Navy Seal Charged with war crimes

[dmancornell]

Ad hominem attacks reveal a lot about the individual that wields them.

When you learn to debate intelligently, come back to the table.

When you accuse others of an ad hominem attack, you shouldn't write things like:

"I trust the word of the man on the ground a hell of a lot more than a journalist, intelligence weenie, or the fkn enemy."

Your emotional gullibility is based on your own words. The man on the ground has just as much agency to lie as anyone else.

 

[birddog]

By the way, the report Darack cites of the estimate of 8-10 fighters wiping out the SEAL's was sourced by analysts listening in on communications after the battle. Darack states the intel people had zero clue what the dispositions were before the battle.

I chuckled when I read that. Seriously.

Now I understand the problem. There’s a difference in perspective between learning from a book and actually doing it for a living.

 

[dmancornell]

I chuckled when I read that. Seriously.

Now I understand the problem. There’s a difference in perspective between learning from a book and actually doing it for a living.

So when Ahmad Shah confirms those lower numbers as opposed to the fantastical 80-200 fighters number, he wasn't "doing it for a living"? Or is he just the "fkn enemy" and never to be trusted?

I am genuinely asking why you trust Marcus Luttrell absolutely even after he had his lawyer accuse the Afghan who saved his life of lying when he questioned the book/movie:

https://www.newsweek.com/2016/06/10...lone-survivor-operation-red-wings-458139.html

 

[MTA]

Read the book, it is a primary source. If you don't feel like reading it, here is a summary of the topic at hand:

http://www.darack.com/sawtalosar/misinformation.php

I dont have a dog in this fight. But I would trust a two buck hooker at a truck stop before I trusted a military intelligence report

 

[dmancornell]

I dont have a dog in this fight. But I would trust a two buck hooker at a truck stop before I trusted a military intelligence report

Does your skepticism extend to the rest of the US military apparatus? Say, the SEAL team operators?

 

[majormadmax]

I dont have a dog in this fight. But I would trust a two buck hooker at a truck stop before I trusted a military intelligence report

It's not just intel reporting; but since everyone is so quick to dismiss it (until it comes time to blame mission failure on it), it's not worth arguing how much accurate intelligence there is/was, and how much Luttrell's (if you're going to worship him, maybe start by spelling his name correctly!) own account has been debated by his fellow operators. The keyboard warriors will believe what they read on the Internet...

 

[majormadmax]

By the way, Luttrell didn't even write Lone Survivor. Patrick Robinson, a British military fiction writer, interviewed him and then wrote it.

Regardless, Luttrell has either supported or changed the narrative numerous times since the book came out, such as increasing the number of alleged Taliban attackers and other details and other very basic facts that are wrong.

For one, in "his" book, Luttrell often refers to their satellite phone (most commonly refereed to as a "Thuraya") as a "cell phone," a distinction any special operator would know.

The book claims Ahmad Shah, the target of Operation Red Wings, as "one of the baddest dudes in all of Afghanistan. A dude who buddies around with Osama bin Laden. A bad mamma-jamma that may have had a hand in 9/11. And as I said earlier, he also runs an army of 80 to 200 insurgent/terrorists," none of which were true. He was barely on the radar, and was affiliated with Hezb Il Gulbuddin, not Al Qaeda. And he never had 80 to 200 men under his control.

Lastly, in both "his" book and later public appearances, Luttrell speculates that the ambush had probably 140 people in it, if not more. He describes his team as mowing down dozens of enemy. He describes multiple patrols of Taliban scouring the countryside for him. Numerous reports from both sides state the ambush probably only used 8-10 of Ahmad Shah’s men and “accidental guerrillas” making up the rest. The ambush succeeded because of the use of RPGs, machine guns and terrain, not overwhelming numbers.

Ed Darack, who wrote Victory Point which many believe is the definitive account on Operation Red Wings, summed it up best:

"I think that the narrative of a four-man Navy SEAL team being deployed to take on a group of hundreds under the leadership of the right-hand man of the world's most wanted individual has all the makings of an edge-of-your-seat military action thriller. But it doesn't happen in reality. And it certainly wasn't the case in Red Wings."

 

[MTA]

Does your skepticism extend to the rest of the US military apparatus? Say, the SEAL team operators?

No just with the S2

 

[MTA]

It's not just intel reporting; but since everyone is so quick to dismiss it (until it comes time to blame mission failure on it), it's not worth arguing how much accurate intelligence there is/was, and how much Luttrell's (if you're going to worship him, maybe start by spelling his name correctly!) own account has been debated by his fellow operators. The keyboard warriors will believe what they read on the Internet...

I dont think I stated that I believed Luttrell over the journalist guy. All I was saying is that military intel has a knack for giving bad info.

Dman is over there having an aneurysm. Go get laid dude

 

[majormadmax]

All I was saying is that military intel has a knack for giving bad info.

Not really, it's just convenient to blame intel for poor mission planning and/or execution...

 

[MTA]

Not really, it's just convenient to blame intel for poor mission planning and/or execution...

Yea military intel has never been off ever

 

[dmancornell]

No just with the S2

I got some bad news for you:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ar-college-study-says/?utm_term=.8423f6d20ad7

A new study by Army War College professors found that not only is lying common in the military, the armed forces themselves may be inadvertently encouraging it.

 

[dmancornell]

I dont think I stated that I believed Luttrell over the journalist guy. All I was saying is that military intel has a knack for giving bad info.

Dman is over there having an aneurysm. Go get laid dude

Michael Murphy's MOH citation records a lower number of fighters than Luttrell's claims. Seems like everyone in the military is lying LOL.

Yea military intel has never been off ever

Yea grunts would never lie to cover their ass ever.

 

[birddog]

 

[MTA]

Michael Murphy's MOH citation records a lower number of fighters than Luttrell's claims. Seems like everyone in the military is lying LOL.



Yea grunts would never lie to cover their ass ever.

Not sure how you got that from what I have said. All I said was military intel is known to be flawed. Sometimes its good but it should be approached with a grain of salt. I definitely wouldn't trust it

Like I said before I dont even know enough about this mission to defend Luttrell or his claims, my 2 cents was about intel and my intention was to not take intel as the biblical truth. If you got something more out of that, then Idk what the **** to tell you

 

[dmancornell]

then Idk what the **** to tell you

Absolutely nothing? Your distrust of military intel adds zero weight either for or against Luttrell's veracity.

The problem here is it is not just military intel contradicting Luttrell, but inconsistencies with Luttrell's own tellings, contradictory accounts from the Afghan who saved Luttrell's ass as well as the Afghans who won the battle, and lastly, skepticism from Luttrell's comrades on the "vote to execute the goat-herder" story.

 

[MTA]

Absolutely nothing? Your distrust of military intel adds zero weight either for or against Luttrell's veracity.

The problem here is it is not just military intel contradicting Luttrell, but inconsistencies with Luttrell's own tellings, contradictory accounts from the Afghan who saved Luttrell's ass as well as the Afghans who won the battle, and lastly, skepticism from Luttrell's comrades on the "vote to execute the goat-herder" story.

Edit: Im bowing out of this one. You and the major can continue the sperg out

 

[majormadmax]

Yea military intel has never been off ever

It's been correct far more many times than it has been "off"...

 

[majormadmax]

Edit: Im bowing out of this one. You and the major can continue the sperg out

You might as well, you've yet to provide one shroud of evidence to support your claims...

 

[majormadmax]

View attachment 167368

A sign of defeat...and the irony of posting a pic of one of the biggest bat-shit crazy liberals in Hollywood!