This Is Total B.S

wulf42 · January 7, 2009

I hear you might be Taliban government better send someone to your house to kill you.

Oh Punked, isn't it past your bedtime??

punked · January 7, 2009

Oh Punked, isn't it past your bedtime??

I am pointing out how saying someone is Taliban, or a terrorist does not justify killing them.

guyser · January 7, 2009

What turnabout???? I said it is wrong to charge this Capt and i still do........no i wouldn't have done it but that
doesn't mean i think we should charge this Man over a stinking Taliban

Frankly you dont , or wont, acknowledge what you write anyhow.

You cant see the connection that you wouldnt do the same thing because your career would be ruined, and that he shouldnt have done because he knows better is pathetic.

wulf42 · January 7, 2009

Who on MLW "would rather see our guys be victims".
Name one person.

You wont, because you cant.

Pathetic dude, just pathetic.

Really Guyser does this sound like support for our troops??

this was posted by Progressive Tory:

I couldn't agree more. Very well said. The things that are done in our name are disgraceful. It has been said with bravado that our soldiers are dying for us, but they also are killing for us, and neither is acceptable.

So what is a terrorist? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_terrorism

What is the difference between a 'Freedom Fighter' and a 'Terrorist'?

What is the difference betwee the 'Resistance' and 'Insurgents'?

They all want the same thing - to rid their country of foreign invaders.

If we can't uphold the Geneva Convention than maybe we're the 'Terrorists' in their eyes. Their cause will get a lot of mileage out of this if we don't convict this soldier. It's sad but he knew the rules or should have.

Edited January 7, 2009 by wulf42

blueblood · January 7, 2009

Why the turnabout? I thought you were secure in your knowledge?
You insulted the men and women who are there. We, collectively have done no such thing.

So you do know that it would be wrong to shoot him, otherwise there would be no risk to your career.

And so with that in mind, why not put him on trial for the exact same thing you have admitted knowing is wrong?

That has nothing to do with it. To claim he has a defence, at this stage, with what we know, is false. If, and thats if, it went down as claimed, and will be either acknowledged or disporven in court, he simply lost it and killed the guy.

Your IED scenario does not play out from the scant knowledge we have. If that were his case, then he is justified in shooting the man. But he walked up to him and disarmed him.That does not lend to being worried about an explosive does it?

From my scant knowledge, how is he supposed to know that he has an IED in the first place? It's not like they are visible. I think that's a legitimate defence, no matter how weak it is. The soldier is entitled to think whatever he wants, if he thinks the insurgent is a credible threat, he can plug him, but he has to justify it. Judging by the Taliban's use of IED's, I say the threat is most indeed credible. That captain is allowed to be wrong.

I thought it was the Afghan soldiers that disarmed him. The capt. could have thought that they didn't look him over hard enough. I think there is definite reasonable doubt cast with this scenario. The bad thing with IED's is that they can be very easily hidden. It leaves the door open to cap prisoners in the name of personal safety.

That said, that is a plausible defense and the one that should have been done. I still think he gets off.

punked · January 8, 2009

From my scant knowledge, how is he supposed to know that he has an IED in the first place? It's not like they are visible. I think that's a legitimate defence, no matter how weak it is. The soldier is entitled to think whatever he wants, if he thinks the insurgent is a credible threat, he can plug him, but he has to justify it. Judging by the Taliban's use of IED's, I say the threat is most indeed credible. That captain is allowed to be wrong.
I thought it was the Afghan soldiers that disarmed him. The capt. could have thought that they didn't look him over hard enough. I think there is definite reasonable doubt cast with this scenario. The bad thing with IED's is that they can be very easily hidden. It leaves the door open to cap prisoners in the name of personal safety.

That said, that is a plausible defense and the one that should have been done. I still think he gets off.

I don;t think he does.

blueblood · January 8, 2009

I don;t think he does.

ctv

I don't read anywhere where it says the insurgent wasn't deemed a threat. The capt. could have very easily thought the insurgent was still capable of setting off an IED, or possibly blowing himself up. Better to cap him than to risk being blown to smithereens. Sorry, but War is Hell. There are too many grey areas.

How do we know that the capt. didn't fire those shots in the air?

How do we know that the capt. didn't fire those shots into the ground either?

Lots of reasonable doubt strewn about. But hey lets go against justice and throw reasonable doubt out the window.

Shady · January 8, 2009

I am pointing out how saying someone is Taliban, or a terrorist does not justify killing them.

It might if you're in a war zone and feel as though you're in danger. Nobody hear has the facts, but it's funny to see so many people condemn the solider in question. Maybe he was in grave danger, maybe he wasn't. Maybe the individual killed was Taliban, maybe he wasn't. Maybe the soldier was only in slight danger and overreacted. Nobody hear knows. I'd like to give the benefit of the doubt, to the Canadian soldier sent by his Government into a war, and wait to see any information suggesting otherwise.

punked · January 8, 2009

It might if you're in a war zone and feel as though you're in danger. Nobody hear has the facts, but it's funny to see so many people condemn the solider in question. Maybe he was in grave danger, maybe he wasn't. Maybe the individual killed was Taliban, maybe he wasn't. Maybe the soldier was only in slight danger and overreacted. Nobody hear knows. I'd like to give the benefit of the doubt, to the Canadian soldier sent by his Government into a war, and wait to see any information suggesting otherwise.

You are totally right it is the governments fault so let's get out. One mistake is too many.

wulf42 · January 8, 2009

Frankly you dont , or wont, acknowledge what you write anyhow.
You cant see the connection that you wouldnt do the same thing because your career would be ruined, and that he shouldnt have done because he knows better is pathetic.

Oh for God's Sake Guyser

Lets try this again okay? this thread is about what the Capt did okay?

and I don't think we should charge the guy for drilling an insurgent...if he lined up up a bunch of Villagers and shot them yes charge him! If he shot an unarmed kid

yes charge him..he killed a terrorist!!!! a guy that moments earlier had tried to kill him and if he had any explosives on him he still would have...better a dead insurgent than a dead Canadian right???

Edited January 8, 2009 by wulf42

punked · January 8, 2009

Oh for God's Sake Guyser
Lets try this again okay? this thread is about what the Capt did okay?

and I don't think we should charge the guy for drilling an insurgent...if he lined up up a bunch of Villagers and shot them yes charge him! If he shot an unarmed kid

yes charge him..he killed a terrorist!!!! a guy that moments earlier had tried to kill him and if he had any explosives on him he still would have...better a dead insurgent than a dead Canadian right???

It wasn't a him or me situation. If it was we would not be arguing about it. You mean better a dead insurgent then an inconvinced Canadian is what you meant.

guyser · January 8, 2009

From my scant knowledge,

And mine too, I am not espousing I know anymore than what the OP had as a link.

how is he supposed to know that he has an IED in the first place? It's not like they are visible. I think that's a legitimate defence, no matter how weak it is.

According the original article, it says that the 2 Afghani army guys and our man were standing beside the body. The Afghanis removed the rifle and...I quote now "Semrau was then left alone with the injured man and two shots were heard"

To me, that says the Afghanis walked away and our guy let off two shots.

So lets presume thats accurate. You are the judge here, and I say," Judge, he was already beside the body, he walked up to it, observed the gun being removed and then two shots were heard. Does that sound like a man that was worried about an IED being secreted on the Taliban guys body?"

I dont know, but I believe a military court has different rules, rules they established for their own members, and as such, I dont think leeway is given by the court to the soldiers if it is as cut and dry as reported.

. The capt. could have thought that they didn't look him over hard enough. I think there is definite reasonable doubt cast with this scenario. The bad thing with IED's is that they can be very easily hidden. It leaves the door open to cap prisoners in the name of personal safety.

The captain was , according to the article, right there. Had our man shot the Taliban from a distance thinking he was wired with an IED, then fine, I have no problem with the shot.

That said, that is a plausible defense and the one that should have been done. I still think he gets off.

Hmm....not so sure. The facts, should they change will alter my thoughts, but as it stands, I dont think he gets off, but I do feel there may be a reduced sentence for him if convicted. A dishounourable discharge would be horrible for him, jail time or no jailtime.

bush_cheney2004 · January 8, 2009

...To claim he has a defence, at this stage, with what we know, is false. If, and thats if, it went down as claimed, and will be either acknowledged or disporven in court, he simply lost it and killed the guy.

Right......."We" don't know jack.

Your IED scenario does not play out from the scant knowledge we have. If that were his case, then he is justified in shooting the man. But he walked up to him and disarmed him.That does not lend to being worried about an explosive does it?

Yes it does....whenever you stop being "worried" is the time it will go tits up.

guyser · January 8, 2009

Oh for God's Sake Guyser

I have no idea why you are confused about this.

Lets try this again okay? this thread is about what the Capt did okay?

Ok.

and I don't think we should charge the guy for drilling an insurgent

Ahh, I see now where you are confused because he did not just "drill an insurgent", he shot a disarmed wounded insurgent.

There is a difference, and you know that the rules state he cannot do that, under threat of military justice.

If you want to keep ignoring that fact go ahead.

..he killed a terrorist!!!!

A disarmed and wounded terrorist who was of no threat to our guy.

a guy that moments earlier had tried to kill him and if he had any explosives on him he still would have

Yes he would have. But once dis-armed and wounded, that makes what you wrote pointless.

Guantanamo has hundreds of terrorists. Why doesnt the US just shot them? Afterall, if they had any explosives they would still use them.....right?

...better a dead insurgent than a dead Canadian right???

Always.

I really dont give 2 poops about the dead man. However, our man should have , and does know better, and for that, he will pay some price.

punked · January 8, 2009

Yes it does....whenever you stop being "worried" is the time it will go tits up.

When you start shooting out side the rules of engagement in an occupied country is when the whole mission goes tits up.

blueblood · January 8, 2009

And mine too, I am not espousing I know anymore than what the OP had as a link.
According the original article, it says that the 2 Afghani army guys and our man were standing beside the body. The Afghanis removed the rifle and...I quote now "Semrau was then left alone with the injured man and two shots were heard"

To me, that says the Afghanis walked away and our guy let off two shots.

So lets presume thats accurate. You are the judge here, and I say," Judge, he was already beside the body, he walked up to it, observed the gun being removed and then two shots were heard. Does that sound like a man that was worried about an IED being secreted on the Taliban guys body?"

I dont know, but I believe a military court has different rules, rules they established for their own members, and as such, I dont think leeway is given by the court to the soldiers if it is as cut and dry as reported.

The captain was , according to the article, right there. Had our man shot the Taliban from a distance thinking he was wired with an IED, then fine, I have no problem with the shot.

Hmm....not so sure. The facts, should they change will alter my thoughts, but as it stands, I dont think he gets off, but I do feel there may be a reduced sentence for him if convicted. A dishounourable discharge would be horrible for him, jail time or no jailtime.

Your forgetting also is that the body hasn't been recovered. How the hell are we supposed to know anything if we can't even do an autopsy? Those two shots could have been in the air, or shot nearby the insurgent. I think reasonable doubt has been established.

I'm not saying the IED defense is strong, it is in fact a weak defense. However it does it's job as giving a reason in capping the insurgent and casting reasonable doubt. Maybe the Capt. saw something he thought was suspicious when he was alone with the Insurgent. Like I said the Capt's life is on the line, he can take any means to protect it.

Distance doesn't matter concerning with an IED, if a soldier suspects somebody has an IED or is a potential suicide bomber, than said person gets lit up like a christmas tree, whether its from 1 yard or 100. If the capt. feels at any time his life is threatened, I think he has the right to defend himself wounded insurgents or no wounded insurgents. Remember he is also an officer and would be quite a quarry for an insurgent. The capt. could have thought he seen a grenade and capped him.

bush_cheney2004 · January 8, 2009

When you start shooting out side the rules of engagement in an occupied country is when the whole mission goes tits up.

Why would you be shooting inside Canada? ROE's are great...except when they're not.

It's amazing how quick some people are to pass judgement regardless of the facts yet to be determined, just to satisfy the God of Smug.

punked · January 8, 2009

Why would you be shooting inside Canada? ROE's are great...except when they're not.
It's amazing how quick some people are to pass judgement regardless of the facts yet to be determined, just to satisfy the God of Smug.

If at the trial it comes out this person was a threat in anyway I will feel him innocent I hope you feel the sameway if the opposite holds true. Again we can not fight a Moral war with out any morals.

Alta4ever · January 8, 2009

You are totally right it is the governments fault so let's get out. One mistake is too many.

really one mistake is too many look friends we have perfection among us here. The lefty punked kid thinks he is perfect. The world is an ugly place, and sometimes it is better to pay with drops of blood today rather than buckets tomorrow. History is full of proof of this concept. It was never a mistake to fulfill our Nato obligations, especially since this war was brought on by the taliban, they struck first.

BTW punked I don't see you in Afganistan serving your country, I haven't seen you out having to make any hard decisions. You seem to be nothing but a malcontent who sits quite secure in a place where you take advantage of the safety and security to bitch and moan and condem those who provide it for you. If you don't like the way they do it, go to you local recruitment centre sign an enlistment form pick up a rifle and stand the line. IF NOT SAY THANK YOU TO OUR SOLDERS AND VETERANS and be on your way.

guyser · January 8, 2009

Your forgetting also is that the body hasn't been recovered. How the hell are we supposed to know anything if we can't even do an autopsy? Those two shots could have been in the air, or shot nearby the insurgent. I think reasonable doubt has been established.

Yes I know, and thats why I carefully said two shots were taken, not two shots were put into the Taliban guy.

Distance doesn't matter concerning with an IED, if a soldier suspects somebody has an IED or is a potential suicide bomber, than said person gets lit up like a christmas tree, whether its from 1 yard or 100. If the capt. feels at any time his life is threatened, I think he has the right to defend himself wounded insurgents or no wounded insurgents. Remember he is also an officer and would be quite a quarry for an insurgent. The capt. could have thought he seen a grenade and capped him.

That may be true, and if so, then our man has a defence. From my viewpoint, it just doesnt make sense.

A military investigation has been done. I would think that if that were true (IED possibility) and there was some way to corroborate that, then the investigation would likely stop there .

I hope, and I am somewhat backtracking here, that the entire investigation is not hanging on the words of two people who "heard" shots fired and saw a deadman at our mans feet, since the guy was dying anyhow.

No investigator , civil or army, wants to put forth a recommendation for trial based on flimsy evidence. It would (and I presume-uh oh) have to have been reviewed by superiors and forwarded.

That to me corroborates at least the trial.

bush_cheney2004 · January 8, 2009

If at the trial it comes out this person was a threat in anyway I will feel him innocent I hope you feel the sameway if the opposite holds true. Again we can not fight a Moral war with out any morals.

"Moral war" is an oxymoron.

blueblood · January 8, 2009

Yes I know, and thats why I carefully said two shots were taken, not two shots were put into the Taliban guy.
That may be true, and if so, then our man has a defence. From my viewpoint, it just doesnt make sense.

A military investigation has been done. I would think that if that were true (IED possibility) and there was some way to corroborate that, then the investigation would likely stop there .

I hope, and I am somewhat backtracking here, that the entire investigation is not hanging on the words of two people who "heard" shots fired and saw a deadman at our mans feet, since the guy was dying anyhow.

No investigator , civil or army, wants to put forth a recommendation for trial based on flimsy evidence. It would (and I presume-uh oh) have to have been reviewed by superiors and forwarded.

That to me corroborates at least the trial.

I didn't say it had to make sense. I didn't say the trial wasn't going to happen. I think it will, and based on such flimsy evidence and the fact that the IED issue (yes it is strange, but plausible) will probably see our capt. be acquitted.

guyser · January 8, 2009

BTW punked I don't see you in Afganistan serving your country, I haven't seen you out having to make any hard decisions.

Says the guy sitting in Alberta.

You seem to be nothing but a malcontent who sits quite secure in a place where you take advantage of the safety and security to bitch and moan and condem those who provide it for you. If you don't like the way they do it, go to you local recruitment centre sign an enlistment form pick up a rifle and stand the line. IF NOT SAY THANK YOU TO OUR SOLDERS AND VETERANS and be on your way.

Hey there Nathan Jessep , You forgot Hoo Rah.

Crock of shit!

bush_cheney2004 · January 8, 2009

I didn't say it had to make sense. I didn't say the trial wasn't going to happen. I think it will, and based on such flimsy evidence and the fact that the IED issue (yes it is strange, but plausible) will probably see our capt. be acquitted.

A very real possibility.....and part of a reasonable defense given past experience. This ain't TV folks....it's difficult to get a murder conviction in a war zone.

punked · January 8, 2009

really one mistake is too many look friends we have perfection among us here. The lefty punked kid thinks he is perfect. The world is an ugly place, and sometimes it is better to pay with drops of blood today rather than buckets tomorrow. History is full of proof of this concept. It was never a mistake to fulfill our Nato obligations, especially since this war was brought on by the taliban, they struck first.
BTW punked I don't see you in Afganistan serving your country, I haven't seen you out having to make any hard decisions. You seem to be nothing but a malcontent who sits quite secure in a place where you take advantage of the safety and security to bitch and moan and condem those who provide it for you. If you don't like the way they do it, go to you local recruitment centre sign an enlistment form pick up a rifle and stand the line. IF NOT SAY THANK YOU TO OUR SOLDERS AND VETERANS and be on your way.

I didn't realize in Canada only those who fight can have an opinion. Here I thought that is what they are fighting against.