Talk about biting the bullet! Or, getting the biggest bang for your buck.
During a December 2013 operation in Afghanistan, a British sniper killed six Taliban fighters with a single bullet.
British and Afghan forces were attacked by 15-20 Taliban fighters during a mission in southern Afghanistan. One of the men was wearing an explosive vest. The unnamed, 20-year-old sharpshooter took a single shot from 930 yards which struck the trigger of the vest and exploded, killing an additional five terrorists.
Lt Col Richard Slack, commanding officer of 9/12 Royal Lancers, detailed the sniper’s encounter:
“The guy was wearing a vest. He was identified by the sniper moving down a tree line and coming up over a ditch,” said Lt Col Slack. “He had a shawl on. It rose up and the sniper saw he had a machine gun.
“They were in contact and he was moving to a firing position. The sniper engaged him and the guy exploded. There was a pause on the radio and the sniper said, ‘I think I’ve just shot a suicide bomber’. The rest of them were killed in the blast.”
Why is this article on this site? North needs to police his editors better. I know he doesn't support the overseas American empire. Why are the people he's turned this site over to putting up neo-con cheerleader propaganda?
Just maybe it could be because some of us readers want to read articles like this. Do you support censorship?
"Overseas American Empire"? That sounds like something from a national isolationist living in the 18th century. In any case you might want to take some reading comprehension lessons. The sniper was British, not American. Americans were not even involved. They were preparing to come home to become part of Obama's palace guards.
"Isolationist" is imperial propaganda-speak. The free market is exactly the opposite of isolationism. I'm a non-interventionist, as is North. Which is why I'm questioning why this article is on this site. There are plenty of sites for military porn. I don't expect to see this kind of thing on an Austro-Libertarian site.
Nope, I don't support censorship. Just pointing out the inconsistency of putting this kind of article on an Austro-Libertarian (old Liberal) site. It looks to me like North is letting editors who don't entirely agree with him run the site.
There are plenty of other places to read this type of thing…like the whole mainstream media.
Apparently from the lack of responses to your comment, there are few that agree with you.
And you think that an appeal to popularity legitimizes your arguments? If that's the case, then you're REALLY on the wrong site.
The free market is certainly the opposite of isolationism, but despots do not recognize nor sanction free market principles. The free market (along with its free people) must be defended militarily from time to time to protect this way of life. It can certainly be debated when and where this should be done, but too many Ron Paul libertarians refuse to recognize any relevance to this approach at all. Using the term "Overseas American empire" and neo-con propaganda identifies you as one of those. It also makes you an "isolationist" in the classical sense of the term. Neville Chamberlin was a "non-interventionist" as tool, and didn't that work out well.
Why exactly do we care about despots in Afghanistan? The only conceivable reasons America or Britain are over there is in order to 1) funnel money to the military-industrial complex, or 2) monopolize energy sources. Both of which are mercantilist functions, not free market ones.
I really don't understand why both this article and you are on this site, other than as trolls. You did see the line at the top of the page about North being "Ron Paul's original staff economist", right? It's not like there aren't plenty of sites out there for all you "national greatness" guys.
Since when do despots like Obama protect the free market?
If you want to fight for free markets in Afghanistan Speedle, then by all means, buy a gun, buy a plane ticket, fly out there and go for it!
Below you say differing opinions are trolls. Name calling is a cheap and unworthy move on your part. There is no settled doctrine that we should never intervene abroad. I do NOT like Ron Paul's isolationism nor North's. But I like much of what they say.
You see, James, we have a free society, and that means different opinions vie for attention. My own: We are at war with Islamic fundamentalism, and we didn't start it. Ron Paul to the contrary notwithstanding. (He is, IMHO, delusional on this point.) We are fighting for the survival of our society. This war will last 20 – 50 years, and if we win, it will be because all the islamic fascists die, in one way or another. Islam's only hope to survive as a religion is for us to win.
We sleep soundly in our beds in this county because rough men stand ready to do violence on those who threaten our sleep. I spent my time, and I am proud I did so.
Robert Heinlein had it right: Only those who have served in the military should be allowed to vote. IMHO.
James, I agree that vox populii is a terrible way of establishing truth. But freedom means robust dialog, and that means eschewing name calling and appeals to authority. You seem isolationist. I am not, and I see myself as quite libertarian. But there is no catachism for libertarian ideas, and some of us can be quite in favor of some interventions. For you to invite people to leave because of some purity test is simply a contamination of the ideal of freedom.
Again, I appeal for a constitutional amendment: No one can vote unless they served. (Ha! Good luck! But it would improve society tremendously.)
Nobody served their country in Uhmerikka's military; they all served themselves.
Don't like it? DON't READ IT!
THAT…is Bravo Sierra! Perhaps you might consider moving to one of the true garden-spots of liberty and tolerance…..say….Uganda….maybe Libya….how about one of the true bastions of harmony…North Korea! If you have been wanting to lose excess weight…that move will fix it right away!