Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

US snipers baiting Iraqis

  1. Sep 24, 2007 #1

    turbo

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    It appears there is a great way to tell who is a "bad guy" so you can kill him. Just bait an area with wire, ammunition, etc, and if an Iraqi picks it up, shoot him.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/23/AR2007092301431.html?hpid=topnews

    This is a pretty loose way of weeding out the "bad guys", IMO. If I found a roll of wire in the road, I'd be tempted to pick it up and take it home with me. That can get you killed in Iraq.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Sep 24, 2007 #2
    I'll have to read this later.

    This seems like ridiculous logic to me. Anyone might pick up this stuff laying on the ground. It could be a child, or a person trying to keep it out of the hands of children, or even someone concerned that an insurgent would take it if they left it there. Maybe they were just curious and thought it was neat or they wanted to defend their families. I don't see how the military can justify that anyone who tries to leave with stuff they scatter on the ground is an insurgent. It's very distasteful to me. I sincerely hope this is false information.
     
  4. Sep 24, 2007 #3

    turbo

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I hope it's false, too, especially since if this baiting is incorporated into the snipers' rules of engagement, any killing can be justified by planting "drop" items on or near the body of the victim. "Gee, Lieutenant, he had a coil of wire! I had to kill him."
     
  5. Sep 24, 2007 #4
    This is almost as good as making the little explosive charges in Cluster Bombs bright colors. Almost 50% of the ordinance does not go off. Children are attracted to the colorful objects and often lose their hand or hands when they go to play with them. The intent is that the bright colors are easy to see by our troops when they sweep the area after an attack. So much for good intentions.
     
  6. Sep 24, 2007 #5

    I would say this is nothing like the OP case. When these bombs were designed, they weren't thinking "Oh what if children come around later and play with these things because they were colorful?" Children can play w/ whatever they want, colorful or not. The color is meant as a safety device for the troops.

    The case that the OP is referring to is blatant killing of people for doing something which may or may not indicate that they are an insurgent, even though the troops' safety is not immidiately threatened either way. They could have some guys waiting behind a corner and point guns at the guy when he picks up the wire and arrest him and crap, or maybe follow him and see where he goes, or maybe put a wiretap inside the expolosive charge. These are all more moral and ethical alternatives.
     
  7. Sep 25, 2007 #6
    I see your point.

    Maybe they should put up an American flag and see who tries to light it on fire.

    We should not be there, no good can come of this.
     
  8. Sep 25, 2007 #7

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Nor is this anything like baiting:
    That's framing someone who did absolutely nothing wrong in order to cover up a murder. That's worse than baiting them. Baiting is bad enough. There is no need to throw in additional charges that aren't related and aren't mentioned in the article.
     
  9. Sep 25, 2007 #8

    turbo

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Russ, look at paragraph 3 of page 2. The fact that a civilian can be shot for picking up what might have been a cast-off coil of electrical wire or maybe an AK magazine that might have been dropped during a firefight (even to keep it out of the hands of kids or hostiles in the neighborhood) is shameful. The fact that you have a US serviceman charged with perverting this "bait" policy by planting "bait" items on victims to justify murder is horrible. I hope it is not true, yet fear that it may be.

    Edited to focus on charge of planting evidence in the article.
     
    Last edited: Sep 25, 2007
  10. Sep 25, 2007 #9

    Gokul43201

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I think I did read that planting evidence after the event was one of the charges.
     
  11. Sep 25, 2007 #10
    This is nothing more that rumsfeld's Proactive Preemptive Operating Group in action.

    https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=950242&postcount=23

    I am really afraid of what is under page 20 :uhh:
     
    Last edited: Sep 25, 2007
  12. Sep 25, 2007 #11

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I stand corrected - page 2 (didn't read past page 1...) talks about frame-ups/planting evidence.
     
  13. Sep 26, 2007 #12

    turbo

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Thanks, Russ. I appreciate it and wish that folks on both side of the aisle would take the time to get beyond jingoism and patriotic flim-flam, to evaluate what is happening to those poor people whose country we have ruined.
     
  14. Sep 26, 2007 #13

    baywax

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Lots about US National Security Strategy and Preemption and International Law. As well as "Just War Theory" and other related topics. This document is "unclassified".

    http://www.wcfia.harvard.edu/fellows/papers/2003-04/grosso.pdf
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: US snipers baiting Iraqis
Loading...