The Shotgun Blog
« Protesting murder in Venezuela | Main | While I was away . . . »
Sunday, April 23, 2006
A Moment of Silence
Canada lost four brave young men yesterday in Afghanistan:
Cpl. Matthew Dinning of Richmond Hill, Ont., a member of 2 Mechanized Brigade Group in Petawawa, Ont.;Bombardier Myles Mansell, a native of Victoria and a member of the Victoria's 5th Field Regiment;
Lt. William Turner, a native of Toronto. Turner, a reservist and an employee at Canada Post's Edmonton mail sorting plant, recently served on the staff of Edmonton's Land Force Western Headquarters;
Cpl. Randy Payne of CFB Wainwright, Alta.
The usual anti-war complainers will wail and moan, without sparing a thought for the actual individuals fighting in hostile territory to bring peace and democracy to one country while attempting to rid the world of a force beyond evil. Now is not the time for their diatribes. Now is the time to feel honored that these four young men had the guts to do what so many will not, and how they died with faith that they are doing the right thing.
They were riding in a G-Wagon that had a machine gun turret mounted on the roof when a massive explosion lifted the vehicle into the air, shattered its armoured compartment and pitched it on its side, instantly killing three of the four men inside. The fourth the driver was transported by helicopter to the massive Kandahar military base and died following surgery.
May God bless and keep these four beautiful brave boys.
Posted by RightGirl on April 23, 2006 in Military | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200d834ba75eb69e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference A Moment of Silence:
Comments
God will take care of these brave men. I mourn with the families of these young men for they will miss them forever. Please, Canadians, don't fall down by letting the soldiers down - back up these brave men in your prayers and in your support for their comrades. Canadian people, for the most part, are kind and generous; this has always been best exemplified by our soldiers. Canadian soldiers are volunteers, they risk their lives for people they do not know to make the latter's lives better. Brave, Honorable, Professional and in dependant - our soldiers make me humble and proud. We lost four brave men but God has four Angels to help Him. God Bless their departed souls and God help their families to bear the loss.
Posted by: jema54j | 2006-04-23 11:32:06 AM
"Now is not the time for their diatribes."
Aren't we politicizing it ourselves and launching our own diatribes, by launching these sort of arguments before any silly anti-war chorus has even struck up?
It was a great tragedy. Let us honour our nation's war dead, and let whatever anti-war voices we've heard or not heard twist in the wind.
Posted by: May Strimeedya | 2006-04-23 1:23:30 PM
"Attempting to rid the world of a force beyond evil," eh? Mind you don't understate the case, RightGirl. Just curious: what lies beyond evil, anyway? Perhaps only The Shadow knows. Or RightGirl.
Posted by: Leon Robinson | 2006-04-23 1:23:40 PM
You should read the comments made on the Gloat and Wail website. People are saying how they died for nothing because the mission is not working.
Or how it's all part of Harper's sucking up to Bush (except for the fact that it was Martin/Chretien who sent them there because it was safer than Iraq (this is clear and convincing proof that Ontarians and Liberals are idiots.)
Fools. RIP guys and thanks.
Posted by: Scott | 2006-04-23 4:00:40 PM
Maybe some 'anti-war' people don't mean anything but saving these soldiers' lives? every human life is a value, including lives of these soldiers.
History repeats itself - Soviet troops spent almost 20 years in Afghanistan, losing thousands of 18-20 year old innocent lives - who did not have any choice of avoiding the so called 'international duty', as they were not professional soldiers (like Americans and Canadians). They were also called 'heroes', but in the end their mission turned out to be a big mistake - as it happened to other famous war victims of sorts - Vietnam veterans. It is known for sure that these young men who were sent to 'Afghan' were children of regular people - sons of affluent and connected individuals did not go there, as you can imagine.
By the way, they fought those who rose on the financial support of the United States - and who Canadians are fighting now. As I see more and more Canadians die in a foreign land, I ask myself - how many more deaths will it take to realize it could have been a mistake to even go there? To me a life of a Canadian soldier (and the future of his children) is more important than the unclear future of a thousand Afghani kids.
I pray God protects Canadian soldiers and that the human life loss is as minimal as possible. I also pray God gives strenth and hope to the families of these soldiers.
Posted by: Acer | 2006-04-23 4:16:41 PM
Typically selfish lefty response. A Canadian kid is more important than a thousand Afghan kids, we shouldn't be there, blah blah.
Those boys didn't just fight and die for a thousand Afghan children - they died for millions of Canadian kids, so that they never have to switch on the television some idle Tuesday morning and see the Alberta Oilfields/CN Tower/Bay Street/St Joseph's Oratory in flames, with bodies strewn around. A four year old Canadian child will grow up hearing about September 11th, and will see footage, but will never know that aching feeling of the moment it actually happened.
Unless it happens again.
RG
Posted by: RightGirl | 2006-04-23 4:30:18 PM
RightGirl, you are a force beyond hyperbole.
Posted by: Chris Selley | 2006-04-23 5:07:44 PM
Right Girl, if only our presence in Afghanistan could guarantee that Afghanis will be 'nice' ... I strongly doubt all the efforts in this regard will be fruitful. An example - the modern Palestine. Tons of money and efforts went there to instill 'democracy' - as a result, Hamas was democratically elected. Value of those efforts = nil.
Like I said, 20 years of Soviet presence in Afghanistan should be a lesson.
And for those pining for 'helping out' - would you go there yourself to fight for democracy? would you send your kids? too many are fond of fixing world (and not only) problems on behalf of others.
Yeah, it is certainly a great idea to send our troops to Afghanistan, while tons of Muslim terrorists and their supporters have already entered Canada on a legal basis. If we want a real war against terror, why not review immigration rules and clean the country in the first place so that Canadian kids don't see the likes of September 11 etc?
Posted by: Acer | 2006-04-23 6:27:36 PM
Acer, I completely agree with your comments re: our immigration. It's shameful.
But I do not appreciate the chickenhawk argument. Don't you think that's better suited to Kos or the Democratic Underground than the Western Standard?
RG
Posted by: RightGirl | 2006-04-23 6:49:33 PM
Acer,
The painful question of whether I’d send my kids into war is a red herring. No sane loving parent would wish his or her kid end up in battle. Therefore the left uses this false logic. It’s used to try and stymie those of us that understand that historically freedom unfortunately has to be fought for in a military sense from time to time.
No I would not send my kid into battle. Unlike the Islamofascists do with their 12 year olds. But our kids are adults and old enough to decide for themselves if they would go into battle. It’s a volunteer army. We should be grateful for those that serve and we should be happy to buy them the best equipment money and technology can offer to try and keep them safe.
Posted by: nomdenet | 2006-04-23 7:45:36 PM
I find it extremely disturbing that anyone has to die while trying to help others, but these men voluntarily joined up. They knew the risks, these heathens are at the same point we were in the fifteen hundreds give or take a few hundred, chopping heads in france, ripping out guts in England etc their so called peacful profet was roughly 700 years after ours hence the slow evolution of their society campared to ours. Buck up boys there will be many more trying to civilize these clowns but political correctness will lead us down the path to our own destruction first.
Posted by: bartinsky | 2006-04-23 11:21:36 PM
I would never say these soldiers lives were wasted, I would say more that we should be pushing for a way to become less dependant on the middle east for anything (read Oil) so that the region can become as economically important as Africa.
Posted by: Xenomorph | 2006-04-24 4:18:08 AM
A quick history lesson for Acer.
"Like I said, 20 years of Soviet presence in Afghanistan should be a lesson."
In 1979, after a tiny number of Afghan Communists overthrew the monarchy, they sought protection for their illegal act by looking to Moscow. These Red Afghans and their Soviet allies, through indoctrination, torture, "re-education" and massacre, tried to beat a conservative Islamic society into a mirror Soviet / Warsaw Pact image - to replace Allah & Muhammad with Marx & Lenin. During the year of global Communist humiliation - 1989 - Gorbachev cut and ran, leaving dictator Mohammed Najibullah against a united theist opposition that overthrew him in 1991. Najibullah stayed alive in Kabul amongst his Islamic enemies until 1996. One of the first acts of the Taliban takeover of Kabul was to hunt Najibullah down, find a tow truck and rope - then hang 'im high.
My reading of the Soviet lesson is: "Don't force Communist atheism on conservative Muslims."
NATO and our elected Afghan allies are trying to continue the popular Pashtun monarchy's policy from 1945-1973, introducing Western democratic and constitutional traditions into Afghan society.
Side note: From 1961 to 1973, "cosmopolitan Kabul" was another stop on the "hippie 'Grand Tour'" of South Asia, a place to draw inspiration from opiates and hash.
Posted by: jwkozak91 | 2006-04-24 4:53:37 AM
It does not matter what the true motives of the Soviet leadership were - of course it had more to do with the attempts to add Afghanistan to a list of 'socialist' countries. The problem was is how it was portrayed in the media and in the collective psyche of millions of people (including those soldiers) who were brainwashed to believe they were doing something important and valuable, such as their 'international duty'. Same like American soldiers were led to believe they were doing something great in Vietnam and it turned out to be something not that attractive in the end. Same like American soldiers are fighting for 'democracy' in Iraq now while the whole premises of beginning the war turned out to have nothing to do with the real facts - the recent scandals in the White house are yet another proof of the war being an issue of creation, rather than an issue of pursuing the truth. And I simply would hate the Canadian mission in Afghanistan to turn out to be a 'mistake' (though I must admit it differs from the above because 1) the Afghani government sort of officially requested this help 2) Canada is just one of many nations there - that is we are not the only ones).
As any project, the Canadian involvement in Afghanistan must be productive, that is there should be a visible result in the foreseeable future. I could be biased and wrong, but to me it looks worse and worse every day :( At least a few years ago nobody even discussed this issue, as there were a few casualties - and as their number grows, there are more and more concerns raised and more discussion of the issue by the nation. And after all those years of peacemaking efforts what do we see - a Christian Afghani faces execution and the officials at first are fine with it. So where is the value of all our efforts? I just hope it's in there somewhere ...
I agree on the point of view, when you say - hey, these guys are professionals and possible death are the part of a job description. I just don't agree when these professionals are called 'heroes' just because their truck exploded on the road - would we call a hero any policeman or firefighter or any other professional who died on a job as a result of an accident? Heroism to me is an extra effort to make something done - and one does not have to necessarily die to be a hero - and I would turn over to WWII for great examples, or even to modern day life where you can find quite a few examples of real heroism. At the same time I sympathize with our soldiers, as their job is very hard and dangerous, and it hurts me to see the loss of those young thriving lives - and their children who are sometimes too small to realize what happened to their fathers :( I just hope that the government will take care of these families and they will never have to hear the likes of 'It was not ME who sent you to Afghanistan'.
I gave it some thought the other day, and came to the conclusion I never heard people who had real war experience call themselves heroes. I never knew my paternal grandfather, as he died immediately following WWII. My maternal grandfather fought through half of Europe in WWII, he was in Budapest when the war ended. My father-in-law served in Korea. Their assessment of their experiences and comments on current war-related events are very cautious. It is those professional propagandists and their common folk propaganda-infected victims who enjoy wallowing in 'heroism' stuff etc. Professional brainwashers just make their money, so I don't have anything to say to them, but to those ardent war lovers in front of their TVs, chewing pizza and drinking beer, and cheering 'you show them!", I want to say this: lose your weight, cut the crap and enlist in the army if you want to learn what it really TAKES to make a difference.
As for strengthening the army, I completely agree and I simply beg the government: do something about it. The threat to Canadians is already more than real - and the army of Canada can't compete with those of even some small Eastern European countries. If we do want to help and support them, let's press on the government to make sure our army and our soldiers get the best of everything.
Posted by: Acer | 2006-04-24 7:11:48 AM
Acer: The security situation in most of Afstan--that is outside parts of the south and east--is pretty good. So does the fact that there is a violent insurgency in some parts mean that we should simply give up, likely resulting in another full-scale civil war and the possible re-installation of a Taliban regime? Rather than a least making a serious and fairly long-term effort to see if the insurgency can be quelled while the attempt is made to build up an Afghan state that can defend itself?
Mark
Ottawa
Posted by: Mark Collins | 2006-04-24 7:29:08 AM
Acer - can you please qualify what you mean by "forseeable future"? If a country has been in conflict, or under dictatorship or other despotic regimes for decades or even centuries (when you consider the tribal outreaches of Afghanistan), do you suppose we could have the whole thing sewn up in time for a tickertape parade on Labor Day Weekend, or do you think it might take longer to turn the tides?
Call it a reality check, if you will.
RG
Posted by: RightGirl | 2006-04-24 7:41:01 AM
Here we have our troops in harms way for what, to help the Afghan people. Why are so many growing poppies if all this aid over the years has been going there to help them plant other crops? Why hasn’t this plan been implemented? Here we are being the tool for the Us’s war over control of the world, is Harper part of the team?
We now know that the people of Afghanistan had nothing to do with the attacks on 9/11 and it’s looking more like a red flag for the US to go to war with the world.
Why are the rights our forefathers fought and died for so easily thrown to the side?
We know that the US government is the largest drug importer in the world; we’ve known this for decades but nothings has changed. The banks and our economies are now dependant on the illegal drug trade so why don’t we just legalize the products and bring all the crime around issue out into the open? All its doing now is corrupting the governments of the world in this phoney war.
Why did the American economy need the poppy fields? Before the War 2% of the worlds opium came from Afghanistan, after the start 90% and growing. Why are our troops helping the CIA bring opium to the US and Canada?
BRING OUR TROOPS HOME.
Posted by: ed | 2006-04-24 8:26:20 AM
ed: Are you aware that both the NATO mission in Afstan and US Operation Enduring freedom have been unanimously endorsed by the UN Security Council?
See:
Resolution 1659 (2006)
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/sc8641.doc.htm
Resolution 1623 (2005)
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2005/sc8495.doc.htm
So Canada is hardly "the tool for the Us’s war over control of the world". It's the UN's war--so surely all correct-thinking Canadians should support it.
Mark
Ottawa
Posted by: Mark Collins | 2006-04-24 8:45:43 AM
“Afghan Massacre: the Convoy of Death”
We now have troops helping in an illegal war against an innocent people.We need to have answers to the questions being raised about the start and invasions of these countries under the false pretences of a 9/11 attack.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3267.htm
We should at least have a showing of the film in Canada for the people to better understand what is going on over there and why.
WILL OUR TROOPS BECOME WAR CRIMMINALS FOR HELPING THE US?
Posted by: ed | 2006-04-24 8:46:35 AM
Ed needs to adjust his tinfoil hat.
RG
Posted by: RightGirl | 2006-04-24 8:54:12 AM
SOUNDS LIKE A PUPPET.
What proof have you to the legality of this War?
We know that the CIA went in before the attacks to buy the northern alliance to their side. Now all the poppies are growing again, and increasing each year.
Planes that crash and disappear ya right.
Posted by: ed | 2006-04-24 9:00:59 AM
Steal buildings falling down from Fire, lol I got some land to sell ya too.
Posted by: ed | 2006-04-24 9:02:38 AM
I think ed is channelling Charlie Sheen.
Posted by: Quidnunc Savant | 2006-04-24 9:16:26 AM
No, from a firefighters view.
Posted by: ed | 2006-04-24 9:17:55 AM
No Prior Collapse Induced by Fire
The official theory is rendered implausible by two major problems. The first is the simple fact that fire has never---prior to or after 9/11---caused steel-frame high-rise buildings to collapse. Defenders of the official story seldom if ever mention this simple fact. Indeed, the supposedly definitive report put out by NIST---the National Institute for Standards and Technology (2005)---even implies that fire-induced collapses of large steel-frame buildings are normal events (Hoffman, 2005). Far from being normal, however, such collapses have never occurred, except for the alleged cases of 9/11.
Defenders of the official theory, of course, say that the collapses were caused not simply by the fire but the fire combined with the damage caused by the airliners. The towers, however, were designed to withstand the impact of airliners about the same size as Boeing 767s.
Hyman Brown, the construction manager of the Twin Towers, said: “They were over-designed to withstand almost anything, including hurricanes, . . . bombings and an airplane hitting [them]” (Bollyn, 2001). And even Thomas Eagar, an MIT professor of materials engineering who supports the official theory, says that the impact of the airplanes would not have been significant, because “the number of columns lost on the initial impact was not large and the loads were shifted to remaining columns in this highly redundant structure” (Eagar and Musso, 2001, pp. 8-11). Likewise, the NIST Report, in discussing how the impact of the planes contributed to the collapse, focuses primarily on the claim that the planes dislodged a lot of the fire-proofing from the steel.[6]
The official theory of the collapse, therefore, is essentially a fire theory, so it cannot be emphasized too much that fire has never caused large steel-frame buildings to collapse---never, whether before 9/11, or after 9/11, or anywhere in the world on 9/11 except allegedly New York City---never.
Posted by: ed | 2006-04-24 9:25:43 AM
ed: The missions are legal. Read the UNSC resolutions.
Mark
Ottawa
Posted by: Mark Collins | 2006-04-24 9:30:55 AM
ed:
Freedom is never free.
There are no shortage of people, even in our country, who would be only too willing to run our lives for us.
Our Canadian troops are fighting the jihadists (a term used by the majority populace in the Middle East who despise these guys as much as we do).
As much as I love the US, at least Canada is not doing it the chickenshit US way of bombing. Sure, that decreased US casualties on the ground, but it increases the casualties of innocent civilians on the ground.
That's the squeeze civilians are caught in. The jihadists hide in the urban areas, rather than fighting like men out where nobody else but the combatants can get hurt.
Canadians fought in WW II for freedom, for the right of people to choose their own way of being the best they can be ... not as part of some totalitarian system where you obey orders from a dictator or a central committee.
On D-Day, four soldiers could be mowed down in seconds, but that as the price that had to be paid for the freedoms we enjoy today.
Our freedoms had to be paid for. Enjoy them. Shame on you for the disrespect you have shown to those who were and are willing to stand up for what they believe in.
Posted by: Set you free | 2006-04-24 9:40:45 AM
Ed asked: WILL OUR TROOPS BECOME WAR CRIMMINALS FOR HELPING THE US?
Answer: No. The only war crimes trials that Canada can hold pertain to violations of Canadian military law. International war crimes law is completely controlled by the 5 permanent members, so an international indictment simply will not happen.
Ed asked: What proof have you to the legality of this War?
The UN Charter authorized it, the NATO Council did too, and the Canadian people have approved it in 2 separate debates in Parliament. This is as legal as they come.
The simple fact that the twin towers collapsed after being struck by two aircraft disproves any possible the conspiracy theory. Same goes for that fantasy that the airliner did not strike the Pentagon. Of course these wacky ideas come from the same people who say the Holocaust didn't happen, that Aliens landed at Roswell NM in 1947, and that Elvis lives. Pathetic. Why do you people waste your time?
Ed also said: "We now know that the people of Afghanistan had nothing to do with the attacks on 9/11 and it’s looking more like a red flag for the US to go to war with the world."
Answer: No one ever said that the Afghani people were responsible for 9/11. If anything, the Taliban made them victims of terrorism as well. That is why the UN (yes, the United Nations, all hail) has organized a new Afghani government to replace the Taliban.
Moreover, the entire world supported the US-led coalition in Afghanistan. Even neutral countries like Switzerland, Sweden, and Ireland sent soldiers to help there. America's rivals China, Russia, and Iran supported the UN's mission there.
Some international lawyers expressed concerns over the US using Afghanistan as a precedent for going after terrorists in other countries - and Iraq seemed to prove them right - but it remains to be seen whether or not this will continue.
But here's a question: if a country like say Niger asks the US to help fight Al Qaeda from spreading there, is that imperialism?
Posted by: Scott | 2006-04-24 9:41:37 AM
Scott:
Iraq has absolutely nothing to do with 9/11.
Saddam signed an agreement after he was driven out of Kuwait in 1990 to reveal where his weapons of mass destruction were hidden. That is why he was allowed by the UN to maintain power in Iraq despite the US's efforts to remove him at the time.
17 UN resolutions later, the US grew tired of the UN's dithering and took a police action to enforce the UN's resolutions.
Technically speaking, the 9/11 jihadists did not come from Afghanistan, but the Taliban regime had training grounds for Bin Laden's twisted army. Even the Clinton regime recognized this and spend mucho dinaro bombing tents in the desert.
Posted by: Set you free | 2006-04-24 9:56:41 AM
So why do the scholars around the world and past foriegn government ministers call it an Illegal War, for world domination by the US?
David Ray Griffin, Ph.D.
George Nelson Colonel, USAF (ret.)
Michael Meyer, Mechanical Engineer
James H. Fetzer, Ph.D.
Sami Yli-Karjanmaa
Dr. Bob Bowman
Barry Zwicker
Steven E. Jones, Ph.D
Morgan Reynolds, Ph.D.
Webster G. Tarpley
Dr. Robert Gould
Andreas von Bulow
These experts contend that books and articles by members and other associates have established that the World Trade Center was almost certainly brought down by controlled demolitions and that the available relevant evidence casts grave doubt on the government's official story about the attack on the Pentagon.
They believe that the government not only permitted 9/11 to occur but may even have orchestrated these events to facilitate its political agenda.
S9/11T encourages its members to vigorously express their concerns on this score through lectures, conferences, symposia, articles, and books as well as other access routes that publicize their findings.
http://st911.org/
"All that is necessary for evil to succeed is that good men do nothing." -Edmond Burke
Posted by: ed | 2006-04-24 10:07:50 AM
ed:
And, I guess, it's part of the world-wide Zionist conspiracy.
Posted by: Set you free | 2006-04-24 10:12:06 AM
Ed: why don't you go to an FDNY firehouse and explain those theories.
Just because someone has a PhD does not make them perfect - just well informed. For every one of those, 3 more can be found who will argue that the towers fell because someone crashed airplanes into them. Just because it hasn't happened elsewhere does not mean that it cannot be true.
Why do these same people say Bush is an idiot and that he's some sort of evil genius in the same breath? Make up your minds!
Posted by: Scott | 2006-04-24 10:23:59 AM
Watch what happens in the next year.
Why can't they duplacte the falling of the buildings?
Everyone's coming out now with their questions.
The governemnt if they wanted could release the pictures of the plane hitting the pentagon why hide them? Why hide the black boxes they found at ground zero?
Like I said I got some land to sell ya.
Posted by: ed | 2006-04-24 10:28:54 AM
Scott:
Am I getting the right impression?
Is ed calling us naive because we cannot see the conspiracy as clearly as he can?
Posted by: Set you free | 2006-04-24 10:36:38 AM
"ttempting to rid the world of a force beyond evil."
You sound like a terrorist.
Posted by: Justin Fossey | 2006-04-24 10:37:39 AM
The NY Fire Department Chief of Safety stated there were "bombs" and "secondary devices", which caused the explosions in the buildings.
terrorize.dk 911.wtc.reporter.1.wmv
NYC firefighters who witnessed attacks stated that it looked like there were bombs in the buildings. A NYC firefighter stated "On the last trip up a bomb went off. We think there was bombs set in the building"
web.archive.org people special
A police officer testified that there were numerous, HUGE explosions at the top of one of the twin towers 15 minutes apart, before the tower collapsed.
www.thememoryhole.org pa-police-reports04.pdf
A retired Air Force Colonel who flew over 100 combat missions and was the director of the Star Wars defense program under both Republican and Democratic administrations (and a member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth) recently said:
"If our government had merely done nothing, and allowed normal procedures to happen on that morning of 9/11, the twin towers would still be standing, and thousands of dead Americans would still be alive. That is treason!"
www.exerscape.com bowman-interview.mp3
Recently declassified documents show that in the 1960's, the American Joint Chiefs of Staff signed off on a plan to blow up AMERICAN airplanes (using an elaborate plan involving the switching of airplanes), and also committing terrorist murders against U.S. citizens on American soil, and then blaming it on the Cubans in order to justify an invasion of Cuba.
abcnews.go.com story
www.gwu.edu northwoods.pdf
Facts, not speculation like the governemnt used after the attacks.
Demand a full investigation.
Posted by: ed | 2006-04-24 10:44:22 AM
What is it day pass time in the nuthouse where they keep all the trolls?
Posted by: Warwick | 2006-04-24 10:52:02 AM
setyoufree: sounds correct to me. We see logical inconsistencies and contrary facts that he chooses to ignore. Conspiracy theories abound on misleading evidence. Fortunately they are easy to spot for that same reason.
Posted by: Scott | 2006-04-24 10:56:41 AM
"Foreseeable future' for me is maybe 5 to 10 years tops, including the moment since the troops were already there. But I am just a person, not a military strategist or an expert on those issues. My point is whether we want years and years of fruitless involvement, which will cost hundreds if not thousands of lives and millions of dollars. It could be possible that Canada might not simply be able to afford it - especially because it might be hard to balance our own national security with the international missions.
Another point already raised by someone is that we are in Afghanistan supposedly to fight Taliban and Muslim terrorists. Does it mean we have to be in each and every country where Muslim terrorists are active? to me this is an impossible task. It is much more practical and reasonable to strengthen our country, expel the bad guys and to build the security wall which simply would not let any terrorist to physically land on our shores. After all, where did those hijackers get their training? in the USA and Germany. So ...
I don't have an opinion on the 'conspiracy' theory of 11/09, as I haven't seen those documentaries yet. There are a few websites with professionally done films, with expert opinions coming from reputable professionals who know their craft very well, and are not interested in any bias. They are about to launch a DVD with one of the films, Loose Change, if I remember correctly. If those were just some crazy accusations, who would devote their time and energy for all that stuff? I will watch their film, just to hear what they have to say.
Posted by: Acer | 2006-04-24 11:20:39 AM
Here's a cops story,Mike Ruppert. He speeks all over the world, and he'll take you through it, the background, the timeline and the facts we know.
Then You can make up your own mind about what happened that day.
We know from history that no government would attack its own citizens as a prelude to war.
http://fpiarticle.blogspot.com/2006/03/truth-lies-of-911.html
Posted by: ed | 2006-04-24 11:21:31 AM
Loose change here its free,
http://st911.org/
Posted by: ed | 2006-04-24 11:24:13 AM
Oh, and an example of efficiency in dealing with international conflicts is a well-known 'Desert Storm' - quick, efficient (there was an immediate result), with minimum casualties.
I recognize, however, that such a scenario may never happen in Afghanistan for a variety of reasons. By the way, historically, not a single conquest attempt was ever successful on the Afghani territory - maybe the unique geographic conditions are the culprit, I don't know.
Posted by: Acer | 2006-04-24 11:27:25 AM
Acer:
Re: If those were just some crazy accusations, who would devote their time and energy for all that stuff?
You'd be surprised how many people provide fodder to the conspiracy market.
Re: Jihadists. One way I've found effective to counteract them is to find a Middle Eastern blog and encourage the majority population in that country to take to the streets and march against them.
The reason I use the world jihadist is the ME people use that themselves. If you use Islamofascists or Muslim terrorists, well ...
Osama bin Laden today claimed since the west has cut off funding to Palestine, that proves they are at war with Muslims.
The bearded one did not offer any explanation as to why Iran was so eager to fill the void, although it's apparently the first ME country to offer monetary help to their borthers.
So, terminoligy is pretty important.
You can call these jackasses what you will, but I prefer jihadist as it does give bin Laden an opening to draw in the entire Muslim tribe.
Think about it guys ... and gals.
Posted by: Set you free | 2006-04-24 11:31:18 AM
Oops:
I meant to say: I prefer jihadist as it does NOT give bin Laden an opening to draw in the entire Muslim tribe.
Putting Muslim or Islam into criticism has been an effective propoganda tool for the enemy. Stop it right now!
Posted by: Set you free | 2006-04-24 11:34:22 AM
As a PhD myself, I just would not be able to imagine myself shifting the scientific evidence (which IS objective and measurable, otherwise it is not scientific) to please whoever - though I admit that cases like that do occur. And, on the other hand, where would I find the time for all of that? in the end, we all have to live with our conscience, even the scientific one. My guess is that some of those people who are speaking out may be risking their careers and established lives, so it is not as simple as that.
I admit there always a bunch of crazy folks out there hanging around waiting for a new log in the fire, but it seems in this case a lot of highly respectable individuals are asking a lot of scientifically challenging questions. If it is so easy to refute their theories, why are those questions still being asked?
Bin Laden can go and do you know what to himself - by the way, did you see Hamas leaders awkwardly trying to distance themselves from his claims? :) they want our money, it is all about money, isn't it? and we'll be idiots to give it to them.
Posted by: Acer | 2006-04-24 11:57:16 AM
I would like to comment on the article by Mark Steyn about James Looney.
How true and percutant is this article. Homosexual pretending to be a catholic and pretending to work for peace. We can measure how good God is by allowing brave soldiers to free that human being. He should repent right now rather than getting even deeper in his sins. Because there is a time limit fixed by God. If he were to die tonite, where would he go?
I strongly approve of the Canadian presence in Afghanistan. Can we remember the Talibans were hosting Bin Laden and cutting hands of people among other things?
Posted by: Rémi Houle | 2006-04-24 11:59:55 AM
Acer:
Palestine is having all kinds of troubles right now with Hamas and Fatah busy blaming each other over whose fault it was the funding was cut off.
I say, the west should have cut off funding to the PLO many years ago and given direct aid to the populace.
Posted by: Set you free | 2006-04-24 12:14:04 PM
Frickin amazing. Two massive planes hit the World Trade Centre, but they didn't cause it to collapse. I understand Ariel Sharon was flying one of the planes and parachuted out just in time. BTW the Americans caused his stroke to shut him up. Attack is launched by Al Queda (however it's spelled), bragged about by Bin Laden (yeah really!), whose HQ is in Taliban Afghanistan. You know; the Taliban who practice the same type of medieval abomination of a proud Abrahamic religion, yet apparently have nothing to do with Al Qaeda! No they didn't do anything illegal, though the UN-sponsored removal of the Taliban is an "illegal war." Get real folks, Afghanistan is an example of a terror incubator, with massive opium production, so heroin ends up on our streets. Americans/Canadians are imperialist oil-lackeys, while foreigners (Pakistanis, Saudi Arabians, Yemenis, Syrians etc) currently in Afghanistan and Iraq are "insurgents." Just reduce this thing to "oil" and it becomes "George Bush's War" Terrorism must be challenged and stopped now. Right now, Islamofascists can only operate on a tactical level (low intensity ops such as suicide bomings, section level attacks), so many people don't see the threat. At their present level of capability, they can never defeat this. If we let them, however, they move to the strategic level, by acquiring some form of WMD, such as a radiological device. Now we are in an all-out worldwide conflict, a "holy war" which is what bin Laden and his ilk want. Now do you get it?
Posted by: Phil | 2006-04-24 12:22:42 PM
Phil:
Is that all the conspiracies you could come up with?
I'm disappointed. Seriously, though, great rant.
Only one point.
Call them jihadists, then Osama cannot use our own terminoligies against us.
Posted by: Set you free | 2006-04-24 12:27:35 PM
Secret Evil Of 911
People who shut their eyes to reality simply invite their own destruction.
http://videonewz.blogspot.com/2005/12/secret-evil-of-911.html
Posted by: ed | 2006-04-24 12:44:24 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.