How Sri Lanka's Military Sees the Liberal Party of Canada

August1991 · April 7, 2009

Terrorist Idol!

Oleg Bach · April 7, 2009

Check out this cartoon.
Original here.

Terrorist Idol!

The liberals use to shmooze the Sri-Lankans...they insisted that the reason that the Tamils were in Canada was because of the loving and kind immigration policy of the former liberal government...so they MUST always vote liberal - and they did....then suddenly - the Tamils that were once the coerced and thankful supporters of liberalism - were political poison to the liberals ...they were now TERRORISTS.....odd - first they are liberals then they are suddenly terrorists...? I guess that the rich tea planters of the once British colony were the Sri - Lankin - that were British conservatives --- that the Tamils were the much like the liberals - till it got down to money and status - then it was everybody for themselves......FUNNY - The liberals leaders have tea with terrorists but not anymore - much like the guy that makes love to the fat girl and does not want anyone to know..

Shakeyhands · April 7, 2009

and then?

M.Dancer · April 8, 2009

Check out this cartoon.
Original here.

Terrorist Idol!

YOu have to feel sorry for the Tamil tigers and their supporters...they have everything going for them, suicide bombers, protections rings, refugees.... yet the left virtually ignores their plight. If only they say, if only the sinhalese were jews, perhaps then someone would give a shit and consider them freedom fighters instead of the terrorists they are

Edited April 8, 2009 by M.Dancer

August1991 · April 8, 2009

YOu have to feel sorry for the Tamil tigers and their supporters...they have everything going for them, suicide bombers, protections rings, refugees.... yet the left virtually ignores their plight. If only they say, if only the sinhalese were jews, perhaps then someone would give a shit and consider them freedom fighters instead of the terrorists they are

Good point.

An organzation knows that it's in a sorry state when it has only the modern Liberal Party of Canada as a nominal supporter.

-----

This position of the modern Liberal Party is curious. Trudeau, who arrested some 400 people in Quebec merely on the suspicion of association with the separatist FLQ, would have had no patience whatsoever with Eelam militants.

IOW, Liberals have no principles whatsoever now, except the single principle of power. They will say anything, do anything to get power. And when they get power, they will do anything to keep it.

kimmy · April 8, 2009

In the past, the Liberals have been accused of turning a blind eye to the activities of Tamil Tigers fundraisers in Canada, allegedly valuing Tamil votes in Toronto area ridings more than they valued principles.

However, I'm curious if this cartoon pertains to any news item or current event, or if it's just rehashing an old gripe?

-k

jdobbin · April 8, 2009

IOW, Liberals have no principles whatsoever now, except the single principle of power. They will say anything, do anything to get power. And when they get power, they will do anything to keep it.

It was the Conservatives who ran a Tamil candidate in 2006.

jdobbin · April 8, 2009

However, I'm curious if this cartoon pertains to any news item or current event, or if it's just rehashing an old gripe?

Probably the call by the Liberals to support the ceasefire that France and Germany propose.

The Conservatives oppose the ceasefire.

August1991 · April 8, 2009

In the past, the Liberals have been accused of turning a blind eye to the activities of Tamil Tigers fundraisers in Canada, allegedly valuing Tamil votes in Toronto area ridings more than they valued principles.
However, I'm curious if this cartoon pertains to any news item or current event, or if it's just rehashing an old gripe?

I'm not aware of anything that has changed. The Sri Lankan military is about to defeat the LTTE and I'm sure that they are perfectly aware of the ambiguous relationship between the Liberal Party and Eelam militants.

It was the Conservatives who ran a Tamil candidate in 2006.

So? To my knowledge, he has no association to the LTTE - unlike numerous Liberals who show up for memorial services or various fundraisers.

----

To my mind, there are two points to be drawn here: first, Liberals hate it when the same tactics they use are turned on them. In fact, you'll notice that Dobbin can only respond in kind by going on the attack and noting that the Conservatives had a Tamil candidate in 2006.

Second, the one principle the federal Liberals used to have was national unity and federalism. Trudeau was vehement in denouncing any secessionist movement in foreign countries, or refusing to grant Quebec even a hint of special status. By the time Dion organized a coalition with the Bloc, that principle was long dead.

Visionseeker · April 8, 2009

Wow! The National Post is really tripping over itself to be a partisan rag. I mean really, a Sri Lankan political cartoon. Is it any wonder why CanWest is in such financial trouble?

jdobbin · April 8, 2009

So? To my knowledge, he has no association to the LTTE - unlike numerous Liberals who show up for memorial services or various fundraisers.

Actually, he did have connections to Tamil organizations that Harper promptly listed after winning. I have posted this before even if some Conservative supporters choose to forget. The candidate was quite surprised by the turn of events.

To my mind, there are two points to be drawn here: first, Liberals hate it when the same tactics they use are turned on them. In fact, you'll notice that Dobbin can only respond in kind by going on the attack and noting that the Conservatives had a Tamil candidate in 2006.

A candidate who supported the groups Harper shut down.

Second, the one principle the federal Liberals used to have was national unity and federalism. Trudeau was vehement in denouncing any secessionist movement in foreign countries, or refusing to grant Quebec even a hint of special status. By the time Dion organized a coalition with the Bloc, that principle was long dead.

I believe the Liberals are asking for a ceasefire. You have problems with that?

Edited April 8, 2009 by jdobbin

Keepitsimple · April 9, 2009

I believe the Liberals are asking for a ceasefire. You have problems with that?

Asking for a ceasefire is the typical "safe" thing to say....after all, who but those who actually know what's going on could argue with a call to put down arms. As usual though, it's a pathetic, unprincipled attempt to grab votes and portray the Conservatives as War Mongerers. The truth is that Sri Lanka has been at their civil war for decades and they now have a chance to put a complete end to it with either the surrender or annihilation of the remaining LTTE forces. A ceasefire will only allow re-arming and a continuation of bloody hostilities. Peace is what is required - not a ceasefire. The LTTE has been fighting for 25 years and they are not about to stop. It's time to MAKE them stop in order to stop the bloodshed. That's the principled stand to take at this point in time.

August1991 · April 9, 2009

I believe the Liberals are asking for a ceasefire. You have problems with that?

How can anyone oppose a "ceasefire"? Modern political correctness (unless you've read George Orwell 1984) has changed the meaning of "ceasefire". If politcal correctness had existed in 1939, the CBC would have called for a "ceasefire" when Nazi Germany invaded Poland and then called for a "negotiated settlement".

Sorry Dobbin, I don't always favour "ceasefires" or "negotiated settlements". For example, I have no desire to negotiate a ceasefire with the Hell's Angels.

Asking for a ceasefire is the typical "safe" thing to say....after all, who but those who actually know what's going on could argue with a call to put down arms.

Precisely. Well said. Edited April 9, 2009 by August1991

jdobbin · April 9, 2009

The truth is that Sri Lanka has been at their civil war for decades and they now have a chance to put a complete end to it with either the surrender or annihilation of the remaining LTTE forces.

And when the killing continues, the Conservatives will still say the end is sight?

August1991 · April 9, 2009

And when the killing continues, the Conservatives will still say the end is sight?

This thread has nothing to do with the Conservative Party of Canada.

It is about how the Sri Lankan military perceives the Liberal Party of Canada. Dobbin, don't change the subject.

Smallc · April 9, 2009

How the Sri Lankan military perceives the Liberal Party of Canada is rather irrelevant.

jdobbin · April 9, 2009

This thread has nothing to do with the Conservative Party of Canada.

It doesn't?

I've asked what is new in why the Liberals are in the gunsights of the Sri Lankan military and the only thing I have seen in the ceasefire which quite a few nations support. The Tories do not support it so you can imagine that Sri Lankan military approves the Conservatives.

It is about how the Sri Lankan military perceives the Liberal Party of Canada. Dobbin, don't change the subject.

If that is how they perceive the Liberal party, how do they view the Tory party?

jdobbin · April 9, 2009

How can anyone oppose a "ceasefire"? Modern political correctness (unless you've read George Orwell 1984) has changed the meaning of "ceasefire". If politcal correctness had existed in 1939, the CBC would have called for a "ceasefire" when Nazi Germany invaded Poland and then called for a "negotiated settlement".

There were ceasefires many times in World War II to collect wounded and dead from battlefields.

There was not going to be a negotiated settlement as long as Nazi Germany occupied other countries and remained a military threat.

Sorry Dobbin, I don't always favour "ceasefires" or "negotiated settlements". For example, I have no desire to negotiate a ceasefire with the Hell's Angels.

The Tamil civilians are the Hell's Angels?

At the moment, they are the one suffering.

It looks like the Tories are backing the Sri Lankan military and hoping that they don't continue a rampage into the civilian population.

August1991 · April 9, 2009

How the Sri Lankan military perceives the Liberal Party of Canada is rather irrelevant.

Good point. Just like how irrelevant "Turkey" views the US or Muslims view Obama.

Then again, how I (a random Canadian citizen) perceive the Liberal Party of Canada is probably less important than how the Sri Lankan military views it - if a cartoon on their web site changes the opinions of some Canadian voters.

There were ceasefires many times in Word War II to collect wounded and dead from battlefields.

Huh? Was there a ceasefire to collect the wounded from Treblinka?

Dobbin, I don't think that you and I live in the same world or universe.

Edited April 9, 2009 by August1991

jdobbin · April 9, 2009

Good point. Just like how irrelevant "Turkey" views the US or Muslims view Obama.

Obama certainly didn't think Turkey was irrelevant this week. He made a major policy reversal this week based on what Turkey thinks.

Then again, how I (a random Canadian citizen) perceive the Liberal Party of Canada is probably less important than how the Sri Lankan military views it - if a cartoon on their web site changes the opinions of some Canadian voters.

I doubt it changed your view.

Huh? Was there a ceasefire to collect the wounded from Treblinka?

The Allies and Nazi Germany had many ceasefires. Look it up if you don't believe me.

Are you denying there were ceasefires?

Dobbin, I don't think that you and I live in the same world or universe.

I agree. You seem to think that ceasefires didn't happen in World War II.

In the Battle of Hürtgen Forest, for example, the combatants had three ceasefires in five days to collect wounded.

What you are saying is that political correctness allowed that to happen? You are saying that a Conservative prime minister would not allow that to happen? What are you trying to say?

Edited April 9, 2009 by jdobbin

August1991 · April 9, 2009

The Allies and Nazi Germany had many ceasefires. Look it up if you don't believe me.
Are you denying there were ceasefires?

No doubt, there were some "ceasefires" (as you define them, Dobbin) during World War II. There were no "ceasefires" in Treblinka. (I am sorry to introduce this into a domestic political issue.)

-----

Dobbin, the federal Liberal Party has sold its soul to "foreigners". The federal Liberal Party has chosen a leader (Ignatieff) who will agree with any foreigner who has a reasonable argument. Liberal English Canadians believe that Ignatieff is an original thinker such as Trudeau. In fact, Ignatieff is a flake.

Harper is no flake.

Edited April 9, 2009 by August1991

jdobbin · April 9, 2009

No doubt, there were some "ceasefires" (as you define them, Dobbin) during World War II. There were no "ceasefires" in Treblinka. (I am sorry to introduce this into a domestic political issue.)

Think a ceasefire is a ceasefire as most people define them.

Treblinka was a war crime.

The Tories somehow believe that the Sri Lankan government is going to break the resistance and are not overly curious to what happens to the civilian population.

-----

Dobbin, the federal Liberal Party has sold its soul to "foreigners". The federal Liberal Party has chosen a leader (Ignatieff) who will agree with any foreigner who has a reasonable argument. Liberal English Canadians believe that Ignatieff is an original thinker such as Trudeau.

Well, I think we are getting an idea of what the Tories think about "foreigners."

In fact, Ignatieff is a flake.

And Harper acts like a mad dog sociopath. I expect we will see that behaviour again.

bush_cheney2004 · April 9, 2009

.....And Harper acts like a mad dog sociopath. I expect we will see that behaviour again.

What is the point of this nonsensical rhetoric? Dogs, mad or otherwise, cannot be diagnosed as "sociopaths".

Do you really mean to say that the Prime Minister's behavior is that of a "mad dog"?

August1991 · April 9, 2009

Well, I think we are getting an idea of what the Tories think about "foreigners."

Dobbin, do "Canadians" exist?

IOW, for Liberals, are "Canadians" and "foreigners" the same. For Liberals, are we all "humans'?

---

IOW, do Liberals pretend to be naive NDP when seeking votes and then revert to being pragmatists when they obtain power? I suspect that in this modern Internet world, the federal Liberal Party schtick won't work.

I'll go further. The Internet questions not only the federal Liberal Party, but also modern government.

Edited April 9, 2009 by August1991

Visionseeker · April 9, 2009

This cartoon is military propaganda. My knowledge of the Sri Lankan civil war is comparable to my grasp of quantum physics. I never gave much effort to either endeavour. But the purpose of propaganda is something I know a little more substantively, and this cartoon makes me wonder if I shouldn't be morally obliged to look into the Tamil's history.

Propaganda ultimately bites its promoters in the ass. Once your liberties with the truth are exposed, you lose all legitimacy. That the Sri Lankan military is “bolstering” its military success with propaganda campaigns suggests that they known that their aims are illegitimate.