First Australian Soldier Dies in Iraq. How?? Let Me Tell You

[solypsist]

... He blows his own ******* head off.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2006/04/22/1145344307343.html

Hmmmm...how many trained soldiers clean their loaded weapon while it's pointed at their head? Maybe he went out Full Metal Jacket style but in any case i actually expected it to be a case of u.s. aircraft "accidentally" bombing his tent and was surprised to find otherwise.

[rory_20_uk]

Since soldiers have to prove that the gun (one that is known to have issues relating to missfires) by looking down the barrel it's not surprising someone gets shot in the head.

~:smoking:

[Crazed Rabbit]

but in any case i actually expected it to be a case of u.s. aircraft "accidentally" bombing his tent and was surprised to find otherwise.

Yeah, because that would be the most probable scenario. :dizzy2:

Crazed Rabbit

[solypsist]

some new facts: http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,18902979-29277,00.html

-He was "cleaning" a 9mm Browning pistol, NOT his rifle.
-He was with 3RAR (our paratroopers), and had extensive weapons training, his usuall role operating the SAW in his platoon, then going on to earn his Sniper badge and then operating as Sniper.

They are holding an inquiry into his death, normal SOP... latest news this morning is that now his wife is being included in this investigation..

My opinion is that this is most likely a case of suicide. Because he is one of the very few casualties that we have had in active service overseas and he is in Iraq they are making him out as a Hero. They will not find it suicide because families are not entitled to any financial support for the lose of their loved one on active service if they commit suicide. The fact that his wife is being questioned so soon into the investigation supports this assumption.



Since soldiers have to prove that the gun (one that is known to have issues relating to missfires) by looking down the barrel it's not surprising someone gets shot in the head.

~:smoking:

[Avicenna]

Now that isn't something you hear about every day...

Why on earth did he pull the trigger?

[yesdachi]

I’m guessing suicide because he just found out that when he gets back home all the cheerleaders will no longer be able to bare their midriffs. ~D

Sad situation regardless of the real reason. :sad:

[Fragony]

It should be obvious he shot himselve, why talk about an accident? Anyway, best of luck to his family :shame:

[Devastatin Dave]

They will not find it suicide because families are not entitled to any financial support for the lose of their loved one on active service if they commit suicide.
Must be an Australian rule because in IS Military still gives the spouse the money regardless of cause of death. Are you sure, or are you just making one of guess?

[Redleg]

Hmmmm...how many trained soldiers clean their loaded weapon while it's pointed at their head? Maybe he went out Full Metal Jacket style but in any case i actually expected it to be a case of u.s. aircraft "accidentally" bombing his tent and was surprised to find otherwise.

You should be ashamed of yourself for this statement Soly. This is an intentional inflammatory comment given the nature of the situation involving the shooting.

As a moderator you are setting a poor examble for the rest of us. I guess it is not acceptable for flammatory comments to be written, just because we all like to jump to conclusions that are not there.

:shame:

[Redleg]

My opinion is that this is most likely a case of suicide. Because he is one of the very few casualties that we have had in active service overseas and he is in Iraq they are making him out as a Hero. They will not find it suicide because families are not entitled to any financial support for the lose of their loved one on active service if they commit suicide. The fact that his wife is being questioned so soon into the investigation supports this assumption.

Wrong - for the United States Military. A good friend of mine committed sucide while in the service back in 1990. His family was paid the GI insurance. Are you speaking out of emotion or do you have facts to back up that allegation that the Australian Military does not pay death benefits to families because of sucide of the soldier?

[Duke Malcolm]

Yeah, because that would be the most probable scenario. :dizzy2:

Crazed Rabbit

In all honesty, it is. A considerable proportion of British casualties in Iraq have been as a result of American "friendly-fire"...

[Redleg]

In all honesty, it is. A considerable proportion of British casualties in Iraq have been as a result of American "friendly-fire"...

In all honesty if it happened on the battlefied the comment might be warranted. However the situtation did not happen on the battlefied now did it?

Orginal article


An army board of inquiry is set to examine the circumstances by which an Australian soldier in Baghdad died after accidentally shooting himself in the head.

Or why don't you question the motives of the other two Australian Soldiers that were in the room, since its obvious that some are jumping to conclusions without looking at the facts.


While not commenting directly on the inquiries, Defence Minister Brendan Nelson said today he understood there were two other soldiers in the room at the time of the shot.

[Tribesman]

Just out of interest has anyone got up to date figures on colition forces suicides /suspected suicides in Iraq ?
I have only been able to find the US ones for the first 2 years .

[KafirChobee]

In all honesty if it happened on the battlefied the comment might be warranted. However the situtation did not happen on the battlefied now did it?

Orginal article

Or why don't you question the motives of the other two Australian Soldiers that were in the room, since its obvious that some are jumping to conclusions without looking at the facts.

Me thinks (therefore, I am), the comments about "friendly fire" were made about what some expected the article to be about, not that it occurred in this instance. Friendly fire is a touchy subject, but it is estimated that 5-10% of our combat (fire fight) deaths are by other friendlies. Combat is a confusing situation at best.

Btw, suicide amongst US troops has surpassed 'nam levels. Stress (combat mostly), the collapse of relationships at home, and other factors can simply overwhelm a person. The "macho" attitude of the military (in general) aggrivates this simply because it is seen as weak to seek help - "tell it to the chaplain", and the fact that the military still does not have sufficient mental health providers in their services.

Regardless, it is a shame at any time that a man loses his life - regardless of the cause. My sympathy to his family.

[Redleg]

Me thinks (therefore, I am), the comments about "friendly fire" were made about what some expected the article to be about, not that it occurred in this instance. Friendly fire is a touchy subject, but it is estimated that 5-10% of our combat (fire fight) deaths are by other friendlies. Combat is a confusing situation at best.

Hince people should read the article before jumping to conclusions that are not there.



Btw, suicide amongst US troops has surpassed 'nam levels. Stress (combat mostly), the collapse of relationships at home, and other factors can simply overwhelm a person. The "macho" attitude of the military (in general) aggrivates this simply because it is seen as weak to seek help - "tell it to the chaplain", and the fact that the military still does not have sufficient mental health providers in their services.

A weakness that I hope that the military begins to realize. Combat of anytype is stressful. The combat that snipers face is even more stressful then the average soldier faces.



Regardless, it is a shame at any time that a man loses his life - regardless of the cause. My sympathy to his family.

Agreed

[solypsist]

i was referring to Australian military. I don't know why you'd think this was about the US military since this discussion is about an Australian soldier's death.

See section: 4.29 or search "suicide" to get to relevant part. (http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/fadt_ctte/completed_inquiries/2002-04/military_comp_bills/report/report.pdf)


Wrong - for the United States Military. A good friend of mine committed sucide while in the service back in 1990. His family was paid the GI insurance. Are you speaking out of emotion or do you have facts to back up that allegation that the Australian Military does not pay death benefits to families because of sucide of the soldier?

[Redleg]

i was referring to Australian military (since this soldier was/is Aussie). I do have facts, btw:

See section: 4.29 or search "suicide" to get to relevant part. (http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/fadt_ctte/completed_inquiries/2002-04/military_comp_bills/report/report.pdf)


It seems you have one set of facts, however it would seem that there is some question in the interpation of it as the commission points out.


Self inflicted injury
4.29 Self inflicted injury is excluded under the provisions of the Bill unless it results in serious and permanent impairment or death (on the grounds that the person concerned did not intend such an outcome). Evidence to the Committee pointed out that these provisions were problematic in the case of suicide, which is not uncommon in the target group and which, it was claimed, would prevent the payment of entitlements to surviving dependants, even in cases where it might be suggested that
there was a link between the suicide and the person’s service.

The Explanatory Memorandum for S24 [states] that ’The Bill is not intended
to punish dependant persons for the actions of a member or a former
member’. However, it then goes on to say ’It is understood that the injury or
disease that results from a wilful act or similar was never intended to result
in the death of the person’. By implication, if a member left a suicide note
their widow would not be covered. The tragically high incidence of suicides
by veterans is already difficult to prove as being service–related despite the
conviction of their families that such is the case. This sentence in the
Memorandum would make establishing a link for service–related suicide
almost impossible as the event usually involves a wilful act, against
counselling and whilst under the influence of alcohol.29


4.30 The Department disputes this interpretation, suggesting that the Commission can accept liability in cases where a connection can be established between the suicide andservice.


It often pays to read completely through the paragraph and attempt to understand what its saying.

Given that you wrote in the tense of ownership and you are a citizen of the United States - one could assume you were speaking of the United States Military and the Australian military at the same time.

However this relative fact doesn't support your initiatial claim now either does it?

[solypsist]

huh? what do you mean by initial claim? that i personally think it was a suicide or that (since i think it is a suicide) the aus military is doing what they can to save face and award compensation to his family?

the paragraph explicitly states that a suicide (even makes mention of a suicide note by way of example) does not make compensation available.


However this relative fact doesn't support your initiatial claim now either does it?

[Redleg]

huh? what do you mean by initial claim? that i personally think it was a suicide or that (since i think it is a suicide) the aus military is doing what they can to save face and award compensation to his family?

the paragraph explicitly states that a suicide (even makes mention of a suicide note by way of example) does not make compensation available.


All one needs to do is read the first post of this thread. A highly inflammatory post given the nature of the subject, and from a moderator who knows better.


Hmmmm...how many trained soldiers clean their loaded weapon while it's pointed at their head? Maybe he went out Full Metal Jacket style but in any case i actually expected it to be a case of u.s. aircraft "accidentally" bombing his tent and was surprised to find otherwise.

Are you now claiming you did not initially state this?

[solypsist]

okay i apologize for a statement that may have been in poor taste. my comment about the high incidents of friendly fire via u.s. aircraft was sarcastic and insensitive, but i will not hold that it is highly inflammatory. many, especially those in Britain, hold the view that the US has a severe record of friendly fire. the popular opinion is that the US is more likely to injure its own or its unfortunate allies or civilians than anyone of an opposing army.



All one needs to do is read the first post of this thread. A highly inflammatory post given the nature of the subject, and from a moderator who knows better.

[Kagemusha]

I would like to defend US army on this issue little bit.I think the reason for high friendly fire incidents and the large publicity is pretty twisted. I think the biggest reason is that infact US army supports its infantry with so great amount of support with so many different weapons systems to keep them safe from the enemy.And then press twists it like its a problem but infact those same weapon systems are there so the actual casulties from hostile fire are very low.But when ever there are used of weapons that are designed to kill people there always will be also friendly casulties.
Friendly casulties are unfortunate things but so is high mortality rate of infantry becouse lack of supporting indirect and direct fire from Air and Gound.

[yesdachi]

In regards to friendly fire, Perception > Reality.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Friendly fire isn't.

All armies strive to minimize "fratricide," but it happens. Redleg rightly notes that combat is confusing. If he gets a fire mission and his battery sends rounds out of the tubes, nothing in the world can take the shells back if a friendly platoon moves into the target zone while their in flight. Fratricide has happened with every kind of missile weapon since forever, and probably even with the h-t-h stuff (even where the bayonet was not intended for the troublesome lieutenant of one's own platoon).

Suicide?

Shame about the Aussie 'trooper. Overall, military folks have just as much of a chance of succumbing to depression and attempting suicide as any other group of similar age, perhaps more. High Stress, money troubles, relational troubles and the emotional difficulties faced by those ranging in age from 16-25 are known elements in suicide. None of these are unknown to military people -- even more so when on foreign deployment.

The difference? They can competently use the weapons they are issued on foreign deployment. No "cry for help," just a dead troop and a grieving family.

My prayers for them.

[KrooK]

Don't worry
one of polish soldiers died because they we playing with his friends into "shoot enemy" and his friend forgot that he had ammo into gun.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Since soldiers have to prove that the gun (one that is known to have issues relating to missfires) by looking down the barrel it's not surprising someone gets shot in the head.

~:smoking:

Wrong, you look down the barral only when the weapon is broken down, A, because its not safe otherwise and B, because you wouldn't see anything otherwise.

Since a rifle has to be unloaded with nothing in the breach to be stripped and you have to test the function after putting it back together the chance of someone accidentally shooting himself while cleaning his weapon is zero. People do ND (Negligant discharge) but only when in a combat or otherwise tense situation with the weapon fully loaded.

Further, I would point out that one of the first things they tell you is "don't touch the barrel or point it at anyone unless its stripped."

Really, I wish people would actually think about these things.

He clearly committed suicide.

As to friendly fire: The United States is trained for one type of war, the one with the enemy infront. Thats why their tanks only have front armour. The biggest issue with friendly fire is that a large proportion of the forces are American, more bombs means more bombs off target. The other problem is that they rely too heavily on technology, which results in a lower level of human competance. That siad the US does have a proportioanlly high level of friendly fire against its Allies.

The US admitted about two years ago that most American troops are not trained to recognise Allied uniforms and vichecles and many don't even recognise Allied flags. This situation is now being rectified.

[Samurai Waki]

Combat is controlled (up to a small point) Chaos. However, many many things can wrong, whether it be lack of communication or miscommunication the organization of a force can rapidly deteriorate depending on an infinite amount of variables. When you add in logistics that make combat far more complicated than it ever used to be then more mishaps will occur. Having that said, even with the jumble **** that military operations have become, its more likely you'll survive than it ever used to be. Friendly fire is an unfortunate occurance, and even if a plan is sound on the drawing tables with High Ranking Officers, using the trickle down effect that the military has, a plan may not be applicable on the battlefield and this is when Commissioned Officers have to make decisions for themselves, whether it is the right one or the wrong one determines what happens, but at least its better than sitting still and waiting for something to happen to you.

And My Sincerest Apologies go out to this Soldier's Family.

[Alexanderofmacedon]

Wrong - for the United States Military. A good friend of mine committed sucide while in the service back in 1990. His family was paid the GI insurance. Are you speaking out of emotion or do you have facts to back up that allegation that the Australian Military does not pay death benefits to families because of sucide of the soldier?

Wow, sorry to hear about your friend:shame: