Canada Americans kill Canadians in Kandahar.

This is just ridiculous. Go to

www.cbc.ca

or

www.cnn.com

You'll notice that cnn is not running it as their front article.

The story, for those who don't want to go to the site, is that a laser-guided bomb was dropped on a group of Canadian troops training in a designated training area somewhere near Kandahar. Four died, and others were injured. Everyone involved said it was accident, and their will be a full investigation into the events.

I personally am disgusted and angered.

 

A tragic event. My thoughts are with the families of the deceased soldiers.

 

My thread on this.

I received a PM from a moderator about that thread, telling me that I was trying to start a fight (completely untrue) and that if I ever did it again, I would be permanantly banned. I was very calm in the thread, and said that I believe it was an accident.

Canadians are not allowed to express themselves on this board. Those who do not share the views of the administration are denied their freedom of speech. Censorship is ugly. I'm considering leaving. I know a board that is populated entirely by Canadians (Canadian military personelle and Cadets, to be exact) and I know I would be allowed to mourn my comrades there. This makes me really mad.

 

I'll back you up Thrawn. I didn't see anything wrong with your original post.

I'm pissed off that half the American responses were "It happens all the time, deal with it" instead of offering condolences.

 

1) Posting in the Canada General was the right place for the topic. Like minded people comforting other Canadians.

2) Posting outside of Canada was a bad, and dumb, idea. I understood your post, and Vertical did go overboard, but what did you expect? You go into a "room", generally populated by Americans, waving a "stick" at them. Of course they will have the impression you are starting a fight, and they will defend themselves.

3) AT60...you still need to learn where and when to post ?hot? topics. I can only defend you so much.

 

Something similar was posted in the thread linked, but I feel like sharing. Apparently back when we (read: most everyone) started sending troops to Afghanistan my grandfather (British WW2 veteran) remarked that back then they all knew to stay away from the American troops as much as possible, because they were known to have more friendly fire "accidents" than other countries' forces.

I really wonder if there is something in the American Military's approach that instills a 'shoot first, ask questions later' mentality in some of it's troops (perhaps the more aggressive ones to begin with?). My knowledge of military practices is minimal but this does seem plausible to me.

-----
Hmm, speaking of topics that should be confined to the General Canada thread...
-----

Oh, and while I'm thinking about this topic... sure, as posted, friendly fire accident's are a fact of modern warfare (AFAIK the Americans have lost more of their own to friendly fire than to "the enemy" in this war on terror), but such accidents (and I do not dispute that they are such) should really be kept to a minimum with thought and care.

 

From what I've read, this is a horrible case of "shoot first, ask questions later".

Just read some more of the CBC articles. In short point form, here's what happenned:

1) Pilot flies over training area, sees gun fire (it's at night).
2) Pilot asks if he can 'mark' the area, given permission.
3) Pilot told not to attack unless in self-defense.
4) Pilot feels threatenned on second run, drops bombs.

Well, this is stupid. I don't see how the pilot could have feared for his life. Yes there was gunfire, but it was pointed at objects on the ground; none of the shots could have possible come anywhere near his plane. Secondly, wouldn't the best self-defense have been not to fly by a second time??. If the story had been, Pilot flying over training area, thought he was being shot at, dropped bombs, then I might not be as angry. But the fact that he flew over twice without receiving any type of confirmation tells a different story. If anything, he was overzealous about killing some terrorists, and Canadians had to pay the price.

I also find the whole attitude of "It happens all the time, friendly fire." to be a little annoying. Some fo the American posters here seem to have no sympathy whatsoever, more concerned about defending their country.

Oh yeah, and in a recent set of interviews, Bush did not bring up the issue once. Only when pressed did he fire off something like this: "I already apologized to the Prime Minister last night". I hate that guy.

 

From an American: I'm so very sorry. (

~Arwen

 

Don't forget the fact that this training area experiences live-fire exercies all the time. It's not like shooting down there is anything new.

I hate that guy.

I don't want to get into bashing anyone, but I will say that I agree with you. My opinion of the guy has been one of utter disgust ever since the softwood dispute, which has made the economy so bad in British Columbia that I am being forced to move to Ontario.

 

I'm actually a little distressed at how quickly the climate of response, i.e. in the Commons for instance, has gone from grief - *totally* understandable and of course I share it - to anger and resentment....and that I compass less so, and I simply can't agree with it. Yes, this is a horrible, awful, unbelievable tragedy....one of those things that we're always told could happen, it's a risk you have to take when going to war....but that doesn't make it any easier to understand, or to bear up under. But the fact is, it's happened before and in all likelihood it will happen again....this seems to be what war has become, and of *course* it's unfortunate - but what else is there?

But I think the thing to remember is that, well, obviously this was never *intended* to happen....it's not like the U.S. pilots had any real inkling of what was going on down on the ground....they're hundreds if not thousands of feet up in the air, they're seeing only by radar and whatnot, I believe....artificial eyes....and their actions, their arim, is only as good as the information they receive. And if that ends up being faulty, then it's not necessarily *their* fault in turn. It's just....something that happens. I know it sounds trite and at this point awfully meaningless to say so....but, hey, I'm trying hard to understand things myself, so maybe there's nothing that can truly be said to ease it....no words that can ever really help....but we still try just the same. Because it's all we can do.

To me, it's exactly as the President said - this was a horrible accident. What *else* is he supposed to say? Coudl he ever say any words that would satisfy people, like the MPs in the Commons for instance - but not limited to them alone....would he *ever* have a chance of saying anything that people would accept as genuine or heartfelt? Would they ever believe him? Of course I dearly wish they would....but my head tells me that this unfortunately simply isn't so. And on some level I suppose such a response would be understandable....keep in mind that of *course* we're all still grieving, that's not in *question* here....and naturally that clouds us some, blinds us to things that we'd normally see more clearly. The hurt is still far too fresh. But you know - what reason do we have to suspect that when the President - who is under a *tremendous* amount of strain as a world leader, he has to constantly be mindful of *so* much - that he did *not* mean it when he said he was sorry for what happened?

Do we really have any reason to doubt his sincerity, as a feeling person, when he *says* flat-out that he's sorry for this horrible accident (and it *is* an accident, after all, for what *else* should he say? It's not like it was something *meant* to happen, obviously!), that his thoughts and prayers are with the grieving families....and I saw the TV report this evening, sandwiched in between the dismaying up-in-arms response of some reporters et al....he said it, I believed him, I know he means it when he says he's sorry. He knows he can say nothing to truly make it better or ease the grief and pain....no words can ever do that....but he tried. People *are* trying. And in my purview, *that* is what we should focus on.

Oh, yes, unfortunately it may be all too true that some people have a "who cares?" mentality towards this horrible tragedy....a kind of "oh, these things happen, deal with it" mentality. And yes, of course they *do* happen, we're seeing that now, devastatingly....but you'll find that most people, the vast majority, *do* care and *do* deeply and heartily sympathize....and those are the ones we should listen to, and care about, and we should *not* let our grief and pain, and above all our wanting to know what happened, to cause us to lash out at our southerly neighbours. We *are* in this fight together, after all....and the *last* thing we should allow to happen is for this, or anything else, to tear us apart....or to turn us against one another. The terrorists would win if we allowed that to happen, I feel....

And you know,

 

if it was the first time fine but it isn't "friendly fire/death" needs to be looked into better i think and it should be an eye for an eye. mistakes made in civilian life that results in death brings apropriate punishment and thats all i think we can ask for.

now about my first coment in the gulf war american tanks killed soldiers in british tanks.

didn't american soldiers die a few weeks ago? the blew themselves up or something like that.

when that choper got attacked a month back one soldier was killed and fell out, the second chopper sent 7 troops down to get him and ended up with 6 getting killed.

most of what i mentioned isn't anti-american or pro-canadian but i think american soldiers should be a little more carefull. Our Canadian soldiers were walking around in bright green unifroms in the middle of the desert for crying out loud and we didn't take any casualties.

 

Not to lessen the importance of the incident, but I am struck with one thing.

Just how big a deal it is.

Yes, I think it should be investigated as to why it happened, but all the ceremony in bringing the bodies back home and stuff has the amateur historian in me confused.

I hate to remind people but during World War I and II, 4 Canadians were killed an hour at times! There wasn't the kind of attention being paid to their deaths the same way this incident is. This is a military operation folks, and in a military operation people are killed.

There are circumstances to this particularly case that does make it stand out, but I think we need a bit more perspective on things.

We recently marked the 85th anniversary of the Battle of Vimy Ridge. We lost over 11,000 soldiers in that one battle alone!! But that anniversary was marked with less media coverage than the 4 who were killed this week. Does that seem fair to the memories of all the soldiers who fought and died for our country?

 

The difference was those were World Wars.

We haven't lost a troop in an offensive since the Korean war. And to think, the first time we do since then and it's at the hand of a pilot who flies over our men twice and then cliams he dropped the bomb in self-defense. The best self-defense would have been to avoid flying over the region a second time.

 

Well, yes, I suppose it's easy to say, to consider at first glance, that if the U.S. pilot was concerned about his safety then he shouldn't have flown over the region a second time. Then again, this *is* a wartime environment, and I daresay that if he had his duties, the task that was set out before him to do, and obviously no one else was going to do it for him....then as part of the unit, he did what any military folk would do....his duty, what was asked of him. And if he was asked to keep flying over that region - for instance, what if the enemy had been scattered around down there? Wouldn't they want to keep an eye on the foe, to keep track of them so they don't disappear into the hills? If they're asked to make that flyover, I would they can only presume it's for a good reason and then do it. Duty, and all that.

I just....I simply can't find it within myself to second-guess any decisions that were made. First of all, it's *way* too early to be doing that, I think....the hurt is still too fresh, and perhaps too raw. But what's more....it just doesn't seem a fair thing to be doing, that's all, to be going at each other's throats and crying foul, "an eye for an eye", revenge and all that....I just can't find it within myself to feel so, and I'm honestly given to wonder at this very sentiment if it's expressed.

Yes, I'm not personally involved in this tragedy, I've not lost someone in it, I'll admit that. But I can't believe that somehow lessens or mitigates my opinion....nor would it do such to *anyone's* opinion, rest assured. But what I *do* know is that, in my heart, I just don't think it fair or right to be casting blame, or a dark shadow of doubt, hatred or suspicion, upon the U.S. troops in general, the President, anyone or anything like that. Yes, it could be that this whole thing has to be investigated to its full scope, obviously. But that happens in *all* cases. But if we start trying to blame each other, howling for blood and suchlike....that's only a divisive strategy....and it sets us further and further back, and I daresay doesn't help us at *all* when we're striving so hard only for the sake of freedom, and what's right. That's what we're fighting for, with them.

Those very principles, fighting the good fight, like this one, for freedom and what's right....that's what we bravely did in past conflicts, and as far as I'm concerned, that's what we're doing now. Side-by-side. And I'd like to see it stay that way.


Dawn.

 

Well, I think it is alright to assign blame on the pilot. From the articles I have read, there was no real threat to him, and no reason to drop the bombs. This leads me to believe that he was just trying to get an easy (enemy, obviously) kill. It was an accident, yes, but one caused by the overzealousness of one soldier, IMHO.

But I wouldn't even be angry about that if it hadn't been for the general US reaction I've seen to this. First of all, just minutes after the story broke, it wasn't even the top story on CNN.com. They were running an article on Bin Laden and how they believe he was injured a few months earlier. Again, in my opinion, it seemed like they were purposely running this article so as to draw attention away from the Canadian deaths. Call me a conspiracy theorist if you want, but I didn't see anything in that story that made it "late-breaking". Just convenient that they decided to run it at the exact same time as the other article.

I was further angered by the reaction of some (a small but offensively vocal group) of JC posters who immediately jumped to the defense of US military, while offering only the slightest of condolensces. "Friendly fire, always happens" "Americans die too, it's not a big deal" "4 deaths isn't really that many".

Then the President shakes off a reporter, with an attitude of "I already said I'm sorry, now lets forget about it". I've been watching the news for this subject the past two days, and I haven't seen one video clip of him publicly addressing the issue. I find that offensive. Our troops are there, after all, as a show of support to the Americans and their cause.

On a happier note, I've heard that there are quite a few US Military personnel who have been quite vocal about their sadness and dissapointment in what happened. And for every JC poster that was defensive there was at least one poster who was very nice and sympathetic.




PS qui-dawn, I don't know if it's just me, but I find it a little hard to follow your posts with all the *blah* asterisks in them.

 

This is obviously a tradigy, but I am leaning on the side of Woofer (and all those who agree with him). Yes, it may be the first time Canadian lives are lost in an offensive, but that is expected in a war. Yes, if we were to loose some lives, it would have been a bit more honorable if it was from enemy fire and not friendly fire, but we can't change that now.

I do think the pilot should loose his job, as it was his fault, and it would be nice for the families if the bodies are brought back here. The only problem with the bodies being brought back for a real burial is that if there are any more casualties for any reason, all the families would then also want to bring the bodies back and it just may get out of hand. I understand this is unlikly, but it is a possibility.

This was a sad thing to happen, but you can only do so much about it now that it has happened and I don't think getting angry about it now will help anything.

 

It's interesting how they're almost shifting the blame to Canadians. I saw something on the news that the Americans are blaming us for not wearing some sort of clothing that shows that we're not the enemies. I don't know what's it called.

 

What were they wearing?

Target Store Uniforms?

 

That's total garbage. It was night. We could have been wearing pink, and it still wouldn't have been visible.

 

Hey don't shoot the messenger! I just saw it on the news. I don't agree with it either.

The Americans just don't want to fess up that they made a mistake.

 

A touching tribute to Canada from The Telegraph, a major British paper:

LONDON -- Until the deaths last week of four Canadian soldiers accidentally killed by a U.S. warplane in Afghanistan, probably almost no one outside their home country had been aware that Canadian troops were deployed in the region. And as always, Canada will now bury its dead, just as the rest of the world as always will forget its sacrifice, just as it always forgets nearly everything Canada ever does.

It seems that Canada's historic mission is to come to the selfless aid both of its friends and of complete strangers, and then, once the crisis is over, to be well and truly ignored. Canada is the perpetual wallflower that stands on the edge of the hall, waiting for someone to come and ask her for a dance. A fire breaks out, she risks life and limb to rescue her fellow dance-goers, and suffers serious injuries. But when the hall is repaired and the dancing resumes, there is Canada, the wallflower still, while those she once helped glamorously cavort across the floor, blithely neglecting her yet again.

That is the price Canada pays for sharing the North American continent with the United States, and for being a selfless friend of Britain in two global conflicts. For much of the 20th century, Canada was torn in two different directions: It seemed to be a part of the old world, yet had an address in the new one, and that divided identity ensured that it never fully got the gratitude it deserved.

Yet its purely voluntary contribution to the cause of freedom in two world wars was perhaps the greatest of any democracy. Almost 10% of Canada's entire population of seven million people served in the armed forces during the First World War, and nearly 60,000 died. The great Allied victories of 1918 were spearheaded by Canadian troops, perhaps the most capable soldiers in the entire British order of battle.

Canada was repaid for its enormous sacrifice by downright neglect, its unique contribution to victory being absorbed into the popular memory as somehow or other the work of the "British." The Second World War provided a re-run. The Canadian navy began the war with a half dozen vessels, and ended up policing nearly half of the Atlantic against U-boat attack.

More than 120 Canadian warships participated in the Normandy landings, during which 15,000 Canadian soldiers went ashore on D-Day alone. Canada finished the war with the third-largest navy and the fourth-largest air force in the world.

The world thanked Canada with the same sublime indifference as it had the previous time. Canadian participation in the war was acknowledged in film only if it was necessary to give an American actor a part in a campaign in which the United States had clearly not participated -- a touching scrupulousness which, of course, Hollywood has since abandoned, as it has any notion of a separate Canadian identity.

So it is a general rule that actors and filmmakers arriving in Hollywood keep their nationality -- unless, that is, they are Canadian. Thus Mary Pickford, Walter Huston, Donald Sutherland, Michael J. Fox, William Shatner, Norman Jewison, David Cronenberg and Dan Aykroyd have in the popular perception become American, and Christopher Plummer, British. It is as if, in the very act of becoming famous, a Canadian ceases to be Canadian, unless she is Margaret Atwood, who is as unshakably Canadian as a moose, or Celine Dion, for whom Canada has proved quite unable to find any takers.

Moreover, Canada is every bit as querulously alert to the achievements of its sons and daughters as the rest of the world is completely unaware of them. The Canadians proudly say of themselves -- and are unheard by anyone else -- that 1% of the world's population has provided 10% of the world's peacekeeping forces. Canadian soldiers in the past half century have been the greatest peacekeepers on Earth -- in 39 missions on UN mandates, and six on non-UN peacekeeping duties, from Vietnam to East Timor, from Sinai to Bosnia.

Yet the only foreign engagement that has e

 

Nice article, I hope it gets picked up by the Canadian papers.

I doubt it will get picked up by an American one!

EDIT: I just followed the link above, it took me to Canada.com (owned by Global), so I'm guessing it was carried in most of the Canadian papers, considering Global owns most of them.

 

I read The Globe and Mail almost daily, but I havn't seen it in there yet.

 

Canadian troops should pull out of their combat role in Afghanistan.

Macleans, a respected Canadian news magazine, reports, ?[The booing of the Canadian anthem] began with jeers for ?Oh Canada? before a Toronto-Detroit NBA playoff game last week? some people in Michigan, which borders Ontario, don?t know Canadians are serving in Afghanistan.?

It is not right for us to blame the American people for their lack of knowledge. The culprits are the American media and government.

The day after four Canadians were killed by American fire in Afghanistan while supporting the United States in their War on Terror, President Bush held four press conferences. (Remember, this is the same man who once told ?This Hour has 22 Minutes? that he has ?great respect for Prime Minister Poutine.?)

At the end of the forth press conference, he had still failed to mention the incident, in a clear effort to stop the news from being publicized. A Canadian reporter then questioned him on it. Before leaving the room, he said that he had already phoned the Prime Minister and apologized. One has to wonder how he found Prime Minister Poutine in the phone book.

Where is the apology to the Canadian people? Where is the announcement to the American people that the incident happened? We put our lives on the line, fighting their war, and get killed by their carelessness. They don?t even respect us enough to tell their own people that we are fighting there, ever after they kill several Canadians.

Instead of the respect that we deserve for fighting their War on Terror, we get ignored, booed, hit with tariffs (by the country that calls itself the largest promoter of free trade in the world), and accused of being a safe haven for terrorists on international television.

To top it off, thousands of civilians have been killed in Afghanistan. How can they justify this? 9/11? Al-Quaida is responsible for that tragedy, and not the innocent Afghan citizens. War on Terror? Call it what it truly is: War on America?s Enemies.

Despite this terrible treatment of Canadians on the part of America, we continue to fight alongside them. While this shows our dedication to duty, questions have to be asked. When will it end? Will our men be leading the attack on Iraq?

If we join Northcom, we probably will. It?s time for Canada to stop fighting for the Americans, and start fighting for the truly noble cause, and the one that we have proven ourselves to be the best in the world at preserving: peace.

America is for Americans. Working closely together with them helps them, and not us. We often get the short end of the deal. Until this relationship can be changed from a one-sided one to a symbiotic one, we need to make Canada for Canadians.

 

Hello. I am from Littleton, Colorado. I am very sorry about what happened. I tried to join the army, but they didn't allow me in, because of disabilites. I know if I was that pilot, I would of gave a warning, like firing a few machine gun rounds a few hundred feet away. I understand why you guys are mad, I have a few friends who live in Canada, and one of my friends just moved from Canada down to Littleton. And we shouldn't be using that lame saying about friendly fire. In my option, yours and our officers knew where the training site was, but both sides failed to give lower ranking officers a good plan on what was happening. But I also understand that this is a war and friendly fire does happen. I do want to let you all know, that I am sorry about what happened.