Friendly fire.
By nannacroc
@nannacroc (4049)
February 2, 2007 8:09am CST
Who came up the term 'friendly fire', to describe someone being killed by their own side.
Was it a ploy to make it sound better than being killed by the enemy. You'd be just as dead whoever shot at you and I can't see anything friendly in 'friendly fire' can you?
3 people like this
3 responses
@JoyfulOne (6232)
• United States
2 Feb 07
This is one of those words that I always cringe and get a little angry when I hear it used. I think it's a term that should be given a totally different definition. There is no thing about shooting anybody that is even remotely friendly, especially those who are on your side of the battle. Sometimes I think they call it that to ease the minds of the men who fired upon our own when it should be the fault of those who gave the command to fire, or used error in judgement or even if it was a mechanical failure. I imagine those parents, wives, or loved ones probably feel it certainly wasn't friendly either.
@nannacroc (4049)
•
2 Feb 07
Thanks for your reply. I agree with everything you've said here. It must be bad enough to lose a loved one in a war but even worse to know they were killed by their own allies.
2 people like this
@pumpkinjam (8537)
• United Kingdom
3 Feb 07
I don't know where it came from but I would have thought it was worse in a way to be killed by your own side. At least the other side is supposed to be trying to kill you. Your own side is supposed to be there to protect you. If you're shooting people or throwing bombs at them, it's not friendly, no matter how you try to disguise it.
1 person likes this
@nannacroc (4049)
•
4 Feb 07
I agree with you, soldiers do not go into the army thinking they'll be shot by their allies.
1 person likes this
