# Mind of a Protester



## jonstarks (21 Oct 2006)

I was wondering if someone could shed some light on this.  I have a hard time understanding the mind of a protester who opposes the war in Afghanistan.  I have talked with numerous people who oppose the war, only a few that have protested but never less their mindsets are all the same.  The average canadian (my experience from what I have read and people I have talked to) does not follow politics very closely, knows a little about the military, but even less on the Afghanistan mission.  They have never talked with a solider who has been there and they know very little on the history of Afghanistan.  A protester goes home at night and sleeps in a bed in their house with their family, wakes up in the morning goes to their 9-5 job where they come home and the biggest decision is where to order take out from.  A protester has never been to Afghanistan, has never seen the impact of the hard work and dedication of the soldiers efforts, have never been shot at, have never watched their friend die, are not at risk of getting with with IED's on their way to work. Yet these people feel so strongly about a subject that they know so little about and have no connection with, they feel as though it is their duty to actively voice their opinion and instruct the gov't and the military how to do their job and tell soldiers what is good for them.  
How on earth can a protester, not to mention a civi tell soldiers who are being killed, maimed, away from their family and friends in a foreign country who are constantly in the face of danger even when in the base, who see the dead bodies of the afghans, insurgents, and their fellow soldiers, where they are always in line of an RPG being fired at them, who are the ones sleeping in the middle of a desert, who are building schools, roads, and hospitals, who are the ones who see first hand the changes that they have made to this country, who understand the mission, and on top of all that they are the ones who fully support the mission and believe strongly in what we are doing.
I do not know if their are any protesters or people who oppose the war on this site, but if you could explain why you think you have the right or obligation to tell a soldier how do their job when you do not have a clue what your talking about please explain it to me because I do not understand the reasoning behind it.

 Support our Troops!!!!


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (21 Oct 2006)

I understand where they are....in our civilized society war should be repungant to the average person. That is why it is much easier to have a protest against war, really, what fool stands in the street and yells" Hey ho, kill 'em slow"?
 It is just way too easy to cry "no war" than to go against your gut feelings and actually investigate the reasons that such action MIGHT be neccessary.


----------



## George Wallace (21 Oct 2006)

These people have been brainwashed, and in such a manner that they think the rest of us are the ones who are brainwashed.  It really is amusing how simplistic some of them really are.  They really can not debate or support any of their arguments.  They usually don't have enough initiative to do any research for themselves to find out the true or differing facts.  These are the type who should not be allowed in the Gene Pool and Natural Selection has let us down by allowing their survival.  Sad isn't it?

Back in the '70's I had a girl who was working Security at the University Residence that I was staying in, ask me what I did.  When she found out that I was in the Army, she said "How gross!  You kill people."  I then asked her what she was doing, besides part-time Security.  She told me that she was going to Holland College Police Academy.  In those days, who was more likely to have to shoot someone, a cop or a soldier?  I just went  : and left her to her delusions.


----------



## patrick666 (21 Oct 2006)

It's the easy way out. Why spend hours reserching and developing educated opinions when you can stand on the corner and hop on the protester band-wagon as it swings around. After all, protesting is far safer than protecting.


----------



## career_radio-checker (21 Oct 2006)

I have had discussions with protesters who oppose the war for realist and pragmatic reasons. For starters they through out the Human Rights Charter as any valid excuse for interventionism. It actually is a product of Western utopianism, which was doctored by the west and imposed by the West on to the UN nations who thought it necessary to sign in the days of West vs East tensions. I can actually see eye to eye with this because if the world really did take Human Rights seriously we would have to invade A LOT of countries.  Any conflicts the UN or NATO was actually whole heartily committed to, that had a Human Rights undertonne (Bosnia, Kosovo) were actually responses to global security threats that were to close to home. (Bosnia we were affraid of Serbia's connection with Russia)

Secondly they view wars in the middle east as a waste of time. They point to the Sectarian violence breaking out in Iraq. Lewis Mackenzie said it best regarding interventionism: "restrict yourself to wars of aggression but do not get involved int Civil Wars" (Dalhousie Review, p463).

And lastly, they see the Afghanistan as a waste of Canadian life in a war that does not concern us. My own mother is one of these people, she says the Afghans aren't stepping up to the plate, they are letting us do the fighting while they stand back -- watch, and collect a paycheque. Same can be said with our allies who don't want to come down to the South and help out. She said we should pull out of Kandahar and concentrate our efforts to the North where if we build a road, a school, a well -- it won't be blown up.

I think it's somewhat of a selfish point of view, but that's how realists think.


----------



## Infanteer (21 Oct 2006)

Patrick H. said:
			
		

> It's the easy way out. Why spend hours reserching and developing educated opinions when you can stand on the corner and hop on the protester band-wagon as it swings around. After all, protesting is far safer than protecting.




Of course, that swings both ways.  It's quite easy to stand on the box and say "Kill all the dirty A-rabs" too....


----------



## rifleman (21 Oct 2006)

They protest because they can. Yes, there are some that are on the band wagon, but then those supporting the war has those blind followers too.

Some believe we shouldn't be getting involved in other's affairs, some because they support the other side, some are people who believe that they are helping because soldiers wouldn't be dying and some are fundamentally pacifists.

I just always tell them that its the government that makes the decisions on their behalf and they are wasting their time trying to convince me. Soldiers go where they are required to be and leave when they are told to go.


----------



## gaspasser (21 Oct 2006)

+1. Jonsharks, can I print that and post it here at work.
You've written something that needs to be heard, alot and loud.
GP


----------



## a_majoor (22 Oct 2006)

I spoke to a father at my son's school (who started on the "Afghanistan is America's war" when he saw the SFOR patch on my jacket) and looked like I had nailed him with a 2X4 when I calmly told him Canada deployed to Afghanistan in 2002 under the Chretien Liberals).

When speaking to people about our dead in Afghanistan, you might consider using the following points as a guideline (very very broad brush strokes, you might only have a few minutes):



> Canadian soldiers deployed into the Panjawai district in part to allow farmers to send their crops to market, rather than have to grow opium poppies to fund the Taliban
> 
> Canadian soldiers fought a battle to take a school back from the Taliban, who oppose children from going to school, especially girls
> 
> ...



Feel free to use these points.


----------



## twistidnick (22 Oct 2006)

How many people have been asked "so when are you going to Iraq?" or  or " I disagree with the Conservative government decision to be in Iraq we need to bring our boys home." and then have to spend 5 minutes explaining that we arenot Iraq and how the liberals sent us to Afghanistan. i personally find it extremely frustrating.


----------



## vonGarvin (22 Oct 2006)

My neice called the other night to wish me a happy birthday.  She asked if I was going back to Iraq.  I told her that I had never been in Iraq.  She was confused.  Then I said "You mean Afghanistan".  She said words to the effect of "Yeah, whatever, same thing..."



My own flesh and blood, but after all, she is "only a girl"  :
(don't flame, please, that is NOT a serious comment)

She can play that part sometimes, though, but I was patient and explained the "difference" to her.


----------



## twistidnick (22 Oct 2006)

You have to be patient explaining theses things b/c talking to anyone anti-war or anti-Harper or anti-whatever they want to be anti of this week, is like talking to a small child you have to explane slowly and over pronounceate or they don't understand.

(this is in no way directed at you niece von Garvin)


----------



## jonstarks (22 Oct 2006)

Re. Gaspasser

By all means post it up if you want I am glad you liked it. I was recently talking with a young women who was against the war, she saw my small back asked if I was in the military and then proceded to tell me what we were doing was wrong.  I asked her very calmly some of those question: How long have you studying the war? So you follow politics very closely? You have been to Afghanistan? You have studied the country of Afghanistan? and so on.  Not to my surprise she answered No to each one of my questions.  So I asked her "Well how did you formulate this opinion of your if you have no idea of what is happening?  I got a blank stare back.   I love people's reaction to those questions, they look at me like I am retarted and of reply "Of course I have never been to afghanistan, NO why would I study the country, No I do not pay attention to politics" To me it is common sense that would it not be better to let someone who is over in Afghansitan and haveing to deal with all violence and politics to determine whether or not we should be there, and not some avg canadian.  I am just very frustrated with people telling me that what we are doing over there is wrong when they do not have a bloody clue what they are talking about.  These protesters formulate their option around the media, which shows a combination of three things: Suicide bombings, innocent afghans dying and Canadian soldiers dying, so in their eyes no good is coming from us being there.  I have never seen the media tell the public a school was built, or anything productive we do.  I love the argument demanding what right I have to tell another country how raise their citizens, analogy of telling your neighbour how to raise their children.  I simply say you are absolutely right I have no right.  Response: Then are you not a hypocrite because that is what you are  doing in Afghanistan?  I say I have no right to tell my neighbours how to raise their children, but if I see them abusing and neglecting them I feel an obligation to stop it because no child should be beaten by their parents, unfit parents should not be allowed to have children.
Thank you a_majoor for posting some of the productive tasks Canadians are doing, those are some of the standpoints  I have used and it is very important for people to realize all the good those soldiers are doing over there.  I am still waiting for someone to give me a legitimate reason why we should not be there and offer an alternative.

Anyways i am done ranting and raving I just needed to get that off my chest.

 Support our Troops


----------



## Pte_Martin (22 Oct 2006)

Pte. Amlin, How Long have you been in the military for people to ask you "so when are you going to Iraq?"


----------



## twistidnick (22 Oct 2006)

Infantry_ said:
			
		

> Pte. Amlin, How Long have you been in the military for people to ask you "so when are you going to Iraq?"



i have only been in a year, but its not people I know that are asking me it's strangers. Like, when I stop for gas or go to the store on my way home from the garrison. How dose how long i have been in the military have anything to do with that?


----------



## vonGarvin (22 Oct 2006)

Pte. (R) Amlin said:
			
		

> You have to be patient explaining theses things b/c talking to anyone anti-war or anti-Harper or anti-whatever they want to be anti of this week, is like talking to a small child you have to explane slowly and over pronounceate or they don't understand.
> 
> (this is in no way directed at you niece von Garvin)


That's ok, I didn't take it that way.
She is a typical 20 or so year old urbanyte.  She grew up in the north end of Toronto (York maybe?  I'm not really sure.  Just south of Finch and Bathurst anyway).  Ask her a fashion style, well, she is in the know then, but foreign affairs?  Naw, not really


----------



## twistidnick (22 Oct 2006)

lol


----------



## Pte_Martin (22 Oct 2006)

i was just curious on how long people are in and when other people start asking them questions like that. That's all


----------



## twistidnick (22 Oct 2006)

Infantry_ said:
			
		

> i was just curious on how long people are in and when other people start asking them questions like that. That's all



ok thats cool.


----------



## Brad Sallows (22 Oct 2006)

>I have a hard time understanding the mind of a protester who opposes the war in Afghanistan.

First you have to separate the protesters into two groups: those with minds who have thought through the issue and can explain their position coherently, and those who live by a collection of the opinions of others who they admire.  Ignore the latter unless you're capable of understanding emotional states.


----------



## Zell_Dietrich (22 Oct 2006)

Okay,   I pride myself on being open intellectually to many points of view.  I do my best to understand, logically not just what other people think, but also why they think what they do.  I have found that I am much better at communicating and in some cases structuring a convincing argument if I understand the others persons point of view.

Here is what I have gathered from my many NDP friends,  most of whom I’ve turned around on this issue. I know people will be tempted to write rebuttals on this thread,  feel free to read my other postings to find what I have found to be logical arguments against these.

Here are some of the fundamental underpinnings to the arguments that I’ve found common to most of those who oppose the Afghanistan mission.  They are not in any particular order,  some contradict,  some seem like repeats – I’ve encountered them all. I might not have done proper justice to some of the points(I’ve fought hard against my personal bias while writing these).  

--------------------------------------


1) The government and people of Afghanistan did not attack us. It was Al-quida.  Al-quida is in many other countries training openly and we are not invading them.  

2)  Now that we have chased Al-Quida away,  the legitimate authorities in Afghanistan can already exert  their authority.   We are involved now in a occupation mission,  not a liberation mission.

3) We have substantially increased our military efforts in Afghanistan so that we would ‘free up’ American units for Iraq – an illegal war of aggression.  Any action that we do in support if an illegal and immoral war,  is both illegal and immoral.  We can not do good by doing bad things.

4)  We are knowingly handing people that we capture over for torture.   When we capture a person,  it is our moral,  and legal, obligation to ensure that they are not subjected to that which is against the Geneva conventions.  No,  the Taliban insurgency didn’t sign the Geneva conventions – it doesn’t matter,  we did.  Not torturing people or by extension knowingly helping those who do isn’t about who we are fighting,  it is about who we are. We are doing a disservice to the ideals we were raised with,  the ideals Canadians have fought and died for the ideals that we are now robbing from our children.

5)  The Americans have failed to meet their commitments to the Afghanistan mission,  favoring instead to put their efforts into Iraq.  Our allies,  some of whom are under orders not to go out after dark, have left the hardest work to us.  And we agree to do it because we are trying to warm up relations with the Americans.   Keeping our trade relations and improving our national debt to GDP ratio in good position is NOT worth the lives of our fellow Canadians.  We know we can’t do it alone and if we aren’t receiving the help we need we might as well leave now.

6)  In order to really succeed we also need to substantially increase our aid. We are engaged in predominantly a seek and destroy mission, which while looks good on TV,  doesn’t really support the overall goal of establishing Afghanistan as a stable democratic country.    The vast majority of what we are doing there is exert force when the vast majority of what needs to be done is reconstruction.  You don’t win hearts and minds by stirring up hornets nests of fighters and dislocating thousands from their homes from the fighting.  You don’t gain their support when their home they come back to is bombed out.

7)  We have taken actions that have made it impossible for independent organizations to provide help.  We have tied any aid they receive to the local population helping coalition forces and set things up so that now any aid they receive is “from” the coalition forces.  This sets up aid workers as being working for the coalition forces instead of for the people of Afghanistan – this makes them a target.  http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/publications/transcripts/afghanistan_pressconference.cfm

8)  So Al-quida had training camps in Afghanistan;  America funds “The school of the America’s”  which is responsible for worse atrocities than anything Al-quida has done.

9)   We should be looking after our own country,  improving our own infrastructure before we spend all that money and resources to build hospitals and schools in a country filled with backwards and ignorant people who will just strap explosives to themselves and take out as many children as they can while they blow up the buildings. (Interesting note,  this argument I heard while talking to a brown guy,  and I put only his implied meaning if I put his actual language I’d get banned for using racist slurs.  This argument I call the ‘they are to dumb to ever be civilized argument)

10)Most of the insurgency is in response to coalition forces simply being there.  If we pulled out,  the majority of the support for the insurgency would simply disappear and the local government would then receive that support.  Order would be restored and foreign aid would then be able to get into the country – in much larger number than it can now because of how we have tied foreign aid to ‘supporting us’

11)   War is bad and hearing about Canadians dieing is heart wrenching.  Whatever it is for,  it can’t be worth it,  nothing is worth the price of Canadian blood.    

12)  No country has ever invaded Afghanistan and tried to exert control and survived.  Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it,  conquest is easy,  control is hard,  that is why the yanks bailed at the first chance they could.  To think that we can win a prolonged conflict agaist a locally supported resistance is totally foolish.  Where are they going to go?  They are home,  they have nowhere else to flee to,  they can’t retreat, all they can do is wait us out wear us down.  Two here,  three there week after week,  year after year.  History tells us, they will win.


----------



## a_majoor (23 Oct 2006)

Acting CQ for today, passing out some rebuttal ammo:



			
				Zell_Dietrich said:
			
		

> 1) The government and people of Afghanistan did not attack us. It was Al-quida.  Al-quida is in many other countries training openly and we are not invading them.



Canada is doing what is possible with the limited resources we have available. There is a global coalition of like minded nations taking actions in many parts of the world against radical groups like the Al Qaeda, many of which are not covered by the media.



> 2)  Now that we have chased Al-Quida away,  the legitimate authorities in Afghanistan can already exert their authority.   We are involved now in a occupation mission,  not a liberation mission.



The Taliban and their foreign allies are regrouping in parts of Pakistan, and attempting to challenge the legal government and take control from the elected government of Afghanistan. Since the nation is recovering from three decades of civil war, the elected government of Afghanistan has requested the assistence of the United Nations to maintain security and control over its sovereign territory, and Canada has responded as a member of that coalition.



> 3) We have substantially increased our military efforts in Afghanistan so that we would ‘free up’ American units for Iraq – an illegal war of aggression.  Any action that we do in support if an illegal and immoral war,  is both illegal and immoral.  We can not do good by doing bad things.



Tha American effort in Afghanistan still consists of 20,000 service members, by far the largest component of the UN effort to stabilize Afghanistan and assist the democratically elected government. Canada's efforts in Afgnanistan reflect the wishes of the Afghan government and the UN mandate, and are independent of Allied efforts elsewhere on the globe.



> 4)  We are knowingly handing people that we capture over for torture.   When we capture a person,  it is our moral,  and legal, obligation to ensure that they are not subjected to that which is against the Geneva conventions.  No,  the Taliban insurgency didn’t sign the Geneva conventions – it doesn’t matter,  we did.  Not torturing people or by extension knowingly helping those who do isn’t about who we are fighting,  it is about who we are. We are doing a disservice to the ideals we were raised with,  the ideals Canadians have fought and died for the ideals that we are now robbing from our children.



This is a contentious accusation, and certainly a charge this serious requires documented proof. It *is* a documented fact that a senior Taliban leader was induced to come over to the government side in part due to being given medical attention after being captured by Canadian troops. No force which would knowingly turn captives over for torture would have taken such pains with their prisoners.



> 5)  The Americans have failed to meet their commitments to the Afghanistan mission,  favoring instead to put their efforts into Iraq.  Our allies,  some of whom are under orders not to go out after dark, have left the hardest work to us.  And we agree to do it because we are trying to warm up relations with the Americans.   Keeping our trade relations and improving our national debt to GDP ratio in good position is NOT worth the lives of our fellow Canadians.  We know we can’t do it alone and if we aren’t receiving the help we need we might as well leave now.



While Canadians can and should expect to receive good will from their efforts, the size, scale and scope of our efforts are determined by the elected government of Afghanistan, which requested help, and the UN, which has the mandate to deliver the help.



> 6)  In order to really succeed we also need to substantially increase our aid. We are engaged in predominantly a seek and destroy mission, which while looks good on TV,  doesn’t really support the overall goal of establishing Afghanistan as a stable democratic country.    The vast majority of what we are doing there is exert force when the vast majority of what needs to be done is reconstruction.  You don’t win hearts and minds by stirring up hornets nests of fighters and dislocating thousands from their homes from the fighting.  You don’t gain their support when their home they come back to is bombed out.



The key to Canada's comitment to Afghanistan is the Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRT's). The Taliban make every effort to attack the PRT's and their associated works, which requires a security force to allow the PRT's to do their job. It is a testament to the effect of the PRT's that the Taliban takes such steps to destroy their work.



> 7)  We have taken actions that have made it impossible for independent organizations to provide help.  We have tied any aid they receive to the local population helping coalition forces and set things up so that now any aid they receive is “from” the coalition forces.  This sets up aid workers as being working for the coalition forces instead of for the people of Afghanistan – this makes them a target.  http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/publications/transcripts/afghanistan_pressconference.cfm



During the years of the Taliban rule, NGO's like "Doctors Without Borders" were prevented from entering or working in Afghanistan. Today, they can operate freely in 3/4 of the country, while military  PRT's do similar work in the south of Afghanistan until such time the Taliban have been driven out.



> 8)  So Al-quida had training camps in Afghanistan;  America funds “The school of the America’s”  which is responsible for worse atrocities than anything Al-quida has done.



The Al Qaeda is responsible for individual and mass murders across the globe for two decades, attacking people in North and South America, Africa, Europe and Asia. The vast majority of the victims have been innocent bystanders (such as the over 200 people killed or injured outside the American Embassy in Kenya). All of this is well documented in open sources, not shadowy conspiracy theories.



> 9)   We should be looking after our own country,  improving our own infrastructure before we spend all that money and resources to build hospitals and schools in a country filled with backwards and ignorant people who will just strap explosives to themselves and take out as many children as they can while they blow up the buildings. (Interesting note,  this argument I heard while talking to a brown guy,  and I put only his implied meaning if I put his actual language I’d get banned for using racist slurs.  This argument I call the ‘they are to dumb to ever be civilized argument)



As a wealthy and powerful nation, should we advocate a selfish hording of our good fortune, or work to share our vlaues and good fortune woth others who could benefit?



> 10)Most of the insurgency is in response to coalition forces simply being there.  If we pulled out,  the majority of the support for the insurgency would simply disappear and the local government would then receive that support.  Order would be restored and foreign aid would then be able to get into the country – in much larger number than it can now because of how we have tied foreign aid to ‘supporting us’



The roots of the insurgency is the desire to rule and dominate. Since the people of Afghanistan do not give their consent to be ruled by the Taliban, the Taliban responds by attempting to impose their ideals by force, with assistence from outside agencies like the Pakistani ISI. The Taliban have no interest in foreign aid, and took vigerous steps to exclude foreign aid or help during their rule of Afgnanistan.



> 11)   War is bad and hearing about Canadians dieing is heart wrenching.  Whatever it is for,  it can’t be worth it,  nothing is worth the price of Canadian blood.



We freely spent far more in blood and treasure to fight against German agression in WWI, Nazi, Fascist and "State Shinto" ideologies in WW II, and Communism throughout the cold war. We are fighting against a terrible enemy who is willing to comit horrible atrocities against anyone who stands against them, and thinks nothing of civilians who die as a result of thier actions.     



> 12)  No country has ever invaded Afghanistan and tried to exert control and survived.  Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it,  conquest is easy,  control is hard,  that is why the yanks bailed at the first chance they could.  To think that we can win a prolonged conflict agaist a locally supported resistance is totally foolish.  Where are they going to go?  They are home,  they have nowhere else to flee to,  they can’t retreat, all they can do is wait us out wear us down.  Two here,  three there week after week,  year after year.  History tells us, they will win.



Canada is not an occupying power, but part of a UN force invited into the country by the democratically elected Government of Afghanistan.


This took some time, and some facts might need to be checked, but it was well worth it since you now have the extra firepower you need to engage. 


(Spell check seems very wonky right now, feel free to use this with your corrections.)


----------



## Zell_Dietrich (23 Oct 2006)

HA!   I knew someone would go point by point through it.   :warstory:
(I think I've already pointed out that I support the operation in Afghanistan - here and on several other threads - feel like a broken record. Please I am putting this up here not to start argument but for the edification of those who want to know the other side's point of view and when necessary the effective way to properly debate the issue. I have listened very carefully,  and here are the points I hear.  I don't personally hold these opinions,  I just think that knowing more is a good thing for everyone.  You can’t fight that which you don’t understand.  Nor can you convince someone to support Afghanistan if you don’t understand their thinking or rational against it.)

a_majoor I respect that you took the effort to reply to each point.   Now,  May I help you with some ammunition? I want to stress, this is an intellectual role playing I am doing. I mean no insult or disrespect,  but I think it is better to do this here than to get caught unprepared when talking with them face to face.  In most cases I give a rebuttal as you would hear it, in other cases I break voice and give my advice for talking with the anti-war group, sometimes I switch half way through. This is about “sharpening our teeth” we need to have our facts and rebuttals down so that when we need them they are there for us. If I go to far in my argument, I am sorry,  but these are arguments I hear/have heard. If you feel like tracing my ip address and going to my apartment and giving me a wedgie,  just pm me and I’ll be happy to apologies before you have to drive DT Toronto.

(Standard Counter rebuttals I've heard to your assertions)

On Point 1 
"Canada is doing what is possible with the limited resources we have available. There is a global coalition of like minded nations taking actions in many parts of the world against radical groups like the Al Qaeda, many of which are not covered by the media"

This is where I would inexorably hear about secret torture prisons (well not so secret anymore),  how many countries are being bullied into helping and it is creating resentment.  Also this is where what I call the "Power of Nightmares" argument comes out.  (BBC documentary 'The power of nightmares - the rise of the politics of fear' I highly recommend it.  It is very insightful in many ways)  They will talk about how they are skeptical of what there is no proof of.  Either something is there or it is not,  either something is provable or not.  If a crazy man on the street said that an invisible dog would attack you unless you gave him a dollar,  how much would you trust him?  Now if a politician says 'vote for me or the terrorists will win' how much should you trust him?

On point 2
"The Taliban and their foreign allies are regrouping in parts of Pakistan, and attempting to challenge the legal government and take control from the elected government of Afghanistan. Since the nation is recovering from three decades of civil war, the elected government of Afghanistan has requested the assistance of the United Nations to maintain security and control over its sovereign territory, and Canada has responded as a member of that coalition."

As soon as you mention the elected Afghan government,  you will hear how it is just our puppet government.  You'll hear of corruption.  Unfortunately,  apart from saying it was elected this is a conversational dead end. You might hear how Afghanistan was in a civil war and we just chose the Northern Alliance to win and now they are acting worse than the Taliban ever did.  All we did was to choose which side would win the civil war,  and we chose the more evil of the two because that group hadn't attacked us - yet.

On point 3
"The American effort in Afghanistan still consists of 20,000 service members, by far the largest component of the UN effort to stabilize Afghanistan and assist the democratically elected government. Canada's efforts in Afghanistan reflect the wishes of the Afghan government and the UN mandate, and are independent of Allied efforts elsewhere on the globe."

Simply saying that the Americans have troops in Afghanistan doesn't negate that because we are there we are freeing up and indirectly supporting what is going on in Iraq.  If you don’t deal with that point, head on, the debate will be lost and quickly.

On Point 4
"This is a contentious accusation, and certainly a charge this serious requires documented proof. It is a documented fact that a senior Taliban leader was induced to come over to the government side in part due to being given medical attention after being captured by Canadian troops. No force which would knowingly turn captives over for torture would have taken such pains with their prisoners."

Canada presently hand our captives to the Afghan authorities,
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20061010/wl_canada_afp/canadaafghanistanus_061010184624

Who screen them and send anyone of note to the Americans for questioning.  (Aka water-boarding the retard who didn't bribe the army officer to not get sent to the Americans) So then they get sent to one of those many American torture facilities where young white guys get to act out homoerotic acts of torture because America can do no wrong.

In the past we regularly handed over prisoners to the Americans.  Now we let the local Afghan authorities extort money from them – those that don’t pay are sent to the American gulags. Those who can bribe are stuffed into crowded inhumane jails where their civil rights are violated.


On point 5
"While Canadians can and should expect to receive good will from their efforts, the size, scale and scope of our efforts are determined by the elected government of Afghanistan, which requested help, and the UN, which has the mandate to deliver the help." 

I don't believe the Afghan government picks and chooses which countries show up with what.  If it did I think it would have double or tipple the number they presently do,  with note from other Muslim countries.  I don't think the "no blood to appease the American" argument can be countered with "a puppet government controlled by Americans asked us to be there".  

On Point 6
"The key to Canada's commitment to Afghanistan is the Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRT's). The Taliban make every effort to attack the PRT's and their associated works, which requires a security force to allow the PRT's to do their job. It is a testament to the effect of the PRT's that the Taliban takes such steps to destroy their work."

... snap,  I can't counter that.   Although one could try to rehash how the coalition forces tied humanitarian aid to western support so it then became a legitimate target.  By violating the neutrality of aid agencies, you are the ones who are preventing them from doing their work.


On Point 7

"During the years of the Taliban rule, NGO's like "Doctors Without Borders" were prevented from entering or working in Afghanistan. Today, they can operate freely in 3/4 of the country, while military  PRT's do similar work in the south of Afghanistan until such time the Taliban have been driven out."

With respect http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/07/18/DDGSLDOCIP1.DTL  It is important to get your facts straight.  They were there before the Taliban were toppled,  they were there during the worst of the war,  but once their neutrality was compromised they then were attacked by the Taliban.  If you goy nailed with this in a debate,  it would be hard to recover.

On point 8

"The Al Qaeda is responsible for individual and mass murders across the globe for two decades, attacking people in North and South America, Africa, Europe and Asia. The vast majority of the victims have been innocent bystanders (such as the over 200 people killed or injured outside the American Embassy in Kenya). All of this is well documented in open sources, not shadowy conspiracy theories."

I would respectfully like to point out that countering the "America does bad things too" argument with "Terrorist do bad things" is silly,  and not only be unconvincing, it would easily open up several avenues for the anti-war protester to peruse.  (Basically by not dealing directly with the accusation you admitted a great weakness,  they are now able to drudge up past atrocities done by the Yanks and are completely free to toss out theories as to why the Muslim world hates us so much.  If they can prove that we in some way deserved to be attacked,  the argument for pulling out is greatly increased.

On point 9

"As a wealthy and powerful nation, should we advocate a selfish hording of our good fortune, or work to share our values and good fortune with others who could benefit?"

Not everyone shares our values,  not all of us share "our" values.  Who are we to go into other countries and impose our will,  our culture, our value system onto others?  Also I usually hear about how there is big money in reconstruction and that the countries own natural resources would be stripped to pay for it.  Basically invade to redecorate and then send them the bill.

On point 10

"The roots of the insurgency is the desire to rule and dominate. Since the people of Afghanistan do not give their consent to be ruled by the Taliban, the Taliban responds by attempting to impose their ideals by force, with assistance from outside agencies like the Pakistani ISI. The Taliban have no interest in foreign aid, and took vigorous steps to exclude foreign aid or help during their rule of Afghanistan."

Not dealing with the "There are many Muslims that are taking up arms only because we are there,  if we left they would support a democratic system" point is bad form.  To a third party observer it appears that you've conceded the point.

On point 11

"We freely spent far more in blood and treasure to fight against German aggression in WWI, Nazi, Fascist and "State Shinto" ideologies in WW II, and Communism throughout the cold war. We are fighting against a terrible enemy who is willing to commit horrible atrocities against anyone who stands against them, and thinks nothing of civilians who die as a result of their actions.  "

     I like the dramatic language.  However,  there needs to be a clear link between the 'Terrorists' and how they are real and present threat.  Saying they're bad and we fought bad guys before isn't enough.  You need to establish a direct link that shows them as a threat.  (Any quote from an important sounding terrorist will do,  about how they will suicide bomb our children's school bus or whatever)

On Point 12
"Canada is not an occupying power, but part of a UN force invited into the country by the democratically elected Government of Afghanistan."

I don't think you dealt with the "No one has ever tried to hold Afghanistan and survived the attempt" point.  Alexander the Great,  the Soviets just to name a few of the notables.  If you don't deal with what they are saying,  you concede their point.


----------



## a_majoor (23 Oct 2006)

Zell, we are trying to rebut points with facts, although this is akin to fixing a leaking dam with some chewing gum. I answered the points using provable facts (and I am sure you have a supply of them as well). Most of the arguments presented by the "protesters" are of the have you stopped beating your wife yet variety, and others like the school of the Americas argument and torture allegations revolve around unproven and mostly unprovable allegations. I find it quicker to fire a factual argument than debate how many angels dance on the head of a pin.

WRT Doctors without frontiers, it was my understanding they and other NGO's were excluded, but I will concede the point. I certainly see very little evidence NGO's ever had any real influence in Afghanistan during the Taliban period, and their silence on Taliban era torture and killing is signifigent as well. If NGOs were there at the pleasure of the Taliban and were silent as part of their "acceptence", then they were complicit with torture and mass murder, full stop.

I would like other, more informed people weigh in and provide as much factual counter evidence as possible. Media types lurking should know that "your" ignoring large parts of the story for cheap sensationalism is simply ruining any credibility that you may have had with us, and with the larger public, who can see there is more of the story now, via means like this.


----------



## alfie (23 Oct 2006)

I am so tired fo trying to explain to the misguided uniformed, stupid or taliban supporters that it makes me wonder, if they don't know or care to instead of explaining it to them just tell them to @#$%@!@ off that
won't help anything but it makes you feel better.


----------



## Zell_Dietrich (23 Oct 2006)

alfie said:
			
		

> I am so tired fo trying to explain to the misguided uniformed, stupid or taliban supporters that it makes me wonder, if they don't know or care to instead of explaining it to them just tell them to @#$%@!@ off that
> won't help anything but it makes you feel better.



It is very easy to get burnt out.  Allot of people get really emotionally charged up over this issue.  It has been my experience that most of the people who are against the war in Afghanistan are so because they see what is going on in Iraq and they don't like it.   Another large group are the ones who don't believe that we were threatened or that there was proper justification for Afghanistan.  Another group are the hippies who missed out on Vietnam and want to be persecuted by the state for their radical beliefs.

     The first two groups can be swayed if you simply go over what happened and why we're there.  Clearly establish a link between the embassy bombings,  the other terrorist attacks and the attempts at diplomacy.  The say Sept 11 and then say how they tried diplomacy,  asking nicely for the ones responsible, and were flatly refused and then received more threats.  Clearly establish that they attacked and that they intended harm and had the ability to do so in the future.  Then simply go into detail of what would happen if the Taliban took over,  they would do exactly what they did before, but this time they would be emboldened. This gets 80% of them begrudgingly admitting that we need to be there. On these two groups, little effort is needed and it is civil the entire time.   (I think you're seeing where I'm going with this)

     Invariably,  the war will come up in a group of people (5 or so) and the hippie who missed Vietnam,  the war resister without a draft,  will speak up and present a rather emotionally compelling argument.  It isn't hard to convince people that death and distruction are bad things.  Canadians hate seeing soldiers come home in boxes.  The argument presented for pulling out immediately is very convenient. No one thinks of themselves as the bad guy.  I honestly believe that they think that they are doing good. I am speaking from my personal experience in these types of situations,  a group of people and it is you, a former Federal NDP candidate and a table of people.  

     I've even had the rare pleasure of sitting down at a table of Muslims and had the topic of the war come up.  The biggest single issue I heard over and over was that they don't like having foreigners invade and tell them what to do.  I followed the same formula of establishing a clear pattern of them attacking,  America trying diplomacy and then Sept 11, more failed attempts at diplomacy and more threats then the invasion.   I then put the twist of "We helped create the Taliban to fight the Soviets,  then we abandoned the people of Afghanistan to those butchers and rapists.  We ignored their cries for help because we don't want to interfere with internal matters.  We forgot that when you allow evil to grow and fester it will eventually harm you and they started to attack us.  So now we are paying for our sins and rectifying our mistakes.  We can not allow the Taliban to have controll over Afghanistan, not just for the sake of the people of Afghanistan but out of our own intrest."  Now if you thought a card carrying NDP member would have a hard time admitting the war is just, you haven't seen a table of Muslims (in North York) fidget because they just can't find another argument.  (this was 2 hours of my life I consider well spent)



			
				a_majoor said:
			
		

> I certainly see very little evidence NGO's ever had any real influence in Afghanistan during the Taliban period, and their silence on Taliban era torture and killing is significant as well. If NGOs were there at the pleasure of the Taliban and were silent as part of their "acceptance", then they were complicit with torture and mass murder, full stop.


The Taliban kept the country impoverished and undeveloped.  There is strong evidence that they wanted to keep Afghanistan backwards so they could more easily keep controll.  (I'm referring to the TVs they weren't allowed to have)  So yes,  the development under the Taliban was non existant.  Your point on how Aid agencies help brutal dictators because of their imposed neutrality is a powerfull one and a case could be made that yes be helping at the wrong time they do more harm than good.   Please feel free to look at a starving child and say "I'm sorry but if I feed you I will be validating the government that is in power and the actions they have taken.  By you dieing it will create frustration in those around you and they might take up arms and overthrough the dictators."   (Now that is a tendentious argument I just gave,  I see several huge holes in it,  anyone care to point them out)

     And on a side note, a fun point to bring up is how Afghanistan was at a almost perpetual state of war.  This significantly reduced the number of men in the country and since women were not allowed to to work (or were stoned to death if they dressed up like a man so they don't starve to death) the solution was polygamy.  Isn't it nice how the same men who start the wars,  keep the population impoverished now are forced to marry all of the surplus women (and females younger than women)?  (I recommend watching the movie Osama http://www.osamamovie.com )



			
				a_majoor said:
			
		

> I would like other, more informed people weigh in and provide as much factual counter evidence as possible. Media types lurking should know that "your" ignoring large parts of the story for cheap sensationalism is simply ruining any credibility that you may have had with us, and with the larger public, who can see there is more of the story now, via means like this.


     Okay,  I respect that most of what I said above can be easily debunked.  If you think I am ignorant of the facts,  please enlighten me. Please understand,  the topic was "the mind of a protester" I have done my best to put forward their argument as I understand it and have experienced it.  Simply because I am using their argument and structuring it in the same tendentious manner doesn't mean I don't know the holes in it.  I think I've been very clear that I am taking up a position I don't agree with, and hopefully being true to that position, so that others can be better prepaired when they encounter this in the real world.  If a member of the media wants to misquote me ... quoting an on-line discussion forum is like citing Wikipidia as a reference,  you can do it but you'll be mocked in the academic world.  Now your point is taken,  I'll sit back and just lurk on this thread for a while. 

Now for the secret prisons,
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/06/bush.transcript/index.html
Do you want me to drudge up the links for abu grave, Guantanamo and then back them up with the Presiden's stated desire to redefine the Geneva convention and how "An outrage on human dignity" is a vague term,  which could mean anything?

*****
Now this is an aside note just because I hate being too serious for too long
"how many angels dance on the head of a pin"  -- as many that want.  Now here is the fun question "Did Jesus own his own clothes?"


----------



## Zarathustra (23 Oct 2006)

Zell_Dietrich said:
			
		

> Here are some of the fundamental underpinnings to the arguments that I’ve found common to most of those who oppose the Afghanistan mission.  They are not in any particular order,  some contradict,  some seem like repeats – I’ve encountered them all. I might not have done proper justice to some of the points(I’ve fought hard against my personal bias while writing these).



I'm impressed that you're able to express their arguments so clearly and in a logical way. You presented them without making them look stupid. Not that many people can do this I think.


----------



## Zell_Dietrich (23 Oct 2006)

Zarathustra said:
			
		

> I'm impressed that you're able to express their arguments so clearly and in a logical way. You presented them without making them look stupid. Not that many people can do this I think.



I know I promised I'd hold off on this thread and lurk for a bit,  but I just have to say thank you.  Thank you. 
(going back into the background now so other people can get a word in edgewise and I can hear new and maybe better rebuttals to the arguments than I presently use)


----------



## Bigmac (29 Oct 2006)

The link below will take you to a video of the latest anti war protest. From what I see in the video a majority of the protestors are misguided and being further influenced by Layton's NDP political platform. Sorry I said the "L" word. 
    For the most part they don't appear to be the brightest of bulbs. In one protest they use a supposed former soldier who quit recently. He sounds like a big loser. Sorry yet another "L" word that may cause you to think of the previous mentioned "L" word! 

 http://Video.sympatico.msn.com/v/en-ca/v.htm?g=8D45A9E4-9935-407A-B7D8-FE166C47C0BE&f=37&fg=copy


----------



## GAP (29 Oct 2006)

Here's a link for the video report of interviews of Canadians in the sandbox and what they think of the protests.

Francis Silvaggio reports from Afghanistan on the Canadian troops reaction to an anti-war rally across the country.
Video Report

the link to the video is found in the section called "Global National Online Extras" Click on Troop Reactions
http://www.canada.com/globaltv/national/story.html?id=67e76990-66eb-473a-ab8c-5e9b26dbe018#


End


----------



## patrick666 (29 Oct 2006)

That link didn't work for me. Is the video available anywhere else?


----------



## Troop Suporter (29 Oct 2006)

Have you seen this article by MICHELLE MANDEL from today's Toronto Sun?

Even she gets it.  



> <b>Ask soldiers about Afghanistan, not protesters</b>
> 
> 
> Jack Layton has never heard of Josh Forbes or his poem, Thoughts of a Soldier.
> ...



<a href="http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/Mandel_Michele/2006/10/29/pf-2165505.html">http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/Mandel_Michele/2006/10/29/pf-2165505.html</a>



There were 200 'protesters' in Ottawa, and we had 12-15,000 at the Wear Red Friday Rally on Parliament Hill!!!



> Layton blamed Harper, of course, for the low turnout.



 :


----------



## vonGarvin (29 Oct 2006)

_"Layton blamed Harper, of course, for the low turnout."_
Of course Harper was to blame.  He's also to blame for the hole in the Ozone, for my kids getting rotten marks on tests and for the fact that my dog ate some of my chickens.  You see, Harper has created uber-mind control machines, and only causes bad things to happen to good people


Well, either it's that, or not that many people agree with ole' Jack himself!


----------



## Troop Suporter (29 Oct 2006)

> You see, Harper has created uber-mind control machines, and only causes bad things to happen to good people



LOL!

Now that Stephen Harper is Prime Minister, he gets those machines wholesale, from Karl Rove.
 ;D


----------



## a_majoor (29 Oct 2006)

Here is a real "protester" in action. He would fit right in with the Taliban or any other number of collectiveist thugs who demand the right to control our actions:

http://thelondonfog.blogspot.com/2006/10/look-for-ute-sei-union-label-at-peace.html#comments



> *Look For The UTE-SEI Union Label At The Peace Protest (But Don't Take Its Picture)*
> 
> Elhaz Inverted: There may be hidden danger waiting to ensnare you. Hasty and ill-considered actions will plunge you into serious problems. There is the danger of being swallowed up by archetypal forces, which you think to shape to your will with inadequate knowledge or preparation. This can result in damage to both spiritual and physical health.
> 
> ...



It is particulary telling that a person who was presumably going to represent London North Centre (he won the nomination but gave it away to an ineligable person, talk about democracy in action!) was totally clueless about ground truth about Taliban era Afghanistan.


----------



## PSY OPS (30 Oct 2006)

asking a soldier about the mind of a protester 
makes about as much sense as
asking a protester about the mind of a soldier.

funny protester sign:
bombing for peace is like fukcing for virginity


----------



## Mike Bobbitt (30 Oct 2006)

PSY OPS, that's a pretty generalized statement. If you want to make meaningful points here, make sure they have some meaning. I don't think anyone should be shocked at the fact we have a large number of intelligent, well read soldiers in Canada. Is it really a leap to believe that a soldier can look at both sides the Afghan debate in depth, and come away from it firmly believing in one side? (I.E. That our soldiers can genuinely understand the situation and still be "for" the mission?)

If your answer is no, then you have to ask yourself: What makes you believe protesters are capable of what soldiers are not?


----------



## cplcaldwell (30 Oct 2006)

Interesting read.

I've followed this from the through the "Harper is Bush-lite" phase, "support out troops bring them home" phase, through the counter recruitment "the military is engaging in the poverty draft" phase to this.

I have read the ridiculous ad hominems of trolls, especially during the Israeli-Hezbollah war.

I have studied the mood in the street.

It seems to me that it all boils down to a central issue. Some people accept the world is a nasty place and we should help try to fix it and some people can't accept the world is a nasty place.

There are those who will pander  to the latter group and will continue to create issues as often as possible to create fear uncertainty and doubt.

Mr Chretien, Mr Martin, Mr Graham and now Mr Harper have all said that world is a nasty place and we should do something about it. Perhaps Mr Chretien thought he could do as little as possible to get by, but _he did commit_. Perhaps Mr Martin made this issue the issue of the day, _but he did commit._ Mr Graham's job is to oppose, he has done so in an elegant and mature manner, although he may differ by degree _he does commit._ The PM has made it clear _he is committed_.

I see no commitment in the so called protesters. Mr Layton is the focus of this issue, he has been, by turns, opposed to the war because it is American imperialism, because it violates our 'tradition' of being peacekeepers, because our troops are not supported because they are 'in country' doing the job they were trained for, and now apparently, because we are committing, or abetting atrocities.

Could someone on the left please come up with an argument and stick to it please? This is an important issue, it deserves some attention and debate, Jack Layton's recent comment that the PM is to blame for low protest turnout is ridiculous. 

Perhaps Mr Layton could consider that it is equally true that poor protestor turn out is equally _his blame_, as he has, in the last year attacked this issue from every angle, holding that axis of advance only as long as it garnered headlines, then switched tack.

Now apparently it _is the PM's fault_ that Jack Layton _cannot make his tenditious arguments stick_ in the minds of Canadians.

The way I see it _that sort opportunism_ and not a meaningful debate. Rather it is crass political one upmanship. 

0.02


----------



## George Wallace (30 Oct 2006)

One could always counter that with the fact that Soldiers were at one time Civilians.

Civilians, however, were not necessarily at one time Soldiers.


----------



## patrick666 (30 Oct 2006)

> One could always counter that with the fact that Soldiers were at one time Civilians.
> 
> Civilians, however, were not necessarily at one time Soldiers.



+1!


----------



## PSY OPS (31 Oct 2006)

im just talking out my arse (as usual!  )
as a matter of fact some soldiers ARE protesting occupation of iraq and afghan
and some civie protesters are militant to the point of being soldiers
or at least militant enough to fit the def of being "domestic terrorists"
 :threat:


----------



## Edward Campbell (31 Oct 2006)

PSY OPS said:
			
		

> im just talking out my arse (as usual!  )
> ...



Ahhh, well, now I see.

Here: http://rabble.ca/babble/ and here: http://www.freedominion.ca/phpBB2/index.php are public fora, at fairly remote points on the socio-political/economic spectrum, one from the other, where that (talking out of a lower orifice) is the custom.


----------



## a_majoor (31 Oct 2006)

Re the thug blocking free access to the protest (presumably to prevent the photographer from seeing and publishing the abysmal turnout) wasn't a union thug; read on!

http://thelondonfog.blogspot.com/2006/10/that-was-no-ordinary-protest-goon-that.html#comments



> Monday, October 30, 2006
> *That Was No Ordinary Protest Goon, That Was VP, NDP London North Centre! * Good Lord! It gets weirder.
> 
> Go here for the original story, including audio clips.
> ...



Feel free to cross post this on the blogosphere, *everyone* needs a good look at this, and everyone who is sincere about socialistic politics (i.e. supporters of the Euston Manifesto) should be encouraged to shine a light on the NDP and expose people like that.


----------



## North Star (31 Oct 2006)

Aren't the three D's as articulated in the Defence Policy Statement DEFENCE, diplomacy, and development? 

Oh well. It's not really productive to debate Jack - the facts get in the way of his reality and just make him look more like Lenin.


----------



## dglad (31 Oct 2006)

A few have mentioned the fact that there ARE, in fact, opponents to the Canadian operations in Afghanistan who are thoughtful people with legitimate moral, ethical and/or practical objections.  It's really important that that fact not get lost in the general tendency to--quite rightly--deride the sadly large group that are opposed Canada's involvement largely (or even solely) for self-serving, cynical reasons that are primarily about promoting an only tenuously-connected agenda and/or personal gain.  It's important that the thoughtful opponents speak out and are heard; it's important that they attack our rationale for being there and force us to defend it.  Not only is that vital for democratic integrity, it's essential so that those of us who believe being there is the right thing are sure we understand why we believe that.  We should welcome this debate with open minds, because it give us a chance to examine, then put forward and defend our own positions.  Personally, I have no reservations about why we're in Afghanistan.  It's the right thing for us to be doing--a meaningful operation that fits well with the capabilities of our small, but effective army.  I have no concerns that we're there as occupiers, or that we're perpetrating "war crimes" or "atrocities".  I'll admit that I do have some reservations about exactly HOW we (i.e. NATO as a whole) are conducting the mission, but the mission itself is the right one.

And I came to this conclusion not instantly, on the basis of instinct or simple gut-acceptance of what we'd been ordered to do.  I came to this feeling of "rightness" through discussion and debate with people I know, and respect, who actually oppose our being there.  They forced me to examine my position and, in so doing, solidified it.  THAT'S what "protest" in a pluralistic society is about...not about tossing open a grab-bag of vaguely "socially conscious" issues and "protesting" simply because it fits your particular (and poorly defined) view of the world.  Frankly, the people who do that (like the Union Thug above) piss me off because they're shallow, self-absorbed, intellectually dishonest and, no matter how much they might say the contrary, really don't "support the troops".  In my experience, many of them actually dislike soldiers for the same flat reason they dislike anything that doesn't fit their simplistic view of the way the world ought to be...that is, because they don't fit their simplistic view of the way the world ought to be.


----------



## a_majoor (2 Nov 2006)

More about the protester mindset:

http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/008021.html



> *Peacenik rubbish at rabble.ca*
> 
> Why can't these useful idiots ever get their facts right (via MediaRight.ca)? Real idiots I guess--even though one author purportedly teaches at a Canadian university--and indeed useful to some.
> 
> ...



The fact that one of these people is in a teaching position at a University is rather scarey, if he is unable to assemble a coherent and factually correct argument out of easily Googled information, _what exactly is he teaching his students_? Does the Dean know about this?


----------



## jonstarks (2 Nov 2006)

Welcome to University life where students are brainwashed by profs who do not have a clue what they are talking about, and to make it worse since profs are held in a higher standing with authority, students do not question what they are taught. (maybe this is way I am not a fan favourite in my classes)    I am currently a university student and i am appalled at what some of these professors are teaching the students in these politic science classes.  Last week during that protest against the CF mission in Afghanistan, one of my friends came up to me and began to explain "her" viewpoints on why the war in Afghanistan is despicable.  "Canadians are just going around killing civilians with no regard for their lives," along with some other ridiculous BS.  After talking with her I asked her some questions in which she had no response because she regurgitated what her prof said in class instead of taking sometime to find the facts herself.  After talking with her for a couple minutes and asking her question after question which were followed by a blank stare, she informed that her prof has more credability than myself or else she wouldn't be a prof and she will take her profs opinion and word over mine anyday.

So as you can see even if you present facts and statements to back up your opinion and viewpoint, it means nothing unless you have some sort of authority.

Welcome to the University students mindset!!


----------



## a_majoor (2 Nov 2006)

Well jonstarks, it looks like*you* have what it takes to be a leader of tomorrow. 

Be gentle with the sheeple like your friend, their milk and wool could be a valuable export commodity!


----------



## career_radio-checker (2 Nov 2006)

For your amusement:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0vm7GtzAFs 

Here's a little drinking game you can do while watching this. Everytime the guy with long hair says "Bush," you got to take a swig
I guarantee you won't make it passed 6 minutes.

I thought I would post this because everyone is telling about their arguments with people 'opposed to the war,' and here you have a recorded edition.

Also, a few more 'educated' rebutal examples: 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-MZdVgTR2e8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JuZKtJos8Ak&mode=related&search=


----------



## Rodahn (2 Nov 2006)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> More about the protester mindset:
> 
> The fact that one of these people is in a teaching position at a University is rather scarey, if he is unable to assemble a coherent and factually correct argument out of easily Googled information, _what exactly is he teaching his students_?



Probably Basket Weaving 101, Stapling and Advanced Stapling......


----------



## condor888000 (2 Nov 2006)

career_radio-checker said:
			
		

> Also, a few more 'educated' rebutal examples:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-MZdVgTR2e8


Gotta love this guy, comparing Northern Ireland to Afghanistan, jeez.  :


----------



## Boxkicker (6 Nov 2006)

I have read through this thread, and felt I would like to add to this. I have views coming at me from all levels inside my family and in my personal life.
  My mother who ardently supports what we do (although she never wanted me to have this as a career) has taken the time to understand this mission and learn some of the little intricacies of it. My sister is a Dr. in Toronto absolutely hates my career choice, is totally and completely politically correct and a ardent feminist. know nothing of the mission refuse's to learn or even hear dissenting views. She thouroughly believes that anything that we have heard about the Taliban is lies and propaganda set out buy Bush and the PM. I even set her straight about the length of time we have been in Afghanistan. and she refused to listen. This is the true  mindset of the intelligentsia of this country, and it is sad that educated people refuse to listen to dissenting opinions. I have even emailed Taliban Jack and asked him for debate and intelligent conversation on this subject, identifying myself as a member of the military, I have not heard so much as a F*** OFF from him or his staff.
 It is sad to note that the ardent activist and protester, will never have an intelligent conversation about it. They believe that we are all brainwashed automaton's, my current girlfriend used to believe this until she met me and realised that we are people to. She still does not agree with the mission BUT she does respect my view, and my opinion. We have agreed to disagree, she is not a protester and never would, I do know that she will support me and at least she will listen.


----------



## a_majoor (7 Nov 2006)

Boxkicker, please tell your sister that if I were ever to discover that I was under her care I would refuse treatment from her in an instant, since a person who refuses to listen, hear or understand conflicting factual evidence *should and cannot be trusted to deal with a complex subject like medicine*. 

Imagine if the sensible people were able to shun, fire or otherwise shut out close minded individuals from professional work. Anyone who is unable or unwilling to look at evidence in a dispassionate manner simply will not be able to perform in a competent manner in ANY field, much less debate us about the military or politics. (Look at the drubbing ignorant people get when they attempt to bring these kinds of views here in Army.ca).


----------



## TCBF (7 Nov 2006)

"After talking with her for a couple minutes and asking her question after question which were followed by a blank stare, she informed that her prof has more credability than myself or else she wouldn't be a prof and she will take her profs opinion and word over mine anyday."

- Okay, I'm sure Lenin or Stalin or one of those Old-Timey Commies said something to the effect that they need only  control a country's education system for two generations and the revolution would succeed.  Are we there yet?

Tom


----------



## jonstarks (7 Nov 2006)

I think we are almost there.  It doesn't help the fact that so many university students classify themselves as NDP and are such strong followers of Taliban Jack and his posse.  With a combination of trusting so severely with authority figures without hesitation or questioning of their teachings and having someone like Taliban Jack influencing the minds of university students, it is a matter of time before his revolution succeeds.

"I shiver at the thought of Taliban Jack as PM."


----------



## North Star (7 Nov 2006)

A few points:
1) Debating Taliban Jack. He made his choice not to support the mission as a political marketing ploy, nothing else. It's therefore unwise to try and debate him on the topic, as all you'll have thrown at you are George Bush strawman arguments and other crap that plays well to his political niche. Now, if the Liberals start playing to that niche too, then the country will have a problem. Time and their leadership convention will tell. 
2) MDs. Some Medical Doctors are at a disadvantage when it comes to reasoning their way through the real world. It's a function of their "education" and professional selection process, which is focused entirely on science and not enough on logical reasoning, philosophy,  political science, or even people skills (the guys I know from UofT Med have a really bad reputation there). Then again, if I spent years of my life in a political bubble only reading biochemistry textbooks, I'd be a little naive too. Don't get me wrong, there are some good people who go to med school, it's just they don't get the time to look at the issues critically. 
3) Academia in general. A disturbing fact is many academics, despite being in the humanities, don't have a background in logical reasoning or philosophy. Think about that for a second. They hold a doctorate in philosophy, and yet never even learned how to construct a fallacy-free, solid argument. My field, history, was notorious for this. Another distrubing thing is the lack of breadth amongst tenured-track professors. How many full profs do you know ever operated in the "real world" ei diplomatic corps, military, business, politics (beyond being on a committee)? If they have, especially in the area of business or politics, they tend to rare and discounted as "insiders" by their colleagues. In my opinion, the acadmic community in Canada is suffering from a dillusional illness brought about by a lack of practical experience; an illness they're spreading to their students who accept their flawed reasoning by virtue of their naivete. 

So what can you do?

Present facts, build solid arguments from them, and use these arguments to make'm cry.


----------



## Boxkicker (7 Nov 2006)

North Star

I have noticed that from my sister after all she is a psychiatrist, and did a thesis on PTSD. What is worse is she could not see a problem with putting guy's from Bosnia in with rape and abuse victims. Those guys would open up and have half the room crying and the other half puking and running for cover. Absolutely no common dog.

 Incase nobody else knew old Taliban Jack was a university professor.

 A_Majoor you dont need to worry unless you have been in the laughing acadamy.


----------



## TCBF (8 Nov 2006)

"...the acadmic community in Canada is suffering from a dillusional illness brought about by a lack of practical experience; an illness they're spreading to their students who accept their flawed reasoning by virtue of their naivete."

- Good, hard-hitting conclusion.   

Tom


----------



## Brad Sallows (8 Nov 2006)

>They hold a doctorate in philosophy, and yet never even learned how to construct a fallacy-free, solid argument.

While I have a healthy lack of respect for the opinions of many humanities graduates, I think you'll find that philosophy department students, graduates, and professors are proficient at argumentation.

Given the number of humanities programs which require a strong foundation in written argumentation (ie. essay writing), I would expect the philosophy department's first-year introductory course in logical and critical thinking to be a requirement, but I suspect it isn't.


----------



## vonGarvin (8 Nov 2006)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> While I have a healthy lack of respect for the opinions of many humanities graduates, I think you'll find that philosophy department students, graduates, and professors are proficient at argumentation.
> 
> Given the number of humanities programs which require a strong foundation in written argumentation (ie. essay writing), I would expect the philosophy department's first-year introductory course in logical and critical thinking to be a requirement, but I suspect it isn't.


As a philosophy dept grad, not only are my fellows good at argumentation, but some at sophistry (a fancy word for BS)
All I can say is that where some of my fellow "humanaties" students had a few essays over four years, I had several concurrent essays throughout my four years.  I would say in excess of 60 in my four years, ranging from small (1000-2000 words) to HUGE (10 000 words).  I guess that's why I can type fairly fast now


----------



## North Star (8 Nov 2006)

Sorry Brad, but I respectfully disagree, to a degree, on your point

Creating an argument not only involves finding evidence supporting your viewpoint, but self-testing it against contrary evidence that may/will disprove it. I've found very few philosophy grads actually do this in their arguments, and know history/poli sci grads are even worse. When you point out the use of a heuristic such as stereotyping or a fallacy, they look like deer in headlights. Sure, I'm working on anecdotal evidence here, but that's all I really have to go on. 

I do concede that grad students and profs are pretty good, but the BAs they produce are pretty lousy. They should concentrate less on education of theories and more on training in argumentation.


----------



## North Star (8 Nov 2006)

I just read over your post again Brad, and suspect your theory as to why many humanities students can't reason is correct - it's simply not a requirement in universities anymore. I don't remember having to take a course in it...So, mainly agree with you!


----------



## TCBF (9 Nov 2006)

It's not about education anymore - it's about certification.


----------



## Hummertime (12 Nov 2006)

Thanks to career_radio-checker for posting this interview with a NDP supporter:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0vm7GtzAFs


----------



## jonstarks (12 Nov 2006)

In light of all the conversation and controversy about the education of our youth here in Canada, here is a video that is quite disturbing but also makes you think twice about complaining about our education system. That's not to say I support what profs are teaching and students are believing.

http://www.obsessionthemovie.com

click on trailers and clips and then the 12min version.


 Support our Troops


----------

