US silent on accidental killing of British soldier in Iraq

The US military has failed to put forward any witnesses to answer questions over the death of British soldier Matty Hull, who was accidentally killed by American pilots in Iraq, it emerged today.

The US has failed to provide further assistance, despite repeated requests from L/Cpl Hull's widow Susan Hull, Oxfordshire assistant deputy coroner Andrew Walker and Harriet Harman, the constitutional affairs minister.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,2032055,00.html

 

I believe Matty Hull was actually a Corporal of Horse (CoH) - quite a high ranking NCO equivalent to a Sgt. I've written about this Blue on Blue myself at some length and got the typical defensive response that 'the US pilots were only following orders'. Ummm, yes, quite. The US is a very closed shop - almost obstructive - when it comes to defending their troops. This isn't such a bad thing when defending them from the enemy, but when defending them from the justice of a friendly nation I find it slightly objectionable. There's no question that the pilots would face any criminal proceedings in the UK - the inquest is just to establish the facts of the incident. I'm disappointed at their reluctance to co-operate because if the boot were on the other foot we'd be helping them.

 

Seems like a disaster all the way around. How many times were they told there were no friendlies in the area? And they couldn't establish radio contact?

 

Who were they told that by? By a US forward observer not doing his job or reading his map properly (exactly the same as in the Gulf when we lost 9 Brit soldiers). Something that seems to stick in the throat of some people everytime I mention it is that the ultimate final decision rests with the person operating the weapon - if they can't unequivocally identify the target they don't fire. It's not as if they were taking heavy incoming fire so acted impulsively without thinking. Simple as that really.

 

The failure to put forward witnesses does not surprise me at all, it is a discrace.

AGS (first for breaking news ) posted a thread on this over a month ago guys.

http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=237326&highlight=friendly+fire

The video appears to have been removed from The Sun (Rupert Murdoch Illuminati neocon supported newspaper for the sheeple based in the United Kingdom) but the story is still there.

Take a look.

 

Yeah, I remember discussing it back then too. Maybe the news is just slow to permeate all the way to Canada?!

 

here is some video :

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e06da463d7

 

It's not new ... but the update is new ..

Posted on : Monday March 12, 2007 on the Guardian

 

Oh right, the Guardian? That explains why I didn't see it
I'm not one for sitting on the fence and reading liberal clap trap!

 

It's war people. People get killed and accidents happen. In Canada they make a huge deal everytime someone gets killed. How many people in Iraq have been killed? THOUSANDS. I don't agree with it but when you go there .... What do you expect? It's a WAR ZONE.

 

Yeah it's an update and it looks like the situation is the same, the Brits being stonewalled by the US.

Someone needs to be held accountable for this disaster so that it does not happen again.

In Gulf War I : Daddy Bush Disaster we (the Brits) lost more to US friendly fire than we did to the actual "war" itself.

 

where the US... havnt you heard we get away with everything ....

 

Yes, as unpalettable as it is, we can accept losses in war to enemy fire, but friendly fire is even worse. What makes it even worse is that nearly this exact incident has happened before.

Back in the first Gulf War we lost 9 soldiers - soldiers from 3rd Battalion Royal Regiment of Fusiliers, which I have 'family' connection with - to the hands of A-10 pilots who were again 'less than certain' about the identity of their target. They fired on a clearly marked convoy of Warrior AFVs - a 4-year old child with the 'Puffin Guide to Fighting Vehicle Recognition' could have seen they were British. It also transpired the pilots had cocked up on their navigation.

Maybe that explains why I always speak so strongly on this one.

 

sorry but the world know 2 things,
#1 uk troops are more sympathetic and remove their hard hats as soon that can be justified, i think they call it "winning hearts and minds" as the uk have dealt with the IRA for 100 years we are the #1 force that has had to deal with terrorists.

the USA, are used to dealing with people in a heavy handed manor, like cops on the street, and use that heavy handed tactic with people that have been oppressed all their lives, that makes the usa forces look like unsimpathetic people.

when the usa troops kill uk troops, i would like to see full and open honesty, the usa fear a backlash from the uk. but if it was an honest mistake as that was, (the pilots was told he didnt have any friendlies in that area) although he did question more than once, that it was showing orange (friendly rockets)

he asked for a shell to be fired 800m in front so everyone knew they are talking about the same target.
the shell was fired, and he said, Yes i see it and they are showing orange, he was told to open fire, i guess, thats so the usa can protect the guy that gave the order. the usa pilots had done nothing wrong.

i would go one step more and say that the usa edited it to protect the guy directing the A10 pilots , and the edited parts was the pilots questioning the orange they seen.

this was a sad mistake, and the usa could pay his widow and children some compensation, but above all, learn that you cant shoot and ask questions later, (not the pilots, the dumbass sat in the AWAX) directing the troops.

 

They flew around for a while pondering it--so I don't know that you can say they didn't think about it. That may actually be the bad part. That tape is just a snippet, which could be misleading. It sounded like 36 wanted to fire more than 35 did. You can hear 36 say something like, "I think they are rockets." Then 35 goes, "Orange rockets?" They should have tried harder to established contact or at least tried to get a closer look. But I guess they didn't want to get too close. And their forward observers do at times call for fire on coordinates that the pilots can't visualize well. Obviously one would like to know why they felt the need to fire on these vehicles if their were no friendlies around, as presumably there would be no threat to friendly forces.

BTW, I'm surprised that anyone is surprised by the U.S. government's stonewalling. There were some many systems errors here that it's embarrassing really, which is why they didn't want to release that tape.

 

Didn't the Americans also kill more Canadians, Aussies and their own troops than the Iraqis were able to - don't single out the Brits!

 

Okay correction - they obviously did ponder about it, but obviously didn't comprehend how warped their logic was: Orange rockets FFS? As inept as the Iraqi Army were not even they'd try an camouflage their vehicles by painting their rocket pods orange!

 

It's an accident but one that should not have happened in the perfect world, but in every war innocent people get killed & friendly fire is a threat for troops.

Is this a plot by Bush to have british troops killed AGS? lol

 

With Bush's bullshit illegal war on terror he is doing a great job of killing members of many nationalities, I don't think he is specifically singling out British peeps buddy.

 

Good, there's still hope for you