This sort of disengaged ignorant nonsense makes me very angry
Well I do think it's sad. Just as I find it sad when people let their prejudices affect rational thought as has been the case in this thread (and TBH most of the politics threads recently - from both sides...)
Most comments on this thread have actually been quite balanced, the accusations of anti-Americanism have actually been worse than the anti-Americanism itself (even though that was clearly the ops original intent).
the accusations of anti-Americanism have actually been worse than the anti-Americanism itself
How so?
When I saw it was American Special Forces I thought, 'they should have sent ours.
To be fair to them though, they put their lives on the line, and had it gone right, they'd have been heroes.
Can't be easy to get anyone out of a situation like that.
The only person who never made a mistake is the person who never did anything.
Rkk01
Man you really need to chill out , I love that you think that a snap comment
About a fat footballer and his desires is tantamount to bringing down the country,
I was just pointing out that we are not privy to such matters
And will never be and rightly so, we as a populace could not stomach the
Truth or make the decisions that others do,
We only know what we read and what we see on the box ,
You keep on thinking you are informed m8 , the real truth would make your
Pi55 boil 8)
Not trawling through the whole thread, but the few UK blokes i know who have seen war, will tell you that when you are in trouble. It is always the yanks who come in and save your ass. Maybe they come in gung-ho and waste everything around you, but the blokes i knew, really didn't mind too much at the time, or now, for that matter.
The latest on the story is that it is thought a grenade lobbed by one of the American rescuers is what actually killed the poor woman. I'm no military expert...
A mate of mine's Best Man is in the Coldstream Guards (i.e. UK forces) and got himself in a bad way when one of his squad threw a grenade into a room, only to have it bounce off the back wall and straight back out again. 😯
Things go wrong when you throw little exploding bombs.
[i] clubber - Member
the accusations of anti-Americanism have actually been worse than the anti-Americanism itself
How so? [/i]
well most comments have been quite reasoned for or against the americans, apart from bravotel who declared anyone who doesnt adhere to his blinkered views was a cock
I for one was glad of their assistance in the early nineties when we called in an airstrike had they not have been on the money I doubt I'd be typing this now.
kimbers - MemberHow so?
well most comments have been quite reasoned for or against the americans, apart from bravotel who declared anyone who doesnt adhere to his blinkered views was a cock
The only 'view' that I expressed was that this troll thread was attracting kneejerk anti-Americanism from the usual suspects.
Is objecting to kneejerk anti-Americanism blinkered, then?
Yes, I described those who indulge in this as cocks. They are. Same goes for anyone who tries to lump a disparate group of people together as one homogenous group with shared character traits.
I guess you chose to forget this then...
Big Dave - Member
I think the 'Special' in American Special Forces is possibly short for special needs.
and this ill informed bollocks about the 'American psychi' (sic)
...ahh, 300 million people who think as one, like The Borg.
MSP - MemberI think the mistake the American military make is in trying to create a media image, in courting the media as they do they also highlight the mistakes. There may be something in the American psychi that causes that, an optimism that can cloud the possible negative outcomes.
and someone else bringing friendly fire into it for no apparent reason.
On that subject, the Americans have been responsible for more 'blue on blues' principally because they have many times more troops in theatre at any given point in addition to providing the vast majority of combat air support. Still, don't let that stop the fun. All aboard the bandwagon, hey?
Rkk01Man you really need to chill out , I love that you think that a snap comment
About a fat footballer and his desires is tantamount to bringing down the country,I was just pointing out that we are not privy to such matters
And will never be and rightly so, we as a populace could not stomach the
Truth or make the decisions that others do,We only know what we read and what we see on the box ,
You keep on thinking you are informed m8 , the real truth would make your
Pi55 boil
Err, you've made some pretty big assumptions about what I do know, don't know or need to know... And, I've deliberately not commented on the rescue attempt, for reason of not wanting to fall back on assumptions and pre-conceptions.
Regarding [i]needing[/i] to know, this...
not privy to such matters
And will never be and rightly so
... is utter nonsense.
It is what leads a country to re-elect a leader that "lied" (misrepresented?) about the reason to go o war in Iraq.
It is one reason why the Americans failed in Vietnam against the rising tide of the anti-war movement.
Arguably, it's why the issue of UK eqpt provision and helicopters / flying hours didn't become a major political issue much, much earlier than it did.
Too much detail can get into the media, too close to the event, and that can undermine operational procedures and security - but the UK Government media clampdown / blackout in Afghanistan protected the politicians arses rather than protected service personnel lives.
We only know what we read and what we see on the box ,You keep on thinking you are informed m8 , the real truth would make your
Pi55 boil
Which makes my point, really.
I don't claim to be informed, but I do know that what I have read and heard ought to shame UK politicians and journalists for keeping the public in the dark.
Yes, the real truth should have boiled the public's piss - and that should have been routed back to the decision makers to get their bloody finger's out.
I've worked with US Army and USMC, US Navy SEAL's, and spent 10 months working with British Special Forces who I was trained to undertake LRRP's and CSAR actions.
My great uncle was a WOII within the RM, SBS and SAS during the 1950's, I've also had the opportunity to talk "off the record" with an Ex Sgt. who took part in the Iranian Embassy siege.
Belive me folks when I say no matter how hard you train you can still **** things up, and things get ****ed up, all you can do is try to reduice the risk by quality of training and hope for good luck.
There is a lot of things that have happened in various conflicts involving special forces that you will never read or hear about, best just to leave it that way 😉
When I'm on holiday, I'm generally first on the balcony.
CBA
How do we know the mission wasn't a total success?
I'm sure the US special forces are extremely well trained and very competent. I'm also sure the US forces have helped lots of people out of bad spots. I'm even sure that the UK forces - including special forces - have made lots of cock-ups - I mean you only have to look at the last hostage rescue, hailed as a success because they rescued the principal, yet they killed 4 others including his Afghan interpreter.
However
Maybe they come in gung-ho and waste everything around you, but the blokes i knew, really didn't mind too much at the time, or now, for that matter.
- that's the whole problem. There's no accident they have that reputation, and I'm sure the only reason your mates are happy is because they're still here to be happy, not having been killed due to the gung ho attitude. The important question in this case is who thought grenades were a good idea in such a situation. Don't go blaming it on heat of the moment either - if carrying grenades was a good idea then surely rules of engagement should have been better defined to limit their use. IMHO (and I'm sure I'll get condemned as a keyboard warrior for this) somebody somewhere further up the management chain made the wrong decision on this issue, not to mention the strategic decision to go in in the first place.
On that subject, the Americans have been responsible for more 'blue on blues' principally because they have many times more troops in theatre at any given point in addition to providing the vast majority of combat air support.
Well if you want to discuss that, I'm fairly sure that on a per mission basis they're still well ahead on the blue-on-blue count. No accident there either - there is a difference in the training and the general attitude within the military.
woahhh !
ace_sparky - WTF are all those MLA's ?
agreed on [u]pretty much[/u] all counts so far (why do we all have to take such polarised stances all the time ?)
tragic? - clearly
brave? - yes
poorly reported/ mis(or dis)informed? - probably
ill advised? - quite possibly
americans all shite? - unlikely
politicians (military [b]and[/b]civilian) ultimately to blame and likely never to tell the truth? - why, yes, I imagine they are
my total and utter guess (never having been a member of the special forces, 😉 ) is that some objective other than just possible rescue had presented itself - maybe a taliban bigwig was on the premises? I don't see such a massive effort going into "just" rescuing this poor woman. Maybe I'm more cynical than I should be, but see above re politicians.
I wouldn't bother RepacK, any excuse to be racist towards Americans is taken up on this forum
+1 The xenophobic attitudes on this forum are not only extremely old fashioned but numbingly boring too.
and someone else bringing friendly fire into it for no apparent reason
Difficult call and the USA defenders have to accept that their record on friendly fire deaths and refusal to testify here on these cases does lead to resentment. Yes sh1t happens in war but stand up and be counted for your errors.
Tough call IMHO damned if they do damned if they dont
Yes hard to see what I was on about there and not really knee-jerk anti-americanism.
My first thought on hearing it had gone wrong and she was blown up 'probably by a suicide bomb' was 'well they would say that wouldn't they'.
Of course that must just have been my knee jerk anti Americanism coming into play.
but the fact is they were prepared to die to rescue the hostage.
+1
we as a populace could not stomach the Truth or make the decisions that others do
Speak for yourself pal.
but the fact is they were prepared to die to rescue the hostage.+1
Or more accurately, a senior field commander (and staff) assessed the risks and decided to issue orders for a rescue mission, having weighed up the chances of success against the risks to the team??
Well if you want to discuss that, I'm fairly sure that on a per mission basis they're still well ahead on the blue-on-blue count. No accident there either - there is a difference in the training and the general attitude within the military.
Proof? Or just your opinion..
bravohotel9er - Memberand this ill informed bollocks about the 'American psychi' (sic)
...ahh, 300 million people who think as one, like The Borg.MSP - Member
I think the mistake the American military make is in trying to create a media image, in courting the media as they do they also highlight the mistakes. There may be something in the American psychi that causes that, an optimism that can cloud the possible negative outcomes.
Of course nations have characteristics that liken them as a group, that's not to say that everyone thinks the same as borg like drones, but they are the product of the same education systems, media exposure and the same political language that creates their understanding of the world.
And just for the record I am frequently embarrassed and dismayed by the actions of the "British authorities", the decisions and cock-ups they make, and there attempts to cover up the truth. That doesn't make me anti british, it means I can form my own view on events and not just accept the press release issued.
Too many people round here are reading Bravo two Zero stylee novels frankly!
A dangerous business without superhuman powers = high liklihood of things going wrong from time to time regardless of national sterotypes and lack of real information about what actually went on. No other sensible conclusion possible frankly.
There have been some awful blue on blue incidents amoung US soldiers, some of which won't ever become public. They do have a gung ho reputation in military nations.
I know this from real life army men when training with HM Forces, not from a book or 212111451th hand.
Answering the OP - if I was a hostage at risk of being killed in any number of unpleasant ways and the results broadcast on YouTube for lots of crazies to gloat over, I'd be happy if anyone came and rescued me. Hell, I might even engage in a two-cheeked kiss if my liberators were French or Italian (just no touching the butt ok!).
Or more accurately, a senior field commander (and staff) assessed the risks and decided to issue orders for a rescue mission, having weighed up the chances of success against the risks to the team??
So as I said, and given the fact that the guys bursting through the door had a choice not to do it.
the fact is they were prepared to die to rescue the hostage.
I'd be very grateful that anyone would risk their life to attempt to rescue me from those animals (whom I hope died slowly).
Let us not forget that the american military have saved countless british lives by supplying fast air in afg (because the RAF now only have an unservicable air balloon and some old rotor blades). You won't find many brit servicemen who will talk badly of them.
I'm as anti-American as they come. All my American friends have had to humbly acknowledge that they live in a failed state before I let them buy me drinks for the rest of the night.
However, if I was in a hostage situation with anyone who believed in an afterlife then I would be desperate for anyone to at least try and rescue me. Whatever the outcome, it's got to be better than what happened to Ken Bigley or Margaret Hassan.
Saying that, I would make the American Special Forces humbly acknowledge that they live in a failed state before I let them buy me drinks for the rest of the night.
There is a lot of things that have happened in various conflicts involving special forces that you will never read or hear about
+1
Tora Bora.
Forgive the ill informed arm chair analysis.
1 We were not there.
2 Everybody who was there was operating in the dark and under fire and probably genuinely at risk of imminent unpleasantness.
3 The US soldiers probably wanted to save the Hostage and also survive themselves.
4 A time may have come when a soldier found himself in a situation where he had to throw a grenade or die or allow his colleagues to die.
5 That soldier may not have known where exactly the hostage was or may even had information that led him to believe the grenade was going nowhere near her or may have come to the perfectly legitimate view that the only way he or his colleagues could live was to throw the grenade .
6 First accounts of complex and confused events are often inaccurate and always incomplete.
7 The people who created the sequence of events that ended with her tragic death were the kidnappers.
8 I'd sooner take my chances being rescued by the Americans than sit it out with the kidnappers who may or may not be Taliban who may or may not kill me on YouTube and who may well sell me on to even more nasty individuals.
Forgive the ill informed arm chair analysis.
[b]1 We were not there.[/b]
That opening "point" kind of ruins the rest of your guesswork and makes a mockery of your "ill informed" comment.
1. - Of course,
2. - Yes, but with night vision
3. - Goes without saying
4. & 5. - Or they defaulted to their normal room clearance practice of fragmentation grenade(s) before entry when they should have used stun grenades ???
6. - Yes
7. - Yes
8. - Wouldn't we all.
I'm just puzzled by the implication that a conventional grenade was used in a hostage situation...
I'm just puzzled by the implication that a conventional grenade was used in a hostage situation...
Indeed, but as we (includes BBC defence correspondent) are all armchair warriors - what do we know / why should we comment?
I don't think you need to be in the military to ask questions about why a fragmentation grenade was thrown into a room with a possible hostage - apart from the fact that that is what they normally do?
From what has been posted above, many have commented on UK forces views of US forces (eg getting them out of sticky situations etc). What I have been told is that US (regular) forces do things very very well "by the book", but absolutely do not question "the book" (and from relatives living in the US, this could be used as a sweeping generalisation for the way things are done in the US). By contrast, initiative instilled in all ranks is a quality that UK infantry units rightly pride themselves on.
Well if "the book" said "throw a frag grenade into a room possibly holding the hostage you are out to rescue" then perhaps it needs a wee bit of editing.
Well if "the book" said "throw a frag grenade into a room possibly holding the hostage you are out to rescue" then perhaps it needs a wee bit of editing.
Agreed, but we don't know if this is what happened.
If however, the book says 'under no circumstances use frag grenades in a hostage situation as they tend to lob shards of white hot metal in random directions' then what?
Gung ho or not, seems a bit harsh to discipline the soldier concerned
[url= http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/13/linda-norgrove-us-commando-disciplinary ]SEAL to be disciplined...[/url]
Seems a bit harsh to get killed because somebody's throwing around indiscriminate weapons. Then again that's more the fault of the command not setting out correct RoE - though as handy as it might be to have some minion to hang the blame on, if you check you'll find he's being disciplined for being economical with the truth, not for throwing the grenade.
