Top Leaderboard, Site wide
Left Masthead
August 30, 2015
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

Get Truthdig's headlines in your inbox!

The Great Unraveling
Climate Models May Misjudge Soils’ Carbon Emissions

Fortune Smiles

Truthdig Bazaar
Bleeding Afghanistan: Washington, Warlords, and the Propaganda of Silence

Bleeding Afghanistan: Washington, Warlords, and the Propaganda of Silence

Sonali Kolhatkar, James Ingalls, and David Barsamian

more items

Ear to the Ground
Print this item

Friendly Fire May Have Killed Two GI’s

Posted on Apr 5, 2007

The Army is admitting the possibility that two U.S. soldiers, Pvt. Matthew Zeimer and Spc. Alan E. McPeek, were killed by friendly fire in the volatile Iraqi city of Ramadi on Feb. 2.  An investigation is still underway, but an Army official says it’s possible that the “confusion that you frequently find on the battlefield” may have caused the soldiers to be shot by their own side.

Seattle Times:

According to published reports at the time of the incident, McPeek, Zeimer and other soldiers came under attack by insurgents at their outpost in central Ramadi.

A report in the Army Times newspaper said the two soldiers ran to a roof to fight back, but a shot was fired through a concrete wall near them and the impact killed them.

Read more

More Below the Ad


Square, Site wide

New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

By moni, April 5, 2007 at 11:50 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“CONFUSION” that you often find on the battlefield” may have been the reason for these friendly-fire deaths.  So now the military is sounding less arrogant and braggardly.  Finally the TRUTH about WAR is coming out. No matter how “mighty is your army”, it is not “a piece of cake” to invade another country (other countries) and then expect the local population to “roll-over and play dead”.  It is inevitable that the people of a country will resist and fight back.  Most humans fight back “The Invader”.  It’s simply instictive.  It must be very CONFUSING to witness the locals fighting back by the most primitive means, yet still creating havoc for a “superior army”.

It must be CONFUSING indeed, to invade a foreign country and foreign culture which is as diverse and complex as Iraq.  These complexities must be utterly mystifying to some of the youthful and naive soldiers that the U.S. army has “trained” and deployed.  “Twenty-something-year-old men and women who have barely traveled out of their own home states yet are suddenly using high tech weaponry against an entirely unknown entity must be totally perplexed and shocked when they see an old bearded man crying because one of his neighbors has been killed by his other neighbor.

WAR is by its very nature CONFUSING.  Going to an undeclared WAR, fighting an unknown enemy, and not really knowing what the mission is must be completely baffling.  It must be so CONFUSING that it is scarring some of these young soldiers mentally, for life. 

Word, is also out, that several unexplained deaths have occurred at the VA hospitals recently; i.e. overdoses, suicides, complications related to surgery etc.  Deaths of soldiers in the VA hospitals under suspicious circumstances could also be classified as a type of “friendly fire”.  These soldiers die under the watch of their fellow Americans in hospitals on their own soil.

Contemplating these dreadful realities is very CONFUSING to those of us who are observing the outrageous decisions of this Presidency from the sidelines.  So many bizarre developments just intensify the intrinsic CONFUSION of WAR.

Report this

By Quy Tran, April 5, 2007 at 7:15 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Do they know who’re friends or foes, Mr. Gates, the new butcher at DOD ?

Report this

By Audie Brunson, April 5, 2007 at 3:46 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Why is it that the democrats allows the president to continue to lie about supporting the troops.When the injured soldiers are so poorly treated in the U.S, why don’t they state that the presidents actions toward these soldiers proves he is a liar.

Report this

By Steve Hammons, April 5, 2007 at 1:54 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Our troops are at the mercy of confused and corrupt politicians. Many of these politicians, of course, avoided combat themselves during the Vietnam War years.

These politicians present themselves as “macho” and brave because they send others to their deaths and to horrible injuries.

Concerns about these factors are explored in:

“Victory of Courage, Fellowship and Honor”

-  -  -

“Chicken hawks are real and dangerous”

Report this

By Dale Headley, April 5, 2007 at 1:27 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for the mainstream media to latch on to this story; these were ordinary soldiers, not celebrities.

Report this
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
Right Internal Skyscraper, Site wide
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Like Truthdig on Facebook