Questions need to be asked.
Three British soldiers have been killed in an apparent friendly fire incident involving US aircraft in southern Afghanistan, the Ministry of Defence said Friday.
Two other soldiers were injured in the incident, which occurred Thursday.
The patrol was attacked by Taliban insurgents and air support was summoned in the form of two US F15 aircraft. One bomb was dropped, apparently killing the three soldiers. They were declared dead at the scene.
Earlier this year Mr Browne said 12 British soldiers had died in friendly fire incidents involving US forces since 1990, but that no such incidents had taken place in Afghanistan.
We have been assured for decades that Pentagon magicians are supplying us with armaments that are guaranteed to kill the bad guys, never harm an innocent civilian, and especially – never, never will take out our Willing Allies in our Willing Coalition.
That’s a load of crap.
Why can’t we Get It Right? The generals will blame human error. Then, they bear no responsibility. Perish the thought they admit to reliance on lousy implementation of [maybe] overrated technology?
And, of course, the questions apply more often, much more seriously, to the civilians we kill.
30–RBG–to lazy to read the very next sentence in Post #17, or just dishonest?
Lazy… no dishonest… no, not that one either. Are there anymore choices?
I did read the “we could also” part. Chalk it up to sarcasm being sometimes hard to detect… like my “uh-huh” of course being agreement, you see?
RBG
#6, traaxx,
You are out of line. Eidhard didn’t say or even suggest the Pentagon had “magic” bullets. So are you that stupid to think WE can’t read? Are you that daft to think WE don’t know when you are once again just inventing crap?
Effen moran.
For years the Pentagon has been telling us how accurate their armaments are now. How they can drop a bomb through a window. Because these bombs are so good, they are so expensive and Congress needs to give more money.
You’re just another effen Right Wing Nut Neo-con Evangelical Conservative Republican Radiohead Shut-in asshole.
Setting aside your hurt egos, don’t you think there would be less friendly fire incidents if our military pilots were’nt jumped up on speed?
Please lets not get into discussions of the accuracy of esoteric weapon systems. Besides being irrelevant it’s just ridiculous. Coalition troops die just fine when shot by their mates at pb range like Pat Tillman. Perhaps the rifle that stitched his head with three rounds in a tight pattern wasn’t accurate enough eh?
That said, I can’t really feel sympathy for anyone foolish enough to enlist. Going to foreign lands to kill the locals sounds like fun and games until you catch one yourself. Good riddance to another three warmongers.
First, we don’t know exactly which munition was in use. They were probably JDAMs, but this wasn’t stated.
Second, JDAMs are not laser guided, they are guided by a combination of GPS and inertial guidance.
Third, 500 pounds of explosive mass with 18% greater force than equivalent of TNT has a much greater killing range than the 155mm shell normally used in fire support, which has a minimum safe range of 600meters.
So, while we can’t draw conclusions yet based on information provided, one of three situations is the most likely:
A: Wrong coordinates were provided/entered wrong into the bomb. (though the second is more likely to have sent the bomb out to a random location)
B: The enemy was far too close for the munition used.
C: The three were further forward than the call-for-fire requestor believed.
That said, I can’t really feel sympathy for anyone foolish enough to enlist. Going to foreign lands to kill the locals sounds like fun and games until you catch one yourself. Good riddance to another three warmongers.
And while your statement is ignorant and hateful, we fight to give you the right to say it.
#36 my statement is neither ignorant or hateful. My lack of compassion for killers in uniform doesn’t constitute hate, not am I ignorant of the causes of the wars America has fought for the past 70 years.
So instead of trying to taint my insights with your personal attacks try to find something relevant and constructive to say.
37–Nightstar–your point is too subtle. There is “the military” and “national security” and “foreign interests” and specific folks who serve in the military. Very different principles apply to these and other broad and speicific subjects, yet they often are all lumped together without distinction.
I well imagine most people support our troops as a general proposition–as a function of our national interests. But claiming to “care” about individual people one does not know reveals a certain type of unthinking kneejerk manipulation that all too many are prone to.
Your comment breaks the spell.
Oh ya, one more thing steelcobra… don’t do any more fighting on my behalf please. I’m quite capable of resolving my own disputes. I’ll speak freely until some goon in a uniform clubs or shoots me to death.
TYVM
Friendly fire is an unfortunate fact in warfare. Newer and better weapons have DRAMATICALLY reduced the numbers and frequency of the events so that when they do happen, they are “NEWSWORTHY.”
How many friendly troops died by FF in Vietnam, Korea, or WWII? Tens of thousands. So many that it was not even considered worth reporting on the individual incidents.
Why argue politics and strategic tactics in a story about a tactical FF incident. We will continue to buy the best weapons, and train as hard as possible in their use, but there will always be that critical miscommunication, or bungled coordinate entry that can lead to tragedy.
Don
34. 39. Nightstar. “I can’t really feel sympathy for anyone foolish enough to enlist….Good riddance to another three warmongers.”
So the truth is you’re against war as long as there’s someone else to do the dirty work.
Judging by your rhetoric, you would be one of the least likely people to resolve a dispute. Your naivety or ignorance of radical Islamics whose top goal is an immediate ticket to paradise by ridding the world of perceived infidels, is staggering.
RBG
33. Fusion
From the LA Times: “But war historians and military strategists caution against relying too much on technology to minimize friendly fire, incidents that virtually everyone concedes cannot be eliminated.”
http://tinyurl.com/2tvp7o
A pretty good 2003 summary item of the problem of friendly fire. The problem being that you can mostly put a smart bomb through a window but can’t guaranty a friendly isn’t on the other side. Technology to counter this has not been spectacular and even cut due to budget constraint. Their best option so far is fastening a visible panel to themselves. Maybe this is the magic that Eideard was referring to?
Fusion, if you have something that shows that the Pentagon now believes they’ve purchased the technology that is guaranteed to eliminate FF: share.
RBG
#41 RBG your rabid anti Islamic dogma is tiresome. because I don’t share your opinion you qualify me as naive and ignorant.
It is you who are truly ignorant. Deprived of any information beyond what passes through the filter to settle on your screen you pass judgment on peoples you don’t know and don’t understand.
I am against war. The only war I’d participate in would require an invasion of the nation in which I reside. I will fight only to defend myself and my community. Absent such a threat there is no acceptable motive.
Lets play a little game. Insert another term in place of Islamic or Muslim. Try Jew or black or any other culture or religion alien to you. Test you bigotry.
Judging from your rhetoric you either fear of Muslims or just hate them. I’m more frightened of people who think the way you do.
43–Nightstar–once again, failure to make appropriate distinctions?
Did jews, blacks or any other identifiable group declare war on the GOUSA and fly airplanes into our Buildings? BTW–that does sound like “an invasion” per your outline?
Are all minorities “bad” and worthy of discrimination?—No.
Are some of them?- – – – -Nightstar????????????
I’ll assume your questions are rhetorical bobbo. But I have two I’d like you to answer if you can:
How many Afghanis are alleged to have participated in the 911 hijackings?
How many Iraqis are alleged to have participated in the 911 hijackings?
Then tell me what constitutes an invasion.
Nightstar, you’ve made it clear that you think all military personnel are warmongers and beneath you. But, I must remind you, without the volunteers who join willingly, you’d have burnt your draft card and moved canada or mexico long ago. The military is not a means of violence. It is a means of achieving a political goal through directed, focused violence. However, I doubt any of your history or sociology teachers ever made Carl Von Clauswitz or Robert A Heinlein part of your reading lists. So I can understand you ignorant, skewed opinion.
And I don’t care if you don’t want me to defend your rights, because I’d prefer those “goon in a uniform clubs or shoots me to death” types never get close to the people of the United States of America. So, I’ll keep on doing it until I’ve completed my term of service and move on.
43. Wish I could even say “nice try, nightstar. ” Or did you simply conveniently forget the “radical” part of my “radical Islamic”? Or are all Muslims “radical” in your book?
I don’t know why I should need to press this further except I now get to brag in pride that I have plenty of Arabic friends including an occasional Palestinian business partner and that I have produced numerous videos on Arabic soil that teach historical Islam to Muslims. Some Islamic bigot.
Tell me. How many 9-11s and how many innocent people would you sacrifice before your finely-tuned sense of right and wrong motivated you to do something about it? Will you now build the bombs and practice the tactics to defend against your invasion or is this something you do when your “invaders” are running up the beaches? (You raised the invasion scenario.)
Or maybe you’d leave this to the volunteer “warmongers” you’re now so happy to see die? Do you now really see yourself fighting side-by-side with these same people, or was that fanciful imagination? (Tip: protect your back.)
It’s not opinion I can’t share with you. It’s facts. And 9-11 is just one of them.
RBG
#46 Actually I did move to Canada but I’ve retained my citizenship and my selective service card since I do like to visit my less fortunate relatives occasionally.
I tend not to share the political goals as those of the people dictating foreign policy in the United States. Perhaps because I have access to different media sources here in Canada.
Although I’ve never read Von Clauswitz i’ve read several of Heinlein’s Novels as well as Orwell and Huxley. I fear the goons in uniforms are already here, Canada as well as the USA.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAfzUOx53Rg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQwmme7_fQE
#48: Ah, you got ahead of reality already then.
The canadian thing was just dumb on their part, but the LAPD has a long history of excessive force. That’s nothing new.
#47 Although 911 isn’t the topic of this discussion it is the excuse used by many here to rationalize racial and religious discrimination, and American wars of imperial expansion.
Even the official explanation of the 911 commission is rather light on FACTS! From chronology to physics the actual events disagree with the official reports.
How many innocent people would I sacrifice? None obviously. Not even those who don’t look like me or share my beliefs. I stated quite clearly I’ll pick up my rifle when invaders ”are running up the beaches”.
I didn’t forget that you used the term “radical”. My suggestion stands, take the bigotry test by substituting another religion or ethnicity for Muslim or Arab and see how it sounds.
45–Nightstar==bad context handling on your part. Read the original post and try to keep it in mind as you formulate your responses?
AFGHANISTAN is the issue
Not IRAQ.
bobbo, If someone drags 911 into this I feel vindicated including Iraq, after all the Commander in Chief links Al Qaeda with Iraq. But to keep it on topic here’s some FF in Iraq.
http://tinyurl.com/36erem
50. 43/41 nightstar. Ok.
Your naivety or ignorance of radical Blacks whose top goal is an immediate ticket to paradise by ridding the world of perceived infidels, is staggering.
Your naivety or ignorance of radical Jews whose top goal is an immediate ticket to paradise by ridding the world of perceived infidels, is staggering.
So did any of that ring even slightly true for anyone? Don’t you think it reasonable that plausibility and evidence should be part of this test too? In fact if there was irrefutable evidence supporting any of these statements, how is it bigoted to state it as such?
Now try my original statement:
Your naivety or ignorance of radical Islamics whose top goal is an immediate ticket to paradise by ridding the world of perceived infidels, is staggering.
I can support that one with plenty of evidence as anyone knows. That’s the point you are missing here.
RBG
50. Nightstar: “Even the official explanation of the 911 commission is rather light on FACTS! From chronology to physics the actual events disagree with the official reports”
You might want to re-read the 585 page document again and tell me where it is a little light.
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/index.htm
Or is “Loose Change” your source of “disagreement” on this topic?
RBG
#35 – my buds flying missions over Afghanistan won’t get specific and probably shouldn’t. 🙂 But, it’s more likely the least expensive, least sophisticated munitions are used most of the time. Now.
Budget considerations raise their ugly head as wastefulness, ignorance and lousy tactics take their toll.
#24 – masturbation is probably part of your religion. Ethics would be [edit: comments guide]
#54 You still sound like a bigot typing about “radical blacks” and “radical Jews”.
I’ve read some of the 911 commissions report although I haven’t yet managed to wade through all 585 pages of propaganda and obfuscation.
One of the subjects it’s particularly light on is any reference to WTC 7 particularly an explanation of why it collapsed into it’s own footprint on 911 despite not being struck by a jet. I know this because I’ve searched the entire document in pdf format. Maybe your a better sleuth than I. Can you find the hidden explanation?
If concrete and steel structures routinely collapsed into their own footprints due to minor structural damage and fire, demolition teams wouldn’t have anything to do now would they.
No “Loose Change” is not my source of “disagreement” on this topic. Nice Straw Man attempt though. I did watch it though, thanks for the tip. It was an interesting documentary. Although I can’t accept all of the claims made it does raise many interesting questions.
I refer you to the Scholars for 911 truth:
http://stj911.org/
Some very highly accredited individuals who share my doubts about the veracity of the “official conspiracy theory”.
You brought this on yourself.
#57
1. Your straw man attempt was the suggestion that I based my view on loose change. Setting up an easily discredited authority.
2. I never questioned whether jets crashed into the twin towers. However there is no rational explanation for any of the towers collapsing in near freefall into their own footprints.
3. You still havent found a reference to WTC7 in the 911 commission report have you? If you do show me please. Your link is to a bogus cover story not the commission report.
Try to respond with demonstrable facts instead of disingenuous misdirection.
#57 Speaking of disingenuous misdirection, why do you offer a link to back up a quote that doesn’t exist at the URI
RBG said:
“Steven Jones, a physicist at Brigham Young University, argued that a “gravity driven collapse” (of the twin towers) without demolition charges would defy the laws of physics.” http://tinyurl.com/3c3bvq (Wikipedia)
strange use of quotation marks RBG. What was your intent here?
58 3. nightstar. Now try searching the document with “7 WTC”
But WTC 7 was irrelevant to the investigation as were the damaged WTC 3, 4, 5 & 6 and numerous other buildings not directly attacked. The Commission was not into engineering, they left most of that to the National Institute of Standards and Technology investigation.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
(Compare this report to your source.)
Although the Commission includes the twin tower collapse scenario, its main mandate was to uncover the emergence of Al Qaeda; how it conceived and planned the 9/11attack; what they did to pull it off and who screwed up in not detecting these plans.
RBG
The only references in the document are regarding the use of 7 WTC as a command centre nothing is mentioned about it’s collapse or even that it did collapse(from what I can find).
Kevin Ryan’s (formerly of Underwriters Lab the entity that certified the steel in WTC 1 an 2) response to the NIST FAQ at your link
http://tinyurl.com/2nsmeh
“Although the Commission includes the twin tower collapse scenario, its main mandate was to uncover the emergence of Al Qaeda; how it conceived and planned the 9/11attack; what they did to pull it off and who screwed up in not detecting these plans.”
I couldn’t agree more with the above statement and this is the crux of the matter.