LucasForums

LucasForums (http://www.lucasforums.com/index.php)
-   Kavar's Corner (http://www.lucasforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=698)
-   -   U.S. snipers accused of 'baiting' Iraqis (http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?t=182575)

Achilles 09-25-2007 12:13 AM

U.S. snipers accused of 'baiting' Iraqis
 
Link
Quote:

WASHINGTON - Army snipers hunting insurgents in Iraq were under orders to "bait" their targets with suspicious materials, such as detonation cords, and then kill whoever picked up the items, according to the defense attorney for a soldier accused of planting evidence on an Iraqi he killed. Gary Myers, an attorney for Sgt. Evan Vela, said Monday his client had acted "pursuant to orders."
Oh geez...

Only 16 months until the next president takes office.

Corinthian 09-25-2007 12:36 AM

I object. There is no proof.

Totenkopf 09-25-2007 12:38 AM

So, who's accusing the guy of actually planting evidence? The "enemy"? Tim Mcgirk? The big problem here appears to be that the military is operating under orders that put the men at risk, b/c as soon as things like this "hit the papers", the immediate political impulse appears to be to throw soldiers under the bus. :carms:

Corinthian 09-25-2007 01:09 AM

He CLAIMS that the military ordered him to set bait. He could be lying.

Jae Onasi 09-25-2007 01:53 AM

At first blush it looks like something truly immoral. However, we're never going to know the whole story because of the 'classified Ranger tactics' thing, so it's going to be incredibly difficult to make a really informed decision on this. This is just a really odd story, too, in terms of what's happening over in Iraq with these snipers.

Rogue Warrior 09-25-2007 05:30 AM

And the problem with baiting targets after detonation codes into a trap is what, exactly?

mur'phon 09-25-2007 06:01 AM

Quote:

And the problem with baiting targets after detonation codes into a trap is what, exactly?
Mohamed is walking home from work and sees something strange lying the street. Mohamed is curious and pics it up, and end up as "collateral damage".

Yes, I'm exagarating, but that is the problem with it

Totenkopf 09-25-2007 06:08 AM

Well, I guess as long as Mohamed isn't like 3 years old or something....(yeah, they can tell that much with their scopes and spotters).

mur'phon 09-25-2007 08:07 AM

Quote:

Well, I guess as long as Mohamed isn't like 3 years old or something....(yeah, they can tell that much with their scopes and spotters).
So it's okay to kill an innocent person as long as he is not a child?

mimartin 09-25-2007 10:24 AM

First off Sergeant Evan Vela credibility isn’t the greatest since he charged with planting weapons on an Iraqi that he killed. Still with the information coming from more than one source (not just the three accused in this case) I believe it is feasible that such a program exist. I agree with Jae's line.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Jae Onasi
However, we're never going to know the whole story because of the 'classified Ranger tactics' thing, so it's going to be incredibly difficult to make a really informed decision on this.

Since we don’t know all the facts relevant to this case such as location and exact wording of orders, I cannot personally make a informed decision to either condemn or applauded this tactic.

This is a different kind of war; the enemy does not obey any rules of engagement. I would like to believe the American military is above stooping to such under handed tactics and are doing everything possible to protect themselves and the civilian population. If they are indeed under orders to kill anyone that picks up “suspicious materials” then it is indeed time for new leadership and to bring our soldiers home, because our current leadership has given up trying to get the Iraqi populations support.

Caius Fett 09-25-2007 10:35 AM

Personally I doubt very much this is going on at all. However if it is I would find such actions deplorable, it's no better IMO than booby traping dead bodies.

@ Corinthian you have a good point there is no proof beside one Captain's unsubstantiated word that this is a tactic used by the army.

Gargoyle King 09-25-2007 11:15 AM

There is no proof of this really. As immoral as it seems, we are not there and do not know what our soldiers have to face on a day to day basis. Therefore as inhuman as this tactic may seem it may actually be a very effective means on drawing out the enemy without a risk to too many of our soldiers lives. With all the bull**** in Iraq and Afganistan going on at the minute with blue on blue attacks, sudden enemy strikes and an uncertainty of life or death would mean that commanders would be willing to try anything to complete an objective or more importantly, to stay alive. My point being here people is that we shouldn't judge our forces too harshly with morals that basically will not exist in a warzone, it's war and casualties on both sides will occur.

Achilles 09-25-2007 11:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mimartin
This is a different kind of war; the enemy does not obey any rules of engagement.

We've heard this before, no? Not really "different" then, is it?

guerrilla: a person who engages in irregular warfare especially as a member of an independent unit carrying out harassment and sabotage.

Examples:
American Revolutionary War
American Civil War
Vietnam War
Iraq

Quote:

Originally Posted by mimartin
I would like to believe the American military is above stooping to such under handed tactics and are doing everything possible to protect themselves and the civilian population.

Me too, but I suspect that we both know better. This is the same problem we faced in Vietnam: when the civilians look like insurgents and vice versa, how do you know who to kill and who to protect?

We have women in burkas suicide bombing shopping bazaars. How many of those do you live through before all women and burkas start to register as enemies?

Quote:

Originally Posted by mimartin
If they are indeed under orders to kill anyone that picks up “suspicious materials” then it is indeed time for new leadership and to bring our soldiers home, because our current leadership has given up trying to get the Iraqi populations support.

I'm not convinced we ever started. It seems our priorities center around the Iraqi oil ministry and the 14 permanent military bases that we're building there. At no point did we attempt to stop any of the looting that took place (even when what was being looted was weapon depots). Iraqis are still without electricity for 20+ hours per day (highs above 110 in the summer and lows around 40 in the winter). We go into cities that have insurgents and destroy homes and infrastructure. Unemployment is estimated between 18-40%.

$2 billion dollars per day for what? Guns or butter?

mimartin 09-25-2007 12:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Achilles
We've heard this before, no? Not really "different" then, is it?
guerrilla: a person who engages in irregular warfare especially as a member of an independent unit carrying out harassment and sabotage.

Very true, but forgive me for not being clear in my earlier response. I was speaking more to an enemy and war that would go out of its way to inflict damage to its own people. I understand many would say these are insurgent fighters and from a different culture, but the idea of United States slaughtering thousands of Canadians or Mexicans to win a war against al-Qaeda just wouldn’t make sense to me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Achilles
This is the same problem we faced in Vietnam: when the civilians look like insurgents and vice versa, how do you know who to kill and who to protect?

That is why you plan out and look at as many possibilities and contingencies as possible before entering into this type of war. You can say a lot of things about George H Bush, but at least he knew the occupation of Iraq was a bad idea.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Achilles
$2 billion dollars per day for what? Guns or butter?

Revenge.

Achilles 09-25-2007 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mimartin
Very true, but forgive me for not being clear in my earlier response. I was speaking more to an enemy and war that would go out of its way to inflict damage to its own people.

That sounds more like civil war.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mimartin
I understand many would say these are insurgent fighters and from a different culture, but the idea of United States slaughtering thousands of Canadians or Mexicans to win a war against al-Qaeda just wouldn’t make sense to me.

Unless of course we had deep-seeded animosity toward Canadians (who burnt down the first white house) or the Mexicans (who we were at war against about 150 years ago).

Remember that Iraq only exists because of British colonialism. The modern country known as Iraq didn't exist until the 1920s. The ethnic tensions which we are now seeing have roots that go back decades (if not centuries).

The point is that we don't just have one war going on over there.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mimartin
That is why you plan out and look at as many possibilities and contingencies as possible before entering into this type of war. You can say a lot of things about George H Bush, but at least he knew the occupation of Iraq was a bad idea.

You don't get to be Director of the CIA by being a dummy :)

Quote:

Originally Posted by mimartin
Revenge.

Or imperialism.

Totenkopf 09-25-2007 02:20 PM

Quote:

You don't get to be Director of the CIA by being a dummy.
Same is true for SecDef, but that didn't make Robert Mcnamarra a good one. Book smarts is only part of the equation. Besides, there have always been a lot of "smart" people who get into government, then f-up monumentally. Look at John Deutsch, who even with his pedigree, was apparently more concerned w/downloading porn than much else. Guess his missing files were probably with HRC's Rose law firm files. :D

@mur'phon--that of course assumes that the adults picking it up ARE "innocent".

*wonders if these are the innocents worried about....
http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/...children-.html


@Achilles--interesting oversight on the guerilla front. You forgot to add WW2, probably WW1, the campaigns in the Phillipines and central America too (early 20th century). No doubt there are loads more. Intersting thing is that there is no full blown civil war in Iraq along the lines of the one in America. More like if the US govt tried to start suppressing/eradicating gangs in the US (LA has 4x as many gang bangers as police). There'd be a lot of "blue on blue" (ie "Americans" killing Americans) w/o the entire country lapsing into "civil war".

PoiuyWired 09-25-2007 03:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jae Onasi
At first blush it looks like something truly immoral. However, we're never going to know the whole story because of the 'classified Ranger tactics' thing, so it's going to be incredibly difficult to make a really informed decision on this. This is just a really odd story, too, in terms of what's happening over in Iraq with these snipers.

Plus, we don't know how exactly the said victim is acting, and the situation of nearby events, like combat actually going on in these blocks and such. Picking up a weird item in the middle of a starbucks is quite different from picking the aid item up on a street filled with ammo shells and burnt vehicles.

I mean, yes the event is sad, but it might just be an unfortunate case of the unfortunate tides of war.

Rogue Warrior 09-26-2007 05:43 AM

This is a move straight out of the FBI handbook, so given the loose rules of engagement in the armed forces I do not consider this as bad as, say, Abu Ghraib, if of course there is any truth at all to this.

Jae Onasi 09-26-2007 11:49 AM

Could you please tell me where I might find this in our FBI handbook? I'd be very interested in what they're teaching in the academy.

Rogue Warrior 09-27-2007 05:20 AM

Penthouse magazine did an article back in 1995 on Hogan's Alley, the FBI's training grounds. Yes, I know, but you get that living with a bunch of boys. Unfortunately it was destroyed when the plumbing blew but I can tell you about it and try and hunt down the article in question. It tells of it evolving from a shoot\don't shoot gallery to a proper, functional town where FBI agents not only train but run the businesses including the cafe, hotel, fuel depot, ect. One of the cases trainee agents go through is a kidnapping and they leave the ransom money for the kidnapper, then pounce when he goes for it. This actually happened to a jogger who took interest in the money and the trap was reset. When the real deal happened a device was found in the car, a bomb, with the kidnapper's history saying he was an explosives expert. In the real world they would have all died, this and other mistakes are covered later at a debriefing.

RobQel-Droma 09-27-2007 10:01 PM

First of all, as people have said, there is no proof.

Secondly, if it is true, it did say "insurgents", which basically means enemies. And if they are planting a piece of something in the ground to bait these guys, I don't see anything wrong with it. Its a war, people, geez. Its not like we're the ones who kidnap innocent civilians and cut off their heads in videotapes.

Achilles 09-27-2007 10:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RobQel-Droma
First of all, as people have said, there is no proof.

Correct.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RobQel-Droma
Secondly, if it is true, it did say "insurgents", which basically means enemies.

And these enemies are wearing uniforms? How do the snipers distinguish between insurgents and curious civilians that have been used to looting for the last 5 years?

Quote:

Originally Posted by RobQel-Droma
And if they are planting a piece of something in the ground to bait these guys, I don't see anything wrong with it. Its a war, people, geez.

So anything goes? "War crimes" should be considered PC rhetoric? Geneva Conventions should be ignored when inconvenient?

Quote:

Originally Posted by RobQel-Droma
Its not like we're the ones who kidnap innocent civilians and cut off their heads in videotapes.

No, we drop bombs on them. Or abduct them from their homes in the middle of the night and stick them in abu ghraib.

RobQel-Droma 09-27-2007 10:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Achilles
No, we drop bombs on them.

Oh, yea, Achilles. That totally compares to taking people who are KNOWN to be civilians and torturing them and killing them brutally. Yea.

Oh, its not like they didn't bomb the World Trade Centers and kill thousands of other innocent Americans either.

Not trying to be overly sarcastic here, but I can't believe you just said that. In fact, could you possible provide proof of the abduction thing? Just wondering.... or is that just the propaganda that the Media spreads on a day-to-day basis.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Achilles
Or abduct them from their homes in the middle of the night and stick them in abu ghraib.

Oh yes, Abu Ghraib, the famed tropical resor- I mean jail.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Achilles
So anything goes? "War crimes" should be considered PC rhetoric? Geneva Conventions should be ignored when inconvenient?

You're defending people who don't give a rats ass about the Geneva Convention. They use it against us. We can't kill Mohammed because he might be a civilian and not dressed in uniform, even though he's just toting his car-bombs up the next hill.

You know what most soldiers in Iraq think about this kind of argument you make? Why don't you go read Lone Survivor, it's a great book. And it shows just how evil and crafty these guys are and how they use these "rules" against us everyday, all by a guy who was there.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Achilles
And these enemies are wearing uniforms? How do the snipers distinguish between insurgents and curious civilians that have been used to looting for the last 5 years?

Were the people in the Trade Centers wearing uniforms? No. I get so hot when I hear people say stuff like this, because it seems like no one cares what happened on 9/11 anymore. No, everyone goes ballistic when we "violate" Iraqi insurgent's rights.

Corinthian 09-27-2007 11:07 PM

To be fair, I see Achilles points. We're Americans, not Barbarians. We hold ourselves to a higher standard. Be that as it may, as I have stated before, THERE IS NO PROOF.

Achilles 09-27-2007 11:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RobQel-Droma
Oh, yea, Achilles. That totally compares to taking people who are KNOWN to be civilians and torturing them and killing them brutally. Yea.

I'm not sure how one condones collateral damage while snubbing torture.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RobQel-Droma
Oh, its not like they didn't bomb the World Trade Centers and kill thousands of other innocent Americans either.

The innocent iraqi civilians suffering at american hands or the alleged 19 hijackers that died when their planes crashed? Last time I checked, the official story was the attacks that took place on September 11th were carried out by al qaeda terrorists, not Iraqi women and children. By the way most of the hijackers are believed to have been Saudi Arabians. Odd that we're not at war there, huh?

Quote:

Originally Posted by RobQel-Droma
Not trying to be overly sarcastic here, but I can't believe you just said that.

Because it's not true or...?

Quote:

Originally Posted by RobQel-Droma
In fact, could you possible provide proof of the abduction thing? Just wondering.... or is that just the propaganda that the Media spreads on a day-to-day basis.

Yes, I could. Go check your local movie listings for the documentary No End in Sight, buy a ticket, and go watch it. If you aren't persuaded, let me know and I'll refund the cost of your ticket (you're on your own for popcorn).

Quote:

Originally Posted by RobQel-Droma
Oh yes, Abu Ghraib, the famed tropical resor- I mean jail.

Oh good. You've heard of it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RobQel-Droma
You're defending people who don't give a rats ass about the Geneva Convention.

I'm not sure how what they do or do not "give a rats ass" about is relevant. How does what they care about condone our conduct? How do we maintain credibility if we cast aside Geneva Conventions (which we've already done, btw)?

Quote:

Originally Posted by RobQel-Droma
They use it against us. We can't kill Mohammed because he might be a civilian and not dressed in uniform, even though he's just toting his car-bombs up the next hill.

So kill them all without regard for whose a civilian and whose actually an insurgent? And what do you think that will do for our troops psychologically when they come home to face their own wives and children? Or do you not care?

Quote:

Originally Posted by RobQel-Droma
You know what most soldiers in Iraq think about this kind of argument you make? Why don't you go read Lone Survivor, it's a great book. And it shows just how evil and crafty these guys are and how they use these "rules" against us everyday, all by a guy who was there.

Relevance? According to the blurb on Amazon.com, the author was stationed in Afghanistan.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RobQel-Droma
Were the people in the Trade Centers wearing uniforms? No. I get so hot when I hear people say stuff like this, because it seems like no one cares what happened on 9/11 anymore. No, everyone goes ballistic when we "violate" Iraqi insurgent's rights.

I'm afraid that this doesn't answer my question.

And for the record, how I feel about the deaths in September 11th have nothing to do with it.

RobQel-Droma 09-28-2007 12:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Achilles
I'm not sure how one condones collateral damage while snubbing torture.

I'm not. I'm wondering how you can be outraged at one and ok with the other.

Especially since we were bombing military targets. Now we aren't perfect, and civilians will die. It always happens in war.

Now I know what you're going to say: "You don't care about civilians dying, as long as it suits your purpose." No, I do care. But some things just happen, and no matter what you do, short of not going to war no matter what, it will happen.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Achilles
The innocent iraqi civilians suffering at american hands or the alleged 19 hijackers that died when their planes crashed? Last time I checked, the official story was the attacks that took place on September 11th were carried out by al qaeda terrorists, not Iraqi women and children. By the way most of the hijackers are believed to have been Saudi Arabians. Odd that we're not at war there, huh?

Where have you been? Did you have some mistaken idea that those 19 guys were the only terrorists? This is not a war between countries, this is a war between the US and a group of terrorists across the world, most of which have been stationed, trained, and supported in that area. Have you not heard of all the terrorist training camps they have found in Iraq and Afghanistan? Or that Saddam was supporting it all?

Oh, and stop with all the Iraqi women and children crap. Give me a case of where American soldiers indiscriminately slaughtered women and children. And stop making our soldiers out to be criminals, like all the people in the Media do all day. (yes I am harping on the Media, because they spread this crap all the time)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Achilles
Yes, I could. Go check your local movie listings for the documentary No End in Sight, buy a ticket, and go watch it. If you aren't persuaded, let me know and I'll refund the cost of your ticket (you're on your own for popcorn).

Oh yea, that movie documentary. *That* has all the facts in it.

Go read this. All these documentary movies are pretty much the same, by the way. Could you back up most the claims made in No End in Sight? Or make me feel that they aren't just hunting up little tidbits to justify Bush-hating?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Achilles
Oh good. You've heard of it.

Yeah. Quite the pleasure resort.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Achilles
I'm not sure how what they do or do not "give a rats ass" about is relevant. How does what they care about condone our conduct? How do we maintain credibility if we cast aside Geneva Conventions (which we've already done, btw)?

I agree. But it should be shrunk down to size, not this huge issue that people have made it into. Or at least people shouldn't start screaming about it when it comes to these terrorists who violate it all the time. We should give it to them, but not when it endangers American lives.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Achilles
So kill them all without regard for whose a civilian and whose actually an insurgent? And what do you think that will do for our troops psychologically when they come home to face their own wives and children? Or do you not care?

That's not what I said.... You're putting words in my mouth, making me out to have no regard for civilian lives.

Psychologically? What? What are you talking about? Your way, they would come back in a box, because good old Abdul would now still be at large and churning out bombs. I'm not saying they shouldn't exercise caution. But first off all, this is not proven at all, and anyways, it says "insurgents", as I said. Hopefully known insurgents, of course, but all should be regarded as equally a threat. They are who we are fighting right now, dude. We're not talking about just some American sniper practice here, come on. They're targeting *insurgents*. If they are insurgents, they are no longer civilians.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Achilles
Relevance? According to the blurb on Amazon.com, the author was stationed in Afghanistan.

The story in the book takes place there, yes. But its the same guys. As I said, we aren't fighting a country, we are fighting a group of terrorists that have roots in many areas.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Achilles
I'm afraid that this doesn't answer my question.

And for the record, how I feel about the deaths in September 11th have nothing to do with it.

It has very much to do with it. This same group are killing our troops. And if you don't feel that 9/11 was all that terrible, then obviously you would find some random unproven "abuses" of Iraqi civilian's (no, actually insurgents) "rights" very important. I don't. Those civilians, yes, they do have rights, and I would uphold them. But the Geneva Convention applies to armies that have uniforms and a nationality, and they don't. They're a group of evil terrorists.

Corinthian 09-28-2007 12:29 AM

Actually, the Geneva Conventions are a lot broader than that.

Achilles, you still have yet to address that this guy could just be lying. Is there any evidence that anyone else has been planting bait?

Achilles 09-28-2007 12:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RobQel-Droma
I'm not.

That would appear to be your earlier argument.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RobQel-Droma
I'm wondering how you can be outraged at one and ok with the other.

I'm not ok with either and I'm not sure how you got the impression that I was.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RobQel-Droma
Especially since we were bombing military targets. Now we aren't perfect, and civilians will die. It always happens in war.

Fine. But that doesn't tell me how collateral damage is ok but torture is not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RobQel-Droma
Now I know what you're going to say: "You don't care about civilians dying, as long as it suits your purpose." No, I do care. But some things just happen, and no matter what you do, short of not going to war no matter what, it will happen.

If you guess wrong, do I get a cookie?

Quote:

Originally Posted by RobQel-Droma
Where have you been? Did you have some mistaken idea that those 19 guys were the only terrorists?

Nope not at all. But most of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia and the al qaeda is based out of Afghanistan. So what are we doing in Iraq? And why aren't we at war in Saudi Arabia (hint: they're our allies, just like Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden once were)?

Quote:

Originally Posted by RobQel-Droma
This is not a war between countries, this is a war between the US and a group of terrorists across the world, most of which have been stationed, trained, and supported in that area.

Fascinating. Then why are we in Afghanistan? I thought that's where the al qaeda training camps were.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RobQel-Droma
Have you not heard of all the terrorist training camps they have found in Iraq and Afghanistan? Or that Saddam was supporting it all?

No, I'm afraid I haven't heard that regarding Iraq or Saddam. Perhaps you'd like to educate me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RobQel-Droma
Oh, and stop with all the Iraqi women and children crap. Give me a case of where American soldiers indiscriminately slaughtered women and children.

100,000 Civilian Deaths Estimated in Iraq
Quote:

The analysis, an extrapolation based on a relatively small number of documented deaths, indicated that many of the excess deaths have occurred due to aerial attacks by coalition forces, with women and children being frequent victims, wrote the international team of public health researchers making the calculations.
Quote:

Originally Posted by RobQel-Droma
And stop making our soldiers out to be criminals, like all the people in the Media do all day. (yes I am harping on the Media, because they spread this crap all the time)

I'm not criminalizing them at all. They're just trying to survive. The sooner we bring them home, the better.

What I'm also not doing is pretending that none of this is really happening.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RobQel-Droma
Oh yea, that movie documentary. *That* has all the facts in it.

The offer still stands. Take your parents. I'll cover their tickets too.

PS: Actual footage of events doesn't lie.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RobQel-Droma
Go read this. All these documentary movies are pretty much the same, by the way. Could you back up most the claims made in No End in Sight? Or make me feel that they aren't just hunting up little tidbits to justify Bush-hating?

Well, I'm sorry to hear that Kyle Smith didn't care for the film. I'm not sure what his opinion of the film has to do with anything.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RobQel-Droma
I agree. But it should be shrunk down to size, not this huge issue that people have made it into. Or at least people shouldn't start screaming about it when it comes to these terrorists who violate it all the time. We should give it to them, but not when it endangers American lives.

We can either exemplify that we deserve to be the world's sole superpower or we do not. Not sure how violating and/or ignoring international treaties accomplished the former.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RobQel-Droma
That's not what I said.... You're putting words in my mouth, making me out to have no regard for civilian lives.

It was a question, sir (technically, more than one). You're free to answer however you'd like. Careful that you don't contradict yourself though.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RobQel-Droma
Psychologically? What? What are you talking about? Your way, they would come back in a box, because good old Abdul would now still be at large and churning out bombs.

Nope, my way they would come home before "Abdul" had an opportunity to "put them in a box". I hope that I was adequately able to reciprocate your articulate use of metaphor and pejoratives with that last part.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RobQel-Droma
I'm not saying they shouldn't exercise caution. But first off all, this is not proven at all, and anyways, it says "insurgents", as I said. Hopefully known insurgents, of course, but all should be regarded as equally a threat. They are who we are fighting right now, dude. We're not talking about just some American sniper practice here, come on. They're targeting *insurgents*. If they are insurgents, they are no longer civilians.

Which brings me back to my earlier question:

And these enemies are wearing uniforms? How do the snipers distinguish between insurgents and curious civilians that have been used to looting for the last 5 years?

Quote:

Originally Posted by RobQel-Droma
The story in the book takes place there, yes. But its the same guys. As I said, we aren't fighting a country, we are fighting a group of terrorists that have roots in many areas.

Still not sure how that's relevant.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RobQel-Droma
It has very much to do with it. This same group are killing our troops.

Yes, al qaeda are fighting against our troops. Iraqi insurgents are also fighting against our troops. September 11th has nothing to do with Iraqi insurgents outside of our using it as a pretense for invading Iraq. So, as I stated earlier, my feelings regarding the attacks of September 11th have nothing to do with it.

I'd feel much safer if we were spending $2 billion dollars per day making our country safer rather than inspiring millions of middle easterns to hate americans while our soldiers die.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RobQel-Droma
And if you don't feel that 9/11 was all that terrible, then obviously you would find some random unproven "abuses" of Iraqi civilian's (no, actually insurgents) "rights" very important.

Not sure I follow.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RobQel-Droma
I don't. Those civilians, yes, they do have rights, and I would uphold them. But the Geneva Convention applies to armies that have uniforms and a nationality, and they don't. They're a group of evil terrorists.

Here's some info on the Fourth Geneva Convention for your perusal. I hope you find it educational.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Corinthian
Achilles, you still have yet to address that this guy could just be lying.

I acknowledged that there is no proof (to the best of our knowledge) in post #22.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Corinthian
Is there any evidence that anyone else has been planting bait?

Not to the best of my knowledge.

Corinthian 09-28-2007 01:11 AM

Precisely. It's just his word. So until you get some corroborating evidence, would you kindly can the definitive statements about how sadistic and evil our military commanders are.

Achilles 09-28-2007 01:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Corinthian
Precisely. It's just his word. So until you get some corroborating evidence, would you kindly can the definitive statements about how sadistic and evil our military commanders are.

Funny, I don't recall saying anything to that effect. Not that this specific case has much, if anything, to do with a majority of the arguments that I actually have made in this thread.

Rogue Warrior 09-28-2007 05:39 AM

"When you're on your own behind enemy lines, no artillery, no airstrikes, no hope of an evac, you don't fight dirty. You do things that make dirty look good." Frank Castle.

How might you act in their place?

Jae Onasi 09-28-2007 09:40 AM

Moderator note so I don't have to double post....The staff has received a reported post on the tone used in some of the recent posts. Keep it civil, please.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rogue Warrior
Penthouse magazine did an article back in 1995 on Hogan's Alley, the FBI's training grounds....I can tell you about it and try and hunt down the article in question.

Please don't send/link me a Penthouse article.... There must be some better documentation on that than a porn magazine.

Achilles 09-28-2007 10:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jae Onasi
Please don't send/link me a Penthouse article.... There must be some better documentation on that than a porn magazine.

*Indignant*
Hey! Penthouse has some very good articles. Errmmm....*slinks away*
:D

Q 09-28-2007 10:52 AM

Penthouse has articles?!

Totenkopf 09-28-2007 12:07 PM

Naw.....I think they're confusing them with advertisements.....you know, pictures with words on them. ;)

Rogue Warrior 09-28-2007 04:06 PM

Yep, sorry, my bad, I only mentioned where it came from so there was a legitimate source.

On the topic it could be considered entrapment.

Achilles 09-29-2007 01:57 PM

U.S. Army sniper sentenced in Iraq case
 
Link
Quote:

BAGHDAD - A military panel on Saturday sentenced an Army sniper to five months in prison, a reduction in rank and forfeiture of pay for planting evidence in connection with the deaths of two Iraqi civilians.

<snip>

Spc. Jorge G. Sandoval, 22, was acquitted of murder charges in the April and May deaths of two unidentified men. The panel decided he was guilty of a lesser charges of placing detonation wire on one of the bodies to make it look as if the man was an insurgent.

<snip>

Asked about the existence of the "baiting program," Capt. Craig Drummond, Sandoval's military defense attorney, said it was unclear "what programs were going on out there and when," especially "if there were things that were done that made the rules of engagement not clear."

Totenkopf 09-29-2007 02:42 PM

*imagines the number of possible civilian deaths that most likely resulted from burning Japanese out of caves on Okinawa, wonders where all the slimy lawyers were back then, and shrugs.

note: Civilians are often unfortunate caualties of war. Until someone can demonstrate that the purpose of this "exercise" is to SPECIFICALLY and EXCLUSIVELY target "innocent civilians", I can't get excited. Seems the self styled opponents of "Bush's war" are more concerned with global opinion of America than with the actuality of the deaths themselves. Evidenced by the somewhat callous dimissal of deaths "over there" as inevitable due to sectarian strife and age old hatreds. I guess the killing is no big deal, so long as our hands aren't bloodied by it. *shrugs again.

tk102 09-29-2007 03:10 PM

Regarding Geneva conventions...
Quote:

Originally Posted by Achilles
We can either exemplify that we deserve to be the world's sole superpower or we do not. Not sure how violating and/or ignoring international treaties accomplished the former.

QFT.

Totenkopf 09-29-2007 05:16 PM

Being the world's "sole superpower" is not a question of deserving in the eyes of the world as much as in actual ability to be it at all. If I can beat up everyone in the playground (whether as an act of offense OR defense), then I'm effectively the "sole superpower" in that setting. Now, to the degree our behavior has the ability to influence others for good or bad.....if we wish to have influence beyond our mere physical might, that's a different matter.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:33 AM.

Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
LFNetwork, LLC ©2002-2011 - All rights reserved.