Damn - This "Kid" DESERVED a Medal of Honor

[Anachronism]

No, the Taliban didn't do that. They realized it would be stupid and cost them the sympathy of the population. That's what everyone is fighting for over there. To fully understand this, you'd have to understand Pashtunwali and how it works.

No I don't understand how Pashtunwali works, nor do I really care any more than I care how the governments and societies of Canada, Mexico, England, the Congo or any other foreign country work.

Great. Show us where to drop the bombs.

Assuming that each warhead could take out everything in a square mile, you drop one in the middle of every one mile grid square across the entire country. I know that's not really how it works, but it's the easiest analogy.

I don't have to change your position, nor do I intend too. I am merely pointing out the fact that shooting the civilian would have been a crime.

Sometimes, when the rule/law is wrong, committing the crime is the RIGHT thing to do.

You should read Petreaus' book if you can't understand why this is important. He'll de-mystify the position for you.

No it wouldn't. It might give me more information, but it wouldn't change my position one bit.

 

[geauxtohell]

No I don't understand how Pashtunwali works, nor do I really care any more than I care how the governments and societies of Canada, Mexico, England, the Congo or any other foreign country work.

Then why would you even pretend to be intelligent on this issue? Your solution is simply to blow them all to hell. As I noted, that's impractical. If you don't want to expend the mental energy to do nuance, you'll never get what the fuck the fuck we are doing over there and why.

Assuming that each warhead could take out everything in a square mile,

An idiotic assumption.

you drop one in the middle of every one mile grid square across the entire country. I know that's not really how it works, but it's the easiest analogy.

So you want us to have our own Holocaust? God some of you people are scary. It's a good thing you aren't in charge of anything other than your keyboard.

BTW, I recommend you read some Lester Grau to see how the Soviets fared with their heavy handed approach.

Sometimes, when the rule/law is wrong, committing the crime is the RIGHT thing to do.

No. The right and proper thing to do is to question the law in the appropriate manner and not simply pick and choose which parts of the UCMJ you are going to follow.

 

[Anachronism]

Then why would you even pretend to be intelligent on this issue? Your solution is simply to blow them all to hell. As I noted, that's impractical. If you don't want to expend the mental energy to do nuance, you'll never get what the fuck the fuck we are doing over there and why.

I don't believe I've ever claimed to be "intelligent" on the issue. I have simply stated my opinion, as it is and as it ever will be. Period.

So you want us to have our own Holocaust? God some of you people are scary. It's a good thing you aren't in charge of anything other than your keyboard.

I live by the philosophy that if you stick your nose into my business unbidden, I'm going to take it off between your shoulder and chin. That is the way I believe this nation's government and military should deal with things as well.

BTW, I recommend you read some Lester Grau to see how the Soviets fared with their heavy handed approach.

I don't seem to remember the USSR ever nuking any part of Afghanistan. Did I miss that? I do know they used napalm, because I've met a young man who was horribly burned from it at the Shriner's burn hospital in Boston.

No. The right and proper thing to do is to question the law in the appropriate manner and not simply pick and choose which parts of the UCMJ you are going to follow.

I disagree. I have the greatest respect for our LEO's, but if one of them comes to my front door trying to confiscate my firearms (assuming that were legal); he/she is going to be met by the fullest extent of resistance I can possibly provide. There will be no surrender. There will be no nice, quiet, easy ending to that encounter. Regardless of whose side "the law" may be on.

 

[geauxtohell]

Then why would you even pretend to be intelligent on this issue? Your solution is simply to blow them all to hell. As I noted, that's impractical. If you don't want to expend the mental energy to do nuance, you'll never get what the fuck the fuck we are doing over there and why.

I don't believe I've ever claimed to be "intelligent" on the issue. I have simply stated my opinion, as it is and as it ever will be. Period.

So you want us to have our own Holocaust? God some of you people are scary. It's a good thing you aren't in charge of anything other than your keyboard.

I live by the philosophy that if you stick your nose into my business unbidden, I'm going to take it off between your shoulder and chin. That is the way I believe this nation's government and military should deal with things as well.

BTW, I recommend you read some Lester Grau to see how the Soviets fared with their heavy handed approach.

I don't seem to remember the USSR ever nuking any part of Afghanistan. Did I miss that? I do know they used napalm, because I've met a young man who was horribly burned from it at the Shriner's burn hospital in Boston.

No. The right and proper thing to do is to question the law in the appropriate manner and not simply pick and choose which parts of the UCMJ you are going to follow.

I disagree. I have the greatest respect for our LEO's, but if one of them comes to my front door trying to confiscate my firearms (assuming that were legal); he/she is going to be met by the fullest extent of resistance I can possibly provide. There will be no surrender. There will be no nice, quiet, easy ending to that encounter. Regardless of whose side "the law" may be on.

Wait a minute, are you advocating nuking every square mile of Afghanistan?

Seek help.

 

[Trajan]

Now, I don't know the story of this goat-herder, was this guy in the way of an extraction point? a questionable hostile? a wondering innocent? someone gimme a brief please on the GH..

A wondering innocent who compromised Murphy's team. The debate, apparently, was over whether or not it would be legal to kill him on the assumption he would go and tip off the Taliban.

By Luttrell's account, the matter was put up to a vote and he cast the deciding vote to not kill the man because he feared being prosecuted by the "liberal media".

As you said, if you are put in a situation where you have to make a deal with the devil, then you have to make a decision and live with the consequences.

However, it's absurd to act like this scenario would ever be sanctioned by the UCMJ or that the "liberal media" as opposed to Chain of Command would be the one who would prosecute you.

yes I agree with your synopsis, and thx for the brief.( did the GH alert the Taliban btw, do we know?)

Its a catch 22, if lift elements were on the way and they killed the GH, the only thing at that point to do is swear a blood oath and lie if questioned, and/or hope that everyone will vaporize it from their memory and never speak of it again. We know this type of thing has happened before and will happen again.

 

[Trajan]

Just as a side note, its interesting to conjur military history and see “just how far we have come”.

I don’t recall the camps name, soldiers from Pattons army came upon one of the death camps, some guards were still there and they were after a short period, lined up and shot by the American troops.

An IG initiated an investigation, Patton personally burned all of the papers pertaining to the case, ending it. I cannot imagine him or any General Officer getting away with that today.

 

[geauxtohell]

Now, I don't know the story of this goat-herder, was this guy in the way of an extraction point? a questionable hostile? a wondering innocent? someone gimme a brief please on the GH..

A wondering innocent who compromised Murphy's team. The debate, apparently, was over whether or not it would be legal to kill him on the assumption he would go and tip off the Taliban.

By Luttrell's account, the matter was put up to a vote and he cast the deciding vote to not kill the man because he feared being prosecuted by the "liberal media".

As you said, if you are put in a situation where you have to make a deal with the devil, then you have to make a decision and live with the consequences.

However, it's absurd to act like this scenario would ever be sanctioned by the UCMJ or that the "liberal media" as opposed to Chain of Command would be the one who would prosecute you.

yes I agree with your synopsis, and thx for the brief.( did the GH alert the Taliban btw, do we know?)

Its a catch 22, if lift elements were on the way and they killed the GH, the only thing at that point to do is swear a blood oath and lie if questioned, and/or hope that everyone will vaporize it from their memory and never speak of it again. We know this type of thing has happened before and will happen again.

I don't think it's definitively known if the GH alerted the Taliban. Though, shortly after they let him go, they were attacked. So I suppose the fact pattern favors that he did.

I agree that a lot of dark deeds have and will be done in Afghanistan. That doesn't make them legal or proper.

 

[Anachronism]

Wait a minute, are you advocating nuking every square mile of Afghanistan?

It would be a good start.

 

[Trajan]

A wondering innocent who compromised Murphy's team. The debate, apparently, was over whether or not it would be legal to kill him on the assumption he would go and tip off the Taliban.

By Luttrell's account, the matter was put up to a vote and he cast the deciding vote to not kill the man because he feared being prosecuted by the "liberal media".

As you said, if you are put in a situation where you have to make a deal with the devil, then you have to make a decision and live with the consequences.

However, it's absurd to act like this scenario would ever be sanctioned by the UCMJ or that the "liberal media" as opposed to Chain of Command would be the one who would prosecute you.

yes I agree with your synopsis, and thx for the brief.( did the GH alert the Taliban btw, do we know?)

Its a catch 22, if lift elements were on the way and they killed the GH, the only thing at that point to do is swear a blood oath and lie if questioned, and/or hope that everyone will vaporize it from their memory and never speak of it again. We know this type of thing has happened before and will happen again.

I don't think it's definitively known if the GH alerted the Taliban. Though, shortly after they let him go, they were attacked. So I suppose the fact pattern favors that he did.

I agree that a lot of dark deeds have and will be done in Afghanistan. That doesn't make them legal or proper.

theres many things I remember from my readings as an amateur military historian, one of which written by Juvenal a Roman 1st century poet goes;

"It is easier to find someone to bear false witness against a citizen, than to find one who will bear true faith and testimony against the honor or interest of a soldier".


And, "in war, all is pre-forgiven. " I want to say EB Sledge but I am not sure....

 

[whitehall]

If you haven't read Lone Survivor I HIGHLY recommend it. It's a great read by a gentleman who is both a Warrior and very good at telling his story. You won't be able to put it down.

These folks.... SEALs, Rangers, Delta Force, Green Berets, SOAR, Force Recon Marines, etc... are the reason that we can sleep a little easier at night knowing that there are people on our side who are both willing and capable of being just as mean, nasty, and dirty as the mofo's who want to do us harm. I'm very glad they're on OUR side.

As one of them likes to say about himself..... "Doing Evil Things to Evil People since 1993".

"Lone Survivor" is the story of a failed mission and the lack of leadership that caused the failed rescue mission. The SEAL mission illustrated in Luttrell's book was a mess. They were supposed to recon a Taliban force and the Taliban ended up surrounding the SEAL unit. When the SEALs radioed that they were under fire their officer jumped on a helicopter without a plan and landed in the worst spot. The entire rescue group never made it out the door, killed by an RPG. Luttrell was rescued by Afghans and hidden out until finally rescued by Army regulars.

 

[Wicked Jester]

Wait a minute, are you advocating nuking every square mile of Afghanistan?

It would be a good start.

Why?

Is WW3 your goal?

 

[The Gadfly]

Now, I don't know the story of this goat-herder, was this guy in the way of an extraction point? a questionable hostile? a wondering innocent? someone gimme a brief please on the GH..

A wondering innocent who compromised Murphy's team. The debate, apparently, was over whether or not it would be legal to kill him on the assumption he would go and tip off the Taliban.

By Luttrell's account, the matter was put up to a vote and he cast the deciding vote to not kill the man because he feared being prosecuted by the "liberal media".

As you said, if you are put in a situation where you have to make a deal with the devil, then you have to make a decision and live with the consequences.

However, it's absurd to act like this scenario would ever be sanctioned by the UCMJ or that the "liberal media" as opposed to Chain of Command would be the one who would prosecute you.

No, a better (and more truthful) way of saying it, is that since Vietnam, the "chain of command" would , if the facts were discovered, throw the offending party to the liberal media (and the rest of the liberal "true believers") like a sacrificial lamb to cover its own politically-motivated arse, a "correct political attitude" being a necessity for the career-minded officer in today's "politically correct" service. Personally, I am glad the ROE were somewhat more "flexible" in my time; I never had to exercise such an option, but I was glad to know it was there. Somehow, I think I liked things better the old way.

 

[Dr Grump]

It shouldn't be shocking or debatable that American soldiers/sailors/marines/airmen couldn't bring themselves to kill civilians.

Having read the book, I understand operationally why they couldn't do it; but in general terms the lives of 1,000,000 foreign civilians are worth less than the life of one American soldier, sailor, airman or marine so far as I'm concerned.

Which is why you are a douche....

 

[Dr Grump]

[

I live by the philosophy that if you stick your nose into my business unbidden, I'm going to take it off between your shoulder and chin. .

You mean like the US sticking its nose into Iraq's business? Or Viet Nam's? That kind of thing?

Thank god normal folk don't think like you...

 

[Wicked Jester]

[

I live by the philosophy that if you stick your nose into my business unbidden, I'm going to take it off between your shoulder and chin. .

You mean like the US sticking its nose into Iraq's business? Or Viet Nam's? That kind of thing?

Thank god normal folk don't think like you...

You left out Lybia.

 

[geauxtohell]

Now, I don't know the story of this goat-herder, was this guy in the way of an extraction point? a questionable hostile? a wondering innocent? someone gimme a brief please on the GH..

A wondering innocent who compromised Murphy's team. The debate, apparently, was over whether or not it would be legal to kill him on the assumption he would go and tip off the Taliban.

By Luttrell's account, the matter was put up to a vote and he cast the deciding vote to not kill the man because he feared being prosecuted by the "liberal media".

As you said, if you are put in a situation where you have to make a deal with the devil, then you have to make a decision and live with the consequences.

However, it's absurd to act like this scenario would ever be sanctioned by the UCMJ or that the "liberal media" as opposed to Chain of Command would be the one who would prosecute you.

No, a better (and more truthful) way of saying it, is that since Vietnam, the "chain of command" would , if the facts were discovered, throw the offending party to the liberal media (and the rest of the liberal "true believers") like a sacrificial lamb to cover its own politically-motivated arse, a "correct political attitude" being a necessity for the career-minded officer in today's "politically correct" service. Personally, I am glad the ROE were somewhat more "flexible" in my time; I never had to exercise such an option, but I was glad to know it was there. Somehow, I think I liked things better the old way.

What time and place was that?

Unless I missed something, it's never been appropriate to shoot innocent civilians.

And, make no mistake, that's exactly what this scenario was. This team had absolutely no proof that this guy would tell the Taliban their whereabouts and they certainly had no proof that he was a combatant.

The act would be indefensible. It has nothing to do with the "liberal media". That's just a bullshit deflection from the real fact of the matter, the team got compromised and a shit storm ensued.

 

[whitehall]

You almost gotta laugh. A couple of years ago the same people were calling the commander of US Troops "betray-us" and goading Cindy Sheehan's nut cases into demonstrating. Now that they have a socialist in the white house they have become super patriots.

 

[Anachronism]

Why?

Is WW3 your goal?

No. My goal is to ensure that every country on this planet understands that if their government, their citizens or anyone even remotely associated with their country does anything to negatively affect the US or its citizens living here in the US, that retaliation will be swift, brutal, and permanent.

You left out Lybia.

Libya we shouldn't have anything to do with. Iraq was legit in my mind because Hussein had been planning an assassination attempt on at least one former US President. Vietnam I will also agree we shouldn't have had anything to do with. Nor should we have been involved in Korea, Panama, Grenada, or pretty much any other conflict in the 20th Century short of the Pacific theater of WWII.

 

[daveman]

Wait a minute, are you advocating nuking every square mile of Afghanistan?

It would be a good start.

Fire up your Ignore List, because you're no better than the terrorists.

 

[Anachronism]

Fire up your Ignore List, because you're no better than the terrorists.

You'll have to do better than that if you want to punch your ticket to the list, dave.

In some ways I have a great respect for the terrorists. They're willing to do whatever is necessary to advance their cause. I respect that mindset. They understand that "rules" may have a place in the boxing ring, but they do not have one on the battlefield. The only point in a war is to destroy your enemy utterly. I can't remember the exact quote, but the line from Conan the Barbarian about "what is good in life" comes to mind.