Russethouse Posted February 6, 2007 Share Posted February 6, 2007 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6334769.stmHow stupid is it when the Americans refused to co operate with the coroner at the inquest of this soldier yet the Sun newspaper is able to get a copy and it is being shown on UK TV news ?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clair Posted February 6, 2007 Share Posted February 6, 2007 It apperas The SUn could be legitimately prosecuted for divulging 'secret' data... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Russethouse Posted February 6, 2007 Author Share Posted February 6, 2007 Perhaps they think its worth it ,and I suspect a little piece of me agrees............... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Smith Posted February 6, 2007 Share Posted February 6, 2007 They can claim a 'Public Interest' defence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clair Posted February 6, 2007 Share Posted February 6, 2007 As much as I try to understand the American army protecting its own, I cannot see the logic in doing that and at the same time expecting ally countries to support their actions in future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Posted February 6, 2007 Share Posted February 6, 2007 [quote user="Clair"]As much as I try to understand the American army protecting its own, I cannot see the logic in doing that and at the same time expecting ally countries to support their actions in future.[/quote]They don't expect all other countries to support them...just the UK, as they know Crony Blair will be led blindly into whatever they dictate as long as he is allowed to eat at teh top table with silly boy (oops sorry) George Dubya Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Smith Posted February 6, 2007 Share Posted February 6, 2007 Might be humorous, Chief, if we weren't discussing people getting killed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Russethouse Posted February 6, 2007 Author Share Posted February 6, 2007 Sticks in the gullet when the Americans seem to disrespect our legal process, isn't there a facility in the UK justice system for this evidence to have been seen just by the interested parties, not in open Coroners court ?Where's Llwncelyn ? As it that soldiers widow has yet another month of waiting for a verdict [:(] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Smith Posted February 6, 2007 Share Posted February 6, 2007 Llwncln has left the building...First of all, friendly-fire casualties happen, they always have. Usually they are plain mischance. These seem to have been due to negligence, which would open the way to almost unlimited damages, I would think. They are also very damaging politically and in terms of maintaining a cohesive support base for the war. Which is the reason why the tapes were not offered up straight away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beryl Posted February 6, 2007 Share Posted February 6, 2007 I have respect for all servicemen and women doing a difficult job where split second decisions are made under pressure. Inevitably and sadly some mistakes will be made. However, having read the transcript of this video and others like it, it does appear that there is a 'playstation' mentality in the way Americans react and the terminology that they use when they are killing human beings from a distance. I don't know if this is the same for all service personnel, I can only comment on the US tapes etc that I have seen, I am not anti American. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Smith Posted February 6, 2007 Share Posted February 6, 2007 The 'Playstation mentality' is encouraged; it makes it easier to get men to kill. In normal circumstances most soldiers will aim to miss - there has been considerable research on this - so enemies are dehumanised one way or another. I think after seeing the tape that their reaction shows that they knew exactly what they had done - but I don't understand why they didn't see it earlier. The 'Fog of War' is not a fiction, unfortunately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Head Posted February 6, 2007 Share Posted February 6, 2007 In normal circumstances most soldiers will aim to missCompletely untrue, soldiers are trained to aim for the mass of the body not for the extremities.American military personnel have a different training and mentality to the British soldier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Smith Posted February 6, 2007 Share Posted February 6, 2007 Sorry, Chris, the US military has studied this and they have found it to be true, hence selection and training which looks for people who are less empathic. It is more of a problem in conscript armies. It was found that soldiers who kill are either psychopaths or men with a highly developed sense of social responsibility - prepared to do the deed for the good of society. The rest may be trained to shoot for the body, but when faced with the enemy shoot over his head.This is not a new phenomenon. In the American civil war, after the battle of Gettysburg, they collected up the weapons of the dead. Most of them had not been fired, and some had as many as 8 balls and charges in the breech, where men had gone through the motions of loading, but had not fired. Hence the army's desire to dehumanise the enemy, especially by firing at a distance or mechanically. Later research found that the same attitudes applied, so specific training has been included to make it easier to kill, hence, I suspect, this friendly-fire incident.It may well be different in small, well-trained armies. Certainly the BEF in 1914 was reported to take pleasure in seeing the enemy fall, but they were a very different case, a truly professional army. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Russethouse Posted February 6, 2007 Author Share Posted February 6, 2007 Are you comparing like with like ?Chris says : American military personnel have a different training and mentality to the British soldier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Smith Posted February 6, 2007 Share Posted February 6, 2007 Yes, as both are highly professional, well-trained armies, not conscripts. The training may be different in some respects, but not the need to get as many people as possible to kill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Head Posted February 6, 2007 Share Posted February 6, 2007 It sounds as if the researchers found out that troops in a contact miss more often than they do on the range, given the confusion, noise and adrenaline levels going on that's not really suprising is it? But if the bods say it's true then it must be true eh? Crap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.