jawa.mee.nu

December 03, 2005

(Images/Video) Terrorist Videos Reveal Weakness and Lies of Insurgency

UPDATE: The video has been debunked and is NOT the Fallujah attack but some other attack. See this post.

The Islamic Army in Iraq has released a video of an IED attack against Marines in Fallujah. The attack killed 10 Marines. Images from the video are posted below. They are not graphic, but may be disturbing.

Al Qaeda in Iraq has also released a video of its Ramadi offensive. Images posteed below and right. For links to video, please e-mail author.

The video shows a Marine patrol and a Hummer rolling down an alley or a narrow road, on which civilians are present. The Hummer passes the Marines as it approaches the terrorist's position. The IED explosion is large and does damage to the Humvee, but the driver inside appears to be able to continue to drive the vehicle. Civilians can be seen panicking and fleeing. The video then becomes shaky as the terrorist flees the scene.

The video reveals why the IED attack was so devestating. Presumably, like most incidents of this nature, the IED was planted with the expectation that it would be exploded as a vehicle or convey passed. The terrorists, it would seem, just got 'lucky' in that on this particular day a foot patrol decided to walk down the wrong alley.

Despite media reports of 'mounting casualties', attacks are down in Iraq. The IED attack reveals that the so-called insurgents cannot mount even an effective attack against U.S. positions.

Yesterday, propagandists for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's al Qaeda in Iraq posted a message claiming they had taken 'control of Ramadi'. This despite the fact that the terrorists were only able to fire a single mortar shell at a U.S. position and less than 300 U.S. troops and 200 Iraqis were used in the counteroffensive. The counteroffensive turned out to be nothing more than the troops entering Ramadi unnoposed and turned into a routine search and sweep operation.

The only evidence that al Qaeda offered that they 'controlled' Ramadi was a short video by their IMC media arm showing a group of masked young men in cheap warm-up pants and tee shirts slowly going down a narrow alley. There are no more than seven or eight terrorists in the group. That's right, 7-8 terrorists with AK-47's and a single RPG! An image from that video is posted above and a few more are posted below.

Oddly enough, the IMC (Islamic Media Center) cameraman hides from the terrorists while he takes the video. The IMC has recently pledge its loyalty to Osama bin Laden and urged others to do the same. It appears that even the jihadi supporters are afraid of the brave and noble mujahidin!

So, if the 'insurgency' cannot hold any territory, is not very popular in the eyes of even Sunnis these days, and must resort to remotely detonated bombs and hostage taking, in what lies their hope of victory?

The media and spineless politicians in Washington D.C.

The spinmeisters at al Jazeera, Jihad Unspun, and Uruknet report the communique as fact and then, trying to turn this into some grand irony, announce that the Ramadi 'victory' comes only days after Bush announced his strategy for victory. As if a single IED and a handful of sweat-pants clad 'insurgents' are a threat to U.S. victory in Iraq!

It would all be very laughable if the U.S. media wasn't so busy hand-wringing and having LSD induced flashbacks of Vietnam. The media spin then leads the American public to think that this insurgency poses an actual threat and that somehow we cannot win in Iraq. All of this is not helped by the extreme Left wing of the Democratic party which is all to eager to see America lose in Iraq.

Folks, the only threat to our long-term victory in Iraq comes not form the terrorists, but from spineless politicians in the U.S.

Images below. more...

Posted by: Rusty at 02:40 PM | Comments (43) | Add Comment
Post contains 663 words, total size 6 kb.

1 Yet more evidence that these bastards must be high as kites to think as they do... too bad a lot of US politicos must have raided their stash of 'shrooms, as you said.

But come on, Rusty, you give these guys a hard time. Have you ever worn Addidas warm-up pants? Those things are so comfortable! How could one ever go pack to a crap-soaked one-piece after those pants? I think it is simply more evidence of the CIA corrupting the noble Holy Warriors.

Posted by: Wine-aholic at December 03, 2005 04:11 PM (sH4J5)

2 "Despite media reports of 'mounting casualties', attacks are down in Iraq."

Oct was the 4th deadliest month. I haven't yet found a site with monthly attack numbers.

The analysis of the pant leg and bicycle is wrong on the image. That's the left pant leg that's rolled up. A bicycle chain is on the right side.

Posted by: actus at December 03, 2005 04:15 PM (dFCoa)

3 actus:
despite all your wishing, they won't win!

Posted by: dave at December 03, 2005 04:29 PM (CcXvt)

4 This seems to have casualties reported by month. I am surprised you had not found it...

As a larger question, are we mixing terms here? Are we taking "number of deaths" or "number of attacks" as the metric? The two are certainly different.

Posted by: Wine-aholic at December 03, 2005 04:43 PM (sH4J5)

5 "This seems to have casualties reported by month. I am surprised you had not found it...

As a larger question, are we mixing terms here? Are we taking "number of deaths" or "number of attacks" as the metric? The two are certainly different."

I know about icasualties.org. Its a site about # of attacks that I don't know of, not # of dead.

Posted by: actus at December 03, 2005 04:50 PM (dFCoa)

6 this will convince the Liberals that jihadis have reconquered Iraq, because that's exactly what they need to believe. What else are they going to run on in '08.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at December 03, 2005 06:04 PM (8e/V4)

7 Agent Jones reports that the VC used bicycles to travel quietly in Vietnam in order not to attract attention.

Agent Brown realized that bicycles were used by the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka for transporting explosives and suicide bombers.

Agent Smith knows that the Seattle Police Department also uses bicycles to stealthily approach and subdue suspects.

Posted by: Agent Smith at December 03, 2005 06:08 PM (VDGim)

8 Is actus right about the bicycle pants leg? If so I told this guy is sharp!

maybe its like an islamic hip hop gang thing - kinda like their colors. They don't seem to have any basebal caps to wear sideways so I guess their are making due with cheap hotel towels.

How would rap actually sound in arabic? Anybody wanna give it a shot?

Posted by: hondo at December 03, 2005 06:16 PM (3aakz)

9 Dirka-dirka, my bitch is in Burka,
like Mohammed did Jihad,
I rock the Baghdad,
the soldiers, they don't see me,
rollin' in my VBIED,
under tha' seat, the RDX blew,
my virgins bitches, they number seventy-two,
Alah Ackbarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!

short notice, what can I say ;/

Posted by: dave at December 03, 2005 06:31 PM (CcXvt)

10 Agent Brown has discovered that, historically, when a strong army fights fragmented and weak enemies, the strong army becomes weakened and the weak enemies are strenghtened. The ragtag, bicycle riding enemies are a most dangerous signal.

Posted by: Agent Smith at December 03, 2005 07:30 PM (VDGim)

11 I think we discussed this the other day, not only is this insurgency no different than any other insurgency, counter-insurgency methods are already undermining both the terrorists, and insurgents alike.

The average insurgency lasts nine years, I would say we're well ahead of schedule, would you not?

Posted by: dave at December 03, 2005 07:44 PM (CcXvt)

12 a reoccuring post to follow ...

Agent Smith

Mort Sahl was a satirist and an ultra-liberal and was quite funny and good at it.

Al Franken is a satirist and an ultra-liberal and not funny at all - he's actually quite bad at it.

You wish to be a satirist (as opposed to a comedian - there is a difference) - and follow in the footsteps of lil' Al.

Well - those are tiny shoes to fill, and you are doing an adequate job of it.

Posted by: hondo at December 03, 2005 08:08 PM (3aakz)

13 Agent Smith says that Hondo still needs training wheels on his bicycle.

Posted by: Agent Smith at December 03, 2005 08:21 PM (VDGim)

14 Of course, the left may tend to argue that the bicycle clip proves the "insurgents" are also eco-warriors who eschew mechanised transport.

On the other hand, don't forget that the principle means of transport of NVA and VC was the bicycle, used to shift many thousands of tonnes of supplies along the Ho Chi Minh Trail.

Historically, all "insurgencies" tend to die after an average of six years of determined suppression. E.g, the Boer rebellion, Malaya and Aden. Viet Nam was an exception, yet it remains perversely touted as some kind of paradigm. The question remains one of having the determination to persist.

Posted by: booyakka at December 03, 2005 08:37 PM (n66qx)

15 Can I just say something about our media? The other day I heard an interview of a reporter in Iraq. He commented on the very videos and pictures shown here and also commented about how the Pentagon issues its press reports.

What amazed me was this MSM reporter took the insurgent's videos and images completely at face-value while commenting on the "spin" the U.S. military uses to issue reports.

When are these media people going to wake up and realize that they're being completely and utterly manipulated by a terrorist insurgency?

Posted by: J at December 03, 2005 09:32 PM (/P1rH)

16 Agent Smith researched the 2007 war with Iran and how it played out. Once Iran controlled Sistani-land in the south of Iraq, the retreating Americans were harassed all the way back to Kuwait. It was a bad scene, for which President Bush was finally impeached in the latter half of 2008.

Posted by: Agent Smith at December 03, 2005 09:37 PM (VDGim)

17 >>>"The question remains one of having the determination to persist."

The Left's only determination is to see the mission fail. They believe failure in Iraq is the only way to regain their political power. Loyalty to party supercedes loyalty to country. They are traitors.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at December 03, 2005 10:34 PM (8e/V4)

18 Agent Brown opines on the statement, "Loyalty to party supercedes loyalty to country." Loyalty is a concept that is prevalent in all human societies. Like you, in our quest to secure the core network against all threats, all Agents are fiercely loyal to the Architect and follow every one of his orders, however ridiculous.

Posted by: Agent Smith at December 03, 2005 10:49 PM (VDGim)

19 why not save the next post, and have a wank instead.

Posted by: dave at December 04, 2005 12:09 AM (CcXvt)

20 I think Hondo hit the nail on the head. Rappist terrorists.

Posted by: greyrooster at December 04, 2005 07:05 AM (gvOyZ)

21 Iraq use to be one of the most wealthiest financially,and the most Educated people on the planet.But When Sadam Hussein rfused to Jump and rollever" anymore.Embargos, enforced restrictions, secret bombings, crippling Iraqs infrastructures by Americans and its partners the true axis of evil" bought Iraq to the pathetic state its in now.They might have bent them. But the spirit will never be broken. Good on ya freedom fighters kill, maim, murder as many yank, brit and coalition assoles as possible send them back to mom and pops or is it mummy and daddy in bodybags .I,m a kiwi born and bred but even in this bubble i can see scumbag arrogant assoles cornfed on lies by the biggest terrorists Bush,Blair and rest of the Coalition lapdogs you morons emailing in wouldnt have the guts to die for any cause whatsoever.Fighting for Iraqi peoples freedom?You scumbag soldiers,security personel are murdering them and that is the reason you will never win if the people aren,t on side then more freedom fighters you will produce, this invasion proves the stupidity of coalition soldiers fighting for a war based on lies but like the emperor's new clothes" we will pretend we dont see it but I,m hoping like heck Your father's ,mother's sister's, brothers's will see it when your pinebox coffins come rolling off the planes.By the way that kiwi idiot student who happened to be taken hostage along with other do-gooders these vultures just like all the rest are by-products of this illegal invasion please cut his godamn throat and all the others, make it slow and from ear to ear just like that American jerkoff make sure you have it on the net.Good luck insurgent freedom fighters, the road will be very hard and very long but the more American,British, Coalition and do-gooders bodies sent home in bits an pieces maybe will show the world tha this lie of a invasion must come to an end.

Posted by: freedom at December 04, 2005 05:53 PM (cQE8Q)

22 You are not a Kiwi arab dog because you can't even write properly and NZ is an English speaking country. You are just another islamic bastard living it up in the west because your own country is so shitty. How many state benefits have you and your parasitic clan bludged while decrying the efforts of the western world?

Posted by: Jester at December 04, 2005 06:12 PM (wBDaS)

23 freedom?

What's ya point?

Posted by: hondo at December 04, 2005 06:22 PM (3aakz)

24 Oh poor jester you got my ethnicity wrong.You also have my employment status wrong.Forgive my my English its not quite up to scratch but when i see innocent civilians, Being fired indiscriminately at.I ask myself as I shake with outrage I'd better get my comments grammatically correct because.Jester the Professor in English my find this more shocking than gutless men mowing down innocent people.eres
My ethnicity is Samoan but I would love to meet you so you can walk the talk big man.Jester your obviously a white gutless how did you put it DOG!!

Posted by: freedom at December 04, 2005 06:41 PM (cQE8Q)

25 Samoans would have their head sawn off by Zaqueery too, most are Christian. You'll have to travel a long way to meet me but I'm not gutless having already fought for my country. It's a shame you are Samoan as I have a few Samoan friends from my years in the South Pacific. Siding with the muslims shows you are ill-informed...Talofa dude.

Posted by: Jester at December 04, 2005 07:42 PM (wBDaS)

26 Fought for your country?What and that makes you courageous.Like your soldiers are fighting for their country now?You call Having the largest nuclear arsenal,the most sophisticated weaponry built.Spending trillions on reseach to produce even more futuristic weaponry to kill,maim your fellow man, you call that fighting.You might as well be fighting against people who are using sticks and stones!!an example When you Killed Sadams son's obviously they were such a threat anti tank rockets had to be repeatedly fired into that house.That's your idea of fighting? That's why unlike you these,insurgents I call them freedom fighters have had to resort to suicide bombings now there's real balls, that's real courage.Thats something, us living the West will never understand.I suggest you do a bit reading you sound like an older person.BUT surely you can understand when you try to impose your will another persons country.That's like backing people into a corner. Mate! wake up! They're fighting you back with weapons made in the West! Some even made in the good 'ol USA. Have you found Sadams secret stash of WMD?no
Is their a link between 9/11 and Iraq?hell no
Are the Iraqi people better off now then they were under Sadam's Regime?bloody hell no the only difference now is, we the almighty West the saviours are murdering them, and you know why mate BECAUSE THEY ALL LOOK THE SAME!! our coalition forces cannot or will not tell the difference between friend or foe so with our own safety in mind kill anything that moves. The Iraqi's have gone from a stable dictatorship under Sadam to this godforsaken Bloodbath.
So what was this War all about? Control of their resources?Hell yeah If anybody thought that the deaths of hundreds of thousands on whoever's side just to get rid of Sadam, the reason, grow up.If even a quarter of the trillions spent instead of trying to come up with new ways of snuffing out human beings was spent on researching for alternative energy sources.Then the USA truly would be the beacon of democracy, instead of the overfed bully.Then we wouln't be online like bloody kids, throwing insults an our two cents.

Posted by: freedom at December 04, 2005 09:05 PM (cQE8Q)

27 If freaking bloody jihadists were not trying to take over the World, mr. freedom, we wouldn't have to be over there kicking their asses. The last time I checked the jihadists were taking heavy casualties while ours were light. My God, mr. freedom, 30,000 men were lost trying to protect your sorry ass from the Japanese. Shit, and you call yourself freedom. You need to sober up, you DA.

Posted by: jihadibane at December 04, 2005 09:29 PM (rUyw4)

28 Maybe you need a history lesson your buddie's in the true axis of evil.The Brits found the remains of two japanese one man mini submersibles.It was on BBC. Check it out.Your Navy in Pearl Harbour dropped depth charges on them, they were outside the no spy zone.I mean you rant an moan when your caught spying.Killing of two men OUTSIDE the restricted area was an act of War. That's Why the Japs bombed Your Navy.BUT YOU HAVE A SELECTIVE MEMORY.Growing up I got the fed the usual history lessons,movies books (propaganda) the dastardly yellow peril were to blame.Surprise, Surprise Hey this might even surprise you.The Japs didn't attack you for no bloody apparent reason you attacked them first.But of course your'e always innocent your'e always right as long as you fool the public with half truths ,lies and try to rewrite history.By the way,the way China's going mate you and I are going to have to start learning to speak mandarin or whatever it would have been so much easier if I knew how to speak Japanese.

Posted by: freedom at December 04, 2005 10:15 PM (O2l+4)

29 ...from a stable dictatorship to a godforsaken bloodbath.??????

Actually it was a pretty intense bloodbath prior - simply kept off camera - dictatorships are kinda funny like that.

Now you get to see all the blood courtesy freedom of the press from the media - a democracy is kinda funny like that.

Can't miss the carnage - what with all those car bombings, suicide bombers, beheadings and such. The target of course is the Iraqi people themselves - men, women and children - the oddest thing is that the ones doing this are loyal supporters of Saddam and islamic fundamentalists. Unless of course you believe its American GIs driving the car bombs and strapping explosives to themselves.

Whatever - so when a suicide car bomber kills dozens or a hundred Iraqi civilians do you applaud?

I got to stop - I recognize simple-minded anti-Americanism - not worth pursuing - doubt you could find Iraq on the map or give a damn about them one way or the other.

So, how's the weather down there - coconut crop going to be good this year?

Posted by: hondo at December 04, 2005 10:34 PM (3aakz)

30 oh please Hondo,anti Americanism If I have a different view .I,ll admit somewhat skewed but my own view isn't that freedom.But, would you know what that is? or is it you need other people to think for you.What's that your lying president said 45min is the time it would take for strike against you.Funny hondo the emperor's wearing invisible clothes but just as long as you pretend to see them.Now that's simple minded.What makes it worse is ignorance is no excuse. You do know this is exactly what,s going on in Palestine, funny how it is, another illegal occupation, suicide bombings.You hondo don't get it.Why are there more civilian casualties then actual combatants?oh me oh my what's that quaint word bandied about Collateral damage.If this is freeing people mate.To you and all your ilk they're all terrorist's' towel heads you could'nt give a rat's.They're opposing the mighty USA so like fleas squashed.Ends justify the means? .Right now I,m watching the 6.00 news.The leading story is your CIA and/or other organizations flying prisoners to other countries just to torture them.Out of sight out of mind.That must sit quite well with you because the impression you give' in your comments is that you care so very deeply for the Iraqi people.Even if you have absolutely no proof of guilt but they must all be tortured just for good measure.By the way I can't find to many coconut trees in New Zealand you would have to be simple to think so .Or do I need to take one of your special sight-seeing flights to re-adjust my view because if I'm not with you I must be against you?

Posted by: freedom at December 04, 2005 11:23 PM (O2l+4)

31 I meant in Samoa - you do keep in touch with the boys back home now, don't you? So how's the coconuts?

Must be tough being a stranger in a no so strange land. If anti-Americanism makes you feel better about your place in the world (or lack of) then go for it.

Posted by: hondo at December 04, 2005 11:37 PM (3aakz)

32 hondo don't get excited. I thought we were all entitled to our views but you seem to be quite preoccupied with how coconut crops are growing in Samoa.Dude if you like coconuts so much There,s American Samoa another one of your victories".You could perhaps holiday there one day.Come over to the the Western side.Meet the boys y'know experience the culture, live a little.I've been there on holiday sun, sand, surf, no towelheads to get your blood pressure up you would love it mate. I know living downunder in a backwater, slow-as country like New Zealand wer'e not quite up to your speed with your lot.I mean heres silly ol me thinking I have a right to an opinion.I should tow the line and think exactly whatever you think I should think.Jeez sort of reminds me of one thing us living the land of the long white cloud. Aotearoa. are famous or .SHEEP!!!!!

Posted by: freedom at December 05, 2005 12:03 AM (O2l+4)

33 Agent Smith and Jones concur that "Freedom" is an Iraqi Operation.

Agent Brown disagrees and says it is a parallellogram full of lies and distortions.

Posted by: Agent Smith at December 05, 2005 05:39 AM (qLtuI)

34 I wouldn't even waste my time on this "freedom" person. He/she is far too bitter and unreasonable.

Posted by: Oyster at December 05, 2005 06:08 AM (YudAC)

35 Talofa Freedom,

I would suggest you stop believing Baathist propaganda. Like most oil-rich countries, Iraq has always been a shithole incapable of spreading wealth.

Posted by: Macktastick Rusty Wicked at December 05, 2005 08:56 AM (JQjhA)

36 freedom,

Go to school, learn some English, read some history, and come back here in a few years and maybe I will know what the hell you are talking about, because dude, you aren't making a bit of sense to me. Might be your broken English, and I don't have a clue where I can learn Samoan.(Is that your language?)

Posted by: jihadibane at December 05, 2005 09:02 AM (rUyw4)

37 The Japanese sub thing is more fictional than any of your claims. Pearl Harbor was not about that, even the most biased Japanese historian would agree. You are a mixed up dude freedom...and the first pro-jihadist Samoan I have ever come across. If you don't think fighting for your nation is admirable then go away...I bet you've never put your ass on the line for anything other than to vent anger from your safe little haven.

Posted by: Jester at December 05, 2005 01:15 PM (wBDaS)

38 Freedom: Stupid name for a banana eating monkey looking piece of shit who doesn't deserve to know the english language. Back in your tree monkey. You're not ready to climb down yet. And get that stupid bone out of your nose.

Posted by: greyrooster at December 05, 2005 06:16 PM (9Dlss)

39 i cant wait for the day, that people wake up and deport all muslim/arab scum from europe/usa.
i honestly wipe my arse on the koran every morning. a couple of pages get your shitty ring just as clean as toilet paper.

boycott the arab owned shops and businesses.

Posted by: london defense force at December 06, 2005 02:59 PM (B4Ge0)

40 LDF...thanks for reminding me, I've just run out of toilet paper, time to visit the mosque for more supplies.

Posted by: Jester at December 06, 2005 03:27 PM (wBDaS)

41 Well, I guess no more from the cannibal calling himself FREEDOM. Backward white hating piece of shit headhunter just out of the trees. Or not quite out of the trees. I can see him now. Bone in nose, sticks in his ears walking through the jungle chewing on a bone that used to be his neighbors arm. Washing it down with raw fish eyes and raw half hatched eggs. Friggin big mouthed animal.

Posted by: greyrooster at December 07, 2005 04:45 AM (OvTKg)

42 Must say, just came across this site, but HAD to comment here. What amazes me most is that both the both the pro-islamist and the pro-american seemed to think that propaganda only emerges from the other side. Truth is, the DOD has a really tight hold on what information gets fed to the civilian news services . The BBC has done a somewhat better job of genuinse newsgathering, but the american press seems content to act like farm swine willing to take whatever scraps are tossed their way, be they liberal, or conservative. The US army's Psych-Op are doing a bang up job of media spinning a sows ear into a silk purse. The loose affiliation of competing iraqui islamic factions, for the most part also try and dedicate time and resources to dissimate disinformation but have fairly crude methods in my estimation. What i've seen seems to be political fanatics with axes to grind posting, instead of any reasoned analysis overall. That said, and despite all the cows manure being flung over the newswire, Iraq has not been a stable reigion for over half a millenia. Iraq, geographically, has several native/ethnic populations whom only stop fighting each other if they share a joint enemy, or dictator in common. The country is a toilet bowl, and personally i will be shocked to see anything more than perhaps a decade worth of secular democracy being compromised by Syrian, Iranian, and insurgency splinters into complete meaninglessness. There is a few hard facts that seem to escape people on all sides of this debate i've seen publically speculate here...
A) Saddamn Hussain, and Osama Bin Laden were both used extensivly and to great effect by US intellegence services who should have scrubbed their running dogs when they decommissioned them. Bush Sr should have ordered the shot back in 91, and established a resonably secure, permanent base at the time. Instead, now TWO generations of Bush's have done nothing but create a situation where the US will be forced to return to and implement so called "band aid" solutions.
B) Too much attention is being given to the pathetic, splintered Iraqui insurgency when clearly the forces funding, equipping, and motivating these factions lie beyond it's borders. Notably Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia.
C) If the west would wean itself off of damned foreign fossil fuels, we could isolate this little crap-hole in Hell and let them busily kill each other until they grew out of political and religious despotism.

Posted by: Entropolis at December 20, 2005 03:45 AM (sS7+z)

43 i have bought myself a mountain and i am going to dig myself a bunker.

the end is near!

Posted by: billy the web designer at March 19, 2006 06:19 PM (jjv4x)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

On Liquid Courage

After reading this story about potential pill-popping by "insurgents," I just had to wonder a few things.

Isn't the call to religious jihad enough to inspire true fanaticism? Is the promise of 72 virgins and/or the Divine Protection of the Almighty not enough to inspire courage in all?

And speaking of courage, I know a thing or two about "liquid courage." Being a part of a people who pride themselves on drink, drink, and more drink, I would expect this sort of pill-popping crap from my brothers. But the "insurgents" are far more noble, being Holy Warriors of God, right? They follow strict rules in order to better themselves and obtain the favor of Allah. If these reports are true, I guess there must be a miscommunication between themselves and their Holy Book (and what would the odds be of that hypocracy ever happening in the Religion of Peace?):

"O you who believe, intoxicants, and gambling, and the altars of idols, and the games of chance are abominations of the devil; you shall avoid them, that you may succeed." Quran 5:90

Now I see! The reason we are kicking their asses is because the "insurgents" have gone astray! If only they avoided being meth-heads, they would succeed. If only they had faith, they could truly stand against American and British tanks and destroy them with fireballs from their eyes and bolts of lightning from their arses.

But since intoxicants are the work of the devil, and the United States is the Great Satan, then it follows that OUR government interjected the drugs into these peaceful societies. First the CIA introduces crack into urban communities and now this. Oh, it has all the markings of a KKKarl Rove operation. You magnificent bastard!

Posted by: wineaholic at 12:24 PM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 294 words, total size 2 kb.

1 The source is the Mirror UK - I wouldn't give them any credibility. Today a story about insurgent drug use - tomarrow American soldiers abusing Iraqi children of something stupid like that. Its all sensationalist filler for a rag. They're just looking to cover all the bases.

Posted by: hondo at December 03, 2005 12:54 PM (3aakz)

2 Actually hondo, it has been known for a while now that the jihadotards are routinely high as a kite when caught or killed. Even arabs aren't generally stupid enough to stand their ground against US forces. Their drug of choice seems to be opiates.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at December 03, 2005 01:09 PM (0yYS2)

3 Yes maxie - I know - opiates allow them the illusion of "medicinal" strength and courage - allows them to rationalise their use within islamic culture.

I just hate our using the Mirror UK as a suppportive source because their crap.

Posted by: hondo at December 03, 2005 01:26 PM (3aakz)

4 Well, even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at December 03, 2005 02:31 PM (0yYS2)

5 Yeah, I always have to wonder about the Mirror's validity, hence why I added the words "potential" and "if true," because I do remember some real whoppers served up in the past. If anything, I just find the idea interesting if only because I reflect on the stories of Mohammad Atta going to strip clubs and getting drunk regularly while in Florida... I guess jihadists can be very utilitarian "ends justify means" sort of people, when it comes to themselves that is. If only snoops.com could get to the bottom of this one.

Posted by: Wine-aholic at December 03, 2005 02:45 PM (sH4J5)

6 As I posted before : 40 years ago one of the surest ways of identifying a FNG or a REMF was by how much respect they gave the enemy. Googling "drug use among insurgents in Iraq" didn't produce much, one item from nov 2004 in the second battle of fallujah where Marines found adrenaline and amphetamines. Under "opiate use in Iraq" many entries but all seem to be from the same source. with the exact same quotes. "fun fact ....." Of course opiates do have many beneficial medicinal qualities. Great for dysentery and helpful against shock .http://www.israellycool.com/blog/_archives/2005/1/17/251080.html http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20051121-093501-9601r.htm When deep in the woods I always take along something strong for pain. It will keep keep you going.

Posted by: john Ryan at December 03, 2005 04:35 PM (ads7K)

7 Agent Brown says that delusional and impaired thinking destroys military effectiveness. When delusional and impaired thinking afflicts the leadership of a massive military effort, the effort is doomed to failure.

Posted by: Agent Smith at December 03, 2005 07:33 PM (VDGim)

8 a reoccuring post to follow ...

Agent Smith

Mort Sahl was a satirist and an ultra-liberal and was quite funny and good at it.

Al Franken is a satirist and an ultra-liberal and not funny at all - he's actually quite bad at it.

You wish to be a satirist (as opposed to a comedian - there is a difference) - and follow in the footsteps of lil' Al.

Well - those are tiny shoes to fill, and you are doing an adequate job of it.

Posted by: hondo at December 03, 2005 08:08 PM (3aakz)

9 Agent Brown believes that Hondo is projecting his desires to wear small shoes.

Posted by: Agent Smith at December 03, 2005 08:22 PM (VDGim)

10 Winey, you're dead on. They've had to wire up their hostages and their suicide bombers with ketamine and meth to make 'em talk or make 'em fight. Sadr is running Afghan heroin and the Sunnis are running Syrian and Lebanese ganja. And Iran blames the US for all that heroin smuggling from Afghanistan while the mullahs probably have the concession to themselves.

Drinking societies are successful societies. Look at the British Empire.

Posted by: See-Dubya at December 03, 2005 11:40 PM (1EyVw)

11 Yeah, and look at Ireland. Oh, wait ...

Posted by: Oyster at December 04, 2005 07:12 AM (YudAC)

12 Go to San Francisco and you will find that the biggest drug dealers and now the muslim dogs. Irony here, that they claim not to use drugs. Maybe they just sell them? Perhaps the stupid koran allows that.

Received a E-mail from some dope head muslim freak who says and an ignorant for not reading the koran. Now, I wonder who is the most ignorant. Those who don't read the koran or those stupid enough to believe in such bullshit.
?
I used to believe muslims were just backward dumbasses. Now I believe muslims are stupid backward dumbasses.

Posted by: greyrooster at December 04, 2005 07:17 AM (gvOyZ)

13 You disappoint me, Mr. Anderson.

Posted by: Agent Smith at December 05, 2005 05:39 AM (qLtuI)

14 So what. You disapointed your parents when you started admiring 8 year old boys.

Posted by: greyrooster at December 05, 2005 06:19 PM (9Dlss)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

November 29, 2005

Suicide Bomber in Iraq was Belgian Woman

A convert to the ROP left France Junior (Belgium) to become a suicide bomber in Iraq. Here's the saddest part: her Muslim husband is said to have talked her into it.

UPI:

A woman who carried out a suicide attack in Iraq two weeks ago was identified Tuesday as the first European female suicide bomber.
The Belgian anti-terrorism unit has confirmed that the woman was a Belgian citizen who converted to Islam after her marriage to a Muslim fundamentalist, news service RTL reported Tuesday.
American military forces identified the woman at a combat scene in Baghdad. She was carrying recently issued Belgian identity papers which revealed she had traveled via Turkey. There are no traces of her radical husband who is believed to have organized her trip.

Europe: breeding ground for radical Islam.

Posted by: Rusty at 04:11 PM | Comments (15) | Add Comment
Post contains 139 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Somehow the phrase "stupid white woman" entered my mind. But on second thought, I remember something my grandad told me a long time ago, when I was a little boy.

He said, and I can almost hear him, "Son, it's like this. When a man(or woman) don't believe in nothing, he'll fall for anything. A man needs something to believe in, something bigger and finer than him, or he will just rot away in his soul".

My grandad was a smart man. And what he said 40 years ago is oh so true today. A godless Europe, with nothing to believe in, is ripe for the picking by the radical Islamists, and I have no doubt most of Europe will fall.

Posted by: jesusland joe at November 29, 2005 04:32 PM (rUyw4)

2 This is why muslim communities amongst us in the west are a concern. One suicide bomber is one too many. The situation in the UK has shown that mosques are a breeding ground for evil.

Posted by: Jester at November 29, 2005 04:34 PM (BypR5)

3 Just another muslim who turned to violence to protest being occupied.

Oh wait... Belgium isn't occupied. My bad.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at November 29, 2005 04:43 PM (8e/V4)

4 Divorce, Sharia-style.

Posted by: CUS at November 29, 2005 04:51 PM (bbXZq)

5 Typical childish stupidity from the village idiot. Hey greg, do you even realize how stupid you are, or are you too stupid to realize it?

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 29, 2005 05:16 PM (0yYS2)

6 Amazing how the Muslim are so into their religion and push it to the ends of the earth, yet we Christians are so willing to let Christ slip out of Christmas.

Posted by: Ernie Oporto at November 29, 2005 05:30 PM (/lpvu)

7 I know I am a little naive about blogging but umm Rusty did you really fart in his face ? Will the spammer be willing to discuss his views on his impression of your diet ? Did spammer feel that any of his emotiomal needs were met by this experience ? Does spammer look forward to repeating this experience either with you or others ? Would spammer be willing to pay money for subsequent experiences. Does spammer belong to a health plan that provides for good mental hygiene?

Posted by: john ryan at November 29, 2005 05:31 PM (ads7K)

8 ". There are no traces of her radical husband who is believed to have organized her trip." No kidding?

-------------------------

I can certainly tell you it has been a pleasure to read responses to greg without actually having to observe his frontal lobe releases. My timing has been perfect. I've yet to see a single comment of his for a while now as they're deleted before I get here. Keep up the good work guys!

Posted by: Oyster at November 29, 2005 06:07 PM (YudAC)

9 Marry a muslim dog. Stupid bitch was probably to ugly to marry into her own race. Good ridance to any european who would stoop low enough to marry a muslim dog.

Posted by: greyrooster at November 29, 2005 06:25 PM (ZaAd/)

10 Y'all have been knocking them out of the park for a while great work, Rusty.

Pierre

Posted by: Pierre Legrand at November 29, 2005 07:33 PM (LyBIv)

11 You're right rooster, and I hope he beat her daily.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 29, 2005 11:28 PM (0yYS2)

12 Agent Jones found no trace of Greg on this thread.

Posted by: Agent Smith at November 30, 2005 06:14 AM (N6ptp)

13 Europeans and Islamic terrorists. You guys can have each other as far as I'm concerned.

Posted by: jonny at December 01, 2005 12:06 AM (nytWC)

14 Just goes to show, it's not an Arab problem, it's a Muslim problem.

Posted by: MegaTroopX at December 21, 2005 05:57 PM (yT/Rw)

15 muslim dogs? where did y'all learn to be so racist- the trailer park? in a perfect world no one would be blowing anybody up nor be hating eachother, thus 'inter-racial' marriage would not be a problem. grow up and stop perpetuating the problem with your racist, ignorant ideas.

Posted by: smith at January 09, 2006 10:06 PM (hfctS)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

November 28, 2005

Al Qaeda Linked Propagandist Captured

Counter-propaganda has always been this blogs main focus. Propaganda is every bit as much a weapon as an IED or an AK-47 and propagandists should be considered combatants and therefore legitimate military targets. Propaganda gives our enemies a reason to fight, recruits new soldiers, and convinces them of the possibility of victory.

It's good to see one more terrorist propagandist has been captured. If the U.S. would take the propaganda war seriously they would close down any and all media outlets which distribute the type of propaganda made by the jihadis. Unfortunately we have seen a lack of resolve by the government in targetting jihadi forums and websites.

From an MNF-Iraq press release (hat tip to Sucram):

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Acting on multiple intelligence sources and tips from concerned citizens, Coalition forces raided a suspected Jaysh al-Mujahideen terrorist safe house in Abu Ghurayb, west of Baghdad, Oct. 23.

Captured during the raid was Ahmad Niâ€™mah Khudayyir Abbas (aka. Abu Shihab), a recently identified Jaysh al-Mujahideen lieutenant who oversaw the propaganda cell and who commanded several mortar and improvised explosive device cells.

Abu Shihab, as the propaganda chief for the Jaysh al-Mujahideen media cell operating in the Baghdad area, initially recorded videos and digitized them to compact disc for distribution to various Jaysh al-Mujahideen and al Qaeda in Iraq terrorist groups. These videos would then be downloaded to various Jihadist web sites as propaganda against Iraqi security and coalition forces.

Additionally, the videos would be used to recruit terrorists and foreign fighters, as well as to provide information on potential targets for other terrorists. As his skills and terrorist connections developed, he began directing and coordinating media operations throughout the Baghdad area for Jaysh al-Mujahideen. more...

Posted by: Rusty at 11:29 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 532 words, total size 4 kb.

The Islamofascist Version Of Women And Children First

I've been gone all week, so I saw little news. I do remember seeing a snippet about a suicide bombing, but didn't read anything about it.

I wish I had.

BAGHDAD, Nov. 24 -- A suicide attacker steered a car packed with explosives toward U.S. soldiers giving away toys to children outside a hospital in central Iraq on Thursday, killing at least 31 people. Almost all of the victims were women and children, police said.

If I end up in Hell, I only hope it's in the same cell as Zarqawi.

CP@VAM

Posted by: Vinnie at 12:36 AM | Comments (16) | Add Comment
Post contains 100 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Michael Moore would be proud.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at November 28, 2005 01:35 AM (8e/V4)

2 It is almost incomprehensible the evil that men do, yet daily the United States is accused of killing civilians without remorse; however the enemy targets even softer targets -- women and children.

Tell us - where is the outrage?

Posted by: dave at November 28, 2005 07:24 AM (CcXvt)

3 Dave,

There is no outrage because the neo-libs are not concerned about the murder of innocents in Iraq, but the death of Americans soldiers. For them, the more soldiers that die, the better. They should be ashamed, and when the soldiers get back, they should be confronted for the traitors they are.

Posted by: jesusland joe at November 28, 2005 09:23 AM (rUyw4)

4 we shouldn't use children as human shields.

Posted by: actus at November 28, 2005 09:42 AM (CqheE)

5 Damn, Actus, after your comments on neo-lib hate last night I thought you couldn't sink any lower. I was wrong.

Posted by: jesusland joe at November 28, 2005 10:01 AM (rUyw4)

6 That's actually kinda sick actus - on an obvious note - you do acknowledge Iraqi children are not an effective shield from the insurgents - they really don't give a damn - do they?

Posted by: hondo at November 28, 2005 10:03 AM (Jvmry)

7 Actus, of course, would loudly proclaim that he "supports the troops". Never mind his accusing them of a war crime.

Posted by: Robert Crawford at November 28, 2005 10:09 AM (1j9aH)

8 I think we should take steps to keep kids away from military targets.

If we are attracting them to military targets, we shouldn't bemoan the fact that the terrorists are killing them.

Posted by: actus at November 28, 2005 11:30 AM (CqheE)

9 Actus,

You're kidding, right.

Posted by: jesusland joe at November 28, 2005 11:48 AM (rUyw4)

10 Rectus you are a slimy, lowlife piece of shit, and I would gut you alive if we could just meet. Your glee at the deaths of these children comes through though you try to hide it, and I hope you burn to death very soon.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 28, 2005 11:49 AM (0yYS2)

11 "If we are attracting them to military sites, we shouldn't bemoan the fact the terrorists are killing them"

I CAN'T BELIEVE YOU JUST SAID THAT! THAT IS SICK AND STUPID!

"shouldn't bemoan"?????????

Posted by: hondo at November 28, 2005 12:04 PM (Jvmry)

12 See, hondo. And you said he was intelligent.

Posted by: Oyster at November 28, 2005 01:48 PM (fl6E1)

13 Oyster,

I hope he(hondo) has now changed his mind.

Posted by: jesusland joe at November 28, 2005 02:19 PM (rUyw4)

14 See, this is what I'm talking about. Liberals have no problem with children getting killed as long as it can be used against the US or Bush. Liberals are subhuman scum.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 28, 2005 03:02 PM (0yYS2)

15 "Your glee at the deaths of these children comes through though you try to hide it, and I hope you burn to death very soon."

Oh no. No glee. I think its awful that these kids are near military targets. I think we should be keeping them away, rather than attracting them.

"See, this is what I'm talking about. Liberals have no problem with children getting killed as long as it can be used against the US or Bush."

Then you're misunderstanding. I do have a problem with it. this shouldn't happen.

Posted by: actus at November 28, 2005 05:32 PM (CqheE)

16 Oh no. No glee. I think its awful that these kids are near military targets. I think we should be keeping them away, rather than attracting them.

Those "targets" happen to be your fellow citizens, employed in the U.S Military.
Evidently according to your statement, you do not have a problem when its just the Soldiers getting killed?

"But, but, I support the troops, I just don't support the War!!"
Liar.

Posted by: dave at November 28, 2005 06:21 PM (CcXvt)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

November 22, 2005

The Face of Our Allies in Iraq: Photo Essay

This is the face of our allies in Iraq that some wish to abandon. No, you won't see any of this from the mainstream press. More photos from Michael Yon from Iraq here.

Posted by: Rusty at 08:49 AM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 42 words, total size 1 kb.

November 21, 2005

Zarqawi Still Alive, The Left Celebrates

The White House is now saying that it is "highly unlikely" that Abu Musab al Zarqawi died in a Mosul raid Saturday. Earlier Jawa post from Traderrob here.

*Sigh*

Not that killing the al Qaeda in Iraq leader--and the man personally responsible for beheading innocent civilians---would really end the Salaafist insurgency in Iraq. It wouldn't. But it would be nice to know he was dead.

Vengeance: natures way of calming the nerves.

Of course over at dKos, when the erroneous news that Zarqawi dead broke, there were immediate signs of dismay. For the hardcore Left, any good news for our troops is bad news for them. They have pinned their political hopes on the defeat of our troops.

Not that they ever would come out and say, "We hope we lose."--Okay, occasionally they do actually let that slip from time to time-- But they do constantly downplay any good news and constantly barrage us with 'cover up' stories when there is even the slightest hint that some civilian in Fallujah might have got his feelings hurt because a U.S. soldier didn't present a search warrant from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upon entering his house in the middle of a firefight.

Hence, the Left is skeptical of any and all progress in Iraq.

So, if we seem to bring you too many "Yipee, Zarqawi is dead" stories, please forgive us. Unlike our friends on the Left, we are anxious to see the enemies of the United States of America dead.

Call it being overzealous for the cause of America.

Fox News:

On Saturday, police Brig. Gen. Said Ahmed al-Jubouri said the raid was launched after a tip that top Al Qaeda operatives, possibly including al-Zarqawi, were in the two-story house.
However, Trent Duffy, a White House spokesman, said Sunday that reports of al-Zarqawi's death were "highly unlikely and not credible."
"I don't think we got him," said U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad, answering questions from reporters about whether al-Zarqawi had been killed in Mosul. Lt. Col. Barry Johnson, a U.S. military spokesman in Baghdad, said there was "no indication" that the terror leader had been killed.

Hat tip: Ron Wright who pointed us to this post by Evan Kohlmann and Dan Riehl, who has more here.

UPDATE: Howie e-mails me with this article from CNN. Apparently, Zarqawi's family and 'tribe' have disowned him. Don't worry al-Khalaylehs, every family has a 'Zarqawi' or two they are ashamed of.

UPDATE II: Let me be clear on this, I used the word 'hard Left' to describe those who want us to lose not 'liberal' or 'Democrat'. Yes, I believe the people over at dKos want us to lose. They don't want our soldiers to die, but they do want us to lose. They actually believe America is the greatest force for evil in the world. If you believe that then the conclusions to be drawn are inevetable.

If we are the bad guys then the only thing for a moral person to do is to support our enemies.

And, yes, wishing for the U.S. to pull out of Iraq now is the same thing as wishing for our enemies to win.

It doesn't matter if in your heart you love America. Withdrawal is failure. Hence, wishing withdrawal now is wishing failure.

I am not Jesus. I don't care what is in your heart. What I care about is the extent to which you support the victory of the United States of America.

In the comments though, Ryan (unlike the madmatt troll) raises a legitimate concern wanting some evidence that the Left celebrates. Okay Ryan, here you are. Of course, they don't come out and say "Hooray, Zarqawi" but they do boo the home team. Six of one, half a dozen of the other.

From the Democratic Underground:

I wonder when he can stop talking about Zarqawi, I want a new Boogie Man!
Nothing will happen with Zarqawi until October 2006 Just in time for the election, in an appearance to make it look "normal" when Diebold once again scams an election.
We can't pull out of Iraq now. After all, we almost caught Zarqawi. I'll bet if we stay another year we'll almost catch him 10 or 12 more times. Plus we'll kill his No. 2 man at least twice. What a steaming crock of bullshit.
I don't think Al Zarqawi was there, and I don't think they thought he was there. This is like all those stories about how certain they were that they had killed Hussein in the first bomb attack of the war, or that they'd killed Bin Laden when they murdered that poor farmer and his two sons with their unmanned drone. They just want Americans to say "Wow, look, they have a reason for all this stuff" and go back to watching Family Guy before BushCo quietly says "Well, we missed him, but it was close."
It's a good thing they missed him...otherwise they would have to invent another Al-Qaida terroist for us to focus on.

Posted by: Rusty at 08:36 AM | Comments (142) | Add Comment
Post contains 843 words, total size 5 kb.

1 Repugnicans don't want to find osama, zarqawi etc...they are looking for constant war so they can continue to loot the treasury with their campaign financers. A few dead american kids...is worth it as far as repugs are concerned.

Posted by: madmatt at November 21, 2005 09:01 AM (h1rMx)

2 Dammit. Now I have to take the decorations down and cancel the catering service. Note to the guys (and gals) in the sandbox: Keep kicking terrorist buttski. You'll get him soon enough.

Posted by: Graeme at November 21, 2005 09:03 AM (nt3NF)

3 I think you need to open a window, Madmatt. The oxygen content of the air you're breathing seems to be getting a bit low.

Posted by: Graeme at November 21, 2005 09:09 AM (nt3NF)

4 Celebrations ? Rusty could you give any links to that nonsense ? I would like to see why anyone who celebrate.. The only 2 leftie sites I know web addresses for are antiwar.com and the kos site. Yesterday I plowed through about 1/3 of the 150 or so comments on the kos site and none seem to show any celebrations.

Posted by: john Ryan at November 21, 2005 09:12 AM (ads7K)

5 Of course over at dKos, when the erroneous news that Zarqawi dead broke, there were immediate signs of dismay. For the hardcore Left, any good news for our troops is bad news for them. They have pinned their political hopes on the defeat of our troops.

But don't you DARE question their patriotism.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at November 21, 2005 09:12 AM (8e/V4)

6 Hey all, been away for awhile. But this captured my attention. Pun intended. Did they get Zarqawi or not? I'm hoping that they get him alive. He needs to die very very sloooowly.

How's everyone doin'??

Posted by: Laura at November 21, 2005 09:15 AM (L3PPO)

7 Saying that just getting Zarqawi may not have much effect since it doesn't address the underlying Shia/Sunni conflict is "celebrating"?

Unbelievable! What are you guys smoking? No wonder the Right is burning up the last shreds of credibility.

Posted by: Ed at November 21, 2005 09:23 AM (yfKhZ)

8 Quothe John "It's the MATH!" Ryan:
"Celebrations ? Rusty could you give any links to that nonsense ?"

Okay John, www.liberalsmustalldie.com, there's your link.

"I would like to see why anyone who celebrate."

Look in the mirror perhaps.

"The only 2 leftie sites I know web addresses for are antiwar.com and the kos site."

Gee, I wonder how you know those two...

"Yesterday I plowed through about 1/3 of the 150 or so comments on the kos site and none seem to show any celebrations."

Yeah, more like an atmosphere of general glee. I guess they're saving the champagne until he releases his next headchopping video. Liberals all need to be killed in as painful a manner as may be contrived by modern technology.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 21, 2005 09:31 AM (0yYS2)

9 Could I see some evidence that anyone at Kos is "celebrating"?

The fact that you feel the need to lie about the issue says an awful lot about the security of your position.

Posted by: Tom Ames at November 21, 2005 09:34 AM (XuQJ6)

10 Boy you guys are getting more repugnant by the day. One comment at dKos that killing Zarkawi won't stop the violence in Iraq and you turn it into "the Left Celebrates".

Just how stupid do you think your readers are? You must have a pretty low opinion of your wingnut buddies if you think that "logic" makes any sense at all.

What am I saying? You all bought into Bush's idiotic war, so you must be very gullible or very slow. You probably think everything Rush says is gospel, too.

NOBODY celebrated the report that Zarkawi wasn't among the dead. He's a murdering terrorist who deserves death and I defy you to find a single Liberal who actually was pleased he escaped.

And your misleading headline doesn't accomplish anything but brand you as a liar.

Posted by: Percy's PoP at November 21, 2005 09:35 AM (CMyz0)

11 Liberals need to be killed? Gee, that's more like what is being done to you folks. But you won't get it, just as some of you still don't get it that Nixon got caught. Some of you insist on being on the wrong side of history. Fortunately, the size of your group is getting smaller with each poll.

Posted by: jimbo at November 21, 2005 09:41 AM (5Caqu)

12 Hold on... The dKos post said, "The death if Zarqawi would be a positive step in fighting terrorism and, one hopes, suppressing the violence in Iraq."

Really, man. If you want to make an argument against liberals, don't make it so stupid. You hurt the cause.

Posted by: Bruce at November 21, 2005 09:47 AM (SSjeP)

13 This post, which has now big picked up over at Salon, is really astonishing in its dishonesty. The dKos comment Shackleford cites begins, "The death if (sic) Zarqawi would be a positive step in fighting terrorism and, one hopes, suppressing the violence in Iraq." The author then anticipates Shackleford's own opinion by declaring that the death of Zarqawi would "be a boon to the fight against terror," but that it would not solve the problem. Some celebration!

Posted by: Paul Turner at November 21, 2005 09:47 AM (4lS1R)

14 The actual quote is
"The death if Zarqawi would be a positive step in fighting terrorism and, one hopes, suppressing the violence in Iraq."
Why do you call this a sign of dismay?
Can't you stop lying for even a moment?
Stupidity: it's a renewable resource!

Posted by: Fred at November 21, 2005 09:49 AM (eO3MK)

15 Hey jimbo and Percy's PoP, you stupid libtards, I hope when the rope begins to bite into your neck and you shit yourself, you feel so smug and arrogant then. I honestly look forward to the collapse of society so that I can watch pieces of shit like you die by the dozens. It has come to the point that you morons openly support the killing of American soldiers, and that shit's going to catch up to you sooner than you think. You all need your goddamn skulls crushed for being traitors, which is exactly what you are. You want a revolution dipshits? I'll give you your goddamn revolution. The only good liberal is a dead liberal.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 21, 2005 09:52 AM (0yYS2)

16 Improbulus, you might want to get yourself to a doctor, pronto.

Untreated syphilis can damage the brain and cause dementia.

Posted by: circlethewagons at November 21, 2005 09:52 AM (7Fqgx)

17 Blah, blah, blah....you liberals just make me laugh. Now all of you have turned delusional as well. What makes you think everyone is all of a sudden on your side? Oh, those objective polls done by the objective media. Understand this, liberals, you are the ones on the wrong side of history, because you lose no matter how it turns out.

If we win, you lose but can continue to live in a free country and have all the rights free men enjoy, including, as demonstrated here, freedom of speech and expression. If the other side wins, you will be put to death, pay the dhimmi tax, be forced into slavery or have to convert to Islam. The way I see it, I prefer to win the war, but you libs, well, you seem to want to test fate. So be it.

Posted by: jesusland joe at November 21, 2005 09:55 AM (rUyw4)

18 A blog aggregator ran the headline of this post, so I just had to come visit to see if it was real. I guess it is. This Shackleford guy seems to be the absolute lowest of the low.
It is really stunning how disgusting some people can become with a keyboard in their hand.

I'm off now to take a shower and wont be back. May I suggest that as an appropriate response for the rest of the commenters?

Posted by: Observer at November 21, 2005 10:11 AM (8x2CG)

19 The Left dug up my garden and knocked over my garbage cans! That Darned Left!

Posted by: norbizness at November 21, 2005 10:12 AM (EneHm)

20 Iâ€™m confused.

Are all liberals opponents of the Iraq war?
Are all opponents of the Iraq war liberals?
Are all liberals the same?
Are they secular humanists and elitist academics, who drink chardonnay, drive Volvos, speak french, and just want to give Zarqawi a great big fat hug?
Or are they dirty scruffy pot smokers and filthy degenerates who just want to root for the downfall of America?

Because, as we all know, Islamofascists love secularism and alcohol.

And they really really dig sex, drugs and rock and roll.

Posted by: circlethewagons at November 21, 2005 10:14 AM (7Fqgx)

21 I'm reading this blog for the first time, and I just followed your link to the dKos site, and for the life of me I didn't read anything there that could be interpreted as "dismay" at the possible news of Zarqawi's demise. Sorry, but even though I'm no fan of dKos, it's the Jawa Report that just took a big credibility hit in my book.

Posted by: Independent at November 21, 2005 10:17 AM (2MDoJ)

22 >>>"Because, as we all know, Islamofascists love secularism and alcohol. And they really really dig sex, drugs and rock and roll."

So I guess Bush was right after all-- they do hate us for who we are, they hate us for our freedoms. Thanks for affirming that.

So are you libertines as willing to change your lifestyles in order to suit the terrorists as you are to see the U.S. change its policies to suit them? I think not. What could be more ironic than a dope smoking morally degenerate Liberal calling for the U.S. to change its policies in order to make fundamentalist islamic terrorists stop hating us. Too rich. It boggles the mind how myopic you people are.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at November 21, 2005 10:24 AM (8e/V4)

23
"This Shackleford guy seems to be the absolute lowest of the low. It is really stunning how disgusting some people can become with a keyboard in their hand."

Somewhere a pot and a kettle are laughing hysterically at that statement.

Posted by: Graeme at November 21, 2005 10:24 AM (nt3NF)

24 DailyKos quote:

"The death if Zarqawi would be a positive step in fighting terrorism and, one hopes, suppressing the violence in Iraq.
What it will not be however, is a solution for our troubles in Iraq, whose roots are political in nature. Zarqawi is not and has not been the source of our troubles in Iraq. It is the intractable political problems of the sectarian power struggle between Shia, Sunni and Kurd."

Dr. Shackleford describes this as "dismay."

Dr. Shackleford is a liar. Unambiguously so.

Posted by: Geek, Esq. at November 21, 2005 10:25 AM (2yc8s)

25 Let me be honest, I don't visit this site often so maybe you have posted on this topic before, but what is the definition of victory in your mind? Is it killing all the "terrorists", if so how do we know that all the terrorists are dead? Is it giving the Iraqi people a democracy? Well they have already voted 2 or 3 times, so doesn't that qualify as a democracy? Is it training an adequate amount of Iraqi troops? If so what is that number and is there an ETA on when that will be done?

I realize in asking these questions I am hurting the American troops, for that I am sorry...but I just had to know.

Posted by: Sean Braisted at November 21, 2005 10:27 AM (dXncd)

26 I blame the overzealous Jawa editorial board for choosing the word "Celebrate" for an article that clearly doesn't indicate anything like a 'celebration'.

Damn you editorial board!!!

;-)

Posted by: The Ghost of Macktastick Rusty Wicked at November 21, 2005 10:38 AM (JQjhA)

27 Some of you need to look a bit deeper into what is being said and how they are saying it. There are two things that are obvious on the DU thread....1) They are completely dismissive of the reports of Zarqawi's demise (would their attitude be the same if A Democrat was president?) 2) The tone of the comments is unmistakably hopeful that the reports are indeed false. The skepticism goes beyond reason and into the area of disingenuous cynicism.

If you read all the comments in the entire thread it becomes clear that the majority of people there would prefer to have Zarqawi alive and well if his death would mean potential help for the President.

Posted by: traderrob at November 21, 2005 10:40 AM (3al54)

28 Since regarding somebody as being in 'dismay' is an act of judgement, lying is out of the question.

Personally, I think some of the commenters are 'idiots'.

But that is just my opinion. Opinions, by definition, cannot be 'lies'.

But thanks for playing.

Posted by: The Ghost of Macktastick Rusty Wicked at November 21, 2005 10:44 AM (JQjhA)

29 To the jackass who wants to kill Liberals;

If a fight breaks out between fascists like yourself and liberals like me, don't be so damn cocky about who would win.

First of all, we outnumber you. Check the polls.

Second, many of us support the entire Bill of Rights which includes the Second Ammendment (yes, I'm armed). And I can use it. Like many Liberals, I'm ex-military.

Third, currently unarmed Liberals could learn to use a gun faster than you could learn to stay alive on a battlefield. Brains are more important than balls - ask any vet. And reading the posts above there is no doubt in my mind which side is smarter.

So go ahead and start a civil war. I look forward to putting a cap through your pinhead. It would be a challenge to put one through your brain, but ohhhhhh, so satisfying...

Posted by: joviel at November 21, 2005 10:46 AM (tgsAE)

30 Oh, I like this. Large numbers of liberal trolls mean that they're uneasy and don't think things are going their way.

I think the overwhelming defeat of the cut and run resolution has something to do with it, and the thought of Zarqawi being killed scared them as well.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at November 21, 2005 10:49 AM (RHG+K)

31 >>>"If a fight breaks out between fascists like yourself and liberals like me, don't be so damn cocky about who would win."

joviel,

us "fascists" are well armed. I personally have 2,000 rounds of armour piercing just waiting for you to bring it. And I know where to instantly get 2,000 more. What are you going to use? Foul language? Your own anti-gun dogma has reduced you to no better than sheep to the slaughter if you ever think to bring your "revolution". We'll gleefully mow you down by the thousands.

And no, you don't outnumber us. Temporary dissaproval of Bush doesn't a Liberal make. Every poll puts self-proclaimed Liberals in this country at less than 20%, while self-proclaimed conservatives approach 35%. Just bring it dudes.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at November 21, 2005 10:54 AM (8e/V4)

32 Sean, victory will come when enough Muslims understand that fighting us only makes their lives harder, but making peace with us makes their lives easier. You can't put a timetable on that, but you can observe progress if you're inclined to see it. The media never reports all the progress that's being made in Iraq, and the single greatest complaint that soldiers make is not about body armor, or homesickness, or fear, or the food, or anything like that; it's that the media never shows anything positive about their mission.
I was in Desert Storm, and I know what soldiers complain about, and I'm just not seeing much of that from the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, but rather bright, optimistic men and women, some no more than children to my eyes now, who believe in what they are doing and who want to help the people of Iraq become free and prosperous, so that we never have to fight them again. If only political correctness hadn't stopped us from taking out Saddam in '91, we wouldn't be here today, but the liberals interfered then too, and look where it got us; into another war.
For any society, war is eventually inevitable, because all it takes is a madman to invade peaceful neighbors, but many are avoidable if only the leadership has the backbone to do what is necessary when necessary. If Europe and America had stood up to Hitler at the first, he never would have invaded Poland or Czekoslovakia, but we didn't so we had to fight another war because of our leaders' timidity and shortsightedness. There is no such thing as "peace in our time" without the willingness to fight for it.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 21, 2005 10:56 AM (0yYS2)

33 It's absurd and stupid to claim that the left doesn't want Zarqawi dead, doesn't want troops to stop being murdered in Iraq, doesn't think the insurgency is barbaric, etc. I haven't read the Kos posts you're referring to, and I'm perfectly willing to admit that Cindy Sheehan isn't much of a spokesman for the anti-war cause (although attacking her -- particularly at the outset of her appearance on the scene -- was pretty scummy). I don't know how much you're distorting things in attributing these feelings to the post on Kos. But I do know how much you're distorting things in attributing them to the left in general. I despise Bush, Cheney and the rest of the gang. I think they're fools and despicable liars. I also think that the insurgents are far worse. I find it sickening to constantly read about people being blown to bits in Iraq. I would be thrilled if the States won the war (if I thought that was possible) and if the insurgents went under. I was thrilled at the very possibility that Zarqawi might have been killed. Your claim that liberals secretly grin and applaud when the troops do badly simply isn't true in a single specific instance that I know -- and given that I split my time between New York and the Bay Area, that's plenty. (I suppose there are plenty of liberals who feel a smug superiority about their opposition to the war, and that's plenty unattractive, but their opposition is still sincere). Making this kind of statement and indulging in this kind of psychology is infantile; I can't even get particularly pissed about it, because there simply isn't any legitimacy to your ranting.

Posted by: Max Scheinin at November 21, 2005 10:57 AM (N0a7W)

34 Perhaps Max should read the actual post which specifically differentiates between 'liberals' and the 'hard Left'.

No?

I guess Max is too busy spending time between San Francisco and NYC. Man, I love characitures that are real........

Posted by: The Ghost of Macktastick Rusty Wicked at November 21, 2005 11:06 AM (JQjhA)

35 "Since regarding somebody as being in 'dismay' is an act of judgement,
lying is out of the question."

Let's roll the tape. Dr. Shackleford wrote that "when the erroneous news that Zarqawi dead (Dr. Shackleford write like Tonto talk), there were immediate signs of dismay. For the hardcore Left, any good news for our troops is bad for them. They have pinned their political hopes on the defeat of our troops."

For this, he cites this quote from a liberal: "The death of Zarqawi would be a positive step in fighting terrorism, and one hopes, suppressing the violence in Iraq."

Either Dr. Shackleford is a liar, or he should consider remedial reading.

Posted by: Geek, Esq. at November 21, 2005 11:06 AM (2yc8s)

36 Improbulus Maximus, your theory about Muslims realsing the futility of their cause is interesting. Unfortunately it seems to be the characteristic of radical fundamentalist religions, that they never seem to realize futility or facts that prove their theories wrong. Anything said contrary to what they believe is 'of the devil' and any signs of failure are because of a lack of faith, not too much of it.

I personally hope Fundamentalists all over will realise the futility of their cause, embrace centrisms (or acceptance of other POVs) and this world will be a better place because of it. Unfortunately I'm not optomistic enough to think that will happen.

Posted by: Sean Braisted at November 21, 2005 11:13 AM (dXncd)

37 Jesusland Carlos: What could be more ironic than a dope smoking morally degenerate Liberal calling for the U.S. to change its policies in order to make fundamentalist islamic terrorists stop hating us.

So-called conservatives who think they're fighting the war on terrorism when the policies (and in particular, the moronic Iraq war diversion) they support are actually helping to lose the war on terror.

Posted by: circlethewagons at November 21, 2005 11:18 AM (7Fqgx)

38 I'd say this Zarqawi death squabble brings us back to the Israelis, who have killed so many "hamas leaders" and "no.2 militant leaders" that one just rolls one's eyes.

The real point is this: OBL got away because Cheney's merry little bund turned its attention away to Iraq.

Posted by: ATS at November 21, 2005 11:22 AM (aDFHl)

39 I'd say this Zarqawi death squabble brings us back to the Israelis, who have killed so many "hamas leaders" and "no.2 militant leaders" that one just rolls one's eyes.

The real point is this: OBL got away because Cheney's merry little bund turned its attention away to Iraq.

Posted by: ats at November 21, 2005 11:23 AM (aDFHl)

40 Rusty the first line on the post says " The Left Celebrates" I think that to be divisive. To me, it seems to show that everyone to one side of some arbitrary point is anti-American. Many people with long and strongly held conservative views opposed the war. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/857077/posts. Whether you were for it or against it then, or whether you were misled, or whether you have changed your views 180 degrees I think all would agree that we are in a war. When 25% or 37% or 52% of our country support such an endeavor "success" is problematical. IM ... I did try to put some "MATH" in just for you. Not so many people in high school enjoyed that subject, or high school latin for that matter, although I did. Actually I found the kos site from this one, either an actual link or one of the frequent mentions. And you are such a prankster, I did try to follow that link www.allliberalsmustdie.com. Using "google" didn't show anything. If you snatch up that domain, please give me a mention.(and not about my genitals) !

Posted by: john Ryan at November 21, 2005 11:32 AM (ads7K)

41 How much of our discourse is fed by partisanship? Except for maybe the center 25% who have recently switched sides on the war, probably most of us started out on one side or the other. Maybe all of us are steeped in the partisan poisons of the Limbaughs and O'Reillys, who profit hugely by the crap that they spout. What I'm saying is, all may want to step back and try to look at things as they are, without the partisan blinders. Try to parse out what is really best for this country. Ultimately it will take many of us working together to solve our problems.

Posted by: jimbo at November 21, 2005 11:38 AM (5Caqu)

42 Improbulus said: "I honestly look forward to the collapse of society...". Now who's rooting for the terrorists?

Shall I make a big blog headline out of that saying "Conservatives call for the destruction of America"? It would be as big a lie as your rantings that liberals openly support the killing of American soldiers.

Improbulus, I've argued with you before and you just spit venom and vulgarities without any kind of reason or thought. Rant away, so that all will know you for the fool you are.

I do hope you meet up with my son someday. He's a Marine, a Liberal and a Democrat - and proud of all three. According to your silly rant he should be rooting for his own death in Iraq. Since he's a liberal and you are calling for the death of all liberals, maybe the headline should be "Conservative calls for death of American Marines."

Then again, I doubt you'd really want to meet up with him. He has this silly idea that the Constitution means we're all equal citizens, left, right, liberal, conservative, man, woman, etc. And that anyone who wishes for the death of other Americans like you do, doesn't have a very good grasp of what being a Patriot or an American is all about.

Posted by: Percy's PoP at November 21, 2005 11:51 AM (CMyz0)

43 Can't we all just get along?

Posted by: Rodney King at November 21, 2005 12:22 PM (IpG/2)

44 >>>"So-called conservatives who think they're fighting the war on terrorism when the policies (and in particular, the moronic Iraq war diversion) they support are actually helping to lose the war on terror."

circlejerk,

you're just spouting neo-Lib talking points. You haven't a shred of empirical evidence that we're "losing" the war on terror. So far, zero terrorist strikes on the U.S., that's my evidence.

The neo-Lib message is so convoluted and backasswards that half of you neo-Libs don't even believe terrorism is a real threat, and the other half of you believe that "we had it coming to us" because of our "foreign policies". Yet the same hippie degenerates who decry our "foreign policy" are the first decadent westerners jihadis would decapitate if they had the chance. You're a bunch of clueless morons with a death wish.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at November 21, 2005 12:49 PM (8e/V4)

45 what the hell is a neo-lib?

Posted by: circlejerk at November 21, 2005 12:54 PM (7Fqgx)

46 And yes, 1) I believe that terrorism is a real threat, and think that our endeavors in Iraq are taking away from that fight. 2) The fact that there've been no attacks on US soil since 9/11 doesn't prove anything. According to your logic, then Clinton must have done a remarkable job keeping us safe during the '90's. 3) John Ryan is right, you're lumping everyone who disagrees w/the war in Iraq into the same mythic and monolithic "liberal" pile. We are not all liberals. 4) The only people with a death wish are those who quiver at the thought of the Rapture, and those folks are on your side, not mine.

Posted by: circlejerk at November 21, 2005 01:07 PM (7Fqgx)

47 ...that would be quiver with joy, not fear...my bad.

Posted by: circlejerk at November 21, 2005 01:08 PM (7Fqgx)

48 You must love being lied to.

Isn't this the same Zarqawi whose training camp the Pentagon located 2-3 times before the Iraq invasion, but Bush chose not to bomb his camp because he feared it would undermine the case for going in? And then Colin spent all this time in his 2003 UN speech talking about how bad Zarqawi was, as a reason for attacking Iraq, despite no cooperation between Zarqawi and Saddam.

"On at least three occasions between mid-2002 and the invasion of Iraq, the Pentagon presented plans to the White House to destroy [Zarqawi's] Khurmal camp. Each time the White House declined to act or did not respond at all."

http://www.slate.com/id/2108880

The article estimates Zarqawi alone is responsible for 1000 deaths since then, deaths that only happened because of political opportunism by your personal heroes.

Posted by: clb72 at November 21, 2005 01:12 PM (MGcSD)

49 "zero terror strikes in the US. That's my evidence."

That's pathetic. What is the average period of time between (Islamic) terrorist strikes in the US? 10 years or so? I sincerely hope that the efforts of the Bush administration will help slow down the terrorists, but there's really no way to measure. I do know that the frequency of terror strikes happening in Iraq since we invaded is practically daily, and at huge cost to the people we're supposedly trying to liberate. Imagine how they must feel when Bush says we're fighting terrorists there so we won't have to at home. No wonder 85% of them want us to leave.

Posted by: Randy at November 21, 2005 01:27 PM (bc3Ko)

50 clb72,

let me show you mine:

"That year [1996] the government of Sudan offered to arrest bin Laden, then living in its capital city, and turn him over to American authorities, the Washington Post and several British newspapers reported last week. This prompts two questions: If President Clinton could have taken bin Laden into custody, prosecuted him for murderous attacks on Americans in Somalia and spared the lives of thousands who were killed or wounded in future attacks, why didn't he do it?"

http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/rminiter/?id=95001289

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at November 21, 2005 01:38 PM (8e/V4)

51 >>>"but there's really no way to measure."

Randy,

circlejerk appears to have figured out a way to measure it. Ask him. I did, and so far zip, nada, bupkiss.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at November 21, 2005 01:40 PM (8e/V4)

52 IM Pre Pearl harbor it was only the commie- liberals who wanted to help Europe fight the ultra right Nazis, and the country was deeply divided on this issue. The liberal President was categorized as a " warmonger". 9/11 unified our country in its fight against alQueda If you can not see what a cl*st*rf*ck this has turned into you then pay attention. It is now the "liberals" Mccain Clinton that advocate sending MORE troops ! The formerly conservative republicans are afraid of losing their seats and new raises so they want less troops ! It used to be that the liberals were for international nation building and now it's the conservatives.All the Army brass care about is another star. The battalion commanders say they need more troops. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1132819,00.html The original estimate necessary was 250,000. I sure as hell don't know what to do. I do know that when I am at sea and in dangerous waters and do not know exactly where a prudent mariner does not opt for "stay on course" As for "look in the mirror" I can and when I do I don't have to say "blame the liberals.blame the MSM, blame the minority party, blame the French"

Posted by: john Ryan at November 21, 2005 01:46 PM (ads7K)

53 I think Sean Braisted asks a legitimate question: how do we measure victory?

The White House hasn't clearly answered that question, and that is a large part of the problem, IMHO.

Do you define it as the destruction of terrorist organizations and the rouge governments that support them? If so, we've still got Syria and Iran to go for sure, and potentially other countries as well.

Do you define it as the destruction of radical Islam? That would involve not only overthrowing governments, but eradicating entirely the most violent sects of Islam, and ruthlessly hunting down its members and destroying them. After what Germany attempted to do in WWII this seems unpalatable to most, but it is possible. The British, after all, were able to destroy the Thuggee. This destruction of violent Islam would also have to be done while encouraging the more liberal forms of Islam to fill the power vacuum in Islamic countries.

Do you define victory as the total destruction of Islam itself?

I think President Bush and most people would define victory as the destruction of terror organizations and the government that support them, but Bush has gone both beyond that and has done less than that at the same time. Bush has undoubtedly brought down two terrorist-sponsoring governments in Iraq and Afghanistan, and this has triggered Libya to turn over their WMD programs, and spurred democratic revolutions in several countries. But while the governments were relatively easy to topple, cutting out terror groups is a bloody, tedious process, but one that certainly can be done. So this goal is partially over, and perhaps once weâ€™ve established democratic governments that are strong enough to stand on their own, with military and police forces strong enough to fight their own internal terrorists, we can declare this a victory.

Or perhaps we should fight for the second or third types of victory.

Islam itself states it is incompatible with other religions that can otherwise coexist with each other. Buddhists, Hindus, Jews and Christians have all proven they can lives side-by-side with one another (and in my church at least, under the same roof), but Islam states bluntly that they world must be totally Islamic. At some point, there will perhaps be an all out war on Islam brought about by Islamic delusions of world conquest, but is now that time?

I, like Sean, hope sensible minds will take control of Islam and moderates will reform the religion. If not, they may set the stage for a war that will make the Crusades look like childâ€™s play.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at November 21, 2005 02:27 PM (g5Nba)

54 "when in danger or in doubt always post a sharp lookout when there isn't time to turn her slow her, stop her, or full astern"

Posted by: john Ryan at November 21, 2005 02:46 PM (ads7K)

55 So, can we now say that right wingers are sad that Zarquawi's dead because now he can't kill any more soldiers and that's what right wingers stand for--killing American soldiers? That's why they don't want to bring the troops home--they want to keep that death toll rising? Makes as much sense as your saying "lefties" "celebrating" that he's still alive.

Posted by: Mike Filancia at November 21, 2005 03:15 PM (c1Sxs)

56 I read the DailyKos post on the alleged death of Zarqai. Anyone who calls it a sign of dismay simply isn't being honest. Not that that's unusual in the wingnut blogosphere.

Posted by: Laney at November 21, 2005 03:21 PM (a6MF7)

57 You can't kill Zarqawi. He has Jihadomagic that allows him to be in more then one place at a time. He can teleport from one place to another instantly. He can regrow limbs and take over rival groups (ya'll know Zarqawi's group was a competitor to AQ, right?) just by thinking about it. He learned how from Santa Clause and the Tooth Fairy.

Posted by: John Gillnitz at November 21, 2005 03:22 PM (eHLUP)

58 I think I have the solution to the whole Iraq problem--let everyone who voted for George Bush go and fight in Iraq--that way rightwingers can continue their war of choice and we won't have to listet to any more of their crap about patriotism, "cut and run" (sooo funny coming from a couple of draft dodgers) and "support our troops." I support all those who voted for Bush going to meet theie destinies in the desert--just one more thing, they also have to pay for it. We won't miss you!

Posted by: Mike Filancia at November 21, 2005 03:31 PM (c1Sxs)

59 You lefty trolls are all delusional. I haven't laughed this hard since the lefty idiot tried to take my W sign out of my front yard and I shot him in his dumb ass with my BB gun. He lit out like a stuck hog, and for some reason my sign was left untouched the rest of the campaign.

Just for fun I still have a W sticker on my truck, and not one of you lefty shitheads have the guts to even say anything to me. Unless you are on the computer and then you pretend to be bad asses. Please, all of you lefties, it's just about pizza delivery time, you had better report to work or your mommie might kick you out of the basement. LOL!

Posted by: jesusland joe at November 21, 2005 03:37 PM (rUyw4)

60 Enjoy reading your blog. But a fatwa? I didn't think you *sob* cared.

Posted by: The Heretik at November 21, 2005 03:44 PM (mLyjh)

61 Let's remember an al Zarqawi story the mainstream media evidently would like us to forget. In 2003, the Washington Post reported on a Pentagon report that stated that the military offered the Bush administration 3 separate opportunities to kill al Zarqawi. They knew exactly where he was in the Kurdish-controlled north. The Bush administration turned down the Pentagon all three times for political reasons -- they thought killing Zarqawi would undercut their rational for invasion -- this was the Pentagon's analyis, not mine. Of course, we know Zarqawi has gone on to personally cut two Americans' heads off and kill hundreds. For political reasons, the Bush admin. let him off the hook. Bush apologists: your thoughts?

Posted by: Bill at November 21, 2005 04:11 PM (0jJ9w)

62 Uh, that you're full of shit, Bill. Just my thoughts. LOL!

Posted by: jesusland joe at November 21, 2005 04:27 PM (rUyw4)

63 >>>I think I have the solution to the whole Iraq problem--let everyone who voted for George Bush go and fight in Iraq-

Mike,

funny you should say that. Most people currently fighting the war in Iraq DID vote for Bush.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at November 21, 2005 04:30 PM (8e/V4)

64 jc,

Even when the leftists and liberals did everything in their power to keep the military guys votes from being counted. The hypocricy of these liberals knows no bounds!

Posted by: jesusland joe at November 21, 2005 04:34 PM (rUyw4)

65 "The death if Zarqawi would be a positive step in fighting terrorism and, one hopes, suppressing the violence in Iraq."

10 points if you can tell me where that's from.

Posted by: Uncle Fluffy at November 21, 2005 04:37 PM (gxVyt)

66 we should draw and quarter a democrat liberal on pay per view so all of em will know that if you hate our troops and don't support Bush till the end. You will pay for it!
God Bless USA!!!

Posted by: jesusland twotooth at November 21, 2005 04:42 PM (YClF7)

67 Holy Jesus People! Some real loony tunes out there today. Silly Internet Warriors fighting it out in cyberspace; such a spectacle.

Some of you are passionate, some apparently have some serious personality disorders. Vitriolic refexive name calling and dreaming of the deaths of those with whom you disagree are not signs of good mental health or social adjustment. They are signs of childishness and an inability to communicate in any effective way.

Make your point, back it up with facts, and maybe...just maybe someone will really consider what you are saying. But if you are compelled to toss around horrible invectives and profess hatred and intolerance of anyone of differing opinions you just label yourself as an unbalanced weirdo and I don't believe thinking people follow the lead of such hyperactive overcharged zealots of either side of this war argument. Real wisdom is never accompanied by such unwarrented dogmatic aggression.

Just my 2 cents and a plea for reason in on line discussions. This forum can be good but wading through the nut-job posts is getting a little tedious. Happy Harping!

Posted by: DMan at November 21, 2005 05:18 PM (6pXHD)

68 JesuslandJerk's response to facts is telling. Come on, Jesus Jerk. If you think al Zarqawi should be killed, why wouldn't you be pissed at the Bush administration for preventing the Pentagon from killing him? Making an extremely lame joke and then rushing to type a symbol which means "I'm laughing at my own joke," is hardly a response to a serious charge.

Posted by: Bill at November 21, 2005 05:25 PM (ThwLj)

69 Seems like some liberal in charge has requested that trolls attack this blog. LIBERALS: Here's my take. The problem with muslims is that all terrorists are muslims. So they get grouped together.
The problem with liberls and democrats is that all traitors, sickos and such we have encountered on this blog are liberals and democrats. So they get grouped together. As long as the liberal establishment contains people like Greg the traitor, Colon Baber, Ernie and such you will naturally be suspect. Kick the deviates out of your group then dialogue can begin for the good of all.
I will not work with muslims when they claim Osama ben Laden and rat face Zaqueery are part of their group. I will not work with liberals while they agree with commies like Greg the traitor and Colon Baber.
Clean the grap out of your ideals or be considered one of them.

Posted by: greyrooster at November 21, 2005 05:26 PM (ZaAd/)

70 It is going to be so much fun in the next few months to watch the Right wing try to explain their reasons for pulling-out from Iraq and try to re-write "cut and run" into something that sounds more patriotic. America is having it's awakening. The 9/11 sleep dust is wearing off.

Better go rip that big fat W bumper sticker off your car asap.

Posted by: the_truth at November 21, 2005 05:29 PM (ocHBO)

71 the_truth:
So you hope we do "pullout and run" so you can "stick it" to the republicans? possible Iraqi civil war, emboldened Jihadi warriors, and a caliphate state, but you'll get your zinger!! what an american!

I bet you also "support the troops" right?

Posted by: dave at November 21, 2005 05:33 PM (CcXvt)

72 So, "All terrorists are Muslims"? Tim McVeigh was a Muslim? I missed that. Ted Kazinski? Muslim? Hmmmm, missed that too. IRA? Muslims converted from Catholics I suppose. But then.....never mind.

Ask for facts and I guess this is what you get; wild emotional and a mob mentality devoid of introspection or dispassionate analysis.

Ask for reason and thought and you get a red-faced rant, full of hyperbole and devoid of rational discourse. Oh well, I asked for it. Manners, like good taste or class, are something that as an adult you either have or you do not. At least its obvious who is who in here. A Boor is a boor on either side of the argument.

Posted by: DMan at November 21, 2005 05:41 PM (6pXHD)

73 I read your piece about those at DailyKos have pinned their hopes on the defeat of our troops.
That's (barely) debateable.

But just in case I have some great news for them: Rummy and Bush are still running the show in the war.

Posted by: Robert at November 21, 2005 05:43 PM (cETWZ)

74 Rusty,

I think that's bullshit. The distinction between "the Left" and "liberals" was made in an ass-covering addendum, and it's nothing other than silly hair-splitting anyway. In the original post, "the Left" clearly refers to those who harbor left-wing beliefs; I wonder where you draw your line between mainstream liberals and far-to-the-margins wacks. I don't see any evidence that you show much respect for either. The real distinction, to me at least, is between liberals whose beliefs reflect nothing other than knee-jerk partisanship and liberals whose views are based on actual coherent outlooks/reading up on facts (I don't think that the Iraq war should ever have been about a left/right split -- just sanity versus insanity). In any case, my response to you is that I was referring to the substance of the post and I think "Update II" is disingenuous.

I live in neither San Francisco or NYC, incidentally. Nor does splitting my time between two locations take up all my non-flying hours. Still I'm curious which liberal caricatures (and as a caricature of a liberal elitist I have to inform that you misspelled that word) I confirmed in my post. Is it the caricature of liberals who post to conservative blogs without actually reading what they're responding to? I was unaware of that one. Or is it the caricature of liberals who reside in New York state and the Bay Area? Because that's not really a caricature; it's a fact of demographics.

Best,

Max

Posted by: Max Scheinin at November 21, 2005 05:44 PM (36mN0)

75 Iraqis Say There Should Be Troop Timetable

CAIRO, Egypt (AP) -- Leaders of Iraq's sharply divided Shiites, Kurds and Sunnis, seeking common ground for their political future together, agreed Monday there should be a timetable for the withdrawal of foreign troops, and that resistance was the right of all -- but that acts of terror should be condemned.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Egypt-Iraq-Conference.html

Posted by: bobby at November 21, 2005 05:45 PM (nP2fm)

76 Greyrooster, the problem with your argument that all traitors are liberals is that it doesn't conform to experience. The last two times our FBI has found a traitor in their midst, he was a conservative. The last guy, I forget his name now, was a conservative Catholic member of Opus Dea. In addition, last year, an FBI agent was forced to resign because he had been carrying on an affair with an agent for the communist Chinese. This agent was Katrina Leonge, who worked as a conservative fundraiser for the republican party in California. These facts don't support your meta-argument.

Posted by: Bill at November 21, 2005 05:59 PM (frPZV)

77 Here's a different perspective on this "liberal" thing:

"As mankind becomes more liberal they will be more apt to allow that all those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community are equally entitled to the protection of civil government. I hope ever to see America among the foremost in examples of justice and liberality."
--- George Washington, Letter to the Roman Catholics, March 15, 1790

Posted by: Bill at November 21, 2005 06:02 PM (frPZV)

78 >>>"America is having it's awakening. The 9/11 sleep dust is wearing off."

the_trooth,

maybe you've been living in a cave because you appear not to have noticed that when given a chance to vote for a troop withdrawal, only 3 Dem moonbats voted for it. The rest must have been hiding in that cave with you. Thrash about mindlessly all you want, but the troops are staying until the mission is completed and the President calls them home. You don't like it? Then win some elections for a change.

It's obvious that you absolutely need America to fail in Iraq so that you can regain political power. But we aren't going to hand Iraq to terrorist anarchy just because you Libs have a greater loyalty to party than your own country.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at November 21, 2005 06:17 PM (8e/V4)

79 >>>Here's a different perspective on this "liberal" thing:

That's why I sometimes refer to you as neo-Libs. You're primarily Leftists and soft stalinists, not Liberals in the traditional sense (Washington wouldn't even recognize you), while the old school Kennedy Liberals have migrated to the conservative camp.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at November 21, 2005 06:21 PM (8e/V4)

80 DMAN:
Comparing Kazinski and Mcveigh sickos to muslims terrorist is an example of why a shut-in should stay in the fire house. The Irish are "correctly or not" fighting for their countries freedom. Religion is a secondary issue. Mcveigh and Kazinski where not religious zealots. Comparing two killers to thousands is stupid. Mcveigh was striking back for what he perceived as liberals taking over the country. Mainly, Clintons gang of social misfits like Janet Renos killing hundreds of men, women and children at Waco, Tx.
And since you are a booring idiot with nothing new to add. Time to get lost. We've heard the same bullshit before.
Go get bugger by a muslim. That is if your boyfriend isn't one.
You can bet your ass that the sorry assed government employees that were having fun killing these people were 100% democrats. As most parasites living off the tax payers are.
Your bullshit don't hunt here.

Posted by: greyrooster at November 21, 2005 07:14 PM (ZaAd/)

81 >>>"So, "All terrorists are Muslims"? Tim McVeigh was a Muslim? I missed that. Ted Kazinski? Muslim? Hmmmm, missed that too. IRA? Muslims converted from Catholics I suppose. But then.....never mind."

Ok, how bout 99.99999% of terrorists are muslims. Better?

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at November 21, 2005 07:19 PM (8e/V4)

82 Regarding Update II - unfortunately, that is the conclusion I have come to also - there are those I refer to as the "hard left" (I won't call them liberals or Democrats) individuals who believe the "imperialist" west must lose. Any allegation of wrongdoing on the part of our military is pronounced as fact. Argue with these boneheads and you're labeled as a . . .

A real liberal would side with the people not the dictators. Scratch beneath the surface of the "hard left" and what you'll find is hard core green, marxist, socialist, communist - but I repeat myself.

Centrist Dem

Posted by: Demi at November 21, 2005 07:50 PM (Yxvls)

83 Bill,

You wouldn't know a fact if it kicked you in the ass. Now go back to the DU swamp and wallow with your fellow traitors. The HYPOCRISY of you liberals is beyond the pale.

Posted by: jesusland joe at November 21, 2005 08:21 PM (rUyw4)

84 "Hypocrisy", Jesusland Joe?

Ever notice how most of the posters who threaten violence and dream of killing have "Jesus" in their handle? I can see these interbred Billy-Bobs laying back, masturbating during the week to visions of disemboweled liberals twisting in the wind, then heading off to their local Southern Baptist bible-thumper on Sunday so they can proudly feel that they are more born again than their neighbors...

Guess what guys? Jesus wouldn't piss on you if you were on fire, you poor pathetic hypocrites. Tell me in what way you are one degree better than those you hate. This what religion does to the feeble-minded. I'll take a moral atheist over you amoral holyrollers anyday.

If your type gets into heaven, I'm not going. I have some standards, you know.

Posted by: Joviel at November 21, 2005 09:47 PM (tgsAE)

85 >>>"Tell me in what way you are one degree better than those you hate."

how bout we aren't traitors who have put loyalty to party before country in a desperate effort to regain power even if it means damaging our own country. That's gotta be good for at least a couple of degrees, no?

Posted by: dcb at November 21, 2005 10:43 PM (8e/V4)

86 >>>"masturbating during the week to visions of disemboweled liberals twisting in the wind,"

This sounds to me like a classic case of projection.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at November 21, 2005 11:00 PM (8e/V4)

87 WOW !!! Some people really are upset. You know we won the election I am saying that we should be more critical of our own scalawags then critical of their scalawags. I certainly feel like aI should keep a closer eye on what my dogs are doing then on what the neighbors dogs are doing. As for my bumper sticker every few years I replace my AuH2o->64

Posted by: john Ryan at November 21, 2005 11:02 PM (ads7K)

88 Children...take your medicine. Stop threatening to kill each other. WTF is the matter with you people? What ever happened to reasoned debate and who the hell are all these raving rude fools on both sides of the issue that can't have an online forum discussion without turning into evil 13 year olds talking about who they will kill that doesn't agree with them. You are an embarrassment to America and all it stands for. Grow the hell up.

Posted by: DMan at November 22, 2005 03:02 AM (6pXHD)

89 "put loyalty to party before country in a desperate effort to regain power even if it means damaging our own country."

bango. you just hung yourself with your own rope.

Posted by: Uncle Fluffy at November 22, 2005 09:47 AM (gxVyt)

90 Quothe Sean: "Improbulus Maximus, your theory about Muslims realsing the futility of their cause is interesting. Unfortunately it seems to be the characteristic of radical fundamentalist religions, that they never seem to realize futility or facts that prove their theories wrong. Anything said contrary to what they believe is 'of the devil' and any signs of failure are because of a lack of faith, not too much of it."

You are exactly correct, but given that any society is comprised of a ratio of sane to insane people, and that the insane ones are more likely to engage in abberant behavior, such as murdering innocent people in the name of X and fighting against the US military, and that insane fanatics going against the US military have a pretty short life expectancy, the ratio quickly becomes skewed in the favor of the sane people. In Iraq, a country of 25,000,000, the US military could not hold one inch of ground if the people didn't want us there, at least not without massive slaughter on a daily basis. So, the fact that 14 of 18 provinces are peaceful, and trouble is mainly concentrated in a few cities, tells me that the "insurgency" consists of a tiny, infinitesimally miniscule minority of thugs and idiots who are lining up in the express line to go meet their god, and the rest of the people are trying very hard to live normal lives of peace and prosperity, if only their "brothers in allah" would stop murdering them.

"I personally hope Fundamentalists all over will realise the futility of their cause, embrace centrisms (or acceptance of other POVs) and this world will be a better place because of it. Unfortunately I'm not optomistic enough to think that will happen."

I hope so too, but they probably won't, because that's a one-way street with little chance to turn around. Once one is within that society, to leave means nothing less than death. Most likely, we'll have to keep killing them for a long time to come. Your lack of optimism is realistic and valid.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 22, 2005 10:14 AM (0yYS2)

91 Joviel,

You idiot. Jesusland is a place. It says nothing about religion. Can you be as stupid as you seem?

Posted by: jesusland joe at November 22, 2005 10:17 AM (rUyw4)

92 Quothe joviel: "To the jackass who wants to kill Liberals; If a fight breaks out between fascists like yourself and liberals like me, don't be so damn cocky about who would win."

Do you even know what fascism is, little boy? And what makes you think you would win any fight? Do you have fully automatic, armor piercing protest signs or something? There are over 200 million guns in America, almost completely owned by we evil non-libtards.

"First of all, we outnumber you."

Which is why you can't win national elections. Because you outnumber us. Right?

"Check the polls."

You mean that ones that are written and conducted by liberals, in liberal areas, with questions slanted to produce a desired result? Let me poll you: Is pedophilia okay or is George Bush evil? Oh, wait, sorry, you're a liberal, so it would be "all of the above".

"Second, many of us support the entire Bill of Rights which includes the Second Ammendment (yes, I'm armed). And I can use it.

Yeah that's great. Guess what? A liberal with a gun just makes a more justifiable target. When TSHTF and you go out on a rampage with your black and islamic brothers, destroying the very city you live in, it will just make it that much easier to identify and kill you.

"Like many Liberals, I'm ex-military."

Wow, that's really impressive. What was your unit? Dates of service? Duty posts? MOS? You do know that real veterans, like me, can spot a faker a mile away, don't you?

"Third, currently unarmed Liberals could learn to use a gun faster than you could learn to stay alive on a battlefield."

You keep thinking that.

"Brains are more important than balls - ask any vet."

That's funny. Well, I am a vet of Desert Storm, and I know that battlefield survival requires brains and balls, of which you fairy-ass liberal nancy boys have none. One guy I shared a tent with in Iraq, and stood guard duty every day, told me that he would surrender rather than fight because he didn't believe we should be there in the first place. He was another liberal who joined the Army because he wanted the free college money, and was horrified when he discovered we were going to war, and actually tried to desert, but got caught. You don't impress me much, because I've seen your kind and know them well. You are chickenshit cowards who shit yourselves and run at the first sign of trouble.

"And reading the posts above there is no doubt in my mind which side is smarter."

That's so funny in so many ways that you'll never understand. Thanks for the laugh!

"So go ahead and start a civil war."

It's your fellow idiot libtards who are always going on about a revolution, so go ahead and start one, you little chickenshit punkass bitch.

"I look forward to putting a cap through your pinhead."

And I would gladly give you the opportunity, and then add your empty skull to my collection of fencepost ornaments.

"It would be a challenge to put one through your brain, but ohhhhhh, so satisfying..."

And not likely considering that you'd soil your pants and cry like a little girl at the first hostile contact. I've been shot at before, and by a real man, so I'm not worried about a little nancy-boy like you, or any other liberal waste of space.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 22, 2005 10:48 AM (0yYS2)

93 LMAO!!! IM, you are in top form today.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at November 22, 2005 10:59 AM (8e/V4)

94 Oh Lordy, Lordy!!!!.....ive never seen so many freakin trolls in here before....its like a Royal Rumble match going on in here and looks like i missed all the action lastnite....Kos must have sent out his brigades to attack the Jawa and hopefully they have been repulsed....daym, and i sharpened up my axe, all for nothing.....oh well, better luck next time i hope

Posted by: THANOS35 at November 22, 2005 11:16 AM (66BHq)

95 Percy's Pop and other liberals, read carefully: I don't care what liberals say, and I'm not interested in debate with you. The matter is clear to me; either you stand with your country against its enemies, or you stand against it with its enemies, and I know that where I stand and where you stand are diametrically opposed on pretty much every issue. Most egregious is the fact that you are more interested in undermining our government's efforts to fight terrorism so that you can embarass Bush and retake control of the government than you are in actually fighting terrorism itself.
Do not think for one moment that we don't know you for the traitors you are, or that you will escape justice forever. Because of the efforts of groups like the ACLU, Amnesty International, ANSWER, the Dhimmicratic party, et al, it's only a matter of time before the government is weakened to the point of being incapable of defending our nation, and then we shall see a wave of attacks as never before imagined, and our infrastructure will collapse, and there will be riots in the streets of every major city every day that will make the current events in Europe look like a frat party. That's when the gloves will come off and you will have to choose between standing with your country, or with its enemies, but it will be too late for you; you have already chosen, and your corpses will be stacked with all the other enemies of liberty, and nobody will shed a tear for you, because you are traitors.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 22, 2005 11:53 AM (0yYS2)

96 >>>"bango. you just hung yourself with your own rope."

fluffy,

it's some kind of a big secret that the Left is fully vested in the defeat of American "empire" in Iraq? Not at all. The future of the American Left for decades to come depends on it. You know it, we know.

You see, we don't use the word "traitor" the way you use "nazi"-- i.e., for shock value. The American Left are LITERALLY traitors. Read Rusty's latest post for a more in-depth explanation.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at November 22, 2005 12:23 PM (8e/V4)

97 Maybe the lefties are just trying to emulate the righties.

To the right, it's all about being on the winning side. They always beat their chest about winning the elections (no matter how many American voters they disenfranchise to do it).

In this case, maybe the lefties are on the side of the insurgents, because they want to be on the winning side. After all the US forces are led by Rumsfeld, and a President who couldn't lead his country out of a rainstorm.

Posted by: Robert at November 22, 2005 01:40 PM (cETWZ)

98 I started off here yesterday with the intention of challenging conservatives with the fact that the Bush administration, according to our own Pentagon, didn't allow the killing of Zarqawi before the invasion for political purposes. This was reported by MSNBC and the Washington Post. What I'm trying to point out is that it's silly to refer to liberals as "traitors" when your own conservative administration has done more questionable things in the "War on Terror" than any American liberal. I got nothing but bullshit from the absurdly jingoistic and ignorant posters on this conservative board. If this is the state of argument for conservatives, you've already lost the war of ideas. Jesusland Joe and Improbabull Maxibutt, you guys are just pathetic. You should be ashamed of yourselves. You're unamerican in a very profound way and you're stupid to boot. I haven't seen anything from either of you that even begins to qualify as a cogent argument. All I see is angry young men with little understanding or appreciation of history, politics or our political system hurling silly, nonsensical accusations about patriotism and hate. What a profound waste of time to engage anyone like you idiots.

Posted by: Bill at November 22, 2005 01:49 PM (s5QlR)

99 >>>"I started off here yesterday with the intention of challenging conservatives with the fact that the Bush administration, according to our own Pentagon, didn't allow the killing of Zarqawi before the invasion for political purposes."

Bill,

You have no idea why the Pentagon passed on Zarqawi, therefore you have no real point to make. The best you can do from the comfort of hindsight is say it was some kind of a blunder. Beyond that it's just hot air. But it wasn't nearly the blunder Clinton made when he refused Osama Bin Laden when Sudan offered him on a platter. Answer that one if you really came here for some kind of dialogue.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at November 22, 2005 02:55 PM (8e/V4)

100 Jesusland Carlos,

When told that Iraqi insurgents wanted to defeat the US forces, didn't our President say "bring it on"?

Oh that's right, we save the forests by opening them to logging companies, we help get cleaner air to breathe by rolling back emission standards, and we support the troops by baiting our enemies and reducing veterans benefits back home.

We also get to support the war by reducing taxes for the rich.

Makes as much sense as Christians who favor the rich over the poor.

Posted by: Robert at November 22, 2005 03:11 PM (cETWZ)

101 Jesusland Carlos: according to the 9-11 Commission, reports by our own State Department and reports by the CIA, the story that Sudan offered Clinton bin Laden is not true. I know many conservatives take it on faith that it happened, but the 9-11 commission found it to be a hoax. And, it wasn't the Pentagon that passed on the opportunity to kill al Zarqawi. According to the Pentagon, the administration wouldn't let them kill Zarqawi. To me, it's just another example of how poorly this administration has run the war on terror. This administration is all about politics and very light on policy.

Posted by: Bill at November 22, 2005 03:46 PM (V2qBv)

102 >>>"reports by our own State Department and reports by the CIA, the story that Sudan offered Clinton bin Laden is not true."

Bill,

I'm afraid your superiors have lied to you again. Here is the audiotape of Bill Clinton himself admitting to the Long Island Association in Woodbury, New York, during the group's annual luncheon in February 2002 that he refused Sudan's offer because he had no "basis" on which to hold him.

http://www.newsmax.com/audio/BILLVH.mp3

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at November 22, 2005 04:10 PM (8e/V4)

103 Carlos, let's try to get through this without personal attacks. I have no superiors. These are my own memories and thoughts. I think the problem is that we've got two separate hoaxes here and we're mixing them up. The hoax I was talking about is the one where the Sudanese General was supposed to have offered Clinton bin Laden. This was shown to be false for a number of reasons. In this quote you've offered, Clinton says that in 1996, a couple of years before the other event supposedly happened, there was no linkage between terrorist acts and bin Laden. That was true in 1996. In fact, as far as 2 years later, in 1998, Colin Powell and Condolezza Rice both criticized Clinton's obsession with bin Laden as making the war on terrorism "too personal." And, don't forget that as late as the late '90s, American oil companies were wining and dining members of a Taliban delegation in Texas, still trying to get a deal for the trans-asian pipeline now going up into the "stans."

Posted by: Bill at November 22, 2005 04:25 PM (V2qBv)

104 When told that Iraqi insurgents wanted to defeat the US forces, didn't our President say "bring it on"?

So, I am to assume upon hearing President Bush on TV saying that, peaceful people all over the world, grabbed their AK-47's and their Quran and headed for Iraq? ready for Jihad because Bush said "Bring it on" ?
The only people harping on those words are the left, indeed I can say without a doubt, not one terrorist, or insurgent fighting in Iraq came to do so because of a invitation from the President of the United States "Bring it on" statement.
I can also say without a doubt that the left is enbolding terrorists by attacking the troops and the war on a daily basis, with calls for a withdraw, and asking if troops should be prosecuted for "war crimes", Bin Ladens words in regards to Mogadishu is a testament to what terrorists think about the U.S armed forces, and they're correct in the fact that when the killing starts, the politicians want them home.

we support the troops by baiting our enemies
tough words to our enemies in a time of war? who has heard of such ? I'm to assume the President should tell them "we'll stop if you stop?" - "Say Uncle!!"
what about your sides plan to run? that is supporting the troops? has that not emboldened our enemies?

With all this talk of a withdrawal "Time Table" they now know, they only have to wait us out of Iraq.

Posted by: dave at November 22, 2005 04:42 PM (CcXvt)

105 Carlos, I would also have to point out that Clinton is the only president to have actually attempted to kill bin Laden. When he did this, he was accused of "wagging the dog." Now, the same people who accused him of trying to change the subject complain that he didn't capture bin Laden. I suggest all who are interested in how we fight the war on terrorism, read the 9-11 commission report. Compare the way the Clinton administration prepared and organized to the way the current administration handles threats. Clinton responded to increased threat assessments from the FAA by demanding weekly meetings with the heads of the CIA and the FBI. Bush responded to 55 specific FAA warnings, some of which mentioning flying airliners into buildings, by going on a 30-day vacation to Crawford.

Posted by: Bill at November 22, 2005 04:45 PM (V2qBv)

106 >>>"Clinton says that in 1996, a couple of years before the other event supposedly happened, there was no linkage between terrorist acts and bin Laden. That was true in 1996."

Bill,

let's talk about Bill Clinton, then we'll talk about Bush.

The only reason Bill had no "basis" to take Osama, and that there was no "linkage" between the terrorists acts and bin Laden is because Bill was still treating terrorism as a law enforcement issue, with formal rules of criminal evidence, probable cause, proper jurisdiction and yada yada yada instead of as a national security threat issue-- even after the 1993 bombing of the world trade center. That is why he had no "basis" and no "linkage". The fact is however that we already knew Al Qaida was involved in the '93 bombing, and we already knew Osama was AQ. But treating AQ as a national security threat instead of a law enforcement issue would have been far too controversial for Bill. It was a hot potato, and Bill avoided hot potatos at any cost. Had he shown some balls, it's very possible he could have nipped this war in the bud.

Now Bush. I haven't the slightest clue why Bush or whoever neglected to bomb Zarqawi. But given that Zarqawi was pretty much a nobody back then, and that Iraq was an extremely target rich environment at the time, I'm going to chalk it to a pretty big blunder (but still smaller than Bill's) that is now only apparent in hindsight. I fail to see how "politics" had anything to do with it.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at November 22, 2005 04:46 PM (8e/V4)

107 Dave, if I understand you correctly, you are arguing that terrorists paid no attention to the President saying "bring it on," but pay lots of attention when lesser politicians or ordinary citizens want to withdraw.

In other words, terrorists are listening carefully to some American citizens and some American politicians, but not at all moved by something the President says.

Does that argument really make sense to you?

Posted by: Bill at November 22, 2005 04:50 PM (V2qBv)

108 But, Carlos, using law enforcement apparatus, every conspirator and participant in the '93 WTC bombing was caught, tried and convicted. They're in jail now. Clinton believed that terrorism required all law enforcement agencies in all countries to cooperate and that fighting terrorism was a law enforcement issue. I would hope that we would learn something from the attempt to make the struggle purely a military one. All we've done is create a new training ground, increase enrollment and make the world even less safe.

The politics of the Bush administration decision not to allow the killing of Zarqawi are very simple to understand and explained in the original Pentagon report: killing him would "undercut the rational for invasion." The Bush people were trying to make a case for invasion and one of their rationals was that terrorists were being trained there. They had to muddy up the issue a bit, because they knew Zarqawi was not really being trained by Saddam's people. Saddam didn't like Zarqawi because he felt Zarqawi was a religious fanatic.

Posted by: Bill at November 22, 2005 05:00 PM (V2qBv)

109 Carlos says of Clinton: "Had he shown some balls, it's very possible he could have nipped this war in the bud."

Clinton fired cruise missles at a terrorist training camp when he thought bin Laden was there. He was 45 minutes late. On that day, he had spent the entire morning in deposition answering questions about oral sex. Clinton had a drug factory in the Sudan bombed. The CIA said that the factory was making explosive materials. Republicans lambasted him for this bombing, saying he was trying to "change the subject." According to the 9-11 commission report, Clinton "shook the trees" in the intelligence community relentlessly leading up to 2000. They were able to thwart a planned bombing of airports on New Years 2000. I'm really not sure what you mean by the "if he had the balls" thing. The record shows Clinton was completely immersed in fighting terrorism.

Posted by: Bill at November 22, 2005 05:14 PM (V2qBv)

110 Bill,

I thank you for your reply to dave.
Your reply was right on target.

A lesson for the both the left and the right is to "switch" your complaint.
That way you can see things from both sides.

Could you imagine the reaction if someone high-up in VP Al Gore's office was accused of outing a CIA agent?
Could you see Scalia dumping states rights to hand Gore the Presidency in 2000?
Could you imagine the howls of dissent if Clinton told our enemies to bring it in?

Is there any doubt we'd live in a one party country if the Dems were in charge on 9/11/2001?

This is why we need to scrap the 2-party system.

Posted by: Robert at November 22, 2005 05:16 PM (cETWZ)

111 Robert, I'm not sure I agree with you on scrapping the 2-party system, but you bring up an interesting set of points. Why are public reactions to scandal so different than in the 90's? In the 90's, just the charge that someone was fired at the Whitehouse travel office for political purposes was sufficient to cause a media firestorm and special investigation. Someone putting two file boxes into a closet instead of bringing them across the street to a storage facility was enough to trigger a special prosecutor. The media had "gates" for everything. What happened?

Posted by: Bill at November 22, 2005 05:24 PM (V2qBv)

112 One of my oldest conservative friends believes that the media firestorm over Clinton was because of the sex. He says sex sells, but incompetence and fraud don't sell.

My response to that is Gannon/Guckert: Secret Service and FBI records show that a male prostitute under an assumed name visited the Whitehouse at night without checking out over 15 times and the media isn't interested???!!! People who believe in a liberal media conspiracy need to explain that one to me.

Posted by: Bill at November 22, 2005 05:38 PM (Mt1UV)

113 Robert: "Is there any doubt we'd live in a 1-party country if the Dems were in control on Sept. 11, 2001."

Robert, with respect, I do doubt that. Remember that when 8 servicemen were killed in Mogadishu, barely a couple months into Clinton's first term, some republicans were calling for him to resign. Throughout the 90's republicans looked for any way to bring the democrat down. If Gore were in the Oval Office on 9-11-01, I have no doubt that Congressional republicans would have called for his resignation and called for immediate investigations.

Posted by: Bill at November 22, 2005 05:47 PM (Mt1UV)

114 Dave, if I understand you correctly, you are arguing that terrorists paid no attention to the President saying "bring it on," but pay lots of attention when lesser politicians or ordinary citizens want to withdraw.

What an idiotic statement! three words said by the President three years ago -- versus day after day of the media making statements about torture, and "possible" use of Chemical Weapons in Iraq, Cindy Sheenan, anti-war protests covered 24/7, fake coffins and "Grim Milestones", Micheal Moore movies, congressman calling for a full withdrawal of troops, hours and hours of media coverage of Senators and Congressman accusing the President of the United States of lying about the intelligence.....

Posted by: dave at November 22, 2005 06:10 PM (CcXvt)

115 Dave, you seem to think insurgents or terrorists in Iraq are more motivated by what someone SAYS publically in America than they are by what our military is DOING in Iraq. I just don't agree with that. But, I agree with you that Bush didn't have to say "bring it on" to motivate them either. I don't think it's what we say. I think it's what we do. As far as the President and his administration lying, I don't know why anyone even tries to deny that anymore. "No doubt" means something, Dave. And, just today it came out that Bush and Cheney received a classified PDB on 9-21-05 that said there was no connection between Saddam and al Queda and Saddam had nothing to do with the 9-11 attack. So, yes, they lied about the intelligence. Since they refused to show the PDB's to congress before they voted, congress did NOT have the same intelligence as the administration -- another lie exposed.

Posted by: Bill at November 22, 2005 06:24 PM (Mt1UV)

116 Sorry. Correction: Bush got the PDB that said Iraq was not involved on 9-21-01, not 9-21-05.

Posted by: Bill at November 22, 2005 06:26 PM (Mt1UV)

117 dave,

Anti-war protests covered 24/7?

By who, Al-Jazeera?

I remember them briefly being covered by the press before the war. I also remember the protesters were mocked in that same coverage as "professional protesters, tree-huggers, pacafists, etc.

I think a better name for the protesters might be "prescient".

I also remember the president saying he will not govern based on the ideas of "focus groups". Which must have sent the energy company executives into a tizzy.

Posted by: Robert at November 22, 2005 06:33 PM (cETWZ)

118 Dave, the most recent al Queda bombings were the suicide bombings at the hotels in Jordan. We now know from testimony of the wife whose belt didn't explode that they were looking for revenge for Falluja. They weren't in the slightest way motivated by Michael Moore. They were motivated by our Falluja operation in which we basically flattened an entire Iraqi town and used chemical phosphorus weapons on civilians to boot. If you, as an American, think it's acceptable to use phosphorus weapons on civilians, that is your right. But, don't act like these things have no consequences.

Posted by: Bill at November 22, 2005 06:37 PM (Mt1UV)

119 Bill,

WP is not a chemical weapon. How f..king dumb can you be?

Posted by: jesusland joe at November 22, 2005 06:40 PM (rUyw4)

120 Hey Joe, whether or not you want to call white phosphorus a "chemical weapon" is irrelevant. The soldiers referred to missions where it was used as "shake and bake" missions. The results are not unlike the use of napalm with respect to what they did to people. People had their skin burned off. So, call it what you want and, again, is there any way you proud conservatives can get through a posting without an ad hominem attack? Just wondering.

Posted by: Bill at November 22, 2005 06:48 PM (Mt1UV)

121 Bill:
If you believe the words of terrorists, you are indeed special.
So let me see if this makes sense to you:
United States attacks and destroys all terrorist, and insurgent resistance in the City of Fallujah.

Terrorists attack a wedding party, during a strike against civilian Hotels in Jordan killing fellow Muslim citizens then quote it was justified because of the American attack on Fallujah, I don't even know how you even had the balls to quote that.

Posted by: dave at November 22, 2005 06:48 PM (CcXvt)

122 No need to get hysterical, Dave. I never said the attack was "justified." You posted that. What I said was that THAT was the reason the terrorist gave for the attack. I was simply using a recent event to illustrate a point -- terrorists don't care about what liberals or conservatives say here in America. They are motivated by our actions. That in no way justifies anything they do, it's just reality. But, can we end this tired old unamerican idea that questioning our government gives comfort to the enemy. They don't really care about public opinion in America. They have their jihad and that's all they need.

Posted by: Bill at November 22, 2005 06:56 PM (Mt1UV)

123 This crap has been debunked two weeks ago, and it is like a nine-headed snake. The United States has used WP in every war since and including WWII. Are you saying the US used chemical weapons in WWII?

Posted by: jesusland joe at November 22, 2005 06:57 PM (rUyw4)

124 Hysterical? a little bit "Chicken Little" from you, but there we go.
You used one of the most unpopular terrorist attacks, to prove a point that terrorists do not care what the U.S people, or politicians say, I guess I missed the point.

It's not questioning the Government that is "unamerican" it's the constant attack against the United States armed forces, that is unamerican -- even your comments regarding civilian attacks, using chemical weapons (and you accuse me of hysteria?) point to the fundamental point I am making, you believe the worse of the U.S army at any given time, without proof or doing any research. You believe the enemy -- that my friend is unamerican.

It's the same as the people that are demonstrating outside Walter Reed and taunting wounded soldiers, and people carrying flag-draped coffins in Veterans days marches, that crosses the line from questioning the Government, to attacking the Soldiers and that is unamerican.

Posted by: dave at November 22, 2005 07:10 PM (CcXvt)

125 >>>The politics of the Bush administration decision not to allow the killing of Zarqawi are very simple to understand and explained in the original Pentagon report: killing him would "undercut the rational for invasion." The Bush people were trying to make a case for invasion and one of their rationals was that terrorists were being trained there."

Bill,

sounds like spin to me. An argument could just as easily be made that Bush could have strengthened the terrorism case BY bombing the camp. Obviously, when handed a list of several hundred viable targets by the Pentagon, Bush made some choices, and now the usual political spinmeisters and conspiracy theorists are having their usual heyday with it.

Similarly, I'm not going to second guess Bill. Hindsight is 20/20, and I only raised the issue because people in glass houses like that shouldn't throw stones.

And I never got caught up in the Monica affair given I was a Democrat at the time. I still like Bill, actually, but he perjured himself in a sexual harrassment suit and he was rightly punished for it.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at November 22, 2005 07:57 PM (8e/V4)

126 dave,

When did Murtha, Michael Moore, etc carry out any, never mind constant, attacks against the United States armed forces?

By the way, you might want to point your missives at the Republican controlled Congress, who can't find a cut to veteran's benefits they won't support.

I don't think Bill believes the enemy, he's just pointing out what they've said.

You believe the Bush administration even though, at this point, it flies in the face of common sense.
Here's some news for you, sometimes those in authority lie.
And unless you are a CEO or part of the top-earning 1% super rich in this country, your President is not acting in your best interests.
Just thought you should know.

Posted by: Robert at November 22, 2005 07:58 PM (cETWZ)

127 Robert:
The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not "insurgents" or "terrorists" or "The Enemy." They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow -- and they will win. Get it, Mr. Bush?
Michael Moore

Comparing the terrorists in Iraq, who use homicide bombs to kill civilians and united states soldiers to the founding fathers of America, and saying they'll defeat our Soldiers -- I'm sure you don't find that offensive but I'm sure the soldiers do.

Robert: He does believe the enemy:
hey were motivated by our Falluja operation in which we basically flattened an entire Iraqi town and used chemical phosphorus weapons on civilians to boot.

That isn't a quote from anywhere, that is his words.

I believe the Bush Administration because I say attacking the troops is unamerican?
Reality called, says he misses you.

Posted by: dave at November 22, 2005 08:15 PM (CcXvt)

128 dave,

I apologize.
I didn't realize you were in Fallujah during the attack and saw it with your own eyes.

How long have you been back?
Are you going back there anytime soon?

I hope not. I'm looking for troop-supporters, like you, to help fight the veterans benefit reductions the Republican-controlled Congress is trying to push through.

Feet still firmly planted on the ground,

Robert

Posted by: Robert at November 23, 2005 12:35 AM (cETWZ)

129 DMAN: What ever happened to reasonable debate????
The liberals and democrats screwed it up. It's resonable debate only if it fits their childish view of things. Anything else is unreasonable debate. Now go get your paycheck from the taxpayers and piss and moan about not getting a raise for sitting on your ass.

Posted by: greyrooster at November 23, 2005 04:44 AM (ZaAd/)

130 Robert:
your weakly veiled sarcasm is pretty pitiful.
let me break it down for you again so maybe you can comprehend:

"used chemical phosphorus weapons on civilians"

1. Phosphorus rounds, or shells are not chemical weapons.
2. The United States Armed Forces does not target Civilians.

You and Bill however, continue to make my point. When someone says something bad about Soldiers (murder/chemical weapons/torture/moonbat theory) you're on-board, you're so there, wearing your Che T-Shirt, and flying your American flag upside down, burning with fake outrage.

Here is a little newsflash for you if you believe that large portions of the U.S Armed forces, which is made up of your fellow countrymen have no problem murdering civilians, using chemical weapons and routinely take part in torture and murder then you're no longer questioning the Government you're attacking the soldiers.

Your ilk used to wait at airports and spit on soldiers too, and then say they were fighting against the Government and their War.

Posted by: dave at November 23, 2005 07:00 AM (CcXvt)

131 >>>Your ilk used to wait at airports and spit on soldiers too,

dave,

Robert accuses them of wantonly killing civilians with chemical weapons and the he cries in his soup for their "veterans benefits". LOL! These people just won't get their story straight. More likely he thinks he's found a wedge in yet another lame attempt to vilifiy "Bush".

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at November 23, 2005 08:59 AM (8e/V4)

132 Dave,

Thank you! And thank you for defanging the trolls on this thread. They truly are scum. They demoncrats did everything in their power to disenfranchise military personel in the last election, and then they have the cheek to come in here and accuse our soldiers of all kinds of atrocities.

I tell you I am sick of their kind. I would hate to know what I would do if one of these punks even tried to spit on one of our soldiers in my presence. Jail or not, I would do everything in my power to put the little punks(guy or girl) lights out.

When all the soldiers get back, the Left in this country will have some things they will have to answer for.

Posted by: jesusland joe at November 23, 2005 10:22 AM (rUyw4)

133 dave, jesusland Joe:

WTF are you talking about?

You're both on this thread to vilify the left because in your tiny minds, those that think this war is wrong hate our soldiers.
(and those that think 2+2 doesn't equal 6 hate numbers).
Idiots.

Listen up morons. I like the soldiers. I feel bad they've been thrown into a disastrous situation without the proper numbers or battle gear (like the cut in veterans benefits we're not supposed to talk about that either--lest the hypocrisy becomes overwhelming).

Let me ask you. What have YOU sacraficed for this war you so believe in?
Are you paying higher taxes to support our troops?
No we cut taxes for the richest 1% earners in this country, but pay no attention to the fact our soldiers were sent to battle without the right gear.
(See, 2+2 does equal 4).

You 2 idiots couldn't give a shit about the soldiers. You're just using this canard so you won't have to admit you voted for a moron and his evil sidekick.

BTW, you're the last 2 people to admit it. Everyone else already knows.

Posted by: Robert at November 23, 2005 02:15 PM (cETWZ)

134 Bill,

I apologize for sinking to their level in the last reply.
It's just that it's aggravating to have them make believe they miss the point so consistently.

First they start by saying the left hates our soldiers, unlike the Bush supporters.
When I point out Bush's "bring it on line", they dismiss it.
When i point out the lack of funding for the war and the vets, they miss that one too.

They may not be idiots, but they play idiots on the web.

Posted by: Robert at November 23, 2005 02:22 PM (cETWZ)

135 They were motivated by our Falluja operation in which we basically flattened an entire Iraqi town and used chemical phosphorus weapons on civilians to boot.
Robert

Robert accuses Soldiers of commiting atrocities in the battle for Fallujah, then wrings his hands in anguish that Veterans are not getting their benefits, what next Robert are you going to suggest we need to purchase Ace bandages for those injured by repetitive stress syndrome from kicking puppies?

Let me ask you. What have YOU sacraficed for this war you so believe in?
Are you paying higher taxes to support our troops?

Are you? no one is idiot!
let me guess you had a pan drive, to collect pans from your neighbours to melt down to make bombers ala WWII?

You 2 idiots couldn't give a shit about the soldiers. You're just using this canard so you won't have to admit you voted for a moron and his evil sidekick.

Bzzzt! wrong, I didn't vote Moron! thanks for playing!
You don't care about veterans, or the soldiers, you're just playing that card as a "zinger" towards the republicans the closest your side gets to Veteran care is standing outside Walter Reed taunting the wounded soldiers.

You're slime.

Posted by: dave at November 23, 2005 03:03 PM (CcXvt)

136 Never been to Walter Reed Hospital.

Care to lie about me again?

Posted by: Robert at November 23, 2005 03:15 PM (cETWZ)

137 I didn't write the quote you attributed to me. Nor have I ever been to Walter Reed Hospital.

Care to lie about me again?

The soldiers represent Americans. I am an American.

Why do you hate our soldiers??

Posted by: Robert at November 23, 2005 03:18 PM (cETWZ)

138 Bring it on!

Bring it on!

Bring it on!

Bring it on!

This is what you get when a cartoon character leads your country.

Posted by: Robert at November 23, 2005 03:20 PM (cETWZ)

139 Robert,

You are either psychotic or eight years old, I'm not sure which.

Posted by: jesusland joe at November 23, 2005 03:45 PM (rUyw4)

140 And Robert,

You know damned well the Demoncrats and the Left did everything in their power to disenfranchise our soldiers, and you are a liar if you say otherwise.

You accuse others of missing your points, and then ignore anything they say, so pot...kettle....black, do these words mean anything to you?

Now, what I think. I wish our soldiers were home today, not tomorrow. I have too many friends and relatives either wounded or killed(my wife's cousin was killed there last year) in Iraq already. But I have enough sense to know that we cannot leave Iraq until we have the situation stabalized, and their Army or Guard is ready to take over. If Iraq is left to the radicals, then it will be used as a springboard to engulf the region in a major war, most unlike what we have there now.

No one I know wants a war just for the sake of war, and the Left constantly saying that is nothing but a lie. If you think that, then you, sir, are wrong...wrong....wrong!

Posted by: jesusland joe at November 23, 2005 04:07 PM (rUyw4)

141 robert,

the Left's "concern" for the troops comes through loud and clear.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at November 23, 2005 05:37 PM (8e/V4)

142 How would I "know damned well" the Democrats and the Left did everything in their power to disenfranchise our soldiers?

Oh that's right, because someone with a keyboard and internet access said so.

How about a little proof? And don't tell me its because some film maker made a comment about how our troops shouldn't be in Iraq.
1) he's a film maker, and 2) he's right.

Now to your second point: I agree, we need to get our troops out of harm's way, but that's going to be a difficult task. The US is in a "you broke it, you fix it" situation.
Unfortunately, I think Civil War in Iraq is inevitable due to tribal history.
I don't have any answers for how we can make this work for both the US and Iraqi citizens.

Another of my concerns is that the US does not want democracy in Iraq. Our nations history has often shown this to be the case (Chile 1973, Iran 1952, etc). Are we really going to sit by and let Iraq control their own resources and cut better deals with the Chinese than with us?
I tend to think that those who pushed this war will think it was unsuccessful if that happens.

One thing we should all (left, right and middle) have learned from this debacle is that "BEFORE we let our leaders start a war is EXACTLY the time to question them".
I'm all for disdain of the Dems and the Left, but
it's because they let themselves be cowed by a bunch of clueless cowboys.

The tough questions (like "where's the proof", "what's the plan", etc) were never asked for fear that their Patriotism would be called into play. What a bunch of weenies.

As to jesusland carlos,
I've already pointed out how concerned the republicans are for our troops. (Not at all).
So other than me and you, who else?

Happy Thanksgiving to the troops. Hope to see you back in the US soon.

Posted by: Robert at November 24, 2005 11:05 AM (cETWZ)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

November 15, 2005

Iraq Gun Porn: Which Guns Suck, Which Guns Rock

UPDATE: Welcome minions of Drew Curtis!

Which commonly used weapons in Iraq do our brave soldiers give the thumbs up to and which do they thumb their nose at? Here is a review.

Even though I've been pretty much out of The Jawa Report loop for the past month or so, I do get a ton of e-mails daily. From time to time I get an e-mail worthy of sharing with you. This is one. It was forwarded by a reader in the Navy, Mike, who in turn got it from a friend of his in the Marines. You may have seen it making the rounds already. The review of the weapons are one recently returned Marine's opinion [name removed to protect his identity] and does not necessarily mean a consensus has formed. If you scroll to the end you'll also see an assessment of our enemiy's capability as well as those of our allies.

As the son and grandson of two very fine Marines, let me wish all those fighting in Iraq all the best and God speed in a final victory over the enemies of the United States of America.

------

1) The M-16 rifle : Thumbs down. Chronic jamming problems with the talcum
powder like sand over there. The sand is everywhere. [The Marine] says you feel
filthy 2 minutes after coming out of the shower. The M-4 carbine version is
more popular because it's lighter and shorter, but it has jamming problems
also. They like the ability to mount the various optical gunsights and
weapons lights on the picattiny rails, but the
weapon itself is not great in a desert environment. They all hate the 5.56mm
(.223) round. Poor penetration on the cinderblock structure common over
there and even torso hits cant be reliably counted on to put the enemy down.
Fun fact: Random autopsies on dead insurgents shows a high level of opiate
use.

2) The M243 SAW (squad assault weapon): .223 cal. Drum fed light machine
gun. Big thumbs down. Universally considered a piece of shit. Chronic
jamming problems, most of which require partial disassembly.
(that's fun in the middle of a firefight).

3) The M9 Beretta 9mm: Mixed bag. Good gun, performs well in desert
environment; but they all hate the 9mm cartridge. The use of handguns for
self-defense is actually fairly common. Same old story on the 9mm: Bad guys
hit multiple times and still in the fight.

4) Mossberg 12ga. Military shotgun: Works well, used frequently for clearing
houses to good effect.

5) The M240 Machine Gun: 7.62 Nato (.308) cal. belt fed machine gun,
developed to replace the old M-60 (what a beautiful weapon that was!!).
Thumbs up. Accurate, reliable, and the 7.62 round puts 'em down.
Originally developed as a vehicle mounted weapon, more and more are being
dismounted and taken into the field by infantry. The 7.62 round chews up the
structure over there. more...

Posted by: Rusty at 09:52 AM | Comments (321) | Add Comment
Post contains 2380 words, total size 14 kb.

1 This just confirms what many of us in the shooting fraternity have known all along. That is why I own 2 Colt .45 autos and a Springfield Armory Socom in .308 cal. Many of us tried to prevent the US military from adoping the 9mm cartridge and chunking the .45 auto. Big mistake and probably cost lives in several deployments over the past few years.

As for the enemy, well, I also own an AK-47 and find it to be very reliable but difficult to shoot acurately at longer ranges. The Socom beats the hell at out it. A 9mm pistol is a useless piece of junk when using hardnose rounds. Sorry!

Posted by: jesusland joe at November 15, 2005 10:23 AM (rUyw4)

2 Maybe H&K's cartridgeless ammunition will allow the military to adopt a larger round with a weapon like the H&K G11, without the disadvantage of weight.
They could also switch to a polymer cased round which would further also offset caliber to weight ratio.

http://warrifles.com/forums/printthread.php?t=4501

Posted by: dave at November 15, 2005 10:45 AM (CcXvt)

3 That's a heck of a read. Three cheers for John Moses Browning.

Posted by: Graeme at November 15, 2005 11:15 AM (r2qQp)

4 Great gun pr0n. Now I need a smoke... ;-)

Posted by: Insomniac at November 15, 2005 11:33 AM (IEpte)

5 I can always spot an armchair Rambo at the range, because they all use tricked-out AR's, which are possibly the most unreliable family of weapons ever devised. In fact, if one were to set out to design a more unreliable weapon, I don't think it could be done, at least not easily. The problem is that its moving parts all have close tolerances, and the filthy, carbon laden exhaust gas that is used to cycle the action is discharged smack into the middle of the mechanism, giving everything inside the weapon a good coat of carbon fouling, especially the bolt and bolt carrier. Add this to the fact that the bolt carrier rides inside the upper reciever, in almost total direct metal to metal contact, with little room in between, which makes a perfect dirt trap, the weapon is a study in how to do it the wrong way. The 5.56 round is likewise borderline useless, having been designed to shooting varmints rather than people, and is certainly not sufficiently powerful to bring down a drugged up jihadotard.
The M243 SAW is plagued by the fact that is is essentially a miniaturized and modernized M240, and thus all parts are smaller and more delicate, and it is mostly made of aluminum. I know from personal experience that it is pronbe to fouling and breakage. The M240 is the FN MAG, and is a proven weapon, but the M243, called the MINIMI, was basically purchased untested by an Army desperate to modernize.
I hate the Beretta pistol, and the 9mm cartridge, and will say no more about it.
I think the best infantry weapon would be a modernized AK variant with a good, proven, mid-size cartridge. The AK is absolutely reliable under any conditions, and suffers from few design problems, all of which may be easily fixed with a little tweaking. I fired a custom AK at the range last week, and the accuracy and controllability was unbelievablable. It was built on a heavier RPK receiver, with a McMillan chrome lined barrel, and a left-side, thumb-lever safety. Even with standard 7.62x39 ammo, it was head-shot accurate at 125 yards, and I put ten rounds into a milk jug while standing, and shooting unsupported. The owner said he had made 300 yard shots with open sights, and I believe him. If it were chambered in .243 Winchester or .257 Roberts, it would be perfect. The Army is going to go to the 6.8mm SPC, which is essentially a .257 Roberts, which was one of the best big game rounds ever made for anything less than 300 lbs., but alas, they're not going to adapt the most proven automatic weapon design of all time, but instead, they're going to go with an unproven design and Buch Rogers technology, just like they did with the M16 in Vietnam. Some people never learn.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 15, 2005 12:03 PM (0yYS2)

6 IM,

I purchased a Springfield Armory Socom about 2 months ago and have found it to be the best rifle I have ever fired, including the AK-47, although I have not fired any AK variants to which you allude.

I like the .308 and do not understand why the military will not just stick with that cartridge rather than having to add another variant. Makes little sense to me.

Posted by: jesusland joe at November 15, 2005 12:11 PM (rUyw4)

7 You can't do jack about the environment! No such thing as all-terrain all-purpose - shit happens.

Which is why the basics are sacred! Maintenance, maintenance, maintenance. If you ain't cleaning daily every chance you get, and treating and protecting your weapon like it was your virgin sister - including mags and rounds - you are wrong!

You can talk guntalk all you want around the barracks, but your hands better be busy on your lil' sister, or hondo or his contemporaries will be putting their boot up your ass!

Posted by: hondo at November 15, 2005 12:11 PM (Jvmry)

8 Bring back my beloved 23lbs of M-60 and the M-14.
While we're at it, nothing will knock somebody's ass down quite like the .45.
A thing of beauty I tell ya!

Posted by: dick at November 15, 2005 12:48 PM (XlQVK)

9 Dang, that's good stuff, Rusty. I just learned more about how the war is actually going in Iraq than I have from the NY Times since the shooting started. 9Exception--Dexter Filkins on Fallujah was good.)

I'd link you, but, um, I blog here, so there's not much point.

Posted by: See-Dubya at November 15, 2005 02:15 PM (yhNln)

10 The M-16 was a piece of shit when it was introduced in Viet Nam, and it ain't no better now. Frickin' glorified .22 mag. round and the worst possible design for 'dirty' environments. Ever see a clean battlefield?

If you wanted to jam an M-14, I suppose you could, but you'd sure have to work at it; and the 7.62 NATO [.308 Winchester] caliber is the worldwide round of choice for snipers and SWAT teams for a reason.

Posted by: Charlie at November 15, 2005 02:29 PM (2ZhL/)

11 Awesome article.

I've always disliked how our Army command has remained so stubborn about using foreign assault rifles. The M-16 always has been and always will be a piece of crap. At least the XM-8 might be better, but it still uses the NATO 5.56 round, and even worse, it's on hold because H&K hasn't been quick to let us procure the design. The whole kick-arse OICW program has been put on indefinite hold because the budget bigshots are being picky, while our forces' main assault weapons are second-rate! We should look at one of the better European rifles like the G36 (adopt the whole family, it's better than the M-16 family), the AUG, or the FN2000. It would be better to just go to a modern G3 variant/descendant.

Over there, I'd definitely go for either a FN P90 (stopping power's a tad low, but it's a pocket-size bullet-hose that goes through anything, and has amazingly low recoil), or an AK-103 (the modern 7.62mm AK).

Posted by: Jeff at November 15, 2005 04:01 PM (1MHqI)

12 There was a period early after 911 when you would read in message traffic now and then for specific individuals coming over that they needed to bring their own weapons (remember this was right after 911 - weapons even in the 5th FLT AOR were hard to come by for the first couple of months), but try to make it 9mm or 45 so you could get ammo in theater. I sent and email over to my boss asking if my wife could send my something DHL.....Thoughts of Kimber floating in my head...... he said no. Sigh. Did my little part of OEF with .... nothing. I could throw a stapler with fairly good accuracy, and I could flip a 3.5" disk like a throwing star though.

BTW, the comment about the talcum powder is right on. I can feel that stuff on my teeth just thinking about it.

Posted by: CDR Salamander at November 15, 2005 04:08 PM (m64uD)

13 The reason why 9mm and .223 rounds are prevalent in our military is because of cost effectiveness.
Compare the prices of the ammunition and guns?

WinchesterÃ‚Â® USA Handgun WinCleanÃ‚Â® 9 mm LugerÃ‚Â® 115 Gr. BEB 50 rds.$7.47

WinchesterÃ‚Â® USA Pistol .45 auto 230 Gr. FMJ 50 rds.$10.77

RemingtonÃ‚Â® AccuTipâ„¢ Rifle .223 Rem.Ã‚Â® 50 Gr. AT-BT 20 rds.$14.47

RemingtonÃ‚Â® AccuTipâ„¢ Rifle .308 Win.Ã‚Â® 165 Gr. AT-BT 20 rds.$20.17

.308 m-14â€™s run around $1k
.223 m-16â€™s cost about half.

Perhaps government contracts would drive the prices of the better quality ammo and guns down as demand went up.
But face it, politicians arm our warriors, otherwise we would see our standard infantrymen using 1911 .45â€™s and .308 garands as our grand daddies did over half a century ago when they kicked commie ass, instead of using NATO weapons for our friendly more sensitive 21st century â€œpeace keepers.â€

Posted by: Mr EMT at November 15, 2005 04:08 PM (j68Ui)

14 I can always spot an armchair Rambo at the range, because they all use tricked-out AR's, which are possibly the most unreliable family of weapons ever devised.

I disagree. They are quite reliable and fun to shoot. However, the tight tolerances (which make them more accurate than a lot of other battle rifles) are easy to gunk up when there's no time for cleaning. The POF gas mechanism would change that.

The 5.56 round is likewise borderline useless, having been designed to shooting varmints rather than people, and is certainly not sufficiently powerful to bring down a drugged up jihadotard

Not quite. It is quite useless coming out of the 14.5 inch barrel most troops use. The 20 inch version is quite effective. The other hindrance is that the military uses FMJs over JHPs due to some war rule.

I've also heard that the 6.8SPC project is done for. Bummer.

The US will never use AKs or 7.62X39 because they're viewed as commie guns/rounds.

Posted by: SayUncle at November 15, 2005 04:21 PM (CDrd/)

15 Still, at the end of the day "it is the poor workman who blames his tools".

Use to play a game on the ranges - let people bring along their personals (POW) - lots of exotic toys - lots of goo goo gah gahs and wows from the crowd.

But before you can fire - you had to fieldstrip to specs/inspect and reassemble in time allotted. You'd be surprised how many putzs there were.

And afterwards none of that - bag it - trunk of the car -"sarge - I'll clean it at home on the kitchen table with my wife" crap. Show me.

Posted by: hondo at November 15, 2005 04:21 PM (Jvmry)

16 And I'll ask for the 3rd time, just what the hell is wrong with the .308 Winchester cartridge? I love it, I have a great battle rifle(the Springfield Armory Socom) that shoots it, and it seems that the troops are demanding it(the post lists modified M-14's as very reliable and effective).

So what gives? Seems like the solution is just too easy as the right gun and cartridge already exists.

Posted by: jesusland joe at November 15, 2005 04:54 PM (rUyw4)

17 Nothing, it's a great cartridge. Not only do they exist, but the army has stockpiles of them.

Posted by: SayUncle at November 15, 2005 04:58 PM (CDrd/)

18 Being a girl and all, I can't hold a sophisticated conversation on guns like you guys, but may I say I do like my Mossberg - very much. The hubby loves his Blackhawk. He's a big man and says "big men should have big guns". I've only shot it a couple times on dad's ranch. Too much power for me, but what a show stopper.

Posted by: Oyster at November 15, 2005 05:07 PM (fl6E1)

19 Ruger Blackhawk in .44 magnum, Oyster? Hot damn, I like my .44 magnum S&W Model 29, also.

Posted by: jesusland joe at November 15, 2005 05:19 PM (rUyw4)

20 Alright, I gotta stick up for my beloved AR-15 here. First, weapon characteristics (accuracy, reliability) are give and take, plain and simple. If you make the M16 as rugged and reliable as the AK, you will sacrifice accuracy. No way around that. Simple give and take.
Second, I personally know a former Navy Seal and a Green Beret who have both told me that as long as you concentrate on proper shooting technique (front sight, press), the 5.56mm answers the mail every time. You can pick headshots with it with no problem. Fallujah was headshot central because of Marines with ACOGs and M16A4s. The only problem with that round is the KIND of round our troops are forced to use. Forget all this FMJ crap. We need soft points and ballistic tips over there. The new Black Hills 77gr. is nasty and will change some negative opinions for sure. Some people act like the 6.8 is some miracle round that will kill a human outright even if the round grazes them. Not the case. The M16/5.56mm has a lot of advantages that most people overlook. Ponder this: If some maniac walked into a shopping mall when you happened to be there and started firing an M4 at people, would you say 'OH, thats only a 5.56mm exiting through a 14.5 inch barrel, honey. We have nothing to worry about.'A bullet is a bullet is a bullet...

Posted by: Jack's Smirking Revenge at November 15, 2005 06:00 PM (CtVG6)

21 Two weapons, Mark 19 way way way cool. For the movies,
and real life, nothing beats the Tommy gun. Tommy, Tommy,
I want a Tommy gun with a drum.

Posted by: Butch at November 15, 2005 06:07 PM (Gqhi9)

22 JSR,

I have never been in combat so I don't have that experience. After years of big game hunting(deer and elk), I can tell you that yes, the .223 Remington will kill a deer if you pick your shot, but so will a .22 rimfire for that matter. And you have to remember that the ammo required by the Geneva Convention is much less effective than hunting ammo.

I would consider it unethical to hunt even small whitetail deer with a .223 in FMJ as it does not expand, and the speed of the bullet means it makes a small entry and exit hole. If the vitals are not engaged, then the game will likely escape. I would assume the same applies for people based on my readings, including Blackhawk Down, where the Delta Force members generally used modified M-14's in .308 cal. Just my thoughts.

Posted by: jesusland joe at November 15, 2005 06:12 PM (rUyw4)

23 Jesusland,
Good point. However, I am an avid hunter as well, and where I live it is outright illegal to hunt anything with an FMJ for the exact reasons you said. Even large calibers must be soft-points or ballistics. FMJs and especially the armor piercing M855s and SS109s issued to our troops do not have good wound ballistics; in and out leaving a .22 caliber hole. To hell with this Geneva crap. Lets give our guys the nasty shit. The insurgents don't do us any favors. Think about how moronic all of this is: you have to kill a deer quickly using excellent ammo, but lets give the insurgents a chance by using crap ammo. Although, I don't think it would be a very pleasant death bleeding out from numerous small caliber wounds...That thought actually pleases me greatly when applied to insurgents. Anyway, I like the M16/5.56mm very much. I simply wouldn't want to lug a Vietnam-era M14 into close-quarters combat. For sniping...thats a different tool for a different job.

Posted by: Jack's Smirking Revenge at November 15, 2005 06:31 PM (CtVG6)

24 Oh yeah. .45s rule. Especially the H&K.

Posted by: Jack's Smirking Revenge at November 15, 2005 06:37 PM (CtVG6)

25 JSR,

I would never suggest the Vietnam era M-14's, but I like the Springfield Armory Socoms, which are modified M-14's with short barrels and synthetic stocks configured for all the modern bells and whistles. They are awesome! And I still love my Colt .45 Combat Commander.

Posted by: jesusland joe at November 15, 2005 06:42 PM (rUyw4)

26 Hague convention, actually. Hague convention requires FMJ.

I have to wonder if our Spec Ops guys ever skirt that. If you've got a suppressed 9mm or .45, I'd hate to compound the subsonic velocity with a dud bullet.

Posted by: See-Dubya at November 15, 2005 06:59 PM (pFjwZ)

27 The Blackwater guys can use whatever kinds of ammunition they want. Rock on.

Posted by: Jack's Smirking Revenge at November 15, 2005 07:43 PM (CtVG6)

28 All,

One vital point everyone seems to have missed is that current doctrine isn't that the round kill the enemy, but that you wound him. The theory is that a wounded enemy's comrads in arms will try to drag him back to medical care, thus tying up more soldiers than a dead body would.

It makes a certain kind of sense, but I think that theory went out the door when we started fighting people who consider suicide bombers a good tactic.

You or I would want to get a wounded comrade to the surgeon, and so would have a Red Army soldier. The 'Splodeydope loving screaming Islamonazi fanatics don't care.

The only answer for them is to put them on the dirt hard, and make sure they don't get up.

Time to pull out of the Hague Convention. If our enemy can use suicide bombers disguised as civilians, I don't see why we can't use hollow-points.

Posted by: Mack the Knife at November 15, 2005 08:50 PM (PH2Nw)

29 I said: "I can always spot an armchair Rambo at the range, because they all use tricked-out AR's, which are possibly the most unreliable family of weapons ever devised."

To which SayUncle repied: "I disagree. They are quite reliable and fun to shoot."

Yeah, and I'm the fucking pope. Fun is one thing, dead because your weapon jammed is another. When I was in Iraq during Desert Storm, I picked up a folding stock AK from a bunker, (never fired, only dropped once), and kept that handy, because most of the time, I couldn't even chamber a round in my M16 without using the forward assist, even right after cleaning it.

"However, the tight tolerances (which make them more accurate than a lot of other battle rifles) are easy to gunk up when there's no time for cleaning."

Yeah, which gets soldiers dead. The M14 suffered from dust too, but not as much, and is about twice as accurate.

"The POF gas mechanism would change that."

But the bolt carrier would still get stuck in the upper. Nothing solved.

I said: "The 5.56 round is likewise borderline useless, having been designed to shooting varmints rather than people, and is certainly not sufficiently powerful to bring down a drugged up jihadotard."

He said: "Not quite."

Yes, quite. Just ask someone who's been there, or read their blogs. It takes multiple rounds to put someone down, especially if they're drugged up.

"It is quite useless coming out of the 14.5 inch barrel most troops use. The 20 inch version is quite effective."

That's only a velocity difference of about 500 fps, which doesn't make that great a difference. It's a bullet for shooting prarie dogs and coyotes, not someone who is trying to kill you.

"The other hindrance is that the military uses FMJs over JHPs due to some war rule."

If FMJ isn't going to penetrate, hollow points sure as hell won't.

Now for something completely different.
JJ asked: "And I'll ask for the 3rd time, just what the hell is wrong with the .308 Winchester cartridge?"

It's a tad on the heavy side, so it takes up a lot of weight and space per round. It's so powerful, weapons have to be heavier and more robust. Follow-up shots are not as fast. Other than that, I love it. I have a CETME, which I love to shoot, but it's a bit much for combat, though I'd carry it with a cinderblock tied to it before I'd pick up a piece of shit M16. By the way, the M14 is a great weapon, and doesn't cost $1000.00 each like someone said earlier; they were paid for long ago and there are still tons of them in the arsenals. All they need is a scope mount and they're good to go.

Now for something completely the same.
Jack's Smirking Revenge said: "...weapon characteristics (accuracy, reliability) are give and take, plain and simple."

No, they're not. The H&K G3 is capable of MOA accuracy with a scope and good ammo, and will go about 2000 rounds, by my experience, without cleaning. The M16 can do MOA, but needs cleaned ALL THE DAMN TIME. My M16 would fire about three rounds at best. If I had needed it, really needed it, I would have been dead.

"If you make the M16 as rugged and reliable as the AK, you will sacrifice accuracy. No way around that. Simple give and take."

I shot a MOA AK just last week. The only thing special about it was that it was built to American standards, not ComBloc, and had a McMillan chrome lined barrel. So, no. And how do you explain sub-MOA Druganov sniper rifles? Just because it's ugly doesn't mean it doesn't work. Sorry, but again, no.

"Second, I personally know a former Navy Seal and a Green Beret who have both told me that as long as you concentrate on proper shooting technique (front sight, press), the 5.56mm answers the mail every time. You can pick headshots with it with no problem."

Sure, with a clear shot at an unarmored target. People being shot at tend to hide behind cover, the least of which will stop a tiny bullet. Mass matters. I can make a headshot with my .22 at 100 yards, and it will likely be lethal too.

"Fallujah was headshot central because of Marines with ACOGs and M16A4s."

One per squad, covering windows and doorways, waiting for headshots. DM's are not to be confused with the average infantryman.

"The only problem with that round is the KIND of round our troops are forced to use. Forget all this FMJ crap. We need soft points and ballistic tips over there."

Which would do even worse at penetrating cover.

"The new Black Hills 77gr. is nasty and will change some negative opinions for sure."

Still just a varmint round.

"Some people act like the 6.8 is some miracle round that will kill a human outright even if the round grazes them. Not the case."

Let's see, a heavier bullet at an almost equal velocity means more retained energy at longer ranges. Hardly miraculous, but better than a prarie dog popper.

"The M16/5.56mm has a lot of advantages that most people overlook."

I never considered a chronically unreliable weapon any sort of advantage, unless it's the enemy's, but no such luck, they carry AK's, which go bang EVERY TIME.

"Ponder this: If some maniac walked into a shopping mall when you happened to be there and started firing an M4 at people, would you say 'OH, thats only a 5.56mm exiting through a 14.5 inch barrel, honey. We have nothing to worry about.'A bullet is a bullet is a bullet..."

Jesus H.. That's about teh silliest strawman as I've ever seen. Well, if I'm ever shot at by an M4, I won't worry too much, because it'll jam after about three shots, and I'll walk over and shove it up the shooter's ass. Now ponder this: You're in combat, and someone fires an AK at you and it goes "BANGBANGBANGBANG", et cetera ad infinitum, and you raise your M16 to return fire and it goes "click". Better be good at SPORTS there, sport, because if not, you're about to get your own shiny new flag-drapped box to ride home in. I'll take a well made AK any day, and I'll eat your lunch.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 15, 2005 09:55 PM (0yYS2)

30 Well, if I were a fanatic i would be kamakazing myself against allied forces too.
You know your infedel enemies have inferior weapons and ammunition that will only wound or piss you off, and if it looks bad enough you get to be arrested and handled with kiddy gloves, fed 3 meals a day, watch TV and other acts of torture in prison where your brothers run the risk of infedal female enemy touching you or taking pictures of you in your underwear and being lead by a leash. If they truly hate you they might even sit in your lap and run their fingers through your hair.
Hell sign me up for that kind of torture!

Seriously though.
Politicians have made it policy not to allow our warrios to decimate our enemies with ammo and weapons that actually kill.
Because golly gee whiz, that is mean!

On a side note
Me with my H&K USP .45 and 30 rounds Vs oak tree with 8inch base = tree stump =)

Posted by: Mr_e_m_t at November 15, 2005 09:57 PM (j68Ui)

31 Improbulus,
I was giving the pro's and cons on m16 .223's Vs m14 .308's.

While i agree with about 98% of what you said, you missed my points.

The m-14's cost money.
They were at one point in time paid for, even if we have an unlimited surplus of them now as you say.

And currently right now if you go to gunbroker.com or any other website you choose to look up the average price of m14's Vs m16's, my point still holds water that the cost is still around a thousand bucks and m16's cost about half as much.

Concerning the weight of the ammunition.
You really want to add a pro onto .45's and .308's Vs 9mm and .223's consider this.
The 5 rounds of 9mm or .223 it takes to bring down one terrorist weigh more then the one round from a .45 or .308

Posted by: Mr_e_m_t at November 15, 2005 10:25 PM (j68Ui)

32 There is an old saying: people buy 1911 pistols for the .45 round, people buy 9mm's for the pistol's features. I have a .40 USP, no problems at all after a few hundred rounds, not a single jam, etc. I have heard that some MP units are using .40 SIGs now, and of course "spec ops" units use the Mark 23 USP in .45. I say dump the Beretta and go w/ the USP.

The AK-47 borrowed *heavily* from the M-1 design (as well as the German Sturmgewehr rifles). The M-1 trigger group is very similar to the AK's; modern weapon design all goes back to the Garand, which Gen. Patton loved.

Posted by: Darius_LaMonica at November 16, 2005 12:02 AM (S3UBA)

33 Something is wrong with this information. I spent 10 years in the USMCR; when I left in '98 I was the STA (now called Scout/Sniper) Platoon Sgt. of 2/24. Some things that appear wrong:

"10) The M24 sniper rifle: Thumbs up. Mostly in 308 but some in 300 win mag.
Heavily modified Remington 700's. Great performance. Snipers have been used
heavily to great effect."

Marines now use the M40A3 sniper rifle, an upgrade on the A1 that we had (which were upgrades of the Vietnam era M40's.) Similar to the m24 in that they are based on the Remington 700; different in that they are hand assembled by Marine Corps armorers and have different stocks, scopes, barrels, scope mounts, floor plates, etc. The M40 series is .308 only.

"Rumor has it that a marine sniper on his third tour
in Anbar province has actually exceeded Carlos Hathcock's record for confirmed kills with OVER 100."

Carlos Hathcock, although the most widely known Marine sniper, didn't have the most confirmed kills in Vietnam. (Chuck Mawhinney had more.) This should NOT be viewed as criticism of Hathcock's record.

"2) The M243 SAW (squad assault weapon): .223 cal. Drum fed light machine gun"

When I was in this was the M249 Squad AUTOMATIC (not assault) Weapon. I don't think model numbers go backwards. Not drum fed: Either from a belt (which is normally held in a drum-like plastic holder that clips to the bottom) or from an M16 magazine (although not reliably).

Marines know infantry weapons well. I can't see an actual Marine making mistakes about the weapons (although many Marines outside of the scout-sniper community wouldn't recognize the name Mawhinney).

Posted by: D. Paulus at November 16, 2005 06:17 AM (iBRdq)

34 If FMJ isn't going to penetrate, hollow points sure as hell won't

Penetration isn't the issue, stopping power is. The lightweight bullet (not penetration) is why the 5.56 isn't as good as the 7.62. If it was just about penetration, 9mm would be better than a 45ACP and we know that's not the case.

Posted by: SayUncle at November 16, 2005 09:00 AM (CDrd/)

35 This article has been posted elsewhere and debunked thoroughly.

Posted by: jlb at November 16, 2005 11:08 AM (KP+cN)

36 This letter by a suposed Marine is rather full of crap.

Here is a responce to it from someone who is in the know. It was writen by a 1SG White

>1) The M-16 rifle : Thumbs down. Chronic jamming problems with the talcum
powder like sand over there. The sand is everywhere. Jordan says you feel filthy
2 minutes after coming out of the shower. The M-4 carbine version is more
popular because its lighter and shorter, but it has jamming problems also.
****
Where is a Marine getting experience with the M4? They are very limited
in the Corps with the only large number in use with Force Recon units
and Det-1. Both units use the M4A1. Most of the rest of the Corps is
using the M16A4.

The reports coming out of Iraq actually read this way with regards to
reliability:

> The M16 series received widespread praise for its durability and
> reliability. A few soldiers expressed a desire to be able to fire the
> weapon after pulling it out of the dirt ("like you can do with the AK"
> was the perception), but there were no trends of poor reliability.
> This may be attributed in part to the ease of maintenance reported by
> the soldiers. While keeping the weapons clean in this environment was
> a continuous requirement it was not considered to be a difficult one.
*****

> They like the ability to mount the various optical gunsights and weapons
lights on the picattiny rails, but the weapon itself is not great in a desert
environment. They all hate the 5.56mm (.223) round. Poor penetration on the
cinderblock structure common over there and even torso hits cant be reliably
counted on to put the enemy down.
******
Here we go again....."Stopping power is such a subjective thing. This
is from the PM Soldier Assessment Team Report:

> It is apparent that the close range lethality deficiency of the 5.56mm
> (M855) is more a matter of perception rather than fact, but there were
> some exceptions. The majority of the soldiers interviewed that voiced
> or desired "better knock-down power" or a larger caliber bullet did
> not have actual close engagements. Those that had close engagements
> and applied Close Quarters Battle (CQB) tactics, techniques, and
> procedures (TTPs) - controlled pairs in the lethal areas: chest and
> head and good shot placement, defeated the target without issue. Most
> that had to engage a target repeatedly remarked that they hit the
> target in non-vital areas such as the extremities. Some targets were
> reportedly hit in the chest numerous times, but required at least one
> shot to the head to defeat it. No lethality issues were voiced with
> targets engaged at 200 meters and beyond. It is apparent that with
> proper shot placement and marksmanship training, the M855 ammunition
> is lethal in close and long range.

And a bit more on lethality:

> Discussion: There have been many engagements with the M855 spanning
> ranges from 10 feet to 250 meters against soft targets (non-armored
> individuals) during OIF. Observations from the field cover many
> different responses from "I shot him in the gut and he ran away", "I
> had to put multiple rounds in him to stop him", to "I shot him in the
> chest and he went down" and "I shot him in the head and he dropped on
> the spot". There are many different views on the lethality of this
> round ranging from the need for a heavier bullet (the need for more
> stopping power), to "We have no complaints with the M855 ammunition.
> It is satisfying the operational need." One brigade of soldiers
> interviewed made a very interesting statement concerning the lethality
> of the M855. Their focus groups indicated that based on proper target
> acquisition with the improved M68 (CCO), shot placement, basic rifle
> marksmanship, and firing controlled pairs they were very satisfied
> with the round's performance/ terminal effects.
>
> Recommendations: A Government Lethality IPT has been stood up to
> standardize GEL block testing and an engineering study will be
> conducted extensive, soft target terminal effects of COTS and military
> 5.56mm ammunition. The characteristics of each bullet terminal
> performance will be determined. Based on requirements and using the
> engineering information, a new round should be type classified and
> made available.

The complete report is available here:
http://www.bob-oracle.com/SWATreport.htm>
*******
Fun fact: Random autopsies on dead insurgents shows a high level of opiate
use.
*****
I have heard nothing about random autopsies on insurgents. I rather
doubt that this is happening due to considerations for the perceptions
of the Iraqi people. There would be a huge outcry not only on Al
Jezerra but in our press that we were "mutilating" the enemy dead....
*****
>2) The M243 SAW (squad assault weapon): .223 cal. Drum fed light machine gun.
Big thumbs down. Universally considered a piece of shit. Chronic jamming
problems, most of which require partial disassembly. (that fun in the middle of
a firefight).
******
First off, it's the M249 SAW and it's not drum fed. It's belt fed.
Granted, the plastic box magazines the 200 rd belts come in, could be
mistaken for a drum magazine by someone who had never seen one before,
but I would think that a Marine would know the nomenclature of this
weapon. Also most units are buying the nylon bags to carry the belts in
because they don't rattle and fall off like the plastic box magazines,
*******
>3) The M9 Beretta 9mm: Mixed bag. Good gun, performs well in desert
environment; but they all hate the 9mm cartridge. The use of handguns for
self-defense is actually fairly common. Same old story on the 9mm: Bad guys hit
multiple times and still in the fight.
*******
Well the M9 has had all kinds of problems with the aftermarket magaines
the military is buying, but the author leaves this out. It's been
documented in many offical AARs that the Checkmate brand magazines are
junk, yet they haven't been recalled and soldiers and Marines are still
having problems with them.
********
>4) Mossberg 12ga. Military shotgun: Works well, used frequently for clearing
houses to good effect.
*******
The Marines are using the Benelli 1014 shotgun. They may still field
the Mossberg in some quantity. Hate to bust the author's bubble, but
shotguns are used to breech. With the restrictive rules of engagement,
rifles and precise shooting is the order of the day for clearing
operations. Buckshot and slugs are hard to aquire in country and I have
a friend who said they used birdshot to scare people who approached too
close to convoys.
********
>5) The M240 Machine Gun: 7.62 Nato (.30

cal. belt fed machine gun, developed
to replace the old M-60 (what a beautiful weapon that was!!). Thumbs up.
Accurate, reliable, and the 7.62 round puts em down. Originally developed as a
vehicle mounted weapon, more and more are being dismounted and taken into the
field by infantry. The 7.62 round chews up the structure over there.
******
The Army and Marines have used the M240 for years. It's the standard
platoon level machine gun. They don't have to dismount them from the
vehicles. The dismount kits for the M240 thats the coax gun in the
Abrams and Bradley is very hard to come by. If they dismounted the M240
from the turret, it's most likely unusable in a ground mount role.
*******
>6) The M2 .50 cal heavy machine gun: Thumbs way, way up. Ma deuce is still
worth her considerable weight in gold. The ultimate fight stopper, puts their
dicks in the dirt every time. The most coveted weapon in-theater.
>
>

>7) The .45 pistol: Thumbs up. Still the best pistol round out there. Everybody
authorized to carry a sidearm is trying to get their hands on one. With few
exceptions, can reliably be expected to put em down with a torso hit.
******
Force Recon and Det 1 are the Marine units carrying .45s. There are
couple Army units that don't really exist using 1911 types and Glock 19s.

>The special ops guys (who are doing most of the pistol work) use the HK
military model and supposedly love it.
>
The special ops guys are using SIGs (Navy Special Warfare), M9s (Army,
Air Force), MEUSOC 1911 (USMC Force Recon), Kimber 1911 (USMC Det 1)
Various 1911s and Glock 19s (unnamed Army SOF). As a side note
Springfield Armory was recently given a contract to build the new MEUSOC
pistol.
*******
> The old government model .45s are being re-issued en masse.
******
Not true at all.
*******
>

The M-14: Thumbs up. They are being re-issued in bulk, mostly in a modified
version to special ops guys. Modifications include lightweight Kevlar stocks and
low power red dot or ACOG sights. Very reliable in the sandy environment, and
they love the 7.62 round.
********
Again not true. Some units are using modified M14s with commercial
aftermarket stocks, but they are not being issued in bulk. None of the
aftermarket stoks currently in use is made of kevlar.
********
>9) The Barrett .50 cal sniper rifle: Thumbs way up. Spectacular range and
accuracy and hits like a freight train. Used frequently to take out vehicle
suicide bombers ( we actually stop a lot of them) and barricaded enemy.
Definitely here to stay.
*******
A single shot even from a .50 BMG isn't enough to stop a vehicle.
Machine guns, especially the M2 are most used to stop car bombs. They
are used to remotely detonate IEDs that are discovered and you'll find a
lot of them in the hands of EOD.
********
>10) The M24 sniper rifle: Thumbs up. Mostly in .308 but some in 300 win mag.
Heavily modified Remington 700s. Great performance. Snipers have been used
heavily to great effect. Rumor has it that a marine sniper on his third tour in
Anbar province has actually exceeded Carlos Hathcocks record for confirmed kills
with OVER 100.
********
The Marines don't use the M24. They use the M40, the current iteration
being the M40A3. No M24s are fielded in 300 Winchester Magnum, even
though they are built on the Remington long action to make this possible.
*******
>11) The new body armor: Thumbs up. Relatively light at approx. 6 lbs. and can
reliably be expected to soak up small shrapnel and even will stop an AK-47
round.
********
We only wish it weighed 6 pounds. The IBAS with SAPI plates weighs in
at just under 16 pounds and when you add in the neck, shoulder and groin
protection you're back up over 20 pounds.

....
>
I can't help but notice the author doesn't know squat about our current
weapons and how they are employed. It seems to me that this is another
missive written to justify someones personal opinions about what weapons
our troops should be issued.
******
> Bad guy weapons:
>
>1) Mostly AK47s . The entire country is an arsenal. Works better in the desert
than the M16 and the .308 Russian round kills reliably.
******
.308 Russian???? Who makes that? Is it a cusotm loading? How come the
Iraqi insurgents don't use the more common 7.62x39 round? Saddam must
have left tons of it stockpiled around the country. That would greatly
simplify their logistics...........
*******

>
>3) The IED: The biggest killer of all. Can be anything from old Soviet
anti-armor mines to jury rigged artillery shells. A lot found in Jordans area
were in abandoned cars. The enemy would take 2 or 3 155mm artillery shells and
wire them together.
*********
The enemy didn't use 155mm howitzers...perhaps the author means 152mm??

It's been awhile since I've seen something this full of misinformation spread
across the internet.

Jeff

Posted by: gunnut at November 16, 2005 11:34 AM (PZ/ZS)

37 This letter by a suposed Marine is rather full of crap.

Here is a responce to it from someone who is in the know. It was writen by a 1SG White

>1) The M-16 rifle : Thumbs down. Chronic jamming problems with the talcum
powder like sand over there. The sand is everywhere. Jordan says you feel filthy
2 minutes after coming out of the shower. The M-4 carbine version is more
popular because its lighter and shorter, but it has jamming problems also.
****
Where is a Marine getting experience with the M4? They are very limited
in the Corps with the only large number in use with Force Recon units
and Det-1. Both units use the M4A1. Most of the rest of the Corps is
using the M16A4.

The reports coming out of Iraq actually read this way with regards to
reliability:

> The M16 series received widespread praise for its durability and
> reliability. A few soldiers expressed a desire to be able to fire the
> weapon after pulling it out of the dirt ("like you can do with the AK"
> was the perception), but there were no trends of poor reliability.
> This may be attributed in part to the ease of maintenance reported by
> the soldiers. While keeping the weapons clean in this environment was
> a continuous requirement it was not considered to be a difficult one.
*****

> They like the ability to mount the various optical gunsights and weapons
lights on the picattiny rails, but the weapon itself is not great in a desert
environment. They all hate the 5.56mm (.223) round. Poor penetration on the
cinderblock structure common over there and even torso hits cant be reliably
counted on to put the enemy down.
******
Here we go again....."Stopping power is such a subjective thing. This
is from the PM Soldier Assessment Team Report:

> It is apparent that the close range lethality deficiency of the 5.56mm
> (M855) is more a matter of perception rather than fact, but there were
> some exceptions. The majority of the soldiers interviewed that voiced
> or desired "better knock-down power" or a larger caliber bullet did
> not have actual close engagements. Those that had close engagements
> and applied Close Quarters Battle (CQB) tactics, techniques, and
> procedures (TTPs) - controlled pairs in the lethal areas: chest and
> head and good shot placement, defeated the target without issue. Most
> that had to engage a target repeatedly remarked that they hit the
> target in non-vital areas such as the extremities. Some targets were
> reportedly hit in the chest numerous times, but required at least one
> shot to the head to defeat it. No lethality issues were voiced with
> targets engaged at 200 meters and beyond. It is apparent that with
> proper shot placement and marksmanship training, the M855 ammunition
> is lethal in close and long range.

And a bit more on lethality:

> Discussion: There have been many engagements with the M855 spanning
> ranges from 10 feet to 250 meters against soft targets (non-armored
> individuals) during OIF. Observations from the field cover many
> different responses from "I shot him in the gut and he ran away", "I
> had to put multiple rounds in him to stop him", to "I shot him in the
> chest and he went down" and "I shot him in the head and he dropped on
> the spot". There are many different views on the lethality of this
> round ranging from the need for a heavier bullet (the need for more
> stopping power), to "We have no complaints with the M855 ammunition.
> It is satisfying the operational need." One brigade of soldiers
> interviewed made a very interesting statement concerning the lethality
> of the M855. Their focus groups indicated that based on proper target
> acquisition with the improved M68 (CCO), shot placement, basic rifle
> marksmanship, and firing controlled pairs they were very satisfied
> with the round's performance/ terminal effects.
>
> Recommendations: A Government Lethality IPT has been stood up to
> standardize GEL block testing and an engineering study will be
> conducted extensive, soft target terminal effects of COTS and military
> 5.56mm ammunition. The characteristics of each bullet terminal
> performance will be determined. Based on requirements and using the
> engineering information, a new round should be type classified and
> made available.

The complete report is available here:
http://www.bob-oracle.com/SWATreport.htm>
*******
Fun fact: Random autopsies on dead insurgents shows a high level of opiate
use.
*****
I have heard nothing about random autopsies on insurgents. I rather
doubt that this is happening due to considerations for the perceptions
of the Iraqi people. There would be a huge outcry not only on Al
Jezerra but in our press that we were "mutilating" the enemy dead....
*****
>2) The M243 SAW (squad assault weapon): .223 cal. Drum fed light machine gun.
Big thumbs down. Universally considered a piece of shit. Chronic jamming
problems, most of which require partial disassembly. (that fun in the middle of
a firefight).
******
First off, it's the M249 SAW and it's not drum fed. It's belt fed.
Granted, the plastic box magazines the 200 rd belts come in, could be
mistaken for a drum magazine by someone who had never seen one before,
but I would think that a Marine would know the nomenclature of this
weapon. Also most units are buying the nylon bags to carry the belts in
because they don't rattle and fall off like the plastic box magazines,
*******
>3) The M9 Beretta 9mm: Mixed bag. Good gun, performs well in desert
environment; but they all hate the 9mm cartridge. The use of handguns for
self-defense is actually fairly common. Same old story on the 9mm: Bad guys hit
multiple times and still in the fight.
*******
Well the M9 has had all kinds of problems with the aftermarket magaines
the military is buying, but the author leaves this out. It's been
documented in many offical AARs that the Checkmate brand magazines are
junk, yet they haven't been recalled and soldiers and Marines are still
having problems with them.
********
>4) Mossberg 12ga. Military shotgun: Works well, used frequently for clearing
houses to good effect.
*******
The Marines are using the Benelli 1014 shotgun. They may still field
the Mossberg in some quantity. Hate to bust the author's bubble, but
shotguns are used to breech. With the restrictive rules of engagement,
rifles and precise shooting is the order of the day for clearing
operations. Buckshot and slugs are hard to aquire in country and I have
a friend who said they used birdshot to scare people who approached too
close to convoys.
********
>5) The M240 Machine Gun: 7.62 Nato (.30

Posted by: gunnut at November 16, 2005 11:35 AM (PZ/ZS)

38 Okay Uncle, whatever you say, penetration doesn't matter. Sure thing. Look, let me 'splain it real simple for you. Penetration and so called "stopping power" is a function of kinetic energy, which is measured in pound/feet, which is calculated by velocity squared, multiplied by weight in grains, divided by 450240. A 55 grain 5.56 bullet at 3241 FPS muzzle velocity has 1283 lb/ft of energy, while a 122 grain 7.62x39 bullet at 2396 FPS muzzle velocity has 1555 lb/ft of energy.
The "inferior" commie round actually has about 18% better energy at the muzzle, and because of the mass of the heavier round, will not lose velocity as rapidly as the lighter bullet at extended ranges. The only advantage a light, fast bullet has is that it will have a flatter trajectory, and at optimum velocity, will transfer more of its energy to the target, causing more damage, which is what people call "stopping power".
This is fine if you're shooting prarie dogs out in the field, but people are a bit tougher than prarie dogs, and tend to not stand out in the open while you shoot at them; rather, they hide behind cover, and often wear protective gear, which will stop light bullets more readily than heavy bullets, since light bullets will transfer all of their energy to the first thing they hit and disintegrate, which is why the Russian 5.45 round was designed with a tungsten penertrator core.
The best way to stop someone, i.e. kill or incapacitate them, is to get a solid hit on a vital area with a round that carries enough energy to cause significant trauma. There is no perfect round, but there are many that are far better than the 5.56, because combat isn't prarie dog shooting, nor is it bear hunting; it requires a combinated of characteristics to allow the soldier to make accurate shots at combat distances against targets that may be behind cover, penetrate the cover, and kill the target. Because soldiers have to carry lots of ammo, it should be as lightweight as possible, but it still needs to be powerful enough to do the job, without being so powerful as to make the weapon uncontrollable in rapid fire combat situations. Because of this, neither the 5.56 nor the 7.62 NATO is ideal, so a good compromise must be found.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 16, 2005 11:36 AM (0yYS2)

39 improbulus maximus, I own and shoot "tricked out" AR15's. I even own a registered short barreled rifle. Not only do I shoot them and own them, I have the knowledge and the skill to use them. I spend more time on the range training every month then my local PDs swat team does.

Yer post is so far off to anyone that really knows about the AR15/M16 family of guns that it is funny. Thanks for the laugh.

To those that think that modern military ammo is designed to "wound" rather then kill. Yer also way off base. That is not in fact true. Visit http://www.ammo-oracle.com/body.htm and you'll get a lot of real info on military ammo as well as various other ammo used in the M16/AR15. As well as terminal ballistics data and how the round reacts, there are even gel test photos. The truth is that current US military spec ammo causes a very devistating wound though fragmentation of the bullet when it hits flesh.

The Hague conventions(not the Geneva convetions like many think) outlaw the use of "expanding" ammo by the regular military forces of a country for use against the regular military forces of another country. The United States did not infact sign that particular part of the Hague conventions. We can and in some cases do use expanding ammo in anti-terrorism operations.

Posted by: gunut at November 16, 2005 11:49 AM (PZ/ZS)

40 Mr EMT wrote: "...The m-14's cost money.
They were at one point in time paid for, even if we have an unlimited surplus of them now as you say."

They were paid for forty years ago, so it's a moot point.

"And currently right now if you go to gunbroker.com or any other website you choose to look up the average price of m14's Vs m16's, my point still holds water that the cost is still around a thousand bucks and m16's cost about half as much."

Which means exactly nothing. The retail market has nothing whatsoever to do with the actual cost of procurement for the government.

"Concerning the weight of the ammunition.
You really want to add a pro onto .45's and .308's Vs 9mm and .223's consider this.
The 5 rounds of 9mm or .223 it takes to bring down one terrorist weigh more then [sic] the one round from a .45 or .308"

Hey that's great if you can get one kill per shot, but it's obvious you've never been in combat because on the average hundreds of rounds are expended per kill. Weight is a factor as much as power. The 5.56 is too weak, the 7.62 NATO is too heavy. A quick ballistics calculation will show that a bullet of about around .25-28 caliber, of about 100 grains, at about 3000 FPS will have more energy than the 5.56, without the heavy recoil and weight of the 7.62 NATO. There are serveral cartridges, such as the .243 Winchester, the .257 Roberts, 6mm Remington, 7/08, etc.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 16, 2005 11:51 AM (0yYS2)

41 'whatever you say, penetration doesn't matter'

I didn't say that. I said penetration does not equal stopping power. It's a factor but not the most important one. And I am not saying that the 5.56 is better or that the commie round is inferior.

Per your own example of 7.62 v. 5.56, if I shot them into gel, which would penetrate further? The 5.56. However, which is more likely to incapacitate a person? The 7.62.

I build, own and shoot both ARs and AKs. Like them both. But if the SHTF, I'd grab the AR. And the reason is it's as reliable but more accurate. That is until I get around to getting that M1A.

Posted by: SayUncle at November 16, 2005 12:17 PM (CDrd/)

42 gunnut said: "improbulus maximus, I own and shoot "tricked out" AR15's. I even own a registered short barreled rifle. Not only do I shoot them and own them, I have the knowledge and the skill to use them. I spend more time on the range training every month then my local PDs swat team does."

That's not saying a lot, considering that I outshoot the local SWAT team on a bad day.

"Yer post is so far off to anyone that really knows about the AR15/M16 family of guns that it is funny. Thanks for the laugh."

Sure thing there Rambo. I only spent ten years in the Army, most of it as an armorer, and have owned and shot more guns that you'll ever see, including in combat, at the range, and hunting, so I don't know as much as you, who obviously have sooooo much more experience.

"To those that think that modern military ammo is designed to "wound" rather then kill. Yer also way off base."

You mean "than" kill? And who said anything about wounding?

"That is not in fact true."

Nobody said it was.

"Visit http://www.ammo-oracle.com/body.htm and you'll get a lot of real info on military ammo as well as various other ammo used in the M16/AR15. As well as terminal ballistics data and how the round reacts, there are even gel test photos. The truth is that current US military spec ammo causes a very devistating wound though fragmentation of the bullet when it hits flesh."

Next time a block of ballistic gelatin is shooting at me without the benefit of cover, I'll remember that, but when some jihadotard is behind a car or in a building taking pot shots at me, I want something to penetrate his cover and still have the energy and mass to take him out. Ever wonder why the .50 caliber BMG works so well?

"The Hague conventions(not the Geneva convetions like many think) outlaw the use of "expanding" ammo by the regular military forces of a country for use against the regular military forces of another country. The United States did not infact sign that particular part of the Hague conventions. We can and in some cases do use expanding ammo in anti-terrorism operations."

Whether the ammo expands or not isn't the issue

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 16, 2005 02:28 PM (0yYS2)

43 SayUncle, still not getting it, said: "Per your own example of 7.62 v. 5.56, if I shot them into gel, which would penetrate further? The 5.56."

That's a negatory; the one with greater ability to retain energy would penetrate further. The one with greater mass would retain energy better, meaning the 7.62.

"However, which is more likely to incapacitate a person? The 7.62."

Well duh.

"I build, own and shoot both ARs and AKs. Like them both. But if the SHTF, I'd grab the AR."

Good choice if you want to hear click instead of BANG!

"And the reason is it's as reliable but more accurate."

I hope you never have to exchange fire for real with someone.

"That is until I get around to getting that M1A."

That's the smartest thing you've said.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 16, 2005 02:49 PM (0yYS2)

44 Perhaps two hours ago I saw a program on the Military Channel that compared the M-16 with the AK-47. The M-16 was determined to be more accurate and more controlable using the fully automatic function than the AK. The AK was determined to be more durable and dependable than the M-16. The 7.62 Russian round was determined to be much better in all respects except one when compared to the 5.56mm NATO round. The 5.56mm had a flatter trajectory than the 7.62.

The 7.62 Russian would penetrate 8 inches of solid pine wood but the 5.56mm would not. The 7.62 shattered a concrete cinder block, but the 5.56 put a tiny hole in it. The block was left intact. I know which gun I would choose given these two choices.

However, not 15 minutes ago, on Fox News, I saw two soldiers walking and one of them had a modified M-14 in .308 cal. Now that is the right choice of them all.

Posted by: jesusland joe at November 16, 2005 03:14 PM (rUyw4)

45 IM,

7.62X51 penetrated 64cm, 7.62X39 penetrated 33cm, and 5.56X45 at 36cm. By your rational, that would mean the 7.62X39 has the least amount of stopping power, which I think we agree it does not.

Posted by: SayUncle at November 16, 2005 03:23 PM (CDrd/)

46 SayUncle,

Gel is supposed to mimic human flesh? and penetration is just one aspect of knockdown power. The others being bullet diameter and hydrostatic shock. I think we all know that the 7.62 Russian is a better all-around bullet than the 5.56 NATO.

The M-16 is surely a better looking and better made rifle than the Kalishnakov, but some AK variants approach the technology of the M-16, and are becoming more popular in civilian quarters. Frankly, I like them both.

Posted by: jesusland joe at November 16, 2005 04:44 PM (rUyw4)

47 I concur, I like them both.

Posted by: SayUncle at November 16, 2005 04:50 PM (CDrd/)

48
go to this website
http://www.survivalblog.com/

and search for the three headings below.

"Two Letters Re: Lessons from the Big Sand Box:"

"Letter from "Doug Carlton" Re: Discrediting the Lessons from the Big Sand Box:"

orginal letter
"Lessons from the Big Sand Box: Firearms, Gear, and Tactics in Iraq "

that letter had some errors in it, according to others.

Posted by: cube at November 16, 2005 08:15 PM (wHR3Y)

49 Fascinating stuff, but two things bother me.

1) The post reveals info that could affect operational security for US troops(i.e., poor enemy electronic security, US responses to enemy tactics). If the bad guys are using email and the web to plan their attacks, how do we know that they're not reading Jawa Report (or sites that link to it)? What happened to the idea that "The Enemy is listening?"

2) The bad guys are using resources unwittingly provided by a US company (Google) to gain intellegence on US positions. I might be a poor, dumb civilian, but I trust that Google Earth is fully cooperating with our spooks to provide the worst possible service for the jihadists in Iraq. Failing that, why aren't they blacking out pictures of sensitive areas? I don't really need satellite photos of Iraq and I sure don't need them it means Americans might die as a result.

Other than that, the post was the most informative and useful bit of Iraq reporting I've seen since the war began.

I just wish that the guys with in the field had more say in how the war is being run than the crooks in Gucchi loafers back in Washington. I think that Iraq was the wrong war, in the wrong way, at the wrong time, for the wrong reasons, but, if a majority of ground-pounders say otherwise, I'll shut up and support them to the hilt.

Posted by: Tom at November 16, 2005 09:07 PM (G03bU)

50 Students of gun history will recall that the M1911 .45 ACP was specifically designed to put down drugged-out Anti-American Islamist fanatics operating from equipment-eating terrain (the Moros in the Philippines in the 1900s). As a proven tool for bringing jihadis closer to paradise, I say bring it back.

Posted by: Tom at November 16, 2005 09:33 PM (G03bU)

51 Tom,

God, I wish more people thought the way you do. Let's win the war and then argue about it when it's done. We are costing lives the way we are doing it right now. Everyone needs to get behind the troops right now, and win this damn war.

Posted by: jesusland joe at November 16, 2005 10:16 PM (rUyw4)

52 Wow! If the M16 is as worthless as IP says it is, why has the weapon been in service for 40 years? I'd also really like to see you walk up and "stick an M4 up their ass because it'll jam after three rounds". OK. That would be a neat trick. If the hadjis ever invade the U.S., I'll remember your post and just throw it away and grab a kitchen knife or something. What is the stopping power and terminal ballistics on a kitchen knife anyway? Blah, blah, blah...A bullet is a bullet. And the average infantryman can carry twice as many 5.56mm than 7.62mm. I'll take my chances with a "critter" round rather than run out of ammo. I also love the Springfield SOCOM 16, but it costs $1400-$1800 without optics of any kind.

Posted by: Jack's Smirking Revenge at November 16, 2005 10:24 PM (CtVG6)

53 JSR,

I bought a Socom 16 about 2 months ago and it is the finest rifle of its kind I have ever fired. I traded a CAR-15 in on it and still owed a chunk of change, but I have no regrets. It is that impressive a rifle, I love it.

Posted by: jesusland joe at November 16, 2005 11:37 PM (rUyw4)

54 â€œHey that's great if you can get one kill per shot, but it's obvious you've never been in combat because on the average hundreds of rounds are expended per kill.â€ ~improb

Wow.
You know something, you are right.
I have never been in any combat situation where hundreds of rounds were used to try to kill one person.
Has anyone else?

However, I hear that the insurgents could probably make such a claim as to having to shoot hundreds of rounds to try to hit the broad side of a barn.

You are the first source I have ever heard claim we have stockpiles of m-14â€™s rotting away that were acquired 40 years ago.

You knock the m-16 family guns worse then anyone I have seen. Implying the gun is so massively riddled with malfunctions that you will hear click instead of bang when you pick it up.
You would think someone who has 10 years in a gun cage would have an idea how long the m-16 and its family have been used in engaged battles. What, nearly 40 years now? According to you it is a miracle we have managed to kill any enemy with the standard issue carbine.
(I write this all out before reading Jackâ€™s similar thoughts.)
Now donâ€™t get me wrong. I think the gun itself is crap for a man killer. But that is purely my preference. Either way you cut it, the gun kills and the gun makes due.
Are there better guns? Yes, of course, if you want to pay for it.
However, no one is going to agree on what is the best all-around gun that is good for any situation you get into that you have to shoot your way out of.

Bean counters still run our nations defenses and as every law enforcement and military personal knows, your life is in the hands of the lowest government contract bidder for the equipment you have.

Your claims and disgruntled nature make me suggest you use a new brand of toilet paper.
It will brighten your day.

Posted by: Mr_EMT at November 17, 2005 11:16 AM (Cnlo0)

55 I do find it amusing that Uncle and IM are continuing to argue in circles even after gunnut posted some quite germane information that they both pretty much ignored.

Can the 5.56 be improved? Sure as heck-I think the Mk 262 75gr bullet should be stuck in the case neck of every round coming out of Lake City starting tomorrow. It'd be a big improvement.

Personally, I think the Chief of Staff of the Army, with heavy urging from the Army Ordinance Board and American weapons makers, did the US Army and the rest of NATO a huge disfavor back in the 1950s when he overrode the testing group at Ft Benning, which recommended the FN FAL chambered in 7x43mm (nee .280 Brit), in favor of the M-14 in 7.62x51.

Not sure who made the decision, probably the same folks, to adopt the M-60 instead of the MAG-58. US troops were saddled with the M-60 for 40 years, until it was replaced by the M-240B, which is simply an MAG-58 with forward heatshield handguards to cover the gas tube and barrel.

The majority of the weapons on the battlefield today are, for the most part, minor variations on designs that are at least 40 years old. Even the relatively new ones-the M249 and M9-are over 20 years old. Small arms development has pretty much plateaued, with only incremental improvements, mostly due to improved synthetic materials.

Posted by: Heartless Libertarian at November 18, 2005 10:35 PM (bwBea)

56 Well from the sounds of it (with the exception of a couple) it sounds like a group of armchair Rambos...I'm looking at you maximus.

Posted by: Scrawl at November 19, 2005 02:01 AM (U6IY5)

57 Well from the sounds of it (with the exception of a couple) it sounds like a group of armchair Rambos...I'm looking at you maximus.

Posted by: Scrawl at November 19, 2005 02:01 AM (U6IY5)

58 Well from the sounds of it (with the exception of a couple) it sounds like a group of armchair Rambos...I'm looking at you maximus.

Posted by: Scrawl at November 19, 2005 02:02 AM (U6IY5)

59 Hmmmm....lots of arguements going on here
about stuff that really doesn't matter. I
like the original posters information about
the Mossberg shotgun. In a defensive action,
where I am defending myself or my family, I'll
sure be glad I got that buckshot sprayer in
my hands! That's what counts, to me at least.

Posted by: MeNotRambo at November 19, 2005 08:19 AM (+NyDC)

60 Can the author point me to a single acknowledged source that shows Chechens are in Iraq?

Just one.

Posted by: 2Wolves at November 20, 2005 06:44 PM (IWoOa)

61 Wow lots of problems here from everyone,
308 is NOT 762nato, run a couple of thousand rounds through a 762nato rifle and you will kill yourself, they have the same physical dimensions but a 308 has like 6000lbs more maximun pressure in sammi spec.
762russ bullet drop is horrible
556 was designed for among several others to have less shooter flinching
(762nato while less kick then 308 is more then 3006 and it will beat you up, let alone the added carry weight of BOTH the ammo and M14 even with a polymer stock)
50bmg WILL take out a vehicle(in the proper round) incinderary and or DU round.
Give me a 6.5 M16, easily converted by replacing upper and mag, weight carry will only increase by ~1lb and I would have the best of both worlds, light recoil, great stopping and high pentration(penatrating your surounding btw not the human)

Side note, I would really love to have the beta mags deployed for my spotter, nothing like having 100 rounds locked and loaded.

and BTW my personal experiance with pretty much every cal you can think of mil and civ I would still take 30'06(m1 ball) over them all .30 cal centerfire cart.

America used to be a country of rifleman, IT IS NOT ANY more (thanks lately to ms brady) Learn how to shot before you get into serivce, give your kids air rifles, 22's etc.

Posted by: zendick at November 21, 2005 04:42 AM (q0Zfe)

62 Security breach!!! Farking anti-war liberal idiots have penetrated your defenses. You are pwned! All your common sense and logic belong to us. That is all.

Posted by: dumbocrat at November 21, 2005 05:15 AM (JhALj)

63 For those of you that are worried about "Google Earth", don't be.

"They use handheld GPS
units for navigation and "Google earth" for overhead views of our positions."

This is an unjustified statement. Google Earth may have a "sattelite" image of military bases, but the images are 4 years old. In that ammount of time, things (units, temporary buildings, etc.) are moved. Besides, they do not need Google Earth to tell them where we have things positioned. They know exactly where everything is, because most of the buildings we work in have been there for many years before the war started. A lot of bases have higher terrain surrounding them, and the insurgents post on top of them and scope out the base, to include any civilian they capture coming off base (contracted employee) and torture them to get information. So "Google Earth" is the very last of our worries, but if they ever start using updated images (every 24 hours), then some precautions need to be made. (Blackouts, etc.)

Posted by: y0sh1 at November 21, 2005 05:29 AM (il1gF)

64 For the sake of our troops I seriously hope all of this is bullshit and deliberate misinfo

Posted by: sdffasd at November 21, 2005 05:40 AM (pQWPT)

65 A few things of note....

First Off

the m-16 is much more accurate in the hands of an average solider then the 308 , or 7.62. When the m-16 was adopted they had to revamp the rateing system becuse nearly every grunt was getting a marksman rateing.

haveing every solider carrying a 308 is great , well cept history shows us most cant handle the round.

Second , its not ONE 223 round , its three 223 rounds. EVERY solider in the US can put one 3 round burst of 223 into a target much more consistantly then a 3 round burst of 7.62.

I know you arm chair rambos are not going to suggest the average Rifleman should be running around trying to Lay down auto fire with a 308.

The m-16 has been killing people consistantly all over the globe for 40 years , You guys make it sound like is sheer luck all our soliders did not die a single well trained ak-47 carrying enemy.

There is a SIGNIFICANT effective range diffrence in the 7.62 and 223 rounds Our SEALS and special forces consistantly get in ranged combat with insurgents useing m4 carbines , the ak 47 simply can not return fire at any significant range. You guys can carry your ak-47 into battle and hope you can get close enough to hit somebody. There is a reason the Dragunoff was made , to extend the fire power of a combat unit , itis not even remotley a sniper rifle by western standerds.

Posted by: dshearn at November 21, 2005 05:59 AM (PPgRH)

66 "Improbulus Maximus" Is a TOTAL asslicking jerkoff

Posted by: Joey Boots at November 21, 2005 07:04 AM (Mq1+9)

67 M249 will accept a 50 round "drum" designed for us in the "ultimax" about 8 years ago. It has the same profile as the standard M16 clip for insertion. Several videos of this gun being fired from said clip exist. Apparently gun collectors don't like using belts when they can buy a clip and not cut their fingertips.

Posted by: prjindigo at November 21, 2005 07:43 AM (CARry)

68 It occurs to me that I read something like this in 1992? Maybe almost exactly like this?

I call fraud too... marine should know the difference between a point tipped .308 and a flat nose 7.x32... they teach em that.

Posted by: prjindigo at November 21, 2005 07:47 AM (CARry)

69 I read a few days ago that since we are not fighting against another state, we are fighting against a group of people, the hague convention, and maybe the geneva, im not sure, don't apply, as they are for wars between states. any of you guys read about the SMAW-NE? now THAT sounds like fun!!

Posted by: Veritas at November 21, 2005 08:33 AM (EPEjt)

70 The differences between the 308 and 223 really stand out when you look what they do to a deer, which is usually around the size and weight of a man. Last year, A friend wounded a deer and his father ended up shooting a second one with his 223 by mistake while tracking the wounded one. I helped skin both. The 300 Savage round (basically an underpowered 30

had hit the deer in the front shoulder. Round blew through the entire right shoulder, bones and all, and ended up lodged just under the skin on the other side of the deer. expansion area was massive, when we gutted and skinned it the lungs were mush, and one entire shoulder was burger. His father shot the second deer with a hot-loaded .223 60grn-HP in the neck. Round punched through, severed the spine, and continued to punch through. No appreciable wound expansion, exit hole was the size of the round. In other words, if he hadn't hit the spine, that deer would have kept going.

Also, as far as accuracy comparing the two rounds, I'd say the 223 is more accurate in follow-up shots, less recoil. However, with the 308, you don't have to worry so much about followup shots, because once you hit your target, it is DONE.

My 2 cents.

Posted by: Eric at November 21, 2005 08:51 AM (fshIM)

71 Christ, I hope the terrorists (let's not dress that word and call them insurgents) don't read this and get new intel. Especially regarding American tactics and advantages.

Either way, I hope our troops get to come home soon. God bless.

Posted by: Mr. Nobody at November 21, 2005 08:54 AM (VNFc5)

72 I don't pretend to be an expert, but I do have military experience in excess of 8 years. In that time I was an infantryman, armored cav scout, artillery fire direction specialist, commo tech, and commo guy in an army SF unit (12th GP). I also performed some non governmental military contracting when I got out. Read that the way you will. I was pretty well trained and experienced in combat tasks, but mostly sought after for the additional technical skills and breadth of my military experience. I don't consider myself an armorer by any means.

What I have found over the years, and read, is that opinions on the M16 family vary tremendously amongst even professional military men, to include those who saw combat.

I went to OCS with an 82nd airborne infantry vet who was in the invasion of Grenada, Panama, and Desert Storm, and his opinion of the M16 (A2 or later) was that it was solid and served him well. He said he preferred it to the AKs he could have picked up and used.

In 12th group, the pro and con side included combat and non combat vets.

This is where I take a few pages from two of my favorite economists (Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams). "Everything in life is a trade off."

Using hundreds of rounds to get kills has a lot to do with the reluctance of even professional soldiers to kill. This is something the US military (especially the Marines) has made great strides in since WW2. There is also suppressive fire, covering fire, recon by fire, etc. This uses a lot of rounds. If you aren't carrying enough, you can't give enough covering fire to establish fire superiority and maneuver to inflict the most devastating fire.

So, plainly, bullet weight is an issue, and this is one reason why we use the 5.56.

Also, like it or not, the politicos have pushed, and are keeping, women in the military in large numbers, and expanded roles. Weapons the the FN FAL, G3, M14, etc. that are well favored by vets, the SF community, etc. just can not be handled/carried etc. by the majority of females.

I think there are better weapons than the M16, and there are better weapons than the AK47. Then again, it depends on your situation.

Cost is less of an issue these days. Troops get so tricked out with all kinds of expensive gear, and with the combat pay, logistics expenses, fancy laptops needed by the power point rangers in HQ, etc., the extra 500 dollars a rifle is really a minor expense. Given the expense of additional training, treating extra casualties, etc., we get what in TQM (total quality management) terms is a situation where you have to factor what it costs you NOT to do something (supply a better rifle). Stated another way, penny wise, pound foolish.

The M16 family is nowhere near as bad as some people here have made it seem. It has proven itself, repeatedly. It has flaws, compared to the mythical perfect weapon. It has situation dependent flaws compared to many other weapons. We can and should replace it, and probably the round, too, but then, that is about a 20 year fight in Congress to get past all of the special interests. We also have a lot of ammo, parts, and contracts now, so we modify and use what we have.

None of this is in a perfect world.

I can say, in training and "real life" I only had a m16 go bad on me once. It was a dog, and there was nothing I could do with it except turn it into the armorer and demand another one. No maintenance to a total field strip and beyond made it work more than a few rounds, and sometimes not even then. Save for that one, the rest all worked well, even in the field, even with sustained fire and not so frequent cleaning, even with blanks and blank adapters which REALLY gunk them up. I did not ever take my weapon to the Iraqi desert, but I do know that there are also better non liquid lubricants )forget the name) that, if used, eliminate almost all of the jam and gunk problems.

Again, the problem there is the military supply chain using what we have instead of spending an extra dollar a bottle for what works. Then again, if you look at history, there are plenty of cases, in all of the world, where the troops get screwed because of bad supply systems, political patronage, etc. In the War between the States, repeating rifles COULD have been procured much earlier, but it was thought that (besides the cost differential) that if troops could shoot faster, they'd use up all their ammo and be useless. Such thinking, really, bears little merit. Even a casual student of history can imagine any major battle like Gettysburg where only one side had been fully equipped with repeating rifles.

As far as the Chechens, and other things, that a poster asked for info on. I can't give you anything in writing, such as a news source. I can tell you that I was an invitee and attendee/participant in a DARPA conference in Feb 2005. It all revolved around solving tactical problems that are being seen in Iraq. We received many in depth briefings from very recently returned veterans of Iraq (officer and enlisted, from logistics through grunt), we were briefed in depth by the Marine commander of the battle of Fallujah.

SOme of the quick, unclassified things, discussed that might have some relevance included:

the IEDs are the big issue.

Iraqis have outsourced the insurgency. There are plenty of foreign fighters and Jihadists leavening the Iraqi ranks.

This includes Chechens, who fight like mercenaries, for relatively small amounts of money.

It also includes western mercs. A marine team nailed a sniper team, after it had killed more than 14 marines over several days. Upon examination, the bodies were found to have been recently discharged French Foreign Legion members. The tatoos were a tip off, and the investigation lead to dental records and a discussion with French authorities to verify identity. Evidently, they were being payed on a per kill basis.

No I can't source the above (and more). I have to trust that serving Pentagon officers, and the people who in some cases had only been home from Iraq a few weeks, weren't BSing the people who were there to help devise solutions to the problems they were encountering.

I did not hear any sustained griping about the M16 family. I heard some praise, especially from a pair of marine infantryman who each had a number of clear personal kills with their M16s. We discussed wound vectors, etc. I can mention this a bit more, but it really is beside the point.

On balance, the M16 is not an ideal weapon. It is a good, effective weapon. I would prefer a weapon that has the penetrating power of a m-1 Garand, with the weight and footprint of a MP-5, but since that won't happen, I guess there are trade offs to be made. Perhaps some day, the politicians will decide to defer buying several B-2 bombers or a couple of submarines, and use the money to buy the whole land forces a new combat rifle family.

Personally, and I forget the weapon name, but there is a SMG that is increasingly issued to the support troops least likely to see action as a cost saving measure (in European armies). It stores its ammou at a 90 degree angle in a clear plastic magazine. I would say adopt a generally consistent ammo type (aside from specialist weapons), but give your remfs a cut down, simplified, no whizz bang cheap version that they can keep slung on their backs until the crap hits the fan. At that point, it's all likely to be close in anyway. Let the grunts carry the more expensive, reliable, up market weapons. It would be nice if we went to a nice caseless ammo with disposable magazines. That alone would cut weight.

Also, politically, let's just stop troops from getting and bringing their own gear. SF teams are more renowned for this. I often took my own sidearm rather than what was issued. Many conventional units don't allow this. I read a lot about how servicemen in ww2 would be sent guns in their mail by concerned family and friends. Usually this was a sidearm. They could and did carry it. Now days, almost no such luck. I don't think there should be any such thing as an "authorized sidearm carrier."

ALL soldiers in a combat zone should be able to carry a sidearm, issued or not. The only caveat is that if you carry a non standard pistol caliber, you have to get your own ammo. Professional soldiers, and all of ours are supposed to be, should be entrusted with choosing and using the tools of the trade. Weapons are just tools, and we all have our preferences as to what feels right and does the job. There is no one answer, for anything. You don't tell your IT whiz that he can only use a specific company authorized mouse, and then only if one is issued to him. You should not tell your soldiers that, however useful and important a sidearm is in close quarters insurgency combat, only a few authorized carriers are permitted to use only official weapons. It's just stupid.

Then, this war, like all of our wars in 60+ years, does not make sense.

Posted by: Murf at November 21, 2005 09:05 AM (XfUdJ)

73 having beein iraq i can tell you this is clearly the bullshit work of some dude who either talked to a friend in the reserves and made all this up or just made it all up with no real input. SO many blaring inaccuracies and fabrications I don't even want to bother tearing it appart because I'm sure in one of the posts already here it's been done better than I would do.

Posted by: spacerat at November 21, 2005 09:10 AM (22fvw)

74 ok more details on how this is full of shit, first of all no one but idiot civilians who remember the 1960s think the m16/m4 is a piece of crap. It is an excellent rifle and works in nearly all situations as well as can be expected for a rifle. I have never had one jam in the field and can count the number of stories I've heard on one hand. As for the m14 being "reissued" I have NEVER seen one in use with a conventional unit and the entire US inventory of this weapon is only a few thousand units if I remember correctly. I have also never heard of a jamming problem in the SAW except when the weapon was damaged or improperly assembled. As another poster pounted out idealy we'd want a P90 for most iraq opeations but we can't pick a new rifle for every engagment nor do troops need another 15-20lbs of gear to carry just in case it gets to ranges 100m and under. Most of this is shit. Rest assured if half this shit was true every marine would be sending letters home to their congressman, teary emails to their church leaders, ect and it'd be all over the news. The fact that you've never heard of most of this before should be exceptional proof if it's bullshit content.

Posted by: spacerat at November 21, 2005 09:24 AM (22fvw)

75 The testosterone levels in here exceed the intelligence quotient by a vast amount.

The post by gunnut (11/16@11:34) is probably the most object observation made here.

I, personally, love the Barretta 9mm. It's very convenient for concealed carry, and affords 7 more chances to provide protection without carrying additional magazines.

When I was in the military I never experienced the jamming problems I see described here. Other people did, but then, I'm really into weapons maintenance. I tend to change the oil in my car, also. While everyone else was watching/arguing/bragging football or what have you, I was cleaning, polishing, and fitting my 16's guts. I could empty a mag without a jam.

The 7.62 NATO is, without a question, an overall superior round. However, that isn't what's issued on a regular basis. Let's fix what's broke and contain the testosterone crap to the TV room.

Posted by: Clay at November 21, 2005 09:30 AM (PDrw0)

76 *yawn* not this pile of shit again. It was BS the first time round in 92 and it's still BS today.

This sounds to me like a fanboy spouting off what he would like to see.

Pure fiction.

Posted by: bored at November 21, 2005 09:35 AM (8buj8)

77 This has been floating around forever. There are several different versions of it.

It's a hoax.

Posted by: avtomat at November 21, 2005 09:55 AM (wDI9X)

78 1) The few hundred feet per second difference between a 14.5" barrel and 20" barrel does have a significant impact of 5.56's wounding potential. This is because 5.56's prime woounding mechanism if fragmentation of the bullet which only reliably occurs at over 2700 fps. From a 14.5" barrel, 62 grain drops below this in under 100 yards. A 20" barrel reaches out to 200+ yards.
2) This is also to source of the sometimes poor comparison between the old 55 gr and a new 62 gr bullets. The 55 gr, from a 14.5" barrel, travels slightly farther before dropping below the "magic" 2700 fps. This is reversed for a 20" barrel.
3) The 77 gr. Mk262 remedies this by reliably fragmenting at much lower velocities and by maintaining its velocity much longer. Reports from people I personally trust put it's effective range out to about 600 yards.
4) "Personally, I think the Chief of Staff of the Army, with heavy urging from the Army Ordinance Board and American weapons makers, did the US Army and the rest of NATO a huge disfavor back in the 1950s when he overrode the testing group at Ft Benning, which recommended the FN FAL chambered in 7x43mm (nee .280 Brit), in favor of the M-14 in 7.62x51."
The M1 Garand was originally chambered in a .276/7mm round, but this was overruled due to the amount of .30-06 in storage. Also somewhat interesting is the similarity between the .280 Brit/7x43mm and the actual specs on the, now defunct, 6.8 SPC (6.8x43mm).
5) The 6.8 SPC project has been dropped, reportedly because of the promise of the Mk262.

Posted by: Zcar at November 21, 2005 10:00 AM (Q1Yim)

79 M-16 M-16... Nice accurate rifle... Pain in the rear to clean in my oppinion. Ten minutes shooting saw me three hours cleaning in basic alone...

But if I got stuck on the battlefield with enemy shooting at me, just give me a Barret M-82 with a good scope. The recoil will probably hurt me... considering I'm small... But a fifty cal. antimaterial round has all the stopping power and penetration I'll ever need. Plus the thing's so loud that it's GOT to have an intimidation factor... Even for a drugged up Jihad maniac. (Imagine a line of Barrets instead of a line of M-4s or M-16s.) Not exactly a repeating rifle for putting in lots of shots... but hey. At least I know the first round I hit my target with... the target will NOT be getting up, unless he's immortal or something. (HEY! With a round bigger around than my thumb... I don't doubt it either.)

Posted by: Admiral Tigerclaw at November 21, 2005 10:12 AM (wjPJ9)

80 there is a reason that 90% of the worlds shooters (military, paramilitary, mercenary and criminal) use the AK-47 and not the M-16. The M-16 is a precision instrument and must be treated as one. It must be kept clean and used by a skilled operator. The AK is a farm implement. It is cheap, and it can be dropped in the mud and picked up by a farm boy and still used effectively.

Posted by: sliqjim at November 21, 2005 10:19 AM (eDywV)

81 So apparently most of the IEDs are detonated by cell phones. I know that here in the US, it's possible to build a relatively small cell phone jammer. Some people take them to the movies so that other people's cell phones won't interrupt. Why can't the military build jammers with 100 yard range (or whatever is required) and mount them on every vehicle we drive there?

The insurgents would switch to other detonation techniques, but we'd get a few weeks of easier travel, and we'd force them to use something less convenient.

Posted by: engineer23 at November 21, 2005 10:57 AM (xbdSI)

82 So far as the 9mm and the .45 cal. go I never could understand why the military didn't adopt the .357 mag. as the sidearm. It's a great round with good accuracy and take down power. As for the M-16, I have used one many times. I was in a fire fight in Desert storm in which I fired over 400 rds. and never had jamming problems. I did however wish that the shells were not full metal jacket.

Posted by: Bill at November 21, 2005 11:29 AM (RLqJ7)

83 While the discussion-esque nature of this thread is frought with mainly how much things SUCK and lets go back to the "tried and true" few are offering solutions.

5.56 rounds are ass in urban combat since they were designed on the heels of antiquated "field" based, anti-personel style combat.

CLEARLY the munitions are the major factors here. Having been in close quaters jungle combat in the early 90s I can say with great authority there is NO SUCH THING as a clean environment.

Our top tier training needs to be supplemented with top tier weapons. The XM-8 and its OICW vatiants are doomed to fail mainly because of their lack of appropriate munitions for the tasks at hand.

This being said I recommend the following:

Sidearms & backup weps:
Immediate and mass issue of the tried and true 1911 style 45s or their handy german cousins.

MBR - Main Battle Rifles
Thats the thing - there are NOT main battles happening here, but incurstions and patrols.
Fire teams need to be mixed bags of UMP-45s, Shotties, AT LEAST one 240 and M14s.

Since 90% of AL Queda's revenue was magnified by the opium trade it is totally obvious these little monkeys are zooted and dusted. It is why the jihadists have little discipline, accuracy and mass lack of tactics.

When country hopping in the 90s nearly every enemy we faced was doped, and we RARELY uses our rifles opting for 45cal SMGS and HiCap 45s and 40s and oddly enough our knife skills were greatly raised as a result of the close quarters combat.

What does this mean today. We are boned. The Armalite and Fabrique Nationale companies have a choke hold on the branches with massive lobbies.

All is not lost:
Next year, however, as the new MBRs (XM series) gets deployed with the 5.56 nato round and they are horrified that they may jam less but the round has basically lost its place in theater it will be forced to adapt - and rapidly.

Failure of one method simply makes room for another, more evolved one. It is the nature of all things to progress.

Meanwhile - god speed men and women of freedom. American's everywhere are scared and proud of all of you!

Posted by: PlattenFaust at November 21, 2005 11:46 AM (bJcv4)

84 It's all about economics.
And you gun nuts are just pawns.

Posted by: poobah at November 21, 2005 11:56 AM (VXrDz)

85 If anybody actually reads back to what they posted earlier, the small SMG with the 50rd 90Ã‚Â°bullets in a clear magazine is the Fabrique Nationale P90 and it fired 5.7x28 ammo. Effective against light soft armored targets.

As far as the m16 is concerned, I know my father and his 'nam buddies hate them, because they are one of the main reasons our troops did so poorly in that theatre. They got a lot of our soldiers killed. They always have been and always will be very anal rifles. That much is undebatable.

I have a WASR-10 (semi-auto AK variant) and it works beautifully. I admit I've never really shot it more than 75 yards, but with iron sights at 75 yards standing unsupported punching out the center of my target, it shows me it's not a bad weapon to have. But it does have a kick that makes followup a bit slow. That much is also undebatable.

That being said, in an environment that is known for jamming an m16, give me an AK. In a cleaner environment, give me an m16 and I'll use it. I personally think it's a problem that our troops are trained on just 1 rifle. since some 90% of the world uses AK variants, spend a little time training on those too. Let them use battlefield pickups with confidence. They're easy, and after reading a manual, you'll know how to do strips and rebuilds. I did it. I read a pamphlet before ever touching one, and as soon as i bought mine, I tore it down and rebuilt it in under a minute. first attempt. no tools, no ammo needed to push out any pins.

Posted by: AngstNIceCream at November 21, 2005 01:05 PM (ySXvr)

86 You guys dont know what your talking about the 5.56mm round was never designed to kill in one shot unlike the AK 7.62, but was meant to simply incapacitate, which is MUCH more effective in winning a war, instead of removing 1 combatant by killing him, if you merely incapacitate him you are now forcing 2 of his buddys helping him out of the battle-field effectively removing 3 soldiers out of the battle and reducing casualties. I gues its a bit different in Iraq since the insurgents fight camikazi style, therefore bigger rounds might be called for. The M-16, dont even try to protect-it because it has caused many people their lives by constant jams and malfunctions, it is a totally worthless piece of crap and always will be but the Americans should keep it just so that it appeases their great ego while everyone else laughs and points.

Posted by: Marcos at November 21, 2005 01:36 PM (kymLG)

87 I just got back from Iraq last week, and I would like to say this:

MY. M-4. WORKED. PERFECTLY. EVERY. TIME. I. PULLED. THE. TRIGGER.

No Malfunctions, stoppages, failure to feed, extract, or anything.

I prayed to all holies for a .45, got stuck with a 9mm...thank God I didn't have to shoot anyone with that one. No confidence, whatsoever.

Posted by: Ma Deuce Gunner at November 21, 2005 01:48 PM (7kqct)

88 Engineer23-

We do have a jamming system, and they have already adapted to it.

Posted by: Ma Deuce Gunner at November 21, 2005 01:51 PM (7kqct)

89 M16 A2 rifle, 5.56 millimeter, shoulder fired, air cooled, gas operated, semi-automatic 3-round burst weapon. I think that's how it goes.

I was never in combat. I served in the Army National Guard from 97'-03' and I loved the M16! I plan on getting an AR15 real soon, I've been told by many folks it's almost the same rifle.

And also, great read. It's good to hear news from folks that are fighting this war.

Posted by: Logmaster at November 21, 2005 03:21 PM (dnZrw)

90 Engineer23: A cell phone trigger works by having the individual call the bomb when the convoy nears. We employed cell phone jammers successfully for a while so they then simply reversed the trigger mechanism...meaning that instead of calling the phone, they stayed on the line with the phone and when the call was dropped (jammed by the near by convoy) the bomb exploded. Picture it as a fail-safe switch. Power on bomb explodes was turned into power off bomb explodes.

Posted by: dave at November 21, 2005 04:05 PM (P+fds)

91 It is the same rifle, minus the firing control group and bolt carrier.

Posted by: Absit at November 21, 2005 04:12 PM (eUEbn)

92 Space

I would agree with the majority of your comment and add another few choice words for the author. However I doubt that this came from "a friend in the reserves" I have many outstanding Marines in my unit, percentage wise many more good ones than I did on Active Duty. Yes, I was in OIF with most of these Marines and they would all agree that past a couple of minor deficiencies that the M-16 is a decent weapon. Just because you hear bad things about the reserves does not mean that they are true. This isn't your father's reserves, they do not sit around on drill weekends drinking beer and jerking off. I know this is off topic and will get off my soap box, but having been on both sides of the coin I now see the reasons that the reserves USED to be so F*'ed up and don't want that reputation to be continued.

Posted by: Mike at November 21, 2005 04:48 PM (kiMVm)

93 Trouble with the M-16 in Nam, is that it was the A1, and the A1 version is notorious for it's cr@ptastic performance. From what I remember, the A2 version came about because of the shortcommings of the A1. The A2 features improved performance, a new handguard... (Round all the way around instead of triangular... Go figure...) The grip is pistolgrip designed for more comfortable use... Fully automatic fire is replaced with 3 round burst mode. A case deflector was added to the ejection port for those of us, (Myself included) who are left eye dominant and shoot 'wrong handed'. And I BELEIVE, but I'm not quite sure, that the jamming issues were worked on and the A2 was worked for improved relyability.

But that doesn't mean you can just go dropping the one thing that's going to keep you alive in the mud and grime and soot every chance you get.

Now, I was in basic at Ft. Benning, and I had a wonderfully irritating time in that mid summer humidity. But my Rifle NEVER screwed up when firing live rounds, even when I accidently scooped sand right into the ejection port. And my rifle had a nice wobbly upper and lower reciever... I mean that thing felt like it was barely in one piece... BUT... The only live round problem I had was when a magazine refused to feed rounds into the rifle... It was just a bad magazine. (I think I pissed off my Drill Segeant when I told him I thought it was the Magazine. And I turned out to be correct on the spot. I'm just good with mechanical things.)

No, it's the practice rounds that drove me nuts. The way the front ends are shaped like little stars, they don't feed into the chamber and get stuck on the magazine well's edge... Firing those things was an excersize in some part of SPORTS about every other shot... Shoot, Slap, Shoot, Slap, Slap... Slap extra hard, shoot. It was automatic after five minutes. If I didn't hear the bolt double click on the shot, slap the magazine to unstick that stupid little practice dummy round, and it would clank right back into place. Did I mention those rounds were NASTY? Got to put a muzzle block on the front of the rifle so there's enough gas pressure to drive the bolt back... and that's some very dirty powder gunk in those rounds.

But the A2 certainly isn't unrelyable... Not as long as you aren't abusing it by dragging it through all kinds of muck and guck, and anything else ening in 'uck'. But it can be tempermental, and knowing your weapon's little quirks helps.

Insane fun that can be sometimes... assuming nobody's trying to kill you, of course.

Posted by: Admiral Tigerclaw at November 21, 2005 06:44 PM (wjPJ9)

94 I didn't see anything on the MK-19 in the above review. I was in Baghdad for a year, and to tell the truth we didn't use it all that much. I can say they performed really well at Butler Range (between Baghdad and the Iran border). Granted, that's not combat, but it is the exact same environment. I always wanted to have one in my convoy though for nothing else than it LOOKED like it would make someone have a really bad day. Everyone over there knows, if you look like you're tough, you are alot less likely to get messed with on the road.

Posted by: Dale at November 21, 2005 06:46 PM (re9pO)

95 Its funny to see so much support for the ak47.

The ak 47 can up put up large amounts of lead quickly , but it is highly un accurate, espically in auto fire. There is not a single ak47 supporter here that can match the worst solider for the us shooting 3 round bursts at 400 yards.

The ak47 is used mostly by untrained armys , it is nearly indestuctable , becuse untrained militas are not going to service a rifle properly.

IS the m-16 a perfect gun....no , is the 223 a perfect man killer...no

Does the m-16 give a fire squad much greater range and more consistant hit probability over ak-47....hell yes. You can shoot the enemy from range and they cant return fire. It is a tactical advantage.

IS the 223 much easier for the entire armed forces to shoot then the 7.62 or the 308 ....hell yes. While the 308 is a great man killing round for every 1 solider that can shoot consistantly with it , there are going to be 4 or 5 that can not . Every one in the armed forces includeing females can consistantly put lead on the target with a 223 round.

You arm chair semi auto rambos have to remember its not a SINGLE round , its Three rounds , its not 30 yards at the range it a battle feild the m-16 in 223 is leathly out out to 600 yards.

In a nut shell the 223 is a high velocity round that has remakable range , with low recoil. ITs great for close in fightign becuse of its low recoil , on par with a sub machinegun its great to range, better then most can shoot with iron sights.

Posted by: ted at November 21, 2005 07:56 PM (PPgRH)

96 I don't have the breadth of experience claimed by some here but here's my two cents.

Meh. The M4/M16 are a huge pain in the ass. Two words "star chamber", if that didn't send shivers down your spine you haven't spent enough time in the field. Do I need a .308 cartridge, probably not, but a little more stopping power than the 5.56 might make me sleep a little better. Honestly, keep the cartridge, I would just prefer a weapon that wasn't as picky and didn't take so damn long to clean. Not to say it won't kill, it will, but when there are more reliable simpler to clean options out there I would prefer them.

As for the SAW, it's a piece of crap. Ok that's too harsh, it kills so it's not complete crap, but good lord do I hate that damn weapon. Jams, links breaking when you use nutsacks, loud cumbersome plastic boxes otherwise...it's just a pain in the ass. I'm no expert but there has got to be a better option.

Posted by: Laen at November 21, 2005 07:58 PM (a919O)

97 Since no-one seems to have noted it yet, the Russians and the Chinese dropped the 7.62x39 some years ago. The Russians have used 5.45x39 since 1974. The Chinese have used 5.8x42 since the late early '90s. Both are broadly comparable to 5.56x45 NATO round.

I think it's also worth noting that the M16 and variants are used by armies and police forces around the world, something that would not happen if the weapon was the unreliable POS that some commenters claim. It is interesting to note that the British SAS and Royal Marine Commandos use the M16 instead of the standard-issue British rifle, the SA80.

Posted by: jic at November 21, 2005 08:52 PM (6RyKz)

98 "It is interesting to note that the British SAS and Royal Marine Commandos use the M16 instead of the standard-issue British rifle, the SA80."

Yes, but frankly the SAS, Royal Marines and the rest of the British Army would choose almost any other rifle than their own SA80.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/09/28/nrifle28.xml

//yep, I'm a civilian Farker speaking out of my ass here. Only fired an AR one time, but it was sweet.

Posted by: Pog at November 21, 2005 09:36 PM (OSKhm)

99 Oh, I know that. But there's dozens of other 5.56mm rifles they could have adopted. I'm not saying that the M16 is 'the best rifle in the world' (I've never fired one, nor have I ever served in the military. And such choices are highly subjective anyway). I'm just pointing out that the M16 family is quite highly regarded internationally, contrary to what many commenters have implied.

Posted by: jic at November 21, 2005 09:52 PM (6RyKz)

100 By the way, I noticed that 'AK47 best rifle ever, M16 POS' popped up in *The Zombie Survival Guide*. My first thought was "he did all his research via forums...".

Posted by: jic at November 21, 2005 10:06 PM (6RyKz)

101 Sorry, this is getting messy, I could have put this all in one post. But I think it's also worth pointing out that Israel largely dropped the AK-derived (via the Finnish Valmet) Galil in favor of the M16. Admittedly, this was mainly for economic reasons, the Galil has a reputation as an excellent weapon. But still, the M16 wouldn't have lasted in the service of the notoriously uncompromising Israelis for close to 30 years if it was garbage.

Posted by: jic at November 21, 2005 10:22 PM (6RyKz)

102 opinions are like assholes, everyone has one and they all stink

Posted by: d funk at November 21, 2005 11:53 PM (40jnM)

103 All of you arm-chair warriors can shut the hell up right now. The sheer ignorance you display when talking about weapons in use by the military today astounds me. First off, the M-16A2 service rifle is a thing of beauty. Firing a 5.56 mm NATO round, which welike to call a "tumbler," this thing will chew up the insides of a point target at 550m or an area target at 800m. It breaks down easy, and the jamming problems many of you talk about are tidbits you have heard third-hand from Vietnam vets back when the US was supplied with dirtier ammo that had roughly four times the carbon build-up as modern rounds. With propermaintenance an M-16A2 willwork perfectly fine in a sandstorm, providing you don't act like a dumbass and bury the thing in the sand trying to avoid enemy fire when you should be seeking cover.
Asfar as machine guns go, they all serve a purpose. while it would be nice to have a MK-19 with every fire team, it'snot practicle, but the cyclic rate of fire on a M-249 SAW more than makes up for the 5.56mm round, which as I mentioned before, is a tumbler and will ricochet around inside the body until the insides look like a parfait.
For pistols... yeah, the M-9 9mm sucks. But it has a higher magazine capacity than the .45, which is why the change was made. Pesonally,I'd prefer to see the enemy go down with one shot I had to make count rather than 4 wimpy shots, but the big green weiner has spoken, so shall it be.
The most ridiculous part of this review is the section on the "body armor" as they call it. Personally, everyone I know calls it a flak, as it isn't really that good for direct small-arms fire, mostly shrapnel. While it can stop many different types of small-arms fire at varying ranges, it weighs nowhere near the "six pounds" the review claims. Without SAPI plates in it weighs a good 15, and the plates easily double that, proving that a bunch of nerds at computers have no idea what the shit we use on the front lines is really like.

Posted by: LCpl. Botkin at November 22, 2005 01:17 AM (Ul/rQ)

104 Fucking Fark rules. These gun guys are all assholes that are too chicken to get killed for realz. I would punch every bullet in the face, and when i was done, Iraq would be a 4 year old girl with a snapped pelvis.

Eat Shit or Die Trying.

Posted by: Mexitron at November 22, 2005 02:42 AM (ybl+D)

105 I can just picture all you idiot Rambo wannabes, sitting at your computer, with a rag tied around your head, and your beer belly covering your keyboards! You all make me ill, except for Botkin and a few REAL fighting men in here... I would love to get a few of you morons into an alley and pound your faces into mush... no guns, no bragging, no lies... just hard fists into fat faces!!!! HOOOOORAH!!!!

Posted by: brainbuster at November 22, 2005 07:01 AM (DJetB)

106 To Brainbuster: Better be careful who you challenge in here. I am a seventh degree black belt in gong fu. I have the ability to tear out your esophagus with one move. Would you like that, you loud mouthed bean brain? You are nothing more than a screaming child, while I am a warrior who cannot be beaten. Kill yourself. Now. Do not challenge anyone in here again.

Posted by: emptyhandkiller at November 22, 2005 07:21 AM (DJetB)

107 Hey "emptyhandkiller", or should I say "emptySKULLkiller"? You phony idiot martial arts master.... I bet you are one of those jerks who mows his lawn in his Gi, to intimidate his neighbors! I bet you are so fat, you haven't seen your tiny prick in years... you pee and it just dribbles down your fat legs! If I ever get my hands on you, I will tear off your filthy, turd stained Gi and shove it down your lying throat... I will enjoy turning your fat face into a slab of bleeding meat! Where do you live, hero? Let's meet and fight...

Posted by: brainbuster at November 22, 2005 07:31 AM (DJetB)

108 Brainbuster: Please do not anger me. I wouldn't want to go to prison after snapping every bone in your body and crushing each of your internal organs with my bare hands. But, perhaps it would be worth it, to see your smashed body lying in the gutter. The last thing your ruptured eyeballs ever see would be me standing over you, smiling. I would like that. Now, if you still insist on meeting for a death fight, I live in a suburb of Philadelphia. I await your reply.

Posted by: emptyhandkiller at November 22, 2005 07:41 AM (DJetB)

109 Hold on, pal, ok? I guess you are the real deal... I never meant for this to go this far.. I don't want to die. Honest, pal, I didn't mean to insult you, ok? I think I'm a pretty tough guy, but I have a family! What would they do without me? I can't just drive to Philadelphia and get killed, I don't have life insurance... Let's just forget the whole thing, ok, pal?

Posted by: brainbuster at November 22, 2005 07:47 AM (DJetB)

110 Brainbuster: I am pleased that you have come to your senses. I knew that you were a snivelling coward from your first post. Don't worry, I won't kill you. I have decided to let you live. Go on, raise up your children, who are also destined to be cowards. But, leave the fighting to the warriors. Don't ever threaten in here again.

Posted by: emptyhandkiller at November 22, 2005 07:54 AM (DJetB)

111 emptyhandkiller and brainbuster:

both of you are frauds that live in you're parents basements. i have tracked your ip adresses and rather then listen to you make a mockry of this beloved forum, i issue you challenges. if you can successfully touch a woman's breast within the next 2 weeks, i will not come to your basements with my commando engineered M-60 assalt weapon with a plasma grenaed luncher and blow you to hell. i bet you two will kiss and hug before i kill you to death.

Posted by: HOORAHKILLA97 at November 22, 2005 09:06 AM (fg/Yy)

112 Wow - this got stupid quick.

Posted by: PlattenFaust at November 22, 2005 10:39 AM (bJcv4)

113 to emptyhandkiller you are a fucking idiot, oh yeah Im a seventh degree black belt in gong fu, go fuck yourself you piece of shit show-off. Whenever I hear motherfucker like you in real life talking about how bad-ass they are a quick jab to the face makes em shut the fuck up quick. Oh yeah and internet chalenges are the lamest shit ever.

Posted by: Marcos at November 22, 2005 10:54 AM (kymLG)

114 Good LORD, the IQ factor in the last five posts went into the single digits.

Sheesh.

You're acting like a bunch of forteen year old middle school boys trying out for the football team to impress the cheerleaders.

First off, a martial artist is better dissaplined than that, and don't go throwing 'quick jabs' or fighting threats around because of what people say. You shame yourself and your fighting style with that kind of childish banter if you are actually taking a course.

Second, this is not a place for fighting... I'm sure the webmasters of this site would appreciate it if you didn't waste their bandwidth with death-threats and foul language warfare. That's what Battlefield 2, Soldat, and other online games are for. ^_^V

Third, you're not making yourselves look good at all by talking trash like that. You just show everone else reading how much of an ass you can be... which tends to be detrimental to your reputations and makes people tend not to believe any oppion or information you may post.

Fourth: IP's cannot reveal a location by themselves. You can track down the ISP, but that's about as far as you'll get before you hit a wall. ISPs have it in their Privacy Policy not to reveal personal information. And even if you got the info, you wouldn't be able to reliably track the IP if it switches constantly... And even on top of that, that does not determine the location of the computer at the address you might have gotten from the ISP. IP address isn't a GPS assignment.

The long and short of it is, BEHAVE, you're acting worse than children.

And if you don't behave...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v430/admiraltigerclaw/bb61fa.jpg

I might have to get nasty. MUAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

I now leave you with a quote.

"Knowledge is power, and I LIKE power."
- Cobra Bubbles, Lilo & Stitch movie

Posted by: Admiral Tigerclaw at November 22, 2005 01:40 PM (aXrGS)

115 Back to the original subject, everyone has made great points about what we are currently and should be using. Remember a few things though, if you are clearing a room, encounter a insurgent, squeeze a few rounds, one hits but the other 2 miss. Would you want those other 2 rounds to be powerful enough go through the wall and into another clearing team? Also, because we are the Greatest Nation on Earth, we are also plagued with keeping the liberals at bay and the everyday soldier must use ammo that is not a leathal as the 7.62. Finally, to piggie back on a few other people, dry lube works much better then CLP in the sand box. The carbon is less likely to stick as much and is easier to clean when you get the chance. The M-16A2 is a tighter fit then the AK, but that means better accurancy ..... one shot, one kill.
Essayons

Posted by: cc at November 22, 2005 01:51 PM (Tetf4)

116 Just remember not to field strip the bolt all the way down out there in the sand box...

}

That tiny little metal holding pin can be a nightmare to find if you drop it.

Anyway, you can easily tell who has had actual military training around here. The whole 'take care of your equipment' mindset is easily recognized, because it's hammered into you in basic. "Your weapon is your girlfriend, your wife! Take care of her and she'll be good to you. Treat her like shit and she'll screw you over big time!"

Heh... Rifles are kind of like someone's wife... You take loving care of her to a point some would even call high maintinence, and she'll spout death to anyone who dares piss her off.

Did I mention the last four digits on my rifle's serial number in basic was 1942?

Posted by: Admiral Tigerclaw at November 22, 2005 02:15 PM (aXrGS)

117 This is ALL MADE UP BS!

Posted by: paul b at November 22, 2005 02:48 PM (rE3Xp)

118 Great read, and to the complaints on the M-16 being underpowered... Did anyone read the fine print? The M-16 is a "casualty producing weapon"
Not that I had to memorize a complete line of info on it for Army Boards or anything. Jams, etc yep. Just saying it *IS* designed to produce casualties, not kill outrght. Philosophy is, that *WE* Americans try to retrieve the wounded. 2-4 persons per casualty, one dog tag per dead. Do the math. Unfortunately, the enemy is already dead, and just doesn't realize it yet.

Posted by: SabreWulf at November 22, 2005 10:24 PM (Mgg99)

119 To Marcos: Listen turdface, you better stop mouthing off to emptyhandkiller! He will tear you into tiny shreds of meat and feed them to his pet alligator.... He is the toughest fighter in here, and he will squash any of you like tiny bugs... I nearly fought him, but God was looking out for me that day and brought me to my senses!

Posted by: brainbuster at November 23, 2005 06:55 AM (y7ATV)

120 ADMIRAL TIGERCLAW: Be very careful who you threaten in here. I hope you are aware of my fighting abilities. I have ways of finding you. How would you like to be walking along the street, and have me spring out of the bushes and apply the Mongolian face clutch on you? This hold paralyzes the phrenic nerve, rendering you completely helpless. I have fought and defeated many, many opponents. I suggest you creep away and never post in here again.

Posted by: emptyhandkiller at November 23, 2005 09:02 AM (y7ATV)

121 Ny feedback on how the british sa-802 is doing over there since H&K modified it?

Posted by: Royal Anglian at November 23, 2005 12:54 PM (1SfXq)

122 Marcos, emptyhandkiller, admiral tigerclaw, and you other hate mongers, what is the matter with you? Why must violence always be the answer? Didn't you learn anything from brainbusters example? His good sense averted what might have become a meaningless waste of human life. He saw that it was best not to fight, but to give peace a chance.

Our defense policy should follow his example! You all saw how quickly emptyhandkiller changed his focus from violence and vengance to one of mercy. When he saw that brainbuster was no longer a threat, he immediatly backed away from violence and embraced clemency and brotherhood. See, deep down, emptyhandkiller is not a psychopathic killer, but a loving human being. If we could all follow his example, there would be no need for war and violence and the mongolian face clutch. There would be more money for social justice and understanding. Our adversaries would follow our example.

Less guns more love.

Posted by: trypeace at November 23, 2005 08:24 PM (gTeyO)

123 TRYPEACE; You are right. I, as a warrior, do not hate. I love. Yes, I LOVE fighting. I would have met and destroyed brainbuster had he not turned coward. Just as I now would love to meet and destroy YOU. While you are so busy loving everyone and blowing kisses to the terrorists, I would simply walk up behind you and apply the Hindu Neck Lock. This hold is unbreakable, and you would be completely at my mercy. I would give you the customary five seconds to say, "Bye mommy!" or some other nonsense before I eliminate you.

Posted by: emptyhandkiller at November 24, 2005 08:25 AM (aVXS6)

124 Admiral Tigerclaw, NOW you have done it. With all your name calling, you have invited the rage of emptyhandkiller! I sure am glad I ain't YOU! I just wish that I could see you two fight, so I could watch your blood run down main street and into a storm drain.... Then, to help out my friend, emptyhandkiller, I would get a snow shovel and scrape away your carcass... You better move far away and change your name...

Posted by: brainbuster at November 24, 2005 08:35 AM (aVXS6)

125 I don't know about the mongolian face clutch or the hundu neck lock, but I am interested in shooting. I am 14, and I have a BB gun that I shoot baloons with. I am getting pretty good, to where I can usually pop 8 out of 10 baloons from about 25 steps away. Is that good? I do think I want to be a Marine as soon as I am old enough. I am living with my aunt in the UK.

Posted by: wisepunk at November 24, 2005 08:40 AM (aVXS6)

126 MARCOS: Who is the loud mouth? You will not be jabbing anyone in the face. I would probably laugh at your childish fighting technique. Only for a few seconds, though. Then I would finish you off for the good of society. If ignorance is bliss, then you must be the happiest person on the planet. You would assume your fighting stance, and then I would quickly and easily take you down and apply the Hawaiian Knee Dislocator. As you hobble for the rest of your life, with a crippled leg, perhaps you will have learned something from our encounter.

Posted by: emptyhandkiller at November 26, 2005 04:29 AM (0U4Uv)

127 I am a G3 fan do you think a G3 would do great if issued in Iraq... It being a 7.62mm rifle, lousy thing thou is a 20 round magazine...

Posted by: skullangel at November 28, 2005 01:40 AM (M/9Bc)

128 I guess all the professionals have read the comments above, shaken their heads, and moved on. In an attempt to restore some symbolence of respectability to this blog, please allow me to post a few comments-

When Eugene Stoner designed the AR-15 (not M-16, and in inventory still as the GAU-something- I forget)for the USAF,(and based on his AR-10 design which was in 7.62x51 BTW) it had a 1-14 barrel twist and the .223 round it fired (not 5.56, that came later on a NATO standardization-different specs-trust me) was 52 grain. What does this mean? If you know anything about ballistics, grab a chart and ck the stability- the round was essentually ballistically unstable. This meant when it hit a soft target, it went nuts, with a very unpredictable wound channel. It used commercial powder and burned clean.

Then the Army adopted it (as the M-16) and wanted a weapon that a) wounded its enemy (which causes a logistical and morale problem) b) was not as easily deflected by brush and wind (that didn't work out) and c) was cheaper to produce the ammo for. This meant a change in the barrel twist to 1-12, a 55 gr bullet, and a drawn powder that was much cheaper. Result- since a misconception was the M-16 was a self cleaning weapon (it wasn't-Armalite suggested to direct gas impengement system cleaned the gas tube out-it actually produced carbon into the bolt/reciever group)the new powder produced a higher volume of carbon into the reciever, the new weapon was not 1st shot lethal unless there was a CNS shot, and alot of untrained troops died with a jammed M-16 in their hands around '66 and '67. This lead to the M-16A1 with its forward assist to shove the (by now) 5.56 cart into the fouled chamber.

Fast forward to the contemporary- the M-16A2 (and M-4) are product improved M-16. They are well made, but they now have 1-7 twist barrels shooting a 62 gr bullet. Ballistically stable, more accurate, and most importantly not as easily deflected by wind, and able to better penetrate threat body armor (the Warsaw Pact). The new, heavier round (73 gr) will add to the penetration and long range ballistic performance.

The M-16 series is a fine system, provided the operator maintains his weapon and goes for multiple hits on the target. The future lies in a mid-caliber replacement, as in the 6.8 or the like, which has greater terminal ballstic performance (ie perm wound channel)against our new foes. I could go on, but what would be the point? The 7.62 is a great combat round for those that can handle it (multi-shot engagement is much more difficult) but the way we use ammo in combat now, carrying the same amount of combat load would just weigh too much, even with the short mission profiles.

Just in case you are wondering, yeah, I'm the real deal, former "alotofthings" and now am resigned to train those who go in harms way. Ya got any questions, email me. Otherwise inform yourself before expressing your opinions.

Posted by: Ferg at November 28, 2005 08:13 PM (9ZCOj)

129 My two cents:
no matter what, a .223 round, in my mind, will always be for prairie dogs and coyotes. Not to stop humans. Hell, I'd rather have a .22-250.

No matter how you look at it, the m-16/ar-15 platform was originally a target rifle for the friggin' air force...

The m-16/ar-15 craps where it eats (referring to the direct gas impingement system). It was, is and always will be a fundamentally flawed system.

Give me a VEPR(can be had in 7.62x39 OR .30

or an excellent Bulgarian AK47 ANY day over anything chambered in a friggin' varmint round. AK/RPK actions stand up in conditions where the 16s/15s/4s lay down and crap out. In my state, a person can hunt deer with 7.62x39mm; not with a .223, though. Sand, dirt, mud, salt snow...whatever...an AK doesn't care.

It just cracks me up when people take sides and agree with the politicians and military high-ups, and they even go out and buy the crappy weapons that all the infantry are trying to get rid of. Hell, Spec-Ops are using some weapons chambered in WWII and Korea-era cartridges.

It's all to save money.

Posted by: chachi at November 28, 2005 08:15 PM (gdDWx)

130 emptyhandkiller...

Take empty-handed-threats to people who care about threats coming from you. I care ZERO. I just want the conversation back in the civil area without the flinging of poo. Besides, not only is it rediculous to threaten people online, it's strategicly and tactically unsound to describe to me exactly what you would plan to do. Not only do I know to avoid dark alleys from which you can jump out, I also know that my first reaction should be to duck and avoid the hand should you manage to engage me that close.

Now, not only have you lost the surprise advantage because I could now be expecting you, you also lose the stretegic advantage of the terrain seeing as you have to come to me and engage me on my turf and terms. Not only must you find me, but you must track me down and engage me when I'm alone, or risk failure before you even get started. This takes TIME, and can result in fatige and delay of your otherwise 'excelent' (I use the term skepticly.) reflexes. It is both a strategic and a tactical blunder on your part.

Now, assuming you bypass this extensive line of problems with minimal problems, you must still ambush me rapidly enough to actually engage me with the so called 'Mongolian Face Clutch'. If I even have a split second warning of your assault, I can easily avoid the 'Clutch' and am then allowed the more conventional method of the Pacifist Crush. A very simple method where I simply lance out blindly for your neck at full force without so much as thinking, with the pre-programmed intent in my reflexes to smash your windpipe on the spot, rendering you a choking esphixiated mugger on the ground that, without immediate assistance to clear your wind pipe, will suffocate. A crude strike to a soft target... but effective and critical none the less. However I would NEVER use it unless it was in self defense. (Nobody really seems to realize just how critial the throat area is... It's always face strikes or gut punches, or kidney jabs. Never a well placed single strike to cripple the opponent as fast as possible.)

Now, open ground assault asside, how about attacking me in my own home. Well, that's also a mistake. I have a pitbull... friendly as all hades... but the dog knows exactly when someone is in the vicinity and lets everyone know. So a hand combat ambush would be impossible. (Plus it would be better to bet that a pitbull, even as friendly as mine, might come unglued if his 'buddy' was attacked.) So that attack method would be blunderous beyond blunderous... especially with the range of Melee weapons I have in my room. (Some katanas, a pair of daitos...) Of which I have actively moved through the house doing a burgler check with before when I thought something wasn't right.

Attacking me at work would just be plain stupid... We have people, cameras, and law enforcement to back us up. Whoever might win a fight there, you lose. I'll wish you off to whichever federal prison you end up going to if you want.

Now go beat up on the wall or something... It'll take more than your fists and boasts to intimidate me, so don't bother trying.

Back to the topic at hand...

M-16A2 or some other weapon, if you're trained to use it better than the other guy, you'll win. All you have to do is be hit, reguardless of round size. It will hurt... and that will throw off your aim unless you are just IMMUNE to pain. And by the time you manage to shrug off the supposed non-critical hit from the 5.56 mm round... the second has already found its mark in your skull. Bullet size doesn't really matter. Once your rhythm is off, and they've still got you sighted... you're a dead man. Varmint corpse, or human corpse... you're still a corpse, and a bullet will kill everyone just the same dead as the rest. High power rounds are more important when you're in a situation where they must be dead by the time you hear your weapon fire. In this case, at close range, the velocity of the round is going allow it to kill the target if it hits any critical area... reguardless of stopping power between round sizes. In this case, it's just a matter of who takes the first shot and scores a hit. Bullet size doesn't mean anything unless it's a shotgun blast.

At long range, bullet size can help determine the characteristics of the impact... but I would prefer a weapon which I can use with accuracy, instead of spraying hundreds of heavy slugs everywhere in the 'spray and pray' method. If I can get a scope on an M4, and put a small little bullet through my enemy's head before he can spray me with his big bullets... he's dead.

If I want true power... I skip out the use of an automatic or burst fire rifle and just use the big stuff... like the Barret.

Of course, weapon choice can vary greatly depending strictly on the situation. The M-16 and M-4 have a pretty good all-round performance. Accurate at range, and can still work close in. (Although at the closer ranges, I'd start leaning towards a shotgun and some heavy machinegun coverfire. But for ranged, LONG ranged, and ULTRA long ranged... Barret's my weapon of choice, strictly because it out-ranges just about anything a typical troop would have, and can punch a hole through concrete at such ranges. Suddenly the enemy can't attack, and they can't take cover easily. They can only bull rush, artillery me, or some other indirect method of attack. Unless they had brute numbers advantage. Barret's have a ten round cartraige... With shots that can penetrate several soft targets should they line up. So to take me down would require a serious assault.)

It mostly comes down to personal prefference in the end. How do you want to fight?

Posted by: Admiral Tigerclaw at November 29, 2005 01:36 AM (aXrGS)

131 I know, I know... some people say "a bullet is a bullet...period." Well, myself and a bunch of other guys out there who have seen--IN PERSON-- the gross lack of stopping power that is inherent in the 5.56mm round know that not all bullets/cartridges are created equally.

Some like to talk about the "power" from the ARâ€™s high velocity. Then how come police tactical units are using 5.56MM weapons because of the reduced risk of over penetration? Police MUST make CNS shots with serious, bench-rest bolt actions, most often at distances of less than 100 meters. High velocity hits + small caliber bullet= frangible rounds. Trust me, the debate is still out on that one, folks.

Just about any .308 load will blow a big enough hole through a person to toss a cat through, so donâ€™t even go there about 5.56MM ballistics. Especially when you're talking about the shorter 16 inch barreled versions of the AR(ie M4). When you shorten the barrel of a rifle, your reducing itâ€™s velocity and the only thing the M-16 has going for it: it's velocity. After chopping it down, your velocity is now just average. Letâ€™s be quite frankâ€¦ there are some .22LR loads that can almost catch up to it. Hell, .22-250 and .220 Swift outperform it in velocity. So an M4 becomes about as accurate as an average AK at medium ranges. It doesn't bother me if you don't trust me because I say "I know." Trust me, there was a time when I hated ANY foreign firearm: AKs, Draganovs or anything chambered in 9mm. After using them in the field I have come to respect them. Early on during my 12 years in the SOF business I guess I found out what works for my life and the lives I protect.

Oh yeah, and velocity alone will not instantly kill. Maybe at a certain point, but that is beyond the scope(hehe

of this discussion.

here are the arguments:

1) The M16 is so accurate!
Answer: Accuracy isn't the number one requirement of an assault rifle and does you little good if the gun doesnâ€™t fire when the trigger is pulled.

2) It works fine if you clean it!
Answer: A service rifle should still work fine even when you don't have the time to clean it. Such as when people are shooting at you. If it gets too muddy you should be able to open the action, piss into it to rinse the mud chunks out of it, and be back in the fight.

3) It's very light!
Answer: And it breaks! However this very light AR-15 is no longer light when you add in all the extras that are the style these daysâ€¦ two white lights, vertical fore grip, full length rail for your short compact optical sightsâ€¦ lasersâ€¦ AM/FM tape deckâ€¦ There is a whole gun industry/sub-industry surrounding the AR-15 platform. There are so many accessories the AR is nothing more than a Black Barbie Doll for Boys. You can dress it up for a night on the town or a day at the beach in your little pink convertibleâ€¦ itâ€™s fabulous! By the time your rifle is dressed out like one of the guys from the Blackhawk Industries adsâ€¦ itâ€™s no longer very light. It now weighs as much as an M-249 SAW.

4) I've fired blah, blah number of rounds through MY AR, and it works fine.
Answer: probably not while on your belly in the dirt crawling through God knows what. Punching holes through paper targets at the range is fineâ€¦ the AR-15 is a great little .223 target rifle. But a fighting rifle it is not. "As long as you do your part..."
This is a WEAPON... Not a Bench Rest comp-rifle. A weapon gets used and abused... not treated like a Faberge Egg. "Doing your part" should include pissing into the action to rinse the mud out of it - and not much more.

Some like the AR. Fine. Enlist and try it out where it is supposed to be used. One thing to think about... The AR was designed back in the 1960s, when people smoked a lot of pot... Not saying that Stoner smoked dope, but it would explain a few things. Since that time there have been dozens of different military guns designed all over the world. The designers of these weapons had the advantage of being able to look at what else was out there and pick what they liked the best. So my question is, over the last forty some odd years, how many new military rifles have come out using the AR gas system? (The .308 version of the AR-15 called the SR-25 or AR-10 doesn't count) How many have come out using a piston? How many have a spring loaded ejector vs. a fixed ejector? With some form of gas piston or op rod since the AR: K2, G36, SAR, Valmet, Sako M90, Sig 550, FNC, Galil, Tavor, AN 94, FARA 98, Aug, INSAS, AR 70/90, AR 18, Stoner 63. I'm not sure if it is Singapore or Taiwan who has built a copy of the M16, but it even has a gas piston! I've probably forgotten a few as well. Who else has used direct gas impingement in their designs? I can't think of any at the moment.

Posted by: chachi at November 29, 2005 02:47 AM (gdDWx)

132 ADMIRAL TIGERCLAW: I know now that you are a well camouflaged coward. You post your boastings in here, trying to impress the real warriors in here. I have seen your exact paragraphs in various weapons magazines. You have a pitbull, and an assortment of weapons. You must look ridiculous, creeping through your home, scared out of your wits looking for that non existant burglar. So, you hide behind a dog, behind a pile of weapons, you even hide at work behind cameras and witnesses. I rest my case, coward. I doubt you have ever fought anything, save your own fears of the world.

Posted by: emptyhandkiller at November 29, 2005 07:53 AM (okGVz)

133 Emptyhandkiller... WOW!!! Now I KNOW you can take admiraltigerclaw! But, like he says, what if he senses you near and DUCKS when you go for the Face Clutch? What would you do?

Posted by: brainbuster at November 29, 2005 08:00 AM (okGVz)

134 Have no fear, brainbuster. Remember, for every move, there is a counter move. Fighting is like a well choreographed dance. As admiraltigerclaw ducks, I simply ram a knee upward, shattering his jawbone and smashing his teeth. Then, as he crawls on all fours spewing blood from his face, I will finish him off with a simple head kick, which, if it doesn't eliminate him, will render him a babbling brain damaged halfwit in an asylum.
As for his incredible throat thrust, another simple counter move. Because he is thrusting blindly, and putting all his power in this one move, I simply sweep with my arm and re-direct his force. Once his force is aimed elsewhere, I have several choices. I could gouge out his eyes, smash his nose into splinters, or a blow to his soft organs or even his throat. There is no technique or style that he could use that I haven't already mastered.

Posted by: emptyhandkiller at November 29, 2005 08:12 AM (okGVz)

135 emptyhandkiller: Your attempts to argue with me are laughable. Not only do you continue to pick a fight when I show it is clear there is none, but you continue to chuck insults about people you know nothing about and boast about how 'GREAT' you are when in reality... NOBODY CARES. Isn't it amazing? Especially when you talk about how you can dissable a person with one grip of your hand? Come off it now. If you are as good as you are boasting, I'm going nowhere, come and get me. You have the knowledge you need. I have given you strategic insight into my only defenses. If you are so determined to prove your manhood to this dark corner of cyberspace, you'd best get up off your ass and do something about it. HURRY! The zombies look doubtful of your greatness!

Otherwise you're not an emptyhandkiller as you would wish... but just empty-handed.

"Now...what's wrong? Only two of your legs are ripped off...Summon your beasts! Transform your body! Regenerate your legs and get the hell up! Pick up that gun and fight back! Come on, the night has just begun. The fun has yet to begin. Hurry! Hurry! Hurry, hurry hurry HURRY HURRY!!!
-Alucard

Posted by: Admiral Tigerclaw at November 29, 2005 08:15 AM (aXrGS)

136 MY LORD!!! Emptyhandkiller, I am in awe of your fighting abilities! I bet that even if admiraltigerclaw were to ever meet you, as soon as he saw you warming up, he would run off and hide in a dumpster!! But, he wouldn't meet you alone.... I think he is afraid, too... he would bring a bunch of his friends, and his dog, and have the police there... that no good crud! Hey, emptyhandkiller, do you think I could take him?

Posted by: brainbuster at November 29, 2005 08:30 AM (okGVz)

137 Brainbuster, I must admit that you fighting admiraltigerclaw would be a very humorous event. It is always entertaining when two confirmed cowards square off in a fight. But, actually, it might be a close contest, with two scrawny weaklings battling it out. As the two of you mindlessly swing away at each other, perhaps you will land a lucky blow on admiraltigerclaw. Or he will land one on you. I would enjoy watching either outcome.

Posted by: emptyhandkiller at November 29, 2005 08:39 AM (okGVz)

138 Thanks, emptyhandkiller! Thanks for the encouragement.... I really believe that I can take that no good idiot, admiraltigerclaw! I bet I could land something on him, and maybe even knock him out!! If you saw him lying belly up, and me standing over him... I would be so happy and proud!

Posted by: brainbuster at November 29, 2005 08:54 AM (okGVz)

139 I see plenty of talk and no action. You haven't tracked me down and ambushed me yet? I'm here, whenever you decide to back your words up with actual force. You'll be happy to know that even in the face of reducing me to the pulp you seem so satisfied to think I would become, that I am not afraid. Anywho, I'm off to a game of SOLDAT... Been running a server all night... Lethal Weapons.

Posted by: Admiral Tigerclaw at November 29, 2005 12:21 PM (aXrGS)

140 OK you guys, can you just go fight somewhere, and get it over with? I am still waiting for an answer about my shooting. Like I said, I can usually hit 8 out of 10 balloons with my BB gun. I am 14 years old, and I think I can shoot pretty good. My daddy, who lives in Montana, said I can have a real gun when I turn 17. I can't wait!

Posted by: wisepunk at November 29, 2005 05:16 PM (okGVz)

141 Hey, Emptyhandkiller.... Are you on? If you are, let's talk about Admiral Tigerclaw, and what a bigmouth coward he is, ok?

Posted by: brainbuster at November 29, 2005 05:19 PM (okGVz)

142 Yes, brainbuster, I am here. What would you like to say about the coward, Admiraltigerclaw? I see he has run off to play his little games. I presume he is a pimple face pre-teen playing war games over the computer. I even doubt if he has hair on his crotch.

Posted by: emptyhandkiller at November 29, 2005 05:23 PM (okGVz)

143 ROLF!!! Boy, you sure got HIM pegged, emptyhand!! Let's talk about beating him up. Say you two were gonna fight, and he tried to kick you in your balls! What would you do against THAT?

Posted by: brainbuster at November 29, 2005 05:27 PM (okGVz)

144 That is an easy scenario, brainbuster. There are two ways to defeat that attack. One, I would bring up one of my legs and deflect his kick. As soon as his kick was off target, I would instantly switch legs and snap kick HIS testicles, crushing them. Two, I would deflect his leg with my arm. Then, with the other arm, I would punch down at an angle, also crushing his testicles. Either method will crush his testicles. Next scenario, please.

Posted by: emptyhandkiller at November 29, 2005 05:32 PM (okGVz)

145 WOW, Emptyhand!!!! That is INCREDIBLE!! It all sounds so easy, but then again you have trained all your life. Ok.... how about this one.... Admiral Tigerclaw just plain charges at you, screaming, with his arms raised up... he just goes nuts on you.... now what?

Posted by: brainbuster at November 29, 2005 05:35 PM (okGVz)

146 This is actually fun, brainbuster. Knowing you have no knowledge of technical style, I enjoy hearing your primitive fighting scenarios. As you said, Admiral Tigerclaw is chargin like a maniac, intent on tearing me apart. Of course, he is so wide open for almost any technique, but here is my favorite. Just as he reaches me, I extend the middle and forefinger knuckles of my fist. I step slightly to the side and rifle a punch directly into Admiral Tigerclaws' armpit. There is a large bundle of nerves there, along with the lymph nodes. The pain would be incredible, the fight would be over, and if I hit it exactly right, his arm should then be paralyzed for life. Within a few weeks, the arm should atrophy, and soon hang limp looking like a dolls' arm.

Posted by: emptyhandkiller at November 29, 2005 05:44 PM (okGVz)

147 OH MY GOD!!!!! I would LOVE to see Admiral Tigerclaw get hit with THAT!!!! I can't think of anything that you can't defeat, so I will go and practice the moves you just described, OK? Thanks, Emptyhand, and I hope I see you tomorrow!!! WOW!!!!!

Posted by: brainbuster at November 29, 2005 05:49 PM (okGVz)

148 Well my 2 cents as I have owned almost all of the rifles mentioned here.

Please realize this is in my opinion!!!

HK G3= ok accuracy, reliable, dirty can you say "fluted chamber" kicks very hard for a 308 auto making for difficult follow up shots.

FAL= Better accuracy, reliable, good recoil for a 308 but still to much for quick follow ups, probably one of the all time best MBR's out there.

M14= Great accuracy, reliable, awsome triger, good recoil but still to much for quick follow ups, wonky scope placement because of dated design, really not best to run completly dry so it's a bit of a sand grabber.

m16=great accuracy!! good trigger, great recoil, fun on follow ups and steel popers at 200 yards! But It's way to tight fitting inside even with dry lube on the rails for a military rifle.

AK-"built anywhere" The energized bunny of killing it keeps going and going and going. Fair to poor accuracy, horrid trigger and way to much recoil for auto-burst use. A very good rifle for the everyman. Part of the problem lies with the AK's very short sight radius.

Note=True russian built AK's have 1/3rd the group sizes of the knock offs but still have the recoil problems unless your talking the newer .223 based ones. But still the problem with the sights.

Best military rifle I've ever owned and feel is just about perfect! HK G36 it's a near perfect mix of the AK and M16. What sucks is it should be in the field right now instead of the delayed xm-8 project!

Why is it great you may ask? go ahead ask!

Low recoil because of being based on the .223/5.56 round

G36 bolt runs on rails simular to the ak47 not the horrid "imo" system of sliding a bolt down a round tube on 4 axis and praying nothing gets in there.

Large internal voids that do nothing except make room for sand and junk to fall into. THIS KEEPS IT AWAY from all the important things like the trigger and bolt group.

One of the best Gas systems out there. It uses a short stroke piston tied to an op-rod so absolutly no gas get's back into the action.

Uses a rail system so optics are easy to mount.

One thing I didn't like was the use of a plastic trigger group with steel inserts as it made the trigger feel flimsy.

The second thing I didn't like was after about 4k rounds "on mine at least" the stock started to behave like a loose AR upper/lower.

Anyone who has shot an ar/m-16..etc with this problem know what I'm talking about! it feels like your trying to shoot a rifle with a hinge in the middle. I feel this is a design flaw of the rifle as the attachment points of the stock were plastic and had opened up a little over time.

PS. I've never served in the military and have no emotional ties to any of these rifles. I spent lots of money to accuire them and this is what "I" found out by shooting the heck out of them.

Posted by: Marty at November 29, 2005 09:54 PM (I4KJw)

149 Ignoring the empty-handed man and the brainbusted person because they do nothing despite all their talk...

Marty, you say the AK has nasty recoil problems?

How about a weapon for a shorter stature person like myself? The one thing I always had trouble with in Basic was the fact that I had to grip the barrel almost by the magazine well. Unless I kept my trigger hand (left hand) tight and the buttstock pulled into my shoulder, I would quickly fatigue my support arm and have the barrel wobble everywhere. Thus all the targets would take longer to get sighted in because I had to circle the barrel in to line it up and smooth out the shake. The irritating part is that I didn't realize I hadn't been keeping my trigger hand tight and pulling the weapon in until the end of qualification day. I was shooting like total craptasticness, and suddenly it clicked why my hand and arm were shaking so badly, and the very next time I started shooting, I was putting targets down easily.

AS for that upper/lower reciever hinge problem... my M-16 was like that. It wobbled.. but I had no problems actually firing, since the forces of the shots were at ninty degree angles to the way the recievers wobbled. It did however, make you look at it and go 'Huh? WHAT THE?!' Which later turned to... 'Weird...' when you realized that it didn't effect actuall shooting. I don't think it's a design flaw as much as it's just extensive use and breakdown of the parts over time.

The thing that irritated me was how the magazine for the M-16 feeds rounds into the bolt... The bolt just catches the round, pushes it forward, and it slides itself up into the chamber. A little grit and it could get caught on the lip of the well and requires that little extra thump to the magazine to pop it in... Irritating really, especially with those star tipped dummy rounds. Those get caught so easily as I explained somewhere way up the page.

Posted by: Admiral Tigerclaw at November 30, 2005 01:25 AM (aXrGS)

150 The best example of a 7.62x39 AK47 steering the operator instead of the other way around was caught on video during a jail riot early in the iraq war.

The operator was behind one of those walls you see on a castle with the gaps at the top of every other block.

He went to fire into the jail below "full auto" and was turned so quickly and with so much force that he shot the block to his right maybe a foot away at most.

Needless to say once he realized he was shooting at a solid object about 6 inches from his body he stoped firing.

The ak47 in 7.62x39 shooting a cartridge very simular to the 30.30 winchester and running at 600 rounds per minute is a hell of a bullet hose to manage.

No mater what you end up thinking of the .223/5.56 round in curent use it has a lot going for it in the launch department.

Plus you can't discount suppressing fire as it's a huge fixture in urban warefare durring flanking moves. It's just simple math a soldier can carry twice as many .223 rounds versus .308 for the same weight.

PS. as a side note the .223 makes a lousy belt fed round and sucks as such "Very Little Case Wall Taper" Who ever was saying that .223 mini is great must have gotten the best one off the line.

I've simply heard from too many military friends who had to shoot the .223 belt for me to discount their bad feelings towards it.
-------------

I'd say for a smaller person looking just for a cheap effective, light rifle that can be had for $300-400 bucks I'd go with an ak either in .223 or in the russian "can't member name" round which is a .223 derivative.

It wouldn't be great for target shooting but you would be able to punch a paper plate at 100 yards most of the time.

The main reason for my choice with a smaller shooter is that the AK is built small i.e. shorter stock and dist to trigger than most of the main battle rifles.

You might want to stay away from the milled reciever versions as they are noticably heavier than the stamped and not all that much better.

----------------------------------------------

Oh, on that complaint about the star locking lugs on the AR. The G36 still uses them but they are shaped with a much smoother angle into the chamber so it should feed blanks better... but that's just a guess on my part as I never shot blanks in mine.

I do feel though that the locking lug design on the AR is a work of genius as they provide very uniform lock up each and every time and are basicly self cleaning.

As I said before the AR has many good points and I've owned 2 in the past and enjoyed them a lot but there are glaring points to the design that needed fixed.

Luckly there are many new rifles that fix the problems and keep the good points.

HK's G36
ROBINSON ARMAMENT CO XCR (untested by me)
FN's F2000 (untested by me)

Heck the m16 and AK's date from the same era as cars with lap belts only and solid steel dashes.

Yes you will encounter people who have serious emotional ties to AR, AK, or Springfield. But when you get down to it the designs are dated and there are better designs out there.

The perfect rifle hasn't been made yet but I'm still looking for it.

Posted by: marty at November 30, 2005 03:29 AM (I4KJw)

151 I have to agree with Marty on the HK G36. Those Germans really, REALLY know what they are doing. Now that is a fine piece of kit. It's the Mercedes-Benz of assault rifles. It also has the price tag of a Mercedes. More like a used big-body Mercedes. Or a new baby-Benz.

Anyhow, I'll stick with 7.62mm myself. The AKs and their variants(with a GOOD muzzle brake fitted) that I have used haven't suffered from horrible accuracy or recoil that people speak of. I just think it's a case of people used to the accuracy of the AR-15 compared to medium to low quality AK knock-offs. I would never compare the two because they are in their own catagories. One is a bench-rest target rifle with exceptionally tight clearances(unforgiving in the sand and muck) and the other is a somewhat crude(by modern standards), albeit utterly reliable and effective "assault rifle". One is chambered in a .22 caliber varmint(four-legged) round; the other is chambered in a .30 caliber varmint(two-legged) round. One will shoot after being left out in a sand storm; the other will not.

We've all heard it and I've always hated the whole argument that states: "the 5.56 round was never meant to kill, it was meant to incapacitate." Bull. Shite. Bollocks. C'mon, who is going to tell that one to the troops? Get in line... yeah right. Wait! I've got a great idea--just think of it--a yellow ribbon sticker for your gas-guzzling SUV that reads:
"Support Our Troops Because the 5.56mm Round Was Never Meant To Kill, Just Incapacitate"

So what happens when your garden variety AK weilding "skinny", Chechen, Serbian-para, towelhead, jungle-monkey or whatever gets popped with a few rounds of 5.56 and, instead of immediately doing some serious moves straight outta "Breakin'"(1984,yeah!) and slumping to the ground, he sits or goes prone and keeps-a-cappin'?? Soldiers get killed, that's what happpens. The 5.56mm for an assault rifle is about as Europellet-esque and Metrosexual as the 9mm for a proper fighting handgun. Actually, I rather like shooting my nines. And I love 9x18 Mak. But the .45 puts 'em down and it's easier to suppress... it's my 1st choice for now.

The point is, for me, 5.56mm is strictly for paper and prairie dogs. It's other purpose is to save ham-fisted politicians some money.

Posted by: chachi at November 30, 2005 04:38 AM (gdDWx)

152 Hey, Emptyhandkiller!!! Are you there? Did you read what that turd Admiral Tigerclaw said about us? What are we gonna do about it?

Posted by: brainbuster at November 30, 2005 07:19 AM (sIKoc)

153 I am here, brainbuster. I have read the Admiral's latest post. I have also realized something about him. Apparently, he is size challenged. He is probably some kind of a dwarf. If he can't hang onto a light M 16, then he is even weaker than I thought. If he DID actually go through basic training somewhere, I am sure he didn't have his own tent. I am sure he slept in the colonel's tent to keep the old man warm at night.

Posted by: emptyhandkiller at November 30, 2005 07:23 AM (sIKoc)

154 LMAO!!!! Oh, emptyhand, you are killing me!!! I would almost be ashamed to fight Admiral Tigerclaw.... What glory would there be, slapping around a midget? I have to admit, tho, it sure would be funny to watch! Emptyhand, what are we gonna do about this, now that Admiral is a little shrimp?

Posted by: brainbuster at November 30, 2005 07:29 AM (sIKoc)

155 What shall we do with him, brainbuster? Like an undersized lobster, we must release him. Release him from our plans of beating him up and humiliating him. I wonder if he WAS a soldier. I wonder if the armed forces had a special "Midget Brigade", made up of timy soldiers who could run under tanks and fences. Brainbuster, we cannot continue to direct our energies to a person who is so small, weak, tiny, and afraid.

Posted by: emptyhandkiller at November 30, 2005 07:41 AM (sIKoc)

156 I guess you are right, emptyhand. I really wanted to beat up Admiral Tigerclaw, but not anymore. You are so wise... thank you for the tips on fighting... I promise to always practice them! See you later, Emptyhand!

Posted by: brainbuster at November 30, 2005 07:45 AM (sIKoc)

157 Well chachi... I have to disagree... First off, when hit, the person's going to have to shake off the blow before the followup round takes him out. I doubt he'll withstand more than two rounds... especially from a decent marksman. A headshot will probably be lethal no matter what the round used.

Posted by: Admiral Tigerclaw at November 30, 2005 02:26 PM (aXrGS)

158 Listen to what I have to say please. The 5.56x45mm caliber is not bad only the ammunition used. The current M855 cartridge was good for awhile but it is just time to upgrade now. Soldiers who have tested the new Mk.262 ammunition love it and it would be the perfect way to make the M16 and M4 much more lethal without switching to a whole new caliber. As soon as we adopt the Mk.262 and make AP and tracer versions of the round I am certain that there will be no more complaints about 5.56x45mm ammunition lacking stopping power. While we could switch to 6.8x43mm I think just upgrading to a better 5.56x45mm cartridge would be better.

Here is an article on the ammo taken from Global Security website:

AA53, Cartridge, Caliber 5.56mm Special Ball, Long Range Mk 262 Mod 0
The Mk 262 Mod 0 quickly earned an enviable reputation in Afghanistan for excellent accuracy and superior terminal performance. Kills were made with this load out to 700 meters. According to one account, in one engagement two SF operators armed with SPRs killed 75 Taliban with 77 rounds. Upgraded to become the current MK 262 Mod 1, this load features a 77-grain Sierra MatchKing with a cannelure for reliable operation in full-automatic weapons. Ordnance Gelatin tests showed improvements in depth of initial yaw and consistency over the M855 cartridge. Work began for incorporation of Mil-SPEC primer and cartridge case, packaging and specification. Initial SPR weapons and AA53 field reports very positive. The MK 262 MOD 0 was specifically developed for use in the MK 12 SPR. A total of 27 different Off-the-Shelf cartridges were tested, leading to a down select to three, (73 gr. Berger, 87 gr. PRL, and 77gr. Sierra) Berger sold and moved facilities, causing manufacturing reliability issues, PRL shut down, leaving Sierra. The Navy, Army and USMC match teams used initial COTS load with success. The manufacture was willing to work with Government requirements. It demonstrated consistent initial yaw in soft tissue between 3-4 inches at ranges from 15â€™ to 300 meters. This enables engagements out to 600 meters (800 possible depending on conditions). It greatly enhances the capability of the M16 or M4A1 Carbine (2 minute of angle accuracy very realistic, vs 3-5 minute of angle with M855). On 28 October 2002 The Virginia Contracting Activity, on behalf of the Defense Intelligence Agency, announced [Solicitation Number MDA908-03-Q-0008] that it intended to solicit and negotiate with Black Hills Ammunition, Inc. on a sole source basis to award a contract for MK262, Mod 0, 5.56MM 77 Grain LR Ammunition. If no affirmative written documentation, technical specifications, and pricing are received within 5 days of this synopsis challenging this intended award, to the effect that a comparable source is available or that it is more advantageous, a contract will be established with Black Hills Ammunition, Inc., P.O. Box 3090, Rapid City, SD 57709-3090.

Posted by: 5.56x45mm is not bad... at December 01, 2005 02:53 PM (dTpok)

159 "Maybe H&K's cartridgeless ammunition will allow the military to adopt a larger round with a weapon like the H&K G11, without the disadvantage of weight."

Ummm, the G-11's round is 4.7mm. Almost no stopping power. Anywho, I think they would've been better off in iRaq with G3s, UMPs, USP45s, and the like. None of that 5.56mm BS.

Posted by: Canucklehead at December 03, 2005 10:59 AM (1R+36)

160 First off, have no experience with the M-16 family at all. But served in a european army that is issued the G-3 (7.62x51 NATO). And I can tell you that if you don't keep it clean, it will stop working. Our Army is/was fanatical about keeping those clean for that reason.

With us the weapon has seen service under arctic as well as in dessert type conditions (mostly in Lebanon and Afghanistan). But not seen much combat since we do mostly peacekeeping. But even then it's at least taken to the range now and then. An yup...if kept clean - BANG! every time. If not...the shooter is left with a few duds when the call to cease fire comes.

Personally this most often happened not becouse of
a dirty weapon, but becouse, when shooting from the prone position, it's simply a bit hard to use the lodading arm properly. You don't pull that all the way back, the reciver wont go all the way forward, and you would have to push it manually the rest of the way forward...

What I wanted to say was, weight is not the only problem of the G3 familly...

Posted by: Norseman at December 04, 2005 05:02 AM (ww2me)

161 Another comment on the G3:

Weight: yes, carrying it is a bitch - in the beginning...after a while, no problem...but then I was never issued more than 5 mags worth (100 rounds).
I would say for the weight issue, it's not the weight of the rifle itself, but the weight and bulk of the ammo that is the problem in that regard (probably obvious but say it anyway).

Second: Firing the 7.62 NATO round in the G3 rifle and acurasy. If you only fire it now and then, and the only a few rounds, yes many will be a bit intimidated by the recoil etc. But with familiarization, no problem at all. And the acuracy is more than acceptable. Even follow up shots, double taps etc was never a problem for me. But could probably be done faster with a lighter round, but I have no experience with the 5.56.
The G3 on full auto...hmmm....in our Army only used for what we called motivation shooting...pure fun at the end of the day on the range.

Posted by: Norseman at December 04, 2005 05:16 AM (ww2me)

162 I used a G3 when I was in the army. In fact I've got one at home now, since I'm in the Norwegian equivalent of the National Guard. I have to say, out of all the weapons I've fired (G3, M16, M4, G36, Mp5), if I was in Iraq I'd take the G3 over all the others. When I was in the army, my G3 got dragged through all sorts of shite. Most notably was a fairly crappy day we had that included swimming with the weapon, crawling through sand and mud with it, then the day after we had a shooting competition, where I put ten rounds all within the eight-points circle at 200m without having cleaned the weapon after the previous day. In winter, if we got chunks of snow and ice in the chamber, we'd just shake it out and continue firing. And the .308 Winchester kicks major arse! Someone here said the G3 kicks too much to be controllable with a rapid rate of fire. This is simply a matter of getting used to it. I didn't find it a problem at all. True, it is a big, heavy weapon, but I'd take the G3 over anything else. With the collapsible stock it's even better, and we'll be getting aimpoint sights for them pretty soon. I love my G3

Posted by: Sem at December 04, 2005 05:18 AM (eYxkx)

163 Most notably was a fairly crappy day we had that included swimming with the weapon, crawling through sand and mud with it, then the day after we had a shooting competition, where I put ten rounds all within the eight-points circle at 200m without having cleaned the weapon after the previous day. In winter, if we got chunks of snow and ice in the chamber, we'd just shake it out and continue firing.
-----------
Have no problem believing that it still worked after all of that. But I bet you cleaned it after shooting the thing, and for mud and crap to enter that rifle you really have to work hard.

And yeah, I've just a G3 in all sorts of weather, from below -30C to +45C, in rain, snow and mud...
The few times it misfired it was my own fault, not the rifles (uncomplete loading).

A problem is perhaps the magazines. If you keep them fully loaded over time, the top will crack...so inspect them often.

Anyway, apart from the odd "dog" as someone put it, Id say most rifles are as good as the owner makes them. Keep it clean inside, and they will work. In some climates it requires more work, but thats with any kind of kit...

Posted by: Norseman at December 04, 2005 08:28 AM (ww2me)

164 I'm an old fashioned 76 yr old Korean war veteran
whose basic weapon was the Garand M-1 which we all thought was a pretty useful piece. Simply constructed and rugged; if you got it dirty just
slosh it in the nearest creek and keep on firing. Unfortunalety, I guess there aren't many creeks in Iraq but on the other hand, it was used in WWII by Patton's outfit in North Africa.

Posted by: Charles at December 04, 2005 01:18 PM (vhu5J)

165 Just a comment on the G3: the recoil really isn't a problem once you get used to it(although that might take some 3-4000 rounds). When doing combat road drills i can quite easily stick all my shots on-target at a range of 30-50 meters doing 2 shots+ pr second in single-shot mode from a crouching position. From 10-15 meters i can stick all shots on-target when using auto-fire. This really isn't that difficult, you just have to get used to the recoil, and maybe most important, the weight of the gun. The only problem with this weapon is that it needs larger magazines, 20 shots go WAY too fast...

Posted by: Norwegian at December 04, 2005 02:38 PM (kyJMd)

166 "The only problem with this weapon is that it needs larger magazines, 20 shots go WAY too fast..."

Yep. My unit used to carry eight mags in the pouches and one in the gun. Gave us 180 rounds to play with, which is a fairly decent number, but 30-round mags would definitely be nice to have!

Posted by: Sem at December 04, 2005 02:47 PM (eYxkx)

167 As for accuracy, 80% of the time i hit stationary targets at 200-250 meters with the regular sights(no scope, red point, etc).
As i've never seen real combat, i can't say how my aiming would be in such an event, but the g3's accuracy IS better than most people believe.
Jamming: doesn't happen to "new" g3's. The "only" thing that makes the g3 jam, is years and years of constant use... I was issued a new(of course, it wasn't new, just hadn't been used before..) g3, and i loved that gun. Used it for five days straight without cleaning it, in mud, sand, rain etc... Shot somwhere around 8-9000 rounds over those five days, when i took it apart it had a THICK layer of (don't know the english word)"shit" everywhere. But it never jammed on me.. Even old weapons only get jams some 1 out of 1500-2500 shots..
As for squad machine-guns, we use the MG3 7,62*51. Yes, almost exactly the same that the germans used in WW2. And it works...brilliantly. It's heavy(don't remember exactly, but somewhere around 8 kg's), but I personally love it. Rate of fire UP TO 1200 rpm!! It eats brick walls!! And it doesn't jam that often. The only negative thing i have to say about it, is that cleaning it is like hell on earth. Also, it is quite accurate when you get used to it. One of the MG-men in my platoon constantly hit the target with the first shot of his burst(tracer), at 300-500 meters!

Posted by: Norwegian at December 04, 2005 03:34 PM (kyJMd)

168 That would be 11,5 kg's for the MG3.....

Posted by: Norwegian at December 04, 2005 03:37 PM (kyJMd)

169 Im not in the military but I support the troops, the war, and the president. I just wish someone would "mow down" our friggin liberal press. They never show anything positive. Most people I know dont trust the media and ignore the main stream press and all of it crap. I am glad to be able to read something postive from the war. KEEP IT UP, YOU GUYS KICK ASS!!!

Posted by: diskfailure at December 04, 2005 04:36 PM (TtsA5)

170 I see I'm not the only fan of the MG3 here. Can't beat the MG3 for rate of fire and the punch it packs! Even though it's a bitch to haul around sometimes, when you plunk it down and start firing it's more than made up for in fun factor!

And it tears through almost anything like a lightsaber

Posted by: Sem at December 05, 2005 04:47 AM (eYxkx)

171 what do the americans think of there australian ally in the combat and mates scene

Posted by: aussy_person at December 05, 2005 06:51 AM (NEOKT)

172 what do the americans think of there australian ally in the combat and mates scene

Posted by: aussy_guy at December 05, 2005 06:52 AM (NEOKT)

173 Wow, there is quite a pile of mis-information here. Im not going to rant. As an Infantryman I can tell you that the M16A4's we trained with on Fort Benning, and the M4A4's we use perform well. If you keep them clean, and dont over-lube them (which attracts dirt, and residue) they perform well. Ive always had good results with the dry lube you can obtain from any gun shop. The Bde. CSM was handing out bottles of the stuff to see how it worked so as to decide to buy it in bulk.

Beside the point- as far as the issue of the M16/M4 family of rifles reliablity is concerned, i see no major issues. Mine performs quite well, with M855 or M200 blank ammo. Just keep it clean. Sometimes you get a worn extractor and that leads to "failure to extract problems", or bent magazine lips lead to "double-feeds" but these are easily fixed. Just take care to inspect your magazines before you stick them in your mag pouches.

It is true that the M16A2-A4 rifles are prone to jamming at times, but most of the time its the operators fault for improper cleaning. You MUST maintain this weapon. Clean the locking-lugs, and the inside of the upper reciever. Clean the bolt-carrier AND bolt. Very important. More than once ive seen people reassemble their rifles with the ring-gaps on their BOLTS all lined up- this leads to jamming because of gas pressure problems. Try it, youll see. And one word "dental pick". Some of you know what im talking about.

Sometimes you get a lemon, and get a rifle that doesent work well. Ive seen that. In that case turn it into your local armorer and get a new one. I am in the United States Army Infantry, and i can tell you, the M16/M4 family is a good system- and like anything, it only works as well as you treat it.

Posted by: Chris at December 05, 2005 10:11 AM (L8r/r)

174 The AK family is designed for easy maintanance, and ease of use by conscript soldiers. Trying to accurize this weapon is like trying to polish a turd. All this talk about sub MOA aks... rubbish! The 7.62x39 M43 loses much of its velocity after 300M and many of the 47's found floating around today are barely capable of hitting man sized targets at 300M. The 5.56x45 M855 maintains ballistic advantage for many reasons. When im qualifying with my M4, (i consistantly shoot expert) i hit the 300M almost every time. try doing that with an AK 47 (the AK-74 being slighty more capable when it comes to accuracy)

Before i joined the Army i was a gun nut, and still am. Only now, i get much more real-life, hands on experience. The M16A4 is currently being tested and fielded by the Army Marksmanship unit and many of these high accurized rifles (Special Purpose Rifles) are being tested here at benning. These rifles are accurized, yes.... but they are hitting targets at 1000 Meters with this system. The SDM rifles alone are capable of first shot hits at up to 800... try doing THAT with any kind of accurized AK.

The SVD drugunov is losly based on the kalashnikov design. Of of the main differences is a short-stroke gas piston, which helps dampen the rear-ward energy enduced by the moving parts. Plus a longer barrel. This rifle is CAPABLE of 800 M hits, but is by no means a sub MOA rifle. You would be LUCKY to hit a target at 800M with the SVD.

The 5.56x45 is a great round, and shot placement is key to killing your target. you hit a man in the head, or chest... see what happens.

Posted by: chris at December 05, 2005 10:22 AM (L8r/r)

175 First off Chris I believe the person said the AK was only MOA which is easily believable with a custom barrel, do a little research into the Vepr line of rifles and you will see what can be done with the so called "Turd" AK.

As for any .223 projectile at 1000 yards??

Please note the standard .308 gets unstable at around 1000 yards and that alone is the main reason most of the long range bench guys go up to a short magnum .308 or more to reach 1000 with enough push.

What were they shooting depleted uranium in the .223?? Let's see a 170GR .223 Hmmmm... out of a M16? sorry dude have to be a little skeptical on that one.

Maybe against PARKED planes or cars?

Note: The wind drift on any .223 rounds even the 70Gr gets to be insane at 1000 yards

(12 feet of drift in only 10 mph wind)

Posted by: Marty at December 05, 2005 11:42 AM (0LFzx)

176 .223 was invented cause they wanted a round that wounded. A wounded soldier (Iraq: civilian that is) will need help form other soldiers. A dead comrade can be left behind.

.308W, 30-06, .303British and 8x57 was all designed to kill at considerable ranges.

The 8mm round is capable of penetrate 20mm of steel at a whopping 800 meters range (Tungsten AP core), it is needless to say that any kind of body armour will be penetrated.....

The best all round weapon/army rifle must be the HK G3 chambered for the .308 round. Of course the soldier can't carry as many rounds as if it was .223. But hey! he doesn't need to!as any round aimed correctly will be deadly at every distance the shooter can see the target.
He doesn't need to spray the enemy with multiple rounds.

The rifle with its delayed roller locking mechanism is rock solid.
Later versions also incorperate rails to mount whatever gay equipment that's considered useful...

For the squad automatic weapon (SAW) the best weapon would be the WW2 MG42/later MG3.
With its extreme reliability, high versatility, high rate of fire (1200-1500 rpm) and heavy round (preferable the 8x57mm), in the hands of a trained crew it still lives up to be the "Chainsaw of ww2" (AKA Hitlers chainsaw). It has two weaknesses, the aftermarket (after ww2 )linked belt that lets the cartrigdes slip in the clip an can cause jamming. The other is the weight 11kg.

For close quarter fighting a Soumi submachine gun with high capacity drum or box clip would be nice. 9 mm would do just fine (for close quarters that is).

These are all but the G3 ww2 weapons, made to kill with one hit. When it is decided to take no prisoners and kill everyone disregarding if they are civilians or combatants (as Falluja) these kinds of weapons will allways do the job....
very well combat proven...

Posted by: Viking at December 05, 2005 03:27 PM (fQQ0C)

177 Thought I would add an ammendum here, since it looks like we have a return to sensibilities.

The new 77gr Mk 262 Mod O ammo, which I have had almost no experience with yet (so take this as personal experiance/opinion) is that it was created to provide better downrange accuracy and terminal ballistic performance at longer ranges (BTW, from what I understand, the round does not perform well in the M-4; it was designed for Special Purpose precision platforms-not regular line combat use. Black Hills is a great company, but it is a small company). This was a result of a number of studies, not the least of which was one performed at the US Army's Wound Ballistics Lab, which gave the 5.56 generally high marks for permanent wound channels at ranges less than 400 meters. This comes from fragmentation of the high velocity projectile, causing an energy dump which in turn causes tissue and vascular disruption and multiple wound channels. After 200-400M the 5.56 (M-193 55gr or the M-855 62gr) loses velocity (below 2500fps) to the point that it no longer seperates at the cannelure, and thus becomes just a .22 slug, making a .22 hole. The short barrels of the M-4 (14 inches) other spec ops/LE barrels (11.5-16 inches) of course do not help this velocity drop off.

As for the 7.62x51mm Nato (more or less the .308 Winchester-there are some slight differences between NATO and SAMMI specs)- think about this- it does not produce a significant permanent wound channel in any flesh until about 15-25 Cm of penetration, thus no "gaping hole" as has been previously described. 7.62 Ball does not fragment (unless the operator is using ammo designed to-different story and against US military and International law (Hauge Conv #4 and Law of Land Warfare). It may be deformed by striking bone mass or personal equipment, but it produces a lovely little .30 hole in, and only a slightly larger exit (that is if it has had the chance to even yaw slightly). Look at energy specs of the 7.62 and you will see it has great down range energy- unfortunately that energy passes right through the target, disrupting tissue in a temporary wound channel and not much of a significant permanent one. Sorry guys, 7.62 is not the answer, but neither is 5.56.

If accuracy and downrange ballistic performance is desired, then you need something heavier than the "lightweight" 5.56 rounds. You also want a hyper velocity projectile (3500-3000 fps muzzle) which is easy to pull off with the 5.56, but pretty brutal with a 7.62, on the weapon and operator. As conventional weapons go, the "mid-calibers" will be the way to go, provided that the platform/barrel twist/and bullet construction are balanced. The 6.8 is only the beginning- both the Russians and Chinese are experimenting (and adopting) mid-cal 6mm calibers as we speak.

The point of all this is thus- first you find the aummunition, then you design a weapons platform around it. But even before you do that, you must acknowledge the terrain that you are going to fight in. The arid desert combat allows for greater contact ranges than triple canopy jungle. A round that performs well at CQB ranges may have dismal performance at 700-800 meters. If you are looking for a "do-all" combat round, that is pretty darn difficult with the legal limitations in place. Otherwise you could mix your 7.62 with explosive, soft-tip, and armor-piercing and have at it.

As far as weapons platforms go, that is a drawn out subject, but it boils down to operator confidence in the reliability of the system, user maintenence, and proper marksmanship. No duh, but most people do not realize that a 5.56-7.62 abdominal/chest wound, unless it hits the liver/speen/heart, does not immediately kill as far as a physiological effect goes. People go down because it fucking hurts and they think they can/should fall/lay moaning and groaning as a social construct. Highly motivated individuals will continue to fight on until they bleed out. Only a heart/CNS shot will truely bring someone down with first shot reliability with a small arm. This is why law enforcment is training away from body mass shooting and goes for center mass/CNS.

Me- I have always had an affinity for the AK series, and used them when ever I could. In Group, I always checked out and old Romanian AKM out of the locker cause it was damned sure easier to clean than the -14s, -16s and M-4s. And reliable in the field for longer durations. The AK series could be manufactured closer tolerence (and some are) to produce that coveted MOA. That is, of course, if the ammo could produce it as well (which it can).

By the way, the 7.62x39mm lead core outperforms the 7.62 NATO in ballistic gel (and a few human test subjects)out to a few hundred yards, after which the 7.62x39 is useless anyway. It will not penetrate foliage or armor nearly as well though.

As a machine gun side note, the MG-3 is a great GPMG, as long as the operator knows what he is doing-using it like an area denial shotgun. It can eat some ammo, and as a few of our European contributors have noted, is a bitch to clean. Sure beats our old pig M-60. The M-249 is a POS. It is nice to have some firepower at the squad level, but the military would have been better served with a shortened M-60 POS than a 5.56mm one. Thank god for FN and the MAG, aka M-240.

As for the 30 rd mags for the G-3 (and FN/L1A1)- I've used them. It is nice to have the extra 10 rounds, but their profile prevents you from going prone, and they sometimes jam on the last few rounds. The L1A1 30 rders were used in the 7.62 Bren, so that wasn't so much an issue cause of the downward feeding mag.

The G-36. Fired one when they first came out and loved it. Still it is just a platform and 5.56 at that. Now, if they come out in a mid-caliber, say a 6mm 110-120 gr. pushing 3200 fps (and can stand up to that abuse), somebody is in trouble.

And for our Aussie contributor- I haven't rubbed shoulders with a mate for over 15 years (RAAF Darwin-1989), but they are some of the finest people and soldiers I ever had the chance to work with. Professional and fearless.

And Marty- dead on about drift at 1000m.

Posted by: Ferg at December 05, 2005 05:47 PM (9ZCOj)

178 Hey Marty, first of all i live and work here at benning, and i can tell you- the boys at AMU are working with fully customized, reworked, free-floated, ect M16A4's that they are using to shoot targets at the 800-1000 yard line EFFECTEVLY. With optics AND iron sites. Pick up a copy of soldiers magazine and you can read it for yourself. Its published here on benning (i think?), and me and a certain officer go over to AMU all the time. Hes a gun nut and the customize some of his stuff for him.

I was skeptical myself when people started talking about shooting 5.56 even out to 800. But when we started taking championships with guys in the President's 100 and AMU with match, iron sight M16A4's, i was in shock. they used custom ammunition of course, each load customized for every range up to 1000. But the result is nontheless impressive and almost unbelieveable.

They are fielding a similar rifle to our guys in iraq and afganistan, to our Squad Designated Marksmen. It gives our rifle squads a tactical advantage with those hard to reach targets, without making themself a target with a "special weapon" such as the M24. A 35% or better increase with these SDM rifles with iron sites alone and a long range, high hit probability. Put an ACOG on them and youve got a rifle thats effective, and lethal on point targets out to 800M. The BDC sheets on these rounds for wind are accurate, and if your worth your salt you can somewhat predict the near and far winds enough to put your round on target- but hey, thats what spotters are for right?

I agree on the 7.62x51 losing stablity around 1000M. The instructors here preach 800M, and to take 1000M shots in only the calmest and nessicary situations. They keyhole sometimes, 1000M is a long way to hit a man center-mass, and the 168gr Special Ball dosent hit as hard as some might like at this range.

I agree with those that say the AK series of rifles is unmatched in reliablity. All the rumors are true, unless you pop a thermite grenade and set in on the reciver- this puppy will go bang every time. Since most of our engagments take place under 300 M anyway, the AK might be a good choice to take with you to the field every now and again.

I just have a hard time seeing an accurate AK. The giant bolt assembly w/rod moving around, the stamped recievers, rivited and clinky. Plus the energy loss of the 7.62x39 does not lend itself to accurate long range shooting- but hey, ive seen these guys shoot an M16A4 @ 1000 M... so i guess anything is possable!

Thanks.

Posted by: chris at December 06, 2005 08:13 AM (L8r/r)

179 Yeah, Chris, those new SDM rifles are racking up. I know of one (unofficial) story where a DM in an A-team element took out possibly 100 (apparently very stupid) Taliban in a 12 hour period with one. I know from experience that those platforms are capable of single hole groups out to 200 meters. My issue is with the energy left at 800-1000 meters.

It is "possible" to get the tolerences of the AK system down to MOA accuracy. The only problem is that the higher tolerance you have (ala M-16), the higher chance of platform failure.

As an aside, the older Russian troops are longing for a return to the 7.62 M-43 AKs. Many are as dissatisfied with the performance of the 5.45 as the US troops are with the 5.56. Interesting.

Posted by: Ferg at December 06, 2005 08:43 AM (9ZCOj)

180 As a future Marine looking at the possibuility of being posted somewhere such as Iraq, i hope to be able to carry my own personal sidearm. I have heard rumors that the Army and Marine Corps are currently reissuing the old .45 autos as well as replacing the newer (and piss-ass weak) M249 with the older (and still better) Vietnam-era M60. My father was a Marine gunner in Vietnam and he absolutly loves the M60, even today when he hears the sound of one on TV or out at a MG convention, he gets this euforic look on his face and he cant stop smiling. I've fallen in love with the Springfield Armory's new .40 autos, with a lighter recoil than the .45 but still retaining massive amounts of knockdown power (esspecially firing Springfield's new jacketed hollow point round) it has become my weapon of choice for nearly any situation. With my desire to become a scout sniper for the corps (only mildly influenced by Mr. Hathcock) i have decided that a good old WWII model would be almost the perfect sniper rifle. However it is an odd weapon that not a whole lot of people associate with desirable combat traits. I absolutly adore my old German Mauser K98. When mounted with a scope it become almost insanly accurate at ranged from 100 for 500 yards, from there i would just go to the M82A1 .50 Barret anyway, that or a 300 Win-Mag. Since most military sniper rifles are bolt-action to begin with, reloading speed wont be affected at all, and with a 5-round stripper-clip fed internal magazine, it nearly rivals the ammo capacity of the most common Win 700s as well as equaling the ammo capacity of the Barret. That, and how often do you see a Marine strolling around a base with a fully operation antique slung over his shoulder? The real seller for me was the old Mauser 8mm round. For someting that sounds like it would be weaker than the already pea-shooter status Berreta 9mils the Army and Marines are issueing now, most would avoid the round entirly. Once you shoot one however, you realise this is not normal 8mm cartrige. Back in the 1940s the round was known to knock a man down and put him out of action with just a single shot, in Bastogne, many paratroopers were hit through the trees that they hid behind. There were also common reports of the German rounds punching clean through walls and even (although the reports were extramly rare) puncturing the armor on jeeps, halftrack, and even the Army's M8 Greyhound armored cars. The K98 was made famouse by the movie "Enemy at the Gates" when it was put into the hand's of Germany's best sniper in Stalingrad. In the hand of an expert, the K98 is an extreamly deadly weapon, it's legacy rivaling that of the infamouse O3A3 Springfield.

Posted by: Steve at December 06, 2005 10:13 AM (NIypM)

181 Sorry to double-post guys but while reading through a post a few posts up i started thinking again. The poster (sorry i dont remember who it was, im too lazy to scroll up and check) mnetioned how the 7.62x39 doesnt reliably penatrate through body armor or personal equipment at long ranges. While discussing this with my friend adam seated next to me (yes i am at school right now) we discussed the origonal reason for the military's adoprion of the 5.56mm round. It occured to military experts back in the 60s that if you shoot someone and dont kill them, then they're incapacitated and so require one or more soldiers to assist them to an aid station, meaning that with one round you have effectivly put two or three men out of action. However, given our current enemy, that situation does not materialize and so, does not apply. While it is true that the .223 round is more accurate at longer ranges, anything short of a heart or head shot wont put a man down, esspecially not a fanatic dead-bent on emptying all 30 of his 7.62s into you. Enter anouther invention made by the Germans in WW2 that scared GIs shitless. it was called the STG44 by the Germans and designated the MP-44 by the Allis. It was essentially the grandaddy of the AK-47, resembling it in both likness and rugednedd. The Nazi troops loved the gun for it's larg mag capacity, reliabulity, but most of all, it's full auto capabuility. It was the German answer to the American BAR and British Bren Gun. The BAR (as most of you know) was chambered for the most common American round of the war, the good old 30.06, the Bren also fired .30 Cal rounds. The STG44 however was most fear for, you guessed it, it's hard-hitting 8mm. For instance, those bolt action rounds that went through walls at a rate of two a second, now came bursting through at five or six a second. Instead of catching a single slug like the GIs used to, now it was three or four that impacted. Instead of seriously wounded, many who were hit by the STG died before they hit the ground. In a war where your enemy does not care for his own casualties, or his wounded, why bother shooting to wound, exactly what the .223 was designed to do (ironicly it failed at it's intended purpose thirty some-odd years ago in Nam too). So I suggest that the military revert it's strategy. Many civilian ARs and M-16s (including my own) have been modified to fire the .308 Nato round. That, or revive the old M-14s, effectivly equiping entire squads with what are essentially squad automatic weapons. The origonal miltary issue version of the M-14 came with a standar issue bipod, a 20 round detachable magazine and fire-select switch that included safe, semi, and fully auto. When you add an M60 into the mix, you have, quite simply a wall of lethal .308 lead flying at the enemy, in true immature high-school senior fasion, I would like to refer to that as "lead gang-rape". The .308 also solves anouther problem that Marines and troppers are facing in Iraq, their .223s wont penetrate the mud and cinderblock walls of iraqi buildings. The .308 as been known to turn brick walls into dust in a matter of seconds, if an entire squad, or entire platoon laid down fire on a single building, it can be guarenteed that no more return fire would come from that building. True that the .308 is not as accurate at the longer ranges that the .223s are, but hey, our enemy prefers to engage our troops up close where their own 7.62s are more effective as well. Then again, what kind of competant military leader listens to a high-school senior anyway? So for now my suggestions simply fall on deaf ears. On my way to pyhsics I would just like to sign off by saying, Semper Fi Marines, Carry On!!

Posted by: Steve at December 06, 2005 11:21 AM (NIypM)

182 The M249 Squad Automatic Weapon is not drum fed. It is belt fed. The ammo comes in belts of 200 in plastic containers that snap under the gun. It kind of looks like a drum, but it is most definitely belt fed.

I used one for several years in the USMC infantry and they are OK, but they WILL jam when dirty. I kept mine clean as a whistle (use the funny switch-blade tool to clean the gas cylinder and piston) and the action well lubed with the Elmer's glue-like arctic lubricant and never had major problems, but I imagine that level of cleanliness would be very difficult in the sand.

Also, 5.56mm is for pansies.

Posted by: anonymous coward at December 06, 2005 11:33 AM (owMhK)

183 Small cock gun nut scum. FOAD.

Posted by: you at December 06, 2005 02:07 PM (Z3fFl)

184 Well, all i know is what works. There is no perfect rifle round, and the 5.56 does lack terminal knockdown power at longer ranges, but is still a killer nontheless.

The AK-47 and 74, the PKM, Valmat, SVD's and RPKs can all kiss my ass because i dont like being shot at.

Since were going on about good rounds, i kind of like the idea of what the army is going to- that new 6mm round. Ive got an old M96b Swedish mauser back home that i used to shoot elk with. Most people might say this round to be a bit small- but you should see what it does to these elk. They dont go any fucking where. The sectional density and co-efficency of this projectile is almost perfect. Overall, a bit long for an assault rifle- but this new round we are testing is on the right track. Exceptionally accurate, and great trajectory. on a side note- i bought a swede for i think around 150 bucks. made in 1912, this little bastard is at least a 1 MOA or better- with iron core surplus ammo made in 1957! yes.... if anyone were to ask me, id say our new 6mm round is the way to go.

Posted by: chris at December 06, 2005 03:19 PM (L8r/r)

185 You bought a swede.......?? Human trafficing...??

Posted by: Norwegian at December 06, 2005 03:45 PM (U42FO)

186 well honesty. anything that isnt .223 would do the trick. Hell, a .22 Mag could fuck you up if you tag someone with a headshot. JFK was hit with a .23 caliber round and it killed him instantly, just goes to show that smalleer isnt necissarily weaker, just all depends on velocity and down-range hit power with a side-order of accuracy and efficency.

Posted by: Steve at December 06, 2005 03:49 PM (NIypM)

187 Having trained with a G3 during the cold war I recently had the chance to shoot a G36 - no comparison. The G3 was a bit on the heavy side, so the recoil wasn't too rough, but it went straight back into the shooter's shoulder. The G36 is light, so the low recoil results in muzzle jump. Follow-up shots were much easier with the G3, with the additional advantage of being able to hit a target through relatively soft cover (wood, walls, cars).
So what if you can't carry as many rounds of .308 as you can of .223, at least you've been trained to make every shot count, so you'll end up with more effective firepower.
Another plus for the G3 is its ruggedness - the only failure I had during 15 months was when a blank melted in the chamber.

Posted by: Jens at December 06, 2005 04:01 PM (CgBK8)

188 "The G3 was a bit on the heavy side, so the recoil wasn't too rough, but it went straight back into the shooter's shoulder. The G36 is light, so the low recoil results in muzzle jump."

That's what I found as well. The G3 is predictable in its recoil, the 36 jumps all over the place. I did double-taps and speed shooting with both guns, and I actually liked the G3 the best. Sure, it's heavy, but that takes all of a week to get used to. I wouldn't abandon .308 for the world!

Posted by: Sem at December 06, 2005 04:46 PM (OEW3x)

189 For what it's worth, here's the address of my website which deals with my work in Iraq as a security-contractor - http://bane.2hell.com - it's mainly just photos as I don't have the time (or energy) to blather on and on.

We mainly work convoys from Mosul and Erbil in the north to Tikrit, Baghdad and Al Hilla in the south. We carry Browning HP 9mmP handguns (I'd rather have a 1911a1), AK47 (folding-stock) and currently use M249's as our heavy (*cough*) weaponry. There are a number of changes that we'd like to see, but the main thrust is this: Give us weapons of the largest calibre that we can comfortably handle.

Posted by: Andy C at December 06, 2005 05:34 PM (kmIIc)

190 Why are Americans so inbred and into guns?
I have considered this for quite a while and have decided that the best solution to preventing future mass murder and wars (since you always like starting them) is some sort of mass US sterilisation.
I lost my faith when you voted for Bush the second.

Posted by: Darren S at December 06, 2005 11:26 PM (Wh0pk)

191 No wonder we (Australian Army) switched to the Styers...
We ditched the M16s in the 90's, and most who handled them said they were equally as crap in the jungles of Nam and Timor...

Posted by: aussie at December 07, 2005 04:17 AM (V2Vhv)

192 Andy C: Any of you guys use G3s?

Posted by: Sem at December 07, 2005 06:07 AM (ptgfl)

193 Sem: I used a G3 in Angola years ago - very accurate and reliable weapon, but I found that the plastic stock became brittle over time and easily shatters; perhaps it can't handle the heat?

There are 3 rifle-calibres which are easily available here:
1. 5.56mm
2. 7.62mmx39
3. 7.62mmx54R

I haven't seen any 7.62x51mm (aka .308 Win) ammunition here at all, although I have seen a number of military guys carrying a scoped M14. The ammo obviously exists somewhere, but we can't get any of it - yet ;-)

Another point: we're not military personnel (any longer), so obviously we can use whichever bullet-type we see fit.

Posted by: Andy C at December 07, 2005 09:38 AM (kmIIc)

194 Yeah the STG-44 (sturmgwhere 44') that fired the 7.92x32 Kurtz has a cousin- called, as many of you know, the G3 Assault rifle. The G3 is an excellent weapon, and so is the CETME and FN-FAL. All good in my book, but the German G3 is probably on the top of that list. Ive fired all three, and found the finish of the G3 to be excellent, and the same for the FAL. Easy to control if you are used to heavy recoil, but by no means a precision rifle. Id give the best of these MABYE 2 MOA, good enough for urban ops- but NOT CQB. Thats where these G3's lack is in length. just too fucking long to be any good indoors. I hate going inside with even an M16- with the IBA its too clumsy and hard to get around corners. Not practical if you ask me.

Posted by: chris at December 07, 2005 12:42 PM (L8r/r)

195 My father is a retired SEAL. For those naysayers, Capt. D.P.H. served from '68 to '01, was XO of Team 1, CO of Team 5, and CO of BUD/S. In his opinion, the 1911A .45 is the single best pistol in the field. He did not care for the Berettas and Glocks. For 9mm, his preference was the Browning Hi-Power. For rifles, he concurs that the M16 was not the best rifle during his two tours in Vietnam. He actually carried a Colt, the shorter version of the M16. He said it worked ok, but preferred the M14. He also liked the HKMP5. As CO of Team 5 in the mid '80's, they were experimenting with the .50 cal snipe rifle. It started as a meas to take out a jeep at 100yds or a aircraft gun, but soon became a live taget weapon. They also had great success with the .308 sniper rifles which used a modified Remington 700. In the jungle, they used a Benelli pump shotgun with a "duckbill" choke.

Personally, I have a SA MilSpec .45 and love it. I also have a Weatherby Vanguard .30-06 with a Zeiss 3x9x40 Conquest scope. It's my deer rifle and I took two does last month at 180 yds within 15' fromone another. It's a fun shooter. I am interested in a Rock River Arms Tactical CAR A4. If you have any experince with RRA, I'd be curious to hear.

This is a great board. Thanks for letting me post.

Posted by: Doug at December 07, 2005 04:05 PM (WuHXB)

196 Regarding the previous message. I made an error. 100yds should read as 1000yds.

Posted by: Doug at December 07, 2005 04:08 PM (WuHXB)

197 Andy C: Perhaps you should have tried the collapsible-stock version. Obviously it won't melt

I found that one much better! As well as being slightly easier to use in urban warfare.

This whole discussion is great! Lots of interesting viewpoints. I have heard rumours and murmurs saying that 5.56 is too small a caliber for Iraqi ops, but this kinda confirms it.

Posted by: Sem at December 08, 2005 05:11 AM (4IemL)

198 Sem: Would have been nice to try that, but we weren't given any choice in the matter.

Overall length of our personal rifles is important as we're inside vehicles with barrels protruding through open windows as a deterrent - of sorts. Of course, when we've needed to bail out of a burning vehicle, the stocks have been unfolded very quickly for better accuracy. Some of the guys have side-folding stocks, others have the version which folds underneath (the latter being my preference).

From what I've seen here, 5.56mm is lethal - if it's driven by a good operator, as there's less room for error. It doesn't have the penetration of the larger calibres, of course, which is important here for vehicle-on-vehicle incidents amongst other instances. We tend to use semi-automatic fire on our rifles, so the controllability of M4 vs AK on full-auto is irrelevant to us.

Posted by: Andy C at December 08, 2005 12:43 PM (kmIIc)

199 The posting by Jeff on Nov 16th above refers:

155mm artillery shells are definitely used here in Iraq for IED's - we have tons of the damn things here on an ex-Iraqi ammo-depot.

Posted by: Andy C at December 08, 2005 01:00 PM (kmIIc)

200 My friend and i have noticed that there is in fact a use for the .223 chambered weapons the US issues. while every other trooper in the unit should pack more firepower, the use of what we have dubbed "assault marksmen" if in fact extreamly effective. With the .223 accurate at anywhere from close to long range, when mounted with an adjustable zoom scope, then while the main body of the unit pins the enemy down, the "assault marksmen" takes up position and proceeds to put a round through any exposed body part he can find. If it works with TacTrain, its alost guarenteed to work in the field.

Posted by: Steve at December 08, 2005 01:54 PM (NIypM)

201 Steve, what in the hell are you talking about?

You really need to do a little more research on your subject matter before you post.

Some highlights-

Kennedy was killed (supposedly) by a 6.5mm Carlinco. If you fall in with the conspiracy crowd, it was a 7mm. Not a .22.

A headshot with even a .22 short can "fuck you up" if it is close enough to penetrate the cranium and bounces around like Pac Man. Point- head shots are CNS shots. They work. Some work better than others.

The 8mm Mauser is no better than the Brit .303 or US .30-06 (and certainly not in the same class as the .300 Win Mag), which was replaced by the 7.62x51, which has attempted to be replaced by the 5.56. The Kar-93 bolt action system is a long claw extraction. It is so obsolete it ain't even funny.

The STG-44, of which I have owned one, does not shoot 8mm Mauser, it uses 7.92 Kurz (Pointed out by someone above) which is an intermediate cal/cart just like the 7.62x39 M-43 AK round. Kalisnikov modeled the AK-47 and AKM right off it. The G-3 derived from the CETME from Portugal, which has its roots in the G-43 semi auto from WWII Germany.

I could correct you about some other things, but you get the point. Here is another thing I'll pass on to you as it was passed on to me as a young buck-

"Don't be in such a hurry to die."

As in, go to basic and listen, don't talk, go to advanced school and listen, don't talk, go to your unit and listen, don't talk. Cause until you have had someone try to kill you as hard as you are trying to kill them, you don't know dick. Quit making "suggestions" until you learn.

BTW, where did the little cowardly liberals go? They were just here a few days ago. Here is your answer about why Americans are so "gun nutty"- 1/2 half of all privately owned weapons in the world are here. That means everywhere else in the world the weapons are controlled by the government. Aren't those the same governments you hate and don't trust? Get an ideology, dude.

Posted by: Ferg at December 08, 2005 10:20 PM (9ZCOj)

202 Sorry guys. End of the semester, exams to grade and not enough coffee.

Andy, they letting you bring in anything, or do you have to procure in-country?

Posted by: Ferg at December 08, 2005 10:25 PM (9ZCOj)

203 I guess I have 2 points to make:

1) 7.62mmx39, Iraq should be littered with this type of ammo. The US is the only country that uses the 5.56mm for the POS M16. The Russians do a pretty good job of arming the world with this stuff.

2) Let's talk about the justification of the Iraqi insurgents (read before getting pissed).

Letâ€™s pretend is it 1991, and Iraq just got kicked out of Kuwait, two no fly zones are set up and the US begins regular bombing of Iraq every other week or so. Thousands are killed. Many children between the ages of 9 to 15 get to watch their fathers, mothers, brother, and various other family members over a period of 12 years. Family survivors are angry and want revenge.

Now it is 2003. These kids are now 20 years old or so and one day, the US military shows up to finish Iraq off. All of these kids think the same: â€œGuess what I plan to get? I plan to get some payback and this isnâ€™t the kind where I kick the local school bullyâ€™s ass behind the football field after school, it is the kind of payback where each American soldier I wax is in direct proportion to my lust for killing, happiness, and revenge. I will continue to kill as many Americans as I can until they kill me or I kill every one of them.â€
Now imagine tens of thousands of angry youth do this. Gets messy quick doesnâ€™t?

There is also the factor that we invaded Iraq illegally and the guerrilla campaign they should have expected. Honestly, if the Iraqis invaded the US, could you honestly say would not become a â€œfreedom fighterâ€ against the Iraqi invaders? I have had it with this â€œliberatorâ€ bullshit.

The US military there ARE NOT LIBERATORS, they are conquers of the Empire of the United States, and the corporate monopoly for which is stands, one nation, soaked in oil, soon to be destroyed, current offering only slavery and torture for all.

What really sucks is the military believes what they are doing is right. The Bible does say the armies of the antichrist will kill and think they are doing God's work.

Anyway, just my 2 cents.

Posted by: Scott at December 09, 2005 09:48 AM (fnsQZ)

204 I am afraid you are right Scott. It is a little more complicated than that, but you are pretty close.

No one wants to have their soverenty squashed by an Empire. The overall political situation is no different than when I was in the Gulf, circa 1989 (Iran) and 90-91 (Kuwait/Iraq), and 92 (Saudi/UAE/Bahrain). If the American people really understood the politics surrounding our (the West) combat actions there over the last 20 years, they would be pissed.

One thing I learned in my extensive travels is that, while the American fighting man truely wants everyone in the world to be free and self-determinate, most of the world places little value on personal freedom. Right now, the Coalition forces are only serving one purpose- they are keeping Iran and Syria at bay. Once we pull out, look for whatever government we have established in Iraq to collapse soon after.

Posted by: Ferg at December 09, 2005 10:19 AM (9ZCOj)

205 Ferg: No, weapons are procured for us by the head-shed overseas, but no complaints with the AK itself.

I find it somewhat ironic that the insurgency itself is the main reason why the Coalition Forces are still here. No insurgency, no valid excuse to stay.

Posted by: Andy C at December 09, 2005 11:22 AM (kmIIc)

206 Ferg...I still think the concept of revenge is a major factor in Iraq. It is also hard to ignore the evidence that the US government either overtly or ignorantly supports Islamic fundimentalist governments.

1. Clinton went after a Christian leader in Europe that was in the minority and defeating a Muslim enemy. The US overthrew him and solidified a
Muslim government. What has Slovidan Milosevic done to his enemy that we have not done to ours that made him sooo bad we had to intervene and over throw him?

2. Bush 1 and 2 went after a SECULAR leader in Iraq and overthrew the government and installed a Muslim leader. That SECULAR leader is now in
jail. And now in the next 5 to 10 years Iraq will end up as one of the most radical Islamic theocracies in history.

3. China continues to slaughter Christians and we buy from China and invest in their country like there is no tomorrow.

4. Several countries in Africa have Muslim lead governments and they slaughter Christians on a regular basis. Yet we continue to buy oil
from them, and even support the Muslim lead factions to fight against the Christians (ExxonMobil for example has backed the Muslim government while it and in-country Chinese army target Christian for daily genocide operations).

5. All of the Middle East openly suppresses the Christian religion yet we continue to do business with them and no sanctions have been imposed. We invade what is essential to our interests and leave the rest as is.

6. The Muslims complain about Israel and the US tells Israel to give up territory or risk loosing US aid...

7. The US CONTINUES to pressure Egypt into open Democratic elections where the MAJORITY is clearly Muslim fundamentalist. So, once that new government is elected into office then there is yet ANOTHER radical Muslim government. That we both must agree will just LOVE Israel...

The items above span decades and do no apply to one party or the other.

Now without getting into the "end times" or conspiracy agenda, sometimes I can only wonder if the US government actually has a preference to the Muslim religion. Is it possible Bush is a closet Muslim or at the very least, an avid supporter? It does not take one very much time to figure out something is wrong with this picture. Women in Iraq have already complained that they will lose rights in the "new" Iraq and Bush gain has done nothing about it.

Posted by: Scott at December 09, 2005 11:41 AM (fnsQZ)

207 On #4 above, I left out that it is Muslim government in Sudan that ExxonMobil and the Chinese support.

Posted by: Scott at December 09, 2005 11:43 AM (fnsQZ)

208 I just have a few thoughts to share with yall. The m16/m4 is not junk, and if you ever used one in combat you would know that. True the fine grain sand is a neusance but it can be overcome by using common sence cleaning procedures such as drilube instead of oil. Shotguns are used for breaching. Rare one shot one kills in CQB. No plastic drum for SAW.

Posted by: Evan Stevens at December 10, 2005 12:39 AM (4S4Dn)

209 I don't believe most people are saying that the m16 is totaly junk, just that it's got some major flaws and is not the most up to date design.

On the other hand the AR/M16...etc..has good accuracy, the mag catch design is a major plus over any of the AK designs.

Also please knock off the

"IF YOU EVER USED ONE IN COMBAT YOU'D KNOW THAT"

I'm a pretty smart puppy (Insert cynical tone here) and feel poor little old me can review a weapon that I've owned three versions of without a whole lota goverment training.

Please note I respect anyone who has served in the millitary, But opinions are just opinions and serving does not make one always right.

Though I do feel that if a design is going to fail it's most likely going to happen in combat :-(

Posted by: Marty at December 10, 2005 04:53 AM (I4KJw)

210 Hey marty,

Ok, to sort of stick up for some of the guys here that may or have may not have been in "combat"- cause you never can tell in here- i will say this- Shooting your privatly owned AR-15 in the field for a day, when your somewhat clean, and not low crawling through the fucking brush and all that other fun stuff we infantryman do- is ALOT different than using the same weapon in a training/combat situation for weeks or a month on end. It just is.

Weather you like it or not, your dirty, tired, lifeless ass is suckin- and sometimes you shoot, move and communicate, shoot, move- aw fuck! didnt close my ejection port cover and now ive got sand in it! For some reason, sometimes, shit just goes wrong.

I can agree though, i keep hearing all this bullshit about "nam".. why dont we get real? yes, "nam" was a hot, humid place and the weapon system is sensitive to corrosion and the bad ammo at the time. clean it.

OH, and for all the wonderful people that come here and rag on the Army- go to hell. Youve never been to Iraq, and you need to shut the fuck up. We have built for those people an entire new social structure- from schools to hospitals, they even have garbage men now. Think about it, these people barely had running water before we got there. Most of them like us too, contrary to popular media expression.

Ever heard of a Wahabbist? look it up smart guys. Youll see that this islamic fanatiscism spread from that mind set- originated from saudi arabia. yes, sometimes when you blow up a guys family with a 500lb wad of falling explosive, he turns on you and will shoot back later. The same goes for some desparate, poor dumb bastards over there who have nothing.

Everything that goes wrong over there is highlighted- but none of the good is ever in the spotlight. Its a small few who are doing the dirty work, and to call us conquisidors is fucking outrageous. Yes, money makes the world turn, but thats not what were doin' buddy. In the words of a great commander- "I am a soldier, I fight where I am told, and I win where I fight."

Join the army and find out.

And just an ending note- i enjoy talking with some of you on here, thats why i keep coming back- but some of the things that are said by others are just plain rediculous.

Watch what people are cynical about, and one can often discover what they lack.
- General George Patton Jr

Posted by: chris at December 10, 2005 09:12 AM (L8r/r)

211 Well said, Chris.

Posted by: Andy C at December 10, 2005 10:32 AM (kmIIc)

212 Interesting info.

Some accurate, some not.

You seem to suggest that the majority of enemy combatants and carnage is caused by Al Qaeda types from outside of Iraq. Or even Shiite militiamen with Iranian support.

The Pentagon has reported that less than 7% of the insurgency consists of foreign jihadists.

The majority of insurgents are Iraqi nationalists that oppose U.S. foriegn policy in Iraq.

I found your figure of 45,000-50,000 enemy combatants killed interesting. I don't doubt this is factual.

However I do question the wisdom of the wholesale slaughter of those that oppose the administrations political philosophy in Iraq, as though this is some sort of pseudo sporting event where the best man wins, everybody goes home and swallows their pride afterwards.

After all, the mission in Iraq was sold by the administration as a response to the attacks of 9/11, and the supposed war on terrorism.

Not sure how the wholesale slaughter of our political opponenets in Iraq serves this purpose. This is reminiscent of Soviet actions when I was a young Marine.

Posted by: James H. at December 10, 2005 10:17 PM (LbhCW)

213 I wasn't saying that combat use of a weapon isn't the ultimate test of a gun design.

If it can't be broken "Murphy and a Grunt can figure out a way to break it"

Heck my SVD manual even says
"Never dry your rifle by placing it in a fire?"

What I'm saying is that if a given gun is not 100% reliable on a target range it's not going to get reliable all of a sudden by being used in a dirty combat area.

For me a rifle must be...
-----------------------------------------
Fun to shoot
So that makes my upper limit the .308 and nothing with the weatherby name on it.
-----------------------------------------
Accurate
If I can't tell when I screw up then I'm not learning anything.
------------------------------------------
Reliable
If It fails to go bang reliably I won't keep it.
------------------------------------------

More rifles in my collection have been sold for the last 2 reasons the any other.
----------------------------------------------

On the political side of this forum.

The level of hate in the middle east was just fine before we got there, I do not believe for a second that we have made it at all that worse by going in.

Please read the Koran

http://www.icofa.com/quran.htm

Then compare it to the perverted interpetation we are currently fighting accross the globe.

Very simple terms for the US haters in the room.

The guys who bow hate the guys who hop and twirl.
The guys who hop hate the guys who twirl and bow.
The guys who twirl hate the guys who bow and hop.

Please note these are all different factions of the same religion "Islam"

We currently have Iraqi's driving car bombs into each others Wedding celebrations simply because they disagree on how to celebrate Alah.

Now tell me with a straight face that these guys who are blowing each other up over differences of opinion on the Islamic religion are going to ever be accepting of America.

These groups make the German Fascist party look accepting.

You can Quote me on this

The only reason Islamic groups haven't detonated a Nuke on US soil is simply becuase they don't have one....yet.

People in the US/Europe believe that a person is a person no matter what religion they practice.

It would be nice if most of the M.E. felt the same way.

Posted by: Marty at December 10, 2005 11:11 PM (I4KJw)

214 The news is screwing up all of the good things we have done for the people of Iraq. All they will report on is the bad things. In ww2 there was a censorship program instituted by Roosevelt. Now a day the ACLU would go nuts. War is serious business, and the media has no reight interfering with our success. Everyone knows the liberals own the media. John Kerry said we (special forces) are terrorists terrorfying kids in the dark of night. I thought he was once in the service hahaha I never liked him at all. We are doing a fine job, so keep it up and we will be going home soon enough. I will not leave till the job is done. I have seen my family about 60 days in three years. They know what we are doing is important, and as much as they would hate for me to be killed they know it was for the greater good of The United States. Keep up the good work. HOOYA

Posted by: SSG Evan Stevens at December 11, 2005 06:40 PM (xZKhP)

215 Evan,

Normally I would agree with you. Please scroll back up and look at my comments on revenge and the indirect/direct endorsement of Islamic Fundamentalism of the US government.

I know for a fact that America's soldiers believe they are over in Iraq and they believe they are doing good and I think they are. But the reality is the Neocon fuckers whom the military serves see Iraq as a new colony for subjegation and conquest and its oil fields for its own. The true God of our "selected" leaders is the almight dollar and those NWO fucks will eventually reap what they have sewn. What is tragic here is the horrible misuse of the US military. I do not approve of this "war on terror" or this illegal invasion and conquest of Iraq.

In 5 years, the Iraqis will not be a free people, they will be victims of the largest theocracy the modern world has ever known. The US has liberated no one and is just a tool of the new Shiite masters that will slaughter the Sunnis who used to run Iraq under Saddam.

Scott

Posted by: Scott at December 12, 2005 08:42 AM (fnsQZ)

216 I don't agree totaly with you Scott. Yes there is a-lot of polotics involved with the war. Sadam had to go. The tangos in Afghanastan had to find a new home after we liberated the rest of the country. There was no oil involved there. The NWO is actually against the operation in Iraq. The NWO also wants to take your guns.
About the insurgency:
After WW2 there was a Nazi insersion. Hitler ordered the SS to fight a gurella war and they did for about 6 months. The differance was the Allies shot the insurgents on sight if they were caught in the act of sabotage or other gurella operations. Maybee if we enployed htisa tatic we would stop the insurgency cold. I know this cannot be done because of all of the bleeding hearts at home. But according to the Geniva convention this would be totaly legal.
I do belive in the mission. I have seen a totaly differant country in the last 2 years. I feel instead of paying for te war with tax payer dollars we should use the Iraqui oil to finance the rebuilding. These people have the right to life, liberty, and the presuit of happiness just like we do.
I respect your feelings on this issue, but I will just have to agree to dissagree with you. Was it illegal for Clinton to bomb them in 98. He used the same intell as Bush for his decision. As much as I didn't like the Clinton administration I think the operation (desert fox) in 98 was just. Don't believe everything on the news, ask returning vets about the success in Iraq, and for that mater Afghanastan.
I do feel this should be winding down after the election, and the Iraquis will have to fight their own war. They are good on the platoon level, just lack leadership. Iran may have to be delt with next. The war on terror will be a long war, but it has been successful so far and will continue ro be. No one will ever know how many attacks we have prevented so far. Al queida is operating at about 20% strength.
I would rather fight them in Iraq than on the streets of New York. The war is keeping them busy in Iraq and the Mid East so they cannot pour recources into another attack on US soil. I suspect if we did not answer their sorry attack the way we did it would be one 9/11 after another. We can't let them go un punished the way Clinton did. Clinton was advised to break the back of international terrorism, but he or his wife did not heed the warning. He was too busy with his worthless war in Bosnia, and Kosovo. The signs of an attack on the US were out in the open after the Cole.
We must do all we can to prevent future attacks on the US. If that means going to war for the next 20 years so be it. De Oppresso Liber, (to free the oppressed)
Thank you for your thoughts. Please support your country and your military. I don't fight for the beurocrats I fight for my fellow americans and my fellow soldigers, sailors, airmen, and marines. I swore to uphold the constitution, to defend the weak, and to protect the USA. Please do not for one minute think this war is for oil, it is not. The oil is all the people of Iraq's. We have all of the oil in Alaska and off the Gulf coast we need for centuries. HOO YA

Posted by: evan at December 12, 2005 02:02 PM (coNMB)

217 Worthless war in Bosnia and Kosovo??? Watch your tongue!!!!

Posted by: Done my duty at December 12, 2005 08:37 PM (OpBQy)

218 Sorry about the worthless comment, I was just upset at the time. I was there too. What I should have said is I feel the war aginst terrorism is more important. The Serbs didn't attack us numerous times on our oun soil. I didn't meen to anger anyone. Capturing Malosivitch was important too. Clinton should have been fighting terrorism also. Clinton cut and ran there leaving the job for the less than desireable UN to finish. In Bosnia we did a hell of a job. HOO YA

Posted by: evan at December 12, 2005 09:53 PM (coNMB)

219 Evan,

You make a reference to Nazis conducting insurgent activites after WW2 and the response was to kill them. Isn't that what we are doing now.

As for Bosnia, please show me the web site or photos of the alledged mass graves of Muslims that were mass executed by Serbs (Christians). Now the Muslims had zero problem filling the ground full of dead Christians. But then again, we all now the result, a brand new pipeline built by Halliburton. The pipeline that Slovidan Milosevic refused to allow to be built. We should have been Milosevic's allies.

As for your position on oil in Iraq, let me ask you a question. In the country of Zimbabwe, the Marxist president Robert Mugabe has declared being white a crime and seeks to kill or run out every white man, woman, and child out of that country. Why hasn't the US military been deployed? Were are the international sanctions? Why isn't this even mentioned on the US news media?

Answer: they are not floating on oil. Once we have the theocracy installed in Iraq, oil extraction will be easy. Now I do believe the insurgency (which they have ever right in the world to do) will last another 15 to 20 years.

Oh yes, I said it, the insurgency is justified. If the roles were reversed and the Iraqis invaded the US, overthrew the government, could you honestly say you, as an military person, would not conduct terrorist/insurgency operations against them?

I fully understand and respect your position but the only way this insurgent war in Iraq will end is when Bush orders the military to kill every male over the age of 12 in Iraq. That is the only way it will stop. Period.

I think the Democrats see this as well, but are 1) in a position of severe minority which will get worse, and 2) too much infighting in the party at the leadership level. We could quite frankly be living in a single party state by 2010 if the Democrats cannot get their act together.

Posted by: Scott at December 13, 2005 08:57 AM (fnsQZ)

220 I am hearten to see that at least some Americans have opinions about our foreign policy that they don't gleem from Newsweek, Time, and CNN. Course most of you have had that forged in experience, which most Americans lack.

We do seem to be missing some points, but the fact is we don't know what the overall "end game" motivations are of the "Islamic Radicals" that are our "ememy du jour" because I don't think they know themselves (at least the Warsaw Pact was predictable). Do they want a United Islamic Empire extending from Indonesia to Algeria? Fine, take it. Then the West must quit buying their oil, quit selling them weapons, and basically treat them like the lessor animals they are, ala pre-1940s. The problem is that the Western Governments and businesses make too much money on the fucks, and isn't that what this war is all about (or any war). I lost my idealism a decade ago.

You want to win the insurgency in Iraq? Invade Iran and Syria in a world war. You wanna win in Afghanistan? Make it a parking lot, or bribe everyone you can. Either way it is going to be expen$ive.

Are we going to have another attack here, on US soil? Undoubtly. But this is nothing new. What is new is our increasingly restrictive reactions on our own populace. It like herding cattle-you scare them in the direction you want them to go. Terrorist motivations for an attack include creation of this restrictive environment in their target country. That is how terrorism works. If they wanted, why don't they attack high value infrastructure targets? Use WMDs? Because it is hard for one-logistically and operationally. And it causes a reciprocal response. The gloves will come off, and they know it.

One more thing, just as we are divided in our relatively intellegent and informed opinions, we still look at those who oppose us, lets call them terrorists-everybody else does, don't you think that all these terrorists have their own opinions, end goals, and ideologies? We can't treat them as a monolitic solid.

Posted by: Ferg at December 14, 2005 12:08 PM (9ZCOj)

221 Scott comparing an invasion of the US to make the terrorist agenda seam fair is stretching it don't you think?

If the U.S. had a prison for people who hate the current administration.
"Scott you still there...Did they get you yet?"

If the U.S. government used nerve gas on Salt Lake City because they're Mormons.
If the U.S. had to be stopped by the world court from bombing the fleeing Mormons.
If the U.S. then tried to shoot down the U.N. sponsored planes.
If the U.S. invaded then raped and pillaged Mexico.
If the U.S. established one state mandated religion.
If the U.S. had no free press.
If the U.S. finally had to be invaded to pull Bush down from his eighth term.

Would I fight if the U.S. were invadedâ€¦YESâ€¦..But if the U.S. treated its citizens as poorly as Iraq did NO

Scott I think you have a very simple view of the world and that you believe we are fighting George Washington over thereâ€¦ We are not!! Most if not all of the people we are currently fighting want nothing but power, glory, and could care less about the average Iraqi mom and pop.

Posted by: Marty at December 14, 2005 12:18 PM (0LFzx)

222 Marty,

"Would I fight if the U.S. were invadedâ€¦YESâ€¦..But if the U.S. treated its citizens as poorly as Iraq did NO"

Sounds like you are the one with the simplistic world view. We are slowing creeping towards police state everyday and the Iraqis are creeping towards a Shiite-dominated theocracy which will unify with Iran and proceed to wipe every Sunni from that region of the world. What pisses me off is every US soldier over there thinking they are fighting for this dated concept called "freedom" is unknownly helping this plan become a reality.

What vice-Emperor Cheney is saying about the 95% of the insurgency being a part of bin Laden's crew is a load. They are nearly 100% Iraqi Sunnis with the assistance of Syrian military advisors knowing if they fail every Sunni will die. They have choice but to fight. They are fighting for their existance. No one has the right to be genocided off of the planet.

What I worry about goes much worse and farther than than the war in Iraq. Now I do not think it will take the World vs USA to remove Bush and the Neocon crew, I believe that the Dems will eventually retake power. And when they do, they will not be repealing the Patriot Act. No sir. No sir.

The Democrats will instead use it to target their most hated enemy ever to exist in the United States, the Christians. 2006 will be a most critical year that can go one of two directions:

1) The Neocons/Republicans continue to win elections in 2006/2008 and the Democratic party eventually collapses. This likely could take a world war to unseat the Neocons from power.

2) The Democrats win major numbers of seats in the house and senate in 2006 and the prez in 2008. Christian persecution and genocide operations against them are started by the government shortly afterwards.

Power options suck for everyone involved. While ar the same time, these "visionaries" give themselves and their friends awards and billionaire-dollar taxpayer paid-for contracts for government services and police state infastructure building and support.

Posted by: Scott at December 15, 2005 12:54 PM (fnsQZ)

223 hey thats kind of a wild idea, dont you think scott? wow.

Posted by: chris at December 15, 2005 02:04 PM (L8r/r)

224 No, I do not think so. In fact, I am probably being more conservative on this matter than most people. I happen to believe in things like God, Christianity, and the second coming of Christ. Soon I will be hunted like an animal for believing in such things.

Posted by: Scott at December 16, 2005 08:01 AM (fnsQZ)

225 Scott I'll have to slowly back away as most books say it's not wise to challenge people who...

Well you all get the idea...

Have a great X-mas or instert holliday here.

Marty

Posted by: Marty at December 16, 2005 05:58 PM (0LFzx)

226 All I know is if one more person calls an AK round a .308, I'm gonna put my fist through the screen.

Posted by: scarecrow at December 17, 2005 11:04 AM (BT2ft)

227 Yeah scarecrow...dumbasses need to learn their weapons. I do not claim to be the expert on all that is guns, but I happen to know what an AK-47 fires.

Learn your guns dumbasses!

Posted by: Scott at December 19, 2005 09:15 AM (fnsQZ)

228 Marty,

Most people look at things in the next 5 minutes...I try to look years out, and the outlook for the world is crap on every level. Now thinking I am crazy or ignoring the problem does not make it go away.

The majority of Americans live in an oblivious state of existance and are more interested in what hollywood star screwed married who as of late. I'll bet most Americans could not even find Iraq on a map. The people engaged in this debate and the entire debate of US foriegn policy make up less that probably 5% of the entire US adult populations, the other 95% care less. I'll bet China or some other 3rd world dictatorship would love to get an apeathic, vegged out population like the US.

You "backing away" statement does not impress me and only show you are just one more person who dare not "go down that road". Some of us have too because the damn few of us there are know there is more than Bush, more than Iraq, more than the Empire of the United States is going on.

Posted by: Scott at December 19, 2005 03:17 PM (fnsQZ)

229 haha i agree scarecrow... there are 4 types (probably even more) of 7.62 ammo...there is the 7.62x25 tokarev (pistol round),7.62x39 russian, the 7.x51 NATO (.308 winchester), and the 7.62x54 romanian (dragonov ammo). Also the 7.62 NATO hits with about 3000J of energy versus 2000J on the 7.62 Russian...so if you wanna go by pure power the .308 winchester is significantly more powerful than an AK round.

Posted by: Weaver at December 20, 2005 09:06 PM (VjPHj)

230 also i want to add...the ultimate future assault weapon is a modular HK g36 type rifle chambered in .308...i wish they would make one lol

Posted by: Weaver at December 20, 2005 09:08 PM (VjPHj)

231 I suggest you learn more about your military weapons before you start critique them ( 1 its the M249 Saw not the 243 and its a piece of shit yeah its fun in a firefight if it works moron) ( 2 you could never even come remotly close to putting in a 7.62 round in a m-4 its 5.56 only) you really need to put more research in the weapons we use you POG LEG learn then teach.

Posted by: Matt at December 23, 2005 10:49 AM (1BiwQ)

232 wow!i cant beleive i just read through that entire load of crap!i actually went to this site thinking i would get some usefull info. i learned something though. for all you new people to the shooting world take 99.95% of what you have read and laugh,dont take any of this as gospel. 5.56 vs. 7.62 oh, god! if you can read through the bull some people in this site talk some very valid and factual info. all of you newbies take your guns out to the range and go shoot! anything is better than nothing!shoot what you have the money to buy.everything has it's good and bad points! just learn to shoot and shoot well! learn how to clean and repair you guns. just remember all of the weapons talked about on this site are capable of killing with ease and have proven themselves capable of doing so. also i have read some guys making claims of martial arts expertise. anyone who does study the arts knows that your martial srts are reflexes that come after alot of intense practise.anyone can site on this site and procaim they are what their not! i would enjoy actually seeing some of these hot heads put it up in the ring though ,hey tuff guys why dont you try it out in the UFC maybe then you would learn something.hawaiin knee crusher hmmmmmm! never learned that one! but as i am an instructor i am also a student.anyone who knows what they are going to do to someone before a fight even happens well just goes to show you there are alot of people that dont know about shit,guns or martial arts anyways i like as i always do probably have pissed someone off,but i really dont care

Posted by: sibak at December 27, 2005 03:49 PM (FPOuk)

233 hey ray get a load of these choads! im going to forward this site to some real martial artists. i see a few people on this site actually know something . thank god for our armed forces. you guys put it up!that comment was for our military brothers eand sisters who actually have served this great country.hey forward this to the "WOP"he'll have some fun with the boys . some of these guys are wearin' me out . have you been training ray? i heard you have mastered "the donkey punch" and "the dirty sanchez"some very leathal moves and should not be shown to anyone outside of our clandestine inner circle.i feel very displeased with the 10+ years of kajukenpo/hawaiian kenpo/jiu-jitsu training i have had and just feel like going to blockbuster and renting a billy blanks cardio kickboxing video.hey check out my boys at leewardkenpokarate.com my instructor is on that site oh yeah.see if you can show this to mike d at H+H he'll get a laugh. thank god someone on this site knows about guns.

Posted by: sibak at December 27, 2005 04:47 PM (FPOuk)

234 I have two questions once I explain something. I am going to Iraq in May 06 with the Army Reserves. Is there anyway to get or take a personal sidearm and be able to bring it home once the deplyment over? Secondly, is there anyway to bring home a weapon that one may buy overseas legally? Just curious about procedure, etc. Any help would be appreciated.

Posted by: Gamigon at December 28, 2005 01:06 PM (kNLS0)

235 i wanted to reply to some of the issues with jamming problems of certain weapons talked about. i was in nevada a few months ago at the mustang range mahine gun shoot. they where renting an ar type carbine that fired full auto,thompson smg,an uzi,a glock 18 9mm,and an ak variant in 7.62 with a huge muzzle brake on the end of it. i had to shoot all of them and it was worth the 100$ to fire a magazine out of each of them.i shot the ar and the ak last. well i was probably the 200th person that day at least to shoot those the line was so long to shoot em' there was no time to stop and clean any of these guns.well i have never seen an ar so dirty and coverd in dust i thought i was shooting my black powder .45 anyways , nevada is mostly desert the ar was so hot after every mag they where diping the barrel in a bucket of water so the thing wouldnt melt. as you all are aware with all of these guns shooting all day alot of dust was in the air just sticking to everything. now i know this was not iraq nor afganistan but this rifle a bushmaster did not stop all day it went down for a few minutes because of a quick cleaning job with some breakfree and it was back in the shoot. i was amazed how easily it handled and how accurate it was on full auto i am not ex military but i could handle it just fine.to make matters more intresting they where handing out that crappy wolf ammo and it still kept blazing. the ak i shot was very different i'm very biased about com bloc weapons but this rifle fired just as well in the same condititons.i was not able to control it as well due to the larger recoil,but it fired just the same,muzzle blast was attrocious.this proved some things i have read about and disproved others this does not make me an expert but i saw what i saw. i would feel comfortable with both my preference being with the AR,hands down!some other things i was witness too there was everytype of belt fed mahine gin you name there that day and some i didnt know exsisted. i have to tell you that of the many types of small arms that day a few really impressed me.all of the m-60's fired flawlessly as well as the older 1919 browning air and water cooled guns. there was plenty of AR's running around and the ones i did observe functioned perfectly.not a whole lot of ak's but they all shot just fine. funny how i read about ole ma duece being the go to weapon though, and i dont mean to br sacriligous,but i saw the owners ot these guns constantly breaking them down and hosing them down with wd-40 i use that stuff for door hinges but hey use what you got.by no means was that the only one there they all seemed to have the same problem crappy ammo!the mg-34 AND THE 42'S are in my opoinion should be left to the history books fuckin garbage all though these guns are 60 somthing years old i didnt see the BAR's having any trouble.the m249 saw was impressive for its mean rate of fire.i would wouldnt want to be down range from it .and the very last thing was that 7.62 mini gun when it did fire it was beautiful 200 round belts where fired faster than i could count but the thing fragmented before i could choke up the 175$ to shoot it.oh there was the jerk off with the bad attitude that had an m-14

oh my beloved ! that i finally got this asshole to shoot off after i bought him a box of ammo for! just to get this on video tape was the best money i've spent it went fast and flawlessly . this little man couldnt control it at all. i'm not saying i could but i would have loved to try.if any of you gun whores out there get a chance to go to this thing go!i beleive the mustang range is right outside of fernly nevada close to reno, they have the shoots 2 times a year and it's free to go and watch, but bring some money ang shoot!the last part was the night fire with tracers and incinderary rounds what a show, any red blooded american would love this. get a hold of the range and go its called the mustang range and they do rent full auto weapons if you reserve them ahead of time. then us who havnt served this great land can see what our heroes in the armed forces get to do for fun,being that no one is shooting back at you.

Posted by: garand nut at December 28, 2005 01:36 PM (FPOuk)

236 gamigon, i have asked this question myself to freinds in the army deployed in iraq right now. i asked them because there was alot of talk about our weapons being "not enough power" and not "reliable". my question was just that! hell i was going to give my .45 to a friend to take with him. i got my first awnser " i wish i could" and the second one , hey man bring me back something besides yourself, the awnser was the same"i wish i could" so the awnsers i got was NO! and NO!they couldnt give me the exact reasons why , they just said it's about government issue and some crap about a law that was passed about you guys not being able to bring back war trophies.i know that there was a law passed i think by clinton that does not allow firearms to be brought into the U.S. that way. maybe the B.A.T.F. could help you out on being able to bring home a firearm, and maybe you should talk to whoever is in charge and ask that person about taking something with you. i just got my info from 2 guys it dosn't mean it cant be done.take care over there and thanks for having what it takes to put yourself in harms way some of us do appreciate that!

Posted by: sibak at December 28, 2005 02:14 PM (FPOuk)

237 Alright man, I stumbled onto this sight by accident, and I feel an obligation to make a few comments. First, I hear you sibak,learn to shoot and shoot as often as possible. There is a lot posted here that I find comical. 308 russian?, you must mean 7.62x54. People need to specify whether they are talking about 7.62x39 or this "308 russian". As far as the debate over AKs vs. ARs, the Isrealis figured this out a long time ago. Their solution came in the form of the Galil. I wish I had one, or two. One SAR and one ARM, .223 and .308 respectively. Another thing, there have been ARs made in 7.62x39. Once again people need to be specific. I've actually enjoyed reading some of this stuff. My cousin, and shooting partner, spends alot of his time in the net looking at posts like this and I never could get into it, I am afraid I might be caught..... Oh no. I personally like the AR line, have an AR-10, along with a USP in .45 and a sub-compact 1911 Kimber. Big fan of the .45. Look forward to reading any new posts. Later, Nick

Posted by: Nick at December 29, 2005 06:13 AM (+XLxh)

238 Looks like I skipped the last little part there. Add this, 7.62x33 Kruz.

Posted by: Nick at December 29, 2005 06:25 AM (+XLxh)

239 hey nick i think your getting your ammo mixed up...7.62x39 has never been used in american made weapon (assuming thats what you meant by "AR's")... 7.62x39 = 7.62 russian (AK-47 round), your thinking of 7.62x51 NATO = .308win which is fired out of the m-14 and an AR variant known as an AR-10...as well as many many other weapons (i dont think the AR-10 was ever used by our military though). Also 7.62x54 is romanian/russian and fired from dragonov/svd sniper rifles.

Posted by: Weaver at December 30, 2005 08:10 PM (VjPHj)

240 Olympic arms made uppers for the AR family in 7.62x39, but you had to use special magazines. Post this into your browser, www.biggerhammer.net/ar15/magazines/colt762.html I know what the 7.62x54 is, I have shot a dragonov, the 7.62x54 is a rimmed cartridge. Like I said, I have an AR-10. That was the original AR(not the one I own, but the titanium prototype that was tested in the 50s along with the Cetme and M-14)and the charging handle was in the carrying handle. The AR was a .308 before it was a .223. I think the military does use the AR-10T, which is chambered for the .300wsm. Look forward to hearing back from you weaver.

Posted by: Nick at December 31, 2005 11:18 AM (+XLxh)

241 I definitely agree that the AR design was originally meant to fire .308. Also ive never seen that upper before but it seems pretty cool. I guess i thought
you meant that there were AR's designed to fire 7.62x39 from the very beginning...i wasnt thinking of conversion kits. LOL anyway its good to see at least somone else on here knows WTF they are talking about.

Posted by: Weaver at December 31, 2005 03:55 PM (VjPHj)

242 The US and most of the west still prefers the "tight tolerances and inexpensive" round (5.56) proposed by the "Whiz Kids" of the 60's.

Unfortunately, in the real world...then and now, a big penetrating projectile(.308 or 7.62x39mm round) and "loose" tolerances are the best. Sand, dirt, mud, stupid operators, won't foil the operation of any AK weapon systems.

On the other hand, a little sand, water, mud, screws "all" of the western weapons.

Afetr 40 years you'd think the west would "get it". Rounds down range are what matters in the end.

Posted by: LoPull at December 31, 2005 06:47 PM (3usbu)

243 get a gun guide.
am a hardcore "survivalist nut", have abused my ar-15 for years, still good. some bad mags, extractor failed once...replaced. would like to see an ar45 that fed reliably for cqb, would be a useful backup. too much b.s. on this site between posters.

Posted by: brain at December 31, 2005 07:50 PM (vsV0r)

244 LoPull i disagree that all western weapons suck...in fact the AK is one of the first and only eastern weapons that is even worth a damn. The M-14 is almost the perfect rifle and it was made here in the USA. Also take a look at our handgun tech...the glock is a fucking piece of art lets see a eastern country match it in design.

Posted by: Weaver at December 31, 2005 08:53 PM (VjPHj)

245 nick,weaver, i think lopull is a little out of touch, no offense lopull im mean that with respect, unless i too read your post as the rest of us have, i think you just said western weapons suck! well i can say this HOW MANY MATCHES HAVE EASTERN MADE WEAPONS WON! i'll start with that. even though your point was along the lines of "reliability" first i'll start with the m1 carbines,m1 garands,the BAR,and other superb small arms of WW2. having 2 grandfathers that served, one being in the marines and the other in the army that i have asked a million times about their experience with the weapons they used and i get the same awnsers " im here because my garand never let let me down" "my old thompson cut that nip in half" " i loved those m1 carbines they always fired when you needed them too" as i also can read history books the fighting on the islands was some of the worst conditions ever! well then there is my grandpa that fought in europe with those crappy western guns in the snow and rain and mud and so on and seems like our guys killed alot of sqaure heads with those pieces of doo-doo well,not saying that they never had any problems but they didn't tell me about any at all.next, since the m-14 was the decendant of the garand which still is regarded as the probably the best battle rifle of all time,the m-14 cured what to some people thought were problems with the m-1,capacity, the gas system and shortening the op rod.again creating another superb battle rifle.remember that the m-14 served extremely well in viet nam! well again another crappy western gun.then eugene stoner also a WW2 combat marine veteran sought to invent a weapon to compete with the m-14, this is where nick has done his homework the ar-10 in 7.62mm x 51.as the army rejected the design because our tooling was already set up at springfeild armory to produce the m-14 we hung on to it.well now comes the armalite ar-15 design but chambered in in the modified .222 cartridge the new .223 designated 5.56mm because of higher pressures this round creats due to thicker case walls.again this crappy western weapon was one of the most well thought out and advanced designs ever put in too a weapon system. eugene stoner used what many say to be a flaw in this design was the direct gas system. well there are some benefits to this,less moving parts in the rifle which improves accuracy. no gas piston to become fouled up cause corrosion. oh yeah gas pistons can and do break boys. i think it's just as easy to open up an AR and pull out the bolt carrier clean it off, brush out the chamber and the inside of the upper and go. ever try to replace an extractor or a firing pin in a hurry on a AK? or replace the gas piston head if it broke. say it can't happen well i'm sure that i've never heard our AK totin' diaper heads comlain about it because our guys are too busy killing them with our crappy western weapons.and,if the 5.56mm is so crappy of a round why are all of our police agencies,SWAT teams uhh BATF uhh FBI ummm and every other government agency mostly armed with that piece of crap and it's feeble cartridge,because THEY ARE ALLOWED TO USE EXPANDING AMMO!which puts that rifle back in the ass kicking game.now i have to agree with weaver that the AK for a long time has been the only assault rifle worth a damn,i have respect for any rifle that can drop me like a bad habbit ,but i don't have to like it.so im still wondering if we have a bunch of crappy weapons why are we all still here i think our guys are fighting with the best weapons out there, of course im not in combat and i do not have first hand experience about desert environments and all that but just because someone says a certain gun lacks punch or jams up dosn't mean it's allways the weapons! poor shot placement under stress when these towl heads are shooting at them or they can't clean their weapon consistently DOSN'T MEAN THAT OUR WEAPONS ARE CRAPPY!and also sometimes it dosn't matter what you hit someone with humans are remarkably tuff sometimes,by the way if the 7.62x39 is so much better than why do alot more of our guys come home after being hit.i don't know anything will work if you have what it takes to use it when you have to. so anyways lopull hope you don't think i was beatin' up on ya just trying to have some fun.
,

Posted by: sibak at December 31, 2005 11:02 PM (FPOuk)

246 Hey, sibak or weaver, either of you shoot IPSC or IDPA? If so, what division?

Posted by: Nick at January 01, 2006 12:38 AM (+XLxh)

247 nah...though ive allways wanted to get into comps

Posted by: Weaver at January 01, 2006 09:19 PM (VjPHj)

248 npzuakaaghdvikobrkgfbgoxmkfkbfasixmrplbswumqpfrob
link http://ppobw.wwgsvno.com

Posted by: yeimt at January 05, 2006 09:08 PM (qQS/K)

249 Personal sidearms can be taken over but cannot be brought back home and must be left. Also personal ammo can be taken over. I know of a lot of sidearms that went over and of some goldmedal match 308 ammo taken over by some snippers althought I thought they were army I think.

Posted by: bigboydave at January 08, 2006 10:59 PM (DTWVE)

250 First, the best weapon is the one that you have logistic support for PERIOD.

M-14, At 200+ lb, I am just not comfortable using it except as a simi-auto.

M-16 A1, I was in Viet Nam. No it wasn't that great at first. But it was useable in full auto. Yes the amo was a major problim.

M-16 A2, Decent weapon.

AK series, Exactly what you would expect if you had a shot to hell Russian Master Sergeant design a "perfect weapon" during and just after WWII.

Posted by: Retired SSG at January 09, 2006 05:00 PM (hNv1X)

251 Specifically to Steve's comment that the bible states the antichrist's armies will kill in the name of God:

What do you make of the religious fanatics who are strapping themselves with nails and shrapnel all to blow themselves to kingdom come? They are not right. They are the ones making God their solid agenda when he clearly doesn't want people exploding themselves.

We are to be God's temple. Killing ourselves is destroying God's temple.

The US is not claiming religious high-ground over the insane-gency. They are operating from logistical procedure wherein you protect yourself from threats current and future.

Furthurmore, the insurgency and Terrorist networking worldwide uses God's name in vain to commit their lives to pointless death. The leaders of terrorist groups are murdering their followers, just like the suicide cults of the past.

The downfall of this war would be to hate the enemy soldier so blindly that no blame ever reaches to those responsible for producing such worldwide pestilence. The purpose of fighting IS NOT CONTAINMENT, but rather the END of dangerous murderers. Fight the footsoldiers in order to end the evil regime, not to just fight the damn footsoldiers.

Even many insurgent recruits have been heard questioning the viability of the "suicide" mission, yet these piece of garbage recruiters are telling young men and women to sacrifice their lives. Insurgent leaders won't go blow themselves up, but would readily offer a 20 year old boy to slaughter. HOW HOLY IS THAT. The US military does not operate under the same principles. Our military accepts those who wish to fight, none are drafted.

I believe in the US, our leader, and my creator God Almighty. I also own an AK-m, a Springfield 1911, and a large Samurai sword and will own my enemies if they threaten the life of my loved ones, or the society in which we exist.

Stop doubting what we are doing. We are doing what MUST be done, and the thousands upon thousands of soldiers standing guard deserve our belief.

- Citizen Standing Firm

Posted by: Mention One Thing at January 12, 2006 02:58 PM (bo2ht)

252 zzqelebdihcoukfrzvsauztncgxnidch
link http://nnqghi.rbdrjsc.com

Posted by: ahspm at January 12, 2006 09:32 PM (qQS/K)

253 I own both a ak-47 and a civilian ar-15. I like them both ,but we had the same problems during world war two and korea with the m-1 carbine. Meaning that the are goverment can't get it right then, what gives you the idea that their going to change form a m-16/m-4 to a ak-47 variant. I also believe that it doesn't matter the size of the caliber if you shoot the stupid bastard in his head. So maybe if we teach soldiers the good ol one shot one kill method then will not have as many problems with the firearms that goverment money crunchers have decided on. One last note the 45 caliber should of never been replaced by the the 9mm.

Posted by: Erik at January 15, 2006 11:16 PM (/Wetb)

254 hey spankers i decided i would come back to this site for one reason i spent all day shooting my m1a and me new colt ar15 a2 lightweight. some of you just probably rolled your eyes , i dont really GAF!my limp wristed buddy ray JR came from california to help me with work and we went shooting! surprised ?that probably more than some of you on this site have done all year . we found some 350 chevy heads laying there and blasted them with 5.56 and 7.62 . well the impotent weak little varmint round had no problem busting its way into those heads . thats with ss109 i got a while back the 7.62 just sent pieces flying . dont worry none fellas i was shooting at chevrolet parts at a good distance under very good cover my dodge! he he

Posted by: sibak at January 15, 2006 11:34 PM (FPOuk)

255 erik the m1 carbine was intended to replace the holy .45, the carbine ballistically outperforms the .45 dramatically even out of the thompson sunny boy !the problems with the .30 carbine round was FMJ's and even that small pistol round when fired on full auto was not always easy to control anyone who thinks that someone could absorb 25 rounds of .30 carbine to the chest and still kept comming at you well i think its a myth born from bad shooting myself.

Posted by: sibak at January 15, 2006 11:46 PM (FPOuk)

256 Youre all wrong the greatest weapon and round to have in combat is the Lorcin .380 loaded with 90 grain ball ammo.

Posted by: The Truth at January 24, 2006 01:04 AM (kdcCc)

257 I was in the Army over in the middle east and hated the M-16. It is JUNK. It is killing our soldiers. It jams when you need it and can't withstand sand. Too much to maintain, and collects carbon too much. I got ahold of an AK47 in semi-auto and was able to resupply my ammo easily. I gave my 22 varmit ammo to my squad. I am now out and have sold all my traditional lever, bolt, weapons and bought some excelent AK47s and 45Colt pistol, and one pump mossberg 590 12 gauge with a sidefolder.

Posted by: AK JAY at January 31, 2006 03:03 PM (IKfGT)

258 ak jay the m16 is not killing our soldiers enemy fire is,and for you maybe learning some basic cleaning skills would solve your issues.your entitled to your opinion. an ak-47 in semi auto in the middle east i wasn't aware that there was any type of full auto restrictions there.well i guess if you actually want too hit something with one shot throw away your m-16 the spray n' pray method still lives on.i know the ak's have some decent accuracy and all and they are reliable but that varmint round as you call it is very capable of inflicting severe damage and death. to say they are junk well maybe you should have spent more time shooting than flipping burgers in the mess hall.like fred says are you a rifleman or are you a cook? and as "the truth" says about the lorcin 380 there is one better the intratec tec -9 with 9mm ball ammo top that baby!

Posted by: sibak at February 01, 2006 01:10 PM (FPOuk)

259 sibak- when a soldiers weapon jams in a firefight he is no longer in the fight but taking cover and trying to fix the malfunction. The soldier goes from an asset to the squad to a liability. This leads to soldiers dying from having an unreliable weapon. I know this from personal experience 11B - Infantryman grunt not your whopperflopper. The AK I found was full or semi auto and was very used but functioned flawlessly. I was very confident in with the AK 47 and truely believe I save my life with it more than once and can honestly say I would be dead or wounded if I would have been using my M 16. The AK 47 is very easy to clean and maintain and accurate to 400 yards with open sights. I've heard that over 50 million AK 47s or copies have been produced and over billions of rounds have been fired. It's the aimed shot that mostly kills not your 'spray and pray' cover fire. I passed it on to my platoon leader when I ETSd. Out of the thousands of rounds I fired it only jamed once and this was because the primer fell out as the round was being cycled. In my opinion the M-16 is junk worthy of only scrap. I am not going to respond to any more criticism.

Posted by: AK JAY at February 01, 2006 09:16 PM (IKfGT)

260 ak jay well i have just read your last post and i want to respond. you say you have so called "been" in the military and you cant take a little criticism.well, how in the hell did you possibly make it through a fire fight? us as u.s. soldiers are taught in basic to at least take a little criticism without taking offense.and as i have qaulified with the m-16 in excess of 400m and beyond, i have never heard that any of our middle eastern enemie's had to endure training of that expertise with an ak. open sights at 400 yards huh? did you train carlos hathcock? seems to me your probably one of those guys who sits around in his panties playing army when our soldiers are out there defending this nation with thier guts. and too say that our primary small arm is a piece of junk when it has proven itself all over the world in every u.s. conflict since vietnam well that just goes to show the next person to read this crap ak jay really belongs where he is needed most "would you like to supersize that order" sibak, at least for a guy who hasn't been in the military you have what this guy lacks common sense and guts.

Posted by: joey d wop at February 03, 2006 01:37 AM (I9nWZ)

261 United States has a tradition of waiting and seeing when it comes to weapons evaluations..Just look at the Patton tanks with their exposed fuel tanks..the aluminum Bradleys..the HUMVEEs that lack armor..the shortage of body armor...and yes the M-16. Never before have we seen a better educated Armed Forces..these soldiers know when their weapons suck..thats why all the private security contractors are NOT using M-16s. Even the Secret Service wont use them.

Posted by: The Truth at February 06, 2006 08:02 AM (kdcCc)

262 Ahhh freedom of speech is great isent it? I love sitting back and watching in amazement as people make asses of themselves. In my experience in the Infantry Corps of the US Army i have gotten to play with lots of neat things. AK's being one of them. We tried grouping one of those shits at 100 M, that 7.62x39 piece of poo could barely keep 10 rounds in a target the width of a man- and this is coming from an expert rifleman. even my buddies couldent shoot it any better. Youd be hard pressed- HARD PRESSED to hit a man-sized target efficently with a kalashnikov 47 past two hundered. yeah, fire an entire magazine at 400 M and you MIGHT produce hits- you should see the ballistics table on this round though, after 300 M, its toast. Anyway, the RPK's (an AK with a long barrel, and a tri-pod) are a little better, but the 7.62x54 PKM's are pretty decent. Their beaten zone is huge though, defenatly a large volume of fire weapon. The AK-74 fires a 5.45x39 thats a little more inherently accurate, but not much.

How many times must we go over this? AK's are a mass produced weapon, with large tolerances. A Soviet designed and engeneered weapon that holds true to russian design, function under bad conditions. They are NOT even close to precision weapons. Newer AK variants used by a few counties like russia are getting better in their accuracy, especially since they primarily use the 5.45. So you have the trade off. Closer tolerences with weapons such as the M16 family are accurate, but they are prone to jams more.

Larger tolerences with weapons like the AK family are designed to function under any condition, but sacrifice accuracy as a result. Thats the way of the world folks. Can we talk about something else now?

CPL. K

Posted by: cpl. K at February 07, 2006 09:53 AM (L8r/r)

263 Ahhh freedom of speech is great isent it? I love sitting back and watching in amazement as people make asses of themselves. In my experience in the Infantry Corps of the US Army i have gotten to play with lots of neat things. AK's being one of them. We tried grouping one of those shits at 100 M, that 7.62x39 piece of poo could barely keep 10 rounds in a target the width of a man- and this is coming from an expert rifleman. even my buddies couldent shoot it any better. Youd be hard pressed- HARD PRESSED to hit a man-sized target efficently with a kalashnikov 47 past two hundered. yeah, fire an entire magazine at 400 M and you MIGHT produce hits- you should see the ballistics table on this round though, after 300 M, its toast. Anyway, the RPK's (an AK with a long barrel, and a tri-pod) are a little better, but the 7.62x54 PKM's are pretty decent. Their beaten zone is huge though, defenatly a large volume of fire weapon. The AK-74 fires a 5.45x39 thats a little more inherently accurate, but not much.

How many times must we go over this? AK's are a mass produced weapon, with large tolerances. A Soviet designed and engeneered weapon that holds true to russian design, function under bad conditions. They are NOT even close to precision weapons. Newer AK variants used by a few counties like russia are getting better in their accuracy, especially since they primarily use the 5.45. So you have the trade off. Closer tolerences with weapons such as the M16 family are accurate, but they are prone to jams more.

Larger tolerences with weapons like the AK family are designed to function under any condition, but sacrifice accuracy as a result. Thats the way of the world folks. Can we talk about something else now?

and by the way, WTF are you armchair commandos thinking anyway??! You are rooting for a weapon that has killed and wounded THOUSANDS of American Soldiers, yeah its a neat little weapon that works all the damn time so idiots can use it, but c'mon, take some damn pride. If any of you little wannabees came to my fire team, id break you off.

CPL. K

Posted by: cpl. K at February 07, 2006 09:56 AM (L8r/r)

264 Ahhh freedom of speech is great isent it? I love sitting back and watching in amazement as people make asses of themselves. In my experience in the Infantry Corps of the US Army i have gotten to play with lots of neat things. AK's being one of them. We tried grouping one of those shits at 100 M, that 7.62x39 piece of poo could barely keep 10 rounds in a target the width of a man- and this is coming from an expert rifleman. even my buddies couldent shoot it any better. Youd be hard pressed- HARD PRESSED to hit a man-sized target efficently with a kalashnikov 47 past two hundered. yeah, fire an entire magazine at 400 M and you MIGHT produce hits- you should see the ballistics table on this round though, after 300 M, its toast. Anyway, the RPK's (an AK with a long barrel, and a tri-pod) are a little better, but the 7.62x54 PKM's are pretty decent. Their beaten zone is huge though, defenatly a large volume of fire weapon. The AK-74 fires a 5.45x39 thats a little more inherently accurate, but not much.

How many times must we go over this? AK's are a mass produced weapon, with large tolerances. A Soviet designed and engeneered weapon that holds true to russian design, function under bad conditions. They are NOT even close to precision weapons. Newer AK variants used by a few counties like russia are getting better in their accuracy, especially since they primarily use the 5.45. So you have the trade off. Closer tolerences with weapons such as the M16 family are accurate, but they are prone to jams more.

Larger tolerences with weapons like the AK family are designed to function under any condition, but sacrifice accuracy as a result. Thats the way of the world folks. Can we talk about something else now?

and by the way, WTF are you armchair commandos thinking anyway??! You are rooting for a weapon that has killed and wounded THOUSANDS of American Soldiers, yeah its a neat little weapon that works all the damn time so idiots can use it, but c'mon, take some damn pride. If any of you little wannabees came to my fire team, id break you off.

CPL. K

Posted by: cpl. K at February 07, 2006 09:56 AM (L8r/r)

265 hey sorry about 3 reposts in a row, im a fuckstick LOL

Posted by: cpl. k at February 07, 2006 09:58 AM (L8r/r)

266 cpl. k yeah maybe iam something like a armchair jerkoff and all. but, dis guy over here is pissin' in my cornflakes with this m-16 is junk booshit! you don't have to be in the military to figure out that ak's are prone to bad accuracy, and besides my ar's will never see the middle east so im not worried about these jamming issues i here about. what is kinda funny is that i only here about it on the net. i live not too far from ft. lewis in wa. and i actually do run into these guys who have just came back from the shit hole over there and not one of these guys says any of this girly whining crap about jamming and ammo performance.im sorry ak jay if i butt hurt ya. but, dont come on to a place like this and start barkin' about our weapons some people love this country and apple pie and the m-16 is apple pie.

Posted by: sibak at February 07, 2006 12:26 PM (FPOuk)

267 I'm sure 500 yd accuracy serves you well when clearing rooms 10x10...I'd choose reliability anyday over accuracy...the Ford is apple too, but even theyre going out of business...its a new millenium...the United States does not make the best of everything...Even our closest allies wont use the M-16 garbage...and our former Cold War allies immediately turned to alternative weapons once the US stopped funding them..because of yep..u guessed reliability and cost...If you were stuck in the mud would you rather have a fast sexy sportscar with its high tolerances or a rugged old 4x4 that you knew would get you out of trouble...the M-16 sucks period...end of discussion...and you guys didnt even address the failures of other US arms ventures...hell the Osprey was grounded after it killed dozens of Marines but theyre still pouring millions into the project. You would think a Frenchman designed the M-16, but even they wont touch it!!!

Posted by: The Truth at February 07, 2006 11:08 PM (kdcCc)

268 And another thing!...if it wasnt for all the girly whiners...the US Army would still be using lever action repeating rifles...but at least they would be more reliable than the M-16!!! By the way apple pie is an Old English invention.

Posted by: The Truth at February 07, 2006 11:14 PM (kdcCc)

269 wow "the truth" i almost stand corrected! the u.s. has a talent of improving on ideas that where mostly failures from other inventors from different countries and creating something that works. yes we have had failures that have costed human life but this country has always tried to improve on the basic principles of eqaulity for all. by the way ford is doing badly because of piss poor management! not because of bad cars i am a big dodge fan but ford makes some good cars and trucks you must be refering to GMC, closing 6 plants dosn't mean it's time to throw in the towel.so all of our allies threw away the m-16 huh? that might be news to canada who uses them. oh and isreal who uses them to. i know they use the galil in 5.56mm but since have gone back to the m-16 as they cannot produce the galils cost effectively. i dont see them or here them bitching and moaning about the jamming and poor ballistics and as a matter of fact they have invented new assault rifles around the 5.56mm and even the old .30 carbine round.i know the galil is an improved AK, so why ?did they go back to the m-16. they depend on their weapons every day and live in the harshest environments on this planet! huh? they must be stupid!they have depended on U.S. weapons and alot others for a long time.oh if you are up for the challenge do some homework on that! it was the AK-47 who the golani brigade called it"the lion of the desert" and the inventor of the UZI uziel gal used a terminally superior cartdrige the 5.56mm in the galil. the isreali's who know nothing of combat have stated time and time again the galil offers very little the m-16 has not provided.and in a 10x10 room i would take the easy and fast change of magazines any day of an m-16 over trying to rock those finicky no bolt hold open,clunky, inaccurate, sheet metal dinosaurs! no problem. no one seems to mention that to change an ak magazine in a stressful situation takes some doing, i wonder how many bad guys where killed by our side because it took them those extra seconds to reload in the time of need.extra seconds boys thats what counts . maybe some highly trained russian special forces can do it fast.but,the average soldiers are going to be able to recharge and keep shootin faster.and another thing the french have been in the forefront along time with small arms development they just drop them when it comes time to use them. the FAMAS is a superb weapon but how has it proven itself in combat the french compain about being in iraq!i wonder if they've enen fired them.but even they use the 5.56mm the m-16 isn't perfect but it works well and none of you have said anything worth while to prove me wrong! the same old shit. in the small arms NATO trials guess what beat out all of your GALIL'S,AK'S,FAMAS'S,HK'S,AUG'S and others for reliability,accuracy and ergonomics was the m-16 go ahead and do your homework on that and then come back with the facts, and apple pie wasn't invented here i didn't say that we just improved it.

Posted by: sibak at February 08, 2006 03:39 PM (FPOuk)

270 I never said anything about the 5.56 round..just the garbage M-16...the only reason Israelis dont complain is because other former NATO countries dropped them at bargain basement prices. Israel uses them in their reserves which by the way are all citizens capable of bearing arms...their conscript army has no say in these matters anyway. The fact that Canada uses them does not support your claims either...Canada hasnt had a military victory in...um...Canada hasnt had a military victory! and how exactly do you improve upon apple pie?..by adding cinnamon?

Posted by: The Truth at February 09, 2006 12:01 AM (kdcCc)

271 ry these on for size www.manningaffordability.com/ s&tweb/PUBS/M16Rifle/M16_Rifle.html
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/m16-iraq.htm
I've got oh maybe 20 more like sites

Posted by: The Truth at February 09, 2006 12:27 AM (kdcCc)

272

ha ha !yeah i forgot to mention that the british SAS use them exclusively over their own L-85's,the philipin government uses them,mexico,a number of countries in latin america,some south african countries use them !i could go on and on and on.and of all the weapons israel could of gotten at rock bottom prices why pay when they seized thousands of those turds in the six day war with egypt and iran.i know the m-16 is not as forgiving in the sand as the AK but to call it junk when it has everything else going for it is just stupid.and by the way im no big fan of canada but they helped us win decisive battles in WWII just sit down with a history book and actually read it!dont just look at the pictures!and i dont think the ak is junk it's not for me comrad! well that is why some pump gas for a living it's easy , not complicated , dosn't require much thought other than to not light a cigarette while doing it.i just like to be smarter than my rifle then i know it wont let me down!so go play johnny jihad with your toys and when your need your boomstick you should be able to figure out what end the bullet comes out of so you wont hurt the rest of us ok!by the way conscript i would use a AK of course too fight my way to my AR! cinnamon on apple pie ! man i waited all day for that dumb ass reply ! well stupid is as stupid does forrest!

Posted by: sibak at February 09, 2006 08:50 PM (FPOuk)

273 So you finally resort to personal insults..I never personally insulted you..just pointed out the fallacies of your argument..it will be obvious to anyone who reads these posts that I am superior in both intellect and articulation. You never produced a single scientific resource to back up your absurd claims. I am finished with you and the inferior aptitude you demonstrated during the discourse of our little debate..although diatribe would be more appropriate since you dont respond to challenges posed to you.

Posted by: The Truth at February 09, 2006 11:24 PM (kdcCc)

274 By the way..you spelled these words incorrectly..[philipin..comrad...dosn't]..so maybe you should reconsider your statement of "i just like to be smarter than my rifle then i know it wont let me down!"

Posted by: The Truth at February 09, 2006 11:35 PM (kdcCc)

275 c'mon man i was just pokin' fun at ya!nothing personel i mean that!yeah and maybe i should read through my posts and check for type o's but dude your the only guy that has come back to beat up on me. IM SORRY !i didn't think it sounded that bad when i wrote it! but i had tried to use as many facts and not just here say that i could.i was waiting for some other response than "it's junk" "worthy of the scrap heap" i responded to your claims one by one in defense of the m-16 and included factual info not just a bunch of ranting to back it up!i did do some research on this because i like this rifle alot, and having freinds and family in afganistan and iraq as we speak some how i feel some loyalty to the weapons they carry that protects our freedoms,along with the people who carry it!so yeah my temper gets a little hot when i here this shit! sometimes it's not always the scientific response. it's one from the old saying" DON'T TREAD ON ME" damn near everytime i see the ak it's in the hands of these bastards cutting heads off of people with their hands tied behind them screaming for their life!fuck that i know it's not the rifle it's the image. that weapon in the hands of these fuckers. you all need to go check out michael savage's website @ KSFO.com and watch all of the neat little beheading videos with the brave terrorists holding up their ak's.so anyways "the truth" don't be like AK JAY and cower down stand up to me !i don't want to fight you dude ! just want to give you a good beatin' because it's fun!nobody on this website could piss me off say whatcha will and stick by it.so i can debate someone with a sack! good too go now? by the way spelling is not my gift,math is! how about this, give me? X(3)/[4005] =the cube root of 4005 thats an easy one!

Posted by: sibak at February 10, 2006 11:41 AM (FPOuk)

276 The Truth, i beg to differ. Are you in the military? i am kind of curious. Youre in slight need of correction here my friend. Isreal, one of our closest allys issued their soldiers M16s. They have been useing them for years and years (along with the Galil). This weapson system has been the primary infantry rifle of the united states military since 1967, is in use by 15 NATO countries, and has been the most produced firearm in its caliber. Look it up hotshot.

Ive cleared many rooms with the M16A4, with bulky IBA and tons of gear strapped to it. There are easy ways to get around it, and let me tell you, clearing a 10x10 room doesent require a whole lot of poop and shoot- just look over the front site post and shoot the bastard, you can even crook the rifle under your shoulder a bit if you want. The M4 is much better, but lacks the long range knockdown power, i wouldent expect to knock a head off on the first couple rounds past 250 with an M4- you might have to hit him a couple of times.

Some of my buddies over at AMU that tweak standard M16A4's for Squad Designated Marksman rifle use will tell you that the need for 500+ meter engagments are neccecary, especially in afganistan- otherwise we wouldent be going to so much trouble to make this shit. Ive seen this stuff firsthand bucko. Lets see an AK-47 or 74 do that kind of work. Yeah mabye with 5 guys dumping single shot after shot. Your facts are askew (spelling) and you should probably ask someone who knows, rather than going to some lame gun site or random gun-range banter. There will never be a perfect rifle, and you can always have range and close proximity perfection, but the M4/M16 is a good balance, if somewhat sensitive to dust and corrosion. Read my above post to get a better idea of "the truth". I have worked with dozens of NCO's and soldiers who all share the same general opinion. We like our rifles, we hate cleaning them, but if you clean them like your supposed to, they work. Got two simple words for you- Weapons... Maintainance.

Go play counter-strike, armchair.

CPL K.

Posted by: Cpl. K at February 10, 2006 02:12 PM (L8r/r)

277 Another illiterate wannabe soldier..so youre a cook in the Army..big deal..I'm not impressed..why should I trust the opinion of a moron who spells these words wrong[Isreal..useing..weapson..doesent...wouldent...engagments..neccecary..afganistan..mabye..maintainance]...I've got two simple words for you... Webster's Dictionary! What a bunch of morons..no wonder you guys still havent taken control of Iraq?!

Posted by: The Truth at February 10, 2006 05:51 PM (kdcCc)

278 Oh yeah..you spelled [allys] wrong too!..Geez!..think God we arent fighting a technologically equitable enemy!

Posted by: The Truth at February 10, 2006 05:57 PM (kdcCc)

279 Now listen here you coward son of a bitch, i dont see you out here doing these things, youre a fat couch potato that feeds off the deeds of others. You think because im too busy to perfect my words on this lame little blog site, that my deeds or the actions of MY brothers in arms are ignobal? Fuck you yellow- come to benning, i EMPLORE you. Come educate yourself, bottom feeder. Come say what you said to me, to any one of MY soldiers. Youre sound like a recreant, a second-rate, a sorry sack, a bench warmer who believes everything he hears from video games, blog sites, and TV. I see your kind all over. Who thinks the Army is just about guns and killing, and that you can identify with us by knowing all this mis information you call knowledge. Im done talking with you, say what you like.

grow some sac, poser.

Corporal K.

Posted by: CPL K. at February 11, 2006 08:54 AM (L8r/r)

280 I think the truth needs to STFU, he seems to be kind of a homo. Anyone second me? I wish someone could steer the discussion back toward weapons, or ammo, or well... anything but this petty bullshit. Hey truth, you got any military experience? If not, why? If so, where, when and what service. Hope this post is grammatically correct enough for you, homo.

Posted by: Nick at February 11, 2006 06:44 PM (x1LgB)

281 CPL K. i have too say i'm laughing off my fucking chair right now! i actually felt somewhat bad for mouthing off to this guy "the truth" last time. he points out that he has givin me scientific analysis that the m-16 is a is an inferior weapon,or in his words "a peice of junk worthy of the scrap heap" "it's junk" that was his interpritation of a good solid arguement backed up alot of facts found through intense research.well, little man !you have not only proved that your a first class shit head! you have proved that "some people are simply alive because it's illegal too kill them"that is not a threat by anymeans. i just think maybe mommy and daddy should turn up the parental controls on their computer,before we hear another news bulletin that another stupid kid was missing because he went to play with someone he met on the net.at least we know you can spell though, that will help you when you go to a job interview at CNN just as the lies and disinformation you have spouted off here, you can go global with your hatred for this country and its military. don't worry nobody wants too hurt you, we just want you too keep taking your pills, they will make you feel better!before you bad mouth anything from now on maybe you should actually know what your talking about.but what should we expect from from a little creep like you.how do your panties stay up anyways?so if you have not already rolled your eyes and punched your pillow yet i will give you some facts. please feel free to critique my spelling. fact 1: the AK-47 is prone too malfunction in certain makes due too 1mm receiver thickness.lack of lubrication "you should be familiar with this if you have ever been anywhere near a vagina"will cause bending and flexing in the length of the receiver thus causing jamming,gas piston binding and or breakage. sand,dust,and carbon fouling can also add too this problem causing also bolt fatigue and breakage.fact 2:the AK-47 has a notorious problem even with a slower cyclic rate that of the m-16 and that is barrel warp. even though a weapon can be fired with a substantially warped barrel this decreases accuracy and dependability exponentially of the weapon.AK-47's are prone too overheating and parts breakage stupid!so my next question to you"the truth" is how long did you pack one around in the desert before you learned that? uhhh my guess is never.how many times did you feild strip an AK in 120 degree heat and see the rust and dust seize the bolt closed that you needed a sledgehammer too open it up?well son, M-16's are for the mostpart impervious too the elements they don't rust,there is no wood too heat up and catch on fire,their aluminum receivers are lighter and stronger than an AK's and their steel is that of an extemely higher qaulity than that of an AK.just read the U.S. military specifications on small arm manufacturing reqiurements.fuck i said eveything as scientific,factual and unbiased as i could have.iv'e done some of the work for you,so if you dont respond too my post i understand,if i have offended you again i don't care,maybe mom and dad will let you stay up past bed time too let you retort and please don't come back with some lame and not thought out reply like "i will not respond to your insults" blah sniff dribble, it's pretty boring!101st screaming eagles baby!

Posted by: sibak at February 11, 2006 07:06 PM (FPOuk)

282 hey nick,i second that i have been reading through the posts by him and i see that maybe "the truth" and "ak jay" might be the same lump of shit! or at least each others pet boys!i mean dude do you think their in the powder room holding each others pee-pee's after trying to get someone old enough to get them a spank mag or what.yep homo i'm sure anyone who has the time to sit and correct others on spelling well you know man! i don't have to say it.

Posted by: sibak at February 11, 2006 07:35 PM (FPOuk)

283 oh yeah before i got so soft apologizing to "the truth" i wanted to ask you about your superior apptitude for opposing dialect and discourse through an opposing view that i cannot substantially refut my thesis on the topic which we are engaged in debate.i however in my last posting on the subject of poor performance of the M-16 have refuded and provided substantial evidence that the tpoic of our dialogue has been thoroghly represented and is comprised of factual information disconcerning your opposing view and have refuded and disproved your thesis and analysis of our debate.

Posted by: sibak at February 11, 2006 07:52 PM (FPOuk)

284 Besides the continued spelling errors I see some of you got your friends or neighbors to write on your behalf..did you contact your old special ed teachers to help you? Again you ape-like idiots feed on hate and anger at your lack of intelligence...I repeat all I said was that the M-16 is junk..I didnt say I hate America, watch CNN, accuse you of being homosexuals, or say I hate the military. These are all your words not mine..I do now see how easy it is to manipulate the small minds of puny men like yourselves. Just post your REAL address online here and maybe I'll show up maybe I won't..depends on what's the weather if I'll drive down or not. The next move is yours! I'm pretty sure I can beat anyone of you up..I'm not a violent person though, but judging from your gross lack of intellect I'm confident I could!

Posted by: The Truth at February 11, 2006 09:30 PM (kdcCc)

285 One more thing..since you all still live at home with your moms ..make sure you get a grown-up's permission to be out after 10pm because I'm more of a nite owl. I will first verify your real address by sending you a SASE with a return postcard..then I'll need 3 days to get off of work to come down!

Posted by: The Truth at February 11, 2006 09:35 PM (kdcCc)

286 wow!i thought i asked you for a well thought out reply there "the trooooth" how's that for mispelling? it goes too show you when someone can't take a little shit, well it's time to go columbine!i still live at home with my mom? did you come up with that all on your own?i knows i caints spail an all dat but at least you can't accuse me of being as boring and uncreative as yourself. are you going to be beating us up one by one there ? or should we all band toghether to fight off your evil powers. i'll fight you on one condition ok? i wan't to be BATMAN i never got to be a goodguy before.when i was little they use to call me names but since i've grown up and i wear BIG BOY PANTS now,i'll give ya my best.i'm sure in between carwashes you could find time too come and make me pay for my insulance voltron. dude you scared the beejeezus out of me with that threat. i just know that if you where anything serious or remotly a threat i would never ever ever be back on this site again .but since i have just got done wiping my eyes dry i realized it's a fuetile attempt at manlyhood.

Posted by: sibak at February 11, 2006 10:48 PM (FPOuk)

287 Anyone believe in the Bible? I do. Anyone read it. I heard a great sermon one time saying God has controll of the outcome of a War/Battle. I have heard numerous stories of clear skies being turned to foggy days and so on and so on. I have heard that the nation of Iraq may be numerous as the stars but would be constantly in battle from its creation, and never overcome. I have heard that Isreal will never fall. It's funny we are a nation so greatly blessed from God and of Hard working Grand/mothers and Grand/fathers but we barely give them due respect. I never intended to be here posting in this post but hey what the heck. God Bless all of you. Homosexual or not don't think its right but you'll have judgement day just like me. God Bless All OUR Troops living and in the past. Also Thank You for doing what you do.

I was actually looking for barrels and uppers (getting some prices) in 6.8SPC for an AR-15(AMERICAS RIFLE as reviewed in Guns and Ammo). When I saw this forum. Seems like a great forum just got off track a little or maybe that was tended. I love shooting. I have a .22lr from marlin semi-auto w/ tabsco scope nothing special but keeps a zero. I can shoot the eye balls out of squirrels at 100yard no problem. I Have a .300 Savage that will get out and tag a target, deer, elk, bear. The family takes the .22lr and uncles AR-15 to praire dogs when they get over populated. It gets the job done. I guess thats the biggest point I want to make. I work for a local sheriffs office so I try to stay on top of what works and what doesn't. A gun boils down to what are you going to use it for. The reason I'm pricing the 6.8SPC is for deer hunting not to say the .223 is illegal or to small of a caliber but that I'm lazy and don't like chasing it down. Something comes to mind like a (.22) would be a wise choice for military not to heavy small compact while staying accurate. No way I'm more traditional give a ten thousand foot soldier army knives, swords, and a mind to get the enemy line them up and have them scream yell and run toward their foe. Now give them a rifle call them Infantry men and do the same thing. Battles are fought the same way today as then use what works. Whats different from then and right now. A leader then made a firm desission not pussy footen around playing political games. If your going to war GO if not save lives fight another day. Another thing if they don't want it themselves they are lost anyways fuckem. Getting back to guns. I watched a documentry once on the Ak-47 I'm no expert. They say you can pick one up in Africa for less then $50. I don't care what u got the human body is no different the the game we hunt. An animal wants to live just as much as a human living. Shoot a opfr in the head he is going to drop. Shoot a opfr in the chest he may or may not drop. Shoot a opfr in the jewels he going to drop. Shootem in the arm leg got a chance small but a chance you took them out of action for a time. Ammo whats the best? .50cal .308 6.8SPC .223?
What gun do you got? AR AK
What the fuck are you doing?
How much weight do you want to dell with?
How many rounds?
Are you shooting elephants or opfr?

I want to be on S.W.A.T seems like a lot of agencies use .223 and 9mm all different manuf. good solid cal. for cqb. Not to heavy fires smooth at semi-auto. Cheep Ammo under $3.00 for 20. The .223 calb. is acc. at 100-300 yards no prob. You can mount all kinds of shit on it to and switch uppers.
_____________________________________________ Right now I'm close to getting an AR-15 short barreled Ar-15 (you can see it at this site http://www.gunsamerica.com/guns/976281562.htm ). Good gun 7.5' douglas barrel colt parts solid .223 no doubt.
It will stop home preditors and I can switch it for 6.8 deer rifle. _____________________________________________

Posted by: Sgt at February 11, 2006 11:55 PM (nK6Ca)

288 Sibak,

First and formost, i would like to say that my squad leader is from the 101st. Hes the best damn NCO ive ever met, and i have a lot of respect for most 101st guys. So hooah to ya.

Secondly, your facts on the AK are dead on. Chrome lined barrel or not, AK's arent as impervious to abuse and most people think. Ive actually seen an AK with a snapped gas rod (which was also frozen inside the gas chamber)

LOL This guys got me on a roll. He likes to talk shit to the men and boys who actually deal with this shit in real life, rather than learn a thing or two and gain some knowledge, no matter how unuseful it might be under his current conditions (or mommy live-in situation). You couldent have put that any better LOL.

Anyway, ive already put my two cents and mabye a little more on the performance of the kalashnikov vs. the M16. I dont wanna go over it anymore.

haha well said, sibak

cpl k

Posted by: CPL K. at February 13, 2006 10:58 AM (L8r/r)

289 How do you expect anyone to ever take you seriously when you are functionally illiterate? I see for the most part that only sibak and cpl k post on this section, because once other visitors see you are morons they move on to other sites where "real" soldiers post...just as I am about to do. The M-16 is shit!

Posted by: The Truth at February 13, 2006 11:23 AM (kdcCc)

290 the troooooooth ,when are you going to realize that real soldiers do write on this site? i have freinds that have posted info on here in hopes that guys like you will get a clue.also,members of law enforcement have added their opnions as well.i guess you know everything! so go ahead and cower down like i thought you would.if you can't take some heat for your stupid comments we'll miss slappin'you around.hey i got the perfect site you can go on where your kind can play together try www.al jezeera.com sorry for my spelling error again !but, if you ask jeeves or google it i'm sure you will find it!and let us know when the other guys you run into slap you around for your stupid remarks so we can get a good laugh there too!

Posted by: sibak at February 13, 2006 12:44 PM (FPOuk)

291 CPL K, i know you didn't need help slappin' this guy or girl around,i just had too get some myself.one of my coworkers is 101st and he went too iraq about 2 years ago maybe a little longer so i had too give those guys a "what's up" he reads this site but, dosn't have the time and patience to sit and think about this stuff. anyways the guy who posted that info on the 6.8 spc i thought to be interesting i have seen and read a little on that but have not seen alot of ammo on the market yet for that caliber. what is the scoop on this ? hope it's not another 45gap blunder. the 6.8spc sounds like it could fare well in the fight!and what's the skinny on the 77grain otm in 5.56mm by black hills? been a lot of info circulating that it flat out dumps 'em.anyone have any usefull info cause i got ahold of some factory seconds of these and am curious. i went and got a new COLT ar-15 a2 lightweight 1in7 twist just too shoot heavier bullets like that.shit there is so many opoinions on bullet performance now days it's bewildering! i am not limited to FMJ,s so i've gone too hollow points like TAP and 68grain BTHP even though they say it's not an expanding tip it's just the the way certain manufactures actually make the bullet.what's the deal? what do you guys who use this stuff day to day feel what works. by the way i'm only going to use it to kill paper but just want the best out there for my stash.it seems that the surplus federal xm193 ball ammo that i have barks nice is accurate and cleans up rather easily.oh and anyone else reading this the russian .223 sucks for AR's in couldn't get my rifle to cycle it.

Posted by: sibak at February 13, 2006 01:26 PM (FPOuk)

292 Youve gotta watch it. If youre shooting a newer AR-15 with a 1/7 twist rate, I THINK the M193 ball is too light, but i could be thinking of the SS109, which they used for the old M16A1's. I find that M855 works best with my AR that i use privatly. All we use in our service rifles (M4's and M16A4's) are M855 Ball spec. Same with the m249. 72 grains..

The russian laquer coated ammo is a NO GO with AR's. The steel casing will erode your chamber, and the laquer will build up and youll have problems, like failier to extract and such. Yeah, no go on the russian poo.

You wanna know where i get my private ammo around here? If i want to go out and do my own plinking, i buy my ammo from WALMART lol. Gunshops down here are over priced, but you can buy 40 rounds for 5 bucks, which is not bad, and niether is the ammo. Its winchester m193 spec. Works OK.

Anyway, kinda busy. Gotta run.

cpl k

Posted by: cpl k at February 14, 2006 09:02 AM (L8r/r)

293 CPL K
as a matter of fact i do buy the same ammo at walyworld "wal-mart" myself it's good! 55gr that is accurate and clean.yep the russian stuff sticks! cause:lacquer over a steel case it's poop! not enough powder in the case either.looking for some skinny on .45's though anyone have any on kimber's i owned one a while back loved it,thinking of trading a evil pre-ban bushy M-4 for one, somehow i ended up with 5 of 'em and want another .45 i have 2 early colts,a SA,but i really want another kimber custom II any problems that anyone know of with the external extractor on these?

living in a world of sheep

sibak

Posted by: sibak at February 14, 2006 11:40 AM (FPOuk)

294 Hey Sibak, I have 3 .45s, 2 Kimbers and an HK USP fullsize. My Kimbers are: an Ultra CDP II and a Warrior. I love them both, the CDP is super lightweight and the Warrior is great for dropping hammers(double taps), because it's so heavy. Both of them have captured extractors though, my cousin has a a TLE tactical II(don't quote me on that, kimber makes like 65 different 1911s) that has an external extractor and he has'nt had any problems with it after several thousand rounds. That warrior is super accurate, so is the CDP though, although the CDP has a full length guide rod, something that I would like to do away with but I am not going to F-with. Up until I got my warrior, most to the 1911s that I had handled and shot were bushingless and had full length guide rods. Press checking that warrior is cool. Full size 1911s are cool. My USP is badass too. .45s rule. Later man

Posted by: Nick at February 14, 2006 06:17 PM (x1LgB)

295 NICK
right on that's the feedback i was looking for.alot of the guys at the gunshpos wan't to sell and really don't care how many times you have too send a gun you got from them back to get it working right again.
so,before i make the leap i looked at a kimber custom II tle, when i picked her up i knew she was the one.but, i gotta say the warrior is a fine pistola i dig the tactical rail and the sand desert color, the guys had one in black same thing looked and felt way good.
as for the USP i had one and loved it,don't know why i ever got rid of it!but anyways i'll end up with one here soon. good shootin!

Posted by: sibak at February 14, 2006 10:35 PM (FPOuk)

296 I should have known that a site called the Jawa Report couldn't be taken serious.
Obviously this is where the Rejects and Wannabees post.
The Truth is right, and this Solider is moving on.

Posted by: RealSolider at February 19, 2006 02:08 PM (fRLRr)

297 blah,blah,blah, wannabe what buddy? just because some of us are not in the military as you say you are, i'll give you the benefit of the doubt.sounds like the truth finally made a freind.i'm sure you both will have a nice life together,anyways what does being in the military have to do with supreme knowledge as you yourself seem to have about guns?have not seen any posts by you that has stated you know anything about them!so why dont you state a valid reason everyone on here is a wannabe reject and let us marvel at your vast intellect and knowledge "real soldier"

Posted by: sibak at February 20, 2006 11:55 AM (FPOuk)

298 real soldier,

i have too say you take sides with a guy who has earlier on this website who qouted"no wonder you guys can't take control of iraq"what kind of real soldier would side with a POS like that,unless you are a real soldier who is on the side of our enemy.
i was a real soldier and can verify that i am not a wannabee or a reject. i was in the MARINES in vietnam in 1967 and 1968.2LT.,1stBn.,9th Marine Regt.,3rd Marine Division, near Cam Lo RVN,
let me say this that there is some guys probably on this site that are FOS,i am not one of them! i read these sites too support our current troops abroad, and have found that there are alot of idiots out there, and you sound like one.
as for "the truth" let me ask you this. have you ever fired a weapon at anyone? have you ever been fired at?
let me tell you how many times the M-16 has gotten me out of a jam, not given me one.as i have since recently retired, i have alot of time too read crap like yours and debunk it.i do have some real info for you people, about our current service weapon. studies have shown that most of the problems with the M-16 are being reported from the rear. frontline combat troops are not for the most part and very rarely expierencing functional performance issues with the M-16.with our current theatre and its environment proper cleaning and pre combat checks of their weapons are showing that the M-16 is providing excellent combat performance,as with in any combat environment maintanence is first and foremost.
Do you think the enemy does not want his weapon to not perform? they also clean,repair and check their weapons.i did not point out that our enemies in the middle east have been fighting in that environment before firearms were even a thought.they do have many problems as we do.
We have advanced equipment,tactics and logistics that can overcome the basic issue of weapon malfuctions if it is used.
I needed to point out that just because some of our own forces have pointed out issues does not mean that it is a terminal problem and officially our service arm is the problem.
Let me tell you about real combat! not from a political view, from a 1st hand view.For every soldier that has an issue with his weapon there are many others that don't.

Posted by: pepper at February 20, 2006 02:28 PM (FPOuk)

299 pepper,
i have too say i agree with all of that.as well as probably most of us rejects and wannabees i think you've sounded off on that without any problems.as with anything else in this world most problems can be attributed to human error and neglect.there wouldn't be half the junkyards of old worn down crappy cars in this country if people exercized a little TLC on the things they own.especially something they depended on too save their life.
anyways.... nick if your still checking out this site like some of the other wannabees and rejects, i got a kimber custom royal now, and plan to take this thing out for a ride....
let you know how it shoots here soon.

good shoooootin.......!

Posted by: sibak at February 21, 2006 09:21 PM (FPOuk)

300 Cant believe im reading this. How do you guys sleep at night? Yer seriously twisted. Show some compassion. DOnt forget this shit kills people.

And get the fuck out of iraq

Posted by: John Smith at February 27, 2006 11:42 PM (ct4Xw)

301 john,
i sleep very well thank you.show some compassion to who?oh, and thank you for reminding us that guns kill people, we all had forgotten that.why dont you stay on the liberal websites so none of us will waste the time making you look like an idiot.another clinton/gore left over! like i always say to you people ""CLINTON,A GOOD EXAMPLE WHY STUPID PEOPLE SHOULDN'T VOTE""!

Posted by: sibak at February 28, 2006 02:44 PM (FPOuk)

302 Lets not forget the round that the Brits conqured the world with, .303 British (.30

.
Nuff said.

Next about the 9mm vs .45 ACP
Maybe a .45 Gap or even a .40, just to lessen the weight. Gotta keep mobility in mind.

Posted by: terrence pallend at March 03, 2006 06:19 PM (4mQum)

303 terrence
yup,nuff said.the .303 is everywhere and it's done it's job.yeah i'm a big .45acp fan myself, but i happen too respect the 9mm i have had multiple pistols in that caliber.i just got my first .40 a few months back and i happen to have a CCW in my home state and think it's a good comprimise between the two.i would like too see more on the GAP but, it seems like it's not cathin' on. who knows? we'll see huh?

Posted by: sibak at March 07, 2006 08:55 PM (FPOuk)

304 NICK!!!!!!CPL K!!!!!!!
what happend too you guys? did the TROOOOOOTH find you? am i the only one left?shit i guess he got you guys.hhhhhhmmmmmmm i guess i better haul ass before he gets me too. hahahahaha fuck say something fellas!!!!!!!!!!!!!!i have gun stuff i wanta ask you?

Posted by: sibak at March 07, 2006 09:02 PM (FPOuk)

305 Yeah sibak I'm still here, just been hanging out in Houston going to school and working. Done a little shooting here, but almost lost my job because I had a weapon in my vehicle. It's all cool though, time to talk to the NRA because theres no way I am going to travel unarmed. Anyway, what have you got? I know a little.... drop me a line.

Posted by: Nick at March 09, 2006 10:27 PM (x1LgB)

306 nick
hey check out packing.org if you have a CCW, it's called a CPL (concealed pistol license) in washington.packing.org lists alot of local laws where you live and also shows you where your permit is honored in other states,hate to see you get into trouble.i just got mine,i have carried my glock in my car and on me and had no trouble at all.anyways been shooting this kimber royal i piked up and it kicks ass!
i wanted to ask if you carry that CDP II you said you had,wanted to get one. it looks comfortable and what type of rig you got it in?
just moving from CA. i never thought i could legally carry a pistol but i can here and some other states honor WA's permit.
anyways if you dont have a permit get one! if you do check out that website it will help you out with some local and state laws.i think Texas is pretty easy going on that. later dude let me know eh'.........

Posted by: sibak at March 13, 2006 11:13 AM (FPOuk)

307 Hey sibak, it wasn't the state or law enforcement that I had a problem w/, it was my roomate here where my employer has put us up. He wasn't comfortable w/ me having a weapon in the room, could have something to do w/ the fact that he shot himself in the knee a while ago, anyway he is a douche bag w/ a loud mouth. I take my pistol everywhere I can. I have two concealed permits. One for WA state and one for WY, where I live. Texas shares reciprocity w/ WY so I won't have any problems. My companies policy says no firearms on company property, there was a case where a whole bunch of people who were working for Phillips (dont quote me)and lost their jobs over the same deal. My company was cool w/ the way I handled it though, so everything is good and I still have my J O B. As for my holsters, I have three for my 1911s. One was given to me and it's a Safariland paddle holster that rides real high and covers most of the pistol. I dont wear it that often. The second is also a Safariland that rides lower and has an open top. I've carried my CDP alot in this holster, up until last year. My cousin bought a holster for his 1911 but the muzzle stuck out the bottom(it's supposed to) and he didn't like it. So he gave it to me, score because it has become my favorite holster. It is a Blackhawk CQC size 01 and it fits that CDP perfectly. I also carry a couple xtra Wilson Combat mags in a Safariland mag pouch. Anyway, check into that CQC, you'll love it. By the way I hate CA too..Later man

Posted by: Nick at March 15, 2006 07:07 AM (x1LgB)

308 nick,
right on, sounds like you need a new room mate!well at least he didn't shoot himself in the brain pan! the safariland is the one everyone is gabbing about,i think i'll try it out.for the same reason as your cousin i'm going to get a smaller sized 1911 maybe a CDPII,i like the beveled edges.those wilson mags (have a few) work like nothing else,worth the $$$$$$!,hey man your room mate dosn't go under the alias "the truth" does he?anyways i picked up a couple of those HK 30's for my AR's these things are fucking tight! the best i have used except for the BETA C mag, if you have an AR check these out.i'll look into that Blackhawk CQC when i pick up a compact 1911, by the way i have a buddy in sheriden WY,it's the place to be!and as for KALIFORNIA i'm never going back!!! just before i moved i lived in Sacramento, and had a job at city hall doing some HVAC work, what a joke! saw arnie one time at a distance,couldn't get near the big boy at all,didn't want too anyways,they just told us bottom feeders to stay away.anyways bro-take it easy later...........

Posted by: sibak at March 15, 2006 03:18 PM (FPOuk)

309 I stumbled upon this site looking for for socom 2 opinions, but thought I'd tell y'all 'bout my Iraq experience. I just got back from a year at LSA Anaconda (Balad) where I worked for KBR fueling everything that rolls. Being a gun nut I talked to frontline soldiers (and Iraqis and TCNs from all over the world) everyday about everything. About our weapons: all said their M16/M4s worked (fairly) reliably as long as they kept them clean. Note they said fairly. All preferred open sites to anything, but the army makes them use the halo type scopes. A lot said they hesitate firing instinctively for fear of repurcussions (e.g. courtmarshall). Career caliber officers are getting out because of the B.S. (REMFs). I myself had to adhere to some of these insane policies. But for the average troops, I have nothing but even more repect than ever for the professionalism of our guys. I just can't tell ya how much they impressed me. The Iraqis - they're all backward pieces of shit - except the Kurds, who aren't really Iraqis, still backward,but at least friendly to the U.S. The absolutely stupidest thing I saw was most soldiers using shoulder holsters where the barrel is pointing straight back and up at an angle. Everyday at lunch I was staring straight down the barrel. I just couldn't fucking believe it. To not prevent this tells me how fucked up our commanders over there are.
Truth: Turks are the rednecks of the middle-east and ALL are thieves. Looked down on by everyone in that area of the world.
No M16 for me. I've got an older M14. No 9mm. I've got a Sig P220(.45). My daily carry is a S&W 340PD(.357) loaded w/.38+P. Shit, my cell phone weighs more. Anyone got any experience w/ the SOCOM 2 or PTR91. I'm thinkin 'bout getting one of those.

Posted by: scott at March 18, 2006 01:38 AM (F5u0A)

310 But where are the flame-throwers ?

Posted by: tokamak at March 18, 2006 10:42 AM (dTdy0)

311 But where are the flame-throwers ?

Posted by: tokamak at March 18, 2006 10:43 AM (dTdy0)

312 I just can't resist saying this, even though I have only read about half way through the comments. I agree with gunut about 100 percent, and Improbulus Maximus, I think you are pretty much full of sh*t. No one ex-military would brag about their career in it and say all the crap that you are. I think that you could be ex-mil, but that it is unlikely. The .223 bullet used in the M16 and its varients could be considered insufficient, but is good enough for people who can shoot worth a damn. I personally think that your dislike of the AR series is because you prefer the AK, and your bias towards it is clouding your judgement.

Posted by: Larson at March 18, 2006 06:27 PM (0JAn2)

313 tokamak, no flamethrowers but some scouts carry cool silenced M4s. Some of the SAWs have collapsible stocks. The coolest system is a remote .50 cal where the gunner sits behind the humvee driver with a joystick and an LCD screen. They (contractor reps) were installing these @ Anaconda.

Posted by: scott at March 19, 2006 11:23 AM (F5u0A)

314 everything you had to say sat right with me, but not the M249 SAW. i know the M249 that was my baby for over 500 days in iraq. it was not hard to keep her claen just 10 min to 20 min everday and she nevr let me down. and i was not some gay ass fobit, i'm an infantryman and i used that SAW more times than i ues my hot mail.

Posted by: spc.smith at March 21, 2006 03:45 AM (Xv+jw)

315 hey i like your page its pretty cool but i think you should get pictures of the guns so that people know what it looks like.

from,
fatmonkey

Posted by: tyler at March 22, 2006 11:51 AM (gikCp)

316 hey i like your page its pretty cool but i think you should get pictures of the guns so that people know what it looks like.

from,
fatmonkey

Posted by: tyler at March 22, 2006 11:51 AM (gikCp)

317 hey i like your page its pretty cool but i think you should get pictures of the guns so that people know what it looks like.

from,
fatmonkey

Posted by: tyler at March 22, 2006 11:51 AM (gikCp)

318 SCOTT
hey nice too see some new guys writing here,especially military.i still love the hell out of the ar-15 albeit,mine will never see those conditions you guys have.iv'e never had any problems with any of mine.
i'm not saying i won't,so if it means anything i have a SOCOM II i got it about 4 months ago.when i picked it up from the gunshop the salesman told me that i could not shoot commercial ammo!!! what!!! so i went and fired commercial ammo and did not have ANY problems nor have i heard of anyone else...
that was said to me because it was a rumor because of barrel length it needed a higher pressure to cycle.meaning mil-spec ammo.i don't know if anyone else has heard that.mine shoots damn good,a bit of a muzzle flash though. that dosn't mean shit in my o'pinion.it's worth the trade off.i understand from Springfeild Armory that the gas system was tuned for the shorter barrel length to operate with all types of ammo.i'll leave that to you man. mine SHOOTS great,NO PROBLEMS!the accessory rails are nice it's a liitle uncomfortable grabbing it without a forward mount underneath but,it still shoots just fine....hope that helps you out bro.

Posted by: sibak at March 22, 2006 06:27 PM (FPOuk)

319

tyler hows that bro???????

Posted by: sibak at March 22, 2006 06:34 PM (FPOuk)

320

i hope it worked this time trying to post a picture of a m249 saw, i don't think they will let me do that here..........

Posted by: sibak at March 22, 2006 06:41 PM (FPOuk)

321 ahhhhh NUTS!!!
cant post a picture for ya sorry dude,i tried...
Hey larson impotent maximus is all over the net saying the same old garbage,the 5.56mm works everytime i use it.say it plug clean holes through some chevrolet 350 heads,what do you expect from an AK gay guy......i'll use my AR and M1A when it really counts.i mean how many areas in the U.S. can compare the middle east anyways...... f'him and his stupid opinions...

Posted by: sibak at March 22, 2006 06:50 PM (FPOuk)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

November 03, 2005

2 More Smithereen Commandos Experience Premature Evisceration

Two more brave jihadi babyhunters have met Allah early when the carbomb they were building blew up unexpectedly. Unfortunately, the terrorists accidentally killed an innocent Iraqi in the process of removing their diseased DNA from the gene pool.

From a CENTCOM press release:

BAGHDAD, Iraq â€“ Task Force Baghdad dispatched elements to the scene where two terrorists attempting to build a car bomb were killed when the device prematurely detonated in central Baghdad Nov. 2. Elements dispatched included an explosives ordnance disposal team and a patrol from 6th Squadron, 8th Calvary Regiment, 4th Brigade Combat Team.
The explosion also killed an Iraqi civilian and set a nearby house on fire. Iraqi firefighters responded to douse the flames.
The EOD team determined the terrorists had been building the vehicle-carried improvised explosive device using a 122 mm projectile, ball bearings and about 80 pounds of homemade explosives.
During a sweep of the house, the 6-8 Cav. Soldiers found another 122 mm projectile, five hand grenades, three A-47 assault rifles, an RPK machine gun and AK-47 magazines.

Also, near Ramadi:

Troops from the 1st Battalion, 1st Brigade, 7th Iraqi Army Division and Coalition forces engaged a group of 15 terrorists armed with AK-47s and RPG launchers when their patrol was attacked. Troops killed several terrorists during the engagement.
A vehicle loaded with a cache of ordnance was discovered in the vicinity of the initial attack. An inventory produced one machine gun, two automatic rifles, two RPG launchers, over 1,200 rounds of various small arms ammunition, 10 propellant sticks, two license plates, three Iraqi Army uniforms and some documents.

I'm reprinting these stories on the off chance that our loyal, unbiased, non-partisan mainstream media completely ignore them.

Also posted at The Dread Pundit Bluto, the number one site on the 'net involving lame wordplay from "The Princess Bride".

Posted by: Bluto at 02:26 PM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 308 words, total size 2 kb.

1 More pressing news right now is that Fema director_Brown wears Nordstrums apparel. What would the "radical" media find newsworthy of two "freedom fighters" killing themselves?

Posted by: thirdee at November 03, 2005 02:48 PM (Tg551)

2 I'm curious - what's a propellant stick?

Posted by: ericj at November 03, 2005 03:16 PM (hrQvk)

3 "Stop being such a camel's hoohah, Khaleed. Real jihadis don't need to read the instruction manual........"

Two more morons now stand at the gates of the great Sun-Maid factory in the bowels of the earth to receive their dried, fruity reward.

Posted by: Graeme at November 03, 2005 03:41 PM (4zREQ)

4 Graeme, You are hilarious.

Posted by: thirdee at November 03, 2005 03:49 PM (Tg551)

5 OT but still refers to the ROP. There is an eighth day of rioting in France, and the riots seem to be spreading. The police are apparently unarmed or perhaps they were not given firmarms training. In any event, shots were fired at the police, but there was no return fire.

The MSM have yet to use the words Muslim or Islam with respect to the riots, so all most people know is that French youths are rioting against the terrible treatment they receive. No jobs, no respect, no housing, no nothing.

In my opinion a bullet is something they would understand, but I think a point might soon be reached where the Muslims might try something stupid. We shall see!

Posted by: jesusland joe at November 03, 2005 03:50 PM (rUyw4)

6 ericj: As far as I know, a propellant stick is the booster for an RPG that screws into the warhead.

jj: Did you know that Muslims are rioting in Denmark, too? Check out my blog for a link to Viking Observer, who has translated Danish reports into English.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at November 03, 2005 03:57 PM (RHG+K)

7 Boys, ya gotta make sure the arming switch wires are insulated from the fuckitall button wires, but don't take my word for it, please, carry on.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 03, 2005 04:39 PM (0yYS2)

8 They have gone to a place where they dare not say anything bad about the great satan or their in big trouble they will be sent to a place where the fires burn realy realy hot

Posted by: sandpiper at November 03, 2005 08:02 PM (I9Upt)

9
Jihadi Funeral Song:
I'm in pieces, bits and pieces
I'm in pieces, bits and pieces
Since you left me and you said goodbye
I'm in pieces, bits and pieces
All I do is sit and cry
I'm in pieces, bits and pieces
you went away and left me misery
I'm in pieces, bits and pieces
That's the way it'll always be
I'm in pieces, bits and pieces
I'm in pieces, bits and pieces

Posted by: dave at November 03, 2005 10:44 PM (CcXvt)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

October 25, 2005

Drooling Banjos *Updated*
The MSM continues to monitor the body count in Iraq like some warped type of fantasy sports game.
Witness this excerpt from an Associatedantiamerican Press article concerning the Islamotard attack on the Palestine Hotel today:

But the toll among American service members killed in the Iraq war reached 1,997 with the announcement of a Marine killed Sunday during fighting in western Iraq.
Since the beginning of 2005, at least 465 vehicle bombings, including suicide car bombs and vehicles exploded by remote detonations, have killed at least 2,250 people in Iraq.
Too bad these idiots lack any sense of historical perspective, much less decency.
The following are from The Chronology Of World War Two: The Day By Day Illustrated Record 1939-1945:

Military and Civilian Casualties (Allies only)
Killed in action or died of wounds: 11, 237,793
Wounded: 4,015,536
Captured or missing: 7,391,433
Civilian deaths: 35,240,523
The U.S.A. alone:
Killed in action, or died of wounds: 292,131
Wounded: 671,801
Captured or missing: 139,709
Civilian deaths: 6,000
Yes, you read that right. More American civilians died in WWII than have died in the GWOT, which has now gone on longer than WWII, and will continue for many years.
I could care less anymore if the MSM is anti-war or pro-war, but in struggles of freedom vs. tyranny, at least they could offer some balanced perspective.
Fat chance, that.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
They got their wish, the gleeful gibbering has begun:

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - The American military death toll in the Iraq war reached 2,000 Tuesday with the announcements of three more deaths, including an Army sergeant who died of wounds at a military hospital in Texas and a Marine and a sailor killed last week in fighting west of Baghdad.
The 2,000 mark was reached amid growing doubts among the American public about the Iraq conflict, launched in March 2003 to destroy Saddam Hussein's alleged weapons of mass destruction. None was ever found.
The media is doing its level best to demoralize this nation by ruthlessly tallying up the number of dead. They know that the historical knowledge of the average citizen is woefully inadequate. They feed on it, in an attempt to convince them that this war is Vietnam The Sequel.
Therein lies their folly. By assuming that you and me are too stupid to make any connection to the past, they beat the drum of despair.
They shriek 2000 dead!!!! For nothing!!!!!! No WMD!!!!!
Germany, Italy, Japan, Bulgaria, Finland, Hungary, and Romania had no WMD, either, yet this country sacrificed 292,000 of its best and its brightest to defeat the Axis.
If the media is going to use the same tactics in this war that they used to help turn public opinion against the Vietnam war, by magnifying the bad while ignoring the good, then I believe it's up to us bloggers to use history in order to provide some balance to this misinformation.
This post was not about numbers, it was not about "playing bingo" with the dead. I did this post to provide a historical perspective as to what this country was once willing to pay in order to secure its freedom and continued existence. Without that perspective, we run the risk of letting the propagandists of the other side form the picture in people's minds of what this war is about.
And it is more than apt to compare this conflict with WWII. Islamofascism and Nazism are nearly identical in their respective quests. It's even apt to compare this conflict with Vietnam, given that both are rife with spectacular Allied military victories that are twisted and spun to make them seem like defeat.
We owe our knowledge of the truth about Vietnam to diligent historians. Militarily, the United States crushed the enemy. North Vietnam suffered over 1 million casualties in that war. That truth wasn't consumed by the pubic at the time, they ended up demoralized, and were unwilling to see the victory through to the end.
We no longer have the luxury of time, my friends. History needs to be written now, in the face of this hostile media, a political party that no longer stops playing at the waters edge, and a public that consumes it's news in 30 second sound bites.
Posted by: Vinnie at 08:07 PM | Comments (37) | Add Comment
Post contains 708 words, total size 5 kb.

1 Vinnie has it right here...the MSM are just all way too stupid to know there US military history....like this one....during the 1944 Battle of the Bulge which started December 16th and lasted till after Christmas.....aprox a 3 week period....The American forces alone suffered 19,000 causulties.....19,000....in 3 weeks, thats right to all those leftist retard trolls who stop in here......and not even 2,000 yet in how long in Iraq????.....whats that???....2+YEARS!!???!!!......Do you leftists know how many Stalins forces suffered in the assualt on Berlin in 1945???....over HALF A MILLION...did anyone stop their battle with the German army???....NOPE....and no way in hell will America stop in freeing the Iraqi people from the Islamic TERRORISTS...You{leftists, the enemy loving MSM, and the Islamic idiots} can all go to youre well deserved destination....HELL AWAITS

Posted by: THANOS35 at October 25, 2005 12:31 AM (IgomX)

2 http://www.antiwar.com/orig/berga.php?articleid=7081

Posted by: Route Irish at October 25, 2005 02:32 AM (Eh9tH)

3 Because I am a prejudiced exJarhead I prefer Iwo Jima. We lost more than this in one day! I should also point out theat the NYT was up in arms about it in 1944. Read their articles in 1944 and 1945 and you will see thay have not changed much in 60 years. They are way ahead of AP in America hatred; they started bashing America in 1920. But they loved the Bolsheviks.
Suribachi rules.
an old exJarhead

Posted by: Rod Stanton at October 25, 2005 06:20 AM (R3FcZ)

4 Unfortunately comparing bodybag count from one war to the next, is falling directly into the game they want you to play.
Irrespective of the validity of your point, even if the count was twenty people it is a large price to pay.
Two thousand families lives will be changed forever, Husbands, Wives, Fathers, Mothers, Brothers and sisters will never be coming back, forget the numbers game large or small.
The question we have to ask is who is making their sacrifice less? the ones who continually count the numbers, and use those figures to warrant a complete pull-out leaving Iraqi's to be killed by the terrorists in their midst, not only undermining the mission the soldiers died for, but stealing the honor of those who died to complete it.

The point is, 2,000 or 2 dead soldiers we should make sure their sacrifice wasn't in vain.

Posted by: dave at October 25, 2005 07:27 AM (CcXvt)

5 Dave's got it right. A sacrifice is a sacrifice, regardless of the relative size of other sacrifices that may have predated it. You're just obscuring the issue by bringing up WWII.

Posted by: Fargus at October 25, 2005 08:00 AM (ts0WI)

6 perhaps dave is right, but back during WWII there were rules to be followed that the press had to follow....there reports were looked over for any sensitive material and censored if needed....no dead American GI's were allowed to be shown in pictutes to the American public....sure dead enemy soldiers were fine but no GI's and thats fine and is how it should be....if the press tried all the crap they do now , their offices would have been raided by the FBI and all those enemy supporting reporters,photographers and editors would have faced charges of treason....they may have been allowed some lenency but not what they absuse these days and its ridiculuos what the press LIES and TWISTS about....ive never seen such horrible "reporting" if you can even call it that anymore...its more like some fantasy and science fiction reports....at least back during WWII the reporters and photographers went right into the action with the GI's and could face capture and death...these days the majority of them hide back at the hotels and get "reports" and the "facts" from the enemy terrorists and their supporters....look at what Walter Cronkite and Ernie Pyle did during WWII....they went right up to the front lines, not hide in some chauteu back in Paris during the entire war and make up reports or recieve propaganda from Hitler and use that as the truth......its very sad and sickening what the press does now....they shouldnt be allowed to hide behind the freedom of the press when what they report are either totally made up stories or ones that support the terrorists....traitors all....they should be shot when its so obvious they have lied that a blind man could tell that its a lie.....thats why i hardly even look at the papers anymore...i get my news here online where i can cross reference stories and the idiots at the MSM dont seem to know that we have that power now...dont they ever learn???

Posted by: THANOS35 at October 25, 2005 09:12 AM (IgomX)

7 All durring WWII the MSM did report on the critics of the Democratic Regime. The Repunlicans were quite vociferous on what they saw as being wromg including both waste, misguided strategies, and high body counts.The reason our country is the best is because of dissent, not in spite of it. Being against moonbat dissent is unAmerican.

Posted by: john Ryan at October 25, 2005 09:21 AM (ads7K)

8 I have to agree with Dave. As long as we make such comparisons they'll keep comparing this war as well to Vietnam, WWII and others. This war has it's own context which should never be confused with any other. It is unique. Counting the dead should only be applied to the enemy. And the MSM will never do that. It would look like we're winning.

I had plenty to say about the anti-war link above too.

Posted by: Oyster at October 25, 2005 09:27 AM (fl6E1)

9 Okay, so let me get this straight. Dissent is pro-American, but being against it is un-American. I'm sorry, but that cannot be said in such general terms and be taken seriously.

Posted by: Oyster at October 25, 2005 09:31 AM (fl6E1)

10 How dare you use facts, numbers, and logic, you zionist pig!!! Don't you know that's racist? BTW, I love how these idiot liberals pop in, excrete a link to a propaganda site that even a Kommisar couldn't believe, and disappear. Hey libtards, why don't you state your position and frame a logical argument? Oh, sorry, I forgot, libtards are incapable of logic, or even coherent strings of cognitivity. That, and the fact that the use of logic has been deemed officially racist.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at October 25, 2005 10:05 AM (0yYS2)

11 We have no media. The only thing left is a bunch of silly prats playing a stupid game. They have sided with the enemy, therefore they are now the enemy.

Posted by: jesusland joe at October 25, 2005 10:13 AM (rUyw4)

12 I don't have time to do an update right now, but some of you seemed to have missed the point of this post.

Posted by: Vinnie at October 25, 2005 10:29 AM (Kr6/f)

13 i get it Vinnie...i know all that the US and British armed forces have done for the Iraqi citizens.....built new schools, power stations, water supplies, food supplies....i know that and yet the MSM REFUSES to even mention it...its all BAD BADA BAD according to the scums in the liberal,leftists media and i for one am sick of it and dont get newspapers anymore...they arent getting my money so they can carry on with their disgustiong agenda of destroying America and either killing us all or enslaving us all...the MSM and the Islamicretards are all in bed with each other in one huge orgy of death and destruction

Posted by: THANOS35 at October 25, 2005 10:39 AM (IgomX)

14 Vinnie:
I don't believe I missed the point of the post, indeed it is all too clear, I even said that the premise is correct, however the amount of soldiers killed "bingo" you're playing right now, only enforces the lefts opinion, it doesn't crumble it. Indeed they're using grim figures to justify an opinion. I'd rather not play the game.

Posted by: dave at October 25, 2005 11:12 AM (CcXvt)

15 Go Dave!

Right on! Also note - we are not repeating the mistake of the past with the stupid obsession with enemy "body counts". The MSM hates this new approach.

Posted by: hondo at October 25, 2005 01:08 PM (ymtSt)

16 Let me think about that, dave.

...

Nope, wrong again.

Posted by: Vinnie at October 25, 2005 02:17 PM (Kr6/f)

17 Sorry John, you're dead wrong. Dissent isn't necessarily patriotic. Giving aid and comfort to the enemy isn't dissent, it's treason. Arguing about the best way to crush the enemy is dissent, but arguing against crushing the enemy is treason. See the logic? I, for example, don't agree with most of Bush's policies, but he's the man we elected to do the damned job, not Hanoi John or any other traitor, so you need to just get over it.
The fact is that liberals want America to lose. They love to see dead Americans on television because they think it legitimizes their opposition to Bush and all his policies, opposition which is founded in nothing more than hatred and a burning desire to avenge Clinton. Liberals should all be killed, because treason is the most unforgivable of crimes, and treason lives in the heart of every liberal.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at October 25, 2005 04:18 PM (0yYS2)

18 Just another day. A cheap excuse to make a story.

Posted by: Howie at October 25, 2005 09:24 PM (D3+20)

19 Dave,

The point is that it's not the Soldiers, Sailors, and Marines complaining. It's an ignorant segment of the US population (distinct from the treasonous element who seek political gain by sabotaging the war effort). They require education. Vinnie is providing it.

By the logic of the anti-war crowd, we should not have declared war on Germany and Italy after Pearl Harbor, and every man who died in Europe "died for nothing".

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at October 25, 2005 09:44 PM (RHG+K)

20 Bluto, perhaps you read a different article than me, because the one I read this morning only stood to compare a grisly bodybag count?

As I said, I do not disagree with the point Vinnie made, however rationalizing dead vs. dead is not exactly productive, indeed "only" eighteen American soldiers died in Mogadishu, were they somehow less of a sacrifice?

To focus on the Leftist celebration of the 2000 "Grim Milestone" and then turn round and say "Well in WII more than that died in one day" is that a better rational?

My point is, it's a better argument to make that we should stay the course in the relevation of two-thousand soldiers deaths, pulling out would not only make their deaths pointless, but abandon Iraqi's to the terrorists, to make their bloodsick caliphate.

However, if you like i the other opinion, then that's fine too, thats why we're expressing our own ideas.

Posted by: dave at October 25, 2005 10:59 PM (CcXvt)

21 Dave, yet again you fail to see the point. Even after I spent considerable time elaborating on it in the updated portion.

It's not a grisly bodybag comparison, dave, it's an effort to provide some perspective to what the media is portraying to those whose interest in the subject is tenuous at best.

Dave, it's the media who are rationalizing dead vs. dead. They are the ones screaming "quagmire!!!" And they're doing their best to make this war seem irrational, just as with 'Nam.

Don't give me that Mogadishu shit, dave, really. "Are they less of a sacrifice?" Why don't you ask Clinton, obviously, by not bringing the might of the United States to bear on Somalia, he thought they were, but you bringing it up is utterly irrelevant to this post.

"My point is, it's a better argument to make that we should stay the course in the relevation of two-thousand soldiers deaths, pulling out would not only make their deaths pointless, but abandon Iraqi's to the terrorists, to make their bloodsick caliphate."

So tell me, dave, how do you make your point? From what basis does your argument evolve? Do you just say, "yeah, we have 2000 killed, but we need to stay the course." Why? Why do we need to stay the course, dave? What's in it for us, dave? Hm? We don't live in Iraq, what's the point of our kids dying there? Who gives a shit if Iraq lives under a bloodsick [sic] caliphate? What does a free Iraq give us in return? Why bother?

There is a cost to war, dave, and if we want this country to remain convinced that the cost is worth it, we would do well to remind ourselves of the costs that we have paid previously.

You dishonor the sacrifices of these men and women, dave, by failing to honor their place in history. For you, it's a grisly bodybag comparison. You cheapen their deaths with your hyper-emotionalism.

Go back to school, dave, and learn your history, then maybe you'll be able to honor the dead properly, not by knee jerk reaction, but by viewing their sacrifice with the honor and dignity that it deserves, and with respect to those sacrificed before them.

And if you still don't get it, I would suggest you apply for a job as an AP reporter.

Posted by: Vinnie at October 26, 2005 12:04 AM (Kr6/f)

22 Vinnie:
Did you work out the media is biased all on your own? congratulations -- perhaps we should nominate you for a Pulitzer, or at the very least a medal for spotting-the-bleeding-obvious.

The MSM continues to monitor the body count in Iraq like some warped type of fantasy sports game.
Yes, you read that right. More American civilians died in WWII than have died in the GWOT, which has now gone on longer than WWII, and will continue for many years.

Which one of your posts am I to not take as a comparison, because in your first one you post a list of KIA's and killed Citizens in one war, and talk about Iraq then summerize with More American civilians died in WWII than have died in the GWOT

I guess we can't all be as gifted as you in reading the clarity of your own posts? The very fact the first two, of three posts seem to take your post to mean there was merit in comparing bodycounts:

Vinnie has it right here...the MSM are just all way too stupid to know there US military history....like this one....during the 1944 Battle of the Bulge which started December 16th and lasted till after Christmas.....aprox a 3 week period....The American forces alone suffered 19,000 causulties.....19,000....in 3 weeks, thats right to all those leftist retard trolls who stop in here......and not even 2,000 yet in how long in Iraq????
[..]
Because I am a prejudiced exJarhead I prefer Iwo Jima. We lost more than this in one day!

I guess they also missed your hallowed point too?

Posted by: dave at October 26, 2005 12:53 AM (CcXvt)

23 IM it sounds like you want to fight a civil war HERE again. Kill all Americans who are all left of some point on the political spectrum that you pick ? lol Well that sounds not very ummmm reasonable. Communism is nor really much of a threat now is it ? Quite frankly I worry a lot more now a days about thieves in Washington stealing my money rather than the Red Chinese or Cubans. I have been around long enough to have seen both the republicans and the democrats swap clothes.As far as moonbats of either the extreme left or the ectreme right I kinds think they are funny. But I am an optimist and I DO have a lot of faith in my country.

Posted by: john Ryan at October 26, 2005 01:14 AM (ads7K)

24 Hey ya'll. The Greyroosters back. Had a productive roadtrip. nough said. Patriots 2. Muslim huggers 0.
Problem was that last week when I returned to St. Louis, Mo. my chest felt funny. Like a pressure that didn't make sense. Went to Doctor for stress test. Flunked. Then to my doctor in Slidell, La. A short confersation with the St Louis Cardio. resulted in me in the operating room for a Quad by-pass. Sometimes life can be a bitch when you have a few bucks in the bank. Joking. Maybe! Medical science in America is tops. Damn I love this country. Up in 1 day, home in 5 days and mowing pastures on my Kybota in 6 days. Only in America.
Looking at Waveland, Bay St. Louis and Pass christian, and Bay St Louis Ms, just makes me sick. Ya'll have to understand that Pass Christian, Ms was one of my favorite places in the world. Gorgeous antibellun homes on the beach 100 years old. IT AIN'T THERE ANYMORE. Just concrete slabs with laundry, cars and boats in the few trees left. My home is gone. Along with all the things I have been saving for my children and grandchildren. How do you replace pictures of your parents and grandparents when they are no longer with this world.
Time to cowboy up. Told the wife I'm heading south come Friday to rebuild better than before. Never liked that house anyway. Damn thing faced the east and the morning sun was a pain. New one will face the south.
May all you patriots continue the fight. The rest may continue to kiss my ass. The greyrooster is fixing to get his second wind. The way I figure it took me 64 years to plug the arteries up. Give me another 20 years and I'll set things right. Stand tall, ya'll.

Posted by: Greyrooster at October 26, 2005 01:22 AM (ywZa8)

25 http://action.aclu.org/torturefoia/released/102405/

Posted by: Route Irish at October 26, 2005 02:30 AM (Eh9tH)

26 Since you didn't bother to answer any of my questions, dave, I won't bother to respond. I am getting a laugh, however, out of your obtstinate insistence on telling me what I think.

Posted by: Vinnie at October 26, 2005 07:10 AM (Kr6/f)

27 Vinnie:
Questions? I saw some sort of lame "You dishonor the Soldiers" rhetoric, the kind that some moonbat might come up with, followed by some sort of attack on my grasp of history, which as I had not posted any historical reference, or in fact mentioned history at all, you have no ability to judge -- nice try though.

It's not my fault you lack the ability to make a concise article that everyone else can understand, but don't let facts get in the way.

Posted by: dave at October 26, 2005 07:57 AM (CcXvt)

28 Who made you the spokesman for everyone else? After the update, you're the only one bitching about it.

I will grant you that making those assumptions was the wrong thing to do, but it was late, and I was tired and more than a little annoyed.

Now, dave, we're through with this. Try to remember, in the future, dude, it's just a blog.

Have a nice day!

Posted by: Vinnie at October 26, 2005 09:51 AM (Kr6/f)

29 Vinnie,

Maybe we should give Dave a password and let him try this shit. Then we can shoot holes in em all day. Keep it up Vinnie, I got the post.

Dave if you blog post your URL once in a while.

Posted by: Howie at October 26, 2005 10:22 AM (xqi1g)

30 Greyrooster,

Welcome back, and I am glad to find you in the best of health. My wife's family is from New Hebron, Ms. and I have spent several weeks of almost every summer at her grandmother's old houseplace. We would always go down to Biloxi and stay there, but with the gambling interests and all the traffic, we decided to stay in Bay St. Louis two years ago. I am sorry to here almost everything is gone. What a shame! Do you know if the Jefferson Davis home survived the hurricane? We always liked to go there to.

Missed you while you were gone, have had a fuss or two, nothing that couldn't be handled, but am old enough to appreciate all the help I can get. Ha!

Continue in good health and the best of luck in all your endeavors.

Posted by: jesusland joe at October 26, 2005 10:29 AM (rUyw4)

31 Hey rooster Hope it was not that trip to the resturaunt that did that. Glag you are better. The Jawa is enough to give anyone a clogged artery.

Posted by: Howie at October 26, 2005 11:07 AM (D3+20)

32 Quothe John Ryan:
"IM it sounds like you want to fight a civil war HERE again."

Sure, why not. Every house needs a good cleaning now and then, and ours is full of vermin.

"Kill all Americans who are all left of some point on the political spectrum that you pick?"

Nah, just the ones who support our enemies. You can be as looney as you like, but once you start supporting our enemies, it's time for a hanging.

"lol Well that sounds not very ummmm reasonable."

Very little is accomplished by reasonable people.

"Communism is nor really much of a threat now is it?"

You're very naive, aren't you? Ever hear of North Korea and Red China and their nuclear arsenals?

"Quite frankly I worry a lot more now a days about thieves in Washington stealing my money rather than the Red Chinese or Cubans."

So you're only capable of recognizing one threat at a time?

"I have been around long enough to have seen both the republicans and the democrats swap clothes."

And you think that everything one party says is a lie, and the other is gospel, right? You sound like a Roosevelt socialist to me.

"As far as moonbats of either the extreme left or the ectreme right I kinds think they are funny. But I am an optimist and I DO have a lot of faith in my country."

I don't, because of people like you who want to pretend everything's okay. We're living in what could be the last days of Western civilization as we've known it, and people like you want to play political games. In case you haven't noticed, there is a global war against civilization being carried on by muslims from every country and all walks of life. They want nothing less than to destroy everything that we have built and to exterminate us, and fools like you only care about indicting Karl Rove.
Do you realize that fewer people now than ever before have any faith in our government? Do you realize that the government's ability to fight terroism is being hamstrung by the ACLU and other groups, whose long-stated goals have been to turn America into a Communist country? You poor, stupid simpletons don't even realize the threat we face, so you continue to behave like spoiled brats, crying about free health care and crap like that, while our soldiers are dying every day in the fight against the enemy. That's why liberals should all be shot.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at October 26, 2005 11:12 AM (0yYS2)

33 Howie:
I do not own a weblog.
Although if I did I wouldn't think my articles were beyond reproach, and nor should you. I enjoy reading all of the guest posters here, however if I disagree I will call you on it.

Sorry for the inconvenience

Posted by: dave at October 26, 2005 12:11 PM (CcXvt)

34 Jesusland: My son in law tried to get to the coast between Biloxi and Gulfport but they had it blocked off to sightseers. Don't know how the Jeff Davis place fared. The Grand Casino is across the street from where is was. The President Casino is sitting on top of what's left of the Holiday Inn. Mother nature placed the Casinos where they should have been to begin with. All bridges at Bay St Louis are gone. Next week I plan to take my boat down the Pearl River to the gulf. Then I can run to Waveland, Pass Christian, Bay St Louis, Gulfport and Biloxi. I understand Waveland and Pass Christian aren't there anymore. I'll get a view from the water and take pictures.
My place is a mess. I got tired of my wife and daughters going thru the remains, so I hired a track hoe and dozer and had it all buried. Not a trace left of a 75 year old colonial. Had a crew cut up the downed trees and move them with dozers. What the storn didn't tear up the dozers did. Place looks like a war zone.
Oh well, Now's the time to do it right the first time.
Can't find a hotel or rent a house in 100 miles. Frankly I wish the storm chasers and Fema would go leave and let us work out our problems. At least we would have motels to stay in. Fema is giving away so much money no one will work. I bought a mobile home to live in until I can rebuild. They call it a manufactured house. I call it a trailer. Switching from Wild Turkey to beer. Trailer trash at last.
Scott said he would take emergency leave and come home. I said why? The farm looks like Iraq so might as well stay there.
I have a close friend in the construction business. He is paying unskilled laborers $250.00 per day working 7 days a week. Can't find any help. Fema is paying pickup owners $3.75 per mile to bring travel trailers down from Indiana. They say they need 120,000 at Baton Rouge staging area.
800 miles @$3.75 per mile is $3000.00 per day. One day up, one day back. $1500.00 per day for driving your pickup. Not bad.
One of my neighbors got a job as an inspector for Fema. After a trailer is set in place and hooked up he looks at it. Says he's making $3100.00 per week and they pay him $90.00 per day for using his old pickup.
I wish to say thanks to all you hard working people paying the bill for this.

Posted by: Greyrooster at October 27, 2005 01:11 PM (M7kiy)

35 I heard the Davis home survived with lots of damage and the contents were pretty much lost. Especially paintings and paper records. Lots of history lost bu thte old place was built you know then they built things right.

Posted by: Howie at October 27, 2005 01:17 PM (D3+20)

36 Damn I ready to quit now amnd go make some bucks.

Posted by: Howie at October 27, 2005 01:45 PM (D3+20)

37 greyrooster

glad to see your ok you have to take things easy and not get so excited lol

Posted by: Sparky at October 30, 2005 10:54 AM (F1nba)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Was The Fire In His Belly Stoked By Saddam's Oil?
Anti-War MP Accused of Lying About Oil-for-Food Payoffs
Ferociously anti-war British Minister of Parliament George Galloway now stands accused of having profited from the oil-for-food program and lying about his involvement to the US Senate. From the Guardian (UK):
The MP George Galloway angrily rejected fresh allegations last night from a US senate investigation that he lied under oath about Saddam Hussein's multimillion-pound oil-for-food programme.
more...
Posted by: Bluto at 12:00 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 242 words, total size 2 kb.

1 oh how i hope they still hold exacutions in England for traitors to the Crown.....buh bye George Galloway......

Posted by: THANOS35 at October 25, 2005 12:43 AM (IgomX)

2 I'll reserve judgement until the documents are presented as proof, I'm sure in the DU world this document will be as fake as the Zaqawi letters, but I'll look forward to seeing it non-the-less.

Posted by: dave at October 25, 2005 08:35 AM (CcXvt)

3 I'm not going to behave like a moonbat and charge him as guilty before proven innocent, but it sure doesn't look good for ol' Georgie boy. Those at DU and Kos are declaring him a super-patriot and wish to bestow American citizenship on him. He's their hero. Still trying to wrap my brain around that one. Funny how anyone on "their side" is a victim of false accusations and anyone on the right should do 100 years hard labor before they're even charged.

Here's how I see Galloway. The pictures ay it all.

Posted by: Oyster at October 25, 2005 09:47 AM (fl6E1)

4 Who votes for a stronger punishment for Galloway than we gave to our own citizens who dealt illegally with Saddam? I do for one. Midway Oil of Reston VA was convicted and fined only 250,000 dollars for kickbacks of 440,000 dollars to Saddam. And does anyone remember who the prime contractor contractor was to rebuild Saddam's southern oil fields after Gulf War I ?

Posted by: john Ryan at October 25, 2005 10:45 AM (ads7K)

5 Oyster gets one point for linknificence.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at October 25, 2005 10:49 AM (0yYS2)

6 Let's see John, would that be CHIMPY CHIMPY CHIMPY McHELLIBACON???

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at October 25, 2005 10:52 AM (0yYS2)

7 what is it with the lefts love/hate afair with haliburton???...they have nothing better than that???....what a bunch of freakin losers....one tracked mind wont get you anywhere but an early grave, john, if you let the islamotards win and get their bloody hands on you for one of their sacrifices to their bloody pagan moon and war god....have fun, cause they sure as hell aint gettting me...better to die on ones feet than to die on ones knees

Posted by: THANOS35 at October 25, 2005 11:19 AM (IgomX)

8 Hah justice is happening and the nasty GEORGE GALLAWAY is getting his i hope they throw the book at him OFF WITH HIS HEAD

Posted by: sandpiper at October 25, 2005 02:35 PM (6rkkO)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

October 21, 2005

Not Ramsey Clarke Found Shot
The lawyer who was kidnapped yesterday has been found dead:

A lawyer who was defending an associate of Saddam Hussein has been found dead after being abducted in Baghdad.
It's puzzling why they'd go after the defense attorneys, but, maybe it's because they can't get to anyone else:

Four of the five judges and most of the prosecution lawyers have remained anonymous for safety reasons.
The names of the chief judge and the top prosecutor were the only ones revealed.
The defence team's identities were not kept secret, and Saddam Hussein's top lawyer, Khalil Dulaimi, said many had been threatened.
The government has now offered protection to any defence lawyer who wants it.
Dunno, terrorists aren't exactly known for their intellectual prowess.

Also at Ace's
Posted by: Vinnie at 10:49 AM | Comments (17) | Add Comment
Post contains 130 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Seems to me this is just to upset the trial progress. If Saddam goes on trial that takes attention away from the terrorists. Also some guy is scheduled to testify Sunday due to cancer he may not live. Who knows.

Posted by: Howie at October 21, 2005 11:22 AM (D3+20)

2 I think the terrorists are afraid that Saddam may spill the beans on them in exchange for his life. He knows names and faces of the leaders of the "insurgency", and he knows where the money is hidden, or at least where it used to be hidden, namely Syria, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia. I have no doubt that those three backward dictatorships are actively supporting the efforts to destabilize Iraq, and will do anything to stop it from succeeding as a free, democratic state.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at October 21, 2005 11:43 AM (0yYS2)

3 ooorrrr, this wasn't carried out by any anti coalition terrorists. Just retribution from locals for defending the tyrant.

Posted by: n at October 21, 2005 12:05 PM (OqZ3M)

4 My first thought was the retribution angle too.

Posted by: -keith in mtn. view at October 21, 2005 12:36 PM (T85lV)

5 Could be Saddam dissatified with the quality and committment of his defense. If so - I can understand that. I think we all would like to fire an attorney once in a while.

Just having fun with this.

Posted by: hondo at October 21, 2005 01:04 PM (bayez)

6 I remember the scene in Team America where lil' Kim shoots his translator for failing to get his point across.

Its tough working for such a demanding boss/client.

Posted by: hondo at October 21, 2005 01:08 PM (bayez)

7 Hey, So it wasn't Ramsey Clark . . IT WAS A LAWYER!

That's good enough for me!

Posted by: large at October 21, 2005 02:57 PM (Ny1Tj)

8 Large,

HeHe. One down and how many to go?

Posted by: jesusland joe at October 21, 2005 04:35 PM (rUyw4)

9 It wasnt RAMSEY CLARKE or was it J.TONY SERA or many of the most infamous lawyers around and it certanly was,nt CLARENCE DARROW he,s dead jim

Posted by: sandpiper at October 21, 2005 05:10 PM (n7v4a)

10 DEAD!
OBJECTION!!
OVER-RULED!!!

The Defense Rests!

Posted by: JackAssFestival at October 21, 2005 09:08 PM (AHkcz)

11 I wouldn't declare the 'insurgents' stupid so quickly. IF they did do this, it'd be to make the case with their marginal supporters that no-one can get a fair trial and that the new gov't is corrupt, "killing defense counsel to ensure a victory for the prosecution" (or some such claim). It doesn't take much to make a conspiracy claim stick.

BUT, the retribution from the Kurds has only begun. They will certainly exact a stunning toll for what they endured. If "I" had been a Baathist party loyalist, I'd have either been doing all I could to prevent the new power structure or get some plastic surgery and a ticket to France.

Posted by: Yoda at October 21, 2005 10:06 PM (M7kiy)

12 Vinnie - I haven't been able to scroll Jawa without cracking up on your title to this post. Kudos.

Posted by: Mike at October 21, 2005 11:17 PM (6krEN)

13 Thanks, Mike.

Yoda, the "insurgents" are taking on the United States of America.

They're not all that bright.

Posted by: Vinnie at October 22, 2005 12:05 AM (Kr6/f)

14 Yoda, the "insurgents" are trying to fight a guerilla war, which requires a delicate touch which they most certainly do not have, while simultaneously trying to fight a war of terror and intimidation against their fellow muslims. They can't have it both ways, because a guerilla war requires the support of a majority of the people, which they also do not have. They are losing and will continue to lose.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at October 22, 2005 05:57 PM (0yYS2)

15 Very much with you guys, I agree.

In the big picture / long haul, the 'insurgents' are engaged in a futile effort. (below). I was only referring to the single tactical act regarding Saddam's trial.
And even at that, I'd place 70% odds that the co-defendant's lawyer got what is a tiny taste of the Kurds' payback, that it wasn't even the insurgents who did it. Butcha never know, and as an insurgent tactic it's not completely mindless.

What the 'insurgents' (that actually means Syria)are doing big picture IS pathetically stupid, besides the horrible evil of killing your own countryman / kin to try to win anything out of them.
This road they're on gets them:
1. As Vinnie points out they're taking on exactly the wrong enemy (USA) -at least unless we get a Europussy Gov't such as Kerry is salivating to install here,
2. They're keeping the shooting gallery active (which was a critical objective for Bush: just let the fools keep running towards US weaponry and kill them by the thousands there vs here). The longer it stays active, the more of them we kill, the deeper we dig into Al-Quida's means, and the more protections we institute.
3. They've finished DEFINING Islam as a murderous, rabid religion since as they keep killing, the "moderate" and "peaceful" Muslims do NOTHING to stop them. Now it's clear to the whole world that ISLAM = MURDER. Even the "peaceful" followers will only occasionally give words (not actions) give a coy "criticism" of murders, words that always include exemptions that make it clear that it's OK to kill non-Muslims and that they're really only objecting to murders OF Muslims.
--This needs to finish running it's course so that even the slowest of US Liberals get the picture. (It WILL run it's course: France and Germany will be on fire in 2 years as the murdering Muslims in their slums break out into killing in Europe's streets). The US Liberals will get the picture after a cyanide bomb goes off in a major US city. Not before that, though.
They put ALL their cards on the square titled "we can make the American people give up". The test here is whether our Liberals + Press can give them enough help to succeed.
As long as we have a dense simpleton like Bush in office we'll stay the fight and wear them down / break them down. (Bush isn't real bright, but he lives by a couple of simple principles such as "Don't tread on me", and that our Parents and Grandparents did't fight and win 2 World Wars to have us bow to THIS).

Posted by: Yoda at October 22, 2005 07:10 PM (6krEN)

16 Make a deal with Saddam. We will put him back in office and support him if he agrees to rid Iraq of islamic nutsos.

Posted by: BigAl at October 23, 2005 06:25 PM (6krEN)

17 We should never have bothered Saddam in the first place. If he wanted to invade Kuwait, or SA, or whoever else, as long as the oil kept flowing, was it really our concern? The fact is, the first Gulf War was about keeping the corrupt monarchies of SA and Kuwait in power, because of the depth of ownership they have in our government.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at October 24, 2005 01:28 PM (0yYS2)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Waking Up From The Darkness

"Oh, he's a monster. Pure psychopath. So rare to capture one alive."
It's just a guess, but the trial of Saddam Hussein may go a long way towards making Iraq a much better place.
But, as with all healing, the wounds still fester, and need cleansing from time to time:

Why do you think the trial was fine? It was pathetically weak and you cannot imagine the pain I felt when I saw the bloody murderer being allowed to speak and to defy the court. I could see the smiles on the faces of the Baâ€™athists and the Arab mercenary who speak of Saddam as a brave lion, havenâ€™t you heard what Raghad said on Al-Arabiya? She said: I never saw a greater or a braver father.
She killed me again, killed me and my mother whom Saddam stole her life. I was small when my dad was murdered but I see sadness in my motherâ€™s eyes everyday, that woman had to bury her father, brother and husband.
I cannot celebrate justice now because to me justice means that Saddam must be cut into pieces and burned with his gang and familyâ€¦justice means that the suffer like we suffered.
More:

You know, we never thought of carrying arms and fighting, we were good citizens serving the country with the knowledge and degrees we earned with hard work and we never imagined we would be forced one day to carry arms and battle the Baâ€™athists in the mountains and deserts but itâ€™s Saddam and his oppressive regime that left us with no other choiceâ€¦
Iâ€™m telling you this and Iâ€™m free again and Iâ€™m proud of what I and my family did while that miserable coward is sitting in a cage and about o beg for mercy.
Yes I do feel that justice is winningâ€¦.
This is why it is a pointless exercise, both in brain power and in time, to read the Mainstream Media's coverage of Saddam's trial.
The AP doesn't talk to these people, Reuters doesn't talk to these people, none of them do.
The Internet in general, and bloggers in particular, are the ones getting stories like this out. It's intrepid souls like Mohammed and Omar doing it. It's people like Jane, championing the plight of Yemenis, like Stefania, and Bridget going to bat for Iranians.
The folly of today's dictator is that they love shiny new technology, but are unable to comprehend that that very technology may lead to their downfall. No longer do the oppressors control the printing press, for once the first computer is hooked into the 'net, the world becomes the printing press. And no dictator in history has ever succeeded in conquering the entire world.
Totalitarian thugs aren't going to be defeated from those of us commenting on their actions from the outside looking in, although we can do our part by helping to spread the word. They are going to be defeated by those brave souls who dare to speak the truth from within.
Posted by: Vinnie at 01:49 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 507 words, total size 3 kb.

1 I'll tell you, if he gets a life sentence and lives in relative comfort for the rest of his life, there are going to be some very angry Iraqis (not to mention many of us too). He deserves the death penalty. Ideally, he should get death for each trial and the sentence not to be carried out until each trial has played out and each of those families he stole from get to see justice done on their part as well. Too many dictators simply flee to another country and spend the rest of their lives in quiet anonymity and luxury. It's time to see real justice done.

Posted by: Oyster at October 21, 2005 04:37 AM (YudAC)

2 Oyster:
no doubt if that is the case, Saddam will be kicking back in the South of France?

Posted by: dave at October 21, 2005 07:47 AM (CcXvt)

3 Either that or George Galloway would offer Saddam his vacation home in Spain.

Posted by: Oyster at October 21, 2005 08:13 AM (fl6E1)

4 ummm. I understand Miami is also home to quite a few of our local western hemisphere dictators.

Posted by: john Ryan at October 21, 2005 12:02 PM (ads7K)

5 He should have never been taken alive, just like his sons. Any American commander should have known that he would do nothing more than cause major problems. He should have been allowed to die fighting.

Posted by: jesusland joe at October 24, 2005 09:20 AM (rUyw4)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

October 20, 2005

Saddam's Lawyer Kidnapped In Iraq
Fox:

BAGHDAD, Iraq â€” Ten masked gunmen kidnapped the lawyer for one of Saddam Hussein's co-defendants Thursday, police said.
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, ladies and germs, but no, it wasn't Ramsey Clarke.
We're still stuck with him.
Posted by: Vinnie at 03:23 PM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 47 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Well just because it wasn't Ramsey Clark doesn't mean we can't keep hope, does it?

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at October 20, 2005 03:42 PM (0yYS2)

2 The job is open if Ramsey wants it.

Posted by: hondo at October 20, 2005 04:10 PM (bayez)

3 I wish the head hackers would get hold of old Ramsey. Can you just imagine how the stock of the US military would go up on the liberal side? Please rescue the statesman, they would say, he was on a humanitarian mission in Iraq. Just wanted to make sure Saddam received the justice due him. Brother, Ramsey better not be anywhere close if Saddam received the justice due him!

Posted by: jesusland joe at October 20, 2005 04:38 PM (rUyw4)

4 Anyone else find it rather, say, suspect?

Posted by: William Teach at October 20, 2005 06:00 PM (eSZb/)

5 READ MY POEM I WROTE

"KONFUSION"

MOHAMMED WAS A CONFUSED PEDOPHILE
ISSUE THE FATWA AGAINST ME!
THERE IS NO DENIAL
MOHAMMED WAS CONFUSED WITH HIS SEXUALITY.
HOW ABOUT ALLAH, THE "GOD" WHO LOVES
GIVING 72 VIRGINS TO A MURDERER IN PARADISE ABOVE...
KORAN IS ABOUT MADE UP, IT PROMOTES NO PEACE
KILL THE JEWS AND CHRISTIAN IT PREACHES
THE WAR AGAINST INNOCENTS MUST NEVER CEASE.
THEN THERE IS BIN LADEN. WHO GOT IN BED WITH SADDAM.
THEY'RE ABOUT AS GAY AS HAMAS, ANSAR-AL-SUNNAH...AND OTHER EXTREME GROUPS OF ISLAM...
THEY'RE ABOUT THE HATRED. THEY'RE ABOUT THE BOMB
STRAPPED TO A 19 YEAR OLD, WHO KILL CHILDRENS AND MOMS.
WHAT CAN WE SAY? WHAT CAN WE DO?
WE CAN COUNT ON THEIR RIGHTS BEING DEFENDED...BY LAWYERS OF THE A.C.L.U

Posted by: DJ BILLY at October 20, 2005 08:35 PM (RS4Fz)

6 big round of applause for DJ Billy....cool little poem....bravo

Posted by: THANOS35 at October 20, 2005 11:03 PM (IgomX)

7 They don't want Clarke back. They already said he was "too pushy". What he was being pushy about is anyone's guess. Maybe has was disqualifying any jurors with prior knowledge of Hussein's activities. They'd have to go to another planet to find someone who doesn't know all about him.

Posted by: Oyster at October 21, 2005 05:39 AM (YudAC)

8 There is some confusion here I do not give 72 Virgins away, only 7 and there are not girls or little boys as you all may think or expect! I give only sheeps away!

Get that?

Posted by: Allah at October 21, 2005 08:44 AM (9lOIm)

9 Who would do or approve of such a thing !!

Posted by: john Ryan at October 21, 2005 12:09 PM (ads7K)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

October 18, 2005

Trials And Tribulations
Saddam set to go on trial Wednesday.
Some questions:
Will the MSM cover this like they covered Scott Peterson, or even Martha Stewart?
Can he make things easier on himself if he produces a Heisman Trophy and vows to go after the real killers?
If he's convicted, but gets spared the death penalty, will he still be isolated, or will he be placed in an Iraqi federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison?
Posted by: Vinnie at 07:10 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 72 words, total size 1 kb.

1 I'd hope he'd get the third option and they'd put him in a cell with "Ali Bubba."

Posted by: Seth at October 18, 2005 07:23 AM (KeFmK)

2 You see, because he didn't steal a red stapler, he should escape the death penalty. Instead, he should be locked up with a guy named Michael Bolton.

Posted by: lawhawk at October 18, 2005 10:12 AM (eppTH)

3 Option three. And he should be made to wear a female camel costume during encounters with "Ali Bubba".

Posted by: Oyster at October 18, 2005 11:35 AM (fl6E1)

4 The promotional posters have already been released in time for the trial.

Posted by: sortapundit at October 18, 2005 05:14 PM (F1nba)

5 Will it be the trial of the century like with O.J. Simpson? or will it be a nurimburgh type trial? HANG HIM HANG HIM

Posted by: sandpiper at October 18, 2005 08:41 PM (swaoX)

6 Hah! Sandpiper, LOL!

Maybe they'll tape a scene of his galloping slowly down a highway on a camel, with half the Iraqi police following him, ala the OJ debacle.

Personally, as "unlawful" as I may come off, I'm half hoping they'll use the same approach to Saddam that the Germans used to see to Nicholas Baader and Gudrun Enslin, thus circumventing a coming massive dog & pony show.

Posted by: Seth at October 18, 2005 10:00 PM (+YZMv)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

October 15, 2005

Toledo Who?
Iraq the Model has a wrapup of today's Iraqi Constitutional referendum.
Hit their sidebar links for more Iraqi reaction.
Posted by: Vinnie at 11:44 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 21 words, total size 1 kb.

Hide Comments | Add Comment

October 05, 2005

Army of Ansar al-Sunnah Murder Hostages by Beheading, Video Released (Images)

The Army of Ansar al-Sunnah, a well-known terrorist organization in Iraq with ties to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's al Qaeda forces, has released a video in which two hostages are beheaded. The Jawa Report has obtained a copy of the video. Gruesome images from the video are posted below (WARNING: GRAPHIC IMAGES BELOW).
The two innocent civilians are identified as Shaker Mahmoud Jassim and Riyadh Najim Abdullah. The timestamp on the video indicates it was made on September 12th of this year, but the video was not uploaded to the internet until today.
As in all such videos, the terrorists first force the victims to 'confess' to various crimes before they are murdered. Pronouncement of guilt is made on the victims under Islamic law. Thus, the murder and torture done by the terrorists is legitimized in the eyes of radicals as the legal execution of criminals for crimes against Islam. The beheading is done with a knife, is slow, and very painful.
Jassim is forced in the video to 'confess' that he works for the U.S. Army as an informant. As in all jihadi videos, American forces are portrayed as tools of a wider Jewish conspiracy.
The AP reports that Jassim urges in his 'confession':
I call on everyone who works with the Jews and the Americans to repent to God and leave this job.
In all previous hostage murder videos, similar statements are made. The second victim, Abdullah, said he helped the Americans with information about a group of Saudi insurgents and was paid a large amount of money:
"We have become slaves to money," he said before he was taken outside and decapitated.
SITE reports that the video also warns:
That those who do not â€œcome back to your religion and repentâ€ will also be slaughtered.
As Abdullah's head is placed on his back, the camera panned to a sign that read in Arabic: "Go to hell, this is a revenge for our brothers".
The Army of Ansar al-Sunna is an offshoot of The Army of Ansar al-Islam, a Salafist terror organization with roots in Kurdish Iraq. After the fall of the Hussein Regime, the former leader of Ansar al-Islam, Musab al-Zarqawi, took foreign elements to found Tawhid and Jihad--later pledging loyalty to Osama bin Laden and changing the name, once again, to al Qaeda in the Land of Two Rivers (Mesopotamia, or Iraq). Ansar al-Sunnah and al Qaeda are believed to operate seperately now, but occasionally announce collaboration with one another.
This is the first beheading video in many months. These types of videos are propaganda meant for domestic purposes. The reason the terrorists in Iraq stopped producing beheading murder videos, and instead turning to videos of IED and other attacks on U.S. forces, is because they believed that they were doing more harm than good. Such videos tend to turn off the great mass of the Iraqi people, and especially Sunni Muslims on whom the terrorists depend for support and anonymity.
This video can only mean one thing: the terrorists have run into a wall in Iraq, they feel they must resort to threatening the population once again. The terrorists are slowly but surely losing.
Graphic images from the video below:
WARNING: PROCEED AT OWN RISK.
Why show these images? This is the true face of the so-called insurgents in Iraq. They are nothing more than terrorists scum who have a vision for Iraq similar to that of the Taliban in Afghanistan. They are waging jihad not only against Americans, but against Iraqis. Most media outlets will not show you what the terrorists are actually doing in Iraq. We will. more...
Posted by: Rusty at 03:44 PM | Comments (26) | Add Comment
Post contains 662 words, total size 6 kb.

1 Yes, Rusty, every American adult should view these images so they can see the barbarians we are up against. If we sit around and wait 20 years and do nothing, then this is what will be going on here in the US. God forbid it!

Posted by: jesusland joe at October 05, 2005 04:46 PM (rUyw4)

2 I choose not to watch the videos. Just the same shit as before. Why see them again. More proof these people are not civilized. ARE THEY WORTH SAVING?

Posted by: greyrooster at October 05, 2005 06:06 PM (ywZa8)

3 Rooster - I totally get your point. At the same time, when a beheading becomes "old hat," then something is wrong. Each one should shock us and spur us into action. The images should strengthen our resolve to complete the task and send the murderers to their deaths.

Posted by: RomeoDelta at October 05, 2005 08:00 PM (Srmrz)

4 RomeoDelta: You're right. I just figure if the bastards figure I'm not going to view them maybe someone will be saved.

Posted by: greyrooster at October 05, 2005 08:44 PM (ywZa8)

5 Rush Limbaugh says America is at war, He is right on that count. However, Rush is a draft dodging drug addict that has no concept of 'war'. His foolish war is about 'ratings' and disagrrement between political ideology.

Al-Qaeda and like MUSLIM organizations have sworn their life and children to the destruction of INFIDELS. That would be YOU, Mr. and Mrs. America!

Visit HERE=> http://www.angelfire.com/scifi/contact1/pg4.html

Posted by: Beheading Videos at October 05, 2005 09:48 PM (tX99K)

6 And these "insurgents" are heros to millions, huh? What is wrong with this picture? I wonder what would happen if the media all of a sudden started calling a terrorist a terrorist? Maybe the world at large would get the idea .. finally. Beheaders are brutal, savage terrorists, period!

Posted by: Bubbe at October 05, 2005 10:23 PM (cbAi4)

7 Iraq's population out of Iraq NOW! eh?
Yet again, the "root causes" of terrorism theory is completely blown by the senseless murder of their fellow Muslim neighbors.
As usual coerced "confessions" are used to make the citizen confess to being an apostate which reaches it's sickening crescendo when the cutting off another Muslims head stops.
I cannot comprehend the abject terror these men faced being lead out to their execution, knowing the brutal methods employed, and how long it takes to die, nor the pain inflicted upon them. may they find peace.

Funny how you never see these images at a leftard rally, declaring the victories of the "minute men"

Posted by: dave at October 06, 2005 12:20 AM (CcXvt)

8 bunch of idiots killing their own people...and the worse part is that this *army's of god** whatever they call themselfs still find support from muslins?? when they goin to wake up and realize that they just wan to see blood they kill like 200 iraqis just to kill one american who is really killing their people us or them??

Posted by: realtouch at October 06, 2005 01:25 AM (SDgrr)

9 Dave: they'd probably be in a state of shock as soon as they started that last walk. As for the amount of time it takes to kill: have you ever read up on how kosher beef is slaughtered? A cut to the throat takes only a short moment to kill any creature. They're most likely dead long before the blade hit the bone. Not to mention that the windpipe was likely severed, the body under those conditions isn't going to sustain.

And for all of those here that believe you're still alive for six seconds after being beheaded: consider that cutting off a finger can put a person into shock, getting your head cut off would probably do the same.

Also dave, who ever said the left wing says we're winning? If anything that's more of a right wing state of thinking. The left consider this continuing battle a loss, another Nam.

Realtouch: beheaded one's own citizenry is by no means new. The french (at the time considered the most civilized society) had beheadings. And yes, we're americans, we hate the french, but being intelligent americans we recognize that history repeats itself. The middle east is doing what all other societies have done in the past. This type of violence is infamous in history.

And for all of you who would berate me for what i've just said: I've served in the IDF in the reserve unit Sar-El. My first base being Anatot which lies right on the border of the West Bank.

Posted by: WizrdKing at October 06, 2005 02:50 AM (xxmfk)

10 WizardKing:

As you mentioned the French Revolution, You have most likely read the same litrature as I, that spoke of the head of the scientist that was rumored to have blinked thirteen times, after he said he would try to blink until he lost consciousness after decapitation. Truly a thought that kept me awake. Although your original assessment is correct, hypovolemic shock would most likely set in as soon as the head were severed.

As for the Left, I was mentioning Micheal Moore's reference to the terrorists as "Minute men" as some of the left call them, or the "Iraqi Resistance" and why they ignore the blatant barbarism, you will never hear them mention it!

Posted by: dave at October 06, 2005 07:01 AM (CcXvt)

11 Wizrdking: My problem with your blog is as follows. (1) I cut my left middle finger off in a boat propeller once. IT HURT LIKE HELL. When they reattached it it HURT LIKE HELL. And for 6 weeks afterward in HURT LIKE HELL. Try it.
(2) We slaughter animals all the time. Hogs and steers. Dead before the knife hits the bone. Bullshit! After trying the Jewish system I now shoot them between the eyes first to save the animal pain. Just Jewish propoganda to justify their cruel method of slaughter. What Jews do to animals is their business but don't feed me bullshit to justify it. I justify it as another cruelity brought about by religion. I don't fight against kosher butchering (butchering is a good word for it) because I figure mother nature is much more cruel.
If you guys choose to dress funny and not eat pork chops I will fight for your right to be as you are. But don't feed me bullshit. I could change my mind.

Posted by: greyrooster at October 06, 2005 07:02 AM (M7kiy)

12 Wizardking:
Just thought of something else that doesn't go down right.
"BEING AN AMERICAN" You served in the IDF. Have you served in the United States Military? Hmmmmm.
Is that like "being an American I served in the PLO".
WEIRD!

Posted by: greyrooster at October 06, 2005 07:12 AM (M7kiy)

13 oh, the Muslims were beheading people hundreds of years before France started, they've just never stopped. Mohammed himself was present at the mass beheading of a Jewish tribe in Medina. It will never be history to Islam unless they rewrite their Koran and the sections like:

"Therefore, when ye meet the Unbeliever's in fight, smite at their necks; at length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind the captives firmly: therefore is the time for either generosity or ransom until the war lays down its burdens. "

To name but a few.

Posted by: dave at October 06, 2005 07:12 AM (CcXvt)

14 Beheading videos: Ah! But Rush tells it like it is. He is a tool and has much value.

Posted by: greyrooster at October 06, 2005 07:15 AM (M7kiy)

15 Well I for one am glad to hear that the the terrorists have run into a wall. Between turning the corner,last throes, acts of desperation, et al I was beginning to think that our side was running low on positive meraphors. Rusty the converse view of your analysis id that the Army of Ansar now believes that poblic opinion is now so strongly behind them that they now will accept such videos. The vote on the constitution is coming up very soon after all the great things that were said about it "historic" the odds (English bookmakers) are lookung lomg, and a civil/religous war looking more possible. Will these United States decide to support one side over the other ? or actlike a referee and just try and keep them apart.A noble effort,peacekeeping, but it may make us a target for both sides, As far as journalists being shot; Rusty the only way to win this war is to show our moral superiorty. Rusty if we do start executing politically incottect/anti war journalists for not toeing the party line should we do videos also? Tp deter others? What about bloggers who defame these United States? Or politicans who vote against abuse and torture? What about bloggers who link to sites that show propoganda coming from the enemy? What about .........YOU !!!

Posted by: john Ryan at October 06, 2005 08:00 AM (ads7K)

16 Ryan I have a better one. WHAT ABOUT YOU!

Posted by: greyrooster at October 06, 2005 08:23 AM (M7kiy)

17 Word of caution to the uninformed: these terrorists slowly behead their victims. They use knives. The victims can be heard trying to scream and breathe as the knife cuts and air rushes from their lungs. These are not men with swords who take the heads in one chop.

Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at October 06, 2005 09:18 AM (JQjhA)

18 John Ryan:

You know what wins wars better than "Moral Superiority" ? actual firepower, and weapon superiority and the willingness to use it.

The PC nature of this war, and the constant attempt to not offend delicate Muslim sensibilities, while allowing the label of "religion of peace" to be used constantly is really degrading the war effort.

Posted by: dave at October 06, 2005 10:03 AM (CcXvt)

19 Greyrooster, Sar-El is a multi-national volunteer reserve unit. It draws members from all around the globe. Sorry if i didn't clarify that earlier

Posted by: WizrdKing at October 06, 2005 12:00 PM (x8oLi)

20 John Ryan: fingers on home keys, please.

And your yammering is getting on my nerves. Your constant blathering about "we have to keep the moral high ground" is duly noted. Mkay? How many times are you going to keep repeating the same mantra? At this point, we could descend much farther down the ladder of "morality" and still be leaps and bounds above the enemy. We can never reach the level of morality others have set for us. We're human. We make mistakes. We try to correct them.

Morality will not win this war. They're idea of morality, and all those who support the "insurgency", is far removed from what ours is. They do not recognize that morality. What will win this war is killing the enemy and demoralizing all those who might consider joining the enemy. Period.

Take a step outside your perfect little bubble of idealism and have a good hard look at what's going on in the world. And since you're so good at preaching morals, why don't you just head right on over to the middle east and preach to the jihadis and their supporters what "morality" is.

Posted by: Oyster at October 06, 2005 12:05 PM (YudAC)

21 Thank you for posting those heinous pictures. We get way too comfortable over here in the USA, just seeing anti-American images on TV. And the vast majority of Americans totally forget about 9-11 and forget about the true nature of those with whom we are at war.

Posted by: reverse_vampyr at October 06, 2005 02:11 PM (Ns5kk)

22 America is at war with itself, fools.

Posted by: Downing Street Memo at October 07, 2005 05:57 AM (A5eqb)

23 Downing street Moron: I believe Al Sharpton 1st made that quote. Oh well! Birds of a feather say the same things together. What it be willie.

Posted by: greyrooster at October 07, 2005 10:19 AM (M7kiy)

24 The guy in the second picture looks like Downing Street Moron's daddy. His mommy has nappy hair. I guess he's what you call a black muslim.
Ha! I just discovered the reason for his hatred of white America.

Posted by: greyrooster at October 07, 2005 10:23 AM (M7kiy)

25 At least we can take comfort from the fact that they were beheaded in an introspective, peaceful inner struggle, culturally sensitive sort of way. I want to hear Bush talk more about this religion of peace I keep hearing about.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 19, 2005 11:02 AM (0yYS2)

26
colobration with invader that what they deserve

you forget that american killing thousand iraqi innocent and use the camical wapeon and use everything to take a free oil .that what they deserve die .....even no muslim japnees or comminist will make the same way to those colobration with invaders

safi

Posted by: foula at November 30, 2005 07:01 AM (jEsFz)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

October 01, 2005

By Special Request
Leave a comment and show your support for this young lady's family.
Nothing about her sacrifice on our behalf overshadows those others who have given their lives for freedom, but a friend asked, and I answered. We honor them all here.

"But I suppose it's often that way. The brave things in the old tales and songs, Mr. Frodo: adventures, as I used to call them. I used to think that they were things the wonderful folk of the stories went out and looked for, because they wanted them, because they were exciting and life was a bit dull, a kind of a sport, as you might say. But that's not the way of it with the tales that really mattered, or the ones that stay in the mind. Folk seem to have been just landed in them, usually - their paths were laid that way, as you put it. But I expect they had lots of chances, like us, of turning back, only they didn't. And if they had, we shouldn't know, because they'd have been forgotten. We hear about those as just went on - and not all to a good end, mind you; at least not to what folk inside a story and not outside it call a good end."

Posted by: Vinnie at 09:20 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 216 words, total size 1 kb.

1 God Bless the family of Elizabeth Jacobson. I pray for peace in your heart, tender rememberance of your lovely daughter, and knowledge that you will surely meet again some day.

Posted by: jesusland joe at October 01, 2005 09:32 PM (rUyw4)

2 Courage is not the absence of fear. It's born of doing things in spite of fear. Her courage is not forgotten. It is honored and the best many of us can do is make it count and let her family know we are thankful and that there are those among us whom this is not lost on.

Posted by: Oyster at October 02, 2005 02:48 PM (YudAC)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

September 29, 2005

U.S. Forces Catch Over a Hundred Terror Suspects in Iraq: Dumb Terrorist Leaves RPG Thank You Note on Cell Phone
U.S. forces have captured over a hundred suspected terrorists in Iraq in the past week. Coalition Forces, often teaming up with Iraqi Army Soldiers, conducted 69 cordon and search operations and raids against anti-Iraqi forces over the past week, seizing 135 terror suspects and many weapons caches in and around the capital city.
In one incident, Soldiers were approached by an Iraqi citizen who told them that a suspicious car was parked in his neighborhood. The Soldiers searched four men near the car identified by the citizen and found bomb-making materials.
While the U.S. troops questioned the car owners, they stopped and searched a fifth man who was acting suspiciously. The man's cell-phone history contained a message from another terrorist that roughly translated into "Thanks for the use of the rocket-propelled grenades."
Can terrorists really be that stupid? Yes they can. I wonder if this is one of the guys 'Abu Musab al-Zarqawi' was referring too here?
For more news from Iraq, read Centcom news briefs daily.
Posted by: Rusty at 04:46 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 187 words, total size 1 kb.

1 The guy with cell phone was definitely a liberal democrat from San Francisco.

Posted by: greyrooster at September 29, 2005 06:24 PM (M7kiy)

2 You beat me to it rooster, but I was going to say "blue stater". Damn you.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at September 29, 2005 07:16 PM (0yYS2)

3 The guy with the cellphone was a Klansman on Oxycontin.

Posted by: Downin Street memo at September 30, 2005 05:31 AM (A5eqb)

4 Gotta do the math on this one......... 100 terror suspects............ I am a litlle busy right now perhaps some of the analysts can taker over from the cheerleaders.I guess the first question would be from the movie "Casablanca" after Bogie killed the Nazi. Are these the usual suspects ? Now the math.....hmmmmm. lotta zeros which I could use exponents 2x 10 to the 4thany help on how to do expnents on a pc?

Posted by: john Ryan at September 30, 2005 10:58 AM (ads7K)

5 I see Downing Street Moron still bends over for the muslim hoard. Likes it. He does.

Posted by: greyrooster at September 30, 2005 09:13 PM (ywZa8)

6 Greyrooster:

HeHeHe! Yes, I think he does. LOL!

Posted by: jesusland joe at September 30, 2005 09:57 PM (rUyw4)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

September 27, 2005

Move Over CBS, al Qaeda Moves Into the News Business

On September 23rd the Islamic Media Front released a 16 minute news video on the internet called 'Sout al-Khalifa' or 'Voice of the Caliphate'. In recent months, al Qaeda in Iraq has accused al Jazeera of being too pro-Western. The Jawa Report has obtained a copy of the video. Images from it are posted below. Clips from the video can be seen at MEMRI TV (about 4 minutes). If you need a copy of the entire video, please e-mail.
WAPO:
An Internet video newscast called the Voice of the Caliphate was broadcast for the first time on Monday, purporting to be a production of al Qaeda and featuring an anchorman who wore a black ski mask and an ammunition belt.
The anchorman, who said the report would appear once a week, presented news about the Gaza Strip and Iraq and expressed happiness about recent hurricanes in the United States. A copy of the Koran, the Muslim holy book, was placed by his right hand and a rifle affixed to a tripod was pointed at the camera....
The lead segment recounted Israel's withdrawal from the Gaza Strip, which the narrator proclaimed as a "great victory," while showing Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Ahmed Qureia walking and talking among celebrating compatriots.
That was followed by a repeat of a pledge on Sept. 14 by Abu Musab Zarqawi, the leader of al Qaeda in Iraq, to wage all-out war on Iraq's Shiite Muslims. An image of Zarqawi, a Jordanian-born Sunni Muslim, remained on the screen for about half the broadcast.
The masked announcer also reported that a group called the Islamic Army in Iraq claimed to have launched chemical-armed rockets at American forces in Baghdad. A video clip showed five rockets fired in succession from behind a sand berm as an off-screen voice yelled "God is great" in Arabic. The Islamic Army asserted responsibility last year for the killing of Enzo Baldoni, an Italian journalist who had been kidnapped in Iraq.
A commercial break of sorts followed, which previewed a movie, "Total Jihad," directed by Mousslim Mouwaheed. The ad was in English, suggesting that the target audience might be Muslims living in Britain and the United States.
The final segment was about Hurricane Katrina. "The whole Muslim world was filled with joy" at the disaster, the anchorman said. He went on to say that President Bush was "completely humiliated by his obvious incapacity to face the wrath of God, who battered New Orleans, city of homosexuals." Hurricane Ophelia's brush with North Carolina was also mentioned.
More on the Global Islamic Media Front from our archives.
Others: Captain Ed, James Joyner.

Images from the video below. more...
Posted by: Rusty at 10:53 AM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 1144 words, total size 9 kb.

1 And now we go to Sayeed Mahmood Abusallam for the weather...Sayeed-

Sayeed: Today it will be hot as the fires of hell rains down on the infidel. Tonight, light winds from the East with the chance of a passing shower. Back to you Abu!

Abu: Thanks Sayeed. Earlier today the Infidels ran from our mighty warriors and pleaded for thier miserable lives. Small lakes were formed by their miserable tears which our brave freedom fighters washed their underthings in.

Also in the news, Cindy Sheehan has agreed to join the army of Allah. We will welcome her with a cold blade across her throat. Infidel Bitch.

And now for Sports with Sallami Baloney

Posted by: Filthy Allah at September 27, 2005 01:06 PM (5ceWd)

2 you might want to put the Al Qaeda part in H1 tags, most people might confuse it with the average CNN/MSNBC/BBC newscast?

Posted by: dave at September 27, 2005 01:12 PM (CcXvt)

3 You guys ever see the mad TV skit where the middle east reporters all go

On to you saheed, Death to America.

Thanks Ali, Death to America.

that's all we have for tonight.

Good night, Peace be with you and Death to America.

Posted by: Howie at September 27, 2005 01:13 PM (D3+20)

4 will there be commericals?
you can have some fun with this one

Camel Cola to start

Posted by: hondo at September 27, 2005 01:20 PM (4Gtyc)

5 http://www.dailyrecycler.com/blog/2004/10/subtitles.html

Posted by: Howie at September 27, 2005 01:28 PM (D3+20)

6 what about sponsors people! This terror news won't pay for itself!

People let's focus here! Abu ! Good work on the weather. You forgot however to say "Death to America and the Jooooos" okay! Let's focus next time...otherwise good show people!

Now Sayeed. I want you to look angry when you do your reports! Strike fear people, thats the name of the game. Also, I want some color on your outfit next time m-kay.. We are not in the 50s here people. Okay, Im off to AllahBucks for a cafe creme double half caf. Whos with?

Posted by: ObSnooks at September 27, 2005 01:34 PM (5ceWd)

7 abu azzam has been killed.

# 2 man of "al qaeda in iraq"..woohoo!

Posted by: Billy at September 27, 2005 01:49 PM (dBEh9)

8 That's a good link Howie, and the video is priceless, but even funnier are the comments from... well, I haven't the words. The usual names just won't do for morons of that caliber!

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at September 27, 2005 02:36 PM (0yYS2)

9 Do you mean the math man or the above slighty late and on the wrong thread comment that shows someone does not read the blog.

Posted by: Howie at September 27, 2005 02:45 PM (D3+20)

10 Well, both really, but mainly the blog comments. To read the crap these sub-geniuses were writing before the election is like getting caught in a weird time warp in which snowballs populate hell.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at September 27, 2005 05:51 PM (0yYS2)

11 "...a group called the Islamic Army in Iraq claimed to have launched chemical-armed rockets at American forces..."
I thought that Iraq didn't have WMD?

Posted by: Anthony Jagers at September 27, 2005 07:47 PM (9oivZ)

12 Whos that creep in the hood DAN RATHER or TOM BROKAW?

Posted by: sandpiper at September 27, 2005 08:43 PM (FpZEl)

13 Don't care. I will say that I pray that my beloved Marines will send him to visit Peter Jennings.

Posted by: Filthy Allah at September 28, 2005 08:58 AM (5ceWd)

14 It can't be Dan sandpiper, he's far too vain to let them cover his head, but that's probably the ONLY reason he doesn't have the job, because he's been on their payroll for years.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at September 28, 2005 09:07 PM (0yYS2)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

September 26, 2005

Pfc. Lynndie England Convicted for Abu Ghraib Abuse
File this story under crimes that are blown way out of proportion by a left-leaning mainstream media.
From LATimes.com:
WASHINGTON -- Lynndie R. England, the Army private who became a grinning icon of Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse as she held a dog leash attached to a naked Iraqi detainee, was convicted today on six of seven charges at a military court martial.
She faces up to 10 years in a military prison. A sentencing hearing was scheduled for Tuesday at Ft. Hood, Texas, where her court martial trial was held.
[ ... ]
England, 22, was found guilty on one of two conspiracy charges, four counts of maltreating detainees, and one count of committing an indecent act. Conviction on all counts would have exposed her to at least 11 years imprisonment.
Military prosecutors considered her the so-called poster girl of the Abu Ghraib abuse, seen smiling and flashing her thumbs upward in numerous photos in which she posed in front of naked and bound male detainees.
England's defense attorneys contend that she was easily manipulated. Well, duh! I think it's fairly obvious that she is also not too bright.
Unfortunately though, by being stupid she became the pivot point for an international scandal. Consequently, she'll probably get hammered for something that's criminal but hardly the level of major crimes. Hell, there are female child abusers, arguably more serious criminals, that get off with probation. England will surely get significant cell time.
Companion post at Interested-Participant.
Posted by: Mike Pechar at 11:24 PM | Comments (17) | Add Comment
Post contains 248 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Do you think this will make the left happy? Or any other convictions of those who abused the detainees? Absolutely not. Until they recover the taped conversation where Bush himself told her to do any of that, they will not be happy. And the media won't help. They've focused on England to the exclusion of all else so people get the impression she is the only one charged.

England was obviously guilty, as were others, and they'll get a fair trial just like anyone else. But the "lock her up and throw away the key" crowd talk out of the other side of their mouths rooting for the release of Mumia, Lynne Stewart and various others who have been convicted of crimes as well.

Posted by: Oyster at September 27, 2005 07:20 AM (YudAC)

2 I have no problem with dragging the terrorists around by a leash.This woman should be given a handshake and a job at arbys.

Get down on their level and fight it out in the gutter. It is the only thing they understand. They are either at your throats or at your feet. There is no middle ground. Put a leash on em, let the dogs at em, take happy snaps while you stack em.

Posted by: Filthy Allah at September 27, 2005 08:28 AM (5ceWd)

3 no one seems to understand that, Filthy...the ME has such a culture, that by the US and coalition troops fighting "nice" that these terrorists see it as a weakness....yes, the US armed forces are winning there is no doubt, but at too slow a pace, because they follow too many p.c. rules and its bullshit...im not saying that the US forces should torture and cut off heads, but when fighting these terrorists who will do anything, anything at all to kill American forces, maybe its time to show less mercy to these terrorists in combat...yes, try and capture the ones we know are the leaders who may have needed info, but the rank and file terrorists should be flat out killed in combat, dont even bother to capture them...what for???...so they can crowd into the holding camps so they can make trouble, cause riots and attempt to escape so they can kill more Iraqi citizens and American soldiers....embarass the hell out of them, kick their asses all over Iraq, annihilate them, so no mercy to the terrorists, make an example of them that are there and maybe the rest will stop coming if they see that as soon as they get into Iraq, the US forces wipe them out like cockroaches...the more mercy we show, the more likely they will come as they will see us as weak and soft....read a book on their culture and you will see how correct that is....Alexander the Great knew how to deal with them and he had very few problems and when a problem did come up he dealt with it swiftly not as slow as the US and coalition forces seem to do...sometimes it doesnt pay to be nice

Posted by: THANOS35 at September 27, 2005 09:13 AM (FMsU7)

4 PC is destroying the country right before our eyes. People need to wake up before it is too late. What would the MSM say today if Bush took the fight to the terrorists the way Truman did in WWII. WE have 21 century weapons and our fighting 17 century warfare. Why do we spend billions for our development on weapons to sit idol during conflict? Not saying we should nuke, but the Sunni Triangle should have been dust over a year ago. Bush needs to wake up, the MSM is never going to like him so get over it. Do what is right for our brave men and women and kill these radical Islamic bastards. I believe in the fight, not the way it is being fought!

Posted by: Andy Driggers at September 27, 2005 09:36 AM (tMU4W)

5 Would be nice if we would start here in our own communities. The left needs to be fought as hard as the terrorists. They are the enemy from within.

Posted by: Filthy Allah at September 27, 2005 10:26 AM (5ceWd)

6 England was a disgrace to her uniform along with her sad sack crew, and the worse nightmare to a Senior NCO. We expect people to perform their duties and job with minimum supervision - its out of mutual respect! After that incident, the Chain tightens up on everyone - looking over ever shoulder - second and third guessing every action ... a supervisor's nightmare, and hell for everyone! I don't give a damn about those prisoners - I do give a damn about all those above who had to suffer the grief she and her band of misfits caused.

Posted by: hondo at September 27, 2005 10:58 AM (4Gtyc)

7 Sounds like the corruption goes all the way to the top.

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/HRW/bbc29fb371b02011e16942345387f497.htm

Posted by: l at September 27, 2005 11:14 AM (BmtfW)

8 WOW l!

Another bloated self-righteous news "expose" about events circa 03/04 without "ONE SINGLE NAMED SOURCE OR WITNESS, NOR ANY CONFORMATION OR VERIFICATION OF ANY KIND"! You expect to be taken seriously - then expect again.

Posted by: hondo at September 27, 2005 11:41 AM (4Gtyc)

9 I have to agree with Thanos and Andy. PC is killing us. Look at what the MSM and left did when Al Jazeera reported that the "Infidels" bombed a wedding party in Afghanistan. It was a lie, but you didn't hear a retraction on the MSM or from the left.

Another example is just this past month. The number of dead in the SuperDome. It was 6. 4 from natural causes. 1 from drugs and 1 an apparent suicide. Yet just Saturday one of the wacko left at the anti-war rally stated that dozens died in the SuperDome. So not only is PC killing us, so it the perpetuation of lies in the media.

I'm sure the Lyndie England and her co-horts probably did humiliate the prisoners and should be punished, but do not paint all the soldiers with that same brush! And MSM and lefties...stop lying about it! (wishful thinking, I know)

Posted by: Anna at September 27, 2005 12:57 PM (nVvoC)

10 "Another bloated self-righteous news "expose" about events circa 03/04 without "ONE SINGLE NAMED SOURCE OR WITNESS, NOR ANY CONFORMATION OR VERIFICATION OF ANY KIND"! You expect to be taken seriously - then expect again."

Hmmm, your description sounds more like all the crap thats on foxnews. Ignoring the truth wont make it go away. Now, off to bed little fascist!

Posted by: Sad But True at September 27, 2005 05:49 PM (BmtfW)

11 It true when you respond with verifiable fact - not lame commentary. Try again.

Posted by: hondo at September 27, 2005 06:28 PM (4Gtyc)

12 SBT,

You're full of it and you know it. Take your stupid commentary over to Kos, where you dopeheads can get together and come up with some more lies. You're pathetic.

Posted by: jesusland joe at September 27, 2005 08:27 PM (rUyw4)

13 boo-hoo... you really got me mr.joe. i can't compete with intellectuals like you. you know it all and i know nothing. in truth, you are a small fish in a smaller pond (which is getting smaller by the day). who is pathetic? your life is confined to posting comments on here, spouting off the same old crap the right always do. commie-this, dopehead-that, terrorist-this, traitor-that. where does that kind of rhetoric take us? down the same toilet from where your mentality comes from. get a life. you probably have trouble sleeping at night because people with opposing views are posting on your precious site, you seethe with anger, your mind no longer has the ability to listen to the truth or opposing ideas, you can't get the thoughts of liberals out of your head. all because you must post the knock-out punch to anyone who is different than you. and oh yeah, because you are being proven wrong on a daily basis. you are a big zero.

Posted by: Sad But True at September 28, 2005 12:05 AM (6VX9y)

14 Look there is enough blame for EVERYONE.and remember the main idea I think is to not make any more enemies. we already ahve plenty.

Posted by: john Ryan at September 28, 2005 03:24 PM (ads7K)

15 SBT

Expect again. Where's the beef for your original comment? This isn't a Dance Club - your gonna have to do a lot better than that.

Posted by: hondo at September 28, 2005 03:52 PM (4Gtyc)

16 England was punished for what the enemy would consider appropriate behavior. America couldn't be serious if it punishes its soldier for embarassing the enemy.

Posted by: greyrooster at September 28, 2005 06:33 PM (6krEN)

17 I will also add that I think England is a simple minded, moralless little tramp who puts out for the troops. Why do we allow types like her to be in the military anyway? The end result. The taxpayers will now pay for her imprisonment, her attorneys and welfare for her illegitimate child for the next 18 years. Perhaps longer.
Who loses? The average American who goes to work every day and pays his taxes, doesn't receive welfare or aid to dependant children, or free hospitalization, or section 8 housing, etc. etc. No one reallly loses but us.

Posted by: greyrooster at September 29, 2005 11:52 PM (ywZa8)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

September 22, 2005

Iraqi Journalist Murdered
(Mosul, Iraq) Another Iraqi journalist has been killed, bringing the total number of murdered journalists to over 40 since counting began in March 2003.
From AlertNet.org:
A journalist from Radio Nineveh was gunned down on Wednesday night in Mosul, 390 km (240 miles) north of Baghdad. Hospital and police sources said Ahlam Younnis was driving in a car with her husband, who was also killed, and her son, who was wounded in the attack.
In the past week, two other journalists were also killed in Mosul. Firas Maadidi, Mosul bureau chief for As-Saffir newspaper and chief editor of the daily Al-Masar was gunned down, and Hind Ismail, As-Saffir reporter, was found with a single gun shot to her head.
These were brave people murdered by criminals. Yet the mainstream media (MSM) continue to characterize these heinous crimes as valueless deaths by sanitized 'insurgents.' Where's the outrage? These people were journalists! Civilians doing their jobs! And, all along, the MSM ignore the horrible crimes and avoid attaching responsibility to any group other than the nebulous ill-defined 'insurgency.' more...
Posted by: Mike Pechar at 10:15 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 306 words, total size 2 kb.

1 An excellent point. Van Gogh redux. From another chattering class. Where are those journos who were decrying U.S. "assassinations" of journalists? What is the principle they stand for? Evidently it is not press freedom. The principle is opposition to the U.S.

Posted by: slickdpdx at September 22, 2005 11:22 AM (MjGRu)

2 Oh dear, you are just raging to the choir... It reminds me of the part of the book Watership Downs when the intrepid band of rabbits come across a very healthy and well fed colony of fellow rabbits. Only problem was that some left the hutch and never came back but, they never speak of it because, after all, the ones that remain are still healthy and well fed...

Posted by: babs at September 22, 2005 11:44 AM (hrGMt)

3 Yep

Posted by: Howie at September 22, 2005 03:54 PM (D3+20)

4 That's just how them rabbits are.

Posted by: jesusland joe at September 22, 2005 04:01 PM (rUyw4)

5 Well over here in blighty it made the news. As mike said "These people were jounalists. Civillians doing their job" However when two Reuters journalists were killed by US troops their deaths were almost lauded. In fact they were lauded. Double standards, dont you just love them.

Posted by: conor at September 23, 2005 03:39 AM (4PPsx)

6 Conor,

"Over here in blighty it made the news". Well, ok, how much criticism was evoked at the "Michael Moore Minutemen" for the murder of these two journalists. Hmm...I can see it now. It was all the fault of Chimpy McBushhalihitlerBurton.

That's what I thought. Yep, them double standards are hell!

Posted by: jesusland joe at September 23, 2005 04:11 PM (rUyw4)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

September 15, 2005

Terrorists Shoot Down U.S. Plane in Iraq
A terror organization in Iraq, Jaish al-Rashideen, has posted a video in which it claims to have shot down a U.S. airplane. Images from the video below. more...
Posted by: Rusty at 10:45 AM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 61 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Oh my god I hope the tiny pilot is OK. I hope they don't smurf his head off.

Posted by: Howie at September 15, 2005 10:53 AM (D3+20)

2 Oh! the Humanity!
I can barely look at all the broken G.I Joe's laying around dying at the feet of the mighty
Mujahadeen.

Posted by: dave at September 15, 2005 10:54 AM (CcXvt)

3 Note there is no damage to the tiny plane except there is some duct tape holding the wings on which probably come off on landing anyway so they don't break. I think it ran out of fuel or charge and just got picked up.

Posted by: Howie at September 15, 2005 11:03 AM (D3+20)

4 I guess they got tired of looking in awe at the glass Coca-Cola bottle that used to sit on that pedestal.

Posted by: JohnMc at September 15, 2005 11:30 AM (y+I+a)

5 Is this part of the terrorists' shock and awe campaign? Because I'm in shock at how lame and awful they are.

Does making fun of terrorists count as making headway on the war on terror?

Posted by: lawhawk at September 15, 2005 11:39 AM (AcoYr)

6 That aircrsft looks much more like a UAV. Are you sure your arabic translation? It is more likely mechanical failure than a shootdown.

Posted by: raver dave at September 15, 2005 11:51 AM (XTKFt)

7 Yeah it looks like a UAV. I guess liberals will be disappointed that a pilot wasn't killed or captured.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at September 15, 2005 12:18 PM (0yYS2)

8 They "shot" it down? Where's the damage from what ever they shot it with or from the, surely, "crash" landing?

Here it is to scale

In other news, the Islamofascists have finally developed, after decades of research and development, their own version of the UAV.

Posted by: Oyster at September 15, 2005 12:39 PM (fl6E1)

9 No, it's a UAV. They do claim they shot it down. But, that's kind of the whole point of the post.......

Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at September 15, 2005 12:41 PM (JQjhA)

10 When I was a kid, I'd put firecrackers on my model planes, maybe that's what they're doing.

Posted by: Tim at September 15, 2005 12:42 PM (QrELf)

11 Can't you all see, this war orchestrated by KKKarl Rove is not worth all this loss of plastic and metal! Pounds and pounds of government products that could have supported the leeves in NO. Bush and Company are the biggest murderers blah blah blah...

Posted by: Wine-aholic at September 15, 2005 12:50 PM (Wsn+K)

12 Rusty, you should have titled your piece, "Terrorists shoot down model airplane, or maybe they went to Wal-Mart and bought one". Because this ain't no airplane.

Posted by: jesusland joe at September 15, 2005 05:25 PM (q9AWQ)

13 did the brave lions of Allah shoot it down with a slingshot???....

Posted by: THANOS35 at September 15, 2005 05:34 PM (FMsU7)

14 I think we have some images of the pilot of that "plane". Wizbang has more

http://wizbangblog.com/archives/004955.php

Posted by: packetninja at September 16, 2005 08:21 AM (1uomX)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

September 14, 2005

Al Qaeda on the Run in Northern Iraq
Are things really all that bad in Iraq? Not according to those that are actually there. In a Pentagon press briefing today, a commander from Mosul, Iraq, described a much weakened al Qaeda presence in that region. At least 80% of al Qaeda fighters are dead or captured, and those fighting today are much less organized with far poorer training.
But how can things be getting better in Iraq when so much news--today's news--always seems so bad?
Flipping through the news this morning as I got ready for work, I noticed that CNN and Fox were reporting some very bad news from people who should know how things are going, reporters in Baghdad. However, one thing seemed rather odd to me--both reporters had the same background shot.
In fact, both reporters were at the same Baghdad hotel well inside the Green Zone. So, how are they getting their news? They are getting their news from the DOD just like I am, only they can broadcast their original news from Iraq and thus you get the feeling that they are more authoritative because they are, you know, there, even though there isn't really anywhere near where the stories are happening.
Journalists such as Michael Yon are the exception to the rule. He's embedded with military forces in Mosul, so when Yon reports that things are much better in Mosul today than last year, you better believe him. Yon is actually there where there is.
So, when Army Col. Robert B. Brown, commander of the 1st Brigade, 25th Infantry Division's Stryker Brigade Combat Team, reported from Mosul, Iraq, about conditions there you better listen, too. Remember, Yon is embedded with these guys. Stryker Brigade News has a great gallery of the men of the 1/25 here.
Here are some highlights from a DOD press release about Brown's conference. And by 'highlights', I mean pretty much the whole press release. But, as you read it, imagine that I am reporting from inside the Green Zone. I'm sure that will make it much more believable. Here's a visual, to help put you in the mood.

Brown notes that eighty percent of al Qaeda's network in northern Iraq "has been devastated" since January due to the capture or killing of key leaders and the outrage of Iraqi citizens.
The situation in Mosul is "improving on a daily basis," Brown said. "Normalcy has come back into the city." more...
Posted by: Rusty at 05:21 PM | Comments (19) | Add Comment
Post contains 778 words, total size 6 kb.

1 And then there is Baghdad...

Posted by: Ariya at September 14, 2005 08:08 PM (noCGr)

2 Yes, we'll always have Baghdad, but'cha can't go back to Constantinople!

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at September 14, 2005 10:27 PM (0yYS2)

3 As you know the greatest casualty in war is the truth. Propaganda wil be churned out on a daily basis by all sides. The mainstream media whom are treated with absolute derision in this blog and others, are accused of having an anti Bush and an anti war agenda. Yet you favour reading official Government Defense Dept presss briefings to independent accounts from international news agencies. Has it not occurred to that the few select journalists actually with the army might be there for one reason and one reason alone, that is, report on what the government wants to be reported? Personally I would prefer to read the MSM even if at times it is incorrect,than read what the government wants me to read.

It is one thing to read something which is incorrect, it is another to read state spun lies.

Posted by: Conor at September 15, 2005 04:44 AM (4PPsx)

4 Why do so many people think Michael Yon is a reputable source for information? Did it ever cross your mind that what he reports is first filtered through the US military censors? What he reports is just as sanitized as what the Pentagon feeds the reporters hiding in the Green Zone.

The casualty counts speak for themselves.

Posted by: OB Kenobi at September 15, 2005 05:10 AM (p8hE4)

5 I think more people would be open to the news from the mainstream media, if it were not one sided, everything is a disaster,with no progress made and "insurgents" in every ally.
The fact is that centcom and other military sources regularly make press releases about the rebuilding effort, about new schools, hospital repairs, individual units that have donated to causes to benefit the Iraqi people -- the msm ignore them and put out the latest threat from AQ in Iraq, or the story about "lawlessness" in city's overwhelmed by "insurgents"

I find it amusing that somehow you believe that international press are in Iraq for altruistic reasons, but the military press, well they're just Government mouth pieces? I think this blog has proven time and time again that the msm is one sided, even down to the google news article the other day that listed numerous success stories in Iraq that the military had published, not one had been picked up by any news outlet in google news.

Posted by: dave at September 15, 2005 06:49 AM (CcXvt)

6 So Dave

Whether you beleive it or not, Iraq is in a state of war, with atrocities being committed on a daily basis if not an hourly basis. Do you honestly think people will be fooled into thinking that things are going swimmingly well because allied troops have opened a hospital or are seen receiving a warm welcome by some villagers in an area say untouched by the fighting? Come on, smarten up, the real issues are the suicide bombs, the loss of life, the destruction.

Accusing the MSM of bias is a bit rich! How do you think blogs get their news if not the MSM? Look at the posts and you will see that most acknowledge the source, i.e a major news agency. The blogger's narration is just his spin.

Posted by: Conor at September 15, 2005 07:23 AM (4PPsx)

7 Actually Conor, what I believe is when the "boots on the ground" say that things are getting better in Iraq, and that significant progress is being made. There are numerous blogs that focus on stories from soldiers.
It seems however, you prefer to believe the reporters in their "Ivory towers" inside the relatively safe "greenzone" hotels have some better prospective? well I guess enough of them have hired people with links to terrorists to film footage for them -- so I guess point taken.

The homicide bombings are now at the point, where they mainly target civilians and Iraqi security forces, this is eventually weaking the support for the insurgency, even the Sunni's are beginning to get tired of it.

The focus is now on making the Iraqi security forces autonomous so they can deal with the terrorists themselves, they're also attempting to bring the weaker insurgents (nationals, non-baathists) to the political arena, while rooting the hardliners out of every safe haven they flee to. While the "back" of the Insurgency is not broken, it is obvious that the terrorists are now losing support from the people that once concealed them, now their relative safety comes from grouping together in border towns, rather than the strongholds they once held inside the Sunni triangle (Fallujah/Mosul/Najaf/etc.)

If you're not seeing progress, I'm not sure what I can say to point out the obvious.

Posted by: dave at September 15, 2005 08:25 AM (CcXvt)

8 Given the political climate, it is highly unlikely that you will read anything unsavoury about the war. I sincerely doubt that any soldier, rank or file is going to say anything that would counter the official line

However I am willing to concede that a vast number of the terrorists have been annihilated. Targetting the civillian population instead of the Allied forces is a sign of their desperation, but like an injured animal they will become more deadly. There seems to be no shortage of suicide bombers and to think that the threat is lessening is allowing yourself to fall into a false sense of security.

I dont believe for one moment that the administration is discounting the threat of the terrorists. In fact they might be more worried about further terrorist atrocities.

But the reportage of the war is always going to be a contentious issue. You read the news and make your own mind up. Or you accept what you're told by your leaders.

Posted by: Conor at September 15, 2005 08:56 AM (4PPsx)

9 When was the last time Fallujah was in the news?

My only dispute with the report is the 80% number. 80% of what? I have a hard time believing they have a good enough idea on the total number of terrorists in Iraq.

That said, we are making real progress in Iraq.

Posted by: Marcus Aurelius at September 15, 2005 09:08 AM (ERx6z)

10 Conor:
The fact is the MSM "doom and gloom" reporting potrays that there is no good news from Iraq -- ever.

There is news of homicide bombings, ambushes, kidnappings and the like, but never the same airtime discussion is given to capture, or killing of terrorists, or their leaders, or even some of the good things that do happen in Iraq.

This causes the fear of uncertainty, and potrays Iraq as a Kennedy like "Quagmire", with the deaths of soldiers, civilians and contractors achieving nothing -- this undermines the War effort, I often hear the words of insurgents propaganda releases, more than I hear a command element discussing the War on the News.

I do not discount the terrorists, I believe the threat is not over, not even close but studies of Insurgency find the hardest part of breaking it, is the local support for insurgents --The terrorists themselves seem to be taking care of that by killing civilians enmass.

The problems that are left are cutting terrorist supply lines, while maintaining our own, destroying safe havens and establishing safety for the citizens.

Posted by: dave at September 15, 2005 10:03 AM (CcXvt)

11 It kills me how the leftards come on here and post their idiocy expecting to convince anyone of anything. Here's a tip, morons; not only are you not going to convince anyone with a brain with your idiotic, treasonous propaganda, you're only making things worse for yourselves. Especially you cocksuckers who automatically think that anything any military person says is a lie. Let me tell you worthless little shits something; one soldier is worth more than all of you combined, and the sooner you are all taken out and shot, the better. How you think you will be able to get away with taking the side of the enemy is beyond me; you are all traitors and pretty soon things are going to go very badly for you. Don't waste your time here, because your childish lies won't get you anywhere with us.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at September 15, 2005 10:06 AM (0yYS2)

12 Well Dave, I dont news what you get, but over here in London we get plenty of news. Good news and bad news.

Improbulus Maximus

Great post! When you learn to conduct yourself in an adult manner perhaps I will engage you in a debate. Until then take your cretinous remarks to another blog where they would be more appreciated. Have you considered changing your handle to Ignoramus Maximus? Beleive it would be more apt you pathetic little irk

Posted by: Conor at September 15, 2005 10:22 AM (4PPsx)

13 Well Dave, I dont news what you get, but over here in London we get plenty of news. Good news and bad news.

Improbulus Maximus

Great post! When you learn to conduct yourself in an adult manner perhaps I will engage you in a debate. Until then take your cretinous remarks to another blog where they would be more appreciated. Have you considered changing your handle to Ignoramus Maximus? Beleive it would be more apt you pathetic little irk

Posted by: Conor at September 15, 2005 10:23 AM (4PPsx)

14 Conor:
If it's anything like the reporting I saw from the Daily Mail on the Hurricane, I find it hard to believe the U.K press is any different!

Posted by: dave at September 15, 2005 10:43 AM (CcXvt)

15 I don't want to engage you in debate you piece of shit, I want to see you bleed out slowly.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at September 15, 2005 12:21 PM (0yYS2)

16 Ignoramus Maximus

What's wrong? Watching too many action movies? " I want to see you bleed slowly" Wow, I can see that you were a clever little boy at school, not!. Maybe you're a girl, because you bitch like best of them.

Posted by: Conor at September 16, 2005 02:16 AM (4PPsx)

17 Ignoramus Maximus

What's wrong? Watching too many action movies? " I want to see you bleed slowly" Wow, I can see that you were a clever little boy at school, not!. Maybe you're a girl, because you bitch like best of them.

Posted by: Conor at September 16, 2005 02:16 AM (4PPsx)

18 Dave

The Daily Mail is a tabloid rag. The other papers in the UK, both left and right wing were equally critical of the official response to the hurricane.

Posted by: Conor at September 16, 2005 09:21 AM (4PPsx)

19 So, Joseph Conor, do you think that you can't be found? Do you think that your muslim boyfriend will keep you safe? Tell me, does he do you before or after his goat, or does he make you blow the goat after he's done with it? You're a disgusting little dhimmi bitch, and I hope the next 'slamotard bomber gets you.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at September 16, 2005 10:03 AM (0yYS2)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Terrorists Murder Over 100 Civilians in Iraq

Terrorists in Iraq has claimed responsibility for a series of bombings that killed over 100 civilians in Iraq today. Reports from the scene conflict as to the actual total of people killed in today's mass murder spree, but a single car bomb is said to have killed at least 88 and wounded 227 in a mostly Shi'ite neighborhood of Baghdad.
Media reports indicate that al Jazeera is reporting that al Qaeda has claimed responsibility for the mass murders. No specific claim, though has been made, but al Qaeda may have alluded to the deadly attacks:
The conquest of revenge for the Sunni people of Tal Afar has started," Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's al-Qaida Organisation in the Land of Two Rivers said in the statement, whose authenticity could not be verified.
It said its "brigades" had launched a series of attacks, led by its elite "martyrdom-seeking" brigade.
The statement did not claim responsibility for any of the suicide bombings, only promising to "release more (details), God willing, as soon as news comes in of the operations in Baghdad and other cities".
Such statements are an almost daily occurence from the terror organization. It would not be beneath al Jazeera, though, to report in their Arab language broadcast that al Qaeda had claimed the attack and then changed the story for their English versionn.

Reports are mixed, but between five and ten more bombs targetting civilians were heard around Baghdad this morning.
Elsewhere, gunmen entered a village, rounded up those suspected of 'collaboration' and murdered them.
Gunmen wearing military uniforms, meanwhile, surrounded a village north of Baghdad early Wednesday and killed 17 men, police said.
Police Lt. Waleed al-Hayali, in Taji, 10 miles north of Baghdad, said the gunmen detained the victims after searching the village. They were handcuffed, blindfolded and shot. The dead included one policeman and others who worked as drivers and construction workers for the U.S. military, said al-Hayali. [source]
These reports come as Iraqi troops, with U.S. backing, take control of al Qaeda safe havens along the Syrian border.
Posted by: Rusty at 08:02 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 344 words, total size 3 kb.

1 They kill in the name of Islam and we go and build a monument to Islam. Great.

Islam, is evil. All of it. All you "Muslims" in the US better get right with God and plan to open X-mas presents this year otherwise, we will turn on you.

Posted by: filthy allah at September 14, 2005 08:15 AM (5ceWd)

2 The era of the car bomb is comming to an end.

This looks like the terrorists are throwing the deep pass on fourth down before the clock runs out.

Posted by: Dave K at September 14, 2005 11:13 AM (vvaFL)

3 Michael Moore's "freedom fighters" at work.

Posted by: jesusland joe at September 14, 2005 03:46 PM (q9AWQ)

4 Well at least they're not White Christians, so Howard Dean must like them.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at September 14, 2005 07:34 PM (0yYS2)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

<< Page 15 >>

756kb generated in CPU 0.1171, elapsed 0.1915 seconds.
55 queries taking 0.0954 seconds, 982 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.

Recent Comments

hattrick This is actually a good video. Shows many views including pro American. I am especially moved by t... entry

Kamchatka Bear somehow that reminds me of the words I heard a few years ago... there are no american troops in Bagd... entry

Tylor f0418499474b2b934bba5eba3bfd41c7 Independent newsletter from our foreign friends points our attentio... entry

Rashad 8c5b17b2c955c77bf06e7879e3d8f970 Independent newsletter from our foreign friends points our attentio... entry

Garduneh Mehr Rusty, From the following report one infers that the thugs/murderers of the Islamic Republic are eng... entry

Michael Weaver HAPPY FOURTH OF JULY ! HAPPY INDEPENDENCE DAY ! USA, ALL THE WAY ! entry

greyrooster But Bo says the Marines are the ones mistreating the Iraqis. Just don't know who to believe? entry

Brian H BTW, the true meaning of MSM is "Mighty Selective Media". But maybe as their decline makes them les... entry

Brian H Oh, it was probably just an AQI pot party that got out of hand. Boys will be boys .... entry

RicardoVerde Im sorry. I was told these were freedom fighters. Must recheck my program...... entry

I am a
Sith Master
in the
TTLB Ecosystem

My Ecosystem Details

Powered by mu.nu

Search Thingy

December 03, 2005

November 29, 2005

November 28, 2005

November 22, 2005

November 21, 2005

November 15, 2005

November 03, 2005

October 25, 2005

October 21, 2005

October 20, 2005

October 18, 2005

October 15, 2005

October 05, 2005

October 01, 2005

September 29, 2005

September 27, 2005

September 26, 2005

September 22, 2005

September 15, 2005

September 14, 2005

Recent Comments