Scan of Todays Sun - Friendly Fire Incident

crystaline · 7 Feb 2007 at 01:18

Just wondered if anyone would be able to scan in a copy of the front page of the Sun from today (6th)

[EDIT: ok, this is now yesterday, but I still would like this scan if at all possible!!It will be shown to a couple of hundred people at least]

or the parts of the paper about the cockpit video of the friendly fire incident : (This one: http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2007060133,00.html )

I would like to use it in a university presentation here about external perceptions of the US.

This incident is being barely covered here (no surpise) and I would like to share it.

Many thanks.

Nix · 7 Feb 2007 at 01:43

Hmm, just watching that video (contains swearing) and it really gives me some perspective on the whole situation.

The Sun seem to be beating the war-drum a little. IMO it seems as if the pilots aren't to blame, but the command (or at least their command's lack of information) is.

This to me just seems like a very unfortunate accident.

The pilots wanted to stop what they thought were enemies with rocket launchers from getting to a nearby settlement. They were also told by their command that there was no friendlies within the immediate area.

crystaline · 7 Feb 2007 at 01:48

It seems the controvery is about the fact that the US didn't want to release the tape to the court and that the family were told there was no tape.
There seem to have been a series of mistakes made here.

Whichever way you look at the Sun, the article was written in a particular style that goes exactly with what I'd like to talk about...

Nix · 7 Feb 2007 at 01:53

crystaline said:
It seems the controvery is about the fact that the US didn't want to release the tape to the court and that the family were told there was no tape.
There seem to have been a series of mistakes made here.

Whichever way you look at the Sun, the article was written in a particular style that goes exactly with what I'd like to talk about...

The article is written with the use of hyperbole and is trying to insight the mob mentality of lynching those responsible. Why? It sells papers.

The US are perfectly entitled to protect their servicemen's identity, but equally the information should be made available to the bereaved if not the public, just to ease the mourning process.

It wouldn't hurt for the US to hold it's hands up and say "Sorry, we made a mistake." but they're quite fond of digging their heels in the sand.

The question people could ask is why do they do this? Is it stubborn pride? Defensive of their own perceived international perception? Are they still scared of showing weakness (something which could be traced back to the cold-war era)?

^ Just some food for thought.

arfur · 7 Feb 2007 at 15:11

But at the end of the day the pilots didnt get permission (or from what I could hear) to open fire on the targets....

Nix · 7 Feb 2007 at 15:13

arfur said:
But at the end of the day the pilots didnt get permission (or from what I could hear) to open fire on the targets....

They were explicitly told by their command that there was no friendlies in the immediate area. They assumed what they saw was the enemy with rocket launchers and they wanted to stop them getting to the nearby settlement which could mean they could either attack the A10s or someone else.

dirtydog · 7 Feb 2007 at 15:15

Kudos to The Sun for bringing this issue to the fore, and making the contents of the cockpit video public. Someone has to, as our own government is too gutless.

Glaucus · 7 Feb 2007 at 15:16

arfur said:
But at the end of the day the pilots didnt get permission (or from what I could hear) to open fire on the targets....

surly they don't have to...
They asked whether any friendly where in the area and command came back saying no. Remember this was in the evasion part so I doubt the don't shoot until shot at policy was used as we where at war.

From the article I don't think the pilots where to blame. it was simply a lack of aproperate procedures or perhaps the correct procedures weren't used.

UKDTweak · 7 Feb 2007 at 15:20

I agree that the pilots were acting partly on bad info from their command, however, who in their right mind would honestly think an armed force would go to the trouble of painting their rocket launchers Orange !!! when the rest of the vehicle is in camo paint :confused:

Bumhucker · 7 Feb 2007 at 15:20

dirtydog said:
Kudos to The Sun for bringing this issue to the fore, and making the contents of the cockpit video public. Someone has to, as our own government is too gutless.

Extra kudos to the person who actually leaked the video. I bet the Sun were more than happy to slap their logo on the film and have it broadcast to millions.

arfur · 7 Feb 2007 at 15:26

Nix said:
They were explicitly told by their command that there was no friendlies in the immediate area. They assumed what they saw was the enemy with rocket launchers and they wanted to stop them getting to the nearby settlement which could mean they could either attack the A10s or someone else.

... but did they get permission.... no....

it doesnt matter if they were told there were no friendlies there or not they were not given permission to fire therefore the buck stops with them, if they had got it then it would have been the radio guy or some other commanders fault.

Rules are there for a reason, I'm not saying the info was bad and he did question it several times BUT he still fired.... end of...

dirtydog · 7 Feb 2007 at 15:28

Yep. If there was doubt then he should have held fire. That is the procedure. It isn't as if it was a split second decision. The only just outcome is for the pilots to go to prison I'm afraid. It won't bring back the dead soldier or heal the wounded soldiers' injuries but at least justice will be done.

It might even make Yanks think twice in future before pressing the button and sending Allies to their deaths.

Dj_Jestar · 7 Feb 2007 at 15:37

There was a readers-letter in todays (7th) Sun from an ex-serviceman, who rightly said:

"When I served, we were lucky to get 10 seconds to identify potential targets. These pilots had 5 to 6 minutes."

He's right.. I (as a cadet) spent some time with the Rapier Squadron (I forget the official title) and these guys have to pass a VERY rigourous aircraft recognition test before they are allowed anywhere near their weapons. (The Rapier anti-aircraft missiles, of course.) The same is also true for your regular pilots of the RAF (certainly aircraft recognition)

I can't imagine ground busting units are any different.

Glaucus · 7 Feb 2007 at 15:39

Dj_Jestar said:
There was a readers-letter in todays (7th) Sun from an ex-serviceman, who rightly said:

"When served, we were lucky to get 10 seconds to identify potential targets. These pilots had 5 to 6 minutes."

He's right.. I (as a cadet) spent some time with the Rapier Squadron (I forget the official title) and these guys have to pass a VERY rigourous aircraft recognition test before they are allowed anywhere near their weapons. (The Rapier anti-aircraft missiles, of course.) The same is also true for your regular pilots of the RAF (certainly aircraft recognition)

I can't imagine ground busting units are any different.

But thats a problem with the us forces as a whole and there lack of training shouldn't mean they are punished. Things should be learned and new procedures be bought into place.

benjo plz. · 7 Feb 2007 at 15:43

dirtydog said:
Yep. If there was doubt then he should have held fire. That is the procedure.The only just outcome is for the pilots to go to prison I'm afraid.

But there wasn't doubt. They were explicitly told that there were no friendlies in the area. How exactly can you send the pilots to prison? What you going to charge them with? manslaughter? It's not like they carried on after being told it was blue on blue. I think the main blame lies in the fact that they were not taught to identify British armour, which is retarded.

TheCrow · 7 Feb 2007 at 15:44

UKDTweak said:
I agree that the pilots were acting partly on bad info from their command, however, who in their right mind would honestly think an armed force would go to the trouble of painting their rocket launchers Orange !!! when the rest of the vehicle is in camo paint

i think they could well do that, is it really that much trouble after spending 1000's of the equipment, to try and save yourself and the equipment for the sake of a tin of paint?

Dj_Jestar · 7 Feb 2007 at 15:44

You're probably right, but that is maybe what the US Govt. are hiding. However I'm more inclined to believe they don't want to reveal what their A-10s are capable of, especially with regard to their electronic (HUD) gunsights etc.

EDIT: This was a reply to AcidHell2

Glaucus · 7 Feb 2007 at 15:48

Dj_Jestar said:
You're probably right, but that is maybe what the US Govt. are hiding. However I'm more inclined to believe they don't want to reveal what their A-10s are capable of, especially with regard to their electronic (HUD) gunsights etc.

EDIT: This was a reply to AcidHell2

That's why the video shouldn't get leaked, I hope the person who leaked it goes to jail if there is any classified material contained in it. Military videos should not be released without screening and/or censoring. Theres to much at risk, if the pilots get identified then there lifes are at risk from lynch mobs. Then you have all the technical data that can be gleamed from said videos.

sniffy · 7 Feb 2007 at 15:51

That video was crazy. I know it sounds stupid but it really does just look like a video game.

R.I.P to the soldier who lost his life.

robmiller · 7 Feb 2007 at 15:52

A tabloid has done something admirable, it's shocking me to my very core :eek:

They did it to sell more papers, sure, but still!