U.S. Air Force Drops Charges in Friendly Fire Bombing - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Double D · 06-19-2003, 02:06 PM

Thu June 19, 2003 04:43 PM ET

By Charles Aldinger
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Air Force on Thursday dropped criminal charges against two pilots who mistakenly killed four Canadian troops in a bombing raid in Afghanistan last year.

F-16 pilots Maj. Harry Schmidt and Maj. William Umbach had been charged with involuntary manslaughter, dereliction of duty and assault in last year's "friendly fire" incident and each could have faced up to 64 years in prison if convicted in a military court-martial.

Instead, U.S. 8th Air Force Commander Lt. Gen. Bruce Carlson said in a statement that Umbach would get a letter of reprimand and a recommendation that his request for retirement be granted. Schmidt's case would be reviewed by his commanders in a "nonjudicial" proceeding.

Maximum punishment for Schmidt would be 30 days arrest in quarters, loss of half his pay for two months and a restriction on his movements for 60 days, the Air Force said.

Carlson also recommended that Schmidt face a special evaluation board to determine if he should continue to fly.

Schmidt could reject the non-judicial proceeding and demand a court-martial if he chooses, the Air Force said.

The April 17, 2002, accident near Kandahar in southern Afghanistan killed four and wounded eight members of the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry. It caused outrage in Canada and President Bush publicly apologized.

NO CRITICISM FROM CANADA

Gen. Ray Henault, head of the Canadian Forces, issued a brief statement acknowledging Carlson's decision, but not criticizing it.

"While risk is an inherent part of military operations, we will continue to work with our allies to mitigate the possibility of such a tragedy recurring," he said.

Flying in separate F-16s, the two pilots mistook a night anti-tank exercise by the Canadians near Kandahar for enemy fire in their direction. The Canadians said, however, that the fire was not directed into the sky,

Despite instructions to hold off from attacking, Schmidt said he was "rolling in, in self defense" and dropped a 500-pound (230-kg) bomb on what the pilots later learned were members of the Canadian unit.

Schmidt, 37, said he thought Umbach, the 44-year-old flight leader, was being fired on in an "ambush" by Afghan Taliban forces.

During January's Article 32 military hearing to determine the future of the case, the pilots apologized to the victims and their families and said they deeply regretted the incident, an emotional issue in Canada and an embarrassment to the U.S. military. They blamed the fog of war.

The officer who presided over that hearing, Air Force Col. Patrick Rosenow, recommended to Carlson that the pilots not face a court-martial but instead be punished without a trial.
--------------------------------
Hrm, not sure how I feel about this one. I'm Canadian, raised in the States- the pilots come from the state in which I've resided for 18 years. One pilot blames *the fog of war,* for the accidental killing of the Canucks.

YourNeverThere · 06-19-2003, 04:49 PM

I heard an interview with the mother and father of one of the dead Candian soldiers, it was nuts, there were soo pissed and they had a huge list of things that were wrong with what happened. If they had wated 32 seconds they would have been ordered not to fire, 32 seconds! One of the pilots send them a letter with a list of the reasons why it wasnt hes fault, but really he wasnt following procedure, we should not go the jail, but he should loose his pilots licence

rockzilla · 06-19-2003, 06:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Double D
One pilot blames *the fog of war,* for the accidental killing of the Canucks.

Yup, the fog of war, and amphetamines. It's true, these things happen in war, but they'd happen a lot less if pilots weren't so high on agression-promting drugs. And people wonder why we didn't help out in Iraq.

scope · 06-19-2003, 06:49 PM

I am quite appalled by the decision to drop charges. Being a Canadian, I've followed this issue ever since it happened. What would have happened if a Canadian plane (ROFL, we virtually have no aircraft) dropped a bomb on US troops? Then maybe the issue wouldve been taken more seriously.
Our armed forces are already so tiny...and losing soldiers to "FRIENDLY fire" only makes us smaller.

Minx · 06-19-2003, 06:50 PM

The fog of war....like that makes the hearts of the parents, wives, children of these dead men ache less.
Killed by the hype...the rush of war.
I cried and I didn't know them....just as I'm sure you Americans would have if the roles were reversed and they were four of your own who were shot down senselessly.
It's too late to cast blame....they can't come back. But I don't think these "soldiers/pilots/fighters" should be allowed to fly and/or kill again.

Phaenx · 06-19-2003, 07:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Minx
The fog of war....like that makes the hearts of the parents, wives, children of these dead men ache less.
Killed by the hype...the rush of war.
I cried and I didn't know them....just as I'm sure you Americans would have if the roles were reversed and they were four of your own who were shot down senselessly.
It's too late to cast blame....they can't come back. But I don't think these "soldiers/pilots/fighters" should be allowed to fly and/or kill again.

Our courts aren't there to make people feel better, they should visit a therapist or go to church if that's what they're after. As for the pilots, they thought people were shooting at them, time is more valuable when this is happening, even 32 seconds. Also, the pilots asked for and recieved honorable discharge I believe, at least one of them anyhow.

YourNeverThere · 06-19-2003, 08:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Phaenx
Also, the pilots asked for and recieved honorable discharge I believe, at least one of them anyhow.

No, they didnt, nether will ahve any consequences other then one got a letter of reprand, and the other not even. A statement from a Canadian pilot pointed out that the American army has the policy to shot first, ask questions later, that is something that the Canadian air force doesnt have, thats why this has never happened in reverse.

Phaenx · 06-19-2003, 09:53 PM

I don't know about that, if it were true there wouldn't be a controversy, as they'd have been following proper doctrine. We should probably talk to an airforce guy, I'm sure there's one around here somewhere that would know if that's true or not.

YourNeverThere · 06-19-2003, 10:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Phaenx
We should probably talk to an airforce guy, I'm sure there's one around here somewhere that would know if that's true or not.

I agree, i have the worst memory ever and have been proven wrong many many times, so that'd be cool

Bill O'Rights · 06-20-2003, 05:40 AM

Shoot first and ask questions later indeed. Only in the movies my friend, only in the movies. I was a Staff Sergeant in the U.S. Air Force for 8 years as a Security Policeman. (No I did not fly but Rules of Engagement still apply.) We were taught to be <b>absolutely</b> certain of our target before engaging. Granted, I was on active duty during peacetime, (1981-1989) and never had to actually fire any weapon outside of the practice range. Therefore I will not even pretend to understand the stress that accompanies combat situations. There will be others reading this post that will be far more qualified to make that assesment than I. Only those two pilots know what happened that night and it is something they are going to have to live with for the rest of thier lives. Certainly, in my opinion, they need never climb aboard another war plane ever again. But Prison time? No, I really don't think that anything will be served by giving these two accomodations at Leavenworth.

Tirian · 06-20-2003, 07:35 AM

"Despite instructions to hold off from attacking, Schmidt said he was "rolling in, in self defense" and dropped a 500-pound (230-kg) bomb on what the pilots later learned were members of the Canadian unit."

and again...

"Despite instructions to hold off"

This is the key part of the story to me. If the pilots had been lacking specific instruction and felt they were under attack I would personally hold them blameless, but this is not the case.

krwlz · 06-20-2003, 07:52 AM

It is true the pilot fucked up. No one is doubting that. Americans lost men to frindly fire as well. It happens in all military actions....no matter what. It is tragic, and one hopes it wont happen again, but we all know it will.

Its time to grieve, and move on.

Cujo · 06-20-2003, 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by scope
I am quite appalled by the decision to drop charges. Being a Canadian, I've followed this issue ever since it happened. What would have happened if a Canadian plane (ROFL, we virtually have no aircraft) dropped a bomb on US troops? Then maybe the issue wouldve been taken more seriously.
Our armed forces are already so tiny...and losing soldiers to "FRIENDLY fire" only makes us smaller.

Virtually no aircraft? Your misinformed Scope. I admit we don't have anywhere near the inventory of the U.S.A. but we do have a personnel count of nearly 20000 spread across 13 Air Wings with a combat strength of 765 airworthy vehicles. 112 of those happen to be CF-18 Hornets.

And as for what happened. I think that these pilots should have at least been demoted

WhoaitsZ · 06-20-2003, 02:56 PM

here is my take, guys:

I've been in a military family since day one. it is why i now reside in MS but was born in MI.

anyhow, dad isn't here at the moment but i can see if he knows the rules concerning piloting. he wasn't a pilot but knew plenty. and yes, he's retired AF 23 years.

anyhow.... the "fogs of war" thing i can see happen easily. this is why.

this is an OLD example. but still. my father has told me dozens of times that there were constant fuckups in 'nam because of not having permission to return fire. Ultimately, from what i've heard, if you shot back w/o permission and strong evidence of self defense you were pretty much fucked.

i can't even possibly try to say what war is like and won't pretend to and many here cannot either. like i can't say for sure something physically with a walker like you couldn't associate with me being in a chair. some things take experience to understand.

he did disobey a direct order and should be raprimanded for doing so. I do not, however, see any reason to punish him otherwise. He killed 4 innocent people, yes, but it was a pure mistake.

before you say "pay for the mistake!!'' or what not try to imagine yourself wondering if someone who wants to slice your throat has a weapon they can use ti kill you and you can't take him out... it would un-nerve near about everyone.

so the guy fucked up majorily, but he did not intend on killing innocents, he had no reason to and i would imagine this dude will have one incredably bad life from now on cuz that's going to be in his head daily. 'I killed for allies", i think that is more than enough extra punishment, guys.

war is war. innocent people die. as for the families, i feel horrible. but niether going for the guys throat or letting him off totally won't make the families feel better more than a moment or two. its not worth it. he is most likely being punished enough every night while sleeping...

Sparhawk · 06-20-2003, 05:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by scope
I am quite appalled by the decision to drop charges. Being a Canadian, I've followed this issue ever since it happened. What would have happened if a Canadian plane (ROFL, we virtually have no aircraft) dropped a bomb on US troops? Then maybe the issue wouldve been taken more seriously.
Our armed forces are already so tiny...and losing soldiers to "FRIENDLY fire" only makes us smaller.

I would like to think that Canadians would grieve beside their American brothers, as we did with you when that accident occured. I would also hope that Americans would be as forgiving as Canadians have been.

He disobeyed orders and will receive non-judicial punishment from the Lt General in his command. At the 'Air Force' level of command, the amount of punishment authorized is more than you would think.

Also I believe both are going up in front of flight review boards that are authorized to take away their privileges to ever fly again.

The Bolshevist · 06-20-2003, 10:02 PM

Being an RCAF air force brat, I appreciate the anger we Canadians feel about the bombing. But hold on; friendly fire, or blue on blue engagements as the US now calls it, has been with us for ages. We have fired on our own in WW2 and Korea, and I am sure that more than a few our our rounds and shells tore up some of our allies. Nor are we the totally innocent peacekeepers we like to call ourselves. Remember Somalia, and the fact that we Canadians tortured and murdered an innocent and unarmed teenager? (Surely not! Or do we simply forget our dark side?) Yes, it was a tragedy, and yes, I don't think the pilots should fly again, and yes, these go pills may have had something to do with it, and the pilots may have broken the rules of engagement. but THESE THINGS HAPPEN. A friend of mine who was in Bosnia lost his foot when he wandered into a marked minefield. He was cashiered out of the service, and now has to live with his mistake. The American pilots will have to do that as well. Nothing that we do can bring our boys back. Let them rest in peace with honour, and may God forgive the pilots.

Cujo - a note: when I was up in Cold Lake working with the Military Police, I learned that although we have 120 CF-18s, that isn't quite accurate. Nearly 15 have crashed or lost in ground accidents, and the air force only has 65-70 serviceable at any one time. Many of the remainder have been used for parts. Great plane that was gutted to the government starving the military for money (so that they can waste it on $300 bottles of wine for gov't bigwigs.)

Per Ardua Ad Astra.

Soggybagel · 06-20-2003, 10:58 PM

Okay first off I'm american...though this would honestly probably be my attitude no matter the case.

Firstly, they should be definitly reprimanded in some way. IN fact I'm suprised they did get off as Military justice has an almost 95% (I think that is right) sentincing rate...as in almost 95 percent get charged. Thing is though I agree that they shoudln't go to jail or anything. Friendly fire is something that happens and I don't think it matters whether canadians or americans or anyone is involved...yes its a tragedy but yes I also think its something you have to live with your whole life. If any of you know any old relatives who were ever in a war...ask them about it. I know one of my dads older friends was in Vietnam and he never wants to talk abou it. Killing is something people who are not deranged live with all their life (and usually with remorse). Besides...have you seen the listing of American Casualties...so many of them have been friendly fire and or accidental deaths!

YourNeverThere · 06-20-2003, 11:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bill O'Rights
Shoot first and ask questions later indeed. Only in the movies my friend, only in the movies.

We were taught to be <b>absolutely</b> certain of our target before engaging.

Certainly, in my opinion, they need never climb aboard another war plane ever again. But Prison time? No, I really don't think that anything will be served by giving these two accomodations at Leavenworth.

First off, i never said that they deserved prison time, if fact i said that they dont deserve it, they had no intention of killing anyone innocent, so why should they go to jail?
Also, the part about shoot and first and asking question later, that is was a statement from a Canadian Air Force soldier said after being asked by a CBC reporter, i tried to find the transcrict of the interviews because i heard it on the radio on the way into work one day. They disregarded orders, period. They were told to stand down and didn't. I dont know anything about the pressures and stresses of war, and really dont know much about war at all because I dont believe in it, call me a hippy, call me whatever, I will stand by my convictions. Here is a report by CBC, the one that i heard but without the whole conversation with Claire Leger, the mother of Sgt. Marc Leger – one of four Canadian soldiers killed by Schmidt's bomb in April 2002.
That is were i got my information from my first post.

Bill O'Rights · 06-21-2003, 11:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by YourNeverThere
First off, i never said that they deserved prison time, if fact i said that they dont deserve it, they had no intention of killing anyone innocent, so why should they go to jail?
Also, the part about shoot and first and asking question later, that is was a statement from a Canadian Air Force soldier said after being asked by a CBC reporter, i tried to find the transcrict of the interviews because i heard it on the radio on the way into work one day. They disregarded orders, period. They were told to stand down and didn't. I dont know anything about the pressures and stresses of war, and really dont know much about war at all because I dont believe in it, call me a hippy, call me whatever, I will stand by my convictions. Here is a report by CBC, the one that i heard but without the whole conversation with Claire Leger, the mother of Sgt. Marc Leger – one of four Canadian soldiers killed by Schmidt's bomb in April 2002.
That is were i got my information from my first post.

Hmmm...O.K., I just reread my post and can see the confusion here. I wasn't directly addressing you throughout the entire post, YourNeverThere. I didn't make a clear delineation there. My fault...I wasn't clear.

No, I realize that you never said that they deserved prison time. But, any time a service member goes up in front of a military court martial, that is a very real and distinct possibility. The Uniform Code of Military Justice can be very unforgiving. I assume that both pilots, being Majors, have been in the service for awhile. Their careers are finished. The fraction of a second that it took them to twitch their thumbs to release those bombs erased years of otherwise (I'm assuming here) exemplary service to their country.

I do have to wonder how a Canadian Airman (not soldier, btw) comes by such knowledge as American Rules of Engagement. Is that representative of a perception (not just by the Canadians) of the U.S. military? Are our servicemen viewed as a bunch of trigger-happy cowboys? That concerns me.

War sucks! People die. Families mourn. It can only rub salt into an already open wound to discover that a loved one was killed by friendly fire. To find out that your loved one gave his/her life, not in firefight against hostile forces, but in a freak accident. My heart goes out to the friends and family of the Canadian Soldiers killed...believe me it does. But offering the pilots up as sacrificial lambs, to appease political concerns, does service to no one.

Serpent · 06-22-2003, 12:31 AM

From what i heard before when i read about this, the canadians didn't have their little flashy lights on to tell the aircraft above them that they were friendly. Also there was gunfire coming up towards their aircraft in the mannor for them to think they were being engaged. They did get preliminary clearance to engage and that is when one of the pilots decided to engage the target. Right after that however the person giving them preliminary clearence told them to not engage..

In my view this was a mistake and something that was caused by not one but both sides and should be taken that way so it can be fixed in the future.

06-19-2003, 02:06 PM	#1 (permalink)
Double D Junkie Location: Chicagoland	U.S. Air Force Drops Charges in Friendly Fire Bombing Thu June 19, 2003 04:43 PM ET By Charles Aldinger WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Air Force on Thursday dropped criminal charges against two pilots who mistakenly killed four Canadian troops in a bombing raid in Afghanistan last year. F-16 pilots Maj. Harry Schmidt and Maj. William Umbach had been charged with involuntary manslaughter, dereliction of duty and assault in last year's "friendly fire" incident and each could have faced up to 64 years in prison if convicted in a military court-martial. Instead, U.S. 8th Air Force Commander Lt. Gen. Bruce Carlson said in a statement that Umbach would get a letter of reprimand and a recommendation that his request for retirement be granted. Schmidt's case would be reviewed by his commanders in a "nonjudicial" proceeding. Maximum punishment for Schmidt would be 30 days arrest in quarters, loss of half his pay for two months and a restriction on his movements for 60 days, the Air Force said. Carlson also recommended that Schmidt face a special evaluation board to determine if he should continue to fly. Schmidt could reject the non-judicial proceeding and demand a court-martial if he chooses, the Air Force said. The April 17, 2002, accident near Kandahar in southern Afghanistan killed four and wounded eight members of the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry. It caused outrage in Canada and President Bush publicly apologized. NO CRITICISM FROM CANADA Gen. Ray Henault, head of the Canadian Forces, issued a brief statement acknowledging Carlson's decision, but not criticizing it. "While risk is an inherent part of military operations, we will continue to work with our allies to mitigate the possibility of such a tragedy recurring," he said. Flying in separate F-16s, the two pilots mistook a night anti-tank exercise by the Canadians near Kandahar for enemy fire in their direction. The Canadians said, however, that the fire was not directed into the sky, Despite instructions to hold off from attacking, Schmidt said he was "rolling in, in self defense" and dropped a 500-pound (230-kg) bomb on what the pilots later learned were members of the Canadian unit. Schmidt, 37, said he thought Umbach, the 44-year-old flight leader, was being fired on in an "ambush" by Afghan Taliban forces. During January's Article 32 military hearing to determine the future of the case, the pilots apologized to the victims and their families and said they deeply regretted the incident, an emotional issue in Canada and an embarrassment to the U.S. military. They blamed the fog of war. The officer who presided over that hearing, Air Force Col. Patrick Rosenow, recommended to Carlson that the pilots not face a court-martial but instead be punished without a trial. -------------------------------- Hrm, not sure how I feel about this one. I'm Canadian, raised in the States- the pilots come from the state in which I've resided for 18 years. One pilot blames the fog of war, for the accidental killing of the Canucks. Last edited by Double D; 06-19-2003 at 11:04 PM..

06-19-2003, 04:49 PM	#2 (permalink)
YourNeverThere Practical Anarchist Location: Yesterday i woke up stuck in hollywood	I heard an interview with the mother and father of one of the dead Candian soldiers, it was nuts, there were soo pissed and they had a huge list of things that were wrong with what happened. If they had wated 32 seconds they would have been ordered not to fire, 32 seconds! One of the pilots send them a letter with a list of the reasons why it wasnt hes fault, but really he wasnt following procedure, we should not go the jail, but he should loose his pilots licence __________________ The Above post is a direct quote from Shakespeare

06-19-2003, 06:50 PM	#5 (permalink)
Minx Junkie Location: Up yonder	The fog of war....like that makes the hearts of the parents, wives, children of these dead men ache less. Killed by the hype...the rush of war. I cried and I didn't know them....just as I'm sure you Americans would have if the roles were reversed and they were four of your own who were shot down senselessly. It's too late to cast blame....they can't come back. But I don't think these "soldiers/pilots/fighters" should be allowed to fly and/or kill again. __________________ You've been a naughty boy....go to my room!

06-19-2003, 09:53 PM	#8 (permalink)
Phaenx The Northern Ward Location: Columbus, Ohio	I don't know about that, if it were true there wouldn't be a controversy, as they'd have been following proper doctrine. We should probably talk to an airforce guy, I'm sure there's one around here somewhere that would know if that's true or not. __________________ "I went shopping last night at like 1am. The place was empty and this old woman just making polite conversation said to me, 'where is everyone??' I replied, 'In bed, same place you and I should be!' Took me ten minutes to figure out why she gave me a dirty look." --Some guy

06-20-2003, 05:40 AM	#10 (permalink)
Bill O'Rights will always be an Alyson Hanniganite Location: In the dust of the archives	Shoot first and ask questions later indeed. Only in the movies my friend, only in the movies. I was a Staff Sergeant in the U.S. Air Force for 8 years as a Security Policeman. (No I did not fly but Rules of Engagement still apply.) We were taught to be <b>absolutely</b> certain of our target before engaging. Granted, I was on active duty during peacetime, (1981-1989) and never had to actually fire any weapon outside of the practice range. Therefore I will not even pretend to understand the stress that accompanies combat situations. There will be others reading this post that will be far more qualified to make that assesment than I. Only those two pilots know what happened that night and it is something they are going to have to live with for the rest of thier lives. Certainly, in my opinion, they need never climb aboard another war plane ever again. But Prison time? No, I really don't think that anything will be served by giving these two accomodations at Leavenworth. __________________ "I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony "Hedonism with rules isn't hedonism at all, it's the Republican party." - JumpinJesus It is indisputable that true beauty lies within...but a nice rack sure doesn't hurt.

06-19-2003, 06:49 PM	#4 (permalink)
scope Banned Location: Canada	I am quite appalled by the decision to drop charges. Being a Canadian, I've followed this issue ever since it happened. What would have happened if a Canadian plane (ROFL, we virtually have no aircraft) dropped a bomb on US troops? Then maybe the issue wouldve been taken more seriously. Our armed forces are already so tiny...and losing soldiers to "FRIENDLY fire" only makes us smaller.

06-20-2003, 07:35 AM	#11 (permalink)
Tirian Addict Location: Canada	"Despite instructions to hold off from attacking, Schmidt said he was "rolling in, in self defense" and dropped a 500-pound (230-kg) bomb on what the pilots later learned were members of the Canadian unit." and again... "Despite instructions to hold off" This is the key part of the story to me. If the pilots had been lacking specific instruction and felt they were under attack I would personally hold them blameless, but this is not the case.

06-20-2003, 07:52 AM	#12 (permalink)
krwlz Fledgling Dead Head Location: Clarkson U.	It is true the pilot fucked up. No one is doubting that. Americans lost men to frindly fire as well. It happens in all military actions....no matter what. It is tragic, and one hopes it wont happen again, but we all know it will. Its time to grieve, and move on.

06-20-2003, 02:56 PM	#14 (permalink)
WhoaitsZ Crazy Location: right behind you...	here is my take, guys: I've been in a military family since day one. it is why i now reside in MS but was born in MI. anyhow, dad isn't here at the moment but i can see if he knows the rules concerning piloting. he wasn't a pilot but knew plenty. and yes, he's retired AF 23 years. anyhow.... the "fogs of war" thing i can see happen easily. this is why. this is an OLD example. but still. my father has told me dozens of times that there were constant fuckups in 'nam because of not having permission to return fire. Ultimately, from what i've heard, if you shot back w/o permission and strong evidence of self defense you were pretty much fucked. i can't even possibly try to say what war is like and won't pretend to and many here cannot either. like i can't say for sure something physically with a walker like you couldn't associate with me being in a chair. some things take experience to understand. he did disobey a direct order and should be raprimanded for doing so. I do not, however, see any reason to punish him otherwise. He killed 4 innocent people, yes, but it was a pure mistake. before you say "pay for the mistake!!'' or what not try to imagine yourself wondering if someone who wants to slice your throat has a weapon they can use ti kill you and you can't take him out... it would un-nerve near about everyone. so the guy fucked up majorily, but he did not intend on killing innocents, he had no reason to and i would imagine this dude will have one incredably bad life from now on cuz that's going to be in his head daily. 'I killed for allies", i think that is more than enough extra punishment, guys. war is war. innocent people die. as for the families, i feel horrible. but niether going for the guys throat or letting him off totally won't make the families feel better more than a moment or two. its not worth it. he is most likely being punished enough every night while sleeping...

06-20-2003, 10:02 PM	#16 (permalink)
The Bolshevist Insane Location: Vancouver, Canada	Being an RCAF air force brat, I appreciate the anger we Canadians feel about the bombing. But hold on; friendly fire, or blue on blue engagements as the US now calls it, has been with us for ages. We have fired on our own in WW2 and Korea, and I am sure that more than a few our our rounds and shells tore up some of our allies. Nor are we the totally innocent peacekeepers we like to call ourselves. Remember Somalia, and the fact that we Canadians tortured and murdered an innocent and unarmed teenager? (Surely not! Or do we simply forget our dark side?) Yes, it was a tragedy, and yes, I don't think the pilots should fly again, and yes, these go pills may have had something to do with it, and the pilots may have broken the rules of engagement. but THESE THINGS HAPPEN. A friend of mine who was in Bosnia lost his foot when he wandered into a marked minefield. He was cashiered out of the service, and now has to live with his mistake. The American pilots will have to do that as well. Nothing that we do can bring our boys back. Let them rest in peace with honour, and may God forgive the pilots. Cujo - a note: when I was up in Cold Lake working with the Military Police, I learned that although we have 120 CF-18s, that isn't quite accurate. Nearly 15 have crashed or lost in ground accidents, and the air force only has 65-70 serviceable at any one time. Many of the remainder have been used for parts. Great plane that was gutted to the government starving the military for money (so that they can waste it on $300 bottles of wine for gov't bigwigs.) Per Ardua Ad Astra. __________________ Workers of the world, UNITE! You have nothing to lose but your silly uniforms and paper hats!!

06-20-2003, 10:58 PM	#17 (permalink)
Soggybagel Psycho Location: Lovely City #1	Okay first off I'm american...though this would honestly probably be my attitude no matter the case. Firstly, they should be definitly reprimanded in some way. IN fact I'm suprised they did get off as Military justice has an almost 95% (I think that is right) sentincing rate...as in almost 95 percent get charged. Thing is though I agree that they shoudln't go to jail or anything. Friendly fire is something that happens and I don't think it matters whether canadians or americans or anyone is involved...yes its a tragedy but yes I also think its something you have to live with your whole life. If any of you know any old relatives who were ever in a war...ask them about it. I know one of my dads older friends was in Vietnam and he never wants to talk abou it. Killing is something people who are not deranged live with all their life (and usually with remorse). Besides...have you seen the listing of American Casualties...so many of them have been friendly fire and or accidental deaths!

06-22-2003, 12:31 AM	#20 (permalink)
Serpent Insane Location: florida	From what i heard before when i read about this, the canadians didn't have their little flashy lights on to tell the aircraft above them that they were friendly. Also there was gunfire coming up towards their aircraft in the mannor for them to think they were being engaged. They did get preliminary clearance to engage and that is when one of the pilots decided to engage the target. Right after that however the person giving them preliminary clearence told them to not engage.. In my view this was a mistake and something that was caused by not one but both sides and should be taken that way so it can be fixed in the future.