Fury at American contempt for British war dead

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Malteser, Nov 19, 2006.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Source: Mail on Sunday

    What are they so afraid of?
  2. What are they so afraid of?

    The truth maybe.................?
  3. Heaven forbid they are ever held to account for something.
  4. They can't handle the Truth.

  5. And the truth is they are fcuking rubbish. Bloody cadences on a run, wo hah for the morning, etc. etc.

    Basically their pilots have superior weapons skills but p1ss poor recognition skills, saw a video once where they explained away the destruction of their own lads by a guy who should have blatently known he smashing up his own side. And then some drip comes on saying a combat pilot is probably too cautious for his own good at times!!!!
  6. But the paras said they'd rather have US pilots than RAF in air support so what does that say?
  7. They need to take a serious look when more allies are killed by "friendly fire" from Americans than any other country.
  8. Sorry not to be joining the "We hate the Septics" club, but do you REALLY want the British civilian courts to set the precedent of holding foreign soldiers on operations to account for ACCIDENTAL killing of Brits? If we do it in our courts, what's to stop other countries doing it in theirs? Can you imagine surrendering the RRF Squaddies involved in the Breadbasket "abuses" to the local Iraqi courts? These matters are dealt with best by military justice.

    Blue-on-blues happen in wartime, not just to the Septics. To hold soldiers on Ops to account in civ courts is, to quote some movie or other, "Like handing out speeding tickets at the Indy 500".
  9. if the americans are known to be shooting and not thinking; resulting in blue on blue incidents, then they may have something in common with the paras.
  10. In no way have I or anyone else started any Anti Septic comments. After working with them in Iraq I have nothing aginst those on the front line doing their jobs properly.

    I am well aware and gorwn up to know that in a combat zone there are risks and that blue and blue will happen, but some of the cases recently can not be explained by accident but by purle negligence and unprofessional conduct.

    No one has advocated trying them ina British Court, it is a Coroners Court they would be testifying in. If a case is a genuine accident then fine, but when it is not then yes I do want those responsible to held to account.

    Anyone remember the Press Convoy that got took out live on TV by them, despite the convoy having an escort and full plans being sent to Command. Anyone know what happened to them.

    There was a case in Iraq on the base I was at, the guy (American) in the tower was so crap he mistook a blond woman standing in a secure compound in US Uniform as an insurgent and shot at her. You trying to say incidents like that are accident?
  11. Accidents happen in war. The fog of war so to speak. One issue is that most of our allies dont provide their forces with adequate equipment for IFF for example. A US soldier has several IFR markers/beacons as part of his kit. Vehicles have Blue Force Tracker which marks friendly forces on the battlefield. The US provided UK forces with this system prior to the start of OIF. Is this fool proof ? No. US forces have had a number of blue on blue incidents ranging from rifle fire to USAF bombs. Any death is tragic and technology is being used to reduce the risk but there is still the human element.
  12. I agree with Malteser but would add: if they're going to be held to account - let it be done by their own people. We're not entirely innocent in this area and something like this could bounce back and bite us in the arrse.
  13. The problem will always remain with the lack of accountability, equipment failure and human error happens but when an incident is shown to be entirly avoidable like the bombing of the canadians in Astan, the consequences seem paltry in comparison.

    Brassing up allied forces againt ROE or in the case of the Canadian losses, dropping a bomb after being clearly refused permission to engage and against the advice of his navigator does not seem to carry the sort of consequences for the perpatraitor that would lead to better drills in the future.

    US forces accept blue on blue and factor them in to loss projections, what message does this send out to their own forces.
  14. The courts are there to determine if it was a genuine accidents, or if it was negligence.

    So, in short, yes. Yes I would like a precedent set.
  15. Playing devils advocate here - has there been an inquiry into the British Blue on Blues yet - and have any of those been declared unlawful killings???