The conflict with India

[Army Guy]

On 10/16/2024 at 10:35 PM, herbie said:

Murdering a Canadian on Canadian soil, blaclailing Canadian businesses on Canadian soil and shooting up the streets, terrorism, should be overlooked?
 

You act like this is some great shock....when was the last time any canadian said anything about our ability to protect our sovereignty...maybe the minority of Canadians, if we are lucky.....most canadians don't give a rats ass about our security apparatus, what they care about is more broken social programs......our entire security apparatus is so underfunded/ under maned...and then we wonder how or what would embolden another nation to do this type of thing...weak leadership also played a major role...along with most Canadians not placing it in the top 10 things wrong with this country...

Don't be shocked this is what happens when Canadians don't care enough to force the government to act....this is what our silence costs, embrace it, make sweet love to it if thats your thing, , this is what we want...Yes we over looked it, and we will continue to over look it until we make it a priority. Canada has been a terrorist haven for decades now....don't be surprised when one,2, 3 or 4  makes the news.... 

[Army Guy]

On 10/17/2024 at 6:49 AM, Michael Hardner said:

Even Poilievre doesn't think so.

Everyone says so....but nobody is willing to spend the kind of money it needs to protect this country, by fully funding those departments in our security apparatus...what do they say talk is cheap.... 

[ExFlyer]

On 10/17/2024 at 5:49 AM, Michael Hardner said:

Even Poilievre doesn't think so.

 

13 hours ago, Army Guy said:

Everyone says so....but nobody is willing to spend the kind of money it needs to protect this country, by fully funding those departments in our security apparatus...what do they say talk is cheap.... 

How can Polievre say anythign or believe anything when he will not get a security clearance? He is only speaking on what he reads in the newspapers  or opinion pieces. If he had gfcts , which he chose not to get, it may be different. What will he say or do when he has to get cleared and knows actual facts??.

 

Spending on security and Military has been a disgrace for decades No one government is better than the other in this regard.

As for secutrity, it is well known Canad is not a good security partner, we are too gving when someone asks questions so we cannot be trusted to keep secrets.

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

How can Polievre say anythign or believe anything when he will not get a security clearance? He is only speaking on what he reads in the newspapers  or opinion pieces.

The ONLY reason he CAN say anything is that he did not sign the security clearance.  Once you do you get to see all the goodies but you can't ask questions in the house, you can't comment on the information or data except in the most broadest possible ways, you can't really even take actions. 

Every pundit who's got experience including warren kinsella and Tom mulcair,  both of whom hate PP, have said they would never do the security clearance in this case. 

If he does it, the issue dies. Why do you think Justin was so insistent he did and tried to shame him into doing it?

The problem here is justin and the liberals. They have the info, they won't divulge it, but they also won't take action on it or fix any of the problems  but they WILL suggest they've got names of conservatives who may be a problem without saying who or what. 

They are the problem here.

 

[ExFlyer]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

The ONLY reason he CAN say anything is that he did not sign the security clearance.  Once you do you get to see all the goodies but you can't ask questions in the house, you can't comment on the information or data except in the most broadest possible ways, you can't really even take actions. 

Every pundit who's got experience including warren kinsella and Tom mulcair,  both of whom hate PP, have said they would never do the security clearance in this case. 

If he does it, the issue dies. Why do you think Justin was so insistent he did and tried to shame him into doing it?

The problem here is justin and the liberals. They have the info, they won't divulge it, but they also won't take action on it or fix any of the problems  but they WILL suggest they've got names of conservatives who may be a problem without saying who or what. 

They are the problem here.

If that is the case, how can every other parliamentarian that as clearance ask questions and make comments?

With clearance (an I used ot have top secret) is that one needs to be careful what you say and what you divulge.

Is it that PP cannot control himself? Does he not want to know who, within his own party is named? Does he want to wait till he is PM, when he must get clearance, to find out which members of his presently elected are party to and are involved with foreign agents?

 

Edited October 19, 2024 by ExFlyer

[Army Guy]

5 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

 

How can Polievre say anythign or believe anything when he will not get a security clearance? He is only speaking on what he reads in the newspapers  or opinion pieces. If he had gfcts , which he chose not to get, it may be different. What will he say or do when he has to get cleared and knows actual facts??.

 

Spending on security and Military has been a disgrace for decades No one government is better than the other in this regard.

As for secutrity, it is well known Canad is not a good security partner, we are too gving when someone asks questions so we cannot be trusted to keep secrets.

Lets say he gets the clearance and gets all the facts ....He will then be forced not to discuss or take action on any of it because it is classified...Why has the NDP or Green party not released the names of those traitors....Because it is classified...so what use is getting the clearance for the opposition party member...Liberals want him to get read in so they can shut him up...

Yes, 100 % right, but this government has been in charge for 8 plus years....it could have broken that tradition long ago....but decided not to....does not make it right, it may not be popular in Canada but running a nation sometimes taking steps that are unpopular are nessicary, even vital...

We are not a good security partner becasue thats the way Canadians want it... and one day it will bite us in the ass...all one has to do is look at our history go back to WWI, WWII, Korean war, every conflict we have been involved with, being unprepared is our jam, the sad part of it all is it has cost the lives of thousands of Canadians soldiers to get back to prepared... But that fact does not change anyone's minds, well except those that lost love ones that is....It is cheaper to bury our young men and women than it is to equip them properly....god that must bring up so much pride to Canadians...how cheap we are....and we wonder why there is such a divide  between the two cultures...fighting for a ungrateful nation that does not give a rats ass about it's military....ya it's a huge source of pride for our soldiers....that was sarcasm...

Edited October 19, 2024 by Army Guy

[QuebecOverCanada]

On 10/16/2024 at 11:11 AM, CdnFox said:

I think there's a lot more political appetite right now for clamping down on immigration in general, historically it's been political death to suggest we should eat people out. 

I think you meant let people out lol?

[ExFlyer]

27 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

Lets say he gets the clearance and gets all the facts ....He will then be forced not to discuss or take action on any of it because it is classified...Why has the NDP or Green party not released the names of those traitors....Because it is classified...so what use is getting the clearance for the opposition party member...Liberals want him to get read in so they can shut him up...

Yes, 100 % right, but this government has been in charge for 8 plus years....it could have broken that tradition long ago....but decided not to....does not make it right, it may not be popular in Canada but running a nation sometimes taking steps that are unpopular are nessicary, even vital...

We are not a good security partner becasue thats the way Canadians want it... and one day it will bite us in the ass...all one has to do is look at our history go back to WWI, WWII, Korean war, every conflict we have been involved with, being unprepared is our jam, the sad part of it all is it has cost the lives of thousands of Canadians soldiers to get back to prepared... But that fact does not change anyone's minds, well except those that lost love ones that is....It is cheaper to bury our young men and women than it is to equip them properly....god that must bring up so much pride to Canadians...how cheap we are....and we wonder why there is such a divide  between the two cultures...fighting for a ungrateful nation that does not give a rats ass about it's military....ya it's a huge source of pride for our soldiers....that was sarcasm...

The NDP or Greens or Bloc do not have members involved. They cannot name names. Rest assured they will jump on. bandwagon of accusations when PP wins. The inference is that conservatives are implicated. PP should know who they are before he anoints or appoints or allows them to be involved in the election, let alone get elected. Surely he does not want to start his government with a.foreign involvement scandal?

Look, pooping on this government is fruitless Other governments have also had many years of inaction. That argument is nonsensical.

Yup, we, Canadians. chose to be so open that other countries do not trust us to keep secrets, even if it impacts ourselves, let alone the other nations. You as ex militarily must understand what the consequences of openness can mean to security and especially to plans and combat. While we are not in combat situations, other countries are and they cannot afford to tell Canada anything less it jeopardizes their positions or personnel.

Unfortunately, I fully have to agree with your sarcasm.

 

 

 

[Army Guy]

13 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

The NDP or Greens or Bloc do not have members involved. They cannot name names. Rest assured they will jump on. bandwagon of accusations when PP wins. The inference is that conservatives are implicated. PP should know who they are before he anoints or appoints or allows them to be involved in the election, let alone get elected. Surely he does not want to start his government with a.foreign involvement scandal?

Look, pooping on this government is fruitless Other governments have also had many years of inaction. That argument is nonsensical.

Yup, we, Canadians. chose to be so open that other countries do not trust us to keep secrets, even if it impacts ourselves, let alone the other nations. You as ex militarily must understand what the consequences of openness can mean to security and especially to plans and combat. While we are not in combat situations, other countries are and they cannot afford to tell Canada anything less it jeopardizes their positions or personnel.

Unfortunately, I fully have to agree with your sarcasm.

 

 

 

We don't know id it involves any body, or any party...nothing can be released unless the governing party decides to do that...He could not take any action even if he did know those names are classified, so PP would not be able to fire them with out cause...can't give a cause because it is classified...

Thats a BS excuse, why even bother with reconciliation now when every government in the past did nothing....they did it becasue it is the right thing to do.... 

We as a nation have nothing to offer, to anyone really....so why confide in us at all...I'm surprise NATO, and NORAD, and all the other defensive agreements we have signed don't show us the door...

 

[Army Guy]

48 minutes ago, QuebecOverCanada said:

I think you meant let people out lol?

although we would be much happier as a people if we...... just well you know eat out

[ExFlyer]

10 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

We don't know id it involves any body, or any party...nothing can be released unless the governing party decides to do that...He could not take any action even if he did know those names are classified, so PP would not be able to fire them with out cause...can't give a cause because it is classified...

Thats a BS excuse, why even bother with reconciliation now when every government in the past did nothing....they did it becasue it is the right thing to do.... 

We as a nation have nothing to offer, to anyone really....so why confide in us at all...I'm surprise NATO, and NORAD, and all the other defensive agreements we have signed don't show us the door...

 

Au Contraire, he can do something about it. There are many things that can be done for classified reasons but , he has no reason because he does not know, and chooses not to know. You know this from your security cleared times. I have had to take action to personnel as a result of security briefings.

What is BS excuse? That no government has done anything? That is not an excuse, that is a fact.

We may have nothig to offer but, we seem to want to be involved and are upset when shunned and not included. How long have we wanted desperately to be on the UN security council and denied? How pissed was government when excluded from the ANZUS Treaty. I agree, we are totally untrustworthy.

 

 

Edited October 19, 2024 by ExFlyer

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

If that is the case, how can every other parliamentarian that as clearance ask questions and make comments?

The can't and they don't. Which other parliamentarian have you heard mention any of the names? Or ask questions about anything specific in the report

There was one or two comments that were super broad like "this is very concerning" or the like but no specifics or questions at all. 

Quote

With clearance (an I used ot have top secret) is that one needs to be careful what you say and what you divulge.

This has been gone over by the experts a million times. There are specific clauses and such that would forbid him from being ale to ask questions or look into this matter anymore without other actions being taken by the feds

 

Quote

Is it that PP cannot control himself?

It has nothing to do with control and frankly to be blunt it really calls into question whether you've ever had security clearance to even make that statement. He would be forbidden for talking about any of the details in the report so therefore he can't talk about it. That's what can't talk about it means. Careful doesn't come into it. 

If he signs the clearance ad then read the report that's it. He can't talk about it. He can't even ask questions if the answers are in the report.

Now it's one thing for the other two parties but he is the official opposition. Giving up his right and his job and his duty to pester the government about this non-stop until they provide answers would be abandoning the very reason the official  opposition party exists.

Honestly of all of the people out there who are knowledgeable on this subject only liberals and their supporters and adherence as well as select members of the other left-wing parties think it's a good idea for Poilievre to sign it. Even other well-known leftists have said they wouldn't sign it if they were him. 

And thanks to him this issue is still being discussed and Trudeau is still under pressure to release information. And this recent names of the conservatives thing has just made it worse for him

[ExFlyer]

51 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

The can't and they don't. Which other parliamentarian have you heard mention any of the names? Or ask questions about anything specific in the report

There was one or two comments that were super broad like "this is very concerning" or the like but no specifics or questions at all. 

This has been gone over by the experts a million times. There are specific clauses and such that would forbid him from being ale to ask questions or look into this matter anymore without other actions being taken by the feds

 

It has nothing to do with control and frankly to be blunt it really calls into question whether you've ever had security clearance to even make that statement. He would be forbidden for talking about any of the details in the report so therefore he can't talk about it. That's what can't talk about it means. Careful doesn't come into it. 

If he signs the clearance ad then read the report that's it. He can't talk about it. He can't even ask questions if the answers are in the report.

Now it's one thing for the other two parties but he is the official opposition. Giving up his right and his job and his duty to pester the government about this non-stop until they provide answers would be abandoning the very reason the official  opposition party exists.

Honestly of all of the people out there who are knowledgeable on this subject only liberals and their supporters and adherence as well as select members of the other left-wing parties think it's a good idea for Poilievre to sign it. Even other well-known leftists have said they wouldn't sign it if they were him. 

And thanks to him this issue is still being discussed and Trudeau is still under pressure to release information. And this recent names of the conservatives thing has just made it worse for him

Actually, you have no idea what they have said and with what clearance is. You are making assumptions without any direct knowledge. "The Secret classification level "shall be applied to information, the unauthorized disclosure of which reasonably could be expected to cause serious damage to the national security."

I have had top secret clearance and I have had to take action as a result of the briefings I have received. I am fully aware of the restrictions and constraints that come with the clearances. and the key is to do what needs to be done with that knowledge without compromising the clearance or information received at the briefings. I do not have to tell the persons where I got the info to discipline the personnel or to elaborate on it. A person with clearance can most certainly discuss what was briefed, but they need to be careful of the information being passed. Not every word or sentence is secret, but the principal and some of the information is. I think your knowledge of security clearances is limited.

Bottom line, if you were a party member, MP or potential candidate, would you like your name smeared in the press even if it was released by Trudeau or PP or jagmeet? How would you k]like it if it came ou tag=fter you were seated in your parliamentary seat? The accusation alone blows your credibility out of the water. Would you not want to know now if you were implicated? Should you leader not know now if you were?

And yes, it is an issue... you want this ot linger or clear it up soonest?? It is PP that has the key to close it or let it linger.

 

 

Edited October 19, 2024 by ExFlyer

[CdnFox]

19 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

Actually, you have no idea what they have said and with what clearance is.

Actually they kind of published it so yes i do. 

This has been talked about with actual experts many many times. You are wrong. This is widely agreed upon, as I said many people who don't favor the conservatives admit that this is the problem and that they wouldn't sign it either.

So your claims to the contrary are not convincing.

You would have us believe that there's absolutely no change. That if he signed it and read the documents he would have every single right to ask questions and bring u information in those documents that he has now. Which is patently insane.

Further, you would have us believe that trudeau wants him to do so and pushes him because he wants MORE information out there, not less.   That is also patently insane. Trudeau is pushing it because he wants LESS discussion about this. 

And finally you're selling the idea that he "doesn't trust himself" while also claiming "there's nothing to trust himself about he's still free to ask questions" 

There's not much more point discussing this. If you don't think that signing off and reading this report would alter his ability to speak on it then i can't help you. 

The reality is it would handcuff him.  Do you honestly believe Trudeau is pushing for him to do it because he thinks that will HELP Polievre hold him to account?

[Moonlight Graham]

3rd world governments suck.  They're run like the mafia.  So we basically have very well- funded mobs running around the country killing and intimidating Canadians and funding or infiltrating politicians, parties, and governments.

Trudeau booted the Indian reps when he was set to take the stand in the Hogue foreign interference inquiry. More cynical PR politics from the Liberals.  Do they think Canadians are stupid?

Edited October 19, 2024 by Moonlight Graham

[ExFlyer]

13 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Actually they kind of published it so yes i do. 

This has been talked about with actual experts many many times. You are wrong. This is widely agreed upon, as I said many people who don't favor the conservatives admit that this is the problem and that they wouldn't sign it either.

So your claims to the contrary are not convincing.

You would have us believe that there's absolutely no change. That if he signed it and read the documents he would have every single right to ask questions and bring u information in those documents that he has now. Which is patently insane.

Further, you would have us believe that trudeau wants him to do so and pushes him because he wants MORE information out there, not less.   That is also patently insane. Trudeau is pushing it because he wants LESS discussion about this. 

And finally you're selling the idea that he "doesn't trust himself" while also claiming "there's nothing to trust himself about he's still free to ask questions" 

There's not much more point discussing this. If you don't think that signing off and reading this report would alter his ability to speak on it then i can't help you. 

The reality is it would handcuff him.  Do you honestly believe Trudeau is pushing for him to do it because he thinks that will HELP Polievre hold him to account?

I claim nothing except I have had a high level security clearance in the Military and in Public Works. I know what I signed and I know what can and cannot be discussed form security briefings. You do not have to believe me as it matters not to me.

If PP want to criticize, he should know what he is talking about otherwise is is. just blowing unsubstantiated smoke. If he is not concerned what his members are involved with, well, the consequences can be devastating.

As on wise person said, ignorance is no excuse and is the fault of the ignorant.

And I agree. "There's not much more point discussing this."

Have a good day.

 

 

I

[CdnFox]

7 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

I claim nothing except I have had a high level security clearance in the Military and in Public Works.

 

Sure you did. You claimed that it would not hold him back from asking questions. It does. You claimed it would not hinder him from pursuing the issue in the house. It does. I made all of those claims and you said it was wrong so that is your claim.

Which to be blunt cast serious doubt on whether or not you've signed any kind of clearance documentation or if you did whether or not you understood it. You appear to be claiming that what they're asking him to sign is the same thing and you're wrong about that so I have to assume you're also uninformed about your own clearance.

Again, if he were to sign that document it would prevent him from asking any specific questions at all in the house or pursuing this matter as aggressively as he is now. It would handcuff him and many experts have said so.

That is why he didn't sign it. Your protestations to the contrary are not accurate.

[ExFlyer]

13 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Sure you did. You claimed that it would not hold him back from asking questions. It does. You claimed it would not hinder him from pursuing the issue in the house. It does. I made all of those claims and you said it was wrong so that is your claim.

Which to be blunt cast serious doubt on whether or not you've signed any kind of clearance documentation or if you did whether or not you understood it. You appear to be claiming that what they're asking him to sign is the same thing and you're wrong about that so I have to assume you're also uninformed about your own clearance.

Again, if he were to sign that document it would prevent him from asking any specific questions at all in the house or pursuing this matter as aggressively as he is now. It would handcuff him and many experts have said so.

That is why he didn't sign it. Your protestations to the contrary are not accurate.

As you said "There's not much more point discussing this."

As I said "Have a good day."

[Gaétan]

If there are politicians who have not observed the laws, we only have to judge them, the police do not have to ask Trudeau's permission to arrest them and doing so is proof that they are corrupt.

[WestCanMan]

On 10/16/2024 at 5:44 AM, Goddess said:

Canada takes in other countries' terrorists, gives them citizenship and protects them, and then wonders why we have bad relations with other countries.

IIRC this guy that was allegedly killed by the Indian gov't was the second guy that they killed, and there was another one back in the '80s.

They took out 2 people who they considered terrorists in the last 45 years.

If we were taking out our own garbage here I'd say that their interference was unwarranted, but so far we have convicted zero Indian terrorists here. 

As Canadians we always cheer when the US kills their terrorists abroad, eg Al Baghdadi, I think it would be hypocritical for us to get huffy about the killing of a Canadian terrorist. 

[Goddess]

12 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

IIRC this guy that was allegedly killed by the Indian gov't was the second guy that they killed, and there was another one back in the '80s.

They took out 2 people who they considered terrorists in the last 45 years.

If we were taking out our own garbage here I'd say that their interference was unwarranted, but so far we have convicted zero Indian terrorists here. 

As Canadians we always cheer when the US kills their terrorists abroad, eg Al Baghdadi, I think it would be hypocritical for us to get huffy about the killing of a Canadian terrorist. 

India is a fellow democracy, yes, but barely. And its a newer one.

We have to accept that and work around it.

Our focus in relations with India should be trade. Not promoting DEI policies.