The White House lied: Osama was unarmed!!!

#51
#51
therealUT said:
I am sure it is relevant in that they were most likely given a directive to kill him, or at least this was more than implied from higher. However, these guys routinely go into houses to kill or capture HVTs and often capture, instead of kill.

I can guarantee that if the directive was to capture and only kill if they have no other option, an unarmed bin Laden would have been taken alive.
Click to expand...

why are we putting our guys at risk just so bin laden has the option of giving himself up? the safety of those men is #1.
 
#53
#53
droski said:
why are we putting our guys at risk just so bin laden has the option of giving himself up? the safety of those men is #1.
Click to expand...

Mission. Men. Me.

If the safety of those men was actually #1, then we would not ever deploy troops to combat.
 
#55
#55
It was Osama Bin Freakin' Laden. The only reason I'm glad they didn't just bomb the f-er and get out but instead used a coordinated ground strike, is so there would be no issues regarding identification. We should never have even entertained the idea of capturing and giving him a platform for martyrdom.

He went out like a coward. Best case scenario.
 
#56
#56
Normally if a guy is unarmed he isn't killed. Notice I said normally. There was never any thought of capture for this guy.
 
#61
#61
droski said:
i'm not following you. obviously we regurally don't deploy troops because it is too risky.
Click to expand...

Every single time that the US commits troops to combat, they do so with the knowledge that at least one of those men will be killed in action. If mission was not actually the number one priority (if the safety of our troops was), then we would never deploy our troops (we would also never train them).
 
#64
#64
7thgroupvolfan said:
I get what your saying droski, but the mission is always first.
Click to expand...

the mission was not to take him alive, nor should it have been. we have to weigh the options and the risk to the guys there. obviously the troops would do whatever we want them to, but i don't see the benefit in this instance of putting them at more risk.
 
#65
#65
therealUT said:
Every single time that the US commits troops to combat, they do so with the knowledge that at least one of those men will be killed in action. If mission was not actually the number one priority (if the safety of our troops was), then we would never deploy our troops (we would also never train them).
Click to expand...

understood. but taht doesn't mean the safety of the troops should be disregarded completely.
 
#66
#66
Remember the incident in Iraq I believe where the soldier offed a wounded guy on the floor because he was reaching for something?

Clearly shooting unarmed gets people all bent out of shape. Will be interesting to see if this "unarmed Osama" thing drags on.
 
#67
#67
droski said:
understood. but taht doesn't mean the safety of the troops should be disregarded completely.
Click to expand...

I agree with you; it should not mean that the safety of our troops should be disregarded.

Unfortunately, the way in which we have conducted these two wars and the ROE which has accompanied them have made it clear that the policy makers in Washington routinely disregard the safety of our troops.
 
#69
#69
volinbham said:
Remember the incident in Iraq I believe where the soldier offed a wounded guy on the floor because he was reaching for something?

Clearly shooting unarmed gets people all bent out of shape. Will be interesting to see if this "unarmed Osama" thing drags on.
Click to expand...

Or, when your unit is on the receiving end of a top-down investigation because they authorized an Apache to open fire on individuals carrying RPGs and AK-47s (who happened to be with a foreign journalist) just two blocks away from a six-hour firefight.
 
#70
#70
droski said:
understood. but taht doesn't mean the safety of the troops should be disregarded completely.
Click to expand...

Its never totally disregarded. You be as safe "without compromising the mission" as possible. These guys had weeks and weeks to prepare for this raid. Rock drills over and over and over.
 
#71
#71
therealUT said:
Or, when your unit is on the receiving end of a top-down investigation because they authorized an Apache to open fire on individuals carrying RPGs and AK-47s (who happened to be with a foreign journalist) just two blocks away from a six-hour firefight.
Click to expand...

good times
 
#72
#72
therealUT said:
Or, when your unit is on the receiving end of a top-down investigation because they authorized an Apache to open fire on individuals carrying RPGs and AK-47s (who happened to be with a foreign journalist) just two blocks away from a six-hour firefight.
Click to expand...


Yep
 
#73
#73
Saw a former SEAL on the news last night and he indicated it was Mission, Team, Individual. He also said that on these type missions there is incredible clarity of the mission and that clarity is essential to proper execution.
 
#74
#74
05022011noel.jpg
 
#75
#75
I hope the last thing Bin Laden saw, was the U.S. flag sewn on the shoulder of the soldier who took him out.

Hope he knew it was an American that took his cowardly ass out.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top