Juba - Insurgent Sniper

[5eleven]

Anyone heard about this alleged insurgent sniper in Iraq? And forgive me, I don't remember which UK paper is known as a rag.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1542824,00.html
Elusive sniper saps US morale in Baghdad

Commanders weigh their options as 'Juba' notches up more kills

Rory Carroll in Baghdad
Friday August 5, 2005
The Guardian

They have never seen Juba. They hear him, but by then it's too late: a shot rings out and another US soldier slumps dead or wounded.

There is never a follow-up shot, never a chance for US forces to identify the origin, to make the hunter the hunted. He fires once and vanishes.

Juba is the nickname given by American forces to an insurgent sniper operating in southern Baghdad. They do not know his appearance, nationality or real name, but they know and fear his skill.

"He's good," said Specialist Travis Burress, 22, a sniper with the 1-64 battalion based in Camp Rustamiyah. "Every time we dismount I'm sure everyone has got him in the back of their minds. He's a serious threat to us."

Gun attacks occasionally pepper the battalion's foot and mounted patrols, but the single crack of what is thought to be a Tobuk sniper rifle inspires particular dread.

Since February, the killing of at least two members of the battalion and the wounding of six more have been attributed to Juba. Some think it is also he that has picked off up to a dozen other soldiers.

In a war marked by sectarian bombings and civilian casualties, Juba is unusual in targeting only coalition troops, a difficult quarry protected by armoured vehicles, body armour and helmets.

He waits for soldiers to dismount, or stand up in a Humvee turret, and aims for gaps in their body armour, the lower spine, ribs or above the chest. He has killed from 200 metres away.

"It was the perfect shot," the battalion commander, Lt Col Kevin Farrell, said of one incident. "Blew out the spine.

"We have different techniques to try to lure him out, but he is very well trained and very patient. He doesn't fire a second shot."

Some in the battalion want marksmen to occupy rooftops overlooking supply routes, Juba's hunting ground, to try to put him in the cross-hairs.

"It would be a pretty ****ty assignment because he's good," said Spc Burress. "I think it's a sniper's job to get a sniper, and it'd probably take all of us to get him."

American snipers operate in teams of at least two people, a shooter and a spotter, the latter requiring more experience since he must use complicated formulae to calculate factors such as wind strength and drag coefficients.

Some worry that Juba is on his way to becoming a resistance hero, acclaimed by those Iraqis who distinguish between "good" insurgents, who target only Americans, and "bad" insurgents who harm civilians.

The insurgent grapevine celebrates an incident last June when a four-strong marine scout sniper team was killed in Ramadi, all with shots to the head.

Unlike their opponents, US snipers in Baghdad seldom get to shoot. Typically they hide on rooftops and use thermal imaging and night vision equipment to monitor areas. If there is suspicious activity, they summon aircraft or ground patrols.

"We are professionals. There is a line between a maniac with a gun and a sniper," said Mike, 31, a corporal with a reconnaissance sniper platoon who did not want to his surname to be used.

He spoke during a 24-hour mission on a roof during which his team ate junk food and urinated into a bottle. During daylight they lay on the ground, immobile, to avoid being seen. "It's not a glamorous life," he said.

There was no sign of Juba, who tended to operate further east, but the team spotted mortar flashes and fed the coordinates to base.

Mike said he had shot 14 people in Somalia, three in Afghanistan and one in Iraq. "It's not like you expect it to be, an emotional high. You just think about the wind, the range, then it's over with."

Sniper fire is only of the threats for an American military that has suffered heavy losses this week.

Yesterday another soldier was killed in Ramadi, west of Baghdad, adding to the 21 who died in attacks on Monday and Wednesday.

Roadside bombs account for most of the lives lost, and the size and design of the explosions has led investigators to conclude that the insurgents are learning bombmaking methods from other terrorist organisations.

Yesterday's New York Times reported that the techniques used by Hezbollah in Lebanon were increasingly being seen in roadside bombs in Iraq.

An unnamed senior American commander quoted by the paper said bombs using shaped charges closely matched the bombs that Hezbollah used against Israel.

"Our assessment is that they are probably going off to 'school' to learn how to make bombs that can destroy armoured vehicles," he said.
Anyone that's heard of this have any other good links or stories? Looks like we have a new Vassili Zaitsev? True, or propoganda tool for the insurgency? I heard there are some videos on the web that are purported to be taken from the snipers nest.

EDIT - Well, here's a really good insurgent video sniper compilation - 15 min. Relatively graphic. You've been warned.
http://ia300204.us.archive.org/3/items/al-jaishul-islami-baghdad-sniper/al-jaishul-islami-baghdad-sniper-24mb.wmv

[cracwhore]

Can't you camel-****ing, terrorist sons of bitches learn how to properly encode a ****ing video? What does that say about your Jihad - when you can't even make a decent presentation? I just watched 'JUBA' shoot colored blocks for ten minutes, while listening to annoying music. Am I suppose to be impressed? Do you think you're taking this arthouse piece to Sundance?

D- 'JUBA'. You can't even keep the infidel in the frame - noob. Plus, you fired twice. What kind of sniper are you? Fag. See me after class.

'JUBA'? - what a faggot name. He's probably chokin' dicks while facing Makkah al-Mukarramah. Carlos Hathcock and Vasily Zaitev would pwn him and then cremate his remains - and they're dead.

[5eleven]

Based on the article, and based on the propoganda value that the insurgency would put on the video, I highly doubt that the sniper in the video is "Juba". Might be the same person, but I doubt that it's even the same shooter in all of the segments. In addition, I didn't see too many headshots. Most of them were either arms or legs, or most common - center mass, while the soldier was obviously wearing armor.

[UN17]

Is that what american soldiers are doing in Iraq? Standing around in the open or sitting on their tanks waiting to be shot, ambushed, bombed, sniped, etc, by any insurgent in the street? I feel sad for those guys, especially the one who got shot while eating his sandwich.

It's one thing to die in war fighting a radical religous army. It's another to get sniped while standing around waiting for the Bush administration to end it's 8 year run.

[Arethusa]

I find it questionable that there even is a Juba. One sniper? Sounds too much like propaganda, even if it sort of happened(ish) once before. Not impossible; just setting my bull**** alarms off.

[5eleven]

I dunno. Seems from the article that "Juba" operates in a specific area - so I suppose it's plausible. I ran across some wacked out "death to zion" site that claimed that "Juba" is an Israeli sniper because he has a camera attached to the rifle, and apparently only the Israelis do that. :rolleyes:

[Cap'n Beeb]

Can't you camel-****ing, terrorist sons of bitches learn how to properly encode a ****ing video? What does that say about your Jihad - when you can't even make a decent presentation? I just watched 'JUBA' shoot colored blocks for ten minutes, while listening to annoying music. Am I suppose to be impressed? Do you think you're taking this arthouse piece to Sundance?

D- 'JUBA'. You can't even keep the infidel in the frame - noob. Plus, you fired twice. What kind of sniper are you? Fag. See me after class.

'JUBA'? - what a faggot name. He's probably chokin' dicks while facing Makkah al-Mukarramah. Carlos Hathcock and Vasily Zaitev would pwn him and then cremate his remains - and they're dead.

Calm down, champ.

[cracwhore]

It's called a 'joke' - guy.

[Crazy_Ivan]

Probably frustrated Rep Guard or other saddam era special forces... chance that he's a foreigner is quite small given his accuracy and knowledge of the area (as in being able to stay undetected)

[Cap'n Beeb]

It's called a 'joke' - guy.

Racism sure is a laugh riot.

[cracwhore]

The corrent term is 'xenophobia' - or, in a more modern sense - 'patriotism'.

And yes, I agree. It's quite hilarious.

[TheShiningWizard]

Racism sure is a laugh riot. You've laughed at all kinds of improper crap in IRC and on the boards, Beeb. Don't be a sanctimonious son of a bitch :p

[Cap'n Beeb]

Don't tell me what not to be :mad:

[5eleven]

Hate to steer this back on topic, but I'm interested in anyone's thoughts regarding the story/existence of "Juba". :)

[MP_Lord_Kee]

I haven't read up on the subject but I wouldn't be surprised if "Juba" existed for real. It is not unheard of that in war there are snipers that rise above the rest. Google for Simo Häyhä and "White Death" for example :)

Don't know about that video though, could be "Juba" atleast on some shots I guess...

//K

Off-topic but interesting for some I guess:
http://www.snipercountry.com/BVT_Reviews/RiflesWhiteDeath.asp

[Rostam]

I'm glad that their propaganda disgusts me just as much as ours. More specific on the video, the low quality is an act of brilliance. If they did it in purpose, then they are a lot better at propaganda than I thought. All you see the entire video long are uniforms, and Bush his face. You see a guy getting killed while eating but that's pretty much the only time you see something more than just a uniform.

By the way, those guys in tanks that he gets a shot at, are those officers? It seems somewhat terrifying that somebody with his skill would shoot so many grunts.

On the question if there is one juba or not, well there isn't enough info, really. But any answer would be scary, one skilled sniper capable of this or a dozen, it doesn't seem to matter.

By the way, the different quality that was to be seen in the video does seem to suggest several snipers.

[Harrm]

'Juba' is probably not one guy, but maybe a set of men all trained to use this tactic for the sake of propaganda. Plus, I doubt he is specifically pakistani. Anyone can learn to do anything given some time, and training camps were set up for a looong time before we ever intervened.

Is that what american soldiers are doing in Iraq? Standing around in the open or sitting on their tanks waiting to be shot, ambushed, bombed, sniped, etc, by any insurgent in the street? I feel sad for those guys, especially the one who got shot while eating his sandwich.

Yes, most of our men are in the open, because the current tactic is to show that we are there in force and have our men stand where they can be seen. I disagree with this strategy immensely, but hey, that's the way the dice have rolled.

If it were up to me, the next place in which Juba strikes again would be nuked, no questions asked. Maybe that would give an incentive for the Iraqi people to do some backing up.

--Harrm

[Cap'n Beeb]

Yes, a nuke will solve everything.

[chuckus]

Yeh the tactic is called presence of force. If six guys who would normally think of starting **** see a tank and six other guys with automatic weapons, they might not feel like starting some **** anymore..... That's the idea anyway.

edit: just watched the video. What a crappy way to start off the day.

[5eleven]

I don't think so, regarding American "tactics". Checkpoints must be manned, and can't be manned from the safety of an armored vehicle. In addition, I think the tactic that is trying to be employed IS visibility. It is putting troops out on patrols in the neighborhoods, along the lines of "community policing". It's unfortunate that it creates a target for the small number of insurgents, but it's part of a bigger "hearts and minds" campaign, IMO.

However, what's funny that I haven't heard, is a loud cry complaining that the insurgents are putting so many civilians at risk. How many times did you see a shot fired in the presence of pedestrian traffic, across vehicular traffic, or while children walked along or in front of the "target". It just smells to me of the same double standard. Contractors are putting civilians at risk by shooting rapidly approaching vehicles on Route Irish, but snipers firing through pedestrian and vehicular traffic aren't. You'll also notice that the troops, when trying to determine the origin of the fire, are using pretty damned good fire discipline.

[ant75]

Are you seriously comparing soldiers and insurgents ? Are the insurgents getting paid for what they do ? Are they professionnnally trained ? Are they occupying a country that is not their ? Are they under the authority of a government, or any form of legal entity ? Did they ever claim to be protecting the people in iraq ? Are their actions coordinated, supervised by and accounted for to a politic and moral power ?

Before you talk about double standards, ask yourself these questions. Of course no one is complaining about them putting civilians at risk, but that doesn't mean that everyone agrees with what they do. That's because, by definition, an insurgent is against the law : discussing their morality would be as pointless as complaining that a criminal is not a nice guy.

[das_ben]

However, what's funny that I haven't heard, is a loud cry complaining that the insurgents are putting so many civilians at risk.
You mean when they bomb mosques or cars in the middle of a city? Geez, I don't think they ever thought they're putting civilians at risk! Surely they should pay more attention.

[5eleven]

Are you seriously comparing soldiers and insurgents ? Are the insurgents getting paid for what they do ? Are they professionnnally trained ? Are they occupying a country that is not their ? Are they under the authority of a government, or any form of legal entity ? Did they ever claim to be protecting the people in iraq ? Are their actions coordinated, supervised by and accounted for to a politic and moral power ?

Before you talk about double standards, ask yourself these questions. Of course no one is complaining about them putting civilians at risk, but that doesn't mean that everyone agrees with what they do. That's because, by definition, an insurgent is against the law : discussing their morality would be as pointless as complaining that a criminal is not a nice guy.

Not really. I'm simply pointing out that everyone decries and criticizes the military for their actions, yet don't hold the insurgents to the same standard. I have no idea if the insurgents are getting paid, and I don't know if they are/were professionally trained. If you go to a terrorist training camp to train, is that not professional training? And somehow if their actions are coordinated by a non-official political power they have free reign?

As far as your last paragraph, does that fall into the category of: I don't have to wear a helmet on my motorcycle because I don't have a motorcycle license? And if I don't have a license I'm not subject to the safety equipment and standards? All I am saying is: The actions of the insurgents put as many, if not more civilian lives in jeopardy than the response of those that they were trying to kill. That's all.

[Nightmare]

All I am saying is: The actions of the insurgents put as many, if not more civilian lives in jeopardy than the response of those that they were trying to kill. That's all.

The bombers certainly risk (and take) a lot of civilian lives, but the sniper is a bit harder to classify. One shot at a time, place and target that he gets to choose. Usually a checkpoint or such with a group of soldiers watching the civilians of the area. That could qualify as risking the civilians, but the sniper isn't actually hiding among them in order to shoot. He probably hopes the guys getting shot at would flip out and start firing into the crowd so the anti-American sentiments get more fuel.

[Pipe_Dream]

set of men


Are they the kind who touch each others 'privates'? <----(may be used as "evidence")

[Pipe_Dream]

man, just watched the vieo and it's pretty fukn sad. they/he appear to be really low, compared to the target.

[MP_Lord_Kee]

man, just watched the vieo and it's pretty fukn sad. they/he appear to be really low, compared to the target.

Yeah, all shots, if I remember correctly (saw that clip yesterday), were shot from a low position...which is a bit of a surprise. Not what I would have pictured as a good spot. Maybe they use some vehicle?
Wonder how much magnification was used as well...seems to be quite zoomed to me. That could explain the poor picture quality to some extent I guess. Also seems toindicate the weapon was resting on something...as not much shaking other than from the kickback.

//K

[Harrm]

Yes, a nuke will solve everything.

There is no situation that cannot be solved without the proper application of high explosive.

Maybe they use some vehicle?

The camera actually pulls away during one of the films. Probably doing the same thing that sniper guy in the US was doing awhile back by shooting and ditching. Jeez, I can't even remember where that was now.

Pipe: Terrorists have been known to survive on nothing but knockoff subscription pills and cheap porn for months at a time. This makes them a formidable force when not in captivity.

--Harrm

[DEFkon]

Yeah, all shots, if I remember correctly (saw that clip yesterday), were shot from a low position...which is a bit of a surprise. Not what I would have pictured as a good spot. Maybe they use some vehicle?
Wonder how much magnification was used as well...seems to be quite zoomed to me. That could explain the poor picture quality to some extent I guess. Also seems toindicate the weapon was resting on something...as not much shaking other than from the kickback.

//K

I think your right about the vehicle deal. My bet is that they're taking a cue from the sniper's that plauged the US about a year or so ago. The ones that shooting at all those people at gas stations... IIRC they had setup a rig in the trunk of a car. If i had to take a stab at it.. i'd say these people are using something similar... get one of those mini digital camera tri-pods.. mount it rear wise in back window for the spotter, have the sniper fire from the trunk? Probably use a different car each time..so that you don't set a pattern.

[Hadmar]

There is no situation that cannot be solved without the proper application of high explosive.True. I hold the patent for a directed mini mini micro charge that is for use by men that have trouble pleasuring the woman they have sex with. It's placed upon the clitoris and triggered at any time to help her reach an explosive orgasm.

If I would have a say in the matter the next time a politician plays against the people the country would be nuked. Maybe that would give an incentive to the people to value - and fight for - democracy more. :tup:

[ecale3]

Reading your guys responses it amazes me that people are still stupid enough to believe peace is an achievable goal. Next time i walk past a peace protest i'm gonna ice the loadest voice there.

[Nukeproof]

What have peace protests to do with that sniper (who'd certainly state he's trying to drive out illegal occupation troops and according to UN laws he'd be even correct)?

No illusion here every confrontation was avoidable - but this one certainly was. As much as the justification was a lie. Sad enough Mr. Bush just made himself the most succesfull recruiting assistant for terrorisms ever...

[Rostam]

Nuke, that's probably the goal. Quite a bit of companies in the US NEED war. Lately there is also medicine but AFAIK war is still the biggest money maker.

ecale, it is not about achieving peace or not. But the day I won't hope and do my part for peace, is the day I'd rather be dead. I don't believe in good or evil but when one would pick between the two he should pick 'good', not because it's stronger, but because it's worth believing in.

[ant75]

Kind of agreeing with ros here. Cynism isn't much more helpful than idealism. Of course war will always have a place in this world, as will disease or poverty. So what should we do then, tell scientists to stop working on cures and get rid of africa once and for all ?

[Vega-don]

The bombers certainly risk (and take) a lot of civilian lives, but the sniper is a bit harder to classify. One shot at a time, place and target that he gets to choose. Usually a checkpoint or such with a group of soldiers watching the civilians of the area. That could qualify as risking the civilians, but the sniper isn't actually hiding among them in order to shoot. He probably hopes the guys getting shot at would flip out and start firing into the crowd so the anti-American sentiments get more fuel.

id say this action is not legitimate , because the US soldiers are not threatening the civilian population lives anymore. so its just killing for the sake of killing.

its not like sniping nazis who are puting your people in concentration camps
americans in irak dont do nothing.

[Rostam]

americans in irak dont do nothing
The average grunt on ground level doesn't do much, indeed. But mobs have been bombed by airplanes because they were believed to be terrorists, just to give one example. Both sides are responsible for civilian casualties, and correct me if I'm wrong but both have so far killed more civilians than their enemies. But you said 'americans in irak dont do nothing', which is false. Companies there do the same disgusting things they always do to take advantage of a war. Hell, in my honest opinion this war started to please those companies.

So I can see the hate against americans, but I don't see why they go for the grunts. All killing is wrong, and I can't agree with either sides. But both sides definately do have a reason to do what they are doing.

[5eleven]

uncle.

[ecale3]

What have peace protests to do with that sniper (who'd certainly state he's trying to drive out illegal occupation troops and according to UN laws he'd be even correct)?

No illusion here every confrontation was avoidable - but this one certainly was. As much as the justification was a lie. Sad enough Mr. Bush just made himself the most succesfull recruiting assistant for terrorisms ever...

Wow. Where did i say anything about peace protests I said reading the arguments here, in a fairly small and isolated environment, makes me wonder how anyone can realistically think peace is an achievable goal when even in a community where the people have similar interests the outlooks are so drastically and sometimes aggressively different. Multiply what you see here by 5 or 6 billion and tell me how anyone could realistically expect a peaceful co-existence, because common sense would say whoever can honestly say that peace is a realistic goal is smoking some really bad granola.

You will never ever, ever, ever, ever be able to create the kind of environment in which the entire population of earth could peacefully coincide, its not an achievable goal. A more realistic goal would be creating a unified global economy in which the possibility for a furthering of the human race through international tolerance and perhaps a mutual goal is realistic and achievable, although highly improbable.

Lets face it, the human race exists solely to draw lines in the sand and kill whoever crosses them.

[ant75]

Wow. Where did i say anything about peace protests I said reading the arguments here, in a fairly small and isolated environment, makes me wonder how anyone can realistically think peace is an achievable goal when even in a community where the people have similar interests the outlooks are so drastically and sometimes aggressively different. Multiply what you see here by 5 or 6 billion and tell me how anyone could realistically expect a peaceful co-existence, because common sense would say whoever can honestly say that peace is a realistic goal is smoking some really bad granola.



So ? When you disagree with someone it necessarily means you have to kill him ? :eek: As far as i'm concerned i disagree with many people here, as i do IRL, but that doesn't mean i hate them or anything. Not all conflicts of interests have to end in blood you know.
As for your last paragraph, you're again talking about absolute peace, while the matter is actually of having a little less wars and making the world slightly better. Yeah kill me i'm cheesy.

[Nukeproof]

Ok, ecale3 I kind of got you wrong.

I agree it's the human nature which tends to rely on brute force and voilence in certain situations. Thereby permanent peace along with every individuals happyness won't be achieved any time soon.

On the other hand: if an individual, a society or entire mankind decides to give up trying to struggle for peace, would that improve anything?

[Crazy_Ivan]

So I can see the hate against americans, but I don't see why they go for the grunts. All killing is wrong, and I can't agree with either sides. But both sides definately do have a reason to do what they are doing.
Why go for the grunts... easiest target, and history has proven that especially the US is allergic to bodybags, whatever the cause.

The only reason that there is a big mess south of Kirkuk / Mosul province borders is that in that area there was no working government to take over in the first weeks. The only reasons that there are US troops in the north, where there is a reasonably stable government, are:
1: To keep their promise to NATO partner Turkey that the north doesn't declare it's independence, at least not before Dubya is gone.
2: To give the sunnites a chance to get away before the north declares itself independent (with either Kirkuk or Mosul as capital) with all the obvious property reclaiming that will take place. (there were massive deportations in the late 80's to get the oilfields under pro-saddam control)

[cl0secall]

Probably doing the same thing that sniper guy in the US was doing awhile back by shooting and ditching. Jeez, I can't even remember where that was now.

You may be referring to the DC area sniper. I believe his scare lasted a few months around here, until he was captured at a rest area about an hour outside of DC towards Pittsburgh.

IIRC, he was using an AR15-family carbine that was stolen from a gun shop up in the Pacific Northwest.

Edit: I should say "they". The older guy had an accomplice, who was underage at the time.

[mat69]

(...)
The only reason that there is a big mess south of Kirkuk / Mosul province borders is that in that area there was no working government to take over in the first weeks. (...)
That's not true.
There are many reasons like dissolving the army (mostly sunnis people) --> ~200,000 soldiers and many more people who depend on them
Ignoring looting and thus extending the rebuilding process.
Not delievering what people need to survive --> water, food, pharmaceuticals and electricity. If it takes you one second to destroy water depots but weeks (after you have won) to build them up again there is something wrong.
Generally sunnis's live was not so bad under hussein, I guess now it is far worse for them.

[ecale3]

Ok, ecale3 I kind of got you wrong.

I agree it's the human nature which tends to rely on brute force and voilence in certain situations. Thereby permanent peace along with every individuals happyness won't be achieved any time soon.

On the other hand: if an individual, a society or entire mankind decides to give up trying to struggle for peace, would that improve anything?

They should struggle for something more realistic, like their basic freedoms. I would die for my right to do the random and peculiar **** i do before i would die for peace. Besides, the big, powerful ideals and beliefs and religions are one of the major causes of war, strife and human suffering.

Struggle for your right to be yourself, cause peace isn't going to happen.

[Rostam]

I think between freedom and peace, peace would be easier to achieve.

Plus peace isn't like other ideals, you don't start a war over peace.

[Nukeproof]

War isn't just about young, well equipped and well trained volunters fighting abroad (which seems common to believe in the US - due to centuries without war on own territory)

Freedom ain't worth sh!t if your kids starve or your house is bombed to trash the next day...

[ecale3]

I think between freedom and peace, peace would be easier to achieve.

Plus peace isn't like other ideals, you don't start a war over peace.

Haha, i'll bet you don't.

[DEFkon]

came across this the otherday. made me think of this thread.

"Juba" is the name given to a supposed sniper who is a member of the Iraq insurgency. It is believed "Juba" has killed or wounded up to one hundred American soldiers.

The existence of "Juba" has never been proven although U.S. soldiers have been led to believe that a single individual was responsible for numerous sniper attacks. In the aftermath of many incidents, a note has been found, written in Arabic which states, "What has been taken in blood cannot be regained except by blood. Baghdad Sniper". It is also widely believed that "Juba" is more appropriately used as a generic term to refer to multiple individuals carrying out sniper attacks.

In 2005, a military commander in Iraq suggested that "Juba" had been captured. An Iraqi sniper in a van had shot an American soldier but was not seriously wounded. Fellow soldiers searched the area, later wounding and capturing two snipers. They also located the van and found a cushioned sniper's nest lined with numerous bed mattresses and a hole just big enough through which a sniper could engage a target.

[BTH]

i dont think one single man has caused, i think it was a 20%, of the casualties on the american side, though it could be. What is true is that a big number of those casualties have been recorded in video while taken down