Peter F
-
Posts
2,732 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Peter F
-
-
Won or lost is not the issue, it's about pride in what your fellow countrymen past and present have been prepared to do for their country. No big loss to you? Perhaps it would be, but for them.
and they have a lot to be proud of. But still no big whup since I have risked nothing nor sacrificed anything on the scale that they have. Should I ride thier coat-tails and claim thier courage and dedication for myself?
-
The 22nd is a regiment. A regiment can contain several battalions. During wartime it is quite usual for a regiment to raise extra battalions. Even if the 22nd was a four battalion regiment during world WW1 and all of them went overseas, that could mean every member of those four battalions who originally went to France would have become a casualty. Nothing to sneeze at.
This all stems from what WestViking was saying in post #35 and was asked simply to provide proof to back up his assertions relating to Quebec's involvement with two battalions and resulting casualties.
So maybe now you can provide proof to the actual number of casualties (dead and wounded) the 22nd suffered compared to everyone else who fought in that war?
What it says (the link) is that 5,919 served in the Regiment during WWI. Of wich 1,074 were killed in combat or died of wounds recieved and 2,887 were wounded for a total killed and wounded of 3,961. That is a casualty rate of 67%.
-
Russia does have reason to be proud of battles fought and won..they are very proud. France...not so much!
But the French feel pride nontheless. So military victories are neither here nor there.
-
This thread is ... about Canada's lack of pride in their positive roles in both places. Further, most Americans know something about the Battle of Valley Forge or the Battle of Gettysburg (sp). Not many Canadians seem to know about the Plains of Abraham. The thread was about knowledge and pride, not the details of the particular battles (though military history does interest me).
I don't understand the relationship of won/lost battles to 'Pride'. Probably never will. No big loss to me. If won battles = national pride then Communist Russia has very much to be proud of, and Quebecers nothing to be proud of. What is it about Vimy Ridge or the Plains of Abraham that Canadians should feel national pride about? Why do Americans feel pride about Valley Forge? or do they?
-
There is a naval base in San Diego. If you look at it from the air you see the buildings shaped exactly like a swastika. I'll be getting the co ordinates today for Google map.
...and why would they lay out buildings to be exactly like swastikas?
-
Scott SA:
... We're there to deny al Queda the national base it had.That's done. As a correlary, we're there to overthrow the tyranny of the Taliban, disrupt to the point of irrelevancy its future appeal, and in aid of all this build infrastructure that allows social reform a fighting chance.
Thats the usual justification that a democracy must employ to appease the home-front. It's tripe.
The actual reason we are there is because we are a member of the NATO alliance, and our government intends to remain a member of the NATO alliance. As such this is an instance of meeting the requirement of toeing the line, even if no national interest is at stake.
If we were'nt in NATO would we have committed 2000odd troops to a combat role in Afghanistan? I doubt it.
-
Getting back to the topic, how can a country that allows traitors 58 ridings in Parliament with impunity be said to be proud of itself? Americans, and inquiring minds, wonder.
We settled that between 1861 and 1865.
As Rene Levesque said, Canadians are a civilized people.
That may be so but I don't think our continuing national unity soap opera is anything to be proud of.
No. Nor is it something to be ashamed of. Its the normal run of politics in a free democracy
-
Getting back to the topic, how can a country that allows traitors 58 ridings in Parliament with impunity be said to be proud of itself? Americans, and inquiring minds, wonder.
We settled that between 1861 and 1865.
As Rene Levesque said, Canadians are a civilized people.
-
You are contradicting yourself - you cannot 'negotiate a new deal' if you are 'obliged to honour' the existing deal. The natives would have no incentive to negotiate. The only way to negotiate a new deal is to refuse to honour the old one and use whatever economic power you have to force the other party to the table.
How about we use whatever economic power we have and force them to accept that thier treatys are nothing ? We could do that. We could also take the ScottSA approach and honour the terms of agreements by adhereing precisely to the clauses. $2.00 per man woman and child per year and a communal plow and one scyth per five families. There are many things we could do. There are many things the natives could do.
True, there is no requirement for Canada to honour any agreement it has ever entered into with anybody.
We don't have to abide by the terms of NATO, or NAFTA, or GTA, or ITU, or anything. Canada can do whatever the government of the day figures is best.
But I would hope that Canada, as a civilized nation, would honour the terms of the agreements to the best of its ability. If its impossible for Canada to honour our obligations, then the government should admit such and offer to open our agreements to re-negotiation or enact those agreements escape clauses. Unfortunately, there are no escape clauses in the First Nations treatys. As long as the FNs continue to abide by the terms of the treatys - and so far they are - then it is our job to adhere to the treaty's also. Even if it is very
expensive. Probably hugely expensive considering the Haldimand claim.
If the treaty's are, as many have suggested on this thread, mere scraps of paper - well, then I guess in the final analysis we each get to decide what to do about it.
-
How much more? Would be willing to pay a 15% GST? How about a 25% GST? Would you sign the title of any property that you own to the local indian band and start pay whatever 'rents' they decide to levy?I'm with Posit on this. Fulfill the obligations. Its our duty - even if it does mean more taxes.It is rediculous to make such an open ended commitment when you don't understand what the potential costs are. That is why I take the position that a negotiated settlement that respects the treaties is a good objective to work towards. Unfortunately, if the price is too high then we will have to throw them in the trash.
If the local indian band has the rights to my property, then how could I have ever acquired title to it? By being defrauded by somebody. thats how. Sorta like buying stolen goods. I may not know the goods are stolen - but that doesn't mean the goods belong to me, and the law has determined that they can be taken from me, without compensation and returned to thier rightfull owner. It sucks - but thats the way it works.
Buyer Beware comes to mind.
As for how much I'm willing to pay - I don't know at what point I would say enough is enough. Obviously its a lot further down the line than most others on this thread. But when things start approaching that point I won't be advocating throwing the treatys in the trash. I, as with you, take the position that if things suck that much then lets negotiate a new deal. Of course the Natives will milk that for everything they possibly can. But then, thats bargaining.
From The Treaties of Canada with the Indians by Alexander Morris, 1880
Chapter V, Treaty number three or the North-West Angle Treaty
...The chief speaker, Mawe-do-pe-nais, thus winding up the conference on the part of the Indians, in his final address to the Lieutenant-Governor and his fellow Commisioners:
''Now you see me stand before you all; what has been done here to-day has been done openly before the Great Spirit and before the nation, and I hope I may never hear any one say that this treaty has been done secretly: and now in closing this council, I take off my glove, and in giving you my hand I deliver over my birthright and lands: and in taking your hand I hold fast all the promises you have made, and I hope they will last as long as the sun rises and the water flows, as you have said.''
The conference then adjourned, and on re-assembling, after the treaty had been read and explained, the Commissioners signed it and the Leiutenant-Governor called on and aged hereditary Chief, Kee-ta-kay-pi-nais, to sign next. The Chief came forward, but declined to touch the pen, saying ''I must first have the money in my hand.'' The Lieutenant-Governor immediately held out his hand, and directed the interpreter to say to the chief, ''Take my hand and feel the money in it. If you cannot trust me for half and hour, do not trust me forever.'' When this was repeated by the interpreter, the Chief smiled, took the outstretched hand, and at once touched the pen...
-
The Crown signed those agreements with the natives in good faith. The Crown actually meant the terms to be fulfilled. When Canada gained its own constitution we agreed , again in good faith, to actually take on the responsibility of fulfilling the obligations of the Crowns treaty's. That was the deal.
I'm with Posit on this. Fulfill the obligations. Its our duty - even if it does mean more taxes.
-
The insurance company agrees that I have in fact stolen $500k.
So the insurance company fulfills the terms of thier agreement and pay the municipality $500k.
I am forced to resign but keep my $500k
Is that how you say it is working?
You got the scam right but you have under estimated the amount that tends to be taken. $500K over five years would not easily be found out. It takes millions before anyone notices.
The Insurance Company will not necessarily agree that anyone specifically took the money. They will never the less agree to pay the amount that's gone missing under your care, if they want to as a supplier of insurance products to municipal organizations.
You will be asked to resign which you will do on terms that involve you getting another $500,000 in severance pay-out. You will also get a 30 day vacation to enjoy some of your gains, before you start yous new government job in some other municipality or level of government.
This is the rule rather than the exception. These scams are pervasive throughout the system. Pretty much every resignation is associated with million dollar level intentional mismanagement like this.
So nobody notices until I pocket Millions of dollars. Then I resign and my employer gives me another half million or so. Then the insurance company repays the millions I absconded with.
Nobody is aware of this happening because they don't advertise it (except you, of course).
Even the Insurance companies are happy to fork out the 10s of Millions because the governments of various levels pay them 20's of millions as premiums.
And this is better than arresting me how? And what insurance company in the world would gladly fork out millions in claims each year (because as you say, it happens all the time.) without a peep to the police?
Sounds like impossible bunk to me. People steal millions of taxpayers money. We don't know about it because insurance pays the millions back, then collect millions in premiums from the tax payer. Forensic accountants never come across the scam because the books are cooked.
The proof? Nobody knows about it - so it must be happening. Typical conspiracy theory.
I'm off. Thanks for the entertainment.
-
Why is it that the British and Americans have no difficulty identifying D Day and their part in it as glorious victory? Weren't Utah, Omaha, Gold and Sword just other beaches as well. Many of Britain's greatest victories such as Waterloo were accomplished with a very large allied component. I suspect that the Dutch, Belgians and Germans all take pride in their part of that victory.
It seems that many feel it is somehow un Canadian to take pride in the martial sacrifices and accomplishments of our ancestors. Perhaps it is because we don't believe it is in us to replicate them.
The British and Americans have no difficulty in identifying DDay as a glorious victory and neither do Canadians. Do a poll of Americans and see how many know what Utah beach is, or the British for Gold and Sword. The results I'm willing to bet will be the same as Canadians recognizing Juno. Omaha would propably gain significantly more correct results with Americans...but not Utah. For the simple reason that it fits the bill of the Great Victory. It was a near-run thing. They were staring defeat in the face. The enemy was holding all the cards. Things were looking grim. They overcame the defenders not with overwhelming firepower but 'courage' and 'determination' and great loss. It even gave rise to a famous line 'The only ones who are going to remain on this beach are the dead and those who are going to die'.
Omaha Beach may very well be another glorious victory for the Americans to feel patriotic heart-thumping about....but no other beach will.
Waterloo. True, British victory accomplished with a very large allied component. But did the British milk the participation of the 30odd thousand Dutch, Belgian, Nassau and Hannovarian troops also engaged? No, of course not. We are talking about the British, after all, and at the British Defining Moment - the Napoleonic Wars. There is no room for others in such circumstances. Here were the British (not Scots, not Irish, not Welsh, not even English) with a rag-tag army facing conquering French armies under one of the greatest Generals in all of history - Napoleon himself. The German allies are far away, the French are about to sweep the rabble off the field after the victory at Quatre Bras. The stakes are high, and all that stands in the Arrogant Frenchmans way to Brussels and European conquest is this tiny army of shop-keepers.
...and its the proverbial Near-run thing. Under overwhelming French firepower the British hold thier ground through 'courage' and 'determination'. But the British overcome the insurmountable odds and defeat Napoleon. The Germans only showed up later and the Dutch-Belgians-Hanovarians-Nassau troops were never really involved in the really serious fighting....etc etc.
Waterloo has all the makings of the Great Moment. The Dutch and Belgians never cottoned on to Waterloo as a great victory for them, even though as a result of the battle thier nations regained independance (Holland) or were created from it (Belgium). They don't have waterloo as a Great Moment because they were they were part and parcel of the Allied(British) army. Waterloo was not unique to them and their people. So it cannot be used as the Defining Moment.
As for Canadians should take pride of their martial accomplishments, well many do. Many don't. Why should they? To feel Pride for Canada? That may be compelling reason for you and Leafless and, yes, even me. But others, believe it or not, could not care less about military prowess. Do they have to? is it required for Canadian Citizenship?
No. Not at all.
-
Here is a excellent explaination for the collapse of the towers that is easier to read than the NIST report:
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/...Eagar-0112.html
The author is:
Thomas W. Eagar, the Thomas Lord Professor of Materials Engineering and Engineering Systems at MIT
Someone who is infinitely more qualified to comment on the topic than any of the thruthies.
From the link:
To summarize all of these points, a 500,000 t structure has too much inertia to fall in any direction other than nearly straight down....the fundamental point Polly cannot grasp.
-
Looking at the poll results from the link provided by Leafless
Canadians did the best on identifying the name of the famous poem written by Captain John McCrae who served as a medical officer in World War One.Nearly six in ten (57%) Canadians were able to name In Flanders Fields as the poem that is considered to be Canada’s most famous war poem.
Four in ten (38%) said they “don’t know”
while 6% mentioned something other than the correct answer.
Regionally, very few (4%) Québecers could identify In Flanders Fields.
Looking only at Canadians outside Québec, the percentage who correctly answered this question rises to 74%.
Geez, Quebecers couldn't identify and English poem. Shocking. As for 38% of Canadians who didn't know what the poem 'In Flanders Fields' is, is not really surprising either. The only time its read is on Rememberance Day if one attends the ceremony, wich practically everybody doesn't. Or students have to read it in class or memorize it - but its boring poetry and more like a task or homework for most students.
The strange thing here is not that it is a remarkable poem - but that it was written by a Canadian
. The claim to fame is that a Canadian wrote it. So everybody should know it, and if not then somehow our education system has failed. I find that reasoning very petty.
Only a third (36%) of Canadians could identify Vimy Ridge as the battle that consisted of the capture of a key ridge on the Western Front and is considered Canada’s most famous single victory in the First World War. Instead, half (50%) of Canadians simply said they “don’t know”.Once again, Québecers performed the worst with only 6% correctly answering this question. However, even in the rest of Canada only 46% correctly answered the question.
I think I addressed this point earlier....but for only 6% of Quebecers recognizing what Vimy is, Quebec already has its 'Defining Moments'. Most created prior to the Conquest. Vimy isn't a big deal to most Quebecers for the same reason Juno isn't a big deal to most Canadians in terms of Patriotic Defininition.
There really is Two Solitudes in this country...and most Quebecers like it that way for to be otherwise will of necessity banish thier history and 'Defining Moments'.
When asked the multiple choice question “which of the following three people was the Canadian commander in World War One whose plan led to the victory at Vimy Ridge?” Only a third (34%) correctly chose Arthur Currie. In fact, Canadians were equally likely (34%) to choose American World War Two general Douglas MacArthur. Meanwhile, one in ten (11%) chose 19th Century British naval commander Horatio Nelson while one in five (21%) simply said they “don’t know”. Regional and demographic differences for this questions are similar to those in the other questions.Québecers (15%) are much less likely than the rest of Canada (40%) to correctly answer the question.
Why would Canadians know about Arthur Currie? Any movies about Arthur Currie? Good Books? References to Arthur Currie in WWII? or Dieppe? Did he write a famous poem? Do actors regularly play him in the movies? Did he recite any famous lines to be milked by the propaganda machine? "I shall return"? "England expects every man to do his duty"? Besides, Vimy was won by General Byng - or at least he soaked up the credit for it, even became Governor General of Canada for it (in part). That may have something to do with the Canadian Corps being part of the British 3rd Army fighting the battle of Arras at the time of Vimy Ridge and the fact that most soldiers were in origin 'British'. Currie wasn't. He was a 'colonial', born in Napperton, Ontario. There was no way in hell, in 1917 or post war, that Currie was going to get any glory or be used as
a Defining Icon of Canada.
The fact that 40% of Canadians actually do know of him, is, I suspect, a result of recent research by actual Canadians looking for a Canadian Hero - and not a british born one. That is because of the fundamental nature of the Vimy Ridge Glorious Victory: British citizens becoming Canadian. Currie didnt fulfill the requirements then, he may fill the requirements now...
As for most Quebecers not recognizing the battle, why would they? There was nothing spectacularly French Canadian about it. Thus its a non-event to them.
-
Leafless:
Canada really does not have any war in which it fought to protect the actually country, to claim some sort of identity.The closest Canada could have came to this one IMV, was participating in the Iraq war which Canada declined.
Both countries experienced loss of its citizens relating to '999' terrorist attack.
Canada participating in Afghanistan is a noble effort, but is not on the same level as the direct '999' attack had on America, affecting both Americans and Canadians pertaining to loss of life.
- Canadians, in general, cannot identify glorious battles of the past. Therefore we have an identity crisis.
- Americans don't seem to have this identity problem because they can point out many glorious victorys.
- If we were more like Americans in being able to identify glorious victorys then we wouldn't have the
identiy crisis.
But thats the point, isn't it? We arn't Americans. Why would we look to them for Canadian self-identification?
Vimy Ridge was fought by the Canadian Corps, which in 1917 was made up of primarily immigrants from Britain. A great tactical victory ensued and as the historians point out, this was a great event for the Canadian Identity. It was a big deal because as a result of that glorious victory, the troops, who previously identified themselves as 'British', for the most part, now began to identify themselves as Canadian.
Not a small thing, as the 'old country's' emotional hold was replaced in a large degree by the emotional hold of thier new home Canada as a result of the shared disaster the soldiers experienced.
But, it appears to have lost its 'meaning' for Canadian Identity.
Of course it has. Most Canadian's in the here and now do not have an emotional attachment to another country. The example of Vimy Ridge as a Canadian defining moment no longer holds emotional water. Why would it?
Juno. Failure of most Canadian to identify Juno Beach as a glorious victory is not surprising either. Juno is part and parcel of D-Day, and most Canadians I venture would have some idea of what D-Day is. There is nothing specifically gloriously Canadian about Juno or D-Day. The Americans and British also succeeded gloriously at Omaha, Utah, Gold and Sword. So Juno is just another beach on a glorious day for the Allies.
If the Americans and British had failed and Juno succeeded, then you would have a Great Canadian Defining Moment. But that didn't happen - so no moment. Though not with lack of trying "Canadians made the furthest advance on D-Day" etc.
So, if Canadians had have joined the Americans in the conquest of Iraq, would then Canada have had a Defining Moment as a result? I doubt it. Defining moments come from a hard fight against near insurmountable odds against a coldly ruthless, cunning and superior enemy. Such as the Germans!
No such circumstance existed in Iraq during the conquest. Even if there did it wouldn't wash since any opportunity for a glorious victory would be diminished by the probably overwhelming participation of the USAF and USN.
Those seeking Glorious Victory wouldn't have found it in Iraq.
But the '72 Canada-Russia series! Now there's a good one...
-
So, let me get this straight;
I'm a genetic turd high-level functionary in the municipal public service. I pocket $500K over,say, 5 years by skimming off the top of various budgets that come under my control.
I am found out and accused by my genetic turd underlings and the insurance company investigates. The insurance company agrees that I have in fact stolen $500k.
So the insurance company fulfills the terms of thier agreement and pay the municipality $500k.
I am forced to resign but keep my $500k
Is that how you say it is working?
-
Has democracy become a team sport? We watch and participate in elections in the hopes that our favourite team will win. The work in parliament becomes a game where each team is trying to 'win' in some way. The problem is that when they win, Canadians lose out.
Exactly what I was thinking, I think the problem is that they are rewarded for this behaviour. We need to reform the system so that the only way to "win" is to benefit the largest number of citizens. How we would do that....I don't know.
I'm digging this up - I thought I'd suggest a thought.
We need a system where people are rewarded for benefiting the largest number of citizens, right?
Free Market Capitalism is the answer. When you provide a good or service, people will trade with you. They benefit, and you are rewarded for it. John Stossel mentions this in his speech seen here. When you go to a grocery store and buy a jug of milk, you have this weird 'thank you thank you' moment. You say thank you because you want the milk more than you want your dollar, and the clerk says thank you because they want your dollar more than they want their milk. Free Market in action.
Is that not a system in which people can only benefit if they reward the greatest number of people? Could it be that this is the answer?
This is the answer that has been screaming out to me ever since began forming my current political opinions. I'm wondering if any of you see it this way.
Is there a transcript of Mr.Stossel's speach available anywhere?
We already have a free market system in politics as well as the economy. Various party's vie for votes. Those that are satisfied with the party will vote for it. Those unsatisfied vote for another party that they think will be more responsive to thier needs. The consumer chooses and society benefits.
Economically, there's lots of different milk in the coolers of supermarkets. Lots of choice. Same with gasoline stations -lots of choice there. Cigarettes too. and booze. and beer. and cars. and TV's. and computers....
We already have all these things.
-
You seem to be arguing that the west should have kept the Japanese and Chinese weak and ignorant so that they didn't get uppity and start warmongering and taking control of their environment and stuff. You know...keep all those quaint little customs and funny pigtails and harmless myths and such, and stay out of our faces. Is that what you'd prefer?
Uh, yeah. That's about the jist of it. Are you suggesting Adm Perry shelled Yokohama to make Japan stronger? Worked like a charm I must admit.
-
Peter, m'boy...where d'you spose communism originated? I always thought it was a product of western enlightenment thought, but perhaps it was a Confucian offshoot? Ever heard of Admiral Perry? Sun Yat Sen? Horns of the Bull? Ah yes, the Belgians. I assume you're talking about the Congo; the great shining example of the post-colonial revisionists. You are aware, perhaps, that the Congo is not the totality of Africa?
Need I point out that you didn't actually answer the question beyond a farcical flippant "perhaps"? That's not an answer. Nor is petty singular nitpicking (that happens to be wrong) an answer. Africa may have driven itself back to the iron age since colonialism left, but at least it's butchering itself from the comfort of automobiles instead of on foot by means of impi. I assume by all this that you have no real answer, and that you know, deep down, that colonialism ultimately did more good than hard. If for no other reason than that it accelerated technological and political diffusion.
Your point about Commienism is a very good one. Western enlightened thought led to Chinese civil war and victory for the communists - which to many is one of the greatest disasters of the 20th century.
Admiral Perry...wasn't he the one who put a few rounds into Yokohama in order to open Japan up for trade? Or maybe that was the Russian guy. And you're correct again. The Great White Fleet did indeed force Japan
to seek western methods in order to become a great power; conquering Korea, battling China, siezing Manchuria and so on and so forth and a fat lot of good it did.
I wonder what the benefits of Japanese colonialism the colonized profited from? Must have been something that makes the Pacific war worth it for the Philipino's and chinese, and Indonesians.
They should be writing a letter of thanks to the Emperor.
Exploiting others by force of arms, wich is precisely what colonialism is, is not a good thing. Considering that
Ideas are usually transported around in books, do you suppose enlightened ideas would have gotten around even without the economic exploitation of the ignorant savages? True, the Maxim did a fine job of spreading ideas. But then, what do we care wether they do it our way or not?
-
...
All of which is fine and dandy, except that what is always left unsaid is what would have happened had Bwana NOT shown up to "subjugate" the land. Would India have suddenly discovered representative government and railways in the wake of a decayed Moghul empire and the ruins of already decayed previous empires?
My guess is they would have eventually. But then maybe not. Should they have?
Would China have ever dragged itself out of warlordism after the demise of the Ching (oh, excuse me, "Qing" in postcolonial pinyin. Far by it for me to use the colonial "orientalist" Wade Giles, even though it's phonetically correct) dynasty?You mean the colonial powers dragged China out of warlordism? And here I thought the commies did it.
Would Japan have ever developed a navy capable of defeating Russia?Japan was never colonialized so I don't think the example applys
It's almost certain that sub-saharan Africa would still be chasing each other and dinner all over the continent had it not been colonized...when the first Dutchmen showed up there, the entire lower half of the continent was almost empty of humans after the Mtabele and Zulus had ministered to the local populations in the time honored tradition of radical genocide.seems the colonial powers were not very successfull in bringing enlightenment and industry and the ethics of good government.
It's easy to point at the post-colonial problems, most of which have more to do with the resident populations than the former overlords, and blame Bwana, but what exactly would the alternative have been? It's time Europe started being proud of its achievements and stopped focussing on its failings.Tell it to the Belgians.
-
and no, Natives occupying claimed land is not terrorism.
Read Fat Freddie's post again. They are not saying, nor am I, that simply occupying land is terrorism. Canadians on the whole would not begrudge the right of Natives to protest peacefully. It is when the tactics of a peaceful land occupation crosses the line into intimidation and violence, does it then become terrorism.
With all due respect Peter, you either have a comprehension problem or you are a terrorist apologist yourself. It reminds me of a thread I read on the Cafe where the Native Protesters were unhappy they weren't warned ahead of time that the OPP were going to raid the site.
Either/or. Well I must be one of them, so pick whatever pleases you.
Fat Freddies post
... Anyone, including natives, that pose a threat to this country, and its people, should be eliminated at first oppertunity regardless of the reasoning they give...."Radical Natives" could be considered an organization bent on terrorist acts by majority law. Gustafson Lake was an act of terror by militant action.
I support protesting, but I don't think assualting people, or threatening them with harm is protesting. Anyone who protests and then esculates it to criminal behavior deserves anything they get, including death. This radical kind of behavior is carried out to cause terror. All the army manual is suggesting is that Radical behavior by natives can be considered terrorism and be listed as a Terrorist Action and those creating this action considered terrorists.
So any native occupying any disputed land, according to Freddie, is engaged in a criminal act and can be considered as terrorists and eliminated.
I agree that criminal acts should be punished, according to the law. But not all criminal acts are acts of terrorism. To occupy disputed land - then not do anything else is not terrorism. To respond to violence could be considered self-defence (depending on the specifics of the event) and would certainly fall under Assaults, Battery and various other criminal offences...but not terrorism. Verbal threats in a mob is not terrorism. removing lugnuts from wheels is criminal - but not terrorism. Having someone stop your car and ask for a pass in order to proceed is not terrorism. Burning tires probably violates some local law or other, but is not terrorism. Throwing stuff off bridges onto the traffic below is certainly reckless endangerment, but not terrorism.
The problem is should the Mohawk Warriors be considered a terrorist organisation? If not, why would it be labled as such in a government document? If so then fine, list them amongst the group of government recognized terrorist organizations and arrest the lot of them and lock them up until the war on terror comes to a conclusion - just like every other terrorist.
But the government doesn't consider them to be terrorists and so doesn't identify them as such, and so thier organization is correctly removed from the counter-insurgency manual.
Thats fairdinkum, if you ask me. Besides, is there something top secret about the Mowhawk Warriors? Information about them is available from the nearest Police Station or the OPP/Qpp/RCMP or even within the corridors of DND. Its not like the information that has been removed from the manual isn't readily available anywhere else.
-
Lose it to who? Denmark?
-
It upsets me when certain westerners go on diatribes stating that the US is in contempt of Canada and all other nations. Like it or not, they have acted as our protector, since our security is aligned to their own, all while granting us our own sovereignty. Sure they are persuing their own self interests, but that would be undermiming the American strategists intelligence (though certain elements have made faux-pas).
It would be naive to believe that overall, their conceptualization of 'self interest' would wholly exclude the interests of other (allied) nations. The bungling of the Iraq war has done one miraculous thing in terms of US Foreign Policy, it made them realize again that they cannot go at it alone, otherwise they will face peril in light of up and coming geo political power struggles!
Certainly, the USofA persue's its own interests, just like everyone eles. However, I don't think the US has ever dumped the idea of the necesity of Allies. In Iraq's case no allies were needed, except for show. Thus no big effort to find any.
Radical Islam is Wrecking the World - Or, Why Can't Anyone Tell th
in The Rest of the World
Posted
the day the universe changed
Love that series.