SEAL report on what realy happened!, page 1

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 22 times

Topic started on 19-4-2009 @ 07:47 PM by ZindoDoone

I saw this on another thread and having a son who's attached to the SEAL Team in Little Creek, I called him to verify if it realy being passed around to the teams.

HIS ANSWER WAS 'YES' it is what realy was going on behind the scenes when handleling the pirates!

Having spoken to some SEAL pals here in Virginia Beach yesterday and asking why this thing dragged out for 4 days, I got the following:

1. BHO wouldn't authorize the DEVGRU/NSWC SEAL teams to the scene for 36 hours going against OSC (on scene commander) recommendation.

2. Once they arrived, BHO imposed restrictions on their ROE that they couldn't do anything unless the hostage's life was in "imminent" danger

3. The first time the hostage jumped into the sea, the SEALS had the raggies all sighted in, but could not fire due to ROE restriction

4. When the navy RIB came under fire as it approached with supplies, no fire was returned due to ROE restrictions. As the raggies were shooting at the RIB, they were exposed and the SEALS had them all dialed in.

5. BHO specifically denied two rescue plans developed by the Bainbridge CPN and SEAL teams.

6. Bainbridge CPN and SEAL team CDR finally decide they have the OpArea and OSC authority to solely determine risk to hostage. 4 hours later, 3 dead raggies.

7. BHO immediately claims credit for his "daring and decisive" behavior. As usual with him, it's BS.

MORE

Zindo

Mod Edit: Added EX tags.

[edit on 20-4-2009 by Gemwolf]

reply posted on 19-4-2009 @ 08:02 PM by intrepid

What's the source of this communique?

reply posted on 19-4-2009 @ 08:09 PM by schrodingers dog

reply to post by ZindoDoone

Appreciate the info as I am sure you'll appreciate that if all we have to go on is your word it hardly qualifies as evidence of truth.

Furthermore ...

7. BHO immediately claims credit for his "daring and decisive" behavior. As usual with him, it's BS.

See, right there you just showed your hand.

[edit on 19 Apr 2009 by schrodingers dog]

reply posted on 19-4-2009 @ 08:19 PM by spec_ops_wannabe

reply to post by schrodingers dog

As in BHO just showed his hand or did the OP just show his hand? We're a little confused here schrod.

reply posted on 19-4-2009 @ 08:23 PM by schrodingers dog

reply to post by spec_ops_wannabe

As in the OP showed his/her partizan hand making his/her story less credible imho.

Not saying it isn't true though.

reply posted on 19-4-2009 @ 08:30 PM by Num1Skeptic

reply to post by ZindoDoone

I know several SEALs (work with socom in my job) and I like to be careful with anything I say but I have heard similar stories about the ROE issues during this op. I am glad someone disclosed these facts as I was not about to due to my lack of knowledge on the nature of their INFOSEC classification.

Edit: I am not really sure Obama ever claimed this operation was his doing but I could be wrong... I would not ever really claim an operation like this that took 4 days. This could have been over in hours....

[edit on 19-4-2009 by Num1Skeptic]

reply posted on 19-4-2009 @ 08:41 PM by Alora

Dang, I must have missed it when Obama took all the credit for the SEALS work. Does someone have a link for that?

reply posted on 19-4-2009 @ 09:33 PM by TheAgentNineteen

Originally posted by schrodingers dog
reply to post by spec_ops_wannabe

As in the OP showed his/her partizan hand making his/her story less credible imho.

Not saying it isn't true though.

The quote which you bring attention to however, is justified in that many individuals keep heaping credit upon the CIC for the actions of the USN, and the USN SEAL Team. The US Navy, and the Skipper and Crew of the Maersk Alabama deserve ALL the credit in this Op, not the CIC. If anything, instead of parading around and touting a "Successful Administrative Operation", the President should be completely denying credit, which is what Captain Philips actually did, despite his ACTUAL heroism.

To add a point to your OP "ZindoDoone", another SEAL slid down the Towline immediately following the Sniper Fire. Many MSM stories however, either fully omit this aspect, or they misrepresent it.

My Old Man formed and commanded a NavSpecOps Unit, and as with your son in Little Creek, I am certain that you are aware of how little the MSM correctly portrays or reports Ops, and sometimes this is for the better. Some individuals I know, whom I deeply trust, even told me that we had Saddam in 1991, but the bureaucrats let him slip away. Politicians in Uniform are the worst of the worst.

reply posted on 19-4-2009 @ 09:37 PM by TheAgentNineteen

Originally posted by Alora
Dang, I must have missed it when Obama took all the credit for the SEALS work. Does someone have a link for that?

Has your head been forever buried in the proverbial sand for the past week? You must have limited to no Mainstream Media access, because headlines all over the world read: "Obama gives order to takedown terrorists". He never distanced himself from the Op at the end either, only during the process, so if for instance the entire thing blew to Hell, he could deny responsibility.

reply posted on 19-4-2009 @ 09:46 PM by ProtoplasmicTraveler

So the 60 million dollar question would be why didn't Obama want to put a swift end to this crisis?

Was it merely a lack of intestinal fortitude or was he angling for some other outcome he imagined could be had by letting it turn into a long drawn out ordeal...

You know kind of like Jimmy Carter and the Iranian Embassy mess.

reply posted on 19-4-2009 @ 09:46 PM by schrodingers dog

reply to post by TheAgentNineteen

Ok let's backtrack a little here and stop simply regurgitating the right wing blog talking points.

The OP is asserting that he/she has inside information on what went down.

Can we all agree that without evidence to substantiate this claim it is nothing more than words on a screen?

My only point was that by bringing political commentary into an OP which is supposedly about a chain of event does not help one's credibility, but it doesn't change the fact that such a claim has to be substantiated.

reply posted on 19-4-2009 @ 09:52 PM by dooper

reply to post by ZindoDoone

Zindo, thanks for this.

I kept wondering why in hell nothing was being done, and why this thing was dragging out for so long.

This makes perfect sense! I knew we had the ability, but couldn't figure out what in hell the problem was.

Gezus Kreist!

They didn't have authorization! They have the assets, they have the targets, they have everything but a "go" from a pansy-assed commander in chief.

Yeah. According to everything he's done and said to date, he believes in negotiation. He believes that talking is the solution.
He's never had any kind of job, never had to actually perform against any frictions that most of the rest of us deal with on a daily basis, and so his "cautionary hesitation."

God save us from candiass Commanders in Chief!

[edit on 19-4-2009 by dooper]

reply posted on 19-4-2009 @ 09:54 PM by jdub297

reply to post by ZindoDoone

s&f4u

Even the Brits were reporting this immediately after the rescue.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

The Guardian reports on U.S. news and events more accurately than any MSM in the U.S. ever will. www.guardian.co.uk...

Wouldn't the Navy have been authorized to return fire under normal ROEs had Obama not specicifically Ordered them to hold fire pending "peaceful" or "diplomatic" resolution?

If so, did Obama not directly endanger American lives solely for his political gain? (I know I'll hear from Obamites about Iraq, but they'll now have to acknowledge that Obama lied about it/covered it up.) Sort of like Clinton and Mogadishu, Somalia (recall "Blackhawk Down.)?

s&f for you.

Too bad it's taken so long for the official report to become public. There is a site called "Black Vault" that is an online repository for FOIA documents and records related to government secrecy and deception. Sort of like "wikileaks." See also disinfo.com...

I hope this makes it to both so that BHO will back off his lies and give credit where it is due.

Sadly, I expect retribution will be forthcoming for those involved in arguably 'unauthorized' action and release of info, rather than accolades for decisive action.

As if his policies weren't bad enough, Obama is now actively engaged in theft (of credit) and misinformation. I expected as much though.

Deny ignorance.

jw

[edit on 20-4-2009 by jdub297]

reply posted on 19-4-2009 @ 10:00 PM by Terces Pot Evoba

Originally posted by schrodingers dog
reply to post by TheAgentNineteen

Ok let's backtrack a little here and stop simply regurgitating the right wing blog talking points.

The OP is asserting that he/she has inside information on what went down.

Can we all agree that without evidence to substantiate this claim it is nothing more than words on a screen?

My only point was that by bringing political commentary into an OP which is supposedly about a chain of event does not help one's credibility, but it doesn't change the fact that such a claim has to be substantiated.

Forget the OP. lets take a look at the known FACTS.
1. Obama is in charge during the entire 4 day ordeal.
2. A move should not have been made unless the situation met Obama's prerequesites.
3. Four days into this embarrassing situation the terrorist were taken out and the hostage rescued.

can we agree on that?
if so let me ask you this.

IF OBAMA FINALLY SIAD "DO IT" WHAT THE HECK TOOK OBAMA SO LONG TO MAKE HIS DECISION TO FINALLY ATTACK THE TERRORIST????

yes...inexperience and complete lack of guts that things would turn ugly and make him look bad....forever the politician.

its 3 am...the phone is ringing..the white house is trying to verify who is online and what it is about and how his poll numbers will be affected before he answers the phone...

do you feel warm and cozy?

reply posted on 19-4-2009 @ 10:01 PM by schrodingers dog

Indeed, the blatant stupidity of using violence as a last resort is overwhelming.

How dare he not shoot first and ask questions later?

Worked out for the French didn't it?

Yet the captain is rescued, the bad guys are dead or captured, and life still sucks.

And now your pinning your misconceptions on a "I heard from a friend of a friend ..." thread.

I guess the only way this could have turned out better for ya'll is if the captain died and Obama was one of the pirates.

Better luck next time ...

reply posted on 19-4-2009 @ 10:13 PM by dooper

I don't think the French military is exactly a model of perfection and something to emulate.

The greatest mistake a CIC can make, is to try to put limitations on the commander on site. No limitations, no recommendations. Freedom to solve the problem, as the opportunities arise.

How in hell is B. Hussein Obama supposed to intuit the moment, the men, the temperature, the tenor in the voices, or the moment of opportunity while posing for his latest magazine cover in Washington, DC?

A wise CIC will trust his commanders to make the right decision, take tactical advantage of every opportunity, and THEN, even it it goes tits up, he'll back that commander, and take the heat himself!

But we don't have a wise CIC. We have the most inept SOB that's likely held the office, and I wouldn't be surprised that he draws flies because of his candiass.

There was one little glitch, and that was the imminent threat bit. The local commander took advantage of that and placed his career on the line.

He made the call, actually, contrary to standing orders.

And that's called baaaaaaaalls.

reply posted on 19-4-2009 @ 10:20 PM by Num1Skeptic

Well without any inside knowledge the most of the claims the OP has made can be logically draw from what we were told. However even as I have showed support for what he has said based on some inside info as well I will area it is all still hearsay and yes the OP's links are biased.

The point is there indeed was an ROE issue, from my sources it is not clear if the ROE limitations were put in place by Obama or someone else however the I do know for a fact that as soon as the ROE limitations were returned to "normal" the operation as we saw it was given green light.

But from what I know from chatting with our socom guys briefly is that there was a strict ROE who ordered it I cannot comment on because I do not have any info on it and will not make a claim from my own conclusion.

Hope that clears it up.

edit: I don't know who the OSC was for this operation but having dealt with them and being a part time military man I would say he most likely was not responsible for the ROE restrictions but there are quite a few in the chain of command between the OSC and Obama even though he has the ultimate authority on military operations such as this . Also I would like to add as far as I know again from hearsay and limited first hand knowledge Obama has actually been praised for listening to all of his military advisor and respecting their experience in matters such as this. However I believe if the ROE was directly imposed by Obama he had a good reason for doing it (such as a recommendation by someone in the chain of command for this operation or of course some other diplomatic reason I am not aware of )

[edit on 19-4-2009 by Num1Skeptic]

reply posted on 19-4-2009 @ 10:23 PM by schrodingers dog

Originally posted by dooper
I don't think the French military is exactly a model of perfection and something to emulate.

Really, how so? (if you have it in you try to provide a non-xenophobic answer)

The greatest mistake a CIC can make, is to try to put limitations on the commander on site. No limitations, no recommendations. Freedom to solve the problem, as the opportunities arise.

Indeed, why have a CIC at all?

Perhaps you're rooting for a junta?

How in hell is B. Hussein Obama supposed to intuit the moment, the men, the temperature, the tenor in the voices, or the moment of opportunity while posing for his latest magazine cover in Washington, DC?

And don't forget he was also picking a puppy.

A wise CIC will trust his commanders to make the right decision, take tactical advantage of every opportunity, and THEN, even it it goes tits up, he'll back that commander, and take the heat himself!

I know right, he's stuck in a white house without the benefit of the intel you seem to possess and without any military folk to advise him anywhere to be found.

I could go on quoting you but your talk of "balls" bores me.

[edit on 19 Apr 2009 by schrodingers dog]

reply posted on 19-4-2009 @ 10:41 PM by Estharik

I would love to understand your initial post.... to the OP.... but being a civilian I do not understand your lingo with CPO BHN CRD RIB and all the likes... sorry to sound stupid but I'm just trying to get some better information to your post.

reply posted on 20-4-2009 @ 12:15 AM by jdub297

reply to post by schrodingers dog

Except that you're wrong. The Guardian published exactly this story just a day or two after the rescue.

I've posted a link in an earlier reply to the OP. In fact, they published their story about rejected requests for authority and political "dithering" even BEFORE Obama claimed credit for his (pure crap) hardline and decisive action.

If the UK had it, I'm certain the EU and maybe even the Aussies had it, but they're such close allies that it may not have made it to press in Australia.

Of course, recent rebukes from Iran, N.Korea, France, and Bolivia help restore the truer picture of a spineless administration (except for harassment of its OWN citizenry).

Deny ignorance.

jw

[edit on 20-4-2009 by jdub297]

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 >> ^^TOP^^