Danny Dietz Tribute Rifle by Axelson Tactical

Cindy Dietz and Jeff Axelson with the Danny Dietz Tribute Rifle

Although SHOT Show is all about guns and gun-related gear it is not without its more emotional moments. One of those moments took place on Wednesday morning at Axelson Tactical’s booth during a press conference. This particular conference was held to announce the creation of a new rifle, but this wasn’t – isn’t – just any rifle. It’s a tribute rifle being made by Axelson Tactical for the late US Navy SEAL Danny Dietz.

“Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.” KJV Bible

Call it what you may, but there is an undeniable dose of masculine, testosterone-laden love in the military brotherhood. In 2005 Danny Dietz was shot 5 times and yet continued to fight for his teammates. As many service members have said, they fought not for the establishment, not even for country, but for the man fighting alongside them. Even when Marcus Luttrell attempted to drag him to a safer spot, Danny somehow kept his rifle shouldered and laid down cover fire. He refused to quit, refused to surrender, until the final round struck him in the head. Marcus Luttrell held him in his arms as he died. Danny’s tenacious refusal to stop firing his weapon – even while grievously wounded and being dragged by his teammate – was a stunning example of the steadfast love of the brotherhood. It was also a stunning example of the kind of courage and strength we all wish for but so rarely deliver.

Danny Dietz’s tribute rifle is being designed to closely resemble the gun he carried into his final battle. Of course, certain changes are being made in order to make it legal for civilians to own, but the basics remain. Visually it resembles Dietz’s rifle to a T. This similarity is due in part to the efforts of Russ Bacon, a Nevada Cerakote specialist who turns putting a customized finish on a firearm into an art form. Russ put a great deal of effort into this rifle, even talking to other pros to ensure he layered the various colors correctly to create the right effect.


Work on the tribute rifle began when Danny Dietz’s mother, Cindy Dietz, approached Jeff Axelson with her desire for a firearms memorial for her late son. Jeff Axelson is the owner and founder of Axelson Tactical and also the brother of the late Matt Axelson who was also killed during Operation Red Wings in 2005. Jeff agreed immediately and he and his team have been working hard on the new gun ever since.

The moment of the unveiling was emotional because it brought memories roaring back for many present including Cindy Dietz, Jeff Axelson, former SEAL Ron Bellan, and some of the men of Benghazi who attended the press conference to lend moral support. There will be 100 rifles made with the first two consecutive numbers staying within the family.


Specs are not yet available although I can tell you it’s chambered in 5.56 NATO and that the prototype has a flare launcher which will, of course, be rendered inoperable for compliance in certain states. The production rifles should be ready soon and I’m looking forward to some trigger time with them not only because this promises to be an interesting rifle but because the Dietz and Axelson families will be there, among others. It is always an honor to be invited to such an event. (You can be sure I’ll share full details on this gun when it’s finished.)

Visit Axelson Tactical’s website at www.axelsontactical.com

TFB Staffer

TFB Staff, bringing you the latest gun news from around the world for a decade.


  • Hensley Beuron Garlington

    I love it. That’s an awesome and fitting tribute. As beautiful and interesting as any sword or shield, coin or vehicle. Would love to buy one of these to display.

  • TheNotoriousIUD

    While its certainly an interesting and well made rifle im of two minds on this type of memorializing. Im not sure a gun is a fitting tribute since his life, most likely, was not primarily remarkable for his love of weaponry but rather commitment, strength of character and patriotism. Im also a little uncomfortable with the profit being made. If this is a tribute to a man whose courage and cause we respect then the money should go to a veterans group and by extension why not just skip buying the rifle and give the three or four grand directly to Wounded Warriors?

    • Twilight sparkle

      Wounded warriors is in business to make a profit, they’re not the organization to go to. They end up burning a lot of veterans with their shady deals and they’re also anti gun, so much so that they won’t accept money that’s donated by firearms companies or donated from raffle tickets for a firearm.

      • TheNotoriousIUD

        Really? Thats effed up.

        • KestrelBike

          WW is allegedly the new susan b. kommen (pink ribbons for breast cancer) of charities. All overhead/lush-spending with not nearly as much going to actual charitable deeds as it should.

          I like Semper Fi fund. It’s not just for Marines, but all services. http://www.charitynavigator dot org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=11708#.VqkXvCorK9I

          http://www.semperfifund dot org.

          • TheNotoriousIUD

            I was not aware of that, thanks for the info.
            Sad really.

      • Ken Meyer

        100% of the proceeds go to the Danny Dietz Memorial foundation

    • Edeco

      Yeah, I’m not a fan of putting, eh, values-heavy, emotional stuff on display. Minefield of potential rancor.

  • Joe Moore

    I think it’s a great thing to do, however… All pictures of the real rifle show it being very different from the one pictured above.

  • LazyReader

    Beautiful launcher…Havoc 37mm?

  • Aaron E

    Excellent article Katie, and a great job by Axelson and company. There truly is an amazing bond that goes beyond friendship and comraderie among our nation’s elite fighters. I wish I had known about this so I could have witnessed this amazing event.

  • dannye

    “they fought not for the establishment, not even for country”

    And yet they swore an oath explicitly declaring their intentions to do exactly that.

    Don’t forget, Dietz was killed by freedom fighters resisting his assassination mission against a resistance leader.

    • TheNotoriousIUD


      • dannye

        Sweet meme bro. Care to back it up with facts?

        • TheNotoriousIUD

          The government of Afghanistan had many chances before 9/11 to turn over UBL. They chose not to and gave him a safe haven.

          The people of AFG have on person to blame for their troubles: Mullah Omar.

          If the people over there wanted us to leave they should have joined us in fighting the real enemy keeping them down which was the Taliban.

          We did what we had to do.

          • dannye

            Hahahaha. Meanwhile in the real world, Bush rejected an offer by the Taliban to turn over Osama bin Laden:

            www dot theguardian dot com/world/2001/oct/14/afghanistan.terrorism5

            You present Afghanistan as a monolithic entity ruled by the Taliban, when its is run largely by tribal associations. And let’s not forget the Taliban was toppled in 2001 and Mullah Omar has little to no control over what the local resistance decides to do to American invaders like Danny Dietz in 2005.

            Also, Afghans have been killing Taliban/AQ without US help for years… so one wonders why you insist they side with an invader to do what they’ve already been doing.

            “We did what we had to do.”

            What’s that? Get Bin Laden? Even by the CIA’s own admission, capturing UBL took a back-seat in 2002, in favor of “nation-building”, or whatever you want to call the Afghan debacle.

          • Evan

            You’re literally just shouting conspiracy theories here, not using facts. You obviously have zero understanding of geopolitics. The fact that you refer to the Afghan Taliban as “freedom fighters” when freedom is the polar opposite of what they’re fighting for is really illustrative of your ignorance. In case you don’t remember, about 15 years ago, 19 guys hijacked four planes and crashed them into various buildings, killing nearly 3000 Americans. We went to Afghanistan because the Taliban, the Afghan government at the time, was harboring the mastermind of this attack.

            Your “I have better things to do than go kill people for politicians” nonsense translates to me, and most others who have served into something like “I don’t pack the gear to actually put my own life on the line, but instead of saying that, I’m going to come up with some nonsensical excuse to attempt to put my cowardice on some kind of moral high ground”. Pathetic.

          • dannye

            So, the entirety of the Afghan resistance is Taliban? Even when the Taliban was in power their tribal support was loose and fluid, but you actually believe that *after* the Taliban was deposed, their tribal support somehow became unanimous? Brilliant! You know, when facts and history don’t match your neocon delusions, that doesn’t make them conspiracy theories.

            By the way, as I noted above, the Taliban did offer to give up UBL but it was obvious that Bush intended to persecute the war to benefit his political supporters in the military-industrial complex. Can’t let the facts get in the way of massive war profiteering, right?

            And naturally someone as ignorant as you is incapable of understanding the moral dilemmas involved in killing for feckless politicians. Cowardice is refusing to do what’s right. Therefore the real cowards are the people who outsource their morality and murder people for paychecks and benefits.

          • Evan

            First, Mullah Omar and the other Taliban leaders were/are Pashtun. Pashtuns have a thing about hospitality; they would not offer to give up a guest, and did not offer up bin Ladin, your conspiracy theories nonwithstanding. If you read Marcus Lutrell’s book, he goes into this hospitality thing (I think it’s called pashtunwali) in detail. So yeah, you’re wrong on that one.

            Yes, what you disgustingly call the “Afghan resistance” is the Taliban. They’re more loosely organized than they were in 2001, but they’re the ones fighting us. Again, I don’t care what your absurd theories are about the matter, the fact is that we’ve been there since 2001 giving these savages everything they want and more. Those fighting us are doing so because of Islam, not whatever notions of “freedom” that they understand no more than you do.

            Refusing to do what’s right is cowardly. Hence my accusation against you. Your crackpot theories nonwithstanding, fighting for your country is the right thing to do (to say nothing of war being the ultimate calling of man and whatnot). If you are able bodied and refused to go, you are a pathetic coward. Also, despite your ideas to the contrary, nobody joins the military for the paycheck. It’s minimal. The benefits are overrated as well (apart from the GI Bill). I joined the Corps to fight. Every Marine I knew joined the Corps to fight. I grew up in New York, I saw what happened, and I was going to kill those responsible and all their ilk.

            You have no grasp of facts and literally zero idea of what you’re talking about. I would say quit while you’re ahead, but I guess it’s too late for that.

          • dannye

            I posted a link to a story documenting the Taliban offer. Here is another:

            www dot washingtonpost dot com/wp-srv/aponline/20011014/aponline135016_000.htm

            Facts don’t match your worldview don’t become conspiracy theories, they’re still facts. This goes for all the other facts you choose to ignore, such as the lack of unity behind the Taliban both before and after 2001, the high levels of resentment against the American installed central government (which breeds further resistance), and the long history of spontaneous Afghan resistance to foreign invasion. I understand why people would want to attribute all resistance to the Taliban, it makes their worldview easier to justify. Too bad for you, the facts don’t fit your tale.

            “fighting for your country is the right thing to do”

            Stupid, infantile notion. Countries (and governments) can and are often very wrong. Joining the US military implies you either don’t know that the American government hasn’t been doing the “right thing” militarily for quite some time, or you do know and you just don’t care. Either way, you’re a moral coward.

            “I grew up in New York, I saw what happened, and I was going to kill those responsible and all their ilk.”

            And yet you didn’t invade Saudi Arabia and Egypt, and instead murdered a bunch of Afghans and Iraqis who had nothing to do with 9/11. Congratulations, even your motivations are based on ignorance and stupidity. Pretty standard for a marine. The stereotype fits once again. 🙂

          • Evan

            Again, your lack of any idea what you’re talking about. You offer conspiracy theories, knee-jerk anti-Americanism, and a complete lack of moral clarity. Nothing else.

            The Egyptian government had nothing to do with 9/11. The Saudis didn’t either – at least not directly. I’m not going to bother going in depth there, you wouldn’t understand. The Taliban, ie the Afghan government in 2001, directly harbored those responsible for 9/11. They provided safe haven and material support. So yeah, you’re wrong about that. Again.

            Still wrong about “resistance/freedom fighters” as well. Really the only thing you got right is that the US installed government is unpopular. Romantic notions about subjects you have no knowledge of combined with silly anti-American conspiracy theory does not add up to fact.

            The rest of your appalling rant can be attributed to an utter lack of morality along with the pattern you keep exhibiting for lack of historical understanding. The US has been by far and beyond the greatest force for good in the world since at least the 1940s. The support of the occasional unsavory regime, which admittedly occurred, has always been in the service of opposing far worse regimes. Shades of gray and all that.

            Killing savages bent on imposing a medieval Islamic regime on the world is not murder. It’s being a freedom fighter in the ACTUAL sense of the word. Despite whatever nonsense you read in The Nation or whatever disgusting source you get your ideas from.

          • dannye

            I like how you continue to use the term “conspiracy theory” even though my statement is backed up with multiple contemporary news stories.

            Te Taliban government had nothing to do with 9/11 either, but that doesn’t stop you from running your mouth about “safe haven” (already shown to be a false statement) and “material support” (something some vague that the US government itself is guilty of the same thing).

            In any case, you’ve delved into full-blown scoundrel nationalism with your “force for good” garbage, a demonstrably false claim. You use the USSR boogeyman to wave up US support for regimes like Suharto and Saddam who had no dealings with the Soviets and murdered millions of people. This is not a shade of grey, it’s just flat, dark black.

            By the way, thanks for confirming that marines are intellectual dimwits. 🙂

          • iksnilol

            Ah, you’re one of those emotional wrecks. Blinded by rage you don’t even know who to kill, so you go after whoever they set you loose against.

            Reminds me of a mad hound… Where I’m from we put those down.

          • Evan

            Oh, please explain that comment. We’re attacked, so I (and millions of other Americans) sign up to fight back, and so we’re “mad hounds”? Aren’t you Norwegian? I know some Norwegians fought back against the Germans when they invaded. I guess your people were the collaborators. Better than being an emotional wreck and striking back against your enemies, I suppose.

          • iksnilol

            Nah, problem is you attacked the wrong people.

            Like, if somebody punches me in the face it is only natural to punch that person back. Right? You don’t go and shoot up somebody unrelated.

            I’ve no problem with killing people that need killing. Killing people because the are similar to someone who wronged me is beyond stupid.

          • Evan

            I disagree. I believe in a broader focus than that. I say you kill the people who wrong you and all their allies. In this case, saying “we’re going to attack Usama bin Ladin/al-Qa’ida and ignore all other Islamic terrorism” would be akin to saying, after Pearl Harbor “we’re going to sink IJN Shokaku, IJN Zuikaku, IJN Hiryu, IJN Soryu, IJN Kaga, and IJN Akagi. The Empire of Japan are not our enemies”.

          • iksnilol

            Your comparison falls apart since the IJN Whatevs were a part of the Empire of Japan.

            Iraq wasn’t a part of Saudi Arabia (which are your true enemies).

            Again, you’re shooting up the neighbourhood because somebody from that hood wronged you, yet in a cruel twist of irony you don’t actually shoot the wrongdoer. Then later on you wonder why everybody in that neighbourhood hates you.

          • Evan

            Saudi Arabia are not the “true enemies”. Basically, the true enemy is Islam (yes, yes, I know not every single moslem is a terrorist, but Islam is still, for all intents and purposes, an international terrorist organization). al-Qa’ida is to Islam what IJN Akagi was to the Japanese Empire. And in case you hadn’t realized, we DID shoot the wrongdoer. AQ is scattered and crushed, bin Ladin is dead, and the Taliban are out of power. Unfortunately, the fools in Washington are refusing to actually let us win.

          • dannye

            >thinks islam is an international terrorist organization
            >but says Saudi Arabia is not the true enemy, in spite being the progenitor of the most radical interpretation of Islam in the world and spends billions of dollars every year expounding this strain, and the fact that Saudi money has been definitively linked to 9/11 itself and countless other attacks

            Breathtaking. Looks like you’re doubling down on awful analogies today.

          • Evan

            Again, you’re being willfully ignorant and deliberately misinterpreting what I was saying. Saudi Arabia is not “the true enemy” any more than the Taliban are. They are a subsidiary of “the true enemy” for certain, however they do cooperate on some things, and unfortunately, the lifeblood of the US economy is oil, and the Saudis are very influential as far as oil is concerned. Again, shades of gray – something you seem to have trouble understanding (along with history, ethics, geopolitics, and for that matter everything you’ve chosen to opine on)

          • dannye

            Funny how you preach and screech about justice for 9/11, but when iksnilol points out that the Saudis have far more culpability in 9/11 than the Taliban ever did (never mind the average Afghan), you suddenly become the realpolitik pragmatist. Heh.

            So who’s the “true enemy” really? I’m semi-curious now.

          • Evan

            Jumping all over the place now I see. You’re still wrong, of course.
            First, the Taliban were far more culpable for 9/11 than the Saudis. They gave bin Ladin shelter, resources like training camps, and despite your insistence to the contrary, refused to turn him over. They almost certainly had prior knowledge of the plot. The Saudis, meanwhile, revoked bin Ladin’s citizenship, expelled him from the country, and alerted US intelligence about him. While it’s true that Saudi Arabia is a hotbed of Islamic terror, and much of the financing of 9/11 came from Saudi citizens, to say that the Saudis were more responsible than the Taliban is essentially an indefensible statement. Again, you have no idea what you’re talking about. Go put on your dunce cap and sit in the corner.

          • dannye

            “resources like training camps”

            Man, the Saudi-funded AQ were so poor, they needed the Taliban to build a camp. Do you know how stupid that sounds?

            “despite your insistence to the contrary, refused to turn him over”

            LOL. The news stories are wrong. All wrong!

            “They almost certainly had prior knowledge of the plot”

            Citation needed, evidence required.

            “The Saudis, meanwhile, revoked bin Ladin’s citizenship, expelled him from the country, and alerted US intelligence about him.”

            And a lot of good that did. Not to mention the Saudis refused to persecute citizens who were known enablers and fundraisers for AQ until well after 9/11, and some of them remain free to this day.

          • iksnilol

            15 of 19 of those involved in 9/11 were Saudi citizens. That’s as close as you can get to blaming a country. Al-Qaeda themselves are stateless.

            Yeah, Taliban and AQ are so crushed and powerless that they still cause mayhem everywhere.

            You kinda lost me at the whole “Islam = international terrorist organization part”. Shows your ignorance.

          • dannye

            “I know some Norwegians fought back against the Germans when they invaded.”

            Interesting analogy. The Afghans fought back against you and your invading ilk, but somehow they’re the invading Germans? So, who’s Quisling in this opposite world of yours?

          • Evan

            You’re being willfully ignorant here. Germany invaded, ie ATTACKED Norway (and basically everywhere else in Europe) with zero provocation. The invasion of Afghanistan was in response to an attack masterminded, plotted, and organized from there. It’s more akin to the Anglo-American invasion of France.

          • dannye

            “from there”

            Meaningless weasel word. 9/11 was not masterminded, plotted or organized by the Taliban, but by AQ. As noted already (and you refuse to acknowledge), the Taliban offered to give up the leader of AQ, but Bush rejected this offer. Moreover 9/11 was not an invasion any way, shape or form.

            Interesting tidbit: the Nazi invasion of Norway was in response to British mining of neutral Norwegian waters (arguably a war crime), which was a planned provocation to induce a German response which would allow the British occupation of Norway: code-name “Plan R 4”. So much for “zero provocation”.

            In essence, your analogy fails spectacularly on both sides. Fantastic!

          • Evan

            Wrong again, about everything! First, a large scale terrorist attack may not be an invasion, but it is clearly an act of war, just like an invasion is! There is no way any reasonable person could not see this. You’re being willfully blind there.

            However often you repeat that the Taliban offered to give bin Ladin up, it still is not true. I don’t care what your articles say, it simply isn’t.

            Whatever provocation Hitler invented for invading Norway is irrelevant. He invented specious reasons to invade all manner of places. It shouldn’t have surprised me that someone who holds your utterly foolish and uninformed views would be more sympathetic to Hitler than to the US.

          • dannye

            “but it is clearly an act of war”

            Not by any legal definition, which was why the US passed a vaguely worded AUMF instead of a congressional act of war which would have made everything official.

            “I don’t care what your articles say, it simply isn’t.”

            It is obvious you don’t care. You have shown that facts that don’t fit into your worldview are to be discarded. Truly the sign of an intellectually dishonest person. Or just an ignorant person. Or maybe both.

            “It shouldn’t have surprised me that someone who holds your utterly foolish and uninformed views would be more sympathetic to Hitler than to the US.”

            Hahahaha. I’m simply pointing out your good guy Allies-bad guy Axis narrative is flawed and naive. Kindly point out anything I said indicated any sort of “sympathy” for the Nazi regime. I can wait.

          • Evan

            Oh, so when it comes to Hitler, shades of gray exist, just got when it comes to those evil Americans fighting that innocent Taliban, huh? Ridiculous.

            The Taliban refused to turn bin Ladin over, whatever conspiracy theory you’ve uncovered to the contrary. If you look at it holistically, considering things like pashtunwali, the identical outlooks of UBL and Mullah Omar, etc, as well as the actual history (despite the single article you wave around as if it offers conclusive proof in the face of all other evidence to the contrary), your theory makes no sense.

          • dannye

            Hahahaha. You’re the one claiming that no shades exist in the Afghan invasion, because they’re all medieval Taliban evil-doers who are collectively responsible for 9/11. So you’re pushing the black-and-white narrative. I am arguing that reality is far more complex. You are so confused you used your own argument against yourself. 🙂

          • Evan

            No, you’re saying that the Taliban are “freedom fighters” against the evil American invaders, whereas Hitler had some *real, legitimate reasons* for invading Norway (and, I presume, everywhere else he invaded without provocation). Nice try, but you’re wrong again. You’re batting a solid .000 here.

          • dannye

            I said the Afghans are freedom fighters. Big difference. One of the very first things I said is that the Taliban do not represent all Afghans, or even a majority of them. You dispute this, in spite of the reality of shifting tribal relations in Afghanistan. And when the target Dietz was sent to assassinate was not even a member of the Taliban. Again, your story is black-and-white, mine is not.

            Moreover, I never used the term “real, legitimate reasons”, you made that up. I simply pointed out that your claim that Germany invaded Norway with “zero provocation” is demonstrably wrong. Again, you spin a black-and-white tale, when reality is more complicated.

            Stay confused. Stay mad. 🙂

          • Evan

            It’s cute how you keep backtracking and explaining how you didn’t actually say what you said, then accusing me of being confused.

            No, you didn’t use the word “Taliban”. You just referred to groups who fall under the umbrella of Taliban, though you deny that they do, because reasons. You then state that Americans are evil invaders, etc etc, without even trying to give reasons for that.

            You said (and I paraphrase) “Hitler had real reasons for invading Norway, there was real provocation there”. No, there wasn’t. Whatever nonsense Hitler may have ginned up as justification for invading Norway (and Denmark, the low countries, France, Yugoslavia, Greece, Poland, etc), his real reason was that he wanted an empire. I find the lack of moral clarity it takes to justify Hitler’s European conquests while completely condemning the American invasion of Afghanistan astounding.

          • iksnilol

            Eh, it is true that they wanted him on trial after some embassy bombings… back in the 90’s.

            FOIA revealed a lot of stuff. Not much googling needed.

    • KestrelBike

      Freedom fighters who enforce their own idea of religion on anyone/everyone at the point of a gun/knife, rape little boys, vivisect and execute innocent farmers, and blow up crowded marketplaces full of citizens in order to spread their idea of religion/politics.

      Are you sure you understand the definition of “freedom”?

      • hydepark

        If you think the United States isn’t guilty of those atrocities and more, you’re kidding yourself. Enjoy that look-aid.

      • dannye

        It’s great when people regurgitate garbage made up by soldiers to justify their amoral criminality. Even the Pentagon admits the vast majority of anti-coalition forces in Kunar (including the target of Operation Red Wing) were local elements that resent the national authority installed by the US military, and religious fanaticism is largely the domain of foreigners that the locals hated just as much as the US military.

        Even more amusing is that the US invasion has drawn foreign religious fanatics to Afghanistan and made life even more difficult for the locals. Meanwhile you attribute said religious fanaticism to the local resistance fighters in order to malign and denigrate their moral stand against invasion.

        So the question is… do *you* know what freedom means?

    • hydepark

      Mindless Hero Worship is rife in this country. And I’m not speaking to Deitz specifically with that statement.

    • DAN V.

      Have you ever served in combat for your country? If yes, you’re lying. If no, stfu.

      • dannye

        No, I never wasted my time killing people for politicians.

        Also implying one needs to do so in order to see the glaring logical contradictions in the soundbites and propaganda used by militarist cheerleaders.

        • DAN V.

          Have you served anyone in this world, besides yourself? Is that a waste of time? Stop whining about things in a comments section and go change the world.

          • dannye

            Yeah, I serve the military welfare queens by providing their paychecks. 🙂

            Do you actually have a logical response? If not, STFU.

          • Joe

            I’m a proponent of the just war theory, that said can’t think of to many just wars. I’m definitely not anti Military however. The point of a Military IS to kill people and break things. I believe if you fixed American politics that there wouldn’t be as many rabid anti Military types such as yourself.

          • dannye

            The claimed purpose of the US military is to defend the nation against foreign attack. The killing and breaking things part is just only if it is to perform said point, which definitely has not happened in the last half century.

            One wonders why you attribute blame for the broken system to “rabid anti military types” when the electoral system forces people to choose between two militarist parties, whereas soldiers such as Dietz willfully and consciously volunteered to kill for politicians, even when they must know the military has not defended the nation in a very long time.

    • Joe

      In one breath you call them freedom fighters and the next breath you called them tribal warlords so which are they?

      • dannye

        When did I say “warlord”? I said tribes. They are defending their homes against the real warlords, the American politicians.

    • n0truscotsman

      Regarding ‘them’ as ‘freedom fighters’ is a stretch. Freedom is not on their agenda, just their own particular brand of religious-inspired, tribalistic nutjobbery.

      • dannye

        They are defending their homes. By definition, they are freedom fighters, and better people than the invaders ever could be. If some of them are a little tribal, then so be it. Didn’t stop the US from helping them out in the 80’s against the Soviets.

        It can be argued that the hyper-aggressive militarism of the US government is also “nutjobbery”, but that doesn’t stop people like Evan from signing up to murder for pay and bennies.

        • n0truscotsman

          Some of them believe they are defending their homes from foreign invaders, not really caring less about the Taliban and Al Qaeda or anything else in between. the concept of a centralized, federal nation state as we know it doesn’t apply to Pashtun culture or Afghanistan in general.

          my point, though, is that your generalizations are trying to paint them all as heroic freedom fighters fighting off an invading army when that assertion is complete bullshit and the reality is far more complicated than that.

          Its just as flawed as saying the US is the bastion of freedom and democracy looking out for humanity’s best interests, especially those nations who we occupy, when that is obviously bullshit. Or that our ‘allies’ (dear loving saudi arabia and pakistan) are ‘better’ than the factions we are fighting against.

          • dannye

            I never said all resistance against American invasion are freedom fighters. I readily acknowledged the presence of foreign fundamentalists who are not freedom fighters. On the other hand, one particular poster here is claiming that all resistance is Taliban, which is a ludicrous claim.

            In the context of the battle where Dietz was killed (Operation Red Wing), the Afghans involved were freedom fighters. In 2005, Ahmad Shah was not a member of the Taliban. However, after his victory against the SEAL’s, Shah sought protection from American revenge by seeking allegiance with the Taliban. Again, this is the result of the American invasion forcing Afghans to pick sides between the invader and foreign religious wackjobs.

            The vast majority of Afghans resent the invasion and many of them aren’t Taliban members. This cheap propaganda of misunderstanding the resistance is likely one reason why the entire American adventure in Afghanistan has been a dismal failure.

  • Lone_Wolf_Sinofsky

    This seems crass.

  • sapper

    It does not resemble his rifle at all. it is completely different. incorrect stock, pistol grip, acog, flash hider. FF M-lock rail? havoc launcher? what the hell is this. why?

    • RSG

      I’m curious how you know this? Unless of course you were there when he strapped up after the final briefing before his last mission. Otherwise, you couldn’t possibly know what mods he personally made to this mission specific rifle. Just because he may be photographed at other times carrying an altogether different rifle, does not mean he was fulfilling the same role, with the same requirements during Red Wing. I have no doubt Lutrell and perhaps others knew exactly what was carried into the last battle and that the rifle was recovered with his body afterwards.

  • TheNotoriousIUD

    Yeah, that all sounds sketchy as hell.

  • Danny Wildman

    Ah TFB and its censorious ways. No politics, except when shilling for US militarism.