IslamicBoard
Thread: Friendly fire' killing unlawful
British Wholesales - Certified Wholesale Linen & Towels | Halal Food Gastronomy | PHP 8.4 patch for vBulletin 4.2.5

vpb

IB Expert
Messages
1,943
Reaction score
189
Gender
Male
Religion
Islam
Friendly fire' killing unlawful
Matty Hull
Four other soldiers were injured in the attack near Basra
The death of a UK soldier when a US pilot fired on his convoy in Iraq was unlawful, a coroner has ruled.

The "friendly fire" incident near Basra in March 2003 which killed Lance Corporal Matty Hull, 25, amounted to a criminal act, Andrew Walker said.

Video footage from the cockpit of the US A-10 "tankbuster" plane was shown to his family during the inquest, but was not shown at the Oxford inquest.

The coroner said the death was "entirely avoidable" and L/Cpl Hull's

widow Susan said he had recorded the "right" verdict.

He said: "I believe that the full facts have not yet come to light."

No American witnesses gave evidence at the inquest, despite Mr Walker's requests to them to co-operate more fully with his investigation.

He said the US pilots should have flown lower to confirm identities before opening fire.

"I don't think this was a case of honest mistake," he said.

Recording a narrative verdict, Mr Walker, Oxfordshire assistant deputy coroner, added: "The attack on the convoy amounted to an assault.

"It was unlawful because there was no lawful reason for it and in that respect it was criminal."

The Ministry of Defence had refused to let the tape be shown, but changed its mind after the footage was leaked to the Sun newspaper.


How the attack on Matty Hull's convoy happened

How pilots fired on 'friendlies'
'Friendly fire transcript'

The deputy coroner ruled it could be seen by the Hull family, who could then ask questions, but it could not be shown in open court.

The inquest heard from another British soldier, Corporal of Horse Stuart Matthews, who said he believed the incident would not have happened if American troops had as strict rules as the British on opening fire.

'Lightly armoured'

L/Cpl Hull, who was from the Household Cavalry, died from multiple injuries inside his blazing Scimitar tank despite efforts by colleagues to save him.

Four other soldiers travelling in the convoy of light armoured vehicles were also injured in the incident on 28 March 2003 near Basra.


Still of 'friendly fire' cockpit footage

The cockpit video

L/Cpl Hull's widow Susan had said she wanted the coroner to record a verdict of unlawful killing "only if that's the right verdict".

The Hull family believes key information was blacked out of a US Friendly Fire Investigation Board Report given to the coroner investigating his death.

And Susan Hull directly appealed US President George W Bush to give the coroner the information.

Deputy chief of mission at the US embassy in London, David Johnson, said investigations into such incidents were "extremely thorough".

He added that if anyone had been to blame for the incident, "that culpability would have been pursued".
Click to expand...
Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6449227.stm

they also showed on news, that these american soldiers were flying and they saw some tanks, and they thought these tanks are suspicious since they are very far from the zone they thought they should be, so without asking any permission to fire from the commander, they started firing and then while they were firing on these tanks from the plane, the received a message to stop the attack since there were british soldiers on those tanks. So one of them got killed and many others injured.


Subhanallah..
 
Friendly fire incidents are terrible for both parties, but obviously more so to those being shot at. I'm not sure what this is suggesting, but I gathered someone is trying to suggest the American pilot intentionally fired on a friendly target. I find that very hard to believe, as pilots must follow certain regulations and procedures before opening fire on an unknown target. I would say this pilot was given incorrect information and was given the green light to open fire on the targets. I would imagine the poor individual back at HQ who gave the green light is feeling pretty terrible at this moment too.

If they jumped the gun, then that is something they will have to live with for the rest of their lives.
 
Last edited:
It's nothing new. The U.S troops have a habit in doing this. It was an often occurrence during the Gulf War.

These are the pilots errors;

ERROR ONE came when they asked the Forward Air Controller, call sign Manila Hotel, if friendly forces were around the Iraqi vehicles — not to the west. In ERROR TWO neither pilot gave the precise grid references for the Household Cavalry patrol to double check its identity.

ERROR THREE saw them convince themselves the identification panels were really orange rocket launchers.

In ERROR FOUR POPOV36 decides to attack, saying he is “rolling in” — without permission from the Forward Air Controller. POPOV35 asks for artillery to fire a marker round into the target area to clear up confusion.
But ERROR FIVE came when POPOV36 attacked without waiting for it. In ERROR SIX POPOV36 strafes the column for a second time but still doubts its identity.


More info including the FULL footage video on here http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2007060133,00.html
 
apparently alcoholism is widespread among the soldiers, as is mental illness. this could explain a lot of these "friendly fire" incidents.
 
american soldiers during vietnam war they used to get high.
 
It happens alot in the US armed forces. They should adopt vehicle recognition just as our troops do. If they were able to recognise the difference between the enemy and allies it would be significant. The US military chiefs are the biggest blame.


YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!
 
England said:
It's nothing new. The U.S troops have a habit in doing this. It was an often occurrence during the Gulf War.
Click to expand...

US troops are no different from anybody else in that respect. There are just more incidents involving them because there are considerably more of them than any of their allies, especially when it comes to close air support capacity.

In war, these things happen, and the only way to avoid them is avoid war. Sometimes it's an unavoidable accident, in others its incompetence or misjudgment to some degree or other, as does seem to be the case here.
 
Trumble said:
US troops are no different from anybody else in that respect. There are just more incidents involving them because there are considerably more of them than any of their allies, especially when it comes to close air support capacity.

In war, these things happen, and the only way to avoid them is avoid war. Sometimes it's an unavoidable accident, in others its incompetence or misjudgment to some degree or other, as does seem to be the case here.
Click to expand...

Have you watched this video? There are many incidents alike and it is without doubt due to incompetence....! The US chiefs do not train their troops to do vehicle recognition. British troops can tell what's American, Iraqi, Israeli, German, Iranian etc from a mile away. This rarely happens in ANY of the armed forces other that the US. They rely too much on their technology. War is all about brains too...
 
England said:
Have you watched this video? There are many incidents alike and it is without doubt due to incompetence....! The US chiefs do not train their troops to do vehicle recognition. British troops can tell what's American, Iraqi, Israeli, German, Iranian etc from a mile away. This rarely happens in ANY of the armed forces other that the US. They rely too much on their technology. War is all about brains too...
Click to expand...
I trying to figure out how you know about both British and American training.
I just can't come up with an explination.
Would you mind explaining how you come into this indepth knowledge?
 
wilberhum said:
I trying to figure out how you know about both British and American training.
I just can't come up with an explination.
Would you mind explaining how you come into this indepth knowledge?
Click to expand...

My dad served in the British army. He was in the Light Infantry 2nd Battalion station in Larkhill, Wiltshire, fought in Northern Ireland, trained in the Falklands, Germany, and more places. He has trained with U.S troops during his time, late 70s until the early 90s. He talks to me about it all the time.

Anyone want pictures?
 
even if u see the enemy you have to ask the commander "can I take him or not"... you can't just do whatever the heck you want. but seems american soldiers sometimes think they are playing a game. there were some CNN videos where these americans would kill a wounded iraqi , and then laught "yeeeee ,,yuhuuu"...there's a huge difference between american soldiers and british soldiers. there are taught different tactics and they have different mentalities.
 
vpb said:
even if u see the enemy you have to ask the commander "can I take him or not"... you can't just whatever the heck you want. there's a huge difference between american soldiers and british soldiers. there are taught different tactics.
Click to expand...

The pilots in this video didn't even give out the grid references or the correct location nor did they wait for confirmation to attack. From what I have been told the Americans are overwhelmed at the professionalism of British military training. I hear it alot now and apparently it was the same in the 70s/90s.

The military chiefs need to learn from their mistakes not ignore them...
 
vpb said:
even if u see the enemy you have to ask the commander "can I take him or not"... you can't just do whatever the heck you want. but seems american soldiers sometimes think they are playing a game. there were some CNN videos where these americans would kill a wounded iraqi , and then laught "yeeeee ,,yuhuuu"...there's a huge difference between american soldiers and british soldiers. there are taught different tactics and they have different mentalities.
Click to expand...

I agree with this post. Even better than before the one you edited. That video says it all. They were treating it like a video game... listen to them.... :rollseyes
 
since Bush came on power, the commercials about Join the Army have increased very rapidly. when I was in US, in every commercial there would be one of joining the army, also they produce these fighting games, so these kids who start playing , they get so much impressed by the game, that when they grow the decide to go to the army. but I think in britain, most of the soldiers go to the army following their traditions, (ie. his father was in the army so he joins the army too)...and this makes a big difference.
you can also see that in most attacks , americans are spotted instead of british. it's all about how people work out with others.
 
I remember an incident prior to this where a handful of British troops were wounded, one missing and one that presumed dead from a US friendly fire. Despite the British troops waving their hands, carried a union jack flag the pilots turned around and started firing again.... :blind:

Managed to find a link for it

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0331-08.htm

It's also worth noting to look to the right of that article in the yellow caption about a 12 year old boy...
 
Last edited:
lol, this remind me when the french soldiers used to throw tear gas bombs, and they were acting like they are throwing that towards the protestors, and they were throwing them towards british soldiers, they were doing it on purpose, bc british soldiers were told to take only basic stuff (not taking masks or anything) except the guns, but the situation turned worse since french couldn't hold the situation. lol
it seems british soldiers allways are the vicitims in the western allies. lol
 
As I've been saying about vehicle recognition \/ \/ \/

“We can identify a friendly vehicle from 1,500 meters, yet you’ve got an A10 with advanced technology and he can’t use a thermal sight to identify whether a tank is a friend or foe. It’s ridiculous.

“Combat is what I’ve been trained for. I can command my vehicle. I can keep it from being attacked. What I have not been trained to do is look over my shoulder to see whether an American is shooting at me.”


http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0331-08.htm
 
vpb said:
lol, this remind me when the french soldiers used to throw tear gas bombs, and they were acting like they are throwing that towards the protestors, and they were throwing them towards british soldiers, they were doing it on purpose, bc british soldiers were told to take only basic stuff (not taking masks or anything) except the guns, but the situation turned worse since french couldn't hold the situation. lol
it seems british soldiers allways are the vicitims in the western allies. lol
Click to expand...

hmmm something to think about! :giggling: Meh.... can't trust the French anyway....
 
I think another issue is the lack of coordination between the two nations when they are in a warzone. Usually we hack the warzone in two and say "We kill things on this side, you kill things on that side". Of course soldiers end up in areas they aren't supposed to be in, and that leads to confusion. I don't know why there seems to be so many friendly fire incidents involving U.S. aircraft and British patrols, but my bet would be lack of coordination between ground forces and the air force.