From RO1SIN sitting in the USA:

"I started the thread to point out the fact that the parasfired on innocent people in Afganastan about the 30 annerversary of them firing on the people in Derry..."

From Guardian Reporter in Afghanistan:

"They had just got into the car when they were engulfed in a sudden and deadly hail of gunfire - allegedly from British troops concealed in the darkness at the top of an observation tower several hundred metres away."

I believe there is a difference between "fact" and "alleged". As I requested in my earlier posting - can we please wait until the preliminary findings of the ongoing investigation are reported before aportioning blame?

As for:

"...and by the way Dead Horse would you have us believe being stationed in Northern Ireland was "wartime " Conditions akin to being a in a actual war zone and not fighting the people of norn iron, duh...."

Hey RO1SIN ask the US Marines who were in Beirut or in Somalia whether or not they thought they were in a war zone or not? Technically speaking they were not, but that didn't make it any less lethal from their point of view. The British troops stationed in "norn iron" were not put there to fight, nor have they ever fought, the people of "norn iron". On the other hand, the PIRA, the INLA, the Continuity IRA and the Real IRA all declared war on the British Government and their representatives in "norn iron" and proceeded to slaughter and maim lots of people from "norn iron". That to me (and I was there on two occasions), along with a few good hints such as indiscriminate bombings, shootings, punishment beatings, knee-cappings, etc, qualified it as being on active service. And believe me the stresses are there whether it has been declared a "war zone" or not, in many ways it is much worst.

McGarth of Harlow brought up the Vincennes incident as an example of how things can go wrong:

"Remember, the commander of the Vincennes who shot down an Iranian civilian airliner was exonerated and decorated."

The primary duty of the commanding officer of any ship be it warship or merchantman is the safety of his ship and his crew - he has no other consideration.

A little story for you Kevin about a similar incident in the 1960's. At the time Indonesia wanted to take over Borneo. Under the terms of their treaty of independence Britain was obliged to defend Malaysia, Singapore, Sarawak, Borneo and Sahbah. HMS Hampshire, deploying out to Singapore entered the Malacca Straits with the intelligence brief that the Indonesian Airforce had at least one operational squadron of TU-16 Bombers (NATO designation Badger)it was not known whether or not these aircraft were capable of launching stand-off weapons (Kelt missiles). The ship went to defence watch cruising stations at the limit of the Badgers range. Electronic detectors picked up an aerial x-band radar in search mode, while the ship was in the Malacca Straits, the ship went to action stations. (Now at this time in the Royal Navy - the only person who could give the open fire order was the Captain - nobody else). The aerial radar then went from search mode to acquired, by this time the ships main and secondary weapons systems where locked onto the target and tracking. The ranges were being called out and the situation was getting a trifle tense. The captain ordered hold fire until a positive identification could be made. With the radar still in acquired mode the director calls down "Aircraft bearing Green 90, target visual, identified Boeing 707, aircraft type confirmed Boeing 707." Directors were ordered off target and weapons trained fore and aft. On analysis of the general operations plot at the time the aircraft's radar went from search to acquire, the aircraft, ship and the radar beacon for Kuala Lumpur airport were on a transit (i.e. in a straight line). The aircraft was a freighter flying in from South Africa and was looking for KL airport. Under his rules for engagement the captain of the Hampshire would have been perfectly within his rights to open fire having been given his intelligence briefing. He didn't because he saw that the aircraft was flying straight and level at high altitude (easy target), that if it did launch a Kelt missile the weapons systems could target that (speed about 600 knots). That happened over 35 years ago and the captain of the Hampshire had those optional luxuries. Times and technology have changed a great deal. The Vincennes is an Aegis ship - a force defence vessel. The capabilities of the Aegis system are formidable and automatic, the system was designed to protect a group of ships from multiple threats, as such it reacts extemely rapidly - it has to. The Iranians were advised not to fly, they ignored that advice and the Aegis system on the Vincennes detected a target, the commanding officer of the Vincennes fulfilled his primary duty to his ship and ship's company.

It is a regretable fact that in tense situations if you ignore restrictions in force or advice given, you should not be surprised if consequences are extreme.