Red Tory v.2.0
You'd think this government could at least "Support our Troops".
It should have been dealt with more discretely. That's a quality this government just cannot seem to grasp.
More like Potato-Head Pete.
Can these guys handle anything like grown ups?
It doesn't seem so. I really can't understand why they'd want to turn this into a public spat with the military.
I am sick of the scolding the government thinks it has the right to inflict any any and everyone who sees through them and actually offer ideas that work. What a bunch of patriarchal fascists. Heir daddy knows best i guess.
Warren Kinsella is gushing over Potato Pete for asserting civilian authority. I wonder if it will come out next week that Tater Tot McKay is either contradicting some earlier directive, or simply doesn't know what's going on because he thinking of high-powered political women with big boobies?
Usually, when Warren gushes, he's wrong about something.
Harper has done more for the military in 2+ years than Chretien and Martin did in 13.
Case closed, and I don't think that the taliban are "militants" but rather scumbag terrorists.
Why do leftists try to "muddy" the issue rather than call a spade a spade.
Just so you know I have included the definition of "terrrorist" for all of you deniers out there.
"In one modern sense,[4] it is violence against civilians to achieve political or ideological objectives by creating fear.[5] Most common definitions of terrorism include only those acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a lone attack), and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants. Some definitions also include acts of unlawful violence and war."
IF THAT DOESN'T FIT THE TALIBAN TO A TEE, THEN MAYBE I SHOULD VITE LIBERAL NEXT ELECTION WHILE BECOMING A MILITANT AT THE SAME TIME.
Tom,
Questions:
1) Are you suggesting the military is full of "leftists" (whatever you think that is) for trying to talk to the Taleban?
2) Is the fear that unsolicited US/NATO military action that results in harm to Afghani civilians somehow different (to suffering Afghanis) than the violence brought by the Taleban?
3) Are the Taleban the US/NATO is fighting now the same Taleban that were overthrown more than half a decade ago?
The Taleban have proven to be quite resilient and able to sustain operations regardless of US/NATO efforts to stop them. This suggests they can absorb losses inflicted by NATO and continue to recruit members indefinitely - implying they have at least some organic support within elements of the Afghan population. This also implies that at least some of Afghan population (number 100s of 000s to millions...) are what you would likely define as terrorists for supporting the Taleban. Has it occurred to you that many Afghanis do not subscribe to your classification of the Taleban as terrorists?
Tom — Why do leftists try to "muddy" the issue rather than call a spade a spade. Why do leftists try to "muddy" the issue rather than call a spade a spade.
I wasn’t trying to “muddy” the waters, but was simply using the exactly same word that the “leftist” Ottawa Sun did in the article I linked to. Whether you refer to the Taliban as insurgents, militants or terrorists is really neither here nor there. As with all guerilla movements they are going to employ the asymmetrical tactics of terror to advance their cause, so if you want to call them “terrorists” then fine. You know, as opposed to those who drop bombs tipped with depleted uranium on innocent villagers that happen to get in the way of their intended targets. In any case, it doesn’t change the principle of the matter — that being the military having made a practical field decision to reach out to low and mid level commanders of the Taliban in an effort to turn them back to the Afghan government’s side and then being rebuked for this by politicians back in Ottawa who don’t have a fucking clue what’s happening on the ground. And regardless of that, even if their disagreement was perfectly legitimate, this isn’t something that should be aired in public, in my opinion, but should have been dealt with discretely behind the scenes to avoid the ugly spectacle of some fatuous dipshit scolding the troops.
As usual, the Tom Robinsons blame the Liberals. Fact: Trudeau did far more trying to build up the military. Fact: "Mulroney" had what was called the white paper - a promise to build up the military - he broke his promise - then come the Liberals "with NO MONEY" to spend - Canada was on the verge of losing it credit rating and the CPP was in crisis.
Enough of the BS already.
It just occurred to me - Hillier was not a Chretien appointment - it was a Martin appointment.
If Chretien had appointed Hillier, I suspect his views would be very different.
"You know, as opposed to those who drop bombs tipped with depleted uranium on innocent villagers that happen to get in the way of their intended targets"
Are you saying the NATO soldiers kill innocent civilians on purpose?
If you are, that's fine, I just wanted to make that clear and remind you that hundreds of thousands of civilians were killed in WW2.
Was WW2 worth it?
It's funny how the same Liberals that want to end the mission are the same Liberals that voted for the mission in 2001.
Goofballs? I'm not sure, but pretty close.
"Was WW2 worth it?"
Come on, you can't seriously be comparing Afghanistan to World War II. Seriously? Are you serious? You can't be.
Actually, the only similarity between Afghanistan and WW2 (besides the use of guns, and that it's a war) is the fact that in each case America's president was handicapped.
What the difference between WW2 and Afghstan?
Both issues regard saving people from terrorists who kill innocent people.
What's the difference?
And is George W Bush really handicapped for getting rid of Saddam Hussein.
Only in a partisan lefist world would getting rid of a brutal dicator been considered a "handicapped" profession.
Are you telling me that Saddam Hussein should have still been in power killing his own, stealing his own oil and supplyin Hamas with 15 grand for every Isreali killed.
Are you a Saddam supporter?
You're in Canada so it's O.K if you admit it.
Red:
I think this fiasco goes some way towards vindicating my interpretation of Rick Hillier's departure: he was clearly aware of and comfortable with the military's practice of negotiating with the Taliban and other warlord elements and probably argued that the practice needed to be institutionalised. Harper either wanted the practice stopped or kept covert.
It's also possible that Hillier was obstructed by his NATO superiors only, and that Harper has been totally clueless about developments on the ground. Harper's been either lying to Canadians about the objectives of the mission or simply oblivious to the real conduct of it. Either way, his failure has been egregious.
Expect the BT goons and CPC-friendly media to do everything they can to neutralise this pathetic little story.
Tom,
It really makes little difference to the people being killed whether it is by Taleban intent or NATO accident. Civilians are killed when the Taleban attack NATO, and when NATO attacks the Taleban. The institution of war is the problem.
Solving the problem of Afghanistan is contingent on first stopping the violence. To do this all parties must mutually agree to a ceasefire. Because the Taleban are of the people NATO claims to help, they will not be defeated militarily. There is no alternative other than a negotiated peace with the Taleban that will succeed in Afghanistan. An insurgency resisting foreign occupation, especially one with a virtually immune safe area (Pakistan) will continue indefinitely. Indian resistance to British occupation lasted decades. Palestinian resistance to Israeli occupation has not stopped in half a century. If you look at the history of organic resistance movements you will find they adapt and carry on in an ebb and flow until the occupier leaves.
Therefore, the practicalities of the conflict mean an alternative other than war is needed to solve it. If you refuse to understand this, you are condemning more Canadian soldiers to die. This has nothing to do with that the Liberals did or didn't do or say.
Boris is the same leftist loon that bashes the Canadian military on the TVO.org/theagenda website.
He is a loon.
Next, he says, "It really makes little difference to the people being killed whether it is by Taleban intent or NATO accident. Civilians are killed when the Taleban attack NATO, and when NATO attacks the Taleban. The institution of war is the problem. "
Why, after WW2, did the people of the devastated countries support the ceasefire that was enacted?
Are you telling me that moslems are incapable of a "ceasefire". If you are, I agree with you.
The mission in Afghstan is "doomed" to failure, not because of innocent civilains killed, but because the muslims dont know how to live like us in the West.
There is not "ONE" moslem country that is like the WEST.
That means we are "doomed" to failure.
I think the Afghstan mission is more of a "babysitting" mission meant to make sure the terrorists in that country DON'T set up camps to attack the WEST.
I may be wrong but that's how I see it.
"in each case America's president was handicapped."
bambizzle!
KEvron
Bambizzled?
Are you a supporter of Saddam, Hammas, Hizbolloh and Al-Qaeda?
I would not be surprised.
yes.
KEvron
Tom,
Cute.
I have never visited let alone posted on the TVO site.
So now it's because they are Muslim? Not because we put an army in their midst? You really must be having us on.
"Tom,
Cute.
I have never visited let alone posted on the TVO site.
So now it's because they are Muslim? Not because we put an army in their midst? You really must be having us on"
In WW2 why did the people act "normally' after the war to help rebuild their country?
Are muslims any different?
You bet they are?
They are incapable of peace and thats why we see all the problems in the world are cause by muslims.
Am I wrong?
Tom,
Answer these questions:
How many Muslims are there in the world?
How many are fighting the West?
How many Western soldiers from predominantly Christian states are in Muslim regions fighting Muslims?
How many Muslims have attacked the West in the West?
How many Westerners have been killed by Muslims?
How many Muslims have been killed as a result of Western action?
How many Muslims are there in the world?
Answer: Billions
How many are fighting the West?
Answer : Hundreds of thousands.
How many Western soldiers from predominantly Christian states are in Muslim regions fighting Muslims?
Answer: Maybe 250 thousand.
How many Muslims have attacked the West in the West?
Answer: Hundreds
How many Westerners have been killed by Muslims?
Answer: Thousands
How many Muslims have been killed as a result of Western action?
Answer: Muslims have killed hundreds of thousand more muslims than Christians.
OVER 3000 PEOPLE DIED ON 9/11.
That is enough for me to justify the "babysitting" of muslims after 9/11.
I don't care if they are muslims or if they are JEWS or gooks.
Jsut like WW2 when we didn't care when they were white anglo Nazi's.
They are all the same.
Not all germans were Nazi's but all Nazi's were Germans.
The same is true that not all muslims are terrorists but all terrorists are muslims.
There is no doubt that is the truth, and muslims have killed more muslims than any Western democracy.
Case closed.
Muslims are the muslims worst enemies whether you talk about Afgahnistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Phillipnes, Sri Lanka, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait or Iran.
Muslims have killed more muslims than any country has in the West.
WHY DO MUSLIMS KILL MUSLIMS IN EVERY MUSLIM COUNTRY ON A DIALY BASIS BORIS?
Muslims have killed more muslims in Iraq than the USA could kill in 100 years.
Are you blind?
Are you blind?
No, Tom, but you seem to be.
I don't have the time or patience to expose the lie in every one of your statements so I'll leave with this:
If you opened a history book you would find that virtually all of the predominantly Muslim regions were ruled by European colonial powers until very recently, and were only created as states by retreated European powers. Since then, many millions of Muslims have died in inter-regional wars, and oppressive domestic regimes. Many of these wars and dictatorships were supported in policy and materiel by the West (incl. the USSR). Munitions, technology and dictators were all provided by 'us' to support oil, Israel, and cold war security interests to the extreme detriment of countless innocents.
By not factoring this into account, your bigotry becomes informed, like all bigotry, by a staggering degree of intellectual dishonesty.
Tom — Are you saying the NATO soldiers kill innocent civilians on purpose?
I never said that. In fact I made it quite clear that I was referring to "collateral damage" not intentional killing of civilians.
All I meant is that "terror" is very much in the eye of the beholder.
"all terrorists are muslims."
lol! timothy mcveigh rolls in his govt issue grave.
KEvron
Idiocy like the sort of ignorant nonsense Tom is spewing isn't even worth responding to.
"We are not talking to the Taliban. We are not having direct discussions with terrorists. We won't, will not, that will not change," MacKay said.
http://canadianpress.google.com/
...punjvtFFS74ir7g
What a moron...
So the government that we're helping to prop up is negotiating with the Taliban and has been for quite some time now, off and on, but we won't as a matter of principle. Yeah, that makes a whole lot of sense, doesn't it?
"lol! timothy mcveigh rolls in his govt issue grave."
KEvron
Funny how you had to go back over a dozen years to find a white "anglo" terrorist when all I would have to do is go back to this morning to find a muslim terrorist.
You just proved my point.
P.S Kevron. (are you the son of the owner of Chevron?)
....just curious because you seem like you're always high on something and I was wondering if it was gasoline.
When you make an asinine statement like "all terrorists are Muslims" it only takes one prick to bust your bubble. There are numerous other examples of "terrorism" unrelated to Muslims. Over the last 20 years, 250 of the 335 incidents confirmed as or suspected to be terrorist acts in the United States were carried out by "domestic terrorists" that had nothing whatsoever to do with Islam.
"Over the last 20 years, 250 of the 335 incidents confirmed as or suspected to be terrorist acts in the United States were carried out by 'domestic terrorists'"
anthrax, anyone?
KEvron
Tom, I have some more information for you, to help to simplify things further.
All athletes are farmers.
Don't count on him getting the joke.
Commenting by HaloScan
