Sq 117 hijack
-
RADM Teo should do it. As the minister, he should set a good example.Originally posted by riken1974:Reminds me of Margaret Thatcher the Iron Lady who is so confident of the SAS that she's willing to sit inside the killing house and let the SAS trooper's live round fly past past her and hit all the targets surronding her. Don't think any of our minister would dare to take that sort of challenge.
I hope no one gets too dulan with him and shoot him instead. -
-The hijackers were indeed dumber. They were no professional terrorists like the -Bandar Meniof (sp?) Can someone refresh my memory, which ulu terrorist cell did they belong to?Originally posted by storywolf:Can you list the reasons why you feel that it is easier than other hijack ops ?
Why ?
- because you feel the hijackers are dumber in this case ?
- or the hijackers numbers are less ? the hijackers all are wearing - "hijacker here !" t-shirt that make them easier to find ?
- The hijackers never eat lunch and dinner thus they have no strength to poke a knife into someone chest within 5 sec ?
- or they never eat no strength ever to light a explosive within 5 sec ?
- Or hijackers submitted to authorities a sample of explosive, so that it can be test and everyone know that it is not real explosive and cannot blow up the plane ?
-The number is there. Average lah. 4 or 8 terrorists don't make much difference. With no guns at their disposal, they are just sitting duck.
-I don't think the instinctive reaction upon shock (when the SOF stormed into the plane) is to poke a knife into someone, I mean find a target to poke instead of trying to protect yourself. If you have a gun, you might spray your gun. But poke a knife? Unless you are Dagger Lee, your knife is useless against MP5.
-What explosive? Did they have any explosives? If you kenna stunned, you still have the "calm" to light an explosive when no-one is around to provide cover fire?
Last point, usually in a hijack, the passengers will all be cowering on their seats, with heads lowered. The terrorists will be the ones standing up. Is it hard to tell friends from foes? When bullets start flying around, do you think the passengers will be dumb enough to stand up and "watch the show"?
-
At around 6.50 a.m., hooded SAF Commandos were given the command to storm the plane. They had already been waiting under the rear section of the plane for some time. With blackened faces and hands, the Commandos propped their ladders against the sides of the plane and opened the doors from the outside. The 20 commandos stormed in, some through the front entrance and others through the rear. Two loud thuds followed as the Commandos detonated some stun grenades to immobilise their enemy. The leading Commando shouted out to the passengers: “Get down! We are Singaporeans! We are here to rescue you!”
Who was the leading Commando? The most famous SOF of Singapore?
Automatic gunfire followed. The commandos, said the eyewitnesses, quickly killed three terrorists with their precision shooting. The fourth grabbed a woman to shield himself. Another passenger instinctively grabbed her away. A commando opened fire at close range, instantly killing the fourth terrorist. Even after the four terrorists were killed, the Commandos took no chances. All passengers and crew were evacuated and told to put their hands on their heads until their identities could be confirmed. For the passengers, the rescue mission happened so quickly that they barely had time to react. The storming had taken a total of four minutes. By 6.54 a.m., passengers began sliding down emergency evacuation chutes from the plane. The hijack was over.
We are glad the fourth terrorist was dumb. Someone could actually grabbed his "shield" away! Can I laugh at his dumbness, Ged? -
1. Guns or no guns, they can each just hold a knife, take a kid hostage, and use the kid as a human shield.Originally posted by Icemoon:-The hijackers were indeed dumber. They were no professional terrorists like the -Bandar Meniof (sp?) Can someone refresh my memory, which ulu terrorist cell did they belong to?
-The number is there. Average lah. 4 or 8 terrorists don't make much difference. With no guns at their disposal, they are just sitting duck.
-I don't think the instinctive reaction upon shock (when the SOF stormed into the plane) is to poke a knife into someone, I mean find a target to poke instead of trying to protect yourself. If you have a gun, you might spray your gun. But poke a knife? Unless you are Dagger Lee, your knife is useless against MP5.
-What explosive? Did they have any explosives? If you kenna stunned, you still have the "calm" to light an explosive when no-one is around to provide cover fire?
Last point, usually in a hijack, the passengers will all be cowering on their seats, with heads lowered. The terrorists will be the ones standing up. Is it hard to tell friends from foes? When bullets start flying around, do you think the passengers will be dumb enough to stand up and "watch the show"?
2. You 'think' that it's not an instinctive reaction to poke a knife into a hostage's gut. In other words, you admit that that's your own opinion.
Well, here's my own opinion. Refer to my point #1: they can also instinctively grab a hostage and stab him out of desperation and panic.
3. How long does it take for a determined and focused suicide bomber to press the detonation button?
4. The hijackers themselves could be just as stunned as the passengers are and drop to the floor instantly. Heck, the might masquerade as one of the passengers when they drop to the floor and take advantage of the situation later on when the firing stops (grab the hostage next to him, etc).
Conversely, the passengers may be too stunned to do anything and may in fact freeze right where they are standing. The expression 'scared stiff' isn't something which you can truly ignore.
Unless you've been taken hostage before and have experienced first hand a hostage crisis, you are in absolutely in no position to talk about the psychology of the hostages and hostage-takers. You can say that they may think and act in a certain way, but not everyone reads and follows the same psychological textbook as you do.
You surely know that different people react differently to the same situation. While most people may react in a certain way, you can never be able to predict what goes through the minds of others.
In the end, all the points that you've put forth are normative statements which can neither be proven nor disproven. They are just your opinions, and there are no facts which can fully account for the behaviour and actions of all parties involved. -
1. They did that and guess what happened? The hostage was snatched away by another passenger! So much for professionalism.Originally posted by fudgester:1. Guns or no guns, they can each just hold a knife, take a kid hostage, and use the kid as a human shield.
2. You 'think' that it's not an instinctive reaction to poke a knife into a hostage's gut. In other words, you admit that that's your own opinion.
Well, here's my own opinion. Refer to my point #1: they can also instinctively grab a hostage and stab him out of desperation and panic.
3. How long does it take for a determined and focused suicide bomber to press the detonation button?
4. The hijackers themselves could be just as stunned as the passengers are and drop to the floor instantly. Heck, the might masquerade as one of the passengers when they drop to the floor and take advantage of the situation later on when the firing stops (grab the hostage next to him, etc).
Conversely, the passengers may be too stunned to do anything and may in fact freeze right where they are standing. The expression 'scared stiff' isn't something which you can truly ignore.
Unless you've been taken hostage before and have experienced first hand a hostage crisis, you are in absolutely in no position to talk about the psychology of the hostages and hostage-takers. You can say that they may think and act in a certain way, but not everyone reads and follows the same psychological textbook as you do.
You surely know that different people react differently to the same situation. While most people may react in a certain way, you can never be able to predict what goes through the minds of others.
In the end, all the points that you've put forth are normative statements which can neither be proven nor disproven. They are just your opinions, and there are no facts which can fully account for the behaviour and actions of all parties involved.
2. I wouldn't say that is impossible. That's why the flashbangs can buy the CT a few seconds.
3. Moot point. There wasn't any decent bomb in SQ117. And please quote me one hijack ops where this actually happened - the plane exploded counterstrike style.
4. Don't be silly. If you are stunned, you are stunned, period. It is SOP to treat all innocents as potential terrorists until they're cleared. Once again, please quote me an ops where a terrorist masqueraded as innocent AND pulled the stunt you mentioned.
If passengers freezed, what more can you ask for? It is the classical killing house drill once more. The last thing you want is everyone running around oblivious to your flashbang right?
I wouldn't say your arguments are nonsense, but it is easy to make all sorts of funny remarks and not showing any evidence. Focused terrorist press button? Please show me concrete evidence or I assume you are still dreaming in counterstrike land. -
What is a low profile mission? High profile?
-
Icemoon, your answer show how shallow you are into real military stuff and ops.Originally posted by Icemoon:-The hijackers were indeed dumber. They were no professional terrorists like the -Bandar Meniof (sp?) Can someone refresh my memory, which ulu terrorist cell did they belong to?
-The number is there. Average lah. 4 or 8 terrorists don't make much difference. With no guns at their disposal, they are just sitting duck.
-I don't think the instinctive reaction upon shock (when the SOF stormed into the plane) is to poke a knife into someone, I mean find a target to poke instead of trying to protect yourself. If you have a gun, you might spray your gun. But poke a knife? Unless you are Dagger Lee, your knife is useless against MP5.
-What explosive? Did they have any explosives? If you kenna stunned, you still have the "calm" to light an explosive when no-one is around to provide cover fire?
Last point, usually in a hijack, the passengers will all be cowering on their seats, with heads lowered. The terrorists will be the ones standing up. Is it hard to tell friends from foes? When bullets start flying around, do you think the passengers will be dumb enough to stand up and "watch the show"?
1) Yes the terrorists are not professional and they are dumb !!! Don't you know that that is the worst case nightmare for any police or CT team ! Come on you don't even understand those basic fact and you dare to talk cock here ! . When the people are not professional and dumb, that make them more unpredicable, and super dangerous,as they easily loss their nerves and can do the stupid thing like getting themselves and everyone kill .
2) No Gun ? By they have knifes , you want to let us poke you with a knife see if you die or not ? Knifes are weapon also and can kill. They also have pour alcohol all over the plane, thus a little fire can light up everything. You think fire and knife not real weapon - think again.
3) You are nuts, if you can assume that in shock if terrorist if have gun still can shoot hostage then why cannot you assume the fact that someone can light the explosive. You assume too much, you assume that the terrorist need fire to light the explosive, what happen if it is a button push type that igite with batterys ?
4) Your ops knowledge and even common knowledge is too shallow. You see too many movies ! In a hijack, the passengers usually in their seats, with heads lowered, that is what you assume, but their is still movement of people who need water, toliet, also terrorist may occasionally shift people. Terrorist are people also, hostage situation is a long waiting game, they also sit down to rest. Also in the terrorists may have backup team hiding within the hostages, they may be armed also and may have explosive also. In a plane of 100+ people, how dumb can you get to assume that there is no dumb people or don't have people who will do stupid things like standing up , try to run to the door , or their love ones, they are too shock and frighted that they loss their sense of reasoning and just responsing. -
Doubt they shouted that long.I belief that the 1st thing they did aft storming the plane was to yell "Get Down!" pure and simple instruction. Nothing fancy, try doing this, run 1 round around your block, and then up a flight of steps to your home, burst in and shout something long. Most probably nobody can make out whatever you are saying.This shows that their main aim was to get in asap, clear the tangos and get out.
Also, most aircraft hijacks end with the CT teams coming in dynamically, flashbangs or breeching charges to take the doors down before they flood in. Not saying that there is anything wrong with doing it dynamically, but that its done that way so as to shock the hell outta the tangos.
On the incident bout the Indons,I believe they could have made a tactical decision by boarding the plane via the mid-section on each side, once entry has been made to split into four columns and move down the aisles, 2 towards the cockpit, two towars the tail section and leaving tail-end charlies behind to provide security to the frontal team and also to secure the area. This will greatly decrease chances of Friendly Fire incidents. In a split second, one must make the decision to squeeze the trigger or not, and they are trained to shoot at armed personnel. But having a reflective strip or a small velcro flag on the vest allows for quick identification. The way the Indons boarded the aircraft, it can be said that its a Cluster F**k waiting to happen, pity those going in the middle section. -
What is your problem ? I think we are seeing a stupid unreasonable - to find excuse to make the SOF look bad. Did they kick your sorry ass out when they find you mentally unfit ?Originally posted by Icemoon:1. They did that and guess what happened? The hostage was snatched away by another passenger! So much for professionalism.
2. I wouldn't say that is impossible. That's why the flashbangs can buy the CT a few seconds.
3. Moot point. There wasn't any decent bomb in SQ117. And please quote me one hijack ops where this actually happened - the plane exploded counterstrike style.
4. Don't be silly. If you are stunned, you are stunned, period. It is SOP to treat all innocents as potential terrorists until they're cleared. Once again, please quote me an ops where a terrorist masqueraded as innocent AND pulled the stunt you mentioned.
If passengers freezed, what more can you ask for? It is the classical killing house drill once more. The last thing you want is everyone running around oblivious to your flashbang right?
I wouldn't say your arguments are nonsense, but it is easy to make all sorts of funny remarks and not showing any evidence. Focused terrorist press button? Please show me concrete evidence or I assume you are still dreaming in counterstrike land.
1) Tell me what does professionalism have to with hostage being snatch away by another passenger ? That in fact show how unprofessional your view is, the SOF cannot be accoutable for action taken by others !
3) How you know there was not any bomb in the plane ? Unless you are part of the terrorist , or they dumb enough to provide you sample of the explosive to test in lab to confirm that it is indeed not explosive - this show how unreasonable and professional in your statement ! -
I never once claimed to be the expert. Are you saying you are the expert? I'm engaging you on a logical level. Maybe you should enlighten me with some case studies to booster your argument?Originally posted by storywolf:Icemoon, your answer show how shallow you are into real military stuff and ops.
1) Yes the terrorists are not professional and they are dumb !!! Don't you know that that is the worst case nightmare for any police or CT team ! Come on you don't even understand those basic fact and you dare to talk cock here ! . When the people are not professional and dumb, that make them more unpredicable, and super dangerous,as they easily loss their nerves and can do the stupid thing like getting themselves and everyone kill .
2) No Gun ? By they have knifes , you want to let us poke you with a knife see if you die or not ? Knifes are weapon also and can kill. They also have pour alcohol all over the plane, thus a little fire can light up everything. You think fire and knife not real weapon - think again.
3) You are nuts, if you can assume that in shock if terrorist if have gun still can shoot hostage then why cannot you assume the fact that someone can light the explosive. You assume too much, you assume that the terrorist need fire to light the explosive, what happen if it is a button push type that igite with batterys ?
4) Your ops knowledge and even common knowledge is too shallow. You see too many movies ! In a hijack, the passengers usually in their seats, with heads lowered, that is what you assume, but their is still movement of people who need water, toliet, also terrorist may occasionally shift people. Terrorist are people also, hostage situation is a long waiting game, they also sit down to rest. Also in the terrorists may have backup team hiding within the hostages, they may be armed also and may have explosive also. In a plane of 100+ people, how dumb can you get to assume that there is no dumb people or don't have people who will do stupid things like standing up , try to run to the door , or their love ones, they are too shock and frighted that they loss their sense of reasoning and just responsing.
1. Once again, prove it. Show me an ops a group of unprofessional and dumb terrorists were able to overwhelm the CT force. I don't think it is right to equate unprofessional and dumb people to be unpredictable. On the contrary, I can argue, the pros know the tactics used by the CT. This is already 1/2 the battle worn, figuratively speaking.
2. I can argue, during 9-11, some passengers wrestle with the terrorists. If what they have is a knife, you still have a chance. In fact, if the terrorists have no explosives, it is easier to overpower them. Is it any strange most terrorists claim to have explosives, even if those are fakes?
3. I never said if you're stunned still can shoot. I said if you are stunned, you are stunned, period. When you recovered, you can shoot. Isn't this what happened in Marseilles? The poor GIGN tiok the AK.
4. I don't think terrorists will allow large movement of people, much less an exodus to the toilet.
I think you are the one who came out with more fictitious scenarios. I'm not saying you can't have terrorists having backup teams hiding among the people, and sitting down to rest.
But maybe you can quote me such real-life accounts to booster your argument?
Thank you. -
If you think I am finding excuses to make the SOF look bad, then you are equally guilty of finding excuses to make the terrorists look good.Originally posted by storywolf:What is your problem ? I think we are seeing a stupid unreasonable - to find excuse to make the SOF look bad. Did they kick your sorry ass out when they find you mentally unfit ?
1) Tell me what does professionalism have to with hostage being snatch away by another passenger ? That in fact show how unprofessional your view is, the SOF cannot be accoutable for action taken by others !
3) How you know there was not any bomb in the plane ? Unless you are part of the terrorist , or they dumb enough to provide you sample of the explosive to test in lab to confirm that it is indeed not explosive - this show how unreasonable and professional in your statement !
Are the terrorists dumb and unprofessional? I certainly think so. Are the SOF unprofessional? I don't think so, in fact I believe they could throw the whole cabinet into the killing house like the SAS and no-one would be hurt.
1. The terrorists were not professional. What a shame .. using a human shield that was snatched away so easily. I'm not sure whether you can find similar incidents in other hijack ops.
3. How I know? Hindsight lor. Are you asking me a dumb question? -
Real military stuff and ops?Originally posted by storywolf:Icemoon, your answer show how shallow you are into real military stuff and ops.
You have the cheek to say that when you couldn't even produce any ops account to substantiate your argument?
Aren't you the expert here? -
Originally posted by Icemoon:RADM Teo should do it. As the minister, he should set a good example.
I hope no one gets too dulan with him and shoot him instead. Good one! -
All ops then it is classified, you should know better than that to ask someone to post it here.Originally posted by Icemoon:Real military stuff and ops?
You have the cheek to say that when you couldn't even produce any ops account to substantiate your argument?
Aren't you the expert here?
I don't have to prove anything, already proven in my ops - it seem that you are the one who trying too hard to prove something !
Where were you on that night of SQ117 ? haha -
Feel free to laugh at his dumbness, Icemoon.Originally posted by Icemoon:We are glad the fourth terrorist was dumb. Someone could actually grabbed his "shield" away! Can I laugh at his dumbness, Ged?
On the other hand, that example does work against you when you say:
You've been clearly contradicited there. One of the tangos not only managed to collect himself after the shock, but was conscious enough to grab a hostage as a shield. If you want to deal with this at a logical level, your logic's failed there.Originally posted by Icemoon:-I don't think the instinctive reaction upon shock (when the SOF stormed into the plane) is to poke a knife into someone, I mean find a target to poke instead of trying to protect yourself. If you have a gun, you might spray your gun. But poke a knife? Unless you are Dagger Lee, your knife is useless against MP5.
Also, terrorists can be more quick-thinking than you assume. Case in point: Egyptair 648. Omar Resaq disguised himself as one of the passengers and made it as far as the hospital when the Egyptians caught up with him. he obviously calculated a lot further ahead than the example that fudgester raised, realising that if he had atken a hostage on the aircraft, his chances of getting away would be even slimmer. Again, the facts show that your logic's failed.
Trying not to get too unpleasant here, Icemoon, you're not being either reasonable or logical:
1) About benchmarks, SOF didn't have a blue-on-blue or shoot blindly like the D81 guys did, not did they set the plane on fire with door charges the way the Egyptians did on Egyptair648. All in all, it was a technically perfect execution, so how much more of a benchmark can be reasonably required?
2) Yes, those four Pakistanis were not the brightest of terrorists, but realistically speaking, no CT force can arrange to face off with a bunch of gun-toting, Semtex-wearing terrorists, can they? The most the CT teams can do is train for such scenarios, and they already do that. If we wanted to keep score that way, perhaps we could hold inter-CT competitions, but who would be mad enough to want that in real life? -
How does it contradict?Originally posted by Gedanken:You've been clearly contradicited there. One of the tangos not only managed to collect himself after the shock, but was conscious enough to grab a hostage as a shield. If you want to deal with this at a logical level, your logic's failed there.
I said "I don't think the instinctive reaction upon shock (when the SOF stormed into the plane) is to poke a knife into someone, I mean find a target to poke instead of trying to protect yourself."
Isn't grabbing a hostage an act of trying to protect yourself?
By the way, I heard they had knives. But I don't read of him stabbing his shield.Also, terrorists can be more quick-thinking than you assume. Case in point: Egyptair 648. Omar Resaq disguised himself as one of the passengers and made it as far as the hospital when the Egyptians caught up with him. he obviously calculated a lot further ahead than the example that fudgester raised, realising that if he had atken a hostage on the aircraft, his chances of getting away would be even slimmer. Again, the facts show that your logic's failed.
I am not arguing against such a case. But let's not stretch too far, if the escaped terrorist pulled a stunt after the passengers were cleared, then it is not part of the hijack ops anymore.1) About benchmarks, SOF didn't have a blue-on-blue or shoot blindly like the D81 guys did, not did they set the plane on fire with door charges the way the Egyptians did on Egyptair648. All in all, it was a technically perfect execution, so how much more of a benchmark can be reasonably required?
If you allow me to say this, CT forces are trained primarily to deal with armed criminals. Armed as in really armed, please don't say a penknife can kill so having a penknife is considered armed.
As such, I don't consider the ops a good benchmark - it is not a good reflection of their abilities or inabilities. It is just a perfect execution. Don't they have perfect execution for their drills also (I hope)?2) Yes, those four Pakistanis were not the brightest of terrorists, but realistically speaking, no CT force can arrange to face off with a bunch of gun-toting, Semtex-wearing terrorists, can they? The most the CT teams can do is train for such scenarios, and they already do that. If we wanted to keep score that way, perhaps we could hold inter-CT competitions, but who would be mad enough to want that in real life?
I have to agree with you - even GIGN suffered a few casualties during Marseilles against AKs. Luckily no passengers were killed in the crossfire. -
Then post the unclassifed accounts lor. Ged just enlightened me with another account about the Egyptians, though that doesn't contradict my points.Originally posted by storywolf:All ops then it is classified, you should know better than that to ask someone to post it here.
I don't have to prove anything, already proven in my ops - it seem that you are the one who trying too hard to prove something !
Where were you on that night of SQ117 ? haha
I'm waiting for you to post the dramatic plane explosion report. Such accounts couldn't possibly be classified - a blown plane on the tarmac would make headlines.
Does it matter whether I am on that night of SQ117? Even if I was, I would be hiding under my seat, trying to endure my shit and piss instead of asking permission to go toilet. haha -
I would say SQ117 is an untypical hijack ops, many elements were missing. For example, how did they distract the terrorists .. anyone remember?
The poor guy who was thrown out .. he must have leaked the news that the fools were not carrying guns. -
I think you're going a little too micro here, Icemoon. Okay, let's be logical about this.
What's the terrorist's motivation for hijacking? I think the pattern is there so that we can assume that they want something in exchange, be it the release of prisoners, or to achieve some other ends as in 9/11.
If it becomes clear that they can't achieve these goals, such as when the aircraft is full of CT troops, would their objective change to trying to get out of the situation, or would it be to take down as many hostages as possible?
In the latter case, the terrosist would be stabbing the hostage, and a dead hostage is no use to a tango.
In the former case, the terrorist would be working on a plan to escape, either by taking a human shield (and keeping said shield alive and useful), or by masquerading as a hostage like Resaq did.
Assuming that the terrorists are not entirely devoid of any sense of self-preservation (9/11 was a suicide mission, so it doesn't apply, but we're talking about cases like 117 and 648 here), the logical option to go for would be the try and escape. Therefore, it simply wouldn't make any sense whatsoever for the terrorist to stab a hostage at that point, because that would simply be throwing a bargaining chip away.
As for what happened with 648, I disagree with you. The op is on until such time that all possible hostages are safe and all tangos are either dead, in custody or long gone.
As for the definition of being armed, let me put it this way. I've got you as a hostage, and while I've got the guns pointed at me, I've got a knife to your throat. Would you consider me unarmed at that point? That's the standard of threat assessment applied to such situations, because a dead hostage is a dead hostage regardless of the killing method. -
yea, who was the one who raised the stabbing scenario? not me definitely.Originally posted by Gedanken:Assuming that the terrorists are not entirely devoid of any sense of self-preservation (9/11 was a suicide mission, so it doesn't apply, but we're talking about cases like 117 and 648 here), the logical option to go for would be the try and escape. Therefore, it simply wouldn't make any sense whatsoever for the terrorist to stab a hostage at that point, because that would simply be throwing a bargaining chip away.
As for what happened with 648, I disagree with you. The op is on until such time that all possible hostages are safe and all tangos are either dead, in custody or long gone.
As for the definition of being armed, let me put it this way. I've got you as a hostage, and while I've got the guns pointed at me, I've got a knife to your throat. Would you consider me unarmed at that point? That's the standard of threat assessment applied to such situations, because a dead hostage is a dead hostage regardless of the killing method.
well, I suppose you could see the op that way, but this is not fair to the CT. Once all the passengers are cleared and weapons checked clear, the police would take over.
Hmm .. if what you got is a knife, then a group of CIDs and camouflaged police snipers will do. I seriously don't think the SOF would be called in. I'm digressing from hijack ops here. -
Well, that's the point, Icemoon - the passengers weren't quite cleared yet, were they?Originally posted by Icemoon:well, I suppose you could see the op that way, but this is not fair to the CT. Once all the passengers are cleared and weapons checked clear, the police would take over.
Hmm .. if what you got is a knife, then a group of CIDs and camouflaged police snipers will do. I seriously don't think the SOF would be called in. I'm digressing from hijack ops here.
As for the second point, it's not a question of who you call in at that point, is it? SOF were already there, and the question is whether or not a knife would be considered a threat there and then, and my assertion is that it would be. -
Posting so call newspaper articles and heresay is not posting unclassified accounts ! Are you there yourself to see it 1st hand and involve directly with the ops ? If so call read about it then forget it.Originally posted by Icemoon:Then post the unclassifed accounts lor. Ged just enlightened me with another account about the Egyptians, though that doesn't contradict my points.
I'm waiting for you to post the dramatic plane explosion report. Such accounts couldn't possibly be classified - a blown plane on the tarmac would make headlines.
Does it matter whether I am on that night of SQ117? Even if I was, I would be hiding under my seat, trying to endure my shit and piss instead of asking permission to go toilet. haha
I already enlightened you, I was there at the sq117 scene, so was a lot of other standby units which got activated . At least I can tell you what we all saw and happen, and not like you - from third party sources and alway have to "If" I was there !!!
Have you ever go for a single real ops which you carry real ammo ? Ever before ? Pls don't give us the "If" shit if you don't have . Also please don't use other people ops, that is their not yours !!! -
You mean the Egyptian incident? I suppose if you are not armed, then you are not a tango.Originally posted by Gedanken:Well, that's the point, Icemoon - the passengers weren't quite cleared yet, were they?
As for the second point, it's not a question of who you call in at that point, is it? SOF were already there, and the question is whether or not a knife would be considered a threat there and then, and my assertion is that it would be.
I agree, a knife would be considered a threat - to the hostage. Definitely not to the CT during a stand-off. -
Were you inside the plane? Or have we progressed to another argument whether they were professional in clearing passengers and other post-killing activities?Originally posted by storywolf:Posting so call newspaper articles and heresay is not posting unclassified accounts ! Are you there yourself to see it 1st hand and involve directly with the ops ? If so call read about it then forget it.
I already enlightened you, I was there at the sq117 scene, so was a lot of other standby units which got activated . At least I can tell you what we all saw, and not like you - from third party sources and alway have to "If" I was there !!!
So what did you see beside the butter knives and the "explosives"? An AK-47? -
Uhh, nope - regardless of whether you're armed or not, you're assumed to be a tango until it's proven that you were a hostage.Originally posted by Icemoon:You mean the Egyptian incident? I suppose if you are not armed, then you are not a tango.
I agree, a knife would be considered a threat - to the hostage. Definitely not to the CT during a stand-off.
The threat to the CTs is secondary to the safety of the hostages - isn't that the raison d'etre of CT teams? As long as there's a threat to the hostage, things are treated with all possible seriousness.