Poll: Sniper

Recommended Videos

spectrenihlus

New member
Feb 4, 2010
1,918
0
0
immovablemover said:
spectrenihlus said:
immovablemover said:
I would do my damnedest to take him Alive, with minimal harm done to him. If not taking the shot meant a capture opportunity in the future I would not take the shot.

If there was an immediate and pressing need to be lethal I would do so, but I would attempt to make it as clean, efficient and as suffering-free as I could.

I have no intention of becoming a monster whilst trying to fight them. It is a shame the same cannot be said for a good portion of the people in this thread.
Fastest way to kill a monster is to be monster. That is how you win wars by being the most brutal son of a ***** not in measured violence. This was how the Civil War was finally won and this was how WW2 was won and guess what in the end it saved lives on both sides.
Perhaps you didn't read my post properly - my aim would not be to kill him.

And I disagree with your position on Moral grounds.
Morality has nothing to do with this it is war. It's your side verses the other guys and you will do anything and everything to make sure your side wins. Especially when the other side wants your entire way of life to be destroyed. You want the enemy to fear your side because that is the only thing people like this understand through fear you gain their respect and then the attacks stop.
 

GLo Jones

Activate the Swagger
Feb 13, 2010
1,192
0
0
If my orders were to shoot him? Definitely.

If the question is asking if I'd kill him of my own volition, given the chance, then no, I wouldn't. He's definitely a beacon for extremists to look up to, but as an individual, he's just a guy, and as far as I understand it, a fairly nice guy.
 

artanis_neravar

New member
Apr 18, 2011
2,560
0
0
RanD00M said:
artanis_neravar said:
Okay, so you got me there. But does that mean that I am personally not allowed to use the second one first and foremost. And does that mean that just because that it has been used for some number of years now that it can't be changed? No, and I am not one to call yanks Americans. I rather call yanks U.S. Citizens or Yanks.
You can call us whatever you want (free speech and all) just know that when a US citizen says American they are most likely referring to US citizens. And as a side note calling someone from the Boston area an Yank might not have the best results for you
Edit: in person
 

spectrenihlus

New member
Feb 4, 2010
1,918
0
0
immovablemover said:
spectrenihlus said:
immovablemover said:
spectrenihlus said:
immovablemover said:
I would do my damnedest to take him Alive, with minimal harm done to him. If not taking the shot meant a capture opportunity in the future I would not take the shot.

If there was an immediate and pressing need to be lethal I would do so, but I would attempt to make it as clean, efficient and as suffering-free as I could.

I have no intention of becoming a monster whilst trying to fight them. It is a shame the same cannot be said for a good portion of the people in this thread.
Fastest way to kill a monster is to be monster. That is how you win wars by being the most brutal son of a ***** not in measured violence. This was how the Civil War was finally won and this was how WW2 was won and guess what in the end it saved lives on both sides.
Perhaps you didn't read my post properly - my aim would not be to kill him.

And I disagree with your position on Moral grounds.
Morality has nothing to do with this it is war. It's your side verses the other guys and you will do anything and everything to make sure your side wins. Especially when the other side wants your entire way of life to be destroyed. You want the enemy to fear your side because that is the only thing people like this understand through fear you gain their respect and then the attacks stop.
Morality has everything to do with it.

Really if your world view is that painfully black & white AND void of ethical considerations then there really isn't anything nice to say about your mode of thinking other than

HERP DE DERP DE DIDDLY TERP DE DERP.
And your view of the world is NOT REALISTIC. Fine if you want to treat captured POW's with respect and decency that is all well and good but the only reason that you are doing that is not because its the moral thing to do it is because you would rather have the enemy surrender then fight to the last man and risk losing more people on your side. Japan during world war 2 was as fanatical as Al Qaeda is today, remember they invented suicide attacks, invasion of their mainland would have been costly for both sides the US and Japan both in terms of lives lost and in money spent. So instead the US dropped the atomic bomb and vaporized thousands of their people in a second, and then we did it again and we reached total surrender. The act of seeing thousands of people wiped out in a second really sobered the Japanese fanaticism and guess what Japan and the US are best friends. Same goes for Sherman's march during the civil war it was brutal but it was quick and helped in ending the war faster than it otherwise would have taken saving lives over the long term. The reason Afghanistan is taking so damn long is because we are not allowing our troops to go in and kick ass and thus we are losing lives.
 

Canid117

New member
Oct 6, 2009
4,075
0
0
If I had orders to kill Osama Bin Laden and he was in my sights I would take the shot. I don't know if I would hit him but I would take the shot.
 

Doctor Glocktor

New member
Aug 1, 2009
802
0
0
immovablemover said:
spectrenihlus said:
immovablemover said:
spectrenihlus said:
immovablemover said:
I would do my damnedest to take him Alive, with minimal harm done to him. If not taking the shot meant a capture opportunity in the future I would not take the shot.

If there was an immediate and pressing need to be lethal I would do so, but I would attempt to make it as clean, efficient and as suffering-free as I could.

I have no intention of becoming a monster whilst trying to fight them. It is a shame the same cannot be said for a good portion of the people in this thread.
Fastest way to kill a monster is to be monster. That is how you win wars by being the most brutal son of a ***** not in measured violence. This was how the Civil War was finally won and this was how WW2 was won and guess what in the end it saved lives on both sides.
Perhaps you didn't read my post properly - my aim would not be to kill him.

And I disagree with your position on Moral grounds.
Morality has nothing to do with this it is war. It's your side verses the other guys and you will do anything and everything to make sure your side wins. Especially when the other side wants your entire way of life to be destroyed. You want the enemy to fear your side because that is the only thing people like this understand through fear you gain their respect and then the attacks stop.
Morality has everything to do with it.

Really if your world view is that painfully black & white AND void of ethical considerations then there really isn't anything nice to say about your mode of thinking other than

HERP DE DERP DE DIDDLY TERP DE DERP.
You are certainly a paragon of virtue, what with your noticeable respect and humility.

Your morality must be so good.
 

Canid117

New member
Oct 6, 2009
4,075
0
0
DragonLord Seth said:
LOL nobody chose the "right" answer, that they would try, but fail. Me? The recoil would break my shoulder.
What are you trying to snipe with a 4 bore or something?
 

TheAceTheOne

New member
Jul 27, 2010
1,106
0
0
RanD00M said:
TheAceTheOne said:
RanD00M said:
TheAceTheOne said:
You don't hurt AMERICANS without some serious s*** hitting the fan.
So you intend on going to South America and hurt anyone that commits a crime that involved them hurting someone else. Or hell, do you intend on doing it in the U.S.?
I was talking specifically on Osama, not about anyone in South America or in the U.S.
You obviously didn't read the part that I specifically quoted. Or you did and decided to completely ignore the point I was trying to make.
I did read it. Note that the original post was about Osama. There was no mention of what I would have done to any other nations, groups, or individuals, including those you mentioned , in the original post or my response. While those instances are tragic and need those responsible need to be held accountable, they are not a part of the original post or my response to said post. If you really want to know, I do think that any individual, group, or what have you, who hurts innocents, not just Americans , should to be held accountable.
 

artanis_neravar

New member
Apr 18, 2011
2,560
0
0
spectrenihlus said:
immovablemover said:
Morality has everything to do with it.

Really if your world view is that painfully black & white AND void of ethical considerations then there really isn't anything nice to say about your mode of thinking other than

HERP DE DERP DE DIDDLY TERP DE DERP.
And your view of the world is NOT REALISTIC. Fine if you want to treat captured POW's with respect and decency that is all well and good but the only reason that you are doing that is not because its the moral thing to do it is because you would rather have the enemy surrender then fight to the last man and risk losing more people on your side. Japan during world war 2 was as fanatical as Al Qaeda is today, remember they invented suicide attacks, invasion of their mainland would have been costly for both sides the US and Japan both in terms of lives lost and in money spent. So instead the US dropped the atomic bomb and vaporized thousands of their people in a second, and then we did it again and we reached total surrender. The act of seeing thousands of people wiped out in a second really sobered the Japanese fanaticism and guess what Japan and the US are best friends. Same goes for Sherman's march during the civil war it was brutal but it was quick and helped in ending the war faster than it otherwise would have taken saving lives over the long term. The reason Afghanistan is taking so damn long is because we are not allowing our troops to go in and kick ass and thus we are losing lives.
Agredd morality and war have no business being together. You cannot be moral when fighting any enemy that will do everything it can to exterminate you
 

AgDr_ODST

Cortana's guardian
Oct 22, 2009
9,317
0
0
Im not the best shot, but If I were in a position to shoot him I'd first aim for the dome of his body guard, and then aim for Bins legs or lungs so I could either capture him or so he'd die a slow and painful death
 

Geo Da Sponge

New member
May 14, 2008
2,611
0
0
Probably. I mean, what reason do I have not to?

[small]Apart from the whole moral quandry of taking another humans life, but whatever.[/small]

EllEzDee said:
"A marine sniper"

That's like asking a brick what colour the sky is. They're brain dead, hence the term "jar heads".
You're making Gibbs angry...
 

Shraggler

New member
Jan 6, 2009
216
0
0
In this case I'm fairly apathetic about the whole thing. He's (was) one guy in a whole world full of smug, self-righteous, narrow-minded, greedy, ignorant, selfish assholes. I wouldn't bat an eye either way, but there are so many more of these 7th century minded morons out there that I don't know if it would have the "desired effect".
 

Altorin

Jack of No Trades
May 16, 2008
6,976
0
0
who wouldn't take a clear shot at the most wanted man in the world? To be the guy that actually shot bin laden? damn, I'd love to be that guy. Would I be physically or mentally or even emotionally able to take the shot? Perhaps not (definitely not physically or mentally, I'm not a sniper). But if I had been trained to take the shot, then fucking rights I'd take it, if that was part of my orders.
 

Twilight_guy

Sight, Sound, and Mind
Nov 24, 2008
7,131
0
0
Am I a solder? If I am then I'm doing my job. If I'm not then I'm murdering someone and that requires more thought.
 

Shock and Awe

Winter is Coming
Sep 6, 2008
4,647
0
0
Shoot him, report the location of the body, and stick around to pop any guards that try to recover it. Then i would get a cool 25 Million and know I did a good deed.
 

Laxman9292

New member
Feb 6, 2009
457
0
0
gamerguy473 said:
Spartan448 said:
dkyros said:
Erlend Sandholm said:
i read the question too fast and tought it said Obama. so i answered no
hehe its okay. Anyone else reminded of this?
http://www.mediabistro.com/alltwitter/files/2011/05/fox40_news_obama_bin_laden_dead.jpg
It's Fox News, the premier Republican news network. What did you expect?

But still, Epic Fail on Fox's part.
Look at the 'B' more closely, its clearly photoshopped.
That's what I thought as well, but really it doesn't matter. Literally, most people I know have made this mistake without even realizing it. Honest and harmless mistake that could happen to anyone.

Captcha: "thus manmens" thus, real manmens would take the shot, I know I would.
 

s0m3th1ng

New member
Aug 29, 2010
935
0
0
I would shoot him in the stomach and testicles. Don't want him dying to quickly now.
 

tigermilk

New member
Sep 4, 2010
951
0
0
73.5% people say yes. Either they took military training as a pre-requisite of having the oppurtunity or chillingly they are pretty confident with guns.