# Canadian AFG War "Resister"



## The Bread Guy (9 Sep 2006)

My question - how can you be a "war resister" when nobody is dragging you there against your will?

Shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the Copyright Act - http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/info/act-e.html#rid-33409

*Soldier describes why he abandoned military over Afghan mission *  
Alexander Panetta, Canadian Press, 9 Sept 06
http://www.recorder.ca/cp/National/060909/n090947A.html

Francisco Juarez bristles at being labelled Canada's first Afghanistan war resister. 

But the 35-year-old former army reserve member is proud to have turned his back on the military because he doesn't believe in the Afghan mission. 

During a training session earlier this year at Gagetown, N.B., he refused to walk onto an obstacle course and told his commanding officer: "I no longer wish to participate." 

He was dragged before several army captains, told he would feel like a failure for the rest of his life, and threatened with a court martial and possible jail time. 

The military relented somewhat. They fined the B.C. native $500 and discharged him without honour. 

But Juarez doesn't regret his disobedience for a second. 

He says he was being groomed to become a second lieutenant and would have been in Kandahar by early next year. 

"Morally I could have sat back and said, 'You're paid to do a job. Just do it and shut up.' But I decided I couldn't," he said in an interview Saturday. 

"I began to ask myself: Could I give orders to subordinates that would result in them dying for a mission I did not believe in?" 

Juarez joined the navy in 2002, lured by the promise of a steady salary. He got a transfer to the reserves last year because it allowed him more time to complete his justice-studies degree at Royal Roads University. 

His family was upset. They were skeptical about the military, and conversations with his parents grew increasingly tense as the possibility of battle drew closer. 

But it wasn't just the awkward pauses and heated exchanges that became more frequent. So did the moments of doubt. 

By the end of his first week of training this spring at Gagetown, where he carried a rifle all day long and learned about handling grenades, Juarez knew he wanted out. 

He spoke to his wife Diane every night on the phone. He chatted for hours at a time with the army chaplain. He did not, however, go around discussing his doubts too often with his army buddies. 

They probably wouldn't relate to him. 

"They all want to go to Afghanistan. Afghanistan is the big game," he said. 

"If you're a concert pianist, you want to go to Carnegie Hall. They were all pretty gung-ho." 

Juarez wanted to go home, finish college, and either go get a law degree or work in mediation. 

So one day he marched from his barracks to a brown brick office inside the infantry school and dropped off a note he'd scribbled the day before: "For personal and familial reasons, I wish to be returned to unit and released." 

In reality he believed that the mission in Afghanistan was ill-conceived, that political dialogue and not military might is the quickest path to stability in that country. 

"But you can't say to the military, 'I don't believe in the mission in Afghanistan and I don't believe in war-making,' " he said. 

"You can't do that. The military doesn't speak that language." 

He was brought before the head of the infantry school the next day and told that he would regret the move for the rest of his life, that he would forever be a failure. 

Juarez kept on with the course for a few more days. Back in Victoria, B.C., his wife spoke to his reserve unit and they asked to see another memo. 

That's when he was marched before a series of captains for a barrage of one-on-one interviews in Gagetown. 

"Buck up," is how Juarez describes their message. 

"The only way you're getting out of this course is by signing the end-of-course report." 

They were wrong. He ended it that same week around 5 a.m. before setting foot on the obstacle course, when he refused to participate. 

He was read his rights an hour later, charged the next day, and discharged from the military over the summer. 

The NDP invited Juarez to its policy convention this weekend, its members proud to meet a veritable "war-resister" on the same day their party voted to pull Canadian troops out of Afghanistan. 

But Juarez quickly sets the record straight. 

He says he's no war resister - he was never actually deployed to Afghanistan. He also says he has no affiliation to the NDP. 

What he is, is someone who opposes the Afghan mission and is eager to explain why he avoided it. 

He also describes in vivid detail the issues that soldiers grapple with before heading on a hazardous mission, and the thought that crossed his own mind that morning beside the obstacle course: 

"I'm in control of my legs. Nobody can make me do this."


----------



## paracowboy (9 Sep 2006)

milnewstbay said:
			
		

> the thought that crossed his own mind that morning beside the obstacle course: "I'm a coward. Nobody can make me do this."


 what a loser. The only good thing is that he realized he's a loser and a coward BEFORE he got to a posting. A reservist who was afraid he'd be *sent* to Afghanistan. A loser, a coward, and an idiot who failed to pay attention in his classes.


----------



## The_Falcon (9 Sep 2006)

I am at a loss for words..really...WTF?!?!  Good riddance to a useless idiot.


----------



## GAP (9 Sep 2006)

Long before he got to the point where he was, he could have quit. When confronted with the reality that he might actually have to stand by his word, he found it did not fit his lifestyle. The military is better off without him and his ilk.  :


----------



## The Bread Guy (9 Sep 2006)

Maybe I'm touchy about media this week, but I really hope the story line doesn't become "the RESERVIST who quit"....


----------



## armyvern (9 Sep 2006)

Another kid who wanted his education bought and paid for by Joe-taxpayer without strings attached.

He apparently failed to notice during his swearing in that ultimate sacrifice committment that came with it. Obviously upon the Army thrusting the weapon into his limp arms while they were "grooming him to become a 2LT" the thought of Afghanistan, a place that he would actually have to volunteer to go to as a Reserve, must have hit him.

Seeing as how every OCdt who successfully completes their training will automaticlly become a 2Lt, I can't say I'm sad to see this attention seeker gone. Time for him to get over himself. 

 :


----------



## old medic (9 Sep 2006)

milnewstbay said:
			
		

> But the 35-year-old former army reserve member
> 
> During a training session earlier this year at Gagetown, N.B., he refused to walk onto an obstacle course and told his commanding officer: "I no longer wish to participate."
> 
> He says he was being groomed to become a second lieutenant and would have been in Kandahar by early next year.



That is some claim.   There is no way he " would have been in Kandahar " as a reservist, unless he volunteered himself to go there.



> By the end of his first week of training this spring at Gagetown, where he carried a rifle all day long and learned about handling grenades, Juarez knew he wanted out.



That sums it up..    A one week training wash-out because they had to get up early and learn about  weapons.
I wonder what he thought it was about?
Reminds me of the scene from Private Benjamin...   




> Judy Benjamin: I think they sent me to the wrong place.
> Capt. Lewis: Uh-huh.
> Judy Benjamin: See, I did join the army, but I joined a *different* army. I joined the one with the condos and the private rooms.


----------



## Signalman150 (9 Sep 2006)

Is it just me, or is this story ripe with mistakes?  To be "groomed for 2Lt"?  Excuse me, you APPLY to be an offr fm the ranks don't you?  I remember being asked if I wanted to go offr, (the answer was "no" btw), but I was never "groomed".

And he says he was slated for Afghanistan...which suggests he would have volunteered.  Being a reserve, he would not be "slated".  In other words he volunteered, and then got cold feet.

This is nothing more than a man that volunteered from start to finish (i.e. to join, to go on course, to go to Afghanistan) to do something, and then lost the courage of his convictions, (or discovered he never had them in the first place).  He's hardly a war resister: he's not running away from anything that he was being forced to do against his will. He simply turned coward, or discovered that his morality would not allow him to wage war.  But the newspaper reporter-- probably with a political agenda against the wa-- chose to cast it in the light of "he was being forced to do something against his moral code".  I'm angrier at her than I am at him, and I ain't  pleased w/ him.

This is a slap on the face to every one of the res pers who are lined up willing to do their bit.


----------



## McG (10 Sep 2006)

So, if I'm tracking, this guy left the regular force Navy for civi life & got into the reserves as an infantry officer.  While attending his summer training, he decided he wanted out & that he would just not show-up for training.  At no point in time was he ever under any obligation to go to Afghanistan, but by insinuating that we force our reservists to go he has made himself into a hero in the minds of anyone he's fooled.


----------



## darmil (10 Sep 2006)

He's better off with the NDP, damn coward and a leech.


----------



## Gunner (10 Sep 2006)

The article is a prime example of media sensationalism and ignorance as well as a lack of personal integrity on the part of the individual.


----------



## TCBF (10 Sep 2006)

So all some scrotum has to do is walk up to a CF Recruiting Center, look at the door, turn around, and call the NDP - telling them he didn't join the CF because he didn't want to go to the gravel pit.  That way, he becomes a 'War Resister' without actually being inconvenienced by a few weeks of BOTC.

Right?


----------



## career_radio-checker (10 Sep 2006)

milnewstbay said:
			
		

> He also describes in vivid detail the issues that soldiers grapple with before heading on a hazardous mission...



OPSEC violation... CHARGE!

Any MPs in the house?


----------



## Infanteer (10 Sep 2006)

:rofl:

This is the best they could come up with?!?


----------



## orange.paint (10 Sep 2006)

Hence why I have always said we should have a "snowball" one night and stand up all regs and reserves.Tell them we are leaving tomorrow and see who comes up with excuses.Put all the willing troops on trains/ bus,meet in a central location and have a big ass barbeque.Take all the mir commandos and people here for a paycheck who weasled out and release.

(BTW I know this is impossiable,logistically and human rights bullpoop....but common!)


----------



## FormerHorseGuard (10 Sep 2006)

i think anyone who leaves the army  for personal reasons and politics should never be quoted because no matter the reason it will get twisted or just have a bad taste left in thier mouths and have to whine to the world how they were done wrong by the forces and mis understood by their peers and the army as a group.
go cry to your pillow and just go away


----------



## Kat Stevens (10 Sep 2006)

FormerHorseGuard said:
			
		

> i think anyone who leaves the army  for personal reasons and politics should never be quoted because no matter the reason it will get twisted or just have a bad taste left in thier mouths and have to whine to the world how they were done wrong by the forces and mis understood by their peers and the army as a group.
> go cry to your pillow and just go away



*coff*a-journalist-known-to-us*coff*


----------



## p_imbeault (10 Sep 2006)

milnewstbay said:
			
		

> Juarez joined the navy in 2002, lured by the promise of a steady salary. He got a transfer to the reserves last year because it allowed him more time to complete his justice-studies degree at Royal Roads University.


Wasn't Canada already in A-Stan in 2002? So he must have known there were possibilities he would be sent there to fight in the "Ill Concieved" he had opposed to right?


----------



## big bad john (10 Sep 2006)

This piece of crap is an attention seeking scumbag.  I have spent most of the last couple of days dealing with a friend and his friends on their trip home to Canada at the Civic Hospital in Ottawa.  They are all hero's.  Then I come on site to catch up and I see this.  It just makes me very angry.  Very, very angry.

I just shouldn't post when I am angry.


----------



## TCBF (10 Sep 2006)

"i think anyone who leaves the army  for personal reasons and politics should never be quoted because no matter the reason it will get twisted or just have a bad taste left in thier mouths and have to whine to the world how they were done wrong by the forces and mis understood by their peers and the army as a group. go cry to your pillow and just go away"

- I wish to ever so politely disagree.  I love it when these guys go public.  It lets the people of Canada in on the fact that we have to deal with some genuine idiots day in and day out.


----------



## Good2Golf (10 Sep 2006)

I am glad I would not have to serve with someone like that........


----------



## rz350 (10 Sep 2006)

A reservist quit? WOAH, big deal man, you did what your allowed you to do on 30's day notice anyways. Why diddnt he just finish the course and release? Then he wouldnt get a fine, get a good discharge, and get a bit of training out of it.

what a Dumb Shite


----------



## 17thRecceSgt (10 Sep 2006)

milnewstbay said:
			
		

> *The NDP invited Juarez to its policy convention this weekend, its members proud to meet a veritable "war-resister" on the same day their party voted to pull Canadian troops out of Afghanistan. *



None of this made sense until I read that line.  I expect to see a pic in the paper with this POS and Jerk Layton.



> He says he's no war resister - *he was never actually deployed to Afghanistan*.
> 
> *He also describes in vivid detail the issues that soldiers grapple with before heading on a hazardous mission*





What?  What?  You didn't go anywhere BUT you can descibe the...never mind.

Well, there is one less waste of rations/air/stuff walking around in CADPAT.  Seems like the system is still working to weed out those who don't pack the kit to serve.


----------



## TCBF (10 Sep 2006)

And now, for the nth time, I am going to suggest AGAIN that we need mandatory psych testing for ALL applicants to the CF.  Ten more Clayton Matchees and we won't have an Army left.


----------



## Bill Smy (10 Sep 2006)

A lot of good comments here. I hope you all wrote the Canadian Press to point out the errors and the fact that the story is unbalanced.

I have.

Unless there is a wave of objections to articles like this, the media will continue to print them.

My objections relate to the accuracy of "grooming", sent to Afghanistan without volunteering, being "dragged" before superior officers, etc.

Write the CP! Write the Recorder! Write the Reporter!

 :threat:


----------



## vonGarvin (10 Sep 2006)

rcac_011 said:
			
		

> Hence why I have always said we should have a "snowball" one night and stand up all regs and reserves.Tell them we are leaving tomorrow and see who comes up with excuses.Put all the willing troops on trains/ bus,meet in a central location and have a big *** barbeque.Take all the mir commandos and people here for a paycheck who weasled out and release.
> 
> (BTW I know this is impossiable,logistically and human rights bullpoop....but common!)


Well, in 1987 or 88 (or so), The Hastings and Prince Edward Regiment did something "similar" to this on a GMT course being run in Point Petre, south of Belleville in Prince Edward County.  We had two weeks to train these guys before the infantry portion.  Just prior to deploying, the US Navy shot down that Iranian Passenger liner over the Persian Gulf.  So, that was the last contact with the real world that these recruits had.
Anyway, before I digress, the two weeks were almost up, and it became clear that if we were going to do the Escape and Evasion portion, the lads would know that it was coming on TONIGHT.  So, over the period of two days, we fed them rumours of war.  Not the instructors, but the CQ staff, complaining why they were always late with haybox supper out of CFB Trenton, because "1 RCR was all over the place: doing this, doing that, training a battalion's worth of men and FEEDING them from the same kitchen."  and "I have never seen so many aircraft in one spot" and stuff like that.  
Then we told the lads that for "other reasons" the E and E ex was cancelled.  Then we had them all sit in for a brief by the course officer.  I forget his name, but it was very convincing.  He told them that we were forming a composite reserve company to form D Coy 1 RCR.  We would become 10 platoon, the QOR of C would form 11 platoon and the Tor Scots would form 12 platoon.  The HQ would be a composite platoon with our training company's OC being OC D Coy.  We were going to have the weekend off, and then starting Monday, we would redeploy to Point Petre for initial trianing.  Heck, this guy even gave possible deployment dates, timelines for medicals, SISIP and insurance and all that.  Also, we were being mobilised as part of a "Special Force" (as per the Q R and Os) and were now, for all intents and purposes, Regular Force, meaning that we were now locked in.  There was going to be a new camp layout, and as part of the bluff, we started laying out new tentage for Coy HQ and everything.
So, the stage was set, the troops all thought "this is it!".  
The op picture we sent was that after the airliner was shot down, the Iranians sunk a US Warship, followed by cruise missile strikes, followed by us joining Iraq in the war vs. Iran (ironic, eh?).  
Anyway, the reaction from 99.9% of the lads was "well, this *is* what I joined for.  I'm nervous, I'm scared, but this is *it*".  1 guy seemed to be rather eager, but there was this one fellow who's reaction was "Hey, I didn't join for this!  I just want weekends and summers to pay for my school!"  Well, in the end, Mr. "Weekends only" failed to complete the course, but I must admit, it had nothing to do with that attitude he displayed right then.  IIRC, he had asthma and couldn't complete the training.
Oh, we let the cat out of the bag later that evening when we sprung the E and E ex on them


----------



## The Bread Guy (10 Sep 2006)

Sorta-kinda similar situation, but one where I had some respect for the individual:

Summer recruit course, at an armoury, one of the 1980's - We were trying to reinforce weapon safety to the troops.  We built up during the day about safety precautions, in this case with a pistol.  One of the sect cdrs was gracious enough to wear a bag of hamburger and ketchup under his combats, and a movie blood capsule in his mouth.  At one point, the pistol went off with a blank, and he slammed himself against the wall, spurting blood and hamburger out of his shirt.  We collected the troops, brought them up into the lunch room, and locked the door.  Told 'em we'd called police, and that if they didn't have lunch with them, share with your buddy.  Crse Cdr comes in saying the sect cdr was being taken care of.  Pretty damned quiet for a bit.  Then, sect cdr in bloody shirt comes in, and the whole class breaks out into applause after about 6-7 seconds of stunned silence.

Shortly after lunch was over, a young woman came to me saying, "MCpl, I feel shaken from today's incident, and I don't think I should be wasting your time carrying on with my training.   This isn't for me."  I told her that she was pretty good (she was), and asked if she'd ride out the rest of the week.  She did, and did well in classes, but came in Friday saying, "This isn't what I expected.  I know this sort of work is necessary, but I don't think I'm the one to do it."  

No whining, no grumbling, just realizing it wasn't for her, and left with no drama.


----------



## Devlin (10 Sep 2006)

milnewstbay said:
			
		

> No whining, no grumbling, just realizing it wasn't for her, and left with no drama.



See now that's all that's required and you even get to leave with your dignity intact. Totally understandable


----------



## The Bread Guy (10 Sep 2006)

Devlin - good point.  I was VERY careful not to beast on her (like I might if I thought it was someone whining and lazy) because she sounded sincere and had worked very hard all the time she was in.


----------



## ArmyRick (10 Sep 2006)

This Juarez clown soundslike a complete loser and will probably become the NDP "Defence expert"  :


----------



## Trinity (10 Sep 2006)

von Garvin said:
			
		

> Well, in 1987 or 88 (or so), The Hastings and Prince Edward Regiment did something "similar" to this on a GMT course being run in Point Petre, south of Belleville in Prince Edward County.  We had two weeks to train these guys before the infantry portion.  Just prior to deploying, the US Navy shot down that Iranian Passenger liner over the Persian Gulf.  So, that was the last contact with the real world that these recruits had.
> Anyway, before I digress, the two weeks were almost up, and it became clear that if we were going to do the Escape and Evasion portion, the lads would know that it was coming on TONIGHT.  So, over the period of two days, we fed them rumours of war.  Not the instructors, but the CQ staff, complaining why they were always late with haybox supper out of CFB Trenton, because "1 RCR was all over the place: doing this, doing that, training a battalion's worth of men and FEEDING them from the same kitchen."  and "I have never seen so many aircraft in one spot" and stuff like that.  ................................................  (cut for length)



In today's army, that would be harassment!  ;D

sigh


----------



## HDE (10 Sep 2006)

Interesting to see how quickly the NDP latched on without bothering to check out the guy's claims.  It turns out he's not much of a "war resister" after all.  The NDP seem to be forever consigned to messing up the simplest of things ;D


----------



## George Wallace (10 Sep 2006)

What I find amusing and discusting at the same time, is the fact that the Reporter who wrote this piece is so naive as to believe that whole convoluted story told by a Reservist.  No wonder the CF gets a bad name in the press.  The Press have no concept of what reality is when it comes to the Military, especially the differences between Regular and Reserve Force personnel and what their commitment and responsibilities are.  Either this Reporter is completely ignorant of what they wrote about or has a very Leftist agenda.


----------



## The Bread Guy (10 Sep 2006)

In theory, reporters cross check material to ensure veracity.  In practice, I wonder how many go with what they have because they don't know where else to check?


----------



## Bobbyoreo (10 Sep 2006)

I just read this article and was super mad. How can anyone reg or mo go to the papers and tell that BS. First off being in the MO he was never going to Afghan unless he begged to go....you have to ask ans ask again and ask some more to get on tour from the reserves. 2nd off...why did he wait till the Army shipped him to Gagetown for a course to tell them that he is a coward...They should make him pay back the forces for all his training. As a reserve member I'm total disgusted with this POS.


----------



## patrick666 (10 Sep 2006)

Oh well, atleast he is gone now, better soon than later. I can only imagine how annoying it would be to listen to him bitch and moan all the way to Afghanistan and then more when he got there, possibly getting somebody killed because of his careless attitude. 

They should have made him walk out of the CF like Pvt Pile in FMJ - pants around his ankles and sucking his thumb.


----------



## McG (10 Sep 2006)

milnewstbay said:
			
		

> No whining, no grumbling, just realizing it wasn't for her, and left with no drama.


All the observations on cowardice are off-base.  Like the individual described by milnewstbay, the guy in the article was getting his first taste of the Army (sure he was Navy, but that is not the same life as Infantry).  The individual described by milnewstbay discreetly left (like many a part-time employee that finds a new job does not meet expectations) while the attention whore in the article felt the need to become a hero.  His method was to make an ass of himself and then claim to be a victim of issues which never touched him (and issues which never would have touched him unless he volunteered to go).



			
				Patrick H. said:
			
		

> I can only imagine how annoying it would be to listen to him bitch and moan all the way to Afghanistan and then more when he got there, possibly getting somebody killed because of his careless attitude.


He was never supposed to go.  He is a lying attention thief.


----------



## armyvern (10 Sep 2006)

MCG said:
			
		

> He was never supposed to go.  He is a lying attention thief.



Absolutely he is. What with reserves having to VOLUNTEER to go to Afghanistan, formally at least two times. 

So how did the NDP hear about him? Better yet...why did the NDP hear about him? His yap, lack of honour and integrity evidenced by his outright lying on his operational situation and ability (with the aid of the reporter in question) to spin his useless self into an honourable left-wing "anti-war resistor" have probably guaranteed him the funding required to complete his education at some-one else's expense. 

Be guaranteed that some left-wing crackpot has taken this poor stomped on lying door-mat of the arms movement under their wing. He most probably has succeeded in accomplishing his goal. 

Hope the door slammed his a$$ on the way out.


----------



## McG (10 Sep 2006)

Gents,
Lots of complaints coming in on this topic already.  We are posting with our angry voices & need a short breather.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (19 Oct 2006)

From CanWest today (Fair Dealings, etc.):



> *Afghan war resister speaks out: Disillusioned Canadian says why 'wrong mission' forced him to quit army reserves*
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> ...



Only one line in this otherwise biased and poorly researched piece indicates the true status of this "war resister":  he was a reservist in no danger whatsoever of being deployed overseas, let alone to Afghanistan.  Indeed, he hadn't finished the most basic of infantry qualifications before "refusing".  :


----------



## Colin Parkinson (19 Oct 2006)

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

A twit in search of a destiny.


----------



## Wookilar (19 Oct 2006)

Umm, now, I am no public affairs/journalistic genius or anything like that but.....

Doesn't this "gentleman's" story have more holes in it than swiss cheese? 

We all heard about this when it went down. I do not understand how anyone can give this guy the time of day? He has absolutely no right to call himself a "war-resister." He was never in any danger of being sent overseas, wouldn't even have been qualified enough to be eligible to go.

If he doesn't agree with the governments position, that's fine and that is his right, a right that all of us will/have/DO fight for him to retain. 

However, he did not earn the privilege of wearing the uniform I wear. He did not earn the honour of associating himself, in any way, shape of form with us, and especially with people such as HoM, RHFC_piper, Vaughn Ingram, Chris Reid, and Capt Greene (to name only a few).

What was the course he quit, CAP? (Do new Reserve officers do different training, or is it the same?). 

There is a word I am looking for, wrt this ...person. He has no,......currency balls LEGITIMACY! He speaks for himself, not for anyone else. He has his views and that's fine. He has no right to associate himself with us and for *ANY* political party to *USE* such a person for their partisan tricks is extremely low. It would be nice if some of the reporter types that frequent these boards would actually do a bit of "investigative reporting" on clowns like this and expose them for the frauds that they are.

Wook

edit: Found this while I was surfing related info to this: 

From COPE - http://events.cope.bc.ca/view_entry.php?id=201&date=20061019 

Now, correct me if I am wrong, but this guy got Dishonourably Discharged. They have "Officer Cadet" as his rank. Wouldn't that be another chargeable offence? With a direct quote under his name and stated rank, it seems like an intentional thing to me.


----------



## geo (19 Oct 2006)

Hmmm.... lemme see here, 
Reg Navy from 02 thru to 06.
Transfers to the Res in 06 and packs it in, in 06 cause he doesn't want to go to war?

A man with 4 yrs of service pulls this stunt & grandstands his voluntry withdrawal from a course he did not have to take in the 1st place?... what am I missing here?

Well.... resist no more, resistance is futile, have a nice life and go away


----------



## lugarou (19 Oct 2006)

Well, I was on that CAP course with him this Summer so I have a touch more to go on as far as background. 

Although I wasn't in his Section, and really didn't have much more than a few conversations with him, it was evident to all of us that the school was giving him the nobbly shaft all the way up until his flight out. I believe the consensus was that here was one zero cadet that wasn't going to be all that lovely to the CF when he got home. That seems to have bore out.


----------



## GAP (19 Oct 2006)

lugarou said:
			
		

> Well, I was on that CAP course with him this Summer so I have a touch more to go on as far as background.
> 
> Although I wasn't in his Section, and really didn't have much more than a few conversations with him, it was evident to all of us that the school was giving him the nobbly shaft all the way up until his flight out. I believe the consensus was that here was one zero cadet that wasn't going to be all that lovely to the CF when he got home. That seems to have bore out.



Was this before or after he said he quit?


----------



## Colin Parkinson (19 Oct 2006)

Sounds like before.


----------



## Trinity (19 Oct 2006)

Wookilar said:
			
		

> From COPE - http://events.cope.bc.ca/view_entry.php?id=201&date=20061019
> 
> Now, correct me if I am wrong, but this guy got Dishonourably Discharged. They have "Officer Cadet" as his rank. Wouldn't that be another chargeable offence? With a direct quote under his name and stated rank, it seems like an intentional thing to me.



Yes.. if he specifically asked to use it...

He can claim that the website did it.. 
I bet they can even introduce him as that.. as long
as he isn't saying it himself  :-[

i guess, technically he could use (ret'd) after his name though..??


----------



## Cloud Cover (19 Oct 2006)

well ... we could always start attending his speaking tours and call him out.


----------



## Bobbyoreo (19 Oct 2006)

It just doesn't make sence...the guy is a pos and we shouldn't even waste time talking about him.


----------



## FGH_Recce_DJ (19 Oct 2006)

The sad thing is with the numbers being down and trying to bring them up, they are going to recruit more and more cowardly little wankers like this, and you won't know it until they are in the system with you and the time comes for them to "ante up" so to speak.


----------



## charlesm (19 Oct 2006)

Since I was his CSM before he went away to Gagetown, and I happen to be in Vancouver this week. it would be interesting to pull out my BCGEU membership and show up at this meeting and see if he would answer me a few questions.

This guy was a piece of work before we sent him, and we bent over backwards to get him on course and ready to go. The CO even tried to help him while he was in gagetown.


So send in your questions and I might be able to ask them.

I would love to go in uniform, but that would just cause more issues, and I would prefer to do this as a private citizen.


----------



## C/10 (19 Oct 2006)

MikeH said:
			
		

> He's better off with the NDP, damn coward and a leech.



+1


----------



## gaspasser (20 Oct 2006)

This guy sounds like a very misguided-attention grabbing individual who thought he could "man up" in the Army and couldn't hack it.  Or had to because he rich daddy told him too and had to find a "manly" way out.  
Either way, if he couldn't hack it, he should have just shut up left with his dignity intact.  Not like this with his "the world owes me.." attitude.
Guys like this make me want to just add...,.kneel, face the ditch.....no more rations for you!
my 0.02 oh, and....
  for this, we fight.
Extra add on-I couldn't see me blowing my horn when I failed a major career course last year like this guy did.  I'm glad I didn't see him on Newsnet or he'd would've been "bricked".


----------



## Navy_Blue (20 Oct 2006)

Just saw him on CTV newsnet tonight it just sickens me that he is getting this much play.  

 :threat:


----------



## Infanteer (21 Oct 2006)

Again folks, take a breather before you post - if it's relevent, add it; if not, maybe don't post it.  I don't want to have to lock this one because it devolved into who would to what to the guy (or what he resembles).


----------



## career_radio-checker (21 Oct 2006)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Again folks, take a breather before you post - if it's relevent, add it; if not, maybe don't post it.  I don't want to have to lock this one because it devolved into who would to what to the guy (or what he resembles).



Agreed.

*takes deep breath*

I am still confused as to how this guy was going to go to Afghanistan in the first place.
By all reports he was still an Ocdt when he quit, and yet he said he was going to be a 2Lt when he deployed in Feb 2007. That just sounds too cocky and confident of a soldier, even for a Ocdt. I mean how would he have been chosen for Pre-deployment training without being qualified first? Does Canada even deploy Ocdt to operational theatres? So the BIG money question which has really perplexed me is was this guy on his officers qualification couse or actual pre-deployment training?


----------



## armyvern (21 Oct 2006)

career_radio-checker said:
			
		

> Agreed.
> 
> *takes deep breath*
> 
> ...


He was on his phase trg...NOT deployment training.


----------



## Redeye (21 Oct 2006)

There's no way he would have deployed in Feb 07.  He would have to have done CAP this summer, and the earliest he could have started IODP 1.1 (the bare minimum for him to be classed as deployable as a Reservist) would be February for 12 weeks, then he'd also have to do work-up training.  The guy is a fraud, no doubt about it.  Hope he comes to speak somewhere near where I live so I can go as anonymous Joe Civvie and call him out.


----------



## career_radio-checker (21 Oct 2006)

THANK YOU!  ;D
I can sleep easier knowing more of the real story behind him.


----------



## armyvern (21 Oct 2006)

Redeye said:
			
		

> There's no way he would have deployed in Feb 07.  He would have to have done CAP this summer, and the earliest he could have started IODP 1.1 (the bare minimum for him to be classed as deployable as a Reservist) would be February for 12 weeks, then he'd also have to do work-up training.  The guy is a fraud, no doubt about it.  Hope he comes to speak somewhere near where I live so I can go as anonymous Joe Civvie and call him out.


All that PLUS the fact that the media who is so relishing in interviewing this fraudulant "war resistor" has yet to nail him during one of these interviews that as a Reservist he would have had to physicaly volunteer on paper to deploy into an operational theatre. And they know that to be the case. They've read this this thread...they've even posted in other threads.


----------



## career_radio-checker (21 Oct 2006)

The Librarian said:
			
		

> All that PLUS the fact that the media who is so relishing in interviewing this fraudulant "war resistor" has yet to nail him during one of these interviews that as a Reservist he would have had to physicaly volunteer on paper to deploy into an operational theatre. And they know that to be the case. They've read this this thread...they've even posted in other threads.



Wait. You mean the media actually WANTS to nail this guy ???


----------



## armyvern (21 Oct 2006)

career_radio-checker said:
			
		

> Wait. You mean the media actually WANTS to nail this guy ???


Why no...exactly the opposite of course.


----------



## Kunu (21 Oct 2006)

During my second suitability interview (out of three, see story here if you're interested: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/39587/post-369005.html#msg369005), there was a point where the Captain interviewing me became extra serious, and told me that I could quite possibly be put in situations where I would be expected to employ deadly force to help achieve objectives I personally may not agree with.  He then asked if I was willing to continue on with my application knowing this.  I of course replied "Yes, I am", and felt very relieved that the CF was finally doing some BS screening with this seemingly obvious question.  

The way he spoke, it seemed as if it were a standard worded question they were now asking all applicants.  It was almost like the famous Miranda the police read off when placing people under arrest (I wish I could remember better what he said, as it was dead clear, no nonsense, and left no doubt in your mind what he was getting at).  

Anyways, fast forward another year to my third and final suitability interview.  It went well, as did the others, but this question, or any other dealing with this subject, was nowhere to be found.  While I enjoyed the interview, and felt a bit happy when the Captain told me the process was moving quicker now, the lack of discussion on this crucial subject left me a bit disappointed.

----

Btw, if anybody here is connected to the personnel selection staff at CFRC Toronto during 2003-2005, could they PM me as this lowly newbie OCdt feels that everyone applying to the CF needs to be grilled with this question, and they way it was said was just amazing.  I'm not sure if posting that Captain's name is OPSEC/PERSEC, so I'm playing it safe.


----------



## cobbler (22 Oct 2006)

> By the end of his first week of training this spring at Gagetown, where he carried a rifle all day long and learned about handling grenades, Juarez knew he wanted out.





My god, that's shocking: soldiers forced to use rifles AND grenades, there needs to be an inquiry.  :


I'm sure being in the Army would be just the cushiest job in the world if it weren't for all the "military" stuff.


----------



## bilton090 (22 Oct 2006)

cobbler said:
			
		

> My god, that's shocking: soldiers forced to use rifles AND grenades, there needs to be an inquiry.  :
> 
> 
> I'm sure being in the Army would be just the cushiest job in the world if it weren't for all the "military" stuff.


                :rofl:
                                Mom said I had to join to Leanne how to make my bed !


----------



## lyned (22 Oct 2006)

"The NDP invited Juarez to its policy convention this weekend, its members proud to meet a veritable "war-resister" on the same day their party voted to pull Canadian troops out of Afghanistan."

Perfect MP candidate for Jack Layton's party.


----------



## Infanteer (22 Oct 2006)

Okay...locked.  I'm sicking of having to ref this one and I think the point has been made.

Oh, and for the gentleman who complained about censorship, stating that someone should be summarily executed is a tad unprofessional.  We try to avoid that here, but have fun on your own forums.


----------



## McG (22 Oct 2006)

bilton090,
Please keep your tone in mind and avoid personal attacks & ad hominem.

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/51970.0.html


----------



## Bobbyoreo (28 Oct 2006)

Watched CTV today. They did an interview with that ocdt that quit the mo cause he said he was getting deployed to Afghan...he is right out of it. He made himself out to look like a tool. Plus anyone with half a brain could tell he is just full of bs...not even worth going down to waste your day defending the forces.


----------



## McG (28 Oct 2006)

Bobbyoreo said:
			
		

> He made himself out to look like a tool. Plus anyone with half a brain could tell he is just full of bs...


Will civilians that do not understand the inner workings of the CF see this, or will he be able to pull the wool over their eyes?

It is too easy to write him off just because we can see the holes in his position.


----------



## armyvern (28 Oct 2006)

Bobbyoreo said:
			
		

> Watched CTV today. They did an interview with that ocdt that quit the mo cause he said he was getting deployed to Afghan...he is right out of it.



Oh and let me guess...CTV still did absolutely nothing to call him on the fact that he would have had to physically volunteer for that Afghanistan deployment in order to go there as a Reserve. Correct?


----------



## McG (28 Oct 2006)

We need a government official to go on record and correct every misconception that the media is willing to print.  In this case, we need a CF spokesman to point out why this guy is not the hero he claims to be.  No need to humiliate him; just to point out how he has not martyred himself. (See the C130 vs A400 thread for information about the media not printing known information just because a DND official would not quote it to them).


----------



## Bobbyoreo (28 Oct 2006)

No CTV just asked questions...didnt bring up the fact he had to volunteer...

I know civs eat the stuff he talks about...thats why its so sad.


----------



## vonGarvin (28 Oct 2006)

Mr Juarez speaks:
""With minimum debate, the Harper government has taken Canadians into an American model of warmaking in Afghanistan which I believe to be counter productive to the stated goals of humanitarian assistance and meaningful democratic reform".

OK, holes.
1st: "minimum debate".  This has been debated and is still being debated.  There were several debates in the House, as I recall
2nd: "The Harper government has taken Canadians into an American model of warmaking in Afghanistan "  Where to begin?  First of all, the incumbent PM when we deployed to Khandahar was Mr Paul Martin (Lib).  Nex, "American model" of "warmaking".  Well, we don't follow an American model of fighting for starters.  Next, what does "warmaking" mean?  To make war?  I thought we were involved in war fighting.  But, I digres....
The last part he says "I believe", so I cannot counter it.  If he believes it, then so be it.

Source of this quote:
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20061028/afghanistan_protests_061028/20061028?hub=TopStories


----------



## Bobbyoreo (28 Oct 2006)

the debate he wants is that one that says ok..ok you win we'll leave...


----------



## armyvern (28 Oct 2006)

Bobbyoreo said:
			
		

> No CTV just asked questions...didnt bring up the fact he had to volunteer...


Interesting what they didn't ask isn't it? Seeing as how at least one of their reporters frequents this site and has posted here. It's not like they are not "privy" to this little factoid...they seem, instead, to be choosing to ignore it. There's the balanced, fair and 'impartial' news coverage they preach for you.


----------



## Bobbyoreo (28 Oct 2006)

They did post at the bottom of the screen that he was a OCDT and that he was mo/reserve/what ever you want to call us now adays...
They keep going back and talking to people..think they got the organizer in there as well...they also said something about Jakie talking for abit...should be good..he never has a clue what he is talking about..


----------



## vonGarvin (28 Oct 2006)

As I understand it, Mr. Juarez ceased training because the Commandant of the Infantry School decided so.  I mean, that's policy.  Regardless of the person or what causes them to come in from of him, the final say is the commandant's.  What brought him to his office, I don't know, and I refuse to speculate.  I highly doubt, however, that Mr. Juarez ended up in his office to protest the CF's involvement in Afghanistan, and even in WW2, VERY FEW service personnel went overseas against their wishes, if any at all.  So, Mr Juarez, a member of the Primary Reserve, would have as much chance at  being forced into going to A'stan as my dog has.

But, we all know this.

http://www.protestwarrior.com

Check THAT site out.


----------



## tasop_999 (28 Oct 2006)

I have been reading about Mr. Juarez for the last month and I have just about had enough.  I felt that I finally had something to say on this guy.  I sailed with this guy on HMCS Algonquin for a period of about two years (I left the unit last year).  During that time he was an ordinary seaman and I think he finally made it to able seaman.  Juarez was always a competent operator and seemed to fit in well with the rest of the crew.  While we were at sea, I distinctly remember some conversations I had with him in the main cafeteria on things such as Afghanistan and Iraq.  He always had that distinct slant away from service in either of these two theatres, but what I have seen of him in the media lately is amazing.  I am shocked that he has pimped himself out to the media and the political anti-war lobby in this country.  In the entire time I knew him on ship, never could I have imagined that he would be on national TV talking about 'resisting' being sent to Afghanistan, especially when as a reservist he had to volunteer to go anyways.  

The Francisco Juarez I know is a very principled and intelligent person, but what I have seen lately and some of the backstory on him that I have gotten has me shaking my head.  I guess it just goes to show you that you really don't know that much about the people you serve with sometimes.  I just wish that the media would report some of the true back story instead of that he is resisting a war he had no chance of being forced into in the first place.  That's my two cents, the extra nickel is free.


----------



## westernarmymember (28 Oct 2006)

Mr. Juarez, your 15 minutes are almost over. You have proved once again, that those of little talent or intestinal fortitude can be famous (for a time) in our great nation. You are welcome for the freedom to make a fool of yourself, paid for by true soldiers. You too will be quickly forgotten. 

Those who carry on will ensure your rights are protected in the future.


----------



## westernarmymember (28 Oct 2006)

"Former military cadet Francisco Juarez also spoke at the rally. He told CTV Newsnet *he signed up for the mission * to Afghanistan but then became concerned about the change in direction under the government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper. He was released from the military."

Have we begun sending OCDTs to Afghanistan? Has anyone deployed with one?


----------



## tasop_999 (28 Oct 2006)

Juarez has never even deployed, not with the Army or the Nvvy.  Amazing isn't it? Someone resisting something that he has never done makes him look like a talking jacka** on the TV.  What he should be resisting is the urge to lie to Canadians.  Everyone on this site knows that reservists do not have to deploy if they don't want to, unless the reserves have been activated by the government.  The last time I checked, everything was still happening on a volunatary basis for tours in A-Stan.


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Oct 2006)

kratz said:
			
		

> Interestingly enough, CTV.ca  has already amended their coverage of this story and are now referring to Mr. Juarez as a "former military cadet". Keep writing into their feedback section if it will aid in getting the correct story out there.




Here is my _feedback_ to CTV:



> *Francisco Juarez*
> 
> To keep it short and simple: Francisco Juarez lies.
> 
> ...


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (28 Oct 2006)

CBC isn't much better:



> Francisco Juarez, a demonstrator in Toronto, was fined by the Canadian army reserves and released earlier this year *after he refused to train for the Afghan campaign.*


----------



## McG (28 Oct 2006)

May as well point out that he refused to train for the next ice storm, flood, forest fire, etc.


----------



## Good2Golf (28 Oct 2006)

MCG said:
			
		

> May as well point out that he refused to train for the next ice storm, flood, forest fire, etc.



+1


----------



## Danjanou (28 Oct 2006)

My Feedback e-mail to CTV



> I suggest you check your facts for once.
> 
> Mr. Juarez (he forfeited any claims to the prefix O/Cdt when he quit) left the military for a variety of reason including refusal to take part in training.
> 
> He had never volunteered or been told he was earmarked for Afghanistan, and in fact as an untrained reservist he would never have been eligible to even volunteer for such a mission.




Edited to add similar e-mail sent to CBC for what it's worth


----------



## Justacivvy (28 Oct 2006)

Well ladies and gents here's the so called "wall resister's" speech in Vancouver found on youtube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Oe03w7e1T4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OdsdekQU1pc


----------



## Zell_Dietrich (28 Oct 2006)

"He says he was being groomed to become a second lieutenant and would have been in Kandahar by early next year."

With respect,  I honestly wish I was being groomed to become a second Lieutenant.  In truth I am just a lowly Officer Cadet in training.  To be completely honest, I would be pensive about going to Afghanistan,  but I would be proud to go.  This news came as a surprise to me because I thought that for reservists to go to Afghanistan we have to go out of our way to get selected.  I thought I would have to stomp on a few throats, twist a few arms and sit in front of yet another selection panel to be allowed to go. (Much like what I went through to simply get in)

I believe it takes a few years to become a second Lieutenant,  if he was to be in the sandbox early next year, that means he had received allot of training. It is interesting to note that a person can receive allot of training,  money and other resources as an investment and then when called upon to serve (the reason the investment was made) simply back out.

I hope he doesn't look back on his actions with to much regret.  I know that if I fail to make it through my training, I would be fairly upset with myself for quite sometime. If I do fail to make the grade, I wouldn't allow myself to blame it on anyone or anything other than myself. In order for me to get in, (one of the many boards I faced)  I had to outline in moderate detail Canada's current military involvements.  I am sure he had to do the same.  He had to have known about Afghanistan, the duties and the risks, before to even took his oath (or solemn confirmation)


----------



## paracowboy (28 Oct 2006)

uh, Zell, dude, HE'S LYING. Or is your sarcasm set on "Ultra-Low"?


----------



## Infanteer (28 Oct 2006)

Mr. Jaurez seems very adept at conflating his status of a reservist with 2-weeks of leadership training.

In my world, we call that a LIAR.


----------



## Vee (28 Oct 2006)

Watching Global news tonight... by their accounts, Mr. Juarez is supposed to be in Afghanistan right now.


----------



## niner domestic (28 Oct 2006)

Since the G&M is evidently becoming the Canadian equivalent of the National Enquirer, I wonder if they'll do an expose on this waste of a DNA sample as they did on Mark Graham?  I say fair is fair.


----------



## vonGarvin (28 Oct 2006)

I think he's being groomed for a seat in the House of Commons with either the Greens or the NDP.  After all, he is eligible to vote, right?  So, by his argument that a two week CAP candidate is being "groomed" to become a 2Lt is about as logical, no?  And, since he is  was an infantry officer candidate, and we have infantry in Afghanistan, he MUST have had a C-130 waiting for him at F'ton airport following graduation to fly him over (a few refuelings later) to drop him into Panjwai "just in time", right?  Right?  I know I'm right.  


Someone tell me I'm right? 

Now, that's not fair, I want MY fifteen minutes of fame!

I wonder if I tell Jack that since I went to Catholic School, I was being groomed to become a priest, but quit because of the Church's policy, on, oh, I don't know, SIN, that he would make ME a poster boy?


(Yes, this is sarcasm)  :


----------



## niner domestic (28 Oct 2006)

Von, you'll get your 15 mins right after I become the next Chief Justice of the SCC or Queen of England (doesn't matter as long as I get the cool red robes to wear).


----------



## tasop_999 (28 Oct 2006)

I guess being a good liar means that Juarez will make a good member for the NDP, if he actually gets elected.  Being a fraud on national television certainly can't hurt his chances at getting a seat for Taliban Jack's party.  If people are dumb enough to believe that Mr. Juarez was going to A-Stan, then they deserve him if they elect him.  By all rights, this guy should only be holding the distance line on a RAS and that is it.  His moral objections to the mission in A-stan are colliding with my moral objections to frauds, phonies, and political schills.


----------



## Danjanou (28 Oct 2006)

I just watched the CTV clip of this “individual.” I've come to the conclusion that he actually believes he was going and has taken some sort of moral high ground here. the self rigtrighteousnessing from him ranks right up there with Layton. Must be nice to see the world through rose coloured blinders. Sad part is the MSM is buying his pap.


----------



## midget-boyd91 (28 Oct 2006)

When the media mentions war resisters you just know that they are trying to make it seem like the country is completely divided. But when they name individual war resisters you know that they are really reaching to make it seem that way.

Personally I dont know how people can oppose a war that was started when 3 000 people were murdered on 9/11, it just doesnt seem right. 

There is nobody more canadian than the men and women of out Canadian Forces and people like TB Jack are saying that it is not in Canadas interest. Is he saying that the members of our Forces are not as Canadian as those who sit and watch the war unfold on CTV and CNN?


----------



## nowhere_man (28 Oct 2006)

Yea just watching CTV i just saw the clip of the peace protest and they had a clip of a "former soldier' who was speaking out against the war in Afghanistan it really makes me angry that they give people like that a spot light and make it seem like he was some sort of hero or someone who actually served in the forces.


----------



## vonGarvin (28 Oct 2006)

Just saw that clip on ctv.  Seems that there were more people in Kingston (population ~100,000 or so) to watch a military parade than in Toronto to protest (population ~3,000,000 or so)


----------



## Zell_Dietrich (28 Oct 2006)

:warstory: 

Paracowboy,  My previous posting was extremely rough.  Rougher than I like to be.  I accused him basically of being a liar, a waste of rations and a cowardly oath breaker who blames others for his own failings. I wanted to also imply that he is receiving allot of positive attention by impugning the integrity and dignity of men who are better than himself and that he is simply doing harm for his own benefit. But I couldn't find a way to do it with grace and dignity.  I also couldn't find a gracious way of saying that if he disapproves of the lack of aid in comparison to military efforts that he should have a bake sale and donate the proceeds to a charity that helps with reconstruction.  (hopefully one of the few that don't give a percentage to the Taliban to buy weapons) So I didn't.

 I am glad that I didn't.  Having just watched his speech,  I think he stated his case of how he came to question our actions in Afghanistan quite clearly also he put forward a clear and logical argument against not just Afghanistan but Iraq and other conflicts.  I disagree with much of what he said,  however he did raise some very valid points and took great pains to never say bad things about the people in the CF - attacking the Conservatives insted.  If he honestly believes what he is saying - which I now think he does,  then I think he did the right thing by resigning.  If you feel we are in an illegal war of aggression, it is your duty to not support it.  

With that said,  a few comments/question on the speech I put them in order as much as I could - this will only really make sense if you watch the clips:

Introduction - 
When were we told that we were going to Afghanistan exclusively for reconstruction?  When did reconstruction become possible when there are people who gleefully blow up what you build? 

The accusation that we have lost the ability to broker a peace deal in Afghanistan is actually true,  we can't negotiate with the Taliban,  they wont come to the table.  The accusation that this is an illgal war however is false.  Not only have we followed international law we have the backing of the UN for this mission.  Please don't confuse Iraq with Afghanistan.

We still are involved in many UN operations,  wearing blue helmets and we are actively involved in many UN backed reconstruction efforts - including Afghanistan.

We are not occupying Afghanistan.  We are in Afghanistan,  yes. But we have no designs to subjugate the Afghan people.  Are we not there because there was a threat that was posed to us and we are staying there because it is in our intrest to see that that doesn't return?

Him - 

Officer cadet or officer candidate? (were you an Oct or another rank receiving training to go officer)

A very sly way of implying that not enough effort has been put into reconstruction and aid. Also a subtle jab at the values of those who make the decision as wanting a fight more than they want results.  Phrased very delicately, it was said in a way that it can't be challenged as a falsehood.  I hate to say it be that was well played. 

If I'm not mistaken,  you specifically requested to go to Afghanistan and was scheduled to be placed within the regular force as they are trained up for a tour. Then while on that training you decided to back out of your request.  (I think this is what happened from his speech - if I am wrong please someone steer me right)

I think he descended into baseless name calling without properly backing up why he thinks that.  How is Afghanistan an illegal war,  how is it America's battel alone *and standard things*

Support the brutal history of America in Iraq and middle east .... I respectfully would like to point out Afghanistan is not Iraq.  And I don't think it qualifies as middle east - I could be wrong though,  it does border a country that borders Iraq.  But It also borders a country that borders Norway and almost borders America.  Just thinking if that makes it European or close to North American.... but I digress.

The members of the CF that I have spoken to almost without fail do not support military aggression,  by any country. Canadians have been raised to view jingoism as counterproductive.  What does that have to do with Afghanistan?  I think you have presumed a direct military link between the two when there is a clear distinction.

You mentioned how you see the CF as using Military enforce mandates by the united nations - as a good thing.  What do you think Afghanistan is?

708 from 340 you're right that is more that doubling in fact it is 108.23594% increase.  Not 125% increase. If 765 people went AWOL then you'd be right. (But rounding errors don't take away from your point that the army had charged allot more people with AWOL charges)

Video 2

We are not in the middle east,  we are in Afghanistan. Please if you have a valid assertion to link the two,  please make it.

Pakistan already has nuclear weapons,  yes it is a Muslim dictatorship. Yes we are nice to them.  What is your point,  other than racist fear mongering?

We did not unilaterally choose sides in an internal Afghan conflict.  We were attacked by one of the sides so we went to the other who was quite happy to give us assistance as we struck back.  I can not disagree with you that the Northern alliance has a spotty record on human rights.  I have to agree with you that it has complicated things for certain regions - however since the alternative was having no allies and allowing a group to attack us with impunity, this was an unfortunate tradeoff we made at the time.  I think there is a new nationally elected government that calls the shots now,  but sometimes function and form vary in these situations.

What do you mean by the requirements that the commanders of Canada's armed forces confront today not being those that were faces by those in WWII? Are you talking about how they are under stricter rules about talking about the mission in public?  

Now wasn't it our elected government that committed us into Afghanistan?  Followed by another elected government?  

Now your point on the skirmish between Israel and Lebanon and how we took sides is valid being a departure from our traditional role,  fair enough,  but I don't see a link between our role in Afghanistan and that position except that both pleased the Americans.

I thought there was a debate in the house of commons - I remember watching it.  I thought we had two,  one when we first went in and the second when we extended our commitment and changed our role.... I know I've fallen asleep watching cpac,  but really I don't think I dreamt it.

that old 90% 10% split.  I can't argue that point,  if you think we need More aid $$ please hold a bake sale or fun run.  Also our role is to provide security so that NGOPs can deliver their aid - they apparently are better at it. Especially if we don't confine them to areas that we have secured.

Also I can't argue your point on how we have tried to only allow aid to those who support us -there by removing the neutrality of NGOs and removing much ability to do their work.  I remember the Americans apologising for it and a change of tactics was made. 

And that last attack on Stephen Harper allowing one of our Soldiers to be killed while on a UN mission without even an objection... I can't argue the sentiment, (I try not to take issue with feelings) but I don't see a link between it and your objection to our role in Afghanistan.

 ( Sorry for the long post.)


----------



## paracowboy (28 Oct 2006)

seems like a lot of effort to say "Lying sack of shit".


----------



## Zell_Dietrich (28 Oct 2006)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> seems like a lot of effort to say "Lying sack of crap".



 :rofl:

Yes,  but I didn't go through and transcribe what he said and thoroughly rip apart his errors.  Nor did I cite the sources I used to rebuke him.  I know it is a sloppy post - more of a vent than anything.

On a side note,  am I the only one who thinks he looked ... well "stocky" for someone who was being groomed for Second Lieutenant?  When I say stocky, I mean ...voluptuous - in a not attractive for a man to be way. I liked his hair though. (I don't mean it as a personal attack,  but maybe the personal strain he is under is affecting his health?)


----------



## patrick666 (28 Oct 2006)

I like how at the beginning of the video the speaker referred to the mission in Afghanistan as "an illegal war".  :

Feed the sheep, feed the sheep..


----------



## tasop_999 (28 Oct 2006)

The lad was always a bit stocky.  Now I know where the extra weight came from after sailing with him for a couple years...HE'S FULL OF CRAP!  Sorry 'bout the angry post...this guy really fries me since I knew him personally.


----------



## paracowboy (29 Oct 2006)

"stocky" 
Zell, if you really want to lead guys like me, dude, you got to stop bein' such a friggin wuss with this shit. 
The guy is fat. He is a fat, lying, sack of shit. 
Now you try.


----------



## Zell_Dietrich (29 Oct 2006)

Paracowboy,

     I find it hard to be rude to people,  by default I want to show respect.  I want to believe that he isn't what I think he is.  I want to believe that he is a person of true intentions who is doing what he believes is right paying carefull attention not to harm others for his own benefit.  I want to believe that he isn't deliberately causing a muddling of various political issues for is own benefit/glory and I also want to believe that this wasn't a coldly calculated plan on his part and that I wont see him running for federal office next election. I want to believe in fundamental goodness.  I wish I had evidence to support what I want to believe in this case.


See Paracowboy,  I can be as mean as anyone  :threat:


----------



## Trinity (29 Oct 2006)

Zell_Dietrich said:
			
		

> I wish I had evidence to support what I want to believe in this case.



I'm the KING of this site to always trying to find another reason, possibility,
etc... for the behavior of people in order for them to get a fair shake and possibly
shed new light on to an issue. (to the point of driving some members here crazy)

In this case... I don't find myself doing it.  Why am I not trying to defend him or
offer possibly solutions???

There is just too much evidence to prove otherwise.  He was in the reserves.
There are people from his courses and ships saying first hand knowledge of
his personality and professionalism ( which isn't much to say the least)

If I give up hope... then trust me there is NO HOPE.


----------



## probum non poenitet (29 Oct 2006)

Multiple choice quiz in this fellow's subconscious:

*Q: I have failed officer training and quit the CF in wartime. This is because:*

_a) I failed to meet the requirements of the course for academic, physical, or medical reasons (aka gave it my best shot and failed);
b) I lacked the character and drive (aka wimped out);
c) I saw we were at war and failed a gut check (aka chickened out);
d) I am a combination of Rosa Parks, Ron Kovic, and Mahatma Gandhi and I deserve the Order of Canada _ 

A: well .... errrr .... tough one ..... examing personal failure is hard ... what to do ... I kind of like the sound of answer 'd.' Yeah. Definitely 'd'. Wow. I _am_ amazing. Why do I feel like a fraud? It must be my misunderstood genius again ... NO WAR FOR OIL!


----------



## Jarnhamar (29 Oct 2006)

Good on him for quitting.
I'd even buy him a beer (not a CC and coke mind you) , pat him on the back and say nice try, good luck with the rest of your life.

Before you guys start lighting torches, this guy was a leader. Can you imagine if he wold have went to afghanistan incharge of 30 some troops and then began passinghis views along to them?
Imagine your platoon commander not wanting to be there. Who's intersts is he ging to look out for first, his or the platoons.

I always find it hard to hate these guys because how I see it I'm MUCH happier that they quit in Canada instead of being too afraid to pipe up, going to Afghanistan and getting Canadian soldiers killed.
I'm much happier not having my back covered by someone like that.

Some people simply can't do the job. Whether their afraid or don't believe in the war, who cares. Their better in Canada than here right? I just couldn't be bothered getting worked up over their little sob stories.
Speaking of which,
A reservist being ordered here? Yes thats very stupid. We need to fight for our positions to come on tour. We're really not at the point where reservists are being ordered here. I think half my platoon is either putting in CTs to the reg force or putting in memos to extend their tour.   Forced to come here my ass.
Sounds like he is trying to shrink away from his decision. As a reservist he wouldn't be forced to go on tour and suggesting otherwise is a weak attempt to try and bolster his story. No sympathy for that.
Make him pay for what education he managed to get off the CF and put that money towards new tacvests and weapon sights


----------



## George Wallace (29 Oct 2006)

I also say "Good on Francisco Juarez!"  Francisco, you have made it into Canada's major newspapers, onto Canada's major News Networks, and your speech is all over U-tube.  Now you can await the letter from the AJAG, or two burly MP's at your door, and pay for your actions.  Your defence at your trial is completely shot.  You have broken your Oath.  You have not honoured your pledge.  You are still accountable for your actions.  I am sure you will only get a hefty fine, and no jail time, but that seems reasonable enough to me.


----------



## bilton090 (29 Oct 2006)

Before you guys start lighting torches, this guy was a leader.
               WTF 's up with that !
                 Leader ?
            George +1


----------



## vonGarvin (29 Oct 2006)

Well, to be fair, a 'potential' leader who failed to successfully complete CAP.  Many many people get that far and fail. Others go farther and fail.  So, he lead nothing (in actuality) and since I know nothing about him, all I can say is this:



That's right, nothing.

I can spew forth my opinions, but I'll reserve those, thank you very much.


----------



## Devlin (29 Oct 2006)

Uggghhh I just watched the video I need to go throw up....could we be a little more self absorbed. You quit a job (a good one at that), get over it and get on with your miserable existence.....enjoy your right to spout off like a fool, some of your buddies are still being "groomed" so you can enjoy that freedom.


Just sad, period full stop.


----------



## nowhere_man (29 Oct 2006)

But even if he was a good leader and a great guy who decided that it wasn't for him that's great. If he wants to get out then that's fine it's better that he drop out here. But if you decide to drop out because you cant hack it then don't go to the media and everyone else screaming about how the war is illegal and your a hero for not going. 

Just quit and hope you don't run into any of your former peers on a dark night


----------



## vonGarvin (29 Oct 2006)

nowhere_man said:
			
		

> Just quit and hope you don't run into any of your former peers on a dark night


His former peers would probably do the worst thing they could to him: ignore him.

His former peers, if they are still serving, know better than to threaten this POS.  They would instead be exemplars of professionalism and just steer clear of him.


----------



## Northern Touch (29 Oct 2006)

Just some info, Mr. Juarez is now publicly speaking about his "resistance".  He was at my school (University of Toronto, Mississauga)  on thursday along with a member of the american army who served 5 months in Iraq, and a Vietnam war resistor.  I missed the speech since I was at parade but I talked to my friend who went.  According to her he talked about the way the Canadian public is being mislead about Canada's intentions in A-stan, and we are WAR fighting and not peacekeeping. (Which anyone paying attention should know already).  He also spouted some stuff about how the conservative government changed the mission from what the liberals actually wanted it to be.  

I wish I knew what else he said but I wasn't there.


----------



## Blakey (29 Oct 2006)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I also say "Good on Francisco Juarez!"  Francisco, you have made it into Canada's major newspapers, onto Canada's major News Networks, and your speech is all over U-tube.  Now you can await the letter from the AJAG, or two burly MP's at your door, and pay for your actions.  Your defence at your trial is completely shot.  You have broken your Oath.  You have not honoured your pledge.  You are still accountable for your actions.  I am sure you will only get a hefty fine, and no jail time, but that seems reasonable enough to me.



I'm not going to hold my breath...just like that other miserable SOS that is protesting the toasting and saluting of the Queen.


----------



## The Bread Guy (29 Oct 2006)

PB&J - Agreed, especially if all his out-processing paperwork is done (I presume this from online commentary here to the effect that he quit).  Also, we KNOW how it'll read in the media if the CF tries prosecuting ....


----------



## McG (29 Oct 2006)

Northern Touch said:
			
		

> He also spouted some stuff about how the conservative government changed the mission from what the liberals actually wanted it to be.


We call this "talking outside your lane" around here.  This guy does not know what he is talking about.


----------



## Jarnhamar (29 Oct 2006)

> WTF 's up with that !
> Leader ?



Good point!
He was in training to be a leader. *IF* he would have passed and deployed overseas he  would have been a leader  and in a position to both influence other soldiers in a big way AND get them killed.

Glad he's out of the CF.


----------



## geo (29 Oct 2006)

Tony,
I checked.... he's 100% out


----------



## George Wallace (29 Oct 2006)

What is the 'statute of limitations' on the items covered under the National Defence Act that he was privy to and allowed or not allowed to say in Public?  Just because he has been released from the CF/CF Reserves does not give him free reign to spew off whatever he wants.  He is still liable for what he can and cannot say.  As he was Released just recently, in the past few months, and has been in the news for about as long, he obviously has broken some of the rules.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (29 Oct 2006)

And pursuing him would avail us nothing.  A simple statement that refutes his claims about being groomed for a commission and the likelihood of his serving in AStan would suffice.


----------



## George Wallace (29 Oct 2006)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> And pursuing him would avail us nothing.  A simple statement that refutes his claims about being groomed for a commission and the likelihood of his serving in AStan would suffice.



I think his exposure in the Press as being a Fraud would be fair justice.

I might add that this only illustrates how easily the NDP and CPA are conned by people and organizations passing off false or fraudulent claims.


----------



## Zell_Dietrich (29 Oct 2006)

I love the sentiment that it is a good thing he quit.  Yes,  absolutely it would be a very bad thing if he was there commanding troops and he didn't want to be there.  If you're driving a car,  and you feel you're in over your head,  you should pull over.  Not just for your safety,  but for the safety of others.  

If he truly believes in what he is saying,  then he does have a moral obligation to say it.  I have done my best to reserve judgement,  but I have come to the conclusion that not only is what he saying factually incorrect but his intentions for saying them are questionable.  I can understand the desire to blame personal short comings on external things,  it is a coping strategy.  However to get the kind of attention he is receiving by being "The Canadian soldier war resister" I feel it is dishonest and harmful to himself and the national dialogue.

I don't know for sure, but no one who knows him has said differently on this thread (correct me if I am wrong), I think he was an Officer Cadet in the reserves. I can only speak for my experience as an officer cadet.  An officer cadet doesn't have the training, experience or authority to order a pizza.  A leader in training is "in training". I see a difference between a Dr in training and a Dr.  I would be much more inclined to give a value to his "experience" if he had any rank other than officer cadet.  (He said in his speech officer candidate,  I might have to hit google to find out)

  He said in his speech that he joined because he wanted the 100% tuition reimbursement. I would never imply that people who join only because of the money for schooling are looking to get the money and then quit,  but I don't think the argument could be made that nobody has joined with that intention. From his speech,  I gleamed that he had finished his degree program.  I don't think his 1 year of service would have come up while he was on course.  (to get tuition when you're in the reserves there is a promise that you make to parade for at least a year after the completion of the course)

I think I am so vexed with this situation because I am also an Officer Cadet in the reserves.   Everyone deep down is afraid of being put in harms way - I see him acting out a reasonable fear - one that I would love to deny I have - but I'll just have to settle with overcoming it. Perhaps I have taken such a strong view on him because I see him showing me how easy it is to fail and then blame others - and then get told how brave I am.  Maybe I'm vexed because I know I'll have to explain this to my Mother or maybe just maybe the guy is a putz and I should just move on.   ;D

Oh and there are quite a few threads on the NDP/Anti-war/Union connections http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/51699.0/topicseen.html for example.


----------



## brihard (29 Oct 2006)

Zell_Dietrich said:
			
		

> Oh and there are quite a few threads on the NDP/Anti-war/Union connections http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/51699.0/topicseen.html for example.



Not trying to be an attention whore, but here's my personal account of my run in with Taliban Jack and a U.S. army deserter at school... Certainly pertinent to the issue at hand.

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/52026.0.html


----------



## HDE (29 Oct 2006)

One of the networks, CTV?, had him labelled a "retired soldier"  ???  It appears he mostly skipped the career part and went directly to retirement.


----------



## Zell_Dietrich (29 Oct 2006)

HDE said:
			
		

> One of the networks, CTV?, had him labelled a "retired soldier"  ???  It appears he mostly skipped the career part and went directly to retirement.


I'd do that if I could get that pention thing to work out.   :blotto:


----------



## jimb (30 Oct 2006)

The part that irkes me is that this " War Resisiter " is being treated as if he is being truthful.

 I guess it would be too hard for the media to actually "check facts " before running with his blather. I wonder how it can be countered ? 

 Should the  CDS speak out  about his "career " and the way he was being " groomed for leadership " ?  I think the "facts " about his time in the CF need to be  exposed, to the public,  by the appropriate source.  Surely this untruth  cannot be allowed to pass without offcial comment ?

Jimb Toronto.


----------



## p_imbeault (30 Oct 2006)

I don't doubt they know most of the facts, they probably want to milk this cow for as long as they can so they can sell more press on the popularity of the topic. I wonder if Letters to the Editor would be accepted on this topic; as I am sure many on this forum would have something to add to the "facts".


----------



## Colin Parkinson (30 Oct 2006)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I think his exposure in the Press as being a Fraud would be fair justice.
> 
> I might add that this only illustrates how easily the NDP and CPA are conned by people and organizations passing off false or fraudulent claims.



I think a anti-war group in the US got conned by a guy not to long ago, it was quite embarassing for them.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (30 Oct 2006)

http://ruxted.ca/index.php?/archives/28-Franciso-Juarez.html


I see Ruxted has stated thier position.


----------



## geo (30 Oct 2006)

Ruxted +1


----------



## Danjanou (30 Oct 2006)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> http://ruxted.ca/index.php?/archives/28-Franciso-Juarez.html
> 
> 
> I see Ruxted has stated thier position.



+2


----------



## Zell_Dietrich (30 Oct 2006)

I think I asked this before,  are we very very sure that he was only an Ocdt?  If he served on a navel mission before,  wouldn't that mean that he had already passed bmq/sq/ql3  Since he joined in 2002 (if I remember correctly) wouldn't he already have some training.  Yes he transferred to the reserves and applied as an officer,  but isn't it possible that he was scheduled (from his request) to go to Afghanistan as an NCM? I am asking only because not if but when I have to take this issue on in front of ndpers, I want to be sure I can't be proven wrong/misinformed.

I know we can't go and look at his service record.  I tried asking people who I know,  but nobody I know knows him.


----------



## George Wallace (30 Oct 2006)

Sorry Zell, but your impression is too convoluted.  He could not be tasked as a NCM if he was an OCdt.  He would not be anything other than an OCdt with as little Training as he had.  There are members on this site that do indeed know him, and others who are acquainted with him.  We wonder how his 'former' Reserve Unit think of his 'betrayal'.


----------



## geo (30 Oct 2006)

simple answer.... No, not possible.

The man did a component transfer to the Army from the Navy.
The basic trade skills of a sailor don't port to the Infantry.

The man was on the basic Officer Cadet training Phase 1 & as an Seaman he would not get any exemption.   ALSO, as a Reg, you go where you are told to go.  As a Res, you decide on where you go, when you go and if you go.

Some people have looked up his service record
Some people here have served with him in the Navy, in the Army & the Officer training course..... nothing to hide anymore.


----------



## Zell_Dietrich (30 Oct 2006)

Thank you.  I was only fairly sure that was the way it was.  If I have any doubt about the facts I'm going to be bringing to the table,  I like to have them checked a few times.  I think I posted on here before my feelings on this issue but, even with as much as he vexes me, if I am going to stand up and call him a liar in public (or private for that matter) I want to know with no doubt that I am right in that statement.

Thanks for the confirmation. :warstory:  Now it is a race to his next public address to see who gets to expose him. :dontpanic:


----------



## MEV (31 Oct 2006)

I fully support telling it like it is and exposing someone that is trying to pull the wool over others eyes. In other words a shyster.

But here is my question "Will the media print the truth when their good ole boy is exposed ?" Like when you go to one of the "person of interest"s (see I was nice) gigs and get him to go "uh...uh...uh...Crap I've been exposed !" Will the media present it to the national and international audience ? or will they report more on the heckler that had to be escorted out ...

Just sort of the devils advocate here. I don't trust the media at all.


----------



## Zell_Dietrich (31 Oct 2006)

Okay,  now to take this on a slightly different angel.  How can we best use the current situation to our advantage?  Will we just use his lack of credibility in private discussions? If we are to expose him publicly,  how can we get it out there?  (I don't have any connections with anyone in the cbc anymore)


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (31 Oct 2006)

The media trolls this site often - they know full well what this gentleman's background is and what the vast majority of serving members think of him.


----------



## Cannonfodder (31 Oct 2006)

I guess it must have been a slow news day .


----------



## retiredgrunt45 (3 Nov 2006)

Well for starters I’m glad he was dishonorably discharged, can you imagine what would have happened if he were allowed to lead troops into combat with that distain able attitude? 

I hate to think how many brave souls would not have been coming back because of one coward.


----------



## The_Falcon (4 Nov 2006)

Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> The media trolls this site often - they know full well what this gentleman's background is and what the vast majority of serving members think of him.



But as we have seen time and again, the MSM is quite adept at glossing over, or even plain ignoring the facts if those facts are contradictory to the "story".  So despite the fact that this individuals credibility has been completely torn to shreds, I highly doubt that the general public will be made aware of it.  Unless a reporter with the cojones to tell the truth wants to take the lead.  David Akin, I am looking at you as you are the only member of the press, who has publicly announced himself on this forum.


----------



## paracowboy (4 Nov 2006)

but...but...I only joined for the college money!
Scum.


----------



## cplcaldwell (4 Nov 2006)

You mean ... _it's not just for the college money..._

_Wait a minute.._ I paid my own way through college.....

Damme.. busted by the man..again...


----------



## Zell_Dietrich (5 Nov 2006)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> but...but...I only joined for the college money!
> Scum.


I love disagreeing with you paracowboy,  but in this case I can't.  Now,  how did this guy get through the selection board?


----------



## geo (5 Nov 2006)

retiredgrunt45 said:
			
		

> Well for starters I’m glad he was dishonorably discharged, can you imagine what would have happened if he were allowed to lead troops into combat with that distain able attitude?
> I hate to think how many brave souls would not have been coming back because of one coward.


Dishonorable discharge?...... where did you get that little piece of information?


----------



## Wookilar (5 Nov 2006)

The "dishonorable discharge" was stated in one of the first stories when it hit the news, hasn't really been mentioned since. Don't know if it was a mis-quote or a reporter getting it wrong or if that little fact (if it is a fact) gets in the way of his posturing.

I'll try and find the link. Stand by.

Wook

edit: don't have to look far. Check out the first article in this thread from the CP. Mind you, it is from the CP, so I am going to look around and see if anyone else mentioned it.

Is there any way we could check on that internally (and legally)? I know court martials and appeal results are posted on the DWAN (the charge reports are sometimes funny to read), what about this?


----------



## armyvern (5 Nov 2006)

Wookilar said:
			
		

> The "dishonorable discharge" was stated in one of the first stories when it hit the news, hasn't really been mentioned since. Don't know if it was a mis-quote or a reporter getting it wrong or if that little fact (if it is a fact) gets in the way of his posturing.
> 
> I'll try and find the link. Stand by.
> 
> Wook



I recall an article stating that he had then been RTUd where he received a 5F release.


----------



## career_radio-checker (5 Nov 2006)

milnewstbay said:
			
		

> My question - how can you be a "war resister" when nobody is dragging you there against your will?
> 
> Shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the Copyright Act - http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/info/act-e.html#rid-33409
> 
> ...



No need to add another link just look at the very first post on the thread.


----------



## vonGarvin (5 Nov 2006)

Yes, but the press also said that he was being "groomed" to be a 2Lt.  As I recall, most 2Lt's are far from "groomed"  :dontpanic:

(Hey, Juarez, in case you read this: 2Lts don't even merit a PER!)


----------



## armyvern (5 Nov 2006)

Interestingly, if you google "Fransico Juarez" hit number one is the Ruxted.ca  article dealing with this goof. The "hero" that never was.

Way down the page you get this garbage:

http://www.wri-irg.org/pubs/upd-0610.htm


----------



## Wookilar (5 Nov 2006)

A CanWest article in this thread (page 3, I really have to learn how to properly quote something) says he was "discharged without a court martial."

Can you have a "dishonorable discharge" without a court martial? 

How do we confirm what either of these publishers are saying? It would make it alot easier if we felt we could trust the press to get the facts right the first time.

Wook


----------



## spud (5 Nov 2006)

The Librarian said:
			
		

> Interestingly, if you google "Fransico Juarez" hit number one is the Ruxted.ca  article dealing with this goof. The "hero" that never was.
> 
> Way down the page you get this garbage:
> 
> http://www.wri-irg.org/pubs/upd-0610.htm



Might also be prudent for them to explain AWOL could be oversleeping, drunk and still in bed, car breaking down, missed appointments and dozens of other calamities that cause somebody to be "adrift". I don't think we have too many jumping the wire and trying to get into the United States to hide. 

Typical sensationalism, but it reads like it was written by somebody who flunked Grade 10 English; it's pretty mangled writing. 

potato


----------



## armyvern (5 Nov 2006)

Wookilar said:
			
		

> A CanWest article in this thread (page 3, I really have to learn how to properly quote something) says he was "discharged without a court martial."


Correct. Summary Trial vice Court Martial. He was charged and fined; then released 5F.


> Can you have a "dishonorable discharge" without a court martial?


Yes. 


> How do we confirm what either of these publishers are saying? It would make it alot easier if we felt we could trust the press to get the facts right the first time.


Wook
I am looking for a link, but I distinctly recall an interview with him where he stated he had been released 5F.


----------



## armyvern (5 Nov 2006)

spud said:
			
		

> Might also be prudent for them to explain AWOL could be oversleeping, drunk and still in bed, car breaking down, missed appointments and dozens of other calamities that cause somebody to be "adrift". I don't think we have too many jumping the wire and trying to get into the United States to hide.
> 
> Typical sensationalism, but it reads like it was written by somebody who flunked Grade 10 English; it's pretty mangled writing.
> 
> potato



Ruxted.ca did address the AWOL issue in this article:

http://ruxted.ca/index.php?/archives/21-The-Iceberg-of-Ignorance.html
as well, there are threads running on the AWOL stats here in army.ca:

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/41154.0.html
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/47232.0.html
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/47870.0.html

Librarian


----------



## George Wallace (5 Nov 2006)

5F

(f) Unsuitable for Further Service. 
 Applies to the release of an officer or non-commissioned member who, either wholly or chiefly because of factors within his control, develops personal weakness or behaviour or has domestic or other personal problems that seriously impair his usefulness to or impose an excessive administrative burden on the Canadian Forces.


----------



## George Wallace (5 Nov 2006)

As to his release, from Spud's The Librarian's link to http://www.wri-irg.org/pubs/upd-0610.htm 



> The military relented somewhat. They fined the B.C. native $500 and discharged him without honour.



Guess after catching up on all the reading, this has been poste several times, and still missed by many.


----------



## geo (5 Nov 2006)

When you get down to it, we don't really have a dishonorable discharge
we have Cat 1 (Misconduct), cat 2 (unsatisfactory service), Cat 4 (voluntary) and cat 5 Service completed.

Well, yeah, he did not a cat 4c discharge.

He got a 5F, same as most administrative burden types. but the 5F is buried with Retirement age, Reduction in strength, Completed service for which required), not advantageously employable, Irregular enrollment AND (f) Unsuitable for further service.

If he did not get a cat 1 or 2, he walked away with a clean record....


----------



## tasop_999 (5 Nov 2006)

I think its safe to say that Juarez will not be back anytime soon.  He may be parading with the NDP hammer and sickle at their next convention, but he won't be back unless the NDP gain power.  Juarez can become their MND because of his colossal military experience and Napoleonic leadership qualities.  Juarez, the Island of Elba awaits you!


----------



## patrick666 (6 Nov 2006)

I wonder what Stalin would do in this situation...


----------



## geo (6 Nov 2006)

you have to ask?


----------



## Zell_Dietrich (6 Nov 2006)

I know this easily the meanest thing I'll have said in months. I know this issue brings out the  :threat: in me.

This guy is the best that the NDP can come up with.  A guy who joined for the college money and quit before he finished BOTC.  I know in the States,  there are Generals and many officers and guys with their boots on the ground who have voiced strong opposition to the war in Iraq. Both to how it is being run and the fundamental purpose of it.  Here,  I've heard suggestions for improvement, (of course,  feedback leads to improvements)  complaints about the dust but no one I've met who wears a uniform has questioned the purpose of the mission.

Honestly,  if a boot camp washout says that he quit because he disagrees with our military actions (which we were doing before he joined) I'll take that with a large dose of skepticism.  I think it is more likely he realised he didn't like army life and looked for a way to justify to himself quitting without becoming a failure.  And yes,  I look forward to seeing him run for Parliament on the "I washed out of boot camp so I know more than Generals" platform - the best the NDP has to offer lately.


----------



## spud (6 Nov 2006)

It's probably been said already but this is the best thing that could have happened.  If he had made it further he undoubtedly would have been a cancer.

What need do we have for a gutless, spineless coward to be among our men and women, their job is hard enough as it is. Good riddance to bad rubbage. 

potato


----------



## Glorified Ape (6 Nov 2006)

Sounds like he didn't have the mental/physical fortitude to finish his CAP course and so instead of admitting weakness and personal failure, he claims it's for ideological reasons - much less embarassing than admitting the truth. 

Good riddance.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (15 Nov 2006)

Apparently he was on Canada AM yesterday.  Here's the transcript (sorry, no link to this one):



> *Canada's first Afghan war resister*
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> ...



Frankly, his version of events doesn't make much sense to me, given how he thundered out of CAP...  Apparently, he's an Islamic scholar now too... :


----------



## spud (15 Nov 2006)

Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> Apparently he was on Canada AM yesterday.  Here's the transcript (sorry, no link to this one):
> 
> Frankly, his version of events doesn't make much sense to me, given how he thundered out of CAP...  Apparently, he's an Islamic scholar now too... :



Funny, before he was "being groomed" to go and now he was "actively going to be seeking". 
The bottom line should not say "Francisco Juarez, Canadian Forces Reservist", it should say "Francisco Juarez - disgraced *FORMER* Canadian Forces Reservist"

I guess it's true, "every dog coward has his day". Good riddance. 

potato


----------



## Journeyman (15 Nov 2006)

Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> Frankly, his version of events doesn't make much sense to me, given how he thundered out of CAP...  Apparently, he's an Islamic scholar now too... :


The 'manufacturing of facts' perpetrated by Juarez, Canadian Peace Alliance, _et al_ continues to be routinely and unquestioningly passed along by the media. There is a well-done rebuttal by the Ruxted Group: http://ruxted.ca/index.php?/archives/28-Francisco-Juarez.html

His new-found expertise is merely another facet of his revisionist history. Since demonstrating his inability to complete CAP, for whatever reason, his story evolves to give himself a more palatable memory - - a more noble self-justification than being remembered, more simply and correctly, as a "quitter."


And for those interested in factual accuracy, the last line should read "Francisco Juarez, former-Reservist, released from the Canadian Forces."


----------



## spud (15 Nov 2006)

davidhmd said:
			
		

> "But I indeed would like to have that contact certainly."
> pm@pm.gc.ca
> 
> Took me 4 seconds to find on google. Put up or shut up....



Dear Mr. Prime Minister

I was really scared. So I went home. 

Sincerely,
Francisco


----------



## armyvern (15 Nov 2006)

For the "Guests" reviewing this thread today, please make note of the fact (in your factual reporting of course) that Mr. Franciso Juarez stated:



> JUAREZ: I was actively going to be seeking a place on rotation, hopefully by 2009. And I was definitely hoping to go to Afghanistan, yes



Factual Point #1: Mr. Juarez has admitted that he was not slated for Afghanistan and had not volunteered for it, but that he was hoping to do so by *2009*.

Factual Point #2: Mr. Juarez has stated that the reason he "quit" was because he did not agree with the newly elected Conservative governments policy of war-making in Afghanistan.

I would point out to you that the Conservative government did not implement a new policy in Afghanistan, they simply extend the existing Liberal mission until 2009. 

Well funny isn't it that Mr. Juarez was hoping to volunteer for service in Afghanistan by 2009 which tells us he was aware of the mission extension by the Conservatives? And although he has admitted to knowing about the new end date (thus his 2009) he claims he's resisted because of Conservative policy? The only thing the conservatives did was amend the end-date to that 2009 one. So, Mr. Juarez was fully aware of the mission, it's mandate and the policy (set by the Liberals) well prior to reporting for his course.

A change in policy (which didn't change at all) is his _*excuse*_. And you are buying it...hook, line and sinker. His 15 minutes are over. Please give it up.


Vern


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (15 Nov 2006)

From the original story (first post on this thread):



> During a training session earlier this year at Gagetown, N.B., *he refused to walk onto an obstacle course * and told his commanding officer: "I no longer wish to participate."
> 
> He was dragged before several army captains, told he would feel like a failure for the rest of his life, and threatened with a court martial and possible jail time.
> 
> ...



Slightly different now, no?  One would think that if he were quitting for political reasons, it wouldn't be immediately before an obstacle course session...  :

The last line offers a *ahem* "different interpretation" as well...


----------



## geo (15 Nov 2006)

Vern

+10


----------



## spud (15 Nov 2006)

geo said:
			
		

> Vern
> +10



Nail on the head Vern. 

potato


----------



## Wookilar (15 Nov 2006)

I say we drop this clown and stop wasting our time commenting on his activities. Enough people that have actually worked with him on ship, at the unit, and on his course have had their say.

We all agree (even Zell) on who/what this individual is and what his reasons for quitting were.

If the press even cared a little, they could have punched so many holes in his story, made him look like the fool that he is, and carried on with some real news. It is clear that they do not care about the truth, just headlines.

Done. He gets no more of my attention.

Wook


----------



## Kat Stevens (15 Nov 2006)

The guy is a turd. Let's just flush him from our cyber-colon and get on with more pleasant topics,  like genital warts or something.


----------



## Scott (15 Nov 2006)

Something to get off your chest, Kat?


----------



## niner domestic (15 Nov 2006)

I was wondering the same thing Kat...His 15 minutes were up 2 years ago.


----------



## tasop_999 (15 Nov 2006)

Myth:  Juarez was being goomed for a place in the Aghan mission, complete with subordinates who hung on his every word out of sheer awe.
Fact:  Juarez was an NCIOP who was disgruntled when he left the ship.

Myth:  The sudden change of heart on the obstacle course in Gagetown brought about an intrinsic NDP renaissance within Juarez.
Fact:  Juarez has always been somewhat "left" in his political leanings.

Myth:  The media always checks its back story and never makes a mistake.
Fact:  In this case, it seems that the media failed to check some facts and gave this guy more airtime than he deserves.

Bravo to Librarian for digging up some more quotes about this guy.  I knew Juarez and I can't say that I agree with his perspective.  Kudos to everyone here for doing their due diligence.


----------



## armyvern (15 Nov 2006)

tasop_999 said:
			
		

> Kudos to everyone here for doing their due diligence.


Due diligence indeed. Funny how the Army.ca folks outted this poser right from the get go with their due diligence; and Ruxted.ca  released an excellent article exposing this guy and stating the facts.

I really enjoy how his story is now evolving. Yet, isn't that what they say about telling lies? You find yourself getting tangled up on some little 'non-compliant' detail and end up embellishing your story even more trying to cover up that lie. In this case his insertion of more "facts" and embellishments straight from his own mouth, most certainly by giving the "before 2009" statement on the air, confirm exactly what we have been saying from the beginning. This guy is POSING as an Afghanistan War Resister, and he can't even get that right.


----------



## Kat Stevens (16 Nov 2006)

Scott said:
			
		

> Something to get off your chest, Kat?



I thought I just did...


----------



## HDE (16 Nov 2006)

It ceratinly is amazing how resilient the guy is; he's been shown to be a poseur repeatedly and he's still milking his "war resister" status.  It doesn't reassure me that a mainstream network is still parading this guy out for interviews.   Then they wonder why viewership is declining


----------



## Zell_Dietrich (16 Nov 2006)

HDE said:
			
		

> Then they wonder why viewership is declining



Main stream media's viewership is declining?  This is the first I've heard of it.  I know that a larger pool of viewers is being split between more and more news channels... that's why they are now so focused on what gets eyeballs in place of real news. A brief summary of the news then photo ops of celebs insted of a detailed explanation of the issues. I hate tabloid journalism,  I find it vexing.  

I don't think we can count on the National doing an hour long special on the guy,  outing him for giving misleading statements about his position and career path. So it is up to us to get the word out.  When he comes up in conversation,  listen politely and then rattel off the facts.  1) officer cadet is an untrained recruit, many officer cadets haven't done boot camp yet. 2) he joined after we had sent troops to Afghanistan. (I'm only 95% sure on that - If I am wrong correct me please) 3) As a reservist he would not only have to ask to go,  he would have to ask nicely to go and then he would only be sent if there was a spot available - and someone more qualified didn't want it. ... there are many more points,  those are usually the ones you need to use before people start looking closely at the guy.

Oh and since it has been a few pages since I've said this,  this guy rubs me the wrong way. (I have posed a few rather rough postings earlier in this thread)  I no longer actively dislike him.... I still question both his actions and the intentions behind them.  It want to see the good in him.  I'll leave it as a personal failing that I don't. ... Wait,  he has nice hair.  There he isn't all bad he has nice hair. Yes indeed,  a wonderfull hair cut. 

I want hair like that,  but I think I'll stick with my "crew-cut" - it fits nicely under the beret.
http://www.aperfectworld.org/11501.htm  

(Yes the nice hair was a mocking reference to those who mocked Ambrose for her hair - I think it is the new fashion to belittle someone when you've run out of things to say by praising their hair http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=2a454c2d-7827-419f-a17a-85a4f026254e&k=68539 )


----------



## patrick666 (16 Nov 2006)

I'd like to think the media would apologe for misleading the public with false information but, you know, I'd also like to think monkeys MIGHT actually fly out of my butt one day....


----------



## Journeyman (16 Nov 2006)

OK...I'll try again to sum this up. In 13 pages, Francisco Juarez has been referred to as: shyster, scum, coward, spineless, gutless, full of crap, turd, and (a personal favourite), a fat, lying sack of shit.

His lies have been more rationally exposed:
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/50044/post-480657.html#msg480657

Referrence has been made to a Ruxted Group commentary on him:
http://ruxted.ca/index.php?/archives/28-Francisco-Juarez.html

And we've heard:


> the guy is a pos and we shouldn't even waste time talking about him.





> His 15 minutes are over. Please give it up.





> ...drop this clown and stop wasting our time commenting on his activities





> His 15 minutes were up 2 years ago



So why don't we all take a deep breath.....and back away from the keyboard. There is an overwhelming amount of evidence here should the media wish to correct their portrayal of Juarez as anything but what he truly is. That they choose not to will not be changed by dragging this thread out to a new army.ca record.

Let it go.




Oh, and Patrick,


			
				Patrick H. said:
			
		

> I'd also like to think monkeys MIGHT actually fly out of my butt one day....


[size=10pt] It's not nearly as much fun as it seems in the movies. Let that one go too.


----------



## patrick666 (16 Nov 2006)

Journeyman has an excellent point. +10

... you mean, the movies aren't real??  :'(


----------



## Foxman (16 Nov 2006)

OK, so I was in Gagetown this summer on the same CAP serial as this guy this summer. I was in the other platoon and didn't know him except to see him wandering around looking confused once in a while. Funny thing, I didn't even hear about this until I got home. Maybe I'm slow or was just obsorbed with passing my course and focussing on helping those in my section/platoon pass. (like my friend who explained to the commandant, why she should get to stay on course despite her broken foot) 

But anyways, I digress. Here are my two cents on this whole thread:

-He quits the army because he strongly opposes the war
-He was going to volunteer to go
-He refused to participate because he didn't want to go

So, if the decision maker surrounding his potential deployment was himself, is he then protesting.....wait for it.....himself? 

I want to protest myself too. What don't I like about me? I've got to think hard about this...


----------



## Dodger1967 (16 Nov 2006)

Groomed to be an officer? His head must of hurt  if he was being groomed ! HTF do you groom an officer ?

To bad you can't shoot deserters  and cowards anymore. He should have been shot.


----------



## geo (16 Nov 2006)

Dodger1967 said:
			
		

> Groomed to be an officer? His head must of hurt  if he was being groomed ! HTF do you groom an officer ?
> 
> To bad you can't shoot deserters  and cowards anymore. He should have been shot.



Huh?
He is (opr was) a reservist. He had no obligation to serve in Afghanistan or elsewhere outside of Canada without an order in council to call out the reserves and that has not happened since 1939

He was failing his course, he asked his instructors to give him a "return to mama" err unit...... 

There was no desertion, he has not done anything that warrants the term "coward" or do you know something we don't?


----------



## Zell_Dietrich (17 Nov 2006)

Dodger1967 said:
			
		

> Groomed to be an officer? His head must of hurt  if he was being groomed ! HTF do you groom an officer ?



 :rofl:   (This is a joke - I mean it as a joke, please take it as such ;D) 

Grooming an officer. Well first you fix his damm poofy beret.  Get the lint off and form it right. then you show him how the sleeves are supposed to look when rolled up ... and then do it for him.  Do up the his buttons, and fix the pockets.  Show him how to hide those strings.... no just take the bottom one out altogether.  Make sure his belt isn't still its original 9 feet in length (cut it) and shoe him where to but his Gerber on his belt so he doesn't jab himself sitting down.  After showing him how to use those handy dandy boot bands and tuck in his sand traps into his boot (which you polished) you do the most important thing you have him repeat over and over "What do you think Sergent, What an insightfull idea Sergent."  (Of course replace with the appropriate rank for his situation)  You then of course give him a sugar cube or diet coke and say "Pretty officer,  goooood officer".

     You know that reminds me,  I need to fix my beret, roll down my sleeves, polish my boots and study for the course I'm on. (I'm going to go get a diet coke now)


----------



## vonGarvin (5 Dec 2006)

A while ago, Phill Alt posted Mr. Juarez' speech on his blog.  I commented.  To Mr. Alt's credit, he posted my comment in its entirety and unedited.

Here is the link:
http://philallt.ca/?p=264#comments


----------



## Colin Parkinson (5 Dec 2006)

Captain Scarlet said:
			
		

> A while ago, Phill Alt posted Mr. Juarez' speech on his blog.  I commented.  To Mr. Alt's credit, he posted my comment in its entirety and unedited.
> 
> Here is the link:
> http://philallt.ca/?p=264#comments




SPLAT!!!  ;D

sliced, diced and dumped!


----------



## George Wallace (5 Dec 2006)

Captain Scarlet said:
			
		

> A while ago, Phill Alt posted Mr. Juarez' speech on his blog.  I commented.  To Mr. Alt's credit, he posted my comment in its entirety and unedited.
> 
> Here is the link:
> http://philallt.ca/?p=264#comments



And I see it seemed to put an end to the discussion.  We will have to keep an eye on it to see if some of Mr Juarez' sympathizers attempt a response.


----------



## GAP (5 Dec 2006)

Excellent reply....kinda shoots all kinds of holes in his arguements...nice  ;D


----------



## vonGarvin (5 Dec 2006)

Thanks 

I knew that my philosophy classes would come in handy one day (not the "why are we here" crap classes, but the critical thinking, etc).  My intent was to use his own words against him, some of which came just a few sentences prior.  It was blatantly obvious to me that most of what he said didn't make sense.  So, I just illustrated, allowing him but three strikes


----------



## Kat Stevens (5 Dec 2006)

Splash one bogey, nice work, Cap'n.


----------



## Link (5 Dec 2006)

I think the greatest flaw in his argument is the fact that he was a reservist.  Reservists are not required to go on tour unless they volunteer for it, so we have to ask, was this guy even part of the army at all.  He seems rather clueless.


----------



## Journeyman (5 Dec 2006)

Link said:
			
		

> *Reservists..... have to ask, was this guy even part of the army at all*


Duck and cover  >


----------



## geo (5 Dec 2006)

Journeyman: Link!



he was "REG" navy.  Don't try to pin this POS on the Res


----------



## Danjanou (5 Dec 2006)

geo said:
			
		

> Journeyman:
> 
> 
> 
> he was "REG" navy.  Don't try to pin this POS on the Res



Geo it wasn't Journeyman he was just responding to Link's post. Now link you want to expand on that statement there troop? For a reservist who just put in his CT to the regs a month ago don't you think it's a bit soon to start on the reserve bashing. Maybe we should just write it off as a pathetic attempt at trolling or shit disturbing and await your public apology to the board.


----------



## Zell_Dietrich (5 Dec 2006)

Journeyman,

     I don't think Link meant to imply that really annoying idea that reservists aren't apart of the Army.  I think he was questioning if this guy was in at all because he seems to not know fundamental facts.  This guy was in,  that is a fact,  I don't know if he flubbed BOTC I  or BOTC II,  by the timing of everything I *think* BOTC II, but that is a poorly educated guess.

On a side note,  I'm a reservist and I can say first hand it does feel like I'm just playing dress up sometimes, not really being usefull.  So if you get a reservist who gets really upset over being told he isn't real army,  chances are he (or she) feels the same way I do at times.


----------



## Journeyman (5 Dec 2006)

Now, truth be told boys & girls.....I really don't care about Link's Reg/Res opinion one way or the other (I'm one of those old-fashioned 'respect should be earned' types).

The "duck & cover" was merely anticipating the inevitable dogpile.


----------



## cplcaldwell (5 Dec 2006)

REF: geo's post above....

But can't we have _sooo_ much more fun with this than the usual Res/Reg bun fight??

Fact is, the gent was in the _*Navy*_ for a few years before moving to the green world.

"Targets to your front ......"

 ;D


----------



## vonGarvin (5 Dec 2006)

I think that avoiding what he *is * vice what he *says * should be the focus.  I'd rather avoid ad hominem attacks and focus instead on the logical fallicies within his own arguments.


----------



## Danjanou (5 Dec 2006)

Ok I realize that this can be a heated issue for some, which is probably why the mods are using the velvet glove approach in this thread. 

However the minute it starts to go south you know what happens.

Anyone who feels the need to start another pointless reg vs reserve or army vs navy bun fight as opposed to making some meaningful contributions, either stop typing now or feel free to take it elsewhere. I hear milposers.net is looking for a few good trolls.


----------



## cplcaldwell (5 Dec 2006)

From MacLeans, 
Shared under the Fair Dealings Provisions of the CopyRight Act RSC


Note the date, Nov 20, it seems this was published during a lull in our conversations, interesting to see Mr Juarez's stance 'evolve'. 
Note also, Ruxted has made it to the big time ... quoted in MacLeans! _WooWho!_

Emboldening added



*A resister without a war   
MICHAEL FRISCOLANTI 
Mon Nov 20, 12:00 AM
* 

Francisco Juarez is the newest voice of Canada's anti-war movement, and understandably so. A former navy seaman turned army reservist, the 35-year-old famously quit the military because he couldn't stomach the thought of deploying to Afghanistan. Free to speak his mind, Juarez now spends much of his time travelling the country, telling crowds large and small why the rest of Canada's troops don't belong in Kandahar, either. Journalists have dubbed him the "first Afghan war resister" -- a title he happily accepts. "My ethics guide me," Juarez says, "and I followed them."

Peace activists couldn't buy a better spokesman, a real-life soldier who saw the light at the end of the propaganda tunnel. "If we send Canadian Forces members to work and possibly die in another part of the world, we owe them a debate," Juarez says. "There needs to be a broader discussion within our society about what we are doing, and I think the Prime Minister needs to be a bit more honest about the objectives." 

But others -- including officials at the Department of National Defence -- believe it is Juarez, not Stephen Harper, who needs to start telling the truth. *"From my point of view, he doesn't have any credibility," says Commander Denise Laviolette, a spokeswoman for the chief of military personnel. "He wasn't resisting anything because he wasn't even in line to go."*

In March, after four years on the water, Juarez transferred from the full-time navy to the part-time army in the hopes of finishing his university degree while training to be an infantry officer. *Now a reservist, Juarez was under no obligation to serve in Afghanistan. Part-time soldiers cannot be forced to deploy; they must volunteer.* Juarez insists he intended to sign up for a tour by 2009, but then he began to question the military's evolving Afghan strategy, which he describes as war first, aid second. 

He became so disillusioned that during a training course in New Brunswick he simply refused to participate, citing personal and family reasons. 

*But he never mentioned Afghanistan. "I kept that to myself," he says, speaking by telephone from his home in Victoria, B.C. "I just wanted to make it easy so I could get out and, as a private citizen, express my point of view." He got his wish. The Forces fined Juarez $500 and discharged him without honour.*

Since then, he has become a poster boy for peace, applauded in the press for his refusal "to train for the Afghan campaign." *To the military's chagrin, most reports have failed to mention the obvious fact: Juarez was never bound for the war he now claims to resist. The Forces' public affairs department has tried to set the record straight, but with little success. "We are not in a situation similar to other nations that have had numerous individuals desert  because they didn't want to serve," Laviolette says. "We have had zero conscientious objectors and we have had zero folks go absent without leave."* 

*The Ruxted Group, a website that publishes defence-related commentary, has even gone so far as to demand that Juarez apologize for misleading the public. "The time has come for Mr. Juarez to come clean," the e site reads. "As a former service member, however briefly, we are sure he is still familiar with the concepts of personal responsibility and honour. As such, he knows that we ca cannot quietly accept his blatant disregard for the truth."*

Juarez insists he was never dishonest. "*I was not in danger of being ordered to go to Afghanistan, and I try to make that very, very clear," he says. "I haven't been obfuscatory about that at all. I know in some of the articles it sort of sounds like it, but that was not my intention."* 

He believes his status as a reservist doesn't change the fact that he is a bona fide war resister. "What is a war resister?" he asks. "How do we define a war resister? Certainly some people say you have to be in a situation where you are going to be sent and then you refuse. But I think there are many different kinds of war resisters." 

Take the United States, for example. Some deserters deployed, then fled. *Others simply refused to board the plane. "I sort of see myself in there somewhere," Juarez continues. "But I don't spend a lot of time worrying about what kind of war resister I am. I just know that I oppose the mission as it is in Afghanistan and what Stephen Harper is doing to our country."* 

To comment, email letters@macleans. ca


----------



## a_majoor (5 Dec 2006)

Danjanou said:
			
		

> Anyone who feels the need to start another pointless reg vs reserve or army vs navy bun fight as opposed to making some meaningful contributions, either stop typing now or feel free to take it elsewhere. I hear milposers.net is looking for a few good trolls.



A two by two matrix so we can sort out this bunfight. Pick a square!  ;D


                I       Regular        I      Reserve
     ______________________________________
      ARMY  I  Regular Army    I   Reserve Army
     ______________________________________
      NAVY  I  Regular Navy     I   Reserve Navy


----------



## career_radio-checker (5 Dec 2006)

Here are his latest ramblings

part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iroLoPn-d4M&mode=related&search=
part 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xkDIZCGcms&mode=related&search=

My question now is; how much money does he make every appearance? Because he certainly is not paying for his travels around the country from his own pocket.


----------



## armyvern (5 Dec 2006)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> A two by two matrix so we can sort out this bunfight. Pick a square!  ;D
> 
> 
> I       Regular        I      Reserve
> ...



What happens when you factor in those Air Force people??  >


----------



## cplcaldwell (5 Dec 2006)

WRT a_majoor's post, the Part 1 vid in particular. 

It's interesting to note the times at which Mr Juarez returns to his notes. 

He is quite clearly telling his own story, and thus can do so extemporaneously, however there are at least two occasions where he returns to notes. 

First, when talking about the fact that he joined the CF to get assistance with his educational costs and that (paraphrasing here) this fact was becoming more and more a fact as post secondary education funding was lagging and the military (as he said it) was resorting to getting recruits to by enticing folks with funding incentives. 

I wonder if MarCom was subsidizing his studies in Law when he was an NCIOP? 

This argument of course is an old saw used by ACT! and picked up directly from American Peace Protesters as part and parcel of a nefarious plot by the neo conservatives to institute a 'poverty draft' in Canada. 

Interesting that we never heard this little tidbit from Mr Juarez before. 

Interesting how he immediately referred verbatim to his notes whilst talking about this point. Perhaps the readers  have some inkling as to why this would be, I for one, am stymied....

Finally (or at least as far as I'll mention here), the last instance of this referring to notes is when Mr Juarez starts talking about how Mr Harper is executing Republican party plans to by $150,000 shells when it has taken ten years to fix our health care system.... again , perhaps the readers could comment on why Mr Juarez went to notes at this point in his oratory, I am buffled....


----------



## cplcaldwell (5 Dec 2006)

Now, of course I couldn't use the term _*dupe*_ as that would be an 'ad hominem'  :-*


----------



## tasop_999 (6 Dec 2006)

Why yes indeed the CF was funding Mr. Jurarez's law studies.  When I knew him, he was planning to get out and become a Saanich Cop.  I guess political martyr pays more.


----------



## geo (6 Dec 2006)

Heh... I guess he has a future as a political hack / MLA / MP if nothing else


----------



## SeaKingTacco (6 Dec 2006)

> Why yes indeed the CF was funding Mr. Jurarez's law studies.  When I knew him, he was planning to get out and become a Saanich Cop.  I guess political martyr pays more.



I am reasonably familiar with the Saanich PD and several of their officers.  Let us just say that I do not believe that, as an organization, they would have been very interested in actually employing Mr Juarez.


----------



## captainj (6 Dec 2006)

Thank god for democracy that allows this lad to conduct himself in such a manner. I trust he will return any of the $2000.00 education grant he no doubt drew from the crown. If he dosn't as I suspect he will not, then where his honour as a human let alone serviceperson. Trust me the officer corp and indeed the CF as a whole is far better off without this kind of person. Frankly it was a cheap price to pay and thank the lord he did what he did rather than putting others at risk.

Perhaps he should visit one of our wounded fighting to stand up again for Canada. Then again he isn't worthy of taking in the same air.

It would be interesting to follow this chap and his career in law where truth and honour are suppose to be at the forefront. Oh well perhaps he is better off for the nations sake following the path he chose. Lord knows he has no place in the a noble disipline like the service.


----------



## vonGarvin (6 Dec 2006)

captainj said:
			
		

> in law where truth and honour are suppose to be at the forefront.


:rofl:
You're kidding, right?

I thought law wasn't about "right and wrong" but about "winning and losing"


----------



## Kat Stevens (6 Dec 2006)

Justice and the law have two things in common, Jack, and squat, and Jack just left town.


----------



## Trinity (7 Dec 2006)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Justice and the law have two things in common, Jack, and squat, and Jack just left town.



Taliban Jack left town?  Did he take Juarez with him?  ;D


----------



## niner domestic (7 Dec 2006)

Ok, so how did a thread on a "war resister", get turned into a bashing of the the law? I don't recall hearing the name of the law school this person is attending (if he's actually attending a law school as opposed to taking a few law classes in a Criminology/Justice program.  But hey, call me skeptical, this person does managed to stretch the truth a fair bit)


----------



## geo (7 Dec 2006)

hehe.... yeah, he could give lawyers a bad name (JK) 8)


----------



## Tyler (13 Jun 2007)

I'm kind of upset that I missed my chance to clear the air back in October when Juarez's coments first came to light.

During the summer of 2006, I worked as a supplementary staff member in Jaurez's platoon for the CAP course running out the infantry school in Gagetown (course storeman).  I remember driving him around once or twice, I spent a good deal of time speaking with the candidates in his platoon, as it was my job to drive them around whenever they needed to get to the MIR, among other things.  I also spent alot of time speaking with the staff.  Needless to say I heard alot of things from the instructors side, as well as the candidates.

Here's what I know about Juarez:

* He was universally detested by the course candidates.  He showed little to no motivation on PT or in the field, and was known among his platoon as a blade.  Even the weaker and more timid candidates couldn't stand the guy.  It was almost amusing to hear a nerdy little Signals OCdt tell me what a bag of crap he was.

*The course staff shared the same opinion.  They were tired of his poor attitude and insubordinate behaviour.  He had asked to be sent off course a number of times, but the staff didn't want to give up on him.  When that didn't work he went up the chain in the Infantry School to ask to be sent home.  When that didn't work he started to refuse orders. In fact I think I remember driving him to one of his little chats with the 2IC of the school before he got the boot.

* One morning in late June or early July while on PT on the obstacle course, Juarez refused to complete an obstacle.  The MBdr ordered him to go again, and he still refused.  As far as I know, the course staff and the Infantry School staff were sick of putting up with him, so he was charged with insubordination, fined $500, and booted off the course.

So there you have it.... I hope the lurker from the National Post on this site reads this and decides to dig a little further.


----------



## armyvern (13 Jun 2007)

Tyler said:
			
		

> ... I worked as a supplementary staff member in Jaurez's platoon for the CAP course running out the infantry school in Gagetown (course storeman).


Hmmmm ... ... ... ... ??? ... ... ... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			







			
				Tyler said:
			
		

> So there you have it.... I hope the lurker from the National Post on this site reads this and decides to dig a little further.


I beg you, please don't hold your breath. They've had 10 months to correct this situation and post the fact that this guy was in no way "resisting" anything. They know he wasn't slated to deploy to Afghanistan then or at any point in the future, and they are well aware that he would have to volunteer to do that as a Reserve. 

They fact the MSM have chosen to ignore those _factual details_ in their "real" story for this long leads me to believe that they are fully aware that they have no "real" story. 

Quite ironic isn't it? "Reporting" entails detailing/outlining/presenting the facts without the spin. These days the tendancy by many is to _write_ the story to suit the "spin" and ignore the facts (thus I use the term "_write_" vice "report"); which is exactly what they have done with their Juarez "not a true story" _writings_.


----------



## Danjanou (13 Jun 2007)

I see our little poster boy for insubordination has been trotted out by the group in Quebec doing the mass mailings to 5GBC. He’s quoted on their website as one of the war resisters.  :


----------



## slowmode (13 Jun 2007)

As a Reservist there could have been a better way for him to get out instead of being out like that.


----------



## Zell_Dietrich (13 Jun 2007)

slowmode said:
			
		

> As a Reservist there could have been a better way for him to get out instead of being out like that.


For us, yes. Maybe not for him.

Keep in mind when you fail at something,  you can either look deep within you and see your own flaws or you can find an excuse.  This way he isn't an Ocdt who failed at CAP, he is a conscientious objector who's being persecuted by the system. It comes with a celebrity status and people tell you how brave you are versus being another guy who just couldn't hack it.

(I say thing having come to the conclusion that he didn't change his mind about the Afghan mission,  I base this on both his actions and the statements made by those surrounding him)


----------



## slowmode (13 Jun 2007)

Zell_Dietrich said:
			
		

> For us, yes. Maybe not for him.
> 
> Keep in mind when you fail at something,  you can either look deep within you and see your own flaws or you can find an excuse.  This way he isn't an Ocdt who failed at CAP, he is a conscientious objector who's being persecuted by the system. It comes with a celebrity status and people tell you how brave you are versus being another guy who just couldn't hack it.
> 
> (I say thing having come to the conclusion that he didn't change his mind about the Afghan mission,  I base this on both his actions and the statements made by those surrounding him)


Thats a good point, I never looked at it that way.


----------



## Danjanou (13 Jun 2007)

Also one will most likely lead to his automatic nomination as the NDP candidate in some BC riding for the next election. Scary though he wins and Jack makes him the NDP Defence critic because he would be theiri defacto SME on defence. Scarier though Jack wins and Juarez becomes.......  (where is the vomit smiley?)


----------



## Zell_Dietrich (13 Jun 2007)

Now,  it comes down to it, I feel sorry for him.  If I'm right and he did this to fool himself out of his shame ... he is now suffering.  I think he thought he would say what he said then fade away - now that is is famous, and quoted all the time,  he has to live with what deep down he knows to be true. Every day of his life he is "the war resister".  He is now forever stuck at that point on the obstacle course he didn't want to go on and he decided to quit.

While we'll all get to move on,  he will always be there choosing to quit.


----------



## Danjanou (13 Jun 2007)

Zell_Dietrich said:
			
		

> Now,  it comes down to it, I feel sorry for him.  If I'm right and he did this to fool himself out of his shame ... he is now suffering.  I think he thought he would say what he said then fade away - now that is is famous, and quoted all the time,  he has to live with what deep down he knows to be true. Every day of his life he is "the war resister".  He is now forever stuck at that point on the obstacle course he didn't want to go on and he decided to quit.
> 
> While we'll all get to move on,  he will always be there choosing to quit.



Feel free to give him a nice warm hug then brother. 

I still hold that he's a waste of breathable oxygen. 

You're presuming he has the ability to realize he failed and deep down feels the shame. I'd say the exact opposite. he enjoys playign the poster boy for the ar resistance movement  and the moral superior to us poor misinformed grunts. Go take a look at his condescendingr replies on the Ruxted article whichhad  the affrontery to postot the facts that don't match his version of events. The reason we haven't heard from him recently is because he's out there building a nice big cross for himself.  :


----------



## geo (13 Jun 2007)

Ahem.... Mr Juarez is contributing to the greenhouse gas effect.... please have him shut up!


----------



## medaid (13 Jun 2007)

he's probably why Canada hasn't met its Kyoto Accord levels yet.... damnations...


----------



## Zell_Dietrich (13 Jun 2007)

Danjanou said:
			
		

> Feel free to give him a nice warm hug then brother.



I am a touchy feely kinda of person for sure. If he looked like he needed a hug, I'd likely give him one. (I'm not saying I wouldn't have a stern talk with him and call his actions into question... I'm saying if he needed one, I'd *maybe* give him a hug)  I'd even give a hug to those mean police officers who stopped me today to search my barracks box because someone thought it looked suspicious.  (yes I did enjoy getting frisked for the first time in my life,  on a busy street and the sunburn I got waiting for them to finish reading all my pay stubs) Yes I'd hug them too.  (Except one of the female officers - it was clear she wasn't good at her job.)



			
				Danjanou said:
			
		

> You're presuming he has the ability to realize he failed and deep down feels the shame.



I think that every human being is sentient.  While I don't easily dismiss the power of the mind to choose one's own reality,  there will always be reality. He may honestly believe what he is saying, but deep down, apart of him knows.  If I've interprated his motives correctly, he is suffering right now.  Ever time he steps into the limelite to be the resister, a part of him relives that moment where he chose to quit.  

I was raised to believe that if you refuse to learn something,  facing it head on to grow, you will have to repeat the lesson. Over and over.  (well at this point I'm getting into other topics, but still I think it is apt.)


----------



## RangerRay (13 Jun 2007)

Zell, I have to agree with Danjanou.  I believe that he quite likes this little narrative that he's created much better than the truth, and probably even believes it himself.  No doubt having his ego stroked by those in the anti-effort movement and MSM, as well as those peacenik chicks throwing themselves at him help with that.

My guess is that he feels no shame whatsoever.  Someone who would have felt shame would not have gone to the lengths to get publicity for being RTU'd as he has


----------



## Danjanou (13 Jun 2007)

Zell_Dietrich said:
			
		

> I was raised to believe that if you refuse to learn something,  facing it head on to grow, you will have to repeat the lesson. Over and over.  (well at this point I'm getting into other topics, but still I think it is apt.)



Which is why I will sit down and break bread with you anytime and have done so in the past, as I would any of our "family" with one notable exception now. By his actions and more-so his attitude he has forfeited that right in my opinion


----------

