Snipers Instructed to 'Bait" and Kill

Army snipers in Iraq are instructed to "bait" Iraqis and shoot tokill when they pick up the 'bait'.

From Military.com

'U.S.Snipers 'Bait' Iraqis' - WASHINGTON - Army snipers hunting insurgents inIraq were under orders to "bait" their targets with suspiciousmaterials, such as detonation cords, and then kill whoever picked up the items,according to the defense attorney for a Soldier accused of planting evidenceon an Iraqi he killed. Gary Myers, an attorney for Sgt. Evan Vela, saidMonday his client had acted "pursuant to orders." Readon...

This is reminiscent of the AbuGhraib scandal. Tell the soldiers what to do then let them take the fall.Now That's surely the way to "support the troops"!!

I understand war is full of "things" and "missions" thatneed to be done in a certain way, but think about it this way. A poor Iraqi father is walking down the street two days after his city, village, street or housewere bombed, he looks down and sees what appears to be rope or wire (maybe even pinkplastic explosives that appear to be meat?), anyway, he bends down to pick it upbecause he needs something to tie his door back up that was ripped from it'shinges or rewire something from the explosions....BANG, daddy and his rope are gone. Now on theother hand it could be an insurgent that knows exactly what it is, and needs itto kill the good guys...my point? Mission wasn't accomplished ; there was NOplan ;we were continually lied to ;it becomes worse as each day goes by, andit's one helluva quagmire. 

An "Under the circumstances" possible solution": Watch theindividual (when possible) and apprehend him and see if he leads you to a hungryNON-insurgent family, or a weapons cache. Anyone that thinks "this willonly put our boys in harms way", I say "Exactly!". Thank goodnessthere not there already. And to think about the relationships that are deterioratingdue to the deployment stays.

Excuse me while I get sick and continue to realistically support the troops,but not the war.

Comments

[granny]

You know, this ghastly war has gotten so corrupt and untenable, I, for one, find continuing to "talk" about it - the constant effort to remove deception, to unravel actions and consequences from the twisted double speak of ends justifying means and fear mongering; the slogging through just plain lies, and nonsense; endlessly being embroiled in sorting out the parts in the machinery of blaming the guys who managed not to get killed for the atrocities they're being ordered to carry out versus real collapses of personal moral compass ...in the end you feel kind of dirty, and just plain sick.

In my family there is a saying:

"Don't wrestle with pigs: you both get dirty, and the pigs love it"

This is what this entire country has been dragged into - a giant pig wrestling match.

What a ghastly waste, for so few, so small, people. We are all, every one, so much the poorer.

[Ted K.]

All wars are "ghastly."
Don't act like we have done things that haven't been topped in other wars.
Abu Ghraib, was NOTHING.
Whoopie..naked prisoners in a pyramid.
Give me a break.
The Japanese and Germans and Viet Cong did a bit more than that to captured troops.
It is about fighting the good fight and trying to wipe out terrorism.
Can't you libs get that through your minds?
You think We conservatives Love war?
I wish it was over too, but I also realize that we need to step on terrorists and try and stabilize Iraq.

Sometimes War is the Answer.
As shocking as that is to the Lefty mindset, War has stamped out atrocities that needed to be dealt with.

We need to have to stomaches to see this through and stop trying to quit before the job is done.
I don't care if you think we were lied into the War, leaving now would be catostrophic and most of the Generals and leaders on the ground are in agreement with that assessment.

We will all be the richer, worldwide if terrorism is dealt with across the globe.

[aravella]

Ted, My reference to Abu Ghraib was to point out the soldiers were told to do something by their superiors then hung out to dry, and it seems like it may be happening again.

WASHINGTON - Army snipers hunting insurgents in Iraq were under orders to "bait" their targets with suspicious materials, such as detonation cords, and then kill whoever picked up the items, according to the defense attorney for a Soldier accused of planting evidence on an Iraqi he killed. Gary Myers, an attorney for Sgt. Evan Vela, said Monday his client had acted "pursuant to orders."

The troops might be getting set up again.

Abu Ghraib, was NOTHING.
Whoopie..naked prisoners in a pyramid.
Give me a break.
The Japanese and Germans and Viet Cong did a bit more than that to captured troops.

Are you saying that we shouldn't follow the protocol of the Geneva Convention because other nations have committed war crimes (and some individuals convicted)? And there was much more going on other than the "naked pyamid"

[granny]

"Don't act like we have done things that haven't been topped in other wars."

I was right. It's about what's good for the goose must be good for the gander.

Some take dirty money, we all should be free to do the same.

Others commit atrocities, now I want my turn - without being called to account. I’ll blame someone else.

Why should I be responsible when others have not been?

Why should I need to give true and honest time to considering whether or not "war is the answer", when others who came before waged war - and some profited?

"… see this through and stop trying to quit before the job is done."

- There is no "through". There is no "done".
What would that be? What would that look like to you?

"We will all be the richer, worldwide if terrorism is dealt with across the globe"

Dealt with? Terrorism is not a disease. It's not an empire; a government; an entity. It's a way people behave. Terrorism is the systematic use of terror. It's a way desperate people treat others they feel threatened by; others whose lives and ideas they fear and want to control, or want to have for themselves. Terrorists are individuals who deal in terror to get their way. Bullies!

If we wanted to deal with terrorism we could have gone into our own public schools,
our own population in poverty, where desperation is nurtured to the point of unreason;
our own street gangs,
our own bureaucracies,
our own communities where discord and cruel conduct flourish.

We could have poured billions of dollars into teaching, empowering, and caring, right here! We didn't have to go looking across the world...

"you libs"
"the Lefty mindset" -

THAT is terrorism. That is bullying.

I don't think I've seen a response to the posts you've made that has systematically used name calling, categorizing you, discounting your opinions because you were espousing not only different ideals and thoughts, but highly offensive ones to some, in some cases. But that's all standard practice in your writings.

That's how terrorism works. Whatever it takes to get the opposite view to back away
and let the "me" run the show. Whatever works to diminish the validity of "others'" opinions.

There is no dealing with that by yelling at people, by mistreating others, by going around killing people; that in itself is using “terror” ... teaching “terror”.

There are always more people; there will always be the disenchanted, the disenfranchised, the disillusioned, distraught or diseased, who believe that "their way" is the only way; who believe that IMPOSING their views on others will solve their problems, who will try to justify the actions that terrorize (frighten, intimidate, silence ...quell opposition) in the name of the end justifies the means.

If every last drop of human blood on the face of the earth is spilled, that will only eliminate that kind of thinking because no one is left. Otherwise, somewhere, someone else, will be thinking - "they ought to do it my way", and it's okay to use whatever methods have come before, no matter how vile; or perhaps better, to think up newer, and even more ghastly methods.

(And to counter the obvious retort: yes, terrorists came to us - in this present instance - though they were not Iraqis, or sent by Iraq. There's a history to that. And however we might have countered the attack it is not being "dealt" with by turning the incident into an icon of fear with which to brow beat our population into an indecisive, quivering mass of goo, unable to make decisions, unable to reason realistically, to protect our own dignity, our civil liberties, our country's strength and good standing...; OR with which to brow beat and destroy another culture, another country, - perhaps the world - WHILE taking immeasurable profit from the enterprise, and bringing it home to our own coffers for our own personal enrichment)

Don’t go there, on the “he hit me first” thing. It’s not so, and if it were it still wouldn’t justify becoming terrorists.

[Ted K.]

If we wanted to deal with terrorism we could have gone into our own public schools?

That must make sense to a liberal, but to a logical thinking conservative, you are as off base as could possibly be.

We are taking the fight to terrorists.
Iraq was not 911, but they have trained, and funded and harbored terrorists, there are links in regards to Iraq and Al Queda all over..but not in our public schools.

And don't put words in my mouth, I am not saying because Germany had a Holocaust, then we should start gassing in Gitmo.
I am saying that Abu Grahib was bupkis.
I had worse pranks done in a fraternity than happened there.
What atrocities happened in Abu Grahib?
When I said "see this through" I meant the stabilizing of Iraq.
You are correct in your assumption that terrorists will never be wiped out.
All one has to do is look to Israel's turmoil.
"you libs" and "you lefty's" isn't a put down, I am describing you.
It would be like saying, that I am a conservative, right winger. Which I am and would consider those descriptions not put downs or discounting my opinion in the least.
More like acknowledging what side of the spectrum I am on.
I am not name calling when I say that, why are you getting offended by it?
And to say that THAT is terrorism is beyond ridiculous.
Terrorism does need to be dealt with..and it is a disease to normal human behavior and until the Muslim leaders of the world condemn terrorist acts, it will continue to fester like a cancer.
Play semantics all you want granny.
Plain and simple, Terrorists want the western infidels dead and I have no patience for a person with that mindset.
Your broad spectrum of a "terrorist" is irrational.
I am talking an Islamofacist terrorist that wants you dead because you are an American.
It doesn't turn me into a mass of "goo".
This terrorism thingy wasn't all made up.
911 wasn't made up,
The USS Cole wasn't made up.
The first attempt at the World Trade Center wasn't made up.
Attacks on Americans and to our embassies aren't just fiction.
The reasons that led up to the Iraq attack were not lies.

They did hit us first (do you think we deserved it?) many times and I will go there, because for some reason you can't see the good coming of freeing an oppressed people from a dictator who enabled Al Queda and will just poo poo it away as a War for Oil.

That is just sad.

But it makes sense as to why your outlook on everything is so bleak.

[Chief Editor: Todd]

Ted, if it's okay with you, I'd really like for you to clarify your statement: "Iraq was not 911, but they have trained, and funded and harbored terrorists, there are links in regards to Iraq and Al Queda all over.."

Saddam Hussein was a secular dictator. He was a Pan-Arabist before he was a Sunni. Hussein simply used the wedge politics of Sunni-Shiite relations to put one against the other. He opposed al Qaeda because Osama bin Laden tried to radicalize the Middle East, and Iraq is located right smack-dab in the middle of it. Al Qaeda was a threat to Saddam Hussein's regime. The two were enemies, not friends.

How could this war have possibly been justified? Hundreds of thousands of people are dead, more than one million displaced in and outside the country, and half a trillion dollars bled from our treasury. This was exactly what Osama bin Laden wanted. That piece of scum Osama is hiding in Afghanistan, where al Qaeda and the Taliban are still based -- no wonder he wants us in Iraq.

As a Christian, who believes in a heaven and a hell, and who takes the deaths and displacement of this many people extremely seriously, it is about impossible to imagine George W. Bush ever going to heaven. If he truly believes in a Christian God, he should worry about what God has planned for him. Sorry to be so blunt about it. I just can't see any good that has come as a result of this war.

[Ted K.]

Saddam also gassed the Kurds, you left that out of your simplicity sentence.

Todd, In claiming that Iraq was not 911, I am saying that I know it was not Hussein behind it.
However there are links to him funding terrorism, including Al Queda and the monsters in Palestine, so that was my point- that Saddam wasn't "hands off" in terms of Terrorism.

Secondly, there are many many wars (and resulting deaths) fought from God's chosen poeple throughout the Bible so don't sit and judge whether or not Bush goes to heaven or not because you don't see the good.

Some point to the 10 commandments and "thou shalt not kill."
when the translation is actually "thou shalt not murder.''
2 Extremely different meanings.
No matter what the left thinks, Bush is NOT murdering people.

I See the good, hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of Iraqi people were tortured then murdered Under Sadaam, and now they have a chance to live in freedom.
Conservative estimates have his death tolls around 300,000 in 10 years, and they are STILL finding mass graves and stories about tortures are surfacing.
Yes, there is a cost.
But the benefit to humanity is the good that you can't see.

Bush is not the devil as your side paints him.
I find the extreme left HATES Bush no matter what and have trouble imagining how he has done NO RIGHT in his entire presidency by your sides accountings.

[granny]

Well, well well, happy to see in your retort to Todd, above, that those religion classes you took qualify you to re-translate convenient scripture.

And look who's playing semantics.

Play semantics? Words mean things, Ted. Contrary to the current fashion for using words to mean things they don’t –

And reading skills help, too. After your smug little nudge to aravella yesterday, along the lines of if he’d read your posting he be better informed … let me note this:

“And don't put words in my mouth, I am not saying because Germany had a Holocaust, then we should start gassing in Gitmo.”

That charming idea didn’t come from anything I wrote. Maybe a Freudian slip.

But we are all surprised and uplifted to hear you’re a “frat boy” …so this has been enlightening.

[Ted K.]

granny, I didn't say you said that.

My point was that I wasn't claiming that because country X did this, then we could do that.

I was answering to your "what's good for the goose is good for the gander" comment, implying that I think because some country has tortured our men, then we can do the same or worse.

.,,and nice comment and backhanded slap at "frat boys".
I am sure you think all of them are creeps- and here I thought your party was so "accepting."
You need some more paint for your broad brush.

granny, take a chill pill, you regard my comments as smug, when they aren't. When I told arevella that if he had read my post, he would have found I stated what he was claiming I did not.
But it was more matter of fact than smug. I don't do smug.
You have a corner on the smug market granny, don't accuse me of the things you do.
I gather you don't like a conservative in the least, but don't bring your "all conservatives are smug bastards" stereotype bagage with you.

You still haven't listed the atrocities at Abu Grahib that were so dastardly.

[niggapuhleez]

"to a logical thinking conservative", now there's an oxymoron if I've ever heard any!

We all know that cons are only capable of thinking one thing through at a time. The ability to see the world in black and white is about all the mental capacity they're able to muster. If it gets more complicated than that, they gotta think of a snappy slogan or buzzword to scare the general population into submission. Unfortunately, the world transpires in technicolor, which leaves them merely awestruck and dazzled.

Gee, I guess we should just spend all our nation's treasure on fighting a tactic (terrorism, which we're more than HAPPY to use when it siuits our needs)and just let our infrastructure continue to fall into decay, so when the terrorists attack us "here" (after they're done attacking us "there") they won't be able to get around very well. Then our excuse to the the next generation of uninsured kids: "EFF you, you children aren't REALLY our future, go insure yourself with your own money"!

The bottom line is that unless you have first hand knowledge of the veracity of your claims, then you, like all the people on this page you say are "wrong and haters" have ZERO proof. But that's what's great about America, even fool's can spout their opinion. If they ever outlaw stupidity or narrow-mindedness, the prisons will split at the seams with cons....(but if that ever happens, cons will just build more prisons).

Don't shoot Ted, I'm on your side (unless you disagree with me)! Just move back to the 50's, "fear and dread" really worked out well for our country during those times!

[Ted K.]

hard to respond to nonsense.

[Chief Editor: Todd]

Granny, I didn't mean to get into scripture....and probably shouldn't have. I am just going by some of the values that I was taught -- about thou shall not lie, thou shall not kill...that sort of thing.

Ted, Iraq was by-in-large a neutralized country during the late-90s and on into this decade. We imposed a no-fly-zone, preventing anymore bombardments from Saddam's Cold War-era fighter jets. We had him contained -- even both and Rice and Powell said that before we began our "march to war." I respect your opinion, but it's just not accurate that life was worse for the Iraqi people right before we invaded.

It is complete anarchy -- you know that, Ted! 1,000 attacks each week. Sound a lot better to you?

Lastly -- and sorry to keep harping on this point again and again -- but Saddam Hussein opposed al Qaeda. Saddam Hussein supported Palestinian terrorism, no doubt about that. But if that is a true litmus test to whether we should invade, then what about the Saudis? They give money to the families of suicide bombers. Oh...but that's right, they are our oil PARTNERS. So we won't touch them.

[Ted K.]

Can't attack everyone at once.
Iran may be next to stimulate that populous's revolution.

Iraq is a hornet's nest now because terrorists are coming in from syria, iran, et all and we are killing them there.

I'm sure that life was much better under Sadamm and his insane sons.
Just taking women to rape at will, plucking people and children out of homes and torturing, maming and killing them. Holding families as ransom if you didn't do as he says.
Oh life was so much better.

We picked our battle with Sadaam, intelligence showed him on the verge of WMD's as did international intelligence.
Bill, Hillary even agreed that he was well on his way to Nukes.
Intelligence may have been wrong, but an evil dictator is wiped off the face of the earth.
Yes things are looking better.

[Chief Editor: Todd]

Ted, that is not true about all American intelligence before the war. According to the Duelfer Report on Iraq's weapons, Saddam Hussein represented a "diminishing threat," not a "grave" or "gathering" threat that the Administration tried to portray.

The Administration pick and choose intelligence they wanted. When you have murky intelligence like that, you can't go to war. You can make threats against the Iraqi regime, as Bill Clinton did. But other than a few air-strikes, a no-fly-zone was all that we needed to contain Saddam Hussein.

You talk about Saddam's rape rooms. But what about the young Iraqi women who lost their parents during war that are being sold into prostitution? What about more than one million refugees? How could you possibly say it was worse during the late-90s and early part of this century?

[Ted K.]

I can't believe what I am reading.

You actually believe that life is better under THAT kind of dictatorship?
You take the anti-war stance too far.

At least the one million refugees have their heads attatched to their shoulders, and who is to say they don't return as things calm down.
England intel still stands by their reports of Sadamm getting yello cake from Africa.
You wanna site the Duelfer Report?
OK:

On chemical weapons, "Saddam sought to sustain the requisite knowledge base to restart the program eventually and, to the extent it did not threaten the Iraqi efforts to get out from under sanctions, to sustain the inherent capability to produce such weapons as circumstances permitted in the future." On nuclear weapons, "Saddam did not abandon his nuclear ambitions. . . . Those around Saddam seemed quite convinced that once sanctions were ended, and all other things being equal, Saddam would renew his efforts in this field." Moreover, Duelfer concluded that Saddam in his missile program was developing missiles that exceeded the range limits set in U.N. Security Council Resolution 687.

Duelfer also reported that Saddam asked subordinates how long it would take to develop chemical weapons once sanctions ended. One Iraqi chemical weapons expert said it would require only a few days to develop mustard gas. Former Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz said that Iraq could have had a WMD capacity within two years after the end of sanctions.
And Duelfer himself surmised that Hussein wanted eventually to resurrect his weapons programs.

link here: http://www.usnews.com/usnews/opinion/baroneweb/mb_041008.htm