Libya, a current CF member's opinion

94 posts / 0 new
Last post
Slumberjack

People are interchangeable, so if its not one person carrying the water, the task is readily handed off to another willing person. No one is irreplaceable. It is also the case that one's demonstrated willingness is certainly not an insignificant factor when merit boards are convened to determine who's status will rise accordingly.

Where it concerns us here is in determining the status which best corresponds to this particular situation.  There are people for whom the totality of the corporate information machine and the dancing monkey politicians has them utterly convinced of the nobleness of their cause. These would largely consist of lazy, good for nothing rubes who constantly require others to do their thinking for them, who let others define what is moral and right in their own circumstance, and who think nothing more of it because the additional effort required to reconsider the issue in front of them from scratch is simply too much of a strain.

Then there are those who come to suspect that things aren't quite as they should be, or sense that something doesn't feel right about what they're engaged in, but who paper over any misgivings as best they can....and this is where the value of the wholesale propaganda effect comes into play....and they have their marching orders of course, which are handed down by higher pay grades who are considered ultimately responsible, and as a result, certainly must know what they are doing. The ‘just following orders' argument is a handy incentive when it involves inconvenient strands of moral ambiguity, because the people who come to rely upon such conscience cleansing exercises know enough to be assured by the tradition of the Western victor, where after all the bodies have been buried and the injured are left to suffer in silence, they'll never have to explain themselves before a war crimes tribunal where such defences were invalidated historically.

And finally, we encounter individuals within our society who understand very well the bald-faced lies being told to the public, and who knowingly regurgitate the falsehoods and excuses with the same aplomb and moral depravity as their organ grinding masters.

By the way...this also represents a current CF member's opinion.

CDN_FORCES

Gaian wrote:
Yes. I should have been more specific. "In the recent past" like Iraq, had Canada joined with dubious Dubya in going in on the strength of the WMD myth. And when it became known that your country's political leadership lied through their teeth, were nakedly wrong. That is what you are saying separates you from, say, American pilots who continue to obliterate good guys, not having the justification of a "good war" (like WW II, ie.) Can you conceive of a situation where you would grit your moral teeth and fall back on "orders is orders?"

Orders, if they're legal, are orders and you'd better follow them. If you can't accept that, or if you find yourself in a situation that causes you great moral doubt then you always have the option of leaving the CF, but if you still owe obligatory service due to education or training you won't be allowed to leave until that time is up or you repay the military. It will be a very difficult period for you. Unlike the US we haven't had very many claim CO (consciencious objector) to try to get out early. I can only relate my own experience, but it was made very clear to me before I signed up that serving in the CF carries unlimited liability; you can be ordered to do something that will very likely result in your death or someone elses. Not even the police have that level of commitment (not bragging, maybe "service" is a bette word).

I'll edit this to add that I was shot at in Aghanistan and didn't like it at all. I won't be going back there since my military time is coming to an end.

NDPP

Gaian wrote:
Yes. I should have been more specific. "In the recent past" like Iraq, had Canada joined with dubious Dubya in going in on the strength of the WMD myth.

NDPP

Operation Silent Partner: Canada's Quiet Complicity in the Iraq War

http://coat.ncf.ca/P4C/65/65.htm

But Canada DID join with dubious Dubya in going in...

Gaian

During the Second World War this kid listened in at night to a program, probably CBC, featuring the air crew of "L for Lanky" (a Lancaster bomber, of course)and I flew with them weekly in raids against the bad guys. I don't know if, in those days, it would have been against Nazis or Germans, and I had no idea what Bomber Harris was planning for Dresden and all the other burghers. By the time of Vietnam and visiting Parliament Hill to picket aganst that one, I had outgrown the crude construct of "enemy", fashioned in the simple minds of American politicians and public, but was proud that Canada didn't enter that one(although, this is likely to be shot down by NDPP or one of the more demanding posters).

I just wish that the Libya campaign did not shower laurels on a nascent fascist bastard by the name of Harper, who is itching for a dustup (Armageddon? - he's got the correct religious background for it) on the side of Israel. You're well out of that one. And I know tht you can't respond in kind, but thanks for demonstrating that not all military people join up out of an urge to draw blood. Be well.

6079_Smith_W

@ Gaian

You must be around my dad's age. He knew all the airplanes of that era by silhouette, never wasted an opportunity to mention my great uncle who was killed over there, and always thought it was a crime (and it was) that they built the short sterling, a bomber made with smaller wings to fit in hangers, but which killed a great many flying crew because of its bad design.

 

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

Gaian wrote:
By the time of Vietnam and visiting Parliament Hill to picket aganst that one, I had outgrown the crude construct of "enemy", fashioned in the simple minds of American politicians and public, but was proud that Canada didn't enter that one(although, this is likely to be shot down by NDPP or one of the more demanding posters).

I was picketing on Parliament Hill against the Vietnam war also. Except that, far from being proud of Canada, I was protesting the government's complicity in the war by serving as a willing [url=http://207.112.105.217/PEN/1992-11/collins2.html]supplier of weaponry and other war materiel to the American invaders and acting as their diplomatic spies and errand-boys[/url].

I carried a sign saying "End Canadian Complicity in the war". I don't recall seeing your "Proud Canadian" sign.

NDPP

"...There are things we don't know we don't know.." Donald Rumsfeld

Gaian

M. Spector wrote:

Gaian wrote:
By the time of Vietnam and visiting Parliament Hill to picket aganst that one, I had outgrown the crude construct of "enemy", fashioned in the simple minds of American politicians and public, but was proud that Canada didn't enter that one(although, this is likely to be shot down by NDPP or one of the more demanding posters).

I was picketing on Parliament Hill against the Vietnam war also. Except that, far from being proud of Canada, I was protesting the government's complicity in the war by serving as a willing [url=http://207.112.105.217/PEN/1992-11/collins2.html]supplier of weaponry and other war materiel to the American invaders and acting as their diplomatic spies and errand-boys[/url].

I carried a sign saying "End Canadian Complicity in the war". I don't recall seeing your "Proud Canadian" sign.

If that was during the visit by LBJ, I would not have noticed your offering. Chanting "Hey, hey, LBJ, how many kids did ya kill today," seemed reasonable protest. Anyway, the one-upmanship reaching back nearly a half-century seems rather unnecessary for mature correspondents. Sort of a "nya, nya" touch?

That would have been around the time that the Texan was roughing up Pearson - literally - for Pearson's speech against the war at a U.S.university. Not long after we got the maple leaf flag and medicare.

I don't know, we New Democrats were perhaps not so aware of "Canada's role" in the Vietnam war as others to the left of us. And that continues to be the basis for the bizarreness of babble today, doesn't it. "The Left" jumping up to throw spitballs at every opportunity, claiming superior virtue, even as the great mass of mainstreet hunkers down to survive in their world of work and raising a family, and ignorance. If only "The Left" had answers for them, was able to at least put forward hope in economic terms that weren't direct quotes from the literalists of another century. All rather sadly counter-productive, really.

I know, why don't you folks offer up a thread with economic answers, something to inspire?
Go on, give it a shot. Maybe it will distract you, give us relief from your bitter little pissing forays.

Bec.De.Corbin Bec.De.Corbin's picture

 

So CDN what aircraft did you fly over Libya?

Caissa

thread drift/I would like to commend the moderators for permitting this discussion to take place. I am enjoying reading it/end thread drift

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

Gaian wrote:

That would have been around the time that the Texan was roughing up Pearson - literally - for Pearson's speech against the war at a U.S.university. Not long after we got the maple leaf flag and medicare. I don't know, we New Democrats were perhaps not so aware of "Canada's role" in the Vietnam war as others to the left of us.

You know the old joke about how if you can remember the sixties, you weren't there?

Well if you can't remember that opposing Canadian complicity in the Vietnam War was the central theme of the major mobilizations in the Canadian anti-war movement, then you weren't there.

I guess you never heard the Canadian version of the American chant you quoted: "Pearson, Martin, LBJ - How many kids did you kill today?"

The NDP was quite aware of Canada's role in the war. Federal MP's spoke at anti-war rallies all across the country and their names were prominent in lists of endorsers of country-wide mobilization campaigns. The party had not yet severed all its ties with the social activist movement back then.

 

 

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

Caissa wrote:

thread drift/I would like to commend the moderators for permitting this discussion to take place. I am enjoying reading it/end thread drift

You've got to be fucking kidding me. This thread is a new nadir for babble.

MegB

500_Apples wrote:

The problem is that they both think they're the smartest people on the board when in fact they are clearly not. They will not bring this up at the babble board meeting. There is nothing to do. Babble is dying as more and more intelligent posters get driven away, and that is the end.

And yet you remain.

6079_Smith_W

Sorry to contribute to thread drift, but since there are two complaints in a row, I guess a third diversion won't hurt.

If there is anyone who thinks the moderation and general tenor of this site is exactly what they want I'd sure like that person to step forward. Near as I can tell the criticism comes from all sides. Now we can look on that as no one being satisfied, or as a difficult balancing act. 

As someone who has been shown the door more than once by other posters, I don't want to do the same to others. Am I pissed about some decisions? Sure, but Rebecca is correct in pointing out that we all have a free choice to stay here or not (excepting those who get banned, of course).

Do you think your voice and your contributions are worth the grief is the question, near as I see it. 

And as for this thread, I am sure it is no surprise to anyone that I think an open discussion on this is a good idea.

 

Unionist

A "senior" military person, defending the Canadian government's bombing of a sovereign country and openly supporting regime change by force of arms... as if this officer has some special and valuable insight into matters which in a democracy under supposedly under civilian control... That should lead to a fascinating conversation. What next? A senior Corrections Canada official explaining how building more prisons will help alleviate overcrowding, stimulate regional economic growth, and provide more opportunities for in-house training and treatment programs? I can hardly wait.

 

6079_Smith_W

@ Unionist

Well then we both see threads devoted so subjects which we see as offensive, baseless nonsense that we don't want to take part in. Seems liks a normal state of affairs in a forum where there is a range of opinions and ideas.

Seems inevitable, as a matter of fact.

 

 

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

Can I ask whether it's his support for regime change or his occupation which disqualifies CF from babble? In which case, how many other babblers will I need to disqualify in order to justly and equally implement this point of policy?

Slumberjack

Instead of these little segues spreading all over the place, why don't we move it under one roof to a 'mod bashing' thread or something, similar to the 'CBC bashing' one, where we can get all Pythonesque on any who'd venture in for a sample.  It'd be free of charge of course.

6079_Smith_W

Catchfire wrote:

Can I ask whether it's his support for regime change or his occupation which disqualifies CF from babble? In which case, how many other babblers will I need to disqualify in order to justly and equally implement this point of policy?

And really, it's not a question of the issues, since we have no problem discussing them, but whether we want to (without dominating the general discussion) let people who support those issues present their opinions themselves.

Perhaps it is just my training, but I think getting things from the source is the best option, and that there is nothing to fear from information.

and @  Slumberjack

That is the perfect solution, of course. I'd hate to have to be the cop assigned to police it, though.

 

 

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

6079_Smith_W wrote:

@ Gaian

You must be around my dad's age. He knew all the airplanes of that era by silhouette, never wasted an opportunity to mention my great uncle who was killed over there, and always thought it was a crime (and it was) that they built the short sterling, a bomber made with smaller wings to fit in hangers, but which killed a great many flying crew because of its bad design.

I was born 6 years after the war ended so I only have the lessons taught to me by my father and uncles who served in the Second World War.  They taught me war is evil and to be avoided at all costs.  The idea of Canada engaging in regime change as the airforce for one side in a civll war would not have impressed them in the least. None of them were left wing, they were mostly Liberals with a a smattering of Conservatives. After seeing war up close and personal they wanted peace not the endless war that we have had in Canada for the last decade.  We have been fighting as a country since the invasion of Afghanistan and this propagandist for the military is openly advocating that Syria deserves the same.

The NAZIS took from 1939 to 1945 to defeat. I think that the world has enough nasty dictators to keep our soldiers at war for the better part of this whole century. But I guess I should just accept my white man's burden and acknowledge it is our duty to protect people everywhere. Any people living in tyranny deserve to be saved by a cleansing of their public infrastructure followed by having a sharia law based corrupt government (with a democratic facade) imposed on them by NATO.  For the peoples own good. At least that is the pattern so far in Afghanistan and Iraq.  So far in Libya it seems the pattern is holding but it is still early days.

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

Catchfire wrote:

Can I ask whether it's his support for regime change or his occupation which disqualifies CF from babble? In which case, how many other babblers will I need to disqualify in order to justly and equally implement this point of policy?

It seems to me that in the case of people who willingly aid, abet, and defend war crimes that should be a no-brainer.

Slumberjack

Aid and abet could be anyone..right down to the dutiful taxpayer.

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

That's right. My comment was not about anyone in particular.

But I will say that paying taxes under penalty of law does not make one complicit, willingly or otherwise, in the crimes commited at the behest of the government.

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

Sometimes I think the best solution to M. Spector's criticisms would be to help him start up his own message board in which he is the only member who fits his high ethical and rhetorical standards. Then I realize this would deprive him of the only real pleasure he draws from babble and I rededicate myself to this valuable public service.

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

M. Spector wrote:

Catchfire wrote:

Can I ask whether it's his support for regime change or his occupation which disqualifies CF from babble? In which case, how many other babblers will I need to disqualify in order to justly and equally implement this point of policy?

It seems to me that in the case of people who willingly aid, abet, and defend war crimes that should be a no-brainer.

If I went into the Legion I would expect to be told that I was being disruptive and asked to leave if I expressed my views on the RCAF's role in Libya. I would not consider doing that because I respect other peoples spaces where they gather as a group. 

This Man of Honour shows no such regard for this space and the people who regularly chat in it.  He has already engaged in silencing techniques in the Syria thread. There are a hundred places on the internet to discuss the RCAF from a rah rah perspective.  This man is being a troll and instead of the door he is accorded courtesy. Courtesy that none of the anti-imperialist posters will receive from military people on any MSM board.

Here are two short quotes to show the depth of the Orwellian propaganda being spewed by this troll. The Gaddafi forces have no humanity. They are vile mindful actors deliberately trying to enslave others at their masters bequest.  They couldn't just be soldiers like the Canadian troops trying to do a difficult job in a civil war no they are MONSTERS.

This shit is nauseating and babble used to be a place where those kinds of comments were highlighted as unacceptable.

CDN Warmonger wrote:

Let's be clear: the aim of his troops was to murder civilians, by the most violent and ruthless way possible,

CDN Hero of the RCAF Condor Squad wrote:

That's not the type of person employed by the Canadian Armed Forces (and we could have a side discussion about the exceedingly few who have done deliberately horrible things like Russ Williams). And any Canadian soldier who has killed feels bad after, which is why there's PTSD. We don't go the USMC route of dehumanization. Those who kill and don't feel anything are the true monsters.

 

Unionist

Catchfire wrote:

Can I ask whether it's his support for regime change or his occupation which disqualifies CF from babble?

I can give you my opinion, CF. No one should be disqualified from babble because of who they are or what they do. This is a discussion board.

But if someone comes here to coldly advocate and defend the alliance of Western countries, including Canada, bombing a foreign country with the aim of helping one side in an internal fight to achieve power - and when that person blithely tells the truth, namely that "defence of civilians" was just a ruse and that regime change was the agenda all along - I could be wrong, but I think that advocating such practices offends against the anti-imperialist nature of this board, whether the country in question is Vietnam or Libya or Afghanistan or Iraq or Oka or Québec or (wait for it) Iran.

If we can't have such ground rules for discussion here, then why pretend? Why not have racist threads which (as Smith suggests) people who feel offended simply change the channel and don't read them?

To repeat - this has nothing to do with who he is. It's what he says which is contrary to the most fundamental notion of anti-imperialism.

 

Merowe

I was interested in CDN_FORCE's observation for the simple reason his experiences in the Libyan conflict were first-hand and different from the perspectives presented by the MSM, its critics on the left or the propaganda put out by the states involved. We're operating in a context where, even with the wondrous internet, good information from the conflict area is hard to find and far outweighed by the official story, endlessly repeated throughout our mediated world.

I would expect him to support (with possible reservations) the official narrative but that doesn't mean he can't also provide types of detail unavailable elsewhere. Already some of his comments have influenced my own understanding of Canada's role there.

I've no interest in trying to 'convert' him to or from any position since I just assume it will be radically different from my own, or those of many here. I was looking for a little insight into the mindset of a regular Canadian soldier on deployment. I really don't think he was proselytizing, rather, just disclosing his own position which seems fair enough. With apologies to CDN for speaking of him in the third person!

 

6079_Smith_W

How about we leave it to the moderators to decide what is and is not acceptable, non-disruptive commentary here. 

You know, I have only been on Free Republic and Free dominion  a few times, and i did actually comment there (the US site) once - about the proposed Mosque near ground Zero.  I was called all kind of names names, but I was not told that I had no place to comment there, certainly not with the same outrage I read here. 

So no, they certainly are not my allies, but they do share respect for some principles I believe in.

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

I guess here's where I stand: I would love to have a "starting from 'R'" conversation about Canada's imperialist interventions worldwide. Unfortunately, that conversation would exclude more than 50% of babble's current posters. Perhaps my posts on these matters haven't ben recorded over the years, but I think I've made clear where I stand personally. But frankly, I just don't have the time or the will to put in the work to enforce this kind of thing. Especially considering the amount of abuse I take every time I try to make such an attempt.

I would also love it if this place was welcoming to differently abled folk, but trying to get people to consider not using exclusionary language in that respect has failed utterly. I mean, utterly. I'd also like it if conversations about, say, Thanksgiving, used as its starting point its genocidal and racist roots. We've seen how that went.

People talk about the old days of babble a lot, and how awesome they used to be. I've been here a long time and I don't remember those halcyon days in the same way--we had at least two Canadian Forces members who posted and the allowable percentage of warmongering discourse was a helluva lot higher than it is now. But what I do remember is the general support and respect that most babblers gave Audra and Michelle, even when they disagreed. It's easy for me to accept that Rebecca and I don't inspire the same sort of feelings, but it's not so easy to accept how much light between the generations there is.

As much as Rebecca and I would love to have control over every facet of babble's climate and ongoing conversation, at some point babblers themselves have to take responsibility for the community and discussion they build. Of course I take stock and careful consideration of my role in how that atmosphere develops, because--shock!--I care about this place and dedicate way too much of my time to try to make it a better place--but sometimes I think I'm the only one, and that my most productive role is to be a focal point for everyone's criticisms (and not just about babble or about the left, but other junk that's happening in their lives).

So all this to say, I'm all for babble's anti-imperialist policy. Hell, it was my and Maysie's personal addition to the policy statement! But, by God, look at this thread! How much has it been focussing on anti-imperialism, and how much of it has been focussing on the failure of the mods (or some ambiguous someone) to be up to par? If we truly want to build an anti-imperialist space where solid leftist discussions can start and flourish, which conversation do we need to spend more time on?

Unionist

6079_Smith_W wrote:

So no, they certainly are not my allies, but they do share respect for some principles I believe in.

This is a society where Free Dominion's views enjoy the support of the state, the MSM, the 1%. Your occasional comments can't undermine that. They don't need a "safe space" to talk without the constant bombardment of left-wing progressive ideas drowning them out.

We don't allow people here to speak, even ironically, in favour of racism or abuse of women or homophobia. Even if someone might like to hear the perspective of a (say) U.S. politician advocating against same-sex marriage, or of a Catholic priest explaining why women can't be priests or have abortions or use birth control or get divorced, we don't facilitate such discussions here. That's because we have a starting point that has left such notions behind - otherwise, we'd never get beyond our starting point.

It was only recently that babble added "anti-imperialist" to its fundamental policy principles. We have a ways to go yet.

 

Unionist

Catchfire wrote:

I guess here's where I stand: I would love to have a "starting from 'R'" conversation about Canada's imperialist interventions worldwide. Unfortunately, that conversation would exclude more than 50% of babble's current posters.

CF, just so you know, my comments about the acceptable discourse here were directed, not against the mods, but rather to babblers (Smith, Merowe, Caissa, and Tommy Paine) who think the board should entertain discussion of what it's like to bomb Libya from a bomb-Libya-friendly viewpoint. The mods can only respond to the demands of the community, and I'm trying to lobby the community to adopt a particular stand. Maybe it should be in "rabble reactions" - but please don't suggest that it's not legitimate.

As for "50%", geez, I hope not. Otherwise, we'll have some discussion about whether Canada should have joined in the fun on Iraq. Or was Saddam Hussein kinder and gentler to his people than Gaddafi?

At least, the social climate is such that everyone here has to at least pretend to be against Canada in Iraq, or the Canadian "mission" in Afghanistan. If Libya is going to open up that consensus for debate, then there will be no threads where we can discuss from a common starting point. Maybe we do need a forum where the peaceniks can post in safety... I agreed with you at the time that we didn't need that. But that was before Mr. Surgical Bomber came here to engage us ever so respectfully.

Caissa

And, I don't see allowing him to provide his point of view as being harmful. It's a welcome change from everyone singing from the same songbook. This case aside, over time there seems to have been a push to more narrowly define the number of acceptable opinions which can be voiced on this site.

6079_Smith_W

@ Unionist

Since this has already been derailed into what was formerly called a meta thread, let me say I disagree with you about the nature of allowable discussion.

After all, if we have no problem with discussing these matters second-hand, why should we be afraid of getting it straight from the source, so long as it does not dominate the discussion. I am not afraid of it. 

More generally, I am quite aware of the biases of media like the National Post, but that notwithstanding, I still consider them legitimate media, and that stuff they report can be considered if you apply the right filters. 

So no... I don't agree with shutting posters out based on what we think their perspective is, even if they comply with the site rules, nor do I agree with excluding sources just because they don't live up to those standards. 

But then, I'm not the one running the joint, and neither are you.

 

 

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

Unionist wrote:
CF, just so you know, my comments about the acceptable discourse here were directed, not against the mods, but rather to babblers (Smith, Merowe, Caissa, and Tommy Paine) who think the board should entertain discussion of what it's like to bomb Libya from a bomb-Libya-friendly viewpoint. The mods can only respond to the demands of the community, and I'm trying to lobby the community to adopt a particular stand. Maybe it should be in "rabble reactions" - but please don't suggest that it's not legitimate.

That's how I took your comments, and I found your post a positive one, Unionist. And I think it's exactly the kind of discussion we should be having.

NDPP

And let us not forget that our ndp no difference party 'loyal opposition' is pretty much on track with what this bombing cog has to say - if we are to exclude him what about those imperialist hand-maidpersons?

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

Catchfire wrote:

Sometimes I think the best solution to M. Spector's criticisms would be to help him start up his own message board in which he is the only member who fits his high ethical and rhetorical standards.

It's pretty sad when opposition to war crimes is described on babble as setting unreasonably high ethical and rhetorical standards.

6079_Smith_W

Like really...

How far do you think any contrary opinion is going to get here before the perp is on the floor in a half-nelson with a shoe on the neck?

Has anyone managed to get in here and dominate debate for any length of time at all? 

And considering that we are already having these discussions in a bottle, what is the problem, and why would anyone be afraid of hearing from someone who has first-hand information regarding a situation? 

Are you so insecure that you thing people might get lured away?

 I am not. 

 

Merowe

Unionist wrote:

CF, just so you know, my comments about the acceptable discourse here were directed, not against the mods, but rather to babblers (Smith, Merowe, Caissa, and Tommy Paine) who think the board should entertain discussion of what it's like to bomb Libya from a bomb-Libya-friendly viewpoint. The mods can only respond to the demands of the community, and I'm trying to lobby the community to adopt a particular stand. Maybe it should be in "rabble reactions" - but please don't suggest that it's not legitimate.

 

Oh come off it U. You know I've no truck with any 'bomb-Libya-friendly' pov. We're all adults here, sophisticated enough to do our own filtering. I want to know as much as I can about the people who murdered Moammar Gaddafi and their enablers. I just saw the sharks circling upthread for some light entertainment and thought it vulgar. CFs' views, such as I can infer, will find little traction here - and if they do, I'm in the wrong place. But his comments provide insight into the mentality of a strata of the military command. As the executive arm of Stephen Penishead Harper's foreign policy - pretty much the A to Z of it, increasingly - the form of their current delusion is of interest to me.

Surely I'm not alone in having noticed just how poor the media coverage of this was, how thin the information-gruel was this time around? You could hardly move for all the unanswered questions that were so slickly smoothed over, it might as well have been the Boer bloody War.

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

This shit is nauseating and babble used to be a place where those kinds of comments were highlighted as unacceptable. This is the worst kind of warmongering propaganda where your enemies are vilified as subhuman and your troops are praised as being able to know wrong because they are all the wholesome boy next door.

The kind of soldiers that would take babies out of incubators and throw them on the floor thats who the Libyan army employed. The Egyptian army they are all wholesome, the IDF are as good as gold but the Libyan army and the Syrian army and the Lebanese army 9when it fights the IDF) they are all just normal armies with regular soldiers not like the evil regimes that defy the EMPIRE.

CDN Warmonger wrote:

Let's be clear: the aim of his troops was to murder civilians, by the most violent and ruthless way possible,

CDN Hero of the RCAF Condor Squad wrote:

That's not the type of person employed by the Canadian Armed Forces (and we could have a side discussion about the exceedingly few who have done deliberately horrible things like Russ Williams). And any Canadian soldier who has killed feels bad after, which is why there's PTSD. We don't go the USMC route of dehumanization. Those who kill and don't feel anything are the true monsters.

 

CDN_FORCES

Bec.De.Corbin wrote:

 

So CDN what aircraft did you fly over Libya?

I was a pilot on the NATO E3A AWACS and based at Trapani airbase in Italy. If you go to the Flickr page in one of my earlier posts I've attached a picture I took of a Canadian CC150 aerial refueling two CF18s.

Bec.De.Corbin Bec.De.Corbin's picture

M. Spector wrote:

Catchfire wrote:

Can I ask whether it's his support for regime change or his occupation which disqualifies CF from babble? In which case, how many other babblers will I need to disqualify in order to justly and equally implement this point of policy?

It seems to me that in the case of people who willingly aid, abet, and defend war crimes that should be a no-brainer.

 

No doubt that includes supporting resistance groups that commit war crimes as well, right?

CDN_FORCES

Merowe wrote:

I've no interest in trying to 'convert' him to or from any position since I just assume it will be radically different from my own, or those of many here. I was looking for a little insight into the mindset of a regular Canadian soldier on deployment. I really don't think he was proselytizing, rather, just disclosing his own position which seems fair enough. With apologies to CDN for speaking of him in the third person!

 

Thanks Merowe. I certainly don't share the beliefs of the extreme Left but I'd have no problem getting along with the more "centrist" wing of the NDP or "leftist" wing of what used to be the Federal Liberal party. (In the interest of full disclosure, I voted Liberal and my candidate lost).

When it comes to the Canadian MSM reporting of Libya (or Afghanistan, or anywhere the CF is sent) I find that it lacks any depth. It's a regurgitation of press releases and the usual paid talking heads (retired military, Rideau Institute, and Scott Taylor). The CDS is never ever asked hard hitting questions, let alone the Minister or PM. And for the most part serving personnel don't want to speak about what they do, mostly because they hate the gotcha questions from the reporters and they lack any media-awareness training. It all adds up to very poor information for the Canadian public to develop informed opinions.

eastnoireast

"talking with the enemy" is generally a good strategy, ya both learn something, talking humanizes "the other", everyone realizes they have more in common than not, etc etc.  really, i mean it.  i seek it.

but is that what's happening here?  for someone who has been "lurking here" for ... 6 years.... cdn_forces' thread opener looks less like dialogue and more like classic trollology 101.  i think the results speak to this as well.

hi, i'm new here
meaningless phrase about freedom of expression
controversial oar-in-the-gears statement

optional:

claim the high ground
direct behavior of others
pictures of shiny shit

-

CDN_FORCES
recent-rabble-rouser
Member: 25597
Joined: Nov 24 2011
Send private message
November 24, 2011 - 1:48pm

Hello. I've been lurking here a long time (since 2005 when I was stationed at Camp Mirage). Look, I know what many here think about the military. That's fine; freedom of expression is something I support, but I hope it will be kept civil (no pun intended). What "we" did in Libya (getting rid of a man who was using .50 cal and bombs on civilians) was on the whole a good thing. FYI, I was personally involved. Maybe, if things stay on the rails, I'll speak a bit more about what I do.

-

i also agree with northern shoveler's posts re subsequent use of language:

 

NS wrote:

This shit is nauseating and babble used to be a place where those kinds of comments were highlighted as unacceptable.

CDN Warmonger wrote:

Let's be clear: the aim of his troops was to murder civilians, by the most violent and ruthless way possible,

CDN Hero of the RCAF Condor Squad wrote:

That's not the type of person employed by the Canadian Armed Forces (and we could have a side discussion about the exceedingly few who have done deliberately horrible things like Russ Williams). And any Canadian soldier who has killed feels bad after, which is why there's PTSD. We don't go the USMC route of dehumanization. Those who kill and don't feel anything are the true monsters.

-

in keeping with the multi-topicness of this thread, i'd also like to a) give a shout out to the mods who i think do a great, if imperfect at times, job (it's tricky stuff!), and b) say that despite the doom and gloom of some posters, i think babble is an amazing discussion space and we should be thankful it works as well as it does given the fire, latitude, boundaries.  and trolls.

Pages