# Anti-War Protest Message Highlights



## The Bread Guy (28 Oct 2007)

Thought I'd share some message highlights from the protests yesterday.



> They say Western troops in the war-torn country have been ineffective at preventing violence against women and deaths to civilians. She added that the military presence has fueled civil war.  A “negotiated settlement” with all relevant groups within Afghanistan is the best way to end current strife, protest leaflets said. Peace coalition members also support the idea of helping Afghanistan by offering health care and other humanitarian aid.  (One protester in Thunder Bay), who isn‘t a formal member of the peace coalition but supports it anyways, believes war shouldn‘t exist at all.  Waving a three-foot long white placard shaped like a dove with a red tear creeping out of its eye .... like-minded coalition members also planned to deliver their message in the Intercity Shopping Centre area.  ....  according to group spokesman Bob Manson, “We don‘t want (our troops) going into Iran and places like that without our government, our parliament and our voices being known,” he said.  Manson said he also doesn‘t want people to get the wrong idea by thinking his coalition doesn‘t support Canada‘s army members. The group claims it has nothing against the Canadian Forces."   Chronicle-Journal, Thunder Bay, 28 Oct 07





> " Collette Lemieux, co-chair of the Canadian Peace Alliance, organized yesterday's Calgary event to mark the sixth anniversary of Canada's involvement in the U.S.-led war in Afghanistan.  In that time, she argued the coalition forces have done little to bring stability to the troubled region.  "We don't believe the Canadian military is actually doing anything to support the people of Afghanistan," said Lemieux.  "We just don't think war is the solution to this."  Lemieux was careful to add that peace activists are supportive of Canadian troops.  "I do support the troops, but I do not support the mission," she said." Calgary Sun, 28 Oct 07





> "Robert Batsch, 49, brought his daughters Jamie, 18, and Robyn, 12, to show their collective displeasure with the situation in Afghanistan (in Ottawa).  Batsch said he did not like the role Canada was taking in the war, and that Canada's military should stick to peacekeeping and stay away from military actions.  His daughter Jamie said the war had gone on far too long and the federal government was not paying attention to the voice of its people.  "They shouldn't be making decisions that not everyone agrees with," she said."  CanWest News, 28 Oct 07






> "They chanted "George Bush we know you, your daddy's a killer too!" while marching down Yonge St.  On Queen St. E. heading towards the Moss Park Armouries, they shouted, "From Iraq to Palestine, occupation is a crime!" ....  (James Clark, an organizer with the Toronto Coalition to Stop the War) said the anti-war movement supports the Canadian soldiers because the troops are being "exploited for a broader political agenda" by the Canadian government.  "We do raise the slogan, 'support our troops, bring them home now,' " Clark said. "We don't think they should be sent off as cannon fodder."  Clark said he wanted the demonstration to send a message to the Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan -- that supporting the troops means bringing them home.  "It's about sending a message to the troops that we're not against you," Clark said. "We know that you don't make the decision to go to war, it's the federal government.  "We know a lot of troops signed up with the best intentions and want to see a better life for Afghan and they want to harness our resources to do that, and we're sympathetic to that. But we don't think this mission is doing that." Toronto Sun, 28 Oct 07





> "Close to 300 protesters waving signs scrawled with messages such as "Canada out! Stop killing civilians!" and "War isn't a solution" marched through (Montreal's) downtown core.  "We have been dragged into a war by the Americans and we've lost our role as peacekeepers, which was a very distinguished role for Canadians," said demonstrator Joseph Baker.  "We have a role to play in Afghanistan and it should be a constructive role."  ...  Matt Jones, a member of the anti-war group that organized the protest, said all foreign troops should pull out of Afghanistan.  "We don't see any evidence of progress in Afghanistan," said Jones, who pointed to women's rights as an example.  "We see that women are still afraid to go to school, to participate in social life." Canadian Press, 28 Oct 07



_- edited to add CP material from Montreal - _


----------



## R_Collins (28 Oct 2007)

Just direct them to http://ruxted.ca/index.php?/archives/75-GOOD-NEWS!.html and watch as their brain melts at the concept of the military having been a GOOD thing for Afghanistan.

I wish I could really begin to understand the whole 'Canada is killing civillians' or 'US is murdering innocents' sentiment that so permeates anti-war groups. Seriously, it makes no sense.


----------



## Hedgehog18 (28 Oct 2007)

If only we could plaster that across the new stations !  Good job men and women


----------



## pbi (28 Oct 2007)

Well...maybe we should be happy that we live in a country where these people can march and express themselves freely, even if we don't agree with them, even if they have no actual idea what they're talking about, and even if they probably can't articulate a solution for Afghanistan that would work. Two things bug me, though.

First, I really, really hate this mindless argument by people who say they support the troops but not the mission. Perhaps I've been a professional soldier for too long and I can't think straight anymore, but that line of thinking makes no sense to me. If you disagree with something, and find it wrong and evil, and want it to stop, and disagree with everything it represents, how can you in any moral conscience or logical train of thought support the people who willingly carry it out and believe in it? What I think is really going on on the part of the anti-Afghanistan groups is a cynical information operation. They have realized that the military is more popular and respected than it has been in decades (witness the recent bleating by Stephen Staples about the "militarization" of Canadian society...) and that attacking the troops directly ala Vietnam "baby burners" would be a non-starter and probably blow back on them. So, they go this route of "support the troops but not the mission", which of course plays well in the circles of those who see us as mindless minions who suck up all the propaganda the Govt and the CF throws at us (instead of forming our opinions by our experiences in country or from peers who have been in-country). We are the poor helpless little souls who must be rescued. It makes me sick.

Second, let's remember as a military to promise ourselves one thing: we will never EVER again try to hide our true nature from the public and sell ourselves as something we're not, no matter how attractive and self-serving that might be at the time. We are still eating this peacekeeping crap and it is biting us in the ass. We have a duty to be honest about who we are and what armies are for.

Cheers


----------



## Hedgehog18 (28 Oct 2007)

rightly said PBI nice post


----------



## Pte.Butt (28 Oct 2007)

pbi said:
			
		

> First, I really, really hate this mindless argument by people who say they support the troops but not the mission



I hope they don't think they are doing us a favor. 
See. the Canadian Forces, as a whole, supports the mission. So if they support our soldiers, who also support the war, then aren't they supporting what they are against? They support the people who actually get their hands dirty when the poop hits the fan, and the people who know the facts, and want to help. They support us, we support the war, it just boggles me how this is logical to ''them''.


----------



## pbi (28 Oct 2007)

Pte.Butt said:
			
		

> They support us, we support the war, it just boggles me how this is logical to ''them''.



Unfortunately, this disjointed line of thinking is not just confined to the hardcore marchers and shouters-it seems to me that there are a number of "average Canadians" out there who are also guilty of this. Without having anything useful or comprehensive to base their opinions about the mission on, these good folks drive around with the ribbons on their cars or the red t-shirts on Fridays but when asked by CBC or the Globe they give kneejerk bumper-sticker responses like "bring the troops home" or "we shouldn't be there". I find this kind of hypocrisy especially hard to swallow when I hear it coming from people the media describes as "veterans" (I guess they are referring to people they find in Legions), who should either know better than to say stupid things or not offer comments that undermine today's generation of Canadian soldiers. Most of them don't seem to have applied any more knowledge, analysis or comprehension to their answers than the average nay-sayer with no military experience at all.

Now: I don't want to come across as being ungrateful for the genuine support and sentiments of Canadians: in fact, I am endlessly surprised and humbled by it. I just wish I could be sure that all Canadians knew what they were talking about and had formed their opinions based on something solid. Is it their fault? I don't know.  I tend to blame the Govt for failing to launch a full-court press on informing and preparing the public: even now I think we are still  missing the mark. Lesson: before we ever do something like this again, get the public onside and keep them informed.

Cheers


----------



## Flip (28 Oct 2007)

> I hope they don't think they are doing us a favor.



It has been my observation that yes, they do.

The peace movement by and large cannot accept that
Iraq and Afghanistan are not Vietnam revisited.
Draftee army etc.

I include Iraq because they do.
I have a long running arguement with a someone I know.
It always starts with Iraq and how it's just like Vietnam.

Know what bugs me?
The peace crowd don't even understand Vietnam in retrospect.
About Afghanistan?  They've heard it all before.( so they think. )

I've said it before - to them it's about feelings, not facts.


----------



## TN2IC (28 Oct 2007)

Flip said:
			
		

> I've said it before - to them it's about feelings, not facts.



+1

Agree 100%


----------



## honestyrules (28 Oct 2007)

> Second, let's remember as a military to promise ourselves one thing: we will never EVER again try to hide our true nature from the public and sell ourselves as something we're not, no matter how attractive and self-serving that might be at the time. We are still eating this peacekeeping crap and it is biting us in the ***. We have a duty to be honest about who we are and what armies are for.



+1.

I wish this could be passed to ( and understood by ) every CF members.


----------



## The Bread Guy (29 Oct 2007)

Well done - at the risk of sounding cliche, better to light one candle than to just curse the darkness....


----------



## kratz (29 Oct 2007)

pbi,

Your final comment was well stated. All members represent Canada. The military should not hide the duties we perform


----------



## Greymatters (29 Oct 2007)

decoy said:
			
		

> Just wanted to add that I tried to organize a counter-protest in Ottawa, and we got a mention here: - even though only a few of us showed up
> 
> http://www.ottawasun.com/News/OttawaAndRegion/2007/10/28/4611097-sun.html



I was wondering why it wasnt mentioned in the articles here on the west coast...


----------



## prairefire (29 Oct 2007)

Does anyone remember in the mid to late 70's when Ottawa directed that Military Personnel were not supposed to travel in uniform except when on Service A\C?? It was an insulting effort by the pointy heads at DND to hide the "military" nature of the Forces so that we would not incite anitwar protests as well as to ensure that we were understood to be the same as the rest of the civil service......


Part of the covering up our true nature..............


----------



## bdog (30 Oct 2007)

> "They shouldn't be making decisions that not everyone agrees with," she said



So then Jamie we shouldn't withdraw then by your logic


----------



## The Bread Guy (30 Oct 2007)

It appears, according to the Google English translation of this French language news article that charges are being pondered by Sherbrooke Police against protesters who poured gasoline on the head of some police officer during a protest Saturday.  Pink paint was apparently splashed on police cars and the APC in front of Sherbrooke Armouries as well.

Give peace a chance - riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight....


----------



## Long in the tooth (30 Oct 2007)

There's a big disconnect (cognitive dissonance?) in many when discussing the mission.  Responsibility to Protect?  A Fine Document indeed.  Actual intervention?  Not if we need weapons; it's not the the 'Canadian Way'.  I find it's necessary to take people by the hand and gently go point by point until the dots line up for them.


----------



## vonGarvin (30 Oct 2007)

Pink Paint on the "tank" is SO IRONIC!  They protest our "warlike, GW Bush Mission to the oilfields of Afghanistan" and demand a return to our "Traditional" Peacekeeping ways, and then the retarded apes pour pink paint on one of our "tanks", which is done up in UN white paint!!!  I LOVE THESE IDIOTS!


Also, protesting war by doing violent acts against the police is SO EFFECTIVE ("Violence never solved anything.  That's why I'm pouring gas on you")


----------



## Colin Parkinson (30 Oct 2007)

Flip said:
			
		

> It has been my observation that yes, they do.
> 
> The peace movement by and large cannot accept that
> Iraq and Afghanistan are not Vietnam revisited.
> ...



In a way they are correct, thepeace movement and the media cost the US victory in Vietnam, the VC and NVA were pretty much a spent force after Tet, this according to interviewed retired NV generals. Tet was always considered an last ditch attack on US public morale. They gambled and won.


----------



## Flip (30 Oct 2007)

So, the US withdrew from Vietnam.......
What came next? Peace? ......No.

Was this the moral victory the peace movement wanted?
Not really.

There's the problem - If the peaceniks know they can derail
a war effort midway through. They hope that will make 
everyone safe from war.  The actual cause is irrelevant.
What happens to Afghanistan, Iraq, or Vietnam for that matter
is irrelevant. Just as long as they can keep troops out of the field.

This doesn't make me feel any safer or more enlightened.
But it works for some people.

If you never see the fire department - there are no fires.
If you never see police - there is no crime.
If you never see the doctor - you're not sick.
These are all perfectly true - until they are false.


----------



## Greymatters (30 Oct 2007)

Mortarman Rockpainter said:
			
		

> Pink Paint on the "tank" is SO IRONIC!  They protest our "warlike, GW Bush Mission to the oilfields of Afghanistan" and demand a return to our "Traditional" Peacekeeping ways, and then the retarded apes pour pink paint on one of our "tanks", which is done up in UN white paint!!!  I LOVE THESE IDIOTS!  Also, protesting war by doing violent acts against the police is SO EFFECTIVE ("Violence never solved anything.  That's why I'm pouring gas on you")



Thats the 'direct action' way, hiding among the real peace-lovers...  its just an excuse to trash the symbols of society they cant fit into...


----------



## Long in the tooth (30 Oct 2007)

I'm waiting for police detective known as the 'Pink Panzer' show up.... yep, pretty shallow.


----------



## The Bread Guy (1 Nov 2007)

Mortarman Rockpainter said:
			
		

> Pink Paint on the "tank" is SO IRONIC!  They protest our "warlike, GW Bush Mission to the oilfields of Afghanistan" and demand a return to our "Traditional" Peacekeeping ways, and then the retarded apes pour pink paint on one of our "tanks", which is done up in UN white paint!!!  I LOVE THESE IDIOTS!



Here, here....

BTW, anybody know the story behind the (what looks like) the Lynx in front of the Sherbrooke Armouries?  I'm guessing a tenant unit may have used it at some point on a UN mission.  Even the Wikipedia listing for the Lynx doesn't mention the Sherbrooke vehicle as one of several on display around the world.  

Then again, old age may be interfering with my AFG recognition skills - can't be sure if it's not in three-view on an overhead projector


----------



## The Bread Guy (20 Nov 2007)

The plot thickens.....

I blogged a while back about the 27 Oct 07 "peace" protest in front of the Sherbrooke QC armouries, but now, I see the Quebec Federation of Journalists is getting involved in the fray.

Anyone with better French than me (it can ONLY be better) is free to correct me or refine nuance, but it appears a student reporter for the Univeristy of Sherbrooke's paper, who appears to be a French national, has been arrested and charged.  She says she was just reporting, Sherbrooke police say she was one of the demonstrators.  Her passport is in custody as well, meaning she can't go back to France, if I read correctly.

Now, the Federation is complaining, saying, ""We are not in Iran! In Canada and Quebec, one does not stop the journalists who cover the political demonstrations!" and the student paper appears to be considering legal action.

Is it just me, or is the anti-war action in Sherbrooke a little feistier than elsewhere?  Or is it a case of the media there paying more attention to the protests as they happen?  If anyone who can shed some light on this, it would be much appreciated.


Sources:

"Une journaliste risque l’expulsion du Canada,"Le Journal de Sherbrooke, 16 Nov 07 - GoogleEnglish

"Une journaliste est arrêtée lors d'une manifestation à Sherbrooke - Violation de la liberté de presse selon la FPJQ," Federation of Journalists statement, 20 Nov 07 - GoogleEnglish

"«Action rose»: la FPJQ dénonce l’arrestation d’une journaliste," La Tribune (Sherbrooke), 20 Nov 07 - GoogleEnglish

"La FPJQ proteste contre une arrestation," Radio Canada, 21 Nov 07 - GoogleEnglish

Google News francais "Blandine Coulliard"

_- edited to add 16 Nov 07 reference -_


----------

