A large portion of seal team six wiped out in crash.

Nodin

Thirty US troops, said to be mostly special forces, have been killed, reportedly when a Taliban rocket downed their helicopter in east Afghanistan.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-14430735

Chuck Stone

Losing the peace in Afghanistan is a disaster for America and the west in general.

It's only a matter of time before the troops pull out and blame the Afghanis for the whole thing.

Talk about a half assed job.

Dyr

Fremen wrote: »

US foreign policy works by carrot and stick. The carrot is international aid. These guys are the stick. I think US foreign policy is cynical and self-serving, so I don't have much respect for their military.

Most countries foreign policies are cynical and self serving though

Killer Wench

My thoughts and prayers out to the family members of the fallen and the members of the team who still live.

I am not hopeful that we will now be able to withdraw on the timeline that was being established. If anything, I expect that this episode will embolden the AQ/Taliban as killing members of TEAM 6 (the team that killed their motivational leader) proves to them and members of the world that they are capable of re-organization and retaliation. People thought the head had been chopped off, but this just proves that sentiment wrong. If anything, I expect the next few months to have an escalation of violence.

Now, on to the conspiracy.

A few days ago, there was an American news story outing the identity of the dog used on the OBL mission. At the time, I was thinking that the American media was dead-set on providing as much information on the team members as they could get ahold of and I was expecting to eventually read a story identifying the key players involved in the raid. So, a part of me wonders... a small part... if this event was an attempt to push those team members underground so that they no longer were a risk to the clandestine operation of the Special Operations Command.

Jesus Wept

RMD wrote: »

SEAL actually stands for SEa Air Land, they love a bit of flying.

Pretty stupid, should be Sal obviously.

Geekness1234

This thread is ridiculous,there are 38 grieving families and all you can do is argue about foreign policy and how SEAL should be SAL.

Kepti

Killer Wench wrote: »

A few days ago, there was an American news story outing the identity of the dog used on the OBL mission. At the time, I was thinking that the American media was dead-set on providing as much information on the team members as they could get ahold of and I was expecting to eventually read a story identifying the key players involved in the raid. So, a part of me wonders... a small part... if this event was an attempt to push those team members underground so that they no longer were a risk to the clandestine operation of the Special Operations Command.

If you could find out what part of you thought that up, and then removed it, you'd be a lot better off. There's nothing here to suggest a conspiracy, or anything untoward. Why do you feel the need to make one up?

D1stant

Are Team SEAL 7 OK?

Killer Wench

Kepti wrote: »

If you could find out what part of you thought that up, and then removed it, you'd be a lot better off. There's nothing here to suggest a conspiracy, or anything untoward. Why do you feel the need to make one up?

Being that I am American, and I know of examples when the government and elected officials have misled the public on controversial issues before, I don't think it is entirely outside the realm of possibility. Is it likely that this is a manufactured news story? Highly unlikely.

But if you need an example, google "Tuskegee Experiment".

Saila

Geekness1234 wrote: »

This thread is ridiculous,there are 38 grieving families and all you can do is argue about foreign policy and how SEAL should be SAL.

agreed, RIP.... but it should be SAL. or maybe SAILA Sea Air In Landrover and Artillery

Kepti

Killer Wench wrote: »

Being that I am American, and I know of examples when the government and elected officials have misled the public on controversial issues before, I don't think it is entirely outside the realm of possibility. Is it likely that this is a manufactured news story? Highly unlikely.

But if you need an example, google "Tuskegee Experiment".

I wasn't looking for an example of your government lying to, or misleading it's citizens. I suspect we share common ground on the frequency at which that happens. I'd like something which supports the version of events you offered earlier, something other than a connection your mind happened to make.

I've read about the Tuskegee experiment before. It's quite disturbing.

Killer Wench

Kepti wrote: »

I wasn't looking for an example of your government lying to, or misleading it's citizens. I suspect we share common ground on the frequency at which that happens. I'd like something which supports the version of events you offered earlier, something other than a connection your mind happened to make.

I've read about the Tuskegee experiment before. It's quite disturbing.

My apologies. I misread the intent behind your comments.

There is a military policy called "Personnel Security" or PERSEC for short. PERSEC is about protecting the identity of the service person and this includes their rank, their location, and other identifying information that could harm their personal security. DELTA Force is still technically not acknowledged by the US government as being an existing entity, yet we know that they exist because of former members outing themselves. Then there is "Operational Security" that protects the detailed information regarding deployments, troop movements, and the number of members in a unit. I guess you could say that it is from my knowledge of OPSEC and PERSEC that this tiny grain of "what-if" exists.

Members of these elite teams do not look like the stereotypical soldier/sailor/airman/Marine that one sees in movies or on documentaries; they are groomed to blend into the general population so if that means that they have earrings, long hair, or facial hair, then it is whatever. Their effectiveness is based upon their ability to blend in and remain anonymous.

Here we have an elite Special Ops team that has just committed one of the biggest clandestine operations in our military history and we live in an era where even vetted military personnel will release highly sensitive information for their own motives. The media is still interested in who pulled the kill shot and there are ways of feeding the curiousity of the public, as we have seen with these stories about hacking. If the curiousity remained strong for the public (and lord knows, Americans love diversions rather than real issues) then the media would be tenacious in their investigation of who these people are. Here's the Yahoo story that I referenced before:

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/envoy/inside-raid-killed-osama-bin-laden-crankshaft-devgru-193111385.html

I don't think they would have let up on trying to break this story, and the identity of these team members, if not for such a tragedy as what happened today.

Fremen

Bambi wrote: »

Most countries foreign policies are cynical and self serving though

Well, yes. That's why I tend not to go around cheering armies on.

later12

Can someone please fix the thread title? Portion

I know it's a small thing but, nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnhhhhhh

Manic Moran

Geekness1234 wrote: »

This thread is ridiculous,there are 38 grieving families and all you can do is argue about foreign policy and how SEAL should be SAL.

Meh, we're used to it. It's not a safe job and we're sortof used to being taken for granted.

I've always kindof wondered what the AH thread would be if I were killed in action.

NTM

amacachi

Manic Moran wrote: »

Meh, we're used to it. It's not a safe job and we're sortof used to being taken for granted.

I've always kindof wondered what the AH thread would be if I were killed in action.

NTM

I'd just avoid it tbh.

Manic Moran

I'd just avoid it tbh.

Might not be too hard. I've never heard anyone say there was Internet access in the Afterlife.

Heck, that really doesn't sound very appealing, does it? Eternity without the Web?

NTM

mattjack

Manic Moran wrote: »

Meh, we're used to it. It's not a safe job and we're sortof used to being taken for granted.

I've always kindof wondered what the AH thread would be if I were killed in action.

NTM

Dont let these things concern ..already a secret group has gathered and in the unlikely event anything happens to you, we have discussed and resolved a number of issues.
There are a number of outstanding issues..
1. your large collection of midget porn
2. the "farm" in Columbia......
3. your pet killer whale..

Conor108

RIP

Freddie59

It's quite sick to see how light people are making of the deaths of these soldiers. Amazingly, when terrorists are killed or injured there is uproar, with the now almost 'cool' condemnation of the USA. Were it not for these brave souls (and those who went before them) we would not be enjoying the freedoms we do now.

Worth thinking about before shooting your mouth off. May they Rest In Peace.

SamHarris

Fremen wrote: »

An informed response indeed. Did you pause to consider civilians killed by US forces when they invaded Afghanistan? You're looking at 12,000 at a very conservative estimate. Did you consider that the families of those 12,000 people will be radicalised against the US?

"Eradicate" terrorism my eye.

If people still dont realise why Afghanistan was a war that had to happen and the reasons why this is so I weep for them.

The government of another nation directly allowing and attack on another nations civilians and providing material support to those that did it, then refusing to crack down on the same people. You are never, ever going to find a "better" reason for a conflict between two states.

You cannot eradicate terrorism, true. You can make it much, much more difficult for groups to carry out major attacks.

Killer Wench

Freddie59 wrote: »

It's quite sick to see how light people are making of the deaths of these soldiers. Amazingly, when terrorists are killed or injured there is uproar, with the now almost 'cool' condemnation of the USA. Were it not for these brave souls (and those who went before them) we would not be enjoying the freedoms we do now.

Worth thinking about before shooting your mouth off. May they Rest In Peace.

If it weren't for those who fought in WWII, and the wars before that one, we would not be enjoying the freedoms that we do now.

Those who fought in Korea, Vietnam, Somalia, Gulf War, Iraq, and Afghanistan are not fighting for my freedom. They are fighting on the behalf of democratic ideals. My father is a Vietnam vet and my grandfather was a WWII vet and is buried in a veteran's cemetary, so I don't come from a position of not respecting those who have served. But, it really annoys me when people try to paint these current conflicts as though they are what is standing between us and loss of our freedoms. If anything, the biggest threat to my freedoms have come from my own government and the laws passed since 9/11 all in the name of my security.

When someone infringes on my freedom to speak openly against the government, I don't go running to my friends who are in the Army or in the Navy, I expect my freedoms to be fought in a court of law, upheld by judges, and reported on by journalists.

SamHarris

Arnold Layne wrote: »

So true.

I would never hope to shoot armed or otherwise terrorists/civilians.

I would rather have a steady job and raise a family, no matter how bad the current economic situation is.

But thats just me! :rolleyes:

If you would not kill someone who's express intent it is to kill others, and have proudly taken responsibility for it in the past - any and all Americans I remind you not just soldiers - then it by no means makes you a more moral or high minded person.

You would be placing your own safety and "moral superiority" ahead of the lives of all those they explicitly stated they wish to kill. If you had the power to stop it and chose not to you would be to some extent complicit. That is not to say that everyone should run off and join an army, but lacking basic foresight for the consequences of others actions and inaction when deciding how they feel about events is nothing to be proud of.

SamHarris

Kepti wrote: »

The world can't be easily be divided up into "good guys" and "bad guys". If you can provide an argument to justify the current wars, I'd like to hear it.

All wars are not equally justifiable nor have the same justification.

A direct attack on American citizens supported by a foreign government leading to 1000's of deaths? If you dont think that is a good enough reason for a war, tell me, what is?

SamHarris

Fremen wrote: »

US foreign policy works by carrot and stick. The carrot is international aid. These guys are the stick. I think US foreign policy is cynical and self-serving, so I don't have much respect for their military.

A nations foreign policy is self serving? My god. Im just glad Irelands foreign service is so dedicated to looking out for others national interest :rolleyes:

ted1

Will someone please think of the children...

mattjack

SamHarris wrote: »

A nations foreign policy is self serving? My god. Im just glad Irelands foreign service is so dedicated to looking out for others national interest :rolleyes:

American foreign policy originally supplied stinger missiles and CIA operatives to Afghanistan in the 80s..I wonder was it anti Soviet policy or an a genuine interest in Afghanistan..

ectoraige

ectoraige wrote: »

Does Heidi Klum know about this?

That made me laugh - moreso at the image of somewhat cuddly looking Seal being a killer.

SamHarris

mattjack wrote: »

American foreign policy originally supplied stinger missiles and CIA operatives to Afghanistan in the 80s..I wonder was it anti Soviet policy or an a genuine interest in Afghanistan..

I dont think anyone has any interest in Afghanistan bar from not letting anything bad come from there and go elsewhere. Whats your point? Mine was that countries have every right to look out for its own interests - to describe the motives of a government internationally as "self serving" as though that applies to only one or is ven "bad" is stupid, it is the very reason FOR a foreign policy.

mattjack

SamHarris wrote: »

I dont think anyone has any interest in Afghanistan bar from not letting anything bad come from there and go elsewhere. Whats your point? Mine was that countries have every right to look out for its own interests - to describe the motives of a government internationally as "self serving" as though that applies to only one or is ven "bad" is stupid, it is the very reason FOR a foreign policy.

your point really is that you support American foreign policy no matter the cost...be it US soldiers,Afghani citizens,Pakistanis..lets not forget the utter disregard for the soverignity of these and other nations..remember George Bush sayings ..."you are either with us or against us"..

SamHarris

mattjack wrote: »

your point really is that you support American foreign policy no matter the cost...be it US soldiers,Afghani citizens,Pakistanis..lets not forget the utter disregard for the soverignity of these and other nations..remember George Bush sayings ..."you are either with us or against us"..

Yes thats exactly what I said, well done. :rolleyes:

Fremen

SamHarris wrote: »

A nations foreign policy is self serving? My god. Im just glad Irelands foreign service is so dedicated to looking out for others national interest :rolleyes:

Tu quoque. Ireland doesn't have much of a foreign policy, apart from (nominally) staying neutral, and trying to cosy up to the US and UK.

Besides, I didn't offer an opinion on anyone else's policies, I just stated that America has a pretty grim track record.

SGTxWOODSx

Pickels

Latchy

Chinooks carrying large amounts of soldiers in and out of a war zones is maybe not the best idea and better to have smaller amounts of troops taken in by other methods , if only to keep make it harder for the enemy to take out and keep the casualty numbers down .

I cant rememer a time when British and American military weren't being wiped out ...christ I'm old .

Zebra3

SamHarris wrote: »

I dont think anyone has any interest in Afghanistan bar from not letting anything bad come from there and go elsewhere.

You don't know much about pipelines, do you? :rolleyes:

Killer Wench

Judging from the comments left on this Yahoo article, it appears that I am not the only one with a small question of doubt regarding this story.

http://news.yahoo.com/seals-rescue-mission-killed-afghan-crash-190240151.html

Turtwig

I have the utmost of respect for SEAL team bravery and courage. RIP all.

mattjack

SamHarris wrote: »

Yes thats exactly what I said, well done. :rolleyes:

so you,re happy to see innocents dying...:rolleyes:

jimthemental

Geekness1234 wrote: »

This thread is ridiculous,there are 38 grieving families and all you can do is argue about foreign policy and how SEAL should be SAL.

I think they are called DEVGRU now officially, along with Delta they'd be the top troops in the states. Appraently there's a few Irish army rangers working alongside them in Iraq as part of an international special op.

Greyfoot

Zebra3 wrote: »

You don't know much about pipelines, do you? :rolleyes:

And opium poppies...;)

Plumpynutt

Geekness1234 wrote: »

Last time I checked fighting to eradicate terrorism isn't really a pointless cause.
Or is it just you that when out a group of men kill 2000+ civilians it is suddenly a pointless cause to respond.
Shut the f### up Saila.
(

CrinkElite

FISMA wrote: »

...and then a Celtic Tiger was spotted on the Steps of Congress looking for a hand-out.

Yeah well it looks like congress are having their own problems at the moment.

vampire of kilmainham

ya know what the taliban will say now that it was a punishment of allah

Manic Moran

Killer Wench wrote: »

When someone infringes on my freedom to speak openly against the government, I don't go running to my friends who are in the Army or in the Navy, I expect my freedoms to be fought in a court of law, upheld by judges, and reported on by journalists.

Then what?

What was it that President Jackson was reported by journalists to have said following a judgement in a court of law? Something akin to "Justice Marshall has made his decision. Now let us see him try to enforce it"

As recent events in places like Libya, Egypt and Syria have shown, the judges and journalists can say what they like, but the military has a very strong final vote.

NTM

Killer Wench

Manic Moran wrote: »

Then what?

What was it that President Jackson was reported by journalists to have said following a judgement in a court of law? Something akin to "Justice Marshall has made his decision. Now let us see him try to enforce it"

As recent events in places like Libya, Egypt and Syria have shown, the judges and journalists can say what they like, but the military has a very strong final vote.

NTM

Libya, Egypt, Syria? This is America?

Manic Moran

Andrew Jackson was President of the USA, and Justice Marshall was a judge in the US Supreme Court, yes.

NTM

Killer Wench

Manic Moran wrote: »

Andrew Jackson was President of the USA, and Justice Marshall was a judge in the US Supreme Court, yes.

NTM

But, you are using recent events that took place in Africa and Middle East to justify your point about freedom. Their history and foundation of freedom is vastly different than the one in America.

I am well aware of who Andrew Jackson is and I also know who Justice Marshall is. As for the quote, there are questions as to whether or not Andrew Jackson uttered those words. However, I am aware of the context in which Jackson and Marshall butted heads as I am Cherokee and my family was relocated from Georgia due to Jackson's forced ethnic cleansing of the Native population there. Worcester (from which the quote is alleged to have been from) and Cherokee Nation v. Georgia are pivotal court cases on the subject of Indian tribal sovereignty.

But, if you need proof of my assertion about the court being the place where our rights are protected and upheld and fought for, you should read up on Snyder v. Phelps (2010). This Supreme Court case was about a father whose son, Lance Corporal Snyder, was killed in action. At the funeral, the Westboro Baptist Church, founded by Fred Phelps, picketed with signs about "God hating Fags" and that the reason our military members were being killed was because God hated America and was passing judgement against us.

Snyder sued Phelps. Snyder won on the district level and an appeal was upheld; the case then went to the Supreme Court. A significant number of Congressmen supported Snyder and an overwhelming majority of state Attorney Generals filed "Friend of the Court" briefs in support of Snyder. However, civil rights and press organizations sided with Phelps as they believe that this was an attack on the freedom of speech. And, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Phelps stating that his hateful speech was protected by our Constitution.

So again, in our present world, we don't look to our military to fight for our freedom. We look to our lawyers, judges, and journalists.

Greyfoot

When someone starts to speak about freedom and its close relation of the justice system I always think of this part of an otherwise brilliant movie:

http://youtu.be/LuBstLZINco

Ps: No offence meant to the poster before me its just my opinion of modern "freedom"

Freddie59

Killer Wench wrote: »

If it weren't for those who fought in WWII, and the wars before that one, we would not be enjoying the freedoms that we do now.

Those who fought in Korea, Vietnam, Somalia, Gulf War, Iraq, and Afghanistan are not fighting for my freedom. They are fighting on the behalf of democratic ideals. My father is a Vietnam vet and my grandfather was a WWII vet and is buried in a veteran's cemetary, so I don't come from a position of not respecting those who have served.

All the more reason you should recognise the threat posed by fundamentalists who use Islam as a vehicle. They have long-term plans - make no mistake about it. Should they acquire a nuclear weapon they will use it without even blinking. Just like the Japanese in WW2. Cutting babies from pregnant women, experiments, releasing the bubonic plague. It was endless.

Two A-bombs later and that was it. Now they're one of the best-behaved nations on the planet. These modern scumbag fundamentalists are no different. Hit them quick and hard - before they do it to you.

USA's biggest mistakes?

1. Listening to the impotent UN.

2. Not pouring hundreds of thousands of troops in (like in WW2) and leathering the balls off these cretins once and for all.

Manic Moran

But, you are using recent events that took place in Africa and Middle East to justify your point about freedom. Their history and foundation of freedom is vastly different than the one in America.

Yes, but as Judge Gould pointed out in a opinion last year in the 9th Circuit:

Those who have learned, even imperfectly, the lessons of history, and who understand that human nature does not change as rapidly as technology will recognise that these are not phantom threats [...]. Our government has been democratic and our borders secure, so it is hard for modern minds to consider the need to take up arms for the protection of country from threats both internal and external. But Constitutions are designed to endure, and the Bill of Rights must be interpreted in light of the long period of time over which we hope that our country will thrive.

Is an American person so fundamentally different from an Egyptian? Are there not people like Andrew Jackson in the US today, or people like Phil Sheridan willing to carry out those policies? It wasn't all that long ago (1957) that the military was called out to enforce segregation under the instructions of an elected politician who didn't particularly agree with what the Supreme Court had to say about the subject in Brown v Board of Eduction. Before my lifetime, certainly, but several lifetimes after Jackson.

People may take the ability to go to the courts for redress for granted these days, because it has been decades since the last time it has failed to work as intended. But the balance of power and responsibility has never changed and remains just as it does in places like China, Romania or Syria: The system is protected from external threats by the military, and the military is relied upon to abide by the system basically by sheer good-will as, short of civil war, they can't be made to. If the military fails to do either of those two things, then everything else, from the legal system through journalistic ability, is at peril.

NTM