• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

American pilot justified

ninja_cat

ninja_cat

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 3, 2001
Messages
579
WTF - just heard on the BBC that an American Board of Inquiery (sp) has stated that the pilot who bombed a wedding in Afghanistan was justified in his actions and the blame rests on the guests who fired at him.
Now, as far as I know, he was flying a jet, and usually they are not at risk from small arms fire.

When we see pics of people celebrating their weddings in places such as Afghanistan, they fire AK47s or rifles in the air - these are no threat to a jet and should have been ignored, is this a cover up for a trigger happy pilot or did the guests have SAMs which would have been a mild threat to the plane if they had got a radar lock on them and he was flying Nap of the Earth?

Also they stated that the soldiers were justified in firing on the guests - which is the first time that I heard there were American military in the area apart from the jet.

Just confused at the strange twists that story suddenly took.

edit:

Just read the BBC site http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/2242428.stm

it was an AC130, still not exactly threatned by small arms fire, notably the investigators found no trace of Anti Aircraft weapons in the area and recon troops were in the area who could have been called in to investigate? Strikes me as a bit heavy handed - small arms fire been responded to in such a manner.
 
Actually, rifles can present a significant threat to low flying aircraft, especially the newer high-tech ones that are basically flying egg shells.
Still, you don't go around bombing towns just because someone shoots 'at' you. I think US pilots have been watching Iron Eagles too much. They all seem so anxious to kill something, be it the enemy, British armoured infantry, Canadian infantry or Chinese embassies. A few less hours watching movies and a few more in the air might help.
 
there were also reports that pilots had been given amphetamines, heightening paranoia and making them make rash decisions. Smacks of coverup. Why won't they just admit it was a mistake, and appologise to the families?
 
Great! Re: ghost dog

ninja WTF - just heard on the BBC that an American Board of Inquiery (sp) has stated that the pilot who bombed a wedding in Afghanistan was justified in his actions and the blame rests on the guests who fired at him
Click to expand...
I believe he was justified.......I was in an A-7 squadren In the "US NAVY, -read the book "fight of the Intruders by Stephen coontz. see what a little bullet can do!!I KNOW WHAT THEY CAN DO--THIS IS WAR !! SHIT HAPPENS-We are doing the best we can in a very hard (whos the bad guy) kind of fight!! the Soviets when they where bombing afgans did'nt give a crap where their bombs went "we do"..Jesus!! of all the stupid.........
 
I kinda remember (probably an UL) that pilots were given amphetimenes in the Gulf war to keep them awake and focused on the mission.
 
I KNOW WHAT THEY CAN DO--THIS IS WAR !! SHIT HAPPENS
Click to expand...

Calm down mate, jeez. you certainly seem like the put them in a field and bomb the bastards type person. :confused:
 
I reckon we'd all agree that there are limits to what is acceptable behaviour in war, ruffready, so where do you think those limits lie? How many innocents can a pilot kill through a stupid mistake before we hold him responsible?
 
Ninja

You are either with us (in this very horrible war ) or agaist us.......We can't take anymore hits like we did in new york,D.c> , we have to stop these lunatics!! and Things can go bad sometimes ..but, as I said we are doing the best we can -for what we have to work with! We will not stop because of the "above" we will look into all acts of friendly fire..We are the "good guys", UK are the good guys...just remeber that.
 
You are either with us (in this very horrible war ) or agaist us
Click to expand...

Sorry but what a complete load of bollocks. (apart from the horrible war bit. This is consistently spewed out by G W Bush and his Hawks - it is not black and white as you seem to regard the matter and maybe standing back for a moment and take stock of the situation would be more advisable. This may result in less blue on blues that the Americans are so good at.

Hell now you got me sounding like an anti American and some of my best friends are Americans. I am not anti US but I am definately against unthought out blustering and people trying to convince me that the only way to sort out the problem is at the end of a gun.

Don't try demean the deaths of all the people on the 11th Sept last year to hype up your aggresive nature and blood lust.
 
Re:Ninja

You are either with us (in this very horrible war ) or agaist us
Click to expand...
I stand by my previous post..and the last thing I will say on this is: I hope we win this war , even to save people who think like you...so you can have the right to say anything you want..thats what we are fighting for..Its that simple. Good -day!
 
He had good reason to return fire. he was being fired at ( accidently? ) and was too high to determin the full threat he apposed. he's in a war situation and returned fire when he thought he was being fired upon....easy as that!!

You are either with us or agaist us
Click to expand...

Ninja it is that black and white, there's no middle ground. the whole world is at the threat of terrorist. your either against them or with them.
 
Oh please Mr C you know thats rubbish. It is not Black and White, never has been and never will be or diplomacy might never have existed.

edit/ by the way should make it clear it was an AC130 Spectre so it was not just a single guy but a full crew .
 
Ninja i honestly see no middle ground. im either against terrorism or not. what can i say? im not botherd either way? they did what they did but they did it because its there religious beleif or they had a point to prove? please explain.
 
If I could explain why a terrorist does these things we could all pack up our kit bags and go home :) As it is I'm just amazed at how this all seems to be used (abused) into leading us into a war. If people were serious about defeating terrorists they must approach it from many angles, this will include blood shed, if need be, to prevent further atrocities.

The orginal argument in this post (and note that at first I didn't realise it was an AC130 gunship, which is vulnerable to ground fire) was whether or not it was a cover up or poor investigation into the 'bombing ' of a wedding.

I used to believe that we were the good guys because we took responsibility for our actions, if we made a mistake we could at least own up to it and try not to let it happen again. Now I have to rethink that position and think that the situation is that if we make a mistake we should blame it on the locals in anycase (who we are supposed to be liberating from the oppression of the Taliban.

We could go on arguing the causes that led up to sept 11th till we're blue in the face - was it religious, was it a power struggle by Osama and his cronies, was it a conspiracy etc etc but will we come to the right answer. Probably, at the moment, the only people who know that answer are the people who plotted the act of terrorism and I don't see them telling us.

I can partially understand the blood lust in Ruffready, after all, he feels bad that his country came under attack, but it is still no excuse for all out war. Subtlety and inteligence gathering is the preferred way to deal with terrorism - by these you can make the terrorist cells ineffectual. By outright attack you breed more fanatics who are willing to do anything against the people they see as oppressors.

Anyway that's my tuppence worth, don't see it changes anybodys opinion - if you want war, well its coming and there is sod all I can do about that.

And thats how you go off topic:)
 
An AC-130 is not under much threat from small arms fire, particularly at the altitude from which they operate.
 
ninja said:
Subtlety and inteligence gathering is the preferred way to deal with terrorism - by these you can make the terrorist cells ineffectual.
Click to expand...

And what do you do when you miss a cell and they achieve an objective? Look at Northern Ireland: decades of infiltration by the intelligence services, subtelty and intelligence gathering by the bucketload and still there were bombs going off and people dying.

Bad enough when it's car bombs by the barracks that we fail to stop. Bad enough when it's some kid with a pound or two of semtex strapped to his chest that gets through and blows up a checkpoint. But when you're dealing with people who think that it is acceptable to hijack civilian airliners and who specifically target civilians, can we really afford to let any of them get through? The only way to stop them is to put them in the ground.

ninja said:
By outright attack you breed more fanatics who are willing to do anything against the people they see as oppressors.
Click to expand...

OBL and SH don't see anyone as an oppressor, let alone the US. They see the US as a scapegoat: someone big and powerful that they can plausibly blame for the economic and social ills they see, rather than doing anything constructive about fixing those ills. After all, in SH's case fixing the problems would deprive him of a palace or three, while in OBL's case fixing things would involve changeing Islam back into something that Mohammed would recognize as Islam.
 
Zygon said:
And what do you do when you miss a cell and they achieve an objective? Look at Northern Ireland: decades of infiltration by the intelligence services, subtelty and intelligence gathering by the bucketload and still there were bombs going off and people dying.
Click to expand...

It's still better than attacking some random scapegoat nation and missing all of them, wouldn't you agree?
 
Re: Ninja

ruffready said:
You are either with us (in this very horrible war ) or agaist us.......
Click to expand...

I'm sure as hell not with OBL, but I'm certainly not with that retard Bush, either.
I'm supporting the US to the extent they supported us against the IRA.
 
As Putin said, "we are as dust to these people."

It's scary as hell. Yes, we look stupid for not apologizing for the massacre of those Afghanis. Yes, civilians are killed in conflicts. There are no bloodless wars. And yes, we know another terrorist attack is coming. The next one could kill 10 times the number of the 9/11 atrocity.

Furthermore, a lot of Americans think the UN is a beautiful dream. Multilateralism is the way to go, if it has teeth. UN inspectors found and destroyed tons of biological and chemical weapons in Iraq. Then SH jerked 'em around, kicked 'em out, and nothing's been done about it. Moreover, which nation would be required to supply the lion's share of fodder for a multilateral conflict? US.

I'm ambivilant about invading Iraq, if not outright against it.

I don't think SH had f*ck-all to do with 9/11 or Al-Qaeda. I do know that he has the 2d largest oil reserves in the world. And we do loves our oil.

I also know he'd gladly nuke us, or gas us, into nothingness if given the chance. I don't think he can do it; Isreal alone wouldn't let that happen. Anybody remember them pre-emptively attacking some nuke plant he was working on a few years back? Moreover, do we really want to spend decades in Iraq "nation-building?"

Like I've said before--damned if we do, damned if we don't.
 
You are either with us or agaist us
Click to expand...

Poppycock. Yes the threat is real. Yes it needs sorting. Yes the nations of the world should unite against it. No we should be completely uncritical of the actions of the US.

Afghanistan was horrific. The people of Afghanistan were terrified of their self-proclaimed leaders and wanted them out. The Taliban do an evil deed. The people get bombed, for the actions of a regime they had no choice in. AND Osama bin Laden wasn't even killed.

Anyone with a shred of humanitarianism would admit there's some truth in the idea that the death of any innocents is a terrible atrocity. Americans. Afghans. Whoever. I hate the fact I live in a world where I'm supposed to have democratic freedom, but when if my "elected" government get into a scrap with someone, I could end up being forced to go and get slaughtered for the cause. And when you are in a war, your enemy is a bunch of people who also don't want to be there and have been conscripted for a battle they didn't get themselves in. Believe me, whatever race, whatever country, all but the most zealous would rather sit and home and watch Bargain Hunt than go and get their guts wrenched out by machine gun fire.

911 has done a terrible thing. It has made the world think of each other in cartoonish stereotypes. Muslims are fanatical terrorists. Americans are hawkish warmongers. The French are Chamberlain-esque appeasers. One day we'll all realise we're talking about people not countries. And its never the ones who start it who are going to die.

I do not agree with air strikes against civillians. I do not agree with the detainment of hundreds of people without charge or trial in the hunt for bin Laden. I do not agree with 911 being used cynically as an excuse to pass anti-freedom laws here and in America, many of which were proposed long before 911.

And yes America's funded more than enough terrorists over the years. Oh sorry, they were freedom fighters weren't they? And yeah, Iraq sends scuds to Israel. Israel launches terrorism against Palestine (albeit in a six of one half a dozen of the other scenario). And we all let them have the bomb.

So yeah, I'm not neccessarily with you, but I'm not against you. Those who perpertrate these crimes should be brought to justice in any way the International community sees fit. Those who happen to live in the same countries do not deserve to be killed anymore than we/the US do for both having our respective dickheads in charge.
 
That, unfortuanately, could lead to the accusation that we will charge people who commit friendly fire on Western troops and not on Afghanistan civilians... I suppose damned if you do damned if you don't...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top