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 problemThat 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.htmIt 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 resultThat 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 nowExplain 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.phtmlhttp://www.dubyaspeak.com/audio.phtmlBy 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.htmand 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.xmlbut 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.htmlSecond, 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.stmFact- 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.