DescentBB

Amazing.

[url]mms://wm.gannett.speedera.net/wm.gannett/atpco/071505sniper.wmv[/url]

[quote]Pfc. Stephen Tschiderer, a native of Mendon, N.Y., and a medic with E Troop, 101st â??Saberâ?

I saw that clip a couple days ago... thanks for posting the story.

As Tschiderer secured the terrorist with a pair of handcuffs, he gave medical aid to the wounded terroristâ??the same one whoâ??d tried to take his life.

impressive

this article's constant labeling of these enemy soldiers as "terrorists" is really pissing me off.
why are they terrorists?

roid wrote:this article's constant labeling of these enemy soldiers as "terrorists" is really pissing me off.
why are they terrorists?

Well how do you define "enemy soldier"?

i'd define terrorism as targetting civilians and other soft targets. it's more psy-ops.

this however seemed like a textbook snipe. no civilians involved. one soldier attacking another, in a state of war.

what was so terrorising about that attack?
not terrorism.

That's why you always go for the head shot if you can.

Roid, it's terrorism because:

A. These are the same people that would blow themselves up in crowded buses to make their point. Have we forgotten Israel, the WTC attacks, and the London bombings ALREADY?

B. This guy was operating from an unmarked, civilian vehicle, probably with unmarked, civilian clothes. That's a big no-no in the "war rulebook".

C. Did you hear the guy chanting "Allah Akhbar" afterwards? That's generally what this fanatic type of guy does before, during, or after making a kill, which, fortunately in this case, didn't happen.

D. They're terrorists because they're not fighting a war. They're in essence civilians shooting at the military of another nation. It may be a war by their standards; but for crying out loud, if it's a regular, by-the-rules war, why are they mixing with the civilian population just to take cheap shots at our soldiers? Would you say it's a war if a bunch of guys from New Zealand living in Australia formed a cult and started sniping police, with perhaps the occasional bomb in a bus?

If your logic is that the guy was fighting against what he perceived to be an evil that needed to be removed, the WTC attacks were not terrorism, the london bombings were not terrorism. They were acts of war.

If your logic is that it wasn't terrorism because it was against a military target, look up the Geneva Convention. These people aren't defined as "enemy combatants" there.

A little bit of nitpicking: I would love to hear your view on the following points...

Stryker wrote:These are the same people that would blow themselves up in crowded buses to make their point. Have we forgotten Israel, the WTC attacks, and the London bombings ALREADY?

That's quite an assumption. These guys here attacked soldiers, these others you speak of attacked civilians. How do you know that this same sniper would also blow himself up to make a point?

This guy was operating from an unmarked, civilian vehicle, probably with unmarked, civilian clothes. That's a big no-no in the "war rulebook".

So, an U.S. sniper hiding on a unmarked house or in an unmarked van would also be a terrorist?

Did you hear the guy chanting "Allah Akhbar" afterwards? That's generally what this fanatic type of guy does before, during, or after making a kill, which, fortunately in this case, didn't happen.

And this relates to the difference between soldiers and terrorists, how? Just shows he is a believer, however deluded.

They're terrorists because they're not fighting a war. They're in essence civilians shooting at the military of another nation. It may be a war by their standards; but for crying out loud, if it's a regular, by-the-rules war, why are they mixing with the civilian population just to take cheap shots at our soldiers?

So tell me what you think about the resistance against the Nazis in Germany, France and other occupied nations. Were they also terrorists because they often wore no uniform and often worked from unmarked places?

Would you say it's a war if a bunch of guys from New Zealand living in Australia formed a cult and started sniping police, with perhaps the occasional bomb in a bus?

The proper analogy would be: a bunch of guys from New Zealand living in New Zeland formed an organization and started sniping an army that has momentarily taken over their homeland.

If your logic is that the guy was fighting against what he perceived to be an evil that needed to be removed, the WTC attacks were not terrorism, the london bombings were not terrorism. They were acts of war.

What do you think of the world war II and vietnam bombings that were aimed at civilians and committed by the allies (e.g. Hiroshima, Dresden)?

Please note that I do not challenge your assertation that these guys are terrorists. I am just not convinced by your arguments. I would love to see an argument based on objective criteria. Otherwise it seems that calling someone 'terrorist' as opposed to 'soldier' or 'freedom fighter' is a subjective choice, depending on whose side you are on.

The question:

Well how do you define "enemy soldier"?

The answer:

i'd define terrorism as targetting civilians and other soft targets. it's more psy-ops.

Is there really that much of a language barrier between Australia and the U.S.?

PS: A terrorist is someone who uses violence in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands.

That sniper was most likely not even an insurgent, as in a native Iraqi..like a Bathist deposed from power by the U.S. and the new Iraqi government, but instead a foriegn fighter who's goal is to disrupt the stabilization of said 'new Iraqi government.

Now, is someone like that a soldier? Is there an army in Iraq with the goals outlined above? I'd say not by conventional definitions...maybe he would say he's fighting in Allah's army. If so, Allah's army is full of terrorists by my definition.

Will Robinson wrote: A terrorist is someone who uses violence in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands.

I don't think this definition is clear at all. Doesn't almost any act of war fall under this definition? Consider Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

That sniper was most likely not even an insurgent, as in a native Iraqi..like a Bathist deposed from power by the U.S. and the new Iraqi government, but instead a foriegn fighter who's goal is to disrupt the stabilization of said 'new Iraqi government.

Most likely? Do you think that there are more foreign fighters on the other side than native Iraqis?

Pandora: Yes, I do believe the US military has used terrorism before. However, I take exception to your rewrite of my analogy, mostly for the reason that many (if not most) of these terrorists are coming from the nations around Iraq, not just in Iraq.

That's one of the main reasons I claim that these are the same people that attacked the US, Britain, and Israel. One doesn't start chanting "Allah Akhbar" unless you look at it as a sort of religious victory, killing someone Allah would be proud to have killed.

There's also another big difference between a US sniper hiding out in an unmarked location and a muslim extremist hiding in an unmarked van with a rifle: the US sniper won't shoot anyone unless he constitutes a direct threat to either him or the person(s) he is trying to protect. Had that muslim stepped out of his van without his rifle, the US soldier wouldn't have thought twice about him unless he was some sort of high-profile extremist on the army's watchlist.

As for the Nazi takeovers, the Nazis were actively killing Jews and others in the nations they conquered. I don't see US soldiers gunning down Baathist Muslims, Shi'ite Muslims, or any other sect of Muslims. No comparison.

I think the WWII bombings and Vietnam bombings were unnecessary or aimed at the wrong targets, and morally wrong. Aiming at civilians in war for any reason is wrong.

Thanks, Stryker, that cleared up a lot. A few points:

Stryker wrote:I take exception to your rewrite of my analogy, mostly for the reason that many (if not most) of these terrorists are coming from the nations around Iraq, not just in Iraq.

I just heard that there were some foreign fighters, but not that it was most of them. But as also Will supports this contention, I draw back my rewrite.

Stryker wrote:One doesn't start chanting "Allah Akhbar" unless you look at it as a sort of religious victory, killing someone Allah would be proud to have killed.

True. But that still doesn't mean that this guy would also have thought that blowing himself up and hurting civilians is ok (although it could be the case). So crying similar things as convinced terrorirsts does not help in identifying someone as being terrorists. What I am really allergic to are overgeneralizations --- you just cannot say that someone is a terrorist because he might do something. Just sticking to the situation at hand and judging by what he really has done should be enough.

There's also another big difference between a US sniper hiding out in an unmarked location and a muslim extremist hiding in an unmarked van with a rifle: the US sniper won't shoot anyone unless he constitutes a direct threat to either him or the person(s) he is trying to protect. Had that muslim stepped out of his van without his rifle, the US soldier wouldn't have thought twice about him unless he was some sort of high-profile extremist on the army's watchlist.

As for the Nazi takeovers, the Nazis were actively killing Jews and others in the nations they conquered. I don't see US soldiers gunning down Baathist Muslims, Shi'ite Muslims, or any other sect of Muslims. No comparison.

True. But see how complicated a definition of terrorism becomes if you also want to include these two points?

I think the WWII bombings and Vietnam bombings were unnecessary or aimed at the wrong targets, and morally wrong. Aiming at civilians in war for any reason is wrong.

I fully agree.

I don't believe you can classify the guys in the van as terrorists - or at least those particular actions as terrorism. They were aiming at military targets, and should have expected to be targetted themselves once they opened fire.

The word "terrorist" (and "terrorism") is becoming extremely debased, and it's value is being steadily eroded - such that these days, almost *any* antisocial act is "terrorism" of some kind (be it "eco-terrorism" - what a joke - or whatever).

Simply put - any engagement with a military enemy can't be defined as terrorism - that's just "combat", pure and simple. It doesn't matter how the agressors are dressed, or whether they follow the Geneva Convention or not. (Let's not open up that particular can-o-worms, as we know the USA has violated some provisions of the GC over the years)

Branding all "insurgents" as "terrorists" is a non-seqitur. I'd prefer to call them Guerillas - as the most correctly are described as:

A member of an irregular, usually indigenous military or paramilitary unit operating in small bands in occupied territory to harass and undermine the enemy, as by surprise raids.

The people who blow themselves up, and explode bombs which are not specifically targetted at military personnel (only!) may be described as "terrorists".

Mobius wrote:The word "terrorist" (and "terrorism") is becoming extremely debased, and it's value is being steadily eroded - such that these days, almost *any* antisocial act is "terrorism" of some kind (be it "eco-terrorism" - what a joke - or whatever).

I fully agree to this. This was why I replied to Stryker in the first place. Something similar as Drakona and Lothar described in the thread about gay marriage goes on with the term 'terrorism'. For every one who calls somebody a 'terrorist' you can find somebody else who calls the same person 'freedom fighter' and vice versa. Really, most of the time freedom fighter means 'on our side' and 'terrorist' means on the other. Therefore, i tend to understand both of these terms as nothing but a means of propaganda.

Simply put - any engagement with a military enemy can't be defined as terrorism - that's just "combat", pure and simple. It doesn't matter how the agressors are dressed, or whether they follow the Geneva Convention or not.

But how would you define 'soldier' then. Everybody who is not a terrorist? Or is there an omitted middle ground between the two definitions?

i wouldn't introduce the term "freedom fighter", it's subjective.

as far as i'm concerned the term TERRORISM still has meaning today. it means the targeting of civilians for political/military goals - it's a form of psy-ops that directly targets the political/social/cultural (civilian) system instead of the enemy's army.

terrorism is a military strategy.

as is guerilla warfare, also a military strategy. abiet guerilla warfare is specifically targetting a military style enemy (such as an army), NOT civilians. it is not terrorism.

("freedom fighting" is not a military strategy, please stop referring to it.)

as Mobius said, this is guerilla warfare, not terrorism. the USA army is well known for being poorly prepared for guerilla warfare, this is why it's enemys prefer the strategy.
you should all already know this.

what some of you guys seem to be confused about here is that the USA has many enemys in it's current war taking place in Iraq. Some enemys are religious extremists. others are iraqi nationalists. some may just want to take a shot at the american army. others may be something else. the point is they are not the same, and it would bode well for your inteligence to distinguish between the enemys and not just lump them all in one basket. they are not all terrorists. sadly this simplification encouragement may have been caused by your simple-headed political leader.
but let me set it straight. i don't care what your president said, he's wrong, the situation is complex. ALL THE ENEMYS OF THE USA ARE NOT TERRORISTS.

the sniper in this video is not a Ba'ath party member / nationalist. he's an obvious muslim. but this does not mean he's an extremist. he made a hit and he's thanking the devine. like "thankyou jesus" that i bet a lot of you would say in a similar situation.
or how about this obvious one:
"OMG"

in this video he's a guerilla.
he could also be a terrorist, but there's no compelling evidence for it.
your only evidence is religious association: "Allahu Akbar" = Muslim. as i've shown you above this is not a terrorism corellation.

your prejudice may be showing.

he should not be called a terrorist from this footage.