BS: STILL 'Friendly' Fire

Subject: STILL 'Friendly' Fire
From: Leadfingers
Date: 11 Oct 10 - 08:19 PM

Just wondering if the American Media has any coverage of the death , during an attempted rescue , of the Scottish Aid Worker in Iraq .
Initial reports were that she was killed by the insurgents , now there are reports that it may have been a grenade thrown by one of the American Special Service guys attempting rescue

Subject: RE: BS: STILL 'Friendly' Fire
From: Leadfingers
Date: 11 Oct 10 - 08:27 PM

Ooops ! Should have labelled it BS ! Sorry !

Subject: RE: BS: STILL 'Friendly' Fire
From: Rapparee
Date: 11 Oct 10 - 09:29 PM

Yes, I've been following it on various websites.

As I've said before, shrapnel and bullets don't discriminate.

Subject: RE: BS: STILL 'Friendly' Fire
From: katlaughing
Date: 11 Oct 10 - 09:36 PM

There is an extensive report about it HERE. Sounds as though it was one hell of a mess and a long shot as to whether it would work or not. She must've been an extraordinary person for all that she did to help the people of Afghanistan.

Subject: RE: BS: STILL 'Friendly' Fire
From: Ebbie
Date: 12 Oct 10 - 12:52 AM

That is what I feared. But even then I never thought of a grenade. Whose bright idea was it to lob a grenade into their midst?

Subject: RE: BS: STILL 'Friendly' Fire
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 12 Oct 10 - 01:36 AM

The Victoria Police (Aust) have just admitted that a large number of Police were trained without being instructed on proper control and containment of situations that could get out of hand and possibly end up in application of deadly force.... sound familiar?


... or they had run out of concussion grenades (flash-bangs) ...

Subject: RE: BS: STILL 'Friendly' Fire
From: bubblyrat
Date: 12 Oct 10 - 07:21 AM

Apparently,the rescue task was given to the Americans because they had already been operating in that area for some time,and thus were familiar with the terrain,etc. With hindsight,however,there seems to be some regret that the British SAS were not used in a "silent approach" mission , which might have been more successful......but only "might",of course.

Subject: RE: BS: STILL 'Friendly' Fire
From: Lox
Date: 12 Oct 10 - 07:31 AM

.

    OKAY TROOPS!

    WHEN I GIVE THE ORDER I WANT YOU TO THROW A GRENADE IN THERE AND THEN
    WE'LL GO IN AND GET THE HOSTAGES!

    SIR YES SIR!

    MOVE OUT ... MOVE OUT ...


    um ... sir ... we blew up the hostages too ...


.

Subject: RE: BS: STILL 'Friendly' Fire
From: GUEST,Silas
Date: 12 Oct 10 - 07:35 AM

Well, Bublyrat, the outcome could not have been worse with the SAS could it?

Subject: RE: BS: STILL 'Friendly' Fire
From: GUEST,mauvepink
Date: 12 Oct 10 - 12:52 PM

With 20:20 hindsight we now know some things that anyone mounting such a mission could not. What I find most disturbing about this case is that for over 48 hours it was generally given that insurgents had let off a vest bomb and the hostage was killed. Surely the moment that grenade was thrown and people were found dead the truth was more obvious? Why the story about the vest bomb?

Now I can accept that in some blind battle panic and with mayhem going on all around that someone maybe can pull the wrong type of thing off their kit and throw it. It's not what is supposed to happen but I imagine it could. It's not good, but I can hardly judge a situation I have never been in nor, heaven hope, ever will be. But why the smokescreen story before the truth be known? Those parents must have been devastated and now have had to deal with a double body blow. What this hostage has done and achieved deserves the highest level investigation to get to the real truth so that something like this cannot happen again. Whatever happened is one thing. How it has been handled since it happened entirely another.

They have shown great reserve and dignity in keeping their comments until later and maybe we should too until the truth - and the whole truth - is known.

She was one of our own. We have probably the most respected special ops troops in the world. My own feelings is that it should have been them who tried the rescue. Judgement over what has happened and what went wrong will come from a far higher authority than any of us. The truth would be a good place to start on that process...

mp

Subject: RE: BS: STILL 'Friendly' Fire
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 12 Oct 10 - 01:01 PM

Until the investigation of the incident is complete, no conclusions can be drawn.
Mention on the BBC of a stun grenade possibility.

Subject: RE: BS: STILL 'Friendly' Fire
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Oct 10 - 01:02 PM

Why did they lie? Maybe because they thought they could get away with it.

Subject: RE: BS: STILL 'Friendly' Fire
From: Rapparee
Date: 12 Oct 10 - 07:54 PM

Or perhaps they simply didn't know. An explosive vest could have been set off by the grenade (sympathetic explosion), causing the initial report. Even a concussion grenade (if such were used) could have initiated the explosion of a vest. And during the havoc of the fighting it could have been initially thought that the vest was the killer.

Combat isn't neat and orderly, no matter how much as we'd like it to be. No combat unit -- SAS, SBS, SF, SEALs, KSK, Spetsnaz, none -- can guarantee a completely successful operation.

I'll wait a bit longer before I pass judgment, but my immediate reaction is not to overlook the possibility of a sympathetic explosion.

Subject: RE: BS: STILL 'Friendly' Fire
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Oct 10 - 08:09 PM

The point is that rather than saying "We don't know what happened" they seem to have put together a made-up account and put it out as fact. Spin.

That's more or less what normally seems to happen. The remarkable thing really is that this made-up story was discounted so quickly - typically that only happens months or years afterwards, with the authorities resisting every inch of the day.

Subject: RE: BS: STILL 'Friendly' Fire
From: olddude
Date: 12 Oct 10 - 08:24 PM

I going to tell you one thing. A US special forces team can come in do the job and get the hell out before you will even know they are there. Unless I saw the report or unless I found out regular Army (which isn't trained to do such rescue missions) I will hold my judgment. And a stun grenade can kill, but usually will not that is why it is a stun grenade but most of the time Seals will not use them. Those guys are invisible ...

But when the air to metal ratio is up, no one is immune the term BOTIUTA is commonly used (bend over and take it up the )

Subject: RE: BS: STILL 'Friendly' Fire
From: Leadfingers
Date: 13 Oct 10 - 09:58 AM

At least THIS time there is information in America about this tragedy , unlike the Iraq War , when the A10 tank busters bust so many British tanks !

Subject: RE: BS: STILL 'Friendly' Fire
From: olddude
Date: 13 Oct 10 - 11:22 AM

A flash bang can indeed set off a secondary explosion .. but who know. Most SP will use them only in a very specific circumstance. Think about it, usually the team is 7 guys .. they are always way out numbered. They survive and succeed through stealth .. I doubt they would throw one .. leads me to believe other causes, bad guy , or a non SP engagement like regular army.

Subject: RE: BS: STILL 'Friendly' Fire
From: olddude
Date: 13 Oct 10 - 11:31 AM

Oh very specific circumstance would be if the hostage was held in a building not a compound. The bad guys were just in the building and the surrounding area was occupied by civilians ... something like that .. sure a flash bang is appropriate. Create the caos, take out the bad guys with precision fire. Inside a heavily fortified compound with lots of guards ... naww I don't think so. Don't know where she was held. Wish I knew more about it

Subject: RE: BS: STILL 'Friendly' Fire
From: GUEST,999
Date: 13 Oct 10 - 11:38 AM

First mistake is calling it friendly fire. Ain't no such thing in a war zone.

Subject: RE: BS: STILL 'Friendly' Fire
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Oct 10 - 11:43 AM

Not a mistake - there's a thing called "irony".

Subject: RE: BS: STILL 'Friendly' Fire
From: GUEST,999
Date: 13 Oct 10 - 11:56 AM

Geeze, McGrath, I know that.

The grenade exploded near my leg and now my leg is very irony.

Subject: RE: BS: STILL 'Friendly' Fire
From: GUEST,Peter Laban
Date: 13 Oct 10 - 12:22 PM

Current version of events surrounding Linda Norgrove's death

Subject: RE: BS: STILL 'Friendly' Fire
From: olddude
Date: 13 Oct 10 - 12:26 PM

Peter
from that report, they screwed up ... very sad ... Especially being a Seal Team ... that certainly is not the norm ... not from those guys

Subject: RE: BS: STILL 'Friendly' Fire
From: Greg F.
Date: 13 Oct 10 - 12:40 PM

Thing is to get our troops the fu$k outa there toot sweet-

They are accomplishing nothing, costing taxpayers a fortune (TeaBaggers take note) and not improving the security of the Unites States (or anyone else) one iota.

Ditto Afghanistan.

I thought the assholes running the Viet Nam war were assholes - but this bunch has outdone'em.

Subject: RE: BS: STILL 'Friendly' Fire
From: olddude
Date: 13 Oct 10 - 12:41 PM

Several major screw ups ... Fragmentation grenade in a hostage situation. NO ... amazing .. I wasn't there but that should never happen. First rule , find the hostage, secure the hostage's location, engage .. Amazing .. cover up ... hell we see it all the time, they can never just say .. we messed up ... Seal Team 6, the best of the best but that assault and planning I sit here scratching my head .. Yikes ... a real cluster to say the least .. blown big time. 9x out of 10 they succeed flawless .. no guarantees in war but   however mistakes are not acceptable and will be corrected ... what a cluster F

Subject: RE: BS: STILL 'Friendly' Fire
From: GUEST,mauvepink
Date: 13 Oct 10 - 01:35 PM

I am disgusted with that report from the Guardian.

I thought the media reserved not giving people their full title or names for people who are bad, accused, charged, etc. They consistantly call Linda Norgrove just "Norgrove", as if she is not entitle to the respect of her name or title. It's quite shameful and adds insult to injury. She was not doing any wrong. Am I being sensitive or do others think she should get her full name?

As regards the overall initial report it would be hoped this SEAL is not being made a scapegoat. Are no checks made on munitions that have been used in an assault/rescue/action? Is it so easy to overlook that a fragmentation grenade is missing as opposed to a flash-bang/concushion type?

I know it's a very pressured environment and I respect the total confusion that must exist in such scenarios but I thought soldiers shouted "GRENADE" when they threw one to warn their comrades? Does that only happen in folms or is it a procedure. The more you hear on this the more it takes to wait for a proper outcome.

mp

Subject: RE: BS: STILL 'Friendly' Fire
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Oct 10 - 02:16 PM

"I thought the media reserved not giving people their full title or names for people who are bad, accused, charged, etc. "

Not so. Standard Guardian style (common to many other British papers) is to give the full name first time in a report, and then just the surname. No disrespect intended - elsewhere in the Guardian today, for example, that's how politicians Vince Cable,Lord Browne and David Cameron are treated, as well as Booker prize winner Howard Jacobson, and Claire Rayner in the obituary columns.

Subject: RE: BS: STILL 'Friendly' Fire
From: GUEST,mauvepink
Date: 13 Oct 10 - 03:03 PM

Thank you for claryfying that Michael. I had no idea

mp

Subject: RE: BS: STILL 'Friendly' Fire
From: andrew e
Date: 13 Oct 10 - 05:49 PM

Another take on it

http://xymphora.blogspot.com/2010/10/murder-of-linda-norgrove.html