What is 'friendly fire'? If one is killed by 'friendly fire' is one smiling as one dies?

Question

Was this contradictory term 'invented' by the US to replace 'inept and bungling'?
If one is killed by 'friendly fire' is one smiling as one dies?
No wonder no nation wants to go to war as allies of the US.

Answer 1

Friendly Fire is, what killed more soldiers In Desert Storm and during the first 3 weeks of Iraq 2. Friendly Fire is created, when a trigger happy killer (red neck), not finding a real enemy, shots anyway.

Answer 2

It's called a euphemism. That means a kindlier, gentler word for something awful. Example: Cemetery instead of Graveyard. And no, the US didn't "invent" it. It's been around for centuries. However, we're pretty much the only country that "reports" it when it happens instead of covering it up and lying about it.

These things happen in wars because War is an obscenity and there are too many things that can go wrong and do go wrong--like accidentally firing on your own troops because you didn't know they were there.

As for "No nation wants to go to war as allies of the US," that's crap and you know it. This country saved the free world in WWII. Ask the people of Albania, who were saved from genocide by President Clinton, if they want to be our allies.

But of course, that's not what you're upset about. You're upset because, during war, awful things happen. Nothing makes sense. Welcome to the world.

We will only be a "civilized" people when we wipe war from the face of the earth. I'm sorry to say that's a long way off.

If you have been hurt personally by "friendly fire," my heart is with you. There is nothing I can say to make anything better. But there is nothing about it particular to the USA..

It's the world that needs to be healed.

Answer 3

Friendly fire is very common in war yet nobody talks about it. In a battle if forces from opposing sides get mixed up its hard to tell whos who. So you accidently shoot each other. Its very common. In every battle thousands kill each other on the same side but its never reported because people will never admit to it because they feel bad about it. Its not inept and bungling you just cant see if a guy is friendly or not. Alot of armchair quarterbacks talking about war would poop their pants and shoot the first thing that moved if they ever actually went to battle.

Answer 4

Taken directly from Wikipedia:

"Some prefer the term fratricide over friendly fire, because they deem the latter to be an unfitting euphemism exemplified by the aphorism "there's nothing friendly about getting shot by your own side."[1] However, the origin and purpose of the term is as a simple distinction to enemy fire. Both terms serve only to identify the source of an attack as coming from enemy (hostile) or friendly forces and not the nature of an attack."

No nation wants to go to war as allies of the U.S. currently because of the nature of the war itself, not because of the U.S. army's outdated euphemisms. There is no reason to publicly attack the armed forces because you are frustrated by its actions. It's akin to spitting on Vietnam veterens and calling them babykillers, in that it is unnecessarily derogatory and does more harm than good.

Answer 5

Victoria and Le Ann have good answers. Friendly fire is being killed or wounded by one's own troops or allies compared with enemy fire.
U.S. troops have a reputation of inflicting 'Friendly fire' on their own troops or allies. On ARVN, Australian (both land troops and two Australian frigates) and Thai forces as well as their own troops in Vietnam -- On Cambodian Republican troops during the Vietnam War in Cambodia 1970-1975 (I was bombed by US planes in Cambodia) -- On British forces during "Gulf War-1" etc.

Answer 6

Friendly fire.
A term used to describe the death or wounding of a soldier accidentally shot by his own comrades.
Not very good fodder for satire.

Answer 7

Yet another anti-American liberal with nothing better to do.

Answer 8

very tasteless indeed.