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

a reply to: Indigo5

I am reading. I see the word may. They also say civilians likely killed, they do not say by whom.

a reply to: TheBulk

The Navy Seal Foundation keeps a running list of Seals that have been killed in action.

During Pres. Obama's 8 years in office, the Seals that died were in active combat theaters (Iraq and Afghanistan) and not on Spec Op missions Specifically directed and approved by the President.

Not to say Pres. Obama did not utilize Seals in non-active theaters like Africa...he used them more than any President in history, mostly in hostage rescue operations and once to kill a guy named Osama Bin Laden. But he never lost a Seal where the WH directly proposed and gave the "go" on the mission. That is because he was fanatical about planning and vetting risks before giving the go. Long and multiple conversations with Joint Chiefs and the National Security Counsel et al. Trump gave the go over dinner. Just sayin..

Navy Seal Foundation
www.navysealfoundation.org...

a reply to: TrueBrit

please you know that is wrong. drones come blow the place up then leave, minutes/ secs later terrorists and sympathizers move back in to help their fallen, see robots coming, take up positions and blow them up with RPGS. or if robots are already there break out RPG's and blow them up when they return to help.

then you have to think about the time for the robots to find said devices or paper, they are not just gonna be laying around on the ground, phone may well be in pockets, laptops, tablets and paper buried under rumble. remember time is of the essence.

then you have to think about how big they are, if big enough to be armed someone had to transport them to target. hell even small ones may have to be transported to target.

that kind of technology to do everything that would be needed to be done,doesn't exist yet, there is some that might be close, but some where close to the location human intervention is needed in deployment, and remember you are not in friendly territory.


ETA: even if drones loiter, people are still gonna come to help their comrades. and drones kill by standers to.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: hounddoghowlie

Actually, its perfectly possible for a small remote robotic device to be sent in to a given location

You don't need a robot to google "terrorist training video" on youtube..
Pentagon mistakenly posts 10-year-old video to back up Yemen raid

The Pentagon on Friday mistakenly posted a video it claimed had been recovered from a recent anti-terror raid in Yemen that had actually been recovered nearly decade ago.

The Defense Department had uploaded footage of a Jihadist training video purported to have been seized as part of a raid on an al Qaeda compound in Yemen in late January.

That action – which was President Trump’s first counter-terrorism offensive – killed more than a dozen of terrorists, but also claimed the life of one Navy SEAL. Civilians, including children, were also reportedly killed.

The military has since removed the footage from its video distribution website, acknowledging that it was captured during a previous raid in Yemen in 2007.

thehill.com...

It is amateur hour in the Trump Administration...It will cost lives..

It is no Mystery when the current head of Spec Ops says this..

US Special Ops chief: US government 'in unbelievable turmoil'
www.cnn.com...

a reply to: Indigo5

And instead he killed tons of civilians with drones. Is that better?

a reply to: Indigo5

You don't need a robot to google "terrorist training video" on youtube.. Pentagon mistakenly posts 10-year-old video to back up Yemen raid

you can't goggle all the terrorist names and their locations, or what supplies they have, or where their next attack maybe, or who maybe supporting them.
don't be so ignorant. you have no idea what kind of Intel they found.

ETA: another thing very few people that work in the pentagon are chosen by trump or his appointees. many of those people have been there during obamas tenure.

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: Tempter
The father, poor guy, needs to shut up.

How many children have you lost in the Military?

Someone needs to "shut up"...but not Owens father..

None, but I served and will encourage my son's and daughters to enlist, for the honor.

His father is tarnishing his legacy.

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: UKTruth
Trump gave a wonderful tribute to Ryan Owens last night. It was seen around the world, and the reaction of Ryan's mother will be long remembered. There does not seem to be any animosity towards Trump at all.

Strange how you conflate a widows grief with supporting Trump?
Strike that...Just what I would expect...

This whole thread looks like it based on fake news.

Please provide evidence showing that Ryan Owens father did not make the public statements he made.

Absent that...You are clearly lying again.

Funny how you conflate a fathers grief to your hate agenda. I am not surprised you would stoop that low.
Doesn't look like there is any animosity towards Trump at all - nor should there be. Even the fathers comments reflect only understandable grief. I am sure he'll be appreciative of the wonderful tribute given to his son as time passes, like the mother. She seems to have taken the lead role in expressing how the family feel, and her attendance with Ivanka Trump last night speaks volumes.

I'll chalk this one up as yet another sensationalist narrative you've plucked from liberal media.

originally posted by: UKTruth
...., like the mother. She seems to have taken the lead role in expressing how the family feel, and her attendance with Ivanka Trump last night speaks volumes.

It was the SEAL's wife at the speech last night, but your point still stands

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: UKTruth
Trump gave a wonderful tribute to Ryan Owens last night. It was seen around the world, and the reaction of Ryan's mother will be long remembered. There does not seem to be any animosity towards Trump at all.

Strange how you conflate a widows grief with supporting Trump?
Strike that...Just what I would expect...

This whole thread looks like it based on fake news.

Please provide evidence showing that Ryan Owens father did not make the public statements he made.

Absent that...You are clearly lying again.

like the mother. She seems to have taken the lead role in expressing how the family feel,

Grief and pride...what other "expressing how the family feel(s)" are you aware of?

The only member that has spoken publicly is the father and he has been clear in his opinions.

Only the most cynical propagandist would equate her being present to hear her husbands name honored in Congress...with she must be a trump fan.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: UKTruth
Trump gave a wonderful tribute to Ryan Owens last night. It was seen around the world, and the reaction of Ryan's mother will be long remembered. There does not seem to be any animosity towards Trump at all.

Strange how you conflate a widows grief with supporting Trump?
Strike that...Just what I would expect...

This whole thread looks like it based on fake news.

Please provide evidence showing that Ryan Owens father did not make the public statements he made.

Absent that...You are clearly lying again.

Even the fathers comments reflect only understandable grief.

What comments? You said that was Fake News?

originally posted by: UKTruth
This whole thread looks like it based on fake news.

I am not prior service so I cant speak from direct experience, however I do have indirect experience.

I work airborne search and rescue.
I have planned missions.
We use a very similar process to the Military Decision Making process in that mission planning.
We conduct Operational Risk Management.
Every time we send an aircraft to do a search our crews are risking their lives to conduct that mission.
Its a risk we are willing to take because of that mission.
If the risks are too high we do not undertake the flight.
There are however times that the risks change when the flight is already underway.
Working in the mission base we are not in the plane and we can only assess the intel that we have access to to assist the crews in the air. We monitor the weather and other conditions to provide that information to the crews.
The ultimate responsibility for the life of the crew however resides with the crew themselves. They will make the call when they are on scene with regards to continuing the mission.
If, however there were to be an accident that resulted in the deaths of a crew and destruction of the aircraft there would be an investigation and the finger would get firstly pointed at the Incident Commander because he is in charge.
He could simply fall on his sword and take the full blame for the accident and loss of life, he is in charge so he is responsible, but that would not solve the problem. It would not provide any answers and more importantly it would not provide lessons that we could learn from to adjust our Risk management process and potentially avoid future accidents.


The SEAL team on site were placed in the position to conduct this mission. They elected to continue the mission because their confidence in their ability to deal with the changing conditions on the modern battlefield ensured them that they could succeed. Prior to the mission the entire chain of command looked at this mission, assessed the risks and believed that their ability to deal with the changing conditions on the modern battle field ensured their success. They presented this mission plan for approval to the President, then Obama. For what ever reason Obama shelved the execution of the mission.
When the new President came into office the mission was again looked at. At this point it would be the responsibility of the chain of command to update the mission plan with new information and changing intel. If they failed to do that then they failed their new Commander. President Trump was presented with the mission plan, he approved the plan based off the information he was provided. It does not matter where he was when he made that approval. a dinner table or the Situation room does not change the ability of someone to make decisions. The plan not being presented to the full NSC is not in and of itself a problem, there have been many times in the past when the full council was not in place to make a decision. There is no constitutional or legal requirement that the President has to convene a full NSC to make military or intelligence decisions anyway.
If this plan wa snot updated with the most recent intel, and in some manner skipped the SOCOM command chain to get to the President without the Joint Chief of Staff knowing about it, you can bet that someone got a new orifice drilled into their backside and probably an early retirement. I would bet that did not occur and that this plan had full approval of the Joint Chiefs. The risks were deemed to be worth the reward and the President was advised as such.

The problem is that regardless of how well you plan and how much intel you have the bad guys get a say in the situation. No plan survives contact as they say.
The mission was executed it was successful, unfortunately one of our warriors was killed. We mourn his loss and we salute him and his service. We offer our condolences to the family and we offer prayer. Then we move on and we execute the next mission.
Because thats what we have to do, and thats what he would want us to do.
I assure you that lessons were learned an even if they were only learned by the lower levels, the next mission will take those lessons into account.
War is ALWAYS political. you cannot separate the two because they are not separate. They are points along a spectrum.

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: hounddoghowlie

Actually, its perfectly possible for a small remote robotic device to be sent in to a given location

You don't need a robot to google "terrorist training video" on youtube..
Pentagon mistakenly posts 10-year-old video to back up Yemen raid

The Pentagon on Friday mistakenly posted a video it claimed had been recovered from a recent anti-terror raid in Yemen that had actually been recovered nearly decade ago.

The Defense Department had uploaded footage of a Jihadist training video purported to have been seized as part of a raid on an al Qaeda compound in Yemen in late January.

That action – which was President Trump’s first counter-terrorism offensive – killed more than a dozen of terrorists, but also claimed the life of one Navy SEAL. Civilians, including children, were also reportedly killed.

The military has since removed the footage from its video distribution website, acknowledging that it was captured during a previous raid in Yemen in 2007.

thehill.com...

It is amateur hour in the Trump Administration...It will cost lives..

It is no Mystery when the current head of Spec Ops says this..

US Special Ops chief: US government 'in unbelievable turmoil'
www.cnn.com...

Perhaps this is why the spec ops chief is crying the us govt "in unbelievable turmoil"
www.theguardian.com...

JSoc operates outside the traditional chain of command; it reports directly to the president of the United States. In the words of Wired magazine: "JSoc operates with practically no accountability." Scahill calls JSoc the president's "paramilitary". Its budget, which may be in the billions, is secret.

New potus new rules new budget

yeah turmoil alright......

a reply to: Indigo5

USSOCOM was pissed before Trump so stop passing the buck.

www.washingtonpost.com... m_term=.b1a72bb1fbb9

He is and should be pissed that compartmentalized information is being put into books. If you think our enemies everyday do not look for weakness or a way to hurt us you are wrong.

originally posted by: UWvesI220
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.

Does that let Hillary off the hook for Benghazi?

originally posted by: Whodathunkdatcheese

originally posted by: UWvesI220
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.

Does that let Hillary off the hook for Benghazi?

No, the initial failure was on the part of the State Department. Her office.
The lack of a sufficient security force to protect the ambassador was a decision made on her watch. Like I said in my post, you take the blame for it because you are in charge, even if you personally didnt make the decision or someone subordinate to you made it or you made a decision based on bad information. You own it, then you work to correct it. Its possible that it will cost you your job but you still own it.

The fact that Hillary made a decision was not the problem and not what she really took flack over, it was her inability to accept the fault of the decisions she did make. It was the attempt to redirect the blame for the attack to a video, and the attempt to cover up and hide the decisions that were made that night in order to minimize her role in events.
Its always the cover up and the lying afterwards that gets you in more trouble than just owning up to it at the beginning.

originally posted by: Deny Arrogance
I realize weak people have difficulty handling grief but somone should tell this guy he is dishonorong his dead son's service greatly.

It is likely due to leaks from Obama's left-behinds, particularly those Paki brothers in IT who tipped off the terrorists.

What a horrible, racist post. Also the pointless machismo just tells me you've never truly suffered a great loss. To call someone weak for mourning the death of their son is utterly disgusting and you should be ashamed of yourself. As should everyone who starred it.

Double

originally posted by: Indigo5
a reply to: TheBulk

The Navy Seal Foundation keeps a running list of Seals that have been killed in action.

During Pres. Obama's 8 years in office, the Seals that died were in active combat theaters (Iraq and Afghanistan) and not on Spec Op missions Specifically directed and approved by the President.

Not to say Pres. Obama did not utilize Seals in non-active theaters like Africa...he used them more than any President in history, mostly in hostage rescue operations and once to kill a guy named Osama Bin Laden. But he never lost a Seal where the WH directly proposed and gave the "go" on the mission. That is because he was fanatical about planning and vetting risks before giving the go. Long and multiple conversations with Joint Chiefs and the National Security Counsel et al. Trump gave the go over dinner. Just sayin..

Navy Seal Foundation
www.navysealfoundation.org...

the go ahead had been given under the previous administration. the only thing they were waiting on was a moonless night. once the condition was met for that it was a go. i love how people think the missions going south has anything to do with the president. do u really think they make the tactical plans for such things? its the military who plans and executes those missions cause they are the qualified people who have the knowledge to do it. the pres just gives the ok on the advice of the people around him.

originally posted by: Deny Arrogance
I realize weak people have difficulty handling grief but somone should tell this guy he is dishonorong his dead son's service greatly.

What a disgusting comment. Who are you to comment on how a family member handles their grief? I cried when my father died, the same for my mother. Does that make we weak? My grandfather who served in 101st in WWII had a hard time with his grief whenever we went to the cemetery where his Chalk mates were buried. Is he weak?

How EXACTLY is he dishonoring his sons service? You sound like REMF trying to cover up a failed operation. That dad want answers to what happened and why this administration gave an okay to a mission the previous one took a pass on. The incoming administration wanted a splash and it backfired. Now armchair generals like yourself are pounding your chests and ad hom'ing anybody or anyone who disagree in the finest Trumpian fashion including this mans father.

It is likely due to leaks from Obama's left-behinds, particularly those Paki brothers in IT who tipped off the terrorists.

Did you steal this from Trumps twitter feed? Aside from the racist "Paki" comment, are you suggesting that WH staffer leaked information to the target? Aside from Trumps twitter feed what else you got?