Osama Bin Laden killed near Islamabad by US Forces

You think wrong. A big hole in your leg will certainly kill you.

Depends if it hits yer femoral or not.

Also:

It's not like kevlar or other commonly available protection (for underground terrorist organizations) is going to stop high-powered rounds.

They'd be using 5.56 rounds, no? I'm under the impression they have very poor penetration at close quarters.
 
They'd be using 5.56 rounds, no? I'm under the impression they have very poor penetration at close quarters.

Nah, insurgents would be using 7.62...thats the round of your AKs and other similar russian small arms.
 
Nah, insurgents would be using 7.62...thats the round of your AKs and other similar russian small arms.

I thought we were talking about the possibility OBL had on armour and the SEALS had weapons that had poor penetration at close range... whichwould necessitate a head shot :confused:
 
I thought we were talking about the possibility OBL had on armour and the SEALS had weapons that had poor penetration at close range... whichwould necessitate a head shot :confused:

Oh. I thought the question was what kind of bodyarmor did US forces wear, so I assumed they were the target....

And he was shot in the chest and head...so...

No body armor.

Btw, body armor may keep you alive, but its not magic. A chest shot, even if it didnt penetrate, is still going to knock him the hell down and possibly even break a few ribs. Especially with a heavy slug from a pistol.
 
Do you volunteer to test that theory?
 
The venerable AK47 has been supplanted at least to some extent by the 5.45mm AK74. Their appearance is quite similar:

Ak74assault.jpg


Rifle_AK-47.jpg
 
Btw, body armor may keep you alive, but its not magic. A chest shot, even if it didnt penetrate, is still going to knock him the hell down and possibly even break a few ribs. Especially with a heavy slug from a pistol.

And if you were shot by a powerful enough gun, you'd become the consistency of chunky salsa regardless of the body armor.
 
The laws of physics disagrees with this.

He probably meant collapsing due to being shot, not being knocked back by the bullet.

The venerable AK47 has been supplanted at least to some extent by the 5.45mm AK74.
For the Russian armed forces. I doubt these insurgents would be as up to date.
 
I wanna see that guy in the video take a 10 gauge slug.
 
I wanna see that guy in the video take a 10 gauge slug.

Why, what do you think will happen? He took a 7.62 round which probably delivered something like +2500 ft-lbs of energy into his chest and he barely flinched. A 10-gauge slug with it's vastly reduced muzzle velocity will probably give a marginally better number.

We're talking about a comparatively small piece of metal that weighs fractions of fractions of a pound versus hundreds of pounds of man meat. You're not going to get absurd Hollywood/video game physics no matter how powerful your shotgun is.

For the Russian armed forces. I doubt these insurgents would be as up to date.

'74s have been around for nearly 40 years with millions made in dozen countries and exported all over the world. Not exactly cutting edge technology that modern terrorists wouldn't have access too.
 
For the Russian armed forces. I doubt these insurgents would be as up to date.
They are pervasive and have been since the 70s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AK-74

Afghanistan[12]
Armenia[12]
Azerbaijan[12]
Belarus[12]
East Germany: Manufactured locally.[1]
Estonia[12]
Georgia[12]
Jordan[12]
Kazakhstan[12]
Kyrgyzstan[12]
Moldova[12]
Mongolia[12]
North Korea[13]
Poland: Manufactured locally.[1]
Romania: Manufactured locally.[1]
Russia: AK-74M is currently the main service rifle in the Russian Army.[1]
Soviet Union: First used during the Soviet war in Afghanistan in the early 1980s.[14]
Tajikistan[12]
Turkmenistan[12]
Ukraine[12]
Uzbekistan[12]
[edit]
The AK100 series also have the same shape and use 5.56 NATO ammo.

RUS_AK-101.jpg


It is really difficult to tell any of them apart except for the flash arrestors.
 
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/us_binladen_son_statement

Omar Bin Laden is not happy with his father's fate.

Not the entire article, but the point:
The letter said, in part: "We hold the American President (Barack) Obama legally responsible to clarify the fate of our father, Osama bin Laden, for it is unacceptable, humanely and religiously, to dispose of a person with such importance and status among his people, by throwing his body into the sea in that way, which demeans and humiliates his family and his supporters and which challenges religious provisions and feelings of hundreds of millions of Muslims."

Open response to Omar Bin Laden, if anyone cares to read it.




Some victims of 9/11 were never found, and their families never got a burial, never got to say good-bye, and never did anything to Bin Laden or anyone else to warrant their deaths.

Osama Bin Laden was still actively trying to mastermind the murder of Americans, and had never faced justice for the September 11th attacks. He demeaned and humiliated human life, across borders, languages, religions, and cultures. He destroyed the innocent.

While Osama's son cannot be held responsible for the crimes of his father, and has a right to be attached to his flesh and blood, I find his remarks incredibly hypocritical, if authentic, and frankly.... if it was important for Osama not to die or to be given a proper Islamic burial, he shouldn't have been risking his life in a damnfool crusade to punish random people for his grievances with the US government. If you punch a bear in the face and it bites you in response, you have only yourself to blame.

You lost a member of your family, but so have we, and we lost members of our family as a direct result Bin Laden's admitted plans and continued plans. He wouldn't have been dead if it weren't for his own previous and continued plots against the innocent. If you're offended because he was buried at sea, perhaps you should understand that we're offended that your father directed people to cut off the heads of our people and desecrate their bodies.

For someone who expects to have their religious customs observed by people who are not members of your personal faith on humanitarian grounds, you should remember that the person you're objecting was treated inhumanely or was desecrated treated thousands inhumanely, and desecrated the bodies of thousands, devastated the lives of hundreds of thousands, and disrupted the lives of millions.

It was necessary that he was stopped from killing more of us, and that his plans were halted. We did not publish gory photos of his body or parade his head around Times Square. By all accounts, he was given a respectful, if not exactly proper (according to you) burial. That is more than he deserved, and more respect than he offered those he actively tried to murder.

I find your protests to be entirely invalid, and as compassionate as I am, I no longer give a [darn], sir. Compassion is only extended so far to those who have none, and if you want more, you'll have to speak out against those who plot to murder the innocent.
 
I dunno. Collapsing and getting "knocked the hell down" just don't seem interchangeable to me.

It kinda works if you interchange collapsing with "getting the wind knocked out of you".
 
Back
Top Bottom