It’s sad that comments here so frivilously disregard the Rules of Engagement and associated military codes. Shooting unarmed, non-threatening civilians is dishonorable from a moral and military perspective.
To support men like this is a slap in the face to the men and women who are serving honorably and to the high standards of the United States armed services in Iraq and Afghanistan, despite the incredible pressure and danger upon them.
Shame on you, comment section.
But, at the rate things are going, who knows.
There were reports, after the Abu Grahib scandal, that guards’ ammo was changed from real to rubber bullets.
[Imagine guarding the worst of the worst terrorists and being only armed with rubber bullets. Our military guards were.]
YOU obviously don't know the case.
You tell us.....what are the ROEs for SNIPERS in Iraq?
You tell us.....what are Sgt Hensley's comments on these episodes?
You tell us....was one of the shootings against a man who had just been witnessed running from an attack on Americans?
You tell us....were these men taught to "bait" targets?
“To support men like this is a slap in the face to the men and women who are serving honorably and to the high standards of the United States armed services in Iraq and Afghanistan, despite the incredible pressure and danger upon them.”
These men are ordered to go out and agressively target the enemy. The enemy does not wear a uniform, it hides behind children and women. It even will wear womens clothes in a culture that makes that practice extremely degrading. This enemy will turn children into suicide bombers; it has killed dozens of kids to kill 1 or 2 Americans.
The dead guy was a known enemy. The soldier may have placed the demo cord there but if he did it does not change that it was a righteous shoot. How is it shameful to kill your enemy?
The shame is on people like you who do not give our troops the benefit of the doubt, who pronounce them guilty even when military courts do not.
Who in this case was found guilty of "shooting unarmed, non-threatening civilians"?
No one.
So why did you assert something that wasn't true?
Please do us all a favor and read up on the information discussed before chiming in with your indignant outrage. Otherwise you just sound plain silly.
Shooting unarmed, non-threatening civilians is dishonorable from a moral and military perspective.
... Shame on you, comment section.
Nice leap there dude ... glad people like you aren't in charge in the war zone.
Oh, wait, that's the problem, isn't it.
It is clear you have shown your ignorance of this event or are a moonbat troll. Before making statements like those in your post learn more of the event and you may not sound so silly.
Perhaps you should do a little more research on the case. One of the “civilians” was a terrorist who was running from and attack on Americans and picked up a rusty sickle to appear to be a farmer. He was watched by drones.
One little problem with such high morals is that the other side does not share them. They *never* wear uniforms, so *always* are indistinguishable from civilians. In fact they hide among civilians, using them as human shields. They usually don't even shoot at our troops when the troops can see them, instead they plant roadside bombs and detonate them from "civilian" houses and shops, all the while having no visible weapons and appearing quite "non-threatening".
So just how do you propose to deal with such enemy tactics. Let 'em kill your buddies before you can go after them, and then only if you catch 'em in the act?
This particular case is just crazy, if Sgt. Sandoval was not guilty of murder in the shooting, does that not imply that the shooting was justified under the ROE? Which in turn implies that the targets were insurgents, or acting sufficiently like them in a war zone to justify shooting them. So the Sandoval is guilty not of a cover up of murder, since he was justified in shooting them, but of trying to avoid the very thing which indeed happened, being accused of killing them without justification. The real justification not being something obvious to an after the fact investigation.