If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
What a pity...
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
Exactly what I foresaw might happen has done, and I am sorry for it.
Read here
Regrettably, it seems to be the politically appropriate course of action, and the courts will press on. Unfortunately, it is done at the cost of two brave men, who put their lives on the line in a sense of duty, and whose careers will now be sacrificed on the altar of international relations.
Enough should be enough. Their mistakes are theirs, and the guilt should be sufficient. The imposition by the legislature is expected, but I don't think it's right.
Read here
Regrettably, it seems to be the politically appropriate course of action, and the courts will press on. Unfortunately, it is done at the cost of two brave men, who put their lives on the line in a sense of duty, and whose careers will now be sacrificed on the altar of international relations.
Enough should be enough. Their mistakes are theirs, and the guilt should be sufficient. The imposition by the legislature is expected, but I don't think it's right.
0
Comments
They disregarded direct orders and used unnecessary force. They used "self defence" to get round having to wait for verification and in doing so killed 4 allied troops.
They deserve to be punished.
You can't accidentally disobey orders, and you can't accidentally disregard information concerning troop training that is going on in the area.
You can't accidentally ignore the infrared markers allied troops where on their heads, and you can't accidentally mistake ground fire, aimed at targets on the ground for being a threat.
They deserve their punishment, and its ok for you to say they have to live with their guilt, but at the end of the day living with guilt isn't a fair and just punishment. If it was our prisons would be empty apart from the idiots who say they don't feel guilty for what they have done.
They acted before the command came--they acted in ignorance. It was sloppy, and you can't afford to be sloppy in war. You can't afford to kill your friends as well as your enemies. They knowingly and deliberatly attacked troops without waiting to hear who those troops were.
David, I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one. You think those pilots don't deserve to be criminally charged? Tell that to the families of the four Canadians they killed. :mad:
"The defense department regrets to inform you that your sons are dead because [their friends] were stupid." ... to borrow and slightly alter a line from Top Gun. :rolleyes:
Exactley and so they should be punished.
Ok, first, they were in a fighter jet, and they Canadians were on the ground. Can't very well see that from thousands of feet in the sky now can you?
And ground fire? Sooo, I guess that means that all fighter pilots should be put out of commission cause they could misinterpret ANY ground fire they see? I'm still trying to find the sense in that comment. Accidently mistake ground fire...pretty damn hard to tell who is who on the ground when your up in the sky in a plane, isn't it? And I guess that means that recon planes shouldn't fire at any ground forces when they feel threatened because it could be friendly fire?
In that case, then you might as well just put the whole damn military out of service cause any one of us could mistake friendly fire for enemy fire. Your post made no sense whatsoever.
Point is, their command should have briefed them before they left, not after. They are both at fault. Especially their command.
Again, babbling about something you know nothing about.
to witness such pontification by them who have never been in combat, nor - likely - ever been fired upon in a civilian setting.
You - of course - are speaking from personal experience and expertise from flying exactly WHAT fighter plane in actual combat? After being fired upon by the enemy exactly how many times?
Although it might tax your comprehension levels past their max... real combat is actually somewhat different than your video games, or simulators. In real combat, men die.
There are incidents of friendly fire in war, just as there are incidents of collateral damage... deal with it, and get on with the task at hand. And - most certainly YES!!! - I would be saying the same thing if it had been Canadian fighter planes and US ground troops. Would it make me happy? Hell NO! Would I be clamoring for their imprisonment? Again... Hell NO!
What is next? Product liability litigation? "His Kevlar helmet did not stop the .50 cal BMG round, and he died as a result." "Sue the damned bastards that made the helmet!!! :mad: "
After that? Instant replays, and penalty kicks assessed by referees?
Until you have actually been in those pilot's position, all of your self-possessed posturing is from speculative ignorance.
Welcome to the land of the Keyboard Kommando. Here's your tab:
People get killed all the time by friendly fire during wars. Accidents happen. Sometimes someone misreads a map or don't get the information that they were supposed to get. During the Gulf War, some British armor entered a kill box and was destroyed. Soldiers were killed. Some American armor did the same thing. They too were killed. Soldiers died. It happens. This doesn't take away from the fact that several families now don't have a husband or father. However, if you're going to go to war, you may as well resign yourself to the fact that people are going to get killed. It's a sorry fact, but it's true. When people join the military, they join knowing they may meet the grim reaper. If they're lucky, they'll see him working for them. If not, they'll get to know him personally. You resign yourself to the fact you'll meet him sooner or later. If you're lucky, it'll be quick. If not, you'll suffer before you go. That's an option I'd rather not take. I'd rather get hit by an artillery round or a bomb than get a gut shot and watch myself bleed to death over hours. Believe me, quick is much better than slow. I've seen both. It ain't pretty!
ALLIED TROOPS WEAR INFRARED MARKERS ON THEIR HELMETS THAT ARE CLEARLY VISIBLE TO THE PILOT THAT IDENTIFY THEM AS ALLIED TROOPS.
To not notice at least one infrared marker is impossible. To ignore it is criminal and negligent.
And Jane, you say the pilots might not have been able to see them properly from thousands of feet in the air, in that case THEY SHOULD HAVE WAITED FOR AUTHORISATION TO FIRE.
You still insist upon speculation from your ignorance, as if you are the experienced expert upon the issue. Rather the definitive wanker, wouldn't you say?
Unless you were in the plane, you do not know what they saw, or did not see. Unless you have flown in comparable conditions, in a combat zone, you have not the basis to form a perspective to speak from.
But when has that ever stopped you from wanking away? :rolleyes:
One cannot conduct a war by committee, Whowhere. Decisions have to be made on the front lines, and quickly. There is no time for a full public enquiry before each bullet is fired.
Of course, I find this whole incident very regrettable. However, it does seem to me that your preferred solution would unacceptably hobble any military machine -- or perhaps I am reading too much into your comments?
Let me put it very simply. You don't know what you are talking about.
Disagree with Whowhere et al by all means - but quit insisting that no-one who disagrees with you can possibly be half-intelligent, especially if they haven't shot anyone.
Prove me wrong.
Thanatos, I have no idea about the combat situation, however simple laws of physics apply.
Allied pilots wear infrared goggles. Allied troops on the ground wear infrared strips on their helmets.
The pilot's goggles enable the pilot to see these strips, thus the pilot knows the people he is about to shoot at our friendly troops.
Besides, 2 seperate committees have found them guilty of criminal negligence, so you're hardly right anyway.
Only if
(a) there is line-of-sight -- clouds are not unknown phenomena in Afghanistan;
(b) the pilot happens to have the eyesight of a hawk -- or better. Tell me, could you spot a football from 500 feet? 250? 1000? Take into account that they were going at several hundred knots and what you make out to be a simple task suddenly becomes very bloody difficult.
Ah, so those committees must be right, yes? Tell me, does the fact the slavery was only outlawed in the USA in the 1860s, and that all previous legal efforts failed, mean that slavery was right in, say 1850?
Infrared goggles and strips are substantially brighter.
If he didn't have line of sight what led him to the conclusion that he was being fired upon.....?
By saying those committees could be mistaken, then suggesting slavery was right in 1850 is absurd and is akin to suggesting that the nuremburg trials could have been a farce as well.
*hears whooshing noise as the subject goes way round in wierd patterns....*
What the hell?
Slavery, Nuremberg?
It is, is it not, clear that facts can be drawn from this.
(1) Troops were killed by friendly fire.
(2) These troops were killed in an accidental manner. No one, I think, is suggesting that the fire was deliberate.
(3) We cannot estimate the conditions in the cockpit at the time that the weapons were released.
(4) We can, however, draw our own conclusions and comments.
(5) These men have made mistakes. Show me one shred of evidence, one inference, one suggestion, even, that it was deliberate.
(6) Their lives and careers are ruined by this event.
Now, let's review the opinion.
(1) They should be punished.
(2) They should be court martialed, but not further punished.
(3) Their trial is something like slavery or Nuremberg... (after Whowhere et al.) -what's that about?
Now, continue....
Soooo... now you presumed yourself competent to instruct said doctors as to the mechanics of performing said abortions? :rolleyes:
I don't think that Prufrock was saying that he should instruct doctors, but he might be able to offer an opinion in a debate. Even if you have technical knowledge on a subject, you can still be wrong or intepret it differently.
I'm afraid I've not read or followed the 'friendly fire story' so I will not offer an opinion, but if I don't need to have flown a plane to offer an opinion.
Opinions are like arseholes - everyone has one
Yeah RIGHT! :rolleyes: A two inch by three inch marker is going to be seen at 10,000 feet! Even it it was 2,000 feet, do you really think they're going to be seen while doing mach 1? You really need to get a reality perspective on what's going on.
All this is besides the point. The fact of the matter is the pilots were TOLD to wait for verification. They took matters into their own hands and are going to pay for doing so.
These infrared markers are placed on the soldiers so tanks and other soldiers can see them. The markers on the armor is quite a bit larger so aircraft can see them. Armor and other soldiers usually kill other soldiers. Aircraft usually kill tanks and other armor. Follow suit, doesn't it.
Jane, you recently sent someone one of these infrared markers. Care to post picture of one?
Prufrock and Whowhere have a commensurate "right" to instruct a surgeon upon a medical procedure as they have to instruct military personel as to how to go about their duties, and what or what not constitutes negligence, ignorance, culpability, etc.
Being inexperienced and ignorant, BOTH, it is only through their ARROGANCE that they prusume themselves competent to judge.
I HAVE been in combat, but in gound engagements. I HAVE been shot at, and twice wounded by small arms fire. I understand the dynamics of combat from personal experience, as do both Diesel and Greenhat. GIJane has been trained for combat, even tho being a female, it is unlikely that she will ever be engaged in it... HOWEVER, she comports herself in a respectful manner, and has a MUCH greater understanding of combat than either Prufrock or Whowhere...
Our statements have been to the effect that "shit happens" in combat, and although regretible, it is an inevitable component of combat.
What I have NOT stated is that I am experienced in combat in fighter planes, and therefore CANNOT make an informed decision, nor make a valid statement concerning those dynamics.
Yes, Prufrock and Whowhere may have the right to open their mouths, but they also have the right to be told they do not know what the fuck they are talking about, and told that by men who DO know what they are talking about.
{edited to add} btw 63DH8 has also been in combat.
Kinda comes down to a split between those speculating from ignorance, and those speaking from experience, doesn't it.
Imagine that... :rolleyes:
A court martial is no more than a fair trial. I found it to be more fair than a civilian trial. You don't have lawyers twisting and perverting what happened. The facts are presented and reasons for doing the offense is given. All this is taken into consideration without the emotional rhetoric. If you're found guilty, the punishment is in the book. It's given as such unless the board feels the person doesn't deserves it. If I know I'm right, I'll take a court martial over an artical 15 any-day-of-week!
Right.. Just a few questions. This is what I thought the point was--that they were told to wait and didn't bother to. Disobeying a direct order is punishable as well, is it not? Certainly not criminally, but within their ranks. That's beside the point, though. I'm assuming that the verification wouldn't have taken ridiculously long, like 5 days, etc. Can anyone give me an estimate as to how long they would have had to wait for verification?
They wouldn't be charged with murder, but manslaughter, as it was accidental, but negligent. Negligence can't be tolerated in the army, can it? I realise that you'd have to think fast and react fast, but that can't amount to negligence, can it?
And please don't attack me. These are honest questions.
Disobeying an order is punishable by jail time, taking away rank, taking money away, and/or getting kicked out of the military. If they are found guilty for these deaths, the accidental or negligent part will be determined by the court. The punishment will be given as what is determined. Also taken into account will be how great a threat they perceived the threat was. If they saw bullets flying straight at them, they may be let off. Like I said earlier, if you’ve seen night fire training, you would have seen the tracers go skyward. They could perceived this as getting shot at. However, what’s to prevent them from flying higher than the bullets can go while they wait for verification?
Indeed....and it would appear that some are more full of shit than others.
From your personal experience of being engaged, and firing upon the enemy... what would you believe the consequences would have been had you (personally) waited three, or ten, or twenty seconds for "authorization"?
I will agree that it is an issue to be aired within a court martial.
I think we will both agree that the total of the circumstances are hardly likely to have been aired in their entirety in the media...
Knowing that I have less than a total overview, I am reluctant to pass ANY judgement as to guilt, innocense, negligence, or cuplibility.
I wouldn't be here to reply to all these fine people.