Wilber

According to the people involved they were never given the option of paying more.

In BC, they're written in Canadian. The signs will refer to an obviously mis-spelled "Harbour Bridge" (as it does in Sydney, Australia, which also uses Canadian), not "Harbor Bridge". English pronunciation is "har-boor", not "har-bow-er". Of course we use Canadian English as you use American English. If you look in the UK version of the Oxford dictionary you will find both "harbour" and "neighbour". We also use Americanized words such as "tire' instead of "tyre" as used in the UK.

I have traveled the highways in many of those states. The signs on the highways are generally in English. Not so in Canada. They are in BC. You will only see them in French and English at Federally controlled facilities such as airports.

The issue here is Afghanistan and its people, not Canadian politics, not Layton, not Harper and not the dogma of anyone on this forum. To look at it any other way is to cheapen the lives of those we have serving there. The object of the exercise is to leave Afghanistan with a functioning government that has some respect for human rights, including women and does not support international terrorism. If that can be done by including some elements of the Taliban then so be it. Personally I am skeptical but what do I know.

Are you saying the London bombings were also an inside job?

Saying they had not thought of planes crashing into buildings is a bit naive. Or else we would not have beacons on tall structures for planes to actually see and avoid them. So if the possibility of an accident is there, (the reason for the beacons) it can be assumed that someone would purposly fly into them. I'd hope the intelligence services paid to protect us would already have taken this into account. OK not EVERYTHING can be considered, but something major like airliners into buildings, does not seem much of a stretch in the imagination. Civil aircraft are monitored by civilians, and the military. the FAA has a direct link to the military/Pentagon officials and can ask for scrambled jets without much authorization. They do not need any kind of high end approval for these incidents. Since exercises were going on that day, regarding planes flying into buildings. you say it was not considered at all? (Also there were exercises going on in London during the transit bombings) The probability of exercises going on the same day as a terrorist attack (and it skyrockets even more once you take the London bombings into consideration) is way to high to consider a coincidence. The military do not routinely monitor all civil air traffic, only that operating near or through restricted areas or entering US airspace from outside. There is no reason for them to monitor domestic airline traffic that is already under civil control unless requested to do so by the civil authorities. True the FAA does not need any high level approval to request the military's assistance but the next time you get on a commercial airliner you better hope they need some kind of high level approval before they shoot one down.

It doesn't matter if there is a moderate Taliban or not if they are in a minority and can't reign in the extremists.

As head of government the Prime Minister is the only one who can apologize for the country, whether that Prime Minister was head of Government at the time or not. It is easy for the head of opposition to apologize because he and his party will not have to bare the consequences for that apology. Unfortunately law suits have muddied the waters and people in power have to be careful what they say, because we the taxpayers may have to pay for their words.

Graham is not the leader of the government which is being sued by Arar. It can't cost him or the tax payers anything. I think most people would say Arar deserves an apology but Harper is right to tread cautiously on this one.

O'Connor as well.

On the morning news Hillier was quoted as saying this situation will be addressed immediately. Stay tuned

For people disabled on active service, I don't think a 250K cap is acceptable.

Your right. We should just do what Bush does and call all our enemies "terrorists". That way, people will stay confused. For a while. Who's talking about labeling all our enemies terrorists? If you carry out terrorist acts you are still a terrorist no matter what you do on your good guy days off from being a terrorist. It's the people who try to separate the two and act like it is two different people with two different motives who are confused.

What does happen to them? Give you an idea.....back in 1967 my cousin was driving a petrol truck to CFB Bordon when he swerved to avoid a head on collision. He ended up in hospital with 3rd degree burns over 75% of his body. Two or three month into his hospital stay he was told he was being discharged from the hospital because he was being discharged from the army. My uncle, his dad was a warrent officer at the time...he hit the roof and raised serious shit.....but to no end. He was released, he collected a bugger all disability pension and underwent another few years of hospital care. His life was hell. Sounds rough but it was almost 40 years ago.

What does happen to them?

My dad wasn't an officer but he did get a degree at UBC after the war paid for by the government. A lot of vets took land. What is now some of the most expensive real estate in the northern Okanagan was called the VLA area of Westbank because of it. I can only think that your dads lack of a formal education worked against him. Too bad and unfair.

My dad is a WWII vet. There are a lot of benefits and expenses covered by DVA. More than I ever would have thought. A lot of them he never even asked for but got anyway. I would be more interested in what these people are receiving now and will in the future, not what they may have lost in the short term. What will be their position six years from now, not the next six months. There was no mention of that. I do think that by volunteering to go they have made a contract with us. If they are unable to complete that contract through no fault of their own, we should still keep our end. The benefits should be honoured whether they have four months or four days remaining in their tour.

Why should we distinguish between their terrorist acts and their so called "legitimate" warfare? They don't. The Taliban takes responsibility whether terrorist or "legitimate" therefore they deserve the title. They terrorized their own people when they formed its government and they are still doing it. A particular act may be acceptable in terms of warfare but it was still carried out by terrorists. When those children who were receiving candy from Canadian troops were killed by a suicide bomber, they were the target just as much as the troops. There was a definite message being sent to Afghanis that if you or your children associate with Canadians, we will kill you. That is a terrorist act by any definition. If a baker likes to work on cars during his time off, that doesn't make him an auto mechanic. Should Carl Roberts IV be thought and spoken of as a milk truck driver or the man who just shot 10 school girls in cold blood?

Does it really matter? Did the fact the actions of the SS and Gestapo were not typical of those of the average Wehrmacht soldier make the defeat of NAZI Germany any less necessary? You are trying to apply western niceties to somewhere they have no business. Just because people who carry out terrorist acts also engage in what might be considered legitimate warfare doesn't make them any less terrorists.

Unfortunately when they don't wear uniforms or fight as a regular army it is difficult if not impossible to tell the difference. If the Taliban claim responsibility for actions that are unquestionably "terrorist", they must accept the fact they will all wear that label unless those who are not do something convincing to distance themselves from those acts.

This I can understand but it is important to keep an open mind on why that may be happening, not just make assumptions based on our prejudices.

": the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimindation or coercion or instilling fear" "The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons." "• noun a person who uses violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims." "1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes." "Terrorism is the systematic use, or threatened use, of violence to intimidate a population or government and thereby effect political, religious or ideological change.[1][2] Acts of terrorism are not intended to merely victimize or eliminate those who are killed, injured or taken hostage but rather to intimidate and influence the societies to which they belong." Make up any definition of terrorist or terrorism you want but here are some I found. They fit the Taliban to a T unless you consider them freedom fighters.

It is used because it works with a large number of Canadians. As well as appealing to a latent anti American streak, it becomes a convenient excuse for not having to think things through and then act on those conclusions. The problem is that it is used to stop debate, not stimulate it. When it comes to looking after our own welfare it should not be a reason at all. Americans will do some things better than us and vice versa. Who does what shouldn't matter when it comes to doing what is best.

Stay safe Army Guy. Hope we hear from you soon.

Seriously, that makes no sense. Read your own stuff.