>>>>>>
Whether the end is nigh, I am not sure. One thing I am sure of is that the attempts of the (normally very well organized) ISIS to establish a territorial Caliphate in Iraq and Syria may have been a serious mistake. Guerilla-type movements that have tried the same, without strong direct support from a “sponsor”, tend to come to grief when confronted by conventional opponents. ISIS might be in much worse trouble, in their territorial manifestation, if their many opponents could combine effectively against them. Even the Kurds can’t seem to do this between themselves. Guerilla-type movements that commit themselves to occupying territory make themselves targets. It might be an argument for the West to gird its loins, and do something about Libya. The ISIS threat there might evaporate fairly quickly.
The “incorpeal Caliphate” might prove another matter. There have been reports that ISIS is considering “splitting” into two semi-autonomous divisions, one defending the terrestrial Caliphate, and one concentrating on spreading attacks into Europe and the Americas. If this happened, it would converting the latter ISIS division into something more like Al-Quaeda This seems a much more feasible mode of operation for ISIS. We may not be rid of the swine yet … Yours from Palmyra, JR.
be smart.
which neighboring country/race is silently running the black-hud-monkey 13th. century show behind the scene (among many other shows) ?
Seems we’ve meet a well informed member here;)
So which country do you mind? The same one which i think?
Sniper takes out ISIS executioner from a mile away
By Emily Saul
September 11, 2016 | 5:00pm
Modal Trigger
A sharpshooter killed a top ISIS executioner and three other jihadists with a single bullet from nearly a mile away — just seconds before the fiend was set to burn 12 hostages alive with a flamethrower, according to a new report.
The British Special Air Service marksman turned one of the most hated terrorists in Syria into a fireball by using a Barett .50-caliber rifle to strike a fuel tank affixed to the jihadi’s back, the UK’s Daily Star reported Sunday.
The pack exploded, killing the sadistic terrorist and three of his flunkies, who were supposed to film the execution, last month, the paper said.
The ISIS butcher — who reportedly delighted in burning hostages alive — had been on a US “kill list” for several months, sources told the paper, which did not identify the sniper or the executioner.
He and his band of wicked men had been traveling around ISIS-held compounds in Syria slaughtering civilians labeled as spies.
Their prisoners were tied to stakes or thrown in cages before being torched by the executioner, according to the report.
ISIS started using flamethrowers after the torture method was popularized in North Korea.
The ISIS killer was so feared that his victims would beg to be shot rather than be set on fire.
Just before the sniper rescue operation outside of Raqqa, Syria, “the SAS team moved into an overwatch position above a village where they were told the execution was going to take place,” a source told the Star.
“Up to 12 civilians were going to be murdered — eight men and four women.
“The executioner gave some sort of rambling speech . . . then when he finished, the SAS sniper opened fire,” the source said.
The captives were then rescued by British and US special forces.
The rescue comes just months after another SAS sniper killed two ISIS car bombers as they drove toward Libya. The sniper’s bullet went through the driver’s skull and into the passenger’s neck, taking both out.
Many thanks to all of those men for taking out the trash. (Thanks also to Barrett )
Much as I’d like it to be true, I doubt it.
Basic science is that petrol won’t burn, never mind explode the tank it is in, without oxygen.
There is no oxygen in a full tank of petrol, so it can’t burn in the tank regardless of an ignition source penetrating the tank. One assumes that the ISIS thug would have a full tank if he’s about to burn 12 people. Even if the tank isn’t full, the fuel / air ratio necessary for explosion wouldn’t be reached until the tank is close to empty.
Even if the necessary fuel / air ratio was present, and bearing in mind the basic principle of the internal combustion engine, an uncompressed mixture of fuel and air will only burn, not explode (Okay, an explosion is just a very fast rate of burn, but that rate won’t be achieved with an uncompressed fuel / air mixture.) I doubt there was sufficient compression in the flamethrower tank to cause an explosion.
Assuming this ISIS butcher fiend and his band of wicked flunkies (Emily Saul’s writing style would be more at home in a 1950s edition of Boys Own Paper, along with the improbable story about exploding the flamethrower guy and his wicked flunkies) had any sort of vaguely modern military flamethrower, such as one made during or after WW1, it wouldn’t be a petrol in the tank but probably something more like napalm, which is even harder to ignite than petrol.
I very much doubt any standard rifle projectile, .50 cal or otherwise, is going set fire to a closed flamethrower tank, let alone explode it and wipe out four people. I seem to recall Mythbusters or some other crew trying to do this with normal rounds and even tracer, and failing.
Apart from the problems with basic science, the story is based on anonymous sources and is probably the fanciful invented military reporting equivalent of a women’s magazine latest breathless article on the size of the Kardashians’ arse implants or Jennifer Aniston’s latest baby bump / miscarriage / resumption of relationship with Brad somebody / betrayal by her current bloke etc etc etc. (I catch up on this bullshit every six months when I have a dental check, as my dentist is too cheap to buy decent car magazines and has rejected my request to put a pole dancer in his waiting room.)
The possibility of setting alight to a fuel tank may be remote to non existant with a standard round - but Tracer? I have set alight to rather a lot of grass land with that.
I believe there are HEIAP type rounds used for anti material use with various 0.5" rifles (the British mostly use the Accuracy International L121A1 rather than the Barret)
For the U.S. military, the standard round for any .5" weapons is an API (armor piercing, incendiary,) Also available in Trace. APIT There are also the MK211 Roufoss rounds that have explosive bullets with some additional refinements. Either of these would be likely to cause a fireball if used on pressurized tanks. There are of course several different marks of non A.P. incendiary etc. 50 BMG which would not be likely to set off the flame thrower tanks. I don’t have a pic of the API, but I do of a raufoss round.
A quick look at the Raufoss round does says it is in use with the British Military and does sound like one of the rounds we were instructed about for use for anti material work (I never got to actually play with the weapon or rounds though, just told they were out there).
I’d suggest that the difference between setting grass alight with tracer and, as the article which started this discussion says, causing a flamethrower fuel tank to explode with one round, tracer or otherwise, is that:
-
Dry grass is already in the required combination with oxygen in the air to meet the first and second basic fire requirements of fuel and oxygen, which will be ignited by the third, being the ignition source of tracer.
-
Jellied petrol, or whatever the fuel was, in the presumably full or largely full flamethrower tank in the article lacks oxygen inside the tank. The fuel is more likely to quench the tracer than to be ignited by it. (There is a separate issue, well beyond my knowledge, of whether there could be oxygen inside the tank as it might be fed by some inert gas to force the fuel out. Where is flamethrowerguy when we need his expertise?)
I don’t doubt that tracer could ignite various petroleum based fuels and other items under the right conditions, but the issue in the article is one round hitting the fuel tank which seems to me to be unlikely for the reasons I previously mentioned.
If it was a burst of tracer which penetrated the tank and caused a leakage with a fuel : air ratio that could be ignited by following rounds, that seems quite possible.
Even then, I can’t see how it would cause an explosion which could take out a number people in the vicinity rather than just starting a fire up to the point where fuel is leaking from the tank, unless the tank has several large punctures and is bleeding lots of fuel which allows the fire to rage.
I’m happy to be proved wrong, but when I read the article it set my journalistic bullshit meter towards the heavy end of the bullshit scale.
No idea of the relevant law, but I’m inclined to suspect that current laws of war prohibit intentionally using API / APIT rounds against a human target (for the sake of the discussion, I’m treating ISIS as human, despite all evidence to the contrary).
I seem to remember being told that use of the 50 specifically against troops only was against the conventions, but practically, speaking we were told to “use what you had to.” I recall seeing in various tv documentaries, accounts of U.S.snipers in the present theaters using the Mk. 211 Raufoss rounds against individuals who were using barricades, or walls for protection. I can say that on the M-60’s of my time, all we had available was the API, and APIT. The .30 cal Coax machine gun had only the usual 4 Ball, one Trace mix, no AP or Incendiary.
The ammunition I use in my sporting 50 BMG Rifle has a steel core, but is not hardened as is the core of AP bullets . This is I’m guessing just to reduce the amount of Lead used in making them. The very accurate match grade stuff for the 50 BMG is usually a solid Brass, Copper, or in some cases Bronze, lathe turned bullets having features that allow for extreme distance use against individuals, and light vehicles. So to answer the question, (sorry for going the long way around the shed) I don’t know if any prohibitions remain pertaining to use of 50 BMG on troops. I just use it on those evil paper targets. (They remind me of Mr. Green ) 
I’m a big fan of the 50 Rifle, whatever the configuration, the Raufoss munitions are new to me, we never had such things in the olden days. I hope all NATO forces have them. If I were a rich man, I could buy some to try out, but it is costlier than ammo for my Finn 20 mm. If you ever get a chance to fire a 50BMG rifle, don’t hesitate to try it, they are great fun. Get some walking wounded medication for any lingering shoulder discomfort, (Single Malt is quite effective) …
We were told to make sure we aimed a .50 round at their kevlar helmets, rifles, and web gear so we would destroy their equipment but not kill anyone intentionally… 
When we trained on the use of the M-2 50 cal, we fired at lines of silhouette targets, same for the Tank mounted M-85 .50 cal. Part of the crew qualification tests were to have the Commander use his 50 against ground troops (a simulation of the coax machine gun failing, and the TC taking over with the 50.). Well, targets of them anyway. Though mostly it was used against Trucks and Artillery pieces. It was useful against regular buildings but not so much on Bunkers unless they were the Log construction types . We carried plenty of Main Gun High Explosive Plastic ammo for harder targets.