Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: pttttt
The article at the link you furnished says:

"Ramsay said the soldier had been guarding a grenades depot at the time.
He said fears about the soldier's behaviour had been raised by colleagues.
"In recent days they were concerned about his behaviour and were not going to send him up to the front when the soldiers were going to be deployed."

If they were so concerned about his recent behavior WHY was he in charge of guarding the grenades!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
168 posted on 03/23/2003 4:31:07 AM PST by buffyt (God Bless America Land That I Love Stand Beside Her and Guide Her Thru the Night)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies ]


To: buffyt
If they were so concerned about his recent behavior WHY was he in charge of guarding the grenades!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

Why indeed! There have been reports that senior 101st Airborne officers were among the casualties. The attack sounds more planned than impulsive, like a "decapitation attack" on the 101st.

Whoever was in charge probably had the discretion to leave him behind but more than that (sending him home) would have been difficult because it would violate political correctness. Shouldn't be now, though.

And, to be fair, the officers have a lot on their minds. Dealing with one loudmouthed yardbird probably wasn't the top priority.

182 posted on 03/23/2003 8:21:46 AM PST by pttttt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson