Purple Monkey wrote:are you people forgetting what the British soldiers were doing with POWs just a little while ago?
Torturing and peeing on prisoners?????
u silly fuck keep up with the times the pictures that showed this and were publiushed in the Daily Mirror were proven to be fakes dipshit and so the Editor got sacked! British troops havnt done anytyhing as fucked up as what the US Troops did with POWs so do go dissing my country and its troops before gettin ya facts right!
I'm in a horrible mood right now got stoned last night ate a whole box of mintsticks and they workin my bowels real good right now so if this is too harsdh expect an apology later if I read this again and it infuriates me then I wont so hey
Love peace and kill the playing dead people before they kill you!
[img]http://img273.imageshack.us/img273/2582/distsig1kd.gif[/img]
Reap your life like you want to recognise all you have come to!
When I stamp it on your forehead
So you will never forget that you're a reject,
And you're no one little impotent one!
A_Fire_Inside wrote:That's fucked up. I don't know why people would want to make a living by killing people. And how could this dude have shot back if he was a defenceless insurgent? Why would he be playing dead if he had a gun?
And to televise the fucking incident. Does no one else see that the world is shit?
Yeh Stu, how could this defenceless insurgent gain anything from playing dead if he was unarmed? What would he do, shoot him a smile? I'd agree with you if the word defenceless wasn't in their but it speaks for itself really.
A fire inside, they play dead because they no they won't last two minutes in a gun fight so they try and get a sneaky shot in instead of dozens of fair ones. The marines guns are bad ass (even better when they get given sufficient ammo!) and the insurgents know their ak's are no match.
Last edited by riff on Sat Nov 20, 2004 12:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Look into my eye!
[img]http://compute2.shodor.org/mandy/cnew_archive/1920.gif[/img]
riff wrote: The marines guns are bad ass (even better when they get given sufficient ammo!) and the insurgents know their ak's are no match.
Not to pee on your bonfire but ask anyone who knows anything about guns and they'll tell you the ak47 kicks the m-16's ass anyday!! The magazine casing is stronger. Its easier to clean, dismantle and put back together and it doesnt jam or it does but no where near as regular as the m-16 as they only get 6 rounds off at a time unless they wanna make the weapon jam. This is because Kalashnikov designed the perfect assault rifle!
Even ya American Gunsmishts with anythin about em admit it as seen on the Channel 5 show over in the UK "GUNS"!!
Compared to the AK yank guns of the equivalent caliber and type suck!
[img]http://img273.imageshack.us/img273/2582/distsig1kd.gif[/img]
Reap your life like you want to recognise all you have come to!
When I stamp it on your forehead
So you will never forget that you're a reject,
And you're no one little impotent one!
riff wrote: The marines guns are bad ass (even better when they get given sufficient ammo!) and the insurgents know their ak's are no match.
Not to pee on your bonfire but ask anyone who knows anything about guns and they'll tell you the ak47 kicks the m-16's ass anyday!! The magazine casing is stronger. Its easier to clean, dismantle and put back together and it doesnt jam or it does but no where near as regular as the m-16 as they only get 6 rounds off at a time unless they wanna make the weapon jam. This is because Kalashnikov designed the perfect assault rifle!
Even ya American Gunsmishts with anythin about em admit it as seen on the Channel 5 show over in the UK "GUNS"!!
Compared to the AK yank guns of the equivalent caliber and type suck!
That told me! Even if they have better guns they would still lose in a fair fight, they wouldn't play dead otherwise. Once again Stu, how can a defenceless insurgent gain anything from playing dead if he's unarmed. Make all the new points you want, but please address the ones I make if we're debating.
Look into my eye!
[img]http://compute2.shodor.org/mandy/cnew_archive/1920.gif[/img]
I new nothing about this because i don't watch tv or read the paper or pay attention to any news in general unless it intrests me (is that a good or bad thing?) so im kinda ill informed on this subject but id say as it is a war. As every1 here has pointed out it was ok 4 the marine to shoot him hes just doing his job.
riff wrote: The marines guns are bad ass (even better when they get given sufficient ammo!) and the insurgents know their ak's are no match.
Not to pee on your bonfire but ask anyone who knows anything about guns and they'll tell you the ak47 kicks the m-16's ass anyday!! The magazine casing is stronger. Its easier to clean, dismantle and put back together and it doesnt jam or it does but no where near as regular as the m-16 as they only get 6 rounds off at a time unless they wanna make the weapon jam. This is because Kalashnikov designed the perfect assault rifle!
Even ya American Gunsmishts with anythin about em admit it as seen on the Channel 5 show over in the UK "GUNS"!!
Compared to the AK yank guns of the equivalent caliber and type suck!
That told me! Even if they have better guns they would still lose in a fair fight, they wouldn't play dead otherwise. Once again Stu, how can a defenceless insurgent gain anything from playing dead if he's unarmed. Make all the new points you want, but please address the ones I make if we're debating.
I am if the insurgent was left alone the day after he'd have been shooting another marine so hey. And put it this way you'd do the same but you cant attack actions unless you are willing to live through them yaself or have odne for that mater!!
[img]http://img273.imageshack.us/img273/2582/distsig1kd.gif[/img]
Reap your life like you want to recognise all you have come to!
When I stamp it on your forehead
So you will never forget that you're a reject,
And you're no one little impotent one!
About the AK-47 vs M-16 debate: I don't think the US would send their soldiers in with inferior weaponry.
The AK-47 is good for suppressive fire, seeing that after about 5-6 shots, accurate aiming is near impossible. The M-16 is far more accurate at long distances.
Plus, those insurgents are really just wackjobs with big guns, they're no match for a trained soldier.
Weedguru Funk Doctor wrote:About the AK-47 vs M-16 debate: I don't think the US would send their soldiers in with inferior weaponry.
The AK-47 is good for suppressive fire, seeing that after about 5-6 shots, accurate aiming is near impossible. The M-16 is far more accurate at long distances.
Plus, those insurgents are really just wackjobs with big guns, they're no match for a trained soldier.
Talk to a US Gunsmith the dude responsible for smithing all the hollywood weapons told the programme that the m-16 is inferior to the ak-47 and the disgrace was covered up during the Vietnam war. The fact is they used it because of not wanting embarrasment and having over powering numbers!
[img]http://img273.imageshack.us/img273/2582/distsig1kd.gif[/img]
Reap your life like you want to recognise all you have come to!
When I stamp it on your forehead
So you will never forget that you're a reject,
And you're no one little impotent one!
Stu I own an AK-47 got it from a guy in the neighboring town. The Ak is cool hardly any kick but the thing is not accurate after you fire a few rounds through it as where the M-16 is I think the M-16 is a better weapon. The Ak-47 is cheaply manufactured Why do you think most third world countries have this gun.
Weedguru Funk Doctor wrote:About the AK-47 vs M-16 debate: I don't think the US would send their soldiers in with inferior weaponry.
The AK-47 is good for suppressive fire, seeing that after about 5-6 shots, accurate aiming is near impossible. The M-16 is far more accurate at long distances.
Plus, those insurgents are really just wackjobs with big guns, they're no match for a trained soldier.
Talk to a US Gunsmith the dude responsible for smithing all the hollywood weapons told the programme that the m-16 is inferior to the ak-47 and the disgrace was covered up during the Vietnam war. The fact is they used it because of not wanting embarrasment and having over powering numbers!
Taken from SovietArms.com
AK-47 Limitations:
The most serious drawback to the AK and AKM is the low muzzle velocity (710 meters per second) of the relatively heavy 7.62-mm round. This results in a looping trajectory that requires a clumsy adjustment for accuracy at ranges beyond 300 meters. The barrel overheats quickly when the weapon fires for extended periods, making the weapon hard to handle and occasionally causing a round to explode prematurely in the chamber. The exposed gas cylinder is easily dented, sometimes causing the weapon to malfunction.
The AK-47 was designed for cheap mass production, it's designed so that even a child could operate it. That's the only advantage it has over the M-16. The M-16 has better range, accuracy and rate of fire.
riff wrote: The marines guns are bad ass (even better when they get given sufficient ammo!) and the insurgents know their ak's are no match.
Not to pee on your bonfire but ask anyone who knows anything about guns and they'll tell you the ak47 kicks the m-16's ass anyday!! The magazine casing is stronger. Its easier to clean, dismantle and put back together and it doesnt jam or it does but no where near as regular as the m-16 as they only get 6 rounds off at a time unless they wanna make the weapon jam. This is because Kalashnikov designed the perfect assault rifle!
Even ya American Gunsmishts with anythin about em admit it as seen on the Channel 5 show over in the UK "GUNS"!!
Compared to the AK yank guns of the equivalent caliber and type suck!
That told me! Even if they have better guns they would still lose in a fair fight, they wouldn't play dead otherwise. Once again Stu, how can a defenceless insurgent gain anything from playing dead if he's unarmed. Make all the new points you want, but please address the ones I make if we're debating.
I am if the insurgent was left alone the day after he'd have been shooting another marine so hey. And put it this way you'd do the same but you cant attack actions unless you are willing to live through them yaself or have odne for that mater!!
In referance to the first sentence, you are what if the insurgent was left alone etc? Once an enemy stronghold is captured, dead fighters and their weapons aren't just left as they are found. The soldiers would clear the area of such things. Its also regulation to check the state of people who appear dead to determine if they are dead, injured or playing dead.
edit- I should've done my homework on those guns instead of taking your word for it. Thanks for the info Funk Doc
Look into my eye!
[img]http://compute2.shodor.org/mandy/cnew_archive/1920.gif[/img]
