The 20-year-old marksman, a Lance Corporal in the Coldstream Guards, hit his target from 930 yards (850 metres) away, killing the suicide bomber and five others around him caught in the blast.
१ एप्रिल, २०१४
"A British sniper in Afghanistan killed six insurgents with a single bullet..."
"... after hitting the trigger switch of a suicide bomber whose device then exploded...."
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
९२ टिप्पण्या:
This reads like something out of a novel. Kudos to this fellow for his skill, which allows us all to savor some poetic justice; but ultimately we must turn to the wisdom of a great leader, who asked "what difference...does it make?"
Multikill!
My understanding is that no American Soldiers died in Afghanistan in March. Glad to read that if it's true.
Re: the sniper: Good shot!
The struggle in Afghanistan has produced several remarkable sniper stories. (Including a new record for longest confirmed kill.)
I've spent a little time on a rifle range. One time, I took a course which ended with an attempt to hit a target at 500 yds (450 meters). The rifle didn't have a scope, though I had the aid of a spotter with a scope.
I hit the target on my second shot.
However, that gave me a much deeper respect for marksmen who train and operate in the 750-yd-plus ranges that snipers work in.
Ten years hence the left will claim this was the unprovoked murder of six children at a wedding. Read Robert Cook for a current demonstration of the process.
Hope they had 432 vermin ready!
Marshal,
Can you point to a specific remark by me that is a "current demonstration of the process?"
That's some good shooting! Never piss off a sniper.
Robert Cook said...
Marshal,
Can you point to a specific remark by me that is a "current demonstration of the process?"
Give us a paragraph on America.
Ya got nuthin'...I thought so.
exhelodrvr1 said...
Hope they had 432 vermin ready!
Due to high demand and supply chain issues, dead jihadis are being told to expect significant wait times.
Their virgins are back-ordered.
Like getting a double-eagle in golf.
Ann,
I think that you- and Meade too- should spend a morning at the range. You might like the experience. Remember, you are only shooting and hitting paper targets. They are not organic beings. There is no moral question to be answered in the act of pulling the trigger and shooting a paper target.So enjoy the experience of 'solving' a difficult problem.
Also, you might want to check out Emily Miller's stories in the WAPO. She has insights on gun ownership and use that apply to every day life. You might enjoy her story. Cheers and Happy Trails,
Robert Cook said...
Marshal,
Can you point to a specific remark by me that is a "current demonstration of the process?"
How about this cookie:
Robert Cook said...
"...they invaded US sovereign territory and took US citizens hostage for over a year. It wasn't until a president was elected that they feared would treat that like the act of war it was were those hostages released."
Rather, Reagan's people contacted Iran prior to the election and arranged to have Iran not release the hostages until Reagan was inaugurated. In payback, the Reagan administration began trading with Iran, providing them with weapons and also unlocking Iranian assets in American banks.
It was a quid pro quo, not "fear" of a real man in the office that brought about the release of the American hostages when they were.
1/28/13, 9:29 AM
http://althouse.blogspot.com/2013/01/iran-sends-monkey-into-space.html?showComment=1359386974651#c9129000482443373809
Yes.
Cookie is one of those crazed morons who really believe Reagan conspired with the Iranians to keep Americans hostage.
He. Really. Believes. That.
Converse with him accordingly.
Robert Cook said...
Ya got nuthin'
Just not motivated enough to search for your last comment.
If he did not have permission to kill the other 5 then he could face murder charges. For that matter, with the ERO's, did he have permission of the bomber to shoot at him? That's how stupid things are over there.
The Secret Services of the world are going to have to expand the zones of protection.
Nice shot, but it really means very little, as this little war is a lost deal. Just a small bit of gratification to take a few enemy down as payback for all the NATO troops blown up with bomb-grade Pakistani nitrate fertilizer we can't seem to want to push the Pakis from making and selling to the Taliban.
And of course, given the rules of engagement Bush II and Obama set, an occasional sanctioned sniper firing like this one is nice - given where snipers cannot shoot enemy walking in the open in most situations.
The whole thing is a bit ridiculous. Though some snipers get "blooded" and may themselves or through training, impart lessons to help kill future people at long distance.
"What difference does it make?"
None regarding the fate of Afghanistan reverting to the medieval Muslim rule that they want...and the departure of unwelcome Westerners.
I guess it does have a certain cache` for gun lovers thrilled by the idea of rifles as precision long range killing instruments and who glorify snipers as heroes. (traditionally, regular forces have no love of enemy snipers and never spare them as prisoners)..
I've always liked that name--"Coldstream Guards". Has a certain "more British than tea and crumpets on top of Big Ben while reciting Shakespeare" to it.
Some of the U.S. military units have neat names too--"Screaming Eagles" for one--but we ought to be doing better on that front. Something like "Appalachian Rifles" or "Ozark Cavalry".
How about "Angry Vaginas?"
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1f/25th_Infantry_Division_SSI.svg/655px-25th_Infantry_Division_SSI.svg.png
One part of the story raises questions in my mind, which is the statement that the blown up Talib (singular of "Taliban") was carrying a machine gun. An AK-47, yes. A PKM plus a suicide vest? Why risk a PKM on a guy who's going to blow himself up?
BTW, the L115A3 sniper rifle that the British soldier used may be the most powerful in their army, but the US Barrett has pretty much the same muzzle velocity with a much, much heavier bullet. Look up the .50 BMG on Wikipedia. The .50 that the Barrett fires is at far left, the .338 Lapua that the British soldier fired is a slightly larger (8 mm longer) version of the cartridge next to it.
Big deal.
I killed 7 with one blow.
Drago,
I, of course, don't personally know that Reagan (or his people) conspired with Iran to hold the American hostages longer to insure Carter's loss (and Reagan's victory) in the 1980 Presidential race, but reporting I've read on the matter is sufficiently convincing--and the timing of the hostages' release on Reagan's inauguration day sufficiently unlikely otherwise--that I do believe it.
And why not? Do you think Reagan (or his people) would have ethical objections to making such a deal to win the presidency? Ha! Not in the least! After all, they did deal with them later in their illegal Iran/Contra dealings...selling arms to our purported enemies in order to give the proceeds to the terrorist contras in Nicaragua when Congress blocked further American aid to them.
Tell me...why do you think they wouldn't do it?
@David,
this shot is not record-breaking for distance.
The most recent record-distance sniper shot was in 2009, and involved a Canadian sniper in Afghanistan at a distance of 2707 yards (2475 m).
SJ said...
@David,
this shot is not record-breaking for distance.
The most recent record-distance sniper shot was in 2009, and involved a Canadian sniper in Afghanistan at a distance of 2707 yards (2475 m).
While this shot was far from the longest on record, killing six with a single bullet is impressive. There's an old saying about snipers. "Don't bother trying to run away. You'll only die tired."
Cook - post ipso facto.
I'll bet the lance corporal was nearly as surprised as his targets when they blew up.
MUCH better photo.
Robert Cook - yes, you're right, because Reagan had such doubt about his ability to win the Presidency from Carter. Given how swimmingly things were going in America in those years, dirty tricks were the only way to go.
It was Carter, dude. Carter. Do you even read what you write?
John Constantius,
Candidates for office--and their campaign advisors--never take victory for granted, and dirty tricks--known and unknown--are more common than not in many or most elections. As has been said, politics is a blood sport.
No matter that "It was Carter, dude." One never knows which way the electorate might swing; after all, who had even heard of Carter four years before, yet he won the office. Don't think that Reagan (or his people) didn't have concerns Carter might win reelection.
Robert Cook said...
reporting I've read on the matter is sufficiently convincing
This is all you need to know about Cook. A crackpot report reinforced his hatred so he internalized it to such a degree he then asserted it as fact.
Propaganda creates in-group identification markers and therefore bonding experiences. Truth and fact just aren't important.
"Due to high demand and supply chain issues, dead jihadis are being told to expect significant wait times.
Their virgins are back-ordered."
Excellent !
Cook, thank you for the nice example of your mentality.
Marshal,
Why are you unable to conceive that Reagan (or his people) could have done the deal? Their later criminal dealings with Iran certainly demonstrate conclusively they lacked any ethical concerns that would preclude such an arrangement.
Robert Cook, you raving lunatic, there is zero, zero evidence Reagan conspired with the Iranians.
The "evidence", if it's what I think it is, is so laughably implausible that you expose yourself for the utter crackpot you must be to have paid any heed to these ludicrous charges.
Put up your evidence dummy, or shut the hell up.
You've seen no "convincing evidence" of this.
You've seen no "evidence" of this.
There is none.
None.
Show us otherwise.
Cookie is as bad as your run of the mill 9-11 truther.
Which he probably is!
Cookie, let me guess, you believe GWBush conspired with members of the Bin Laden family to allow (if not outright assist) in the attacks of 9-11, don't you?
Cookie: "Why are you unable to conceive that Reagan (or his people) could have done the deal?"
LOL
Cookie, the fellow that sees no evil in the current crazy regimes all over the world, actually posits the question above!
He want's you to conceive of such a thing.
Why?
He wants it to be true. Nay, he NEEDS it to be true, so whacked out on leftist hate he has internalized.
Robert Cook is a case study in the mindset of the left.
""A British sniper in Afghanistan killed six insurgents with a single bullet...""
That's so cool. I hope they award him a really big stuffed teddy bear to give to his girl.
""A British sniper in Afghanistan killed six insurgents with a single bullet...""
The Sniper Motto in general is:
"One Shot, one kill!"
for the rest of us, the motto is:
"Anything worth shooting, is worth shooting twice. Bullets are cheap, life is expensive :) "
Robert Cook, I hear what you're saying. People worry, I get that.
But this is an election where Reagan won 44 states. This was the election of stagflation and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the Olympic boycott and all the rest. All Reagan had to do to win election was avoid being caught in bed with "a dead girl or a live boy" to paraphrase the joke.
Is it possible that Reagan's people risked Reagan's absolutely certain, slam-dunk sure thing election by engaging in negotiations and quid pro quo with America's enemies? I suppose it's possible, in some sweat-soaked paranoid black helicopter dreamland.
It just doesn't seem very likely, is all I'm saying. That type of behavior by Reagan and his people, leaked at the appropriate time, would pretty much have been the only thing that might have given Carter the win. I have a hard time believing Reagan's people would be that stupid.
YMMV of course -- and apparently it does. That's fine. Whatever works for you buddy.
I'm amazed that anyone with a rifle can hit anything with accuracy at over half a mile away.
I can't get over how CASUALLY Cookie asserts Reagan conspired with Iranians to keep imprisoned Americans abroad.
I mean, it's so "matter of fact" that Reagan is that evil.
Astonishing.
Scott: "Scott said...
I'm amazed that anyone with a rifle can hit anything with accuracy at over half a mile away."
It makes sense that the accuracy of weapons would continue to increase given technology.
However, the level of skill required to adjust dynamically and on the fly to changing environmental conditions is pretty impressive.
Thanks @Althouse, you made my day!
Drago,
I take as a given that any candidate for President is potentially that ambitious, duplicitous, and yes, evil.
Note, I always say "Reagan (or his people)." I'm willing to accept that, as with much else during his presidency, Reagan may have been unaware of this deal, but I absolutely believe the people behind him would have had not the least compunction and every willingness to do such a deal.
@Drago: Yeah, if the rifle is hand held, you're dealing with windage and bullet drop as well as the beating of your own heart.
"Cookie, the fellow that sees no evil in the current crazy regimes all over the world...."
Wrong.
"Cookie, let me guess, you believe GWBush conspired with members of the Bin Laden family to allow (if not outright assist) in the attacks of 9-11, don't you?"
Not without convincing evidence, I don't.
I think it's possible there were other parties involved and machinations going on that we still don't know about, but I don't know or have any reason to believe that any were part of our government.
Robert Cook said...
Their later criminal dealings with Iran certainly demonstrate conclusively they lacked any ethical concerns that would preclude such an arrangement.
Let's be clear:
One trade is a regretful cost of getting your people home (maybe not worth it), and the other is treason for a political advantage. And Cook believes it "certain" and "conclusive" that deciding the cost is worth the benefit in the first trade means you have "no ethical concerns" about the other.
How does one come to believe there's no difference between a deal to get hostages home and a deal to keep them hostage longer?
Some people spend so much time competing to say the most outrageous thing they can think of about America, Republicans, economic freedom, etc they forget they aren't around the drum circle any longer.
Seven with a blow is the record.
but reporting I've read on the matter is sufficiently convincing--and the timing of the hostages' release on Reagan's inauguration day sufficiently unlikely otherwise--that I do believe it
It never occurred to you that the Iranian leadership might have *independently* opted to do that as a personal "fuck you" to the President who had refused to hand over the Shah?
Are you assuming that the Iranians would naturally have disliked Reagan more than Carter unless given reason to feel otherwise? What's the basis for that assumption?
Cook: "Note, I always say "Reagan (or his people)." I'm willing to accept that, as with much else during his presidency, Reagan may have been unaware of this deal,"
Full Stop.
There was no deal.
Period.
Next.
Drago,
I didn't say I'd seen "evidence" of such a plot; I said I'd read convincing reporting. The reporting, combined with the particularly unusual timing of the hostages' release--20 minutes after Reagan's inauguration--and with the later collusion between the Reagan administration and Iran in the criminal Iran-Contra affair (which amounted to: consorting with and providing arms to our declared enemies, in defiance of Congress, in order to obtain and provide illegal funding for terrorists in Nicaragua) does strike me as a trifecta of compelling circumstantial evidence.
FWIW, I voted for Reagan in 1980, having been raised in a Republican family and being (at that time) a registered Republican.
Cook: "Not without convincing evidence, I don't."
LOL
We've already dispensed with your need for "convincing evidence" to believe anything.
Now we're just trying to see how broadly you've applied this lunacy.
Cook: "I didn't say I'd seen "evidence" of such a plot; I said I'd read convincing reporting."
LOL
There's that word "convincing" again.
A slight breeze would be enough to convince you of quite alot I can see.
All Reagan had to do to win election was avoid being caught in bed with "a dead girl or a live boy" to paraphrase the joke.
Carter and Reagan were basically tied in the polls through October.
But a review of the late 1980 polls shows that while Reagan soared over the final week (following the campaign's one and only debate on Oct. 29), the contest up until that point was tightly competitive, not trending toward the incumbent Democratic president. At the time, the Associated Press reported "new polls say the race between the two men remains too close to call." Link
Cook: "FWIW, I voted for Reagan in 1980, having been raised in a Republican family and being (at that time) a registered Republican."
Utterly, completely irrelevant.
I've always believed that the Democrats were unintentional allies of Reagan. I can picture someone sidling up to an Iranian diplomat in some neutral country and a dialog something like the following:
"You know what the Democrats have been saying about Reagan? It's all true. That cowboy might do anything."
"Ha! You're just saying that to scare us. He wouldn't ..."
"He sure would. The minute he's sworn in he can do anything he wants to."
"Anything?"
"Any. Thing."
And then the hostages get released the minute Reagan is sworn in. Because no one want to find out the hard way what "anything" might amount to.
garage: "Carter and Reagan were basically tied in the polls through October."
That was the conventional wisdom and it would be difficult for any of us to say otherwise absent some sort of information/insight.
However, Reagan carrying 44 states implies that the tether any voters had to Carter were extremely tenuous.
This is one of those elections before media became "democratized" or "atomized" in the tech boom and there was alot written at the time that Reagan suffered initially due to the near (not total, but nearly so) stranglehold of the liberal (not yet fully leftist) media.
All the voters needed to see in the debates was that Reagan did not come off as he had been portrayed.
When he did that, done deal.
44 states.
And re-elected with 49 states just 4 years later.
That says something, although, lets face it, how bad was Mondale/Ferraro?
Well, Drago, I guess I just think you're naive for believing the self-flattering myths we tell ourselves and you think I'm foolish for accepting that realpolitik is the way of the world, not least by us.
Haven't the recent revelations in re: NSA spying on everyone wakened you up at least a little? Do you think one administration behaves ethically and leaves and another comes in and behaves unethically, alternating so on and so on according to the party and/or man in office? It's a continuum, and they're all dirty.
Robert Cook said...
Well, Drago, I guess I just think you're naive for believing the self-flattering myths we tell ourselves and you think I'm foolish for accepting that realpolitik is the way of the world, not least by us.
LOL
Keep telling yourself that ace.
Do note how Cookie assigns belief in "self-flattering myths" to me, while excusing his own belief in complete myths that he himself articulated.
Projection.
Again, a perfect leftist case study.
I didn't say I'd seen "evidence" of such a plot; I said I'd read convincing reporting.
You keep repeating the phrase "convincing reporting". Why the anonymity?
Some brief Googling indicates that The New Republican, The Village Voice, Newsweek, and Congressional Democrats have all investigated the allegations and dismissed them. So where exactly did this "convincing reporting" happen, and why didn't reliable Democratic Party mouthpieces such as those pick up on it?
Cook: "Haven't the recent revelations in re: NSA spying on everyone wakened you up at least a little?"
I'm not allowed to "wake up".
To wake up and point those things out makes me a racist.
So says the left.
So what's it gonna be hombre? You lefties have to make up your mind. Are we allowed to notice what obama is doing, or not?
That should be "The New Republic", heh.
Revenant: "So where exactly did this "convincing reporting" happen, and why didn't reliable Democratic Party mouthpieces such as those pick up on it?"
It was probably a series in Pravda or some other Cookie approved legit source.
Workers World Daily?
Convincing. Reporting.
Attributed to unimpeachable. Sources.
Written by top. Men.
Revenant said...
That should be "The New Republic", heh.
Heh indeed.
You could have purchased it and changed the name yourself!
Might have cost you a buck or two.
Jason: "Written by top. Men."
Whoa. Easy with that.
It's a Siren call for Titus.
You could have purchased it and changed the name yourself! Might have cost you a buck or two.
Why bother, I probably reach more readers just commenting here at Althouse.
Because of the prestige!!
.......LOL
" I guess I just think you're naive for believing the self-flattering myths we tell ourselves and you think I'm foolish for accepting that realpolitik is the way of the world, not least by us."
By "realpolitik" you mean a goofy Carter adviser, Gary Sick, who believed that Bush Sr flew to Paris in an SR 71 to negotiate all this with the Iranians.
Guys like you keep the Democrats alive. You are the very definition of Low Information Voter.
Reagan scared the Iranians. What might the crazy cowboy gunslinger do? He said, effectively, "Don't. Make. Me. Come. Over. There."
Carter "condemned in the strongest possible terms these cowardly acts". Oooooh!!! Mommy! I'm afraid!!!
Pays to elect cowboys who appear to have itchy trigger fingers, keeps the bad actors on the world stage nervous.
Does anyone think Putin looks the least nervous? No, I don't think so either.
Polls did indeed claim that Reagan-Carter was too close to call very nearly to the end. That shows what polls are worth. People routinely lie to pollsters, especially when it's an incompetent (supposedly) nice guy like Carter vs a competent (supposedly) not-so-nice guy like Reagan. Both Reagan and Thatcher were elected handily in elections that were supposedly 'too close to call' and then reelected in landslide races that were 'incumbent will win but not by a landslide'. Four major elections in less than 10 years totally screwed up by the media, and all in the same direction.
I was not surprised when Reagan was elected by a large margin. I worked in a small company (8-10 employees) in San Francisco doing air pollution measurement, mostly paid for by the EPA. The owner was a big Carter fan. The one gay employee hated Reagan but had no respect for Carter: I'm pretty sure he voted for John Anderson. I was the only open Reagan voter. Every other employee (5-7 in all) took me aside at one time or another to say "Don't tell [the boss] but I'm voting for Reagan, too". Polls lie because voters lie to pollsters and bosses and fellow employees, systematically concealing their intention to vote for the 'uncool' candidate, the one their friends will mock them for voting for. The fact that the polls showed Carter-Reagan as tight even in October 1980 just shows how incompetent and/or bigoted the pollsters were. They may have gotten better since then.
Michael K:
Robert Cook is not a low-information voter. He has lots of information, it just so happens that a great deal of it is simply false. He's a low-fact voter.
MathMom:
Here's the Jeff MacNelly cartoon that sums up exactly why the hostages were released when they were released (link): I have a copy somewhere, but this Wonkette (!) link will have to do for now.
Michael K: "By "realpolitik" you mean a goofy Carter adviser, Gary Sick, who believed that Bush Sr flew to Paris in an SR 71 to negotiate all this with the Iranians"
Ah yes! The SR-71!
That was hilarious when they included that bit.
The SR-71 had to be included in the conspiracy because the lefties needed a really fast plane to get Bush to Paris and back so fast.
Of course, SR-71's are military aircraft.
And Jimmy Carter was President and Commander in Chief.
Just how did that dastardly Reagan/Bush steal the aircraft and get it back with only about 10,000 witnesses who "forgot" to remember it happened?
That's real "Men In Black" territory there.
But tell the truth, don't you just "feel" like it could be true (Robert Cook pleaded)....
Dr. Weevil, thank a for that cartoon. I lived in the Middle East when this was going on. Remember vividly listening on short wave radio to Reagan's inaugural, when he announced the hostages had left Iranian air space.
Fear. That is what motivated them. Full stop.
MUCH better photo.
Seconded!!
Marksmanship was never one of Cedarford's strengths.
Didn't the sniper know that there was a bag limit for the day?
Didn't the sniper know that there was a bag limit for the day?
Reagan scared the Iranians. What might the crazy cowboy gunslinger do? He said, effectively, "Don't. Make. Me. Come. Over. There.""
Math mom the irony is almost too delicious. The left did such an amazing sales pitch of portraying Reagan as a crazed trigger happy cowboy that the Iranians bought it.
My favorite story of the year so far.
Regean's two biggest mistakes were not vetoing the entire budget until the democrat-communists stripped the Boland Ammendment and having failed to do that he should have owned up to Iran-Contra and told the democrat-communists to fuck-off and dared to impeach him. They would have folded like cheap suits.
Speaking of the sniper-6 kills for the price of one bullet. Now that is an impressive use of the taxpayer's money.
Waiting to hear Althouse dilate upon her newly discovered delight learning to handle and use firearms at her local range. It is fun. And useful. It aids ratiocination.
"Reagan scared the Iranians. What might the crazy cowboy gunslinger do? He said, effectively, 'Don't. Make. Me. Come. Over. There.'"
Baloney.
Ronald Reagan was not Dirty Harry, and was not perceived as such internationally, however much his admirers wish to believe (and continue to assert) he was.
Robert Cook, you ignorant commmie fuck.
That is all.
President-Mom-Jeans:
Thank you for your remarks.
"Cook: 'Haven't the recent revelations in re: NSA spying on everyone wakened you up at least a little?'
(Drago): "I'm not allowed to 'wake up.'
"To wake up and point those things out makes me a racist."
????
Do you suppose the NSA's depredations have occurred only since Obama took office, or only under his orders? If so, you're more naive than I could have guessed. Besides, once a nation has officially crossed the torture line--which we officially did during the Bush administration, (though, unofficially, we've probably never not been over that line)--what violations of the law and of human rights would one imagine that nation will not and has not already transgressed?
Robert Cook,
I beg to differ. When Carter was pres, Americans were treated with rudeness in Saudi Arabia. After Reagan was elected, Saudis would lean out of their car windows and shout to me, with their first fingers in the air, "America Number One!"
We got better treatment and better discounts with Reagan in the White House.
Reagan was a giant.
Robert Cook? (*tap tap tap*) Is this thing on?
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा