Another nail in the coffin

freetown fred · By: **freetown fred** On: Thu Nov 15, 2012 11:35 am

Ya know, even IF this or a good portion of other posted BS, is true--BO is laughing his skinny ass off with the amount of division in this Country--you are in doubt---just read all the posts on this FORUM--to perpetuate this kind of division is to say the least--MISSION ACCOMPLISHED--this is MY Country & I will be behind her--NO jpete, not blindly ( please read that part) but behind her! I'm not negating presented facts, but---SO WHAT/// What is the solution???????? Someone mentioned impeachment--be nice, but NOT

We are at each others throats & that saddens me to no end.

KLook · By: **KLook** On: Thu Nov 15, 2012 11:47 am

You say you served, maybe you did, maybe you didn't. Right back at ya. If you did, thank you for your service.
Retired military are out of the loop? Then you must be also. The man in question here received this email from his son, an active duty guy. I have sent an email directly to the son.
IF you are so full of knowledge about such things, what is your take on the ability of the weapons mentioned and the scenario as we know it? Add to the conversation instead of acting like a condescending asshatt. What were your specialties? Gun toter? Truck driver? If you want us to give your opinions great credence because your so awesome, you have to provide proof of such.

Do you deny the ability of the weapon systems I described? Do you deny that the Seal would be only lighting up a target if he knew there was support overhead? Do you deny he was in communication with something and knew what was possible? Fog of war? Do tell instead of just sneering at us.

Kevin

Sorry, I broke protocal and didn't quote davian. That comment is not aimed at you Fred.

Davian · By: **Davian** On: Thu Nov 15, 2012 11:51 am

KLook wrote:You say you served, maybe you did, maybe you didn't. Right back at ya. If you did, thank you for your service.
Retired military are out of the loop? Then you must be also. The man in question here received this email from his son, an active duty guy. I have sent an email directly to the son.
IF you are so full of knowledge about such things, what is your take on the ability of the weapons mentioned and the scenario as we know it? Add to the conversation instead of acting like a condescending asshatt. What were your specialties? Gun toter? Truck driver? If you want us to give your opinions great credence because your so awesome, you have to provide proof of such.

Do you deny the ability of the weapon systems I described? Do you deny that the Seal would be only lighting up a target if he knew there was support overhead? Do you deny he was in communication with something and knew what was possible? Fog of war? Do tell instead of just sneering at us.

Kevin

Yes, I served. I have better things to do with my life than lie on message boards. Here's the difference, I admit that I'm out of the loop. Also, I was a 96B Intelligence Analyst so that's my specialty. I deployed with 10th Mountain to Afghanistan in Oct 2001 (we actually made it in country in Dec 2001 but were in a holding pattern doing deployment prep before that). I deployed again to Iraq in Jan 2004 with 3rd Corps where I was stationed in the Green Zone in Baghdad. I was also a DoD Contractor for several years after I got out during which time I supported intel operations in Iraq/Afghanistan. Also, never said I was awesome so I dont get it.

Here's my point: I dont deny anything but I also dont automatically believe every email sent to me from a friend of a friend of a friend. Using every snippet of a whispered "fact" to create a massive conspiracy theory doesnt help anything.

EDITED FOR TYPOS: I put 2011 instead of 2001 by accident on one of the dates.

I'm On Fire · By: **I'm On Fire** On: Thu Nov 15, 2012 11:54 am

KLook wrote:
Now, considering the embassy had enemy units so close to friendly units that they could physically touch them some would feel that allowing either one of those planes to fire their weapons on a friendly building with friendly units in them? I think the term DANGER CLOSE comes into play here. If there was a special forces unit lasing the target there was no way to know how close the friendly units were. They couldn't talk to one another. Even if they switched to the 25mm cannon the friendly units would be too close to effectively use the weapon. They'd of ended up killing everybody.

What was needed were boots on the ground. They needed to have people for close quarters combat. Using either an AC-130 or a Predator drone would've been considered "over kill" in my book. Yes, it sucks that Americans were killed. Yes, something in the moment should've been done. But using one of these two weapons platforms would not have been the right call. I'm guessing the target was painted in hopes that they were going to be given the green light. But when they considered everything they chose to not risk killing everyone.

Yes, the path they chose to do nothing was the wrong one and they should've had more troops on hand or deployed troops. But I feel lighting up a friendly building with friendlies too close to the enemy using weapons deemed "too large and powerful" would have garnered the same result.

Not true, I just read the Battle for Falujha (spelling) as my nieces husband was in the book, driving one of the Bradleys. In the book they detail repeatedly how the gunships that were ALWAYS overhead at night, could take out insurgents in the yard outside the house the marines were in. The accuracy is unprecedented in anything we have ever deployed. The Seals were killed by mortar rounds and that mortar was not close to the facility. The 130 also could "see" with its night vision system, the insurgents, and would know that anyone outside was not friendly. The Seals knew it was up there and I'll bet anything you like they were in communication with it.

Kevin

They may haven been able to see the "people" involved but they weren't able to differentiate friend or foe. IF there was someone holding a laser designator and painting the target what exactly was he painting? The building? Who was he seeing? He was probably in direct contact with the AC-130 and the pilots for the drone I can almost bet he couldn't walk the rain in from where he was. The people in the embassy were more than likely not in contact with the gunship or the drone crew. I agree, they are incredibly accurate. But you need to know exactly who you are shooting at. There is a reason why neither were used and I'm willing to be that it's because the threat was not clearly defined. The gun crews didn't know who or where to shoot.

Dropping 120 rounds on the embassy would've leveled the building and killed everyone involved. The 40mm rounds would've killed everyone involved. The 25mm would've probably also killed everyone. Same applies to the drone.

Do I think the direction they took with inaction was the right choice? Nope. But would I think them using an AC-130 or a drone to fix the problem is the right choice? Nope.

Think about this, if there was special forces that close to paint the target don't you think they should've went in there instead? I sure as hell do.

But like Freetown says, it's neither here nor there. Until this email is produced or this is brought out into the open like Petraes' (spelling?) lover I'm gonna just chalk this up to a conspiracy theory.

Davian · By: **Davian** On: Thu Nov 15, 2012 11:58 am

They may haven been able to see the "people" involved but they weren't able to differentiate friend or foe.

All the reports show that the actual Al Qaida guys used the protest as a distraction for their hit on the Ambassador...can you imagine the fallout if an AC130 gunship opened up and killed a couple hundred protestors in a sovereign nation? Or even a Reaper with hellfires?

KLook · By: **KLook** On: Thu Nov 15, 2012 12:09 pm

I will gladly back off on any more comments. it is irrelevant anyway.
2 points to make.
1. There was no protest. If our embassy is under attack we have the right to defend.
2. IF they were lighting up a target, which the transcripts show they were, the target was visible to the airborne support. Again, it was a mortar hit, the mortar would have been away from the compound.

Enough hate and discontent, I agree with Fred also. And thank you again for your service.

I'm On Fire · By: **I'm On Fire** On: Thu Nov 15, 2012 12:13 pm

I don't doubt the reports of an all out attack. But the gun crews in the AC-130 and even the guys piloting the Predator/Reaper (Reaper has a completely different payload by the way) would still need to identify targets. Which the guy with the laser does for them. If the guy holding the laser can't clearly identify targets then there is no use in using those weapons.

Also, I'm not being hateful or dicontentful. Just trying to make a point about why those weapons platforms were not being used at the time.

To those on this forum that have served, thank you. You're all braver than me.

KLook · By: **KLook** On: Thu Nov 15, 2012 12:18 pm

Also, I'm not being hateful or dicontentful.

Wasn't pointing a finger. I am as guilty as anyone.

Kevin

Davian · By: **Davian** On: Thu Nov 15, 2012 12:42 pm

KLook wrote:I will gladly back off on any more comments. it is irrelevant anyway.
2 points to make.
1. There was no protest. If our embassy is under attack we have the right to defend.
2. IF they were lighting up a target, which the transcripts show they were, the target was visible to the airborne support. Again, it was a mortar hit, the mortar would have been away from the compound.

Enough hate and discontent, I agree with Fred also. And thank you again for your service.

There was a protest...sure it was a BS one and it had nothing to do with the attack itself but there definitely was a crowd out in front of the Embassy.

Also, such an attack would have been considered an Act of War.

There's a good chance that there was too much potential collateral damage for such a strike by our gunships or drones so I'd go with the guys that made the call at this point. It'll definitely be interesting to see what comes out during the Congressional Inquiries into the issue.

Davian · By: **Davian** On: Thu Nov 15, 2012 12:44 pm

KLook wrote:
Also, I'm not being hateful or dicontentful.

Wasn't pointing a finger. I am as guilty as anyone.

Kevin

I think its a very sensitive subject that allows itself to be easily blown out of proportion for things we say...especially on an internet forum.

lsayre · By: **lsayre** On: Thu Nov 15, 2012 4:54 pm

jpete wrote:
lsayre wrote:Do I smell impeachment here?

I still smell impeachment. See this: http://www.lewrockwell.com/napolitano/n ... o77.1.html

Davian · By: **Davian** On: Thu Nov 15, 2012 5:00 pm

lsayre wrote:
jpete wrote:
lsayre wrote:Do I smell impeachment here?

I still smell impeachment. See this: http://www.lewrockwell.com/napolitano/n ... o77.1.html

Well, from reading the linked article, I spotted a good dozen mistakes/assumptions/complete misunderstandings of how the security clearance process works and how criminal investigations work at the federal level...for what its worth.

buffalo bob · By: **buffalo bob** On: Thu Nov 15, 2012 5:12 pm

I'm On Fire wrote:Two words come to my mind.

"WEAPONS INEFFECTIVE"

Yes, while I agree that something needed to be done before the loss of life and someone needs to be punished (I'm looking at you Mr. President Do Nothing) now for the inaction in the incident but, weapons ineffective seems to be the only reason why neither the drone nor the gunship were used.

Let's think about it.

The armament of the AC-130U Spooky II consists of (if this was the ship on station),

1x 25mm General Dynamics GAU-12/U
1x 40mm L/60 Bofors
1x 105mm M120 Howitzer (same gun on an Abrams Tank)

And the MQ-1 Predator either had:

2x Hellfire missiles
4x Aim 90 Stingers
6x Griffin air to surface missiles.

Now, considering the embassy had enemy units so close to friendly units that they could physically touch them some would feel that allowing either one of those planes to fire their weapons on a friendly building with friendly units in them? I think the term DANGER CLOSE comes into play here. If there was a special forces unit lasing the target there was no way to know how close the friendly units were. They couldn't talk to one another. Even if they switched to the 25mm cannon the friendly units would be too close to effectively use the weapon. They'd of ended up killing everybody.

What was needed were boots on the ground. They needed to have people for close quarters combat. Using either an AC-130 or a Predator drone would've been considered "over kill" in my book. Yes, it sucks that Americans were killed. Yes, something in the moment should've been done. But using one of these two weapons platforms would not have been the right call. I'm guessing the target was painted in hopes that they were going to be given the green light. But when they considered everything they chose to not risk killing everyone.

Yes, the path they chose to do nothing was the wrong one and they should've had more troops on hand or deployed troops. But I feel lighting up a friendly building with friendlies too close to the enemy using weapons deemed "too large and powerful" would have garnered the same result.

correction...abrams has 120mm

Davian · By: **Davian** On: Thu Nov 15, 2012 5:13 pm

He's probably thinking of the original Abrams that did come with a rifled 105 instead of the 120 smoothbore.

CoaLen · By: **CoaLen** On: Thu Nov 15, 2012 5:14 pm

It's not worth much at all unless you explain what those "...dozen mistakes/assumptions/complete misunderstandings" are.
Please.

Another nail in the coffin

Re: Another nail in the coffin

Re: Another nail in the coffin

Re: Another nail in the coffin

Re: Another nail in the coffin

Re: Another nail in the coffin

Re: Another nail in the coffin

Re: Another nail in the coffin

Re: Another nail in the coffin

Re: Another nail in the coffin

Re: Another nail in the coffin

Re: Another nail in the coffin

Re: Another nail in the coffin

Re: Another nail in the coffin

Re: Another nail in the coffin

Re: Another nail in the coffin