Sacrifice Medal Mega Thread

[coffee4ourtroops]

Without the hostile action of the Taliban directed at the Afgani Gov't and people, we would not be in Afghanistan- so as such all deaths and injuries are a direct result of Hostile action.

 

[armyvern]

I would say that it is a slippery slope, no matter how you look at it. Someone's toes will get stepped on with the wording. I used the vehicle accident as an example, but I do believe outside the wire puts you into "the face of an armed enemy" very much more than working in camp. However, getting hit by a rocket inside the wire is an injury that resulted from hostile action.

Which is why I pointed out that pers should NOT be thinking of this medal as "an Afghanistan thing" in terms of service either. It is applicable to all our missions, not just that one. "War" is not a condition --- "hostile action" is and there is a very big difference.

Take Major Von K for example. He was "inside his wire", not at war, and had "no armed enemy" against him --- yet he still died as a result of hostile actions. Be very wary of compatrmentalizing this Medal to "outside the wire in Afghanstan" --- THAT is NOT one of the criterion.

 

[Armymedic]

I concur with Vern.

I also think the way the medal being awarded "as result of hostile action" is correct.

As much as it sucks, there must be some sort of criteria. Otherwise, you're just getting a medal for getting hurt or dying while in the service of the CF....

 

[armyvern]

OK, hostile action, or not hostile action, Outside the wire or Inside the wire, the point is, A family of more then one soldier is not going to get a medal that seems to be made exactely for them. I don't care if you go to a war zone, and get killed by falling down a well or off a communications tower ( both of which have happened ) that should not be grounds not to get a medal for dying or being wounded after October 7, 2001. should it?? It's the precident that it is setting that is dangerous, not just the individual case.

This Medal is not setting any kind of precedent.

The very same criteria were in effect for eligibility for awarding of the "Wound Stripe." This medal is superceeding the Wound Stripe as the new award for those injured after 07 Oct 2001. Service in Afghanistan is not a requirement. Wounding or death caused by hostile action is; just as it was for the Wound Stripe.

The same soldiers who don't qualify for the Sacrifice Medal --- didn't qualify for the Wound Stripe either. There's no precedent being set by these criteria.

 

[aesop081]

Without the hostile action of the Taliban directed at the Afgani Gov't and people, we would not be in Afghanistan- so as such all deaths and injuries are a direct result of Hostile action.

So if i roll my ankle and break it in Afghanistan , its as a result of hostile action ?

I wouldnt have been in Afghanistan to break my ankle of it hadnt been for the TB

Get to know the difference between "direct result " and "indirect result"

 

[pizzathahut]

Joined the FB group and signed the petition. 
P.S.
Can I post this content (the letter you received) and link to the petition on my new project?
http://cftoday.info

 

[the 48th regulator]

Sacrifice
Main Entry: 1sac•ri•fice 
Pronunciation: \ˈsa-krə-ˌfīs, also -fəs or -ˌfīz\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin sacrificium, from sacr-, sacer + facere to make — more at do
Date: 13th century
1: an act of offering to a deity something precious; especially : the killing of a victim on an altar
2: something offered in sacrifice
3 a: destruction or surrender of something for the sake of something else b: something given up or lost <the sacrifices made by parents>
4: loss <goods sold at a sacrifice>
5: sacrifice hit

Obviously, the ones that came up with this medal, and those that decide who receive it, have not truly investigated what the term means.

Truly disgusting.   What is next?  Are we going to have Canadian Forces CSI landing on the ground to ensure all medals and decoration are worthy of their meaning?

Pure Phucking Boolshite.

He sacrificed his life, on the battle front, and because the rounds were made, and fired from a friendly nation, his death was not a sacrifice for our mission there.

Let the ones that are involved in the decision process, be allowed to re-enact the day to see what they feel is a true sacrifice.

dileas

tess

 

[Eye In The Sky]

From Day 1, I personally thought the choice of the word "Sacrifice" Medal was not the best one possible. 

 

[George Wallace]

Without the hostile action of the Taliban directed at the Afgani Gov't and people, we would not be in Afghanistan- so as such all deaths and injuries are a direct result of Hostile action.

I have read this so far, and I know this will go on for many more pages, because some will feel that they are deserving of a medal for which they do not meet the criteria.

Taking the logic of the poster above, and a couple of others who are saying the same thing, I have a question to put to them:  Do you think that a person who commits suicide in Afghanistan should also be eligible for this Medal?

Following your arguments to present it to people who have accidents or Blue on Blue incidents, do you apply those to the members who have been killed in Blue on Blue accidents in Workup Training for these deployments?

I say that the criteria have been drawn up, and just because you don't like them, you should honour them for what they signify or you dishonour the legitimate recipients of the Award.  The Honours and Awards system is not set up to give out "Boy Scout Merit Badges".  It is set up to create meaningful Awards to recognize the extraordinary contributions of their Recipients, not hand out trinkets en-mass.

 

[pizzathahut]

I myself think as long as the soldier is in Combat Operations and under direct fire, should merit a consideration for the medal. Whether hit by friendlies or adversaries should not be a contributing factor. But someone on a FOB doing routine work and gets hit by a mortar... well... that would be a different situation, different Honorable mention. Am I wrong? It is a difficult area to draw a line.

 

[George Wallace]

I myself think as long as the soldier is in Combat Operations and under direct fire, should merit a consideration for the medal. Whether hit by friendlies or adversaries should not be a contributing factor. But someone on a FOB doing routine work and gets hit by a mortar... well... that would be a different situation, different Honorable mention. Am I wrong? It is a difficult area to draw a line.

???

You are one confused puppy.  You want to give the medal to anyone in a War Zone who is under direct fire, friendly or not, should get the medal, and then you turn around and say that someone in a FOB who is wounded by a mortar (Fired by the enemy, I assume) is different and not deserving of the medal, only a mention in dispatches.

You obviously don't have a full grasp on what the criteria are, nor what is going on in Afghanistan.  Not with that statement anyway.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

???

You are one confused puppy.  You want to give the medal to anyone in a War Zone who is under direct fire, friendly or not, should get the medal, and then you turn around and say that someone in a FOB who is wounded by a mortar (Fired by the enemy, I assume) is different and not deserving of the medal, only a mention in dispatches.

You obviously don't have a full grasp on what the criteria are, nor what is going on in Afghanistan.  Not with that statement anyway.

George, I am thinking (maybe wrongly) we have a young and inexperienced poster, based on the info I could see their profile.

 

[the 48th regulator]

I have read this so far, and I know this will go on for many more pages, because some will feel that they are deserving of a medal for which they do not meet the criteria.

Taking the logic of the poster above, and a couple of others who are saying the same thing, I have a question to put to them:  Do you think that a person who commits suicide in Afghanistan should also be eligible for this Medal?

Following your arguments to present it to people who have accidents or Blue on Blue incidents, do you apply those to the members who have been killed in Blue on Blue accidents in Workup Training for these deployments?

I say that the criteria have been drawn up, and just because you don't like them, you should honour them for what they signify or you dishonour the legitimate recipients of the Award.  The Honours and Awards system is not set up to give out "Boy Scout Merit Badges".  It is set up to create meaningful Awards to recognize the extraordinary contributions of their Recipients, not hand out trinkets en-mass.

Then I with your reasoning George, do not broadcast his death.  In fact, give him no medals, it was his fault that while fighting the enemy, he died, beacuse of someone else's mistake, therefore his own for incurring his death.

dileas

tess

 

[HItorMiss]

When he died his family was given the Memorial Cross. He was given a military funeral, The Sacrifice Medal like the wound stripe is for the Wounded not the Deceased. I am not sure where the confusion is coming from.

 

[the 48th regulator]

When he died his family was given the Memorial Cross. He was given a military funeral, The Sacrifice Medal like the wound stripe is for the Wounded not the Deceased. I am not sure where the confusion is coming from.

http://www.gg.ca/honours/medals/hon04-sm_e.asp

The Sacrifice Medal was created to recognize a member of the Canadian Forces, a member of an allied force, or a Canadian civilian under the authority of the Canadian Forces who, as of  October 7, 2001, died or was wounded under honourable circumstances as a direct result of hostile action.

dileas

tess

 

[HItorMiss]

Having re-read Tess post with the highlighted area.....

It woud seem that not recieveing the new medal is directly in contravention of the stated criteria.


EDIT: re did the entire post

 

[aesop081]

It woud seem that not recieveing the new medal is directly in contravention of the stated criteria.

Really ?

Did you read the last part of that post.

as a direct result of hostile action.

 

[the 48th regulator]

???

You are one confused puppy.  You want to give the medal to anyone in a War Zone who is under direct fire, friendly or not, should get the medal, and then you turn around and say that someone in a FOB who is wounded by a mortar (Fired by the enemy, I assume) is different and not deserving of the medal, only a mention in dispatches.

You obviously don't have a full grasp on what the criteria are, nor what is going on in Afghanistan.  Not with that statement anyway.

George,

I think you are the confused puppy.

This fella died, serving his country, in a combat zone, as a combat soldier, during combat operations.  

Yet, he does not qualify for a "Sacrifice" medal?!?

Because his sacrifice was offered, due to friendly fire, that was to be aimed at the same enemy he was fighting?

We are not talking about a rogue fighter pilot, in colusion with a Canadian soldeir to attack Canadian troops, and he fell victim.

They were in combat, he died due to fire, and he does not qualify?  Give your head a shake, and stop following the godamn ledtter to the tee, for the love of pete.

dileas

tess

 

[the 48th regulator]

Really ?

Did you read the last part of that post.

So his sacrifice is differentiated by some beurocrats wording of the medal?

Tell me, do you feel in your soul, as a Canadian, he did not Sacrifice his life for you?

Answer me this,  and I will justify the inseption of this amusing medal.

dileas

tess

 

[HItorMiss]

I should have stayed out of this thread....

The enemy action part was missed by me.

during combat operations.

No Tess he wasn't he was on a presence Patrol out of PBW, there was no enemy contact that day in that area

Yet, he does not qualify for a "Sacrifice" medal?!?

No Tess he doesn't.

Because his sacrifice was offered, due to friendly fire, that was to be aimed at the same enemy he was fighting?

There was no enemy to be shot at, they were not under contact when the incident occurred

They were in combat, he died due to fire, and he does not qualify? Give your head a shake, and stop following the godamn letter to the tee, for the love of pete.

Again There was no armed enemy at the time of the incident. It was a presence Patrol and an accident happened with a weapon system