MovieChat Forums > Lone Survivor (2014) Discussion > Five options, not three

Five options, not three

posted 11 years ago by ColonelFaulkner
55 replies | jump to latest

Don't know the veracity of the story, because of course most films take some artistic and dramatic licence, but in the film they discussed.

1. Slotting them
2. Tying them up
3. Letting them go

4. Of course it remains that they could have taken them with them. They had cable ties to restrain them and restrict their mobility. Cables ties are very versatile and you can restrain or immobilise people in a number of ways to prevent them escaping or resisting you. You wouldn't have to take them all the way with you, because it's a two way trip. They have to get back and warn the militants, then the militants need to travel back to the area. Taking them for two or three hours would be a two or three hour trip and then two or three hours of travel time for the militants. If your movement time is pretty constant, each hour you took them along would buy you two hours.

5. They could even have tied them all together with the cable ties in such a way that they could only have made their way back to the village at an absolute snails pace, such as lashing their ankles to one another one facing forwards and one facing backwards, etc. with three people you could tie them all together at the ankles all facing inwards, like a triangle or tie wrists to ankles, etc.

Like I said, don't know the real story, but the dilemma as shown in the film felt a little contrived.

"Yeeha, just like f%^cking Saigon eh slick"?
"I was in junior high dickhead"!

[–] writinman2004 11 years ago

Your options 4 and 5 are unrealistic and, frankly, stupid.

[–] CometDog 11 years ago

To me there was only one option and that was killing them. Just think about all the people who died after this decision was made to let them go including the villagers at the end. When a Navy Seal is given a mission there should be no rules of engagement. Just get the job done no matter what. If I had to make another option I would have broken both their legs and let them crawl back to the village.

[–] ronfirv 11 years ago

I understand your gut reaction.
However, we go into conflicts now with a rifle in one hand and an attorney in the other!
Or as some say these days, if we don't follow some ROE, we become an ordinary rabble.
We really shouldn't sink to the level of the lowest denominator but man, it is tough not to, as this movie showed.

[–] Mystery_Biscuit 11 years ago

I'd agree that it seems strange that given they are depicted in the movie as having restraints, they don't use them to limit the goatherds' ability to get back down to the village. (Although as one poster pointed out, this is a difference between the film and real events.)

I think they partly decided to let them go because they didn't think the Afghanis would be able to descend the mountain as quickly as they did. In the film the teenage goatherd is seen picking his way down the rocks incredibly quickly, something which is later commented on by one of the soldiers. Also, when they reach the top of the mountain they realise it's a false summit and they still can't get radio contact.

I suppose they thought that the time it would take for the goatherds to descend would give them adequate time to reach the peak and radio for evac. It was these combined misjudgements/misfortunes that lead to the events that followed.

Of course, it's easy to imagine what we would do sitting in our armchairs - it's a completely different decision in a high-stress situation like that; strip down your decision-making into a few, simple choices.

[–] gangsta_toes 10 years ago

[quote]
I'd agree that it seems strange that given they are depicted in the movie as having restraints, they don't use them to limit the goatherds' ability to get back down to the village. (Although as one poster pointed out, this is a difference between the film and real events.)

I think they partly decided to let them go because they didn't think the Afghanis would be able to descend the mountain as quickly as they did. In the film the teenage goatherd is seen picking his way down the rocks incredibly quickly, something which is later commented on by one of the soldiers. Also, when they reach the top of the mountain they realise it's a false summit and they still can't get radio contact.

I suppose they thought that the time it would take for the goatherds to descend would give them adequate time to reach the peak and radio for evac. It was these combined misjudgements/misfortunes that lead to the events that followed.

Of course, it's easy to imagine what we would do sitting in our armchairs - it's a completely different decision in a high-stress situation like that; strip down your decision-making into a few, simple choices./quote]

This is exactly why I say you take them with you. I don't get why everyone thinks tying them up is a good idea. The Seals had no way of knowing how long it would be before they were extracted. It could have been the next day for all they knew and by leaving them tied up gives you zero control of how long until they get found. Another goat herder could have been ten minutes behind that one. No when lives are at stake the best option was to take them with them, old man and all. They're so good at navagating the terrain anyway and I'm sure the old man was in good shape seeing as how his job is to walk up and down those mountains everyday. Taking a life shouldn't be something to consider so easily when you have other options and tying them up just leaves too many assumptions. Of course it's armchair discussion, and I'm commenting on the point of view of the film since I didn't read the book.

"You have the right to remain silent, so shut the *beep* up!"

[–] TRinzler 10 years ago

Of course, it's easy to imagine what we would do sitting in our armchairs - it's a completely different decision in a high-stress situation like that; strip down your decision-making into a few, simple choices.

That's a given but try and put yourself in that situation. Your main concern would surely be the prisoners alerting the enemy soldiers before you had escaped! That is the one thing they HAD to avoid (or at least delay) at all costs...and they failed to do so.

Another (speculative) option would be to leave them tied up in the woods and then, once their extraction was in progress, get word of the location of the prisoners back to the enemy somehow so that they could be rescued. This assumes they could contact them via radio/telephone or even "drop a package/flare" from an aircraft flying overhead...

[–] !!!deleted!!! (43071862) 10 years ago

Oh Jesus I hadn't read this earlier.

You really have issues TRinzler. You are going to be the guy running into a school with an assault rifle shooting kids.

Let's be honest you are never getting into the military and I can see life ending badly for you and others.

Get some help fast.

M

[–] TRinzler 10 years ago

I thought you were going to bed and yet here you are stalking my posts and I am supposedly the one with issues?! You are one sad panda!

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] WhenGreyjoysCry 10 years ago

Just call off the op and keep them detained until the helo arrives. Then let them go.

Life is never fair, and perhaps it is a good thing for most of us that it is not.

[–] The_Mob_Has_Spoken 10 years ago

Here's my solution to the SEALs' dilemma. I started a new thread but here it is:

They should have stood around in a circle and peed on those goat-shlepping Talibanditos. It would have worked like gangbusters. Sounds a little gay though, right? Exactly. Worst case scenario: the guys go down the mountain and immediately snitch like in the movie and real life, but they get laughed at forever and possibly targeted for jailhouse-style homophobic rape/murder later on. If their story is even immediately believed. Only think about it: "What happened to you guys? It looks like someone peed on you." "No, that's exactly what happened! We were walking through the woods, minding our own business, when a bunch of Navy SEALs suddenly jumped out of the bushes and tied us up and urinated on all of us!" "Lulz! No way! You expect me to believe that story you just handed me?"

"Ass to ass. Ha ha ha ha. ASS TO ASS!"; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oa5z77EI8y0

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] inthebuff 10 years ago

Yeah Option 4 was what I thought they should have done. Even taking them all the way to the top of the mountain to get a signal and then holding them until their evacuation.

[–] Godlins 10 years ago

I'd have held them hostage until they developed Stockholm Syndrome. then they could have helped out by carrying stuff and making the tea, etc.

[–] !!!deleted!!! (43071862) 10 years ago

Yes the cable ties would have been an option, but the goats presented a bigger problem.

They would have either stayed in one spot with the tied up herders, causing suspicion and drawing people over from the village or they would have made their way back to the village, which would have ended with the same result.

I suspect one hour was the most amount of time the team would have had to get some distance between themselves and that location. I doubt that would have been sufficient, given the Talibans presence in those mountains.

Without an extraction the final outcome was always likely, with the exception of Luttrell. On paper in that situation, without comms or an extraction you would not expect any of the team to survive once compromised.

[–] TRinzler 10 years ago

Yes the cable ties would have been an option, but the goats presented a bigger problem.

It's excellent that you brought up the goats but i think you have it backwards...If anything, the goats would ensure that they'd be found eventually so the herders could be tied-up and left behind.

They would have either stayed in one spot with the tied up herders, causing suspicion and drawing people over from the village or they would have made their way back to the village, which would have ended with the same result.

It's quite normal for herders to head into the hills for several hours so people would probably miss the herders before they missed the goats and (most importantly) this would only happen several hours after the SEALs had left.

[–] !!!deleted!!! (43071862) 10 years ago

What you are missing is that the goats would have most likely moved back to the village without the herders, they would have done this in less than an hour based on Luttrells estimates on the distance they were from the village when compromised. Goats move fast downhill. Luttrell also called out this outcome in his book. You have read the book haven't you?

You could see their compromised poition from the village, again based on Luttrells accounts. This would have caused suspicion, which would have resulted in a contact. It's one thing for herders to be away in the mountains for hours, it's another thing for their goat herd to remain stationary on a mountain side in full view of the village. That would have caused suspicion, resulting in a contact. Plus the herders were returning to the village when they walked over the SEALs OP. So you would have to assume that they had already been gone for the duration, and they had a 14 year old with them. Mothers worry even in the Hindu Kush.

What I find astonishing is that you are arguing against the decision of four trained elite Navy SEALs. You are arguing against facts and actual events and basing your opinion on what? Your deployments on Xbox?

"this would only happen several hours after the SEALs had left" Based on what fact or experience? The trained SEALs called in otherwise. Luttrell said himself that the goats presented a bigger problem.

In the end one hour or two hours wouldn't have made a difference. Without air support its a miracle that even one guy survived. You know that's kinda why the book and and movie are a big deal. Nobody should have walked or crawled out of that situation. Thankfully Marcus did.

M

[–] TRinzler 10 years ago

You have read the book haven't you?

No, I am going from the film. This is IMDB afterall.

the goats would have most likely moved back to the village without the herders... they would have done this in less than an hour based on Luttrells estimates on the distance...You could see their compromised position from the village, again based on Luttrells accounts.

Fair enough. Given these 3 "facts" there was no way out unless they planned on taking the goats with them too! However, none of this was made clear in the film hence why people are still debating the decision. Given that Lutrell was involved in the making of it people assumed the scenario was (mostly) accurate but you're pointing out important differences.

What I find astonishing is that you are arguing against the decision of four trained elite Navy SEALs.

OMG! Perish the thought! Everyone makes mistakes - yes, even SEALs.

You are arguing against facts and actual events and basing your opinion on what?

What facts am I arguing against? I used the film as my source. You claim the book provides a different, more accurate account, which I was unaware of until you mentioned it.

I quote from your initial reply:

I suspect one hour was the most amount of time the team would have had to get some distance between themselves and that location. I doubt that would have been sufficient, given the Talibans presence in those mountains.

NO mention of the book as your source and your choice of words implies speculation on your part. Choose your words more carefully next time!

Also, in both cases (the book and the film) we only have someone's account (albeit a credible one) of these events - not "facts" as you claim. Eye witnesses often recall things incorrectly and Lutrell also had a vested interest in obscuring the matter. Before you jump on me about that, I'm not accusing him of lying but just pointing out that your source is equally "biased"...

Your deployments on Xbox?

Don't be condescending with someone you know nothing about and learn some manners.

[–] !!!deleted!!! (43071862) 10 years ago

"Also, in both cases ( the book and the film ) we only have someone's account of these events - not facts as you claim"

I don't claim anything, I'm basing the facts on Marcus Luttrells own words and his account of what happened. You know that's the guy who survived operation Red Wings, the guy who was the Navy SEAL with Team 10 who crawled out of Hell after watching his three buddies die. His word are good enough for me. Always will be.

It's a pity you can't take the word of a former SEAL, but then I guess some people just can't be reached.

You criticise SEALS for making a mistake they didn't actually make. You come up with your two hour goat herder crap and pluck it out of thin air. Please quit the Xbox warrior talk dude.

You should get out more, read more, and play less video games. I don't know what you are smoking but it's having a negative effect on your mind.

For the record, Luttrell wrote the book so people would know the story, so they would understand the sacrifice his buddies made. The movie rights were sold with artistic licence. The whole point in making the movie was to generate income for the families of fallen SEALs, that's where the money went. The movie was never going to be acurate and Luttrell said that from the start. His involvement on set was to ensure the firefights and weapons handling was portrayed in an accurate manner along with the characteristics of his fallen buddies.

Another armchair warrior who doesn't know his ass from his elbow. If you're from the U.S. Then you must have been living in a cave for the last four years.

M

[–] TRinzler 10 years ago

I don't claim anything, I'm basing the facts on Marcus Luttrells own words and his account of what happened.

No, you initially made claims (which I quoted) and only later explained where they came from - which I acknowledged and agreed with in my last reply. However, you didn't make this clear in your first post. Your problem not mine.

It's a pity you can't take the word of a former SEAL, but then I guess some people just can't be reached.

I believe his account because it's the closest we have to what actually happened but that doesn't mean it is what actually happened. If you can't tell the difference that's your problem. Also, fyi - recognising the limitations of eye witness accounts is not disrespecting the people who provide them.

You criticise SEALS for making a mistake they didn't actually make.

They made that mistake in the film and that is what I was commenting on - as is everyone else in this thread.

You come up with your two hour goat herder crap and pluck it out of thin air.

What 2 hour goat herder crap? You plucked that out of thin air, not me.

Please quit the Xbox warrior talk dude.

LOL where are you getting this garbage from? Not that it's relevant but I don't even own an Xbox...dude.

You should get out more, read more, and play less video games. I don't know what you are smoking but it's having a negative effect on your mind.

More ad hominem rubbish. You have no idea what you're talking about here at all.

For the record, Luttrell wrote the book so people would know the story, so they would understand the sacrifice his buddies made. The movie rights were sold with artistic licence. The whole point in making the movie was to generate income for the families of fallen SEALs, that's where the money went. The movie was never going to be acurate and Luttrell said that from the start. His involvement on set was to ensure the firefights and weapons handling was portrayed in an accurate manner along with the characteristics of his fallen buddies.

I'm quoting this in it's entirety because this is well said and informative, unlike the rest of your butt-hurt post. Why you feel the need to include derogatory remarks when you can just explain what was missing is a mystery.

For the record, we were discussing why a particular scene in a film appeared problematic. Our analysis was based on that. You completely failed to defend it but instead pointed out our source was infact inaccurate/incomplete, so no wonder we (unsurprisingly) drew wrong conclusions. This has nothing to do with "getting out more" or "Xboxes" and everything to do with the film being different from the book, as you have stated. There was no need to be a giant douchebag about it though. 

[–] !!!deleted!!! (43071862) 10 years ago

You never really make a point do you?

In relation to your two hour goat herder comment you should read back through your own post. You wrote it, I can't be arsed going back over it. It's written in your own words. You really do need to read more, as I mentioned earlier.

Your comment regarding "your analysis " is embarrassing. Analysis? Really? Based on what? Your Xbox missions? You are chatting out of your arse. That is why you need to get out more, that comment alone says it all.

And speak for yourself yeah, don't start with the "our" crap.

As for me needing to defend anything, well again you need to get out more and not get so bent out of shape. I made my comments regarding the book, which are acurate to the compromise scene more or less, but you wouldn't know because you haven't read the book.

I didn't realise your mind only functioned in the world of movies and video games.

M

[–] TRinzler 10 years ago

You're just repeating yourself now. Nothing useful to say...except more Xbox rubbish and comments about the book when we're talking about the film. What a douchebag!

[–] !!!deleted!!! (43071862) 10 years ago

Yeah you just keep firing the same insult at me, because that is in no way repeating yourself is it.

Again, speak for yourself. Who's is "we'" There is no "we" it's just you, your video console, in your bedroom, with your mom buzzing around downstairs.

Douchebag...? What are you 16 years old?

By the way I'm based in Hamburg, so I'm going to bed Dickhead. Sleep tight, and happy gaming. ( and get out more)

M

[–] TRinzler 10 years ago

Me insulting you - that's rich!

"We" is everyone else in this thread who is discussing the decision they make in the film, which didn't involve any goats! I thank you for the information provided in the book which better explains their choice of action but I am not impressed with your childish petulance.

According to you the film got it wrong, not the audiences!

[–] !!!deleted!!! (43071862) 10 years ago

Thank you for your service TRinzler.

Let's just pretend you're a SEAL and be done, it's safer for everyone that way. You can even be in Team Six.

Just don't murder any school children please.

M

[–] TRinzler 10 years ago

WHATEVER...DUDE

[–] Wakanohana 10 years ago

A 6th option: they had medical kits, so they probably had morphine. One or two doses would have knocked the herdsmen out for hours.

[–] TRinzler 10 years ago

Lateral thinking! Nice one.