Quote:
|
Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey: US Troops generally refer to the entire weapon as an RPG. Nobody that I know distinguishes between an RPG and an RPG launcher in ordinary conversation. In fact, I'm not even sure if the launchers are reusable. Most hand-held anti-tank weapons are fire and throw away. At least, the American equivalents to the Soviet RPG are. Like most other American troops, I have zero familiarity with the operation of an RPG. I just know roughly what they are. It should also go without saying that it is even less likely that a journalist would be precise in his use of military terminology. They have even less familiarity with the weapons. In this war I have lost track of the number of times I have seen Bradleys and Warriors called "tanks," British troops referred to as Americans. SKS and AKMS referred to as "AK-47s," Al-Samouds referred to as "Scuds" and so on. Anyway, the bottom line is that there isn't enough information here to draw the conclusion you make. The article refers to an RPG, which could easily have been a ready-to-go weapon for all we know. Note: this post responds only to the quoted portion above. I am not commenting on the entire thread. |
Like you said If the article refers to the RPG as "ready to go" then I think he is in his right to defend himself if he felt there might be a threat. It's like a cop in the city, if a kid pulls a gun even if it is a toy how do you know it's not real or loaded or not? A cop probably wouldn't kill the kid but it is the same type of thing. Maybe I'm a cruel person, but to me it doesn't matter who pick up the RPG if it's loaded and ready to go it's a threat to me, therefore its going to be either them or me.