4 Scumbag punks Get what they deserve!

galwayrush

Biggins wrote: »

The four blokes had a previous history of going around just randomly shooting animals.

They could replace 4 animals at some animal research lab and make a lot of people happy.;)

seanybiker

Poccington wrote: »

I'm quite suprised he didn't kill them, especially considering what the dog meant to him.

Was thinking that meself. And since he's a war hero he would have gotten away with it.

suspectdevice

gran torino is going to inspire of lot of this type of stuff

Holsten

Pitty he didn't kill them.

Saibh

seanybiker wrote: »

Was thinking that meself. And since he's a war hero he would have gotten away with it.

He could have got away with it.

But it just shows that he is better than them and he wasn't going to lower himself to their standards.

Fighting Irish

fair play to him but he was stupid

Terry

snubbleste wrote: »

I'm suprised the headline doesn't read:
Man who tried to kill Afghan official, and responsible for 16 soldiers dying has admitted to driving at 110mph after having dog shot at

It was Fox news.
Here's Jon Stewart's take on Fox news: http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=224275&title=nationwide-tax-protests

Poccington

Terry wrote: »

It was Fox news.
Here's Jon Stewart's take on Fox news: http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=224275&title=nationwide-tax-protests

I think there's a very high chance that the reason Fox News didn't use the headline that snubbleste suggested, had very little to do with it's own bias.

Zzippy

Biggins wrote: »

The phone call: http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=315393&comments=1

The owners picture (Marcus Luttrell fourth from Left, all other team members killed):

Marcus Luttrell is the lone survivor of Operation Red Wing; a special forces operation that took place on June 28th 2005 in Afghanistan’s Kunar province. The seals mission was to kill or capture Ahmad Shah, a high ranking Taliban official responsible for numerous killings in the region. Marcus Luttrell and three of his seal team members were ambushed by 150 Taliban fighters with Luttrell being the only survivor.

A failed attempt by Special Forces helicopters to recover Marcus Luttrell led to the death of 16 more special forces soldiers; Marcus Luttrell was hidden from the Taliban by locals who eventually sent word to the army where they could rescue him. He wrote the bestselling book “Lone Survivor”, detailing Operation Red Wing and telling the story of his fallen seal team.

The dog that was killed was named after four members of his own team. The dogs name DASY was made up from the names of his fallen comrades.

I read this book, the guy survived several days of seeing his teammates and friends killed beside him, being hunted through sheer mountain valleys by hundreds of Taliban, being shot, and finally making it out alive. Some people just hate American policy so much that they post sh1te about this guy, but in purely military and human terms he is a hero.
Excellent read, even if its a bit gung ho with the American patriotism in parts, highly recommended.

Terry

Poccington wrote: »

I think there's a very high chance that the reason Fox News didn't use the headline that snubbleste suggested, had very little to do with it's own bias.

Don't get me wrong. I completely agree with his actions.
I dealt with a few scumbags myself tonight. Not in that way. I just backed up the guy who was alone in the off licence when 7 little **** came in and started calling him a Paki and stuff. I just puffed out my chest, put on a mean face and scared them off. They weren't locals.

What I'm saying is that Fox news is not a relaible source of information and is extremely biased. So much so that it makes Al Jazeera look like the bastion of all truth.

galwayrush

here's a link.
http://www.rightpundits.com/?p=3669

baglady

I just saw a movie which was kind of similar to this story!

http://us.vdc.imdb.com/title/tt0972883/

really good!

MoominPapa

I reckon it would have been much better if, after killing them execution style and maybe taking a couple of cops out as well, one of whose wife was in delivery and another who was only a month away from retirement, he blew his own head off Bobby Peru style

S.I.R

Flucking hero

Cianos

Biggins wrote: »

The phone call: http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=315393&comments=1

The owners picture (Marcus Luttrell fourth from Left, all other team members killed):

Marcus Luttrell is the lone survivor of Operation Red Wing; a special forces operation that took place on June 28th 2005 in Afghanistan’s Kunar province. The seals mission was to kill or capture Ahmad Shah, a high ranking Taliban official responsible for numerous killings in the region. Marcus Luttrell and three of his seal team members were ambushed by 150 Taliban fighters with Luttrell being the only survivor.

A failed attempt by Special Forces helicopters to recover Marcus Luttrell led to the death of 16 more special forces soldiers; Marcus Luttrell was hidden from the Taliban by locals who eventually sent word to the army where they could rescue him. He wrote the bestselling book “Lone Survivor”, detailing Operation Red Wing and telling the story of his fallen seal team.

The dog that was killed was named after four members of his own team. The dogs name DASY was made up from the names of his fallen comrades.

This is what I hate about the whole "leave no man behind" motto. 16 lives are lost to save 4...such a waste. The "leave no man behind" policy is only a marketing term for the military in that it promotes heroism and honour (and in turn ensures higher enrollments) and romanticises the actual cost and waste in human life behind upholding it.

It wasn't me!

Cianos wrote: »

This is what I hate about the whole "leave no man behind" motto. 16 lives are lost to save 4...such a waste. The "leave no man behind" policy is only a marketing term for the military in that it promotes heroism and honour (and in turn ensures higher enrollments) and romanticises the actual cost and waste in human life behind upholding it.

Well, fundamentally, that's not a common result. The fact is, in the vast majority of cases, a modern western military force will pull off the extraction of its men without such casualties. It doesn't detract from the risk and danger they face at all, rather it speaks volumes for their training and courage. It's a good policy; not because it promotes heroism and recruitment, but because it enhances the cohesion of armed forces, which is largely based on faith in your comrades and the belief that they will be there for you when you're in need.

Cianos

It wasn't me! wrote: »

Well, fundamentally, that's not a common result. The fact is, in the vast majority of cases, a modern western military force will pull off the extraction of its men without such casualties. It doesn't detract from the risk and danger they face at all, rather it speaks volumes for their training and courage. It's a good policy; not because it promotes heroism and recruitment, but because it enhances the cohesion of armed forces, which is largely based on faith in your comrades and the belief that they will be there for you when you're in need.

Sure, in the majority of cases such casualties aren't spent, but because it is a policy, a lot of people have probably lost their lives for the sake of not breaking it. Military intelligence should be able to tell what kind of risk is involved in a rescue and in some situations will probably predict that if they do send people back, there's a high % chance that more people are going to die than the amount they are trying to rescue. If the area is particularly hostile, they can't expect to get in and out without further loss of life. But it'd be a PR nightmare for them if it got out that they left a soldier behind to die.

which is largely based on faith in your comrades and the belief that they will be there for you when you're in need.

I agree...but isn't it somewhat contradictory to the overall ethos and meaning of the military, ie the sacrifice of the individual in servitude for the greater good? If a single soldier faces death if not rescued, but a rescue attempt means 10 more will die, a rescue attempt becomes a campaign to preserve and protect the individual who was so expendable when they were sent in in the first place.

The soldier in need of rescue invokes sympathy and paternal/maternal instinct in that the vulnerability of his or her life is seen as in urgent need of protection whatever the cost. Our instinct is to protect those in need of protection rather than logically weigh up the associated risk. This is why the 'leave no man behind' policy can be actioned with public acceptance, to ensure further enrolment and as you say the enhancement of comradeship and cohesion for the continued success of the military.

Good story Biggins.

Cheers for posting.

Mr.Lizard

I've nothing against animals owning other animals (I'm openminded) but how exactly does a seal learn to speak English and drive a car?

It wasn't me!

Cianos wrote: »

Sure, in the majority of cases such casualties aren't spent, but because it is a policy, a lot of people have probably lost their lives for the sake of not breaking it.

Any evidence of it being commonplace? I'm not instantly dismissing you, but I am doubtful that you'll find more than a handful of instances.

Military intelligence should be able to tell what kind of risk is involved in a rescue and in some situations will probably predict that if they do send people back, there's a high % chance that more people are going to die than the amount they are trying to rescue.

What they do is assess the likelihood, then plan for as many contingencies as possible to remove the threat to life as far as possible. Western military training and tactics enables a trained force to punch way, way above their numerical weight in conflict with untrained forces.

If the area is particularly hostile, they can't expect to get in and out without further loss of life. But it'd be a PR nightmare for them if it got out that they left a soldier behind to die.

The thing is, however, that they do carry out these missions with few if any casualties, all the time. It would be a PR nightmare, but far more importantly, it would do nothing for morale, which is the hinge-pin for soldiers.

I agree...but isn't it somewhat contradictory to the overall ethos and meaning of the military, ie the sacrifice of the individual in servitude for the greater good? If a single soldier faces death if not rescued, but a rescue attempt means 10 more will die, a rescue attempt becomes a campaign to preserve and protect the individual who was so expendable when they were sent in in the first place.

It's a misconception that soldiers are expendable. If they were, you'd take any useless geebag, give him a rifle and put him on the plane. In simple economic terms, you don't invest millions in training and equipping someone, devoting considerable governmental resources (though how considerable is a sore spot for many soldiers, and worthy of lengthy debate in its own right) only to denote him expendable. Soldiers are a precious commodity in a western military force and their loss is not taken or considered lightly, and rightly so. Furthermore, the men are volunteers and if they lose their lives in a rescue attempt, it's another part of their job to consider that.

The soldier in need of rescue invokes sympathy and paternal/maternal instinct in that the vulnerability of his or her life is seen as in urgent need of protection whatever the cost. Our instinct is to protect those in need of protection rather than logically weigh up the associated risk. This is why the 'leave no man behind' policy can be actioned with public acceptance, to ensure further enrolment and as you say the enhancement of comradeship and cohesion for the continued success of the military.

You raise good points here, but while you're undoubtedly correct in that it can only enhance morale and recruitment opportunities, I think it's far more important that the policy denotes in the first place the value of the soldier, giving an individual soldier an understanding of his individual value and importance in the grander scheme of the army.

Foremost however, it could be viewed as a show of force. An army is the long arm of foreign policy and the ability to protect all of its men is a good way to be seen to be flexing the muscles in that arm.

ScumLord

Zzippy wrote: »

I read this book, the guy survived several days of seeing his teammates and friends killed beside him, being hunted through sheer mountain valleys by hundreds of Taliban, being shot, and finally making it out alive.

None of that give him the right to use a mobile phone while driving a car, at high speed! Who's the real criminal here people?

prinz

ScumLord wrote: »

None of that give him the right to use a mobile phone while driving a car, at high speed! Who's the real criminal here people?

This was Texas, not Tallaght. Cell phone use while driving is only against the law of the state if the driver is a minor, or driving a special purpose vehicle ( e.g. school bus, public transport etc.) AFAIK.

High speed pursuit in the course of a citizens arrest for a more serious crime.

Creature

Mr.Lizard wrote: »

I've nothing against animals owning other animals (I'm openminded) but how exactly does a seal learn to speak English and drive a car?

Pay attention will you. He's a former seal. He's a man now.


Anyway awesome story.

Executive Steve

Biggins wrote: »

Marcus Luttrell is the lone survivor of Operation Red Wing

Childish i know, but that has me spitting tea at my monitor...

Cianos

It wasn't me! wrote: »

Any evidence of it being commonplace? I'm not instantly dismissing you, but I am doubtful that you'll find more than a handful of instances.

Wasn't trying to suggest it's commonplace. No evidence at all, I haven't looked for it to be honest. But I can only presume it does happen every now and again, as in the story in the OP.

What they do is assess the likelihood, then plan for as many contingencies as possible to remove the threat to life as far as possible. Western military training and tactics enables a trained force to punch way, way above their numerical weight in conflict with untrained forces.

Right. I'm sure they plan these rescue missions in advance and do weigh up the costs and make sure they have the maximum amount of resources available. But that isn't always enough in practical terms because the longer they wait for sufficient resources the more likely it is those they are trying to rescue will die. It's probably circumstances like this that end up with 16 guys losing their lives trying to save the lives of 4 guys.

It's a misconception that soldiers are expendable. If they were, you'd take any useless geebag, give him a rifle and put him on the plane. In simple economic terms, you don't invest millions in training and equipping someone, devoting considerable governmental resources (though how considerable is a sore spot for many soldiers, and worthy of lengthy debate in its own right) only to denote him expendable. Soldiers are a precious commodity in a western military force and their loss is not taken or considered lightly, and rightly so. Furthermore, the men are volunteers and if they lose their lives in a rescue attempt, it's another part of their job to consider that.

Good points. I was using the word 'expendable' in the sense that they are essentially the pawns of the militaristic operation. No offence or derogation intended.

You raise good points here, but while you're undoubtedly correct in that it can only enhance morale and recruitment opportunities, I think it's far more important that the policy denotes in the first place the value of the soldier, giving an individual soldier an understanding of his individual value and importance in the grander scheme of the army.

Foremost however, it could be viewed as a show of force. An army is the long arm of foreign policy and the ability to protect all of its men is a good way to be seen to be flexing the muscles in that arm.

As a singular part of the grander scheme of the army, yes. But as an individual, no. Military training is designed to eliminate the sense of individuality, in order to condition the soldiers to be able to follow orders and kill without question through the nullification and degradation of the personality and the strict adherence to discipline, to remove the option of choice and achieve detachment from the actions (and responsibility of same) one is carrying out.

There is no room for individuality in the military, but the nurturing of the familial environment conditions the soldiers in to a strong bond so they are more unquestioning and loyal to the (family) unit.

My main issue with the 'leave no man behind' policy is that it presents itself as heroic and ethical when it is really both a public relations motto to promote enrolment, and an extension of the psychological conditioning of the soldiers in to perpetuating that family-like bond that is used for discipline and cohesion.

Sizzler

I have to say I was slightly disappointed in the ending, I was hoping he served up real justice on a plate to these scumbags, instead they have been shipped off to jail. All we can hope for is the Texas penal system treat them with the contempt they deserve.

Poccington

Cianos wrote: »

As a singular part of the grander scheme of the army, yes. But as an individual, no. Military training is designed to eliminate the sense of individuality, in order to condition the soldiers to be able to follow orders and kill without question through the nullification and degradation of the personality and the strict adherence to discipline, to remove the option of choice and achieve detachment from the actions (and responsibility of same) one is carrying out.

There is no room for individuality in the military, but the nurturing of the familial environment conditions the soldiers in to a strong bond so they are more unquestioning and loyal to the (family) unit.

My main issue with the 'leave no man behind' policy is that it presents itself as heroic and ethical when it is really both a public relations motto to promote enrolment, and an extension of the psychological conditioning of the soldiers in to perpetuating that family-like bond that is used for discipline and cohesion.

Military training isn't designed to eliminate a sense of individuality from a person. Discipline isn't strict because they're trying to condition you to kill, it's strict because when you come into contact or head out on a Recce Patrol at 2 in the morning when you're dead on your feet, you'll do what you're told because it's your job to do so.

As for the idea that all individual thinking isn't allowed in the Military is very wrong. If soldiers weren't allowed think for themselves, an Army would be completely stagnant. There'd be no progression, no change and certainly no lessons learned from experience. Individual thinking is encouraged in the Military in most things, apart from when taking orders obviously. A soldier needs to be able to think for himself, a soldier unable to think for himself is absolutely useless to everyone.

As for the "Leave no man behind" thing, it has nothing to do with being a PR motto. For 99% of soldiers, it's down to personal feelings and loyalty, which is where the concept of "Leave no man behind" came from. Chances are the person that you're trying to retrieve spent years working with you in the same Unit, been Overseas with you, been with you in firefights and was there by your side when you were feeling your very worst. This concept of loyalty to Units, heading out on a rescue mission because an Officer told you to or because it'd look lovely in the papers is wrong. Most people don't give two flying ****s about some General dishing out the orders, I know I certainly don't but they most certainly care about the man standing next to them. So when they hear that some of the lads are in a spot of bother and they're throwing on their gear, it's not cause it's what they were told to do... It's because it's exactly what those lads would do for them. In the end it is about loyalty but not loyalty to a chain of command, or a Unit and definitely not a PR motto... It's loyalty to your comrades.

It wasn't me!

Cianos wrote: »

Wasn't trying to suggest it's commonplace. No evidence at all, I haven't looked for it to be honest. But I can only presume it does happen every now and again, as in the story in the OP.



Right. I'm sure they plan these rescue missions in advance and do weigh up the costs and make sure they have the maximum amount of resources available. But that isn't always enough in practical terms because the longer they wait for sufficient resources the more likely it is those they are trying to rescue will die. It's probably circumstances like this that end up with 16 guys losing their lives trying to save the lives of 4 guys.




Good points. I was using the word 'expendable' in the sense that they are essentially the pawns of the militaristic operation. No offence or derogation intended.



As a singular part of the grander scheme of the army, yes. But as an individual, no. Military training is designed to eliminate the sense of individuality, in order to condition the soldiers to be able to follow orders and kill without question through the nullification and degradation of the personality and the strict adherence to discipline, to remove the option of choice and achieve detachment from the actions (and responsibility of same) one is carrying out.

There is no room for individuality in the military, but the nurturing of the familial environment conditions the soldiers in to a strong bond so they are more unquestioning and loyal to the (family) unit.

My main issue with the 'leave no man behind' policy is that it presents itself as heroic and ethical when it is really both a public relations motto to promote enrolment, and an extension of the psychological conditioning of the soldiers in to perpetuating that family-like bond that is used for discipline and cohesion.

Hmm, I think you're maybe attributing a lot of things to the army that just aren't the case. I'm not a currently serving soldier, but do intend to be after college. As such, I don't purport to be expert on this matter, merely interested and to have read about it. For an interesting example of a rescue operation from the point of view of high command, read Tim Collins' book Rules of Engagement, his military autobiography. In his account of an operation mounted in Sierra Leone to recover British troops kidnapped by a local militia, you can see that those in the higher echelons of the military are soldiers first and foremost, the good ones anyway. In that operation, an SAS member was indeed killed on the mission, and while there is grief over his death, it's granted that he was a volunteer, that the job was a dangerous one and that by doing so, he took his chances like everyone else, and there's no shame in it for anyone, the rescuers or the rescued, as a result of his death. It's an interesting book and comes well recommended as an account of how those in command motivate their men, relate to them and indeed serve them.

Poccington wrote: »

Military training isn't designed to eliminate a sense of individuality from a person. Discipline isn't strict because they're trying to condition you to kill, it's strict because when you come into contact or head out on a Recce Patrol at 2 in the morning when you're dead on your feet, you'll do what you're told because it's your job to do so.

As for the idea that all individual thinking isn't allowed in the Military is very wrong. If soldiers weren't allowed think for themselves, an Army would be completely stagnant. There'd be no progression, no change and certainly no lessons learned from experience. Individual thinking is encouraged in the Military in most things, apart from when taking orders obviously. A soldier needs to be able to think for himself, a soldier unable to think for himself is absolutely useless to everyone.

As for the "Leave no man behind" thing, it has nothing to do with being a PR motto. For 99% of soldiers, it's down to personal feelings and loyalty, which is where the concept of "Leave no man behind" came from. Chances are the person that you're trying to retrieve spent years working with you in the same Unit, been Overseas with you, been with you in firefights and was there by your side when you were feeling your very worst. This concept of loyalty to Units, heading out on a rescue mission because an Officer told you to or because it'd look lovely in the papers is wrong. Most people don't give two flying ****s about some General dishing out the orders, I know I certainly don't but they most certainly care about the man standing next to them. So when they hear that some of the lads are in a spot of bother and they're throwing on their gear, it's not cause it's what they were told to do... It's because it's exactly what those lads would do for them. In the end it is about loyalty but not loyalty to a chain of command, or a Unit and definitely not a PR motto... It's loyalty to your comrades.

Cianos, you would do well to read this as a more directly informed explanation than I have been able to give. The bottom line is that you fight for your mates because you'd be utterly ashamed not to, since they'd do the same thing for you were the situation reversed, and because you care about them and it's worth fighting to protect them.

jayteecork

Abigayle wrote: »

I wouldnt give a shït if he was living with his mother. He is mo fo crazy. Incredibly hot.

/packs suitcase

'Sides the sex would be that noisey and wild, she check herself into a home.

wha?

entropi

Sweet retribution...i love it:D

I'd say they got off EXTREMELY lucky there.