Saturday, April 18, 2009
Obama WANTED to negotiate with the pirates
Flopping Aces relays what purports to be word from Navy SEALS about what actually happened off the coast of Somalia.
The claim is that, in order to comply with Rules of Engagement handed down by Barack Obama, the Navy passed up several opportunities to take out the pirates and free Captain Philips (the American hostage).
The key element of this report -- the ROE -- has been corroborated by mainstream reports: Obama DID order that no action be taken unless the hostage's life was in "imminent danger." Navy officers were finally able to meet this requirement when one of the pirates pointed his AK at Philips' back, but without this excuse, chances to free Philips had to be passed up.
We saw this rule in action when the captain jumped in the water and the pirates were allowed to retrieve him. Not knowing the ROE, we at home could only think there was a very unfortunate lapse: "WTF? No one was ready at the machine gun to waste the pirates when this guy got clear?" Then the ROE came out and provided an alternative explanation.
The "imminent danger" rule cannot be justified as a way to minimize risk to the hostage. If we don't try free a hostage until he is in "imminent danger," we are obviously putting him at greater risk than if we free him at a point of minimum danger.
The clear implication is that Obama wanted to negotiate with the Islamofascist pirates. He is eager to CHANGE the "we don't negotiate with terrorists" norm. This guy actually wants to give them a seat at the table and make concessions to them.
The claim is that, in order to comply with Rules of Engagement handed down by Barack Obama, the Navy passed up several opportunities to take out the pirates and free Captain Philips (the American hostage).
The key element of this report -- the ROE -- has been corroborated by mainstream reports: Obama DID order that no action be taken unless the hostage's life was in "imminent danger." Navy officers were finally able to meet this requirement when one of the pirates pointed his AK at Philips' back, but without this excuse, chances to free Philips had to be passed up.
We saw this rule in action when the captain jumped in the water and the pirates were allowed to retrieve him. Not knowing the ROE, we at home could only think there was a very unfortunate lapse: "WTF? No one was ready at the machine gun to waste the pirates when this guy got clear?" Then the ROE came out and provided an alternative explanation.
The "imminent danger" rule cannot be justified as a way to minimize risk to the hostage. If we don't try free a hostage until he is in "imminent danger," we are obviously putting him at greater risk than if we free him at a point of minimum danger.
The clear implication is that Obama wanted to negotiate with the Islamofascist pirates. He is eager to CHANGE the "we don't negotiate with terrorists" norm. This guy actually wants to give them a seat at the table and make concessions to them.
Comments:
<< Home
Whose side are you on? There's a reason we don't negotiate with terrorists. If we start making concessions, that only makes them bolder. If they think we'll just pay them off every time they take a hostage, they'll just keep taking more hostages. But if they think we'll pick them off with sniper rifles, then they might think twice. It may seem harsh, but if you think you're going to try to make friends with these people and draw out the nice person within, you're horribly mistaken.
# posted by 
: 8:53 AM
: 8:53 AM
Yes, that's why I am criticizing Obama for actually WANTING to negotiate with the terrorists.
I think you meant, "which side is HE on?" Isn't it pretty clear which side I am on?
I think you meant, "which side is HE on?" Isn't it pretty clear which side I am on?
Ahh... I guess it wasn't clear to me based on your last paragraph that you were criticizing him.
Post a Comment
# posted by : 10:25 PM
: 10:25 PM << Home
