Friendly Fire

[Kåre Willoch]

A good article that reveals some truth about the US-airforce and their "surgical strikes". This time coming from british soldiers, so you can't say it's Iraqi propaganda.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/2901515.stm



It is sickening.

Anybody played generals as the terrorists ? Nice one when they say: "american cowards, come down and fight like men" to the US-planes. But no, they prefer to "drop their load" as they call it. Killing at a distance is what I'd call it, and it's just as bad as WMD.

It's much like fighting spearmen with bullets, and it truly is a disgrace.

conferms my dark thoughts
life is evil, two steps from
utter oblivion

[ChubbyChecker]

On the weekend I saw on TV that an Iraqi sniper was shooting at coalition forces from a high rised building. In retaliation an F14 was called in to bomb the building. Then, artillery opened fire. Only then did the troops go in to see what was left.

It's called modern warfare, just because your enemy is not as advanced as you doesn't mean you should not use your advantage.

[Radical Edward]

Originally posted by Kåre Willoch


A good article that reveals some truth about the US-airforce and their "surgical strikes". This time coming from british soldiers, so you can't say it's Iraqi propaganda.

Killing at a distance is what I'd call it, and it's just as bad as WMD.
It's much like fighting spearmen with bullets, and it truly is a disgrace.

there is a difference though between a missile strike on a building, and the methods used to take out armed convoys in a desert. nevertheless, it is gross stupidity on the part of the pilot, and I doubt it is the normal state of affairs. I am sure that he will be given a suitable slap on the wrists and given a lesson in national flags.

killing at a distance is not like WMD. anyone who believes that much in a fair fight is completely stupid. the object of war is to win. Fine there should be certain rules such as no chem/bio/nuclear weapons, but to say that the US shouldn't fly any planes, and then next, to pull out all it's 30 year old tanks and crappy guns is a bit... bizarre to say the least.

CNN says war
PR says police action
so. what, to believe

[W]

There's a very clear cut reason why mines, traps, and automated firing weapons intended to or likely to kill humans are banned.
Humans should be able to know who's being targetted, and have to pull the trigger themself, so someone bears the responsibility, and innocents don't get accidentally killed.





And oblivion has four syllables.

[Proteus]

Originally posted by Radical Edward
killing at a distance is not like WMD. anyone who believes that much in a fair fight is completely stupid. the object of war is to win. Fine there should be certain rules such as no chem/bio/nuclear weapons, but to say that the US shouldn't fly any planes, and then next, to pull out all it's 30 year old tanks and crappy guns is a bit... bizarre to say the least.

Surely if the object is to win, then anything is acceptable?

We have MOABs and long-range artillery, they have chemical and biological weapons. Ours are acceptable modern weapons of war, theirs are evil weapons of mass destruction and anyone who uses them is a war criminal.

If somehow all our regular weapons became useless, and our countries were being invaded by them, wouldn't we use whatever we had available to defend ourselves, including chemical and biological weapons?

In fact, didn't we use nuclear bombs to win World War 2?

[Slidey]

Originally posted by Proteus
Surely if the object is to win, then anything is acceptable?

We have MOABs and long-range artillery, they have chemical and biological weapons. Ours are acceptable modern weapons of war, theirs are evil weapons of mass destruction and anyone who uses them is a war criminal.

If somehow all our regular weapons became useless, and our countries were being invaded by them, wouldn't we use whatever we had available to defend ourselves, including chemical and biological weapons?

In fact, didn't we use nuclear bombs to win World War 2?

you're really clutching here...

soldiers killing soldiers is fair. soldiers killing civilians isnt, and is banned by the geneva convention which most of the world has signed up to. you're talking far too hypothetically 'if all our regular weapons were useless'. who is 'we'? if its the us, the uk etc, then a) they wouldnt unless b) their invaders were too. weapons of mass destruction are just that, weapons that destroy large amounts of things at once. the weapons arent targetted on something specific (or if they are they cant be kept to that one target) like a soldier, they're targetted more on an area.. if someone invades your country, you arent going to use wmd for the simple fact that you kill your own people with them. you cant target wmd on just the enemy.

ww2 != gw2, or anything close whatsoever.

[Scoot951]

They need to start publicly shaming the people responsible for these fk ups. I know it doesn't do anything for our morale when we shoot friendlies either.

[Judge]

I know that FF incidents happen, and have happened involving UK forces, when only UK forces have been in theatre, but these have often been proven as a Systems Failure, and not as a result of failure of visual recognition. (Not Exclusive but in 90% of cases)

The problem is the different mind set of US and UK forces.

UK Forces are trained at great length to use the minimum force required to get the job done, to reduce casualties on both sides. This comes from years of fighting in Urban situations like Northern Ireland, where the General population are as much at risk as the people you are trying to fight.

US Forces have a completely different concept of warfare, they are trained to use overwhelming force to obliterate opposition, thus reducing thier OWN casualties, they do not percieve a difference between hostiles, and non-combatants, the view of the US Military, is that if they are in the Theatre of War, then they are valid targets. Which lends itself to people not taking enough care to verify who they are shooting at.

[ChubbyChecker]

I saw something on the telly (so it must be true) of an exercise where it was UK vs US forces. Basically the exercise was to capture a position, a fort or something. They took it in turns to each be the attacker.

Both sides succeeded in capturing the position, only difference being that the British took longer but the Americans suffered heavier casualties.

Kind of shows you the different approaches.

[Sub]

So his argument is that because the tank had a union jack on, it shouldn't have been attacked. Anyone else see the obvious flaw in this?

[Structural Integrity]

Originally posted by Sub
So his argument is that because the tank had a union jack on, it shouldn't have been attacked. Anyone else see the obvious flaw in this?

"oh, that tank has an union jack on it.... perhaps the iraqis painted it on to look like Brittish.... but perhaps they ARE Brittish.... This thinking makes me tired, let's just shoot it"

Note, there were also civilians around the vehicle, which should keep the pilot from shooting at a doubtfull target.

[Kåre Willoch]

Originally posted by Sub
So his argument is that because the tank had a union jack on, it shouldn't have been attacked. Anyone else see the obvious flaw in this?

----------
If you had read the whole thing, you'd have seen that the tanks also had markings that the brits were told to put on by the US so that US planes would be able to know they were friendly.

Do you really think the Iraqis drive around with union jacks on their tanks ?

BTW, your argument is this then: The pilot saw a tanks moving, with a union jack on it, since it could be Iraqis hiding under false flag he'd better attack it, no need to investigate any further, or even use his eyes.....
I think others might see the flaw in this.

[Kåre Willoch]

Originally posted by Slidey
you're really clutching here...

soldiers killing soldiers is fair. soldiers killing civilians isnt, and is banned by the geneva convention which most of the world has signed up to. you're talking far too hypothetically 'if all our regular weapons were useless'. who is 'we'? if its the us, the uk etc, then a) they wouldnt unless b) their invaders were too. weapons of mass destruction are just that, weapons that destroy large amounts of things at once. the weapons arent targetted on something specific (or if they are they cant be kept to that one target) like a soldier, they're targetted more on an area.. if someone invades your country, you arent going to use wmd for the simple fact that you kill your own people with them. you cant target wmd on just the enemy.

ww2 != gw2, or anything close whatsoever.

--------------
Wonder who's really clutching at straws here......
From your definition of WMD it seems obvious that the US routinely use WMD. Or do you think carpet bombing has anything to do with presiscion ? Now you'll say that carpet bombing is used just in special cases, well why not use poison gas in special cases then ? It's hardly as effective as carpet bombing, and it might go wrong if the wind turns, but if that wasn't your intention how can you be responsible ? I say that because that's the exact argument the US uses when bombs don't hit were they're supposed to. It always happens, but they still claim it's not their intention to hit civilians. Intentions don't matter a whole lot when you're dead.

Lets not get into the Geneva convention, if the "coalition" respected that one, they wouldn't be invading another country in the first place. Yes, that's right, according to international law the whole war is illegal. And still Rumsfeld has the nerve to bi*ch over prisoners of war shown on Iraqi tv. While at the same time, and in much larger scale, the Iraqi prisoners are shown repeatedly with their hands tied, sitting on the ground in the desert, exactly the humiliation that the Geneva convention forbids.

[Kåre Willoch]

Originally posted by Dark Matter
CNN says war
PR says police action
so. what, to believe

------
Police aren't supposed to break international law, so war I guess.

[Torz]

Originally posted by Kåre Willoch
--------------
Wonder who's really clutching at straws here......
From your definition of WMD it seems obvious that the US routinely use WMD.

.

oh dear.

Lets not get into the Geneva convention, if the "coalition" respected that one, they wouldn't be invading another country in the first place. Yes, that's right, according to international law the whole war is illegal. And still Rumsfeld has the nerve to bi*ch over prisoners of war shown on Iraqi tv. While at the same time, and in much larger scale, the Iraqi prisoners are shown repeatedly with their hands tied, sitting on the ground in the desert, exactly the humiliation that the Geneva convention forbids

I wonder why the USA are not using nuclear/biological/chemical weapons since they are already using WMD's!

[Nodrog]

Originally posted by Kåre Willoch
--------------
Wonder who's really clutching at straws here......
From your definition of WMD it seems obvious that the US routinely use WMD. Or do you think carpet bombing has anything to do with presiscion ? Now you'll say that carpet bombing is used just in special cases, well why not use poison gas in special cases then ? It's hardly as effective as carpet bombing, and it might go wrong if the wind turns, but if that wasn't your intention how can you be responsible ? I say that because that's the exact argument the US uses when bombs don't hit were they're supposed to. It always happens, but they still claim it's not their intention to hit civilians. Intentions don't matter a whole lot when you're dead.
.

Whats your definition of "weapons of mass destruction" then? I cant think of a better one than "weapons which kill indiscriminatly on a large scale" offhand.

[IndiaSour]

Originally posted by Judge
I know that FF incidents happen, and have happened involving UK forces, when only UK forces have been in theatre, but these have often been proven as a Systems Failure, and not as a result of failure of visual recognition. (Not Exclusive but in 90% of cases)

The problem is the different mind set of US and UK forces.

UK Forces are trained at great length to use the minimum force required to get the job done, to reduce casualties on both sides. This comes from years of fighting in Urban situations like Northern Ireland, where the General population are as much at risk as the people you are trying to fight.

US Forces have a completely different concept of warfare, they are trained to use overwhelming force to obliterate opposition, thus reducing thier OWN casualties, they do not percieve a difference between hostiles, and non-combatants, the view of the US Military, is that if they are in the Theatre of War, then they are valid targets. Which lends itself to people not taking enough care to verify who they are shooting at.

And this coming from your extensive stint as a United States Soldier/Marine/Sailor/Marine?

I actually joined the military (USAF to be exact). I couldve sworn going through BMT (and other training) and having to make sure I knew who was shooting back at myself (as we cant open fire first).

Wait... let me make sure... let me consult my trusty Airmans Manual....

5minutes later...

Yes. Im correct. It actually says that the only sure way to know their hostile is by them firing upon you. Almost to those exact words... It goes on to say avoid civilians at all costs... yadda yadda... dont fire on your friends...

Well you get the point, I hope.

Originally posted by W
And oblivion has four syllables.

what?

[Radical Edward]

Originally posted by Dark Matter
what?

haiku is 5 7 5 not 5 7 6.

yes?

[Radical Edward]

Originally posted by Dark Matter
yes?

yes.

Radical Edward.
Roleplaying scum; please,
die pedantic fool

[Radical Edward]

Originally posted by Dark Matter
Radical Edward.
Roleplaying scum; please,
die pedantic fool

pedantic would be
saying "conferms" is not right
confirms is correct.

[Mirai]

Kare. If we truely didn't care about anything but oil in this war, then it would of been over in a matter of hours. We would of nuked baghdad, and chem bombed everything from Umm Qasr to Kirkuk, waited 5 days, and run in in full chem suits. A lot easier, if you ask me. But it isn't what we're doing.

Furthermore, we treat our P.O.W's humanely. We give them blankets, not electric death beds in 'hospitals'. And this war is NOT illegal, due to various UN resolutions. Even if it is, keep in mind the British invasion of the falklands was also illegal. The UN won't do **** and no one else will either.

I'm not trying to sound like a pro war fanatic, but you are just finding every little factoid, true or not, and pouncing on it like a starving lion as if it has any significance whatsoever. Am I sorry people died from a FF incident? Yes. Is this war? Yes. Does this happen? Yes. Get off your high horse.

Originally posted by Radical Edward
pedantic would be
saying "conferms" is not right
confirms is correct.

i have a question
are diphlongs considered vowels?
roleplaying scumbag

[Radical Edward]

Originally posted by Mirai
Kare. If we truely didn't care about anything but oil in this war, then it would of been over in a matter of hours. We would of nuked baghdad, and chem bombed everything from Umm Qasr to Kirkuk, waited 5 days, and run in in full chem suits. A lot easier, if you ask me. But it isn't what we're doing.

an extreme. a strawman argument if you like.

[Radical Edward]

"diphlongs" are "diphthongs",
a moronic fool you are,
roleplayer I'm not.

[ChubbyChecker]

Originally posted by IndiaSour
And this coming from your extensive stint as a United States Soldier/Marine/Sailor/Marine?

I actually joined the military (USAF to be exact). I couldve sworn going through BMT (and other training) and having to make sure I knew who was shooting back at myself (as we cant open fire first).

Wait... let me make sure... let me consult my trusty Airmans Manual....

5minutes later...

Yes. Im correct. It actually says that the only sure way to know their hostile is by them firing upon you. Almost to those exact words... It goes on to say avoid civilians at all costs... yadda yadda... dont fire on your friends...

Well you get the point, I hope.

Sure, that's why this happened this morning:

"0605: US marines shoot dead an unarmed Iraqi who drove a pick-up truck at speed towards a checkpoint. "

So much for your "manual".

There are numerous examples of where American forces have fired without provocation. Police too for that matter. They're not supposed to shoot unless shot at but many unarmed people have been shot in America by the police.

Sure, maybe the manual doesn't allow it, but it still happens.

[Deffeh]

haikus will never be funny, nor of literary value

Originally posted by Radical Edward
"diphlongs" are "diphthongs",
a moronic fool you are,
roleplayer I'm not.

pedantic roleplayer,
being foolish is your crime,
go back to DD

[Radical Edward]

Originally posted by ChubbyChecker

"0605: US marines shoot dead an unarmed Iraqi who drove a pick-up truck at speed towards a checkpoint. "

taken in context, this incident was hardly suprising. he may have been unarmed but how do you know this when he is driving his truck, at speed, in your direction. some points to note are:

1) pick up trucks are not transparent.
2) guns and weapons do not have to be waved in the air in full fiew of US forces
3) alot of explosives can be stored in a pick up truck.

[Mirai]

What chubby didn't care to tell us was the driver didn't slow down when instructed to.

[Judge]

Originally posted by IndiaSour
And this coming from your extensive stint as a United States Soldier/Marine/Sailor/Marine?

I actually joined the military (USAF to be exact). I couldve sworn going through BMT (and other training) and having to make sure I knew who was shooting back at myself (as we cant open fire first).

Wait... let me make sure... let me consult my trusty Airmans Manual....

5minutes later...

Yes. Im correct. It actually says that the only sure way to know their hostile is by them firing upon you. Almost to those exact words... It goes on to say avoid civilians at all costs... yadda yadda... dont fire on your friends...

Well you get the point, I hope.

No, it comes from my own long standing and experience living and working with the UK and US Military, for over 40 Years.

I have lived on UK Bases, US Bases, and worked in and with both.

The actions of the US military is evidence enough that they have a tendancy to overwhelm an enemy, when faced with hostile situations.

That in itself is not a bad thing, what is and does make it bad, is that it is often the FIRST thing they do rather than the last.

Possibly because they have at their disposal the ability to do it at very short notice, whereas the limitations faced by UK forces are such that air-strikes and or artillary barages, are not always available.

A UK infantryman is trained to depend on himself and his patrol members, and only to seek assistance when it becomes clear that to do otherwise would not resolve the situation.

The bottom line is, a UK Soldier, thinks how can "WE" resolve this situation?

A US Soldier thinks "how can someone else resolve it for me"?

[ChubbyChecker]

All I was doing was refuting the point about not firing until fired upon.
Sure, maybe he was a suicide bomber, in which case maybe it was a good idea to shoot first. Point is, he did not shoot first, or explode first or whatever.

[IndiaSour]

Originally posted by ChubbyChecker
Sure, that's why this happened this morning:

"0605: US marines shoot dead an unarmed Iraqi who drove a pick-up truck at speed towards a checkpoint. "

So much for your "manual".

There are numerous examples of where American forces have fired without provocation. Police too for that matter. They're not supposed to shoot unless shot at but many unarmed people have been shot in America by the police.

Sure, maybe the manual doesn't allow it, but it still happens.

Judge was saying we are trained that way (to inflict casualties on civilians and such) when were not. It happens that some kid at a check point gets scared and the slightest thing could make him shoot. Its a natural human reaction to defend yourself. How do you know this guy didnt make sudden movements (still doesnt justify shooting a man)? And notice you said "drove a pick-up truck at speed"... if I see a guy doing 90 mph at me Im going to assume he doesnt like me. Then Im going to think... "gee, this guy might actually want me dead"... You better believe I will shoot his @$$ dead armed or not. Wouldnt you do the same?

A few days ago when protesters were vandalizing buildings, assaulting officers (with mace and other things), all they did was defend themselves. In most cases thats what the Police do... they defend themselves. There is the random case where one cop goes off (without provocation) and attacks someone... One bad apple ruins the bunch I suppose.

You here, have an advantage over me. You hear alot more about the US then I hear about Britain (were a country of over 280mil while I think your at 60mil correct?). Im sure I can go looking for cases where an English cop assaulted a civilian for no reason... but Im not. I wont be bothered to go do so.

Feel free to pick this apart at will...
And so for the ranting...

[IndiaSour]

Originally posted by Judge
No, it comes from my own long standing and experience living and working with the UK and US Military, for over 40 Years.

I have lived on UK Bases, US Bases, and worked in and with both.

The actions of the US military is evidence enough that they have a tendancy to overwhelm an enemy, when faced with hostile situations.

That in itself is not a bad thing, what is and does make it bad, is that it is often the FIRST thing they do rather than the last.

Possibly because they have at their disposal the ability to do it at very short notice, whereas the limitations faced by UK forces are such that air-strikes and or artillary barages, are not always available.

A UK infantryman is trained to depend on himself and his patrol members, and only to seek assistance when it becomes clear that to do otherwise would not resolve the situation.

The bottom line is, a UK Soldier, thinks how can "WE" resolve this situation?

A US Soldier thinks "how can someone else resolve it for me"?

You have my few years beat, Hands down even. I can only say what I was trained to do.

I can tell you that is not what a US soldier thinks. They have to resolve the situation to their best of their ability... if they cant do it then, at that point, they'll call in for help.

Example (chubby checkers to be exact):

They called an airstrike on a sniper(s), 4 hours after that the fact. They tried to handle it themselves... realizing they couldnt without suffering casualties they called in the strike.

After re-reading my post to you it seemed ****y - sorry about that. Wasnt meant to be that way...

[ChubbyChecker]

I think you misunderstand what I was saying. I wasn't deliberately American bashing, I was just saying that people who shouldn't die in a war zone often do.

Originally posted by IndiaSour
Judge was saying we are trained that way (to inflict casualties on civilians and such) when were not. It happens that some kid at a check point gets scared and the slightest thing could make him shoot. Its a natural human reaction to defend yourself. How do you know this guy didnt make sudden movements (still doesnt justify shooting a man)? And notice you said "drove a pick-up truck at speed"... him if I see a guy doing 90 mph at me Im going to assume he doesnt like me. Then Im going to think... "gee, this guy might actually want me dead"... You better believe I will shoot his @$$ dead armed or not. Wouldnt you do the same?

I'm not saying that a British soldier would have reacted in a less "gung-ho" manner. Problem with this kind of reaction is, where do you draw the line? If you're flying a plane a kilometre off the ground and you see a tank below you do you bomb the sh*t out of it or do you find out who the tank belongs to first? If you're driving around in a tank and you see someone off in the distance do you shoot them or do you find out if they're an enemy soldier first?

In fact my original post was just disagreeing with someone who said that American forces do not fire unless fired upon. If that were true then the number of friendly fire incidents would be zero, when in fact more coalition forces have been killed by coalition fire (not just American, but British too) than Iraqi.

[IndiaSour]

Originally posted by ChubbyChecker
I think you misunderstand what I was saying. I wasn't deliberately American bashing, I was just saying that people who shouldn't die in a war zone often do.



I'm not saying that a British soldier would have reacted in a less "gung-ho" manner. Problem with this kind of reaction is, where do you draw the line? If you're flying a plane a kilometre off the ground and you see a tank below you do you bomb the sh*t out of it or do you find out who the tank belongs to first? If you're driving around in a tank and you see someone off in the distance do you shoot them or do you find out if they're an enemy soldier first?

In fact my original post was just disagreeing with someone who said that American forces do not fire unless fired upon. If that were true then the number of friendly fire incidents would be zero, when in fact more coalition forces have been killed by coalition fire (not just American, but British too) than Iraqi.

Didnt think you were American bashing, But... Your opinion is your opinion. I cant change that. If you hate the US thats your opinon.
I just wish some people would see things through others... walk in another mans shoe sorta thing (Gayle).

Its common sense to identify who your shooting at. If you can positively identify them as hostile then you engage. Im not saying people dont react badly (bomb tank/shoot plane). Look at Afghanistan where the Canadians were killed due to the American pilots mistakes. They were under pressure and reacted badly.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally posted by IndiaSour
Its common sense to identify who your shooting at. If you can positively identify them as hostile then you engage.

Which the American Armed Forces repeatedly have not done, which is the point of this thread.

[Judge]

Today, I was watching the News on C5 on it was a Colonel Bob Stewart, former Commander in the Last Gulf War.

He made a very good point. It only takes one incident where civilians are killed in what is perceived as an avoidable situation to ruin all the bridge building between the civilian population and the Soldiers on the ground.

He also commented that the perception from Iraqi's is that the US Soldiers are more distant in their approach to them than are the British.

Small things make a difference in a situation where you are trying to gain trust. In some areas the Brits have taken off there Kevlar helmets and are wearing their Berets, they are also out of their vehicles and actively engaging the local population, talking with them, giving the kids sweets etc......building trust.

The US military, are staying in there APV's etc, imagine you are a Mother taking a small child along the street? Along comes a very loud and intimidating vehicle, on top of which is perched a Soldier behind a Machine Gun. How would you percieve that soldier, or that Vehicle?

How does the Soldier behind the Gun, percieve the people in the street, he is after all protected by armour and has a loaded gun in his hands panning across his field of vision.
He sees everything and everyone as a potential threat.

Take him out of the Vehicle, Humanise him, and the Woman and Child will see him differently, and he will see them with a smile or a nod in passing.

That is how hearts and minds will be won in Iraq, not by threats and reprisals, but by contact between the people on both sides.

Perhaps a solution to this would be for each UK soldier on street patrol, in the realtively safe areas to buddy up with a US soldier, and train them in this particular skill, because if they fail to learn it they will fail to win the peace.

[IndiaSour]

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri
Which the American Armed Forces repeatedly have not done, which is the point of this thread.

I ll break it down for you (the way I see it):

1. Unknown van
2. Approaching check point
3. Excessive Speeds
4. Doesnt stop for Warning shots
5. Doesnt stop period.

To be honest I wouldve opened fire too. Maybe that van couldve had... 10 Iraqi soldiers fully armed with guns and bombs... Maybe the driver was an Iraqi soldier who was going for this effect. Sadly it was neither.

How would you have felt if the Soldiers at the check point wouldve been killed by 10 iraqi soldiers... they then move on to kill more soldiers... All because the people at the check point didnt stop them. I wont say American soldiers because, I would expect most to say "good". Imagine they were British...

[IndiaSour]

Originally posted by Judge

Perhaps a solution to this would be for each UK soldier on street patrol, in the realtively safe areas to buddy up with a US soldier, and train them in this particular skill, because if they fail to learn it they will fail to win the peace.

I agree.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally posted by IndiaSour

'You're wrong because I can quote one counter example'

What about the UK vehicles destroyed by US planes, for instance?

[IndiaSour]

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri
'You're wrong because I can quote one counter example'

What about the UK vehicles destroyed by US planes, for instance?

Already covered that...

Originally posted by IndiaSour
Its common sense to identify who your shooting at. If you can positively identify them as hostile then you engage. Im not saying people dont react badly (bomb tank/shoot plane). Look at Afghanistan where the Canadians were killed due to the American pilots mistakes. They were under pressure and reacted badly.

They should be punished for their actions... No not by the ICC.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally posted by IndiaSour
They should be punished for their actions... No not by the ICC.

I'm all for expanding the powers of the International Cricket Council.

[IndiaSour]

Originally posted by MrL_JaKiri
I'm all for expanding the powers of the International Cricket Council.

Liar. I know your true motives...

[Radical Edward]

Originally posted by IndiaSour
They should be punished for their actions... No not by the ICC.

oh and we should trust the US military to dish out adequate punishment like they did after a certain cable car incident in italy?

[IndiaSour]

Originally posted by Radical Edward
oh and we should trust the US military to dish out adequate punishment like they did after a certain cable car incident in italy?

?

The guy that raped the girl in Okinawa was adequately punished...