Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« Jihad comes to Canada | Main | Australia is to get tough on Sharia advocates »

Sunday, July 22, 2007

Supporting the Troops?

My latest, at the Star.

Cross-posted at Wonkitties.

Posted by wonkitties on July 22, 2007 in Military | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200e0099804ae8833

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Supporting the Troops?:

Comments

Layton, Miller, et al, are doing this purely to avoid being labeled as unsupportive of the troops, whilst negating criticism from leftist ranks of supporting what they consider to be an "American" war. Fortunately, no one believes them.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2007-07-22 8:32:49 AM


Canadian Navy and Army Veteran of World War II and Korea, noted Canadian Journalist Peter Worthington
in the Toronto Sun, sums up Layton and Miller pointing out that they are lucky it is not 1942, where they could have been charged under the War Measures Act for offering aid and comfort to the enemy -many Italian and German Canadians, plus members of the Canadian Fascist Party in Quebec
were indeed charged and incarcerated. MacLeod

Posted by: Jack Macleod | 2007-07-22 9:05:18 AM


Canadian Navy and Army Veteran of World War II and Korea, noted Canadian Journalist Peter Worthington
in the Toronto Sun, sums up Layton and Miller pointing out that they are lucky it is not 1942, where they could have been charged under the War Measures Act for offering aid and comfort to the enemy -many Italian and German Canadians, plus members of the Canadian Fascist Party in Quebec
were indeed charged and incarcerated. MacLeod

Posted by: Jack Macleod | 2007-07-22 9:05:33 AM


Of course "support the troops" is code for "support the war" designed to make questioning our current efforts appear to be the same as wanting Canadian troops to be killed or go without medical care or to be sent into harms way with defective equipment. "Support the troops" is part of a carefully designed media campaign aimed at war dissenters by the government and should be seen as the propaganda that it is. The reality is that Task Force Afghanistan is the highest paid and best equipped force in Afghanistan. The CF is the second most expensive military force per man in the world. Canada has climbed since 9/11 from 16th most expensive military in real dollars to 11th and 6th within NATO. The troops may be the best supported ever to go to war. Let's talk about Canada's aims and our ability or likelihood to achieve them but please stop using "support the troops" as a crutch for weak arguments or to hide problems with the mission or DND leadership

Posted by: Fred T. Ward | 2007-07-22 9:11:41 AM


The goals of the Afghanistan mission are clear - to help the new Afghan government secure its territory from the Taliban and Al Qaeda and prevent its use as a base for terrorism.

Partisan elements, however, like the Dippers, Liebrals and Greens, see it as an exercise in American imperialism (blah blah blah) and that Canada has no part in it. Well, uh, they're wrong. They were the ones who started this mission, and have now backtracked simply to curry favor with the electorate. Fortunately, they will fail because the mission is a good one, perfectly legal as far as international law goes, and important enough to justify equipping the military properly despite the expense.

This is why I am glad to be Albertan, where at least I'm not a hypocrite.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2007-07-22 9:32:22 AM


Folks who oppose the War but claim to support the troops are Liberals who are collectivists who cannot accept individual responsibility (unless they are getting rewarded for something), or the actual dignity and importance of the individual.

It gets too close to ideas about the sanctity of innocent human life and ideas like that too quickly.

These folks could not have found Adolph Eichman or any of the other Nazi's guilty at the Nurumberg War Crimes trials, I guess? They would have oppossed the War but supported the troops.

These folks like to view soldiers as subhuman just the same as they view unborn babies, or too old "babies" as subhuman.

That is what being a Leftist is all about.

Totalitarianism. Total government control over everyone, just so long as they are in charge of the government.

Oppose the War, but support the rifles and the tents and the troops and the trucks and...

Posted by: Conrad-USA | 2007-07-22 10:20:58 AM


ZP: Exactly, the position of the Left is all about votes, principles be damned. Anything you want you, you'll get from the Lefty Triumvirate, Liberanos, Dippers and Greenies (with a bit of red tossed in, sort of the Red-Greenies.

When a country sends it's Forces to war in a far off land and elected Politicians and major news outlets rant against it, it used to be called Treason and it was severely punished. No more.

Anyone think the Left hasn't made deleterious inroads? Careful with the denials, we've been in that state too long.

Posted by: LizJ | 2007-07-22 10:34:51 AM


I don't think that these people should be prosecuted under the War Measures Act. The last time that law was used, millions of people, mostly from Quebec, suffered under it when Pierre the Terrible launched the 1970 Invasion of Quebec to restore corporate rule.

The State Constitution of Tennessee forbids martial law. I think Alberta should do the same, and encourage other provinces to do so in the event that Ontario goes even more insane and tries to attack us.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2007-07-22 10:40:10 AM


Adamson's article points to the real nature of the "support the troops" sloganeering by the warmongers. What she says at the end, she supports the war in Afghanistan as a result supports the troops. After all, its a nice rallying cry for something that is unpopular.

Layton, on the other hand, says "support the troops" in order to support having a military institution in Canada that is capable of responding to real international crisis as peace keepers and not acting as American surrogates. Bringing the troops home allows us that capability.

Posted by: munroe | 2007-07-22 11:05:31 AM


munroe: I hope that you are aware that the military is currently responding to a real international crisis. It all started nearly six years ago when some terrorists destroyed the World Trade Center in NYC, the Pentagon near Washington, DC, and crashed an airliner full of people into a farm in western Pennsylvania. Since that day, the western nations, led by the United States has been fighting terrorists in Afghanistan, where the perpetrators of the September 11 attacks were based.

It is ridiculous, not to mention disrespectful, to say that the troops are not being used well during the present mission in Afghanistan. They are over there fighting for we, the people, and no one else. No wonder Layton is a laughing stock these days.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2007-07-22 11:10:39 AM


If you accept that Canadian troops are fighting in Afghanistan to protect Canada then how can you explain the PM's apparent intent to stop fighting in February 2009? Apparently domestic political pressure trumps the threat or the threat isn't as great as he had tried to have the public believe or our aims are different than what is public ally announced. If the mission is to prevent Afghanistan from being used as a terror base then why has so little of the NATO effort been put into building Afghan security forces?

The answer is that every nation and every military has its own agenda beyond the stated mission. The government of Canada's real goal was to be taken seriously on the world stage especially in Washington. DND's primary goal is to leverage the campaign into expansion and rearming and to gain peer recognition among other militaries. Concentrating on building Afghan forces, although tactically the correct tack didn't fulfill the CF's organizational need for combat or the government's desire for worldwide recognition. Only the increasing liklihood of electoral defeat had modified the governments approach.

Posted by: Fred T. Ward | 2007-07-22 11:27:43 AM


Like it or not, our wagon is hitched to the American train. It is in our best interest to cooperate with the goals of the USA. We have a friend in the USA that is far more desirable to the friendships we would otherwise have to rely on in such the Chinese, the dying European mess, and any other place you can name of planet Earth.

The enemies of freedom (the Islamic world, our own Leftists and that totalitarian business center, China) are all looking to bring us down for their own purposes. In the case of China there is a schizophrenia whereby they don't actually want to kill their best customer, but would like to dominate them. Islam does want us to die.

Every country has an army ... their own or someone else's.

There is little peace to keep these days. Earth is a crowded and not nice neighborhood. The strong will survive. Fools like Jack Layton and other sympathizers of the despotic world would lead us all to poverty and slavery.

I believe there are efforts to build a force in Afghanistan to help maintain some measure of freedom and rule of law in that hapless place.

Once the Afghan people have something to lose, like schools, hospitals, jobs etc they may be willing to step up and fight off the Taliban to keep it. That will benefit us in that the Bin Ladens of the world will lose their habitat.

When a species loses it's habitat it vanishes.

That is the greater purpose in our troops being in Afghanistan killing the trash who would ruin our society.

To defend the goals of the Taliban (which Jack tries to do) is pure folly. Radical is as alien as anything that might come this planet from another solar system. We simply have nothing in common with the forces against freedom.

Without freedom, nothing else matters, not climate change, not who gets elected to parliament next.

The two most important items in any human life is freedom and health. The health of slaves is irrelevant. Freedom must prevail or life is not worth living.

I support the troops, the war against Islam and our great benevolent neighbors the Americans.

To not do so is to show one's inability to reason.

Freedom is not 'nothing left to lose' as the the words from "Me and Bobby McGee" state, but rather Freedom is having something to lose, but having the ability to secure it so we can all have a better more civilized way of life.

Posted by: John | 2007-07-22 12:00:24 PM


That should read "Radical Islam is as alien as ..."

Posted by: John | 2007-07-22 12:03:30 PM


Munroe,
"Layton, on the other hand, says "support the troops" in order to support having a military institution in Canada that is capable of responding to real international crisis as peace keepers and not acting as American surrogates. Bringing the troops home allows us that capability."

Actually, by deploying our forces in the field, they are gaining experience and are becoming battle hardened and better prepared for the next crisis that inevitably arises in a world populated by people who agree with Munroe.

Additionally, the US Marines get my vote as the most effective peace keeping force. They deserve a Nobel Peace Prize instead of giving it to kleptocrats with murder on their minds...like Arafat.

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2007-07-22 12:17:46 PM


John you were appropriately named.

A man who knows and clearly proclaims the Truth.

Posted by: Conrad-USA | 2007-07-22 12:19:27 PM


Conrad you too are appropriately named!

Posted by: obc | 2007-07-22 12:27:59 PM


That's what's lacking with the Left, ability to reason, it's not part of their lexicon, it's at odds with their ideology.
Reason and common sense require logical thinking which is foreign to the Leftist mind. Thinking is discouraged. The Politburo are all-knowing as to what's good for the masses. Just ask Jack Layton or any Lefty, they keep telling us what we want/need.

Canadians want/don't want yadda, yadda and it's all brought to you by a willing MSM, no arguments there.

Posted by: LizJ | 2007-07-22 12:28:38 PM


"a willing MSM" ~

Willing implies they agree. They do, but they are all Party members to boot.

Posted by: obc | 2007-07-22 12:31:15 PM


That is high praise Conrad ... Thank you.

Posted by: John | 2007-07-22 2:14:20 PM


Layton et al, profess they support the troops by "bringing them home", in short, surrender. I would like to see them home too, but to bring them home with unfinished business raises the question "why did we send them". Are they political pawns? If so, it's shameful. Will it be that we have wasted 66 Canadian lives for nothing? If that turns out to be the case, then we don't even need a military. If we don't have conviction, don't send dads and moms to do our dirty work while we sit here at home living the life of Reilly. That's extreme selfishness and cowardice at the same time.

The Laytons of the world will ague, Canada should be in the peacekeeping role. Isn't that like standing around and getting shot at? Then they would argue, we should negotiate for peace in Afghanistan. Great. With exactly who? Who's the leader? There isn't one. The leader is Allah and he dosen't have a phone number.

In WWII, we engaged an enemy, who had visions of world domination and believed genocide was OK. We took that enemy on with full vigor. We won using sure conviction. We won because we defeated the evil enemy government and those who were brainwashed into fighting for it. Today the enemy is much different. Radical Islamists don't fear death, they welcome it. We are fighting an idealogy, not a government. If it were a government, it would be easy. An idealogy cannot be conquered within our lifetime. That idealogy is not new, it's 1400+ years old. As the Muslim worldwide population outstrips all other religions, it is not reasonable to assume the idealogy will fade. It will advance and we better figure out how to protect ourselves.

Having a military like some kind of doll collection won't do shit. If that's what it is about, then get rid of it. If not, grow some balls in all fairmess to our troops.

Posted by: Sounder | 2007-07-22 2:28:33 PM


. . . but . . . who is going to get rid of heavy snowfall in Toronto if we have no army?

Posted by: obc | 2007-07-22 2:41:17 PM


obc: Toronto people won't like this, but they might actually have to lift a finger to help themselves. What a terrifying prospect...for them. For the rest of us, it will be very amusing.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2007-07-22 2:47:00 PM


. . . but . . . who is going to get rid of heavy snowfall in Toronto if we have no army?

Or fight forest fires in Alberta.

Posted by: St Albion Parish News | 2007-07-22 2:47:44 PM


...or floods in Manitoba or BC

Posted by: St Albion Parish News | 2007-07-22 2:52:00 PM


ZP -- I don't think that these people should be prosecuted under the War Measures Act. The last time that law was used, millions of people, mostly from Quebec, suffered under it when Pierre the Terrible launched the 1970 Invasion of Quebec to restore corporate rule.

Are you serious? I hope not.

I am not a Trudeau fan but the War Measures Act was an appropriate response from the appropriate level of government. A minister of the Quebec Government was kidnapped and murdered in cold blood, there had been at least two hundred mail box bombs that claimed several innocent victims, I would say that the decision to impose the War Measures Act was the best decision ever taken by Pierre Trudeau.

Of course, the separatists, supported by the Canadian Left establishment (like Avi Lewis) later claimed that the War Measures Act made "innocent victims" --- yeah, what about the innocent victims that died from terrorists actions?

Let us not forget that members of the FLQ were training in the Middle East alongside PLO terrorists. So, the Canadian Government was facing the same ennemy we are facing in Afghanistan today: Terrorists, not freedom fighters....

I fully support our troops in Afghanistan but I am starting to realize (hope I am wrong) that the people of Afghanistan do not want freedom.... I also think that many Afghani men are farmes by day and terrorists by night.... This is the bottom line issue for many Canadians: if the local population don't give a rat's ass about freedom, why should our soldiers continue to die in that goddam hole?

I take issue with the Afghan government who never miss an opportunity to condemn our soldiers and their allies if some locals happen to die during an operation targetting terrorist strongholds. After all, how many Frenchmen (and women) died during D Day? That is the (expletive delete) price of war...

Finally, I don't think you can fight a war with observers from Amnesty International behing your back criticizing every move you make.

If we are going to win that war, we need the full participation of our nato partners... something we are not getting. Are all these countries governed by NDP type politicians?

Posted by: andré | 2007-07-22 3:01:31 PM


Constant undermining of the Canadian Forces by Toronto, Ottawa and Vancouver Media has no effect on the troops who consider most Canadian "Journalists" as scum. There is about to be a media surge in response to discussions in Halifax NS by Senior Naval
Commanders about use of members of the Navy which is part of the Liberal integrated Canadian Forces to fill in for Infantry and related units who are facing reserve and recruitment shortages of personnel. Although Ottawa mandarins deny that Naval personnel are being considered, Many Army and Air Force Commanders consider the Navy to be on vacation.The Media and the Socialist Horde will go ballistic if DND and CDS start filling Afghan bound C-130's with our Fighting Navy. All three services RCN, RCAF and Canadian Army were heavily represented in Korea, and Quebec based units like the famed Royal 22nd Regiment were completly integrated into our 25th Commonwealth Brigade, whose exploits were reported from the real front lines by the great CBC Reporter Rene Levesque,who
the troops admired complete with his customery cigerette stuck in the corner of his mouth.There were no Layton's or misguided Liberals and Greens in those days. Macleod

Posted by: Jack MacLeod | 2007-07-22 3:03:19 PM


andre: who said the FLQ were terrorists? They were criminals and quite properly had to be captured and prosecuted. But they were not terrorists. That label was applied by the establishment in order to direct public opposition towards them. They were no more terrorists than the Black Panthers.

The WMA was implemented and Quebec invaded by federal troops for one reason: to reassure Ontario investors that their money was secure. In the end, the invasion failed when the FLQ suspects were allowed to flee the country. The real terrorists were Pierre Trudeau and his cabinet who authorized the suspension of human rights and the use of military force to defend corporate rule. Only Tommy Douglas had the guts to stand up against Pierre the Terrible. I wish more had done so.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2007-07-22 3:27:42 PM


Layton and others do want us to concentrate on peacekeeping and reconstruction. If any of them had done a day's military service they would realize that keeping the peace requires a peaceful situation to begin with. All elso requires peacemaking and that requires a force that is well trained and battle hardened. General Hillier is doing something to separate the military hierarchy from the mess created by former defense minister Paul Hellyer and that can only be to his credit.
Is the Navy taking a vacation? No prairie schooners available for the war in a land-locked country?

Posted by: DML | 2007-07-22 3:36:17 PM


DML says: "If any of them had done a day's military service they would realize that keeping the peace requires a peaceful situation to begin with."

Bingo DML!

And, if Canada is going to send soldiers into harms way, peacekeeping or otherwise, then send them loaded and dangerous. Give them the best equipment available and lots of it.

Posted by: Sounder | 2007-07-22 3:48:15 PM


It looks like Layton et al have been living in a cave. "Peacekeeping" changed in the 1990s in Yugoslavia when peace was, at best, sporadic. The Cdn Army, and others, sometimes had to fight - like at the Medak Pocket. While this comparison makes the Dippers and Liebrals look even more foolish than they really are, they have successfully delineated a difference between Afghanistan and other recent overseas operations. It just might work in returning them to power.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2007-07-22 3:58:49 PM


Zebulon Pike wrote: The WMA was implemented and Quebec invaded by federal troops for one reason: to reassure Ontario investors that their money was secure.

Sort of like when Johnson sent the 82 Airborne into Detroit in 1967.

[email protected]

Albert rules so much he is in Alabama.

Bwahahahahahaha

Posted by: St Albion Parish News | 2007-07-22 4:21:24 PM


Pike: "it just might work in returning them to power", is this a joke, (it's not funny), or a death wish for this country?

Posted by: LizJ | 2007-07-22 4:27:35 PM


I think ZP you mean Afghanistan will play a role in returning more progressive parties to power. That's the reason we are seeing these debates over "support the troop" decals. The conservatives are hiding their war agenda behind the troops instead of being honest.

Posted by: munroe | 2007-07-22 4:28:08 PM


Munroe,
"I think ZP you mean Afghanistan will play a role in returning more progressive parties to power. That's the reason we are seeing these debates over "support the troop" decals. The conservatives are hiding their war agenda behind the troops instead of being honest. "

Maybe. Or it could be that people have had it with lefty weasel nuances and are finally calling them to the carpet. Kind of like, put up or shut up.

We'll see who is right.

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2007-07-22 4:44:38 PM


SAPN: did Johnson suspend human rights to do it? Nope. Moreover, they were to restore order, not remind Quebecers who was in charge.

LizJ: I think it's a tragic premonition of things to come. The Ontario electorate has been known to swing and right now they're opposed to the deployment to Afghanistan. Quebec is even worse.

munroe: the left is using the guise of official impartiality to further their anti-military agenda. Calgary, to no one's surprise, resisted these moves, but it barely squeaked by in Toronto (again, to no one's surprise).

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2007-07-22 4:47:03 PM


SAPN: did Johnson suspend human rights to do it? Nope. Moreover, they were to restore order, not remind Quebecers who was in charge.

Johnson suspended habeas corpus, gave the army policing powers, ordered federalization of the Michigan National Guard by executive proclamation, ordered curfews, etc. Was he justified? In my opinion he was, as was Trudeau.

Posted by: St Albion Parish News | 2007-07-22 5:11:41 PM


The scale of the FLQ "Crisis" pales in comparison to the 1967 Detroit Riots. Quebec experienced only two kidnappings and one murder, while Detroit had 33 deaths, few of which could be attributed to the presence of federal or state troops or the police). A military assistance to the Michigan and Detroit authorities was justified, somewhat controversially, because of the scope of the riots - millions in damage to private property, thousands of arrests, hundreds of injuries, 43 dead. The same cannot be applied to Quebec, where a simple criminal investigation was all that was required. If the Montreal Police and the Surete needed help, the RCMP could have provided it. Deploying the military was excessive, counterproductive, and in the end completely ineffective in resolving the criminal matter. Of the hundreds detained under the WMA, only a handful were charged with a crime. Of course, the military served other purposes: to remind Quebecers who was in charge - the English.

The murder victim in Quebec, Pierre LaPorte, and the kidnap victim, James Cross, reveal that those most affected by the FLQ "Crisis" were the establishment. The privileged interests felt threatened by a popular rising by Quebecers against centuries of English oppression. Laporte, interestingly, was a childhood friend of Trudeau, giving him an added incentive to act quickly. Cross was the British trade delegate, expanding the crisis to an international incident. It was imperative for Trudeau to act decisively - so he suspended human rights, ordered federal troops to invade Quebec, and escalated the "crisis" far beyond what it should have been - a simple criminal investigation.

In the end, the Trudeau regime made its worst blunder in letting the FLQ 'terrorists' go free. When they returned from exile, they were given lenient sentences completely out of proportion to the kidnapping and murder charges. The whole affair was a catastrophe from beginning to end, and the real criminals - the Trudeau cabinet - escaped justice. They should have been charged with crimes against humanity and removed from office. If they had been, then the Trudeau regime would have been prevented from its other major violation of human rights - the National Energy Program.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2007-07-22 5:50:43 PM


The murder victim in Quebec, Pierre LaPorte, and the kidnap victim, James Cross, reveal that those most affected by the FLQ "Crisis" were the establishment.

You are beginning to sound like Noam Chomsky...

The FLQ were terrorists. I was there, I speak French, I read their communiqués where they told the workers to prepare themselves for the war of liberation where entire classes would have to be eliminated: namely the elite, priests, factory managers etc... (not union bosses howerer)

The FLQ were marxists, they were supported by Fidel Castro and that is why they flew to Cuba as soon as the shit hit the fan.

You add: The privileged interests felt threatened by a popular rising by Quebecers against centuries of English oppression. Laporte, interestingly, was a childhood friend of Trudeau, giving him an added incentive to act quickly. Cross was the British trade delegate, expanding the crisis to an international incident. It was imperative for Trudeau to act decisively - so he suspended human rights, ordered federal troops to invade Quebec, and escalated the "crisis" far beyond what it should have been - a simple criminal investigation.

Centuries of English oppression. Please elaborate sir. After the Conquest, French Canadians were given exactly the same rights as British citizens. French Canadians were emancipated from the restrictions imposed upon the Catholics in England almost 60 years before the English Catholics got the same rights and privileges.

Trudeau invoked the War Measures Act after the Quebec Government and the government of the city of Montreal asked the Federal Government to intervene: after two hundred bomb strikes. Enough was enough!

I was a member of the Canadian Forces during the October Crisis: We did not invade Québec: most of us were from Quebec for christ sake!

Posted by: andré | 2007-07-22 6:05:45 PM


Those 'bomb strikes' were directed at the establishment, particularly the one at the Montreal Stock Exchange. The federal and provincial governments had ample motive, therefore, to act aggressively against the culprits. However, instead of attacking the bombers, and trying to defuse their propaganda, the government went after innocent Quebecers whose sole crime may have been not being English.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2007-07-22 6:14:03 PM


andre, you are right, case closed. No point in debating foolishness.

Posted by: LizJ | 2007-07-22 6:29:35 PM


H2, we know who's right; we'll see who's correct.

Posted by: munroe | 2007-07-22 6:42:37 PM


OK LizJ, I will shut up just because you asked nicely.

But going back to the initial question (or at least it sounds like a question): Supporting the troops?

Yes, I support the troops, unconditionnally. However, as far as I am concerned, the question is evolving to this question: Are the people of Afghanistan supporting our troops?

The answer to this question will determine the issue of that conflict. The guys who plant these road bombs that claim our soldiers life, are they supported by the population?

If I am wrong about this, please enlighten me because I supported our effort in Afghanistan from day one but I really don't know anymore because I get the impression that the majority of population of Afghanistan supports the Talibans.

Posted by: andré | 2007-07-22 7:30:09 PM


Read some of the history of terrorist movements. A major tactic is to force government forces and in this case Americans, Canadians, etc. to attack civilians because they are sheltering the terrorists. The purpose is to force government to use draconian measures to such an extent that the civilians will view government as worse than the terrorists. The citizens also know that the allied forces will leave the area sooner or later and the Taliban will return and seek retribution. Without overwhelming force the allies are in a very poor situation.
A small point which I am sure you are aware of Andre. After the FLQ crisis (a few years) the government of Canada moved the Airborne Regiment to Petawawa near Ottawa. The Airborne were quite happy to be in Edmonton and contributed a lot to the city. At the time one of their officers told me that they had never been treated better including in their home towns in Quebec. My experience was confined to the Premier Commando. Could it be that the pols were protecting their own butts?

Posted by: DML | 2007-07-22 8:14:37 PM


DML ~

YOU HAVE TO ASK???

Posted by: obc | 2007-07-22 8:18:13 PM


Bravo ZP.
I'm very suprise to read on the Shotgun a version so "on target" about the October crisis. Quebecers know the move was to put the population under an electrochoc. Even if most people disagree with the methods used by the FLQ...you have to admit things did have gone much better for Québécois not long after those events...

*

"The FLQ were marxists, they were supported by Fidel Castro and that is why they flew to Cuba as soon as the shit hit the fan."

Just as P.E.T., idiot.
The Felquistes were fed up with our condition and took actions. Try to find me one other revolution where only one person died ? What a bunch of bloody murderers.
the police could have done the job easely. Today, more action happen in one night in Mtl and one Municipal police is usually enought.

The main point here was to protect our people and that's how Quebecers had always worked. In today's reality, Quebec is number 1 in millitary enrollement, we're about to put new rules regarding the "accomodements raisonnables" and we are more capitalists than we've ever been. If Quebecers wish to tell a long kwown friend like the U.S. that we're not ok with their move to Irak while the real and daily worst danger is Afstan...then, so be it. It's certainly not worst than the famous "either you're with us, or you're against us"...
I guess we're fine by telling them a thing half our country and half of their own agree on. If you think you hold something with that automatic Quebec bashing, first open your eyes: we're the ones taking the most innitiatives in regard of our futur and security.

What ? You people don't like our methods and behaviours ? Tx for your imputs but...we don't care. Same answer to Tarik Ramadan who's awaring Quebecers on National TV that our ways regarding tolerance could become very dangerous...
...Here's our answer to Tarik Ramadan: We let you the fisrt hit. And since some albertans or a New-B think they will tell us how to run our shit down here...here's the answer: Get lost! You don't "really" exist and represent nothing to the eyes of the World. Mtl is already a target so do something usefull: shut up and mind your own business.

Posted by: Marc | 2007-07-22 9:05:29 PM


About the decision to move the Airborne close to the Province of Quebec: Could it be that the pols were protecting their own butts? (DML)

YOU HAVE TO ASK??? (OBC)

Do you remember the Weathermen: The Weathermen were a terrorist group responsible for the deaths of police officiers and the wanton destruction of public property. Bernardine Dohrn, one of their leaders had nothing but praise for Charles Manson: “Dig it”, she said, “First they killed those pigs, then they ate dinner in the same room with them. Then even shoved a fork into the victim’s stomach. Wild!” Then Dohrn declared that the time had come to launch a war against “Amerikkka.

The American Government did what it had to do and today the Weathermen are no more. As for Bernardine Dohrn, she is a law professor at Northwestern University and a board member of the American Civil Libertu Union.

The FLQ were the Quebec or Canadian version of the Weathermen. In the middle of their terror campaign, in February 1966, the FLQ Newsletter (La Cognée) told supports to get ready for the coming revolution by studying carefully the infrastructure of their towns and villages, identify decision makers such as mayors, priests, policemen, CEO of local industries, leaders of political parties in order to be in a position to neutralize them on the day of the Revolution. A few years later, in March 1969, the police (damn the police right?) discovered a super-bomb (141 sticks of dynamite) buried under the Metropolitan Boulevard in Montreal. It was the ninth such bomb since the beginning of 1969. Sounds like Kandahar where our soldiers meet their deaths with similar bombs doesn’t?

So, the Canadian Government did what it had to do and the FLQ is no more. Today some former FLQ members are active members of the Parti Québécois.

If you support the War on Terror abroad today, why do you not support the War on Terror when it was right in your country?

I am starting to like Avi Lewis and Munroe....

Posted by: andré | 2007-07-22 9:12:51 PM


André, are U an active member of the PLC ?

Posted by: Marc | 2007-07-22 9:18:40 PM


I am a Harper supporter from day one. Born in the province of Québec as pure laine as you seem to be.

Posted by: andré | 2007-07-22 9:28:52 PM


"Born in the province of Québec as pure laine as you seem to be."


Then,
You will tell those readers that Quebecers had always worked to protect themselves. We are much more conservateurs in our own ways than you people seems to think. We took arms each time it was nessessary, regardless the size of the ennemy. We will not permit no foreign ideologies nor religions rule the place we love the way it is. We are the ones who fought all their history to protect our culture and today's reality is just another enemy, another page of history. Starting from that, we can exchange our vues with the U.S. regarding the present administration with all due respect. Some in the ROC don't like our little chit chat with our southern neighbour...? Do you really think we care ?

Posted by: Marc | 2007-07-22 9:45:29 PM


"I am starting to like Avi Lewis and Munroe...."

Get some sleep. This too shall pass.

Posted by: obc | 2007-07-22 10:40:29 PM


1 2 3 Next »

The comments to this entry are closed.