If he were a master US sniper who's taken out 50+ terrorists, I've no doubt quite a few people on this board would be cheering him on. Unfortunately, as it is often the case in war, we forget that this is the kind of people who we typically glorify in our culture. Go to any Hollywood film and it's the action hero who's worshipped and cheered on. In the military, it's the guy who single-handedly takes out a squad that becomes a legend. And this guy here, Iraqi though he maybe and fake though he may turn out, is the beginning of a legend. In the ancient days, when war was frequent, the greatest heroes sung by the bards were war heroes, and they are consequently the most despised by their enemies. We are not so different today.

It's quite obvious from the article that even the US soldiers have enormous respect for this individual's skills. Since he does not target civilians, he isn't really a terrorist either but only a dangerous enemy to the US military who must be taken care of.

Which goes hand in hand with the historical cases of such figures emerging - the soldiers of his enemies respect him as a formidable, at times even heroic, opponent, but the civilians only look to him as a murderer. In this case, I'd say that the truth lies with the soldiers, because if you're going to say that this guy's nothing but a murderer who shouldn't sleep well at night, then you'd have to claim the same for every single US soldier in Iraq, as well.

Edited January 14, 200620 yr by Azarkon

Unfortunately, as it is often the case in war, we forget that this is the kind of people who we typically glorify in our culture...(snip)... In the ancient days, when war was frequent, the greatest heroes sung by the bards were war heroes, and they are consequently the most despised by their enemies.  We are not so different today.

 

That was almost profound. Plus I pretty much agree with it.

It's quite obvious from the article that even the US soldiers have enormous respect for this individual's skills. Since he does not target civilians, he isn't really a terrorist either but only a dangerous enemy to the US military who must be taken care of.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ha...ha? Did you really just write that?

 

As stated previously, this is ancient history.

It's quite obvious from the article that even the US soldiers have enormous respect for this individual's skills. Since he does not target civilians, he isn't really a terrorist either but only a dangerous enemy to the US military who must be taken care of.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ha...ha? Did you really just write that?

 

As stated previously, this is ancient history.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This thread seems to suggest that he's still very much at large. Any news links suggesting otherwise?

It's quite obvious from the article that even the US soldiers have enormous respect for this individual's skills. Since he does not target civilians, he isn't really a terrorist either but only a dangerous enemy to the US military who must be taken care of.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ha...ha? Did you really just write that?

 

As stated previously, this is ancient history.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

So what because it's an old story - to some fresh new - we can't discuss it because to you it's acient history?

Now all of the interesting content has been cut out, this thread has lost steam.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

yup

This thread seems to suggest that he's still very much at large. Any news links suggesting otherwise?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I heard a team got what was suspected to be him a couple of months ago. Believe it or not, snipers are pretty common over there. Ours are better.

It's quite obvious from the article that even the US soldiers have enormous respect for this individual's skills. Since he does not target civilians, he isn't really a terrorist either but only a dangerous enemy to the US military who must be taken care of.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ha...ha? Did you really just write that?

 

As stated previously, this is ancient history.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

So what because it's an old story - to some fresh new - we can't discuss it because to you it's acient history?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Commie just likes to dwell on the whole "I've been there" attitude and wants the rest of ya to stfu.

I thought it was more to do with the fact that the story to which Hilde linked was dated August of last year.

The sniper videos I saw the other day, which were quite disturbing, wasn't dated august last year I think.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jubasniper

 

Rumours about his capture: 2 June 2005.

Date of video released: November 2005.

That sounds a lot like the video we saw where the soldier got back up on his feet, don't it?

You know why I think Juba isn't Iraqi.....when you closely watch the video you'll notice the footage isn't and couldn't have been taken by another person standing next to the sniper, it was taken by the sniper himself while shooting, how?

 

It is well known that an Israel defense company called Rafael produces things like this:

 

 

Now that's a semi-automatic assault rifle not a sniper, so one would say Juba couldn't have used that. But if you look at the video, experts say Juba does his shooting from a distance no more larger then 200 metres and with a sophisticated rifle like that a trained individual can do it without a problem. The thing is there is no autopsy report published so we can learn what type of ammo or rifle he uses. If he used the Dragunov sniper rifle why risk coming so close to his targets when he can take a perfect shot from 600 metres away with the Dragunov when he's so good, or is it because he uses an assault rifle with 4X zoom and wants to come closer so he can shoot a better video for propaganda and other purposes?

 

Anyways if Juba uses that rifle he's no ordinary insurgent - he's no Iraqi, my view Juba in Baghdad is either a merc or some combat junkie dog of war.

Meh, merc and combat junkie dog of war is the same thing... Well except that a merc wants cash too. I bet there's plenty of benefactors out there who would pay well for killing US troops.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jubasniper

 

Rumours about his capture: 2 June 2005.

Date of video released: November 2005.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

It doesn't say where was the supposed capture taken place, Baghdad or elsewhere? Juba isn't that careless that he who would come close to 75 -100 metres, he takes his shots always from a distance of 175-200 metres. From the Jaisha brigades sniper videos you can see and hear there is always two of them, they use the Dragunov sniper rifle and they have a tendency of coming far too close to their targets so it is my guess it was one of theirs who got captured, Juba works alone when he shoots.

Commie just likes to dwell on the whole "I've been there" attitude and wants the rest of ya to stfu.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, that's certainly not the impression I intend to make, but if that's the general perception, I can certainly refrain from contributing to Hildy's weekly forumfest and let the disinformation spread without pause.

Commie just likes to dwell on the whole "I've been there" attitude and wants the rest of ya to stfu.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, that's certainly not the impression I intend to make, but if that's the general perception, I can certainly refrain from contributing to Hildy's weekly forumfest and let the disinformation spread without pause.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Nono that's just how it seems to me, feel free to contribute to Hildy's weekly forumfest, I was merely taking a jab at you since I don't care for your attitude of late.

But hey, that's just how I feel.

Nono that's just how it seems to me, feel free to contribute to Hildy's weekly forumfest, I was merely taking a jab at you since I don't care for your attitude of late.

But hey, that's just how I feel. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What's my attitude of late been?

 

One of the points I haven't yet made, since it seems so obvious, is that the article itself is fairly ludicrous - it's also the only link Wikipedia has dealing specifically with this guy. It eschews common sense, suggesting that the threat of being shot by a lone gunman once or twice a month far outweighs the morale hits that accompany multiple casualty IED or VIED attacks three or four times a week.

To me you seem a little more right wing when it comes to US military in the middle east now, than you did earlier... Oh and the whole 'Euros are sissies for not being aggressive enough' thing.

 

You are, of course, allowed to believe and say whatever the hell you want, it's merely an observation.

 

Perhaps I'm reading too much into it.

Edited January 14, 200620 yr by Lucius

[What's my attitude of late been?

 

One of the points I haven't yet made, since it seems so obvious, is that the article itself is fairly ludicrous - it's also the only link Wikipedia has dealing specifically with this guy.  It eschews common sense, suggesting that the threat of being shot by a lone gunman once or twice a month far outweighs the morale hits that accompany multiple casualty IED or VIED attacks three or four times a week.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It is a guardian article after all.

To me you seem a little more right wing when it comes to US military in the middle east now, than you did earlier... Oh and the whole 'Euros are sissies for not being aggressive enough' thing.

 

You are, of course, allowed to believe and say whatever the hell you want, it's merely an observation.

 

Perhaps I'm reading too much into it. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

My position on the whole Iraq thing is that we did the right thing for wrong reasons, the wrong way, meaning that I feel regime change in such a state isn't necessarily a bad thing, but we could've - and should've - tried longer and harder to get the big players in Europe on board with us, and explored other options before utilizing warfare.

 

I do tend to defend the US military, primarily because I realize that its policies are set at the top, not the bottom. In other words, the guy dropping the JDAM, or the Marines going into Fallujah, aren't the ones making those decisions, at the heart of it. I'm not a Bush fan; if you disagree with what's being done, target the right people.

 

As far as my attitude towards Europe, I do think segments of the continent can be too reluctant to use force at times. I just think free, democratic nations have an obligation to step in and try to do something when things go wrong, and many European nations seem to have cultivated an isolationist stance on foreign involvement, which I don't approve of. Most of my comments in that regard have been dealing with Iran, which I simply don't see being resolved without some form of armed engagement, and I know precisely whose shoulders that's going to fall on.

 

But hey, I voted for Kerry, I still think Bush is a nutjob. I'm socially liberal, and on foreign affairs I'd say I'm a centrist. I think the bottom line is that, if it were a Democratic president saying that we need to go into Iraq to end a cruel and tyrannical regime, rather than a Republican saying we need to go in to defend ourselves, you'd see the exact same demographics within the US as now, just with the colors switched. Doesn't mean I'll forgive the administration for its blunders, many of which have led to unnecessary deaths, nor that I'll stop defending the ladies and gentlemen called on to execute a damn tough gameplan.

Thanks for taking your time to clear that up for me.

Thread to be pruned shortly.