PDA

View Full Version : US snipers 'bait' Iraqis: report



-Cp
09-24-2007, 04:17 PM
LMAO!

Love this idea!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/usiraqmilitarysnipers;_ylt=AnedjfsHjOQDJNjZxdIls7I DW7oF

truthmatters
09-24-2007, 04:21 PM
So if someone picks it up not knowing what it is they get shot?

If person who picks it up is a child they get shot, if they pick it up to throw it away so that childern wont play with it they get shot.

If some guy picks it up to use the parts to fix his TV he dies for it huh?

Not thinking things through leads to needless death.

-Cp
09-24-2007, 04:28 PM
So if someone picks it up not knowing what it is they get shot?

If person who picks it up is a child they get shot, if they pick it up to throw it away so that childern wont play with it they get shot.

If some guy picks it up to use the parts to fix his TV he dies for it huh?

Not thinking things through leads to needless death.

Since when does a liberal (Pro-murder *abortion*) care about human life?

truthmatters
09-24-2007, 04:31 PM
Since when does a liberal (Pro-murder *abortion*) care about human life?


Since when has anyone ever said they were pro abortion?

You can not adress my comment so you try to change the subject?

manu1959
09-24-2007, 04:38 PM
So if someone picks it up not knowing what it is they get shot?

If person who picks it up is a child they get shot, if they pick it up to throw it away so that childern wont play with it they get shot.

If some guy picks it up to use the parts to fix his TV he dies for it huh?

Not thinking things through leads to needless death.

you didn't read the article did you?....

"This is not indiscriminate and there are rules of engagement," the official told AFP.

Gunny
09-24-2007, 05:05 PM
So if someone picks it up not knowing what it is they get shot?

If person who picks it up is a child they get shot, if they pick it up to throw it away so that childern wont play with it they get shot.

If some guy picks it up to use the parts to fix his TV he dies for it huh?

Not thinking things through leads to needless death.

Not knowing what you're talking about leads to unintelligent statments based on assumptions.

What do you know about snipers? Ever been one? Ever had to decided who to shoot and/or not shoot?

You know nothing. Leave it alone.

manu1959
09-24-2007, 05:20 PM
Not knowing what you're talking about leads to unintelligent statments based on assumptions.

What do you know about snipers? Ever been one? Ever had to decided who to shoot and/or not shoot?

You know nothing. Leave it alone.

she knows everything................just ask her.....

truthmatters
09-24-2007, 06:08 PM
Not knowing what you're talking about leads to unintelligent statments based on assumptions.

What do you know about snipers? Ever been one? Ever had to decided who to shoot and/or not shoot?

You know nothing. Leave it alone.

Did you read the article Gunny?

Dilloduck
09-24-2007, 06:23 PM
So if someone picks it up not knowing what it is they get shot?

If person who picks it up is a child they get shot, if they pick it up to throw it away so that childern wont play with it they get shot.

If some guy picks it up to use the parts to fix his TV he dies for it huh?

Not thinking things through leads to needless death.

The article didn't say how it worked but it did say that things WERE thought through. That is the truth.

Gunny
09-24-2007, 07:32 PM
Did you read the article Gunny?

Neither that article nor you can tell me anything on this subject. I hope that's clear enough.

82Marine89
09-24-2007, 07:38 PM
Neither that article nor you can tell me anything on this subject. I hope that's clear enough.

I'd rep ya, but I'm fresh out.

diuretic
09-24-2007, 08:10 PM
Neither that article nor you can tell me anything on this subject. I hope that's clear enough.

Okay, do you approve of shooting dead people* who may casually pick up an item left in the open? Is that a valid use of a sniper?

*The vagaries of the English language - that has to be read where "dead" is linked to "shooting" and not "people" (the latter as in "I see dead people").

Gunny
09-24-2007, 08:21 PM
Okay, do you approve of shooting dead people* who may casually pick up an item left in the open? Is that a valid use of a sniper?

*The vagaries of the English language - that has to be read where "dead" is linked to "shooting" and not "people" (the latter as in "I see dead people").

I would say it depends on who those "people" are, and what "item" they are after. Baiting is a tactic as old as war.

I don't see where anything in this article is evidence of wrongdoing, and completely with the ROEs.

diuretic
09-24-2007, 08:26 PM
I would say it depends on who those "people" are, and what "item" they are after. Baiting is a tactic as old as war.

And that's fair enough. Now, if I can go on with this. I would think that if there was a theatre of war, let's think France in WWII where there was some vicious close-quarter and house to house fighting. Laying baits for snipers would be, I would think, a fair thing. An enemy soldier is drawn to some equipment left out (perhaps a box of hand grenades or whatever) and is shot by a sniper. No problem. But what if it were a civilian non-com? Yes it could be a collaborator, but it could equally be a member of the Resistance or someone keen to make a buck on the black market. It could even be a curious (or venal) kid. Are they fair targets?

PostmodernProphet
09-24-2007, 08:51 PM
If some guy picks it up to use the parts to fix his TV

what kind of TVs do they have over there?......


snipers were using bait such as detonation cords or blasting camps

truthmatters
09-24-2007, 08:54 PM
The newspaper said the classified program was uncovered in documents related to recently filed murder charges against three snipers accused of planting evidence on Iraqis they killed.

"Baiting is putting an object out there that we know they will use, with the intention of destroying the enemy," Captain Matthew Didier, the leader of an elite sniper scout platoon, said in a sworn statement.

"Basically, we would put an item out there and watch it," Didier continued.

"If someone found the item, picked it up and attempted to leave with the item, we would engage the individual as I saw this as a sign they would use the item against US forces."

In documents obtained by The Post from family members of the accused soldiers, Didier said members of the Pentagon's Asymmetric Warfare Group visited his unit in January and later handed over ammunition boxes filled with the "drop items" to be used "to disrupt ... attempts at harming coalition forces and give us the upper hand in a fight."

Eugene Fidell, president of the National Institute of Military Justice, called for an investigation of any baiting program.

"In a country that is awash in armaments and magazines and implements of war, if every time somebody picked up something that was potentially useful as a weapon, you might as well ask every Iraqi to walk around with a target on his back," Fidell said in the Post article.

Soldiers said that about a dozen platoon members were aware of the program, and that numerous others knew about the "drop items" but did not know their purpose, The Post reported.

did you guys miss this line?

OCA
09-24-2007, 08:57 PM
So if someone picks it up not knowing what it is they get shot?

If person who picks it up is a child they get shot, if they pick it up to throw it away so that childern wont play with it they get shot.

If some guy picks it up to use the parts to fix his TV he dies for it huh?

Not thinking things through leads to needless death.

Yeah i'm sure they shoot kids who pick it up, how stupid are you?

Yeah i'm sure people fix tv's with detonation wires and blasting caps, how stupid are you?

GREAT FRIGGIN IDEA! KUDOS TO THE SNIPERS FOR FIGURING A WAY TO KILL MORE OF THE DOGS.

OCA
09-24-2007, 08:58 PM
The newspaper said the classified program was uncovered in documents related to recently filed murder charges against three snipers accused of planting evidence on Iraqis they killed.

"Baiting is putting an object out there that we know they will use, with the intention of destroying the enemy," Captain Matthew Didier, the leader of an elite sniper scout platoon, said in a sworn statement.

"Basically, we would put an item out there and watch it," Didier continued.

"If someone found the item, picked it up and attempted to leave with the item, we would engage the individual as I saw this as a sign they would use the item against US forces."

In documents obtained by The Post from family members of the accused soldiers, Didier said members of the Pentagon's Asymmetric Warfare Group visited his unit in January and later handed over ammunition boxes filled with the "drop items" to be used "to disrupt ... attempts at harming coalition forces and give us the upper hand in a fight."

Eugene Fidell, president of the National Institute of Military Justice, called for an investigation of any baiting program.

"In a country that is awash in armaments and magazines and implements of war, if every time somebody picked up something that was potentially useful as a weapon, you might as well ask every Iraqi to walk around with a target on his back," Fidell said in the Post article.

Soldiers said that about a dozen platoon members were aware of the program, and that numerous others knew about the "drop items" but did not know their purpose, The Post reported.

did you guys miss this line?

And that line is supposed to matter because?

Gunny
09-24-2007, 09:04 PM
And that's fair enough. Now, if I can go on with this. I would think that if there was a theatre of war, let's think France in WWII where there was some vicious close-quarter and house to house fighting. Laying baits for snipers would be, I would think, a fair thing. An enemy soldier is drawn to some equipment left out (perhaps a box of hand grenades or whatever) and is shot by a sniper. No problem. But what if it were a civilian non-com? Yes it could be a collaborator, but it could equally be a member of the Resistance or someone keen to make a buck on the black market. It could even be a curious (or venal) kid. Are they fair targets?

The article itself answers your question. Snipers are not above the law. The question you are trying to ask while doing your best to question a legitimate tactic of war is, how do you identify an enemy that wears no uniform?

And you of course want to toss out the most innocent of victims as your examples. I doubt they're just leaving the stuff in the village square for some toddler to happen upon and some badass Marine dropping the hammer on his little ass from a 1000 meters.

That's the argument of of someone whose political objection to the war drives him to villify the people doing their jobs as best they can in a shitty situation.

Bottom line is, it's a judgement call. It's the sniper's judgement. None that I ever knew was going to scratch a target that was questionable.

manu1959
09-24-2007, 09:08 PM
The article itself answers your question. Snipers are not above the law. The question you are trying to ask while doing your best to question a legitimate tactic of war is, how do you identify an enemy that wears no uniform?

And you of course want to toss out the most innocent of victims as your examples. I doubt they're just leaving the stuff in the village square for some toddler to happen upon and some badass Marine dropping the hammer on his little ass from a 1000 meters.

That's the argument of of someone whose political objection to the war drives him to villify the people doing their jobs as best they can in a shitty situation.

Bottom line is, it's a judgement call. It's the sniper's judgement. None that I ever knew was going to scratch a target that was questionable.

reminds me of a famous line in full metal jacket:

if they run......they are VC

if they stand still........they are well disciplined VC

manu1959
09-24-2007, 09:11 PM
The newspaper said the classified program was uncovered in documents related to recently filed murder charges against three snipers accused of planting evidence on Iraqis they killed.

"Baiting is putting an object out there that we know they will use, with the intention of destroying the enemy," Captain Matthew Didier, the leader of an elite sniper scout platoon, said in a sworn statement.

"Basically, we would put an item out there and watch it," Didier continued.

"If someone found the item, picked it up and attempted to leave with the item, we would engage the individual as I saw this as a sign they would use the item against US forces."

In documents obtained by The Post from family members of the accused soldiers, Didier said members of the Pentagon's Asymmetric Warfare Group visited his unit in January and later handed over ammunition boxes filled with the "drop items" to be used "to disrupt ... attempts at harming coalition forces and give us the upper hand in a fight."

Eugene Fidell, president of the National Institute of Military Justice, called for an investigation of any baiting program.

"In a country that is awash in armaments and magazines and implements of war, if every time somebody picked up something that was potentially useful as a weapon, you might as well ask every Iraqi to walk around with a target on his back," Fidell said in the Post article.

Soldiers said that about a dozen platoon members were aware of the program, and that numerous others knew about the "drop items" but did not know their purpose, The Post reported.

did you guys miss this line?

ah yes .... guilty till proven innocent....the lefts legal system.....

diuretic
09-24-2007, 10:33 PM
The article itself answers your question. Snipers are not above the law. The question you are trying to ask while doing your best to question a legitimate tactic of war is, how do you identify an enemy that wears no uniform?

No Gunny, I was thinking more of the difference between fighting in a contested area as opposed to fighting as an army of occupation that's supposed to be in control of specific territory which is also inhabited by civilian non-coms and combatant insurgents.




And you of course want to toss out the most innocent of victims as your examples. I doubt they're just leaving the stuff in the village square for some toddler to happen upon and some badass Marine dropping the hammer on his little ass from a 1000 meters.

No I don't want to use examples which distort the argument. I'm well aware that a 12 year old kid can fire an AK-47 or chuck a hand grenade at someone. The sniper has a choice I would think. And I would think the sniper wouldn't deliberately kill a kid even allowing for the point I've already made. Of course if the intel indicated that 12 year old boys with AK-47s and grenades were picking up munitions and using them, then that adds a bit more to the debate. But the problem is that the sniper can't tell an insurgent from a non-com civilian. So, does the sniper shoot dead the individual who picks up the munitions regardless? Given the very high possibility that a non-com civilian (ie non-insurgent) could be killed by the sniper, who after all is only following instructions, that this tactic is not very useful as it would tend to work against the occupation forces in a hearts and minds way.




That's the argument of of someone whose political objection to the war drives him to villify the people doing their jobs as best they can in a shitty situation.

No, I think I hope I've dissuaded you from that view. I have an objection against the invasion and occupation of Iraq and I've held it since the first bombs began dropping but I'm not going to scream "babykiller!" at someone in uniform (well the ones who are following lawful instructions anyway).


[QUOTE=Gunny;
Bottom line is, it's a judgement call. It's the sniper's judgement. None that I ever knew was going to scratch a target that was questionable.[/QUOTE]

It is the sniper's judgement and responsibility and their fate to live with their decision. And I don't believe any sniper should be put in this position. And that's part of the reason I believe this tactic should be stopped immediately.

Gunny
09-24-2007, 10:57 PM
No Gunny, I was thinking more of the difference between fighting in a contested area as opposed to fighting as an army of occupation that's supposed to be in control of specific territory which is also inhabited by civilian non-coms and combatant insurgents.




No I don't want to use examples which distort the argument. I'm well aware that a 12 year old kid can fire an AK-47 or chuck a hand grenade at someone. The sniper has a choice I would think. And I would think the sniper wouldn't deliberately kill a kid even allowing for the point I've already made. Of course if the intel indicated that 12 year old boys with AK-47s and grenades were picking up munitions and using them, then that adds a bit more to the debate. But the problem is that the sniper can't tell an insurgent from a non-com civilian. So, does the sniper shoot dead the individual who picks up the munitions regardless? Given the very high possibility that a non-com civilian (ie non-insurgent) could be killed by the sniper, who after all is only following instructions, that this tactic is not very useful as it would tend to work against the occupation forces in a hearts and minds way.




No, I think I hope I've dissuaded you from that view. I have an objection against the invasion and occupation of Iraq and I've held it since the first bombs began dropping but I'm not going to scream "babykiller!" at someone in uniform (well the ones who are following lawful instructions anyway).




It is the sniper's judgement and responsibility and their fate to live with their decision. And I don't believe any sniper should be put in this position. And that's part of the reason I believe this tactic should be stopped immediately.

And if we keep stopping this tactic or that tactic because it's going to offend someone, as it seems we ARE doing, do we line up with waterguns and attack?

I don't understand you people that think you can have a war without the killing, violence and bloodshed. It's a fact of war, like it or not.

No one is forced to be a sniper. You volunteer. If you aren't smart enough to understand the gravity of your job when you volunteer, you WILL before you ever leave the school and you can walk anytime.

Making the call goes with the job. But you can say that about ANY position of leadership at ANY level in the military where one has to make a call that involves the taking of another human's life.

I have no problem using such a tactic. I trust my judgement.

diuretic
09-24-2007, 11:32 PM
And if we keep stopping this tactic or that tactic because it's going to offend someone, as it seems we ARE doing, do we line up with waterguns and attack?

Of course not. But then taking your argument to its extreme the occupiers could always take a leaf from the Nazis book and do a Lidice.

No they wouldn't would they? For a start their political masters wouldn't let them. So the tactics of war must be open to negotiation.




I don't understand you people that think you can have a war without the killing, violence and bloodshed. It's a fact of war, like it or not.

Putting words in my keyboard. I never said there's such a thing as war without casualties, or an occupation without casualties for that matter. I'm merely discussing the tactics that make casualities.




No one is forced to be a sniper. You volunteer. If you aren't smart enough to understand the gravity of your job when you volunteer, you WILL before you ever leave the school and you can walk anytime.

I would think that was a given.


[QUOTE=Gunny;

Making the call goes with the job. But you can say that about ANY position of leadership at ANY level in the military where one has to make a call that involves the taking of another human's life.

I have no problem using such a tactic. I trust my judgement.[/QUOTE]


But I have a problem with the tactic. I think it's counter-productive. It will not win hearts and minds that desperately need to be won, in Iraq and at home. It also looks pretty crook to the rest of the world that this tactic could be countenanced.

typomaniac
09-24-2007, 11:56 PM
Neither that article nor you can tell me anything on this subject. I hope that's clear enough.
:lol:
Nobody can tell you anything about baiting? Does that make you a master baiter?

Gaffer
09-25-2007, 05:45 PM
The snipers have certain rules to follw in these bait actions. The area they are working in would be known AQ area. The bait would be placed in a house or near a vehicle where someone attempting to take it would have to sneak up to get it. It would be something that would only be of value to a terrorist. Whether they are trying to steal it for fun and profit makes no difference. Most likely the areas they are doing this are contested areas that don't have a lot of innocent people wandering around. It could also be done during curfew hours, which means no innocent people are out.

i have been on hundreds of ambushes. It's the same sort of thing. we set up along a path, road or river bank and wait for someone to come by. If anyone did they died. Snipers work the same way. I would bet most of the bait sniping was done at night, after curfew.