2007-07-13 18:50:46 · 16 answers · asked by gerlad m 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
Especially if it involves one of your loved ones. How about, murdered by stupidity, or killed by US error, or I was only following orders from the dumb commanders.
2007-07-13 19:09:52 · answer #1 · answered by lcmcpa 7 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Okay, I have to respond to this. It may seem like an oxymoron to you, but it's a reality of the battlefield, and it is taken VERY seriously by everyone involved. It is appalling to those that it happens to and those that cause it.
War is HELL.
Do you know how many people were killed by friendly fire in WWII? Nobody does. Nobody ever will. By percentage, it had to be a lot higher than today.
At least today, they are willing to admit it or come out with some kind of figures.
Quite frankly, they have the best training and the best equipment and the best communication system in the history of warfare, primarily for the purpose of not killing each other and making sure they only attack their targets. The only thing they can't get rid of is a little bit of human error.
And there is a "constant improvement" aspect to the military today. They keep reviewing how a "friendly fire" incident happened and keep looking at ways to improve on that. They could just act like it never happens, but that is not in their best interest.
So... in my book a casualty is a casualty. What do you think it should be called? At least they are letting you know about it.
2007-07-13 19:10:42 · answer #2 · answered by Chef 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Why are you appalled. Friendly fire is an unfortunate fact of war. It is obviously not something that is done on purpose. It is not an immoral act but an accident.
The US military has worked very hard on reducing friendly fire accidents. They are reduced with each conflict.
It is ludicrous to expect perfection from any military under the fog of war.
2007-07-13 19:10:19 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
One of Murphy's laws of land warfare is:
Friendly fire isn't.
As far as the concept of fratricide being appalling, no. It is unfortunate and tragic that it happens; but, during war, mistakes will be made. Obviously, you've never been in the military, much less been in a war zone.
2007-07-13 18:59:34 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
Friendly fire means that someone has been killed by their allies on mistake. So it's not a oxymoron.
2007-07-13 18:53:54 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Can you think of a better term for Friendly Fire?
It's pretty simple. Friendly (Allies) Fire (Weapons).
I think its pretty simple, and easily understood.
Maybe you should go giggle at some other things like "JUMBO SHRIMP, or MICROSOFT WORKS" and quit wasting our time.
2007-07-13 19:00:24 · answer #6 · answered by Gump023 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Murphy's Laws of Combat include:
"Friendly fire isn't"
I'm retired military. I can assure you of two things.
1. Friendly fire incidents do occur.
2. We don't like it...
2007-07-13 19:00:01 · answer #7 · answered by gimpalomg 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋
It is a hazard of war. Always has been. Always will be. It's nowhere near as appalling as sending young lives into a war that never should have happened. There is nothing friendly about that.
2007-07-13 18:57:42 · answer #8 · answered by Toodeemo 7 · 2⤊ 3⤋
The correct term is "fratricide"
"friendly fire" is just a colloquailism repeated by the clueless media reporters
2007-07-13 19:19:08 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
Look it up... "Killed by Friendly Fire" is a term used when a servicemember is accidentally killed by another servicemember.
Is it coincidence that your political party is represented by a jackass??? O_o
2007-07-13 18:53:22 · answer #10 · answered by Little Tiger 2 · 1⤊ 2⤋