why didn't they shoot the snipers first before the crowd ? - Rules of Engagement (2000) Discussion

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Hythlodaeus 20 years ago

The movie was kind of poorly done - it didn't seem very believable all around. Especially the fake New York accent!

Report: Our High Schools May Not Adequately Prepare Dropouts For
Unemployment

reply

[–] Paredes 19 years ago

You can clearly see the snipers because you are drawing line of sight from an elevated position: that of viewer of the movie (a.k.a. "audience"). The Marines in the movie have no such luxury and are also inhibited by the close proximity of the female noncombatants carrying babies. Besides which, the snipers were only trying to provoke a lethal response. When the Marines opened fire on the crowd, the snipers' mission was fulfilled.

To an insurgent, it is far more useful to their cause to have a massive body count and the associated global opinion swayed against the U.S. than to have a few dead Marines. An insurgency need only influence public opinion, which in turn influences politics, which in turn affects military deployment.

reply

[–] bluez24 19 years ago

I see your point. I think the movie would have been slightly better if they had tried shooting at the snipers first, and then still shot at the crowd after it became clear they needed to. But again, I like the movie.

reply

[–] trpdean 19 years ago

I think Parades has it about right. The camera angle from which we see the snipers -- isn't the angle of sight for the Marines under cover on the roof well away from its edge.

And it may be true that the snipers ceased to shoot when they saw that that bodies were piling up in the square because they wanted a high toll -- but I doubt they were that cynical at that moment. I think they ceased to fire because once the Marines started firing at the crowd, it was clear that they would soon fire at them -- and they would be wiped out.

reply

[–] trpdean 19 years ago

I think Parades has it about right. The camera angle from which we see the snipers -- isn't the angle of sight for the Marines under cover on the roof well away from its edge.

And it may be true that the snipers ceased to shoot when they saw that that bodies were piling up in the square because they wanted a high toll -- but I doubt they were that cynical at that moment. I think they ceased to fire because once the Marines started firing at the crowd, it was clear that they would soon fire at them -- and they would be wiped out.

reply

[–] trpdean 19 years ago

I think Parades has it about right. The camera angle from which we see the snipers -- isn't the angle of sight for the Marines under cover on the roof well away from its edge.

And it may be true that the snipers ceased to shoot when they saw that that bodies were piling up in the square because they wanted a high toll -- but I doubt they were that cynical at that moment. I think they ceased to fire because once the Marines started firing at the crowd, it was clear that they would soon fire at them -- and they would be wiped out.

reply

[–] vegasrudy 19 years ago

The director didn't give the marines' point of view. But then again it is very hard to give a soldier's p.o.v. because the soldier's emotional stress in a firefight can't be conveyed to a movie audience except to those that have been in that situation.
The movie reminded me of the incident at Fallujah where a soldier spooked by a person who played dead and he shot the person and was caught on video tape.
I just saw the movie on TNT this week-end. It shows why we shouldn't fight a politcally correct war. The scene that shows the crowd shooting at the marines is like the insurgents who fire from mosques. Mosques were not fired at because of the bad public relations. The troops don't need that element when engaged. They should b able to shoot where the fire is coming from.

reply

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] post-197 19 years ago

Saw the movie on TV2 here in Norway just minutes ago and I also found it strange that the soldiers didn't take out the snipers on the roof first - they could be able to protect themselves from the crowd. Isn't it possible to take out a sniper at that distance? Do Marines have oculars on their weapons?

reply

[–] anuj471 19 years ago

You're assuming that these Marines were trained in countersniping, could see the snipers, and were able to get a shot off without being popped. There's no "fire indicators" in real life. It's a bit more difficult to judge where a shot came from, where the shooter is, and what he might be hiding under.

Then again, I haven't seen the movie yet.

reply

[–] shaunwtx 19 years ago

I don't get why they didn't just fire tear gas into the crowd. At the point I was watching, it had stopped being a demonstration, and had turned into a riot. Fire tear gas and a crowd will dispurse in a little time.

reply

[–] motoman045 19 years ago

I was originally confused myself why the fire was into the crowd, but when the security director finally watched the tape, you can clearly see many people in the crowd firing. Then torwards the end when the Major was recollecting what happened it finally showed his view of the crowd, and after seeing all the crowd with weapons and firing, he ordered return fire.

The producer of the movie obviously wanted you to wonder if the Major was correct until the very end, but it could have made the recollection scene more believable. As it was, it looked like he was hallucinating, which wasn't the case because the same scene were on the video tape.

reply

[–] motoman045 19 years ago

One more thing I forgot to mention, theres a clear distinction between a
peaceful demonstration, a riot, and an attack.

You see peaceful demonstrations is DC every day, whats going on in France right now is a riot, what was depictited in the movie, was a full on attack.

Marines are trained to deal with attacks, not riots. In fact when Army units are deployed in peace keeping missions, they have to be retrained before they can be deployed again as a combat unit.

reply

[–] benny-yohannan 19 years ago

in my opinion the movie goes beyond the question of should they fire on the snipers first before engaging the armed and hostile crowd. It is philosophical in the sense that is violence towards armed civilians justified? I think that is exactly the point the director is trying to make.

now practical matters why they did not fire on the snipers first. A sniper by definition is a guy holding a sniping sun ( which usualy has a range of over 2K miles). And marine assault rifle like M16 which used by marines just cannot reach him since the effective range of an M16 is less tham 200mters

In addition as per the tape hidden by the state dept , that the danger from the crowd was huge and Terry childers decided to do first things first.

I agree with him 100% and i would have done the same thing in that same situation.
Is i think another point the director is trying to make here.

Benny

reply

[–] gillnurses2 19 years ago

We'll excuse the "2K miles" as a typo but to say the 5.56NATO round has an effective range of <200m is wrong. The 5.56 exit the barrel at over 3000fps and at 400 yards is still going 1900+fps and carrying 451ft/lbs of energy. Compare that to a .45acp carrying 356ft/lbs of energy at the muzzle or a 9x19 with 360ft/lbs and the 5.56 is still effective way down range and with only about 20" of bullet drop fairly easy to put on target out to those ranges. With an Aimpoint on board, you can easily hit targets out to 400+ yards with an M16 so equipment is not the issue.

reply

[–] oceanspray66 19 years ago

I take your point, but 400 yards is still a long way off 2 kilometers! And also i believe you will find that under all conditions that the confirmed target range on an M16 is approximately 200 meters.

reply

[–] aeroengphys 19 years ago

Marines are trained to fire an M16 at an upwards of 400 yards.

Also, let it be known that for the Marines to rise from their pinned position to attack the snipers, it would have required the Marines to subjcet themselves to the fire from below, also. The marines were pinned at the edge of a ledge that was approximately one foot tall. Given that, even if they only raised their heads above the wall, the insurgents below would still be able to shoot at them. By shooting at the soldiers below, as was previously stated, the snipers have completed their objective.

For those that doubt the rightousness of shooting down below, note the molatov cocktail burn marks that were on the building (thrown from below as depicted in the movie). Also, The Colonel clearly remembers a majority of protesters down below with weapons (including the one legged girl).

This movie really makes one reflect on the issue of Field Marine vs. Desk Marine. Although the "rules" of war apply to all, it seems as if these rules are written by people who never have or will see combat experience. For example, The Colonel's actions in Vietnam, by shooting the POW, is under the "rules", a criminal act. But by killing that POW, he made the morally just, and practical decision.

That causes each and every person to wonder whether or not these rules are based on practicality, morallity, or foreign policy.

reply

[–] Paredes 19 years ago

Just to reiterate, at least one of the snipers was hiding behind a woman holding her child. The Marines emphasize marksmanship, but even then, I think a Jarhead would be somewhat reluctant to take such a shot.

reply

[–] pospred23 19 years ago

It wasnt about the marines having sight of the snipers and about who they should have shot. It all came down to their CO's decision, which was Sam Jackson. He felt a greater danger from the crowd rather than the snipers. Dont forget that the marine that died in Sam Jacksons arms, was shot from the crowd.

"I'll have the cleavage....er, The Special." - Barf, Spaceballs

reply

[–] servercat 19 years ago

Not to mentiont he majority of the crowd was opening up on the Marines. Theres really no ambiguity about which was the greater danger after the tape viewing scene.

reply

[–] pyrohk 19 years ago

pretty sure the reason they opened fire on the crowd was because it was the larger threat to them, and besides they didnt have the advantage of elevation to attack the crowd which they did have an elevated position, also i think that the crowd a bigger issue...as there were over 82 casualties...which means that there were probably more ppl there most if not all with guns...and molitov cocktails...which would cause more damage to them and the building. but anyway they would have prioritised the threats, and found the crowd to be a bigger one

reply

[–] ash_aod_35 19 years ago

why didn't they just through a smoke grenade on the roof and cover for their escape with the ambassador

reply

[–] pospred23 19 years ago

smoke doesnt stop bullets....the shooters would still be firing

"I'll have the cleavage....er, The Special." - Barf, Spaceballs

reply

[–] psmu 19 years ago

smoke doesnt stop bullets....the shooters would still be firing ---->

but the peace people below (innocent) will run away for they safety.Women and children will be survive.

If US general kill 83 ??? (iran,vietnam,etc.) people --> he become hero.
If ??? general kill 83 US people --> he become murderer.
Because USA is leader of the world. Because powerfull is meaningfull than anything else.

reply

[–] pospred23 18 years ago

im sorry...who are the peace ppl below?

reply

[–] oliver_d4 18 years ago

my point of view:
The snipers were not that visible enough. They could be hiding on the roofs but not only there. Marines can assume that there may be snipers among the people so it would be not justifiable to just fire at the ones who perform the rally(provided that the marines never really saw people having guns).
also since they didn't see really those people having guns, it would be right to assume that marines are not sure if there are really snipers below.

Love means nver having to say u r sory.What the..Just say u love and u won't be sory!

reply

[–] jj1013 18 years ago

"Saw the movie on TV2 here in Norway just minutes ago and I also found it strange that the soldiers didn't take out the snipers on the roof first - they could be able to protect themselves from the crowd. Isn't it possible to take out a sniper at that distance? Do Marines have oculars on their weapons?"

While lying on your back behind a one-foot wall, it would be difficult to locate a sniper. Yes, it is possible to take out a sniper at that distance (seemed to be less than 150 yards). Currently, the Marines are in the middle of deploying the ACOG optical sight for active duty field Marines, however in the movie their M16s do not have optics. Nor would they really need them in this case, as Marines are trained early in boot camp to be marksmen, more detailed explanation below.

---

"I don't get why they didn't just fire tear gas into the crowd. At the point I was watching, it had stopped being a demonstration, and had turned into a riot. Fire tear gas and a crowd will dispurse in a little time."

Military operations do not use tear gas very often, and when a crowd of hundreds of people is firing upon an embassy with automatic weapons, it can be assumed that they are more threatening than your standard riot.

---

"now practical matters why they did not fire on the snipers first. A sniper by definition is a guy holding a sniping sun ( which usualy has a range of over 2K miles). And marine assault rifle like M16 which used by marines just cannot reach him since the effective range of an M16 is less tham 200mters"

and
"And also i believe you will find that under all conditions that the confirmed target range on an M16 is approximately 200 meters."

The "snipers" on the rooftops were not using sniper rifles (of which, in use by the US, the M14 is capable to 1400 yards and the various Barrett .50-cals are capabale to 2000 yards), they were using AK rifles. As far as an M16's maximum range being only 200 yards, I suggest you tell that to the Marines, who are required to pass marksmanship tests halfway through boot camp, which means being scored on targets at 200, 300, and 500 yards. With iron sights, no optics.

---

"but the peace people below (innocent) will run away for they safety.Women and children will be survive."

They are not "peace people." They are firing weapons and throwing molotov cocktails without provocation at the sovereign territory of an embassy, which is the same as attacking another country on their soil in international law. The women and children who participated in firing weapons at the embassy are just as guilty as the snipers on the rooftops. You ignored a number of scenes in the movie that depict this situation. If you will recall the final flashback, the Marines did not just open fire at random, but targeted specific individuals (those with weapons), as you can see people at various points in the crowd fall, with the people around them not being hit, and being able to flee.

reply