Are snipers cowards?

[American]

"My uncle killed by sniper in WW2. We were taught snipers were cowards. Will shoot u in the back. Snipers aren't heroes. And invaders r worse"

"But if you're on the roof of your home defending it from invaders who've come 7K miles, you are not a sniper, u are brave, u are a neighbor."

I dont think Moore thought out what he tweeted. His uncle was far from home, "7k miles" perhaps? His uncle wasnt killed by a sniper but a neighbor.

Someone responds to the fathead:

Medal of Honor recipient Dakota Meyer blasts Michael Moore

 

[Skeptic Bob]

Anyone who puts their life at risk willingly is not a coward. Being a sniper is still risky, hence they are not cowards. Hell, even terrorists who blow themselves up to take out the enemy are not cowards.

And a coward isn't someone who does a safe job. A coward is someone who isn't WILLING to do what they think is the right thing becasue they are too afraid to do so. So by that definition I can't even call the drone operators flying from a cushy chair in the States cowards. Maybe they flunked out of aviator school or that is just the job the military said they are best qualified for. It doesn't mean they weren't WILLING to do something more dangerous.

An infantryman who runs away instead of supporting his battle buddies is a coward. A husband who runs away leaving his pregnant wife to deal with a mugger is a coward. A mother who stands by and lets her husband abuse their children out of fear is a coward. It might be understandable, but it is still cowardice.

Most people are neither cowards nor heroes.

 

[Captain America]

Bushwhackers are cowards.

Snipers, I don't think so. That probably takes a lot of guts.

But if a person sees no differential between a bushwhacker and an American Sniper, no telling what they think.

Now, if a sniper, OR and bushwhacker killed my loved one, I might have a piss poor opinion of them too. That's simply human.

 

[TurtleDude]

No, they aren't cowards. They are expert marksmen, with highly specialized skills. I'd love to have shooting skills at that level.

And Chris Kyle was a good man. He was trying to help a fellow vet. Where he got killed wasn't too awfully far from here, and very near where I used to work. I still remember when it happened- it was awful.

true, carlos Hathcock was the man. his assassination of a enemy general-deep behind enemy lines was not a mission a coward would take. A champion Marine (TRIPLE DISTINGUISHED) I used to shoot against on the ISU skeet events, knew Sgt Hathcock. The man was a legend in the Corps

 

[lizzie]

true, carlos Hathcock was the man. his assassination of a enemy general-deep behind enemy lines was not a mission a coward would take. A champion Marine (TRIPLE DISTINGUISHED) I used to shoot against on the ISU skeet events, knew Sgt Hathcock. The man was a legend in the Corps

To the bolded- a good friend of mine (Army ranger) knew Carlos, and that does appear to be the case.

 

[TurtleDude]

To the bolded- a good friend of mine (Army ranger) knew Carlos, and that does appear to be the case.

he also had a reputation of paybacks. A NVA female agent code name "apache" had tortured American soldiers. Hathcock wasted her. apparently, not as quickly, perhaps, as the book said:mrgreen:

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

Every time that Michael Moore opens his mouth, I sit and watch, that at least on this one issue most Americans agree to attack Moore for being a worthless piece of ****. Moore actually gives me hope for this country, by showing how the average American can through the BS. Moore says something then we all laugh and point fingers at the idiot not taking him seriously. Well there are the bigger idiots that agree with him but they are even funnier.

 

[oncewas]

Nope they are not cowards ,but if order to kill someone,pray it not you, Nuff said!

 

[jamesrage]

Many here do not like the idea of lethal drones.
To them I would ask; Explain how a drone operator is different from a sniper.

A drone operator is sitting in a cushy safe building somewhere and there is no chance that drone operator will get spotted by the enemy.Which is why a lot of people raised hell when some retard in the military wanted to give awards to drone operators that outranked awards someone can get for actual combat.

 

[spangledbanner]

no, snipers are not cowardly... that's an absurd notion that only one without a shred of military acumen would even utter.

and no, ranged weapons are not seen as "cowardly" in history, either... that , too , is absurd.

we didn't wake up as a human race one day and say " ya know, it might be a good idea to maybe think about having superior weapons and tactics...nah, that's cowardly.. nevermind. "

we never like it when the other guy has superior weapons and tactics... but we, as humans, love martial superiority, and always have.




as for Micheal Moore... he's to be ignored... he has nothing of value to add to any subject.

Projectile weapons are associated with peasants. Ignoble. Think of the start of Gangs of New York when he asks the guy about guns. And he is happy and respects that that guy didn't want guns for the battle. Hand to hand is honourable and Noble. Traditionally. Maybe some 'elites' never understood that and still don't. Seem that 'elites' don't know what just not cricket is.

 

[notquiteright]

true, carlos Hathcock was the man. his assassination of a enemy general-deep behind enemy lines was not a mission a coward would take. A champion Marine (TRIPLE DISTINGUISHED) I used to shoot against on the ISU skeet events, knew Sgt Hathcock. The man was a legend in the Corps

The Marine I was taught LR Tactical Interdiction (new and improved term) and later had the honor of working with holds the Longest Confirmed Bolt Rifle kill in Vietnam. He still teaches and is a true gentleman. Had many a meal with him, spent a great deal of range time with him, learned a great deal. Most likely the most understated man you will ever meet, but each word spoken on the range is worth writing down. The man is another one of those heroes you will never know, quite a few are...

 

[Goshin]

The ideal in tactics is to turn every battle into a one-sided slaughter of the enemy.

If you can manage it.


So no, ancient notions of honor by long-dead classes of nobles don't enter into it.


A buddy of mine was a sniper in Gulf I. He made his kills knowing that if he screwed up and let the enemy find him he was a dead man, operating with no close support other than a spotter. Coward? Hardly.

 

[11Bravo]

I saw in the news today that Micheal Moore tweeted that snipers are cowards. What do you think? Was Chris Kyle a coward?

I have thought a lot about this actually. This is what I think.

Traditionally it was considered cowardly and ignoble to use projectile weapons in battle. A Noble warrior did not like the idea of a peasant being able to kill them at a distance. See you could give a worthless peasant a bow and arrow or crossbow and with no training at all they could kill an honourable wand well trained Noble warrior at a distance with an arrow or a bolt. Also, the spear chucking comes into it. Do you see how it would be would be considered cowardly by some to kill at a safe distance?

See, this idea is Germanic. The Romans admired and celebrated Germanic Heroism. The Romans never conquered the Teuton and they knew themselves to be inferior to the Germanic people in honour. The Rhine was the border of the Empire. Caesar knew not to mess with the Germanic people. The best that he that he could do was build a bridge or two for the Teuton, and then go home. The Romans were terrified of the Germanic tribes. For all the Roman propaganda about how strong and honourable they were, they knew themselves to be effeminate Greek-like cowards compared to the Germanic people. The Roman culture was not as honourable as Germanic. Roman culture is defined by its inferiority. The Romans knew that they were stupid compared to the Greeks, and cowards compared to the Germanic people. They were a happy medium at best. Superior at nothing ( apart from egoism and ridiculous and dishonest propaganda ). Basically, a society of wretches with inferiority complexes. Most superiority complexes are actually rooted in inferiority. So.

Consider the Gaius Mucius Scaevola myth. The Clusium . Actually read this. I prepared it earlier.


WV

Snipers are not cowards. What a ridiculous question. Try crawling for 3 days behind enemy lines with no backup. Just you and a spotter. Takes someone with real grapefruits to be able to pull that off.

Snipers are tools. Used to eliminate a target that may be impossible to hit from the ground or sky. Every military uses them, including terrorists.

 

[OrphanSlug]

Agreed, snipers are not cowards. They are specifically trained to engage targets from concealed or opportune positions using distances and other methods of evasion to handle an enemy that has great difficulties in detecting the sniper (or team) being there. They usually operate independent with little to zero combat support from associated or parent engagement units.

They are the precision surgeons of military warfare. Just about every other single facet of warfare comes down to overwhelming ability, force, and/or expenditure of capability. Snipers give up days, even weeks, to get to one advantageous point usually in complete harms way for one shot... one that very few are capable of pulling off.

 

[rhinefire]

How masculine is Michael Moore on a scale from 0-100? Does he ever get tired of dressing like Larry Mondellow from Leave It To Beaver?

 

[Cryptic]

Projectile weapons are associated with peasants. Ignoble. Think of the start of Gangs of New York when he asks the guy about guns. And he is happy and respects that that guy didn't want guns for the battle. Hand to hand is honourable and Noble.

There have been exceptions. In WWI, most of the snipers in the British and German armies were officers. This is because hunting, and especially big game hunting with rifles, in those nations was the sport of the upper class. Likewise, the ownership of rifles and the use of them by members of the lower classes, though technically legal, was discouraged.

As a result, most of those with true marksmanship ability were upper class in origin and thus "officer material". Such officers were sent to the front as snipers but with outthe real command authority of say a captain or a major. Like modern snipers, they worked in teams and would be transfered from one "problem area" to another.

 

[Gaius46]

War is about winning. While I would agree it takes more guts to fight without the use of modern warfare it's also a good way to get killed. Oh and Michael Moore, you're too damn fat to rely on your physical abilities. You just might find it worth your while to stop talking like your capable of anything more than hiding behind a gun.

More like behind a guy with a gun

 

[Zyphlin]

Sniper's are not inherently cowards or not cowards.

They can be a coward. They can absolutely not be a coward. The simple act of sniping, in and of itself, is not inherently a cowardly one. It can be done for cowardly reasons, or by a cowardly person, but the action itself isn't cowardly in my opinion.

From what I've read of Kyle I wouldn't say he strikes me as a coward in the least.

 

[tech30528]

I think people like Moore make assinine statements like this with no perspective at all. Based simply on a "war is bad" mentality without consideration that there are truly evil people out there with less than honorable intentions, they have no appreciation for people like Kyle who stand between those people and their padded both at Denny's.

To be honest if I am going to be in a firefight, I much prefer to be the guy who is able to get the job done at a great distance, outside the range of my opponent. I do some distance shooting, although not nearly to the level of a trained sniper, and not at anything that is shooting back. For me the precision and control is what makes it worthwhile. It is a highly specialized skill set, for me, if I miss I get to line up anyother shot. For snipers, if you miss you may give up your position and be on the receiving end of artillary fire. Snipers who are captured are treated more harshly than other combatants as well. Given the possibilities in a live fire scenario there is nothing cowardly about being a sniper at all. You are not just risking your life but near certainty of a horrible death if you screw up. Personally I am glad we have people like Kyle to make the difficult calls and take the appropriate actions.

I read an article yesterday that painted Kyle as a murderous criminal, stating that we were simply imposing our will the ME theater, that a Christian could never reconcile their duty with their faith, and that PTSD is really just an institutional distraction from individual guilt hiding behind nationalism. And from a strictly philosophical perspective, again from a warm safe office perhaps on a college campus, this may seem to be the enlightened view. However, in the real world things are not always that clear. Command decisions are made at a higher level without explanation or consideration of those who carry out the orders. For the Christian argument, the "Thou shall not kill" commandment is often misinterpreted (particularly by non Christians) to mean a Christian can not end another life. This is a false argument. The commandment is actually "Thou shall not MURDER", excluding defensive killing. Perhaps in their rush to use someone else's faith against them, they gloss over Jesus telling his followers in one instance to pick up their swords, and if they did not have one to sell their clothes to buy one, or that sometimes the question "What would Jesus do?" is answered by "He would turn over tables and chase the money changers from the temple with whips". As for PTSD, well, I'm no expert there. I never served in the military, and while my father did he was in ariel recon and did not see war face to face. I have however seen friends who were strong and mentally stable return from war with serious issues.

 

[Ikari]

I saw in the news today that Micheal Moore tweeted that snipers are cowards. What do you think? Was Chris Kyle a coward?

I have thought a lot about this actually. This is what I think.

Traditionally it was considered cowardly and ignoble to use projectile weapons in battle. A Noble warrior did not like the idea of a peasant being able to kill them at a distance. See you could give a worthless peasant a bow and arrow or crossbow and with no training at all they could kill an honourable wand well trained Noble warrior at a distance with an arrow or a bolt. Also, the spear chucking comes into it. Do you see how it would be would be considered cowardly by some to kill at a safe distance?

See, this idea is Germanic. The Romans admired and celebrated Germanic Heroism. The Romans never conquered the Teuton and they knew themselves to be inferior to the Germanic people in honour. The Rhine was the border of the Empire. Caesar knew not to mess with the Germanic people. The best that he that he could do was build a bridge or two for the Teuton, and then go home. The Romans were terrified of the Germanic tribes. For all the Roman propaganda about how strong and honourable they were, they knew themselves to be effeminate Greek-like cowards compared to the Germanic people. The Roman culture was not as honourable as Germanic. Roman culture is defined by its inferiority. The Romans knew that they were stupid compared to the Greeks, and cowards compared to the Germanic people. They were a happy medium at best. Superior at nothing ( apart from egoism and ridiculous and dishonest propaganda ). Basically, a society of wretches with inferiority complexes. Most superiority complexes are actually rooted in inferiority. So.

Consider the Gaius Mucius Scaevola myth. The Clusium . Actually read this. I prepared it earlier.


WV

Michael Moore just needed to get into the public eye again. Obviously snipers are not cowards, but he needed some press. Its pretty much the same reason Ann Coulter says outrageous things. Just looking for attention.

 

[whysoserious]

Can we also save some time and finish this discussion in two steps:

1) Change the title to: "Is Michael Moore an Idiot?"
2) Everyone vote "Yes"

 

[Oozlefinch]

I saw in the news today that Micheal Moore tweeted that snipers are cowards. What do you think? Was Chris Kyle a coward?

He is just pissed off that he has been irrelevant for almost a decade, and this movie about a sniper has garnered 6 Oscar nominations (and is a frontrunner to win several of them).

 

[US Conservative]

I remember reading an article about how the English longbow was one of the greatest secret weapons ever developed. The level of training needed to be effective with one made them incredibly difficult to master and thus kept them out of the hands of a lot of their enemies for quite some time. Captured longbows confused their enemies, because they simply couldn't draw and fire them effectively. It took a lot of training to use a longbow and it was that training that was the "secret" part of the longbow as a secret weapon.

This is true. At the outbreak of the American revolutionary war, Benjamin Franklin actually advocated to arm our troops with longbows. At the time, they had superior range and rate of fire compared to the british muskets.

It never happened because of the required training, and it wasn't considered "modern" to use them.

 

[US Conservative]

There have been exceptions. In WWI, most of the snipers in the British and German armies were officers. This is because hunting, and especially big game hunting with rifles, in those nations was the sport of the upper class. Likewise, the ownership of rifles and the use of them by members of the lower classes, though technically legal, was discouraged.

As a result, most of those with true marksmanship ability were upper class in origin and thus "officer material". Such officers were sent to the front as snipers but with outthe real command authority of say a captain or a major. Like modern snipers, they worked in teams and would be transfered from one "problem area" to another.

This is true, there are great books out there from this era, where the elites were developing modern sniping techniques. It was also discovered that those big game rifles were effective against some enemy armor/installations. "Africa" rifles were in great demand.

 

[Oozlefinch]

This is true. At the outbreak of the American revolutionary war, Benjamin Franklin actually advocated to arm our troops with longbows. At the time, they had superior range and rate of fire compared to the british muskets.

It never happened because of the required training, and it wasn't considered "modern" to use them.

It literally takes years to train a Longbowman. It only takes a couple of weeks to train people to stand in ranks and volley fire.

This is true, there are great books out there from this era, where the elites were developing modern sniping techniques. It was also discovered that those big game rifles were effective against some enemy armor/installations. "Africa" rifles were in great demand.

Heck, just look at the Boys Rifle. A .55 caliber bolt action weapon that was actually fairly effective in the early days of the war (and destroyed a lot of Soviet tanks in the Winter War with Finland). It lost effectiveness as tanks improved later in the war, but was still effective against lighter vehicles and even bunkers.