Death in RAF Chinook in Iraq
MG,
That was a bit slack of you on the beadwindow front
, even as a bullet dodger I know that. Fancy mentioning all that stuff to some bloke who only asked 'gizagomister'.
Can't get the staff these days you know.
That was a bit slack of you on the beadwindow front
, even as a bullet dodger I know that. Fancy mentioning all that stuff to some bloke who only asked 'gizagomister'. Can't get the staff these days you know.
Yes, admit that we (can't be sure who in the crew) did mention the forensic side but I think the talk of flying around to wash off the evidence suffers from the passage of time. More like 'we can't afford to ship it home just yet, don't you know there's a war on?'
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Detroit MI
Age: 66
Posts: 1,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jumpseater:
I'd suggest that, logically, if you want to "clean up the evidence" and the airframe is not impounded it would be far more sensible to just allow it to continue normal tasking. It's a lot safer than telling all and sundry that you are trying to erase evidence. The job will be done and there will be no loose tongues flashing around.
I'd suggest that, logically, if you want to "clean up the evidence" and the airframe is not impounded it would be far more sensible to just allow it to continue normal tasking. It's a lot safer than telling all and sundry that you are trying to erase evidence. The job will be done and there will be no loose tongues flashing around.
On the other hand you conspiracist clowns
Just because someone reads a new story article and think that it merits further attention doesn't make them a conspiracy theorist.
Go and stand on a street corner in Sangin and preach human rights and lawyer sh!t to the Taliban. See how long it takes before they remove your head with a large saw.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: at home
Posts: 412
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok, it's clear that you take the point of view of those who seek to sensationalise with no evidence to back it up.
Tell me, how much do you actually believe? The killing, the cover up, the unsanctioned camps? All of the above?
To me, there is no balance in this journalism. That, and a lack of evidence undermines its credibility.
What a pity there is no mention of the hundreds and maybe thousands of Iraqi and Afghan combatant and civilian lives that have been saved in the back of helicopters.
Tell me, how much do you actually believe? The killing, the cover up, the unsanctioned camps? All of the above?
To me, there is no balance in this journalism. That, and a lack of evidence undermines its credibility.
What a pity there is no mention of the hundreds and maybe thousands of Iraqi and Afghan combatant and civilian lives that have been saved in the back of helicopters.
A couple of quick points on this - firstly we're not always talking about enemy combatants. Civilians have often been caught up in events. As for desisting in their hostile ways, I would point out that in the case of Iraq their forces weren't acting in a hostile manner prior to the our invasion. One could reasonably argue they were simply defending their country against an ostensibly unprovoked attack by an external aggressor.
You can have your opinion but you are not entitled to your own facts.
I think a bit of perspective on this mission is in order.
It appears that the "deliver these prisoners to location X" order has the implied task of "alive" else nobody would bother to ship them to location X.
Crewman may or not have any idea what the hell happens after delivery. Indeed, many people might have been in the dark, until well after the fact.
This "news" reporting is exceedingly "after the fact" and the crew in question are dealing in "the here and now" with less than complete information.
It is very likely that crew were not aware of each prisoners complete condition: health, injuries, medical history, risks, and so on.
This 20/20 hindsight accusation of bloody handedness is unfortunately commonplace. Also, the article's source may be a frustrated serviceman venting for any number of reasons (not uncommon for enlisted troops to get the shaft one way or the other) and I suspect a bit of frustrated professional pride.
Most professional aircrewmen I ever worked with would take it as a point of pride: "Major says get these 8 lads to location X, and I make sure of it, because I'm damned good at my mission. Put in my hands, they get to location X, come hell or high water!"
For the mission to come a cropper, as it were, and one of the prisoners expires (while the others don't with similar handling) it is not unreasonable for the crewman to feel that he was set up to fail.
While I admit that I know very little about the actual details of this case/mission, there is some reason to believe that the set up, or an oversight, was in place before those 8 prisoners even got loaded in, and the crew couldn't know about it. (And the tape was just a bit too tight for one fella?)
Of course he's frustrated, even pissed off. One expects the others in a mil op to do their job to their utmost while one is busting one's butt to do one's job.
And I may be completely wrong.
Having re-read the thread: what has been characterized as the American investigation figuring out that "sh** happens" seems to be close to the mark. Accidental death despite most parties involved just trying to do their mission: "get these lads to location X."
That rarely sells papers.
It appears that the "deliver these prisoners to location X" order has the implied task of "alive" else nobody would bother to ship them to location X.
Crewman may or not have any idea what the hell happens after delivery. Indeed, many people might have been in the dark, until well after the fact.
This "news" reporting is exceedingly "after the fact" and the crew in question are dealing in "the here and now" with less than complete information.
It is very likely that crew were not aware of each prisoners complete condition: health, injuries, medical history, risks, and so on.
This 20/20 hindsight accusation of bloody handedness is unfortunately commonplace. Also, the article's source may be a frustrated serviceman venting for any number of reasons (not uncommon for enlisted troops to get the shaft one way or the other) and I suspect a bit of frustrated professional pride.
Most professional aircrewmen I ever worked with would take it as a point of pride: "Major says get these 8 lads to location X, and I make sure of it, because I'm damned good at my mission. Put in my hands, they get to location X, come hell or high water!"
For the mission to come a cropper, as it were, and one of the prisoners expires (while the others don't with similar handling) it is not unreasonable for the crewman to feel that he was set up to fail.
While I admit that I know very little about the actual details of this case/mission, there is some reason to believe that the set up, or an oversight, was in place before those 8 prisoners even got loaded in, and the crew couldn't know about it. (And the tape was just a bit too tight for one fella?)
Of course he's frustrated, even pissed off. One expects the others in a mil op to do their job to their utmost while one is busting one's butt to do one's job.
And I may be completely wrong.
Having re-read the thread: what has been characterized as the American investigation figuring out that "sh** happens" seems to be close to the mark. Accidental death despite most parties involved just trying to do their mission: "get these lads to location X."
That rarely sells papers.
Last edited by Lonewolf_50; 9th Feb 2012 at 21:53.
You can have your opinion but you are not entitled to your own facts.
I feel the Hand of Mod hovering over the delete key. Probably best we agree to disagree and get back to the subject at hand.
dp
They certainly weren't engaged in any hostile actions aimed at the West. Re compliance with UN resolutions, there's plenty of more dangerous and aggressive countries which fall into that category who we still haven't invaded.
They certainly weren't engaged in any hostile actions aimed at the West. Re compliance with UN resolutions, there's plenty of more dangerous and aggressive countries which fall into that category who we still haven't invaded.
BBC NEWS | Middle East | British military police killed in Iraq
Along with the "Oil for Food" program corruption by UN officials and some member nations....Iraq's refusal to cooperate to Treaty requirements...and Blix's pronunciations of innocence...the Iraqi's brought the Allied response upon themselves. The IAEA did not agree with the position Blix provided and were not satisfied with the Iraqi position.
Blix himself said in public and in private to Tony Blair...the inspections had not uncovered any WMD but could not prove there were none to be found. He talked of "smoking guns" and said none had been found. He also said if Inspections had been allowed to continue they in time would have found any WMD's if they in fact existed. Sadly, for lots of reasons....it took a War for those inspections to occur.
You might take a read of this document....as it lays out a bit of history on the Inspections.
Remember France and Russia wanted their old trading partner back...and for economic reasons supported relaxing sanctions despite Iraq's conduct.
Again....you cannot have your own facts.
Blix himself said in public and in private to Tony Blair...the inspections had not uncovered any WMD but could not prove there were none to be found. He talked of "smoking guns" and said none had been found. He also said if Inspections had been allowed to continue they in time would have found any WMD's if they in fact existed. Sadly, for lots of reasons....it took a War for those inspections to occur.
You might take a read of this document....as it lays out a bit of history on the Inspections.
Remember France and Russia wanted their old trading partner back...and for economic reasons supported relaxing sanctions despite Iraq's conduct.
Again....you cannot have your own facts.
Last edited by SASless; 11th Feb 2012 at 11:15.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: UK and where I'm sent!
Posts: 519
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Careless talk does indeed cost lives. Might not be the best time to have put yourself in the frame when a story like this breaks - if it is a story, as 500N rightly eludes to. I would imagine if anyone chooses to investigate, you might expect a knock, MG.
Get over yourselves. There's no state secret in taking a cab to Wyton and that was 9 years ago now. Surely the fact that there were official forensics done on the ac at the first opportunity back in the UK suggests that everything was above board and documented. The only knock I expect is my next delivery from Amazon.
