.50 Caliber Marine Sniper Kills in Afghanistan - Graphic

page: 2
3
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 10:57 PM
link   
This Video is rotating on the net for a while now, and every now and then it is relabeled "Terrorists shot by .50 BMG round". First I want to say that I DONT remember the linkto the proof, but I have seen several threads about this video and everytime people are amazed by the apparent strenght of the .50 BMG until someone steps in and tells people that this is a recut version of ordinary varmint shooting footage. Cut out are the parts where one could actually SEE that they were shooting animals. And the rifle used isnt a .50 BMG gun either, its an ordinary hunting rifle. The cadavers fly so high up in the air because the animals are small...

Apart from that it would be absolutely unthinkable that a sniper team would sneak up so close on an obviously entrenched enemy and would even care to videotape the whole thing.

[edit on 12/7/2005 by Lonestar24]




posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 11:02 PM
link   
That's a pretty good sized small animal in the third video then. That's a pretty big part that goes flying off after the hit. Allowing for distance, it certainly LOOKS the length of a human arm. I don't remember many small animals having legs that long.

And I agree with the previous post. No matter what they're shooting, don't screw with the guy that brings the biggest toys to the sandbox.



posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 11:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
Yes that round is quite awesome, but I thought it was against the Geneva Convention to shoot the enemy with a .50 cal.
I do remember sitting through Geneva Convention class, being instructed it was against the Convention to aim at enemy soldiers with an M-2 .50 cal machine gun; we were only alloed to aim at equipment and vehicles.

Am I missing something?



The Keyword here is soldiers.......


Are these soldiers that target women and children?



posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 11:33 PM
link   
I have heard that the .50 BMG is illegal as an anti-personnel weapon, but I never remember having heard that in training. We had a .50 BMGs on our perimeters in Vietnam and Carlos Hathcock pioneered it's use in Vietnam as a sniper weapon.

I did some research on the web concerning Geneva Convention, but I couldn't find anything definitive, although I didn't waste a lot of time on it.

As to whether or not the video actually depicts what it is purported to depict, I cannot say, but I do believe that that is a man's arm flying through the air in the one video.

If you are of the mind to click the link below, it contains pictures of an Army sniper and a would-be suicide bomber. I cannot vouch for its authenticity either, but it looks good to me.

Vividly and Explicitly Dead Individual to be Seen at this Site (Graphic, as they say.)

www.grouchyoldcripple.com...



[edit on 2005/7/13 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 11:50 PM
link   
Those are definitely animals getting shot, not humans in the "marine sniper" film. Obviously somebody is taking advantage of the hate for muslims going around. It's an awesome video, it is just not Taliban getting shot.



posted on Jul, 13 2005 @ 12:29 AM
link   
Well if the choice is sending in four or five guys to dig someone out of some rocks, or using one shot from an "illegal" .50, I'm gonna go with the .50 any day.



posted on Jul, 13 2005 @ 02:11 AM
link   
The Letter Of What Law?


Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
Yes that round is quite awesome, but I thought it was against the Geneva Convention to shoot the enemy with a .50 cal.

I've seen this claim before, but have never seen it substantiated with an actual reference to the Conventions that I could look up.

While I can't claim to be a scholar of the Conventions, with all the hullabaloo about the war in Iraq, I took some time to study them carefully.

If anyone can provide a citation to the actual clause(s) in the Conventions prohibiting use of .50 cal on soldiers, I would be interested in checking it out.



posted on Jul, 13 2005 @ 02:25 AM
link   
I don't remember ever seeing that any caliber of weapon would be illegal to use in war.

This article here speaks of .50 caliber anti-personnel sniper weapons:
www.ausa.org...(soldier)/20034?OpenDocument



posted on Jul, 13 2005 @ 02:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
Yes that round is quite awesome, but I thought it was against the Geneva Convention to shoot the enemy with a .50 cal.
I do remember sitting through Geneva Convention class, being instructed it was against the Convention to aim at enemy soldiers with an M-2 .50 cal machine gun; we were only alloed to aim at equipment and vehicles.

Am I missing something?


It is, unfortuantly, the M40 doesnt have the range that the M82 has. I suspect is is wise to kill the bastards further away. Unfortunatly, they never new what hit them.



posted on Jul, 13 2005 @ 02:56 AM
link   
Coolest video I've seen yet from Desert Storm was a Barret firing at a vehicle. Sniper pulls the trigger, and the sand in front of the barrel just parts like the Red Sea from the muzzle blast, and the guy goes sliding backwards from the recoil.



posted on Jul, 13 2005 @ 08:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott

If you are of the mind to click the link below, it contains pictures of an Army sniper and a would-be suicide bomber. I cannot vouch for its authenticity either, but it looks good to me.


That was graphic but so awesome and fitting death, well at least he got death like he wanted, but was able to take no one with him, and the left call these pucksticks soldiers.

They want to limit us and tie our hands and call our soldiers killers...

sickening.

I will bury my father soon, a wounded Korean War vet.....I wonder how many Americans called him a child killer, Haliburton lackey when he came home.

Tulipwalkers make me sick and the fact that they get away with it DURING wartime makes the sting even greater......



posted on Jul, 13 2005 @ 08:53 AM
link   
I had the pleasure to see one of these weapons up close about a year back in Northern Georgia.
At the John's Mountain shooting range, normally populated with locals sporting an interesting array of handgun weaponry, the depicted .50 cal Barrett was being used.
My firing position being about 20 feet to the right, ineffectually and only sporadically hitting my target with my .45 cal EAA "Witness"........ I was startled when the entire length of the shed shook, vibrating all my spent cartridges to the ground. Even with ear-protection the report was deafening...... and the impact on the earthen wall behind the targets chewed out a bushel-sized crater, which became more numerous as the morning passed.
A most impressive weapon



posted on Jul, 13 2005 @ 08:57 AM
link   
I showed this filmclip to a sniper instructor friend of mine and his just laughed.

He told me the sights on the 'scope were wrong - given it was supposed to be a Barrett - and he said they can't do photographs let alone films like that, through the sights.

Only way to do it, is for a spotter to film the 'target' and wait for the round to hit. Very hard to do - especially in a combat zone.

Good film - though I suspect it was a hunting trip. After all, until the last shot, we never see the tgt.

The last shot - well that's open to interpretation. Don't look human to me - but I have been known to be wrong.



posted on Jul, 13 2005 @ 09:13 AM
link   
I could care less if it's the real deal or not. Just the simple thought that those might be wiley taliban bastards gets me all warm and fuzzy inside. I also really enjoyed the additional footage of the terrorist eating an M1A2 round and the photo of the terrorist that got caught eating a .50 Cal round. Good Stuff!!!


Regarding the Geneva Convention... There is no prohibition on on caliber size being used against personnel. Hell, we smoke these guys with .50s, 240s, etc... all of the time. We do it from Bradley's, Apaches, Cobras, M1A2s and infantry based personnel every day. Go get 'em!!!



posted on Jul, 13 2005 @ 09:28 AM
link   
I believe the first shots could have been done with a muzzleloader, I could not see the actual rifle in this vid.

The sound didn't sound like a barrett at all, the barrett has a very distinct sound, mainly since it uses a muzzle-brake.

The second must have been a HEAT round of some sort, must be a very popular round in this war against those insurgent!



posted on Jul, 13 2005 @ 09:48 AM
link   
Apparently I'm not the only one to have been trained this way. I got this from another message board, made up of vets. The discussion was violations of the Geneva Convention:

"swiftcut, this ex-Tank Commander was trained that it is against the GENEVA CONVENTION to kill troops with .50 Cal BMG. Can you say: TROOPS IN THE OPEN ! FIRE ! FIFTY ! ON THE WAY ! The US routinely violates the RULES of Engagement. So what. Some enemy sign the Geneva Convention and some do not-- the .50 cal tears them all apart the same, bro. It is all a 'RIGHT SHOULDER' social engineered killing game. The Top Kick Battle Field killed NAZI's in Italy before you and I were born... "

Darn, another site speaks about it too, but seems to be down.

Anyway, I knows what I knows! The instructor clearly said you could only use it against vehicles and equipment. He then said that a canteen is equipment, and shoes are vehicles! Of course, that was supposed to be a joke, I'm sure.



posted on Jul, 13 2005 @ 09:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Majic
The Letter Of What Law?


Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
Yes that round is quite awesome, but I thought it was against the Geneva Convention to shoot the enemy with a .50 cal.

I've seen this claim before, but have never seen it substantiated with an actual reference to the Conventions that I could look up.

While I can't claim to be a scholar of the Conventions, with all the hullabaloo about the war in Iraq, I took some time to study them carefully.

If anyone can provide a citation to the actual clause(s) in the Conventions prohibiting use of .50 cal on soldiers, I would be interested in checking it out.


I remember being told that you couldn't target people with the 50 cal, only enemy equipment and vehicles....but if the guy happened to be wearing the equipment you were targeting (the example given to us was a canteen...LOL), that was his tough luck luck.



posted on Jul, 13 2005 @ 09:57 AM
link   
Another site with the same type of discussion going on. Gee, there must be a few of us wondering what changed!

[ QUOTE ]
I dunno... Im still trying to figure out why shooting a man in the gut with a .223 ball round that will leave him laying in no mans land bleeding to death for 2 days and nights is "humane" while shooting him with a 50 cal BMG and killing him instantly isn't...

[/ QUOTE ]

Because the Geneva Convention was written by politicians and bureaucrats. So it makes perfect sense. /forums/images/graemlins/thinking.gif /forums/images/graemlins/screwy.gif /forums/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif /forums/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif

Oh, BTW: The only time people get shot with a 50BMG is when they get in the line-of-fire between the gun and the equipment that was actually targeted... /forums/images/graemlins/whistling.gif /forums/images/graemlins/whistling.gif /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif



posted on Jul, 13 2005 @ 10:12 AM
link   
I'm sure we all remember the video of the Apache taking out the Iraqis with their 30mm cannon. I've also seen a great video from Afghanistan where a C-130 gunship is engaging running troops with what has to be a pretty massive gun from the looks of the explosions. (My favorite war video) Somewhere around here on ATS there's a link to a video of someone firing on a sniper with an AT4 anti-tank missle. I say that you give them all you've got.



posted on Jul, 13 2005 @ 10:19 AM
link   
I think the original video posted is a varmit hunt. They speed at which the remains accelerate as they are flung outward isn't realistic with something the size and weight of a human body or mountain goat. Regardless of the size of projectile used, gravity is constant whether its a prairie dog or an elephant. I think this is something most likely the size fo a dog or smaller. Maybe coyotes or some other animal.

Its all in perspective of who ever shot the footage. Furthermore, the idea of what one is going to see placed in thought before viewing it has a great deal to do with how we perceive what we are seeing.

In my opinion, only an animal with a light body frame could be launched like that by anything smaller than a granade or mortar round. Otherwise, the torso and dismembered limbs would remain quite close to the impact point as we saw in the infra-red video of the gunship video which is apprently authentic.


Edit: I just watched the video at 200% size. The last kill was made for certain on an animal the size of a racoon. It might have even been a racoon, who knows but just before the shot, an animal with a bushy tail is seen leaping from one rock to the other. Then being hit with the round.



[edit on 13-7-2005 by astrocreep]





new topics
top topics
 
3
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join