Sq 117 hijack
-
Yeah, just funning with the guy, Lordz. He's obviously got an axe to grind with Hendon and he was trying to push buttons. Someone had to show him how it's really done.Originally posted by LazerLordz:Ged, I think you've stated your case quite well, and maybe some might misunderstand the allegories of your words.Most of us know your background, and it's natural for you to fight off any aspersions that people might cast, though by accident and overenthusiasm, but let's not get too flamed here.
Ulcers are bad for all, and we can't enjoy our stingray and kangkong belachan right?
So let's all leave the name-calling alone and get back on to topic.
Anyway, safety's back on.
-
Exactly.Originally posted by Shotgun:Aiy. The SOF guys signed on to a high risk job, and thats what they did when they stormed the plane. Honestly speaking, if those terrorist meant business and were more "professional" so to speak, SQ117 would be a smoldering ruin on the runway. They would have planted one of themselves on the aircraft as passenger and not reveal himself. And he would probably be the one holding the detonator if there was a bomb.
The outcome could have gone either way since no one really knew if they were serious or were they amateurs. The point is Sg did storm the plane and it sent a clear message to any other pigs who wanna try another stunt on Singapore.
Fortunately, we have the dead hijackers and a plane load of live passengers. Not to mention a now "feared" CT unit. -
I read the thread and all I can say is will4 could be from another planet. I don't see how one alleged former SOF trooper borrowing money can be used to generalised the entire SOF group. It is tatamount to saying that today got this fella surname Tan hanged for drug trafficking, hey this means everyone surnamed Tan is a drug trafficker.
Besides, his financial affairs have nothing to do with his operational capability.
Back to the topic, if you know about SOF training regime, you know that they have cross trained with UK and US CT troops extensively and is as good as them. The only thing of SOF disadvantage is the lack of operational activity for nothing beats actual on the ground experience. The only way to cope with that is to have more terrorist events, which of course is something we do not want. This is why SAS is said to be best in world, not because their training is better, but due to high level of activity with the IRA. Even the US crack troops do not have as much hands on experience as the SAS.
CT training is pretty much the same. Our SOF is as good as any other with little op experience. Planes are the worse ground to combat in. In this scenario, it would have made not so great difference if seasonsed SAS troops were performing the operation rather than our own SOF. There is nothing a SAS troop can do better if a tango is disguised as passenger with explosives. Protocols and training are almost verbatim, what the SAS does, SOF also does. You cannot conciously say that our SOF is inferior in any aspect.
The message sent out is very clear after the SQ117 event. We have the capability to handle such threats, period. Prior to that, much of the public international scene had no such knowledge. I just thank the person in the higher ups to have initiated such a program, without which, we might have to call in foreign help, depicted as weak or even faced with a complete disaster. -
It be totally wrong to say that they start shooting anything standing.Originally posted by MobyDog:What I heard was that the Commandos entered the cabin and shouted "down" or "sit down" in Malay... and started shooting anyone that was still standing and fits the description.. something like that... Because only SG knows what they are talkib about.. and the hijackers are the only ones probably standing anyway....
using this tactic.. I'm surprise there were no collateral damage, as the Americans call it now. I heard it from the reliable source many many years ago...
Later, every tom, dick and joe was search and identity verified regardless.
Yes the standard drill is to go in and shout for the hostage to get down, this is to give them a clear view, but with the loud bangs some hostages will still be up and lost, these they will quick push down and yell to stay down. The SOF is trainned in to do quick identification of who is armed or not, they only shoot at anyone they feel is armed or a thread. . Even is all tango is taken down, all remain hostages will still be escort out and question and search again to confirm that there is no more tango hiding within the hostages. -
The reason all the tango was shot dead for this case , is because they claim to have explosive, and the steward confirm that they have some sort of stuff that look like explosive.Originally posted by Shotgun:With butter knives, im not surprised of they were just physically overpowered first and then executed.
Like you said, the M-16s would over penetrate, hence the safest direction to shoot is down. Otherwise, suppressed pistols would be a better option.
SOF did a classical text book example of what is best done in this situation. That is to get in kill all tango on sight, without giving them any chance to activate the explosive. Overpowering is never an option in this case, because in the middle of trying to overpower, some idiot may find the chance to activate the explosive.
Please be reminded, after the whole incident, and after the lab testing then it is confirmed that they did not have real explosives. Before that , everyone have no choice but to believe they are real explosives . -
Well, I heard that some of the SOF troopers have combat experience and have even kill people before...they were attached to some units oversea...Originally posted by pwnz0r:I read the thread and all I can say is will4 could be from another planet. I don't see how one alleged former SOF trooper borrowing money can be used to generalised the entire SOF group. It is tatamount to saying that today got this fella surname Tan hanged for drug trafficking, hey this means everyone surnamed Tan is a drug trafficker.
Besides, his financial affairs have nothing to do with his operational capability.
Back to the topic, if you know about SOF training regime, you know that they have cross trained with UK and US CT troops extensively and is as good as them. The only thing of SOF disadvantage is the lack of operational activity for nothing beats actual on the ground experience. The only way to cope with that is to have more terrorist events, which of course is something we do not want. This is why SAS is said to be best in world, not because their training is better, but due to high level of activity with the IRA. Even the US crack troops do not have as much hands on experience as the SAS.
CT training is pretty much the same. Our SOF is as good as any other with little op experience. Planes are the worse ground to combat in. In this scenario, it would have made not so great difference if seasonsed SAS troops were performing the operation rather than our own SOF. There is nothing a SAS troop can do better if a tango is disguised as passenger with explosives. Protocols and training are almost verbatim, what the SAS does, SOF also does. You cannot conciously say that our SOF is inferior in any aspect.
The message sent out is very clear after the SQ117 event. We have the capability to handle such threats, period. Prior to that, much of the public international scene had no such knowledge. I just thank the person in the higher ups to have initiated such a program, without which, we might have to call in foreign help, depicted as weak or even faced with a complete disaster. -
the only argument we can put across is this - SQ 117 is not a good indicator of their ability, or inability.
-
hey...i heard from a reliabe source that a half COL owes loan shark 50 k and is now paying 5k(interest) every month to the loan shark.....Originally posted by will4:I admit never knew about CT operation but I refused n never want to know.
U assumed thing already I met one former SOF trooper n u knew what
he tried to borrow money. I thought these soldiers paid highly.
so it means that the higher pay u got...the more money u will spend on lifestyle...n the more u will get into debt... -
At least hostages got rescued to put fairly.Originally posted by Icemoon:the only argument we can put across is this - SQ 117 is not a good indicator of their ability, or inability. -
I think they will be rescued eventually .. it is just the casualty rate that makes the difference.Originally posted by will4:At least hostages got rescued to put fairly. -
my father always tells me, "you earn more, you spend more" and it's quite true lah haha. Anyone who read the book Inside The Marines by ex-royal marine Steve Preece would know...seems the tougher your job is, the more prone you are to excessive harmful behaviour...Originally posted by riken1974:hey...i heard from a reliabe source that a half COL owes loan shark 50 k and is now paying 5k(interest) every month to the loan shark.....
so it means that the higher pay u got...the more money u will spend on lifestyle...n the more u will get into debt... -
It is unfair to say that just because after the whole thing - just because the stuff turn out to be non-explosive. Does that mean it have to be true explosive used then it is consider a measurement of success ?Originally posted by Icemoon:the only argument we can put across is this - SQ 117 is not a good indicator of their ability, or inability.
Please remember that before and during the operation, everyone have to take it those are live explosive . What the singapore SOF did was a good job, right from the page of a text book way of doing it . -
It's a demonstration that in a real-life situation, our lads can get in there, shoot the bad guys quickly and get the hostages out, which is par for the course as far as CT ops are concerned. Anything else to be proven is simply showboating.Originally posted by Icemoon:the only argument we can put across is this - SQ 117 is not a good indicator of their ability, or inability. -
In anycase, a determined terrorist would probably have not allowed the plane to land. Instead, a 9-11 style attack would be prefered. Or detonation of explosives over the City instead.
This way, no CT unit would have had a chance to stop them. It would be up to the air-force to decide if they want to blow the plane out of the sky. Same options available as in 9-11.
Honestly, I don't believe that the terrorists actually BELiEVED they would getaway once they were on the ground? Almost every scenario played out in history has shown that once the plane was on the ground, hijackers lose. It was just a matter of time. Tire them out, make them grumpy....... yet they still have to be alert n watch out for attacks.
On the other hand, the CT units can choose WHEN to strike.
Too many disadvantages for the hijackers. -
Originally posted by Shotgun:
when the terrorist is going to kill one hostage every 5 mins, u tink u still got time to choose? time is running out..
In anycase, a determined terrorist would probably have not allowed the plane to land. Instead, a 9-11 style attack would be prefered. Or detonation of explosives over the City instead.
This way, no CT unit would have had a chance to stop them. It would be up to the air-force to decide if they want to blow the plane out of the sky. Same options available as in 9-11.
Honestly, I don't believe that the terrorists actually BELiEVED they would getaway once they were on the ground? Almost every scenario played out in history has shown that once the plane was on the ground, hijackers lose. It was just a matter of time. Tire them out, make them grumpy....... yet they still have to be alert n watch out for attacks.
On the other hand, the CT units can choose WHEN to strike.
Too many disadvantages for the hijackers. -
still....sof rocks!!
-
this is pre-9/11, where hijacks were more ideological in nature, conducted by non-religious motivated terrorists to achieve certain aims, these people do not have a hard-on for suicide attacks.Originally posted by Shotgun:In anycase, a determined terrorist would probably have not allowed the plane to land. Instead, a 9-11 style attack would be prefered. Or detonation of explosives over the City instead.
This way, no CT unit would have had a chance to stop them. It would be up to the air-force to decide if they want to blow the plane out of the sky. Same options available as in 9-11.
Honestly, I don't believe that the terrorists actually BELiEVED they would getaway once they were on the ground? Almost every scenario played out in history has shown that once the plane was on the ground, hijackers lose. It was just a matter of time. Tire them out, make them grumpy....... yet they still have to be alert n watch out for attacks.
On the other hand, the CT units can choose WHEN to strike.
Too many disadvantages for the hijackers. -
I'm sure live explosives or no explosives, the pre-execution mentality should be the same - get the civilians out with minimal casualty. After all, most terrorists threaten to kill people every x minutes and the CT must react fast.Originally posted by storywolf:It is unfair to say that just because after the whole thing - just because the stuff turn out to be non-explosive. Does that mean it have to be true explosive used then it is consider a measurement of success ?
Please remember that before and during the operation, everyone have to take it those are live explosive . What the singapore SOF did was a good job, right from the page of a text book way of doing it .
It is just like your school exam. An average paper cannot differentitate the good from the mediocre; it only weeds out the poor. I'm surprised you use the word "text book". Correct me if I'm wrong, all CT units train using the text book way, so this point is moot.
I'd argue that what our SOF went through was comparatively easy compared with other high profile plane hijack missions.
So you are right. Our SOF executed it the textbook way. There's no need to think out of the book.
While SQ 117 is not a *good* indication of their ability or inability, the mission was a success. -
To exaggerate a bit, it is just an extension of the killing house exercise. Didn't the SAS put Princess Diana inside as "hostage" before they stormed in?Originally posted by Gedanken:It's a demonstration that in a real-life situation, our lads can get in there, shoot the bad guys quickly and get the hostages out, which is par for the course as far as CT ops are concerned. Anything else to be proven is simply showboating.
The only difference is the amount of coordination involved. Units were activated and the committe (made up of govt. officials) had to perform under stress. -
There is case Indonesia in which a Garuda Airways kena hijacked n the plane landed in Thailand. Indonesian army sent in their Detachment 81 from Indonesia into Thailand to rescue the hostages. If I am not wrong, one hostahe n a member of the team got killed in the shootout.Originally posted by Icemoon:I'm sure live explosives or no explosives, the pre-execution mentality should be the same - get the civilians out with minimal casualty. After all, most terrorists threaten to kill people every x minutes and the CT must react fast.
It is just like your school exam. An average paper cannot differentitate the good from the mediocre; it only weeds out the poor. I'm surprised you use the word "text book". Correct me if I'm wrong, all CT units train using the text book way, so this point is moot.
I'd argue that what our SOF went through was comparatively easy compared with other high profile plane hijack missions.
So you are right. Our SOF executed it the textbook way. There's no need to think out of the book.
While SQ 117 is not a *good* indication of their ability or inability, the mission was a success. -
dun need detachment 81, gsg9 and gign suffered casualties in mog and marseilles liao.Originally posted by will4:There is case Indonesia in which a Garuda Airways kena hijacked n the plane landed in Thailand. Indonesian army sent in their Detachment 81 from Indonesia into Thailand to rescue the hostages. If I am not wrong, one hostahe n a member of the team got killed in the shootout.
-
I guessed they faced stiff resistance also.Originally posted by Icemoon:dun need detachment 81, gsg9 and gign suffered casualties in mog and marseilles liao. -
Garuda DC9 (“Woyla”) was hijacked by 5 men armed with one pistol, one grenade and a single stick of dynamite.Originally posted by will4:There is case Indonesia in which a Garuda Airways kena hijacked n the plane landed in Thailand. Indonesian army sent in their Detachment 81 from Indonesia into Thailand to rescue the hostages. If I am not wrong, one hostahe n a member of the team got killed in the shootout.
Detachment 81 (Det81) - Team A, were divided into 3 sub-teams – front, middle and rear of the aircraft. They were armed with silenced Uzi, Beretta .22, and M16s. And as a last minute display of unit pride, they wore their unique Kopassandha uniforms and red berets.
Of the hijackers –
One broke free from the front of the aircraft, jumped off only to be cut down by a M16.
One tossed the grenade in the middle of the aircraft – but it didn’t go off.
One hijacker was identified, directed out the emergency exit on the wing and was shot with a single round to the head when he struggled.
One was captured at the rear of the aircraft,
the last one was captured on the ground when he tried to blend in with the passengers. A captain stepped forward and shot him twice in the thighs to prevent him from fleeing.
Senior cadet Ahmad Kirang (rear team) was likely shot by his own team mates from the center of the aircraft in a crossfire. He died one day later. The round went in just under the vest above his crotch area it seems.
The planeÂ’s captain was found bleeding from a head wound (likely friendly fire). He died nine days later.
Of the 5 hijackers – 2 were captured alive in Bangkok. But all 5 were dead by the time they landed in Jakarta with Det81.
More details can be found in the book “Kopassus” by Ken Conboy. -
Uhh, Icemoon, your tone says that you are disagreeing with things that people like storywolf are saying (e.g. "I agrue that..."), but what you're saying effectively agrees with what those others have said. I don't get where you're coming from.
-
Was that supposed to be hilarious?Originally posted by Icemoon:dun need detachment 81, gsg9 and gign suffered casualties in mog and marseilles liao.