Sign in / up

back to article Snipers - Cowardly assassins, or surgical soldiers?

Snipers are nasty, everyone knows that. They hunt people like animals, killing them without giving them a chance to fight or even to surrender. Few soldiers are more hated; even their own armies often seem less than pleased to have them around. So why is the British Ministry of Defence happy to announce that it has just spent …

COMMENTS

House rules Send corrections
This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

  1. jake Silver badge

    @Stuart Van Onselen

    "1) Shouldn't beancounters actually *love* snipers? Snipers use a ludicrous number of rounds when training, but far fewer in combat, making them cheaper in the long run. Maybe I have my facts wrong, or maybe beancounters are idiots. (Just ask the BOFH.)"

    Re-read Lewis' article. Between wars, they shave costs by cutting the more intensive and costly training programs that are deemed "unneeded in peace time". Training snipers is very costly. Many standing armed forces don't keep up war-time numbers of snipers-in-training, in order to save money. I guess they figure there is enough time to train 'em after war breaks out, but before they are needed in the field. Fortunately, the USMC doesn't see it that way.

    "2) But didn't Hathcock use a 50-cal, the very round you said caused potentially fatal shrapnel?"

    Probably not. Although they played with mounting optics on Browning .50 MGs fired in single shot mode, that kinda gear is a trifle heavy for most Scout/Sniper work. Most snipers in the field back then used Winchester Model 70 chambered for 30-06. Kinda like the one in the gun cabinet over my right shoulder. Personally, I prefer the Remington Model 700 chambered for 308, sitting next to it, for long distance work when I have to lug the weapon around ... If I don't have to carry it more than a couple feet, the .416 Barret wins hands down.

    Also remember that with any distance shooting, the bullet isn't following a flat trajectory. It is ballistic in nature, meaning you'd have an incoming bullet not only hit the center of the scope, but it would have to be as near as possible coming in at the same angle of the scope tube. So, in answer to your next question:

    "Or were you drawing a distinction between "head shredded by flying bits of his own scope" on the one end, and "surgical shot leaving the scope barrel intact, like I saw in the movies, so it has to be true" on the other?"

    The later is how the shot is described by the myth, not the former.

    We fired a LOT of rounds, in a LOT of calibers, loaded for a LOT of velocities ranging from hot-handload at the muzzle, to the velocity at the extreme effective range of the weapon, according to standard ballistics charts. (We had over 5500 otherwise useless surplus scopes to play with, so we did ... If you are wondering, they failed calibration testing).

    In all short range tests, we laser aligned the barrel and target scope before taking the shot. In the longer range tests with the heavier rifles, we fired a shot to find the true zero, then aligned the target scope to that.

    Weapons ranged from some of those above, a Kimber .45 (my competition pistol), a couple TC Contenders, one in .30 Herret and one in 357 Herret, a S&W K-frame .38, a .22 magnum revolver, a High Standard .22lr (7 inch barrel), a bog-standard Winchester 30-06 rifle, a .44Mag Rugar carbine and matching Rugar revolver, a .50 black powder replica Kentucky, a highly customized .220 Swift, a .177 Bee, a 45-70 rolling block (Great Granpa's buffalo gun), a 12 guage with both deer slugs and buck shot ... There were others.

    We captured a bunch of lead within the scope tubes. The only round that broke the actual eyepiece was the 20mm target load, at 50 yards ... but even then, it just broke the glass and didn't push any lead out the far end of the scope tube. It probably broke it from the initial impact. I'd like to run the experiment again, but with high speed video to get a better idea of the mechanics. Unfortunately, I don't have a stock of surplus scopes anymore.

    And yes, to whoever asked, we used FMJ, hand cast lead (type and dive belt), and various mixtures of lead & "other", and a bunch of factory lead. All were handloaded, by us, and tested, by us. Is it possible we made a mistake, or missed something? Of course! We're only human.

    But as far as I am concerned, it never happened as described. It's a myth.

    HOWEVER, I'm enough of a realist to be shown otherwise :-)

    1 3
  2. jake Silver badge

    @Sillyfellow

    "if it's a matter if "kill or be killed" then i will accept to be killed"

    What you just said means that you accept that your $DEITY wants the bad guys to win.

    You really are a silly fellow, aren't you?

    1 3
  3. Pedantic Twat

    @cal -- me too

    Very impressed that you came back and apologised -- nice one.

    0 0
  4. Gary Shields
    Pirate

    Cal hit the mark

    As a current British Army sniper, I can honestly say that this article appears to have been quite poorly resourced. The sniper course is one of the hardest in the Army to complete sucessfully, and the skills and capabilities we provide add sigificantly to a formation's assets and protection, and also strike ability.

    The first comment by Cal is more factual than this article.

    El Reg is very informative for IT related news, so please don't try and add a poorly resourced article to your mariad of great and often funny articles. Stick to what you guys know ;) Happy to discuss.

    1 0
  5. Anonymous Coward
    Happy

    RE: @Mike_T and TW Burger

    ROFL !

    The "I'm-right-because-I-wannabe" theory of science and engineering at its best. Oh and it's Mark, not Mike. Classic !

    "Secondly, steering does NOT rely on powered flight, and any number of air vehicles demonstrate this fact. The projectiles are only ballistic in the first place because they're unsteered."

    Having actually flown several powered and unpowered "air vehicles," can I draw your attention to a little feature we use called wings? Either fixed or rotary.

    Nothing, and I mean absolutely nothing, can be guided without aerodynamic lift or the use of power.

    If it has wings it ain't ballistic, if it has power it ain't ballistic. If it is ballistic all you can do is change the direction it points, not travels.

    Can I take this opportunity to remind those in the colonies that guns are a European invention? ;o))

    1 0
  6. Anonymous Coward
    Pirate

    Actually any soldier is a killer

    Even if it sounds obvious, anyone who kills is a killer.

    Killing is a taboo in almost any mainstream culture

    (let's skip the Maya for simplicity - they are anyhow extinct)

    and it is "justified" if the killing is needed for the gain of the culture itself.

    You belong to culture X and kill the enemy of culture X, which is Y, then

    - for X, you are a soldier (or a policeman) and you can climb the ladder up to hero,

    you kill for an "absolute good"

    (in western term: the progress of civilization)

    - for Y, you are a terrorist, you commit crime against humanity

    you kill because you are "evil"

    (in western term: Islamist )

    strictly speaking you have killed in both case and you are not different

    in the eye of a culture Z which does not have any stake in the fight

    between Y and X

    having said that, it is pretty depressing to see so many user involved

    in killing (or learning to kill) for the prosperity of Exxon Oil and Halliburton

    and even somehow apparently justifying this for some strange code of honor

    of some other relics of the pre-corporation age.

    An advice, play "HAZE" to understand where the west is going.

    0 0
  7. Eric Olson
    Boffin

    About that whole Mythbusters thing...

    Actually, Mythbusters recently went and redid the bullet through the scope myth. After taking all the suggestions given in good faith by their viewers, even if misinformed, they tried again. Using Jamie's impressive skills at shooting through a scope, nothing worked. However, the ballistics expert they had on-site brought in a "secret" weapon for one last try. Out came an armor-piercing, tungsten-core round. One shot later, and they had a ballistics dummy with a pretty serious eye wound... and a bullet lodged 2" into it's brain. Now, there was no skull, as it was just ballistics gel, but one could make the assumption that the shot would have been a mortal wound without immediate medical attention. Keeping in mind how a sniper is supposed to operate, it would be quite likely they would bleed to death before a medic could reach them.

    Otherwise, good article, and congrats on Cal for owning up to falling for the journalistic ploy of emotional manipulation. Misstating the intention of the article in the first couple of paragraphs is a cheap, but effective trick. Journalists are way more amoral and ruthless than your typical sniper.

    1 0
  8. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Good article crap title

    I nearly missed reading this article because of the title, I mistakenly assumed that it would be full of moralising bullshit. Then an old friend recommended it so I read it, nicely done as always Mr Page.

    Although I have to agree with the beancounter quoted, in that this kind of ammo (if ever developed) would be too expensive to use against meatsacks in general, just specially selected high value ones.

    Oh! and to the person who is sickened by us all, if you're so ready to die why dont you fuck off and do just that and spare us your sniveling. (do it live online so we can all have a laugh).

    an ex grunt

    0 0
  9. Jon Tocker

    I'm gobsmacked

    I'm so used to Mr Page being quite accurate with his military-based articles that him making as basic a mistake as saying the "R" in 7.62x54R refers to it being a rimfire round (rather than centrefire), truly shocked me.

    OK, I do have the advantage over many casual readers in that I once owned a WWII-vintage Mosin-Nagant "3-Line rifle" (a "Line" being a unit of measurement, three of which equates to roughly 7.62mm) which was chambered for the 7.62x54R and so I am quite familiar with the *rimmed* *centrefire* cartridge in question.

    Saying the "R" stood for "Rimfire" is not a mistake I would personally make and I would have thought that Mr Page - avid militaria nut that he seems to be - would not have made that mistake either.

    Sheesh!

    OBTW, I personally think modern bomber crews are craven cowards. Being able to sit back well out of range of the enemy's anti-aircraft emplacements and fire guided smartbombs or cruise missiles at distant targets with no regard for whether or not the casualties include civilians strikes me as very cowardly - and callously indiscrimate and inhumane as well.

    Personally I think someone who gets within rifle range of the enemy is far braver than any bomber and those within rifle range with the skill to cherry-pick their targets are far more humane and discriminating than anyone who fills the area with death-and-destruction in the faint hope that at least some of the casualties are actually combatants.

    If we ever were invaded, I'd hope the invaders made extensive use of snipers and very little use of bombers - me and my kids would be less likely to be shot by a sniper than killed or maimed by someone indiscriminately flinging bombs at our city.

    1 1
  10. Ian Michael Gumby
    Heart

    @Stuart

    "2) But didn't Hathcock use a 50-cal, the very round you said caused potentially fatal shrapnel?"

    Hathcock used the .50 cal M2 Machine gun a couple of times since he could tap off a single shot.

    (I don't have a copy of his book in front of me so going from memory...)

    They put a scope on the machine gun, and his target was a VC on a bicycle approx 2300 yrds away.

    In the field, AFAIK, he used a Winchester M70 bolt action rifle.

    Getting back on topic of the article, the .50 cal bullet is large enough to be able to hold things like an explosive core and some micro-electronic circuits.

    As to the shape of the bullet, you could mount a sensor even in the "pointy" nose of a bullet so you could retain the streamlined BC of a .50 cal boat-tail round.

    Whats scary is that I know this stuff. ;-)

    1 0
  11. Maksim Rukov
    Coat

    if I had a penny...

    ...for every time I saw an online gaming nick with "sniper" (or some variant) in the name I would be quite rich. I would be exactly twice as rich if I got an extra penny every time such a nick's user happened to be a teenager with bad manners and a poor grasp of teamwork.

    I wonder what real snipers make of that?

    It's this annoying gamer sniper adulation that urges me to be cautious. Snipers serve a very useful role, no doubt about that, but they are not so awesome-amazing that you could field an army made entirely of them and expect to win your average everyday conventional war. Not that you clever Register chaps would need to be told that...

    Then again, don't listen to me, I'm just mad at the amount of men I've lost to snipers in Company of Heroes.

    Mine's the one with the Jeep keys in the pocket.

    1 0
  12. Loki

    Doesnt go far enough..

    The whole business of snipers doesnt go far enough. I've always though that rather than bloody huge wars with civilian losses, that it should be the leaders who start the bloody things should be at the front of every conflict rather than the peons.

    If a leader isn't willing to be at the front of a battle then better they didn't start the whole shebang in the first place. Better still, lets have like celebrity deathmatch where the leaders are thrown in a ring together and the winner takes all.

    Just imagine, Bush vs Hussein. On the side of the US a man who alledges to have spent some time in the army and other the other side a man who (or so we are led to believe) was more than combat capable.

    Would give the US final justification as well for making Schwarzenegger (yeah, had to use the spell checker on that one!) president... ok, a bit old now but im sure he would still be capable of pushing Gordon Brown's face through the back of his head. ;-)

    1 0
  13. druck Silver badge

    Fly eye

    You don't need a conventional spherical lens in the nose a bullet to track a laser, think of the compound lenses in a fly's eye.

    1 0
  14. Jesrad
    Boffin

    @Sillyfellow

    "ALL of LIFE is precious and sacred. nobody has the right to take any life of any form for any reason. period."

    Well, yes, precisely. However people take their own life for lots of stupid (un)reasons day in and day out, and there is nothing you or I or the Gub'n'mint can do about this sad consequence of existence.

    Soldiers on both sides of a war, to the exclusion of most conscripts (war serfs), intend to go out and get killed while trying to kill the other bastard, otherwise they'd spend their time elsewhere. Shooting them down brings them exactly what they want. It even has an aesthetic side: yes, I think there is something beautiful in the life arc of some stupid person meeting an equally stupid and timely death through a thoroughly free chain of thinking and acting, without malicious interference with his or her thinking and acting from outside, unto reaching the pointless conclusion.

    Man's condition is stupid and tragic because he's free to develop his own purpose and justification for existing but incapable of perfection at that task, so fulfilling this existence one way or another will on average be just as stupid and tragic as we are as a species. The most we can do is to avoid one's stupid chosen purpose in life from affecting another's equally stupid chosen purpose in life, so as to maintain everyone's aesthetic standing. When applying this thinking to people bent on killing each other, it means avoiding collateral damage. In that sense, within this understanding of life, smart bullets and sniping are beautiful.

    Of course, a duel at dawn between just the couple persons who'd initiate wars in the first place, would be even more beautiful. But those people tend not to play fair.

    1 0
  15. Zmodem

    political warlords

    gods of man or just pen pushers

    0 1
  16. Anonymous Coward
    Thumb Up

    Perception

    They appear "cold-blooded killers" as they are "seen" to kill intentionally as opposed to the wonderful ground troops who only kill if provoked! Absolute cods, but as with many things in life, perception is all. Personally I think they're the dog's wotnots! Who doesn't enjoy taking on the role of sniper in any computer game that permits it? Creeping about, getting it just right, then taking out the target with surgical precision. Fantastic!

    0 0
  17. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Subsonic Rounds

    I used to shoot rabbits with a .22 rifle with silencer and hollow point subsonic ammo (that way you can take out a couple of the suckers before they know what's happening). The subsonic rounds were necessary for the silencer to work properly.

    Anyone who has used subsonic ammo knows that it is not silent. Even with a .22 cal round, there is still quite a lot of noise generated by the flight of the bullet. This is not so bad if you are low to the ground and surrounded by soft earth and foliage where the sound of the bullet is absorbed. However, if you are shooting from a higher position, from anything other than a short range, it is quite easy to track the flight of the shot, especially if you are facing perpendicular to and in front of the shooter (and are not the one being shot)

    Also, there is some quite sophisticated acoustic triangulation equipment out there which is able to pinpoint the position of a sniper. The more advanced systems do this not just by listening to the origin of the initial shot, but also by listening for the actual flight of the bullet to determine trajectory.

    Also: Agree that the shot-through-the-scope story is bunkum

    And: Vasili Zaitsev is the most famous (if not the most prolific) sniper of all time. Interestingly the translation of his name does not make him sound very hard at all - Basil the Rabbit.

    1 0
  18. Chris
    Happy

    Snipers rule.

    I don't think snipers are cowardly at all. They often have to make their way into very dangerous situations with no back up, and they serve an extremely valuable function.

    As for the "LIFE IS PRECIOUS OMFG" person - a small number of sniper kills on high ranking enemy commanders can prevent a great many more deaths. Lewis did state this in the article, but I guess you'd already made up your mind to rant long before reaching that part.

    Anyway I'm more of an AWP man myself. In source of course!

    0 0
  19. TeeCee Gold badge

    Re: Steering a bullet.

    Well, the Excalibur system solves the fin deployment problem by being fired on a spin-countering discarding sabot to both allow for the projectile's deployable fins and to dramatically reduce the spin with which the actual projectile itself is imparted. The one thing everyone's fogotten here is that the last thing you want on a dirigible projectile is spin. Quite apart from the difficulties in operating any kind of steering system, the gyroscopic effects are a PITA. I found it quite amusing when it was pointed out that the ideal weapon for firing Excalibur and its ilk would be a smoothbore cannon, but they went with the sabot as the US don't have any smoothbored heavy artillery pieces in service right now.

    I'd have thought that producing a sabot-discarding round in a similar vein that can be fired from a .50 cal rifle would be difficult, but not beyond the realms of possibility. However, far simpler would be to produce a .50 cal (or similar) dedicated smoothbored weapon to fire such an object from. The bore could then be whatever shape in cross-section was most convenient to accomodate a projectile with deployable fins. Yay! Muskets are back.

    1 0
  20. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    @Mark_T

    Thanks for remaining polite and sensible ... not. You need to go back to school.

    You asserted that unpowered objects cannot be steered:

    > "I can state with some certainty that ballistic projectiles cannot be steered. Put fins on a bullet and it will just carry on, but sideways."

    You then ridiculed my statement about any number of air vehicles demonstrating you wrong. Then you decided to add a new case of "aerodynamic lift" to try and get yourself out of the hole you dug. Bit late now, though, isn't it?

    > "can I draw your attention to a little feature we use called wings?"

    Sure. Can I draw your attention to a little something we call body lift?

    Some examples: Gliders are not powered, but steer, even in descent. That should be enough to prove this, but wait, there's more. Missiles (several varieties) do not apply power for the entire flight - the rocket motor cuts out, but, the missile continues to steer providing there's sufficient airflow over the fins - they wouldn't work otherwise, but I can assure you that they do. But wait, I'll also throw in one more for free: Unpowered bombs (several varieties) have guidance packages with fins that steer to a target ... sometimes from a very long way away. I can assure you that they work too.

    A simpler, related example: A ship will continue to steer even after the engines are turned off providing there's enough water flow over the rudder. We call this "steerage way". You can try this one yourself: Get a power boat, get it up to speed, cut the engines and it'll still steer (and change course) for a while.

    For the less technically minded, here's another simple example: A bowler in cricket can get the ball to move left or right IN THE AIR by polishing one side of the ball and roughing the other side. Different drag (and therefore different airflow) creates a pressure differential which causes the ball to "swing". Now, that cricket ball is definitely not powered and has bugger all "aerodynamic lift" either. But it works, and you can see it work right on your own TV.

    Back to snipers: Without power, steering creates extra drag (I said that already) and that limits range. So, also as I said, to make any of this worthwhile, either the range must be shortened, calibre increased or the round given in-flight power.

    1 0
  21. Phil
    IT Angle

    Minor nitpick about American 50-cal machine guns

    I liked most of the article, but I wanted to point out that American 50-caliber machine guns have a built-in sniping capacity. At least, they have since before I was in, during the first Gulf war. I heard the capacity dated to the Viet Nam war, so it was built in back then too.

    In the back of the machine gun, directly under the big trigger lever, is a round knob. You rotate it, locking it into one position or another to switch from full auto to single shot. Since a 50-cal is usually tripod mounted, and has a pintle and t&e, you can be extremely accurate. It's range, technically, is several thousand meters.

    You can mount a scope on top, in particular the nightscope (AN/PVS4) they trained me on.

    My favorite Hathcock story: One day, he was using one of the 50 cals, and he bet his assistant that he could hit a viet cong in the nose (the person was about 1500 meters away). He fired and hit him in the throat, just under the chin, losing the bet.

    I don't know where you got the idea people disliked snipers; we Marines LOVED ours. We thought they were awe inspiring. Most of us got our camoflage training from a sniper who visited our boot camp specifically for that purpose. He told us some amazing stories, then taught us how to be almost invisible in the woods (including how to make our own ghillie suits relatively cheaply). He was a hell of a guy. Big, burly fellow with a walrus mustache, believe it or not -- not exactly regulation!

    1 0
  22. Anonymous Coward
    Happy

    RE: @Mark_T

    Ah bless. You don't understand the science yet you cling to your beliefs like a religion.

    The Civil Aviation Authority says I'm skilled enough to teach, my ranking in NRA (the British one) competitions says I know ballistics and the EITB and BTEC say I understand mechanics...

    But you know better ;o))

    When one encounters a pig rolling in S**T one has two choices; join the pig in the S**T and try to convince it that it is wrong and that is in S**T or realise that it is happy in the S**T, doesn't want to know different and should be left alone.

    Stay anonymous, it's really is best for you ;o) I'm very sorry to have disturbed you.

    0 0
  23. Dave Harris

    @Gareth Morgan (way up top)

    Just a minor correction - Chosen Men were redcoats (or green jackets in the 95th and, I think, 60th Regiments, antecedents of the Royal Green Jackets), who were considered above the average soldier, but not quite/yet deserving of a sergeant's stripes. These were the trusted men of a company, relied on by their sergeants and officers.

    BTW, with so many knowledgeable people here, can someone confirm or deny that snipers are routinely issued beta-blockers, like propranalol hydrochloride, to reduce any shakes or tremors? I was told I'd have to come off them when I was going through recruitment (failed).

    1 0
  24. Anonymous Coward
    Unhappy

    Shoot the lot of them

    Bloody military bastards wasting our tax money on assassinating America's political enemies.

    Remember: we only need an army to protect us from the sort of violent retards who join the army. Every penny spent on them is a penny wasted, even if - paradoxically - we need them.

    0 0
  25. Mike

    @Jesrad @Sillyfellow

    Jesrad, the ability to eloquently describe the human condition is nothing more than a trivial observation, Sillyfellow is indeed in a minority, but his core intention is far purer than yours, imagine;

    1. Everybody had Sillyfellow attitude

    No killing

    2. Everybody had Jesrad attitude

    You watch the killing from afar, detachment giving the illusion innocence and no responsibility, excusing everything they do "as their nature", this is a vicarious liability that Sillyfellow doesn't have, but you do.

    To all those who justify a sniper as "better than the alternative", it's not about that, it's all about having a full range of ordinance, there's no such things as "alternatives"; it's "complementaries", we don't need snipers so we can replace carpet bombs, choices like this are never equal, and those that decide on the ordinance to use will use what they think is most effective and as sniper technology moves on so does everything else, Jarhead might just be a bit of filmotography pap but surgical isn't always seen as effective, and remember the killer is a victim too.

    Notwithstanding, don't forget that technlology never stays in the "good guys" hands only.

    1 0
  26. Martin
    Unhappy

    Wow - Such passion on this thread.

    Can I just say that I have a pet slug named Kevin.

    But he's not terribly smart.

    0 0
  27. Anonymous Coward
    Coat

    RE: Where do you get your information from?

    "You've got a sniper attached to you for this patrol.".

    Great. The military have started glueing each other together. It must make the snipers work considerably harder.

    Mine's the one with the UHU in the pocket.

    0 0
  28. Anonymous Coward
    Flame

    Great.

    So we can pick off individual enemy targets with more accuracy?

    Or rather, we think we can.

    The victims of our illegal wars will no doubt be overjoyed to hear that they've got even less chance of survival than before.

    0 0
  29. Matt Bryant Silver badge
    Boffin

    Snipers even save enemy lives - kinda.

    "Peacekeeping" stories from mates in Iraq. Story one - they are at a roadblock, they don't have a sniper, they see a group of OMS militia (that's Sadr's Shia nutters, the ones we were supposed to liberate!), set up a mortar two-thousand metres out and have to endure an hour of incoming beacuse they don't have any long-range response available. The mortar team finally got plugged by the RAF dropping a bomb on them. Unfortunately, whilst it took out the five-man mortar crew, it also killed two unarmed locals who were just unlucky to be in the area.

    Story two. Similarly, they spot another mortar team moving into position, but this time they had a sniper team with them. The sniper team put down harrassing fire (it was too far away for accurate shooting), and the OMS packed up and went home. No-one died. If the sniper team hadn't been their, they would have called in another airstrike, so ironically the sniper actually saved the mortar crew's lives as well as possibly any innocent locals in the area.

    1 1
  30. Dave Wallace

    If reported eponomously

    The distance would be 12.

    0 0
  31. Rod Bowes

    Incorrect detail

    A good, interesting article, but 'The R on the Russian sniper round signified "rimfire" ' is incorrect, it actually signified 'rimmed' as opposed to the more common 'rimless' cartridge case, it has nothing to do with 'rimfire'.

    From: A proper (ex) Ammunition Technician (and pedant)

    1 0
  32. n

    hmmm..

    By using their new snipers the brits could have killed Jean Charles do Menezes with just one well aimed bullet, rather than a dozen at various points in the head and body.

    This would have saved money on salaries of personal and saved ammunition which helps to reduce their carbon footprint.

    How very thoughtful of them.

    0 0
  33. n

    helmet at hand?

    Can't beat a story like this for flushing out the strokers like matt bryant et al, kneeling on the floor with their copies of "guns and ammo monthly" spread open around them.

    The "Sadr's Shia nutters" you speak of are actually the citizens of iraq defending themselves against an illegal occupation and the murder of 1 million+ iraqis at the hands of occupying forces.

    Do you feel less guilty by dehumanising them? Help you get harder does it?

    0 0

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.

Other stories you might like