It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Slain SEAL’s dad wants answers: ‘Don’t hide behind my son’s death’

page: 7
23
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 28 2017 @ 08:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: Gryphon66
I believe this man was "blaming Trump" for a rushed meaningless grandstanding poorly planned military operation that needlessly killed his son.

What has happened to basic dignity in regard to our fallen soldiers?


As I understand it the only Reason Obama did not do this mission was because it could not be done until after he left office.

That means the plan was mature before Trump even took office. How is that rushed?


That close to his inauguration, you can pretty much bet the thing was in motion and he'd never have had time or mental bandwidth to abort it.

I wouldn't put it past O to field some disaster just before the switchover, so it would look bad.




posted on Feb, 28 2017 @ 08:26 AM
link   
a reply to: Spiramirabilis




We're arguing because you just said many of us are too stupid to have a position


No I didn't.




It's a little naive of you to assume that we don't actually care about what just happened because we only need a political stick to use on Trump



And yet your words and that of many others in this thread are examples of exactly that. Political expediency.




Many of us were bashing Bush Sr., Clinton, Bush and Obama before Trump ever even showed up


That's fantastic. What does that have to do with this discussion?



posted on Feb, 28 2017 @ 08:38 AM
link   
a reply to: projectvxn




No I didn't.


The reason the "people" at large don't get a say is because civilians typically do not understand these things. They don't understand the mentality, the logic, or the structure of the military. From the planning phase, intel gathering, and operations. The military isn't a democratic process.

You dismiss our position as only political - because we don't understand these things. Dress it up however you want

It's a little naive of you to assume that we don't actually care about what just happened because we only need a political stick to use on Trump


And yet your words and that of many others in this thread are examples of exactly that. Political expediency.

Again - you think it's only political. That it's not possible that we actually care about what happens to our folks in the military. Specifically, you dismiss my words as being politically expedient - even when I'm standing here in front of you telling you they're not


That's fantastic. What does that have to do with this discussion?

It's evidence of something that apparently you can't understand



posted on Feb, 28 2017 @ 08:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: Gryphon66
I believe this man was "blaming Trump" for a rushed meaningless grandstanding poorly planned military operation that needlessly killed his son.

What has happened to basic dignity in regard to our fallen soldiers?


As I understand it the only Reason Obama did not do this mission was because it could not be done until after he left office.

That means the plan was mature before Trump even took office. How is that rushed?


For the Nth time...Despite what Spicer inferred...
A Senior National Security Advisor in the Obama WH has gone public and said this mission was never approved, it didn't even qualify for NSC review at the WH, but was rather kicked back down for more intelligence gathering and better planning before approval. That was early January. He put it directly "The Moonless Night bit was BS"...or something very close to that. You can find links in thread.

In contrast, Spicer has not repeated his claim of it being approved already, but rather fumbles around with half answers..

So I am apt to believe the NS Advisor who put his name behind the BS call on the Trump Admin.

Let me search here..His Twitter summary



Some Yemen facts: 1/DoD worked up GENERAL proposal for OVERALL set of expanded authorities for these types of raids at end of Obama admin

1/DoD worked up GENERAL proposal for OVERALL set of expanded authorities for these types of raids at end of Obama admin

The broad package was discussed in the interagency in the closing weeks of the Obama term. This particular raid was NOT discussed.

Moreover no recommendation was made other than a recommendation to provide the next Administration with the necessary information.

Idea was for next team to run a deliberative process to assess risks.

And, critically, Obama made no decisions on this before leaving office, believing it represented escalation of U.S. involvement in Yemen

And therefore should not be something he decided a few days before leaving office. Obama thought the next team should take a careful look.

And run a careful process. From what I've read and heard, however, team Trump didn't do a careful vetting of the overall proposal or raid

Instead, Trump apparently had dinner with Mattis/Dunford and greenlit the op. I've heard there was a Deputies meeting the next day, but...

DC was brief and basically irrelevant since the decision had been made the night before.

So, in a nutshell, Trump and his team owns the process and the ultimate decision--and the consequences.


www.salon.com...



posted on Feb, 28 2017 @ 09:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: projectvxn
The reason the "people" at large don't get a say is because civilians typically do not understand these things.


However, the people do get their innings, because very carefully, and in a way every one of my brothers would likely support, is that the missions in the big picture are called for by civilians. When not in an active war, the President and the NSC are calling all these shots. The civvies get their voice heard by electing the President, or pressuring their congresscritters. But not on a day to day ops thing, because...



They don't understand the mentality, the logic, or the structure of the military. From the planning phase, intel gathering, and operations. The military isn't a democratic process. We don't deliberate and discuss things ad nauseum. We plan the mission and execute. Losses are part of the planning. Risk assessments are made at every stage and decisions are made base on those assessments.


...of this. This is why the civilians state the objective and the military does the planning. In the small, this holds over into SOCOM operations where the mission objectives are determined...somewhere...and you get all the poop about the locale, the people you'll be interacting with, if any, what you can do, what you can't do, and what you have to do to call it a day. Since you're not in constant contact most of the time, the HOW is occasionally improvised, whether you'd like it or no. The what is more definite than the how, although a preferred how is often proffered, because...



Despite the mitigation and planning, sometimes # goes wrong. We can argue the politics all day long. The optics too if you want, but war is a messy business.


I'd say, most of the time # goes wrong. You generally need some wiggle room to know what your end goal was supposed to be so when the details don't pan out, you can improvise plan B. C. D. maybe E.



While we are using ops like this as a political football to beat each other over the head with, decisions are going to be made for similar missions without our input.


Every day. This stuff is constantly going on, and the Pres and the NSC in peacetime are often the arbiters of what's legit and what's not. That's a crew that's up there at the top of the heap, and few are in on the whys of things.



posted on Feb, 28 2017 @ 09:04 AM
link   
While the president is technically the commander in chief of the military, he is a civilian. He is not in uniform. He does not plan ops. In any war there are bound to be casualties. Unless they only use drones.



posted on Feb, 28 2017 @ 09:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

So you have speculation that trump spoke to Mattis?
If so should trump not listen to Mattis?



posted on Feb, 28 2017 @ 09:09 AM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

This op must have been planned by the Obama administration considering Mattis didn't take office until January 20 and this op took place on January 29.



posted on Feb, 28 2017 @ 09:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Indigo5

So you have speculation that trump spoke to Mattis?
If so should trump not listen to Mattis?


I can't help you if you aren't willing to read the thread.

A full accounting of the casual and incomplete decision process has been provided multiple times.

Trump Gave the "Go" over dinner with Mattis, Jared Kushner and Steve Bannon.

Mattis was not up to speed on the involved mission planning or lack-there-of at that stage..

THAT is why those decisions are made at Joint Chiefs meetings...NOT Trumps dinner table...

So Multiple people from intelligence and military can inform the decision and speak to planning, intelligence gathered, potential risks, back-up plans, every contingency etc.

That is also why in the past the Joint Chiefs meetings have never had political operatives like Bannon or Kushner involved..Campaign/Political appearances should not be part of the decision process involving soldiers lives and Military Missions.



posted on Feb, 28 2017 @ 09:41 AM
link   
Who was the person who presented the op to Donald Trump? That is the real question.



posted on Feb, 28 2017 @ 10:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

From your source ..

Moreover no recommendation was made other than a recommendation to provide the next Administration with the necessary information.


So basically everything I said was right. It was deemed ready when Obama was still in office. Obama did not reject it, he wanted it passed on to Trump.

So how was it rushed when it was presented to Obama and there was additional time to work on it after?



posted on Feb, 28 2017 @ 10:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: Indigo5

This is a political hit piece using a grieving father and a soldier. Sickening.


Correct - and it's from the usual suspects. Fortunately, the usual suspects have zero credibility.



posted on Feb, 28 2017 @ 10:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

If the secdef was consulted and did not advise to pass on the mission what is the problem? Who do the joint chiefs answer to? You dont like that it was discussed at dinner?


A full accounting of the casual and incomplete decision process has been provided multiple times.

From an un named source who was part of the former administration of a different party.




That is also why in the past the Joint Chiefs meetings have never had political operatives like Bannon or Kushner involved..Campaign/Political appearances should not be part of the decision process involving soldiers lives and Military Missions.


You left David Axelrod out. Axelrod was in meetings just as Bannon is.



posted on Feb, 28 2017 @ 11:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Indigo5

From your source ..

Moreover no recommendation was made other than a recommendation to provide the next Administration with the necessary information.


So basically everything I said was right. It was deemed ready when Obama was still in office.



Precisely the opposite..

I am going to have to assume you haven't read any of the links or posts, because if so then it's an honesty issue with you.

From my post on this page quoting Obama's Security Advisor


Moreover no recommendation was made other than a recommendation to provide the next Administration with the necessary information.

Idea was for next team to run a deliberative process to assess risks.

And, critically, Obama made no decisions on this before leaving office, believing it represented escalation of U.S. involvement in Yemen

And therefore should not be something he decided a few days before leaving office. Obama thought the next team should take a careful look.

And run a careful process. From what I've read and heard, however, team Trump didn't do a careful vetting of the overall proposal or raid

Instead, Trump apparently had dinner with Mattis/Dunford and greenlit the op. I've heard there was a Deputies meeting the next day, but...





Obama did not reject it, he wanted it passed on to Trump.



the plan was included in a menu of Yemen - Boots on ground Options..

The Obama Administration concluded that any Action would require careful intelligence gathering, thorough inter-agency discussions etc. before approval and THAT is why Pres. Obama did NOT APPROVE those plans.

Trump failed to vet the plans and rather gave the "go" over dinner with his campaign advisors in on the decision.

edit on 28-2-2017 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2017 @ 11:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: Indigo5

This is a political hit piece using a grieving father and a soldier. Sickening.


Correct - and it's from the usual suspects. Fortunately, the usual suspects have zero credibility.


That is a gross description of a Gold Star father who just lost his son to Trump's incompetence.

Why is it that those who have thoroughly lost credibility are the first to declare everyone else not credible?


edit on 28-2-2017 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2017 @ 11:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5

Precisely the opposite..

You can say opposite until the cows come home. It doesn't make it true.

The claim was this was rushed.

It was presented to Obama. How was something that was believed ready by the people who create and present operations when Obama was in office rushed by Trump?

The other claim was Obama rejected it. That is also a lie since your own source says Obama wanted it passed on to Trump.

originally posted by: Indigo5
It was REJECTED under the Obama Administration...and for good reason.


Your source.

Moreover no recommendation was made other than a recommendation to provide the next Administration with the necessary information.


I am looking for the word rejected there .. where is it again?
edit on 28-2-2017 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2017 @ 11:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: Indigo5

Precisely the opposite..


It was presented to Obama. How was something that was believed ready by the people who create and present operations when Obama was in office rushed by Trump?


This specific operation was not presented to Obama, but rather a broader initiative which this operation was a sub-part of.

It was presented as an OPTION...and the exact reason it is "presented" is for NSC review and thorough investigation and risk assessment. That is what pres. Obama felt needed to happen before official consideration by the NSC and before he would be able to say go...None of that happened.



posted on Feb, 28 2017 @ 11:49 AM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

Made up deflections.

Claim. It was created in haste and rushed. Proven false.
Claim. Obama rejected it. Proven false.

Those were your claims. Now you just deflect. Source Obama REJECTING the op.



posted on Feb, 28 2017 @ 11:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04


I am looking for the word rejected there .. where is it again?


REJECTED...as one would reject a not ripe fruit from the dinner table.

He specifically and clearly said the plan needed thorough vetting before even being considered by the NSC, which under a normal President precedes a mission "go".
edit on 28-2-2017 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2017 @ 11:53 AM
link   
Parents grieve over the loss of their children. Many of us that have served signed up knowing the dangers that we might face. Soldiers die. It is a sad fact but a fact nonetheless. We sign up and we follow orders, it is what we do. The father has the right to refuse a visit from the President but anyone that has served have seen total fusterclucks, especially when other foreign military members are concerned.



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join