Would you have let them go like he did? Would you have tied them up and let them rot in the forest? What about taking them with you?
Or would you have killed them?
Me personally i would've killed them. Taking them with me would be the 2nd closest option but i would be dragging ass if i took them with me and my crew.
Killing them and covering it up would suck but it's really the only ideal solution.
I think the best option in my opinion would be to tie them up and get the hell out of there and take their phone/comm device with me. They were goat herders and that path was likely traveled regularly; otherwise they wouldn't have been there. So they would have been found within a day or two days tops. I would have felt confident that I wasn't leaving them there to starve to death. I think they would have been found and it would have bought the team enough time to make contact and get extracted.
shareWhat happens when goats start showing up with no herders? What happens if they freeze to death over night? It's a Taliban hunting party any way.
Bottom line is, with no comms, they were screwed, and on unfamiliar ground, where the enemy had superior numbers working and radios...
Still better chances than letting them go. And the herder's chances of survival would have been better than if they had just killed them. But if someone were standing there trying to tell me that tying them up wouldn't work I'd just opt for killing them.
shareYes, and when you are very publicly court-martialed for what you very well know are cowardice and warcrimes under both US and international law, your humiliated country, comrades, and family will live on with the shame of the way you disgraced yourself AND them...That as one of the best-trained sailors/combat operators in one of Earth's best militaries, that all of those millions of dollars and countless hours spent in training were really just a giant waste spent on a selfish coward who resorts to plugging unarmed peasant children and old men herding a flock of sheep. How often are we regaled with the heroic exploits of the Waffen-SS so bravely shooting all those bystanders and POWs?
Three words: Geneva. Leavenworth. Gallows.
They had a 2 way radio. Why do goat herders need 2 way radios? They are obviously connected to the taliban if not taliban themselves. These terrorists recruit kids. I think I saw one of the teens as their hunter. Bystanders, they are not. Obvious proof was that the taliban was quickly all over the place after letting them go.
Leaders NEED to make tough decisions, even if they do not WANT that decision.
And worse comes to worst, getting court marshalled is still a lot better than getting massacred by the talibans. Not only 3 got killed but a whole group of army (in the helicopter) got killed because of that bad decision.
In the end, the sad reality is that the three soldiers that died in the firefight more or less traded in their lives for that of the three in the woods. And you can bet that if the shoe were on the other foot, the Taliban would've killed Americans before giving up their mission/position.
shareThat is true, but like Whalberg's character said, had they shot them and buried them or whatever, they would likely have been found dead and an investigation would have led to those soldiers ending up on the news for killing an innocent unarmed child, a teenager, and an elderly man... it doesn't look too good. I think they should have left them in the woods tied up... it would have bought them time and those guys would have been found eventually. It was a better risk than letting them go and risking their lives.
shareI can understand why they weren't executed...the Rules of Engagement, but I still don't understand why they weren't tied up. There appears a reasonable chance they would have survived / been found and it would have given the group a greater head start.
May be the book which I haven't read goes into greater depth on Murphy's decision.
Totally would have let them go after I broke their legs.
shareMe personally i would've killed them. Taking them with me would be the 2nd closest option but i would be dragging ass if i took them with me and my crew.
I don't get this kind of complaint. It is extremely easy to kill unarmed civilians. I would have no trouble doing it.
The issue is fear of getting court martialed and sent away. The act itself is extremely easy. Honestly!
I don't get this kind of complaint. It is extremely easy to kill unarmed civilians. I would have no trouble doing it.
The issue is fear of getting court martialed and sent away. The act itself is extremely easy. Honestly!
That is exactly what I said, isn't it? Do you know how to read?
The issue is the Court Martial and not the physical killing itself.
Yeah I read what you wrote but I also added that if it got out that SEALs or any US Armed Forces in Afghanistan execute two unarmed, peaceful goat herders and a kid it would be a massive political SH.TSTORM especially when the Afghans barely trust ISAF as it is!
The act itself is extremely easy. Honestly!
Yes, but if you are in deep sh*t, sometimes you care more about yourself than the country. Right? So some people might be for it, while others might not.
Yup. If it isn't me or anybody I like, then it is all good. I am in a government militia and have basic firearms training. I know how to shoot. Not an expert or anything though, didn't get marksman qualifications either. But shooting unarmed civilians is easy. Heck, they are tied up.
I am in a government militia
Er... exactly what it sounds like? Your version is known as the National Guard. Essentially, an Army Reserve to be called up during times of war. No active war deployment otherwise.
shareSlight bit of a side topic. Is there something wrong with people? Why are people so doubtful about the willingness of others to murder people in cold blood?
Are you lot serious? There are numerous news reports of people being murdered for the change in their wallets. Why do you think that people won't murder innocent people if it can save their own asses?
I feel that you people are posing a bit, acting as if you are more righteous. If your ass is on the line, sure you won't murder someone to save your ass? I am not saying it is right, I am saying that self preservation comes first.
Are you lot serious? There are numerous news reports of people being murdered for the change in their wallets. Why do you think that people won't murder innocent people if it can save their own asses?
If your ass is on the line, sure you won't murder someone to save your ass? I am not saying it is right, I am saying that self preservation comes first.
The concept isn't that they murder a bunch of people for fun. The concept is that they murder a bunch of people to save their own asses.
And yes, as I said, fear of court martial is the thing. But the killing itself is easy.
The concept isn't that they murder a bunch of people for fun. The concept is that they murder a bunch of people to save their own asses.
And yes, as I said, fear of court martial is the thing. But the killing itself is easy.
You're just a f.cking keyboard warriorCompletely disagree. I am an actual (very low quality) warrior. I have received formal combat training by the national army of my country. I have a formal military rank (very low rank though). I retain membership in the government militia. I am entirely entitled to make such a claim.
you are a sociopathI suspect that I am close to being a sociopath, while not meeting the formal definition. I certainly am very ready to inflict violence if it meets my goals (which it very rarely does, in our civilised society). Let's be conservative, and just say that I am more open to violence than the typical person. share
These are unarmed civilians who are tied up. If I falsely claimed to be able to defeat SEALs, this would be bullsh*t. I would get my ass kicked. Poorly trained militia does not stand up to Special Forces.
I suspect that I am close to being a sociopath, while not meeting the formal definition. I certainly am very ready to inflict violence if it meets my goals (which it very rarely does, in our civilised society). Let's be conservative, and just say that I am more open to violence than the typical person.
These are unarmed civilians who are tied up.
So basically you're now what WE call a Reservist. So be proud and patriotic and tell me what country that you "retain membership in the government militia"? I will then happily tell you mine...Yup. Militia <=> reserve army
you could probably shoot a 3 year old in the head and sleep like a babyProbably not, for me. Not quite that far along on the violence spectrum.
but if you can't then you should be spending a long time in a military prisonI will weight my chances and do what I think is best for me. My government is obliged not to deploy me other than for self-defence during active war. Thus, either I am murdering people who invaded my country (tough luck for them) or my government broke its bond to me (in which case, screw them).
If you are an American, then think National Guard. Why should I go first? Why would you even want such personal details? Low ranking member of a militia is about as modest a claim as there can be, no?
The recruitment standards were loosened severely to fulfil the quotas, and many less-than-fully-stable people were permitted to enlist. You may even have personal experience working with them.
[Do not think National Guard, where the US regularly deploy them for active war deployments. My country does not invade others, we leave others the fu*k alone]
See that's where your ignorance starts, I'm not an AmericanEr... You don't understand the word "If"?
Because I want to see if your country has the balls to send troops, intelligence or even just military assets e.g. Aerial Refuelling Tankers in support of missions that would save "Western lives" or you sit back and let other Allied or NATO Nations do the dirty work in all the failed States and Islamic State controlled or dominated countries aka Failed States like Libya.My country is not a high profile terrorist target. There is little benefit to us in attacking terrorists. May even make us a target. Hence, there is no reason why we should risk ourselves for you people. You owe the US your support since you are their treaty allies.
What are you from Switzerland?Sort of, similar. No wars in my country's modern history. We don't fu*k with you, you better not fu*k with us. share
My country is not a high profile terrorist target.
You owe the US your support since you are their treaty allies.
Sort of, similar. No wars in my country's modern history. We don't fu*k with you, you better not fu*k with us.
You feel bad about being so beholden to the US and want to validate yourself by thinking that other countries must therefore suck. That is not my problem.
How can the greatness of my country be material to the question of whether you are willing to eliminate witnesses to a insertion operation, so as to preserve your own lives?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are wealthy (GDP per capita, PPP basis, according to listing by IMF / World Bank) with a diverse economy in manufacturing and services, and peaceful. While we enjoy American support, I do not consider us heavily beholden to the US. Instead we bargain with them to get the best (economic, security, other aspects...) deal we can extract. Certainly, we are not obliged by binding treaty to support them militarily.
Whatever problems you may have in your country, I assure you the solution is not to tear down other countries. Instead, seek to mend what is broken. And think about engaging in fewer wars, since I imagine that may be beneficial.
Killing the innocents to protect a mission may sound simple after the fact, but if you were there, I'm willing to bet that the decision would be very, very difficult. Most people would argue as Luttrell did in the movie.
shareI thought they were about to, and was surprised when they did NOT ... but I would have knocked them out with the butts of their guns. Yes, you MIGHT kill them even just trying to knock them out, but probably not and it would buy you a lot of time.
Second choice would be to take them up the hill with me, then release AFTER I had made radio contact.
Third, maybe handicap them with some well place silenced shots to the leg(s). Actually, this might be tied for first now that I think more about it.
All 20/20 hindsight of course, sitting in the comfort of my home. Don't even know how it really went down or IF the goat-herders were the reason for sure. I need to read the book ... even then, might not know.
I would have marched them at gun point to somewhere I could get a signal with that antenna. Eventually the old man would not have been able to continue, and I would have let him go, figuring it would take him forever to alert the Taliban, and he might even hesitate for fear of what might happen to his kids.
It seemed like a possibility in the movie, but I assume in real life it was not, otherwise that is what they would have done, and I don't pretend to more fully comprehend the situation than the guys who were there.
I wouldn't have executed them though. If we are going to start executing unarmed civilians as well, then what's the point?
______________________
Noah's Ark is a problem.
To save your own ass. That is the point.
shareI would have broken the kids' ankles and then send them on their way.
share