View Full Version : 17 kidnapped in Haiti ...
And state and the FBI are teamed up to save them? What could possibly go wrong? I suspect they will either end up paying the ransom or getting them killed. How is that the FBI's jurisdiction?
We all know what needs to be done there, but do they?
White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki said Monday that the FBI and State Department are working toward the release of the hostages. resident Biden has been briefed and is receiving regular updates, Psaki added.
“The FBI is part of a coordinated U.S. government effort to get the U.S. citizens involved to safety,” Psaki said during a press conference. “We are not going to go into too much detail on that but can confirm their engagement.”
https://sofrep.com/news/the-haitian-gang-that-kidnapped-16-americans-is-expected-to-demand-1-million-ransom-for-each-hostage/
titsonritz
10-19-21, 13:25
They need to pull one out of the Russian playbook and slay them all.
They need to pull one out of the Russian playbook and slay them all.
Take decisive action in a way they understand so it does not happen again under the B admin? Surely you jest.
titsonritz
10-19-21, 14:03
Take decisive action in a way they understand so it does not happen again under the B admin? Surely you jest.
That asshole will probably apologize and give them all 1st class tickets to the US to go along with millions.
FBI & DoS? I guess Empty Shelves Joe forgot we have a military? This job is tailor made for JSOC, not FBI & DoS. :(
Deadman William
10-19-21, 14:36
indeed - this demands swift and overwhelming violence. americans keep getting kidnapped because americans keep paying ransom. drop a battalion of rangers on the island with enough ammunition to commit a genocide and tell them to call for a ride home when the hostages are either liberated or dead.
FBI & DoS? I guess Empty Shelves Joe forgot we have a military? This job is tailor made for JSOC, not FBI & DoS. :(
Meat eaters with bad intent are the obvious option for violent thugs who don't care at all about human life. Those same gangs are preventing food, med, etc from accessing starving/dying people in their own country, they sure as chit don't care about anyone from another country.
I will add that those who go there to help as their calling without either security or some means of defense are better and braver humans than I am. F that.
I'm also not sure it's our responsibility to save their a$$ in such places, but it would be un American to not try.
Oh, and how many Americans are still in Af? Anyone even know?!
Gabriel556
10-19-21, 16:22
My idea is a pallet of “real” American cash, shrink wrapped, but with a MOAB stuffed in the middle. Drop it off with a C17 of troops, make the exchange and when 15 miles away, hit the detonator.
I heard Uncle Joe is sending Cornpop to rescue them, 'cause he is one bad dude.
Andy
read this the other day
Haiti is pretty much the highest kidnapping place in the world last I saw ?
Just say no more aid money until all kidnappings stop you know who is doing it make it happen :)
Sorry, but I think the missionaries should have assumed the risk before going there. Why is it my responsibility to save them? They should have saved themselves and stayed home.
Taking children to a depraved and extremely poor country that has seen destruction and anarchy ensue. Why put children in that situation?
BoringGuy45
10-19-21, 21:07
Sorry, but I think the missionaries should have assumed the risk before going there. Why is it my responsibility to save them? They should have saved themselves and stayed home.
I think they did assume the risk, and they were there helping people unable to help themselves. That doesn't mean they need to be left to death. We also shouldn't send the message that you can kidnap Americans with impunity because it's nobody's probably but their own if they get into a scrape.
We should be our brothers keepers. And I say screw this whole thing of "working towards releasing the hostages." How about "Alright punks. Let them go or we're going to kill every last one of you! Don't f**k with the U.S."
Sorry, but I think the missionaries should have assumed the risk before going there. Why is it my responsibility to save them? They should have saved themselves and stayed home.
To some extent I agree with you. That being said, people throughout the world need to be taught you don't screw with a U.S. citizen without suffering severe consequences. The FBI is not the first federally funded entity I would have chosen to recover the hostages.
I think the best way to communicate with people is in the language they best understand. Israel understands this concept very well. You f*** with us, we WILL find you, we WILL kill you, and we WILL f*** with your family to boot. You kill one of ours, we kill 10 of yours. Ready? Let's play, you first.
BoringGuy45
10-19-21, 21:38
To some extent I agree with you. That being said, people throughout the world need to be taught you don't screw with a U.S. citizen without suffering severe consequences. The FBI is not the first federally funded entity I would have chosen to recover the hostages.
Unfortunately, it means that using force to recover the hostages is probably not ever going to be considered. This is classic Democratic strategy. During the 90s, the CIA repeatedly went to Clinton and asked him to green light a strike on Bin Laden. Each time, it was the same answer: Only if the FBI gets to lead the mission, and it's going to be a capture, not kill, mission.
This crisis could be solved in a matter of days by sending a JSOC unit to put a violent end to the hostage takers. But likely what's going to happen is that those people are going to be held hostage for a year or more before the federal government pays off the hostage takers.
Taking children to a depraved and extremely poor country that has seen destruction and anarchy ensue. Why put children in that situation?
Normalcy bias, + a heaping helping of religious do-goodism and naivete about how the world works.
Kinda like the people that take their kids to "protests".
..."Haiti has been beset by problems. Gang crime is rising, and the government keeps losing control in gang-controlled areas..."
I am not surprised in the least. Gov in those places is already incompetent, or on the take, or undermanned/underskilled, or all the above. Given the gangs have been at this ransom thing for a while, hell, they probably have more money than the gov in a place like Haiti. It's going to continue to grow until it gets stopped.
Worst case, make a deal to pay the Haitian gov 16Mil to let us fly in a few high speed types to wack these guys and fly our folks out, lesser of evils at least.
Regardless, I'm not making policy, but I think kidnapping Americans for ransom is going to be big business within the next ten years, if we keep dealing with folks like this. The world knows we're weaksauce right now; we've already botched AFG and apparently have more or less lost control of our southern border, and now if we start paying ransom to shitty little gangsters...? Well, unleash the barbarian hordes, it's Fall Of Rome 2.0 in here.
Yes, I know I'm jumping the gun on predicting which way this will go, but given the current admin's swathe of idiocy they've managed to carve in less than a year, I'll take my own bet.
FBI & DoS? I guess Empty Shelves Joe forgot we have a military? This job is tailor made for JSOC, not FBI & DoS. :(
Honestly, I think we've put the JSOC guys in harms way enough, I don't want to spend them in Haiti. FBI sounds perfect.
Taking children to a depraved and extremely poor country that has seen destruction and anarchy ensue. Why put children in that situation?
Because some people are incredibly stupid, criminally naive and leave everything up to faith when they should be exercising common sense. Same people take their families to Africa all the time with often horrific results. Some are do gooders, some are god squad and some are just f'ing stupid.
BoringGuy45
10-19-21, 22:58
Honestly, I think we've put the JSOC guys in harms way enough, I don't want to spend them in Haiti. FBI sounds perfect.
The thing is though, they live for this stuff. They'll love nothing more than to send a message about what happens when you screw with our citizens.
How is that the FBI's jurisdiction?
Any time a crime happens to U.S. citizens overseas FBI is in charge of the investigation. DOS is in charge of personnel recovery.
indeed - this demands swift and overwhelming violence. americans keep getting kidnapped because americans keep paying ransom. drop a battalion of rangers on the island with enough ammunition to commit a genocide and tell them to call for a ride home when the hostages are either liberated or dead.
Yeah how many times have we occupied that half of that island? Three, four? And look at the good it’s done.
We could send the taliban since biden so well armed them ! and biden seems to be loving them since we are paying them now COME ON MAN help us out
BangBang77
10-20-21, 05:02
Ahhh, ye old "blame the victim" methodology...
Not surprising.
Ahhh, ye old "blame the victim" methodology...
Not surprising.
Have you ever been to Haiti?
I have multiple times, I have also been in 60% of sub Saharan African countries.
Haiti is the worlds biggest shit hole.
When you do into such a place, unarmed, untrained, don't cry when you get grabbed.
I favor throwing ever FBI agent in the USA, at the problem. Let them invade Haiti, 3 weeks later the Republic would be in a better place than we are today.
Unfortunately, it means that using force to recover the hostages is probably not ever going to be considered. This is classic Democratic strategy. During the 90s, the CIA repeatedly went to Clinton and asked him to green light a strike on Bin Laden. Each time, it was the same answer: Only if the FBI gets to lead the mission, and it's going to be a capture, not kill, mission.
This crisis could be solved in a matter of days by sending a JSOC unit to put a violent end to the hostage takers. But likely what's going to happen is that those people are going to be held hostage for a year or more before the federal government pays off the hostage takers.
I was on active duty when Jimmy Carter was POTUS.
Failure to lead, leads to failure.
The thing is though, they live for this stuff. They'll love nothing more than to send a message about what happens when you screw with our citizens.
I'd imagine many of them are chomping at the bit, after being sidelined during the Afghanistan exfil.
I was on active duty when Jimmy Carter was POTUS.
Failure to lead, leads to failure.
Carter was what he was, nicest guy who never should have been POTUS, but I'm not clear how the Iranian event could be put on his shoulders, assuming that was the reference. Beckwith spoke well of him in his book, and Beckwith didn't speak well of anyone! You may be privy to info I'm not, but for me, I'd give credit where credit due to Carter for green lighting that, knowing it was the make/brake his entire career dependent on the outcome. It was an audacious plan and risky, and it didn't end well and Carter told Beckwith to his face all responsibility as Commander In Chief was on him, and I respect Carter for that. That's leadership when it's not going your way, and it cost him bigly.
Personally, on that score, I don't see a parallel to Clinton, who turned his back on his duty as POTUS repeatedly for fear of losing an election and hurting feelings by not having OBL shot in the face.
Then there's Reagan, who then showed the US does negotiate with terrorists, set a terrible precedent there, and that seems to be ignored and overlooked.
Haiti is the worlds biggest shit hole.
Got a friend serving there now. She said it’s the worst place she has been stationed, and she’s done Iraq, Paki and AFG.
Got a friend serving there now. She said it’s the worst place she has been stationed, and she’s done Iraq, Paki and AFG.
A buddy of mine who is a combat medic has been there multiple times and said same. First time he went was for the first big earthquake. At that time, they were able to be armed at least. Then the government banned them from having any firearms, most of which they'd had to purchase there from locals. Once they had no firearms, that's when the gangs started to really go after the medical supplies and food and such. He said up to that point, it was not too bad, then it got real bad.
I'd expect the current situation makes the last one look relaxing as they never fully recovered and they have no leader.
Carter was what he was, nicest guy who never should have been POTUS, but I'm not clear how the Iranian event could be put on his shoulders, assuming that was the reference. Beckwith spoke well of him in his book, and Beckwith didn't speak well of anyone! You may be privy to info I'm not, but for me, I'd give credit where credit due to Carter for green lighting that, knowing it was the make/brake his entire career dependent on the outcome. It was an audacious plan and risky, and it didn't end well and Carter told Beckwith to his face all responsibility as Commander In Chief was on him, and I respect Carter for that. That's leadership when it's not going your way, and it cost him bigly.
Personally, on that score, I don't see a parallel to Clinton, who turned his back on his duty as POTUS repeatedly for fear of losing an election and hurting feelings by not having OBL shot in the face.
Then there's Reagan, who then showed the US does negotiate with terrorists, set a terrible precedent there, and that seems to be ignored and overlooked.
Jimmy Carter failed to take action for months. Carter thought he could negotiate with the terrorists holding the hostages in Iran.
President Reagan did negotiate with key terrorists during the early to mid 1980's by having the military kill them. President Reagan was not perfect and he spent a great deal of time trying to unfoul what Jimmy Carter did during his failed presidency.
Averageman
10-20-21, 16:21
My Brother was on Haiti with an Green Beret team many years ago.
These guys were acting in a LEO capacity until LEOs could be trained.
My Brother said there was a murder an hours for two and a half days.
The favorite weapon was a machete.
The thing is though, they live for this stuff. They'll love nothing more than to send a message about what happens when you screw with our citizens.
I understand that part, but if we lose "one f'ing guy" on a Haiti op, I'm gonna be livid. It's a risk / reward thing. If we want to let JSOC play, they can conduct training ops on our southern border.
They need to pull one out of the Russian playbook and slay them all.
We just play too nice too often and it puts Americans in danger. DEVGRU op and call it. We want to buy the terrorist lunch and talk.
PB
Jimmy Carter failed to take action for months. Carter thought he could negotiate with the terrorists holding the hostages in Iran.
President Reagan did negotiate with key terrorists during the early to mid 1980's by having the military kill them. President Reagan was not perfect and he spent a great deal of time trying to unfoul what Jimmy Carter did during his failed presidency.
Not to give Carter too much slack, but no one in Iran had forgotten Operation Ajax in 1952, which brought the Shah into power. And we backed his B.S. the whole time. He gave Central American governments a run for their money.
So once we allowed the Shah into the US for medical treatment after the Iranian Revolution, the Ayatollah refused to deal with Carter. Kind of a personal F.U.
Also, once the true hard-liners had taken over completely, the Iranians wouldn’t deal directly with American negotiators. Negotiations had to go thru the French-speaking Algerians, who didn’t speak Persian. And of course the Iranians didn’t speak French. It’s amongst the most cocked-up diplomatic episodes I’ve read about.
And don’t forget that Iraq invaded Iran in Sept 1980. That took up a bit of bandwidth.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Not to give Carter too much slack, but no one in Iran had forgotten Operation Ajax in 1952, which brought the Shah into power. And we backed his B.S. the whole time. He gave Central American governments a run for their money.
So once we allowed the Shah into the US for medical treatment after the Iranian Revolution, the Ayatollah refused to deal with Carter. Kind of a personal F.U.
Also, once the true hard-liners had taken over completely, the Iranians wouldn’t deal directly with American negotiators. Negotiations had to go thru the French-speaking Algerians, who didn’t speak Persian. And of course the Iranians didn’t speak French. It’s amongst the most cocked-up diplomatic episodes I’ve read about.
And don’t forget that Iraq invaded Iran in Sept 1980. That took up a bit of bandwidth.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
So we picked a side and went with the least radical Pahlavi dynasty. If I'm not mistaken the UK and the US built most of that oil drilling infrastructure so why hand it over to the crazy bunch?
As an aside, Carter was actually the person who DID finalize the negotiations for the release of US hostages in exchange for unfreezing Iranian bank accounts. They just waited for Reagan to be sworn in before finalizing the deal so Reagan usually is given credit. Not a huge fan of Carter, the President, but he did spend his last hours securing their release. Whatever he did wrong prior to that he spent his last days trying to fix it rather than get reelected so at least he did that right.
The whole thing was generally a fiasco that we should have seen in advance. The Shah wasn't exactly a nice guy and the only good thing you could really say about him was he wasn't as brutal as his father, but he still had more than a few human rights abuse problems.
But that is pretty much the way of the world over there, you either get an ayatollah or an assahola. If you don't have a strong grip on power you will soon be out of power. Only smart play we ever did was back Saddam and we even managed to f that one up in the end. Not saying Saddam was a nice guy but he did preside over a mostly secular arab state which ain't easy. Once he went to war with Iran we picked our side again and went with the least crazy guy.
For sure Carter stuck that out until he got word the plane had left the ground.
If the Iranians had followed the lead of the Saudis, it might have gone better. But fears of Iran aligning with the Soviets probably added weight to the decision to go ahead with rigging the election.
All-in-all, another CIA dumpster fire.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
For sure Carter stuck that out until he got word the plane had left the ground.
If the Iranians had followed the lead of the Saudis, it might have gone better. But fears of Iran aligning with the Soviets probably added weight to the decision to go ahead with rigging the election.
All-in-all, another CIA dumpster fire.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The problem with the CIA is they got away with it ONE TIME in Guatemalan back in 1954 and thought they could use it as a standard play anywhere and any time they wanted. And from that point on it was one failed "QB sneak" attempt after another.
Iran wasn't really a coup so much as a partnering up with the lesser of two evils. And all we really did was fund the people we wanted in power, we didn't overthrow anything by force. We provided financial assistance, intelligence and military training, it was far less than we did in Vietnam in the early days with advisors.
For sure Carter stuck that out until he got word the plane had left the ground.
If the Iranians had followed the lead of the Saudis, it might have gone better. But fears of Iran aligning with the Soviets probably added weight to the decision to go ahead with rigging the election.
All-in-all, another CIA dumpster fire.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Jimmy Carter did not want blood on his hands from the war that was coming with Iran, due to his incompetence, after he left office.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.