End of ?
End of …what ?
The topic ?
No man ,there are plenty of crimes to be discussed yet.
Targets of opportuniy or - the Good Samaritan?
Arguably, in the West our cultural base is a Christian one. Much of our cultural behaviour and values (norms, mores, customs and beliefs) are rooted in the Christian faith. The bible itself, spells out certain codes (the Ten Commandments etc.) which enable man to live together in society without such a society being reduced to anarchy (of course, some come from cricket). From this base, or these roots, we have evolved into the societies and nations which we have today. Even those of us whom may not have any particular religious beliefs, remain affected by religious values which are deeply ingrained in our psyche.
When we speak of the Geneva Convention, we are speaking of a set of rules which have been agreed upon as bases for civilised behaviour in a primitive environment.
So, does it always fit, and where there are no guidelines to follow in a particular circumstance, do we ignore our cultural heritage (which, presumably, we are fighting for) and resort to primeval behaviour?
An example: It has been reported that during the battle of Mount Tumbledown (Falkland islands, 1982), that an Argentine sniper shot members of the 3rd Battalion, Parachute Regiment who were expediting a night assault against the Argentine positions. The effect of this was, apparently, that when comrades went to the aid of their wounded colleague, they too fell, victim to the sniper. The sniper capitalised on the screams of the wounded men, which served to lure more targets into his kill zone. Eventually, the Para’s had no choice but to ignore the screaming, and cries for assistance from their fallen comrades.
Another example: At Darwin Ridge, on the approach to Goose Green, elements of 2nd BN Parachute Regiment were delayed in their advance by strong Argentine defences along the ridge. As the Para’s assaulted these positions they were driven back. Most of their wounds/fatalities were headshots which implied the presence of a sniper (although the convex nature of the ground they were attempting to cross, and that the Argentine soldiers were shooting downhill, could have had an effect).
At one point, Corporal Abols and another NCO went forward to recover the body of a fallen comrade. Crawling, they dragged his body back to cover, but as they reached within a few yards of sanctuary, the burning gauze prevented them from dragging him and they had to stand to lift and carry him through the fire. As they did so, the sniper shot and killed Abols friend, and he was left with the task of recovering both bodies.
Question:
-
Is this merely a target-rich environment, or was the sniper behaving in a way which one might consider unethical ( in the sense of unwritten rules of behaviour)?
-
should the sniper have shown more compassion as with the Good-Samaritan?
-
Would the Para’s, in both situations, have been justified in venting their anger on the snipers, if they had gotten their hands on them?
-
What would you have done if you were (a) the sniper, or (b) the Para’s that eventually got their hands on the sniper?
The essential functions of a soldier are to deceive, harass, weaken, wound, and kill the enemy to take his ground until the war is won.
There’s nothing ethical about any of it, the often silly laws of war nothwithstanding. It’s just the way it is.
Snipers are just one way of performing a soldier’s function.
A very good way for a sniper to perform his function is to wound one man and then randomly kill and wound those who come to his rescue.
Depending on resources and the nature of the wound, it takes two to four men to carry one man with a moderate to serious wound. A sniper who can wound ten men can take fifty men out of the enemy’s force. Not bad for one man facing a company of 120 or so, if they‘re silly enough to keep sending men out to the slaughter. Not to mention suppressing action by the company while all this is going on.
A. Of course the Argentinian sniper(s) should have done it. That’s what they were there for.
[2) should the sniper have shown more compassion as with the Good-Samaritan?
The Jewish man the Good Samaritan rescued had been mugged and left by the roadside to die. Others passed him by for reasons we would now call racial or religious discrimination. The Good Samaritan ignored the discrimination between Samaritans and Jews to help the mugging victim.
The sniper’s parallel is not with the Good Samaritan but with the mugger.
Muggers don’t show compassion.
The best parallel with the Good Samaritan in war is the non-combatant medical corps.
A. The sniper should not have shown more compassion as with the Good Samaritan. The sniper was a mugger.
- Would the Para’s, in both situations, have been justified in venting their anger on the snipers, if they had gotten their hands on them?
It depends.
Get a shot before the sniper surrenders? Definitely shoot to kill. If you only wound him, then you shoot at his mates when they come to get him.
After surrender, no.
At the point of surrender. Well. It depends on a lot of things.
There’s big difference between justified and understandable.
A. It depends on the circumstances.
(4) What would you have done if you were
(a) the sniper
A. Exactly what he did.
(b) the Para’s that eventually got their hands on the sniper
It depends.
The question suggests it’s after the action. In that case, I hope I wouldn’t do anything to him.
If it’s in action, as in coming upon his position in some fashion, I’d try to kill him.
A. I don’t know.
I know there’s a lot of moral and logical inconsistencies in my answers.
That’s the nature of war.
It’s a stupid and irrational exercise that rational and ethical adults should have abandoned long ago.
Mate, haven’t you heard of the Iron Maiden?
I think you could make her a very happy lady. 
The reason for me choosing the Samaritian was to demonstrate opposing sides. The Samaritan being the last person one would expect to show compassion.
I think that’s been lost nowadays.
The Good Samaritan is now a standard metaphor for the person who merely helps someone out, or who has a kind heart, without the biblical background which made his actions so much more. Who is my neighbour?
It’s like ‘Kafkaesque’. A lot of people understand that Kafka wrote about a sort of endlessly deteriorating Catch 22 situation in The Trial, but hardly anyone has read it. It’s a lot deeper than that.
Yes, abolutely. It’s the deeper aspect of the situation, the human perspective, if you will, as to how we are affected by these experiences, that I was hoping to explore. Hence my somewhat lengthy pre-amble beofre posing the questions.
Recently, there was the incident in, or near to, Baghdad, when a group of US Marines took-out an Iraqui family, supposedely, in retributioin for their comrades being killed. We can talk about a break-down of discipline etc. but the natural impulses are there.
Now, in the Falklands scenario (above), some would say ‘Big boys games!..Big boys rules!’ As you say, RS, it would depend on the circumstances of the sniper being taken as to how he is treated, or, rather, it should depend on the circumstances. However, retribution/revenge can be more of an impulse in the scenario describing Mount Tumbledown. Particularly, if the Para’s whose friends have been screaming for help have not been submitted to the horrors and fear of combat before. It’s natural to want to kick the shit out of someone who has scared the shit out of oneself, even without the horror of what has been happening to one’s friends.
So, I was hoping to examine the reality of such situations, rather than to discuss the rules of behaviour or the ideals. How our standards of behaviour stand up to the test, or how they break down when tried and tested. Do we, or even should we, abandon compassion and our own humanity? I would say that no two cases are ever alike, and without being present, one cannot truly judge what others might do, or have done, in the heat of the moment when their blood is up. I would think that it is, perhaps, the dispassionate and detached personality that is capable of the greater crimes.
The Argentine snipers did seem to be ruthlessly efficient.
One from the Marines fired upon a helicoptor who was acting as a casevac helicoptor, in broad daylight. Admitteldy the heli wasn’t marked up, however, I feel pretty sure that he would have seen teh heli for what it was.
As for the answer.
If I was the sniper what would I do? Certainly not engage targets who I could see were retreiving wounded, the wounded might be my guys.
Likewise though I would hope to be grimly accurate for all other shots.
If a sniper had been causing this kind of ruckus, and you got hold of him, he was going to be hurting by the end of the day. That is the price they pay, and I feel pretty sure that no real sniper is under any delusions of the treatment likely to be handed out if caught.
It would be reasonable to presume, then, that you think it fundamentally wrong to fire on troops retreiving their wounded, within reasonable bounds e.g. their action does not endanger or compromise your own troops in any way?
The reason for my asking, is that under normal circumstances it is only considered a criminal act if the medics and their equipment are clearly marked and used for no other reason (I could be wrong on that point?). Therefore, for instances outside of the codified guidelines, we rely on our sense of what is right, or what is wrong - a chivalric code if you will?
It is illegal to fire upon identified medics etc.
Although there is no rule to say that you can not fire at a soldier retrieving a fallen soldier or giving first aid, I feel it is slightly distasteful to do such a thing.
Many times a battle has stopped or an armistice declared in order to complete the recovery of wounded or dead. There would be no requirement for a sniper to engage enemy personnel carrying out such activities.
Shooting targets of some merit, such as officers, is by far a better use of ammo. Of which a sniper carries little.
Were the Argentine snipers true snipers in the sense of the word, or merely sharpshooters? Or even just gifted riflemen.
If, indeed, these men were American mercenaries, do they conform to the rules, or are they operating outside the rules, in that they are not fighting for their nation’s cause etc. thus, the rules do, or do not, apply to them?
Another question: Does anyone know how many Argentine soldiers, serving in the Falklands, have been reported, and remain, MIA?
American mercenaries ? That is a new one.
No its been around a while but only in poorly cited sources. General consensus is that is bollocks.
I dont disagree with the general consessus, the snipers were argentines.
I think its bollocks. There were no US mercenaries there.
Where did you find that quote 32B?
The mercenaries story, I think, came about because there were a few Argies who spoke English with American accents, and some undoubtedlly descended from countries other than Argentina.
Apologies, I had intended bringing forward my own post, but somehow it was confused with yours. 
Perhaps the tendency to mis-quote, in the popular press is having an efect on me.
I disagree also, but posting a few pictures of Argentine soldiers proves nothing, nor does it disprove anything.
The sniper in the picture is a British Para, armed with an L42 sniper rifle.
Whether or not the Argentine rifleman with a night-sight attached to his rifle is a sniper, in the British context of the term, is debatable.
It’s not a new one, but it is stuff and nonesense, or to put it more plainly - bollocks.
It comes from the book ‘Excursion to Hell’, as do most of the serious accusations of British warcrimes, including those of executions. It’s a pity that the author had to slur the good name of his comrades by sensationalism, in order to boost sales of his book. As with most conspiracy theories, they tend not to go away. One ought not be selective about such stories, if one accepts the warcrimes, why not the rest?
If there were Argentine soldiers, speaking English with American accents, then I would suggest they learned their English from an American, not least from television.
On 12 June 1982, 3d Battalion, the Parachute Regiment, British Army, attacked Mt. Longdon, Falklands. Difficult terrain coupled with a well entrenched enemy made movement slow and dangerous. The snipers of the Argentine 7th Infantry Regiment kept the British busy with accurate fire during the day and (with the aid of U.S. made night vision devices) at night. At one point during the attack, an entire British company was held up for hours by a single Argentine sniper. “Men found themselves being hit more than once by the same sniper, a terrifying tribute to the accuracy of the Argentinean’s fire.”
Shooting wounded? Hardly sporting.
Iam trying to find a reference, but from what I have read. Snipers as the British would know them only existed in the Argentine SF and to less skilled degree in the Marines.
Within the Line Infantry they were skilled marksmen, equipped with rifles and sights, and night sights, but not particularly differently trained to most Infantrymen. They did have a pretty fearsome marksmanship test however.