Remembrance Day Protest in Toronto

remembrance-day

These young women were protesting the “illegal occupation of Afghanistan” on Remembrance Day. They waited until the moment of silence to unleash this tirade against the ceremony.

  • fhl

    Do these women understand that the Afghan Government asked for Canada’s help?

  • liz J

    Wonder if they realize what they have the freedoms to do here are not allowed women in Afghanistan? Do they realize our troops were there to help the women and children in Afghanistan live and learn, protect them from the evils of Taliban rule? Do they have a clue at all? It’s to be noted they’re well versed with the “F” word.

  • oldwhiteguy

    those mental midgets understand nothing. ship them to afgahanistan and let them live under islam as practiced by the taliban.

  • Jen

    She should be back in Afghanistan protesting against the Taliban for killing and beheading women and children for showing any signs of wanting freedom to attend schools and be treated like human beings.

    I wonder what will happen to this protester if she protested against the Taliban to the Taliban faces telling them that they have no right to kill women and children, I wonder where her head would end up?

    If she does return to Afghanistan to take Bridget de pape with her with a sign “STOP TALIBAN”;

  • Jen

    NO! nor will the msm utter it. The less they (public) know of it or know that it was Chretien who with the request from Nato from the Afghan Governmet sent our troops into Afghanistan in 2001, the more the msm can point fingers that it is this government cpc that sent our troops in and for contradictions to be directed at the CPC..

  • kenn2

    Over the course of the current Afghanistan war (2001 to present), over ten thousand, maybe over twenty thousand Afghan civilians have died as a result of fighting. Not militants, civilians.

    Just over half of these civilians were killed by coalition action (in other words, our side), especially US bombing raids. It wasn’t til around 2008, when air attacks were dialled back, that more civilian casualties were caused annually by anti-government forces than by the coalition.

    Civilian injuries are expected to be much greater than the number of dead, and the number of people displaced from their homes is somewhere north of 120,000. Maybe even double that.

    So, the Afghans have reasonable grounds, I think, to be less than thrilled about the conduct of the war. Unfortunately, we can’t rewind, we can only go forward, and hope that the coalition efforts do ultimately result in lasting peace and safety for the citizens of Afghanistan.

    I do wonder what the World War dead would think of our having largely abandoned our respected role as world peacekeepers for one of invaders, however justified it might have been.

  • fhl

    kenn2 are you sure that our Canadian military are responsible?
    Where are your facts to prove that Canada’s military are killing civilians in Afghanistan?
    Opinions mean nothing back up your outrages allegations with FACTS

  • kenn2

    Facts? You could, maybe, follow the link?

    Also, I said ‘coalition’, of which Canada was a part.

  • fhl

    kenn2 follow a link with the word maybe hardly facts.
    just who is it that Canada has ” one of invaders” invaded?

  • GabbyInQC

    http://www.canadahistory.com/sections/War/peacekeeping/peacekeeping.htm
    “Canada’s role as a peacekeeper throughout the world began in the 50′s when Lester Pearson, Canada’s ambassador to the UN suggested that the organization might create a peace keeping force.”
    Therefore, “… what the World War dead would think …” is an irrelevant question, chronologically speaking.

    Furthermore … Noted military historian Jack Granatstein was quoted here: http://www.cdfai.org/the3dsblog/?p=642
    “… We should do peacekeeping when we can, when the circumstances are right, when the United Nations is really on board, when there is money to pay for it from the UN, and when it’s in a place that serves our national interests.”
    The notion that the Canadian military is or should be primarily devoted to peacekeeping is not only a distortion of history, but reflects a naïve and sentimental view of the world, says Granatstein. If Canadian soldiers have been good peacekeepers, he says, it’s because they were first and foremost trained as combat troops.
    When you have people talking about the tradition of Canadian peacekeeping policy, it’s a crock. This is a country that’s fought wars. That’s our tradition. Peacekeeping has always been a tiny portion of what the Canadian Forces did.”

    I’ll take Granatstein’s opinion over yours any day.

  • kenn2

    Hi and welcome to the Internet.

    “Hyperlinks” – or simply links – are commonly used to provide context and further information related to the content of the link itself. Links are generally underlined or in a contrasting colour to indicate that they are hyperlinks, and the mouse pointer generally changes to a hand with an extended index finger when you mouse over them.

    To save you some time:

    GO TO HERE FOR FACTS => http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_in_the_War_in_Afghanistan_%282001%E2%80%93present%29

    Just click on the blue thing. Hope that’s clear.

  • fhl

    kenn2 thank you for your useless attempt to explain you have no FACTS

  • kenn2

    You’re welcome. Come again.

  • fhl

    any one interested in the facts on Canada’s Military involvement in Afghanistan can find this a good source

    http://www.mapleleafweb.com/features/canada-afghanistan-military-amp-development-roles#military

  • DougM

    Kenn2 is just a nutbar with a desire to attack anything and everything that might be considered common sense or proud of, or pride in Canada. In fact, he’s pretty much identical to the women in the clip. He hates any concept of the recognition that the protesters (all two of them – this is news – really?) might be doing things that would get them stoned (and no- not the BC kind of stoned) in the very country they are claiming to defend. There is a point where one recognises a troll – and kenny boy is one.

  • DougM

    How many civilians were killed in WW II? (Hint – it was in the millions) Where do you get the idea that in war, especially a war where the combatants hide amongst the civilian populace for protection, will have no civilian deaths???? The mechanism in this war is ridiculous – the real way to win in an insurgency is to back out, let the insurgents take over the government, and them bomb them back to the stone age – over and over again until the populace throws them out. This going in with “hearts and minds” only kills more of our people than it does them. War means war. Not partial war, not limited war, and not “surgical” war. An insurgency is very hard to win. Strictly speaking, the loss of one of our highly trained and educated men or women to save uneducated Taliban savages is not the product of a reasonable cost/benefit analysis. We let our Western emotions and civilized morals get in the way of something that is, by its nature, uncivilized and immoral – namely war. Al Qeada attacked the WTC. The UN agreed that it was a hostile act and therefore and act of war. The US in particular and the west in general is under no requirement to coddle the attackers. They reap what they sow. if the populace accepts them doing it, then they should bear some responsibility. The Liberals got us into this (about the only treaty obligation they ever actually upheld). But the mission is an honest and just one. Tactically and strategically, the way we are doing it is wrong.

  • kenn2

    We seem to agree mostly .

    One exception – the Afghanistan “mission” started as a poorly conceived, knee-jerk revenge response to 9/11, and the mission was changed repeatedly as the coalition learned the hard way what the Russians had learned 20+ years ago. (a time when the west thought it prudent to provide arms and aid to the Taliban, btw. You reap what you sow, right?). This week, the mission seems ‘just’. Next week…who knows?

    My main point was simply to mention that for the average Afghan, this war hasn’t exactly been a blessing, and statistically speaking, their lives have so far been made worse, not better, by the invasion. Ergo, they have grounds to protest, and this swooning because they have the ingratitude to speak out against our largesse is somewhat naive.

    We all know there’s no way to go but forward, and there remains a chance that eventually, Afghanistan will be a better place than when we invaded.

  • kenn2

    Good dougie. Have a cookie.

  • fhl

    I do not believe the Canadian military was in Afghanistan to plunder and pillage
    The many soldiers and their families would agree with you this has not been a blessing for the soldiers and many soldiers lives have been made worse not better , by their brave undertaking to help free the Afghans women and children and to build schools and to strengthen the Afghan army
    I do not think any one would agree with your opinion that the “”mission” started as a poorly conceived, knee-jerk revenge response to 9/11″
    9/11 was the most horrific attack on innocent citizens in their work place in all of History

  • kenn2

    I do not think any one would agree with your opinion that the “”mission”
    started as a poorly conceived, knee-jerk revenge response to 9/11″

    Really? if you knew in 2001 that the mission would take over 11 years, cost over $450 BILLION, kill over 20,000 innocent Afghan citizens, injure or displace over 150,000 Afghans, kill over 3200 coalition troops, over 17,000 soldiers wounded… would you have been OK with that?

    No, this war has been a mess, and a solid outcome is still far from certain.

    9/11 was the most horrific attack on innocent citizens in their work place in all of History

    … wow. You skipped out of history in high school, didn’t you?

    Here’s just two three that were, um, worse: Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden.

  • fhl

    I did not realize we were in a war back in 2001. I was under the impression that the people in the towers were working peacefully the airlines were at work taking working and holidaying people from one destination to another peacefully
    if you have any facts to support that this was not the most horrific attack on innocent citizens please feel free to vent
    the war atrocities occurred no one NO ONE disputes those

  • DougM

    Can’t have a cookie, want to lose another 20 lbs to get back down to my high school weight. But hey, don’t take offense! I’ve always found you amusing. Not everyone can speak with so much confidence on something they know absolutely nothing about! That’s a gift! I see you one day at the very head of some fringe group that is the future equivilent of the Flat Earth Society. I predict big things for you.

  • DougM

    Geez, yet another example of you leading with your mouth and trying to spit out both feet at the same time.

    1. Most wars are begun in a “knee-jerk reaction”. I believe it was Eisenhower who said that “War should always come as s surprise to a democracy.” The reason for that is twofold. One, modern war machines are so complex that you just can’t go out and but them at Walmart and two when one is attacked, it is generally done for maximum benefit to the attacker – they seek to surprise so as to gain the most benefit – that’s the whole point.

    2. Secondly, Afghanistan was not a “revenge” attack but an entirely legal one sanctioned by the UN once it agreed with the US that the attack on the WTC was indeed a “hostile act.” (Read up on it). I realise that there are halfwits out there who beleive that the US should just stand down as 3000 of their civilians are targeted and killed, but they should be sterilized as a danger to our gene pool. The fact is that the primary task of any government is to protect their citizens and the US is no different.

    3. The approach of the Russians, and the approach of ISAF is so different as to make your comment especially specious.

    4. As I mentioned, war is no picnic for the natives. But given that the Talban were hanging 12 year old girls from the soccer stadium goal posts, its hard to say they are not better off now. Try a search on Youtube for http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4MV-N5om7Gc for the more graphic example. Note that when a 7.62 mm jacketed round goes through someones head, it does not splinter (Warning – this is a graphic video, and is unadulterated real life) So the point that they are worse off than before would only be valid if they (the Afghan’s not the Taliban) were wanting us out of their country – and they do not, in fact they are pissed we are withdrawing. So once more your arguement hold absolutely no water what so ever, but thanks for coming out in any case.

  • kenn2

    1 & 2 – Nothing you’ve said counters the fact that the Afghanistan “mission” started as a poorly conceived, knee-jerk revenge response to 9/11. Afghanistan didn’t attack the US. Al Qaeda did. More specifically a fairly small group funded and led by a rich engineer did. No-one’s saying that a response wasn’t necessary, but history shows how poorly conceived and executed it was, considering it was a coalition led by the world’s most advanced military power, against a 15th century clan with modest firepower. And the UN waving their wand over it doesn’t change the revenge theme. Funny you siding with the UN for once, btw. (OK, twice)

    3 – The hubris that Afghanistan can be vaulted from the 15th to the 21st century in one go was the same. And of course you avoid the point that the west helped put the Taliban in power in the first place.

    4 – IF Afghanistan emerges as and stays a country where 12-year-old girls are playing soccer instead of being hung from goalposts… that would be a good thing. This outcome is far from certain, and barring a longer-term occupation, it will most likely slip back to being a medieval theocracy. With even more reasons to hate the infidels.

  • kenn2

    I don’t think that as innocent people die, they pause to consider whether or not a “declared war” is responsible.

  • liz J

    it may be time to stop digging, put away the shovel, you’re in over your head.

  • kenn2

    Well, with any luck, someone with actual military experience in Afghanistan will show up again to set us straight.

  • DougM

    Once again, you either haven’t the background to understand or are determined not to. The US waited for months before engaging in Afghanistan. When they did, they effectively removed the Taliban and the government in power in less than a week and chased them up into the hills of Torabora until the ran for Pastun territory in Pakistan – poorly conceived? I’d hate to see you define a success. You can certainly say that was the case for their (the US) obtuse adventure into Iraq, and you can equally say that for dropping the ball in Afghanistan until Obama got in, but the mission in Afghanistan was entirelly logical and even legal under Intertational Law and the Law of Armed Conflict.

    If you had any military experience at all, you would understand that having lots of very powerful weapons does not guarantee success in asymetrical conflict – (see – Viet Nam). I’ve already told you how to win against an insurgency but you don’t seem to get that either. The coalition, for better or worse decided, to do it the hard way – very expensive trying to nation build in both blood and treasure, but it is the moral thing to do.

    The UN is becoming a ludicrous joke. It is largely ineffective (Syria – Angola – Bosnia – Rwanda – Chechnya – Sudan etc etc etc.)- Even ISAF works with the UN approval but under NATO command – the UN bugged out amost immediately when its offices were bombed. The one thing the UN still does, is to provide a forum which all nations can speak in. Or in Churchill’s worlds “It is better to jaw jaw, than to war war.” It’s sole importance has been reduced to that single purpose and yet it still trys to attack the most free and modern liberal democracies in the world while largely ignoring the worst. I don’t have a problem with criticism, but everyone has to be on the same level and they have tons of work to do before they get there.

    The only person in the world that I’ve ever heard from who thinks the intent is to take Afghanistan “from the 15th to the 21st century in one go” is you. The whole reason for creating and training the ANA is because no one believe’s that is a). possible, or b). that it can be done by foreigners in a rabidly xenophobic society. Yes the outcome is uncertain – but no war is ever “certain” when it begins. You may think WW ll was a gimme now, but let me tell you it looked proecisely the opposite for years. Afghanistan is an entirely logical and legal response to a hostile act – or casus belli – which I see you didn’t check up on either.

    I have a sneakng suspicion that our pal from Kabul is no longer there but absolutely no proof of that. I was very interested in his point of view and how he arrived at it, but what he said wasn’t very bright for a person in theatre.

  • kenn2

    Same question to you that I asked previously:

    if in 2001 you were presented with a plan for invading Afghanistan that would take over 11 years, cost over $450 BILLION, kill over 20,000 innocent Afghan citizens, injure or displace over 150,000 Afghans, kill over 3200 coalition troops, over coalition 17,000 soldiers wounded… would you have been OK with that, as a response to 9/11? Would that have been a plan you could get behind? Could you have sold that to the US public?

    You have all the answers now, but where were you or the other military sages back then?

  • fhl

    it depends in time of war who are these innocent people?

  • DougM

    Here’s just two three that were, um, worse: Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden.

    It appears that he isn’t the only one who skipped out of History in High school – there have effectively been two wars in which the concept of “total war” was used – the Punic wars and WW II. Please note that the “horrific attacks on civilians” you use were used as retalitory attacks on two countries who initated the largest conflict in history. Japan was a fanatical adversary – the A bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved thousands of Allied lives. I’ve always had a rough time with the firebombing of Dresden as well – but speak to people who were in London or Coventry during the blitz and try to tell them you know better. Why is it that you only mourn the ones who began the war?

  • kenn2

    It seemed that we were discussing the death of innocents, aka noncombatants. Were not Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden “horrific attacks on civilians”, too? I mourn all pointless killing. Regardless of what fig leaf is used to justify it.

    I’ve been very careful to NOT add judgements or opinions to the facts (eg the linked things) I’ve been posting here. Just numbers, verified wherever possible. But it seems that here, this is equivalent to being some sort of naive peacenik.

    I humbly suggest that anyone here who claims to support “the troops” and the Afghan mission, but stick their heads in the ground when the numbers come up are the naive ones. If the hard numbers disturb people, they can a) ignore them, b) throw names at me, or c) learn more and have a better appreciation for the true cost of the Afghan invasion, and what we ask of our troops.

  • fhl

    you sir take the cake for name throwing and uncalled for insults

  • kenn2

    Ok, I’m rude.

    It’s also rude to ignore questions, such as:

    if in 2001 you were presented with a plan for invading Afghanistan that
    would take over 11 years, cost over $450 BILLION, kill over 20,000
    innocent Afghan citizens, injure or displace over 150,000 Afghans, kill
    over 3200 coalition troops, over coalition 17,000 soldiers wounded…
    would you have been OK with that, as a response to 9/11?

  • fhl

    I was very aware that the cost would be high
    What course of action would you recommend now, in hind sight, to protect us from terrorists attacks?
    WW2 Churchill knew the war costs would be high. Should Churchill not have responded to Hitler?
    Wound innocent lives have been spared by Hitler? Did Hitler spare innocent lives?
    Did the Japanese spare innocent lives?

  • fhl

    spelling wound is Would innocent

  • kenn2

    [facepalm]

  • DougM

    It seemed that we were discussing the death of innocents, aka
    noncombatants. Were not Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden “horrific attacks
    on civilians”, too? I mourn all pointless killing. Regardless of what
    fig leaf is used to justify it.

    What a load of self serving Bull. You specfically only mentioned the agressor nations, each of which committed some of the worse atrocities ever seen in the modern world while leaving out the millions of victims they left in their wake before they were defeated. Like any other troll……

    [edit] Opinions aside, I’ve tried hard to provide straight-up facts.
    Numbers, verified wherever possible. But it seems that here, this is
    equivalent to being some sort of naive peacenik.

    Naive is a very self agrandizing way of putting it – they call it war, not bowling, for a reason. If you are looking for a place where armed combat is carried out with no damage or death to civilians, “naive” is a ridiculously loose term.

    I humbly suggest that anyone here who claims to support “the troops”
    and the Afghan mission, but stick their heads in the ground when the
    numbers come up are the naive ones. If the hard numbers disturb people,
    they can a) ignore them, b) throw names at me, or c) learn more and have
    a better appreciation for the true cost of the Afghan invasion, and
    what we ask of our troops.

    Oh poor, poor widdle you. The fact that most people can understand the realities of war doesn’t mean they “stick their heads in the sand” or “ignore them”. It means they understand what you clearly do not and have some common sense. In the real world, there’s a reason you don’t go up and attack the civilians of a country with a far superior military capability than you have. I wouldn’t have thought that conclusion was a particularly difficult one to arrive at, but apparently for you, it is beyound your grasp – that’s not anyone else’s fault.

  • fhl

    I guess your opinion is the only one that counts.

  • fhl

    Be willing to let us know how WE should have responded
    we need your expertise

  • kenn2

    You specfically only mentioned the agressor nations

    Context, Einstein. That was to counter someone having the vapours over 9/11 as the WURST ATAK EVARRRR.

    The fact that most people can understand the realities of war…

    You know better than I that most people DON’T, especially when the wars are conducted safely over THERE, and fall off the front pages. Otherwise no-one would be avoiding or fighting against the data.

    In the real world, there’s a reason you don’t go up and attack the civilians of a country with a far superior military capability

    Afghanistan DIDN’T attack the US. The Taliban, as nasty as they are, didn’t attack the US. Al Qaeda did. That’s the reality. And the numbers confirm that the invasion wasn’t planned and executed very well. Obviously civilian casualties are just so much collateral chaff to you, but as a putative conservative, you should object to the colossal waste of money and resources with little to show for it. It’s a net loss if you consider the invasion’s effect on a generation of kids over there as extremist recruiting material.

    Alot of progressives have been down on Obama for his use of drone attacks, but give him this: when he uses the military option, they’re not grand dick-swinging full dress invasions like Iraq and Afghanistan, they’re well-targeted, pinpoint operations that are cost-effective and with far less collateral damage.

  • fhl
  • fhl