Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Milton

Uk Aid Worker Killed By Us Special Forces Grenade?

Recommended Posts

http://www.bbc.co.uk...litics-11514210

Last Friday's rescue mission of Linda Norgrove has clearly gone doubly wrong - she died in the attempt and then the wrong information was put out about how she died.

But General Petraeus's office in Kabul maintains that the alternative could have been even worse.

Without giving any details they say they had intelligence that by late on Friday her life was in great danger and that the rescue operation was "her best chance of success".

What both the US and British governments feared was that she was about to be smuggled across the border into Pakistan's tribal territories, passed to an even more extremist group, filmed on video to be uploaded onto the internet and then murdered in cold blood.

Despite what happened in the rescue attempt, Gen Petraeus's office says they have absolutely no doubt that mounting a hostage rescue operation was "the right thing to do".

But this still leaves at least two uncomfortable questions hanging in the air:

1) Why were fragmentation grenades apparently used by her would-be rescuers when there was clearly a high risk she could be injured by them?

2) Why were US forces initially so adamant that Ms Norgrove was killed by her abductors, only to now change their minds, causing profound embarrassment to Britain's PM and foreign secretary?

[RIP. Condolences to her family.]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently the US special Forces have been working in that area for years and the UK ones have not. If that is true then it makes sense to have sent the Yanks in.

Shit happens. I know the SAS are supposed to be the best in the World, however the Yanks will not exactly be part time supermarket security guards. They made a mistake. Quite understandable.

Shame for the woman involved of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently the US special Forces have been working in that area for years and the UK ones have not. If that is true then it makes sense to have sent the Yanks in.

Shit happens. I know the SAS are supposed to be the best in the World, however the Yanks will not exactly be part time supermarket security guards. They made a mistake. Quite understandable.

Shame for the woman involved of course.

Agreed , this is another example of blaming the rescuers. the reason this poor girl died is that she was kidnapped by terrorists and no other :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed , this is another example of blaming the rescuers. the reason this poor girl died is that she was kidnapped by terrorists and no other :ph34r:

While not inferring blame those who go to such areas with the recent history of murders must accept some responsibility.Would you go?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While not inferring blame those who go to such areas with the recent history of murders must accept some responsibility.Would you go?

No , but I admire those who do. Your point would apply to all those who put themselves in the way of danger, i'm happy to know that if the house is on fire or a Moaty turns up 999 will bring help ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I may be alone in being so snearingly cynical, but when I heard that this young woman had been killed whilst being rescued by US troops I assumed it was accidentally by the rescue team. I hope there is no recrimination over this. The commandos involved were doing a close to impossible task and were willing to risk their lives to try and save her. If it were me I think I'd rather go during a rescue attempt than later at the hands of my captors in some gruesome beheading that was videoed for the world to see.

I agree with that (although I wasn't quite as cynical to be honest). Considering the outcome is the same somehow being killed by your rescuers doesn't seem as bad as being murdered by your captors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The commandos involved were doing a close to impossible task and were willing to risk their lives to try and save her.

If they were, they wouldn't be throwing fragmentation grenades into a location where the hostage might be; it's precisely because Americans aren't willing to risk casualties that they adopt such stupid tactics. No-one in their right mind would allow the use of such weapons in a hostage rescue of this kind.

I'm surprised they didn't fire a missile in there and declare that they had to kill her in order to save her.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is interesting is how they put out blatant lies about what happened for the first 2 days. The thing is that usually these stories get no follow up, so the fact that it was Americans that killed this woman rather than Afgani kidnappers would usually never come out, or just be reported in some tiny correction article somewhere. The US military probably had a pretty good idea what really happened in the first hour or two afterwards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe they are taking lessons from the Russian Spetznas? The Spetznas mean business. For example the Moscow siege? Go in shooting killing EVERYBODY hostages, kidnappers alike.

Beslan school siege? Level the school, Chechneya? Just carpet bomb the whole place. Local Afghan warlord giving you trouble, capture their families and send them home in small boxes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If US forces didn't have a track record regarding killing their allies in "friendly fire" incidents, I would give them the benefit of the doubt.

As it is, there is a reasonable chance they used excessive force which resulted in this unfortunate outcome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If US forces didn't have a track record regarding killing their allies in "friendly fire" incidents, I would give them the benefit of the doubt.

As it is, there is a reasonable chance they used excessive force which resulted in this unfortunate outcome.

I am not really sure there is such a thing as 'excessive force' in these situations. Will be interesting to see what comes out. Then again we are unlikely to be told the entire truth so it will mostly be guesswork.

As for throwing a grenade where they thought she may be ? Perhaps they got shoddy intelligence, or they moved her to a different place just before they arrived. Who knows.

They were no doubt under attack during this event. I think in that situation most of us would happily throw a grenade into a room with live fire coming from it, and hope to ****** the hostage was not there.

Only so much training and planning can do IMO.

Anyway - only they know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not really sure there is such a thing as 'excessive force' in these situations. Will be interesting to see what comes out. Then again we are unlikely to be told the entire truth so it will mostly be guesswork.

As for throwing a grenade where they thought she may be ? Perhaps they got shoddy intelligence, or they moved her to a different place just before they arrived. Who knows.

They were no doubt under attack during this event. I think in that situation most of us would happily throw a grenade into a room with live fire coming from it, and hope to ****** the hostage was not there.

Only so much training and planning can do IMO.

Anyway - only they know.

I dont think it is standard practise to throw fragmentation grenades into rooms during hostage rescues even if the people inside are shooting. There are other types of odinance that can be used which could incapictate the combatants without killing the prisoner. This type of mistake might be expected from ordinary soldiers but elite specialists in this field should know how to handle themselves even in close fire situations. Certainly the ex SAS bloke they were interviewing on the news sounded very surprised about the tactics that appeared to have been used.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont think it is standard practise to throw fragmentation grenades into rooms during hostage rescues even if the people inside are shooting.

Indeed, it's insane. Look at the SAS at the Iranian embassy, for example: flash-bangs achieve the same end result with far less risk of killing a hostage but requiring a little more risk of casulaties. If there had been hundreds of bad guys guarding the hostage then perhaps it would have made some kind of sense, but according to the news report there were... a whole... six.

That said, I'd argue that risking the lives of soldiers to rescue someone who thought they could walk into an occupied country where almost everyone hates us without risking being murdered is insane in itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont think it is standard practise to throw fragmentation grenades into rooms during hostage rescues even if the people inside are shooting. There are other types of odinance that can be used which could incapictate the combatants without killing the prisoner. This type of mistake might be expected from ordinary soldiers but elite specialists in this field should know how to handle themselves even in close fire situations. Certainly the ex SAS bloke they were interviewing on the news sounded very surprised about the tactics that appeared to have been used.

Heard Peter Winner on the radio just now saying exactly this. He went further and said that in his experience the Yanks were amateurish [when he trained with their Delta force 20 years ago] and that rather than going in mob-handed with 100s of soldiers they should have gone in a small unit with night vision goggles and picked off the perimeter guards first then the rest would fall like a house of cards with the use of stun grenades not frags. Sounded all a bit "Tap-tap" until you remember Mr Winner was in the Iranian embassy siege. :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heard Peter Winner on the radio just now saying exactly this. He went further and said that in his experience the Yanks were amateurish [when he trained with their Delta force 20 years ago] and that rather than going in mob-handed with 100s of soldiers they should have gone in a small unit with night vision goggles and picked off the perimeter guards first then the rest would fall like a house of cards with the use of stun grenades not frags. Sounded all a bit "Tap-tap" until you remember Mr Winner was in the Iranian embassy siege. :ph34r:

I thought he was some sort of restaurant critic......"Calm down dear"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good on the lady for helping people, but her actions put other peoples lives at risk.

The US solders put their lives at risk to help someone who should never have been in the area, it's a war zone ffs. I hope that people remember the bravery of the solders, unfortunately there will never be a 100% success rate, especially when the enemy is a group of suicidal nutters who think they're going to heaven for murdering innocent people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would it not make sense to wait and see what comes out of this prior to assuming they were using the 'wrong' type of grenade or whatever...

Now maybe the Yanks made a mistake. Entirely possible. However I am also pretty certain the blokes involved in this operation know more about this stuff than anyone commenting on this thread :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not really sure there is such a thing as 'excessive force' in these situations. Will be interesting to see what comes out. Then again we are unlikely to be told the entire truth so it will mostly be guesswork.

:rolleyes:

I think we can safely say that there IS such a thing as excessive force in these situations - the use of force so severe that it results in the death of the hostage you are trying to rescue!

We will never hear the truth about what happened here, those who knew it and were unlikely to take part in a cover-up are dead. Everyone still alive has a vested interest in covering their ****.

The US have a long history of over reacting and using too much force, which is why nobody gives them the benefit of the doubt in a case like this. The whole "release one version to the press that makes you look good, then follow up with subsequent versions of events that look less good" smacks of Jean Charles de Menezes murder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well who life is more important in this situation ? The soldier or the hostage ?

IMO it is the soldier. So if they choose to do something that may increase the chance of the hostage getting injured - but lessens the chance of themself getting injured ? I think that is fair enough.

Agree we will never know the details. And yes I agree the US have a history of this. HOWEVER these blokes went into a situation where they were having live bullets fired at their heads. This was in order to save a complete stranger, from a different country, that chose to put themself into a situation where this hostage taking was a high possibility.

I think giving these soldiers the benefit of the doubt is the option I would take. At least until some sort of investigation is carried out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well who life is more important in this situation ? The soldier or the hostage ?

IMO it is the soldier. So if they choose to do something that may increase the chance of the hostage getting injured - but lessens the chance of themself getting injured ? I think that is fair enough.

Agree we will never know the details. And yes I agree the US have a history of this. HOWEVER these blokes went into a situation where they were having live bullets fired at their heads. This was in order to save a complete stranger, from a different country, that chose to put themself into a situation where this hostage taking was a high possibility.

I think giving these soldiers the benefit of the doubt is the option I would take. At least until some sort of investigation is carried out.

If you extend that logic, they wouldn't have bothered trying to save the hostage in the first place. Let her die, and save the soldiers...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you extend that logic, they wouldn't have bothered trying to save the hostage in the first place. Let her die, and save the soldiers...

Hit it with a gunship, hope for the best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you extend that logic, they wouldn't have bothered trying to save the hostage in the first place. Let her die, and save the soldiers...

I was thinknig purely from the perspective of those on the ground. If it was you or I in the situation ? I am 100% certain we would both happily throw a grenade we thought may help our own/or pals situation at the possible expense of a hostage.

Hit it with a gunship, hope for the best.

And if you do that and they survive ? Just how exactly is the hostage going to manage to get to safety. People need to be on the ground. And if they are you have to accept they are going to think of things in the following order of safety/protection:

(1) Themself/Fellow soldiers

(2) Hostage

(3) Enemy

Any soldier will happily sacrifice a hostage for the sake of a member of their own force.

Me thinks there are a lot of PS3 soldiers on this thread. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The outpouring of angst about this has me baffled. Someone gets kidnapped in Afghanistan (I can't get worked up about this, goes with the territory) and a load of resource is put into finding them, then a bunch of guys risk their lives going to get this person. In a firefight with real live bullets (no health and safety here), the hostage gets killed by a grenade. Then everyone asks "what went wrong". Well, perhaps the pesky terrorists moved the hostage to the other end of the village, maybe they suck a towel on her head and taped an AK-47 to her arms, perhaps she was dead already. To cap it all, they're expected to have the firefight, get the hell out of that god forsaken place and perform a forensic analysis of what happened so that the bloody prime minister can make a statement.

One does wonder how the hell we survived WWII. Would we have had a public inquiry every time the Luftwaffe flew over? Would we have had media whingeing about how useless the Spitfire pilots were for not shooting them all down?

Ditto for the millions spent on the 7/7 handwringing. Some people were blown up by terrorists, of course the bloody tube staff were confused, I'd be confused if someone blew up my workplace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well who life is more important in this situation ? The soldier or the hostage ?

Are you suggesting that Soldiers join the armed forces in order to minimise the risk to their life? Do you think avoiding dangerous situations and maximising their safety - even to the exclusion of people they are trying to protect / rescue - is paramount in the minds of someone when are volunteer for special forces duty? :rolleyes:

Mind you, thinking along your lines there could be some benefit, if they had gone all out to "preserve" the soldiers lives, the hostage would still be alive, and your policy taken to it's logical conclusion means they would be sitting around their barracks drinking tea and we wouldn't be the aggressor in our second pointless foreign war of the last decade. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any soldier will happily sacrifice a hostage for the sake of a member of their own force.

Then they aren't professional soldiers.

They had a mission, to rescue a hostage. Not only did they fail, it looks like they actually caused the failure due to their actions.

Next time the fire brigade attend an incident a fire in your locality, would you be happy to see them set demolition charges at the bottom of the blazing house and blow it up with the women and children in still screaming, to avoid any risk to them and/or their colleagues.

Face it.

The yank special forces ******ed up, they killed the hostage they were attempting to save, and then blamed it on the captors. The whole situation would have been better if they'd stayed at home. It's a fail in every sense of the word.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 145 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.