Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

12 U.S. DELTA MEMBERS WOUNDED ON RAID OF OMAR
Drudge ^ | 11/3/01

Posted on 11/03/2001 6:04:22 AM PST by Diogenesis

MAG: 12 U.S. DELTA MEMBERS WOUNDED ON RAID OF OMAR'S COMPLEX, THREE SERIOUSLY; PENTAGON RETHINKS 'SPECIAL FORCES OPERATIONS'

Seymour Hersh has filed yet another controversial report for coming editons of the NEW YORKER, publishing sources tell the DRUDGE REPORT.

In ESCAPE AND EVASION, Hersh claims: In the wake of a near-disaster during the assault on Mullah Omar's complex during the early morning of October 20th, the Pentagon has been rethinking future Special Forces operations inside Afghanistan.

Delta Force, which prides itself on stealth, had been counterattacked by the Taliban, and some of the Americans had had to fight their way to safety. Hersh has filed his report for the November 12, 2001 issue of the NEW YORKER, on sale Monday.

Twelve Delta members were wounded, three of them seriously.

The intensity and ferocity of the Taliban response "scared the crap out of everyone," a senior military officer tells Hersh.

The Delta team stormed Mullah Omar's complex, but found little of value, Hersh reports, and then, "as they came out of the house, the shit hit the fan," one senior officer says. "It was like an ambush. The Taliban were fighting with light arms and either [rocket-propelled grenades] or mortars." The team immediately began taking casualties and evacuated.

"The Delta team was forced to abandon one of its objectives: the insertion of an undercover team into the area and the stay-behind soldiers fled to a previously determined rendezvous point, using a contingency plan known as an E. & E., for escape and evasion," Hersh writes.


TOPICS: Breaking News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250251-268 next last
To: The Real Deal
I am not buying it either. I agre this has to be horsesh#t. It is unimagineable,to me, that our best of the best, And I completely understand how bad @ss these men are, could possibly be *scared* of anything...no way! This has to be false...maybe they were suprised for one second...but after that...what,s the Rocky movie...First Blood?
151 posted on 11/03/2001 9:40:16 AM PST by easy1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Eowyn-of-Rohan
The whole thing sounds slanted toward Taliban. Let's see: Taliban was smarter than we were because, though we pride ourselves on stealth, we weren't as stealthy as they were... Taliban are better fighters than we are, as their intensity and ferocity scared the crap out of us...we didn't find a single thing of any value in Mullet's house, which shows how "poor" our intelligence is and/or how futile our goals are...and the Pentagon is rethinking even letting out Special Forces go back in there because it was such a failure. blablabla

Yes, it is...

Now, am I the only person who sees why our military would find it advantageous to leak such disinformation to Hersh?

Question: At this point in the war, do we want to scare the Taliban into scattering and going off into hiding, or do we want to sucker them out into the open so we can identify them and kill them?

What kind of story would be most likely to do that? 1. "We came, we saw, we kicked ass." 2. "Eek, they got the jump on us, they scared us, we almost got our butts whipped, they stopped us from achieving our objective, if they attack us next time we could be in big trouble, don't throw us in that briar patch".

Also, the best way to handle intelligence gathering is, "if you didn't get much, make them think that you did, and if you did, make them think you didn't." If we got a treasure-trove of information from the Omar raid, the best way to handle it would be to leak that we hadn't gotten much at all. That way the enemy won't think that they have to change their codes/positions/activities, which they would do if they thought we had now learned their inner secrets.

152 posted on 11/03/2001 9:41:07 AM PST by Dan Day
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: AGAviator
This could be some clever disinformation, to get them to think we'll never, ever be going in and we didn't get any idea where OBL is hiding from the raid. If so the assault may happen soon.

Ah, so I'm not the only one after all... (See my post #152)

153 posted on 11/03/2001 9:46:45 AM PST by Dan Day
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: Dan Day
Good thinking there, Dan Day! A step ahead of me.
154 posted on 11/03/2001 9:58:56 AM PST by Eowyn-of-Rohan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

Comment #155 Removed by Moderator

To: Zordas
I resent our own people lying to us.

Par for the course during a war. We should all maintain a healthy skepticism of "official" reports even now.

156 posted on 11/03/2001 10:13:43 AM PST by Pay now bill Clinton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: NoControllingLegalAuthority
Yes. And I doubt they were all in the house together. This article is just plain dumb.How could they all come out of the house and get surprised?
157 posted on 11/03/2001 10:16:42 AM PST by dalebert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Zordas
One other though about the vlidity of this story... Have you ever heard of a special ops team member talk about a mission? even more talk in such detail to say they were beat? No way that is not in they character. They could have been beat but would never grip publicly...
158 posted on 11/03/2001 10:17:39 AM PST by jafojeffsurf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: Diogenesis
We get wounded, then we rethink our involvement, some logic
159 posted on 11/03/2001 10:21:18 AM PST by lavaroise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Zordas; Diogenesis
I was dismayed at those two reports--one saying we got our butts kicked, and the other indicating our military plans.

I was perfectly content seeing the pre/post images and films that Secretary Rumsfeld, and Diogenesis have been generously sharing with us a day or so after the activity. I am genuinely concerned that the media's fever for a story could have negative consequences for our troops.

Maybe I just worry too much.

160 posted on 11/03/2001 10:25:48 AM PST by NautiNurse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: Aerial
The Taliban gave the Russians hell and finally ran them out.

Actually, Russia had the Taliban almost beaten, when we stepped in and armed them and trained them on how to beat the Russians.

On the other hand, if you take the Taliban lightly, you can guaranty causalities.

Never underestimate the enemy.

161 posted on 11/03/2001 10:28:45 AM PST by Marine Inspector
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Diogenesis
I thought everyone had been asked NOT to post military info.
162 posted on 11/03/2001 10:30:13 AM PST by Disgusted in Texas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wirestripper
Yep, exactly. He got the date right and possibly the number of casualties. The rest he probably made up and his sources are most likely statesiders who don't have combat MOS's, if indeed they are military at all.
163 posted on 11/03/2001 10:31:26 AM PST by Twodees
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Marine Inspector
The Taliban gave the Russians hell and finally ran them out.

Actually, Russia had the Taliban almost beaten, when we stepped in and armed them and trained them on how to beat the Russians.

All this is garbage. The Taliban didn't arise until AFTER the Russians left!!!
The people who gave the Russians hell are now in the Northern Alliance.

164 posted on 11/03/2001 10:34:16 AM PST by Nogbad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: Diogenesis
Too many people will not want to believe this information. A few days ago this story emerged from the Telegraph (British) and a lot of folks were sceptical. The truth is, the Telegraph is a conservative newspaper and often times has more inside info than the domestics. This was true several times during the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal.

I cut my teeth getting Reagan elected and I remember my disbelief at the Iran-Contra affair.

Loyalty is a virtue, but blind loyalty is a fault.

Those who say this is war are right. We are going to take casualties and there are going to be some serious screw-ups.

Let's keep pushing foward, fix what is wrong, and win this war. We don't have any other options.

165 posted on 11/03/2001 10:39:06 AM PST by Paraclete
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #166 Removed by Moderator

To: DrTEJ
Wrong. These guys didn't exist before 1993. Better do your homework; or, do your homework better.

They did exist, just under a different name, the mujahidin.

167 posted on 11/03/2001 10:40:18 AM PST by Marine Inspector
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Romulus
I don't think he's making this stuff up

Oh, PUH-LEEEEZE. The idea of the DELTA FORCE being surprised, much less scared, much less having the crap scared out of it, because the enemy fights back is completely looney tunes. Every word of this "report" is a lie, including "a" and "the."

168 posted on 11/03/2001 10:47:49 AM PST by M. Thatcher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Benrand
I'm not sure I buy the "scared the crap" line...

Dittos!

169 posted on 11/03/2001 10:49:27 AM PST by ST.LOUIE1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: YaYa123
in the monthly magazine, THE NEW YORKER????

It's weekly. Not that that makes it any more credible.

170 posted on 11/03/2001 10:50:47 AM PST by M. Thatcher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Diogenesis
Bald faced bunk for boobs.

"Delta Force, which prides itself on stealth"...if it was an assault or raid, it wasn't quiet, so what was it?" had been counterattacked by the Taliban" I doubt in the time on sight that the enemy had time to rally from the initial assault and fightback. Furthermore any goups of enemy forming in any land feature for any attack would of become target No. 1 for site area security teams and supporting aircraft. Bunk again. , "and some of the Americans had had to fight their way to safety." And pray tell where was that? All those Special Opps craft and their supporting gunships, AC-130's, ect??? Triple Boob Bunk. Hersh has filed his report for the November 12, 2001 issue of the NEW YORKER, on sale Monday. Twelve Delta members were wounded, three of them seriously. The intensity and ferocity of the Taliban response "scared the crap out of "everyone,"Everyone? Everyone? Most? Some? Two out of three? What, was there a survey? Maybe some shrinks for the boys? I bet a bunch of the guys were high as a kite, excited, thrilled. What bunk. a senior military officer( like some Delta NCO gives a rats ass and would even tell a paperpushing general the time of day.) tells Hersh. The Delta team stormed Mullah Omar's complex, but found little of value, Hersh reports, and then(scary music insert here), "as they came out of the house("Hey, help me with this t.v., boys, Oh, look! Coppers!), the shit hit the fan," one senior officer says. "It was like an ambush. The Taliban were fighting with light arms and either [rocket-propelled grenades] or mortars."(Proved lie right here, big difference in the sounds and effects of rpg's vs. mortars. Even a straight leg private know the difference. Also, again, the supporting security units, ground and air, must of been on break, maybe watching the stars twinkle.) The team immediately began taking casualties and evacuated. "The Delta team was forced to abandon one of its objectives:(Why? A fight is good cover for insertions. But then again, this is a stinky pile of wordy pap) the insertion of an undercover team into the area and the stay-behind soldiers fled (I can see it now, throw down your weapons, run fer da hill boys, they're on to us but good! Ya,right.)to a previously determined rendezvous point, using a contingency plan known as an E. & E., for escape and evasion," Hersh writes.

171 posted on 11/03/2001 10:52:15 AM PST by Leisler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Aerial
The Taliban gave the Russians hell and finally ran them out.

1-I don't think the Taliban existed (as a unit) during the Russian War, they came together after (I could be wrong)
2-Russia actually had defeated the rebels and won this war ... until we interviened later
3-The Reagan Administration provided stinger missles, that allowed the rebels to go back and defeat the Russian infrastructure that, just previously, defeated them.
4-Russia was having severe economic and political problems at home, which played a major part in their pullout, making this their 'vietnam' ... i.e. Their homefront had a larger effect on thier "defeat" than the rebels.

172 posted on 11/03/2001 10:55:55 AM PST by AgThorn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Nogbad
They did exist, just under a different name, the mujahidin.

About half went to the Taliban and half to the North.

173 posted on 11/03/2001 11:02:21 AM PST by Marine Inspector
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: Diogenesis
I'm not buying it. Yes, they probably met some opposition and perhaps sustained a few injuries but we're talking about risky operations. No one on that mission thought it was going to be a stroll in the moonlight. As for a senior official passing along serious information about that operation to Hersh, or that it scared us... Baloney. Hersh was either set up to report disinforamtion or he took extreme "creative license" with an innocuous comment.
174 posted on 11/03/2001 11:02:43 AM PST by Darlin'
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Zordas
Various interviews of Pentagon officials, including rumsfeld, support the article.

Please provide a link to a SINGLE source in which Rumsfeld "supports the article." You are full of crap.

175 posted on 11/03/2001 11:07:11 AM PST by M. Thatcher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: Diogenesis
This story and the overwhelming reaction to it are perfectly illustrative why logic needs to be taught in our schools, and specifically to emotional conservatives who cannot distinguish their legitimate complaints against liberals from the question of liberal veracity.

Just because a source happens to be a liberal source, does not mean it is wrong. The New Yorker is a liberal, sometimes disgustingly biased magazine. It also happens to be a serious and well written magazine. Conservatives have nothing like it, alas.

Not long before 9-11, the New Yorker published two articles which were brilliantly written and memorable, altho I have thrown out my copies and cannot recount them exactly. But the gist of the first one was, the brutality and hypocrisy of Islamic clerics. The second one was, how Clinton refused to act on unquestionable information regarding the death of our soldiers at Khobar; that article pretty much called him a coward and a liar.

Free Republic conservatives constantly reflect a shallowness which makes conservatism look ridiculous. Why do you think that both Drudge and Rush have dissed you, and foresaken you? Because they are liberals? Or because they are rational?

I admire Jim Robinson, and am in awe of him. He has done something I could never dream of doing. But the constant ass-kissing of him, and his apparent acceptance of it, degrades this site and makes it look cult-like. If that is what this site is about, so be it, but then it is not about conservatism.

For conservatives to question the good faith of Seymour Hersh for saying our special forces were scared, or some were injured, demonstrates the shallowness of those conservatives. Have they ever been scared before? I see no inconsistency with bravery, courage, duty, honor, and being scared. Nor do I think it out of the realm of possibility that some of our soldiers have been injured by the enemy.

Hersh may be wrong. But if I were a 22 year old special forces soldier, I would not be insulted if someone suggested I was scared. Nor would I consider it un-American.

This website has seen many people driven away from here, because ridicule and imputations of bad faith were freely thrown. This website has had the potential to be extraordinarily influential ... but many many folks, supposed conservatives, seem more interested in pulling out their FR credentials and tinning their way to satisfaction.

176 posted on 11/03/2001 11:07:21 AM PST by Urbane_Guerilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: M. Thatcher

I am glad this guy is not on Spec Ops. Look Familiar? It is the man that invented the internet. Algore

177 posted on 11/03/2001 11:07:35 AM PST by NC Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

Comment #178 Removed by Moderator

To: Bigg Red
"That "senior officer" should SHUT UP! Loose lips..."

Drudge should do the same. Or is he eager to create another fiasco like he did election night
when he released VNS polls BEFORE 2nd time zone in FL finished voting.
Fox broke that story 1st on TV, again before FL polls closed.
Drudge, thanks for spreading bad news about our troops < /sarcasm>
179 posted on 11/03/2001 11:12:18 AM PST by 68-69TonkinGulfYachtClub
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Bigg Red

Stop in and find out new ways to help support our military!
180 posted on 11/03/2001 11:14:09 AM PST by 68-69TonkinGulfYachtClub
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies]

To: LLAN-DDEUSANT
Has it occurred to you that this "journalist" might have just made the whole thing up?
181 posted on 11/03/2001 11:16:01 AM PST by JD86
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: Kennard
Bush has alot of weeding-out to do in the military.

Bears repeating. My thoughts exactly!

182 posted on 11/03/2001 11:16:11 AM PST by Humidston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Zordas
Let me tell you about this new invention. It's called "Television." The first broadcast was in 1936, depicting Hitler, at the Olympics.

Let me tell you about this new invention called the Department of Defense website. In which a transcript of every briefing and interview by Rumsfeld is documented. You can't find evidence for your assertion because there isn't any. As I said, you are full of crap.

183 posted on 11/03/2001 11:16:49 AM PST by M. Thatcher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: JD86
Has it occurred to you that this "journalist" might have just made the whole thing up?

Actually, the real question is whether FReepers have even considered whether it might be true. There is NOTHING anti-American about what was reported. It might be untrue, but it was not anti-American, like the relentless propaganda about civilian deaths in Afghanistan, which are anti-American.

Why are Freepers so afraid of confronting stuff we might not like, which might be true? Instead, the usual response is juvenile humor, invective and self-congratualtion.

184 posted on 11/03/2001 11:24:06 AM PST by Urbane_Guerilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies]

To: Marine Inspector
They did exist, just under a different name, the mujahidin.

About half went to the Taliban and half to the North.

Yes, of course, alliances are constantly shifting in Afghanistan.
Nonetheless, there was no such thing as the Taliban while the Russians were there.

It was largely a Pakistani creation which took over from the chaos and infighting that followed the Russian withdrawal.
Many Mujahadin and other groups joined the Taliban, or more precisesly, were bought by the Taliban.

185 posted on 11/03/2001 11:30:21 AM PST by Nogbad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: Nogbad
Thanks for the clarification, much appreciated.
186 posted on 11/03/2001 11:35:16 AM PST by Marine Inspector
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]

To: blake6900
The book on Kennedy was only attacked by the Kennedy apologists - not the retired Secret Service agents he interviewed who provided to him a lot of the information that so many found so offensive. Offensive - but true.
187 posted on 11/03/2001 11:36:28 AM PST by Kenyon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: Urbane_Guerilla
Right on - word out of my own mouth. I like to think that Conservatism embodies the legal basis of our constitution, some of the teachings of Christ and otherwise can stand on a basis of fact and rational argument. That is what ought to separate it from Liberalism. But no, we have conservatives stealing the illogic of the Liberals and using it for their side - and don't say our side, because illogic is a poor weapon and often injures its user worse than its target.

The problem of our top leadership not knowing how to use special or irregular forces has a long history. If this article is true, Franks is far from the first.

Furthermore, I don't know how it aids and abets the enemy to let him know that we know that operation x was a f'up - which, were it, he knows already - and therefore we are likely not to do it a second time - unless we are, in which case I hope everyone knows so that maybe we can put an end to the stupidity.

Finally, I am amazed at the arm-chair bravado of those here who think that they wouldn't be scared under fire - or that SF's are superhero's who do not feel fear when under fire. Fear is part of the wiring of the primitive wiring of the human (or animal) brain to help self preservation. The only one's who don't feel fear are destined to win the Darwin Award.

188 posted on 11/03/2001 11:37:10 AM PST by AndyJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: rond
But to dismiss it as outright claptrap is wrong and ridiculous.

Furthremore it is dangerous. Great tactics are not thought up in a vacuum... they are learned through application on the battle-field. Not to learn from one's mistakes is not bravery - it is stupidity of the worst sort. Our job isn't to get American's killed. It is to acheive and objective with the least possible cost in blood, treasure, and the lives of cjountry.

189 posted on 11/03/2001 11:40:39 AM PST by AndyJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Urbane_Guerilla
Why are Freepers so afraid of confronting stuff we might not like, which might be true?

I can only speak for myself....to me it is not a matter of confronting information I might prefer to not face....in the case of this article it is a matter of the press printing articles that are inappropriate for wartime. I know some active duty military and some vets would take exception about how the Delta Force (if such a unit there is) is portrayed. However, knowing many military officers in different branches of the services, I just ignored that part as ignorant disinformation. What did concern me about the article is the supposing....the special ops plans might change, etc. Any military information discussion is dangerous to the troops on the ground now, and the ones who will follow in the future. I resent "journalists" putting the lives of patriots at risk. I hope that answers your question.

190 posted on 11/03/2001 11:44:30 AM PST by JD86
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

To: longleaf
Well i imagine that nixes the anti-semite observation. What does IIRC stand for. You must be another one of the acronymist around here.
191 posted on 11/03/2001 11:45:00 AM PST by ChinaThreat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: over3Owithabrain
Exactly. I sincerely doubt the delta force troops were "scared as crap", nor that they were ambushed on the way out of the house. With an ac-130 gunship orbiting in support, it would take a lot more than a few Talibums with ak's and rpgs to scare the crap out of delta force. I think Seymour is being fed disinformation that then goes to the Taliban to get them to think we are afraid of them.
192 posted on 11/03/2001 11:48:07 AM PST by Vauss
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Urbane_Guerilla
You have been missed....
193 posted on 11/03/2001 11:49:53 AM PST by Humidston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

Comment #194 Removed by Moderator

To: VOYAGER
I don't believe Hersh is a liar at all.

No doubt he is on the left - but what matters is the information he provides. I read an interview with him once were he made the point that he is able to report as he does because there are many mid-level to lower-senior level military and CIA who are extraordinarily competent and who care that America does what is right - and does it well. He is simply reporting what he hears from them.

195 posted on 11/03/2001 11:53:09 AM PST by Kenyon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: ChinaThreat
Suggest everyone watch this week's Frontline if you can - "Ambush in Somalia". All interviews with Rangers - very good. Shows how Bin laden set us up in Somalia by US using compromised intelligence. They were all scared. Looks like the Taliban MAY have used the same tactics here.

They thought they had Aidid and his generals in one place - went in - nothing there - when they came out, s**t hit the fan for many hours.

196 posted on 11/03/2001 11:53:29 AM PST by JmyBryan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: NC Conservative
Isn't his hair a bit long?
197 posted on 11/03/2001 11:55:13 AM PST by Kenyon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

Comment #198 Removed by Moderator

Comment #199 Removed by Moderator

To: JD86
In the case of this article it is a matter of the press printing articles that are inappropriate for wartime... What did concern me about the article is the supposing....the special ops plans might change

I gotta say your concerns are misplaced. Making it public that the country employed bad tactics and procedures on a mission that the enemy already knows was a disaster is a good thing. It will provide public pressure to change tactics that some bullheaded ops officer or commander somewhere - with greater concern for being right than accomplishing the objectives or protecting the lives of our forces - might not otherwise change. The misuse of special forces has a long and checkered history. They ain't Rambo taking on a regiment personally. They have special skills and training for special missions and they ought to be correctly employed. Period.

Just think, if it had not been regarded as unpatriotic in World War I to publicly challenge military tactics and strategy the British or French or German's might actually have replaced enough senior officers that we did something else besides engage in wholesale slaughter of human beings for no defensible military purpose. But that would have been unpatriotic.

200 posted on 11/03/2001 11:56:10 AM PST by AndyJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 190 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250251-268 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson