# Is the "Fifth Column" at work in Canada ?



## George Wallace (27 May 2008)

With some of the latest articles being printed in the Press here it makes one wonder if the "Fifth Column" at work in Canada ?

Articles like those found in these topics: "Canada sets up new military spy unit" and "Targeted killings" make one wonder what the Press is doing.  What do they think the CF is?  Do they seriously think that Canadian Forces have not been gathering "Intelligence" in their role in combating the Taliban?  Do they seriously think that Taliban "Leadership" is not targeted?  Have they been living under a rock somewhere?  Quoting so called "Experts" who have spent their lives well removed from any actual physical contact with the job or environment on which they are commenting on really is counterproductive.  

I don't have enough fingers and toes to count the times I have personally wondered aloud as to whether or not the Press is acting like a "Fifth Column" in sabotaging the work being done by Canada's Armed and Security Forces.   If they (the Press) are so much against "Big Brother" spying on the public with "Red Light Cameras" and "Security Camera", why do they become so hypocritical and demand to know the minutest details of matters of National Security?  Why are they so demanding that the "Defences" of the nation be open to public scrutiny?  In a way, they are the tools of the enemy in their quest to make all our methods of "Defence" and "Security" public knowledge.

Time for the Press to do some self-reflection on what they are really doing.


----------



## OldSolduer (27 May 2008)

I agree with you George. 
The press will always claim "the public has a right to know".
Sometimes the public shouldn't know what goes on.
Sometimes we should publish the lists of atrocities these people are responsible for, then say, "well...we can't kill them because we'd be targetting indidviduals. Nor can we collect information on them because that' s so unfair."
The press would soon change its attitude.


----------



## Haggis (27 May 2008)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> I agree with you George.
> The press will always claim "the public has a right to know".
> Sometimes the public shouldn't know what goes on.



In many cases if the public were to find out the truth of what really goes on in the wiorld and what the LEOs and security forces prevent from happening, it would scare the living shyte of of them.

Sometimes ignorance really is bliss.


----------



## George Wallace (27 May 2008)

Haggis said:
			
		

> In many cases if the public were to find out the truth of what really goes on in the wiorld and what the LEOs and security forces prevent from happening, it would scare the living shyte of of them.
> 
> Sometimes ignorance really is bliss.



During the Cold War, no Soviet Bombers tried to invade our "air space".  The only thing NORAD and our Fighters ever monitored was Santa Claus every Dec 24th on an annual basis.   :

During the Cold War, no Soviet submarines penetrated our Territorial Waters.   :

The "Millennium Bomber" was not trying to enter the United States from Canada.   :

17 fanatical Islamists were not arrested in Toronto.   :

Canadian soldiers are not digging wells, building roads, or any other form of "Reconstruction" in Afghanistan.   :

Too many people sleep too safely at night due to the extreme measures that a few men and women take to protect their "innocence" in their ignorance of what is really happening in a world that is not all hugs and kisses as they would seem to think.


----------



## Bearpaw (27 May 2008)

We have all heard "the pen is mightier than the sword" too many times to count :.  The problem as I see it is that there are very few
"journalists" wielding their pens in Afghanistan--far too often journalistic commentary emanates from comfortably fortified positions
in Canada >.  What is needed is more "real" journalists to actually go to Afghanistan and report what they see, not what they are told will sell papers or advertisements on TV.

Just my 2 cents.

Bearpaw


----------



## stegner (27 May 2008)

Well I agree with many of the comments here.  However, we should not simply put all the blame on the journalists but should also look to the CF's ability to articulate the message of their activities.   Winning the war in print in Canada is half the battle.   We are recruiting for a new HUMNIT unit- why not for a large Public Affairs and Relations unit?


----------



## George Wallace (27 May 2008)

What I am seeing more of today are "Authors of Fiction", rather than real "Journalism".  

The Journalist who actually goes out to cover an event, in a dangerous location, is becoming a dying breed.  There still are some, but very few, who are actually 'on the ground' covering the story.  

It is interesting that all the radical Lefties/Anti-war crowd don't pay the Journalist in theatre, reporting from the scene, much heed.  They would rather listen to, and quote, someone who has never left the safety of their office or 'Ivory Tower'.


----------



## George Wallace (27 May 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> Well I agree with many of the comments here.  However, we should not simply put all the blame on the journalists but should also look to the CF's ability to articulate the message of their activities.   Winning the war in print in Canada is half the battle.   We are recruiting for a new HUMNIT unit- why not for a large Public Affairs and Relations unit?



Why not?  

Probably because this is old news.  It is an organization that has been in existence for some fifteen years.  

Next question would be; if you are going to create a Secret, why would you go out and publicize it?  Kinda defeats the purpose of it being Secret.


----------



## Greymatters (27 May 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> With some of the latest articles being printed in the Press here it makes one wonder if the "Fifth Column" at work in Canada ?



While there is evidence of 'fifth column'-like activity among anti-war/anti-globalization groups, is there any for indicating such activity among journalists and the media?  There's definately favortism and bias based on internal political beliefs and loyalties, but what would be proof of actions performed on behalf of an opposing country or international organization?


----------



## kingyyz (27 May 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> If they (the Press) are so much against "Big Brother" spying on the public with "Red Light Cameras" and "Security Camera", why do they become so hypocritical and demand to know the minutest details of matters of National Security?  Why are they so demanding that the "Defences" of the nation be open to public scrutiny?



I don't think there is a clear case of hypocrisy here. One is a case of the government spying on the public, and the other is a case of the public spying on the government. The government serves the people and should be held responsible to public scrutiny. However, in the case of national defense there should be some exceptions, which the press aren't always willing to respect.


----------



## stegner (27 May 2008)

> Why not?
> 
> Probably because this is old news.  It is an organization that has been in existence for some fifteen years.
> 
> Next question would be; if you are going to create a Secret, why would you go out and publicize it?  Kinda defeats the purpose of it being Secret.



Our wires have gotten crossed.  Could be my fault.   I am not talking about the HUMINT unit per se I was merely using it as an example of a specialized unity.  I am merely saying that if the CF can divert considerable resources to this new unit it should consider similar funding to a very very public Public Affairs and Relations Unit as both have very vital roles to play.  It would have to public to help reorient some of the media's general and even specific impressions of the CF.


----------



## dglad (27 May 2008)

Unfortunately, "news" has become a commodity that has to be sold in a very competitive marketplace.  As a result, we end up with CNN covering the low-speed chase of a white Ford Bronco as it obeys every street law in the book...or, if you prefer a newer reference, endless coverage of the trials and tribulations of young celebrities as they ply themselves with booze, drugs and run-ins with the law.  The media happily latches onto anything that they believe will sell and, given the type of stuff they have to flog, that means anything lurid enough to cut through the noise of everyday life--an even taller order in the Internet age.  If it bleeds, it leads.  Or, as Don Henley put it:

_We can do the innuendo
We can dance and sing
When its said and done we havent told you a thing
We all know that crap is king
Give us dirty laundry!_

It's not as much about the media being anti-military, as it is about them being just about anti-anything that they think will sell.


----------



## TrexLink (27 May 2008)

The way I see it, most of them are really trying hard.  Woefully ignorant, easily swayed, but trying very hard to be fair.  Most of the time, most of them get most of it.

Then there were the vultures who sat in their a/c tent waiting for ramp ceremonies.  And the one who openly stated that the role of the press was to hunt out and release Top Secret information.  And the one who tried to get an inter-unit bunfight going, apparently just so he would have something to report on without risking his precious tush.

Then there are those - a few - as good as Christie Blatchford of _The Globe and Mail_. She's Good People in my books - scrupulously fair, hardworking and willing to head outside the wire to find out what is really going on.

Overall, I think that the success of any democracy depends on the citizenry being able to find out what is going on. One of the first things any dictator does is to move to control the media. So, despite being tempted to steer some of them into unmarked minefields, I can live with the presence of the press.  The really biased ones identify themselves very quickly and get ignored, which for a reporter is worse than death.  The good ones, at the risk of being called cynical, can be used to spread the good word.  After all, if the military is as good as it says it is and thinks it is, then there should be no grief with the public seeing and hearing about the good they are doing - provided it does not breach security, of course.

In this case, the self-serving Bytown whooping and wailing might have been expected. The fact that the mere existence of such a unit is known hardly puts anybody at risk; the TB are already as paranoid as a mouse at a car convention anyway.


----------



## 40below (27 May 2008)

I'm not quite sure what your point is, George, except you didn't like what you read in the paper and you needed to vent. 

Like it or not, freedom of the press is part of our constitution, to argue that anyone who exercises that legal right in a legal manner that does not breach the provisions of the Official Secrets Act or any other law of the country is by your definition a traitor to Canada - a 'Fifth Columnist' in your words, or a traitor on the home soil to which they are presumed to be loyal - seems a curious and rather over-the-top argument. We don't live in North Korea.

The HUMINT article revealed not a shred of operational detail except that yeah, it exists and the targeted killing one was basically an opinion piece on whether it works or not. You probably didn't like the tone but that doesn't make it treason. And there was far less revealed to violate OPSEC and details on how the CF operates in Afghanistan than a careful reader could cull from Blatchford's 14 Days or her or DiManno's columns from Afghanistan. Should they be in jail with the rest of the traitors? 

Branding journalists as Fifth Columnists who loathe our troops is akin to the lefties characterizing all members of the Canadian Forces in Afghanistan as trigger-happy killers. It just isn't a convincing argument.


----------



## Blindspot (27 May 2008)

40below said:
			
		

> I'm not quite sure what your point is, George, except you didn't like what you read in the paper and you needed to vent.



Not to speak for George; he can correct me if I'm wrong:

His point is that the lies, false supposition and reliance of suspect 'experts' used by the media is purposefully crafted in some cases to undermine the Canadian Forces and the foreign policies of the government, acting like the propaganda arm of the enemy to influence Canadians. 

What's so hard to understand?



> Branding journalists as Fifth Columnists who loathe our troops is akin to the lefties characterizing all members of the Canadian Forces in Afghanistan as trigger-happy killers. It just isn't a convincing argument.



You act like it doesn't happen.


----------



## TrexLink (27 May 2008)

Again, I think that the majority of the media reps you will see in the field are as honest as can be expected.  That they rely on false 'experts' is hardly surprising. The journalistic ethic tells them that stories must always be balanced. Given that soldiers and veterans generally stick together, who do they turn to for that 'balance'?  Generally, it's somebody suspicious of the military and the way it does business - be it a sociology prof or an Ottawa publisher...  It's not that they are trying to lie - they just don't know the difference.

What happens when the story hits the editor's desk is another issue of course...


----------



## armyvern (27 May 2008)

40below said:
			
		

> I'm not quite sure what your point is, George, except you didn't like what you read in the paper and you needed to vent.
> 
> Like it or not, freedom of the press is part of our constitution, to argue that anyone who exercises that legal right in a legal manner that does not breach the provisions of the Official Secrets Act or any other law of the country is by your definition a traitor to Canada - a 'Fifth Columnist' in your words, or a traitor on the home soil to which they are presumed to be loyal - seems a curious and rather over-the-top argument. We don't live in North Korea.
> 
> ...



Some have already spoken to your post, but I've a question for you given a look back through your posts --

Any biasness applicable on your part? Professional or otherwise?


----------



## Osotogari (27 May 2008)

The articles in question show just how many in the national media think.  It's a fact that most faculties or arts departments overwhelmingly consist of aging boomers looking to wave their freak flag once more before dimensia starts to set in. It should come as no surprise that there have been a couple of generations of journalism graduates that have been indoctrinated accordingly.


----------



## 40below (27 May 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Some have already spoken to your post, but I've a question for you given a look back through your posts --
> 
> Any biasness applicable on your part? Professional or otherwise?



Sure is. If you look at the last post on the previous page, you'll see a poster boldly asserting that the press is an agent, willing or not, of The Enemy, i.e., the Taliban. The Canadian media may receive a covert morning briefing from a Mullah in the mountains of Pakistan, but I have to say, unlike many of the posters here, I've seen no evidence of it. Would make a hell of a story, though.


----------



## armyvern (27 May 2008)

40below said:
			
		

> Sure is. If you look at the last post on the previous page, you'll see a poster boldly asserting that the press is an agent, willing or not, of The Enemy, i.e., the Taliban. The Canadian media may receive a covert morning briefing from a Mullah in the mountains of Pakistan, but I have to say, unlike many of the posters here, I've seen no evidence of it. Would make a hell of a story, though.



Sure you don't.

You see biasness of the military member of course against the media and apparently want to point it out.

But don't see any from your side of the fence against the miltary member_ by _ the media. 

Funny how that works on both sides of the fence eh? Just pointing _that _ out.


----------



## George Wallace (27 May 2008)

Blindspot said:
			
		

> 40below said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I would say that is a fair analysis.  

One doesn't have to knowingly aid and abet the enemy.  One can be totally oblivious to what they are doing to aid and abet the enemy.  Many members of the Press and Political Parties of the Communist, Socialist or NDP ilk fall into one or both categories.  Perhaps I should point out the "Killing with Keyboards" thread once again to demonstrate the second category?  

As to the questions of "Freedom of the Press"; that doesn't permit the Press to print or publish in any form or media anything and everything.  There still are Libel Laws and the Official Secrets Act, as well as numerous other Laws that protect the rights of individuals.  "Freedom of the Press" is really just a fancy buzzword.  The Press is still held to the same Laws as you and I.

Are the Press hypocrites when they demand to know and publish State Secrets, but at the same time protest against Security Cameras, Red Light Cameras, Photo Radar, etc.?  Of course they are.  This is apples and apples.  Both are the same arguments.  Actions of the State to protect the Citizens, from enemies and themselves.  The Press just want to have their cake and eat it too.


----------



## Blindspot (28 May 2008)

40below said:
			
		

> Sure is. If you look at the last post on the previous page, you'll see a poster boldly asserting that the press is an agent, willing or not, of The Enemy, i.e., the Taliban. The Canadian media may receive a covert morning briefing from a Mullah in the mountains of Pakistan, but I have to say, unlike many of the posters here, I've seen no evidence of it. Would make a hell of a story, though.



I agree that a good story could be had of the Taliban issuing propaganda directives to the Canadian media even though I also see no evidence of it. What I do see evidence of are journalists who believe Canada's version of Vietnam is their's for the reporting; that all of their liberal, _anti-American_, protesting, hippie, journalist, university professors were right and Canada is merely an imperialistic pawn of the United States carrying out the oppression of the poor, downtrodden, Taliban farmer. It's not about the truth anymore. It's anti-authority, anti-establishment, anti-Americanism.


----------



## hauger (28 May 2008)

Not to point out the obvious, but the job of the press isn't to report the "truth" to you, the press gets paid by selling eyeballs to advertisers, and there's an amazing amount of competition for those limited eyeballs.  Their job is to report stories that will generate those eyeballs, and when there's no story available that will enrage the public enough, one must be drummed up...usually with opinion pieces.  Want higher readership?  Try inventing a scandal.



			
				Blindspot said:
			
		

> It's not about the truth anymore. It's anti-authority, anti-establishment, anti-Americanism.



True.....because that's the stuff the population wants to read about...it generates the readership that generates the ad revenue and eventually the paycheque.

Anti-CF pieces generally make me say "meh" and move on.  Not worth getting excited about.  Definitely not something to start thinking that there might be some clandestine, semi-organized campaign to undermine the war effort underway.


----------



## armyvern (28 May 2008)

hauger said:
			
		

> Not to point out the obvious, but the job of the press isn't to report the "truth" to you, the press gets paid by selling eyeballs to advertisers, and there's an amazing amount of competition for those limited eyeballs.  Their job is to report stories that will generate those eyeballs, and when there's no story available that will enrage the public enough, one must be drummed up...usually with opinion pieces.  Want higher readership?  Try inventing a scandal.



Do you really think that the press' ultimate responsibility to answer to their shareholders is lost on us? Of course they have an agenda. There IS profit to be made from the stories they choose to print. That's exactly why their own biasness' and spins exist. That's been said many many times on this forum.

Soldier = bias FOR the soldier -- usually backed up by facts, and fired for effect, in an attempt to point out how it actually is down here in the trenchs where the fighting, dieing, and dirty work is occuring. And to point out all those very little (but VERY important) facts that the MSM likes to overlook because they don't lend spin or "add value" to the story version being pused by their esteemed BUSINESS' that day. That's right - business', for that is exactly what they are. "For profit" at that.

Media = bias FOR whatever story is going to make them the most profit that day. What's getting the ratings? What'll sell the rag? What'll draw in the viewership? What will keep the shareholders happy at the next meeting and thus, keep them their jobs? (I will acknowledge that there are some media outlets [caveat: overwhelmingly NOT of the MSM type] that are very good at providing factual and unbiased reportage). There ARE dimes to be made by the media -- many many hundreds of thousands of dimes ... and anyone who'd profess to sit on this site and state that that does not lead to any biasness in topics/facts/spin presented for public consumption by some in the media -- is flat out lying.

You want transparency?? At least george IS a soldier whi is admittedly FOR the soldier.

meanwhile ... 40below can continue on his/her merry little way pretending not to be from the "other side" of that fence. Perhaps they'll even write their next story on that? Bet you the byline doesn't read 40below though.

Yeah ri-ight ... no biasness on the part of 40below in here (or admitted to as per the response noting only the soldiers' biasness) -- none at all. Apparently, even those involved in the media see only bias' in others ... gawd forbid they admit their own.


----------



## George Wallace (28 May 2008)

hauger said:
			
		

> Not to point out the obvious, but the job of the press isn't to report the "truth" to you, the press gets paid by selling eyeballs to advertisers, and there's an amazing amount of competition for those limited eyeballs.  Their job is to report stories that will generate those eyeballs, and when there's no story available that will enrage the public enough, one must be drummed up...usually with opinion pieces.  Want higher readership?  Try inventing a scandal.



I sure hope you were being at the very least, a little sarcastic there.  Your opinion of what the Press is, is far different from what my opinion of what the Press is.

My opinion of what the Press are responsible to do; is to "Inform", not "incite" as you allude.  You may have missed my use of the word "responsible" in the first sentence, so I will reinforce my statement by restating it in this sentence.  The Press are responsible for what they write.  They do not have "Freedom" to print slander, racist, untruths, or any other articles that may cross the line of legality.  Yes, they have to make a profit; but they don't have to create "Fiction" to do so.  That is what we have Publishers for and professional Authors.  Journalism is about the "Facts".  The Facts are: National Security is not open to public scrutiny in all matters.


----------



## TCBF (28 May 2008)

- The Media in Canada is not the Fifth Column.  The Media are  "useful idiots" used by the so-called fifth column.  The Fifth Column would, in our case, consist of a disjointed array of 'Homeland Terrorists' using Canada as a recruiting and funding base, armed radical religious/nationalistic groups, EastBloc born criminal gangs beginning to infiltrate our political and bureaucratic systems and drug funded Aboriginal Gangs operating under the cover story of 'sacred ground' incidents.

- That should keep us busy for awhile.


----------



## MarkOttawa (30 May 2008)

Then you have things like this:

Rescue planes may not last, review warns
Continued support 'very precarious' for aging and balky CC-115 Buffalos that patrol B.C. and Yukon, study finds
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20080526.PLANES26/TPStory/National



> The Canadian military has been warned internally that there's no guarantee the aging search-and-rescue planes it uses to patrol the West Coast and B.C. mountains will be able to keep running until 2015, the date for replacement aircraft recently unveiled by the Harper government.
> 
> The former Liberal government earmarked $1.3-billion in the 2004 budget to buy new search-and-rescue planes for Canada as early as January, 2009, but they didn't move ahead with it and neither has the Harper government.
> 
> ...



In other words that nasty Afghan war will be putting at risk the lives of lost Canadians here at home.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (31 May 2008)

Plus this in the _Globe_ today:

Afghanistan: colonialism or counterinsurgency?
Americans bring Afghans their new 60-year plan
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080530.wreckoning0531/BNStory/International/

More at the second part of this _Torch_ post:
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2008/05/afstan-canadians-back-in-combatyankee.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## TrexLink (1 Jun 2008)

MarkOttawa - not sure what your point is in posting these articles. Pls explain.

George Wallace - I believe that the media have the responsibility to both inform and  (as you would put it) 'incite'.  That's what editorials are - opinions intended to sway public opinion.  That's why the print media have columnists - to present opinions, often strong ones - for and against.  Letters to the editor are often 'incitement' for or against. 

What is important is that the two functions are kept as separate as possible. Having worked (briefly) as a reporter, objectivity is indeed the goal in the mainstream media's newsrooms, but is very difficult to hit across the board.  Once you move to the editorial page however, objectivity can fly out the window, because it is all opinion.

Moreover, just because a reporter writes a story showing the CF in a bad light does not always or automatically mean that they are 'anti-military' or 'left-wing'.  I find it sad to say, but the exposure of the Somalia scandal years ago probably resulted in the revitalization of the CF.  The problems, so apparent to so many of us at the time - careerism, coverups, nepotism, etc - could no longer be ignored.  The CF is a much better, a much more professional organization now than it was then.  In another light, a reporter who writes about systemic waste in DND could actually be doing the worker-bee-level soldier a favour; if that waste was cut off, hopefully the money could be redirected to something important.  

None of this justifies the release of information that will have an impact on operations or put our troops in danger. That's cast in concrete.  But much of what is written, even if we find it annoying, will not effect OPSEC at all.  

Next point -  I think we can all remember people in our careers whom we would have loved to have had under the microscope, but (speaking just for myself) if I am doing a good job, I have no objection to somebody saying that. OPSEC aside, what am I trying to hide and why? If I am doing a bad job on the other hand, what would be even more objectionable would be my inefficiency being tolerated or covered up or hidden.

One last, key point - in this democratic system, flawed and inefficient as it may be, it is public money being spent. The Army works for and represents the citizens.  Barring OPSEC implications, they have the _right_ to know what their employees are doing with their money.  In this society, the way the public is informed is through the media.

So, no, I do not think the media are Canada's fifth column. Being ignorant, they are easily swayed and often make silly mistakes, but few are malevolent and most really on our side.  If you want to find real enemies,real threats, try looking at who is trying to use the media, and for what purposes.


----------



## X-mo-1979 (1 Jun 2008)

I think we should start looking at our centers of learning more.

Remember the Commies?


----------



## EW (1 Jun 2008)

TCBF said:
			
		

> - The Media in Canada is not the Fifth Column.  The Media are  "useful idiots" used by the so-called fifth column.  The Fifth Column would, in our case, consist of a disjointed array of 'Homeland Terrorists' using Canada as a recruiting and funding base, armed radical religious/nationalistic groups, EastBloc born criminal gangs beginning to infiltrate our political and bureaucratic systems and drug funded Aboriginal Gangs operating under the cover story of 'sacred ground' incidents.
> 
> - That should keep us busy for awhile.



By your measuring stick I assume that you think that Christie Blanchford, Matthew Fisher, or Peter Worthington are examples of the "useful idiots used by the" Canadian Forces, because they have written articles which could be seen as supportive of the CF?


----------



## MarkOttawa (1 Jun 2008)

TrexLink: My point is that quite a few of our journalists write with what seems an obvious agenda behind their journalism.  I did a _Torch_ post that mentioned the Saunders' piece in the _Globe_ on US counterinsurgency efforts in eastern Afstan as example:
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2008/05/afstan-canadians-back-in-combatyankee.html

This comment on the post is right to the point:



> Dave said...
> 
> I just finished reading Mr. Saunders' remarkable analysis. Firstly, he practically punctuates this bit of pseudo-journalism with nasty backhand shots at the US and at American soldiers:
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## TrexLink (1 Jun 2008)

There are some, to be sure, with an agenda.  Then there are others with a very open, realistic, hard-nosed attitude; their stick normally comes out pretty pro-Army and we owe them a lot for the very positive opinion of the CF most people in Canada now have. In the middle are the rest of them...

There was one type who tried to stir up inter-unit trouble over there. He effectively found himself - very informally, nothing at all official - blacklisted; none of the troops would talk to him because they thought he was a %#!.   He went away.   It sorts itself out.


----------



## X-mo-1979 (1 Jun 2008)

TrexLink said:
			
		

> There was one type who tried to stir up inter-unit trouble over there. He effectively found himself - very informally, nothing at all official - blacklisted; none of the troops would talk to him because they thought he was a %#!.   He went away.   It sorts itself out.



This is the second time I heard this on army.ca,can anyone shed some light on this?What happened and between what unit's?
A name wouldnt hurt either.....post it here or feel free to pm me.


----------



## TCBF (2 Jun 2008)

EW said:
			
		

> By your measuring stick I assume that you think that Christie Blanchford, Matthew Fisher, or Peter Worthington are examples of the "useful idiots used by the" Canadian Forces, because they have written articles which could be seen as supportive of the CF?



No.  But, you probably knew that already.


----------



## Spencer100 (3 Jun 2008)

Another CBCer goes to the dark side

http://www.insidethecbc.com/aljacorpa


----------



## MarkOttawa (5 Jun 2008)

The _Globe and Mail_ at it again--a _Torch_ post:

Two weeks later...
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2008/06/two-weeks-later.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## jollyjacktar (5 Jun 2008)

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> The _Globe and Mail_ at it again--a _Torch_ post:
> 
> Two weeks later...
> http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2008/06/two-weeks-later.html
> ...



Must be hot stuff.  The net nanny has a block on this one.

As for the others going over to the dark side.  Who knows how long they will hack it.  The earlier westerners who went over to the english side of that outfit did not stay overly long.  Maybe the money could not buy happiness.


----------



## vonGarvin (5 Jun 2008)

the "toyoufromfallinghands" site is now blocked on the DIN, FWIW.


----------



## jollyjacktar (5 Jun 2008)

Yes, so I found out.  I'll bite..... why?


----------



## Babbling Brooks (5 Jun 2008)

We've run into this problem with the DND firewall before - I had a friend who e-mailed me about a month ago to let me know he couldn't read The Torch from KAF anymore.  So I asked some folks at CEFCOM what was going on.  Here's what I was told via e-mail:



> Damian,
> 
> Further to the DND blocking Blogspot sites discussion, it would seem that this is purely a technical issue rather than an attempt to specifically target site content.
> 
> ...



Whether that's the whole story, I don't know.  But the blocking seems to be intermittent, not constant - I had another friend who e-mailed me from KAF not a week later to tell me he was reading every day.  I can tell you, it's annoying a whole pile of people from Halifax to Kandahar that want to access the blog through the DWAN.  You could try talking to your IT help desk, or you could just read it from home.

The funny part is that there was a story written about The Torch in a recent issue of The Maple Leaf.  But when people tried to click on the link in the electronic version, they'd find their access blocked...   :


----------



## jollyjacktar (5 Jun 2008)

Thank you for the clarification.  Some of the blocks do catch me by surprise from time to time.  I found BBC News blocked for some time while in KAF.  Naughty words or something like that I was told when I bitched.


----------



## Babbling Brooks (5 Jun 2008)

I've got things to say about a couple of points from earlier in the thread:

The CF has a Public Affairs branch.  It has some good people in it, who do their best to get the stories of ordinary soldiers, sailors, and airmen to the Canadian public through the media filter.  It also has some people who were shuffled into the trade because they washed out of something else.  Right now, the PA branch is getting largely gagged by the Privy Council Office and the Prime Minister's Office.  Micro-managing the day-to-day public communications of the CF is a bad idea, and I'm hoping they'll figure that out at some point.  My point is that PA is trying - well or poorly, depending on the individual - to do their job, and is being stifled by the bureaucrats, staffers, and politicians.

I'm not sure the press can be accurately referred to as a 'fifth column', since there's no co-ordination and no articulated aim to undermine.  But whether they're organized or not, there _is_ a certain amount of bias and lack of professionalism among Canadian journalists when talking about the CF.  There are a few reasons for this.


First, the people attracted to journalism in the first place are naturally challenging of authority, so when they see a hierarchical organization like the CF, where deference to authority is the norm, it raises their suspicions.
Second, journalists naturally look for scandal, conflict, the expose, etc, so they can sell ad space.  Their business runs on "news" - and remember: it's not "news" that a million cars a day drive the 401 in Toronto, it's "news" that three of them crashed into each other and a couple of people died.  So when you're dealing with a journalist, you need to remember that that's what they're looking for - the dirt.  And even if the reporter themselves isn't looking for dirt, you can bet their editor is, which restricts which stories make it to print or to air, no matter what the reporter sends in...
Third, most journalists are politically left-of-centre, which in Canada tends to mean pacifist to one degree or another.  Many of the older ones running newsrooms today cut their teeth in the time of Watergate and Vietnam protests.
Fourth, most still have no first-hand experience with the military.  A couple of things are helping change that, but the change is happening slowly: the embedding program, and the training in Wainwright.  The embedding program at least lets reporters observe soldiers from as close to "the inside" as the journo will ever get.  The use of journalism students to act the part of real reporters in training at Wainwright is also helping familiarize another generation of journalists with the CF.  Whether it's being done in the best way possible is another question, but it's a start.  And familiarity is the first step in the process towards acceptance...

We spend a bunch of our time over at The Torch spanking the mainstream media for their exaggerations, shoddy research, bias and spin, and garden-variety errors.  So I'm not a huge fan of the Canadian journalism scene.  But there are a number of them who have engaged me in correspondence to make sure they're getting a story right, or who read for background every day - in other words, people who realize they don't know enough about the CF to report on it properly, and are looking to correct that.  I try to point them in the right direction where I can...

As a group, reporting on military issues, they're not often stellar.  In fact, they're barely competent in many cases.  But they're not as malicious, as a group, as some might suggest.  Oh, there are bad apples, but they're not the majority.

The problem with _most_ Canadian journalists is ignorance, not sedition.


----------



## MarkOttawa (5 Jun 2008)

Babbling: "The problem with most Canadian journalists is ignorance, not sedition."  Generally true, but I'd say the _Globe_ under editor-in-chief Eddie Greenspon has a definite anti-Afghan mission agenda, which spills over into what coverage is given the CF.  Steady Eddie seems to see the paper going after the mission the way the American media eventually went after the US in Vietnam--for example:

Who's out to get the Canadian Forces?
http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/008845.html

Eddie the Ego: Up to no good?
http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/009349.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## GAP (5 Jun 2008)

Blocking JAVA, ActiveX, VBScript? In that case not many sites are getting through.....a whole lot of overkill......


----------



## EW (6 Jun 2008)

TCBF said:
			
		

> No.  But, you probably knew that already.



Not really. If you truly believe that "The Media are  "...useful idiots" used by the so-called fifth column..." than I would not presume to know what you think about those other members of the "media."  Actually I would disagree, and say that they are somewhat used by the CF, and the CF would be stupid not to try and influence the media, that is the way the world works.  Look at how we won the media war in Oka in the last decade.  We were just as good at using the media, as the Warrior Society.  Therefore the CF demonstrated/advertised the calm professional image that was necessary for the opposition (warrior society) to realize that the public wasn't going to rally to their cause, and they eventually had to give in.  Very distant from today's situation, but the principal remains, the CF had better be good at "using' the media to get our view out.


----------



## TCBF (7 Jun 2008)

- I'll go for that.  
- My initial post was intended to convey the message that I did not believe the media per se was a Fifth Column, but that some could no doubt be used by the fifth column.  My use of the term "useful idiots" was not intended to be all-encompassing.  I regret any confusion.


----------



## MarkOttawa (7 Jun 2008)

_Globe and Mail_ at it again:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080606.wdefence07/BNStory/National/home


> ...
> Gen. Natynczyk, who will take over formally in early July, has rare battlefield experience for a Canadian soldier, having fought in George W. Bush's U.S.-led war in Iraq...



It's not the facts, it's the phraseology, stupid.  Check the comments to see the foreseeable result.  I do think though it was ill-advised of Gen. Natynczyk to say:



> In a brief encounter with reporters Friday, Gen. Natynczyk said that what he learned in Iraq is instructive for fighting in Afghanistan, where Canada is battling the Taliban just as the United States wars with insurgents in Iraq.
> 
> “The tactics and techniques and procedures are exactly the same – so are the risks.”



I would also argue there a large differences between Iraq and Afstan. Unlike Iraq almost no combat in Afstan has been in urban areas; in Afstan there is not large scale sectarian-motivated violence; in Afstan suicide bombings are much rarer and on the whole less deadly than in Iraq; the insurgency is generally much more geographically confined in Afstan than it was for a long time in Iraq; I don't think there have been any brigade-level operations in Afstan; air strikes are used much more frequently in Afstan; 
http://www.snappingturtle.net/flit/archives/2007_04_13.html#006136
etc.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (7 Jun 2008)

Lt.-Gen. Natynczyk's remarks also opened the door for St. Steve Staples!
http://winnipegsun.com/News/Canada/2008/06/07/5800721-sun.html


> ...
> Steven Staples, president of the Rideau Institute,
> http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2008/02/conference-of-defence-associations-vs.html
> remains worried about what Natynczyk may bring to the job.
> ...



Expect quite a bit more comment like that, at least for a while.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Kirkhill (7 Jun 2008)

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> _Globe and Mail_ at it again:
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080606.wdefence07/BNStory/National/home
> It's not the facts, it's the phraseology, stupid.  Check the comments to see the foreseeable result.  I do think though it was ill-advised of Gen. Natynczyk to say:
> 
> ...



While I agree with your observation on phraseology I am not sure that I can find common ground in your second paragraph.

While there has been, and are, operations in large urban areas in Iraq there are also operations in small villages and open country.  
While there is less of a Sunni/Shia split in the Afghan situation the Taliban, with their religious focus certainly could qualify as a sect - and a sect that doesn't play well with others.  
While the tactics of Iraq may be less assiduously applied and less effective that doesn't mean that counter-tactics from Iraq aren't applicable in Afghanistan.
I think that your own maps on safe zones in Afghanistan point to a fairly broadly distributed problem with anti-government forces even though most of the action seems to be happening in the south, and the east, and the centre, and occasionally the west, and once in a while the north and even in Kabul.
As to Brigade level operations - Musa Qala has seen at least one Brigade level op and in Helmand somebody is coordinating the activities of Brit Battalions and a US MEU.
Finally - wrt air strikes - you leave yourself open to the suggestion that the NATO in Afghanistan is more "American" in their approach than the Americans in Iraq.

The Yanks have figured out Co-In, again, in Iraq.  If they apply the same tactics to Afghanistan that are succeeding in Iraq, is that a bad thing.  Having said that things don't seem to be going so badly in Afghanistan, combining Brigade Level operations, air strikes and civil support.


----------



## EW (8 Jun 2008)

TCBF said:
			
		

> - I'll go for that.
> - My initial post was intended to convey the message that I did not believe the media per se was a Fifth Column, but that some could no doubt be used by the fifth column.  My use of the term "useful idiots" was not intended to be all-encompassing.  I regret any confusion.



Roger that, and I'll admit I was being a bit of a smart ass ;-).  I also have to often shake my head at the left wing bias in the press; but then I count on those who I feel have a more 'realistic' look at the real world to try and enlighten our fellow Canadians.  Years ago I took OPDP 6 (National and International Studies) and savoured the section on journalism.  I hope it is still required reading under the new development system.  The best quote related to the fact that everyone has prejudices, and the worst thing "...is a bias denied..."  Where some of our CF friendly journalists will often be willing to report on something the CF has done wrong, I wish the less friendly journalists (to the CF) would be so willing to give credit when the CF, more often than not, gets it right.
Cheers


----------



## The Bread Guy (2 Jul 2008)

An excerpt from something recent, touching on some of the same themes, pitched into the stew pot in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the _Copyright Act._

*Trying the Suspect or the Government? The Media’s Approach to the Trial of al-Qaeda’s Canadian Operative*
Michael Scheuer, Jamestown Foundation Terrorism Focus, 1 Jul 08
Article link

(....)

"In sum, much of the Canadian and Western media seem to be reverting to their pre-9/11 role as first and foremost critics of their governments. This is, of course, an essential and invaluable part of the media’s role in democratic societies, but it is not the whole of the media’s responsibility. By stepping away from the commendable, fire-bell-in-the-night role they played after 9/11 by describing how Western leaders had vastly underestimated the Islamist threat, the media have done their readers and countries a disservice. By resuming a tight focus on condemning, for example, the Canadian government’s prolonged silence about evidence against Khawaja; the UK government’s quest for a longer period in which terrorist suspects can be held; and the U.S. government’s admittedly bumbling, often disingenuous efforts to deal with the serious issue of what to do with prisoners of war who probably can never be released, the media is doing part of their job. They are, however, also causing readers to resume navel-gazing and become more focused on over-wrought, often-uneducated analyses of government misdeeds rather than on the growing threat in the West from educated Islamists, some of whom—like Momin Khawaja—have penetrated sensitive departments of Western governments, are detected only because of sheer good luck and are associated with or inspired by al-Qaeda."


----------



## MarkOttawa (2 Jul 2008)

A post by Babbling Brooks at _The Torch_ about a certain professor beloved by our media:

At what point does he become a partisan, I wonder?
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2008/07/at-what-point-does-he-become-partisan-i.html

Babbling's conclusion:



> Watch and shoot, folks.



A true bilgemeister:
http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/010551.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Edward Campbell (3 Jul 2008)

From the  Afghanistan Debate: Why we should be there (or not) & how we should conduct the mission (or not) thread:



			
				Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> Not this _again_.  There's no pipeline.  There may be a plan for a plan for a pipeline, but nothing more...  See here:
> 
> http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/70803/post-674252.html#msg674252
> 
> ...



The _Globe and Mail’s_ Lawrence Martin simply cannot resist coming out against the Afghanistan mission – even when the pipeline lie has been thoroughly debunked. Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Good Grey Globe_, are his latest ravings:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080702.wcomartin03/BNStory/specialComment/home


> Big Oil pumps up the ugly Afghan and Iraqi mix
> 
> LAWRENCE MARTIN
> 
> ...



Martin’s hatred for George W Bush and all his works, his general dislike of the USA and the Conservative Party of Canada (which he sees as “too American” and as _“Bushites”_) and his distaste for the Canadian Forces – as currently led and employed, leads him to repeat lies.

Yes, Kabul signed a pipeline plan, but as Teddy Ruxpin points out (and as Martin, himself, acknowledges) despite the _plan_ any _potential_ pipeline is years, more likely decades away and beset by problems throughout the ‘neighbourhood.’

This is just part of a media and _”commentariat”_ campaign against:

•	The Afghanistan mission, itself;

•	The Conservative Government; and

•	The *militarization* of the Canadian Forces.

Is there a _fifth column_? Well, I don’t know if I would use that phrase, but I do agree that many, many influential Canadians dislike what we some of you did, are doing and are getting ready to do overseas, and want to denigrate the mission and, by extension, many of you.


----------



## MarkOttawa (3 Jul 2008)

E.R. Campbell: Quite so, and poor Mr Martin made a rather silly mistake in his column, that says all one needs to know about the quality of much journalism in this country--a letter sent to the _Globe_ today, wonder if they'll publish it:



> Lawrence Martin, in his column "Big Oil pumps up the ugly Afghan and Iraqi mix" (July 3), goes on and on about the great American interest in an oil pipeline through Afghanistan; indeed he claims that oil "...has certainly been among Washington's motivations and now, with the pipeline deal, it will be front and centre."
> 
> There is one slight problem.  There have certainly been plans since the 1990s for a pipeline through Afghanistan.   But those plans have all been for a pipeline to transport natural gas from Turkmenistan to Pakistan, and now also India.
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (9 Jul 2008)

_Globe_ did not publish the letter.  Here's some stuff about someone our media, for reasons one simply cannot imagine, take at face value:

Steve Staples and some usual suspects 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2008/07/steve-staples-and-some-usual-suspects.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## TrexLink (10 Jul 2008)

If we speak of the CF, we speak of a fairly monolithic organization, with common values, a common ethos and so forth.  It would be serious mistake to try to apply that to the media. The myth of media unanimity is no more correct than that of native unanimity before the white man arrived in North America.

The fact is that there are hundreds, if not thousands of media outlets, ranging from the international (eg CNN and to a lesser extent the CBC) all the way down to The Podunk Gleaner-Herald and Opinionator.  Each one has its own editorial slant (and let no one in the media try to tell you differently - compare coverage in The National Post to that in The Toronto Star, for instance). Moreover, the raw footage/stories submitted to the outlets come from reporters who also have their own belief system and thus always put some sort of spin on it. Lacking a central vision or a central ethos, with the exception of the major media chains, each one tends to be pretty independent and the tone of their coverage of any issue varies widely.

There are some reporters out there who I'd be happy to give my last sip of water to and others who can only expect a shortcut into the nearest unmarked minefield. That's little different from members of any other trade or profession; you've got good ones, bad ones and (in the majority) average ones doing their best to be fair.  Trying to lump them all together is not only silly, but counterproductive.  As has been noted before, we can work together with the better ones to our mutual advantage.

Oddly enough, the white-socks-and-sandals claque on The Globe and Mail news forum views the media as being completely slanted towards the military and its Afghanistan mission.  Embedding is taken as evidence of compromised standards and bias.


----------



## MarkOttawa (4 Aug 2008)

At the _NY Times_?

Spinning for the Taliban
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2008/08/spinning-for-taliban.html



> ...
> "A certain reporter, Carlotta Gall,
> Portrays the Talib: ten feet tall."



*Update:* A bit of _Globe and Mail_ romanticism added at the end of the post.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## twistedcables (4 Aug 2008)

The media just as certainly necessary as well as evil.  I think the accusation is a VALID one, albeit dangerous to take to its opposite extreme (total state censorship).  On this extreme side (about the accusation having validity) one could argue that at times, they are being TREASONOUS.

That's right, I said it!


----------



## George Wallace (1 Sep 2008)

The MSM is sometimes not always giving us the facts.  Sometimes they will, perhaps, convieniently omit things so as not to prejudice their agenda/views.  This link just came to my attention and it raises many questions as to what responsibilities the MSM hold and where they may also be failing in their responsibilites.  You be the judge.

AP Stringer Stands by as Taliban Murder 2 Women, Gets Snuff Footage


----------



## The Bread Guy (1 Sep 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> The MSM is sometimes not always giving us the facts.  Sometimes they will, perhaps, convieniently omit things so as not to prejudice their agenda/views.  This link just came to my attention and it raises many questions as to what responsibilities the MSM hold and where they may also be failing in their responsibilites.  You be the judge.
> 
> AP Stringer Stands by as Taliban Murder 2 Women, Gets Snuff Footage



And this is one of the ways the Taliban helps keep reporters on side, too.  In addition to the tradition of "never betraying sources", reporters must know that if one of them shares info with the Coalition forces:
1)  the Taliban aren't big into_ litigious_ solutions to such whistleblowing, and
2)  other reporters would be treated as potential informers, meaning cutting off access (or worse).


----------



## armyvern (1 Sep 2008)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> And this is one of the ways the Taliban helps keep reporters on side, too.  In addition to the tradition of "never betraying sources", reporters must know that if one of them shares info with the Coalition forces:
> 1)  the Taliban aren't big into_ litigious_ solutions to such whistleblowing, and
> 2)  other reporters would be treated as potential informers, meaning cutting off access (or worse).



Or worse like this??

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/12/world/asia/12afghan.html

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,184179,00.html

http://www.cjr.org/behind_the_news/demands_unmet_the_taliban_take.php

So they tend to play their game ...


----------



## MarkOttawa (5 Sep 2008)

The _Globe and Mail_ is happy to use second-hand Taliban sources, virtually uncritically:

Inside the Taliban's deadly ambush
Using heaviest weapons in their arsenal, a specially recruited squad lay in wait for Canadians near site of fearsome 2006 battle
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080905.wafghan05/BNStory/National/



> The ambush that killed three Canadians this week was a carefully planned trap, using an elite team of Taliban fighters and the insurgents' most powerful weapon to strike in a symbolic location near the scene of Canada's bloodiest battles of the mission.
> 
> This detailed account of the attack, from a well-informed Afghan government official in Kandahar with strong Taliban contacts, suggests the insurgents were frighteningly organized for the Sept. 3 ambush.
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Old Sweat (5 Sep 2008)

At the risk of going nuts again, and I had just calmed down after my last rant, how by all that's holy can we trust a journalist who is in contact with the enemy with details of current and future operations? Sure, that's a rhetorical question and they will claim they are neutral and objective, but unlike this lot, Charles Lynch, Matthew Halton, Ross Munro et al had no problems reporting dirt and all the rest, and still knowing who the enemy was.


----------



## T.I.M. (6 Sep 2008)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> At the risk of going nuts again, and I had just calmed down after my last rant, how by all that's holy can we trust a journalist who is in contact with the enemy with details of current and future operations? Sure, that's a rhetorical question and they will claim they are neutral and objective, but unlike this lot, Charles Lynch, Matthew Halton, Ross Munro et al had no problems reporting dirt and all the rest, and still knowing who the enemy was.



Well, he actually says its coming from a Government official who has "contacts,' as any Government official worth his salt does.  The journalist certainly isn't chatting up the Taiban himself.

Of course the report is still Afghan RUMINT and total fantasy, but people are hungry for details and they'll latch onto the first source willing to provide them.


----------



## OldSolduer (6 Sep 2008)

It may be bitterness speaking here, BUT 

Any Western journalist who hangs out with the Taliban or A-Q.....well some things are better left unsaid...know what I mean??? :skull:


----------



## The Bread Guy (6 Sep 2008)

T.I.M. said:
			
		

> Of course the report is still Afghan RUMINT and total fantasy, but people are hungry for details and they'll latch onto the first source willing to provide them.



Especially those willing to provide more details in an environment where in some cases, details can kill.



			
				OldSolduer said:
			
		

> Any Western journalist who hangs out with the Taliban or A-Q.....well some things are better left unsaid...know what I mean??? :skull:



I hear ya.  Sometimes, we just gotta believe both the weiners AND the keeners in this world end up getting what they deserve in the end - even if there are_* still*_ too many times when the keeners get what the weiners have coming to them.

Take care, OS...


----------



## gun runner (10 Sep 2008)

So... how far does a story have to go before it is decided that it is in violation to opsec, or that the info was in all intensive means borderline treason? Ubique


----------



## armyvern (11 Sep 2008)

gun runner said:
			
		

> So... how far does a story have to go before it is decided that it is in violation to opsec, or that the info was in all intensive means borderline treason? Ubique



OPSEC allows us (the CF) to maintain security and freedom of action. It is an OPSEC violation as soon as it divulges any information on the dispositions, capabilities and intentions of CF and friendly forces.

Most  commonly known as "loose lips sink ships".

A deliberate leaking of the above info to our enemy, or making such info public so that it is available and can be used against us by our enemy --- could certainly be defined as "treason."


----------



## Greymatters (13 Sep 2008)

There's a lot of grey area as to what is 'OPSEC' and what is not, and the confusion is neverending.  The source and classification of the information is the most important.  What makes it more confusing is when our political and military figures make statements about our dispositions, capabilities and intentions that we are taught should be treated as OPSEC.  In the end, if its in a public realm its not really OPSEC (other than the usual confirm/deny dichotomy).


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (13 Sep 2008)

Greymatters said:
			
		

> In the end, if its in a public realm its not really OPSEC (other than the usual confirm/deny dichotomy).



Having said that I will put on my Moderator hat and say that sometimes even though "stuff" has found its way onto the web we will still pull it from army.ca.

If it leaks, it won't be from this site.


----------



## Weinie (13 Sep 2008)

> There's a lot of grey area as to what is 'OPSEC' and what is not, and the confusion is neverending.  The source and classification of the information is the most important.  What makes it more confusing is when our political and military figures make statements about our dispositions, capabilities and intentions that we are taught should be treated as OPSEC.  In the end, if its in a public realm its not really OPSEC (other than the usual confirm/deny dichotomy).



   Au contraire.

  Classified is CLASSIFIED!
  OPSEC is a methodology that denies critical information to an adversary. Unlike security programs that seek to protect classified information, OPSEC measures identify, control, and protect generally unclassified evidence that is associated with sensitive operations and activities.

   The vast majority of OPSEC violations comes via the public realm.

   On both of my OPSEC courses we had an int analyst who showed us how, with some basic knowledge and some digging, you could turn up a whole host of info.


----------



## T.I.M. (13 Sep 2008)

gun runner said:
			
		

> So... how far does a story have to go before it is decided that it is in violation to opsec, or that the info was in all intensive means borderline treason? Ubique



Well, given that the above story that sparked this discussion is total fabrication on someone's part, I'd say it counts as disinformation rather than opsec. . .


----------



## PuckChaser (14 Sep 2008)

45 fighters with heavy weapons in Afghan math means 4 guys with an RPG and 2 rounds.


----------



## George Wallace (12 Oct 2008)

Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.  Link in article title.

*Time to quit Afghanistan*


> *Canada's $22-billion little war must give way to a negotiated peace settlement*
> 
> By ERIC MARGOLIS
> 
> ...


----------



## Huzzah (12 Oct 2008)

Eric Margolis...and his never-ending oil/conspiracy theories...he's more than a bit
of a Jack-a_s.Biased "journalism" at its' very best.


----------



## Kirkhill (13 Oct 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.  Link in article title.
> 
> *Time to quit Afghanistan*



"Throughout the 12th century royal power was systematically consolidated by David I (1124-53), Malcolm IV (1153-65). and William the Lion (1165-1214).  The south west of Scotland was brought under effective government."  The History of Ayr:John Strawhorn 1989.

The area in question is roughly 100 km North-South (Heads of Ayr to Mull of Galloway) by 150 km (The Rhinns to Liddesdale).  The land is largely like the Eastern Slopes with low rolling hills and the occasional crag.  In times gone by it was  heavily forested in places.  The time frame was 1124-1214 or 90 years.  Effective Government is apparently loosely defined because Carrick, Galloway and the Borders were the lands of Wallace, the Bruce, Border Reivers and Covenanters.  It could be argued that "Effective Government" of that area didn't happen until 1689 and a Dutchman became King of Scots.

The Brigadier was right.  This "War" can't be won.  Because it isn't a "War".  It is an ongoing process of cultivation.  Watering the plants and culling the weeds.  As Edward and others keep saying.....this is all about teaching the Afghans how to tend their own garden and helping them with the spade work until they can handle it themselves.


----------



## MarkOttawa (14 Oct 2008)

A post at _The Torch_:

Kabul under siege? The Globe and Mail weighs in 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2008/10/kabul-under-seige-globe-and-mail-weighs.html

See esp. the last part for a great example of committing journalism.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## OldSolduer (14 Oct 2008)

I find it incredible, as an aside, that some of our citizens, act as if we are somehow shielded from foreign attacks. I don't mean physical attacks, but economic, information, and using our nation as a base to further their terrorist or criminal cause.
And SOME of our political leaders appear with them to garner votes. If there is a "fifth column" at work, it's the political advisors to some of our political leaders.


----------



## MarkOttawa (22 Oct 2008)

A post by Babbling Brooks at _The Torch_:

What was that I was saying about biases shining through?
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2008/10/what-was-that-i-was-saying-about-biases.html

Horrible Heather without the outright malice.  It's the attitude...

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (27 Oct 2008)

Another _Torch_ post:

Taliban realities 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2008/10/taliban-realities.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## George Wallace (5 Jan 2009)

I know some of you have visited the "Comments" columns on sites like CTV, CBC, the Globe and Mail and other media outlets that post online allowing for readers feedback.  I know some of you have become so enraged with the absolute idiocy of some of the people posting on these sites that you now refuse to visit them in fear of having your Blood Pressure go through the roof.  I think it is proof positive that we do have a serious problem in this country, when so many of the citizens are so ill-informed or so willing to act like "sheeple" and listen only to the 'sound bites' preached to them by fanatics and radicals.  It is even more disconcerting, not that they have the freedom to say these things in the Press, but that the Press at times encourages or supports their views.  

I suppose it speaks volumes as to our success as CF members over the last six decades and more in defending their Rights to do so.  I guess, without our defending these Freedoms, there would be no need for a Fifth Column to be at work trying to destroy them and our work.


----------



## Greymatters (9 Jan 2009)

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> A post by Babbling Brooks at _The Torch_:
> 
> What was that I was saying about biases shining through?
> http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2008/10/what-was-that-i-was-saying-about-biases.html
> ...



Normal email routes appear to be closed for addressing letters of protest to Jessica, although this is probably seen as a form of success by her editors.  

I find the ethics of this person a bit questionable when they are embedded in a military unit yet say nothing but derisive comments.   

If anyone else wishes to send her an email through her Facebook account email, send me a PM and I'll pass on her account number...


----------

