New record for longest combat kill, by ALOT

[Craig234]

War is necessary at times

I agree with you up to that point only. But I didn't say otherwise. I said to not turn it into entertainment.

like now, for example, in the fight against Islam

We do not have a "fight against Islam".

In fact, you are saying exactly what the terrorists WANT you to say - the lie that the US wants war with Islam.

They are not Islamic - they have a warped, extremist version and want that war.

I almost never get to quote George W. Bush other than to disagree, but this is the rare quote, what he said after 9/11:

"The face of terrorism not the true faith of Islam. That’s not what Islam is all about. Islam is peace. These terrorists don’t represent peace, they represent evil and war . . . When we think of Islam, we think of a faith that brings comfort to a billion people around the world . . .and that’s made brothers and sisters out of every race"

Don't serve the terrorists, by spreading the false message - and holding it - they want you to about the US being at war with Islam.

"and before, fighting the Nazis in Europe and later the commies in Korea. No one fighting those battles thought they were wasting their time.Those wringing their hands and crying about mass murderers are disingenuous blending Stalin with Eisenhower and calling, in ignorance, for an "end". Anyone who has studied war knows that war is politics by other means. There is no end, only victory.The hand wringers should just move right, cause they are in the way.[/QUOTE]

You are advocating evil here. But first, I don't know what you're referring to on blending Stalin and Eisenhower; I did not do that. I don't know why you picked those two, who were allies against Hitler.

Stalin was worse in the critical way he killed millions of his own people; but on the other hand, it was the US who dragged their feet on attacking Hitler, to let the Soviets take tens of millions killed before finally launching D-Day; and Eisenhower who did things like give us the non-democratic Iran ever since.

It was Eisenhower who gave Iran 25 years of terror under the Shah, and made the revolution inevitable - and when revolution finally came, there were two factions fighting to rule the country, the communists and the fundamentalist clerics. We'd have been better off with communists.

War is not simply politics by other means. That is the sort of amoral and immoral view I am saying is wrong.

It IS war by other means, if that's how you want to view it - just as robbery is income by other means, if that's how you choose to view it.

You CAN reduce war to the exchange of wealth and power, and ignore the human costs, and declare 'victory' if your side comes out ahead, and simply make war a tool to use for profit.

Not many Americans understand this, but we have a long history of just that.

As the then-highest decorated US military person in history, Gen. Smedley Butler, said after decades of service in the 1930's:

I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.

More recently, read John Perkins' books about 'economic hit men' for the modern version of how we have and how we can use war and violence for profit.

My point is that a lot of that is not the 'war that is necessary' you mentioned, but war for profit - morally criminal. And whether it's understood to be criminal, or is worshiped, admired, gawked at, accepted and approved, is the choice for the civilization to make.

Either is possible. You can view slavery or the Nazis or other wrongs as 'right' and 'good'. People have done so. Or you can view the wrong of them and oppose them. And turning the tragedy of war into entertainment greases the machine for choosing war for profit.

Think about how blindly you likely buy into the ideas of what you call the 'war against Islam' as being 'necessary' and right and good to the point that there's no need for any regret for those harmed on the other side, how few questions you ask about the 'real causes' or need to try to end the war.

No, it's like so often happens in war - view the other side as cockroaches to be exterminated, and ask no other questions. And enjoy.

 

[Charmonium]

Can't you just keep shooting until you happen to hit someone and then declare them the target?

I was thinking something similar. Since no one is going to hear the shot above the background noise at 2+ miles, why not lay down a couple of shots in case the first one misses, the target moves, etc. With 10 second travel time, you should be able to get at least 2 more shots off before the first one even hits.

 

[Darwin333]

Wow, a kill shot from damn near 2.2 miles away!