Mikey Arcibald and Chucky.pdf

CENSURER GENERAL A T T A C K I N G C O R P O R O - F A S C I S M @ T H E R O O T

Q S L S P O L I T I C S

Loading...

T U E S D A Y , M A R C H 2 5 , 2 0 0 8

Post #1: On the Drug war v.s. T.J. Burke

Original Comment:

Putting the "Special" into Specialized Courts

My Response: " If you're a drug dealer and your caught distributing illegal narcotics then

it's unlikely you're going to a Drug Treatment Court."

Why have the only 'drug dealers' I've heard of being taken down in NB are the two our

cops allowed to be burnt out of house and home and potentially beaten to death (1),

rather than dealing with the situation?

How are our police so continuously inept, are the policies of Los Angeles in the 80s

being replicated here in NB?

It seems like the power given to LEO to search and use drug dogs, like you love to

parade in front of submissive airline passengers and frightened teenagers, would be

enough to track and take down the big drug honchos?

But, then again - our troops are propping up the growers (2, 3), why shouldn't the legal

system be coddling the importers and upstream dealers?

http://censurergeneral.blogspot.com/

http://qslspolitics.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default

http://censurergeneral.blogspot.com/2008/03/post-1-on-drug-war-vs-tj-burke.html

http://tjburke-sayitlikeitis.blogspot.com/2008/03/putting-special-into-specialized-courts.html

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/new-brunswick/story/2006/11/10/nb-trial.html

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070512/afghanistan_poppies_070512?s_name=&no_ads=

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/drugs/heroin-afghanistan.html

POSTED BY DAN F AT 7:59 PM

2 C O M M E N T S :

David Raymond Amos said...

PLEASE CORRECT ME IF I AM WRONG BUT DIDN'T YOU INTRODUCE

YOURSELF TO ME AND ASK FOR MY FILES THE INSTANT CHUCKY

ALLOWED A FEW OF MY COMMENTS TO BE POSTED?

CHUCKY WAS BITCHING ABOUT YOUR BUDDY THE "BLOGGER GENERAL"

T.J. BURKE DOING THE VERY SAME THING HE HAS BEEN DOING FOR

FOUR YEARS. HOWEVER NOTICE HOW HE ALLOWED ME TO HAVE LAST

WORD IN THIS BLOG. WHO KNOWS IF T.J. BURKE RESPONDED OR NOT.

ONLY CHUCKY AND HIS WCIE CORRECT?

NOTICE WITHIN THIS BLOG OF CHUCKY'S THAT HIS PAL MIKEY

ARCHIBALD ADMITS THAT HE SOMETIMES POSTS IN ANOTHER ID?

HMMMMMM EH?

TO DATE ONLY THE GYPSY, THE ALBERT COUNTRY DUDE AND YOU ARE

THE ONLY BLOGGERS IN NEW BRUNSWICK THAT HAVE NOT DELETED

MY WORDS.

HOWEVER YOU EDIT THEM ETC WHEN YOU CUT AND PASTE THEM FROM

ELSEWHERE AND DO NOT REFER TO YOUR SOURCE. CORRECT? WHY?

ONE BLOGGER WAS SO EVIL AT STEALING MY WORDS AND USING THEM

FOR HIS OWN ENDS YEARS AGO THAT HE EVEN WENT THE STEP

FURTHER AND PRETENDED TO BE ME. HIS NAME IS DEAN ROGER RAY.

YOU CAN STILL SEE SOME OF RAY'S YOUTUBES SLAMMING ME

http://censurergeneral.blogspot.com/2008/03/post-1-on-drug-war-vs-tj-burke.html

http://www.blogger.com/profile/06553336660119659315


ATTACHED TO MINE AND A LOT OF HIS WORK STILL EXISTS ON THE WEB

WHICH CONTAINS MY WORDS SLIGHTLY ALTERED AND LOADED IN MY

NAME AND A VERY SIMILIAR LOOKING EMAIL ADDRESS WITHIN

YAHOO.(ALL THE OTHER YOUTUBES AND THE COMMENTS DONE BY HIM

LAST YEAR WERE MYSTERIOUSLY DELETED BY A HIGHER AUTHORITY

HE CLAIMS NEED I SAY BULLSHIT?)

I WOULD NOT BE A BIT SURPRISED IF DEAN ROGER RAY AND HIS BUTT

BUDDY THE YANKEE NORFOLK COUNTY DEPUTY SHERIFF ROBERT F.

O'MEARA MAKE THEIR APPEARNCE WITHIN YOUR BLOGS ONCE THEY

DISCOVER THEM. IF THEY DO LOOK OUT. I WILL RESPOND.

ANYWAY I FIGURED THIS WAS AS GOOD A PLACE AS ANY TO REMIND

YOUR BUDDIES T.J. BURKE, MIKEY, CHUCKY AND ALL THE ANONS OF

THEIR MALICE.

CHUCKY ALLOWED EVERYBODY TO MAKE A COMMENT IN THE

FOLLOWING BLOG. IT WAS THE FIRST TIME IN HISTORY I MIGHT ADD.

N'EST PAS?

Charles Leblancs Other Blog

Monday, March 24, 2008

Blogger General Burke will not post all comments???

IMG_3942

Originally uploaded by Oldmaison

I left two comments but to no avail.

Was this just a publicity stunt by the General.

Is he truly a blogger?

Did anyone else have the same problem???

posted by Charles LeBlanc @ 5:44:00 PM 12 Comments

12 Comments:

At 7:35 PM, March 24, 2008 , Spinks said...

He's just not on the blog all the time. Sometimes it takes a while for the comment

to appear.

At 7:39 PM, March 24, 2008 , David Raymond Amos said...

You know I do with both the new "Bogger General" and you.

Remember Chucky?

Whats the matter don't like the taste of your medicine? Or is it a case of the

crackpot calling the crudy kettle black?

Too funny N'est PAS?

At 8:43 PM, March 24, 2008 , just driving by said...

Or maybe, he's not a a full-time blogger, and not checking comments every 15

minutes, and he'll get to yours when he has time...


HMMM this is getting interesting Chucky is acting with some semblence of

integrity


Anybody got any guesses as to whom just driving by is. I have an idea or two.

At 6:17 AM, March 25, 2008 , Dan F said...

He censors comments all the time.

At 9:47 AM, March 25, 2008 , mikel said...

I'll have to speak up as well, I've had several comments not appear, but I can

never remember whether I've checked to see if I've typed those letters in

correctly and its actually been sent.

The first one was pretty lengthy but he was wondering aloud why people aren't

involved in politics so I figured I'd give him the list. I know Spinks doesn't like stuff

like that but I have faith that people aren't so stupid they don't know how to

ignore comments or use the scroll button. And I haven't had a post rejected from

a blog since David Campbell's early years when debate was probably taking up

too much of his time.

But it was quite critical of New Brunswick specifically. It happened two more

times, but one time I resent the same post but I accidentally had logged in with a

different blogger account (and you guys wonder why people want to just post

anonymously) and it showed up.

And none of those posts were conspiracy theories, racial slurs or anything like

that. It's sad, but its understandable, in fact it may even be in the best interests.

His is now one of the only blogs where policy is discussed (although thats not

always the intent) and I have a feeling that if other MLA's have any brains at all

they are watching it closely to see if its worth the effort to try to tap into the

general public-namely their constituents.

So it can be said that 'the easier' it is for Burke the better it is in the long run as it

will open up blogs and facebook so that MLA's will have more contact with New

Brunswickers. And to be the most charitable, we 'regular posters' are nothing if

not critical (and probably worse can be said, well, actually worse HAS been said).

If you have any relatives that are only vaguely interested in politics then you

should let them know about the blog and show them how to set up a blog

account, but this is one of the few blogs where its actually important that people

see it and get involved. It's true that its often a self serving party cheerleader, but

there's also been plenty of criticism in the comments.

What would be interesting is whether he's actually advertising it within his

constituency. He obviously touts his partly line but the comments certainly don't

make it an ideal election strategy (I'd be surprised if it stayed up during the

campaign).

At 10:36 AM, March 25, 2008 , T.J. Burke said...

Reality is, I just don't post libelous, slanderous or insensitive remarks.

At 10:50 AM, March 25, 2008 , Charles LeBlanc said...

Excuse moi General Sir?

I hope you don't mean moi???

I always speaks the truth!!!!

:P

At 11:08 AM, March 25, 2008 , Anonymous said...

I BE DE JUDGE.lol

A perfect censorer defined

At 3:56 PM, March 25, 2008 , Anonymous said...

Charles, just because you say something is true, doesn't make it so.

At 3:51 AM, March 27, 2008 , David Raymond Amos said...

Excuse me T.J. Burke Baby

It was you who made false allegations agains me to the RCMP last May.

Remember?

Now even your Irving media buddies erased thier work on the web. Just because

they or the CBC did not name me does not mean that you dudes did not describe

me to a tee.

Then there was all those cops calling me and emailing me and calling and

visiting my friends as well. Slander is slander T.J. Burke whether espressed or

implied.

Slander and false allegation made against a politcal opponent or any other

citizen are definite crimes particulary when done by a far from ethical Attorney

General.

Remember the documents and CD I served upon you and your buddy Kelly

Lamrock on June 24th, 2004 after your buddy Danny busierres and the Fat Fred

City Finest breached my section 2 charter rights T.J Baby? Better start studing

them. If you lost them like your pal Chucky Leblanc may claim he did Brad Green

and his hero Bernie Lord got even more and they answered me on august 3rd,

2004 Remember TJ?

Whereas you now hold Brad's office you have my matiel on file somewhere ask

you underling Jeff Mockler her answered me just as I came scearming out of that

Yankee jail in October of 2004. Remember?

Veritas Vincit

David Raymond Amos

P.S. I see that you little buddy chucky is blocking me once again so I will email

this to you and him as usual and post the email in my blog and the Gypsy's if he

has maintined his integrity as the only ethical blogger in Fat Fred City

MAY 26, 2008 5:07 AM

David Raymond Amos said...

THIS BLOG LAST YEAR WAS TOO FUNNY.

THE NB TAXPAYER DELETED MY COMMENT AS USUAL BUTHE DENIED IT

IMMEDIATELY AS HE ALLOWED HIS ANON COP PALS TO ATTACK ME.

TELL ME WHO NEEDS THE NANNY STATE THE NB TAXPAYER OF THE

BUREAUCRATS SUCH AS MOST OF THE MALICIOUS BLOGGERS WHO

WANT TO KEEP THEIR USELESS JOBS?

http://nbtaxpayers.blogspot.com/2007/10/start-taking-notes-victor-boudreau.html

Countering the Nanny State

A blog dedicated to lower taxes, less waste and exposing, and resisting, the ever

ubiquitous nanny state that is corroding the way of life and the freedom of the

people of New Brunswick.

http://censurergeneral.blogspot.com/2008/03/post-1-on-drug-war-vs-tj-burke.html?showComment=1211803620000#c1232321642848806624



Wednesday, October 31, 2007

Boudreau: New Brunswick needs more transfers and higher taxes

[via Sobering Thoughts];

The Toronto Star editorializes that with yesterday's announced tax cuts Canada's

future is threatened, we will descend into barbarism and ... who knows, perhaps

even have to pay for a little of our healthcare:

"It has been said that taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society. Yesterday

the Conservatives made this country a little less civilized by killing the hope of the

poorest in our midst for a fairer society in which everyone has a roof over their

head and enough to eat."

You see, if there is no big surplus laying around, it will be harder for a future

Liberal-NDP government to ram universal daycare down our throats later. Or as

the Star puts it, not having the revenue from excessive taxation (those were my

words) is a "financial straitjacket they will impose on Ottawa for years to come in

terms of dealing with the huge social and infrastructure problems that currently

plague Canada" (those were the Star's). The Star editorial writer's ask, what

about money for "affordable housing," "public transit" and "other municipal

infrastructure"? In other words, why didn't Finance Minister Jim Flaherty hand

over our hard-earned tax dollars to Toronto Mayor David Miller?

The Star's "socially progressive" Canada might well be threatened if Canadians

get too use to keeping their money, and that is a good thing and reason enough

to applaud the Tories for the modest tax cuts they announced yesterday. It is

also another reason for the government to cut taxes even more.

I see what Tuns means. Cue Victor Boudreau: "This federal government seems

to have turned the page on equalization, even though provinces like New

Brunswick don't feel like they're getting their fair share."

Funny, because I always thought more transfers meant higher taxes and more

dependency. Oh well, I guess the NB Liberals have now turned the page on self-

sufficiency, even though they still verbally use the term.

posted by NB taxpayer @ 9:05 PM 29 Comments

29 Comments:

At Oct 31, 2007 11:26:00 PM , David Raymond Amos said...

This post has been removed by a blog administrator.

At Nov 1, 2007 10:37:00 AM , Anonymous said...

Boudreau's in way over his head.

At Nov 1, 2007 11:03:00 AM , David Raymond Amos said...

so much for the integrity of a NBTapayer with no name N'est Pas?

FYI I save this webpage too. Methinks I know who you are.


david, why don't you add something of value or crawl back under the rock you

came from?

At Nov 1, 2007 12:17:00 PM , David Raymond Amos said...

WilL you let it stand Arsehole?


I typed to fast because I was pissed but here ya go arsehole. Put this up your

arse with your head and then smoke it will ya?

FEDERAL EXPRESS February 7, 2006

Senator Arlen Specter

United States Senate

Committee on the Judiciary

224 Dirksen Senate Office Building

Washington, DC 20510

Dear Mr. Specter:

I have been asked to forward the enclosed tapes to you from a man named,

David Amos, a Canadian citizen, in connection with the matters raised in the

attached letter. Mr. Amos has represented to me that these are illegal FBI wire

tap tapes. I believe Mr. Amos has been in contact with you about this previously.

Very truly yours,

Barry A. Bachrach

Direct telephone: (508) 926-3403

Direct facsimile: (508) 929-3003

Email: [email protected]

http://actionlyme(DOT)org/FBI_WIRETAPE_TAPES(DOT)htm

September 11th, 2004

Dear Mr. Amos,

On behalf of Her Excellency the Right Honourable Adrienne Clarkson, I

acknowledge receipt of two sets of documents and CD regarding corruption, one

received from you directly, and the other forwarded to us by the Office of the

Lieutenant Governor of New Brunswick.

I regret to inform you that the Governor General cannot intervene in matters that

are the responsibility of elected officials and courts of Justice of Canada. You

already contacted the various provincial authorities regarding your concerns, and

these were the appropriate steps to take.

Yours sincerely.

Renee Blanchet

Office of the Secretary

to the Governor General

At Nov 1, 2007 12:43:00 PM , nbt said...

Hey David, that wasn't my post above. For the record, I keep let all comments

stand that have merit and don't stray too far off from the main point. Just keep the

foul language to a minimum. That's all I ask.

Just ask mikel. [He] knows that ppl who don't on this blog never make it to strike

two. :)

At Nov 1, 2007 1:29:00 PM , NB taxpayer said...

Oh, btw David, if you're unsure of the Blog FAQs, just click on this link:Flame

wars, Offensive Language and spamming.


Why di yo delete my other commets?

What if I stated your name is that a swear word?

At Nov 1, 2007 2:34:00 PM , NB taxpayer said...

Still unsure????


Unsure of your own actions???


For the record I just sent you four emails from my gmail to yours to prove that I

am no liar about my dealings with corrupt taxmen etc over the years. I will follow

them up with two more. May I suggest that you press print on the attachments

listen to the the sound files etc and have a lawyer call me 506 434 1379 As I said

I believe that I already know who you are.

Veritas Vincit

David Raymond Amos


The deed is done. you have lots to study now N'est Pas? Never forget the

following are your words not mine. I only did as you requested Correct?

Vertias Vincit

David Raymond Amos

About "Countering the Nanny State"

What do you hate most about big government? Babbling, self-serving

bureaucratic agents? Pork-barrel spending schemes that line the pockets of

partisans? Entitlement programs that either create dependency or threaten to

bankrupt future generations? Regulations written in drivel-speak that make life

miserable for common citizens on the street? Local politicians who dream up

"fees" for government services you've already paid for?

We hear you. That's why there's Countering the Nanny State, sponsored by the

NB Taxpayers, New Brunswick's only taxpayer blog.

This is your blogspot for fiscal issues -- any size, anywhere, all the time. This

hard-charging blog digs up the freshest facts on taxes, government spending,

abuse of power, and anything else that serves to limit our freedom to strive and

thrive.

But we're not just here to complain about what our government is doing to us. We

want to change the way leaders act with our money and the power we've given

them. Tax reform, constitutional budget limits, ballot measures to stop tax hikes,

recall petitions, privatizing government agencies -- it's all on the table here.

Help us make Countering the Nanny State the best spot on the web for

taxpayers:

Send us information on waste, fraud, abuse in government, federal, provincial, or

local.

Clue us in to tax revolts in your town or city; we just might be able to help them.

Let us know about stories the national and local media missed.

Give us your feedback on the news and views we post. If we want the politicos to

listen, taxpayers have to talk to each other first.

At Nov 1, 2007 4:01:00 PM , Anonymous said...

Thousands of email addresses and millions of words later, and still nothing to

add. Keep up the good work, David.


"Keep up the good work"???

Hmmm those were exactly the words the aptly named lawyer Rob Moore (who is

currently parliamentry secretary for the minister of justice) said to me on June

19th, 2004 the day after I debated him for the first time and right after I had a little

pow wow with the RCMP dude guarding his boss Stevey Boy Harper. (I have

pictures)

A few days later Harper announced on CBC that he had new info for the Arar

Inquiry and Lorne Waldman wanted him to testify at the Inquiry as Jack Hooper

swore that he or CSIS didn't tell Harper nothing.

AT least that malicious cop made one true statement during the entire matter.

CSIS didn't tell Harper squat. It was me. Check my blog and you will see the

proof.


Hey David, if you're going to sue everybody, why don't you just do it instead of

talking. Oh yeah, because you got NOTHING but BS. Check yourself into the

psych wing and leave the normies alone, you nut.


So you say but least I have a name which is clearly more than you EH? BTW

have you checked the dockets lately? Wanna know where to look?


Who cares? No one takes you seriously because you act nuts. Try toning down

the nuttiness and people might take you seriously otherwise leave people alone.


Oh ye with the mouth but noname to back up your yopur words, Methinks you

have spoken a simple truth with meaning to do so. Ihat is the fact that I ACT nuts.

(Keyword ACT)

Even within many legal documents I am the first to admit that simple fact. In fact I

have described myself in court as a courtjester. I am always the first to admit that

I am crazy and quaify it by explaining that I am crazy like a fox. It works like a

charm to keep the crooks a bay.

To put it simply the smiling so and sos (for NB Taxpayer's sensitive ears) such as

yourself have underestimated me for way past too long N'est Pas?

Veritas Vincit

David Raymond Amos


How about you ARE nuts? Is that more clear? Charles Leblanc even thinks

you're a wingnut so what does that tell you?


Just so we are clear. Your buddy the nasty Frenchman Chucky Leblanc claims it

thus it is so? How many times do you think he has met me and what happened

on that pne and only day in June of 2004? Did he tell you Mr. Anoy? Furthermore

do you know of anyone other than a corrupt cop or politician that has actually met

me?


Not without a bodyguard. There's a reason no one pays attention to you. You

harass them to death.


You sound just like the chickenliver T.J. Burke and his corrupt RCMP pals. That

is what they said of me above the fold in the rag known as the Gleaner on May

24th of this year. Don't you know that the Fat Fred City Finest a la Det Rob

Costello investigated and found the allegations to be false? Better yet are you

one of the unnamed malicious bureaucrats making the false allegations. Clearly

you say such things on the internet EH? did you know that slander is a criminal

act and so are false allegations? Methinks I should sue your Attorney General

EH? Wann add your name as well?


Let me take a couple of wild guesses. Could you be Chris Baker or possibly Tim

Porter? Chris Baker called me once and Porter and I have never talked but both

dudes and I have exchanged written words. Chris Baker and I did for example in

the Emera Pipeline matter in Saint John. That is amatter of public record.


I'm the Ghost of Christmas Past. Let's discuss your obviously troubled childhood.


Yes lets do. Who are you and what is your contact info. I love scaring the hell out

of spooks. i will come see you and show what true hell can be.


From: "[email protected]"

To: [email protected]

Date: Nov 1, 2007 3:32 PM

Subject: Out of Office AutoReply: For the record All Hallows Eve was fun for me

ask one troubled NB Taxpayer

I will be out of the office until November 2, 2007. If urgent please contact

[email protected]

Je serai à l'extérieur du bureau jusqu'au novembre 2, 2007. En cas d'urgence

veuillez contacter [email protected]


Hey more non-sensical stuff. Great. Shouldn't you be covering your room in tinfoil

to stop the satellites form spying on you?


Why??? I am not hiding anything nor am I the shy dude with no name who feels

free to attack others.

Post a Comment

MAY 26, 2008 5:41 AM

Post a Comment

F R I D A Y , A P R I L 1 8 , 2 0 0 8

Another chap ban for life from the New Brunswick Legislature by Dan

Bussieres!!!

14


POSTED BY CHARLES LE BLANC @ 11 :46 :00 AM 17 COMMENTS

17 Comments:

At 12:46 PM, April 18, 2008 , Anonymous said...

http://censurergeneral.blogspot.com/2008/03/post-1-on-drug-war-vs-tj-burke.html?showComment=1211805660000#c1902900837746355044

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=4519707481833230622&postID=6906704498802631337

http://www.flickr.com/photos/httpoldmaisonblogspotcom/780439012/

http://www.flickr.com/people/httpoldmaisonblogspotcom/

http://charlesotherpersonality.blogspot.com/2008/04/another-chap-ban-for-life-from-new.html

http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=33318594&postID=577554850743720371

http://charlesotherpersonality.blogspot.com/2008/04/another-chap-ban-for-life-from-new.html#c3075538145430456496

What's Charles Manson doing in front of the Legislature?

At 1:03 PM, April 18, 2008 , A Jewish Male. said...

ENOUGH WITH THE MUSTASH PICTURES THAT ARE INTENDED TO MAKE

DAN LOOK LIKE HITLER. AND DON'T GIVE THE EXCUSE OF WHAT

COMPARISON TO HITLER IT'S JUST A MUSTASH. IF IT'S JUST A MUSTASH

MAKE IT BIGGER OR MAKE IT A BEARD.

YOU ARE A SICK PERSON THAT NEEDS HELP!

At 4:05 PM, April 18, 2008 , Charles LeBlanc said...

Hitler? I don't see any Hitler pictures?

Speaking of Hitler? You people are narrow minded.

When I think of Hitler? Yes, I also think of the 20 million people that died but my goal is

freedom.

When Hitler took power he took control of the media to brinwash the citizens of

Germany. The same is happening here in New Brunswick with the Irving monopoly.

Fascism? That's Hitler. When party members spoke out against Hitler? They were beat

up. The same that could have happen to me at Sweetwaters at the Liberal Christmas

Party.

I wish you narrow minded people would just ignore this blog!!!

:P

At 4:22 PM, April 18, 2008 , Charles LeBlanc said...

Opps..forgot one more issue.

To convict people without providing the evidence is pure FASCISM!!!

All we know is I was ban because of the murder of a young girl.

Fascism indeed!!

http://www.blogger.com/delete-comment.g?blogID=33318594&postID=3075538145430456496








New Brunswickers should demand that all the Quebec Security Staff be remove from the

Legislature.


hello charles

thanks for finally doing the right think and showing david amos as the other man to be

banned from the legislature. i happend to be there with him. he never even had entered

the grounds, and never gave them a reason for a ban, except that he had been digging up

to much dirt of people in high places, including in the new brunswick government, and

that made them nervos, so they send their pinchers to serve him with the ban. when he

showed it to me i went back and asked a comissionar why mr amos had been banned,

when he apparently had done nothing wrong. the answer was, that they were not allowed

to tell. so much for open and accountable government in the pictureprovince.

comparing david with charles manson showes either ignorance on the side of the

commentator, or he or she is one of those creeps from the dark side of humanity. as far as

i know david, i only can say that i think, that he is as straight as an arrow, and people of

good will better pay some attention to what he has to say. it is complicated, but who says

that live is simple, and only simple and shallow individiums pass on rush judgements.

never judge a book by its cover, and never assume a man with a big beard to be of the

kind of a charles manson. neither should be assumed that everybody who drives a harley

is a hellsangel.

charles, i am new at this blogging, but i had to get this off my chest. hope that i click the

mouse at the right places and you get the comment.

werner bock


Werner

Its a wonder you'r not banned from the legislature yourself being sucj a good frient of

Amos Mr Email to everyone about everything but the kitchen ink. Why are you backing

Member of Parliament elect Amos and What's your beef & cattle with the Goverment

anyway ?

At 5:34 AM, April 19, 2008 , Anonymous said...







David Amos is a menace to society that needs to have a permanent ban against use of the

Internet imposed upon him!!


Amos harasses everyone he meets. Banning him is common sense.


David Amos and Childish Leblanc, just like two peas in a pod isn't it...Your only making

the case for your banning that much easier to swollow.

At 6:13 PM, April 19, 2008 , David Raymond Amos said...

The words of no minds with no names are worth less than nothing in cyber space and far

less than one of Werner cows farts in downtown Hillsboro.It is what I file in the public

record of Federal Court that truly counts. Once I sign my name all the nominds with no

names can get a number and stand in line to argue me if they dare to do so.

With respect to Werner, why the RCMP refuse to investigate who has been burning his

hay bales for the past year is what I want to know right NOW. Rest assured Cst Britt of

the GRC's telling him to move just won't do. I explained that to the nasty Federal buggers

last week as I complained of the false allegations of Scotty Baby Agnew of the Irving

Empire and his wife the lawyer to them

The ex RCMP dude Danny Boy Busierres and his associates T.J. Burke, the cops in Fat

Fred City and the National Security dudes such as Norm Plourde and Kevin Jackson

know that I am as serious as a heart attack that is why all the dudes with no names

pounced so quickly on this blog in a faint hearted effort to impeach my character.

FYI they are way past too late to stop me now. The very illegal banishment of me from

the Leg four years ago was a breach of my Section 2 Charter rights whilst I was running

against the current parliamentry secretary for the Minister of Justice. rest assured that

nonsense will backfire on them bigtime in short order or my name ain't "Jusat Dave"











...faint hearted effort to impeach my character.

Naw, you do a fine job of that yourself Dave. You need no assistance.

At 11:21 AM, April 20, 2008 , Scott Agnew said...

David, can you give me the court docket number of one single case you've filed in ANY

Canadian court in the last five years. Just one. You rant and rave about your proclivuty to

sue anyone and anything you dislike and yet I cannot find a single reference to a court

case filed by you in New Brunswick. If you are a man of integrity and of your word,

please just let us all know the docket number of a single filing. If you cannot provide that,

why then should anyone listen to anything you have to say? Empty words my friend.

Empty words. BTW, two more emails from you to a particular email account and I will

be able to provide a docket number to you for charges laid against you for criminal

harassment.

At 11:29 AM, April 20, 2008 , Charles LeBlanc said...

I don't know what scares people the most?

See ya in court???

or

You'll be blogged in 15 minutes!!!!

:P


Considering how worthless you feel no minds with no names are you sure seem to spend

a lot of your time talking to them...Could it be as long as you get to rant and rave your

usual sillyness it really doesn't matter all that much after all?


Neither Charles. The loony ramblings of David Raynmond Amos. The non-sensical

ramblings would scare anyone.











I don't know what you mean David?

I print your comment.

Everyone knows we can't email you because you're so happy in receiving an email that

you sent it to everyone.

So? There's no way to get your message out because you don't believe in privacy.

WE just have to do it in here I guess?


Sorry David...foul language won't mke it in this blog.

This blog will soon be in the archives soon enough.

WE can't send ya an email so I'm telling ya right here.

If I want to use the word- Shithead?

I can but I won't!!!

You want to debate issues in a good and polite way? Go for it!!!

Foul language will only be deleted!!!

S A T U R D A Y , A P R I L 1 9 , 2 0 0 8

DAN BUSSIERES AND THE NEW BRUNSWICK LIBERAL GOVERNMENT

TO ARREST BLOGGER CHARLES LEBLANC NEXT WEEK????

IMG_4664








http://www.flickr.com/photos/httpoldmaisonblogspotcom/2158697416/

http://www.flickr.com/people/httpoldmaisonblogspotcom/

Heard this story last week!!!

Stay tuned!!!

POSTED BY CHARLES LE BLANC @ 1 :22 :00 PM 5 COMMENTS

5 Comments:


We can hope, can't we?


How knows..they might if you don't hide out in a crowd as you usually do.


In order for you to be arrested, the authorities need to lay an information before the court

that alleges you have committed a crime against a person or a person's right or property.

What have they or going to charged you with blogger wonder ?

You'r just making things up to make yourself sound counterversatial !

At 9:10 PM, April 20, 2008 , Dan F said...

Walk in with the media every day they're in session.

If the building really is the seat and symbol of democracy in New Brunswick (1), let's see

what happens when NB's biggest blogger gets taken down for trying to cover its

happenings.

I'm hoping the democratic spirit is still strong enough amongst the debt slaves that they'll

notice when their SPP loving, Corporate blackmail folding, EFI cutting overlords try to

block freed media.

Bon chance, Charles!

At 10:57 AM, April 21, 2008 , David Raymond Amos said...

http://charlesotherpersonality.blogspot.com/2008/04/dan-bussieres-and-liberal-new-brunswick.html

http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=33318594&postID=6730631180849118862

http://charlesotherpersonality.blogspot.com/2008/04/dan-bussieres-and-liberal-new-brunswick.html#c605884789591222099








http://www.gnb.ca/legis/index-e.asp




Too bad so sad for you if they do Chucky. Why you keep blocking my responses or

editing my words to dudes such as Snotty Scotty Baby Agnew is something I will never

understand. whatever your nasty game is I ain't playing it

Veritas Vincit

David Raymond Amos

S U N D A Y , A U G U S T 0 5 , 2 0 0 7

This New Brunswick Day support the troops

I hear a fair amount of talk in the media from people who claim to not support Canada’s mission in Afghanistan but in the same sentence say they support our soldiers. The same people seem to have more sympathy for the Taliban than our own soldiers so I find that a little hard to believe but in certain cases it certainly is possible. However when you have members of the legislature in Quebec refuse to even stand when soldiers enter the House of Assembly, well it's tough to believe that’s the case. In Fredericton on New Brunswick Day there’s a chance to prove you do support the troops. Members of the military will be at Old Government House as part of New Brunswick Day celebrations. This is an annual event and every year there are a handful of protestors at Canadian Armed Forces Day who get a disproportionate amount of media attention claiming to support the soldiers but not wanting them in Fredericton to talk about what they do. Yeah, it doesn’t make sense to me either. So this year head on down and talk to some of the soldiers. If you don’t support the mission, that’s fine, tell them that, but don’t bother getting into a debate with them. Take that up with your Member of Parliament. If you really support the troops, wish them all the best and that if sent overseas that they stay safe. You can also say that you appreciate that they have signed up for the service and are willing to put their lives on the line for Canada and you. Otherwise, saying you support the troops, while giving them the equivalent of the finger doesn’t wash. You can’t have it both ways. “If you don't stand behind our troops, then feel free to stand in front of them.”

P O S T E D B Y S P I N K S A T 1 0 : 2 4 A M - L I N K . . . . . . 57 Comments

mikel said... It's very possible, particularly since you don't seem to understand even the basics of opposition to the forces in Afghanistan. Show just ONE comment from somebody who doesn't support having troops in Afghanistan showing 'more sympathy for the Taliban'. Virtually NOBODY has even said they supported the Taliban or are sympathetic to them, and you know it. However, some people feel that the 'least they can do' is not criticize what soldiers have to do, and tell others to do the same. Far from it, thankfully the numbers are swelling and Harper won't have such an easy time prolonging the mission this time around. Those 'certain

http://spinkaboutit.blogspot.com/2007/08/this-new-brunswick-day-support-troops.html

http://dailygleaner.canadaeast.com/canadaworld/article/43432

http://www.downtownfredericton.ca/content/66585

http://spinkaboutit.blogspot.com/2007/08/this-new-brunswick-day-support-troops.html

http://spinkaboutit.blogspot.com/2007/08/www.broadcastnb.com

http://www.blogger.com/email-post.g?blogID=30710038&postID=2103768220279992208

http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=30710038&postID=2103768220279992208

cases' are the majority of canadians. Of course it depends what is meant by support. Since talk is cheap its easy enough to wish a soldier good luck. I'd add that since Canada is a signatory to the International Criminal Court that I'd mention that to a soldier because what they do in Afghanistan, whether following orders or not, may come back to haunt them. I'll change that recommendation. Since its a free country feel free to go talk to soldiers about whatever you want to. That's your right as a canadian. Protest if you want, carry a sign if you want, and talk to the soldiers about whatever you want. That's what its all about. Those who REALLY should be standing wth the soldiers are the ones who say they support them, but seem to be too busy with their own lives to actually act on their principles. It's a pretty backward scenario for people to claim that THEY are the ones 'supporting the troops' when they are the ones that suppport putting them in the line of fire. Yeah, it doesn't make sense to me either. 5:55 PM

Spinks said... Since you've compared Canadian soliders to Nazis in the past mike, I'm pretty clear where you stand. 5:59 PM

Anonymous said... However, mentioning his previous comments don't really address the current comments. In fact, I would suggest it's a bit of a dodge. He challenged: "Show just ONE comment from somebody who doesn't support having troops in Afghanistan showing 'more sympathy for the Taliban'. Virtually NOBODY has even said they supported the Taliban or are sympathetic to them, and you know it." Is this something worth addressing or should we all just be quiet and go bake a Canada flag cake to show our support? Can you back it up or is this just what you accuse every other media outlet of doing? 9:30 PM

Spinks said... Hmmm still trolling here eh anonymous. However I'll grant you it's a pretty short retort from my end and that's because frankly I have little time for mike especially on a subject like this where he has compared Canadian soldiers to Nazis. However if you want one comment, fair enough. You don't have to go farther than mike's own comments about soldiers doing their duty and it coming back to haunt them. Doesn't sound like someone rooting for the Canadian soldier does it? 10:38 PM

Kit said... MikeL 5:55. "...since Canada is a signatory to the International Criminal Court that I'd mention that to a soldier because what they do in Afghanistan, whether following orders or not, may come back to haunt them." Please explain what you mean by insinuating that Canadian soldiers are acting as war

http://spinkaboutit.blogspot.com/2007/08/this-new-brunswick-day-support-troops.html#5855662826203425273











criminals? A strong accusation to be sure - better have the proof to back it up. 10:59 PM

Anonymous said... "Doesn't sound like someone rooting for the Canadian soldier does it?" Nor does it sound like someone rooting for the Taliban... I'd hardly call asking you to clarify (or gasp, justify) your comments as trolling. But as I'm not one of the kitchen-logic spewing disciples of your blog, I can understand why you might call me that. In that regard, I'm not trolling here any more than you are. Using the nick "anonymous" is about as behind the mask as "spinks" or any other handle, in my humble opinion, anyway. The questions remain the same. 1:36 AM

Spinks said... When you change your nickname and go off topic as you have done here in the past "anon" you're trolling. Granted, on this post you're being consistent so your comments stay. Read my post instead of skimming it and you'll read where I wrote, "seem to have more sympathy for the Taliban than our own soldiers". What mike wrote is his business but his comments easily "justify" what I wrote. And disagree all you wish but leave the name calling of others at the door. If you don't like their opinions that's fine, disagree with them but calling people "kitchen-logic spewing disciples" is uncalled for and refrain from it in the future or take it to another blog where someone else will put up with it. 7:33 AM

mikel said... I think that says it all if Spinks thinks that what I wrote sounds sympathetic to the Taliban. Where exactly would that be? And Spinks knows fully well that all I said about nazi's was that like any military many of them were simply following orders and were punished accordingly, and the vast majority had nothing to do with the attempted genocide and were appalled by it. The nazis were a political party and can be compared to any other. In fact, we can easily compare the act of aggression in Afghanistan to Germany's takeover of Austria-except Afghanistan was far more brutal and violent. That's our political leaders, sorry, LEADER, because in Canada, unlike most industrialized countries, its up to ONE MAN what our country does in foreign affairs (and one man who doesn't even get the support of most canadians) What Spinks likes to do is make any opposition to his views sound extreme so that he doesn't actually have to argue it. That's how jingoism works. Leave reason out of it, just do what we say and shut up about it. As they say, 'truth is the first casualty of war'. We see that in the 'conditions' he sets in how he expects people to behave around soldiers. Obviously he doesn't know many if he thinks soldiers can't handle themselves. But like I said, some people think its their duty to at least try to keep people in line since they don't do much else. However, they don't even have to pass the military's entry requirements to follow on their ideals, as the number of 'contractors', or rather, mercenaries, is rapidly increasingly in both Afghanistan and Iraq. And they'll take









virtually anybody. So if you really support the troops, by all means prove it. As for the International Criminal Court, Canadian soldiers have been indicted in the past in absentia for NATO bombings in Kosovo. As we saw in the past canadian soldiers routinely handed 'suspected' Taliban over to the americans and to Afghan officials knowing full well they would tortured. For my part I support the troops, since its very difficult for a soldier to disobey orders and refuse to hand a person over. However, that can easily be determined a war crime. And that doesn't even get into actual aggression. As mentioned in the REAL media, more Afghan's have been killed this year by OUR forces than have by Taliban. And of course we have NO IDEA what it might be like on the ground and what people may be ordered to do. Somalia should have gotten rid of any idealist notion of military life. But some love to jump on any statement and stretch it out to their conclusions. I didn't say soldiers WOULD have to be accountable to the ICC, I just said that its possible and something they should know-and probably not something they DO know. Saying 'I just followed orders' doesn't cut it, and senior officers almost never get the same treatment as 'the grunts', Nurembourg proved that. 8:25 AM

Anonymous said... Incidentally, I've never posted under anything but Anonymous, and only a couple of times on this blog, so your accusations of me changing nicks are unfounded, but there's nothing I can do about that. By saying that someone's comments makes them "seem to have more sympathy for the Taliban than our own soldiers"... then you're making just a big a leap than saying that Cdn soldiers "seem" to be acting like Nazis. I don't agree with either statement, but think they're both pretty large and unwarranted jumps of logic. I find this rather contradictory to your whole "No Spin" claim. In this instance it rings as hollow as it does on Fox. Someone can be against a mission that has been ill-conceived, ill-equipped, logistically challenged and not fitting the role most believe the Cdn military fit without wishing for their deaths. One can hope everyone comes home safely (sadly, not everyone has) in spite of being troubled by the role we've assumed in Afghanistan. History shows that militaries far larger than ours can fight a protracted conflict there, and lose. I fully agree with your notion that if you support the cause, or at least the individuals fighting for it, do what you wish to support them (although Mike does have a point that much of that support tends to err on the side of shallow, hence my admittedly snarky comment about baking a cdn flag cake). My concern wasn't about that, it was the white-washing "shut down" with no real addressing of the commenter's question. As for him mentioning warcrimes and ICC and such - yes, bogeyman and rhetoric - but again, hardly siding with the "bad guys".... If you don't have a lot of time for the commenter and don't wish to properly respond to his questions, then why respond at all? 8:37 AM

mikel said...






Thanks for the backup, but again, thats hardly rhetoric to talk about the ICC. There are several canadian pilots that can no longer travel through several countries in Europe or they will be arrested. And war crimes are often not prosecuted right away, such things are often political-which is why the US refused to sign. Remember, a canadian who hands a suspect to an american who may torture them stands in the bizarre situation where they can be tried for war crimes while the people who actually do the torturing cannot-since they didn't sign onto the ICC. That's REALITY, not rhetoric, which is another good reason why 'supporting' the soldiers means getting them out of their before they have to choose between a court martial and the prospects of the ICC. Of course they 'claim' that such things don't go on anymore, but just because the media doesn't talk about it doesn't mean much. The 'fall guy' in most political decisions is always the soldier, not the guy in the suit, or even the General who says "its the canadian military's job to kill people". A quick look at how the feds are treating those who are claiming to have been affected by Agent Orange in Gagetown, or recent reports of underfunding psychiatric services should tell any soldier what their government REALLY thinks of them. And again, Nazism literally means 'national socialism', which is a political ideology (so a soldier CAN"T be compared to them). The specific atrocity of the germans in world war 2 we all know too well, however, virtually every country in the world functions along very similar lines of national socialism, in fact most of europe. So there a LOTS of 'similarities' there, without making any insane claims about genocide. The Norwegians can easily be called national socialists, but nobody says they are anything like the monsters who committed genocide-however, they do have a similar political ideology (people shouldn't confuse a political ideology with a specific governments acts). Apart from the genocide, Germany's 'system' was virtually identical to virtually every country it opposed. Remember, Canada had an advanced eugenics program as well at the time, interned japanese with no charges, refused to let jews into the country. In fact, even after the horrors of world war 2 were public, Canada was actively practising the genocide of native culture. There are numerous books on the subject about babies being left to die and even the recent acts of police taking natives out to freeze to death are part of a long and sordid history. Again, thats not to say its the SAME, that's obvious to everybody. But there's a reason the US and Canada and Australia made sure the UN didn't define genocide to include 'cultures', but only people. 9:22 AM

Spinks said... We discussed this last week friend when you posted under the nick, "It just keeps getting better". However post under whatever name you wish, simply stay on topic (as you have done here) and refrain from name calling and write what you wish. As for Mike I have little time but not zero. Our Ontario friend and I go way back with some long drawn out diatribes from both sides. I'm pointing out some of his background for context. He's reiterated it above and the reader can decide what they wish. 9:25 AM

Kingston said... Mikel on your previous post you made a comparison between the IRA and the Taliban to justify the need for negotiations. Could you please expand on that as I see no relationship concerning their handling of their own people in regards to human rights and or the fact that







the taliban allowed for the facilitating of a known terrorist organization that attacked not in the name of their political or national interests but world wide.( Kenya, New York, London, etc) Would it also be possible to expand on your comment concerning Canadian pilots and Kosovo and your statement concerning their inability to travel to foreign countries by providing a link to that information. As to your comparison of Afgan and Austria that is totally inaccurate and misleading, Austria was annexed by Hitler's regime with no intention of ever leaving it, unlike the present UN approved, NATO lead ISAF mission. 11:20 AM

Kingston said... Mikel, Would also appreciate a link to the indictments against Canadian soldiers as issued by the ICC 11:24 AM

The Pedgehog said... For heaven's sake, Spinks, I'm inclined to agree with the commenter above about your "no spin" tag line. I don't often hear such Bill O'Reilly-esqu drivel even from you. I don't support the war - I think it's a bad idea. Does that mean I support the Taliban? No. Shock and horror! There are more than two sides to the issue! I never would have imagined! Yellow ribbons and car magnets are all capitalist BS. Anyone who actually gives any thought to the issue or cares at all will do something other that spouting hackneyed slogans about "supporting the troops" (what does that even MEAN?) and, at the very least, take part in intelligent discussions about Canada's military role without resorting to "You're a terrorist!" "No you're a terrorist!" inanity (a word? Who knows?). I'm disappointed, Spinks. Usually you have (somewhat) sound reasoning behind your attacks on the left. 11:42 AM

Anonymous said... Hey Spinks, As you may already know, I served for approximately 4 1/2 years with the US Military. I have directly seen combat and have lost good friends as a result. My 28 year old brother lost his leg this year while serving in Iraq. Not only do I support our soldiers, I am prepared to stand in front of them to show my support! Irrespective of what people think about the politics behind the mission, soldiers do what they are told and are tasked to finish the job they are told to do. Unfortunately, people forget this minor detail. T.J. Burke 12:49 PM

mikel said... Good comments. For the IRA, definitely talk to some Irish people if you are under the impression that the IRA didn't use terror. In fact, they often used it more. Two recent reports from the BBC concerned how the Taliban were not harassing opium growers like they used to, and that the Taliban has actually built more rural schools (including to educate women) than the Afghan government (and remember, 'our' mission has nothing to do with building schools).












The IRA was and in many cases still is extremely brutal. If you were not friendly towards the IRA then you were/are in deep trouble. Ireland is even now a very dangerous place. People routinely disappeared and were murdered. One of their favourite 'tools' was a bat with a nail through that they would use for 'kneecapping'. And many buildings were bombed, not just in London. The IRA was extremely brutal to their own population (the ones who didn't support them of course). And this is not ancient history we are talking about. For Austria, if you'll remember your world war 2 history, it was NEVER the case that Germany 'invaded with no intention of leaving'. Austria already had a national socialist party, though not in power, and already had a large german friendly military. When the Austrian President sought to have a referendum to hopely legitimize Austrian independance, Hitler flipped and essentially warned him that if his policies didn't become more german friendly then things wouldn't go so well. So the referendum was held, while german friendly austrians stood next to the voting booth and counted each person's ballot while they voted. So no surprise that in the referendum, which was still held to be completely illigitimate (sound familiar?), the people of austria voted to join Germany. That's all without a shot being fired. That's why I say Afghanistan is far worse, where tens of thousands of Afghans have died, and that number is giving the benefit of the doubt. The other part is 'intent'. Germany 'intended' that Austria would become part of the German empire, which is true so far as we know. However, just because we don't intend to stay there doesn't mean the action is different. 'We' invaded Afghanistan, simple as that. We can polish it up and say they aren't nice people or that they are better off now, but that doesn't change the fact that it was an invasion. An invasion is not defined by a country's 'intent'. We can intend to kill everybody or intend to make everybody dress up like Harry Potter, an invasion has a very definite definition. So Germany 'took over' Austria with far less bloodshed. However, we should add here that the EXACT same thing could have been done in Afghanistan. Afghan's were not fans of the Taliban and had a large group opposing them. The Taliban was not in control of all the country. The taliban was built up and trained by the CIA, they knew more than anybody how they could be marginalized. And of course we know exactly how 'effective' the invasion was, according to most intelligence organizations terrorism has increased by 25 times , and I don't recall seeing Osama Bin Laden in jail anywhere lately. So again, for all those reasons people can support soldiers, as mentioned above, soldiers don't choose their targets or their mission. They can't hang around the cities to protect rebuilding infrastructure, or even more importantly, root out the massive corruption that makes up Afghanistan's current government. Support for the MISSION has zero, nada, zip, to do with soldiers. Those are policy decisions made by politicians. That is a line that is used by people to marginalize dissent, its been around for centuries. It's quite obvious that nobody would support the politicians forming the policy, hell, barely a third of the voting public, which only makes up just over half of the over 18 population even voted for the guy(s). But the line 'for the sake of the soldiers shut the *&^% up' is far harder to dance around because its not wholly disreputable. The thinking is that since you can't do anything about policy anyway, the least you can do is shut up about it and not make life harder for soldiers.

Of course we CAN do something about policy, thanks to a minority government, however, like Spinks I don't think there is much point in directing anything at soldiers...they don't make the decisions, the MP's do that (well, the PM actually). I have a feeling anybody dumb enough to walk up to a soldier and point their finger into their chest and shriek "I don't support the war in Afghanistan" is very likely to become even dumber in the near future with far fewer brain cells operating. 3:10 PM

Spinks said... It's a passionate topic isn't it? When something strikes me I never know how its going to play out here at the blog and this one is no exception. I just got back from the NB Day celebrations and it was nice to see a good crowd out. There were a handful of "protestors" if you will handing out pieces of paper about Stephen Harper killing children (and puppies probably). The folks were nice enough when I was there, non-confrontational but the sheet they were handing out was pretty far out in left field. There are pretty good arguments out there but this page being handed out wasn't it. I doubt any converts were won with it. Pedgehog, we disagree on something? ;) Let me leave this with you to ponder. If you agree the Taliban had to go, how do you recommend that take place? War sucks but it did get rid of the Taliban. TJ, good to see you weighing in again. It's always politics isn't it but regardless of the how and why, this corner contends that the soldiers themselves are fighting a noble battle to try to make life better for the people of Afghanistan. Whether they'll be successful is debatable but improving life for the Afghan people is their goal and its a noble one. 4:08 PM

mikel said... Notice that the conversation has switched to IF the Taliban had to go how do you do it. Of course that was ancient history and nobody is talking about that. However, there are numerous ways to undercut any nominal government. 'We' played a marginal role in that, we essentially followed the crowd. That's the reason why people can say not to say bad things, because of the assumption that 'improving life for the afghan people is their goal and its a noble one'. If it WERE their goal then that would be true, but how exactly do you tell a country that here's how we are going to 'improve your life': Step 1: Cut off all foreign aid right before winter to 'the people' who live a subsistence life mostly on foreign aid. Step 2: Begin carpet bombing all cities and known habitable points, as well as civilian targets and dams, bridges, etc (which are war crimes by the way) Step 3: Kill anybody who doesn't want the invasion to occur. Step 4: Allow elections under the conditions that those most likely to win are the corrupt thugs and murderers who governed the country before the Taliban (and far more violently) Step 5: Keep a military presence, but not to protect infrastructure, but to protect military investments (like the water that the canadian army sells to the French and US armies). Step 6: Use the military presence to keep the crooked dictators in power and to hunt out







anybody, and we mean ANYBODY who doesn't accept the foreign takeover of the country and its resources. Step 7: Refuse to use military to investigate crimes perpetrated by government or protect the infrastructure being built. That, of course, is essentially what happened point by point. It takes a LOT of propaganda to get people to the point where they can look at the corpses all over Afghanistan (oh I forget, we never see those do we, we just see the military running around saving kittens) and say "we're doing this to help you...well, the ones still alive and willing to capitulate to the corruption now running your country anyway". If you want to believe that then fine, but don't be surprised when others, in fact the majority, don't agree. 4:31 PM

Kingston said... Mikel, As to comment 1, were talking about Afgan not Israel and the west bank region. I have served in Afgan and there was not extensive carpet bombing in any way. I know people confuse carpet bombing and ground air support but as a member of the military there is a huge difference. I would never dispute that the americans did invade Afgan in 2001 but you have to be fair in the context in the fact that they gave the taliban mulitple changes to turn over OBL before they invaded. I will have to ask for evidence concerning the your contention in your fourth point of the present afgan govt being more brutal and violent. I believe the stonings and official sanctioned beheadings have stopped under the present regime. Women rights are not equal to our own country but they are greatly improved and with time will improve even more so. I as I have stated served in KAF twice, and we do not sell water to the Americans or French, actually the water comes out of Kuwait or the UAE if your referring to bottled water, and if your referring to the water on camp for utility usage it is not potable and comes from a water plant operated by the US contractors. More to follow on your other points but supper is calling. 5:11 PM

Kit said... Spinks, went down as well with the family. I was a good turn out and a pleasant crowd. 5:58 PM

mikel said... True, that was a bit of a misnomer, however, cluster bombs, cruise missiles and B-52 bombers have essentially the same outcome as carpet bombing. The difference is merely one of intensity. So, OK, let's not say that it was Vietnam or the West Bank (although I wasn't aware of carpet bombings there). More on that here: http://www.cursor.org/stories /civilian_deaths.htm That's essentially the first site I came to that is fairly credible, a number of NGO's have similar stories to tell, it really doesn't take much, just type in 'afghanistan' and 'death toll' or 'carpet bombing'. As for the Taliban, relative to the rest of the world Taliban used to be around the middle of the pack. But like I said, in mainstream media it is accepted that since they are now elected










and on 'our side', nothing critical is ever printed. The exception would be Aurthur Kent, and his site is at www.skyreporter.com and I encourage everybody to do some heavy reading there. There were human rights abuses certainly, no doubt about it. But nowhere nearly as bad as Indonesia, Uganda, Saudi Arabia or Columbia. You'll remember the big deal that made international headlines because 'those horrible Taliban are blowing up some statues'. Now that's real big human rights abuses. Now you can to to Skyreporter and read about the women who are murdered in their bed under 'the new regime'. Women were treated horribly under the Taliban, but they were alive (usually). Conversely, while Columbia is far worse than the Taliban, Harper just went down to visit the President, a guy also linked to criminal elements there, and smiled and shook his hand and said what great buddies we are and how we should be better friends. That also goes for Saudi Arabia. While people talk about the fear they have of Sharia, Saudi Arabia has governed under Sharia for years now and nobody blinks an eye. You can even get government training if you are a nurse telling you how to cover everything up. Even though its known that the terrorists were Saudis, not Afghani's. But that doesn't matter, they are 'good friends'. As for Osama Bin Laden, if you'll remember, all the Taliban said was 'show us some evidence'. Of course everybody knows there is no evidence, at least anybody who knows anythign about Al-Queda. Its a loose knit group with the same ideology, not the same structure. It operates in 'cells' that have little or no contact. Either way, lets look at a comparison. For example, there is a very famous terrorist, I can't remember his name right now, but he has been wanted by Venezuela for decades. And his crimes are extensive, for example, blowing up a Venezuelan jet liner killing dozens. He is quite free and walking around New York's upper east side. Now, under those conditions Venezuela COULD simply start bombing the US and say if its reasonable for them to do, its reasonable for Venezuela. As for the water, that was a media report about a year ago, but since I can't find the link anymore then I won't labour it, we'll just use this: To date, Canadian construction and rehabilitation include: 1,290 kilometres of roads, 6 bridges, 2 Km of retaining wall, 28 small irrigation projects, 39 schools, 3 health clinics, 43 drinking water facilities and 204 dug water wells with hand pumps. IN FOUR YEARS. That's according to CIDA. And as I've mentioned before, an NGO recently reported that more civilians have been killed this year by NATO bombing than have been killed by Taliban. Even the President, who is clearly on our side, has begged NATO to notify him before bombing. And of course none of this even gets into Pakistan, and Canada's increasingly cozy relationship with them while they continue to be the main training ground for terrorists. So again, there is no lack of reasons to oppose the mission in Afghanistan. As I've mentioned elsewhere, I personally do not agree with withdrawal, because when you blow the hell out of a place then you have a responsibility to rehabilitate it. However, when the option is propping up a corrupt government or getting out, then I say get out. The other option, of course, is to do what Spinks THINKS is going on,namely that 'noble mission'. We have the clout to create and protect a proper government there, we have the guns, not them. 8:54 PM



Patrick Ross said... "since Canada is a signatory to the International Criminal Court that I'd mention that to a soldier because what they do in Afghanistan, whether following orders or not, may come back to haunt them." Is that supposed to be supporting the troops? Apparently UN-mandated missions are war crimes all of a sudden. Hoo boy... 9:54 PM

Kit said... Mike L - "...because when you blow the hell out of a place then you have a responsibility to rehabilitate it." On principle, I would agree, but what the heck does that have to do with Canada's mission in Afghanistan? 10:04 PM

mikel said... It is definitely supporting the troops if you want to make sure they don't end up in court. Of course we can assume that NATO forces will never face trial, however, times change radically within a lifetime. No doubt German soldiers said the same thing in 1942. The Nurembourg court was set up 'after the fact', so we really have no way of knowing what the future will be. It's a pretty easy argument to make that handing somebody over for torture will make you an accomplice, it pretty much goes without saying. But again, in Afghanistan Canada is working under US authority and instruction. And while US soldiers CANT be targeted by the ICC, the same is not true of canadian soldiers.WE can argue that it won't happen, but of course WE never have to face the circumstance if it did. NOT telling a soldier that would be the most disrespectful thing I could think of. A good analogy would be to CFB Gagetown soldiers "Oh, by the way, that stuff we've been spraying on you might cause cancer, just thought you should know" Keep in mind that a UN 'mandate' is far different than a UN mission. It wasn't really a mandate, the UN simply signed off on it after the fact. The invasion was not a UN mission and there are no security council resolutions authorizing the use of force into Afghanistan. The UN CANT authorize it because of course it was an act of aggression, which UN peacekeeping forces are specifically trained to avoid. As for the final remark, thats essentially the point, the canadian mission in Afghanistan is NOT for 'peacekeeping' or for rebuilding (although some of that is done for photo ops). Just look at the latest 'offensive' just last May. The majority of canadians are now opposed to this mission, and ask yourself this, how many people were protesting canadian peacekeeping troops in Cyprus? Anybody? 10:34 PM

The Pedgehog said... To answer your question, Spinks: diplomacy. I hope that isn't too far out in left field for you. ;) 10:47 PM













Patrick Ross said... This post has been removed by the author. 11:51 PM

Patrick Ross said... "It is definitely supporting the troops if you want to make sure they don't end up in court. Of course we can assume that NATO forces will never face trial, however, times change radically within a lifetime. No doubt German soldiers said the same thing in 1942. The Nurembourg court was set up 'after the fact', so we really have no way of knowing what the future will be." You're clearly a very poor student of history. Among the premier charges laid against defendants at Nuremburg were related to the Holocaust. Whereas in Afghanistan we removed the Taliban from power -- a regime that had been known for efforts at genocide. "It's a pretty easy argument to make that handing somebody over for torture will make you an accomplice, it pretty much goes without saying. But again, in Afghanistan Canada is working under US authority and instruction. And while US soldiers CANT be targeted by the ICC, the same is not true of canadian soldiers.WE can argue that it won't happen, but of course WE never have to face the circumstance if it did. NOT telling a soldier that would be the most disrespectful thing I could think of. A good analogy would be to CFB Gagetown soldiers "Oh, by the way, that stuff we've been spraying on you might cause cancer, just thought you should know"" There is no proof that this has actually happened -- merely the complaints by Taliban prisoners repeated by a political science professor. You assume that because there are complaints that they're automatically legitimate. If you were really supporting the troops, you'd be holding out for proof. Furthermore, only in Canada would a "serious scandal" erupt because of how another country allegedly treats its prisoners. "Keep in mind that a UN 'mandate' is far different than a UN mission. It wasn't really a mandate, the UN simply signed off on it after the fact. The invasion was not a UN mission and there are no security council resolutions authorizing the use of force into Afghanistan. The UN CANT authorize it because of course it was an act of aggression, which UN peacekeeping forces are specifically trained to avoid." A mandate after the fact is still a mandate. Just like passive aggression is still aggression. The Taliban was harbouring Al Qaida terrorists, putting both ourselves and our allies at risk of attack. That is at the very least a passive aggressive act. You can't really classify an invasion that eliminates such a threat as "aggression". It's self-defense. "As for the final remark, thats essentially the point, the canadian mission in Afghanistan is NOT for 'peacekeeping' or for rebuilding (although some of that is done for photo ops). Just look at the latest 'offensive' just last May. The majority of canadians are now opposed to this mission, and ask yourself this, how many people were protesting canadian peacekeeping troops in Cyprus? Anybody?"





Peacekeeping isn't as different from war as you'd like to think. They're both interventionalist foreign policy tools. Any foreign policy doctrine that allows peacekeeping by necessity must also allow war. Furthermore, examples like Rwanda and Somalia show us how quickly "peacekeeping" missions can degenerate into warfare. 11:54 PM

mikel said... Genocide had nothing to do with it, the word didn't even have meaning then. The charges were 'crimes against humanity', which can mean anything (an economic journalist for example was one of the people tried at Nurembourg). Again, nobody is defending the Taliban, but they were far less violent than any of the other countries mentioned above. There were alarms concerning genocide, particularly 300 people killed who were part of an ethnic minority. However, there was no 'evidence' found because critics were all expelled. The only other evidence was that the Taliban forced Hindus to wear yellow. That was alarming, but certainly not genocide. Everybody else had practically left Afghanistan, except for a few hundred hindus, so there was no real genocide there. As for torture, complaints are exactly what set investigations in order. The evidence of torture is well documented and the countries and groups that do it are well known, so when people are handed over to Afghan officials, who are well known to practise torture, then I don't 'hold out' for proof because its well known that those who practise torture or those who take part in handing over suspects aren't likely to have an investigation. Also, the Norwegians made it a condition on serving there that they wouldn't hand over suspects to the US because of their concerns about torture. If they have concerns, it MAY be just rhetoric, but once again, its not unreasonable. And like I said, the issue isn't what you or I think, we have very limited information on what is going on. The point is that it COULD have an affect on a soldier in the future and they should at least be informed of that. But thats a good comment, because we see how it works, IF you support the troops then you'll keep your mouth shut about bad stuff. As for 'self defense', that is a VERY bizarre definition, although one that we heard from Bush all the time. It's not even close to being realistic because once again all these terms are defined in international treaties NOT by you and me on a whim. In fact, they frequently said that the US had 'terror cells' as does Canada. Should Spain and Norway attack us for harbouring terrorists? Of course not. Pakistan now has far more terrorists than Afghanistan, but our government has closer ties than ever to Pakistan. And like I said, the US is KNOWINGLY harbouring a terrorist who blew up a Venezuelan jet liner, should Venezuela start bombing Miami? To say that the invasion of Afghanistan was self defense because there were people there who may hurt us is stretching to the incredulous, that puts EVERY country on notice. If a mexican worker in Ontario shoots people should we invade Mexico? Self defense has a very specific legal definition, and Afghanistan wasn't even close. What it was was simple imperialism, the US is the strongest country so they do what they want. As said, the ICC can't touch them because they aren't a party to it, but Canada DID.




As for Rwanda, that was perfect evidence of the failure of a UN mission, just read whatsisnames book on it, Dancing with the Devil, there's even a documentary. ANd its well known WHY the tragedy occurred. In cases where genocide is deemed to occur by the UN security council, peacekeepers are OBLIGATED to intervene. In Rwanda the UN, mainly the US delegate Madeline Albright, REFUSED to call it genocide, and therefore the peacekeepers could do nothing. What THAT shows of course is the changes that need to be made at the UN, namely, not letting one country decide when intervention is necessary. But again, UN forces went INTO Rwanda under a UN mandate, the Afghanistan mission did not. So we KNOW the two are very different. So to claim that 'theyre sorta kinda the same because they are both intervention' is not even close. In Afghanistan WE are the offending party, WE are the group that is hunting down the muslims who oppose occupation and killing them. That is FAR different from Rwanda. But like I said, it COULD be different. You simply don't engage in offensive action like last May. Norway now has only lost two soldiers in their entire time in Afghanistan. 12:32 PM

The Pedgehog said... Shaking Hands with the Devil, by Romeo Dallaire. I highly recommend it. :) 12:45 PM

Mikel's a liar said... mikel said: "And Spinks knows fully well that all I said about nazi's was that like any military many of them were simply following orders and were punished accordingly, and the vast majority had nothing to do with the attempted genocide and were appalled by it." Not true. It was much worse than that and you know it. Here's proof: Mikel/Anon said (April 2007) on To Be Announced: "In the second there at least was a small glimmer of justification, even though it wasn't until Germany declared war on Britain that she reciprocated and Canada followed suit. Many try to use hindsight to justify it, saying what monsters nazi's were, and they WERE monsters, at least some of them, but genocide wasn't the issue then, in fact Canada had its own eugenics program as did almost every industrialized country." https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=4264807594110273377&postID=1895647930121515021 Sounds like you are not only a Nazi sympathizer, but you believe Canadians are as bad as the Nazis for fighting an evil regime. How can anyone ever trust what's coming out of your mouth. Shame Mikel. 3:06 PM

Spinks said... Ah sheesh thanks a lot, now I have to come to Mike's defense. Calling mike a liar is uncalled for. I don't think he'a liar. Selective memory or trying a spin job (thus my reason for bringing up his Nazi connection) yes but liar no. Calling anyone on anything and disagreeing with them is fine but please leave the name calling at the door. While I'm on etiquette and mike. Mike can you keep the comments down to a more reasonable length or provide a link to your own blog? It's bordering on rants and I'm the only









one who gets to rant (kit during guest blogging) and even we try to keep ourselves in check. It's just too much for the average person (which this blog is aimed at) to go through. It clogs the system and turns people off. Rave all you wish just try to keep it to a reasonable length. The management and staff thanks you. 3:44 PM

mikel said... I don't see how somebody who says "they were monsters" can be called a nazi sympathizer. What the comment above says is that Canada didn't go into the war to stop the holocaust, they went into it because Germany declared war on Britain. At the time people didn't even know about the holocaust, however, they DID know that life was increasingly hard on jews, and Canada had a 'no jews allowed' policy. One MP even stated "one is too many". And Canada also interned the Japanese, so let's face it, human rights were not a big issue. However, nobody in their right mind would state that Canada's policy was on the same level as Nazi Germany's. But as the native situation showed right after the war, its not like Canada was some shining beacon for human rights. Keep in mind that most countries as well as natives, wanted genocide to include cultural attributes, not just people. That definition was rejected by Canada and the US for the simple reason that those countries would also be guilty of genocide in their treatment of natives up to and just after the war. Even now its very much policy to try to 'assimilate' natives into the larger canadian society. Short enough? 4:35 PM

Anonymous said... "handing out pieces of paper about Stephen Harper killing children (and puppies probably)." Puppies? No spin? Aw spinks.... 6:15 PM

mikel said... Everybody knows Harper doesn't kill puppies, that's the foreign affairs minister, Harper just EATS them:) An excellent interview on Afghanistan is available here: http://www.pbs.org/moyers/ journal/06082007/watch3.html 7:48 PM

Longtooth said... I hate to break up a good family spat, but I just wanted to add a little something. Lets go back a bit. After 911 most people supported assisting in the Afghan effort. Most. Some reserved judgment awaiting more facts. I don't think the publics support was based on extending the theatre of war into Iraq. This changed the face of the entire mission in my view.











I believe that was when Canada should have said no. Fighting the Taliban / Mujadheen in this way is a fruitless endeavour at best. They didn't blow up any buildings in Canada and Yankee Doodle has lots of Military stuff in his toy box. I don't buy into this, "with us or against us" mentality at all. Its wolfpack behaviour anyway. Drivel from a John Wayne wannbe. 7:58 PM

Patrick Ross said... "Genocide had nothing to do with it, the word didn't even have meaning then. The charges were 'crimes against humanity', which can mean anything (an economic journalist for example was one of the people tried at Nurembourg)." Yes, and genocide is a crime against humanity. "Again, nobody is defending the Taliban..." Aren't you? They were removed from power because they harboured terrorists. When you label such an action as "an act of aggression", then you are defending the Taliban's right to harbour terrorists. "...but they were far less violent than any of the other countries mentioned above. There were alarms concerning genocide, particularly 300 people killed who were part of an ethnic minority. However, there was no 'evidence' found because critics were all expelled. The only other evidence was that the Taliban forced Hindus to wear yellow. That was alarming, but certainly not genocide." It's too bad you apparently haven't read this. You can just go ahead and do that now. "Everybody else had practically left Afghanistan, except for a few hundred hindus, so there was no real genocide there." A cab driver I rode with in Edmonton last year was from Afghanistan, and described to me in fairly decent detail how all the Jews in Afghanistan (yes, Afghanistan used to have Jews) were ethnically cleansed from Afghanistan. Ethnic cleansing, by the way, is still a crime against humanity. "As for torture, complaints are exactly what set investigations in order. The evidence of torture is well documented and the countries and groups that do it are well known, so when people are handed over to Afghan officials, who are well known to practise torture, then I don't 'hold out' for proof because its well known that those who practise torture or those who take part in handing over suspects aren't likely to have an investigation." There is no proof that anyone who has been handled by Canadian soldiers has been tortured. If you were supporting our troops, you'd be affording them the benefit of the doubt. I suppose to this end it's a good thing that you don't really mean to support the troops anyway. "Also, the Norwegians made it a condition on serving there that they wouldn't hand over suspects to the US because of their concerns about torture. If they have concerns, it MAY be just rhetoric, but once again, its not unreasonable. And like I said, the issue isn't what you or I think, we have very limited information on what is going on. The point is that it COULD




http://www.hazara.net/taliban/genocide/genocide.html

have an affect on a soldier in the future and they should at least be informed of that. But thats a good comment, because we see how it works, IF you support the troops then you'll keep your mouth shut about bad stuff." No. You just won't assume that our soldiers are handing Taliban prisoners over to torturers just because there's an unproven allegation. "As for 'self defense', that is a VERY bizarre definition, although one that we heard from Bush all the time. It's not even close to being realistic because once again all these terms are defined in international treaties NOT by you and me on a whim." Yes, they are. But you have to understand something about international law: international law works in two ways: what countries agree are the international law, and how countries actually execute their foreign policy. There is strong historical precedent for the invasion and induced regime change in states that knowingly and willingly harbour terrorists. Thus, it is actually perfectly legal to induce regime change, particularly in regards to criminal regimes like the Taliban, and particularly when a terrorist group harboured by that state has already attacked you (several times), and promised to attack -- and your allies -- again. "In fact, they frequently said that the US had 'terror cells' as does Canada. Should Spain and Norway attack us for harbouring terrorists? Of course not." Neither Canada nor the US are sheltering those terrorist cells. They're constantly being pursued by our law enforcement officials, whereas Osama bin Laden was an "honoured guest" of the Taliban. Huge difference, but thank you again for the sophistry. "Pakistan now has far more terrorists than Afghanistan, but our government has closer ties than ever to Pakistan." Perhaps so, but Pakistan is also pursuing those terrorists as well, especially after the recent Red Mosque uprisings. Again, big difference between terrorists simply happening to be unlawfully in your country, and harbouring them as "honoured guests". "And like I said, the US is KNOWINGLY harbouring a terrorist who blew up a Venezuelan jet liner, should Venezuela start bombing Miami?" I know nothing about that. "To say that the invasion of Afghanistan was self defense because there were people there who may hurt us is stretching to the incredulous, that puts EVERY country on notice." Every country that knowingly and willingly harbours terrorists who have either already attacked us or has announced they plan to attack us, yes. "If a mexican worker in Ontario shoots people should we invade Mexico?" I could go for a marguerita right about now. Let's do it. "Self defense has a very specific legal definition, and Afghanistan wasn't even close."

If you overlook that whole "terrorists who have already attacked us and have said they will do so again" thing. Which you are. "What it was was simple imperialism, the US is the strongest country so they do what they want." It's too bad you can't hear me laughing at that. You're not terribly creative. I suppose you probably think that's a good thing. "As said, the ICC can't touch them because they aren't a party to it, but Canada DID." And it will take some serious infractions against the laws of war for Canadian soldiers to be charged while executing a UN mandated mission. "As for Rwanda, that was perfect evidence of the failure of a UN mission, just read whatsisnames book on it, Dancing with the Devil, there's even a documentary. ANd its well known WHY the tragedy occurred. In cases where genocide is deemed to occur by the UN security council, peacekeepers are OBLIGATED to intervene. In Rwanda the UN, mainly the US delegate Madeline Albright, REFUSED to call it genocide, and therefore the peacekeepers could do nothing." Yep, and because our peacekeepers weren't properly equipped, and weren't allowed to act, they wound up in their headquarters being shelled. Tell me again that Rwanda didn't turn into war on our peacekeepers. What THAT shows of course is the changes that need to be made at the UN, namely, not letting one country decide when intervention is necessary. But again, UN forces went INTO Rwanda under a UN mandate, the Afghanistan mission did not. So we KNOW the two are very different." Not that different. Our forces in Afghanistan have a UN mandate. Tell me how different it is again. So to claim that 'theyre sorta kinda the same because they are both intervention' is not even close. They are both intervention. Do you want to dispute that? "In Afghanistan WE are the offending party, WE are the group that is hunting down the muslims who oppose occupation and killing them." Wrong. In Afghanistan the Taliban is the offending party, and their offences were numerous, for decades, before we finally did what is right. "That is FAR different from Rwanda." Not so much. In Rwanda, Hutus slaughtered Tutsis, and we could have stopped them. In Afghanistan, the Taliban slaughtered non-Muslims, and we could have stopped them. We didn't, either time. At least in Afghanistan we stopped them from allowing them to attack us via terrorist proxy. Finally -- how is knowingly and willingly harbouring terrorists not an aggressive act?

8:22 PM

Patrick Ross said... "I don't think the publics support was based on extending the theatre of war into Iraq. This changed the face of the entire mission in my view." You're precisely right. The unncessary and not UN-mandated war in Iraq has poisoned the public opinion environment against the necessary and UN-mandated Afghanistan mission. 8:26 PM

Longtooth said... I watched Mikels video link/interview after my last post. Good piece, pretty much how I have understood it. Even if Bush had have been successful in Afghanistan, then what? A democracy of 28 million in the midst of old Islam? Imagine a Liberal at a skin head rally. 8:27 PM

Charles LeBlanc said... WOW!!!! WHAT A WAR IN THIS BLOG!!!! Spinks? How come I can't get no Ministers leaving comments in my blog????? :P 9:08 PM

Longtooth said... I'm going to plagiarize it and send it to a publishing house. Perteneer a short story dont' ya think? 9:26 PM

mikel said... Nobody said that the Taliban weren't committing atrocities. Virtually everything that is linked to in that story about the Taliban is also going RIGHT NOW in Uganda and Somalia. In Uganda its far far worse. Virtually all of it is going on right now in Columbia as well as Indonesia. How often do you hear about that? How often did you hear about the atrocities going on in Indonesia while the RCMP and CSIS were arresting protestors when Canada's good friend the butcher Suharto was an 'honoured guest' in Canada? How often do you hear about the massacres and rapes going on in Columbia when Harper shakes hands with the President last week and says we must have much closer ties? Before the late nineties I'll bet nobody hear could even find Afghanistan on a map. Nobody had even heard the word 'Taliban'. How often did you hear about the massacring of Kurds in Turkey during the late nineties when Canada was sending more weapons to them, increasing trade, and even apologized because a Private Members Bill had dared to call the Turkish murder of Armenians genocide. And Afghanistan was NOT a UN mission. On September 28 the UN passed its final resolution 1373 which imposed restrictions on Afghanistan, and on October 8 aerial bombing began. LOTS of people, just not media and politicians, denounced that, especially since the














attackers were almost all SAUDIS, NOT Afghans. The CLAIM was made that they were 'trained in Afghanistan', but that turned out to be false, they were trained in the US, with american visas (sounds like 'honoured guest' to me). So by the above reasoning Venezuela is perfectly within its rights to start bombing the states. However, a country has to prove 'imminence' in order to even justify self defense, which wasn't even close. By the way, the US is the ONLY country in the world that has actually been found GUILTY by the criminal court because of course it has a LONG history of invading whoever it wants and saying 'but they were going to attack us'. In the 80's the US had a 'state of emergency' because those evil Nicaraguans were going to come up and take over the US. Yeah right, a bunch of peasants with rifles were planning on heading up to conquer the most powerful military in the world. For self defense and aggression these things have to be PROVEN, you can't just SAY them. There are conditions in the UN when a country is allowed to attack, say if missiles are coming right at them, but this was far from the case. And again, YOU may think there is no way that soldiers will ever face any kind of court, and that may be true, it may even be close to an impossibility, but you don't KNOW. So who REALLY is the one not supporting the troops? All I said was that soldiers should at least know what the international criminal court is and what kinds of crimes they prosecute. As well, you may say you KNOW that such torture and acts don't go on, even though you've probably never set foot in Afghanistan, but let's say for example that something like that COULD happen. Well, don't you think that if some lousy officer tells a private to hand over a suspect to somebody he knows will torture him, then it would be a good thing for that private to at least know his rights? To be able to say 'I cant do that because of charges that could be laid by the ICC'. So that information could PREVENT such a thing happening. And that's giving a pretty big benefit of the doubt, like I said, under war conditions Somalia should have taught us that anything can happen, and forewarned is forearmed. But like I said, 'support the troops' is really a byline to 'shup up and stop talking about it'. 11:17 PM

mikel said... The last UN Resolution is found here: http://www.ringnebula.com /Oil/UNSC_DOCS/UNSC1373.pdf As for torture: http://www.pww.org/article/ articleview/11063/1/266/ http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2007/02/canada- afghanistan-detainee-agreement.php http://www.crimesofwar.org/special /afghan/news-tortureafghan.html http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070504/afghan_scandal




_070504/20070504?hub=TopStories And this: Faced with the shocking accounts from Afghan detainees featured in The Globe and Mail this week, Harper had the audacity on Tuesday to dismiss the reports as “allegations of the Taliban.” Graeme Smith, The Globe and Mail correspondent in Afghanistan (and, by the Prime Minister's appalling logic, a Taliban spokesperson), conducted weeks of research touring “medieval nightmare” prisons and interviewing 30 detainees. Smith recorded accounts of beatings, electric shock, whipping, freezing and starvation among the methods employed by the security forces to which Canadian soldiers turned over their detainees. On Wednesday, The Globe and Mail delivered the knockout punch to Harper's and the Conservatives' evasions and denials. The headline summed it all up, “What Ottawa doesn't want you to know: Government was told detainees often faced 'extrajudicial executions, disappearances, torture and detention without trial'.” 11:55 PM

Anonymous said... I would love to stand in front of our troops and give them a lesson in civics. A lot of these kids signed up after Afghanistan and signed up to be part of this war. To support them is to support the war. I support neither. 1:34 PM

Kit said... Just what civic lesson would you teach them? How to be a good citizen? About self sacrifice? Perhaps a Neville Chamberlain type address about peace in our time? I'm curious. 3:57 PM

Kingston said... Anonymous, Is also very curious, just what would you teach us. Please tell us. 4:19 PM

mikel said... Personally, I'd just mention what is in this blog or at least get them to watch that interview above. The 'side' we are on is corrupt as you can see from all the articles, which makes any claim to be 'the good guys' pretty questionable. For guts and courage, though never mentioned, we can talk about the people who volunteer and work for NGO's to help rebuild infrastructure and protect womens rights and all those things our mission is NOT doing. And those people are doing it WITHOUT guns, artillery and air support. Those people are just as much heroes as soldiers are, in many cases moreso. So IF a person wants to 'help out' in Afghanistan, they should be made aware that there are other opportunities besides the military. If they want to serve militarily they should know that according to those media reports, it MAY involve handing people over to be tortured and it may involve working with known criminals in the Karzai government. It may involve any activity that has had many soldiers needing psychiatric help when they return. In other words, it should be more than flashy television ads.












That would at least make an informed decision. They should know also that in the military they won't get to pick and choose the battles-thats done for them and refusing orders is a court martial offense. That would be a good civics lesson, as somebody mentioned above, they could plagiarize this blog and make a book out of it. That's what 'creative commons' is all about. I wasn't expecting Spinks to have a 'no spin zone' on this thread, but I think it would have been interesting to see exactly what those flyers they were handing out said. 5:34 PM

Spinks said... In a nutshell the flyers said what you wrote mike, that Canada is evil, Stephen Harper is killing children (not puppies) and to use your words that Canada and its military are "corrupt". I disagree and maintain the soldiers themselves are on a noble misison to try to make things better not worse for the Afghani people. Whether they'll be successful and whether the best methods are used are certainly open to debate. Those points are worth discussing. However once it crosses into rhetoric of insinuating our Prime Minister wants to kill kids, that our army should be up on criminal charges, are comparable to Nazis and that they're corrupt, well you're entitled to your opinion as the folks handing the flyers out are but that's just plain ludicrous and I have little interest in debating something so far fetched. If someone else wants to though, have at it. 5:57 PM

Spinks said... PS : The shorter post are appreciated. 5:58 PM

Kingston said... Mikel, Well I have been there my friend and I know it is a worthwhile mission. I suggest you join a NGO org that if I may remind you is protected by these same soldiers that you want to give a civic lecture too, in the dangerous southern part of the country but just to clarify the ones that are still there and never left. Maybe if you walk the ground rather then reading about it on the internet you might be able to put some perspective. One of the problems with the internet on both sides of this debate is either me or you can find plenty of sites, quotes, etc to back up our arguments. Oh and bye the way, you have no idea how easy it is to get out of any overseas taskings in the CF. I know that sounds hard to believe but it is a fact. Just fail a social workers interview, your not going. Wives get interviewed too, the can stop you from going. Now what that tell me is everyone over there wanted to go, just like I did. 7:07 PM

NB taxpayer said... Here's a short post. I'm fifty!! Poster that is. lol 8:29 PM

mikel said... The truth hurts, but that's life. Spinks can try to expand what was said so that his ideals can stay intact, that's his business. However, as the above articles state, canadian soldiers are handing over suspects who are then tortured. A soldier who does that knowingly is committing a war crime, simple as that. It was true for nazi's, its true for canadians.
















The simple thing, of course, is to NOT do that-the Norwegians don't do it and came out and told the US to *&^% off and that they wouldn't even hand prisoners to them because they couldn't be trusted. As mentioned above, the likelihood that any soldier will face trial may be nil or implausible, but that doesn't make it right. Taking somebody to somebody else to be tortured is a crime against humanity in my book, whether you don't like the person or not. However, nobody said ANYTHING about soldiers who are guarding infrastructure, and for those too lazy too read I'll repeat again that I am not a person who beleives they should be pulled out, I believe they SHOULD NOT be handing people over to be tortured, SHOULD NOT be engaged in what the US THINKS are offensive operations that simply hurt the mission, and should be doing peacekeeping. They should be doing all those things the poster mentions above as worthwhile operations and I agree. But when the COO of the armed forces says "the duty of the canadian soldier is to kill people" then you can't pretend the mission is pure and noble. And those aren't MY comments above, those come from the Globe and Mail reporter who DID walk the ground in Afghanistan and who investigated the torture allegations. 10:38 PM

NB taxpayer said... Far be it for any of us to disagree with a Glib and Frail reporter, especially one who walked the Afghan soil in his Batas and khakis after hanging out at the Timmys stand for six hours. 11:10 PM

Kingston said... Mikel, Not being glib, has any other MSM org in Canada, and I do not mean a anti-war, progressive site been able to substantiate the G&M. The last I heard on this was there was no proof that it even happened. I could trot out the proven evidence that all members of AQ and no doubt the taliban also are told to scream torture if captured. I do know from reading an article by Mr.Taylor of Esprit de Corp who loves to find fault with the CF that he could find no evidence of these allegations when he conducted his own tour including a walk through of the prison. I can understand people not being impressed with the conditions in the Afgan prison system especially when compared to a western one, but it is their way of doing things, remember we do not want to colonize them in our image, hmmm, trys to remember who suggested that was the plan. LOL 12:05 AM

mikel said... Well, I guess for some people if it doesn't come from the mouth of Bill O'Reilly then its just propaganda. However, the above story didn't originate from the Globe reporter, but from Canadian Diplomats in a report that was heavily censored which the Globe then used the Access to Information Act to get the complete story of. Besides that we have the Crimes of War Project from the University of Berkeley, one of the same groups,incidentally, which brought out all those stories you hear about the Taliban. So it seems odd to disbelieve them in one case, yet believe them in others. And if that's not enough, you can see Harpers 'damage control' weighing in and claiming that NOW canadian forces will have access to the prisoners (but no mention on whether they'll have any power to stop torture). 12:21 AM












Kingston said... Mikel, On Bill O'Reilly we do agree, he is way over the top, trust me I am far from a far right wing person as I am from a far left. I tend to view MSM news with a healthy skepticism until I do further research. The days of impartial reporting seems to be long gone but I digress. Sorry I do not have more time but I have to scoot to work but I did quickly scan the "Crimes of War Project site" concerning Afgan. I did not see any things concerning torture by Afgan authorities since 2003 and it is a allegation against a Warlord or by ISAF troops. Can you direct more accurately. As to the Report from Foreign Affairs give it a gander, it was a world wide report that is completed I believe annual is quite interesting, the old saying of you never know what goes on behind your neighbors closed doors in very relevant. 8:39 AM

mikel said... Fair enough. But ruling out all the organizations and the mainstream media means pretty selective information gathering. For government, you have to remember who is IN government. The Globe and Mail is a fairly reputable source, its not like they LIE. However, if a reporter has a story where he talks to people who have been tortured and people say he was probably just drinking coffee and making it all up or they were lying then obviously its pointless talking to that person. Anything that doesn't agree with their way of thinking simply won't register. That, of course, is another casualty of mainstream media, partly thanks to government-and that is HIDING the face of war. Refusing to publish pictures of body parts lying at the side of the road, children sitting next to dead parents, the limbless and diseased and just filling the papers with tough looking soldiers doing lovely things. So again, the mainstream media is far more reliable than, say, a bunch of blogs or websites. But that was canadian diplomats. Now, if you want to discount THEM too, then we're getting into the point where the only people you'd believe are those complicit in it. So there's a link above to The Jurist, certainly not a 'partisan' paper, it comes from the University of Pittsburgh School of Law. They report on allegations of Amnesty International, who DEALS with human rights daily, as well as teh British Columbia Civil Liberties Association. But then we get into 'ah, those are just left wing crazies'. Again, these are the same people who were telling us about the Taliban and the facts mentioned above that everybody apparantly agrees on. Here, though, the groups are saying things against US, or at least our representatives, and that seems to be the problem. 'We' are supposed to be the good guys. Admitting that perhaps we AREN"T always the good guys is something people have trouble with, especially in a nominally representative government which makes US accountable for actions of our government. So the simple thing to do is simply shut it out and make it go away, to assume the best and disbelieve the worst. That's unfortunate because like I said, it makes it impossible to analyze the mission without a 'in or out' framework. You are either 'for or against' the mission. And whenever somebody comes out with a specific criticism they are shouted down as unpatriotic or even treasonous. That, of course, leads to people simply avoiding the topic and simply saying 'lets just get the





hell out of there'. Which, again, does no favours for Afghani's, but at least is better than propping up a corrupt government. So again, go to Skyreporter.com and check out what they are saying. Check out what the critics are saying because IF the govenrment dealt with the criticism, people obviously wouldn't have anything to criticize. Got a prisoner.. .hand him over to the Norwegians. Keep in mind that virtually EVERYBODY believed this story when it came out, even tory bloggers, if you'll recall, Dion was laughed around the blogworld for daring to suggest that instead of handing them over to torturers that we bring them to Canada. So there was at least an attempt to deal with it, but again the assumption was 'just shut up about it and don't be crazy'. Again, for a good many of these people they are simply protecting their home. If a foreign country bombed us, then took over, what woudl YOU do? 9:17 AM

Awareness said... Gee Spinks. I thought you were taking the summer off :) Looks like I missed a heated bloggie conversation. 7:15 PM

---------- Forwarded message ----------

From: David Amos

Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 11:07:15 -0800 (PST)

Subject: Hey Mr Taft my father was in the RCAF too He named me after

his friend named David Hornell. Because of them I did not have to go

off to war.

To: [email protected], [email protected],

[email protected], [email protected],

[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]

Cc: [email protected], [email protected],


[email protected], [email protected], [email protected],


[email protected],



[email protected]






mailto:[email protected]

























Here's hoping Dennis Kucinich and his fine looking British Redhead are

paying attention for the benefit of us all EH?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Ernest_Hornell

Lets just say that I am proud to have David's name and Uncle Raymond's too.

My old man and many other decent men who lived through it taught me

to hate war. That said, there are some ghosts I must answer to someday

and the top of the list is my father. I must do my best to see that no

more honourable warriors become ghosts before their time for no reason

that I will ever understand or I will not peace in peace someday.

Check the time and date when I first sent this email. Clearly it was

composed and sent before Captain Nichola Goddard was killed overseas

(her family lives in your neck of the woods correct?) Didn't twenty

some of your fellow liberals vote to support Stevey Boy Harper and his

malice towards us all within the day of this email first being sent?

We all know why don't we?

Veritas Vincit

David Raymond Amos

Subject: RE: Portions of wiretap tapes to impeach George W. Bush and

put a stop Harper's motion tommorrow

Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 13:49:47 -0400

From: "Dewar, Paul - M.P." [email protected]

To: "David Amos" [email protected]

Hi David. My name is James and I have been asked to send this message

onto you from Paul…

Dear Mr. Amos,

Thank you for informing me of your concerns regarding Canada 's role

in Afghanistan after February 2007.

The NDP voted against this motion because we believe it is the wrong

mission for Canada . It does not reflect the peace-making values that

Canadians want to see our forces undertake on the world stage. This

forced motion essentially ties our aid and development funds to

war-making, and we cannot support that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Ernest_Hornell



It is quite clear that Harper's Conservatives aren't interested in due

diligence. They're interested in dragging us further into a US-style

combat role and away from our traditional peace keeping role. Much

like the Liberals before them, the Conservatives have failed to tell

Canadians:

- What the chain of command and control will be for this mission.

- What the definition of success will be for our troops.

- What our exit strategy will be.

Many Canadians have written me wanting answers and it is our duty as

representatives of our constituents, to get answers before committing

to any new missions overseas. As any soldier knows, time spent on

reconnaissance is never wasted.

New Democrats recognize that Canada does have a role in assisting

Afghanis in rebuilding their country. Afghanistan is the largest

recipient of Canadian overseas development aid and we fully support

the continuation of that funding - outside of this mission.

Thank you again for the time and effort you have taken to share your

thoughts with me, and for bringing your opinion on this matter to my

attention.

Sincerely,

Paul Dewar, MP Ottawa, Ontario

From: David Amos [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: May 16, 2006 8:13 PM

To: Allen, Mike - M.P.; [email protected]; [email protected];

Angus, Charlie - M.P.; Atamanenko, Alex - M.P.; Bell, Catherine -

M.P.; Bevington, Dennis - M.P.; Black, Dawn - M.P.; Blaikie, Bill -

M.P.; Charlton, Chris - M.P.; Chow, Olivia - M.P.; Christopherson,

David - M.P.; Comartin, Joe - M.P.; Crowder, Jean - M.P.; Cullen,

Nathan - M.P.; Davies, Libby - M.P.; Dewar, Paul - M.P.; Julian, Peter

- M.P.; Marston, Wayne - M.P.; Martin, Pat D. - M.P.; Martin, Tony -

M.P.; Masse, Brian - M.P.; Mathyssen, Irene - M.P.; Nash, Peggy -

M.P.; Priddy, Penny - M.P.; Savoie, Denise - M.P.; Siksay, Bill -

M.P.; Wasylycia-Leis, Judy - M.P.; Emerson, David - M.P.

Cc: Simms, Scott - M.P.; Russell, Todd - M.P.; Manning, Fabian - M.P.;

Hearn, Loyola - M.P.; Doyle, Norman - M.P.; Byrne, Gerry - M.P.;

McGuire, Joe - M.P.; MacAulay, Lawrence - M.P.; D'Amours, Jean-Claude

- M.P.; Hubbard, Charles - M.P.; Murphy, Brian - M.P.; Thibault,

Robert - M.P.; Savage, Michael - M.P.; Regan, Geoff - M.P.; Keddy,

Gerald - M.P.; Eyking, Mark - M.P.; Cuzner, Rodger - M.P.; Brison,

Scott - M.P.



Subject: Portions of wiretap tapes to impeach George W. Bush and put a

stop Harper's motion tomorrow

Hey

Before all the Parliamentarians argue and then vote to support further

Canadian deaths in one of George W. Bush's Wars for Global Control for

the benefit of his corporate cohorts perhaps, you should at least

listen to the attachments if you do not wish to bother to read what

Billy Casey and the Bankers got on May 12th. If I can assist in

preventing the demise of just one more Canadian warrior in a malicious

foreign war, all of my work will have been worth it EH?

If everyone ignores me as usual, I will not be surprised. At least I

will sleep well with my conscience tonight because I know I have done

my very best to stop the nonsense since early 2002 long before the War

in Iraq began. None of you deserve to sleep well at all because you

all supported Harper's orders to send our people to war even before

the 39th Parliament sat this year. As far as I am concerned the blood

of four very honourable soldiers can be found on your hands. Shame on

all of you for not even bothering to honour our dead by lowering the

flag on the Peacetower. As long as I have been aware and could

consider myself a Proud Canadian, I thought we were peacekeepers

rather than poorly paid hired guns for crooked corporations, corrupt

politicians and their wicked Yankee bible pounding buddies.

Veritas Vincit

David Raymond Amos

FEDERAL EXPRESS February 7, 2006

Senator Arlen Specter

United States Senate

Committee on the Judiciary

224 Dirksen Senate Office Building

Washington, DC 20510

Dear Mr. Specter:

I have been asked to forward the enclosed tapes to you from a man

named, David Amos, a Canadian citizen, in connection with the matters

raised in the attached letter. Mr. Amos has represented to me that

these are illegal FBI wire tap tapes. I believe Mr. Amos has been in

contact with you about this previously.

Very truly yours,

Barry A. Bachrach

Direct telephone: (508) 926-3403

Direct facsimile: (508) 929-3003

Email: [email protected]

Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 00:00:53 -0700 (PDT)

From: "David Amos" [email protected]

Subject: Jumping Jimmy

Flaherty's jump boots versus Crosbie's old mukluks in a liberal Senate

To: [email protected], [email protected],





[email protected],






[email protected], [email protected], [email protected] CC:








[email protected], [email protected], [email protected]

Deja Vu Anyone? Anyone?

That's what John Crosbie wore in 1979, the last time a budget

brought down a Canadian government in a minority-Parliament situation.

It proved to be a bad omen, given that the Conservative government of




















































the day foundered on Crosbie's document. The mukluks proved to be

symbolic of Joe Clark's short-lived administration -- overconfident

and blind to convention. As Crosbie observed in his memoirs, Clark

"decided to govern as though we had a majority, a decision that was as

arrogant as it was presumptuous." By RANDY BURTON — Saskatoon

Star-Phoenix

May 10th, 2006

Prime Minister Stephen Harper,

Minister of Public Safety, Stockwell Day,

President of the Treasury Board, John Baird,

Ministers James Flaherty, and Vic Toews

C/o Bill Casey MP

103 Albion Street South,

Amherst, NS, B4H 2X2

Franky Boy McKenna, Deputy Chair,

John Bragg and John Thompson, Directors

Chris Montague Legal Counsel

C/o Jill Crosby, Bank Manager

TD Financial Group

620 Main Street

Sussex, NB, E4E 5L4

W. Geoffrey Beattie, Director

David Allgood, Legal Counsel,

C/o Sharon Armstrong, Bank Manager

Royal Bank of Canada

644 Main Street

Sussex, NB, E4E 7H9

John Manley PC, Director and

E. Jennifer Warren, Legal Counsel

C/o Maria Cormie, Bank Manager

Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce

761 Main St,

Moncton, NB. E1C 1E5

RE: Blowing the whistle on big banks and corrupt politicians too.

Hey,

Flaherty's budget looming on the horizon tonight is gonna

get the big OK from the Bloc EH? Well a mean old bike mechanic in the

Maritimes has been waiting to chuck a wrench in the works of many a

crooked beancounter. I just served your offices in hand some of the

same material that Andre Arthur MP and Senator Kinsella received

before the 39th Parliament began. I am also giving you other material

and a political rant that they did not receive. The legal counsel of

all the monstrous Canadian banks have shown me their arses, two for a

month and three for almost two years. It is high time to boot you

bankers out off bed with the corrupt politicians you depend on to

cover up wrongs or sue you bastards too. N'est pas?

You can expect to see litigation against the Crown soon. The

severe of lack integrity of people employed in public service to

protect the public interests has caused me to prosecute a matter of

public trust in Pro Se fashion. As is my right. I will do my best to

hold accountable all those in public office, public service and the

lawyers etc that have acted wrongfully against me. In the past I filed

forms in the public record and in confidence, argued cops, sued

treasury agents, lawyers, judges, an Attorney General who aspires to

be a Governor and even a high priest. To no avail, I made thousands of

phone calls, sent many more emails and sent mountains of letters

proving my concerns and sincerity. To date no one has ever called me a

liar but all of it was ignored all the same. If there were such a

thing as an honest cop, lawyer or politician they could never deny

that it is ridiculous that a whistleblower would have to go to such

lengths to attempt to see Justice served in two purported Democracies.

Pursuant to my quest for Justice, you will find enclosed hard copy of the

material that I promised I would send to you before we meet in court.

The copy of wiretap tape # 139 that all law enforcement authorities in

Canada and the USA have refused investigate should be of the greatest

concern to all of you right away. It is served upon you in confidence as

officers of the court. Prepare to argue me about many more tapes and cases

of other documents. The bankers and I may be arguing the Securities, Bank

and Tax Fraud in the USA sooner than they think. The AT&T dudes should

have known police surveillance tapes when they heard them. EH?

Whether you admit it or not, I know I have served upon you

some of the irrefutable evidence that should have warranted the

process to impeach George W. Bush years ago. All who sat in the 37th,

38th and now the 39th Parliament know why the Yankee DHS tried to take

me away to Cuba on April 1st, 2003. It was because of my legitimate

efforts to expose Bush and his cohorts BEFORE the War on Iraq began.

For years legions of politicians, lawyers, cops, bankers and priests

proved an Orwellian truth as they laughed at my ethical efforts to

defend the rights and interests of my Clan. "In the time of universal

deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act" EH? Do you think

your banks' investors will laugh like your lawyers did? By law and the

rules of your professions you must conduct yourselves ethically and

hold matters in confidence. I do not. Now it is a rebel rouser's turn

to laugh as you turn page. Awful truths will put your fancy panties in

a knot yet make me feel as free as my big balls do under my kilt.

Please fell free to sue me if you disagree but you, Stevey

Boy Harper got your party its mandate with rhetoric claiming to crack

down on crime and hold the government accountable. Now that

Conservatives have had the reigns of power for over three months,

Stockwell Day at the very least must be well aware of all the secrets

the two previous liberal governments kept from you and us Common

Canadian Citizens. The secrets about me that most other Canadians do

not give a damn about, do concern me greatly. Ask the Commissioner,

John Reid, he must know of the cover up of my efforts to expose the

well known rampant cross border public corruption that has caused my

little Clan to suffer so. His office hung up on me on the very day he

was speaking about the Conservatives' new rules to Parliament. No

doubt he knows of the evidence I have provided over the years to many

Canadian law enforcement authorities that is considered a matter of

public safety. Yet we all know it is not. Nevertheless it has caused three

very corrupt Canadian Federal governments and all Provincial governments

to willfully support the malice of Yankee State and Federal governments

acting wrongfully against me. WHY?

Now Harper has shown us his true colours, too bad for you

that the DHS did not manage to take me away to Cuba. EH Mr. Day? I

must ask you in court someday soon if you have listened to the

original wiretap tapes that I provided to CSIS and the RCMP before and

after the federal election in 2004. It was done before I was falsely

imprisoned in a Yankee jail. Why did the nasty Canadian Consulate

officers in Boston refuse to accept any more of the Yankee wiretap

tapes that my wife tried to give to them while I sat in jail held

under the charges of "other" without bail or even being legally

arrested or charged? As I sat in a jail in Beantown Eliot Spitzer, a

Yankee in New York made the big score with my info. Yet he allowed

Morgan Stanley to sue my wife? The 38th Parliament continued to ignore

my plight throughout its mandate. As we all watched Bush pull off

another very questionable election it appears only I saw Count

Peter-Hans Kolvenbach fly to the USA to speak in aid of the very evil

smoke and mirror show. EH?

Whereas all Canadian authorities have ignored my pleas for

assistance for three years, I must sue the Crown to seek relief under

the Charter for my government's deliberate assistance in malicious

prosecution and false imprisonment etc. Did you politicians think I

was kidding when I said it in January on CTV News? The smirking

newsman, Stevey Boy Murphy asked me clearly and I answered him

plainly. It was watched live all over the Maritimes just minutes

before the only time I was ever allowed to debate dumb Andy Scott in

front of a live crowd as I ran against him for his seat in Parliament.

Many common folks heard me say it and have commented about it in the

months since. Some of them must have questioned some of their various

MPs by now. I watched a friend confront his MP, Greg Thompson in front

folks of two ridings. He gave all other candidates running against two

seated Conservatives a copy of the letter he served upon Thompson in

hand. Now you have your copy too. Thompson in front of witnesses

promised to respond in writing to his constituent before polling day

three months ago. Just as I suspected, the new Cabinet Minister broke his

promise. I know for a fact in 2005 Greg Thompson, Bill Casey and

Andy Scott ignored other constituents of theirs who brought hard copy of

my material to their local offices personally while I was being illegally

prosecuted in the USA. Obviously our MPs Liberal or Conservative have

no respect for their own constituents if they are kin or friends of mine. EH?

Check the letter that Landslide Annie McLellan sent to me when

she had Stockwell Day 's day job. Clearly she was compelled to answer

me after so many high placed Yankees had already done so. She did what

all Martinites have done in the past and blamed one of Chretien's

arseholes, Wayne Easter for my plight as a whistleblower. Stockwell

Day did you get off your Jet Ski to follow the lead of liberals such

as a dumb PEI farmer and a very malicious political lawyer from Nova

Scotia? You will not provide me any assistance whatsoever as is

required by the mandate of your office? None of your underlings even

the nervous Marshal dude will do me the simple courtesy of calling me

back just like your political cohorts never did? Your little Newfy

buddy, Rob Moore forgot something just as Landslide Annie as the

Minister of Justice did when Easter was Solicitor General. She did not

have any idea what mechanism a layman would employ to hold many a

corrupt Parliamentarian accountable. The answer is so simple to me.

Sue the Bastards.

Didn't anyone notice I have done it in the past to many Yankees?

I have changed my style and waited until some very corrupt public

Servants were out of public office so that they could not employ the

weight of a corrupt justice system against me.

Vic Toews will have his job cut out trying to defend the malice of all

three recent government mandates two of them liberal against one

Proud Canadian. EH? J

Etc etc etc

Mikey Arcibald and Chucky.pdf

Documents

Transcript of Mikey Arcibald and Chucky.pdf