Smurfette? I know you are left-wing and all but seeming a bit pleased that this woman has been killed by the US in order to validate your politics seems a bit below you, Dingo. She was in that situation because of the Taliban, if you recall.
+1 and well said. It's a horrible tragedy and I am sure the man that threw the grenade will live with that guilt forever. My sympathy to the family members for their lose.
If the taliban hadn't kidnapped her in the first place none of this would have happened.
|
Smurfette? I know you are left-wing and all but seeming a bit pleased that this woman has been killed by the US in order to validate your politics seems a bit below you, Dingo. She was in that situation because of the Taliban, if you recall.
Lets at least get it right...she was a hostage and here release was being negotiated for. The US who went in claimed it was a suicide bomb that killed her and lied - it was a US Grenade used to 'clear a room'. Justify that on a Saturday.
PS They were not Taliban. They were just criminals who take hostages ans sell them for ransom.
|
Mistakes happen. The initial reports were t was an explosion, probably caused by a suicide vest. This was changed BY THE US ARMY when they investigated it. This isn't some kind of government cover up exposed by heroic leakers, this is the officials adding more facts as they got them.
However, I do wonder who thought using a hand grenade when rescuing someone was a good idea? Unlike soldiers, hand greandes really don't discriminate at all. This seems, from the outside, to be another fine example of "In order to save the village we burnt it" kind of thinking.
|
|
Mistakes happen. The initial reports were t was an explosion, probably caused by a suicide vest. This was changed BY THE US ARMY when they investigated it. This isn't some kind of government cover up exposed by heroic leakers, this is the officials adding more facts as they got them.
However, I do wonder who thought using a hand grenade when rescuing someone was a good idea? Unlike soldiers, hand greandes really don't discriminate at all. This seems, from the outside, to be another fine example of "In order to save the village we burnt it" kind of thinking.
Precisely. Grenades to 'clear a room' are a distinctly different mission mindset than 'precision kills' to rescue the Hostage. Now if they didnt beat that into the heads of the 'kill first, question later' boys before the mission, they were guilty of negligence in not finding men were were not mentally damaged and incapable of concluding that grenades are out.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Could have just asked the Russians to Gas them all from a Hind with a sleep agent...Could have been panic, could have been he thought it was a 'flashbang', could have been she was still in the burka and the soldier thought she was reaching for a gun.
Lots of 'could've beens'.
Yeah, we saw how well that gassing trick has worked in Russia in the past.
Way to go, yellowdingo.
How about we all just 'check fire' on the thinly veiled political rhetoric and the arm chair quarterbacking and keep the discussion civil.
No one on these boards was there so any commentary about what happened is baseless speculation.
Rescue operations are always high risk affairs and it can (and it had in this case) gone wrong and the hostage died. @$%^ happens.
So long as this situation is not met with silence and/or a shrug, I'll be happy. We really don't know what happened, as we weren't there, but so long as this guy isn't gleefully recieving high fives for his act and is genuinely remorseful, that's all I can ask for. Accidents happen in war, yes, but we train our soldiers so that this kind of thing does NOT happen(this is a grenade, not stray bullet, after all). I hope does not accept the handwashing that is sometimes offered to soldiers in war, and deals with this on a personal level.
The squad's orders probaly read like this;
Kill the kidnappers, keep your squad mates alive, rescue as many hostages as possible.
The SEAL did what he as he was trained to do but rescuing the hostages was probably a low priority.
Any blame for the whole thing is with the Navy PR people that lied to the press.
The article states that she had given her captors the slip - presumably in the initial confusion as the SEALs attacked. Obvously I don't have any more details then anyone else but I disagree that some how grenades are off limits in this kind of operation.
If she did give her captives the slip then she was no longer where the SEAL team believed her to be. Hostage Rescue operations are hyperfast because the captors are likely to start shooting hostages at any second. If the SEALs are now operating with bad intel on the location of the individual they are trying to rescue tragic mistakes can easily happen.
An example where grenades are justified would be in a building where the hostages are believed to be held in a main room down a hall with many smaller rooms off of the hall. The SEAL Team breaches the main door, three of them check that the hall is cleared then the sprint down the hall to the main compound so that they can immediately start to engage anyone in the main room with the hostages - before these guys get organized and/or start killing hostages.
The problem is this leaves all these rooms off the main hall behind them and if a bad guy comes out of one of them he guns the SEAL team members down from behind.
To deal with this threat 4 other seal team members have the job of neutralizing these rooms. So they split into pairs and go down each side of the hall, open the door and toss a grenade in then on to the next room as fast as you can. Flashbangs are not ideal for this job because anyone who manages to get behind a bit of cover and cover their head actually avoids the worst effects of a flashbang and could be back in the fight quite fast - shrapnel is much better because it will rip through anything but very solid cover and if your hit on any part of your body you probably won't engage.
Its a tragedy that she was killed but Hostage Rescue is inherently high risk - for everyone involved.
And here I thought this was a humorous thread with all the smurfs.
Smurfinitely not.
The article states that she had given her captors the slip - presumably in the initial confusion as the SEALs attacked. Obvously I don't have any more details then anyone else but I disagree that some how grenades are off limits in this kind of operation.
+1
Remember these men were risking their lives to save this woman,despite the obvious tragedy that resulted. My thoughts go out to her family and friends.
The article states that she had given her captors the slip - presumably in the initial confusion as the SEALs attacked. Obvously I don't have any more details then anyone else but I disagree that some how grenades are off limits in this kind of operation.
+1
Remember these men were risking their lives to save this woman,despite the obvious tragedy that resulted. My thoughts go out to her family and friends.
Still, the SEALs are capable of enjoying the rest of their lives, and she cannot. A blind eye should not be turned to the fact that if the grenade hadn't been used, she would still be alive.
|
|
Still, the SEALs are capable of enjoying the rest of their lives, and she cannot. A blind eye should not be turned to the fact that if the grenade hadn't been used, she would still be alive.The article states that she had given her captors the slip - presumably in the initial confusion as the SEALs attacked. Obvously I don't have any more details then anyone else but I disagree that some how grenades are off limits in this kind of operation.
+1
Remember these men were risking their lives to save this woman,despite the obvious tragedy that resulted. My thoughts go out to her family and friends.
Probably or possibly still alive. There's no way to know that she would certainly have survived if the SEAL hadn't thrown the grenade that now appears to have killed her.
Since it was the U.S. military that released the information that the woman was killed with a handgrenade,I would imagine that an investigation is ongoing. If the soldier acted outside of mission specs, he will likely be punished accordingly. If not, I'm sure he is not particuarly happy about killing a civilian he was attempting to rescue. It is an unfortunate tragedy regardless of how it happened. I think that part of the issue is that no matter what one thinks of the current war efforts, these men were there to rescue hostages, and risk their lives doing so, and assuming that they would then intentionally harm those they were attempting to rescue does everyone, including that woman's memory a disservice. The investigation will reveal if he acted inappropriately for the circumstance, but I would doubt anyone is giving him high fives right now.
|
|
Since it was the U.S. military that released the information that the woman was killed with a handgrenade,I would imagine that an investigation is ongoing. If the soldier acted outside of mission specs, he will likely be punished accordingly. If not, I'm sure he is not particuarly happy about killing a civilian he was attempting to rescue. It is an unfortunate tragedy regardless of how it happened. I think that part of the issue is that no matter what one thinks of the current war efforts, these men were there to rescue hostages, and risk their lives doing so, and assuming that they would then intentionally harm those they were attempting to rescue does everyone, including that woman's memory a disservice. The investigation will reveal if he acted inappropriately for the circumstance, but I would doubt anyone is giving him high fives right now.
Sums up my views pretty accurately.
|
|
Since it was the U.S. military that released the information that the woman was killed with a handgrenade,I would imagine that an investigation is ongoing. If the soldier acted outside of mission specs, he will likely be punished accordingly. If not, I'm sure he is not particuarly happy about killing a civilian he was attempting to rescue. It is an unfortunate tragedy regardless of how it happened. I think that part of the issue is that no matter what one thinks of the current war efforts, these men were there to rescue hostages, and risk their lives doing so, and assuming that they would then intentionally harm those they were attempting to rescue does everyone, including that woman's memory a disservice. The investigation will reveal if he acted inappropriately for the circumstance, but I would doubt anyone is giving him high fives right now.
How dare you be so reasonable in a politically charged thread? I could have your off-topic license revoked.
Since it was the U.S. military that released the information that the woman was killed with a handgrenade,I would imagine that an investigation is ongoing. If the soldier acted outside of mission specs, he will likely be punished accordingly. If not, I'm sure he is not particuarly happy about killing a civilian he was attempting to rescue. It is an unfortunate tragedy regardless of how it happened. I think that part of the issue is that no matter what one thinks of the current war efforts, these men were there to rescue hostages, and risk their lives doing so, and assuming that they would then intentionally harm those they were attempting to rescue does everyone, including that woman's memory a disservice. The investigation will reveal if he acted inappropriately for the circumstance, but I would doubt anyone is giving him high fives right now.Sums up my views pretty accurately.
First of I will ask that Dingo have more respect for people involved in tragic circumstances. This is the second time that I have run into one of Dingos threads that demonstrate his lack of empathy for people that are suffering.
It is a difficult situation - as long as there is a proper review and the results are not swept under the carpet.
Unfortunately US forces have a terrible reputation for friendly fire accidents (and attempting to cover them up)amongst its allies and warranted or not this will colour the view of the incident.
First of I will ask that Dingo have more respect for people involved in tragic circumstances. This is the second time that I have run into one of Dingos threads that demonstrate his lack of empathy for people that are suffering.
Live a little....
Smurfette? The OP disgusts me.
BTW, this is why people going into areas where such events are more likely to occur are trained that if a rescue is in progress, to drop down to the floor, NOT ATTEMPT TO FLEE, and basically just wait for the rescuers to give orders.
So you're saying it's her own fault?
So you're saying it's her own fault?No. But I AM saying that you shouldn't be quick to dogpile on the rescue team.
How would she know it was a rescue team, it could be rival tribe, or criminals... People do not receive training in what to do as a hostage. Hostage rescue teams do not tell people their tactics as that is a good way to get your whole team killed.
As I said a full and truthful inquiry needs to be held... If there was negligence then it should be prosecuted and lessons learned.
It should also be remembered that the rescue team is risking their lives to save someone and that they also have friends and family. This also needs to be taken into account that they are professional soldiers and know the risks of their job. Just as an aid worker going into a war zone needs to be fully appraised of the dangers involved in area that they and that also have the risk of being killed.
Still, the SEALs are capable of enjoying the rest of their lives, and she cannot. A blind eye should not be turned to the fact that if the grenade hadn't been used, she would still be alive.
Yes, and they will have to live with the memory of this for the rest of their lives too.
|
People do not receive training in what to do as a hostage.
Actually, yes they do. At least for military members and civilians that are accompanying military into the theater. And I would assume that civilians such as reporters receive at least an abridged version of that training.
Rescue teams have to come in hard and fast, and have to assume that anyone who isn't down is a threat. Even if you do comply with all the training, you will be restrained and treated somewhat roughly until your identity can be confirmed, and it's clear you haven't Stockholmed.
This thread is the best illustration of why we need the "uncheck" function for threads we have no interest in reading further.
I looked in because I thought it would be something amusing and funny.
It wasn't.
I'm fine with other people engaging in politics and flamewars, but I'd rather not receive continued updates of the ongoing discussion.
Please implement the "uncheck" option ASAP.
|
|
First of I will ask that Dingo have more respect for people involved in tragic circumstances. This is the second time that I have run into one of Dingos threads that demonstrate his lack of empathy for people that are suffering.Since it was the U.S. military that released the information that the woman was killed with a handgrenade,I would imagine that an investigation is ongoing. If the soldier acted outside of mission specs, he will likely be punished accordingly. If not, I'm sure he is not particuarly happy about killing a civilian he was attempting to rescue. It is an unfortunate tragedy regardless of how it happened. I think that part of the issue is that no matter what one thinks of the current war efforts, these men were there to rescue hostages, and risk their lives doing so, and assuming that they would then intentionally harm those they were attempting to rescue does everyone, including that woman's memory a disservice. The investigation will reveal if he acted inappropriately for the circumstance, but I would doubt anyone is giving him high fives right now.Sums up my views pretty accurately.
Victim is dead. ANy lack of empathy for the survivors stems purely from their degree of involvement in her death.
|
|
This thread is the best illustration of why we need the "uncheck" function for threads we have no interest in reading further.
I looked in because I thought it would be something amusing and funny.
It wasn't.
I'm fine with other people engaging in politics and flamewars, but I'd rather not receive continued updates of the ongoing discussion.
Please implement the "uncheck" option ASAP.
You get email updates?
|
|
So you're saying it's her own fault?No. But I AM saying that you shouldn't be quick to dogpile on the rescue team.
They killed the target. We even need Osama bin Laden Alive - not dead therefore it is vital that all targets be taken alive at all cost. Therefor WTF were they thinking?
Mission priorities are not about executions but have been about executions from day one. Whole problem in a nutshell.
|
|
Victim is dead. ANy lack of empathy for the survivors stems purely from their degree of involvement in her death.First of I will ask that Dingo have more respect for people involved in tragic circumstances. This is the second time that I have run into one of Dingos threads that demonstrate his lack of empathy for people that are suffering.Since it was the U.S. military that released the information that the woman was killed with a handgrenade,I would imagine that an investigation is ongoing. If the soldier acted outside of mission specs, he will likely be punished accordingly. If not, I'm sure he is not particuarly happy about killing a civilian he was attempting to rescue. It is an unfortunate tragedy regardless of how it happened. I think that part of the issue is that no matter what one thinks of the current war efforts, these men were there to rescue hostages, and risk their lives doing so, and assuming that they would then intentionally harm those they were attempting to rescue does everyone, including that woman's memory a disservice. The investigation will reveal if he acted inappropriately for the circumstance, but I would doubt anyone is giving him high fives right now.Sums up my views pretty accurately.
Riiiiiight. So, it's OK to call her Smurfette, on that basis? You don't care about the victim at all, because she's dead. So, why the thread? Or are you just flip-flopping now your supposed compassionate socialist stance has been shown up to be anything but? Justify that on a Sunday.
My thoughts exactly, Aubrey.
|
|
Riiiiiight. So, it's OK to call her Smurfette, on that basis? You don't care about the victim at all, because she's dead. So, why the thread? Or are you just flip-flopping now your supposed compassionate socialist stance has been shown up to be anything but? Justify that on a Sunday.Victim is dead. ANy lack of empathy for the survivors stems purely from their degree of involvement in her death.First of I will ask that Dingo have more respect for people involved in tragic circumstances. This is the second time that I have run into one of Dingos threads that demonstrate his lack of empathy for people that are suffering.Since it was the U.S. military that released the information that the woman was killed with a handgrenade,I would imagine that an investigation is ongoing. If the soldier acted outside of mission specs, he will likely be punished accordingly. If not, I'm sure he is not particuarly happy about killing a civilian he was attempting to rescue. It is an unfortunate tragedy regardless of how it happened. I think that part of the issue is that no matter what one thinks of the current war efforts, these men were there to rescue hostages, and risk their lives doing so, and assuming that they would then intentionally harm those they were attempting to rescue does everyone, including that woman's memory a disservice. The investigation will reveal if he acted inappropriately for the circumstance, but I would doubt anyone is giving him high fives right now.Sums up my views pretty accurately.
NO. Victim is dead...she isnt gonna be offended by 'Smurfette'References. Are you suggesting we feel symapthy for her Killers or her family? One should be tried for murder (even if it was unintentional) and the other overjoyed that someone in this FUM is accountable to the law.
|
|
NO. Victim is dead...she isnt gonna be offended by 'Smurfette'References. Are you suggesting we feel symapthy for her Killers or her family? One should be tried for murder (even if it was unintentional) and the other overjoyed that someone in this FUM is accountable to the law.
You shouldn't throw around a loaded word like murder, especially when you don't seem to know the meaning of the world.
mur·der [mur-der]
–noun
1. Law . the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder), and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder).
Bolding is mine.
Also, you could show a little human dignity and respect for the dead.
First, why would the "talibans" (a.k.a. anyone the US is fighting in Afghanistan these days) bomb their own base? Seems rather counterintuitive to me. I mean, if I had a bomb, the last thing I would do with it is blow it up in my own living room. Yet that was the excuse the army used. Sure.
Second, a rescue operation is difficult, but there are other missions that are easier to achieve: Killing everyone on the scene, including the hostages, to spread the information that taking hostages won't matter. I can sort of understand the thinking... but then you REALLY shouldn't call it a rescue operation, but retaliation.
Anyway, precisely every bit of information the public gets about Afghanistan is a lie. Everything that has been leaked, or checked, pans out to psy-ops. I guess the quote is "The first casualty of war is truth". Point being, the way they handle information, we should all assume that things are precisely as bad as they can get. Anything else is merely wishful thinking.
|
|
First, why would the "talibans" (a.k.a. anyone the US is fighting in Afghanistan these days) bomb their own base? Seems rather counterintuitive to me. I mean, if I had a bomb, the last thing I would do with it is blow it up in my own living room. Yet that was the excuse the army used. Sure.
Indeed. And on that logic, you also wouldn't blow up your own troops. Only they do, all the time - it's called suicide bombing and it happens a lot out there
Second, a rescue operation is difficult, but there are other missions that are easier to achieve: Killing everyone on the scene, including the hostages, to spread the information that taking hostages won't matter. I can sort of understand the thinking... but then you REALLY shouldn't call it a rescue operation, but retaliation.
Or, more realistically, you don't bother trying to rescue someone since it puts your troops in danger for no appreciable gain. The fact that they were there suggests that they were actually trying to rescue someone since there wouldn't otherwise be any point in being there.
Anyway, precisely every bit of information the public gets about Afghanistan is a lie. Everything that has been leaked, or checked, pans out to psy-ops. I guess the quote is "The first casualty of war is truth". Point being, the way they handle information, we should all assume that things are precisely as bad as they can get. Anything else is merely wishful thinking.
Everything? Hyperbole, much? You clearly have "a position" on the subject but frankly we don't yet know why the story was changed (though if it was psy ops you'd think they'd change the story from being a grenade to being a suicide vest, rather than the other way round). This is a tragic cock-up and I think that trying to make political capital out of it is reprehensible, and seeing it as some sort of conspiracy is veering into swivel-eyed weirdness.
|
|
NO. Victim is dead...she isnt gonna be offended by 'Smurfette'References. Are you suggesting we feel symapthy for her Killers or her family? One should be tried for murder (even if it was unintentional) and the other overjoyed that someone in this FUM is accountable to the law.Riiiiiight. So, it's OK to call her Smurfette, on that basis? You don't care about the victim at all, because she's dead. So, why the thread? Or are you just flip-flopping now your supposed compassionate socialist stance has been shown up to be anything but? Justify that on a Sunday.Victim is dead. ANy lack of empathy for the survivors stems purely from their degree of involvement in her death.First of I will ask that Dingo have more respect for people involved in tragic circumstances. This is the second time that I have run into one of Dingos threads that demonstrate his lack of empathy for people that are suffering.Since it was the U.S. military that released the information that the woman was killed with a handgrenade,I would imagine that an investigation is ongoing. If the soldier acted outside of mission specs, he will likely be punished accordingly. If not, I'm sure he is not particuarly happy about killing a civilian he was attempting to rescue. It is an unfortunate tragedy regardless of how it happened. I think that part of the issue is that no matter what one thinks of the current war efforts, these men were there to rescue hostages, and risk their lives doing so, and assuming that they would then intentionally harm those they were attempting to rescue does everyone, including that woman's memory a disservice. The investigation will reveal if he acted inappropriately for the circumstance, but I would doubt anyone is giving him high fives right now.Sums up my views pretty accurately.
So why Smurfette? You still haven't answered the question, and don't seem to want to. She still has family (who almost certainly aren't reading this but nevertheless it is disrespectful to them). And it is disrespectful to someone who was in Afghanistan trying to help the people there and was killed while the rest of us (including you) sit in our safe houses and do nothing other than carp. Your moral absolutism is clearly untempered by anything remotely involving life experience and your attempts to deflect attention from your throw-away callousness is simply pathetic.
|
Are you suggesting we feel symapthy for her Killers or her family? One should be tried for murder
Actually the family haven't blamed the military In fact they praised the Us Army's honesty in not covering it up
Aubrey: Using a suicide bombing tactic is done when that is the only way to gain something. That does not mean you detonate your own base. Seriously, get a grip.
As to being there proving you are really there to rescue someone, that absolutely doesn't follow. They could just as likely be there for some other reason, such as making sure the enemies are destroyed. See "retaliation" above, Aubrey.
You also claim I am a conspiracy nut. Big surprise. Truth is: Lies are everywhere in war. I don't know, and you don't know. You saying it's a "tragic cock-up" without any sort of proof means less than nothing. It is also interesting that you believe psy-ops are obvious enough for you to be able to second-guess them. I would count that as highly unlikely, and bad psy-ops. And accusing me of making it a political issue, well, what are you doing yourself, defending the official story and putting a "tragic cock-up" spin on everything that's not right with the war?
|
|
Well if it was supposed to be a cover up then it was very badly done since it was the group involved that blew the whistle. Now I myself don't agree with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and I think there have been a lot of things varying from iffy to down right Illegal committed on both sides (Dispatches actually did an interesting report based on those leaked US files Here.) but this case does seem to be just a tragic accident.
|
|
Aubrey: Using a suicide bombing tactic is done when that is the only way to gain something. That does not mean you detonate your own base. Seriously, get a grip.
As to being there proving you are really there to rescue someone, that absolutely doesn't follow. They could just as likely be there for some other reason, such as making sure the enemies are destroyed. See "retaliation" above, Aubrey.
You also claim I am a conspiracy nut. Big surprise. Truth is: Lies are everywhere in war. I don't know, and you don't know. You saying it's a "tragic c~@&-up" without any sort of proof means less than nothing. It is also interesting that you believe psy-ops are obvious enough for you to be able to second-guess them. I would count that as highly unlikely, and bad psy-ops. And accusing me of making it a political issue, well, what are you doing yourself, defending the official story and putting a "tragic c~@&-up" spin on everything that's not right with the war?
The Madrid bombers blew themselves up when they were cornered by the police. So, I'm sorry, it happens - I suggest you read the papers once in a while. It is is far from the realms of possibility that a fanatic would blow himself up if he wanted to take down some enemies, especially if his base was being stormed by heavily-armed special forces, his pals were being massacred and he was pretty sure he wasn't going to walk away either. So define "gain" in this context. Anyway, it didn't actually happen here.
We don't know what happened here. I'm not so naive to think that there wasn't an attempt to cover up, or that it never happens. Of course it does. But as cover-ups go this one is pretty inept, at best. And I love your double-think - it could be a double-bluff, or even a triple-bluff! Let's make it look like we're really inept, so they won't realise that actually..... we're even more inept! Um...
Yes, I'm sure that the news gets massaged. But since everyone knows that Afghanistan is a dreadful place where the NATO forces are busy losing the war, I challenge you to see how we have been propogandised so successfully by the industial-military complex that we don't see what is going on. And it doesn't mean that this was anything less of a cock-up either.
I've seen my share of disgusting stuff on message boards.
And, for the record, I'd say my tendency goes against the US when we're talking about the entity as a whole, and some parts of its attitude. I've seen examples of people here were the poster child of insufferable USA prick.
That having been said, none of them managed to disgust me nearly as much as this thread. This one takes the cake and without trying. I feel like throwing up. It's not that it's overblown, baseless hatred against the US. That doesn't seem to be the issue. The issue is utter disregard for other human beings, hatred for hatred's sake, and taking a s*#* on people's graves.
I'd say the dingo should be ashamed of himself, but I don't think he is aware of the concept.
So hold your head high, be proud of yourself - and go away and never come back.