Canada Loses Colonel in A-Stan

[In Between Man]

God Bless those guys! They're the greatest!!! There are no words to truly express the gratitude we have for the especially the fallen, they gave their very lives for what we all value the most.

 

[Cliffy]

The one who just sits in the back of the class hoping he is never picked, That is safe way it go thru life, When you pass someone, do you leave a littl f yoursrlf with that peron?


When you pass will the morn?

Bucking the status quo is not safe. Living outside the norm is not safe. Living by your own wits in the forest is not safe. Not living up to other people's expectations or by other people's rules is not safe. Being your own person, not buying into the propaganda of mindless consumerism, politics and religion is rewarding but not safe. When I pass, no one will notice. Why would that concern me?

 

[FiveParadox]

That would kill the economy.

That seems like an irresponsible reason to continue an armed intervention. Certainly we should place the lives of members of the Canadian Forces far, far above whatever petty economic and monetary concerns we may have at home. To hold their lives in any less regard than that is to descend to the levels of so many opponents that we have faced abroad before.

__________________​

Upon learning of the death of Colonel Geoff Parker, Royal Canadian Regiment, a statement was issued by Her Excellency the Right Honourable Michaëlle Jean C.C., C.M.M., C.O.M., C.D., the Commander-in-Chief in and over Canada. The Commander-in-Chief expressed the “great sadness” that Her Excellency, and His Excellency Mr. Jean-Daniel Lafond C.C., experienced at the news of the loss of another member of the Canadian Forces.

This barbaric act of aggression in the middle of rush hour reminds us of the many dangers our brave military personnel and the Afghan population are exposed to every day. Despite this tragedy, the will of Colonel Parker’s brothers- and sisters-in-arms to protect the Afghan people remains unshaken. Together with NATO forces, they are fully committed to fulfilling their difficult mission of restoring justice and peace to a country ravaged by decades of oppression and injustice.

We extend our sincerest condolences to the family and loved ones of Colonel Parker; to his colleagues, who are grappling with this immense and unjust loss of one of their own; and to all those mourning the other victims of this terrible attack. We also wish a speedy recovery to all those who were injured. Our thoughts are with you at this time.

To view the entire statement, click here.

 

[ironsides]

Bucking the status quo is not safe. Living outside the norm is not safe. Living by your own wits in the forest is not safe. Not living up to other people's expectations or by other people's rules is not safe. Being your own person, not buying into the propaganda of mindless consumerism, politics and religion is rewarding but not safe. When I pass, no one will notice. Why would that concern me?

That would be a shame, and there is the difference

Col. Geoff Parker, 42, born and raised in Oakville, became the 145th soldier to die since the mission began in 2002 and the seventh this year. He leaves a wife and two young children – and by the accounts of his many peers in Kandahar – a career of limitless potential.

Parker was among at least 18 killed, including five U.S. soldiers, as the blast tore through a main thoroughfare on Kabul’s Western edge.
The apparent target, a convoy of five unmarked SUVs in which Parker and the Americans were riding. But Afghans bore the brunt of the rush-hour attack, which shredded as many as 20 vehicles, killed a dozen civilians and wounding scores more.

They are starting new tactics over there, maybe it will save future lives or both our soldiers and the civilians..
US Aim: Protect Civilians First, Then Troops


May 14, 2010
Associated Press



WASHINGTON -- A key to the U.S. approach to fighting the Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan is this seemingly backward logic: The more aggressively you protect your own troops, the less secure they may be.
The idea is that troops who put themselves at risk to protect innocents will ultimately help decrease violence against Americans. That's because every time U.S. forces inadvertently kill or wound a noncombatant, it outrages the families and communities of the victims and erodes support for the battle against militants, strategists say.
http://www.military.com/news/article/us-aim-protect-civilians-first-then-troops.html?ESRC=marine-a.nl

 

[Cliffy]

Duh! Someone is just now figuring out that every civilian you kill produces 10 insurgents. Where have they been for the past 20,000 years? You are not fighting taliban over there, you are fighting people who are pissed because you kill innocent members of their families. I could have told you that before you went in there. It is precisely why we should get the hell out of their. We should never have gone in the first place. Propaganda and BS are not good reasons to invade a country.

 

[darkbeaver]

That would be a shame, and there is the difference

They are starting new tactics over there, maybe it will save future lives or both our soldiers and the civilians..
US Aim: Protect Civilians First, Then Troops


May 14, 2010
Associated Press



WASHINGTON -- A key to the U.S. approach to fighting the Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan is this seemingly backward logic: The more aggressively you protect your own troops, the less secure they may be.
The idea is that troops who put themselves at risk to protect innocents will ultimately help decrease violence against Americans. That's because every time U.S. forces inadvertently kill or wound a noncombatant, it outrages the families and communities of the victims and erodes support for the battle against militants, strategists say.
http://www.military.com/news/article/us-aim-protect-civilians-first-then-troops.html?ESRC=marine-a.nl

Right, well that's the new same old domestic posture the American/western public has heard for decades Ironsides. Occupation troops never ever put themselves at risk to protect the innocent. There are no innocent, there are only victims of enemy actions or dead sympathizers.

 

[YukonJack]

Cliffy opined:

"Duh! Someone is just now figuring out that every civilian you kill produces 10 insurgents."

And how many insurgets were there in Germany after the Allies carpet bombed Leipzig and Dresden? Or how many in Japan after Hirosima and Nagasaki?

 

[darkbeaver]

Cliffy opined:

"Duh! Someone is just now figuring out that every civilian you kill produces 10 insurgents."

And how many insurgets were there in Germany after the Allies carpet bombed Leipzig and Dresden? Or how many in Japan after Hirosima and Nagasaki?

You're correct jack. Just make sure you're on the right side.

 

[Machjo]

Cliffy opined:

"Duh! Someone is just now figuring out that every civilian you kill produces 10 insurgents."

And how many insurgets were there in Germany after the Allies carpet bombed Leipzig and Dresden? Or how many in Japan after Hirosima and Nagasaki?

Amen and Hallelujah to that. Praise the Lord Almighty!

 

[petros]

Cliffy opined:

"Duh! Someone is just now figuring out that every civilian you kill produces 10 insurgents."

And how many insurgets were there in Germany after the Allies carpet bombed Leipzig and Dresden? Or how many in Japan after Hirosima and Nagasaki?

Good thing you ran like a little girl instead of doing what is right and standing by your brothers and sisters and at least tried to oppose the Russians.

You have absolutely no place to speak as someone who abadoned his home and family.

 

[Cliffy]

Cliffy opined:

"Duh! Someone is just now figuring out that every civilian you kill produces 10 insurgents."

And how many insurgets were there in Germany after the Allies carpet bombed Leipzig and Dresden? Or how many in Japan after Hirosima and Nagasaki?

And how does carpet bombing compare to invading someone's home and shooting half the occupants? Your response is typical of an extremist. If you nuke a bunch of people, they are dead and those who survive are too busy dying to muster any resistance. Were there many survivors after Dresden? Besides, it seems to me that the defenders of Germany at the end of the war were teenagers whose parents were killed by enemy bombers.

 

[YukonJack]

To the separated-at-birth mentally challenged bobbsy-twins:

I only responded to a very general statement by Cliffy. Sorry if I had the impertinence of voicing a dissenting opinion.

The fact that you two can only come back with personal attacks speaks well of you.

 

[Cliffy]

To the separated-at-birth mentally challenged bobbsy-twins:

I only responded to a very general statement by Cliffy. Sorry if I had the impertinence of voicing a dissenting opinion.

The fact that you two can only come back with personal attacks speaks well of you.

But you can't answer the questions I posed because your response was a knee jerk reaction without foundation in any reality.

 

[petros]

I'm sorry but running like a girl is shamefull and what is more shamefull is still hiding behind and trampling on the blood of others your entire life.

 

[YukonJack]

petros, I will just ignore your childish and mostly incoherent personal attacks.

Not put you on "IGNORE", because your ignorant and misinformed posts are always good for a chuckle. Just ignore you.

 

[petros]

petros, I will just ignore your childish and mostly incoherent personal attacks.

Not put you on "IGNORE", because your ignorant and misinformed posts are always good for a chuckle. Just ignore you.

Facts are facts jack. It's not an attack unless I'm wrong in what I say. I guess I'm not wrong then am I?