# Canadians in Kandahar fire shots in self-defence



## Armymedic (19 Aug 2005)

From CTV:

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1124463532089_119872732/?hub=World

Canadians in Kandahar fire shots in self-defence
CTV.ca News Staff

Canadian soldiers fired their first shots in self-defence on Thursday since arriving in the volatile southern Afghan province of Kandahar late last month.

Troops were patrolling the streets during the country's Independence Day celebrations when a van tried to overtake their convoy from behind.

A military spokesman has said there were concerns that the driver might be a suicide bomber so a gunner fired four rounds into the vehicle's engine block to disable it.

According to initial reports, no one is believed to have been injured during the incident.

On Thursday, a roadside bomb explosion in southern Afghanistan killed two American soldiers and wounded another two, according to U.S. military officials.

The troops were travelling in an armoured vehicle north of Kandahar, part of a convoy supporting a road construction project.

"These terrorists are attacking the very forces working to improve Afghanistan," Brig. Gen. Jack Sterling, a deputy commander of the U.S.-led coalition, told The Associated Press.

"It's unconscionable that the Taliban would do something like this. They only offer death and continued suffering to the people of Afghanistan."

Canada has deployed 250 soldiers to Kandahar, widely known as a hotbed of militant activity, to provide security in the area surrounding their compound for Afghanistan's national elections on Sept. 18.

Canada is also taking over the Provincial Reconstruction Team (PRT) and responsibility for the area surrounding it from an American team that had been in the region for almost two years.

Over the next two months, the PRT will work with other NATO countries on security and reconstruction efforts, while promoting diplomacy in the southern Afghan provinces.

Its mission is the third phase of a NATO expansion that will eventually take over the reins from the U.S.-led Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan. 

Col. Steve Noonan, the PRT's task force commander, has acknowledged that the threat level in Kandahar is greater than when troops were in the capital city of Kabul, where they were stationed earlier. 

"We acknowledge and understand the risk," he said. 

"This is what we have trained for. This is what we've prepared for."

While Afghanistan is considered to be relatively safer for military personnel when compared to countries such as Iraq, Canadians should not discount the fact that some of their soldiers will not be coming home, one defence expert said.

"I think any country, such as our good friends and neighbours the Canadians, sending (more than) 1,500 troops to Afghanistan has to expect a number of casualties in the coming months," said Brookings Institution scholar Michael O'Hanlon, appearing on CTV's Question Period last month.



So,

Tell me why embedded reporters are good?

ROE's - use of deadly force...was it justified?


----------



## MJP (19 Aug 2005)

Armymedic said:
			
		

> ROE's - use of deadly force...was it justified?



Sounds like they handled the situation fine and escalated according to their ROE's to me ......


----------



## jmackenzie_15 (19 Aug 2005)

MJP said:
			
		

> Sounds like they handled the situation fine and escalated according to their ROE's to me ......



I agree.
They didnt shoot the driver, they only used the minimum necessary force to stop the situation. I would have done the exact same thing.
I don't know about you guys but I wouldnt be taking any chances like that, even if it was just some guy in a hurry.


----------



## Armymedic (19 Aug 2005)

From CBC:

Canadian troops fire on vehicle in Khandahar, Afghanistan
Last Updated Fri, 19 Aug 2005 13:43:51 EDT 
CBC News
Canadian troops have fired shots in Afghanistan's Khandahar region. Officials report that a Canadian soldier opened fire today to stop a vehicle. 

It's the first time since deployment in the region that Canadian soldiers have fired weapons. Lieutenant-Colonel David Anderson, Task Force Afghanistan Chief of Staff in Kabul, says the incident happened during a routine patrol.

The taxi was warned off several times before the soldier fired four machine-gun rounds into the engine, disabling the vehicle.

Officials say nobody was hurt in the incident, though the convoy did not stop to check on the driver, fearing a suicide bomb. 

Anderson says the incident was well within Canada's rules of engagement for the Kandahar provincial reconstruction team mission.


----------



## mdh (19 Aug 2005)

> So,
> 
> Tell me why embedded reporters are good?



sorry armymedic - do you mean to suggest that this is a bad thing or a good thing? Just wanted clarification.

cheers, mdh


----------



## jmackenzie_15 (19 Aug 2005)

^ ditto .  ;D


----------



## 2 Cdo (19 Aug 2005)

4 in the engine compartment and 2 in the head would "probably" still fall well within their ROE's. The principal of self defence always applies. You think he's a suicide bomber, therefore you are more than okay to send him to meet Allah. 
Good one troops, keep alert. Methinks it might just get a little "hotter" in Kandahar.


----------



## Cloud Cover (19 Aug 2005)

2 Cdo said:
			
		

> Good one troops, keep alert. Methinks it might just get a little "hotter" in Kandahar.



Sounds like they're up for it.


----------



## Armymedic (19 Aug 2005)

mdh said:
			
		

> sorry armymedic - do you mean to suggest that this is a bad thing or a good thing? Just wanted clarification.
> 
> cheers, mdh



Indifferent, actually. There are several pro and cons to having reporters in camp. 

If this situation went badly, for instance the driver was killed and no explosive devices were found, how do you suppose it would be reported? 

Also, why is it reported as "fire shots in self-defence"? 

(I am attempting to stimulate conversation, not second guessing the on scene commander, whom I personally think made a wise choice)


----------



## bravo2 (19 Aug 2005)

Without having all the details I think our soldiers reacted well within the ROE's. Firing four rounds into a vehicle's engine block to disable it is a reasonable approach to this incident and it also send a message that the troops are alert. But the suicide bomber is still free to have another shot at the Troops. Dealing with an enemy that blends in with the local population is never an easy situation. You don't want to react to strongly in order to avoid collateral damage.


----------



## mdh (19 Aug 2005)

> Indifferent, actually. There are several pro and cons to having reporters in camp.
> 
> If this situation went badly, for instance the driver was killed and no explosive devices were found, how do you suppose it would be reported?
> 
> ...



Ok - gotcha - I would argue embeds are the best practice for reporters and the CF - it provides them with access to the front while allowing the military some control in terms of where reporters go. 

It also creates a bond with the unit - it's pretty tough to be blatantly critical of the grunts you're humping it with (well at least for most journalists  ??? .) Compared to pooling reporters - which was the practice in GW1 - I think that's a good compromise. 

Moreover pooling tended to irritate reporters who couldn't get the access they wanted - (and their editors often demanded.)  As a result pooling tended to lead to a lot of freelancing around the battlefield as individual journos tried to maintain "independence" and hired whatever local to drive them around.  (The only other alternative would be letting reporters go where ever they want to - a la Vietnam - but we know what kind of coverage that produced.)

As for the "what if" scenario you raised - I would say that such an incident would have been reported anyway whether the journos are with you or not - and that if you have a reporter actually with the convoy - sharing the same potential risk - the reporter isn't likely to make any snap judgements.

Overall, embedding appears to have been fairly successful for the US military in Iraq - especially during the march on Baghdad.  

my two cents,
cheers, mdh


----------



## MCpl Wesite (19 Aug 2005)

I'm glad the boys fired back and quickly. Don't want the locals thinking your just there for show. Johnny Canuck don't take no crap.


----------



## Infanteer (19 Aug 2005)

Armymedic said:
			
		

> It's the first time since deployment in the region that Canadian soldiers have fired weapons. Lieutenant-Colonel David Anderson, Task Force Afghanistan Chief of Staff in Kabul, says the incident happened during a routine patrol.



Hey...wait a second....


----------



## Krazy-P (19 Aug 2005)

wait a second?? have something to share?


----------



## Infanteer (19 Aug 2005)

If you have to ask, you don't need to know....


----------



## McG (19 Aug 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Hey...wait a second....


how about "the first time in the south since our return to the south."


----------



## Krazy-P (19 Aug 2005)

well i dont know, so therefore i have to ask


----------



## Jarnhamar (19 Aug 2005)

And because of the stupid 'we're the worlds peacekeepers YAY' attitude the public has, the first time our guys injure someone over there while escalating their ROEs their is going to be a huge shit storm.   You know it's going to hit the news and it's going to be a national story.
Our soldiers don't need that kind of pressure when they are making life and death decisions.

Edit: Spelling


----------



## Armymedic (19 Aug 2005)

Ghost778 said:
			
		

> the first time our guys injure someone over there while escilating their ROEs their is going to be a huge crap storm.   You know it's going to hit the news and it's going to be a national story.



exactly what I was thinking. 

One of us has yet to kill one of them (since OP Apollo snipers, but that wasn't reported the day it happened), where the media has reported a Canadian soldier had to kill an insurgent or otherwise. I think once that hurdle is gone over will the "peacekeeper" myth die...

that is once the soldier is cleared of wrong doing by the public inquiry hearings.


----------



## Krazy-P (19 Aug 2005)

The last thing a soldier needs to think about is getting charged for doing his job, good way to scare them out of not doing their job and getting injured, or worse.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (20 Aug 2005)

I'd rather go on court martial then be scrapped into a plastic bag any day of the week.


----------



## Spr.Earl (20 Aug 2005)

"I'd rather go on court martial then be scrapped into a plastic bag any day of the week"


Rather be Judged by 12 than be carried by 6.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (20 Aug 2005)

or that


----------



## B.McTeer (20 Aug 2005)

I wouldn't be surprised if next time its 40 MG rounds into the drivers compartment, as apposed to 4 into the block

McTeer  :bullet:


----------



## bubba (20 Aug 2005)

Personnly i would of preferred the carl g,but hey that's just me. :bullet:


----------



## Armymedic (20 Aug 2005)

B.McTeer said:
			
		

> I wouldn't be surprised if next time its 40 MG rounds into the drivers compartment, as apposed to 4 into the block





			
				bubba said:
			
		

> Personnly i would of preferred the carl g,but hey that's just me. :bullet:



That would be a violation of both the ROEs and the Law of Armed Conflict (use of "reasonable force")

Now here Gentlemen, are two prime example of the attitude trained out of us before we go overseas...

and hence, why we Canadian soldiers do this better then anyone else in the world.


----------



## bubba (20 Aug 2005)

HEY Armymedic it was a joke see the winking face.


----------



## GO!!! (20 Aug 2005)

They should have killed him, if they were within their ROEs to shoot the veh, they were within their ROEs to shoot the driver.

Now there is a guy out there who;

1) Knows the sequence of events that leads up to deadly force.
2) Has lost his cab (livelihood) and undoutedly bears some animosity towards the coalition.
3) Is sharing this info with ALOT of other people, not all of them good.

"If you must injure a man, do it brutally, so you need not fear his revenge" - Machiavelli


----------



## 48Highlander (20 Aug 2005)

1)  "the sequence of events that leads up to deadly force" isn't exactly top-secret stuff.  The baddies already know it.
2)  Better a guy who's lost his cab than a mother who's lost a son, a wife who's lost a husband, and a child who's lost a father.
3)  See #1

I hope I never end up on a tour with you...


----------



## Britney Spears (20 Aug 2005)

> They should have killed him, if they were within their ROEs to shoot the veh, they were within their ROEs to shoot the driver.



How does this follow? From a purely practical standpoint, a moving vehicle with a dead driver is more of a danger to bystanders than a non-moving vehicle.

On the other hand, There does need to be due diligence done with this kind of thing. First, the local populace should have been made well aware  through the efforts of the CIMIC cell that following too closely to military vehicles is verbotten, there should be clear indications on the vehicle stating the same, in all reasonable local languages. If the driver was illiterate, then the soldier should know how to verbally indicate this fact to the driver. If all these steps have been taken and the driver still insists on approaching, then of course we go from there. 

The Americans in Iraq establish, through propaganda posters, a common set of hand signals that a soldier can give to drivers, i.e. "stop" "move away" "you are too close" etc. So the soldier can make a reasonable effort to signal the dirver before opening fire. I hear it works most of the time.


----------



## paracowboy (20 Aug 2005)

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> The Americans in Iraq establish, through propaganda posters, a common set of hand signals that a soldier can give to drivers, i.e. "stop" "move away" "you are too close" etc. So the soldier can make a reasonable effort to signal the dirver before opening fire. I hear it works most of the time.


they do the same in A-stan, which leads me to believe that this guy was deliberately testing *us*. Has a familiar feel to it.


----------



## Armymedic (20 Aug 2005)

bubba said:
			
		

> HEY Armymedic it was a joke see the winking face.



Ah, the joys of written communications...

you mean in as a joke, I use it as an example of a statement not so uncommonly stated during training.

Now if I were a reporter who reported your statement as part of a related news story, how would it be percieved by the public?

(yes, I am being holier than thou)


----------



## KevinB (20 Aug 2005)

4rds from a C6 is a very brief warning - if buddy pegged the throttle he woudl have gotten 40 to redecorate the cabs interior.

 I fail to see why it made news though.


Secondly GO!!! is correct - they where within their right to tap the driver.  
I know other who feel the PC thing to do is:
1) Shots infront of the vehicle
2) Shots to the side
3) Shots into the engine

For whats its worth its the gunners call, I am not going to second guess him - its a moment in time that only he had access to.


----------



## 2 Cdo (20 Aug 2005)

48 Highlander I would rather be on tour with Go or any other soldier who will engage the ENEMY without hesitation as opposed to you who seems to take offence to killing OUR enemies. Are you sure you're in the infantry?


----------



## paracowboy (20 Aug 2005)

I don't aim for the legs. I don't aim for the tires. Center of visible mass in this case equals the vehicle's cab. If you're gonna shoot, shoot to kill.


----------



## Infanteer (20 Aug 2005)

First things first:

1)   Let's not get into a discussion of ROE that can bring up OPSEC issues.

2)   Let's save the "I'm a bigger soldier than you" stuff for later guys, seriously.

Now, regarding the issue at hand - I agree with GO!!!, paracowboy and Kevin (especially the part about not second guessing).

Watch this to see what guys are playing with and why there may not be time to play the PC way (and dig Hadji's "Fuck America" tunes as well)

http://www.dtdude.com/cj_44179.wmv


----------



## B.McTeer (20 Aug 2005)

Wow. I stand by what i said about 40 MG rounds into the driver compartment


----------



## 48Highlander (20 Aug 2005)

2 Cdo said:
			
		

> 48 Highlander I would rather be on tour with Go or any other soldier who will engage the ENEMY without hesitation as opposed to you who seems to take offence to killing OUR enemies. Are you sure you're in the infantry?



I don't know man, I mean, yeah, Taxi drivers can be kinda annoying, but do we really wanna start thinking of them as our enemy?  Just because they drive like assholes and don't want to take Visa doesn't mean they're evil.

If you want to play the game that way, how 'bout giving our cops the right to empty a mag into any car that doesn't immediately pull over for them?


----------



## 2 Cdo (20 Aug 2005)

48th, I won't even get into the fact that you obviously don't know the area, don't know the ROE's, and don't know what some of these fanatics method of operation is. (Can you say car-bomb?) To compare them to cab drivers here only shows your ignorance of the situation over there.

By the way, I have been over there 2002 with 3 PPCLI, for what it's worth.


----------



## Infanteer (20 Aug 2005)

Going back to the original story, it was a van that tried to overtake the convoy.  Watching the link to the VBIED that I put up earlier, I'd say that the van driver got off lucky.  Don't bother throwing a "taxi driver" curve ball into the story.


----------



## 48Highlander (20 Aug 2005)

2 Cdo said:
			
		

> 48th, I won't even get into the fact that you obviously don't know the area, don't know the ROE's, and don't know what some of these fanatics method of operation is. (Can you say car-bomb?) To compare them to cab drivers here only shows your ignorance of the situation over there.
> 
> By the way, I have been over there 2002 with 3 PPCLI, for what it's worth.



Key words:     "some"      "fanatics"

The fact that 0.05% of the population may be fanatics doesn't give you the right to immediately smoke anyone who gets near you.


----------



## Infanteer (20 Aug 2005)

I understand that it is commonly accepted that you don't overtake or squeeze into military convoys with a vehicle over there - so somebody doing so with a van is doing the equivelent of pointing a gun at you.   Watch that video again - there is a reason the Americans do this in Iraq; you can't tell the difference between good guy/bad guy when a vehicle is fucking with your convoy.


----------



## Gunner (20 Aug 2005)

> I understand that it is commonly accepted that you don't overtake or squeeze into military convoys with a vehicle over there - so somebody doing so with a van is doing the equivelent of pointing a gun at you.



You haven't been to Afghanistan (particularly Kabul...) but you have been to Bosnia.  What did you do when you were patrolling in Bihac in an Iltis and a taxi got in between the two vehicle patrol?  Personally, I'll refain from commenting on how the gunner applied the rules of engagement because I wasn't there and I don't have all the information (media is notoriously inaccurate).  Based on the ROE and the situation, he made a choice which is what we train him to do.  His choice was to disable the vehicle so I commend him for making that difficult choice.     In my mind, it is better one dead Afghan taxi than 4 dead Canadians, I'm not sure if I would have been so restrained if he felt he or the vehicle commander felt they were at risk by the vehicle.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (20 Aug 2005)

The people over there know full well how things work.


----------



## JBB (20 Aug 2005)

IMHO...the safest course would have been to shoot into the cab. I suspect the solders overseas a trained to assume that a truck acting like that is a weapon.  But if no one is shooting at you, it is an entirely differant situation.  It is not so easy to kill a man, particularly at close range.  A different soldier on the gun may have done just so.  I am sure the debrief after the Op for the troops will bring all that out in the wash.  I wish them well.  It is very easy for me to second guess, from my safe office in Canada. 

Have a good one..

JBB


----------



## Infanteer (20 Aug 2005)

Gunner said:
			
		

> You haven't been to Afghanistan (particularly Kabul...) but you have been to Bosnia.   What did you do when you were patrolling in Bihac in an Iltis and a taxi got in between the two vehicle patrol?



That was a common occurence - most often, we took the bird from them because we were the only ones going the posted speed limit.... :blotto:

You are right Gunner - but the threat level in BiH was close to nil (except for the few odds and sods) and I can't think of one reported case of Bosnian attacking NATO soldiers with suicide bombings/suicide cars.   Meanwhile, this is a daily occurrence in Iraq, and enemy forces in Afghanistan (who stem from the same AQ/Arab-Afghan background as the Iraqi gang) have inflicted casualties upon us before using the same MO.   I'd be more prone, if I was heading into that situation down in Kandahar, to using Iraq/Afghanistan (the story mentions a previous IED attack on Americans) rather than Bosnia as the basis for evaluating threats to friendly forces.



> Personally, I'll refain from commenting on how the gunner applied the rules of engagement because I wasn't there and I don't have all the information (media is notoriously inaccurate).   Based on the ROE and the situation, he made a choice which is what we train him to do.   His choice was to disable the vehicle so I commend him for making that difficult choice.        In my mind, it is better one dead Afghan taxi than 4 dead Canadians, I'm not sure if I would have been so restrained if he felt he or the vehicle commander felt they were at risk by the vehicle.



Roger that - I said the same thing when I agreed with Kevin that I was not going to armchair quarterback what our guys did.   

My argument is aimed at the general principle of dealing with guys screwing around with your convoy in the Sandbox - be he Hadji or not (hence my video of the VBIED in Iraq).   Judging from what many guys have said returning from OEF/OIF (lots of good stuff over at LF), you don't really have the time or the luxary of being selective.


----------



## KevinB (20 Aug 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> you don't really have the time or the luxary of being selective.



BINGO

 Sometime it comes down to wrong place wrong time - Dave Lee and I where literally ounces from smoking the driver from a cement truck who showed up at a suspected VBIED and was using it for shade from the sun - He walked towards me with something in his arms, the (my) safety went off about 70m and after 50m trigger pressure was being applied when Dave got their we agreed to both pop him in three more steps.  He stopped at 2.5 when out Interpretor finally got "they are going to kill you right now" out clear enough for him to hear.

 I can tell you from doing the 'C8 stop drill' they know when your hand goes down and the carbine come up on their windshield they do an immediate brake stand and lock it up.

I was not there - so speculation ends - but I always go with "the guy on the ground at that moment in time."


----------



## Infanteer (20 Aug 2005)

The general line of discussion here (suicide attackers) is always a shitty deal and a tough call.  I remember one member here telling me of another platoon in his coy which greased a family in a van - the driver got worried (for whatever reason) and punched it towards a checkpoint.  I don't know what to say but "war is hell", or something to that effect.  Lose/lose, but Gunner said it earlier that we want to bring our guys home.

Other than that, all I can do is side with Kevin:



			
				KevinB said:
			
		

> I was not there - so speculation ends - but I always go with "the guy on the ground at that moment in time."


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (20 Aug 2005)

Me and my pl commander almost smoked a Bosnian for appearing to take a run at us on a one lane trail.  The sight of the C7 (or family) coming up into the shoulder is a sign to the aggressor to back the fuck off or pay the consequences.  It doesn't take too long for the locals to know what is and is not accepted practice by the western military.


----------



## KevinB (21 Aug 2005)

CFL said:
			
		

> Me and my pl commander almost smoked a Bosnian for appearing to take a run at us on a one lane trail.



Ahh (KevinB laments) the only real use for the issue ETool   

 A true multi use tool - 1) Bludgeoning the stupid savage - and 2) Burying said savage when his skull proved thinner than had been indicated by his previous actions

*Kevin needs typing lessons


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (21 Aug 2005)

Well he was in a car.


----------



## P-Free (21 Aug 2005)

you people who wanted this guy dead are ******* ill. what a bunch of bullshit, it was an innocent man, **** off you sick racist bastards. 

PM inbound.


----------



## MTAB (21 Aug 2005)

My hats off to the Canadian boys working in Kandahar, I worked that AO on both my trips....tough beat.  cheers to them.  

By the way, is the term Cnuck considered derogatory?

V/R
MTAB


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (21 Aug 2005)

No its not considered derogatory.  Canuck


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (21 Aug 2005)

P-Free not sure where your getting the racist vibe from.  Second.  What if he was a bomber.  Then it would be too late.  The driver was warned off several times.  He didn't obey.  He could have very well been testing the Canadains reponse since there new to the region again.  It could have been a trial run.  It could have been the real deal.  It could have been nothing.  Too many could have's.  The gunner not sure to the best thing in his mind by disabling the vehicle.  We don't know what the ROE's are but we all have the right to protect ourselves.  If there is a percieved threat he can take action.  Engine block or head.  His choice.
Anyway.
Don't worry the rest of us will protect you and your right to say what you want no matter how stupid it is.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (21 Aug 2005)

P.S.  go back to your space ship where its safe.


----------



## Franko (21 Aug 2005)

*As someone who is actually on the ground in Kabul*..... I'll weigh in here.   :

I agree with Kevin...he used the ROE's properly.

Mind you I'd hate to see what they would do here in Kabul....we'd be shooting every second vehicle   ;D

It's absolute madness with the driving habit of the locals....Toronto or Montreal will be a cakewalk when I get back.

As for clipping the driver...that may be too excessive. I know what I would have done given the scant amount of info reported. I wasn't there...nor was I in the man's shoes...so I'd say he did the right thing. His convoy made it home safe and sound...and that in the end is what matters.

Unless you are there doing the job, knowing the threats in the area...your comments are falling on deaf ears.

P-Free...PM inbound.

Regards


----------



## MTAB (21 Aug 2005)

P-Free, tried to PM you but your inbox is full.

Thanks for the information


----------



## Infanteer (21 Aug 2005)

Don't worry about P-Free, he's a clown who will be sitting in the penalty box right now.  Looks like Franko had to use scimitar on him because he couldn't take his lesson from yesterday.  :


----------



## MTAB (21 Aug 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Don't worry about P-Free, he's a clown who will be sitting in the penalty box right now.   Looks like Franko had to use scimitar on him because he couldn't take his lesson from yesterday.   :



Ah, got it.... I try to return all PM's out of courtesy


----------



## the 48th regulator (21 Aug 2005)

The troop did a Fantastic job.   And if he had hit and killed the driver, well job still accomplished.

I would rather be judged by twelve than to be carried by six, was a term I heard from a Sgt. in 1RCR, during my pretraining;

"Warning shots?   Fire two in the centre of   mass like you were trained to do, that will warn the other not to *uck around with you!"

Were the finishing remarks when we were done discussing the ROE we would be receiving.

Either way, job well done.   

dileas

tess


----------



## bubba (21 Aug 2005)

Troops do your job and come  home if the shit hits the fan GIVE'R.The soldiers followed there roes,that's the end of that story.I don't understand the racist comment,but then again i don't care.P-free can't be right in the head so dude stay under your rock,smokin dubs and watchen for fallin spaceships.Franko keep one in the pipe an watch your 6.


----------



## Mineguy (21 Aug 2005)

Its funny looking at p freely respnses. I wonder is he ms parish in desguise ???? Looking back I can remember teaching generic bosnia type challenging procedures   to the troops on order from the ssm after some weaknesses were observed in the field by some individuals in the unit before the   2nd afghan appollo rotation in 2002 was supposed to stand up for training to begin. I can remember teaching exactly as you guys have just said it when its up to you to decide what youre gonna do and not get intertwined with the page long roe on your butt or all the what ifs and a senior corporal in front of the troops and later behind my back getting quite the kick out of the shoot first ( if youre escalating to using self defence in the flash of the moment type deal) and come home alive. This guy in front of all the impressionalble ptes thought making the call like these guys just did here was too aggressive and a little trigger happy and like we shouldnt be doing those things or somthing ridiculous like that even in a volitile place like afghan. Some of these people im sure cant see that when dealing with possible islamic terrorists types in the theatre who are planning on not surviving the day anyhow If you know youre right or are unsure you just need follow the roe drills like happened here with this job well done. I certinly hope people like that have wised up and dont think this is a standard day in sfor that is going on now in afghan. I have no idea if p freely is in the forces but he sure fits that catagory!..Im glad the boys are not afriad to use their weapons like this when theyre in the right and im glad people like gen hillier have said what they said recently. As soon as somebody shoots somebody and is 100% in the right i cant wait to see how the ms parrish typre reeducated society responds.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (21 Aug 2005)

P-Free you might want to consider a change is career plans. Your mindset will get your people with you killed.


----------



## Franko (21 Aug 2005)

Ex-Dragoon,

He'll figure it out if and when he gets here and finally realises that there _are_ actually people here who would gladly kill him....

.....just because he is from the West.

They don't care about what colour or religion you are...just a westerner...from Canada. Another infidel to extinguish his/ her life.

Wonder what colour the sky is in his little spaceship......    :

Regards


----------



## 48Highlander (21 Aug 2005)

You guys are still missing the point...

What I found disturbing, and probably what p-free is commenting on as well, is the attitude that, guilty or innocent, they should have killed the guy anyway.  Frankly, I find it difficult to beleive there are people like that serving in the CF.  I've always attempted to explain to the peacenicks the way escalation of force works, and that we try to use deadly force as a last resort.  For some of you though, that certainly doesn't appear to be the case.  It's not a pleasant feeling knowing that, in addition to worrying about the enemy, I might have to worry about the guys beside me blasting away randomly at innocent civilians.

And fuck off with the "there are people here who will kill you just 'cos you're from the west".  All of us are quite aware of that, thanks.  It still doesn't give you the right to kill civilians.  You follow your ROE's, and you exercise some common sense, you DO NOT shoot a guy in the head just because you think he MIGHT be a threat - at least not untill you've tried other methods to eliminate any possible threat.  The gunner in this case did the exact right thing.  If he had intentionally shot the driver instead, we'd be seing much different media coverage for one thing, and depending on the exact ROE's I wouldn't be surprised if he were facing a court martial.


----------



## Britney Spears (21 Aug 2005)

Now, I'm not disagreeing with any of you here, and as far as I can tell, the man behind the gun did the right thing, and I've no reason to doubt him,  but let's not get too carried away with the hand holding/@ss-grabbing and lose track of the mission, shall we? If our sole purpose was to stay alive, we should all just stay home.

The CDS has already outlined our reasons for being there, and ultimately it is for the benefit of Afghanistan and the Aghan people; They and their security and livelyhoods are the bottom line.  He also warned us that we're probably not going to come out of this unscathed every single time (as if there was any need to). That's what makes us the good guys, right? 

I know this seems blindingly obvious to most of us, but there are civillian readers here, too. I'd hate for them to get the wrong impression, as one of the less worldy posters here already has.


----------



## Armymedic (21 Aug 2005)

I'm going to side with 48H on this one.

The veh is the threat, disable it, and the threat is gone There was a preception of deadly threat, they used deadly force to neutralize it without killing. Job done...

Since culture has been thrown in, one small point that people forget is that Pashtuns are huge on honour and revenge. You kill a member of the family, the entire family will work to avenge the death. By killing one innocent man, we (the greater Coalition we) may have just ostracized a whole region against us.

Its easy to sit here in Canada and say, yeah lets light him up...but there (not just Afghanistan)...and a good portion of you have been there....is not so easy to apply the ROE's while looking thru the sight at another human being.

And as Britney points out...there are civilian who are not familiar with ROE's and the "proper" escalation of deadly force to know what we are talking about. 

And P-free, I understand where your coming from, but that was out of line. Proper application of the ROE's has no basis in race. Canadian soldiers have put fire into Bosnians, Somali's, Rwandans, and Afghans, all in the proper application of their ROE's as trained. I am as unbiased as they come, and If I were there in that situation, I may have had him lit up, if not done it myself.

For the rest, he is a one of the civilians BS and I are referring to, so cut him some slack


----------



## Franko (21 Aug 2005)

48Highlander,

The guy was obviously up to something and the "guy in the breach" did the right thing...no arguing there. He applied the ROEs properly and the driver is alive and well...mind you his pants are a shade of poo I would think.

I know what I would do....and I'm in Kabul not home, so let's leave it at that. I'm sure there are plenty of troops on this 'grate' site that have been here on previous Rotos that share my thoughts on this matter.

As for the "It still doesn't give you the right to kill civilians." you are quite correct and we don't. The ROEs prevent us from doing so and everyone here knows that. 

As for the whole "kill the westerner" thing...you missed the point of my comment towards P-Free. His comments were quite out of his lane and out to lunch and you know it.    :

Everyone is allowed their POV on a subject...and there are lots on this one. Some I agree with, some I don't.

As far as I'm concerned...if you aren't or have been here facing the threats here on a daily basis....

...you don't have a foot to stand on concerning the applicaton of ROEs. 

'Nuff said.

Regards


----------



## McG (21 Aug 2005)

This thread has fallen appart.  None of us were on the ground with the soldier, and while many of us may have been exposed to generic ROEs (or ROEs from another mission) there are few here that will have been trained in the ROEs for his mission (which we should not confuse with any other current mission in that country).  So, without delving into SECRET material and concocting our imaginary re-enactment, there is nothing of value that can be gained by continuing this mud-slinging contest.

Thread closed.


----------

