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.

 

Americans shoot British Major

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 5 2004 @ 05:17 PM
link   
It seems that American Marines shot up two British Jeeps on Oct 30th, wounding one British Marine.


Marines shoot British Major



They only stopped when a Sgt got out and started shouting obscenitys at them....lol, that would have been funny to see, as our squaddies (especially Sgt's) are big SOB's...

Fortunately, they just shot him in the leg...




posted on Nov, 5 2004 @ 05:35 PM
link   
Thanks guys, what are you trying to do, even up the odds a bit?


I would've loved to have seen the look on the US soldiers face when the Sgt got out and started cussing at them, one thing the british army are REAL good at is swearing.



posted on Nov, 5 2004 @ 05:36 PM
link   
Tell me about it.... I have developed a nasty tendency to use the F word a little too much coz of my dad being a Squaddie...

Plus, he must have had balls. getting shot by the Yanks, and he just gets out and starts swearing at them. Thats the RM for you!!

[edit on 5/11/04 by stumason]



posted on Nov, 5 2004 @ 05:49 PM
link   
The bad news is that the accent probably was not understood and didn't quite get the point across. On a more serious note, this point and shoot skittish behaviour at anything that moves, goes to prove two things; that the insurgents have the US troops nervous as all get out, and that innocents are being killed for no reason.

How many Brits have now been killed by friendly fire dating back to the beginning of the war? My guess is at least 10% of the total number of war deaths.



posted on Nov, 5 2004 @ 05:53 PM
link   


How many Brits have now been killed by friendly fire dating back to the beginning of the war? My guess is at least 10% of the total number of war deaths.


More than that. I'd say at least 30 % lost to friendly fire. Most of the rest from "accidents" of some form or another. Hardly any to the enemy!
Below is some info. We have lost 73 so far...

British Deaths



posted on Nov, 5 2004 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
Below is some info. We have lost 73 so far...
British Deaths


I always say, if the fire is so friendly, why are people dying?



posted on Nov, 5 2004 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Simulacra

Originally posted by stumason
Below is some info. We have lost 73 so far...
British Deaths


I always say, if the fire is so friendly, why are people dying?


That was cringe-worthy.



posted on Nov, 5 2004 @ 06:31 PM
link   
well the americans to have a track record of bombing//shooting their allies by mistake

edit
and why have you got the same avatar
and background


[edit on 5-11-2004 by bodrul]



posted on Nov, 5 2004 @ 06:33 PM
link   
This is sad but I am sure it was not deliberate, I mean these things happen but there is still no excuse for friendly fire..



posted on Nov, 5 2004 @ 06:40 PM
link   


This is sad but I am sure it was not deliberate, I mean these things happen but there is still no excuse for friendly fire


I agree that I doubt they thought they were shooting at the British, but they were clearly marked..... as always....



posted on Nov, 5 2004 @ 06:55 PM
link   
"He was a collaborator!"
The character, Sailor" in the movie, Uncommon Valor, after he shot a mock prisoner during a training exercise.

Seriously, that is very unfortunate. Not unexpected in combat, but still, tragic every time.

The British sergeant's move was good; the best thing he could have done to stop the situation. Not surprising either, as British troops have some serious brass balls!



posted on Nov, 5 2004 @ 07:01 PM
link   


and why have you got the same avatar
and background


Hmm... snap !
You know what they say, great minds think alike



posted on Nov, 5 2004 @ 11:10 PM
link   
Anyone have any figures on American casualties of blue on blue? In particular by other allies rather than US on US.



posted on Nov, 5 2004 @ 11:23 PM
link   

From The Sun
The US soldiers in a broken-down Humvee on the roadside mistook the patrol of Royal Marines for terrorists during a midnight fiasco.


1. It was midnight.

2. The Americans were apparently stranded and cut off.

3. There was no apparent communication or coordination between the British and American forces in this case.

4. Vehicle markings are not necessarily obvious at night, behind headlights. All the Americans knew is that unidentified SUVs were coming toward them in the darkness. Insurgents also drive SUVs.

It sounds to me like closer coordination among Coalition forces can help reduce the frequency of unfortunate events like this.



posted on Nov, 5 2004 @ 11:29 PM
link   
It's not a surprise. The term 'friendly fire' was coined for the act of US troops firing on the British.



posted on Nov, 5 2004 @ 11:32 PM
link   
Jeez where do they find these dumbass troops?



posted on Nov, 5 2004 @ 11:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by kegs
It's not a surprise. The term 'friendly fire' was coined for the act of US troops firing on the British.


It's an unfortunate hazard of war . . . SAS and SBS exchanged fire in the Falklands. But it does appear to happen way too regularly when American troops are in the vicinity, hence I was wondering about US blue on blue figures



posted on Nov, 5 2004 @ 11:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Majic

4. Vehicle markings are not necessarily obvious at night, behind headlights. All the Americans knew is that unidentified SUVs were coming toward them in the darkness. Insurgents also drive SUVs.



Insurgents drive SUVs? When I was there, the only SUVs I saw were used by private contractors, the locals were lucky the cars or pick-up trucks they drove still moved.



posted on Nov, 5 2004 @ 11:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by curme
Insurgents drive SUVs? When I was there, the only SUVs I saw were used by private contractors, the locals were lucky the cars or pick-up trucks they drove still moved.


Based on this information, our troops can safely assume that anyone driving an SUV cannot possibly be hostile.

Hopefully forces in the field will be made aware of this handy tip and thereby know they can stand down and rest easy whenever unidentified SUVs head their way.

If you can somehow get this advice to them, I'm sure they would appreciate being made aware of it.


[edit on 11/5/2004 by Majic]



posted on Nov, 5 2004 @ 11:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Majic

From The Sun
The US soldiers in a broken-down Humvee on the roadside mistook the patrol of Royal Marines for terrorists during a midnight fiasco.


1. It was midnight.

2. The Americans were apparently stranded and cut off.

3. There was no apparent communication or coordination between the British and American forces in this case.

4. Vehicle markings are not necessarily obvious at night, behind headlights. All the Americans knew is that unidentified SUVs were coming toward them in the darkness. Insurgents also drive SUVs.

It sounds to me like closer coordination among Coalition forces can help reduce the frequency of unfortunate events like this.



Agreed, closer coordination and communication is required in a war zone.

Sad thing is that, IMO, the 4 points made above make the incident worse i.e. if cut-off in the dark with no realistic identification of the vehicles, what are they doing opening fire?

Could have been innocent civilians in the SUVs and apart from that, it drew attention to the US Marines position in which case if there were hostiles in the area they could have drawn down some serious fire power.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join