# Why are we importing dead Canadian soldiers?



## scm77 (9 Mar 2007)

Am I the only one who finds this headline extremely tasteless?  

Check out: http://bourque.com/

They will change it eventually as newer stories come up, so I've attached a picture so everyone can see.



(click for hi-res)

Bourque.com is a site that posts links to news articles and other stories. Basically a Canadian "Drudge Report".  It's viewed by millions of Canadians each month.  So it's not just some loony left wing hippie site (at least it doesn't intend to be).

If you want to, fire away: pierre@bourque.com

ps: sorry if this has already been posted, I searched but couldn't find anything.


----------



## Flip (9 Mar 2007)

Thank you Scotty,

I have already submitted a comment to Bourqa


----------



## FredDaHead (9 Mar 2007)

People somehow managed to get forsakethetroops.com to shut down. Maybe the same can be done to that traitorous idiot?

A whois search returned this:*


> Registrant: Make this info private
> Bourque Newswatch Canada
> Box 4895. Station E
> Ottawa, ONTARIO K1S 5J1
> ...



*This is all publicly available on the internet.


----------



## PeterLT (10 Mar 2007)

Don't forget that Bourque takes money to post sensationalized headlines. As such, I wouldn't be too quick to come to conclusions since the story that links to isn't in the same light. I would suspect someone wants to influence people using Bourque as a tool. That doesn't make the headline right and hopefully Mr. Bourque realizes that in the future and uses some better judgement in his choice of wording. Obviously he doesn't appreciate the freedoms that are hard won by people better than he. 

Peter


----------



## DVessey (10 Mar 2007)

Apparently Army 'chit chatters' have declared war on Bourque, if you check out his site now. :


----------



## Michael OLeary (10 Mar 2007)

It's tabloid journalism, giving it attention only serves their purpose.


----------



## mudrecceman (10 Mar 2007)

DVessey said:
			
		

> Apparently Army 'chit chatters' have declared war on Bourque, if you check out his site now. :



 :boring:


----------



## career_radio-checker (10 Mar 2007)

> Army Chit-Chatters Declare War on Bourque



I'm sorry, I must have been on the jon during the declaration speech, did I miss something?


----------



## Remius (10 Mar 2007)

Yeah, apparently were at war with Bourque now.  Just go the warning order and I'm preparing my kit.  Rumour is they are busing in some air cadets to handle it.  Seeing as how they have more maturity it should be over by Easter.  Personally I think it's hopeless.  I plan on setting up a ridiculous poll about it... ;D


----------



## Roy Harding (10 Mar 2007)

It "The Army Chit-Chatters" link leads to this thread.

I see four types of people who will click on the link:


Those who will look around, decide it's not for them, and leave
Those who will look around, disagree with us, and engage us in intelligent conversation
Those who will look around, agree with us, and become members
Those who will come in, leave a drive-by smearing, and leave

I see it as free advertising for the site!

The fourth type may make some work for the Mods.  I guess we'll just have to see.  It may also give an indication of how popular Mr. Bourque's site is (not that it matters - just idle curiousity.)


Roy


----------



## Remius (10 Mar 2007)

Well just look at some of the comments left on his site about that poll.  Says it all in my view.


----------



## Roy Harding (10 Mar 2007)

Crantor said:
			
		

> Well just look at some of the comments left on his site about that poll.  Says it all in my view.



Crantor - I couldn't find a comments section, am I missing something?  Could you post a link, maybe?

Roy


----------



## Yrys (10 Mar 2007)

I hope the fourth type ain't the bigger of the 97 , oups
101 118 guests that are looking at this thread!

ADD : main page is http://army.ca/  , if any of the guests are wondering...


----------



## scm77 (10 Mar 2007)

Here's the comments for his poll.
http://bourque.freepolls.com/cgi-bin/pollresults/068/comments.html


----------



## Roy Harding (10 Mar 2007)

Scotty said:
			
		

> Here's the comments for his poll.
> http://bourque.freepolls.com/cgi-bin/pollresults/068/comments.html



Thanks - I didn't take the poll - thus explaining why I missed the comments.


----------



## FireMission (10 Mar 2007)

Gentlemen,

I am a daily reader of Bourque - quite right, similar to the Drudge Report.  I checked and re-checked the headline - about importing dead Canadian Soldiers, which then also had a Poll attached to it.

For those who are freaking out - well, just slow down and engage brain.  The subtle point is - our Country to Country Trade is virtually nil, with Afghanistan.  Thus, so far, the implied intent is - all we are importing from the 'Stan is our own dead soldiers.  

As a serving Reg Force officer - feel free to check my profile - the headline is controversial - but certainly not meant to be insulting, to the sacrifices of our soldiers.  Anyone who is a regular reader of Bourque will see he posts a significant amount of both pro - and con - info on his site.  And certainly, I would submit he has been a very strong supporter of the serving CF members, in my opinion.  

Perhaps most telling, in my opinion, is that the Poll on site, has the majority in favour of remaining in the 'Stan, vice pulling out. 

So, those of you who wish to wage war, with a fellow who is, on balance, a friend of serving CF members, would be taking, what I believe, is ill considered action.  We are in the 'Stan to protect freedom of speech, freedom from tyranny, yadda yadda - so it seems a bit hypocritical to then attack someone in our own country for writing a perhaps, too subtle, headline.  However, in a free and democratic country, go forth and exercise your democratic rights - as you see fit.


----------



## scm77 (10 Mar 2007)

Roy Harding said:
			
		

> I see it as free advertising for the site!


It appears you are correct.  There are 580 "guests" viewing this site right now, and 113 of them are reading this thread.


----------



## TN2IC (10 Mar 2007)

TN2IC ready for battle...


Right....


----------



## FireMission (10 Mar 2007)

Thus, there is no such thing as bad publicity - good insight Scotty.


----------



## armyvern (10 Mar 2007)

FireMission said:
			
		

> Thus, there is no such thing as bad publicity - good insight Scotty.



Apparently not...and steadily climbing with a count of 123 in this thread now. 114 are guests.


----------



## Remius (10 Mar 2007)

FireMission said:
			
		

> Gentlemen,
> 
> I am a daily reader of Bourque - quite right, similar to the Drudge Report.  I checked and re-checked the headline - about importing dead Canadian Soldiers, which then also had a Poll attached to it.
> 
> ...



Well sir I put it to you this way.  People on this site posted a link to that poll.  Discussion about it started which then was interpreted as a "Declaration of War against Bourque".  You'll see his link back to this thread and also you'll see the post that indicates that indicates he did this. Everything before was quite docile in my view.  We can disagree with what he said but then he turns that into a declaration of war on our part.  Thus some of the more sarcastic comments related to that declaration (myself included).  Frankly that poll and the headline (now removed it would seem) is inflammatory.  Look at the two questions and tell me that is a balanced approach.  So he should expect a reaction.  He has a right to his opinion as do we. No one is saying otherwise.


----------



## FireMission (10 Mar 2007)

Well sir I put it to you this way.  People on this site posted a link to that poll.  Discussion about it started which then was interpreted as a "Declaration of War against Bourque".  You'll see his link back to this thread and also you'll see the post that indicates that indicates he did this. Everything before was quite docile in my view.  We can disagree with what he said but then he turns that into a declaration of war on our part.  Thus some of the more sarcastic comments related to that declaration (myself included).  Frankly that poll and the headline (now removed it would seem) is inflammatory.  Look at the two questions and tell me that is a balanced approach.  So he should expect a reaction.  He has a right to his opinion as do we. No one is saying otherwise.

Crantor - well put.  

The third post on this link, in response is as fols, by Frederick G:

People somehow managed to get forsakethetroops.com to shut down. Maybe the same can be done to that traitorous idiot?

As of one minute ago - the Bourque Article link to the Army.ca site remains up - and the Poll sits there was well.  

Always makes for an enjoyable day, reading the news.  

All the best.


----------



## Remius (10 Mar 2007)

Sorry, I meant to say that the original headline was removed. Not the poll.


----------



## Roy Harding (10 Mar 2007)

Crantor said:
			
		

> ...  Frankly that poll and the headline (now removed it would seem) ...



Still there - check the "Recent News" button at the top of the page.  It's just been moved off the "Front Page" by more recent items being added.  Quite normal, nothing sinister about it.


----------



## ArmyRick (10 Mar 2007)

Not matter what people say, the original comment on that web site was very, very tasteless.  :threat:


----------



## aggregator (10 Mar 2007)

What an utterly tasteless headline.

Although it isn't in my self-interest to say so, Bourque does run a pretty good site, ethical issues notwithstanding, and he's good at capturing the biggest stories of the day.

Nevertheless: I think aggregator.ca is more agreeable with this crowd than Bourque could hope to be. We're a news aggregator service focusing on freedom, capitalism, anti-communism, politics, climate change and the war on terror-- we are staunch supporters of the troops, the forces in general and the mission in Afghanistan.

Bourque and National Newswatch are, in my opinion, little more than RSS feeds for the Globe, CTV and CBC. Aggregator always goes farther and deeper to get the honest and important stories.

As I said I am biased, so please do check out www.aggregator.ca for yourselves and make up your own mind.


----------



## orange.paint (10 Mar 2007)

Yes tasteless.
However why waste a saturday in anger?It basically turns into a group of civilians arguing about bushes war.Do you think anything your "army brainwashed"mind types is taken seriously?Of course not.
It sort of like yelling at a parrot that tell's you to "go **** yourself".He's going to keep saying it as thats all his feible mind can grasp.And all he hears coming out of your mouth in drabble.

Declaring war?Thats kind of lame.Next they will be typing in comments like "their home from overseas trying to rule,now they want to rule us at home."

Why entertain them?Why attempt to take them out of their cozy life and try to make them understand how this would offend soldiers?


Firemission: I'm guessing you know the soldier being carried below the caption?Otherwise I would suggest you think about the poor bastards who watched this man die.I suggest you think about his family.Then think about the caption.Otherwise STFU.Personally if that was my brother,friend,crewmemberI would be greatly offended to him being ******* IMPORTED.


----------



## mudrecceman (10 Mar 2007)




----------



## career_radio-checker (10 Mar 2007)

Uhg*  what a waste on Mike's server.
Mods if you want to close the hole in our supposed "battle-line," might I suggest you delete the thread? That way the link on Bourque's webpage will lead to some dead end causing others to just turn around. Lets plug the hole.


----------



## Roy Harding (10 Mar 2007)

career_radio-checker said:
			
		

> Uhg*  what a waste on Mike's server.
> Mods if you want to close the hole in our supposed "battle-line," might I suggest you delete the thread? That way the link on Bourque's webpage will lead to some dead end causing others to just turn around. Lets plug the hole.



I don't understand why you'd want to do this.  Why would you NOT want others to see what is on offer here (no matter how they get here)?

I don't get the reasoning behind your suggestion.


Roy


----------



## career_radio-checker (10 Mar 2007)

Roy Harding said:
			
		

> I don't understand why you'd want to do this.  Why would you NOT want others to see what is on offer here (no matter how they get here)?
> 
> I don't get the reasoning behind your suggestion.
> 
> ...



Remember a little while ago Mike asked for people to watch the tone of the website?
Well, you said it yourself




			
				Roy Harding said:
			
		

> I see four types of people who will click on the link:
> 
> 
> Those who will look around, decide it's not for them, and leave
> ...



yes it will cause work for the mods, but why should it? 
We've seen these threads before. Even the one's who engage in intelligent debate end up, sooner or later, getting band. You can spend hours and hours arguing with them and they still won't agree to "Why we fight"; just as they spend hours and hours trying to convince us of their position. It never works, its a waste of time, and it digresses into name calling. Let's agree to disagree and carry on.


----------



## Roy Harding (10 Mar 2007)

career_radio-checker said:
			
		

> Remember a little while ago Mike asked for people to watch the tone of the website?
> ...



Huh?  



			
				career_radio-checker said:
			
		

> yes it will cause work for the mods, but why should it?
> We've seen these threads before. Even the one's who engage in intelligent debate end up, sooner or later, getting band. You can spend hours and hours arguing with them and they still won't agree to "Why we fight"; just as they spend hours and hours trying to convince us of their position. It never works, its a waste of time, and it digresses into name calling. Let's agree to disagree and carry on.



I think you're leaving out the third type of visitor I mentioned.

And I'm quite happy to "agree to disagree" and carry on - I'm even happier to understand what people who I generally respect (and this includes you) are driving at.


----------



## career_radio-checker (10 Mar 2007)

Well then good chap it's agreed, we disagree.

Have a good weekend.  

I'll have no further part in this.


----------



## Remius (10 Mar 2007)

I haven't seen this thread get too out of control.  Seems fine for now.  Although I don't think that there is very much left to add.

But I'm not  a mod. So what do I know.


----------



## Kat Stevens (10 Mar 2007)

True wisdom lies in understanding that you know nothing.   Hey, I should get that on a tea towel or something!


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (10 Mar 2007)

Frederik G said:
			
		

> People somehow managed to get forsakethetroops.com to shut down. Maybe the same can be done to that traitorous idiot?
> 
> A whois search returned this:*
> *This is all publicly available on the internet.



Do yourself a favour and quit posting for awhile....


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (10 Mar 2007)

This Topic is not solving anything....what people out on their own sites is really not a concern of Army.Ca. Don't drag the site into a war with another site.

Army.ca Staff


----------



## kenneyb210 (10 Mar 2007)

Bourque admits running paid for stories. Who came up with the headline, I couldn't say.

I will speculate that what has happened goes like this. 

Bourque runs paid for CBC piece. 

Bourque takes the hornets nest that someone was trying to set up and

runs his OWN Story which lobs the nest right back at CBC. 

G*d Bless every one of you shaping events in that "extraordinary piece of desert" 

John Weller


----------



## Yrys (11 Mar 2007)

For a one day thread, that must be a record :

Read 2865 times


----------



## proudnurse (11 Mar 2007)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> It's tabloid journalism, giving it attention only serves their purpose.



Oh so very true! Wasting your own precious time paying attention or replying to it, only adds fuel to thier own fire and this is what they want. 

Rebecca


----------



## kenneyb210 (11 Mar 2007)

I joined yesterday. Directlly as a result of Bourque's second article. I missed the first, I think it was up less than half a day. 

I think that the changes this story took are important.

The first was a POC paid for by CBC. 

The second article is the one written by Bourque on his own, ie "un-paid". 

I agree with  10:35:12  and  13:10:38


----------

