The British Special Air Service marksman turned one of the most hated terrorists in Syria into a fireball by using a Barett .50-caliber rifle to strike a fuel tank affixed to the jihadi’s back.... The pack exploded, killing the sadistic terrorist and three of his flunkies, who were supposed to film the execution....
September 12, 2016
"A sharpshooter killed a top ISIS executioner and three other jihadists with a single bullet from nearly a mile away..."
"... just seconds before the fiend was set to burn 12 hostages alive with a flamethrower...."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
59 comments:
That's how I like my terrorists - on fire like a marshmallow over the fire.
War porn. The Barett is legendary among shooters. Here’s the best part:
The captives were then rescued by British and US special forces.
Lucky, lucky captives.
Sounds like something out of a movie.
Monsters arrive in hell already ablaze.
Couldn't be a more fitting ending for them.
"Sounds like something out of a movie."
Exactly what was said about 9/11.
Hillary just wants to drone them. Not effective.
The history of WWII reads like hack fiction....the villains wear black with skulls on their hats, execute a super evil plan, get right to the brink of success, are stopped and slowly pushed back....miracle weapons are made....lead villain takes life in the end reel.
The executioner gave some sort of rambling speech . . . then when he finished, the SAS sniper opened fire
Dialogue-ing. The bane of many a supervillain.
I'm normally suspicious of news articles. Is there any supporting evidence? I do hope this one to be true.
YES!!!!!! USA!!! USA!!!!. Oh. OLD BLIGHTY!!!! OLD BLIGHTY!!!!!!
These SAS snipers are complete bad asses. This is the third story I've read about one of them offing these lunatics in spectacular Stephen Hunter-style markspersonship.
Sounds like something out of a movie.
Someone get Clint Eastwood on the line.
"He shoots, and SCORES!"
Nice shot.
I haven't read the article yet - were the prisoners liberated? I hope so.
Ron: The history of WWII reads like hack fiction....the villains wear black with skulls on their hats, execute a super evil plan, get right to the brink of success, are stopped and slowly pushed back....miracle weapons are made....lead villain takes life in the end reel.
That's what makes The World at War worth all nine Blu-Ray discs. It's far, far more of a cliffhanger than any WWII movie is, or could be—even though, thank God, you already know how it ends.
Original Mike: Monsters arrive in hell already ablaze.
Just one of the many fine services provided by our good friends of the SAS.
Huh, Facebook blocks sharing this article:
Screen Shot of Facebook Preventing Sharing of NY Post article.
The fact that the hostages were then rescued is even more amazing (and heartening.)
Gentle folks sleep peaceably in their beds at night, because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.
SAS, original rough men
When you care to send the very best...
Feel-good story of the month.
I wonder if the unfortunate hostages were still executed. It does matter...
That story is sort of the perfect application for a Barrett with armor-piercing incendiary ammunition.
One of the greatest popular- literature articles I have ever seen concerning the Barrett is this one from the New York Times Sunday Magazine. The article was clearly intended to scare the nation as to what sort of monstrous weapon was actually available to the public. Naturally, I read it and wondered how I might be able to afford one for target shooting.
http://www.nytimes.com/2000/11/26/magazine/the-big-bad-fun-gun.html?pagewanted=all
This is a propaganda story. Notice there are no names. The story also references another story (in hyperlink) and that story talks about a different sniper story.
It insults my intelligence. I know people will debate my intelligence, but it's a small thing here. Even a 5 year old knows this trick.
My mother would try to get us to eat vegetables by claiming millions of people were starving in China. We would counter her propaganda with "name five!"
Name the sniper, name the killed, or label the work as fiction.
Now I know snipers exist, and I know they are killing their enemies, but Jesus Christ, give us a break with the amateur propaganda stories.
Ron said...
The history of WWII reads like hack fiction....the villains wear black with skulls on their hats, execute a super evil plan
Mitchell & Webb - Nazi Sketch - "Are We The Baddies?
True or not, this seems appropriate.
Madison Man said...
The executioner gave some sort of rambling speech . . . then when he finished, the SAS sniper opened fire.
In the words of Tuco Benedicto Pacifico Juan Maria Ramirez:
"When you have to shoot, shoot, don't talk."
David: The fact that the hostages were then rescued is even more amazing (and heartening.)
Snipers never work alone, as I'm sure you know. The sniper is unbelievably vulnerable, both in moving into position and, especially, while his entire visual field and concentration is occupied by targeting. The sniper has a "spotter" with an assault rifle covering him. Since he's there because his command has gotten intel on the hostage situation, that means the rest of the team is nearby, waiting for the "go" to exfiltrate the hostages. My guess is they were hoping for the sniper to take out the local head honcho, and the rest of the team would burst in during the confusion and execute a standard close-quarters-combat and hostage-rescue plan. Baking not one, but four, terrorist flambés is just a bonus.
Nice shooting.
MadisonMan: Dialogue-ing. The bane of many a supervillain.
It's so annoying that we can't embed YouTube videos!
If you can afford a Barrett (notice the spelling) 50 cal sniper rifle, you can afford a digital camera or cell phone. Take a picture.
You don't need pictures for well written fiction though...
"The history of WWII reads like hack fiction....the villains wear black with skulls on their hats, execute a super evil plan, get right to the brink of success, are stopped and slowly pushed back....miracle weapons are made....lead villain takes life in the end reel."
Not to mention Hitler having his last remaining European holdout on the ropes, and then deciding just to be extra evil to stab his Russian pseudo-ally in the back, ensuring his downfall. If it all happened in a movie, you'd be saying "oh that's total BS".
The executioner gave some sort of rambling speech . . . then when he finished, the SAS sniper opened fire.
Because only bad guys interrupt when someone else is talking.
It's a good story, and, what with the hostages being rescued, maybe even a perfect story. That arouses suspicion, but every so often life provides a Hollywood ending. It's life's way of keeping us in the game. Someone wins the lottery although most people don't. I'm thinking of Capt. Phillips who was rescued from the Somali pirates with THREE sniper shots simultaneously and perfectly executed. Rose petals are less prevalent than shit, but they happen.
"Sounds like something out of a movie."
AA said: Exactly what was said about 9/11.
You are so right! And if someone had made a fictional movie depicting just such a event, there would be oh, so many 'experts' telling us why it couldn't really happen.
We can only hope he uses his next 50 bullets as efficiently.
Madison Man said: Dialogue-ing. The bane of many a supervillain.
Just like this classic scene from The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTcBgs2huRo
I heard a British SAS sniper set off the charges that were built into the twin towers, which set off their collapses.
We can only hope he uses his next 50 bullets as efficiently.
Really! Ammo is so damned expensive nowadays!
Technically, the soldier did not wait until the bad guy was finished, so much as the bad guy was finished when the shot was taken.
Same. Same.
I don't doubt that elite snipers can and do make these kind of shots, but this particular episode sounds way too pat. Like something from a Sgt. Fury comic book.
I am surprised it was a Barrett - I would have thought they'd use a McMillan, CheyTac or Accuracy International. The Barrett light .50 is known for being a good anti-material rifle, but isn't known for being hyper-accurate over very long ranges. Also, a lot of elite units seem to be going to the smaller, but more ballistically advanced, .338 Lapua over JMB' classic .50, at least in cases where one wants to kill a person instead of a vehicle engine.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longest_recorded_sniper_kills
coupe said...
If you can afford a Barrett (notice the spelling) 50 cal sniper rifle, you can afford a digital camera or cell phone. Take a picture.
You don't need pictures for well written fiction though...
The whole point of the SAS, Navy Seals et al is anonymity. You'll never know their names. You'll never see their faces. They just show up and then you have a bad day. And then they leave.
holdfast; it is certainly true that most scout snipers would have a primary rifle that was a much smaller caliber than a Barrett .50, (just as you say, a .338 Laupa or a .308 Winchester or something) it may have been the need for an API round to make sure the flamethrower blew up.
I think you've got it exactly right; but of course there are hundreds of guys in our military doing sniper training with Barretts.
The SEALs who freed Captain Phillips in the famed (movie-converted) rescue story used Barretts. Again, just as you say, it was more of an anti-material application than a long-range execution. .50 cals, shooting through stuff and setting stuff on fire (in addition to tearing bodies apart) which is what they were meant to do.
coupe:
A decent Barrett will cost about $5,000. A really nice Barrett will cost about $10,000. And you may not get a scope for that much. You definitely will not get a world-class scope (to go with a world-class long range rifle) for that much.
You've got some expensive tastes in digital cameras for that kind of money. There isn't a cellphone in the world that costs that much.
I don't know why people are so skeptical. First of all, it's not even the record for most dead terrorists from a single shot. That honor goes to another Brit, who shot a Taliban insurgent -- the Talib was wearing a suicide vest which blew up and took out another five of his bad guys. Second, the sniper was on overwatch, meaning that he was protecting British soldiers who were already moving in on the scene (and which is why the dozen people the bad guy was planning to burn to death were so handily rescued). Once the team was in position the sniper would have been weapons free. Third, says who he was aiming at the pack? He might have had a fortuitous near miss. Fourth, we don't know for certain that the detail about the .50 caliber Barrett is correct. It's the New York Post after all. They may have simply assumed that it was a Barrett when it was an Accuracy International, or heard that it was a Barrett and assumed that it was .50 cal. In fact, there are Barrett models chambered in .338 Lapua, .300 Win Mag, .308, among others. Finally, one mile is nothing for a modern sniper. To make the top five for longest single-shot kills you'd need to hit your target at at least 2500 yards (for you math-challenged, a mile is 1728 yards).
Chuck said......You've got some expensive tastes in digital cameras for that kind of money.
My English must be bad. I said if you can afford a sniper rifle, then you can afford a cell phone with a camera.
(camera being the instrument of proof of the story).
I made no allusion to buying a camera of the same price as a sniper rifle.
The story is completely false and made-up, because the reference they provide is bogus, and has nothing to do with the fiction they are providing.
So big raspberry to you...
Big Mike said...I don't know why people are so skeptical.
The reference they provide is bogus. If they post a good reference I will be more believing. We know guns can kill, and we know that terrorists use fire, but we don't know the facts yet of this alleged truth.
Rusty said...The whole point of the SAS, Navy Seals et al is anonymity. You'll never know their names. You'll never see their faces. They just show up and then you have a bad day. And then they leave.
I get that. I have a DD-214...
The press should have some witnesses or photo's of the rescue. Why won't they let us hear from the rescued or witnesses? Did no one take a picture of the smoldering rag-head?
coupe said...
The press should have some witnesses or photo's of the rescue. Why won't they let us hear from the rescued or witnesses? Did no one take a picture of the smoldering rag-head?
9/12/16, 1:09 PM
Agreed. Even more telling is the lack of the name of the terrorist. Allegedly this guy was on the US kill list "for several months" but they can't release his name? Absurd. They seem to know a lot about his activities.
Incidentally, the detail about the use of flamethrowers by ISIS seems to be corroborated.
I heard a British SAS sniper set off the charges that were built into the twin towers, which set off their collapses.
And I heard you like to diddle little boys. The internet is full of rumors, and the trolls that tell them.
Big Mike said...
...Finally, one mile is nothing for a modern sniper. To make the top five for longest single-shot kills you'd need to hit your target at at least 2500 yards (for you math-challenged, a mile is 1728 yards)."
Knowing how many miles in a yard is not a math issue. And there are 1760 yards in a mile there Copernicus.
coupe; perhaps you weren't clear. I think as much as anything, I misunderstood. I thought you were doubting my own interest in purchasing a Barrett which went nowhere because of the cost (and the astonishingly few places where one can reasonably shoot a Barrett at ranges that might show it off).
But now I get it; you doubt the story because nobody has produced any cellphone camera pictures taken by the troops who intervened immediately after the sniper shot. "Pics or it didn't happen..."
We both know that stuff like that happens. But also, that guys are getting into ever-more trouble for revealing operational details after the fact. See, e.g., "Mark Owen." I respectfully disagree with you on the notion that "pics or it didn't happen" applies here.
The actual source is a British newspaper, the Daily Star, a tabloid.
Just because there are no photos doesn't mean the story is fabricated. The SAS are not about to identify anyone participating in an operation, or even for those assigned to SAS for that matter. That's because they sometimes operate out of uniform, and they don't want to put the families at risk.
AT the range mentioned, a cell phone camera would be pretty useless. And when you're in shooting situation (those who actually rescued the hostages), taking pretty pictures is not always a priority. Maybe the SAS doesn't care about the publicity or who believes them.
So, it could be BS, because a reporter could make it up or exaggerate what happened, and rely on the same secrecy to protect his phony story. But maybe it's true, since it's certainly possible without much of a stretch.
I think I'll believe it, because I'd like it to be true. Isn't that the standard test these days?
JCC said...I think I'll believe it, because I'd like it to be true.
If my mother named 5 of the starving Chicoms, or this reporter named the terrorist killed, then I will begin to believe it.
Until then, I ain't eating no f'n peas...
coupe
If you look on the internet you can find plenty of sniper "war porn" videos from the ME. The shots are amazing with multiple kills with one round at long distances. Not for those with weak stomachs, you can not forget what you see. Think what would be left of a frog with a M-80 exploding in it's mouth.
Man. I would like to see video footage of THAT! ;-)
If you can afford a Barrett (notice the spelling) 50 cal sniper rifle, you can afford a digital camera or cell phone. Take a picture.
Commando services like the SAS are a little different than reserve units on convoy protection. Pretty much anything they do gets an automatic security classification, and if the guy brought a camera or a phone he probably broke a slew of rules.
@Curious, oops.
I don't know why people are so skeptical
Clinton.
Post a Comment