When the little n korean boy sees them they decide to chase after him. then they decide to chase after him into his town where there are *beep* of pll and soldiers. I just would have packed up my *beep* after i saw him run off at the start and moved on. who is gonna believe a 6 year old kid saw a *beep* of navy seals without no hard evidence. OH but great cinematography.
shareLet's just put this into real world scenario ... child see them, goes back and alerts soldiers who then chase after SEALS. Any good team that is suppose to go in under the radar isn't going to let anyone go run off and alert the enemy of their pressence.
sharegood point
shareActually that happend once :)
ever read the book "Bravo Two-Zero" by Andy McNab?
His story of a mission gone bad in irak during the (first?) gulf war, and who else than a 10 year old sheppard blew their cover, beceause they didn't kill him.
if my memmory serves me correct..
but okay, they weren't SEAL they were SAS (Special Air Service) but it's almost the same.
wasn't bravo two-zero discredited as nearly all lies.
shareGood book and also a good film too!
http://http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/reason.html
Andy McNab is the biggest liar and wannabe Rambo on the planet.
shareThey should have used a hush puppy on the kid and stashed the body.
shareWith all due respect, Bossdriver, the military does not need people like you. In the First Gulf War, two US Green Beret teams were spotted and betrayed by civilians, and both times US forces chose to risk their lives rather than purposefully murder civilians. We need people like that.
shareHoffm I would rather kill a civilian than let a Green Beret die. Much less 2 teams of them!!
share[deleted]
First off...I don't appreciate this thread. Secondly, Green Berets and Navy Seals are very differant. Some Navy Seals might have killed the kid...some may have not. Take Tears of the Sun for example. No loyal Seal would have went back for the refugees in that film. But it made for a good movie. Differance of opinion I guess.
shareThe difference to is morals. Some people have no problem killing civilians others do. I have been there and while I cant say I am exremely proud of what I did can say I never purposly killed an unarmed civilian, besides silencers work wonders, and a shot to the knee will slow someone down enough if you want to work at it like that.
shareThe SAS team that was lead by Andy McNab was spotted by a kid shepherd. They packed their things for exfil. No one in their right mind would shoot an unarmed kid who probably thinks telling his countrymen of his sighting of foreign soliders is the best for his country.
shareBoth teams of Green Berets survived. One team was evacuated shortly after being discovered with no casualties. The other team managed to keep a large force of Iraqis at bay by gunfire and calling in for air support. By the time the team was evacuated, they had killed almost 150 Iraqis with no loss of American lives.
shareAnd that is exactly where humanity ends and you throw all that we are
fighting for away.
the boy runs, trained physically tip top seals cant catch him so u would think that as they get to the town full of people/ military you would stop but no they decided to charge in guns blazing resulting in 2 of there men dead...
nice way of stayin "undetected"
Bossdriver... you and all the other wannabe-tough chest-thumpers need to get your heads out of the Steven Seagal movies and learn a little bit about real life in the US MILITARY. Both US Army Special Forces ("Green Beret") and the US Navy SEAL Team elements involved in conflicts in the "Gulf Region" (I am being purposely vague) have on numerous occasions encountered civilians who could (and sometimes DID) tell others about their presence.
While the chest-thumpers and hardcore wannabees call for the use of "hush puppies" and say they "don't care about any civilians anywhere who aren't on our side"... the reality is that the members of those military units are HUMANS, not animals. It makes for great movie entertainment (I suppose) to show 'warriors' with no guilt or angst, expertly gunning down, blowing up, physically beating, and "taking out" everything and everyone in their path... man, woman, and child... and trash talking after the fact over 'brewskies'.
Real SEALs don't do that. I know; I'm a real SEAL! Real Army SF don't do that. I know; I've got several close personal friends who served as Army SF "Green Beret" - officers and enlisted. I am highly offended and I know they, too, would be offended by what you and others like you think is the norm for military conduct and standards of behavior.
You're the kind of guy who thinks that UNDER SIEGE and GI JANE were not only good movies... but accurate. Sadly, neither was the case. The last movie about UDT/SEAL activities that even came CLOSE to reality was THE FROGMEN with Richard Widmark (1951). Since then there hasn't been one movie that's even close. Sure some modern movie offerings have SEALs as 'military advisors'... but they don't write the script and they don't control what gets on the screen. They work FOR the producers and directors, they don't dictate policy or make decisions. The movie NAVY SEALS was written by a friend and Teammate - Chuck Pfarrer - but he had an agreement with the Navy that the movie would NOT reveal anything accurate about the US Navy SEAL tactics, or operational capabilities. He did a damned fine job and wrote a great adventure story. But it very purposely did NOT portray SEALs accurately.
SEALs have wives and kids of their own. They have families. Their tough as nails... some would argue they are the product of the toughest military training anywhere in the world... but they aren't Hollywood killers.
So... you say they should shoot down an unarmed civilian child... with a silenced pistol... because he has seen the US force and might tell others?
Pfftt. Go tell your chest thumping ideas about shooting children to your buddies at the local pool hall or bar; I'm sure they'll tell you that you're right. I sure as hell won't!
Steve Robinson
USN 1970-1978
SEAL Team ONE
Inshore Undersea Warfare Group ONE
UDT-SEAL Association
Special Operations Association
POW Network Advisory Board
Naval Special Warfare Archives - SOF Analyst/Contributing Journalist
Disabled American Veterans - Life Member
FORMER Special Investigator - SEAL Authentication Team
Author of the book "NO GUTS, NO GLORY - Unmasking Navy SEAL Imposters"
Amen Shadek. I agree with you 100%. I too spent some time in uniform. I have never seen combat. 19kilo tanker out of Fort Knox. I have worked with a few mover and shakers. All of them have one thing in common: A true regard for human life. Now... as a tanker, my targets were WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYY downrange. Never had to deal with close quarter targets. And as I stated, never seen combat. As a result, I have engaged steel machines, vehicles, and buildings. All in a simulated combat environment. The thing that my instructors ALWAYS told us was this: #1 - Make sure to make it home. #2 - You will at some point have to look yourself in the eye and atone for your actions...right or wrong. And to all of you don't believe that... you can always volunteer for Iraq.
shareThank you I am not alone in the morals, no one in my ranger team would have dared shot a child, most of us had them, and for people who dont know the first thing about war and for that matter have morals, probably would have been the ones to spit on american troops when they came home from vietnam.
sharehere's a scenario:ur the kid and get killed cuz u saw something u shouldn't.... makes army sound like mafia. and 4 the soldiers, if u don't stop the kid, u and ur group can all b killed. every1 has opinions and they aren't all the same. there's no real right or wrong it all just comes down 2 morals, u either have them or u don't.
shareooshoe... your use of IM code, your lack of punctuation, your exclusive use of lower case letters, and your apparent lack of ability with regard to composing a readable and meaningful post all seem to indicate someone who spends more time "TEXTING" messages by cell phone than considering the rational, logical and moral issues in this discussion.
You said "there's no real right or wrong it all just comes down 2 morals, u either have them or u don't"
Your statement contains two contradictory ideas - (1) there is no right or wrong, and (2)either you have morals or you don't. One of your ideas is correct and the other is absolutely false.
It is NOT a case of "no real right or wrong"; you do NOT kill unarmed civilians because they have detected your presence. PERIOD!
If you are a heartless bastage who thinks of himself as 'god' dealing out his own brand of 'life or death', or if you are a testosterone-poisoned teenage male who has seen way too many movies wherein the theme is wholesale slaughter and mayhem, you will undoubtedly feel that killing an innocent child is "okay".
If you fall into either of these categories, please do NOT consider joining the military forces of the United States of America; we have no need of those bizarre and amoral sensibilities. War is hell for all involved; not something to be sought or anticipated with relish. Professional military members are not bloodthirsty killers rabidly waiting for the opportunity to dish out death and destruction. Anyone who thinks of war as "fun", or who wants to join the military simply for the opportunity to kill others, needs to visit their local psychiatrist for some serious treatments and heavy medication!
Steve Robinson
USN 1970-1978
SEAL Team ONE
Inshore Undersea Warfare Group ONE
UDT-SEAL Association
Special Operations Association
POW Network Advisory Board
Naval Special Warfare Archives - SOF Analyst/Contributing Journalist
Disabled American Veterans - Life Member
FORMER Special Investigator - SEAL Authentication Team
Author of the book NO GUTS, NO GLORY - Unmasking Navy SEAL Imposters
Don't believe everything you see in the movies! ~S. Robinson
All I can say is thank god it's thoughtful people like you who represent the US overseas, and not the kind of idiotic child who posts that they would like to spray bullets into every local civilian to make up for their own feelings of inadequacy.
Reminds me a bit of the eponymous catch-22, where someone who is eager to go into combat, is clearly insane, and unfit for combat. (In the novel, one has to request to be taken off duty, but this demonstrates enough sanity to know that war is hell, meaning that person is fit for duty.)
Hooah Shadek. 110% eyes on target with that post.
Fortunately our military will go to great lengths to AVOID killing civilians, even if it increases the risk to military members. It is because of that practice that I can look at accidental collateral damage and believe that it was an accident.
And fortunately, the training process for entry into the various areas of our special forces community will usually either educate one correctly or weed out the "screw the civilian" types.
The most startling screw up to me was the dynamics of this Seal team. Even though a Lieutenant out ranks a Master Chief, a Master Chief is older and generally wiser than a lieutenant. The Lt likely has the MC beat on education but not experience. The MC (E-9) will have been in the military on average twice as long as a Lt, unless the Lt came up through enlisted before making officer which is very rare. What usually happens is a master chief enlists right after high school and makes his way up the ranks making master chief typically somewhere between 15 and 20 years of service. A Lt on the other hand, enlisted after college or maybe graduated from the naval academy and only has three ranks between newly enlisted and Lt (0-3). A Master Chief is the one of the most senior enlisted ranks and at no point would EVER been seen sobbing like a baby in front of his men, nor would he be so useless and cowed by a lieutenant telling him what to do. It would be like your baby cousin getting a promotion in your father's company just because he has a college degree even though you have worked for your dad the entire time the kid was in college. Yeah he is your boss and you have to listen to him but at no point in time would you accept that he knew better than you about the business.
shareAfter seeing this movie with my I have to disargree with shadek_1. Think about this; the example of Special Fores team who encountered the sheperd young boy and held their fire never faced this scenario. The war was winding down, the boy was a civilain, AND they werent left behind enemy lines. Put in the movie's situation, any operator, army or navy, would have taken the boys life. It isnt about chest-thumping or playing god its statistics. The boy would have had no compunction in turning the soldiers in, which would have ended up with the total annihilation of the SEAL team. One boys life (who is probabyly a die hard communist)is not worth the life of a single SEAL. The seals were left without air support or backup and would have been outnumbered by even a small token force. It is true in another situations the operators of any team would have held their fire, but in this situation; behind enemy lines, outnumbered and on a top-pripority mission that if failed, could lead to war, im afraid the boy would have been dead the second he laid eyes on the SEALS.
i think what they did was completely rediculous, they shoulda stayed put until he ran off then move to a different position like to where they were thinking in the first place. Then if the korean military came and searched for them, they'd find nothing and then drop the whole idea probably. But you gotta remember....it's a movie, and that's the "smartest" way the director or whoever wrote the story could get the movie going. :-/
share
- But the korean military surely can find the SEAL's footprints or other signs left behind..? Pls don't tell me that they are like ghost and leave nothing behind..!
There are easy ways of concealing one's footprints and erasing any clues that they were there...so yes, essentially making them "ghosts". Great snipers do it all the time as well.
shareI wondered why the SEAL team didn't just pack up and disappear. It's a little kid, odds are very likely that any stories he ran home with that he saw "big men in the forest" would probably be brushed off as child's play, and even if they'd gone to check it out, our guys could've been well on their way out of the area.
And running headfirst into a village like that? Pff.
______
http://z15.invisionfree.com/SpinalFap/index.php - best forum EVER.
Think about this; the example of Special Fores team who encountered the sheperd young boy and held their fire never faced this scenario. The war was winding down, the boy was a civilain, AND they werent left behind enemy lines.
They were as much behind enemy lines as you can be when there are no real lines. They were in very hostile territory and they were attacked because they held their fire.
Put in the movie's situation, any operator, army or navy, would have taken the boys life. It isnt about chest-thumping or playing god its statistics.
Bull!!! You speak on a topic on which you have no first hand experience.
One boys life (who is probabyly a die hard communist)is not worth the life of a single SEAL.
If you only knew how wrong that statement truly is......
How interesting that the Americans are considering murdering an innocent by-stander! Not part of the Geneva convention on war, are you, fellas?
It is about being a proffesional soldier, to have standards and to value human life above all else - something you people should start learning from the British Army.
The same thing happened to bravo two zero in Gulf 1, did they shoot? Did they hell, they scarpered - and nearly got away with it too! AT least they didn't kill civillians!
How interesting that the Americans are considering murdering an innocent by-stander! Not part of the Geneva convention on war, are you, fellas?
It is about being a proffesional soldier, to have standards and to value human life above all else - something you people should start learning from the British Army.
What is this "you people" bullsh@t?
There are numerous people in this thread who ACTUALLY served in the US military telling these armchair commandos how stupid it is to kill civilians. But you ignore that and come off with some holier than thou attitude.
And you dare to sit there and hold out the British Army as the gold standard. I guess you have chosen to ignore crimes and acts committed by the Queen's soldiers. Such as members of the 22nd SAS who clubbed and beat 11 Iraqi's that wrongly believed were involved in murdering UK troops.
Or 3 UK soldiers charged in 2005 for killing an Iraqi by strangulation.
Or the 4 charged with beating looters before throwing them into the water, where one drowned.
I could go on, but there is no reason to. I just gave you 3 examples that happened in less than 3 years. Enough to show that you are either ignorant of the truth or willfully blind.
My intent is NOT to malign UK troops. Just like American troops, the vast majority operate in an ethical and moral manner. Failing to keep that in mind allows people to say stupid things and ignore the truth.
Niteshift36... thanks for stepping up and squashing that! As you point out, it is the armchair commandos with NO MILITARY EXPERIENCE who are espousing the concept of armed action against civilians... and it is the MILITARY VETERANS who are decrying such ideas.
No one knows the value of human life - ANY HUMAN LIFE - more than a military veteran who has seen the effects of violence first hand. Hollywood thrives on presentations of unrealistic 'warriors' with amazing combat abilities, unerring aim, endless ammunition, unmatched martial arts skills, nerves of steel, and hearts of cold iron. Civilians who would never consider serving the nation as a member of the military, but who want to think of themselves as "warrior material", hold those unrealistic portrayals as valid and worthyt of emulation. The REAL military folks see the same movie crap, spit in disgust, and then get on with doing impossible things under unbelievably arduous conditions and never expecting or receiving the real gratitude or recognition they deserve... and that includes ignoring the ignorant calls from armchair commandos who think children should be shot.
Just my 2 credits worth.
Don't believe everything you see in the movies! ~S. Robinson
Yeah, and I've seen american "troops" in Iraq, a bunch of undisciplined, derranged brats. Give a yank a uniform and he thinks he is in the movies. Windows down, feet hanging out, helmets off, ammo belts wraped round their f@cking body like Rambo or some sh@t!
Unprofessional as hell, and these "soldiers" who have done an 8 weeks training package (yes thats all) get sent to Iraq, so they are unprepared and sh@t their pants on contact, and do - yes DO - start wasting civilians!
Yeah, and I've seen american "troops" in Iraq, a bunch of undisciplined, derranged brats. Give a yank a uniform and he thinks he is in the movies. Windows down, feet hanging out, helmets off, ammo belts wraped round their f@cking body like Rambo or some sh@t!
Yeah, we never see Brits or Aussies do anything like that, right?
Unprofessional as hell, and these "soldiers" who have done an 8 weeks training package (yes thats all) get sent to Iraq
You need to check your facts again friend. 8 weeks (usually 9) is only the basic training portion. THEN they go to Advanced Individual Training (AIT), where they learn their particular Military Occupational Speciality (MOS).
A basic infantryman, from start to finish, will go through 13 weeks of training at Ft. Benning, GA. Last time I checked, 14 weeks is longer than 8 weeks........over a month longer.
A combat engineer will go through 15 weeks of training. An artillery crewman will complete 23 weeks. A tank crewman will complete 15 weeks. A military policeman will complete at least 17 weeks. These are the MINIMUM time requirements.
Simple FACT: Army baisc training is usually 9 weeks (which already beats your 8 week claim) and THEN they go to school to learn their specific job. You are just talking out of you azz.
Try this next time.........Know what you are talking about BEFORE posting.
you only shoot people who have guns in their hands and have them pointing at you while firing! DUUUUHH!
shareyou only shoot people who have guns in their hands and have them pointing at you while firing! DUUUUHH!
You fire when a threat is IMMINENT. If they are already shooting, they are an active threat. Would you honestly have me believe that you think that one should wait for an enemy soldier to fire then return fire instead of firing as he is going for the gun or at least raising the weapon to a firing position?
Keep thinking like that........you'll be the first casualty.
All I'm saying is they are way under-trained. In the UK an infantryman will go through 36 weeks basic training, the specialise after that.
shareAmerican Army by far are pussiest of all army on this planet they're good at killing civilian i'll give you that.Honestly I'd like to see them fighting against real army with prober capability and skills, I'm not talking about Iraq,Somali,Afghanistan,etc, I'm talking about hardcore sh***t, you wouldn't last a *beep* Week. You might have the military hardware, but no guts what so *beep* ever.
share[deleted]
first of all it depends where the two armys are what intelligence they have things like that but it is a fact tht the British SAS is the most experienced special forces unit in the world but that doesn't mean there all better than every US special forces soldier and as for the whole US army being immature and the British army thats bull in both armys there are some immature soldiers but it may seem like there are more in the US army because the US army is at least twice the size of the British army and thus more immature people who might not be ready for combat so in conclusion both armys kick A@#
shareAll I have to say to you is; WW1 and WW2. I also can inform you I DO have guts and will lay it all on the line for my country.
As for killing the boy, I wouldn't have done it. That would be a complete violation of the army values LDRSHIP (loyalty, duty, respect, selfless service, honor, integrity, personal courage) I take those very seriously as does any soldier.
The main problem I found with the SEAL team portrayed in this was their strategy. They simply walked out in the open without any good cover. There is no way that should be done. They needed sufficient cover, and probably could have held off the Korean force with little or no casualties.
Du borde lära dej att hålla din idiotiska käft om saker som du inte vet nånting om.
Translation for all the people who don't know swedish:
You should learn to keep your idiotic mouth shut about things you know nothing about.
Light travels faster than sound,
that's why people seem bright,
until you hear them.
All I'm saying is they are way under-trained. In the UK an infantryman will go through 36 weeks basic training, the specialise after that.
Then say that. Don't say something wrong, and emphasize it by saying "that's all".
It truly doesn't take that long to learn to be an infantryman. The amount of times were just as short for the Critish Army in WW2 and they still managed to perform admirably, didn't they?
I'd just like to add in here that although I personally have a less-than-good opinion of the US Military, I'm incredibly impressed by the few people in here trying to be sensible and avoid flame-wars. It's quite refreshing.
As to the boy - one question, Wwhy did they decide to stop within a 2-minute run of a village?
I'm one of the "armchair commandos" if you want to go with the title but WTH? if my mission ("armchair commando" don't forget :) were to be covert, I'd be in the most remote, god-forsaken spot I could find being as quiet as possible. If you're far enough away with someone as a lookout, surely you'd be able to move before the situation arose? As to Bravo20, I haven't read the book in a while but if I recall, they were in a sticky position to start with and were down to their last option of hiding where they did.
Lastly, right or wrong choice, I honestly don't think I could intentionally kill a boy for being in the wrong place. If he was armed, then he's a threat, so ok. Otherwise, I just don't think I could.
Anyhoo... In Summary: Film=Crap :)
Why bring th Australian army into this for?? Why do you Americans persume we and the British are the same for? I serve in the Australian Defence and yes you get a few idiots. But generally we are professional about our job. We have fought along side you guys since WW1. How ungrateful of you..If you have a problem with the UK military, dont make it my country's as well.
shareWell in the countries where I've served (Denmark and Sweden) Basic training is 3 months minimum, then your MOS is 7-9 Months before you can be considered for a 6 month mission-training period for deployment.
So yeah, I'd like to agree that 8 to 14 weeks aren't enough training. Not to *beep* on your parade or anything, I have the utmost respect for most nations soldiers I've served alongside, except Maroccans and the French...also the ANA doesn't count, they are almost as bad as maroccans.
Light travels faster than sound,
that's why people seem bright,
until you hear them.
Yea, like how you guys treated our wounded and POWs in the Revolutionary War? We treat our prisoners and civilians with great care, don't judge a country and it's military by a few jerk offs.
shareI disagree with the "not shooting the boy".
By the single act of not being able to silence the boy alone, a lot of OTHER LIVES(what u all so holier than thou-ly called "precious") have been lost. They had to kill so many other soldiers in the end(don't even start with killing bad soldiers is OK jus cos they're bad, wat? they're not "precious lives" too? they're just defending their country just like we all are.In their circumstances, they probably had no other choice but to do so. Plus, they have families that depend on them too. Just calculate how many other lives are affected too.) Plus, their own lives were at risk. A few NAVY Seals dies, whom could've potentially saved many other innocent defenseless boy throughout their many other possible missions had they not died.
The boy in the scenario presented could've easily compromised the whole mission. I don't even need to quote the big numbers like 50,000 dead or anything like that. 5000? 500? or even 50 dead?? It is unfortunate for the boy that he had seen them, but I believe they would have had to kill him for the greater good(they shouldn't have compromised their cover in the first place).
Sure he's just a boy and also defenseless. Killing him would also unfortunately result in you having many sleepless nights. Of course, how convenient it is for the soldier that the not so immediate effects of few hundred or thousands more dead which you would not see directly, but was caused indirectly by that event itself, will not disturb his sleep. Take that for being so "righteous".
Primary objective is to accomplish the mission, which could in the end save a far, far greater number of lives.
On a different note, I happen to think soldiers are mostly only good at carrying out orders. Leave the philosophical/thinking stuff to the real thinkers(who can see the bigger picture).
Don't get me wrong, I AM for saving lives. I am not evil(I think).I guess it all depends on situation. If the boy's live can be saved, all the better.
And also, forgive my bad English/grammar/punctuation. Can't really spare any moe time than I already have typing this long post.
Get/read a review of the book LONE SURVIVOR by US Navy SEAL Marcus "Marc" Luttrell. The one thing that has come up as the most discussed point in his description of an event in mid-2006 is the DECISION TO NOT KILL CIVILIANS who discovered the 4-man SEAL unit on the ground.
Hollywood movies rarely mirror real life, but the point in the movie which you are so strongly condemning - the decision to NOT KILL CIVILIANS did, in fact, take place in REAL LIFE... and like the movie, that decision ultimately cost the lives of NINETEEN AMERICANS; THREE SEALs on the ground (Luttrell was the lone survivor... and is the only SEAL who has ever been a 'lone survivor' in any operation), EIGHT SEALs who formed a QUICK REACTION FORCE, and EIGHT Airmen with the 160th. The SIXTEEN men were killed when their helicopter (responding to a call for assistance from Luttrell's group) was hit by an RPG.
The decision to spare the lives of the civilians - in this case it was 2 adult male goat herders and 1 male child - is still being debated within the Naval Special Warfare community. Ultimately, while the question was being decided by the SEALs, Luttrell gave the boy a power bar to eat. He has publicly stated that he wishes he could do it over, make a different decision, and have his buddies alive again. But that is NOT what happened. He gave the boy a power bar to eat, not a bullet.
I exchanged emails with other SEALs on the subject earlier today. The fact is that no matter how much our training is designed to make us the perfect warriors, we are still human after all is said and done. We still have emotions, we still have sentiments, we are still HUMAN with all of our faults and frailties! Debate all you want about killing civilians in WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, or anywhere/anywhen else... whatever was done... was DONE... by BOTH sides.
The notion of "yes" or "no" on this question is one that is still being discussed... but in THE ONLY CASE which has occurred so far (and been documented), the decision was identical to that shown in the movie... THE CIVILIANS WERE NOT KILLED. And THAT is what separates US from those Taliban a$$-hats who kill women who have so thoughtlessly 'disgrace' their families by being raped... or by speaking with someone without a chaperone. That is ultimately what separates Americans from so many others in this world. Call it the "John Wayne Complex" or whatever you like. Call it unrealistic... until you read Luttrell's book. But reality is what it is. All of the chest thumping, bragadocious, wannabe tough guy, bar-room Rambos will predictably step forward, offer their best intimidating growls, and loudly proclaim that they would "KILL THE KID"... and "THE OP IS ALL-IMPORTANT"... and "SENTIMENT HAS NO PLACE IN THIS"... and there are those who might agree with them.
Talk is cheap!
Could you pull the trigger... REPEATEDLY... to ensure that all of those civilians were dead... and live with it? Sure... you're a tough guy, right? You could do it... grit your teeth... squint... squeeze...
Like I said... talk is cheap!
Don't believe everything you see in the movies! ~S. Robinson
USN 1970-1978 : SEAL Team ONE : Inshore Undersea Warfare Group ONE [Mobile Inshore Undersea Warfare Team ONE]
I'm not going to bother arguing about which army is better, or who does this and who does that.
I'm gonna simply start with one statement
Fourth Geneva Convention:
Article 2 states that signatories are bound by the convention both in war, armed conflicts where war has not been declared and in an occupation of another country's territory.
Article 3 states that even where there is not a conflict of international character the parties must as a minimum adhere to minimal protections described as: noncombatants, members of armed forces who have laid down their arms, and combatants who are hors de combat (out of the fight) due to wounds, detention, or any other cause shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, with the following prohibitions:
(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) taking of hostages;
(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;
(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.
Basically, Soldiers are not allowed to shoot or maim a non-combatant. I'm sure a lot of you have heard of the Nuremburg trials, what a lot of you probably don't realise is that in essence those trials still continue today through the ICC and ICJ, these courts have also charged Singular people on IVth Geneva Convention charges. In America severe penalties are imposed on people disregarding the Geneva Convention in any way.
I'm not a soldier (my father is an armourer however, and it's been drilled into him since he enlisted) all I'm passing on is knowledge of the justice system.
PDEAN... you are absolutely correct, and I applaud your reference to these statutes! Thanks for adding your comments to what I already said. Despite our comments, however, many (MANY) wannabe Rambos will undoubtedly declare that they could and would kill civilians in a similar situation. They do this to show how tough they are, how deadly dangerous they are, to intimidate other males, and to 'win the hearts' of hero-worshipping females. It is a sad testament on our society that all too many males ARE intimidated by such bogus bragadocio and all too many females ARE impressed enough by such BS to surrender their 'virtues' to the BS artist.
Don't believe everything you see in the movies! ~S. Robinson
[deleted]
Hey... don't knock John Wayne lol. I agree 100% with what you have said. It's easy to sit here in our comfortable homes, on our computers with no immanent threat at hand and say...yea just blow the kid away. No one making those comments would have the guts to pull the trigger and if they did, they'd end up a nut job at a psychiatric hospital, b/c they would break. A, this is a movie, shadek-1 is completely right, military movies, especially one's about Spec-OPs units are 99.99% of the time, have way too much over kill, run and gun stuff. As he said, yea, they may have advisers, like in Tears of the Sun, but they are only there to make sure the portrayal, such as uniforms weapons and basic unit tactics are done right, they can't give out classified or specific information on unit tactics and movements, or how they go about doing things. Come on, use some common sense here. B, real SEALs, and granted I am not privileged with the honor of wearing a trident and can only hope that I can measure up when I do attempt to achieve one, would have stayed put until the kid was gone and most likely moved on to another position. They most definitely wouldn't have gone running into a village with tons of civilians and military in it... but then again, it's a movie.
shareyeah, ok, you're a real SEAL. sure.
share
Perrin,
I invite you to check my credentials with the NAVAL SPECIAL WARFARE ARCHIVES... www.navyfrogmen.com
I invite you to check my credentials with the POW Network... www.pownetwork.org
I invite you to check my credentials with the UDT-SEAL Association... www.udtseal.org
Don't believe everything you see in the movies! ~S. Robinson
Took a look at 'graduation from SEAL training' picture.
You look kinda like Alfred E. Newman there. Did you get the piss taken out of you because of that?
(Piss taking; Commonwealth jargon for 'Making fun of')
No more than anyone else with oversized ears. I eventually grew into them. The visuals might have viewers thinking that these "graduates" were still boys, or "kids", but I assure you that WAS not, and IS not the case. Recently there was a graduation ceremony for newly-minted SEALs, and a proud father was present. He happened to be standing beside a very high ranking naval officer, and the father commented to the effect that "my boy did what he said he would do, and now here he is... graduating". The naval officer turned to him, shook his hand to congratulate him, and then informed him that "They may look like boys, but I can assure you that only MEN finish this training!"
Don't believe everything you see in the movies! ~S. Robinson
they're not their
shareshadek, thank you for your post and your service.
I believe a recent similar situation can be found in Michael Murphy and Marcus Luttrell's SEAL team during Operation Red Wing:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Luttrell
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Red_Wing
Many warriors paid the ultimate price during that operation. I am not a soldier, but if I am ever called to serve my duty I'm determined to follow in the footsteps of honourable men and women. There are some things which are worth more to me than my own life.
Indiechild... thank you for your comments. Indeed, it was a similar situation which resulted in the deaths of 3 SEALs and the wounding of a 4th SEAL on the ground, and ultimately the deaths of 8 SEALs and 8 SOAR men when the rapid response/rescue helo was downed by an RPG. Operation Redwing lost 19 men in one day - 11 of those were Navy SEALs. It was the worst day in Naval Special Warfare history (except for the WWII D-Day invasion of Normandy and the deaths of NCDU men who went ashore first to destroy the beach obstacles).
The conscious decision to NOT kill civilians, despite the strong conviction that they would inform enemy combatants of their whereabouts, led directly and specifically to the deaths of the 3 SEALs on the ground, and the serious wounding of the 4th - Lone Survivor, Marcus Luttrell. They discussed the decision, and the possible effects it would have, and they STILL decided to release the civilians unharmed. It may not have been the best decision militarily, but it was the correct decision AS A HUMAN BEING.
I've been fortunate to never face such a decision in my own life, and can only hope that if such a circumstance ever arises I will have the fortitude to make the right decision myself.
I am constantly appalled by the statements made by chairborne commandos and movie theater militia-men who spout weapon statistics, loudly proclaim the best "tactics" (including killing civilians), and brazenly declare that "the mission must be completed", despite never having worn a uniform or engaged in anything more adventurous than a shaky walk down a dark city street.
Don't believe everything you see in the movies! ~S. Robinson
Hi shadek.
I have been reading your posts in this thread and they are wise. I never served in any military so I cannot comment on what is right or wrong. My opinion will be based on basic morale and by that, I agree with you.
However, I do have a question to you. From the posts, you mentioned that the SEALs will risk their lives instead of taking a life of an unarmed person (adult or child). Will this be true if the scenario in the movie is real? Where you have a nuclear threat that you need to sabotage without any evidence? In the movie, they had a North Korean general I think who was wise enough to realize what will become if the SEALs get caught. But if they were indeed caught, it would have started a big war between 2 countries (3 if you include South Korea that gets caught in-between North Korea and America). Would you still say it is acceptable to not kill the child and definitely start a war? It may turn into a world war too if other countries decide to intervene.
I'm not judging or anything. I am just curious on what your opinion would be.
Also, I would like to know your opinion on the mistreatment of Iraqi detainees by American Soldiers. And they are not rookies but men who have had experience.
<<-- Mess With The Best, Die Like The Rest -->>
As noted in my previous posts, SEALs are professionals, and they will do everything they are able to prevent collateral damage to innocents. They are human beings, many with wives and children, and they are certainly not going to kill such innocent individuals intentionally.
The purely fictional scenario of the movie presents a situation which is speculative, and it would be inappropriate to grant it recognition as anything more than that. Guessing how professionals might respond in wildly variant situations is a passtime which is certain to generate any number of differing scenarios... and is certainly one of the ways that Hollywierd writers derive their script plots.
As I noted earlier in this very VERY long-lived thread, a group of four Navy SEALs was accidentally discovered by three Afghanistan goat herders in June 2005. One of those three was a young boy. The situation was desperate, tense, and the outcome was certainly a nasty one, no matter how the SEALs viewed it... but they did NOT kill the goat herders. They let them go. The result was that the four SEALs were subsequently attacked by several hundred Taliban militants. Three of the four SEALs were killed. A rescue attempt involving 8 Navy SEALs and 8 US Army SOAR aviators was mounted, but their helicopter was shot down by an RPG, resulting the deaths of all 16 aboard.
The total death toll of friendly forces resulting from letting that those civilians live was 19 men - all highly trained Special Warfare operatives. Yet the decision to spare the lives of those three civilian goat herders (including the boy) has never been faulted or decried by members of the military command or by anyone within the Naval Special Warfare community. The sole survivor of that event - author of the book LONE SURVIVOR - has written that it was the hardest decision of his life, and he wishes they could have done something which would allow his Teammates to still be alive today.
I'm not an Army veteran and I cannot make any informed comments regarding the treatment of detainees by American "soldiers" (i.e. Army personnel)
As far as SEALs purportedly mistreating detainees... there is literally an Al Qaeda training manual which includes instructions to anyone who is captured to immediately claim that he has been mistreated and physically abused by his captors. The three Navy SEALs who were recently accused of mistreating a man they had captured have now REQUESTED Courts Martial, rather than accepting a process known as "Non-Judicial Punishment" (NJP). All three men state that they have been wrongfully accused, and NJP does not provide a scenario wherein a person can present a great deal of evidence to support their innocence. Accepting NJP is widely viewed as an admission of guilt and a tacit acceptance of whatever punishment is handed out by the presiding military official.
A Courts Martial is much more like a civilian court case in which evidence can be presented by both sides to support their claims/arguments. The three SEALs will have a chance to present their side of the story, and a panel of judges will decide the cases on that basis. There is no admission or implication of guilt up front.
I cannot predict the outcome of the trial as I don't have all the information necessary to make such a prediction. I can say that the support of those three SEALs by the entire Naval Special Warfare community is extremely strong. I can also point out that they were sent to apprehend a known terrorist - a man who most certainly did not want to be apprehended. They could have used deadly force, but they intended to bring him back alive if possible, and they succeeded in doing that. I cannot imagine that the man came along willingly, or that he was apprehended without a struggle... a struggle in which he would likely have sustained at least some minor injuries.
Don't believe everything you see in the movies! ~S. Robinson
The purely fictional scenario of the movie presents a situation which is speculative, and it would be inappropriate to grant it recognition as anything more than that. Guessing how professionals might respond in wildly variant situations is a passtime which is certain to generate any number of differing scenarios... and is certainly one of the ways that Hollywierd writers derive their script plots.
As far as SEALs purportedly mistreating detainees... there is literally an Al Qaeda training manual which includes instructions to anyone who is captured to immediately claim that he has been mistreated and physically abused by his captors.
Every conflict is different, every war has it's own special and unique situations, but the overriding truth through it all is that Navy SEALs are human beings. While they may have combat abilities which civilians may liken to those of the Terminator cyborgs in the movies, they are still living, breathing men - men of honor and integrity. If I had ever been presented with a situation like the one you pose, I know that I would not have elected to kill innocents. I am confident that my active duty SEAL brethren are trained and motivated by the same ideals which drove me. Saying more than that would be uselessly speculative.
The treatment of the detainees by Army personnel has been tried in the military courts, and in the court of public opinion. The decisions that were made regarding that situation are a matter of public record and everyone reading them will have to decide for themselves whether they were correct, incorrect, or somewhere in between. I personally find the actions of those personnel to be detestable, and certainly believe them to be "mistreatment"... but I do not believe that their actions were justifiably defined by the word "torture". Again, however, I find those actions detestable.
The recent accusations made by a high-level Al Qaida detainee against the SEALs who captured him were to be expected. I was not present and I do not know the SEALs personally, nor have I heard/read their personal statements. All three have pleaded NOT GUILTY to the charges against them. Unless and until I receive information which makes me believe otherwise, I will presume that my active duty SEAL brethren are telling the truth, and that they are NOT GUILTY of the charges made against them. I can assure you that a Courts Martial situation will not provide any of them with an easy/simple "get out of jail free" opportunity. Both the prosecutors and defenders will have ample opportunities to present their sides of the case. In the current political climate in the US, it seems unlikely that the charges would be dismissed or ignored.
Don't believe everything you see in the movies! ~S. Robinson
If I had ever been presented with a situation like the one you pose, I know that I would not have elected to kill innocents. I am confident that my active duty SEAL brethren are trained and motivated by the same ideals which drove me.
Yes... warfare is neither selective nor discrete. In all the millenia that mankind has engaged in warfare, this has always been the case. Sadly there are always "casualties of war" which go beyond the loses imposed upon enemy combatants by their opponents.
Although collateral damage in the modern age is far less than ever before in human history, the sad fact is that there are still innocents who are injured or killed in every conflict, no matter how well-intentioned the actions of either "side".
-----------------------------
You made the statement "Because when faced with causing a massive destruction of human lives, most people will not hesitate to take an innocent life for the sake of saving millions."
-----------------------------
I must say that I do not believe this to be true. I do NOT believe that "most people" have ever faced or will ever face such a world-changing decision, nor do I believe that "most people" could accurately predict what their actions would be in such an imagined circumstance.
The term "most people" must be viewed as referring to civilians, rather than the much smaller number of personnel who have received some sort of military training. Most situations are intensely "local" in the minds of those who are involved. The things that are happening "to me" always seem more immediate that the things which are happening to "those people" in the next town, the next province, or the "other country".
It's easy enough to see world-changing repercussions in hindsight (like watching a movie about WWII events and knowing when the wrong decisions have been made), and it's easy to decry those decisions when viewed through the lens of history. But it's far different to see such potential effects when one is involved on a personal level. "Most people", most civilians, will never face a decision which goes beyond "local" situations, whether or not those events grow to become "global" situations at some point in the future.
"Most people" are never likely to think that their actions in the moment - at a single point in time - are likely to have ramifications of global political and military significance. People everywhere like to feel that they know how they would react when faced with any number of difficult situations, but when it comes down to the MOMENT... the scant seconds in time in which such a decision is to be made... few will think beyond the actions which will ensure their own survival and those of their companions. About the last thing any untrained military person will consider will be "global ramifications".
Guessing, or making absolute statements in advance about "most people" is purely speculative and cannot be considered accurate or informative in any way.
Don't believe everything you see in the movies! ~S. Robinson
Yes... warfare is neither selective nor discrete. In all the millenia that mankind has engaged in warfare, this has always been the case. Sadly there are always "casualties of war" which go beyond the loses imposed upon enemy combatants by their opponents.
Although collateral damage in the modern age is far less than ever before in human history, the sad fact is that there are still innocents who are injured or killed in every conflict, no matter how well-intentioned the actions of either "side".
-----------------------------
You made the statement "Because when faced with causing a massive destruction of human lives, most people will not hesitate to take an innocent life for the sake of saving millions."
-----------------------------
I must say that I do not believe this to be true. I do NOT believe that "most people" have ever faced or will ever face such a world-changing decision, nor do I believe that "most people" could accurately predict what their actions would be in such an imagined circumstance.
The term "most people" must be viewed as referring to civilians, rather than the much smaller number of personnel who have received some sort of military training. Most situations are intensely "local" in the minds of those who are involved. The things that are happening "to me" always seem more immediate that the things which are happening to "those people" in the next town, the next province, or the "other country".
It's easy enough to see world-changing repercussions in hindsight (like watching a movie about WWII events and knowing when the wrong decisions have been made), and it's easy to decry those decisions when viewed through the lens of history. But it's far different to see such potential effects when one is involved on a personal level. "Most people", most civilians, will never face a decision which goes beyond "local" situations, whether or not those events grow to become "global" situations at some point in the future.
"Most people" are never likely to think that their actions in the moment - at a single point in time - are likely to have ramifications of global political and military significance. People everywhere like to feel that they know how they would react when faced with any number of difficult situations, but when it comes down to the MOMENT... the scant seconds in time in which such a decision is to be made... few will think beyond the actions which will ensure their own survival and those of their companions. About the last thing any untrained military person will consider will be "global ramifications".
Guessing, or making absolute statements in advance about "most people" is purely speculative and cannot be considered accurate or informative in any way.
Don't believe everything you see in the movies! ~S. Robinson
My father served with the British SAS for a six-month stint whilst with the Royal Green Jackets and I know quite a lot about them. Firstly, all Special Forces in the 'modern world' all read from the same book, and rule one is;
MOVE STEADILY AND CAREFULLY, CHECK YOUR SURROUNDINGS AND ALWAYS KEEP YOUR WEAPON NEARBY.
These so called 'Navy SEAL's' look like they actually belong in a circus. In the real world, there is no running around like an action hero, shouting all the time and looking like a 'GungHo Action Figure!' The SAS, when behind enemy lines, move quietly and carefully and do not let someone who has spotted them skip merrily into the distance! Even if they are kids...
'Hey, Just Wanted To Feel The Power Between My Legs Brother!'
RockHound in Armageddon
This reminds me of when I was 5 and playing army with my friends, shouting my army is better than your army.
Catch a grip guys, we're talking about a movie here, is there something wrong with having a bit of artistic licence? Really, if we seen these stories played out as they may work in the real world, would it really be that entertaining?
Back to the original point. Dumb is the wrong term but I felt in the context of the movie the premise that the seals chased this little kid just didn't fit with the macho image they were portraying. I was waiting on them to either shoot him to slow him down or catch him. What really ruined this film for me was the shakey camera as a lot of the time it just made it difficult to see what was going on, what was that all about?!
Just to add my 2 pence...
Elite members of special forces teams are supposed to be highly trained by definition. Why would highly trained individuals run into an enemy village with enemy soldiers? How F*ing stupid are they? and the "We'll take the fight to them" crap - There's 20+ of them and 4 of you - RUN.
I personally have an objection to (and I know I generalise but...) The american Gung-Ho "Yeah let's go in and blow *beep* up" approach. Again, I know that the elite teams will be much more intelligent but it does seem to be the approach of the US Military in general
I was recently watching a documentary on the Falkands, where the british captain was saying in a rather reserved way: "well, it was a bit tough getting across that valley but we made it OK. It did take us quarter of an hour longer than expected though,,," When asked what came next, he said "a cup of tea, I should think."
as opposed to some of the american soliders you see from the gulf war (I admit I couldn't quote verbatim) but something along the lines of "Well, I got 6 or 7 of the ragheads"
I wonder if anyone else sees this as a telling difference?
Back to the film, however, I have to say I thought it was an utter pile of crap. If you have a nuke, you guard it with good troops. If they're good troops, you can't parachute into the middle of the damned base without being spotted.
Totally unrealistic and one that will NEVER be watched by me again. (A pity since I loved the first one)
And WTH did "Axis of Evil" come into it?
FFS.... <mutter>
(Oh and to clarify, I don't mean to detract from what a lot of soldiers had to go through in the gulf, just the attitude that is (apparently) indoctrinated during training...)
yea, British can't function without their tea, and stop in the middle of a mission to make "a cup of tea" and Americans, just get the job done, no offense, but that is what's gathered from the two quotes you just gave me.
shareWow. Pure genius. Do you realise that your post isn't helping the case of Americans much, Mr. SEAL?
shareA. I previously stated I'm not a SEAL. B. You're the pure genius for realizing the irony of the whole thing. He gave 2 quotes from a documentary, he's making fun of the American soldier for stating how many enemy combatants he killed, which would be in effect, doing his job of eliminating the enemy. However he is essential praising the Brits for taking time on a mission to have tea, therefore costing them more time to finish their objective. Doesn't make sense, that's all I'm saying if the objective of war was to drink the most tea, the British would win.
Note: no offense to tea drinkers, I drink it all the time, lol. Didn't want another "genius" to say I'm now attacking tea drinkers.
they most likely would kill the boy in a real life situatiioon.
sharePosted by shadek-1:
War is hell for all involved; not something to be sought or anticipated with relish.
SEALs are professionals... and no professional wants to train like hell for a job and then never get a chance to use the skills. But realistically you know that "doing your job" means employing violence to accomplish your tasking. While there is a chance that your job will entail blowing up a bridge, or disabling a power generator, or some other action directed against an OBJECT or a FACILITY, the chances are that there will be human beings in/around your objective... and that your actions will directly affect them, possibly harm or kill them. There are intelligence-gathering operations where no one is supposed to know that you've been there... and if things go right, they won't. And then there are the jobs that are cut-and-dried "kill the bad guy" operations; no question there about what's supposed to happen.
How do real SEALs deal with these things? Are they rabid, foaming at the mouth, champing at the bit, eager to go kill someone? No... but they are profound professionals. They are eager to do the job they trained to do, to the very best of their ability. Move TO the target, move THROUGH the target, and move on. It's a job.
SEALs are people, not machines, not mindlessly programmed as most movies depict. There's no "deprogramming" when a SEAL leaves the service in order for him to "re-climatize" to "normal" society. Such things happen in the movies, but not in real life. But SEALs and other members of the military ARE provided with counseling when they leave the military... made aware that the way things work in the civilian world are different than what they've seen in the miltary.
Yeah... we want to do the best job we can at whatever we are told to do... just like any other professional in any other job, anywhere.
Don't believe everything you see in the movies! ~S. Robinson
You are dumber than this movie.
share