RAF shot down in "friendly fire" incident.

news.bbc.co.uk...



[Edited on 23-3-2003 by John bull 1]

i wonder what's going on there .. lots of accidents .. perhaps sabotage ?

lots of dust, SNAFU and a huge and largely unoccupied regiment of hacks, I fear.

I dont know that its sabotage, althought that is not beyond the realm of possibility... More likely, it is a continuation of what happened during GW1.

In GW1, we found very quickly that our new tragetting technology, thermal, FLIR, night vision, ect, and the new extended range and extreme accuracy of our smart munitions, combined with the speed of our advances and the general adrenalin rush and lack of accurate knowledge of exactly where all our friendly forces were all added up to mistaken target identificaiton, and subsequent friendly fire accidents.

Kinda makes you wonder why they call it friendly fire... kills you just as dead as the enemy does, and probably a lot more efficiently...

Here's latest

news.bbc.co.uk...

This also happened in gulf war 1. 1991

This british governement will fall soon before saddam's.

War is hell.

Rascar, why would you even suggest sabotage? From all of your posts you are obviously very Anti-American but you're getting carried away. The US/UK have been very careful to this point to minimize civilian casualties, what makes you think that the US would shoot down a British plane intentionally?

During GW1, there was a story that a Navy bomber was returning from a mission, and for some unknown reason, locked its targetting radar onto a US Iowa Class battleship that was supporting the US forces with offshore artillery fire.

The pilot decided to disengage when the battleship locked onto it with its Phalanx 20mm Close In Weapons System.

I guess this particular Navy pilot for some reason believe the Iraqi navy had acquired an Iowa Class battleship from a surplus supplier....

This british governement will fall soon before saddam's Posted by Lies

Really? Please explain your reasoning...

For one thing, England could likely win this war by itself without the US. Second of all, it is high enough on the international food chain and economy that taking England down would cause serious problems. Also, it is the likely HQ for the cabal, and therefore NO ONE is going to do much damage to it.

Originally posted by Lies
This british governement will fall soon before saddam's.

Just another ridiculous statement!

Proud american, get some education. thank you. You'll be less proud after that.

What makes you think I'm uneducated? You have been posting one-line drivel all over this board, typical Frenchie.

Proud american, get some education. thank you. You'll be less proud after that. Posted by Rascar Capac

I dont see any fault in ProudA's posts, although I dont agree with him on all issues, I see no reason to insult him.

I wouldn't go as far as LIES on this but it will do Blair a lot of damage.He was asked specifically about this in Parliament after what happened last time in GW1.American forces have electronic recognition this is why we do not have US on US.We do not have Joined up Military.
After Blairs "Blood Price" comments every death will harm him.

i see PA calling me anti-american. THAT is an insult.

[Edited on 23-3-2003 by Rascar Capac]

i see PA calling me anti-american. THAT is an insult Posted by Rascar Capac

I would agree with him on that...

Things like this don't go down well, it happend before and now blair will have more than shock and awr to to deal with.

We have to support our troops, however the media doesnt' help.

If the media was around in the 30s then britain, america & germany would all but up for war crimes against humanity.

"evidence to suspect" is the clearest I've been able to glean: the helicopter accidents ( "collisions" apparently and therefore not "friendly fire" or "blue on blue": the current phrase, it seems) were reported pretty quickly.
Most likely an example of an unavoidable and tragic facet of modern warfare; although I'm always a little suspicious myself that the modern public has been pretty well conditioned to f-f ,and a military seeking to minimise the capacity of the enemy might be tempted to attribute something to f-f, rather than to the enemy.. Much egg on faces when the Serbs got the stealth plane, you'll recall.

Can I just ask, if the Blair Government falls, who exactly will replace him hmm? At the moment, there is no party of sufficient strength to replace Labour. Perhaps Tony himself will be removed as the leader of the party, but I doubt that Labour will be unelected.

Deimos

The Labour party will not "fall". It may be that they are returned to government with a reduced majority, although this will probably be down to cack handed domestic policies than the war. Mainly because most of those agin it will not vote lib dem, who were the only ones to oppose it in any way.

Tony Blair is likely to be afforded the chance to step down gracefully and may try to hand over to Gordon Brown, who seems to be the most likely and strongest to take over but you never know in the current climate.