Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 9/6/2004 5:23:12 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/6/2004 5:23:39 AM EST by maximumbob_tx]
Assuming we have a good SWAT team of some type in place, whether police or military, well trained, could the terrorists have been taken out with less bloodshed?
Link Posted: 9/6/2004 5:24:24 AM EST
No....bloodshed was the goal.

SGatr15
Link Posted: 9/6/2004 5:26:23 AM EST
Are we talking about Russia?
Link Posted: 9/6/2004 5:29:59 AM EST
Yes the Chechnya thing.
Sarge, I understand that. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I have the impression the Russian official response was not as , well, professional, as what we might expect from an American response team.
To clarify, if we sent our best guys, could it have turned out different?
Link Posted: 9/6/2004 5:31:39 AM EST
we absolutely could not do worse than the russians. they looked like a bunch of farm league players running around there. that said though, anytime the hostage takers have strapped themselves with explosives and placed them throughout the occupied building, there is most likely gonna be innocent lives lost.
Link Posted: 9/6/2004 5:32:06 AM EST
Okay so I know what we are talking about, I wouldn't think it would be a whole lot different. It was a horrible event. Bombs on hostage takers small children. You would have to kill every hostage taker instantly for them not to take hostages.
Link Posted: 9/6/2004 5:39:12 AM EST
Flash grenades wouldn't help much either... a few hundred blind and deaf kids can't escape.

Looking at the vast size of schools nowadays, methinks a SWAT team could be assembled and a few James Bond types could get entrance to the building without being seen (roof?).

I hate going with the "gee, if i was writing a movie script" point of view, but with all things considered, a full "re-taking" of the building is 100% going to go bad.... it needs to be used ONLY as a backup if silent entry fails.

YMMV, educate me

- BG
Link Posted: 9/6/2004 5:52:14 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/6/2004 5:52:53 AM EST by maximumbob_tx]
BG, I wish I could educate you. What I am trying to do is come up with a game plan if it happens. If I can trust the "operators" to do their job, I wouldn't want to endanger the kiddos to satisfy my blood lust for these bastards.
Seems like the overall attitude of the board, in this thread and others, is that it was a cluster from the get-go, and my participation in a similar situation here wouldn't FURTHER endanger the kids.
Link Posted: 9/6/2004 6:05:32 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/6/2004 6:05:48 AM EST by imposter]
Delta surely could have done better, but not HRT or the local SWAT (except maybe LA or NY SWAT).
Link Posted: 9/6/2004 6:07:43 AM EST

Originally Posted By imposter:
Delta surely could have done better, but not HRT or the local SWAT (except maybe LA or NY SWAT).

just curious, why not HRT?
Link Posted: 9/6/2004 6:08:31 AM EST

Originally Posted By maximumbob_tx:
Yes the Chechnya thing.
Sarge, I understand that. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I have the impression the Russian official response was not as , well, professional, as what we might expect from an American response team.
To clarify, if we sent our best guys, could it have turned out different?



I think part of the problem was that the Russians were not PLANNING to attack at that moment, but everything suddenly went to hell (apparently because one of the terrorists' explosives accidentally went off, and some hostages ran for it) - so I think there was a lot of chaos and confusion about whether and attack was even underway.

I guess that batter contingency planning and communication might have facilitated that - but it seems like it was just a bad situation.

Plus, the WAY the terrorists set everything up - with barricades, and with improvised bombs and explosives set up all around (and above) the hostages - some of them apparently with dead-man switches - suggests that there was probably NO WAY to avoid a lot of bloodshed.

Second - the Columbine example sure doesn't make me overly confident that SWAT would have done any better. Although I'd hope that all SWAT teams have learned from the Columbine example.


Sgtar15 is right - these guys wanted bloodshed, and were very efficient about it.
Link Posted: 9/6/2004 6:13:30 AM EST

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:

Originally Posted By maximumbob_tx:
Yes the Chechnya thing.
Sarge, I understand that. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I have the impression the Russian official response was not as , well, professional, as what we might expect from an American response team.
To clarify, if we sent our best guys, could it have turned out different?



I think part of the problem was that the Russians were not PLANNING to attack at that moment, but everything suddenly went to hell (apparently because one of the terrorists' explosives accidentally went off, and some hostages ran for it) - so I think there was a lot of chaos and confusion about whether and attack was even underway.

I guess that batter contingency planning and communication might have facilitated that - but it seems like it was just a bad situation.

Plus, the WAY the terrorists set everything up - with barricades, and with improvised bombs and explosives set up all around (and above) the hostages - some of them apparently with dead-man switches - suggests that there was probably NO WAY to avoid a lot of bloodshed.

Second - the Columbine example sure doesn't make me overly confident that SWAT would have done any better. Although I'd hope that all SWAT teams have learned from the Columbine example.


Sgtar15 is right - these guys wanted bloodshed, and were very efficient about it.


And they have been efficient at getting it. When some one isn't worried about dying the threat of force isn't something you can use against them.
Link Posted: 9/6/2004 6:13:40 AM EST
If it had happened here, they would still be negotiating, and trying to figure out how to end it without offending all of the muslims in the world.
Link Posted: 9/6/2004 6:14:09 AM EST
Link Posted: 9/6/2004 6:18:29 AM EST
I think the Russians did what they could, not knowing how the hostages were being treated. When the bomb went off and hostages started running, they had to go in. Our guys would most likely have done the same thing. After that, it was chaos. They had to rush the place to try and stave off casualties. The terrorists most likely set the bomb off to start the shooting anyway.

We might have been more organized, but I doubt we'd have fared better. Those assholes wanted bloodshed.
Link Posted: 9/6/2004 6:23:20 AM EST
From what it sounds like in Russia, one of the Muslim terrorists set a bomb off early (on accident) and caught the rescue team off guard. If you've lost the element of surprise, and the terrorists are intent on killing as many innocents as possible before they buy the big one, the death toll will be high anywhere, no matter how good your people are.

The only way to end this mission with minimal bloodshed is to get operators inside without being detected, and take out all the HTs at once, or at least the majority. This is not an easy task if the terrorists are morons and not watching whats going on, but if the terrorists are watching to prevent a breach, it'll be damn near impossible to get everyone inside.

I would like to hope that a US team would do better, but somehow I doubt it. The terrorists were hoping for a brutal bloodbath and the way they took that school basically guaranteed it. (bombs everywhere the minute they entered).

The only hope against something like this is what Israel did, arm the teachers. Won't happen here. Next best thing is to raid the building before they get settled. Unless you have a SWAT team there when they storm, not happening either.

Sorry, but I think the US casualties would be just as high.
Link Posted: 9/6/2004 6:35:55 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/6/2004 6:36:14 AM EST by EricTheHun]
Link Posted: 9/6/2004 6:37:06 AM EST
Link Posted: 9/6/2004 6:42:15 AM EST
If it would happen here would we see armed parent volunteers in the schools (whether the NEA likes it or not)?

Would it had been better to go in quicker before they could establish firm control and rig the place to blow and the condition of the hostages would have been better to try and escape?
Link Posted: 9/6/2004 6:58:27 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/6/2004 7:02:03 AM EST by A_Free_Man]
This has been posted before here on ARFCOM:

Analysis of tape

I recently had the opportunity to conduct a detailed review of a captured Al Qaeda training tape.
My impressions:

The tape was apparently produced for Al Qaeda internal use and did not appear to be an external propaganda production.

The tape showed Al Qaeda operatives engaging in a number of training exercises including small arms firing ranges, live-fire room entry, and numerous mixed live-fire/role-player type of scenarios.

Scenarios included: Assassinations, Kidnappings, Bombings, and Small unit raids on various types of targets. The training depicted in these scenarios was clearly for export according to an intelligence expert that commented on the tape. "None of these training scenarios depicts the type of fighting that Al Qaeda engages in within Afghanistan."

Detailed planning, diagramming and walk-through's followed by live-fire exercises were the norm.

There were a lot of role playing, scenario type of interactions.

The role players made aggressive moves simulating resistance at various points throughout the scenarios. All such resistance was met with immediate and brutal countermeasures by the terrorists. There was no presumed compliance on the part of the terrorists.

The effort to produce detail and realism in training was impressive.

These people are using extremely effective training methods!

The following points were seen REPEATEDLY and ROUTINELY throughout the training exercises:

1. Use of standard military small unit tactics with multiple elements. (Assault, Security and Support elements)

2. Coordination with sub-elements via hand-held FM radios.

3. Use of pick-up trucks by the assault element to conduct raids/assassinations (shooters concealed in bed of truck).

4. Use of Motorcycles by the security element (as well as in the historical role as a shooting platform for drive by shootings/assassinations.)

5. Use of explosives upon withdrawal from the objective.

6. Use of vehicle horn to signal withdrawal (and initiation of explosives.)

7. Detailed planning and rehearsal of all actions.

8. Exercise of prisoner handling procedures. From initial contact, to search and control, to execution of prisoners. Role players could be heard begging not to be killed (IN ENGLISH). Terrorists practiced commands in English also.

9. Multiple man room entries. Typically one or two, 2-man teams that assumed a back to back position near the center of the room.

10. Distraction devices used prior to room entry. Fuse lit devices (improvised?)

11. Multiple breach points into structures and into individual rooms.

12. All scenarios were practiced live-fire. Including those that involved role players. Paper targets and role players were interspersed in the same scenarios. (The terrorists showed good muzzle awareness and control.)
Link Posted: 9/6/2004 6:59:13 AM EST
The weapons handling was NOT haphazard. All terrorist operatives carried and fired their weapons using the same techniques.

Some specific weapons handling idiosyncrasies are:

1. Handguns were carried in high ready.

2. Long guns (AK variants) were carried and fired rotated 90 degrees (ejection port up)

Specific scenarios included:

1. Targeting of law enforcement officers in ambush/assassinations.

Faked disabled vehicle with shooters concealed in trunk of car or bed of truck. When officer stops his vehicle behind "disabled vehicle" assault is initiated by driver blowing horn. Target was first engaged with rifle fire from the vehicle, terrorists then debussed to administer "coup de grace" at close range. An explosive device was thrown into the LE vehicle on exfiltration. This was one of a number of scenarios that were shown first as a diagram and explanation, then progressing to dry fire walk through and finally to a live-fire exercise. Target location was shown as a 6 lane divided highway with the terrorist vehicle located just prior to the exit/cloverleaf (to allow multiple exfiltration routes and security overview.) There aren't any such highways in Afghanistan and damn few in the Middle East. In one iteration of this scenario the security/overwatch element was exercised firing on possible responding LEOs.

2. Residential assassination.

Innocuous looking person (weapon concealed) knocks on door of residence. Stands in view of peephole and answers question from resident through closed door. When resident opens door terrorist draws and fires, emptying weapon into victim.

3. Assassination on golf course.

Target was on the green (at the pin/flag.) A Rocket Propelled Grenade (RPG) was fired at a vehicle adjacent to the green (VIP security element?) to initiate the hit. Target was then engaged with rifle fire.

4. Two and four-man live-fire room entry (2-man back to back technique) with target discrimination (shoot/no shoot targets).

5. Raid on compound (Kidnapping).

One person taken. Initiated with RPG. Initiation was when Guard Shack was taken out with grenades. Primary target building was engaged with RPG. Primary target building was entered through multiple breach points (through explosive breach of wall and through windows.) Exfiltration was by truck with motorcycle security element in overwatch positions.

6. Drive up kidnapping of target walking down the street.

7. Use of tunnels/storm drains/sewers for infiltration and exfiltration during raids.

8. Rappelling from roof of building to make entry on upper floors was shown on more than one occasion.

9. Motorcycle drive-by target practice. Shooter stands up on rear pegs and extends arms over driver. Excellent muzzle awareness and control.

10. Grenades thrown into second story windows by motorcycle drive-bys.
Link Posted: 9/6/2004 6:59:43 AM EST
MULTIPLE SCENARIOS/EXERCISES involved raids on buildings with a large number of occupants (school or office building?)

These raids followed a standard pattern:

1. Covert/surreptitious entry into building and movement to initial points. (Rifles hidden on persons and in bags/cases carried into building.)

2. Initiation with extreme violence of action. Any resisters are shot.

3. Immediate positive control and search of prisoners. Any resisters, or anyone they don't like the look of, are shot.

4. Segregation of prisoners into manageable groups. (Explosives were displayed to gain psychological dominance over prisoners.)

5. Movement of selected prisoners in small groups to the roof where terrorists posture and make statements for the press/cameras.

6. Prisoners executed one-by-one in front of the press/cameras.

7. All scenarios involving prisoners ended in execution of the prisoners and none included a plan for exfiltration of the terrorists. They plan to kill the prisoners and to die in place.
Link Posted: 9/6/2004 6:59:52 AM EST
It WILL happen here.
I'm surprised it hasn't already. Very surprised. Talk about a soft target and a quick way to get plenty of attention. Doesn't get much better than that for a terrorist unfortunately. The only way to stop is to kill 'em all and since that's not a very PC, warm and fuzzy soution we will stand by and wring our hands while hostages are brutalized and murdered. First one by one and then wholesale slaughter.
The soccer mommie response will be to try to revoke the 2nd Amend. Afterall, the terrorists could only get guns from a local gunshow, could they?
Link Posted: 9/6/2004 7:00:32 AM EST
The major take home lesson here is that although the enemy is known to be seeking the ability and opportunity to use weapons of mass destruction and of an unconventional nature, such as hijacked airliners, they are also spending a lot of time training to carry out attacks the old-fashioned way. Attacks executed by small groups of dedicated personnel equipped with little more than small arms.

There is information to the effect that the "perfect day" as seen by Al Qaeda would combine attacks designed to produce the maximum number of casualties with attacks that would give them the opportunity to get "face time" on the news channels to deliver their rhetoric. For maximum effect these attacks would take place nearly simultaneously at multiple geographically separate locations.

We need to address, in training and in personal preparation, the differences between a typical criminal victimization and a terrorist incident in terms of early recognition and appropriate response. I.E. The typical bank robbery vs. finding yourself in the middle of a terrorist attack on a "financial institution" (as per the recent FBI warning.)

If you find yourself in the middle of one of these attacks, there will not be time for the SWAT team to intervene on your behalf. Compliance will buy you only a very little time. If you are identified as a potential problem to the terrorists you will be shot! (They are training to spot Law Enforcement, Security and Corrections Officers as well as armed citizens.) If, by feigned compliance, you make it through the first cut you can expect to be physically restrained and then controlled with threats to the rest of your group and to the other groups. "We will blow up the women and children in the next room if any of you do not do exactly as we say!" Your ultimate fate, if you do not resist, is to be ritually executed in front of the television cameras.

In my opinion the best time to act is most likely to be at the initiation of the attack. Once the terrorists are consolidating on the objective it will be very difficult to take effective action. You must plan on providing effective resistance at the first opportunity! Shoot, move and communicate. Seek cover, use your weapon as required. Attempt to acquire a better weapon system at the first opportunity (do you know how to place an AK into operation?)

Keep in mind that before any terrorist action there are many opportunities to interrupt their cycle by detecting their pre-mission activities. This is where we all can be of assistance. Pay attention to what is going on around you as you go about your daily business. Investigate and report any unusual or suspicious activity that you observe (note vehicle make and model, license plates, personnel descriptions etc.)

John Holschen
Insights Training Center, Inc
Link Posted: 9/6/2004 7:01:16 AM EST
From Mike Hargreaves, Brit Special Ops and world-class trainer. I agree with everything except his advice to get rid of those "big bullets." Can't help it, must be in my genes! ;=)

Dave,

Please note in the attack on the kindergarten, the terminology, "gave chase, and killed him with gunshots" no one spoke of arrest, no one said "alleged" "focus" 100% focus, to kill, the only solution, give chase, running, firing whilst running, both hands up, gun bouncing, terrorist hit, turning, trying to fire back, falling, shooter continuing to shoot, terrorist on the ground, he is still being shot!! the pistol was a Semi auto, must have been, probably a 9mm, the gun was in all probability emptied into the head of the terrorist, blood would be on the shoes and pant legs of this children's defender!! America! are you up to this? no you are not! you are too bloody nice! too soft!! these people know this!! this same scenario has been played before in Israel, many times, take it to the RANGE Run, gun up, shoot as you approach targets strung out in line in front of the shooter, end with a ground target, a melon, a squash, whatever, shoot the gun dry, scream like a mad person, reload, seek out hidden targets!!

WEAPON SELECTION. Hicap magazines, 9mm, at least one spare Magazine on belt, two better, night sights.

Ammo: good hollow points in pistol, and first replacement Mag: last Mag: of the three. mil: spec: hardball.

HOLSTER. On belt concealed, always, in house, in office, in Cafe, in Church, always!! you cannot drink to excess, ever again, you dress armed, you think armed, you go armed, always.

Lose the love affair with "Big Bullets" you need lots of bullets,you need the lightest effective round, least possible recoil, hits count, misses with any calibre do not!! cancel the ban on hicap magazines, all concealed carry courses must have live fire, must teach shooting from chair, car, ladder!, where ever you can be.

GET READY AMERICA, OR GET DEAD.

MIKE HARGREAVES.

----

The above stuff has been posted before, way before this recent event.
Link Posted: 9/6/2004 7:03:47 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/6/2004 7:08:10 AM EST by A_Free_Man]
From a 2002 article on World Net Daily, by Joseph Farrah about the captured al Queda training tapes:

"Hostages, prisoners and anyone else identified as a target or problem by al-Qaida terrorist operatives will be killed, say those who viewed the tape. There is no point in complying with orders, they say. Those who do not resist ultimately will be rewarded with ritual execution in front of television cameras, according to the tactics and techniques captured on this video. "

and from previous posts above note:

"7. All scenarios involving prisoners ended in execution of the prisoners and none included a plan for exfiltration of the terrorists. They plan to kill the prisoners and to die in place."

The Russian school massacre was straight off these training tapes, by the book, one-two-three, step by step.
Link Posted: 9/6/2004 7:10:18 AM EST

Originally Posted By EricTheHun:

Originally Posted By -Absolut-:

Originally Posted By imposter:
Delta surely could have done better, but not HRT or the local SWAT (except maybe LA or NY SWAT).

just curious, why not HRT?


Well, here's the last time that the FBI's vaunted 'Hostage Rescue Team' went into action...
www.public-action.com/SkyWriter/WacoMuseum/fire/fire.jpg

Number of 'Hostages' - None.

Number 'Rescued' - None.

Eric The(TellingItLikeItIs)Hun





Same crap as usual
Link Posted: 9/6/2004 7:11:29 AM EST
Thanks for all the responses, guys. But I still don't have an answer to the question... which I should have been clearer about:
My primary objective if such happened here would be to get my kid OUT. THEN try to kill ragheads, or whatever the terrorist de jour is.
Would my presence help or hinder in acheiving the objective of geting my kid out?
I'm no soldier, just a pissed off guy with firepower who happens to be a good shot.
Link Posted: 9/6/2004 7:14:09 AM EST

If it happened in America...


There would still be clowns protesting the war...
Link Posted: 9/6/2004 7:18:19 AM EST
You must train your kids, drive it home, to disobey the teacher, and do not be "locked down", to break a window if possible, and run like hell, to attempt escape at any opportunity.
Link Posted: 9/6/2004 7:19:11 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/6/2004 7:20:44 AM EST by The_Neutral_Observer]
It looked like a clusterfuck by both sides.

The terrorists' plan was poorly conceived. They didn't have a clear goal. Their demands were unclear and the killing of the hostages took too long and proceeded too inefficiently.

The terrorists started breaking down due to the strain. One popped off a bomb prematurely, and they obviously didn't secure the hostages properly since some escaped when the bomb went off. They didn't bring enough people for what they planned to do.

In the final battle, the terrorists obviously had no defensive plan and no practice fighting as a unit. They were well-armed enough to inflict heavier casualties on the Russians had they had even a simple plan to put into effect.

The Russians took much too long to get a handle on the situation. They failed badly to secure the perimeter and isolate the building. They should have had their teams ready to retake the building in the event of an unexpected occurence on the first day. They failed to come up with a set plan to free the hostages soon enough, and allowed the Chechens to execute some of them.

The Russians had to run over 300-400 yards to get to the building once the explosives were set off. They were not ready. That said, once they got it together, it took only 15 minutes to secure the majority of the building. That is partly due to the competance of the Russian forces and partly due to the incompetance of the terrorists.

EDIT: Had the Russians made better decisions, there would be less than 100 deaths right now.
Link Posted: 9/6/2004 7:25:24 AM EST
The only reason it happened there first is the Chechians are already in place. As soon as they infiltrate the teams here....
Link Posted: 9/6/2004 7:28:00 AM EST
It looked like a clusterfuck by both sides.

The terrorists' plan was poorly conceived. They didn't have a clear goal. Their demands were unclear and the killing of the hostages took too long and proceeded too inefficiently.


"MULTIPLE SCENARIOS/EXERCISES involved raids on buildings with a large number of occupants (school or office building?)

These raids followed a standard pattern:"


The terrorists started breaking down due to the strain. One popped off a bomb prematurely, and they obviously didn't secure the hostages properly since some escaped when the bomb went off. They didn't bring enough people for what they planned to do.

In the final battle, the terrorists obviously had no defensive plan and no practice fighting as a unit. They were well-armed enough to inflict heavier casualties on the Russians had they had even a simple plan to put into effect.


"7. All scenarios involving prisoners ended in execution of the prisoners and none included a plan for exfiltration of the terrorists. They plan to kill the prisoners and to die in place."

The Russians took much too long to get a handle on the situation. They failed badly to secure the perimeter and isolate the building. They should have had their teams ready to retake the building in the event of an unexpected occurence on the first day. They failed to come up with a set plan to free the hostages soon enough, and allowed the Chechens to execute some of them.

"4. Segregation of prisoners into manageable groups. (Explosives were displayed to gain psychological dominance over prisoners.)

5. Movement of selected prisoners in small groups to the roof where terrorists posture and make statements for the press/cameras.

6. Prisoners executed one-by-one in front of the press/cameras."

The Russians had to run over 300-400 yards to get to the building once the explosives were set off. They were not ready. That said, once they got it together, it took only 15 minutes to secure the majority of the building. That is partly due to the competance of the Russian forces and partly due to the incompetance of the terrorists.

EDIT: Had the Russians made better decisions, there would be less than 100 deaths right now.


"7. All scenarios involving prisoners ended in execution of the prisoners and none included a plan for exfiltration of the terrorists. They plan to kill the prisoners and to die in place."

It went exactly to plan.

Link Posted: 9/6/2004 7:35:01 AM EST
Link Posted: 9/6/2004 7:39:30 AM EST
Link Posted: 9/6/2004 3:18:14 PM EST

Originally Posted By A_Free_Man:
It looked like a clusterfuck by both sides.

The terrorists' plan was poorly conceived. They didn't have a clear goal. Their demands were unclear and the killing of the hostages took too long and proceeded too inefficiently.


"MULTIPLE SCENARIOS/EXERCISES involved raids on buildings with a large number of occupants (school or office building?)

These raids followed a standard pattern:"


The terrorists started breaking down due to the strain. One popped off a bomb prematurely, and they obviously didn't secure the hostages properly since some escaped when the bomb went off. They didn't bring enough people for what they planned to do.

In the final battle, the terrorists obviously had no defensive plan and no practice fighting as a unit. They were well-armed enough to inflict heavier casualties on the Russians had they had even a simple plan to put into effect.


"7. All scenarios involving prisoners ended in execution of the prisoners and none included a plan for exfiltration of the terrorists. They plan to kill the prisoners and to die in place."

The Russians took much too long to get a handle on the situation. They failed badly to secure the perimeter and isolate the building. They should have had their teams ready to retake the building in the event of an unexpected occurence on the first day. They failed to come up with a set plan to free the hostages soon enough, and allowed the Chechens to execute some of them.

"4. Segregation of prisoners into manageable groups. (Explosives were displayed to gain psychological dominance over prisoners.)

5. Movement of selected prisoners in small groups to the roof where terrorists posture and make statements for the press/cameras.

6. Prisoners executed one-by-one in front of the press/cameras."

The Russians had to run over 300-400 yards to get to the building once the explosives were set off. They were not ready. That said, once they got it together, it took only 15 minutes to secure the majority of the building. That is partly due to the competance of the Russian forces and partly due to the incompetance of the terrorists.

EDIT: Had the Russians made better decisions, there would be less than 100 deaths right now.


"7. All scenarios involving prisoners ended in execution of the prisoners and none included a plan for exfiltration of the terrorists. They plan to kill the prisoners and to die in place."

It went exactly to plan.




No, it didn't. It took them days to kill the small number of people they did (out of 1000). Most died in the final battle. Had they brought more people, they could have killed a lot more people a lot more efficiently. Plus, terrorists did try to run at the end of the thing. They didn't stick around to fight and die.

They didn't have a clear plan when they went in, and it cost them.
Top Top