.50 Caliber Marine Sniper Kills in Afghanistan - Graphic

I`ve seen the video clip of the apache shooting up the iraqi`s as well - and 1 is clearly waving his arms in surrender - total breach of geneva conventions.

Originally posted by Harlequin
I`ve seen the video clip of the apache shooting up the iraqi`s as well - and 1 is clearly waving his arms in surrender - total breach of geneva conventions.

u sure he was waving his arm in surrender instead of giving the finger?, maybe u should look at the video just to make sure he was even waving.

Nobody is waving! Those TERRORISTS are trying to stash RPGs and weapons in that field, apparently setting up for an ambush. In my estimation, they got EXACTLY what they deserved... a shredding by an Appache's 30mm! This is WAR! There is no need to be nice or compassionate toward our enemies. That is our weakness, our achilles heel. They will stop at nothing to kill us or innocent civilians who do not agree with them. Although our soldiers are prepared to die for our cause, I'd prefer that they make the other side die for theirs!

Well, I don't think calling time out (surrender) in a war zone always works too well. Rules are nice and all when sitting around talking about them but when you're in a life and death struggle, they get forgotten pretty quickly if a guy wants to live. Now I'm not saying that commiting attrocities is acceptable but when a person picks up a gun, it's kill or be killed. -nice shooting on the vid btw

Originally posted by kozmo
Nobody is waving! Those TERRORISTS are trying to stash RPGs and weapons in that field, apparently setting up for an ambush. In my estimation, they got EXACTLY what they deserved... a shredding by an Appache's 30mm! This is WAR! There is no need to be nice or compassionate toward our enemies. That is our weakness, our achilles heel. They will stop at nothing to kill us or innocent civilians who do not agree with them. Although our soldiers are prepared to die for our cause, I'd prefer that they make the other side die for theirs!

It was an *in action* video - and they were SOLDIERS not terrorists

Have a read around the Geneva conventions - you`ll find them quite interesting (and open to interpretation as well)

but , you can`t go round `finishing off` a clearly wounded SOLDIER who cannot fight anymore.

Terrorists on the other hand , don`t go by the rules of war/

Originally posted by Harlequin
but , you can`t go round `finishing off` a clearly wounded SOLDIER who cannot fight anymore.

u can never be sure if they are "finished" they probably have suicide vests on, or if the Americans get close they can pull the pin of the grenade and throw it at them, i remember the Marines lost a couple after they thought one was dead.

I do believe its against the geneva convention to shoot at single soldiers with the M2, how ever massed or groups of soldiers are different, apparently, read it somewhere in "long Reach" by Mike Lunnon Wood.

Thanks, Sol. Not that it makes much sense, but then, a lot of the rules of war make no sense.

Originally posted by Majic
The Letter Of What Law?

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
Yes that round is quite awesome, but I thought it was against the Geneva Convention to shoot the enemy with a .50 cal.

[...]
If anyone can provide a citation to the actual clause(s) in the Conventions prohibiting use of .50 cal on soldiers, I would be interested in checking it out.

Well now it was made clear that this vid is an ordinary hunting trip, its time to find the truth on the "Geneva" claim. The Geneva Conventions say virtually NOTHING about specific calibers being prohibited. It is against the "Laws of War" as described in the DEN HAAG (The hague) conventions:

Besides the prohibitions provided by special Conventions, it is especially prohibited:--

[...]

To employ arms, projectiles, or material of a nature to cause superfluous injury;

Source

I dont know if there are mor articles adressing this, but this is what I found on a quick glance. Read the first articles too, they make some good points against Guantanamo Bay. Then again, someone told me the USA does not recognize the Den Haag Laws of War, I dont know whether thats true or not.

[edit on 13/7/2005 by Lonestar24]

Well, I don't think that the US would be using .50 BMGs as sniper weapons if they violated the Geneva Conventions. When you stop and think about it, we use 40mm cannons that fire high explosive rounds against personnel, artillery against personnel, bombs against personnel. The .50 BMG really pales in comparison to any of these.

Originally posted by Harlequin
I`ve seen the video clip of the apache shooting up the iraqi`s as well - and 1 is clearly waving his arms in surrender - total breach of geneva conventions.

Nobody is waiving to surrender in that video! Those scumbags got exactly what they deserved.

I bet if they were the ones in the Apache and our guys were waiving their arms to surrender it wouldnt stop them

Another thing about that Apache clip (ill post it later) that most of you ARE NOT aware of is there are a few minutes cut out of it leading up to that segment.

The Pilot discuss at length who those guys were and the GROUND intelligence that directed them there.

So, it matters not what you THINK you saw in that 30 second snippet taken from the FULL video, the bottom line is these guys were terrorists and those were weapons they were hiding.

Ill post the full clip as soon as I can find it. The partial clip you guys see, is cut from Fahrenheit 9/11 by Micheal Moore, of course he isnt going to show the parts that show the justification.

I hate people who try to say that "the US violates the Geneva Convention" Damnit the US tries as hard as it can to fight a "conventional war" the us could act like the terrorists- pretending to surrender, use hostages, kill civilians, But you know what???? THE US ACTUALLY DOES FOLLOW THE GENEVA CONVENTION AND NO THE IRAQIS IN THAT FILM WERE NOT WAVING THEIR ARMS IN SURRENDER AND EVEN IF THEY DID I WOULD BLOW THEM TO DAMN HELL! They are slime of the earth and dont deserve to even share the same atmosphere that i breath- shooting them is too good for them bc it ends their misery instantly.

.50 Caliber rifles/MG's are permitted to use against enemy personnel.
Marine Corps Training and Education Command PPT

It takes a minute to load...it's faster to "save as" than tio view on the web.
Look a few slides down...not definitive proof, but the best so far.

I havent had the GC class since OEF kicked off...but I remember some duschebag asking that question to the instructor...anyways, the instructor pretty much said that it's not recommended, only if we have too. Then someother Knuckle dragger ask if it was against the GC and the guy said "NO" it is not.

Anyways....the farther the better, IMO. Why get up close with small arms when you can do the job from a distance....and 50cals are sometimes the only weapon you may have accessible. Example, many LVS's, HUMV's and other vehicle are outfitted with 50cals so they can stand a chance at stopping other tanks and vehicles. It's not just for material...what are you gonna do when enemy personnel shoot at you, hold your head out the window or crew door and shoot back with your M4 or M16...hell no, your gonna shoot with the 50 cal or whatever is on top...

We had a .50 BMGs on our perimeters in Vietnam and Carlos Hathcock pioneered it's use in Vietnam as a sniper weapon.

Good point Grady
24-year old Marine sharpshooter named Carlos Norman Hathcock II chalked up the farthest recorded kill in the history of sniping - 2,500 yards (1.42 miles) in February 1967 he fired a Browning M2 .50 Cal. Machine Gun
-Wall Street Journal March 24, 1997-

Ah yes....Carlos Hathcock. R.I.P....



[edit on 13/7/2005 by SportyMB]

OK, here's some good proof....

Sniper rifles, .50 caliber machine guns, and shotguns. Much "mythology" exists about the lawfulness of these weapon systems. Bottom line: they are lawful weapons, although rules of engagement (policy and tactics) may limit their use.

Credible source here

Blah. I tend to be pretty right wing and am sure that i have been written off as a hopelessly brainwashed neocon by some of the posters here but I just can't get enthused by seeing another person being killed.

Please don't misconstrue this as me saying they don't deserve it. War is hell, I proudly served in the military.

That being said, a lot of that looks a bit fishy. Oh, and snipers rock. On more than one occasion a good sniper has saved hundreds of lives on both sides of a conflict with a single bullet.

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
Well, I don't think that the US would be using .50 BMGs as sniper weapons if they violated the Geneva Conventions. When you stop and think about it, we use 40mm cannons that fire high explosive rounds

Exactly how or why would a 50 cal sniper rifle be a violation? You guys also realize that the CIA gave away guite a few to the Mujahadeen during the Soviet invasion right?

.50 Caliber Fiction

While I can't prove a negative, to date no one I have challenged to back up the claim that .50 caliber weapons are prohibited for use against soldiers by the Geneva Conventions has been able to do so.

I have been unable to find any reference to such prohibitions in the Conventions, and have been unable to determine where these claims actually originated from.

Therefore, on the basis of reasonable doubt of unsubstantiated claims, it is my position that .50 caliber weapons are not prohibited for use on soldiers by the Geneva Conventions, and that any claim to the contrary is false unless verified by a valid citation.

If anyone can prove this position wrong, please accept my heartfelt invitation to do so.

Hey this may be off topic but does anybody know if it's true that Mr. Rodgers (the kids television star) was formerly a USMC sniper? Hmm... makes you think doesn't it.

Anyhow I've heard about that .50 caliber rule but I've also heard it applies only to automatics. Either way you could always take headsot if you count their headgear (turban, hat, etc.) as equipment.

Originally posted by Majic
I have been unable to find any reference to such prohibitions in the Conventions, and have been unable to determine where these claims actually originated from.

Neither can I. The Geneva Conventions are mainly about the treatment of prisoners of war and civilian non-combatants. I scanned through them and couldn't find anything remotely like this.