View Full Version : SEALs at it again
Hearing reports that they have killed the leader of Al Shabaab.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/10357752/Western-special-forces-raid-al-Shabaab-stronghold-in-Somalia.html
More info. Twin raids in Africa.
http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10/05/20833640-two-raids-in-two-countries-net-two-of-the-worlds-most-wanted-terrorists?lite
Go get 'em boys!
Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk 4
Hearing reports that they have killed the leader of Al Shabaab.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/10357752/Western-special-forces-raid-al-Shabaab-stronghold-in-Somalia.html
I didn't see SEALs mentioned specifically, but don't complain when after killing scores of women and children in a mall, a group of well armed men who train to shoot people like you in the face show up to say hello.
Works for me.
Don't complain when after killing scores of women and children in a mall, a group of well armed men who train to shoot people like you in the face show up to say hello.
That is sig line worth material there. :lol:
Heard he was captured. Either way this is very good news, a strike at the heart of evil.
That is sig line worth material there. :lol:
I'll be here all weekend. Tips accepted. :moil:
But seriously, there's only one thing zealots of that ilk understand, and it was not a group of poorly trained store looting Kenyans who showed up to pay a visit. Gives the warm and fuzzies it does.
Personally, I don't need to know exactly who did it, I don't need to know how they did it, and I don't require a vid of them doing it.
Go Navy! (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/06/world/africa/mall-attack-also-involved-kenyans-official-says.html?_r=0)
NAIROBI, Kenya — A Navy SEAL team targeted a senior leader of the Shabab militant group in a raid on his seaside villa in the Somali town of Baraawe on Saturday, American officials said, in response to a deadly attack on a Nairobi shopping mall for which the group had claimed responsibility...
Moose-Knuckle
10-05-13, 19:41
Nobody ****s with our President's hometown . . . NOBODY!
4x4twenty6
10-05-13, 19:57
Funny shit Moose-Knuckle!!!
theblackknight
10-05-13, 20:58
http://i1.ytimg.com/vi/CUTHktI8kJA/hqdefault.jpg
Nobody ****s with our President's hometown . . . NOBODY!
I'm gonna need you to paypal me for a new keyboard .
SeriousStudent
10-05-13, 21:02
Bravo Zulu to the warriors that performed the missions. I hope they all returned home safely and unharmed.
And then had a very well-deserved tasty beverage.
SilverBullet432
10-05-13, 21:14
Another one bites the dust!
1. I'm glad it happened, and was apparently executed well. Kudos.
2. I wish that specific elements of the Special Operations community were not identified after these events.
Bravo Zulu!
This is all we need to know.
ClearedHot
10-05-13, 23:27
Nobody ****s with our President's hometown . . . NOBODY!
ROFL!
I didn't see SEALs mentioned specifically, but don't complain when after killing scores of women and children in a mall, a group of well armed men who train to shoot people like you in the face show up to say hello.
Works for me.
Yeah...that.
More fidelity. Two raids, 1 SEAL team, 1 Delta. SEALs abort, Delta gets their HVT. No U.S. casualties. Regardless, something tells me there are many terrorists who are not sleeping very well these days. :cool:
http://news.yahoo.com/us-forces-hit-extremists-behind-e-africa-attacks-011046451.html
A U.S. Navy SEAL team swam ashore near a town in southern Somalia before militants of the al-Qaida-linked terrorist group al-Shabab rose for dawn prayers, U.S. and Somali officials told The Associated Press. The raid on a house in the town of Barawe targeted a specific al-Qaida suspect related to the mall attack, but the operation did not get its target, one current and one former U.S. military official told AP...But this time, SEAL Team Six members encountered fiercer resistance than expected so after a 15-20 minute firefight, the unit leader decided to abort the mission and they swam away, the official said.
Within hours of the Somalia attack, the U.S. Army's Delta Force carried out a raid in Libya's capital, Tripoli, to seize a Libyan al-Qaida leader wanted for the 1998 bombings of the U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania that killed more than 220 people, the military official said...The Pentagon identified the captured al-Qaida leader as Nazih Abdul-Hamed al-Ruqai, known by his alias Anas al-Libi, who has been on the FBI's most wanted terrorists list since it was introduced shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks
I was kinda figuring that CAG was in on the Tripoli op.
Wonder if the Al-Shabaab op was DEVGRU or "regular" SEAL platoons? ETA---read the link above and see that they're saying it was DEVGRU.
Ned Christiansen
10-06-13, 10:56
Nobody ****s with our President's hometown . . . NOBODY!
Good one.
So they've been downgraded to.....
Al ShaBillybaab
SeriousStudent
10-06-13, 13:32
Sweet baby Jebus, why do the politicians have to leak those kind of details?? :mad:
How about not saying anything at all, and just let the murderous bastards wonder why they have not heard from their fellow child-killers for a while?
Sweet baby Jebus, why do the politicians have to leak those kind of details?? :mad:
How about not saying anything at all, and just let the murderous bastards wonder why they have not heard from their fellow child-killers for a while?
Cause in politics, you just have to look like you are doing somthing. To take credit.
Seals get you votes, ya know...
Sweet baby Jebus, why do the politicians have to leak those kind of details?? :mad:
How about not saying anything at all, and just let the murderous bastards wonder why they have not heard from their fellow child-killers for a while?
Politicians cannot keep their pie holes shut. We need a new set of politicians.
...., why do the politicians have to leak those kind of details?? :mad:
.......
I guess you forgot that the politicians are the only federal employees still employed. Since there is no one available, one of our dedicated public servants stepped up to the plate to let us know what is going on??
They are so considerate thinking about us.
.
I know there's a lot of consternation about the liberty of speech in the news.
Part of me wants to squash the nuts of he who lets the cat out of the bag, but part of me actually thinks it's a good thing that AFTER the event, an announcement is made of who actually just jacked up your early morning prayer time. Regardless of official positions, these teams' existence are not secret, Hollywood and politicians have seen to that. The names SEAL and Delta spark fear in our enemies.
Concur that the UBL thing was grossly mishandled, but as long as sources, intel, TTPs, and the teams are not compromised, I want to think it's a good thing that the media relays the calling card once our boys are back safe, wherever that may be.
morbidbattlecry
10-06-13, 18:18
Sometimes its good for the bad guy just to disappear. Sometimes its good to let the other bag guys know what happened to the lead bad guy. In case they get any ideas.
SeriousStudent
10-06-13, 18:33
It's a pretty safe bet the booger-eaters can spell JSOC, if you spotted them a vowel. And it's also a relatively safe bet that while it might have been the Army, it probably was not the Salvation Army that paid them a visit.
But honestly, this does not help our guys.
morbidbattlecry
10-06-13, 18:43
It's a pretty safe bet the booger-eaters can spell JSOC, if you spotted them a vowel. And it's also a relatively safe bet that while it might have been the Army, it probably was not the Salvation Army that paid them a visit.
But honestly, this does not help our guys.
Heh point taken:D
http://www.dhanaan.com/saxaafada-shabaab-oo-soo-bandhigtay-qalab-ay-ku-sheegeen-in-ka-tageen-ciidamadii-ajaanibta-ahaa-ee-xalay-weeraray-baraawe/
Apparently some stuff was left behind in Somalia. Kind of surprised to see the 4.6 and MP7 mag.
But honestly, this does not help our guys.
Agreed. We should not have drawn any attention to this. Our guys should have been behind the scenes totally anonymously killing bad guys and exiting the scene. It should have been done similar to the way Los Pepes anonymously targeted and killed members of Pablo Escobar's cartel.
An anonymous force acting in the shadows to hunt and kill Jihadis.
Instead the administration has to announce this and take claim for it. For political capital.
Win some, lose some....live to fight another day, etc.
Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk 4
http://www.dhanaan.com/saxaafada-shabaab-oo-soo-bandhigtay-qalab-ay-ku-sheegeen-in-ka-tageen-ciidamadii-ajaanibta-ahaa-ee-xalay-weeraray-baraawe/
Apparently some stuff was left behind in Somalia. Kind of surprised to see the 4.6 and MP7 mag.
They put the spoon on backwards on that DD when they set up the photo. Dummies.
SeriousStudent
10-07-13, 21:32
They put the spoon on backwards on that DD when they set up the photo. Dummies.
And that's not a bad thing, when you think about it. The thought of AQ types getting bad info regarding any kind of pyro sends me to my happy place. :cool:
Remember the immortal words of JSantoro: "Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for one night. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life."
And if it had been a live frag, my Grinch heart would have grown three sizes that day!
No idea how reliable the source is, but supposedly how it went down for DevGru:
http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10/07/20856248-exclusive-how-the-seal-raid-on-somalia-went-bad?lite&ocid=msnhp&pos=7
"The suspect was barricaded and heavily protected by armed men, and now children were intermingled among the fighters and in danger of dying. Then the whole town of Barawe began to erupt and more armed fighters were seen heading for Ikrima’s compound. Soon there would be fewer than two dozen Americans against hundreds of Somalis."
Well, we know they wouldn't consider our children and didn't it at the mall for un armed civialns, so call in an air strike if plan A does not work out (as in this case), and be done with it. Suck fact is the BGs live another day to plan and carry out attacks on malls, etc full of other people's children and other un armed civilians.
If you're a warrior/soldier and you surround yourself with children, it's on your head, not ours.
My armchair thought on it:
Try and do it clean via SEAL team to get intel etc, all good, but have plan B for air strike if that does not work as allowing such a target to live another day seems a bad idea to me and ultimately costs more lives. The flip side of that position is of course going to be, dropping a JDAM (or 10...) on the village is not likely to win the "hearts and minds" of the populace, but I think that ship sailed a long time ago personally.
Had the risk averse politicians not sent cruise missile vs. armed men (and supposedly they had turned back teams several times last minute en route to to just that) to visit Bin boy, it's a very good chance 9/11 would not have happened.
Thoughts?
JR TACTICAL
10-08-13, 11:14
Nobody ****s with our President's hometown . . . NOBODY!
LOL!!!! That is AWESOME...I seriously LOL'd on that one
Sometimes its good for the bad guy just to disappear. Sometimes its good to let the other bag guys know what happened to the lead bad guy. In case they get any ideas.
I think this was the header for the subsection of the NDAA when dealing with "American citizen terrorists" lol.
It is so amazing to see the how effective the Globalist propaganda is, they are smart I'll give them that.
Edit: let me get my "American World Police badge" on...."YA KILL THOSE MUSLIM BASTARDS!!!! YAAAAAA, ARGH, ARGH, Sons a' bitches, KILL'EM!!!!.......but please be secretive about it so they don't retaliate"
America, In God We Trust ,and murder we must
http://sofrep.com/28650/ranger-mass-cas-afghanistan-airborne-ranger-sky/
Someone needs to STFU about these operations....How long until the movies come out?
No idea how reliable the source is, but supposedly how it went down for DevGru:
http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10/07/20856248-exclusive-how-the-seal-raid-on-somalia-went-bad?lite&ocid=msnhp&pos=7
"The suspect was barricaded and heavily protected by armed men, and now children were intermingled among the fighters and in danger of dying. Then the whole town of Barawe began to erupt and more armed fighters were seen heading for Ikrima’s compound. Soon there would be fewer than two dozen Americans against hundreds of Somalis."
Well, we know they wouldn't consider our children and didn't it at the mall for un armed civialns, so call in an air strike if plan A does not work out (as in this case), and be done with it. Suck fact is the BGs live another day to plan and carry out attacks on malls, etc full of other people's children and other un armed civilians.
If you're a warrior/soldier and you surround yourself with children, it's on your head, not ours.
My armchair thought on it:
Try and do it clean via SEAL team to get intel etc, all good, but have plan B for air strike if that does not work as allowing such a target to live another day seems a bad idea to me and ultimately costs more lives. The flip side of that position is of course going to be, dropping a JDAM (or 10...) on the village is not likely to win the "hearts and minds" of the populace, but I think that ship sailed a long time ago personally.
Had the risk averse politicians not sent cruise missile vs. armed men (and supposedly they had turned back teams several times last minute en route to to just that) to visit Bin boy, it's a very good chance 9/11 would not have happened.
Thoughts?
you would have to convince the rest of the world that its OK to kill children who are intermingled with bad guys. good luck.
you would have to convince the rest of the world that its OK to kill children who are intermingled with bad guys. good luck.
You're saying we, and others, have not done countless times before on a much larger scale?
You're saying we, and others, have not done countless times before on a much larger scale?
and the reaction from the world each time was....??? smiles and hugs and eprops all around??? I doubt it.
and the reaction from the world each time was....??? smiles and hugs and eprops all around??? I doubt it.
Your comment is not logical. When we fire bombed Tokyo and Dresden, the reaction was it was a necessary evil and strategy at the time. Historians many decades later sitting in their safe office may say otherwise, as they may for the two nukes we dropped, etc.
There were no non combatants in the camp we took out with cruise missiles where we missed Bin Laden? Hmm ok.
We try and live in a neat little fantasy where collateral damage does not happen with the tech we have, but it's not the case (but vastly improved compared to prior conflicts to be sure) and some times, the BG give you no other choice. If it's "hearts and minds" we want by not taking out that target, I think that ship sailed a long time ago, but others may have a more informed take on that one.
Some times it saves lives on the larger scale (or at least saves lives of those we want to protect) to take decisive action vs wait for the perfect time/place.
This may have been such a case. But, I was not there, and don't make policy, and am going off a source with unknown quality, so just thinking out loud on this one.
Your comment is not logical. When we fire bombed Tokyo and Dresden, the reaction was it was a necessary evil and strategy at the time. Historians many decades later sitting in their safe office may say otherwise, as they may for the two nukes we dropped, etc.
There were no non combatants in the camp we took out with cruise missiles where we missed Bin Laden? Hmm ok.
We try and live in a neat little fantasy where collateral damage does not happen with the tech we have, but it's not the case (but vastly improved compared to prior conflicts to be sure) and some times, the BG give you no other choice. If it's "hearts and minds" we want by not taking out that target, I think that ship sailed a long time ago, but others may have a more informed take on that one.
Some times it saves lives on the larger scale (or at least saves lives of those we want to protect) to take decisive action vs wait for the perfect time/place.
This may have been such a case. But, I was not there, and don't make policy, and am going off a source with unknown quality, so just thinking out loud on this one.
my comment was definitely logical and you did not address the disincentive to kill kids who are comingled with bad guys beyond saying its a necessary evil and citing an example that was very much criticized both contemporarily and in the modern post history.
I told you what you would have to convince in order for that course of action to take place. that is the decision theory that the decision makers have to contend with. you can say you're right on the internet all day, I may even agree with you, but its not going to happen until those people are able to sway the world into thinking killing kids comingled with bad guys is an acceptable idea.
my comment was definitely logical and you did not address the disincentive to kill kids who are comingled with bad guys beyond saying its a necessary evil
Yes, in fact I did.
and citing an example that was very much criticized both contemporarily and in the modern post history.
Events have been both supported, and criticized, both at the time and after the events by historians, etc. 20/20 is always very clear.
I told you what you would have to convince in order for that course of action to take place. that is the decision theory that the decision makers have to contend with. you can say you're right on the internet all day, I may even agree with you, but its not going to happen until those people are able to sway the world into thinking killing kids comingled with bad guys is an acceptable idea.
I don't know what type of convincing you are talking about. You don't go to the UN and debate it or take a vote on the 'net. Headline reads like so:
"US forces tasked with attempting to capture a high value target were unable to do so due to heavy resistance. The US forces were pulled out, and the location was struck by multiple JDAMS. It's believed the target (Ali yada yada death the great satin, what ever) was killed as well as many his fighters and followers"
Done. Written like a thousand others prior. And yes, maybe that's the wrong way to approach it if winning hearts and minds is the goal.
Will, are you seriously comparing one bad guy in Somalia with actions taken during WW2 to justify killing innocent children?
That isn't even in the same ball park, I'm afraid.
On a smaller scale, collateral damage has occured in both Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as earlier conflicts, where military neccessity has trumped distinction and proportionality, either because targets were considered key, or during in-extremis situations where soldiers' are in extreme danger.
In the first case, targets that are viewed as key targets, measures must be taken to minimize civilian loss of life; basically warning people, advising them to evacuate etc.
In these kinds of situations collateral damage is acceptable.
Intentionally killing civilians is not.
Will, are you seriously comparing one bad guy in Somalia with actions taken during WW2 to justify killing innocent children?
No I am not. I simply used the largest and most obvious examples of larger scales of such events. I also mentioned Bin L camp taken out with cruise missiles. Taking out a camp known - or suspected - to contain non combatants to get the target, or achieve an objective, is nothing new on both very large and small scale.
That isn't even in the same ball park, I'm afraid.
On a smaller scale, collateral damage has occured in both Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as earlier conflicts, where military neccessity has trumped distinction and proportionality, either because targets were considered key, or during in-extremis situations where soldiers' are in extreme danger.
In the first case, targets that are viewed as key targets, measures must be taken to minimize civilian loss of life; basically warning people, advising them to evacuate etc.
In these kinds of situations collateral damage is acceptable.
Intentionally killing civilians is not.
OK, so you're saying camps of that nature, containing a key target, have not been taken out knowing non combatants were there without any measures to warn anyone? You have been far closer to such things than I have, so I respect your opinion on that, but I don't buy it.
I'm not claiming that's the correct response in this case (which is why I asked for opinions) but, I wonder the wisdom of allowing such a target to survive, go deeper into hiding, to carry out other, perhaps larger attacks that indeed target civilians.
Yes, in fact I did.
Events have been both supported, and criticized, both at the time and after the events by historians, etc. 20/20 is always very clear.
I don't know what type of convincing you are talking about. You don't go to the UN and debate it or take a vote on the 'net. Headline reads like so:
"US forces tasked with attempting to capture a high value target were unable to do so due to heavy resistance. The US forces were pulled out, and the location was struck by multiple JDAMS. It's believed the target (Ali yada yada death the great satin, what ever) was killed as well as many his fighters and followers"
Done. Written like a thousand others prior. And yes, maybe that's the wrong way to approach it if winning hearts and minds is the goal.
that article you wrote sounds like it came from a Chinese propaganda factory. no mention of children killed? again, good luck in whatever fantasy world you're conducting these operations in.
The burden for minimizing collateral damage is also on the jihadi/insurgent/target. The target always has the choice to peacefully surrender when US or NATO forces appear.
They have to weigh the value of the lives of their own children against their ideology. The problem is when they view the deaths of themselves and their children (or other noncombatants) as martyrs to their cause, rather than a rational respect for the sanctity of human life. Discipline is high with US and NATO troops, and firing on someone surrendering isn't going to happen purposefully in most cases.
The jihadis always have a choice. They usually take the wrong one and therefore there are not good consequences for them or those around them.
We, as civilized people, can't excuse them for their savagery and little value placed on human life. They can surrender. They can cease terror tactics.
The burden for minimizing collateral damage is also on the jihadi/insurgent/target. The target always has the choice to peacefully surrender when US or NATO forces appear.
They have to weigh the value of the lives of their own children against their ideology. The problem is when they view the deaths of themselves and their children (or other noncombatants) as martyrs to their cause, rather than a rational respect for the sanctity of human life. Discipline is high with US and NATO troops, and firing on someone surrendering isn't going to happen purposefully in most cases.
The jihadis always have a choice. They usually take the wrong one and therefore there are not good consequences for them or those around them.
We, as civilized people, can't excuse them for their savagery and little value placed on human life. They can surrender. They can cease terror tactics.
consider that these are clandestine forces conducting a clandestine operation, a kidnapping or an assassination, on foreign soil with no declaration of war. why would they surrender? in their eyes we are in the wrong. in everyone else's eyes if we don't want civilian children dead we shouldn't conduct clan ops on foreign soil and violate the sovereignty of other nations.
that article you wrote sounds like it came from a Chinese propaganda factory.
It's a boiler plate write up similar to that's been used in every news paper on the planet regardless of political background or race. Similar to what's been used since the time people could scroll on stone tablets.
no mention of children killed? again, good luck in whatever fantasy world you're conducting these operations in.
I'd consider your position far more fantasy (naivete really) based as to the realities of the issue at hand and history, but that's what makes horse racing I guess.
there is a fundamental misunderstanding in this thread.
just because you are right doesn't make everything you do right.
just because the united states is right in rooting out terrorists, doesn't mean it can just go and do that in any means possible.
Moose-Knuckle
10-08-13, 16:13
Innocent children . . . JEEZUS H CHRIST! :suicide:
Like the innocent children that played on the rotors of Super6-1 and celebrated as they dragged the bodies of our troopers through the streets in Mogadishu. Or how about the innocent children that played on the bridge in Fallujah as they decorated it with bodies of Blackwater contractors.
That's right, let them shield the bad guys and grow up to fight us another day . . .
consider that these are clandestine forces conducting a clandestine operation, a kidnapping or an assassination, on foreign soil with no declaration of war. why would they surrender? in their eyes we are in the wrong. in everyone else's eyes if we don't want civilian children dead we shouldn't conduct clan ops on foreign soil and violate the sovereignty of other nations.
So just let the enemy operate wherever they wish, use whatever tactics they wish, and kill whomever they wish- then escape to someplace like Somalia or Libya and we can't touch them? AQ declared war on the US. AQ declared war on the people who were just going about their day and going to work in the 1998 embassy bombings. AQ/Al Shabaab declared war on innocent civilians and kids going to a mall in Kenya.
In Somalia today, who is in charge? In the area where the op occurred, the Somali government has no control and Al Shabaab was in charge of that territory, so there was no issue of sovereignty. They declared war by conducting their attack on the Westgate mall.
So just let the enemy operate wherever they wish, use whatever tactics they wish, and kill whomever they wish- then escape to someplace like Somalia or Libya and we can't touch them? AQ declared war on the US. AQ declared war on the people who were just going about their day and going to work in the 1998 embassy bombings. AQ/Al Shabaab declared war on innocent civilians and kids going to a mall in Kenya.
In Somalia today, who is in charge? In the area where the op occurred, the Somali government has no control and Al Shabaab was in charge of that territory, so there was no issue of sovereignty. They declared war by conducting their attack on the Westgate mall.
you can cite all the examples you wish. its already made up your mind. that's fine. I'm not disagreeing with the position. I'm disagreeing that the world at large would find it acceptable, it clearly would not. we don't live in a vacuum. we are not an island. worse yet we have feelers, tentacles, and roots that stretch to every other nations business. cost of the modern world.
all actions have consequences. you've evaluated the ones you want. that's fine, but most people aren't thinking like you.
It's a boiler plate write up similar to that's been used in every news paper on the planet regardless of political background or race. Similar to what's been used since the time people could scroll on stone tablets.
I'd consider your position far more fantasy (naivete really) based as to the realities of the issue at hand and history, but that's what makes horse racing I guess.
I'm pretty sure the news articles would include the number of children dead from united states cruise missiles. how much each cruise missile costs. approximately how many missiles were deployed according to x number of military sources. and then at the end a short blip about the original target and his very long name.
people are bemoaning then leak of what happened on these operations. consider that these may have been leaked to save face. one operation was thwarted by kids being in the way and one little douche that got the drop on the water ninjas. if nothing was spoken of this and the full story explained, what would the alibabanet have to say about it? what victory would they be painting themselves in?
not saying its a great reason, just a position to consider.
you can cite all the examples you wish. its already made up your mind. that's fine. I'm not disagreeing with the position. I'm disagreeing that the world at large would find it acceptable, it clearly would not. we don't live in a vacuum. we are not an island. worse yet we have feelers, tentacles, and roots that stretch to every other nations business. cost of the modern world.
all actions have consequences. you've evaluated the ones you want. that's fine, but most people aren't thinking like you.
So, outside of Iran, North Korea, Al Qaeda, some idiots in Venezuela/Bolivia/Ecuador (as they benefit from AQIM's drug trade in Europe) , Al Shabaab, AQIM, etc. who would disagree with the capture of terrorists who kill civilians?
You are right, we do not live in a vacuum, and a weak response in the face of terror is the worst possible response. Weak responses to Islamic terror for the past 40 years (even further back, as well) is why there is a problem today. So yes, we do have to worry about what the rest of the world thinks when we respond weakly.
So, outside of Iran, North Korea, Al Qaeda, some idiots in Venezuela/Bolivia/Ecuador (as they benefit from AQIM's drug trade in Europe) , Al Shabaab, AQIM, etc. who would disagree with the capture of terrorists who kill civilians?
You are right, we do not live in a vacuum, and a weak response in the face of terror is the worst possible response. Weak responses to Islamic terror for the past 40 years (even further back, as well) is why there is a problem today. So yes, we do have to worry about what the rest of the world thinks when we respond weakly.
I think there's some vaginas in the UK, France, Germany, china, Russia, etc that will talk shit about the united states killing kids. do you seriously doubt that?
its weird that you're taking the position that the war on terror can be won or that a strong response can somehow make a huge difference. I thought the prevailing wisdom was that it can't be won. there will be a continuous stream of shitbags dying to do what terrorists do.
so it doesn't matter how strong nor weak the response is, you can't stamp it out. you're just keeping then pressure at bay just like the war on drugs. you can dump a ton of resources to ramp up pressure against, but attacks will still happen. the big problem is you can't kill them all. you have to get to the point where these individual groups elevate themselves enough that it is no longer personally profitable to conduct terrorism. change their decision theory process.
Innocent children . . . JEEZUS H CHRIST! :suicide:
Like the innocent children that played on the rotors of Super6-1 and celebrated as they dragged the bodies of our troopers through the streets in Mogadishu. Or how about the innocent children that played on the bridge in Fallujah as they decorated it with bodies of Blackwater contractors.
That's right, let them shield the bad guys and grow up to fight us another day . . .
I seriously doubt kids were the factor. They lost the element of surprise and encountered a lot of resistance.
They probably had two choices:
1. Stay and fight with no realistic means of accomplishing goals until ammo is expended and casualties become unmanageable.
2. Realize they are compromised and abort with everybody intact.
This guy knows he's a target. He's always going to be a target.
Moose-Knuckle
10-08-13, 17:27
I seriously doubt kids were the factor. They lost the element of surprise and encountered a lot of resistance.
They probably had two choices:
1. Stay and fight with no realistic means of accomplishing goals until ammo is expended and casualties become unmanageable.
2. Realize they are compromised and abort with everybody intact.
This guy knows he's a target. He's always going to be a target.
I'm with you there, JSOC didn't want Battle of the Black Sea 2.0 . . .
I think there's some vaginas in the UK, France, Germany, china, Russia, etc that will talk shit about the united states killing kids. do you seriously doubt that? The UK, France, and Germany has elements that will complain about anything, but their viewpoint is naive and unrealistic. So we should cater to that fringe? Are you seriously proposing that we should look to China and Russia for meaningful commentary about restraint in use of force or sanctity of human life? Granted, both have their own problems with restive Islamic regions, so it is doubtful that either would have issues with raids and dead kids in Somalia since there's no oil for the Chinese and no money to buy Russian arms.
its weird that you're taking the position that the war on terror can be won or that a strong response can somehow make a huge difference. I thought the prevailing wisdom was that it can't be won. there will be a continuous stream of shitbags dying to do what terrorists do.
The question about winning isn't whether it can be won, but a question of leadership and political will. The war on terror, just like any other war, can be won. Physical victory is a question of numbers. You can theoretically kill all the scumbags. How did the Romans put down rebellion? How did the US get the Japanese to surrender? How did the areas of the Middle East become Islamic in the first place? The question isn't about tactics but political will. Streams of shitbags willing to die will run dry.
so it doesn't matter how strong nor weak the response is, you can't stamp it out. you're just keeping then pressure at bay just like the war on drugs. you can dump a ton of resources to ramp up pressure against, but attacks will still happen. the big problem is you can't kill them all. you have to get to the point where these individual groups elevate themselves enough that it is no longer personally profitable to conduct terrorism. change their decision theory process.
The war on drugs intersects with the war on terror. And yes, you can kill them all as that is just a question of physics. Whether or not you want to or whether it accomplishes your goals becomes a question of political will. The gap between "can" and "should" is filled with politics.
According to your reasoning, the point where terrorism will stop is when the terrorists get what they want and we lower our expectations so that can be the popular kid. I'm sorry, but the Obama speech in Cairo that outlined this policy has proven to be a monumental failure.
Given the choices, I would rather see the US as the kid with the first place trophy standing on top of the corpse of the scumbag kid with the 11th place trophy. Trying to run weak foreign policy based on perceived optics doesn't work. People respect strength. It is the same today as it was with the first US raid on Muslim soil back at the battle of Derne, with the political will being an unreliable element.
No I am not. I simply used the largest and most obvious examples of larger scales of such events. I also mentioned Bin L camp taken out with cruise missiles. Taking out a camp known - or suspected - to contain non combatants to get the target, or achieve an objective, is nothing new on both very large and small scale.
Well, OBL was a player of such importance that "any" collateral damage was probably viewed as acceptable if the window of opportunity presented itself.
OK, so you're saying camps of that nature, containing a key target, have not been taken out knowing non combatants were there without any measures to warn anyone? You have been far closer to such things than I have, so I respect your opinion on that, but I don't buy it.
I'm not claiming that's the correct response in this case (which is why I asked for opinions) but, I wonder the wisdom of allowing such a target to survive, go deeper into hiding, to carry out other, perhaps larger attacks that indeed target civilians.
I'll try to compress this, as it probably isn't very interesting for those with an attitude of "kill everyone"; not referring to you.
I am not going to pretend to know the ROE under which these guys operate when conducting missions like the recent ones in Africa.
Anywho, when planning a mission you will have an objective and an end-state. How you complete the objective and reach the end-state is dependant on several different factors:
-ROE
-Targeting process
-Available intel
-Assets available to support the mission
-Mission importance
When all of these factors have been considered, you should end up with a plan that leaves you with a bit of wiggle-room with regards to use of force. You might also end up with engaging a target that knowingly will incur civilian casualties, where the military neccessity of destroying that target trumps any other concern. For example, a strategic weapons plant in a residential area. You will try to alert the civilian populace, but people who do not leave have made their choice.
It is not illegal to kill civilians in war, if they are considered accaptable collateral damage when weighed against the importance of the mission. It is however illegal to indiscriminately or directly target civilians.
The second type of situation where collateral damage is acceptable is during tactical emergencies/in-extremis situations. This is due to the inherent right to self-defence of all humans, and theoretically there is no limit to what you can do to save yourself and your soldiers' lives. I do know one incident where the guys on the ground had called ECAS, and the JTAC on the ground gave the pilot the "cleared hot" command, but the pilot refused to drop ordance due to the proximity of hostiles to civilians, and difficulty in distinguishing own troops from enemies/civilians.
In this specific case, Somalia, I would have supported the use of deadly force on everyone in the target area if the team was close to being overrun and killed/captured.
Using some form of ordnance as soon as they had PID on the target, without regard for collateral damage would have been a poor decision, unless the target was extremely high value or there were other factors in play that made alternative options less feasable.
In short, you must take every measure possible to avoid civilian casualties without compromising mission success or unit safety.
A few general observations on the "kill everyone" attitude displayed by some.
First, if we go around indiscriminately killing people who are not directly involved with fighting or targets, how does that make us different from the terrorists who attack us at home?
Second, how can people be so quick to advocate for the killing of "innocent" third parties abroad, while being up in arms if innocents are hurt/killed during domestic police action? In my book, neither is ok.
If we indiscriminately kill people, we won't win anything, as this only breeds more people who will display animosity towards us. I am not opposed to killing, but we need to kill the right people.
Third, did the team on the ground lack the resolve to complete the mission? That is basically what some of you are saying. Showing restraint with regards to use of force does not equate lacking resolve or a weak will, it shows that the people on the ground are able to make tactically sound decisions as the situation develops.
Your comment is not logical. When we fire bombed Tokyo and Dresden, the reaction was it was a necessary evil and strategy at the time. Historians many decades later sitting in their safe office may say otherwise, as they may for the two nukes we dropped, etc.
There were no non combatants in the camp we took out with cruise missiles where we missed Bin Laden? Hmm ok.
We try and live in a neat little fantasy where collateral damage does not happen with the tech we have, but it's not the case (but vastly improved compared to prior conflicts to be sure) and some times, the BG give you no other choice. If it's "hearts and minds" we want by not taking out that target, I think that ship sailed a long time ago, but others may have a more informed take on that one.
Some times it saves lives on the larger scale (or at least saves lives of those we want to protect) to take decisive action vs wait for the perfect time/place.
This may have been such a case. But, I was not there, and don't make policy, and am going off a source with unknown quality, so just thinking out loud on this one.
In the end it doesn't matter whst others in the world community think of us. Its whether we have leaders who will bear the burden of making that decision.
From what I see in Washington D.C. our leaders don't have that characteristic.
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
yup :)
agree again :)
like I say I will protect my children at the costs of others ? just the way it is !
I feel sorry for the kids over in other countries for sure
glad I chose the job I did and not one where tough decisions have to be made but sadly we have a pussy in the white house these days who likes the terrorist kids more than our kids
why things were called off we will never for sure know !
but beghazi and F&F and many others are the clues we need and we can make our own judgements on why this adminstration does the things it does
look what its doing to the people of this country this week ! and look what it did for the vets and the illegal aliens and groups that support the drug cartels !
I still think we are being set up ! and while he has killed a few bad guys its OK cause the bigger goal is the fall of the US in his eyes and he has to take out a few bad guys to keep the charade up for some
Innocent children . . . JEEZUS H CHRIST! :suicide:
Like the innocent children that played on the rotors of Super6-1 and celebrated as they dragged the bodies of our troopers through the streets in Mogadishu. Or how about the innocent children that played on the bridge in Fallujah as they decorated it with bodies of Blackwater contractors.
That's right, let them shield the bad guys and grow up to fight us another day . . .
I hardly think that POTUS is involved with decisions on the micro-level.
A few general observations on the "kill everyone" attitude displayed by some.
First, if we go around indiscriminately killing people who are not directly involved with fighting or targets, how does that make us different from the terrorists who attack us at home?
Second, how can people be so quick to advocate for the killing of "innocent" third parties abroad, while being up in arms if innocents are hurt/killed during domestic police action? In my book, neither is ok.
If we indiscriminately kill people, we won't win anything, as this only breeds more people who will display animosity towards us. I am not opposed to killing, but we need to kill the right people.
Third, did the team on the ground lack the resolve to complete the mission? That is basically what some of you are saying. Showing restrain with regards to use of force does not equate lacking resolve or a weak will, it shows that the people on the ground are able to make tactically sound decisions as the situation develops.
Excellent info, thanx. A decision was made based on some of the variables you presented no doubt. I only hope it was the right people making those decisions for the right reasons. I'm not in the 'kill everyone' camp as SOP; my comments were specific to this event, and similar. I do wonder if the target was high value enough/dangerous enough, to warrant plan B mentioned, but that's well above my pay grade as they say.
I hardly think that POTUS is involved with decisions on the micro-level.
Not being from the US, you have to understand those who hate the current POTUS pretty much assume he's involved in every single decision everywhere all the time and everything his fault. :D
I didn't vote for the man, and he's not a favorite of mine by any means, but all perspective has been lost (similar to how some felt about the last POTUS) regarding this pres and his actual involvement in various decisions, etc.
BTW, my mother's name was Inga, my grandmother moved from Norway to the US, and I have relatives in Norway. Some day I'll visit to be sure.
Second, how can people be so quick to advocate for the killing of "innocent" third parties abroad, while being up in arms if innocents are hurt/killed during domestic police action? In my book, neither is ok.
i was going to invoke ruby ridge and waco.
the thing is most people found ruby ridge and waco to be legitimate operations that had tragic results.
the same argument of: they could surrender as soon as law enforcement arrived, could be used.
In this specific case, Somalia, I would have supported the use of deadly force on everyone in the target area if the team was close to being overrun and killed/captured.
Using some form of ordnance as soon as they had PID on the target, without regard for collateral damage would have been a poor decision, unless the target was extremely high value or there were other factors in play that made alternative options less feasable.
In short, you must take every measure possible to avoid civilian casualties without compromising mission success or unit safety.
with the information furnished in the news articles it would appear the deicsion was made (probably not by the potus) that the mission success was to purposely be comprimised for unit safety and the avoidance of collateral damage. just a comment. not saying the news articles are accurate, but it seems that's the narrative given the information you have furnished.
The UK, France, and Germany has elements that will complain about anything, but their viewpoint is naive and unrealistic. So we should cater to that fringe? Are you seriously proposing that we should look to China and Russia for meaningful commentary about restraint in use of force or sanctity of human life? Granted, both have their own problems with restive Islamic regions, so it is doubtful that either would have issues with raids and dead kids in Somalia since there's no oil for the Chinese and no money to buy Russian arms.
is that many first world countries really considered fringe? i'm not saying that we cater to such a crowd. what i am saying is that the world is a very complicated place. who knows what other deals are on the line at any one time. who knows what kind of consequences may result from indiscriminate action in one place when political support is required elsewhere? i don't think anyone contested that we're not an island. that being the case, would we be wise kill some kids and jeopardize relations or public opinion over one dude? i don't understand how people can have such a one dimensional and simplistic view about things. do you guys not evaluate long term consequences of actions? would i be remiss in assuming that there are mathematicians and economists versed in game theory formulating at least the general umbrella of strategy by which these these decisions are made?
The question about winning isn't whether it can be won, but a question of leadership and political will. The war on terror, just like any other war, can be won.
so how do you kill the idea? even if you kill every single person bearing the idea, you still have the next person who comes across that idea to contend with. even if you knew every person who had the idea, which we don't, you would have difficulty erradicating the decentralized organization.
Physical victory is a question of numbers. You can theoretically kill all the scumbags.
theoretically? this is one of the most tactically impractical statements i've ever read on the internet.
How did the Romans put down rebellion? How did the US get the Japanese to surrender? How did the areas of the Middle East become Islamic in the first place? The question isn't about tactics but political will. Streams of shitbags willing to die will run dry.
so if it were tactically possible, how much would it cost? would it be possible with limited resources? or are we doing a theoretical exercise where we ignore real life boundary conditions like time, money, energy, etc?
The war on drugs intersects with the war on terror. And yes, you can kill them all as that is just a question of physics.
i want to know what branch of physics you're studying. what happens when you disrupt and dismantle one cell of a decentralized, cellular organization? it gets replaced. it only runs out when the people willing to participate runs out. that demand can only be quelled by a fundamental change in individual decision theory. a reevaluation of every single indivdual's evaluation of personal economics, their own cost benefit ratio.
According to your reasoning, the point where terrorism will stop is when the terrorists get what they want and we lower our expectations so that can be the popular kid. I'm sorry, but the Obama speech in Cairo that outlined this policy has proven to be a monumental failure.
wrong. it stops when they all eat happy meals everyday and become obese like us. they need to get themselves to a state where there's something to personally lose, that is not worth losing, in the act of participating in jihad. even then there will be a marginal group that are still willing to participate in jihad, it's just the reality of statistics. but if you pacify them with prosperity... they will be pacified.
Given the choices, I would rather see the US as the kid with the first place trophy standing on top of the corpse of the scumbag kid with the 11th place trophy. Trying to run weak foreign policy based on perceived optics doesn't work. People respect strength. It is the same today as it was with the first US raid on Muslim soil back at the battle of Derne, with the political will being an unreliable element.
i guess might makes right... even if it doesn't make victory....
A few general observations on the "kill everyone" attitude displayed by some.
First, if we go around indiscriminately killing people who are not directly involved with fighting or targets, how does that make us different from the terrorists who attack us at home?
Second, how can people be so quick to advocate for the killing of "innocent" third parties abroad, while being up in arms if innocents are hurt/killed during domestic police action? In my book, neither is ok.
If we indiscriminately kill people, we won't win anything, as this only breeds more people who will display animosity towards us. I am not opposed to killing, but we need to kill the right people.
Third, did the team on the ground lack the resolve to complete the mission? That is basically what some of you are saying. Showing restraint with regards to use of force does not equate lacking resolve or a weak will, it shows that the people on the ground are able to make tactically sound decisions as the situation develops.
I agree with you. My comments were that we have the capability to "kill'em all" as killing is just numbers and physics. Political will is what prevents us from doing so. Debate and discussion about whether indiscriminate killing makes for good policy is the political process. If you could guarantee (100% foolproof, no unintended consequences) that killing everyone of a certain belief system can create a better world for my kids, I would be for it. The first problem with that type of rationality is that it is totally unrealistic and impossible as there are always consequences for action and many unintended consequences down the road. The second problem with that type of policy is that history will either judge you as another Hitler or as another Ferdinand of Spain depending on outcomes, which are totally uncontrollable at the time of action.
The problem I have with "innocent civilians" is when they are used as human shields and there is zero respect for non-combatant lives by the current enemy. One of the basic tenants of humanity and civilization is the respect for the sanctity of life. Doctrine and training on our side places high value on innocent life, the ideology of the enemy does not. If I put my wife and son in a situation where they are in great peril through my action, justified it through ideological (extreme religious interpretation, etc.), when I have the choice of surrender to save them - it is my fault if they died in the process. If my son and wife aid me in fighting, they are no longer non-combatants.
The team on the ground made tactical decisions that resulted in a failure to reach the objective of the mission. Making those decisions demonstrates the value placed on lives (ours and theirs) by those entrusted to make the decision. Sometimes a blunt instrument (JDAM, etc.) is the tool for the job, other times it is a surgeon's scalpel.
The criticism and cynicism here is largely based on POTUS and how he portrayed himself as the trigger man on killing Bin Laden. ST6 now has unrealistic expectation heaped on their backs as a result of this grandstanding and ego-centric rhetoric from POTUS. That is where the cynicism comes from and why there is a perception of weakness. The weakness is POTUS and his policies, not sound decisionmaking in a fluid situation by the SEALs on the ground.
Things get lost in the abyss of international media, but to see why the micromanaging is suspected, just view how many times Obama says "I" in this speech: Bin Ladin is dead (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20058783-503544.html). A good leader doesn't take sole credit for the result of a great team effort.
is that many first world countries really considered fringe? i'm not saying that we cater to such a crowd. what i am saying is that the world is a very complicated place. who knows what other deals are on the line at any one time. who knows what kind of consequences may result from indiscriminate action in one place when political support is required elsewhere? i don't think anyone contested that we're not an island. that being the case, would we be wise kill some kids and jeopardize relations or public opinion over one dude? i don't understand how people can have such a one dimensional and simplistic view about things. do you guys not evaluate long term consequences of actions? would i be remiss in assuming that there are mathematicians and economists versed in game theory formulating at least the general umbrella of strategy by which these these decisions are made?
so how do you kill the idea? even if you kill every single person bearing the idea, you still have the next person who comes across that idea to contend with. even if you knew every person who had the idea, which we don't, you would have difficulty erradicating the decentralized organization.
theoretically? this is one of the most tactically impractical statements i've ever read on the internet.
so if it were tactically possible, how much would it cost? would it be possible with limited resources? or are we doing a theoretical exercise where we ignore real life boundary conditions like time, money, energy, etc?
i want to know what branch of physics you're studying. what happens when you disrupt and dismantle one cell of a decentralized, cellular organization? it gets replaced. it only runs out when the people willing to participate runs out. that demand can only be quelled by a fundamental change in individual decision theory. a reevaluation of every single indivdual's evaluation of personal economics, their own cost benefit ratio.
wrong. it stops when they all eat happy meals everyday and become obese like us. they need to get themselves to a state where there's something to personally lose, that is not worth losing, in the act of participating in jihad. even then there will be a marginal group that are still willing to participate in jihad, it's just the reality of statistics. but if you pacify them with prosperity... they will be pacified.
i guess might makes right... even if it doesn't make victory....
Unless you are a powerful policy maker who can enact specific, real world policy, all discussions are theoretical. I know I am not a policy maker, so I can only speak in theory. Theoretically, it is possible to kill a huge amount of the earth's population. You can do so with many types of current technologies (nuclear, bio, etc). As a civilization, we have the capability to do so, that isn't just theory but reality. Whether we have the capacity and that makes good policy is a political/moral debate. That is why there is a difference between "can" and "should". What keeps this a theoretical discussion is the assumption that both of us are sane, so neither would unleash indiscriminate mass death on the world's population. That is the difference between capability and capacity.
You can discredit an idea or oppress an idea (depending on historical context) so it no longer has any traction. How many Western people do you know (or even hear of) that still worship Greco-Roman Gods or do the pagan rituals? How many Mexicans still practice human sacrifice and cannibalism as ritual? Granted, that idea didn't die overnight, and there was resistance to it passing along the way; but it is not part of societal reality today.
Unless you are a powerful policy maker who can enact specific, real world policy, all discussions are theoretical. I know I am not a policy maker, so I can only speak in theory. Theoretically, it is possible to kill a huge amount of the earth's population. You can do so with many types of current technologies (nuclear, bio, etc). As a civilization, we have the capability to do so, that isn't just theory but reality. Whether we have the capacity and that makes good policy is a political/moral debate. That is why there is a difference between "can" and "should". What keeps this a theoretical discussion is the assumption that both of us are sane, so neither would unleash indiscriminate mass death on the world's population. That is the difference between capability and capacity.
fair 'nuff
You can discredit an idea or oppress an idea (depending on historical context) so it no longer has any traction. How many Western people do you know (or even hear of) that still worship Greco-Roman Gods or do the pagan rituals? How many Mexicans still practice human sacrifice and cannibalism as ritual? Granted, that idea didn't die overnight, and there was resistance to it passing along the way; but it is not part of societal reality today.
i think this goes in line with changing social norms such that it is no longer personally beneficial to participate in those "antiquated" ideas. some day jihad will become antiquated as an ideal also... just might take forever.
Moose-Knuckle
10-09-13, 15:08
i was going to invoke ruby ridge and waco.
the thing is most people found ruby ridge and waco to be legitimate operations that had tragic results.
I can't think of many outside the Clinton/Reno/Holder camp that views either of those incidents as legitimate ops, more like police state mission creep.
the same argument of: they could surrender as soon as law enforcement arrived, could be used.
It's kind of hard to surrender when storm troopers shoot first and ask questions later . . . much . . . much later.
i was going to invoke ruby ridge and waco.
.
Don't , or the thread will crash real fast and get locked. Ruby Ridge and or Waco threads ==> search function
There's no reason to "invoke" those topics in this thread and is/are a whole other topic and can O worms that does not tend to end well.
ClearedHot
10-09-13, 17:22
There's no reason to "invoke" those topics in this thread and is/are a whole other topic and can O worms that does not tend to end well.
No reason other than to troll...
SeriousStudent
10-09-13, 22:31
Don't , or the thread will crash real fast and get locked. Ruby Ridge and or Waco threads ==> search function
There's no reason to "invoke" those topics in this thread and is/are a whole other topic and can O worms that does not tend to end well.
That's some real smart advice right there.
Agreed. We should not have drawn any attention to this. Our guys should have been behind the scenes totally anonymously killing bad guys and exiting the scene. It should have been done similar to the way Los Pepes anonymously targeted and killed members of Pablo Escobar's cartel.
An anonymous force acting in the shadows to hunt and kill Jihadis.
Instead the administration has to announce this and take claim for it. For political capital.
Do you think that you hear about even a fraction of their operations?
You just hear about some of them.
I would rather hear high ranking, bearded, smelly men dead.
Wow, how did it happen? And them living in the fear they try to spread...
Arctic, a raid on the scale of either one being discussed would have been personally approved by the President.
I think that is poorly advised but in the modern era it is the norm.
All arguments aside, I'm just glad that the team on the ground got to make the decision and not be lead from thousands of miles away.
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
Arctic, a raid on the scale of either one being discussed would have been personally approved by the President.
I think that is poorly advised but in the modern era it is the norm.
Maybe approving the raids themselves, although I find that to be an odd practice, but I doubt he had any say about HOW the missions were to be conducted.
I would have though that there was some kind of GWOT charter, outlining what kind of operations can be undertaken and at which level they need approval from.
All arguments aside, I'm just glad that the team on the ground got to make the decision and not be lead from thousands of miles away.
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
That's what we are lead to believe, we have no idea if that's true.
I would hope that at the level of knowledge and training of these high speed boys, the ROE's were preset and it was thier call when their boots made contact. Is this true?
It's his people and they answer to him
He is briefed on things and asked opinion on what to do
Everything ? No
but many major things he has knowledge of and input
Not being from the US, you have to understand those who hate the current POTUS pretty much assume he's involved in every single decision everywhere all the time and everything his fault. :D
I didn't vote for the man, and he's not a favorite of mine by any means, but all perspective has been lost (similar to how some felt about the last POTUS) regarding this pres and his actual involvement in various decisions, etc.
BTW, my mother's name was Inga, my grandmother moved from Norway to the US, and I have relatives in Norway. Some day I'll visit to be sure.
It's his people and they answer to him
He is briefed on things and asked opinion on what to do
Everything ? No
but many major things he has knowledge of and input
That is the nature of being POTUS.
I wished they would protect us from those ruining our constitution . Don't matter about the other countries.
Nothing about the operations involving the Navy Divers or an ODA should be public knowledge, nothing.
Nothing about the operations involving the Navy Divers or an ODA should be public knowledge, nothing.
Part of me agrees with you, but I'd much rather hear about real heros doing good deeds in the news than whatever celibrity trainwreck du jour they constantly talk about.
I'd much rather our future generations idolize these men than some athlete or pop star who offer no decernable bennifit to society.
Sadly, the reason we are hearing so much about these operations is because this current POSPOTUS wants it out there to make him look good and that he is keeping us safe and doing something positive to distract us from the real issues facing this country like the economy.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.