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