Why did the Americans try to cover it up? Should this airman be charged with murder? Or was it just American incompetance again? Why are the Americans scared to admit their incompetance?
2007-02-07 01:40:37 · 35 answers · asked by Kali 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
Well it's pretty overwhelming! The Yank were guilty of incompetance. Thank you to all of our American Allies who showed their true colours and historical inaccuraces...Good bless you all...
2007-02-08 03:27:20 · update #1
When you live in perpetual fear of being sued by anyone and everyone around you, as Americans do, then to apologise is tantamount to admitting guilt.
The fact is that there was a tragic mistake, which not only injured British troops but killed LCPL Matty Hull, leaving his family devastated and asking questions to which they were denied the answers.
The pilot in question should not be vilified. He has to live with his guilt-and I have no doubt that any investigation or court marshall at this juncture would be far more for political advantage than a genuine search for the truth and justice. There has to be a high level enquiry into why the video was not released officially for LCPL Hull's inquest though-his family deserved, and still deserve, to be treated with more respect than that.
As regards the somewhat ignorant comments harking back to the Falklands, WW2 and Iraq, well, some of you quite clearly need to start reading the broadsheets instead of the Beano.
I'm not sure how pointing out that Britain has been repaying a financial debt to the US since they belatedly decided to join the Allied stance in WW2 helps show America in a positive light(although admittedly history may have been different without them). There were, regardless of whether the US likes it or not, more casualties caused by them to British troops in Iraq due to friendly fire than by the Iraqi army and as regards the Falklands-your senior ranking army officials publicly admitted that their forces couldn't have done what our guys did-yomping cross country for days and engaging the enemy hand to hand.
Addressing all those who are still in doubt-the British troops on the ground were on the correct frequency screaming that the attack was a blue on blue and to disengage-unfortunately the pilots weren't listening to their comms as protocol would dictate, and if in doubt as to your target how about qualifying it with a grid reference or two? Especially when you've already questioned yourself as regards the orange markers-as they quite clearly did on the 5 minute tape that has been shown here. Oh, and while we're on the subject the electronic markers you refer to are not infallible either-faults on a fighter led to a fatal blue on blue in recent years.
The sad fact of the matter is that regardless of the hoo-ha which is ensuing internationally now, a young British LCPL is dead at the hands of his allies.
Were the facts surrounding his death and a sincere apology for his family really too much to ask?
2007-02-07 02:53:21 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
Perhaps he has been brought to justice under the US system. He may have been judged _and cleared_.
It seems the airman was a victim of bad information.
maybe someone was at fault, maybe - if you want to pursue it all the way down the line - maybe it was someone on the british side who didnt relay correct information
But is was a battlefield and bad stuff happens on battlefields
I am more concerned that the US tried to cover up the evidence of something which shows them in a bad light. The 'special relationship' seems to be very one-sided, these days.
Johnny 2 times is a typical armchair warrior - a big mouth fool who tries to cover his own impotence by quoting his nations past glories.... any brave warrior from WW2 - either Brit or yank - would be spinning in his grave if they could hear his redneck rants, running down their comrades-in-arms.
2007-02-07 01:59:09 · answer #2 · answered by SeabourneFerriesLtd 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
they have much 2 hide.
where there's 1 friendly fire incident there r others.
the iraq war has been a failure 4 all involved, compared 2 the gains 4 the oil industry, GW & halliburton.
americans have dragged this particular inquest out 4 long enough.
i hear the coroner has been told his contract will not b renewed this April.
why, did he touch a US nerve?
yes the pilots should face some sort of discipline, probably should have 3 years ago 2 let the americans know, that these pilots must double check b4 they strafe a target.
i saw a video some time ago
of a UK pilot, landing 2 ask an american ground-2-air-missile unit,
" wot the fcuk do u think u're doing, i'm 1 of the good guys " !
we all know yanks r sometimes a bit 2 over-confident when it comes 2 targeting the bad guy & the good guy, shame just a bit of collateral damage.
it's just a sound-bite, means nothing 2 the innocent that they died along with the bad guy!
can some1 prove 2 me
HOW THE US helped in the Falklands?
i must have missed that.
AND 4 THE LAST TIME.
AMERICA ONLY JOINED IN WITH WWII FOLLOWING A ROOSEVELT ARRANGED & SUPPOSEDLY WITHOUT WARNING, ATTACK ON PEARL HARBOUR,
GET THE YANKS ONSIDE B4 THE RACE 4 SCIENTISTS IN BERLIN!
2 GAIN, GAIN & GAIN AGAIN,
NAZI SCIENTISTS PROTECTED FROM JUSTICE 2 GET THE US 2 THE MOON.
& THEY LIED ABOUT THAT.
IT WAS A HOAX.
not long now.
the information regarding the 1969 moon landing will b revealed 2 b yet another hollywood release.
2007-02-07 02:01:50 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 3⤋
The pilot was given the go ahead by his ground controller thus he himself was cleared of wrong doing. However the ground controller should be busted. It should be noted that this happened over three years ago I am sure there have been major improvements in communications between the various armies troops since then. This is the only way to slow down friendly fire incidents. This is not to say the incidents will stop not likely accidents and human error are inevitable but we can make it a rare occasion.
2007-02-07 04:26:50 · answer #4 · answered by brian L 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
This latest inquest is not the first to come against the American idea of military justice. In the first Gulf War the highest amount of British casualties was caused in exactly the same kind of incident. Even though the vehicles had large union jacks painted on them and were in a zone that had been identified, the idiots in the tank busters opened fire. They were found guilty of causing an unlawful death and the coroner asked that they be brought to trial. The Americans refused. So there you have it. It isn't just the Americans it is our own MOD as well. A double whammy of betrayal! The American military attitude is how dare you question us! The killing of Terry Lloyd is another case where they will not face their responsibilities it is as if peoples lives have no value. I believe that this man should be brought to trial and should be made to face what he has done. As should those from the first war.
2007-02-07 02:01:35 · answer #5 · answered by Grannygrump 3 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Many British infantrymen say their greatest worry is American "pleasant" fireplace. the united kingdom could no longer connect any extra American wars without finished UN backing. through the way many excellent element political commentators say the Iraq conflict develop right into a conflict for the probability-free practices of Israel see the hyperlinks below.
2016-11-25 23:25:06 · answer #6 · answered by withy 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Do people realise 'it was an accident' isn't a defence in court. At best that brings it down to manslaughter. If you run someone over because you weren't watching the road, that you didn't mean to isn't a good defence.
It was negligent and it was idiocy and the bugger should pay for taking a life, as per law.
2007-02-09 10:57:55 · answer #7 · answered by AndyB 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Americans are reckless and gunghoe, thats not the definition of BRAVERY by the way boys ! It's the same mentality as the pric k that brings a knife to a fist fight ! It amounts either way to a psyche that no other Nation is stupid enough to hold. How is it that their R & D can be so advanced yet they have no common sense ? The Brits have always been the most disciplined of all the allied armed forces ! hence almost zero (in comparison) "friendly" mistakes ! It's their reckless cowboy US nature and generations of brain washing back home !
2007-02-07 02:16:36 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 2⤋
It was incompetance. That idiot POPOV36 keeps on saying that the orange panels are rockets. What stupidity!
He must be tried and charged with "failure to perform." He must go to jail. It is long due.
While others say that the Intelligence people should be charged of not warning of British armor in the area, then the responsibility comes to the pilots.
If I was on that seat, I will make sure the enemy below is really my enemy before I fire.
2007-02-07 02:48:23 · answer #9 · answered by ? 5 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Hi Kali,
I totally agree.
So called "freindly fire" is unforgivable.
Sure, US Military will be forgiven for a mistake.
It is nonesense as we Brits know sense.
Bless them for operating in dodgy situations, but if you make a dramatic c*ck - up, then I feel that you are personally liable.
Especially if it results in loss of life. No immunity.
Anyway, are they not trained enough ?
We Brits have a less relaxed attitude when it comes to using the mini-gun, or the stingers, or the big things, when it comes to flying around with all this stuff.
The Americans, bless them, seem to just press buttons willy - nilly. I do not approve, generally.
Maybe I am a whinger, but there you go !
Bob.
2007-02-07 02:05:05 · answer #10 · answered by Bob the Boat 6 · 3⤊ 2⤋