Polish Snipers in Iraq

[PeriscopeDepth]

Originally Posted by CCIP

Yea, but come on, haven't we learned anything in 60-odd years?

Not IMO.

Pragmatically-speaking, all war is evil.

I don't think that's being pragmatic. That's just the way it is.

But if we're to believe in the ideology behind this one, then at least we've gotta be striving to be a little more progressive than that.

Well, being "progressive" in this scenario is problematic to say the least. Because the fact is the people who are blowing up Americans are CIVILLIANS. Which they use to every advantage. And I believe most of the civllians, even those who aren't going around blowing up Americans, don't want us squatting on their homeland. Which is perfectly understandable. We encouraged them to rebel against their dictator several times, each time they rose up and were SLAUGHTERED while we stood back and watched. Any good will we had with the Iraqi population was pissed away between our calls to rebel and our decade plus long pointless bully-via-airpower.

There's a lot of very positive ideas about America's struggle for democracy which I genuinely would like to believe in. But we better see them implemented on the ground, and not in reverse logic.

The only ways war should be used in my opinion is to TAKE something you need to have or defend that something from someone else. Or avenge an attack against your nation, through simple killing alone. Any other use of war, IMO, glorifies the butchering of other human beings. And it's done either to hide one's true intentions or because the one who is making war is a fool.

PD

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by bradclark1

What I don't seem to understand is there is a curfew, curfews mean nobody outside after a given time. It's that black and white.

We don't know the terms of the curfew. Iraq like most industrial nations has people working shifts. I doubt that any total curfew could be implemented where no one can be on the streets after a specific hour.

The point I was trying to make was there there are myriad reasons for an Iraqi to be making a cell phone call at a specific time. One of those reasons is setting off an IED. But what about the other reasons? Absent of any a priori information, what is the likelihood of an Iraqi making a cell phone call to set off an IED as compared with an Iraqi making a cell phone call for any of the other reasons?

Can we establish that there is an overwhelming chance that it is being used for an IED as opposed to the legitimate uses of a cell phone?

We can't evaluate the "guilt" of violating a curfew without knowing the exact terms of the curfew and the allowed exceptions.

BTW would not an Iraqi using a cell phone to set off an IED make the call from inside a building?

Why would they call attention to themselves by violating the curfew, especially when they know that the Americans will shoot first and forget the question?

An insurgent would want to

1. Ensure his or her safety
2. Ensure that the IED is activated at the proper time

Catching a slug in the head would not allow either of these objectives to be met. The insurgents are many things but they are not stupid.

If this logic is valid, it would lead more credence to the probability that an Iraqi standing outside, making a phone call is an innocent person as a guilty person would be hiding inside.

The critical question is: Do the American forces really care about innocent Iraqi citizens or are they just "collateral damage"?

Facta sunt potentiora verbis.

[Polak]

A funny thing is that I read something similar in a polish newspaper, but the situation was slightingly different. Polish snipers complained about their ROE, they referred to their American colleagues who could open fire at Iraqis using cellphones... :hmm:

I assure you that our rules of engagement do not allow our troops to shoot Iraqis using cellphones. But the news where about Special Operations snipers, and since the only unit in Poland that have sniper capable for such mission are GROM snipers, and those guys live in their own world, with its own rules.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Platapus

We don't know the terms of the curfew. Iraq like most industrial nations has people working shifts. I doubt that any total curfew could be implemented where no one can be on the streets after a specific hour.

Nonsens. a curfew is a curfew, controled and enforced by military or paramilitary or police means. In Fallujah, there was fighting-a-battle taking place, and hardly people thought about getting to factory shifts in time - there were no factories working, or stores opened, etc. Violate the curfew in a combatzone, and bear the consequences. That simple. It is not a basic-democratic decision by a qualified majority - it is an order and command by a superior faction strong enough to enforce to obey the command - period.

What part exactly is it that people do not understand?

[bradclark1]

Originally Posted by Platapus

BTW would not an Iraqi using a cell phone to set off an IED make the call from inside a building?

Why would they call attention to themselves by violating the curfew, especially when they know that the Americans will shoot first and forget the question?

I think we've all learned by now that we don't understand the Arab mind. Bush and company made some assumptions and it didn't work so hot and some of the biggest shooters at us now are those we "liberated".

The insurgents are many things but they are not stupid.

They must be if they are outside of curfew with a cell phone. I would suspect that word of mouth would be "Hey don't hang around outside with a cell phone in your hand"

An insurgent would want to

1. Ensure his or her safety

:rotfl: I don't think the suicide bombers understand that part.

Catching a slug in the head would not allow either of these objectives to be met. The insurgents are many things but they are not stupid.

If this logic is valid, it would lead more credence to the probability that an Iraqi standing outside, making a phone call is an innocent person as a guilty person would be hiding inside.

You are trying to use western logic. Doesn't work. In fact logic would tell me don't go out after curfew and sure as hell not with a cell phone in your hand.

I'd be pretty sure that the troops don't shoot at every Tom, Dick, or Harry with a cell phone as soon as they see them. I'd say they probably observe first.

The critical question is: Do the American forces really care about innocent Iraqi citizens or are they just "collateral damage"?

The critical question is: Do you know who is going to shoot at you next or where the next IED is going to be. Then answer your own question.

Facta sunt potentiora verbis.

Don't read it. Have no desire to learn it. If it was Klingon I would probably go through the hassle of translation.

[TheSatyr]

You can't stop insurgencies OR terrorism by violence alone. History has taught us that. Russia,Israel,the USA and other countries keep trying the same old thing...and we keep getting the same old results. Even if we capture or kill Bin Laden it won't end Al Quaeda.(But at least he will finally get payback for 9/11). Someone else will just take over.

We have to find another way,cause this way ain't working.

[Tchocky]

Being pissed off that your country has been invaded isn't peculiar to the "Arab mind"

[bradclark1]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

Being pissed off that your country has been invaded isn't peculiar to the "Arab mind"

No it's not, but that isn't what this topic is about.