Skip to comments.US: Strike kills militants who downed US chopper (JUSTICE and REVENGE!)
Posted on 08/10/2011 7:57:45 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
An air strike by NATO-led forces in Afghanistan killed Taliban fighters, including a local leader, who were responsible for a weekend helicopter crash that killed 38 troops, the worst single incident in 10 years of war.
"We dealt with them in a kinetic strike," General John Allen, the commander of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, told reporters at the Pentagon.
Gen. Allen said the military tracked the Taliban fighters for several days after the helicopter went down. Forces reportedly trailed the fighters to a position in Chak District, Wardak Province, and then US F-16s struck and killed them Tuesday.
"The strike killed Taliban leader Mullah Mohibullah and the insurgent who fired the shot associated with the Aug. 6 downing of the CH-47 helicopter, which resulted in the deaths of 38 Afghan and coalition service members," the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force said in a statement.
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
Thanks for the posts.
The same person they found their flight out from, is the same person that flipped our guys.
Bank on it.
Okay - been reading differing stories on it. I usually wait several days for a story to settle out but thought I’d just mention it.
Who is the Idiot who put those lousy Afghans with Our special forces? They need to resign.
I hope I am very very wrong. I just hate how the puzzle pieces fit so darn well.
Nope. The story changed. They were not there to rescue Rangers.
All I need to see is the wreckage. Has anyone seen stills/scenes of the wreckage?
“Nope. The story changed. They were not there to rescue Rangers.”
Thanks. That new story makes more sense than the “rescue” mission first reported.
I, like you, would like to see photos of the undisturbed wreckage. I don’t think a single RPG could bring down a Chinhook in such a rapid manner. It sounds more like a surface to air missile. We will probably not know the whole truth until many years after the fact.
I would feel more comfortable if it turned out that the mission was a rushed job that went sour (a lucky shot by a bad guy), than a planned one that resulted in an ambush because of intel leaks.
Either way the poor souls are dead, but a “screw-up” verses a betrayal is easier to deal with to me. In the haste of war...screw-ups are to be expected....although always tragic.
A not related gripe from me. In the Washington Times article you referenced I got this quote:
We tracked them, as we would in the aftermath of any operation, and we dealt with them with a kinetic strike, he said. And in the aftermath of that, we have achieved certainty that they in fact were killed in that strike.
I’m still an Army Reservist and the term “kinetic strike” is very irritating to me. Typically these days the Ops types seem to want have to have neat sounding terminology. Every time a new manual comes out (getting very frequent) someone has changed the acronymns or created new terms for previous ones that were just fine. I think someone at the Pentagon is hired just to come up with new terms on a regular basis. That is one job they can cut out of DoD at no harm to the force....the terminology developers.
Secondly....just how did they “verify” they were killed by the “kinetic” strike. Did someone count the grease stains?
I have no doubt you were amused. It’s easy to be amused when other, better people are under orders to do a job that you yourself lack the courage to do yourself.
Having served in the military myself I can assure you that I too believe inn them. What I don’t believe in is the mission. That is possible, you know. If our Government truly wanted to protect us from those psycopathic followers of Satan we’d be killing them in job lots from the air until not a single one was left. But that’s not the goal of our Government here. The goal is ‘nation building’, something that Bush promised he wouldnt do. Remember that?
We aren’t fighting to save them from tyranny. If we were we’d have made that clear already. Instead we allow their government to prosecute people for converting to Christianity. That doesn’t sound like saving them from tyranny to me. Does it to you?
And let me give you a free clue. The military believes in following orders no matter how stupid or impossible those orders are.
If you want to save souls by all means get out your checkbook and buy a sack of bibles and a plane ticket. Let us know how that works out for you. But don’t tell me our guys are bleeding and dying to save souls. If you said that to their faces they’d laugh you off the fire base.
They’re there because that’s where they were sent and they’re fighting to save their lives and the life of their brothers and sisters in arms. Period. If you took a vote of the guys actually getting shot at they’d vote for round the clock B-52 strikes until nothing was left twitching.
So spare us the sanctimonious we are fighting for their souls BS. The last time I read the Constitution there wasn’t a single word in it about nding our guys half way around the world to fight and die for someones soul.
You mis-understand the purpose of the US military.
The purpose of the US military is to protect US interests, not to save people from brutality and tyrrany.
Both of my Marine sons understand that. Your Bronze star boy likely does too.
If you ever actually care to know what I was talking about, let me know. Until then, by all means, continue with your misguided obscenity and your jumping to wild and completely absurd conclusions.
btw, I'm female and too old to have served in the military, so don't give me any of your garbage about my lack of 'courage.' (It takes a lot of courage to have a teenaged son in harm's way.....not that the truth matters to you).
Like I said, if you ever want to know what I think and not what you imagine that I think, do let me know.
The same occurred in WWII. The two goals are not mutually exclusive.
Not mutually exclusive, but saving innocent lives is a consequence of asserting US interests with the US military, not a purpose.
What your son did and mine are doing by promoting US interests may have resulted in saving innocent lives. Saving innocent lives alone is not to be confused with the definition of what constitutes US interests outside of promoting a defined US interest.
Your son's primary mission, as is the mission of my own sons', is to protect US interests. Period. Saving innocent people is often the outcome and consequence of US intervention, but never is it a solely defined purpose.
If a COC attempts to use US military assets solely for the purpose of saving innocent non-American citizens' lives absent a direct US interest for doing so, he has mis-appropriated those resources for a purpose not authorized in the Constitution.
The US military is not a global social program which exists to alleviate the suffering of the world's tyrrany-oppressed peoples.
What is a “kinetic” strike? Did we drop a bunch of “kinetics” on the enemy? By the way, what is a “kinetic”? It’s not in my handbook of US Ordnance.
When you knock down all ten pins in bowling, is that a kinetic strike”?
How about swinging and missing three pitches in a row?
I’d say that dropping several tons of napalm on the enemy’s ass would qualify as “kinetic” as long as they were fried beyond recognition, but we don’t have “nap” anymore.
Time for the military to drop Obama’s propaganda/disinformation terminology and just say we bombed the shit out of them and they are very dead.
Patton would have said that!
Watch up to 3 minutes, see if anything sounds familiar.
Thank you for such clarity...very well stated IMO.
Double dittos. This shit is never going to end w/ those freaks.
The good Col. ain't buyin' this tale.
His exact opening words were "I'm very skeptical."
He gave all the reasons why.
Apparently my use of the word 'save' in believing that part of our interest in stopping the Taliban from allowing terrorists to control Afghanistan and launch other deadly attacks on US soil includes saving the lives of innocent Afghan's and my subsequent statement of God's love for the Afghan people (as a reason for not desiring to annihilate the entire country) became confusing.
Several people have misunderstood what I said and conflated the two concepts, which I believe I stated separately (and clearly).
And now, desiring to extricate myself from further discussion and misunderstanding, I'm going to exit this thread.
Thank your sons for me, for their service and sacrifice on behalf of this great country of ours........and if Lurker comes back, tell him thanks for me for his service as well.
Good night. :)
Because it’s an overseas contingency operation in response to a man-caused disaster. The news outlets only cover (condemn) wars.
Most of us would prefer they learn of God’s love sooner rather than later.
I first noticed the use of "kinetic" when Obama described the Libyan war as a "kinetic action". He was using it as a euphemism for the word "war." I guess kinetic is now a stylish media word for military attacks.
In Obama's case, it is a "Kenyaetic action". A phony, fake, dancin'-barefoot-in-The-White-House kind of thing, similar to his "COLB".
Exactly. How would they know who the trigger man was, unless a SEAL team/Delta went in there, tortured every Muzzie to rat out the one who did it, in which case they wouldnt need to send in a “kinetic” airstrike since they would already be dead ANYWAY.
And his eternal torture chamber.
He is most certainly NOT the "nice guy" type.
No argument there.