Today is Guy Fawkes Day, a day where the U.K. celebrates the foiling of a plot to kill King James I in 1605. The country celebrates this by lighting fireworks and, in a morbid twist, burning an effigy of poor Guy.

It's easy to forget that this celebration has rather grim roots. Guy Fawkes was part of a Catholic plot to kill a Protestant King and his English Lords — and, unfortunately for him, it failed. He was almost certainly tortured severely, before being executed in a brutal manner.

Fawkes was the one guy in the plot unlucky enough to have been discovered late on November 5 with dozens of barrels of gunpowder hidden under wood, after a tip-off to a Catholic politician led to an inspection of the cellars under parliament. He was swiftly taken into custody at the Tower of London and interrogated until he eventually gave up his co-conspirators.

While we'll never know precisely what happened to Fawkes in those eight days, it seems pretty likely it was bad: There is speculation that Fawkes was tortured using a rack during his stay in the Tower of London.

For a visual on the effects of torture, look at the document below. You can see Fawkes' signature, before the interrogation (he signs as Guido Fawkes, a name he had taken on later in life):

Now, contrast that with his signature on a later confession, made after eight days of interrogation. As you can see, Fawkes' signature is a barely legible scrawl:

As the BBC puts it, "his signature on his confession was that of a shattered and broken man, the ill-formed letters telling the story of a someone who was barely able to hold a quill. "

Even once the torture was over, Fawkes still had to meet a grisly end. After his confession, he was hanged, drawn, and quartered, with his remains sent to the four corners of the kingdom — as a warning to future plotters.

This post was originally written by Adam Taylor.

SEE ALSO: How Guy Fawkes Inadvertently Created The Word 'Guy'

Join the conversation about this story »

China is set to debut its new Shenyang J-31 stealth fighter at the Zhuihai international airshow next week. Although the fighter's exact specifications are unknown, it could be a match for the F-22 and the F-35, Dave Majumdar writes for USNI News citing several US military officials and pilots. 

This sense of the capabilities of the J-31 are largely based on the successes China has had in industrial espionage against US targets. 

"I think they’ll eventually be on par with our fifth-gen jets — as they should be, because industrial espionage is alive and well," an unnamed senior US fighter pilot familiar with the F-35, the US's fifth-generation stealth fighter, told USNI News. 

Chinese hackers have been noted for their frequent success at obtaining sensitive information relating to US defense projects.

In July, a Chinese entrepreneur was arrested in Canada at the request of the FBI after he allegedly stole information for 32 military projects, including the F-35.

The stolen information on the F-35 has likely made its way into the designs of China's J-31 stealth fighter. There are reports that China may be looking to make the J-31 capable of landing on aircraft carriers, giving them a role similar to the F-35C's, which will serve as a naval aircraft. This similarity between the planes has placed China and the US in a race to develop the first aircraft carrier-borne stealth jet. 

If the J-31 actually does deliver on its promise of being able to match the F-35, China could counter some of the strategic effects of the US's pivot to the Pacific. Speaking to USNI News, one former pilot said that the K-31 would likely out-perform a handful of US fourth-generation fighters, such as the F-15 and the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet. 

However, the technical proficiencies of an aircraft does not determine its overall capability. The skills and training of pilots play a significant role in determining the effectiveness of a fighter jet. 

"[I]t is safe to say it's not always a matter of technology, armament or on-board equipment," David Cenciotti, a military aviation expert and founder of The Aviationist, told Business Insider via email. Early warning systems, intelligence, and training all are vitally important. 

The J-31 is about the same size as the F-35. But the Chinese airframe has smaller engines and a flatter fuselage, implying a focus on air-to-air combat. The J-31's design necessitates a smaller weapons bay than the F-35, although this would increase the plane's overall fuel efficiency and speed as it would suffer from less drag. 

SEE ALSO: These Chinese military advancements are shifting the balance of power in Asia

Join the conversation about this story »

Mark Bowden is one of the preeminent journalists of this era, with much of his work focusing on the fraught relationship between the US and the Islamic world. His books include now-classic works of reportage like Black Hawk Down and Guests of the Ayatollah, and he wrote a 2012 book about the raid that killed Osama bin Laden, The Finish. He is currently a national correspondent for The Atlantic, as well as a contributing editor at Vanity Fair.

Business Insider spoke to him about the 35th anniversary of the embassy hostage crisis, the fight against ISIS, and why it was inevitable that participants in the Bin Laden raid would want to discuss their role in public. The interview has been edited for length and clarity.

BI: Are you surprised by the fact that a Navy SEAL will soon go on Fox News claiming to have killed Osama Bin Laden? 

No, I'm not surprised at all.

When I was working on my book, The Finish, and I was talking to [former head of US Special Operations Command] Admiral [William] McRaven, I'd asked him for permission to speak to some of his men and he said no.

And he asked why in the world he would agree to do such a thing, and I told him that I felt this was such an important story and a big story that it was going to come out and it would likely come out — unless there was some effort to coordinate response, that it was gonna come out in dribs and drabs as individuals told their own stories, and that would inevitably lead to conflicting accounts.

And he just kind of brushed off my comments saying, "none of my guys will ever talk." And I told him, "well, Admiral I think you're mistaken, I think in this case they are gonna talk. And you know, it'll take time, but the story is gonna come out."

And he was firm in his opinion, and I think I have been proved correct. 

BI: What made it inevitable? The stakes and significance of the operation? 

Yeah, I think so. I think that the temptation for many reasons for the men who were on that mission to tell their stories is just — it's really unrealistic, I think, to expect that all of them would keep quiet. I mean there are always gonna be certain kinds of people who can keep their mouth shut about anything. but those people are rare.  

Human nature being what it is, and the fact that these guys worked their butts off and risked their lives for a decade or more and were going to be now coming out of military service and transitioning to civilian life — not many of them make that transition smoothly. And if you can ease that transition by selling a book contract or getting paid to do an interview or something that would be an enormous temptation for these guys. I think that's what you see happening. 

BI: What about the legal warnings coming from the Pentagon, or the backlash from the rest of the SEAL community?  

No, I'm not surprised by that either. In fact, when I had that conversation with McRaven, unbeknownst to him I had already spoken to Matt Bissonette, who was one of his men. And Matt was trying to make up his mind whether to talk to me or to do his own thing.  

And so I knew when I talked to McRaven that at least Matt was going to be coming public with his story. And I had talked to Matt about what the advantages and disadvantages were. I mean obviously he was in a position to make money, by selling his story and telling it himself.

I was not in a position, as a journalist, to offer him any money for his story, although I did tell him that I felt since he was thinking about writing about his whole career as a SEAL, that if I told his story in my book that it would probably help him sell his book, and it's turned out he didn't need any help from me.  

But one of the things that I'd discussed with him was that he would be liable to criminal prosecution if he told his story. Because he, unlike me, has taken an oath, a security oath, and there are criminal penalties associated with that.

And I said you know if you tell your story to me and I don't reveal your identity, then you have a measure of protection against prosecution. And he opted to go the other way, which I respect and understand, but with that came the risk. 

BI: Switching gears, this week marks the 35th anniversary of the beginning of the Iran hostage crisis. Do you think the US has fully recovered from the shock of the event?

What strikes me about the episode today was that it was really the first time that Americans became aware of the hardcore anti-Americanism of many Muslim extremists in that part of the world. And that was really our first encounter with that in Iran. 

This has obviously become one of the defining features of our experience in the world in the 35 years since. And obviously the Muslim world is very complex and the Iranians represent only one faction among many, but that disaffection and hostility toward the United States and toward our values is, you know, very much alive in the world and in Iran itself still ... 

There's historic justification for some of that hostility. We have seen Muslim extremism become a truly horrific phenomenon. I don't think it poses an existential threat to the United States but it certainly does color all of our relationships in the world and it certainly continues to pose a threat of terrorists acting against Americans around the world and in this country. I don't think we've seen the last of that. 

BI: What do you think of the United States' approach to thwarting terrorism in general? Is it on the right path? 

The threats posed by various groups in different parts of the world differ. And our responses should differ according to circumstances. But I will say that I think that it is something that we should confront where we find it, and we should confront it on a lot of levels.

We should confront it with foreign policy initiatives, we should be cultivating allies who are supportive of western values wherever we can, and where it makes sense we should be providing military support, I think, and we should be acting directly if need be.  

I think a larger issue that I don't believe everyone has accepted is that when the United States directly intervenes in almost any region in the Middle or Near East, we provoked such a powerful backlash of anti-Americanism that we arguably do more harm than good. And so a guiding principle should always be: "Is this going to make things better or is this going to make things worse?"   

And in the case of ISIS?

Without a doubt. I think any direct American role in attacking ISIS will make things a lot worse.

For one thing we will be perceived as being the sort of military arm of the Shia movement in Iraq, and it will rally extremists. It will basically be a huge propaganda boost for ISIS.

I think the Obama Administration is very, very smart in coordinating our response and working through both the Iraqi authorities, who presumably are struggling to create a more inclusive government — but also through other nations in that part of the world, Muslim nations.

Because the moment this is perceived as a crusade by the Christian West against the Muslim true believers, it's just like throwing fuel on the fire.

SEE ALSO: An interview with author Yochi Dreazen on the mental health legacy of the US's post-9/11 wars

Join the conversation about this story »

Britain and New Zealand have adopted an uncommon style of policing. Their cops typically don't carry guns on the job.

You might assume this would lead to more officer fatalities, but that's not the case.

In Britain, this tradition stretches back to the 19th century. When the Metropolitan Police force was formed, people feared the military and wanted to avoid a police force that was oppressive, according to the BBC.

If police officers don't have guns, then they can't use firearms against citizens. Moreover, police can't have their own guns used against them.

By only allowing some officers to be armed — like a firearms unit in every police force in Britain and cops who patrol security-sensitive places like airports, for example — the logic goes, there's less of a risk of gun violence overall.

A New Zealand police commissioner wrote in an editorial in 2009:

I have no doubt that carrying handguns would compromise officers' ability to do their regular work, because when you carry a weapon, your primary concern is to protect that weapon. If this was balanced by a clearly demonstrable increase in personal protection, it would be a price to consider paying. But the protection offered by a firearm — particularly a pistol — is more illusory than real.

This has actually worked out quite well. The UK and New Zealand fare rather well compared to other countries when it comes to violent crime. They have some of the lowest homicide rates in the world:

Gun deaths are lower in Europe and Oceania overall, too:

Police shootings are far less prevalent in Britain than they are in the US. In the wake of the Michael Brown shooting in August, The Economist noted that British citizens are about "100 times less likely to be shot by a police officer than Americans."

Protests erupted in Ferguson, Missouri after a white police officer shot and killed Brown, an unarmed black teenager, during a routine patrol, leading to a national conversation about police brutality and use of force.

What helps Britain and New Zealand pull off unarmed policing is that gun ownership rates in these countries are much lower than in the US, which means that fewer criminals are armed with guns.

And police in Britain do have access to tasers to subdue suspects, which is a much safer alternative to guns.

SEE ALSO: Most Americans Couldn't Answer These Basic News Questions — Can You?

Join the conversation about this story »

For the second straight year, Russian President Vladimir Putin was named the World’s Most Powerful Person by Forbes magazine. Leading international counterparts like Barack Obama and China's President Xi Jinping, Putin takes the lead based on "an evaluation of hard power." 

This year, Putin annexed the multi-ethnic peninsula Crimea, engineered a war in Ukraine, and signed off on the world's largest construction project, a $70 billion gas pipeline deal with China.

Furthering geopolitical uncertainty, Putin has made casual references to Russia's approximately 8,484 nuclear warheads in a move that many analysts speculate as a clear challenge to NATO member states. 

The Russian air force has been particularly active since 2013, carrying out simulated attacks on both Stockholm and North America. In the end of October, NATO jets intercepted 26 Russian aircraft in two days — an unusual level of Russian activity. 

Putin hasn't been shy about throwing his power around this year, engaging in high-risk tactical and strategic gambits and using Russia's natural gas and oil wealth to lessen the political and economic consequences of his aggressive decision-making.

The following map depicts the larger confrontation between Russia and NATO and the possible return to Cold War power dynamics in Europe — something Putin's helped usher in over the past year.

Russia has already declined attendance at the bi-annual 2016 nuclear security summit held in Chicago, according to a Reuters report. 

Aside from a focus on hard power, Putin has given his rule an increasingly anti-Western ideological bent. In October, Putin gave one of the most anti-American speeches of his career in which he accused the US of a double standard of the world order. 

"We did not start this," Putin said before charging the US with trying to "remake the whole world based on its interests." 

Throughout the entirety of the Ukraine crisis, Putin has accused the US and other western powers of organizing a coup that put alleged anti-Russian "fascists" in control of the government in Kiev. Putin has charged the US with having a double standard over its intervention against Serbia in support of Kosovo's ethnic Albanians in the 1990s. 

Putin has decried that if the US can intervene in the world as it sees fit, then Russia can also do as it pleases. 

"The bear will not even bother to ask permission," Putin said in a speech last month. "Here we consider it the master of the taiga. It does not intend to move to any other climatic zones. However, it will not let anyone have its taiga either."

Forbes ranked President Barack Obama as the second most powerful person in the world, just behind Putin.

Third place went to Chinese President Xi Jinping, fourth was Pope Francis, and German Chancellor Angela Merkel was fifth. There are 12 new figures on the list including Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi (15th) and ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi (54th).

SEE ALSO: Putin's Ukraine strategy is straight out of 'Game of Thrones'

Join the conversation about this story »

Tuesday's wave of Republican congressional victories sets up a potential showdown over perhaps the biggest foreign-policy initiative of President Barack Obama's second term, an effort that one of his top advisers has likened to Obamacare in its importance: the pursuit of a final nuclear agreement with Iran.

Tuesday's wins give the Republicans a minimum of 52 and a likely 54 seats in the Senate. That's on top of a small handful of Democratic senators, like Sens. Chuck Schumer of New York and Bob Menendez of New Jersey, who might oppose a deal that doesn't go as far as they would like in rolling back Tehran's nuclear infrastructure.

The next Senate might include not only a majority of lawmakers dead set against a deal that recognizes Iran's rights to nuclear enrichment or that fails to cover Tehran's ballistic missile programs or support for terrorist groups. It could conceivably include a veto-proof majority, depending on what an eventual agreement looks like.

On Capitol Hill, it is become a guessing game as to what the final deal might look like — and whether the final product would be altered at all by the coming Republican majority. The shape of a comprehensive agreement looks different every day depending on which reports are read by aides on Capitol Hill. On Tuesday, for example, The New York Times reported a potential boost from Russian involvement in the talks. But Iran denied The Times' report.

The "GOP will surely be less restrained, to put it mildly!" one senior Senate Democratic aide told Business Insider when asked whether the Republican takeover changed the situation.

Whatever the case, a deal with Iran would not be a treaty and would not have to be submitted to the Senate for ratification. The Obama administration has signaled it might attempt to maneuver around Congress and avoid allowing a vote on any final agreement with Iran, the deadline of which is set for Nov. 24.

But if the White House signs a deal with Iran after the next Senate is sworn in on Jan. 3, it could have to contend with numerous legislative challenges to its implementation. 

The Senate could force every member of Congress to go on record about his or her support for or opposition to the deal. This provision is the center of the Iran Nuclear Negotiations Act of 2014, a bill proposed by Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tennessee) with 11 current cosponsors, including Sens. John McCain (R-Arizona) and Marco Rubio (R-Florida). Incoming Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell could allow a vote on the measure to proceed even before a deal with Iran is signed. 

A "joint resolution of disapproval" envisioned under the law won't reverse the deal. But Mark Dubowitz, executive director of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, says it could affect the dynamic of the debate surrounding it. 

"If the majority of the House and Senate vote against it, it could be a significant blow to the political legitimacy of the deal," Dubowitz says.

And that blow could lead to other, more tangible measures. "That lays a political predicate for lot of the things that Congress can do to defeat a deal," he says.

For instance, the Republican-led Senate could refuse to lift existing sanctions legislation after a deal is signed, forcing Obama to implement the agreement through a series of sanctions waivers that the next president can simply decide not to continue.

Existing sanctions laws, signed in 2010 and 2012, include provisions stipulating that the sanctions will not be repealed until numerous criteria are met, including the dismantling of Iran's ballistic missile program and its removal from the state sponsors of terrorism list. A Republican Senate can leave the sanctions on the books, forcing the White House to affect the agreement by decree — something the next president could choose not to continue, which would effectively scuttle the agreement.

David Rivkin, a partner at Baker Hostetler LLP, who served in the Department of Justice and White House Counsel Office under Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, said he believed Obama did not have the legal authority to suspend sanctions by fiat but that it was up to Congress to determine how to counter such a move.

"The president would be in effect suspending the statutes for a period of years without any basis in law. He would be acting extra-constitutionally," Rivkin told Business Insider. "The question isn't whether it's constitutional or unconstitutional. It's what Congress can do about it."

Congress could use appropriations riders, refusing to fund programs or offices in the federal government involved in implementing an Iran agreement. Or it could pass entirely new sanctions, or require the administration to disclose the full content of the agreement to Congress — something that hasn't happened with the Joint Plan of Action (JPOA), the interim nuclear agreement signed in Geneva last Nov. 24.

The JPOA includes an "implementation agreement" that was never officially classified but that only individuals with a secret-level federal security clearance are allowed to see. Congress could make the administration apprise them of the entire contents of an agreement, even if only through testimony in a closed-door hearing.

And a Republican-led Congress could pass legislation that forces the White House into a harder negotiating position before a deal is reached.  

"By quickly passing the bipartisan Menendez-Kirk legislation, Congress can prevent a bad deal that fails to eliminate Iran’s illicit nuclear program, and increase the chances for a strong deal that irreversibly prevents Iran from ever getting nuclear bombs," Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Illinois) told Business Insider by email. 

That measure, which would have passed provisional sanctions that would have gone into effect if Iran violated the JPOA, didn't make it to the floor, even with more than 60 cosponsors. But it would under a Republican majority leader.

For his part, Obama reiterated during a news conference on Wednesday that he would rather have "no deal than a bad deal."

"What I want to do is see if we, in fact, have a deal," he said. "If we do have a deal that I have confidence will prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and that we can convince the world and the public will prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, then it will be time to engage in Congress. And I think that we’ll be able to make a strong argument to Congress that this is the best way for us to avoid a nuclear Iran, that it will be more effective than any other alternatives we might take, including military action."

US Secretary of State John Kerry also said Wednesday he was still optimistic the US would remain "joined together with a strong voice" on matters of foreign policy. 

"I don’t believe that changes either side. I honestly don’t," he said of working toward a deal before Republicans control Congress.

"I believe that the same substantive issues would be there regardless of who is in control of the United States Senate. And remember, the United States Senate is still going to be subject to 60 votes to pass anything. So while it may be Republican or Democrat, it’s still subject to 60 votes. And as we have learned in the last few years, the minority has enormous power to stop things from happening, so this really is going to depend on other things."

SEE ALSO: The Obama Administration's Main Problem In Iraq Is Painfully Ironic

Join the conversation about this story »

A 24-year-old Frenchman who joined Al Qaeda forces in Syria has reportedly been killed by a US drone strike, according to the French news magazine L'Express.

The raid reportedly targeted David Drugeon, who has been called a "veteran French jihadist." Drugeon was reportedly traveling in a car when he was killed in the drone strike, which also targeted a building used by the Khorasan Group, an Al Qaeda affiliate.

It is likely that Drugeon was radicalized in France at a young age and then later went to fight with jihadists in the Middle East.

"His is the unlikely story of a Catholic boy from Brittany who grew up to become an important member of Al Qaeda, achieving the youthful success in the jihadist underworld that eluded him in normal life," intelligence expert John Schindler reported.

"Drugeon's family last heard from him in June 2010, when letters to both his parents arrived from an unknown location," Schindler also noted. "He had already pressured his mother into converting to Islam, and in his final communication, he exhorted his father to do likewise, promising that the family would 'meet in heaven.'"

Drugeon is thought to have joined Middle Eastern terrorists around 2010. He reportedly started out in Egypt before making his way to Pakistan and eventually Syria.

SEE ALSO: The Truth Behind That 'French Spy'-Turned-Al Qaeda Operative The US Targeted In Syria

Join the conversation about this story »

Putin left his mark in the international community over the past few months, but his motives remain unclear.

There's ongoing debate over whether his moves are part of a larger master plan, or if he's just acting impulsively day-by-day.

One former aid formerly known as 'Kremlin's Banker' firmly believes that the world's "most powerful" person is just winging it.

"Putin is not someone who sets strategic plans; he lives today," Sergei Pugachev said in an interview with TIME.

Pugachev was a big player in Moscow until recent years. He founded Mozhprombank (International Industrial Bank) in Moscow back in 1992, and within four years was a "Kremlin powerbroker," helping politicians win elections. Things went sour in 2010, and then the Kremlin started aggressively buying up his business. Pugachev fled to London in 2011.

While Pugachev was a Kremlin favorite, he spent plenty of time with Putin. In fact, he "spoke to him almost every day probably" when Putin was St. Petersburg's mayor and Pugachev served as an advisor.

The former aide believes that Putin didn't have any master plan for his career either. He just sort of ended up as president because "there weren't any other options" and his former boss a was democratic ex-mayor of St. Petersburg, according to the report by Oliver Bullough.

"He had no plans, he didn't aim to become President. He hadn't thought of that. He didn't plan to remain in the government at all,"he added. 

Pugachev suggests that the Russian leader might not be making economic decisions strategically.

"Vladimir Putin does not understand economics. He does not like it. It is dry. It's boring to hear these reports, to read them," Pugachev says. "He likes clear things: Russia's moving ahead; how great everything is. He does not have a deep understanding of what is happening."

Right now, Russia is facing serious economic problems. Not to mention, the Rouble keeps plunging. Pugachev says that Putin doesn't care.

"Putin's close circle understands that he likes good news, so they always bring him good news. Whatever is happening, it's good. For him, it's enough to be in a good mood," Pugachev told TIME.

Check out the fascinating interview at TIME > 

Join the conversation about this story »

In some coffee shops in Crimea, you can no longer order a "Caffé Americano." It's now called "Caffé Crimea."

Tanya Lokot tweeted photos of the new trend. One coffee shop alerted customers to the change with a notice that reads: "Attention! Given the current geopolitical situation, we no longer have 'the Americano.' Please ask for the 'Crimea coffee.'"

Another coffee machine was advertising the "Russiano."

Check it out:

Oh Russia: Coffee places in Crimea now selling "Russiano" instead of "Americano."pic.twitter.com/ysBHQq8uvx

— Tanya Lokot (@tanyalokot) November 6, 2014

An Americano is espresso mixed with hot water.

American soldiers in Italy reportedly created the drink during World War II to make European espresso taste more like the coffee they were used to back home.

This ploy from Crimea is reminiscent of some restaurants in America referring to French fries as "freedom fries"as a reaction to France's opposition of the US invading Iraq.

Russia invaded Crimea, a peninsula that was formerly part of Ukraine, earlier this year. The US opposed the move.

Join the conversation about this story »

The Navy SEAL who is claiming to have killed Osama Bin Laden during a Fox News documentary later this week has allegedly been identified.

Numerous news outlets have reported the Fox interviewee is former SEAL Robert O'Neill, a 16-year Navy veteran with a decorated service record that includes two Silver Stars, four Bronze Stars, and 52 overall commendations.

O'Neill had actually gone public with some of his experiences as a SEAL before this week and lists "speaker" in his Twitter biography.

The appeal of O'Neill as a public speaker is obvious. As a SEAL, he has repeatedly had to embark on highly risky missions that forced him to operate under nearly unbearable levels of pressure. These are the kinds of challenges that most people will never have to face — but O'Neill is an effective enough speaker to make them seem immediate and applicable even for the vast majority of the population that doesn't work in military special operations.

For instance, O'Neill described the hardest thing about being a Navy SEAL in a video for Leading Authorities Speakers. And it's something that a lot of people can probably identify with.

"I kissed my girl goodbye and walked off," O'Neill says, recalling his last moments with his daughter before leaving to take part in the now-famous Captain Phillips raid in 2009."The hardest part regardless is kissing your kid goodbye. I kissed her 11 times wondering if that's the last time I'd ever see her pretty face again."

"I was lucky," O'Neill says. "But a lot of people weren't lucky, and I've seen it at its worst." He recalls the children of one of his fallen comrades being consoled by a group of SEALS at their father's funeral. Those SEALS were then killed in a helicopter crash in Afghanistan just a year later.

O'Neill is also widely believed to be "the shooter" profiled in a controversial February 2013 article in Esquire Magazine. 

"He loves his kids and tears up only when he talks about saying goodbye to them before each and every deployment," Phil Bronstein writes of his anonymous subject. "'It's so much easier when they're asleep,' he says, 'and I can just kiss them, wondering if this is the last time.'"

Watch the entire video here.

SEE ALSO: The Navy SEAL Who Wrote A Book About Bin Laden Is Now Suing His Lawyers

Join the conversation about this story »

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - US President Barack Obama sent a secret letter to Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei last month stressing the two countries' shared interest in fighting Islamic State militants in Iraq and Syria, according to the Wall Street Journal.

The letter in mid-October said cooperation between the United States and Iran on combating the militant group was tied to a deal being reached between Iran and other nations on its nuclear program.

But the Obama administration has long denied that there is any connection between the nuclear negotiations, which will continue in Vienna later this month in advance of a Nov. 24 deadline for an agreement, and the host of other matters bearing on relations between the US and Iran.

In January, an unnamed administration official told a conference call of journalists that "we’ve always said that the nuclear negotiations were totally separate from other issues." After Israel intercepted an Iranian weapons shipment in March, White House press secretary Jay Carney emphasized that Iranian support for terrorism wouldn't be relevant to nuclear negotiations. 

On Sept. 26, a senior administration official denied that the fight against ISIS was in any way relevant to the nuclear negotiations. "These are two separate issues," the unnammed official said during a special briefing after a high-level meeting between US, EU, and Iranian officials. "The nuclear negotiation is being negotiated on its own terms. 

The US government still considers Iran a state sponsor of terorrism over its support for Hezbollah and Hamas, and its creation of a safe haven for Al Qaeda operatives within its borders.

Even so, the fight against ISIS has brought a new level of cooperation between the US and Iran that the White House may be using to push a comprehensive nuclear deal across the finish line. A deal could be an especially urgent priority for the administration, given this week's election of a new Republican-controlled senate that could stall the implementation of a deal — but that won't be sworn in until January.

Obama administration officials declined to discuss the letter with the Journal.

"Administration officials didn’t deny the letter’s existence when questioned by foreign diplomats in recent days," it said.

(Reporting by Susan Heavey; Editing by Bill Trott)

SEE ALSO: More evidence that Iran's military mastermind is running the ground war in Iraq

Join the conversation about this story »

Robert J. O'Neill confirmed to the Washington Post on Thursday that he is the former Navy SEAL who claims to have shot and killed Al Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden.

According to O'Neill, he decided to come forward after telling his story to the families of people who died in the September 11th attacks during a private ceremony at the opening of the 9/11 Museum at the World Trade Center site this year. 

“The families told me it helped bring them some closure,” O'Neill said.

In his interview with the newspaper, O'Neill confirmed he is the person participating in a Fox News documentary about Bin Laden's death that is scheduled to air on Nov. 11-12 at 10 p.m.

Fox News announced plans to air the two-part documentary called "The Man Who Killed Osama Bin Laden" on Oct. 29. The network's press release said the broadcast would include an interview with the Navy SEAL who fired the fatal shot during the 2011 raid on the terrorist leader's compound in Pakistan.

After the network's announcement, Pentagon officials issued a statement to Business Insider warning any SEAL who participated in the operation was "still bound" by military non-disclosure agreements and could face criminal prosecution. The Pentagon did not respond to a request for comment from Business Insider on Thursday after O'Neill revealed himself to the Washington Post.

O'Neill was first identified as the person who would appear in the Fox News documentary on Monday by SOFREP, a well-regarded website dedicated to covering national security and the US special operations forces community. SOFREP also reported two leaders of US Naval Special Warfare Command sent a letter to their team members on Oct. 31, two days after the documentary was announced, wherein they attacked any SEAL who would violate their "ethos" and talk about a mission in public. 

Following SOFREP's story, Business Insider reached out to Fox News. The network said it would "not confirm the identity of the NAVY Seal who is interviewed in the program prior to its airing." O'Neill has not responded to multiple requests for comment from Business Insider. 

In his Washington Post interview, O'Neill also said he participated in a 2013 Esquire profile where he was identified only as "The Shooter" who killed Bin Laden and described the moment the shot was fired.

"I shot him, two times in the forehead," O’Neill said to Esquire. "Bap! Bap! The second time, as he is going down. He crumbled to the floor in front of his bed and I hit him again."

O'Neill told the Post he believed Bin Laden was killed immediately as the first shot appeared to split his skull. He said at least two other members of the elite SEAL Team 6 including Matt Bissonette also fired shots at Bin Laden.

Bissonette became the first SEAL to publicly discuss his participation in the Bin Laden raid in 2012 when he released a book about his experience. As a result, earlier this summer, the Department of Justice opened an investigation into whether Bissonette leaked classified material.

DOJ spokesperson Marc Raimondi declined to comment on Thursday when Business Insider asked whether it would open a similar investigation into O'Neill.

O'Neill left the Navy 2012. Since then, he has launched a public speaking career where he has given lectures based on his experiences as a SEAL. 

Join the conversation about this story »

The Navy SEAL who claims to have shot Al Qaeda mastermind Osama bin Laden on May 2, 2011 and is speaking with Fox News later this week has revealed his identity to The Washington Post.

Robert O'Neill reportedly earned 52 commendations over 16 years in the Navy. He was involved in the 2009 raid on the Mearsk Alabama, the event that inspired the film "Captain Philips." And he now says he was one of the SEALs who shot the most wanted terrorist alive.

The SEALs have some of the highest-pressure jobs in the entire US military and work under almost incomprehensible physical and mental strain. They're better prepared and better trained than just about any other special operations force on earth.

In No Easy Day, his book about the raid that killed Osama bin Laden, former SEAL Matt Bissonnette talks about what it takes just to get ready for a combat deployment.

He recalls meeting at SEAL Team 6 HQ in Norfolk, Va. before jumping into the fight. On the day before leaving for the Bin Laden operation, Bissonnette asked a more experienced SEAL what he should bring along.

The senior SEAL stopped, looked at his new teammate and said: "Dude, what do you think you need to bring for deployment? Load it ... Bring what you think you need."

The following list is what Bissonnette brought along.

This post was originally written by Geoffrey Ingersoll and Robert Johnson.

Body armor plates are able to stop up to three AK-47 rounds — but are only guaranteed to stop one.

Some SEALs go "slick" and remove their plates, depending on different scenarios.

Depending on how far they're traveling and the type of mission they're engaged in, SEALs may just not wear them.

In No Easy Day, Bissonnette says to a buddy: "If I get shot, don't tell my mom I wasn't wearing these plates."

Body armor plate carriers offer protection and are handy for storing all manner of necessary items.

SEALs will surely have one of these — they help carry a few of the next 17 things on this list.

Helmets like this will stop shrapnel, but have also been known to deflect sniper rounds.

The "brain bucket:" No matter what, every soldier wears one.

Even the tiniest fragment or the smallest piece of high-velocity hot metal can enter through soft tissue and puncture your brain, with fellow troops left guessing as to what caused your death. In combat, your life literally depends on wearing one of these.

Crashing oil prices are bad news for the world's big oil producers, in particular Saudi Arabia.

In a new note to clients, RBC Capital Markets' Helima Croft writes that falling prices come as violence spikes in the country.

"There have been several alarming security incidents in Saudi Arabia this week, raising fresh concerns about extremism in the Kingdom," she writes. "All is not well."

Croft notes that the Saudi government needs higher prices to help fund programs that keep young people busy.

"Due to a surge in post Arab Spring spending, we believe that the Saudi government actually needs oil prices north of $100 a barrel in order to balance its budget, and if Brent prices remain in the $80s, it will be forced to run a deficit," Kroft writes. "A significant portion of the new social spending has also been aimed at keeping Saudi’s large youth cohort  occupied and away from extremist groups ... In the wake of the 2003 terrorist attacks in Riyadh carried out by nationals, King Abdullah identified youth unemployment as the country’s number one national security challenge."

Earlier this month, Saudi Aramco announced it was cutting the price of oil it was selling to the US, a move intended to make Saudi oil more competitive with the oil US producer are fracking from America's shale basins.

Kroft believes, however, these moves will be limited in scope as suppressing prices is bad for business and consumer sentiment in the kingdom. Oil revenue funds an estimated 80-90% of the Saudi government's budget, so people notice when prices fall.

"We maintain that the King would not sacrifice domestic and regional stability in order to punish Iran and Russia or bankrupt US shale producers," she writes.

Bottom line: Saudi Arabia is in a very tricky situation.

"With thousands of young Saudis reportedly filling the ranks of ISIS, concerns about the country’s restless youth are likely taking on added urgency in security circles."

Join the conversation about this story »

Earlier this week, Navy SEAL Rob O’Neill was allegedly identified as "The Shooter," the SEAL Team 6 member who put three bullets into Al Qaeda mastermind Osama Bin Laden on May 2, 2011.

The famous stealth raid on Bin Laden's Abbottabad compound isn't the only high-stakes mission O'Neill has participated in. It isn't even the only one that's been the basis of a renowned Hollywood film. 

O'Neill has held combat leadership roles in more than 400 missions — including the one that rescued commercial captain Richard Phillips from Somali pirates in April 2009.

In a video for the speakers' agency Leading Authorities, O'Neill shared what happened on the morning he learned he would take part in the special operations mission to save Captain Phillips.

"I'm in Virginia, it's my birthday, it's Friday April 10th, and I'm at my daughter's Easter tea party at her preschool. So I'm in line getting cupcakes and stuff and I'm walking back over to her and I got the call. I looked down and read the message and I recognized the code. Richard Phillips had been captured by Somali pirates and they were calling my team and me to go get him," O'Neill said.

He called his wife to explain the situation as much as he was allowed to, and to make sure his kids would be looked after during the deployment.

"What is funny about SEAL wives is that she already knew, like they are smarting than we are and they have a better intelligence network so she was already on her way," O'Neill said. "I kiss my daughter in her classroom and then turn around and go to war."

Later on O'Neill explains that the hardest aspect of being a SEAL is leaving your children before a mission.

"I kissed her 11 times wondering if that's the last time I'd ever see her pretty face again" O'Neill said of parting with his daughter.

Before leaving for this particular mission, O'Neill stopped at a 7-11 outside of the SEAL Team 6 base.

"I had a plan, I'm going to get as much cash as I can out of the ATM, I'm going to get a log of Copenhagen and I'm gonna get a carton of cigarettes," O'Neill said.

In case the mission were to go array, O'Neill was prepared to buy his way to freedom or barter with tobacco. "Or I'll just end up somewhere on my birthday with a lot of cash and tobacco and I can live with that too." O'Neill joked.

While standing in line to check out his items O'Neill was stuck behind an overly chatty customer who was taking a long time to pay.

"So he is doing whatever, he's talking to nobody, talking to everybody, and one of the things he is buying is a USA Today and the headline is about the mission my team and I are trying to go do," O'Neill said.

The customer slams the paper on the counter and says to the clerk, "Man, I sure wish someone would do something about this." O'Neill quickly responded, "Hey buddy, pay for your shit and we will."

A day and a half later, the SEALs rescued Captain Phillips from the Somali pirates. 

SEE ALSO: Here are the 18 things Navy SEALs never leave home without

Join the conversation about this story »

Microsoft cofounder Paul Allen has plenty of interesting hobbies, including playing in a rock band and collecting real estate and sports teams.

One of his biggest passions over the years, however, has been aviation. 

When he was young, his father was named the associate director of libraries at the University of Washington.

"I'd spend hours reading about the engines in some of those planes," Allen told Forbes. "I was trying to understand how things worked — how things were put together, everything from airplane engines to rockets and nuclear power plants. I was just intrigued by the complexity and the power and the grace of these things flying."

Allen started collecting planes and other World War II artifacts in the 1990s. In 2004, he opened his 31-piece collection — rumored to be worth many millions of dollars — to the public. It's currently housed in the Flying Heritage Collection, in a hangar in Everett, Washington. 

Allen's collection includes two types of British planes that served in WWII. The Supermarine Spitfire has often been credited with winning the Battle of Britain. This particular plane was heavily damaged during a raid on enemy territory, though it has since been restored.

Source: Flying Heritage Collection

The Hawker Hurricane destroyed more enemy aircraft than any other British plane. This plane never saw combat and was recovered from a farm in Ontario, Canada, not far from where it was manufactured.

Source: Flying Heritage Collection

He also owns a number of German planes, some of which were actually used by pilots during WWII. The Fieseler Storch was named for the German word for "stork" because its wings could be folded down to be transported by train.

Source: Flying Heritage Collection

The United Arab Emirates is flexing its military muscle in a chaotic, post-Arab Spring Middle East.

What was once a nation with a limited presence on the international stage is acquiring advanced weaponry, instituting universal military service, and expanding its fleet of fighter jets and heavy vehicles.

A country of less than 10 million citizens has even proven willing frequently to use military force around the region.

The biggest sign of this came in August, when the UAE cooperated with Egypt to bomb Islamist militias vying for the Libyan capital; the Emirates had contributed a dozen aircraft to the international campaign that helped oust Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi back in 2011. Also in 2011, it contributed troops to the multi-national force that crushed a peaceful uprising in Bahrain in 2011 and the country is involved in anti-ISIS operations as well.

The UAE had the 15th-highest military expenditures of any country in the world in 2013 according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. Its military spending has nearly doubled in the last ten years; behind Saudi Arabia it enjoys the second biggest defense budget of the oil-rich Persian Gulf states at more than $14 billion.

It's also on pace to become the world's third-largest defense importer in 2015.

A network of monarchical city states that includes Dubai and Abu Dhabi is now the rising military power in the Middle East.

The UAE has backed up its military expansion with an assertive and independent-minded foreign policy.

Neither Egypt nor the UAE informed the United States of the anti-Islamist air strikes in Libya, attacks which AFP reported"signaled a step toward direct action by regional Arab states that previously have fought proxy wars in Libya, Syria and Iraq in a struggle for power and influence."

At the same time, the US working with UAE as an ally in the fight against ISIS. It's one of five Arab nations to contribute to bombing efforts against the group, and the country hosts Australian fighter jets on its territory. The US also bases aircraft at Al Dhafra airbase, outside of Abu Dhabi.

The Emirates are involved in intelligence efforts to counter ISIS' expansion. Last week the country's foreign minister, Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed al-Nahyan, warned of a potentially growing link between ISIS and al-Shabab, an Al Qaeda subsidiary operating in the Horn of Africa.

“As groups like Daesh [Islamic State] develop ties to criminal networks and arms networks like al-Shabab, it is essential that we prevent them from expanding their operations into the sea and threaten vital channels such as the Strait of Hormuz, the Red Sea, Bab al Mandab and the Gulf of Aden,” he said at a conference on counter-piracy in Dubai.

The UAE, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait are even in talks to form a coalition "not intended to intervene in Iraq or Syria but to act separately to address other extremist hot spots," according to the AP. Budding conflicts cited by anonymous Egyptian military officials included Libya and Yemen, where an Iranian-armed Shi'ite militia has taken over the capital.

Iran actually helps explain why the UAE has expanded its military so rapidly.

The UAE is mostly thought of as an economic power — Dubai is a center of world finance and the UAE has oil and gas deposits along with some of the busiest ports in the Middle East. But it's just across the Persian Gulf from Iran, a country with which it actually has a number of outstanding border disputes.

The UAE's purchase of new ships and aircraft from the US, an upgrade of its F-16 force — which now boasts some of the most advanced versions of that aircraft in use anywhere in the world — and its interest in the F-35 fifth-generation fighter jet may give it a qualitative military edge over its much larger and geopolitically meddlesome neighbor.

The UAE could be also be using its military buildup to project power and jostle for greater prestige in the wider global community. That could explain why Abu Dhabi has such vaunted ambitions around one other traditional marker of national greatness: space exploration. In July the country announced that it would create a space agency by 2021 and planned on sending a probe to Mars.

But the Emirates might be looking a bit closer to home, too.

The Arab Spring proved that none of the region's leaders were totally safe from internal turmoil — and demonstrated that the Middle East's political and security climate could shift in ways that almost no one can predict.

The UAE has used a degree of internal oppression to solidify its situation in an unstable region, arresting dozens of Islamist activists, and exiling secular voices of dissent, like the once Dubai-based Arab Spring activist Iyad al-Baghdadi. 

The country's conservative rulers see Islamists as a threat to the existing state system in the Middle East, which explains the UAE's willingness to carry out airstrikes against militants in Libya and Syria — and its hostility towards Islamist parties at home.

Also on the domestic front, the UAE introduced mandatory conscription this past June for males between the ages of 18-30. Those with a high school education must serve for nine months, and those without for a full two years.

The UAE is an autocracy in a time when no Middle Eastern government's rule seems totally secure. And it's a fairly prosperous country in a region where threats can emerge without warning. 

Its rapid militarization and assertive security policy is a way of keeping its edge in this uncertain environment.

SEE ALSO: The most powerful militaries in the Middle East [RANKED]

Join the conversation about this story »

According to the Pentagon, the former Navy SEAL who claims to have killed Osama Bin Laden may have put "our national security at risk."

On Thursday, Robert O'Neill, an ex-member of Navy SEAL Team 6, told the Washington Post he fired the fatal shot that killed the Al Qaeda leader during a 2011 raid on Bin Laden's compound in Pakistan. O'Neill also said he gave an interview to Fox News that will air as part of a two-part documentary called "The Man Who Killed Osama Bin Laden" that's scheduled to air later this month and participated in a 2013 Esquire profile where he was only identified as "The Shooter."

O'Neill's interview with the newspaper came after SOFREP, a website dedicated to covering national security and the US special operations forces community, revealed his identity in a post on Monday. SOFREP also reported leaders of the US Naval Special Warfare Command sent a letter to team members on Oct. 31, two days after the Fox News revealed plans for the documentary, urging them not to discuss their work publicly. 

After the documentary was announced, Navy Commander Amy Derrick-Frost, a Defense Department spokeswoman, gave a statement to Business Insider in which she said former SEALs were bound by military non-disclosure agreements and could face criminal charges for revealing information about the raid.

Following the publication of O'Neill's interview with the Washington Post on Thursday, Business Insider reached out to Commander Derrick-Frost again. She noted "specifics" of the Bin Laden raid, including the names of the participants, "remain classified" and reiterated former SEALs were obligated not to reveal secrets.

"Navy SEALs continue to serve and fight bravely around the world, accomplishing critical missions that keep our nation safe. The major details of the bin Laden mission are well known, many of them a matter of public record.   However, specifics related to the operation, including units and personnel remain classified," Derrick-Frost said. "As a private citizen, former or retired service members are free to speak with the media and exercise their first amendment rights.  However, it is important for all former service members to adhere to their signed Non-disclosure Agreements (NDAs) when they seek to openly discuss classified or sensitive information, or make claims about their active duty operations or accomplishments."

Though she declined to comment on whether the Pentagon would launch a leak investigation against O'Neill or pursue criminal charges as a result of the Washington Post article, Commander Derrick-Frost stressed any inappropriate release of classified material could put the country at risk.

"NDAs are voluntarily executed by Service Members.   Any breach of nondisclosure obligations to the government, places our national security at risk," said Derrick-Frost. "It would be inappropriate to speculate on any actions the Department of Defense may or may not take in relation to this article or future interviews." 

O'Neill isn't the first former SEAL to talk about participating in the Bin Laden raid. In 2012, Matt Bissonette released a book about his participation in the mission. Earlier this summer, the Department of Justice launched a criminal investigation into whether Bissonette leaked classified material.

Join the conversation about this story »

Former Navy SEAL Robert O'Neill has said he decided to reveal himself as the man who shot and killed Al Qaeda founder Osama Bin Laden after sharing his story of the 2011 raid on the terrorist leader's compound with a group of people at the 9/11 Memorial Museum earlier this year. 

Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-New York) was in the room with O'Neill that day.

The congresswoman, who describes O'Neill as "a friend," told Business Insider on Thursday that the ex-SEAL was there for a ceremony marking the donation of a shirt he wore during the raid to the museum. Maloney, who said she helped arrange for O'Neill's shirt to be exhibited at the museum, said the people in attendance included families of people who died in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and "leaders" from police and fire departments.

"People were in tears, and the room was not that big," Maloney recounted. "I'd say it was 30 people … maybe 30 people. It was a selective group, and I asked to have a ceremony for the donation of the shirt. And we came in and had the quiet ceremony, and it meant a lot."

O'Neill first publicly said he was the person who fired the shot that killed Bin Laden in an interview with The Washington Post that was published Thursday. However, in the wake of that story, Reuters released a report about an anonymous source "close to another SEAL team member" who disputed the claim O'Neill killed Bin Laden. 

The Washington Post article was not supposed to be O'Neill's public debut. He had been planning to reveal himself in a Fox News documentary and a story in the newspaper later this month. However, on Monday, the website SOFREP identified him. O'Neill told The Post he "spontaneously" decided to share his story at the 9/11 Memorial Museum.

"The families told me it helped bring them some closure," O'Neill said. 

O'Neill's shirt is adorned with an American flag patch. Rather than the traditional red, white, and blue, it is black to aid in camouflage for nighttime missions. 

According to Maloney, the shirt ceremony took place in a family room at the museum where the family members had "pictures of their lost loved ones." 

"I was very active on the 9/11 response; I authored a great number of bills working in a bipartisan way to make America safer after 9/11, did a lot of work with the 9/11 families that lost their loved ones, and I arranged for him to come and speak to some of them," Maloney said. "I'd like for him to do more of that now that he came out in public. I think that he would help bring closure to many of them and, you know, that's the reason we were over there, the reason he went on the mission was for the 9/11 families."

Maloney told Business Insider that, in her many years working with the relatives of people who were killed in the Sept. 11 attacks, she had never seen them react as they did after hearing O'Neill's story.

"We were in numerous meetings, numerous press conferences — I've never seen an emotional response as I saw in that room," Maloney said. "I saw men and women just break down crying. It was closure to them. It was important to them to see him, to really hear in his own words why it was important for him to go on that mission."

Joseph Zadroga was one of the people Maloney said was in attendance at the ceremony. His son, James Zadroga, was a New York City police officer. James died of respiratory disease in 2006 and became the first officer whose death was attributed to exposure to chemicals while working at the site of the Sept. 11 attacks in Manhattan.

Maloney cosponsored legislation designed to provide healthcare and monitoring for 9/11 responders in 2006. It was named the James Zadroga Act. She said that of the family members in attendance at the ceremony, Joseph Zadroga's reaction to O'Neill stood out for her.  

"It meant the world to them. It meant the world to hear what it was like. Many people were crying," Maloney said. "I mean, I can't tell you what a tough guy James Zadroga's father is. He's a police officer, great big strong man, and he was in absolute tears."

Maloney also stressed that other residents of New York were intensely interested in the circumstances of Bin Laden's death.

"You could hear a collective sigh of relief from all of New York when Bin Laden was killed," Maloney said. "We are grateful to the Navy SEALs, and to the CIA, and to all the military that are part of training these incredible people. The people that I am privileged to represent, they wanted to know what happened to Bin Laden."

Though O'Neill identified himself as the person who fired the shot that killed the Al Qaeda leader, Maloney felt he never attempted to take individual credit for the operation.

"He never talks about this incident except with we — we on the team," Maloney said. "When he gave the shirt, he gave it in the name of the entire team. He's really into giving credit to his distinguished allies."

Still, Maloney said the raid ended in a direct confrontation between two men: O'Neill and Bin Laden. 

"I think that the last person Bin Laden saw was looking into Robert O'Neill's eyes, and he saw that flag on his shirt — he saw the American flag," Maloney said. "He looked into his eyes. He's the last person he saw. He's an American hero." 

Join the conversation about this story »

Since Tough Mudder was founded in 2010, 1.3 million people have participated in one of the company's "military style" obstacle courses, which cover 10 to 12 miles of ground and include about 20 different challenges.

The event is part of a growing "obstacle course" trend among fitness enthusiasts and weekend warriors. There is no shortage of similar competitions, including the Spartan Race, the Warrior Dash, the Color Run, and the Superhero Scramble.

All cater to people yearning to do something extraordinary. A common refrain in marketing materials, from employees, and from "Mudders" is to get up off the couch and "overcome your fears." It costs between $125 and $500 to participate in a race.

For first-timers, who make up the majority of Mudders at any event, it's about overcoming a challenge and team-building. Most people participate with a team, some with friends, some with coworkers, and others with random groups of people assembled specifically for the event.

We followed one group — the Brooklyn Fitness Team — from training through the event to see what it takes to prepare and run a Tough Mudder.

We arrived early one Sunday morning in McCarren Park, where the Brooklyn Fitness group was training. The team had been training in the park biweekly since the beginning of summer. One member described the trainings as "too damn early and too damn cold."

The team was put together by Allen Bozeman, a personal trainer with Soma Health Club. Most members of the team train regularly with Bozeman.

To prepare for the Mudder, Bozeman designed a training series that includes multiple exercises and obstacles broken up by long-distance runs. "The goal was to mimic the format [of the event]," Bozeman said.