10 Bucks Says Jurbal's ( Or What Ever His Name Is ) Nutsack Ends Up A Trophy Of Some U.s. Marine
uh, way offKocrachon wrote:
Its not justified because a Police for SWAT officer is suppose to either A) Shoot the Gun out of hte hand or B) Incompacitate (not kill) The target. Swat deploys 2 snipers from diffrent angles, giving at least one of them a chance to get a non-lethal or semi-lethal (50/50 chance to live).
Police snipers are taught to kill instantly. In fact they're specifically taught to aim for the parts of the brain that control motor functions to reduce the chance of a hostage or innocent bystander being hurt by the target. They are almost never told to attempt to shoot a weapon out of someone's hand; that's an incredibly stupid tactic in just about any situation. If a police sniper is ordered to shoot it's only because the target poses an imminent threat to someone's life. When that's the case non-lethal is not an option.
you're on.Horseman 77 wrote:
10 Bucks Says Jurbal's ( Or What Ever His Name Is ) Nutsack Ends Up A Trophy Of Some U.s. Marine
Anyone else want in on this?oberst_enzian wrote:
you're on.Horseman 77 wrote:
10 Bucks Says Jurbal's ( Or What Ever His Name Is ) Nutsack Ends Up A Trophy Of Some U.s. Marine
Surely the point is that if you put someones life at risk - you lose the right to have your life considered in the plan to save the victim.Kocrachon wrote:
Its not justified because a Police for SWAT officer is suppose to either A) Shoot the Gun out of hte hand or B) Incompacitate (not kill) The target. Swat deploys 2 snipers from diffrent angles, giving at least one of them a chance to get a non-lethal or semi-lethal (50/50 chance to live).Nehil wrote:
I don't think is justified. Call me crazy but I don't. Well I would not just stand back, but I sure as hell wouldn't kill the guy.FeloniousMonk wrote:
When a police sniper shoots a suspect in the head to keep him from drawing a knife across a 14 year old's throat, it's justified. If a man was in the process of raping a member of your family you would stand back and do nothing?
Have you ever fired a gun? Do you have any idea how lucky a shot to "shoot a gun out of their hand" would be?
Police are trained to fire at the "central body mass" for the simple reason that it is relativly stable reguardless of what the target is doing; hence a higher chance of an incapacitating shot.
At the end of the day - If someone is holding a gun to a victims head, it is the perpetrator that should die rather than the victim. -assum9ing that a death is inevitable. It is my personal belief that once you place others in danger(denigying them base human rights) you lose your rights, and whatever action to protect the innocent is justified.
I realise you probably find the idea of someone being killed abhorrent, but, the harsh reality is that life on planet earth sometimes leads to a kill or be killed scenario. Whether you like it or not sometimes people have to die because they threaten the life of others.
Explain to me why an innocent party should be placed in further danger to save the life of someone attempting to take theirs.
The one who ended up trading skills with the German sniper?splixx wrote:
Reminds me of the Russian sniper from World War II.. Very similiar indeed.
Not true. If I kill a soldier, the enemy army is down 1 man. If I wound him, It takes at least 1 other to carry him...then the surgeons, money, resources etc.*ToRRo*cT| wrote:
a sniper has a special task and thats 1 shot 1 kill . just like Vassili!
It's more of a drain on your enemy to wound than kill....the only time this isn't true is when you can completely destroy your enemy...but that ain't gonna happen.
Burning children with phosphor, bombing civillians, stealing oil, sanctioning those you don't agree with so they will starve till they bend to your will or die.WiteknighT wrote:
If the USA fought with the same morality (evil/underhanded) that the enemy fights with then we would have MUCH more grusome clips to show than this!........we would LEVEL entire nations! (instead of building highways, hospitals, schools, ect.)
Yea man..moral.
He's attacking military targets in a precision fashion. It's justified. Americans need to stop whinging cause they do much worse.
Hey, faggot? If we posted some US bullshit showing the same thing... what are we then?Kocrachon wrote:
This movie is PURE propoganda and as my Airforce friend stated best when i told him about this post... You guys are no better than terrorist for posting it because all you are doing is helping the Insurgent propoganda. You talk about how many kills and show the video and thats EXACTLY what they are trying to make you do.
Heroes?Greenie_Beazinie wrote:
Hey, faggot? If we posted some US bullshit showing the same thing... what are we then?Kocrachon wrote:
This movie is PURE propoganda and as my Airforce friend stated best when i told him about this post... You guys are no better than terrorist for posting it because all you are doing is helping the Insurgent propoganda. You talk about how many kills and show the video and thats EXACTLY what they are trying to make you do.
Yeah, thats how it is.
We must unite and fight this Bastardization together.
Tired of fighting it... i should start visiting Aussie bf2 forums...
Oh god that was beautiful i'm going to make t-shirts and hats off that quote and sell them i'll give you 50% of the profits.BladeRunner wrote:
Burning children with phosphor, bombing civillians, stealing oil, sanctioning those you don't agree with so they will starve till they bend to your will or die.WiteknighT wrote:
If the USA fought with the same morality (evil/underhanded) that the enemy fights with then we would have MUCH more grusome clips to show than this!........we would LEVEL entire nations! (instead of building highways, hospitals, schools, ect.)
Yea man..moral.
Last edited by Berserk_Vampire (2006-02-01 00:57:31)
Nah you must never give up the fight towards American Bastardization, Mcdonalds and all other nonhuman evil activities.Greenie_Beazinie wrote:
Tired of fighting it... i should start visiting Aussie bf2 forums...
But you can send some Aussie girls to this forum it might clear up some of the Bastardization.
Now I know I've got no military service under my belt at all, and thus my opinion might not carry the same weight as someone who does, but wouldn't you call a sniper "good" based on whether or not he achieved his objective, rather than saying "hes good because he kills more" or "hes good because he wounds more"? Surely theres a place for both wounding and killing?
well, as people here have said, and as far as I can remember from my military training back in the 90's, it is generally a better tactic to shoot to wound your enemy, because it will take up more resourcs from the enemy. if you kill one enemy, he is dead, that's it. If you wound him, they will have to deploy a medic to take care of him, send in transport and also have a couple of guys cover while the medic does his work. They will also have to spend a considerable amount of money treating the guy in a hospital.
I guess you can measure the quality of a sniper simply by his hits/shots ratio. If you hit your target with the first shot at the desired spot, you are good. Of course, there are other factors to be taken into consideration, such as stealth, distance to target, and the ability to escape after the shot without being caught.
I guess you can measure the quality of a sniper simply by his hits/shots ratio. If you hit your target with the first shot at the desired spot, you are good. Of course, there are other factors to be taken into consideration, such as stealth, distance to target, and the ability to escape after the shot without being caught.
There is no levity in that post. You are a racist, and I take it 100% seriously.Berserk_Vampire wrote:
You guys must be dumber then i thought if you take me 100% serious all the time most of the time i'm not being serious or as mean/hateful as you think im really a nice guy.whittsend wrote:
This from http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=11037&p=1Berserk_Vampire wrote:
What do i have against chinks?
1. Canada my country its called CANADA not China so many of the damn fucking disease infested fucks running around tons of them they breed like rabbits chinese writing all over the place think they own the place.
2. So many of them hard to get jobs.
3. Spreading diseases not to mention they are dirty and very disgusting and ugly.
Others may have forgotten that you are a racist, but I haven't.
I love all of you just put the cheese burger down and will be friends.
That doesn't apply to snipers. The primary purpose of a sniper is to destroy morale. A sniper who isn't consistently accurate, and only wounds, will elicit scorn from professional soldiers ("Damn, good thing he sucks!")B.Schuss wrote:
...as far as I can remember from my military training back in the 90's, it is generally a better tactic to shoot to wound your enemy, because it will take up more resourcs from the enemy.
See my earlier posts on the subject. But what do I know...I only have 12 years in the Army, and counting.
Zaitsev was blinded by a land mine?! lol... Somehow at the end of all this brave 1 aim 1 shot 1 kill thing thas quite "another" ending...
BTW: Why should his assistent have cried out as if he got shot when a shot in the helmet would be a headshot --> no sound anymore xD
Strange... But cool story
BTW: Why should his assistent have cried out as if he got shot when a shot in the helmet would be a headshot --> no sound anymore xD
Strange... But cool story
I just watch the first 20 seconds and it looks like bs to me plus its too early for me to get pissed off.First off it's obviuosly edited, second they have alot of enemy snipers to deal with over there and some of them get lucky sometimes,fact...enemy snipers are hunteddown and dealt with accordingly.American snipers are as deadly as if not deadlier then their counterparts.my 2 cents
I dont really care about this video, since i am no american, i don't have any problems watching yanks getting shot.
Then you're fucked.
you know what? as disturbing as that is, i reckon if iraq invaded aus then strolled around like they owned the place id prob take pot shots at them too.
You're wrong. Snipers are taught to kill, not wound.BladeRunner wrote:
Not true. If I kill a soldier, the enemy army is down 1 man. If I wound him, It takes at least 1 other to carry him...then the surgeons, money, resources etc.
It's more of a drain on your enemy to wound than kill....the only time this isn't true is when you can completely destroy your enemy...but that ain't gonna happen.
Not for a sniper. A wounding shot is completely detrimental to a sniper's goal.Pubic wrote:
Now I know I've got no military service under my belt at all, and thus my opinion might not carry the same weight as someone who does, but wouldn't you call a sniper "good" based on whether or not he achieved his objective, rather than saying "hes good because he kills more" or "hes good because he wounds more"? Surely theres a place for both wounding and killing?
Those of you that keep trying to claim that wounding is better than killing are either not understanding the role of a sniper or are just using their Battlefield 2 experience to form an opinion. Snipers do not go into battle with the troops and fire off a couple dozen rounds while the enemy is charging. They remain hidden, their primary role is to scout - hence the reason the Marine Corps, which produces the best overall sniper material the world has ever seen, calls them Scout/Snipers. In a secondary role they are tasked with eliminating crucial targets such as commanding officers, communications officers, and equipment if possible. The highest ranking officers are almost always the primary targets because a dead lieutenant disrupts the chain of command. A shot coming out of nowhere and killing your boss is going to freak you out regardless of how much of a badass you think you are. A shot that simply wounds him is only going to piss everyone off.
There is a reason that the motto of the American sniper is "ONE SHOT, ONE KILL, NO REMORSE, I DECIDE".