0
nigel99

Video of friendly fire

Recommended Posts

I heard the audio. There was confusion and much questioning of the target by the pilot(s). It was an unfortunate accident, one that happens all too frequently during war.

Get the FUCK over it.

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I heard the audio. There was confusion and much questioning of the target by the pilot(s). It was an unfortunate accident, one that happens all too frequently during war.

Get the FUCK over it.



The following dialog taken from the video transctipt is absolutely damning considering the location given was confused and from a different pilot as the Pentagon's new ground attack training specialist stepped over his wingman's communication with forward control. It also illustrates how utterly incapable you are of assessing any wrongdoing. I'll stick with the investigating General's opinion, clearly he outranks you in this matter, he did recognize wrongdoing.

Quote



1336.57 POPOV36:

Hey, I got a four ship. Looks like we got orange panels on them though. Do we have any friendlies up in this area?

1337.03 MANILA HOTEL:

I understand that was north 800 metres.

1337.12 MANILA HOTEL:

POPOV, understand that was north 800 metres?

1337.16 POPOV35:

Confirm, north 800 metres. Confirm there are no friendlies this far north on the ground.



POPOV36 saw orange panels and said so, he later attacked, he should not have done that, this much is absolutely clear.

Brits have not yet gotten over this for a few simple reasons.

1) Americans in the Pentagon witheld information and it is only now surfacing 4 years later, not thanks to American honesty with a longstanding ally, but thanks to a tabloid newspaper that runs soft porn alongside sensational articles. At least Brits now know who is the more trustworthy source.

2) Absolutely nothing was done about this and the goofball who pulled the trigger has been PROMOTED instead of being disciplined as per the recommendations of the investigating general.

3) Americans in the Pentagon have been lying consistently about the findings of their own inquiry and misleading everyone in an attempted cover-up.

3 is hot off the press, so this isn't going away soon.

Get a clue. What use is the UCMJ if it manufactures a bunch of lying rats in the Pentagon?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

The guncam video showed no evidence of trigger-happy attitudes.



Oh really, no evidence of the "single minded pursuit of the UK vehicles" highlighted by the UK inquiry? No evidence of him convincing himself that "orange panels" were in fact "orange rockets"? When POPOV35 recommended that they RTB POPOV36 didn't say "I want to kill these guys first"? POPOV36 didn't attack without clearance from his FAC?

Quote

I heard the audio. There was confusion and much questioning of the target by the pilot(s).



All the confusion stemmed from the US pilots not passing the correct locations to their FAC - who the fucks fault do you think that is? If they had followed correct procedure and if POPOV36 hadn't been so eager to attack something the incident wouldn't have happened.
Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

See the attached images from from UK newspapers showing the pilot and what he did.

No courts marshal for the pilots in fact "skeeter" got promoted to Colonel, and get this; from The Times:

"Colonel Gus “Skeeter” Kohntopp, who was a lieutenant-colonel at the time, now trains other American pilots in ground-attack skills."

Who better!

You know guys, the "Peter Principal" is a fucking ironic observation, it's not something you're supposed to strive to implement. I hope he starts his class with that guncam footage and doesn't pretend he followed procedures like the DoD whitewash.



STOP THE PRESS FOR A MOMENT GUYS......

Im going to respond from this post even though the last few posts were a little nuts. If you rely on a particular form of media who claims they report the "facts" yet never give details about the facts or the source confirming the facts, you should reconsider on holding that media organization accountable to the readers.

Now on to those photos.....

Here is my concern Dorbie, The photo you posted (which may have been posted by the SUN or some other tabloid) shows a US pilot posing in front of a F-117 Stealth, not an A-10 Thunderbolt. Not to say it couldn't happen at some airshow, but most pilots pose in front of their designated aircraft. F-117's are not kept out in the open like the A-10s, F/A-18s, F-16s, etc.... In Iraq, they are secured while not under flight operations due to the security. Also, there are special hangers in the United States which house the F-117 and only their flight crew are permitted to be within 100 feet of the aircraft.

Regarding the destroyed tank in your 2nd photo. I'm going to do some more research on that. For the sake of being objective I want to do some more digging. When strafed by an A-10, more times then not, you will find the destroyed subject to look a little more "shredded" due to the forward projectiles emitted by the Thunderbolt's cannon. This photo shows the appearance of a blast to the rear of the armored vehicle. Something small like a MK-82 or even smaller. Typically the General Electric GAU-8/A 30mm seven barrel cannon creates more damage then that.

Does anyone else find it funny that we made a SPORT out of an EMERGENCY PROCEDURE?!?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I noted the F-117, "Skeeter" was an F-117A test pilot in the 1980s. Several major media outlets are using the image in the UK, it's him.

As for the destroyed Scimitars, fire did most of the damage with fuel and ammo being ignited immediately, if you read the detailed incident reports. Hull was burned to crisp inside that before he could be rescued. The source of that image had pictures of both Scimitars, both in desert camo with similar damage. If the damage had been greater as you assume it should, it is likely that nobody would have been left alive. There aren't that many pairs of destroyed Scimitars in desert camo lying around, and frankly I don't see the point of impugning any of this without an iota of contrary information.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

The photo you posted (which may have been posted by the SUN or some other tabloid)



Let's remember that if it wasn't for The SUN the guncam footage would still be classified, as would the disgraceful Pentagon cover-up regarding an internal inquiry where the investigating General recommended disciplining the pilots for failing to follow procedures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

The photo you posted (which may have been posted by the SUN or some other tabloid)



Let's remember that if it wasn't for The SUN the guncam footage would still be classified, as would the disgraceful Pentagon cover-up regarding an internal inquiry where the investigating General recommended disciplining the pilots for failing to follow procedures.



That footage was on other website well before the SUN

Does anyone else find it funny that we made a SPORT out of an EMERGENCY PROCEDURE?!?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

That was pretty fucking tasteless shit to post, Dorbie.

How about this: Good fucking shooting by American pilots.

Get the hell over it!



pot - kettle, kettle - potB|

__________________________________________________
Don't take life too seriously. You'll never get out alive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I know what a mav is....I just was commenting on the damage done, yeah maybe a SLAM would have left nothing bigger than a dinner plate.

I was under the assumption that vehicle was using chobham armor.

I may have mispelled bu I really don't care to look it up.




Randy, the Scimitar doesn't have chobham armour - it's a little lightweight, lightly armoured recce vehicle. They aren't designed to withstand 30mm DU shells.
(It's design dates back to Malaysia to manouvre through the tree's - it's old)

The A-10's engaged the Scimitars with cannon fire - as explained to me by one of the lads in the unfortunate patrol, a couple of weeks after the incident.

Skychimp, you're coming across as rather petulant in regards to Dorbie's posts - I can only understand you're feeling defensive towards America and the pilots in question.
I also couldn't give a fuck how you feel - the entire incident was more than a complete fuck up showing poor judgement and professionalism. Again. I've yet to hear of any Iraqi combat vehicles or their armament coloured orange. Anyway, I've mentioned all the points I felt worth mentioning earlier.

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Skychimp, you're coming across as rather petulant in regards to Dorbie's posts - I can only understand you're feeling defensive towards America and the pilots in question.
I also couldn't give a fuck how you feel - the entire incident was more than a complete fuck up showing poor judgement and professionalism. Again. I've yet to hear of any Iraqi combat vehicles or their armament coloured orange. Anyway, I've mentioned all the points I felt worth mentioning earlier.



You obviously missed what I wrote earlier in this thread. As you can see, I am clearly not defensive. In fact, I try to stay objective.

Here is what I wrote in regards to the orange panels Vortex.

Quote

I served in Allied Force in Kosovo in 1999 and war is very foggy but there are basics that are drilled into your head to keep safety paramount. It's like with skydiving guys, no matter what... YOU PULL! Well, in sweeper missions in their case, no matter what... ORANGE! That was their basics in safety for the mission and they clearly stated numerous times the tops of the vehicles were orange.



Does anyone else find it funny that we made a SPORT out of an EMERGENCY PROCEDURE?!?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't see the point of disputing this without a shred of evidence to the contrary. Available sources suggest this is the Scimitar and this is the pilot, and it's not just The Sun who says it (p.s. even the live-leak version has The SUN logo on it, they were first and widley credited with breaking this AFAIK). Your only point seems to be that the damage should look worse! Well guys in those vehicles survived and got out then it burned for hours. The next day they were still too hot to remove Hull's remains.

Just what exactly is your point? You come across like a lawyer in an O. J. Simpson hearing. The Chewbacca defense is not relevant here, or as the Chinese might say; "When the finger points at the moon the fool points at the finger."

How about addressing the lying and cover-up regarding their inquiry findings by those outstanding Americans in the Pentagon?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I don't see the point of disputing this without a shred of evidence to the contrary. Available sources suggest this is the Scimitar and this is the pilot, and it's not just The Sun who says it (p.s. even the live-leak version has The SUN logo on it, they were first and widley credited with breaking this AFAIK). Your only point seems to be that the damage should look worse! Well guys in those vehicles survived and got out then it burned for hours. The next day they were still too hot to remove Hull's remains.

Just what exactly is your point? You come across like a lawyer in an O. J. Simpson hearing. The Chewbacca defense is not relevant here, or as the Chinese might say; "When the finger points at the moon the fool points at the finger."

How about addressing the lying and cover-up regarding their inquiry findings by those outstanding Americans in the Pentagon?



www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2297674#2297674

You didn't seem to mind cover ups last year. Different ox being gored, I suppose.

ALL cover ups are bad. I recall there was once a massacre at a place called My Lai; that cover up was attempted (unsuccessfully) by one Major Colin Powell. He got a lot of promotions anyway.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

I don't see the point of disputing this without a shred of evidence to the contrary. Available sources suggest this is the Scimitar and this is the pilot, and it's not just The Sun who says it (p.s. even the live-leak version has The SUN logo on it, they were first and widley credited with breaking this AFAIK). Your only point seems to be that the damage should look worse! Well guys in those vehicles survived and got out then it burned for hours. The next day they were still too hot to remove Hull's remains.

Just what exactly is your point? You come across like a lawyer in an O. J. Simpson hearing. The Chewbacca defense is not relevant here, or as the Chinese might say; "When the finger points at the moon the fool points at the finger."

How about addressing the lying and cover-up regarding their inquiry findings by those outstanding Americans in the Pentagon?



www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2297674#2297674

You didn't seem to mind cover ups last year. Different ox being gored, I suppose.

ALL cover ups are bad. I recall there was once a massacre at a place called My Lai; that cover up was attempted (unsuccessfully) by one Major Colin Powell. He got a lot of promotions anyway.



I did not approve of cover-ups then nor do I now, your insipid post asking "do you approve of cover-ups?" was directed at another poster not me. My response was to highlight the nature of your question with the apocryphal equivalent "Have you stopped beating your wife?" (an error actually since it should begin "When did you...").

It's a pitty that when your research didn't confirm your memory, you posted anyway. You could have made an on topic post instead of a vapid attack, it was your choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2297674#2297674

You didn't seem to mind cover ups last year. Different ox being gored, I suppose.

ALL cover ups are bad. I recall there was once a massacre at a place called My Lai; that cover up was attempted (unsuccessfully) by one Major Colin Powell. He got a lot of promotions anyway.



I did not approve of cover-ups then nor do I now, your insipid post asking "do you approve of cover-ups?" was directed at another poster not me. My response was to highlight the nature of your question with the apocryphal equivalent "Have you stopped beating your wife?" (an error actually since it should begin "When did you...").

It's a pitty that when your research didn't confirm your memory, you posted anyway. You could have made an on topic post instead of a vapid attack, it was your choice.



Welcome to Kallend's World, where it's perfectly acceptable for Speakers of the House to request a tax payer funded, upgraded 757as her own commuter plane, where a vaccine that could prevent cervical cancer in 1 out of 25,000 women should be equated to eradicating polio, where a valid assessment of the current costs of the war in Iraq should include all economic and productivity variables (into the indefinite future) that can be tacitly tied to the war.

Earlier in this thread he said:
"Well, it is a fact that in Gulf War I, 38% of British fatalities were killed by US forces."
This was wrong and misleading. I guess -
During Gulf War I, nine british soldiers died in an isolated friendly fire tragedy,... wouldn't have the same punch.

And now I'm leanring that Colin Polwell was involved in covering up the My Lai massacre.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote



And now I'm leanring that Colin Polwell was involved in covering up the My Lai massacre.



You didn't know? I'm surprised. :o And the attempt failed.
Quote



where it's perfectly acceptable for Speakers of the House to request a tax payer funded, upgraded 757as her own commuter plane,



I guess you didn't bother to find out the FACTS of that either. The request came from the House sergeant-at-arms and the "upgraded 757" already exists for the specific purpose of flying senior government officials and the First Lady's coffee klatch. Even the White House says your position on this is "silly".
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote



And now I'm leanring that Colin Polwell was involved in covering up the My Lai massacre.



You didn't know? I'm surprised.:o


Got link showing his direct involvement of covering up the My Lai massacre?

I look forward to seeing how you dodge this one. LOL

Quote

Quote

where it's perfectly acceptable for Speakers of the House to request a tax payer funded, upgraded 757as her own commuter plane,



I guess you didn't bother to find out the FACTS of that either. The request came from the House sergeant-at-arms. Even the White House says your position on this is "silly".


I'm not talking about what took place in DC, but rather your rationalizations for a hypothetical scenario.

Any comment on your bogus claim of:
"Well, it is a fact that in Gulf War I, 38% of British fatalities were killed by US forces."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote




Any comment on your bogus claim of:
"Well, it is a fact that in Gulf War I, 38% of British fatalities were killed by US forces."



You have a very short memory. It has already been answered in this very thread. 24 British troops KIA, 9 by US forces.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote



And now I'm leanring that Colin Polwell was involved in covering up the My Lai massacre.



You didn't know? I'm surprised.:o


Got link showing his direct involvement of covering up the My Lai massacre?

.



About 178,000 links here.


Re-read my question and then try again. I said direct involvement, not any kind of loose relationship.

I did a google for george washinton beat slaves and got over 1 million hits. I wonder how many of those links talk about him beating slaves???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0