History Community ~ All Empires Homepage


This is the Archive on WORLD Historia, the old original forum.

 You cannot post here - you can only read.

 

Here is the link to the new forum:

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Forum LockedAxed Canadian

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 6>
Author
es_bih View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar
Beglerbeg

Joined: 20-Dec-2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3426
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote es_bih Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Apr-2009 at 18:02
Again that isn't a universal concept for all. It is a perception "we" share, thus to boggle down such actions into right and wrong distracts from the point of this news piece. The poitn of course being that there is discontent with the situation, and that "we" are increasingly looked on as invaders versus helpers.

Back to Top
Omar al Hashim View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 05-Jan-2006
Location: Snowy-Highlands
Status: Offline
Points: 5725
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Omar al Hashim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Apr-2009 at 01:17
Originally posted by Dolphin Dolphin wrote:

UN law is most certainly not a perception, but I see what you mean. This young man's idea of what is allowed is different to the soldier's, but the fact remains that he was lawfully killed and the soldier was unlawfully attacked, one through ideology, and one devoid of it.

UN law most certainly is a perception. It just happens to be one that most people share most of. When UN law starts become a hindrence though, countries will shamlessly brake it, often with their populations right behind them.

Nor is the soldier devoid of ideology in anyway. He was fighting for Canada wasn't he? Against the Talibs?
Originally posted by Reg Reg wrote:


From a neutral ground there isn't any reason to claim moral superiority from either side, as they both fight for what they believe in. It comes down to whether one supports the operation in Afghanistan or not. If the operation is morally sound then opposing it must necessarily be wrong, and vice versa.

Exactly right.

The problem with this thread is that it is far too tainted with war propaganda, or the modern equivilent. All positive traits, bravery, heroism, courage, honour, apply to the 'good guys' (in this case the Canadian solider), and all negative traits, cowardice, dishonour, brainwashed, lunacy apply to the 'bad guy'.
Facts don't play any part, critical thinking plays no part, we are just supposed to regurgitate this good guy/bad guy crap. Even worse, if you do apply the words according to their facts & meanings, you suddenly become a heretic.

Lets get the facts clear of the clouds.
-> The Kid was brave. He attacked his enemy in the face of certain death. He is also dishonourable, suicidal, and reckless, but suicidal and recklessness often go hand-in-hand with bravery. I had a teacher who knew of a guy who at the battle of El Alamain single handedly charged a German machine gun post that was pinning down his unit. He had to run in clear view of the gun, and by all rights should have been killed. For some reason the Germans didn't see him, so he got their and bayonnetted them. That guy too, was brave reckless and suicidal.

-> Some muggers, rapists and murders can be brave. It does depend on how much immediate danger there is in their crime though. We recognise this sometimes, think of bank robbers, cowboys, and bushrangers. They're often no more than muggers rapist and murders, and we accept they are brave.

-> We have no idea about the Kids motivation. So stop speculating. 72 virgins is old christian propaganda, even if he is fully in on the Taliban ideology he has probably never heard of it! Calling him brainwashed, wanting to die for 72 virgins is buying into your own propaganda. Everybody is brainwashed, the only difference whether we like the way they were brainwashed or not. Generally, people in this forum will like the way the Canadian was brainwashed [educated] more than the way the Kid was.
"O Byzantines! If success is your desire and if you seek right guidance and want your empire to remain then give the pledge to this Prophet"
~ Heraclius, Roman Emperor
Back to Top
Panther View Drop Down
AE Moderator
AE Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 20-Jan-2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 822
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Panther Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Apr-2009 at 01:56
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:


Quote Boy... reading some of the responses here, like this one (Sorry Omar), is really making me rethink my thoughts on S.P. Huntington's theory on "Clash of Civilizations!"

But which civilisation would I be in?


I think i came into this thread misunderstanding the context of some of the replies?

My apologies to Omar and no need to worry about that particular comment. I tend to have a big mouth at times and an equally sized foot for it to fit in. I also have this tendency at times of underestimating the dimness of this little ol' bulb of mine between my ears. Embarrassed


Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07-Aug-2007
Status: Offline
Points: 1809
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Apr-2009 at 07:56
Hello to you all
 
I wasn't going to comment here but the last few posts forced me to do it.
 
Last time I checked Afghanistan was occupied by the US government and Nato forces, spin it as you like but resistance to occupation is one of the basic human rights just like liberty. While most Afghanis may don't want to use this right some do and the kid in the story did it.
 
Second point, as far as I know the US was attacked not Canada. Those who did the attack were a terrorist group and the Nato treaty doesn't cover terrorist groups. It talks about states. Plus the Taliban was never a state according to the Nato members which means Canada has no business fighting there.
 
Third point, the kid sacrificed his life to kill his enemy, this is a brave act by a brave kid and those who said it wasn't would say the opposite if the kid was Canadian and the Soldier was Afghan.
 
Fourth point, and this might be controversial, the Canadian troops in Afghanistan are nothing but mercenaries since the only state with a right to have a military presence in Afghanistan is the US. Mercenaries have no rights under Geneva conventions (77 protocol). The guy got what he asked for for being in a place where he or his country has no business in being there.
 
Finally, I never knew there was a list of lawful weapons one could use to kill his enemy, especially blue eyed blondies from the Europe, would any one please send me the list.
 
 
Al-Jassas


Edited by Al Jassas - 15-Apr-2009 at 08:18
Back to Top
Reginmund View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 08-May-2005
Location: Norway
Status: Offline
Points: 1942
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Reginmund Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Apr-2009 at 09:07
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

Some muggers, rapists and murders can be brave. It does depend on how much immediate danger there is in their crime though. We recognise this sometimes, think of bank robbers, cowboys, and bushrangers. They're often no more than muggers rapist and murders, and we accept they are brave.


I still wouldn't operate with "brave" in this context. The concept of bravery carries with it a sense of moral quality, it'd be very confusing if we started applying to it any act that involves risk. The kind of people you mention would be more appropriately termed "rogue", "daring", "audacious" or maybe even "bold". If you used "brave" you'd have to explain yourself afterwards, which isn't effective communication.

Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

Last time I checked Afghanistan was occupied by the US government and Nato forces, spin it as you like but resistance to occupation is one of the basic human rights just like liberty. While most Afghanis may don't want to use this right some do and the kid in the story did it.


Is it possible to support the NATO operation in Afghanistan and at the same time believe the Afghans are right to defend themselves against it? This seems like too much of a self-contradiction to be workable in real life. You may feel as if many operate with a double standard under which it's okay for NATO forces to kill Afghans but not vice versa, but this is a logical necessity of supporting the operation. In any case it's not as if anyone needs to be granted a formal right to defend themselves, self-defense is a god-given right that can be used by anyone regardless of any consensus.

Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

Finally, I never knew there was a list of lawful weapons one could use to kill his enemy, especially blue eyed blondies from the Europe, would any one please send me the list.


Actually we have yet to develop such a list, seeing as we prefer to stay alive and all. At the moment I'm busy imagining the outrage if I made a similar request concerning "brownies from the Middle East" or "big-nosed Negroes from Africa".
Hwæt! wē Gār-Dena in geār-dagum,
þeod-cyninga, þrym gefrunon,
hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon.
Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07-Aug-2007
Status: Offline
Points: 1809
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Apr-2009 at 10:00
Hello Regi
 
Based on your argument people have been fighting war the wrong way for the past 3000 years.
 
There is no contradiction here whatsoever. One guy is fighting because his government was attacked on 9/11 and the other is fighting because his government was attacked on 7/10/2001. Both are doing their duty and both committed no wrong.
 
What you are saying is in effect if one country declared war on the other for any reason the second nation should just throw its weapons and open its doors. The least I could say about this is naive.
 
Second point, the whole argument of this thread was "evil barbarian Afghan boy vs. Canadian Hero".
 
Some people here say attack by vaccuum bombs and candy size and appearence cluster bombs is the humane way to kill people (despite most of the victims are civilians) but attacking the enemy with an axe (even though it was the only weapon available) is a crime.
 
The first act is the supreme act of bravery while the second one is first rate cowardice.
 
Now that is double standards.
 
Al-Jassas


Edited by Al Jassas - 15-Apr-2009 at 10:02
Back to Top
Reginmund View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 08-May-2005
Location: Norway
Status: Offline
Points: 1942
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Reginmund Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Apr-2009 at 10:34
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

Hello Regi
 
Based on your argument people have been fighting war the wrong way for the past 3000 years.
 
There is no contradiction here whatsoever. One guy is fighting because his government was attacked on 9/11 and the other is fighting because his government was attacked on 7/10/2001. Both are doing their duty and both committed no wrong.
 
What you are saying is in effect if one country declared war on the other for any reason the second nation should just throw its weapons and open its doors. The least I could say about this is naive.


I can't see how you were able to read this out of my post. All I said was that if you're going to support the operation in Afghanistan then you can't consider it right for the enemy to fight back. I one truly believes in the merits of this operation then one must also believe it would be better if every Afghan merely surrendered. Of course it rarely happens this way, and so there is armed conflict. In armed conflict people fight for what they believe in, not for what they consider to be merely one of two equally valid agendas.

Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

Second point, the whole argument of this thread was "evil barbarian Afghan boy vs. Canadian Hero".
 
Some people here say attack by vaccuum bombs and candy size and appearence cluster bombs is the humane way to kill people (despite most of the victims are civilians) but attacking the enemy with an axe (even though it was the only weapon available) is a crime.
 
The first act is the supreme act of bravery while the second one is first rate cowardice.
 
Now that is double standards.

Yes, but it's war. It's only natural for people to look out for their own while condemning the enemy. As stated before, no one goes to war believing the cause of the enemy to be as just as one's own, so you can't expect them to treat each other as equals. Double standards become the rule.


Edited by Reginmund - 15-Apr-2009 at 10:36
Hwæt! wē Gār-Dena in geār-dagum,
þeod-cyninga, þrym gefrunon,
hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon.
Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07-Aug-2007
Status: Offline
Points: 1809
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Apr-2009 at 18:09
Hello Regi
 
I would have said see my post above but I think some explaination is needed.
 
First of all there is a complete difference between right (as in human rights) and right (as in correct). One might have the first right but is not on the second right of the issue.
 
The only contradiction is in your head. Wars have been fought for 3000 years based on that assumption and because of it there are Geneva conventions, laws of wars, POWs and what not. From the hundreds of Nazi Generals and millions of German soldiers only a few were procecuted because while it was wrong of them to wage war on other states it was the State not the individual who was doing the wrong thing.
 
Al-Jassas
Back to Top
Omar al Hashim View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 05-Jan-2006
Location: Snowy-Highlands
Status: Offline
Points: 5725
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Omar al Hashim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Apr-2009 at 02:12

Quote I still wouldn't operate with "brave" in this context. The concept of bravery carries with it a sense of moral quality, it'd be very confusing if we started applying to it any act that involves risk. The kind of people you mention would be more appropriately termed "rogue", "daring", "audacious" or maybe even "bold". If you used "brave" you'd have to explain yourself afterwards, which isn't effective communication.

Well I am having to explain myself afterward aren't I? But yes, you are correct in that, when I am in company where I don't want this discussion they are safer words.
However, since people can cope with this with discussion on AE I will stick with using Brave. I think rather than bravery implying a sense of moral quality the problem is more than bravery is a moral quality. Its a single moral quality, of a possible many, but in this case we can say it is a moral quality that the kid possesed. The problem comes when people don't like acknowledging any moral qualities in their enemies (or crims), so they are happy to acknowledge that he was audacious, but not that he was brave. I cited the example of bank robbers, cowboys and bushrangers as these are all examples of criminals that have been subject to positive propaganda (as opposed to muggers, rapists and murderers), even though the person is exactly the same. A brigand who was considered a muderer by his contemporaries becomes a Bushranger (perhaps even a hero) by later generations. His actions are identical, but the contempories suppress his moral characteristics because they didn't like him, and later generations over enlarge them because they do like him. "Everybody knows" bushrangers are brave, even though they basically are muggers, rapists, and murderers.

Personally I think you should always acknowledge the positive attributes of even your worst enemy, and to do other wise is dishonourable on your part.

Quote Is it possible to support the NATO operation in Afghanistan and at the same time believe the Afghans are right to defend themselves against it? This seems like too much of a self-contradiction to be workable in real life. You may feel as if many operate with a double standard under which it's okay for NATO forces to kill Afghans but not vice versa, but this is a logical necessity of supporting the operation.

I don't think so. I think this depends highly on the society. In societies that shirk at war and have no real interest in the operation daemonising the enemy is probably necessary to keep support (thus they have no moral right to fight back). But in societies that are used to war, and have a real interest in being there, its highly counter-productive (because believing your own propaganda isn't going to bring you victory, which relies upon understanding your enemy)
Quote In armed conflict people fight for what they believe in, not for what they consider to be merely one of two equally valid agendas.

Definitely in Afghanistan & Pakistan the majority of people are fighting for one of two valid agendas. Its only a few who would be 'pro Taliban' or 'pro NATO'. Most will have their own agenda which will cause them to back one side or the other. And I certainly include the Pakistan Army & Government in this group.
There was a recent incident in Afghanistan where a foriegn patrol was ambushed by Taliban, it wouldn't have been much of a problem except for the fact all the local villagers came out and fought with the Talibs. Afterwards they asked the villagers why they fought for the Taliban, when NATO already knew they weren't involved with them. The answer was simple; this was the most exciting thing to happen in their valley for 20 years and they weren't about to miss out. Since they had to choose a side to join in, they chose the Taliban, after all they were locals and not invaders.



Edited by Omar al Hashim - 16-Apr-2009 at 02:24
"O Byzantines! If success is your desire and if you seek right guidance and want your empire to remain then give the pledge to this Prophet"
~ Heraclius, Roman Emperor
Back to Top
Reginmund View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 08-May-2005
Location: Norway
Status: Offline
Points: 1942
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Reginmund Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Apr-2009 at 09:33
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

I would have said see my post above but I think some explaination is needed.
 
First of all there is a complete difference between right (as in human rights) and right (as in correct). One might have the first right but is not on the second right of the issue.
 
The only contradiction is in your head. Wars have been fought for 3000 years based on that assumption and because of it there are Geneva conventions, laws of wars, POWs and what not. From the hundreds of Nazi Generals and millions of German soldiers only a few were procecuted because while it was wrong of them to wage war on other states it was the State not the individual who was doing the wrong thing.


I can't help but get the impression my posts are ambiguous since I feel as if I keep replying to rebukes for things I never intended to say in the first place.

Perhaps it's a matter of perspective. I ethical debates I often try to apply as wide a perspective as possible in an attempt to make my statements universally applicable to human history, which is why I don't take Geneva conventions and the like into account. I'm interested in how different human individuals and societies think about war and ethics, as this is what I believe is ever the decisive factor, and not theoretical treatises on what should be right and wrong. The significance of such documents is limited as their stipulations tend to be ignored the moment they become too inconvenient. Far from providing any guarantees they usually end up as political tools to legitimize war.
Hwæt! wē Gār-Dena in geār-dagum,
þeod-cyninga, þrym gefrunon,
hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon.
Back to Top
DukeC View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07-Nov-2005
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 1564
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote DukeC Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-May-2009 at 18:22
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:


That's true. What did he before and after again? I haven't seen it reported anywhere.
 
It was in the story.
 
Like I said, read it again. He was a social activist before he joined the forces to go to Afghanistan. And despite a lot of the rhetoric, not everyone serving in the NATO forces in Afghanistan sees themself as some bit player in neo-colonialism. In fact most of the Canadians there really want to make a difference.
 
And just recovering from the the type of injury he sustained takes a type of courage that few possess.
 
I don't think the young man who attacked him had that kind of courage. He was probably brought up to believe in some sort of devine ascension for an act of violence again an outsider to his culture. He attacked an unarmed man who had removed his helmet to show his respect to the locals. He wasn't  part of a sweep to clear local Talibs out, he was there to help reconstruct the water system. Isn't there supposed to be a tradition of generosity to outsiders in the Pushtun culture?
 
Like most extremists, the Taliban are unable to see any shades of grey, everything is black or white.
Back to Top
DukeC View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07-Nov-2005
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 1564
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote DukeC Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-May-2009 at 17:50
And on the subject of courage, two of the latest fatalities with the Canadian forces in Afghanistan have been female.
 
Karine Blais was just 21 and at a time in life when most Canadian women her age are in college, starting their careers or even a family, she had the guts to be serving in a combat zone that had already taken the lives of 116 Canadians. An IED was detonated under the armored vehicle she was riding in killing her instantly. It's how most Canadians have been killed since 2007 as the Taliban soon found they were less than successful in open combat with the Canadians.


Edited by DukeC - 05-May-2009 at 18:32
Back to Top
Constantine XI View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar
Lord of Hut River Province Principality

Joined: 01-May-2005
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 5713
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Constantine XI Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-May-2009 at 00:29
I want to ask, what is motivating the Canadian government to this war despite the fact that they have lost over a hundred personnel KIA (and how knows how many WIA)? I don't think Australia has lost 1/10th that amount. Our forces are serving in Oruzgan province.
It is not the challenges a people face which define who they are, but rather the way in which they respond to those challenges.

Back to Top
DukeC View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07-Nov-2005
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 1564
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote DukeC Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-May-2009 at 17:51
Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:

I want to ask, what is motivating the Canadian government to this war despite the fact that they have lost over a hundred personnel KIA (and how knows how many WIA)? I don't think Australia has lost 1/10th that amount. Our forces are serving in Oruzgan province.
 
Originally it was to avoid having to send Canadians to Iraq as that war was looming in 2002. Afghanistan was a relatively quiet country after the fall of the Taliban and Canada was involved in security and rebuilding operations in the north near Kabul. The planned move to the south in the Kandahar region in 2006 by Canadian Forces also coincided with a resurgent Taliban, and a new Bush friendly government here under PM Harper.
 
Instead of rebuilding, security has become Canadas' #1 mission in Afghanistan since mid 2006. I think a lot of the political motivation behind the mission is still a holdover from Harpers support for the war on terror, but that's rapidly changing as Obama is refocusing on stablilizng the region as much as he can. The Canadian government has recently indicated it's willing to negotiate with Taliban forces, something it hadn't been willing to do while Bush was in charge in the U.S.


Edited by DukeC - 06-May-2009 at 18:04
Back to Top
Omar al Hashim View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 05-Jan-2006
Location: Snowy-Highlands
Status: Offline
Points: 5725
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Omar al Hashim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-May-2009 at 05:07

Originally posted by DukeC DukeC wrote:

It was in the story.

Its not in the story at all. All that is in the story is the type of sickening cowardly patriotism that fills you with disgust to be allied with such people. If we all had that type of bravery we'd be afraid to leave the city incase we got dirt on our shoes.
Quote
Like I said, read it again. He was a social activist before he joined the forces to go to Afghanistan. And despite a lot of the rhetoric, not everyone serving in the NATO forces in Afghanistan sees themself as some bit player in neo-colonialism.

Oh right, so if I don't see myself as something it means I'm not one? This makes him a hero does it? That he was foolish enough to see white as black?
Quote
And just recovering from the the type of injury he sustained takes a type of courage that few possess.

Rubbish. What's the alternative? Suicide? My mum's cousin has recovered from just as bad or worse in a similar story. Why aren't you singing her praise as a hero? Are you prepared to admit that its because the solider is being used for propaganda purposes while she isn't?
Quote I don't think the young man who attacked him had that kind of courage. He was probably brought up to believe in some sort of devine ascension for an act of violence again an outsider to his culture.
...
Like most extremists, the Taliban are unable to see any shades of grey, everything is black or white.

Prove it. You have no knowledge of his motives and I'm sure you have never met a Talib so don't make unfounded guesses based on war propaganda.

Honestly Duke, I can't make any judgements about the soliders involved but this kind of reporting just makes me want to throw up. Honour your war dead, but do it in a way that actually honours them, not in a way that looks like the whining of a jingoistic media. Its extremely irritating. Do you seriously think that you can win any war thinking like that? Let alone win a war against a people who have been fighting for 30 years, and join in a firefight because its fun?



Edited by Omar al Hashim - 07-May-2009 at 05:10
"O Byzantines! If success is your desire and if you seek right guidance and want your empire to remain then give the pledge to this Prophet"
~ Heraclius, Roman Emperor
Back to Top
DukeC View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07-Nov-2005
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 1564
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote DukeC Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-May-2009 at 18:08
Maybe it's a Canadian thing, we do honor our soldiers and considering our military history and the fact we've spent the last 30 years trying to sort out other peoples wars I don't see that as bad.
Back to Top
DukeC View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07-Nov-2005
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 1564
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote DukeC Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-May-2009 at 19:41
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

Its not in the story at all. All that is in the story is the type of sickening cowardly patriotism that fills you with disgust to be allied with such people. If we all had that type of bravery we'd be afraid to leave the city incase we got dirt on our shoes.
 
Hmm...I went over it again and it seems merely factual to me...

"Every once in a while a true hero emerges, someone whose struggle against the odds, against adversity, bad luck, destiny -- whichever you call it -- shows us the true nature of courage. We know their names, and they are few. Christopher Reeve. Rick Hansen. Terry Fox."

The main focus of the story is on Trevor Greene overcoming his medical disability not the Taliban, unless you think we're being sickening cowardly patriotic about Rick Hansen or Terry Fox too, then your statement makes no sense to me.

Quote Oh right, so if I don't see myself as something it means I'm not one? This makes him a hero does it? That he was foolish enough to see white as black?
 
It's a UN sanctioned mission, what's your point? Western forces wouldn't even be in Afghanistan if the Taliban hadn't aligned itself with an organization that declared defacto war on the US. Even the Sudanese government was smart enough to see how stupid what Al Qaeda was doing was. I think the old saying, " Don't stand next to a person who's throwing shit at a guy with a gun" applies here.
 

Quote
Rubbish. What's the alternative? Suicide? My mum's cousin has recovered from just as bad or worse in a similar story. Why aren't you singing her praise as a hero? Are you prepared to admit that its because the solider is being used for propaganda purposes while she isn't?
 
If your mom's cousin has had her brain cleaved in two and has gone from a vegatative state to talking and recovering her motor functions (or something similar), then all praise to her. No I'm not prepared to admit this is about propaganda, not living here you probably have no idea how proud we are of people like Fox and Hansen both also BC natives, I grew up in the town Rick Hansen is from and I spent four years in Vancouver so I have no problem relating to Trevors story, the Afghan thing is just peripheral as far as I care really. 
Quote
Prove it. You have no knowledge of his motives and I'm sure you have never met a Talib so don't make unfounded guesses based on war propaganda.
 
I don't have to prove a thing, the Taliban have a well established record of violence against anything outside their very limited idea of acceptable. It would have been bad enough if they restricted their activities to just Afghanistan, but like I said their inherant ignorance and xenophobia resulted in support for a organization that had the ability to truly piss the US off but not protect their former hosts from the inevitable response.

Quote Honestly Duke, I can't make any judgements about the soliders involved but this kind of reporting just makes me want to throw up. Honour your war dead, but do it in a way that actually honours them, not in a way that looks like the whining of a jingoistic media. Its extremely irritating. Do you seriously think that you can win any war thinking like that? Let alone win a war against a people who have been fighting for 30 years, and join in a firefight because its fun?

I think it's meant more for domestic consumption, I thought it was a great story.
 
As for our military record, I think it speaks for itself. As long as NATO and the UN is active in Afghanistan I think you can count on annoying Canadians to be contributing.Smile
 


Edited by DukeC - 07-May-2009 at 19:46
Back to Top
The Canadian Guy View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar
The Native Canuck

Joined: 24-Feb-2005
Location: IDK Im lost!
Status: Offline
Points: 903
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote The Canadian Guy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-May-2009 at 20:27
I am too tired to read all the comments, but I believe that that 16 yr old boy got what he deserved. I really do hate to sound liek an ass that way. BTW, Everyone! Stop insulting soldiers from the fronts of Iraq and Afghanistan! Disrespecting soldiers is a pet peeve of mine, so bugger off! If you insult soldiers from any nation, you deserve to be in the middle of their firefight!
Hate and anger is the fuel of war, while religion and politics is the foundation of it.
Back to Top
Gharanai View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Afghan Empire

Joined: 26-Jan-2006
Location: Afghanistan
Status: Offline
Points: 1514
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Gharanai Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-May-2009 at 23:48
@Northman
Regards dear Northman,
Wish you are doing fine and I am pleased to have an arguement with you after a while as  I really learn alot from your replies.
So wish to hear some of your views on mine.
 
Originally posted by Northman Northman wrote:

 
In my opinion, the guy who used the axed is/was a brainwashed lunatic of the same caliber as those who rammed the planes into WTC - albeit in a lesser scale.
I totally agree with you that majority (not all) of these attacks are taken by some brainwashed youth you are catagorized in three main catagories:
1 - Ones who are living in a very poor condition of life and requires money for the survival of his/her family so they are paid for it.
2 - Ones who are motivated in the name of religion (Islam) and are promised good return in the life after death.
3 - Ones who have suffered and lost family members and loved ones and are totally motivated by the actions of the apposing side.
 
Now comes the role of world's deadlest weapon (THE MEDIA) which totally desolved the real story of the boy and made the survivour a Hero or shall I say an axed Hero.
This boy who was just 16 had lost his mother, two of his brothers and cousin due to the deadly bombardment of the Allies, and this was the only cause that made him do such an action, I mean he didn't know anything about the bombers, he just knew that it was the foriegners who bombed them.
 
Now he was an uneducated 16 years old villager who could hardly differentiate between good and bad, but what would you like to say about the cruel judgement of the educated, civilized, modern, un-brainwashed (if you guess so because I guess the Euro-American people are the most brainwashed people in the world by their governments and media) and highly democratic people of America who sent their sons for the revenge of people whom they even didn't know.
And what about the so called Allies of it, I mean they weren't harmed in anyway (as far as you can differentiate b/w a real attack and a made attack), so then why did they send their sons.
 
If they had the right to take revange of their fellow countrymen from people (Afghans) who required to travel 100s of milles just to make an international call (and people think they were capable of attacking America in their own safehouse, that should be the biggest blunder of history ha Confused), how in the world didn't this little boy have the right to take his revange from the invaders?
Still I really am sorry for the Canadian as he too is/could be a son to a mother, a husband to a wife and a father to his children, but you shall also understand the devotoin and emotion of that child too, he too was a son and a borther to someone.
 
Originally posted by Northman Northman wrote:

How can you call such actions bravery - they are shameless examples of the worst kind of cowardice ever known to man.
How much courage does it take to kill anyone who is totally unprepared?
I'll answer it for you - none!
 
I totally agree with you about it and I guess soo shall be the invaders learnt this lesson that there is no bravery in bombing 100s of innocent civilian and then making exceuse for it, while facing Taleban on ground is like hiking a volcano mountain bare footed. Shocked Now what kind of a bravery would that be classified in?
 
 
Quote It only takes a lunatic, a brainwashed idiot who is mislead to think he is serving a higher purpose - and mislead to think he will be rewarded with 72 virgins if he is killed himself.
I guess those lunatics at least have something that they die for (by your reference 72 virgins) which I totally demote and am against.
But what about the soldiers from all around the world who are fighting a war that was never theirs and has nothing to do with them?
What are they fighting for? For a medal? Oh I just remembered that most of them are mercenaries and are paid so I guess they are fighting for money which they will for sure be spent on women, alchohole, drugs and for sure preferable if possible some virgins as well.
 
So doesn't that make them both equal?
Oh no, those westerners again out smarted our poor people as they are taking their money in this life and enjoying it while ours are saving it for live after DEATH (which means they don't take anything in this life).
 
Quote I think any country has a right to honour their dead soldiers killed in service - call it patroism or whatever you want, and feel free to blame them for it.
But don't call shameless murderes and terrorists brave, please!
 
 
Dear Northman can you please define the word terrorist because I am so confused with it as I guess their is no difference in actions of your so called terrorists (which were Mujahideen *FREEDOM FIGHTERS* till yesterday) and our so called terrorist (the invaders).
 
I mean please let me know in simple words what does a terrorist mean? As far as in simple words it means "any person who terrorize someone else is a terrorist" that's what the word means I guess (if I am mistaken please correct me as English is not my mother tongue).
 


Back to Top
Gharanai View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Afghan Empire

Joined: 26-Jan-2006
Location: Afghanistan
Status: Offline
Points: 1514
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Gharanai Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-May-2009 at 23:52
Originally posted by The Canadian Guy The Canadian Guy wrote:

I am too tired to read all the comments, but I believe that that 16 yr old boy got what he deserved. I really do hate to sound liek an ass that way. BTW, Everyone! Stop insulting soldiers from the fronts of Iraq and Afghanistan! Disrespecting soldiers is a pet peeve of mine, so bugger off! If you insult soldiers from any nation, you deserve to be in the middle of their firefight!
 
Well dear TCG,
It really depends who is saying and from where is he saying, I mean same think back in here is thought about the Canadian soldier that he got what he deserved.
I mean no one invited them to get over here and no one told them that there was a party going on so just hang out here.
For sure when you go to war, there would be casualities and he was one amongst them, but still it's good that he still is alive.
 
Or shall I say that it would had been better for him if he had died as now every time he will see the mirror he will be killed once.
 


Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 6>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.078 seconds.