Mind of a Protester

[PSY OPS]

im just talking out my arse (as usual!  )
as a matter of fact some soldiers ARE protesting occupation of iraq and afghan
and some civie protesters are militant to the point of being soldiers
or at least militant enough to fit the def of being "domestic terrorists"
:threat:

 

[Edward Campbell]

im just talking out my arse (as usual!  )
...

Ahhh, well, now I see.

Here: http://rabble.ca/babble/ and here: http://www.freedominion.ca/phpBB2/index.php are public fora, at fairly remote points on the socio-political/economic spectrum, one from the other, where that (talking out of a lower orifice) is the custom.

 

[a_majoor]

Re the thug blocking free access to the protest (presumably to prevent the photographer from seeing and publishing the abysmal turnout) wasn't a union thug; read on!

http://thelondonfog.blogspot.com/2006/10/that-was-no-ordinary-protest-goon-that.html#comments

Monday, October 30, 2006
That Was No Ordinary Protest Goon, That Was VP, NDP London North Centre! Good Lord! It gets weirder.

Go here for the original story, including audio clips.

That Union Thug who harassed and marginalized me at the late war protest -- physically denying my right to peacefully photograph a public event in a public place -- turns out to be Gil Warren, the Vice President of the NDP London-North-Centre riding association.

The comments box to this post would be an excellent place for NDP sympathizers, and moreover, candidates in the London North Centre riding, to reaffirm their party's, and their own, support for journalistic freedom to take photographs at public events.

NDP London North Centre candidate Megan Walker? Riding association president Stephen Maynard?

Reread that post with this in mind: it was not just any union thug, but an NDP riding association vice president:

Aggressively demanding my identity as the price of peacefully going about my business;

Physically preventing me from going about said peaceful business of taking photographs in a public place;

Shouting ridiculous accusations of me being a CIA or CSIS agent (now why would an NDP vice president have anything to worry about on that score, even if I were one?);

Ascribing my odious views to my blue eyes and white skin;

Equating the killing of Taliban with the murder of raped women by Taliban.

Hear more Gil "Choice Is A Red Herring" Warren audio here, in conversation with Bob Metz of the Freedom Party of Ontario on AM 1290 a few years back.

I'd apologize to the UTE-SEI for associating Gil "It's Not About Choice" Warren entirely with their organization in my first post... but, fuck them.

Feel free to cross post this on the blogosphere, everyone needs a good look at this, and everyone who is sincere about socialistic politics (i.e. supporters of the Euston Manifesto) should be encouraged to shine a light on the NDP and expose people like that.

 

[North Star]

Aren't the three D's as articulated in the Defence Policy Statement DEFENCE, diplomacy, and development?

Oh well. It's not really productive to debate Jack - the facts get in the way of his reality and just make him look more like Lenin.

 

[dglad]

A few have mentioned the fact that there ARE, in fact, opponents to the Canadian operations in Afghanistan who are thoughtful people with legitimate moral, ethical and/or practical objections.  It's really important that that fact not get lost in the general tendency to--quite rightly--deride the sadly large group that are opposed Canada's involvement largely (or even solely) for self-serving, cynical reasons that are primarily about promoting an only tenuously-connected agenda and/or personal gain.  It's important that the thoughtful opponents speak out and are heard; it's important that they attack our rationale for being there and force us to defend it.  Not only is that vital for democratic integrity, it's essential so that those of us who believe being there is the right thing are sure we understand why we believe that.  We should welcome this debate with open minds, because it give us a chance to examine, then put forward and defend our own positions.  Personally, I have no reservations about why we're in Afghanistan.  It's the right thing for us to be doing--a meaningful operation that fits well with the capabilities of our small, but effective army.  I have no concerns that we're there as occupiers, or that we're perpetrating "war crimes" or "atrocities".  I'll admit that I do have some reservations about exactly HOW we (i.e. NATO as a whole) are conducting the mission, but the mission itself is the right one.

And I came to this conclusion not instantly, on the basis of instinct or simple gut-acceptance of what we'd been ordered to do.  I came to this feeling of "rightness" through discussion and debate with people I know, and respect, who actually oppose our being there.  They forced me to examine my position and, in so doing, solidified it.  THAT'S what "protest" in a pluralistic society is about...not about tossing open a grab-bag of vaguely "socially conscious" issues and "protesting" simply because it fits your particular (and poorly defined) view of the world.  Frankly, the people who do that (like the Union Thug above) piss me off because they're shallow, self-absorbed, intellectually dishonest and, no matter how much they might say the contrary, really don't "support the troops".  In my experience, many of them actually dislike soldiers for the same flat reason they dislike anything that doesn't fit their simplistic view of the way the world ought to be...that is, because they don't fit their simplistic view of the way the world ought to be.

 

[a_majoor]

More about the protester mindset:

http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/008021.html

Peacenik rubbish at rabble.ca

Why can't these useful idiots ever get their facts right (via MediaRight.ca)? Real idiots I guess--even though one author purportedly teaches at a Canadian university--and indeed useful to some.

...since 2001 under former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien: offering specific logistical supports to the American military mobilization, setting up a “peacekeeping” operation in Kabul soon after the launch of the Afghan war against the Taliban, and staying out the “coalition of the willing” entering into the war in Iraq...

Herman Rosenfeld is a retired member of the Canadian Auto Workers and an activist in TUAW. Greg Albo teaches political economy at York University.

What a farrago of ignorance:

1) A Canadian combat battle group was in Afstan from February to July 2002 (see "Deployment of the 3 PPCLI Battle Group"). That was "soon" after the American campaign against the Taliban (and al Queda) and it was not peacekeeping.

2) The authors write "...soon after the launch of the Afghan [my emphasis - MC] war against the Taliban..." Not quite. Afghans had been fighting the Taliban as part of the Afghan civil war from 1994 up to 2001.

3) The CF only arrived for their "peacekeeping" mission in Kabul in August 2003 (see "Operation ATHENA (2003-2005)")

Yet our protesters, and others, lap up this drivel, don't know enough to spot the factual howlers, and are too smug and intellectually lazy to do any research themselves. Many members of our media are not much better.

The fact that one of these people is in a teaching position at a University is rather scarey, if he is unable to assemble a coherent and factually correct argument out of easily Googled information, what exactly is he teaching his students? Does the Dean know about this?

 

[jonstarks]

Welcome to University life where students are brainwashed by profs who do not have a clue what they are talking about, and to make it worse since profs are held in a higher standing with authority, students do not question what they are taught. (maybe this is way I am not a fan favourite in my classes)    I am currently a university student and i am appalled at what some of these professors are teaching the students in these politic science classes.  Last week during that protest against the CF mission in Afghanistan, one of my friends came up to me and began to explain "her" viewpoints on why the war in Afghanistan is despicable.  "Canadians are just going around killing civilians with no regard for their lives," along with some other ridiculous BS.  After talking with her I asked her some questions in which she had no response because she regurgitated what her prof said in class instead of taking sometime to find the facts herself.  After talking with her for a couple minutes and asking her question after question which were followed by a blank stare, she informed that her prof has more credability than myself or else she wouldn't be a prof and she will take her profs opinion and word over mine anyday.

So as you can see even if you present facts and statements to back up your opinion and viewpoint, it means nothing unless you have some sort of authority.

Welcome to the University students mindset!!

 

[a_majoor]

Well jonstarks, it looks likeyou have what it takes to be a leader of tomorrow.

Be gentle with the sheeple like your friend, their milk and wool could be a valuable export commodity! 

 

[career_radio-checker]

For your amusement:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0vm7GtzAFs

Here's a little drinking game you can do while watching this. Everytime the guy with long hair says "Bush," you got to take a swig
I guarantee you won't make it passed 6 minutes.

I thought I would post this because everyone is telling about their arguments with people 'opposed to the war,' and here you have a recorded edition.

Also, a few more 'educated' rebutal examples:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-MZdVgTR2e8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JuZKtJos8Ak&mode=related&search=

 

[Rodahn]

More about the protester mindset:

The fact that one of these people is in a teaching position at a University is rather scarey, if he is unable to assemble a coherent and factually correct argument out of easily Googled information, what exactly is he teaching his students?

Probably Basket Weaving 101, Stapling and Advanced Stapling......

 

[condor888000]

Also, a few more 'educated' rebutal examples:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-MZdVgTR2e8

Gotta love this guy, comparing Northern Ireland to Afghanistan, jeez.  :

 

[Boxkicker]

I have read through this thread, and felt I would like to add to this. I have views coming at me from all levels inside my family and in my personal life.
  My mother who ardently supports what we do (although she never wanted me to have this as a career) has taken the time to understand this mission and learn some of the little intricacies of it. My sister is a Dr. in Toronto absolutely hates my career choice, is totally and completely politically correct and a ardent feminist. know nothing of the mission refuse's to learn or even hear dissenting views. She thouroughly believes that anything that we have heard about the Taliban is lies and propaganda set out buy Bush and the PM. I even set her straight about the length of time we have been in Afghanistan. and she refused to listen. This is the true  mindset of the intelligentsia of this country, and it is sad that educated people refuse to listen to dissenting opinions. I have even emailed Taliban Jack and asked him for debate and intelligent conversation on this subject, identifying myself as a member of the military, I have not heard so much as a F*** OFF from him or his staff.
It is sad to note that the ardent activist and protester, will never have an intelligent conversation about it. They believe that we are all brainwashed automaton's, my current girlfriend used to believe this until she met me and realised that we are people to. She still does not agree with the mission BUT she does respect my view, and my opinion. We have agreed to disagree, she is not a protester and never would, I do know that she will support me and at least she will listen.

 

[a_majoor]

Boxkicker, please tell your sister that if I were ever to discover that I was under her care I would refuse treatment from her in an instant, since a person who refuses to listen, hear or understand conflicting factual evidence should and cannot be trusted to deal with a complex subject like medicine.

Imagine if the sensible people were able to shun, fire or otherwise shut out close minded individuals from professional work. Anyone who is unable or unwilling to look at evidence in a dispassionate manner simply will not be able to perform in a competent manner in ANY field, much less debate us about the military or politics. (Look at the drubbing ignorant people get when they attempt to bring these kinds of views here in Army.ca).

 

[TCBF]

"After talking with her for a couple minutes and asking her question after question which were followed by a blank stare, she informed that her prof has more credability than myself or else she wouldn't be a prof and she will take her profs opinion and word over mine anyday."

- Okay, I'm sure Lenin or Stalin or one of those Old-Timey Commies said something to the effect that they need only  control a country's education system for two generations and the revolution would succeed.  Are we there yet?

Tom

 

[jonstarks]

I think we are almost there.  It doesn't help the fact that so many university students classify themselves as NDP and are such strong followers of Taliban Jack and his posse.  With a combination of trusting so severely with authority figures without hesitation or questioning of their teachings and having someone like Taliban Jack influencing the minds of university students, it is a matter of time before his revolution succeeds.

"I shiver at the thought of Taliban Jack as PM."

 

[North Star]

A few points:
1) Debating Taliban Jack. He made his choice not to support the mission as a political marketing ploy, nothing else. It's therefore unwise to try and debate him on the topic, as all you'll have thrown at you are George Bush strawman arguments and other crap that plays well to his political niche. Now, if the Liberals start playing to that niche too, then the country will have a problem. Time and their leadership convention will tell.
2) MDs. Some Medical Doctors are at a disadvantage when it comes to reasoning their way through the real world. It's a function of their "education" and professional selection process, which is focused entirely on science and not enough on logical reasoning, philosophy,  political science, or even people skills (the guys I know from UofT Med have a really bad reputation there). Then again, if I spent years of my life in a political bubble only reading biochemistry textbooks, I'd be a little naive too. Don't get me wrong, there are some good people who go to med school, it's just they don't get the time to look at the issues critically.
3) Academia in general. A disturbing fact is many academics, despite being in the humanities, don't have a background in logical reasoning or philosophy. Think about that for a second. They hold a doctorate in philosophy, and yet never even learned how to construct a fallacy-free, solid argument. My field, history, was notorious for this. Another distrubing thing is the lack of breadth amongst tenured-track professors. How many full profs do you know ever operated in the "real world" ei diplomatic corps, military, business, politics (beyond being on a committee)? If they have, especially in the area of business or politics, they tend to rare and discounted as "insiders" by their colleagues. In my opinion, the acadmic community in Canada is suffering from a dillusional illness brought about by a lack of practical experience; an illness they're spreading to their students who accept their flawed reasoning by virtue of their naivete.

So what can you do?

Present facts, build solid arguments from them, and use these arguments to make'm cry.

 

[Boxkicker]

 
North Star

I have noticed that from my sister after all she is a psychiatrist, and did a thesis on PTSD. What is worse is she could not see a problem with putting guy's from Bosnia in with rape and abuse victims. Those guys would open up and have half the room crying and the other half puking and running for cover. Absolutely no common dog.

Incase nobody else knew old Taliban Jack was a university professor.

A_Majoor you dont need to worry unless you have been in the laughing acadamy.

 

[TCBF]

"...the acadmic community in Canada is suffering from a dillusional illness brought about by a lack of practical experience; an illness they're spreading to their students who accept their flawed reasoning by virtue of their naivete."

- Good, hard-hitting conclusion. 

Tom

 

[Brad Sallows]

>They hold a doctorate in philosophy, and yet never even learned how to construct a fallacy-free, solid argument.

While I have a healthy lack of respect for the opinions of many humanities graduates, I think you'll find that philosophy department students, graduates, and professors are proficient at argumentation.

Given the number of humanities programs which require a strong foundation in written argumentation (ie. essay writing), I would expect the philosophy department's first-year introductory course in logical and critical thinking to be a requirement, but I suspect it isn't.

 

[vonGarvin]

While I have a healthy lack of respect for the opinions of many humanities graduates, I think you'll find that philosophy department students, graduates, and professors are proficient at argumentation.

Given the number of humanities programs which require a strong foundation in written argumentation (ie. essay writing), I would expect the philosophy department's first-year introductory course in logical and critical thinking to be a requirement, but I suspect it isn't.

As a philosophy dept grad, not only are my fellows good at argumentation, but some at sophistry (a fancy word for BS)
All I can say is that where some of my fellow "humanaties" students had a few essays over four years, I had several concurrent essays throughout my four years.  I would say in excess of 60 in my four years, ranging from small (1000-2000 words) to HUGE (10 000 words).  I guess that's why I can type fairly fast now