Monday, July 26, 2010

Wikileaks : Canadian "combat deaths" were friendly fire

One of the Wikileaks war logs released yesterday contained a friendly fire report filed by the 205th RCAG U.S. military unit which states four Canadian soldiers were killed and seven other Canadians and an interpreter were wounded on Sept. 3, 2006, when a fighter jet dropped a guided bomb on a building they occupied during the second day of Operation MEDUSA. [bracketed explanations mine].

At 030414Z Sept 06 received SAF[small arms fire] & RPGS from sawtooth building. returned fire 1x GBU[Guided Bomb Unit] dropped on it.
Sawtooth building is heavily damaged. only 4x sections remain standing. no activity observed. Casualties 4x CDN KIA[Killed in action] 4X CDN WIA[Wounded in action].
This was later updated to 4 dead and 7 wounded Canadians:

At 030419Z Sep received SAF and RPG fire on op, a total of WIA in these hour 7x CDN, and 4x CDN KIA and 1x WIA interpreter
Attack on: FRIEND

Type : Friendly Fire .... Category : Blue-Blue .... Affiliation : FRIEND

At the time the Canadian military reported that the four Canadian soldiers died in battles with Taliban forces.
CBC got official clarification of that tonight from Jay Paxton, spokesman for Defence Minister Peter MacKay :
"The loss of four Canadian soldiers on September 3rd, 2006, was the result of insurgent activity in the Panjwaii district of Afghanistan," Jay Paxton said in an email Monday evening. "The only friendly fire incident from the time period in question occurred on September 4th, 2006."

Anyone think the Americans just casually inflate their friendly fire reports?
And what about the "guided bomb unit" in the US report?
Do the Taliban have fighter jets now?

Also, they took fire from a building, returned fire and dropped a GPU on it : "only 4x sections remain standing. no activity observed" Then they report : 4 Canadian dead, 7 Canadians and 1 civilian wounded. Zeros under enemy killed or wounded. No activity and no enemy kills counted? So where did the enemy who killed the Canadians go?
PS Gotta love Laura Lynch on CBC's As it Happens tonight.
She asked Julian Assange whether things weren't "better now under Obama" and whether Assange "had broken the law".
Obama - that would be the guy who just ordered up a 30,000 troop surge for a war that is already costing $7-billion a month to retake Kandahar.
Assange called her repeated questions on whether he had broken the law "naive". I thought that was unnecessarily charitable of him.
Earlier today Taliban Larry said the Wikileaks war logs had "nothing to do with Canada."
Update :Bombshell claim that friendly fire killed Canadian soldiers unravels
US report discounted by soldiers who were there; "friendly fire" GBU rolled into Canadian troops but did not detonate.


Anonymous said...

CBC has something up about it now.

"These officers died in an ongoing effort to force Taliban insurgents from a region West of Kandahar City so that displaced villagers can return to their homes and re-establish their livelihoods without living in constant fear," then defence minister Gordon O'Connor said in the Maple Leaf story."


Kev said...

Given the historical reluctance to publicize friendly fire incidents, it would seem unlikely that this incident would be appear in a report plus an updated version without being an accurate portrayal of the events.

I naively believed that I would wake this morning to find this the big story of the day (silly,silly boy)only to find almost universal silence on behalf of the corporate media and the so called opposition parties.Not to mention the support the troops crowd who never tire of accusing us of being disloyal Taliban lovers for daring to question our occupation of Afghanistan.

Alison said...

Anon : OK, I've looked at the CBC story. I purposely didn't post the pix and names of the deaths - why make the relatives go through this all again?

Kev : I've reposted it to Dr. Dawg's this morning so they can avail themselves of the opportunity of ignoring it over there as well.

wv was howcarm!

West End Bob said...

I would have loved to hear the word that was really bouncing around Assange's head when he said "naive," wouldn't you, Alison? Charitable is right.

The non-story in the MSM of the revelations is once again disappointing, but not unexpected. Can't be blowing the whistle on the big brass and expect to get any more "inside" information, can we? Never mind that the "inside" information is probably drivel at best . . . .

Boris said...

Gov't language around this is full of weasel words. " result of insurgent activity.." Duh. But doesn't explain details of the engagement.

Anonymous said...

I am disturbed the way other media and pundits are presenting this. This story is important.
The public needs to know that these are documents, not something made up.
A comment on CBC says she would rather believe Hellier than some punk /puny hacker.

Alison said...

OEM : I just put Part I of that DN vid up at Dr. Dawg's at Toe's suggestion in a comment on a post below.

PS Don't read CBC comments, OEM.
Knuckle-draggers hate the CBC and always go there to throw up on their way home to BT.

Blog Archive