God what a stupid fuck. Made me laugh, though.
[url]http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=dde63910c1[/url]
Holy shit.
What ever happened to taking POWs? Couldn't they just made him surrender/shoot him in the leg?
Well done, however.
[QUOTE=ZahinDenatrose;26892878]Holy shit.
What ever happened to taking POWs? Couldn't they just made him surrender/shoot him in the leg?
Well done, however.[/QUOTE]
[quote]What do you take from an enemy that has nothing?
His life.[/quote]
On a more serious note, taking prisoners in Afghanistan isn't likely due to them believing death is a big ol' party.
It's like a magic trick.
[QUOTE=ZahinDenatrose;26892878]Holy shit.
What ever happened to taking POWs? Couldn't they just made him surrender/shoot him in the leg?
Well done, however.[/QUOTE]
They shoot at you, you shoot back. But with a tank.
He must have seen Saving Private Ryan one too many times.
The hell did he expect to accomplish?
[QUOTE=TAU!;26892999]The hell did he expect to accomplish?[/QUOTE]
Kill the TC and profit.
He looked like he gave up after firing two shots and just accepted his death before being turned into dust
They could have used a machine gun could they not? This was just unnecessary.
[QUOTE=BmB;26893140]They could have used a machine gun could they not? This was just unnecessary.[/QUOTE]
He could've been laying down suppressing fire for his buddy who had an RPG, by the looks of things the tank was at the wrong angle to see if he had any friends waiting to pop out.
[QUOTE=BmB;26893140]They could have used a machine gun could they not? This was just unnecessary.[/QUOTE]
It's just safer this way. I'd rather spend the money on a tank shell than risk a soldiers life.
Maybe I'm just terribly ill informed but don't tanks have machine guns that can be fired from within the crew compartment?
beh, why not just go all the way eh?
[QUOTE=BmB;26893211]Maybe I'm just terribly ill informed but don't tanks have machine guns that can be fired from within the crew compartment?[/QUOTE]
I am sorry but are you really arguing that a tank should not be used as a tank and that the operators of it should further risk their lives just to make someone die slower?
I would rather get hit by an HE shell than shot to death. That tank could have been several hundred yards away, and he could have been shooting at troops down the street.
To the idiot who said shoot in the leg... You don't shoot to wound.
Why not just ram him
save machine gun ammo AND tank shells :v:
[QUOTE=ZahinDenatrose;26892878]Holy shit.
What ever happened to taking POWs? Couldn't they just made him surrender/shoot him in the leg?
Well done, however.[/QUOTE]
Maybe no scope the gun out of his hand perhaps?
I honestly thought this was about Left 4 Dead.
Wow... i remember seeing this at least 4 years ago. There was a collection of tank vs insurgents videos going around.
Poor guy :ohdear:. He didn't stand a chance.
[url]http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=481_1183348744[/url]
Found this in the related videos. "Atomic Bombs and Stupid People." Is he seriously saying that Little Boy and Fat Man were stupid ideas? Japan was fucking crazy, they were killing Chinese civilians.
[QUOTE=ZahinDenatrose;26892878]Holy shit.
What ever happened to taking POWs? Couldn't they just made him surrender/shoot him in the leg?
Well done, however.[/QUOTE]
If he had surrendered, he would indeed have been taking prisoner. However, he made no motions to surrender, and when a guy's shooting at you, you respond with firepower, not demands to surrender. These are soldiers, not cops - big fucking difference.
Shooting to wound is actually a war crime, depending on which judge is involved. It's definitely more human to shoot a man in the head or in center-of-mass than it is to shoot him in the leg - either way, he's dead, but a leg wound takes its time.
[QUOTE=TheTalon;26893599]Maybe no scope the gun out of his hand perhaps?[/QUOTE]
That's what happened, with a tank shell
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
