Kevin Carr's Gloves 4104 Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 VC Hero 'Killed By Friendly Fire' Friday February 16, 05:44 AM A British soldier posthumously awarded the Victoria Cross for his bravery in Afghanistan may have been shot dead by his own comrades. Father-of-two Corporal Bryan Budd, 29, of the 3rd Battalion the Parachute Regiment, was killed as he stormed a Taliban position single-handedly in Helmand, Afghanistan. His widow Lorena, 23, a clerk with the Royal Artillery, is due to collect his posthumous VC from the Queen at Buckingham Palace next month. She has been told that his death may have been (Advertisement) caused by "friendly fire", The Sun newspaper claims. A senior officer from 3 Para said if Cpl Budd's death had been due to a "blue on blue" it would in no way detract from the heroism of his actions. Lieutenant Colonel Stuart Tootle, Commanding Officer of 3 Para, said: "Given the dynamics of close-quarter combat that we experienced in Afghanistan, there is always the possibility of casualties caused by friendly fire. "However, this does not in any way detract from the utmost valour of Cpl Budd's actions which led to the winning of his VC." A detailed investigation of the circumstances surrounding Cpl Budd's death has revealed the possibility of friendly fire, the paper said. An examination of his body revealed that the ammunition used to shoot him was of the same calibre employed by British forces. According to the paper, the only other possibility is that Taliban fighters got hold of British weapons on the black market or stole them. The Ministry of Defence said: "Cpl Budd's death is currently the subject of a routine service police investigation and it would be inappropriate to comment further." Cpl Budd, who lived in Ripon, North Yorkshire, but was originally from Scunthorpe, North Lincs, left two daughters, two-year-old Isabelle and Imogen, who was born in September shortly after her father's death. That would mean he was shot by a 5.56 mm round. Also known as the NATO standard round used by most small arms in NATO including the AR-15 also known as the M-16 the american weapon which was given to some Afghani militia during the Soviet occupation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 Doesn't the last paragraph of the article (I'm assuming it's all from the same article) contradict the second bolded paragraph? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Carr's Gloves 4104 Posted February 16, 2007 Author Share Posted February 16, 2007 Doesn't the last paragraph of the article (I'm assuming it's all from the same article) contradict the second bolded paragraph? I wrote the last bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 Doesn't the last paragraph of the article (I'm assuming it's all from the same article) contradict the second bolded paragraph? I wrote the last bit. Ah, right. Still, you're ex-Army so I'm guessing you know your stuff. Shitty journalism but it's to be expected from that parcel of shit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Carr's Gloves 4104 Posted February 16, 2007 Author Share Posted February 16, 2007 Doesn't the last paragraph of the article (I'm assuming it's all from the same article) contradict the second bolded paragraph? I wrote the last bit. Ah, right. Still, you're ex-Army so I'm guessing you know your stuff. Shitty journalism but it's to be expected from that parcel of shit. All you have to do is type 5.56 into wikipedia and it tells you. Even shittier journalism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 BTW, is that taken from the Beeb or similar? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 22671 Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 I'm struggling to understand what the S*n has done wrong in this particular instance? Aren't they just reporting a story? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Carr's Gloves 4104 Posted February 16, 2007 Author Share Posted February 16, 2007 I'm struggling to understand what the S*n has done wrong in this particular instance? Aren't they just reporting a story? Not reporting it correctly trying to stir up emotion by that action. Making it sound like he was shot by his own people. Devaluing his actions and making his family feel like shit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 47675 Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 Blue on blue sounds like smurf porn tbh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nufc4ever 0 Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 It's a comic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 22671 Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 I'm struggling to understand what the S*n has done wrong in this particular instance? Aren't they just reporting a story? Not reporting it correctly trying to stir up emotion by that action. Making it sound like he was shot by his own people. Devaluing his actions and making his family feel like shit. That's not the way I took it tbf. They seem to be reporting what a certain colonel Tootle has said and go to some lenghs to stress this does not make the deceased any less honourable. Surely, if this was a blue on blue, it needs to be investigated and reported? Anyway, I loathe the Sun fwiw, but they always seem to back our soldiers from where I'm standing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Carr's Gloves 4104 Posted February 16, 2007 Author Share Posted February 16, 2007 I'm struggling to understand what the S*n has done wrong in this particular instance? Aren't they just reporting a story? Not reporting it correctly trying to stir up emotion by that action. Making it sound like he was shot by his own people. Devaluing his actions and making his family feel like shit. That's not the way I took it tbf. They seem to be reporting what a certain colonel Tootle has said and go to some lenghs to stress this does not make the deceased any less honourable. Surely, if this was a blue on blue, it needs to be investigated and reported? Anyway, I loathe the Sun fwiw, but they always seem to back our soldiers from where I'm standing. I don't read it so didn't know they backed the soldiers but i just thought the calibre = friendly fire was annoying and would be likely to upset his family. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 What's the source though? The Beeb? That's a report on the Sun's article isn't it? Would be worth reading the actual article in full imo. I'm not necessarily defending the Sun btw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 The actual article. Seems like they got their conclusions from experts rather than drawing their own: "Hero Para Bryan is still a VC By JOHN KAY Chief Reporter FEBRUARY 16, 2007 THE heroic Para feared shot dead by his own comrades in Afghanistan still deserves his Victoria Cross, military sources insisted last night. Corporal Bryan Budd died in a hail of bullets while saving seven pals during clashes with Taliban fighters last summer. His widow Lorena, 23 — a clerk with the Royal Artillery — is due to collect his posthumous VC from the Queen at Buckingham Palace next month. She was said to be “totally devastated” yesterday after being officially warned his death was probably due to a “blue on blue”. But last night it was stressed there was no suggestion that Cpl Budd’s VC would be withdrawn or downgraded if friendly fire is proven. A senior military source said: “It increasingly looks like this is a terribly tragic case of friendly fire. However, there is no question of taking back Cpl Budd’s VC or downgrading it. Even if it is proved conclusively that his death was caused by friendly fire, he fulfilled all the credentials necessary to be awarded the VC. “Our deepest sympathies go out to his widow and family who understandably were devastated after being officially informed of this possibility.” The source added: “The harsh truth is that in close-quarter combat you are almost as likely to be killed by your own side as the enemy.” A source at 3 Para in Colchester, Essex, where 29-year-old Cpl Budd was based, said: “The horrible truth that is dawning on us is that Bryan’s death was probably caused by friendly fire. “Friendly fire is bad enough at the best of times — but when it claims the life of a VC hero it is unbelievable. “Yet our view is that whatever the circumstances, Bryan fully deserved his VC and died heroically while fighting to save his comrades. Obviously his comrades are extremely cut up after being warned that one of them may have unwittingly fired the fatal shots which killed him.” A detailed investigation of the circumstances surrounding Cpl Budd’s death revealed the possibility of friendly fire. An examination of his bullet-ridden body revealed that the ammunition used was of the calibre employed by British forces. Pathologists who conducted a forensic examination of his wounds also concluded that they were inflicted by British bullets. The only explanation other than friendly fire was that Taliban forces stole British weapons or bought Nato kit on the black market, The 3 Para source added: “Although we’ve been told about the other possibilities, these seem highly unlikely. The fact the family have been told there is a possibility of a ‘blue on blue’ means that this is the conclusion to which the investigation is leading.” The shocking revelation follows last week’s disclosure by The Sun of a cockpit video showing the moments a US pilot gunned down Lance Corporal of Horse Matty Hull, 25, with friendly fire in 2003." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super_Steve_Howey 0 Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 although a possibility it's pretty tenuous that an M-16 given to an Afghan in the 1980's was used. I doubt they were given in any significant number (don't even recall them being supplied), but also, even if they still have some I doubt the ammo for it would be in abundance in that region unless our lads are in the habit of leaving it lying around it's moot anyway, it's not like he was shot in an accident, he was shot during an enemy engagement Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 The real tragedy here is that we're completely wasting our time and the lives of our men in Afghanistan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super_Steve_Howey 0 Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 The real tragedy here is that we're completely wasting our time and the lives of our men in Afghanistan. Do you disagree with the goal or the method of execution? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 The real tragedy here is that we're completely wasting our time and the lives of our men in Afghanistan. Do you disagree with the goal or the method of execution? Well the goal is spurious as Al Quaida or whatever other elements ie Taliban don't really offer concrete targetting oppurtunities. One is ghost like organisation which is as much in Pakistan and Sudan as anywhere and not really suited to being tackled by a conventional force. The other is rooted in the various communities and sometimes indistinguishable from civilians (when it wants to be) again not really ideal for intervention by a conventional force who are often a pretty large and well advertised target. Afghanistan is riddled with tribal war and various factions trying to control the 'poppy production', from which even the CIA used to make some cash back in the day. Basically the picture is too mixed and outside of Kabul no-one is really charge. You know what are our objectives there? No one has the answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super_Steve_Howey 0 Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 The real tragedy here is that we're completely wasting our time and the lives of our men in Afghanistan. Do you disagree with the goal or the method of execution? Well the goal is spurious as Al Quaida or whatever other elements ie Taliban don't really offer concrete targetting oppurtunities. One is ghost like organisation which is as much in Pakistan and Sudan as anywhere and not really suited to being tackled by a conventional force. The other is rooted in the various communities and sometimes indistinguishable from civilians (when it wants to be) again not really ideal for intervention by a conventional force who are often a pretty large and well advertised target. Afghanistan is riddled with tribal war and various factions trying to control the 'poppy production', from which even the CIA used to make some cash back in the day. Basically the picture is too mixed and outside of Kabul no-one is really charge. You know what are our objectives there? No one has the answer. The goal while not at first well defined now appears to be stabilisation of the legitimate economy through providing reconstruction and development jobs on infrastructure projects. This first requires elimination at best or removal from permament zones at worst, of the Taliban. The second option is the more likely as the Taleban do not stay in a coherent force when faced with direct opposition. I think you are a little misguided with regards to the civilian aspect of the Taleban, there are numerous direct quotes of the sort where the majority of Afghan civilians are just that, caught between two sides in a war they don't want. Al-qaeda are a whole different kettle of fish, and the goal has to be as with Iraq, stabilise the country and concentrate on hunting Al-Qaeda when they more obviously stand out from the background violence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 The real tragedy here is that we're completely wasting our time and the lives of our men in Afghanistan. Do you disagree with the goal or the method of execution? Well the goal is spurious as Al Quaida or whatever other elements ie Taliban don't really offer concrete targetting oppurtunities. One is ghost like organisation which is as much in Pakistan and Sudan as anywhere and not really suited to being tackled by a conventional force. The other is rooted in the various communities and sometimes indistinguishable from civilians (when it wants to be) again not really ideal for intervention by a conventional force who are often a pretty large and well advertised target. Afghanistan is riddled with tribal war and various factions trying to control the 'poppy production', from which even the CIA used to make some cash back in the day. Basically the picture is too mixed and outside of Kabul no-one is really charge. You know what are our objectives there? No one has the answer. The goal while not at first well defined now appears to be stabilisation of the legitimate economy through providing reconstruction and development jobs on infrastructure projects. This first requires elimination at best or removal from permament zones at worst, of the Taliban. The second option is the more likely as the Taleban do not stay in a coherent force when faced with direct opposition. I think you are a little misguided with regards to the civilian aspect of the Taleban, there are numerous direct quotes of the sort where the majority of Afghan civilians are just that, caught between two sides in a war they don't want. Al-qaeda are a whole different kettle of fish, and the goal has to be as with Iraq, stabilise the country and concentrate on hunting Al-Qaeda when they more obviously stand out from the background violence. I would say considering the tribal nature of Afghanistan and the various factions all the above objectives are pretty much impossible. The picture is too mixed. When they say stabalise what do they mean? It has never been stable just one brutal war lord after another taking charge and factions constantly changing sides. You know the CIA and Pakistani SIS backed the Northern Alliance, they backed the Taliban (originally) - even they it seems aren't sure which way to go. This Kabul Govt won't last, I have a very good Afghani friend who's father still lives in Kabul (when he isn't in Moscow) and he just laughs about our attempts at 'stabalisation'. The main living to be had there is tribal warfare, land grabs and poppy farming. I suspect there aren't many 'civilians' outside of Kabul who aren't aligned to one side or another. There was something on CNN the other day about an American charity project who have been there for a few years now....It cut to a shot of brand new sowing machines lying unused (the women haven't been given permission by the men to use them). There are so many cultural constraints and tribal ritualistic practices, I just can't see how it will ever be condusive to our attempts at ' stabalisation' whatever that means? If you are saying we need to stay TILL THAT PIPELINE IS FINISHED, then that is another story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 Parky, I'll stick my neck out here and say I don't believe you have a very good Aghani friend who lives in Kabul. No wonder you and Rob get on so well Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 Parky, I'll stick my neck out here and say I don't believe you have a very good Aghani friend who lives in Kabul. No wonder you and Rob get on so well No his dad lives in Kabul he lives in Hamburg. Actually he has a German passport, but the way they have done it you can see he was born in Afghanistan (Kandahar - he speaks Pushtun), and it was due to this he had real trouble getting into Russia when his dad was living in Moscow. He had to sleep at the airport till his dad had paid the pre-requsite bribes to get him him, this was a few years ago mind. I'm always joking with him (he speaks perfect English and German as well) that he would be a great MI6 asset. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom 14026 Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 My mate used to be in a band called the taliband Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 Parky, I'll stick my neck out here and say I don't believe you have a very good Aghani friend who lives in Kabul. No wonder you and Rob get on so well No his dad lives in Kabul he lives in Hamburg. Actually he has a German passport, but the way they have done it you can see he was born in Afghanistan (Kandahar - he speaks Pushtun), and it was due to this he had real trouble getting into Russia when his dad was living in Moscow. He had to sleep at the airport till his dad had paid the pre-requsite bribes to get him him, this was a few years ago mind. I'm always joking with him (he speaks perfect English and German as well) that he would be a great MI6 asset. Ok, I'll let you off I misread that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 22671 Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 Doesn't stop the fact Parky imagines he knows a lot of stuff he doesn't though. P.S. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now