Wars

Shellandshilo1956

Active member

Same question, YES or NO? If you believe that we are all free to do the same things now, that we did at the beginning of this year, then you are right, our freedoms and rights have NOT been eroded or suspended. It is all just my imaginary and irrational fear. And, it IS a crappy way to live. So, is it YES or NO?
 

DonDeeHippy

Active member
Would you like me to list all the things that you COULD DO at the beginning of the year, and then list if you can do those same things now?
Nothing has changed in my life now from last year, Not interested in Going overseas, especially not Europe or America at this moment...
notice the world had 500,000 new cases of C-19 yesterday...More and more cases everyday and your still wanting to downplay it, how Trump of you....
 

HBS Guy

Head Honcho
Staff member
Vic is the worst affected State. State Border closures have been an issue for me—but I managed to turn a 3 week visit into a 4 week visit (assuming I can go in Dec.)

I would like to go overseas once my house is built, go through the Suez and Panama canals, spend at least 6 months UK/Europe.
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
Still fear-mongering and peddling half-truths I see. So, 500,000 new cases of Covid-19! Wow, that sounds like a lot of cases in the world! Did you mention that these new infections, only represents 0.006% of the world's population? Of course not! Did you mention, that 99.994% of the world's population is NOT infected at all? Of course not! Did you mention, that out of those 500,000 infected, that 339,479 people will recover? Of course not! Did you also mention that the 1.14M deaths from Covid-19, represents only 2% of the 57M people who die annually? Of course not! You selectively spew-out facts without context or perspective. Just like the government does to the gullible and the ignorant.

What this should be telling you, is that man cannot physically stop, or control a virus from infecting people. And, like all the viruses in the last 70 years, we can only treat the patients, provide the education and resources, and let the virus run its course. Which is exactly what will happen, while governments will just spin it into a victory lap.

I have no doubts that nothing different has changed in YOUR life. But does that mean that nothing has changed in the lives of others? Or, are you now the self-appointed gold standard for society? I am talking about the 99.99% uninfected Australians, who are now being forced to stay 1.5 meters apart, and are not allowed to gather together in groups, without incurring thousands of dollar in fines. Or, can even go to jail. I am talking about the 99.99% of Australians, who would like their freedoms back, to go to parks, beaches, libraries, weddings restaurants, movies, sporting venues, churches, funerals, or to freely travel interstate and abroad. If you can't acknowledge this as a fact, then you are deliberately trying hard not to.

So, again, "Do you really think that our individual freedoms and rights, have NOT been suspended/or eroded? YES or NO?".

Like when you constantly fear the Government are eroding and taking away you rights... what a crap way to live......
You made this comment! Implying that my fears are not real. So, is it YES or NO?
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
American hostage rescued in West Africa by SEAL Team 6 in daring raid
The rescue took place earlier Saturday in northern Nigeria



Great job by U.S. intelligence professionals and SEAL Team 6!

Maybe you should also list the failures of US interventions as well. Just to give a more balanced impression.
 

SethBullock

Moderator
Staff member
Maybe you should also list the failures of US interventions as well. Just to give a more balanced impression.
This was a rescue, not an intervention. Why in the world would I use a successful operation like this to bash my country? Why would I do that?

... unless maybe I hated my country

... which I don't.

Our intelligence professionals and JSOC did great. Salute! 🇺🇲
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
This was a rescue, not an intervention. Why in the world would I use a successful operation like this to bash my country? Why would I do that?
THIS WAS AN INTERVENTION! Or, did the Nigerian Government support, assist, or give their permission for this, "rescue" attempt? Did the American State Department ask the Nigerian Government to investigate this kidnapping? Is the entire Nigerian country lawless? Why was Mr. Walton kidnapped in the first place? Will this practice of sending troops into foreign countries, to free hostages, become the new global norm?

What if an American Businessman living in New Zealand, was kidnapped there and then brought to Australia? His freedom is then ransomed for money? Does this give the US a moral and legal mandate, to send its troops to Australia, kill its Australian citizens/captors, and rescue its citizen? Should all countries adapt this policy?

This is NOT a movie about self-righteous, self-appointed, and morally correct good guys, trampling over the sovereignty of countries, to make the ends justify the means. This is real life. With real international laws being violated, and real lives being lost. It is ironic, that the US routinely pays ransom demands to many criminal organizations and to many armed political groups. Yet, they somehow needed to send in troops on foreign soil in this case? Do you think that this practice would make the world a safer place? Or, is the message here, just not to mess with us, or our citizen? This is just a form of government sanctioned Anarchy and Vigilantism!!

Why in the world would I use a successful operation like this to bash my country? Why would I do that?
Because you are a moral and honest person, and not a victim of confirmation bias, or cognitive dissonance. Because you value truth over belief. Because the ends don't always justify the means. Because you are NOT a naïve blind nationalist fanatic. And, because telling the truth is NOT bashing. I'm sure you are not saying, that anyone who points out the inconvenient truth, should be censored, or should be labeled as hating their country. This was one of the public control strategies, out of Joseph Goebbels's propaganda playbook.

Our intelligence professionals and JSOC did great. Salute!
Don't get me wrong. I am very happy that Mr. Walton was rescued from his kidnappers. But to ignore violating so many international and civil laws, so many rights of sovereignties, the killing of foreign citizens, and the obvious slippery slopes that this action will create, can never justify the ends.

A much better scenario would have been, to privately fund a rescue attempt that was NOT openly sanctioned by the government(now the government must rescue every hostage kidnapped), through it black ops. If their attempt succeeded, then the group should simply go through the motions of being prosecuted by the government, for their illegal actions. And then be commended for their actions later. I would be more okay with that option. How do you think the Americans still in Nigeria will be treated NOW?!!! Even though the kidnappers killed by the Americans in Nigeria were criminals, they were still Nigerians. And they might have the same blind loyalty as you do.
 

HBS Guy

Head Honcho
Staff member

SethBullock

Moderator
Staff member
@Shellandshilo1956 In 2012 the U.S. Navy SEALs rescued Richard Phillips, the captain of the merchant ship Maersk, from Somali pirates who had kidnapped him. I suppose you were against that operation too?

How about the 2012 rescue of Jessica Buchanan and Paol Thisted in Somalia?

And the raid on Osama bin Laden's compound in Pakistan?

Nigeria and Niger are third world countries. Neither country possesses the assets the U.S. has to successfully pull off a mission like this. The comparison you made to Australia and New Zealand was ridiculous.

You said, "This is NOT a movie about self-righteous, self-appointed, and morally correct good guys, trampling over the sovereignty of countries, to make the ends justify the means. This is real life."

Yes, this is real life, not some academic exercise in the application of international law.

"With real international laws being violated, and real lives being lost."

Losing one's life is a risk one takes when one decides to become a kidnapper.

"It is ironic, that the US routinely pays ransom demands to many criminal organizations and to many armed political groups. Yet, they somehow needed to send in troops on foreign soil in this case? Do you think that this practice would make the world a safer place?"

Oh yes. It does make our citizens safer. Paying ransoms only encourages more kidnappings. Killing the kidnappers discourages kidnappings of U.S. citizens.

"Or, is the message here, just not to mess with us, or our citizen?"

It does send that message, but the primary goal was to rescue the hostage. The message it sends is a biproduct.

"This is just a form of government sanctioned Anarchy and Vigilantism!!"

This operation was neither of those things, and it was pulled off professionally and perfectly.

🇺🇲
 

DonDeeHippy

Active member
did they have Nigeria's permision to do this.. If not it was illegal and Bulling, just a stunt for Trump a few days from election time...If they did it with Nigeria's blessing then well done....
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
And the raid on Osama bin Laden's compound in Pakistan?
The raid on Abbortabad(Pakistan) was made possible by a rogue Pakistani intelligence agent. And, through blackmail, threats of rescinding foreign aid, and through the violations of U.N. Security Council Resolutions 1267 and 1373. The US used these resolutions to justify their actions in Abbottabad, totally ignoring the Pakistani sovereignty. Pakistan’s protests about the clear violation of its sovereignty. But when the US claimed that Pakistan was complicit in hiding bin Laden for 5 years, which would risk them losing 6 Billion dollars in US aid, they shut up, bent over, and took it for the money. Since the operation was NOT about rescuing any hostages, I don't see any relevance here. Since you only want to post successful hostage operations, here are just a few not-so successful operations.

How about the FAILED hostage rescue to save Linda Norgrove and her 3 colleagues(2010) in Afghanistan? Not only was the rescue attempt a failure, but she was killed by the seal team member's grenade. He faced disciplinary actions.

How about the FAILED hostage rescue attempt to save 4 Americans being held by Somali pirates(2011)? The seals team followed the Yacht for 3 days before boarding the yacht. It was too late for all 4 hostages.

How about the FAILED hostage rescue attempt to save Timothy Weeks, an Australian, and Kevin King, an American(2016)? Both were eventually released on a prisoner swap in 2019.

How about the FAILED hostage rescue attempt to save Kayla Muella from ISIS(2015)? She was eventually killed by them.

How about the FAILED hostage rescue attempt to save Pierre Somers Korkie and Luke Somers, from Al-Qaeda fighter in Yemen(2014)? Both were killed during the rescue attempt.

How about the FAILED hostage rescue attempt, to save 52 captives at the American Embassy(1980) in Tehran(operations eagle claw)? 18 of the hostages died.

How about the FAILED rescue attempt during the "Black Hawk Down" incident(1993)? 18 American soldiers dead, and 73 soldiers injured.

How about the FAILED hostage rescue attempt to save 14 captives, being held in Syria by ISIS(2014)? Three Americans were beheaded.

You said, "This is NOT a movie about self-righteous, self-appointed, and morally correct good guys, trampling over the sovereignty of countries, to make the ends justify the means. This is real life."
What I actually said was,

"This is NOT a movie about self-righteous, self-appointed, and morally correct good guys, trampling over the sovereignty of countries, to make the ends justify the means. This is real life. With real international laws being violated, and real lives being lost.".

But I do agree that,

"This is real life, not some academic exercise in the application of international law.". "With real international laws being violated, and real lives being lost."

This certainly was NOT an academic exercise in the application of international , or civil law. This was a blatant violation of both laws on foreign soil. I'm sure you can agree the the US can't simply self-appoint itself as the world's police, judge, jury, and executioner.

Real life is also defined by its successes and its failures. Not just its successes. You are still ignoring the slippery slope that the violating international and civil laws, and the sovereignty of countries can create. Should all countries adapt this practice, and have their own delta force on standby??

Losing one's life is a risk one takes when one decides to become a kidnapper.
I didn't know that kidnapping WAS a capital offence in the US since 1968. But it is in many countries that we consider as evil, backwards, or third-world. Do we shoot people on sight for kidnapping in the US? But on foreign soil, I guess its okay. Did you know that there is no capital punishment in Russia?

Oh yes. It does make our citizens safer. Paying ransoms only encourages more kidnappings. Killing the kidnappers discourages kidnappings of U.S. citizens.
Has capital punishment in the US deterred the numbers of murders?

My father use to tell me, "two wrongs do not make a right.". The illegal means of our actions, will never justify the results of our actions. The US routinely pays ransoms, and makes backroom deals with other countries and terrorists(Saudi Arabia). Would you like the list? How do you think we averted the Cuban Missile Crisis? Do you think that it was because we didn't back down? And, were prepared to destroy the world? I also think that Americans illegally entry into Nigeria, and killing of Nigerian citizens, to rescue their own citizens, without government knowledge or approval, will certainly have a negative affect on the other Americans still living there. Not make them safer! IMHO.

Nigeria and Niger are third world countries. Neither country possesses the assets the U.S. has to successfully pull off a mission like this. The comparison you made to Australia and New Zealand was ridiculous.
It doesn't matter how you want to characterize these nations. All nations, rich or poor, third-world underdeveloped or first-world developed, should all have the same right of sovereignty. My comparison had nothing to do with the wealth of these nations. That is your straw man, and your "third-world" red herring. The US has ZERO RIGHTS to judge the assets/resources of any country. And, then use that as an excuse for violating the country's sovereignty. "Since you can't do it, we'll do it for you.".

If you believe that America should have "carte blanche" world police powers, then I totally disagree with you. If you don't think that the sending of special tactical units to rescue hostages in other countries, is not a real-life extension of some B-grade delta commando movie, then I also disagree with you. This is just another form of government-sanctioned politicized vigilantism. Which can only lead to the entire world protecting its own, and ignoring the sovereign rights of other countries and its people. And the countries least able to defend themselves, will be the most bullied.
 

SethBullock

Moderator
Staff member
The raid on Abbortabad(Pakistan) was made possible by a rogue Pakistani intelligence agent. And, through blackmail, threats of rescinding foreign aid, and through the violations of U.N. Security Council Resolutions 1267 and 1373. The US used these resolutions to justify their actions in Abbottabad, totally ignoring the Pakistani sovereignty. Pakistan’s protests about the clear violation of its sovereignty. But when the US claimed that Pakistan was complicit in hiding bin Laden for 5 years, which would risk them losing 6 Billion dollars in US aid, they shut up, bent over, and took it for the money. Since the operation was NOT about rescuing any hostages, I don't see any relevance here. Since you only want to post successful hostage operations, here are just a few not-so successful operations.

How about the FAILED hostage rescue to save Linda Norgrove and her 3 colleagues(2010) in Afghanistan? Not only was the rescue attempt a failure, but she was killed by the seal team member's grenade. He faced disciplinary actions.

How about the FAILED hostage rescue attempt to save 4 Americans being held by Somali pirates(2011)? The seals team followed the Yacht for 3 days before boarding the yacht. It was too late for all 4 hostages.

How about the FAILED hostage rescue attempt to save Timothy Weeks, an Australian, and Kevin King, an American(2016)? Both were eventually released on a prisoner swap in 2019.

How about the FAILED hostage rescue attempt to save Kayla Muella from ISIS(2015)? She was eventually killed by them.

How about the FAILED hostage rescue attempt to save Pierre Somers Korkie and Luke Somers, from Al-Qaeda fighter in Yemen(2014)? Both were killed during the rescue attempt.

How about the FAILED hostage rescue attempt, to save 52 captives at the American Embassy(1980) in Tehran(operations eagle claw)? 18 of the hostages died.

How about the FAILED rescue attempt during the "Black Hawk Down" incident(1993)? 18 American soldiers dead, and 73 soldiers injured.

How about the FAILED hostage rescue attempt to save 14 captives, being held in Syria by ISIS(2014)? Three Americans were beheaded.



What I actually said was,

"This is NOT a movie about self-righteous, self-appointed, and morally correct good guys, trampling over the sovereignty of countries, to make the ends justify the means. This is real life. With real international laws being violated, and real lives being lost.".

But I do agree that,

"This is real life, not some academic exercise in the application of international law.". "With real international laws being violated, and real lives being lost."

This certainly was NOT an academic exercise in the application of international , or civil law. This was a blatant violation of both laws on foreign soil. I'm sure you can agree the the US can't simply self-appoint itself as the world's police, judge, jury, and executioner.

Real life is also defined by its successes and its failures. Not just its successes. You are still ignoring the slippery slope that the violating international and civil laws, and the sovereignty of countries can create. Should all countries adapt this practice, and have their own delta force on standby??



I didn't know that kidnapping WAS a capital offence in the US since 1968. But it is in many countries that we consider as evil, backwards, or third-world. Do we shoot people on sight for kidnapping in the US? But on foreign soil, I guess its okay. Did you know that there is no capital punishment in Russia?



Has capital punishment in the US deterred the numbers of murders?

My father use to tell me, "two wrongs do not make a right.". The illegal means of our actions, will never justify the results of our actions. The US routinely pays ransoms, and makes backroom deals with other countries and terrorists(Saudi Arabia). Would you like the list? How do you think we averted the Cuban Missile Crisis? Do you think that it was because we didn't back down? And, were prepared to destroy the world? I also think that Americans illegally entry into Nigeria, and killing of Nigerian citizens, to rescue their own citizens, without government knowledge or approval, will certainly have a negative affect on the other Americans still living there. Not make them safer! IMHO.



It doesn't matter how you want to characterize these nations. All nations, rich or poor, third-world underdeveloped or first-world developed, should all have the same right of sovereignty. My comparison had nothing to do with the wealth of these nations. That is your straw man, and your "third-world" red herring. The US has ZERO RIGHTS to judge the assets/resources of any country. And, then use that as an excuse for violating the country's sovereignty. "Since you can't do it, we'll do it for you.".

If you believe that America should have "carte blanche" world police powers, then I totally disagree with you. If you don't think that the sending of special tactical units to rescue hostages in other countries, is not a real-life extension of some B-grade delta commando movie, then I also disagree with you. This is just another form of government-sanctioned politicized vigilantism. Which can only lead to the entire world protecting its own, and ignoring the sovereign rights of other countries and its people. And the countries least able to defend themselves, will be the most bullied.
First of all, Pakistan was complicit in sheltering bin Laden, and, therefore, they lost their protections from being raided by U.S. forces. I'm not saying they lost them as a legal matter. I'm saying they lost them as a moral and practical matter. There's are old sayings that explain it ... "If you play stupid games, you win stupid prizes" ... and .... "If you act like an asshole, you may expect to get treated like one."

Second, the fact that there were failed attempts in the past does nothing to take away from the success of this one.

Next, third world countries like Nigeria simply do not have the intelligence assets and highly trained and well equipped operators that the U.S. has. They have literally no track record of success in pulling off operations like this one. This means that your choice would be to leave our American citizen at the mercy of the criminals who kidnapped him, which would include the possibility of them selling him to ISIS or some other similar terrorist group. Or maybe you think it would have been smart to just pay the kidnappers the $1 million they were asking for him. As I told you before, I think that course would only encourage more kidnappings and, therefore, that would be foolish and irresponsible.

Finally, I have said over and over on this website that I do not want the U.S. to act as the world's policeman. Before the primaries, I registered as a Democrat for the sole purpose of being able to vote for Tulsi Gabbard whose foreign policy I agree with. Generally, I don't agree with Democrats, and I pan them frequently in my comments. But I like Tulsi Gabbard, and so I voted for her in the Democratic Presidential primary election. So ... you may know forget about accusing me of wanting to be the world's policeman.

That does not mean I don't agree with doing whatever we can to protect our citizens abroad. And that includes rescuing them if necessary using our very professional and amazing Special Forces.

I salute them for their bravery and professionalism. 🇺🇸
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
"If you play stupid games, you win stupid prizes" ... and .... "If you act like an asshole, you may expect to get treated like one."
We are not talking about people. We are talking about governments. As long as governments play stupid, or acts like assholes within its own sovereignty, it is none of my business. It is the business of the people of that government. We have no right to impose our own moral or ethical standards onto any sovereign government. This is the height of arrogance and hypocrisy. What do you think visitors think of America, when the see beggars outside of the post office? See the homeless on the streets, benches, gutters, or in doorways? See all the people willing to sacrifice their dignity, for a 15-20% tip? Or, see all the graffiti, slum-dwellings, beggars, drug addicts, and garbage, throughout the major cities? Do you think they come away with the idea, that America is the rich land of opportunity and dreams, that they see in the movies? We really need to clean up our own act first. We are becoming the real terrorists.

I never said or implied, that you believed that the US should act as the world's policeman. My statement was conditional. No rational person would. However, you can't have it both ways. You can't applaud their police actions on foreign soil, and then make excuses for the illegality of their actions. If you think the US should conduct police actions on foreign soil, without the knowledge or approval of that government, then you DO approve of America acting as the world's policeman(regardless of the reason). Therefore, America's statutory jurisdiction is global. And can be invoked anywhere, anytime, and for any reason. Screw negotiations, sovereignty, and mutual cooperation. Is this what you are advocating? Should we send out the troops to rescue any Americans kidnapped, murdered, tortured, harassed, or even refused service in another country? Where will it end? Maybe you should volunteer for one of those missions.

Claiming that we have more intelligence, resources, training, and financial assets, still doesn't give us the right to ignore a country's sovereignty, kill its people, and do whatever we want in their country. And, you know it! Especially when there are other options available to us.

Next, third world countries like Nigeria simply do not have the intelligence assets and highly trained and well equipped operators that the U.S. has. They have literally no track record of success in pulling off operations like this one. This means that your choice would be to leave our American citizen at the mercy of the criminals who kidnapped him, which would include the possibility of them selling him to ISIS or some other similar terrorist group. Or maybe you think it would have been smart to just pay the kidnappers the $1 million they were asking for him. As I told you before, I think that course would only encourage more kidnappings and, therefore, that would be foolish and irresponsible.
Really Seth, stop watching those Chucky Norris Delta Force, and Rambo hostage rescue movies. They are not a true depiction of reality. You are talking about illegally sending a real military team into a foreign country, to rescue an American hostage. The only logistics you need is where the hostage is, and the information on the captors. And, who would know this information, better than the locals in the area? And, who would know the locals better than the local police? Cooperation is paramount here.

So unless America has a mindreading locator asset, then basics policing will work just fine. Give third world policing a bit more credit. Especially, in a country with an over 600,000 manned police force(Nigeria). It is also amazing just how effective a reward can be in these third-world countries.

I think even Barney Fife, Chester Goode, and a few deputies, could have easily rescued this American from his kidnappers Once his location was ascertained. Words like "assets", and "resources", are sometimes overrated. And, only sound impressive for the narrative. Like all those laser-guided missiles that missed their target. Why are the rebel fighters in Yemen still winning against all the US backed military assets and resources? Maybe they have more assets then we know?

The US pays ransom demands, and negotiates with terrorists, all the time. This article might explain why hostage recovery is not that simple.

.
 

DonDeeHippy

Active member
Did USA have permission from Nigeria to do the operation......If they did Seth is right, If not Shell.
None of the reports I've read have mentioned it....
 

Shellandshilo1956

Active member
Sounds like it.

 
Top