Peaceniks Try Direct Mail on Vandoos Destined for AFG

[George Wallace]

Posting your letter once is fine.  A second time in the French section can be tolerated.  More of the same will not be tolerated.

Now moving on.......You (plural (?) ) have had some counter points brought to your attention.  Are you (individually or as a group (?) ) going to respond?  It is not a discussion if you can't defend your points.

 

[Valcartier 2007]

Hi there George! (btw, is "George Wallace" your real name, or an online name? either way, just wondering ...)

No problems, we won't be spamming, and we will definitely defend our arguments, in both English and en français.

"We" are members of Block the Empire in Montreal, and Guerre à la Guerre in Quebec City, two anti-war groups in Quebec. We're not hippies! (We agree with one of the tags of a previous poster: "Hippies.They're everywhere. They wanna save the earth, but all they do is smoke pot and smell bad. " We're not much into pot, and definitely shower daily.)

About Franciso Juarez:

If we understand the arguments being made about him, several folks on this forum believe that he was basically "washed out" and covered up his failures by refusing orders. We obviously weren't there, nor do we know Francisco personally. We cited Francisco, because he is a clear example of someone in the Canadian Armed Forces who openly spoke out against Canada's role in Afghanistan, and was expelled from the army for that reason. Perhaps one reason he refused orders in training was because he no longer believed in what he was being groomed for (ie. to be a junior officer, eventually to serve in Afghanistan).

If you want to hear from Franciso Juarez himself, check out these videos that are available online:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Oe03w7e1T4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iroLoPn-d4M

Importantly, we offer more substantive arguments in our letter about Canada's role in Afghanistan, which haven't really been addressed on this forum. The arguments don't hinge on Francisco being a good or bad person (although, we definitely respect his decision to refuse to serve in Afghanistan).

To give one example:

General Andrew Leslie gave a speech in the summer of 2005 on Canada's increasing military presence in Afghanistan, General Leslie stated: "Afghanistan is a 20-year venture. There are things worth fighting for. There are things worth dying for. There are things worth killing for."

In the same speech, he stated: "Every time you kill an angry young man overseas, you're creating 15 more who will come after you."

Let's break down the general's logic:

1. Canadian troops will be in Afghanistan for 20 years
2. Canadian troops will be killing people.
3. Every time we kill people more people will want to kill us.

Sounds like a plan for disaster, mainly for the people of Afghanistan, but also for on-the ground Canadian soldiers No wonder that "reconstruction" and "development" are being used as cover for Canada's "killing"; and no wonder Canada's military is being used as cover for American-led imperialism in the Middle East. Canada's role in Afghanistan, under a NATO mandate, can't be divorced from the broader US-led role in the Middle East. For example, having 2500 Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan means that there can be 2500 more American soldiers in Iraq; they're linked.

Again, we are more than open to debating the substantive points in our letter. Don't hesistate to pass on your critiques and comments.

---
INFO:
www.valcartier2007.ca
info@valcartier2007.ca
418-208-7059

 

[Michael OLeary]

Personally, I don't believe this "cause" deserves the attention it is trying to milk from the members of this forum.  They will not be convinced, and every attempt to rebut anything they post only offers another chance for them to spout their nonsense.

Take away what they want most by ignoring them.

 

[George Wallace]

As a university student(s) you must have studied some history, other than Quebec history.  Have you wondered what would have happened in the First World War, the Second World War, or Korea, if we had allowed your logic to make the choices that we ultimately made?  Do you think that we could have defeated the Nazis or the Japanese in a year and then left these nations to themselves?  It has taken over sixty years for Germany to finally come to being a Democratic and peaceful State.  There are still NATO soldiers in Germany today.  The same can be said about Japan.  What about Korea? 

There is no quick fix.  This is not as simple as the 'drive-thru' at Mcdonald's.  Peace has to be won. Reconstruction and re-education must take place once the nation has 'security' and protection of life.  When the Government, and infrastructure have been rebuilt and the people can defend themselves to live in peace, then the job is done. 

If you want us to leave now, you are acting as a tool for the Taliban.  You are then a "Fifth Columnist" and an enemy of the State.  Don't think the Taliban are not monitoring the internet?  It is one of their favourite tools.  Manipulating University Students from say U L is an artform for them.

 

[civmick]

About Franciso Juarez:

If we understand the arguments being made about him, several folks on this forum believe that he was basically "washed out" and covered up his failures by refusing orders. We obviously weren't there, nor do we know Francisco personally. We cited Francisco, because he is a clear example of someone in the Canadian Armed Forces who openly spoke out against Canada's role in Afghanistan, and was expelled from the army for that reason.

Valcartier - perhaps if you're going to depend on the word of a single person to back the campaign you are doing, it would be better to have encountered Mr Juarez directly and assured yourself independently that his bona fides were credible, not least that the second highlighted portion in fact preceded the third. 

I don't believe you will ever face a Criminal Code prosecution - frankly given that you have probably strengthened rather than weakened the Vandoo esprit de corps there are better things for the prosecutors to do - but if you do find yourself in front of a court on a Section 53, 61 or 62 charge I would hope that you will learn a lesson about trusting the source of your information. 

 

[Valcartier 2007]

Thanks for your comment civmick --

Our letter campaign certainly does not "depend on the word of a single person". We quote six soldiers -- one Canadian and five Americans -- as examples of different individuals who have resisted deployment in one way or another. In other words, we provide examples of war resisters, including folks who refused to serve in Afghanistan, in the context of urging soldiers not to deploy. All quotes are from public sources. Juarez's quotes are from comments he's made to mainstream sources in Canada.

But, our substantive argument is contained in our open letter: http://www.valcartier2007.ca/openletter.htm

There is a focus on this forum on Juarez, which is fine, but what about our other arguments? What do folks think about General Leslie's "logic" on Canada's role in Afghanistan as described in a previous post? Or our other arguments, like our contention that Canada's role in Afghanistan is instrinsically linked to the discredited US-led "War on Terror"; our involvement in that war does not make us safer, and certainly does not make Afghans safer; it's a war based on false and self-serving pretexts.

What about the arguments of Afghans like RAWA or Hadi Qaderi (who we quote on our website) who argue that foreign troops are essentially helping prop up a puppet -- Karzai -- and a corrupt government that isn't much better than the Taliban, including warlords who are just as brutual as the Taliban. [And, as Ahmad Rashid points out in his book about the Taliban, the Taliban itself is blowback from previous US-led foreign policy objectives. Why trust current foreign policy objectives? I mean, are any of us so naive as to believe that US-led involvment in Afghanistan is altruistic?]

There are other arguments too, but just check out our open letter for those, as well as our media section.

Anyways, look forward to other replies and comments. Our point is to open up dialogue and debate on these issues, with the people who are directly involved (ie. soldiers who will deploy to Afghanistan). And to open up the possibility of not serving, if soldiers disagree with the mission (and the motives of someone like O'Connor, who himself became rich working for military companies after his time as a General).

---
INFO:
www.valcartier2007.ca
info@valcartier2007.ca
418-208-7059

 

[McG]

Actually, having now read the letter (in decent translation), I can see that they make some good points

No they do not.  It is full of logical falsies & inaccuracies. 

This one is called poisoning the well: "who used to work as a lobbyist for corporations and public relations firms who profit from war"

We all know the the Taliban protected Osama & his crew.  Sure "the Afghan people have never attacked Canada or Québec" but we are not at war with the Afghan people.  We are helping to rebuild the nation because we did go to war with its former Taliban leaders.  I'll chalk this up to inaccuracy.

The issue about Iraq is a redherring.  Iraq has not been our war; Afghanistan was.  We now have a moral obligation to the people of Afghanistan to ensure the reconstruction happens.  If we leave, there will be a power vacuum & civil war.  We will then start hearing hypocrites, who had called for us to leave, then suddenly demand we go back to "Peacekeep" and do exactly what we are involved in now.

This one is post hoc: Taliban defeated by Western forces - Western Forces stay to keep security - Taliban fighting a little harder recently - therefore presence of western forces will always caust "thousands of average Afghans" to be  "motivated to actively resist those forces"

They do seem to have some facts in there, but these don't support any conclusions.  You know what, I don't even think there is even one single logically constructed & supported argument in the whole letter.  I'm not giving it any more time.

 

[McG]

Our point is to open up dialogue and debate on these issues, with the people who are directly involved. And to open up the possibility of not serving, if soldiers disagree with the mission.

Debate the mission all you want but, if you encourage anyone here to violate the National Defence Act, you will be banned from this site.

 

[Armymedic]

Valcartier 2007,
What you fail to realize is that serving members of the Canadian forces are professionals. Do you believe you would have any luck writing a letter to a professional hockey player telling them not to play, or a RCMP officer telling them not to investigate a crime in thier jurastiction?

This is what we do, this is what the people of Canada pay us to do. If you have a problem with what the soldiers of YOUR Canadian Forces are doing, write your MP...

Atleast they will pretend to listen to you.

 

[Bzzliteyr]

The problem here boys and girls is that we ARE listening to them.  It's like the bully in the school yard syndrome, every reply is giving them the attention they "need" and whether is be positive or negative attention, it's attention to them.  Everyone needs to turn around and ignore this insignificant noisemaker and look the other way, "he'll" eventually get tired and leave.

We know we'll be going, they know we'll be going, the only way we won't be going is if the government changes it's mind.. NOT the soldiers.

If they believe in their cause so much, where were they during all the last deployments??  Is only important now that they can get some attention without having to leave the comfort of their own province?


Unfortunately the only way to turn our backs on them is to "locker le thread" (tell me I am not bilingual, eh?).

 

[FascistLibertarian]

1. Canadian troops will be in Afghanistan for 20 years
2. Canadian troops will be killing people.
3. Every time we kill people more people will want to kill us.

Here is my reply I am sure others on this board could do a better job but this is what I think.
1) Nation building takes time; the average counter insurgency in the last century took something like 7-9 years. Canada should support Afghanistan for as long as we are needed. As someone from Quebec you are probably intrested in Haiti (and would probably like the Vandoos to go there). Well if you look at Canada's contribution to that country we have been in and out of that country more times than I can count. I am sure you would agree it would have been better if a limited and sustainable number of Canadians who wished to be there were in Haiti for the last 20 years. If we leave Afghanistan now where do you think this country will be in 20 years? Do you really think NATO pulling out would improve life for the average person there?

2) It would be great if we could skip security and go straight to rebuilding and giving out aid. The fact is that without security there can not be development. This does entail killing people at some times. There will be mistakes and innocent people will get killed. That is war and something that I am sure no one shipping out will take lightly. It is not the CF's objective to kill innocent people.

3) You are clearly taking this out of context. This is more in line with the strategic cpl argument. What the general means is that the CF can not move forward in Afghanistan by military force alone. If the CF shoots at everyone the population will clearly turn against them.

I would like to ask you two questions.
1) What Canadian wars and interventions would you have supported if any? (Boer, ww1, Siberia, ww2, korea, suez, 1st gulf, balkans, kosovo etc)
2) What do you think the prerequisite for using the Canadian military abroad should be?

I am well aware we will not change each others views but I do wish to see where you are coming from.

 

[Edward Campbell]

These guys are happy every time we 'reply.'

They are using us, as they 'used' the soldiers in Valcartier, to gain free publicity.

I agree with Bzzliteyr: if we cannot discipline ourselves enough to ignore these clowns, to not do their work for them, then lock 'er up so that we cannot do their bidding.

 

[Reccesoldier]

Valcartier, you’ve been sold a bill of goods, either that or you are one of those useful idiots that have been and are so useful to our enemies for so long.  It’s time you read something other than the defeatist “if it bleeds it leads” crap spewed by the popular media, I suggest this would be a good start.  http://www.nato.int/ISAF/Update/media_features.htm

Surely as university students your first prof explained that quotes out of context are useless as proof. 

Let’s see how Prof Reccesoldier scores your paper.

We are writing this letter to offer you a dissenting point-of-view about your deployment that we hope will prompt you to reconsider your participation.

  I won’t delve into the legal ramifications of inciting mutiny but I’m sure other will.

The Afghan people have never attacked Canada or Québec, and had nothing to do with the attacks of September 11,

  While factually correct everyone knows that facts without context are worse than useless.  The Taliban not only aided and abetted Osama and his clag, they celebrated right along side of him when thousands of innocent civilians were murdered. You know Osama, the guy that said this…Minus 10

The 9/11 Attacks Were "An Unparalleled And Magnificent Feat Of Valor, Unmatched By Any In Humankind.  On the blessed Tuesday 11 September 2001 … they launched their attacks with their planes in an unparalleled and magnificent feat of valor, unmatched by any in humankind before them. … Yet with the destruction of the Twin Towers in New York, there occurred an even bigger destruction: that of the great American Dream and legend of Democracy." (Translation Of Purported Bin Laden Audio Message, Posted On Islamist Site, 2/14/03)

2001. Still, Defence Minister Gordon O’Connor -- who used to work as a lobbyist for corporations and public relations firms who profit from war – recently stated that your presence in Afghanistan is “retribution” for 9-11.

  Name me one war that was not a retribution for something…  For unforgivable naiveté (come on you’re university students! How about a little critical thinking!  Shame on you, lazy, lazy, lazy) you loose 5 points.

The Canadian government defends its involvement in Afghanistan in the name of women’s liberation. However, the Afghani government that you are defending is comprised of warlords who are just as brutal in their treatment of women as the former Taliban regime. In the words of the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan (RAWA):

Finally a hint of truth, however it is vastly offset by the fact that although treatment of women in Afghanistan today does not meet Canadian standards it is far, far better than when this was the norm: http://www.pejmanesque.com/archives/Taliban.jpg or this http://www.nyu.edu/classes/keefer/joe/farsha2.jpg  I’ll only take off another 5 points for sloppy research.

Your deployment in Afghanistan means complicity with the civilian deaths and other activities – like the transfer of prisoners to potential torture and death – that are tantamount to war crimes; here are some examples:

So you are Lawyers now?  I won’t address the US action that you state at first but I will take you up on what you obviously see as ‘Canadian atrocities’.

- in March 2006, soldiers shot dead a taxi driver riding near a patrol [CBC News, March 15, 2006];

  This didn’t occur on  St Catherine’s street.  Misrepresentation and willful ignorance of your subject matter loose you 10 points.

The man, identified as Nasrat Ghali and believed to be in his mid-40s, was driving a three-wheeled motorized taxi known locally as a rickshaw. Canadian troops fired warning shots at him after he drove through an Afghan police checkpoint, coming within less than one metre from the Canadian vehicle, said Lt.-Col. Derek Basinger, chief of staff for Task Force Afghanistan.

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2006/03/15/afghanistan_taxi060315.html

- in August 2006, a 10 year-old boy was shot and killed [National Post, August 23, 2006];

  Your juvenile pedantic distortions of factual events loose you another 10% 

The 10-year-old, whose name has not been released, was the passenger on a motorcycle that military officials say crossed a security perimeter that was set up around the bombing site.
Officials said soldiers were fearful of another suicide attack and fired on the motorcycle after several warnings to stop.
"ISAF (International Security Assistance Force) soldiers signalled the motorbike to stop and fired two warning shots," NATO said in a statement.

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=2792d7a4-39d1-4901-943e-added0ff883c

- in December 2006, an elderly Afghan man was shot and killed [CTV News, December 13, 2006];

More of the same -10

A statement from NATO's International Security Assistance Force says the loss of life was regrettable and it was unclear why the motorcyclist refused to heed the warning.
"It is not known why the motorcyclist failed to stop when clear signals were given, and a full and thorough investigation has commenced," says the statement from the ISAF.
The Canadian military has said it believes the soldier who fired the shot followed all the reasonable rules of engagement,

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20061213/afghan_civilian_061213/

- in February 2007, there were two separate incidents involving the killing of Afghan civilians by Canadian troops, including a homeless beggar [Canadian Press, February 17, 2007, CBC News, February 17, 2007 and CTV News, February 19, 2007].

The first one wasn’t Canadians. Minus 10 marks for sloppy and lazy research.

Separately, unidentified alliance troops opened fire and killed a second man who ran in between vehicles of a parked convoy in the pre-dawn hours, near Kandahar Airfield.
The early-morning incident did not involve Canadians and military officials declined to say what nationality they might be.

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/War_Terror/2007/02/17/3640893-cp.html
The second one was. And you loose another 10 points due to a willful distortion of actual events.

Canadian troops in southern Afghanistan killed an unarmed man Saturday as he walked toward their convoy chanting and wearing what appeared to be explosives around his torso, a military spokesman said.

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/02/17/afghan-shooting.html

The second half of your diatribe is less factually and reality based than is the first half.  You did not even bother to correct the simplest of errors, like dates (Canada’s commitment to the mission was signaled by PM Cretien on Oct 7 2001).  Your manifesto is so riddled with inaccuracy that only the truly dim, and those as willfully ignorant of the facts as you yourself have proven to be will ever be drawn in by this juvenile twaddle.

Really, you people put your name to this piece of tripe?  I’d be freaking embarrassed to have my name associated with such a piss-poor product. Are you failing out of university?  Please, if you are, do not consider freelance journalism as a career choice.  Oh my god!  You’re not in a journalism program now are you?  Your poor parents all that money washed down the drain.

How did you get accepted into university with writing skills like that anyway?  Were they having an off day or do they have a quota of tinfoil-hat wearing, tree hugging, granola munching, appeasement minded, surrender monkey’s that they have to let in each year.

By the way you score on this piece of electronic butt wipe was 30% before I grew so disgusted with the quality of your argument and research.  If I had to mark the second half I believe that you would receive a negative percentile. But since that would be mean, I’ll bell curve this paper against what is passed off as news on the Afghan mission and you get a .5% final mark.

Have a nice day and don’t let the door hit you on the ass on the way out.

 

[scoutfinch]

This is my last word on the subject and the only reason I wish to raise it is because it is not based on opinion but on an error of fact in their argument which I feel should be corrected.

The fact that your organization states things like "We cited Francisco, because he is a clear example of someone in the Canadian Armed Forces who openly spoke out against Canada's role in Afghanistan, and was expelled from the army for that reason." simply demonstrates your organizations inability to deal with facts.  Whether you like it or not, he was not expelled from the army for his objections to the conflict in Afghanistan.  He CHOSE  to leave because of his objections and took steps to ensure he was removed from training.  He was NOT expelled because of his beliefs.  


(1)  Juarez was an Officer Cadet in the Reserve Force.

(2)  As a Reservist, he was under NO obligation to go to Afghanistan.  In fact, he would have had to agreed to go to Afghanistan on more than one occasion prior to deployment in order to get to theatre.

(3)  He was removed from training for failing to follow an order -- an order to run the obstacle course!  He took steps to ensure his removal from course because he had made a personal decision to cease training.  I say again:  HE CHOSE TO CEASE TRAINING BECAUSE HE DISAGREED WITH THE WAR IN AFGHANISTAN. This does not mean he was expelled from the Forces for his political belief.  HE CHOSE TO LEAVE AND TOOK STEPS TO ENSURE HE WAS REMOVED FROM TRAINING BECAUSE HIS PREVIOUS ATTEMPTS AT BEING REMOVED FROM TRAINING WERE UNSUCCESSFUL.

Your organization's credibilty is lessened when you ignore facts and play with words that suit your political purpose.  

 

[RatCatcher]

I, and I am sure others who received the letter and are targetted in it, are sick and tired of hearing about it. Although I respect their freedom to express their views an invasion of my private life, that of my wife and friends is what perturbs me. Protest our parade all you want, you will see proud proffesional members marching; thanking the public who support us and/or the mission. You will not not see people who don't feel that this mission is important to the stability of the Afghan region, nor to the security of Canada. What we in the military do is so you have the right to live the life you do, and I would gladly risk my life to defend yours.

Let put this to rest as we have in Valcartier.

I vote to lock it up and let this groups diatribes fade away like the inaccuracies held within it.

 

[Valcartier 2007]

Thanks to everyone who has posted a critical response to our letter, and attempted to refute our arguments.

We know many of you think we're a bunch of lazy hippies, but we actually work! Mentioning that because we'll be able to respond to many of your comments later tonite, but not during the day, because we can't chat while busy at our jobs and other obligations.

Hopefully, we'll still be able to post this evening, because clearly some folks on this forum don't want us to continue posting. Rest assured, we appreciate many of your replies, and will respond later tonite.

 

[Bzzliteyr]

And they'll once again garner the attention they desire... don't give them the pleasure.

I think their argument was shot full of holes (hopefully without any collateral damage, hah!!) by Reccesoldier.  His well researched, well thought out reply should be handed off to the media so that they too can report what's right and what's wrong with this whole Valcartier2007 situation.

They believe so much in their cause that we'll have to wait until this evening for them to defend it, once they're done work.  Pretty hardcore.

Lock it baby, lock it.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Thanks to everyone who has posted a critical response to our letter, and attempted to refute our arguments.

We know many of you think we're a bunch of lazy hippies, but we actually work! Mentioning that because we'll be able to respond to many of your comments later tonite, but not during the day, because we can't chat while busy at our jobs and other obligations.

Hopefully, we'll still be able to post this evening, because clearly some folks on this forum don't want us to continue posting. Rest assured, we appreciate many of your replies, and will respond later tonite.

You will have the opportunity.

What you won't have is another chance to bring half-truths and/or try to coerce anyone into an illegal action. Therefore I suggest you do some HONEST thoughtful research before you try again. You are on a short leash due to your past actions, not your thoughts.

Lest I sic Professor Reccesoldier onto your work again.....

 

[scoutfinch]

I want to go on the record as disagreeing with banning this group from posting.  I think the thread could be used as heavily moderated forum for demonstrating to them -- and everyone else who reads here as a source of information on the CF or the conflict in Afghanistan -- the falsehoods that exist and are being promulgated out of sheer ignorance.  This presents an opportunity to redress points that we all know are untrue, inaccurate or being manipulated. 

That being said, I think any points we make in opposition must be advanced on a factual and not emotive basis. 

Is it possible to have posts to the thread filtered through a moderator before they appear.  If so, perhaps posts could be reviewed (not for substantive content) to ensure that attitudes don't cause the matter to spiral out of control.

I also  recognize that our VOLUNTEER mods are already working very hard behind the scenes to keep this place the finely-tuned-machine that it is!  Another secondary duty might not be feasible.

 

[armyvern]

I want to go on the record as disagreeing with banning this group from posting.  I think the thread could be used as heavily moderated forum for demonstrating to them -- and everyone else who reads here as a source of information on the CF or the conflict in Afghanistan -- the falsehoods that exist and are being promulgated out of sheer ignorance.  This presents an opportunity to redress points that we all know are untrue, inaccurate or being manipulated. 

That being said, I think any points we make in opposition must be advanced on a factual and not emotive basis. 

Is it possible to have posts to the thread filtered through a moderator before they appear.  If so, perhaps posts could be reviewed (not for substantive content) to ensure that attitudes don't cause the matter to spiral out of control.

I also  recognize that our VOLUNTEER mods are already working very hard behind the scenes to keep this place the finely-tuned-machine that it is!  Another secondary duty might not be feasible.

I tend to agree with everything you've said except the "filtering through the moderator before they appear."  Based on the subject matter at hand, even if post content was not what was reviewed, the "filtering" of the posts would most certainly be taken by some, in their arguements, as censorship.

Let's not afford them the opportunity to spin that to their liking; they seem to make a habit of it.