Trump Gets SEAL Team 6 Member Killed

[Straight Shooter]

The Sunday terror raid authorized by President Donald Trump that resulted in the death of a Seal Team 6 member and an American citizen, as well as 14 al Qaeda militants in Yemen, was 'very very well-thought-out,' the White House says.

White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer told reporters on Thursday that the operation was presented to and approved by officials from the previous administration but it could not be carried out until the next 'moonless night.'

Calendar wise, that pushed the assault into the tenure of Trump. He approved the raid, on the advice of his advisers, on Friday, Jan. 26, and the military operation was carried out on the morning of Jan. 28.

'It's hard to ever call something a complete success when you have the loss of life or people injured,' Spicer said. 'But I think when you look at the totality of what was gained to prevent the future loss of life, here in America, I think...it is a successful operation...by all standards.'

U.S. military officials told Reuters, however, that Trump approved his first covert counter-terrorism operation without sufficient intelligence, ground support or adequate backup preparations.

The military said Wednesday it was looking into whether more civilians were killed in a raid on al Qaeda in Yemen on the weekend, the first operation authorized by Trump as commander in chief.

U.S. Navy SEAL William 'Ryan' Owens was killed in the raid on a branch of al Qaeda, also known as AQAP, in al Bayda province, which the Pentagon said killed 14 militants. The 8-year-old daughter of Anwar al-Awlaki, a militant killed by a 2011 U.S. drone strike, was also one of the dead.

However, medics at the scene said about 30 people, including 10 women and children, were killed.

U.S. Central Command said in a statement that an investigating team had 'concluded regrettably that civilian non-combatants were likely killed' during Sunday's raid. It said children may have been among the casualties.

Central Command also said its assessment 'seeks to determine if there were any still-undetected civilian casualties in the ferocious firefight.'

As a result, three officials said, the attacking SEAL team found itself dropping onto a reinforced al Qaeda base defended by landmines, snipers, and a larger than expected contingent of heavily armed Islamist extremists.

The Pentagon directed queries about the officials' characterization of the raid to U.S. Central Command, which pointed only to its statement on Wednesday.

'CENTCOM asks for operations we believe have a good chance for success and when we ask for authorization we certainly believe there is a chance of successful operations based on our planning,' CENTCOM spokesman Colonel John Thomas said.

'Any operation where you are going to put operators on the ground has inherent risks,' he said.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ects-U-S-SEAL-died-Yemen-raid-went-wrong.html

Not surprising given that Trump doesn't read the intel briefings

 

[Mr. Daystar]

Every president gets soldiers killed. It sucks, and it's horrible, but war and death is a sad, pathetic part of our fucked up world. More will die under his watch, and men and women will die under the next presidents watch.

 

[sean miguel]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ects-U-S-SEAL-died-Yemen-raid-went-wrong.html

Not surprising given that Trump doesn't read the intel briefings

He approved the raid, on the advice of his advisers

Even if the ridiculous charge that Trump doesn't read his intel briefings as CINC is true, his advisors certainly do. And this raid was approved by the previous administration but delayed for operational reasons.

'Any operation where you are going to put operators on the ground has inherent risks,' he said.

And it isn't "SEAL Team 6" - that was disbanded in the 80's.

When 22 Navy SEALS were killed in Afghanistan when their Chinook was shot down in 2011, I guess Obama got them killed.

 

[Straight Shooter]

Even if ridiculous charge that Trump doesn't read his intel briefings as CINC, his advisors certainly do. This raid was a approved by the previous administration but delayed for operational reasons.


'Any operation where you are going to put operators on the ground has inherent risks,' he said.

And it isn't "Seal Team 6" that was disbanded in the 80's.

It was delayed by the previous administration because there wasn't enough intel to act and they left it to the incoming administration with the hope that more intel would've developed by then. It didn't. And Trump wasn't even in the Situation Room when the raid was occurring

 

[sean miguel]

It was delayed by the previous administration because there wasn't enough intel to act and they left it to the incoming administration with the hope that more intel would've developed by then. It didn't. And Trump wasn't even in the Situation Room when the raid was occurring

do you know how often these raids occur and sometimes simultaneously? There is so much stuff we don't even hear about. This one was notable because there was an American KIA and civilian casualties, but the President isn't going to be in the Situation Room watching a live drone feed and micromanaging these as they happen. The Bin Laden Raid was an exception for obvious reasons.

The president's spokesman said CENTCOM submitted the plan to the Department of Defense on November 7. 'Clearly, that was under the last administration. Legal teams were involved immediately when it was submitted to DOD.'

DOD gave the proposal its stamp of approval on December 19. It was then sent to President Barack Obama's National Security Council. At an interagency deputies meeting on Jan 6., 'it was so easily approved it was sent straight up,' Spicer said.

'The conclusion was at that time to hold it for what they called a "moonless night," which by calendar wouldn't occur until then- President-elect Trump was President Trump.'

 

[Straight Shooter]

do you know how often these raids occur and sometimes simultaneously? There is so much stuff we don't even hear about. This one was notable because there was an American KIA and civilian casualties, but the President isn't going to be in the Situation Room watching a live drone feed and micromanaging these as they happen. The Bin Laden Raid was an exception for obvious reasons.

Let's cut the BS out and keep it 100 for a moment. If HRC were 13 into her presidency and she approved a raid without sufficient intel that got a SEAL killed and she wasn't even in the Situation Room to monitor it, be honest, what would conservatives be saying?

 

[sean miguel]

Let's cut the BS out and keep it 100 for a moment. If HRC were 13 into her presidency and she approved a raid without sufficient intel that got a SEAL killed and she wasn't even in the Situation Room to monitor it, be honest, what would conservatives be saying?

During the 8 hour attack on our consulate in Benghazi, an NSA staffer admitted that Obama never once set foot in the Situation Room. He had a debate prep to attend to I guess.

 

[sean miguel]

Let's cut the BS out and keep it 100 for a moment. If HRC were 13 into her presidency and she approved a raid without sufficient intel that got a SEAL killed and she wasn't even in the Situation Room to monitor it, be honest, what would conservatives be saying?

And to answer your question, yes, of course conservatives (or some) would be piling on her. But would the media's coverage of the story have been different? Something tells me being the first woman president who authorized a successful military operation that killed terrorists would be the highlight.

At least you're honest about what this thread is.

 

[Jack Davenport]

Let's cut the BS out and keep it 100 for a moment. If HRC were 13 into her presidency and she approved a raid without sufficient intel that got a SEAL killed and she wasn't even in the Situation Room to monitor it, be honest, what would conservatives be saying?

We'd probably ask if one of her closest legal advisors was looking to benefit financially from connections in Yemen or if she blamed the SEAL's death on a video.

 

[meesterperfect]

Nice Title.
Nice Fake News.
Nice example of bullshit propaganda.
Are we dumbed down enough yet?

If we lived in a world where peoples thoughts, feelings, opinions, weren't the product of GOV/MSM propaganda people would simply be upset that the USA performed ANY military action in Yemem, period.
Ron Paul once asked the Republican candidates regarding the US Constitution, " Have any of you actually sat down and read this thing?".
Why is the US going into another sovereign nation with guns blazing, again?
That's the issue here, period.
How would Americans feel if the Yemeni military went into Your Town USA with guns blazing without permission? You'd be pissed right? Act of War perhaps?
I guess Americans are just so used to there GOV going into other countries illegally, destroying them, and robbing their gold, money and resources that they don't even consider the reality of it anymore.

But lets not focus on reality. Lets just allow our opinions to be formed by the globalist zionist media.
Lets not use our actual brains but instead let them tell us what to think.

Great example of the media using another death, another life ended for absolutely nothing, another life ended in the name of the phoney "War on Terror" that most people have fallen for hook line and sinker, to help ruin Trumps presidency because he's not on board with the globalist agenda.
Here is reality.
The Military or the CIA tells him about an operation they want to do illegally in another sovereign nation.
They tell him about. He probably asked questions then tells them yes or no.
Or they just went ahead and did it without even telling him.
So they do it. A soldier gets killed.
And the headline reads, "Trump gets a soldier killed".
100% propaganda. 100% Fake news.
But people still take the MSM seriously. People who are weak minded, or stupid, or naive, or just thoroughly brainwashed.
How many soldiers died under Barry in 8 years?
Who knows, the media never told us about any of them.
That's because Barry was 100% on board with the Globalist Zionist agenda.

Please Think.

 

[Straight Shooter]

Trump made the decision over dinner with Mattis, Bannon and Jared Kushner. Imagine the reaction in conservative land if on day 13 Obama had ok'd a failed military raid with David Axelrod and Valerie Jarret over dinner. Conservatives would've lost their shit. You guys on here would've been blasting Obama. And Hannity, O'Reilly, Limbaugh, etc would've been calling for impeachment. Everybody is so full of shit

 

[Jack Davenport]

Trump made the decision over dinner with Mattis, Bannon and Jared Kushner. Imagine the reaction in conservative land if on day 13 Obama had ok'd a failed military raid with David Axelrod and Valerie Jarret over dinner. Conservatives would've lost their shit. You guys on here would've been blasting Obama. And Hannity, O'Reilly, Limbaugh, etc would've been calling for impeachment. Everybody is so full of shit

Just because you don't like Bannon as an advisor doesn't make him an incompetent advisor.

It seems to.me, that everything he touches turns to gold.

There have been many fake news reports about the decisions made by this administration in the past week that have been debunked. You don't really know if that is how it played out. Bannon is a policy wonk. I doubt he was offering many ideas on military strategy although he is a retired naval officer.

Here's what we know. A raid took place, a SEAL was killed and there was collateral damage.

When, Michael Flynn goes on the Sunday shows and blames a YouTube video for it I'll worry. One thing is for certain, as bad as the outcome was. We are at least getting the truth about what happened.

 

[bodie54]

Or they just went ahead and did it without even telling him. And the headline reads, "Trump gets a soldier killed".
100% propaganda. 100% Fake news.

No. Trump is the CIC. Nothing like this goes down without his final approval. Period.

How many soldiers died under Barry in 8 years?
Who knows, the media never told us about any of them.
That's because Barry was 100% on board with the Globalist Zionist agenda.

I know. At least I know how many in Iraq and Afghanistan. Very easy numbers to find.
Here are those numbers, under both Bush and Obama:
http://icasualties.org/

It seems to.me, that everything he touches turns to gold.

Would that include targeting green card holders as part of the travel ban?

 

[Straight Shooter]

There have been many fake news reports about the decisions made by this administration in the past week that have been debunked. You don't really know if that is how it played out.

Can you provide links please

 

[Jack Davenport]

http://nypost.com/2017/01/29/trumps-gag-order-was-fake-news-and-other-comments/

http://www.latimes.com/world/mexico-americas/la-fg-mexico-trump-20170201-story.html

http://m.townhall.com/tipsheet/leah...accurately-reporting-call-with-trump-n2280214

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/316760-trump-team-unified-in-defense-of-immigration-order

 

[meesterperfect]

No. Trump is the CIC. Nothing like this goes down without his final approval. Period.



I know. At least I know how many in Iraq and Afghanistan. Very easy numbers to find.
Here are those numbers, under both Bush and Obama:
http://icasualties.org/

Ok you quoted part of what I said which changed the overall meaning.
I also said he was told about the plan and had to ok it.
And I disagreed with that.
You were probably all for it because you seem to justify no matter what the US military going from country to country guns blazing.
I disagree because Sovereign nation A has no legal right to enter Sovereign nation B with its military guns blazing.
Somewhere along the line many people just accept this as normal and justified if its the US doing the shooting.
I don't know. Maybe these people think the people of Libya or Yemen, or Iraq, ect are just subhuman vermin.
But we've been doing it for too long now and I want to see Trump pull the reigns back on it.

Either way if a soldier dies during a military operation it can't be stated that "The President Killed Him".
By that standard every soldier who dies in any war was killed by his own president.

The other thing. You intentionally missed my point.
Under Bush you got a daily tally of war casualties.
Under Barry you got no mention of it.
Of course you can find GOV statistics. And you can believe them if youre naive enough.
For example if you got shot and killed in Iraq during the Barry years you were a war casualty.
If you got shot in Iraq but died 3 days later in Germany from the wound you were not.

Then again most war casualties under Bush died fighting the actual military of the actual country they were invading.
Under Barry the majority of war casualties died fighting the bearded mercenaries who took over those countries after we destroyed them.
And we both know who arms and fund them.

My point was simply that war casualties got near zero news coverage under Barry.
Under Trump the 1st one gets deemed "Killed by Trump".
I'm not surprised the media would expliot the death of a soldier to hurt Trump. Theyve done much worse things than that.
I think you would agree with that part at least.

 

[bodie54]

Mr P I had no intent to misquote you. I only included the parts of your quote I was directly addressing.

Then again most war casualties under Bush died fighting the actual military of the actual country they were invading.

lol Oh c'mon Mr. P.
Saddam's army in Iraq was defeated very rapidly, then subsequently disbanded. Casualties in that chart beyond 2003 were not suffered at the hands of an organized Iraqi military.

And we both know who arms and fund them.

No, we both don't.

My point was simply that war casualties got near zero news coverage under Barry

They did get less. Do you know why? Two reasons 1) Because that focus on casualties was ALWAYS on casualties in Iraq. Why? Because the Afghan war had bipartisan support, while the Iraq war was Bush's fiasco of a sideshow that had nothing to do with 9/11.
Which leads to reason number 2) Before Obama even took office the Bush administration and the Iraqi government had agreed to a timeline for the U.S. leaving Iraq. Under Obama casualties in Iraq were less. Considerably so, as that chart above amply indicates.

 

[Straight Shooter]

The left cannot on the one hand claim Donald Trump is ignorant of military and security affairs, and then on the other hand expect him to second-guess the professional recommendations of his uniformed and civilian military leadership.

Some Obama-era counterterrorism and NSC officials are pointing to what happened as evidence that the very deliberate interagency process the Obama administration used to approve these operations has been justified.

I am inclined to disagree. My experience as a senior Department of Defense official in the last two years of the Obama administration leads me to the conclusion that the way we did things—with the military required to provide a “CONOPS,” or concept of operations, to be picked over by deputy cabinet secretaries and usually the secretaries themselves prior to being forwarded to the president for approval—was slow and ponderous in a way that created real opportunity costs and denied subordinate commanders the flexibility to exploit opportunities they saw on the battlefield. Yes, it eliminated a lot of physical and political risk, but in doing so it negated one of the primary advantages the U.S. military enjoys, which is a highly trained and capable officer corps in the field that can exercise independent judgment.

At one point toward the end of the Obama administration, cabinet secretaries—cabinet secretaries!—were literally debating whether or not it made sense to move three helicopters within Iraq and Syria. That decision should have been left to the very capable, very experienced commander on the ground, U.S. Army Lieutenant General Steve Townsend.

But this is a bi-partisan problem. To any Republicans feeling smug having just read those last two paragraphs, I have one word for you: Benghazi.

The way in which Republicans turned Benghazi into a cudgel they then used to beat Hillary Clinton had a chilling effect on anyone seeking to take any risk and personal initiative. The truth about Benghazi was that America’s very capable and intrepid ambassador on the ground, Chris Stephens, made an error in judgment for which he paid with his life. No one wanted to say that because no one wanted to be seen blaming the dead, but Stephens, in his capacity as the senior U.S. official on the ground, overruled his security officer and took risks that led to his death and the death of one other. And—and this will be difficult for some to read—that’s okay. That’s sometimes the price of doing business.

That did not stop, however, Republicans from cynically holding the secretary of state responsible in a—successful, it must be said—effort to weaken her presidential candidacy. Republicans spent millions of dollars on a baldly partisan investigation, one byproduct of which was to create a foreign-service officer corps that now feels it has to conduct its business behind concrete T-walls and cannot actually venture out into the peoples and societies that diplomats are supposed to build ties with.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...me-trump-for-the-failed-raid-in-yemen/515496/

He makes a good point in this piece. After reading this I no longer think Trump deserves the blame for the botched raid. I guess my only gripe is that people are not consistent with their criticism. But that's just how politics is played I guess

 

[xfire]

my only gripe is that people are not consistent with their criticism

No, but they are consistent with exactly how we expect them to behave. I choose not to act exactly how others expect me to behave.

 

[meesterperfect]