User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 1/6/2014 11:45:30 AM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Don't be silly dude. Everyone knows that the book (which was NOT written by a British author who writes SEAL fiction) was absolutely 100% correct. The movie will be just as great! Adding this last line just in case my sarcasm wasn't obvious enough. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Are we basing this discussion on the novel or the Hollywood movie? Don't be silly dude. Everyone knows that the book (which was NOT written by a British author who writes SEAL fiction) was absolutely 100% correct. The movie will be just as great! Adding this last line just in case my sarcasm wasn't obvious enough. I wish more folks understood that "Lone Survivor" is largely fiction. To answer the question, if (and it's a big "if") some "sheppards" stumbled upon them, their ROEs would have prohibited them from killing them, as they were un-armed non-combatants. There would never have been any such discussion. In reality, the recon team's first call of "We are soft compromised" (I have never gotten a real explanation as to what was meant by that) to their second call of "We are HARD compromised" (when Shah's group kicked off their pre-planned and set-up ambush) was about 15-20 minutes apart. At best, Shah sent one or some of his men down to their position to spook them, and get them out in the open and moving, so they could start their attack. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2014 11:46:14 AM EDT
[#2]
Interesting topic. It came up in media, before/around the first Gulf War in the SF community in a work titled 'In Search of the Warrior Spirit' and a similar incident unfolded in the first Gulf War in the infamous tale of woe that is Bravo Two-Zero, SAS mission.
It boils down to professional soldiers making ethical and moral decisions, despite the potential consequences. It is a profession of risk, danger and critical thinking. In a similar scenario, I could not bring myself to 'off' a non-combatant for the purpose of concealing presence or not delaying mission goals. This is why a rehearsed contingency plan, zip ties and duct tape are usually used. One of the great attributes that defines us a Western military power, and why publicized incidents of soldiers abusing prisoners/detainees is irksome. 'We' don't do that crap. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2014 11:51:47 AM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Crush the shepherds...see them driven from before you....hear the lamentations of their goats... This is the greatest thing. Oh shit...  
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2014 11:57:09 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Interesting topic. It came up in media, before/around the first Gulf War in the SF community in a work titled 'In Search of the Warrior Spirit' and a similar incident unfolded in the first Gulf War in the infamous tale of woe that is Bravo Two-Zero, SAS mission. It boils down to professional soldiers making ethical and moral decisions, despite the potential consequences. It is a profession of risk, danger and critical thinking. In a similar scenario, I could not bring myself to 'off' a non-combatant for the purpose of concealing presence or not delaying mission goals. This is why a rehearsed contingency plan, zip ties and duct tape are usually used. One of the great attributes that defines us a Western military power, and why publicized incidents of soldiers abusing prisoners/detainees is irksome. 'We' don't do that crap. Well said. My position is that the ROEs and laws regarding non-combatants exist for a reason. War does not exist simply for its' own sake. War should always have peace as its' ultimate goal. People can understand when their soldiers, men who take up arms, are killed by the enemy. However the indiscriminate killing of civilians is an injustice. If injustice is severe enough, the peace will not hold, regardless of what happens on the battlefield. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2014 11:57:40 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm assuming this is sarcasm? Marcus has already publicly stated that they made the wrong choice and that he'd do it differently if he had it to do over. I'll try to find the interview... ETA: http://navyseals.com/3647/60-minutes-interviews-lone-survivor-part-one/ 8 minute mark Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
But Afghans are a peaceful people that saved his life. Obviously they made the right decision. I'm assuming this is sarcasm? Marcus has already publicly stated that they made the wrong choice and that he'd do it differently if he had it to do over. I'll try to find the interview... ETA: http://navyseals.com/3647/60-minutes-interviews-lone-survivor-part-one/ 8 minute mark Fucking hindsight is a bitch. It sounds like Marcus has made his peace with it. I couldnt imagine having to live with that...... Sad deal all the way around. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2014 12:02:50 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Well said. My position is that the ROEs and laws regarding non-combatants exist for a reason. War does not exist simply for its' own sake. War should always have peace as its' ultimate goal. People can understand when their soldiers, men who take up arms, are killed by the enemy. However the indiscriminate killing of civilians is an injustice. If injustice is severe enough, the peace will not hold, regardless of what happens on the battlefield. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Interesting topic. It came up in media, before/around the first Gulf War in the SF community in a work titled 'In Search of the Warrior Spirit' and a similar incident unfolded in the first Gulf War in the infamous tale of woe that is Bravo Two-Zero, SAS mission. It boils down to professional soldiers making ethical and moral decisions, despite the potential consequences. It is a profession of risk, danger and critical thinking. In a similar scenario, I could not bring myself to 'off' a non-combatant for the purpose of concealing presence or not delaying mission goals. This is why a rehearsed contingency plan, zip ties and duct tape are usually used. One of the great attributes that defines us a Western military power, and why publicized incidents of soldiers abusing prisoners/detainees is irksome. 'We' don't do that crap. Well said. My position is that the ROEs and laws regarding non-combatants exist for a reason. War does not exist simply for its' own sake. War should always have peace as its' ultimate goal. People can understand when their soldiers, men who take up arms, are killed by the enemy. However the indiscriminate killing of civilians is an injustice. If injustice is severe enough, the peace will not hold, regardless of what happens on the battlefield. I hold a different view and I dont think there would have been anything indiscriminate about killing the goat herders. They represented a real and imminent threat to the team. I would kill them myself if there was some way to bring those boys back to their families. Thats just my view.....I value the lives of our military men that we send in harms way more than the lives of some goat herders from the other side of the planet. Dancing around the brutality of the fact that war fucking sucks......and sometimes people die....that is the reason we are still stuck in that fucking hell hole almost a decade after this incident happened. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2014 12:08:41 PM EDT
[#7]
Even if they did kill the shepherds, what do you do with 50 friggin sheep? In the book Luttrell mentions this.
From what I gathered, they MIGHT have had a better time if they tied them up and high tailed it out to extract. Either way, the situation just sucks. If you search, you can find a used-to-be SEAL on a different forum absolutely trashing Murphy and his decisions. One major criticism is why they just didn't high tail it out once they released the shepherds which I wondered too, however they might not have had a better time in that situation too as it only took about an hour for the Taliban to find them so it wasn't like they had a giant head-start. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2014 12:09:06 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I hold a different view and I dont think there would have been anything indiscriminate about killing the goat herders. They represented a real and imminent threat to the team. I would kill them myself if there was some way to bring those boys back to their families. Thats just my view.....I value the lives of our military men that we send in harms way more than the lives of some goat herders from the other side of the planet. Dancing around the brutality of the fact that war fucking sucks......and sometimes people die....that is the reason we are still stuck in that fucking hell hole almost a decade after this incident happened. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Interesting topic. It came up in media, before/around the first Gulf War in the SF community in a work titled 'In Search of the Warrior Spirit' and a similar incident unfolded in the first Gulf War in the infamous tale of woe that is Bravo Two-Zero, SAS mission. It boils down to professional soldiers making ethical and moral decisions, despite the potential consequences. It is a profession of risk, danger and critical thinking. In a similar scenario, I could not bring myself to 'off' a non-combatant for the purpose of concealing presence or not delaying mission goals. This is why a rehearsed contingency plan, zip ties and duct tape are usually used. One of the great attributes that defines us a Western military power, and why publicized incidents of soldiers abusing prisoners/detainees is irksome. 'We' don't do that crap. Well said. My position is that the ROEs and laws regarding non-combatants exist for a reason. War does not exist simply for its' own sake. War should always have peace as its' ultimate goal. People can understand when their soldiers, men who take up arms, are killed by the enemy. However the indiscriminate killing of civilians is an injustice. If injustice is severe enough, the peace will not hold, regardless of what happens on the battlefield. I hold a different view and I dont think there would have been anything indiscriminate about killing the goat herders. They represented a real and imminent threat to the team. I would kill them myself if there was some way to bring those boys back to their families. Thats just my view.....I value the lives of our military men that we send in harms way more than the lives of some goat herders from the other side of the planet. Dancing around the brutality of the fact that war fucking sucks......and sometimes people die....that is the reason we are still stuck in that fucking hell hole almost a decade after this incident happened. What you know about killing? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2014 12:09:31 PM EDT
[#9]
ive wondered the same since i read the book.
my conclusion is id rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6. waste em. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2014 12:20:01 PM EDT
[#10]
Here are my two cents.
I went to Desert Storm as a Tanker, not a grunt. We had contact with the enemy and with civilians after the hostilities ceased. I grew up in a household with a mother and father who were vets. I read a lot and I read a lot about the Vietnam War, among others. When we got alerted that we were going to war, I remembered all the instances in biographies and history books about civilians using kids to blow up soldiers. Vietnam wasn't long in the past when I was a kid. I went to a lot of veteran functions with my parents and grew up around a lot of Vietnam vets. I formed a mindset before I went that 1. I was already dead, nothing I could do other than training and my buddies would keep me alive. I read a lot of books about WW1 and other conflicts where soldiers survived by putting normal things away and just lived like they were dead. 2. ALL of the people in the combat zone that weren't Americans were rats. I told myself that and I made myself believe it. Nothing but dirty stinking plague infested rats bent on killing or hurting me. With that mindset it was easier to pull the trigger on the machine guns, or the main gun, or run over someone's house because it was in my sector of fire in a defensive position. During the time I was there I treated all of the civilians as less than human. I didn't want to get close to any of them, I didn't want to learn about their culture. I was there for war, not peace. Could I have killed a shepherd who was going to compromise my position. Yes. Would it have been right. Maybe. You can try and armchair quarterback what is happening in combat, especially in small unit operations. I would bet that Luttrell, if he could, would go back and change their decision on not killing the shepherds and still pass the mirror test. At least his buddies would have had a better chance, but then again, hindsight is always 20/20. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2014 12:20:26 PM EDT
[#11]
In the book (Lone Survivor) Luttrell writes specifically about what the strictly military decision would've been (putting ethics aside), and it was an easy decision to make: smoke the shepherds.
They obviously made a different decision for reasons already stated in this thread. God bless all nineteen men who died during Operation Redwing |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2014 12:21:20 PM EDT
[#12]
Hindsight is 20/20. All I have to go by is the book and I do have doubts after much reading that it happened exactly how the book lays it out.
With that said, it seems they could have tied the goat hearders up and bought some time. Looking back on the two choices we're given in the book, I would've let them go, but knowing now what happened, I'd kill 'em. These people allowed a rogue government to train and execute a deadly attack on American soil (9/11). They may not be combatants, but they aren't completely innocent as a people. You let that shit flourish in your country and you reap the consequences. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2014 12:24:18 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Hindsight is 20/20. All I have to go by is the book and I do have doubts after much reading that it happened exactly how the book lays it out. With that said, it seems they could have tied the goat hearders up and bought some time. Looking back on the two choices we're given in the book, I would've let them go, but knowing now what happened, I'd kill 'em. These people allowed a rogue government to train and execute a deadly attack on American soil (9/11). They may not be combatants, but they aren't completely innocent as a people. You let that shit flourish in your country and you reap the consequences. I don't think any of the training of the 9-11 hijackers happened in AFghanistan. Most of it happened here, IIRC. Number of Afghans involved in the 911 attacks? Zero. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2014 12:37:02 PM EDT
[#14]
I don't know what I'd do, but I know what I wouldn't and that's leave them zip tied up.
I don't know what the weather is like where and when they were, but leaving them to possibly die slowly is worse to me than flat out killing them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2014 12:38:31 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What you know about killing? http://universmarvel.com/ftp/psycho-pat/112010/barnes_ht_02.jpg Well played sir. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2014 12:38:41 PM EDT
[#16]
If they killed them, and if it had came to light, the would been court marshaled.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2014 12:39:14 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Crush the shepherds...see them driven from before you....hear the lamentations of their goats... This is the greatest thing. LOL. True. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2014 12:41:08 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Here are my two cents. I went to Desert Storm as a Tanker, not a grunt. We had contact with the enemy and with civilians after the hostilities ceased. I grew up in a household with a mother and father who were vets. I read a lot and I read a lot about the Vietnam War, among others. When we got alerted that we were going to war, I remembered all the instances in biographies and history books about civilians using kids to blow up soldiers. Vietnam wasn't long in the past when I was a kid. I went to a lot of veteran functions with my parents and grew up around a lot of Vietnam vets. I formed a mindset before I went that 1. I was already dead, nothing I could do other than training and my buddies would keep me alive. I read a lot of books about WW1 and other conflicts where soldiers survived by putting normal things away and just lived like they were dead. 2. ALL of the people in the combat zone that weren't Americans were rats. I told myself that and I made myself believe it. Nothing but dirty stinking plague infested rats bent on killing or hurting me. With that mindset it was easier to pull the trigger on the machine guns, or the main gun, or run over someone's house because it was in my sector of fire in a defensive position. During the time I was there I treated all of the civilians as less than human. I didn't want to get close to any of them, I didn't want to learn about their culture. I was there for war, not peace. Could I have killed a shepherd who was going to compromise my position. Yes. Would it have been right. Maybe. You can try and armchair quarterback what is happening in combat, especially in small unit operations. I would bet that Luttrell, if he could, would go back and change their decision on not killing the shepherds and still pass the mirror test. At least his buddies would have had a better chance, but then again, hindsight is always 20/20. Really? "Gunner, COAX, kids, 200!" Hope you like Leavenworth. The mirror test...please. If you are capable of offing some civilians/goat herds in the first place, you probably have no issue staring yourself down in the mirror, later in life, or PTSD. For the neophyte, On Killing or On Combat illuminates the ...coping... mechanisms some soldiers use to justify their actions. Collateral damage, and negligence aside, "smoking" non-combatants because you failed to plan for a contingency, such as a R&S patrol that gets compromised is shoddy leadership, planning and execution. War, combat, killing is ugly, and ruthless business. Deliberately murdering civillians...is criminal. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2014 12:42:52 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Smorgasbord for the Taliban? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Kill the herders then you have to kill the goats too, they're going to be wandering untended and raise suspicion . Smorgasbord for the Taliban? Thats their harem you'd be slaughtering. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2014 12:44:29 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Are we basing this discussion on the novel or the Hollywood movie? Is there a difference? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2014 12:45:53 PM EDT
[#21]
Hind sight being 20/20, maybe the could have detained the two until they were extracted and left them there. Tough call to make for those guys...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2014 12:48:58 PM EDT
[#22]
Just cut his tongue and eyes out. And his hands off.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2014 12:52:39 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Well played sir. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
What you know about killing? http://universmarvel.com/ftp/psycho-pat/112010/barnes_ht_02.jpg Well played sir. As I find myself occasionally using this, I went custom. Plus this thread needs about every 10 posts. Whole bunch of bad ass mother fuckers up in this bitch. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2014 12:52:41 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What you know about killing? http://universmarvel.com/ftp/psycho-pat/112010/barnes_ht_02.jpg Using Barnes in defense of LOAC? Thinking strategically, Mr. Sylvan. I like it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2014 12:54:38 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Is there a difference? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Are we basing this discussion on the novel or the Hollywood movie? Is there a difference? I haven't seen the movie. The book is not well regarded as a factual account of events. I bet if Luttrell had a "do over" it might be to not hand off his story to a writer of military fiction. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2014 12:56:49 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Using Barnes in defense of LOAC? Thinking strategically, Mr. Sylvan. I like it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
What you know about killing? http://universmarvel.com/ftp/psycho-pat/112010/barnes_ht_02.jpg Using Barnes in defense of LOAC? Thinking strategically, Mr. Sylvan. I like it. It's kind of ironic too, Barnes killed the unarmed civilian. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2014 12:56:50 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I haven't seen the movie. The book is not well regarded as a factual account of events. I bet if Luttrell had a "do over" it might be to not hand off his story to a writer of military fiction. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Are we basing this discussion on the novel or the Hollywood movie? Is there a difference? I haven't seen the movie. The book is not well regarded as a factual account of events. I bet if Luttrell had a "do over" it might be to not hand off his story to a writer of military fiction. Did he have a choice? Seems with his NDA the Navy probably had a lot to say about it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2014 12:57:29 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's kind of ironic too, Barnes killed the unarmed civilian. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
What you know about killing? http://universmarvel.com/ftp/psycho-pat/112010/barnes_ht_02.jpg Using Barnes in defense of LOAC? Thinking strategically, Mr. Sylvan. I like it. It's kind of ironic too, Barnes killed the unarmed civilian. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2014 1:01:28 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Smorgasbord Orgy for the Taliban? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Kill the herders then you have to kill the goats too, they're going to be wandering untended and raise suspicion . Smorgasbord Orgy for the Taliban? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2014 1:02:39 PM EDT
[#30]
I have an opinion, but I'll not speculate about events in which I was not a part of, lest I veer out of my lane. I think those guys became part of an impossible situation by both their own doing and by factors in which they had no control. What the margins were, I do not know.
RIP to those brave men we lost. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2014 1:05:17 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Zip tie goat herders to tree. Shove goats off cliff. Profit! Or radio in a FUBAR and go play cards. I like your thinking. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2014 1:13:18 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I like your thinking. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Zip tie goat herders to tree. Shove goats off cliff. Profit! Or radio in a FUBAR and go play cards. I like your thinking. IIRC, in the book, Luttrell says they had no means to tie them up. In the film, they tie them up but reason that leaving them tied up would likely get them eaten by wolves, so the cut 'em loose. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2014 1:13:33 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
What you know about killing? http://universmarvel.com/ftp/psycho-pat/112010/barnes_ht_02.jpg Using Barnes in defense of LOAC? Thinking strategically, Mr. Sylvan. I like it. It's kind of ironic too, Barnes killed the unarmed civilian. http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/483/894/463.jpg Actually I just was using it because thats what barnes said. Or not. I fucked it up.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2014 1:14:55 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Breaking the law of land warfare is stupid. What happens when joe shephard doesn't come back? Here is a thought, have an exfil plan for compromise. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
But Afghans are a peaceful people that saved his life. Obviously they made the right decision. I'm assuming this is sarcasm? Marcus has already publicly stated that they made the wrong choice and that he'd do it differently if he had it to do over. I'll try to find the interview... Damned either way, but from a cold tactical view point... Breaking the law of land warfare is stupid. What happens when joe shephard doesn't come back? Here is a thought, have an exfil plan for compromise. FWIR they had a plan but their COMS were SNAFU'd. Been a while since I read the book though. They did the right thing, cant say I would do the same but then that's why they are heros and Im not. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2014 1:21:13 PM EDT
[#35]
Handcuff/zip tie them together so it takes a hella long time for them to get down the mountain?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2014 1:24:41 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Actually I just was using it because thats what barnes said. Or not. I fucked it up.
 http://youtu.be/6cyXO5tO6kw
Its only Barnes' pivotal scene.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2014 1:27:52 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I wonder why they didnt do that? It would have been a goof compromise. The shepherd would have gotten free eventually and it would have bought them the time to complete the mission or GTFO. No killing of goats or shepherds necessary. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Zip tie goat herders to tree. Profit! I wonder why they didnt do that? It would have been a goof compromise. The shepherd would have gotten free eventually and it would have bought them the time to complete the mission or GTFO. No killing of goats or shepherds necessary. But I wasnt there , and hope Im never in that situation . |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2014 1:27:58 PM EDT
[#38]
I think there were better options:
-Keep them until you make contact with someone to extract you or at least back you up -Keep them until night when you have the advantage of NODs, tie them up, and leave |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2014 1:29:24 PM EDT
[#39]
Having read the book, I believe they made the right decision to let them go, they were non-combatants.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2014 1:34:16 PM EDT
[#40]
Damn, I just found the afgan's video from the fight. Very hard to watch
Warning Graphic: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=059_1314303135&comments=1 |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2014 1:41:29 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I think there were better options: -Keep them until you make contact with someone to extract you or at least back you up -Keep them until night when you have the advantage of NODs, tie them up, and leave Agreed. At first glance, the 'elites' get complacent-but I will have to re-read the book, before I can armchair GD quarterback on this one. Preliminary opinion- There should never have been any discussion on what to do if they were compromised. They SHOULD have known. Break contact, detain, whatever their SOP was. The real elites/professionals do the BASICS very well, are thorough/OCD, and believe in the power of the PCI. Derp...forgot to put fresh batteries in my Framolator. Derp...forgot to refill my camelback. Derp...What do we do if? Rehearsals, rehearsals of contingency plans, and test firing of coms, weapons, NODS, and other battery fired devices...SOP. Did I mention rehearsals? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2014 1:45:30 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What you know about killing? http://universmarvel.com/ftp/psycho-pat/112010/barnes_ht_02.jpg Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Interesting topic. It came up in media, before/around the first Gulf War in the SF community in a work titled 'In Search of the Warrior Spirit' and a similar incident unfolded in the first Gulf War in the infamous tale of woe that is Bravo Two-Zero, SAS mission. It boils down to professional soldiers making ethical and moral decisions, despite the potential consequences. It is a profession of risk, danger and critical thinking. In a similar scenario, I could not bring myself to 'off' a non-combatant for the purpose of concealing presence or not delaying mission goals. This is why a rehearsed contingency plan, zip ties and duct tape are usually used. One of the great attributes that defines us a Western military power, and why publicized incidents of soldiers abusing prisoners/detainees is irksome. 'We' don't do that crap. Well said. My position is that the ROEs and laws regarding non-combatants exist for a reason. War does not exist simply for its' own sake. War should always have peace as its' ultimate goal. People can understand when their soldiers, men who take up arms, are killed by the enemy. However the indiscriminate killing of civilians is an injustice. If injustice is severe enough, the peace will not hold, regardless of what happens on the battlefield. I hold a different view and I dont think there would have been anything indiscriminate about killing the goat herders. They represented a real and imminent threat to the team. I would kill them myself if there was some way to bring those boys back to their families. Thats just my view.....I value the lives of our military men that we send in harms way more than the lives of some goat herders from the other side of the planet. Dancing around the brutality of the fact that war fucking sucks......and sometimes people die....that is the reason we are still stuck in that fucking hell hole almost a decade after this incident happened. What you know about killing? http://universmarvel.com/ftp/psycho-pat/112010/barnes_ht_02.jpg I love it.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2014 1:46:14 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Damn, I just found the afgan's video from the fight. Very hard to watch
Warning Graphic: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=059_1314303135&comments=1 Fuck. Blood pressure rising. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2014 1:48:55 PM EDT
[#44]
A. let them go and they run and get someone to kill you.
B. kill them, and haul ass. You've given yourself a headstart as long as it takes someone to miss them, then decide to go for help due to something being wrong. The answer seems obvious from the warmth of my bedroom. Just like with Kyle Dinkheller. We have hindsight and we DON'T have the mentality that any of these people had due to prior circumstances. So while we may see things one way, we're not in their shoes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2014 1:53:35 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Damn, I just found the afgan's video from the fight. Very hard to watch
Warning Graphic: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=059_1314303135&comments=1 Not like the movies is it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2014 1:55:42 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why did we engage in limited warfare or attempt to nation build that sand pit in the first place? If we really want to do 20/20 hindsight we should have waged a punitive total war for about a year or two then left. This. Waging a half-ass war gets the wrong people killed. FWIW, I believe the American people, currently do not have the stomach for total war and at some point in the future our children will revile us for our cowardice, because they will pay the price. ETA currently |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2014 1:56:23 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I don't think any of the training of the 9-11 hijackers happened in AFghanistan. Most of it happened here, IIRC. Number of Afghans involved in the 911 attacks? Zero. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Hindsight is 20/20. All I have to go by is the book and I do have doubts after much reading that it happened exactly how the book lays it out. With that said, it seems they could have tied the goat hearders up and bought some time. Looking back on the two choices we're given in the book, I would've let them go, but knowing now what happened, I'd kill 'em. These people allowed a rogue government to train and execute a deadly attack on American soil (9/11). They may not be combatants, but they aren't completely innocent as a people. You let that shit flourish in your country and you reap the consequences. I don't think any of the training of the 9-11 hijackers happened in AFghanistan. Most of it happened here, IIRC. Number of Afghans involved in the 911 attacks? Zero. I realize that and did a poor job of explaining my viewpoint. If I understand correctly, AQ and OBL himself were based in Afghanistan. Basically those people were letting management have their country. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2014 1:58:24 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
A. let them go and they run and get someone to kill you. B. kill them, and haul ass. You've given yourself a headstart as long as it takes someone to miss them, then decide to go for help due to something being wrong. The answer seems obvious from the warmth of my bedroom. Just like with Kyle Dinkheller. We have hindsight and we DON'T have the mentality that any of these people had due to prior circumstances. So while we may see things one way, we're not in their shoes. Units have been in those 'shoes' before. This is a contingency that should have been planned for. It is a pretty reasonable assumption if your patrol has been spotted or your hide is compromised by non-combatants, you need to get the fuck out of Dodge, and exfiltration mode begins. Otherwise, sit back with a GLID and drop a few ICM or HE quick rounds on those nuisance civilians. Their own fault for living in a war zone. (Sarcasm). |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2014 1:59:07 PM EDT
[#49]
They should have known - If history has taught us before... Kill the dam Sheppards!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2014 2:00:01 PM EDT
[#50]
Poor decisions can have lethal consequences.
Not the first time... |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
