babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » archived babble   » the middle east and central asia   » British peace activist shot by IDF

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: British peace activist shot by IDF
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 11 April 2003 01:08 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Unidentified activist near death:

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/283221.html


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 11 April 2003 01:43 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
With each of these stories, I keep hearing that chilling moment in Macbeth (if we can think of emotional numbness as profound, then this is the benumbed state's most profound moment) when Macbeth hears of his wife's death and says, "She should have died tomorrow; there would have been a time for such a death" ... and there follows that most bitter of speeches, "Tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow ..."

How do we keep registering one horror after another?


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
swallow
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2659

posted 11 April 2003 05:11 PM      Profile for swallow     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Can't even think about it. I have a friend over there with the ISM. Every time i see an e-mail from him i feel sick: it can only be bad news. Here's the ISM report written before he died:

quote:
Yebna, Rafah

Israeli soldiers shoot another ISM activist in the head

Between 4:30 and 5:00 PM today Israeli snipers shot another ISM activist
in the head. Tom Hundall from Manchester Britain is currently in critical
condition in a helicopter on his way from Europa Hospital in Khan Younis to
a hospital in Bir Sheva. He is 22 years old.

According to Laura, the activists were being shot at while protecting some
children from Israeli gunfire. Tom was in plain view of the sniper towers
and was wearing a bright orange fluorescent jacket with reflective stripes.
The nine ISM activists and many children were in the process of leaving the
area. Sniper fire from the tower was hitting the wall close beside the
children, who were afraid to move. Tom was attempting to bring them to
safety when he was shot. There was no shooting or resistance coming from
the Palestinian side at all.

According to Laura, the plan had been to put up a tent where a tank parks
itself every night in front of a Mosque. The soldiers in the tank shoot down
the street, terrorizing people who come to pray. The group had discovered
earlier that the tank was already in place and had begun firing into the
air. The Palestinian organizers felt the plan had become unworkeable, and
the action was abandoned.

Laura and two Palestinians decided to go assess the situation. She soon
realized that the tank had moved from where it had been. It was now
possible to set up the tent. She spoke to Tom D by phone and they decided to
meet at the roadblock. The Israeli snipers in the eastern tower began
shooting in Laura‚s path.

When they arrived at the roadblock, the rest of the group was already there.
The snipers began firing again: this time at the wall of the building next
to the activists. As a result, the group began the process of leaving.

Tom saw a little boy in an open space, clearly visible to the tower. Tom
went to get him out of the way. He looked back and saw two more girls whom
he also went to retrieve. As he went to get them, he was shot in the back of
the head. He fell to the ground in a pool of blood. The ambulance arrived
quickly, after about two minutes.

For years the Israeli army has killed Palestinian civilians with impunity.
Now they are targeting unarmed international peace activists and human
rights workers. On March 16, Rachel Corrie was run over and killed by a
bulldozer operator in Rafah while trying to prevent home demolitions. On
April 5, in Jenin, Brian Avery was shot in the face by an APC in an
unprovoked attack on a clearly unarmed group of internationals. Six months
ago in Jenin, Caoimhe Butterly was shot in the leg and UN official Ian Hook
was murdered.

We ask the world community to stand up and demand that Israel honor
international agreements protecting civilians, whether they are
internationals or Palestinians, and hold Israel accountable for these crimes
against humanity. And we demand an end to the illegal and brutal occupation
that these murders defend.

For more information contact:

Allison 067 742 780
Raf 054 389 466
Nick 055 874 693
Alice 067 857 069

Tom
ISM Media Coordinator
Beit Sahour, Occupied Palestine
02-277-4602
067-862-439
052-360-241



From: fast-tracked for excommunication | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 11 April 2003 05:37 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
So much for the Israeli Occupation Force not targetting innocent civilians.

So much for the Israeli Occupation Army not deliberately targetting children.

How can the world allow the decades-long atrocity of the occupation continue?


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 11 April 2003 09:22 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It says the Briton was shot "in the back of the head".

That suggests that Israeli soldiers, just as their American police counterparts, seem to be unwilling to look their targets in the eye.

If they had to, they'd hesitate to harm another human being.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Ice Foot
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2531

posted 15 April 2003 10:20 PM      Profile for Ice Foot     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
My God, the horrors of the IDF never end. Talk about a country that needs to be disarmed...
From: Waterloo | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
bakunin
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3991

posted 16 April 2003 05:40 PM      Profile for bakunin     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post

From: we may not convince you but we'll convince your children | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
david 40
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3900

posted 16 April 2003 08:54 PM      Profile for david 40     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
A couple of points, with apologies in advance for pedantry...

The word "sniper" is promiscuously misused. Someone receiving line infantry rifle fire might well hear rounds going by, or be wounded, or see someone else struck in the volley. Line infantry means well, and tries hard, but expends hundreds, sometimes thousands of rounds per hit, and typically requires several hits per kill. Snipers, on the other hand, are a highly trained specialty, craftsmen that deliver extremely low-volume, high-precision fire. "One shot, one kill" is their motto, and they come pretty close in field conditions. Their ammunition:kill ratio in Vietnam was 1.7-to-1. It has improved markedly since. To the point, if someone was shot at, and survived, it wasn't a sniper doing the shooting.

I don't know how accurate or complete the IDF civilian shooting reports are. I am suspecting, not very. But their credibility would be enhanced by precise, rather than inflamatory and inaccurate language.

To get around to a second point, by way of analogies...Most young women just know to avoid getting drunk alone and passing out in a remote location with a herd of drunken young men. I don't think that they need special instruction as to why the possible consequences make this is a Situation Worth Avoiding. As a boy, I did not need special instruction to avoid smart-mouthing the local "hoods" several years my senior. Again, that "possible consequences" issue. If you are near people armed, alert, and edgy, it is worth making an effort not to draw their hostile attention. Regardless of the worth of your aim, if your means is to provoke an opposition that possesses superior and deadly force, well then, you are just demonstrating evolution in action.

Sorrow to their parents. David


From: Surrey, B.c. | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
verbatim
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 569

posted 16 April 2003 11:30 PM      Profile for verbatim   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
David 40: If you were transported to a war zone, and saw a group of children who were being shot at, what would you do? If you were wearing a flourescent vest, and clearly a member of an unarmed peace contingent, would you expect to be shot? In the back? By professional soldiers who understand their duties to international law?

I don't doubt Mr. Hundall knew he was taking a risk. It is incredibly insulting, however, to characterize him as stupid or "demonstrating evolution in action." In fact, I would argue that his actions demonstrate quite clearly that he was more highly evolved than those who would cravenly endanger children with gunfire. God help the world if the only thing that passes for courage is willingness to become an unthinking proxy for state power (i.e. "good soldiers"). Shooting at unarmed civilians is not the work of a professional soldier -- it's the mark of a person who has traded his humanity for the mind of a reptile.


From: The People's Republic of Cook Street | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
oldgoat
Moderator
Babbler # 1130

posted 17 April 2003 12:33 AM      Profile for oldgoat     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
david 40. Your pedantry is beyond forgiveness, and your smarmy expression of sorrow transparently tastless and shallow.

As far as what lies in between, obviously these brave people know they are taking risks. The analogies that you present are offensive to the memories of those fallen, and to the continuing efforts of those who carry on.

*plonk*


From: The 10th circle | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
david 40
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3900

posted 17 April 2003 07:31 PM      Profile for david 40     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Dear Verbatim:
Thanks for your reply. I should like to respond to some of your points; children/civilians, headshots, and international law.

"...What would I do if children were being shot at?..." The response depends much on the circumstances. If they were "children" only by virtue of being a bit under 21; then postulate a scene where: a)several of your colleagues had been killed by suicide bombers, who used their youth or civilian status to get within lethal blast range b)others had been shot by "surrendering" civilians. c) yet others had been shot by rifle fire under distraction of gangs of rock-and-molotov slinging teenagers. d) these "children" had clearly been warned by words, actions and warning shots to stay back. Is this what you mean by "children"?

Or do you mean pre-teen kids playing quietly in a yard or school, set upon by surprise and murdered, rather like what the Palistinians do to Israeli civilians?

In the former situation I'd account it proper to shoot anyone advancing, and acting hostile. In the latter, to kill the armed assailants. It is difficult to determine which description are closer to the actual situation on the ground, as the accuracy of the reporting is suspect: Note my comments previously on the inaccurate misuse of the word "sniper", for one example. Another was the wilfully deceptive descriptions of the "Jenin Massacre".

In any event, provoking reaction from those with superior arms might be accounted courageous. It certainly an express ticket out of the gene pool.

You think it significant whether someone was shot in the back or the front of the head. I surmise from this that you are unskilled with firearms. The ability to make deliberate head shots is rare--vanishingly rare on dodging, twisting targets in urban shooting. Unless targeted by a qualified sniper, one is as likely to be struck in the back of the head as in the side of the thigh. What do I think of it? I attach no importance.

"...duties to international law..." In order, a soldier's first duty is to the mission, then to his own survival, then to his comrades' safety. Unlike international lawyers, line troops in urban conflict do not have months to ponder the relevance of international law. They have split seconds to balance it against their own mission, safety, and colleagues. While they are deciding, the venue is unsafe.

Thanks for your questions. David


From: Surrey, B.c. | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
verbatim
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 569

posted 17 April 2003 10:15 PM      Profile for verbatim   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Along the way, the protesters were joined by several children, the witnesses said. When the group was about 200 yards away from three tanks, soldiers opened fire from a tank-mounted machine gun, the witnesses said.

Hurndall and another foreign activist tried to get two children out of the line of fire, Hamra and Abdullah said. "Thomas grabbed one of their hands and as soon as he did that a tank fired at him, hitting him in the head," Hamra said.

The photographer said the children were not throwing rocks at the troops and that he saw nothing that would have provoked the troops.


I can only assume that since the article characterized the children as just that, that they were in fact children, and not teenagers. I doubt Haaretz is prone to characterizing militant teens as children.

As for your "defer to the guy with the gun" argument, I have to disagree because I don't think the willingness of a party to use violence indicates the other party's superior claim to legitimacy. The fact that I might be willing to kill you for my convictions does not mean my convictions are correct.

It's interesting that you also seem to be arguing that resisting oppressive violence somehow indicates an evolutionary throwback, since the real mark of a highly evolved creature is the instant evokation of the "fight or flight response" (which is in fact a reptilian feature). Your formulation appears to glorify both cowardice and the triumph of violence, but nothing else. Have you considered exploring the apparent evolutionary benefits of the neocortex?


From: The People's Republic of Cook Street | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
redshift
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1675

posted 18 April 2003 12:44 AM      Profile for redshift     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
i read this with such a feeling of sorrow and admiration for a fellow being willing to put himself in the line of fire for a child.
then a shambling semblance of a gibbering ape trolled out his gun fetish and i once again felt the great despair .
skdadl- from the bard- " I am in blood stept in so far,that,should I wade no more, returning were as tedious as go o'er."
we have surely lost the way back.

From: cranbrook,bc | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 18 April 2003 12:05 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post

From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
david 40
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3900

posted 18 April 2003 07:40 PM      Profile for david 40     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Dear Verbatim, a prefatory remark:

Knowing my views are likely unpopular here,I attend this forum because I believe that on-side cheerleading is less valuable than the exchange of informed dissent. I do so recognizing that a good part of what "progressives" account dissent renders down to sarcasm, denial, and name calling. Note your own faux-cerebral remark about the neocortex, and our other correspondent's resolve that because I have informed opinion on military firearms use, I am a "gibbering ape". To the degree that progressive views have merit, it is obscured, rather than enhanced by invective.


Anyway, to some of your points...

If someone was headshot at 200 yards, it was almost certainly unplanned. Very few infantrymen are capable of making field-condition, reliable headshots at that distance.

Do I understand from your scenario that a group of adults protesting something came to within view range of infantry and a tank, and brought children with them?? I regard that as criminally stupid.

No, I do not regard superior force as, by definition, legitimate. A brief digression, I greatly admire the American and the Russian revolutionaries. My comments are to the nature of the costs. If one wants to defeat military occupation by strictly military means, then best to have the training, manpower, and weapons. The benefit is that their combat power will be largely restricted to your uniformed, armed opposition. The cost here is in dollars, forethought, and committment to training. If you want to defeat them through irregular/ guerrilla methods, the benefit is the cheapness of the arms and training structure, and the cost is to the surrounding civil populace and structures, as the occupiers--of necessity--target anything that looks like it might be an opponent. If you want to oppose them through political/media methods, this might well include manufacturing martyrs. This is extremely inexpensive, and requires almost no training, but costs in victims/martyrs. The cost is that if the occupier has a fixity of purpose, the defenders are likely to run out of parents willing to herd their children into killing zones before the occupiers run out of resolve.

Thanks for your questions. David


From: Surrey, B.c. | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mishei
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2785

posted 20 April 2003 08:46 PM      Profile for Mishei     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
A bit of a digression but in my opinion a clear indication of Israel's willingness to investigate wrong-doing against Palestinians. It's a good start and one hopes that a similar editorial will one day appear in the Palestinian Times.

Ha'aretz


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
verbatim
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 569

posted 20 April 2003 10:01 PM      Profile for verbatim   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Thanks for your condescending concern for my naiive, uninformed denial on the realities of peace activism, and the obvious evolutionary pre-eminence of force over all other considerations. You won't mind if I son't agree with you?

Perhaps I am being too oblique -- I will state my case more plainly. I believe that soldiers who would shoot at children and unarmed civilians have surrendered their humanity. They are operating simply as robots, and have become tools. The state of Israel has also lost its humanity if they believe that there is some legitimate claim they can advance that allows them to do this.

Peaceful demonstrators should never become legitimate targets for infantry and tanks. I was never discussing the cost/benefit ratio of the Intifada. I'm not interested in such a discussion. I am only commenting on your rather distasteful implication that because the protester in question placed himself in danger, he is somehow to be relegated to the Darwinian dustbin of the stupid and the foolish.

Those who "die in the line of duty" are usually entirely another matter, aren't they? Even if they died meaninglessly, or for something devoid of personal significance to them, simply because they were told to do it? Mr. Hurndall died in the line of his duty to humanity, but there will be no honour guard for him, because he was resisting the impersonal claims of the Israeli state, rather than furthering them. He has to suffer the further indignities of having people say that his was a life stupidly wasted. If you ask me, his death shows those of the IDF soldiers are the wasted lives.


From: The People's Republic of Cook Street | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Bubbles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3787

posted 02 May 2003 12:45 AM      Profile for Bubbles        Edit/Delete Post
Israel wants to stop pro-palestinian peace activists from entering Israel.

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/289437.html


So much for a healthy debate. What next?


From: somewhere | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Gir Draxon
leftist-rightie and rightist-leftie
Babbler # 3804

posted 02 May 2003 12:53 AM      Profile for Gir Draxon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Bubbles:
Israel wants to stop pro-palestinian peace activists from entering Israel.

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/289437.html


So much for a healthy debate. What next?


Yep I'm sure those pro-palestinian "activists" are there to have a nice friendly chat with Israel... right.

From Israel's point of view, these people are quite a security risk. Perhaps if Palestinian suicide attacks were to stop there could be more negotiations, but as they continue Israel is completely justified in protecting itself. Would you not want our government to do the same if subversive forces began invading our country?


From: Arkham Asylum | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Bubbles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3787

posted 02 May 2003 01:05 AM      Profile for Bubbles        Edit/Delete Post
Security risk???

Words, bodies, signs: Big security risk indeed.


From: somewhere | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Bubbles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3787

posted 02 May 2003 01:12 AM      Profile for Bubbles        Edit/Delete Post
They are only security risks if you are trying to cover up misdeads. Not a well thought out move on the Israelis part in my opinion.
From: somewhere | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Gir Draxon
leftist-rightie and rightist-leftie
Babbler # 3804

posted 02 May 2003 01:17 AM      Profile for Gir Draxon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Bubbles:
Security risk???

Words, bodies, signs: Big security risk indeed.


That assumes that every "activist" is perfectly honest about thier intentions, and that they are generally honourable people.

My beef is not with the activists themselves, rather with those who will use that as a disguise to get in. Would it not be convienient for a militant supporter to pose as an activist?


From: Arkham Asylum | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Bubbles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3787

posted 02 May 2003 01:24 AM      Profile for Bubbles        Edit/Delete Post
I am sure the Israelis would love to have a militant peace activist come in , then at least they would have something to discredit them. I have seen no evidence that those peace activists have been breaching Israeli security, If you have any evidence it would be nice of you to show it.
From: somewhere | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 02 May 2003 02:10 AM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Yep I'm sure those pro-palestinian "activists" are there to have a nice friendly chat with Israel... right.

I know a couple of ISM activists who have been to Palestine, and lived to tell about it. Their names are Tom and Rachel. Ironic, huh?

They went there to give witness to the daily violence against Palestinians, and to deter the IOF and the paramilitary from killing people. And contrary to Israeli propaganda, they are definitely not "terrorist sympathisers."


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Gir Draxon
leftist-rightie and rightist-leftie
Babbler # 3804

posted 02 May 2003 08:00 PM      Profile for Gir Draxon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
al-Qa'bong, you are referring to true peace activists. I am referring to imposters. Big difference.

As for proof, here is a link to a story that DaddySno posted in another threadBritish bombers posed as peace activists


From: Arkham Asylum | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 02 May 2003 09:01 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Gir Draxon:
al-Qa'bong, you are referring to true peace activists. I am referring to imposters. Big difference.
[/URL]

No, you were referring to the ISM activists (mentioned in the article Bubbles cited - to which you responded - I responded to your comment then), like the murdered Rachel and Tom, and the still living Rachel and Tom.

Perhaps you changed your intention in the meantime?


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Gir Draxon
leftist-rightie and rightist-leftie
Babbler # 3804

posted 04 May 2003 12:30 AM      Profile for Gir Draxon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Perhaps you changed your intention in the meantime?

I didn't. My point was that militants could conceivably pose as ISM activists, and so I don't see why Israel would want to leave their ass open like that.


From: Arkham Asylum | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
verbatim
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 569

posted 04 May 2003 02:11 AM      Profile for verbatim   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Interesting. I suspect it's much more likely that Israel has banned international peace activists simply to stop the bad press when they get killed as a matter of course.
From: The People's Republic of Cook Street | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
angrymonkey
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5769

posted 04 November 2004 04:09 PM      Profile for angrymonkey     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Not enough bad press.
From: the cold | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 04 November 2004 05:05 PM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yagh. Talk about a weird sensation, reading this thread.


Those who know what I mean, well, know what I mean.

Those of you who don't, don't worry about it.

That al-Q's a good bloke, though. Mon vieux, hein?


From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 06 November 2004 09:59 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I know what you mean, Coyote.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 07 November 2004 03:50 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Dear David 40,

Forgive my pendantry, but you are right the term sniper is often misused. However, the Israeli guard towers and posts usually have one or two soldiers with scoped rifles. Most m-16 model infantry weapons can, and often are, fitted with a scope.

Last year another ISM volunteer was sniped by an IDF Bedouin sargent using a scoped rifle. Shot dead, right in the forhead in a similar situation.

You seem to be imagining things, these are not "line infantry" large group engagements being practiced here, this is gritty urban guerilla war -- individuals and small groups. Of course scoped rifles are popular, in tricky urban combat zones. Most of their opposition is equipped with un-scoped AK47's (though there have been a couple of noted exceptions,) and the extra targetting accuracy at range is greatly valued.

Here is a picture for you:


IDF sniper with modified M-16 and spotter.

Read all about Israeli weapons systems here:

Enjoy...

quote:
In May 1996, in just two days of brutal clashes with Palestinian security forces, the IDF lost over 20 soldiers, a gruesome number. Follow that incident, the IDF finally realized that its snipers skills were embarrassing, and that the average infantry troop sharpshooting skills were also nothing to be proud off. So in 1997 the IDF made several important changes in order to boosts up the infantry sharpshooting skills and fire power.

This new emphasis on sniping and sharpshooting also come from an IDF understanding that in a media oriented LIC, like the one going on in the Territories, it's much better to break a violent Palestinian riot by blowing the knee caps of the riot leaders, using long range surgical sniper fire, rather then to send soldiers and vehicles to the riot area and make them a target for stones throwing.

[SNIP]

The new Designated Marksman project was very successful and the system is now very popular in all units, including civilian units. There are usually five Designated Marksmen per platoon in regular infantry, and in SF units the number is even higher.


I find that if one is going to be a pedant, as I am. It is best to be right. Just a tip.

[ 07 November 2004: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Coyote
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4881

posted 07 November 2004 05:40 PM      Profile for Coyote   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Psst!

Hey, Cueball.

Look at the dates of the posts.


From: O’ for a good life, we just might have to weaken. | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 07 November 2004 06:08 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
K' I don't keep track.... oh well. Anyway it was cool looking up all that stuff on Israeli snipers, guns and stuff. I'm a bit of a war buff.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca