Phorwath (are you happy now and your panties untwisted)
Your presumptive skills at delusions that part of one simple C&C will obscure your naive attempt at backpedaling is truly remarkable but indicative and true to character.
FYI I was having a C&C because I had just got back from Arlington (it is Memorial Day) visiting the grave of a friend of mine I served with (Col Bob Howard) and I was remembering the first friend I lost 36 years ago (Sgt Paul Pikey) while in SF. I missed Bobs funeral a couple months ago as I was traveling for the USMC and Paul's funeral was the first time I was a military pallbearer and he was a close friend. All six of of his friends to include me were shaking like a dog sh--ing razor blades while folding that flag and handing it to his mother and sister. I always have one drink on this day when remembering Paul and all the others that are buried and even missing. I even remember the faces of the ones I looked over a sight at. Trust me, those memories you do not forget, especially on Memorial Day and they authorize a drink. Paul would have demanded it anyway.
But hardly a drunken stupor or the need for any alcohol to metabolize.
That is also why this tread that has mistakely been allowed to go on for weeks and basically challenges the credibility of a good military person finally rubbed my last nerve on this day.
I sat silently while the so called experts who "fired a $1000 dollars of components at a mountainside and said it could not be done, they could not do it therefore it did not happen in effect". Let me enlighten you frickin experts of you own self importance, $1000 is "ammo dust" in the military world. That is fired in one day easy by one guy. Then I watched the "camp followers" as they jumped in and show their ignorance too.
To see the backpedaling today about this being journalistic credibility was the icing on the cake.
Your arguement that this was about journalistic credibility is just like the liberal arguement "Of course we are for the military, buuttt....". Are you really that naive that you think anyone believes that?
Your first mistake was even thinking that the real and whole story was ever told to the reporter. Never ever give reporters any information is the rule!
Your second mistake was thinking that a reporter was going to tell the whole boring truth if they know it. BS, his job is to make it a story that sells as long as it has some truth; maybe. 9 misses to get on target do not sell the story.
Of course you and others were questioning the credibility of the sniper at the root of the arguement. It was never anything else and no one with an IQ of 5 believes that crap about journalistic credibility now.
You and others did it repeatedly when it was said, "because we cannot do it; the bullet has to be unstable because I have shot at the moutainside; and because I cannot do it and say so, therefore it cannot be done" as the basic arguements all the way thru until recently. Last I knew journalistic credibility does not play in those arguements anywhere.
Lo and behold people prove it could be done and panic sets in. Oh my, What excuse will we use now?
I know, "This was really about journalistic credibility all along!" Let's see how you implemented that strategy discussing journalistic credibility.
Lets see, it cannot be repeated as you said, which you really means it did not happen in the first place. Or did I miss your real intent? Parden me, in my drunken stupor, I forgot, it was the journalist you were really talking about right? In my drunken stupor, I thought if a record was repeated it was no longer a record.
You stated you "doubted the bullets ability to expand", which really meant once again it was not done, as he surely could not have really killed someone; ergo it did not happen and no one was killed. Oops again, I forgot, it was the journalist, right? Somehow in my drunken stupor I just do not connect those dots, maybe someone else understood that connection as they were buying the Brooklyn Bridge.
I'm always interested in insights into the mind of the genious.
I will bet you are since it is "genius"! Maybe you have had one or two? A real concern for journalistic credibility would have never allowed that mistake.
Bet you did not think I would catch that in my drunken stupor as you so eloquently implied, just like you did not really challenge the sniper.
Of course it was luck, that is why it has only been done once (so far) but in the real military world, enemy in the open about to fire on your buddies, you light his *** up no matter what the range if nothing else to keep his head down. If you are close, keep laying it in there. That is the rule of war. That makes it a lot like golf; bad shot and good shot, lucky shot or skilled shot; they all count the same in the end! Hit two bad guys and you have had a really good day, no matter how it got there.
I surely understand how you would consider this explanation simplistic and that attitude explains it all perfectly.
I am not full of myself, but I have served and bled and continue to do so and and have more than earned the right to call ******** when I see it in reference to a bunch of so called self appointed armchair experts on what did or did not happen and what is real in combat.
What I want to know is just where and how did the team of self appointed experts earn the right to challenge it?
Let the dog lie, you continually prove my point.
BH
