So--non-lead ammunition (no mushrooming)---and you can immediately go from underwater to shooting to back unto the surfline. Sure, I can see an applicability to this, if somewhat limited. Special Ops.

In 1934 the Thompson submachine gun was banned partly because of it's image and connection to Gansters and gangster lifestyle.
In the same way the AR-15 has an image and connection to a different lifestyle: that of the special ops badass chuck norris/arnold/navy seal killing machine. then they join a militia, all sporting these military weapons. there's a fuckin LOOK to it. a feel, a code, an expectation there. It's socialized into us.

That image is big fuckin factor in just how attractive that particular weapon is to a delusional teenager.

Your first line defense is a decent sniper rifle, ask any special ops or marine....er, same creature.

I'm not a gun nut and don't think schools need rifles on hand... but these people have no idea what they are talking about:

"High Caliber"? Nope, it's only .223

Used by "US special ops"? No, why would they limit themselves to semi-auto?

Designed for "targeted shooting"? What other kind of shooting do you do with a rifle?

>> ^hpqp:

Silly humans, trying to undermine their feline overlords' authority with poorly placed furniture. But who shall have the last laugh, hmmmm?


Who indeed! =oD

>> ^ghark:

>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^NetRunner:
@bcglorf that is the state of play at present. The thing is, terrorists in Pakistan or Yemmen can't hurt us until they come here, unless we go there.
It seems like things like "Homeland Security" should be able to handle that, and should be able to do well enough within the traditional legal framework of jurisprudence.
And to toss out a touch of radicalism, if they can't, then they can't, and if some attacks get through, well, no one said freedom would be easy.
Now I'm not ruling out the possibility of ever taking the fight to the terrorists, but it seems like we should completely change the whole way we look at this. We don't want a declaration of war on terrorists, that gives the U.S. President all this crazy unilateral power.
I think if we'd have viewed this as some sort of International-scale law enforcement matter, we'd have been in much better shape. And yes, we'd probably still give ourselves the right to come in with special ops and "arrest" people inside sovereign countries on our say so, but it at least should be something that comes after evidence is presented to a judge who's issuing a warrant...
And that approach would've made it clear that toppling the governments of countries and rebuilding them is completely beyond the scope of what's warranted to deal with terrorist threats.

The real trouble was the terrorists in Pakistan and Afghanistan. The terrorists in Afghanistan were able to hurt us here, and many of our interests and allies abroad as well. The formal government of Afghanistan when asked to choose sides with or against these terrorists chose to back them. Outright war with them in that context doesn't seem particularly absurd, nor even aggressive. The argument for reactive self-defense is rather strong.
You may not recall because our media avoided covering or discussing it much then and since, but Pakistan's formal government was right on the fence as well which way they would side. They still have well represented parties within Pakistan more enraged over Bin Laden's death than Benazir Bhutto's, and it's not the method or origin that offends them, but the nature of those dead. Bhutto was a moderate muslim women who was a former Pakistani PM and front runner in the upcoming elections. Bin Laden however, was to some well represented political parties a muslim hero and political ally rather than opponent. Showing that America had the will to play it's hand very strongly against the militants and terrorists hiding in Pakistan's tribal areas bordering Afghanistan I deem necessary to having encouraged Musharraf and the military leadership to at least pay lip service to siding as they have. Even now though, that may not have been enough. The militants are killing so many of our moderate Pakistani allies that there is a lot of momentum to accept a truce out of fear with them and who cares if America is still nominally at war with these militants.

And what is the root of this terrorism?


IMHO, human nature. The same human nature that led a bunch of majority privileged whites in America to form groups like the KKK. The same human nature that sees common hatred unifying groups of people throughout history, and often the it starts from greed or envy. I certainly wouldn't posit that the formation of things like the Westboro Baptists as being the result of their members being unfairly treated or wronged in the past, but rather their own vices and faults.

>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^NetRunner:
@bcglorf that is the state of play at present. The thing is, terrorists in Pakistan or Yemmen can't hurt us until they come here, unless we go there.
It seems like things like "Homeland Security" should be able to handle that, and should be able to do well enough within the traditional legal framework of jurisprudence.
And to toss out a touch of radicalism, if they can't, then they can't, and if some attacks get through, well, no one said freedom would be easy.
Now I'm not ruling out the possibility of ever taking the fight to the terrorists, but it seems like we should completely change the whole way we look at this. We don't want a declaration of war on terrorists, that gives the U.S. President all this crazy unilateral power.
I think if we'd have viewed this as some sort of International-scale law enforcement matter, we'd have been in much better shape. And yes, we'd probably still give ourselves the right to come in with special ops and "arrest" people inside sovereign countries on our say so, but it at least should be something that comes after evidence is presented to a judge who's issuing a warrant...
And that approach would've made it clear that toppling the governments of countries and rebuilding them is completely beyond the scope of what's warranted to deal with terrorist threats.

The real trouble was the terrorists in Pakistan and Afghanistan. The terrorists in Afghanistan were able to hurt us here, and many of our interests and allies abroad as well. The formal government of Afghanistan when asked to choose sides with or against these terrorists chose to back them. Outright war with them in that context doesn't seem particularly absurd, nor even aggressive. The argument for reactive self-defense is rather strong.
You may not recall because our media avoided covering or discussing it much then and since, but Pakistan's formal government was right on the fence as well which way they would side. They still have well represented parties within Pakistan more enraged over Bin Laden's death than Benazir Bhutto's, and it's not the method or origin that offends them, but the nature of those dead. Bhutto was a moderate muslim women who was a former Pakistani PM and front runner in the upcoming elections. Bin Laden however, was to some well represented political parties a muslim hero and political ally rather than opponent. Showing that America had the will to play it's hand very strongly against the militants and terrorists hiding in Pakistan's tribal areas bordering Afghanistan I deem necessary to having encouraged Musharraf and the military leadership to at least pay lip service to siding as they have. Even now though, that may not have been enough. The militants are killing so many of our moderate Pakistani allies that there is a lot of momentum to accept a truce out of fear with them and who cares if America is still nominally at war with these militants.


And what is the root of this terrorism?

>> ^NetRunner:

@bcglorf that is the state of play at present. The thing is, terrorists in Pakistan or Yemmen can't hurt us until they come here, unless we go there.
It seems like things like "Homeland Security" should be able to handle that, and should be able to do well enough within the traditional legal framework of jurisprudence.
And to toss out a touch of radicalism, if they can't, then they can't, and if some attacks get through, well, no one said freedom would be easy.
Now I'm not ruling out the possibility of ever taking the fight to the terrorists, but it seems like we should completely change the whole way we look at this. We don't want a declaration of war on terrorists, that gives the U.S. President all this crazy unilateral power.
I think if we'd have viewed this as some sort of International-scale law enforcement matter, we'd have been in much better shape. And yes, we'd probably still give ourselves the right to come in with special ops and "arrest" people inside sovereign countries on our say so, but it at least should be something that comes after evidence is presented to a judge who's issuing a warrant...
And that approach would've made it clear that toppling the governments of countries and rebuilding them is completely beyond the scope of what's warranted to deal with terrorist threats.


The real trouble was the terrorists in Pakistan and Afghanistan. The terrorists in Afghanistan were able to hurt us here, and many of our interests and allies abroad as well. The formal government of Afghanistan when asked to choose sides with or against these terrorists chose to back them. Outright war with them in that context doesn't seem particularly absurd, nor even aggressive. The argument for reactive self-defense is rather strong.

You may not recall because our media avoided covering or discussing it much then and since, but Pakistan's formal government was right on the fence as well which way they would side. They still have well represented parties within Pakistan more enraged over Bin Laden's death than Benazir Bhutto's, and it's not the method or origin that offends them, but the nature of those dead. Bhutto was a moderate muslim women who was a former Pakistani PM and front runner in the upcoming elections. Bin Laden however, was to some well represented political parties a muslim hero and political ally rather than opponent. Showing that America had the will to play it's hand very strongly against the militants and terrorists hiding in Pakistan's tribal areas bordering Afghanistan I deem necessary to having encouraged Musharraf and the military leadership to at least pay lip service to siding as they have. Even now though, that may not have been enough. The militants are killing so many of our moderate Pakistani allies that there is a lot of momentum to accept a truce out of fear with them and who cares if America is still nominally at war with these militants.

@bcglorf that is the state of play at present. The thing is, terrorists in Pakistan or Yemmen can't hurt us until they come here, unless we go there.

It seems like things like "Homeland Security" should be able to handle that, and should be able to do well enough within the traditional legal framework of jurisprudence.

And to toss out a touch of radicalism, if they can't, then they can't, and if some attacks get through, well, no one said freedom would be easy.

Now I'm not ruling out the possibility of ever taking the fight to the terrorists, but it seems like we should completely change the whole way we look at this. We don't want a declaration of war on terrorists, that gives the U.S. President all this crazy unilateral power.

I think if we'd have viewed this as some sort of International-scale law enforcement matter, we'd have been in much better shape. And yes, we'd probably still give ourselves the right to come in with special ops and "arrest" people inside sovereign countries on our say so, but it at least should be something that comes after evidence is presented to a judge who's issuing a warrant...

And that approach would've made it clear that toppling the governments of countries and rebuilding them is completely beyond the scope of what's warranted to deal with terrorist threats.

>> ^blankfist:

@NetRunner, glad you think a right to a fair trial is conditional. This is the inherent evil of war, in my opinion. It strips away the need for rights as men and women are given carte blanche to kill without trial.


I'm a realist. In my ideal fantasy world, I'd prefer Osama bin Laden be tried, but we don't live in my ideal fantasy world.

I agree that this is the inherent evil of war, that it strips away the rights of people and we just engage in murder on a massive scale.

I'd have preferred we'd stuck with just this kind of special ops hit, and not done the gigantic wars with Afghanistan and Iraq to supposedly fight Al Qaeda.

For me, it's not a shame we killed Osama bin Laden, it's all the thousands and thousands of people who weren't him that we killed, supposedly to thwart bin Laden's plans.

>> ^mxxcon:

did he throw something into the bus and it exploded or did he try to break a window and something detonated inside?
announcer toward the end says "exercise to free hostages ended successfully. hostages have been freed and assailants have been apprehended."
even bigger WTF, if they had hostages in that bus did special-ops blow it up?!


They did manage to get people out of the bus and they were still alive. I think it's just an extreme flashbang, very dangerous, mostly non lethal.

did he throw something into the bus and it exploded or did he try to break a window and something detonated inside?

announcer toward the end says "exercise to free hostages ended successfully. hostages have been freed and assailants have been apprehended."

even bigger WTF, if they had hostages in that bus did special-ops blow it up?!

>> ^timtoner:

I'm pretty sure that this is viral for S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Shadows of Chernobyl.


agreed

>> ^Djevel:
>> ^cybrbeast:
. EOD are not snipers!

From what I understand, EOD personnel are trained in the use of the Barret for long range explosive detonation.

I guess you're right

http://www.americanspecialops.com/special-ops-weapons/barrett-sniper-rifle.php
However I doubt they would have the skill and endurance of real snipers. And it's still ridiculous that the British special ops were taken out like pansies and couldn't even repair their own tire.

I really did not like this movie. I just couldn't suspend my disbelief. I'm not an army guy but this movie was clearly ridiculous.

*spoilers*
First, them casually walking up to the bombs, they have those robots for a reason. But this is far from the worst.
They meet a special forces team and come under attack from an enemy sniper, presumably using a low tech sniper gun. The special ops fire back with a Barret 50 cal and miss. Then the special ops guy is killed by the enemy sniper. Now the guy from the EOD takes over the sniper rifle and sits in exactly the same place. He can't fire because there's blood on his bullets so he casually waits there (in the sight of the enemy sniper) till the bullets are cleaned. He misses a few shots and then finally gets the sniper. Then suddenly his skills increase tenfold because he hits a running Iraqi in one shot. EOD are not snipers!
Then there is the part in the city to a bomb site, and then run into a random city block looking for the bombers. And then they split up. WTF?
I'm sure there was more crap that I can't think of at the moment.

The movie tries to convey this gritty realism but then fails big time. I really can't understand all the praise it gets.