Army Guy

I like to add something, killing is legal, provided it is within the guide lines set out by each nation.... if it is your job to do so, and you've been asked to so... IS it wrong, thats something each policemen and soldier will have to answer for , on the day he meets his maker....i think it is why God does not make it easy....mentally or physically , then he makes you live with it forever...atleast until the day you meet him face to face.... Yes the rules have changed, slightly...but then again we are talking about war, which has very little rules to start with....and while we have rules that are suppose to protect old men , women , children, they are hollow and not very well enforced....IE Omars mom , we know what she did was wrong, but we lack the courage to enforce it.

Yes rebel militias , and if you've seen pictures of these kids, they are in uniforms, carry arms openily, or have bands or something similar to indentify them as such.... conforming to the conventions... How did that work out for them..... It does if your brought up in that culture and don't know any better.....it still does not change the fact that our young mr Omar was considered an adult in the Taliban regime, or for that matter in Afghan today....now your fishing i've said nothing about child bribes....so i've claimed nothing.....But your right in my mind i think at age 15 he should be home playing on his play station , expermenting with girls, smokes , and beer....not on the battlefield...however you can not say at age 15 he was not capable of knowing right from wrong....That planting mines and killing NATO soldiers collecting bounties was wrong....lets keep in mind this is the kid that will be roaming our streets soon.... Really maybe you should re read the History of the taliban and AL Queda, while there may of been some cross over it does not share the same history....but i guess the northern alliance also full of cross overs from the Mujaheden sinks that theory.... And while they may of been considered freedom fighters did they employ terrorist tactics again'st there own, the Russian civilian population.....what was their target....russian soldiers...military targets....what was that difination of a terrorist again....someone got that link to the UN site ? I'm baised really because i've traded bullets with is buddies....here i spell it out if you use terrorist means to accomplish your goals your a terrorist...and according to the genva convention and inter national law that is again'st the law, and you will be branded a terrorist, no longer afforded any protection available to you by those 2 laws or conventions..... it does not matter which side your on...thats the law....i can't explain it any simplier....if you have proof that any country, individula or group broke that law take it to the inter national courts....but here in this forum it's a mout piont until it is proven.....in omar case it is proven, shit he confessed....

Actually Melanie this entire situation came about with x 3 Afghanis regulars knocking on the door to the compound Khadr and his merry buddies were in, they were greeted with a hail of gunfire in which 2 of them where killed....by you guess it omar and his buddies....So the answer to your question is yes the soldiers where aware of why they were there, they also understand the ROE's very well....And we are talking about a 15 year old here, an age in which is very common for insurgents, remember the country is dirt poor, and fighting pays well... No Canadians or US pers would be fighting, because of the agreements we have signed on to. it is illigal to have anyone under the age of 18 in a combat zone.... Sorry should have been clearer, when this agreement was signed it was meant to address the problem of child soldiers in those 2 areas, the agreement does cover the entire globe, that being said the agreement covers child soldiers, it does not cover terrorist or Illigal combatants....of which Omar is clear one... Your piont about bringing Omars mother in and holding her accountable i very much agree with. if we don't then this entire agreement we've signed is just a shell, empty document....

And you make it sound like he was on prison lock down.....that he was effectivly told to shut up and do as he was told, which was to become a good little terrorist... And yet Omar and his brothers have all stated that while their lives certainly were mapped out for them, they had control as young as 13 when they where considered adults....proof of that is when their own mother, and some relatives tried to convince Omar and his brother to become suicide bombers, "blow themselfs up for the cause", make mommy proud....both had refused they had known exactly what that meant....it would mean they were not full believers, and life meant more to them some religious learning of recieveing some virgins,and living in paradise.....it meant they were afraid to die....it also meant that Mommy did not have full control over her sons destiny any more.....if she had they would be pink mist today and none of this would be happening.... Omar had plenty of chances to leave and stop the life he was living , as a terrorist....but he has said more than once he enjoyed it....And don't tell me at 15 he did not know that all his training he had done to date was for...at 14 he was on active operations he assisted with gather Intel on NATO convoys, he was learning how to make and plant IED's, he was taking part in combat operations by planting them with one purpose to KILL as MANY NATO soldiers as he could....to collect the bounty that was offered...He knew exactly what he was doing , and he knew what was wrong and right.....

Thats BS and you know it, Those laws we are talking about are very clear and who's main purpose is to protect the civilian masses, if we are going to throw them out and allow terrorism within the current confines of combat then what you are saying is ALL sides are free to use what ever it takes regardless of cost.....think about that for a minute...War as it stands today has very few restrictions to it....by adding terror to be used armies will come very close to total war, or no rules at all... And while one can still be a freedom fighter, without using terror as a wpn, In Omar case , is not the same....One does not join the KKK and not practice racistism....

Like it or not but that is the law in Canada, and until recently at age 17 you could serve in a combat zone, now you have to be 18.....take a look at our military history, and you'll find all kinds of children killed in action in WWI it was not uncommon for boys as young as 10 to be at the front serving as a bat boy or other function....IN WWII alot joined as young as 14, korea as young as 16....today the law states you have to be 18 and yes they are making life and death decisions every day... And your right if the law states they can not drink they are not served, to young to smoke then you can't smoke....it's the law.... Please provide a link to where it states that terrorist or unlawful combatant's are mentioned in the child soldier agreement we signed....if you had read it you'll find that it's contents are provided to protect children forcefull recruited into regular armies,...and when it was written it was designed for those being used in Africa and Asia, whose armies where using child soldiers..... it also has to be read in context with the other UN agreements we have signed onto such as the one defining terrorism, and terrorist, which infact limit which UN charters and coventions these people are protected under..... The Child soldier argument is a myth in Omars case....if it had any truth to it Omar would have used it as part of his defense... Any of your experts versed in Afghanis culture, are they Muslims, have they been to any Muslim country....ask them when a boy is considered an adult in those cultures.... But he was'nt part of the Taliban he was AL Queda which is a terrorist organization...kind of changes everything now does'nt it.... And yes during the opening days of the war, the Taliban where the legiment government ,and both sides recogized that fact....however the coalition declared war on that government remember that....they lost, and the Coalition held elections and replaced the government you remember that.... The fact that he was part of a terrorist group is all that matters here....regardless of what side he thought he was fighting for....he is still a terrorist.

I don't have a double standard, some countries may but me as a Canadian soldier don't ....nor did i write the defination of what a terrorist is, the UN came to some sort of agreement, as did the Inter national court...a spade is a spade...regardless of what country they serve.. That being said you would be hard pressed to find one nation that has not employed terrorism or some form of it in it's past...including Canada....Today the laws are some what clearer, and define terrorists as an illigal process, top to bottom...

Can you blame him, i mean really from his piont of view, does the world give a rats ass what happens to Afghanistan....He has known for some time now that NATO's days in country are numbered, even the US has set pull out dates, Shit how long have we been saying 2011 is it , were going home.....we can't have it both ways we either stay and finsih the task which will take generations....or we pull out hoping something good will grow.....well life goes on in Afghanistan, and he is making the best out of what he is being left with... As for SHaria law it never left, it has and always will be a major part of their culture....besides we did not go over to change them into our vision , but rather share our vision with them, and allow them to pick and choose which parts of our vision they liked and run with it.... I think that it should be defined more clearly, as a soldier i perfer terrorist, because that is what most of them are, be it AL Queda or taliban they both employ terrorist tactics....and i'm fine with them employing road side IED's and mines as a means to fight back agia'st NATO or Afghan military forces, however in most cases they are used again'st the population in general, thats a whole new game.... Thats why there is a whole set of rules for fighting these guys...

We are talking about an organization that employes terrorism again'st mostly non military targets to gain public support....we are talking about an organization that it's very existance is again'st the law....we are also talking about war, in a war zone...But once you or the group your fighting with uses terrorism as part of their tool kit, then ya , things get alittle one sided.

He broke all of them, like anything in life there are rules govening everything we do, one does not deep fried beacon in an open frying pan naked for instance ...stepping onto a battlefield one has to know the rules, the rules that govern warfare, the rules on survival, there is cultural our rules, our morals and values, and to top it all off there is murphies law.... American law, declares him an unlawful combatant, and everything that comes under that. He was charged with murder, and i beleive 7 other charges.... NATO law,no such thing, however they do follow the Geneva convention, inter national law, plus national law of the country involved IE Canada, US , Britain.....and according to all these laws he is guilty of being a terrorist, carrying out terrorist activites. Being a Terrorist or "illigal combatant" he forfiets any protection that the Geneva convention affords him, with some small exceptions.... The list of geneva conventions that he has broken is many here is a few, He did not carry arms openly, nor wore a distinctive uniform,armband, or markings, i know it seems to be a small piont, however it does put the inocent civilain population at risk, which has been a very large source of grief to everyone involved in this war....to list but a few.... Afghanistan law...He is not an Aghanis citizen but a vistor to that country, so he is not entitled to take up arms regardless of his religious affliation ...instead he was involved in Al Quadia a terrorist organization, which the world has declared it so. Not very good choices....

Not knowing the law is not an excuse to break it, or from becoming accountable to it.... Yes the term the US was using was "Illegal combatant" , i was using terrorist in the same context my bad for not being clearer...As for the UN coming into play Eyeball has constantly refered to Omar as a child soldier, that entire agreement in which Canada signed off on was a UN agreement, hence why i was refering to it and the UN. That agreement does not include Illegal combatant or terrorist...

The differences are in the agreements we signed, Omar is not a child soldier but considered a terrorist, and there is NOTHING in the current agreement we signed at the UN that covers terrorists....the UN clearly spells it out on what makes a soldier, and what is a terrorist.... As for justice give me a break....it is our justice system that our current ROE's are derived, and it clearly states these child terrorists can be engaged and killed when they take part in terrorist activities.....so our justice system say's it's alright to kill them, but we just have a problem with locking them up, or having them face a court for their actions....to sum up it's alright to kill them just not put them in a court of law....i get it....and from my side of the fence it's wrong.... Perhaps you can provide a link where it states you can not hold them accountable. Even the agreement we signed at the UN does not state we can not hold them accountable for what they have done....

Oh it's very easy to cut and paste , in fact it's in this thread over a dozen times, I'm sure you won't have a problem.... As for key words Omar will do, but if you are feeling creative you can throw in his terrorists buddies as well... I wonder how many times that excuse has been used to defend teenagers in a court of law... I wonder if he was as scare as my last 18 year old LAV driver was after seeing his classmate ripped to shreads after they had driven over an 500 lb IED, which penatrated their hull, evaporated his legs, (because we never found them,) I wonder if he was as scared as the young man that died in his arms, another classmate, just barely 19 years old ...."promise you'll look after my girlfriend", was his last words...just mins after we arrived to assist....No problably not....no he was scared of what his familiy would do to him at most.....not so much scared but rather concerned.... Scared....i know scared, scared shitless, scared witless, scare stupid, scared.....no i know and understand scared....and yet if me or one of my soldiers had done something "scared" like put a bullet into another 15 year old boy....would we be able to ride that excuse out....not likely, not ever, not even.... I've mentioned this many times before, 15 year old boys are common in the insurgents we tangle with....only difference over there they get a bullet or worse....NO compasion offered....and thats exceptable by you and me, by Canadians....we are doing our jobs....but capture one alive....then the singing choirs come out, waves of angels descend from the heavens....NOW we see compasion....Well sir i don't want to show compasion, what i want is justice...i want him to have his day in court, no more no less....and if that is to complicated for you to understand....then i understand that as well, we are two different sides of the tracks, we have 2 separate opinions....and we'll leave it at that...but before i do, Have you ever wondered why there has ever only been 1 OMAR... Omar's home movie, and yes it was found in the building that Omar was hiding in....But you know that already...

No i mean the tape omar and his terrorist buddies made and was found at the scene of the crime, you remember that tape don't you....I goggled it and found over 250,000 sites..... As for comparing him to the Mr Russell, apples and oranges, he's a scumbag that deserves what he gets and more, but the cases are not comparable.... As for calling Omar a saint ....ever been involved in an IED strike, pull some stats up on how many the average Canadian tour faces....it will surprise you...

Then expalin what id does have to do with , so we can understand the piont your trying to make. Realy every hear of SOSUS Sensors, and the fact that Norad also tracks maritime traffic, as well as does the Canadian military... It was not so long ago Canadian rangers /military artic patrol found hard evidence of Russia equipment and rations left on Canadian soil...it even made the media...Canada knows about submerged traffic, and tracks it all the time, shit Canadians soldiers work in the same Norad office, who could they not.....

The plan currently is to phase themout when the new F-35 arrive on a one for basis.

Just so we are clear, it was the Airforce that said 80 airframes was not enough, i provided you an article written and approved by the air force, and while 48 of those 80 airframes where in operational sqns, they are saying they could not at times cover off the basic assignments such as homeland security, let alone maintain other taskings........most of that was becuase of serviceabilty rates, and while the F-35 has a much better serviceabilty rate now, it won't as the Airframe gets older....not accounting for the fact that they are purchasing fewer, which would negate any short term serviceabilty bonuses of having a newer aircraft.... And the entire piont of this aircraft can do more than the F-18 could ever do, is great, but when you take into account that having 15 less aircraft negates any advantage you would have gained in the short term...that and the fact you begin to loss that advantage once newer aircraft come on the market....Canada has a long history of keeping it's aircraft for 25 years or more....in the end we will not have the numbers we need... As for the number 65 where did it come from, not DND which has serveral articles published on 80 not being enough, one of which i've provided you...It may have come from the government which has said here is the the amount we accepted on , buy what you can...after all something is better than nothing....Can we all imgine the price tag of 80 or more aircraft....Canadians would have a heart attack....there pissing themselfs now...

And while your assement looks good on paper, in reality it's not going to work, serviceabilty rates for brand new aircraft are one thing, however in 5 years from now these rates will decline....Also you've stated training will be sub contracted out perhaps, thats fine, but some time a pilot is going to have to train on the F-35....so regardless of what they do, you can't just jump into a F-35 after training on a different type and poof your a qualified pilot on the F-35 .... Also trials and eval's still have 4 to 6 aircraft to perform and test anything the airforce is looking at in the furture..... And as the article mentions they have yet to look at Aircraft to train with the Army in the direct support role....nor have you considered any UN or NATO deployment as only 6 aircraft are currently assigned, last time we deployed it was with 14 aircraft....not to mention the other missions we are expected to accomplish.... The airforce has said 80 where not enough and i'm sure some bean counter has said 65 is more than enough except when you talk to the guys doing the mission....

Or perhaps it's not a pretend trial but you rather not fully understanding how a military court works. Which needs to follow the same rule of law as it's civilian counterpart, the only difference is it's make up and proceedures on how it is run. Military Lawyers and judges still hold a valid Canadian law degree.... But thats not what is bothering you, in fact according to your thinking any military court is a farce, regardless of result, perhaps you shopuld lobby to have it all changed....or perhaps you should do some research, military courts have in most cases handed out sentences much tougher than there civilian courts, as they follow not only Canadian civilian law , but also military law...all that being said the military does have the option to charge any member with military offenses, on top of what ever a civilain court may hand out.... It must also be noted that any Capital offense commited in Canada is tried in Canadian civilian court, only those capital offenses commited on operations are handled by the military courts... As for doing hard time in Canada, i can give you atleast 50 examples of Canadians charged with murder who served a total of 5 years of less....now that is hard time...In military prison there are no TV's no sat or cable, no play stations, no anything, your day starts at 0500 , preparing for a full kit inspection, breakfast at 0600, PT at 0700, drill after that followed up with some classes, followed up by lunch, then more PT or drill, more classes, supper, more classes, cleaning stations, and by 2100 hr your given 15 mins to write a letter then it's lights out.... the first 4 weeks your their your limited to 3 smokes a day, and those must be earned, via the piont system don't get enough pionts , ie failed a kit inspection, failed to perform on PT or drill...then NO privilages for you...pionts are also accumulated for early release no pionts no early release....regardless of how good you are, or you proved to be a model prisoner... Thats because every military prisoner is a model prisoner, those that are not are placed in confinement, until their attitude improves. Military prison also has closed confinement, which means your rations are restricted and controled, oatmeal, peas, carrots, all mixed in the same bowl, your entitled to one blanket, no sheets, a small bunk, and the cell is unlight, with no windows...

Smallc we've had this pissing match serveral times, and still we don't agree... Heres is the numbers direct from a military source.... 36 aircraft are required for Sovereignty and homeland defense, That is a minimum number.... 6 or more A/c are commited to United nations or NATO 20 are commited to testing and training ( note that these aircraft are NOT mission ready aircraft......) total so far is 62 aircraft.....but the fun does not stop there the airforce still needs to comit an air to ground capability to the army....that is providing everyone of those aircraft are servicable.... Here is the chink in the armour, Servicabilty rate of the current F-18 is 50 percent....and with it's current fleet of 80 CF-18 it sometimes can not meet it's primary function of Sovereignty and home land defense.... So now if we are to believe SMALL C 65 Aircraft will be more than enough shit we have aircraft to spare....yes we do, however, even a brand new airplane will suffer from maintence woes....although it's servicability rate will be much greater than 50 % it is estamated to be around 85 %, meaning even with 65 aircraft it will not be possiable to cover all it's currently assigned missions in Canada....Unless your doing some new math anyway you cut it if 80 is not enough how can we mange with 65.... Below is an article written in the Canadian military journal dated the summer of 2006...by a Airforce major....who at the time worked at Canadian Air Division Headquaters.... Canadian military journal

SO your don't deny there was an open bid process ? As for the Arrow, thats a separate topic on it's own, but to sum up your wrong Canada was developing a world class aircraft that could have put Canada on the map in regards to developing and manufacturing military aircraft...and yes developing your own aircraft is expensive, but then again we knew that going in. Besides are we saying that replacing the arrow with the bomac missle system and US made fighters was a better option...it was cheaper, but in the long run that decision was proven a train wreck as well... As for the Arrow, amassing how alot of it's tech had an influence on future US fighter designs... DND is a large organization and not everyone in it is an F-35 fan, including some in the Airforce, and for good reason, most will tell you the F-35 is a fantastic aircraft, it performs as advertised despite it's teething problems, which all new aircraft go through. a major concern within DND is not the quality of the aircraft but rather the amount we are purchasing, 65 is a pretty thin number when you take into account our current fleet of 80 is not enough to cover all our current taskings...that is just for our defense, not including any out of country deployment...But ask them if they think our current F-18 fleet is up to the job, and they will tell you barely even after we upgrade them... As for the military always wanting the biggest cannon, your right, without a doubt 100 % correct, seeing how it is their lives that are being asked to defend this nation, why should they not atleast have the best money can buy...after all you or me can not say for certain which country /nation/ or group our government will declare enemies of the state and ask our young men and women to destroy...having the biggest stick on the block does save lives, and to own and operate that stick you need funding, lots of it....And in todays world every nation must have a military, even Neutral ones. So the question you have to answer is which is more important money....or lives.....traditional governments and citizens have decided money is more important.....i mean a Canadian soldiers life is worth 250,000 plus one years wage, approx 300,000 in total....and Canadians grow on trees, lots of voluteers... Thats because the don't have anything invested, and god forbid another world event drags us into a world war, it is going to be your sons and daughters flying these cheaper machines, and the bad guys will own the biggest stick....will money be the highest priorty then...it's just a question.... your choice of aircraft suck, have you even thought about how long Canada normally keeps equipment for...so in 20 to 25 years will these choices be still viable...would you fly them into combat...

There was an open bid, and the only aircraft that meet the specs is the F-35....those specs where written by DND, more to the piont the Airforce, who will be flying them, who's ass will be in the driver seat, when the shit hits the fan....does anyone out there really think the airforce gives a shit what the avg Candian thinks about their first choice....do you really think you get a say in anything the government spends your tax dollars on....give me a break.... When you decide on new furniture, you send your husband out to bring something home....when your husband wants a new tool do you go out and buy it for him..why is that....you want a choice in what aircraft we buy.....sign up for the damn airforce....or force your government not to send us into battle.....until then start getting use to the idea of F-35 flying round some parts of Canada...

If their is no doubt then there would have been a conviction of murder, and yet even the witnesses said from the angle they observed from they could not tell if the Capt shot the body or not, nobody checked the body, in fact no rounds where recovered by the ivestagating team that dug up the area in which was blood soaked...

And while what you say is true, But according to witness statements none of the witnesses actually saw anything that could prove with out a doubt the Capt shot the wounded terrorist, they saw the Capt go back to the wounded terrorist , they heard the shots, but no one saw the capt shoot anyone, nor did they go back to confirm that the terrorist was dead, due to the capts actions..so we are assuming he is dead, investagating teams that went back to the area searched it all they found was a few empty casings which were from the Capts rifle...but no body, nor any bullets with any DNA on them, no other evidence. which in itself can not prove without a doubt he fired the shots that ended the terrorist life... Like i have said before one can not apply the same rules of evidence or burden of proof on the battlefield, it's a totally different world, combat units do not have the personal to cordon it off and allow forensics teams to recreate and log all the events that happened to ensure each kill was legal and within all the rules and laws laid out that govern warfare. when in reality the battlefield is the exact opposite, at the end of the battle a reorg taks place troops are move around, the dead are searched, the area is searched , resupply happens, trucks, helos, drop off more ammo, pick up the wounded and dead, troops prepare to move on or defend the new postion....then the civilians move in to scour the area, pick up brass, anything they can redeem for money...in other words it's picked clean...On top of all that, the entire battle happens so fast that each persons account of what happen is different, hard to find two the same... Much like the court can not find or prove Omar guilty of any wrong doing... we know he did it, but will we be able to prove it, not likely...hence why the military stuck to something they knew they could prove...disgraceful conduct...

I think there is some confusion as to the rule of law, here in Canada in the civilian world we do have laws that dictate that every measure should be taken to save a life... However in the rules of war, the primary goal is the "mission itself" example, Normandy beach landings orders were given "every soldiers first and primary goal or mission was to take ground, engage the enemy until thier defences were combat ineffective. To bypass all wounded which would be left for follow up forces....meaning if your buddy got shot you were to carry on with the mission...this included enemy soldiers as well... In this case the Capt informed his superiors of his situation, which included a medical assetment of the wounded enemy soldier.....he was told to carry on with the mission, that medivac operation would comprise the mission, attract more enemy soldiers, a situation they did not want with green Afghan soldiers...The enemy soldier was given basic first aid, however his wounds required alot more than basic first aid... The Capt very famliar with pain and suffering thought these orders to be cruel, and he thought he was provided some humanity by ending his suffering.... Don't think for a second, there is any virture or law as we know it in War...everything we know as morals and values , or laws as we take for granted today are thrown out the window, and the longer any person is placed in those conditions the worse it becomes...until that world of war becomes normal, and our world as once knew it... becomes foreign, or unnatural....