quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Who said anything about civilian trial? Any trial would do. Just as long as its public and its for war crimes and crimes against humanity.
So basically if the SEALS had setup a camera, and broadcast via the internet, a feed of him reading a statement about his crimes before blind-folding him, then putting bullets into him, that would have been better?
edited: Because I initially put the blind fold on before the reading of the statement, which is just silly.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: How many people are you willing to risk given the security problems of such a trial?
You of course, and Ace of Spades. If you got time to be yapping you got time to be guarding.
quote: Anyone but himself.
Especially you.
quote: So basically if the SEALS had setup a camera, and broadcast via the internet, a feed of him reading a statement about his crimes before blind-folding him, then putting bullets into him, that would have been better?
edited: Because I initially put the blind fold on before the reading fo the statement, which is just silly.
posted
You know, some of the higher nazis were tried "in absentia" at Nuremberg.
Present his own statements on tape to a military tribunal along with any evidence the FBI already has, let the tribunal proclaim that a death sentence would have been appropriate, then close the book on it.
I'm sure it wouldn't satisfy a lot of people, but so what? I'm a big proponent of the idea that sometimes you make a decision, admit that it won't please everyone, then move on.
posted
This is one of those times it might be a good idea not to ratchet up the angry rhetoric, Blayne. AoS was bein' a jerk. That's `spected. That's what he does. Whoever it is, that's what you see after the name 'Ace of Spades' by default. But, y'know, kmbboots asked a pointed, relevant question and so did BlackBlade, and you replied with a childish insult to them.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
You may not trust the word of our President.
But I trust the brave Navy Seals who spent their time and risked their lives to accomplish this mission.
It has been my experience that there are two kinds of conspiracies--conspiracy of purpose and conspiracy of nature.
A conspiracy of purpose is when a group of people plan something together.
A conspiracy of nature is when natural events combine together to get a result.
Included in nature are stupidity, accident, mistake, laziness, and human nature in general.
I am willing to find a conspiracy of purpose here, if proof is offered.
All I find is conspiracy of nature being grabbed by every anti-Obama believe out there to try and prove him wrong.
They say, "He lies" because everything he says, the make into a lie.
The news that was reported Sunday night was part of a game of telephone that stretched across have the entire planet. Soldiers reported things that went up the chain of command, were repeated to the press, and were spouted on the airwaves in a mad rush to get the news out first. Everywhere up and down that communications lines mistakes could and would be made.
That is human nature, not conspiracy.
A report says a woman attacked the squad. One soldier removed her from the line of fire. One person interprets that report to mean a soldier grabbed her and took her away. The truth, on soldier shot her and hit her in the leg.
Who knows, perhaps after shooting her in the leg he then removed her from the squad. Sure, a shot in the leg will slow down most people--but fanatics on adrenaline and shock can still cause death and injury to our troops.
Guns were nearby. Guns were expected. Heck, guns and bombs were promised. OBL has spent a decade like the 1920's gangster--yelling out his window "you'll never take me alive copper." So soldiers trained to take out -- kill -- the enemy shot him, perhaps a bit to quickly for a fair fight.
I'm not upset.
On the other hand, how many of you anti-Obama folks would be even more upset if one soldier died trying to capture instead of kill OBL? How many of you would be now laying the death of that soldier on the Presidents doorstep?
How many of you really believe that the death of OBL is worth much more than the slightest possibility of one more American's death laid at OBL's feet?
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Ace of Spades is a troll so.... "Not himself" Srsly? Is that even valid to suggest of someone who clearly isn't in that field?
"IF YOU WANT TO GO TO THE MOON SO MUCH WHY DONT YOU MARRY IT HURR DURR DURR (Post Edited by JB)
posted
Darth, I trust Navy SEALS to. The question is, what do I trust them to do? Do I trust them to gainsay the word of the US President? Well...absolutely not. I mean, seriously. They kind of have to select for the trait of not gainsaying superior authorities for things like this before one becomes involved in special forces work. I'm not suggesting that means it never happens, but to just say 'I trust them' seems a bit strange in this context.
I also think you're misrepresenting, a bit, some of the concerns here, in a pretty simplistic way.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: This is one of those times it might be a good idea not to ratchet up the angry rhetoric, Blayne. AoS was bein' a jerk. That's `spected. That's what he does. Whoever it is, that's what you see after the name 'Ace of Spades' by default. But, y'know, kmbboots asked a pointed, relevant question and so did BlackBlade, and you replied with a childish insult to them.
It's not actually a relevant question, my concern had never been that or near that, I only said "It would be ideal if he could be tried publicly at the ICJ" but would accept any kind of trial. Somehow conflating this with somehow meaning basically mimicing said militants by filming it with a handicam in a cave and then shooting him via ad hoc tribunal is incredibly silly and childish appeal to the ridiculous.
As for kmboots, its not really a valid question, those are just details and they don't really matter. It's not as if your holding him IN the compound in Pakistan holding off a horde of muslim zombies but somewhere in Europe probably already in a fairly tight security area.
So what if they're at risk? They're always at risk, they knew it when they signed on.
If I turn around to an advocate of nuclear power and say "but it could be a target of TERRORISM how many dare you risk to guard it?" It's equally invalid and lacking in credibility.
IP: Logged |
posted
Speaking of conspiracies, I'm just fascinated by the fact that we were initially told that there were live "helmet-cam" video feeds, then later told that for the crucial 25 minutes during which OBL was shot the feed failed.
(Disclaimer: I'm not a believer in conspiracies, and don't have an ax to grind against anyone involved in this, from Obama all the way down to whoever pulled the trigger.)
But here are some intriguing possibilities as to why we might have wanted to deny the existence of the feed and what it showed:
a. OBL shot himself.
b. OBL's guards shot him.
c. Pakistani forces participated in the raid.
d. A US assaulter shot OBL as he was surrendering.
e. OBL was defiant and heroic and inspiring in the face of death.
f. The tape shows bawling kids, crying women being slapped around by assaulters.
g. OBL was shot in the back of his head as he prayed.
h. The seals killed the feed, afraid that if things went totally to crap, and they ended up shooting collateral non-combatants, they would be thrown under the bus and turned over to a Pakistani court to stand trial for murder. (Far-fetched? Did you read about the Dutch citizens who want Obama charged with murder for his role in this?)
i. The audio shows seals yelling "Raghead, Camel-Jockey," and other epithets.
Posts: 270 | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Blayne you said "any trial" would do. Terrorists and heck revolutionary era Americans would call what I just described a "trial". We even have a term for it in the US that originates with the revolution, "Lynch trial" or "Lynch justice". It gets its name from Charles Lynch who hunted down prominent tories and British sympathizers, held such trials, followed by punishments.
Also, I'll be editing one of your posts. /downs is not an acceptable thing to write on this forum, take it back to SA.
posted
So...the question of how much international death and destruction might be entailed in imprisoning ObL isn't valied, and the details 'don't matter', Blayne? I'm almost certain she wasn't suggesting Muslim terrorists would storm whatever prison he would be held in.
quote:So what if they're at risk? They're always at risk, they knew it when they signed on.
Well in that case, they're all kamikazes, right? We get to just do whatever we want with `em, right? Because they 'knew the risks'? No. And anyway, the risks aren't just to military.
I'm going to be blunt here: you're sounding like a schmuck here, so blithely willing with remarks like 'they knew it when they signed up', to dismiss these sorts of risks. It's pretty cheap talk from someone whose connection is video games, Internet, and academia. (I'm taking your word on the latter.) I'm almost certain you'll get frothy with anger here, but if you decide to do that, please bear in mind you asked if BB was high and in response to a relevant question (as has been explained, it is relevant), you said you'd be happy if she risked her life.
Just because you didn't like the question, and without ever actually, y'know, addressing it.
quote:If I turn around to an advocate of nuclear power and say "but it could be a target of TERRORISM how many dare you risk to guard it?" It's equally invalid and lacking in credibility.
If you did, you wouldn't actually have answered the criticism, just waved your hands, huffed, and behaved as though there were no problem. When in reality nuclear power plants are pretty hardened installations, ideally, very thoroughly secured. In other words, in the case of nuclear power, the question is asked.
I just wonder if there's ever going to come a point - it's been almost what, five six years now? - when one person saying something snippy to you doesn't, in your own mind at least, give you license to just lash out at everyone disagreeing with you, every single time.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Man, I remember the good old days when Jon Stewart was making fun of Republicans for spreading fear, uncertainty, and doubt about trying Kalid Sheik Mohammed in a civilian court in *New York*. And now progressives are saying that trying ObL *anywhere* is too risky?
Oh and:
quote:STEWART: There are valid concerns… O'REILLY: Yes. STEWART: ...about trying Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in a civilian court. O'REILLY: Right. STEWART: But one of the valid concerns isn't that it makes us a terrorist target and that it emboldens the enemy. O'REILLY: How do you know? STEWART: Because we're already a terrorist target.
posted
Seems to me, as much as O'Reilly is after all a schmuck, that the lines quoted are a bit specious, because I doubt the actual argument against trying Mohammed in a civilian court is 'we're not a terrorist target now, but if we try him in a civilian court we will be' but rather 'if we try him in a civilian court, we or more rather specific elements will be much more targets of terrorism'. I mean, that's pretty straightforward.
And, y'know. ObL. He isn't the Al Capone of terrorism, he's the Osama bin Laden of terrorism. He is the example of the biggest, most infamous, rally-cry (for and against) figure for radical Islamic terrorism there has been in world history, anti-American specifically.
If there was ever a man who it was too dangerous to allow to be tried in open civilian criminal court, or even open war crimes court, or even ICJ, it's him. I'm honestly a little baffled why you're just what appears to be dismissing this as business-as-usual politics, Mucus, that is-the question being asked, "Is it too dangerous to try him?"
You seem to be taking it as a given that nobody is too dangerous to imprison and try. I don't necessarily grant that premise. I think that perhaps some people might just be too dangerous. And furthermore, I do very much wonder if any such trial that could actually happen would really be satisfactory to the people who want it.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It strikes me as ironic that Obama is being criticized for lying and manipulating the truth for giving us a nearly live feed on info coming in, and not waiting for all the intel to finish coming in and get everyone to agree on the "official" story.
I guess America is just not ready for the little detail problems that live info is going to present.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Just as there is no such thing as "too big to fail" there is also no such thing as "too dangerous to try in court."
He who sacrifices some liberty in the name of a little security achieves neither and deserves none.
quote: If you did, you wouldn't actually have answered the criticism, just waved your hands, huffed, and behaved as though there were no problem. When in reality nuclear power plants are pretty hardened installations, ideally, very thoroughly secured. In other words, in the case of nuclear power, the question is asked.
You say that nuclear installations are protected but the anti nuclear advocate would argue that no man made installation is truly safe, pointing at for example various Russian installations that were massive security risks during the 90s.
That and there *is* a massive difference, a nuclear power plant can't be moved around. OBL could be moved around. Moved from holding facility to holding facility until the day of his trial and then moved around until its time again.
quote: Well in that case, they're all kamikazes, right? We get to just do whatever we want with `em, right? Because they 'knew the risks'? No. And anyway, the risks aren't just to military.
Emotional knee jerk response. There are probably entire handbooks that any professional organization, as well as vast resources in which to minimize the risks to a professionally accepted level. Again, not a valid argument; any argument based on "risk" would require there be substantiated risks involved not "maybies" "there COULD be a terrorist attack" etc.
quote: I'm going to be blunt here: you're sounding like a schmuck here, so blithely willing with remarks like 'they knew it when they signed up', to dismiss these sorts of risks. It's pretty cheap talk from someone whose connection is video games, Internet, and academia. (I'm taking your word on the latter.) I'm almost certain you'll get frothy with anger here, but if you decide to do that, please bear in mind you asked if BB was high and in response to a relevant question (as has been explained, it is relevant), you said you'd be happy if she risked her life.
Just because you didn't like the question, and without ever actually, y'know, addressing it.
The question was silly and the person is silly for asking it, that and she surrendered some credibility with her "why don't you run for MP" comment a few pages ago that came out from nowhere. If the question had been asked in a vacuum that would be one thing, but she has to deal with the baggage that comes with it ontop of the context of her earlier remarks.
quote: Blayne you said "any trial" would do. Terrorists and heck revolutionary era Americans would call what I just described a "trial". We even have a term for it in the US that originates with the revolution, "Lynch trial" or "Lynch justice". It gets its name from Charles Lynch who hunted down prominent tories and British sympathizers, held such trials, followed by punishments.
And you wonder why Canadians completely thumb our noses at Americans? This. Above, right there. Just because I said "any kind of trial" doesn't automatically mean "any kind of trial that some redneck from Missouri would be happy with."
Don't be so obstinately literal with peoples arguments.
quote: So...the question of how much international death and destruction might be entailed in imprisoning ObL isn't valied, and the details 'don't matter', Blayne? I'm almost certain she wasn't suggesting Muslim terrorists would storm whatever prison he would be held in.
So your a pragmatist now is that it? Whatever is the "easiest" most convenient path is the best path?
Excuse me for thinking things like justice were important things to the typical american.
quote: I just wonder if there's ever going to come a point - it's been almost what, five six years now? - when one person saying something snippy to you doesn't, in your own mind at least, give you license to just lash out at everyone disagreeing with you, every single time.
posted
What are you trying to accomplish here Blayne?
Would it have been nice if ObL had been captured and been able to be put on trial? Yes.
Is it possible since he was shot dead? No.
Are some people okay with that considering the circumstances. Yes.
Are you one of those people? No.
Doesn't that about cover it?
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: What are you trying to accomplish here Blayne?
Would it have been nice if ObL had been captured and been able to be put on trial? Yes.
Is it possible since he was shot dead? No.
Are some people okay with that considering the circumstances. Yes.
Are you one of those people? No.
Doesn't that about cover it?
My entire argument comes down to two things: 1) it would've been nice and ideal if it could have happened.
People seem to disagree.
2) I believe that based on the information so far released that they had gone in their with orders to kill on sight and make no attempt to capture him that coupled with contradictory reporting is making the situation fairly messy. The worst case media scenario to me was them actually managing to physically apprehend OBL and then executing him and not bothering to bring him to a US base.
Some people seem to disagree with this.
IP: Logged |
OBL escapes, his legend grows, numerous women and children are killed, the assault team crashes and burns, rampaging Pakistanis dance around the charred corpses, Obama becomes more Carter than even Carter was, and Americans walk around feeling glum and hopeless.
That would be worse.
Posts: 270 | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Blayne: I don't think so. Your original contention is that SEALS have the training and ability to relatively easily wound instead of kill even in a tense situation where they could expect death at any moment.
That they didn't to some degree indicates they didn't want to capture him and decided to kill him either at the moment they encountered him or were going to all along.
edit: Also, I need to switch accounts.
Posts: 1194 | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Those things you stated above are your opinions, not your goals.
I ask again...what do you want to accomplish here?
The same thing we do every night pinky, to try and take over the world.
quote: Blayne: I don't think so. Your original contention is that SEALS have the training and ability to relatively easily wound instead of kill even in a tense situation where they could expect death at any moment.
That they didn't to some degree indicates they didn't want to capture him and decided to kill him either at the moment they encountered him or were going to all along.
Who is this *they*, I specifically mentioned "under orders to".
IP: Logged |
posted
Don't mind me ifin I'm wrong, but it seems like you are enjoying arguing and have lost sight of your goal...of world domination, apparently.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The guy is dead, and unless I'm much mistaken, no one on earth has the power to undo that.
While the inability to undo something isn't, in itself, a reason not to act, arguing about it seems particularly pointless in this case. I know all about gray areas and slippery slopes, but I really feel that no matter what the SEALS were trying or not trying to do in this case, it doesn't really matter. Trials are nice and serve a purpose but this really is one case where it wasn't needed.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by DDDaysh: Trials are nice and serve a purpose but this really is one case where it wasn't needed.
Bad idea, bad precedent.
But, eh, later. This thread has been drowned in bad theorycrafting that doesn't understand thin slicing.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm pretty sure DDD was simply saying that putting a dead man on trial is kind of a waste of time.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Just as there is no such thing as "too big to fail" there is also no such thing as "too dangerous to try in court."
He who sacrifices some liberty in the name of a little security achieves neither and deserves none.
OK, you're doing it again. That thing where you present an idea as though it were already proven and then blithely dismiss any challenges as though they were patently ridiculous. Here, just for fun I'll try it your way: the People's Republic of China is a brutal, oppressive regime that routinely sacrifices some liberty in the name of some security and stability and thus doesn't deserve either.
Not so much fun, is it? Things are complicated, aren't they? I don't say that to (entirely) make you mad, but because I just don't know how to drill past this thing you start doing when someone has taken a shot at you. BlackBlade didn't take a shot at you. Kmbboots didn't take a shot at you-Ace of Spades did. But now, as usual, because you got your dander up, you'll be damned if you're going to say, "Whoops, I overreacted. I oughtn't to have insulted either of them because I was irritated at what someone else said, and I haven't actually addressed their remarks at all."
quote:You say that nuclear installations are protected but the anti nuclear advocate would argue that no man made installation is truly safe, pointing at for example various Russian installations that were massive security risks during the 90s.
That and there *is* a massive difference, a nuclear power plant can't be moved around. OBL could be moved around. Moved from holding facility to holding facility until the day of his trial and then moved around until its time again.
Case in point: you're still not listening. I specifically said the issue was not just, and probably wasn't even primarily, what would happen to and at the prison where ObL was being held. That is to say, I don't think people are worried that if we imprison ObL, we won't be able to repel direct attacks on that prison to free him. We can do that, if we want to. Generally when terrorists decide to attack a conventional military force that is aware that they're coming and is prepared for their arrival, they get their asses kicked.
That's not what people are wondering if we should be worried about, Blayne, for like the sixth time in this thread. I'm not saying, "The possibility of ramped up terrorism in response to ObL's capture makes assassinating him acceptable," I'm saying the question should be asked. That it's not just a given that the answer is 'no'.
quote:Emotional knee jerk response. There are probably entire handbooks that any professional organization, as well as vast resources in which to minimize the risks to a professionally accepted level. Again, not a valid argument; any argument based on "risk" would require there be substantiated risks involved not "maybies" "there COULD be a terrorist attack" etc.
Alright, you are aware that 'emotional knee jerk response' doesn't actually serve as a rebuttal, yes? And I note without surprise that again you ignored the tail end of a remark that you even quoted, that the risks aren't just to the military. I'm saying, "We should assess the risk." Your response to that is, "Pft, risk, we can handle the risk! And anyway, they knew the risks when they signed up! Quit makin' emotional knee-jerk responses!" I'm serious, that is almost verbatim what you actually said.
quote:The question was silly and the person is silly for asking it, that and she surrendered some credibility with her "why don't you run for MP" comment a few pages ago that came out from nowhere. If the question had been asked in a vacuum that would be one thing, but she has to deal with the baggage that comes with it ontop of the context of her earlier remarks.
Oh, OK. So you were lashing out because kmbboots hurt your feelings a few pages ago. When she remarked, after your holding forth...based on...what experience, exactly? (Right, video games, the Internet, and academia-taking that last one on faith)...on the ease with which special forces can 'shoot to wound' instead of, well, how much nearly everyone else who actually holds and fires a firearm says to the contrary, she pointed out in a slightly snarky way that your tone of authority far exceeds any actual experience you have on the matters on which you're speaking, but you don't even appear to acknowledge it.
If we're going to say she surrendered her credibility, Blayne...are you seriously going to sit there in front of your computer screen and suggest you didn't also not just surrender but positively load up into a trebuchet and fling away your credibility when you started holding forth on what is and isn't easy for Navy SEALS to do, marksmanship wise? Really?
(Hint: this is an easy question to answer for anyone who isn't angry and entrenched. Pull a Ron and just ignore the question if you don't want to acknowledge the easy answer. It would be better, in terms of communication, than the SA/TvTropes/whatever style more commonplace when you get like this.)
quote:And you wonder why Canadians completely thumb our noses at Americans? This. Above, right there. Just because I said "any kind of trial" doesn't automatically mean "any kind of trial that some redneck from Missouri would be happy with."
Don't be so obstinately literal with peoples arguments.
Oh, the irony. If you hadn't been so deliberately literal, this wouldn't be so hypocritical.
quote: So your a pragmatist now is that it? Whatever is the "easiest" most convenient path is the best path?
Excuse me for thinking things like justice were important things to the typical american.
Hey, case in point! Lookit how literal you're being! Did you miss the multiple times I said, "This doesn't mean we shouldn't do it, but only that the question should be asked." At this point I've asked the question half a dozen times in maybe three posts. You've quoted me multiple times. It's impossible you've missed it.
-----------
Take Flying Fish's advice. It's really good. God knows my 'occasional swing at talking with you about stuff' sure as hell doesn't work, and if this discussion is any indicator is going to keep on not working. Ahh well. I figure in another while I'll see something of yours and shrug my shoulders and give it another shot. Maybe by year 7 your posting style won't be a litany of 'but he said...'
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
During the Prosser affair lots of people felt Republicans were abusing the FOIA (or, rather, its WI analogue). Do people feel this is an appropriate FOIA request, or is it another abuse for political gain? Personally I feel fine about it, but I didn't have a big issue with the Prosser request either, so I'm guessing my response may have something to do with which side of the aisle I sit on.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by J-Put: Really, that's the thing they drill into you most in the military? Because in my experience it's always been to shoot to eliminate the threat. If he so much as reached for his pocket, put a hand behind his back, or made any sudden movement my training would tell me to stop him from doing whatever he's doing.
CENTER MASS, even if you qualify as expert. Which I did 4 times.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't have a problem with this request. It's not intended to have a chilling effect on federal assassinations, after all.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: What the hell is it with people not reading what I write and simply making up crap to put their instead?
Repeat after me:
"THESE ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE CONCEPTS NOR DID I SAY THEY WERE."
If you have a situation where the guy is standing there and trying to reach for something that's also enough time for training to kick in and shoot to wound.
Wounds of course, I know damn well, hurt alot and completely incapacitate most people, thats why they're effective for capturing people if your trained to do it.
You're not understanding what I'm saying. I've had the military training you're talking about, and according to everything I've been taught you do NOT shoot to wound. Wounds are NOT effective at incapacitating people. You shoot to eliminate the threat. More often than not that means that you shoot to kill.
So have I, although not at a SF level. I have been though some tough courses though, and have scored perfect on most of them.
But far be it for me to counter your arguments with real world experience, actual weapons training, and actual expertise.
You can shoot to wound, but it rarely works, is often fatal anyways, and increases the risk of death and serious injury to you and your team by possibly an order of magnitude.
99.99% of the time it is center mass, because despite what TV shows and Soldier of Fortune mags tell you it is actually fairly hard to hit a moving target at all, let alone do a "call shot".
We are talking about RL, not a game.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: 99.99% of the time it is center mass, because despite what TV shows and Soldier of Fortune mags tell you it is actually fairly hard to hit a moving target at all, let alone do a "call shot".
We are talking about RL, not a game.
Do remember that the SEALs are the same group that shot three pirates, across open ocean, from one moving boat to the other, with three headshots, all three firing at the same time. One of the three was shot through a window.
posted
Right. Open water, a clear shot, and the Barrett 50 cal sniper rifle.
Did they try to shoot him in the leg though?
BIG difference between an unexpected, coopdinated attack and a fiefight, or urban tactics inside a house looking for OBL.
I know quite a few SEAL's, or have though the years, and not ONE of them would try shooting someone in the leg if center mass was open. Not in any sort of closed room firefight.
It isn't that they couldn't hit a leg, or an arm. It's that the risk or trying to do so while the other person is trying to KILL you is astronomical. It's just a plain stupid thing to even try.....and SEAL's aren't stupid.
Center mass IS trying to wound. You don't shoot center mass because you want to hit there, you fire there because it gives you the best chance of hitting something while the enemy tries to evade your shots.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Blayne,
quote:Just as there is no such thing as "too big to fail" there is also no such thing as "too dangerous to try in court."
He who sacrifices some liberty in the name of a little security achieves neither and deserves none.
OK, you're doing it again. That thing where you present an idea as though it were already proven and then blithely dismiss any challenges as though they were patently ridiculous. Here, just for fun I'll try it your way: the People's Republic of China is a brutal, oppressive regime that routinely sacrifices some liberty in the name of some security and stability and thus doesn't deserve either.
Not so much fun, is it? Things are complicated, aren't they? I don't say that to (entirely) make you mad, but because I just don't know how to drill past this thing you start doing when someone has taken a shot at you. BlackBlade didn't take a shot at you. Kmbboots didn't take a shot at you-Ace of Spades did. But now, as usual, because you got your dander up, you'll be damned if you're going to say, "Whoops, I overreacted. I oughtn't to have insulted either of them because I was irritated at what someone else said, and I haven't actually addressed their remarks at all."
quote:You say that nuclear installations are protected but the anti nuclear advocate would argue that no man made installation is truly safe, pointing at for example various Russian installations that were massive security risks during the 90s.
That and there *is* a massive difference, a nuclear power plant can't be moved around. OBL could be moved around. Moved from holding facility to holding facility until the day of his trial and then moved around until its time again.
Case in point: you're still not listening. I specifically said the issue was not just, and probably wasn't even primarily, what would happen to and at the prison where ObL was being held. That is to say, I don't think people are worried that if we imprison ObL, we won't be able to repel direct attacks on that prison to free him. We can do that, if we want to. Generally when terrorists decide to attack a conventional military force that is aware that they're coming and is prepared for their arrival, they get their asses kicked.
That's not what people are wondering if we should be worried about, Blayne, for like the sixth time in this thread. I'm not saying, "The possibility of ramped up terrorism in response to ObL's capture makes assassinating him acceptable," I'm saying the question should be asked. That it's not just a given that the answer is 'no'.
quote:Emotional knee jerk response. There are probably entire handbooks that any professional organization, as well as vast resources in which to minimize the risks to a professionally accepted level. Again, not a valid argument; any argument based on "risk" would require there be substantiated risks involved not "maybies" "there COULD be a terrorist attack" etc.
Alright, you are aware that 'emotional knee jerk response' doesn't actually serve as a rebuttal, yes? And I note without surprise that again you ignored the tail end of a remark that you even quoted, that the risks aren't just to the military. I'm saying, "We should assess the risk." Your response to that is, "Pft, risk, we can handle the risk! And anyway, they knew the risks when they signed up! Quit makin' emotional knee-jerk responses!" I'm serious, that is almost verbatim what you actually said.
quote:The question was silly and the person is silly for asking it, that and she surrendered some credibility with her "why don't you run for MP" comment a few pages ago that came out from nowhere. If the question had been asked in a vacuum that would be one thing, but she has to deal with the baggage that comes with it ontop of the context of her earlier remarks.
Oh, OK. So you were lashing out because kmbboots hurt your feelings a few pages ago. When she remarked, after your holding forth...based on...what experience, exactly? (Right, video games, the Internet, and academia-taking that last one on faith)...on the ease with which special forces can 'shoot to wound' instead of, well, how much nearly everyone else who actually holds and fires a firearm says to the contrary, she pointed out in a slightly snarky way that your tone of authority far exceeds any actual experience you have on the matters on which you're speaking, but you don't even appear to acknowledge it.
If we're going to say she surrendered her credibility, Blayne...are you seriously going to sit there in front of your computer screen and suggest you didn't also not just surrender but positively load up into a trebuchet and fling away your credibility when you started holding forth on what is and isn't easy for Navy SEALS to do, marksmanship wise? Really?
(Hint: this is an easy question to answer for anyone who isn't angry and entrenched. Pull a Ron and just ignore the question if you don't want to acknowledge the easy answer. It would be better, in terms of communication, than the SA/TvTropes/whatever style more commonplace when you get like this.)
quote:And you wonder why Canadians completely thumb our noses at Americans? This. Above, right there. Just because I said "any kind of trial" doesn't automatically mean "any kind of trial that some redneck from Missouri would be happy with."
Don't be so obstinately literal with peoples arguments.
Oh, the irony. If you hadn't been so deliberately literal, this wouldn't be so hypocritical.
quote: So your a pragmatist now is that it? Whatever is the "easiest" most convenient path is the best path?
Excuse me for thinking things like justice were important things to the typical american.
Hey, case in point! Lookit how literal you're being! Did you miss the multiple times I said, "This doesn't mean we shouldn't do it, but only that the question should be asked." At this point I've asked the question half a dozen times in maybe three posts. You've quoted me multiple times. It's impossible you've missed it.
-----------
Take Flying Fish's advice. It's really good. God knows my 'occasional swing at talking with you about stuff' sure as hell doesn't work, and if this discussion is any indicator is going to keep on not working. Ahh well. I figure in another while I'll see something of yours and shrug my shoulders and give it another shot. Maybe by year 7 your posting style won't be a litany of 'but he said...'
Whatever man, if you want an apology you can hold back on the "by year 7..." nonsense.
IP: Logged |
posted
I don't expect an apology from you, Blayne. I also don't expect you'll give one to BB or kmbboots for being insulting in response to valid points. Still further I don't expect you'll actually ever address the multiple direct challenges made to your arguments.
Why? Years of experience.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I don't expect an apology from you, Blayne. I also don't expect you'll give one to BB or kmbboots for being insulting in response to valid points. Still further I don't expect you'll actually ever address the multiple direct challenges made to your arguments.
Why? Years of experience.
I feel the same way.
Posts: 431 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well I'm quite certain you don't, AoS-you are after all a troll, and posts under that name are designed deliberately to insult or annoy.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: You can shoot to wound, but it rarely works, is often fatal anyways, and increases the risk of death and serious injury to you and your team by possibly an order of magnitude.
1. The "why didn't they shoot to wound" crowd should put in some serious hours playing urban paintball. Like, get up nice and close-quarters with other people trying to shoot them too. See how far you get not aiming for center mass in the heat of the moment.
2. Physiologically, two great ways to kill someone flat-out dead is to shoot them in the leg or the shoulder. If the bullet or the concussive water shock from the bullet (a large swath, in the tearing, tumbling motion of a 5.56 round) tears open, say, the femoral artery, you're pretty much dead. This is complete armchair medico-generallisimoing on my part, since I am not a doctor and have only fired assault rifles like ten times, but after witnessing the 5.56 vs 7.62 argument multiple times across the years (heads up, AK-lovers, 5.56 wins) I think it's safe to say I'm working on accurate information.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Did you miss the part where I said I don't expect an apology from you, Blayne? I don't even want one from you. (What would be nice would be you actually addressing points made, but *shrug*.)
What would be nice would be some measure of belief that this wouldn't happen again in a matter of weeks. A grudging half-hearted vague apology that is obviously insincere doesn't really serve that purpose. Actually addressing some of the points you've previously thrown a mini-tantrum over, on the other hand, would.
--------
quote:1. The "why didn't they shoot to wound" crowd should put in some serious hours playing urban paintball. Like, get up nice and close-quarters with other people trying to shoot them too. See how far you get not aiming for center mass in the heat of the moment.
Seriously, it's just bizarre how far video games and movies appear to have infiltrated our thinking on this kind of thing. Unless we're just going to say to the people actually doing the shooting-to-wound, "You knew what you signed up for," there are some problems with making that kind of thing a policy: namely it's a lot more dangerous in close quarters. If you do that, you're more likely to get killed.
quote: 2. Physiologically, two great ways to kill someone flat-out dead is to shoot them in the leg or the shoulder. If the bullet or the concussive water shock from the bullet (a large swath, in the tearing, tumbling motion of a 5.56 round) tears open, say, the femoral artery, you're pretty much dead. This is complete armchair medico-generallisimoing on my part, since I am not a doctor and have only fired assault rifles like ten times, but after witnessing the 5.56 vs 7.62 argument multiple times across the years (heads up, AK-lovers, 5.56 wins) I think it's safe to say I'm working on accurate information.
That's just one of the concerns. The other is that, in return for this far-from-guaranteed taken-alive shoot-to-wound policy, how much greater is the risk to the people we have enacting that policy? (Again, lest I be misunderstood, I'm not saying that means we shouldn't do it. I'm saying that means the question should be asked. That there's more to the matter than saying, "Psht, we can just shoot to wound, why didn't we shoot to wound!")
And then, still again, we come to the problem of after all of these unresolved difficulties are resolved, here we've got in prison Osama bin Laden, who's going to have to be incarcerated for years. Will that cause a sharp upswing in international terrorism, a rallying cry? I really don't know. I mean, I really don't know. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think we've ever actually had the Cobra Commander of terrorism up before the Hague before, if I'm not mistaken. That's not something that's happened. Maybe I missed it. Rather uncharted waters. (And just in case I'm misunderstood on this point as well, I'm-again-not referring to the problem of securing the prison.)
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Ace of Spades: I accept your apology. If I ever say anything to offend you or anybody else I'll apologize.
posted
I apologize on my behalf for hopping into what probably felt, to you Blayne, like a dogpile. I apologize for the willow/oak comments in case they struck you as facetious or condescending -- they were not intended to be. I believe that Lao Tze expressed that aphorism, and I sincerely feel that it's personally helped me.
Posts: 270 | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote: The other is that, in return for this far-from-guaranteed taken-alive shoot-to-wound policy, how much greater is the risk to the people we have enacting that policy? (Again, lest I be misunderstood, I'm not saying that means we shouldn't do it. I'm saying that means the question should be asked. That there's more to the matter than saying, "Psht, we can just shoot to wound, why didn't we shoot to wound!")
Yeah, I include all that in the example no. 1 — I mean, oh my god. It is so hard to hit a target in close quarters, but this just doesn't register with people. They're like "It's close quarters, and you're a Navy SEAL, it should be easy!" Sure. My bad. The leg is HUGE. It takes up SO MUCH OF THE SCREEN. Just put your reticule over it! Don't worry about the risk to your life, you can take a few shots and then take cover for your health to regenerate, and you get an achievement for taking ObL alive within ten minutes of the mission starting.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:...but after witnessing the 5.56 vs 7.62 argument multiple times across the years (heads up, AK-lovers, 5.56 wins)...
quote:The heavier 7.62mm projectile is better in circumstances where the bullet has to pass through any intervening material. This allows the shooter to fire through heavy foliage, light wall materials or a common vehicle's metal body and into an opponent attempting to use these things as cover.
The .223 is nice for tumbling in soft tissue, sure, if you can get to said soft tissue. .223 isn't known for it's ability to punch through cover.
I can't seem to find it, but I read an article about how the Army was distributing surplus M14s to squads to help with enemy combatants who were hiding behind concrete block walls.
If I had the $600+ to buy it, Olympic Arms makes a .762 upper for the AR-15...right now I'm saving up to get the .22lr conversion kit.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
