After being told NOT to return fire at an Iraqi insurgent who after prayers every week, liked to fire an RPG at a British base, the Brits decided they'd had enough and posted a sniper to take care of the problem.
Probably using the Accuracy International L115A3 sniper rifle, world record distance holder, the sniper killed the insurgent just as he was taking aim with the RPG, from a distance of 1200 meters or about 3/4 of a mile.
Job well done, right? Not so fast my friend.
Now the sniper is in trouble because he didn't yell a warning at the insurgent first, per the idiotic rules of engagement. How is a sniper supposed to yell at a guy holding an RPG from more than 12 football fields away?
With rules as stupid as these, it's a wonder the allies can accomplish anything over there.
At any rate, with apologies to Jim Croce,
"You don't tug on Superman's cape,
You don't spit in the wind,
You don't pull the mask off the old Lone Ranger,
and you don't mess around with British snipers."
16 comments:
This story is sickening, Ed. Apparently, the government of the U.K. has set up a panel of leftist lawyers to go back years and second guess soldiers in combat. And this is the Conservative Party! If the commie who currently heads the Labor Party ever gets to be PM, look out.
I know Bill, it's like you watch Europe self-immolate with eyes wide open and wonder, what are they thinking? Is anybody left sane on that continent?
What is the mindset that compels a person to side with his own country's enemy? Possibly the same thing that causes Obama to reflexively blame Americans' hysterical Islamophobia for the San Bernardino attacks?
I mean I know it's quisling dihimmitude, but I don't get it still.
They call it "lawfare." Quislings in our midst.
I can imagine a similar inquiry in 1946. "Ah, Flt. Lt. Pemberton-Smythe, I see the plastic surgeons have repaired your burned face very well. But, old chap, this He-111 you shot down in 1940 presents a problem. The surviving crewman says you never flew alongside so they could read the 'No Trespassing' sign on the side of your Spitfire. Could be a war crime, old chap. What do you have to say?"
Bill, there is a novel in you itching to get out!
Dystopian, if it features that scene.
This Iraqi...
Was he an insurgent or was he a freedom fighter?
Was he an insurgent or was he resisting invaders of his homeland?
Was he an insurgent or was he giving the destroyers of his country a taste of their own medicine?
Was he an insurgent or was expressing his anger toward foreign nationals who have deprived his fellow countrymen of clean water and sewage facilities?
Was he an insurgent or was he paying back a foreign force members of which murdered a friend, family member or loved one?
Was he an insurgent or was he forced into being a resistance fighter because foreigners destroyed his country's economy and he no longer has a job?
Was he an insurgent or, between him and the sniper, was he the only one with a moral right to be shooting at anybody?
Inquiring minds want to know.
No, it sounded like he was just an insurgent.
Maybe the insurgent longed for the utopia of Saddam Hussein's Iraq. You know, when Michael Moore's kite flyers frolicked?
The two sons from hell being groomed as successors may have been his heroes.
I forgot about Uday and Kusay (sp?). What ever happened to them? Taking eternal dirt naps I presume?
You are right, Bill. Saddam was a bad guy so it was imperative that coalition forces destroy the Iraq economy, Balkanize the country, tear down infrastructure such as roads, running water and sewage treatment facilities, and maim and murder murder multiplied thousands of innocent civilians. And Saddam was ample justification for sending our military men and women home in body bags of fucked up in the head. What was I thinking? Thank you for bringing me up short. I had it coming.
Feeling like a fool for responding, but here goes:
If we had indeed done any of those things, it would indeed be very bad. Good thing it's all anti-American, anti-Western dezinformatziya.
Isaac, in hindsight the wisdom of our Iraqi adventure is debatable, that I'll admit. But given that nation-building, whether or not you agree with the policy of such, is a positive effort to rid Iraq of a bad dude and introduce democracy, I find it absurd to suggest that it was US policy to do all you say.
Balkanization might be the best solution for Iraq, unless you are prepared to watch mass religious-based genocide on the news every night.
Bill, Bill, Bill. You may feel like a fool, but it is not "for responding". It is a side effect of the blue pill. Spit that thing out, man, before it is too late!
FREEDOM! 19,900 IRAQI CIVILIANS KILLED IN LESS THAN TWO YEARS
January 27, 2016 "Information Clearing House" - …that works out to about 28 dead every day.
It is also an estimate, given that many areas of the country are not readily accessible, and because the death toll from the siege of Ramadi is not accounted for in the figures. More than 3.2 million Iraqis are internally displaced and/or homeless.
Iraq is now an ungoverned, failed state, a killing field on the scale of genocide.
At least 18,802 civilians were killed and 36,245 wounded in Iraq over the last 22 months, according to the UN’s Report on the Protection of Civilians in the Armed Conflict in Iraq. Another 3,206,736 Iraqis are internally displaced, including more than one million children. The study emphasizes that these are conservative estimates. The UN also is careful to note that the number of civilians killed by secondary effects of the violence, such as lack of access to food, water or medical care, is unknown. In many areas of Iraq schools are closed and basic infrastructure is not functioning.
All that is in addition to the more than one million people already killed during the American occupation period.
[…]
(source: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article44048.htm)
I have no doubt an agency that can get Polonium 210 into a guy's tea can provide lots of useful "information."
Adapted from:
LOGIC 101: THE FALLACY OF GUILT BY ASSOCIATION (also known as bad company fallacy and company that you keep fallacy)
By Alex Knapp
The typical structure of an argument that incorporates the guilt-by-association fallacy is something along the lines of:
Source X provided information I.
Source X is bad (or believes bad things).
Therefore, information I is bad.
A more real world example of this might be:
Social security is a state funded old age pension.
Nazis supported state funded old age pensions.
Therefore, social security is bad.
Obviously, this argument is ridiculous.
(“Fallacies are fake or deceptive arguments, arguments that prove nothing.”)
Post a Comment