'Getting aid past US snipers is impossible'

How does she know it was US snipers?

 

My question exactly. Snipers don't shoot in the open. She has no way of knowing who shot at her and the ones with the motive are not US snipers.

 

Not well-trained American snipers. And American snipers are well trained enough that if their goal was to kill this woman - if they were shooting at her - she'd most likely be dead.

So, either this is a misuse of the word "sniper", or a misidentification of who is shooting at her, or both. I find the idea of American snipers shooting willy-nilly at anything that moves - and missing - incredibly unlikely.

 

An Iraqi sniper is more likely to target civilians than an American sniper.

 

Yeah, but in a world gone bad sometimes its hard to tell who is a civillian and who is an insurgent.

This woman is an aid worker, I'm sure that to her, a sniper is anybody with a gun who is not standing up and waving at her.

 

I would think if you're working in a war zone, you would know some basic military terms.

It's possible what this woman says is true, but I don't see how she is so sure, and it seems unlikely anyway.

 

"good...? bad...? I'm the guy with the gun." - ASH

 

I have no doubt someones shot at her. I have no doubt she thought it was US sniper. I have no clue if she is right, and if I wanted to figure out who was shooting at her Id consult a forensics expert, not the aid worker. Its called fog of war because oftentimes the people involved dont have one fricking clue whats going on.

 

What's ironic about this thread is that the US has closed two major highways in Iraq because civilian traffic was making it hard to secure convoys, and some supplies were starting to run short in Baghdad. See, we had to commit soldiers to Najaf and Fallujah and Sadr City, so we didn't have enough to make the highways safe when the insurgents became more aggressive.

 

All the bullets pulled out of the wounded were red, white and blue and were wearing tiny little cowboy hats. Duh.

 

All this story tells me is that Miss "human rights campaigner and trainee lawyer from Bristol" blames the US for the situation and the particular shootings she saw or heard about. This could be because:
1) she has great tactical awareness and was able to do accurate friend/foe idents while under fire. In this case, the US "snipers" were doing the shooting (poorly since she survived)
2) She is mistaken but is just reporting, without bias, her perceptions
3) She has political or personal motives for depicting the current fighting in the worst possible light for the US (shooting grandmas bearing white flags).

I'm guessing the third but am open to the definite possibility that she got caught in a firefight and was shot at by US troops. However, if she is a vet of previous urban fighting situations, she'd know that positions flow back and forth and locating your shooter is a big problem.

 

How about 2a) She is mistaken but is just reporting, with bias, her perceptions. Your characterization that she is intentionally mis-identifying the shooters is patently unfair. She may honestly believe that US snipers are doing the shooting.

 

I call BS on this post, every word.

 

US snipers do not miss such easy targets.seriously, these guys are some of the best trained soldiers on the face of the planet.They would not shoot willy nilly, as it gives away their postion.

 

These are Marine Corps Scout/Snipers. They are not going to miss and she would not be able to spot and identify them at their firing positions. If an experienced Scout/Sniper with a high-powered spotting scope is unable to identify them (in order to pass Scout/Sniper School, the candidate has to complete a series of successful stalks firing a first shot, then have an instructor stand within a foot, place their hand on their head, then make a second shot,all without the instructor with the spotting scope being able to identify them)a nut-job aid worker running or driving through the streets is not going to be able to see them with her naked eye.

Maybe it was really the IDF on Catepillars.

 

Snipers have some of the best trigger control in the military. Shooting is very dangerous because it reveals your position. You only have one chance - because after you shoot you have to move if you want to stay alive. Also, US snipers say that they don't kill people, they kill threats. One shot, one kill. Since the sniper only has one shot, they will assess the biggest threat to themselves and other Blue forces, and shoot at that target.

It sounds to me like someone - not a trained sniper - is taking potshots at people with a standard rifle (not a scoped sniper rifle). Who? Dunno. Why? Dunno.

 

"'Getting aid past US snipers is impossible' "

Unfortunately for us, though, getting nutcase news past Mel appears to be pretty easy...

 

That's as close to a, "I'm am so wrong in this case, it's scary" that you'll ever get from him.

 

I dont think to many of us a re denying that she is being shot at.I just think its an uneducated assumption to say its US Snipers shooting at her.I think what you have here is a misuse of the word.Either through not knowing what a sniper is, or through an attempt to repaint the picture.

 

Yet you being in Scotland are in a better position to judge her claims as being truthful and not the least bit misguided, biased, or possibly even false. Do a little research on Marine Corps Scout/Snipers and then tell us if you think she's correct. You're passionate and I respect that, but this woman's claims have about as much credibility as W.'s.

 

Sniper or not sniper, that is the question now?

The DC area "sniper" and the Ohio "shooter" were just kooks that may have watched too many movies or played too many video games. be it that these guys had no "official" sniper training or could be called qualified to be called real snipers, the term is not that great to get al caught up in here. If someone was shooting at me, I wouldn't go and ask the guy, are you sniper qualified?

The fact that someone is shooting at her, and I'd guess others, brings the term to conversation. Hey, it is obviously not a South Central style Drive-by, so a sniper situation is a good term to use.

I remember some stories of Tim McVeigh, (9 years ago today, remember the homegrown terror threat...God bless the fallen from Oklahoma City!) was in the Gulf War. He was impressing his buddies by shooting Iraqi (soldiers, maybe willing to surrender?) from a great distance. Homegrown sniper maybe?

I wouldn't doubt that this could be some US soldier with a sick vision due to the fact they were sick kooks before they joined the service or has spent too many days in a warzone.

Now, I don't know anymore than others here, maybe less, but this is just a different idea to get off the need to define a real sniper. I would like to expect better reporting based on some military knowledge, but I would guess that the report of the events were not worked to make snipers look bad, but maybe make the US look bad. The story would have the same effect if the word sniper were replaced with shooter/radom shootings from the US side.

There has to be an overuse of force at times, but that doesn't give a green light to kill at random. When the US went into the hospital to rescue Pvt. Jessica Lynch, an overwhelming force was needed to catch the enemy off guard. It's not like the troops could knock on the door and ask if Jessica could come out to play, right?

Now, that thinking of "shock and awe" has to spill over into the ranks. Abuse by either side would not be a shock, but such claims need support and facts. Otherwise, the reporting is just as dangerous as the alleged actions of a few soldiers.