Army Guy

I have wonder what the would be like if you could wave your magic wand and the U.S. adopt an total isolationist policy as it once had. The U.S. has reluctantly been pushed into the worlds policemen, because of all its resources it has at its disposal, i wonder how many US presidents have pondered the idea of pulling all her troops home, and leaving the police men's job to those that do most of the complaining. And finally enjoy those peace bonds everyone else did. Would the other world power houses follow suit or would they take advantage of this new situation.....countries like Russia, yes let's not forget about the Cold War, which was all about keeping Russia out of Europe.....funney how soon we forget the sacrifice of throwing back the nazi's who tried to do the same thing. Without the U.S. direct action here Russia would have taken Europe long ago....and what of China, do we think they would follow suit, disarm and forget about lost chunks of its empire. I wonder how long it would be before someone comes knocking for assistance, assisting one nation would mean making an enemy of another.....what would the world do then if it could not condemn the U.S. for something.

Sorry big guy, it was late and I was tired, I did nt mean to brush you off, as I do enjoy our conversations.

You continue to use this same quote as if it is the magic bullet.....you also dismiss the fact that the Taliban regime used the Al Queda network as part of it's own military network....my direct question would be would that not make it part of the talibans net work, acting under the the authority of the Taliban. Or the afghanis government at the time. Because that would change everything would it not..... My second question is did Bin Ladin come out publically and say OK that would be our last attack on the US.....in fact I'm sure he said something very different....so how did the US government know for sure that no more attacks were forth coming meaning 100% that there would be no more attacks coming.... The wait for 3 weeks has been claimed as not enough time to make a decision on matters as large as this....and yet the Taliban did come to a solution, serveral infact. Just not the ones that the U.S. wanted to here. They wanted BIN Ladin to stand trial in the US.... The fact that the attackers are from Saudi means what exactly, that this attack was the responsabiltys of the Saudi government , that terrorist have to be declared that way regardless of who they work for. Which at the time was Bin Ladin, another Saudi, but under the Talibans cloak.....I'm pretty sure the law does not work that way.

Squid take a moment here and think about what your saying, would it matter if he was drug over there kicking and screaming, if he was kidnaped, would it change the fact that he was a Canadian citizen......would it change the fact that he was not afghanis, would it change the fact that according to afghan officials he was not an afghanis citizen but just a vistor..... My question still stands what set of laws covers him "meaning allows him" or gives him the right to take up arms in Afghanistan.

I don't recall ever saying he traveled by himself, regardless of how he traveled or with whom. He traveled with how does that change the fact he was a Canadian visitor in afghanistan , what right did he have for using force again'st afghan authorities....what set of laws would allow him to defend anything in Afghanistan......stop jumping to conclusions.

Thank you , I guess I should have done some research first, sorry. My question I do have if Omar could not have thrown the grenade because he was under some brush, how or when did he receive the the gunshot wounds to his back, did they uncover him then shoot him, was it moments before getting buried in the brush....either way it opens up other questions as well.

Wow, was,nt it you that was calling out everyone for not reading the transcript of Omars press conference, it seems your just as guilty of misinterputating the facts. Yes it is true not all the US ground forces had the same statements, and some did shed some doubt on what happened, as with any crime scene and multi witnesses, it is common that they all don't line up, as not everyone see's what happened from a certain perspective nor do they translate what they seen the same way. You call them an invading force, and the incident in hand happened on July 27 th 2002.....the Taliban regime had stopped being the legal government well before that infact the UN had set up the Afghan interim government on Dec 22, 2001. In which Hamid Karzai was appointed as it' s new leader....it was him that had asked coalition forces plus UN forces to act as tHe countries security forces....which does not make them an invading force, but rather the legal right to maintain security at that time.... My next piont is .....was Omar not a Canadian citizen at the time, visiting the country of Afghanistan during the time of the conflict, perhaps you can show me in any law were he would have any legal rights to defend anything in Afghanistan....or did he just get caught up in he moment.....next piont it was not Us forces that approached the compound that Omar and his terrorist buddies were, it was afghan forces, they had knocked on the door and asked if they and US forces could search the house, the answer they received was gun fire, killing 2 members of the afghan forces, US forces then surrounded the coound and waited for more forces to arrive.....does not sound like they started anything, it sounds like they did not want the compound searched as it was a bomb factory. They had something to hide.... But he was not a soldier was he, in fact he was a Canadian citizen, he did not wear an Afghanistan uniform, nor did he bear arms openly, He was however trained by Al Queda, in the presence of other Al Queda members, that built IED' s for the purpose of killing US forces in the area.....the same US forces that had taken charge of Afghanistan security.....all of that makes him a terrorist, under inter national law, UN charters of rules of war, Canadian law, and let's not forget Afghanistan laws.....

I think we've had this conversation a couple of times, each ending in both us agreeing to disagree. The Taliban and Al Queda have proved they did!nt need aircraft carriers or amphibious ves to bring war or conflict to any shore. They had the financial means to organize and carry out their terror campaign any where in the world. The fact they had chosen the US sent a huge message that these terror networks were not afraid of any nation or the consequences. They had said they would target any western country....that included Canada....I think this is a major concern to our politcians. I think a 9/11 sized attack on any canadian city would have crippled us for a lot longer than the US. It may not have made the same statement , but it would have effected us more. I think it scared us all to think anyone with an extreme view could bring their terror any where. Those Responsable had to be held accountable, the powers to be agreed that the terrorist network had to destroyed. For couple reasons to show others there would severe consequences for further attacks, and to possibly prevent further attacks. At the time this sounded reasonable to most western nations.

I think keepitsimple has a valid piont, has anyone heard of any atonement....about anything.....

All I said was I was surprised, after your comments on another post, about your safety on a military base. And yet your concerns do not transfer to your daughters.

Omar: You stated that the Taliban and Al Queda were close friends and associates. That they created,funded, trained and supported what ever their actions were again'st the Afghan people......I ask you for proof and what I think you give me is the following . Your source states the US was aware of the Talibans existence, means what exactly US is aware of a lot of groups and organization it also does business with them in many different ways.....much like Canada, or for that matter most countries.....it also states that ISI and CIA encouraged the creation of the Taliban, but does not say what encourage mean......it also states the US encouraged Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia to support the Taliban....again what does encouraged mean....it does not spell it out, it leaves a lot to the imagination. I wish I could encourage you to provide proof positive sources the ones that show a smoking gun you claim is out there. Your second link The U.S. provided some aid to opponents of the pro soviet regime. The same one the Soviets installed after a bloody coup, and yet it does not identify who that opponent was, Taliban was not created until 1994, which precludes them, and Al Queda was formed shortly after so that aid was to pre mujahideen groups in order to counter soviet expansion.... It also speculates that this aid might have started the soviet invasion....and yet I highily doubt that the soviets had occupation in mind well before they installed their puppet government, when it did not go to plan they sent in the troops...there is no proof that the US actions started the soviet invasion, just speculation..... Your third source I'm sorry I not following , it claims the CIA provided funding , but it's source claims USAID and the university of Nebraska provided text books to the mujahideen , which later were used by the Taliban.....OK but what does all this prove, You also mention that a U.S. company entertained Taliban representives in hope of a pipe line deal, well the Taliban were the major player in the region even though they did not control all of Afghanistan. These type of deals happen all the time, infact there is no pipe line today.....anti war buffs have been stating this was one of the reasons the US went to war was this supposed pipeline.....and with all the billions spent in Afghanistan , and 10 years of conflict, one would think that pipeline would have been built years ago.....still no pipe line and that US company lost it's shirt in that deal.....sorry move along no conspiracy here...". Overall you have not proved a thing that proves your original statement.....nor have you commented on how this conflict was illegal.

I've read your source, it's an opinion base article written by one guy, who happens to have the same opinion as you. What it lacks is proof positive that supports your claim that the U.S. created, supported, funded,and trained the Taliban or BIn Ladins groups of terrorists. As for the threats to the U.S., I guess what you and the others are forgetting that 9/11 attacks claimed the lives over 3000 US citizens plus scores of others including almost 30 Canadian lives that day....and Bin Ladin took responsibility for that attack, and had also said that there would be more.....not sure what country your from, but here in Canada that is a threat. Not a humanitarian threat as suggested by others that support this "illegal" conflict side of the debate but a threat to security of the nation. Unless you have proof that Bin Ladin was done, one attack was enough. How could any president sit back any even consider no action be taken, it be written off as a non state attack, without bringing to the American people those responsible .... Countries do negotiate differences every day, and when they can't the use the last policitical tool left their militaries. The U.S. gave the Taliban regime 2 weeks to respond by handing over Bin Ladin , or they would come and get him. They refused to meet those demands, and well sir, the rest is history, they got both horns.

I think it is a huge deal, considering how much work and effort it takes just to become a pilot, let alone a fighter pilot. Not to mention the amount of skill that is required to compete in today's small military. I was actually surprised however on some of west coast runners comments about perhaps allowing her daughter to become a member of the military. After her other comments about not feeling safe on any military base.

I don't think you answered his question, your doing a lot of side stepping on the issue, how many of those nations citizens you mention actually brought over their children to these countries to take part in the physical violence agains't people that they did not have ties to, how many of these citizens used or perverted their religion to strengthen their cause, which was to use their children in this conflict, how many of them tried to convince their children to become suicide bombers, sent them to terrorist training camps, allowed them to take part in combat with their own nation soldiers fighting on the other side...

Omar: I assume by muffled you mean by talking to the media, no like I said before the conflict in Afghanistan was popular at the time media was not looking for those that did not support the conflict, Also a piont to note that every soldier that was sent had volunteered, each was asked and conciled by serveral different layers of the Chain of command , ie doctors, Padres, family councillors, your supervisors, plus you had to pass all your training. So there was plenty of oportunities to not go...if that was their goal... As for muffled by the Chain of command , or held back for promotions etc....Once again no, it really was not a big deal, besides there was a huge pool of volunteers to pick from.... I don' t think you fully get the reason why most join the military, we were not duped into anything, nor given any misinformation about the conflict. We knew exactly what we were getting into and why. Like I have stated in the past today's military is not a bunch of lower IQ rednecks as some seem to think, recruitment skyrocketed during the entire conflict, those that joined wanted to make a difference , they wanted to be directly involved in the conflict, to make a difference, instead of being an arm chair critic. Terrorist were considered a threat to our way of life and are still today. Art 5 NATO is taken from inter national law, or are you saying that a nation does not have the right to defend itself under inter national law? As for the conflict being illegal that is still being debated , at a much higher level than you or me could hope to aspire to. There is still the piont that Bin Ladin and his merry band of thugs were indeed part of the Taliban regime, and they formed an integral part of their military. Operating under Taliban rule, suppressing policitical rivals, suppressing other opposing groups.....not to mention the afghan people, so one would have to ask did these terrorist work for the Taliban regime and if so did that make them part of the state....if this is true then does that not throw out the corner stone of the "illiegal" conflict supporters.

Seriously.......unfortuntily yes, as serious as a heart attack. Toronto has had 729 police reported sexual assualt cases in 2014. It should be noted that these numbers do not include any cases of colourful remarks,pin up pictures, as were included in DND's numbers which reported only 5 physical sexual assualt cases for the same time. The link for this is on Toronto police services There has been 7979 report sexual cases in Ontario Link ...Ont women's directorate....women.on.ca Across the nation there has been 472 000 sexual assualt cases that have been reported The link for this . Women against violence against women WAVAW.ca National post did an article called never reported....it also quotes 472 000 cases of sexual assualt in Canada. BC has the safest place according to stats can, and BC justice system where it says 1 out of every 17 women will be raped or sexually assaulted in BC every year. Is it absurd now, . What I find disturbing is that you as a women are not aware of these stats, and the threat you face. I' d be curious to know what you've based your low opinion of our nations military.

None, our military is so small it would be impossible not to aid or support the Afganistan mission in one way or the other, was there soldiers who refused to take part in the direct operations in Afghanistan due to moral obligations yes. But those numbers were very small. Does this reflect on our how professional our military members are, please explain. The whole debate on wether this conflict is illegal or not is still ongoing, there are plenty of online sites authored by some legal begals that say yes it was. They quote that art 5 does not cover the U.S. invasion, because the terrorist " bin ladies groups " were not considered a state actor, but rather a group within the state. And yet there is plenty of info out there that says other wise, That Bin ladins group of thugs were in fact part of the the talibans military force, used to fight and keep the peace within the country, taking out policitical opposition,and solving other policitical problems for the Taliban through the use of force. There is also the UN portion of this mess, the UN did not issue a condemnation of this mission, in fact they became part of it directly after the invasion by setting up a UN sponsored coalition cantered in Kabul, which was to start setting up the next government, it would be here that Canada would begin it' s second part of the Afghanistan mission under the UN mission. During the initial phases of the war it was very popular , not only in Canada but through out the western world, I can remember boarding the aircraft to leave on my first tour and there was thousands of Canadains lining the fences to show us off, and cheer .....once we returned it was the same 3 am we began our long bus journey back to Pet, and the streets were lined with thousands carrying banners welcoming us home, the media coverage was always positive, it was well supported in Canada. So, why would our soldiers even consider that this conflict was illegal, it was approved by DND and it's legal staff, the government, even the UN was getting in on the action, top all that off with the backing of the people and that was enough for Canada's soldiers to start volunteering to fight, by the thousands.....if that makes us unprofessional then I think I would disagree.

So other industries are going to follow suit , construction sites will dismiss workers for whistling at girls, gawking at pretty girls , or rating them on a scale of one to 10. What about other industries the oil patch, or lumber camps, mining operations, all of these industries are already following good work place practices. I bring these up not to cause deflection but to state a fact things are not as perfect as the other work places wish they were . Which brings me back to my original piont, this is not just a military problem, but rather a national one... My oldest daughter is in university, before she left I gave her a can of mace and showed her some self defence techniques. My other daughter joined the military, I never thought twice about that decision, infact I was relieved about her career choice. Am sure Derek feels the same way. Some people seem to think that the military is a breeding ground for bad behaviour, and while the military complex is not perfect part of being a professional soldier is to up hold higher standards when ever possible, and if the nation wants its military to be kinder and gentler, with perfect manners and perfect English that is what it will get. But at the end of the day will it truly change Canadian citizens minds about their military, I think not.

When you read the report what were your first impressions? Did you think it clearly identified the entire issue so that at first glance you understood it entirely? The reason I ask is because I did'nt, it failed to give the proper definition of sexual assault, and all that it included, it failed to give or make it's piont by listing the numbers of each catagory within the definition, such as physical sexual assault, inappropriate language etc...it also failed to mention what cases DND has taken action on and the results of those actions.....in othe words it failed to put everything into context. What it did do was have the public gasp in horror, eroding the trust of the entire dept and classifying most that serve within it as a bunch of over charged sexual idiots out of control... And yet there are a lot of cases that DND has taken action, the largest being Col Russels case, charged with murder and rape he is immediately released form the forces and handed over to the federal courts. This case shows a few things, one that the Chain of Command is not impervious to the law as had been suggested, that the old boys club was no where to be found in this case as also suggested. The major in CFB Wainwright, charged with inappropriate touching , was charged, and demoted to Capt...for the accusation of grabbing another women's breast. I bring this up because he was only a major but he was still a commander of a unit, part of the boys club, and well up the chain of command, it shows that if these i incidents are reported they actioned ..... There are other cases as well , such as the Cpl in Petawawa who is still under investigation by the OPP, plus others that the media is not aware of,. The report also fails to mention that this whole report was asked for by the CDS, the report and media keep repeating that this is a coverup attempt by DND to down play all these events, and yet it was started by the Military itself, who does that ask for an inquiry only to implicate itself come on.....

What you are forgetting is that there is room for questioning orders, soldiers are not robots, but men and women, there is a built safety factor that any order must be legal in every sense of the law. Personal gain is unlawful, and all that needs to be done is for someone to report it. Which is half the problem, for ever reason, but for things to change or those guilty of abusing the system to be removed or stopped, it needs to be reported. Not just a problem with the CF but throughout our nation, where any form of chain of command is present. Don"t get me wrong there is a lot of examples that a soldier can not question orders, providing those orders are legal to start with. A good leader will ensure that those guide lines are followed before issuing orders, if they are not legal then it is every soldiers responsabilty to question them, and disobey and report them ASAP. A major sticking piont in the war crimes trails in nurnburg, soldiers are held responsible for all their actions and can not use the excuse that they were just obeying orders. And that is part of the problem I am having , the definition of sexual assault, it does not just encompass actual sexual assault in the physical terms, but also includes colourful language, inappropriate remarks , and lude pictures that some may find offensive. And this is just my opinion, that these should be in a category all by themselfs, and should be able to fix them , not in court, but rather as adults or through some sort of mediation. I don't think it is a fair report these lesser charges that are added to boast the actual physical sexual assault case numbers, I think it is unfair to the victims as well, not to mention the instutions involved. Maybe I am out of the times on this issue, but is there a comparison to say sex assault the physical type and the other lesser crimes.

I guess I should of explained it in detail , your right I did paint all Canadians with the same brush, not my intention I should have said there is a lot of Canadians that believe everything that is printed or spews out of the media and take it as fact, without putting it all into context and hearing both sides of the story.

And while this story and those just like it are tragic, those Responsable should have been brought to justice, and I don't think you'll find anyone here that is defending those Responsable for those attacks. However measures are already in place , many different measure I should say, but they have to be used in order to work. One must trust the system to work. And it does work it has no other outcome, if there is no response from the chain of command then soldiers are free to take it to the next level, all the way to the CDS if need be.....and trust me if the CDS knows then he minister knows.....action will be taken, and while some of your existing chain of command may not like you for it DND tough shit.,when the Chain takes action it must be followed to the tee, no questions. But like I said it needs to be used.

My post was directed at Black dog, I was responding to his baseless post, he happens to be from that area.

So the numbers are inflated to suggest there is a problem.....it looks like this is becoming a policitical football, to score some votes on the backs of our soldiers. And Canadians are looking at someone or something to piont fingers at, imagine our soldiers using foul language, nobody said anything when live combat footage was shown on the news or u tube.....imigine our soldiers turning their heads looking at any female and commenting nice ass...god forbid there is any pin ups in places like military vehicles, tents or trenches....because that would be just unCanadian .....and yet nobody is pointing out that the content on TV, cable shit look at the game of thrones, or Spartacus.....how many Canadains watch those shows.....how many Canadians are guilty of the above crimes .....we truly do have a problem.....perhaps our skins are not as thick as we thought ......

Ghomeshi was from Toronto was he not....that would explain a lot....no better enviroment than Toronto for any predator to thrive.