'Support the Troops' or Condemn the War Criminals?

http://www.zazzle.ca/fuck_the_troops_bumper_sticker-128480287817359227

As a start, I like the Question War slogan, too. As GenStrike says it moves away from twisting the "support our troops" meme and it is much less offputting to an already non-receptive public than "fuck the troops'.

If you are looking for more slogans to contest, take a look at these ones from the states; I have seen a number of them used by Canadian soldiers and their supporters, too:

http://www.sodahead.com/other/if-you-cant-or-wont-stand-behind-your-troo...

WFPD wrote:

 

Afghanistan is not yet at the point that all operations there can be considered illegitimate,...

This is falling into the mental trap of believing in the myth of Afghanistan as the "good" war. It is not. Look up the Geneva Conventions' definition of "Aggressive War". According to the Conventions, the Afghan war is just as illegal as the Iraq war.

WFPD wrote:

It is a simple matter to lay all the blame for detainee abuse at the hands of Canada's political and military leadership. This overlooks the responsibility of individual soldiers to refuse unlawful orders.

Are individual Canadian soldiers criminally responsible for the transfer of detainees to Afghan forces for "interrogation", or does responsibility lie only with their political and military supervisors?

The Geneva Conventions, to which all Canadian soldiers are bound, require soldiers to refuse orders which are in contravention to the letter and spirit of international law. Knowingly transferring a detainee to a situation where they would likely face torture places the individual Canadian soldier in contravention of his or her obligations under international law. It seems that Canadians are allowing their troops to be absolved of their individual responsibilities because it is politically unpopular to include the lower ranks among those who are accused of participating in violations of international law in Afghanistan.

Rubbish.  Please establish how it became common knowledge, or at very least, how it could have even become known amoungst our troops that "detainees" who were handed over to the Afghans ran a high risk of being tortured? They did not have the responsibility of monitoring afterwards.  Somewhere along the chain of command, the information that was supposed to be handed over to the Red Cross was delayed by up to 30+ days (and that's being kind). The British reported to the Red Cross within 24 hours, the Dutch reported immediately.  The Dutch army also routinely informed their parliament.

Contrast that with Canada.  We have a Military Police Complaints Commission (MPCC) that attempts to investigate the matter. The government refuses to release relevent information to the MPCC, then fails to renew the term of the commissioner.  They deny, deny, deny in the House of Commons, stack committees with generals who have had a chance to review pre-selected material (until that backfires). They prerelease selected redacted documents to favored media shills like Christine Blatchford (until that backfires).

Then the Harper government ignores a parliamentary majority vote to produce uncensored document for MP's who sit on parliamentary committees.  Then the CPC members refuse to show up for comittee meetings.

Then Harper prorogues parliament.

Harper thinks this is low on the radar now, because Canadians don't know and don't give a shit. He is finding out than when they do know, they do care.  There is also evidence now that some of our troops did exactly what they were supposed to do and reported their findings.  Which was also inconvenient for Harper.

Back to my original point. Given the efforts to hide the truth from Canadians, how are our troops supposed to know enough to refuse, until they know first hand, until their tour of duty is over?

Canadians are not absolving our troops of anything. They are simply holding those really responsible to account. You are twisting a Harper talking point, although more cleverly than Harper has done.

Meanwhile, I'm going to keep grinding away...

Support our troops, end the war, bring them home NOW!

The best way to end the war is to leave

We want democracy, not a HarperOcracy

WFPD wrote:

I find it difficult to believe that Canadian troops on the ground would not be aware of the treatment that detainees would receive.

I haven't been following that story. Are they saying that Canadian soldiers didn't know that detainees were at times being tortured or killed by the Afghan police??

If so who exactly is saying that??

WFPD wrote:

Unlike Iraq, the Taliban government of Afghanistan did allow Al Qaeda to use Afghanistan as a base for their attacks on innocent civilians in the United States. For this reason the United States and it's military allies are obligated to remove that government and the threat it poses...

 

Wrong. Again, read the Geneva Conventions. The only just war is a war of defense. The Bush doctrine of "Strike First" pre-emptive war is illegal. Regime change is illegal. The majority of those convicted at the Nuremberg trials were found guilty of 'regime change' ie., waging aggressive war. It is illegal to militarize human rights and then use aggressive war to so called defend and protect those rights.

According to the Geneva Conventions and other international laws, an act of terrorism is not an act of war, it is a criminal act. To respond to a terrorist act by waging war against a country is inappropriate and illegal. The appropriate response is for international police, crime fighting and intelligence agencies to go after and bring to justice the criminals responsible for acts of terrorism.

The Taliban never has nor ever will commit terrorist acts against other countries. Research the history of the Taliban. The Taliban had nothing to do with the arming, supplying, funding and training of Al-Qaeda nor did the Taliban have anything to do with the planning and execution of 9/11 or any other terrorist attack since. The argument that the Taliban harbored (Al-Qaeda) terrorists is insufficient grounds to justify war against Afghanistan. The precedent was established by the International Court of Justice ruling in the 1986 Nicaragua vs U.S.A. case:

http://www.lawyersagainstthewar.org/legalarticles/mandel.html

NATO is a subordinate organization to the U.N.  International laws and the U.N. Charter take precedence over NATO's Charter and it's international agreements, etc.

NATO's Charter states, "An attack against one (NATO) member is to be considered an attack against all (NATO) members". Although the wording is vague, an "attack" must be considered a military attack. Such an interpretation would make the NATO Charter consistent with international law, the Geneva Conventions and the U.N. Charter. Consider too that NATO, a military organization, was established in 1949 and its purpose was to defend by military means, Western Europe and North America against a military attack by the U.S.S.R. and its (Warsaw Pact, 1955) allies. It was never intended (and rightly so) for NATO to respond to (civil criminal) acts of terrorism.

PraetorianFour wrote:

When we were peacekeeping in the 90's Canada didn't give a shit. Soldiers would get blown away overseas and if it WAS mentioned at all it would be on page 5 next to the 1/2 off sale at the brick ad.

Absolute bullshit. Canadians were incredibly proud of our peacekeepers, and mourned their loss as much as any soldier. I can only wonder: what is the purpose of this claim? To besmirch and diminish the memory of the peacekeepers?

Lard Tunderin Jeezus wrote:

PraetorianFour wrote:

When we were peacekeeping in the 90's Canada didn't give a shit. Soldiers would get blown away overseas and if it WAS mentioned at all it would be on page 5 next to the 1/2 off sale at the brick ad.

Absolute bullshit. Canadians were incredibly proud of our peacekeepers, and mourned their loss as much as any soldier. I can only wonder: what is the purpose of this claim? To besmirch and diminish the memory of the peacekeepers?

Not really. I remember reading and being proud about our peacekeepers and articles mentioning how we shine for doing it and taking our share. But I never really saw articles on actually what was happening to peacekeepers or even in general where they were. The exceptions being the Somalia incident which got Airborne disbanded and a book years later by Lewis Mackenzie called Peacekeeper. Usually around remembrance day there would be an article on Cyrpus maybe or Golan heights but Im not even sure about that. I devour such stories and to this day without doing research I have no idea where most of our peacekeepers ever served (except Cyrpus, Palestine and later on, Bosnia)

Bacchus wrote:

Lard Tunderin Jeezus wrote:

PraetorianFour wrote:

When we were peacekeeping in the 90's Canada didn't give a shit. Soldiers would get blown away overseas and if it WAS mentioned at all it would be on page 5 next to the 1/2 off sale at the brick ad.

Absolute bullshit. Canadians were incredibly proud of our peacekeepers, and mourned their loss as much as any soldier. I can only wonder: what is the purpose of this claim? To besmirch and diminish the memory of the peacekeepers?

 

Not really. I remember reading and being proud about our peacekeepers and articles mentioning how we shine for doing it and taking our share. But I never really saw articles on actually what was happening to peacekeepers or even in general where they were. The exceptions being the Somalia incident which got Airborne disbanded and a book years later by Lewis Mackenzie called Peacekeeper. Usually around remembrance day there would be an article on Cyrpus maybe or Golan heights but Im not even sure about that. I devour such stories and to this day without doing research I have no idea where most of our peacekeepers ever served (except Cyrpus, Palestine and later on, Bosnia)

I never seen articles either. Never heard about it on TV or on the radio. Only seemed like early in 2000 did it our military start making an apperence in the media again.

NoDifferencePartyPooper wrote:

We Dance to Harper's Tunes

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/article/749826--we-dance-to-stephen-harpe...

"According to Stephen Harper, we are untroubled by allegations that his government ignored repeated warnings that Canadian troops, unlike any of their NATO counterparts, were handing over prisoners to local authorities who subjected them to torture.

If these claims are true, Canada knowingly violated the 61 year old Geneva Convention which prevents signatories from torturing enemy combatants or from turning them over to regimes that use torture..."

Of course it's not true. This is the narrative Stephen Hitler comes out with to save his own worthless political hide.

PraetorianFour wrote:

Lard Tunderin Jeezus wrote:

and the supposition that only the right respects and honours sacrifice is obnoxious, obscene and untrue.

 

I agree. I don't remember seeing anyone suggest this however.

What has been suggested elsewhere was implied here.

WFPD wrote:

Do you really think that the Taliban would surrender the Al Qaeda leadership group to Interpol to stand trial? A military response was the only practical one. The Taliban harbored Al Qaeda, and did not surrender them after September 11th. What option did the United States have, sit back and wait for another attack? Even the most despicable and corrupt regimes(which the United States is) have an obligation to protect their citizens from attack on home soil.

That's how the official narrative goes. One, if not two, U.N. resolutions state that police, criminal investigation and intelligence agents can go to where the criminal terrorists responsible for 9/11 were to bring them to justice. No country was mentioned by name as a location, which means they (the authorities) could have gone wherever they needed to be.

Osama Bin Laden took advantage of Pashtun mamastia - hospitality granted to strangers upon request. After that, the Afghan Taliban government had no control or influence over Bin Laden or any knowledge of what he and his group was doing. Up until August 2001, the Bush administration was in talks with the Taliban government for their proposed TAP (Trans Afghan Pipeline). As such, Bin Laden wasn't going to risk a security leak by letting the Taliban in on what he was doing.

The CIA, MI-5/6, etc., could have gone into Afghanistan and captured or killed (if they refused to give up peacefully) Bin Laden et al without the Taliban government's knowledge or consent - they had the U.N. mandate(s) to do that, as mentioned above.

The Taliban (in fact) did offer to surrender Osama Bin Laden:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/oct/14/afghansitan.terrorism5

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/bush-rejects-taliban-offer-...

Osama Bin Laden is not the leader of a country. He is not a military commander. He doesn't even have a conventional army. At best, all he has is a cohort or cadre of bodyguards. America's sending a large conventional army to meet Bin Laden's non existent large conventional army on Waterloo, Balaclava, the Somme, Paschendael or whatever named battlefield and destroy the evil Al-Qaeda terrorists for all time in one epic battle was the most expensive and impractical move America could have made. It was exactly what Bin Laden wanted America to do. The U.S.A. played right into his hands.

To take the civil criminal approach would have been much more efficient, effective and economical.

In order to predict how a nation will react under certain circumstances, you have to understand the psychology of the nation.

For example: On June 22 1941, the Soviet Union was attacked with extreme speed and violence and without provocation by Nazi Germany. Since then the Soviet Union vowed never to allow this to happen again.

That is why the formation of NATO caused fear, anger and apprehension in the Soviet Union. It was seen as part of a campaign to invade the Soviet Union.

Another example: On December 7 1941, Pearl Harbor was subjected to an unprovoked attack by Imperial Japan. Since then, the U.S.A. vowed never to allow this to happen.

If you want to cause fear and apprehension, if you want to piss Americans off - do another 'Pearl Harbor'. Bin Laden was not stupid. He knew exactly what he was doing.

People make their worst decisions when they are angry or otherwise emotionally traumatized. It is best to wait until the emotions have cooled down and then make rational and logical decisions.

A major contributing factor as to why 9/11 happened was because U.S. authorities were caught napping. Yes, government has a duty to protect its citizens. But we're not doing it by waging an illegal war and killing innocent Afghan civilians. Doing this in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Somalia, Yemen and possibly Iran isn't making it less likely we will suffer terrorist attacks. It's making it more likely.

This "War on Terror" is not a conventional war. It is an intelligence war. To protect people at home, we need to improve our <non invasive> intelligence and criminal investigating and policing techniques with our citizens rather than against them.

In December 2001, ex U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair visited Afghanistan and said, "For too long we have ignored Afghanistan. Afghanistan must not become a breeding ground for Terrorists."

We can turn countries around from becoming breeding grounds for terrorists if we stop exploiting them and help them to become equal members of the economic and political community of countries to which we all belong. That would be a start.

WFPD wrote:

What is there to "support"? The fact that we have drilled wells and rebuilt schools? If alleviating human misery is what this effort is all about, let's reallocate our resources to where it will achieve the best result without sacrificing ourselves to implant a corrupt client regime for Anglo American petroleum interests. 

Either do it right or don't do it at all. I can't "support" setting up a pro Western dictatorship under the guise of 'liberation'. If this is what our troops are really doing then they are not worthy of our "support".

But the troops, for the most part, have little to do with the political infrastructure of Afghanistan. They often are drilling wells, building schools, or generally policing - all of which is necessary and commendable. The problem is that it is necessary because of the conflict caused by western interests and interference.

The correct sentiment is not 'Fuck the Troops', it is 'Fuck Harper and his Oil Industry masters - Bring our troops home safely NOW!'

.

Great post Frmrsldr. I recall that the justification for the invasion of Afghanistan, as offered at the time, was to capture Bin Laden. The offer as made by the Afghan government (i.e., to hand him over to a neutral international tribunal) was refused because the U.S. insisted that the handover be unconditional (conditions imposed by the Taliban included neutrality of the tribunal and application of international law). Of course, there was always doubt about whether the Afghans would be able to hand over Bin Laden even if they wanted to. The regime-change mission was in any case an afterthought. Furthermore, UNICEF reported that the possible civilian death toll from an invasion could go into the millions. How high it did go is now unknown. There were reports of close to 4,000 civilians killed in the bombing, and uncounted refugees dying in camps in winter (hundreds every night, as I heard it on CBC). And none of this counts the number of Taliban fighters who were killed (I remember 400 prisoners in one incident alone). This kind of toll is the reason why "regime change" is a war crime in the first place.

PraetorianFour wrote:

Their right hand doesn't know what the left is doing. Actually that's not true. The right hand DOES know what the left is doing they just can't agree and both act independently. I wonder how many more attacks they will know about but not act on.

Shortly before the Afghan war when the Bush administration was supporting the Afghan Taliban government, a famous warlord who the Taliban were never able to defeat was assassinated by a ward of the CIA - a suicide bomber who put explosives in a camcorder and posed as a friendly and sympathetic Afghan "reporter".

The Benazir Bhutto assassination was orchestrated by the Pentagon and ISI.

Abdullamatullab's father passed his concerns about his son to the CIA. The Pentagon intentionally kept that information away from other intelligence services because they did not want CIA Codename: OPERATION PANTY BOMBER interdicted by other intelligence agencies.

So you see, if the Pentagon wants to accomplish something - it will happen.

Quote:

The demonstration effect of the initial attack and later invasion was sufficient to deter anyone from attempting another attack from Afghan soil...

"another attack"?

When was the first??

Did anyone notice that the latest date quoted for withdrawal was "after the end of 2011"? 

WTF?

WFPD wrote:

The purpose of the Afghanistan mission is primarily to ensure that Afghanistan is not going to be used as a platform to launch attacks against NATO members.

That's the Bush Doctrine of "Strike First" pre-emptive war.

Again, the precedent was established in the 1986 International Court of Justice ruling in Nicaragua vs U.S.A. that making the case that a country is harboring terrorists is insufficient grounds to justify waging aggressive war against that country.

Agreed, The left can be so righteous at times, painting all soldiers with the same blood red brush. You can still offer support to the troops in general without condoning acts that would constitute as war crimes.

For Canadian civilians the concepts of honour, duty and sacrifice act as a shield keeping people from recognizing that active duty, reserve and retired soldiers are also casualties of war.

For the anti-war community, it's a hatred of the whole military complex that clouds the eye.

Either way, it's the dead and walking wounded who suffer.

The formula the military uses to dehumanize the enemy blows back on its own recruits, and the first people really dehumanized are the soldiers themselves. If they don't come home in a box, they often come home broken. How the anti-war movement treats these men and women is a direct reflection on our ability to show concern for the 'other' who - for whatever reason -- chose to go to war.