Iraqi sniper video !!WARNING!!

[LORD of WAR]

guys...while everyone here has made legitimate points...you may or may not be seeing the purpose behind the video...it is propaganda...the video was made to eff with our soldiers heads...thats what snipers were originally intended for anyways

snipers were created as a way to demoralize and scare the shit out of the enemy...thats the purpose of this video...it is a testament to the fact that death lurks around every corner in that shithole sandbox

dating back all the way to the civil war when snipers were first effectively used...knowing that one sniper is in an area is reason enough to scare the shit out of the most battle hardened individuals

there is nothing more dangerous on the battlefield than one well placed shot by a well trained marksmen...its the most feared battle implement currently in use...one man trained with one rifle and one well placed shot can deal more death than an entire platoon of men could ever wish to do

i dont mean to step on anyones toes but thats what this video was created for...you dont see after the fact if any of the soldiers lived or died...for all we know every single soldiers armor could have stopped those bullets...the video was put out there to piss people off in hopes of them coming after the snipers and creating more targets...and also to demoralize the spirits of those who were effected by the shooting

sniping is much a mental game as it is physical

 

[number9]

They aren't fighting for freedom! They're fighting for oppression and tyranny!

Which is what freedom means to them; though obviously it's not what you and I would call 'freedom'.

If we want to have any hope of defeating the insurgent militias we need to understand why they are fighting us over there. We are forcing democracy on them (though many Iraqis actually want democracy), and some portions of the Iraqi population clearly would prefer to have a theocracy. So, they are fighting off the coalition forces in the streets.

They are fighting for their freedom -- freedom to have a theocracy (as opposed to an American-sponsored democracy). That doesn't mean it's right, or that I agree with it.

 

[tele_mark]

Bombs.

Drop them.

 

[JRyan]

Which is what freedom means to them; though obviously it's not what you and I would call 'freedom'.

If we want to have any hope of defeating the insurgent militias we need to understand why they are fighting us over there. We are forcing democracy on them (though many Iraqis actually want democracy), and some portions of the Iraqi population clearly would prefer to have a theocracy. So, they are fighting off the coalition forces in the streets.

They are fighting for their freedom -- freedom to have a theocracy (as opposed to an American-sponsored democracy). That doesn't mean it's right, or that I agree with it.

I don't think that makes sense. I think they are fighting for control, and out of the fear of losing that control. It seems to me, once you get past our crap media, that most of the Iraqi population really does want the kind of freedom we take for granted.


If there were twenty terrorists, ten guys who kidnap and behead people, five guys who blow up car bombs, one sniper, and four "soldiers" in civillian clothes would you not call them terrorists because of the four "soldiers" and the sniper?

It's semantic bullshit to say that just because one guy is doing something that we would do (the sniper) that he's not part of the lot of them that are terrorists. They are all terrorists.

I could not watch that video for more than a few moments.

 

[JonJ]

I just can't see how anyone can fight for the freedom to oppress and tyrannize a population. It makes no sense whatsoever. By this definition, Hitler was only fighting for the freedom to practice genocide?

 

[JRyan]

I just can't see how anyone can fight for the freedom to oppress and tyrannize a population. It makes no sense whatsoever. By this definition, Hitler was only fighting for the freedom to practice genocide?

That's pretty much what I was getting at. You have to draw the line of right and wrong.

 

[number9]

I don't think that makes sense. I think they are fighting for control, and out of the fear of losing that control. It seems to me, once you get past our crap media, that most of the Iraqi population really does want the kind of freedom we take for granted.

The trouble is how much really constitutes "most". 50%? 70%? 90%?

Most Iraqis probably want freedom, but a proportion significant enough for this war to still be going don't want that freedom. They want a theocracy.

If there were twenty terrorists, ten guys who kidnap and behead people, five guys who blow up car bombs, one sniper, and four "soldiers" in civillian clothes would you not call them terrorists because of the four "soldiers" and the sniper?

It's semantic bullshit to say that just because one guy is doing something that we would do (the sniper) that he's not part of the lot of them that are terrorists. They are all terrorists.

I don't dispute that they're terrorists, but in their eyes they are freedom fighters. If we (as in 'we' in general) don't understand why they're fighting, we'll never win.

 

[LORD of WAR]

That's pretty much what I was getting at. You have to draw the line of right and wrong.

if you wanna draw the line then you need to start and finish it with the religion...you would need to eradicate the entire middle east and all the muslims...its not the people...its the religion...hate to say it but its true...kinda like you can take some out of the hood but cant take the hood out of someone...its their extremist set of beliefs that they fight to the death over...you cant just eliminate the "threats" you need to eliminate the source...kind like the metaphoric weed...cut off the branches and itll grow back...remove the stem and it dies out

 

[adweisbe]

It's semantic bullshit to say that just because one guy is doing something that we would do (the sniper) that he's not part of the lot of them that are terrorists. They are all terrorists.

and freedom fighters and guerillas. These things are not mutually exclusive. If they were conducting this insurrection using legitimate methods and legitimate targets we would not be able to call them unlawful enemy combatants, uniform or not. Sniping is one of those legitimate methods, costly though the results are.

 

[reinbeau]

Bombs.

Drop them.

Now. Glass.

 

[Pilgrim]

Equating terrorists in Iraq to America Militia during the Revolutionary War has got to be the most offensive thing I've heard in a long time.

I'm NOT equating the morals or the other methods of horror now being used, only the fact that we used non-uniformed snipers in our past and that it is an effective method of warfare.

Their other tactics are abhorant. Non the less, guerrilla warfare has been and always will be used when the fighting is on the streets of someone's hometown.

The French used it during WW2 and we helped them. Many other occupied countries used it during WW2...and we supported them...Partisans, if I remember the proper wording.

When people get desparate, there are no rules in war. Regardless of what you are fighting for, the ultimate goal is to win.

I'm quite sure if your family, your town and the way of life you are used to was threatened, you would bring whatever forces you had to bear on the 'enemy'. You would most likey be a bit more humane than these subhumans but you would be ruthless and you wouldn't care about, and most likely, purposely, not wear a uniform.

I'm not condoning their actions in any way, I shuddered when I saw that film but the 'anonymous' sniping tactic is not in anyway unusual and should have been anticipated by those running the war.


Red Dawn..............................

 

[Scrivener]

dating back all the way to the civil war when snipers were first effectively used...knowing that one sniper is in an area is reason enough to scare the shit out of the most battle hardened individuals

The "civil war" - which one?

You mean the American Civil War? Check your timeline.

Gen. Simon Fraser was killed by a sniper at the Battle of Saratoga, causing a British retreat. Colonel Ferguson was killed by a sniper at the Battle of King's Mountain, causing another British defeat. Both are American Revolutionary War battles.

Hint: Punctuation was developed for a reason. USE IT.

 

[Jose]

Agreed. Targeting civilians, executing prisoners and defiling bodies are "beyond te pale" by civilized standards. Use of snipers is not.

And when did ghillie suits become a uniform?

You need to read the Laws of Armed Conflict.

And to answer your last question, ghillie suits became uniforms circa 1914. The British Army started their use.

 

[Jose]

They are freedom fighters. Doesn't make them good people or what they are fighting for right. It also doesn't justify the majority of their methods which I cannot accept even with my tolerance for moral relativism.


Democracy has it's faults too. The tyranny of the majority comes to mind. Democracy in America by Alexis de Tocqueville.



Is that so clear cut? It is highly likely you know more about the Iraq issue right now then I do so please if you know something that would add perspective or more correct data to the link please let me know.


So who exactly made the rules of war and judged that they be good and true? I think that guerilla warfare, especially as part of concerted campaign to bring about political change or resist invaders, is perfectly legitimate. It has been pointed out that the same tactics were used to found our own country.


To me it is not black and white that what we are forcing on many of them is right or good for them. Neither is it black and white that their resistance is illegitimate (although the majority of their methods are). Sniping (even out of uniform) is a legitimate method IMO and denying that is to dehumanize them relative to ourselves. They are literally voting from the rooftops for their choice of government, a strict Islamic theocracy or dictatorship.

The amount of ignorance in this post about the who is and who is not a legitimate combatant in the field of battle and who is a not is stunning.

The Laws of Armed Conflict are an international treaty agreed upon by a significant number of the world's military powers. Maybe you should read them and understand them since the form the basis for an educated discussion on this topic.

The scumbags carrying out these attacks can legally be shot on the spot by our troops when caught.

 

[Scrivener]

And to answer your last question, ghillie suits became uniforms circa 1914. The British Army started their use.

Uniforms are, by definition, uniform. Further, they are distinct to that nation's forces and bear the insignia thereof and rank of the wearer. In what way does a ghillie suit satisfy those criteria?

 

[bpm990d]

I think that guerilla warfare, especially as part of concerted campaign to bring about political change or resist invaders, is perfectly legitimate....

It is unlawful to bear arms unless you represent a sovereign authority. To do so is a criminal act that is condemned by international treaty. What sovereign authority is it that they are fighting for? When the U.S. took over, Iraq lost its sovereignty and it passed to the United States. By international law the US had obligations as the sovereign authority and one of those obligations was security.

After the Provisional Authority established an Interim Government the Iraqis regained their sovereignty. They have held elections that have been judged to be fair and the people fighting are not legitimate combatants.

Neither is it black and white that their resistance is illegitimate

Ignorance is a terrible thing. It this kind of thinking on the part of some Suni Arabs that will cost them dearly. They and their families are going to pay for their ignorance with blood when the U.S. leaves and the majority populations have there way with those savages.

Just wait, 10 years from now there will be talk of Suni refugee resettlement in some place like Lawrence or Lewiston. My apologies for anyone of the legitimate refugees that live in those places now.

B

 

[PatMcD]

Red Dawn..............................

I just KNEW that somebody was going to mention Red Dawn.

Red Dawn is a flick for wannabe's who like to to think they are some kind of citizen-commando. Same guys who hang 30 gadgets off their AR and run around in tactical vests. (I probably stepped on a few toes there)

Guess what? That "Red Dawn" scenario will NEVER HAPPEN! No nation is ever, or has ever been capable of invading this country (now some joker will mention Mexican illegals, you watch). Why? Because the U.S. of A. is the ONE beacon of prosperity, goodness, justice, and equality in this world. Always has been. Always will. There has never been, nor will there be, a reason for us to be "taken down" by other nations. I guess we're the bad guy for wanting to let the rest of the world to have a tatse of the good life.

That's the whole point.

 

[FalArAk]

I just KNEW I guess we're the bad guy for wanting to let the rest of the world to have a tatse of the good life.

Personally,I don't think one American life is worth any amount of freedom for any shitbag country in the Middle East.I don't give a damn if Saddam was torturing,murdering,raping and pillaging that entire region.I don't care if he used chemical weapons on his own people,I just don't care.

Given your logic,we should be at war with about 15 other countries right now,because they aren't tasting the good life.

Let some other country police the world for a while.

 

[Moderator]

They aren't fighting for freedom! They're fighting for oppression and tyranny!

+1. Very true. Many of these are Saddam's loyalist and are now pissed cause they are out of a job.

 

[Moderator]

They are fighting for the freedom to live under oppression and tyranny, subtle difference ;-)

Many of these people did whatever they wanted in the past and now want others to "live under oppression and tyranny".

 

[Jose]

Uniforms are, by definition, uniform. Further, they are distinct to that nation's forces and bear the insignia thereof and rank of the wearer. In what way does a ghillie suit satisfy those criteria?

The uniforms are worn under the ghillie suit. Would it satisfy you if the camouflage was made of braches and leaves stuck all over them instead of being made of burlap strips?

Displaying the wearer's rank in combat is not necessary to comply with the Geneva Conventions. US JAG has ruled such. Which is why Marines do not wear rank insignia on their combat uniforms when outside of garrison.

Distinct, you say? Do you know how many countries purchased or were given the same exact Battle Dress Uniform in Woodland pattern that ALL of our troops wore until just a few years ago? Not against the Geneva Conventions either.

It appears this is one law that you need to reasearch better.

 

[Jose]

The moral relativism of some here scares the crap out of me.

It is the same exact relativism that drives the majority of people in Mass to consider the Second Amendment to mean whatever they want it to mean.

 

[Cross-X]

Are the Jihaddis signers of the Geneva convention?

 

[Jose]

Are the Jihaddis signers of the Geneva convention?

No, but we are. And their status is defined in them, whether they agree or not.

 

[Cross-X]

No, but we are. And their status is defined in them, whether they agree or not.

So our enemy has to agree to something they haven't agreed to? Do I have that right?

 

[LORD of WAR]

Guess what? That "Red Dawn" scenario will NEVER HAPPEN! No nation is ever, or has ever been capable of invading this country (now some joker will mention Mexican illegals, you watch).

9/11? Pearl Harbor? were those not invasions on our country? if not please inform me as to what they could be called...dont be so naive...it could very easily happen on american soil...you have no idea the number of terrorist cells that may or may not be sitting dormant in this country

and ps...i am one of those guys with 30 gadgets hanging from AR's, magazines loaded and ready and run around in my tac vest from time to time...i like to call it preparing for the worst...yu may call it something different


pps...scrivener...when you graduated with a 3.9 gpa and a bachelors degree in english and successfully made the deans list 6 semesters in a row you reserve the right to use punctuation however you feel approproate...thanx pal

 

[Martlet]

I must say, I'm very shocked at some of these comments.

 

[number9]

+1. Very true. Many of these are Saddam's loyalist and are now pissed cause they are out of a job.

I think you will find that this is not the case. Very few of these are Saddam loyalists, most of the Ba'ath party folk have ever left Iraq or died.

 

[number9]

9/11? Pearl Harbor? were those not invasions on our country? if not please inform me as to what they could be called...dont be so naive...it could very easily happen on american soil...you have no idea the number of terrorist cells that may or may not be sitting dormant in this country

No, they were not invasions, they were attacks. The Japanese did not sail up to Hawa'ii in boats, find an LZ and unload thousands of soldiers. Neither did those Al-Qaeda f***s. They attacked us from a distance.

 

[Admin]

They are freedom fighters. Doesn't make them good people or what they are fighting for right. It also doesn't justify the majority of their methods which I cannot accept even with my tolerance for moral relativism.

Democracy has it's faults too. The tyranny of the majority comes to mind. Democracy in America by Alexis de Tocqueville.

Is that so clear cut? It is highly likely you know more about the Iraq issue right now then I do so please if you know something that would add perspective or more correct data to the link please let me know.

adweisbe there are no links to the data. My data comes from multiple field grade officers both in the Marines and the Army that are currently over there right now. These so called "Freedom Fighters" as you like to champion them as, are nothing but former Iraqi military soldiers and officers that do not want to let go of the absolute power they once had.

If the Mass State Police were raping and murdering citizens of the state while having full absolute power over all the people were finally stopped by the U.S. Military and a handfull of ex-state police officers were sniping U.S. soldiers while no longer wearing uniforms, would you still call them freedom fighters?