OT: American flyers bomb their allies AGAIN !

[Fred Bloggs]

Radiosrfun wrote:

"Fred Bloggs" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:46D170B4.7010107@nospam.com...


Eeyore wrote:

Fred Bloggs wrote:



When will US airmen ever stop shooting up the Brits, Canadians, and
other allies
?

Why are we even fighting your stupid wars for you ?

" Three British soldiers have been killed in a 'friendly fire' tragedy
in
Afghanistan by an American airman.

A U.S. Air Force jet dropped a 500lb bomb on the soldiers' position as
they
battled Taliban insurgents.

A pair of F-15 warplanes had been called in to help when 60 British
soldiers
were ambushed by Taliban fighters and found themselves fighting for
their lives.

An inquiry was under way last night into what went so disastrously
wrong, and
led to the latest in a string of socalled 'blue-on-blue' incidents
involving
American forces. "
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=477478&in_page_id=1811

Last time it happened, the Pentagon even tried to suppress evidence.


Are you such a moron you think the pilot eyeballs the bomb release?


You mean target by eye ? I believe that's often what they do in fact.
Your lot killed a load of refugees in
Kosovo that way too.




It is obviously a case of the British calling in the wrong coordinates.
They're supposed to call in the enemy position and not their own. If it
was a case of mistaken identity all 60 British troops would have been
cremated.


I don't see there's anything obvious about it at all. In any case, ground
warfare isn't static. The pilot
should visually confirm the target.

Graham



That may not be possible. The Taliban are not stupid, sometimes the ambush
is just a ruse to lure close air support which is their real target, they
have SAMs. The terrain in that place is very bad, it naturally channels
the combat patrols onto fixed routes in many areas, a perfect setup for an
ambush. The only way to avoid them is to reconnoiter the route beforehand
with aircraft, gunships, or RPVs, and then engage the enemy with an air
attack. The incident occurred because of bad planning on the part of the
British, they called in a bad bombing coordinate, and/or they were not
aware of the positions of all their troops. In any case it was most likely
their own fault.



It is obvious - he's clueless about "Ground" issues when dealing from the
air. When a "Medical" Helicopter is called in - we have to give them ALL
pertinent information. Power lines/poles, fences, etc... They can "not" see
them from the air. They circle over to get "their" view of the situation -
but "still" rely on us to guide them in. IF the pilot for "any" reason feels
it is unsafe to land - they will not. One situation about a month ago - it
was foggy. They flew - because where they took off from - it was clear - our
area was foggy. We could see them hovering overhead - gave them the
description of the landing zone. Even with our Engines emergency beacons on
and so on to form a circle for them - the pilot couldn't see "us". He
couldn't see "anything" - was his description on the radio. He aborted. Our
choppers have pre-set LZ settings to fly to - but they do not have any way
to know - if any changes were made since their last trip there and will
"not" place themselves, their crew, ship or anyone else in a situation. We
also have to call them on the radio to let them know we hear/see them - and
at what position to us - (1 o'clock, etc) so they know they do in fact have
the "proper" lz setting - to double check all information. Then too - on an
occasion, they've been called out to "an" LZ - only to have it changed while
hovering over. We keep in constant contact with them once they're in radio
contact range. Otherwise, they go through our 911 system for contact - to be
relayed. These pilots are pretty decent - they can land most anywhere - but
again - won't place themselves or others in danger. I've flown in aircraft,
been trained in chopper landings for "our" needs and a "Flight Nurse" also
runs with our Engine Company - so I have pretty good information on how
"accurate" ground coordinates "must" be. Ground contact and coordinates are
"critical". The pilots can't possibly spot enemy forces <or> "Friendly"
forces on the ground at those altitudes. Somehow - I don't see those
"bombers" swooping low enough to pick out uniforms - which would be
disasterous enough - especially in Mountainous terrain - and given they know
there may be some SAMS waiting for them.

Radio transmissions "could" be garbled too - leading to the errors......
Under stress - information can get crossed - confused. I can't think of too
many stressful situations aside from a war - being fired at. There are many
factors we doing the armchair quarterbacking - aren't aware of - in
particular <there>; but having had / have experiences we do - know what is
is about and how it can work or fail. We don't know the "actual" conditions,
terrain, how they're feeling, thinking, reacting. We don't know - what they
"called" in - as opposed to being "heard". But for someone to "ASSUME" that
an aircraft pilot can make out the difference in people on the ground -
guess again.

I have brought helicopters into a landing on a few occasions and the
trick is to visualize their view of the ground/terrain and direct
adjustments to their flight path relative to their orientation, it may
not be a good idea to give away map coordinates of your location at that
time and they don't do much good at that point anyway. There may be
radio security considerations so the transmissions have to be short and
to the point, it also helps to give them a little courtesy brief on
situational security parameters as best you know them. When the pilot is
confident you know what you're doing he will bring that thing in real
fast and right to the spot whether he sees you or not. I love flying in
a Blackhawk especially when they're doing high speed evasive maneuvers
at tree top level, doors open, there's nothing better

 

[John Fields]

On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 06:54:59 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

ChairmanOfTheBored wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

The RAF is trained to be far more 'careful' with dropping bombs than the USAF. They
don't appreciate the cowboy attitude.

You're full of shit. Their fire missions are handed down by theater
commanders.

Along with the amphetamines no doubt.

---
What's wrong with that?

If a pilot's performance, during the time he's aloft, can be
improved by the use of amphetamines, why shouldn't he be given that
advantage?

Are you suggesting that he should be shot down because it's "morally
wrong", in your stupid opinion, for him to possess that edge?



--
JF

 

[John Fields]

On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 16:25:11 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

Fred Bloggs wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Fred Bloggs wrote:

When will US airmen ever stop shooting up the Brits, Canadians, and other allies
?

Why are we even fighting your stupid wars for you ?

" Three British soldiers have been killed in a 'friendly fire' tragedy in
Afghanistan by an American airman.

A U.S. Air Force jet dropped a 500lb bomb on the soldiers' position as they
battled Taliban insurgents.

A pair of F-15 warplanes had been called in to help when 60 British soldiers
were ambushed by Taliban fighters and found themselves fighting for their lives.

An inquiry was under way last night into what went so disastrously wrong, and
led to the latest in a string of socalled 'blue-on-blue' incidents involving
American forces. "
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=477478&in_page_id=1811

Last time it happened, the Pentagon even tried to suppress evidence.


Are you such a moron you think the pilot eyeballs the bomb release?


You mean target by eye ? I believe that's often what they do in fact. Your lot killed a load of refugees in
Kosovo that way too.

It is obviously a case of the British calling in the wrong coordinates.
They're supposed to call in the enemy position and not their own. If it
was a case of mistaken identity all 60 British troops would have been
cremated.


I don't see there's anything obvious about it at all. In any case, ground warfare isn't static. The pilot
should visually confirm the target.

That may not be possible. The Taliban are not stupid, sometimes the
ambush is just a ruse to lure close air support which is their real
target, they have SAMs. The terrain in that place is very bad, it
naturally channels the combat patrols onto fixed routes in many areas, a
perfect setup for an ambush. The only way to avoid them is to
reconnoiter the route beforehand with aircraft, gunships, or RPVs, and
then engage the enemy with an air attack. The incident occurred because
of bad planning on the part of the British, they called in a bad bombing
coordinate, and/or they were not aware of the positions of all their
troops. In any case it was most likely their own fault.

Yes, it's our fault for even being there.

I agree. We should bring our troops home.

---
I see.

It's OK for us to come to _your_ rescue, (to the tune of hundreds of
thousands of American lives) but when it comes to helping _us_ out
it's all grouse and bitch, huh?


--
JF

 

[John Fields]

On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 15:00:56 -0700, Jim Thompson
<To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:

"...despite his advanced age" ?

...Jim Thompson

---
Certainly not _because_ of it!


--
JF

 

[John Fields]

On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 04:20:29 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

John Fields wrote:

After all, you guys tried head in the sand appeasement, assuming
that Hitler would leave you alone, why?

Why ?

Firstly it wasn't 'head in the sand'. Britain was already building up its military
at the time of the 'Munich Agreement'. Britain didn't have the world's first
integrated air defence network by the time of the battle of Britain by accident you
know ! Work started on it in 1935. And how do you think we had (just) enough
Hurricanes and Spitfires in time ?

Secondly, what exactly do you think we alone could have done about Hitler's plans
for (notably) Czechoslovakia ? It's not as if we even had a land border with
Germany.

---
In the first place, you and the rest of Europe could have at least
_tried_ to enforce the Treaty of Versailles instead of allowing
Hitler carte blanche in building his war machine.


From: http://web.jjay.cuny.edu/~jobrien/reference/ob66.html

.... Munich Agreement, generally regarded as the shameful culmination
of the Allied refusal (and inability at that time) to confront Nazi
aggression.


--
JF

 

[John Fields]

On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 04:28:40 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

John Fields wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

FYI, the Germans were working on long range bombers to bomb the USA and did
indeed make several that allegedly did the job.

Again, dumb ass, since you said they: "did indeed make several that
allegedly did the job."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amerika_Bomber

" Requests for designs were made to the major German aircraft manufacturers early
in World War II, long before the US had entered the war.

it was the Ju 390 that was selected for production. Only two prototypes were
constructed "


I ask you again: "Where on the US did those bombs fall?"

Deliberately misinterpreting my words is fairly typical of you.

---
I see.

So, since they "allegedly" did the job, but no bombs fell, then they
still did the job?

I'm confused.


--
JF

 

[Eeyore]

ChairmanOfTheBored wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
John Fields wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
ChairmanOfTheBored wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
Jim Thompson wrote:

I don't why it is that this crap must continue.

Because the USA is a danger to the world.

You're a goddamned idiot, you fucking terrorist motherfucker.

Americans are the ones responsible for terrorism in that region. It simply
didn't exist before you lot got involved.

---
Wrong.

The cancer was there and was spreading,

What evidence is there of terrorism in Iraq prior to US involvement in the area
? Simply NONE.


There isn't any now either. There is Iranian insurgents hellbent on
making the country easy to take over. If you only had a brain...

You've fallen for the lie that Iran's to blame have you ?

There's about as much truth in that as there was in the allegations of Saddam having
WMDs. Still, I've noticed that Americans are gullible idiots so I'd expect you to
swallow that one.

FYI, what's happening in Iraq is not unlike what happened in the former Yugoslavia.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

David Brown wrote:

ChairmanOfTheBored wrote:
John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
Don Bowey wrote:

Don't you think the State Department has been given insight about him? I
don't think he could get into the country.
You'd want to exclude someone simply for not agreeing with the Republican agenda ?
---
Not me.

I'd want to exclude someone because of their professed belief that
the best Americans are dead Americans.

I'd want to exclude such a person from the privilege to breath.

So you guys are not into this "freedom of speech" thing, or "I
disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to
say it" freedom and tolerance? Just because Eeyore is rude, abusive and
intolerant, to the extent that any sensible points he makes are drowned
in the noise, does not mean that your arguments are any better than
childish pouting.

My intolerance of American idiocy is simply the result of their own intolerance that you
have so amply illustrated.

Americans apparently believe in the 'freedom' only to agree with their blinkered and
uneducated outlook.


Graham

 

[MooseFET]

On Aug 27, 4:06 am, David Brown <da...@westcontrol.removethisbit.com>
wrote:
[...]

So you guys are not into this "freedom of speech" thing, or "I
disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to
say it" freedom and tolerance? Just because Eeyore is rude, abusive and
intolerant, to the extent that any sensible points he makes are drowned
in the noise, does not mean that your arguments are any better than
childish pouting.

Americans have set its self a high moral standard. Like humans
everywhere, some sometimes fall short. Eeyore is saying things that
nobody would like the hear about themselves. Some of it may be true.
Much of it is nearly true and that is the part that hurts the most.

Implying that those pilot didn't know or didn't care or dropped on
purpose strikes at the heart of how americans see themselves.
Ameicans have always seen themselves as a fair and honest people who
will go well out of their way to help the oppressed. The discovery
that they have been lead to do something profoundly evil hurts many
too much to face.

 

[Eeyore]

John Fields wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
ChairmanOfTheBored wrote:
Eeyore wrote:

The RAF is trained to be far more 'careful' with dropping bombs than the USAF. They
don't appreciate the cowboy attitude.

You're full of shit. Their fire missions are handed down by theater
commanders.

Along with the amphetamines no doubt.

---
What's wrong with that?

Because it makes then 'trigger happy'. The regularity with which US pilots shoot up their
own side is proof of why they shouldn't be flying drugged. The RAF doesn't apparently see
the need for it.

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

John Fields wrote:

I see.

It's OK for us to come to _your_ rescue, (to the tune of hundreds of
thousands of American lives) but when it comes to helping _us_ out
it's all grouse and bitch, huh?

What the hell are we even doing there ?

Graham

 

[ChairmanOfTheBored]

On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 13:06:58 +0200, David Brown
<david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> wrote:

So you guys are not into this "freedom of speech" thing,

If you had read what the anti-American fucktard has said over the past
year, you wouldn't like it either.

So shut the fuck up yourself since you don't even know why we are
deriding him, dipshit.

 

[MooseFET]

On Aug 27, 4:50 am, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 06:54:59 +0100, Eeyore

rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com> wrote:

ChairmanOfTheBored wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

The RAF is trained to be far more 'careful' with dropping bombs than the USAF. They
don't appreciate the cowboy attitude.

You're full of shit. Their fire missions are handed down by theater
commanders.

Along with the amphetamines no doubt.

---
What's wrong with that?

If a pilot's performance, during the time he's aloft, can be
improved by the use of amphetamines, why shouldn't he be given that
advantage?

Are you suggesting that he should be shot down because it's "morally
wrong", in your stupid opinion, for him to possess that edge?

If you use the drugs to keep your self at a task when you are very
tired, your judgement may be impaired. This may have happened in the
case of these pilots, but other than saying "yes that may be true"
nothing more should be made of it. Tired people have always made
mistakes. It happens in a normal situation. It happens in a war.
Wars involve a lot of killing people and from time to time, the wrong
people will get killed.

I hate what Eeyore is claiming but I can understand how he could feel
like making those claims. Having someone you care about killed in a
friendly fire situation hurts a great deal. This hurt is spread to
the entire population of the UK by the fact that it has become the
story of the war.

They need something they can call a victory. They need to catch OBL
or put the Taliban completely out of business. Even getting a farmer
to bring in a record and legal crop would be good.

 

[Eeyore]

ChairmanOfTheBored wrote:

David Brown wrote:

So you guys are not into this "freedom of speech" thing,

If you had read what the anti-American fucktard has said over the past
year, you wouldn't like it either.

Exactly. You think you can have it all ways.

What are so afraid of ? You're afraid of words are you ? Afraid they might wake
you out of your stupid ignorant American slumber ?

Graham

 

[Eeyore]

MooseFET wrote:

John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
ChairmanOfTheBored wrote:
Eeyore wrote:

The RAF is trained to be far more 'careful' with dropping bombs than the USAF. They
don't appreciate the cowboy attitude.

You're full of shit. Their fire missions are handed down by theater
commanders.

Along with the amphetamines no doubt.

---
What's wrong with that?

If a pilot's performance, during the time he's aloft, can be
improved by the use of amphetamines, why shouldn't he be given that
advantage?

Are you suggesting that he should be shot down because it's "morally
wrong", in your stupid opinion, for him to possess that edge?

If you use the drugs to keep your self at a task when you are very
tired, your judgement may be impaired. This may have happened in the
case of these pilots, but other than saying "yes that may be true"
nothing more should be made of it. Tired people have always made
mistakes. It happens in a normal situation. It happens in a war.
Wars involve a lot of killing people and from time to time, the wrong
people will get killed.

Since this isn't a 'war for your very survival' the use of drugs is IMHO totally
unacceptable. The RAF has no need for example.

I hate what Eeyore is claiming but I can understand how he could feel
like making those claims. Having someone you care about killed in a
friendly fire situation hurts a great deal. This hurt is spread to
the entire population of the UK by the fact that it has become the
story of the war.

Not least because it has happened time and time again. And it's ALWAYS the USA forces killing
their allies.

They need something they can call a victory. They need to catch OBL
or put the Taliban completely out of business. Even getting a farmer
to bring in a record and legal crop would be good.

The whole shebang is totally fucked up.

Graham

 

[Martin Griffith]

On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 14:32:12 +0100, in sci.electronics.design Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

John Fields wrote:

I see.

It's OK for us to come to _your_ rescue, (to the tune of hundreds of
thousands of American lives) but when it comes to helping _us_ out
it's all grouse and bitch, huh?

What the hell are we even doing there ?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/cartoons/stevebell/0,,2120204,00.html

Martin

 

[John Fields]

On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 04:44:50 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

John Fields wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

I wasn't talking about WW2. For starters the same electronic aids didn't exist. The
USA had a high 'friendly fire' score in WW2 too btw.

The RAF is trained to be far more 'careful' with dropping bombs than the USAF. They
don't appreciate the cowboy attitude.

---
"Cowboy attitude?" I guess you've never heard of the Norden
bombsight, a device used to minimize collateral damage during WW2
and up to and including the Viet Nam conflict.

It bloody well didn't work under real world conditions !

---
Really?

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norden_bombsight:

.... "many veteran B-17 and B-24 bombardiers swore by the Norden."

seems to indicate otherwise. That is, of course, unless one would
consider them stupid, incompetent Americans, as is your wont.
---

The USAF had to adopt RAF
tactics that were the result of working with the limitations of the equipment of the
day. Mind you, the RAF did later improve matters hugely with radio navaids like Gee Oboe
and H2S plus the use of the Pathfinders to mark targets.

You really are quite clueless. Norden bomb sight ? It was a piece of expensive junk.
LMAO !

---
Not at all, since it beat the shit out of guessing when to push the
button and dropping the bombs by hand.

But, as usual, you're trying to change the subject, which you
brought up and is about "Cowboy attitude".

My point is that if that kind of attitude was rampant, then attempts
at precision bombing would never have been undertaken and we'd still
be throwing bombs out of cockpits with wild abandon.



--
JF

 

[John Fields]

On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 04:47:22 +0100, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

John Fields wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
ChairmanOfTheBored wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
Jim Thompson wrote:

I don't why it is that this crap must continue.

Because the USA is a danger to the world.

You're a goddamned idiot, you fucking terrorist motherfucker.

Americans are the ones responsible for terrorism in that region. It simply
didn't exist before you lot got involved.

---
Wrong.

The cancer was there and was spreading,

What evidence is there of terrorism in Iraq prior to US involvement in the area
? Simply NONE.

---
ISTM that Saddam Hussein and his buddies pretty much had everyone
there terrorized that they'd be the next one on the chopping block
if they stepped out of line.

Or is that too long ago or too inconvenient for you to remember?


--
JF

 

[Eeyore]

John Fields wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
John Fields wrote:
Eeyore wrote:

I wasn't talking about WW2. For starters the same electronic aids didn't exist. The
USA had a high 'friendly fire' score in WW2 too btw.

The RAF is trained to be far more 'careful' with dropping bombs than the USAF. They
don't appreciate the cowboy attitude.

---
"Cowboy attitude?" I guess you've never heard of the Norden
bombsight, a device used to minimize collateral damage during WW2
and up to and including the Viet Nam conflict.

It bloody well didn't work under real world conditions !

---
Really?

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norden_bombsight:

... "many veteran B-17 and B-24 bombardiers swore by the Norden."

seems to indicate otherwise. That is, of course, unless one would
consider them stupid, incompetent Americans, as is your wont.
---

It's well known that it never worked well in the European theatre (not least because of the
need to see the target) and worked even worse when used at high level over Japan in B29s,
hence the change to low level area bombing.

The USAF had to adopt RAF
tactics that were the result of working with the limitations of the equipment of the
day. Mind you, the RAF did later improve matters hugely with radio navaids like Gee Oboe
and H2S plus the use of the Pathfinders to mark targets.

You really are quite clueless. Norden bomb sight ? It was a piece of expensive junk.
LMAO !

---
Not at all, since it beat the shit out of guessing when to push the
button and dropping the bombs by hand.

But, as usual, you're trying to change the subject, which you
brought up and is about "Cowboy attitude".

My point is that if that kind of attitude was rampant, then attempts
at precision bombing would never have been undertaken and we'd still
be throwing bombs out of cockpits with wild abandon.

Precision bombing was only ever finally achieved with radio (and radar) navaids such as the
British Gee, Oboe and H2S.

Graham

 

[John Fields]

On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 13:06:58 +0200, David Brown
<david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> wrote:

ChairmanOfTheBored wrote:
On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 15:11:04 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 04:00:18 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:


Don Bowey wrote:

Don't you think the State Department has been given insight about him? I
don't think he could get into the country.
You'd want to exclude someone simply for not agreeing with the Republican agenda ?
---
Not me.

I'd want to exclude someone because of their professed belief that
the best Americans are dead Americans.


I'd want to exclude such a person from the privilege to breath.

So you guys are not into this "freedom of speech" thing, or "I
disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to
say it" freedom and tolerance? Just because Eeyore is rude, abusive and
intolerant, to the extent that any sensible points he makes are drowned
in the noise, does not mean that your arguments are any better than
childish pouting.

---
From my POV it's not excluding him because of his rhetoric, it's
because of his apparent willingness to contribute to the downfall of
the US and the death of _all_ Americans, whom he professes to hate.

Seems to me to be close to the analogy of refusing to give a madman
a gun.


--
JF