UK aid worker may have been killed by American rescuer's grenade
46 replies, posted
Yee-haw collateral damage 9/11 never forget!
[url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11514210[/url]
[quote]British aid worker Linda Norgrove may have been accidentally killed by US forces during a rescue mission in Afghanistan, David Cameron has said.
International forces originally said she died on Friday when one of her captors detonated a suicide vest.
But the prime minister said new details had come to light suggesting her death may have resulted from a US grenade.
Mr Cameron said he had spoken to her family about the "deeply distressing" news.
Ms Norgrove, 36, who was employed by US aid group DAI, was seized in the Dewagal valley in the Kunar province on 26 September.
Three local staff were kidnapped with her when the two cars they were travelling in were ambushed. The staff were released unharmed last week.
It had been thought that she was killed by her abductors just as US forces reached the compound in which she was being held.
But Mr Cameron said Gen David Petraeus, the top allied commander in Afghanistan, had telephoned him on Monday morning to say she could have died as a result of a grenade detonated by the taskforce during the assault.
He said the general had told him US forces were deeply dismayed at the outcome.
And he added that it was "deeply regrettable" that information published on Saturday about Ms Norgrove was highly likely to have been incorrect.
The BBC's diplomatic correspondent Nicholas Witchell in Kabul said British officials there were " utterly dismayed and dumbfounded".
He said the situation affected the credibility of the Americans and added: "They say the Americans were so certain on Saturday so why has it taken them 48 hours to revise their position?"
Speaking from the Isle of Lewis, Ms Norgrove's father John said: "We are not saying anything to the press at the moment. We might issue a statement in another day or two, we're not certain, but now we are not saying anything."
[B]'In grave danger'[/B]
At a Downing Street press conference, Mr Cameron said 12 meetings of the government emergencies committee, Cobra, had taken place before Foreign Secretary William Hague and the US agreed the rescue attempt should go ahead. This decision was then approved by the prime minister.
He said: "The decision to launch this rescue operation was not an easy one. But I am clear that Linda's life was in grave danger from the moment she was taken.
"Those on the ground and in London feared that she was going to be passed up the terrorist chain which would increase further the already high risk that she would be killed."
Mr Cameron said a full US/UK investigation - which would last several days - was being launched.
It will be led by Maj Gen Joseph L Votel, the chief of staff at US Special Operations Command and the results are expected to be made public.
"We must get to the bottom of what happened and make sure first of all that the family get this information and they know exactly how their wonderful daughter died," Mr Cameron said.
"I will obviously go over in my own mind a hundred times as to whether it was the right decision but I profoundly believe it was given the advice and the information and everything we knew about Linda's dreadful situation having been taken hostage."
US military sources later told the BBC that surveillance footage taken from different angles shows "conflicting evidence" about what killed Ms Norgrove.
They said the investigation may find she was killed by a US grenade, an Afghan suicide vest, or both.
They also identified those holding her as Kumar Taliban. Six of them were killed, none were detained and none escaped, they said. Sources also said there had been no casualties among the Special Forces team that tried to save Ms Norgrove.
Speaking later in the House of Commons, Mr Hague said every indication over the weekend had suggested an explosion caused by her captors had killed the aid worker.
He added that her captors had been assessed to be representatives of a local Salafist group allied to the local Kunar Taliban, who had links higher up the Taliban chain of command to al-Qaeda and to other insurgent groups operating in the the Pakistan and Afghanistan border.
He added: "On the basis of the information available to us we had no doubt whatsoever that there was a continual and real threat to her life and no credible option for a negotiated release.
"Her colleagues were released on 2 October but at no stage was there any serious attempt made by those holding her."
US officials also told the BBC no ransom demands had been received from the kidnappers.
The BBC's Bilal Sarwary in Kabul said tribal elders negotiating her release they had asked Nato not to intervene, to ensure they had more time to secure a release.
An officer working for the National Directorate of Security, Afghanistan's spy agency, said a delegation of mullahs, tribal elders and village chiefs was despatched to the area soon after her capture to negotiate with the militants.
But the coalition forces bombed several nearby locations, forcing the delegation to halt their mission, our correspondent said.
Meanwhile, a senior US source in Kabul told the BBC that Ms Norgrove's abductors were believed to be members of the Taliban and linked to the Quetta Shura - the Taliban leadership council believed to be based in Pakistan.
It is usual practice for US Special Forces to take fragmentation grenades on hostage rescue operations, the source added.
Col Richard Kemp, a former commander of British troops in Afghanistan, said the team who tried to rescue Ms Norgrove faced "immense dangers" and he was not surprised they had been armed with fragmentation grenades.
The prime minister is set to discuss the death of Ms Norgrove with Gen Petraeus during a pre-scheduled meeting in London on Thursday.[/quote]
:911:
Honestly, why would they even use a frag grenade? I can understanding using a stun grenade.
[QUOTE=JDK721v5;25347043]Honestly, why would they even use a frag grenade? I can understanding using a stun grenade.[/QUOTE]
[img]http://img220.imageshack.us/img220/3110/pricebi8.jpg[/img]
Flash bang! Through the door!
[QUOTE=Coffee;25346505][img_thumb]http://www.tui004.bplaced.com/web/STUUUUUUFFFFFFF/captain%20price.jpg[/img_thumb]
Tossing Grenade![/QUOTE]
That's probably why he threw it. The british guy was making that facial expression at him :ohdear:
I hope he didn't yell 'Fire in the ho' before he threw it because then there'd be controversy.
This isn't really a topic to make fun of Americans/the soldier in question because he fucked up. Imagine all of the shit he's going through now, mentally and in military law. Imagine if you screwed up like this, and killed a hostage by accident. I feel sorry for the guy that may have killed the worker.
While I agree that there is no need to start mocking America/American soldiers, I do think there is something wrong - either with the soldier who threw the grenade or American tactics in general. It's a clear lack of common sense for someone to use a fragmentation grenade when trying to rescue a hostage.
Next time only use the best in the world
[img]http://www.militarypictures.info/d/140-4/sas-patch.JPG[/img]
Holy fuck what the hell why did it post 3 times?
[QUOTE=JDK721v5;25347043]Honestly, why would they even use a frag grenade? I can understanding using a stun grenade.[/QUOTE]
Oddly enough it never actually says frag grenade. It could have very well been a concussion grenade or a flashbang. Both can easily kill in the right circumstances.
Not that I'm suggesting it wasn't a frag grenade, I'm just pointing out that we don't actually know what kind of grenade it was. It could have been an HE grenade or a stinger for all we know.
I'm no Military expert, but throwing grenades at hostages is... counter productive to say the least.
I also love how the US military tried to cover it up by claiming it was a suicide bomber.
[editline]07:41AM[/editline]
[QUOTE=leadpumper;25347840]This isn't really a topic to make fun of Americans/the soldier in question because he fucked up. Imagine all of the shit he's going through now, mentally and in military law. Imagine if you screwed up like this, and killed a hostage by accident. I feel sorry for the guy that may have killed the worker.[/QUOTE]
You don't throw grenades at hostages.
[QUOTE=Warhol;25354902]You don't throw grenades at hostages.[/QUOTE]
Hostage down! You lost money for killing a hostage.
[QUOTE=Warhol;25354902]I'm no Military expert, but throwing grenades at hostages is... counter productive to say the least.[/QUOTE]
What are you talking about I do it in counter strike all the time.
[QUOTE=Warhol;25354902]
You don't throw grenades at hostages.[/QUOTE]
I doubt they were aware the hostage was near the grenade. To kill someone with an M67 frag, you need to be damn near on top of them with the throw (within 5 meters). Frags, like land mines, are designed to wound rather than kill.
Frag grenades actually have less power now. They use gas instead of a chemical reaction. When a soldier would throw a frag into a hut, the shrapnel would blow through the wall, because it's a soft cover, so it would friendly fire.
The thing that doesn't make sense here, is that on a hostage rescue mission, soldiers use extreme caution. So one throwing a grenade, wether it be a flash, or stun, or smoke, doesn't really answer the question of why they threw it.
-snip, double post-
[QUOTE=Identity;25356696]Frag grenades actually have less power now. They use gas instead of a chemical reaction. When a soldier would throw a frag into a hut, the shrapnel would blow through the wall, because it's a soft cover, so it would friendly fire.
The thing that doesn't make sense here, is that on a hostage rescue mission, soldiers use extreme caution. So one throwing a grenade, wether it be a flash, or stun, or smoke, doesn't really answer the question of why they threw it.[/QUOTE]
M84 Flashbang:
"Stun hand grenades are used as diversionary or distraction devices during building and room clearing operations when the presence of noncombatants is likely or expected and the assaulting element is attempting to achieve surprise."
[url]http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/3-23-30/ch1.htm[/url]
SWAT teams use flashbangs for just about everything. They will hit a house with four or five at a time. They are almost universally safe. But there are rare instances where the detonation can cause secondary explosions (leaking natural gas line, fuel on the ground, etc etc) or fires.
I never thought a day would come where I would agree with Warhol.
@Gunfox - The likelihood of the hostage being killed by a secondary explosion triggered by a flashbang is incredibly low in this instance. The American military would do all it could to avoid any bad press, and "the hostage was killed accidentally by a secondary explosion triggered by a flashbang" sounds a hell of a lot better than "the hostage may have been killed by a grenade". If only flashbangs were used, the Americans would be quick to point that out - which they haven't.
Facepunch you baffle me yet again.
Crazy desert people religious fanatics kidnapping the girl in the first place? No mention of those guys.
The soldier that volunteered to go get shot at in a desert to make an attempt to save an innocent life, who made a mistake that is still probably causing him immense mental anguish and grief? Yeah, fuck that retard, what an asshole.
[QUOTE=Mister_Jack;25357299]Facepunch you baffle me yet again.
Crazy desert people religious fanatics kidnapping the girl in the first place? No mention of those guys.
The soldier that volunteered to go get shot at in a desert to make an attempt to save an innocent life, who made a mistake that is still probably causing him immense mental anguish and grief? Yeah, fuck that retard, what an asshole.[/QUOTE]
We established a long time ago that the terrorists are dicks and those who are out there fighting are brave. However, don't go ahead and play the "they are putting their lives on the line and so we aren't allowed to criticise them" card. Additionally, just because someone made a mistake and is going through a lot of grief as a result (although that is an assumption), it doesn't exempt them from the repercussions. If a man is drink-driving and kills a woman, is he exempt from blame?
If this is true, then it's tragically ironic that the guy tasked with saving the hostage accidentally killed her. Big sad all around.
[QUOTE=David29;25357346]We established a long time ago that the terrorists are dicks and those who are out there fighting are brave. However, don't go ahead and play the "they are putting their lives on the line and so we aren't allowed to criticise them" card. Additionally, just because someone made a mistake and is going through a lot of grief as a result (although that is an assumption), it doesn't exempt them from the repercussions. If a man is drink-driving and kills a woman, is he exempt from blame?[/QUOTE]
That's just about the worst analogy I could think of.
A more apt analogy is like, the soldier is an EMT treating a victim of a drunk driving incident, and through standard medical procedure, accidentally caused the patient's death.
They were trying to save the woman. Do you not understand that?
[QUOTE=Mister_Jack;25357678]That's just about the worst analogy I could think of.[/quote]
Not really. It highlights the point that someone shouldn't be exempt from blame just because they feel bad about it.
[QUOTE=Mister_Jack;25357678]A more apt analogy is like, the soldier is an EMT treating a victim of a drunk driving incident, and through standard medical procedure, accidentally caused the patient's death.
[/QUOTE]
Your analogy is even worse. This wasn't due to an accident - this was due to poor judgement.
[QUOTE=Mister_Jack;25357678]They were trying to save the woman. Do you not understand that?
[/QUOTE]
Do I not understand that they were sent in to rescue a hostage but ended up killing her because they most likely used a grenade designed for offensive operations? Yes, I do understand that.
It was an offensive operation in the first place.
[QUOTE=Identity;25357874]It was an offensive operation in the first place.[/QUOTE]
I consider it more of a special operation, but either way that is irrelevant - you don't use explosive weapons in hostage situations.
[QUOTE=David29;25357732]
Your analogy is even worse. This wasn't due to an accident - this was due to poor judgement.
[/QUOTE]
Considering that it wasn't intentional, I would consider this to be accidentally killing her.
[QUOTE=Timebomb757;25357986]Considering that it wasn't intentional, I would consider this to be accidentally killing her.[/QUOTE]
Taking an explosive grenade into a hostage situation and then using it can hardly be considered 'accidental'.
[QUOTE=David29;25357732]Not really. It highlights the point that someone shouldn't be exempt from blame just because they feel bad about it.[/quote]
Everyone understands that. The point is that where a drunk driver is antagonistic, the soldier was there to help.
[QUOTE=David29;25357732]Your analogy is even worse. This wasn't due to an accident - this was due to poor judgement.[/quote]
It doesn't unbecome an accident because someone made a bad call... :geno: Accident is a binary quantification. It was either intentional or accidental, and it can be nothing else. You're really implying this soldier intended on killing this girl? You're coming across as very thick.
[QUOTE=David29;25357732]Do I not understand that they were sent in to rescue a hostage but ended up killing her because they most likely used a grenade designed for offensive operations? Yes, I do understand that.[/QUOTE]
I don't even
[QUOTE=Mister_Jack;25358081]Everyone understands that. The point is that where a drunk driver is antagonistic, the soldier was there to help.[/QUOTE]
If you understand that, then why do you keep harping on about him "being there to help"? It's completely irrelevant to the point I was making (which was just because you feel bad about something doesn't absolve you from what you did). The fact is that regardless of what the soldier was doing, he still killed the hostage. He fucked up.
[QUOTE=Mister_Jack;25358081]It doesn't unbecome an accident because someone made a bad call... :geno: Accident is a binary quantification. It was either intentional or accidental, and it can be nothing else. You're really implying this soldier intended on killing this girl? You're coming across as very thick.[/QUOTE]
You are advocating using grenades in a hostage situation, and then call me thick? Wow. You don't accidentally take offensive grenades into a hostage scenario. You don't pull one out and throw it when there is even just the possibility that a hostage might be in that room. Every decision is made with intent, and sometimes they are bad decisions. You can't accidentally make a decision. This was bad judgement, yet you seem to be unable to see that.
[QUOTE=Mister_Jack;25358081]I don't even[/QUOTE]
"I don't know how to respond to this valid point so I will just write something random."
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
