This post was published 4 years 5 months 18 days ago.
Information may no longer be valid.

One of the last few times I made a post about this I had some useless non-commenter posted that I had never been to war. Not being sure what the hell that had to do with anything, I asked if that meant someone who has never been to war, isn’t allowed to talk about it, but alas, the person never seemingly felt like posting again.

While I understand that what the person probably meant is that I have never been on the ground in a situation where I am fighting for my life and would probably shoot anything that moves, that isn’t what we’re talking about. What we’re talking about, very often, are attacks by pilots who are relatively safe compared to land forces, opening fire on friendly troops.

Here is a thread I posted previously listing just some of the many friendly fire incidents seen by U.S. forces on just British military personnel. Here is an article about the most recent known friendly fire incident.

I can understand that when calling in an air-strike it’s possible that the British forces made an error in the positioning and told the pilot where to drop the bomb, but previously when U.S. aircraft have killed British soldier’s that hasn’t seemed to be the case.

I’ve nothing against the soldiers, it’s just that I don’t understand it… Why are there proportionally more U.S. performed friendly fire incidents? In the first Gulf War there were more British killed by Americans than by Iraqi’s!