news Canadian News
Good Morning Guest | login or register
  • Home
    • Canadian News
    • Popular News
    • News Voting Log
    • News Images
  • Forums
    • Recent Topics Scroll
    •  
    • Politics Forums
    • Sports Forums
    • Regional Forums
  • Content
    • Achievements
    • Canadian Content
    • Famous Canadians
    • Famous Quotes
    • Jokes
    • Canadian Maps
  • Photos
    • Picture Gallery
    • Wallpapers
    • Recent Activity
  • About
    • About
    • Contact
    • Link to Us
    • Points
    • Statistics
  • Shop
  • Register
    • Gold Membership
  • Archive
    • Canadian TV
    • Canadian Webcams
    • Groups
    • Links
    • Top 10's
    • Reviews
    • CKA Radio
    • Video
    • Weather

Stephen Harper takes aim at terror, opposition

Canadian Content
20801news upnews down
Link Related to Canada in some say

Stephen Harper takes aim at terror, opposition gets dinged


Political | 208008 hits | Jan 30 3:59 pm | Posted by: Hyack
19 Comment

The rollout of the new terror legislation went well, mostly. The prime minister's speech was clear and well staged. A friendly crowd applauded on cue. But it wasn't all statesman, all the time. It's an election year, after all, writes Terry Milewski.

Comments

  1. by avatar N_Fiddledog
    Sat Jan 31, 2015 12:16 am
    Gee, Stephen Harper did something the CBC disapproves of. Alert the media.

    No. I mean the real media, not the propaganda arm of the Progressive movement.

    The editorial was good for a smile though. I especially enjoyed the part where CBC guy said nobody is criticizing, except of course when we're criticizing. :)

  2. by avatar 2Cdo
    Sat Jan 31, 2015 12:33 am
    Can we change the way we fund the CBC? How about only those card carrying Liberals and NDP party members pay for it. They don't even pretend to be anything but the left-wing support group anymore.

  3. by avatar andyt
    Sat Jan 31, 2015 1:03 am
    Harper: Our troops will not accompany Iraqi forces to the front.
    Nicholson: How can you train troops when you don't accompany them to the front?
    Lawson: Accompany doesn't mean the same thing in the military as for civilians.

    The usual scenario, Harper is either a liar or doesn't know his ass from his elbow.

    As for the new terror legislation - 7 day detention with no charge. Do we really need new legislation that further erodes civil rights, or just more police to enforce the laws we already have? Course the latter would cost money. Can't balance a budget when you've already spent what you don't have.

  4. by avatar andyt
    Sat Jan 31, 2015 1:50 am
    Here's CTV's take on it - is it less hurtful for reformacons when they say it:

    But while the prime minister might successfully sell the widened scope of the mission to Canadians, Stephen Harper’s trustworthiness is vulnerable in the war over his own words.
    He clearly promised to limit ground troops to classroom-type training and background assistance last fall.
    He’s now praising Canadian troops for front line targeting and killing.
    It could be the prime minister didn’t initially understand the mission. That would be disconcerting.
    It could be Harper deliberately masked it as passive instead of aggressive. That would be alarming.
    Or perhaps Chief of Defence Staff Tom Lawson single-handedly evolved the mission. If so, the country’s top general has gone beyond his mandate and deserves a rebuke from his political masters. Strange, then, how they’re all saluting him for a job well done.
    The particularly odd part is that Harper could’ve secured parliamentary permission to invade Baghdad with a battalion of Canadian troops if he wanted. The prime minister dictates the outcome of every vote.



    Read more: http://www.ctvnews.ca/ctv-news-channel/ ... z3QMMQOg3p

  5. by avatar Jabberwalker
    Sat Jan 31, 2015 2:00 am
    Oh, come on. We sent our troops to "peace keeping" missions for two generations with their balls effectively cut off. The prime benefactors of all that was mostly the Gliberal Party of Canada who pointed with pride at their sham multilateralism.

  6. by avatar andyt
    Sat Jan 31, 2015 2:07 am
    "Jabberwalker" said
    Oh, come on. We sent our troops to "peace keeping" missions for two generations with their balls effectively cut off. The prime benefactors of all that was mostly the Gliberal Party of Canada who pointed with pride at their sham multilateralism.



    The particularly odd part is that Harper could’ve secured parliamentary permission to invade Baghdad with a battalion of Canadian troops if he wanted. The prime minister dictates the outcome of every vote.


    As it says, he can push anything he wants thru parliament, including a full blown ground invasion if he wants. So was he confused or was he lying?

    this is the problem with Harper. As the article says, most Canadians, (including this one) probably don't have a problem with Canadian troops accompanying the Iraqis, and obviously fighting back if attacked. So why the need to bullshit?

  7. by avatar Unsound
    Sat Jan 31, 2015 2:43 am
    I suspect that giving out the least possible information at all times has just gotten to be habit for Harper.

  8. by OnTheIce
    Sat Jan 31, 2015 3:04 am
    "andyt" said

    As it says, he can push anything he wants thru parliament, including a full blown ground invasion if he wants. So was he confused or was he lying?

    this is the problem with Harper. As the article says, most Canadians, (including this one) probably don't have a problem with Canadian troops accompanying the Iraqis, and obviously fighting back if attacked. So why the need to bullshit?


    This is the problem with stupid fucks like you. No room for change. War is a black and white thing to you. No room for things to change and evolve. If it was said, one must stick exactly to that.

    Fuck the Iraqi's if they need the help. Let's sit back, watch them get killed. Good call.

  9. by avatar andyt
    Sat Jan 31, 2015 3:18 am
    "Unsound" said
    I suspect that giving out the least possible misleading information at all times has just gotten to be habit for Harper.


    More accurate I think. Doesn't even make sense - as I said, it's not as if he would lose the vote if he told the truth, and most people probably support what the special forces are up to anyway. So why bullshit when asked a direct question?

  10. by avatar andyt
    Sat Jan 31, 2015 3:26 am
    "I am Stephen Harper and I approved this message." said


    Fuck the Iraqi's if they need the help. Let's sit back, watch them get killed. Good call.


    Or, you know, just help them and tell the truth at the same time. A tall order, I know, but it can be done.

  11. by avatar PublicAnimalNo9
    Sat Jan 31, 2015 6:29 am
    "andyt" said
    blah blah blah

    As for the new terror legislation - 7 day detention with no charge. Do we really need new legislation that further erodes civil rights?

    Not at all. We already have at least one liberal judge who has shown that he's more than happy to "Eric Brazeau" someone without the need for legislation.

  12. by avatar PublicAnimalNo9
    Sat Jan 31, 2015 6:40 am
    "andyt" said
    Here's CTV's take on it - is it less hurtful for reformacons when they say it:

    But while the prime minister might successfully sell the widened scope of the mission to Canadians, Stephen Harper’s trustworthiness is vulnerable in the war over his own words.
    He clearly promised to limit ground troops to classroom-type training and background assistance last fall.
    He’s now praising Canadian troops for front line targeting and killing.
    It could be the prime minister didn’t initially understand the mission. That would be disconcerting.
    It could be Harper deliberately masked it as passive instead of aggressive. That would be alarming.
    Or perhaps Chief of Defence Staff Tom Lawson single-handedly evolved the mission. If so, the country’s top general has gone beyond his mandate and deserves a rebuke from his political masters. Strange, then, how they’re all saluting him for a job well done.

    Or hey ya know, since modern warfare is mobile and fluid, the front (or a small portion thereof) could have moved closer to where our soldiers were stationed, even if only for a short period of time. But hey, let's just pretend that there's absolutely no movement or maneuvering in warfare and wax hyperbole instead.

  13. by avatar andyt
    Sat Jan 31, 2015 12:04 pm
    "PublicAnimalNo9" said

    Or hey ya know, since modern warfare is mobile and fluid, the front (or a small portion thereof) could have moved closer to where our soldiers were stationed, even if only for a short period of time. But hey, let's just pretend that there's absolutely no movement or maneuvering in warfare and wax hyperbole instead.


    You really need to become an advisor to the Reformacons. Makes sense what you said, yet not once has this been their excuse. Instead we got all the bafflegab I mentioned above. Makes me think, your explanation, while feasible, is not what happened. Tho why they couldn't just bullshit about it is beyond me. It's their standard mo anyway. They just don't have anybody on staff clever enough to come up with such a plausible bit of bullshit. Guess when you're knee deep in it, you can't tell quality bullshit from regular grade anymore. That's where you would come in.

  14. by avatar Delwin
    Sat Jan 31, 2015 2:31 pm
    The conversation will be different when we start seeing draped coffins coming home from this "non-combat" mission.



view comments in forum
Page 1 2

You need to be a member of CKA and be logged into the site, to comment on news.

  • Login
  • Register (free)
 Share  Digg It Bookmark to del.icio.us Share on Facebook


Share on Facebook Submit page to Reddit
CKA About |  Legal |  Advertise |  Sitemap |  Contact   canadian mobile newsMobile

All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2025 by Canadaka.net