- Joined
- Mar 11, 2006
- Messages
- 96,144
- Reaction score
- 33,469
- Location
- SE Virginia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
"My uncle killed by sniper in WW2. We were taught snipers were cowards. Will shoot u in the back. Snipers aren't heroes. And invaders r worse"
"But if you're on the roof of your home defending it from invaders who've come 7K miles, you are not a sniper, u are brave, u are a neighbor."
I dont think Moore thought out what he tweeted. His uncle was far from home, "7k miles" perhaps? His uncle wasnt killed by a sniper but a neighbor.
No, they aren't cowards. They are expert marksmen, with highly specialized skills. I'd love to have shooting skills at that level.
And Chris Kyle was a good man. He was trying to help a fellow vet. Where he got killed wasn't too awfully far from here, and very near where I used to work. I still remember when it happened- it was awful.
true, carlos Hathcock was the man. his assassination of a enemy general-deep behind enemy lines was not a mission a coward would take. A champion Marine (TRIPLE DISTINGUISHED) I used to shoot against on the ISU skeet events, knew Sgt Hathcock. The man was a legend in the Corps
To the bolded- a good friend of mine (Army ranger) knew Carlos, and that does appear to be the case.
Many here do not like the idea of lethal drones.
To them I would ask; Explain how a drone operator is different from a sniper.
Projectile weapons are associated with peasants. Ignoble. Think of the start of Gangs of New York when he asks the guy about guns. And he is happy and respects that that guy didn't want guns for the battle. Hand to hand is honourable and Noble. Traditionally. Maybe some 'elites' never understood that and still don't. Seem that 'elites' don't know what just not cricket is.no, snipers are not cowardly... that's an absurd notion that only one without a shred of military acumen would even utter.
and no, ranged weapons are not seen as "cowardly" in history, either... that , too , is absurd.
we didn't wake up as a human race one day and say " ya know, it might be a good idea to maybe think about having superior weapons and tactics...nah, that's cowardly.. nevermind. "
we never like it when the other guy has superior weapons and tactics... but we, as humans, love martial superiority, and always have.
as for Micheal Moore... he's to be ignored... he has nothing of value to add to any subject.
true, carlos Hathcock was the man. his assassination of a enemy general-deep behind enemy lines was not a mission a coward would take. A champion Marine (TRIPLE DISTINGUISHED) I used to shoot against on the ISU skeet events, knew Sgt Hathcock. The man was a legend in the Corps
I saw in the news today that Micheal Moore tweeted that snipers are cowards. What do you think? Was Chris Kyle a coward?
I have thought a lot about this actually. This is what I think.
Traditionally it was considered cowardly and ignoble to use projectile weapons in battle. A Noble warrior did not like the idea of a peasant being able to kill them at a distance. See you could give a worthless peasant a bow and arrow or crossbow and with no training at all they could kill an honourable wand well trained Noble warrior at a distance with an arrow or a bolt. Also, the spear chucking comes into it. Do you see how it would be would be considered cowardly by some to kill at a safe distance?
See, this idea is Germanic. The Romans admired and celebrated Germanic Heroism. The Romans never conquered the Teuton and they knew themselves to be inferior to the Germanic people in honour. The Rhine was the border of the Empire. Caesar knew not to mess with the Germanic people. The best that he that he could do was build a bridge or two for the Teuton, and then go home. The Romans were terrified of the Germanic tribes. For all the Roman propaganda about how strong and honourable they were, they knew themselves to be effeminate Greek-like cowards compared to the Germanic people. The Roman culture was not as honourable as Germanic. Roman culture is defined by its inferiority. The Romans knew that they were stupid compared to the Greeks, and cowards compared to the Germanic people. They were a happy medium at best. Superior at nothing ( apart from egoism and ridiculous and dishonest propaganda ). Basically, a society of wretches with inferiority complexes. Most superiority complexes are actually rooted in inferiority. So.
Consider the Gaius Mucius Scaevola myth. The Clusium . Actually read this. I prepared it earlier.
WV
Projectile weapons are associated with peasants. Ignoble. Think of the start of Gangs of New York when he asks the guy about guns. And he is happy and respects that that guy didn't want guns for the battle. Hand to hand is honourable and Noble.
War is about winning. While I would agree it takes more guts to fight without the use of modern warfare it's also a good way to get killed. Oh and Michael Moore, you're too damn fat to rely on your physical abilities. You just might find it worth your while to stop talking like your capable of anything more than hiding behind a gun.
I saw in the news today that Micheal Moore tweeted that snipers are cowards. What do you think? Was Chris Kyle a coward?
I have thought a lot about this actually. This is what I think.
Traditionally it was considered cowardly and ignoble to use projectile weapons in battle. A Noble warrior did not like the idea of a peasant being able to kill them at a distance. See you could give a worthless peasant a bow and arrow or crossbow and with no training at all they could kill an honourable wand well trained Noble warrior at a distance with an arrow or a bolt. Also, the spear chucking comes into it. Do you see how it would be would be considered cowardly by some to kill at a safe distance?
See, this idea is Germanic. The Romans admired and celebrated Germanic Heroism. The Romans never conquered the Teuton and they knew themselves to be inferior to the Germanic people in honour. The Rhine was the border of the Empire. Caesar knew not to mess with the Germanic people. The best that he that he could do was build a bridge or two for the Teuton, and then go home. The Romans were terrified of the Germanic tribes. For all the Roman propaganda about how strong and honourable they were, they knew themselves to be effeminate Greek-like cowards compared to the Germanic people. The Roman culture was not as honourable as Germanic. Roman culture is defined by its inferiority. The Romans knew that they were stupid compared to the Greeks, and cowards compared to the Germanic people. They were a happy medium at best. Superior at nothing ( apart from egoism and ridiculous and dishonest propaganda ). Basically, a society of wretches with inferiority complexes. Most superiority complexes are actually rooted in inferiority. So.
Consider the Gaius Mucius Scaevola myth. The Clusium . Actually read this. I prepared it earlier.
WV
I saw in the news today that Micheal Moore tweeted that snipers are cowards. What do you think? Was Chris Kyle a coward?
I remember reading an article about how the English longbow was one of the greatest secret weapons ever developed. The level of training needed to be effective with one made them incredibly difficult to master and thus kept them out of the hands of a lot of their enemies for quite some time. Captured longbows confused their enemies, because they simply couldn't draw and fire them effectively. It took a lot of training to use a longbow and it was that training that was the "secret" part of the longbow as a secret weapon.
There have been exceptions. In WWI, most of the snipers in the British and German armies were officers. This is because hunting, and especially big game hunting with rifles, in those nations was the sport of the upper class. Likewise, the ownership of rifles and the use of them by members of the lower classes, though technically legal, was discouraged.
As a result, most of those with true marksmanship ability were upper class in origin and thus "officer material". Such officers were sent to the front as snipers but with outthe real command authority of say a captain or a major. Like modern snipers, they worked in teams and would be transfered from one "problem area" to another.
This is true. At the outbreak of the American revolutionary war, Benjamin Franklin actually advocated to arm our troops with longbows. At the time, they had superior range and rate of fire compared to the british muskets.
It never happened because of the required training, and it wasn't considered "modern" to use them.
This is true, there are great books out there from this era, where the elites were developing modern sniping techniques. It was also discovered that those big game rifles were effective against some enemy armor/installations. "Africa" rifles were in great demand.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?