British Soldiers Targeted At Home

[HoreTore]

@Horetore, If these were Norwegian soldiers I doubt this would get the same response from you. Shame on you

Are you accusing me of being a nationalist bigot? If so, you're barking up the wrong tree, my friend....

On the other hand it's a bit weird to say that targeting people at home is disgusting when that is exactly what you're doing to the other people, too.

Indeed! What would happen if OBL declared that he was retiring as a terrorist leader, and was now going home to live peacefully as a civillian? Would he be left alone? I think not. I don't see why the same shouldn't apply to our soldiers.

War is a fight to the death, people. As long as your enemy still lives, there's a chance of you dying. You can't retire from war. Deaths are rarely forgiven, and never forgotten. Thinking otherwise is naive beyond reason.

Anyway, you want disgusting? I'll give you disgusting... The norwegian camp in Afghanistan was attacked on new years eve, and footage taken by the soldiers was shown on the news. At one point, a grenade detonates over an enemy position, and a soldier screams "lekkert!"(beautiful!)... The deaths or, at best, mutilation of another human being was....beautiful...

That was one psycho taking too much pleasure from killing, methinks.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

If you came over to my country and shot up my people, I would do all that I can to ensure harm to you and yours.

So you advocate the murder of civilian women and children based on their association with soldiers? soldiering is a proffession, albeit a sometimes distastful one, it is not an excuse to reak vengance apon non-combatants.

Please explain why.

[HoreTore]

Yeah..........

[rory_20_uk]

Surely everyone else is equaly a valid target by this... logic as they are a part of society.

It used to be viewed that Nations fought, with soldiers being tools of the state, with no personal attachment to the conflict. Thus when the war ends all are at peace again.

If war is a fight to the death, it should be fought as such. E.G. Afghanistan should be systemically bombed with VX gas. Add to the list Yemen and Somalia. Women can be soldiers, children grow up. Killing everyone is the only solution.

[Fragony]

Not really surprised by this

[Louis VI the Fat]

Go HoreTore!


Afghanis are followed home. Abducted, tortured, killed. Their relatives turned into collateral damage. From an Aghani point of view, there is no qualitative difference between a Briton killing Afghanistan fighters in Afghanistan, or in Pakistani killing British fighters in Britain.

It all depends on who’s side you're on, more than whether you approve of the method or not. The British use Yemeni citizens to track down and abduct Yemeni fighters who've fought in Afghanistan, to abduct them from their homes upon return.

I don't have any qualms about the method. I do however prefer the UK over the Taleban, so I'll applaud the British over AQ and the Taleban.

~~-~~-~~-<<oOo>>-~~-~~-~~

I've got some food for thought for ypou as well, HT. Just why does the UK employ sniping as a strategy? A major reason is that it is discriminatory, it kills only the intented target.

Army returns to an old tactic to defeat resurgent Taliban: sniping

As concern mounts over the number of civilian casualties caused by air strikes in Afghanistan, the army is switching tactics.


Sniping's tactical comeback is facilitated by mounting concern over the number of civilian casualties in southern Afghanistan caused by air strikes. Fears over the risk of collateral damage from jets are bolstered by field reports indicating that snipers are the military's most cost-effective, discriminating fighting machine in Helmand.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/fe...aliban-sniping

Sniping has a psychological effect. Part of the reason why it should be snipers who are targeted back home.
Snipers are targeted, but not pilots, even though both use the tactic of staying out of range of return fire. Sniping is considered close to terrorism. It certainly instills fear, and must be quite frustrating to be on the receiving end.
Sniping is a form of psychological warfare. Shots from an invisible source can, according to the Ministry of Defence, induce terror in advancing forces; even tank commanders cower inside from an unseen but precise foe.

Cost-effective too!
Another factor driving the resurgence of sniping is cost-effectiveness. During the Vietnam war, the average number of rounds expended per kill with M-16 rifles was 50,000.
By contrast, snipers averaged 1.3 bullets per kill, and defence officials estimate that contemporary trends are likely to mirror the ratios recorded in Indochina.
Each of the 8.59mm bullets used by UK snipers in southern Afghanistan costs about £20, compared to a single projectile from the Javelin anti-tank missile, which costs £70,000.

[Hax]

Killing everyone is the only solution.

Make the world a better place, start with yourself ~

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Go HoreTore!


Afghanis are followed home. Abducted, tortured, killed. Their relatives turned into collateral damage. From an Aghani point of view, there is no qualitative difference between a Briton killing Afghanistan fighters in Afghanistan, or in Pakistani killing British fighters in Britain.

It all depends on who’s side you're on, more than whether you approve of the method or not. The British use Yemeni citizens to track down and abduct Yemeni fighters who've fought in Afghanistan, to abduct them from their homes upon return.

Nonsense, we abhor the tactic in our own forces, we should abhor it in anyone else. In any case, it is not a duty undertaken by snipers.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Nonsense, we abhor the tactic in our own forces

What, Britain does not use native citizens of, say, Somalia, Yemen and Afghanistan to apprehend fighters from their homes? Britain has only ever killed enemy fighters on open battlefields in the past decade? Are you quite sure about that...?

[Louis VI the Fat]

Also; funny the government won't let the soldiers defend themselves with guns in their own homes.

CR

And then what? Have private AQ and UK combatants battle it out in British streets? Turn Glasgow into a place of open street violence, divided into sectarian neighbourhoods and destined for destitution?


(Wait hang on...

Erm...Turn London or York into a place of endemic sectarian violence etc?)

[rajpoot]

What Louis said in his first post is more or less what I think.
It all really is a matter of which side does one sympathies with more.

Then again, killing civilians and soldiers out of uniform, no matter who does it, is wrong.....this is what they call a war crime don't they?

On another point if the snipers killed a Al-Q leader in Afghanistan, it was because he was fighting against them at that time. The soldiers in UK were not fighting...they were coming home. I think there's a fine line between the two....killing someone who's fighting against you, or killing someone who might or was fight against you.

On a different note, what amazes me most is that there actually are Al-Q cells in UK itself? People who directly support them?! I thought that it was just us who had active terrorist cells and infiltrators in our country......

[Subotan]

British people are funny like that.

You mean sensible.

[Andres]

This is wrong and cannot be justified.

Killing people in Afghanistan is also wrong and cannot be justified.

The organised mass killing of people aka war cannot be justified.

What I don't understand is how one can be outraged about this event but not about the killing of Afghan people in Afghanistan.

[Fragony]

Media is also to blame for making him a high profile target

[Hax]

This is wrong and cannot be justified.

Killing people in Afghanistan is also wrong and cannot be justified.

The organised mass killing of people aka war cannot be justified.

What I don't understand is how one can be outraged about this event but not about the killing of Afghan people in Afghanistan.

[Furunculus]

snipers do a legitimate job, very well.

these wonderful british 'citizens' who wish to murder their families need to be prosecuted to the max.

[Fragony]

snipers do a legitimate job, very well.

these wonderful british 'citizens' who wish to murder their families need to be prosecuted to the max.

Sure but I can understand their logic, sniping is psychological warfare, and so is this, we are at war with terrorism not Afghanistan. Also, if we know of a Taliban leader sitting with his family we will shell it anyway.

[Viking]

Killing combatants is one thing, killing non-combatants is something else. A (good) sniper kills cleanly, that is his job, these terrorists were planning to abduct and probably torture their targets.

There is a difference.

The logic is that it reduces morale and thus weakens the enemy if they do this. That's the logic; and I am not sure what exactly you are referring to.

[Kralizec]

Afghanis are followed home. Abducted, tortured, killed. Their relatives turned into collateral damage. From an Aghani point of view, there is no qualitative difference between a Briton killing Afghanistan fighters in Afghanistan, or in Pakistani killing British fighters in Britain.

It all depends on who’s side you're on, more than whether you approve of the method or not. The British use Yemeni citizens to track down and abduct Yemeni fighters who've fought in Afghanistan, to abduct them from their homes upon return.

I don't have any qualms about the method. I do however prefer the UK over the Taleban, so I'll applaud the British over AQ and the Taleban.

The way I see it...when you're carrying a weapon, and maybe wearing a uniform, you're a legitimate target for the enemy. You can blame the Taliban for a lot of things, but not for killing active combatants in a warzone. It annoys me when the words "insurgent" and "terrorist" are used as if they're synonyms. It also annoys me when an attack on soldiers in Afghanistan is immediately dismissed as "cowardly" by politicians.

However, when a British person murders his own neighbour, because that neighbour served in a war wich he disagrees with, that Brit is not an insurgent, not a participant in a war, but a domestic terrorist. I haven't seen any of the Taliban fanboys (note: not you, Louis) put forward a good argument why such a person should be treated as equal to a soldier.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Media is also to blame for making him a high profile target

The evil media again...?


Meet UK Sniper, L/Cpl Teddy Reucker. Here in action in Helmand, Afghanistan.

Photo and information courtesy of the British Ministry of Defense.




Smoking a cigarette after a shot:



I'll spare you Teddy Reucker's Suffolk home adress and telephone number.

It took me two minutes to look him up. In half an hour, I'd know where he was stationed and what actions he partook in.

[Fragony]

The evil media again...?

In a different article it says that he was made a hero for getting so many kills, of course they will come for him, pretty stupid.

edit, what weapon is he using, doesn't look like a very heavy hitter

[miotas]

Does everyone have another source that hasn't been posted yet? If so could it please be posted. The only thing the article says for certain is that a small group was going to kill a soldier, there was no mention of people trying to murder the sniper's families.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

What, Britain does not use native citizens of, say, Somalia, Yemen and Afghanistan to apprehend fighters from their homes? Britain has only ever killed enemy fighters on open battlefields in the past decade? Are you quite sure about that...?

"We" being the populace, and "abhor" not meaning "we'd never do that". In Britain such tactics are always held up as disgusting, even if occasionally excused. Therefore, for me to lable the tactic as abhorant is consistant.

The logic is that it reduces morale and thus weakens the enemy if they do this. That's the logic; and I am not sure what exactly you are referring to.

A sniper elimates a (usually) active military target, a soldier at home with his children is not a military target. Snipers also work as uniformed soldiers, and are identifiable as such.

The way I see it...when you're carrying a weapon, and maybe wearing a uniform, you're a legitimate target for the enemy. You can blame the Taliban for a lot of things, but not for killing active combatants in a warzone. It annoys me when the words "insurgent" and "terrorist" are used as if they're synonyms. It also annoys me when an attack on soldiers in Afghanistan is immediately dismissed as "cowardly" by politicians.

However, when a British person murders his own neighbour, because that neighbour served in a war wich he disagrees with, that Brit is not an insurgent, not a participant in a war, but a domestic terrorist. I haven't seen any of the Taliban fanboys (note: not you, Louis) put forward a good argument why such a person should be treated as equal to a soldier.

I tend to agree with this. I can respect a man who stands up and dies for his country, I don't have a lot of time for men who strip on explosive vests onto themselves, or someone else, and flip the swich in a crowded market.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Not sure how much of this is directed at me, but let me clarify my comments from earlier.

Just the first paragraph. IOW: do not think your post was asinine; on the contrary I find it a reasonable question to ask.

The people I know who are snipers, special ops, SAR, etc, do not openly advertise their jobs to joe public because the very nature of what they do makes them and their families targets from both our enemies, political opponents and people-looking-to-make-a-point-in general. Much for the same reason CIA agents don't tell their entire community what they are and what they do. IT's common sense.

At the same time, unless said person/agent was involved in something highly questionable under the law, it is very irresponsible for a journalist/friend/colleague to divulge their role due to the fact that it is simply just irresponsible and, some may argue, unpatriotic to do so and definitely dangerous to them and their family. So yes, people who do jobs like that should fall under different rules. I'm not saying rules in the context of laws or special protections, but FFS, if u are a jouranlist covering a sniper in a war dont put his name in the papers. Jesus.

Google query: Afghanistan account sniper
Result contains saucy finds:
http://www.snipercountry.com/article...2430metres.asp

Not too many personal circumstances but still: age, rank, regiment, and ‘from’ details... Names are given also, but you are led to believe these must be anonimised to protect the people in this article for those are consistently wrapped in double quotes.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worl...TRES-away.html

Now this one. Saucy, I say. Name, age, rank, regiment, ‘from’, wife's name, son's name, son's age, wife's home address, personal picture... ? Might as well throw in his phone number... ?
Plus additional bonus in the details of the colleague: name, rank, regiment, age, ‘from’ details. This one, incidentally, appears to be from Glasgow. Does one and one make two?

Additional significant excerpt: “camped on the roof of a shop for three days”. Do you think, as do I, that the shop owners may have been interrogated regarding the man that camped on their roof by now?

[Andres]

I tend to agree with this. I can respect a man who stands up and dies for his country, I don't have a lot of time for men who strip on explosive vests onto themselves, or someone else, and flip the swich in a crowded market.

How about the man who flies in an expensive jet, drops a bomb on a "military target" and kills many civilians as "collateral damage"? How much time and respect do you have for him?

[johnhughthom]

How about the man who flies in an expensive jet, drops a bomb on a "military target" and kills many civilians as "collateral damage"? How much time and respect do you have for him?

He isn't the person who decides if that is a legitimate military target or not though.

[Wishazu]

Our Soldiers = Hero`s.

There Soldiers = Cowards.

Thats simple propaganda, everyone has been doing that since war began back in the dawn of time.

I personally feel that the Snipers themselves are Hero`s, they dont drop bombs that kill and maim non-combatants, they are clinical.

Anyone who supports terrorists, in any kind of way needs their heads looking at. I think the AL-Q sympathisers will look much better when British soldiers start beheading captured insurgents or Afghan reporters etc. and posting it on youtube.

[Andres]

He isn't the person who decides if that is a legitimate military target or not though.

I see, "just following orders" makes it all perfectly acceptable and makes the guy dropping the bomb "just a soldier doing his duty".

The guy fighting for the side which can't afford expensive jets is of course "a terrorist".

I think the relatives of the victims of both men don't care much about that distinction.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Media is also to blame for making him a high profile target

His superiors in the MoD PR department are to blame. Those journalists did largely their job: to publicise news and its details; the same cannot be said for the MoD PR department whose job it is to keep sensitive details out of the media and do damage control.

Bloody hell, even in the disastrous PR departments of the Dutch MoD (shower the journalists in lost USB sticks) they have the sense to contact media and request self-censorship w.r.t. ‘sensitive details’ that can locate or identify such men. In fact the Dutch MoD wanted to proofread articles about the war to ensure this...

[Kralizec]

What I don't understand is how one can be outraged about this event but not about the killing of Afghan people in Afghanistan.

Outraged by ISAF troops killing Afghans, or by Afghans killing Afghans?

While I don't think that US/ISAF and national Afghan troops are doing enough so prevent civilian casualties, the majority of civilian deaths are directly caused by Taliban fighters and other anti-government groups. Don't take my word for it, listen to Amnesty international.
I'd rather not complicate the topic further by discussing how US/ISAF are waging this war. But regardless, the pre-2001 Afghan government has herself to blame for being invaded in the first place. And if it hadn't been invaded, Afghanistan would still have been a hellhole with rampant human rights abuses and civilian deaths. I reject the notion that the west somehow messed Afghanistan up.

"War = Bad" is a cliché.