# Penticton Reservist (?):  "It's time to end Afghanistan war"



## The Bread Guy (8 Oct 2008)

Career firing alright, career STOPS ....  I'm guessing this chap may be getting a talking to on his next parade night.  Link to even longer letter below.

Shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the _Copyright Act._

*Soldier says it's time to end Afghanistan war*
Letter to the editor, Toronto Star, 8 Oct 08
Letter link

I love my country just like anybody else. But when I hear of things our troops have done in Afghanistan, I have to ask, "What kind of legacy do we wish to leave behind?" Some examples: we respond to hostile fire by indiscriminate bombing and shelling of villages, killing innocent men, women and children; we fire white phosphorus shells (a chemical weapon outlawed by the Geneva Conventions due to the horrific way it burns human beings) into vineyards where it was known Afghan insurgents were deployed; we hand over prisoners of war to Afghan authorities, who torture them; and we shoot and kill a 2-year-old Afghan boy and his 4-year-old sister. Do we want to be remembered for hating, killing and destroying, or caring, healing and helping with reconstruction?

The war in Afghanistan is a lie. How can we inspire the Afghan people to respect liberty, democracy, equality for women, education for children, human rights and respect for life when we are maiming and murdering them and destroying their homes, communities, the economy and their country? If mothers and fathers keep on sending our youth to Afghanistan, then our sons and daughters will keep on fighting and dying and will keep on killing and injuring the sons and daughters of the Afghan people. And mothers and fathers of Canada and Afghanistan will keep on crying. Soldiers are trained to operate military equipment and vehicles. A weapon is put in one hand and ammunition in the other, and we are taught the fine art of killing our fellow human beings. If we wish to end this cycle of death, injury, destruction, hate, sorrow and despair, then we must stop war. So, when in future, our maimed soldiers walk down the street and our children ask, "Why?" we will say "Afghanistan" and mean a place where Canada turned against war and for peace, and not an obscene memory.

My fellow citizens, help me and soldiers like me end the war. Let's hear your voices. Let's do something we can all be proud of. If we achieve peace in Afghanistan, then the deaths of 97 of my "comrades in arms" and of unreported thousands of innocent Afghans will not have been in vain. Support the troops. Support peace. Bring our troops home now.

*Corporal* Paul Demetrick, *Canadian Army (Reserve)*, Penticton, B.C.



Longer letter here.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (8 Oct 2008)

Does anybody know this guy?  Still serving?


----------



## vonGarvin (8 Oct 2008)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> I love my country just like anybody else. But when I hear of things our troops have done in Afghanistan, I have to ask, "What kind of legacy do we wish to leave behind?" Some examples: *we respond to hostile fire by indiscriminate bombing and shelling of villages, killing innocent men, women and children; we fire white phosphorus shells (a chemical weapon outlawed by the Geneva Conventions due to the horrific way it burns human beings) into vineyards where it was known Afghan insurgents were deployed; we hand over prisoners of war to Afghan authorities, who torture them; and we shoot and kill a 2-year-old Afghan boy and his 4-year-old sister. Do we want to be remembered for hating, killing and destroying, or caring, healing and helping with reconstruction?*
> The war in Afghanistan is a lie. How can we inspire the Afghan people to respect liberty, democracy, equality for women, education for children, human rights and respect for life when we are maiming and murdering them and destroying their homes, communities, the economy and their country? If mothers and fathers keep on sending our youth to Afghanistan, then our sons and daughters will keep on fighting and dying and will keep on killing and injuring the sons and daughters of the Afghan people. And mothers and fathers of Canada and Afghanistan will keep on crying. Soldiers are trained to operate military equipment and vehicles. A weapon is put in one hand and ammunition in the other, and we are taught the fine art of killing our fellow human beings. If we wish to end this cycle of death, injury, destruction, hate, sorrow and despair, then we must stop war. So, when in future, our maimed soldiers walk down the street and our children ask, "Why?" we will say "Afghanistan" and mean a place where Canada turned against war and for peace, and not an obscene memory.


Never let the facts get in the way of a good story, eh?  This asshat outright lies when he says that we fire indiscriminately.  He outright lies that WP is outlawed by the Geneva Conventions. 


> 36. Weapons Employing Fire
> The use of weapons which employ fire, such as tracer ammunition, flamethrowers, napalm and *other incendiary agents*, against targets requiring their use *is not violative of international law*. They should not, however, be employed in such a way as to cause unnecessary suffering to individuals.  Source


 He outright lies when he says that we hand over prisoners of war to Afghan Authorities: we have yet to capture a "Prisoner of War".  He outright lies when he says that we murder and maim them, destroy their homes, communities, economy and country.
I would bet dollars to doughnuts that this asshat has even stepped foot in Afghanistan.
 :rage:


----------



## Cloud Cover (8 Oct 2008)

Sounds like a Doukabour name. 

He's raised a point that's been raised here before- what are we really doing there? 
I don't agree with most of his post, and I'm quite certain most CF members (living or dead) would not consider this guy to be a "comrade",


----------



## vonGarvin (8 Oct 2008)

Hey, I agree with him in that it's time to end the war.  I'm doing my part: by bringing together lots of lethal effects delivering devices and applying them, judiciously, to the enemy, with a view to forcing them to stop.  Or at least to buy time for the Afghan army to go for "the big win".


----------



## S.Stewart (8 Oct 2008)

This is the kind of standard BS that fuels the crackpot anti-military/war protesters. Way to take us 30 steps back and making it sound like the war in Afghanistan is a giant melting pot of war crimes in which we as a nation are getting away with. Hope this idiot gets an administrative smack upside the head, and asked what in hades he was thinking.


----------



## brihard (8 Oct 2008)

I'm not a lawyer, and I know applying the NDA to class A reservists can be tricky. Given that he has identified himself as a member of the C.F., can he be subject to legal/administrative action for this? This has to be one hell of a 129 at minimum...


----------



## OldSolduer (8 Oct 2008)

How do we know that this guy really serves, or is this a ficticious ploy?

As a parent who has lost a son to the war in Afghanistan, this "comrade?" besmirches the memories of all the fallen soldiers in Afghanistan.

I, for one, would have him in front of the CO, recommending his release, if this fellow really exists. He has no place in the military.


----------



## Shec (8 Oct 2008)

"Romeo Dallaire started out as a private and rose through the ranks to become a full general?"

Perhaps Cpl Demetrick aspires to be CDS; appointed by Prime Minister Layton no doubt.


----------



## Danjanou (8 Oct 2008)

Brihard said:
			
		

> I'm not a lawyer, and I know applying the NDA to class A reservists can be tricky. Given that he has identified himself as a member of the C.F., can he be subject to legal/administrative action for this? This has to be one hell of a 129 at minimum...



Failing that if this guy really is in this retired old school CSM see this Cpls CSM/SSM taking him aside for some old fashioned one on one career counselling. >

I'm sure OldSolduer concurs with this.


----------



## OldSolduer (8 Oct 2008)

"Failing that if this guy really is in this retired old school CSM see this Cpls CSM/SSM taking him aside for some old fashioned one on one career counselling"

Yes I do concur. One on One.....give me 5 minutes with him and he'll wish he never uttered those words.


----------



## Jarnhamar (8 Oct 2008)

What an asshole.



> Some examples: we respond to hostile fire by indiscriminate bombing and shelling of villages, killing innocent men, women and children;


Wrong. Time and time again I hear over the radio Canadian officers *refusing* to fire into an area because they are unsure wether or not civilians are present. They make sure they know who is on the ground first,



> we fire white phosphorus shells (a chemical weapon outlawed by the Geneva Conventions due to the horrific way it burns human beings) into vineyards where it was known Afghan insurgents were deployed;


Not sure if it's banned.  Using WP to remove cover and concealment so we can find the guys who are killing us seems like a sound plan.
Maybe it's in the wording, we're using it against bushesand not people. Same way we are allowed using CS gas to quell a riot but we're not allowed to use it to attack someone (Taliban) because hen it's considered a chemical attack.



> we hand over prisoners of war to Afghan authorities, who torture them;


I remember a Canadian sgt (?) refusing to hand over a suspected taliban dude because he was concerned that the locals he was about to hand him over to would infact injure the prisoner. Hat was a little while ago. Besides, since we're trying to give the Afghan Army and police cedibility, isn't handing over POWs or detainee's what we're suposed to be doing? We're here to help them, teach them and mentor them, not do the job for them.



> and we shoot and kill a 2-year-old Afghan boy and his 4-year-old sister.


An obvious very regrettable very sad accident. This douchebag is blowing that way out of context.
quote]
 Do we want to be remembered for hating, killing and destroying, or caring, healing and helping with reconstruction?[/quote]
The latter. The Taliban make achieving the latter without the former impossible.



> The war in Afghanistan is a lie. How can we inspire the Afghan people to respect liberty, democracy, equality for women, education for children, human rights and respect for life when we are maiming and murdering them and destroying their homes, communities, the economy and their country?


We're doing a great job of earning their respect. We're improving equality for women, education,human rights and health.



> My fellow citizens, help me and soldiers like me end the war. Let's hear your voices. Let's do something we can all be proud of. If we achieve peace in Afghanistan, then the deaths of 97 of my "comrades in arms" and of unreported thousands of innocent Afghans will not have been in vain. Support the troops. Support peace. Bring our troops home now.


Job isn't finished yet. Deploying back to Canada today will mean all the hard work we've put in and all the sacrifices our "comrades" have made were made in vain. You'll be signing a death sentence over to any Afghan citizen who helped us.

Reading an idiotic story like this make's me want to volunteer to come back a 3rd time.


----------



## PMedMoe (8 Oct 2008)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> I, for one, would have him in front of the CO, recommending his release, if this fellow really exists. He has no place in the military.



Recommending? Nay, *demanding*!


----------



## Huzzah (8 Oct 2008)

Cpl Paul Demetrick,
     You sir are an ignorant as s.


----------



## George Wallace (8 Oct 2008)

I have a strong suspicion a certain Cpl, if he is even actually a serving member, is going to be facing some very serious Charges.  

I am leaning more in the direction that this is a ploy by some anti-war group to create some support for their cause.


----------



## Strike (8 Oct 2008)

I would suggest that, if this guy is "outed" as a civvie who has never served, that a retired member or other civvie of this board out him as such to the paper.


----------



## OldSolduer (8 Oct 2008)

I'm now wondering if Cpl Demetrick is NES? You know the media won't bother to ascertain if he is NES or an active parader. I would daresay he will be "Non Effective" if he ever shows up at the armory, because his peers will encourage him to go "NES".
Has anyone checked to see if he really exists? This may be an "agent provacteur"
Maybe the NIS should investigate.


----------



## Strike (8 Oct 2008)

Isn't it illegal to impersonate a soldier/officer?  That could open a whole other can of worms if he's not a member.


----------



## PMedMoe (8 Oct 2008)

Don't know if this guy is serving or not, but you can search him on Canada 411 and a listing does come up for Penticton, BC.

Here's more letters published in the Penticton Western News and another from Mr. Demetrick.


----------



## Redeye (8 Oct 2008)

Mortarman Rockpainter said:
			
		

> Hey, I agree with him in that it's time to end the war.  I'm doing my part: by bringing together lots of lethal effects delivering devices and applying them, judiciously, to the enemy, with a view to forcing them to stop.  Or at least to buy time for the Afghan army to go for "the big win".



That sounds like my kind of good time.  It's like when people talk about negotiating with the Taliban - those of you over there are using some of the best negotiating tools we have, in a clear language the the Taliban understand, both directly and indirectly.


----------



## aesop081 (8 Oct 2008)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> This may be an "agent provacteur"



That was the first thing that came to my mind.

The media follows this and if he does indeed exist and NES, they will carry that football all the way to the "I refuse to deploy" end-zone.


----------



## Redeye (8 Oct 2008)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Don't know if this guy is serving or not, but you can search him on Canada 411 and a listing does come up for Penticton, BC.
> 
> Here's more letters published in the Penticton Western News andanother from Mr. Demetrick.



I love that one of the letters in there "supporting" his opinion then goes into a litany of tinfoilhat ideas about 9/11 - all the discredited nonsense about WTC-7, about explosives, about the air force, etc.  Someone should get on to outing this guy right away, and I cannot wait to see what his CoC (if he isn't a complete fake) has to say about it.  If he's not a fake, I'd love to see what his messmates have to say as well.


----------



## Huzzah (8 Oct 2008)

It certainly sounds like the standard,factless,brain-dead drivel that the Peace Activists,
Jack Layton, his merry band of lefty loons are famous for.
 Where does the Toronto Star fit in with all this,how deeply did they investigate this
whole story before eagerly printing it?


----------



## The Bread Guy (8 Oct 2008)

Given the still-allegedness of his service status, I've edited the title of the original post slightly.


----------



## ArmyRick (8 Oct 2008)

I just did a search for outlook search for this guy and at the very least he does not have an email account. I wonder if our BC reservist on this site could snoop around and see if this guy is real or an imposter. Or is he a ficticious person created for story telling and the star can fall back on the BS of "we didn't know..."

Any takers?

If he is not real, THEN LETS OUT HIM!


----------



## The Bread Guy (8 Oct 2008)

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> Or is he a ficticious person created for story telling and the star can fall back on the BS of "we didn't know..."



Most newspapers have a policy for letters to the editor that you have to include at least a name, street address and contact phone number.  Now, do ALL papers check on ALL letters?  I'm guessing not likely.


----------



## Old Sweat (8 Oct 2008)

His letter seems to be a pretty effective bit of propaganda. It remains to be seen if it is black propaganda, that is written by someone adopting a false identity, or not. The claims are outrageous, but all that does is preach to the choir.

All we need now is for our ex-officer cadet 'friend' to jump on the bandwagon with a few of his usual pithy comments. 

As most of us can do nothing but rant about it, I suggest we save our energy. He is getting his latest 15 minutes of fame. If anyone is able to prove or disprove his status as a reservist, fine. Please do so. Otherwise, I am going to ignore him.


----------



## Drummy (8 Oct 2008)

Strike said:
			
		

> Isn't it illegal to impersonate a soldier/officer?  That could open a whole other can of worms if he's not a member.



Has anyone in recent memory ever been charged with this?

Drummy


----------



## OldSolduer (8 Oct 2008)

The Military Police at the very least should be looking into this. The old SIU would have had this guy in front of an interviewer faster than you could say "Commie B@stard".


----------



## Redeye (8 Oct 2008)

I have it on reasonably good authority that he is a British Columbia Dragoon.  Now, how to ensure his CoC knows about this?


----------



## Huzzah (8 Oct 2008)

Redeye said:
			
		

> I have it on reasonably good authority that he is a British Columbia Dragoon.  Now, how to ensure his CoC knows about this?



   He sounds more like a British Columbia Poltroon.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (8 Oct 2008)

Redeye said:
			
		

> I have it on reasonably good authority that he is a British Columbia Dragoon.  Now, how to ensure his CoC knows about this?



No worries on that account.


----------



## OldSolduer (8 Oct 2008)

I'd like to see what becomes of this. Can you BC residents keep us informed?


----------



## Redeye (8 Oct 2008)

Interesting aside, my OC, who served with CSTC-A during TF 3-06's roto, last night attended a talk given by Stephen Staples about Afghanistan.  After his presentation (where he made amusing remarks about the CF sending officers to his events to take notes on him), there was a Q&A where my OC asked some questions and did identify himself and that he was there in a personal capacity as a Canadian citizen alone.  The questions started mostly slanted anti-war but shifted gradually.  One of the best he told me about was about why there was no equivalent to the "Iraq Veterans Against War" in the US here.  My OC gave his best opinion that there just wasn't too many guys who had been over there who didn't really believe in what we're doing.  I wish I could have seen Mr. Staples' response.


----------



## Huzzah (8 Oct 2008)

I can see it now,this guy comes up on charges...and Bob Rae and all the
other defenders of our "US War Resisters in Canada" come charging to
the rescue...


----------



## OldSolduer (8 Oct 2008)

I don't think Bob will have a leg to stand on. This "Cpl" (an insult to that fine rank) stepped outside the boundaries, pure and simple. Members of the CF cannot comment one way or the other on a matter of government policy. 
We had a young fellow step outside the boundaries when the Airborne was disbanded, and he was charged and fined.
The same rule should apply.


----------



## Neill McKay (8 Oct 2008)

Drummy said:
			
		

> Has anyone in recent memory ever been charged with this?



Pure hearsay so please take with a grain of salt, but for some reason I think they caught someone during the aftermath of the ice storm in Quebec a few years ago wearing a CF uniform for the purpose of getting into peoples' houses to steal things.  Maybe someone else has better information on this.


----------



## Fusaki (8 Oct 2008)

The jacking this guy should get reminds me of something I overheard from a crusty old Seargent Major a little while ago:

_"If you want to smoke hash and bad mouth The Flag while you listen to Pink Floyd records and play Hungry Hungry Hippos in your parents basement, then *GET THE FUCK OUT OF THE ARMY!*"_


----------



## OldSolduer (8 Oct 2008)

Wonderbread said:
			
		

> The jacking this guy should get reminds me of something I overheard from a crusty old Seargent Major a little while ago:
> 
> _"If you want to smoke hash and bad mouth The Flag while you listen to Pink Floyd records and play Hungry Hungry Hippos in your parents basement, then *GET THE frig OUT OF THE ARMY!*"_


Failing that if this guy really is in this retired old school CSM see this Cpls CSM/SSM taking him aside for some old fashioned one on one career counselling


Damn I love that!


----------



## dapaterson (8 Oct 2008)

Readings for the day:

QR&O Chapter 19, 19.36 - Disclosure of Information or Opinion

DAOD 5019-0 - Conduct and Performance Deficiencies

DAOD 5019-4 - Remedial Measures

And let us never forget QR&O Chapter 15, table to article 15.01, 2(a): Release for unsatisfactory service, Unsatisfactory Conduct, "by reason of unsatisfactory civil conduct, or conviction of an offence by a civil court, of a serious nature not related to the performance of his duties but reflecting discredit on the Service".


Seems to fit nicely here...


----------



## Huzzah (8 Oct 2008)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> I don't think Bob will have a leg to stand on. This "Cpl" (an insult to that fine rank) stepped outside the boundaries, pure and simple. Members of the CF cannot comment one way or the other on a matter of government policy.
> We had a young fellow step outside the boundaries when the Airborne was disbanded, and he was charged and fined.
> The same rule should apply.


  That's good to know,we've all heard way too much from Bob Rae on Military issues lately,
thanks OldSolduer.


----------



## OldSolduer (8 Oct 2008)

Bob Rae? Was he not NDP at one time? 

Military policy and NDP/Liberal are mutually exclusive terms and should never ever be used together.

Besides, political parties for the most part muzzle their troops as well.


----------



## Redeye (8 Oct 2008)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> Bob Rae? Was he not NDP at one time?
> 
> Military policy and NDP/Liberal are mutually exclusive terms and should never ever be used together.
> 
> Besides, political parties for the most part muzzle their troops as well.



He was the NDP Premier who was elected as a tragic mistaken result of "strategic voting" that ran Ontario into the ground.


----------



## ArmyRick (8 Oct 2008)

If this clown does get charged, just remember that the outcome of RDPs are made public, so B.C. reservist in the loop, please do tell us what this guy gets if he stands tall before the man.

Also, I think Hungry Hungry Hippoes is an awesome game! Damn the CSM!


----------



## ENGINEERS WIFE (8 Oct 2008)

When people like Mr. Demetrick shoot their mouths off, I just shake my head in disbelief.
I find it quite ironic that some jacka$$ like this speaks untruths about Canada being at war is, but because of men and women such as Old Solduer's son that he is able to do that. 

Nobody wants war, but as the saying goes:  Freedom is NEVER free!!!!   :cdnsalute:


----------



## OldSolduer (8 Oct 2008)

The best rank I ever held was Cpl, and my son was a Cpl when he was KIA. 
This person is not a "Cpl" 
He has betrayed his brothers in arms.....unforgiveable in my opinion.
When I say "brothers in arms" I mean all members of the CF, not just the men.

Politically correct....yikes!!


----------



## Huzzah (8 Oct 2008)

Demetrick is unworthy of the rank,and unworthy of the uniform.


----------



## casing (8 Oct 2008)

Anything I say will be insufficient in expressing my thoughts.  So, I'll just keep it to being that I'm absolutely blown away by this moron.


----------



## George Wallace (8 Oct 2008)

Huzzah said:
			
		

> Demetrick is unworthy of the rank,and unworthy of the uniform.



It still hasn't been established that he is, or at any time has been, a serving member of the CF.

If he is, then he, along with Francisco, may give the Bean Counters justification to reallocate funding to other Reserve Units outside BC, by shutting down BC Units.


----------



## OldSolduer (8 Oct 2008)

Maybe I missed something:

Who is Francisco?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (8 Oct 2008)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> Maybe I missed something:
> 
> Who is Francisco?




http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/52592.0.html

Ruxted's take on him.

Caution: have a nice soothing cup of tea ready.


----------



## George Wallace (8 Oct 2008)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> Maybe I missed something:
> 
> Who is Francisco?



I couldn't remember his last name, but we have discussed him before after his "stunt".  Francisco Juarez


----------



## OldSolduer (8 Oct 2008)

I missed that one.

Mr. Juarez couldn't cut the mustard. That's why he took his release....I'm speculating.

Mr. Juarez is one of those "useful fools".


----------



## George Wallace (8 Oct 2008)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> I missed that one.
> 
> Mr. Juarez couldn't cut the mustard. That's why he took his release....I'm speculating.
> 
> Mr. Juarez is one of those "useful fools".



Perhaps a "useful fool" for the Left Leaning crowd, but definitely not a "useful tool" in our "Tool Box".


----------



## Huzzah (8 Oct 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> It still hasn't been established that he is, or at any time has been, a serving member of the CF.
> 
> If he is, then he, along with Francisco, may give the Bean Counters justification to reallocate funding to other Reserve Units outside BC, by shutting down BC Units.


  Hopefully there is no real Cpl Paul Demetrick spouting this garbage.Hopefully this whole
story will be exposed as a lefty propaganda ploy.


----------



## Shec (8 Oct 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> If he is, then he, along with Francisco, may give the Bean Counters justification to reallocate funding to other Reserve Units outside BC, by shutting down BC Units.



Now, now,  let's not recommend anything too rash.   Organizationnally speaking , and with an eye towards possible election outcomes,  Cpl. Demetrick and Pte. Juarez  present the nucleus around which a new BC unit can be built - Taliban Jack's Own Left Coast Fleet of Foot.


----------



## George Wallace (8 Oct 2008)

Shec said:
			
		

> - Taliban Jack's Own Left Coast Fleet of Foot.



If we get less specific and make it a national unit.......It would work out better:  Taliban Jack's Own Fleet of Foot or the Taliban Jack OFFs.    ;D


----------



## ArmyRick (8 Oct 2008)

Good one, George, good one indeed!


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (8 Oct 2008)

Huzzah said:
			
		

> Hopefully there is no real Cpl Paul Demetrick spouting this garbage.



Scuttlebutt Lodge says he is real.........and, I would hope, in real trouble.


----------



## Huzzah (8 Oct 2008)

They could be a new lefty elite Airborne Unit...just issue them  backpacks instead 
of chutes,Jack won't know the difference.


----------



## Kiwi99 (8 Oct 2008)

He does exist, he is a crewman in Penticton, still serving but never deployed.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (8 Oct 2008)

Kiwi99 said:
			
		

> but never deployed.


"Well, right then,..no time like the present."


----------



## The Bread Guy (8 Oct 2008)

<slight hijack>

Just a gentle reminder before we get too visceral in our comments - others have (unfairly and out of context) used postings here on Army.ca to disparage both the site and CF members, so keep in mind this is a public forum, and anything appearing here reflects on the site (generously maintained by a person, not a faceless corporation) and (like it or not) the CF.  Not saying it's happening yet, just trying to head the worst of it off.  Now that I've done my "teacher with the glasses down at the tip of her nose" thing, back to sharing your feelings about this fellow...

</slight highjack>


----------



## OldSolduer (8 Oct 2008)

It's time to toss this "Cpl" out on his ear. He does not deserve to wear the same uniform that my son did. He is a disgrace to the CF and his unit.

To the CO of his unit: Sir, please do everything in your power to see this person released.

Thank you.


----------



## stryte (8 Oct 2008)

If you type Demetrick into the Penticton Western news you will see this http://www.bclocalnews.com/okanagan_similkameen/pentictonwesternnews/opinion/letters/29822054.html letter which appears to be written by E.J. Demetrick the mother of a Canadian Forces Solidier. Unsure if there is any relation. To put it midly I hope Paul gets sorted out.


----------



## George Wallace (8 Oct 2008)

Kiwi99 said:
			
		

> He does exist, he is a crewman in Penticton, still serving but never deployed.



Then he is a very unknowledgable person to be holding the rank of Cpl and is about to find out the severity of his recent letter writting campaign.  I have seen three letters written by him now, over the last three months.  The fact that he identified himself as a member of the CF Reserves would normally bring him up on Charges under the articles that dapaterson posted.  The fact that he has been doing this during an Election Campaign makes his transgressions even more serious.  I am sure this Cpl is about to receive the full force of Military Justice System.

It is quite obvious that this Cpl is totally oblivious of what it means to be a member of the CF.  He knows nothing of the Code of Service Discipline.  He has no concept of Security, nor Trust and Confidentiality.  He has no real concepts of what the CF is, nor what its capabilities are.  This is yet another case of someone thinking that they are smarter than all others, but proving with every attempt, that they are stupid and untrustworthy.

His education will continue.


----------



## Shamrock (8 Oct 2008)

If this person is really the author of this article, and if he is subjec to the CSD in its regard, I would be interested in seeing how justice is served.

Obviously, we have the rules and regulations in place that outlaw this particular behaviour from a soldier.  Unfortunately, imposing justice on someone for this would be a tricky matter and I have to wonder if it will be followed through.  Although the comments may have been uttered while he was not subject to the code, if they are being aired while he is, is he still held liable?   I also wonder how far and how thickly the shit will splatter.  

However, there have been similar incidents where regular soldiers have aired similar concerns over past missions; I am willing to share a recollection of one Cpl who went on televised air, in uniform, to discuss his concerns about how a mission had been run... and did not face reprimand.  At the time (mid 90's), the CF was struggling to restore national faith, and this individual certainly did not toe the line.

Ultimately, the question is, is the CMJ willing to hear such a potentially publicly unpopular trial?


----------



## Franko (8 Oct 2008)

Kiwi99 said:
			
		

> He does exist, he is a crewman in Penticton, still serving but never deployed.



He can be charged and court martialed.

I'm sure PPCLI GUY is already on it.         

BTW...doesn't matter if he gets out of the Reserves either. 

Charges can be laid and have been in the past against former serving members. They just drag you in.

Regards


----------



## Dissident (8 Oct 2008)

I hate being reactionary, but:

This seems like a not so subtle reminder to leaders to remind their troops of their left and right of arcs when talking to the media.


----------



## Timex (8 Oct 2008)

If they decide to take him to task he'll make himself out to be Erin Brokovitch. I fear the worst is yet to come in the next few days when the National news brings out the usual "experts" and ask them the question "so what's to be done now that the rank and file are coming out against the mission?" 

Please let this clown turn out to be a Poser.


----------



## slowmode (8 Oct 2008)

This man does not deserve to wear the uniform. I've been reading posts in this thread and I agree with everyone on the fact that this "man" should be punished.

This brings me to my first question, What type of charges can be laid against him if he truly is in the CF. Call me dumb but sorry I'm not sure, anyone please inform me? 

You would think a man who serves in a VOLUNTEER military would speak good things about it. The Canadian Armed forces is one of the most respected military in the world.


----------



## George Wallace (8 Oct 2008)

:

REPLY # 39



			
				dapaterson said:
			
		

> Readings for the day:
> 
> QR&O Chapter 19, 19.36 - Disclosure of Information or Opinion
> 
> ...


----------



## Dissident (8 Oct 2008)

That is what I was referring too. Why the rolly eyes?

Edit: Disregard my last, apparently I'm a touch paranoid.


----------



## George Wallace (8 Oct 2008)

Dissident said:
			
		

> That is what I was referring too. Why the rolly eyes?



 ???

Do you have multiple accounts?  I was responding to Slowmode, who never bothered to read this post.


----------



## Thompson_JM (8 Oct 2008)

For those who might like to see more of his so called handi-work....

http://www.bclocalnews.com/okanagan_similkameen/pentictonwesternnews/opinion/letters/28673889.html

sounds like a real piece of work...

personally if we had a troop like that around here, I can see them getting sorted out by the CoC in the CSMs office, and later "Sorted out" by the troops, out behind the POL shed....

what a disgrace to the uniform.... our unit has personaly sent 14 personal including myself over to the 'ghan, and to hear a so called "soldier" speak like this is an insult to us, and every member who has deployed there. And an Exceptional Insult to the members who did not return....

Charge him has hard as possible and get him out of the CF.... This Individual does not speak for any of us!


----------



## George Wallace (8 Oct 2008)

Reading those links, the link that goes to another letter from E.J. Demetrick, who may be his mother, is just as discusting.  For a lady who survived five years in the Netherlands in WW II to spew off as she did in that letter, is discusting.  She is ingratefull for the freedom that she received by the Liberation of Holland by Canadians, and does not feel that the people of Afghanistan are not as equally deserving.  

It shows how hypocritical some people are.


----------



## GDawg (8 Oct 2008)

What he did was wrong, and the fact that he is absolutely right out to lunch is even more irritating. What he said will soon be taken as gospel and will no doubt be seen as the general opinion of all of us in uniform. He will be seen as a "brave young man with the courage to say what we are all thinking" I just got back from Afghanistan a few weeks back and I have been busy talking to all of my friends and family about what is going on there and why the Taliban are in fact bad guys. I have witnessed atrocities committed by the Taliban and to have some ignorant ass who has never deployed spew out lies and slander is disheartening. The fact that the utter garbage that this fool has committed to paper will outweigh my words by a factor of 100 is all the more disheartening.


----------



## dapaterson (8 Oct 2008)

Assuming the information in the Toronto Star is correct, the Code of Service Discipline may or may not be applicable in this instance.  Per the National Defence Act (and reflected in QR&O chapter 102):



> Persons subject to Code of Service Discipline
> 
> 60. (1) The following persons are subject to the Code of Service Discipline:
> ...
> ...



That being said, other administrative measures (as mentionned in my earlier post) may apply.


----------



## 1feral1 (8 Oct 2008)

Well, I am sure he's got lots of friends in the Armouries after this eh.

The most popular guy in the Mess on a Tuesday night  : - we'll see.

Remember lads, at the end of the day he's nothing, not fit to wipe our asses.

We are feeding him and others of his ilk with this thread, IMHO, we are giving him publicity in our own community (although negative) he does not deserve.

OWDU


----------



## ackland (8 Oct 2008)

I would like to thank Mr. Paul Demetrick for his letter to the editor entitled “ 
www.bclocalnews.com/okanagan_similkameen/pentictonwesternnews/opinion/letters/28114579.html

This link shows at least what kind of people agree with him. They too seem to be at odds with reality.


----------



## JesseWZ (8 Oct 2008)

There are STILL people that believe 9/11 conspiracy theories?
Sigh.


----------



## gate_guard (8 Oct 2008)

dapaterson,
Would the fact that he chose to identify himself as a member of the CF have some bearing? If he chooses to identify himself as a member of the CF, then carry out actions that are in violation of CF rules, regs, and military law, one would think that he opens himself up to prosecution.  This fella's actions would seem to place him in the 60(1)(c)(iii) category.

By comparison in the policing world, an off-duty police officer can place himself on-duty at any time by only identifying himself as such.


----------



## PuckChaser (8 Oct 2008)

Talk about your strategic Corporal.... 

Its hard to believe that his SSM has not gotten wind of this yet. Maybe someone floating around here could send a polite "SSM to SSM" email with a few weblinks and start ball rolling for his punting.


----------



## George Wallace (8 Oct 2008)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Assuming the information in the Toronto Star is correct, the Code of Service Discipline may or may not be applicable in this instance.  Per the National Defence Act (and reflected in QR&O chapter 102):
> 
> That being said, other administrative measures (as mentionned in my earlier post) may apply.



Those being said, would it not be implied by his using name and rank as well as a "Member" of the CF, that he is "Serving".  That is the impression he has left on the General Public and MSM.  Therefore, he should be considered accountable under the NDA for his acts.   A member of the CF, even without the indication of being a member of the CF, can still be held accountable for their actions under the NDA, as can former members.  This will, of course, depend on the severity of their transgressions.  This guy published his name, rank and, although not his unit, that he was a member of the CF.  He has also established a series of letters to the Editor along the same vein which can now be considered an  agenda on his part.


----------



## Redeye (8 Oct 2008)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Talk about your strategic Corporal....
> 
> Its hard to believe that his SSM has not gotten wind of this yet. Maybe someone floating around here could send a polite "SSM to SSM" email with a few weblinks and start ball rolling for his punting.



I'm pretty sure that's been done.  He is in for a world of hurt very shortly.


----------



## dapaterson (8 Oct 2008)

If none of the conditions under the NDA are met, the member is not subject to the CSD.  Full stop.  Lawyers may try some odd angle to approach it, but there has even been one Reservist who chose not to show up for his court-martial, was arrested, charged with not showing up, and acquitted for not appearing because the court determined it lacked the requisite jurisdiction.

In this instance  (let me preface by stating I am not a lawyer) while there does appear to be a military nexus (the individual identified themself as a CF member), there does not appear to be sufficient information to prove the member was subject to the CSD at the time.  I'm certain some military lawyers are discussing the case and examining approaches, but barring a picture of the individual in uniform writing the letter, or evidence that they composed and sent the email from a DWAN computer located on a miltiary facility, it would be difficult to provide the requisite proof required to charged them under the CSD.

However, there are certain provisions in the NDA outside the CSD that could be applicable.  For example, NDA article 301 reads in part



> 301. Every person who
> 
> (a) wilfully obstructs, impedes or otherwise interferes with any other person in the execution of any duty that under this Act or regulations, the other person is required to perform,
> 
> ...



It might be plausible to seek a civil court prosecution for the above, subject to the restrictions spelled out in articles 286 & 287.  However, as prosecutions under Part VII of the NDA ("OFFENCES TRIABLE BY CIVIL COURTS") are few and far between I'm not sanguine about this possibility.

At the very least it may lead to some interesting military law jurisprudence.


----------



## aesop081 (8 Oct 2008)

The next media article about this story will read "Soldier disciplined for speaking out against the war" , with the expected spin.........


----------



## OldSolduer (8 Oct 2008)

Before this gets really stupid, the media needs to know why we have policies and procedures. IF this comes before the media and they make a big deal of it, the CDS and MND need to remind the country in person via TV, radio, print etc, why we have policies etc. 
A good example would be if a foreign power invaded Canada and some knob in the Reserves said he wasn't going to fight the invader.....what then?


----------



## Loachman (8 Oct 2008)

Regardless of our feelings, there is a constitutionally-guaranteed right to freedom of opinion and expression that trumps any QR&O, CFAO, or DAOD.

He may be charged, and he may be convicted, but, should he appeal, he is likely to win based upon the Charter.

I predict, therefore, that he will either not be charged, and, if he is, is convicted, and appeals, that charges are dropped simply to keep the quoted refs on the books to keep others quiet. They will certainly not remain should this proceed to the Supreme Court.

Administrative measures taken may similarly fail.


----------



## GDawg (8 Oct 2008)

Loachman, I fear that you may be correct. This Paul fellow probably doesn't have the wherewithal to appeal on his own, but he will be immediately adopted by "peace" advocacy groups as their new messiah.  

Then again, the MSM may very well not even notice.


----------



## chris_log (8 Oct 2008)

Loachman said:
			
		

> Regardless of our feelings, there is a constitutionally-guaranteed right to freedom of opinion and expression that trumps any QR&O, CFAO, or DAOD.
> 
> He may be charged, and he may be convicted, but, should he appeal, he is likely to win based upon the Charter.
> 
> ...



True, but he will probably be drummed out of his unit under pressure from his 'buddies'. 

Believe it or not though, there ARE people in the CF against foreign interventions, missions etc. They joined with the belief that they would 'defend Canada' and were simply ignorant when they joined. How they remained in is beyond me, but the only real surprise to me is that it took this long for a serving member to pipe up.


----------



## GDawg (8 Oct 2008)

Piper said:
			
		

> True, but he will probably be drummed out of his unit under pressure from his 'buddies'.
> 
> Believe it or not though, there ARE people in the CF against foreign interventions, missions etc. They joined with the belief that they would 'defend Canada' and were simply ignorant when they joined. How they remained in is beyond me, but the only real surprise to me is that it took this long for a serving member to pipe up.



I've run into only 2 guys like that in 7 odd years of being a reservist, and the beauty of our system is that they don't have to deploy. If he deployed his opinion might be relevant, but of course if he deployed he would realize the things he is talking about never happened (asides from the unfortunate incident where the LAV engaged a suspicious car).

 Of course the CF has clear policies on what a member can and cannot talk to the media about, and all members should be aware of them as per their training. Does the CF differentiate between a solicited interview with the media and an unsolicited letter to the editor?

I submitted a letter to the editor about a year back that knocked a certain politician for holding press conferences to bash the mission that were timed to correspond with repatriation ceremonies and it was published by several newspapers. I didn't mention which party I felt was acting in poor taste (You probably only need one guess). 

Is there a policy specifically regarding, or prohibiting serving members from writing letters to the editor?


----------



## Loachman (8 Oct 2008)

GDawg said:
			
		

> Loachman, I fear that you may be correct.



I can pretty much guarantee it, from personal experience.

Piper - Yes, the same "clear policies" apply to letters as well as interviews, but, as I said, would be struck down by a Charter challenge - if the CF allowed the proceedings to get beyond an appeal.


----------



## dapaterson (8 Oct 2008)

GDawg said:
			
		

> Is there a policy specifically regarding, or prohibiting serving members from writing letters to the editor?



QR&O 19.36 would apply here:



> 19.36 – DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION OR OPINION
> 
> 
> 
> ...



In fact, other parts of QR&O volume 1 chapter 19 may also apply - see http://www.admfincs.forces.gc.ca/qr_o/vol1/tofc19_e.asp


----------



## chris_log (8 Oct 2008)

Loachman said:
			
		

> Piper - Yes, the same "clear policies" apply to letters as well as interviews, but, as I said, would be struck down by a Charter challenge - if the CF allowed the proceedings to get beyond an appeal.



Oh I agree with you totally, anything that happens to him in any kind of administrative, disciplinary or legal manner will probably be met by a Charter challenge (and victory). But, what I can see happening is that he gets forced out of his unit under pressure from his fellow soldiers. I would argue that would be the best outcome, the CF does not look like it is 'suppressing' it's member's views or violating charter rights to freedom of expression and the member is unceremoniously removed from the CF. No negative press for us, and no more press for him (at least insomuch as he can present himself as a CF member which somehow, it seems, lends credibility to his views to the anti-war rabble).


----------



## Osotogari (8 Oct 2008)

As a reservist, if I'm not signed in and don't identify myself as a member of the military what's to stop me from expressing my informed opinion to a newspaper editor or a radio talk show?  If there is a problem then in my case I'm afraid it's years too late.



All I can say for this specific incident is that if it hasn't happened already, there's going to be a dentist in Penticton putting together some brand new bridgework sometime very soon.


----------



## Nauticus (8 Oct 2008)

I have no problem with people being anti-war. It's a stance, and they have every right to support that.

However, my problem lies with outright lying to support their stance, and making judgements based on what they have ever done. He claims to be in the Forces, and it would be great if he was. However, I don't think he can rightly judge what is going on in Afghanistan unless he has actually _served in Afghanistan_. I have not served (yet), so I could never even think about judging those who have.


----------



## gwp (8 Oct 2008)

Osotogari said:
			
		

> As a reservist, if I'm not signed in and don't identify myself as a member of the military what's to stop me from expressing my informed opinion to a newspaper editor or a radio talk show?  If there is a problem then in my case I'm afraid it's years too late.


Nothing as long as you don't identify yourself as a member of the CF or are not so well known that it is known that you are a member of the CF. Further, not being "on duty" doesn't matter much as while the CSD only determines how one is handled not whether one is disciplined or not. As has been stated there are administrative procedures that do not involve CM. 

The reason this is important is:  
"Political neutrality of the CF and its members is a seldom-discussed, but fundamental, principle of our constitutional democracy. Preventing the CF from becoming politicized is essential to its status as subordinate t the civil authority and to public confidence in the CF. Public expression of personal opinion on defence or related policy would create the perception of drawing CF members into the political process and undermining public confidence in the loyalty and impartiality of the CF to the Government of Canada. It is, consequently, the duty of all CF members to give loyal and impartial support to the Government of Canada - regardless of the political organization that forms the government. In practice, this means publicly explaining -- but not defending or attacking - defence or related policy. It is the responsibility of the relevant Minister to defend defence or related policy" Quote from the Senate Report on the Canadian Forces


----------



## Cloud Cover (8 Oct 2008)

Loachman said:
			
		

> I can pretty much guarantee it, from personal experience.
> 
> Piper - Yes, the same "clear policies" apply to letters as well as interviews, but, as I said, would be struck down by a Charter challenge - if the CF allowed the proceedings to get beyond an appeal.



Not so fast.  The courts have long recognized that (1) the Charter will apply to QRO and CFAO's but (2) the military has special requirements relating to matters of discipline. Where matters of discrimination have been raised, the courts have not tolerated traditional military thinking very well. Where matters of discipline collide with rights such as freedom of expression/freedom of speech/freedom of association, the courts will be far more open to a reasonable arguments from the military. One thing is for certain, if the military does nothing about this, then far worse disciipline problems could arise. This guy has set himself up to be an easy legal target, and a fairly competent lawyer at DND could proceed and win.


----------



## X Royal (8 Oct 2008)

When I seen the article this morning I thought "here comes a active thread".
If it turns out the letter was from an active member of the Forces he should be severely dealt with.
My only problem with this thread is that some posters have used it as a vehicle to slam a political party and it's leader without any reason to believe they had anything to do with the article. Yes this board's members generally tend to lean in a certain political direction, but to use this thread as a basis for attack on a political party and its views is stepping out of line in respect to the topic of the thread.


----------



## West Coast Navy Moe (8 Oct 2008)

How can someone like this even consider joining the Military little own become a Cpl?? Does he even have a clue what the heck he’s talking about??? My Lord standards have dropped!! :skull:


----------



## aesop081 (8 Oct 2008)

West Coast Navy Moe said:
			
		

> *little own * become a Cpl??



What ?


----------



## Kat Stevens (8 Oct 2008)

"Let alone", I believe


----------



## Teeps74 (8 Oct 2008)

I'll be quick, as my... Well, I am angry.

My "expert" marketing advice would be this. First, PA's if you are reading this here, great, if not, I will be reaching out to one or two I know out there about this. This must be answered officially (not unofficially by one of us writing into the Star in a response). There are several inaccuracies in the letter, which now have an "expert" name to them, which will very quickly make them gospel (despite the glaring inaccuracies and blatant misinformation present).

He wants to be a martyr very badly I believe. Should we drum him out officially or unofficially he wins, we lose. The best possible solution here would be to get him to put his money where his mouth is, and get him into Afghanistan. Short of that, any amount of real and verifiable facts which we could produce would not be near good enough to convince him of his errors. He has to see with his own eyes, the things some of us here have seen. The real ground truth. Without it, he will take for gospel whatever it is his handlers are telling him.

He has failed his oath, and his brothers and sisters very seriously on many fronts in these letters he is writing. It is clear he could not be bothered to ask his chain of command the questions which are clearly in his head, and now he has left himself wide open to the interpretation that he has a clear agenda, which appears to us to be that of agent provactuer. He has so many sources of information open to him, more even the the average Joe on the street has access to. How on earth, in this day and age, can anyone go around with such a clearly ignorant and wrong view, built on very poor research, and then sign their name on an opinion? Ignorance is truly mankinds worst sin of sins, as it is ignorance which allows all other sins.


----------



## ModlrMike (8 Oct 2008)

I would love to write the Star with a rebuttal to this letter, but as a serving member, I can't do that. All I, and we, can do is take comfort in the knowledge that this guy is full of crap, and that karma will have its own revenge.


----------



## lost_recce_guy (8 Oct 2008)

This person is real and I can tell all of you how embarrassed and truly sorry to have the same brass as him. He is being dealt with. For all of us who have been there, are there and are going there from our proud and loyal regiment we will set things right in house and continue our tasks overseas as well as here in Canada.


----------



## Fusaki (8 Oct 2008)

> This person is real and I can tell all of you how embarrassed and truly sorry to have the same brass as him. He is being dealt with. For all of us who have been there, are there and are going there from our proud and loyal regiment we will set things right in house and continue our tasks overseas as well as here in Canada.



Roger that, buddy. Keep on keeping on.


----------



## gwp (8 Oct 2008)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> I would love to write the Star with a rebuttal to this letter, but as a serving member, I can't do that. All I, and we, can do is take comfort in the knowledge that this guy is full of crap, and that karma will have its own revenge.


What you can do is recommend that members of your Regimental Association, Officer's Association or other service support group write letters to the editor setting the record straight. Third party support is always more credible. Otherwise, it is the Minister that defends Government policy as the sole spokesperson and who may authorize subject matter experts to speak to the operational matters.


----------



## vonGarvin (8 Oct 2008)

X Royal said:
			
		

> When I seen the article this morning I thought "here comes a active thread".
> If it turns out the letter was from an active member of the Forces he should be severely dealt with.
> My only problem with this thread is that some posters have used it as a vehicle to slam a political party and it's leader without any reason to believe they had anything to do with the article. Yes this board's members generally tend to lean in a certain political direction, but to use this thread as a basis for attack on a political party and its views is stepping out of line in respect to the topic of the thread.


Amen!  Not much more to be said about that.


----------



## The Bread Guy (8 Oct 2008)

gwp said:
			
		

> What you can do is recommend that members of your Regimental Association, Officer's Association or other service support group write letters to the editor setting the record straight. Third party support is always more credible.



Not to mention more timely and easier to mobilize than more "institutional" messaging.


----------



## OldSolduer (8 Oct 2008)

This young cpl should be encouraged to take his release. He is not fit to wear the same uniform as my son, or me or any other member of the CF.


----------



## gwp (8 Oct 2008)

Teeps74 said:
			
		

> My "expert" marketing advice would be this. First, PA's if you are reading this here, great, if not, I will be reaching out to one or two I know out there about this. This must be answered officially (not unofficially by one of us writing into the Star in a response). There are several inaccuracies in the letter, which now have an "expert" name to them, which will very quickly make them gospel (despite the glaring inaccuracies and blatant misinformation present).


DAOD 2008
"Any member of the CF or employee of the DND in their official capacity may agree to speak (be interviewed) by the media provided it is to speak about what they do"

If you have been to Afghanistan and can speak to your personal experience you "may" write the Star in response.  Seek advice and guidance through your chain of command and PA advisor before you push send. Most who have posted here have already put their comments in the public domain.  If I were a reporter I could write a great story.   

CANADIAN FORCES MEMBERS DISGUSTED BY SOLIDERS LETTER TO THE EDITOR​Participants in a popular discussion forum on military matters "army.ca" believe a fellow soldier's letter to the editor of the Toronto Star is grounds for dismissal from the service or severe discipline.  The letter by ..... condemned the military action in Afghanistan claiming .... etc. 

Responses on the website vary from raging anger to support for the soldiers limited right of free speech.  (Then the article would go on to quote various posts)

If the comments can be taken at face value,  a post by a member of the soldier's own unit reports that the letter writer is under investigation and is "being dealt with."


----------



## The Bread Guy (8 Oct 2008)

... or include such comments intermingled with quotes from some of the usual suspect military experts routinely used for "how's the miltiary feel?" stories.


----------



## OldSolduer (9 Oct 2008)

Do we really want Scott Taylor's opinion? NO!!!!


----------



## Jarnhamar (9 Oct 2008)

A 10 year old child was involved in a non-isaf related car accident in Khandahar. He was brought to the Khandahar hospital and looked at but the doctors there decided he needed more advance care otherwise this 10 year old child would die. Internal bleeding, looked like severe head trauma and his father was told he might need brain surgery or something.

They sent him to the Khandahar Air Field where Canadian medics & doctors were asked to treat him. He was promptly accepted and brought to the base hospital. 



> and we shoot and kill a 2-year-old Afghan boy and his 4-year-old sister.


Like I said for every 'bad' warning shot we take, 100 more save lives.
Injuries regrettably do happen, like in the case of the boy and his sister being mistakenly shot. But for every incident like this Canadian (and allied) soldiers save 100 more. Hell probably a lot more than that. That stuff next to never hits the news. It's sad that so many good deeds and lives saved go unnoticed. Well perhaps by Canadians like this Penticton Reservist, that 10 year old's family seemed pretty happy with the Canadians.

That's the problem with guys like this. They choose to wrap themselves up in  set of beliefs but don't have both sides of the story. The anti-mission to afghanistan types will eat this up and not even care what it's actually made out of. It looks good to them, that's all.   Eat it up fatties 
Just like that case of the Canadian reservist officer quitting the CF because he didn't wan to be "ordered" to Afghanistan, the truth takes a back seat to what sounds good.

I think it's safe to believe that this kid, as per the initial post (career firing, career stops)  is done. While it's likely already made known, a letter to the CSM/RSM "Is this kid yours?" and then that's her.


----------



## The Bread Guy (9 Oct 2008)

Well, THAT certainly didn't take long - shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the _Copyright Act._

*Afghanistan: 'Vet' Claims Canada Using White Phosphorus as Weapon*
C. L. Cook, Pacific Free Press, 9 Oct 08
Article link (.pdf attached in case link doesn't work or disappears)

In a letter to the editor of the Toronto Star newspaper, Corporal Paul Demetrick, a man claiming to be a Canadian veteran in the reserves, charged Canadian Forces with using White Phosphorus munitions as a weapon against "enemy-occupied" vineyards in Afghanistan.

Whiskey Pete, as it's colloquially known in the U.S. military, has such a gruesome impact on human physiology, (some of those horrors famously recorded during and after the second Battle of Falluja in 2005) its use is "restricted" to "illumination" and providing "smokescreen" cover for troops.

In Falluja, the U.S. military finally admitted it had deployed White Phoshorus into the city with predictable effect to the population there.  

The American military initially denied W.P. had been used, but following the release of graphic images captured by an Italian documentary crew, among others, the U.S. admitted bombing the city with burn agent.

American freelancer, Dahr Jamail produced some of the bravest English language reportage from Iraq, and was too in Falluja during the terrible siege. Pictures that made it past the American cordon revealed sacks of clothing laying in the streets, melted remnant bodies, oozing liquid and fat.

Doctors who had served during the long war with Iran said they recognized the casualties coming in, and those in the streets as  having suffered the chemical burns consistent with a phosphorus attack. It was another of the litany of disgrace America wears now as a mantle.

Canada is not generally thought of as a rogue state, practicing war crimes around the world, but if Corporal Demetrick is correct, and Canada has, and/or still is using White Phosphorus as a weapon, it too crosses the threshold leading to the new century's Nuremberg ....


----------



## PMedMoe (9 Oct 2008)

Maybe the Pacific Free Press should verify the "authenticity" of their source.


----------



## The Bread Guy (9 Oct 2008)

I'm surprised that even THEY said, "a man claiming to be a Canadian veteran in the reserves" - although the chap appears to write as a Cpl., not a vet of any kind.


----------



## Jarnhamar (9 Oct 2008)

Top four uses of the F word.

"What the F*** was that?" -Mayor of Herioshima
"Where did all these F***ing Indians come from?" - General Custer
"Who f***ing cares, it's only Canadians" German soldiers at Vimy ridge
"Why did I f***ing write that?"- Corporal Demetrick


----------



## PMedMoe (9 Oct 2008)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> I'm surprised that even THEY said, "a man claiming to be a Canadian veteran in the reserves" - we'll see how MSM handles the attribution...



I saw that too, but it's the headline to people will relate to.


----------



## Drag (9 Oct 2008)

I know of a case where a mbr got charged for spouting out at Speakers Corner on CityTV in Toronto in uniform...  So I don't see any problem at all with throwing the book at this particular individual.


----------



## OldSolduer (9 Oct 2008)

So where will all this take us? Will the national media (CBC/CTV etc) pick this up and run with it?

I'm hoping (I don't like that word "Hoping") that the NDHQ PAFFO types have a counter to this. Its not likely that the rabid anti military types will beleve it, but mainstream Canadians have more sense than that.
As for "Cpl" Demetrick...this man is not fit to wear the uniform. He has publicly lied and deserves to be released ASP.


----------



## dapaterson (9 Oct 2008)

Drag said:
			
		

> I know of a case where a mbr got charged for spouting out at Speakers Corner on CityTV in Toronto in uniform...  So I don't see any problem at all with throwing the book at this particular individual.



Two diffferent cases.  As you stated, Cpl Bloggins on Speakers Corner was "in uniform", one of the terms under the NDA where he was subject to the CSD.  We've got nothing reported to date that indicates that any of the conditions under article 60 of the NDA were met - meaning he may not have been subject to the CSD.

It would be a refreshing change if people read the regulations and legislation before spouting off, but then again, this is the internet...


----------



## Greymatters (9 Oct 2008)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Two diffferent cases.  As you stated, Cpl Bloggins on Speakers Corner was "in uniform", one of the terms under the NDA where he was subject to the CSD.  We've got nothing reported to date that indicates that any of the conditions under article 60 of the NDA were met - meaning he may not have been subject to the CSD.



I would disagree.  He could have written the article as a private citizen and it wouldnt have been an issue.  However, he chose to sign off on the piece using his rank as a member of the CF (presuming he is a valid member), which implies he was speaking as a member of the CF...


----------



## Danjanou (9 Oct 2008)

Ok so where do we stand on this as of now?

Hopefully measures have begun to look into any official response that can be take against Cpl Demetrick (and despite any opinions or wishes to the contrary the man is at least for now a Cpl and therefore entitled to that honourific), for his actions. Whether he can be dealt with under the NDA/Code of Service Discipline or not is matter for those with expertise in those matters.

One would presume that our PAFFOs are looking into a measured and accurate reply to his wild and untrue allegations and one hopes that the truth will reach the MSM and the Canadian public and that in the doing so, he will not be turned into another martyr by the misguided and misinformed anti war coalitions. As suggested a possible campaign by former and retired service members such as myself and others here either as individuals and/or through Regimental Associations or the RCL etc may help this cause.

Finally as to our feelings towards Cpl Demetrick for this perceived breach of a sacred trust.

We who wear or have worn the uniform are unique brotherhood( sisterhood). We join it the minute we put on the uniform and swear the oath offering to stand on that proverbial wall and protect those that require it. Some of us make the supreme sacrifice in carrying out that duty, others are fortunate enough to serve without hearing a shot fired in anger. It matters not the fact is we are willing to serve while many in our society are not. We leave this hallowed group only when the sods land on our coffin lid, if then. In between we stand with each other through anything, good and bad, with a bond stronger than most blood ties.

I think the general consensus hear is that by his actions Corporal Paul Demetrick has disgraced us all and most especially our fallen comrades and their sacrifices in a noble cause. To that end irregardless of any legal or other ramifications of his actions, from now on he is no longer one of us. A fact that may mean nothing to him now and may never, but to us it will.


----------



## The Bread Guy (9 Oct 2008)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> I saw that too, but it's the headline to people will relate to.



Now that you mention it, I notice the word "vet" is in quotation marks in the title - it's obvious the author of the Canada Free Press (appears to be) the first outside writer to refer to this chap as a veteran.  Perhaps part of the start of the message track saying, "here's someone who's 'been there' saying it's wrong"?  ('Been there" being taken in the BROADEST sense of the term, since he hasn't literally been _there_).


----------



## CountDC (9 Oct 2008)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> Do we really want Scott Taylor's opinion? NO!!!!



With you on that - another short timer that was popular with his fellow soldiers according to the ones I talked to.


----------



## OldSolduer (9 Oct 2008)

We don't need Scott Taylor's "opinion", which is very biased. Nor Sunil Ram's either. 
Maybe General McKenzie should weigh in on this one.


----------



## Neill McKay (9 Oct 2008)

Greymatters said:
			
		

> I would disagree.  He could have written the article as a private citizen and it wouldnt have been an issue.  However, he chose to sign off on the piece using his rank as a member of the CF (presuming he is a valid member), which implies he was speaking as a member of the CF...



But, again, the Code of Service Discipline only applies to *reservists* under certain circumstances which are listed in Reply #77 in this thread.  Using one's rank or identifying one's self as a CF member is not, in itself, enough to make one subject to the CSD at that time.  As others have said, there are measures that can be taken against this member but a successful charge under the CSD does not appear to be one of them.


----------



## Huzzah (9 Oct 2008)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Well, THAT certainly didn't take long - shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the _Copyright Act._
> 
> *Afghanistan: 'Vet' Claims Canada Using White Phosphorus as Weapon*
> C. L. Cook, Pacific Free Press, 9 Oct 08
> ...



I guess it's just me,but I don't really have a problem with WP being used to weed out/expose
an enemy who is trying to kill you.

I would also believe 0% of what Demetrick says Canadians did,or didn't do.


----------



## OldSolduer (9 Oct 2008)

Let's stop all the nitpicking about legalities etc. All very nice, BUT let's talk about the SPIRIT of what he did. 
HE BROKE A TRUST. Plain and simple. That cannot nor should not be tolerated. I, for one, will at my next parade night, inform the troops that they are entitled to their opinions, BUT they should keep their mouths shut and if I hear of one of them spouting off crap, they will have to deal with me.


----------



## 2 Cdo (9 Oct 2008)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> I don't think Bob will have a leg to stand on. This "Cpl" (an insult to that fine rank) stepped outside the boundaries, pure and simple. Members of the CF cannot comment one way or the other on a matter of government policy.
> We had a young fellow step outside the boundaries when the Airborne was disbanded, and he was charged and fined.
> The same rule should apply.



I remember that young fellow, didn't he speak up on some political call-in show? I also knew his father, who had spent more than a few years in the Airborne Regiment, and he thought that his son should have done jail time for his transgression! 
As for Penticton reservist. Do us all a favour and seek your release from the CF, as you truly don't have a clue what it is to be a soldier. :


----------



## dapaterson (9 Oct 2008)

Greymatters said:
			
		

> I would disagree.  He could have written the article as a private citizen and it wouldn't have been an issue.  However, he chose to sign off on the piece using his rank as a member of the CF (presuming he is a valid member), which implies he was speaking as a member of the CF...



Sigh.

Yes, he signed off with rank and component.  But there have been other letters to the editor signed off by folks using name and rank - including Regular Force personnel subject to the CSD - what actions were taken against them?  Some spoke outside their lanes, but there was no repercussion - I could see Cpl D's lawyer pulling out a stack of press clippings and asking "What's different here?  Why are military members allowed to break the rules when their message supports the CDS / Gov't of Canada / etc?"

In addition, nowhere in the NDA does it state "If you claim to be in the military, you are subject to the CSD."  Read article 60.  If none of those conditions are satisfied, an individual is not subject to the CSD.  Full Stop.  Regardless of how we may feel, the law is the law.

There are three sets of issues here:  the legal framework, the administrative framework and the moral framework.  Since it appears the military legal framework as expressed in the Code of Service Discipline lacks jurisdiction in this matter, this will fall into the administrative framework.  And despite our disgust on the moral plane with what has transpired, the military is inhabited by professionals, who will follow rules and regulations, and ensure fair treatment in whatever processes are followed.


----------



## OldSolduer (9 Oct 2008)

With all due respect, this person broke a sacred trust. He does not belong in our Army.


----------



## dapaterson (9 Oct 2008)

Old Solduer:

We're differing about the process here, not about the end state.


----------



## George Wallace (9 Oct 2008)

I think that the Code of Service Discipline should be applied to this case.  Yes, he signed one letter as being a Cpl in the Canadian Army Reserves; but he also wrote several letters to the same newspaper using just his name, in which some of his comments came very close to subversion.  He has sent a chain of letters to the Press, in which one identifies him as a member of the CF.  I

If the man can not be Charged under the NDA, there is still the option of "Universality of Service".  This is usually applied to those in the CF who can not meet the PT Standards, but can also be applied to a wide variety of other points, such as use of non prescription or illegal drugs, certain Legal restrictions, etc.  If this 'person' is no longer a supporter of the ideals and mission of the CF, then he can not reasonably be expected to fulfill his "Universality of Service" and should be Released Dishonourably, if nothing else.

But that will be for the Legal Eagles to decide.   :-\


----------



## Danjanou (9 Oct 2008)

Ok I think this one is becoming an emotional as well as hot topic now judging by both page hits and responses. I’ve stepped away had a coffee and now although having already engaged am going to put my mod hat on.

Lets all be careful of what we post here least we accidentally interfere or prejudice with any investigations or procedures now being conducted by the relevant authorities re this situation. Let the system work as it’s supposed to fairly and impartially.

Think, step back, and breath before hitting the post button. If needed use PM to someone else to get it out of your system. I’ve had a couple this morning from more than one person, and have no problems getting more. I've vented via thos means myself too.

I do not want to be the person who has to come in here and remove posts and dish out warning and I doubt any other mod wants to either. We’re not at that stage yet but the potential is there so lets not go there. 

Now having said that I’ll take the mod hat for one brief second for the following.

Cpl Demetrick, your actions noted here appear to have been seen by your brethren as a betrayal of a trust. I’m sure someone has pointed this thread out to you by now. Therefore as a fellow soldier (albeit no longer a serving one) on behalf of all of us I invite you to respond by these means with an explanation of your actions. We are willing to listen. 

For the rest of you, should he respond, he gets a chance to explain the whys and wherefores of his actions. There will be no dog pile on him. We and what we stand for are supposed to be above that.


----------



## CountDC (9 Oct 2008)

reading through the thread I could not help but notice what I see as a chilling trend. The topic drifted from was this a legal matter to the vigilante action of the troops should take care of him with violence. It also changed from the fact that the info he presented was incorrect to that he should not have said anything period and that in fact all members of the military (at least those that do not support the war) should keep their opinions to themself.  The reality is that he did not do anything illegal so that is not an issue.  Part of the reason we all serve is to defend freedom of speach - including our own thus I do not see any problem with a member of the military not supporting the war saying so.  The only problem I see with his letter is that the information it contains is wrong and people will perceive it as correct because he is identified as a member of the military. If you are going to communicate with the press and identify yourself as military then the onus is on you to make sure the info is correct. As a member that did not serve in Afghanistan and has no real knowledge of our activities there then he should not have stated what he did.

Although I personnally support the Afghan Mission I have talked to members that do not and have no problem with that. They continue to serve professionaly, do their jobs and even in one case completed a tour. They simply have their own point of  view, such is life. 

Action the military should take?  RSM should talk to the member and inform him to make sure his info is correct instead of spouting garbage. Members of the unit that have served in Afghanistan should take an evening, sit in the mess with him and tell him the reality of what goes on.  May accomplish nothing but at least a real professional attempt was made to present the truth to him.

Troops action should be restricted to professional conduct with him.  Treat him as rank requires, ignore him when there is no requirement to interact, stick to the book in all dealings with him (no special favours there), bottom of pile for extra employment, etc. Violence is not required. Eventually a person isolated will leave on their own accord.

Some people here have to face reality - not everyone in the military supports the Afghan Mission. This does not make them a bad person nor should it be a sole reason for them to leave.  Who here has agreed with every government and military policy that has come out? Let's go with disbanding of Airborne - I disagreed with it based on the info I had but according to some people I should not state this as it goes against what the government has done or I should get out. Of course this is a popular opinion so I never get flak for expressing it.

so -  the only thing the Cpl did wrong was he presented incorrect info as facts on a subject he does not have any real first hand knowledge about in such a manner that some people in the general public will perceive as actual truth from an internal source.

OldSolduer - I missed it somewhere - what sacred trust did he break?


----------



## OldSolduer (9 Oct 2008)

There is a bond between soldiers and society that we must never break, and that is our duty to do what we are told, when we are told providing its legal. Cpl Demetrick has broken that by lieing to the press and acting as an agent for our enemy, perhaps unwittingly.


----------



## SupersonicMax (9 Oct 2008)

Me thinks this guy is getting more attention than he deserves...


----------



## George Wallace (9 Oct 2008)

CountDC

Could I ask you for your opinion on these words:



> Our ‘Rodney Dangerfield’ Prime Minister Stephen Harper with his ‘Canada can’t get no respect without a more muscular military and foreign policy’ comments compares with the quote, “I need 1,000 dead in order to take a seat at the conference of champions.” That puts Harper in good company with the Italian fascist dictator Benito Mussolini, who made that statement to justify the Italian war in Abyssinia.


http://www.bclocalnews.com/okanagan_similkameen/pentictonwesternnews/opinion/letters/27497089.html



> Harper is quoted as saying, “You have to put an end date on these things,... We intend to end it.” Don’t count on it. For those of you who are soldiers, don’t bet your lives on it. Stephen Harper is not a leader. He is a follower — of George W. Bush.
> 
> When it’s 2010 or 2011 and if Stephen Harper is Prime Minister and either President Barack Obama or John McCain (it doesn’t matter which, both have pledged more troops to Afghanistan) say to Harper, “The situation in Afghanistan is worse than ever, we need the support of Canada”, Harper will reply in a loud and clear voice, “How many, how soon and for how long?” Harper will once again break another promise and escalate Canada’s military commitment to the Afghan war beyond this current ‘definite’ end date.
> 
> ...


http://www.bclocalnews.com/okanagan_similkameen/pentictonwesternnews/opinion/letters/28673889.html


----------



## CountDC (9 Oct 2008)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> There is a bond between soldiers and society that we must never break, and that is our duty to do what we are told, when we are told providing its legal. Cpl Demetrick has broken that by lieing to the press and acting as an agent for our enemy, perhaps unwittingly.



I do not see the connection. We have a duty to follow legal orders - what order did he not follow? Was he under orders not to state information that he may actually believe (yes some people do believe the crap)? 

We may be talking about someone that parades once a week for 9/10 months and has no real knowledge of what is happening.  He has read things, heard things and been told things through various media, friends and other associates that he probably spends more time with. Some of this info is going to be wrong and some right.  Obviously he, for some reason, has chosen to believe the wrong source. Breaking a sacred trust - no, being stupid - I go with yes. I still go with RMS talk, unit Afghan Vets chat and maybe even if he is willing a tour of Afghan to see first hand. Perhaps the need is education instead of persecution. Then again he may be plain dumb and then you can fall back on the gentle persuassion to leave.


----------



## George Wallace (9 Oct 2008)

CountDC said:
			
		

> I do not see the connection. We have a duty to follow legal orders - what order did he not follow? Was he under orders not to state information that he may actually believe (yes some people do believe the crap)?



Well.  He is subject to the NDA as well as the various Security Regulations.  The least he should have practiced is CONFIDENTUALITY.  Just because he may have heard something, truefully or falsely passed in conversation or written form, does not dictate that he pass on that information.  This guy is a Security Risk, due to his recent actions.  Once again, one can argue whether or not Open Source and material that may not be Classified can be openly passed to others freely.  Anything with a Classification, including Unclassified, constitutes a Security Breach should it be passed to those unauthorized to receive it.  This fellow obviously doesn't pay any attention to any of these facts.  If nothing eles, he has proved to all and sundry that he can not be Trusted, nor keep anything in confidence.  Who would want to employ such a person?


----------



## CountDC (9 Oct 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> CountDC
> 
> Could I ask you for your opinion on these words:
> http://www.bclocalnews.com/okanagan_similkameen/pentictonwesternnews/opinion/letters/27497089.html
> http://www.bclocalnews.com/okanagan_similkameen/pentictonwesternnews/opinion/letters/28673889.html



OK - my personnal opinion is that the writer overall has a different opinion than me although there is one point that I agree with - don't bet your life on us pulling out in 2011. Regardless of who is serving as PM at that time things could happen to change the date. I go with Afghan will go on until everyone is home.


----------



## OldSolduer (9 Oct 2008)

I disagree with you Count DC. His public lying about WP and mass Afghan civilian casualties tells me he will not be there for his fellow soldiers when needed.
By the way CountDC, in case you missed this, my son died in Afghanistan. This so called "soldier" is not fit to wear the same uniform he did. He has broken a sacred trust. His "stupidity" is no excuse. 
Pardon me if I seem harsh, but if people don't like that, too bad. This "soldier" has given the enemy a propaganda victory by his lying to the press.


----------



## CountDC (9 Oct 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Well.  He is subject to the NDA as well as the various Security Regulations.  The least he should have practiced is CONFIDENTUALITY.  Just because he may have heard something, truefully or falsely passed in conversation or written form, does not dictate that he pass on that information.  This guy is a Security Risk, due to his recent actions.  Once again, one can argue whether or not Open Source and material that may not be Classified can be openly passed to others freely.  Anything with a Classification, including Unclassified, constitutes a Security Breach should it be passed to those unauthorized to receive it.  This fellow obviously doesn't pay any attention to any of these facts.  If nothing eles, he has proved to all and sundry that he can not be Trusted, nor keep anything in confidence.  Who would want to employ such a person?



 No where does it state that he has revealed any official documentation or information. What he has done was wrote an opinion letter full of false info that he may actually believe. Nothing in NDA or Security Regulations so far has come up that can be applied to him. Security risk for voicing opinion?  Don't think that one will sail. Trusted - don't know him but his friends may find him highly turustworthy. Want to employ him?  Is he a good worker? Reliable? I wouldn't hire someone on their political views as lots of good people do not agree with me politically.


----------



## George Wallace (9 Oct 2008)

CountDC said:
			
		

> No where does it state that he has revealed any official documentation or information. What he has done was wrote an opinion letter full of false info that he may actually believe. Nothing in NDA or Security Regulations so far has come up that can be applied to him. Security risk for voicing opinion?  Don't think that one will sail. Trusted - don't know him but his friends may find him highly turustworthy. Want to employ him?  Is he a good worker? Reliable? I wouldn't hire someone on their political views as lots of good people do not agree with me politically.



OK.  My head is spinning on that one.  Can you clarify what that is all about?  I am confused.  

He overstepped his bounds by claiming to be a Cpl and claiming to have knowledge of events taking place during a CF operation.  Excuse me, but this is not a trivial matter as you seem to want to make it.  This person can not be trusted with the lowest form of security, CONFIDENTIALITY, or simply keeping his mouth shut.  

He is not a WHISTLE BLOWER.  He is a blabber mouth who has passed on false information as fact.  He is characteristic of the employee who stands at the watercooler all day, and is totally unproductive, and perhaps disruptive and subversive.  I wouldn't want him around.  I wouldn't hire him.


----------



## CountDC (9 Oct 2008)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> I disagree with you Count DC. His public lying about WP and mass Afghan civilian casualties tells me he will not be there for his fellow soldiers when needed.
> By the way CountDC, in case you missed this, my son died in Afghanistan. This so called "soldier" is not fit to wear the same uniform he did. He has broken a sacred trust. His "stupidity" is no excuse.
> Pardon me if I seem harsh, but if people don't like that, too bad. This "soldier" has given the enemy a propaganda victory by his lying to the press.



Of course you disagree - that is already obvious. Will he be there for his fellow soldier? Have no way of knowing that but often people that were conscentious objectors would pick up the rifle and shoot when their life was on the line. No, I did not miss about your son, which slants your view of things and perhaps clouds it. He still did not break a sacred trust.  Stupidity is not an excuse its a reason. Taking physical action rather than attempting to educate does not solve the problem. If we educate we may end with a good soldier or at least someone that has a more understanding point of view. If we resort to simple violence or booting out then the same person is out there with the same view and more ammo to use against us. Good headlines 

I was physically assaulted by military because of my political views

Military discharges member due to political view not in line with sitting government.

This is a case that must be dealt with properly or we are ultimately hurting ourselves.  Correction first, if that fails then gentle persuasion to find work somewhere else.


----------



## Franko (9 Oct 2008)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> I disagree with you Count DC. His public lying about WP and mass Afghan civilian casualties tells me he will not be there for his fellow soldiers when needed.
> By the way CountDC, in case you missed this, my son died in Afghanistan. This so called "soldier" is not fit to wear the same uniform he did. He has broken a sacred trust. His "stupidity" is no excuse.
> Pardon me if I seem harsh, but if people don't like that, too bad. This "soldier" has given the enemy a propaganda victory by his lying to the press.



CountDC,

Just to add (not detract anything OS said) that there are plenty of troops who are members on this site who either have served or are currently serving here right now, myself included. 

Some members of Army.ca have also been killed (see the Fallen Members section)

The asshat (one of our own no less) pretty much spit in our faces by calling us murderers, liars, monsters....hence the emotional responses here.

You're defending someone who deserves a throatpunch. 

Regards


----------



## George Wallace (9 Oct 2008)

OK

This guy would have to have some sort of Security Clearance, the minimum being the Reliability Status that he signed on joining the Reserves.  This is the part that is a stickler with some of us:

Part B of the Security Screening Certificate (TBS 330-47) that he had to sign



> PART B   BRIEFING SUMMARY
> 
> The individual named herein is authorized access to the level of information/assets indicated above when there is a work related need.
> 
> ...


----------



## PMedMoe (9 Oct 2008)

Maybe this guy should do more reading and less writing.

Duty With Honour


----------



## LineDoggie (9 Oct 2008)

I'm sure you dont need to hear this from a Yank, but you know better than I that the Men & Women of the CF arent War Criminals by any means.  My Friends currently serving in Afghanistan have said how impressed they are with your Troops. We have our share of such asshats like this Person who spout all manner of BullShite to the media.

We used to deal with such miscreants with some Heartfelt Counseling behind the Armory. E-tools were usually involved


----------



## dapaterson (9 Oct 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> OK
> 
> This guy would have to have some sort of Security Clearance, the minimum being the Reliability Status that he signed on joining the Reserves.  This is the part that is a stickler with some of us:
> 
> ...



And, per that certificate, it is possible he may face charges under one of the acts listed - but not the NDA - therefore not the CSD - therefore not a court martial.


----------



## muskrat89 (9 Oct 2008)

Defending the indefendable is only making an emotional topic worse. He didn't "offer an opinion" - he stated information about ongoing operations (without permission, I assume) that is false.

I'm locking this for 24 hours.

Army.ca Staff


----------



## muskrat89 (10 Oct 2008)

I'm going to unlock this. We will be keeping an eye on it - please keep things civil.

Read your post over before you hit the "Reply" button. This is a highly charged topic - if you can't keep your emotions in check, please consider Read Only.

Thanks.
Army.ca Staff

Now, that being said, some more fuel, courtesy of a link sent to me by Redeye.

Take a deep breath...
http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/515094


----------



## CountDC (10 Oct 2008)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Maybe this guy should do more reading and less writing.
> 
> Duty With Honour



less reading and writing, more listening to the vets from his unit that have been there.


----------



## Strike (10 Oct 2008)

Was there not a CANFORGEN put out when the election was called?

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/79919.0.html

Would not ALL members of the CF be expected to follow this CANFORGEN, including reservists?  I'm not at work so can't get access to it easily.  Maybe someone else can find it.


----------



## Haggis (10 Oct 2008)

Strike said:
			
		

> Was there not a CANFORGEN put out when the election was called?
> 
> http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/79919.0.html
> 
> Would not ALL members of the CF be expected to follow this CANFORGEN, including reservists?  I'm not at work so can't get access to it easily.  Maybe someone else can find it.



No restrictive CANFORGEN was issued.  The cyclical one (CANFORGEN 165/08) reminding DND civilian employees of the rules for seeking ANY elected office and the one reminfding managers of the requirement to give employees time to vote (CANFORGEN 184/08).  CANELECTGEN 007/08 was released on 10 Sep 08 to ensure all CF electors were properly given thier opportunity to vote and describing the process that would allow this to happen.


----------



## Strike (10 Oct 2008)

Haggis said:
			
		

> No restrictive CANFORGEN was issued.  The cyclical one (CANFORGEN 165/08) reminding DND civilian employees of the rules for seeking ANY elected office and the one reminfding managers of the requirement to give employees time to vote (CANFORGEN 184/08).  CANELECTGEN 007/08 was released on 10 Sep 08 to ensure all CF electors were properly given thier opportunity to vote and describing the process that would allow this to happen.



Seen.


----------



## Love793 (10 Oct 2008)

Having just read this guys letters, I think he may want the CSD to apply to him.  I searched for certain key words and intent in his letters, and refernced them with the CCC. Interestingly the CCC offence of Inciting to Mutiny (CCC Part 2 Offences against Public Order; SubSec 53, para a,b) and Offences in Relation to Military Forces (Part 2 Offences against Public Order; Sub Sect 62.1 paras a,b,c) may apply.  The former has a sentence of up to 14 years and the latter up to 5 years.


----------



## RHFC_piper (11 Oct 2008)

The legal argument aside; why would this member stay with an organization he disagrees with and finds so much fault in?

It would seem more logical for a person with such convictions to _NOT_ be involved in the organization they're opposed to...   ???
In my twisted thinking, this is the same as a vegetarian working at an abattoir.

I realize that this person probably wants to remain in the forces and just apposes the mission, but, there is a difference between morally objecting* and remaining a professional soldier (especially in the reserve system... where tours are voluntary) and morally objecting, openly rejecting and denouncing the actions of your peers (especially without experience or proof), repeatedly, and  being completely unprofessional.... This member did the latter... which, again, makes me wonder why??




*before someone jumps on me for this one; soldiers _can_ have a moral objection to the nature of a mission; that's the beauty of democracy and freedom of beliefs... it is only an issue if this objection interferes with the soldiers duty; then it is an issue of 'do your job or leave'.   Professionalism can be measure with how a soldier reacts to this situation. 
I've known of members objecting to operational deployment and, instead of publicly denouncing it, they opted for the professional resort and left the forces.  (or in the reserve situation; just not apply for deployment)
I'm sure this could be debated for hours, and it has in other threads... The long and the short of it is that this member acted very unprofessionally, especially when he has absolutely no obligation to serve... To me is seems like, and please forgive the term; an attention wh0re.

</my $0.02>


----------



## Strike (11 Oct 2008)

So Teeps and I were discussing this same subject tonight (those of you who are in Kingston and didn't go to the meet and greet suck) and he reiterated his point that this may very well be an agent provocateur with the intention of being a poster boy for a certain belief group.  I would suggest that we keep this in mind wrt our future comments.

As an aside, it is easy enough for a person who has objections to go the route of 'contentious objector.'  I just learned about a colleague of mine who is an exceptional pilot who just switched to Padre.  He has certain "issues" wrt what duties he is expected to perform in his trade and believes the forces are better served by him acting as a Padre.  Note that his obligatory service is well over and he is incurring more by OT'ing right now.  THAT is how these issues should be addressed IMHO.


----------



## Jarnhamar (11 Oct 2008)

Oh Canada! 
Sometimes I'm just so proud of my fellow citizens I can't contain myself.
Re; http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/515094



> *I also learned about some of the atrocities* the soldiers reported when they returned, and *they are not even permitted to tell the whole story*.
> Simone Gabbay


Well it sounds like you still got the good and juicy parts!



> There is no such thing as a war between good and evil; it's all evil. Good is when evil rests
> Jim Renahan


Huh? I mean right! Evil resting good. Evil being evil bad. But there is no bad, only being.



> Paul Demetrick deserves a medal for bravery – and most certainly for honesty.
> Jim Renahan, again



Defiantly a medal for bravery! Just not a campaign star, you know, because he never actually has been to Afghanistan. I know minor detail, not important.



> Ongoing deployments increase the risk and severity of post-traumatic stress disorder
> Linda Simmonds, Orangeville.


You don't say? Had to go to school for that huh. Getting shot increases chances of death too. 



> Finally someone accepts responsibility for killing so many innocent people.
> A.H. Karolia


Accepting responsibility from the safety of home. Classy. While he's at it I wonder what else he can accept responsibility for? Not like it's costing him anything.



> Finally, a letter straight from the horse's mouth.
> Pamela Bolton


The horse that never left the gate, but a horse none the less right Pamela? Well A horse that never even made it to the track, a horse that never left it's ranch but whatever. It's a horse people!



> Has Paul Demetrick been to Afghanistan, or is he basing his statements on rumours and innuendo from conspiracy circles? Why would he join the military if he has such an aversion to all things military? It's like joining the boy scouts and becoming upset when you have to sell apples and do good deeds.
> 
> John Addison


John please. The fact that he has never been to Afghanistan and has "heard" things vice witnessed doesn't detract from the truth, okay?  I heard Steven Harper was secretly having the army building him a summer home so he can go there when he retires. I heard it so it's true.



> Combat situations are not what we are about as Canadians. We are peacemakers and peacekeepers and we should stay that way
> .Bernie Merrett


Here here! What Bernie said.
What do you guys and gals think peaceMAKEING is? Fighting and removing a threat which then brings peace upon which we then move into a peaceKEEPING role?
Wrong. Dummies.
We have to MAKE peace first. And you don't make peace with soldiers fighting the bad guys, you do it other ways. You just, you know, make it. Nuff said.


I'm proud of you Canadian's I really am.


----------



## The Bread Guy (11 Oct 2008)

Strike said:
			
		

> This may very well be an agent provocateur with the intention of being a poster boy for a certain belief group.  I would suggest that we keep this in mind wrt our future comments.



Maybe, but we can still disagree with his views and his actions without prejudicing any future actions that may or may not be coming his way.



			
				Strike said:
			
		

> As an aside, it is easy enough for a person who has objections to go the route of 'contentious objector.'



There's an even simpler process than that - just leave the organization.  As a Reservist, it would be LOADS easier and quicker, I suspect, than for a Regular to quit.  



			
				Strike said:
			
		

> I just learned about a colleague of mine who is an exceptional pilot who just switched to Padre.  He has certain "issues" wrt what duties he is expected to perform in his trade and believes the forces are better served by him acting as a Padre.  Note that his obligatory service is well over and he is incurring more by OT'ing right now.



I have more respect for someone saying, "ya know, this isn't for me, don't like what's being done here, maybe I should go or, at least, change jobs" (I dealt with such folks when I was still in the military), than for anyone staying in any organization if they REALLY believe their colleagues are breaking the law.


----------



## xena (11 Oct 2008)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> There's an even simpler process than that - just leave the organization.  As a Reservist, it would be LOADS easier and quicker, I suspect, than for a Regular to quit.


I'm not too sure about that.  It was quicker for me getting out of the Regs the first time than getting out of the Reserves the second time I pulled handles.

FWIW, I regret both.


----------



## Old Sweat (11 Oct 2008)

If his unit would be glad to see him go, things can happen very quickly. It may not be a record, and it was in the old army as opposed to the CF, but in the sixties a junior officer attempted to break into the officers mess in the field in pursuit of booze and then fought with the gunner barman, who was sleeping in the mess vehicle. This happed at about 0230 and he was a civilian standing outside the main gate of Gagetown with a bus ticket home and all his worldy possessions in his kit bag by 1000 the same day. 

Now there is no comparing the two individuals. One was a thief and a general screw up; the other expressed an opinion that casts doubt of the forces. Still, if he wanted to take his leave, I am sure it could be expedited.


----------



## George Wallace (11 Oct 2008)

Today, the Reserves are burdened by the lack of knowledgeable RMS Clerks to facilitate Releases (and enrolments), the passage of time in transmitting msgs to and from HQs, and the lengths of time for the persons responsible at those HQs to make decisions relating to those msgs.   The bureaucracy/Administrative arm of the CF Reserves has its feet firmly planted in cement.


----------



## vonGarvin (11 Oct 2008)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> Now there is no comparing the two individuals. One was a thief and a general screw up; *the other expressed an opinion that casts doubt of the forces*. Still, if he wanted to take his leave, I am sure it could be expedited.


I have no problem with his opinion.  It was with his outright lies and slander that I, a member of the CF, am part of an organisation that disregards and disobeys the laws of armed conflict, he has lost all respect.


----------



## Huzzah (11 Oct 2008)

CountDC,
  I disagree with your comments to OldSolduer,with regard to his opinions being "slanted and clouded"
by his Son's service in Afghanistan.I also think that you could have referred to his Son's death with alot
more class and respect.
 I think that those who have had,or now have family serving there,have a better take on things than you
do.They also tend to have reached the "fed-up" point with the media,and self-serving politicians(and yes,
Jack Layton is one of the major culprits),yammering endlessly about detainee's rights,etc.,while ignoring
or distorting the accomplishments of our Troops.
   

(for some reason,I can't get the paragraphs to stay in the order that I typed them)


----------



## George Wallace (11 Oct 2008)

This whole affair is a reminder that Peace comes at a heavy price, and quite often those who enjoy it (Peace) the most, are those who are ignorant of this fact, or just plain hypocrites.

This letter, part of the letters to the editor "campaign" in the Penticton Western News, is an example of the hypocrisy of some people who have witnessed the horrors of war, and the methods that were necessary to rescue them from tyrannical regimes.

*Peace worth fighting for*

Published: September 27, 2008 12:00 PM 


> When I switched on the radio recently to listen to the 11 o’clock news, my heart fell when I heard the yet another Canadian soldier — the 97th — had been killed in far-off Afghanistan. We would be seeing another ramp ceremony, with a flag-draped coffin being loaded into a waiting transport plane, destination Canada, on our television screen. As a mother of a soldier who has been ready to defend his country for more than a dozen years, I can well imagine the sorrow of the mother of this latest victim, and all the 96 who died before him. I’m feeling compelled to do something about this folly of war taking place in both Afghanistan and Iraq, which have been going on for far too many years already. Who knows when it will ever end? How many more lives will it take before our leaders will realize that Canada is involved in an unjust, immoral, unwinnable war in Afghanistan and will call it quits. I ask myself, “What can I do?” Well for one, I can speak out against this madness and encourage others to do the same.
> 
> In most instances greed and egotism start wars it is the innocent, which suffer the consequences. I know from personal experience as the first five years of my life were spent in the Netherlands during the Second World War. I know how it feels when bombs rain from the sky and one doesn’t know where to hide, to be cut off from the necessities of life such as food and water, sanitation and heat. Such is the life the people of Iraq and Afghanistan have been enduring for years now. Why are we inflicting such horror on these people? What have they done to deserve this lot? Neither the Iraqis, nor the Afghans were directly involved in the 9/11 attack, which has been the excuse for waging war on them. We are being deceived by our leaders that our troops are there on a “mission,” instead of fighting a war, that they (the soldiers) are there to rebuild the countries (Iraq and Afghanistan). Nothing is further from the truth. In the meantime the killing continues and we stand by and do nothing, as it is easier to believe those lies than face the uncomfortable truth. However, there is hope since more and more Canadians are awakening from their slumber and starting to realize that they must do something to restore peace in these war-torn countries. As Canadians we don’t want to see more maple leaf-draped coffins on our televisions. I’m proud of my son, who decided against enlisting for a tour in Afghanistan and is publicly speaking out against what is happening there. In doing so, he has encountered the wrath of the military establishment. My son deplores Canada’s involvement in Afghanistan and has thereby taken an unpopular stand. He is aware of the consequences, but is willing to take them. If I may, I would like to share some excerpts from his writing. “The war was ‘sold’ to us on the lie that we are fighting for human rights, such as equality for women and education for children, especially girls.
> 
> ...




It is interesting to note that thousands of Canadian soldiers laid down their lives in the Liberation of the Netherlands.  They laid down their lives to free Mrs Demetrick from the tyranny of the Nazis.  She was rescued by Canadian soldiers who fought and died, that she could live a full life in Peace and enjoy Freedom to raise a son who joined the CF Reserves.  A son who should have held those values much higher than he apparantly does.

Is it hypocritical of her not to wish the same thing for the Afghans, or is she a Racist and doesn't feel that Canadian soldiers should be fighting and dying to bring Peace, stability and freedom to Afghans as they had done in WW II for the Dutch?  

I am drawing nasty conclusions of where this family comes from (politically).  I don't like what I have seen so far.


----------



## George Wallace (11 Oct 2008)

Paul Demetrick's letter on 27 Aug 2008 did not go without any response to conterdict his false claims.

Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act:


Letter off target

Published: September 06, 2008 12:00 PM 



> Paul Demetrick’s diatribe “Canada in the wrong on Afghanistan,” Aug. 27 is astonishing in its scope and bitterness.
> 
> Comparing our prime minister (or any of our national leaders for that matter) to fascist dictator Benito Mussolini is a fallacious argument and a deplorable attempt at character assassination.
> 
> ...


----------



## Huzzah (11 Oct 2008)

I'm still puzzled about something.I did a brief web search on the national origin 
of the name,Demetrick.Maybe I did something wrong,but it didn't mention the
Netherlands at all. ??? I'm sure there were some non-Dutch immigrants in WW2
Holland,but it also makes me wonder if  Mom Demetrick's story is bogus.


----------



## George Wallace (11 Oct 2008)

Huzzah said:
			
		

> I'm still puzzled about something.I did a brief web search on the national origin
> of the name,Demetrick.Maybe I did something wrong,but it didn't mention the
> Netherlands at all. ??? I'm sure there were some non-Dutch immigrants in WW2
> Holland,but it also makes me wonder if  Mom Demetrick's story is bogus.



I would almost bet that Mrs Demetrick has a Maiden Name.    :


----------



## Huzzah (11 Oct 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I would almost bet that Mrs Demetrick has a Maiden Name.    :


 Good point,I'll go wipe the egg off my face now...


----------



## ModlrMike (11 Oct 2008)

I was struck by the passage that said he spent the first 5 years of his life in Holland during WW2. So, if this is true then:

2008 - 1939 = 68

I'm pretty sure we don't have any serving 68 year olds.


----------



## PMedMoe (11 Oct 2008)

It was his mother who was in Holland during WWII.


----------



## George Wallace (11 Oct 2008)

Looks like we are soon in need of some Grade three English comprehension classes.    :-\









			
				PMedMoe said:
			
		

> It was his mother who was in Holland during WWII.



That may make her the "Mother of all Evils".     ;D


----------



## stryte (11 Oct 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Looks like we are soon in need of some Grade three English comprehension classes.    :-\



Well then we better hurry and get CelticGirl to apply those English teaching skills of hers before she leaves!


----------



## Jarnhamar (12 Oct 2008)

Okay let me get this straight.

This mother was in occupied Holland and liberated by Canadians. (Or allies?)  The people she was liberated from were people who were basically killing people who didn't fit into their ideal perfect world.
Now her son is denouncing Canadians (and allies) who are again helping people against a group who are more than happy to kill anyone who doesn't fit into their ideal world or follow the tennents of their faith, and shes applauding him?

She has seen how horrible it is when civilians are killed by bombs from airplanes. Is it safe to assume she's also seen how horrible it is when an armed force willingly kills people on a whim?

How selfish of her.


----------



## Huzzah (13 Oct 2008)

It does seem strange that Mrs.Demetrick can't see any parallels between Canadians
assisting the Afghans,and Canadians assisting in the liberation of Holland.


----------



## RAGINCANADIAN (17 Oct 2008)

Seems way to shady. Got a feeling this is just an overly liberal, CF bashing set of people trying to take away what our brothers and sisters are sacraficing in Afghanistan. Being on CFB Edmonton, there are a whole lot of soldiers ready and willing to go. A whole lot just got back over the last month. If only the seen this and had a few words to say.  :rage:


----------



## Celticgirl (17 Oct 2008)

Pilon said:
			
		

> Well then we better hurry and get CelticGirl to apply those English teaching skills of hers before she leaves!



You can't afford me.  8)


----------



## PAT-Platoon (24 Oct 2008)

I won't comment on the opinions themselves, as that should not be the question at hand (i.e. where or not the opinions were positive or negative of any given topic), rather the question should be on the legality and ethics of a CF member posting under his position in contradiction to an ongoing operation. Now my question is, what legalities do we have as civilians to hold political opinions? Am I right in assuming if this Cpl. did not post under his rank and as a representative of the Canadian Forces then therefore it would be legal? 

Moving on I have to say I am quite disappointed and ashamed of some of the posts in this thread. While Army.ca does not represent the CF, the people here posting very much do. To those saying such disgusting and professionally shameful remarks encouraging the physical harm of another Canadian Forces member, I say you are a disgrace to the uniform, moreso than this accused "disgrace". Those actively remarking about "going behind POL sheds" and physically assaulting another member disparage the CF, and make us seem more like a undisciplined mob, more of a harm to our personnel than any security threats. We are supposed to be a professionnal government organization that deals with military situations, not a disgusting gang bent on hazing and sadomasochistic beatings.  Get your head straight.

Furthermore I think his opinions are not invalid in anyway, and under the auspices of a civilian he should be pursuing these opinions. *As a civilian*, I hold the opinion of being against the War in Afghanistan. As a *military professional*, however I have no comment as it is not my purpose (nor thank goodness should it be) to be of questioning our civilian leadership. Again, as a civilian and under no representation of the CF I am quite saddened at our current civilian leadership in choosing to continue the escalate this war, but as a member of the Canadian Forces I have no comment on an ongoing military operation.


----------



## the 48th regulator (24 Oct 2008)

Army-Goon said:
			
		

> I won't comment on the opinions themselves, as that should not be the question at hand (i.e. where or not the opinions were positive or negative of any given topic), rather the question should be on the legality and ethics of a CF member posting under his position in contradiction to an ongoing operation. Now my question is, what legalities do we have as civilians to hold political opinions? Am I right in assuming if this Cpl. did not post under his rank and as a representative of the Canadian Forces then therefore it would be legal?
> 
> Moving on I have to say I am quite disappointed and ashamed of some of the posts in this thread. While Army.ca does not represent the CF, the people here posting very much do. To those saying such disgusting and professionally shameful remarks encouraging the physical harm of another Canadian Forces member, I say you are a disgrace to the uniform, moreso than this accused "disgrace". Those actively remarking about "going behind POL sheds" and physically assaulting another member disparage the CF, and make us seem more like a undisciplined mob, more of a harm to our personnel than any security threats. We are supposed to be a professionnal government organization that deals with military situations, not a disgusting gang bent on hazing and sadomasochistic beatings.  Get your head straight.
> 
> Furthermore I think his opinions are not invalid in anyway, and under the auspices of a civilian he should be pursuing these opinions. *As a civilian*, I hold the opinion of being against the War in Afghanistan. As a *military professional*, however I have no comment as it is not my purpose (nor thank goodness should it be) to be of questioning our civilian leadership. Again, as a civilian and under no representation of the CF I am quite saddened at our current civilian leadership in choosing to continue the escalate this war, but as a member of the Canadian Forces I have no comment on an ongoing military operation.



Not to disparage a very well thought out post,

But do you not contradict the theme of your statement;



> member disparage the CF, and make us seem more like a undisciplined mob



When you use a name like Army-Goon?

A Goon is known as a hired thug.....

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=goon&r=65

Goon _gun_

–noun 
1. Informal. a hired hoodlum or thug. 
2. Slang. a. a stupid, foolish, or awkward person. 
b. a roughneck. 



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Origin: 
1920–25; shortened from dial. gooney, var. of obs. gony a simpleton (< ?); influenced by the comic-strip character Alice the Goon in the series Thimble Theatre by E. C. Segar (1894–1938), American cartoonist


Just a thought.

dileas

tess


----------



## PAT-Platoon (24 Oct 2008)

Fair enough point regarding my username. This account was registered years before under this name, and I most likely will change it. Furthermore the context of Goon isn't of the textbook definition, rather it is of a common nickname given for a certain online forum community that I am a part of. Though I can see how that can be misconstrued. With that in mind though I do implore other members to look past my name and instead tackle my thoughts and opinions.


----------



## the 48th regulator (24 Oct 2008)

Army-Goon said:
			
		

> Fair enough point regarding my username. This account was registered years before under this name, and I most likely will change it. Furthermore the context of Goon isn't of the textbook definition, rather it is of a common nickname given for a certain online forum community that I am a part of. Though I can see how that can be misconstrued. With that in mind though I do implore other members to look past my name and instead tackle my thoughts and opinions.




But you see the conundrum,

Don't cast stones and all that is all.  But you did make a very valid post, so I am not faulting that. Just look at their posts, in the same manner you wish others to see yours....

dileas

tess


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (24 Oct 2008)

Army-Goon said:
			
		

> Fair enough point regarding my username. This account was registered years before under this name,



Just a correction for the young lad, you were registered as "Pat-Platoon" until last year....


----------



## the 48th regulator (24 Oct 2008)

You mean this community,

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=goon

.  goon

Members of the Something Awful Forums. They were named this after repeated verbal attacks on a website caused the owner to complain to Something Awful owner Lowtax about him and his "goons." 

Goons have neckbeards, no real-life social skills, a tendency for whining about dumb superficial crap, and a knack for shutting down anyone who has anything worth making fun of. They're known for their sarcastic and elitist tendencies, though many on the internet find them hilarious. 

Usually proud members of such Forums as GBS, BYOB, FYAD, or ADTRW, goons patrol the Awful Forums attempting to type funny jokes while their fingers slip off the keyboard due to Cheetos grease. 

Goons spew overused catchphrases like "Do you have stairs in your house?" or "All your base are belong to us," though they are also responsible for founding and popularizing various internet memes, web sites, and trends. 

There are many varieties of goon, depending on the particular forums they frequent at SA. GBS goons are often sarcastic and clever, while FYAD goons are elitist and abstract, BYOB goons are laid-back and random, CC goons are artistic and very critical, and ADTRW goons are anime-obsessed. 
Goon1: That reminds me of a BYOB thread a few days ago. 
Goon2: OMG ur a goon 2? 
Goon1: Wow yeah do you have stairs in your base belong to us? 

Goons: Why do I have to pay 10bux to get into these forums? If it costs me an entire week's allowance, than I don't want to be a goon.   


Could this be our Penticton reservist?

dileas

tess


----------



## PAT-Platoon (24 Oct 2008)

For the record no i am not the Corporal in question, as I do not live in Penticton nor am I in the Armoured Corps (as stated by my qualifications in my profile).

Now, moving on to my actual concerns. I would like to hear some actual opinions on my thoughts, instead of my actual name.


----------



## Shamrock (24 Oct 2008)

Army-Goon said:
			
		

> With that in mind though I do implore other members to look past my name and instead tackle my thoughts and opinions.



With pleasure.



			
				Army-Goon said:
			
		

> This account was registered years before under this name, and I most likely will change it.



Change it or don't.  You denounce goonish behaviour as "disgraceful" while are perfectly comfortable introducing yourself as an army goon.  Set the standard, lead by example.




			
				Army-Goon said:
			
		

> Furthermore I think his opinions are not invalid in anyway, and under the auspices of a civilian he should be pursuing these opinions. *As a civilian*, I hold the opinion of being against the War in Afghanistan. As a *military professional*, however I have no comment as it is not my purpose (nor thank goodness should it be) to be of questioning our civilian leadership. Again, as a civilian and under no representation of the CF I am quite saddened at our current civilian leadership in choosing to continue the escalate this war, but as a member of the Canadian Forces I have no comment on an ongoing military operation.



You and Cpl Demetrick are not *civilians*; however, we all here are *citizens*.  Service requires our willing curtailment of some of our *civil* liberties, including our permisson to communicate with news agencies and our political activities.  As a *military professional* you should be aware that we are not permitted to publicly utter inappropriate comments about our leadership.

Your and Demetrick's _opinions_ are not invalid.  However, the manner in which Demetrick has formed them is flawed and the manner in which he has chosen to voice them is questionably lawful.


----------



## Teeps74 (24 Oct 2008)

The Cpl in question, did indeed sign his letter, and have is signature included as Cpl Demetrick. At which point, IMHO, he violated trust by speaking out of his hat on subjects he is ignorant on, and yet has access to more information then the general public. Further, he violated the NDA by engaging in discourse as a member of the CF (by signing as Cpl Demetrick) which is clearly prohibited, especially in light of the fact that there was an election run up going on.

He is a clown, nothing more, and the best recourse would be administrative action, followed by immediate deployment to Afghanistan, where he can discover the facts he does not know, and blatently lied about.


----------



## PAT-Platoon (24 Oct 2008)

Teeps74 said:
			
		

> He is a clown, nothing more, and the best recourse would be administrative action, followed by immediate deployment to Afghanistan, where he can discover the facts he does not know, and blatently lied about.



So you are suggesting we set a horrible precedent of forcefully sending Reservists on overseas deployment? As well you would force this Corporal to fight in a war that he is vehemently against, practically conscripting him for it. Furthermore as someone who does not wish to be over there, he would be a detriment to his unit and the operation, as such a danger to himself and others. 

There is some interesting and quite disappointing tones here of vengeance and anger. Yes he has made a mistake, and he well be dealt with in accordance with our current institutions in place. If that means discharge then so be it, but I doubt it does. He made a mistake in signing his name on to an anti-war piece, so it does not mean he deserves to lose his entire career over it. Many people have done much worse and stayed in the Canadian Forces.

I am almost certain that if a Corporal had sent a pro-war message, and signed his name at the bottom there would be no controversy whatsoever. I can actually guarantee that to everyone here. Even if he had lied about the facts for his pro-war message there still would be no uproar.  

So that being said to those seeking blood and vengeance, step back and take a look at this. He sounds like a young Reservist with a very strong opinion on a subject, and he made a mistake of signing his opinions with his professional title. This was a mistake, and hopefully in the future he does not continue to do such a thing. 

And its quite wrong to claim that due to his opinions he has disgraced the CF, or those in it. Not at all, in fact this is good. Criticism and clarity is important in any organization and by bringing up the very valid claims of civilian casualties and the use of white phosphorous allows us to look more carefully at how we do things.


----------



## OldSolduer (24 Oct 2008)

Army Goon:
If you hold your opinion that the war in Afghanistan is wrong, then you are in the wrong area of employment. It's a just war: We are protecting the Afghan people from tyranny. There is no more righteous cause than that.
Not only that, if we are to withdraw from Afghanistan, our influence at the international table becomes very tenuous. Should we sit on the sidelines and tut-tut everyone (for most of the anti war crowd read the USA) or should we lead? 

Now in the matter of this young man voicing his opinion....he seriously needs to ask himself a few questions.


----------



## the 48th regulator (24 Oct 2008)

Army-Goon said:
			
		

> So you are suggesting we set a horrible precedent of forcefully sending Reservists on overseas deployment? As well you would force this Corporal to fight in a war that he is vehemently against, practically conscripting him for it. Furthermore as someone who does not wish to be over there, he would be a detriment to his unit and the operation, as such a danger to himself and others.



So your argument is to protect the reservist from fighting a war.  This should be good, so please amuse me.



			
				Army-Goon said:
			
		

> There is some interesting and quite disappointing tones here of vengeance and anger. Yes he has made a mistake, and he well be dealt with in accordance with our current institutions in place. If that means discharge then so be it, but I doubt it does. He made a mistake in signing his name on to an anti-war piece, so it does not mean he deserves to lose his entire career over it. Many people have done much worse and stayed in the Canadian Forces.



You are confusing me, Punish  him if he did wrong but then you say;



			
				Army-Goon said:
			
		

> Funny how someone decides to post in his favour, and has found to be dishonest about who he is....hmm an agenda?  Oh no you are not him, maybe a friend?



Something is wrong here.  Let us charge along…



			
				Army-Goon said:
			
		

> I am almost certain that if a Corporal had sent a pro-war message, and signed his name at the bottom there would be no controversy whatsoever. I can actually guarantee that to everyone here. Even if he had lied about the facts for his pro-war message there still would be no uproar.



Pro war, or pro mission? 



			
				Army-Goon said:
			
		

> So that being said to those seeking blood and vengeance, step back and take a look at this. He sounds like a young Reservist with a very strong opinion on a subject, and he made a mistake of signing his opinions with his professional title. This was a mistake, and hopefully in the future he does not continue to do such a thing.



Then post it as a Civilian, and leave his duty for our nation out of his politics.  He was the one that invited all of the naysayers to attack him for being a soldier and criticizing the mission.  He could have signed off as anything else.



			
				Army-Goon said:
			
		

> And its quite wrong to claim that due to his opinions he has disgraced the CF, or those in it. Not at all, in fact this is good. Criticism and clarity is important in any organization and by bringing up the very valid claims of civilian casualties and the use of white phosphorous allows us to look more carefully at how we do things.



This is why I am also questioning the dubious nature of your posts here….lemme guess, considering you are from BC, you are friend No?  

dileas

tess


----------



## PAT-Platoon (24 Oct 2008)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> Army Goon:
> If you hold your opinion that the war in Afghanistan is wrong, then you are in the wrong area of employment. It's a just war: We are protecting the Afghan people from tyranny. There is no more righteous cause than that.
> Not only that, if we are to withdraw from Afghanistan, our influence at the international table becomes very tenuous. Should we sit on the sidelines and tut-tut everyone (for most of the anti war crowd read the USA) or should we lead?
> 
> Now in the matter of this young man voicing his opinion....he seriously needs to ask himself a few questions.



I very much disagree with your assertion that just because I don't agree with one of hundreds of missions the Canadian Forces has been a part of that therefore I have to leave this organization. I am a professional in a government organization, not a mindless robot. I have the right to an opinion, and as long as I purvey that opinion in the proper contexts and venues (as I am doing now, not as a representative of the CF) then I am fully within my rights to do so. Furthermore as a Canadian citizen, I have a right to voice an opinion against current Canadian foreign policy, and as a member of the CF I have the right to hold constructive criticism of current operations. 

Furthermore I disagree with your statement on the War in Afghanistan, but as this topic subject is not "The Legalities and Ethics of the War in Afghanistan" I will not enter into a debate onto why I disagree with what you said. If you are genuinely interested in my opinions then feel free to PM them. As this topic is quite prevalent in these forums, I would keep a look out on my post history. I am sure I will eventually enter a debate regarding this topic in the proper venue. I implore others not to derail this discussion with the merits of the War in Afghanistan, as it is not the topic at hand.



			
				the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> Something is wrong here.  Let us charge along…



I would just like to point out that you misquoted me. None of my posts have the entered text in your reply. An editing mistake I assume?

Also to point out, no i am not a friend of his, nor do I even know him. Is it so hard to believe that in a country where 60% of Canadians disagree with the War in Afghanistan that more than one CF member falls into that 60%?

It seems we are misconnecting on our ideas here. I agree that the Corporal in question was out of line and deserves punishment for his mistakes. Should this punishment include physical harm, discharge or sending him overseas? No it should not. What I am simply asserting is that the level of vitriol in the replies do not match the level of mistake he did.


----------



## kincanucks (25 Oct 2008)

As a member of the CF you don't have the right to disagree with any mission the CF is involved in and you certainly don't have the right to voice your disagreement.  You have the right to follow orders and go where the government of Canada wants to send its military.  Or you have the right to release and voice your opinion whereever and whenever you want.  Please don't use the word professional to describe yourself as a member of the CF as you have a very long way to go before that happens.


----------



## the 48th regulator (25 Oct 2008)

Cognitive-Dissonance said:
			
		

> What I am simply asserting is that the level of vitriol in the replies do not match the level of mistake he did.



It does.

As you once again have changed your name, it is apropos to our argument.  Although he feels angst towards the war, he cannot represent the military by stating that he serves.  He can, by all means say he disagrees with the war, but his wrong was stating that as a member of the military.

Although I understand your point of view, I am shocked by the fact you do not understand the duty of a soldier, as opposed to a civilian.

He was wrong to state that he served.  Period.  By doing that, he represents the military as a whole.  That is what rubs everyone the wrong way.  At what point do we, as soldiers decide what is right and wrong?  Are we making this a moral argument, or a dutiful argument?

You are all over the map, if I may say. 

State what your purpose is, and we can go from there.

dileas

tess


----------



## PAT-Platoon (25 Oct 2008)

kincanucks said:
			
		

> As a member of the CF you don't have the right to disagree with any mission the CF is involved in and you certainly don't have the right to voice your disagreement.  You have the right to follow orders and go where the government of Canada wants to send its military.  Or you have the right to release and voice your opinion whereever and whenever you want.  Please don't use the word professional to describe yourself as a member of the CF as you have a very long way to go before that happens.



Please quote exactly under which regulation I am not allowed to state my opinion on a Canadian mission? I would be very much interested in this regulation.

Tess, my purpose was merely what I stated earlier. I believe he was wrong for stating his opinion as a representative of the CF. If he had simply posted that opinion without his rank then he would be in the right, however since he did not I agree with your point that he was wrong. My argument is against those who stated that members of the CF do not have the right to that opinion at all, which is completely and inherently wrong.

We have a right and an obligation to state moral and dutiful concerns regarding what we have to do. In the same sense we are obliged not to carry out illegal orders, we are very much obliged to have involved opinions on the subject of foreign policy and warfare. The problem is in this case, he was voicing his opinion as a representative of the CF which in my mind is unprofessional.


----------



## Towards_the_gap (25 Oct 2008)

Cog-Diss...


One of the things that constantly grips my sh*t is people who think the Canadian Forces are just another government organisation, like DFAIT or Revenue Canada.

WE ARE NOT. THE ENTIRE CF EXISTS TO GET THE INFANTRY TO CLOSE WITH AND *DESTROY* THE ENEMY. EVERYTHING ELSE IS SECONDARY.

We are subject to a different code of conduct than any civilian, and as such, if you publicly criticise government policy whilst representing yourself as a member, you are in breach of service discipline. End of story. He is totally within his right to think whatever the hell he wants, he cannot go public and say 'X mission is wrong, signed, Cpl D. Umbass, Penticton Fusiliers (or whatever)'

The reasons for this, believe it or not, is to ensure the military, AT ALL TIMES, remains subserviant to the elected government, ensuring liberal democracy and not military autocracy. See Argentina, '70's time frame, for an example of the latter.


----------



## kincanucks (25 Oct 2008)

_Please quote exactly under which regulation I am not allowed to state my opinion on a Canadian mission? I would be very much interested in this regulation._

I like QR&O 19.36 to start.  You know what QR&Os are, right?

Easily accesible from any computer:

http://www.admfincs.forces.gc.ca/qr_o/vol1/ch019_e.asp#19.36


----------



## xena (25 Oct 2008)

Cog-Diss, et al.

It's okay for you and this particular Cpl that we are discussing to have an opinion.  Everybody's got opinions.  Nothing wrong with them.  Especially if we have the wisdom and humility to realize that most of the opinions we hold are probably wrong.  The only opinions we have that are likely to be accurate, are the ones about which we are subject matter experts.  Other than that, we are usually just parroting something we've heard someone else say, or having some sort of knee-jerk reaction to a particular topic.  That's the reality of it.

This fellow, wrote a letter to the editor, which included a number of factual errors that he asserted to be true.  He also attempted to use the weight of his status as a member of Her Majesty's Canadian Forces to back up his claims, at least implicitly.

Unfortunately for him, a number of his claims have been clarified as false (see the first few pages of this thread), and identifying himself as a soldier in this manner is illegal.

His opinions, which are fine for him to hold, are what got him into trouble because he was not smart enough to keep his mouth shut.  He has not served in Afghanistan.  He is not an expert on what really goes on there.  Therefore, his opinions are flimsy at best.

His right to express said flimsy opinions are not in question.  It's the manner in which he expressed them.  He should have expressed opinions (ones based on fact!) as a citizen, not as a soldier.

Perhaps there was a certain unwarranted vehemence to some comments made here regarding this.  If one takes the fallacious nature of his claims, and couple that with the illegality of identifying himself as an Armed Forces member, it is not hard to see where some folk's outrage comes from.  We have a hard enough time countering the lies and misdirection coming from civilian sources, that we don't need some sort of "fifth column" of disinformation.

Yes, QR&O 19.36 is a good start.  From there talk to veterans (there are many here!).  Take their view on things very seriously.  They were there - they know what they are talking about.

Edited for grammatical clarity.


----------



## PMedMoe (25 Oct 2008)

This particular part of the QR&O applies:



> (2) No officer or non-commissioned member shall do or say anything that:
> 
> (a) if seen or heard by any member of the public, might reflect discredit on the Canadian Forces or on any of its members;


----------



## Teeps74 (25 Oct 2008)

Cognitive-Dissonance said:
			
		

> So you are suggesting we set a horrible precedent of forcefully sending Reservists on overseas deployment? As well you would force this Corporal to fight in a war that he is vehemently against, practically conscripting him for it. Furthermore as someone who does not wish to be over there, he would be a detriment to his unit and the operation, as such a danger to himself and others.
> 
> There is some interesting and quite disappointing tones here of vengeance and anger. Yes he has made a mistake, and he well be dealt with in accordance with our current institutions in place. If that means discharge then so be it, but I doubt it does. He made a mistake in signing his name on to an anti-war piece, so it does not mean he deserves to lose his entire career over it. Many people have done much worse and stayed in the Canadian Forces.



Look kid, I do not expect you to understand justy how badly he violated our trust, how badly he lied, and how badly he deliberatly insulted us on the basis of his lies.

He intoned *DIRECTLY* that we are all war criminals.

On the grounds of what exactly? His ignorance based lies? His plain and obvious prejudice? He is a dishonorable, craven coward, attempting to play this system. I suggest he should go there, and discover the truth about what he speaks or simply STFU about things he clearly knows nothing about nor is willing to ask about.



> I am almost certain that if a Corporal had sent a pro-war message, and signed his name at the bottom there would be no controversy whatsoever. I can actually guarantee that to everyone here. Even if he had lied about the facts for his pro-war message there still would be no uproar.



You clearly do *NOT* know this audience.



> And its quite wrong to claim that due to his opinions he has disgraced the CF, or those in it. Not at all, in fact this is good. Criticism and clarity is important in any organization and by bringing up the very valid claims of civilian casualties and the use of white phosphorous allows us to look more carefully at how we do things.



Informed criticism is not only good and healthy, it should be almost mandatory in any free society. This Cpl's "criticism" is not informed, nor researched, nor based in facts. It is a prejudiced fuelled tirade pointed directly at those he chooses to serves with. He stabbed us all in the back. If he was brave, and this was his opinion, he would have exercised his right to get out before getting on his soap box, and telling such blatent lies.


----------



## Teeps74 (25 Oct 2008)

kincanucks said:
			
		

> As a member of the CF you don't have the right to disagree with any mission the CF is involved in and you certainly don't have the right to voice your disagreement.  You have the right to follow orders and go where the government of Canada wants to send its military.  Or you have the right to release and voice your opinion whereever and whenever you want.  Please don't use the word professional to describe yourself as a member of the CF as you have a very long way to go before that happens.



QUOTED FOR TRUTH

And to add, in the event that a mission were illegal, then yes, you do have the right to QUIT and make issue of thew things you have seen. In fact, in the mission area, if you witness an illegal act, or are given an illegal order, you have a duty as indicated by the NDA to report it up the chain of command, and if necessary act to stop it.

To cog-diss: I have been there, and I have friends of absolute confidence who have been there, and those that are over there. NOTHING in what we collectively have seen and done would be considered illegal by any Canadian or international court.

Informed questions and criticisms are good. Uninformed opinion and a loud mouth, leads to the trouble seen in this thread. 

The mission is legal, and mandated by UNSCR 1776  .


----------



## 1feral1 (25 Oct 2008)

Cog-Dis,

I have read all your posts in detail, and I only have one thing to say, and that is Burger King, KFC, Pizza Hut and yes, even McDonalds are always hiring.

You're in the wrong job.

Your quote sums it up. "I am quite saddened at our current civilian leadership in choosing to continue the escalate this war, but as a member of the Canadian Forces I have no comment on an ongoing military operation" 

What will you do should you be deployed? Cry to the CBC with flowers in your hair, and presenting tears as big as horse turds, or fight like a man, and be a man amoung men?

As for being ashamed, I am ashamed of you.

Thank Christ you were NOT on my tour, you would not have lasted an hour!

Meanwhile, from the high ground....... op:

Peace bro, sit back and complain, while others risk everything, so innocent people can have a chance at a brighter future.

OWDU 
Iraq Vet


----------



## gwp (25 Oct 2008)

Cognitive-Dissonance said:
			
		

> I very much disagree with your assertion that just because I don't agree with one of hundreds of missions the Canadian Forces has been a part of that therefore I have to leave this organization. I am a professional in a government organization, not a mindless robot. I have the right to an opinion, and as long as I purvey that opinion in the proper contexts and venues (as I am doing now, not as a representative of the CF) then I am fully within my rights to do so. Furthermore as a Canadian citizen, I have a right to voice an opinion against current Canadian foreign policy, and as a member of the CF I have the right to hold constructive criticism of current operations.



That is where you stand into danger!  Where is the line between being a member of the CF and being a citizen? You have self indentified yourself here as a member of the CF. Therefore, hiding behind statements as those of a citizen is not possible as those comments become politicized in this public place.  Anyone who knows you as a CF member can no longer separate you - one from the other.  

As posted earlier in this thread.  This is important because:
  
"Political neutrality of the CF and its members is a seldom-discussed, but fundamental, principle of our constitutional democracy. Preventing the CF from becoming politicized is essential to its status as subordinate to the civil authority and to public confidence in the CF. Public expression of personal opinion on defence or related policy would create the perception of drawing CF members into the political process and undermining public confidence in the loyalty and impartiality of the CF to the Government of Canada. It is, consequently, the duty of all CF members to give loyal and impartial support to the Government of Canada - regardless of the political organization that forms the government. In practice, this means publicly explaining -- but not defending or attacking - defence or related policy. It is the responsibility of the relevant Minister to defend defence or related policy" Quote from the Senate Report on the Canadian Forces


----------



## gun runner (25 Oct 2008)

Cog-Diss, by the assertations you have posted in this forum.. it is my humble opinion that you are of no different character than the Cpl. in discussion on this thread. Do yourself, and all of the C.F. a favour, and turn in all of your kit, get out of the C.F., and have a happy life. You obviously have no heart for the job and are too preoccupied in bucking the system rather than playing the game by the rules. Ubique


----------



## SupersonicMax (25 Oct 2008)

kincanucks said:
			
		

> As a member of the CF you don't have the right to disagree with any mission the CF is involved in and you certainly don't have the right to voice your disagreement.



I have to disagree with this. You do have the right to your opinion. We're all humans and no one can force you not to have an opinion. However, as a professional, you won't let your opinion influence your decision making. Heck, how many soldier went to the media and said the mission had a purpose?  Is it not an opinion? 

As far as going publicly with it, I think enough has been said in this thread.  I don't think it's illegal to do it, however I don't think this makes it right.


----------



## The Bread Guy (25 Oct 2008)

In Canada, one doesn't don't punish OPINIONS, one punishes BEHAVIOUR.

As a citizen, I don't like the AFG mission = no problem
As a citizen, I say I don't like the AFG mission = no problem
As a CF member, I don't like the AFG mission = no (legal) problem 1,2
As a CF member, I *say* I don't like the AFG mission = *problem*

1 - It's not illegal to _hold an opinion_ opposing any mission your team is participating in, but it exposes an _ethical/moral_ problem regarding how much you _really_ want to be in an organization doing something you _really_ don't want to see done.  

2 - If you think you should be able to pick the missions you work on and those you don't, think how you'd feel if a cop or firefighter tried that, and YOU were the person/house said public safety official felt uncomfortable doing their job at for whatever reason.


----------



## SupersonicMax (25 Oct 2008)

You know, I don't think it is a problem disagreeing with the mission (or anything the CF tells you to do for that matter), as long as you are professionnal enough to do your duty.  I don't always agree with what I'm asked to do, however, I think I'm mature and professionnal enough to put my opinion aside and do it anyways to the best of my abilities.  I may or may not bring it up to the CoC or supervisor but I will still do whatever I'm asked.  

You can't agree with everything the CF does.  It's a matter of if you can get over it and still do what you're paid for.


----------



## Teeps74 (25 Oct 2008)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> You know, I don't think it is a problem disagreeing with the mission (or anything the CF tells you to do for that matter), as long as you are professionnal enough to do your duty.  I don't always agree with what I'm asked to do, however, I think I'm mature and professionnal enough to put my opinion aside and do it anyways to the best of my abilities.  I may or may not bring it up to the CoC or supervisor but I will still do whatever I'm asked.
> 
> You can't agree with everything the CF does.  It's a matter of if you can get over it and still do what you're paid for.



And there we go, thanks Max. We all occasionally have our differences with what the bosses say. The difference between a professional and an amature, is the ability to handle said differences professionaly. 

Hopefully the day will never come, but another part of this is, when someone does give that illegal order, then we do have to act. Jumping the gun, as this young Cpl has done, degrades that ability. When you have exhausted all resources to determine the legality of what is going on, then I would suggest going public would be required. That clearly is not the case here, with what this Cpl betrayer, has done.


----------



## Brad Sallows (25 Oct 2008)

>In the same sense we are obliged not to carry out illegal orders, we are very much obliged to have involved opinions on the subject of foreign policy and warfare.

You're welcome to have opinions on foreign policy, but not obliged to have them, let alone to express them or otherwise "involve" them.  Governments are answerable both for the decision to initiate war (jus ad bellum) and how they allow it to be conducted.  Soldiers - except occasionally those in the topmost command and staff positions who support the most egregious violations of law and custom - are answerable only for how they conduct war (jus in bello).  The latter is not at all "in the same sense" as the former.


----------



## OldSolduer (25 Oct 2008)

Cog-Diss:
Right to your opinion, by all means. HOWEVER, if you disagree that much with the political leadership, take your release and run for Parliament. IF you feel that strongly.
As for your assertion that we who think this war is just are mindless robots, think again junior. We've stood on the sidelines for over 30 years as "Peacekeepers", and tut-tutted the USA for their foreign policy. Now its time to pay the piper my young friend.
I lost a son in Afghanistan. He was there, in his mind, to protect the innocent. I'm of the opinion that we are fighting the good fight. Your lack of a rebuttal to this righteous cause makes me believe that you have no stomach for conflict.


----------



## 1feral1 (25 Oct 2008)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> Cog-Diss:
> you have no stomach for conflict.



I found another qoute of Cog-Dis as fol: "Currently I am scared shitless for the PT" (in post no.24 in his profile).

OS, I reckon you're spot on in your words above.

I think the only deploying this INDIVIDUAL will be doing is to the Q Store to turn in his kit.

We all have opinions, but I am sensing a hidden agenda in Cog-Dis, one we've all seen before  : , and quite frankly I am over it, him, and others who support/demonstrate this 'LEG' train of thought, its all rather weak/yellow, and definatly rubs me the wrong way.

He can always turn to the NDP and Libs for guidance as far as I am concerned.


Cold beers,

Wes


----------



## Greymatters (26 Oct 2008)

Overwatch Downunder said:
			
		

> We all have opinions, but I am sensing a hidden agenda in Cog-Dis, one we've all seen before  : , and quite frankly I am over it, him, and others who support/demonstrate this 'LEG' train of thought, its all rather weak/yellow, and definatly rubs me the wrong way.



Can you amplify what you mean by 'LEG train of thought' ?


----------



## 1feral1 (26 Oct 2008)

Greymatters said:
			
		

> Can you amplify what you mean by 'LEG train of thought' ?



Lacking Enough Guts


----------



## Greymatters (26 Oct 2008)

Copy...


----------



## Jarnhamar (26 Oct 2008)

Cognitive-Dissonance said:
			
		

> Moving on I have to say I am quite disappointed and ashamed of some of the posts in this thread. While Army.ca does not represent the CF, the people here posting very much do. To those saying such disgusting and professionally shameful remarks encouraging the physical harm of another Canadian Forces member, I say you are a disgrace to the uniform, moreso than this accused "disgrace".



And I say you have your head up your ass. That's just my opinion though. Sounds like you're trying a little too hard mate.
Some members of the Canadian Forces run their mouth and other members of the CF whom recognize this kindly set the individual straight sometimes by punching them in the mouth.

Goonish, barbaric?  Well it's not something you could get away with at your artsy fartsy wine and cheese parties.  Shameful and a disgrace? You can say what you want. When you get a little more time in traveling abroad you might change what you consider shameful behavior.  
The army is a rough place. The army is a physical place. Sometimes you get yelled at by your boss. Sometimes one of your buddies punches you in the head for being an idiot. 
This guy is being a class A mark one idiot and a lot of people in the army (surprise) are responding how people in the army do. You wanna champion the regiment idiot good luck.


----------



## George Wallace (26 Oct 2008)

Army-Goon/Cognitive-Dissonance

I find your defense of this "Cpl" totally disfunctional and confused.  I might add that your choice of nom de plumes really suck also.


----------



## OldSolduer (26 Oct 2008)

Army Goon/Cog-Diss:

How long you been in? I think I have some mess tins that are older than you.

Realize ONE thing: The prime purpose of an army is to kill people. Get that through your head. To necessitate this, we train young people to kill. Everything else we do or have done as an Army is SECONDARY to our mission, and that is to protect CANADA. In order to protect it, we send people to out of the way places so people like Mullah Omar and Osama are prevented from introducing their version of Sharia law to Canada.

It's not a social program, nor should it ever be a social engineering project.


----------



## the 48th regulator (26 Oct 2008)

I know I have been invloved.

But I think this bad boy has run it's course.

If anything new comes up, or anything of virtue you have to post, please PM a Mod.

This badboy is a lock.

dileas

tess

milnet.ca staff


----------

