Peaceniks Try Direct Mail on Vandoos Destined for AFG
- Thread starter The Bread Guy
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
Hello,
We've just offered some quick responses in the French section of the forum. We're going offline now (we've been at work tonight) but we hope to be back online soon (maybe tomorrow or Monday) for further discussion.
Quick answer to Bzzliteyr who asks us where have we been until now: rest assured, we've been quite busy.
---
VALCARTIER 2007
C.P. 55051, 138 Saint-Vallier Ouest, Québec (Qué) G1K 1J0
418 208-7059
We've just offered some quick responses in the French section of the forum. We're going offline now (we've been at work tonight) but we hope to be back online soon (maybe tomorrow or Monday) for further discussion.
Quick answer to Bzzliteyr who asks us where have we been until now: rest assured, we've been quite busy.
---
VALCARTIER 2007
C.P. 55051, 138 Saint-Vallier Ouest, Québec (Qué) G1K 1J0
418 208-7059
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Is it just me, or do they sound like the "collective" Borg when they post?
- Reaction score
- 4,271
- Points
- 1,260
CdnArtyWife said:
If they really ARE a collective, they might really go for consensus in all their decisions, including their messages - which may be why it feels a bit like writing by committee. Still, I agree with PBI that they've at least come back to respond.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Just fell off my chair...... :rofl:.
By the way Buzz, how was the parade yesterday??
By the way Buzz, how was the parade yesterday??
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
In case you are curious what the Valcartier 2007 "collective" looks like here is a blog site that posted a pic of one of them. The blog site is on our side by the way! Get a load of who we are dealing with! :
http://rjjago.wordpress.com/2007/06/12/quebec-peaceniks-call-troops-cowards-and-criminals/
http://rjjago.wordpress.com/2007/06/12/quebec-peaceniks-call-troops-cowards-and-criminals/
- Reaction score
- 114
- Points
- 680
Bigmac said:In case you are curious what the Valcartier 2007 "collective" looks like here is a blog site that posted a pic of one of them. The blog site is on our side by the way! Get a load of who we are dealing with! :
http://rjjago.wordpress.com/2007/06/12/quebec-peaceniks-call-troops-cowards-and-criminals/
BigMac,
He looks like my brother, who isn't anti-war. Is that supposed to mean something?? :
Read through the 16 pages that here, you'll see your link already posted. You'll also find other posts in here which make mention of the the other groups forming this "collective."
Edited to add:
If you have nothing constructive to add to this thread ... just don't.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
I think we are all beginning to repeat previous statements and posts. Responding to Valcartier 2007 is like trying to have a conversation with a boring relative. Eventually you run out of topics and repeat the same things over and over again.
This group is Anarchist. They are anti - just about everything that you and I believe in and value about our great country. In my opinion we are giving them more credit than they deserve.
I believe Valcartier 2007 have enjoyed their 15 minutes of fame on this site but they are not bringing anything new to the table. I think they have had more than enough attention and probably feel like they are now one of the cool kids for the first time in their lives. At least someone is listening to them! You can all at least credit yourselves for their renewed self esteem.
We can't change their minds and they can't change ours. How long are we going to dance in circles before this thread ends?
This group is Anarchist. They are anti - just about everything that you and I believe in and value about our great country. In my opinion we are giving them more credit than they deserve.
I believe Valcartier 2007 have enjoyed their 15 minutes of fame on this site but they are not bringing anything new to the table. I think they have had more than enough attention and probably feel like they are now one of the cool kids for the first time in their lives. At least someone is listening to them! You can all at least credit yourselves for their renewed self esteem.
We can't change their minds and they can't change ours. How long are we going to dance in circles before this thread ends?
- Reaction score
- 114
- Points
- 680
Bigmac said:
Such is sometimes the nature of debate my friend.
If they want to post their arguements, we can still post counterpoints. There is a wealth of experience and actual hands-on knowledge of the ACTUAL situation on the ground in Afghanistan from people on this forum that rebuke Valcartier2007's points. They may choose to contribute those points and facts.
Seriously, do you think Valcartier2007 is the only one reading this thread? I see 14 guests in it now (none of whom are Valcartier2007 BTW), so maybe, just maybe, some other less informed individual is actually learing some facts on this issue rather than the normal left-wing diatribe and arguments.
Quite simply put, if you don't want to contribute ... keep out. That's easy enough to do isn't it?
George Wallace
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 184
- Points
- 710
Bigmac said:
I think you have made a very valid point in stating that they are not bringing anything new to the table. We are all quite literate here. For their "Collective" to come and simply regurgitate their propaganda sheets, the same ones they provide links to on their sites, really doesn't say much for their capacity to discuss their thoughts. I hope that they can get rid of the "Collective" and openly discuss as "Individuals" what they are trying to present.
I find it farcical that they have to withdraw from the discussion for long periods in order to come up with replies (references to their info sheets) to counter points presented. It gives the impression that they are dysfunctional, and have to conduct their own discussion and edit a reply in the backrooms of cyberspace, before posting it here. Do they even have a quorum within their own "Collective"?
The interest in this topic is quickly falling off, due to the lack of 'real discussion'. As such, it will die its' own slow death of natural causes.
- Reaction score
- 114
- Points
- 680
Moderator Warning
Keep your needless BS posts out of this thread. I just deleted another.
I'll say it again, if you have nothing constructive to add to the thread, then don't bother. That's three times now.
Last warning, next time the official warning system comes into play.
ArmyVern
Milnet.ca Staff
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Well I do think we have to give them respect for coming here and at least trying to debate with us.
While I am in favour of the mission we do have to understand that a person can be informed and intellegent AND against the mission (just saying this).
We all already have our point of views and it is human nature to get your point of view and then look for evidence to back it up (rather than looking at the evidence and then making a choice).
We also have to respect that a lot of people have asked them a lot of questions. It has got to be a bit of overload for them, think of the response if one of us went to the green party fourm and started to post pro-nuke arguements.
So in closing I am happy that in this country at least we can have a free open source discussion or debate over the merits of a military mission, its one of those things that makes this country great.
And I am happy that these groups are able to express their opinion.
That being said I think the debate will show that we are in the right and that they are wrong.
While I am in favour of the mission we do have to understand that a person can be informed and intellegent AND against the mission (just saying this).
We all already have our point of views and it is human nature to get your point of view and then look for evidence to back it up (rather than looking at the evidence and then making a choice).
We also have to respect that a lot of people have asked them a lot of questions. It has got to be a bit of overload for them, think of the response if one of us went to the green party fourm and started to post pro-nuke arguements.
So in closing I am happy that in this country at least we can have a free open source discussion or debate over the merits of a military mission, its one of those things that makes this country great.
And I am happy that these groups are able to express their opinion.
That being said I think the debate will show that we are in the right and that they are wrong.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 430
Valcartier2007
CBC about 2 months ago ran a program on Afghanistan and it's mission.
Cross Country Checkup: 29 Apr 2007
You will find that at aprrox 1 hour 19 mins a soldier just returned from the mission comes on the air and refutes many of the anti-war facts you claim as truth with honest, objective thoughts. These come from the fact he has spent a year in that country. I hope you listen to the program and that it helps to clarify in your mind the mentality of a soldier who has been to that country.
EDIT: Time of soldier coming on air
Edited by Vern to correct hyperlink for HitorMiss
CBC about 2 months ago ran a program on Afghanistan and it's mission.
Cross Country Checkup: 29 Apr 2007
You will find that at aprrox 1 hour 19 mins a soldier just returned from the mission comes on the air and refutes many of the anti-war facts you claim as truth with honest, objective thoughts. These come from the fact he has spent a year in that country. I hope you listen to the program and that it helps to clarify in your mind the mentality of a soldier who has been to that country.
EDIT: Time of soldier coming on air
Edited by Vern to correct hyperlink for HitorMiss
McG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 3,110
- Points
- 1,160
This is still poisoning the well. You think that generals & politicians have a different way of viewing war when compared to soldiers? Well they probably should because it is the generals & politicians that have to consider these things from the strategic perspective of the nation.Valcartier 2007 said:
However, you have not presented any argument of relevance with your observation that the MND is a former soldier & defence industry employee. Do you want us to believe that anyone with such a background is only capable of making the inherently wrong decisions? Or, are you trying to suggest that he is corrupt & receiving defence industry kick-backs for prolonging the war? If you really believed the position you are arguing to us, you could present your case by discussing the issues and not by going after the person. But, if you are happy arguing logical fallacies just keep in mind that you will not be fooling anybody with a critical mind.
You have also answered my observation that your Iraq reference was a red herring by reinforcing that logical fallacy with more of the same & you ignored the remainder of my post (I assume because you just don’t have answers that even you believe). However, I will not pursue my previous concerns at this point. Instead, I am curious as to your position on a series of short questions:
1. Do you understand that Canadian & American forces operate under different rules of engagement (ROE) in Afghanistan? Do you think this is a relevant fact?
[NOTE: for reasons of operational security, the details of the differences cannot be discussed here.]
2. What should be done in Afghanistan? Who should do it?
3. What should be done in Iraq? Who should do it? (I know this is tangent to Afghanistan, but you like to come back to Iraq. Here I give you the opportunity)
4. What would happen in Afghanistan if the UN endorsed mission were to give up? Do you think the average Afghan would suddenly have a better standard of living? If yes, how?
5. Do you think that more people (Afghan & NGO) have been killed by western soldiers than would have been killed in our absence?
6. Do you believe that, if we were not there, Afghanistan would not currently be involved in a civil war?
7. Why do the people of Afghanistan not deserve the same help that we spent a decade giving to the people of Bosnia?
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Gone for two days and missed out on the best part of the thread:
Okay so we want to discuss in a free and logical manner. We’ll let them respond. Excellent. I went through all their arguments and find that the V2007 crew repeatedly makes the same inconsistent errors in delivery. The V2007 member uses numerous argumentative fallacies (some deliberate, others unacknowledged) that he/she ignores when convenient for them, but point out with great enthusiasm when found in counter-arguments. This is the whole reason I posted the list earlier.
These groups all use the same form of illogic, and here’s the main problem: You can’t claim to be quoting ‘facts’ and using ‘references’ to establish truth, then follow it up with comments about “known truths” which are actually only opinions. Instead of posting all 6 pages of their argumentative errors, here’s a list of the most important ones:
“The corrupt and mafia government of Mr. Karzai…” statement – V2007 treats it as a fact. It’s not a fact, it’s a statement made any another person, thus is no more valid than anyone else’s opinion. How are they corrupt and a mafia, or at least any different from any other government?
“Canada cannot separate itself from its US allies, the key foreign force in Afghanistan.” statement. Again, opinion.
“Canada’s role is inseparable from the NATO role. NATO soldiers are killing Afghan civilians in increasing numbers.” Statement. V2007 implies that NATO soldiers are killing Afghan citizens therefore Canada as part of NATO is killing Afghan citizens. Political rhetoric, and false logic that falls under the category “if you pull off all four legs, the frog goes deaf” logic.
“Actually, our Open Letter was based on the reverse assumption: it is because we believe that soldiers can be autonomous and free thinking (and we know soldiers who are free-thinking) that we’ve decided to try to dialogue directly with you.” statement. A backhanded complement. We ’can be’ free-thinking’, and they ‘know soldiers who are freethinking’…but the phrasing indicates we are not included in that group.
“It’s generals and senior officers who seem to think that soldiers should just do the job they’re paid to do, which is to accept orders.” statement. A blanket generalization which I know to be untrue, therefore based on you own bias. Some generals and senior officers may be like that, but not all of them are.
“Gordon O'Connor is Canada's Donald Rumsfeld” statement. A V2007 opinion, not a fact.
“In the same speech, he stated: ‘Every time you kill an angry young man overseas, you're creating 15 more who will come after you.’” Statement. V2007 makes a series of interpreted logic from a selected statement that is obviously not a fact, but may be the Generals personal opinion.
“Canada's role in Afghanistan sounds like a plan for disaster, mainly for the people of Afghanistan. No wonder that "reconstruction" and "development" are being used as cover for Canada's "killing"; and no wonder Canada's military is being used as cover for American-led imperialism in the Middle East” statement. Imaginative use of the words ‘sounds like’ and ‘being used as a cover’. These are not facts these are opinions.
“Franciso Juarez is not our poster boy. We simply cite him as a clear example of someone who objected to Canada’s role in Afghanistan, and suffered the consequences.” statement. Denial of alternate perceptions of the events involving Juarez is not logic, its bias.
“Plus, let’s be practical here: ISAF is a smokescreen (kind of like the “coalition of the willing” in Iraq); you soldiers know just as well as us anti-war activists that the Afghan mission is led by the United States, thru NATO, with Canadian, British, German and other soldiers playing specific supporting roles. The US leads this thing via NATO.” Opinion.
“You ask for evidence for the Canadian military being used as a smokescreen for American-led imperialism in the Middle East. 2500 Canadian troops in Afghanistan, as part of the US “War on Terror,” gives credibility to that war. Do people seriously think otherwise?” statement. Opinion again, despite implying they would give evidence.
“Again, development and reconstruction are useful smokescreens. It’s what’s done under modern-day COIN doctrine.” statement. Development and reconstruction projects are developed and run by foreign affairs departments and NGO’s, not the military. This is not just opinion and bias, its paranoia.
Edit - This used to be a pretty solid rule up until last year. The line is probably a lot murkier now.
“The Taliban is the "blowback" of those previous (US) policies.” While many of the world’s errors could be attributed to the USA, it’s a pretty big reach here. It’s the same as saying that the US was responsible for the fall of the USSR. It ignores a million other factors that contributed to the situation. More ‘deaf frog’ logic.
“Here's how Block the Empire-Montreal is self-described: Block the Empire-Montreal is an anti-authoritarian, direct-action collective opposed to war and militarization, and their roots and manifestations: colonialism, imperialism and capitalism.” followed by “One war, for example, that many of us would support…” and even later admit that they are willing to be violent ("we are not all pacifists") and “willing to fight for what they believe in”. Isn’t this counter to anarchist anti-war ideology? Or is it a case of ‘the end justifies the means’?
Sidenote: Army Vern notes that the V2007 crew are logging on as guest rather than by account. It may be that they are at a workplace where the company has a policy against non-work-related Internet use… or they just thought they were being covert.
“We don’t presume to have a full understanding of any geopolitical situation (who can?), but don’t take us for naïve” statement. Admitting you are ignorant of a full understanding doesnt mean your limited knowledge makes you right. It means that you havent looked at both sides of a conflict and that you have only a half-full understanding of the situation. Its not about being naive, its about not being informed. (Especially when you blame Harper for our being in Afghanistan despite the fact that Chretien and the Liberals approved our intervention there.)
So. Now instead of just leaving it at that, I give you three questions to which I would like to hear your responses:
1) Why are you only protesting the deployment of Van-Doo's at Valcartier to Afghanistan? Is there a special reason why they shouldn’t go when every other army unit in Quebec contributes people there? And why did you start now?
2) Does your group (or other anarchist groups) support intervention in Sudan? What method of intervention do you propose?
3) Canadian forces leave Afghanistan, immediately. How will this improve the country? What is the anarchist plan for helping the country other than getting rid of the imperialist forces?
Okay so we want to discuss in a free and logical manner. We’ll let them respond. Excellent. I went through all their arguments and find that the V2007 crew repeatedly makes the same inconsistent errors in delivery. The V2007 member uses numerous argumentative fallacies (some deliberate, others unacknowledged) that he/she ignores when convenient for them, but point out with great enthusiasm when found in counter-arguments. This is the whole reason I posted the list earlier.
These groups all use the same form of illogic, and here’s the main problem: You can’t claim to be quoting ‘facts’ and using ‘references’ to establish truth, then follow it up with comments about “known truths” which are actually only opinions. Instead of posting all 6 pages of their argumentative errors, here’s a list of the most important ones:
“The corrupt and mafia government of Mr. Karzai…” statement – V2007 treats it as a fact. It’s not a fact, it’s a statement made any another person, thus is no more valid than anyone else’s opinion. How are they corrupt and a mafia, or at least any different from any other government?
“Canada cannot separate itself from its US allies, the key foreign force in Afghanistan.” statement. Again, opinion.
“Canada’s role is inseparable from the NATO role. NATO soldiers are killing Afghan civilians in increasing numbers.” Statement. V2007 implies that NATO soldiers are killing Afghan citizens therefore Canada as part of NATO is killing Afghan citizens. Political rhetoric, and false logic that falls under the category “if you pull off all four legs, the frog goes deaf” logic.
“Actually, our Open Letter was based on the reverse assumption: it is because we believe that soldiers can be autonomous and free thinking (and we know soldiers who are free-thinking) that we’ve decided to try to dialogue directly with you.” statement. A backhanded complement. We ’can be’ free-thinking’, and they ‘know soldiers who are freethinking’…but the phrasing indicates we are not included in that group.
“It’s generals and senior officers who seem to think that soldiers should just do the job they’re paid to do, which is to accept orders.” statement. A blanket generalization which I know to be untrue, therefore based on you own bias. Some generals and senior officers may be like that, but not all of them are.
“Gordon O'Connor is Canada's Donald Rumsfeld” statement. A V2007 opinion, not a fact.
“In the same speech, he stated: ‘Every time you kill an angry young man overseas, you're creating 15 more who will come after you.’” Statement. V2007 makes a series of interpreted logic from a selected statement that is obviously not a fact, but may be the Generals personal opinion.
“Canada's role in Afghanistan sounds like a plan for disaster, mainly for the people of Afghanistan. No wonder that "reconstruction" and "development" are being used as cover for Canada's "killing"; and no wonder Canada's military is being used as cover for American-led imperialism in the Middle East” statement. Imaginative use of the words ‘sounds like’ and ‘being used as a cover’. These are not facts these are opinions.
“Franciso Juarez is not our poster boy. We simply cite him as a clear example of someone who objected to Canada’s role in Afghanistan, and suffered the consequences.” statement. Denial of alternate perceptions of the events involving Juarez is not logic, its bias.
“Plus, let’s be practical here: ISAF is a smokescreen (kind of like the “coalition of the willing” in Iraq); you soldiers know just as well as us anti-war activists that the Afghan mission is led by the United States, thru NATO, with Canadian, British, German and other soldiers playing specific supporting roles. The US leads this thing via NATO.” Opinion.
“You ask for evidence for the Canadian military being used as a smokescreen for American-led imperialism in the Middle East. 2500 Canadian troops in Afghanistan, as part of the US “War on Terror,” gives credibility to that war. Do people seriously think otherwise?” statement. Opinion again, despite implying they would give evidence.
“Again, development and reconstruction are useful smokescreens. It’s what’s done under modern-day COIN doctrine.” statement. Development and reconstruction projects are developed and run by foreign affairs departments and NGO’s, not the military. This is not just opinion and bias, its paranoia.
Edit - This used to be a pretty solid rule up until last year. The line is probably a lot murkier now.
“The Taliban is the "blowback" of those previous (US) policies.” While many of the world’s errors could be attributed to the USA, it’s a pretty big reach here. It’s the same as saying that the US was responsible for the fall of the USSR. It ignores a million other factors that contributed to the situation. More ‘deaf frog’ logic.
“Here's how Block the Empire-Montreal is self-described: Block the Empire-Montreal is an anti-authoritarian, direct-action collective opposed to war and militarization, and their roots and manifestations: colonialism, imperialism and capitalism.” followed by “One war, for example, that many of us would support…” and even later admit that they are willing to be violent ("we are not all pacifists") and “willing to fight for what they believe in”. Isn’t this counter to anarchist anti-war ideology? Or is it a case of ‘the end justifies the means’?
Sidenote: Army Vern notes that the V2007 crew are logging on as guest rather than by account. It may be that they are at a workplace where the company has a policy against non-work-related Internet use… or they just thought they were being covert.
“We don’t presume to have a full understanding of any geopolitical situation (who can?), but don’t take us for naïve” statement. Admitting you are ignorant of a full understanding doesnt mean your limited knowledge makes you right. It means that you havent looked at both sides of a conflict and that you have only a half-full understanding of the situation. Its not about being naive, its about not being informed. (Especially when you blame Harper for our being in Afghanistan despite the fact that Chretien and the Liberals approved our intervention there.)
So. Now instead of just leaving it at that, I give you three questions to which I would like to hear your responses:
1) Why are you only protesting the deployment of Van-Doo's at Valcartier to Afghanistan? Is there a special reason why they shouldn’t go when every other army unit in Quebec contributes people there? And why did you start now?
2) Does your group (or other anarchist groups) support intervention in Sudan? What method of intervention do you propose?
3) Canadian forces leave Afghanistan, immediately. How will this improve the country? What is the anarchist plan for helping the country other than getting rid of the imperialist forces?
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Just a shout out to my brothers in blue in Quebec City. I'll be thinking about you June 22.
To Valcartier 2007, I hope your protest brings you all the rich rewarding experiences that you are hoping for and will most keenly deserve. Enjoy the free society that war veterans have won for you.
To Valcartier 2007, I hope your protest brings you all the rich rewarding experiences that you are hoping for and will most keenly deserve. Enjoy the free society that war veterans have won for you.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
zipperhead_cop, I don't agree in the least with Valcartier 2007. That said, I do accept the fact that they have the hard-fought right to protest, as long as it is peaceful. So long as it remains peaceful, I hope that the pic you just posted does not become reality on June 22. The Vandoos deserve much better than that, although they also deserve much better than to have a bunch of ill-informed, self-proclaimed anarchists protesting their very important mission. Anyways, what I'm saying here is that I hope that the protest remains peaceful.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Protesters in general are peaceful. Anarchists are not. As soon as you see people showing up with scarves over their faces, or wearing gas masks, you can be sure they are not there to spread informative dialogue. Typically, there is a core of people who have a message to spread. Then there are a bunch of clowns that end up starting fights. They could care less about the message, they just want to fight. Much the same as soccer hooligans.
I'm sure Val 2007 will deny to the death that this is the intent of their aim. But you can already see them angling towards it. They will only "target" the organizers or high ranking individuals. They only want to "talk" to the families. Like any family member wants to talk to one of these gumps right before their loved one is about to deploy.
In 2000 I was right in the heart of it when the OAS was in town. There were lots of granola eating "burn the money, plant a tree" types, but it was the anarchists that were the ones who caused all of the problems. It is a common pattern all over the globe.
All they want is TV time and some clips they can put on YouTube so they can blog each other off about how cool they are. Unfortunately, ignoring them tends to not work, because they will do whatever they need to in order to get noticed.
The good part is, modern policing here in the major Canadian cities have taken the lessons learned from the Brits, and are getting good at public order events. There will be several police video's rolling, and the people who are inciting the crowd or throwing things from the rear will be spotted and taken out.
I'm sure Val 2007 will deny to the death that this is the intent of their aim. But you can already see them angling towards it. They will only "target" the organizers or high ranking individuals. They only want to "talk" to the families. Like any family member wants to talk to one of these gumps right before their loved one is about to deploy.
In 2000 I was right in the heart of it when the OAS was in town. There were lots of granola eating "burn the money, plant a tree" types, but it was the anarchists that were the ones who caused all of the problems. It is a common pattern all over the globe.
All they want is TV time and some clips they can put on YouTube so they can blog each other off about how cool they are. Unfortunately, ignoring them tends to not work, because they will do whatever they need to in order to get noticed.
The good part is, modern policing here in the major Canadian cities have taken the lessons learned from the Brits, and are getting good at public order events. There will be several police video's rolling, and the people who are inciting the crowd or throwing things from the rear will be spotted and taken out.
Similar threads
