NationStates Jolt Archive

Since there was a thread on US forces shooting insurgents, I just had to post this one - it's three times as good, since they used three snipers at once to simultaneously kill three insurgents (and had a fourth for backup).

They were also using the newer 338 Lapua Magnum round - with a hit like that to the head, the bodies were instantly headless, and the room a complete abbatoir in a millisecond.

http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/11/20/nsas120.xml

Oh, and great job on winning their "hearts and minds". Considering that their minds were each hit with around 4500 ft-lbs of energy...

sounds like a perfectly executed plan.

this seems like a rare instance where there was good intelligence, good planning and everything fell into place. It would be nice if it went like this more often.

Well, when they have no minds, all you need to worry about is winning over their hearts. Your productivity doubles.

that was one good operation i must admit.

great use of teamwork

Once again the British forces show why they are the best in the world in counter-terrorism situations.

I feel like I should be saying something profound, but all I can think about is whether their heads simply disappeared in a flash of red...

Once again the British forces show why they are the best in the world in counter-terrorism situations.
And the iraqi resistance who are deffending their homes from British/american invadors are terrorists, by that defenition the pilots of the battle of britain who defended their homes from the nazis would be terrorist:rolleyes:

Once again the British forces show why they are the best in the world in counter-terrorism situations.


Thanks to the people of Northern Ireland;)

And the iraqi resistance who are deffending their homes from British/american invadors are terrorists, by that defenition the pilots of the battle of britain who defended their homes from the nazis would be terrorist:rolleyes:

And before anyone states "Omg no, they didn't kill civilians!"...

Dresden.

And that, ladies and gents, is why the SAS are a bunch of total basasses...

And the iraqi resistance who are deffending their homes from British/american invadors are terrorists, by that defenition the pilots of the battle of britain who defended their homes from the nazis would be terrorist:rolleyes:


ter·ror·ism
n.

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.


Doesn't seem to match up with the pilots in the Battle Of Britain, really.

And the iraqi resistance who are deffending their homes from British/american invadors are terrorists, by that defenition the pilots of the battle of britain who defended their homes from the nazis would be terrorist:rolleyes:

Could it be that you are a leftty? You should really read a history book or two, so you can firstly understand what a terrorist is. Secondly understand the nature of warfare between two nations and Thirdly understand that the insurgents are not Iraqi's trying to defend thier home but are infact religious bigots trying to inpose thier will upon the Iraqi's

And the iraqi resistance who are deffending their homes from British/american invadors are terrorists, by that defenition the pilots of the battle of britain who defended their homes from the nazis would be terrorist:rolleyes:
And before anyone states "Omg no, they didn't kill civilians!"...

Dresden.

Meh, they started it that time :D

Wait a sec... does that even work? I'm too... well lazy to figure it - or anything - out. I'm sure there was some perfectly valid point in there somewhere...

And before anyone states "Omg no, they didn't kill civilians!"...

Dresden.

Ah yes, Dresden 70,000 people died in one night, even dough there were no factorys to speak of, nor where there any wemacht lufwaffe things there that mattered.

And the fact that the Sovier Army was only 25-15km away! And would have taken the City without recistens anyways...

And the iraqi resistance who are deffending their homes from British/american invadors are terrorists, by that defenition the pilots of the battle of britain who defended their homes from the nazis would be terrorist:rolleyes:

they're not defending their homes... they're acting to keep the oppressive power they had under Saddam and sabotage the democratic movement in Iraq.

They're also targeting women and children (or killing arbitrarily, which is almost as bad), which is unforgivable imo.

...not the same at all.

Doesn't seem to match up with the pilots in the Battle Of Britain, really.

Remembering the bombing war, the differences appear to me as quite few. As a definition level that is. Techniques used in the two situations are of course quite very different.

they're not defending their homes... they're acting to keep the oppressive power they had under Saddam and sabotage the democratic movement in Iraq.

...not the same at all.

BUT THE BRITISH BOMBED DRESDEN!!!11111111oneone

It's relevant somehow, I'm sure.

Remembering the bombing war, the differences appear to me as quite few. As a definition level that is. Techniques used in the two situations are of course quite very different.

I'm sure the fighter pilots in the Battle Of Britain were responsible for the bombing campaign.

they're not defending their homes... they're acting to keep the oppressive power they had under Saddam and sabotage the democratic movement in Iraq.

They're also targeting women and children (or killing arbitrarily, which is almost as bad), which is unforgivable imo.

...not the same at all.

They see foreign troops, foreign vehicles and foreign flags on their home soil, and those belong to people/system they believe/appears to them evil. They want to keep it out.

That's what the RAF did too, no?

Could it be that you are a leftty? You should really read a history book or two, so you can firstly understand what a terrorist is. Secondly understand the nature of warfare between two nations and Thirdly understand that the insurgents are not Iraqi's trying to defend thier home but are infact religious bigots trying to inpose thier will upon the Iraqi's
Okey, I have gone through a few history books, and a terrorist is something you call your enemy, the defenition of a terrorist, or terror "an attack on civilian targets aimed to spread fear"..

Are Coalition troops civilian targets?

And the insurgents are not as one, you have the religions loonyes, they include the shiite clerick al sadrs supporters, you have al-quide, who are looneys, and you have the, hmm.

Cind of overall sunni resistance who are fighting to get their country back..

And before you start about religion, saddam didn't even belive in God an for some reason he was described as a religions looney...

You call everyone who is a bit mulim, and fighting against the us an terrorist looney..

If say, there was a arab nation, devloped, secular, that attacked you, to take your oil, would you by fighting against them be a christiany fundamentalist?

They see foreign troops, foreign vehicles and foreign flags on their home soil, and those belong to people/system they believe/appears to them evil. They want to keep it out.

Oh okay.

So if I believe you to be evil it's alright for me to blow up your family and twenty innocent bystanders?

I'm sure the fighter pilots in the Battle Of Britain were responsible for the bombing campaign.

:rolleyes:

Childish and silly, but yes, you're technically right.

However, with that same logic those "insurgents" who die in firefights with UK and US troops are equally unresponsible for the suicide bombings against civilians, though.

Oh okay.

So if I believe you to be evil it's alright for me to blow up your family and twenty innocent bystanders?

That's what UK and RAF thought.

BUT THE BRITISH BOMBED DRESDEN!!!11111111oneone

It's relevant somehow, I'm sure.

the British were breaking the back of Germany, in much the same way the US broke the back of Japan.

If they don't hit Dresden, and the US doesn't nuke Nag and Hir, maybe the Germans and Japanese continue fighting.

an invasion of Japan was out of the question.

in the case of the terrorists/insurgents in Iraq, their homes would not be under attack if they'd STOP ATTACKING CIVILIANS/TROOPS. IF the US left, the insurgents would keep trying to undermine all that's been accomplished in Iraq... conversely, if the insurgents laid down their arms, i'm guessing we'd stop killing them. Or... at least those we don't think have terrorist ties.

Oh okay.

So if I believe you to be evil it's alright for me to blow up your family and twenty innocent bystanders?

Iraq is a war, your talking like someone just got the idea to blow them self up, but put it in perspective, would you fight back if someone attacked your home...
And these poele who attacked had bombed you for 10 years, starved you..
Killed hundreds of thusends of your fellow country dudes:confused:

... the bodies were instantly headless ...
Ah what the hell. They weren't using them anyway. :D

Ah what the hell. They weren't using them anyway. :D

...And how old were you again?

the British were breaking the back of Germany, in much the same way the US broke the back of Japan.

If they don't hit Dresden, and the US doesn't nuke Nag and Hir, maybe the Germans and Japanese continue fighting.

an invasion of Japan was out of the question.

in the case of the terrorists/insurgents in Iraq, their homes would not be under attack if they'd STOP ATTACKING CIVILIANS/TROOPS. IF the US left, the insurgents would keep trying to undermine all that's been accomplished in Iraq... conversely, if the insurgents laid down their arms, i'm guessing we'd stop killing them. Or... at least those we don't think have terrorist ties.

Mind you, so you mean iraq was attacked couse iraqi troops attacked america:confused:

Ah what the hell. They weren't using them anyway. :D

this will give rise to a new legend:

The Legend of the Headless Homicide Bombers

And the iraqi resistance who are deffending their homes from British/american invadors are terrorists, by that defenition the pilots of the battle of britain who defended their homes from the nazis would be terrorist:rolleyes:
There's a minor difference here between the insurgents and the British pilots during the Battle of Britain:

1. Nazi Germany desired total military control over all Europe, and was attacking a country for territorial annexation. As opposed to the current campaign in Iraq where the US, UK and coalition do not desire territorial aggrandizement, but to create a new political climate in the region with an independent Iraq.

2. The Battle of Britain was a classic inter-state war, in which governments went at each other, instead in Iraq it is an insurgency with only one side having the backing of (an) existing state(s).

3. The local insurgents have other means of influencing the situation besides shooting at Marines. Some have already opted for the increasing importance of electoral politics in Iraq, and what that could mean.

And, the US has been constantly trying to get the "defend our homes" insurgents to cool their jets, so as to facilitate getting at the "Allahu Ackhbar!" foreign insurgents more effectively. A strategy that has a sizable chance of success, espescially since the December elections, where many of the localized Sunni insurgent groups have been consenting to participation in the process ever so gradually. The pilots of the UK had not such second option, it was do or die.

Moral universalism doesn't cut it here.

Thanks to the people of Northern Ireland;)
Ah yes, and people tend to place this conflict as something betean catholics and protestants, it is not!!!

The english took away Irish land and settled down on Irlend.
This is not a war of religion, but of country...
That what england has done to Ireland is far more terror linked, and if so the IRA is a counter-terrorist unit

However, with that same logic those "insurgents" who die in firefights with UK and US troops are equally unresponsible for the suicide bombings against civilians, though.

Be fair, they probably are, going up against Allied forces with guns and rocket launchers, whilst just as suicidal, is not the same as blowing shit out of you own countrymen with some explosive underwear. I have more respect for the people who shoot at military targets, even when they are fellow British chaps that are under fire, than the nutjob who blows up iraqi civilians just to try and make a point.

this will give rise to a new legend:

The Legend of the Headless Homicide Bombers
LOL! And don't forget ... some of them are zombies!

"Headless, zombie suicide bombers!" OMG! :eek:

There's a minor difference here between the insurgents and the British pilots during the Battle of Britain:

1. Nazi Germany desired total military control over all Europe, and was attacking a country for territorial annexation. As opposed to the current campaign in Iraq where the US, UK and coalition do not desire territorial aggrandizement, but to create a new political climate in the region with an independent Iraq.

2. The Battle of Britain was a classic inter-state war, in which governments went at each other, instead in Iraq it is an insurgency with only one side having the backing of (an) existing state(s).

3. The local insurgents have other means of influencing the situation besides shooting at Marines. Some have already opted for the increasing importance of electoral politics in Iraq, and what that could mean.

And, the US has been constantly trying to get the "defend our homes" insurgents to cool their jets, so as to facilitate getting at the "Allahu Ackhbar!" foreign insurgents more effectively. A strategy that has a sizable chance of success, espescially since the December elections, where many of the localized Sunni insurgent groups have been consenting to participation in the process ever so gradually. The pilots of the UK had not such second option, it was do or die.

Moral universalism doesn't cut it here.

Iraq is or was a state and the insurgents want iraq back..

In the same way nazi germany wanted to create a new climete in europe, you just changed it to a nicer word

Ah yes, Dresden 70,000 people died in one night, even dough there were no factorys to speak of, nor where there any wemacht lufwaffe things there that mattered.

And the fact that the Sovier Army was only 25-15km away! And would have taken the City without recistens anyways...
Yes, vengeance bombing is a bad idea. We know, it's totally irrelevant to the current situation.

Be fair, they probably are, going up against Allied forces with guns and rocket launchers, whilst just as suicidal, is not the same as blowing shit out of you own countrymen with some explosive underwear. I have more respect for the people who shoot at military targets, even when they are fellow British chaps that are under fire, than the nutjob who blows up iraqi civilians just to try and make a point.

That was the whole point here, can't you fight a war without beeing called terrorist.
Both sides have commited terror in this conflict, the Allied far more, but that just becouse they have the means, also, you should destingvish betweem al-crazida and sunnis loyal to saddam, they can't stand each other, and have ofter shot at each other

Iraq is or was a state and the insurgents want iraq back..

Most of the terrorists aren't even Iraqi!

It's already been said, if they want Iraq back there are ways to get Iraq back that don't involve blowing up children. Politics, for example.

Of course, I'm sure if we give Iraq back and pull out of the Middle East we'll never have any trouble with them ever again. It must be nice in your world.

Um.. if you want to compare Dresden to terrorism then why don't you compare the Holocaust, or maybe the Blitz of Britain.. I'm not saying those people in Dresden deserved to die, but it is shock air warfare, and it happens in war. To be honest, as many people died in the Blitz as did in Dresden...it was a markpoint in the air war against Germany, a place where British people could say "Ha! Who's laughing now?"

back to the original topic, another brilliant operation by the SAS. God Save the Queen!

Iraq is or was a state and the insurgents want iraq back..

In the same way nazi germany wanted to create a new climete in europe, you just changed it to a nicer word
Perhaps I should clarify.

Nazi Germany wanted a permanent occupation of the whole of Europe under the National Socialist model. Maybe it's just me, but I tend to see several very large differences between that, and the establishment of a representative government in Iraq. The US does not seek a permanent military occupation in Iraq, nor is it politically feasible in the United States to support such a permanent military occupation. The link between the two can only be legitimately supported by painting with a very broad brush incapable of distinguishing anything even remotely unique of either case.

Actually, most of the insurgents want a different brand of Iraq than the Baa'thist regime that existed under Mr. Hussein. A sizable portion of the insurgents desire a separate Sunni state, other support the establishment of a theocratic Islamist state, and still other support dozens of other different causes. Believe me kid, the Ba'athists are a very small minority amongst all the varied groups of insurgents.

On a related note: http://shock.military.com/Shock/videos.do?displayContent=84734 :D

Could the Dresden bombing be seen in terms akin to the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings, as a stark warning to the Soviets? If they were only 15 km away as has been stated, they would inevitably have had some idea of what was going in, and entered Dresden soon after the bombing, thus getting a very clear idea of the damage that could be done to the Soviet Union....
For some Allied planners, the Cold War started before the Second World War ended.

Um.. if you want to compare Dresden to terrorism then why don't you compare the Holocaust, or maybe the Blitz of Britain.. 1I'm not saying those people in Dresden deserved to die, but it is shock air warfare, and 2it happens in war. To be honest, as many people died in the Blitz as did in Dresden...it was a markpoint in the air war against Germany, a place where British people could say "Ha! Who's laughing now?"

1...But that's basically what you are saying. Germans committed crimes, so Allied crimes are ok. I didn't really get the point of that laughing-thing.

2. That's what we are trying to say. Terrorism and war are tied to each other, and it is very hard (and rare) to have the latter without the former.

Perhaps I should clarify.

Nazi Germany wanted a permanent occupation of the whole of Europe under the National Socialist model. Maybe it's just me, but I tend to see several very large differences between that, and the establishment of a representative government in Iraq. The US does not seek a permanent military occupation in Iraq, nor is it politically feasible in the United States to support such a permanent military occupation. The link between the two can only be legitimately supported by painting with a very broad brush incapable of distinguishing anything even remotely unique of either case.

That's how you see the situation. You know a lot about the European history and, apparently, American interrests and plans considering the region. Those insurgents propably don't. What they see is heathen, hated enemy occupying their country and their brothers dying as martyrs around them.

Besides, fact remains current Iraq is a puppet of USA, and will propably remain so for a long time. If you want to compare it to Europe of 40's, I am pretty sure they Germans would have established a puppet government in Britain too. Brits would have fought, wouldn't they?

Man we Brits rule.

Most of the terrorists aren't even Iraqi!

It's already been said, if they want Iraq back there are ways to get Iraq back that don't involve blowing up children. Politics, for example.

Of course, I'm sure if we give Iraq back and pull out of the Middle East we'll never have any trouble with them ever again. It must be nice in your world.


Spot on. This is the KEY difference between any ridiculous parallels between WWII and Gulf War II. This is not a case of America vs. Iraq. The US (with some help from our good UK friends here) went in, deposed what was nothign short of a maniacal dictator, and began laying the foundations for a democratic government. The insurgents we hear so much about aren't defending their country. They just want their CONTROL over the nation back.

You want to compare what we're doing there to the Nazis, that we're trying to impose radical change upon another country? Well, yes, we are, in the widest of generalizations. And so are the insurgents. But there difference here is we are trying to raise the nation up, and they are trying to pull it down, get it back under their oppressive thumb. (Like the Nazis. There's your parallel.)

And the iraqi resistance who are deffending their homes from British/american invadors are terrorists, by that defenition the pilots of the battle of britain who defended their homes from the nazis would be terrorist:rolleyes:

thaaaanks... And I'll just take another step to the right.
Just to put more space between you and me. Great.

Just keep talking.
I'm sure you can drive me further from the left.

This sounds like the garbage that comes out of the "liberal" radio station around here.

I put "liberal" in quotes because I'm sure it's funded by the Republican party just to push people further and further from the left by encouraging the most inane statements and arguments from their callers.

The statement you've made would receive you much lauding from the host of any of their programs.

EDIT: As for the topic at hand. Congratulations Britain!
It's a rarity to see a plan executed with such flawless precision.

They done you proud.

Thanks to the people of Northern Ireland;)

The irony being that the relative peace we now enjoy here was not achieved by shooting people in the head, but rather sitting down and talking to them at the negotiating table.

Ah yes, Dresden 70,000 people died in one night, even dough there were no factorys to speak of, nor where there any wemacht lufwaffe things there that mattered.


The bombing of Dresden was all caused by a misreading of the phrase 'ornament factories' to be 'armament factories'. FACT.

1...But that's basically what you are saying. Germans committed crimes, so Allied crimes are ok. I didn't really get the point of that laughing-thing.
It was a war. Germans bomb British cities, the RAF HAS to be seen to be firing back, or morale at home plummets, German morale skyrockets and the world thinks we are weak. The German war effort gets a net boost. Bad things happen in war, but usually the alteratives are far worse.

The bombing of Dresden was all caused by a misreading of the phrase 'ornament factories' to be 'armament factories'. FACT.

Now THAT is more typical British organization.



And as for the alternatives being worse....

Yes. A lot of people harp on about the Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and claim "war crimes" etc.

The conventional firebombing of Tokyo killed tens of thousands more than either of the nuclear bombings. And would have been done again.

Could it be that you are a leftty? You should really read a history book or two, so you can firstly understand what a terrorist is. Secondly understand the nature of warfare between two nations and Thirdly understand that the insurgents are not Iraqi's trying to defend thier home but are infact religious bigots trying to inpose thier will upon the Iraqi's


An over-simplification of the various groupings and agendas involved.

Man we Brits rule.

Yes, if it wasnt for British ingenuity and know-how, the idea of gassing unruly natives never would have caught on....

Yes, if it wasnt for British ingenuity and know-how, the idea of gassing unruly natives never would have caught on....
Actually we bayonetted them, shot them, machinegunned them and bombed them, but we never gassed them.

Actually we bayonetted them, shot them, machinegunned them and bombed them, but we never gassed them.

No. That was in WWI when they decided to gas people who could gas them back. After that, they decided it was better to play without it.

Hmmm....possible lessons in nuclear weapons use?

(Just for the record, the British Army shouldn't be in Iraq. Not because of some wishy-washy liberal peace thing, but if 8,000 soldiers are abroad fighting America's wars, and with however many battalions stuck in Ireland today, it leaves the UK pretty open)

The insurgents will either drive UK and US troops out of Iraq, or they'll wipe them out. This is a new situation, which can't really be comapred to the Battle of Britain, and with which the UK and even more the US forces can't cope with. Battlefield technology, for the last fourty years, has developed based on the assumption that one day, Soviet Russia and the Eastern Bloc allies would invade West Germany. This of course never happened, and so rich countries that spend billions on weapons research are lumbered down with pitch-battle technologies for an all-out war that'll never happen. The dependence on technology and subtlety over brute force is also a short-sighted mistake. Take one American/British citizen, give him eight years training, ten years experience, five grand of kit and a ten thousand pound rifle, and an insurgent with a twenty-dollar Avtomat Kalahnikov and a day's experience wiill still kill him just as easily, given some close quaters (which is easy to achive with civilain clothing and alleys and streets etc).

A lot of us have been blinded by blatant propaganda. We might well hear stories of snipers achiving skilful kills every week, but we don't hear about the skilful guerrilla warfare being practiced by insurgents. Their ultimate goal (assuming it is religous imposition) is doomed to faliure because they don't have the backing of a state to give it weight, but at this rate the UK and US forces will soon be out of Iraq.

Think of it like this: in the Vietnam War, the Local Vietnamese troops lost every single battle. But they still won the war.

Actually we bayonetted them, shot them, machinegunned them and bombed them, but we never gassed them.

Nonsense. Read up on your 1920s Iraq history. Us Brits were the first in a long and noble line of people to gas the Kurds.

No. That was in WWI when they decided to gas people who could gas them back. After that, they decided it was better to play without it.

Hmmm....possible lessons in nuclear weapons use?
Actually the use of gas in war was banned before the outbreak of WWI (although the Germans ignored the ban because they wanted to end the war), and trying to equate gas to nuclear weapons is wrong on so many levels.

Bodies Without Organs - Didnt know that. It did know that Churchill spoke in favour of using gas in Messopatania but I didnt know it actually happened.

This details the kind attentions lavished on the Kurds and others by the British, civilised chaps that they were.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,939608,00.html

As regards gas, it was used, but not from the air, as far as I can gather.

and Thirdly understand that the insurgents are not Iraqi's trying to defend thier home but are infact religious bigots trying to inpose thier will upon the Iraqi's

Are you willing to substantiate this claim?

And before anyone states "Omg no, they didn't kill civilians!"...

Dresden.


Birmingham, London, Liverpool, Conventry?

Yes, the Germans did bomb these cities did they? They did kill thousands.

Why do people question the war? It happened, it was do or die, you couldnt have set the atom bomb off in some open country away from the cities, it wouldnt have had the same effect, and an invasion wouldnt have worked, all of Japan, including nurses, teachers and children, were being prepared to fight back an invasion.

But hats of to the SAS though, good job lads. :D

No. That was in WWI when they decided to gas people who could gas them back. After that, they decided it was better to play without it.

erm, http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/FWWgas.htm the first time we did the gas attack, the bloody wind changed. :mad: