good shooting, or travesty?

[entwined]

I gather from the responses here that most feel that the sniper did what snipers do and was not guilty of any particularly heinous act.

 

From the conversations that I have suffered through over breakfast of late, I was beginning to wonder if it was me who had his screwed on crooked or them.

 

I haveto find a better place for breakfast......

[swansont]

Right. Iraq is not a declared war, so "the authorized use of force by a soldier in a time of war cannot, by definition, be murder" would not apply here.

 

I think you're arguing semantics here. "It's not a war, it's a police action" (or similar) doesn't change the fact that you get shot at. The rules of engagement apply, as the article states. Within the confines of the ROE, it's a good shoot.

[john5746]

I gather from the responses here that most feel that the sniper did what snipers do and was not guilty of any particularly heinous act.

 

Yep, sniper did what snipers do. Now, what if the buddy of the sniper victim ties some TNT to himself and runs into the sniper and 10 of his buddies? Good kill?

[Sisyphus]

Yep, sniper did what snipers do. Now, what if the buddy of the sniper victim ties some TNT to himself and runs into the sniper and 10 of his buddies? Good kill?

 

10 good kills, actually.

[entwined]

Yep, sniper did what snipers do. Now, what if the buddy of the sniper victim ties some TNT to himself and runs into the sniper and 10 of his buddies? Good kill?

 

I suppose it would be.

 

Now, suppose the insurgent ties some TNT to himself and blows up a wedding party to make a political statement?

 

Good kill?

[Severian]

I suppose it would be.

 

Now' date=' suppose the insurgent ties some TNT to himself and blows up a wedding party to make a political statement?

 

Good kill?[/quote']

 

That would depend on who you regard as the enemy.

 

Imagine a suicide bomber were to blow up a convention of child molesters. Many people would applaud him for ridding the world of such evil people, and the tactic becomes acceptable. But what if the islamic suicide bombers think that your actions (or actions of people in the west generally) are as evil as the child molesters? Does that make their suicide bombings a legitimate tactic?

[entwined]

That would depend on who you regard as the enemy.

 

Imagine a suicide bomber were to blow up a convention of child molesters. Many people would applaud him for ridding the world of such evil people' date=' and the tactic becomes acceptable. But what if the islamic suicide bombers think that your actions (or actions of people in the west generally) are as evil as the child molesters? Does that make their suicide bombings a legitimate tactic?[/quote']

 

But why would Islamic suicide bombers bomb other islamic people?

 

That is, why if they are rational?

[Sisyphus]

There are two options. Either they feel their victims are evil and deserve to be killed, or they hope to move towards some larger goal by bombing them. It seems like it's usually the former, if the rhetoric used to recruit suicide bombers is any indication. It's all about killing the enemies of God.

[JustStuit]

Most of the suicide bombers do it for their religion and are "promised" whatever form of afterlife they have.

[Pangloss]

I think you're arguing semantics here. "It's not a war, it's a police action" (or similar) doesn't change the fact that you get shot at. The rules of engagement apply, as the article states. Within the confines of the ROE, it's a good shoot.

 

You're mistaken. From an earlier post from me in this thread:

 

(There's plenty of legal basis for this use of force, IMO. I'm just not agreeing with this particular choice.)

 

So clearly I'm not saying it wasn't justified, I'm asking whether "we're at war" is a valid justification in this case. I don't believe that question has been answered in this thread, and your quote above doesn't address it at all.

 

Justifications were posted in this thread on the basis of "we're at war", so my point is valid. (But I thought entwined's response about constitutional declarations of war was an interesting counterpoint.)

[swansont]

You're mistaken. From an earlier post from me in this thread:

 

 

 

So clearly I'm not saying it wasn't justified' date=' I'm asking whether "we're at war" is a valid justification in this case. I don't believe that question has been answered in this thread, and your quote above doesn't address it at all.

 

Justifications were posted [i']in this thread[/i] on the basis of "we're at war", so my point is valid. (But I thought entwined's response about constitutional declarations of war was an interesting counterpoint.)

 

 

Which is similar to my point. You are/were interpreting war to mean only a war declared by congress, instead of a more generic interpretation of war being some kind of conflict. It has all of the elements and rules of war except for the constitutional element that makes it official.