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.

 

Nato aka (American Helicopter gunships) Murder Nine Children Collecting Wood.

page: 4
25
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 06:52 PM
link   
How come no one gets pissed at Barry about this? Everyone keeps saying give him time, well how much time does that dumb POS need?

Oh, and before you call me a racist, don't because I'm black!




posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 07:04 PM
link   
It is doubtful the kids were collecting the carbon rich wood for building shelters. Most likely they were going to set the wood alight, adding to global warming. It is against the law, wherever zionist forces congregate, to do this.

I'd avoid attending the funeral of these terrorists. That's when rahm tells obama to send in the drones, to get the mourners. The idea is that persons who show up at a terrorist send off, must be terrorists too.
edit on 4-3-2011 by starless and bible black because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 07:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rockdisjoint
How come no one gets pissed at Barry about this? Everyone keeps saying give him time, well how much time does that dumb POS need?

Oh, and before you call me a racist, don't because I'm black!


Don't get mad at obama. Mayor rahm is calling the shots. I guess obama better keep an open schedule for rahm.



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 08:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dragoon01
reply to post by GovtFlu
 



No its not an atrocity because an atrocity implies intent and knowledge. If you dont understand that then you dont have the capacity to comment.

Clearly this was a case of mistaken identity. Get in a small plane and fly at 4000 ft and tell me the difference between kids and adults in treecover. I have done that and its not easy even with optical equipment.


Spare me the "fog of..war is hell" nationalism taint cliches, I served..

This isn't a "war", it's just another b# banker gangster motivated hostile "occupation" based on inflated lies belched out by dear party leaders.. Gulf of Tonkin / Vietnam part 2 where mercenaries have filled the ranks of conscripts... the draft was unpopular messy, pissed off those damn hippies keeping the oligarchs from reaching maximum profit.

We might have somewhat of an agreement however, "atrocity" isn't accurate... this is an insult to humanity.



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 06:05 AM
link   
I think it's time the Afghan civilians start suing the pants off the US Govt and it's military machine



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 12:20 PM
link   
reply to post by RichardA
 



How many of you on here who are ranting, raving, and foaming at the mouth about 'American killers' have actually spent one minute in a combat zone? My guess, not a damn one. This is like a skid row bum giving financial advice to Donald Trump, you don't know what your talking about. Because all you get are the edited screen shots the media wants you to see you lack a frame of reference to understand. These helicopter pilots have a reason to worry about being brought down by small arms fire, ever hear of Blackhawk down? How many of you geniuses have ever felt the fear of knowing that at any moment you can be killed by anyone anywhere.


It has to be very nerve wracking to know that at any time, someone can kill you whenever they want to. I remember when I served, our operating bases were staged on high ground. It makes a lot of sense to do that because then you don't have to worry about being killed at any given moment. You would think that this base as well would have been placed on higher ground then the surrounding area. It's strange huh?

The article in the opening post explains to us that this particular base was the frequent target of Taliban fighters who shot down on it from the rocky heights. It also explained that the villagers didn't want the base there to begin with. So you have to wonder what kind of genius leadership decided to put their soldiers in a kill zone. A tempting target for any opposition with half a brain.

They made it easy for the enemy to recon the base and plan frequent coordinated attacks on the poorly situated kill zone that was our soldiers base of operations. Now why in the world would they not only put our soldiers on the ground there under shady circumstances but then set them up for the kill? Strange as well, huh? It's not the first time that this was done to our troops by the way. The battle of Wanat was another high profile incident because the family members of the killed soldiers were incredulous about the situation that their loved ones were put in purposely by their commanding officers and demanded answers.


The base is surrounded by mountains and is the frequent target of Taliban fighters, who shoot down on it from the rocky heights.



Nine boys collecting firewood to heat their homes in the eastern Afghanistan mountains were killed by NATO helicopter gunners who mistook them for insurgents, according to a statement on Wednesday by NATO, which apologized for the mistake.


Here we read that the boys were mistaken for bad guys by the helicopter gunners. So the helicopter gunners saw the boys and decided that they were the bad guys who shot down on their strategically placed operating base. It does not say that the boys were in the exact area where the bad guys were shooting from though. More than likely because the base was being assaulted from multiple locations.


The helicopters “returned fire at the assessed point of origin with indirect and aerial fire,” the NATO statement said.


Now here, in the same article, we read that the helicopters fired at the assessed point of origin. So did they see the boys and assess that anything moving must be the bad guys from earlier in the day? Or did they just come up with a round about location as to where the assault was coming from earlier in the day and unload in that particular area?


“Regrettably there appears to have been an error in the handoff between identifying the location of the insurgents and the attack helicopters that carried out subsequent operations.”



Gen. David H. Petraeus, said the boys had been misidentified as the attackers of a NATO base earlier in the day.


So here we read that there was an error in the handoff of information actually. Which means that the leadership that was supposed to be making sure of everyone's safety didn't even give a hoot about launching a counterattack against an assault that happened earlier in the day with little or no information as to where the attack came from. Nor did they give a hoot about their location that was poorly situated on low ground so as to draw fire from the enemy.

Did the soldiers, fearing for their life, shoot at anyone they saw, or did they shoot at some location that was supposed to be where the attack came from? Or was it both? One thing for sure, there seems to be no intelligence involved when they decide to launch a counterattack or patrol. No one makes sure of the villagers locations and safety and no one seems to know where in the world the attacks are coming from.

Some other good news came out of the article though. It seems they will be moving the base now. They will be moving because the base has vexed the villagers, according to the article, who never wanted the base there to begin with. So in a few weeks, they will wrap up their operation and move to another village that needs help. Lord knows they helped that village enough.

When the base is moved, I hear that all the personnel are loaded into an inconceivably small and wildly colored Volkswagen type of vehicle with a big wind up key on the back of it. As they roll out everyone is treated to a loud rendition of the familiar tune that we all associate with the circus. I believe it goes something like, Doo Doo Doodleedoo Dee Doo Doo Doo! Ah yes, it echoes throughout the panoramic valleys and re assures everyone that is involved with the fiasco that we are still on the job and determined to protect those villages!



Gen. David H. Petraeus, said the boys had been misidentified as the attackers of a NATO base earlier in the day.



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 03:31 PM
link   
reply to post by jackflap
 


War does happen. To those not in a position to decide its course or even if it gets started war is as uncontrolable as an act of nature. If you choose to live on the coast of Florida then you must expect that nature will at some point send a storm your way. You cant control that storm and all you can do is get away or ride it out and hope for the best. Sometimes people get killed as a result of those actions. There is nothing moral or immoral about that. For these families they could no more control the actions of the Taliban than you could. When war came to remove the Taliban (right or wrong) they chose to ride it out and now they have been caught up in the storm. Its bad, it sucks but it happens. Thats big boy rules. You can throw all the snarky comments you like it is what it is.
This is similar to someone who lives in a drug infested neighborhood. At some point in time they may be a victim of violence they have no part in. Even though I am absolutly opposed to the war on drugs I do not use that types of event as ammunition to debate that war on drugs.

My whole point of this is that if you want to debate the war in Afghanistan then we can do that. I am sure you all will have valid points. This inccident however is not applicable to that debate because based on all the evidence presented so far, it was an accident not an intentional act on the part of the pilots. If this had been a pre-planned operation that attacked the wrong target then you would have a point but it was adhoc. I think you should be more concerned and "outraged" by the drone attacks in Pakistan. Those attacks are done with little accuracy in terms of target and with little regard to proper rules of engagement.Those are doing more damage to our posiiton than Afghanistan.

As far as results of the war. I dont believe that we went to war because of some stupid pipeline like the "truthers" want to trot out. Sorry I dont buy that. We went there to remove the Taliban from power and establish a stable government that will not allow terrorist organizations to operate freely from within their boundries. Also to set up a position that counters Pakistan's tribal region. I am not ideologically satisfied with that reason but that is it. Its too late to debate that all that we can do is conduct the war accordingly and ensure that the goal is accomplished with as little loss of life an destruction as possible. Once its done we can all have a discussion about what went wrong and what went right and make sure that we try to avoid that kind of operation again. Till then get it done.



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 03:54 PM
link   
Frankly there are a lot of diotic posts on this thread thus far.

IMO - The soldiers in the chopper likely feel very bad about this. They are more than likely good people, but bad soldiers, half-trained and being directed by incompetent commanders that gave bad coordinates and ok to fire.

Believe me, most of our soldiers are not heartless killers and bring thier demons home with them.

Suicide Epidemic Among Veterans - CBS News
www.google.com...

These Afghan families have a right to be furious and hate the USA. I certainly would if my child had been murdered.

The bottom line is...we toppled the Taliban....we failed to find Osama Bin Laden...we no longer have any purpose there what-so-ever and the longer we stay the more innocents will die, that is a given.



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 05:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Dragoon01
 



If you choose to live on the coast of Florida then you must expect that nature will at some point send a storm your way. You cant control that storm and all you can do is get away or ride it out and hope for the best Sometimes people get killed as a result of those actions. There is nothing moral or immoral about that. For these families they could no more control the actions of the Taliban than you could.


This is no act of nature going on here in case you haven't noticed. This is about sending our troops thousands of miles away under false pretenses and putting them in a position that endangers them and the community that they've been dispatched to. Where do you get your information from, the news on television?

Did they tell you how bad the Taliban is and that we have to take care of them? Did they show you the Taliban blowing up statues of Buddha? Read the date of the article below big boy as I reiterate a point made earlier in the thread that you chose to ignore. Just what part of the world was the Taliban in on that date and what were they discussing?


Taleban in Texas for talks on gas pipeline Thursday, December 4, 1997 Published at 19:27 GMT



A senior delegation from the Taleban movement in Afghanistan is in the United States for talks with an international energy company that wants to construct a gas pipeline from Turkmenistan across Afghanistan to Pakistan. A spokesman for the company, Unocal, said the Taleban were expected to spend several days at the company's headquarters in Sugarland, Texas. Unocal says it has agreements both with Turkmenistan to sell its gas and with Pakistan to buy it.


news.bbc.co.uk...

The below text is your words. You have a right to your beliefs.


As far as results of the war. I dont believe that we went to war because of some stupid pipeline like the "truthers" want to trot out. Sorry I dont buy that. We went there to remove the Taliban from power and establish a stable government that will not allow terrorist organizations to operate freely from within their boundries. Also to set up a position that counters Pakistan's tribal region.


Well we can go on and on about why we are there. Instead of going on with that type of dialogue, I would like to address this little bit of wisdom that you bestowed upon us all.


If this had been a pre-planned operation that attacked the wrong target then you would have a point but it was adhoc. I think you should be more concerned and "outraged" by the drone attacks in Pakistan. Those attacks are done with little accuracy in terms of target and with little regard to proper rules of engagement.Those are doing more damage to our posiiton than Afghanistan.


It's funny that you used the word ad hoc here. Do you know what that means? I'll fill you in because you have used it so correctly that I applaud you.

Definition of AD HOC - for the particular end or case at hand without consideration of a wider
application. Here is the link to the definition if you want to look it up as well. Anyway, getting back to it not being planned.


Gen. David H. Petraeus, said the boys had been misidentified as the attackers of a NATO base earlier in the day.


Well there you have it straight from Petraeus. He said that the nine boys were misidentified as the attackers of a Nato base earlier in the day. Which means that there was time between the attack on their asinine location of a base and the attack on the children. Which means they planned a counter attack. That is a pretty telling statement from the General.

I should be more concerned with the drone attacks in Pakistan? There is no deflection going on here people. Let's not consider the children that were turned into chop meat, let's look at those drone attacks that appear to be doing far more harm. Let's figure out what kind of hand Pakistan has in all of this. The below text is from a US Congressman and he is being quoted from the Congressional Record.


All the evidence is there. We made an agreement with the Pakistanis and the Saudis that they would be the ones to oversee Afghanistan. That in and of itself was not the right thing to do. It is the people of Afghanistan that we owed a debt to. It is the people of Afghanistan who fought bravely against the Soviets. Any agreement that was made about what would be happening in Afghanistan should have been focused on the consent of the governed, meaning the people of Afghanistan, and not a politcal power play among Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and the United States.


So we had an agreement with Pakistan and Saudi Arabia to keep an eye on Afghanistan. Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and the United States decided what to do with Afghanistan. Why do you think our state department officials blocked every effort to put a moderate government in Afghanistan? Why do you think the President of the United States at the time, Bill Clinton, protected them as well?


At one point, once the Taliban were in power, they became very vulnerable because they had overstepped their bounds and their military had been defeated in the north and a swift reaction on the part of the anti-Taliban forces could have made the difference, could have eliminated them from power. President Clinton sent Bill Richardson, then our United Nations ambassador and Under Secretary of State Inderforth to northern Afghanistan and convinced the anti-Taliban forces not to go into action but to seek a cease-fire, and to seek a cease-fire with an embargo of weapons which would mean that they could talk out their differences. Well of course with an emissary from the President and people at that high level to go up to talk to these so called warlords in the northern part of Afghanistan, naturally they acquiesced. And, of course, immediately the resupply of weapons began to the Taliban and the cease-fire was immediately violated as soon as the Taliban were replenished with their weapons supply by Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. Dealing with gangsters and dictators and the likes of the Taliban became the order of the day for 8 years under President Clinton.


So we have the President sending emissaries to intervene on the part of the Taliban. To help get them resupplied. To give them a little breather. Does that play not sound familiar to you? Tora Bora cease fire. A supposed bad guy named Bin Laden escapes on horseback despite our technology because of said cease fire.


For anybody who wants to know who is to blame for 9-11 you can thank those State Department elitists who decided that the Taliban was better than King Zahir Shah and undercut every effort to bring a moderate government to Afghanistan. They are the ones, whether they were in Pakistan or whether they were in Turkmenistan or whether they were in various countries of the world where meetings were taking place, who undercut those efforts of the Taliban's enemies, or let us say those people who would just offer an alternative to the Taliban. Every time the State Department interceded.


Congress ional Record Google Books

There you have it again big boy.



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Dragoon01
 



We went there to remove the Taliban from power and establish a stable government that will not allow terrorist organizations to operate freely from within their boundries. Also to set up a position that counters Pakistan's tribal region.


Given the above information it makes you wonder what went wrong with our friendly relationship with the Taliban, doesn't it?



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 03:55 PM
link   
reply to post by jackflap
 


Agan you are dragging the greater overall situation into this inccident. You are not capable of discussing this without addressing the overall war. Fine, I will address the overall points that you have brought up after this.

Tell me at what point "earlier in the day" was?
You cant because there were no specifics mentions. So was "earlier in the day" 20 minutes before the inccident or two hours? This was not a planned strike. This was a CAS call for fire mission. At least every indication that has been given points to that being the case. Also again the aircrew have not been identified. We still do not know if language was a factor in passing off the target information to the aircrew. Thats the whole point. You dont have all of the facts but you are so eager to jump in the US Armys junk about the war in general that you cant wait to execute these pilots. If more information comes to light and it points to serious negligence on the part of the aircrew then yes that will play a part in their court marshall.

Now
I dont care who the Taliban were talking to in 1997, I dont care if they blew up religious icons. I really dont care if they are in charge of Afghanistan. PROVIDED they do not activly plan attacks on US citizens then let them rot in a hole. That however is the problem. They were activly planning and harboring those that attacked US intrests.
I dont believe that this is all some great big conspiracy. It does not have to be. What it is however is ample evidence that our government has grown to big to control. You have to understand that the US government is three factions when it comes to foreign affairs.

The State Department
The Intelligence Community
The Military

They all have different ways of handling situations and depending on the administration differnt factions will be the "go to" guys. They all compete to be the top dog and they all hate each other. Add to this other government agencies that get in the mix like Commerce and you have a recipe for blunders and half baked situations.
So it does not matter what the various other factions were doing with the Taliban prior to 9-11. Once that day occured the Military was going to be the top dog and be called to get the job done. Once they are unleashed its time to let them do their work and get it done with because many lives are at risk. Give them a clear objective and let them get it done. No doubt a clear goal and objective in both Iraq and Afghanistan has been hard to see. Its not that it was not there its that the path has been and remains unclear. Thats a failure on the part of the political powers.
As far as the pipeline goes are you telling me that we were tricked into a war so that a company could build a pipeline across a third world dung heap? So do you work for a corporation? Because I do and I can assure you that no corporation is going to sign off on that plan. In any shape form or fashion. There is no case there. The ROI is unknown and the risk is somewhere near pluto.

We need to build a pipeline.
Lets get the government to start a war with these goatherds.
Once thats over......well thats the problem we dont know how long that will take.
Can you give me an idea?
SAY.....15 years.
GREAT sounds like a good plan put in a CAPEX for the bribes.

RIGHT if it dont make money in a short time frame like 3 to 5 years with large projects like pipelines then it is not happening.

No we are there because of the various Government factions mucking things up and stiring the pudding but not because some company wanted to build a pipeline and called in some favors.



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 04:03 PM
link   
There is no reason for us to be over there. No Afghans have attacked American soil. We are only over there killing them in the name of American Business Interests. The enemy is not there. The enemy is the Business Interests who convince our government that we need to be there in order for their shareholders, some of whom are American Congressmen and Senators, to gorge themselves on the money soaked in the blood of innocents. I wish they would choke to death on their money.



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 06:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Dragoon01
 



Agan you are dragging the greater overall situation into this inccident. You are not capable of discussing this without addressing the overall war. Fine, I will address the overall points that you have brought up after this. Tell me at what point "earlier in the day" was? You cant because there were no specifics mentions. So was "earlier in the day" 20 minutes before the inccident or two hours? This was not a planned strike. This was a CAS call for fire mission. At least every indication that has been given points to that being the case. Also again the aircrew have not been identified. We still do not know if language was a factor in passing off the target information to the aircrew. Thats the whole point. You dont have all of the facts but you are so eager to jump in the US Armys junk about the war in general that you cant wait to execute these pilots. If more information comes to light and it points to serious negligence on the part of the aircrew then yes that will play a part in their court marshall.


Why don't you tell me what earlier in the day means to you? It is very vague isn't it? If it was an incident that they were responding to right away like you suggest, a call for close air support, I believe they would have made that very clear because that would indicate a hasty response to a bad situation. They could have explained that in the confusion of the ongoing fire fight, the location of the insurgents was lost.

The good General didn't say that did he? He didn't say that he called for close air support as he was being attacked in his low lying asinine location of an operating base. No, he said that the incident they were responding to was earlier in the day. Do you understand now? Although I'm sure he wishes that he could have said they were being attacked and called for close air support. There may have been too many witnesses around for that to fly.


This was not a planned strike. This was a CAS call for fire mission. At least every indication that has been given points to that being the case.


So you see, there is every indication that this was a planned attack. There are no indications in the article to the contrary. They didn't call for close air support in the midst of a battle, far from it. The attack was made on the strategically placed kill zone of a base at some other time in the past. Earlier in the day is definitely an indication of a past event.


Also again the aircrew have not been identified. We still do not know if language was a factor in passing off the target information to the aircrew. Thats the whole point. You dont have all of the facts but you are so eager to jump in the US Armys junk about the war in general that you cant wait to execute these pilots.


First off, go back and read my posts. I am in no way wanting to execute the pilots. I am blaming the people who put them there. You know, the people who decided to at first maintain a Taliban presence and power hold at all costs in Afghanistan, and then decided that the U.S. military needed to rid the world of them. They are the people that I would like to see get what is coming to them.

There are a lot of articles desperately trying to print that this was a NATO gunship that attacked these children. There were and still are journalists who are calling the Pentagon and asking for clarity on who's gunship it was. The Pentagon refuses to answer that question at all. There was one article that addresses this very issue and makes it very clear who's gunship it was.


Word Games: Most US Media Hide an American Atrocity in Afghanistan Behind 'NATO' and Fudge the Victims' Ages - The people of Afghanistan know who was flying the two helicopter gunships that brutally hunted down and slaughtered, one by one, nine boys apparently as young as seven years old, as they gathered firewood on a hillside March 1. In angry demonstrations after the incident, they were shouting “Death to America.”


www.thiscantbehappening.net...

So here we have villagers giving us an indication of what country dispatched that helicopter gunship. It's not like they were shouting to destroy Zimbabwe or something. No, they were shouting death to America because of the incident. So you see there is, in the article, a pretty good description of what transpired there. Even the New York Times article that totes the party line of a NATO gunship admitted that the villagers were shouting death to America.


The war over Afghan civilian casualties - On the evening of March 1, U.S. helicopter gunships opened fire on a group of 10 Afghan boys gathering firewood in eastern Kunar province, killing all but one. A week after the incident, top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan General David Petraeus apologized for the incident and promised to review tactical directives to ensure civilian casualties are minimized.


afpak.foreignpolicy.com...


As far as the pipeline goes are you telling me that we were tricked into a war so that a company could build a pipeline across a third world dung heap? So do you work for a corporation? Because I do and I can assure you that no corporation is going to sign off on that plan. In any shape form or fashion. There is no case there. The ROI is unknown and the risk is somewhere near pluto.


I'm sure the corporation that you work for is very careful as to how they calculate their return on investments. This is no nickel and dime game that is being played here. This is a quest for control of resources by huge firms and corporations who are guided at the very top by the wealthiest individuals that have ever graced the planet. The return on investment is the absolute and total control of the resources that everyone depends on.


Unocal was one of the key players in the CentGas consortium, an attempt to build the Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline to run from the Caspian area, through Afghanistan and probably Pakistan, to the Indian Ocean. One of the consultants to Unocal at that time was Zalmay Khalilzad, former US ambassador to Afghanistan, Iraq, and the United Nations. In the 1980s, CIA chief Bill Casey had revived the agency's practice of gaining intelligence from traveling businessmen. Marty Miller, one of Unocal's top executives, conducted negotiations in several Central Asian countries from 1995, and voluntarily provided information gained on these trips to the CIA's Houston station. In 1996, Unocal opened an office in Kandahar, Afghanistan


It started out as Unocal, in conjunction with the CIA, snuggling up the the Taliban to get the project started.


Unocal seems to have had a deeper role. Intelligence "whistleblower" Julie Sirrs reported that anti-Taliban leader Ahmad Shah Massoud told her he had "proof that Unocal had provided money that helped the Taliban take Kabul in 1996". And French journalist Richard Labeviere said, referring to the later 1990s, "The CIA and Unocal's security forces ... provided military weapons and instructors to several Taleban militia's ." The Taleban and Unocal were in negotiations in Texas to discuss arrangements for the gas pipeline from Turkmenistan to Pakistan in 1997 and a deal was struck but later failed.


en.wikipedia.org...

So now I imagine you have a little better understanding why I cannot seperate the two talking points. If all of this under handed crap didn't go on, we wouldn't be there to begin with. So now Unocal is defunct but I assure you, the pipeline, and Afghanistan's resources are still a major player as to why we are there. The pipeline project continues. It's just called the TAPI pipeline now because there was too much uncovered about Unocal.


TAPI's 1,680-kilometer route (given as 1,735 kilometers by some sources) originates in southern Turkmenistan, winds south through Afghanistan's Herat Province, and then arcs southeast until it reaches Kandahar Province. Kandahar was the spiritual capital for the Taliban movement in Afghanistan, and the city and its surrounding areas remain the heart of the Taliban insurgency against government and foreign forces. With construction slated to begin in 2012, these sections of the pipeline are the main areas of concern when it comes to security.


www.rferl.org...








edit on 10-3-2011 by jackflap because: Forgot Link.



posted on Apr, 7 2011 @ 12:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by mr-lizard
The American military really annoy me. They're badly trained, immature and seem to consist of xenophobic psycho's.

If they aren't murdering innocents or killing Brits with friendly fire incidents, then they're wholly incompetent in finding their true enemies.

No wonder America is one of the most disliked countries in the world.



So British soldiers are angels who never mistake the friendlies for the enemy? How many Brits die by the hands of other Brits? You on the other hand have friendly fire incidents as well in the in current conflict. In Iraq and Afghanistan, most British friendly fire incidents your troops committed came form ground-to-ground incidents. This is something we Americans don't have. Ours came from aircraft strafing but but what's understandable is that it's hard to see 10,000 FT. If you don't want your troops shot get lit by our friendly fire then call your PM to put more money into the military in in the British harrier planes for close air-support so we don't have to babysit you. The US-on-UK deaths have only was 5 military deaths so how it could be all the time? Let's not forget we are helping you out in Libya so don't insult your allies. Let's start from the Falkland wars to the current war conflict now. Please tell me this:

FALKLAND WARS



1) Companies A and C of the 3rd Battalion, Parachute Regiment, British Army engaged each other in an hour-long firefight in the Falkland Islands involving heavy weapons and artillery strikes, resulting in 8 deaths.

2) Five British Royal Marines were killed after their mortar section position were fired on by Patrol Units of 45 Commando Royal Marines who mistook them for the Argentinian Unit in the Falkland Islands.

3) June 2, 1982 - A friendly fire incident took place between the Special Air Service(SAS) and the Special Boat Squadron (SBS). An SBS patrol had apparently strayed into the SAS patrol's designated area and were mistaken for Argentine forces. A brief firefight was initiated during which one of the SBS patrol, Sergeant Ian Hunt, was killed.

4) June 6, 1982 - A British Royal Navy HMS Cardiff (D108) battleship shot down a British AAC(Army Air Corps) Gazelle helicopter in the Falkland Islands, killing four British soldiers.

5) June 11th 1982 - A British Royal Navy HMS Avenger (F185) battleship fired a 4.5 inch explosive shell into a house during a naval bombardment of Stanley in the Falkland Islands, killing three British women civilians were killed and several others injured. Their names who died by friendly fire: Doreen Bonner, Mary Goodwin, Sue Whitley.

FIRST GULF WAR



6) February 26, 1991 - A British officer was severely injured when his FV510 Warrior vehicle was attacked by a Challenger 1 tank of the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards.

7) February 27, 1991 - Two soldiers from 10 Air Defence Battery, Royal Artillery, were badly injured when two FV103 Spartan vehicles from which they had dismounted were fired upon by Challenger 1 tanks from 14th/20th King's Hussars with thermal sights beyond the range of unaided visibility (about 1500 m). The rearmost vehicle was hit and burst into flames. The other vehicle was also damaged in the ensuing fire.

8) February 28, 1991 - A Challenger 1 tank fired several rounds at the British artillery position. At least four British casualties.

WAR IN AFGHANISTAN



9) April 6, 2006 - A British convoy wounded 12 Afghan Police officers and one killed after calling in a US air-strike on what they thought was a Taliban attack.

10) August 20, 2006 - In Sangin Province, Afghanistan, a RAF Harrier II aircraft mistakenly strafed British troops missing the enemy 200 metres during a firefight with the Taliban in which British Major James Loden of 3 PARA, who called the RAF, "Completely incompetent and utterly, utterly useless in protecting ground troops in Afghanistan". British paratroopers even said that they rather prefer the US air-support over the RAF.

11) January 15, 2007 - Lance Corporal Matthew Ford, from Zulu Company of 45 Commando Royal Marines, was killed when a fellow Royal Marine fired his machine gun after mistaking Ford and his unit for the Taliban during an offensive operations in to the south of Garmsir, Helmand Province, southern Afghanistan.

12) August 23, 2007 - A USAF F-15 called in to support the British forces dropped a bomb on them due to incorrect coordinates given to the pilot by a British Forward Air Controller, killing three privates of 1st Battalion, Royal Anglian Regiment with two others injured. It was later revealed that the British forward air controller who order the attack was never issued a headset by the British army. Deafened by enemy mortars falling on his position he incorrectly confirmed one wrong digit of the co-ordinate and the American bomb landed on his three comrades rather than enemy positions almost a mile away. The British coroner ruled that it was the British Forward Air Controller fault for giving the wrong coordinates to a US pilot not the US pilot making error.

13) September 26, 2007 - British soldiers during combat operations in Helmand Province, Afghanistan, fired Javelin anti-tank missiles at Danish soldiers from The Royal Life Guards, killing two. It is also confirmed from Danish forces that the British fired a total of 6-8 Javelin missiles, over a 1½ hour period and only after the attack was completed did they realize that the missiles were British, based upon the fragments found after the incident.

14) January 14, 2008 - In the night in Helmand Province, British troops saw some Afghans "conducting suspicious activities". Visibility was too bad for rifle-fire and they were too far away to call in mortar strikes. So the squad decided to use a Javelin anti-tank missile they were carrying. British soldiers fired their Javelin anti-tank missiles on the nearby roof but turned out to have come from their own Afghan army sentry. One Afghan soldier was killed.

15) July 9, 2008: Nine British soldiers from the 2nd Battalion, The Parachute Regiment were injured after being fired upon by British Army Apache helicopter while on patrol in Afghanistan.

16) November 29, 2008: In Lashkar Gah, Helmand Province, southern Afghanistan, British soldiers open fire on a vehicle which was driven by a Afghan police officer along with his daughter after he failed to stop at high rate of speed. An Afghan police officer was killed and his daughter was seriously wounded.

17) January 14, 2009 - Captain Tom Sawyer, aged 26, 29 Commando Regiment Royal Artillery, and Corporal Danny Winter, aged 28, Zulu Company 45 Commando Royal Marines, were killed by an explosion. Two other members of the patrol was also injured. Both men were taking part in a joint operation with a Danish Battle Group and the Afghan National Army in a location north east of Gereshk in central Helmand Provence. The MoD subsequently confirmed that two men died from friendly fire when they were hit by a Javelin anti-tank missile fired in error by British troops.

18) December 20, 2009 - A British Military Police officer was shot dead by a British Army sniper while on patrol. It was reported that no charges are to be brought against a British army sniper who killed a British Military Policeman because he was allowed to open fire if he believed that his life was in danger.

19) July 26, 2010 - Sapper Mark Anthony Smith, age 26, of the 36 Engineer Regiment, Royal Engineers, was killed by a smoke shell fired upon by British troops in Sangin Province, Afghanistan. The MoD is investigating his death and said a smoke shell, designed to provide cover for soldiers working on the ground, may have fallen short of its intended target.

20) February 4, 2011 - Ranger David Dalzell of 1st Battalion, Royal Irish Regiment, was shot and killed by a fellow British soldier while returning foot to base in Nad Ali, Helmand Province, Afghanistan.

IRAQ WAR



21) March 24, 2003 - British Tank Commander Sergeant Steven Roberts, from the 2nd Royal Tank Regiment, was killed when a fellow British soldier manning a tank-mounted machine gun accidentally fired at him while trying to shoot a wielding Iraqi protester during an Iraqi protest at a roadblock at Az Zubayr near Basra, Iraq. An Iraqi protester was also killed. It was reported that no British soldiers were to be charged for his death and the Iraqi protester. The gunner who shot and killed Roberts did not know that his high-powered machine gun was inaccurate at short range.

22) March 25, 2003 - A British Challenger 2 tank came under fire from another British Challenger 2 tank in a nighttime firefight, blowing off the turret, and killing two crew members, Corporal Stephen John Allbutt and Trooper David Jeffrey Clarke with two others injured.

23) March 30, 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.

24) April 6, 2003 - Fusilier Kelan Turrington, of 1st Battalion, Royal Regiment of Fusiliers, was killed by machine-gun fire mounted from a British tank.

25) July 16, 2006 - During a raid to apprehend a key terrorist leader and accomplice in a suburb of North Basra, Corporal John Cosby, of the Devonshire and Dorset Regiment, was killed by a 5.56 mm round from a British-issued SA80. It was ruled to be a case of friendly fire by the coroner. It was reported that the British forces who shot him were unclear about the rules of engagement.

They were so many friendly fire incidents involving the UK yet all of them occurred from ground-to-ground incidents. In May 2003 the US deployed 150,000 of the 173,000 total international troops in Iraq and as troop numbers dropped in the following years kept over 100,000 troops there through 2010 while all other international forces dipped below 20,000 by October 2006 and were gone by the end of 2009. British forces accounted for almost all non-american forces in Iraq post invasion and numbered 46,000 at the start of the invasion.

Troop numbers in Afghanistan have been on an opposite trend. Starting with ground operations in Afghanistan there were around 10,000 US troops and 5,000 multinational troops that were almost all British. There are currently 9,500 British troops and 94,000 US troops in Afghanistan.

So with both theaters totaled together at the start of 2003 there were 160,000 US troops and 25,000. While the US deployed between 160,000 to 100,000 combined troops throughout 2003 to 2010 the British deployment peaked during the invasion of iraq at 50,000 combined troops and dropped to 25,000 as of May 2003.

So there were easily four times as many US troops deployed at any one time than British and yet 2/3 of UK friendly fire deaths were by British forces and 1/3 were US. At this point it is simple math, with 4 times the troops we are responsible for half the number of FF deaths. Out of 538 total British deaths the US is responsible for 1.5% and the UK is responsible for 2.9% which also shows that most British blue on blue deaths were caused by other British. Now compare the friendly fire incidents to yours and the US, you will find that Britain has the highest rate of friendly fire than the US. The US has more friendly fire incidents because of more os us deployed yet Britain has the highest rate of friendly fire rates per troops. So based on your logic, would Brits get training not to shoot your own comrades? Thanks a lot man.






edit on 7-4-2011 by Paulioetc15 because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-4-2011 by Paulioetc15 because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-4-2011 by Paulioetc15 because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-4-2011 by Paulioetc15 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join