Afghanistan 'friendly fire ' may have killed soldier

Know why the US has killed a few of its allies in Afghanistan?

Because there's the NATO campaign, and a separate US campaign. The American-only force are the same retards who carried out air strikes on Canadian troops. It's probably the same retards who shot the UK soldier as well.

I remember a case in Iraq where a UK vehicle taped their flag to the roof to avoid American air strikes. They were still targeted however.

reply to post by woogleuk


they have there own agenda,, doesn't help ranting about it, because you are still in your house screaming right.

reply to post by Clisen33


My problem is with the US combat efficiency, and it's not about them killing just British troops (although i admit to it angering me the most), its about them killing any allied troop, their own included, and there are other attrocities commited by a few of them.

I have said as well I know its not just the US that do it (friendly fire), they just seem to do it far too often.

I will also again say, this is not a US bashing thread, I have lots of US friends who are decent people, and where they come from there are more.

I'm sure 95% of the US armed forces are decent, hard working and commited soldiers, but it still doesn't excuse the amount of friendly deaths caused.

What I'm asking is, what are they doing wrong? where does the problem lie? What, if anything, is being done to rectify the situation?

I think the main problem lies with inexperience and mis-communication, but thats my opinion.

reply to post by MrAnnunaki


This is the only forum I am a member of, that I want to be a member of, and I have to have somewhere to rant, lol, and lets face it, it's definatley 9/10 rantable.

Mistakes happen, but some are more understandable and forgivable than others.

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
I remember a case in Iraq where a UK vehicle taped their flag to the roof to avoid American air strikes. They were still targeted however.

That reminds me of:

One night in October 2006 a British patrol, festooned with the blue light sticks, agreed on as a sign to identify themselves as friendly, reported they had been shot at by US troops who had no night vision goggles and had been listening to their iPods.

www.guardian.co.uk...

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
Know why the US has killed a few of its allies in Afghanistan?

Because there's the NATO campaign, and a separate US campaign. The American-only force are the same retards who carried out air strikes on Canadian troops. It's probably the same retards who shot the UK soldier as well.

Retards, huh? And care to share with us your vast military experience that you based this comment on?

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
I remember a case in Iraq where a UK vehicle taped their flag to the roof to avoid American air strikes. They were still targeted however.

OK, High Speed, got a few questions for you.

This UK troop taped a flag to the roof of the vehicle. Was this the agreed upon signal for friendly ground troops? Was this flag actually obsuring the proper air-to-ground signal?

If you actually had an experience with Close Air Support, you'd have know a few things before you wrote your post. If the signal isn't in the oplan for that day, it's ignored. I don't care if it's a giant neon sign that says, "Don't shoot, we're the good guys". If it's not the proper signal for the day, it's not going to help, and can possibly hurt.

I think there are several reasons why someone would come to such conclusions...

Obviously, the US military has dedicated far more manpower to the wars in Kuwait, Iraq, Afghanistan. It's only natural we would commit the most mistakes. It happens, especially in this day and age of precision aistrikes.

Efficiency? Please....the US is currently rewriting the book on modern warfare. It's experience and efficiency cannot seriously be questioned.

I hear the term 'trigger happy' and I can't help but laugh. Do you, sir, know the Rules of Engagement for US troops currently fighting in Afghanistan? The restraints on the military is nearly criminal.
It's also worth noting recent British withdrawals (some insisting not failure) from Afghanistan. Coupled with the withdrawal negotiated with insurgents in Basra, I wouldn't say current UK strategies are even close to being as successful.

Originally posted by jerico65

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
Know why the US has killed a few of its allies in Afghanistan?

Because there's the NATO campaign, and a separate US campaign. The American-only force are the same retards who carried out air strikes on Canadian troops. It's probably the same retards who shot the UK soldier as well.

Retards, huh? And care to share with us your vast military experience that you based this comment on?

No, I don't really feel like sharing my vast military experiences with strangers on the internet, especially those with the word "jerico" in their name (Could be a Mossad sympathizer, afterall ).

However common sense dictates that it is kind've ridiculous for two separate missions to be conducted in Afghanistan. There is no direct communication between NATO troops and separate American forces (usually in the form of aircraft, special forces, or armored cav) because the American insist on having their own separate contingent to carry out shady operations. Since they so kindly coerced us to fight for them in Afghanistan, the least they could do is fight alongside us, and not from the sidelines which leads to them sometimes hitting us.

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
No, I don't really feel like sharing my vast military experiences with strangers on the internet, especially those with the word "jerico" in their name (Could be a Mossad sympathizer, afterall .)

That speaks volumes. Say no more.

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
However common sense dictates that it is kind've ridiculous for two separate missions to be conducted in Afghanistan. There is no direct communication between NATO troops and separate American forces (usually in the form of aircraft, special forces, or armored cav) because the American insist on having their own separate contingent to carry out shady operations.

Shady operations? Nope, the US has seen what happens when our troops are put under the command of foreign governments.

You hit the nail on the head, tho; I said it before. It communications that are the problem. Did the Brit call for CAS correctly according to US procedures? Did he mark his position correctly? Was he even where he said he was goign to be when the strike arrived? That's what the investigation will find out.

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
Since they so kindly coerced us to fight for them in Afghanistan, the least they could do is fight alongside us, and not from the sidelines which leads to them sometimes hitting us.

Coerced? Well, if Canada feels that way, they can always leave NATO, since that's what roped them into fighting there, anyway.

Fighting from the sidelines? Sorry, US forces are leading the way. People here scream, "trigger happy Americans" because our forces are trained to be aggressive.

Originally posted by Gainsayer
Efficiency? Please....the US is currently rewriting the book on modern warfare. It's experience and efficiency cannot seriously be questioned.

You killed a woman hostage you were trying to free with a hand grenade.
Arrogant morons.

It's unfortunate for the British soldier. My heart goes out to him and his family. It really sucks that anyone needs to be over their fighting this war as it is. Mistakes happen on all sides. Thats war and its unfortunate that it comes with this kind of price. Casualties of war. Accidents like this can be avoided from any side. We can go on all day posting friendly fire accidents back and forth. What does that accomplish besides adding more fuel to the fire? I wish no one had to be there. I wish the world could be a safe and friendly place that we can feel good about raising our children. But it's not like that is it? No it's not. It's also unfortunate that we cannot control our own Governments. I'm sure if we could, the world would be a much better and safer place to live.
I am sorry for your comrade falling due to friendly fire Brits. If i had the power to take back or change these kind of incidents, i wouldn't think twice about doing so.

Originally posted by jerico65
Fighting from the sidelines? Sorry, US forces are leading the way. People here scream, "trigger happy Americans" because our forces are trained to be aggressive.

Aggressive = uneducated and ill-informed

If American soldiers were up to date on the reality of the situation, they would at least be negotiating with the Taliban instead of attacking them blindly.

Firstly, my thoughts are with the soldier who lost his life and the others that were injured (probably lost limbs in the attack). Modern warfare can, at times, be more confusing than that conducted many years ago. Todays modern theatre of battle is far more dynamic and it can be hard to keep 100% track on small numbers of troops on the ground, short of chipping every soldier. Secondly, in this conflict, the Allied troops are engaging the enemy at very close range. This in itself causes major problems for ground support pilots.

I am not condoning the fact the friendly fire took place. I am try to point out that there is always a possiblity of blue-on-blue. Why is it the Americans again? Why? Because the vast majority of ground support aircraft in that theatre happen to be American. Simple case of numbers.

I am sure that the pilots are feeling sick to the bottom of their stomachs right now.

reply to post by TheLoneArcher


I'm sure they are, and I feel for them, i really do, but why did they fire in the first place....lack of communication from ground stations? or bollocks, it could be the enemy, lets fire now and sort out the mess later.

Yes, "friendly fire" is the worst thing to die from because it is the last thing you expect.

That poor guy was a compatriot of mine, a kiwi, who had gone abroad to seek adventure. About 7% of the Brit troops are kiwis.

His father was just on the news and he was pragmatic, though grieving of course. He said that these young guys who join the forces want to see action - true - and often at great cost (the last bit is my comment).

Also just on the news was another of our kiwis in the Brit force in Afghanistan being decorated by the queen for picking up a grenade from in front of his comrades and throwing it away 1 second before it exploded.

Oh my god, I wonder about these young guys - I guess they would rather do anything than be bored and good luck to them.

reply to post by woogleuk


Humm, I think that, if they called for an airstrike, they were under a lot of pressure and probably in a close combat situation. I do not know what weapons were deployed. They still may have hit the intended target and the friendlies at the same time.

Additionally, if it was a strafing run, both units could easliy be hit as they are unguided.

Originally posted by allthegoodusernamestaken

Originally posted by Gainsayer
Efficiency? Please....the US is currently rewriting the book on modern warfare. It's experience and efficiency cannot seriously be questioned.

You killed a woman hostage you were trying to free with a hand grenade.
Arrogant morons.

Got the whole story on that, or just chiming in with some BS troll comment?

Arrogant? Yeah, if you were me, you'd be arrogant, too.

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
Aggressive = uneducated and ill-informed

Wrong. Try again. Never have been in combat, have you?

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
If American soldiers were up to date on the reality of the situation, they would at least be negotiating with the Taliban instead of attacking them blindly.

Neotiating? That has to be the funniest thing I've read all day! Thanks for putting a smile on my face.

I bet you think we should be inviting the Taliban in for lunch and Dove bars for dessert, right?

Please, Ladies and Gentlemen, if it was a blue-on-blue incident, I am damned sure it was not intentional. The fog of war causes so many unfortunate incidents. All armed forces, thoughout the world, have instigated blue-on-blue. True, the majority of them these days are US, but look at the number of personnel and equipment the US have deployed compaired to other nations. Just by the law of average, the higher number of blue-on-blue would have to be US.

These guys do not go out of thier way to do it. Yes, US troops tend to be a bit more Gung Ho than us Brits. I have fought alongside them and I see it. It is just the way they are, they do not go out of their way to shoot up allies.

I really feel for the victims and the pilots on this. If I were in their shoes I would feel like utter sh1t and I am sure they do right now.

reply to post by jerico65


That is a well known, recent story, US troops threw a grenade into the room when the hostage was sat there, she was killed. Yet another notch on the post of incompetency.