Navy SEALs Face Assault Charges for Capturing Most-Wanted Terrorist

[Ravi]

FOXNews.com - Navy SEALs Face Assault Charges for Capturing Most-Wanted Terrorist - Iraq | War | Map

Unbelievable.

Your thread title is misleading...and so is FAUX's headline.

You pretending you've ever had an original thought is misleading too. For fuck's sake, she used the title of the article. If you don't like Fox that's fine (no one gives a rat's ass what you like anyway) but attacking someone for using the title of the article they're posting as their thread title is just you being a troll as usual.

Try making a real contribution once in a while, you're boring as fuck as the witless cheerleader of the Left's talking points.

I didn't attack Chanel...I merely told her that her thread title was misleading. Quit projecting your victimhood onto others.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

More BS.

If you didn't have an interest in the "Blackwater angle" you wouldn't have brought it up.

FAIL

I have qualms about excessive power from a private mercenary army, particularly Blackwater, given their past. That does not change what I've already said, and in fact strengthens my comment that opinions on this are likely to be biased by preconceptions.

Shut your fucking bean pie hole. You have no idea what you are talking about.....and I can think of many of my team mates who would like you to call them a SQUEAL to their face....they would enjoy giving you a fat lip as well.

 

[Amanda]

Your thread title is misleading...and so is FAUX's headline.

You pretending you've ever had an original thought is misleading too. For fuck's sake, she used the title of the article. If you don't like Fox that's fine (no one gives a rat's ass what you like anyway) but attacking someone for using the title of the article they're posting as their thread title is just you being a troll as usual.

Try making a real contribution once in a while, you're boring as fuck as the witless cheerleader of the Left's talking points.

I didn't attack Chanel...I merely told her that her thread title was misleading. Quit projecting your victimhood onto others.

Say it often, the more times you say it the truer it gets.

 

[AdlerianThinker]

Navy SEALs have secretly captured one of the most wanted terrorists in Iraq — the alleged mastermind of the murder and mutilation of four Blackwater USA security guards in Fallujah in 2004. And three of the SEALs who captured him are now facing criminal charges, sources told FoxNews.com.

The three, all members of the Navy's elite commando unit, have refused non-judicial punishment — called an admiral's mast — and have requested a trial by court-martial.

Ahmed Hashim Abed, whom the military code-named "Objective Amber," told investigators he was punched by his captors — and he had the bloody lip to prove it.

Now, instead of being lauded for bringing to justice a high-value target, three of the SEAL commandos, all enlisted, face assault charges and have retained lawyers.

The four Blackwater agents were transporting supplies for a catering company when they were ambushed and killed by gunfire and grenades. Insurgents burned the bodies and dragged them through the city. They hanged two of the bodies on a bridge over the Euphrates River for the world press to photograph.

Intelligence sources identified Abed as the ringleader, but he had evaded capture until September.

The military is sensitive to charges of detainee abuse highlighted in the Abu Ghraib prison scandal. The Navy charged four SEALs with abuse in 2004 in connection with detainee treatment.

FOXNews.com - Navy SEALs Face Assault Charges for Capturing Most-Wanted Terrorist - Iraq | War | Map

Unbelievable.

I don't care if the terrorist scum bag got a busted lip.

What I care about is the charges of dereliction and making false official statements. I want SEALs that can man up when they mess up.

If they are to be cleared of charges, the military will clear them.

 

[Saladin]

Shut your fucking bean pie hole. You have no idea what you are talking about.....and I can think of many of my team mates who would like you to call them a SQUEAL to their face....they would enjoy giving you a fat lip as well.

They can attempt whatever they wish, though they may wish to remember the consequences of ill-conceived encroachments of foreign military personnel into Lebanon. Did that end well in 1983? Did it end well when resistance fighters forced a retreat by the Israeli Offensive Forces in 2006?

 

[AdlerianThinker]

Shut your fucking bean pie hole. You have no idea what you are talking about.....and I can think of many of my team mates who would like you to call them a SQUEAL to their face....they would enjoy giving you a fat lip as well.

They can attempt whatever they wish, though they may wish to remember the consequences of ill-conceived encroachments of foreign military personnel into Lebanon. Did that end well in 1983? Did it end well when resistance fighters forced a retreat by the Israeli Offensive Forces in 2006?

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Shut your fucking bean pie hole. You have no idea what you are talking about.....and I can think of many of my team mates who would like you to call them a SQUEAL to their face....they would enjoy giving you a fat lip as well.

They can attempt whatever they wish, though they may wish to remember the consequences of ill-conceived encroachments of foreign military personnel into Lebanon. Did that end well in 1983? Did it end well when resistance fighters forced a retreat by the Israeli Offensive Forces in 2006?

kul khara we moot

 

[Saladin]

kul khara we moot

No less coherent than your other posts, at least.

 

[Si modo]

Someone has comprehension and focus issues.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

kul khara we moot

No less coherent than your other posts, at least.

Since you are a fake arab poser I'll translate for you......EAT SHIT AND DIE!

 

[Saladin]

Since you are a fake arab poser I'll translate for you......EAT SHIT AND DIE!

I'm not a fan of phonetic translations. It leads to the kind of egregious spelling errors that your post contained.

I see that point flew directly over your head, of course.

Since this futility is growing tiresome, do you have anything to say regarding the thread topic?

 

[Kalam]

Since when does killing mercenaries constitute "terrorism"? More importantly, why is the US military concerning itself with the welfare of mercenaries?

 

[Si modo]

Since when does killing mercenaries constitute "terrorism"? More importantly, why is the US military concerning itself with the welfare of mercenaries?

OK. Not a terrorist, an enemy and a perpetrator of war crimes got a bloody lip upon his capture in a war zone.

 

[Kalam]

Since when does killing mercenaries constitute "terrorism"? More importantly, why is the US military concerning itself with the welfare of mercenaries?

OK. Not a terrorist, an enemy and a perpetrator of war crimes got a bloody lip upon his capture in a war zone.

Frankly, I don't see how it could be argued that killing foreign mercenaries is criminal or reprehensible. I'm also wondering why doing so apparently made this man's capture a top priority for the US military. One would think that they'd be preoccupied with finding "terrorists" who have killed real soldiers.

 

[Si modo]

Since when does killing mercenaries constitute "terrorism"? More importantly, why is the US military concerning itself with the welfare of mercenaries?

OK. Not a terrorist, an enemy and a perpetrator of war crimes got a bloody lip upon his capture in a war zone.

Frankly, I don't see how it could be argued that killing foreign mercenaries is criminal or reprehensible. ....

In a war zone, that would depend on which side you are. I'm on the side of the American troops, personally. So, the enemy, who also perpetrated war crimes, got a fat lip upon his capture. *yawn*

 

[xsited1]

Heard this on the radio today. Very interesting if true.

RUSH: Greg in North Carolina, great to have you on the phone here, sir. Welcome to EIB Network.

CALLER: Hi, Mr. Limbaugh, how are you?

RUSH: Fine, sir.

CALLER: Good. I just wanted to call and kind of give a little more insight on this SEAL team situation. I was in the teams for 20 years. I have multiple-decade military service and came in not long after Vietnam. I also worked for Blackwater for a few years in Iraq and know one of the guys that was killed at Fallujah quite well. But, anyway, the point I'm going to get at here is that I think there's quite a bit of evidence that this is kind of a backwash from the situation of a couple months ago when the SEAL operators rescued Captain Phillips off the coast of Somalia. You may recall that situation.

RUSH: Yes, I do.

CALLER: Well, the truth behind that situation is that the SEAL operators were kept off the scene for well over 36 hours. There was a lot of foot dragging by the commander-in-chief's people in letting them in the theater. After they were in theater and in place they were given a very restrictive ROE: Rules Of Engagement. The ROE was so restrictive that really they couldn't engage their targets. There were two previous opportunities to rescue Captain Phillips, and they were not allowed to take those opportunities.

RUSH: Let me stop you here because people may not know. We're talking Somali pirates. We're talking about the Maersk cargo ship that a bunch of Somali pirates, teenagers, took over. One of them eventually died, and the media credited Obama -- honest to God, folks, the media credited Obama -- with giving the order to pull the trigger. Now you may resume the story, sir.

CALLER: Okay. When they finally did engage the hostiles, they did it liberally interpreting the ROE, and the on-site commander finally was kind of fed up with the situation and gave them a weapons-free command and they were able to engage and rescue Captain Phillips. The fallout from that was immediate and rather violent in its anger. The White House people -- I don't know the president himself, I just know their representatives with the chain of command -- were absolutely livid with this and they did not want the rescue to be conducted in the way that it was. You know, I cannot prove this because I would have to give names and I'm not giving names for obvious reasons. But the bottom line is that on very good, solid inside information, the national command authority past the Pentagon was not happy.

RUSH: So let me cut to the chase here. So what I think I hear you saying is the blowback that you mentioned is, this is payback for the SEALs violating the ROE on this captain of the Maersk; and this is the chain of command reasserting itself, letting everybody know who's boss and what's going to happen to you if you don't follow orders?

CALLER: That is my rather experienced opinion -- and, frankly, the opinion of others. I am very close to the special operations community here in North Carolina, and, you know, that opinion is surfacing. These people are very vindictive -- and you have to understand, Mr. Limbaugh, you're very pro-military, and you always say wonderful things about our people in service, and we greatly appreciate it. But I do have to say this, and I'd like to make this one point. I've had two sons, by the way. My two eldest sons have done multiple tours in Afghanistan and Iraq. The military of today is not the military that fought World War II. It is not even the military that fought the first Gulf War. It is a military that has been thoroughly politicized. It is a military that is suffering the fallout of Patricia Schroeder's ridiculous, politically correct policies that still have great power and sway in the military. And I'm just going to have to tell you: I do not mean to impugn the junior personnel in the military, the line troops, the junior officers. I'm not talking about these people. These people are doing a fine job. They're outstanding people. But the senior ranking, the civilian and senior ranking military personnel are thoroughly indoctrinated and on board with this politically correct agenda that's in the military.

RUSH: Yeah. I'll tell you the most recent example of it. A glaring example was General Casey, more concerned about the "diversity" in his Army than the loss of life at Fort Hood.

CALLER: General Casey, sir, and Wesley Clark are not the exceptions in the upper echelons. They are the rule. Those are the kinds of men that are running the show and they will throw the junior personnel under the bus to save themselves every time. And that is my opinion. Again, I don't mean to impugn any of the junior people.

RUSH: We know what you mean. We know exactly what you mean.

CALLER: Okay.

RUSH: Everything's been politically correctized -- chickified, if you will. That's one of the things I call it. Can you hold on for a break?

CALLER: Certainly.

RUSH: I want you to explain to people what you meant. I think I know what you meant by the Patsy Schroeder stuff, Tailhook and all that, but I want you to explain exactly what you mean by that 'cause I'm sure you've got a lot of people curious.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: We rejoin our call with Greg from parts unknown in North Carolina, a former member of the Navy SEAL team who has two sons who served two tours each in Iraq and Afghanistan. What was it that Pat Schroeder did when she was a member of Congress from Colorado?

CALLER: I guess the question would be: What didn't she do? She was very influential in passing legislation and putting pressure on the military to basically and fundamentally feminize the military. I can speak most clearly about the Navy, 'cause that was my experience at the time, especially when Admiral Kelso -- who was the CNO at the time -- kind of completely caved in after Tailhook and started instituting things like putting females on man-o-war, having the mixed training companies in boot camp and the like. And what Patricia Schroeder did was, with a really rather small cabal of very ambitious military officers -- who, by the way, violated military rules and regulations by petitioning in uniform on Capitol Hill for these changes, but nobody seemed to notice that -- were able to pass a lot of regulations through the Navy and the other branches that have, frankly, incorporated women into areas of the military where, being old-fashioned, I do not believe that they belong. And this has caused numerous problems throughout the military. Beyond that, I'm not exactly sure what else you would like me to add.

RUSH: No, I thought that's what you were talking about but I wanted people to hear you say it. Pat Schroeder was very liberal, huge feminist, and I wanted you to say the feminization. My word for it is chickification. But it's happening throughout our culture. It's happening throughout the media as well. And it's turning people soft and touchy-feely and so forth. And I know what you mean: There's no room for that on the battlefield.

CALLER: There is none. And I'm very concerned about the future of our nation's military. Again I do not mean to minimize the dangers that our military personnel are facing in this war. However, it isn't a full-scale, knock-down-drag-out between conventional fighting forces. I am concerned that if we ever do engage in that sort of warfare again -- and I think it's ultimately inevitable, I'm afraid -- that our military is not in the place where it needs to be.

RUSH: Meaning? This is scary. Meaning they're not committed to victory, that there are other things which take precedence?

CALLER: Absolutely, sir. And, frankly, there's a billion Chinamen that are becoming more and more bellicose by the day, are being armed at our expense and with our expertise, and are becoming a growing threat by the day, and I --

RUSH: I wouldn't worry about that. Obama charmed them on that trip over there. He bowed down.

CALLER: I saw that, as he bowed to their prime minister as well.

RUSH: Greg, I gotta go. I'm outta time sadly, but it's wonderful that you got through. A Thanksgiving blessing this audience got to hear you today. Thank you, sir.

CALLER: Thank you very much, Mr. Limbaugh.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: My friends, one of the most famous lines ever uttered by Patsy Schroeder was, "I have a vagina, and I know how to use it." And I replied, "I have a brain and I have a penis, and I only have to use half of either." Tailhook taught every officer that to advance, you gotta be PC. That's another liberal legacy. It just destroys everything it purports to improve.

Navy SEALs Charged for Punching Terrorist Behind Fallujah Atrocity

 

[Kalam]

II'm on the side of the American troops, personally.

Do mercenaries who work for American-based companies fall under this banner?

 

[Amanda]

Frankly, I don't see how it could be argued that killing foreign mercenaries is criminal or reprehensible. I'm also wondering why doing so apparently made this man's capture a top priority for the US military. One would think that they'd be preoccupied with finding "terrorists" who have killed real soldiers.

There's nothing wrong with killing people? Wow.

I believe it was a terrorist act because of what they did, specifically the mutilation and display of the bodies. Someone being killed on the battlefield is a little bit different. What they did was designed to send a message, which is the point of terrorism.

You can describe these guys as mercenaries if you like, but the fact is they were driving through town as part of a convoy. And I believe the convoy was carrying food (IIRC from Jeremy Skahill's book "Blackwater" where he discussed the ambush in some detail) so it's not exactly like this was 2 opposing forces meeting on the battlefield. They were essentially minding their own business, cruising with the convoy when they were ambushed and murdered.

 

[Si modo]

II'm on the side of the American troops, personally.

Do mercenaries who work for American-based companies fall under this banner?

I'll put the entire exchange back in here:

Since when does killing mercenaries constitute "terrorism"? More importantly, why is the US military concerning itself with the welfare of mercenaries?

OK. Not a terrorist, an enemy and a perpetrator of war crimes got a bloody lip upon his capture in a war zone.

Frankly, I don't see how it could be argued that killing foreign mercenaries is criminal or reprehensible. ....

In a war zone, that would depend on which side you are. I'm on the side of the American troops, personally. So, the enemy, who also perpetrated war crimes, got a fat lip upon his capture. *yawn*

You can't see how killing American contractors providing security for catering supplies is criminal or reprehensible. As I said, it depends on whose side you are. I'm on the side of the American troops. They need to eat and contractors providing security for their food (you call 'mercenaries') do not need to be burned alive then dragged through the streets by the enemy. The guy getting the fat lip is the enemy of the American troops in a war zone - to me, at least, the fat lip whiner is the enemy.

 

[Kalam]

There's nothing wrong with killing people? Wow.

That depends on the circumstances surrounding the killing. Assuming that the individual mercenaries who died did not harm any civilians themselves, I suppose that their deaths were regrettable. Surely, though, you can understand why I find it difficult to sympathize with mercenaries who are operating in a foreign country as part of an aggressive war, even if they are my countrymen.

I believe it was a terrorist act because of what they did, specifically the mutilation and display of the bodies.

They did that?

Someone being killed on the battlefield is a little bit different.

The whole country is a battlefield, really. To you, what can be considered "the battlefield" in Iraq?

What they did was designed to send a message, which is the point of terrorism.

Fair enough. How would you classify this, though?

Shock and awe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You can describe these guys as mercenaries if you like, but the fact is they were driving through town as part of a convoy. And I believe the convoy was carrying food (IIRC from Jeremy Skahill's book "Blackwater" where he discussed the ambush in some detail) so it's not exactly like this was 2 opposing forces meeting on the battlefield. They were essentially minding their own business, cruising with the convoy when they were ambushed and murdered.

I don't understand. Ambushes and attempts to disrupt enemy supply lines are not legitimate war strategies? Doesn't that assertion sort of fly in the face of thousands of years of military tactics?