U.S. snipers urged to scatter weapons as "bait" for insurgents

Great Debates
101

Not really, but thanks for speaking on my behalf :rolleyes:.
I’ve never, ever posted any double standard, and I challenge you to prove otherwise. I don’t have a problem with the enemy trying to kill me. I am a legitimate military target. I accept that. I put myself in that situation. I dont think that a member of another military is somehow more or less evil than I am simply because he’s trying to kill me. The problem is that this particular enemy is not just out to kill me or other soldiers. The shit I have a problem with, and you have a hard time admitting even happens, is the suicide bombings and car bombings aimed to attack the free citizens of Iraq. Not to mention the attacks on civilians all over the world, to include the UK and the USA.
If you have a problem with America, attack its soldiers. If you have a problem with a new Iraq, attack the Iraqi Army or the Iraqi Police. Don’t crash planes into buildings, or drive car bombs into public crowds or polling booths.

Could you be more specific? Is there something in that sentence that contradicts something I said in the past? Please point it out to me so I can clarify.

You’re right. But my whole point from the begining was simply that a soldier (not withstanding any limitations from his command) is allowed to engage combatants at will. People suggested that the situation in the OP was somehow murder or a war crime because the people were a)not an immediate threat, or b)just going to sell the stuff.
I’ve just been trying to get across the notion that combatants do not need to be an immediate threat. As far as a cite… well it’s not like there will be something specific to our scenario. But even the little pamphlet here in my hand (AE Pam 350-27) states clearly: "You may engage any combatant belonging to a declared hostile force at any time. You do not have to wait for the person to commit a hostile act or demonstrate hostile intent toward you" Emphasis mine.
But, obviously that’s just explaining LOAC, and not ROE. Current ROE isn’t something that can be just tossed around the internet, but the important part of any ROE is the fact that the military is setting it’s own. Provided they do not cross the line by violating the LOAC, they can’t be chased down and charged with murder like some have suggested. If there are units (like the sniper unit in the OP) with an ROE allowing them to just call up and get approval to shoot from an O-3, that’s on them. Provided the person shot was in fact a combatant or was at least reasonably believed to be one, there is no war crime. Anytime I’ve said in this thread that they can or that it’s allowed, I mean that the military would not be committing a crime by letting soldiers engage such targets.

A positively identified, known ring leader of an EFP factory? Are you kidding me? They would probably authorize an airstrike on the car (traffic conditions permitting). Recall that Zarqawi was sitting innocently at home meeting with buddies and we sent planes (plural) to go drop bombs on his house.
However, as unfortunate as I might think it is, the Army has let pleanty of high priority targets slip away because of a restrictive ROE. I couldn’t imagine that a known EFP Ringleader would be passed over, but–for the sake of a fair argument–I’ll say that it is very possible he’d be let to drive on by and they’d just dispatch a unit to try and capture him.
But that’s their call. They could authorize an engagement on the vehicle and the occupant if they wanted to. It wouldn’t be an execution if they chose to engage.

Zarqawi was an execution in your mind? To me it was more like just dropping a couple bombs on the enemy.

Stay 100ft back from any vehicle. Drive slow, do what you’re told. Don’t shoot at them. Don’t wear a suicide vest. Don’t be carrying IED triggers–especially right after an IED was located or was blown up. Those are all pretty good ways to start.

102

I did not notice a link to this YouTube of a US sniper mugging for the camera.

103

Nope, not a direct reference to anything else you said - it’s my roundabout way of noting that when I say the exact same thing, only with US soldiers as the subjects, I get pitted for ignoring all the fine nuances between, say, a sniper and a truck driver. Since you seem to agree with me that guilt filters down to all personnel in a conflict, I thought I’d found a soulmate.

Or just, you know, pointing out that this seems to be a case of “It’s OK If You’re An American!”.

104

I’m not sure about guilt or morality, but if you mean a US Army truck driver is just as much of a combatant and legal target as an infantryman, then I agree. I don’t think you should get pitted for saying that. If you’re saying other things, then I’d have to see the posts to see if I agree with it.

105

'sfunny, you certainly seem sure of the guilt and morality of “the enemy” in Iraq…

No, I meant what I said - the truckdriver shares the moral taint of the rifleman.

Well, you saw fit to post in the pit thread, even though you didn’t read every post - but that’s not important. What I’ve said in this thread should suffice to let you know where I stand on which side is “evil”.

106

Yea? How do you figure? I’ve made no assertions about either of those topics. Unlike you and your other one-subject buddy, I’m capable of discussing other things except the “evil” of the US. I never brought up anything about guilt or about morals. I spoke of combatants. There is no double standard. What the hell does guilt have to do with anything.

And how does that have anything at all to do with what I was saying? Moral taint? I didn’t make a single comment about the “moral taint” of the enemy. Jesus Christ. Maybe if you don’t want to be misunderstood, you could start by having your comments remotely reflect what you’re replying to. Your statement had nothing to do with mine. Or any of mine for that matter.

I didn’t make a single statement about how different soldiers share the same “moral fucking taint”. I said they’re both combatants. You’re trying to continue your lousy little pit thread in here. Why? Are you that starved for attention?
I said, “All those directly aiding the enemy are the enemy”.(paraphrased) And I’ll agree that “All those directly helping the US Coalition are part of that coalition”.
How that translates to, “All US servicemen are tainted by the filthy evil, and immorality inherent in Operation Iraqi Freedom”(paraphrased), is a freaking mystery to me.

Apparantly it is. You seem all butt hurt about it. Sorry pal, I was just adding a slight nitpick to one of tomndebbs points.

I think you should look for a soulmate elsewhere. Like that dusty couch full of stale Cheetoh crumbs, in that same lonely damp basement where Der Trish lives.

By the way, do either of you have any intentions of actually going out and protesting or doing something productive? Or is flinging irrational, inflammatory bullshit over a message board all that your limited ambition allows? I’d have more respect for either of you if you actually did something to support your cause or belief.
Personally, I think the war in Iraq is a good and worthy cause. Granted, it may have been grossly mishandled–to the point where our original intent may be impossible to achieve–but it is still something I believe is worth fixing and making right for everyone involved. I believe this so much that I asked to go there and contribute to the cause. I am willing to give my life in making Iraq a free, thriving, safe, democracy for all those presently living there and for every future generation yet to be born in that country. And, in so doing, rid the nation of Al Qaeda and drastically reduce it’s ability to commit heinous attacks across the world.

But you… you can’t even take five minutes to stage a protest or media stunt or anything. Sad.

Yeah… finally. Way to finally get to the point. Like I give a shit where you stand on “evil” in the first place. This thread had nothing to do with it. Nobody gives a shit about “moral taint” in this thread except you and your little buddy, Der Trihs.

Geez, you know how irrelivant I think your opinion of “evil” is? The other day I saw an AFN commercial where “Lil Bow Wow” was on saying how much he’s proud of us and how much he supports us. Like I give a flying shit what that little preteen rapper thinks. I found it insulting that he, or anyone else, would think that his opinion would influence us or affect our morale the slightest bit. That’s about how I look at your opinion of “evil”. Your opinions are as profound and politcally influencial as Lil Bow Wow’s.

107

And if you think what you said is even remotely similar to what I said. . . that just shows your total lack of perception.

Driver shares the moral taint of the rifleman? Wouldn’t that presuppose the rifleman had some kind of moral taint to begin with? Are you sure you’re in the right thread. Maybe you should continue the nonsense elsewhere.

108

Excuse me for thinking someone would actually have to be guilty of something before you brand the, you know, “the enemy”.

So you’re saying you’re OK with attacking people who are innocent, then? And you’re a US combatant. I wish I could say this shocked me, but…

Other than…calling them “the enemy”, of course.

If I have to spell it out for you - I was sarcastically pointing out that your quoted statement was just bullshit rhetoric.

If it were true, then a worker in a McDonnel-Douglas factory in the US is just as legitimate a target for attack as a US Marine in Iraq. Would you classify a guy on a factory line in Detroit turning out Humvees as an enemy combatant?

But that’s the logical endpoint of your rhetoric to me.

This thread is about whether baited sniping’s a legitimate way to up the bodycount, so it’s about whether it’s right. It’s all about morality. You can dodge and think it’s just about defining legitimate combatants, but that only buries the real question deeper.

We don’t get Cheetohs here.

Oh, Ad Hominem, how I’ve missed you. Not that I haven’t dealt with you before, but you always pop up fresh as a daisy…

…or - how the hey do you know what I do and don’t do in my time away from the boards? I protest your damn-fool war, I contribute to charities that assist your victims, and I assist political movements that aim to stop your evil junta.

But nice try.

I know you do. That’s why all the sarcasm in my first post whooshed right by you, I guess. I’ll be less roundabout next time.

109

Nope - for instance, if the rifleman has no moral taint, neither does the driver. No presupposition needed.

110

One must only be a soldier in an enemy country, or be a member of a recognized hostile force. I don’t believe it’s about guilt or innocence. A person is a legitimate target, or he is not. Regardless of his morals, intentions or otherwise.

Innocent of what, exactly? When you say “innocent” and “guilty”, I think of crimes. The sick thing about war is that people are legally killing and slaughtering each other. An enemy soldier can kill dozens and dozens of Americans and never be “guilty” of anything.

Right. The enemy is the guys we’re shooting at. And they refer to us as “the enemy”. There’s nothing deep or judgemental about that.

But I can’t see why it’s rhetoric or how I’ve laid out a double standard.

I only came in here to say it was legal. Not moral. If the world had perfect morals, there would be no war. And I’ve said from the begining that I was not specifically defending that operation because it sounds so shady from the little info we have on it. I said that numerous times.

But that was all the real question was in this thread. Or at least that’s what I thought. If that’s the case, then I just got suckered in here. I didn’t think this was going to be another thread bringing to light all the evils of America and the war in Iraq. I thought were going to stick to this particular operation and discuss how it could possibly be okay (legally) to do it. And I said from the begining that I didn’t like the way it sounds, that it was shady, and that I had specific problems with it. I tried to address those problems and show how they could be overcome in the operation and ensure that only legitimate combatants and not civilians were being shot.
Instead, the thread turned into another “Morality at War” thread. There’s tons of them out there already, aren’t there? Can’t we talk about a subset of the war without bringing up (again) that we think the whole war is an immoral imperialist invasion?

I know I shouldn’t go there in debates. For that I apologize. It just really pissed me off the way you were beating around the bush and (what seemed like) putting words in my mouth.

If that’s true, then I applaud your effort. I apologize for comparing your to Der Trihs.

Thanks.

Now I see what you’re getting at! The factory and the workers are surely miltary targets. Blowing up that factory and killing all the workers inside should be considered a legal act of war, and not “terrorism”. I’ll also agree that the US probably wouldn’t see it that way. Mainly because the asymetric, unconventional type of enemy we’re currently fighting. Any attack over here would be called “terrorism”.
But if we were at war with North Korea, and they sent a bomber to blow up one of our tank factories, that seems legit to me. I don’t think people would be screaming “War Crime”. And I’d much rather the enemy attacked tank factories and workers than office buildings and stock brokers.

As far as “enemy combatant”. We don’t consider our civilian labor to be combatants. We also wouldn’t consider the civilian labor of a conventional enemy to be combatants. They can be killed in an attack on the factory, but they can’t be engaged individually or “on the way home”. Civilians can’t be engaged, but they are acceptable colateral damage when attacking their factory. Double standard? I dont think so.
I think that if our current enemy were distinguishable from it’s civilian helpers, the way conventional militaries are, we wouldn’t need such a broad brush. For instance, we wouldn’t label civilians working in an Iranian weapons plant as combatants, but they surely would be acceptable collateral damage if we bombed that factory. Same with an attack on the US Factory.
Problem is that our current enemy does not have an organized military with civilian laborers. They just don’t. So how should we differintiate them? Who would you call combatant, who is a contractor, who is just a laborer? They’re all members of the same hostile force. So they’re all combatants.
Plus, coalition civilians get attacked all the time in Iraq. Mainly on convoys and such. Nobody is claiming that it’s illegal or some war crime that the enemy has attacked them. A civilian driving a supply truck for the Army is just as legitimate a target for the enemy as a Marine. So I dont think there is a double standard.

Either way, I’m sure that there are much more insurgents, and insurgent helpers being “detained” or “arrested” than are being killed. I’m not saying we should just go out killing everyone who could be deemed a combatant. I’m just saying that when one is killed legitimately, we need to recognize the rules at play when we’re at war. People get so used to thinking we’re just going around like World Police arresting everyone, that when part of the Army is actually on the offensive killing people, they freak out. I never came in here to defend that baiting operation. I was just pointing out that someone walking along carrying IED parts–but not an immediate threat–can be shot. For the most part, the Army doesn’t work like that. They’re much more restrained then some people think. But the laws still allow for such things. It’s war afterall.

111

Then I guess I agree. Their taints are equal.

112

Al Qaeda is there because of us. And our ravaging of Iraq can only strengthen Al Qaeda. And our goal is not and never was to make Iraq a “free, thriving, safe, democracy”, and our actions have zero chance of accomplishing that. And the war has never been anything but an act of utter vileness.

And the life you are going to sacrifice is more likely to be many lives, the lives of our victims. You are neither heroic nor self sacrificing, not even slightly, despite all your chestbeating. We are most certainly the bad guys in this.

Since that’s what really matters, probably not.

113

They are not there to “defend” Iraq from our occupation, which is what you repeatedly suggest. Granted, if we left, maybe they would to. But if both the US and Al Qaeda left Iraq, there would still be war there. The problem is that the end result of that war (if it ever did end) would not be a positive one. Wars can have positive conclusions, ya know.

I agree that there were vast political and economic agendas at play. But to say that Operation Iraqi Freedom, never had anything to do with making Iraq a free democracy is silly. None of those ulterior motives could be successful without first establishing a stable democracy.
Unless of course you believe we’re only there to kill Muslims.

History will tell.

114

Bear_Nenno, I think I see better now where you were coming from, especially your final reply to that last quoted bit. While I don’t agree with your stance, it is consistent with your beliefs. I think we’ve said all we need to to each other about this.

115

No, I didn’t. Al Qaeda is irrelevant, save as an excuse for our aggression. I was pointing out that they came there because we made it possible for them to come there.

Not this one. There is no chance for anything but a bad conclusion, and there is no chance for any conclusion as long as we are there.

Kill Muslims, control or cut off the oil, funnel money to the war profiteers, turn it into a libertarian anarchocapitalist state, establish a rudimentary puppet government, let Rumsfeld indulge his military theories, convert them to Christianity, and establish military bases for the eventual conquest of other ME countries. It was an act of greed and malice, with no redeeming qualities whatsoever. No, not even removing Saddam, since he was a better ruler of Iraq than we are.

Given that they are guaranteed to ( justifiably ) murderously hate us for generations, the only result of a democracy is going to be an enemy state; one much more hostile than Iran. I doubt that’s part of our plans, but it’s what we are going to get. Even a non-democracy will probably have “hurt America” as it’s foreign policy focus.

If “history” says that this and those who did it are anything but evil, then history is wrong.

116

I think it’s a great idea, by placing out the bait, the sniper knows the exact range to his target. This way he can make a clean kill with one shot. Saves us money on ammo. I wonder how it would work if we put out some chocolate cake? :rolleyes:

117

Don’t know…do insurgents eat chocolate cake?

-XT

118

… and is it Halal?

119

I say we try it. I will get my 30.06 rifle and you guys buy a couple boxes of duncan hines cake mix. We can all head out on a hunting trip.

120

I wonder what the taxidermist would charge for a full body insurgent mount…