MovieChat Forums > Lone Survivor (2014) Discussion > How dumb can they be?

How dumb can they be?

posted 9 years ago by ConstipatingFool
37 replies | jump to latest

First thought that came up for me was if they didn't want to kill the herders, then just march them along with them till the top of the mountain when their extraction was guaranteed before freeing them. Geeze, talk about inability to think out of the box.

Also, what's with the Rambo body count? In the real battle apparently it was less than 20 Taliban that ambushed them. Seems like they upped the body count just to make this failed mission look more heroic and less of a massive fail.

[–] Blue_V 9 years ago

1. Kill the herders.... Nope
2. Tie them up.... Nope
3. Knock them out.... Nope
4. Take at least one of them as a security (We will kill him if you inform).... Nope
5. Take all three of them as a security.... Nope

This moment killed the movie for me. How can the leader be so dumb?

[–] rtw416 9 years ago

Should've just killed them....considering what the elder herder said to them-on another thread the translation was basically wishing them death after he was released

[–] ipeedaily 9 years ago

Agree with killing them but even if they were determined to do as they did,

I thought they should have tied them all together by the legs (like a chain gang) and tightly tied their hands & bound to their bodies.....This way, they could not move quickly and would be limited by the old man.

This would have given them much more time and the kid running and jumping down the mountain would not have been able to do so....instead of several minutes to get back to Taliban camp it would have taken them hours.

Another possibility would be to tie the two young ones to a tree and let the old man go....they still would have in effect let them go but it would have taken him a long time to get back for help/reporting to enemy.

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] alaninho 9 years ago

Listening to all of you discuss military tactics in the intensity of a firefight is by far more idiotic than any of the decisions made in this film. None of you understand Afghanistan, its people, or the operations of Navy SEALs. Go back to your comic books and stop feigning knowledge on Internet forums from your parents' basement.

[–] xcii 9 years ago

Couldn't agree more.

[–] dargis49-300-900689 8 years ago

image for user alaninho
by alaninho
» Mon Jan 11 2016 13:46:04
IMDb member since July 2006
Listening to all of you discuss military tactics in the intensity of a firefight is by far more idiotic than any of the decisions made in this film. None of you understand Afghanistan, its people, or the operations of Navy SEALs. Go back to your comic books and stop feigning knowledge on Internet forums from your parents' basement.

That about sums up this thread.

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Meroitic 9 years ago

In video game land maybe, but in real-life, that isn't a solution. You might as well ask why they didn't just rambo-kill all the Taliban nearby.
Movement through enemy territory is an insanely difficult thing. Anyone who thinks that you can climb a mountain with overwhelming enemy forces nearby and maintain situational awareness whilst also wrangling uncooperative prisoners is just profoundly ignorant.

[–] JohnnyCastle 9 years ago

If only they had a smart guy like you.

[–] mighty_frogman 9 years ago

The responses here are nothing short of comical. A few things to keep in mind for the keyboard warriors;

1) The terrain these guys were operating in was murderous. You don't simply "march" prisoners through the Hindu Kush mountains. Look up the terrain if you need to get further understanding of this

2) You want to take with you 3 people who might give away your position the first chance they get? Give away your position and be able to point you out to an opposing force?

3) So you march them along side you... and then what? Do you release them with their newly acquired intelligence information about your unit, how you move, how you talk, how you call in evac? Why not give the opposing force the manual you train from while you're at it.

4) How fast can you move to a safe evac site, when you're deep behind enemy lines and an opposing, outnumbering force is a short distance away? Can you move faster to that evac site with or without prisoners?

[–] cdagger275 8 years ago

I would have killed them. I would put the welfare of my team first. Yes it would have been repugnant I would have nightmares about it later , but my men would come home. Too bad they didn't have predator drones on station , get on eyes on target, confirm target ,confirm target is destroyed and didi out of there. Dont train me , equip me then tell me I shouldn't kill the enemy because they're not armed, it's war not capture the flag. Moral compasses tend to spin when there are people out there that want to kill you.

[–] lalo_greiner 8 years ago

You say that because you don't know war (I reckon). Being a complete *beep* doesn't make things better in the long run. It just turns the whole population against you and makes it impossible to act for a *lot* more people that just those 4 soldiers. Haven't you read about the difficulties of working in Afganistan by all armies stationed there, how hard it was to convince everybody that those Western occupation armies meant good? Have you heard about how much drone bombing is actually affecting political relations because of the colateral damage they provoke? It's not that easy.

Besides, killing with a rifle is noisy. You're risking giving away your position easily. So, you're left with using a knife to murder them. Would you be able to stick it into a child's belly while he looks at you? And into the old man's heart after that?

Just wondering.

[–] Augustus_Octavian 8 years ago

Would you be able to stick it into a child's belly while he looks at you? And into the old man's heart after that?

Not the poster you replied to, but yea. Sure, not a problem.

The problem would be fear of getting caught, court martialed and getting 20 to life. Killing the unarmed civilians itself wouldn't be an issue at all for me. Remember, you are not the one getting killed in this scenario.

[–] dubyahsrobotminion 8 years ago

Unfortunately this isn't fantasy football. No one who soldiers professionally for a living/lifestyle claims to be such at ease with inflicting non-combatant casualties.

Remember, you are not the one getting killed in this scenario.

Said like a child whose experience is in video games where 'pulling a trigger' has no consequences. You are not getting killed so therefore you would be ok with killing? Civilian or otherwise, repercussions for combat actions don't merely lay in the fear of getting caught and punished.

You are taking a dump and they call GQ do you pinch it off or finish your business?

[–] Augustus_Octavian 8 years ago

No one who soldiers professionally for a living/lifestyle claims to be such at ease with inflicting non-combatant casualties

See? Shows how dumb you are. You are claiming that of the millions of men under arms in the world, not a single person is willing to kill a civilian out of hand? Shows how ignorant you are.

You are not getting killed [or court martialed] so therefore you would be ok with killing?

Yes. Not everyone is a nice fellow. I do not claim great courage or great skills at war [for point of reference, I am only a low ranking serviceman in a government milita]. But killing an unarmed civilian is certainly within my ability. Lol.

What is wrong with you that you apparently sincerely believe that your fellow humans are incapable of inhumanity towards their fellow men? Have your years on this Earth not shown you that this is not only readily possible, but all too real?

[–] Lakewind-writing 8 years ago

All I can say is that the Afghans were lucky that they weren't taken by WW2 Germans, or Russians, or Japanese.

Or other Afghans, for that matter.

I'm not saying I would have killed them personally, because I haven't been in that situation and don't know what I would actually do. But the U.S. military and probably a few other modern Western armies are probably about the only people who WOULDN'T just kill them out of hand. Or drag them along and kill them if they impeded progress too much.

[–] cdagger275 8 years ago

Whatever you say "expert".

[–] Lootrock 8 years ago

Huh, funny how all dissenters ride in on the same chariot. Curious as to why in threads it is rarely an even back and forth among several posters for a point and against a point, but instead a string of posters on one side and then a string on the other...bandwagon courage I presume.

They really did not make it clear how all these other really good options that others have put forth here in this thread would not be a good idea. There HAS to have been a point in the mountains where they could have marched them up and then released them that was more advantageous. Releasing them where they were with no sort of hindrances slowing them down was absolutely moronic. I don't think that these SEALS were dumb, but they did a poor job not portraying that they weren't. Brave as hell, but dumb.

Edit: Spelling

[–] MirkoS 8 years ago

What they should've done was bound their hands behind their backs with zip ties, bound their ankles together with two more, and extracted. Their mobility would've drastically been reduced and the chance of their deaths increased, but the herders could've hopped and skidded on their butts down the mountain which would've afforded the SEALs time to get out.

Letting them go was 100% suicide and if I were in that squad I'd have never agreed. Very much in the box thinking. Sure, 20/20 arm-chairing and all, but even still it was blatantly obvious at the time what would happen. A bad call.