# London attacks underscore Canada's need to be in Afghanistan: Hillier



## Gunner (14 Jul 2005)

General Rick, on the offensive!   

http://news.yahoo.com/s/cpress/20050714/ca_pr_on_na/terror_hillier


----------



## rcr (14 Jul 2005)

I haven't yet been disappointed by what General Hillier has had to say in the news.   If only more folks in Ottawa and across the country echoed his words.


----------



## dutchie (14 Jul 2005)

From Hillier:

*"These are detestable murderers and scumbags,"*

Ok, Sir, quit beating around the bush and tell us how you really feel! It's nice to hear a General, the CDS no less, talk like a soldier instead of a politician.

More from the Canada.com site (Global):

OTTAWA -- Canadians need to prepare psychologically for the strong possibility some of their soldiers will be killed in a new military operation in southern Afghanistan, says the head of the armed forces. 

"Is there a probability that we're going to take casualties? Yes, of course," Gen. Rick Hillier said Thursday. 

"Can I give you a number of what we're going to take? Absolutely not." 

Canada is sending a team of about 250 soldiers, along with Foreign Affairs officials, development workers and Mounties, to Afghanistan's volatile Kandahar province. 

A small part of what's dubbed a provincial reconstruction team, or PRT, will begin deploying early next week, with the bulk of troops starting to move out, mainly from Edmonton, beginning the following week. 

Afghan officials have warned that Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida network is planning Iraq-style attacks against soldiers in the region. Last month, an American PRT in Kandahar was struck by a suicide bomber -- in the same area where Canada's team will be deployed. Four soldiers were injured. 

Casualties are a reality of military life, Hillier said, although he doubts Canadians are ready for that possibility. 

"No, I don't believe they are," said Hillier, appointed chief of defence staff earlier this year. 

"But there needs to be an awareness across Canada that we're in a dangerous business." 

Critics also question whether the public has the stomach for bloodshed coming from Canada's new role in Afghanistan. 

"Kandahar will be the acid test of whether or not we can bear the price of our latest goal," Nic Boisvert wrote in an article published this week by the Council for Canadian Security in the 21st Century. 

"It is best to find out now if we don't have the royal jelly to handle the task. 

"It is going to take moral courage and political leadership. Are we up to it?" 

Despite the increased danger in Kandahar -- compared with the relatively safe haven of Kabul where Canada lost three soldiers in the line of duty -- the military doesn't plan to change the way it operates for the PRT. 

"Same, exact strategy," said Hillier. "A three-block war" approach, where troops focus on small pockets within communities to avoid getting involved in large conflicts. 

"We're going to prosecute some operations there and we're going to go after the Taliban in some cases," he said. 

"The Brits do it superbly, the Aussies do it superbly, we do it superbly." 

In Kabul, Canada has seen success with a strategy of trying to win over the hearts and minds of local residents by providing security while aiding reconstruction projects. It remains to be seen, however, whether Canadians will be welcome in Kandahar. 

"We're going to take absolutely every step possible to set up conditions for success and a reduced risk," Hillier said. 

"I believe we can put in place in Kandahar ... the best-equipped structure inside of Afghanistan." 

"But we still can't reduce the risk to zero. It's still a high-risk area." 

© Canadian Press 2005

http://www.canada.com/national/story.html?id=df22fd2b-4447-4253-80d3-b45ae09a41c2


----------



## Gunner98 (14 Jul 2005)

CDS isn't going to make the same casualty prediction mistake that MGen Andy made prior to Roto 0 deployment.  He seems to have found a balance between soldier, politician and American strategicist.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (15 Jul 2005)

What mistake was that?


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (15 Jul 2005)

Very impressive indeed....


Matthew.


----------



## 54/102 CEF (15 Jul 2005)

I would think the quiet approach of delivering troops and patrolling and whatever offensive capabiltiy exists is more appropriate.

Comments like that? 

Inappropriate - because they draw attention .....

Better to let the opposition experience your aimed fire than amazingly empty talk of calling them scumbags

Cdn troops are perfectly capable of handling any threats they may encounter


----------



## Roy Harding (15 Jul 2005)

54/102 CEF said:
			
		

> I would think the quiet approach of delivering troops and patrolling and whatever offensive capabiltiy exists is more appropriate.
> 
> Comments like that?
> 
> ...



I served with Gen Hillier when he was Comd MND(SW) in Bosnia in 00/01.  He was an approachable man, humourous and down to earth.  His troops (of all nations involved) appreciated him, and understood what he was saying.  Allied Commanders and his NATO superiors respected his judgement and military prowess.  His "bay boy Newfie" persona masks a keen intellect and clear understanding of the world as it is.

When I served in Afghanistan under American command in 02, I was impressed with the rapport American Commanders had with their troops (including us Canadians).  It may sound hokey in hind sight, but to hear your Brigade commander make decidedly un-politically correct statements in his speeches to the troops was certainly a morale booster.  Statements such as "we're going to kick some ass", and various other remarks which I cannot quote at the moment were a refreshing change from the usually politically correct political speeches we receive from senior Canadians (CDS, Comd JTFSWA, etc), who seemed more interested in not rocking their political masters worlds than inspiring the troops.

Despite your feeling that Gen Hillier's remarks are "amazingly empty talk", I find his remarks an amazingly adept effort at establishing rapport not only with serving troops, but with the average Canadian on the street who doesn't give a rat's, nor understand "asynchronous threat", but certainly CAN understand what a "scumbag" is.

Well done, Gen Hillier - don't let the politically correct bastards get you down!


----------



## mover1 (15 Jul 2005)

54/102 CEF said:
			
		

> Comments like that?
> 
> Inappropriate - because they draw attention .....



Your absolutely right the General should have said ......that were were going to deliver a combat capable diverse force of public servants under the department of national defence into the region. To promote peace and harmony though our peacekeepers. Via ethical leadership and correctness in bearing our peacekeeping forces will stabilise the region. The problem we face are that the adversary   are of an unwelcome nature to the well being and prosperity to those whose lives they affect (These are detestable murderers and scumbags)

Remember   to    vote Mover 1 for prime minister!!!!


----------



## Roy Harding (15 Jul 2005)

mover1 said:
			
		

> Remeber  to   vote Mover 1 for prime minister!!!!



You've got my vote, Mover 1!!!  ;D


----------



## mover1 (15 Jul 2005)

Thanks Retired CC

 since your my first supporter I give you choice on either the senate or a cabinet post.


----------



## Roy Harding (15 Jul 2005)

mover1 said:
			
		

> Thanks Retired CC
> 
> since your my first supporter I give you choice on either the senate or a cabinet post.



I'll take the cabinet post.  That way, I'll be able to scheme, eventually stab you in the back, and then take YOUR job!

See - I've got all the qualification required to be a big time party politician!


----------



## mover1 (15 Jul 2005)

Blenida Stronarch you have just met your match


----------



## kilekaldar (15 Jul 2005)

Word around the Battalion is that the politicians are getting cold feet about Kandahar and Afghanistan in general, and they are thinking about cancelling the move and staying on in Kabul to take over command, or pulling everyone back completely from the country and going home. 
I realize this is just a rumor, but it would be very much in character for our spineless, risk-adverse, domestic optics obsessed government.
Anyone else hear anything?
Thoughts, comments?


----------



## mover1 (15 Jul 2005)

Never hear anything like that. Althoug someone better phone Trenton as the move to Khandahar is well under way by pre deploying stuff there.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (15 Jul 2005)

kilekaldar said:
			
		

> Word around the Battalion is that the politicians are getting cold feet about Kandahar and Afghanistan in general, and they are thinking about cancelling the move and staying on in Kabul to take over command, or pulling everyone back completely from the country and going home.
> I realize this is just a rumor, but it would be very much in character for our spineless, risk-adverse, domestic optics obsessed government.
> Anyone else hear anything?
> Thoughts, comments?



It's a rumour - and a bad one at that.

I nearly choked on my breakfast at the General's "kill people" quote on Canada AM this morning... Good to hear... ;D


----------



## paracowboy (15 Jul 2005)

*LOVE * that guy!


----------



## Gunner98 (15 Jul 2005)

MGen Andy's prediction of 10 body bags - it had a strange foreboding once the mine strike happened.


----------



## 54/102 CEF (15 Jul 2005)

Retired CC said:
			
		

> I served with Gen Hillier ....
> When I served in Afghanistan under American command in 02, I was impressed with the rapport American Commanders had with their troops (including us Canadians).  It may sound hokey in hind sight, but to hear your Brigade commander make decidedly un-politically correct statements in his speeches to the troops was certainly a morale booster.  ........inspiring the troops......amazingly adept effort at establishing rapport not only with serving troops, but with the average Canadian on the street
> 
> Well done, Gen Hillier - don't let the politically correct bastards get you down!



Feel better now? 

Last time I checked the political side made rapport with the man in the street - so maybe you can tell us all where the General's mandate to whip up "shoot'em up" comments like that comes from.

Political correctness is setting goals and achieving them - and we are all keenly focussed on certain jobs when called upon to do them. So keep training but lets think about the wisdom of talk about wiping out the "Scumbags." 

What we are doing right is being part of the coalition and taking on the achievable and demanding missions. No argument.

I refer you all to a speech last year by former CENTCOM Commander Tony Zinni at http://www.cdi.org/friendlyversion/printversion.cfm?documentID=2208&from_page=../program/document.cfm

He was talking about Iraq but this applies equally to any theatre in the far east

extracts.....

The locals have to be brought in as partners because .......

There is a Ho Chi Minh trail here.  Somewhere, somehow people are getting in the jihadis.....

We also have to stop the tough talk rhetoric.  One thing you learn in this business is, don't say it unless you're going to do it.  In this part of the world, strength matters.  And if you say you are going to go in and wipe them out, you better do it.  If you say you're going to do it and then you back off and find another solution, you have lost face.  And we have got to stop the kind of bravado and talk that only leads us into trouble out there.  We need to be more serious and more mature in what we project as an image. Our whole public relations effort out there has been a disaster.  I read the newspapers from the region every night online, and if you watch Al Jazeera, Al Arabiya, or even some of the more moderate stations out there, and you read the editorials in the newspaper, there is a different war being portrayed in that region.  A different conflict than we're getting from Fox, CNN, CBS, et cetera.  

This is just his opinion - and we all have ours but if he says stop the tough talk - maybe we should ask why he would say that?

Think of how the Hells Angels have been taken down in recent years - the other side can be defeated the same way, a quiet steady action oriented campaign which demands the same performance from the supporters of the Army and those in the Army.

And if that's not enough to keep your busy - try taking on this problem

Here's another insight - in the years before WW2 both Germany and Japan indoctrinated their youth with a seething violent nationalism which we know erupted as their invading armies.

Check out this story from today's paper

The Ottawa Citizen 2005.07.15	Zahid Hussain	

The school of hate and bigotry: Thousands of young Muslims are being brainwashed at hardline religious schools that preach jihad and justify terrorism, Zahid Hussain reports from Pakistan.

Sporting black turbans or skull caps, the young men squatting on a carpeted floor in a crowded classroom listen in rapt silence to a lecture delivered by a thickly bearded middle-aged cleric. The students are at the final stage of their religious education at Darul Uloom Haqqania, one of Pakistan's leading institutions of Islamic learning. Situated in the town of Akora Khatak near Peshawar, the radical seminary is often described as the "University of Jihad." 

The seminary, which was established in 1947, has been the cradle of the Taliban militia that ruled Afghanistan for more than five years before being ousted by U.S.-led coalition forces in 2001. Many of the Taliban leaders graduated from the school. 
The seminary has also been a recruiting centre for militant Pakistani groups fighting Indian forces in the disputed region of Kashmir. Many of the 2,500 students at the school come from Afghanistan. But the number of foreign students has now declined following government pressure. 

"The bomb attacks in London are the reaction against the British government's support for America's war against Muslims," said Maulana Samiul Haq, a fiery, black-turbaned cleric who is head of the seminary. He is also an MP in Pakistan. "The loss of innocent lives is regrettable, but the British government should think why it all happened. It is time to review its policy on Iraq and Afghanistan." 

The school teaches the concept of jihad to prepare students to fight for the cause of Islam. "Jihad is an essential part of Islam," said Mr. Haq. 

The proliferation of jihad organizations in Pakistan over the past two decades has been the result of the militant culture espoused by radical madrassas, the hardline religious schools, like Darul Uloom Haqqania. They pose a threat to Pakistan's internal security as well the international community. Pakistani madrassas were once considered centres for basic religious learning, mostly attached to local mosques. The more formal ones were used for training clergy. The progression of simple, sparse religious schools into training centres for Kalashnikov-toting religious warriors is directly linked with the rise of militant Islam. 

Most of the pupils come from the poorest section of society and receive free religious education, lodgings and meals. Most of the madrassas have been isolated from the outside world for centuries. Students are brainwashed and the textbooks provide a one dimensional world view that restricts their thought process. 
Conditions in the schools are regularly condemned by human rights groups as crowded and inhuman. The day begins at dawn with morning prayer. A simple breakfast of bread and tea is served, followed by academic lessons, which continue until evening. 
The students are subjected to a regime as harsh as any jail and physical abuses are commonplace. In many schools students are put in chains and heavy iron fetters for the slightest violation of rules. There are almost no extracurricular activities. Television and radio are banned. Teaching is very rudimentary and students are taught religion within a highly traditional perspective. 

At the primary stage, pupils learn how to read, memorize and recite the Koran. Though the focus is on religious learning, some institutions also teach elementary mathematics, science and English. 

The most dangerous consequence of the schools is that students emerge ill-prepared for any work except guiding the faithful in rituals that do not require great expertise. Job opportunities for graduates are few and far between. They can only work in mosques, madrassas or religious parties and their business affiliates. 

The education imparted by traditional madrassas spawns factional, religious and cultural conflicts. It creates barriers to modern knowledge and breeds bigotry, laying the foundation on which fundamentalism is based. Divided along sectarian lines, these institutions are driven by the zeal to outnumber and dominate rival sects. 

The rise of a jihad culture since the 1980s has given them a new sense of purpose. The number of madrassas multiplied and clergy emerged as a powerful political and social force. At independence in 1947, there were only 137 madrassas in Pakistan. Government sources put today's figure at 13,000 with total enrolment close to 1.7 million. 

How are we going to deal with this?


----------



## Roy Harding (15 Jul 2005)

54/102 CEF said:
			
		

> Feel better now?
> 
> Last time I checked the political side made rapport with the man in the street - so maybe you can tell us all where the General's mandate to whip up "shoot'em up" comments like that comes from.



Heck, I wasn't feeling bad to start with - no need to "feel better".

As for the rest of your post - all extremely thought provoking, and worth considering and discussing.

I don't think the impact of the General's bluntness on the morale of many serving troops can be overlooked - it's nice to be able to cheer for a CDS once in a while, rather than whine about him, don't you think?


----------



## dutchie (15 Jul 2005)

54/102 CEF:

Are you actually comparing Hillier to Nazis whipping up anti-semetic sentiments in pre-war Germany? That's what I got from this:



			
				54/102 CEF said:
			
		

> Here's another insight - in the years before WW2 both Germany and Japan indoctrinated their youth with a seething violent nationalism which we know erupted as their invading armies.



and as foar as this goes:



			
				54/102 CEF said:
			
		

> Think of how the Hells Angels have been taken down in recent years -



I don't know if you know this or not, but the H A are alive and well. Most of the BC bud industry, for instance, is run by them, with strong ties to the coke cartels of Central America. The H A is the single largest organized crime outfit in Canada, they have certainly not been 'taken down'.

The fact is this: to the point comments about what we are facing is preferable to the meaningless rambling coming out of 99% of the talking heads in Ottawa. How the f** do we expect civilian Canadians to take the threat seriously if no-one tells them of the threat in plain terms? Or calls them what they are (scumbags intead of 'disenchanted, misunderstood Muslims')?


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (15 Jul 2005)

"it's nice to be able to cheer for a CDS once in a while, rather than whine about him, don't you think?"

Very true


----------



## KevinB (15 Jul 2005)

Retired CC said:
			
		

> I don't think the impact of the General's bluntness on the morale of many serving troops can be overlooked - it's nice to be able to cheer for a CDS once in a while, rather than whine about him, don't you think?



100%


----------



## Gunnar (15 Jul 2005)

> Last time I checked the political side made rapport with the man in the street - so maybe you can tell us all where the General's mandate to whip up "shoot'em up" comments like that comes from.



Rapport is great, if you want to be re-elected.  If you want to communicate a message, and those with the "rapport" aren't doing it, you have to do it yourself.

The army doesn't need people to love it.  It needs people to understand it.


----------



## Korus (15 Jul 2005)

> MGen Andy's prediction of 10 body bags



In my humble opinion, I don't think comments like that are appropriate at all from senior leadership. As soldiers we already know the risk and are (should be) mentally prepared for it. The general populace probably reads the article, then goes on with their day not giving a second thought.

What comments like this really do is cause undue stress on families and friends of the troops deploying. They know there's a risk, and they worry about it, but comments like this that make the soldiers look like beans in the CF's bean-counter mentality does not help at all with the families coping with the mission.

Just my 2c Canadian... tax free!


----------



## mcnutt_p (15 Jul 2005)

Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> I nearly choked on my breakfast at the General's "kill people" quote on Canada AM this morning... Good to hear... ;D



The public needed to hear that. We are trained to kill and be killed if we must. I belive that the public has forgot that.

I am glad the CDS, told the public that.

Hears to you Sir 

McNutt


----------



## mover1 (15 Jul 2005)

It is nice.   To hear someone finally say something in true everyday terms. It is this kind of persona who will fight for us because he isn't showing the signs of being a political patsy


 I hate doublespeak. I think the country need plain talk instead of niceities. CBC radio had a good show dedicated to being nice. And there is a difference to being nice and speaking in plain harsh language. we came off to nice.

Example nice.

We cannot expect the Canadian public to seriously feel the danger of the outside world unless those threats are clearly mandated and presented to them in an open fourm.

Or in Ceasars plain and hard hitting quote

" How the f** do we expect civilian Canadians to take the threat seriously if no-one tells them of the threat in plain terms"


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (15 Jul 2005)

> We also have to stop the tough talk rhetoric.   One thing you learn in this business is, don't say it unless you're going to do it.   In this part of the world, strength matters.   And if you say you are going to go in and wipe them out, you better do it.   If you say you're going to do it and then you back off and find another solution, you have lost face.   And we have got to stop the kind of bravado and talk that only leads us into trouble out there.   We need to be more serious and more mature in what we project as an image. Our whole public relations effort out there has been a disaster



What evidence is there that, in a Canadian and Afghan context, this is occuring?   How do you know that we're not going to go in and wipe the Taliban (and assorted Al Qaida straphangers) out?   Coalition commanders in _our_ theatre - four star on down - talk tough every day and back it up every day.   I don't see where "backing off" has come into the picture in the least - especially in Afghanistan.   If you have experience to the contrary, let's hear it.

Frankly, I am stunned (in a good way) that finally a CDS has come right out and said - gloves off - what the military is for and what we will be doing in S. Afghanistan.   Canadians have been delusional for decades about what the CF is for and how we operate and, hopefully, this is the first of many steps in the "re-education" process.   If it takes calling some terrorist bastards "scumbags", so be it.   They are.

Judging by the responses here, from a variety of rank levels, trades, experience levels and services, I think the CDS has struck a chord amongst serving members.   I, for one, am looking forward to hearing more of the same.


----------



## dutchie (15 Jul 2005)

Another beaut' from Hillier. If you liked the 'murderous scumbags' comment, you'll love this....

_Reporters familiar with Hillier's style barely flinched when he said all elements of the Canadian Forces need to be revamped, including the part where "you go out and bayonet somebody." 

"We are not the Public Service of Canada," he declared. "We are not just another department. We are the Canadian Forces and our job is to be able to kill people." _ 

http://www.canada.com/news/national/story.html?id=56d27923-32f4-41dd-b6dd-7a77563c5bd6

It's like he is a soldier or something?!?!

Here's the whole article (some of this appeared in the earlier article, but most of this is new). Interesting in it's own right....

OTTAWA (CP) - If Canadians were shocked that the head of their military called his enemy "detestable murderers and scumbags," they better get used to it. Gen. Rick Hillier has never minced words, nor is he likely to start any time soon. 

His blunt assessment of terrorists in Afghanistan and elsewhere this week has the wholehearted backing of the prime minister. 

"General Hillier is not only a top soldier, he is a soldier who has served in Afghanistan," Paul Martin said Friday in Nova Scotia. 

"The point he is simply making is we are at war with terrorism and we're not going to let them win." 

Defence Minister Bill Graham's office refused Friday to soften or explain the comments of its top soldier. 

No "clarification" will be forthcoming, said spokesman Steven Jurgutis. 

"I can certainly understand that there may be people who are concerned with the tone of his statements," said Jurgutis. 

But he said Hillier "has certainly been a fairly straight-talking individual throughout his career. 

"I wouldn't say this represents a change in attitude." 

Defence analysts and soldiers alike lauded Hillier's appointment as chief of defence staff earlier this year as a fundamental shift in the Canadian military. 

Known as a soldier's soldier, Hillier is the most operationally experienced commander to take the top post in many years, breaking the bureaucratic mould that seemed to dictate many appointments since the Cold War. 

Born in the outport of Campbellton on Newfoundland's north coast, Hillier doesn't attempt to cover a Scottish-Irish lilt that turns "Afghanistan" into "haffghanistan" and "horse" into "orse." 

One factor in Hillier's promotion was his fearlessness and penchant for calling things as he sees them. 

The defence minister was looking for a new vision for the Canadian Forces and, in Hillier, he got it. 

A defence policy statement released in April charted a whole new course for defence - much of it adhering to Hillier's direction. 

His current list of requests for interviews is at about 50, so this week the general with the reddish-blond moustache held an informal, on-the-record media luncheon. Audiotapes were OK, cameras were banned. 

Reporters familiar with Hillier's style barely flinched when he said all elements of the Canadian Forces need to be revamped, including the part where "you go out and bayonet somebody." 

"We are not the Public Service of Canada," he declared. "We are not just another department. We are the Canadian Forces and our job is to be able to kill people." 

The terrorist bombings in London underscore the need to take the fight to the enemy in failed states where they have room to thrive, said Hillier. 

As a Western society that values rights and freedoms, Canada is already in conflict with "what people like Osama bin Laden, Mullah Omar and those others want." 

"These are detestable murderers and scumbags," Hillier said. "They detest our freedoms, they detest our society, they detest our liberties." 

*It's time for Canada to take a stand, he said, just as it did 66 years ago when it joined the Second World War against the Nazis, whom he described as "those despicable, murderous bastards." * 

The Polaris Institute, a left-leaning think tank based in Ottawa, said Friday the defence minister needs to "clarify" Hillier's "very alarming" comments. 

"*His use of epithets such as 'scumbags' and 'killers' is reminiscent of language used by (U.S.) President (George W.) Bush and U.S. Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld," said project director Steven Staples*.

*Taken alongside recent defence policy changes and an increase in the defence budget, Staples said they "show an unmistakable trend toward the Americanization of the Canadian Forces." * 

Jurgutis noted that Canada was already listed as a terrorist target and he doubted Hillier's comments would change matters. 

Al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden declared Canada a "legitimate target" in March 2004. 

Adrian Gordon, executive director of the Centre for Emergency Preparedness, gave a qualified endorsement of Hillier's blunt talk. 

"Part of me agrees with that, part of me says that's true," Gordon said in an interview from Burlington, Ont. 

"But at the same time, if we're really going to deal with this problem and have a hope of putting an end to terrorism, then we have to work towards understanding the root causes, which go much deeper than current events in Iraq and Afghanistan." 



Quote from article:

'His use of epithets such as 'scumbags' and 'killers' is reminiscent of language used by (U.S.) President (George W.) Bush and U.S. Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld," said project director Steven Staples'

So, were in line with our thinking to that of our allies....what's the problem? For a guy who works at a 'think-tank', you'd think he'd do a little more thinking....

Good stuff all around by our esteemed CDS.


----------



## Acorn (15 Jul 2005)

I have a distinct feeling that Gen Hillier intimidates our politicians. That, or they really are on board, finally.

I honestly don't think he'll let them back of the K'har deployment, and the aggressive ass-kicking style he sees for 1-06. If they try it, the sh*t-storm he'll publically raise will be spectacular.

All I can say is: I have 20+ years in and - FINALLY!! 

Acorn


----------



## mdh (15 Jul 2005)

> 'His use of epithets such as 'scumbags' and 'killers' is reminiscent of language used by (U.S.) President (George W.) Bush and U.S. Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld," said project director Steven Staples'
> 
> The Polaris Institute, a left-leaning think tank based in Ottawa, said Friday the defence minister needs to "clarify" Hillier's "very alarming" comments



I see that CP - in the standard journalistic gambit to create conflict - managed to find that intellectual giant Steven Staples to weigh in with these incisive observations.  Personally I think we should "clarify" if the Polaris Institute receives public money - and cut if off.

My own little rant over.

cheers, mdh


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (15 Jul 2005)

Polaris Institute:



> ...retooling citizen movements for democratic social change in an age of corporate-driven globalization.



 :boring:

Next?


----------



## Slim (15 Jul 2005)

> The Polaris Institute, a left-leaning think tank based in Ottawa, said Friday the defence minister needs to "clarify" Hillier's "very alarming" comments.



Who gives a flying F**K what Steven Staples and his pack of left-wing clowns has to say about this...They're not involved!

Hey Mr Staples...How does it feel to be irrelevant!?

Its about time!


----------



## 54/102 CEF (15 Jul 2005)

Retired CC said:
			
		

> it's nice to be able to cheer for a CDS once in a while, rather than whine about him, don't you think?



I agree!   We`ll do well with him.


----------



## 48Highlander (15 Jul 2005)

Americazation of the Canadian forces eh?  What "intelectuals" like this fail to grasp is that there has never been much difference in the basic attitude of Canadian and American soldiers.  The whole Peacekeeper persona was just a convinient facade which past governments could use to hide our nature from the public.  Wether or not Steven likes it, Gen. Hillier is absolutely right;  our job is to be ready to kill people, and it always has been.  The only difference is that now we have someone willing to stand up and tell the truth instead of feeding the public what he thinks they want to hear.  Like Slim said, it's about time.


----------



## 2 Cdo (15 Jul 2005)

Amen brothers!


----------



## Roy Harding (15 Jul 2005)

54/102 CEF said:
			
		

> I agree!   We`ll do well with him.



54/102 CEF:

What's this?  A change of heart?  

Given your handle, I assume you are from somewhere in BC (the home of the 54th (Kootenay) and 102nd (Northern British Columbia) Battalions of the CEF).  If my geographical assumption is correct, have you partaken of some of your province's most famous crop, and thus mellowed out??  

Please, all kidding aside, what did bring about your change of heart?  Hopefully not the overwhelming preponderance of support for the CDS found on this forum?  This is, after all, a forum populated with serving and retired soldiers/airmen/sailors - their unequivocal support for "plain talking", although in agreement with my own sentiments, in no way should be taken as indicative of Canadian public opinion as a whole.

What gives??


----------



## 54/102 CEF (15 Jul 2005)

Retired CC said:
			
		

> 54/102 CEF:
> 
> What's this?   A change of heart?
> 
> Given your handle, I assume you are from somewhere in BC (the home of the 54th (Kootenay) and 102nd (Northern British Columbia) Battalions of the CEF).   If my geographical assumption is correct, have you partaken of some of your province's most famous crop, and thus mellowed out??



I`m on the Canadian side - but I vote for the walk softly and carry a big stick idea - a proven approach. 

I`m down in Ottawa and the only smoke I smell is the fumes coming out of NDHQ

My little contribution is these 3 famous Cdn Army sites

www.donlowconcrete.com/CDAC

www.donlowconcrete.com/102

http://apollon_2.tripod.com

You are all cordially invited to visit these sites!


----------



## The_Falcon (15 Jul 2005)

> The Polaris Institute, a left-leaning think tank based in Ottawa, said Friday the defence minister needs to "clarify" Hillier's "very alarming" comments.
> 
> "His use of epithets such as 'scumbags' and 'killers' is reminiscent of language used by (U.S.) President (George W.) Bush and U.S. Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld," said project director Steven Staples.
> 
> Taken alongside recent defence policy changes and an increase in the defence budget, Staples said they "show an unmistakable trend toward the Americanization of the Canadian Forces."



It has begun, the whining of the lib-left crowd.   Like I said in another post, the CDS comments were going to get some people all bent out of shape.   

But what exactly needs clarification?   Nothing, he spoke pretty clearly and concisely as far as I read.   These nitwits should just come out and say the minister needs to spin a more PC tone for the CDS, which the PM and the minister have already refused to do.   And is Mr Staples worried someone might be offended if we start calling a spade a spade.   Someone needs to send these people some pams/documents outlining what the primary role of the combat arms trades are (Specifically the Infantry).   Maybe the CDS while he is at can reword the primary mission of the infantry from "close with and destroy" to "get close and kill" just so there is no confusion on anyones part.


----------



## The_Falcon (15 Jul 2005)

54/102 CEF said:
			
		

> I`m on the Canadian side - but I vote for the walk softly and carry a big stick idea - a proven approach.



Really cause I was under the impression that, that line of thinking was what enabled past governments into brainwashing the majority of the public into thinking we are "peacekeepers" and which allowed them to cut military spending. :


----------



## 48Highlander (15 Jul 2005)

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> Really cause I was under the impression that, that line of thinking was what enabled past governments into brainwashing the majority of the public into thinking we are "peacekeepers" and which allowed them to cut military spending. :



No, that was "walk softly and never use your stick".  I can see his point.  We don't need to show people how macho we are....but we DO need to let others know that if they mess with us, they'll get stomped.  It's a fine line.


----------



## karl28 (15 Jul 2005)

I'm a Civy and I am glad that Gen Hiller is in charge of the CF. He seems to now what he is talking about . On another note even with the attacks in London I personally believe that we need to stay the course in Afghan yes it will probably be dangerous but Afghan's needs are help to rebuild . In my Opinion The CF personal are the best ones for that job  .  


Just my two cents worth


----------



## Pencil Tech (15 Jul 2005)

mdh said:
			
		

> I see that CP - in the standard journalistic gambit to create conflict - managed to find that intellectual giant Steven Staples to weigh in with these incisive observations.   Personally I think we should "clarify" if the Polaris Institute receives public money - and cut if off.
> 
> My own little rant over.
> 
> cheers, mdh



mdh, I noted your very perceptive comment about CP and googled Polaris Institute and Steven Staples. Two things I noticed in interviews with him published there: he says they get no public funding and he complains that he wasn't invited to participate in the Defence Policy Review (awww). I believe that the government knew what they were getting when they appointed Rick Hillier CDS, I'm sure he would have told them anyway if they didn't know!    So the high level of morale that people in the CF are feeling today about the CDS and the defence policy that he and the government are implementing is truly justified. The Polaris Institute is not worth even thinking about. Go Rick!


----------



## Second Chance (15 Jul 2005)

Now that's a boss I would be proud to work for.


----------



## Horse_Soldier (15 Jul 2005)

In the new reality, Staples and the Polaris Institute are has-beens, and the esteemed aforementioned gentleman knows it - if he doesn't, he's a lot dumber than I give him credit for.  Three cheers for our CDS - and take note, if our government didn't want him to speak the plain truth, he would have been muzzled by now.  Words said cannot be unsaid and a change of tack now by the Martinis would discredit our PM before the country and the world.  The bureaucratic gnomes in the Privy Council Office may not be happy with General Hillier's stance, but from my experience of the bureaucracy, they have been given their marching orders and the General's cogent and direct enunciation of the situation is what the government wants - without the politicians needing to speak non-PC language themselves.  It's pure genius  ;D

Edit: And maybe now we can strike that asinine word "Peacekeeper" from our vocabulary.  We are soldiers, sailors and airmen - period.


----------



## Gunner98 (16 Jul 2005)

PC'ness indicates - Airmen and Airwomen.   Perhaps another thread could or already has discussed how we set an all encompassing name for Air Force personnel without resorting to Olive Drab, Navy Blue, Light Blue and Purple People.

We could quickly become confused with that cool Blue Man Group.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (16 Jul 2005)

I sure hope he stays his full tenure without softening but he definately has an uphill battle.


----------



## KevinB (16 Jul 2005)

TEAM CANADA - FUCK EH!


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (16 Jul 2005)

Is anyone surprised that this was CBC's "Letter of the Day" yesterday...?



> LETTER OF THE DAY | July 15, 2005
> "Obviously, the bombing and murder that the United States has committed in Afghanistan has not defeated the enemy nor fixed Afghanistan. And now Hillier wants us to join America's failed policy there?"
> 
> I am very angry that Canada's General Rick Hillier is spouting the same general ignorance about foreign affairs as the White House.
> ...



If anyone needs a "lesson" in foreign relations, it's the genius that wrote this and, just as bad, the editorial board that saw fit to highlight it as a "letter of the day"....  Perhaps he/she works for the Polaris Institute... :


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (16 Jul 2005)

TR your a smart cookie, perhaps you can send an intelligent rebuttal.


----------



## Gunner (16 Jul 2005)

http://www.cbc.ca/news/viewpoint/yourspace/hillier_afghans.html

I felt very discouraged after reading the left wing whining of the cbc drones...  Hopefully some of us will write in!


----------



## Britney Spears (16 Jul 2005)

> http://www.cbc.ca/news/viewpoint/yourspace/hillier_afghans.html
> 
> I felt very discouraged after reading the left wing whining of the cbc drones...  Hopefully some of us will write in!



You and me both. Robin Westin sounds like my mother.  



Incidentally, my <a href=http://www.politicalcompass.org/>Political Compass</a> results(-2.10, -1.50 I believe) place me ideologically far to the left of the Liberal Party of Canada, and close to the NDP, and yet, here I am. Now I'm all confused and  need to go sit down and engage in some self reflection.....


----------



## scm77 (16 Jul 2005)

> "These are detestable murderers and scumbags. I'll tell you that right up front," said Hillier.
> 
> *I would like to apologize to the terrorists on behalf of the rest of Canada* and ask that Mr. Hillier please forward his home address to al-Qaeda if they wish to respond to his comments.
> 
> Fraser James | Vancouver


----------



## bossi (16 Jul 2005)

Ya know what ... I'd like to buy General Rick a drink for this quote:

"We're not the public service of Canada, we're not just another department. We are the Canadian Forces, and our job is to be able to kill people."


----------



## The_Falcon (16 Jul 2005)

I need a shower after reading those comments.   Jeez, bush this and anti-american that.   I don't think us right in would do much good, they (the CBC) does read these first, so they would probably screen anything that doesn't jive with their way of thinking.  Some (most) were right out to lunch.  We need to pull troops out and send in doctors, nurses etc.  So when the Taliban comes back who is going to protect them?  The one person who stated we should put our efforts into Africa, like they are going welcome us with open arms?   And the peacekeeper bit, my how quickly people forget history.  It was okay to crush a tyranical dictator in the 1940s, but it is not ok to do the same now.


----------



## The_Falcon (16 Jul 2005)

bossi said:
			
		

> Ya know what ... I'd like to buy General Rick a drink for this quote:
> 
> "We're not the public service of Canada, we're not just another department. We are the Canadian Forces, and our job is to be able to kill people."



Its funny (in a bad way) how most news outlets have omitted that quote from thier articles.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (16 Jul 2005)

Is this guy a member here:


I disagree with Robin Weston's ultrasimplified and thoughtless comments criticizing the maintenance of Canada's mission in Afghanistan.

I will destroy each argument presented sequentially.

Re: "His first premise is that the characterization of enemy in Afghanistan as "detestable murderers and scumbags".". What is the problem with this? 

The enemy in Afghanistan wishes to defeat the occupying force of Canadian and American soldiers, among others, and reinstitute the Al-Qaeda-friendly Taliban regime. 

Instead of the loss of a handful of Canadian and American soldiers in Afghanistan, I believe it would be possible that a reinvigorated Al-Qaeda infrastructure could kill thousands of innocent civilians instead. People who kill and imprison innocents are detestable people. 

I don't care what culture they are from; this is an axiom for all humans. 

Re: "This is dangerously misleading and it makes us think of them as expendable trash who we can easily kill and murder." The enemy is indeed expendable trash who we ought to disarm or defeat, and yes, it may involve killing. 

They will kill our forces and our civilians, and will not listen to soft dimplomacy. They have already crossed the line. 

Re: "Obviously, the bombing and murder that the United States has committed in Afghanistan has not defeated the enemy nor fixed Afghanistan. And now Hillier wants us to join America's failed policy there?" 

This is a worthless argument. Most people are certainly intelligent enough to understand that Afghanistan is not the only place where Al-Qaeda and other terrorists exist. And it will take a while. Certainly more than 4 years. 

But probably less than the time it would take to "understand" the enemy and formulate policies and strategies while the enemy is destroying the social fabric and killing innocent people.

Re: "Secondly, Hillier suggests that Canada will only be attacked because it's a free country. What nonsense! If Canada gets attacked it's because we are meddling in someone else's business." 

Perhaps humanity IS our business. Really, it doesn't matter whether or presence in Afghanistan causes attacks on one's country. What does matter is that Canada does not look like a weak kitten that heeds to the demands of people who would kill millions of Canadian citizens if they could.

Re:"General Hillier should be re-educated in the ways of the world or be removed from his post. He has been promoted beyond his level of competence." 

How have you decided that General Hillier is not competent? Should we Canadians become isolationist and retract from efforts to put down terror just because YOU say so?

"He should be protecting his soldiers, not sending them into useless and ill-advised war zones." I have not heard any prominent person describe the struggle in Afghanistan as useless or ill-advised.

Why are you angry? 

I didn't agree with going into Afghanistan, and I don't think the Americans should be in Iraq. But we made a commitment! Backing down will make us look bad, show the terrorists that we will do whatever they want us to, and allow the fragile nation of Afghanistan to fall under the control of drug warlords and Taliban criminals. 

Hillier doesn't want that to happen because he's been there and has seen it happen. Have you been there? Do you want that to happen?

Jeff Imber | Toronto, ON


----------



## Allen (16 Jul 2005)

I also submitted my defence of the good Gen. & our presence in Afghanistan to the CBC board - hopefully the editors will see fit to post it.

However, trying to talk sense to these granola-crunching pinko loons is like trying to turn back the tide with your hand.
 :


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (16 Jul 2005)

I posted as well although admittedly I'm not very eloquent.  The response of the majority on that email reinforces my belief that when we get a bloody nose over there we well be sent packing like the Americans over Black Hawk down, the CDS will be given his gold watch and we as a military will be in the hurt locker with some hippie CDS running the show.


----------



## McG (16 Jul 2005)

bossi said:
			
		

> Ya know what ... I'd like to buy General Rick a drink for this quote:
> 
> "We're not the public service of Canada, we're not just another department. We are the Canadian Forces, and our job is to be able to kill people."


It is in the site's quotes now.


----------



## Allen (17 Jul 2005)

If it makes anyone feel better, I recently read of a Cdn. poll where the majority felt we should stay in Afghanistan - can't remember where, but it was in the news after the London attacks. Also, a few days ago, CFRB in Toronto did a poll where 70% agreed with our troops going to Kandahar. So don't assume from one message board that these CBC types are in the majority.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (17 Jul 2005)

I fired a round at the CBC tonight - we shall see.  I tried to keep it short, but it still turned into a bit of a rant...  I hope others do the same.

BTW, I'm dead centre on the Political Compass...who knew??

Cheers,

Teddy


----------



## Roy Harding (17 Jul 2005)

In fairness, not ALL the media is upset.  Following is an editorial in Saturday's National Post:



> In praise of a plain-spoken general
> 
> The pointed comments by General Rick Hillier, Canada's no-nonsense Chief of Defence Staff, regarding the role of Canada's military, the reason for its mission in Afghanistan and the risks associated with such work, represent a welcome rejoinder to the politicians and mandarins who seek to remodel the military as community helpers in fatigues.
> 
> ...


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (17 Jul 2005)

Yes, and a tad more balanced today - this from the CBC's interview with the Commander 1 CMBG:



> Canadians in Kandahar will be nation building
> Last Updated Sat, 16 Jul 2005 21:27:18 EDT
> 
> _The Canadian soldiers who are going to Kandahar in Afghanistan next month have a dual mission: fight insurgents, and help rebuild the war-torn country. _
> ...



I still get wound up if I read the letters section following the CDS' interview, though...

Cheers,

TR


----------



## Roy Harding (17 Jul 2005)

Teddy Ruxpin said:
			
		

> Yes, and a tad more balanced today - this from the CBC's interview with the Commander 1 CMBG:
> 
> I still get wound up if I read the letters section following the CDS' interview, though...
> 
> ...



They haven't published yours or mine, yet (mine was basically repeat of a previous post here - somewhat cleaned up and "de-acronymed").

As it is the weekend, and I'm not sure what kind of support they give to their board then, I'll wait until the end of the day tomorrow before I conclude that they will not be publishing too many letters in support of the CDS.


----------



## rcr (17 Jul 2005)

[quote author=Teddy Ruxpin]
Yes, and a tad more balanced today - this from the CBC's interview with the Commander 1 CMBG:

I still get wound up if I read the letters section following the CDS' interview, though...

Cheers,

TR
[/quote]

Namely this one?

"I would like to apologize to the terrorists on behalf of the rest of Canada and ask that Mr. Hillier please forward his home address to al-Qaeda if they wish to respond to his comments."

I am somewhat curious with regards to how that little gem was posted.  To me that seems outright slanderous of Hillier's frank statements, and he himself as a person.  I am still awestruck by some of the responders labelling Hillier as a man who doesn't read history books, or doesn't operate within a modern niche of understanding.  Obviously, these readers haven't looked outside our borders, atleast openly, therefore they reserve no moral highground to condemn a General.


----------



## Britney Spears (17 Jul 2005)

> amely this one?
> 
> "I would like to apologize to the terrorists on behalf of the rest of Canada and ask that Mr. Hillier please forward his home address to al-Qaeda if they wish to respond to his comments."
> 
> I am somewhat curious with regards to how that little gem was posted.  To me that seems outright slanderous of Hillier's frank statements, and he himself as a person.  I am still awestruck by some of the responders labelling Hillier as a man who doesn't read history books, or doesn't operate within a modern niche of understanding.  Obviously, these readers haven't looked outside our borders, atleast openly, therefore they reserve no moral highground to condemn a General.



WHOOOOOOOSH!


----------



## paracowboy (17 Jul 2005)

archer said:
			
		

> I am still awestruck by some of the responders labelling Hillier as a man who doesn't read history books, or doesn't operate within a modern niche of understanding.


I would like to see a comparison of the General's various detractor's education levels and daily reading, to his.


----------



## Slim (17 Jul 2005)

> "I would like to apologize to the terrorists on behalf of the rest of Canada and ask that Mr. Hillier please forward his home address to al-Qaeda if they wish to respond to his comments."



Frankly I find this above statement quite frightening, and made all the more severe by the fact that it was posted by a fellow Canadian. While I realize that there is anti-American sentiment out there (not that I agree with it, just acknowledging its presence) I would have though that the average person realizes that we are at war and the opposition means to eradicate our way of life if they can get away with it.

Thankfully I believe this type of person to be a vocal minority in this country and that the majority of Canadian citizens stand behind our CDS and our CF.

As for the person who made the above statement: Buddy, Treason is still on the books! :-*


----------



## Britney Spears (17 Jul 2005)

> Frankly I find this above statement quite frightening, and made all the more severe by the fact that it was posted by a fellow Canadian. While I realize that there is anti-American sentiment out there (not that I agree with it, just acknowledging its presence) I would have though that the average person realizes that we are at war and the opposition means to eradicate our way of life if they can get away with it.
> 
> Thankfully I believe this type of person to be a vocal minority in this country and that the majority of Canadian citizens stand behind our CDS and our CF.
> 
> ...




Uhh.....What were you saying about WOs and their sense of humour again?


----------



## Slim (17 Jul 2005)

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> Uhh.....What were you saying about WOs and their sense of humour again?



If Mr Frazer James of Vancouver wants to say things like that out loud he can exect a certain amount of opposition from the rest of us thats all.

Slim


----------



## Baloo (17 Jul 2005)

archer said:
			
		

> Namely this one?
> 
> "I would like to apologize to the terrorists on behalf of the rest of Canada and ask that Mr. Hillier please forward his home address to al-Qaeda if they wish to respond to his comments."



Uh, guys, I'm just as disgusted by the opinions I am reading in the Editorial section of the Toronto Star with regards to Gen. Hillier...but a couple of you seemed to miss the fact that the above quote was a sarcastic comment made to SUPPORT Gen. Hillier, not the opposite. Take a minute to look at the broader message.


----------



## Slim (17 Jul 2005)

Baloo said:
			
		

> Uh, guys, I'm just as disgusted by the opinions I am reading in the Editorial section of the Toronto Star with regards to Gen. Hillier...but a couple of you seemed to miss the fact that the above quote was a sarcastic comment made to SUPPORT Gen. Hillier, not the opposite. Take a minute to look at the broader message.



Well...With all due respect to Mr James I'd say he needs to re-evaluate the way he wrote that article as it did not come across that way to most of us.

Slim


----------



## Britney Spears (17 Jul 2005)

OK Slim you're starting to make me doubt my own sanity. Am I seriously the only person who can see that this: 



> "I would like to apologize to the terrorists on behalf of the rest of Canada and ask that Mr. Hillier please forward his home address to al-Qaeda if they wish to respond to his comments."



is a witty jab at all the other moonbat comments, and NOT a serious suggestion that Gen. Hillier's address be forwarded to AQ? Does the use of the word "terrorist" to refer to AQ  and "I would like to apologize to the terrorists on behalf of the rest of Canada" not give it away?  I didn't bother when scm77 thought it was, but you too?

EDIT: Beat me to it, but you know how I always need to get in the last word.....


----------



## Slim (17 Jul 2005)

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> OK Slim you're starting to make me doubt my own sanity. Am I seriously the only person who can see that this:
> 
> is a witty jab at all the other moonbat comments, and NOT a serious suggestion that Gen. Hillier's address be forwarded to AQ? Does the use of the word "terrorist" to refer to AQ   and "I would like to apologize to the terrorists on behalf of the rest of Canada" not give it away?   I didn't bother when scm77 thought it was, but you too?
> 
> EDIT: Beat me to it, but you know how I always need to get in the last word.....



Sorry Brother

When you live in Toronto and work among the rich and spoiled you tend to hear stuff like that allot and have no trouble believing it. Also I searched the forum for the comment and saw it not in the context of the article but by itself.

However I must say that even in humour it rings a pretty dim tone.

Sorry just my 00.02 cents worth

Slim


----------



## rcr (17 Jul 2005)

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> OK Slim you're starting to make me doubt my own sanity. Am I seriously the only person who can see that this:
> 
> is a witty jab at all the other moonbat comments, and NOT a serious suggestion that Gen. Hillier's address be forwarded to AQ?



I have to admit, I am quite jaded by the attitudes of many towards particular subjects such as this.   My discretion for sarcasm has worn away, I suppose.   Witty jab or not, not everyone will see the comment as humour after reading all the other comments, and it may only serve for others to build on Mr. James' remarks.    Well read, Britney   



			
				Slim said:
			
		

> However I must say that even in humour it rings a pretty dim tone.



I'm in agreement with you, Slim.


----------



## Britney Spears (17 Jul 2005)

Cheer up guys.....


> *Stop Comparing Me to American Moonbats*
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Thanks to <a href=http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2005/07/stop_comparing_.html> The original source</a> and <a href=http://lightfighter.net/eve/ubb.x/a/tpc/f/9036044533/m/3331065151>this Lightfighter thread.</a>


----------



## Slim (17 Jul 2005)

Brilliant! ;D

Thanks for that bit of plain-spoken sarcasm which is much easier to understand that the subtle and 'film-niore' type that those in Vancouver seem to like using.


----------



## scm77 (17 Jul 2005)

I'm glad I'm not the only one who didn't pick up the sarcasm from the guy who wanted to apologise to the terrorists.

Is this guy being sarcastic too??


> General Hillier's name-calling and hate mongering should be severely punished. *It echoes that of David Ahenakew.*
> 
> Bernard Daly



In case you don't know David Ahenakew is the guy who said Jews were a "disease" and tried to justify the holocaust.


----------



## Britney Spears (17 Jul 2005)

No, the sarcastic one was the smartest one of the bunch (last time I read it, of course some members here may have since contributed).


----------



## KevinB (17 Jul 2005)

I totally missed the sarcasm - I still dont see it - but I have a poor sense of humour.

I'd be interested in racial profiling some of the respondents who did not like the CDS's fresh and clear statements...


----------



## Britney Spears (17 Jul 2005)

Hmm, I think that between Slim and kevinB a lot of men must have died violent deaths due to poorly worded jokes......


----------



## Slim (17 Jul 2005)

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> Hmm, I think that between Slim and kevinB a lot of men must have died violent deaths due to poorly worded jokes......



Not today... 

 ;D

"...Waaaaaaggghhhhh...I'm not (sniff) subtle (sob) Waaaggghhh" :crybaby:


----------



## KevinB (17 Jul 2005)

No but I have gotten a lotta black eyes...


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (18 Jul 2005)

I didn't see it as sarcasm either.


----------



## 48Highlander (18 Jul 2005)

It's hard to tell because of the lack of context.  There's enough people who really beleive that sort of junk that I was uncertain when I first read it.  You can't really be sure of wether or not it was intended as sarcasm unless you've seen some other posts by the same individual.

Personaly, my thoughs at the time were "either he's right the fuck out of 'er, or that's a really inapropriate use of sarcasm".


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (18 Jul 2005)

Well, at least the CDS has people talking.  A number of letters on the CBC website were in support today (including a couple from obvious army.ca alumni) and this in the Winnipeg Free Press:



> Editorial - A soldier's grim job
> 
> There is nothing nice about an army. Soldiers are not social workers.
> 
> ...



Better, this was in the Canadian Press this morning:



> If some Canadians were shocked that the head of their military called his enemy "detestable murderers and scumbags," they better get used to it.
> 
> Gen. Rick Hillier has never minced words, nor is he likely to start any time soon. *His blunt assessment of terrorists in Afghanistan and elsewhere this week has the wholehearted backing of the prime minister. *
> 
> ...



(emphasis is mine)

I feel a bit better now...


----------



## scm77 (18 Jul 2005)

Here's one from the Toronto Star
*
Hillier invades political terrain
Generals ought to avoid commenting on foreign policy*

JAMES TRAVERS

Until Rick Hillier became chief of defence staff, Canadian generals and politics mixed as easily as oil and water. Blunt, outspoken and quotable, Hillier is now fusing those incompatible fluids in ways that are refreshing and troubling.

With his troops massing for an indisputably risky mission to Afghanistan's wild Kandahar mountains, Hillier seized headlines this week with typically tough talk. Flexing rhetorical biceps, he argued that the London transit bombings only strengthen resolve to root out "detestable murderers and scumbags."

"I'll tell you that right up front," he told reporters. "They detest our freedoms, they detest our society, they detest our liberties."

That goes down well in mess halls, where soldiers are steeling nerves for a nasty fight with an enemy holding the advantage of home turf. It also delights a Bush administration that sees in Hillier a Canadian who views the world through Washington's global binoculars.

Hillier's messages have a certain appeal. Dehumanizing the enemy is as old as war and reminding the United States that its neighbour stands shoulder-to-shoulder at the front meshes nicely with Ottawa's efforts to convince Washington â â€ and Fox News â â€ that this country isn't a rubber-willed, terrorist-harbouring, defty-lefty Canuckistan hiding behind Pentagon skirts.

Still, the spectre of a general expanding his commentary from a mission to the underlying politics, foreign policy and core values is at least unusual. It becomes downright unsettling when the reasoning behind the words is, to be charitable, suspect.

Over lunch with reporters, Hillier essentially endorsed two popular but increasingly discredited theories Washington favours and proselytizes. One is that Al Qaeda attacks are a symptom of civilizations clashing, the other is that the best place to meet that threat is over there.

Those notions are easily marketed to audiences shocked by the outrages of 9/11, Madrid and now London. But they suffer when exposed to quantitative analysis and qualitative experience.

In his book Dying to Win, University of Chicago terrorism expert Robert Pape draws on a unique data base to expose popular misconceptions about suicide bombers.

Instead of religion, a more familiar, if particularly virulent, form of nationalism motivates most attacks.

"The central fact is that, overwhelmingly, suicide-terrorist attacks are not driven by religion as much as they are by a clear strategic objective: To compel modern democracies to withdraw military from the territory the terrorists view as their homeland," Pape said in a spring U.S. interview.

Along with politically inconvenient, Pape's meticulously documented conclusion is grounded in current history.

Created to resist the Russian occupation of Afghanistan, Al Qaeda struck New York and Washington to protest U.S. military presence in Saudi Arabia, home to Mecca, and continues to gain popular support by combating the American-dominated coalition's Iraq occupation.

Resistance is not new to the world's worst neighbourhood: Oil dependent Western empires have been messing in Middle East affairs for about 100 years with predictably disastrous push-back. But to acknowledge or accept that resistance now is to challenge the comforting public perception that the current conflict is defensive.

Apart from contradicting U.S. conventional wisdom, that has home implications.

There is high risk Canadians will die fighting the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Kandahar and death is more easily accepted when the cause is clear and widely endorsed as just. Public opinion is being prepared for that grim possibility and, up to a point, that's as it should be.

There are significant differences between wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. One brought down a government supporting and imposing evil, the other a ruthless leader Washington used before toppling.

There are also significant differences between what Hillier is saying about the coming mission and what he is saying about Canada's motivation. One message is positive, the other inappropriate.

Giving the military a recognizable face and strong voice is welcome. But his views on the conflict are tired, and wise generals leave justifying foreign policy to politicians.

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_PrintFriendly&c=Article&cid=1121464222180


----------



## Edward Campbell (18 Jul 2005)

Oh, hypocrisy: They name is TorStar!

The Toronto Star had no quibbles when Generals like Henault, Baril and Dallaire _*intruded*_* into policy in their speeches and statements, presumably because those worthies carefully toed the same party line as TorStar and the Liberal intelligentsia.
*


----------



## Tpr Parsons (18 Jul 2005)

I'm all for what the General is saying. He is finally letting people know that we are Soldiers, trained to kill, and be prepared to be killed if need be. As said before, Canadians seem to forget what we are here for, and are quite stubborn in some situations involving peacekeeping. The public think thats all we are, peacekeepers and that there is a low risk for casualties in our military. Having him tell it how it really is, is great I think. For all soldiers alike, and the public. To General Hillier     Keep up the good work.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (18 Jul 2005)

TR do you have the name of the author of the Winnipeg article?


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (18 Jul 2005)

"His blunt assessment of terrorists in Afghanistan and elsewhere this week has the wholehearted backing of the prime minister."
"Defence Minister Bill Graham's office refused yesterday to soften or explain the comments. 
No "clarification" will be forthcoming, said spokesman Steven Jurgutis"

I hope this becomes the norm and not the exception.


----------



## KevinB (18 Jul 2005)

CFL said:
			
		

> "His blunt assessment of terrorists in Afghanistan and elsewhere this week has the wholehearted backing of the prime minister."
> "Defence Minister Bill Graham's office refused yesterday to soften or explain the comments.
> No "clarification" will be forthcoming, said spokesman Steven Jurgutis"
> 
> I hope this becomes the norm and not the exception.



a BIG +1

kudos to the PM and MoD for not watering


----------



## rcr (18 Jul 2005)

CFL said:
			
		

> TR do you have the name of the author of the Winnipeg article?



CFL,

I have the actual paper (Winnipeg Free Press - Monday July 18th, 2005) in front of me.   The letter you speak of falls under the editorial section and the author's name appears to be anonymous.   I can forward the comment editor's contact info if you want to look into it further.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (18 Jul 2005)

CFL said:
			
		

> TR do you have the name of the author of the Winnipeg article?



'Fraid not.  As archer says, it is an editorial and thus is the official position of the paper - no byline.  I got my copy from the DIN's news clipping service, and nothing shows up there.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (18 Jul 2005)

Roger, thanks.


----------



## spitfireMkIX (18 Jul 2005)

But have you seen Jack Layton's comments?



> "Controlled anger, given what's happened, is an appropriate response," NDP Leader Jack Layton said. "We have a very committed, level-headed head of our armed forces, who isn't afraid to express the passion that underlies the mission that front-line personnel are going to be taking on.
> 
> "A bit of strong language in the circumstances, I don't find that to be wrong."



http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20050716/MILITARY16/TPNational/Canada


----------



## KevinB (18 Jul 2005)

I guess everyone is ducking for cover -- fight this one (CDS) and you've lost the Army - and to a certain degree the public.  At least at this time (I'm hoping Gen Hillier had Kevlar on his back for I think a lot of people are goign to try to shank him given a chance)


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (18 Jul 2005)

My God, I've just seen one of the signs of the Apocalypse...


----------



## The_Falcon (18 Jul 2005)

Layton said those things, maybe I was wrong about the dude.  Or maybe he just dose not want a boot up his butt from an angry general. ;D


----------



## 48Highlander (18 Jul 2005)

scm77 said:
			
		

> "The central fact is that, overwhelmingly, suicide-terrorist attacks are not driven by religion as much as they are by a clear strategic objective: To compel modern democracies to withdraw military from the territory the terrorists view as their homeland," Pape said in a spring U.S. interview.



 :

Here's what Osama has to say about that:

"We should fully understand our religion. Fighting is a part of our religion and our Sharia [an Islamic legal code]. Those who love God and his Prophet and this religion cannot deny that. Whoever denies even a minor tenet of our religion commits the gravest sin in Islam."

"Hostility toward America is a religious duty, and we hope to be rewarded for it by God . . . . I am confident that Muslims will be able to end the legend of the so-called superpower that is America."

That's right, not motivated by religion.  Where do they find these "writers"?

Funny thing though...I found this quote while researching Bin Laden quotes...

"We declared jihad against the US government, because the US government is unjust, criminal and tyrannical. It has committed acts that are extremely unjust, hideous and criminal whether directly or through its support of the Israeli occupation." - Osama bin Laden - to CNN in March 1997

Kinda interesting to compare that to the US justifications for fighting terrorism.  Both are acusing eachother of the same thing.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (18 Jul 2005)

Hell has officially frozen over.


----------



## Slim (18 Jul 2005)

CFL said:
			
		

> Hell has officially frozen over.



No kidding...Thats exactly how to put it too...This time last week I would've said "No chance in heck that'l ever happen!"

Occasionally I like being monumentally wrong! :blotto:

Cheers


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (18 Jul 2005)

Kev I thought Kevlar wasn't so good against knife attacks?


----------



## KevinB (19 Jul 2005)

Sorry - Spectra   - maybe a rifle plate too...


Back on track - so many people seem to be trying to give our enemies an out by placing the blame with us.  : - failing to see they don;t want an out they want us dead.

 Unfortunately when it comes down to such a divergent ideology (they want us dead - and we want to live...) there is only two possible solutions - We kill them (my personal choice) or they kill us (not high on my list)


----------



## Slim (19 Jul 2005)

KevinB said:
			
		

> Sorry - Spectra    - maybe a rifle plate too...
> 
> 
> so many people seem to be trying to give our enemies an out by placing the blame with us.   : - failing to see they don;t want an out they want us dead.



Call a spade a spade...about time someone did as that's what the deal is, like it or not!

Kind of wonder where people like the Polaris bunch and all their toadies get their lefty ideas from anyway?!

When the other side wants to kill you and eradicate your society it seems pretty clear to me what the deal is! ^-^


----------



## KevinB (19 Jul 2005)

Slim said:
			
		

> Call a spade a spade...about time someone did as that's what the deal is, like it or not!
> 
> Kind of wonder where people like the Polaris bunch and all their toadies get their lefty ideas from anyway?!
> 
> When the other side wants to kill you and eradicate your society it seems pretty clear to me what the deal is! ^-^



Well you and I get it - same with General H.  I wonder about the other 28million Canadians.
  Maybe when there is a few thousand less of them due to an AlQ attack...


----------



## Infanteer (19 Jul 2005)

Okay, I'm 8 pages late to the fray, but I want to put my two cents in....

General Hillier, nice one sir.  

This reminds me of the thing a few months back with USMC General Mattis taking an very real and un-PC line that lit the headlines up.  It seems that both these Generals are cut from the same cloth.

Good to have a (gasp - I said it) Warrior in the drivers seat.


----------



## DogOfWar (19 Jul 2005)

The guys at the "Polaris Institute" sound like a "Film Actors Guild". Check out there website and see where they are coming from. I imagine the office smells pretty bad since they avoid bathing so they can "fight the man".

http://www.polarisinstitute.org/

Welcome to the Polaris Institute
...retooling citizen movements for democratic social change in an age of corporate-driven globalization


----------



## 392 (19 Jul 2005)

This was emailed to me this morning from a buddy who works at DHH:

http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/Columnists/Winnipeg/Tom_Brodbeck/2005/07/19/1137886-sun.html



> Tue, July 19, 2005
> 
> Call 'em scumbags
> 
> ...


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (19 Jul 2005)

Ok which member is he?

Nice to see it got printed.


----------



## scm77 (20 Jul 2005)

*Gen. Hillier explains the Afghan mission*

Saturday, July 16, 2005 Page A16Key

Canadians are going to war. Over the next few months, 2,000 troops will head to Afghanistan, where fighting still rages with remnants of the Taliban and al-Qaeda. Some of the Canadians, among them members of the elite Joint Task Force 2, may be involved in direct combat in the southern mountains, where their job will be to hunt down and kill insurgents.

But isn't that awfully dangerous, Canada's top soldier was asked this week. Won't the new Afghan mission make Canada a target for terrorist attacks like the July 7 transit bombings in London? General Rick Hillier gave a bracing answer. Every Canadian should listen.

"The London attack actually tells us once more: We can't let up," he told reporters on Thursday. "These are detestable murderers and scumbags, I'll tell you that right up front. They detest our freedoms, they detest our society, they detest our liberties." Canada, he said, is already a terrorist target simply by virtue of its status as a democratic member of the Western alliance, and it can't let fear of reprisal stop it from confronting the threat. When Canada was fighting the Nazis in the Second World War, "did they say, 'No, we might be attacked over here if we actually stand up against those despicable murderers and bastards?' " asked Gen. Hillier, who is Chief of the Defence Staff. He answered himself: "No, they did not."

Warlike words, no doubt, but as Gen. Hillier pointed out, he is not the head of the Egg Marketing Board. He is the head of the armed forces. Those forces have a job to do. Afghanistan, the home base of the al-Qaeda terrorist group until 2001, is in trouble. Its fragile new democracy is under threat from al-Qaeda and the Taliban, who would dearly like to make a comeback. Its government needs protection as it tries to hold a general election in September. Its people need help as they try to rebuild their homes and their lives after a quarter-century of civil war and misrule.

Apart from rooting out terrorist forces, Canadian soldiers will be helping to train local police and soldiers, making sure that international supplies get through and patrolling cities so that people can go about their business in safety. Canada's nation-building, terrorist-fighting mission in Afghanistan could not be more important or more noble. As Gen. Hillier put it, the goal is to establish democracy and security, "the exact opposite of what people like Osama bin Laden, Mullah Omar and those others want."

Could our stepped-up presence make Canada more of a target? Of course it could. Though it's impossible to know the motives of twisted minds like those of the London bombers, it's quite possible they struck there because of Britain's leading role in the Iraq war, just as it's quite possible that terrorists struck Madrid last year because Spanish troops were in Iraq. But then, terrorism has afflicted plenty of other countries, from Indonesia to Turkey to Morocco, that have had nothing to do with Iraq. Let's not forget that the attack that started all this, on 9/11, came before Iraq or Afghanistan.

Hate-filled fanatics don't need much provocation. They may have favourites on their target list, but every democratic country is at risk as long as this international conspiracy exists. Countries such as Canada can't let the fear of backlash prevent them from taking their part in dismantling that conspiracy. To do so would be to hand a victory to the terrorists, whose purpose is to divide the democratic states and weaken their will. Like it or not, we are all in this together.

A fighting man like Gen. Hillier knows that in his bones. Bravo to him for saying it.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20050716/EHILLIER16/TPComment/Editorials


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (20 Jul 2005)

Thanks 392....

That article was so good, I just looked Tom's email address and sent him a thank you note.

For anyone else who would like to, his email is: tbrodbeck@wpgsun.com.




Matthew.


----------

