Re: Anyone Have Any Thoughts On the SEAL Coming fo... - Page 7

FUTURE · ‎04-11-2010

I don't like that he has identified himself one bit, but I will likely watch the show. Honestly, I think he's not too smart, and could be putting numerous people in danger. If he were my husband,I would be FreAKInG out!

stevieb · ‎03-10-2010

On 11/8/2014 terrier3 said:
On 11/8/2014 stevieb said:
Well after the fact. I question why all the secrecy in the first place...

Because they are sworn to secrecy on their ultra-secret missions - before, during and after.

They are a TEAM - no one's role is more important than the next soldier's.

That's really not an answer but rather sort of a circular argument... It's secret because it's secret... We all know the outcome, what some would suggest is there's no real reason for them to be sworn to secrecy until death in the first place... Certainly a pending mission requires it, but otherwise there's something to be said for disclosure. It's completely possible to build a team without all the intrigue...

In my pantry with my cupcakes...

Chalcedony · ‎05-12-2010

Except for his identity, how much of the mission remained secret after the Administration cooperated with the making of the movie Zero Dark Thirty? I think that the movie makers should not have had the access that they did, but that was deemed ok. Perhaps he felt like much of the secrecy had already been blown.

misspammie · ‎03-14-2010

having worked for gov't. I think good ol Jack Nicholson said it well, honestly I think it's true "you can't handle the truth",,,and I do think many can't.

Qwackertoo · ‎03-11-2010

On 11/9/2014 Chalcedony said: Except for his identity, how much of the mission remained secret after the Administration cooperated with the making of the movie Zero Dark Thirty? I think that the movie makers should not have had the access that they did, but that was deemed ok. Perhaps he felt like much of the secrecy had already been blown.

Very true. I never went to see the movie. I thought that was NOT a good move to give movie makers access to our mission methods and operations.

LilacTree · ‎03-25-2012

He totally destroyed the mystique about Navy Seals.

Formerly Ford1224
We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented. Elie Wiesel 1986

Marienkaefer2 · ‎03-09-2010

My first thought in this was for his safety, and that of his family. Also, I agree with Ford.

If you have a garden and a library, you have everything you need.--Marcus Tullius Cicero

NoelSeven · ‎03-09-2010

On 11/8/2014 stevieb said:
On 11/8/2014 terrier3 said:
On 11/8/2014 stevieb said:
Well after the fact. I question why all the secrecy in the first place...

Because they are sworn to secrecy on their ultra-secret missions - before, during and after.

They are a TEAM - no one's role is more important than the next soldier's.

That's really not an answer but rather sort of a circular argument... It's secret because it's secret... We all know the outcome, what some would suggest is there's no real reason for them to be sworn to secrecy until death in the first place... Certainly a pending mission requires it, but otherwise there's something to be said for disclosure. It's completely possible to build a team without all the intrigue...

It's kept a secret so their identity is never known, so they don't become targets for revenge or tortured extortion of information.

A Thrill Of Hope The Weary World Rejoices

terrier3 · ‎03-10-2010

On 11/9/2014 Qwackertoo said:
On 11/9/2014 Chalcedony said: Except for his identity, how much of the mission remained secret after the Administration cooperated with the making of the movie Zero Dark Thirty? I think that the movie makers should not have had the access that they did, but that was deemed ok. Perhaps he felt like much of the secrecy had already been blown.

Very true. I never went to see the movie. I thought that was NOT a good move to give movie makers access to our mission methods and operations.

The movie was a fictionalized version of events. I think it even has a disclaimer.

Qwackertoo · ‎03-11-2010

On 11/9/2014 terrier3 said:
On 11/9/2014 Qwackertoo said:
On 11/9/2014 Chalcedony said: Except for his identity, how much of the mission remained secret after the Administration cooperated with the making of the movie Zero Dark Thirty? I think that the movie makers should not have had the access that they did, but that was deemed ok. Perhaps he felt like much of the secrecy had already been blown.

Very true. I never went to see the movie. I thought that was NOT a good move to give movie makers access to our mission methods and operations.

The movie was a fictionalized version of events. I think it even has a disclaimer.

I'm sure it does have a disclaimer. Still it shouldn't have been done. They shouldn't have been allowed access to information to create their fictionalized version based on the real version. Lacking a "need to know". They do not have a "need to know" status. Maybe in 20 years. Sorta like the Warren Report on Kennedy. Certain information wasn't released for decades. Shouldn't cherry pick who it is OK to spill info to whether it be Biden, the Navy Seal or the administration in general when they cooperated with Hollywood for a movie. None of the above would be the best answer, I think.