Skip to main content

She shot a man from half a mile away


I have just received this 'viral' email:
The Real Miss America
There's a Proud Papa out there somewhere.
[missamerica.jpg]


This 19 year old ex-cheerleader now an Air Force Security Forces Sniper, was watching a road in Pakistan that led to a NATO military base when she observed a man digging by the road. She engaged the target (she shot him).
It turned out he was a bomb maker for the Taliban, and he was burying an IED that was to be detonated when a U.S. patrol walked by 30 minutes later. It would have certainly killed and wounded several soldiers. The interesting fact of this story is the shot was measured at 725 yards. She shot him as he was bent over burying the bomb. The shot went through his rectum and into the bomb which detonated and he was blown to pieces. The Air Force made a motivational poster of her. (Folks, that's a shot 25 yards longer than seven football fields) and the last thing that came out of his mouth ..... was his ass!
If You Can Not Stand Behind Our Troops, please Feel Free To Stand In Front Of Them!

I'm sure the "folks" are real proud of her ass kicking skills. But whose ass? How did she know that chap was planting a bomb (odious cretin though he was) from half a mile away? Had she and her chums not been there, would he have been planting an IED? But most worryingly, how many road builders, utility workers, good citizens repairing potholes (or previous IED craters), or just chaps waiting by the side of the road will sharp-shooters and drones kill from half a mile away, or more, before they get another bomber with a 'lucky' shot? And how will we know about them?

But assuming most of her fans don't really care as long as somebody's ass is being kicked, how many more bombers will each of those 'oops kills' create?

The more the west whoops with joy and howls of laughter when blue-eyed babes and their like, fighting for god and country, make foreigners 'eat their asses', the more we anger our 'enemies', and the more enemies we create. We are fuelling their cause by perfectly demonstrating that right is better to fight and die for than might. Do we really want Miss Americas to be doing this, or should we be prouder of her had she been a nurse or a teacher working with the brothers and sisters of the man she shot?

We're beginning to treat our fighters, and especially their generals (did you read about Patraeus' huge wealth and pampered lifestyle?!), like celebrities and untouchables. Of course we need to support them and be grateful for the work they do. The weak need to be protected by the strong. That's why it's called Defence. But equally we have to be careful not to disrespect our adversaries. We're all one species and we need to learn how to live together, not celebrate brutality and callousness. Education, respect and compassion vs ignorance and amusement derived from the suffering of people we've been told are 'out to get us'.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Thanks for taking an interest.

Popular posts from this blog

Phillips screws - yes I'm angry about them too

Don't get me wrong. They're a brilliant invention to assist automation and prevent screwdrivers from slipping off screw heads - damaging furniture, paintwork and fingers in the process. Interestingly they weren't invented by Mr Phillips at all, but by a John P Thompson who sold Mr P the idea after failing to commercialise it. Mr P, on the otherhand, quickly succeeded where Mr T had failed. Incredible isn't it. You don't just need a good idea, you need a great salesman and, more importantly, perfect timing to make a success out of something new. Actually, it would seem, he did two clever things (apart from buying the rights). He gave the invention to GM to trial. No-brainer #1. After it was adopted by the great GM, instead of trying to become their sole supplier of Phillips screws, he sold licenses to every other screw manufacturer in the world. A little of a lot is worth a great deal more than a lot of a little + vulnerability (watch out Apple!). My gromble is abo
7 comments
Read more

Would we pay more for their stuff?

I'm confused. Brexiters argue the Germans, Italians and French will still want to sell us their cars, so continued free trade with the UK is in their best interests. But we'll have to negotiate this (with an EU unwilling to make leaving easy) by threatening to make their cars more expensive for British people to buy. We'll do this because WE need to make imports more expensive to try to restore our balance of payments. Are Brits prepared to pay more for their Audis, Fiats and Renaults in order to make British cars more appealing, or do Brexiters want to pay more in order to punish them for taxing our insurance and banking products? Either way, imports will cost more. While in the EU, we buy their cars because we like the choice and don't want our own government to tax them. Indeed it would be better for British car manufacturing if we went back to the good old days of being encouraged to buy cheaper British cars (made by foreign owned factories). Is that what Brexite
Post a Comment
Read more

Addictions. Porn, Drugs, Alcohol and Sex. Don't prevent it, make it safer.

In 1926 New York, during Prohibition, 1,200 people were poisoned by whiskey containing small quantities of wood alcohol (methanol). Around 400 died, the rest were blinded. The methanol they drank was in the moonshine they had bought illegally. In fact it had been added by law to industrial ethanol in order to make it undrinkable. Prohibition existed to protect everyone from the 'evils of the demon drink'. However, people still wanted to enjoy alcohol. So bootleggers bought cheap industrial alcohol and attempted to distill it to remove the impurities the state had added, but the process wasn't regulated. The state was inadvertently responsible for the suffering - although it was easy for them to blame the bootleggers and to justify escalating the war. This didn't stop the bootleggers. In fact it forced them to become more violent to protect their operations, and even less cautious about their production standards. Volumes of illicit alcohol, and therefore proportionat
Post a Comment
Read more