Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

So it wasn't her captors

Makes me wonder what tit sanctioned the use of grenades in a building known to contain hostages.

From the news story it doesn't look like it was in a building, as they said the body was found in a gully, and the firefight apparently took place outside. Being that they thought she was in the buildings, I could see the use of grenades outside.

Regardless, surely you'd want controlled, precise weapons. Not a hit and hope type device?

Mr Mystery wrote:Regardless, surely you'd want controlled, precise weapons. Not a hit and hope type device?

If they didn't think she was there then they didn't think she was there. We use robots to shoot rockets at people from a mile in the sky, we're not always that concerned with the specifics.

But it was a missions to rescue her as far as I understand it. I get that no matter the precision of the weapons involved, their always the chance of wounding/killing the hostage, but to start lobbing grenades? Just a tad optimistic.

Mr Mystery wrote:But it was a missions to rescue her as far as I understand it. I get that no matter the precision of the weapons involved, their always the chance of wounding/killing the hostage, but to start lobbing grenades? Just a tad optimistic.

It sounds like they didn't think she was going to be where the grenade was.

Seems more of a tragic case of bad luck more than anything else.

The wrong doing in the matter was the attempt to hide what happened to her by the Special Forces member who threw the grenade.

Reading the report earlier, it seems they where convinced she was further up, two foes came out and engaged them from a gully. After they dropped the two opponents, one of the US men threw a grenade in case others where hiding.

In retrospect yes maybe he should have checked or considered maybe they where her guards, but its a fire fight and their intel had told them she was further along.

As I said, more just a tragic accident in the field. The attempt to cover it up after, not so much.

No doubt it was one of those Oh gak! moments.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Mr Mystery wrote:But it was a missions to rescue her as far as I understand it. I get that no matter the precision of the weapons involved, their always the chance of wounding/killing the hostage, but to start lobbing grenades? Just a tad optimistic.

It sounds like they didn't think she was going to be where the grenade was.

Quoted for extreme understatement

Collateral damage happens, sadly too often at that. The horror is in that, rather that come out with it, they attempted to cover it up. Between this and the Reuters guys, I gotta say that it's getting hard to cheer for the home-team.

daedalus wrote:Irresponsible application of forcehappens, sadly too often at that. The horror is in that, rather that come out with it, they attempted to cover it up. Between this and the Reuters guys, I gotta say that it's getting hard to cheer for the home-team.

Fix'd.

Mr Mystery wrote:

daedalus wrote:Hyperbole. Hyperbole. Hyperbole. Hyperbole. Hyperbole. Hyperbole. Hyperbole. Hyperbole. Hyperbole. Hyperbole. Hyperbole. Hyperbole. Hyperbole. Hyperbole. Hyperbole.

Fix'd.

Fixed your fixed.

Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote:Seems more of a tragic case of bad luck more than anything else.

Agreed.

People are making a mountain out of a molehill. The covering up is the real issue here, not the fact that she was accidentally killed. In a warzone, these kinds of things happen, and it wasn't an egregious error given the situation.

I still say chucking what I assume was a fragmentation grenade of some kind around when you know there is a hostage in the general vicinity it optimistic at best, and idiotically reckless at worst.

Why even issue them, when there are non-lethal options around. Like I dunno, stun grenades etc, which would have dealt with lurking insurgents without the risk of you know, actually killing someone.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
In fact one could say there's not been a cover up. Likely the time taken to go public was spent ensuring that the grenade wasn't just US or UK issue, but actually thrown by UK or US troops. I can't imagine it's that hard for enemy troops to get hold of UK or US ammo etc.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Mr Mystery wrote:

daedalus wrote:Hyperbole. Hyperbole. Hyperbole. Hyperbole. Hyperbole. Hyperbole. Hyperbole. Hyperbole. Hyperbole. Hyperbole. Hyperbole. Hyperbole. Hyperbole. Hyperbole. Hyperbole.

Fix'd.

Fixed your fixed.

Maybe, though I think you're mistaking my intentions. I'm not bothered that it happens. I'm not some bleeding heart using this as an opportunity badmouth the conflict or anything else. I'm bothered that they try to hide it. This is now two cases that's happened in the last year. Wouldn't you want to know if it was someone you knew?

daedalus wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Mr Mystery wrote:

daedalus wrote:Hyperbole. Hyperbole. Hyperbole. Hyperbole. Hyperbole. Hyperbole. Hyperbole. Hyperbole. Hyperbole. Hyperbole. Hyperbole. Hyperbole. Hyperbole. Hyperbole. Hyperbole.

Fix'd.

Fixed your fixed.

Maybe, though I think you're mistaking my intentions. I'm not bothered that it happens. I'm not some bleeding heart using this as an opportunity badmouth the conflict or anything else. I'm bothered that they try to hide it. This is now two cases that's happened in the last year. Wouldn't you want to know if it was someone you knew?

I was calling Mystery hyperbolic, not you.

Yes! Damn those Liberals who'd rather not see lives being pointlessly wasted in a conflict nobody can actually win....

Mr Mystery wrote:I still say chucking what I assume was a fragmentation grenade of some kind around when you know there is a hostage in the general vicinity it optimistic at best, and idiotically reckless at worst.

Why even issue them, when there are non-lethal options around. Like I dunno, stun grenades etc, which would have dealt with lurking insurgents without the risk of you know, actually killing someone.

In fact one could say there's not been a cover up. Likely the time taken to go public was spent ensuring that the grenade wasn't just US or UK issue, but actually thrown by UK or US troops. I can't imagine it's that hard for enemy troops to get hold of UK or US ammo etc.

"General vicinity" implies they had an idea she'd be in the middle of some gully, not at the building that was a few hundred meters away.

As for why they were issued fragmentation grenades...probably because they were under the(seemingly correct) impression they'd have to fight their way up a mountainside. "Stun grenades" wouldn't really do diddly in that situation. They're made to storm buildings or enclosed spaces like airplanes/boats. They lose a lot of their effectiveness in open terrain.

Morathi's Darkest Sins wrote:Reading the report earlier, it seems they where convinced she was further up, two foes came out and engaged them from a gully. After they dropped the two opponents, one of the US men threw a grenade in case others where hiding.

That's not quite what the report said.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-11900709 wrote:"A grenade was thrown by a member of the rescue team who feared for his own life and those of his team towards a gully from where some of the insurgents had emerged.
When the grenade was thrown no member of the team had seen, or heard, Linda Norgrove."

It makes the situation no less tragic, but it does make the circumstances a bit more clear. The soldiers were under fire, one threw a frag grenade into the gully where they had seen fire coming at them from.

The fact that she wasn't yelling or making any noise does make me wonder if she wasn't already killed and they were dumping her body in the gully though. Frag grenades could theoretically obscure the cause of death in that regards, but...eh.

Or possibly bound and gagged. Or just gagged.

Or quietly gaking herself in a corner as the bullets start flying.

Mr Mystery wrote:Yes! Damn those Liberals who'd rather not see lives being pointlessly wasted in a conflict nobody can actually win....

seethisisthekindofcrapimtalkinabout.png

You're right Shuma.

Lets just get the youth all killed off in a series of increasingly aimless ventures. Because dying for your country makes you a patriot.

Mr Mystery wrote:You're right Shuma.

Lets just get the youth all killed off in a series of increasingly aimless ventures. Because dying for your country makes you a patriot.

Did you really wonder why I called you hyperbolic with crap like this? What does this have to do with the topic? With the inaccurate intel a soldier was given that led to a misuse of a grenade that ended up killing the hostage in a rescue situation? I mean, I understand, you're liberal you don't like the war. Whatever. I don't think anyone cares since that's not the point of the topic.

Seems to me that it's just one of those things that happen. Maybe the soldier in question was being a bit foolish by throwing grenades, but it's remarkably hard to make detached, cool judgements when someone is trying their best to shoot you.
Ultimately tragic, but not really a case of massive stupidity in my opinion.

I'd imagine the chance of rescuing the hostage was minimal to begin with; so much so that a SEAL could use a grenade to save his own life and only reduce the chance of survival for the hostage by a few percent.

Yea, looks like a case of being blown out of proportion. It is sad and unfortunate that she died, but cmon, they were in a hot zone, being fired at. Im sure the guy saw a chance to either take down some of the aggressors, or cover the group to get a better position. Whatever, the fact is blaming him for directly killing her, in that situation is uncalled for.

Kanluwen wrote:

Mr Mystery wrote:I still say chucking what I assume was a fragmentation grenade of some kind around when you know there is a hostage in the general vicinity it optimistic at best, and idiotically reckless at worst.

Why even issue them, when there are non-lethal options around. Like I dunno, stun grenades etc, which would have dealt with lurking insurgents without the risk of you know, actually killing someone.

In fact one could say there's not been a cover up. Likely the time taken to go public was spent ensuring that the grenade wasn't just US or UK issue, but actually thrown by UK or US troops. I can't imagine it's that hard for enemy troops to get hold of UK or US ammo etc.

"General vicinity" implies they had an idea she'd be in the middle of some gully, not at the building that was a few hundred meters away.

As for why they were issued fragmentation grenades...probably because they were under the(seemingly correct) impression they'd have to fight their way up a mountainside. "Stun grenades" wouldn't really do diddly in that situation. They're made to storm buildings or enclosed spaces like airplanes/boats. They lose a lot of their effectiveness in open terrain.

Morathi's Darkest Sins wrote:Reading the report earlier, it seems they where convinced she was further up, two foes came out and engaged them from a gully. After they dropped the two opponents, one of the US men threw a grenade in case others where hiding.

That's not quite what the report said.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-11900709 wrote:"A grenade was thrown by a member of the rescue team who feared for his own life and those of his team towards a gully from where some of the insurgents had emerged.
When the grenade was thrown no member of the team had seen, or heard, Linda Norgrove."

It makes the situation no less tragic, but it does make the circumstances a bit more clear. The soldiers were under fire, one threw a frag grenade into the gully where they had seen fire coming at them from.

The fact that she wasn't yelling or making any noise does make me wonder if she wasn't already killed and they were dumping her body in the gully though. Frag grenades could theoretically obscure the cause of death in that regards, but...eh.

Yea this is bs. Blame the BGs not the guys risking their lives trying to free her.

Mr Mystery wrote:You're right Shuma.

Lets just get the youth all killed off in a series of increasingly aimless ventures. Because dying for your country makes you a patriot.

You have obviously made up your mind about this but I will tell you that unless you are in such a situation, when bullets are flying, you are under attack and you know the demads made upon you, you cannot make such claims as reckless behaviour etc. You don't know what you're talking about.

This isn't aimless and I, repsectfully, ask that you understand the mission and objectives before you claim to know that the venture is aimless. Being under fire and trying to do your job, based upon intel which only ever gives a partial picture but you still have to go and do the job and respond accordingly to the situation.

People do get hurt, people do die. Fact.
Every time someone dies it is sad and people feel deflated and resentful that maybe you could have done more but don't think it is for the the country, it isn't. I didn't join the RAF to die!

thats insane....maybe they should undergo an IQ test before administering grenades to dangerous retards! Thats exactly what scares me about the military...for the most part its a bunch of subpar fools who just like to shoot at things (stereotyping here).

Mr Mystery wrote:

Lets just get the youth all killed off

Won't somebody think of the children!

Element206 wrote:thats insane....maybe they should undergo an IQ test before administering grenades to dangerous retards! Thats exactly what scares me about the military...for the most part its a bunch of subpar fools who just like to shoot at things (stereotyping here).

Ooooh! Blue touchpaper!

I Muust resist! Aaargh. I dunnae think I can do it cap'n, there's a warp core breach in progress aaaaargh!

Careful folks there's a troll round.