• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread

Interesting read....



I spent more than 30 years with Canada’s two intelligence services, the Communications Security Establishment (CSE) and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS). I worked in collection, cryptanalysis, translation, analysis and distribution over those years at various times. I know how intelligence is produced and how it is marketed, and a bit on how it can help decision-makers be better informed. In short, I know that intelligence has a purpose and makes a difference.



You wouldn’t know that from former governor general David Johnston’s report on Chinese interference in our democratic process. While I imagine not many were surprised at how little he criticized the government of Justin Trudeau, Canadians should be told that his scathing words on our intelligence agencies were inaccurate, unfair and, frankly, insulting.
Johnston says he met with the heads of CSE and CSIS. He thus should have been well-versed on how and why these two organizations do what they do. In that, he is one fortunate Canadian, as he had access to information few would ever get. And yet, based on what I read in his 59-page report, he either didn’t listen or he failed to understand what he was being told.

Johnston suggests — no, he boldly states — that our spies are getting the sharing of intelligence all wrong. He says that the distribution of intelligence is broken and puts the blame squarely on the backs of the agencies that produce it (and not on those who receive it as customers). Furthermore, he notes that intelligence is “piecemeal” and hence of little value as it rarely provides the “whole picture.” In this, he seems to follow in the footsteps of other self-styled “national security experts” who have belittled this source of information. Lastly, he accused the person who leaked CSIS reports to Canadian media on China’s election interference of having “malicious” intent.


Raw data is collected from a variety of sources (human, intercept, imagery, allies, etc.), processed, analyzed, corroborated across multiple sources wherever possible, summarized, put into a nice, small package (on average two to three pages maximum) and delivered to officials with the requisite security clearance. This distribution is often carried out by dedicated CSE/CSIS staff who are posted within the very buildings where clients such as senior government officials work, to insure personalized service and to be on hand to answer any questions, or pass feedback or requests for more intelligence along to headquarters. The product is often left with clients; they have the liberty to share it with others who have equal security clearances. (Whether or not they do is not a CSE/CSIS issue.)


If an official in a given department decides that intelligence is not worth passing on (or that it inconveniently goes against entrenched policy) to those higher up the chain — including the prime minister — how can the fault for a lack of awareness be placed at the feet of the creators of the product? The intelligence bodies have done their job.
In addition, no one in intelligence is so arrogant as to believe that our product is the be-all and end-all of information that on its own can decide matters (although I have seen where it actually did that). We realize that there are other considerations but hope that the intelligence gathered is at least part of the calculation. It seems clear to me that the intel on China was almost completely ignored — for decades — by a number of federal governments.

On the alleged reasons for the leak (note: I do not support leaks, on principle), I wonder how Johnston knows the individual responsible had evil intent. It strikes me that this unknown person may be a very frustrated public servant who is sick and tired of having decades of solid information ignored and took it upon him/herself to let Canadians know what this government (and previous ones) was (not) doing. How is that “malice”?

Those of us who worked, or are still toiling, in intelligence go to the office every day with one purpose only: to get the best data possible from sensitive sources and share that with senior officials to keep them informed. We do not expect everything we do to make a crucial difference but we do expect our customers to recognize our expertise and our commitment to Canada. To have our reputations sullied by people who have no background in the business is not fair.

We await David Johnston’s apology.

Phil Gurski is president and CEO of Borealis Threat and Risk Consulting.
 
Interesting read....



I spent more than 30 years with Canada’s two intelligence services, the Communications Security Establishment (CSE) and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS). I worked in collection, cryptanalysis, translation, analysis and distribution over those years at various times. I know how intelligence is produced and how it is marketed, and a bit on how it can help decision-makers be better informed. In short, I know that intelligence has a purpose and makes a difference.



You wouldn’t know that from former governor general David Johnston’s report on Chinese interference in our democratic process. While I imagine not many were surprised at how little he criticized the government of Justin Trudeau, Canadians should be told that his scathing words on our intelligence agencies were inaccurate, unfair and, frankly, insulting.
Johnston says he met with the heads of CSE and CSIS. He thus should have been well-versed on how and why these two organizations do what they do. In that, he is one fortunate Canadian, as he had access to information few would ever get. And yet, based on what I read in his 59-page report, he either didn’t listen or he failed to understand what he was being told.

Johnston suggests — no, he boldly states — that our spies are getting the sharing of intelligence all wrong. He says that the distribution of intelligence is broken and puts the blame squarely on the backs of the agencies that produce it (and not on those who receive it as customers). Furthermore, he notes that intelligence is “piecemeal” and hence of little value as it rarely provides the “whole picture.” In this, he seems to follow in the footsteps of other self-styled “national security experts” who have belittled this source of information. Lastly, he accused the person who leaked CSIS reports to Canadian media on China’s election interference of having “malicious” intent.


Raw data is collected from a variety of sources (human, intercept, imagery, allies, etc.), processed, analyzed, corroborated across multiple sources wherever possible, summarized, put into a nice, small package (on average two to three pages maximum) and delivered to officials with the requisite security clearance. This distribution is often carried out by dedicated CSE/CSIS staff who are posted within the very buildings where clients such as senior government officials work, to insure personalized service and to be on hand to answer any questions, or pass feedback or requests for more intelligence along to headquarters. The product is often left with clients; they have the liberty to share it with others who have equal security clearances. (Whether or not they do is not a CSE/CSIS issue.)


If an official in a given department decides that intelligence is not worth passing on (or that it inconveniently goes against entrenched policy) to those higher up the chain — including the prime minister — how can the fault for a lack of awareness be placed at the feet of the creators of the product? The intelligence bodies have done their job.
In addition, no one in intelligence is so arrogant as to believe that our product is the be-all and end-all of information that on its own can decide matters (although I have seen where it actually did that). We realize that there are other considerations but hope that the intelligence gathered is at least part of the calculation. It seems clear to me that the intel on China was almost completely ignored — for decades — by a number of federal governments.

On the alleged reasons for the leak (note: I do not support leaks, on principle), I wonder how Johnston knows the individual responsible had evil intent. It strikes me that this unknown person may be a very frustrated public servant who is sick and tired of having decades of solid information ignored and took it upon him/herself to let Canadians know what this government (and previous ones) was (not) doing. How is that “malice”?

Those of us who worked, or are still toiling, in intelligence go to the office every day with one purpose only: to get the best data possible from sensitive sources and share that with senior officials to keep them informed. We do not expect everything we do to make a crucial difference but we do expect our customers to recognize our expertise and our commitment to Canada. To have our reputations sullied by people who have no background in the business is not fair.

We await David Johnston’s apology.

Phil Gurski is president and CEO of Borealis Threat and Risk Consulting.

mikekoziol yes GIF by Bizness Rebels
 
There are people who refuse to try, but they are the exception. I'm sure if the CAF offered every person MCpl-Maj the opportunity to do second language training, most would jump at it.

I'm not frustrated that I need to learn French, I enjoyed the one opportunity I have had to actually get a few weeks of training. I'm frustrated that it's a requirement to advance, yet isn't seriously offered to most. Allies French was so bad last time I tried it that I felt like I lost what little French I had learned previously. Even the material for PL1 was horrible, if I was slightly more cynical about the government, I'd say it was intentionally made frustrating and difficult.

My point though, was that people who grow up in a bilingual home, because their parents are bilingual(Toronto, Ottawa-Montreal largely), are more likely to succeed in Government/federally regulated businesses. Most of Canada is not bilingual, so the kid from Lac St-Jean is pretty much as disadvantaged as the kid from Guelph, or Kelowna. The government whether intentionally or not has created a "ruling" class, and an underclass.
Yep, I agree. I first learned my English in the streets. I had the chance to have a bilingual friend. Imagine a 12 years old trying to say M-60 (the tank) while pronging M-16 and realising his mistake, finishing the good prononciation while is friend was laughing 🙋🏼‍♂️😂

That part of the system is also broken.
 
That is true within the CAF as well.

Nepotism and connections have often times held more weight than actual performance or ability.

As much as we like to toot our horn about being an egalitarian society in Canada, our history and institutions say otherwise. I wonder how much of that is a bug and how much of it is a feature.

I find it hilarious when I am meeting people for the first time and they ask where I grew up and where I did my undergrad. The look I get when I inform them I'm a Temporary Gentleman who started out as a poor immigrant kid from Scarlem is priceless.
Seigneury. Northwest Company. Chateau Clique. Family Compact. Golden Mile. Liberal Party. It is a feature.
 
Interesting read....



I spent more than 30 years with Canada’s two intelligence services, the Communications Security Establishment (CSE) and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS). I worked in collection, cryptanalysis, translation, analysis and distribution over those years at various times. I know how intelligence is produced and how it is marketed, and a bit on how it can help decision-makers be better informed. In short, I know that intelligence has a purpose and makes a difference.



You wouldn’t know that from former governor general David Johnston’s report on Chinese interference in our democratic process. While I imagine not many were surprised at how little he criticized the government of Justin Trudeau, Canadians should be told that his scathing words on our intelligence agencies were inaccurate, unfair and, frankly, insulting.
Johnston says he met with the heads of CSE and CSIS. He thus should have been well-versed on how and why these two organizations do what they do. In that, he is one fortunate Canadian, as he had access to information few would ever get. And yet, based on what I read in his 59-page report, he either didn’t listen or he failed to understand what he was being told.

Johnston suggests — no, he boldly states — that our spies are getting the sharing of intelligence all wrong. He says that the distribution of intelligence is broken and puts the blame squarely on the backs of the agencies that produce it (and not on those who receive it as customers). Furthermore, he notes that intelligence is “piecemeal” and hence of little value as it rarely provides the “whole picture.” In this, he seems to follow in the footsteps of other self-styled “national security experts” who have belittled this source of information. Lastly, he accused the person who leaked CSIS reports to Canadian media on China’s election interference of having “malicious” intent.


Raw data is collected from a variety of sources (human, intercept, imagery, allies, etc.), processed, analyzed, corroborated across multiple sources wherever possible, summarized, put into a nice, small package (on average two to three pages maximum) and delivered to officials with the requisite security clearance. This distribution is often carried out by dedicated CSE/CSIS staff who are posted within the very buildings where clients such as senior government officials work, to insure personalized service and to be on hand to answer any questions, or pass feedback or requests for more intelligence along to headquarters. The product is often left with clients; they have the liberty to share it with others who have equal security clearances. (Whether or not they do is not a CSE/CSIS issue.)


If an official in a given department decides that intelligence is not worth passing on (or that it inconveniently goes against entrenched policy) to those higher up the chain — including the prime minister — how can the fault for a lack of awareness be placed at the feet of the creators of the product? The intelligence bodies have done their job.
In addition, no one in intelligence is so arrogant as to believe that our product is the be-all and end-all of information that on its own can decide matters (although I have seen where it actually did that). We realize that there are other considerations but hope that the intelligence gathered is at least part of the calculation. It seems clear to me that the intel on China was almost completely ignored — for decades — by a number of federal governments.

On the alleged reasons for the leak (note: I do not support leaks, on principle), I wonder how Johnston knows the individual responsible had evil intent. It strikes me that this unknown person may be a very frustrated public servant who is sick and tired of having decades of solid information ignored and took it upon him/herself to let Canadians know what this government (and previous ones) was (not) doing. How is that “malice”?

Those of us who worked, or are still toiling, in intelligence go to the office every day with one purpose only: to get the best data possible from sensitive sources and share that with senior officials to keep them informed. We do not expect everything we do to make a crucial difference but we do expect our customers to recognize our expertise and our commitment to Canada. To have our reputations sullied by people who have no background in the business is not fair.

We await David Johnston’s apology.

Phil Gurski is president and CEO of Borealis Threat and Risk Consulting.
Absolutely. Sounds a lot like the mass shooting enquiry in Nova Scotia. Pointy end dropped the ball, bureaucrats actually in charge of getting higher level stuff done that didn’t are golden.
 
When the public has lost trust in the government, it’s up to the government to fix that trust. Not the media. Not CSIS. Not the Opposition. Not the public. The government.


For example, the government is widely suspected, on the basis of a series of damning intelligence memos leaked to the media, of having ignored China’s repeated attempts to interfere with Canada’s elections – a plot that was allegedly intended to benefit the Liberal Party and may even have involved one or more of its members. It is hard to imagine a more serious threat to public trust.
How would a government that was genuinely committed to restoring public trust respond to this? It would not only take immediate action to ensure this sort of thing never happened again. It would also go out of its way to allay any concerns about how it happened in the first place.


At a minimum, the prime minister would make himself available to answer any questions the public might have about the matter: what he knew, when he knew it, and what he did about it. Lest this be viewed as insufficient, he would also call a public inquiry, with all of the powers to compel evidence at its disposal.
And to lead the inquiry, he would not just choose someone without the slightest whiff of association with himself, his party, the government, or China. In a matter as grave as a foreign power’s attempt to tilt an election – regardless of whether the attempt succeeded – he would take care to ensure whoever oversaw the investigation was also explicitly acceptable to his opponents.

What, instead, have we seen? We have seen Justin Trudeau engage in a lengthy game of catch me if you can: answering no questions, throwing up one deflection after another, in all attempting to shift the onus off of himself and his government and onto the leakers, the press, the opposition, and ultimately the public. And in this he has had the able assistance of his hand-picked “independent special rapporteur,” David Johnston – appointed, not only without consulting the opposition, but over its objections.


Whether it was necessary to appoint anyone to this invented position may be debated. But having elected to do so, it is remarkable that he should have chosen, of all people, an old friend, a (former) member of the Trudeau Foundation, whose own foundation received millions of dollars in funding from the Trudeau government, and who has a long history of promoting closer ties with China.
 
This is rich! :ROFLMAO:

Singh says he won't force an election until confidence in the electoral system is restored​

NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh is dismissing calls to end his party's deal with the Liberals, saying confidence must be restored in the electoral process before he makes any decisions that could send Canadians to the polls.

"I would question the approach of creating the conditions for an election, or triggering an election, as not serious about protecting our democracy," Singh said Tuesday.

"If we want to protect our democracy, I would think the approach should be, let's put in place new measures … I would like to see a series of steps being taken and that to me would show some real seriousness about protecting our electoral system."
:ROFLMAO:
 
After watching Question Period yesterday, and reading all available info, I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that a Public Inquiry will do massive damage to Trudeau and the Liberal Party. They are corrupt.

Former CSIS officer says Canada needs an inquiry into foreign interference

 
After watching Question Period yesterday, and reading all available info, I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that a Public Inquiry will do massive damage to Trudeau and the Liberal Party. They are corrupt.

Former CSIS officer says Canada needs an inquiry into foreign interference


Just like Electoral Reform this Gov wont move a finger on anything if betters the country before themselves.

Remember vote anyone but Liberal.
 
Last edited:
Isn't that human nature to an extent. Those with power will try and ensure that power is hereditary. In life it's about who you know, not what you know.

It's the same in pro sports. Look into how man pro athletes are family members of other pro athletes or high performing athletes.

It's on the micro level too. How many municipal police and fire departments are essentially family businesses ?

I think it was the book Freakenomics that delved into this.
Don't forgot Teachers in that mix - Teacher beget Teachers, generation after generation.
 
Most of the Franco will welcome the basic sentences. Yes we will turn to English because it’s easier and unders It’s harder for you guys. The efforts worth everything, mostly for the subordinates.

My English training was done in Saint-Jean, never past above B in conversational on the PS test and spoke English daily. I’m with you on that test non sense at 110%
Its a sign of respect in my humble opinion to acknowledge a French speakers mother tongue and it make an effort to at least do the basic meet and greet in French and from there, use some phases/sentences in french from time to time.
 
This is rich! :ROFLMAO:




:ROFLMAO:
Stalling til his pension is vested. On top of that, their warchest is empty. He also has to worry about his own job after an election. I see them losing seats in rural areas due to their support of C-21. Guys like Charlie Angus are on deck to lose their jobs. Singh will lose his leadership review.
 
Back
Top