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 friendly fire kills British soldiers in Afghanistan

page: 2
6
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 09:04 AM
link   
reply to post by infinite
 


Quite correct;

www.telegraph.co.uk.../opinion/2007/02/07/dl0701.xml
news.independent.co.uk...

The total lack of US assistance led to a lot of US knocking in UK.

However, I think Rogue1 does have a valid point, the British soldiers appear to be doing a lot of the groundwork / recon etc and then calling in air strikes / support. The US carry out 99% of the air strikes.

What we need to know is;
What went wrong and what can we do to prevent it happening again, this requires US assisstance to determine root cause.
If it's procedural / machinery then address it.
If it's criminal negligence then criminal charges should follow.




posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 09:04 AM
link   
Should these attitudes be retroactive. SHould all British bomber pilots in WWII face murder charges for the hundreds of thousands of non-combatants and allied POWs they murdered in WWII through carpet bombing ?



posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 09:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1
Should these attitudes be retroactive. SHould all British bomber pilots in WWII face murder charges for the hundreds of thousands of non-combatants and allied POWs they murdered in WWII through carpet bombing ?


Where did anyone ask for retroactive actions? Should the USAAF face retroactive punishment for their actions in WW2? You guys pummeled as many cities as we did, on two occasions with "WMD"....

Also, WW2 bombers used dumb bombs and saturated the target area.

Silly idea, really. Not sure why you brought that point up.

The incident where the UK Coroner called for criminal charges had cockpit video showing the cowboy attitude of the pilots involved, to the point of criminal negligence. They didn't follow orders, didn't identify the target and when they realised their mistake, showed no remorse and only concern for their own well being.



posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 09:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1
Should these attitudes be retroactive. SHould all British bomber pilots in WWII face murder charges for the hundreds of thousands of non-combatants and allied POWs they murdered in WWII through carpet bombing ?


Should the US face war crime for dropping nuclear bombs on Japan?

Please don't try and change the subject.



posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 09:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by infinite

Don't expect it on any American news sites though


Wasington Post

Wallstreet Journal

Bloomberg

Local TV outlets on FOX like this



posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 09:15 AM
link   
Thank you for those links, I take back my remarks.

I'm glad you posted them, so I can highlight this;


The American embassy in London said "the United States expresses its deep condolences to the families and loved ones of the soldiers who died, and we wish those who were injured a speedy recovery."


Is that it? abit empty. Nothing about an investigation to see what went wrong and how to prevent it from happening again



posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 09:18 AM
link   
What happened in WW11 happened in WW11 and should stay there. Both British and US carried out numerous carpet bombing raids because that's what was done then.

IMO, the crux of the matter at hand is the number of instances of friendly fire and the lack of US co-operation in determining what went wrong and ensuring it doesn't happen again.
To simply accept that it happens is not good enough in this day and age.



posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 09:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1
Should these attitudes be retroactive. SHould all British bomber pilots in WWII face murder charges for the hundreds of thousands of non-combatants and allied POWs they murdered in WWII through carpet bombing ?


Ask yourself was the technology available then as it is now? With todays state of the art military hardware, GPS and advanced satellite communications there should be a lot less of these events occurring I would think. Of all the billions spent in war operations surely someone can come up with a means of identifying friendly troops. If we can petchip an animal for identification and bracelet tag criminals why can't we offer some form of protection for troops. Your really comparing apples to oranges here.


brill



posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 09:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Freeborn
However, I think Rogue1 does have a valid point, the British soldiers appear to be doing a lot of the groundwork / recon etc and then calling in air strikes / support. The US carry out 99% of the air strikes.





Did you know or where you aware this was a NATO Mission that was using more forces then just US and Britsh although countries are not named in Bloombergs article it clearly states this was a NATO Mission.

Sit back and wait for full details kindly before jumping to conclusions.



posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 09:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by infinite

Is that it? abit empty. Nothing about an investigation to see what went wrong and how to prevent it from happening again



No you have to read more then just one source not all of them are telling everything they know yet.


``The United States expresses its deep condolences to the families and loved ones of the soldiers who died, and we wish those who were injured a speedy recovery,'' the U.S. Embassy in London said in an e-mailed statement. The incident will be ``thoroughly investigated,'' the Embassy said, without elaborating. Bloomberg

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.




[edit on 8/24/2007 by shots]



posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 09:29 AM
link   
reply to post by shots
 


Yes I knew, it was on BBC News 24, however I fail to see what difference it makes.
A bomb from a US plane killed UK soldiers, regardless if it was a NATO operation or not.
Where is the relevance?



posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 09:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by shots
Did you know or where you aware this was a NATO Mission that was using more forces then just US and Britsh although countries are not named in Bloombergs article it clearly states this was a NATO Mission.

Sit back and wait for full details kindly before jumping to conclusions.


What are you getting at? It wasn't US forces?

The MOD has confirmed it.



posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 09:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by shots
Did you know or where you aware this was a NATO Mission that was using more forces then just US and Britsh although countries are not named in Bloombergs article it clearly states this was a NATO Mission.

Sit back and wait for full details kindly before jumping to conclusions.


Well, it's been reported that the aircraft involved were two US F-15's.

Does any other NATO nation operate F-15's?

Computer say's NO...



posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 09:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by shots
The incident will be ``thoroughly investigated,'' the Embassy said, without elaborating.


Key words;

without elaborating

i.e another whitewash, just like the last investigation involving friendly fire the US carried out.

(which the UK inquiry came to the conclusion that US personal should face criminal charges)



posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 09:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Freeborn

Where is the relevance?



The answer is obvious. NATO is in Command of Nato Operations they are the peace keeping force and the orders are coming from them and not the US. I am not sure just how many nations from NATO are there but know for sure Italians and Poles are so assume it is very possible a Polish commander may have been in charge or perhaps an italian commander who issued the order and gave the coordinates. Those are just examples not facts. I am assuming here but since it is a NATO operation anyone of the nations may have been in charge that is my point.

[edit on 8/24/2007 by shots]



posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 09:43 AM
link   
Hopefully there will be a proper enquiry this time, and - if the situation warrants it - the Pentagon will cooperate fully with any requests for evidence and/or witnesses.

Fox News is also running the story, but I'm completely stumped as to why they used the following as their closing paragraph:


Britain last year threatened to end cooperation with the U.S. on the new Joint Strike Fighter jet after 10 years of development, until the Pentagon resolved concerns it was not sharing enough information about the aircraft's sensitive software with London.


How's that relevant to today's events?



posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 09:44 AM
link   
reply to post by shots
 


OK, so anyone of a number of nations could have been in charge but that still does not get away from the fact that it was a US plane that bombed and killed British soldiers.

The fact that the US has more planes over there than other nations dictates that they will perform more combat flights.

I am not apportioning blame, a full enquiry with US co-operation will determine that and hopefully take the necessary actions to minimise the chances of a repeat.
But, and it's a big but judging by previous occurences of friendly fire, it requires full US, and any other nation that may have been involved, co-operation.

Surely that is straight forward.



posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 09:45 AM
link   
Shots, this was a combat patrol that called in CAS. CAS is usually controlled from the ground by the unit directing the fire, not the field commander back at HQ.



posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 09:46 AM
link   
UK Forces are not immune to Friendly Fire they Themselves had 3 seperate incidents during the Falklands War.

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 artillery 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.

And they have had a couple in the present conflicts as well

2003 - British Royal Marine Christopher Maddison killed when his river patrol boat was hit by missiles after being wrongly identified as an enemy vessel approaching a Royal Engineers checkpoint on the Al-Faw Peninsula, Iraq.
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.

Friendly Fire will always be a tragedy within the tragedy of War itself. While it may be popular to lay the blame for every incident at the feet of the US forces keep in mind that hindsight is 20/20 and the guy or guys that killed friendlies would very much like to have every one of those bullets, bombs, tank rounds, or artillery rounds back.Unless of course you think that US forces make it back to base and dance for joy at every allied soldier they kill.

I have been in war, I live with faces of the enemy soldiers I have killed everyday and its haunting to the soul. I cannot Imagine what the feeling of killing a friendly would be like other than it would be much worse. I have been almost bombed by my own air force and I have watched enemy soldiers kill each other . Incidents will happen and will continue to happen.

In the incident cited in the article the UK forces were involved in a firefight with the enemy given the ebb and flow of combat, a missed or mistaken digit in coordinates or even equipment malfunction the chance for an incident is there.



posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 09:47 AM
link   
reply to post by infinite
 


That is standard media terminology for they will not tell us more, so do not make to much of it. It is vry understandable because the incident just happened and no one has all of the details. Yet you Brits want to hang the US instantly, now isn't that nice :shk:



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join