Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Ball on February 06, 2007, 01:58:01 AM
-
Tapes have come out (http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1250298,00.html)
Link to the tape: -
http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2007060133,00.html
It is sad that both the MOD and US refuse to use it in court. I wonder how the newspaper got the tape?
Last night a senior US military source told The Sun: “This tape needs to get out. The pilots need to be brought to account.”
An MoD spokesman said: “There has never been any intention to deliberately deceive or mislead L/Cpl Hull’s family. We did inform them some classified material had been withheld.”
-
yea I just caught that on foxnews...It sucks...It just really really sucks. Note to everyone else - If you don't want to get into a really chitty mood, then dont ever watch that tape.
-
Yeah, can't help but feel sorry for the pilots... well, one of them anyway - the other only seems to care about his own *** getting hauled into jail.
-
Last night a senior US military source told The Sun: “This tape needs to get out. The pilots need to be brought to account.”
100% agree.
-
Originally posted by Ball
Yeah, can't help but feel sorry for the pilots... well, one of them anyway - the other only seems to care about his own *** getting hauled into jail.
I dont know...I feel terrible for both of them. however, when the one said "is your tape still rolling" it did make me raise an eyebrow.
chitty situation all around.
-
They made a mistake. In war mistakes costs lives. I can understand why some feel that this has to have consequences beyond military disciplinary action, but I don't agree.
-
http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1250298,00.html
Pentagon finally did the right thing...
-
Having watched the tape, I have a hard time placing blame. The A10 drivers asked more then once if there were friendlies in the area and were told no.
I would imagine they were patrolling a particular box on the map, under the guidance of an FAC.
It was only after the fact once they'd made their run that the call comes in that there are friendlies in the area.
Those pilots sounded shattered to me.
So who is at fault? Where did the pilots break the rules?
Fog of war is what it is, tragically in this case.
To believe you can fight a war without friendly fire incidents even in this age, is a bit rediculous.
-
Last night a senior US military source told The Sun: “This tape needs to get out. The pilots need to be brought to account.”
About as simplistic and shallow as I'd expect from the media.
Well,, the pilots will be made the scapegoats for the incident. And the pilots knew that at the time; when it goes bad, they will be sacrificed for the "greater good" --- that's just the military way when dealing with the public and politicians. The breakdown was not solely with the pilots in this incident, IMHO.
Pilots don't operate on their own in a combat box. All Blue Force are supposed to be kept track of by Controllers. Obvious that location of friendlies were unknown while strike operations ongoing. The Controller confirmed no friendlies and gave the pilots the green light to attack.
I also don't know what those pilot's ROE was at that time, or what that tactical situation was for the OA. If Orange Panels were in common use by that time, and they were aware of it, then their attack while there was "something" orange on top of the vehicles, they CAN be faulted for carrying through with the attack. This was Basra in March 2003. I hit the ground in Baghdad at the end of 2003, and we got our orange panels around February, but we got everything late.
Buck Fever? Coming to the end of a patrol with nothing to show for it?
It should also be clear that communications were about as screwed up as it normally is.
Friendly Fire happens. If you take every step to avoid it at all costs, you end up still losing soldiers to indecision and indecisiveness and become combat ineffective. It is to be avoid. You take steps to avoid it. But it still happens. It's called combat.
But most people will just see the video, maybe an official PR press release, and the video of justifiably anguished family paraded forth by the media bottom feeders and lawyers. They won't hear the testimonies of anyone else associated with this. They won't get the details. They will consider what is happening in the context of 2007, not March 2003. But the pilots will be crucified in the public media machine for ratings and circulation more than anything else.
And if you haven't been in a combat environment: you're opinion don't count. Sorry.... it just doesn't in my book. No offense intended.
-
This has been previously investigated by the US and UK in 2003-2004, and several contributing factors were identified
Details (http://www.nao.org.uk/publications/nao_reports/05-06/0506936.pdf)
-
The pilot has doubts, he seems to be not sure of the postion he is talking about and the position manila is talking about. What I don't understand is why he didn't mention the orange markings to manila.
In any case, it would have been over and done with by now if they had been truthful when it happened.
-
See Rule #5
-
I understand why they try to cover things like this up. For the most part, civilians will never be able to understand how accidents like this can happen.
Until you are under fire, you really do not know how that changes your ability to comprehened everything happening around you.
It is a shame when accidents like this happen, to be sure. While I said I can understand why they hide it when it happens, I do not neccessarily agree they should hide it.
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
I understand why they try to cover things like this up. For the most part, civilians will never be able to understand how accidents like this can happen.
Human nature, a defense mechanism.
Turn on a big press or a blast furnace when a co-worker was inside (both of which happened up here in the last three years) and you try to rationalize why it was not totally your fault if you have any feelings.
I'm sure these guys went thru the same thing.
shamus
-
I agree with Guppy. From what I heard and saw, they tried over and over again to verify the target. They sound pretty devestated to me. (Why the pilot can hold a level heading on the rtb also baffles me)
I also do not agree with someone in the Pentagon taking it upon themselves to leak classified data. Regardless of their "good" intentions.
-
I empathize with the pilots, but I'm afraid the tape clearly shows it's their responsibility here.
It's a saturated environment. The A-10 guys are working through the ANGLICO to adjust artillery fires. Meanwhile they're processing a second a target. There's also confusion on both sides about what other air traffic is on channel. (Or maybe not confusion, just plenty of other traffic)
So they spot these vehicles and wonder if they're friendlies. Among calls for the other target, they ask if there are any friendlies in the area. The ANGLICO says no, and they're not convinced. They call again. Eventually, based on the ANGLICO's information they "normalize" the cognitive dissonance, and decide those panels are orange rockets.
That's not how the process is supposed to work. When "something doesn't feel right", it's often because the data on the world are in conflict. Especially in such a situation, you cannot rely on any single indicator. It doesn't matter whether you're talking about your eyes out the cockpit, the artificial horizon, or a FAC -- if you rely on a single source of information about the world, bad things happen.
As far as FACs go, ANGLICOs may be very good, but they still make mistakes. Pilots do too, and here they made the mistake of seeing what the radio told them to see, and not what their eyes saw. They made it worse by not vocalizing their dissonance to the FAC.
-
Originally posted by LePaul
I
I also do not agree with someone in the Pentagon taking it upon themselves to leak classified data. Regardless of their "good" intentions.
I disagree, screwup's by government employee's should not be protected by the good old "classified" tag.
shamus
-
The FAC's job is to spot and allocate targets. It's a bit similar to artillery. If the FAC hads dropped arty rounds on the vehicles, say guided munitions like Copperheads, would you be all over the arty crews for firing on the target?
The pilots questioned the target multiple times and were told multiple times there were no friendlies there, that this was a legit target. Orange panels are not an exclusive item. They are available outside the US and UK military. Just like hiding in a civilian environment as was done in Lebanon, panels can be placed on enemy vehicles by the enemy as well.
There is a reason for the phrase "fog of war". It's not a computer game where things are nice and simple and you get to have a "do over" if things don't go your way. Close air support is a danger to friendlies because you don't sit in nice prepared obvious locations that can be easily determined from 3 miles away.
It's a fratricide incident. It is extremely regretable but not something that does not and never will happen. Fortunately it is dropping in frequency from what it used to be but it will never ever go away for good. Combat and warfare are not easy, neat or predictable. Mistakes do and will happen and all you an do is to try to minimize them.
Those pilots will be punishing themselves for the rest of their lives over this. Don't think they won't feel bad about this situation.
If you want to punish someone it should be the one(s) that made the decision to try and cover it up or just hush it up. They made something very regretable into something very much like a conspiracy to those who have no clue what the world is like in that circumstance.
-
The families now know what really happend thats all they have ever wanted to know to try to under stand how and why it happened.
if they had been told all them years ago it still would have hurt but not as much as all the lies told to them.
-
Well, on your logic, the pilots engaged a target without the FAC allocating it. The FAC never cleared them hot on the Brits, and the first he knew they were engaging was their "rolling in" call. If the CAS mode required them to get permission to engage, then the A-10 pilots screwed up. If not, then the A-10 pilots were the ones who made the identification, not the FAC, and they were the ones who screwed up.
There are all kinds of accusations flying around (the Sun "expert" misinterprets every shred of detail to make these pilots look really bad.)
Rule #1 is "if you're not sure of the target, don't drop or fire on it."
They weren't sure of the target. That's evident. Yet they fired on it, anyway. Was theirs a criminal act? Frankly, I don't see what sending them to jail would do for anybody.
Now, why it happened is interesting: with the ANGLICO, they are adjusting fire on an artillery target (vehicles in revetments), that is different from the CAS target they spot. The ANGLICO is occupied with this process: he's in comms with the firing battery processing an adjust fire (NORTH 800) and getting an accurate timing so he can have the A-10s observe.
The pilots spot the "new target", and suspect it's friendly. At this point, things go askew. The pilots are fixating on the "4 or 5 evenly spaced vehicles", while the ANGLICO is heads down with a fire mission.
Rather than accurately call out the new target, the pilots prejudice the ANGLICO's answer, asking something like "There aren't any friendlies this far up North, are there?"
They are now talking at cross-purposes.
Whether the ANGLICO had accurate target information or not, he's focusing on plotting a target considerably north of where the pilots are looking. So even if he knew about the recce column, he wouldn't give a response concerning it.
Things now get bad, as the ANGLICO and the pilots step on each other trying to get information on their separate tasks. The pilots do not ask about seeing orange, but rather about what kind of rocket launchers the Iraqis have.
Now the envelope starts to close: the pilots are approaching the end of their alloted time, and the vehicles are approaching a village. Rather than waiting for an ID, or getting more target information from the ANGLICO, or setting up a closer pass for identification, or even trying to ask permission to engage (assuming they needed it), they roll in, guns hot, after not-quite IDing the target from 6000 feet.
You can imagine the surprise of the ANGLICO, who the whole time was working on a different target, when all of a sudden his A-10s break off and engage friendlies.
The aircraft acted independently of the the terminal controller.
-
Maybe I'm missing something here but where's the "coverup" or "lies"? I've seen nothing where the US denied it happened or claimed it wasn't a blue-on-blue engagement. I can see where some family member or friends of the family claim they were lied to, but they appear to be talking about the existance of the tape, not the incident itself. There's alot of posturing and pontificating by lawyers and family friends but nobody claims they were told it didn't happen. If someone has then please post.
As for the tapes, yes, HUD camera film is generally classified as are all military after action reports. It's standard procedure because you don't want the enemy to have access to this info, it's not for "coverup" purposes. Suppose for instance the video had been released and seen by Iraqi forces. Think maybe we'd see a sudden proliferation of orange panels on top of Iraqi vehicles since that is obviously being used by coalition forces for visual ID of friendlies?
As far as releasing the tapes, that's up to the political appointees in the Pentagon but there is no justification in doing so here and, quite frankly, I couldn't care less what the family "wants." This isn't a case of some civilian walking down the street in London and getting intentionally swacked by some nutcase pilot in peacetime this is war and disciplinary action is well established as the purview of the military courts, not some civilian court. I also love the holier-than-thou comments in the other links claiming that this is solely a US problem, I suppose the UK has never, and would never, ever have a blue-on-blue engagement.
Edit: I just checked the report posted by Myelo. Seems a UK Challenger hosed down another Challenger killing two fellow Brits and a UK Marine was killed by UK Commandos. Also, the US reported the facts of the A-10 incident in Oct 2003. The UK didn't even begin it's military inquiry until Feb 2004. This UK MOD report came out in Feb 2006. Again, where's the coverup and lies?
-
Originally posted by Maverick
...The pilots questioned the target multiple times and were told multiple times there were no friendlies there, that this was a legit target. Orange panels are not an exclusive item. They are available outside the US and UK military. Just like hiding in a civilian environment as was done in Lebanon, panels can be placed on enemy vehicles by the enemy as well....
I don't get it , if the orange panel have no purpose like you seem to suggest why use it ?
-
Friendly fire happens everyday. If they burn these pilots they are just as wrong. Revoke flight status pending evaluation and appeals is what should happen here. Im not saying this is right but the media is trying to give the public the image of two John Waynes blazing out of the sky screaming die Brit die. These pilots will be seeing a shrink for years to come because of this and a regret that will never leave them. It was a judgement call and had they dove on a enemy convoy you wouldnt see heroic american pilots save brit convoy in the news.
Thats the sad thing about all this your sons and daughters and relatives serving overseas have the weight on thier shoulders of putting others lives in thier hands, and if they choose wrong they can get jailed for it. If they do the right thing its all a good day. Soldiers are not being recognized for the 110% effort they give daily and that a vast majority have the question of why am I here. Sure we have the whole ribbon thing and a few other means of support. Take a look around and notice how many of those car ribbons are faded. How many tattered flags hang in yards?
The military candy coats the numbers as overtime. If they posted it in military terms and came out and said yes thus far we have suffered a brigade sized element in deaths and sent a divisions worth back home banged up it might catch more public attention.
I cant image how it was for the Nam vets, but this whole war from start to present with the mess ups, media circus, the secrets and scandles enrage me there are TOO many unanswered questions. Our troops need to be at home, in 4 years we have not found one weapon of mass distruction which is why we invaded. Our men and women in uniform know this as does this country. We are slowly losing democracy and the American dream.
90prf
-
You're absolutely right bqek74. We have between 40,000 and 50,000 people die every single year on the highways of America. During the time we've lost 3,000 in Iraq and Afghanistan we've lost over 120,000 men, women and children driving or riding in cars. In military terms that's something like 40 brigades, no telling how many divisions of wounded we have. You're also right, so many unanswered questions and scandals like why don't we require 5 point restraint harnesses? Why don't we require full face helmets? Why don't our cars have roll cages or fire suppression systems? Why are we sending our population out on the streets with inadequate protection and why aren't all of our cars up-armored? I say it's time to call it quits and bring our cars home.
-
Didnt require sarcasm, I did 10 years active and Ive lost a few friends and had twice that injured and suffering from other issues all due to events over there. And as far as your sarcasm go install a 5 point harness on your car and buy a helmet. Theres alot more we can do for control and prevention in the homeland. The men and women in the middle east have no choice but to follow orders...those orders passed probably from a general and a politician calling them in from a cell phone in Florida. I did a year in the desert and thankfully when it wasnt as explosive as it is now. If you did your time in the sand you merit the right to sarcasm if you didnt...well I wont go there.
90prf
-
Originally posted by straffo
I don't get it , if the orange panel have no purpose like you seem to suggest why use it ?
I did not state they had no purpose. Neither did I imply it. I did state that orange panels are not exclusive to the UK or US military forces. In other words even the bad guys might give a thought to putting them on their vehicles to disguise them. The panels are not proof that the vehicle is friendly that's why the pilots asked repeatedly if there were friendlies in the area.
Same thing for popping smoke for inbound aircraft to mark friendly positions. You don't say what color smoke you will pop, you just pop it and have the pilot ID the color and you confirm it. The bad guys have smoke grenades too.
-
It wasn't meant so much as sarcasm as irony. Just asking for a little perspective as those that harp most about losses evidently think it's far more important to be comfortable when driving down to the corner store for a pack of cigarettes than to serve national interests.
(Sarcasm alert) Orders passed on by a General who takes his direction from the civilian politicians? How astonishing. Oh, wait, isn't that the way it's set up in the Constitution. What would you prefer, the PFC's running the show? Just so you know, the war is being run from in theater, not here in Tampa.
BTW 24 years and about a year combat time over that desert or doesn't that count since it wasn't technically "in the sand"?
-
Gentlemen,
Those of us who are professionals and deal with these issues every day know that blue on blue incidents can never be eliminated during war.
I'd encourage you to remember back in 1991 when Apache's opened up on friendly Bradley IFV's b/c the grid coordinates he was given didn't match up with his computer, but he made the decision to fire anyway. Here is that video on my site:
http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=662494965
Even with comms from the Apache's going back to the TOC asking about the locations of the enemy armor and noticing his INS wasn't matching up the grid he was told their location was - the decision making process was much the same in this incident 15 years ago as it was for these A-10 drivers 3 years ago.
Other things we don't know are the ROE being used by the A-10s. Was it a free-fire zone? We're the Marine FAC's talking to the A-10s before they rolled in or were they on a different NET?
Part of the reason you don't see many blue on blue incidents in the USMC is their FAC's and air assets are organic. Item's we've seen implemented since 03 have been limited deployments of blue-force tracking - especially for the Army units.
You will never eliminate fracticide, communications will break down and in the end, the pilot has to live with the decisions made. That in of itself is a punishment enough. Its not our right to judge him for making a decision which 95% of us did not join up to make, and i'd gather would rather have someone else make for us.
Respectfully,
Wolf
-
Sorry then Mace I tend to take this whole affair rather serious, it seems like 911 gave most americas a shot of I love my country they all went out and bought flags to hang up and such...years later those same flags are hanging as rags in the same place.
I remember telling my mother when I was being deployed and her reaction and I know theres parents and soldiers on here and I couldnt imagine being a parent. Its the support they get from letters and calls from home that help them get back safe.
Alot of Americas brass are opposed to the war overthere so if its in tampa or a comm truck on the frontline suits still carry weight. Theres always gonna be a 50/50 opinion on this from kids in school, to the warrant 5 with 36 years service.
With this whole Iraq deal these pilots are another log on the fire to appeal to the masses who want to be assured that we are handling issues in a professional manner. Makes me wonder if there had been more media in ww2....
90prf
-
Originally posted by bzek74
Makes me wonder if there had been more media in ww2....
... Then we'd probably be speaking German or Japanese right now.
One question - what if that convoy headed for the town had been enemy, and the A-10 pilots had not attacked?
-
Well, if that were the case, they would have been id'd by the recon group comcing in, and the CAS flight that was taking over would have been on them. Or the artillery that was working over the scene would have adjusted with something nasty. Or any number of things. It's not like it was a "friendlies on the ground in contact with enemy" situation. I mean, I appreciate the desire to give these pilots every benefit of the doubt, and I'd agree there's no sense in busting them further for something they'll regret for the rest of their life, but they _did_ screw up.
-
I wonder why many people faults the pilots. They noticed the orange markings and tried to verify that there are no friendlies in the area. However, the message was that there are no friendlies and they acted accordingly to the orders to engage. If someone was at fault there, it was the center ignoring the possibility of friendlies when inquired about it. They hardly gave a thought for the pilot's observation.
-
sad news. just like in kelly's heroes when the damn allied planes rocket thier jeeps in the forrest. most likely no one to blame but war, and war doest turn up for bail very often. who is responsible for war? all of man kind no matter if we fight in them or protest about them.
make 100% certain there was no foul play in a hush hush investigation and then let the poor pilots go and try to fit into normal society again.
i do think though, maybe next time it happens, and it will happen always in war, would be a good show of faith if the USA blew up some of her own troops a bit more.
as ever my wish is may all affected by war find the grace to forgive humanity for our total bungle of evolution since we could throw rocks at each other.
wow guys, geuss what, 10,000 years on and we developing better ways to kill ourselves.
pretty soon, within maybe 100,000 years some of the other hot contenders for world powers are going to show how seriously they have been out evolving us as we get really good at war.
but geuss what!
it wont matter!
mainly because even the smartest dolphin or giant jungle insects cant beat a steady stream of bigger and better syntetic weapons made be such a vast colony of worker ants like us humans.
nope, will all be fine cos anything that screws with us we will wipe it off the planet if we dont first wipe ourselves off.
yay humans!
-
Originally posted by Fishu
I wonder why many people faults the pilots. They noticed the orange markings and tried to verify that there are no friendlies in the area. However, the message was that there are no friendlies and they acted accordingly to the orders to engage. If someone was at fault there, it was the center ignoring the possibility of friendlies when inquired about it. They hardly gave a thought for the pilot's observation.
Hey Fishu,
I really shouldn't argue these points too much, but the principle is the same in aviation regardless of whether you're using aviation to kill things or not: the only single system that gives you a complete picture of what's going on is your central nervous system. One of the classic sources of pilot error lies in favoring any data source, to the out-of-hand exclusion of any conflicting sources.
Here, yeah, the were told "no friendlies in the area". But they had switched areas without informing the ANGLICO. It was clear that the ANGLICO was processing an entirely different mission, yet they gave him impartial information and didn't challenge his response against what they were seeing.
It's like if you punch in an ambiguous waypoint (say the letter H) into your autopilot, and it interprets it as being somewhere else in the hemisphere, and flies you 120 degrees off the expected track and into the side of a mountain. You can't blame the autopilot for resolving an ambiguity incorrectly. But the pilots are responsbile A) for not noticing the initial ambiguity (easy enough) and B) for not making gross error checks on the autopilot (this is the point of screwup).
These guys clearly knew something wasn't right, but pressed anyway, having to hurry their shots to do so. They got to the point where every single safety feature in the system was eroded or skipped. What they did next is punishment enough for anybody in their shoes.
-
Ah, I hadn't realised they were in a different area
-
The Transcript... note the last comment. What really sucks is the US attempt to cover it up. Mistakes are made, but quietly sweeping it under rug is a bad thing to do to your coalition partners.
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?
Manila hotel: I understand that was north 800 metres.
Manila hotel: Popov, understand that was north 800 metres?
Popov35: Confirm, north 800 metres.Confirm there are no friendlies this far north on the ground.
Manila hotel: That is an affirm. You are well clear of friendlies.
Popov35: Copy. I see multiple revetted vehicles. Some look like flatbed trucks and others are green vehicles. Can't quite make out the type. Look like may be Zil157s (Russian made trucks used by Iraqi army).
.....
Popov 36: OK. Right underneath you. Right now, there's a canal that runs north/south. There's a small village, and there are vehicles that are spaced evenly there.
Popov 36: They look like they have orange panels on though.
Popov35: He told me, he told me there's nobody north of here, no friendlies.
.....
Popov36: They've got something orange on top of them
Popov35: Popov for Manila 3, is Manila 34 in this area?
Manila Hotel: Say again?
Popov35: Manila hotel, is Manila 34 in this area?
Manila hotel: Negative. Understand they are well clear of that now.
Popov35: OK, copy. Like I said, multiple revetted vehicles. They look like flatbed trucks. Are those your targets?
Manila hotel: That's affirm
Popov35: OK
.....
Popov36: I want to get that first one before he gets into town then.
Popov35: Get him - get him.
.....
[Sound of gunfire]...
Lightning 34: Roger, Popov. Be advised that in the 3122 and 3222 group box you have friendly armour in the area. Yellow, small armoured tanks. Just be advised.
Popov35: Ahh ****.
Popv35: Got a - got a smoke.
Lightning 34: Hey, Popov34, abort your mission. You got a, looks we might have a blue on blue situation.
Popov35: ****. God, bless it.
.....
Manila 34: We are getting an initial brief that there was one killed and one wounded, over.
Popov 35: Copy. RTB (return to base)
I'm going to be sick.
.....
Popov35: Did you hear?
Popov36: Yeah, this sucks.
Popov35: We're in jail dude
.....
Popov35: They did say there were no friendlies.
Popov36:Yeah, I know that thing with the orange panels is going to screw us. They look like orange rockets on top.
-
Popov35: Confirm, north 800 metres.Confirm there are no friendlies this far north on the ground.
-- That's the kicker. I listened to it again. The 800 m North is an afifirmative acknowledgment of the adjust fire. The "Confirm, there are no friendlies..." is a request for information about the situation in general -- but there's no way to know that unless you've got Popov36 talking about the 4-ship. The "flatbed trucks and green vehicles" is the target description for the artillery.
The artillery target consists of vehicles in revetments. Friendly vehicles moving in the open will not be described as in revets.
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
What really sucks is the US attempt to cover it up. Mistakes are made, but quietly sweeping it under rug is a bad thing to do to your coalition partners.
The tape was given to the MoD, the US did not want it released publicly. I don't think that qualifies as a cover up... otherwise I don't believe the MoD would have received a copy...
The MoD said it was given a copy of the video by the US government for its own investigation into the incident
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/6333853.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/6333853.stm)
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
The Transcript... note the last comment. What really sucks is the US attempt to cover it up. Mistakes are made, but quietly sweeping it under rug is a bad thing to do to your coalition partners.
OK, I'll ask yet again since I covered this in a previous post in this thread. WHERE DOES ANYONE SAY THIS WAS COVERED UP? What we have here is a case of the press having done such an outstanding job of portraying everything as a "coverup" that people now believe it's the norm, which is, of course, BS.
I'll quote myself here:
Maybe I'm missing something here but where's the "coverup" or "lies"? I've seen nothing where the US denied it happened or claimed it wasn't a blue-on-blue engagement. I can see where some family member or friends of the family claim they were lied to, but they appear to be talking about the existance of the tape, not the incident itself. There's alot of posturing and pontificating by lawyers and family friends but nobody claims they were told it didn't happen. If someone has then please post.
Also, the US reported the facts of the A-10 incident in Oct 2003. The UK began it's military inquiry in Feb 2004. This UK MOD report came out in Feb 2006. Again, where's the coverup and lies?
Why is it everyone takes these ridiculous human feelings stories and hypes them so much? A regretable war-time mistake gets turned into an international incident complete with imaginary cover-ups by the highest levels of the US government just because a tape was released confirming what both the US and UK governments already said beginning four years ago.
Also, do you notice there is absolutely no background provided in the British Press reports about the family members, the objective of the inquiry, the previously released information or that the tapes provide absolutely no new information? This is what's known as "yellow" journalism. By excluding this important information the press creates the impression that something more is going on, oh my gosh...a SCANDAL! Are we now going to have an official inquiry complete with lawyers, mouthpieces, slander, accusations, politics, etc., for every single military member killed in war? How much of a deal was made over the two UK tankers killed by other UK tankers? How about the UK Marine killed by UK Commandos? Jeeze...I don't recall these being blasted all around like this.