Canadian Pilots Refuse To Bomb Assigned Libyan Targets

[Catherina]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uFIlneKsyM&feature=player_detailpage#t=69s

Canadian fighter jets returned without firing a single shot at all of the targets they were assigned. The risk for collateral damage was too high despite their high-precision laser-guided bombs.

Imagine a foreign attack firing missiles in New York City and pretending the collateral damage is nil or minimal. Sick, just sick.

This was first posted in Political Videos by Charleston Chew.

[gratuitous]

1. Get with the program, Canada

The war criminals have decreed that if you're fighting on the proper side, "collateral damage" is acceptable. Sure, you may have qualms at first about blowing up kids and their parents, but as the United States has amply demonstrated over the past nine years, it gets easier with each atrocity. Hell, you'll soon have your very own self-styled liberals arguing passionately that the persons on whom you rain down death will be grateful that they don't have to live under a murderous dictator.

[Catherina]

2. We just missile killed 38 people in Waziristan, Pakistan on Thursday

http://ftpapp.app.com.pk/en_/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=134077&Itemid=1

Have we no shame? That's in one day alone, firing missiles at a house.

Thank you Canadian pilots.

[malaise]

3. Good for them

Life is all we have

[Catherina]

4. I hope we hear of many more like this but I'm not relying on our pilots

I think the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs does a pretty good job brainwashing them with fundamentalist christianity.

[joshcryer]

5. They're all being instructed with very restrictive RoE:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/21/libya-air-war-pilots-civilians_n_838733.html

In stark contrast to Pakistan where some remote controlled drone operator kid just looks over his shoulder to get permission to fire from some asshole who probably isn't even paying attention.

btw: I love the topic, if they "refused to fire" where is the article about their fucking court martial?

they didn't "refuse to fire" they considered the targets "unviable."

[muriel_volestrangler]

6. When Canadian pilots decide this, everyone's happy; when the British do,

the DU reaction is high scepticism: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=4780579

Is it because in the Canadian case, the report seems to say it was the pilots who made the decision, when, in the British case, it seems to have been 'part of the system' that decided to call off the bombing?

[malaise]

7. Both are good news for me

:hi:

[Catherina]

12. I wasn't aware of that thread but after considering your question

I think you're on to something. I applaud these pilots for making the choice themselves. It's the second day in a row they did that.

I'm glad the learn the British Ministry of Defense made that decision but their pilots should have that choice, I hope they do.

Our Tomahawks however just go boom boom boom.

[originalpckelly]

8. I'm glad they had the right judgment.

If they cannot do anything to get at the targets safely, then this is what should happen, obviously.

I wonder how many other planes made the decision to go ahead? Was this isolated to the Canadians, or did other countries receive targets that were in densely populated areas too?

Why don't they have a weapons system to address this? What, is this the first time this has happened in a war? I think not.

[Scuba]

9. In never been in the Canadian Air Force, but in the US Air Force...

...it is against the law to obey an unlawful order. Just sayin'.

[Octafish]

10. Integrity.

What's it say for the gung-ho types who just went along with bombing whatever to get along?

[Catherina]

13. It says *pond scum* n/t

[Modern_Matthew]

11. Now THESE guys are "war heroes"... nt