Canadian killed by friendly fire in Afghanistan

MrBrianMrBrian Posts: 2,672
edited September 2006 in A Moving Train
Good thing it was "friendly fire", otherwise i'd be pretty upset.
Updated Mon. Sep. 4 2006 5:13 PM ET

CTV.ca News Staff

Two U.S. warplanes accidentally strafed their own NATO forces in southern Afghanistan on Monday, killing one Canadian soldier and seriously wounding five others.

NATO said in a statement that the International Security Assistance Force provided the support but "regrettably engaged friendly forces during a strafing run, using cannons." It later identified the planes as U.S. A-10 Thunderbolts.

One Canadian soldier was killed, said NATO spokesman Maj. Scott Lundy, while five were seriously wounded and evacuated out of Afghanistan for medical treatment.

"It was a scene of absolute chaos this morning at the airport near the hospital. We were there as helicopter after helicopter ferried in the wounded," CTV's Matt McClure reported from Kandahar.

CTV News has learned that the United States will launch its own probe into the incident, in addition to a NATO investigation currently underway.

"There has not been any official reaction from the United States government, but CTV News has learned Ambassador David Wilkins -- the U.S. ambassador in Canada -- phoned Prime Minister Stephen Harper first thing this morning," CTV's David Akin told Newsnet.

Wilkins expressed the regret of the U.S. government over the tragedy, and also indicated the government would launch its own investigation.
Post edited by Unknown User on
«1

Comments

  • Friendly fire is a reality of warfare, dude. An incident like this could have been a lot worse. Most of the wounded were immediately returned to duty.
  • MrBrianMrBrian Posts: 2,672
    Friendly fire is a reality of warfare, dude. An incident like this could have been a lot worse. Most of the wounded were immediately returned to duty.

    yeah, I just figured one death is enough.
  • MrBrian wrote:
    yeah, I just figured one death is enough.

    One is obviously too many, yeah. So is four yesterday.
  • MrBrianMrBrian Posts: 2,672
    One is obviously too many, yeah. So is four yesterday.

    or 8? 3 years ago.
    ----

    But Yeah, it really could've been alot worse in this latest one.
  • even flow?even flow? Posts: 8,066
    I wonder if they are going to use the same excuse as last time? Our boys were to high on speed and had to make a judgement while whacked on the junk. :rolleyes: Flies with some of the Canucks on the board.
    You've changed your place in this world!
  • even flow? wrote:
    I wonder if they are going to use the same excuse as last time? Our boys were to high on speed and had to make a judgement while whacked on the junk. :rolleyes: Flies with some of the Canucks on the board.

    Not this Canuck.......
  • Friendly fire is a reality of warfare, dude. An incident like this could have been a lot worse. Most of the wounded were immediately returned to duty.

    If it were the other way around, we'd never hear the end of it - and the US would probably start bombing the shit out of Canada. This is the 2nd time this has happened...no lame excuse will be good enough for me this time. The Canadian Flag does not have a target on it, dudes...
    be philanthropic
  • Friendly fire isnt very friendly when you think about it.
    no matter where you go,
    there you are.

    - brain of c
  • even flow? wrote:
    I wonder if they are going to use the same excuse as last time? Our boys were to high on speed and had to make a judgement while whacked on the junk. :rolleyes: Flies with some of the Canucks on the board.


    Like who?
  • DerrickDerrick Posts: 475
    20% of americans probably don't know what/where Canada is
    95% of americans probably couldn't give two craps about Canada

    Is it any wonder american forces fire upon Canadian forces?
  • PickrPickr Posts: 161
    Derrick wrote:
    20% of americans probably don't know what/where Canada is
    95% of americans probably couldn't give two craps about Canada

    Is it any wonder american forces fire upon Canadian forces?


    100% of what you just said is totally off base.
    Stix and Stones may break my bones, but More than Words will never hurt me.
  • MrBrianMrBrian Posts: 2,672
    By David Ljunggren
    34 minutes ago

    OTTAWA (Reuters) - The rising death toll among Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan is prompting calls for the minority Conservative government to rethink Canada's military mission in the war-torn country.

    The new deaths sparked massive media coverage as well as more questions about why Canadian troops, best known in recent decades for taking part in peacekeeping operations, were involved in a major military mission against the Taliban


    http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060906/wl_canada_nm/canada_afghan_canada_col_5
  • even flow?even flow? Posts: 8,066
    And Halifax isn't letting the type of plane that kills Canucks fly at their upcoming air show. he he he

    http://www.cbc.ca/canada/nova-scotia/story/2006/09/06/warthog-airshow.html
    You've changed your place in this world!
  • MrBrian wrote:
    By David Ljunggren
    34 minutes ago

    OTTAWA (Reuters) - The rising death toll among Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan is prompting calls for the minority Conservative government to rethink Canada's military mission in the war-torn country.

    The new deaths sparked massive media coverage as well as more questions about why Canadian troops, best known in recent decades for taking part in peacekeeping operations, were involved in a major military mission against the Taliban


    http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060906/wl_canada_nm/canada_afghan_canada_col_5

    And pulling out now would send what message? That we are cowards who cannot pull our weight despite making a commitment to NATO? We've lost 20 or so soldiers in combat. The Taliban has lost hundreds ... And we're the ones developing cold feet?
    Quite frankly, Harper's government or anyone else should not embarass this country, and shit all over the troops in the process.
  • And pulling out now would send what message? That we are cowards who cannot pull our weight despite making a commitment to NATO? We've lost 20 or so soldiers in combat. The Taliban has lost hundreds ... And we're the ones developing cold feet?
    Quite frankly, Harper's government or anyone else should not embarass this country, and shit all over the troops in the process.

    We should be asking "what are we really fighting for"....heard one soldier say on the news said he "was proud of defending Canadian freedom"....I laughed...seriously I am family with an UN Commander and we both thought it was funny because I have never felt that my livilhood was threatened by the Taliban....

    I respect these boys but really what are we fighting for?????
  • We should be asking "what are we really fighting for"....heard one soldier say on the news said he "was proud of defending Canadian freedom"....I laughed...seriously I am family with an UN Commander and we both thought it was funny because I have never felt that my livilhood was threatened by the Taliban....

    I respect these boys but really what are we fighting for?????

    I think the mission is basically just, although part of me also thinks that it should be up to Afghans to choose a decent government and fight the Taliban off. Either way, I don't think we should comtemplate a pull-out before the agreement we made is up.
  • I think the mission is basically just, although part of me also thinks that it should be up to Afghans to choose a decent government and fight the Taliban off. Either way, I don't think we should comtemplate a pull-out before the agreement we made is up.

    Fair enough....although I am one for letting them deal with the Taliaban we can do much more good through non-military support of an elected government than we can with the military prescence in the country.....plus it wouldn't hurt if these American pilots weren't so damn trigger happy.....:)
  • MrBrianMrBrian Posts: 2,672
    And pulling out now would send what message? That we are cowards who cannot pull our weight despite making a commitment to NATO? We've lost 20 or so soldiers in combat. The Taliban has lost hundreds ... And we're the ones developing cold feet?
    Quite frankly, Harper's government or anyone else should not embarass this country, and shit all over the troops in the process.

    It's not "developing cold feet", it's developing a sense of understanding, understanding that this war on terror is faux, it's only aim is to expand american power, canada should be embarrassed that it fell for the "fighting for freedom" line from the yanks. Allowing Canadian troops to shoot up and be shot in afghanistan is shitting on them.
  • Fair enough....although I am one for letting them deal with the Taliaban we can do much more good through non-military support of an elected government than we can with the military prescence in the country.....plus it wouldn't hurt if these American pilots weren't so damn trigger happy.....:)

    I think air power is overrated in these kinds of battles, quite frankly. Apparently the Taliban have gotten good at avoiding airstrikes anyways ...

    It doesn't make me happy that Canadians die over there. At all. But I feel that we need to honour this commitment ... What message would a pull-out send now, not just to the enemy but to our allies? That Canadian troops cannot do the job? Clearly they can. I was listening to a veteran on CBC radio the other day. He was amazed that people are freaking out about 32 deaths, 20 in combat ... In his day (WW-II), Canadian units were losing TWO DOZEN A DAY. Times have changed, clearly.
  • MrBrian wrote:
    It's not "developing cold feet", it's developing a sense of understanding, understanding that this war on terror is faux, it's only aim is to expand american power, canada should be embarrassed that it fell for the "fighting for freedom" line from the yanks. Allowing Canadian troops to shoot up and be shot in afghanistan is shitting on them.

    You and I disagree on the extent to which Islamic extremism poses a threat, though. That's our fundamental difference. You think its all American propoganda, and I don't (although I will certainly admit that American rhetoric has blown things out of proportion).
  • I think air power is overrated in these kinds of battles, quite frankly. Apparently the Taliban have gotten good at avoiding airstrikes anyways ...

    It doesn't make me happy that Canadians die over there. At all. But I feel that we need to honour this commitment ... What message would a pull-out send now, not just to the enemy but to our allies? That Canadian troops cannot do the job? Clearly they can. I was listening to a veteran on CBC radio the other day. He was amazed that people are freaking out about 32 deaths, 20 in combat ... In his day (WW-II), Canadian units were losing TWO DOZEN A DAY. Times have changed, clearly.

    No times have not changed its that the majority of Canadians do not believe our military should be fighting over there....

    WW2 and this conflict are not even remotley related.....its different hearing about countrymen dieing when they are fighting for a noble cause (more importantly a cause we understand) than hearing of those dying for whatever reason no one really knows.....
  • No times have not changed its that the majority of Canadians do not believe our military should be fighting over there....

    WW2 and this conflict are not even remotley related.....its different hearing about countrymen dieing when they are fighting for a noble cause (more importantly a cause we understand) than hearing of those dying for whatever reason no one really knows.....

    Is that true, though? They've done a ton of surveys, and never is it that black-and-white. It always seems like quite a split, the exceptions being Alberta and Quebec.
  • I don't know, dudes ... The cause here doesn't strike me as a complete mystery. Maybe you disagree with the value of the cause ... Basically, its fighting Islamic extremism and propping up a secular government in Afghanistan. There it is. Agree or disagree, it doesn't strike me as all that vague.
  • Is that true, though? They've done a ton of surveys, and never is it that black-and-white. It always seems like quite a split, the exceptions being Alberta and Quebec.

    I believe it too be true....I just need to ask those around me to find where the majority are...and these are also Conservatives as well.....so from my investigation it seems true......am I completely right I really don't know.....
  • I don't know, dudes ... The cause here doesn't strike me as a complete mystery. Maybe you disagree with the value of the cause ... Basically, its fighting Islamic extremism and propping up a secular government in Afghanistan. There it is. Agree or disagree, it doesn't strike me as all that vague.

    Yes and when we do leave these same nuts will exist and most likely with a bigger chip on their shoulder.....like I have said many times before the military will never destroy the radicals.....the people of that country will need to do that.....
  • MrBrianMrBrian Posts: 2,672
    You and I disagree on the extent to which Islamic extremism poses a threat, though. That's our fundamental difference. You think its all American propoganda, and I don't (although I will certainly admit that American rhetoric has blown things out of proportion).

    Well dude, This so called "islamic extremism" is a huge threat, no doubt about it, but I do view american extremism as a greater one. They are the ones with the weapons, money and so on.

    But regardless, Canada right now is doing nothing to stop this "islamic extremism" and doing everything in helping "american extremism", so what I think canada needs to do is take a couple steps back, which includes leaving afghanistan and perhaps work on building bridges, not burning them.
  • Yes and when we do leave these same nuts will exist and most likely with a bigger chip on their shoulder.....like I have said many times before the military will never destroy the radicals.....the people of that country will need to do that.....

    You might very well be right, although I am not sure that the task can be left to others exclusively ... Leaving things completely alone might just result in another source of people to attack this continent (or in this case, the revitalization of a previous source). Don't get me wrong, I am not dismissing your point completely. Its well taken ... I just don't know if military action should be eschewed entirely. The debacle in Iraq created a new source of terrorists ... But Afghanistan remains open ...
  • MrBrianMrBrian Posts: 2,672
    edit this post read post 27
  • MrBrian wrote:
    Well dude, This so called "islamic extremism" is a huge threat, no doubt about it, but I do view american extremism as a greater one. They are the ones with the weapons, money and so on.

    But regardless, Canada right now is doing nothing to stop this "islamic extremism" and doing everything in helping "american extremism", so what I think canada needs to do is take a couple steps back, which includes leaving afghanistan and perhaps work on building bridges, not burning them.

    Maybe so, but I don't think Iraq and Afghanistan are the same kettle of fish. I view the former as an example of "American extremism", and the latter as a legitimate attempt to deal with the source of the people who woke the sleeping giant on 9-11. I like to think that's why Canadians choose to stay the hell out of Iraq, but help out in Afghanistan. Like I said earlier, I'm not too sure what the right balance of military and humanitarian action is in this case. I will say that we aren't exactly in the midst of World War III. Canadian involvement has been pretty focused and specific.
  • You might very well be right, although I am not sure that the task can be left to others exclusively ... Leaving things completely alone might just result in another source of people to attack this continent (or in this case, the revitalization of a previous source). Don't get me wrong, I am not dismissing your point completely. Its well taken ... I just don't know if military action should be eschewed entirely. The debacle in Iraq created a new source of terrorists ... But Afghanistan remains open ...


    I think what I believe has never even been attempted because peaceful solutions are viewed as either weak or too time consuming when compared to a an offensive mission bent on killing the enemy one by one....

    I propose leaving and help developing the nation to a proper democracy through diplomacy and leave the people of the nation to deal with the real enemy when they see what good the West can really do....when they see the good that comes and not death & destruction the people of the country will yearn for more of the "free" life and will do their best to eliminate those that want to take it away....right now they see no freedom..I laugh at the likes of Bush & Harper proclaiming freedom in that nation....there is no freedom they live in a god forsaken war zone....they have no clue what real freedom is...its time to stop pretending they do and we must help bring up a government diplomatic style instead of military style.....

    There are times for military means (eg. WW2) and then there are times for creative and alternative solutions (dealing with a small band of nuts)....we spend too much time militarily destroying a country where the majority of its inhabitats have nothing to do with the nuts...yet they get punished not only by their original oppressor's but by those that wish to free them....its such a wretched strategy that I really cannot believe our governments have not figured out it will never work.....yet we continue down the same road believing it will work....
Sign In or Register to comment.