Liberals and the Media - Lone Survivor (2014) Discussion

[–] scifi75 10 years ago

Oh, here we go again...strenuously trying to find a point to prove your political stance on issues. I could say that it was YOUR president that ignored the intel Richard Clarke brought him in August of 2001 which could have avoided 9/11 and thus Afghanistan and the situation as happened.

And here I thought the Seal team was trying to avoid becoming what they were fighting against.

reply

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] bruce-129 10 years ago

Yeah !

I hate that, the posts appearing out of nowhere for no reason that take it up with Liberals. and written by people who are so stupid they make glaring errors in their posts ... not to mention their logic.

reply

[–] ronfirv 10 years ago

Like you kid!

reply

[–] tomasdowner 10 years ago

I have views on the world both liberal AND conservative. I often watch conservatives bash liberals more than liberals bashing conservatives, and it's even worse when it's almost always as if those conservatives (usually radicals) are standing on wobbly legs pissing on trees with super egos, brainwashed and often times driven by mostly their upbringing (religion and following, like sheep) instead of thinking for themselves. My case in point is STFU and think for yourselves, don't place false dichotomies on yourself and try to move ahead in life without following what seems best, instead inspect what seems best.

Ugh... Humans. I grow cynical of the myopic arrogance of most. Help me out!

I live to learn and make mistakes. My goal is to have fun while doing so.

reply

[–] Goombas84 9 years ago

Im thinking for myself and i would shoot these goat herders, like i would shoot anyone that would stand in mine and my brothers getting home safe

reply

[–] davidschoenbeck 9 years ago

Next time: Just stay the fck home and you and your "brothers" will be safe.
No need to pick up arms go into a country you don't belong and slaughter civilians.
No one asked you to, no one wants you there.

reply

[–] nickm2 9 years ago

slaughter civilians.

What? No bad guys ever get killed?

Why can't you wretched prey creatures understand that the Universe doesn't owe you anything!?

reply

[–] Formula1Fan 10 years ago

The soldiers weren't afraid of media, they had a legal obligation as professionals that they had to adhere to, and that was to not kill unarmed people, non-combatants.

It was a dilemma in the film and the events it was based on. If I had been there I would have kept the three in custody until a pickup could be arranged, and then let them go once the helo got there.

reply

[–] TRinzler 10 years ago

The goatherders were actually two men and a boy (not two boys and an old man as depicted in the film) so why not tie the adults to each other and take the boy with them to be released when they reached a safe distance away and/or knew that backup was en route?

reply

[–] blackknightoneoneseven 9 years ago

For the same reason they couldn't tie them up in the film; getting back to an LZ would've taken some time (it seems to have taken slightly less than 24 hours in the film). This is more than enough time to freeze to death as they pointed out in the movie. Also, taking them all the way back at gunpoint presents its own challenges.

Not saying it's not an option to consider, but it's not as clean cut as we think.

reply

[–] TRinzler 9 years ago

Consider the context of the situation. This wasn't a peacekeeping mission! They were attempting a covert strike deep behind enemy territory with no idea if these goat herders were hostile or not.

Such circumstances are rarely clear cut but your priority must always be your mission and your men. Would the enemy have done the same for them had things been reversed?

Killing unarmed civilians because you've been compromised is SOP so they were already deviating by not doing so. Tying the adults up and taking the boy was the best compromise. They should've been able to handle a single child prisoner for a few hours after which they could release him whenever they felt it was appropriate to do so. They didn't have to wait until they were back at an LZ.

Of course there was a chance the child might not return in time so the adults might die before they were found. No plan is perfect but it was still better than the one they came up with!

This was a bad call, possibly due to overconfidence and underestimation of the enemy, both of which the US military are known for.

reply

[–] nickm2 9 years ago

WAS it a covert strike mission or were they on a recon mission? I keep getting the vibe that their job was to move lightly & quietly & scope out that hostile militia & 'call in the cavalry' if action was possible.

Why can't you wretched prey creatures understand that the Universe doesn't owe you anything!?

reply

[–] TRinzler 9 years ago

Both.

The team of 4 SEALs in the film were the surveillance and reconnaissance component of Operation Red Wings, whose objective was to track down and kill Taliban leader Ahmad Shah.

reply

[–] nickm2 9 years ago

OK I figured they were the 'scouting' element.

Why can't you wretched prey creatures understand that the Universe doesn't owe you anything!?

reply

[–] bubblenator 8 years ago

OK I figured they were the 'scouting' element.

You were correct in the first place Nick, the SEALs were on a Special Covert Reconnaissance mission purely! The 4 man fireteam or brick as we call it was inserted to get eyes on and confirm that Ahmad Shah was in the village. They had no authorisation or quick extraction plan to snipe Shah even if they had a clear shot. The plan was to get eyes on him and also count how many Taliban he had with him and what weapons. Then a separate mission probably a Marine or Ranger company with air support from AH-64 Apaches and AC-130 gunships would raid the village probably at night in the coming days.

If you are not willing to give up everything, you have already lost

reply

[–] xxhaimbondxx 10 years ago

I'm glad liberals exist, if only to piss of idiots like you.

reply

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] nickm2 10 years ago

They like to claim to be tolerant and open minded....as long as you agree with them.

Why do I always get the feeling ISIS will use their heads for soccerballs eventually....

Why can't you wretched prey creatures understand that the Universe doesn't owe you anything!?

reply

[–] ronfirv 10 years ago

I LIKE your comment, nickm.

Liberals are too darned naive, FOR NOW, to know it! When it happens, the rest of us will still be blamed! Ha!

reply

[–] nickm2 10 years ago

While I would not really have a good giggle over it, I think the ISIS might be falling into an "Algerian Trap" here: In Algeria the military removed the fundamentalists that got elected to power-but then allowed the fundies to stir up a very brutal insurgency (and for Algeria that is saying something). It seemed the Algerian junta was determined to allow as many people as possible to get a taste of 'fundy rule/justice/brutality/violence' was like--and then they killed the insurgents in various ghastly & brutal ways.

Why can't you wretched prey creatures understand that the Universe doesn't owe you anything!?

reply

[–] ronfirv 10 years ago

I wasn't giggling either but scoffing.

These guerrilla extremists have to be dealt with, and they will, but it will not be easy and a long drawn-out process. Somehow now, moderate Muslims have to join in, full hands-on and defeat the wicked elements in their midst. Silence is not an option for them, as it is a joint battle.

reply

[–] tomasdowner 10 years ago

Just put everybody in categories, so educated you are. Arrogance. You stink of metacognitive overselconfidence, try to reflect on your own biased myopic views and expand your thinking process. It's funny when that could seem like an ad hominem but the shoe fits, so the logic is very sound.

Grow up.

reply

[–] HelenDamnation57 10 years ago

Who are these liberals you speak of? Most of the left-wing Democrats of today are known as progressives, the opposite of conservatives.

reply

[–] JonHell 10 years ago

Take a *beep* aspirin and go lay down buddy, you're overstimulated again.

reply

[–] daddeh1 10 years ago

Wow! What a rant. I quite enjoy reading imdb 'message boards', with all the differing opinions offering insights to films I had not pondered. Quite often I'm impressed enough to look at a film differently and readjust my view and enjoy a rescreening of something I had not liked, and vice versa.

So it rubs me the wrong way when a poster's opinion, be it of my liking or not, turns into a rumble fest of political ideologies. The original poster was just offering his point of view on the slaughter of innocents. As psychotic as it is, it's just an opinion, one shared by every corrupt government in the world. Kill the witnesses. Leave it at that. But no, lets have a dig at a fool. Lets draw the likeminded out of there basements and caves, take potshots at there armored skin. Their bigotry protects them from reason. The elders have educated them thus.

So let them bay at the moon, are we not here to comment on film and television? So keep to the discussion please and comment on what we like. Film. Please forgive me for this longwinded plea.

Now to open myself up as a hypocrite. Bhodi, the idiot tag was not a compliment. Also, if you are going to write like a bigot people will call you bigot. May you enjoy peace in your hateful world.

I have not seen Lone Survivor yet, I hope everyone enjoys it as a movie and then get back to the discussion.

reply

[–] tomasdowner 10 years ago

It IS fun to read. The problem is the material doesn't change much, so what does that say about most Americans? Exactly. Most are incapable of being objective. Follow the supposed leader, make baseless statements, attack the people instead of the topics etc. I find it most hilarious how so many put liberals all into 1 box, or vice versa. We all have different experiences!

I'm poking the bears right now, I'm bored. I like to watch the responses as a sociology and psychology scholar. The lack of critical thinking is always fun to read, but it makes me cynical. I'm not that smart and I see it, so it must be worse than it seems...

I live to learn. My goal is to have fun while doing so.

reply

[–] dmar01 10 years ago

Very well said. Thank you

reply

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] lastyear11 10 years ago

In a recent poll 40% of Americans believe the earth is only 6000 years old. I bet every one of them is a conservative. Talk about ignorance.

reply

[–] agentxjp 10 years ago

Nothing in your post is even remotely true. I do see racism apologia and generic /pol/ conspiracy theories though.

I'm sorry you were born, you inbred. Life must be painful being as objectively wrong, rejected by society, and deluded as you are.

reply

[–] joeflahgm 9 years ago

But aren't you a bigot, a racist or whatever they call you?

reply

[–] nickm2 9 years ago

Your 'troll fu' is weak; try harder.

Why can't you wretched prey creatures understand that the Universe doesn't owe you anything!?

reply

[–] ronfirv 10 years ago

Well, bodhi, we have them in UK too. Politically currently, they are bottom of the polls. Now there's a surprise. No one pays them much if any attention any more, so out of touch are they with public opinion.

reply

[–] keithgordon 10 years ago

Do you know that the Labour Party is most definitely to the left of the Liberal Democratic Party, which is to the left of the Conservatives? Latest poll: Labour 35%, LibDem 7%, Conservatives 32%. So the LEFTISTS lead in Britain 42%-32%.
Do you live there and yet do not know that? Try Wikipedia.

reply

[–] ronfirv 10 years ago

Well, Mr Gordon, you conveniently forgot UKIP, currently around 9-12%, at least.
In my book, the Right has the edge and WILL win our GE in 2015.

reply

[–] IndigoFlame 10 years ago

Toughest liberals I've ever met were female. A few of them were almost friends but I got tired of them bitching about men. I can't deal with their lack of common sense from both the guys and the gals.

https://webwewant.mozilla.org/en/
http://www.opera.com/

reply

[–] ronfirv 10 years ago

Libs live on a different plane from the rest of us, and it's their tone of moral superiority that makes me wanna puke!

reply

[–] VickeViking 10 years ago

yeap, your "tone of moral superiority" is much better!

iiaaarrrggghhhhhhhh... said jesus, trying to blend in!

reply

[–] ronfirv 10 years ago

I am really enjoying some of the stuff on here about Liberals - here was me thinking it was a British disease only!
Careful what you say about Liberals in Oz all the same - they are actually what we call Conservatives or similar to Republicans in States. Confusing, huh?

reply

[–] sfreemanoh 10 years ago

They had no proof the herders were on the side of the Taliban. So in your mind, killing anyone in the area, on the chance they were on the side of the Taliban would have been OK? Ya know, just in case?

You're a sick fu_ck.

reply

[–] ronfirv 10 years ago

Didn't you see the undiluted hate on the faces of the 2 young herders?

IF in a war situation, then even a possible threat must be taken very seriously and appropriate action taken.

Look at WWII - the French fleet lay in a port in Algeria, but had the Nazis got their hands on it, the combined fleets of Germany and France would have posed an overwhelming threat to the Allies. Thus, Churchill took a hard decision and had most of it sunk in port. It was, IMHO, the right decision. The majority of French opinion saw the reality behind the decision, although we jointly deeply regretted the loss of life. France is a valued ally today, but these situations underline the awfulness, and brutality of war. It must always be a last resort.

reply

[–] nuttallr 10 years ago

ronfirv, are you suggesting the real life people made the wrong decision because of the "undiluted hate" on the faces of 2 actors in a movie? Isn't it more likely the real life herders had looks of fear on their faces with assault rifles pointed at them while they were unarmed and unable to communicate with the people pointing the guns at them?

If you're telling me you have no issue killing an old man and 2 young kids who are unarmed because you think they might be Taliban, then that makes you an *beep* Separate from that, based on your previous posts, I think you're an idiot. And no, I'm not a liberal.

reply

[–] Hypsomnia 10 years ago

This is why this moron thinks liberals are idiots because in his mind anyone who even flashes a hint of empathy and sensibility when dealing with entirely different cultures instantly becomes a weak pussy. Keep blasting that AM talk radio dipsh*t.

"...Because we can't masturbate in theaters."

reply

[–] nuttallr 10 years ago

I also don't think it's fair to compare sinking a warship to shooting an unarmed teenager who may or may not be a threat.

reply

[–] ronfirv 10 years ago

Many French military at the time felt their fleet was not necessarily a threat but Churchill thought otherwise and dealt with it. These sailors too were unarmed.

reply

[–] tomasdowner 10 years ago

Well said. He probably likes Sean Hannity, who lies and stretches and misconstrues the truth more than I fart, 99% of the time pushing his radical conservative crap (I DO agree with some of the views, BUT I think for myself like most people should; but that would be too ideal, it's wishful thinking and unrealistic to have such expectations...).

reply

[–] nuttallr 10 years ago

Yes, violence is the answer to problems. If two sides disagree, just have a fist fight. That's how a civilized society works. You're dumb.

reply