# georgeharper: thinks Iraq = Afghanistan



## georgeharper (15 Feb 2008)

Tango2Bravo said:
			
		

> It is not a grand conspiracy to build some pipeline.



You are right, the pipeline is real.And regardless if Canadian soldiers want to believe it or not.Canadian soldiers are in Afghanistan for American interests.



> IN 1998 AMERICA WANTED NEW GOVERNMENT IN AFGHANISTAN TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF OIL PIPELINE
> 
> America has wanted a new government in Afghanistan since at least 1998, three years before the attacks on 11 September 2001. The official report from a meeting of the U.S. Government's foreign policy committee on 12 February 1998, available on the U.S. Government website, confirms that the need for a West-friendly government was recognised long before the War on Terror that followed September 11th:
> [ U.S. House of Reps., "U.S. Interests in the Central Asian Republics", 12 Feb 1998 ]
> ...


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (15 Feb 2008)

Georgeharper,

So you are saying that the events in Afghanistan since Sep 2001 are based on some plot hatched in 1998 to build a pipeline?


----------



## George Wallace (15 Feb 2008)

georgeharper said:
			
		

> You are right, the pipeline is real.And regardless if Canadian soldiers want to believe it or not.Canadian soldiers are in Afghanistan for American interests.



Jane, Jane, Janebella.

We have been down this road so many times before.  Enmasse is totally out to lunch with it's conspiracy theories.  Why are you bringing them here?


----------



## 2 Cdo (15 Feb 2008)

georgeharper said:
			
		

> You are right, the pipeline is real.And regardless if Canadian soldiers want to believe it or not.Canadian soldiers are in Afghanistan for American interests.



Great, another tin-foiler troll. :


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (15 Feb 2008)

Oh for the love of Allah   :  Click back about four pages _on this thread_ for my post on the "pipeline".  There's no friggin' pipeline!


----------



## Mike Baker (15 Feb 2008)

georgeharper said:
			
		

> You are right, the pipeline is real.And regardless if Canadian soldiers want to believe it or not.Canadian soldiers are in Afghanistan for American interests.


 : Ah my, another one today?


BTW, neat name, who's your friend, Stephen Bush?


----------



## 2 Cdo (15 Feb 2008)

Didn't see a pipeline in 2002. No troops reported seeing a pipeline in 04, 05, 06 or 07. Maybe it's finally going in this year. Sorry George your pipeline theory was shot to hell back in 2002 and nothing has changed since then. Back to your loony, left-wing, anti-American sites for you.


----------



## Flip (15 Feb 2008)

Here's a simple test;

If I  were an invester in the energy sector where would I put my
shekels? Hmmmm.

Does a pipeline through one of the most hostile places on earth sound like a good move?
I'd do better to invest in something a little less volatile risky I think.

Are oil and gas investers stupid? One would think not.
Very simply, the pipeline claim is dubious.


----------



## Reccesoldier (15 Feb 2008)

georgeharper et al.  Would the US's desire for a western friendly government in Kabul be the same as the US's desire for a western friendly government in Beijing, Tehran, Gaza, Mogadishu, Tripoli, Moscow, Algiers, Islamabad, Rangoon or any other nation?

Are you really so devoid of the ability to process relevant information in the context of international relations and national self interest that you truly believe that these statements are conceived, articulated and initiated in a vacuum?

It's parade of the trolls time here on Army.ca folks, belly up to the bar and enjoy the show.


----------



## Teeps74 (15 Feb 2008)

georgeharper said:
			
		

> You are right, the pipeline is real.And regardless if Canadian soldiers want to believe it or not.Canadian soldiers are in Afghanistan for American interests.



Just lovely... Another know nothing do-gooder. Problem with morons like you, is you are far more efficient at killing people then I am... That is a feat in itself, as I am in the infantry.

Long in erroneous assumptions real short on facts... Typical for the enmasse/babble crowd.


----------



## Old Ranger (15 Feb 2008)

2 Cdo said:
			
		

> Didn't see a pipeline in 2002. No troops reported seeing a pipeline in 04, 05, 06 or 07.



Maybe you can only see it with a special tin foil hat and some special medication only available from Cheech or Chong.


----------



## Teeps74 (15 Feb 2008)

2 Cdo said:
			
		

> Didn't see a pipeline in 2002. No troops reported seeing a pipeline in 04, 05, 06 or 07. Maybe it's finally going in this year. Sorry George your pipeline theory was shot to hell back in 2002 and nothing has changed since then. Back to your loony, left-wing, anti-American sites for you.



I didn't see it either this pas year, and I got as far west as Sper... Maybe it was one of them new invisible pipelines.


----------



## Greymatters (15 Feb 2008)

Teeps74 said:
			
		

> Long in erroneous assumptions real short on facts... Typical for the enmasse/babble crowd.



They should at least ask for proof it exists in the first place before calling us liars for denying it exists...

Oops, sorry, too much logic...


----------



## Teeps74 (15 Feb 2008)

Greymatters said:
			
		

> They should at least ask for proof it exists in the first place before calling us liars for denying it exists...
> 
> Oops, sorry, too much logic...



Logical fact based argument?!?! 

You mad man! 

That would mean the world would implode, right after GW and Harper eat all the babies in the world!


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (15 Feb 2008)

What they have not figured out yet is that it is all just a smokescreen to conceal the operations being conducted in _Cydonia_ at the behest of the neo-con Illuminati.  This was all set in motion in 1776.


----------



## 2 Cdo (15 Feb 2008)

Teeps74 said:
			
		

> I didn't see it either this pas year, and I got as far west as Sper... Maybe it was one of them new invisible pipelines.



Well of course it's invisible, and only the enlightened can see it! ;D


----------



## Teeps74 (15 Feb 2008)

Tango2Bravo said:
			
		

> What they have not figured out yet is that it is all just a smokescreen to conceal the operations being conducted in _Cydonia_ at the behest of the neo-con Illuminati.  This was all set in motion in 1776.



Oh dear, I had to report you to the head smok wearing dude with the really REALLY big rings. You have exposed our their secrets, and thus we must make you disappear... Or at least think about doing something... Err, maybe eat ice creame?


----------



## Sig_Des (15 Feb 2008)

2 Cdo said:
			
		

> Well of course it's invisible, and only the enlightened can see it! ;D



Yup. And the main pumping station is hidden underneath the Emerald Pond at KAF


----------



## Teeps74 (15 Feb 2008)

Beadwindow 7 said:
			
		

> Yup. And the main pumping station is hidden underneath the Emerald Pond at KAF



Off topic and speaking about Emerald Pond, but any idea what the prize is up to now? When I was there it was at 500 Euro.


----------



## Sig_Des (15 Feb 2008)

Teeps74 said:
			
		

> Off topic and speaking about Emerald Pond, but any idea what the prize is up to now? When I was there it was at 500 Euro.



I'd heard 6 Grand as of last summer.


----------



## Teeps74 (15 Feb 2008)

Beadwindow 7 said:
			
		

> I'd heard 6 Grand as of last summer.





Maybe I should take my swiming trunks when I go back...

ETA: and now I need to take a shower... /Shudder


----------



## George Wallace (15 Feb 2008)

georgeharper said:
			
		

> You are right, the pipeline is real.And regardless if Canadian soldiers want to believe it or not.Canadian soldiers are in Afghanistan for American interests.



Posted at 10:18:44 

Logged off at 10:18:44


----------



## Sig_Des (15 Feb 2008)

Teeps74 said:
			
		

> Maybe I should take my swiming trunks when I go back...
> 
> ETA: and now I need to take a shower... /Shudder



I dunno, it'd have to be a lot more than 6 grand for me. I don't think a gasmask and a bounce sheet will cut this one.


----------



## Teeps74 (15 Feb 2008)

:rofl:

 :-X


----------



## Old Ranger (15 Feb 2008)

Dare I ask about the pond and what must be done?


----------



## GAP (15 Feb 2008)

Old Ranger said:
			
		

> Dare I ask about the pond and what must be done?



Think sewage lagoon..... ;D


----------



## Teeps74 (15 Feb 2008)

Old Ranger said:
			
		

> Dare I ask about the pond and what must be done?




Open sewage for 15,000 people... It's green, and nasty. When the wind is blowing just right, the stench hits you like a closed fist all the way over on the far eastern side of the camp... Let alone right next to it where I did my laundry when in camp lol.


----------



## Sig_Des (15 Feb 2008)

Teeps74 said:
			
		

> Open sewage for 15,000 people... It's green, and nasty. When the wind is blowing just right, the stench hits you like a closed fist all the way over on the far eastern side of the camp... Let alone right next to it where I did my laundry when in camp lol.



Yeah, they shut down the self-serve laundry there last summer. The worst is jogging by. You think you can avoid the smell by breathing through your mouth.....and then you _taste_ it.  :-X

I'll take the burning garbage smell over that ANY day.


----------



## Old Ranger (15 Feb 2008)

Been in one of those...not bad with the right dive gear that doesn't leak and a decontam team to scrub you..


----------



## Sig_Des (15 Feb 2008)

Old Ranger said:
			
		

> Been in one of those...not bad with the right dive gear that doesn't leak and a decontam team to scrub you..



yeah, dive gear isn't part of the bet....


----------



## Old Ranger (15 Feb 2008)

Just Super dose yourself with Anti-biotics and get an easy 6 G.


----------



## Charon (15 Feb 2008)

Teeps74 said:
			
		

> Open sewage for 15,000 people... It's green, and nasty. When the wind is blowing just right, the stench hits you like a closed fist all the way over on the far eastern side of the camp... Let alone right next to it where I did my laundry when in camp lol.



The problem is that in the evening the wind is always blowing "just right".  I pitied the the guys in camp that was beside it.


----------



## Teeps74 (15 Feb 2008)

Beadwindow 7 said:
			
		

> Yeah, they shut down the self-serve laundry there last summer. The worst is jogging by. You think you can avoid the smell by breathing through your mouth.....and then you _taste_ it.  :-X
> 
> I'll take the burning garbage smell over that ANY day.



Oh gawd... The memories   :-X  And now I remember why I liked it better outside the camp.  JPCC (where I spent most of my time) was beautiful this time last year, PRT, MSG and Sper all have warm places in my heart.


----------



## Sig_Des (15 Feb 2008)

Teeps74 said:
			
		

> Oh gawd... The memories   :-X  And now I remember why I liked it better outside the camp.  JPCC (where I spent most of my time) was beautiful this time last year, PRT, MSG and Sper all have warm places in my heart.



Yup. Out was definitely better. KPRT...I have it on good authority that Sgt Smiley is still sitting in his lawnchair and smiling it up there


----------



## McG (15 Feb 2008)

georgeharper said:
			
		

> You are right, the pipeline is real.And regardless if Canadian soldiers want to believe it or not.Canadian soldiers are in Afghanistan for American interests.


George,
All of your quotes are attributed to -> U.S. House of Reps., "U.S. Interests in the Central Asian Republics", 12 Feb 1998 
Yet, the first one talks of 11 Sept 2001 in the past tense.  Provide real links to real sources (and direct to the source not via some web repository in which there may or may not be a document containing your snippets).

Everyone else,
*2 + pages of feeding the troll is pushing it past the extreem (especially those with the need to come back and jab at it multiple times).  Sum it up.  If he posts nothing more, then there is no need for further comment on him*

Cheers,
The Staff


----------



## OldSolduer (17 Feb 2008)

georgeharper is "Tweetypie" from the canoe threads. He loves to bait military/police personnell. Can his a** please!


----------



## OldSolduer (20 Feb 2008)

georgeharper = tweetypie from the Canoe threads.


----------



## Charon (20 Feb 2008)

I concur, this does seem to be strongly similar to the typical *%#$(@t that is posted on the Canoe site.  Although, Tweetypie uses the standard mis-spellings to try and camouflage the fact it is using multiple ID's.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (20 Feb 2008)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> georgeharper = tweetypie from the Canoe threads.



btw wasn't there a member named tweetypie here that was banned?


----------



## Charon (20 Feb 2008)

georgeharper said:
			
		

> Well in reality, terrorists were not doing " these unspeakable acts on innocent poor helpless people." before the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan began.
> Lets not forget GW invited terrorists to come to Iraq
> BRING EM ON
> And lets look at just how many innocent poor helpless people have been killed by the Americans by thie brave military people dropping bombs on them


Nope it was was actually the Baathist Government of Iraq and the Taliban government of Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan that was doing it.  

And I guess no innocent poor helpless people were killed in Kandahar City or Spin Boldak in the last couple of days by the Taliban facilitated suicide bombers?

Historical revisionism is so entertaining when attempted by the mentally challenged. LOL


----------



## OldSolduer (20 Feb 2008)

Tweety was banned but she is back as georgeharper. She will deny it, and give her time she will claim to be veteran who lost a leg, and is now a urinal cleaner....seriously. She also goes by "Ontario" on the Canoe site.


----------



## georgeharper (20 Feb 2008)

Wow, some people sure know how to twist things around.
The fact remains GW BUSH invited terrorists into Iraq.
People in Baghdad were not getting blown up in vegetable markets by suicide bombers prior to the occupation of Iraq.
Taliban members were not blowing themselves up in markets in Afghanistan prior to the current United States/Canada occupation of that country.
And to somehow try to compare Saddam using U.S. supplied chemical weapons on civilians to suicide bomber4s is being not too bright



> You have no knowledge of "helpless people have been killed by the Americans ... dropping bombs on them" but you type it because it sounds good.



Well yes we all have knowledge of American bombs being dropped on innocent civilians.
And no, it doesnt sound good



> Lets not forget GW invited terrorists to come to Iraq
> 
> 
> How so?



BRING EM ON.

Even GW himself admits that saying that was one of the biggest mistakes he made during his first term.
I guess he doesnt consider all the lies he told about Iraq and WMD which has created a disaster not likely to be fixed in a long time, and the death of 4000 American soldiers because of those lies, a mistake


----------



## KevinB (20 Feb 2008)

:

Ever set foot in Iraq -- pretty much everyone here is glad Sadam is gone.   yes mistakes have been made - but by and large the country and region will be stronger when a secure and stable democratic Iraq emerges.

typed from Iraq BTW


----------



## OkotoksRookie (20 Feb 2008)

georgeharper said:
			
		

> People in Baghdad were not getting blown up in vegetable markets by suicide bombers prior to the occupation of Iraq.
> Taliban members were not blowing themselves up in markets in Afghanistan prior to the current United States/Canada occupation of that country.



Your right.
Public markets where people shopped were previously not very popular targets for bombings.
They used to simply target buses, Churches, Embassy's, national buildings of commerce etc...
Whats the difference between a church (mosque/temple... place of religious worship...) and a market?


----------



## ModlrMike (20 Feb 2008)

georgeharper said:
			
		

> Well in reality, terrorists were not doing " these unspeakable acts on innocent poor helpless people." before the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan began.



Are you contending that this justifies their doing it now? 

I would think you should be just as outraged when terrorists kill civilians as when the military does. The difference being of course that the military seeks to minimize civilian casualties, where the terrorists do not.


----------



## 1feral1 (20 Feb 2008)

georgeharper said:
			
		

> Well in reality, terrorists were not doing " these unspeakable acts on innocent poor helpless people." before the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan began.
> Lets not forget GW invited terrorists to come to Iraq
> BRING EM ON
> And lets look at just how many innocent poor helpless people have been killed by the Americans by thie brave military people dropping bombs on them



Just what do you REALLY know GH?

All I see is anti Bush and anti US crap spewing out of your .... ah mouth. 

An audience seeker who gets a laugh from the reaction of real people. You're about as plastic as one can get, shy of a doll.

I've seen the US in action, and there were no innocents kiiled, as you are fighting men in civvies, once killed, take away their wpns and ammo, you have civvies.

Secondly sure innocent ones do ge caught up in it, thats a fact, like in all wars, but if you want to get technical, how many innocent people did the RCAF deliberatly kill bombing Germany, when the target was the people.

Your time is running out on here, and thats real, but cheap entertainment for me.

Keep feeding the flames.


----------



## Infanteer (20 Feb 2008)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> typed from Iraq BTW



Zap.

Balls in your court, harper....


----------



## Staff Weenie (20 Feb 2008)

Oooooh, I sense a great disturbance in the Force.

We could almost start betting pools on how many messages a Troll can get before their banning....

georgeharper - up your meds, they ain't working no more.


----------



## Teeps74 (20 Feb 2008)

georgeharper said:
			
		

> Wow, some people sure know how to twist things around.



No twisting, just being factually correct. Something you apparently have some great difficulty with.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (20 Feb 2008)

> Wow, some people sure know how to twist things around.
> The fact remains GW BUSH invited terrorists into Iraq.


So you are admitting that the terrorist existed before the Invasion of Iraq, and that the invasion had nothing to do with their existence? 



> People in Baghdad were not getting blown up in vegetable markets by suicide bombers prior to the occupation of Iraq.



No they were being executed in Abu Ghiab prison or being raped, shot or fed through chippers while alive.  




> Taliban members were not blowing themselves up in markets in Afghanistan prior to the current United States/Canada occupation of that country


.

The Taliban swept through a disorganized resistance to take most of the country, where they brutalized everyone, executed many, denied woman of any human right, increased the infant mortality rate tremendously, attempted to destroy the historical and cultural mosaic of the country and remake it into a hardcore fundamentalist Islamic state (Where people like yourself would have been hung on a telephone pole I might add)   



> And to somehow try to compare Saddam using U.S. supplied chemical weapons on civilians to suicide bomber4s is being not too bright



Both the chemical and biological agents imported were dual use items, and in fairly small quantities. They were used to kickstart their own homegrown WMD programs. You really should read the UNSC reports.



> Well yes we all have knowledge of American bombs being dropped on innocent civilians.
> And no, it doesnt sound good



Considering the opposing side happily uses human shields, no uniforms, hospitals, mosques and schools as operating points and firing positions, one would expect the toll to be higher. The US is not carpet bombing Iraq like it did Germany in WWII, anyone who says they are going to war and no civilians won’t get hurt is lying. The difference is that the US really does not want to hurt civilians, as opposed to the AQ that uses terror on the local population as a matter of policy  





> Even GW himself admits that saying that was one of the biggest mistakes he made during his first term.




I will agree that GWB did a terrible job selling the real need to deal with Saddam, but overthrowing a dictator bent on murdering his own people just does not sell in this world, look at Rwanda, Dafur, the average Western Liberal has not lifted a finger and were not willing to risk anything to save those people.




> I guess he doesnt consider all the lies he told about Iraq and WMD which has created a disaster not likely to be fixed in a long time, and the death of 4000 American soldiers because of those lies, a mistake



You mean Iraq is a bigger disaster than a 10 year brutal war with Iraq, an Invasion of a another country that could not pose a threat to Iraq, the brutal suppression of the Kurds and Shiites, the environmental disaster Saddam caused by draining the Salt marshes or the 1,000 year+ impact of destroying the Kuwaiti oilfields? (Both of these environmental impacts which happened to be addressed only thanks to US intervention I might add)


----------



## 1feral1 (20 Feb 2008)

We know what side of the tracks georgeharper is from. The troll side, and as human beings, many of us who have been deployed (and not), and many of us who are truly streetwise, mature and realistic about current affairs, know the truth and facts. I am sure Trollboy does too, but his mission is to disrupt us, and cause a scene, create contraversy, etc. We know it, and so does he. 

The georgeharpers out there, are simply seeking a reaction from us for entertainment, and therefore he ( our GH)  should either be ignored or better, punted from here in the balls with hobnailed boots (after all he thinks we're all baby killing nazis anyways). I am sure the latter will happen to our georgeharper soon enough.

We are giving him what he wants.


----------



## George Wallace (20 Feb 2008)

Wes

Generally we tend to agree with you, but in practice to Ban the ill-informed twits from this site, just because they are ill-informed twits only adds fuel to their faulty reasoning.  When it is absolutely, without a doubt, blatant Trolling on their part we will Ban them as such.  Unlike their sites, where those of opposing views are censored or Banned outright, we would like to be able to have meaningful and informed dialogue here, no matter the views.   Usually the ill-informed can not provide the required informed opinions necessary for such discussion and provide a wide range of entertainment for members and nonmembers visiting the site.  It is through the means of dissecting their faulty "Sound Bites" that we also inform many others of the true facts.  When others see that these people really don't have a grasp on reality, they loose support.  When we can cause the less informed to do some research and expose the "Fifth Columnists" for what they are, we assist the general public understand what really is going on.  In that course, we also inform members of the Press and the odd Politician who may frequent this site.

georgeharper and whatever other pseudonyms he/she may post under, is a useful tool that we can use against their own ilk.  Their airs of superior intellect only adds to the comedy.


----------



## georgeharper (20 Feb 2008)

> Public markets where people shopped were previously not very popular targets for bombings.
> They used to simply target buses, Churches, Embassy's, national buildings of commerce



No, suicide bombers were not blowing themselves up in Baghdad before the occupation began



> Balls in your court, harper



How so?



> I've seen the US in action, and there were no innocents kiiled



Surely that was a joke.Please tell me it was



> Ever set foot in Iraq -- pretty much everyone here is glad Sadam is gone



Thats funny.I remember Rumnsfeld saying the Iraqis would be throwing roses at the American soldiers.When none were dead.Now 4000 are dead.

But the same thing will apply when Bush is gone
pretty much everyone will be glad when he is gone



> Are you contending that this justifies their doing it now



No.But if not for the occupation of two countries they would not be doing it in those countries, like they were not before



> Just what do you REALLY know GH?



Apparently a lot more than most on here.Who seem to know only one thing





> So you are admitting that the terrorist existed before the Invasion of Iraq, and that the invasion had nothing to do with their existence?



What???

Of course there were terrorist before the US invaded and now occupy Iraq.

And yea,of course I am "ADMITTING"??? the invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism existence, especially nothing to do with 9/11 as I am sure mosyt sane people on this forum even will admit to



> The Taliban swept through a disorganized resistance to take most of the country, where they brutalized everyone, executed many, denied woman of any human right,



That sounds like Saudi Arabia, who have one of the worst human rights record on the planet
Of course they basically control America.
I guess you have no concern for the right of woman and peoples heads in that country?



> We know what side of the tracks georgeharper is from. The troll side,



Thats so funny.Disagree with the majority of people on a forum who happen to be rightwingers, that makes you a troll and a candidate for banning

You arnt interested in discussion.
Just interested in people all agreeing with each other.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (20 Feb 2008)

georgeharper said:
			
		

> Apparently a lot more than most on here.Who seem to know only one thing



Careful sunshine,......the one thing I won't let you do is mock our soldiers. Tread very lightly on THAT topic.


----------



## 1feral1 (20 Feb 2008)

georgeharper said:
			
		

> Surely that was a joke.Please tell me it was



Hiapha Street assault Jan-Feb 2007. The enemy was deliberatly targeted (as were Coalition Forces by the insurgents), no civvies were in the open (they were warned to vacate the area in advance of the battle - most did, those that stayed remained indoors), and like I said in the next sentance, innocents do get caught up in it (that means killed and injured - unfortunatly a fact of war - Russia lost 20 million civilans in WW2, About 40,000 Londoners were killed in WW2 also). Hummm Dresden, Hamburg, berlin, etc. Sadly shit happens, buty you seem to think its some type of a FFZ, well it aint. With modern warfare and technology, non military casualties are  low, and I wish there was noen, but that just will never happen.

If you are going to quote me, quote me proper, and not try to mislead anyone or yourself for that matter.

Its so obvious what you are trying to do. Keep going Mr Titanic, you're taking on some water, and listing starbord.


----------



## Yrys (20 Feb 2008)

georgeharper said:
			
		

> You arnt interested in discussion.



They (CF soldiers) are interested in discussion, otherwise, you would have been banned a long time ago.

But for them, discussion imply mostly facts base on valids sources, not of hearsay and opinions.

They don't agree between them on everything, so how could they be  





> Just interested in people all agreeing with each other.


----------



## Teeps74 (20 Feb 2008)

georgeharper said:
			
		

> No, suicide bombers were not blowing themselves up in Baghdad before the occupation began



Um, there is more to terrorism then just suicide bombers... Like beautiful, yellow mustard gas (Iraq, Saddam's gassing of the Kurds)! Or perhaps in Afghanistan, where the Taliban is responsible for the murder of thousands upon thousands of Hazara, and making Hindus, Christians and others wear yellow identifiers!



> Thats funny.I remember Rumnsfeld saying the Iraqis would be throwing roses at the American soldiers.When none were dead.Now 4000 are dead.



I can't speak for Iraq, but in Afghanistan, I know we are getting a warmer welcome from Afghans then the Taliban are. Something about Afghans having a dislike for Arab terrorists... They like the Chechnians even less.


> No.But if not for the occupation of two countries they would not be doing it in those countries, like they were not before



Again, can not speak for Iraq, but you are right partially... In fact there would be peace, because on the path the Taliban were, the Hazaras would all be dead now. And folks would be asking "Where did all those yellow symbols go?".



> Apparently a lot more than most on here.Who seem to know only one thing



If you are going to claim to be more knowledgeable, it would help improve your credibility if you knew how to employ the Queen's English properly.



> Thats so funny.Disagree with the majority of people on a forum who happen to be rightwingers, that makes you a troll and a candidate for banning
> 
> You arnt interested in discussion.
> Just interested in people all agreeing with each other.



That's funny, you are still here... However, if you keep behaving like a troll, I have my doubts your stay will be long, however,  I personally would like to see you stay. I find you entertaining in your ignorance. It's also curious to note your choice to go down that path of "...banning...". It's been my expereince that left wing boards wouldn't let one of us stick around for long then a couple of hours. Something about facts getting in the way of a good ole fashion BS fest. Oh, and heaven forbid you take umberage with a regular on a lefty board celebrating openly the deaths of Canadian soldiers (like I had on rabble.ca/babble) you'll get tarred feathered and tossed. Granted, they keep it under better control now days, but on occasion, you get one or two wishing for more of our deaths.

There is a difference between debate/discussion/discourse and trolling, it is pretty clear to this casual reader, that you purposely choose to conflate the two.


----------



## Thompson_JM (21 Feb 2008)

Im with Wes, KevB and the majority here as well.... 
GeorgeHarper is out of his lanes... and as a troll really should just be sent back to where he came from....

think about this one... While he is posting here, Billy Goats Roam freely across his bridge unharassed......

And in my opinion.. all he has done is spewed all the typical Anti-war, anti bush BS and Doublespeak that we hear oh so often... all we're missing now is, "9/11 was an inside job" and something about the "illuminati" or another secret society.....

I didnt go through my various near death experiences over there, nor do I pay for a membership to this great site to listen to some... well Im not going to start listing the Adjective you fall under... but lets just say that they arnt the most flattering....

You argue like my father when he knows he's lost.... you put up the same old Tired and True Left wing BS "Facts" and political Double talk.... I see through it, youre just stirring the pot... Now go away.... this is a private board, and we dont need to hear this argument over and over again....

And when you do Inevitably get banned, please feel free to use your newfound free time to take off the rose coloured glasses and venture out into the real world... 


Tommy, Out.


----------



## George Wallace (21 Feb 2008)

georgeharper said:
			
		

> No, suicide bombers were not blowing themselves up in Baghdad before the occupation began



You know that this is a Red Herring.  Whether there were suicide bombers in Baghdad before is really not important.



			
				georgeharper said:
			
		

> No.But if not for the occupation of two countries they would not be doing it in those countries, like they were not before



Again, a statement by someone who has had their head in the sand for too long.  Suicide bombers have been a staple in the Middle East and Southwest Asia for a long time.  How many suicide bombers have blown themselves up on buses and in restaurants in Israel over the last fifty or so years?  How many suicide bombers have blown themselves up in Lebanon and Saudi Arabia?  You obviously don't know as much as many here and just can't admit it.




			
				georgeharper said:
			
		

> Thats funny.I remember Rumnsfeld saying the Iraqis would be throwing roses at the American soldiers.When none were dead.Now 4000 are dead.



They weren't welcomed with roses when they landed at Normandy either, and they lost more than 4000 dead in less time.  How long did it take to bring Peace to Europes "Western Civilization" and "Christian" values?  Funny how after 60 years the final Allied troops are still there.  What do you think is a reasonable time for Iraq and Afghanistan with totally different cultures and religions?  This isn't Mcdonald's.  We can't just go in, have a Saddam for take out with fries and walk away expecting Peace to miraculously appear overnight.  Only a fool would not have thought these things out.  It is surprising how many fools there are, and how many elect our politicians to office.




			
				georgeharper said:
			
		

> Apparently a lot more than most on here.Who seem to know only one thingThat sounds like Saudi Arabia, who have one of the worst human rights record on the planet
> Of course they basically control America.
> I guess you have no concern for the right of woman and peoples heads in that country?



You can't even get this right.  I thought Amerika was controlled by the Jews?   :  Obviously you don't give two hoots about human rights with your poorly worded sound bites.




			
				georgeharper said:
			
		

> Thats so funny.Disagree with the majority of people on a forum who happen to be rightwingers, that makes you a troll and a candidate for banning
> 
> You arnt interested in discussion.
> Just interested in people all agreeing with each other.



Seems you are too.  See your post



> GWHarper
> Member
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (21 Feb 2008)

If you starve the troll, it goes away. Keep feeding it and you'll still be posting to it's soundbites ten pages from now. :


----------



## 2 Cdo (21 Feb 2008)

Teeps74 said:
			
		

> Oh, and heaven forbid you take umberage with a regular on a lefty board celebrating openly the deaths of Canadian soldiers (like I had on rabble.ca/babble) you'll get tarred feathered and tossed.



I lasted a grand total of 2 posts on rabble. Made the mistake of disagreeing with their lies and innuendo while presenting facts. Another site found me banned just trying to join.  I find the left wing sites are the most narrow minded I have come across. On those sites free speech only applies to those who follow the herd mentality, and no dissenting opinion will be condoned.


----------



## Danjanou (21 Feb 2008)

Hey 2 Cdo you lasted 2 more posts than I did there. I was banned as soon as I registered. Nothing like the free exchange od ideas amongst our "progressive" friends and fellow citizens eh.  :

Oh Yeah Georgie your village called.........


----------



## 2 Cdo (21 Feb 2008)

Danjanou said:
			
		

> Hey 2 Cdo you lasted 2 more posts than I did there. I was banned as soon as I registered. Nothing like the free exchange od ideas amongst our "progressive" friends and fellow citizens eh.  :
> 
> Oh Yeah Georgie your village called.........


Well my first post was a pretty vanilla hello-type post it was the second where I exposed some granola-munchers lies and found myself banned.(I say granola-muncher because if I recall that was actually part of his name, no disrespect meant to those who may eat granola ;D)


----------



## McG (21 Feb 2008)

georgeharper said:
			
		

> Wow, some people sure know how to twist things around.


And you ignore counter arguments that are too deep for your shallow rehtoric to deal with.  Like this one:



			
				georgeharper said:
			
		

> People in Baghdad were not getting blown up in vegetable markets by suicide bombers prior to the occupation of Iraq.


You keep presenting this like it is the universal and solitary argument on the matter of Iraq.  You ignore the observations that the Iraqi government was doing the killing and torture previously.  Things are bad now as they were before (though differently bad).  At least now the institutional effort is working to stop the violence. (and don’t try playing the “I’m only responding to other posts” card as you introduced the terrorism in Iraq as an argument against military operations)



			
				georgeharper said:
			
		

> Taliban members were not blowing themselves up in markets in Afghanistan prior to the current United States/Canada occupation of that country.


Afghanistan & Iraq are not the same country & certainly not the same debate.  Using one to obfuscate the other seems a crutch for a weak argument.  In any case, I’d like to take issue with our “United States/Canada occupation” theory.  NATO (not the US) is the leading organization for internationally organized military efforts.  This force (ISAF) is United Nations mandated.  I know you are probably too closed-minded to drop the term “occupation” so at the very least, could you talk of the “United Nations Occupation.”



			
				georgeharper said:
			
		

> That sounds like Saudi Arabia, who have one of the worst human rights record on the planet


Maybe you are right, and something should be done to improve rights in Saudi Arabia.  However, a plea to hypocrisy does not make a logical argument.  Just because the US has taken two different approaches in two different countries, it does not mean that approach A proves B to be wrong because A is different that B.  However, maybe you want to argue that doing absolutely nothing in Saudi Arabia is the right thing & that is the approach that should have been taken in Iraq.  Of course, that argument ignores other issues related to Iraq such as its repeated violations of UN restrictions on its military and weapons capabilities.

Once again, you are all rhetoric and no content.  Come back with complete logical arguments (and references for them) or do not bother coming back.  More lonely sound-bites and unexplained thoughts will confirm your status as a troll.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (21 Feb 2008)

From our friend Hans Blix

The document indicates that 13,000 chemical bombs were dropped by the Iraqi Air Force between 1983 and 1988, while Iraq has declared that 19,500 bombs were consumed during this period. Thus, there is a discrepancy of 6,500 bombs. The amount of chemical agent in these bombs would be in the order of about 1,000 tonnes. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we must assume that these quantities are now unaccounted for.
The discovery of a number of 122mm chemical rocket warheads in a bunker at a storage depot 170km southwest of Baghdad was much publicized. This was a relatively new bunker and therefore the rockets must have been moved there in the past few years, at a time when Iraq should not have had such munitions.

Biological weapons 
I have mentioned the issue of anthrax to the Council on previous occasions and I come back to it as it is an important one.
Iraq has declared that it produced about 8,500 litres of this biological warfare agent, which it states it unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991. Iraq has provided little evidence for this production and no convincing evidence for its destruction.
There are strong indications that Iraq produced more anthrax than it declared, and that at least some of this was retained after the declared destruction date. It might still exist. Either it should be found and be destroyed under UNMOVIC supervision or else convincing evidence should be produced to show that it was, indeed, destroyed in 1991.
As I reported to the Council on 19 December last year, Iraq did not declare a significant quantity, some 650 kg, of bacterial growth media, which was acknowledged as imported in Iraq's submission to the Amorim panel in February 1999. As part of its 7 December 2002 declaration, Iraq resubmitted the Amorim panel document, but the table showing this particular import of media was not included. The absence of this table would appear to be deliberate as the pages of the resubmitted document were renumbered.
In the letter of 24 January to the President of the Council, Iraq's Foreign Minister stated that "all imported quantities of growth media were declared". This is not evidence. I note that the quantity of media involved would suffice to produce, for example, about 5,000 litres of concentrated anthrax.



Two projects in particular stand out. They are the development of a liquid-fuelled missile named the Al Samoud 2, and a solid propellant missile, called the Al Fatah. Both missiles have been tested to a range in excess of the permitted range of 150 km, with the Al Samoud 2 being tested to a maximum of 183 km and the Al Fatah to 161 km. Some of both types of missiles have already been provided to the Iraqi Armed Forces even though it is stated that they are still undergoing development.
The Al Samoud's diameter was increased from an earlier verrsion to the present 760 mm. This modification was made despite a 1994 letter from the Executive Chairman of UNSCOM directing Iraq to limit its missile diameters to less than 600 mm. Furthermore, a November 1997 letter from the Executive Chairman of UNSCOM to Iraq prohibited the use of engines from certain surface-to-air missiles for the use in ballistic missiles.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (23 Feb 2008)

For our _promilitary friend_ george harper:

http://www.ericisgreat.com/tinfoilhats/index.html


----------



## georgeharper (24 Feb 2008)

> OTTAWA -- NDP Leader Jack Layton says the Taliban cannot be defeated by international troops and there's no point continuing to fight an unwinnable war in Afghanistan.




He is absoloutly correct



> At the end of the day, when we are done, we get to come home to a safe and secure country half a world away.



Well in reality Canada being in Afghanistan for the Americans has made Canada a more dangerous place for Canadians.



> Where we do succeed is making life a little better for the Afghans



People in Saudi Arabia, the real breeding ground for terrorism, are as worse off, if not more worse off,and brutalized by an American supported dictatorship than Afghans are.
Why are Canadian soldiers not making life better for them?


----------



## PuckChaser (24 Feb 2008)

georgeharper said:
			
		

> People in Saudi Arabia, the real breeding ground for terrorism, are as worse off, if not more worse off,and brutalized by an American supported dictatorship than Afghans are.
> Why are Canadian soldiers not making life better for them?



Probably because there isn't a NATO run, UN-approved Chapter 7 mission for Saudi Arabia???


----------



## Donut (24 Feb 2008)

George, he, and you, are both absoloutly (sic) ignorant of the realities on the ground.  Why don't you get your ass over here and talk to an Afghan and see for yourself instead of sitting there reading a bunch of agenda-driven insurgent sympathizing websites?

In reality Canada is here for a whole host of reasons, some of them, admittedly, having something to do with the Americans, but most having a hell of a lot to do with the interests of Canadians around the world.

I'd love to try to educate you further, but since you seem fairly set in your misguided ideas of how the world operates you'll have to excuse me so I can go wash the blood of a bunch of Afghans off my boots before it sets.


----------



## armyvern (24 Feb 2008)

georgeharper said:
			
		

> He is absoloutly correct


You are absolutely 100% incorrect. 



> Well in reality Canada being in Afghanistan for the Americans has made Canada a more dangerous place for Canadians.


No ducky, the world was a dangerous place that saw innocents suffer from the effects of terrorism long before Canada entered Afghanistan. Munich '72 anyone? Northern Ireland anyone? Spain anyone? Diplomat dead in trunk of car in Quebec anyone? 

September 11th 2001 saw terrorist attacks upon innocents which took thousands of lives (including *Canadians* -- you seem to have conveniently forgotten); and occured *before* Canada went into Afghanistan -- not *FOR* the Americans as you erroneously state -- but at the REQUEST of, and with the approval of, the United Nations. 



> People in Saudi Arabia, the real breeding ground for terrorism, are as worse off, if not more worse off,and brutalized by an American supported dictatorship than Afghans are.


An Amercian supported dicatatorship? The breeding ground for terrorism?? While you do have a nationality correct in your looney musings, you need to check your nearest Atlas forthwith. While Osama himself is a Saudi (as are many other terrorists, also Syrian, Morrocan, Egyptian, Jordanian ... etc etc etc), the breeding ground is not limited to Saudi Arabia -- and their sanctioned training ground was *Afghanistan*; that being exactly the reason we find ourselves engaged there today. Simply put, the Taliban 'government' of Afghanistan was asked by the International community and the United Nations to deal with those responsible for the terrorist attacks which occured on 9/11 and which killed "thousands of innocents". The Taliban instead chose to ignore requests to do so, and harboured those terrorists within their borders in full support of their terroristic activities. Some nations, with balls, just said "no -- you can not allow mass murders who've killed thousands to roam free". A lovely benefit of that decision, was the freeing up of human rights for the opressed Afhganis themselves who were forced to live under the Taliban regime, who went on to find themselves being afford the right and opportunity to vote in elections. I don't know about being worse-off in Saudi Arabia either, given that women are actively involved in banking, retail trades, etc. Sure, they don't drive cars (but that's currently being looked at), but they can and do certainly go out in public alone (hard to find that in the western media); they even have access to the internet. Just do a googlesearch and you're sure to find lots of posts and blogs by Saudi women living there that will sort out some of the myths you seem overwhelmed by. Times are changing in Saudi Arabia -- slowly but surely. 



> Why are Canadian soldiers not making life better for them?


Canadian soldiers serve where their government tells them to. You don't like that, then cast your vote appropriately -- just like those Afghanis who now enjoy their childrens ability to obtain an education, those women who are finding themselves with the opportunity to work and vote, to sing and to play music in public without fear of being dragged to the nearest soccer stadium and shot. I guess you'll be limited to the Green Party or the NDP here ... seeing as it were the Liberals who sent us in in the first place and that the Tories are continuing with this just and noble mission.


----------



## George Wallace (24 Feb 2008)

georgeharper said:
			
		

> He is absoloutly correct
> 
> Well in reality Canada being in Afghanistan for the Americans has made Canada a more dangerous place for Canadians.
> 
> ...



Name:  georgeharper 

Last Active:  Today at 12:12:50  


I really hate drive-by shootings  postings.

No wonder this character can't argue to save his/her life.  They don't participate in, nor contribute to, a conversation, other than to burst in out of the blue, deposit a worthless sound bite, and then immediately leave.


----------



## Flip (24 Feb 2008)

Hey Vern!
You missed something!


> - just like those Afghans who now enjoy their childrens ability to obtain an education, those women who are finding themselves with the opportunity to work and vote, to sing and to play music in public without fear of being dragged to the nearest soccer stadium and shot.



Afghans are free to go and fly a kite ( which was a crime under the Taliban ).

I wonder if George likes kites?


----------



## Teeps74 (24 Feb 2008)

georgeharper said:
			
		

> He is absoloutly correct



The right dishonourable Jack 'Taliban' Layton has not been correct about a damned thing since, he let a portion of his party slander us a while back in BC, by attempting to table a motion at the National NDP caucus meeting that would label all members of the CF as terrorists. At one point in time, I foolishly thought his party was growing up, and would be worthy of a vote... I was wrong, just as he is wrong on all counts of his assertion.



> Well in reality Canada being in Afghanistan for the Americans has made Canada a more dangerous place for Canadians.



Huh? The Afghan Canadians I know, and some I work with, are thankful for our contribution, and support the mission. Further, The ONLY Afghan organisation to be against the mission (aside from the Taliban and various drug/warlords) is RAWA... Afghans in Canada, the US and else where are strangely absent from protests against the mission in Afghanistan, but show up for protests against the Iraq mission...



> People in Saudi Arabia, the real breeding ground for terrorism, are as worse off, if not more worse off,and brutalized by an American supported dictatorship than Afghans are.
> Why are Canadian soldiers not making life better for them?



You know the answer to that, you have been told several time before... Now, if your arguments are worth your efforts to post them here, why are you conducting drive bys, and not defending your stance? I know the reason... You lack morals. You are a coward and an ignorant.

If you are going to bring up the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, I highly recommend doing a lot of homework, as it is not difficult to make you look very foolish on that front.


----------



## George Wallace (24 Feb 2008)

For the FACEBOOK crowd, found on Enmasse:



> For those of us on Facebook, there is now a group called: "Don't Extend It. End It. (Canada's War in Afghanistan)". I encourage everyone with a Facebook account to sign up, since there have been a number of trolls by lately with the usual "cut and run" and "but, but, but TERRORISM!!" type stuff going on.



Seems the Lefties have the same problems with "Trolls" who "cut and run".  

With the Security issues of having a Facebook Account, it isn't worth registering, but it could still make good reading entertainment, unless you have a short fuze.    ;D


http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=10347926641


----------



## CrazyCanuck (24 Feb 2008)

That Facebook's account's main picture is of American Soldiers with a Canadian heading...  ??? I don't get it, these people are so far gone that they can't even recognize who defends their right to say this s***?


----------



## Mike Baker (24 Feb 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> For the FACEBOOK crowd, found on Enmasse:
> 
> Seems the Lefties have the same problems with "Trolls" who "cut and run".


Oh am I going to have fun in the coming days ;D


----------



## CrazyCanuck (24 Feb 2008)

There's a message on that sites wall where a person actually states that all the evil in the world is George Bush's doing 'bar none'. I bet you he's a Holocaust denier as well because if George Bush wasn't around the Holocaust couldn't have possible happened... :


----------



## aesop081 (24 Feb 2008)

Boater said:
			
		

> There's a message on that sites wall where a person actually states that all the evil in the world is George Bush's doing 'bar none'. I bet you he's a Holocaust denier as well because if George Bush wasn't around the Holocaust couldn't have possible happened... :



The causes of most of the world's current problems date back to well before GW. Only people who are ignorant of history use him as a cause.


----------



## armyvern (24 Feb 2008)

Well, their photo proclaiming that 911 was an inside job says it all to me.

I also see a repetition of RAWA as the official site they support. The very vocal minority viewpoint once again. 

No thanks. I'll go with the vast majority of the Afghan citizens who thank us personally each day as we help them achieve a truely democratic freedom; a freedom which certainly will not hold should we pull out now before they have had a chance for those roots they have planted to grow into a mature and properous tree.

Enmasse can go fuck themselves -- I believe the people of Afghanistan are entitled to the same freedoms that enmasse themselves are able to enjoy by posting bullshit like this. Try doing that in Afghanistan pre-Canadian and Allied action there. What a bunch of dipshits.


----------



## McG (24 Feb 2008)

MCG said:
			
		

> Once again, you are all rhetoric and no content.  Come back with complete logical arguments (and references for them) or do not bother coming back.  More lonely sound-bites and unexplained thoughts will confirm your status as a troll.


georgeharper, you have ignored my warning at your peril.  However,I like to give people the benefit of the doubt, so maybe you just missed my post.  I will give you until Tuesday morning to come back and substantiate your drive-by spamming with real arguments.  This warning will also be PM'ed to you so that you will not miss it.  Failure to comply will result in an elevation of your warning.

Cheers, 
The Staff



			
				georgeharper said:
			
		

> Well in reality Canada being in Afghanistan for the Americans has ....


Canada is in Afghanistan at the request of NATO, the United Nations, and the democratically elected government of Afghanistan.  Sort yourself out on the facts.



			
				georgeharper said:
			
		

> People in Saudi Arabia, the real breeding ground for terrorism, are as worse off, if not more worse off,and brutalized by an American supported dictatorship than Afghans are.
> Why are Canadian soldiers not making life better for them?


Are you recommending that Canada invade Saudi Arabia, or is this a red herring to waste our time?


----------



## Mike Baker (24 Feb 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=10347926641


Check out what I posted to that:


So, if you want us to pull out of Afghanistan, then you are saying that you support the Taliban and Al Qaeda, who HAVE killed thousands of people, unlike NATO Forces. 

Not only that, but now in Afghanistan, women can be aloud to go out in public, and have jobs and go to school. Do you like to go outside, have a job and education? I sure as hell do. I like to live in a free Country like Canada.

Kids couldn't even fly kits when the Taliban were in power. I like kits.

People were killed, by the hundreds, if they even uttered any statement againts the Government. Do you like the fact that you can choose your Government? I do.

Did you know that all of the terrorists that committed 9/11 were trained in Afghanistan? And that if we pull out now that Afghanistan will go back to what they once were? And more terrorists will train there, and then, one day, attack us? I sure as hell don't want another 9/11.

But, if it do happen, and all you anti-American people get in power(God forbid), that will not stop them, and if they do attack then, you will all be saying "Oh, why didn't we stay in Afghanistan?? Why didn't we listen??"

Then you might finally be able to get your heads out of your asses, but then again, I know what you are like.

I know that you will probably delete this, but even if one person reads it, I'll be happy.


I'd be writing more, but I'm tired.


----------



## Yrys (24 Feb 2008)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Only people who are ignorant of history use him as a cause.



Isn't that most people ? I know that I don't know a lot about history, but I'm sometimes speechless
about how much I know more the regular "Joe" or Jane".


Don't read the following article if you still have some illusions on human beings. It is on Americans, but could be, in my view, apply to a lot of country...

Dumb and Dumber: Are Americans Hostile to Knowledge?



> I believe the people of Afghanistan are entitled to the same freedoms that enmasse themselves are able to enjoy by posting bullshit like this.



They would deny it, and deny denying it. I had a conversation with a friend this week. He lost his cool when I told him that American-Cuban anti-castro
have the right to vote whichever way they feel. I was watching a francophone show about Cuba, with the daughter of Castro on. I thought he could be interested
 about watching it, and he flabbergast me by calling her "THAT PUTE ?!?". He was saying that Bush had been able to steal (voler, litterally) the last election
because all the American-cubano anti-castro had vote for him in Florida. I don't remember enough about that election to argue about it, so I though 
that going the democratic way (it's democracy, they can vote has they want) would be a better way to go for me. He lost his control so much that
I couldn't help myself after a few minutes and start laughing. Sigh.


Édith : I've add a "he" (seems easier for comprehension)


----------



## georgeharper (24 Feb 2008)

Got to laugh.
People can come on here and say whatever nonsense they want and call Mr Layton names and refer to him as Bin Layton, but yet, you come on here and say truthful things like Canada is now a more dangerous place due to Canada being involved in the occupation of Afghanistan, and a post like that is removed.
Is this a discussion forum where a person supposedly is allowed to express an opinion, or is it a place where you say what is expected of you to say, or it will be removed?
An opposite opinion  it seems is refered to as spamming


And then you see a silly thing like this..



> Simply put, the Taliban 'government' of Afghanistan was asked by the International community and the United Nations to deal with those responsible for the terrorist attacks



WHAT???

So because the people or whoever in Saudi Arabia are not asking for Americas help to make life better for those people the Americans are not obliged to make life good for the women and children in that country?

Again, what a laugh

Now unless someone tells me who told and asked the U.S.to invade Afghanistan and then proceed to occupy it on October 7, 2001, I expect a complete apology for my post being removed



> No ducky, the world was a dangerous place that saw innocents suffer from the effects of terrorism long before Canada entered Afghanistan



Ducky??

No one said the world wasnt dangerous before the occupation of Afghanistan began (lieing is also allowed by regular posters?)

By the Americans own admission terrorist attacks have increased dramatically since the invasion of both Iraq and Afghanistan


Ducky???



> Canada is in Afghanistan at the request of NATO, the United Nations, and the democratically elected government of Afghanistan



If you want to believe that the government is anything but an American installed government, then fine,but the reason Canada is in Afghanistan is because Canada, thankfully because of Chretien is not in Iraq, and going to Afghanistan was just a way of making the Americans think Canada cared about America created wars

Funny,
I bet all the posters on this forum wish they were in Iraq, because after all, the reason for that invasion and occupation was to make life better for those people also


----------



## George Wallace (24 Feb 2008)

TROLL!  

We have been very patient with you.  We have even PM'ed you specific questions you have failed to answer in the Topics you have posted in.  You have failed to answer any of the questions, nor carry on a legitimate discussion, preferring instead to do "Post 'N Runs".

Consider your time here over.

Goodbye.

Join the ranks at bannedbymilnet.lookse.org



 INCOHERANT TROLL!


----------



## Teeps74 (24 Feb 2008)

Not just a troll... But a lying troll.



> People can come on here and say whatever nonsense they want and call Mr Layton names and refer to him as Bin Layton, but yet, you come on here and say truthful things like Canada is now a more dangerous place due to Canada being involved in the occupation of Afghanistan, and a post like that is removed.



No posts have been deleted. I have been tracking this for days, with email warnings for every post received. None removed, at all... From any thread this troll posts in.


----------



## George Wallace (24 Feb 2008)

georgeharper said:
			
		

> Got to laugh.



You are the joke.


			
				georgeharper said:
			
		

> People can come on here and say whatever nonsense they want and call Mr Layton names and refer to him as Bin Layton, but yet, you come on here and say truthful things like Canada is now a more dangerous place due to Canada being involved in the occupation of Afghanistan, and a post like that is removed.



Your posts are proof that you are not telling the whole truth, but now you are gone.



			
				georgeharper said:
			
		

> Is this a discussion forum where a person supposedly is allowed to express an opinion, or is it a place where you say what is expected of you to say, or it will be removed?
> An opposite opinion  it seems is refered to as spamming



If you don't want to discuss, then you are spamming.




			
				georgeharper said:
			
		

> WHAT???
> 
> So because the people or whoever in Saudi Arabia are not asking for Americas help to make life better for those people the Americans are not obliged to make life good for the women and children in that country?



That is how Democracy works on the World Stage.  The Americans are not the "Imperialists" you seem to claim they are.



			
				georgeharper said:
			
		

> Again, what a laugh



Yes! What a laugh.  We are laughing at you.



			
				georgeharper said:
			
		

> Now unless someone tells me who told and asked the U.S.to invade Afghanistan and then proceed to occupy it on October 7, 2001, I expect a complete apology for my post being removed



Pretty demanding for a person who has failed to answer any questions.  A person who has not backed up his claims with any legitimate proof.  



			
				georgeharper said:
			
		

> Ducky??
> 
> No one said the world wasnt dangerous before the occupation of Afghanistan began (lieing is also allowed by regular posters?)
> 
> By the Americans own admission terrorist attacks have increased dramatically since the invasion of both Iraq and Afghanistan



Your point?........if you get it in before you are banned?



			
				georgeharper said:
			
		

> Ducky???



Whatever!  You are showing us your posting style.



			
				georgeharper said:
			
		

> If you want to believe that the government is anything but an American installed government, then fine,but the reason Canada is in Afghanistan is because Canada, thankfully because of Chretien is not in Iraq, and going to Afghanistan was just a way of making the Americans think Canada cared about America created wars



Some on this site were witnesses on the ground of the election.  Were you?  Do you have proof contrary to their eyewitness accounts to back up your claims?




			
				georgeharper said:
			
		

> Funny,
> I bet all the posters on this forum wish they were in Iraq, because after all, the reason for that invasion and occupation was to make life better for those people also



The only thing funny, and that is funny in a very sad way, is that you really have no grasp of what is going on outside of Lotus Land.


----------



## 1feral1 (24 Feb 2008)

georgeharper said:
			
		

> He is absoloutly correct
> 
> Well in reality Canada being in Afghanistan for the Americans has made Canada a more dangerous place for Canadians.
> 
> ...



GH is trolling and we all are pandering to his whims. Time to frog march him off! I've had enough of his games.


----------



## the 48th regulator (24 Feb 2008)

georgeharper said:
			
		

> Funny,
> I bet all the posters on this forum wish they were in Iraq, because after all, the reason for that invasion and occupation was to make life better for those people also





> There is no other definition of socialism valid for us than that of the abolition of the exploitation of man by man.  - Ernesto Che Guevara



aYep,

You nailed it jane.....oops....I mean Georgey.

dileas

tess


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (24 Feb 2008)

> Some on this site were witnesses on the ground of the election.  Were you?  Do you have proof contrary to their eyewitness accounts to back up your claims?



Ah yep...  For instance, I was one of the main planners for election security support for the Presidential Election in late 2004...  The election had its problems, but was judged fair by most impartial observers.  The International Community went to enormous lengths to insure impartiality and proper elections security.  The entire election security process was a joint Afghan/_United Nations_ project, staffed entirely by Afghans and the International Community (ie: not the US).  Great angst went into ballot security, ballot box security and prohibition of voter fraud.  Candidate lists were incredibly difficult to produce (since much of the population is illiterate) and the UN went to enormous lengths to guarantee female participation in the process - meeting traditional resistance in doing so.

Afghans across the country sacrificed hugely to cast their ballots, with boxes literally being moved by donkey in some parts of the country.  Each polling station required trained observers - again a problem with limited literacy.

Was it perfect?  Certainly not.  There were issues with the voter marking system, some ballot boxes and transportation.  However, the 2004 Presidential election was undoubtedly the 70 - 80% solution and was certified as such by the United Nations and by the Joint Commitee of Observers.  Karzai is, without equivocation, a democratically elected President - whether "GeorgeHarper" and his/her ilk like it or not.


----------



## MarkOttawa (24 Feb 2008)

Teddy Ruxpin: Mere inconvenient facts.  No attention need be paid  : when one has an ideology.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## stegner (24 Feb 2008)

I think this forum, especially the political discussions, would benefit from the citation of sources.  If you make a claim or an argument, back it up with a reputable link or source.  Just a thought.  Continue on with the discussion.


----------



## armyvern (24 Feb 2008)

Wesley  Down Under said:
			
		

> GH is trolling and we all are pandering to his whims. Time to frog march him off! I've had enough of his games.



And, he's been given a verbal warning IAW this site's Guidelines.

He's now been given a further warning here in the thread and via PM to start posting factual links (citations etc) to back up his claims. He now has the opportunity to engage in actual debate (instead of troll) by posting links to credible sources which back up his claims.

Many here have posted facts in response to his posts, and the mandate under which we serve in Afghanistan has been provided to debunk his claim that we are there FOR George Bush.

Should he choose to ignore, or to further troll with drive-by unsubstantiated claims, he will receive that which is due him IAW the warning system.

The next step is up to him. It's really quite that simple. He can contribute in a worthwhile manner to a debate -- or not. His choice.

This is not enmasse.ca, we do not arbitrarily ban those with opposing viewpoints simply because they are idiots and piss us off, such as the likes of georgeharper and his friend janebella witness over in their regular enmasse haunt. We are not the enmasse Facebook Group either, which outright states that their group is meant for those holding their viewpoint and their viewpoint only.

Our standards are just better than that. He's been given his fair warning. It's his to take it or leave it.

ArmyVern
The Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## aesop081 (24 Feb 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> I think this forum, especially the political discussions, would benefit from the citation of sources.  If you make a claim or an argument, back it up with a reputable link or source.  Just a thought.  Continue on with the discussion.



Welcome to the discussion there captain Obvious  :


----------



## georgeharper (24 Feb 2008)

> Some on this site were witnesses on the ground of the election.



Yea OK.
Whatever

Were these same people witness to the Americans to the famous handshake with Saddam and the very freindly exchanges the Americans had with Bin Laden?
Funny, also how when an election goes contrary to what the Americans want, they claim it was a fruadulant


----------



## Carbon-14 (24 Feb 2008)

So many question never answered by those who believe the election was somehow rigged or invalid.  If Karzai didn't have the votes to win, who did?  How would this other person better represent the Afghans than Karzai.  How was such a fraud carried out with the international community watching so close?  Why does poll after poll show Karzai which such a high approval rating?  It seems to me anyone making these accusations should have this information available to backup such claims.


----------



## aesop081 (24 Feb 2008)

georgeharper said:
			
		

> Yea OK.
> Whatever



So....prove it was rigged then !!

C'mon lets see it...show me your proof


----------



## georgeharper (24 Feb 2008)

Teeps74 said:
			
		

> Not just a troll... But a lying troll.
> 
> No posts have been deleted. I have been tracking this for days, with email warnings for every post received. None removed, at all... From any thread this troll po
> 
> ...


----------



## George Wallace (24 Feb 2008)

georgeharper said:
			
		

> Yea OK.
> Whatever
> 
> Were these same people witness to the Americans to the famous handshake with Saddam and the very freindly exchanges the Americans had with Bin Laden?
> Funny, also how when an election goes contrary to what the Americans want, they claim it was a fruadulant



Are you at all cognisant to the world you live in?  Stick to the topic.  Answer questions put to you.  The clock it ticking.  You expect us to believe your second or third hand sound bites, but you refuse to listen to people who have actually been there.  Your hero, Jack Layton wasn't, yet you put more faith in his words than you do in an actual participant.  Please tell me you don't sell Real Estate.  I'm sure Jack can sell you a bridge in Manhattan.

I am sure the U of Vic has some programs that can teach people how to use Spell Check simply by clicking on the little black box (the one on the right side, of the three below the text box, when you post) at the bottom.


----------



## Koenigsegg (24 Feb 2008)

Everytime I check in on threads GH is part of, I am surprised they are still here.

They have had a LONG leash, especially when compared to the sites that we often associate their type with.  I WANT them to provide sources and take part in a discussion, so that a proper exchange of points and opinions can take place.  So to GH:  Why will you not step up, and start a meaningful, proper discussion?   Because you have no sources?  ANYTHING is almost better than nothing.

I am not a true regular to this site, posting wise, so I do cruise the net looking at other forums and regardless of what you think this website is one of the more accomodating out there.  So shove your drivel about deleted posts and bannings up your ***.   Sideways.  Repeatedly.

Answer the questions that have been posed to you in a proper intelligible manner with sources when required and you may stand a chance of changing a few opinions on some things (Not a lot...but some).  Individual points, if you will.

*edited due to a wrong lower case "I"*


----------



## 1feral1 (24 Feb 2008)

georgeharper said:
			
		

> Yea OK.
> Whatever
> 
> Were these same people witness to the Americans to the famous handshake with Saddam and the very freindly exchanges the Americans had with Bin Laden?
> Funny, also how when an election goes contrary to what the Americans want, they claim it was a fruadulant



You are way out of line!


----------



## aesop081 (24 Feb 2008)

George Harper.....

I just checked....NONE of your posts have been deleted. The post you are using to say we are lying is reply #43 in this thread.

NONE

Milnet.ca staff


----------



## Koenigsegg (24 Feb 2008)

None of your posts have been deleted, just moved to a different thread (If anything) if I recall correctly.


----------



## georgeharper (24 Feb 2008)

Now you see.

You expect me to listen to all your nonsense as FACT when you say something like 


> Your hero, Jack Layton



Jack is my hero?

Please clarify or withdraw your statement please.

I think the fact that Canada is in Afghanistan because of what the Americans claimed was truth is evidence that anything that involves the Americans can be looked at as being fraud


----------



## George Wallace (24 Feb 2008)

georgeharper said:
			
		

> Now you see.
> Lets talk about lying.
> 
> One person quoted me saying..
> ...



What kind of ID 10T are you?  What the heck are you talking about?

This post perhaps?



			
				georgeharper said:
			
		

> He is absoloutly correct
> 
> Well in reality Canada being in Afghanistan for the Americans has made Canada a more dangerous place for Canadians.
> 
> ...



It hasn't been DELETED.  Follow the links and you will find it.   Before you slander someone, or a group, get you facts right first.  You only land up looking the fool in the end.

You still can't SPELL, so try using the SPELL CHECK.   :


----------



## aesop081 (24 Feb 2008)

georgeharper said:
			
		

> Now you see.
> 
> You expect me to listen to all your nonsense as FACT when you say something like
> Jack is my hero?
> ...



Back up YOUR statements..........NOW


----------



## georgeharper (24 Feb 2008)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Back up YOUR statements..........NOW



Back up what?

I think the entire world knows that the two major conflicts happening right now are the result of American lies.

Do we really need to go over that again?


----------



## aesop081 (24 Feb 2008)

georgeharper said:
			
		

> Back up what?
> 
> I think the entire world knows that the two major conflicts happening right now are the result of American lies.
> 
> Do we really need to go over that again?



 :rofl:

Ok Troll........


----------



## Koenigsegg (24 Feb 2008)

What you quoted was a personal statement, not a statement on a factual event taking place in a different country, and the repercussions there of.

And what do you expect when you accuse members of the CF of essentially being jealous of Americans because THEY want to be in Iraq?
You will find that a lot of people here do not agree with the war in Iraq.  But not because they don't like Bush, but for real reasons.
So again, shove it.

Cease with the personal comments, and you should recieve none in return.  We are reasonable people here.
Keep it professional to the point, that is the way the people like it here.  And naturally discussions can go down hill fast when one party refuses to do so.
So help us out here.  We can discuss properly, if you will let us.


Oh, and GH.  What makes Canada any better than the USA?
If you like conspiracies, and underhanded things, We are just as bad.  We just have a smaller population, and less of an impact.


----------



## George Wallace (24 Feb 2008)

georgeharper said:
			
		

> Please clarify or withdraw your statement please.



Don't be an ass.  You came to this site.  You have made fun of Stephen Harper and George Bush with your screen name.  You have bad mouthed the Canadian Government under PM Harper, and the American Government under President Bush.  You have religiously quoted Taliban Jack as if it were the only true words on the planet.  You have been offended when we call him Taliban Jack.  Now, seriously tell us that he isn't your HERO.  Can you even answer that question, or must we listen to more meaningless drivel from you?

Discuss or get out!

You have been asked by a MILNET.CA STAFF MEMBER both on the site in the forums and through a Personal Message to answer his questions by Tuesday.  The clock is ticking.


----------



## Shamrock (24 Feb 2008)

GeorgeHarper, I'd like to ask you a question.

I'll assume you're here to do more than stir the pot; I'll even go so far as to assume you're here to educate us illiterate military folk about the true workings of the world.

Unfortunately, in teaching us to read, the military has created in us a dependency on reliable, citeable sources.  It's all part of the brainwashing we receive during basic (although I hear nowadays this brainwashing period has been replaced to either a blue or a red pill).  To counter this brainwashing, you'll have to proximate the techniques used by the government, the media, and the men in black suits to beat home the message that what we do is right.

During our years of service and exposure to the darker and dimmer sides of humanity, we've become a little jaded.  We may come off as cynical, but really, we're critical.  Few of us "know" what "everyone knows."  We just don't plug into the hive mentality.

My question: if you're here for more than antagonistic reasons, if you're here to enlighten us, why don't you?


----------



## georgeharper (24 Feb 2008)

ʞɔoɹɯɐɥs said:
			
		

> GeorgeHarper, I'd like to ask you a question.
> 
> I'll assume you're here to do more than stir the pot; I'll even go so far as to assume you're here to educate us illiterate military folk about the true workings of the world.
> 
> ...



Because you are so set in your ways you refuse to hear anything else.
I mean really.

After the Americans spend billions bombing innocent civillans, invading and occupying countries, then setting up elections, do you really think they are then going to accept a result that was not favourable to the Americans?

I mean think about it.
The Americans have had many democratically elected governments overthrown because they were not American freindly


Now please, show me how Jack Layton is Taliban friendly

If unable to do so, then offer a public apology on this site


----------



## Shamrock (24 Feb 2008)

So, what do you hope to accomplish here then if we're to obtuse to listen to reason?


----------



## armyvern (24 Feb 2008)

Please. Do not let the facts within my post stand in your way. Here are some bits reiterated just for you. I'll go real slow ...


			
				georgeharper said:
			
		

> Got to laugh.
> People can come on here and say whatever nonsense they want and call Mr Layton names and refer to him as Bin Layton, but yet, you come on here and say truthful things like Canada is now a more dangerous place due to Canada being involved in the occupation of Afghanistan, and a post like that is removed.
> Is this a discussion forum where a person supposedly is allowed to express an opinion, or is it a place where you say what is expected of you to say, or it will be removed?
> An opposite opinion  it seems is refered to as spamming


As already noted, none of your posts were removed. Canadians were in danger BEFORE we went into Afghanistan -- remember all those innocent Canadians killed on Sept 11th by any chance (that occured BEFORE we went in)? Apparently not, or apparently they don't count in your utopian little world. This statement can be found in my response to you previously. What factual bit do you not seem capable of grasping?


> WHAT???
> So because the people or whoever in Saudi Arabia are not asking for Americas help to make life better for those people the Americans are not obliged to make life good for the women and children in that country?
> Again, what a laugh



Here is my post again, for your benefit:


			
				ArmyVern (Female type) said:
			
		

> ...Simply put, the Taliban 'government' of Afghanistan was asked by the International community and the United Nations to deal with those responsible for the terrorist attacks which occured on 9/11 and which killed "thousands of innocents". The Taliban instead chose to ignore requests to do so, and harboured those terrorists within their borders in full support of their terroristic activities. Some nations, with balls, just said "no -- you can not allow mass murders who've killed thousands to roam free". *A lovely benefit of that decision*, was the freeing up of human rights for the opressed Afhganis themselves who were forced to live under the Taliban regime,...



IE -- the bettering of their conditions was allowed because of the actions we people with balls took against a Regime who harboured mass murders within their borders after being asked by the international community to deal with them. We did not enter Afghanistan to improve their Human rights -- that is a side benefit of much-required and legally sanctioned international action by NATO on behalf of the UN.

Last I heard, the Saudis had NOT launched a terrorist attack on the scale of 911, nor harboured terrorists who did such within their borders in contravention of international law. 

Get your facts correct. The myths that you perpetuate with your posts reveal an individual who is not capable of deciphering fact from pure fiction.



> Now unless someone tells me who told and asked the U.S.to invade Afghanistan and then proceed to occupy it on October 7, 2001, I expect a complete apology for my post being removed
> 
> Ducky??
> No one said the world wasnt dangerous before the occupation of Afghanistan began (lieing is also allowed by regular posters?)
> ...



Oh I'm quite Ducky thank you. You -- not so much. Kapiche?

Ahem, already done for you well before this post of yours. Funny how you miss those little facts even when they are presented up front, up close, and directly into your line of sight.  : 

Here it is again for you, big and bold so you can't claim to have missed it -- just click right here on this text!!




> If you want to believe that the government is anything but an American installed government, then fine,but the reason Canada is in Afghanistan is because Canada, thankfully because of Chretien is not in Iraq, and going to Afghanistan was just a way of making the Americans think Canada cared about America created wars
> 
> *Funny,
> I bet all the posters on this forum wish they were in Iraq, because after all, the reason for that invasion and occupation was to make life better for those people also*



Get a grip on reality. I WAS there in 2002/3 ... well before the US went into Iraq. We are not there simply as a means to avoid going to Iraq. Another myth. For that myth to be true ... we would have had to go into Afghanistan AFTER US actions in Iraq. As a matter of fact, I was there when the actions in Iraq began -- and had already been there for months. Please, do NOT let the facts stand in the way of your erroneous rumblings.

Do I need to post pics for you? 

Listen Ducky, quit the spin with your last line -- it was YOU that suggested we should be helping Saudis instead! Right here:



			
				georgeharper said:
			
		

> People in Saudi Arabia, the real breeding ground for terrorism, are as worse off, if not more worse off,and brutalized by an American supported dictatorship than Afghans are.
> *Why are Canadian soldiers not making life better for them?*



Typical bullshit by typical little spinners of fact like you. YOU brought up Saudi Arabia and when someone answered YOUR question -- you tag up by spinning it with your last line in your post (my bold added).

Keep going. You're show your lack of knowledge and ability to decipher fact from fiction (even within your own remarks) more and more each time you post. You're flipping things about better than a pancake cooker at the Stampede. Careful you don't land on your head too many more times.


----------



## Koenigsegg (25 Feb 2008)

> ...invading and occupying countries...



If I recall correctly, at the time the Taliban was overthrown, there were only 500 americans in Afghanistan at the time.  and a lot of them did not "fight".  They brought factions and regions together, and the Afghans took down the Taliban.  Then the Americans went in full force as the factions that fought the Taliban requested them to go in.  That's how it happened, whether it would have happened differently if the factions had not requested help, is anyones guess.  But it is a moot point anyway, as it did not happen any other  way.  I would not call that an invasion at all, really...
If it were, Hell...Canada has been being invaded by enemies for a long time.
It would mean that Chechnya has been invading Russia.

And an "occupation" is not always a bad thing.  The US is currently involved with the occupation of every country the are taking part of peacekeeping operations in.
It all depends on what you mean my "occupying"...Very broad term.

*Hmm...I guess this post is kinda useless afer Verns' uber post.*


----------



## Teeps74 (25 Feb 2008)

georgeharper said:
			
		

> Back up what?
> 
> I think the entire world knows that the two major conflicts happening right now are the result of American lies.
> 
> Do we really need to go over that again?



What lies? I see a liar here, claiming others have lied. Post links, post facts... And an ever so subtle hint... rabble.ca/babble and enmasse.ca are not credibile sources. Afghanistan is a direct result of 9/11, and that is a fact that is not debateable, unless you can provide us with something tangible (meaning verifiable). So stop peddling your garbage, and whining about censorship, as it is clear that you are trying very hard to get banned...


----------



## davidk (25 Feb 2008)

Reading this thread is like watching a cat toy with a cornered mouse - the result is inevitable, it's just a matter of when it will end and how ugly it will be...


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (25 Feb 2008)

georgeharper said:
			
		

> Yea OK.
> Whatever
> 
> Were these same people witness to the Americans to the famous handshake with Saddam and the very freindly exchanges the Americans had with Bin Laden?
> Funny, also how when an election goes contrary to what the Americans want, they claim it was a fruadulant



Friendships and alliances can come and go in international politics.  The current situation will dictate, and this is usually based on the threat that a country or organization poses.  Shaking hands in the past means nothing if there is a threat today, nor does having a common enemy in the past. 

You keep mentioning Saudi Arabia and why are we not there.  I will go back to my main point that Operation ENDURING FREEDOM was launched into Afghanistan because the Taliban _government _ was intertwined with Al-Queda and was openly harbouring them.  That individual Saudis, Britains, Canadians or Americans may have supported Al-Queda through material or moral means as well does not give _casus belli_ to invade those countries.  Al-Queda was openly based in Afghanistan and I think that both they and the Taliban felt pretty safe.

I was lucky enough to witness the Afghans draft a constitution.  I doubt that it pleased everybody, but they came up with it themselves and then proceeded to have elections that others have witnessed themselves.


----------



## George Wallace (25 Feb 2008)

georgeharper said:
			
		

> Because you are so set in your ways you refuse to hear anything else.
> I mean really.



Really?  Have you looked in the mirror when you said that?  We form our own opinions here, as individuals, from researching a large number of sources.  We also realize that some of those sources are not very reliable.  Perhaps you should check a few of them out (In this case some specifice reading sources on Terrorism):

Terrorist Group Profiles:     http://library.nps.navy.mil/home/tgp/tgpmain.htm

List of Terrorist Organizations:     http://www.cdi.org/terrorism/terrorist-groups.cfm

Terrorist Groups Profiles Index of Groups:     http://library.nps.navy.mil/home/tgp/tgpndx.htm

Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs):     http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/fs/37191.htm

List of terrorist organisations:      http://www.answers.com/topic/list-of-militant-organizations

Australian Government List of Terrorist Groups:     http://www.nationalsecurity.gov.au/agd/www/nationalsecurity.nsf/AllDocs/95FB057CA3DECF30CA256FAB001F7FBD?OpenDocument

Canadian Government List of Terrorist Groups:     http://www.psepc-sppcc.gc.ca/prg/ns/le/cle-en.asp

CDI List of Terrorist Groups:     http://www.cdi.org/friendlyversion/printversion.cfm?documentID=384

UK Government List of Terrorist Groups:     http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/security/terrorism-and-the-law/terrorism-act/proscribed-groups

List of Militant Organizations:     http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/List_of_militant_organizations

Wikipedia List of Terrorist Groups:     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorist_group
and also     http://www.dkosopedia.com/wiki/List_of_terrorist_groups

TERRORIST ORGANISATIONS   al-Qa'ida (Al-Qaeda):      http://www.terrorismfiles.org/organisations/al_qaida.html

Perhaps you would like some News Sources too:

The BBC   http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/

The Christian Science Monitor  http://www.csmonitor.com/world/iraq.html

The Sydney Morning News  http://www.smh.com.au/ 

The Jerusalem Post  http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/Page/IndexList&cid=1123495333395  

The Frankfurter Zietung/Frankfurter Allgemeine  http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=http://www.faz.net/&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=1&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3DFrankfurter%2BZeitung%26hl%3Den%26rls%3DDVXA,DVXA:2005-37,DVXA:en%26sa%3DX

The Washington Post  http://www.washingtonpost.com/


Shall I go on?




			
				georgeharper said:
			
		

> After the Americans spend billions bombing innocent civillans, invading and occupying countries, then setting up elections, do you really think they are then going to accept a result that was not favourable to the Americans?
> 
> I mean think about it.
> The Americans have had many democratically elected governments overthrown because they were not American freindly



I thought about it.  Yes!

How soon you want to forget the Americans and WW II.  How many Europeans are not that friendly to Americans in Europe and Asia, after they insisted on setting up Democratic governments and brought peace to those nations over sixty years ago.  



			
				georgeharper said:
			
		

> Now please, show me how Jack Layton is Taliban friendly
> 
> If unable to do so, then offer a public apology on this site



I see you are stuck on saving your hero's reputation, which I must say he earned honestly with his ill-informed comments on negotiating with the Taliban and pulling out of Afghanistan, only to allow the Taliban to regain control and continue with their barbaric ways.  Tell me how pulling Canadian Troops out of Afghanistan is going to in any way help the Afghan people?  Tell us all here.......Now!

And please take some time out there on the Island of Lotus' to use the Spell Check.


----------



## armyvern (25 Feb 2008)

Tango2Bravo said:
			
		

> I was lucky enough to witness the Afghans draft a constitution.  I doubt that it pleased everybody, but they came up with it themselves and then proceeded to have elections that others have witnessed themselves.



I'm sure he won't let that fact stand in his way either.


----------



## Loachman (25 Feb 2008)

georgeharper said:
			
		

> Because you are so set in your ways you refuse to hear anything else.



Do you own or have access to a mirror?

If so, take a long look deep into it, and see to whom your words truly apply.

I marvel at your thickness and blindness.

You, with no experience of reality, are trying (unsuccessfully) to argue with people who have direct experience in Afghanistan and Iraq and, unlike you, know rather a lot about what they speak.

I am completely baffled by your possible motive. I can see none that makes sense, other than perhaps a desire to entertain.

More than anything, it is for that entertainment that we keep you here.

As for Taliban Jack, his constant harping about withdrawal is sufficient to earn him his name. Our withdrawal would help nobody else but the Taliban, who would be free once more to deny women medical care and choice of clothing other than a burqa, kick girls out of school and behead their teachers, beat men for shaving, and take radios, kites, and sports equipment away from children. The Taliban have no better friend in Canada than hypocritical Jack.


----------



## stegner (25 Feb 2008)

:deadhorse:


----------



## Teeps74 (25 Feb 2008)

georgeharper said:
			
		

> Because you are so set in your ways you refuse to hear anything else.
> I mean really.
> 
> After the Americans spend billions bombing innocent civillans, invading and occupying countries, then setting up elections, do you really think they are then going to accept a result that was not favourable to the Americans?
> ...



What, you mean like this? NDP calls Canadian Soldiers terrorists (note, the webpage in question is using DIRECT screen shots from the NDP wepbage before the webpage was taken down).

This wiki article is actually fairly accurate (meaning GH will not bother to read it, or claim it is "propaganda" and dismiss it) OP Athena

Of course, the NDP claims there are no benchmarks for success. The right dishonourable Jack 'Taliban' Layton clearly has never heard of www.google.ca else he would have found this, the Afghanistan Compact (PDF) which has clear and concise mission objectives, and benchmarks. GH you are a liar, and a troll... And yet you are still here (though not for long), prove us all wrong, post links to verifiable sources, and you will be more welcome here.


----------



## Flip (25 Feb 2008)

It's sad really.
Most trolls at least put up a fight.
What we have here is a pitiful antagonism that will convince or be respected by no one.
I can't even get up any real indignation! 

I am proud though.
ARMY.ca members have provided information and logic and more than a little patience.
I wish we had a more worthy troll. :


----------



## armyvern (25 Feb 2008)

Moderator Note for georgeharper:

GH,

Please be advised that all of your posts/threads have been merged into this one megathread (I'm posting this notice to avoid your claiming yet again that your posts have been deleted).

This has been done in order to allow you to find them. Keeping them in one spot and simple for you.

I will also be PMing you a link to this thread -- just to ensure your ability to find it.

ArmyVern
The Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## a_majoor (25 Feb 2008)

The ROI for this thread is in the negative numbers now, kind of like encountering a black hole in space.  

Too bad it is entertaining in the same way that looking at a train wreak is, we can drive by saying "wow, how did that happen" and "Thank God I wasn't caught in that......"


----------



## vonGarvin (25 Feb 2008)

georgeharper said:
			
		

> Got to laugh.
> People can come on here and say whatever nonsense they want and call Mr Layton names and refer to him as Bin Layton, but yet, you come on here and say truthful things like Canada is now a more dangerous place due to Canada being involved in the occupation of Afghanistan, and a post like that is removed.


Your statement is full of logical holes.  First, it is NOT truthful to say that Canada is now more dangerous than post "occupation" of Afghanistan.  Canada, as part of NATO, was a target for the USSR.  That former state had many nuclear weapons, some more  than likely pointed at The True North Strong and Free.  Second, Afghanistan is not  ("occupied".  There are numerous sources for you to see that (a) the government is a legitimate  one (elected, that is) and that (b) we  are there at the request of said government.


			
				georgeharper said:
			
		

> Now unless someone tells me who told and asked the U.S.to invade Afghanistan and then proceed to occupy it on October 7, 2001, I expect a complete apology for my post being removed


Ok, I will.  Nobody asked  the US to invade and then occupy Afghanistan.  First, the US didn't invade.  Second, it doesn't occupy it.  It did attack it, mostly with bombs from the air and did send in some troops (special forces), but the Northern Alliance did most of the ground work.  Once that was done, they asked in the US, NATO, etc to help restore security.  You see, as you may recall, international law gives authority to states to strike back at other states that attack them.  On 9/11, Afghanistan did NOT attack the US: Al Qaeda did, and they were, as you may recall, "guests" of Afghanistan.  When asked to give them up, Kabul refused, and you know the rest of the story.


			
				georgeharper said:
			
		

> By the Americans own admission terrorist attacks have increased dramatically since the invasion of both Iraq and Afghanistan


Pardon?



			
				georgeharper said:
			
		

> If you want to believe that the government is anything but an American installed government, then fine,but the reason Canada is in Afghanistan is because Canada, thankfully because of Chretien is not in Iraq, and going to Afghanistan was just a way of making the Americans think Canada cared about America created wars
> 
> Funny,
> I bet all the posters on this forum wish they were in Iraq, because after all, the reason for that invasion and occupation was to make life better for those people also


Revisionism rocks.  You "priase" Chretian for us not going to Iraq, yet you revile the fact that we are with ISAF in Afghanistan.  Hypocrite.  Chretien sent us to Kabul to AVOID making a decision on Iraq.  At the time, had he listened to polls, Canada would have gone in to Iraq.  No doubt in my mind.  It was the right thing to do (but it wasn't done right).  I think that the US is  doing quite  well now.  But, I'm sleepy.  I have to go poke my eyes out.


----------



## armyvern (25 Feb 2008)

Mortarman Rockpainter said:
			
		

> Revisionism rocks.  You "priase" Chretian for us not going to Iraq, yet you revile the fact that we are with ISAF in Afghanistan.  Hypocrite.  Chretien sent us to Kabul to AVOID making a decision on Iraq.  At the time, had he listened to polls, Canada would have gone in to Iraq.  No doubt in my mind.  It was the right thing to do (but it wasn't done right).  I think that the US is  doing quite  well now.  But, I'm sleepy.  I have to go poke my eyes out.



I'm going to have to insert a point of clarification on this bit Rockpainter.

As I recall, the Op Athena (the deployment of pers into Kabul in May/June 2003) TAT arrived overseas to be greeted by people like me who had already been deployed into our area of operations since Jan 2002 -- well before President Bush spoke a word about Iraq. Op Apollo, did not end with the removal of Canadian infanteers from Afghanistan in 2002.

When you arrived with that TAT, and found yourself faced with moi to harass you, I had already been there 5.5 months -- as had a few hundred other pers with me. There was no lag between operations at all -- although the infantry was not involved during the whole time period, many hundreds of other Canadian soldiers/sailors and airmen certainly were.

There exists a common misperception that Canada was not involved in the region between the withdrawal of our Infantry in 2002 from Op Apollo and their return in 2003 as part of Op Athena. That is simply not the case.

Indeed a couple hundred of us sat around the satellite link-up watching the beginning of the American actions in Iraq ... while we listened chuckling to Media commentary on the news which was speculating that there were less than 10 Canadian Troops in the region -- wondering how our own Canadian media could possibly have determined that we didn't exist simply because the infantry had departed the previous year.


----------



## George Wallace (25 Feb 2008)

It seems that having been there and done that, means nothing to these people.  If it isn't officially recorded in a sound bite from a Left leaning Anti-military, Anti-government organization, it isn't "Official", nor is it true.  Why we can't see this, is beyond these people's comprehension.  The world is such a mess because we are off trying to bring Peace and Good Government to other nations by military means, as opposed to the fantasy dreamt up a Dope smoking Philosophy Professor at an "Institution of Higher Learning" who has probably never held a 'real' job in their life.  Unfortunately society has permitted these people to habitate the wrong types of Institutions and brainwash the young and impressionable minds of career students.  It is amazing to see how many of said students find a "change of life" philosophy and become Conservatives once they find themselves raising families and wage earners like their parents were.  Suddenly their parents became quite intelligent.

georgeharper has not reached that stage of evolution yet.


----------



## MARS (25 Feb 2008)

> It is amazing to see how many of said students find a "change of life" philosophy and become Conservatives once they find themselves raising families and wage earners like their parents were.  Suddenly their parents became quite intelligent.



+1 GW.  Your line, and georgeharper's posts remind me of this quote: "Not to be a socialist at twenty is proof of want of heart;
to be one at thirty is proof of want of head" (Georges Clemenceau (1841-1929))

MARS


----------



## vonGarvin (25 Feb 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> I'm going to have to insert a point of clarification on this bit Rockpainter.
> 
> As I recall, the Op Athena (the deployment of pers into Kabul in May/June 2003) TAT arrived overseas to be greeted by people like me who had already been deployed into our area of operations since Jan 2002 -- well before President Bush spoke a word about Iraq. Op Apollo, did not end with the removal of Canadian infanteers from Afghanistan in 2002.
> 
> When you arrived with that TAT, *and found yourself faced with moi to harass you*, I had already been there 5.5 months -- as had a few hundred other pers with me. There was no lag between operations at all -- although the infantry was not involved during the whole time period, many hundreds of other Canadian soldiers/sailors and airmen certainly were.


Now I know why I got danger pay ;D

This is actually quite illuminating.  I wasn't aware that so many were there when we arrived.  Still, my point to bugger head was that JC didn't "decide" to keep us out of Iraq.  He instead decided to "up" our committment to Afghanistan, less than six months after saying that we didn't have the troops to go back.  (By "troops", I mean a BG or something like that).


----------



## TCBF (25 Feb 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> It seems that having been there and done that, means nothing to these people.  If it isn't officially recorded in a sound bite from a Left leaning Anti-military, Anti-government organization, it isn't "Official", nor is it true.  Why we can't see this, is beyond these people's comprehension.  The world is such a mess because we are off trying to bring Peace and Good Government to other nations by military means, as opposed to the fantasy dreamt up a Dope smoking Philosophy Professor at an "Institution of Higher Learning" who has probably never held a 'real' job in their life.  Unfortunately society has permitted these people to habitate the wrong types of Institutions and brainwash the young and impressionable minds of career students.  It is amazing to see how many of said students find a "change of life" philosophy and become Conservatives once they find themselves raising families and wage earners like their parents were.  Suddenly their parents became quite intelligent.
> 
> georgeharper has not reached that stage of evolution yet.



- Fact is, our taxdollars are funding the emasculation of Canada by educating people beyond their capacity to reason then hiring them at inflated salaries to advance the 'progressive' direction of Canadian politics.  

- Look into those 'foundations' established by the last government, to the tune of billions of dollars annually and all of it out of reach of the auditor general.  What direction do you think those agencies are taking us?

- If you want the truth, follow the money - a dollar bill never lies.


----------



## George Wallace (25 Feb 2008)

TCBF said:
			
		

> - Fact is, our taxdollars are funding the emasculation of Canada by educating people beyond their capacity to reason ........



Well.  That seems to have been the opinion of the Student Union at the U of Vic when they felt that they must ban CF Recruiting on Campus.  The same thing has been happening in other Universities, where the Student Unions have taken it upon themselves to dictate what the Student Body should do as they are incapable of independent thought by themselves.  Is our Education System breeding sheeple and/or are we unwittingly breeding a new crop of elitists/dictators to control the thoughts of the sheeple?


----------



## georgeharper (25 Feb 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Canadians were in danger BEFORE we went into Afghanistan -- remember all those innocent Canadians killed on Sept 11th by any chance (that occured BEFORE we went in)?
> 
> Last I heard, the Saudis had NOT launched a terrorist attack on the scale of 911,



Oh please.To now suggest that Canada and Canadians were a target for a terrorist attack prior to 9/11 simply because some Canadians happened to be in the wrong place( the United States) at the wrong time is laughable.
Now because Canada is helping the U.S with the occupation of Afghanistan , Canada indeed is a target.

Last I heard, Afghanistan had not launched a terrorist attack on the scale of 9/11

But I did hear for fact almost all the 9/11 terroist were Saudis, and not Afghanis.
Last I heard, the Saudis are doing nothing to stop the growing number of terrorist camps and the brutality of the civillians .
But then again, the Saudis control the American economy also.
Dont want to step on any toes in that country by making life better for those people


----------



## George Wallace (25 Feb 2008)

georgeharper said:
			
		

> Oh please.To now suggest that Canada and Canadians were a target for a terrorist attack prior to 9/11 simply because some Canadians happened to be in the wrong place( the United States) at the wrong time is laughable.
> Now because Canada is helping the U.S with the occupation of Afghanistan , Canada indeed is a target.



As Al Queda has stated in its "Press Releases".  It is sad that you have such a lax grip on reality.



			
				georgeharper said:
			
		

> Last I heard, Afghanistan had not launched a terrorist attack on the scale of 9/11



Afghanistan hasn't but Al Queda has.  They have launched several attacks around the world from Spain to Bali.



			
				georgeharper said:
			
		

> But I did hear for fact almost all the 9/11 terroist were Saudis, and not Afghanis.



 ???  So what?  They were Saudis trained in Terrorist Training Camps in Afghanistan.  They definitely were not Afghan monetary units.



			
				georgeharper said:
			
		

> Last I heard, the Saudis are doing nothing to stop the growing number of terrorist camps and the brutality of the civillians .



They have sent aid to Afghans.  They have not interfered in the Internal matters of State in Afghanistan.  It would be illegal for them to do so.



			
				georgeharper said:
			
		

> But then again, the Saudis control the American economy also.



Now I have heard that the Jews controlled Amerika.  I have heard that the Mormons controlled Amerika.  I have heard that the Masons control Amerika.  Now you are telling me that the Saudis control Amerika.  How many conspiracies must we put up with before we stop believing in the person "crying wolf"?



			
				georgeharper said:
			
		

> Dont want to step on any toes in that country by making life better for those people



No need to reply to that, as it has been stated to you several times over now, and you still haven't clued in.

And please learn how to use SPELL CHECK!


----------



## Panzer Grenadier (25 Feb 2008)

I'm afraid arguing with a wall can only go so far...


----------



## McG (25 Feb 2008)

georgeharper said:
			
		

> Last I heard, Afghanistan had not launched a terrorist attack on the scale of 9/11


The organization which conducted the 9/11 attacks was hosted & protected by the Afghan government of the time.  You know this.



			
				georgeharper said:
			
		

> But I did hear for fact almost all the 9/11 terroist were Saudis, and not Afghanis.


Again with your red herring.  The Saudi government had nothing to do with sheltering AQ or conducting the attack.  Regardless, even if you want to suggest that NATO should invade Saudi Arabia, this is not an argument for or against actions in any other nation.

You have still not met the obligation of your public warning:  *Provide complete backed-up arguments & not rhetoric.  *


----------



## Teeps74 (25 Feb 2008)

georgeharper said:
			
		

> Oh please.To now suggest that Canada and Canadians were a target for a terrorist attack prior to 9/11 simply because some Canadians happened to be in the wrong place( the United States) at the wrong time is laughable.
> Now because Canada is helping the U.S with the occupation of Afghanistan , Canada indeed is a target.
> 
> Last I heard, Afghanistan had not launched a terrorist attack on the scale of 9/11
> ...



Can you provide a single solitary link to back your nonsense up? Just one? Hell, I will even take one of your garbage enmasse type links.


----------



## Loachman (25 Feb 2008)

georgeharper said:
			
		

> Now because Canada is helping the U.S with the occupation of Afghanistan



What "occupation"?

If we were "occupying" Afghanistan, then the Afghan population would rise up and easily push us out.

There simply are not enough NATO/US troops to "occupy" even a small part of Afghanistan.

This is a lefty myth religious fundamental, which none of you can see past.



			
				georgeharper said:
			
		

> Canada indeed is a target.



No more and no less than we were before we accepted the Afghan invitation to assist them.



			
				georgeharper said:
			
		

> Last I heard, Afghanistan had not launched a terrorist attack on the scale of 9/11



You do have a problem understanding things, don't you?

Nobody here said that "Afghanistan .... launched a terrorist attack". This is your own mental construct. The fact - understood by everybody else here except you - is that the Taliban government harboured Al Quaida and provided it with safe training facilities. Nobody here claimed that any Afghans were amongst the September 2001 mass-murderers. We know full well from whence they came.

And it's "Afghans", by the way. "Afghanis" are their currency.

For all of its faults, the Saudi standard of living is far above that of Afghans.

But you refuse to see any of this.

You're still highly entertaining, however, so feel free to keep displaying your wilful ignorance for our collective amusement.


----------



## Flip (25 Feb 2008)

> Oh please.To now suggest that Canada and Canadians were a target for a terrorist attack prior to 9/11 simply because some Canadians happened to be in the wrong place( the United States) at the wrong time is laughable.



The "target for terrorist" attacks is any western liberal democracy that offends the Islamist sense of "justice".
Canada could never avoid being a target as we have long and deep historical and economic ties to the US and the UK.
Even if they never attack Canada per se, an attack on our partners is an attack on Canada.

As for Afghans, you're a little confused. They are on the same side of this as WE are.
They have been the victims of the Taliban and AQ to a far greater degree than have been.
And the government of Afghanistan have invited ISAF in to secure the country and remove Taliban.
The government of Afghanistan has also been elected and recognized by the UN.

To disregard these facts is to obfuscate the argument.  That is, try to take the argument out of the realm of reality.


----------



## Loachman (25 Feb 2008)

Flip said:
			
		

> the realm of reality.



A too-completely alien concept for the poor wee thing.


----------



## Panzer Grenadier (25 Feb 2008)

Loachman said:
			
		

> A too-completely alien concept for the poor wee thing.



+1


----------



## 1feral1 (25 Feb 2008)

georgeharper said:
			
		

> Oh please.To now suggest that Canada and Canadians were a target for a terrorist attack prior to 9/11 simply because some Canadians happened to be in the wrong place( the United States) at the wrong time is laughable.
> Now because Canada is helping the U.S with the occupation of Afghanistan , Canada indeed is a target.



Radical islam selects targets due to western values such as booze, music, our women, yes their rights, and our way of life overall. They HATE us all, including you.

We (the west) were a target long before 9-11.

You don't know WTF you are talking about.


----------



## RHFC_piper (25 Feb 2008)

I'm quite surprised this thread is still ongoing...  It seems this georgeharper person has brought a knife to a gun fight... more accurately; a dull plastic butter knife.

Conspiracy Theories backed up by hearsay and conjecture, with no hopes of proof, all based on movies (thank you Michael Moore) and media (thank you CNN) versus Fact made clear by not only empirical evidence, published accounts and unquestionable documentation, but also by those who have witnessed these events and places first hand.

geogeharper, bit of advice for you;  read... read everything you can from every source.   I'm not saying change you position, I'm saying; if you're going to run headlong into an argument with people who have read, witness and consumed everything there is to know about this subject, you might want to come with information to back up your position. 
If you do read, and you find the evidence to prove your point, from creditable sources, by all means, post here and this might actually become an intelligent discussion... 'cause as it stands, you're arguing against proven subject matter experts, with sources to back up their statements, with nothing more than "someone said", "I heard" and "my buddy told me", none of which is helping your case.   (Just because Michael Moore says it, doesn't make it so... he's been proven to bend the truth about a great many things... he can manipulate media with the best of them.)

Anyway... enough of a rant from me...  On with the one sided fight.  op:


----------



## Fishbone Jones (25 Feb 2008)

He's not going to provide links. He's not going to provide facts. He's not going to provide meaningful rhetoric or discussion.

What he IS going to do, is continue to flit in here, once daily, drop a few lines of unsubstantiated, left wing tripe, and then leave. It's called drive by posting.

He'll come back, once a day, and see how you've all been whipped up into a lather, with two more pages of solid response, to his propaganda. He'll lauqh with all his buddies on their forum how he's driving you all nuts.

He's not here to reason with you or even convince you of anything. He's here to drive you batty, and he's succeeding.

Quit feeding the troll.


----------



## armyvern (25 Feb 2008)

georgeharper said:
			
		

> ...
> Last I heard, Afghanistan had not launched a terrorist attack on the scale of 9/11
> ...



I certainly never said they had. Around here, we are fully aware of the facts WRT that little matter. There you go again ... not letting the facts get in the way of your shapeshifting.

Your clock is ticking down BTW ... you still haven't posted your sources for your erroneous information. Even pulling RAWA or enmasse out of your favourites bookmarks for us would suffice at this point in time perhaps, but you can't even put down your trash long enough to do that.

Qu'elle surprise monsieur. Qu'elle surpise. 

Dix, neuf, ... tic toc tic toc

The ramp of the aircraft is lowering ...


----------



## stegner (25 Feb 2008)

> Quit feeding the troll.



+1 

Why not lock this thread up?


----------



## Panzer Grenadier (25 Feb 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> +1
> 
> Why not lock this thread up?



Agreed - end this, georgeharper will show up again, under a new user name and start doing this all over again, that's the nature of a mindless troll.  Might as well start the process now.


----------



## McG (25 Feb 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> Why not lock this thread up?


georgeharper has been given a window for self-redemption.  To be fair, we are not going back on our word.  If he goes up the warning ladder, it will be a result of his conduct and not some abuse that we've bestowed upon him.


----------



## armyvern (25 Feb 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> +1
> 
> Why not lock this thread up?



Because he was given his warning and was given until *Tuesday to post and cite his sources*.

Quite easy to understand really ... that's already been posted in this thread.

Vern
The Milnet.ca Staff

Here it is again for all of you who missed it:



			
				MCG said:
			
		

> georgeharper, you have ignored my warning at your peril.  However,I like to give people the benefit of the doubt, so maybe you just missed my post.  *I will give you until Tuesday morning to come back and substantiate your drive-by spamming with real arguments*.  This warning will also be PM'ed to you so that you will not miss it.  Failure to comply will result in an elevation of your warning.
> 
> Cheers,
> The Staff
> ...



And this too:


			
				ArmyVern said:
			
		

> And, he's been given a verbal warning IAW this site's Guidelines.
> 
> He's now been given a further warning here in the thread and via PM to start posting factual links (citations etc) to back up his claims. He now has the opportunity to engage in actual debate (instead of troll) by posting links to credible sources which back up his claims.
> 
> ...


----------



## 1feral1 (25 Feb 2008)

RHFC_piper said:
			
		

> I'm quite surprised this thread is still ongoing...  It seems this georgeharper person has brought a knife to a gun fight... more accurately; a dull plastic butter knife.
> 
> Conspiracy Theories backed up by hearsay and conjecture, with no hopes of proof, all based on movies (thank you Michael Moore) and media (thank you CNN) versus Fact made clear by not only empirical evidence, published accounts and unquestionable documentation, but also by those who have witnessed these events and places first hand.
> 
> ...



At the end of the day he/she may indeed think different, but we fuel what he/she wants to hear. Remember he/she is an attention/audience seeker. As far as he/she is concerned we are just a bunch of war mongering baby burners, being lead by the Great Satan, and an oveall western empire dominated by oil. Bloody hell, if only it was that simple.

I don't mind a conflict of opinions, and decent debate, as thats what makes many topics on here not only entertaining, but informative.. However, what is going on here is just plain trollery, and I am suprised of the level of tolerence being demonstrated.

He/she will give itslef enough rope soon enough, and then the dance in the virtual gallows will commence, all undone by she/he's own doing.

Regards from yet another rainy day here in the tropics,

Wes


----------



## George Wallace (25 Feb 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> Why not lock this thread up?



We are just wondering when georgeharper will get his/her head out of the toilet and realize that there is fresh air out there and (s)he doesn't have to inhale all those toxic fumes forever. There is reality, and not the warped NDP picture that (s)he loves to paint. Perhaps with some air freshener, georgeharper will see the folly of Taliban Jack's platforms, not that we really think someone of his/her ilk in La La Land will ever truly change, but stranger things have happened.  

You'll notice, georgeharper has already walked onto the Ramp.  Tuesday is Wings Parade and Prop Blast.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (25 Feb 2008)

I think that we've played the greyhound to the rabbit enough times around the race track.


----------



## armyvern (26 Feb 2008)

Tango2Bravo said:
			
		

> I think that we've played the greyhound to the rabbit enough times around the race track.



True enough, but the rules still apply -- and are being applied.

It's Tuesday morning ... we'll see what he has, he's either going to cite his sources as per the Army.ca caonduct guidelines or not.

He was warned, the time has arrived ... it's up to him how it ends.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (26 Feb 2008)

Vern,

Agreed.  I was not calling for a ban, just for us (me included) to stop going around in circles.  A site should be tolerant of opposing views, even if it means aggravation.

Cheers

T2B


----------



## Trinity (26 Feb 2008)

Dunno.. they banned him over at Mapleleafweb.com under 3 different names.

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=8115&st=90

He must be getting used to it.  And incidentally he dodged and refused to
post links over there also.  :-X


----------



## TCBF (27 Feb 2008)

- No doubt, in his next post, he will remind us that the reason all of the MAPLE GUARDIAN exercises are held in Wainwright is because Wainwright is criss-crossed with PIPELINES...


----------



## McG (27 Feb 2008)

Don’t mock the troll.  You’re giving it the attention it wants even while it cannot post.

Cheers,
The Staff


----------

