I Hate Wingnuts

(via CC)

Why I hate wingnuts. This is a comment by one of Canada’s premier wingnuts.

[pre-emptive note… to the usual anonymous trolls]

this is, indisputably… a terrible loss for the family & friends of these brave soldiers… but let’s also try to keep a little perspective.

before you go all “taliban jack” here… try to remember that, statistically, we have lost less than 20 soldiers per year since 2001.

in contrast…

“nineteen snowmobilers have died in avalanches in B.C. and Alberta just this winter.”and if you want a real wakeup call… read a book about world war one… or snakes.

Here’s my comment :

“we have lost less than 20 soldiers per year since 2001.”

Neo. How many of them were your kids/relatives/uncles/aunts/neighbours/people you know?

..dumbest comments EVAH!! Keep digging that hole, Neo, keep digging that hole…….

…..aaaand the response from Neo.

oh, look… agsharma… another empty blogger profile set up exclusively for drive-by trolling.

hey mr troll… let’s go with the complete quote, shall we?

begin quote…

[pre-emptive note… to the usual anonymous trolls]

this is, indisputably… a terrible loss for the family & friends of these brave soldiers… but let’s also try to keep a little perspective.

before you go all “taliban jack” here… try to remember that, statistically, we have lost less than 20 soldiers per year since 2001.

in contrast…

“nineteen snowmobilers have died in avalanches in B.C. and Alberta just this winter.”and if you want a real wakeup call… read a book about world war one… or snakes.end quote…

which of the facts here are you disputing? you’re suggesting i don’t support the troops?

oh, that’s right… you’re not disputing anything factually. you’re just using the infamous, leftbot… “you’re a big poopyhead”… gambit.

you guys are just so pathetic.

It never ceases to amaze me how the right wing thinks.

My point was how could this blogger say “just” 20 deaths per year? It almost seems like this blogger says, because there were a few deaths, we should continue letting soldiers die out there even if it means that the probability of a soldier dying each year is 0.571% ((20/3500)*100). This is precisely why I hate politicians (and idiotic bloggers) who think this probability is low enough to continue a war that has lost it’s meaning. And that’s why I do not support this war. The soldiers, yes. But not the war.

And what the hell is the meaning of comparing deaths on the battlefield with accidental deaths in BC?

I have been warned not to engage the wingnuts because their screams and moans do wake up the dead. I usually do not leave comments on their sites. But I could not resist this time.  My excuse is that I had not finished my morning coffee yet!!

3 More Dead

And so it continues…….

An explosion that killed three troops and wounded another west of Kandahar marked a devastating strike against the Canadian Forces by insurgents whose recent attacks have come in rapid succession.

Sergeant Shawn Eades, Corporal Dustin Wasden and Sapper Stephan Stock died in the attack on Wednesday.

It was the worst one-day toll for the Canadians since July 4 of last year when six soldiers were lost in a single explosion. And it occurred in the same week that 10 French troops were killed in an ambush near Kabul and three Polish troops were killed when a bomb struck their vehicle in the central part of the country.

Let these young kids keep on dying for an objective that is ill defined and ill served by our “esteemed” politicians. Fine, for what ever reason these soldiers are still out there. I hope that they are lead by sharp and responsible leaders.

But Brigadier-General Denis Thompson, the commander of Task Force Kandahar, said he does not believe the spate of coalition deaths means the Taliban are getting stronger.

“What I’d say is they are much more aggressive this fighting season than they have been in the past,” Gen. Thompson told an evening news conference held to announce the deaths.

“The difference is they are not holding any of the ground that they attack us on. So in the case of an IED [improvised explosive device] strike, they will inflict some casualties but they don’t control the road that they inflicted the casualties on. So really the net effect is zero.”

There are areas of Afghanistan that are under Taliban control.

But “not here in Kandahar province,” he said, “and I am only concerned with Kandahar province.”

This is about the dumbest statement made by a ranking official. Does he not have people telling him that he is sounding like a complete idiot?

“The net effect is zero”? What the hell do you mean by that? 3 soldiers died and you have the gall to say that the net effect is zero? I think even the village idiot would have recognised by now that Taliban modus operandi is to disrupt everyday life and not to “hold land” like this moronic Brigadier General is saying. I think he needs to be given a dictionary so that he can look up the meaning of “Insurgency”.

Rosie Dimanno : Wilful Ignorance

So Rosie Dimanno has another article on The Star.

The article is basically a “history” lesson on what happened in Afghanistan since 2001. She explains how Taliban has been routed and since they do not hold any territory, they are finished and the insurgency is looking for a way out.

Ms Dimanno, if the insurgency is finished, can you explain this?

Eight people have been killed and nine injured in two terrorist attacks in Afghanistan.

Taliban militants on Saturday released Pakistan’s ambassador to Afghanistan

Afghan Female journalist stabbed

Eighty-three Canadian soldiers and one diplomat have been killed since the Canadian military deployed to Afghanistan in early 2002

I do not understand this incessant need for reporters to bring `good news` from Afghanistan and how our `glorious` NATO is doing everything right. The truth is that the mission in Afghanistan is floundering. Insurgents by the very definition of the word are not a body or an organisation. If one insurgent wants to talk to NATO on `giving up`, is that person speaking for all the insurgents? Of course not. Insurgency is not going to end with technical terms like `we are beating them in the battle field` or `they don`t control any territory therefore they are losing`. Insurgency will be defeated through politics. And with the corrupt government and the corrupt warlords (bought by NATO), I do not see insurgency ending soon.

The troops should have been back by Feb 2009 and yet they continue to pay the price because politicians are too timid to fight the real fight. And that`s the story. Not that Taliban is losing.

Why? Please Explain To Me, Why?

<Link>

Two Taliban rockets struck a forward operating base west of Kandahar Tuesday during a visit by Defence Minister Peter MacKay.

MacKay was conducting private meetings at Forward Operating Base Wilson, about 20 kilometres west of Kandahar city, when the attack occurred.

“I do not believe he was targeted,” Gen. Rick Hillier told reporters on Tuesday. “I think these are things that have occurred (coincidentally) in time and space. I think it is less dangerous now during any time we’ve been there for the last 18 months, for ranking Canadians to go out there and to move around in the vicinity.”

So, I guess it means that there is still some danger (even though we and the NATO has spent millions and millions of dollars) to the politicians and generals (and, hence, the Canadian soldiers). Okay, if there is danger then there is danger. Insurgency will continue for a while and we will continue fighting it back even though insurgents probably are smart and sophisticated as this bit tells us:

Bill Graveland, a reporter for The Canadian Press who was at the forward operating base with MacKay, told CTV Newsnet the attacks were likely spurred by the increase in helicopter activity at the base.
……………..

Military analyst Sunil Ram said the Taliban tend to keep a “very sharp eye” on the day-to-day activites of the troops.

“The minute they notice a change, it generally will trigger an attack. Albeit a rocket attack is incredibly inaccurate, and as a direct targetting of the minister, I think it’s unlikely,” Ram said on CTV Newsnet’s Mike Duffy Live.

But why do our politicians and high ranking officials insist on making absolute crappy statements like this :

Hillier said the attack is a sign of how desperate the Taliban have become since being pushed back by coalition forces.

“What was subjected to attack was one of our forward operating bases and that has been consistent because the Taliban have been driven back so they have to resort to long-distance attacks,” he said.

This is just a rehash of statements of Dick Cheney and President Bush