# al-jaishul-islami-baghdad-sniper



## George Wallace (1 Dec 2005)

An Interesting Thread in another site...TankNet....on Terrorist Snipers in Iraq.  
http://63.99.108.76/forums/index.php?showtopic=13557

Video link is about 15 min long.

http://ia300831.eu.archive.org/3/items/al-jaishul-islami-baghdad-sniper/al-jaishul-islami-baghdad-sniper-24mb.wmv


----------



## Infanteer (1 Dec 2005)

"Juba" is the name of a sniper(s?) that have gained noteriety in fighting American soldiers in Baghdad.  There is a few discussions about him over at Lightfighter:

http://lightfighter.net/groupee/forums/a/tpc/f/5131022531/m/7521096971/r/7791057971#7791057971

http://lightfighter.net/groupee/forums/a/tpc/f/5131022531/m/7771019651/r/7771019651#7771019651

It's always shitty to see your fellow soldiers getting tagged - Hadji music in the background is annoying too.

What I like is when you see an M1 Abrams lighting these guys up with a cannon round....


----------



## kincanucks (1 Dec 2005)

My problem is the continnous perpetuation of this crap.  Perhaps if it was ignored?


----------



## Infanteer (1 Dec 2005)

I think it is valuable to give us an insight into what the enemy is thinking, talking about and doing.  The translated dialogue at MEMRI are particularly valuable.  Some of the videos on attacks give us insight into enemy TTPs - for example, in many of these sniper clips, it is obvious that the guy is in a van or a car; every bit of intel helps.


----------



## 48Highlander (1 Dec 2005)

seems like he's not much of a sniper anyway, the majority of the shots in the video don't seem to be fatal.


----------



## CBH99 (1 Dec 2005)

They don't need to be fatal.  Actually, it might serve his immediate purpose more if he wounded many soldiers, than killed a few.

By wounding one soldier, it'll take two or three other soldiers to immediately tend to the wound, load him up for transport, etc, etc.  By fatally shooting a soldier, no other soldiers are required to tend to the wounds -- therefore, wounding a few soldiers might do more short-term damage to an operation.

I'm sure if he has plenty of time to line up his shot, and he is probably pretty acquainted with a rifle by now....he could make some fatal shots if he wanted to.


----------



## Infanteer (1 Dec 2005)

CBH99 said:
			
		

> By wounding one soldier, it'll take two or three other soldiers to immediately tend to the wound, load him up for transport, etc, etc.   By fatally shooting a soldier, no other soldiers are required to tend to the wounds -- therefore, wounding a few soldiers might do more short-term damage to an operation.



I always hear this stupid statement - if you got a guy laying dead at your checkpoint, you're going to be attending to him; if anything to move the casualty away from where you are.  Casualties get tended to regardless of their status. the proof is in that video where 9 times out of 10 you see the guys squadmates rush to him.


----------



## 48Highlander (1 Dec 2005)

CBH99 said:
			
		

> They don't need to be fatal.  Actually, it might serve his immediate purpose more if he wounded many soldiers, than killed a few.
> 
> By wounding one soldier, it'll take two or three other soldiers to immediately tend to the wound, load him up for transport, etc, etc.  By fatally shooting a soldier, no other soldiers are required to tend to the wounds -- therefore, wounding a few soldiers might do more short-term damage to an operation.



I don't want to echo Infanteer exactly, so I'll try a bit of a different approach 

This logic may apply in an actual combat scenario, where you're fighting a massive battle.  In those circumstances, the need to evacuate casualties would slow your advance and take more people out of the fight.

However, these clips weren't taken during any battles.  These show US personnel on patrol or gaurding checkpoints, etc.  The sniper here takes a shot, and then leaves.  He doesn't stick around to fight a prolonged battle, so to him it doesn't matter whether anyone's tending to the individual he just shot.  He doesn't gain any sort of tactical advantage.  Therefore it's deffinitely in his best interest to shoot to kill.


----------



## Infanteer (1 Dec 2005)

48Highlander said:
			
		

> This logic may apply in an actual combat scenario, where you're fighting a massive battle.   In those circumstances, the need to evacuate casualties would slow your advance and take more people out of the fight.



Sure, on a conventional Advance to Contact, you wouldn't want to be stopping, but even KIA's are going to tie guys up.   It won't be the guys up front getting tied up, but others, probably under the 2ic, will be responsible for policing up dead soldiers and getting the proper admin done with them.   I remember watching an episode of "Battle Stripes" (British Platoon 2ic Course) and the guy in the breach was getting jacked for not having positive casualty control - it was hampering the morale of his soldiers and slowing down the fight - he failed that attack and the course.

In a SASO type situation, this scenario doesn't even come into play, so that bad "urban myth" is even worse.   I just can't stand that silly story - it makes it appear that if your got a KIA, you just ignore him and leave him for the crows.


----------



## kincanucks (1 Dec 2005)

_Well it is a war, these guys are killing US soldiers.   It is a dirty ugly thing,_

Really? I didn't realize that. ;D

My only objection to having these videos posted on forums such as this one is that I think we are, albeit in a small way, somehow promoting the exploits of the fucked-up people behind them.

While I don't like seeing American or Coalition soldiers being killed, seeing a _bunch of terrorists get waxed by a 20 mm cannon or a 50 cal sniper rifle_ doesn't bother me one bit.   Cheers.


----------



## Jungle (1 Dec 2005)

kincanucks said:
			
		

> While I don't like seeing American or Coalition soldiers being killed, seeing a _bunch of terrorists get waxed by a 20 mm cannon or a 50 cal sniper rifle_ doesn't bother me one bit.   Cheers.


Same here...


----------



## Infanteer (1 Dec 2005)

+1.

Have a fun trip to paradise, hadji....


----------



## qjdb (22 Dec 2005)

Dang, that's freaky.  Standing there talking with your buddy, and all of a sudden, down he goes.

I bet those guys who were able to run away, were thanking their lucky stars that they got hit on the armour, or whatever.  That, and changing their shorts as soon as they got back in their vehicle.

I realize that is Iraq, but are our guys in Afghanistan facing the same kind of stuff?  I know the conflict is not quite as intense, but are there snipers there, too.

And what does the Arabic script say, anyone?  I am guessing mostly just 'Death to Americans' kind of stuff, but does it also list dates or something?

Yeah, I always appreciated the hellish job that you front-line guys did, and this just upped it SEVERAL notches.


----------



## Jungle (22 Dec 2005)

qjdb said:
			
		

> I realize that is Iraq, but are our guys in *Afghanistan* facing the same kind of stuff?   *I know the conflict is not quite as intense*, but are there snipers there, too.


Earlier this year there were, proportionately, more coalition casualties in Afghanistan then in Iraq. The conflict there is just not as mediatized... (is that even a word ??  )


----------

