Peter F
-
Posts
2,732 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Peter F
-
-
http://voiceofcanada.wordpress.com/caledonia-photos/
Here is a thread I found with a perspective on the manual...
http://forum.49thparallel.org/index.php?PH...f8ab3&board=3.0
Look under the Veiled Threat link for a perspective on why it was dropped.
Ok, thanks for the link. Here is the mention of the 'manual':
From wich I quote:
On Page 11, under the heading "Overview of insurgencies and counter-insurgencies," a paragraph is highlighted which states: "The rise of radical Native American organizations, such as the Mohawk Warrior Society, can be viewed as insurgencies with specific and limited aims. Although they do not seek complete control of the federal government, they do not seek particular political concessions in their relationship with national governments and control (either overt or covert) of political affairs at a local/reserve ("First Nation") level, through the threat of, or use of, violence."There is no other mention of natives in the manual, nor does the manual add further context as to why that paragraph is included.
Apparently the Minister of Defence is going to have the offending paragraph removed from the manual.
Oh, how will the Armed forces ever manage? How will they be able to conduct counter-terrorism ops against future First Nations occupations without that paragraph?
This is nothing. Its peanuts.
and no, Natives occupying claimed land is not terrorism.
-
Well, we're arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
Whats the reference in the manual say prior to the change?
Whats it say after the change?
I wouldn't call Gustafson Lake nor Oka terror. If they had set bombs in mailboxes or walked into white town and started shooting, or started randomly sniping whoever happened to cross thier sights - thats terror.
They did none of these things.
-
No the manual is still very useful. But will not contain all the useful referances. Perhaps you can explain to me why government publications need to be censored, and sanitized, and publications made for public consumption are not.
But it is the Canadian way not to piss anyone off, to bend and please every one. Don't like being mentioned in a counter insurgent manual then don't practice insurgent warfare.
The government doesn't sanitize government publications to be wussy? Of course they do. They do it all the time. Its called Political Correctnes - they do it all the time. Its politically smart to do so.
The military is not holy ground and is subject to the PC efforts of the government just like every other government department .
If there is a detrimental effect of removing the Mowhawk Warriors reference I have yet to hear what it is. As you say the manual is still very usefull.
-
America Alone? Steyn pwned!
I like this
By far the best way to unpick Islamism is to hold open the institutions of a free society - rather than lock them down in the name of a bogus 'respect' - so moderate Muslims, and especially Muslim women, can rise. No ideology built upon the savage oppression of half of 55 percent of its adherents (let's throw in the gays) can survive in a society where it can be debated and disputed without fear of violence. Islam in the open air will not be fundamentalist for long -
So how is it 'sanitized for political correctness'? The manual 'prepares our soldiers for counterinsurgency warfare nothing more' then what would be the logical point of identifying 'mohawk warriors'? Would there be specific tactics to deal with 'mohawk warriors' as opposed to ...say, Cree warriors?
The piont is giving the soldiers a ref piont or example of what cion ops are. The tactics are the same wether your black,white or purple with warts on your dick.
Its not sanitization; Its sensibility. Because niether the military nor the government give a shit if its Mowhawk warriors that will be on the recieving end of any counterinsurgency warfare.It is sanitization, the manaul was written by soldiers for soldiers to give them a better understanding of Coin ops, it was not made for public consumption, they used a good "canadian" example something soldiers could relate to or have some knowledge of ...Now that is has been made public it has a few people panties in a knot. and now it's going to be changed, how is that not being sanitized...
So they removed references to Mowhawk Warriors and now the manual is of less use?
-
And any claim that Muslims - by the fact that they are muslims - are more likely to be terrorists is bullshit also.
The claim was that terrorists are likely to be muslim, not that muslims aree likely to be terrorists.
And we arew talking about current events, not italy in the 70s or Ireland in the 80s
Yeah, so? I'll agree that. Is it okay then to hate muslims? or is it okay to hate terrorists?
-
You have obviously not read what you ought to have read prior to reading the Koran, if indeed you have read the koran. Which English translation did you read? Have you hear about the concept of 'abrogation'? That's the Muslim legal concept that renders all the early touchy feely stuff irrelevant, and allows the later really nasty stuff to supercede it.
I sincerely doubt you have read the Koran, somehow. In point of fact, the so-called 'fundamentalists' can correctly claim to be the proper Muslims, since they are following the text more closely than the alleged moderates. That's simply fact, whether it "pisses you off" or not.
Ah, so you have studied the Koran in depth, you even know and understand concepts of Islam such as
'abrogation'. Well, then, you have one up on me. All's I've done is read the thing and I will not be foolish enough to the Koran argue with one who is a scholar of Islamic tradition.
If you can't figure out the danger, there's no point in me explaining it to you.In wich case I call: Chicken shit.
-
According to the minister of National defense the new manual will not include any ref to mohawk warriors or any group. Once again the military has been sanitized for polictical correctness.
This is a manual that prepares our soldiers for counterinsurgency warfare nothing more. And if our government decides that your form of protest, requires direct military intervention then one could expect the military to use tactics and doctrine out of this manual.
It is not designed to stop all forms of protest, it's designed to prepare our troops for protests that get out of control, such as OKA for instance....when you pick up arms ,kill a officer of the law, there is a problem, and you've taken it from a protest allowed by law to an unlawful one that endangers canadian citizens and needs to be dealt with.
So how is it 'sanitized for political correctness'? The manual 'prepares our soldiers for counterinsurgency warfare nothing more' then what would be the logical point of identifying 'mohawk warriors'? Would there be specific tactics to deal with 'mohawk warriors' as opposed to ...say, Cree warriors?
Its not sanitization; Its sensibility. Because niether the military nor the government give a shit if its Mowhawk warriors that will be on the recieving end of any counterinsurgency warfare.
-
deleted - double post
-
First off, I have read the Koran (English translation) and found it to be quite a remarkable work. I found it to expouse the priniples of mercy, toleration, humility and concern for your brother man. I also found it to be full of a lot of damnation and fire and brimstone for those who do not follow the path God lays out for them.
On the other hand, I am no Imam, I have not devoted a large amount of my time studying the Koran, let alone in its original version, So I'd be a fool to tell you what it says. Obviously you have read it yourself and I'm sure you have also studied it in depth, so can go toe to toe with any Imam about the nature and message of the Prophet. On the other hand, maybe not. Perhaps you're just as much as a rank amateur about the Koran as I. If so, then I think you are being foolish in regards to what the Koran says or doesnt say.
What really bugs my ass is a bunch of Christians producing opinion pieces and study's that compare Islam to Christianity and, surprise, surprise, come to the conclusion that Islam is not as good as Christianity.
I acknowlege that at present and for the last 30 years, terrorist activity has been mostly carried out by persons claiming to be Muslims. My view of that is: if they are terrorists then they can't be Muslims.
My grandfather was a Christian, he attended church regularly, was a fine upstanding man in the community, and after he finished raping his daughters would sit with them and read passages of the bible to cleanse them (his daughters) of thier sin. He was no Christian despite what he said - his actions put the lie to his words.
Your argument is that because they are Muslims it is what makes them terrorists. By the same logic I can say that Christianity leads to pedophilia and incest. There are many examples of good christians raping the alter boys or the children at the residential schools. I'm sure somebody knows what logical fallacy would apply here.
So you shout the warning that the danger isn't terrorism but Islam itself for, according to you, Islam is terrorism. But you don't say, and you never have that I have seen, What it is that us westerners should be on guard against? What ? Conversion? Don't Convert, is that the warning?
Terrorism then? or is it immigration? Too many Muslim immigrants and they'll take over? sorta like the yellow peril of the late 1800's?
What are you warning us against? Why this fear of Islam?
-
'Wilber:
Are we a country or are we not? Quebec should make up it's mind. Being a country within a country is not tenable indefinately.Quebec did make up its mind: the Yes side won the referendum and Quebec didn't separate. Thinking Quebecers should all behave as one is silly. Just as silly as thinking everyone else should all behave as one.
Democracy and Free Speach recognize that we don't all behave as one.
-
There is no definition of terrorist
Not only is that demonstrably false, it is catagorically stupid.
We do need need unanimity to define something. Like saying there is no definition of theft, because a few thieves and a wingnut don't agree with the concensus definition.
Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them.I think that is a valid description of Terrorism. Note that the description says that terrorism is unjustifiable. So any terrorists claims that they are doing it for God is bullshit. And any claim that Muslims - by the fact that they are muslims - are more likely to be terrorists is bullshit also.
Terrorism has come under all sorts of cloaks - and all bullshit; or have we already forgotten about the IRA and the Red Brigades? or lord knows how many terrorists groups in South or Central America, or the FLQ.
-
deleted - double post
-
ScottSA:
But that's not the point, is it? Collectivist Nazism killed Jews. Serbians killed Bosnian Muslims with approximately the same gusto that Bosnian Muslims killed Serbians. You may have noticed that "we" didn't jump up and down and cheer it on across the globe either. You may have noticed that Christians are not blowing up things in Islamic lands in the name of Christ.So I take it you agree that us non-Muslims are just as capable of being pricks as any Muslim. Wich is my point.
I'm confused about what your point is. So far I gather you are saying that Islam is a clear and present danger to ... well, everybody, and that if Islam wasn't Islam then Islam would just be as much of a danger as Nazism in the 30's and 40's, or communism in the 30's to 80's.
Any fruitcake can use religion to rationalize thier actions. The mistake you are making, I think, is that you beleive that when a Muslim saws through somebodys neck and says they are doing that for the greater glory of God - You beleive them. And so you conclude that its thier religion that demands Muslims to kill non-believers. Therefore a rightous Muslim will proceed to kill unbelievers.
If that were true, and with a billion Muslims in the world, there'd be alot more shit going on than there is.
Exploding car bombs in Iraq isn't about Religion - its about power, but uses relgion as its justification
Just as you attempt to justify persecution of Muslims by your claim that Christianity is a superior religion.
I repeat; We are just as much a bunch of pricks as they are. So you can dismount from the morally high-horse.
-
I'm just curious about hearing people's thoughts about proportional representation.
I live in a riding that has been strongly Social Credit/PC/Reform/Alliance/Conservative since the depression. My feeling is that my vote is worthless because the outcome of the election here is a foregone conclusion. Would more people turn out and vote for other parties if their votes actually mattered?
I believe all votes matter, even the handfull of votes for the Loopy party.
We vote for the member we want to have represent us in parliament. That is the one and only purpose of a vote.
To get frustrated by the fact that too many other voters think different is pointless. How much power should one voter have? If 1 wouldbe Conservative voter does'nt turn up to cast their vote does it matter? If 1 more Conservative voted would it matter? 1 more Lib?
1 vote means very little - as it should. Its the block of votes that matter. If that block keeps voting Cons then whats that to you? Is your vote meaningless? Is each of thier 1 votes meaningless?
The big party's encourage us all to think that way of course. More votes for them, or less votes for others - either way they win. Don't fall for it, its a scam. But realize that you are only 1 person.
Or you can view elections as horse-races and your vote as a bet....and think you're vote isn't wasted voting for who you don't want or not voting at all and letting the Cons (in you're case) get away with even a larger margin.
-
I guess if a presstitute says 911 wasn't an inside job we should believe them.
"Much of the faulty logic and circumstancial evidence that justifies the 9/11 conspiracies are repeats of the theories that abounded in Timothy McVeigh's Oklahoma City bombing. "
I wonder why they never explain this "faulty logic". What would be an example of faulty logic used in 911 truth ?
It's like the movie 'Fifty First Dates' - every day is brand new and we must start all over again
-
It's disturbing and polemical, but it's true. What's far worse than that, before the progressive brigade trots out medieval counterexamples, is that while Christianity has moved on from its Cathar heresies and Holy Land Crusades, Islam never did. Islam today is identical to Islam in the 6th century. You may know Muslims who don't fit my "bigoted" stereotype, but you obviously don't know Islam.
True, I wouldn't want to drag out any references to Medieval Christian behaviour - since they (unlike your example of the taking of Constantinople by the Ottomans in 1453) are hopelessy out of date.
Hows about the slaughter of Bosnian Muslims? or European Jews? Fairly recent examples of mans inhumanity towards Man - and not perpretrated by Muslims.
We are as much a bunch of pricks as they are.
-
And when has mass media ever asked what an independent Palestine would do with independence, what would be its economic activities? When have they asked, if Israel recognized a so-called "right of return" to Palestinians, where those Palestinians would work? Or would they be paid to make babies, something, in view of their five- to- tenfold population increase since 1948 they seem quite good at.
Everyone is good at making babies, not just Palestinians. Especially when boredom sets in and there isn't anything better to do.
Who gives a damn what the mass media thinks anyways?
-
PeterF So you renounce your March 24th statement that only 10 or so people were aware of it all?
That was in the discussion about all the people that would be in on the actual conspiracy to wire the trade centers with explosives. I still agree with that being more likely than the apologists assumption of 10,000 people having to be on it.
It is speculation and you have to do lots of it to lend validity to the official conspiracy theory of bin Laden doing it from a cave in Afghanistan because he hates freedom.
The part of Dwyers article in question:
What about all the calls that the passengers on Flight 93 made on
their phones? Their voices were cloned by the Los Alamos laboratories and
the calls to their relatives were faked. The FBI was in on it, the CIA was
in on it, the US Air Force was in on it (except, of course, those USAF
personnel who were killed at the Pentagon), and North American Aerospace
Defence Command was in on it (but they kept the Canadians in NORAD out of
the loop.)
The security companies guarding the World Trade Centre were in on
it, Mayor Rudy Giuliani was in on it, the Federal Aviation Administration
was in on it, NASA was in on it, and the Pentagon was in on it. At least
ten thousand people were in on it. They had to be, or it couldn't have
worked. And more than five years later, not one of them has talked.
You responded: March 24th
've heard intelligence experts say maybe 8 - 12 people were in on it. Intelligence works on compartmentalization. Given that Dyyer is not an intelligence expert and he failed to consult any I think Dyyer is pretty much shown to be an idiot.I've explained very plausibly that only 10 or so people would have to be aware of it all and explained exactly how that is and I am no intelligence expert althouygh I am much more intelligent than Dyer. No one has tried to say my explanation is impossible.
So in response to Dwyers claim that ten thousand peaple were in on it (and clearly he is talking about the conspiracy in its entirety, not just setting deomo's), you say he's and idiot because you have already explained 'very plausibly' that only 10 or so people were aware of it all
Then, today you say that the 10 or so people you are referring to are just the ones required to set the demolitions.
You're a liar, Polly.
-
ten or so for demolitions, ten or fewer for guidance in the planes. Plus various politicians, CFR members, builderberg members & actual military/CIA planners.
So you renounce your March 24th statement that only 10 or so people were aware of it all? That your claim to have explained exactly how that is is no longer valid ? You agree it is impossible for only 10 or so people to be aware of the plot?
Have you got a round number at all? Have you even thought about it?
Remember we are limiting our discussion to the conspirators prior to 9/11...not including the people who became aware of the conspiracy after 9/11 and have been recruited to cover it up (wich would be another 10 or so folks I suppose)
One thing at a time, Polly. We'll get to wether you want to buy a car later
-
Douhet made the simple but effective case that war is hell, so the faster you get it over with, the better.
I think that quote goes back a bit farther to the US Civil War...either Sheridan or Sherman...one of the "S" Union generals... I'm willing to bet Sherman. Too early to conduct a formal search...lol.
"War is at best barbarism...Its glory is all moonshine. It is only those who have neither fired a shot, nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, more vengeance, more desolation. War is hell."
--William Tecumseh Sherman. These words are from his June 19, 1879 address to the Michigan Military Academy.
Sherman the realist (from the same link):
"You people of the South don't know what you are doing. This country will be drenched in blood, and God only knows how it will end.
"The North can make a steam engine, locomotive or railway car; hardly a yard of cloth or a pair of shoes can you make. You are rushing into war with one of the most powerful, ingeniously mechanical and determined people on earth-right at your doors. You are bound to fail. Only in spirit and determination are you prepared for war. In all else you are totally unprepared, with a bad cause to start with.
"You people speak so lightly of war; you don't know what you're talking about. War is a terrible thing!
"You mistake, too, the people of the North. They are a peaceable people but an earnest people, and they will fight, too. They are not going to let this country be destroyed without a mighty effort to save it...Besides, where are your men and appliances of war to contend against them?
"At first you will make headway, but as your limited resources begin to fail, shut out from the markets of Europe as you will be, your cause will begin to wane. If your people will but stop and think, they must see that in the end you will surely fail."
-- The prophetic words of William Tecumseh Sherman on December 24, 1860 after he learned of South Carolina's secession. Sherman at the time, was superintendent of the Louisiana State Seminary and Military Academy.
-
Double post - deleted
-
Thanks for the link.
and especially for: The 9/11 Truth Movement in Perspective.
-
ten or so for demolitions, ten or fewer for guidance in the planes. Plus various politicians, CFR members, builderberg members & actual military/CIA planners.
So you renounce your March 24th statement that only 10 or so people were aware of it all? That your claim to have explained exactly how that is is no longer valid ? You agree it is impossible for only 10 or so people to be aware of the plot?
Have you got a round number at all? Have you even thought about it?
Remember we are limiting our discussion to the conspirators prior to 9/11...not including the people who became aware of the conspiracy after 9/11 and have been recruited to cover it up (wich would be another 10 or so folks I suppose)
Vimy Ridge
in Federal Politics in Canada
Posted
None of my Grandparents were anywhere near Vimy. Both were back in Canada running the farm and chasing the lonely ladies.