RE: Friendly fire in Afghanistan kills 1 Canadian, wounds more than 30

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

RE: Friendly fire in Afghanistan kills 1 Canadian, wounds more than 30

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Friendly fire in Afghanistan kills 1 Canadian, wounds more than 30

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Login

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Friendly fire in Afghanistan kills 1 Canadian, woun... - 9/5/2006 12:37:36 PM

SirKenin

Posts: 2994
Joined: 10/31/2004
From: Barrie, ON Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: CrappyDom

KenDckey,

I find that prodding the average asshole gets them to really flip out and I enjoy the reaction. Sort of like driving by a guy in one of those huge jacked up pickup trucks and giving them the "little dick" symbol and watching them flip out.

You ruined it all by having a sense of humor...

I do not think so. I think you made a complete ass of yourself by not knowing what you are talking about once again. Even your own evidence refutes your statements. You would think you would learn, but no, you lash out at him and then pretend to laugh it off as "enjoying the reaction" when you got busted wide open.

Pathetic. Typical of you, but absolutely pathetic nonetheless.

< Message edited by SirKenin -- 9/5/2006 12:38:19 PM >

_____________________________

Hi. I don't care. Thanks.

Wicca: Pretending to be an ancient religion since 1956

Catholic Church: Serving up guilt since 107 AD.

(in reply to CrappyDom)

Post #: 41

RE: Friendly fire in Afghanistan kills 1 Canadian, woun... - 9/5/2006 1:00:07 PM

meatcleaver

Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey

now why would they attack? Well again I can only go based upon assumptions. What appeared to be a military convoy of non-friendlies with orders to shoot up the enemy, I would shoot too.

Maybe this is why there are so many incidents of American troops firing on friendly troops and civilians. It is one of the British complaints that being so trigger happy is alienating the host population from the occupation.

could be I don't know. based upon Crappy's stats with the US having the majority (I think it is like 75% of the troops) and haveing aboout 50% of the incidents then that means that 50% of the incidents more or less come from 25% of the other troops, so why is there no indignation about that? Or is it because it is an opportunity to bash Americans again?

I don't recall any American soldiers being killed by friendly fire.

(in reply to KenDckey)

Post #: 42

RE: Friendly fire in Afghanistan kills 1 Canadian, woun... - 9/5/2006 1:17:49 PM

KenDckey

Posts: 4121
Joined: 5/31/2006
Status: offline

Actually one of the local professional football players (who quit to join the military) here was killed by friendly fire. I don't know the stats Crappy is the one that looked it up.

(in reply to meatcleaver)

Post #: 43

RE: Friendly fire in Afghanistan kills 1 Canadian, woun... - 9/5/2006 1:25:58 PM

KenDckey

Posts: 4121
Joined: 5/31/2006
Status: offline

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/03/29/iraq.friendly.fire/index.html Here is one example from CNN

(in reply to KenDckey)

Post #: 44

RE: Friendly fire in Afghanistan kills 1 Canadian, woun... - 9/5/2006 2:18:43 PM

meatcleaver

Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/03/29/iraq.friendly.fire/index.html Here is one example from CNN

They were killed by fellow Americans and Iraqis are as far as I know always American led which only reinforces the complaint about Americans being trigger happy.

(in reply to KenDckey)

Post #: 45

RE: Friendly fire in Afghanistan kills 1 Canadian, woun... - 9/5/2006 3:16:02 PM

KenDckey

Posts: 4121
Joined: 5/31/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/03/29/iraq.friendly.fire/index.html Here is one example from CNN

They were killed by fellow Americans and Iraqis are as far as I know always American led which only reinforces the complaint about Americans being trigger happy.

Doesn't reinforce anything.   It only responds to your suggestion, based upon your memory, that Americans are only on the shooting end.

This one is about british on british friendly fire (does that prove that they are trigger happy).   I don't think so.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-03-25-two-british-soldiers-killed-friendly-fire_x.htm

It also appears that the US is one of the few countries that actually keeps statistics on friendly fire incidents.   I wonder, since I don't know, Are they covering up something?

(in reply to meatcleaver)

Post #: 46

RE: Friendly fire in Afghanistan kills 1 Canadian, woun... - 9/5/2006 3:48:43 PM

meatcleaver

Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline

Let me restate. The complaints have come from the British, Dutch and Italians and it is nothing to do with friendly fire in combat situations, they are understandable but in situations where there is absolutely no combat. ie. travelling in convoy. As far as I am aware, terrorists and insurgents don't travel in convoy in military vehicles.

(in reply to KenDckey)

Post #: 47

RE: Friendly fire in Afghanistan kills 1 Canadian, woun... - 9/5/2006 4:09:39 PM

KenDckey

Posts: 4121
Joined: 5/31/2006
Status: offline

Since I don't know the facts except as reported by a wounded British soldier I shall stand with my assumption that they for some reason did not have their IR devices being shown.

As for the Italian, it was reported that the itntel officer failed to follow the rules of engagement by attempting to drive through a checkpoint when motioned to stop on a road were car bombs are commonplace.

As for the bulgarian he also appears to have violated the rules of engagement in the way he approached a checkpoint.

Both the Italian Intel Officer and the Bulgarian soldier should have been trained on the rules of engagement. the Italian journalist should also have been briefed when she took the field.

In most countries, you don't try to run checkpoints. and you approach them with respect. I know I always did, even in countries where the checkpoint was considered a friendly because we were told that anyone who approaches after dark will be shot.

(in reply to meatcleaver)

Post #: 48

RE: Friendly fire in Afghanistan kills 1 Canadian, woun... - 9/5/2006 4:23:01 PM

CrappyDom

Posts: 1883
Joined: 4/11/2006
From: Sacramento
Status: offline

SirKenin,

I have yet to see an actual response from you that counters any of the facts I have posted. You have called my posts simple and stupid but since you have yet to be able to counter one....

As for the link to where I got the stats from I meant to post it, it is an intersting site. I will find it later and repost it.

(in reply to SirKenin)

Post #: 49

RE: Friendly fire in Afghanistan kills 1 Canadian, woun... - 9/5/2006 4:38:03 PM

CrappyDom

Posts: 1883
Joined: 4/11/2006
From: Sacramento
Status: offline

http://icasualties.org/oif/

(in reply to SirKenin)

Post #: 50

RE: Friendly fire in Afghanistan kills 1 Canadian, woun... - 9/5/2006 4:47:28 PM

KenDckey

Posts: 4121
Joined: 5/31/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: CrappyDom

http://icasualties.org/oif/

Hey Crappy I was looking at your point of reference. your non-combat related deaths include things like suicide, traffic falities, natural causes (I read one when I was going through the alphabet), etc. they don't have a stat on friendly fire. I think the military classifies them as combat related but keeps a seperate stat on it someplace. I do like this website though.

(in reply to CrappyDom)

Post #: 51

RE: Friendly fire in Afghanistan kills 1 Canadian, woun... - 9/5/2006 5:45:27 PM

MistressWolfen

Posts: 578
Joined: 6/20/2005
Status: offline

fast reply
Thank you to those that really tried to share some insight on this issue for me; reading through the posts have helped me understand the mechanics and perhaps identify some of the training problems related to this issue. I will seek stats as well as I couldn't find any valid ones either.

_____________________________

Quoth the raven

(in reply to KenDckey)

Post #: 52

RE: Friendly fire in Afghanistan kills 1 Canadian, woun... - 9/5/2006 7:13:29 PM

Dtesmoac

Posts: 565
Joined: 6/22/2006
Status: offline

Given that the US supplies much of the air cover support and also has vasly more troops involved in Iraq / Afghanstan doesn't the straight forward statistics indicate that you would expect more friendly fire incidents involving the US troops.

But black humour amongst some Brit friends of mine in the forces is that if the enemy don't get you then the yanks probably will - someone else may have the figs but wern't the highest cause of British casualties in the Gulf War due to American fire? .

Wonder how many times heavy support from US forces have saved other coalitin troops v's the number of friendly fire casualties?

(in reply to MistressWolfen)

Post #: 53

RE: Friendly fire in Afghanistan kills 1 Canadian, woun... - 9/5/2006 7:49:54 PM

MistressWolfen

Posts: 578
Joined: 6/20/2005
Status: offline

I am woefully ignorant of most things military so would not hazard a guess. I am sure some of the previous posters to this thread would have that information.

_____________________________

Quoth the raven

(in reply to Dtesmoac)

Post #: 54

RE: Friendly fire in Afghanistan kills 1 Canadian, woun... - 9/5/2006 8:20:00 PM

KenDckey

Posts: 4121
Joined: 5/31/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dtesmoac

Given that the US supplies much of the air cover support and also has vasly more troops involved in Iraq / Afghanstan doesn't the straight forward statistics indicate that you would expect more friendly fire incidents involving the US troops.

But black humour amongst some Brit friends of mine in the forces is that if the enemy don't get you then the yanks probably will - someone else may have the figs but wern't the highest cause of British casualties in the Gulf War due to American fire? .

Wonder how many times heavy support from US forces have saved other coalitin troops v's the number of friendly fire casualties?

I don't believe that is even possible to capture as a statistic. for example a roving patrol attacks an enemy on the move to attack an ally. but the roving patrol attacked them because it was the enemy and didn't know what the intentions of the enemy was. How the heck do you capture those types of stats? Was it direct or indirect fire that caused the save? what is the effect of taking out a bridge or command and control center or radio antenna?

I believe it is safe to say that everyone's fire helped someone else somewhere on the battlefield.

(in reply to Dtesmoac)

Post #: 55

RE: Friendly fire in Afghanistan kills 1 Canadian, woun... - 9/5/2006 8:39:22 PM

MistressWolfen

Posts: 578
Joined: 6/20/2005
Status: offline

Well everyone I have come back from a couple hours of research with enough reading to keep me busy for awhile. One of the sites I found that may interest those of you with a serious concern in this area;
http://www.cs.adfa.edu.au/research/vesl/Papers/teamPerfSimTecT04.pdf

The stats are not given per se but my reading seems to support what Ken has shared, and also addresses solutions to this issue. I am just reading a paper presented from New Zealand and if it seems relevant I will post the link.

*edited cause I wrote real bad and stuff

< Message edited by MistressWolfen -- 9/5/2006 8:50:37 PM >

_____________________________

Quoth the raven

(in reply to KenDckey)

Post #: 56

RE: Friendly fire in Afghanistan kills 1 Canadian, woun... - 9/5/2006 10:42:19 PM

CrappyDom

Posts: 1883
Joined: 4/11/2006
From: Sacramento
Status: offline

Go to http://icasualties.org/oif/Details.aspx

Then at the bottom find CAUSE
and select HOSTILE - FRIENDLY FIRE
Then click APPLY FILTER
and it will return the info on the freindly fire deaths.

(in reply to MistressWolfen)

Post #: 57

RE: Friendly fire in Afghanistan kills 1 Canadian, woun... - 9/6/2006 4:33:25 AM

KenDckey

Posts: 4121
Joined: 5/31/2006
Status: offline

When I was in Berlin (early 70's), we used regular radio checks to play play war games. 2 hrs a week for weeks. The players were usually sargeants and below.

When I was at Fort Hood TX in the late 70's we played games on the base sandtable. We picked teams, established recognizable armies and fought our battles. We had umpires, variables, logistics trains, everything found on the battlefield. These games were played by volunteers on weekends when the facility wasn't being used for military purposes. It allowed soldiers of all ranks (not just the officers) to gain insight into what it takes to win a battle.

Then in the 80's we played using computers on an even broader base - someties worldwide. these were sanctioned games.

The point I am making is that the military has been gaming since long before the typical use of computer games that we think of today. We had players doing things like grave registrations, running depots - all the aspects of logistics. We also had players commanding units setting strategy and tactics. Some of these games were multi-national (I have played them with Canadian, British and French soldiers). When I was in Berlin, we even tried to get some of the Russian soldiers to play with us (they were our friends because Berlin was in occupied Germany and didn't recognize NATO - it was all politics). Unfortunately the Russians wouldn't play but it would have made the games much more interesting.

(in reply to CrappyDom)

Post #: 58

RE: Friendly fire in Afghanistan kills 1 Canadian, woun... - 9/6/2006 5:01:21 AM

KenDckey

Posts: 4121
Joined: 5/31/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: CrappyDom

Go to http://icasualties.org/oif/Details.aspx

Then at the bottom find CAUSE
and select HOSTILE - FRIENDLY FIRE
Then click APPLY FILTER
and it will return the info on the freindly fire deaths.

19 total
   10 US
   1 Italian (civilian)
   1 Danish
   1 Bulgarian
   6 British

3 were Jet crashes
   2 British
   1 American

The 3 jet crashes could have been anything. the way they are counted is that the plane was on a combat patrol and crashed on either takeoff or landing (the usual case). the incident could have been caused by enemy fire, friendly fire, mechanical, pilot error, who knows.

the data also indicates that one person (US) died of a cluster bomb which is not a guided munition and designed to explode in mid air and spread out little bomblets all over the place. This is an anti-personnel weapon and could have been (we don't know) dropped danger close to get a unit out of trouble or to take out troop concentrations.

From news articles we know that 2 of the incidents (Italian and bulgarian) were for failing to follow the rules of engagement by those killed. (if we believe the news reports).

The statistics fail to mention the country of origin of the friendly fire.

So   how do we prevent them?   Well I don't know.   there is no perfect solution.

Are they 100% preventable?   I don't believe so.   We are dealing with a human factor here and humans are unreliable. Technology won't necessarily solve the problem either because our unreliable humans program it.

Are they unfortunate?   Absolutely

Should we continute to strive to prevnet them?   Absolutely

What can we, as we sit at our computers do to prevent them? Not much.

(in reply to CrappyDom)

Post #: 59

RE: Friendly fire in Afghanistan kills 1 Canadian, woun... - 9/6/2006 5:46:29 AM

philosophy

Posts: 5284
Joined: 2/15/2004
Status: offline

"My brother is a Marine serving in Iraq right now. How can we judge these men and women who live every day in fear of their lives."

....because they are acting in our name...therefore we have a duty to both know whats going on and to have an opinion on it. Furthermore, just being in harms way does not mean that rules of behaviour don't apply. If a soldier shoots a civilian for no good reason, or tortures a civilian, or makes a culpable error, they have to be held accountable.
i have heard it argued too often that soldiers should be allowed to get away with appalling errors of judgement just because they are soldiers. The same immunity does not apply to other professions, including professions where they get shot at.....to argue such a special case for the military is one of the steps leading to a military state........

(in reply to KenDckey)

Post #: 60

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Friendly fire in Afghanistan kills 1 Canadian, wounds more than 30

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Jump to:

New Messages	No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages	Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages	Locked w/o New Messages

Post New Thread

Reply to Message

Post New Poll

Submit Vote

Delete My Own Post

Delete My Own Thread

Rate Posts

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.094