Canadians in Afghanistan (Updated)
Feb. 19 - It may be underfunded and underequipped, but the Canadian military in Afghanistan does this country proud and doesn't back down when
it comes under fire from insurgents:
Military officials told The Canadian Press that attackers fired three rocket-propelled grenades at a platoon from Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry taking shelter in a compound in Gumbad, about 60 kilometres northeast of Kandahar.
No Canadians were reportedly injured in the attack, which occurred at about 7:30 p.m. local time. The rockets fell into fields surrounding the camp, just south of the small village.
Military officials said a patrol was sent out to investigate the enemy firing positions, but found no sign of insurgents.
It's the first minor skirmish reported since a new rotation of Canadian soldiers began arriving in the country for Task Force Afghanistan during the past month. The number of soldiers is expected to reach 2,200 by next month.
There will probably be accusations that this attack was a direct result of the decision to publish the Danish cartoons in the
Western Standard (as though there had not been prior attacks on Canadian Forces!) Damian has a thoughtful essay (which predated this recent rocket attack) and questions
whether we can keep our soldiers safe without becoming something less than we are now.
(N.B.: The headline reads the troops "exchanged fire" with insurgents although nothing in the story indicates there was actually an exchange of fire. I can't account for the discrepancy. Nevertheless, the fact that a patrol was sent out implies the willingness to shoot back.)
Update: The CTV account has been expanded and it appears there was indeed a firefight:
The soldiers returned fire using rifles and their new 155-millimetre M777 howitzer, a towed artillery piece. Military officials said a patrol was sent out to investigate the enemy firing positions, but found no sign of insurgents.
There's a somewhat detailed account of the procedure the patrol undertook in their effort to locate the enemy:
"There were no locals, there was no enemy traces found," Lt.-Col. Ian Hope, the head of the PPCLI battle group, told CP. "But that's quite normal too because normally they shoot and they run.''
The troops did, however, find a series of trenches and tunnels which were likely used as an escape route.
"According to our American counterparts, it is a well-known area that the Taliban have used for fortifications in the past," said Hope.
"They've conducted several ambushes there. They've actually killed some (Afghan National Army soldiers) from those positions, so it was no surprise ... that that was an area that they were firing from."
I've probably quoted more than I should have, but after calling them on what they left out I wanted to fully acknowledge the additions they've made to the original story.
(Via Neale News.)
Posted by: Debbye at
02:24 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 470 words, total size 3 kb.
1
From the story I agree there's no indication the Canadians "exchanged fire", ie. actually engaged in real hardcore combat. The headline, however, is again a misleading one. Like the one about the cartoon in the post below.
The MSM thinks it's fine to either leave out facts or fabricate them or lie outright just to get attention to their stories. I do the headline thing, too, to generate interest, but I don't manipulate or lie. Why does the MSM?
Shortly after starting blogging last September I slammed an MSM outlet on their headline claiming that Stephen Harper was angry in a particular situation but the story didn't say that. Hours later, the headline was changed. It's possible they got caught that time. Don't know if my post had anything to do with it.
The post in question is here:
http://thecanadiansentinel.blogspot.com/2005/09/more-manipulative-msm-bias-against.html
The MSM always tries to get away with dishonest manipulation of those who only glance at headlines and rarely read the article under them. They obviously are doing it deliberately, and I'd like to see some legal consequences for it. Lying to the public like this, with all the power to influence public perception, is dangerous, and I suspect the Liberals had long benefited from this headline engineering working against Reform and the CA. The last election, with bloggers watching and waiting to pounce and expose them, the MSM was suddenly quite scrupulous about this sort of thing compared to in past elections. This probably had a lot to do with the Liberals' downfall. The truth hurts Liberals.
Posted by: The Canadian Sentinel at February 19, 2006 05:36 PM (y42an)
2
Excellent points all around, Sentinel.
Another possibility, though, is that there was an exchange of fire but someone decided to edit that bit out because it doesn't fit fond beliefs that Canadian troops are benevolent "peacekeepers."
Whatever the explanation, misleading headlines betray the public trust and we need to call them on it.
Posted by: Debbye at February 19, 2006 06:51 PM (xOBIX)
3
Now that the excluded critical info has been included, it certainly does nothing to make the CTV look good. They look incompetent and indecisive. Didn't even notice the discrepancy between the message of the headline and the lack of any supporting evidence thereto.
Quite amateurish. Another hit the MSM has taken, owing to its own fault.
With all their resources and supposed "professionals" on staff, it's inexcusable and only lends credence to my often reiterated declaration that in the age of citizen reporting, the MSM is rapidly rendering itself anachronistic and will continue to lose viewership and readership to non-MSM internet-based information sources.
Eventually, further, I predict that non-MSM information disemmination will move into the traditionally MSM-monopolized areas of radio, TV, print, etc. Podcasting is already catching on, for example. The rest is only a matter of funding, but that'll come. It's about the market: demand and willingness to pay, etc.
Posted by: Canadian Sentinel at February 21, 2006 06:49 AM (y42an)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
18kb generated in CPU 0.0187, elapsed 0.09 seconds.
64 queries taking 0.0812 seconds, 145 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
