To Orwell Today,
Following the deaths of British servicemen killed recently in Iraq/Afghanistan, the term "friendly fire" was used referring to mistakes made by the American forces causing deaths of the British soldiers. This is obviously another ORWELLIAN type of term used today. Can you tell me where this stupid term originated from?
All the best,
I don't know where the term originated but "friendly" fire is the opposite of "enemy" fire.
In wars in the past, for example WWII, there was a definite "enemy" army - ie the Germans and Japanese - who wore uniforms and were distinquishable from the British and their "friends'" armies, ie American, Russian, Chinese, etc. (and with friends like that, who needs enemies?). Most of the deaths of soldiers in OUR armies were the result of battles with our ENEMY. But occasionally - in the confusion of battle - some of our soldiers would be killed by our allies (our friends) or even ourselves and this would be described as "friendly fire".
In the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq right now, many of the deaths to our soldiers are by "friendly" fire because in reality, there is no "enemy". See IRAQ AFGHANI PHONY WARS
Another reason we are having so many "friendly fire" deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan is to cause hard feelings between true friends - Britain and America - and provide propaganda for our true enemies - Soviet Union, China, Israel - who get off Scot-free because they supposedly "aren't involved" (but their nations benefit from our loss because we are doing their dirty work for them) in destroying THEIR enemies, ie Afghanistan and Iraq which are countries standing in the way of their so-called "hegemony" or "world domination".
All the best,
~ an independent researcher monitoring local, national and international events ~
website: www.orwelltoday.com & email: firstname.lastname@example.org