New Counterinsugency Army Manual

[Ontario Voter]

[deleted

Edited October 7, 2007 by Ontario Voter

[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':

Globe & Mail

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.

[Ontario Voter]

delete

Edited October 7, 2007 by Ontario Voter

[Live From China]

So why are we so afraid to stand up to such groups when they start shooting at someone?

Furthermore, I think we set a bad precedent. Such groups are only brave because no will shoot back. They really have no more courage or cachet than high school punks strolling the streets on a Friday night looking for a fight. The less we stand up, the "braver" and therefore the more dangerous they will become.

[Peter F]

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.

[Posit]

The REAL Terrorism thrives under the protection of police and government.

One Dudley George was gunned down in a hail of bullets (180 spent round shells recovered) at Ipperwash.

The Rocks of Whiskey Trench at Kahnawake

The non-native mobs at Caledonia.

They all share similar beginnings, including the silence of and protection of the terrorists by the police and the encouragement of political officials.

[Remiel]

I think you are confusing the method of delivery with the intent of the message with regards to terrorism.

Regardless of whether you tamper with a cars mechanics or you plant a bomb inside it, if your purpose is to kill the person(s) inside, the crime is the same.

All terrorism is criminal, but not all crimes are terrorism. So, to say that something is not terrorism because the specific action is a certain kind of crime is patently false. That would be like saying that people who actual use terrorism are only guilty of the lesser crime of murder.

[Posit]

I'm not confused. The occupation of disputed land is neither illegal or a terrorist action. It is a line fences problem between neighbours. When this happens in a community there is usually some public tribunal to "view the line"

Terrorism is the willful and deliberate action to inflict terror upon a target. Simply inconveniencing towners, as in the case of Caledonia is not terrorism any more summer road construction is a terrorist plot against us all.

However, stoning old people - killing one - women and children driving in their cars across the Mercier Bridge is an act of terrorism on innocent people who had nothing to do with the Oka Crisis. The citizens of Chateuaguay who inflicted this murderous act were never arrested or punished, even though there are hours of mainstream media recordings documenting the event. Terrorism IS tolerated in Canada especially where it is directed at people because of the colour of their skin. Genocide is thriving as well.

[Remiel]

My comment was actually directed at Peter F, I guess I should of specified that when I first posted.

[geoffrey]

They all share similar beginnings, including the silence of and protection of the terrorists by the police and the encouragement of political officials.

Don't be ridiculous. Those same police refuse to kick the Indians out of privately held property.

The Indians attacked the OPP with a bus at Ipperwash, that's attempted murder. In that situation, I'd have done the same as Sergeant Deane.

It's also very interesting that you leave out the Surete du Quebec officer that was brutally murdered and the 10 RCMP officers hospitalized by hoodlum Mohawks at Oka.

When dealing with terrorists like those that occupied the land at Ipperwash and Oka and were aggressively moving upon private property with weapons, the police must show little compassion.

There is rule of law in Canada, if you don't follow it, live with the consequences of your actions.

Bit of a question. Why is it only the Mohawk that seem to have no ability to peacefully settle disputes? Most Indian bands come to peaceful resolutions... the Mohawks always seem to push to the edge. I think the leadership there needs to take a good long look at itself and it's record of criminal and terrorist activity in Canada.

[betsy]

Radical natives are included on the same list as the Tamil Tigers and Hezbollah in a new counterinsurgency manual being prepared for the Canadian army.

Link

ABOUT FREAKING TIME!!!!

"the actions of a minority group within a state who are intent on forcing political change by means of a mixture of subversion, propaganda and military pressure, aiming to persuade or intimidate the broad mass of people to accept such a change."

That can be used to pretty much stifle any protest the government wants. Are you against protest too??

If the protest involves a MIXTURE of subversion, propaganda and military pressure aiming to persuade or INTIMIDATE the broad mass of people to accept a change.

[Posit]

The police have no authority to adjudicate civil disputes. In cases of property disputes between two neighbours their ONLY job is to keep the peace. Judge Marshall who issued the injunction was found on appeal to have made a grave error that violated the rights of the protesters and the injunction order was struck down.

At Ipperwash, the police were not "attacked" by a school bus, nor were they in any danger. The bus was driven out to retrieve an old man who was beaten into unconsciousness by police boots and batons. His only crime? Going to retrieve his pooch that was beaten in a similar fashion by the same people. The murder of an unarmed man by the police was an attempt to terrorize the protectors at Ipperwash. The bullet put into Dudley George was deliberate and premeditated. "You're first." spoken by Kenneth Deane while pointing at Dudley George 2 days before the murder.

The Surete du Quebec shot and killed their own. Despite the findings of a closed inquiry, the round was American made. If the Mohawks had killed him, first they would have had to get behind him (since he was shot in the back) and secondly there were no American made weapons in their encampment - lots of Russian made stuff, but no American.

There is no equal rule of law in Canada. There is lawlessness and corruption at every level of the police, government and corporations and even when they do get caught by whistle blowers there is little in the way of punishment. The rule of law in Canada is set out by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, that despite rulings by the Supreme Court that First Nations have an inherent right to their lands, and that all development within disputed or territorial lands must pass by the consultation with and approval of the First Nations. Yet the rule of law is not adhered to as developer after developer continues to build, dump, extract and profit without even a notice. Our government has forced First Nations to take back the land and let US prove we have some right to it. Funny that is why the government is so afraid of them reclaiming the lands. They can't prove there are treaties, or legal transfers over most of Canada.

The Mohawks are not violent. You have been conned by the media into believing that the armed attacks, illegal invasions and illegal injunctions are the Mohawk's fault. In April last year 150 OPP attacked 15 old people, women and children at Caledonia with batons, tazers and pepper spray. They drew their assault weapons again against unarmed protestors. When another 200 unarmed protesters responded by walking onto the site the OPP retreated. There was no violence instigated by the Six Nations people. Just peaceful occupation.

Same thing at Oka. Only there were only 25 old people, women and children peacefully gathered in front of the bulldozers. Even when the Surete du Quebec shot Corp. Lemay there were no weapons on site. The Mohawk Warriors only showed up after we sent in the army. Again they reacted to the violence visited on them.

The Mohawks have always settled their differences peacefully. At Oka it was through negotiation that settled the dispute and at Caledonia and Deseronto the same thing is happening. Simply walking through an unlocked gate is not violent. It is a peaceful action brought on by 20 years of delay and failure by our government to settle their lawful right to the lands in question. That is the rule of law and they have learned that possession - their possession - is nine tenths of that same law.

And as a reflection of Easter consider that the "supremacy of God" that goes with the "belief in the rule of law" in the preamble of our Constitution is dominated by Christian beliefs - those very same beliefs that originate in violence and have perpetuated violence in the name of God for centuries. The fact that residential schools were just recently closed and human rights abuses continue against First Nations provides ample evidence that it is us as Canadians that are violent - not native people.

[Live From China]

If the protest involves a MIXTURE of subversion, propaganda and military pressure aiming to persuade or INTIMIDATE the broad mass of people to accept a change.

I'm with you, betsy!

And speaking of propaganda, Posit's post sounds exactly like that:

The bus was only being driven to help an old man....

An American weapon that can only fire American rounds...

You have been conned by the media...

There were only 25 old people, women and children...

Despite the findings of the inquiry...

The Mohawks have always settled their disputes peacefully...

All the above to be said with your hand on your heart, and staring toward Heaven with round and pleading eyes.

[Posit]

Prove otherwise.

History has shown - if you care to study enough of it - that these truths are evident. The myths that many subscribe to (including the myth of the Resurrection BTW) are submitted to the public in order to get them to think and act in predictable and controlled ways.

I have read the entire Ipperwash Transcripts front to back and watched every live video available. None of it supports any of the conjecture presented here that Dudley George deserved to be killed, for any reason. There is also sufficient evidence to conclude that not only was their a conspiracy to commit violence against the natives by the OPP but that there was a conspiracy to hide the racism, and murder that took place.

[Live From China]

Prove otherwise

The onus isn't upon me to do so. You made the initial statements, thus, the onus is upon you.

But, I will indulge you a bit here: I used to own an American rifle that was quite capable of firing Russian rounds. Interesting, isn't it?

watched every live video available

I might accept your argument if I knew you were an expert on video analysis, but something tells me your not. As well, how do we know what spin you are putting on what you saw, or even if it presents a complete and continuous portrayal of events? Propagandists regularly use film as a way of advancing their cause, if you get my meaning!

It seems to me that you approached this with the view to prove that "the establishment" were the "bad guys." Bad approach. Shouldn't you view it neutrally, and then see what arises?

[Posit]

Ah, the point isn't to believe me. It is to question the myths you subscribe to. And contrasting information does that , or at least gets others to question YOUR integrity and myths.

Any scientist never accepts the result at face value but must always delve into the evidence to confirm the facts of the experiment. Too few educators and historians ever did this being too lazy to fully research the facts of evidence of history from a number of source to confirm its integrity. Rather most of the historians and educators, and many of the mainstream read just enough until they confirm their own bias, myths and prejudices.

I have presented the facts as I have receive them. It is up to you to prove or disprove it to yourself. I gave you the references to confirm my point of view. It is up to you to search them out and confirm or dispute. However, using a collection of prejudices to present your debate is mere laziness.

"It seems to me that you approached this with the view to prove that "the establishment" were the "bad guys."[/i}

No. I started out with an open mind and have concluded with greater and greater evidence that the establishment, colonialism and corporatism are the bad guys. Big difference.

I stand by the statements...for now....

[Ontario Voter]

deleted

Edited October 7, 2007 by Ontario Voter

[Live From China]

I have presented the facts as I have receive them.

So why are your "facts" accurate to the nth degree, and everyone else's just prejudices? You have not just presented them, you have put your own spin on them!

I remember when I worked in law enforcement, and we were listening to person's side of a dispute, we listened for buzzwords and phrases: always, never, only, con/conned, conspiracy (or implications thereof), open minded, etc. As soon as a person hears those,

I also noticed that you tried to sidestep the issue about video analysis/interpretation.

I am going to ask all posters the following two questions:

1. Does anyone get the impression Posit has only looked at one side of the question?

2. Does Posit's writing style seem similar to that of someone else who got booted off this forum for simply and continually naysaying and being inflammatory? Can't remember the name but it just seems too coincidental. (My LE training kicking in here).

I think the real issue here is (and this applies to any protest or group of protesters) the more unwilling we are to stand up to those who use violence as a tool of protest, the more dangerous they will become.

Let me use an analogy: at one time bullying was not a big issue in schools. Bullies were often dealt with harshly by both the students and the "authorities." I remember one year in my school district two punks took to harrassing and assaulting students from other schools. Eventually, one student stood up to them. He was weaker and smaller, and yes, he got bloodied, but he sent one bully to hospital and the other one was sent packing. When the other one arrived at school, he was met by the principal and the local constabulary. He was summarily marched out of school in handcuffs. Those were the days when the police and administrators couldn't have given a hoot about self-esteem or being politically correct. I don't know what happened to this guy, but rumor has it that it took longer than usual to get to the station. But, voila, bullying ceased to be an issue in the district for many years.

Over the years, because of political correctness, bullying has become a serious issue. To the point where each year, several students in Canada are not just beaten up but are murdered.

And, no, I don't support violence and thuggery as a means of quelling protest. Discussion and peaceful debate should always be the avenue used to settle issues. I am only saying that when protesters use violence to attempt to get "their way", then the state should not be afraid to step in.

[geoffrey]

Little question about the Mohawks lastest criminal spree at Caledonia... did they ever repay the Ontario government for the damage they did by torching the rail bridge and digging up the highway?

McGuinty is far to weak with them. I'd withhold all transfers to the reserve until they pay the bill for their tactics. You don't destroy someone's property without consequence. I'm sure I'd be forced to pay the bill if I drove over to the local reserve and dug a massive pit in their main road.

[Live From China]

I'm sure I'd be forced to pay the bill if I drove over to the local reserve and dug a massive pit in their main road.

Yes, you would. And, at the same time, every PC'er and protester would be calling you a racist bastard.

I'll say it again: such people (color does NOT matter) are not brave, but they will only become bolder and more dangerous until the government steps in and does something.

[Posit]

From all indications the bridge and the highway are on the unceded Six Nations territory. It is not a crime for them to do road and redevelopment work on their own land.

The Plank Road claim is another instance where the British government underhandedly stole the land. They had been selling of parcels of the Plank Road to settlers nearly 6 months before they claimed to have bought it. Plus they claim to have 46 Chiefs signatures on the documents. None of the so-called Chiefs who signatures were condoled (or legal) Chiefs. The British were well aware that according to the Royal Proclamation, they not only had to have the signatures of all 50 Confederacy Chiefs but they also had to have the consensus of the community by holding open public meetings. They did neither.

[geoffrey]

From all indications the bridge and the highway are on the unceded Six Nations territory. It is not a crime for them to do road and redevelopment work on their own land.

Don't go pushing that kind of crap. You know those were senseless acts of vandalism. The bridge and the highway were built by the government of Ontario for the use of non-Indian and Indian people in the region.

Again, these people have no legal claim to the land, just something in their heads. When I see the land title belonging to the Six Nations then sure. Until then, it's Crown or CN property.

An act of terrorism or aggression against the crown is treason when committed by a Canadian citizen in Canada. Why aren't these people arrested? Oh wait, they belong to the certain race that is allow to do what they wish in protest.

I forgot the transformer fire too. An act of terrorism against a private property owner.

Again, that's not the way people settle disputes in the 21st century.

If I think my neighbours fence violates my property, I don't burn down the fence.

The Plank Road claim is another instance where the British government underhandedly stole the land. They had been selling of parcels of the Plank Road to settlers nearly 6 months before they claimed to have bought it. Plus they claim to have 46 Chiefs signatures on the documents. None of the so-called Chiefs who signatures were condoled (or legal) Chiefs. The British were well aware that according to the Royal Proclamation, they not only had to have the signatures of all 50 Confederacy Chiefs but they also had to have the consensus of the community by holding open public meetings. They did neither.

Looks like someone wants out of a contract they signed by inventing ridiculous requirements. Where did the Indians in question have their written law or precedent that shows that 50 Chiefs are required? I'm not going to trust the oral tradition of some elder that stands to gain millions upon "reclaimation" of this land.

[Live From China]

geoffrey, you've hit the nail on the head! If anyone thinks that burning down a bridge, etc. is doing "work on your own property", then they must think we were born yesterday. If the ownership is in question, you settle it in court and you don't go around committing acts of thuggery!

I, like you, am not going to trust oral tradition to settle this. There is just too much at stake.

[Posit]

Its a good thing then, that more learned and just people will resolve this. Your obstinate style wouldn't last a day in the negotiation rooms or in the courts.

Ever wonder why the government doesn't want to take these claims to court? Because they know the evidence is there to support the claim and the courts can be much harsher id eking out penalties and restitution than they can get through negotiation. Six Nations presented the evidence to the negotiators and it clearly shows that deeds were issued up to six months before they were supposed to have signed the sale.

I have read texts from both sides of the dispute. This is just the tip of the iceberg.

[Live From China]

Your obstinate style wouldn't last a day in the negotiation rooms or in the courts.

Well, then this shows just how undiscerning you are! I am involved in negotiations right now and they have certainly taken more than a day.

You have read texts from both sides (another buzz phrase), proving exactly what? That in doing so you are just so unbiased? A seeker of the truth? Hmmm, I wonder?

I think you are missing a key point here. People can get together and alter oral traditions to suit their needs. So even if the stories are "corroborated", they could be lies. Add the element of anger, revenge and making lots of cash, and you have the makings of a huge scam. Not saying it will happen, but it certainly should make one sit up and take notice.

If you think about it, your first and second sentences are contradictory. What you are really saying is that these claims aren't ending up in court because the system is populated with unlearned and unjust people. So I guess only the learned and the just will decide in your favor. And if they don't, they are really aren't learned and just. And around and around it goes.