This Is Total B.S

capricorn · January 8, 2009

We are charging one of our soldiers for putting a bullet in a Taliban peice of Garbage!! what utter nonsense...these scum our killing our soldiers and now we are going to charge one of our soldiers for killing one of them.....that is Total B.S. only in Canada, the man should get a medal for his service!
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/01/06/...u-petawawa.html

wulf, the rule of law applies regardless of what we think about the person who was shot.

The statement claims an unnamed witness who has been interviewed by military investigators will be produced to testify he saw Semrau shoot the man.

(from your link)

I think it is important for Canada's international image that the Captain be put through the legal process. A shooting took place and there is a witness. The Captain will have his day in court and a decision will be made about his guilt or innocence. With the scant information we have, no one can predict the outcome although I'm sure most of us want him to be cleared of the charges and allowed to go on with his life.

This is news in Afghanistan and I'm sure some Afghans, some friendly and some not, will be watching developments as they unfold here. One of our objectives in this mission is to bring the rule of law to Afghanistan. We cannot do this if we thumb our noses at basic justice. We would be undermining the work our soldiers are doing on the ground at great sacrifice.

Who's Doing What? · January 8, 2009

Bottom line is that as the "good guys" in this or any conflict we have to hold ourselves to a higher level of conduct than what we can expect in return from the other side.

Shooting a wounded, unarmed man for any reason other than mercy is not behaviour that is becoming a soldier of our armed forces. We should know better and behave better because we simply have to be better than what these people lived through before. When the general populace sees us as being just as bad as the Taliban and foreigners to boot, I have no doubt the level of suicide bombings and IED's will skyrocket. More of our brave young people will be coming home in coffins, in stead of coming home alive.

We have to maintain a high level of ethics even if the other side doesn't. In the end it is what really seperates us from them.

eyeball · January 8, 2009

Have your investigation and summary proceedings if it makes you feel better (and superior).....soldiers in the field don't always have that luxury.

That's why Canadian voters should excersize this luxury - long before our soldiers are dispatched to foreign military quagmires of morally suspect orgins by morally suspect politicians.

bush_cheney2004 · January 8, 2009

That's why Canadian voters should excersize this luxury - long before our soldiers are dispatched to foreign military quagmires of morally suspect orgins by morally suspect politicians.

I agree....Canadians and Americans need more exercize. The troops are in better shape.

AngusThermopyle · January 8, 2009

QUOTE(bush_cheney2004 @ Jan 7 2009, 03:06 PM)
Have your investigation and summary proceedings if it makes you feel better (and superior).....soldiers in the field don't always have that luxury.

That's why Canadian voters should excersize this luxury - long before our soldiers are dispatched to foreign military quagmires of morally suspect orgins by morally suspect politicians.

This makes no sense at all. Not what BC posted but the response to that post.

So Eyeball, are you saying that Canadian personel should be tried for crimes that have not been and probably will not be committed before they are even dispatched to any area of the world?

Further to that are you saying that Canadian voters should be the ones to determine guilt or innocence in military proceedings?

Looking at your post that would appear to be exactly what you espouse, as such I have to say it is another of the most stupid things I've read lately.

jdobbin · January 8, 2009

I have no idea about the guilt or innocence of this soldier. I assume that he operated under certain rules of engagement and through a chain of command. It is what makes Canada's military a disciplined force and capable of operating in such difficult circumstances.

I take it that superior officers did an after action report with the Canadian soldier and with the Afghan forces and felt that he acted against the rules in place.

Well ordered military forces have always had rules regarding the treatment of the enemy even when the enemy didn't play by the same rules.

It will be up to the court to prove the case. The charges are serious but the soldier will have the opportunity to defend himself. We'll see if there is enough evidence presented to warrant a conviction.

My personal view though and I believe it is one most Canadian soldiers have is that you don't shoot unarmed combatants.

AngusThermopyle · January 8, 2009

My personal view though and I believe it is one most Canadian soldiers have is that you don't shoot unarmed combatants.

Correct.

M.Dancer · January 8, 2009

I think the dichotomy of the two positions can be summed up as this.

Wulf believes the captain is guilty but shouldn't be charged regardless.

I know at this point he is innocent and I hope he is acquitted.

BigAl · January 8, 2009

unbelieveable never have i seen so much support for the enemy as i have on here.

Holy shit dude. You find it surprising that you'd find humanitarian sentiment on a Canadian web forum? "These people are animals, can't be regarded as people, etc."? Are you fucking serious? I remember reading about points of view similar to yours in the history books...what were those people called, let me see -- oh yeah -- NAZIS. Or any other group of genocidal fuckheads the world has ever seen. Look, I respect our soldiers and I want them to come home as much as anybody else, but our country is in Afghanistan serving a peace-keeping role, and we have a very high standard in Canada as far as treatment of prisoners go. Should this soldier go to jail for 25 years? I don't think so. But your argument is actually weakening his case. We need to look at the case OUTSIDE psychotic racist sentiments like yours. Man. As far as I'm concerned, with opinions like those, you don't deserve to call yourself Canadian. Go join a KKK sect in Alabama or something.

bush_cheney2004 · January 8, 2009

....My personal view though and I believe it is one most Canadian soldiers have is that you don't shoot unarmed combatants.

Probably true in this context, but not true during general engagements, fire and maneuver tactics, sniper harrassing fire, etc. Certainly not true for artillery, mortar fire, and the like.

Canadian soldiers cannot be expected to invite risk for themselves or their units/mission by giving the enemy such benefit absent secured captives or scene.

madmax · January 8, 2009

Probably true in this context, but not true during general engagements, fire and maneuver tactics, sniper harrassing fire, etc. Certainly not true for artillery, mortar fire, and the like.
Canadian soldiers cannot be expected to invite risk for themselves or their units/mission by giving the enemy such benefit absent secured captives or scene.

Arty boy agrees with the above...

Barts · January 8, 2009

Killing scum Taliban should never be a crime, these filthy animals can't even really be regarded as people as far as i am concerned .......just targets! I am sure they wouldn't treat our guys to pleasant if they captured a Canadian! During WW2 Canadians routinely shot captured SS units because of the terrible things they did to POW'S why should we treat Terrorist's any different?

Because we're better than them? At least that's what we delude ourselves into thinking.

bush_cheney2004 · January 8, 2009

Because we're better than them? At least that's what we delude ourselves into thinking.

But "we" are better than them...when it comes to our killing machine(s)

kimmy · January 8, 2009

An analyst I heard on the radio a couple of days ago said that the review process has shown itself to be extremely respectful of the fact that the soldiers are in combat and are defending their lives. He pointed out that reviews in the shootings of civilians and non-combatants have repeatedly determined that the soldiers acted properly, based on the view that the soldier's need to defend himself from danger or presumed danger is paramount.

What he was explaining is that the track record shows that the people who review this sort of thing have shown themselves to be very understanding of the situation that soldiers face in combat situations, and his conclusion was that for charges to be laid in this particular instance, the circumstances must have been extraordinary.

He found it baffling, however, that this has all happened now, when the operation in which the incident occured was months ago.

-k

wulf42 · January 8, 2009

"These people are animals, can't be regarded as people, etc."? Are you fucking serious? I remember reading about points of view similar to yours in the history books...
. Look, I respect our soldiers and I want them to come home as much as anybody else, but our country is in Afghanistan serving a peace-keeping role,

Man. As far as I'm concerned, with opinions like those, you don't deserve to call yourself Canadian.

Yes i am serious i consider TERRORISTS animals if you don't you are a bigger moron than you appear to be!

and our soldiers are not peace keeping they are in a combat role at the moment !

stevoh · January 8, 2009

Has any information been released yet that might indicate this was a mercy killing?

jdobbin · January 8, 2009

Has any information been released yet that might indicate this was a mercy killing?

I only heard that mentioned as a possible defence in the last days.

BigAl · January 8, 2009

Yes i am serious i consider TERRORISTS animals if you don't you are a bigger moron than you appear to be!
and our soldiers are not peace keeping they are in a combat role at the moment !

I'm a moron for figuring that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter? Don't forget how much money got funnelled into Al Qaeda back when they were still fighting the Russians, bigot. Apparently they were the "good guys" back then. I'd love to hear your thoughts on what constitutes a human versus an animal -- or actually, what the difference even is between those two distinctions. Get an education.

M.Dancer · January 8, 2009

Don't forget how much money got funnelled into Al Qaeda back when they were still fighting the Russians, bigot.

It's hard to forget the nunber zero.

AngusThermopyle · January 8, 2009

our country is in Afghanistan serving a peace-keeping role,

Wrong wrong double and triple wrong.

We are not and never have been in Afghanistan in a "peace keeping" role. Our role is purely combat, with some goodwill work thrown in as circumstances allow.

I also place quotes around "peace keeping" in order to emphasize the fact that "peace keeping" is a fallacious feel good concept that does not actually exist. As BC would say, peace killing is a far more accurate and truthfull descriptor.

Thanks for pointing out BigAl's next totally wrong impression for me Dancer, it saves me the trouble of doing so myself.

Get an education.

Oh great!

We have another unintentional master of irony in our midst. Should be good for a few laughs anyway.

Edited January 8, 2009 by AngusThermopyle

wulf42 · January 8, 2009

I'm a moron for figuring that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter? Don't forget how much money got funnelled into Al Qaeda back when they were still fighting the Russians, bigot. Apparently they were the "good guys" back then. I'd love to hear your thoughts on what constitutes a human versus an animal -- or actually, what the difference even is between those two distinctions. Get an education.

Key word here is "they" as in Americans or more like the CIA helped Al-Qaeda or as they were called then Mujihadin against the Russians that had nothing to do with us!

And these ANIMALS are not freedom fighters you idiot they are killing their own people for God's sake!

the French Resistance in WW2 were freedom fighters they attacked the Germans soldiers ONLY! these vermin will kill anybody who does not follow Sharia Law

including their own women and children i think you are the one who is in need of educating!

Edited January 8, 2009 by wulf42

madmax · January 8, 2009

It's hard to forget the nunber zero.

The amount of money funnelled to Al Qaeda is above zero. The amount of money funnelled to the Taliban for guerrilla actions is Zero, because they were a latter creation of the pakistanis and to a much lessor extent the Saudis, other then taking Islamics practicing Pashtunwali and giving this code a stronger religious element with the adoption of wahhabism.

Al Qaeda..the base, was one of several such places among the 7 main mujahideen groups in Afghanistan. They never amounted to more then a few thousand at any given time. They existed as a direct result of Saudi, Pakistani and US terrorism/guerrilla activities to aid the insurgency against the USSR backed communist regime.

madmax · January 8, 2009

Key word here is "they" as in Americans or more like the CIA helped Al-Qaeda or as they were called then Mujihadin

Al Qaeda is the base, Mujihadins do the fighting.

KeyStone · January 9, 2009

We are charging one of our soldiers for putting a bullet in a Taliban peice of Garbage!! what utter nonsense...these scum our killing our soldiers and now we are going to charge one of our soldiers for killing one of them.....that is Total B.S. only in Canada, the man should get a medal for his service!
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/01/06/...u-petawawa.html

I suppose I have a higher opinion of the Canadian military than you do.

You see, I think of Canada's military as the gold star - the level of professionalism, talent, compassion and dedication that everyone looks up to.

So, for us to be proud of his actions, or even to accept them, is not really the direction that I think Canada should go in.

Canada sets its own standards. We don't go down to the lowest common denominator because our enemies behave poorly.

Even on a tactical level, you have to think of the consequences.

If the Taliban know what awaits them, do you think they'll surrender in the future?

No, they'll keep fighting until they die, probably taking a few of our Canadian boys down in the process.

To win hearts and minds, we need to be seen as the good guys. This means we act at a higher level.

BigAl · January 9, 2009

I suppose I have a higher opinion of the Canadian military than you do.
You see, I think of Canada's military as the gold star - the level of professionalism, talent, compassion and dedication that everyone looks up to.

So, for us to be proud of his actions, or even to accept them, is not really the direction that I think Canada should go in.

Canada sets its own standards. We don't go down to the lowest common denominator because our enemies behave poorly.

Even on a tactical level, you have to think of the consequences.

If the Taliban know what awaits them, do you think they'll surrender in the future?

No, they'll keep fighting until they die, probably taking a few of our Canadian boys down in the process.

To win hearts and minds, we need to be seen as the good guys. This means we act at a higher level.

Keystone has nailed it right on the head, as far as I'm concerned. We hold ourselves to a higher standard in this country. That's the point I've been making all along -- whoever started this thread is a poor example of what it means to be Canadian. A medal for his service? I suppose you'd be in favour of opening another Guantanamo Bay-esque gulag on our soil too, you know, to house all the "animals". Jeepers.