BF2S Forums Terry Lloyd

Just Remember, this incident happened THREE years ago.

Bertster7 wrote:

S3v3N wrote:

Just Remember, this incident happened THREE years ago.

Coroners report was out today, it's been all over the news over here. I have just noticed a simillar post has been made, although in this one I am more concerned with looking at a possible solution to friendly fire incidents. Which I why I have mentioned the anti-fratricide training and included my views on trials for soldiers involved in these attacks.

Have you ever been in combat?

silo1180 wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

The coroner also claimed that the US troops involved had acted like "trigger happy cowboys".

The coroner was not at the scene when the incident occurred.  What right does he have to make this accusation?  He doesn't know if there were other circumstances at the moment that led to the decision to fire in that direction.

I'm not taking this lightly, it's a tragedy when anyone is killed in a combat situation.  I do think there is a difference though when it's a journalist there VOLUNTARILY for self promotion versus someone that HAS TO BE THERE BECAUSE IT IS THEIR DUTY.  Really, what was the journalist doing in the middle of a fire-fight anyway? 

Just my opinion... flame on!

The report is based on the testimony of those who were there, the Red Cross operatives and Terry Lloyds colleagues who survived.

The first incident of them being hit during a crossfire I find perfectly acceptable. It is the attack on the Red Crescent minibus after the crossfire had ended that disturbs me. The fact that US troops are involved in so many of these incidents is worrying. Clearly more needs to be done to prevent these friendly fire incidents. I am glad to see the US army have recognised the problem and have stepped up their anti-fratricide training. I think that the actions of a few isolated American soldiers reflect very badly on the US military as a whole, if soldiers involved in such incidents were to face trial I believe it would reduce the number of incidents significantly, as well as improving the image of the US military on the international scene. Some occurences of friendly fire are unavoidable and there is no blame to be placed, others are not and someone should be held accountable.

Another incident during the war where Patriot missiles were accidently left on auto-fire and shot down a British Tornado is an example where I think whoever was responsible for leaving the missiles turned on should have been tried for negligence.


Unilateral journalism is very important. Having journalists in these kind of situations is what makes a good news channel. Getting accurate information from where the action is going on. I bet you would catch a Fox news reporter in such a dangerous situation.

Last edited by Bertster7 (2006-10-13 10:56:28)

usmarine2005 wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

S3v3N wrote:

Just Remember, this incident happened THREE years ago.

Coroners report was out today, it's been all over the news over here. I have just noticed a simillar post has been made, although in this one I am more concerned with looking at a possible solution to friendly fire incidents. Which I why I have mentioned the anti-fratricide training and included my views on trials for soldiers involved in these attacks.

Have you ever been in combat?

Nope.

But that is irrelevant. You just need to look at the figures for friendly fire to see that there is clearly a problem within the US military. No other armed forces has anything like the same number of incidents, even after accounting for the fact that there are more US troops than those from other nations.

I am glad to see that the problem is at least being addressed, British forces have been providing the American troops with British vehicles, so they know what not to shoot at. A number of British soldiers who I know (who have been in combat) have confirmed my views on the subject.

I do realise that combat must be a very hectic environment and that troops cannot be held wholly responsible for their actions under heated combat situations. There are other instances where troops should be responsible for properly indentifing their targets before opening fire.

aardfrith wrote:

usmarine2005 wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Coroners report was out today, it's been all over the news over here. I have just noticed a simillar post has been made, although in this one I am more concerned with looking at a possible solution to friendly fire incidents. Which I why I have mentioned the anti-fratricide training and included my views on trials for soldiers involved in these attacks.

Have you ever been in combat?

Have you ever shot an ally?

Read above.

usmarine2005 wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

usmarine2005 wrote:

Have you ever been in combat?

Nope.

But that is irrelevant. You just need to look at the figures for friendly fire to see that there is clearly a problem within the US military. No other armed forces has anything like the same number of incidents, even after accounting for the fact that there are more US troops than those from other nations.

I am glad to see that the problem is at least being addressed, British forces have been providing the American troops with British vehicles, so they know what not to shoot at. A number of British soldiers who I know (who have been in combat) have confirmed my views on the subject.

I do realise that combat must be a very hectic environment and that troops cannot be held wholly responsible for their actions under heated combat situations. There are other instances where troops should be responsible for properly indentifing their targets before opening fire.

Well.  People should be responsible for their actions.  However, when you have an opposing force firing at you from churches, ambulances, police cars, etc.  You have to understand these situations.  Plus, reporters who leave a US unit to go out on their own, have to be held responsible for being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Nevertheless, firing on a man in a stretcher being loaded into a Red Cross minibus is a bit much.

Had he been killed in the crossfire I would have no problem with it, he knew the risks. But the fact that he survived the attack and was shot afterwards is what I do have a problem with.

Bertster7 wrote:

usmarine2005 wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Nope.

But that is irrelevant. You just need to look at the figures for friendly fire to see that there is clearly a problem within the US military. No other armed forces has anything like the same number of incidents, even after accounting for the fact that there are more US troops than those from other nations.

I am glad to see that the problem is at least being addressed, British forces have been providing the American troops with British vehicles, so they know what not to shoot at. A number of British soldiers who I know (who have been in combat) have confirmed my views on the subject.

I do realise that combat must be a very hectic environment and that troops cannot be held wholly responsible for their actions under heated combat situations. There are other instances where troops should be responsible for properly indentifing their targets before opening fire.

Well.  People should be responsible for their actions.  However, when you have an opposing force firing at you from churches, ambulances, police cars, etc.  You have to understand these situations.  Plus, reporters who leave a US unit to go out on their own, have to be held responsible for being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Nevertheless, firing on a man in a stretcher being loaded into a Red Cross minibus is a bit much.

Had he been killed in the crossfire I would have no problem with it, he knew the risks. But the fact that he survived the attack and was shot afterwards is what I do have a problem with.

Could be ricocheting bullets.

I have always had ZERO sympathy for journalists, contractors, or other war exploiters who are fired on or killed in war zones.  I don't see why I should start caring now.  Though I would cry if Lara Logan was killed there.

But on a more serious note, I have to believe that the soldiers probably fired upon the minibus for a reason other than being psychotic maniacs just killing.  I also don't discount the level of stress they must be under and the lack of knowledge the reading public here has of that level of stress.  Sure, no killing is tolerable, but understanding reality in a very gruesome war zone can make people be a little more understanding and less quick to judge.

If I were to imagine being in a fire team, having been depolyed in an occupation where our cause was not just, and morale is likely very low, and there's comrads of mine dying left and right daily...I'd have quite an altered sense of reality.  The majority of these soldiers probably youngsters (early 20's and some teens) who probably haven't even had a chance to develop their minds well enough to deal with the stresses of battle (no, playing BF2 doesn't count).  If I was in such a position, and my fire team was already engaging an enemy, and some stupid reporter got in the mix, I'm sure I'd be adhering to my training hopefully killing opfors.  As for reporters huddling in a bus, and them opening fire on the bus like a bunch of cowboys???  That sounds possible but very unlikely given the circumstances I can imagine.  Hopefully enough real people would have that kind of imagination..unless they've actually been in the shit and know it already.

Bertster7 wrote:

usmarine2005 wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Nope.

But that is irrelevant. You just need to look at the figures for friendly fire to see that there is clearly a problem within the US military. No other armed forces has anything like the same number of incidents, even after accounting for the fact that there are more US troops than those from other nations.

I am glad to see that the problem is at least being addressed, British forces have been providing the American troops with British vehicles, so they know what not to shoot at. A number of British soldiers who I know (who have been in combat) have confirmed my views on the subject.

I do realise that combat must be a very hectic environment and that troops cannot be held wholly responsible for their actions under heated combat situations. There are other instances where troops should be responsible for properly indentifing their targets before opening fire.

Well.  People should be responsible for their actions.  However, when you have an opposing force firing at you from churches, ambulances, police cars, etc.  You have to understand these situations.  Plus, reporters who leave a US unit to go out on their own, have to be held responsible for being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Nevertheless, firing on a man in a stretcher being loaded into a Red Cross minibus is a bit much.

Had he been killed in the crossfire I would have no problem with it, he knew the risks. But the fact that he survived the attack and was shot afterwards is what I do have a problem with.

There are plenty of times where insurgents make a vehicle look like an ambulance just so they can transport weapons and ammo.

IRONCHEF wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

IRONCHEF wrote:

As for reporters huddling in a bus, and them opening fire on the bus like a bunch of cowboys???  That sounds possible but very unlikely given the circumstances I can imagine.

Possible but unlikely. That's why it doesn't happen everyday. There are a lot of troops over there, I'm sure some of them are "trigger happy cowboys". A minority of course, like the minority who abuse prisoners etc.

This is not a slur against US troops in general, just those who shoot their allies and not even all of them.

I still want to know if Pat Tilman's death was accidental friendly fire (he was in a forward position on a hill doing reconnaisance when his own mates TKd him), or purposeful for a reason I can't imagine.  If you recall, he was lied to by the government saying he died to enemy fire..then his parent's found out it was friendly fire, then i believe it escalated into purposeful friendly fire...on and on..

But yes, I'm sure there's isolated units that are just led by the wrong staff sergeant who has changed the rules of engagement or caused his subordinates to forget them and you know the deal..just like the movies at this point.

If it wasn't accidental, it sounds awfully like murder to me.

Edit: I read on Wikipedia that the Defense Department directed the Army to open a criminal investigation into the death.  Anyone know the progress and/or when it's likely to report?

Last edited by aardfrith (2006-10-13 11:45:26)

/tired

so is this what's making the rounds on moveon.org today?

http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=48391

I said what i need to say there, in summation

war=bad
battelfields=dead people
coroner=wasn't present on the battefield
accusation =/=guilt
"press"=/=invulnerability