No: all that has been shown is that these individuals are responsible for firing automatic rifles at a burning vehicle.
Correction: these very dead individuals. :D

Well, I wouldn't call an embedded journalist "independant"...

Now, *that's* independant journalism: www.dahrjamailiraq.com

We managed to deal with Northern Ireland quite well without bringing in a shoot to kill policy, no?

Not even remotely similar. They have as many civilians attacked and or killed during this war for Iraq, caused by insurgent gun fire, bombings, mortar fire etc., every month in Baghdad alone (not counting the rest of Iraq) as to out pace thirty years of IRA bombings.

P.s., and London does have a shoot to kill policy in place now.

Awesome but the thread should have been called " Insurgents<US Army<USMC ;)"


You guys will appreciate this, from independent journalist Michael Yon who is embedded with 1/24 Marines in Iraq.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
on. Until now, only insiders knew about the AK-monkey-pumpers smack-down.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------


Word of the day: "AK-monkey-pumpers smack-down." :p :D

Ever read Giap's account of the war? The NVA were on the brink of collapse several times and the Viet Cong was a spent force. Had the US pressed the war the results would have been differnt the war was lost not militarily but polticly.


We wipe the floor with the insurgents. Our troops are trained and kitted out with hundreds of dollars worth of equiptment and the insurgents have at best a Saddam-era conscript's training and an AK-47. The reasons that insurgent deaths aren't reported in the press are because a) it's hard to distinguish an insurgent from a civilian, b) we kill a hell of a lot of them (dog bites man vs. man bites dog) and c) the AMERICAN press cares more about AMERICAN deaths. Body counts don't win wars anyway. Remember how many times we beat the Viet Cong?

Remember how many times we beat the Viet Cong?

Actually you lost that war...lol

Actually you lost that war...lol
It was a draw! A draw, I tell you! :D

But yeah, UN vs. Korea, USSR vs. Afghanistan and US vs. Vietnam are prime examples how god-like technological supremacy and a million enemy dead aren't worth a damn when you lose the political battle and/or run out of money.

Not even remotely similar. They have as many civilians attacked and or killed during this war for Iraq, caused by insurgent gun fire, bombings, mortar fire etc., every month in Baghdad alone (not counting the rest of Iraq) as to out pace thirty years of IRA bombings.

The troubles were 99% concentrated in Northern Ireland: an area which has a population of about one and a half million, a quarter of the population of Baghdad alone, never mind the areas surrounding it, which skews your figures somewhat. If you want we could argue that about 80% (at a rough guess) of all the fatalities from the troubles actually occured in Belfast (population roughly 600,000) and that would skew your figures even further.

P.s., and London does have a shoot to kill policy in place now.

Which so far has racked up one fatality. Need I go into the actual connection he had with international terrorism?

Your point being? A number wank? I suppose if you want to look at it like this consider this. The only way people found out about the casualty rates in WWII was via "Regret to inform you" letters. That more or less limited the knowledge of just how many people were actually dieing in the first place to the select few in the military. Ignorance is bliss they say, and when it comes to pacifying a population, there's nothing better than limiting what they know.


I hear the media say "Heavy casualties were suffered by" and I begin screaming BS! BS! They have no inkling of what heavy casualties are. I am pretty sure had they been reporting D-day that by the end of the day you'd have had mass suicides because people would be thinking that it was a complete failure-it wasn't.

Next.

Yes, we did but we lost it POLITICALLY NOT MILITARILY. Name one major engagement (besides the Paris talks) the US lost. The US was not beaten by force of arms but by the lack of will by those in power in the US.


Actually you lost that war...lol

Or:

The view through the camera is dusky, jerky and terrifying: a platoon of U.S. Marine snipers trudges up a barren hill with nothing--not a rock, not even a shrub--for cover. Unaware that they are being watched, the Marines think they are on the hunt. An Arabic scrawl across the screen explains that the Marines are laying a trap for insurgents. The video cuts to a pickup truck, supposedly carrying jihadi fighters, racing along a dirt track through some palm trees. It quickly becomes clear that the trap being set is for the Marines, not the other way around. The next scene shows the Marines on the hill falling and dying, dust kicking up around them from the spray of enemy bullets. (Time Europe, 33 2005)

I seriously doubt a group of insurgents would be able to take on a platoon of marines. 300 hundred couldn't even keep about 30 blackwater guys pinned down.

I'm calling BS, and since this is from Europe (Where Anti-Americanism runs rampant) I'm pretty sure I'm right.

Odd. But refreshing :)

More from the same article

Two days later, 14 Marines, nine from that outfit, were killed by a triple-strength antitank bomb that flipped their amphibious assault vehicle into the air, igniting the fuel and ammunition inside and incinerating all but one of the occupants. The two attacks brought the death toll for U.S. troops to 29 in the space of a week and served as a grisly reminder of how brutally efficient and adaptive the insurgents are.

In the war's constantly shifting game of one-upmanship, it was the insurgents who notched a new level of deadliness last week.

In Baghdad, U.S. commanders emphasized selected statistics to put the best face on the war, telling reporters that the number of suicide car-bomb attacks during the last week of July was the lowest since April. That showed "the tempo is decreasing," said Air Force Brigadier General Donald Alston, the command's spokesman. "This is not an expanding insurgency."

That depends on how you count. The Marines were killed not by suicide bombers but by the ubiquitous improvised explosive devices that remain the deadly bane of military patrols. The frequency and virulence of different kinds of attacks have ebbed and flowed, but since the beginning of the year, the average number of insurgent attacks has remained at a steady 60 to 65 a day. And what's happening in Iraq is no longer about just raw numbers. The sophistication, explosive power and lethality of the bombs that detonate have increased dramatically.

The enemy is, in the words of a recently returned Iraq veteran, disciplined, professional and constantly evolving.

They are not evolving, disciplined, or professional. Alqaida and the insurgency can't seem to get along, and they're pretty busy killing each other.

Gee, I'm not sure who's getting beaten in this nice video. Gee, I think we're losing.. Here (http://media.putfile.com/CourtesyofUSMarinesz)

Sure is a smarty, that's for sure!

Ah, so an American who shoots a gun into the sky gets a few years in jail - an Iraqi who does the same gets shot to death without trial?

Sounds fair. Hail the master race of Americans!

FYI, anyone who shoots a gun into the air needs to go to jail. It's a safety hazard-bullets can travel for quite a distance and go through roofs to injure and kill people.

No: all that has been shown is that these individuals are responsible for firing automatic rifles at a burning vehicle.

WHO CARES! Even if you discount the fact they were celebrating around a "bombed" ISF vehicle, they're still carrying Kalashnikovs, which ordinary Iraqis won't carry with them. (They're allowed to keep one at their house for protection). It's easy to identify a terrorist, they break laws. Killem' all.

The piece about the insugent's sniper can be found here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1542824,00.html

Nice tactics from Duece Four, made a refreshing read :)

Edit - the rifle referred to in the Guardian piece is mis-spelled, it should be 'Tabuk'; similar to the Dragunov but with a smaller round.

The Iraqis were given the machinery and know-how to make AKs from the Yugoslavians, so Iraqi made small arms are identical to the Yugoslavian small arms. If I I recall correctly the closest thing to a Dragunov the Yugos made was a M76? Correct me if I'm wrong...

ETA: The Insurgents DO use Dragunovs, however these are bought in and not locally produced.

WW2? We totally owned. Had Roosevelt not been such a brown-noser we could have kept much of Europe from becoming part of the Iron curtain. After WW2 American Forces were the best in the world...and still are.

If there is more than one, it requires a hell of a lot of discipline on the part of those particular rebels, to stick to procedures with such consistency.

Mmm, well, the ones without discipline and/or tactics usually get dead in most of theses cases barring bad luck. So it's not too surprising that what works is what gets used. Although thinking of this Juba reminds me of one Vasilli Zaitsev. One man? Or a group of men with the reputation of one man? Who knows?

I hear the media say "Heavy casualties were suffered by" and I begin screaming BS! BS! They have no inkling of what heavy casualties are. I am pretty sure had they been reporting D-day that by the end of the day you'd have had mass suicides because people would be thinking that it was a complete failure-it wasn't.

You can scream BS all you want. If sufficient people don't like it, the political movement will eventually start paying attention. Even if Bush doesn't have to worry about being re-elected, his supporters do. Only way you can have your way would be to do a media blind. Good luck doing that.

Besides, you didn't refute my point. When people didn't know how many were dying, they didn't really care. But it's the information age now.

FYI, anyone who shoots a gun into the air needs to go to jail. It's a safety hazard-bullets can travel for quite a distance and go through roofs to injure and kill people.

I can see a number of Texans going to jail already. =p

Once again we show you the ever changing face of the Insurgency (http://media.putfile.com/shiite_militia_ricochets_self)! WOW! I'm gonna have to eat my shorts.

Wow, I'm gonna have to do it again on this one. Damn, I'm running out of shorts here people... OH MY GOSH! These guys ARE well trained! Look at how they move with exact movements and precision; look at that! Them's http://media.putfile.com/Dontbringrifle2tankbattle

"Hey Abdul, where did you put the car keys?" (http://media.putfile.com/ogrish-dot-com-apache_shoots_insurgents)

"Hey Mohammed, let's go shoot at some Infidels! Allah will protect us! (http://media.putfile.com/ogrish-dot-com-close_air_support_iraq_wa)

Mmm, well, the ones without discipline and/or tactics usually get dead in most of theses cases barring bad luck. So it's not too surprising that what works is what gets used. Although thinking of this Juba reminds me of one Vasilli Zaitsev. One man? Or a group of men with the reputation of one man? Who knows?

Zaitsev was a good guy who fought for his country against the invading germans. This "Juba" is nothing more than a lowly terrorist. The two have NOTHING in common except sniping, and one did it far better than the other.

Oh, and ARF-COM, I notice you are only paying attention to one side of the story. The fact that a road bomb of that strength was built and successfully used shows the other side. Or was that bomb a fabrication?



Zaitsev was a good guy who fought for his country against the invading germans. This "Juba" is nothing more than a lowly terrorist. The two have NOTHING in common except sniping, and one did it far better than the other.

Zaitsev, when looked at objectively, was a soldier. One who fought for his country. Juba, we don't know his nationality. If he was a home grown Iraqi, he would fall under the category of a freedom fighter. If not, then he falls under the category of an insurgent. But we don't know which of these he is do we? Or are all people who dare to shoot at the US occupying force in their own country instantly terrorists?

Like it or not, if this continues, he will become something of a local hero to the disaffected Iraqis, if not already, since he doesn't appear to be targetting them but only the occupation forces.

Yes, we did but we lost it POLITICALLY NOT MILITARILY. Name one major engagement (besides the Paris talks) the US lost.

Surely this just goes to show that it is possible to win every battle, but still to lose the war. The USA might have been victorious at a tactical level time after time, but failed at the strategic level.

Oh, and ARF-COM, I notice you are only paying attention to one side of the story. The fact that a road bomb of that strength was built and successfully used shows the other side. Or was that bomb a fabrication?




Zaitsev, when looked at objectively, was a soldier. One who fought for his country. Juba, we don't know his nationality. If he was a home grown Iraqi, he would fall under the category of a freedom fighter. If not, then he falls under the category of an insurgent. But we don't know which of these he is do we? Or are all people who dare to shoot at the US occupying force in their own country instantly terrorists?

My guess is that Juba would be an ex-Saddam Iraqi army soldier. However, Freedom fighter he is not. The guys who fought Saddam when he was in power, Yes.

FYI, the "bomb" was 3 anti-tank mines attached to each other to form a really big mine. Nothing incredibly advance about it. Those 14 Marines may have died bodily, but they're going to live forever. And I am sure that throats have been slain (Enemy) since then-Marines never are ones to ignore the death of a brother.

I can see a number of Texans going to jail already. =p

Are we talking about Larry Mattlage here?

Are we talking about Larry Mattlage here?

Larry the cable guy?

Zaitsev was a good guy who fought for his country against the invading germans. This "Juba" is nothing more than a lowly terrorist. The two have NOTHING in common except sniping, and one did it far better than the other.

not to be a big devils advocate, but i bet to the German's, Zaitsev was nothing more than a terrorist who they wanted to be rid of.

difference between Juba and the normal "terrorists" is that Juba doesn't seem to be targeting civilians, while most of al qaeda like attacks do (i.e. the suicide car bomb that killed a buncha kids). As far as the insurgency not being well organized. How the hell would you know that from the videos you showed? i'm sure you could find 5 just like it that show attacks against US soldiers. If the insurgency wasn't as sophisticated as it is, don't you think they would be done with by now?

BTW, how old are you? I'm tired of reading your racist words.

Larry the cable guy?

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45765

My guess is that Juba would be an ex-Saddam Iraqi army soldier. However, Freedom fighter he is not. The guys who fought Saddam when he was in power, Yes.

So a freedom fighter is one who fights his own nations government but not the one who fights an occupation army which toppled it? Perhaps the term resistance fighter would suit then?


FYI, the "bomb" was 3 anti-tank mines attached to each other to form a really big mine. Nothing incredibly advance about it. Those 14 Marines may have died bodily, but they're going to live forever. And I am sure that throats have been slain (Enemy) since then-Marines never are ones to ignore the death of a brother.

Maybe, maybe not. I'm not a Marine, and I don't quite think you are one. There's no guarantee that the one who planted the bomb was ever caught either.

Besides, if it works, why complicate it? Complicated plans tend to fall apart when pushed.

Are we talking about Larry Mattlage here?

If you mean the guy who used his shotgun at the protest, well he fits ARF-COMs definition no?

Come to think of it, won't any duck hunter fall into that category as well?

There is no such thing as a terrorist in a war zone, it is all a matter of perspective. The French Resistance, Russian Partisans, a whole load of the 'Vietcong', etc were terrorists to the Germans, South Vietnamese and collaborators, but not to those who felt represented by them. It is often impossible to make a moral judgement really, about who is right and wrong.

Particularly in this case...the insurgents are resistance fighters. Some foreign fighters who enter the country and blow themselves up, they may be fairly called terrorists, but everyone else resisting the Americans is objectively a resistance fighter, especially the non-suicide combatants who target foreign forces only. It is generally accepted that those who take up arms against a foreign military occupation are resisting rather than terrorising. If it makes you feel better calling them terrorists, that's cool, but applying your label for your benefit doesn't make it true.

ARF-COM and IBTL, you need to stop eating propaganda for breakfast.

ARF-COM and IBTL, you need to stop eating propaganda for breakfast.
He sounds very young, his parents probably Republicans. I'm sure he will broaden his mind once he breaks free of those chains and starts to form his own opinions. :)

It failed because the will to win was eroded by the media. The media makes money by getting viewers and people seem to prefer bad news(well the media makes sure they get it). I'm not impling political bias only the desire to make money..It goes like this
The editor gets word from manegment that they need more "dramatic"(read bad) news to boost ratings.
Editor passes this to reporter
Report to please editor shows most dramic ie bad thing he can find.
people at how see dramitc footage on tv think "wow things are going bad we need to bring the boys home"
lather rinse repeat.
No overt political bias just want to put coin in pocket.
This is how Walter Cronkheit was used as a weapon by Giap to beat the US
warmachine.
That is not to say bias isn't involved too.

Surely this just goes to show that it is possible to win every battle, but still to lose the war. The USA might have been victorious at a tactical level time after time, but failed at the strategic level.

It failed because the will to win was eroded by the media.

That's right. Losing wars is always simple and can be pinned down on one thing.

And of course it's the media. The idea of dying in a war that didn't really need to be fought had nothing to do with it.

If you mean the guy who used his shotgun at the protest, well he fits ARF-COMs definition no?

Come to think of it, won't any duck hunter fall into that category as well?

Bullets and shot are two completely different things.

He sounds very young, his parents probably Republicans. I'm sure he will broaden his mind once he breaks free of those chains and starts to form his own opinions. :)


?

I'm a college student. My parents are both Conservatives, however my father expected me to form my own opinion about things, which I did. It also helped that *AHEM* "The party that which we may not speak of" Completely raped and FUBARED the constitution.

I'll be joining a fine young men's conservative group in the next few years, the US military, none better.

That's right. Losing wars is always simple and can be pinned down on one thing.

And of course it's the media. The idea of dying in a war that didn't really need to be fought had nothing to do with it.

The media continues to focus on the bad while neglecting the good. Matt Lauer went to Iraq and asked a US army Capt about it. I'll post the video here in a minute.

FYI if I was "That young" I wouldn't be able to own guns, which I do.

It shouldn't have been fought, however due to Bush Sr's major FUBAR (Not tearing down Saddam's goverment) we had to.

?

I'm a college student. My parents are both Conservatives, however my father expected me to form my own opinion about things, which I did. It also helped that *AHEM* "The party that which we may not speak of" Completely raped and FUBARED the constitution.

I'll be joining a fine young men's conservative group in the next few years, the US military, none better.

Now you're really kidding yourself. The Heritage Group is a conservative group. The Military is a government institution.

And have you ever heard the term Yellow Elephant?

As to forming your own opinions, as far as the military goes it seems that you've gotten all your research from 80's era action movies. Not every solder is Rambo. They're human, and die just like you or I.

The media continues to focus on the bad while neglecting the good. Matt Lauer went to Iraq and asked a US army Capt about it. I'll post the video here in a minute.

FYI if I was "That young" I wouldn't be able to own guns, which I do.

More bullshit. They focus on bad news because it's mostly bad news happening. Good war news is an oxymoron.

It shouldn't have been fought, however due to Bush Sr's major FUBAR (Not tearing down Saddam's goverment) we had to.

Oh, you had to did you? Why is that?

...
I'll be joining a fine young men's conservative group in the next few years, the US military, none better.

which branch?

....

FYI if I was "That young" I wouldn't be able to own guns, which I do.
...

i do believe you can own a gun in Texas when you're under 18. (not 100% sure, but i think it's possible, tried a quick google and couldn't find it)

*edit*
It is unlawful to sell, rent, loan or give a handgun to any person if it is known that the person intends to use it unlawfully. It is unlawful to knowingly sell, rent, give or offer to sell, rent or give any firearm to a person under 18 years of age, without the written consent of his parent or guardian. It is unlawful to knowingly or recklessly sell any firearm or ammunition to any person who is intoxicated.

see? Summary of Texas Gun Laws (http://www.nraila.org/GunLaws/StateLaws.aspx?ST=TX)

Now you're really kidding yourself. The Heritage Group is a conservative group. The Military is a government institution.

And have you ever heard the term Yellow Elephant?

As to forming your own opinions, as far as the military goes it seems that you've gotten all your research from 80's era action movies. Not every solder is Rambo. They're human, and die just like you or I.

I haven't done any research, not sure where you picked that up. I read Michael Yon (Correspondant, good guy) and a lot of Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, and when I'm in for a laugh Rush Limbaugh or the New York times.

The Military by and far voted for Bush over Kerry, so yes, the Military is a conservative organization. And yep, they thought that Bush's plan for Iraq was the best one, so the voted for him (And they were correct).

At a Marine base in Iraq, the media making a story on how voting in Iraq went for deployed Servicemen and women could only find one Marine in the WHOLE camp who voted for Kerry, and it was because he saw Fahrenheit 9/11. He also asked that his named not be revealed :p

Is this "juba" thing for real? I've only ever seen that 2 stories on him, both by Brits and they both sound suspisiously alike (like 2 highschool kids sharing a term paper.)

All I'm saying is is somebody taking unrelated events and atributing them to one person.

I'd like to see more sources.

If and I say IF the reports are true he is disciplined and well trained.

I'm just suspicious of the reports. I'll wait to see what shakes out.

UPDATE: Some military forums who have posters in Bagdad are calling bullshit on this. (their claims to be in country are equally dubious of course)

UPDATE: no such sniper rifle as a tobuk it's a tabuk typo or no fact checking ?

The Tabuk uses a 7.62x39mm round so that means he taking his shots from no more than 300m ish. Sound more like BS.

I haven't done any research, not sure where you picked that up. I read Michael Yon (Correspondant, good guy) and a lot of Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, and when I'm in for a laugh Rush Limbaugh or the New York times.

The Military by and far voted for Bush over Kerry, so yes, the Military is a conservative organization. And yep, they thought that Bush's plan for Iraq was the best one, so the voted for him (And they were correct).

At a Marine base in Iraq, the media making a story on how voting in Iraq went for deployed Servicemen and women could only find one Marine in the WHOLE camp who voted for Kerry, and it was because he saw Fahrenheit 9/11. He also asked that his named not be revealed :p

So that's your problem. Try reading real news.

i do believe you can own a gun in Texas when you're under 18. (not 100% sure, but i think it's possible, tried a quick google and couldn't find it)

Can you get one directly from the Goverment if you're under 18?

Nope, since I got one of mine from them. She's a real beauty too.

It's LEGAL for someone under 18 to own a gun, possession is another thing.

So that's your problem. Try reading real news.

You mean Liberal rags such as Communist News Nightly, or the Anti-american Broadcasting Company?

Nah, I'll stick to Fox. I beleive they report things as they are, which is fine with me and it's what I want.

Can you get one directly from the Goverment if you're under 18?
Nope, since I got one of mine from them. She's a real beauty too.
It's LEGAL for someone under 18 to own a gun, possession is another thing.

Sure, as long as you have written consent from your legal guardian. it doesn't matter who sells it to you.

ownership and possession are the same thing:

Owneship c/o Dictionary.com: own·er·ship ( P ) Pronunciation Key (nr-shp)
n.
1. The state or fact of being an owner.
2. Legal right to the possession of a thing.

Possession c/o Dictioanry.com: pos·ses·sion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (p-zshn)
n.

1. The act or fact of possessing.
a. The state of being possessed.
b. Something owned or possessed.

You mean Liberal rags such as Communist News Nightly, or the Anti-american Broadcasting Company?

Nah, I'll stick to Fox. I beleive they report things as they are, which is fine with me and it's what I want.

They're mouthpieces for the current administration. Jesus Christ, they even admit it themselves. They call most of what they do opinion pieces, which is how they get away with so much bullshit.

So just how is it you've managed to conflate opinion pieces and news?

Seriously, quit subjecting yourself to propaganda. You'll feel a lot better.

You mean Liberal rags such as Communist News Nightly, or the Anti-american Broadcasting Company?

Nah, I'll stick to Fox. I beleive they report things as they are, which is fine with me and it's what I want.

you need to wake up dude. EVERYONE has their own agenda, including Fox News. (or as liberals like to call it, Faux News)

which branch?

Hopefully the USMC. I hear they are looking for trigger pullers :) . I need to bring my mile times down and get some more upper body work going.

Hopefully the USMC. I hear they are looking for trigger pullers :) . I need to bring my mile times down and get some more upper body work going.

you gonna try and be an officer or enlisted? since you're in college, i'm assuming the former. Any special branch of USMC? or just infantry?

Sure, as long as you have written consent from your legal guardian. it doesn't matter who sells it to you.

ownership and possession are the same thing:

Owneship c/o Dictionary.com: own·er·ship ( P ) Pronunciation Key (nr-shp)
n.
1. The state or fact of being an owner.
2. Legal right to the possession of a thing.

Possession c/o Dictioanry.com: pos·ses·sion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (p-zshn)
n.

1. The act or fact of possessing.
a. The state of being possessed.
b. Something owned or possessed.

Negative, Minors cannot buy (even with a signed letter from a guardian) a gun under 18, much less from the Goverment. I had to send my Drivers License, birth certificate, Social security card, and a signed statement (I said I was a legal US Citizen, legally able to buy firearms, under no court order, etc) in order to get it.

I may be wrong about the possess part....I'll have to check back with my range officer when I go shooting tommorow about how Texas Laws work.

FYI, when I said "ownership" I mean that it is theirs, however they cannot keep it in their immediate possession.

FYI I know there was a bill drafted by an idiot Rep from Houston that intended to ban possession or use of guns by anyone under 18.....It never made it past the Commitee :p

you gonna try and be an officer or enlisted? since you're in college, i'm assuming the former. Any special branch of USMC? or just infantry?

Infantry or Helo pilot. Always loved watching the USMC Super cobras fly-those things are majestic!

Only history can truly tell if a war needed to be fought. You make you best choice at the time. Veitnam was Kennedy/Johnson's line in the sand with Communism. The political thinking at the time was the whole dominoe theory thing. Look at every war in it's historical totality. The will to win a war is as important as weapons or troops with out the will you cannot win, and yes the media has a direct impact on this and if you don't believe you are fooling yourself.


That's right. Losing wars is always simple and can be pinned down on one thing.

And of course it's the media. The idea of dying in a war that didn't really need to be fought had nothing to do with it.

Negative, Minors cannot buy (even with a signed letter from a guardian) a gun under 18, much less from the Goverment. I had to send my Drivers License, birth certificate, Social security card, and a signed statement (I said I was a legal US Citizen, legally able to buy firearms, under no court order, etc) in order to get it.
nodnod. what's different between buying one from a pawn shop and getting one from the Gov't?

FYI, when I said "ownership" I mean that it is theirs, however they cannot keep it in their immediate possession.
keep in their immediate possession such as how? the only time i think that an underage would keep a gun in his possession w/o parental supervision would be during hunting season.

FYI I know there was a bill drafted by an idiot Rep from Houston that intended to ban possession or use of guns by anyone under 18.....It never made it past the Commitee :p
That's not surprising, Texans love their guns.

Son, If your not infantry...you're just support. I was a 0351
you gonna try and be an officer or enlisted? since you're in college, i'm assuming the former. Any special branch of USMC? or just infantry?

UPDATE: no such sniper rifle as a tobuk it's a tabuk typo or no fact checking ?

As already mentioned, it's a typo.

Son, If your not infantry...you're just support. I was a 0351

cackle. I have a friend who (last i checked) was in force recon. and another guy who was in radio recon. (also knew a teacher who was a sniper (i think)). Anyhows, i don't think i'd join the marines just yet. I'm looking at a different job :p

The will to win a war is as important as weapons or troops with out the will you cannot win, and yes the media has a direct impact on this and if you don't believe you are fooling yourself.

That's not at all what I was implying. What I implied was that no loss is ever a simple thing, and it can't be pinned directly on the media, and only the media.

As to whether it was a necessary war: The US lost. The US still exists. Make of that what you will.

Bullets and shot are two completely different things.

Quite possibly, but you did say...

FYI, anyone who shoots a gun into the air needs to go to jail.

(emphasis added)

Under what definition is a shotgun not a gun?

Infantry or Helo pilot. Always loved watching the USMC Super cobras fly-those things are majestic!

Good choices, but I hate how loud cobras are. Theres a reason that Apaches are called silent death.
Just remeber, there is nothing in a college degree that makes you a leader. Listen and learn from your NCO's and you just might make it. Of course, almost all of the best officers started out enlisted.

One thing that I've never understood is why so many people on the anti-Bush side are so unwilling or unable to say anything negitive about the insurgents.

While I was over there, we pulled something similar. Left a "disabled" tanker sitting on Sword, and followed the people who robbed the tanker to 10 seperate weapons caches.

Quite possibly, but you did say...



(emphasis added)

Under what definition is a shotgun not a gun?

Doh, I should have said RIFLE. My mistake. Good eye though.

Doh, I should have said RIFLE. My mistake. Good eye though.

I was dreading that we were going to get into a long and involved argument there over whether a shotgun should in fact be better classified as a musket, arquebus or blunderbus. Thank goodness for small mercies.

Good choices, but I hate how loud cobras are. Theres a reason that Apaches are called silent death.
Just remeber, there is nothing in a college degree that makes you a leader. Listen and learn from your NCO's and you just might make it. Of course, almost all of the best officers started out enlisted.

One thing that I've never understood is why so many people on the anti-Bush side are so unwilling or unable to say anything negitive about the insurgents.

While I was over there, we pulled something similar. Left a "disabled" tanker sitting on Sword, and followed the people who robbed the tanker to 10 seperate weapons caches.

Ahh! You baby killling capitalist mercenary of wallstreet oil-warrior!













:D Kiddin' man, Good job! GIT SUM!

Anything that flies would be fine with me. Well, as long as it has some sort of weapon on it :D !

I was dreading that we were going to get into a long and involved argument there over whether a shotgun should in fact be better classified as a musket, arquebus or blunderbus. Thank goodness for small mercies.

Hmm. I think a shotgun should be classified as a......shotgun..... :D

actually a shotgun could be classified as a " AK-monkey-pumpers smack-down facilitator " under the right circumstances I.E. up close and personal .

Doh, I should have said RIFLE. My mistake. Good eye though.
So if you use a shotgun to fire a slug into the air it'd be fine?

So if you use a shotgun to fire a slug into the air it'd be fine?

I thought slug rounds for shotguns was barred from public use?

I thought slug rounds for shotguns was barred from public use?
Not to my knowledge. The only limit I'm aware of is the number of slugs allowed to be in a shotgun at any one time.

Not to my knowledge. The only limit I'm aware of is the number of slugs allowed to be in a shotgun at any one time.


Huh? Not in America or Texas...it might be an achaic hunting rule, but I don't think it would be a federal or state law.

Hunting with shotgun slugs is the only legal way to hunt deer in many states.

Huh? Not in America or Texas...it might be an achaic hunting rule, but I don't think it would be a federal or state law.