US planes hit British convoy, inquest told


Press Association
Tuesday January 30, 2007
Guardian Unlimited


A soldier awarded the highest British honour for gallantry today described the moment when his tank convoy came under "friendly fire" from US planes in Iraq.
Lance Corporal Chris Finney, 19 was speaking at an inquest in Oxford into the death of his colleague, Lance Corporal of Horse Matty Hull, 25, who was killed by the US planes in the first few days of the Iraq invasion in March 2003.

Lance Corporal Finney, from Marple, near Stockport, Greater Manchester, was awarded the George Cross for climbing, while still under fire, into Lance Corporal Hull's burning tank in a bid to save him.
Today the lance corporal told the inquiry that he had been driving the lead Scimitar tank in a convoy of four vehicles on a reconnaissance mission near Basra when two US A-10 tankbuster planes struck on March 28 2003.

He said that he did not know that they were American planes until he saw one lining up to fire for a second time. The US pilots had mistaken the British vehicles for enemy rocket launchers.

Lance Corporal Hull's widow listened in tears as Lance Corporal Finney said: "At first there were sparks everywhere and the vehicles stopped, they obviously had been stopped by something. I couldn't actually see what had hit us or where from."

He said he reversed back on the instructions of the commander and into the tank carrying Lance Corporal Hull, of Windsor, Berkshire.

He said as he jumped out of his tank, he tried to grab his rifle but a fire inside the vehicle forced him back. Lance Corporal Finney said he realised that there were still people inside as he took cover.

He said: "I was looking around me and couldn't really see. I then looked back at my vehicle to see my gunner trying to get out."

Oxfordshire's assistant deputy coroner, Andrew Walker, said the gunner was suffering from a large leg wound.

Lance Corporal Finney, then a trooper with just one year's experience in the army, pulled the gunner out of the burning vehicle and began to give him medical treatment.

As he did so, he was aware that a type of smoke used by coalition forces to indicate a friendly fire incident had been released by one of the tanks in the convoy.

He said: "From where I was I wasn't aware that it was a plane or anything like that. All I knew was our vehicles had been hit and the smoke had been deployed.

"I was still with my gunner on the floor at this point and the plane came back into view to start its second run."

The inquest heard that Lance Corporal Finney himself had been hit in the arm, but he was only aware of his arm shaking and did not realise he was injured until later.

He told Mr Walker that he went back to Lance Corporal Hull's tank to try to save whoever was inside, but fierce flames forced him back.

Mr Walker told him: "I should just like to say, Mr Finney, that you are an extremely brave man and are to be commended for what you did, because it seems to me that had you not taken the steps that you did to move your gunner away from this incident then his injuries may well have been significantly more than they were."

Lance Corporal Hull, from Princes William and Harry's Blues and Royals, the Household Cavalry Regiment, died at the scene and his remains were left in the tank until they could safely be recovered the next day.

A Board of Inquiry report into the incident found that the US pilots had asked coalition air controllers twice whether there were any friendly forces in the area and were twice told they were "well clear".

The report blamed the pilots for acting without specific authorisation from air controllers, saying they had a heavy workload and a lack of situational awareness, but added that information given to them was "scant".

Mr Walker had requested the attendance of American witnesses to today's inquiry, but this request has been declined.

The inquest continues.


I recently posted 5 examples of how The US was shafting the UK and was soundly pooh poohed by all and sundrie well here is proof of one of my examples.

That was an excellent article. Thank you.

The absolutely idiotic conclusions you drew from it just make me want to puke!

Friendly fire accidents break everybody's heart. Everybody.

The sad part is, accidents happen everywhere...very easily in a combat situation.

One of my best friends backed his car over his child on a tri-cycle. He will weep over it the rest of his life.

.....he doesn't blame Great Britain.

Get a grip.
Bean

The problem with mixing monkey dust ignorance with the lack of experience, knowledge and facts, is the absences of experience, knowledge and facts, leaves the ignorance of the monkey dust mentality, so unclothed and unbecoming in its obtused unaware nakedness.



Just a few of multitudes of Incidents and persons involved in Fratracide that ill intent in the fog of war, a DO NOTHING, WOULD BE SO IGNORANT OF AND ABOUT.

The Candian Army's Fratracide manual:
http://armyapp.dnd.ca/allc/Downloads/dispa...No_1English.pdf


* 1461 – War of the Roses: At the Battle of Towton, wind conditions often resulted in arrows falling amongst friendly troops as well as the enemy.

* 1471 - Battle of Barnet: The ‘radiant star’ battle standard used by the troops commanded by the Earl of Oxford was misidentified as an enemy standard (which depicted a ‘brilliant sun’) and were fired on by their own archers.

* Two French regiments accidentally attacking each other during the Battle of Fleurus led to the habit of attaching a white scarf to the flags of the regiments from 1690 - white being the colour of the kings of France.

* 1809 - Battle of Wagram: French troops mistakenly fired on their Saxon Allies. The uniforms of the Saxon’s were grey and misidentified as white, the colour of uniform worn by their Austrian enemy.

* 1815 – Battle of Waterloo: Famously Marshal Blücher’s Prussians came to the aid of the British, and defeated Napoleon decisively. Lesser known is that Prussian artillery mistakenly fired on British artillery causing many casualties, and British artillery returned fire at the Prussians.

* 1863 - Stonewall Jackson, famous Confederate Civil War general accidentally killed by his own troops at Chancellorsville.

* 1914-1918 – World War I: The French have estimated that more than 75,000 French soldiers were casualties of friendly artillery in the four years of World War I[4].

* 1939 (10 September - early World War II) – British submarine HMS Triton sank another British submarine, HMS Oxley, mistaking it for a German U-boat and received no responses to challenges. Oxley was the first Royal Navy vessel to be sunk and also the first vessel to be sunk by a British vessel in the war.

* 1940 - Italian Air Marshal Italo Balbo shot down by his own side.

* 1940 - Operation Wikinger: German destroyer sunk by Luftwaffe bombs, another sunk by mines during confusion[7]

* 1941 - Fleet Air Arm torpedo attack on HMS Sheffield during the hunt for the German battleship Bismarck

* 1941 - RAF fighter ace Wing Commander Douglas Bader shot down in what recent research suggests was a friendly fire incident [8].

* 1943 – Operation Husky (Allied Invasion of Sicily): 144 C-47 transport planes passed over Allied lines shortly after a German air raid, and were mistakenly fired upon by ground and naval forces, 33 planes were shot down and 37 damaged, resulting in 318 casualties.

* 1944 - British flotilla attacked by RAF Hawker Typhoons, off Cap d'Antifer, Le Havre. HMS Britomart and HMS Hussar sunk. HMS Salamander damaged beyond repair and scrapped. HMS Jason escaped major damage.

* 1944 - Operation Wintergewitter (Winter Storm) - Italian Front: American forward observer John R. Fox called down fire on his own position to stop a German advance on the town of Sommocolonia, Italy. In 1997 he was posthumously awarded the Medal of Honor for this action.

* 1945 – Operation Bodenplatte (Baseplate): 900 German fighters and fighter-bombers launched a surprise attack on Allied airfields, approximately 300 aircraft were lost, 237 pilots killed, missing, or captured, and 18 pilots wounded - the largest single-day loss for the Luftwaffe, many losses were due to friendly anti-aircraft guns.

* 1956 - Suez: Attacks from British Royal Navy carrier-borne aircraft caused heavy casualties to UK 45 Commando and HQ.

* 1967 - USS Liberty Incident when Israeli aircraft attacked U.S. Navy ship in international waters during the Six-Day War (between Israel and Egypt).

* 1968 - USS Boston, USS Edson, USCGC Point Dume, HMAS Hobart and two US patrol boats, PCF-12 and PCF-19 are attacked by US aircraft on June 17 in the Vietnam War.[9] Several sailors were killed and PCF-19 was sunk. [10]

* 1969 - US Helicopters attack US 3/187th Infantry Battalion CP during the Battle of Hamburger Hill, killing two and wounding thirty-five, including LtCol. Weldon Honeycutt.

* 1974 - Turkish Destroyer Kocatepe was sunk by Turkish aircraft during the Turkish invasion of Cyprus.

* 1982 - HMS Cardiff Shoots down AAC Gazelle (UK) in the Falklands Islands.

* 1982 - 3rd Battalion, Parachute Regiment, British Army (UK) Companies A and C engage each other in an hour-long firefight in the Falkland Islands involving heavy weapons and artilery strikes. At least 8 UK casualties.

* 1982 - United Kingdom UK Special Boat Service Commando killed in firefight with UK Special Air Service Commandos. Falkland Islands.

* 1991 - American A-10 in the Gulf War attacks British armoured personnel carriers killing nine British soldiers (the same number as were killed by enemy fire in the whole war).

* 1994 - Erik Mounsey, peacekeeper and cousin of legendary guitarist Ian Bairnson memorialized in the 1996 Alan Parsons release On Air.

* 2001 - American FA-18 dropped 3 Mk-82 bombs on a friendly observation post killing six and wounding 11 at Al Udairi Range, Kuwait.

* 2002 - American F-16 pilot Harry Schmidt killed four Canadian soldiers in the Tarnak Farm incident.

* 2003 - American aircraft attacked a friendly Kurdish & US special forces convoy killing 15. BBC translator Kamaran Abdurazaq Muhamed was killed and BBC reporter Tom Giles and World Affairs Editor John Simpson were injured. The incident was filmed. [11]

* 2003 - American Patriot missile shot down in error F/A-18C Block 46 Hornet 164974 of VFA-195 50 mi from Karbala, Iraq, killing the pilot.

* 2003 - American Patriot missile shot down a British Panavia Tornado GR.4A ZG710 'D' of 13 Squadron killing the pilot and navigator, Flight Lieutenant David Rhys Williams and Flight Lieutenant Kevin Barry Main, both from 9 Squadron

* 2003 British Challenger 2 tank came under fire from another British tank in a nighttime firefight, blowing off the turret and killing two crew members, Corporal Stephen John Allbutt and Trooper David Jeffrey Clarke

* 2003 - Two British Scimitar armoured reconnaissance vehicles of the Blues and Royals attacked by a pair of American A-10s, killing Lance-Corporal of Horse Matty Hull, during the invasion of Iraq. Trooper Christopher Finney was awarded the George Cross for bravery under fire during the attack, rather than the Victoria Cross, which can only be awarded for valour under "enemy fire."

* 2004 - Pat Tillman, famous American football player and friendly fire victim in Afghanistan

* 2005 - American soldier Mario Lozano is suspected of killing Italian intelligence agent Nicola Calipari and wounding Italian journalist Giuliana Sgrena in Baghdad. Sgrena had been kidnapped and subsequently rescued by Calipari. However it is claimed that the car they were escaping in failed to stop at an American checkpoint, and US soldiers opened fire.

* 2005 - American troops opened fire on a Bulgarian convoy. Junior Sergeant Gardi Gardev was killed.

* 2006 - Two U.S. A-10 Thunderbolts accidentally strafed their own NATO forces in southern Afghanistan, killing Canadian Private Mark Anthony Graham, and seriously wounding five others when soldiers were trying to seize a Taliban stronghold along the Arghandab River. Graham was a former Canadian Olympic athlete who competed on the Canadian 4x400 Men's Relay Team at the 1992 Barcelona Olympics.

The Pentagon estimates of U.S. friendly fire deaths, with percentage of total US deaths:

* World War II: 21,000 (16%)

* Vietnam war: 8,000 (14%)

*Gulf War (1991): 35 (23%) Inclusive of the 23% American FF incidences, FF was 51% of the cause Allied deaths during the Gulf campaign (UN estimate).

*Invasion of Afghanistan (2002): 4 (13%)

A "Friendly Fire" Incident In The Withdrawal From Tiddim To Imphal ( British)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/ww2peopleswar/stories/84/a8573484.shtml




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friendly_fire
http://members.aol.com/amerwar/ff/ff.htm

I am not sure if you are posting this to support the US or to illustrate their FF record and how much more frequently they figure than other countries

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/legal/article2241 922.ece

"On several occasions the pilots, a Major and a Lieutenant Colonel, both believed to be reservists who had never been in action before, say they can see orange panels on top of the armoured vehicles, which were used to identify them as coalition, rather than Iraqi, forces. "

and

http://thereitis.org/iraqWar-index-link-independent12.html

are of interest to me as they make me wonder why the Pentagon was so keen for this tape to remain classified

Sad fact of war.

But why the cover up?

http://thereitis.org/iraqWar-index-link-independent12.html

to correct the prev link - reprint of a story from the Independent reporting the incident and the views of the British soldiers involved

and

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/legal/article2241922.ece

to take in account the fact that the story is no longer frontpage

First off, your links are flawed, the first does not direct one to the point you wish make in the article. The second link does not work at all.

As to my point, obvious afar there is a narrow construct and cherry pickings out of context information within the article. Obviously, you did not read my post showing the wide list of nationalities, circumstances, and time frames, whereby Fratricide has shown its ugly unintended face since man’s armies have had the capability to kill one another from afar.

Take for example this keenness of the Media driven story tellers to “know” why the tapes are classified. It shows a disingenuous intent in what they think they already know as the answer. By merely cherry picking out of context a limited part of the article it leaves the real explanation later un-noted as inconsequential as if already knowing the answer to a question or at least thinking so.

I have seen the tapes and they add nothing to the prove malice or intent, merely, the error and fallibility of humans in combat under stress who made a horrible error. That human fallibility ,though fashionable to attribute solely to Americans, is no more American than being human is anymore attributed to being European, except in the minds of the media and pundits would have us all accept this veracity of mendacity.



I add what followed in sequence to this cherry picked comments made out of contextual reality. Perhaps as a motive as to the forefront of the point of the article's so called “statement” of questions as to the unaffecting issue of the tapes and the so called coverup of conspiracy bable so often used these days.

The rest of what was said after that which huuh? posted.



The evidence of this witch hunt to no where is further shown by a UK press who keep inflaming the point they want to make when reporting this UNTRUTH as the fact statement proven not even be made in context as to even the UK inquiry.

Similarly, the UK military were directly involved and present in the US investigation of the incident and agreed with the conclusions that it was sadly human error.

Corporal Ashley Bell tells the inquest that frantic attempts were made to call off the US planes with smoke identifying the tanks as friendly forces sent up, and tank commanders radioing air controllers to tell them to call the attack off. But they were told the planes [were being flown by “rogue” pilots that were working on their own.

The tapes totally disprove this skewed opinion of a tragic event, in fact, the tapes showed “the pilots asking ground control 4 times if it was possible there were any friendly units in the area and each time they where told there were no friendly units known to be in the AO.”

A fact that shows this could have been as easily done by UK pilots under the same set of circumstances in that fast moving war as the gulf war was As I noted before history has shown many nations have done this before in combat.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1339333.ece

The point of the tapes misguided as it is and that of the article, is unquestionable, as summarized below, the underpinnings of the political statements these questions being asked have in motive, intent and purpose in this media driven story. Like this in the article;



Which is far from the reality or even the reality stated in the article as to how and what was in the tapes, which I have seen by the way, showing these pilots followed the Rule Of Engagement as shown by the 4 times the pilots requests to verify No friendly units were in the AO.

This was sadly nothing more than a FUBAR!

It is always easy in the hindsight of sideline players who never play, to look to blame the players, these men and the system they operated in, by saying, in political motivated tones, these things were done in malice and in total disregard and are being covered up in lies. Yet, as the tapes show, instead as it really was, a terrible series of human fallible mistakes, as history has shown is the case in most fratricide made by fallible humans under great duress and stress in war.

Hindsight, as always it seems, is often used to prove the hypothetical of evil and vileness to a cynical world looking for utopian perfection and harmonious discourse in ALL things. There has never been, nor is there ever likely ever to be such perfections when dealing with Human fallibility in times of war.

The point, I was making, as a combat veteran, is this is common in all nations wars and is better explained best by the following;

Friendly fire is a perplexing problem. Each friendly fire incident contains a unique bet of circumstances that are difficult to model or simulate. One way to approach the problem is to examine the two factors which contribute most to the continued existence of friendly fire.

The first factor to consider is the human element, which includes traits such as inexperience, fear, stress, and carelessness.

These human traits, combined with a noisy, smoky, dark, and rainy battlefield create the often mentioned, but not fully understood, "fog of war" situation.

Colonel Hackworth articulates the battlefield calamities resulting from the "fog of war" in his Marine Corps Gazette article:

Accidents occur on the modern battlefield because terrified human beings are thrust into total chaos on a jet-driven rollercoaster.

The earth is rocked by exploding shells, bullets cut through the smoke-filled air like razor winged-tipped bees, and people scream amidst the insanity of the noise while killing and being killed.

Frequently, identification of friend and foe is limited by poor battlefield visibility, by both sides wearing the same green and camouflage uniforms, or by everyone hunkering down to present the smallest target to get out of harm's way. No one is rational under these uncertain conditions, where adrenalin is pumping at an explosive level.

Survival, man's basic instinct, is at stake. Life and death decisions must be made in a split second. Like in the gunfights of high noon, the slow gun dies. The quick and fast live. Fear, nervousness, excitement, and exhaustion numb the mind and cause miscommunication and misunderstandings. These circumstances are a recipe for error.

It is the human element that causes many people, especially military leaders, to shrug their shoulders and to accept friendly fire casualties as a fait accompli -- just a battlefield fact of life.

However, the human element was a contributing factor in at least 11 of the 35 U.S. friendly fire deaths during the Persian Gulf War and may have had some influence in all of the deaths.

A second contributing factor is improved technology. Modern technology enables large, complex and fast-moving formations to fight in rain, darkness or low visibility and engage targets from long distances with accurate and lethal results. This technological advance contributes to quick and decisive victories. The dilemma is that these new capabilities have pushed us into a new kind of warfare from that traditionally considered, making it more difficult to distinguish friendly units from enemy units and making it more likely that the result will be fatal. Again, from Colonel Hackworth's article, the following is an excellent account of this dilemma:

Warfare has changed. No longer do opponents line up behind two clearly definable neat lines and bang away at each other. Even when they did, they had many incidences of killing their own. Modern American war- fighting is now frontless and emphasizes night attacks with heavy doses of firepower, fast maneuvering, and deep penetration.

No longer do units slam against each other until one side gives, as they did in World War II. The objective is to go for the jugular, to grasp quick victory and thus minimize friendly casualties. This is done by high-speed shock action that quickly slices through enemy forward defenses into his soft belly, and cutting up his command and control, logistics, and artillery. These highly fluid and fast-moving operations require detailed coordination as friend and foe are tightly intermingled.

Read this I know this is real...

Try both links from my second post again - they are working.

As I said, the first one gives the UK soldiers' perspective of things. You are in no position to doubt or second guess their version of events. How do you know that the British were not told by the Americans that the pilots were rogue? How do you know what the British soldiers were being told?

The second shows the errors that were made in failing to identify targets as friendlies, but also the attempts by the Pentagon to keep the tape from a British Court. The video itself shows the errors that were made and I assume that someone as informed as you has seen the video in full rather that the 10-15 seconds that appear on US news sites?

No one disputes the liklihood of friendly fire incidents in warfare. I made no judgement on whether anyone was culpable, just on the attempts to mislead and misinform the dead man's family about what went on.

But if you really must - You must be some kind of idiot if you think that the pilots asking 4 times if there were friendlies in the area absolves them of any responsibility to confirm a visual ID. Orange markings were there for a reason and by agreement amongst all coalition forces. As an ex military man of such skill and experience you must know that every good soldier relies most on the mark one eyeball.

You have obviously not watched the video through and have cherry picked your own sections of the articles to pick holes in.

Your attack on the British media is unwarranted and I can only assume that you are a Dan O'reilly fan - actually, you're not Dan O'Reilly are you?

Love the way you think that an overly verbose post will brow beat someone into submission. Why use only a few words when a thousand clouds the issue so much better?

The British media is just the same as the US MSM. Run and written by a bunch of pussy liberals that would rather suck off the enemy than kill them.

And Trader doesn't attempt to browbeat. His intent is to inform with logic and facts. But logic and facts are lost on emotional whiney liberals such as yourself.

Let me try to explain this for the third time............................

IT'S A FN WAR. NOT A TEA AND CRUMPET SOCIAL. IN WAR PEOPLE GET KILLED. SOMETIMES BY THEIR OWN SIDE. SH!T HAPPENS. GET OVER IT LIMEY.

I do agree I am verbose, that is my way...First off, if verbosity would brow beat you down into submission, you had little to stand up with to begin with, wouldn't you say.

Sorry you assume, I think less of the Uk media than I do of the US media, for in all their "pieces" are the statements within their questions and as well is this ever diminishing quality of reporting the news in more OP Ed propositions, played to ratings and the key demographic merely to increase quarterly revenue for some Corporation that may be as much ownedand controled by Americans and or Brits and or others as anyone else.

Its not the news any more, its about drama and opinions, playing to the demo audience and the race to be at the gate first, facts be damned. As we see incessantly, many news reports these days are latter proven to be from totally inaccurate to wildly distorted in facts,merely because everyone racing 24/7 to be first...

I think if you would take the time to read my posts, in context, as it appears you did not read either completely. You would note, I did say, the issue, was a horrible error, proven on the tapes and the joint UK US investigation and by the pilots and ground control comments already released exactly as said on the tapes in wrtten transcripts, as a real bad mistake and nothing else.

The tapes will not and do not help the politically motivated inquiry nor will they provide any new evidence other than the facts thus far articulated by both Governments no mater how others would want to change the fact to meet their predetermined objective of opinion and set of created factual hyperbolics.

I never, nor do the pilots or ground crews in the tapes attempt to defend, the indefensible. As I said and as they said then and later in the investigation, they were horrified by what they had done, an ally, a man died, needlessly yes, but by mistake only, not by willful intent that this politically motivated effort leading to nowhere would spin up in a dishonest intent as to its true purpose.

This you will see does nothing to help a man long dead, nor his family, but it does help to drum beat an ideological position long understood and long accepted that does little to nothing to change what has happened and what is likely to happen in the next 2 years or so.

The people of the UK have far more enemies to worry about at home and very nearby than to be fixated on Americans being their enemies, when they are far from that and are not.

I also know, no one is well served but the pundits against this war in this whole rehash of a terrible incident that should have never happened...But it did.

A lot of bad things happen to good people in this world. Any person seeking objectively the truth knows it often happens not because it was intended or on purpose, but because humans make mistakes and there is NO greater place where this is likely to happen than under the duress of combat in war as has been my point all along..

No country in modern warfare of the last 200 years has not killed some of their own by mistake.

Have you been in Combat?

If so, you should know that what I speak of is true, If not, you don't want to know the truth, you want to know your version of the truth...

I think you mean Bill O'Rielly... I would say you probably know more about him than I do. I read about 30 on line newspapers every day from perhaps as many as 15 countries and spend as little time as possibe in front of the tube...

But I know first hand, how people get killed by their own, not by intent but by being human and making msitakes they wish they had not made, as I provided for you in my examples.

QUOTE

It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes short again and again, who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, and spends himself in a worthy cause, who at best knows achievement and who at the worst if he fails at least fails while daring greatly so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat.

From a speech given in Paris at the Sorbonne in 1910- Teddy Roosevelt

I do agree I am verbose, that is my way...First off, if verbosity would brow beat you down into submission, you had little to stand up with to begin with, wouldn't you say.

...Oh, so that's your justification for deliberately clouding the issue is it?

Sorry you assume, I think less of the Uk media than I do of the US media, for in all their "pieces" are the statements within their questions and as well is this ever diminishing quality of reporting the news in more OP Ed propositions, played to ratings and the key demographic merely to increase quarterly revenue for some Corporation that may be as much ownedand controled by Americans and or Brits and or others as anyone else.

Its not the news any more, its about drama and opinions, playing to the demo audience and the race to be at the gate first, facts be damned. As we see incessantly, many news reports these days are latter proven to be from totally inaccurate to wildly distorted in facts,merely because everyone racing 24/7 to be first

More accurate description of Sky and Fox than the likes of the Independant, but glad to see you take my point. I thought for a moment that you were going to claim that all British media were snivelling, leftie surrender monkeys looking to trash the US

I think if you would take the time to read my posts, in context, as it appears you did not read either completely. You would note, I did say, the issue, was a horrible error, proven on the tapes and the joint UK US investigation and by the pilots and ground control comments already released exactly as said on the tapes in wrtten transcripts, as a real bad mistake and nothing else.

So why did the MoD and Pentagon not authorise the release of the video until it was leaked. Would have been half the story if someone had just said "Yeah, we ######ed up and we're sorry."

The tapes will not and do not help the politically motivated inquiry nor will they provide any new evidence other than the facts thus far articulated by both Governments no mater how others would want to change the fact to meet their predetermined objective of opinion and set of created factual hyperbolics.

A coroner's court of inquest is part of the legal process in this country whenever someone dies in suspicious/unclear circumstances. It is not a political inquiry - the law of the land dictates when one is held not politicians. Do not mistake it for something similar to parliamentary or senate hearings. It is held in a court of law as part of our legal system. But then again, the Americans have never given two ######s for the law in this country have they?

I never, nor do the pilots or ground crews in the tapes attempt to defend, the indefensible. As I said and as they said then and later in the investigation, they were horrified by what they had done, an ally, a man died, needlessly yes, but by mistake only, not by willful intent that this politically motivated effort leading to nowhere would spin up in a dishonest intent as to its true purpose.

A mistake made because their incompetance meant that they doubted what their eyes were telling them and decided that pre-agreed coalition orange markings were orange rocket launchers. FFS As a military man, have you EVER seen a vehicle with Orange rocket launchers on top?

This you will see does nothing to help a man long dead, nor his family, but it does help to drum beat an ideological position long understood and long accepted that does little to nothing to change what has happened and what is likely to happen in the next 2 years or so.

Other than to explain to a widow why her husband burned to death in his armoured car at the hands of his allies I suppose it achieves nothing. The US are the ones who have created the anger by refusing to allow a court to show the recording to the family. The US assumes our support too easily. If things like this piss off people like me who supported the war, what does it do for those who were anti or undecided?

The people of the UK have far more enemies to worry about at home and very nearby than to be fixated on Americans being their enemies, when they are far from that and are not

Now who's listening to the sensationalist, lowest common demoninator side of the media?

I also know, no one is well served but the pundits against this war in this whole rehash of a terrible incident that should have never happened...But it did.

A lot of bad things happen to good people in this world. Any person seeking objectively the truth knows it often happens not because it was intended or on purpose, but because humans make mistakes and there is NO greater place where this is likely to happen than under the duress of combat in war as has been my point all along..

There are mistakes granted, but this one smacks of incompetance, surely the issues raised should be addressed for the protection of troops of all nations in the future.

No country in modern warfare of the last 200 years has not killed some of their own by mistake.

Have you been in Combat?

No, have two cousins and a brother in the army and a friend who is a Sea King Pilot. Funnily enough, none of them are as understanding of this as you are either.

If so, you should know that what I speak of is true, If not, you don't want to know the truth, you want to know your version of the truth...

I agree completely that Friendly Fire happens all the time and is an unfortunate part of warfare. An incident with the Royal Marines near Basra shows that. The difference is that the MoD made the inquiry findings public, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/worl...ticle652339.ece and admitted to 'serious failings' - in this incident we have had nothing but "friendly fire, ###### happens"

The British approach to Friendly fire incidents seems to be different. It is openly admitted as a possibility upfront http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_brit...icle2016133.ece which seems to differ from incidents involving the US such as that with Pat Tillman

I think you mean Bill O'Rielly... I would say you probably know more about him than I do.

Obviously not but at least you know who I meant.

I read about 30 on line newspapers every day from perhaps as many as 15 countries and spend as little time as possibe in front of the tube

Ok, and yet you are unable to see past the usual "USA rox, we are never wrong"

But I know first hand, how people get killed by their own, not by intent but by being human and making msitakes they wish they had not made, as I provided for you in my examples.


Which I never disputed. Does not mean that none of them are caused by incompetance rather than error. That is my point. Yes tragic, yes a mistake.. but worse a mistake that need not have been made. They were not under fire, actually show they were unsure but pressed home the attack anyway. I am not looking for their prosecution or anything like that - they have enough to contend with. However, these men need to have been shown to have paid professionally for their incompetance. If there are no consequences, there is no incentive to exercise due caution is there?

But hey, if you think I cannot have a valid opinion without having personal military experience; I refer the honourable gentleman to the comments (both pro and anti your stance) of military aircrew here

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=263066

Just stopped by to see if anybody still thinks the invasion was a good idea...and dang there's old UStrader still copying and pasting like crazy!! You must be one of the last ones? Do you get to switch the lights off?

You have obviously decided unwaveringly about this war, the evil yanks and this set circumstances in a one side blame game looking for utopian perfection in a world afar from such. Good luck, Tally ho!

Perhaps you can as well contemplate another interesting one side drama. Did you know of the 131 UK personnel killed in Iraq, 32, or 32.65% died of accident and or other flawed circumstance other than from direct Combat.

Likely, as well of the Other 131 allies who in total died in Iraq, 27 or 25.6% of them died of accidental and or otherwise flawed circumstances other than from direct combat.

Perhaps, the witch hunters should begin another inquisition as to who was perhaps merely human and or incompetent in those deaths as you would these other tragic mistake in the deaths by friendly fire in another one legged assumption of blame.

THAT'S your response!!?

I was expecting to have to reply to a well thought out response based in logic from a well read, ex military person who would be able to effectively explain the US's absolute refusal to respect the UK and our laws.

Instead I get a poorly written postulation with Dubya esque manglings of the "english communicatory syntaxination".

No matter, will have to try and address what you have posted.



Sure I mentioned in my last post that I was pro war, but you obviously choose to consider anyone who questions anything about the conduct of the war, US tactics or events to be anti-war, anti-American and pro terrorists. Good for you. Glad to see that all the reading you do pays dividends.



Considering the numbers we have are that much lower, we tend to hear the exact reasons for deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan more frequently that you do in the US. Of course I know that. Did I not post you some links to show that there is a coroner's inquest held in all these circumstances and that this has not been a "witch hunt", just part of the law of this land that tried to make sure that the MoD cannot cover up ###### like this. Surely as an ex military man you would appreciate the "protection" or justice that this may help to provide for those honourable enough to do the dirty work? Then again, 'cos the US does not show it's servicemen the same respect we have to deal with crap like this from you when you have been the ones who have killed our men.

Does not change the fact that this incident was an 'accident' caused by the gung ho incompetance of two ANG pilots with no previous combat experience who had been tasked to fly a CAS mission together rather than splitting them and pairing them up with a pilot more experienced in theatre. But of course, there is nothing wrong with US procedure or RoE EVER



Perhaps you should forget your arrogance and realise that the US forces do not always have robust RoE and, while British Armour are more than grateful for US air support, they are always more than a little nervous when they see an A10 as there appears to be something wrong with the training of A10 pilots. This happened in the first Gulf War, to the Canadians in Afghanistan (TWICE) and there have been other near misses. That says there is something wrong with the training, selection or calibre of some A10 pilots. This should have been the perfect opportunity to address this, but you have illustrated the exact reason why the US will continue to make the same mistake again and again.

The RAF provides air support for the Allies in Afghanistan and some (mainly for the Brits) in Iraq - when was the last time a Brit shot up a US APC (or a Brit one for that matter) and what would be the reaction in the States if it did happen? You can be sure that the double extradition agreement (that we ratified but you didn't) would be enforced and we would forced to extradite the pilot. You numb nut - read about the Nat West 3 and how an extradition agreement intended for use against terrorists was used to force 3 white collar fraud suspect to the US, then tell me how great and fair the US is with the only country stupid enough to support you every time. Farkin red neck.

There is nothing wrong with the US forces at all. 90% of them are great. So that means that the other 10% who ###### up and ruin the reputation of the rest should be brought to book, retrained or whatever. ######ing grow up.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2007060452,00.html

The Sun (the newspaper who the video was leaked to) have named and printed the picture of the pilot involved.

Not sure what I think of that, but the article also has a couple of interesting claims:

1. The US enquiry cleared him, but the British one found that procedures were not followed - this is contrary to previous reports that claim both investigations cleared the pilots, including a very recent statement by the Idaho ANG http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml...08/npilot08.xml

2. He was the Lt Col rather than the more junior major as previously thought

3. He has been promoted to a full Colonel and is now in charge of training A10 pilots in Close Air Support techniques http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml...08/npilot08.xml

4. Neither pilot involved in the incident was reprimanded in any way. Gus Kohntopp was awared the Bronze Star for his service in Operation Iraqi Freedom. http://www.uidaho.edu/herewehaveidaho/PDF/Spring04.pdf page 28

5. Now that he has been named, the coroner can bypass US top brass and make a request direct to him to appear even if the US refuse (again) to allow their pilots to give testimony as to what happened (bear in mind this is an inquest not a prosecution - no one can be sent to jail after an inquest, although the coroner can reccomend a Crown Prosecution Service / Police investigation) - will he have the balls or feel the need to appear?

A quote from the man himself AFTER his service in Iraqi Freedom

“Honor your values and be true to yourself,”
he reflected. “You have to live with your
actions so make them worthwhile to your
loved ones and this great nation.”

http://www.chaptertools.com/site_files/file_1146584705.pdf

Col Kohntopp has an (otherwise) distinguished service record and was a F-117 pilot before leaving the Airforce in 1999 when he joined Southwest airlines as a 737 pilot.

Let me have it Trader.

Quote from a UK forum frequented by military aircrew discussing this issue and I have to say that I tend to agree.

Unfortunately I also cannot help but think that the MoD and the DoD have failed Gus Kohntopp as well as LCoH Hull in all this by trying to cover up the truth (denying the video existed, refusing to allow the Pilots to give even anonymous testimony at the coroner's inquest). That only adds fuel to the media interest and once those dogs are released everyone loses.

Another quote from the same forum to support my assertion that the UK investigation did not clear the pilots as previously suggested - findings start on page 17



Cannot add anything to that

My condolences to the family of the 4 US Marines killed in Baghdad yesterday.Too many people are dying out there including innocent people trying to get on with their daily life.Something needs to give soon

RIP

Do you also feel sorry for the families of civilians killed by common criminals in non war areas, Von Piles? More people worldwide die every day from one on one murder that has nothing to do with a war situation. And what's the big deal with Muslims killing each other? Been going on for centuries. Just their way of life.

It's a Fn war. Sh!t happens. The best way to loose any war is to put constraints, procedures and limits on those fighting it. Our enemy does not do that.

Don't patronise me you bucket of lobotomised crap as long as there are puke balls like you around there will never be peace anywhere.Also, if you need to be told the difference then stay underneath the pond you crawl from.

WOW! I don't understand the venom here vonpieles. Nomad asked a resonable question here though I can't agree with his assesment of muslim violence. But it looks like you cannot debate an issue when confronted with facts. Pity.

So, imagine a British Harrier shoots up a USMC LAV-25 on a forward recce mission killing a US Marine. The British find there was no fault on the part of the pilot but the US investigation says they think that the pilot had mis-indentified the target (because he thought orange 'friendly vehicle' indentifiers were orange rockets), mis-reported the position of the target to his Forward Air Controller and attacked without receiving clearance.

Let's then imagine that the Ministry of Defence allowes the Department of Defense to see the video that showed this is what happened but refuses to allow the Department of Defense to let the family see the video. The Ministry of Defence refuses ALL requests from a US court for the pilots to give evidence at the inquest - even though the US court offers to receive the testimony anonymously in a closed session. This means that the Coroner (or US equivalent) then has to adjourn proceedings that have taken 3 years in order to speak further with the Ministry of Defence - extending the agony of a widow that just wants to find the truth what happened to her husband. Bear in mind no-one in the US is talking of the pilot being prosecuted.

Let's further imagine that all the while (3 years) the Ministry of Defence are briefing the media and the family that the tape does not exist, that the pilots have been exonerated by both a US and a UK inquiry and that there is nothing more to say on the matter. It does not matter that the US are p1ssed cos the UK does not do things in public and the US board of inquiry is wrong when it says that there is any evidence that avoidable errors were made.

Let's assume that the US people are used to their military being accountable for their actions - both good and bad.

Let's now imagine that the video showing what happened (that did not exist) is leaked to a US national paper - the video shows what the US soldiers, Department of Defense and people have thought all along. Then the US people find out that a senior UK officer reccomended the pilot for court marshall but this was to be over-ruled in circumstances that are unclear.

The UK replies "It's a Fn war. Sh!t happens."

What is the reaction of the American people - and you? fu*kin moron!




The best was to lose any war is for you to shoot up your own side meaning that they concentrate more on you than the enemy!

Constraints, procedures and limits on those fighting war are called Rules of Engagement - even the US military knows what they are. They are there to prevent friendly fire and collateral damage including preventable accidents like this. The fact that you are not aware of that shows that you know f*ck all. There is a difference between having rules of engagement and political constraints that prevent forces pursuing the enemy (a la Vietnam) - assuming you have identified them correctly in the first place.




and you want to compare a professional army with a handful of terrorists then good for you. Why not ask Gus Kohntopp if he wants to fly his Southwestern 737 into an Iranian tower block - hillbilly

By the way, I assume you were the only American who thought that the Bloody Sunday inquiry was not needed cos "Sh1t happens" when you are dealing with terrorists!

I am sure most reasonable people do. That's why we all pay taxes to fund a police force, surely? Cannot recall anyone ever saying '###### happens' when someone is murdered.



not that I disagree, but do you have any sources for your claim? Bear in mind that Iraq and Afghanistan are not the only wars/conflicts in the world at the moment and you will need to take into account ALL wars, not just the coalition wars for this point to stand up.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKDzTHvKRgw Eldon Harrison from about 50s onwards...

Kenbean, Nomad or ustrader?

cannot decide which one this guy reminds me most of.

hmm, let me see... military vet, great "communicatory" skills, a clear grasp of historical fact, a great awareness of the world outside hicksville USA, knowledge of who the members of the 'coalition of the willing' are... tooo hard for me to decide.

I'll just have to be satisfied with imagining that they are all the same wonderfully cuddly ol grandpa

I can debate any issue, but recently I've noticed a trend of US against THEM that's not debate it's patronising.How can you debate a question when they cannot or will not even spell your name the right way?.Pieles is my name, not Piles or Pils and I will not be made to feel embarrased for it.Okay I did go a bit over the top and I apologise for that.(Truth is, one should not post when one has had a few drinks)

Teutonic symptomatic of debate or ambiguous sermonizing of punditry supposed in a righteous authority of enlightenment?

1.) Listing an article with outcomes currently far from the supposition of the flaming in them and intended by them.

2.) My condolences to the family of the 4 US Marines killed in Baghdad yesterday. Too many people are dying out there including innocent people trying to get on with their daily life.Something needs to give soon.

3.) Don't patronise me you bucket of lobotomised crap as long as there are puke balls like you around there will never be peace anywhere.Also, if you need to be told the difference then stay underneath the pond you crawl from.

4.) I can debate any issue, but recently I've noticed a trend of US against THEM that's not debate it's patronising.How can you debate a question when they cannot or will not even spell your name the right way?.Pieles is my name, not Piles or Pils and I will not be made to feel embarrased for it.Okay I did go a bit over the top and I apologise for that.(Truth is, one should not post when one has had a few drinks)
Now that above the pretend to be Euro-trash intellectual basis of debate?

Debate: · argument: a discussion in which reasons are advanced for and against some proposition or proposal; "the argument over foreign aid goes on and on" · discuss the pros and cons of an issue · the formal presentation of and opposition to a stated proposition (usually followed by a vote) · argue: have an argument about something

Tibi seris, tibi metis. Vae victis!

[quote]No, it is not a justification at all. It is, as you well know and ignore, a statement as to your complaint for having a lack of quality to stand up to the facts verbosity not withstanding. [/quote]

So that's the reason were were both logged on at the same time over the last couple of days, yet it took you nearly 2 days to respond to my arguments - even though they lack quality and you made no other posts on the forum.

Surely if you are that confident, you would respond to every point I have made ON THE SUBJECT in the forum (as I do with you)

######, Google must be hard work.

[quote]I for one would never associate the British people with the more continental reality of who is and who is or is not surrender monkeys. [/quote]

So the Germans, who had arguably the finest fighting troops of WWII were surrender monkeys were they. Shame they managed to hold out against all the allies for so long in that case - we (including the US) must have been really ###### then.

Can't lay off the ill informed generalisations can you. Remember, Europe is not a country, but a continent. If Europe does ever have one uniform economic, military and foreign policy - the US days as a superpower will be over. Luckily for you that is unlikely to ever happen.

[quote]Thought they, like the continentals, as often, assume in righteousness; yet, have proven to have this sightless propensity to unrealistically gravitate towards this reason and rationality idiom of neo-relativism’s zest for a utopian perfection in mistake state of denial that there is in existence such a thing. In what is, to the sighted, as Churchill proved, even in this utopian relativism scorn and ridicule of righteous perfection, not once, but twice, before and after WWII, that there is an obviously a world filled with evil intent's coming storms and containing adornments always of course in non-European imperfect and non-utopian rooted intents. [/quote]

In other words, because 'Europe' does not agree with the US they are assuming righteousness through some sense of cultural superiority, even though they lack the awareness of world history and events to be anything other than peacenicks?. (again why use a few words when so many more makes you sound like an idiot who can't string a meaningful sentence together. Does using long words unneccesarily make you feel smarter than the average bear?)

Really, Mr ustrader, you make me swoon with your knowledge of history. I will not go into the whole WWII having an affect on the psych of some European nations who lost millions of people killed and a whole generation lost not long after their fathers were similarly wiped out. Rather, I will just remind you that to disagree does not mean we assume superiority. I will also remind you that as a Briton whose family and country has taken part in the war on terror it seriously weakens your argument if you consistenly go on about how 'Europe' is not taking part and is wrong if they disagree with the US on anything.

Don't make me start on how the US funded and supported terrorism in the form of the IRA for decades and were more than happy to see British soldiers being killed with US weapons and money. How bothered were you then about the IRA's links to Iran, North Korea and Libya - the places you now acknowledge to be centres of global terror. Where were you in our fight against terror?

[quote]A state of perfection where its very center is exclusively within the domain, of peoples, whose history of perfection, has conquered, treated tyrannically, cruelly, and, in self-perfection, killed, more human beings in the last 225 years than in all of human history. Oddly a perfected epicenter, whereby nearly ever conflict, war and violently disputed region in this world existing today, is rooted as a afterbirth of their perfected histories of murderous and colonial perfections.[/quote]

Again, get your geo political facts right. Europe is not a state, it is not even a federation - unless you use the term state in an existential context?!!

Odd, I would have thought our bloody history makes us more qualified to comment on the merits of war as a means to resolve differences. I would have also thought that as the former colonial powers we would understand our ex colonies better than the US who adopted an official policy of non intervention for a long time. The British were the world policeman for a lot longer than the US has been - I think that means that we have pretty much seen it all, done it all - eg Afghanistan. That's why the US were so keen to have us in the coalition - our presence lends more of a political weight than a military one. But then again you would need to get your Kelloggs Big Book of World History out to see that. Don't take too long reading all 40 pages mind you.

[quote]You, like the pretend Teutonic drift that started these threads, are obviously a big conspiracy buff. I ponder to bet a major buffer on UFO's and crop circle jet setting, eh?[/quote]

Not at all - crop circles were created by 2 piss heads on the way home from the pub. The yanks lapped it all up.

[quote]I think your skirt blew up in this wind of ideology and your political panties are showing there, lass…Though, I agree we yanks, as most of world’s former British colonies, never really cared much for that Colonial Empires laws. In this case, you take the argument to the absurd as is evident by your fanatical numerous howling on this tragic but far from conspiratorial issue, you two howl about.[/quote]

Why do you assume that I am female? Is it because of my Avatar big boy? There is a reason they call it #####umption you know (as your red neck pilots found out). Or is it because you think that calling me a girl will upset me and make me run to the other side of the playground?

Anyway, you have made my point for me. We (the rest of the world) have to respect the rule of law (especially US ones) but you can stick the finger up at the rest of us. Is that why the US have refused to sign up to the international war crimes tribunal (as we have) but insist that other country's citizens are subject to it? Have you googled Nat West 3 and looked at the recent extradition treaty between the UK and US? Or are you just a fat, ill informed red neck barely able to reach accross his PC for his Gulp n Blow? (Hate to resort to the same stereotyping you do, but I sometimes wonder if it is the only language you understand).

[quote]This all is absolutely about cynical mistrust of the government and the US jus pos the Iraq war, flat and simple.[/quote]

Again, I was pro war. This is about the investigation into this blue on blue incident and the attempts by the US to cover up what happened and the help the MoD gave them in doing so. Keep to the subject, I do not need to debate the war on terror with you.

[quote]I love this presumption of imperfection you tone deaf assume, does not exist "over there" only somewhere else. Another tone deaf huff in this “non-reality of perfection, seen exclusively as in ones kind. Only seeing right in that, and, in all the rest, seeing wrong, that you say is only adorned to a yank propensity for flaw, mistake and misjudgment, while you and your alleged Euro history exhibit the same propensity to vastly deadly extremes of flaw, mistake and misjudgment, of course, in this usual Euro-perfection of sunshine allies and storm cloud foes”. [/quote]

Again, I do not assume that only the US military make mistakes or that mistakes do not happen. Just that, on this occassion, a huge one was made through a failure to follow RoE. Stick to the actual debate - this incident you do yourself a disservice in being unwilling to debate the specific matter and sticking (again) to generalisations.

[quote]I find it very egocentric and atypical European musings to have inexperienced ignorance to assume a enemy in Iraq or elsewhere, at that time, or any other time, could not possibly think of this after seeing panels on top of allied vehicles. Yet, I guess they and us ignorant yanks just are not smart enough to use deception to keep from being blown up by all those planes we see in the sky? [/quote]

No, just that these pilots did not not receive clearence to attack, mis identified a target, pressed home the attack although they had obvious doubts and suffered from target confusion caused by extremely bad net discipline.

[quote]To seek truth, one must look for it not create in false illusions and delusions.[/quote]

Physician, heal thyself. One must also stick to the pont and avoid confusing the issue with irrelevant generalisations.

[quote]In specific, answer, yes, I have seen and experienced first hand, an enemy who uses our radio calls and smoke grenade mimicry, to deceive and set a trap to lure and kill us...

In Iraq, recently they used uniforms; equipment and even blonde hair, to attack a US unit capture and then kill 4 US soldiers, lured by the mimic of deceit. Likewise, there have been several incidences with UK and others troops who were killed by similar mimic deceits in ambush.

Anyone who has been in combat knows quickly to never assume your enemy is not smart and can easily mimic you to your death. I gather you and perhaps your military friends have not learned that lesson?[/quote]

Assume what you may like about my military understanding, but do not assume anything about my family's. (see my response to a later point)

[quote]The people of the UK have far more enemies to worry about at home and very nearby than to be fixated on Americans being their enemies, when they are far from that and are not[/quote]

[quote]Now who's listening to the sensationalist, lowest common demoninator side of the media?[/quote]

[quote]Well at least you admit it.[/quote]

i know I am, but what are you.?

Debate like a grown up fool. This is where you blow me away with facts about how the UK has far "more enemies to worry about at home and very nearby" - I will expect your argument to include an assumption that there are no al Quaeda cells operating in the US cos the good ol USA has no domestic threat.

[quote]Combat and being the military are not mutually inclusive you know as your question about an enemy not being capable of mimicing you to kill you shows for you and your military friends. [/quote]

There we go #####umption again.

I have a cousin who served in the Canadian Army as an infantry sergeant in Afghanistan in 2002 and again in 2004.

I have another cousin who is Driver/Rad Op in the British Calvary who served in Iraq in 2004 and is currently undergoing pre theatre training to return this year. He also has tours in Bosnia and Kosovo under his belt.

My brother was a Morter Platoon commander (also worked as a range officer for live fire exercises) who served in GW1, Bosnia and Sierra Leonne.

I think they all have a very good understanding of the dangers of friendly fire and combat (especially my brother who's job it was to avoid friendly fire, identiify targets and stop his men being killed all at the same time).

You sir are a fookin insult to military men and families around the world if you think troops and families have to accept that their superiors may try to assist the government of an ally in covering up the real reason for their death. No wonder US troops used to 'frag' their officers in Vietnam.

[quote]Yet, you hit the core of the issue, it is not a matter of having opined "understanding" that counts here, it is a matter of understanding the higher probability that human error will occur under combat conditions and adding that, not the politicla punditry and the tragedy, but the the facts, which seems missing, in this obsession on this. [/quote]

Human error does happen, it is no excuse for incompetance.

[quote]I said and still do in the end there will be a UK report that slightly in PC politics lays blame more than the US report, yet, in final conclusion, does not call to account for that pound of flesh you frenzy about and prsume obessses conspiracy frenzy.[/quote]

Funny you should say that, I have attached a copy of the British Army report into the incident. This is a report compiled by the Army into the incident - use your military experience to pull it to pieces and I will gladly pass your comments to the board. I am very interested to find which bits you feel show military officers being politically influenced.

http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/887DE696-1D...i_lcpl_hull.pdf

Watch all 15 minutes of the HUD video (link available if you want it). Read the report and it's findings in it's entirity. Read the footnotes on page 25. Read the article giving the thoughts of the troops that were being attacked again and then tell me again that there is nothing to answer.

By the way, did you even take the time to read the discussion aircrew were having regarding this? Obviously not as you make no reference to it to defend your view point - there are posts there that do that. http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=263066

You, sir are an idiot who relies on assumption, hearsay and bigotry for the most ill informed of opinions.

The coroners report, when it comes out later in the year, will be very damning of the MoD and British government. Pity you retards don't have similar processes in place. Then again, when was an American ever interested in the truth when it conflicts with "USA, USA, No1". Moron

I will respond to the rest of your polemic later. For now I have a son (who, along with 2 of his cousins, wants to be an army officer like his uncle) to take to rugby.

As usual it seem that those whiners who whine when I am verbose equally whine when I am not. I have always pondered what DNA is behind such contradictions, other than, defensive rebounds perhaps.

go on, just call me a waste of a condom - it will take up less of our time than that crap.

ALL nations military people get killed in wars and or peace via accident, mistake, and or poor judgment.

Shame we agree on the basic premise but you refuse to consider the fact that this one may be a case of negligence because they are American. You are obviously defensive becuase you think everyone is Yank bashing. Pity it means that you will not look at or discuss the evidence, just spout the usual party line.

It is not, as you dramatize in this kabuki of theater, just an American problem

That is, for the nth time, not something I have ever disputed

nor even these pilots problems,

A British Army investigation would argue with you. I refer you to the link I gave you in my last post. If you want all 150 pages of the full report (including US documentation and that which has been censored for security reasons) look at

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDef...Inquirybois.htm

It is however a real problem by people who do this, not from the sideline as never have played the real game all knowing coaches, who suppose they have all the answers, yet when pressed, have none what so ever.

You still have to show me why the British Army board of inquiry or even the opinions of aircrew on http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=263066 are so wrong.

The Uk will issue report to play to PC politics of it all, coming to the same conclusion with a slightly appeasing thes yansk did bad yoke,

Not what the British BoI did and the coroner is likely to be very critical of the MoD and DoD. Does not mean anyone will go to jail though or that it is what anyone wants.

but no blood lust for revenge will result

That was never the point. A coroner's inquest does not lead to anyone being imprisoned - just a statement as to the likely cause of death with, at most, a recommendation for police action. Even a verdict of unlawful killing would not lead to the prosecution of the pilots – it has not when given on Friendly Fire incidents here. The only ones threatening the pilots with legal action is the DoD who have stated that anyone from the Idaho ANG commenting on the matter to the British media or inquest will be court marshalled.


It is the same hypocracy like we see in Europe all grasping at CIA renditions, going on by the Europeans, Russians and yanks for 60 years, while their governments participates and say they know nothing.

You mean like when the US blamed the bad WMD intelligence on the British? Why do you think people in the UK are so pissed off at the MoD? Do not think this is a point we disagree on.

Your getting your third and now forth wave already and you ignore it focusing on the yanks as your enemy, when the ral emeny are many among you now

Explain how thinking one US pilot was negligent is treating the yanks as an enemy! I forgot, to disagree with anything the US does is to be against them.

In truth, like 32% of UK troops, nearly 26% of those US deaths in Iraq were by accident, mistake and or bad judgment as well, it is more karma than any ill intent and or conspiracy as is being ejaculated here.

Friendly fire is not conspiracy, but neither is it inevitable or unpreventable. My argument is not that Friendly Fire will ever be eradicated nor that every case demands culpability. My point is that this is one of those few that was caused by negligence - like the Challenger 2 incident.

As to your other comments, perhaps, there is lesson in life you have yet to grasp here, expectations like opined supposition, to sale ones ideology and point, have often nothing to do with the real out come of situations and the real likelihood, ones probability in being as wrong as right increasing and or decreasing, when they use expectations and opined supposition in dealing with events far beyond their control, impact and pay grade to decide in th end.

And you expecting that the US is never wrong, the pilots could never have made a negligent mistake and that I am a leftie whiner are different how? The facts and outcome may be actually different to what you dearly want to believe or expect – don’t be so patronising.

Careful lass,

You are obsessed with me being female aren’t you? If I am a woman, how does that make you feel? Does it turn you on? Or is it that you get annoyed that a woman would dare contradict you?

I think your skirt blew up in this wind of ideology and your political panties are showing here.

and they are? Oh yes – anti American, left wing liberal whiner.

At least in using the word “postulation”, you at least grasp what I have said is self-evident and obvious.

ooops, did mean to use inverted commas to portray how tongue in cheek I meant it –"postulation": you believe all your points to be beyond reproach which is hilarious. But I’ll let you have that one.

Yet, you go on to critic in maneuvers of mendacity.

in this part of the world we say 'manoeuvres' (and possibly 'critique'). I’ll address the ‘lies’ as you raise them.

Frist off, what is a Dubya?

I am really starting to wonder which 30 online newspapers from around 15 countries you read each day. I am starting to suspect that you have trouble getting through a Marvel comic.

Just to let you know, ‘Dubya’ is a nickname by which George Bush is known around the world – as in Jawge Dubya Boosh. I am surprised that I need to tell such a well read person.

Is it some Birmingham cockney slang? Likewise what ever that is, is that as opposed to cockney-esqued, Arab-esque pompously-equed, “mangling”, (as there is no “s”properly used here), English ( capital “E”nglish) communicatory ( an adjective as in of or relation to) syntaxination (No results found for syntaxination} perhaps, you mean syntax.

I wonder who is the “mangle-or or mangle-ee” among the two of us eh, lass?

Oh FFS. You really do not read the foreign media at all do you? Have a google of Dubya or Dubya speak and maybe then you’ll get the idea. i.e he is known worldwide for his ability to mis-use, mis-pronounce and make up whole new words.

http://www.dubyaspeak.com/grammarian.phtml

http://www.dubyaspeak.com/audio.phtml

By the way, I think your attempts to affect an understanding of British dialect hilarious.

Cockney has nothing to do with Birmingham (and I am sure you did not mean to write 'brummie') and no one uses ‘lass’ as often as you do. Truly worthy of the great Dubya himself.

Odd, that seems to not match the facts, I wonder why? … 31 are known to have died either as a result of illness, non-combat injuries or accidents, or have not yet officially been assigned a cause of death pending the outcome of an investigation. The balance of these figures may change as inquests are concluded. Many if not most going back to 2003 have never been concluded. I have the crow, shall I serve it now?

There is a back log of coroner's inquests to be held – but they will be held. They all have to be held at Oxford because it is nearest to RAF Brize Norton where the bodies are first repatriated to. Because of the backlog in the coroner's court, new coroners were taken on and are addressing the inquests that have still to be investigated/concluded. LCoH Hull died in 2003 - his inquest is one of those to be concluded. Blair has already apologised to Mrs Hull for the delay. Most have been subject to an Army Board of Inquiry already and Friendly Fire Incidents have been reported on by the National Audit Office.

Of the friendly fire incident you mention, the Challenger incident has been blamed on the crew of the Challenger that opened fire although no-one was prosecuted (and no one called for them to be). Inquest passed without incident because all material asked for was made available. Backed up by recordings of net traffic and testimony of the servicemen involved - same as has been asked for Matty Hull. The UK has no problem with making the findings in these matters public. Hopefully prevents it happening again and diffuses any suspicion of cover up immediately.

I refer you to appendix 2 of

http://www.nao.org.uk/publications/nao_rep...-06/0506936.pdf (look also at the shooting down of a Tornado and the death of the Marine (Christopher Maddison) and tell me if the intent of the Brits is always to Yank Bash.)

and

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDef...Inquirybois.htm

and look forward to you reciprocating by letting me have a link to the public US ones.

By the way, do let me know if you have a problem working out what a coroner is in the British system and what the purpose of the coroner's inquest is - it is nothing to do with Pathology by the way.

How urban,

Surely you mean urbane – and I thank you for the compliment.

I do not see what it has to do with town vs country

obviously your likely a fraud blue neck in pink panties instead of real brit.

I’d be very interested to know what you, as an American, think qualifies someone as a real Brit. You still did not give me your thoughts on the Nat West 3 scenario
- although I think we would be better starting a new thread for that one!!

I always know I have taken the high ground, when the name calling begins...You did not last long nor really did you bring much to table that was not yawn material, friend...

And yet I have returned for more. Please let me know when you plan to respond to the real point of the thread i.e this one particular FF incident rather than relying on obfuscation and generalisation to keep up, and then I may not feel like name calling is all you will respond to in a meaningful way.

Yawn!!

In no way, diminishing the UK’s contributions and her men and women’s heroic sacrifices in both Afghanistan and Iraq, especially given the UK’s entire standing Military force is in total only 158,000 in all forces, they are giving all they can afford to, given the welfare state drain on their highly taxed population.

Unlike the rest of so these called Euro allies, the Aussy's and the Brits have been slight more than Sunshine allies and storm cloud foes. Yet, so have we many times for for many years.

Then again, the Europeans could afford to spend monies on giant welfare states while some 17 million US troops served there these 60 years since WWII. With on average, 244,000 serving in Europe every year since and at times nearly 500,000 in the 1950’s and 1960’s.

Oh big yawn.

What does this have to do with the matter at hand other than to give you a chance to type something you think shows you have any form of intelligence or geo political knowledge. You’ll be wheeling out the “we saved your butt in WWII” one next or may be it will be the “soccer is such a wussy game” one.

First off, I doubt we in the vast majority would not allow the process to unfold using facts as we have proven in the cases where we have done the same with our own forces.

I love that one – you would not allow facts to get in the way. I am sure you will let me know what you really meant and be able to point me in the direction of the open inquests you have held – Pat Tillman being one?

I am sure the reaction would be, to get all pissed up in yank bashing mob calls for blood, by a media frenzy and overall political motivation to end the UK’s participation in Iraq.

Jesus mass suicide, that would be a bit harsh. Even I am not advocating yank bashing and an end to Britain’s involvement in Iraq. Thanks for that, makes me feel a lot better – I thought you were going to say that the US people would just accept us saying “###### Happens” – at which point I would have known you were lying.

Which, as we both know is the vast majority view in the UK and Europe of “what is right for now” yet, not perhaps for the tomorrows, as has been so evidently proven in the righteously wrong European farsightedness in 1913 and 1936.

Here we go again – now you’re going to undertake further diversion and tell me you saved our butts in WWI too – stick to the subject idiot.

Is it not a well published fact that for most part, a re-positioning of UK troops in Iraq to a strength ¼ its largest numbers will occur later on this year and is to commence within months.

I am sure there are some in the British media (and those undergoing pre-deployment training) who would love to know for sure that this was a ‘fact’.

In all seriousness though, I am sure you are referring to this

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml...0/26/wirq26.xml

but we have also heard this all before

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml.../ixnewstop.html

and it is disingenuous of you to assume that any changes in British troop numbers would not be agreed by both the Iraqi, US and UK governments and any UK withdrawal would be matched by a similar US one - we are not Spain

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,175535,00.html

Second, given the very small number of RAF non-helo aircraft in theater in both Iraq and Afghanistan and their ROE to only support UK forces, I think the likelihood is near zero of a UK fratricide of yanks. Afgani’s perhaps, but unlikely yanks.

What you mean like this fine performance by US helicopter gunships yesterday (9th Feb)?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6346901.stm

Fact- The UK Air force (RAF) In Afghanistan consists of 2 to 4, with on average 2 GR7A , now replaced with the GR9A, Harrier aircraft from 1 (F) Squardon, RAF Cottesmore in Rutland who rotate tours every 4 months and their ROE are to support UK troops only. Better then the Germans whose ROE are to hide in peaceful areas.

Strange that this ‘fact’ is refuted by the very MoD article you post to support it, I quote

"Based at Kandahar airfield, the crews from IV (Army Co-operation) Squadron have flown hundreds of life-saving missions in support of British and Coalition troops during the last few months."

and

"We have worked with British, American, Canadian, Australian and Danish troops on the ground," Sqn Ldr Wildsmith-Gleave continued. "We had such a good relationship with one particular Danish controller that he repeatedly requested our Harriers above any other aircraft. He knew they were the best aircraft for the job."

and

"IV (Army Co-operation) Squadron are based at RAF Cottesmore near Rutland. They were equipped with seven GR7A Harrier ground attack aircraft, deployed from the UK's Joint Force Harrier. 800 Naval Air Squadron Royal Navy will take over from IV (AC) Sqn and will continue providing support to UK and NATO troops. "

Now the Canadians and Brits on the ground have have proven they have the right stuff to fight this coming war, that all this is but a prelude to, if their people, like ours, have guts to realize the reality of what is coming, no matter staying or withdrawing from Iraq or not.

For the LAST time, who is talking about withdrawing troops because of this or any other FF incident – again, stick to the issue at hand

Fact- in Iraq, the UK’s aircraft consist exclusively of helo and logistic aircraft units to support the 7,100 combat troops deployed in Southern Iraq. There are few to none RAF combat air support aircraft in Iraq or operating in Iraq proper.

Another ustrader ‘fact’ that is refuted by the very article he posts to support it.

Reading http://www.raf.mod.uk/currentoperations/opsiraq.cfm will give you:

"The Royal Air Force provides key air force elements in Iraq and elsewhere in support of National and Coalition forces involved in Operation Telic …Close air support is provided by Tornado GR4 "

“But” he complains, “there are no GR4 in Iraq.” And points me to his original link

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/FactShee...itionForces.htm

“ahh yes” I reply, “but if you look further down the page, you will see that the GR4s are stationed in Qatar and they fly their missions from there. Amazing how far modern jets can fly and how the VC10s that are stationed with them can use inflight refueling to increase time on station”

Really, I thought you were a learned man with (two was it?) Phds under your belt. I really would expect a better standard of research and referencing.

Right, now that I have done you the courtesy of responding to each of your annoyind diversions, I would be grateful if you would either address the issue - this particular friendly fire incident - or shut the ###### up.

In order to disucss the subject in any meaningful way I would expect you to have

Seen the HUD video in full and read the transcript - http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2007060131,00.html

Read the British Board of Inquiry Report - http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/887DE696-1D...i_lcpl_hull.pdf

Read the impressions of the soldiers on the ground - http://thereitis.org/iraqWar-index-link-independent12.html

If you can, go through the 150 pages of the full Army BoI including evidence that has been censored for security reasons - http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDef...Inquirybois.htm

As a starting point, I would be interested in your thoughts on the following points alone

1. Was the target Popov36 identified and attacked the same target as the one Popov35 asked Manila Hotel about?

2. At what point did Manila Hotel give clearance to engage the target?

3. When Manila Hotel confirmed there were no friendlies in the area, was he referring to the position of the fourship Popov36 saw MOVING North or the position of the multiple REVETTED vehicles 800m north of the previous target that Popov35 engaged?

4. Why did Popov Section refer to the orange panels as panels and then decide they were rockets? What reason would they have for being rockets?

5. Why is no mention made by either pilot that the orange markings could be Iraqi subterfuge?

6. Why does Popov Section not wait for the 'arty' rounds Popov35 requested to be fired at the target?

7. Why do they not switch to IR goggles (Crimson) as requested by Manila Hotel to help identify the target - would this not have picked up the friendly markings as Manila Hotel apperas to be asking them to rule out?

Let's see if we can have a mature debate about the facts of this incident

Huhh.This guy is an idiot don't waste your time on him.I can't be arsed trying to debate with this so called phd vet.Like most yanks he probaply has a phd in eating.

How about the Kasserne Pass were British Soldiers were ordered to "Fix Bayonets"in order to make sure you yanks did not run.

Die Probleme mit Mythen und der Überlegenheit der Teutonischen-Rasse sind sie beide beruhen von der falschen Wahrheit.

As to the myth that there were any British forces with the Americans II Corp at the exact time of this myth about Kasserine Pass. Though the II Corp was a part of the British General Anderson’s 1st army which was the most southern prong in a two prong offensive with Montgomery’s 8th army to the north near the coast. Andersons 1st army was deployed south of Montgomery along the road-rail routes leading from eastern ports through mountain passes to the Algerian border on the west.

Thus the US II Corp was deployed, by Anderson, as he said later to his far right flank in southern mountain passes to guard his far right flank as more of flank blocking force as they were the most inexperienced in his 1st Army. He sent them there as defensive move while he was thus engaged in what was a defensive stalemated with the Germans for the time leading up to February 1943.

Yet, in having laid out the deployment of the 1st army and Us II Corp, it is time to consider the reality of this myth of British Troops even being with the Americans at the very time in question and not latter after they had been kick to hell by the Germans. First, if they were any British troops there at all at the 4 day battle preceeding the two day battle at the pass they would have equally taken it up the arse as the US II Corp did when they got a most sever a s s kicking by the German Fifth Panzer Army and the Afrika Korps. Who in another unexpected surprise move by the Desert Fox, combined to launch a heavy armored assault on the far right flank of 1st Army in order while holding it to stalemate to North of the pass in order to break out behind them on open plains.

The German Fifth Panzer Army and the Afrika Korps first engaged their heavy armored assault in not just the battle of Kasserine Pass, which was a second battle that came after 4 days of fighting at both Sidi Bou Zid and Sbeitla, from 14-17 February.

In that battle, and, the following one, at Kisserine Pass which started on February 19th two days after the two earlier battles, there were no reported British causalities at all in either of the three battles up to the 19th, If there one would have expected at least some unless they did not fight. Given the intense route of US II Corp as the Germans pretty much moved right straight through the mountain area and the US II Corp at their will and own pace. In fact, by th morning of 10th of February they had actually broken out on to the plains as planned and were headed behind the British towards Algeria.

If any British Troops were in these fights they would have had little time to worry about putting their bayonets to the back of anyone as these battles were complete routes of the US II Corp and thus any British troops with them, in what was the American’s first direct with the Germans.

In fact, at the four day battle at Sidi Bou Zid and Sbeitla there are no reported British losses at all only Americans. In that 4 days II Corp lost, 2,546 missing, 103 tanks, 280 vehicles, 18 field guns, 3 antitank guns, and 1 antiaircraft battery.

Anderson did send British Troops to the south on 21st of February and they were by the 23rd,two days after the fight at the Kisserine Pass and many miles from it, were the main force and only force with the exception of American Artillery that formed up to defend against this successful and very threatening flanking movement.

As history notes, then the Desert Fox noting the successful progress of Montgomery’s 8th Army to his north and over extend supply lines, decided to tactically retreat from plains back through the pass and along the same route from which he came.

Ironically, this maneuver gave the American air force an opportunity to exact a price form the Germans in massive air assault in the pass as they were retreating in 25th of February.

So in the end a myth was born about the bayonets not as they were used as described but as a way for British to bugger the yanks for getting the shite kicked out of them in their first fight with The Germans.
After this each yank encounter proved more or more deadly to the Germans.

In fact, strange as history could make it, many of the same German 5th zpanzer army and mand units that were a part of American II Corp who met in 1943 at the Kisserine Pass, met again when some 150,000 Germans attempted to retreated through what was called the Falasie Pocket, oddly a similarly narrow 3 mile gap the Germans attempted to retreat through in 1944 France after the Invasion. The Germans later coined a word for this deadly mass killing of their troops, they called it Todesgang "the death road".

This Todesgang left in aftermath they 50,000 prisoners, over 10,000 dead, and the road practically impassable due to destroyed vehicles (including 500 tanks) and bodies.

Oddly on topic as to this issue of fratacide was the fact that in the allies caution to avoid it oddly disputed as to th circumstances as to why both Bradley and Montogomery did not close the gap complete and capture the entire 150,000 Germany Army.

The failure to capture greater numbers of German troops was questioned by some commanders and postwar writers. The formation and reduction of the pocket was a great Allied success; there was however a sense, even as the pocket closed, that devastion of the German army and or the prisoner haul could have been more.

The US forces pushing northward were halted due to an inter-Army boundary line. Bradley did not request that the boundary be moved (not an uncommon procedure) nor did Montgomery suggest it. Although there was a legitimate need to avoid friendly-fire incidents, and fast moving units might have fallen victim to friendly fire if link-ups were not carefully coordinated, a boundary change would not necessarily have led to fratricide.

Bradley also stated that he preferred a strong force able to hold in place rather than a weak one, over-extended in an attempt to seal the pocket. However, his eastward attack by XV Corps even before the pocket was closed belies this position.

With strong personalities on both sides of the question the controversy was quite heated, especially postwar as competing memoirs were published.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falaise_pocket

Tuetonic-ism, the ability to believe in superiorty in very midst of utter defeat.



The Photo was one taken by my dads unit at the Falasie gap.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kasserine_Pass

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Kasserine_Pass

http://www.answers.com/topic/battle-of-the-kasserine-pass

Dear von-hemoroidski, (piles in English)

I love misspelling your alias. Use your real name and I will desist.
Bean

Where is the outrage and condemnation to hang the American Pilots eh, HuH? and Gomer, Vonpieles NOW.

When so easily given way to a less developed form in the aforementioned residuals, as a cockney wanker of “Perfidious Albion.

A mentality so well vested and exampled in the lucidity of that anti-American Euro-skeptic Doomocracy, when s h I t happens in the fog of war, only when Americans do it, but silent in outrage, when the euro-skeptic’s of mediocrity and impotency. do it?

Danish Soldiers Died From British `Friendly Fire,' TV2 Reports

By Tasneem Brogger

Nov. 26 (Bloomberg) -- Two Danish soldiers who were killed in Afghanistan in September were the victims of so-called ``friendly fire'' from British troops, TV2 reported, without saying how it obtained the information.
British troops fired between six and eight heat-detecting missiles at a Danish military unit, TV2 said. The first missile was fired at the Danes at 9:28 p.m. local time on Sept. 26, killing Constable Thorbjoern Reese, while another missile was fired at 10:24 p.m., killing Constable Mikkel Keil Soerensen, TV2 said.

Danish troops didn't realize they were being fired on by U.K. forces until they identified the missile remains as belonging to the British after the attack, TV2 said. Danish and British auditors have yet to complete an official investigation into the matter, TV2 said.

To contact the reporter on this story: Tasneem Brogger in Copenhagen at tbrogger@bloomberg.net .
Last Updated: November 26, 2007 03:18 EST


http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206....3PulU&refer=uk

That is All!1

March 26, 2008, 14:25

Friendly fire blamed for Russian jet crash

There are reports that a Russian military plane, which crashed last week, was shot down by friendly fire. Russia’s Interfax news agency says investigators believe another plane involved in exercises shot down the SU-25 jet.

Investigators say they didn't find any evidence the plane's systems had malfunctioned.

The incident left the pilot dead.

An investigation is being carried out by a commission from the Defence Ministry and Airforce Command.

All SU-25 planes are now able to fly after they were grounded following the accident.

Post this story to del.icio.us

http://www.russiatoday.ru/news/news/22646



THAT IS ALL!!

Afghan families got up to $9,000 each for losing a family member - but without any admission of liability from Canada

OMAR EL AKKAD

With a report from Jeff Esau

April 24, 2008

OTTAWA -- On a single day in the summer of 2006, the Canadian Forces were involved in at least half a dozen instances of "friendly fire" that left two Afghans dead and four injured. The Forces ended up paying about $35,000 in compensation, even though it admitted no liability for the deaths.

Documents obtained by The Globe and Mail through access-to-information legislation show more than 30 instances since January of 2006 where the Canadian Forces compensated Afghan citizens for everything from lost cellphones to the accidental killing of relatives by Canadian soldiers. The military labelled the vast majority of the payments "ex gratia," meaning they were made voluntarily and with no admission of liability.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...PStory/National

That is all!!

Nine British soldiers injured in 'friendly fire'

By Terri Judd
Friday, 11 July 2008

Nine British soldiers have been injured in Afghanistan after coming under fire from one of their own helicopters.


The soldiers from the 2nd Battalion, The Parachute Regiment battle group were on patrol in the Upper Gereshk Valley, Helmand, on Wednesday afternoon when they came under fire from suspected Taliban forces and called in air support. An Apache helicopter came to their aid, successfully firing upon the enemy position but then mistook British forces for insurgents and targeted them.

Last night the Ministry of Defence said an investigation was underway and one seriously injured soldier had been flown back to Selly Oak hospital in Birmingham. His condition was said to be stable.

Two more were receiving treatment at the field hospital in Camp Bastion but their injuries were not life-threatening, while six have returned to duty. All next of kin have been informed.

Last night the Army said the "friendly fire" incident had happened shortly after midday when the 2 Para patrol had called in air support near Forward Operating Base Gibraltar.

"After successfully engaging one enemy position the Apache fired upon another position which the crew believed to be held by enemy forces," said a MoD spokesman. "However, in the confusion of a rapidly changing situation and, in what is a challenging environment, it would appear that friendly forces were mistaken for the enemy and as a result three members of the patrol were seriously wounded and six more were classified as walking wounded."

This is not the first time coalition aircraft have mistakenly hit British troops in Afghanistan. In August last year, three soldiers from the 1st Battalion, the Royal Anglian Regiment were killed when they called in support from two American F15 jets during a fire fight north-west of Kajaki and a bomb was dropped on their position.

The 2nd Battalion, Parachute Regiment, has suffered a bloody few weeks, having had six members killed along with a Territorial Army soldier from 4 Para.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/as...ire-865043.html


That is all!!

World media is once again proven to be obtusely quick on the draw to blame America, in voluminous articles about American Friendly Fire and or allegations of crime and abuse.

But nearly silent and obtusely mute, but in one or two articles disproving the original blame America first, quick draw trail by media anti-American military bias. Proving once again, America’s Military never gets a fair and honest judgment based on all the facts in what seems apparent but often is not.

Like in “Cold Blood”Hidetha and perhaps 18 other stories of American military’s so called crimes and or abuse, that have been prove wrong over the last 7
years.

PROVEN INNOCENT! At best, one story on every disproven guilt by media hype.


British soldier faces manslaughter charges over Afghanistan 'friendly fire' deaths

(Originally blamed on the Americans)

By Tamara Cohen

Last updated at 3:10 PM on 26th July 2008
• Add to My Stories

A British soldier is reported to be facing manslaughter charges over the deaths of three comrades in a 'friendly fire' attack by American aircraft in Afghanistan.

The forward air controller is said to have given the wrong directions to long-range F-15 strike jets, which dropped a 500lb bomb killing the soldiers from 1 Royal Anglian Regiment.

Privates Robert Foster and Aaron McClure, both 19, and John Thrumble, 21, died in the disaster, and two of their comrades were seriously injured
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/...s.html?ITO=1490

PROVEN GUILTY BY BIAS MEDIA VOID IN FACTS. Hundreds of times from as many media sources.



'US friendly fire' kills British soldiers in Afghanistan
Three British soldiers have been killed in an apparent friendly fire incident involving US aircraft in southern Afghanistan, the Ministry of Defence said today.
Two other soldiers were injured in the incident, which occurred yesterday at 6.30pm local time (3pm BST
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/aug/2...nistan.military

3 British soldiers killed in friendly-fire incident in Afghanistan

LASHKAR GAH, Afghanistan: Three British soldiers died on Thursday in an apparent friendly fire incident in southern Afghanistan involving a bomb dropped by an American plane, British officials announced Friday.
At about 6:30 p.m. Thursday, the British soldiers called for air support after coming under fire near the town of Kajaki in the southern province of Helmand. U.S. planes in the area dropped a single bomb that landed near the British patrol.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/08/24/asia/afghan.php

CNN -U.S. FRIENDLY FIRE KILLS THREE BRITISH SOLDIERS!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AsqcZdFddKc

Three British soldiers killed in 'friendly fire' blunder named
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article...stan/article.do

US bomb kills three British troops in worst ‘friendly fire’ since 1991
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/worl...icle2324251.ece

Three British soldiers die in 'friendly fire'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/156...-fire'.html

Brits killed by friendly fire
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article265956.ece

US "deeply saddened" by death of 3 British soldiers
http://www.france24.com/france24Public/en/...ire-killed0.php

I could post maybe 100 more links on this same storyblaming the American pilots, BUT ONLY ONE about it being a BRITISH Forward Air Controllers fault when he gave the Americans aircraft, the wrong coordinates.

THAT IS ALL!!

First SAS soldier killed in Iraq war 'may have been victim of friendly fire'

The first SAS soldier killed in the Iraq war was shot by a British Army standard-issue bullet, raising questions over whether he may have been a victim of friendly fire.

Last Updated: 9:38PM BST 01 Oct 2008

Sergeant Jonathan Hollingsworth, 35, was shot in the chest in the early hours of November 24, 2006 as he led three five-man teams in storming a block of flats in Basra thought to be a hide-out of insurgents, an inquest was told.

A post-mortem examination discovered the fatal bullet was a 5.56mm "RG" round of the type used by British troops.

But the soldiers who were with Sgt Hollinsworth said they did not fire their weapons, and said it was "common knowledge" that Iraqi insurgents had access to such ammunition.

One colleague, named only as Soldier B, who was in charge of ammunition stores and entered the kitchen with Sgt Hollingsworth, said the fatal bullet, manufactured before 2000, was only used by troops in training since more recently-made bullets were used on operations.

Speaking from behind a screen to protect his identity, he told the inquest in Hereford that he was "surprised" when Sgt Hollingsworth said he was hurt since he heard no gunfire.

"I was the lead man and so I was in front of John when I went into the building," he said. There were females with young children in there so there was a lot of screaming and shouting.

"As we were about to make entry into one room there was a lot of commotion and it seemed like a fridge had been pushed behind the door to barricade it.

"I was first into that room and saw some males in there and I was calling for John to back me up because I felt exposed and then John said "I need a medic."

He said he believed that the Iraqi insurgents had shot him as they fled.

"We know these guys had 5.56 rifles, and two males escaped from the target," he said. Hereford Coroner David Halpern said it was a "possibility" that one of them had a weapon, discharged it, and jumped over the balcony.

But Andrew Davidson, representing the family of married Sgt Hollingsworth questioned whether the bullet might have been fired by a British soldier, despite the fact that the bullet was one usually used only in training.

He asked Soldier B: "Ammunition is ammunition, it might get mixed up - is that fair?"

He replied: "Yes, possibly."

The operation commander, Soldier H, who was down the corridor, said he did not use his gun at any time.

He said he did not see any Iraqis in or around the premises with weapons capable of firing such a bullet and did not hear any gunfire.

A "relatively quick" search following Sgt Hollingsworth's injury did not find any weapons or 5.56 ammunition in the flat, he added.

Sgt Hollingsworth, one of the SAS's most experienced soldiers, had been awarded the Queen's Gallantry Medal for service in Ulster and was posthumously awarded the Conspicuous Gallantry Cross, which is second only to the Victoria Cross in its recognition of bravery.

The inquest continues.

Это всё!!

Headline: Monday Jan 5, 2009

Israelis destruction of Iranian Hamas terrorist haven Gaza

Friendly Fire.



Late Monday, the Israeli military said three soldiers were killed and 24 others wounded by friendly fire. It said an errant Israeli tank shell hit their position outside Gaza City, dismissing initial suspicions that a Hamas booby-trap caused the casualties. The military said a colonel who commanded an infantry brigade was among the injured.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,475664,00.html

Это всё!!

Headline: Monday Jan 17, 2009



Two British commandos killed in Afghanistan could be victims of friendly fire

Two British commandos killed in Afghanistan earlier this week are suspected to have been the victims of a friendly fire incident involving a British anti-tank missile.

The Ministry of Defence has confirmed that Military Police investigators have opened an inquiry that will examine the precise cause of the deaths of Capt Tom Sawyer and Cpl Danny Winter late on Wednesday.

Bad weather is hampering the inquiry and the investigators are still waiting to interview two Royal Marines injured in the incident, one of them very seriously.

The troops were part of a Fire Support Team who call in both artillery and air support during attacks and operate a distance behind the main assault teams.

It is believed that their command vehicle was struck by a Javelin anti-tank missile. The weapon has been found to be very effective against Taliban sheltering in hardened mudbrick compounds.

It is not known if the missile malfunctioned, picked up the wrong heat signature or was fired in error but it appears that enemy fire or an unintentional attack from other coalition nations has been ruled out.

"We have confirmed that an investigation is under way into a suspected friendly fire incident," a MoD spokesman said.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics...endly-fire.html

THAT IS ALL!!

19 soldiers injured in friendly fires in war exercise

LOPBURI: -- Nineteen soldiers were injured, four severely, when they were shot at by a helicopter supposed to provide them air backup during a raid as part of a war exercise here Wednesday.

Sources said the mishap happened at about 10 am during an exercise on raiding by a battalion of the Lop Bur-based Special Warfare Command.

Army Commander-in-Chief Gen Anupong Paochinda witnessed the war exercise.

As part of the exercise, some 20 soldiers were flown on a helicopter to mount an attack on the enemies.

The soldiers were supposed to run to their destination while another helicopter was supposed to fire at the enemies to cover them. However, the friendly fires from the helicopter hit the soldiers.

They were rushed to the Ananda Mahidol Hospital.

-- The Nation 2009-01-28

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/19-Soldiers-...es-t238643.html