Are we defending incompetence?

Originally posted by Pyros
I would submit that the death of this individual, while regretable and possibly preventable, is a classic example of wartime fracticide which is almost completely unavoidable in military operations, especially in one with the scale and complexity of Gulf War II.

I think the issue here is not about who is to blame for incident... it's about the coverup afterwards. Yes, accidents happen, but trying to hide the evidence does nothing to help the situation and makes the chance of a repeat incident far more likely.

I agree with you. The tape needs to come out unless there is a compelling reason why the tape needs to be classified. But from what I have read, they don't have any such interest.

To my British peers;

I'll leave it to one of your own countrymen to describe some of the reasons why this tape has been treated as it has. It's a good read.

Times On-line Editorial

Incidents like these, especially involving two or more sovereign nations, are never as black and white as you appear to be making them.

I have posted this in another thread but I feel it's relevant here too, the video was unimportant the MoD had all the facts of the incident the video just gives that "Shock Value" Here is a link to an official MoD inquest into the incident, I have uploaded it and it comes from the MoD intranet it's a scan of the original in .pdf format, it is ok the paper is declassified!

www.wikiupload.com...

edit to add...

There is and was never a cover-up, the paper noted above has been available under the freedom of information act since 2004. the cover up story and the video is pure media propoganda, designed by whoever to stir the UK into a frenzy!

[edit on 8/2/07 by Jimmy1880]

Originally posted by Pyros
Times On-line Editorial

Incidents like these, especially involving two or more sovereign nations, are never as black and white as you appear to be making them.

Intersting read, but a flawed argument. there was nothing in that video that could be useful to an enemy...insurgents would gain nothing from it, and a real opposing force, such as Russia or China, could easily use other means to learn the details of attack procedures..

Maybe releasing it to the public was unwise, but there was no reason at all that the video couldn't have been released to the inquest, in a closed session.

This was a cover-up, plain and simple.

Originally posted by Pyros
To my British peers;

I'll leave it to one of your own countrymen to describe some of the reasons why this tape has been treated as it has. It's a good read.

Times On-line Editorial

Incidents like these, especially involving two or more sovereign nations, are never as black and white as you appear to be making them.

Given that the person who wrote the article is not a military correspondant, judging by his resume of other articles linked off the same webpage, why aren't you applying the same damning rhetoric that you used against Waynos when you decided to take apart his post above?

Fact is that anyone with a copy of Janes All the Worlds Aircraft and a basic understanding of air attack procedures could probably have told you everything that was shown on that video, details of the A-10, its systems and what its capable of.

Pyros, the article is written by a person with no air combat training and no experience of front line battle situations like this, dare I say it, he may even have less knowledge on the subject of aircraft and air warfare in general than me, maybe.

So why is his opinion more valid than mine? Is it because it agrees with yours?

Deconstruct my arguments by all means if you have a counter view, I am all in favour of debate, but merely dismissing me based on a set of criteria that also equally applies to the writer whose view you are putting forward surely puts you on shaky ground?

I would be happy if you can address specific points though, I have even asked you to in previous posts.

One that occurs to me is how come cockpit footage of an A-10
firing its gun is highly sensitive and classified while footage from an F-117 delivering precision weapons was freely dished out to the worlds press with an overwhelming sense of smugness attached?



[edit on 9-2-2007 by waynos]

Originally posted by Jimmy1880
Here is a link to an official MoD inquest into the incident, I have uploaded it and it comes from the MoD intranet it's a scan of the original in .pdf format, it is ok the paper is declassified!

www.wikiupload.com...

Am I being ignored? If you download the .pdf and read it clears up EVERYTHING it's not written by a journalist with a bias it's written by the board of investigation for the MoD. Or are people afraid of the truth in case it debunks their agenda?

Jimmy, I'm not sure if you mean me or not, maybe all of us? I didn't mean to ignore you but when I try the link I only get a sign up page for wiki upload. Is there another way to view the link?

Sorry, yeah I meant everyone the document is important,

You click on the link and on the right hand side is a brown box that says Download, click that. then you have to type in the 4 digit code that shows. then the document will download automatically.

Sorry I don't know if there is a better file hosting website.

Originally posted by xmotex
In this particular case I can't blame the pilots involved.

If you read the transcript, the pilots not once but repeatedly ask their ground controllers for confirmation that there are no friendly units in the area.

Repeatedly they are told that there are no friendly units in the area and to begin their attack.

Also the reaction of the pilots makes it clear that these are not people that take killing friendlies lightly. One states he is going to be sick, another is weeping into the mic.

if this is so then they should both have the decency to have attended the inquest for the sake of the dead soldiers family, but no they hide away in the USA

Originally posted by waynos
Pyros, the article is written by a person with no air combat training and no experience of front line battle situations like this, dare I say it, he may even have less knowledge on the subject of aircraft and air warfare in general than me, maybe.

So why is his opinion more valid than mine? Is it because it agrees with yours?

Deconstruct my arguments by all means if you have a counter view, I am all in favour of debate, but merely dismissing me based on a set of criteria that also equally applies to the writer whose view you are putting forward surely puts you on shaky ground?

I would be happy if you can address specific points though, I have even asked you to in previous posts.

One that occurs to me is how come cockpit footage of an A-10
firing its gun is highly sensitive and classified while footage from an F-117 delivering precision weapons was freely dished out to the worlds press with an overwhelming sense of smugness attached?



[edit on 9-2-2007 by waynos]

You appear to be fixated on a small segment of gun camera footage. This issues at hand are much large, with much deeper ramifications.

Issues of sharing sensitive or classified information between sovereign nations. Issues regarding the political and social differences between those two nations, at what each nation beleives is in it's best interest. In issues of trust, like if we give Britian certain classified information, we would expect you to protect it in the manner we ask you to - because you promise to do so and we feel you are trustworthy.

If that trust is broken (for what amounts to be a trivial incident, in terms of the larger political stage), what will happen the next time Britain really needs some important information we hold? Will we be more inclined to turn that information over, or less? Will we not tell you the location of your downed aircrew behind enemy lines, because we fear you will disclose our classified source of intelligence and compromise the safety of our servicemen?

You wonder why the cocpit video is/was classified. Someday, when you possess a US security clearance and have proper need-to-know, perhaps you will understand why. Until then, you will have to be satisfied to not know why, and continue to speculate. Because that is what you are doing, engaging in speculation. For every reason you state it should not be classified, there could be 2 reason why it should be. Also, information about military systems is not classified solely based upon the strengths and capabilities of the system, but also due to its limitations. BTW, Janes is a good starting point, but it is without a doubt not authoritative.

I valued the opinion of the Times author because he had enough clarity of mind to see that there was a bigger picture at hand, and not just a segment of video, which added little or nothing to the generally accepted facts of the situation, other than to inflame and sensationalize (which it has managed to do, quite successfully). As has been previously stated, this video has been available for examination to the British authorities for some time, as is proper.

I can't help but feel that the some of these cries of indignation are being motivated to a) politically embarrass the US, and b) feed a media sensationalism machine. Bearing that in mind, the DoD is within it's full right to keep the materials classified. In case you didn't know, under US regulation information may remain classified indefinately if the information may "damage realtions between the U.S. and a foreign government". Ergo, politics will always trump all other considerations....

Very wordy Pyros, and not a little condescending too. All that and without actually addressing the questions I have been posing. There is no fixation, on my part, maybe you have missed the lines in my previous posts where I have made this clear. None of what you have written addresses the points I made made about the lies given to the families (by the authorities of both countries). Is it not possible to classify information and be honest about it, in your opinion?

Regarding the incident itself however, rather than the aftermath, thank you, Jimmy, for that information on getting the download to work. I confess I have only skimmed through it at the moment, but I will read it in more detail when I have the opportunity.

Although I may be being unfair to highlight specific sentences (before I read it in detail) I could not fail to notice the following in the conclusion;

"The cause of this sad incident was that the US A-10's, without having been authorised, engaged the UK recce patrol believing it to be hostile"

"the lack of passage of positional data and target co-ordinates between the US pilots and their US ground controllers is worrying"

Regarding the mentions of orange panels, which I highlighted also it says;

"Their subsequent misidentification of the UK recce patrol as hostile is difficult to reconcile"

While concluding with the following;

"all those involved in this tragic incident appear to have been working to the best of their abilities" and "under intense operational pressure".

But the question remains why the family, and the inquest, were denied what the coroner considers to be vital evidence?

[edit on 9-2-2007 by waynos]

Is already bein discussed in more depth, www.abovetopsecret.com...

Everyone should read that report, it points out a lot of things. A few other mistakes though, the US pilots never gave the coordinates of the UK patrol, the US pilots were on the wrong side of the waterway running through the combat area, the US pilots were not USAF, but national Guard NOT trained in recognition.

[edit on 10/2/07 by C ROBERTSON]