Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4
Still Waters

Deadliest ever US sniper killed

146 posts in this topic

Coffey, all you are doing is regurgitating Democrat and Media talking points about the war. I will explain it to you. 9/11 happened...unprovoked attack on our homeland. Good thing they didn't have a nuclear weapon eh? Saddam Hussein was working a nuclear weapons program...playing games with the agency that watchdog that sort of thing. Lying to everyone and sticking his middle finger in the face of the world by continuing to disregard the UN sanctions against him. Every day he shot at our planes over the UN Sanctioned No Fly Zone. So...he is a man that cannot be trusted. Don't forget he used WMD against his OWN people...not a very nice man. The lesson we learned from 911 is that we cannot wait for Terrorists to attack us again. We can no longer just sit back and ignore the mal intentions of madmen. Saddam played games with the world. He lost. And...btw...he did have WMDs. Quadafi was more than happy to tell us that he received Mustard Gas from Saddam and that he didn't want it. I guess he was afraid he might be next on the Shock and Awe list.

There...I hope I have educated you more than the drivel you get from listening to CNN.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. I don't watch any of the big media outlets like CNN.

Saddam Husein had nothing to do with 9/11, that is a common fact. Saddam Husein had nothing to do with Al Qaeda.

We invaded Afghanistan because of Al Qaeda, not Iraq. The only excuse for Iraq was the non existent WMD's. By the the way mustard gas is not a WMD... LOL

Educate yourself on the Iraq war please, you clearly have no clue about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. I don't watch any of the big media outlets like CNN.

Saddam Husein had nothing to do with 9/11, that is a common fact. Saddam Husein had nothing to do with Al Qaeda.

We invaded Afghanistan because of Al Qaeda, not Iraq. The only excuse for Iraq was the non existent WMD's. By the the way mustard gas is not a WMD... LOL

Educate yourself on the Iraq war please, you clearly have no clue about it.

Mustard gas is not a WMD? Tell that to the Kurds. You don't listen beause you think you know it all...you don't know it all...actually it seems you know very little. Life requires cognitive thinking skills in order to effectively address the maze. Your arrogance is very telling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I for one am up for the idea of letting go of our military and letting everyone defend themselves.Since following orders is akin to being a criminal these human lives should not be asked to defend us!War has happened before and will happen again,let the ones who do not like or want guns or military defend themselves with whistles and ball bats.Everyone will be happy this way.I sure as hell know i would be!

"I was just following orders" was the central theme offered by those Third Reich fellows we prosecuted at Nuremberg. It seems invoking that theme in this case is getting perilously close to a slippery slope.

If it were up to me, the dead sniper would still be alive, but it's not up to me.

The facts are that we invaded both Afghanistan and Iraq under fraud and deception. By definition, and I sure wish it weren't so, we committed military aggression against those countries because we lied about everything. :cry:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mustard gas is not a WMD? Tell that to the Kurds. You don't listen beause you think you know it all...you don't know it all...actually it seems you know very little. Life requires cognitive thinking skills in order to effectively address the maze. Your arrogance is very telling.

My arrogance, you think Iraq was involved in 9/11, even Bush said they where not... Yet he's the one who lied about WMD's... lol

As for Iraq and WMD's:

Later U.S.-led inspections agreed that Iraq had earlier abandoned its WMD programs, but asserted Iraq had an intention to pursue those programs if UN sanctions were ever lifted.[15] Bush later said that the biggest regret of his presidency was "the intelligence failure" in Iraq,[16] while the Senate Intelligence Committee found in 2008 that his administration "misrepresented the intelligence and the threat from Iraq".[17] A key CIA informant in Iraq admitted that he lied about his allegations, "then watched in shock as it was used to justify the war".[18] In 2012, Britain will help the Iraqi government dispose of what is left of Saddam's chemical weapons. The teams will work to safely destroy remnants of munitions and chemical warfare agents left over from Saddam's regime.[19]

From Wikipedia.

The WMD's we went in for where not mustard Gas.

Saddam had mustard gas and used it, but that was not the WMD's Bush meant.

All this can be read on Wikipedia.

AGAIN, IRAQ had NOTHING to do with 9/11.

WMD's = Iraq (which was false)

9/11 = Afghanistan

Edited by Coffey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had avoided this thread as probably too upsetting for me, and I was right, but I just got through forcing myself to scan it.

The idea that the murderer was under some influence so as to eliminate a danger to society who was nevertheless a hero (who would therefore be inconvenient to kill any other way) certainly comes to mind, and I usually dismiss such government conspiracy theories out-of-hand.

That the man was so good at killing people and did it so often tells me he enjoyed doing it. We are good at what we enjoy. This was more than just war necessity here. That would also explain why later he became a government inconvenience.

As several people said, "What goes around comes around," and this does seem to be evidence supporting that idea. Still, we do not wish anyone dead, no matter what. We may expect something of the sort, but we do not celebrate its coming to pass. Justice may demand it, but that does not mean we want it -- doing so brings on the same negative cycle to us as we are observing.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had avoided this thread as probably too upsetting for me, and I was right, but I just got through forcing myself to scan it.

The idea that the murderer was under some influence so as to eliminate a danger to society who was nevertheless a hero (who would therefore be inconvenient to kill any other way) certainly comes to mind, and I usually dismiss such government conspiracy theories out-of-hand.

That the man was so good at killing people and did it so often tells me he enjoyed doing it. We are good at what we enjoy. This was more than just war necessity here. That would also explain why later he became a government inconvenience.

As several people said, "What goes around comes around," and this does seem to be evidence supporting that idea. Still, we do not wish anyone dead, no matter what. We may expect something of the sort, but we do not celebrate its coming to pass. Justice may demand it, but that does not mean we want it -- doing so brings on the same negative cycle to us as we are observing.

Ok said i was done here but obviously some here do not get what has been said.This man was sent to do a job the gov ordered him to do!It was not this man acting on his own,his job was to watch the back of other lives and make sure they came back alive!He did so very well,to say he got what he deserved you counter act your own statements about death.Did this man declare war on other nations?Did you vote this man into office to start said wars?I didnt think so,he was a soldier.People now days have stopped realizing your gov works for you,they are your employees not the other way around.You dont like what they do join together and demand they stop sending people over there on your account because tearing a single soldier apart for what your appointed employees do is stupid.Yes babe ruth we did invade many soldiers have disagreed with the invasion,again do not tear the soldier apart for this blame your gov the soldiers have not lied about anything,the soldiers commited no fraud.1 question if you were a soldier and read this kind of stuff being said about you and your fellow group would you ever if need be defend there lives with your own?This man did not die on a battle field,he was murdered in cold blood trying to help out another former soldier defending this is a disgrace.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My arrogance, you think Iraq was involved in 9/11

There was evidence. But without direct photo/audio is was a mute point.

http://archives.cnn....iraq/index.html

http://archives.cnn....ings/index.html

http://archives.cnn....inv.czech.atta/

http://prague.tv/pil...ragueconnection

http://www.worldpres...Europe/1684.cfm

http://www.spiritoft...g/iraqlinks.htm

As for Iraq and WMD's:

From Wikipedia.

The WMD's we went in for where not mustard Gas.

Saddam had mustard gas and used it, but that was not the WMD's Bush meant.

All this can be read on Wikipedia.

Sure it was. And dozens of other reasons put forth by many sources. Not just Bush.

http://www.fas.org/n.../cw/program.htm

http://www.sptimes.c...nd_deadly.shtml

http://www.planetark...-2002/story.htm

Yet he's the one who lied about WMD's... lol

If President Bush is culpable then the majority of the U.N. and its members (at the time) were as well:

http://news.bbc.co.u...ast/2761261.stm

http://www.fas.org/n...0302-iraq-5.htm

http://en.wikipedia....Resolution_1441

http://www.iwar.org..../2003/02-25.htm

This was not about one man deciding the fate of a murderous regime. And people that spout it off like it was are fools and either refuse multiple facts or are purposely negating them for reasons of personal bias and/or to simply troll.

There was a plethora of valid reasons to end Saddam's homicidal reign. If you miss him then that is your problem. There are plenty who do not.

I'm not even sure why I am rehashing this 10 yo troll induced debate anyway...

I did find it funny that all the wh.gov links I had from a decade ago concerning these points are all mysteriously gone from the .gov sites. And I am not talking about overtly controversial links either. Even simple ones like numbers and countries of the coalition... They may be out there somewhere...

Meh, I am done. /

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That the man was so good at killing people and did it so often tells me he enjoyed doing it. We are good at what we enjoy. This was more than just war necessity here. That would also explain why later he became a government inconvenience.

How so? Was the Finnish Sniper who took out over 1000 Soviet soldiers in the USSR/Finnish war doing more then what was necessary? No. He, like this American, was fighting for his country. Just because you are good at it, doesn't mean you enjoy it, or are doing more then is necessary. :yes:

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So it only took four posts for the tinfoil to come out. Stay classy UM. :rolleyes:

Sad that the guy died, though seems odd to have someone trying to deal with PTSD to be around loaded guns. Hopefully as the investigation continues more information will come to light. Though given what a horrible mess this thread has become I wouldn't be surprised if the mods locked it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This sort of person volunteers. They are good at it or others would replace them. We are good at what we like doing. The cover of war is often cover for sadistic and murderous behaviors.

These are facts. We cannot draw any conclusions from them. The details we know don't permit it. His subsequent death is almost certainly unrelated, and is tragic.

If I were to be called to defend my country, I would do so, in spite of my beliefs and my abhorrence of killing and my knowledge of what engaging in such activity would mean to my being. I don't think, however, that I could possibly volunteer for that sort of thing.

If it were something other than my country, such as my personal safety, I would rather die than kill someone.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This sort of person volunteers. They are good at it or others would replace them. We are good at what we like doing. The cover of war is often cover for sadistic and murderous behaviors.

These are facts. We cannot draw any conclusions from them. The details we know don't permit it. His subsequent death is almost certainly unrelated, and is tragic.

If I were to be called to defend my country, I would do so, in spite of my beliefs and my abhorrence of killing and my knowledge of what engaging in such activity would mean to my being. I don't think, however, that I could possibly volunteer for that sort of thing.

If it were something other than my country, such as my personal safety, I would rather die than kill someone.

Ok frank you lost me a bit on that last line are you saying you would die for your country,but not to defend yourself or the ones you love?

I would risk my life for the country that allowed me to live freely and enjoy the life that others died for in the past.Myself personally if anyone tried to take my life or any i cared about they best know they are playing a 50/50 game and best understand the consequences!

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was the exact same evidence the hijackers had met with CIA... So what does that telly ou?

The fact is the reasons for war with Iraq was WMD's nothing to do with 9/11, Afghanistan was the the war brought on from 9/11.

Sure it was. And dozens of other reasons put forth by many sources. Not just Bush.

http://www.fas.org/n.../cw/program.htm

http://www.sptimes.c...nd_deadly.shtml

http://www.planetark...-2002/story.htm

Real reason is that he wouldn't play the game anymore. Not really hard to realise, if you read/learn more into the past, not just the 5 years before.

If President Bush is culpable then the majority of the U.N. and its members (at the time) were as well:

http://news.bbc.co.u...ast/2761261.stm

http://www.fas.org/n...0302-iraq-5.htm

http://en.wikipedia....Resolution_1441

http://www.iwar.org..../2003/02-25.htm

I didn't say it was only Bush, in fact it was Blair who started the whole thing. I was merely pointing out that Bush admitted it was false.

This was not about one man deciding the fate of a murderous regime. And people that spout it off like it was are fools and either refuse multiple facts or are purposely negating them for reasons of personal bias and/or to simply troll.

There was a plethora of valid reasons to end Saddam's homicidal reign. If you miss him then that is your problem. There are plenty who do not.

I'm not even sure why I am rehashing this 10 yo troll induced debate anyway...

I did find it funny that all the wh.gov links I had from a decade ago concerning these points are all mysteriously gone from the .gov sites. And I am not talking about overtly controversial links either. Even simple ones like numbers and countries of the coalition... They may be out there somewhere...

Meh, I am done. /

Ironically it was the US who supplied him with a lot of weapons and it was also the US who put Saddam in power of Iraq. He didn't play their game when they wanted him out, hence the war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This sort of person volunteers. They are good at it or others would replace them. We are good at what we like doing. The cover of war is often cover for sadistic and murderous behaviors.

These are facts. We cannot draw any conclusions from them. The details we know don't permit it. His subsequent death is almost certainly unrelated, and is tragic.

If I were to be called to defend my country, I would do so, in spite of my beliefs and my abhorrence of killing and my knowledge of what engaging in such activity would mean to my being. I don't think, however, that I could possibly volunteer for that sort of thing.

If it were something other than my country, such as my personal safety, I would rather die than kill someone.

Why do you value the life of a murderer over your own? If a man lives, it is certain that he will die. Or, do you have some kind of a Jesus complex?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In hindsight, it was a moot point, Dan 'O. In the tsunami of fear mongering this country got from the Bush administration it was anything but.

The more government you get involved in any affair, the worse off you get Dan 'O. The UN's role in Iraq doesn't grant Bush the slightest bit of evasion of guilt. This country and that administration should be ashamed of itself for daring to suggest that the UN or any foreign government has a damn thing to do with the sovereign independence of the United States much less control of the process of taking this country to war. That's the most blatant way of showing disrespect for your country I can think of. These excuses that you're making demonstrate clearly to me that you do not understand the clearest language of the US Constitution and that's the most dangerous precedent in our nation's history. With the policies we have in place today, thanks to George W. Bush and his illustrious copy-cat Barack H. Obama, we will get attacked again in this country. This racket is manufactured to last forever, motivated by profit, illegal, immoral, and unacceptable.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do you value the life of a murderer over your own? If a man lives, it is certain that he will die. Or, do you have some kind of a Jesus complex?

Why do you value the life of a murderer over your own? If a man lives, it is certain that he will die. Or, do you have some kind of a Jesus complex?

Thats why i am confused over that last statement,I do not understand if that is what he meant or not.If so i do not comprehend that as being logical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ironically it was the US who supplied him with a lot of weapons and it was also the US who put Saddam in power of Iraq. He didn't play their game when they wanted him out, hence the war.

What weapons?

There was the exact same evidence the hijackers had met with CIA... So what does that telly ou?

What evidence?

I was merely pointing out that Bush admitted it was false.

Link?

it was also the US who put Saddam in power of Iraq

You like making up your own facts? You Better get on wikipedia quick and fix his rise to power.

Just show me some links...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do you value the life of a murderer over your own? If a man lives, it is certain that he will die. Or, do you have some kind of a Jesus complex?

My personal interest comes below my duty. This is all hypothetical since I'm way too old to be called, so maybe my feelings are affected by the fact that I know I won't have to face such a decision.

If I were personally attacked, I would ward off blows and flee if possible, and even injure the person if necessary, but I would never use lethal force.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember seeing him on Sons of Guns, seemed like a pretty cool guy. Still he was no Vasily Zaitsev.

And Vasily was no White Death ^^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe if we did that before they wouldn't be suicide bombers. :rolleyes:

I'd blow up people if they messed with my family. :whistle:

That sounds awefully close to condoning suicide bombings to me. Correct me if I'm wrong...

The enemy....Who's enemy?... You don't even know who he's killed and for what reason..... Over 200 families and lives affected... yet... you hail this man as a hero?.....

men-s-tee-with-you-people-make-me-sick-logo_design.png

His own enemy and the enemy of his country. He is a soldier, he's paid to kill people, so he does it.

"I was just following orders" was the central theme offered by those Third Reich fellows we prosecuted at Nuremberg. It seems invoking that theme in this case is getting perilously close to a slippery slope.

If it were up to me, the dead sniper would still be alive, but it's not up to me.

The facts are that we invaded both Afghanistan and Iraq under fraud and deception. By definition, and I sure wish it weren't so, we committed military aggression against those countries because we lied about everything. :cry:

So you think snipers should refuse orders to shoot people? If everyone in the army did that it woudln't be long before America got invaded and conquered. I don't know, but I'm guessing the guy wasn't just blowing away random people but taking legitimate targets out of the war.

I had avoided this thread as probably too upsetting for me, and I was right, but I just got through forcing myself to scan it.

The idea that the murderer was under some influence so as to eliminate a danger to society who was nevertheless a hero (who would therefore be inconvenient to kill any other way) certainly comes to mind, and I usually dismiss such government conspiracy theories out-of-hand.

That the man was so good at killing people and did it so often tells me he enjoyed doing it. We are good at what we enjoy. This was more than just war necessity here. That would also explain why later he became a government inconvenience.

As several people said, "What goes around comes around," and this does seem to be evidence supporting that idea. Still, we do not wish anyone dead, no matter what. We may expect something of the sort, but we do not celebrate its coming to pass. Justice may demand it, but that does not mean we want it -- doing so brings on the same negative cycle to us as we are observing.

You have no idea if he enjoyed it whatsoever and that is a ridiculous thing to say. He's been trained to shoot people, so he shoots them. Do you thin a guy who slaughters farm animals gets a kick out of it? Probably not, but I bet he's killed a **** load of pigs

This sort of person volunteers. They are good at it or others would replace them. We are good at what we like doing. The cover of war is often cover for sadistic and murderous behaviors.

These are facts. We cannot draw any conclusions from them. The details we know don't permit it. His subsequent death is almost certainly unrelated, and is tragic.

If I were to be called to defend my country, I would do so, in spite of my beliefs and my abhorrence of killing and my knowledge of what engaging in such activity would mean to my being. I don't think, however, that I could possibly volunteer for that sort of thing.

If it were something other than my country, such as my personal safety, I would rather die than kill someone.

You'd rather die than fight for your own life? That is one of the most foolish things I've ever heard

Edited by tyrant lizard
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You'd rather die than fight for your own life? That is one of the most foolish things I've ever heard

We apparently are very different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That sounds awefully close to condoning suicide bombings to me. Correct me if I'm wrong...

Of course i don't condone it, but I'm not blinded by hatred or propaganda enough to be able to see that not everything is as clear cut as it might appear.

As I said I would take revenge on my loved ones.

You'd rather die than fight for your own life? That is one of the most foolish things I've ever heard

Hence why Al Qaeda fights us....

So you think snipers should refuse orders to shoot people? If everyone in the army did that it woudln't be long before America got invaded and conquered. I don't know, but I'm guessing the guy wasn't just blowing away random people but taking legitimate targets out of the war.

Not true at all. LOL

The people of America would defend their home land. There is huge difference between going to another country to kill people and defending your country, home, family, friends and yourself.

This sort of person volunteers. They are good at it or others would replace them. We are good at what we like doing. The cover of war is often cover for sadistic and murderous behaviors.

These are facts. We cannot draw any conclusions from them. The details we know don't permit it. His subsequent death is almost certainly unrelated, and is tragic.

If I were to be called to defend my country, I would do so, in spite of my beliefs and my abhorrence of killing and my knowledge of what engaging in such activity would mean to my being. I don't think, however, that I could possibly volunteer for that sort of thing.

If it were something other than my country, such as my personal safety, I would rather die than kill someone.

You raise some very good points.

Edited by Coffey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hence why Al Qaeda fights us....

You think Al Qaeda fights us because we have the audacity to fight for our own lives?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You think Al Qaeda fights us because we have the audacity to fight for our own lives?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Last I checked, it is them defending themselves... We are attacking them. How is that fighting for our lives?! LOL They are fighting for theirs. :rolleyes:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He said he'd rather die than fight

I said that was stupid

You said thats why AQ fight us

But they aren't all fighting for their lives... Not the ones blowing themselves up

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My personal interest comes below my duty. This is all hypothetical since I'm way too old to be called, so maybe my feelings are affected by the fact that I know I won't have to face such a decision.

If I were personally attacked, I would ward off blows and flee if possible, and even injure the person if necessary, but I would never use lethal force.

And what of your loved one? If the attacker was about to rape your wife say and the only way to stop this crazed individual was to shoot him dead. Would you? Or would you let him rape and murder your loved one? I ask you again...do you have a Jesus complex? Do you think it is morally necessary for you to die rather than kill? Either way you are killing you know? If you kill the attacker you have killed the attacker and if you don't kill the attacker then by default you have killed yourself. You are both human. You will not kill him...but he will kill you...either way you have taken a life...even if it is your own.

Edited by joc
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.