Tuesday, June 1, 2010

THE FLOTILLA - A Made for TV Production

THE FLOTILLA - A Made for TV Production

Will all the actors take their places on stage, please?

The stars take center, front stage.

The "atmosphere" mill around in the background.

The cameras begin to roll. Action! THE FLOTILLA Take one.

(It even sounds like a portmanteau of Frankenstein and Godzilla).

Some wrote a hyper emotional diatribe against Israel as a result of
this story. He told me this "turned his stomach".

This was my answer to him:

Have you watched television so much that you cannot recognize a PsyOp,
made for TV production when you see one?

Are you really so stupid that you cannot see that this was staged
together with the foreign agents in our government who work to make
Israel look bad playing their roles to the hilt?

There used to be a take off on a soap opera: "As the Stomach Turns"

If your emotions can be so easily engaged and manipulated to the point
of experiencing physical symptoms: you are in dire need of
deprogramming.

The system call always count on the public's stupidity and desire to
condemn someone, preferably the Jews.

Nothing has changed since the Middle Ages when the goyim were supplied
with all the cheap hooch their alcoholic hearts desired, then told
some kind of BS story about the Jews and the mobs went out with swords
and torches in hand.

YOU PEOPLE ARE AS STUPID AS YOU ARE REVOLTING.

What you addled with hatred goyim don't gork is that there would be no
more incidents like this if you didn't lap it up like dogs.

If just once you would react with intelligence and let the press know
this has NOT moved you to hatred it would be all over.

People die because you are VAMPIRES, because you LOVE the taste of
blood and beg for more.

HOW DISGUSTING YOU ARE.

I'm really considering going back to my studies and you gentiles be
damned. I've had a belly full of you. The vast majority of you are
incorrigible, mentally and emotionally defective barbarians.

BUT HOW CAN I LEAVE THE FEW OF YOU WHO ARE HUMAN TO YOUR FATE ALONE
AMONG THE BEASTS?

Doreen Ellen Bell-Dotan, Tzfat, Israel
DoreenDotan@gmail.com

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: Religious ritual in a Bangladeshi mosque

I find the comments amazing.   the commenters want no photos like this to be displayed because they don't help,   Then the commenters go on to say that the Hindus are asking for it because of all the evil things they do.  But it is fine and dandy for the Muslims to do this ritual killing in their own religious structure under the guidance of their religious leaders - and Islam is the religion of peace, so they tell us.

Travis wrote:








·          





Random Members

Religious ritual in a Bangladeshi mosque

POSTED BY BIGMAN ON 27 MARCH 2010

VIEWED: 1478 

Religious ritual in a Bangladeshi mosque 

A Hindu being beaten by Muslims in a mosque in Bangladesh. He was captured outside the mosque while going home. After Friday prayers were over, the Muslims came out and grabbed the first Hindu they could. Mr. Vimal Patak a Bangladeshi born Hindu was beaten to death with sticks as the Muslim mullahs (priests) chanted "kill the Kafir!" (non-Muslim). With folded hands he begged for his life and died a brutal death.

 


 


--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

A Stranger in Our Midst









April 29, 2010
A Stranger in Our Midst
By Robert Weissberg

As the Obama administration enters its second year, I -- and undoubtedly millions of others -- have struggled to develop a shorthand term that captures our emotional unease. Defining this discomfort is tricky. I reject nearly the entire Obama agenda, but the term "being opposed" lacks an emotional punch. Nor do terms like "worried" or "anxious" apply. I was more worried about America's future during the Johnson or Carter years, so it's not that dictionary, either. Nor, for that matter, is this about backroom odious deal-making and pork, which are endemic in American politics.

After auditioning countless political terms, I finally realized that the Obama administration and its congressional collaborators almost resemble a foreign occupying force, a coterie of politically and culturally non-indigenous leaders whose rule contravenes local values rooted in our national tradition. It is as if the United States has been occupied by a foreign power, and this transcends policy objections. It is not about Obama's birthplace. It is not about race, either; millions of white Americans have had black mayors and black governors, and this unease about out-of-synch values never surfaced.

The term I settled on is "alien rule" -- based on outsider values, regardless of policy benefits -- that generates agitation. This is what bloody anti-colonial strife was all about. No doubt, millions of Indians and Africans probably grasped that expelling the British guaranteed economic ruin and even worse governance, but at least the mess would be their mess. Just travel to Afghanistan and witness American military commanders' efforts to enlist tribal elders with promises of roads, clean water, dental clinics, and all else that America can freely provide. Many of these elders probably privately prefer abject poverty to foreign occupation since it would be their poverty, run by their people, according to their sensibilities.    

This disquiet was a slow realization. Awareness began with Obama's odd pre-presidency associations, decades of being oblivious to Rev. Wright's anti-American ranting, his enduring friendship with the terrorist guy-in-the-neighborhood Bill Ayers, and the Saul Alinsky-flavored anti-capitalist community activism. Further add a hazy personal background -- an Indonesian childhood, shifting official names, and a paperless-trail climb through elite educational institutions.

None of this disqualified Obama from the presidency; rather, this background just doesn't fit with the conventional political résumé. It is just the "outsider?" quality that alarms. For all the yammering about George W. Bush's privileged background, his made-in-the-USA persona was absolutely indisputable. John McCain might be embarrassed about his Naval Academy class rank and iffy combat performance, but there was never any doubt of his authenticity. Countless conservatives despised Bill Clinton, but nobody ever, ever doubted his good-old-boy American bonafides.

The suspicion that Obama is an outsider, a figure who really doesn't "get" America, grew clearer from his initial appointments. What "native" would appoint Kevin Jennings, a militant gay activist, to oversee school safety? Or permit a Marxist rabble-rouser to be a "green jobs czar"? How about an Attorney General who began by accusing Americans of cowardice when it comes to discussing race? And who can forget Obama's weird defense of his pal Louis Henry Gates from "racist" Cambridge, Massachusetts cops? If the American Revolution had never occurred and the Queen had appointed Obama Royal Governor (after his distinguished service in Kenya), a trusted locally attuned aide would have first whispered in his ear, "Mr. Governor General, here in America, we do not automatically assume that the police were at fault," and the day would have been saved.

And then there's the "we are sorry, we'll never be arrogant again" rhetoric seemingly designed for a future President of the World election campaign. What made Obama's Cairo utterances so distressing was how they grated on American cultural sensibilities. And he just doesn't notice, perhaps akin to never hearing Rev. Wright anti-American diatribes. An American president does not pander to third-world audiences by lying about the Muslim contribution to America. Imagine Ronald Reagan, or any past American president, trying to win friends by apologizing. This appeal contravenes our national character and far exceeds a momentary embarrassment about garbled syntax or poor delivery. Then there's Obama's bizarre, totally unnecessary deep bowing to foreign potentates. Americans look foreign leaders squarely in the eye and firmly shake hands; we don't bow.

But far worse is Obama's tone-deafness about American government. How can any ordinary American, even a traditional liberal, believe that jamming through unpopular, debt-expanding legislation that consumes one-sixth of our GDP, sometimes with sly side-payments and with a thin majority, will eventually be judged legitimate? This is third-world, maximum-leader-style politics. That the legislation was barely understood even by its defenders and vehemently championed by a representative of that typical American city, San Francisco, only exacerbates the strangeness. And now President Obama sides with illegal aliens over the State of Arizona, which seeks to enforce the federal immigration law to protect American citizens from marauding drug gangs and other miscreants streaming in across the Mexican border.

Reciprocal public disengagement from President Obama is strongly suggested by recent poll data on public trust in government. According to a recent Pew report, only 22% of those asked trust the government always or most of the time, among the lowest figures in half a century. And while pro-government support has been slipping for decades, the Obama presidency has sharply exacerbated this drop. To be sure, many factors (in particular the economic downturn) contribute to this decline, but remember that Obama was recently elected by an often wildly enthusiastic popular majority. The collapse of trust undoubtedly transcends policy quibbles or a sluggish economy -- it is far more consistent with a deeper alienation.

Perhaps the clearest evidence for this "foreigner in our midst" mentality is the name given our resistance -- tea parties, an image that instantly invokes the American struggle against George III, a clueless foreign ruler from central casting. This history-laden label was hardly predetermined, but it instantly stuck (as did the election of Sen. Scott Brown as "the shot heard around the world" and tea partiers dressing up in colonial-era costumes). Perhaps subconsciously, Obama does remind Americans of when the U.S. was really occupied by a foreign power. A Declaration of Independence passage may still resonate: "HE [George III] has erected a Multitude of new Offices [Czars], and sent hither Swarms of Officers [recently hired IRS agents] to harass our People, and eat out the Substance." What's next?           

Robert Weissberg is Professor of Political Science-Emeritus, University of Illinois-Urbana.

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/04/a_stranger_in_our_midst.html at May 01, 2010 - 02:26:16 PM CDT 

 

"There are those who make things happen,

             those who watch things happen,

                    and those who wonder what happened."

                                                              Unknown

 

 

 


--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Coming Soon: The House Un-Obama Activities Committee?









 

 

Coming Soon — The House Un-Obama Activities Committee?
GrassTopsUSA Exclusive Commentary
By Don Feder
05-30-10
 

        Here's the first concrete evidence of global warming: Deval Partick's brain is melting. 

        Speaking at Suffolk University Law School last week, the Democratic Governor of Massachusetts became the latest, and most prominent, liberal to charge that refusing to roll over for Obama was borderline treason. 

        What he calls reflex opposition to the messiah-in-chief's program "is almost at the level of sedition… I'm most frustrated by folks who seem to be rooting for failure," Patrick charged. Like, Democrats never rooted for Ronald Reagan, Bush '41 or W. to slip and fall flat on their faces. They did handstands, cartwheels and goal-post victory dances (while waving pom-poms wildly in the air) every time a Republican president failed to achieve his policy goals. 

        "The number of people in the Grand Old Party who seem to be absolutely committed to saying 'No,' whenever he (the president) says 'Yes' … is just extraordinary," Patrick confessed. Liberals have always been mystified by rejection of their agenda, usually attributing same to stupidity, malice, misanthropy or lunacy. Perhaps, like their Soviet counterparts, they'll end up consigning us to mental institutions. 

        Head of the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division under Clinton, Patrick is Obama's best friend among the governors. He's also the latest leftie to charge conservatives with sedition, which leads to the reasonable assumption that this ongoing campaign is part of the White House strategy to discredit its critics. 

        On the anniversary of the bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, ex-President William Jefferson Clinton began beating his favorite drum: That anti-government rhetoric on the right leads to violence. ("There can be real consequences when what you say animates people who do those things you would never do," the perjurer-in-chief warned The New York Times) But if words incite deeds, how much more so do actions? Recall the increase in adultery, oral sex in the workplace, and lying under oath following the revelations in the Lewinsky case. 

        Partick has upped the ante. In recent weeks, conservative talkers like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck have been accused of sedition for saying mean things about the current occupant of the White House (in Limbaugh's case, referring to Obama's administration as a "regime"). 

        Earlier, Time Magazine columnist Joe Klein explained to fellow media-droid Chris Matthews that political rhetoric "especially the ones (sic.) coming from people like Glenn Beck and to a certain extent Sarah Palin, rub right up close to being seditious." 

        The non-thinking of the left here has evolved from hateful/hurtful words about St. Barack being seditious to Congressional opposition to the president's legislative agenda constituting sedition. What's next, seditious bumper-stickers? Seditious humor? 

        In the popular mind, "sedition" is first cousin to treason. In law, it's a felony, defined as "a revolt or an incitement to revolt against established authority." 

        You know what, I can't recall a single reported instance of any speaker at a Tea Party rally telling activists to march on Washington, overthrow the current "regime," demolish the Capitol brick by brick, send Obama into exile, etc. To the contrary, the goal of the Tea Parties this year is to mobilize an army of outraged and informed voters to march to the ballot box and send Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and other Obamaites in Congress into a happy retirement. 

        Let's start with what sedition is not. (Deval Patrick and Joe Klein, you may want to take notes here.) Sedition is not saying naughty things about your political opponents, up to and including the President of the United States. It may be hyperbole. It may be overblown rhetoric. It may even be slander or libel. Sedition it ain't. 

        When Bush was president, the left acted like a snarling pack of mutant dogs. Bush was a "dictator," a "tyrant" and a "fascist," who stole the 2000 election, and engineered the war with Iraq (manufacturing evidence of weapons of mass destruction) to sate his bloodlust. Those are about the kindest things Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan ("The biggest terrorist in the world is George W. Bush.") and George Soros (who compared W. to the Nazis) had to say about our 43rd president. 

        Then there was the assassination chic — leftist playwrights, comics and commentators who publicly fantasized about offing Bush. The foregoing was complimented by "kill Bush" buttons, posters and t-shirts. 

        Prior to the 2004 election, a columnist for the Guardian in the U.K. wrote that if Bush won, it would disprove the existence of God and lead to "four more years of idiocy, arrogance and unwarranted bloodshed, with no benevolent deity to watch over and save us, John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Hinckly Jr., — where are you now that we need you?" 

        The above was moronic, ugly, slanderous and evil. It was not seditious, and no one in the media — no Republican counterpart of Patrick — suggested it was. 

        Sedition isn't opposing the president's plans — even when that opposition seems intransigent and wholly unreasonable to his supporters, and constitutes rooting for the big guy to fail. If so, a majority of Americans are guilty of sedition. 

        According to the latest Rasmussen poll, 10 weeks after it passed, 63% of Americans favor repeal of Obama-care. A Zogby Poll informs us that by a 3-to-1 margin, Americans want the fate of don't-ask-don't tell (repeal of which is now being rammed through Congress at the behest of Butch Obama) decided by the military, not by politicians. The daily Rasmussen poll for May 29 showed 40% of voters "strongly disapprove" of Obama's performance, with 28% strongly approving. Call out the troops! Read the riot act!

        Sedition is — well, perhaps a few examples will illustrate the point. Sedition is, as noted above, calling for the violent overthrow of the duly elected government. Sedition is assaulting cops and troops, throwing rocks, bottles and nail-studded tennis balls at the boys in blue (which I witnessed in Harvard Square, circa 1969). 

        Sedition is blowing up government buildings, like Barack-buddy Bill Ayers. ("I don't regret setting bombs. I feel we didn't do enough.") It's plotting to assassinate government officials. It's going to Hanoi during the Vietnam War, calling American soldiers "war criminals," and urging the defeat of U.S. forces. 

        In other words, it's what the New Left — the intellectual progenitors of the modern Democratic Party — did during the Viet Nam era. Those who should have gone to jail in the 60s and didn't (and their ideological progeny) are now accusing loyal Americans of sedition, based on our quite reasonable detestation of a man who is in the process of radically remaking this nation in the image of a Euro-socialist state. 

        In a political debate dripping with irony, this is the most ironic. The case file should read "Traitor Left Accuses Patriotic Right of Sedition." Okay, that's a bit of hyperbole. But, at the very least, those who are blithely flinging around charges of "sedition" are psychic traitors – traitors of the heart. 
 

•  We love America. They hate it. Witness the Reverend Jeremiah Wright — Obama's pastor and spiritual mentor for 19 years — saying: "America is the #1 killer in the world." "God bless America? No, no, no, no. God damn America!" 

•  We defend America. They slander her — charging the United States with genocide, imperialism, exploitation, wars of aggression, atrocities and racism. (Moore: The United States is "a nation founded on genocide and then built on the backs of slaves.") When her husband received the Democratic presidential nomination, Michelle Obama admitted that for the first time in her life she was proud of America. Obama's former partner in crime (three times a guest in the White House since Barack took office), Bill Ayers, said America "makes me want to puke." 

•  We salute the flag. They burn it. Initially, during the 2008 campaign, Obama refused to wear an American flag lapel pin — which offended his internationalist sensibilities. Within weeks of assuming the office of president, Barack Hussein launched his worldwide apologize-now tour. 

•  We want to secure the borders. They want to dismantle them, to further their process of deconstructing America through illegal immigration, bilingualism and multiculturalism. Consider the way Democratic Congressmen heartily applauded Mexican President Felipe Calderon as he bashed Arizona during a recent White House visit — or the fact that the left wants to boycott Arizona for trying to deter illegal immigration from Mexico rather than the Mexican government for encouraging it — or the fact that John Morton, Obama's Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security, said the administration wouldn't necessarily "process" the illegals apprehended by Arizona. 

•  We defend the Constitution. They flout it. We are faithful to the vision of the Founding Fathers. They believe in a Silly-Putty Constitution which can be twisted into whatever shape suits them. Solicitor General Elena Kagan, Obama's nominee for the United States Supreme Court, is one of those brilliant legal minds who believe the great judicial challenge of the 21st century is "integrating" the Constitution with foreign law. 

•  We want to win the war on terrorism, on which America's survival depends. They can't even say the word "terrorism." Obama's Department of Homeland Security Secretary, Janet (Inspector Clouseau) Napolitano, prefers "man-caused disasters" to terrorism. 

•  We support Israel. They support a Palestinian state. We support the people who mourned when word of 9/11 reached them. They support the people who danced in the streets of their dung-filled cities when they heard the news of the deaths of more than 3,000 Americans. 

•  They really believe Islam is the "religion of peace" and "tolerance." We believe Islam is what it is. 

•  We believe the first and foremost mission of the U.S. military is to defend American lives and America's sovereignty. They believe that, if it is to exist at all, our armed forces should serve as a laboratory for social experiments and a means to advance their dubious notion of equality. That's why they're adamant about homosexuals serving openly in the military, despite the high levels of sexually transmitted disease and sexual assault among them, and notwithstanding that over 1,100 retired flag and general officers (generals and admirals) signed a petition opposing the move. 

•  We believe in honoring our war dead and the men and women who fought under the flag. For the second year in a row, Obama will skip the wreath-laying ceremony at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier in Arlington National Cemetery. Instead, he'll pay homage to machine politics in Chicago. If he tries really hard, perhaps by next Memorial Day, he'll have learned to place his hand over his heart during the Pledge of Allegiance.

        The un-American left charging the patriotic right with sedition is the ultimate chutzpah. What's next, the House Un-Obama Activities Committee? 

        "Do you identify with the Tea Party movement?" 

        "Are you committed to saying 'No' whenever the president says 'Yes'"? 

        "Do you question this administration's legitimacy?" 

        "Do you believe Barack Hussein Obama was born in Kenya, Indonesia or on the Planet Zorak in the Klaatu nebula?" 

        "Are you now, or have you ever been, a Rush Limbaugh listener or a Glenn Back viewer?" 

        "Are you rooting for the president to fail?" 

        Oh, God, yes!

Don Feder is a former Boston Herald writer who is now a political/communications consultant. He also maintains his own website, DonFeder.com.

 

Keep These Emails Coming Straight To Your Inbox. Please add us to your Safe Senders or Contacts list.

 


GrasstopsUSA respects the privacy of our members. We will never sell or rent your name to third parties.
 GrassTopsUSA is a 501c4 not-for-profit organization. Contributions are not tax deductible.

GrasstopsUSA
8230 Catbird Circle 302
Lorton VA 22079
888-864-1964
888-239-9306 FAX

.

 

 


--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

How to shoot someone from a mile away









 

New York PostUpdated: Sun., May. 30, 2010, 5:25 AM

How to shoot someone from a mile away

By JOSEPH GOLDSTEIN

Last Updated: 5:25 AM, May 30, 2010

Posted: 12:29 AM, May 30, 2010

If the Taliban fighters had bothered to look up, they would have seen small white nicks on the face of the boulder behind them. Nicholas Ranstad had been using it for target practice.

But they didn't notice. Ranstad could take his time.

It was January of 2008. For months, Ranstad, a 28-year-old Army specialist from Florida, had lived in a small hut 1.28 miles away from the rock with a group of snipers. Part of their mission was to keep an eye on a road crew working in this corner of Kunar province, in northeastern Afghanistan. The Taliban was executing the laborers to discourage any Afghan from cooperating with American-supported construction.

Ranstad had been shooting at the boulder and other natural targets in the ravine. For each shot, he'd jot down each variable - the wind, temperature, time of day and accuracy - in a spiral notepad snipers called the "dope book."

Through the scope, Ranstad could see the four Taliban, all armed and wearing masks. One man remained in the open, while the other three took momentary cover behind other nearby boulders.

Lying prone on the top of the small hut, Ranstad aimed at the man in the open. The distance was immense. While snipers in Afghanistan were routinely shooting at targets 800 to 1,000 yards away, this shot was well over twice that. At 6,775 feet away - about the distance from the Empire State Building to the bottom edge of Central Park - the man was beyond the adjustable range of Ranstad's scope. He hovered in the bottom sliver of Ranstad's view, a tiny figure, about two fingernails tall.

Using Ranstad's dope book, Ranstad's spotter Alex Simpson told him the distance to the target. Simpson peered through his single-eye spotter scope, examining the heat signatures off the ground.

"Winds, 3, left to right," Simpson said. Ranstad didn't say a word as he listened. He focused on keeping his Barrett .50 caliber rifle perfectly still.

"The biggest thing before shooting is to slow your heart rate down," Ranstad told The Post last week. "You want to be comfortable. I'm taking slow, deep breaths."

Beat.

"It's almost like a meditation. I'm not thinking of anything. I'm just ready to take that guy out."

Beat.

"Send it," Simpson said.

Beat.

Ranstad pulled the trigger before Simpson finished the order.

Then he waited.

Even traveling at nearly 3,000-feet per second out of the barrel, the bullet would take a couple of seconds to hit its target. He saw a trail of dirt about five or six feet below the target. A near miss.

"Damn it!" Ranstad thought. "What's wrong with you?"

"I go into every shot expecting to kill," he recalled. "I was aggravated with myself for about a tenth of a second. But you can't shoot angry or with anxiety."

Through the scope, Ranstad could see that the Taliban had no idea where the bullet had come from. They scrambled aimlessly. The man the shot had missed now slipped behind the large boulder. But one of the other four suddenly came forward. Confused about the origins of the bullet, the enemy fighter had left his protected position.

Simpson called out the correction as Ranstad aimed at the new target. He fired.

The seconds seemed like days, but his patience was rewarded.

"I had the chance to see him roll down the hill."

Ranstad later heard through the sniper grapevine that the shot was the longest by an American sniper in Afghanistan - and wasn't too far from the 7,972 foot kill in 2002 by Canadian Army Cpl. Rob Furlong. Since Ranstad's kill, a British soldier, Craig Harrison set a new distance record when he shot two Taliban from 8,120 feet last year.

Ranstad, who first shared his story with Soldier of Fortune magazine, said he had heard that another American has since shot an enemy at a longer distance, but he didn't know the specifics. He hopes it's true. Though he takes pride in his shot, the record is one he's happy to see broken - it means a better chance of winning the war.

Along with automated drones, snipers have become a key allied force in the war - a not-so-secret weapon to routing the Taliban. "In Afghanistan, most of the attacks on Americans by fire - with mortars and machine guns - have been at longer range, because they don't want to get close enough for American infantry to engage them," explained John Plaster, a retired Army major who was the former commandant of the National Guard sniper school.

For snipers, much of the shooting takes place at 800 yards or farther away.

"I love taking the rifle to the limit, which is what you have to do, because most of the firefights, you're talking a klick or two klicks out," Ranstad said.

Plaster estimates that there are between 200-300 Army school-trained snipers in Afghanistan, not to mention the designated marksmen in each infantry squad who are armed with scoped rifles. The Marines and Navy SEALs also have their own snipers.

In the popular imagination, snipers roam through enemy terrain in two-man sniper teams stalking high-ranking enemy officers or waiting for targets of opportunity. But snipers who have fought in Afghanistan and Iraq say they rarely operate entirely independent of other troops. Their primary mission is often scouting and calling in the position of enemy fighters. "Our main goal is intel, it's not to shoot," Ranstad said.

They often support other units, such as laying in wait while special operation forces raid a position where a high-value target is believed to be hiding. Or they stake out trails that Taliban fighters are known to use on their way to attack American bases.

In Afghanistan they often serve in three or four man "small kill teams," carrying a range of rifles, including a .50 caliber, which shoots a cigar-sized cartridge and is the go-to weapon for the longest range shots.

The transition away from the traditional two-man sniper-spotter team began in Iraq in 2005 and 2006 after a number of those teams were overrun by large masses of insurgents, Plaster said. "Because of this, the Army and Marines started reinforcing their teams."

In Iraq, snipers were mostly shooting at much closer range than in Afghanistan and frequently fought in urban environments, or city outskirts. In addition to killing enemy gunmen, American snipers in Iraq were crucial in the effort to disable IEDs.

Warrant Officer James Miller said that he and his small kill team spent months monitoring the road intersections where insurgents placed bombs. "A guy jumps out of the car, drops something off, and drives away really fast. What you end up shooting is the item. We would shoot the wires off of the thing."

He estimates that his team disabled about 15 IEDs during one three-month period. Miller, who is now retired in Kentucky after 21 years of Army service, said that he would often stay in place, hidden amid foliage and debris, for 72 hours at a stretch. During that time, he and his team would be in contact communication with headquarters. "You've got e-mail, text, camera systems - it's just like the commander is right there with you," he said.

A constant challenge for snipers is keeping alert and engaged while remaining invisible to the enemy for days on end.

Joe LeBleu, a sniper in Iraq in 2003 and 2004 who wrote a book about his experience entitled "Long Rifle," described how he and his spotter would divide the landscape into a grid and memorize each piece. They also gave nicknames to the goat herders who wandered across their field of vision.

Other snipers sketch the landscape in notebooks, to ensure that every detail registers in their mind.

They are constantly on the lookout for anything out of place. "A sniper learns to look at corners, the edges of trees, the edge of boulders and hillocks, because a bad guy is going to be down snug and trying to aim around the edges," said Plaster, who has written a manual for snipers.

FOR GENERATIONS, American snipers relied on Kentucky windage and Tennessee elevation - that is, instinct.

Snipers are experts at gauging distances. When Miller arrived in Iraq in 2006, he tape-measured the average size of truck tires in Iraq, which are smaller than those in America. He kept those and other measurements on a card with him at all times, so that he would be able to calculate distances based on how small these common objects appeared at different ranges.

At long ranges, there is no room for error. Enemy fighters can appear little more than stick figures even when viewed through a scope. At about 800 yards the naked eye "can make out the silhouette and the weapon, but you're not getting anything about their face," said Milo Afong, a sniper who served in Iraq and wrote a book called "Hunters." "Through scope, you can see if they're wearing the terrorist face mask, but you still can't really make out too much."

In the desert, veteran snipers say the tendency is to underestimate distances, meaning that bullets will often fall short. And the heat will change the arc of a bullet. "As the temperature rises, your bullet would rise as well," Miller explained.

In Afghanistan, wind presents its own set of challenges. A sniper shooting across a valley to an enemy fighter on the opposing ridge might have to contend with multiple gusts of wind blowing at various speeds and in various directions. There is no exact science.

"The most important thing is to look at the wind closest to your target," LeBleu said. "You look at the wind by your target's feet and what the wind is doing to the bushes near his hands."

But the military is now churning out equipment intended to minimize human error in longer distance shooting. Some snipers carry laser range finders - basically binoculars that size up the distance of an object and are available in sporting good stores for deer hunters and golfers.

Researchers at the Pentagon are currently at work on a computer system that will measure all the crosswinds between a sniper and target and suggest how far the shooter should adjust his aim horizontally. The program is called the "Advanced Sighting System," but is colloquially known as the "One Shot" program.

The equipment that is changing most in Afghanistan is the choice of rifles and ammunition. Snipers are increasingly carrying top-grade cartridges guaranteed for consistency - the bullets, primers and brass all come from the same lot, so as to minimize microscopic differences from one round and the next.

Yet snipers in Afghanistan and Iraq say the equipment they are most comfortable relying on is their eyes and their dope books.

With good data on wind and distance, Ranstad said of his record shot, "You could do it every day."

THE FUTURE OF SNIPERS

The Pentagon's inventors at DARPA want sniper and spotter scopes that will help a shooter to rarely miss a shot. With the "One Shot" research program, the military is seeking a sniper scope that uses laser optics to determine the crosswinds between the sniper and the target. A computer in the scope would assist the sniper in compensating for the various winds. At present, snipers and spotters look at vegetation and heat emissions off the ground to determine which way the wind is blowing.

The military is hoping that the system will produce a 60% chance of hitting in a single shot a target under a mile away in moderate winds. Lockheed Martin has been awarded a contract for the project. The military hopes to have the scopes by 2011.

 

 


--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.