AngusThermopyle Posted November 19, 2010 Report Share Posted November 19, 2010 That sure doesn't jibe with what Ottawa is saying these days So now you're saying that you believe everything that comes out of our politicians mouths? As to this guys loved ones feelings, who really gives a shit? Oh yes, I too have extensive first aid experience, except mine is based upon actual field conditions in various conflicts and theaters. If this guys legs were blown off and he had been eviscerated I very much doubt anything could have saved him given the conditions as described. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted November 19, 2010 Report Share Posted November 19, 2010 You are not going to convict a good cop who does a bad job on occassion and takes the law into his own hands. As you would not convict a soldier who in his mind was operating in good faith..still - execution of an injured prisoner is a huge NO NO ..it might be expedient and convenient but it is a breach of the rules...so in reality the soldier is guilty but will not be convicted because it might lower the moral of the remaining troops..plus...you can not convict a crimminal when the judge has a crimminal mind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted November 19, 2010 Report Share Posted November 19, 2010 Reality check! The reason he was fatally injured is because up to then they were trying their hardest to kill him, not save him and he them. When a person is trying to kill you, the feelings of their loved ones must of course be taken into consideration first. They were trying their hardest to neutralize his ability to fight but once that was achieved they should have tried their hardest to save him especially given that winning Afghan hearts and minds is such an important objective. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted November 19, 2010 Report Share Posted November 19, 2010 So now you're saying that you believe everything that comes out of our politicians mouths? Not at all. Are you denying that you believed the government when it said we had to enter into this conflict or just it's reasons and strategy for winning hearts and minds? As to this guys loved ones feelings, who really gives a shit? Our government apparently - otherwise how do you explain our campaign for Afghan's hearts and minds? Oh yes, I too have extensive first aid experience, except mine is based upon actual field conditions in various conflicts and theaters. If this guys legs were blown off and he had been eviscerated I very much doubt anything could have saved him given the conditions as described. I doubt it too but that's completely besides the point. Like I said in my field we trained to try and keep on trying until relieved by an attendant with higher level of training and authority to make the call to stop treatment. As I said we're told to keep trying out of consideration for the patient's loved ones, which in your case should tie directly into the stated need to win hearts and minds. You seem to be saying however that first aid attendants in your field are trained not to give a shit. I couldn't help but notice on the news the other day, footage that showed Afghan soldiers being trained to roll patients into the 3/4 prone drainage position. I'm assuming that was the part of their course that dealt with only treating one of their own. I guess the only difference between your training and mine is that I was never taught how to euthanize a patient. What do you do, stand 3 or 4 meters away to avoid getting any blood splatter on you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted November 19, 2010 Report Share Posted November 19, 2010 They were trying their hardest to neutralize his ability to fight but once that was achieved they should have tried their hardest to save him especially given that winning Afghan hearts and minds is such an important objective. He was dead, the only question was exactly when. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted November 19, 2010 Report Share Posted November 19, 2010 He was dead, the only question was exactly when. That's true of us all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted November 19, 2010 Report Share Posted November 19, 2010 That's true of us all. With most of us it is a question of more than just minutes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted November 19, 2010 Report Share Posted November 19, 2010 It really is a wonder Semrau was convicted. Poor bastard must have had a hug-a-thug lefty like me for a judge. There's no other explanation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted November 22, 2010 Report Share Posted November 22, 2010 My assumption is based on my years of experience and training as a first aid attendant. The question of when not to render first aid or when to abandon the attempt is a very common one. The answer is that you do not stop the attempt at first aid, even if you think it's hopeless, out of consideration for your patient's loved one's. They will have a lot easier time letting go of their pain and grief, achieving closure in other words, if they know that everyone tried their hardest to save them. Your right here within Canada we give first aid treatment until help arrives, or relieved by trained professionals, ie fire dept, or EMS. But those rules do not transfer to the battle field, or combat...In combat the mission is always first priorty... The Capt did contact higher HQ's, explained the situation, asked for med evac, he was denied, he did infact ask if he could put this guy out of his misery, and was reminded of the rules of war. He thought he was doing the right thing, and acting within his moral values. remember this is not down town Toronto, this was a war zone... Winning heart and minds has it's limits, as i have said dozens of times before the Mission comes first and foremost, everything else is secondary. and that may even include leaving one of your own to the same fate...Winning hearts and minds is normally centered around the civilian population, and this guy was definately not a civilian...Normally he would recieve full medical treatment but HQ had decided NO, provide local treatment and carry on with the mission. And that is what the Capt should have done treated him and moved on, But he did not, forcing DND to investagating and putting him on trial, which was done for just that very thing to ensure the civilian population that we do infact hold our soldiers to a higher standard. I mean DND could have easiliy swept this all under the table, buried it in some filing cabinet...but instead it chose to act... That sure doesn't jibe with what Ottawa is saying these days. These days Ottawa is talking about the NEW mission after 2011, don't get them mixed up becasue one has nothing to do with the other, the new mission is teaching basic training, the Omelet training which is being done now, is a contiuation training after basic, taking the Afghan soldiers into the field and activly engaging the enemy, our soliders are there to act as advisors....like the Capt we are talking about....it is a combat mission. the new mission is not a combat mission,but teaching in Kabul inside a secure compound...teaching basic training.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodyminded Posted November 22, 2010 Report Share Posted November 22, 2010 So now you're saying that you believe everything that comes out of our politicians mouths? ???? No...he was implying quite the opposite. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.