QFTcomet241 wrote:
This is clearly an accident, and im disgusted that the assistant deputy coronor (how does that position give you the authority to make these comments?) has condemned the act as criminal. Friendly fire happens in every war. it is an accident. How can we prosecute someone when there are well over 100,000 troops all in one area with lots of weapons and everyone is on edge all the time, and there is a miscommunication breakdown that tragically results in the loss of a friendly.
Im glad that everyone thinks it is so easy to spot a 3 foot square orange patch on a top of a vehicle while flying over at several miles above, several hundred miles an hour. Yes, they thought it may be friendlies. However, they were told there were NO FRIENDLIES IN THE AREA! This was not a pilot error, this was a breakdown on multiple levels, including the british who somehow failed to make aware or notify anyone of their whereabouts or convoy for that day.
Also, on a further note on the orange patches, wouldn't it be genious for the insurgents to paint their rocket launchers orange? That is exaclty that the one pilot thought. That, combined with the fact that there were no notifications of any friendlies in the area makes it pretty easy to come to the conclusion that what they thought up to and including when they pulled the trigger, was correct.
In no way am i trying to come up with excuses, or belittle the british soldiers death, but accidents happen in war and this is clearly far from intentional or criminal. They took their time to identify the target, communicate with the base, weigh their options, all before they fired a shot. Better communication could have saved a life, but that is at the fault of both sides (american and british). Another pass or two at a lower altitude could have saved a life, but then at the potential cost of the american pilot, would it have turned out to be an insurgent convoy and those did turn out to be rockets or .50 cals.
The end result of the situation was tragic, but to prosecute the american pilots (who clearly expressed remorse at the mistake), is about as dumb as firing an assembly line worker for a faulty product design. The focus is on the wrong people and the right questions aren't being asked, and the right steps aren't being taken to ensure this never happens again.
well Comet http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coroner
Don't you hate it when they punish you for accidental TKs?
As a Canadian, our armed forces has been subject to accidental friendly fire at least twice, and has definitely touched a nerve amongst our population, creating even more anti-Americanism. It's sad, but mistakes will be made. If I understand my history enough, friendly fire incidents were much more common during the Second World War.
As a Canadian, our armed forces has been subject to accidental friendly fire at least twice, and has definitely touched a nerve amongst our population, creating even more anti-Americanism. It's sad, but mistakes will be made. If I understand my history enough, friendly fire incidents were much more common during the Second World War.
Well, as you can see by your very link, there are vast differences between what a coronor is in america and in the UK... I am american, so i have that only to go by. Regardless, one nobody isn't enough to rule the final verdict that these pilots need be condemned. It is clearly going to be an investigation, and higher powers should intervene (non-religious that is, judicial and political is what i meant). And we all know what the final verdict will be.....Magpie wrote:
well Comet http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coroner
Bullshit. That guy on the radio who said there were no friendlies is the one that should be on trial.
Somehow I don't believe that people would be so eager to excuse the guys who messed up if it had been their ass that had been blown to hell by friendly forces.
If someone screwed up, they should pay. It seems that there are some people more willing to excuse shabby behavior just because someones in the military, than to actually go through and punish the same people who screwed up, and as a result, people were killed.
If someone screwed up, they should pay. It seems that there are some people more willing to excuse shabby behavior just because someones in the military, than to actually go through and punish the same people who screwed up, and as a result, people were killed.
Actually, I think they've been pretty steady in relation to the size of the war throughout history. I think it's around 15 percent of all casualties in every war that have been credited to friendly fire. Of course the wars in Iraq and Afgahnistan are much smaller than WW2, which was a global conflict, so we aren't hearing about it as much.Drakef wrote:
Don't you hate it when they punish you for accidental TKs?
As a Canadian, our armed forces has been subject to accidental friendly fire at least twice, and has definitely touched a nerve amongst our population, creating even more anti-Americanism. It's sad, but mistakes will be made. If I understand my history enough, friendly fire incidents were much more common during the Second World War.
Last edited by Spearhead (2007-03-16 23:34:53)
Very good point.Spearhead wrote:
Actually, I think they've been pretty steady in relation to the size of the war throughout history. I think it's around 15 percent of all casualties in every war that have been credited to friendly fire. Of course the wars in Iraq and Afgahnistan are much smaller than WW2, which was a global conflict, so we aren't hearing about it as much.Drakef wrote:
Don't you hate it when they punish you for accidental TKs?
As a Canadian, our armed forces has been subject to accidental friendly fire at least twice, and has definitely touched a nerve amongst our population, creating even more anti-Americanism. It's sad, but mistakes will be made. If I understand my history enough, friendly fire incidents were much more common during the Second World War.
However, I believe that citizens are now much more sensitive to friendly-fire issues.
I hate to point out but the pilots did not get clearance to fire. l also belive that American pilots get shown British formatrions and vehicles (Can someone confirm this?) and the big one the Iraqis had nothing that looks like the Light Scimeter tanks of the British Army.
The one thing that really fucked me off about this is the oppinion of this fucking idiot!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKDzTHvKRgw
Yes FF does happen but unfortunatly the Americans have a very bad history of it. The first Gulf War an American A10 took out a warrior apc.
British FF so far stretches to (from what l can remember) Falklands war a Blue on Blue happened between 2 SF units, one did'nt know the other was there and l belive a British Challenger 2 tank got taken out by another. Can't think of any more.
The one thing that really fucked me off about this is the oppinion of this fucking idiot!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKDzTHvKRgw
Yes FF does happen but unfortunatly the Americans have a very bad history of it. The first Gulf War an American A10 took out a warrior apc.
British FF so far stretches to (from what l can remember) Falklands war a Blue on Blue happened between 2 SF units, one did'nt know the other was there and l belive a British Challenger 2 tank got taken out by another. Can't think of any more.
Soilders are trainned not to think or feel. He feels nothing I would think. Must be on leave living it up in say Las Vegas ? Who knows. One thing that always remains the same is that an American soilder can get away with just about anything with no recourse. I think he feels about as sorry as most of you did when you read this news for the first time. I'm not calling him inhuman but get real. His job consists of flying a metal monster of death.link52787 wrote:
unfortunate, I could only imagine what that pilot feels like.
There is no 1 news agency in the world that gets any story right every time. So blame the ground control, the pilot, it makes no difference. Another shining moment in military history.
Wow.....this is one of the most retarded, most inaccurate words I have ever read on this forum.LOATHE YOU wrote:
Soilders are trainned not to think or feel. He feels nothing I would think. Must be on leave living it up in say Las Vegas ? Who knows. One thing that always remains the same is that an American soilder can get away with just about anything .
My condolences to the families.
I cannot see criminal charges. Demotion to cargo plane pilot maybe.
I cannot see criminal charges. Demotion to cargo plane pilot maybe.
Or better yet:ATG wrote:
My condolences to the families.
I cannot see criminal charges. Demotion to cargo plane pilot maybe.
"....flying rubber dog shit in from Hong Kong."
They're both right. It IS a criminal and illegal act, and it was an avoidable and regrettable incident, and best dealt with internally.
And, frankly, if someone had given these guys an instruction manual for target recognition, this whole thing could have been avoided.
And, frankly, if someone had given these guys an instruction manual for target recognition, this whole thing could have been avoided.
so if you were a trained pilot, and you were flying a plane and you realized that you just accidentally killed some of your own soldiers, that probably think, act, and have a life just like yours, you would feel nothing??LOATHE YOU wrote:
Soilders are trainned not to think or feel. He feels nothing I would think. Must be on leave living it up in say Las Vegas ? Who knows. One thing that always remains the same is that an American soilder can get away with just about anything with no recourse. I think he feels about as sorry as most of you did when you read this news for the first time. I'm not calling him inhuman but get real. His job consists of flying a metal monster of death.link52787 wrote:
unfortunate, I could only imagine what that pilot feels like.
There is no 1 news agency in the world that gets any story right every time. So blame the ground control, the pilot, it makes no difference. Another shining moment in military history.
Spark wrote:
All I can say is that it sucks to be a soldier.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
^^^ Someone who has never known anyone in the military? It sure sounds like it.LOATHE YOU wrote:
Soilders are trainned not to think or feel. He feels nothing I would think. Must be on leave living it up in say Las Vegas ? Who knows. One thing that always remains the same is that an American soilder can get away with just about anything with no recourse. I think he feels about as sorry as most of you did when you read this news for the first time. I'm not calling him inhuman but get real. His job consists of flying a metal monster of death.link52787 wrote:
unfortunate, I could only imagine what that pilot feels like.
There is no 1 news agency in the world that gets any story right every time. So blame the ground control, the pilot, it makes no difference. Another shining moment in military history.
FF happens. I would think that it is a challenge to ID what kind of vehicles are on the ground when you are at altitude and flying at 400 knots.
Fix the system, don't punish the member for an accident.
It would be interisting to see the TK stats on everyone here ( in a game ) who criticizes soldiers actions in real war.
Because real war is just like a computer game...
And can people stop bring back threads from the dead to make a stupid irrelevant comment? Thanks.
And can people stop bring back threads from the dead to make a stupid irrelevant comment? Thanks.
agreeLeprechaun56 wrote:
QFTcomet241 wrote:
This is clearly an accident, and im disgusted that the assistant deputy coronor (how does that position give you the authority to make these comments?) has condemned the act as criminal. Friendly fire happens in every war. it is an accident. How can we prosecute someone when there are well over 100,000 troops all in one area with lots of weapons and everyone is on edge all the time, and there is a miscommunication breakdown that tragically results in the loss of a friendly.
Im glad that everyone thinks it is so easy to spot a 3 foot square orange patch on a top of a vehicle while flying over at several miles above, several hundred miles an hour. Yes, they thought it may be friendlies. However, they were told there were NO FRIENDLIES IN THE AREA! This was not a pilot error, this was a breakdown on multiple levels, including the british who somehow failed to make aware or notify anyone of their whereabouts or convoy for that day.
Also, on a further note on the orange patches, wouldn't it be genious for the insurgents to paint their rocket launchers orange? That is exaclty that the one pilot thought. That, combined with the fact that there were no notifications of any friendlies in the area makes it pretty easy to come to the conclusion that what they thought up to and including when they pulled the trigger, was correct.
In no way am i trying to come up with excuses, or belittle the british soldiers death, but accidents happen in war and this is clearly far from intentional or criminal. They took their time to identify the target, communicate with the base, weigh their options, all before they fired a shot. Better communication could have saved a life, but that is at the fault of both sides (american and british). Another pass or two at a lower altitude could have saved a life, but then at the potential cost of the american pilot, would it have turned out to be an insurgent convoy and those did turn out to be rockets or .50 cals.
The end result of the situation was tragic, but to prosecute the american pilots (who clearly expressed remorse at the mistake), is about as dumb as firing an assembly line worker for a faulty product design. The focus is on the wrong people and the right questions aren't being asked, and the right steps aren't being taken to ensure this never happens again.
funny how the coroner is going to determine legality of a friendly fire incident. anybody who has dealt with mortuary affairs knows how retarded this sounds.
Please read up on the term coroner. They dont mean the same thing in English and American.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
funny how the coroner is going to determine legality of a friendly fire incident. anybody who has dealt with mortuary affairs knows how retarded this sounds.
those royal marines that ended up with a british anti-tank rocket in their boat. the tank driver who was shot by his vehicles mounted machine gun (the one without body armour). friendly fire caused 14% of all british casualties during the IRAQ 2 invasion proper, with recorded US on UK fatalities occuring only twice. i believe british FF casualties were actually slightly higher than american ones for the invasion phase.The_Guardsman wrote:
I hate to point out but the pilots did not get clearance to fire. l also belive that American pilots get shown British formatrions and vehicles (Can someone confirm this?) and the big one the Iraqis had nothing that looks like the Light Scimeter tanks of the British Army.
The one thing that really fucked me off about this is the oppinion of this fucking idiot!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKDzTHvKRgw
Yes FF does happen but unfortunatly the Americans have a very bad history of it. The first Gulf War an American A10 took out a warrior apc.
British FF so far stretches to (from what l can remember) Falklands war a Blue on Blue happened between 2 SF units, one did'nt know the other was there and l belive a British Challenger 2 tank got taken out by another. Can't think of any more.
Yes, becuase flying lower, over enemy territory, is never going to make it more likely you'll be shot down.=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:
On the point about fuel, they're in Iraq for it so I'm sure that's not a problem and on the enemy moving for the return you might want to see the average speed of a plane vs a tank. Exactly how far do you think a tank could go?kilgoretrout wrote:
How often do you think planes make two runs past enemies in battle? "Let's just fly over the first time to make sure it's the right target, then we'll waste a shitload of fuel and time by flying around and attacking, when they won't be in the same spot anymore and we'll have to find them again." There's no sense in sending planes for more than one overflight. What we need is better communication. Don't get me wrong, I think it's awful that a British soldier was killed, but I think it's insane to say they should've done a low flight over a target to identify it. There should've been solid communication between the Brits and Americans so that there was no question as to whether or not those tanks were friendly.
Besides, the crtitism was that they should have flown lower and NOT that they should have done two passes.
oh yes..... whine whine whine gripe cry you're there for the oil bitch moan gripe cry whine. Dude, give it a rest.
It was sad.
It happens.
Have we learned from this?
And to all of those bitching about the channel change.... do you know what "guard" frequency is? Look it up.
Communications would have made this never happen. It was a cascading failure, on the American and British sides. Hell, the pilots were less guilty than most.
Welcome. Thanks for stopping by. Now go away.LOATHE YOU wrote:
Soilders are trainned not to think or feel. He feels nothing I would think. Must be on leave living it up in say Las Vegas ? Who knows. One thing that always remains the same is that an American soilder can get away with just about anything with no recourse. I think he feels about as sorry as most of you did when you read this news for the first time. I'm not calling him inhuman but get real. His job consists of flying a metal monster of death.link52787 wrote:
unfortunate, I could only imagine what that pilot feels like.
Is there someone with a ban hammer nearby?