Juba - Insurgent Sniper

[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]

Originally Posted by 5eleven

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 5eleven

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]

Originally Posted by Hizzle

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]

Originally Posted by Pipe_Dream

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]

Originally Posted by MP_Lord_Kee

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]

Originally Posted by Harrm

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.

[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]

Originally Posted by Nightmare

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]

Originally Posted by 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...

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]

Originally Posted by ecale3

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 ? 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?