It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

US troops killed British reporter

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 13 2006 @ 06:38 AM
link   
US troops killed British reporter

Are US troops well enough trained ? Do they have a different mind set to troops from nations such as the UK and the rest of Euroupe for example ?

They seem to be a little trigger happy at times to put it mildly.

Discuss.

news.aol.co.uk...




posted on Oct, 13 2006 @ 06:49 AM
link   
wait.... i know know what the american ATS members will say even before they post

"those things happen in war"
- ive said it before, doesn't happen with british troops, how many american lifes have been lost due to british 'friendy' fire?

britain have lost more lifes in the past 2 gulf wars due to the americans lack of communication and training than the iraqi's THEMSELFS have inflicted on us
...can you imagen how that members family is going going to feel when they get told their son/daughter as been killed by somebodys lack of care & intelligence?

to say this was done on a purpose though is shocking
no doubt the culprit willl get of the hook though, the US govenment defends these sort of people...you only haveto look at the vitenam war to find out of many soliders got let off with rape and murder charges.

thats why i say we should pull out and let the americans handle their own problems by themselfs, we brits throughout our history have always handled our problems by ourselfs (even upto 1980's falklands war)...some might mention the world wars but that was a 'WORLD WAR' which means the world is at war.

[edit on 13-10-2006 by st3ve_o]



posted on Oct, 13 2006 @ 08:13 AM
link   
It's war and it happens.
And as for the world wars. They were going bad for the british until the US stuck their noses in.



posted on Oct, 13 2006 @ 08:42 AM
link   
How about you guys read the article before judging?


According to local witnesses, Mr Osman and Mr Nerac were arrested and put into an Iraqi pick-up truck with a mounted machine gun, which then opened fire on Mr Lloyd and cameraman Daniel Demoustier's 4x4 vehicle.


American tanks lined up along the road then began to fire on the entire convoy, until first the Iraqi pick-up then Mr Lloyd's 4x4 burst into flames.

Ballistics expert Dr Thomas Warlow said Mr Lloyd was first hit by an Iraqi bullet fired from the pick-up truck, which he could have survived with rapid medical treatment.

But he was then hit in the head by an American bullet as he was taken for medical treatment in a civilian minibus, which killed him outright.


Fired on by Iraqis first and then by Americans. It seems to me that the Iraqis seem to share American soldiers' view.



posted on Oct, 13 2006 @ 09:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy
How about you guys read the article before judging?


...American tanks lined up along the road then began to fire on the entire convoy, until first the Iraqi pick-up then Mr Lloyd's 4x4 burst into flames.

...But he was then hit in the head by an American bullet as he was taken for medical treatment in a civilian minibus, which killed him outright.


Fired on by Iraqis first and then by Americans. It seems to me that the Iraqis seem to share American soldiers' view.


It seems to me that the citation actually supports the idea that US troops are trigger-happy and fired indiscriminately at the entire convoy. Like it or not, US troops have a deserved reputation among the UK and Australian armed forces (at the very least - I have friends in both militaries who have fulminated about this kind of behaviour from US troops) for reckless and indiscriminate use of weaponry.

Certainly, the coroner seems to think the troops concerned should face charges:


The coroner is to ask the attorney general to consider pressing charges.

Oxfordshire Assistant Deputy Coroner Andrew Walker said he would also be writing to the director of public prosecutions asking for him to investigate the possibility of bringing charges. ...

After an eight-day inquest Mr Walker cleared ITN of any blame for Mr Lloyd's death and praised him and his team for their "professionalism and dedication".

He said it was his view the American tanks had been first to open fire on the ITN crew's two vehicles.

He added Mr Lloyd would probably have survived the first bullet wound he received, but was killed as he travelled away in a makeshift ambulance.

Mr Walker said it "presented no threat to American forces" since it was a civilian minibus and was facing away from the US tanks.

"I have no doubt it was the fact that the vehicle stopped to pick up survivors that prompted the Americans to fire on that vehicle," he said.


From the BBC article.

And another thing... if the US crews acted professionally, why did the DoD "lose" fifteen crucial minutes from the videotape of the event?

If you want to know why the US is reviled around the world, it's because of incidents like this.



posted on Oct, 13 2006 @ 09:25 AM
link   
They just need to think before firing.



posted on Oct, 13 2006 @ 09:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by steve99
It's war and it happens.
And as for the world wars. They were going bad for the british until the US stuck their noses in.


as said before, the british fought the nazis and italians singlehandly for 2 years after the french surrendered...

i don't remember britain ever being invaded or britain surrendering, can you?

oh and btw the russians got involved before the US and in those days america wasn't on the same level as the british empire or the german nazis...stop watching films like 'shaving private ryan'

i suppose in your eyes america won WW1 also? america never even had a military back then, they used british and french equipment


[edit on 13-10-2006 by st3ve_o]



posted on Oct, 13 2006 @ 09:38 AM
link   
Originally posted by rich23

He said it was his view the American tanks had been first to open fire on the ITN crew's two vehicles.

He added Mr Lloyd would probably have survived the first bullet wound he received, but was killed as he travelled away in a makeshift ambulance.



Where did you get this source from? There is a discrepancy...first this guy says in his view that an American tank fires on the convoy first? However, the reporter was shot by an Iraqi bullet first when the reporter was in his vehicle which was part of the convoy? So who shot the reporter first?

[edit on 13-10-2006 by deltaboy]



posted on Oct, 13 2006 @ 09:43 AM
link   
*deleted*

[edit on 13-10-2006 by st3ve_o]



posted on Oct, 13 2006 @ 10:01 AM
link   
This is why reporters should not be allowed to be embedded. No one told them they had to be there, they did it on their own.

In my opinion, the daughter is looking to sue the US government. But before she can do that she has to cause some flack thus she went to the media and started to cry foul three years after the fact no less
:shk:



posted on Oct, 13 2006 @ 11:20 AM
link   
This war can't go on like this much longer. I see a shift of policy as inevitable.



posted on Oct, 13 2006 @ 02:01 PM
link   
Maybe you should do some reading. One of the reasons the US got involved was because the germans were sinking the US supply ships sending supplies to England.
Maybe you should look thru this site. www.wfa-usa.org... The US supplied a lot of equiptment to their allies in both wars. The US industry kept you from speaking German during both wars.
And why woulfd I want to watch private ryan shaving.


[edit on 13-10-2006 by steve99]



posted on Oct, 13 2006 @ 02:22 PM
link   
good we appreicated the supplys, but don't think you've not had it all back!!

we've paid for that in $cash£ of the past 60 years (infact the final payment was last year as far as i'm aware), plus we brits have supported you in 2 wars in the past 5 years.

the united states as had its fair share of donations though due to all the hurricanes you've had over the years, only difference is we don't ask for it back, america does nothing for people not even its own people (charged its own citzens fees recently for escorting them out of Lebanon
)

ww1 'wrong' america never had any equpiment to send, as far as i'm aware the US soliders used your thier own guns and thats it (rip to all those great men who gave their lifes),

oh and btw if we would be speaking german you would be speaking japanese if it wasn't for us
and due to your nations record in warefare *cough* vietnam, maybe even arab, (iraq), did you know as a nation america as never won a war by 'itself' thoughout its history



posted on Oct, 13 2006 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by st3ve_o


as said before, the british fought the nazis and italians singlehandly for 2 years after the french surrendered...

i don't remember britain ever being invaded or britain surrendering, can you?

oh and btw the russians got involved before the US and in those days america wasn't on the same level as the british empire or the german nazis...stop watching films like 'shaving private ryan'

i suppose in your eyes america won WW1 also? america never even had a military back then, they used british and french equipment


[edit on 13-10-2006 by st3ve_o]


I love revisionist history


"british empire" I suppose that depends on your definition of "empire".....

As far as the russians go, they had initially signed a non-aggresion pact with Germany. When the germans went ahead and invaded russia anyway, they got involved.

The Russians would absolutely NOT declare war on Japan until they knew the US would drop the atomic bomb.

I have no clue where you get the idea that the US had no Army in ww1 or they used french and british equipment
.....

We had no standing army during peacetime in those days.... it was viewed as unnecessary to have an army in peacetime.

Where do you think armns like the Browning automatic rifle, Colt 1911, Thompson sub-machine gun, etc came from? Most were too late to enter the first world war but they had plenty for WW2.

I do believe it was the europeans that used American equipment....



In 1881 the American inventor, Hiram Maxim, visited the Paris Electrical Exhibition. While he was at the exhibition he met a man who told him: "If you wanted to make a lot of money, invent something that will enable these Europeans to cut each other's throats with greater facility."

Maxim moved to London and over the next few years worked on producing an effective machine-gun. In 1885 he demonstrated the world's first automatic portable machine-gun to the British Army. Maxim used the energy of each bullet's recoil force to eject the spent cartridge and insert the next bullet. The Maxim Machine-Gun would therefore fire until the entire belt of bullets was used up. Trials showed that the machine-gun could fire 500 rounds per minute and therefore had the firepower of about 100 rifles.

The Maxim Machine-Gun was adopted by the British Army in 1889.


He didnt have a particularily high opinion of europeans.

"If you wanted to make a lot of money, invent something that will enable these Europeans to cut each other's throats with greater facility."


as far as french equipment goes.... if you mean that piece of crap "sho-sho"
....better to have thrown that in the garbage can.


Edn

posted on Oct, 13 2006 @ 02:41 PM
link   
The British Empire was very much still there during the war and in fact the British Empire is still here to date, The oldest Empire still alive to date i'll have you know


Now back to those US troops, the problem is quite simple. There lack the proper training to get the job done, not to mention they have just about zero experience with this kind of war.



posted on Oct, 13 2006 @ 03:24 PM
link   
hello i can't reply to the whole of your post right now as i'm off out,

(point 1) if you learn your history, after the end of WW1 the british empire was at its largest occupying 25% of the world


(point 2) - "the Americans primarily used British and French artillery, aircraft and tanks."

en.wikipedia.org...

[edit on 13-10-2006 by st3ve_o]



posted on Oct, 13 2006 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by rich23
Certainly, the coroner seems to think the troops concerned should face charges:


He certainly does, here is the same story taken from Reuters:


One of Britain's most experienced journalists was unlawfully killed by U.S. soldiers in Iraq, an inquest into his death ruled on Friday, prompting calls for the perpetrators to be tried for war crimes.

Veteran war correspondent Terry Lloyd, 50, who worked for ITN, was killed in March 2003 in southern Iraq as he reported from the front line during the first few days of the U.S.-led invasion.

"He was fired on by American soldiers as a minibus carried wounded people away," Coroner Andrew Walker said at the conclusion of the inquest, which U.S. soldiers declined to attend.

"I have no doubt it was an unlawful act of fire on the minibus," Walker added.

He said he intended to write to the Attorney General and the Director of Public Prosecutions in an effort to bring those responsible for Lloyd's death before a British court.

Source.


Indeed, Louis Charalambous, the Lloyd family's lawyer went on to say "U.S. forces appear to have allowed their soldiers to behave like trigger-happy cowboys". This certainly seems to be the opinion held by a lot of people the world over when it comes to the US. Of course, I don't know how valid it is, I have never had any dealings with the US military. I can only hope and pray, that I never do.

Apparently the vehicle Mr Lloyd was travelling in was clearly marked "Press".

Perhaps it is episodes like this that ensure people seem to have such an "anti-American" attitude, in the eyes of some at least?

[edit on 13/10/06 by Implosion]



posted on Oct, 13 2006 @ 05:28 PM
link   
can we please stop arguing about who won the war and get back onto the topic.
I would like to know the difference in training that Uk and European troops get compaired to US troops.
I know that UK troops have commited some stupid crimes in Iraq but on the whole they were winning the hearts and minds of the people. I think that US soldiers actions have destroyed any chance of there being a successful outcome to the occupation.
UK troops are definately more sensitive to the Iraqi people. US troops think they are just dirt.
I know this will upset a lot of you out there buts I think it's true - a lot of British soldiers have said the same thing



posted on Oct, 13 2006 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by st3ve_o
good we appreicated the supplys, but don't think you've not had it all back!!

we've paid for that in $cash£ of the past 60 years (infact the final payment was last year as far as i'm aware), plus we brits have supported you in 2 wars in the past 5 years.

the united states as had its fair share of donations though due to all the hurricanes you've had over the years, only difference is we don't ask for it back, america does nothing for people not even its own people (charged its own citzens fees recently for escorting them out of Lebanon
)

ww1 'wrong' america never had any equpiment to send, as far as i'm aware the US soliders used your thier own guns and thats it (rip to all those great men who gave their lifes),

oh and btw if we would be speaking german you would be speaking japanese if it wasn't for us
and due to your nations record in warefare *cough* vietnam, maybe even arab, (iraq), did you know as a nation america as never won a war by 'itself' thoughout its history




Hey Brit you better read up on some history. Your country also had it's share of "problems" when it came to war. Wake up doy boy.



posted on Oct, 13 2006 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by steve99
[


Hey Brit you better read up on some history. Your country also had it's share of "problems" when it came to war. Wake up doy boy.


I know !
Bloody Sunday for one but this is just stupid !!!!
Why does this kind of thing happen is the training of US troops any different to the UK's.
I personally feel taht years in Ireland probably have changed the way our troops work.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join