SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Submitted via IRC for TheMightyBuzzard
A sniper with Canada’s elite special forces in Iraq has shattered the world record for the longest confirmed kill shot in military history at a staggering distance of 3,540 metres.
The Canadian Armed Forces confirmed Thursday that a member of Joint Task Force 2 made the record-breaking shot, killing an Islamic State insurgent during an operation in Iraq within the last month.
[...] The elite sniper was using a McMillan TAC-50 sniper rifle while firing from a high-rise during an operation that took place within the last month in Iraq. It took under 10 seconds to hit the target.
[...] The military source said the JTF2 operation fell within the strictures of the government’s advise and assist mission.
[...] The kill was independently verified by video camera and other data, The Globe and Mail has learned.
[...] The skill of the JTF2 sniper in taking down an insurgent at 3,540 metres required math skills, great eyesight, precision of ammunition and firearms, and superb training.
Not our typical fare but the physics involved in making that shot are crazy.
Source: The Globe and Mail
(Score: 3, Insightful) by KGIII on Friday June 23 2017, @02:55AM (24 children)
This new record is the second time a Canadian has taken the record. It's a morbid record but quite a feat.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
(Score: 3, Informative) by jmorris on Friday June 23 2017, @03:40AM (8 children)
Chart I saw had Canadian, Brit, Canadian, Canadian, American for the top five. America better up its game if we are going to #MAGA. Not that it isn't great to see the top five all be allies and friends, but a little friendly rivalry is useful.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 23 2017, @04:11AM (5 children)
With a single orange target worth hitting, not much opportunity to practice.
(Score: 2, Flamebait) by Bot on Friday June 23 2017, @04:34AM (2 children)
Had anybody made the same comment about $OLD_POTUS this site would have been shut down.
Nice to see your country is returning to normalcy.
Account abandoned.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 23 2017, @01:58PM
No, no, no. If you want to have power over $OLD_POTUS, you need to use his Real Name, not just a pointer/reference. You need to call him Baraq Hussein Soetoro.
In fact, perhaps EF's invocation of his True Name has been what kept the site from being shut down!
If that doesn't work, just shout NEE! at them a few times.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday June 23 2017, @07:39PM
Had anybody made the same comment about $OLD_POTUS this site would have been shut down.
Either that, or we'd have been invited to the whitehouse: Former Trump adviser who called for Clinton to be shot attends White House bill signing [thehill.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 23 2017, @05:16AM (1 child)
Mitch McConnell, Paul Ryan and Nancy Pelosi are avid deer hunters?
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday June 23 2017, @10:00AM
I don't know, did they escape a Vietnamese prison of war camp?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by KGIII on Friday June 23 2017, @04:17AM (1 child)
Yup. The Canadians have been doing well. The last record they had, held for a while. Then a Brit took it. As I have citizenship in both the US and in CAN, I am okay with them being in the lead. Long distance shooting is pretty hard. This is an impressive feat, as are all the feats in you list.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
(Score: 4, Interesting) by art guerrilla on Friday June 23 2017, @01:20PM
yeah, i mean, never mind if the 'target' (defined as non-human, so, it's all good) killed was actually who they said, actually a 'bad guy' (YMMV), and actually a necessary thing (basically, is Empire a necessary thing?)...
.
but, yeah, real cool to kill another nekkid ape from a long ways aways, ultra-brave, too...
(Score: 3, Informative) by martyb on Friday June 23 2017, @03:50AM (14 children)
According to this graphic [theglobeandmail.com], the top five longest kills are:
To put that in different units, this record-breaking shot traveled two whole miles... and then continued... another one-thousand-feet!
Or, to put it another way, it exceeded the prior record by over a kilometer!
Wit is intellect, dancing.
(Score: 3, Informative) by KGIII on Friday June 23 2017, @04:12AM (13 children)
It's a feat. I qualified with the M16 at 500 yards. I hunt, so I am always finding excuses to go target practice. I am positive that I could not make shots at that distance.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday June 23 2017, @10:46AM (12 children)
Probably not but not all of the credit can go to the shooter. The spotter had to precisely calculate windage for 2.2 miles worth of changing winds, among other things, so he deserves some props as well.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday June 23 2017, @02:10PM (1 child)
Yeah - and how do you even DO that? So, the wind is blowing here, where you are, southerly, at about 5 mph. A quarter mile away, the wind is just eddying in the lee of a hill. A quarter mile further, the wind is southerly again, but 10 mph. Another quarter, and you have more eddies in the lee of a large building. The next quarter mile, wind is more south by southeast, at 10 mph. How in the FEK do you figure all of that, out past two miles? It seems like putting sensor up might attract the target's attention - maybe.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday June 23 2017, @05:34PM
You watch the grass/trees if there are any. You watch the dust if there isn't. You take visual measurements every so often along the range and calculate from that.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 23 2017, @03:05PM (9 children)
And luck. A lot of these things come down to luck.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday June 23 2017, @05:30PM (8 children)
Lack of bad luck, yeah. You don't get lucky on a 2.2 mile shot though. You either had that shit perfectly dialed in and the wind didn't change before you pulled the trigger or you just miss.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Friday June 23 2017, @08:43PM (5 children)
Which is my question: Like the viral internet videos, how many shots did he take before he made it?
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday June 24 2017, @12:34AM (4 children)
One. You can't set up again before they hear the shot and start ducking for cover, even on a two mile away target.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Saturday June 24 2017, @01:02AM (3 children)
I'm not convinced that people in Iraq would identify a shot fired 2 miles away as being aimed at them.
The mention of high-rise tells me it's a city, or the edge of it. IF you can hear a muzzle blast from 2 miles away in a city, identify it as hostile from 2 miles away in a city, think that you might be within range when it's 2 miles away in a city, and think that you are potentially the target when there's another thousand targets in those 2 city miles, or even differentiate between the suppression fire that the closer enemies are filling the air with despite you being covered from their angle, then you'll duck.
And your buddy will kick your ass for being a coward no better than the infidels, for a painful humiliation that will last the whole 20 seconds before his chest explodes from one of the subsequent rounds.
I don't buy the "fire only when sure" in a war area when shooting far beyond normal range. I'm pretty sure your buddies closer to the target really want you to do your best asap, and keep trying until you don't miss.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday June 24 2017, @08:30AM (2 children)
They probably would want you to but what they want and what you're trained to do are two extremely different things.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Monday June 26 2017, @04:18PM (1 child)
"John and Fred got killed because our sniper cover wasn't quite sure of his shot and didn't want to spook the bad guy too early"
Spooking the bad guys is how you win wars. The guy who saw the wall explode right next to his leg may thank his god, but still has to change his underwear and tell his friends that's not a safe place to be.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday June 27 2017, @11:42AM
Bob, you've hit armchair quarterbacking level. You're not qualified to speak on this. I'm only barely qualified to speak on the general subject, which is why I've not gone into the detail you just did.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by KGIII on Saturday June 24 2017, @01:33AM (1 child)
Squeeze, not pull.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday June 24 2017, @08:32AM
Which is likely why I got an M60 instead of a sniper rifle.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 23 2017, @02:58AM (17 children)
Now kill the other 7.5 billion suspected terrorists.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 23 2017, @04:57AM (16 children)
Let's be clear here. This isn't a war.
The regime was changed years and years ago.
There's no one who can surrender for the disparate opposing forces.
This is an Imperialist occupation with no purpose except to keep feeding the military-related industries in the aggressor countries.
Re-read Part Two, Chapter IX of Nineteen Eighty-Four. [adelaide.edu.au]
In particular, Chapter III of Emmanuel Goldstein's "The Book" and how Orwell describes perpetual war and its goals (Oligarchy and Fascism).
suspected terrorists
...and for USAians, your founding document reads
Notice that it does not say "no US citizen".
It does not say "no person within the USA".
It says "NO PERSON".
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1, Troll) by MostCynical on Friday June 23 2017, @05:37AM
you already have warantless and no-reasonable-doubt searches at "borders" (within 100 miles of a border, isn't it?), with civil forfeiture still possible in many states, you haven't really got much support for the constuitution. Who cares about towel-heads and darkies?
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 23 2017, @09:14AM
That's cute that thing about the life and liberty, I might use that as a punchline one day. We're in the weird twilight zone set in motion by GW Bush and Alberto Gonzales, who came up with the brilliant idea that anyone who had *never been granted rights* in the first place was not being deprived them when they were locked in Guantanamo without due process for... well, ever.
Since that is the normal, pushing the boundary is execution by drone. Execution my mother of all bombs. Shooting down other countries airplanes. Bombing them whenever, dude. On a macro scale, the rule of law is disintegrating in slow motion. Billionaires playing their 3D chess games.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday June 23 2017, @10:51AM (11 children)
You'd prefer we just let them sort it out, I suppose? You're totally good with entire villages of noncombatants getting wiped out? Chemical weapons being used on civilian populations?
You're a real asshole, man.
If they were just trying to hit legal targets using legal weapons, fine, let them sort it out. They're fucking well not though.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 23 2017, @02:07PM (1 child)
Yes. We should get out and give them the space to figure things out for themselves. It's an opportunity they deserve to have.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday June 23 2017, @05:37PM
I'd agree if actual war crimes (rather than the bullshit we get accused of) weren't taking place. I give not a shit how many of each other they kill, so long as they keep it to lawful combatants as much as possible.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 23 2017, @03:34PM (5 children)
Napalm (Vietnam, Korea, Germany, France)
White-phosphorous ("mild" napalm). (Syria, Fallujah)
Radiation (Japan)
MK77 (napalm rebadged). (Iraq)
Oh yeah, which country sold chemical weapons to Saddam?
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday June 23 2017, @05:28PM (4 children)
Irrelevant, one and all. Napalm, MK77, and WP are not chemical weapons. Radiation had no treaty banning its use.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1) by Sabriel on Sunday June 25 2017, @02:21AM (3 children)
"But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought." - George Orwell, 1984.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Sunday June 25 2017, @10:20AM (2 children)
Let's put it more simply then: fire is not poison gas and is in fact a legal weapon for warfare.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1) by Sabriel on Monday June 26 2017, @11:45AM (1 child)
That's not what I was referring to.
1. AC claimed the US was hypocritically engaging in a continuation of Imperialist behaviour/policy, and mentioned a chapter from the book "1984".
2. You posted in support of US actions so as to prevent the use of chemical weapons on civilian population (to prevent "asshole" behaviour).
3. AC responded that the US has a history of performing such deeds, citing weapons and places used/supplied.
4. You responded that those (napalm, MK77, WP) are not chemical weapons.
5. I used a quote from "1984" to point out that any government declaring that chemical weapons are not "chemical weapons" is a sign of corruption.
6. You responded that fire is not poison gas and is a legal weapon for warfare.
Sure, "fire" is not "poison gas". It is however a lay term for the rapid exothermic oxidation of materials (i.e. a form of chemical reaction) that can produce significant quantities of poisonous and/or toxic gasses (see particularly: burning napalm, burning MK77, burning WP). So despite what those trying to cloak themselves in the semantics of the Chemical Weapons Convention would like us to ignore, something can be declared "legal" but still be the act of an "asshole".
It's this kind of wilful blindness that enables the kind of hypocritical behavior that the original AC is complaining about. And those chickens come home to roost. So whether future historians determine what the US is doing in Syria is actually on the level or not, can we at least own our past failures and learn from them, rather than continue to pretend our ideologies and processes are infallible until we're FUBAR?
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday June 27 2017, @11:37AM
There is no willful blindness, slappy. Tardboy above was chicken-little-ing about "International Law". Which makes the argument about that, not about ethics. Poison gas is banned but fire and explosives are quite legal. Stop trying to change the playing field just because your side is losing.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 23 2017, @05:01PM
Haha NOW you try and play the high road? Of course you do, gotta spin that MIC into a positive somehow!
Hey look everybody, TMB is letting everyone know how stupid he really is! We're in the middle east to protect some innocent villagers, hoorah. Someone might want to let the military know, so far they have a pretty bad record of collateral damage *ahem* I mean murder of innocent civilians.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 23 2017, @06:41PM (1 child)
Before USA.gov bombed, invaded, and occupied that place (based on Dubya's and Cheney's lies, BTW), Iraq was a stable state.
You may not have approved of the government there, but it was a sovereign nation with the right to work out its own problems.
...then along come Reactionaries (of your ilk) who have the twisted belief that the USA, with its clear moral superiority *cough*, should make decisions (regime change) for every place on the planet.
Not only did that violate every precept of international law (acts founded in mendacity; violating national borders; militarily going after a head of state; a war of aggression to plunder natural resources), it put the place in a condition that was worse than it had been in terms of civil stability and life expectancy.
The morality of USA.gov here was extremely low, if not an all-time low.
...and the existence of Daesh is 100 percent the result of USA.gov actions, going back to the Cold War occupation of an adjacent nation by the Soviets and USA.gov's arming of a proxy in the region.
...and, if USA.gov was actually serious about bringing the place to a condition of passivity, wouldn't the full effort to accomplish that have been made 15 years ago or 10 years ago or 5 years ago?
This activity is not about the wellbeing of the people there.
It's strictly about corporate profits and macho bravado.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2, Disagree) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday June 23 2017, @08:20PM
International Law™, eh? If it covers us, it covers them, sweety, and we if the US did not enforce International Law™, there would be no International Law™. Who do you think is going to enforce it? China? Russia? There are only three nations on the planet actually capable of enforcing anything and we're the only ones who will.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 23 2017, @11:45AM (1 child)
Implicitly, "person" means "person covered by this document". You know, consent of the governed and all that.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 23 2017, @06:44PM
There are people, in your limited scope, who are not allowed to vote and choose the gov't:
Too young; recent immigrant; imprisoned people; formerly imprisoned people (in some states).
They are still covered by the Constitution.
Additionally, I'm pretty sure that agents of USA.gov crossing into Canada or Mexico to subject residents of those place to USA law by force was not what The Founding Fathers had in mind.
Extrapolate to those agents crossing oceans.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by kaszz on Friday June 23 2017, @03:14AM (10 children)
Now we just need these data to get a better understanding of this shoot:
* Wind speed at the shooter and along the whole flight path
* Bullet shape and weight
* Air pressure and humidity
* Temperature (including air, ammunition and barrel temperature)
* Coriolis at the location
Regardless, I'm impressed.
(Score: 2) by Some call me Tim on Friday June 23 2017, @03:24AM (1 child)
There are some very nice ballistics apps available.
http://www.gunsandammo.com/gear-accessories/best-ballistics-apps-available-now/ [gunsandammo.com]
Questioning science is how you do science!
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Friday June 23 2017, @03:29AM
Great software. But it will not tell what data this shoot had. I'll hope he didn't use a computerphone either as the radio would give away his position.
(Score: 2) by deadstick on Friday June 23 2017, @03:31AM (3 children)
...and atmospheric refraction.
(Score: 2) by Bot on Friday June 23 2017, @04:51AM (2 children)
...and the will to think you can pull it off in the first place.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 23 2017, @09:20AM (1 child)
Dude, every man with a gun thinks they can pull it off. Handgun at 2 miles? Sure, watch this POW POW POW. Ooh I gotta a woody!
It takes the elite (isn't that a bad word?) expert (bad word) to calculate all those non-Newtonian corrections (gravitation and fluid). Or just a lot a trial and error. How many thousand shots has the elite sniper attempted before Shooting A Bad Guy(tm) and Defending Our Liberty(tm).
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday June 23 2017, @10:54AM
Pfft... No gun owner I know thinks that shit. They may put a few bucks on some target practice but they're under no illusions of being as good as a trained sniper/spotter pair.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by driverless on Friday June 23 2017, @08:50AM (3 children)
...or just putting enough lead downrange that one of them ends up being a hit. Not wanting to downplay the achievement, but being able to do that several times, rather than just as a one-off, would make it a genuine achievement. The writeup also doesn't mention whether it was a single target or not, in fact since it talks about "a Daesh attack" it's likely there were multiple targets and he happened to hit one of them. So, worst-case, fire repeatedly into a large crowd at an impressive range and you can claim a kill at a far longer range than someone going for a sole target with a single shot.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday June 23 2017, @10:55AM
Dude, I couldn't even hit the crowd at 2.2 miles with the exact same gear. You have no clue what you're talking about.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 23 2017, @04:39PM (1 child)
Maximum effective range (area target) of a M4 is 600 meters.
So the shooter would need something MUCH better then an off the shelf assault rifle to even come close to hitting a target at 3000+ meters.
Note Area target essentially means broadside of a barn.
Snipers also don't spray and pray as your post suggests. A lot of the most accurate weapons are bolt action. By the time you get a few downrange your target is under cover.
Anyone familiar with rifles knows this was a significant achievement. He sent a few ounces of lead over two miles and hit a point target. Thats a mixture of skill, his and his spotters, and luck, but it is not something any old gun owner could seriously expect to achieve. Him and the spotter had to account for gravity, wind speed along entire path of the round, curvature of the earth, air density, and the possibility of the target moving in the ten seconds it took to hit him.
Source: First hand knowledge as a vet.
Come back when you know what your talking about sparky.
(Score: 2) by driverless on Saturday June 24 2017, @05:04AM
I've never fired an M4, but have fired McBros and Barrett's, and we were told a round could travel up to 7 miles. In hindsight that sounds a bit high, and it was a long time ago, but I'm pretty sure it was that. Probably had a good safety margin built in. We fired across (well, more like down into) a valley to impress on us how far a round could end up going if we were careless shooting at a target eg. up on a ridge. Dunno what the range was, but you could barely make out the puffs with 8x30s.
I never said it wasn't. What I was questioning was its repeatability. A single data point doesn't provide much useful evidence because it could be immediately negated by the 1,000 data points that follow it. Or 1,000,000. So this shot sounds like a prime candidate for regression to the mean.
How did you know I was known as Sparky? Wait, Wombat, is that you? It's been years! Did you and the sarge end up hooking up in the end?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Whoever on Friday June 23 2017, @03:16AM (6 children)
If the rifle isn't accurate at 3500 metres (and I find a post that suggests that 1400 metres is the limit at which the rifle is accurate), then this shot relied upon luck as well as skill
(Score: 4, Insightful) by kaszz on Friday June 23 2017, @03:25AM (3 children)
The shoot requires weather readings, math, practical skills like breathing in phase and predicting where the target will be 10 seconds later. Missing one component makes it all fail. And one missed shot will alert the target to take countermeasures.
(Score: 2) by Whoever on Friday June 23 2017, @03:36AM (1 child)
My point is that all those calculations could be off and random variation of the flight path could correct for the error.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 23 2017, @04:56AM
That happens in general but gets harder as the number of factors increase.
(Score: 3, Informative) by bob_super on Friday June 23 2017, @08:54PM
> And one missed shot will alert the target to take countermeasures.
Depends on the miss. In a warzone, a bullet passing by or hitting nearby doesn't necessarily mean you change positions. unless it's really close, you're more likely to think your position is safe.
That's if you notice it at all. Forget hearing the rifle shot, so if it misses wide enough, you're more than likely not even realizing you're a target.
(Score: 2) by Non Sequor on Friday June 23 2017, @05:04PM (1 child)
"One shot, one kill"
These guys aren't supposed to pull the trigger when there's significant uncertainty about the shot. The ability to make that determination in a variety of conditions can be actually statistically tested in a training environment.
I'm guessing the target was immobile though.
Write your congressman. Tell him he sucks.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Whoever on Saturday June 24 2017, @01:12AM
Then they should not be taking shots where the target is so far away. There is uncertainty at that distance, irrespective of the skill of the sniper.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 23 2017, @03:42AM (13 children)
Does this post belong here? Taking out a live person, even an IS scumbag, with a sniper rifle is a competitive sport now? As if we don't already do that and much more with cruise missiles and armed drones?
Are you canuckistanis so proud now?
(Score: 2) by a-zA-Z0-9$_.+!*'(),- on Friday June 23 2017, @03:51AM (2 children)
You've never heard the expression "if it bleeds, it leads"?
https://newrepublic.com/article/114112/anonymouth-linguistic-tool-might-have-helped-jk-rowling
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 23 2017, @04:01AM (1 child)
How is it any different from dissecting nuances and technique of IS beheading? FFS, am I the weirdo here?
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 23 2017, @04:12AM
Behead the tiny birdbrain of the Wimpy Uzzard!
(Score: 2) by takyon on Friday June 23 2017, @04:02AM
It's just a family friendly physics story.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1) by anarchy on Friday June 23 2017, @04:02AM
There's a fair amount of science and technology involved with ultra-long distance shooting.
Yeah, it's a little odd for a tech blog. But not out of the realm of reason.
(Score: 2) by Bot on Friday June 23 2017, @04:42AM (2 children)
"taking out a live person" is what terrorists, mafia (directly), corporations (indirectly) do. What this guy did is taking out an enemy. Old school war is a contract. You wear an uniform, get to kill the other side and risk getting killed by them all without trial. Unfortunately that guy Napoleon started fucking with the rules and his mason friends kept doing that until the present mess.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 23 2017, @05:07AM (1 child)
Remind us when Canada last declared war.
(With USA, that was December 8, 1941.
All military engagements by USA.gov since September 2, 1945, when that war ended, have been unconstitutional.)
...and if I simply declare you "an enemy" does that give me the right to shoot you?
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 4, Informative) by kaszz on Friday June 23 2017, @05:14AM
You can shoot anyone you want if you have the military force to keep any retribution away. That is how governments does it in essence.
(Score: 2) by driverless on Friday June 23 2017, @08:52AM (3 children)
Hey, were were talking about breading cats yesterday, killing Daesh isn't so far removed. Tomorrow we're doing puppy recipes. Do try and keep up.
(Score: 3, Touché) by rts008 on Friday June 23 2017, @10:11AM (2 children)
I must of missed the cat breading discussion, so I'll chime in here instead.
I prefer my cat deep fried with a tempura breading. Cornmeal breading just does not suit fried cat, IMHO. ;-)
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Friday June 23 2017, @11:52AM (1 child)
I missed that one, too. Is there a difference between Persian and tabby?
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Friday June 23 2017, @09:01PM
Persian is like Fugu fish. If you don't clean it up properly, it makes a deadly mess ... well, unless you can self-Heimlich a hairball.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Friday June 23 2017, @10:43AM
Sooo proud canada canada canada
Not really: but I guess cheaper than having him paint the target and have an expensive bomber fly over and drop an expensive bomb on a village.
Just kidding...
Just kidding about just kidding....
Just kidding.....
LOOK!!! Donald Trump naked!
Ewwwwww....
Just kidding....
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 23 2017, @04:33AM (1 child)
I do competitive shooting, it's fun. But make NO mistake this boils down to pure luck. How do I know? If it was simply "math" then all the records would all be around the same distance. This one just happens to crank the luck factor up to 11.
But as a Canadian it warms my heart to see this happen in Iraq, the country we /supposedly/ didn't join our American war criminal allies, sorry, "allies".
(Score: 2) by Bot on Friday June 23 2017, @04:46AM
I agree with you. It is blasphemy to say the hand of God drove that bullet, but if I were on the ISIS side I would wonder. A lot.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 23 2017, @05:50AM (4 children)
Doesn't it seem likely that the sniper fired his entire magazine?
Not unlike a submarine shooting at a destroyer in a World War II movie, where the captain fires a spread of torpedoes that cover a range of possible locations for the target, in the immediate future, and then takes evasive actions.
This makes the achievement a little less spectacular.
A strong tail wind might have helped, too - as well as a discreet test shot or two at something located at the same distance, but a few hundred feet to one side or the other.
My $0.02.
~childo
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 23 2017, @06:13AM
I don't know about modern snipers, but Viet Nam era snipers followed the rule of never fire more than two shots from the same position. The enemy can locate you if you fire too many shots without moving to a different location.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 23 2017, @07:10AM
There's some luck involved but there's a lot of skill involved in making sure that your bullet is going to be close enough for you to get lucky. It's not like golf and "hole in ones", you don't have millions of noobs firing these sort of sniper rifles and hoping for the best. This guy was aiming at someone.
Without the footage it's hard to know how much luck was involved - e.g. did the target change position and move into the bullet's path.
(Score: 2) by Bot on Friday June 23 2017, @10:10AM (1 child)
> be the daesh guy
> poc (the bullet hitting something nearby)
> gneeeeeoooooooooo (its sound, you hear it right after it hits)
> o look a sniper missed me
> better stand still until he tries again
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Friday June 23 2017, @10:50AM
Cinderella story
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zbQTXFJL8lo [youtube.com]
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Snospar on Friday June 23 2017, @07:33AM
Am I the only one who jumped onto Google maps [github.io] and drew a 3,540m radius circle around their house?
Definitely helped me put that distance into perspective.
Huge thanks to all the Soylent volunteers without whom this community (and this post) would not be possible.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 23 2017, @08:04AM (4 children)
Canada is currently at war with no nation on earth. Deliberate killing of another human being, regardless of nationality, is murder.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by takyon on Friday June 23 2017, @11:19AM
We can prosecute them for war crimes right after we handle the Bush 43 crowd.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 23 2017, @02:27PM
>Deliberate killing of another human being, regardless of nationality, is murder.
I don't think you really know what "murder" means:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/murder [cornell.edu]
"Definition
Murder occurs when one human being UNLAWFULLY kills another human being."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 23 2017, @10:59PM (1 child)
Didn't you read the summary? He killed a jihadi, not a human being. God is on our side... suck it, muzzies.
(Score: 2) by driverless on Saturday June 24 2017, @05:07AM
Anyone who runs is a jihadi! Anyone who stands still... is a well-disciplined jihadi!
(Score: 2) by KritonK on Monday June 26 2017, @08:14AM
This reminds me of the following quotation from the Doctor Who novel The Taking of Planet 5 by Simon Bucher-Jones and Mark Clapham:
At that distance, how can we be sure that the sniper was really aiming at that particular target, and that he had any expectation of actually hitting him?