OhOh, Oops and Omygod!
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNe...01/canada_iraq_060201/20060201?hub=TopStories
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNe...01/canada_iraq_060201/20060201?hub=TopStories
Canadians Fired On In Iraq
- Thread starter Curiosity
- Start date
As much as Canadians being fired upon gets my hackles raised, NOT STOPPING when an armed soldier tells you too is a very dumb idea.
I fully support the actions of the U.S. soldiers who opened fire. Even though they did fire on my countrymen, Doryman DOES have a point. When you're in a combat zone, especially one like Iraq where your enemy can come from anywhere, you look after yourself and your buddies first. In a sense you adopt a policy of shoot first and ask questions later. Granted from time to time errors will occur, but when you're faced with an enemy that simply drives in to your convoy and explodes, you can't sit around and analyze the situation.
CTV (and Reuters US reports) are only giving a description of the fracas only from the pronouncements of an official from the US military -- U.S. Lt.-Col. Barry Johnson (and isn’t that typical!) That “it apparently attempted to pass an American convoy” is only thier supposition.
Before deriding the Embassy car’s actions too vocally. I wanted to know how much time elapsed between the signal to stop was given, and the warning shots -- one of which( See: http://tinyurl.com/dfbum ) passed though the passenger section of the Canadian Embassy vehicle.
Are we talking minutes, seconds, or nanoseconds?
Better hold back on our decisions until after all the facts are in, eh?
Before deriding the Embassy car’s actions too vocally. I wanted to know how much time elapsed between the signal to stop was given, and the warning shots -- one of which( See: http://tinyurl.com/dfbum ) passed though the passenger section of the Canadian Embassy vehicle.
Are we talking minutes, seconds, or nanoseconds?
Better hold back on our decisions until after all the facts are in, eh?
If the facts support that resolution, I will be willing to accept this as a mistake, but I would still not be willing to “let it pass.”
Firing on Iraqi civilians, international journalists, diplomats, and assorted allies is one of the constantly recurring complaints coming from that region.
Whether it occurs as a result of undermanning and overextending the troops, or consciously setting them on with a ‘shoot first’ mind-set, this is a problem that needs to be addressed at the highest levels.
My problem is believing that, at those highest levels, anybody gives a shit.
Firing on Iraqi civilians, international journalists, diplomats, and assorted allies is one of the constantly recurring complaints coming from that region.
Whether it occurs as a result of undermanning and overextending the troops, or consciously setting them on with a ‘shoot first’ mind-set, this is a problem that needs to be addressed at the highest levels.
My problem is believing that, at those highest levels, anybody gives a shit.
For once I'd like to see the Canadians firing on Americans or see the Canadians dropping bombs on American soldiers. That way we could see Washington's reaction to the "mistake".
I understand that mistakes happen and they are in a war zone, but at the same time it always seems that the rest of the allies are always having to forgive and forget American mistakes.
I understand that mistakes happen and they are in a war zone, but at the same time it always seems that the rest of the allies are always having to forgive and forget American mistakes.
Virtual Burlesque,
I suspect that you are correct that the Americans really don't "give a shit" so long as those shot or shot at are non-american.
I suspect that you are correct that the Americans really don't "give a shit" so long as those shot or shot at are non-american.
Re: RE: Canadians Fired On In Iraq
This event occurred in the Green Zone of Baghdad.
In the Bush dimension, I believe that is the “most secured area of a recently liberated country.”
When you misrepresent that as a “war zone” your are merely exposing your un-American grasp on reality.
DasFXDasFX said:
This event occurred in the Green Zone of Baghdad.
In the Bush dimension, I believe that is the “most secured area of a recently liberated country.”
When you misrepresent that as a “war zone” your are merely exposing your un-American grasp on reality.
Re: RE: Canadians Fired On In Iraq
And what's reality? American soldiers taking pot shots at Canadians?
Virtual Burlesque said:
And what's reality? American soldiers taking pot shots at Canadians?
We must have provoked them. Shoot first and fast , let god sort it out.
This incident in Thee Green Zone, Americans take pot shots as Canadians take shots of pot in car speeding toward Democracy convoy
with reckless abandone.
This incident in Thee Green Zone, Americans take pot shots as Canadians take shots of pot in car speeding toward Democracy convoy
with reckless abandone.
Actually in 1994, a Cougar Armored Vehicle of the Royal Canadian Dragoons opened fire on a U.S. Infantry section in Croatia. Reports had come in that Croatian military units were advancing on Candian lines and when the U.S. troops broke a woodline the Cougar opened up with its 7.62mm machine gun. Luckily the U.S. troops only suffered 2 WIA and 0 KIA, but it goes to show that the U.S. have received friendly fire in the past. I will concede, however, that the U.S. tend to be the instigator of friendly fire more often than the receipient
The green zone is a MORE secure area in a war zone. That doesn't mean it isn't considered part of said war zone. Take for example the Buffer Zone in Cyprus. Technically that strip between the Turks and Greeks was suppose to be safe, but most offensive action occured in that region because it was the largest concentration of U.N. troops versus waring faction members.
That's not fair, they care, however they, unlike the majority of Canadians, accept the fact that friendly fire occurs in war.
It's easy to say that sitting in Canada in your safe neighbourhood. But if I put you in Afghanistan or Iraq and task you to patrol a warzone where the enemy looks just like the civilian poppulace, you'd change your opinion fast. Some times shooting first in war is the only way to survive. The problem mostly lies with the civilians, who wander around Iraq and Afghanistan, often right through fire fights. Furthermore most of the "civilian" casualties you hear about are simply people who were stupid enough not to stop at a checkpoint or stupid enough not to get out of the street when insurgents and coalition forces open up on eachother.
Mogz said;
The problem mostly lies with the civilians, who wander around Iraq and Afghanistan, often right through fire fights. Furthermore most of the "civilian" casualties you hear about are simply people who were stupid enough not to stop at a checkpoint or stupid enough not to get out of the street when insurgents and coalition forces open up on eachother.
Most of the civilian casualties are caused by air strikes.
So do you really think Iraqies and Afgans are stupid for wandering arround in thier own countries.
Maybe we should get all the civilians out of both countries untill the war is over.
The problem mostly lies with the civilians, who wander around Iraq and Afghanistan, often right through fire fights. Furthermore most of the "civilian" casualties you hear about are simply people who were stupid enough not to stop at a checkpoint or stupid enough not to get out of the street when insurgents and coalition forces open up on eachother.
Most of the civilian casualties are caused by air strikes.
So do you really think Iraqies and Afgans are stupid for wandering arround in thier own countries.
Maybe we should get all the civilians out of both countries untill the war is over.
Its not the civilians fault for their casulaties. The combatants, are suppose to make sure they don't target civilians, so that means that it is on the shoulders of coalition forces in Afghanistan and Iraq to minimize civilian casualities. Not the civilian themself.
Now, back to the incident I am glad that no one was killed in this incident.
But, if I am ever caught up in an incident like this friendly or not, I would fire back.
Now, back to the incident I am glad that no one was killed in this incident.
But, if I am ever caught up in an incident like this friendly or not, I would fire back.
Actually most civilian casualties in Iraq are caused by small arms fire. Air strikes in Iraq have only recently come to prevelance due to a change in insurgent tactics. The biggest chunk of the war in Iraq is house to house fighting and anti-sniper warfare. Saying that all civilians should leave the nation until the war is over is just stupid man. However they should exercise some common sense when wandering around a warzone that is quickly becoming known for IED attacks and spur of the moment gun fights. During World War II, the residents of France, Belgium, and The Netherlands stayed indoors when there was street to street fighting. In Ortona, when the Canadian Army was fighting the Germans over Christmas in 1943, they quickly realized that when they ordered civilians to remain in their cellars, they were able to effectively engage the Germans without fear of harming innocents. However, yes civilian casualties did occur, but imagine how much higher the number would have been if the Italians wandered around Ortona like the Iraqi's do? I will admit that warfare is different now, it's a three-block war system, and full out battles are rare. However you can seriously blame the U.S. or British troops for hitting civilians that run across the road through their machine gun arcs can you? Can you really blame coalition troops for opening up on a vehicle that fails to stop at a checkpoint, when for years vehicles that behave in just such a manner have a tendancy to explode? Being a soldier, I can't, and I won't.
Yes it is the civilians faults, not all the time granted, but mostly in Iraq it is theirs. I have a friend that served two tours in Iraq with the U.S. Marine Corps, and he said they'd been engaging isurgents on a street and civilians would come to the windows to watch. Is that smart? Not overly. Is it a Marines fault if shrapnel hits some Iraqi watching a running gunfight from his window? Not really.
You honestly, being a soldier, would fire back on your allies if they fired on you by mistake? You would compound a dangerous situation by putting MORE bullets in the air, aimed towards your allies? Hopefully we never end up on tour together...
Uh yeah, I never said air strikes were the primary cause, I was quoting someone else. And contrary to what the news tells you, the majority of civilians in Iraq, to date, have been killed by small arms. IEDs tend to wound more civilians than they kill due to the fact that the blast is compressed by the vehicle it targets, with the occupants of the vehicle bearing the extreme brunt of the explosion. Some examples of IED explosions and their casualties:
October 2, 2003 - An Iltis driven by members of the 3rd Battalion Royal Canadian Regiment is hit by an IED containing two (2) anti-tank mines wired together. The resulting blast lifts the Iltis in to the air and kills Sgt. Robert Short, and Cpl. Robbie Beerenfenger. 3 other soldiers are slightly wounded, the driver, and 2 others in the following Iltis. This occurs on a Kabul street and no civilians are harmed by the explosion, even though two anti-tank mines have exploded.
January 27, 2004 - A sucide bomber throws himself on an Iltis from the 3rd Battalion Royal Candian Regiment, killing Cpl. Jaime Murphy and wounding 3 others. This occurs in a busy market district of Kabul an no civilians are harmed.
January 15, 2006 - A suicide bomber rams a PPCLI G-wagon in Kandhar, with a trunk full of explosives equivilent to 5 artillery shells exploding at once. The blast throws the G-wagon across the street and kills a Canadian diplomat and wounds 3 soldiers. The blast kills 2 Afghani's and wounds 10.
So in three massive explosions, 2 civilians are killed and 10 wounded. The only reason the last explosion harms civilians is because:
1. The flying G-wagon crushed 2 civilains walking on the OTHER SIDE OF THE ROAD
2. The 10 wounded are hit my minor shrapnel and are treated locally in hospital.
Say what you will about car bombs, but by and large they are a focused explosion. Yes civilians do get hit, especially if the explosion is a massive one like the one that hit the G-wagon, but most are simple explosions that go off under a heavily armored vehicle, thus containing the explosion.
October 2, 2003 - An Iltis driven by members of the 3rd Battalion Royal Canadian Regiment is hit by an IED containing two (2) anti-tank mines wired together. The resulting blast lifts the Iltis in to the air and kills Sgt. Robert Short, and Cpl. Robbie Beerenfenger. 3 other soldiers are slightly wounded, the driver, and 2 others in the following Iltis. This occurs on a Kabul street and no civilians are harmed by the explosion, even though two anti-tank mines have exploded.
January 27, 2004 - A sucide bomber throws himself on an Iltis from the 3rd Battalion Royal Candian Regiment, killing Cpl. Jaime Murphy and wounding 3 others. This occurs in a busy market district of Kabul an no civilians are harmed.
January 15, 2006 - A suicide bomber rams a PPCLI G-wagon in Kandhar, with a trunk full of explosives equivilent to 5 artillery shells exploding at once. The blast throws the G-wagon across the street and kills a Canadian diplomat and wounds 3 soldiers. The blast kills 2 Afghani's and wounds 10.
So in three massive explosions, 2 civilians are killed and 10 wounded. The only reason the last explosion harms civilians is because:
1. The flying G-wagon crushed 2 civilains walking on the OTHER SIDE OF THE ROAD
2. The 10 wounded are hit my minor shrapnel and are treated locally in hospital.
Say what you will about car bombs, but by and large they are a focused explosion. Yes civilians do get hit, especially if the explosion is a massive one like the one that hit the G-wagon, but most are simple explosions that go off under a heavily armored vehicle, thus containing the explosion.