British soldier killed in Afghanistan in 2009 was victim of friendly fire < br />

2012-09-04 23:50:40 GMT+7 (ICT)

SUNDERLAND, ENGLAND (BNO NEWS) -- A British soldier who died of wounds following an engagement in southern Afghanistan in December 2009 was attacked by U.S. helicopter crews who thought they were attacking insurgents, an inquest was told on Monday, according to local media.

Lance Corporal Christopher Roney, 23, of 3rd Battalion The Rifles, was seriously injured on December 20, 2009, during an engagement in Sangin, a town in Helmand province. He received emergency treatment and was airlifted to a military hospital but died as a result of serious head injuries a day later.

An inquest began in Sunderland on Monday and heard Patrol Base Almas had come under attack from insurgents. The platoon based there was busy fighting them off and called in air support, after which a drone and two helicopters flew to the base, which was a compound with new mud walls which were not on official maps.

By the time air support arrived, British troops on the ground had already fought off the attackers, according to the BBC. But the U.S. helicopter crews incorrectly identified the coalition troops as insurgents, even though the patrol base had a flagpole, a washing line, defensive constructions, and personnel not dressed like the enemy.

Coroner Derek Winter said the 30mm chain gun rounds injured twelve people, including Roney who later died, and destroyed a communication mast. He said the Apache crews had not been informed, nor did they ask, for the exact location of Patrol Base Almas.

"They were unaware that the compound they were observing and in which they believed they had positively identified insurgents was, in fact, Patrol Base Almas," Winter was quoted as saying by the BBC. "Fused by the overwhelming belief that Patrol Base Almas was at risk of being overrun, the subsequent reactions and actions to these events created a devastating cumulative effect."

The inquest is expected to last until Friday.

-- © BNO News All rights reserved 2012-09-04

This exposes the mentality behind targeting of "suspected militants", but I suppose its more palatable than Vietnam's "free fire zone"

This soldier was not killed by friendly fire, he was murdered by Bush & Blair

This exposes the mentality behind targeting of "suspected militants", but I suppose its more palatable than Vietnam's "free fire zone"

This soldier was not killed by friendly fire, he was murdered by Bush & Blair

Archbishop Desmond Tutu might agree.

I never did see what's "friendly" about it.

This exposes the mentality behind targeting of "suspected militants", but I suppose its more palatable than Vietnam's "free fire zone"

This soldier was not killed by friendly fire, h

e was murdered by Bush & Blair

What a load of nonsense!

A patrol base is attacked and the defenders call

in air support. A classic breakdown in comms, expectations and briefing leads to a classic "blue on blue" and the death of a Brotish soldier.

Mercifully rare given the number of times air support is called in, usually with decisive impact, such situations are found in all conflicts but are fewer than ever due to better liaison and cooperation, but the fog of war will ensure that they do not vanish entirely.

So off your soapbox and this young man died for his platoon members not any politician. It's the nature of the job.

Edited September 5, 201213 yr by folium

This exposes the mentality behind targeting of "suspected militants", but I suppose its more palatable than Vietnam's "free fire zone"

This soldier was not killed by friendly fire, h

e was murdered by Bush & Blair

What a load of nonsense!

A patrol base is attacked and the defenders call

in air support. A classic breakdown in comms, expectations and briefing leads to a classic "blue on blue" and the death of a Brotish soldier.

Mercifully rare given the number of times air support is called in, usually with decisive impact, such situations are found in all conflicts but are fewer than ever due to better liaison and cooperation, but the fog of war will ensure that they do not vanish entirely.

So off your soapbox and this young man died for his platoon members not any politician. It's the nature of the job.

The Brit soldiers have to worry about the Taliban, their Afghan allies turning on them, and now their American allies.

How many Americans have been killed by Brit friendly fire?

The fog in war is called propaganda.

The Brit soldiers have to worry about the Taliban, their Afghan allies turning on them, and now their American allies.

How many Americans have been killed by Brit friendly fire?

The fog in war is called propaganda.

No, it's called not having a clue about what actual fighting conditions are, using a tragic incident to push forward a political agenda on a forum and other things which I'll hold from saying.

Deaths and injuries from friendly fire are part of warfare. If anything, number of such incidents is going down, the more technology and communication advance.

British forces in Afghanistan were involved in more than one incident concerning friendly fires, here are some examples:

http://news.sky.com/story/626543/poor-training-cause-of-army-death

The Royal Navy Board of Inquiry into the "friendly fire" death of Lance Corporal Mathew Ford condemned the lack of training before the operation....military probe into the killing found it was highly likely he was shot by another British soldier.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/nov/27/military.world

British troops killed two Danish soldiers by "friendly fire" during an operation against the Taliban in Afghanistan, British and Danish defence sources disclosed yesterday.

More here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friendly_fire#War_in_Afghanistan_from_2001

http://bfbs.com/news/afghanistan/afghan-friendly-fire-statistics-revealed-50833.html

As for the America bashing - they are not the only ones making these kinds of mistakes (as you can see from the links above), but they do shoulder most of the burden when it comes to aerial support.

I'm not positive on this, but I would be somewhat surprised if there are USA forces stationed so that they need to call in non-USA air support. The reason being that while NATO is quite coordinated, its still safer to conduct these sort of operations with same country forces.

The tragedy here is Bush and Blair's war against a people who have never harmed us, or posed a threat to our society in any way.

11 years of war, countless deaths of innocent people and you think its bad manners to bash America? or take a political stance?

This young soldier died for nothing, his death is not the tragic circumstances arising in the” fog of war” but the criminal acts of our governments.

That most certainly justifies bashing America. (and the UK)

I think that if you want to express your stand regarding the war in Afghanistan, you might try to do it without deducting that this incident exposes something about mentality (it does not, again - this happens to any fighting force anywhere), without insinuating that the British soldiers are threatened by USA forces. Presenting it in a twisted way does not make the argument against the war stronger.

Just bash away, man. You obviously don't like politicians, no need to act like one.

A post with anti-Islamic reference removed.

The tragedy here is Bush and Blair's war against a people who have never harmed us, or posed a threat to our society in any way.

11 years of war, countless deaths of innocent people and you think its bad manners to bash America? or take a political stance?

This young soldier died for nothing, his death is not the tragic circumstances arising in the” fog of war” but the criminal acts of our governments.

That most certainly justifies bashing America. (and the UK)

did you happen to see this article last Monday?

http://www.guardian....-hague-iraq-war

Edited September 7, 201213 yr by midas

The tragedy here is Bush and Blair's war against a people who have never harmed us, or posed a threat to our society in any way.

11 years of war, countless deaths of innocent people and you think its bad manners to bash America? or take a political stance?

This young soldier died for nothing, his death is not the tragic circumstances arising in the” fog of war” but the criminal acts of our governments.

That most certainly justifies bashing America. (and the UK)

did you happen to see this article last Monday?

http://www.guardian....-hague-iraq-war

I doubt Blair et al will ever have to defend themselves in a court of law, but Blair must be uncomfortable with this.

The tragedy here is Bush and Blair's war against a people who have never harmed us, or posed a threat to our society in any way.

11 years of war, countless deaths of innocent people and you think its bad manners to bash America? or take a political stance?

This young soldier died for nothing, his death is not the tragic circumstances arising in the” fog of war” but the criminal acts of our governments.

That most certainly justifies bashing America. (and the UK)

did you happen to see this article last Monday?

http://www.guardian....-hague-iraq-war

I doubt Blair et al will ever have to defend themselves in a court of law, but Blair must be uncomfortable with this.

They were attacked by the U.S forces on orders of the U.S command they are ones responsible.

Afganistan is a pointless war and I hope it is the last but I know it will not be. The little lap dogs AKA American allies will blindly follow the master into the next war they instigate and more lives will be lost for nothing. When the troops pull out of Afganistan and it returns to the way it was under Taliban control the U.S will claim victory and start planning thier assault on Iran.

Edited September 7, 201213 yr by chooka

The tragedy here is Bush and Blair's war against a people who have never harmed us, or posed a threat to our society in any way.

11 years of war, countless deaths of innocent people and you think its bad manners to bash America? or take a political stance?

This young soldier died for nothing, his death is not the tragic circumstances arising in the” fog of war” but the criminal acts of our governments.

That most certainly justifies bashing America. (and the UK)

did you happen to see this article last Monday?

http://www.guardian....-hague-iraq-war

I doubt Blair et al will ever have to defend themselves in a court of law, but Blair must be uncomfortable with this.

They were attacked by the U.S forces on orders of the U.S command they are ones responsible.

Afganistan is a pointless war and I hope it is the last but I know it will not be. The little lap dogs AKA American allies will blindly follow the master into the next war they instigate and more live will be lost for nothing. When the troops pull out of Afganistan and it returns to the way it was under Taliban control the U.S will claim victory and start planning thier assault on Iran.

Many commentators predicted Afghanistan would be a war like Vietnam: One America could not win.

Sadly it has cost many soldiers their lives. Allies like Britain and Australia to name a couple.

As we all know. Politicians are quick to send the lads off to war, but we don't see many of the politicians children going along for the ride.

You can certainly understand why the USA attacked Afghanistan when Mullah Omar refused to handover Bin Laden. But the US didn't finish the task of taking out the Taliban as they diverted resources to the completely unnecessary attack on Iraq. The result being loss of treasure and blood for the US, it's allies and of course the majority of Afghan people not aligned to the Taliban. Let alone the major problem of the huge Afghan refugee population in Pakistan who need to be resettled in Afghanistan.

One of the peripheral results is Afghanistan being the world's leading supplier of heroin, 90%+ - drugs for funding weapons supply. This speaks volumes to the failed strategy for the removal of the Taliban from Afghanistan by the USA and allies.

I agree. It retrospect, we should have used the Butcher and Bolt miltary stategy on the Taliban which was perfected the English long ago. As they say, everyone has 20/20 hindsight.

Edited September 8, 201213 yr by Ulysses G.

The tragedy here is Bush and Blair's war against a people who have never harmed us, or posed a threat to our society in any way.

They supported the Taliban and Al Qaeda, or at least they tolerated their existance in their midst. When the US asked the Taliban (who were running Afghanistan) to allow them (US Troops) to investigate those who allegedly bombed the twin towers, the Taliban refused to cooperate in any way.

If we're in the same neighborhood, and I have a nest of thugs living in my house. If your house gets things destroyed, and you highly suspect the thugs - then you would be angry at me for harboring and protecting the thugs, would you not?

I can't justify all the weird crap that's happened by US, UK and coalition involvement in Afghanistan, but remember it was a country where girls couldn't go to school, women were stoned to death for the smallest offense. If those were the only reasons for going in and cleaning shop, then it would have been justified to me. They even destroyed ancient Buddhist stone carvings, remember that? They still can't stop themselves from beheading others (women, kids, wedding parties) for the pettiest perceived offenses against their religion. The place has no natural resources except sand. It's a highly depressed part of the world. It has no carrying capacity for our species, and should be devoid of people (except a few nomads) and declared a Desert Wilderness Region for sightseers and campers.

The tragedy here is Bush and Blair's war against a people who have never harmed us, or posed a threat to our society in any way.

11 years of war, countless deaths of innocent people and you think its bad manners to bash America? or take a political stance?

This young soldier died for nothing, his death is not the tragic circumstances arising in the” fog of war” but the criminal acts of our governments.

That most certainly justifies bashing America. (and the UK)

did you happen to see this article last Monday?

http://www.guardian....-hague-iraq-war

I doubt Blair et al will ever have to defend themselves in a court of law, but Blair must be uncomfortable with this.

You may be right but already there are places where he is no longer welcome

The tragedy here is Bush and Blair's war against a people who have never harmed us, or posed a threat to our society in any way.

They supported the Taliban and Al Qaeda, or at least they tolerated their existance in their midst. When the US asked the Taliban (who were running Afghanistan) to allow them (US Troops) to investigate those who allegedly bombed the twin towers, the Taliban refused to cooperate in any way.

If we're in the same neighborhood, and I have a nest of thugs living in my house. If your house gets things destroyed, and you highly suspect the thugs - then you would be angry at me for harboring and protecting the thugs, would you not?

I can't justify all the weird crap that's happened by US, UK and coalition involvement in Afghanistan, but remember it was a country where girls couldn't go to school, women were stoned to death for the smallest offense. If those were the only reasons for going in and cleaning shop, then it would have been justified to me. They even destroyed ancient Buddhist stone carvings, remember that? They still can't stop themselves from beheading others (women, kids, wedding parties) for the pettiest perceived offenses against their religion. The place has no natural resources except sand. It's a highly depressed part of the world. It has no carrying capacity for our species, and should be devoid of people (except a few nomads) and declared a Desert Wilderness Region for sightseers and campers.

Just for your info Afghanistan has huge natural resources, but as yet not developed for obvious reasons. A few URLs for your research below

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/14/world/asia/14minerals.html?pagewanted=all

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/afghanistans-resources-could-make-it-the-richest-mining-region-on-earth-2000507.html

http://www.khaama.com/india-invests-11-billion-in-afghan-natural-resources-054/

The tragedy here is Bush and Blair's war against a people who have never harmed us, or posed a threat to our society in any way.

They supported the Taliban and Al Qaeda, or at least they tolerated their existance in their midst. When the US asked the Taliban (who were running Afghanistan) to allow them (US Troops) to investigate those who allegedly bombed the twin towers, the Taliban refused to cooperate in any way.

If we're in the same neighborhood, and I have a nest of thugs living in my house. If your house gets things destroyed, and you highly suspect the thugs - then you would be angry at me for harboring and protecting the thugs, would you not?

I can't justify all the weird crap that's happened by US, UK and coalition involvement in Afghanistan, but remember it was a country where girls couldn't go to school, women were stoned to death for the smallest offense. If those were the only reasons for going in and cleaning shop, then it would have been justified to me. They even destroyed ancient Buddhist stone carvings, remember that? They still can't stop themselves from beheading others (women, kids, wedding parties) for the pettiest perceived offenses against their religion. The place has no natural resources except sand. It's a highly depressed part of the world. It has no carrying capacity for our species, and should be devoid of people (except a few nomads) and declared a Desert Wilderness Region for sightseers and campers.

Having said all that and I do not disagree, what is going to happen when the troops pull out in 18 months? Will it revert to what is was with the Taliban back in control, which I think it will. So my big question what was the whole point of it and the loss of life to allied troops will all have been a total waste.

The tragedy here is Bush and Blair's war against a people who have never harmed us, or posed a threat to our society in any way.

Al Qaeda and the Taliban were never a threat to our society?

Edited September 8, 201213 yr by Ulysses G.

sorry to say it, but once again the Americans kill some Brits by friendly fire. It happens too often, for a country that has so much money and great technology, why does it always happen.

At least the family of L/Cpl Roney now have all the details surrounding his death, and can get on with their lives.

The tragedy here is Bush and Blair's war against a people who have never harmed us, or posed a threat to our society in any way.

11 years of war, countless deaths of innocent people and you think its bad manners to bash America? or take a political stance?

This young soldier died for nothing, his death is not the tragic circumstances arising in the” fog of war” but the criminal acts of our governments.

That most certainly justifies bashing America. (and the UK)

did you happen to see this article last Monday?

http://www.guardian....-hague-iraq-war

I doubt Blair et al will ever have to defend themselves in a court of law, but Blair must be uncomfortable with this.

how about this then?

I believe novelists call this technique " suspension of disbelief ".....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2200091/Tony-Blair-As-Archbishop-Desmond-Tutu-said-trial-Iraq-gripping-plausible-thriller-writer-imagines-happen.html

sorry to say it, but once again the Americans kill some Brits by friendly fire. It happens too often, for a country that has so much money and great technology, why does it always happen.

At least the family of L/Cpl Roney now have all the details surrounding his death, and can get on with their lives.

It does not happen "often". It does happen to all parties involved in the fighting.

The USA armed forces carry the lion's share of operations, hence more likely to be involved in anything (more so when it comes to aerial support).

Some links provided above, might serve to dispel some of those notions.

The tragedy here is Bush and Blair's war against a people who have never harmed us, or posed a threat to our society in any way.

Al Qaeda and the Taliban were never a threat to our society?

I never mentioned Al Qaeda, I said the Taliban were never a threat to our society,which was perfect true in 2011, if they are a threat today after 11 years of NATO killing it is understandable.

The tragedy here is Bush and Blair's war against a people who have never harmed us, or posed a threat to our society in any way.

Al Qaeda and the Taliban were never a threat to our society?

I never mentioned Al Qaeda, I said the Taliban were never a threat to our society,which was perfect true in 2011, if they are a threat today after 11 years of NATO killing it is understandable.

By association the Taliban were a threat by providing shelter and support for Al Qaeda in Afghanistan

Edited September 9, 201213 yr by simple1

The tragedy here is Bush and Blair's war against a people who have never harmed us, or posed a threat to our society in any way.

11 years of war, countless deaths of innocent people and you think its bad manners to bash America? or take a political stance?

This young soldier died for nothing, his death is not the tragic circumstances arising in the” fog of war” but the criminal acts of our governments.

That most certainly justifies bashing America. (and the UK)

did you happen to see this article last Monday?

http://www.guardian....-hague-iraq-war

I doubt Blair et al will ever have to defend themselves in a court of law, but Blair must be uncomfortable with this.

how about this then?

I believe novelists call this technique " suspension of disbelief ".....

http://www.dailymail...nes-happen.html

How I wish it were true

The tragedy here is Bush and Blair's war against a people who have never harmed us, or posed a threat to our society in any way.

Al Qaeda and the Taliban were never a threat to our society?

I never mentioned Al Qaeda, I said the Taliban were never a threat to our society,which was perfect true in 2011, if they are a threat today after 11 years of NATO killing it is understandable.

By association the Taliban were a treat by providing shelter and support for Al Qaeda in Afghanistan

Guilt by association?

Bush and Blair falsely accused Saddam with supporting Al Qaeda.

The tragedy here is Bush and Blair's war against a people who have never harmed us, or posed a threat to our society in any way.

Al Qaeda and the Taliban were never a threat to our society?

I never mentioned Al Qaeda, I said the Taliban were never a threat to our society,which was perfect true in 2011, if they are a threat today after 11 years of NATO killing it is understandable.

By association the Taliban were a threat by providing shelter and support for Al Qaeda in Afghanistan

Exactly. The Taliban AND Al Qaeda were a threat.

The tragedy here is Bush and Blair's war against a people who have never harmed us, or posed a threat to our society in any way.

They supported the Taliban and Al Qaeda, or at least they tolerated their existance in their midst. When the US asked the Taliban (who were running Afghanistan) to allow them (US Troops) to investigate those who allegedly bombed the twin towers, the Taliban refused to cooperate in any way.

If we're in the same neighborhood, and I have a nest of thugs living in my house. If your house gets things destroyed, and you highly suspect the thugs - then you would be angry at me for harboring and protecting the thugs, would you not?

I can't justify all the weird crap that's happened by US, UK and coalition involvement in Afghanistan, but remember it was a country where girls couldn't go to school, women were stoned to death for the smallest offense. If those were the only reasons for going in and cleaning shop, then it would have been justified to me. They even destroyed ancient Buddhist stone carvings, remember that? They still can't stop themselves from beheading others (women, kids, wedding parties) for the pettiest perceived offenses against their religion. The place has no natural resources except sand. It's a highly depressed part of the world. It has no carrying capacity for our species, and should be devoid of people (except a few nomads) and declared a Desert Wilderness Region for sightseers and campers.

I'm sure you've heard of sovereignty, allowing foreign troops free access to your country is a no no.

The Taliban asked the US to provide evidence of Osama bin Laden's connection to 9/11 before they would hand him over, something the US to this day has never provided, indeed the US has never charged Osama bin Laden with any crime in connection with 9/11.

If improving the lives of women were one of the coalition's goals, its one they have shown little enthusiasm for post invasion, one of Hamid Karsai's ministers said that "women have 2 rights in Afghanistan, "the right to obey their husbands, and the right to pray in the Mosque"

You'r post suggest a plan to depopulate Afghanistan, perhaps you would like to settle them in Utah, I'm sure they would have much in common with the Mormons.