Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« Inhospitable Western Host Societies | Main | Canada condemns the Burmese gov't »

Friday, September 28, 2007

Another Anti-ribbon Campaign

A peace group in Fredericton doesn't like local businesses putting up "Support our Troops" signs. I'm glad the Mayor,  Brad Woodside, isn't giving in.

"My ribbon is up, it's going to stay up and the yellow ribbon on my lapel is going to stay on, too," Woodside said Thursday afternoon. "I support our men and women who have been tasked with representing our country and flag around the world."

Read it all here: The Daily Gleaner

Originally posted @ Ranting Owl

Posted by Leah Dowe on September 28, 2007 | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Another Anti-ribbon Campaign:


If only Calgary had a mayor like that.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2007-09-28 11:20:57 AM

The slogan invented by the left, "we support the troops, but not the mission" is and was an assault on the sensibilities of any clear thinking person.

It was simply designed to deflect criticism and try and avoid the label of being traitors and of providing aid and comfort to an enemy which they so obviously are.

I'm not buying it, never have and never will. These people, as well as being traitors, are simply despicable.

Posted by: deepblue | 2007-09-28 11:21:22 AM

ZP, Agreed.

Posted by: deepblue | 2007-09-28 11:22:36 AM

deepblue: if memory serves, the Dippers and Liebrals supported the mission to Afghanistan while they were in power, particularly 2001-2002. Since losing power, they've turned against it. I can't imagine why.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2007-09-28 11:42:24 AM

Fredericton Peace Coalition eh?
Just another name for a Communist-funded group
comprised of aged hippies and assorted ne'er-do-wells. Why anyone gives them the time of day is beyond my comprehension.

Posted by: atric | 2007-09-28 11:55:44 AM

Right on atric. I doubt there is a single group parading under the banner of "peace" that is not a communist creation. Stalin referred to the ones sucked in as useful idiots and time has changed nothing here.

Posted by: Alain | 2007-09-28 12:06:07 PM

ZP, given that you're not so bright, I'm not surprised that you don't understand why people oppose the mission. In 2001-2002, it was a just mission in support of NATO due to the attack on September 11, 2001 of one of its members. The mission was to remove the Taliban for its support of Al Qaeda and the hosting of terrorist training camps. It became evident, over time, that other NATO countries were not pulling their weight and that the mission is far more complicated than "regime change". As with Iraq for the USA, this war is unwinnable and is resulting in a wasteless loss of life by our Canadian troops (mostly from the Taliban and insurgents, but starting with the 2002 deaths of four soldiers by the cowboy American pilot). We (meaning NATO) cannot win there - you know it and I know it. So why sacrifice more lives?? Because it gives you a massive hard-on, just thinking about "beating" the "Islamofascists". They're like cockroaches - we can bomb them to kingdom come and they'll just reload from the hundreds of millions of militants at their disposal, making their way into Afghanistan (or Iraq) through various channels.

Frankly, the loss of EACH Canadian life makes this more and more apparent. But big-talking shitheads like you, who won't go within 8000 miles of Kandihar, foam at the mouth at the thought of "victory". Pathetic.

Posted by: Paul Gallagher | 2007-09-28 12:19:19 PM

And furthermore, don't tell me we're there "help women". Otherwise, we should also invade India and China, which have the highest rates of female infanticide; we should also invade The Phillipines, Brazil and any other staunch Catholic country that deprives women of reproductive freedom (as in birth control, NOT abortion).

Posted by: Paul Gallagher | 2007-09-28 12:23:09 PM


I'd rather we lose soldiers fighting for us over in Afghanistan (God Bless them!) than have more attacks here in a few years time of innocent civilians. So go blow it out your pie hole you leftist retard! (My apologies to any mentally challenged reading this, except for PG)

Posted by: Markalta | 2007-09-28 12:24:31 PM

Gilligan, shut up.

Real adults are talking.

Your an embarrassment to your species.

Posted by: deepblue | 2007-09-28 12:27:43 PM

Check out this link for an interesting take on Afghanistan PG from its leader...surrender monkey!


Posted by: Markalta | 2007-09-28 12:31:09 PM

Since you likely do not know how to read newspapers, let me inform you of the demonstations going on in Afghanistan, chanting "Death to Canada" because of the mistaken belief (according to our folks) that we killed some respected elders by mistake. These are people who likely never had heard of Canada before, never mind attack us HERE (shit, you're stupid).

Even PM Steve Harper has been emphasizing this week that Canada's foreign policy has never been about ruling over people (ahem, United States). You don't get it, you American wannabe idiot retard: the world likes us; the world hates the USA. Just because the USA has convinced you (and the UK government, who got a nice July 7 attack for their troubles) that we are "equally hated", doesn't make it so. Even after 6 years in Afghanistan, WE STILL WON'T BE ATTACKED!!!! Everyone's too busy plotting attacks on the US - and not even on US soil!! Not when Bush sends fresh meat to Iraq evry month.

Posted by: Paul Gallagher | 2007-09-28 12:31:36 PM

Leftoids have a serious form of mental illness. If they would be quiet, I might have some sympathy for them, but since they insist one being loud & shrill, I can't be bothered. I'll save my sympathy for the victims of socialism & Islamofascism.

Posted by: obc | 2007-09-28 12:31:51 PM

deepthroat, why don't you take your dick out of your hands and sign up for the Forces. You'll likely stop foaming at the mouth after the first roadside bomb goes off near your skinny ass.

The right wing fascists here are real big-talkers, knowing that other folks are giving their lives for them.

Posted by: Paul Gallagher | 2007-09-28 12:34:45 PM

Thank you deepblue and Markalta for putting that troll in his place. I'm sick and tired of people attacking our mission in Afghanistan and our soldiers. A lot of people I knew from the time I was in the CF Reserves are heading over to Afghanistan or considering going. The men and women I served with are some the best people you could ever meet. I am so angry when people, who don't even know what they are taking about, slag on the job our men and women are doing over there.

Posted by: Leah Dowe | 2007-09-28 12:37:48 PM

Paul Gallagher seems to have a wee bit of amnesia regarding the terrorist plot right here in Canada not so long ago. FWIW, your ad hominem attacks and profanity do not lend any additional weight to your arguments, which seem to boil down to:

(1) The war is lost!
(2) If we surrendered to them, the terrorists would just go away!
(3) Chickenhawks! Chickenhawks!
(4) It's all Bush's fault!!!

I could dismantle them piece by peace as being demonstrably untrue, but I don't think anything anyone can say will change your mind. So I have to wonder why you are here? Apparently you just like to curse and fling turds around. Nice.

Posted by: Jonathan Westphal | 2007-09-28 12:38:07 PM

obc, I'll give credit to deepthroat and markasshole for at least responding to my posts (albeit with fascist propaganda and rhetoric). Seriously, have you EVER actually RESPONDED to one of my posts. I don't think you're actually capable of constructing a cogent thought - you have some sort of computer chip in your brain that provides "leftoid" quotes to your typing fingers. And, no, we don't count your cut-and-paste jobs as "thought".

Posted by: Paul Gallagher | 2007-09-28 12:38:41 PM

Leah Dowe does the usual "2+2=48" interpretation of a post that defies her intelligence. I didn't even mention troops, other than the senseless loss of their lives. Of course, it's not senseless if you can attach your fairytale right-wing rhetoric to it.

.... as in what Little Jonathan says. So, Johnny, when are you heading over to Kandihar?? Not too soon?? Didn't think so. It must be comfortable sitting here in Canada worrying about imaginary enemies.

So, Johnny, how many homegrown Islamic terror cells did we have prior to hitching our foreign policy to that of the United States?? I think I heard you say, ZERO!!!!

Posted by: Paul Gallagher | 2007-09-28 12:44:19 PM

Paul, the logical corollary to the "Chickenhawk" argument is that only those who are currently serving in the military can have any voice in whether the military should be deployed or not. Given that the troops overwhelmingly support finishing the mission they were sent to accomplish, this would mean we stay. Or am I missing something. The whole chickenhawk meme makes no sense anyway. Last time I checked, we lived in a society with civilian control over the military. Are you suggesting we turn to a military dictatorship instead? Have you even MET anybody in the military who has been in Afghanistan, Paul? FWIW I paid my way through college by serving in the Canadian Armed Forces and am proud of having served. Doubt they'd take me back at the age of 42 with a wonky knee though. Have you served Paul? If not, then by your own arguments you have no voice in the decision of whether we stay or go. And honestly, can you not disagree with someone without attacking them personally? It is really hard to take someone seriously when all they do is fling profanity laced insults at anyone who disagrees with them. Kisses and hugs.

Posted by: Jonathan Westphal | 2007-09-28 12:57:31 PM

Leah Dowe said it all. A foul-mouthed know-it-all like Gilligan with a college degree in condescension & arrogance will NEVER convince anyone that his arguments have any value.

Posted by: obc | 2007-09-28 1:01:12 PM

And btw "So, Johnny, how many homegrown Islamic terror cells did we have prior to hitching our foreign policy to that of the United States?? I think I heard you say, ZERO!!!!"

So you are arguing that if we surrendered to the terrorists they would go away, is that it? They will not. They are not attacking us because of our foreign policy, they are attacking us because we are infidels and they hate us. They say so every day. Why do you not take them at their word? Spain's withdrawal from Iraq did not stop them from being targeted by Al Qaeda you may recall. The whole Western world is on their shitlist. If one supposed 'grievance' goes away, they quickly find another. There is only one root cause: they want Jihad against the West until they have established the New Caliphate. Have you actually read anything Osame bin Laden has written? If you can stop yelling for a moment, make your arguments and I will be happy to debate with you. Only somehow I get the feeling you are not here to debate...

Posted by: Jonathan Westphal | 2007-09-28 1:04:50 PM

It is amazing to me that anyone really cares what a bunch of protestors (screaming death to Canada) say. No doubt they are Taliban sympathizers anyway. Just because someone protests, does not mean that we give up and walk away, though the anarchists and PG's of the left would like that.

The squeaky wheel should not always get the grease.

Posted by: Markalta | 2007-09-28 1:08:47 PM

Of course not, JW. He is a troll that thinks his posts are fulfilling his duty as a socialist member of the Internationale brotherhood. Now, he can attend that beer & weed party with his friends tonight & brag about his "success" in fighting for the cause - to the bogus accolades of similar dysfunctional folks of his ilk.

Posted by: obc | 2007-09-28 1:09:22 PM

obc, still awaiting that FIRST EVER retort, if you're capable.

Jonathan, good post. I can't disagree with you. My opinion is no more valid than any other. I take comfort, however, that it is MY opinion and not one fermented by post 9-11 US right-wing paranoia. That's actually the rub: the right-wing in Canada never talked like this before 9-11 (not even the Reformers in Alberta, who were absolute pussycats compared to the Republican-wannabe, salivating "I'm scared of Islamofascists" masses here). But pray tell, what exactly is the mission over there?? What are we REALISTICALLY trying to accomplish.

And speaking of profanity, the opinions expressed by the paranoid masses here (all flavoured by equal does of racism and xenophobia) are TRULY PROFANE.

Posted by: Paul Gallagher | 2007-09-28 1:11:14 PM

Markalta ~

"It is amazing to me that anyone really cares what a bunch of protestors (screaming death to Canada) say"

Gilligan is undoubtedly someone who marches in protest with his pals, thinking someone cares. Ergo, he thinks we should care about Taliban protesters. Leftoid logic, of course.

Posted by: obc | 2007-09-28 1:11:43 PM

Jonathan, perhaps I was too quick in giving you credit. You, too, appear to be brainwashed by the apparent future of "forced conversion to Islam". Bin Laden, like Bush, talks a lof bullshit in order to gain support. If he didn't use rhetoric like "infidels", his supporters would likely have a hard time accepting that he orchestrated an attack that killed 3000 people, which in turn resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of THEIR people. Just as Bush has to say it's about freedom, etc when his citizens wonder why he has made life even more dangerous for them (with his foreign policy). This fight between the United States and Islam is as such: the US needs to control the region because of its two primary interests: Israel and oil. It needs an excuse to do this. Islam wants to fight back and not be imperialized. However, it will suffer many, many casualties for daring to challenge US authority. So, it gets its folks foaming at the mouth by instituting radical Islamic verbiage. Just as Bush et all gets you lot foaming by using radical "ooh, terorrist" propaganda.

Posted by: Paul Gallagher | 2007-09-28 1:20:30 PM

Right - and Hitler didn't mean what he wrote in Mein Kampf. It was just a way to attract more followers.

Gilligan - the more you speak, the more you reveal yourself as a ninny.

Posted by: obc | 2007-09-28 1:27:23 PM

HILLARY - the shrewish liar:

When asked what she would do as president, Hillary Clinton carefully hedges. She says that it would depend on the situation on the ground at the time. For example, whether our alliance with the Sunni tribes will have succeeded in defeating al-Qaeda in Iraq. But when asked by ABC News if she would bring U.S. troops home by January 2013, she refused to "get into hypotheticals and make pledges."

WHAT??? I thought there was NO Al Qaida in Iraq!!

And I thought the DemoRats wanted the troops out right away!!!

She can't pledge that she would remove them by 2013???

WHAT GIVES??? The moonbats must be going crazy!
Ooops! I meant "crazier".

Posted by: obc | 2007-09-28 1:49:17 PM

This war is part of the clash of civilizations that has been ongoing since the formation of Islam in the 600's. And it has been Islam that has always been the agressor. Islamist forces during the 600's and 700's raided or held most of Italy, the Alps and much of Greece during this time. Of course they captured all of Spain and a third of France stopped only by Charles Martel outside Paris at the famous Battle of Tours.

Islam was set back temporarily and we can credit Genghis Khan for that as he attacked their eastern flank, but as soon as that was settled, the Turks continued to raid and capture land including all of Turkey, Greece and the Balkans and were finally stopped at Vienna in the 1600's. Islamist forces were the aggressors throughout this whole period. People say that the Crusades were an attack on Islam. This is not true. They were instigated by Pope Urban II as part of a two pronged pincer movement in support of the efforts of Christian forces that were desperately trying to turn back the Islamist tide in Spain. It still took another 200 years of fighting before Islamists were cleared out of Spain after the crusades.

Precious Greek philosophies of Thought, Reason, Democracy and Philosophy were barely salvaged by a few vital individuals from Constantinople prior to its fall to Islamist forces in 1453. Had Constantinople not held out for this long, the west would have lost the key Greek inspiration to the Rennaisance, democracy, reason and the development of the modern age.

Islam is the traditional enemy of the west and they view the west in the very historical context that I have just described.

There are those that say we should pull out of Afghanistan. These cowards have no affiliation or appreciation to the core values and accomplishments of the west that form the basis of our society that millions have fought and died to protect over the last 1400 years. They do not understand that capitulation to Islamists in Afghanistan will result in these forces being redeployed into Pakistan and the result in the fall of admitted dictator but at least one who can maintain stability, is loyal to the west, but most importantly of all, controls a nuclear weapons arsenal. These people have no idea of the tinderbox that India deals with with its violent Islamist population in the northwest. They cannot understand the probability that an Islamist Pakistan will share nuclear technology with the nutbars in Iran. They cannot understand that our oil supply chains in the Middle East are absoultuely critical if we are to maintain a stable economy and have the energy, petrochemicals and fertilizers to keep ourselves fed, our populations prosperous which are vital to a broader peace. The naivists say, "this war is just about oil". Well for Christ's sake, if you understood the impact on global stability of a major stoppage in the global oil supply chain, you better do everything possible to ensure oil supplies are uninterrupted and that includes preventing terrorist sabotage or takeover by unfriendly regimes.

The naivists have their head in the sand and cannot think about the big global picture nor the historical context that frames this conflict.


PS: I tried to enlist in the British Armed Forces but could not due to an eye injury!

Posted by: Epsilon | 2007-09-28 2:04:34 PM

Paul Gallagher says the war in Afghanistan (and Iraq) is "unwinnable". Wow, he sure is smart! Nothing makes a leftie pinhead smarter than being thousands of miles away from the action and yet having the clairvoyance to be able to make such pronouncements. Although I hate to have to break it to you Paul, but Rosie O'Donnell really isn't an expert either.

Can you tell us all, Paul, about your various degrees in military strategic studies on which you have based your "thoughtful" comments? We wait with bated breath.

Posted by: John Luft | 2007-09-28 2:14:00 PM

But. . . but. . . all the Leftoid web sites agree with Gilligan!

Posted by: obc | 2007-09-28 2:15:20 PM

Anyone still doubting that liberalism (no relation to classical liberalism) is a mental disorder only needs to read PG's posts!

Posted by: Alain | 2007-09-28 2:21:18 PM

Alain ~

AGREED! He makes it so easy to ignore his lunacy.

Posted by: obc | 2007-09-28 2:23:09 PM

Betcha that PG is a 9/11 Truther.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2007-09-28 2:38:41 PM

They say they support the troops, but not in war.

So, why do they think we have troops? To help them when the weather turns ugly and save their sorry a$$3$ when they fail to protect themselves from natural issues?

What these imbeciles fail to understand, is why we are there. They take the very freedom that we relish in daily, and spit on it! They have no idea what it means to truly be oppressed. Sure, I would like the troops to come home, and sure, I do not want them home in body-bags--but our brave soldiers, men and women, have volunteered to defend the human rights of others, in Afghanistan, and where ever they are sent--at a moments notice--and I, for one, appreciate all they do and hope they continue to do what they are doing.

And when they are done, and the job is complete, we will all have somthing to be very very proud about--that we helped establish human rights and a descent system--away from tyrants--for a people who have sufferred far too long under submission.

And we will remember those who lost their lives, in order to see the mission through. The freaks who oppossed the mission--on the other hand--will disapear into oblivion--never to have their names known EVER!

Posted by: Lady | 2007-09-28 2:39:43 PM

Remember that King's Liberals and the CCF weren't to keen on fighting the Nazis either. Same goes for St. Laurent in Korea. Yet, strangely, the same attitude did not apply to Pierre the Terrible when he declared war on the innocent people of Quebec. Mulroney should not have sent the army to Oka, so it's not just a Liebral/Dipper thing.

Imagine what the Greens would do - invade Alberta in order to destroy our economy in the guise of 'saving the planet' - while they ignore/excuse Ontario.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2007-09-28 2:45:57 PM

I wonder if this Paul Gallagher is the same clown who is connected with that unbelievably bizarre outfit called "Canadian Mind Products". If so, it puts his idiotic comments into some context.

Zebulon Pike says "Betcha that PG is a 9/11 Truther"....if it's the same Paul Gallagher I mentioned above, he is that but he is even further out on the looney branch.

Posted by: John Luft | 2007-09-28 2:54:49 PM

Dying peacefully for anti-Western ideology is what left leaning Canadians prefer people in other countries to do - although those people would likely prefer to live in freedom, liberals in Western countries don't want them to have that option.

Liberals find it easier to deal with a single 'strongman' that 'takes care' of his subjects than deal with another democracy, it's easier and viscious dictators like Castro will occasionally give some media friendly praise to pathetic Western leaders like Turdeau.

Posted by: philanthropist | 2007-09-28 3:15:50 PM

Hey Paul Gallagher,

Your a loser. Your the guy who owns the comic book store in the Simpsons, the guys who loves to hear himself speak. Myself...I've been on the ground in Kandahar Afghanistan recently and you know shit of what your talking about.

Posted by: No One | 2007-09-28 4:16:10 PM

No One,

Many of us here spend a lot of time researching and putting together comprehensive arguments to educate and convince those that diagree with us. It would be nice if you could restate your post in a way that informs rather than insults. I would really like to know more about what you saw in Afghanistan, for example.


Posted by: Epsilon | 2007-09-28 4:23:07 PM

Epsi: Be careful there, maybe "No One" is a member of our Forces who served in Afghanistan, if so, I'll go with his/her take ahead of someone visiting this site to argue a point for arguments sake.

Posted by: Liz J | 2007-09-28 4:46:30 PM

"And when they are done, and the job is complete, we will all have somthing to be very very proud about..."

Like Poland after WWII.

"The freaks who oppossed the mission--on the other hand--will disapear into oblivion--never to have their names known EVER!"

Like Pierre Trudeau, who is better known than any Canuck who ever sacrificed a life for King/Queen and country.

Islam is a threat because Islam is here. End immigration. Re-patriate Islam. Give them the freedom to chose their own destiny.

Posted by: DJ | 2007-09-28 4:46:42 PM

Liz & No One,

Well, let me be the first to give No One a great big hug and buy him lunch but also tell him to do a better job at communicating his wonderful act of service. We can all benefit from this and he has no need to discredit himself otherwise.


PS: God Bless You No One!

Posted by: Epsilon | 2007-09-28 4:53:59 PM

Epsilon ~

I give No One a pass on this. Anyone who puts his life on the line for us is entitled to lose his temper with the Gilligans of this world on occasion.

Posted by: obc | 2007-09-28 5:26:32 PM

"Star Wars" will never work, said the Leftoids. The money should be spent on social programmes, they said. WRONG AGAIN, Leftoids:

"U.S. missile defense test successful"

VANDENBERG AIR FORCE BASE, Calif. - A ground-based missile successfully intercepted a target missile Friday in a test of the nation's defense system, the Missile Defense Agency said.

An intercontinental ballistic missile interceptor blasted out of an underground silo at Vandenberg Air Force Base shortly after 1:15 p.m., and tracked a target missile that had lifted off from the Kodiak Launch Complex in Alaska, the Boeing Co. said in a statement.

The Missile Defense Agency said initial results show the interceptor's rocket motor system and kill vehicle performed as planned. Boeing said the warhead was tracked, intercepted and destroyed.

Posted by: obc | 2007-09-28 6:04:56 PM

"Star Wars" will never work, said the Leftoids. The money should be spent on social programmes, they said. WRONG AGAIN, Leftoids:

If by "Star Wars" you are referring to the SDI program proposed by Reagan, it didn't work nor was is it ever likely to. What Reagan proposed was essentially an expansion of The Sentinel / Safeguard Program from the mid 1960's. They didn't work either.

Posted by: lotus 25 | 2007-09-28 6:29:51 PM

Everything is working. Some tests failed the first and third times around. Even Edison didn't invent the light bulb on his first try. All these missile tests began with Ronald Reagan's prescient decision to defend the homeland from America's enemies.

What do you think? That Bill Clinton gave priority to American defence systems? Heck, he sold China satellite technology that they didn't have for a paltry few million in illegal campaign money - as Shrillery got caught doing this month with Mr. Hsue in California.

Posted by: obc | 2007-09-28 6:36:18 PM

. . . and Shrillery's defence to this accusation of campaign irregularities is:

"I did not have financial relations with that man, Mr. Hsue!"

Posted by: obc | 2007-09-28 6:38:50 PM

epsi- a great post, historically accurate and on the mark. I might add that I have seen very few wars that were not motivated by economics. I can't remember the source but it claimed that there are only three ways to gain wealth: create it, loot it or beg it. Right now we are seeing a contest between creators and looters and it isn't pretty.

Posted by: DML | 2007-09-28 7:02:30 PM

All these missile tests began with Ronald Reagan's prescient decision to defend the homeland from America's enemies.

As I mentioned SDI was essentially based on Sentinel / Safeguard which dated from the 1960's which was LBJ.

How successful is the system against a cruise missile?

Posted by: lotus 25 | 2007-09-28 7:06:09 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.