Vandals hit Fan Fest military displays

[Dare]

Dare,

If these individuals were really "crying out" and "looking for something to believe in" they would have found it by now. They are, quite simply, not otherwise gainfully occupied, and too lazy to actually research the multi - faceted anti - war movement. In short - they have nothing better to do.

I was not referring to these specific individuals with that comment, as people here seem to be intent on widening the discourse from the topic at hand. As I have said, I think these particular individuals were looking for negative attention, and I'll add they're probably also looking for some notoriety and a self-esteem boost amongst their peer group. How do you know they are not employed? Perhaps they do plenty of research in the anti-war movement. Maybe we should present them with the pro-war movement, then, hm? Or do you think you can beat them all into submission?

The young person who does some reading or asking their educators will quickly find that the best way to support an anti - war movement in Canada is through their elected representatives, who are more than willing to listen.

Ah, so you're depending on their educators to show them the way? Well, I dare say, that asking their educators might be a major cause of their support for the anti-war movement in the first place.

If you truly believe that trying to reform these "troubled little souls" is the best way to alter their behaviour - you do it. But  don't say "it's society's fault" and walk away. Corporal punishment has been used by EVERY civilisation in recorded history. Why? It is effective, expedient and has a deterring effect. And no, we are not "better" than that, there were idiots in biblical times through to the present.

I do not say it is "society's fault" and walk away.

Not filling out your profile (at least a bit) is indicative of the same attitude these vandals have, that of concealing your identity/character, but not your controversial (probably intentionally so) viewpoints.

I see, so I am on par with a vandal that needs to be caned or whipped because I did not fill out my profile. :  I have a viewpoint. I'll express it here so long as I am allowed and follow the rules. I am not concealing my identity, I am not using encryption or a proxy. If the moderators of this site feel the need, my identity is not secret. It is private. There's a difference. The real question is, why do you feel the need to know who I am? Would knowing make what I have to say any less valid? If you think I'm trolling, you thought wrong.

And finally, supposing  the little turds that did this were caught - what method of correction would you advocate?

If you had read this thread rather than jumping on the dog pile, you would know, as it was my first post on the subject.

 

[1feral1]

Sounds like someone has been dabbling into too much textbooks on social issues and human behaviour than actually life experience in this subject.

No sniping or flaming either, just stating an opinion. Opinions are one thing, but you seem to be expressing some type of SME matter on here (not that there anything wrong with that).

As for profiles, we are not asking for your SIN, and eye colour Dare, just a broad (even weak, a hint) prospective on who you are. Take a look at my profile for example. I am not saying you have nothing to hide, but I am a wee tad suspicious on your excuse for not 'updating' your profile. I tend to listen better and take posts more seriously when someone has the credentials to back up what they say, after all one could be a 15 yr old leftist armchiar 'shrink' for all I know.

 

[Dare]

Sounds like someone has been dabbling into too much textbooks on social issues and human behaviour than actually life experience in this subject.

No sniping or flaming either, just stating an opinion. Opinions are one thing, but you seem to be expressing some type of SME matter on here (not that there anything wrong with that).

As for profiles, we are not asking for your SIN, and eye colour Dare, just a broad (even weak, a hint) prospective on who you are. Take a look at my profile for example. I am not saying you have nothing to hide, but I am a wee tad suspicious on your excuse for not 'updating' your profile. I tend to listen better and take posts more seriously when someone has the credentials to back up what they say, after all one could be a 15 yr old leftist armchiar 'shrink' for all I know.

Hehe. Well, no, my opinion on this is based on first hand experiences, not any mumbo jumbo. I'm glad opinions of me can range from far right extremist in another thread to an ignorant 15 year old leftist armchair shrink in another. I understand your suspicion. It's healthy, but enough about me. I certainly don't have any commonly impressive credentials, but I am not the issue on topic. Generally, I find, that when one wants to know more about me, they want to know, not to take what I say more seriously, but to twist it to attack my character and I'd rather not be arguing the merits of my life. I prefer keeping the discussion to logical debate with few exceptions.

 

[Dare]

Dare, I AM a youth (well, was I guess, seeing as 18 is considered an 'adult') and I can without hesitation proudly state that when I was younger my dad had no problem with wacking me upside the head if I was out of line (he hesitates these days, considering now I hit back  ) and I can now look back and state that I'm not some psychotic maniac (which is what the whishy-washy crowd would like to make out kids who were 'corporally punished' to be) and I'm probably better off for it. Fine, you claim to work with kids day to day, and I can assure you that unless you are a member of the wishy-washy PC crowd, you would by now have wised up to the fact that to really end bad behaviour someone has to equate pain with it.

Your father is not the government. I don't think that all kids who have been hit upside the head turn into psychotic maniacs, nor have I implied that. I'm certainly a lightyear away from being politically correct (as I'm sure many people here can attest to) and I certainly don't find corporal punishment, generally, to be wise. Sure, maybe it worked for you. It's worked for a lot of people. It also has *not* worked for a lot of people. A troubled kid is far more likely to be in a family that verbally or physically abuses or neglects them. This culture of violence is what you will find amongst many, many convicts (the eventual home for many of these kids). It's that same culture in many of the places our troops are fighting, or are projected to fight in the future. Where the children there only respect violence and in many cases they're armed and have been soldiers longer than many people here.

I couldn't care less if they still dislike military stuff after the punishment, all I care about is that they do not do it again.

This very sentence illustrates why we are losing the cultural war. They might not do that particular task again, but as I said, it will manifest itself later.

I've known people who have been involved in threats that ultimately ended in two setting off explosives in the threateners house. Perhaps if they sorted out their differences it would not have led to jail time and a potentially lethal situation.

My dad still chases down the little 50 Cent wannabes when they dick around on my street, and I do too. Trust me on this, if some kid tosses an egg at my house and I say 'please don't do that, its mean and not allowed', they'll laugh at me and keep at it. If I chase them down, or sit on my front step with my pellet gun on Halloween night and give them a few welts to remember me by, I can assure you (from first hand experience) that they don't come back.

Well, I'll sidestep the legal implications of that. As the owner of an excellent, purposeful slingshot and having been in similar scenarios, I can say that I support defense of property. It's what is done after the government catches them that I have a dispute with. If some kid is caught throwing an egg at my house, I don't expect or want that kid to be whipped. It's excessive.
Somewhat unrelated,
You'll find that the Canadian Forces expects its soldiers to be *diplomats* as well as soldiers. How we conduct ourselves in these troubled *countries* will have a tremendous effect that *will* determin the success of the mission. You can talk to civilians, be respectful and conduct yourself appropriately and have them greet you. Or you can push them around on their own streets, stomp on them and have them throw grenades at you when you don't expect it. As a local police officer once told me, you don't always have the juice.

 

[GO!!!]

Dare,

Several clarifications from your last post directed my way, first you ask me how I know that these vandals are unemployed, I said "not otherwise gainfully occupied" which for children, would mean homework, chores, boy scouts, church groups, cadets, whatever. My fault, I'll try to use simpler language for you in the future.

Yes, I would rely on the eductors to reform the thought processes of these kids, because teachers spend more time with kids than anyone else, parents included.This is more of a necessity than a best case scenario.

Said it before, now again - CORPORAL PUNISHMENT HAS BEEN USED BY EVERY CIVILISATION IN HISTORY - why? Check my last post. What makes you smarter than 3500 yrs of recorded history?

As for me jumping on the dog pile, you made a vague remark about a conceptual method of rehabilitation - not a pointed solution.

And finally, your little remark about Canadian soldiers being expected to be "diplomats" tells me that you have never been deployed and operate in the realm of the theoretical and possible, not the real and concrete. Canadian soldiers are expected to be well disciplined Canadian soldiers. This discipline and proper interpretation of orders is what makes us excel, not some abstract and easily misinterpreted notion of "diplomacy"

Infanteers have been the first line of contact with the locals in every Canadian military land operation since WWII. There has yet to be a diplomacy PO check added to the ISCC.

 

[Dare]

Dare,

Several clarifications from your last post directed my way, first you ask me how I know that these vandals are unemployed, I said "not otherwise gainfully occupied" which for children, would mean homework, chores, boy scouts, church groups, cadets, whatever. My fault, I'll try to use simpler language for you in the future.

I'm afraid that still doesn't add up to knowledge.

Yes, I would rely on the eductors to reform the thought processes of these kids, because teachers spend more time with kids than anyone else, parents included.This is more of a necessity than a best case scenario.

Well then, carry on with the status quo. It's funny your solution is to send them back to the very people that trained them to be how they are. What is it they say about insanity? It's doing the same thing and expecting a different result.

Said it before, now again - CORPORAL PUNISHMENT HAS BEEN USED BY EVERY CIVILISATION IN HISTORY - why? Check my last post. What makes you smarter than 3500 yrs of recorded history?

Makes *me* smarter? As if I'm the only person saying it on earth. How dare I deviate from 3500 years of recorded history? We have about 3300 years of slavery under our belts, how dare anyone seek change.

As for me jumping on the dog pile, you made a vague remark about a conceptual method of rehabilitation - not a pointed solution.

How is your solution "pointed" and not "conceptual"? I have personally seen my "conceptual" solution *work* in practice. So much for that.

And finally, your little remark about Canadian soldiers being expected to be "diplomats" tells me that you have never been deployed and operate in the realm of the theoretical and possible, not the real and concrete. Canadian soldiers are expected to be well disciplined Canadian soldiers. This discipline and proper interpretation of orders is what makes us excel, not some abstract and easily misinterpreted notion of "diplomacy"

Ah, yes, the distortion of my words continues. I said diplomats *AS WELL AS* soldiers. Obviously soldiering is the priority, or I would have said soldiers as well as diplomats. In fact I just watched the Honourable Bill Graham on television saying what I said in similar wording. There is nothing "abstract" about diplomacy. Maybe it's a little too complicated and "conceptual" for some, though.

Infanteers have been the first line of contact with the locals in every Canadian military land operation since WWII. There has yet to be a diplomacy PO check added to the ISCC.

So?

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Dare,
You are severely confusing "getting beaten" and corporal punishment. They are not the same thing, properly documented and supervised corporal punishment would be a great deterrant.
Lets see what Judge Bruce would do here, 25 hours community service, 500 page essay on how I hurt society by my act and 25 lashes, only to be administered failing any of the above conditions or repeat offences within one year.
I think, no, I KNOW that would be more of a deterrant than custody.....

 

[canadianblue]

You know what if my kids ever were to do something which I felt was completely morally wrong and I would just yell at them. Really I'm not going to be slack and have a "live and let live" attitude because I know too many kids with absolutely nothing to live for who have parents that don't punish them. I think your notion that "diplomacy" will always work to stop violence is a flawed one. Kids of today need structure in their lives, not wish washy parents who don't give a shit about what they do. I also know some people who have a fairly flawed view of right and wrong because their parents weren't very good at teaching them any morals, and didn't try to be examples to their kids. Look at my last post and you'll see what I mean.

 

[GO!!!]

Dare,
   
    Please provide some evidence of your "concptual notion" working in practice. If you are familiar with endnotes to source your claim, I will follow up. If you've seen it, documentation should'nt be too hard to come by.

The MND is perhaps the least qualified person qualified to state what, exactly soldiers are to do, as the authority to do that is vested in the CDS, and to some extent, the DMND. Also, a source of where the MND made the statement regarding "diplomats" would be nice - see above.

Your statements as to what veterans of past and recent conflicts fought for are lacking in substance without either interviewing an accurate cross section of those veterans or being one yourself, and knowing what it means.

I noticed you did'nt argue with my statement that you had never been deployed though, so you are building a profile for us after all. Keep up the good work.

 

[Dare]

Dare,
You are severely confusing "getting beaten" and corporal punishment. They are not the same thing, properly documented and supervised corporal punishment would be a great deterrant.

Heheh, I'm really trying not to get them confused, as I was trying to keep on topic, but this topic has since swayed quite a bit.

Lets see what Judge Bruce would do here, 25 hours community service, 500 page essay on how I hurt society by my act and 25 lashes, only to be administered failing any of the above conditions or repeat offences within one year.
I think, no, I KNOW that would be more of a deterrant than custody.....

I'm sure it is an effective deterrant. Are we looking for punishment? Or a deterrant? Or.. justice..? The Taliban had many effective deterrants for common criminals, yet even then crime existed. Where is the line drawn?

 

[Dare]

You know what if my kids ever were to do something which I felt was completely morally wrong and I would just yell at them. Really I'm not going to be slack and have a "live and let live" attitude because I know too many kids with absolutely nothing to live for who have parents that don't punish them. I think your notion that "diplomacy" will always work to stop violence is a flawed one. Kids of today need structure in their lives, not wish washy parents who don't give a crap about what they do. I also know some people who have a fairly flawed view of right and wrong because their parents weren't very good at teaching them any morals, and didn't try to be examples to their kids. Look at my last post and you'll see what I mean.

Again, I have not once said that diplomacy will always work, in the case of children or war. Do not confuse structure with violence, or wishy washy as being without violence. A parent with a flawed view of right and wrong is not going to be any better of a parent by hitting their kids. But being a good example.. absolutely I 100% agree with that.

 

[Dare]

Dare,
   
    Please provide some evidence of your "concptual notion" working in practice. If you are familiar with endnotes to source your claim, I will follow up. If you've seen it, documentation should'nt be too hard to come by.

Please reread what I have written. Especially the part where I mention my belief is made upon first hand personal experiences.

The MND is perhaps the least qualified person qualified to state what, exactly soldiers are to do, as the authority to do that is vested in the CDS, and to some extent, the DMND. Also, a source of where the MND made the statement regarding "diplomats" would be nice - see above.

I'm not sure how the MND's position on something in his jurisdiction is "unqualified", but anyways, this is something I can provide citations for..

"The authority of command and technical proficiency,once considered adequate for Cold War-era leader development, are not enough in today's environment. The CF needs a new type of military professional and leader, one in whom the qualities of the warrior-technician are supplemented with the skills of the soldier-diplomat. The CF needs leaders â “ both commis-sioned and non-commissioned â “ who are broadly educated, who understand this new interconnected and volatile world, and who are expert in conflict resolution in its broadest sense â “ from traditional warfighting to humanitarian and nation-building interventions."

http://www.cda-acd.forces.gc.ca/CFLI/engraph/leadership/doc/DND_Conceptual_e.pdf

Search through it. In fact, you might want to read it. It's quite well made.

Stamped official, copyrighted to Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, 2005 with the forward written and material approved by The Man, himself, but you can carry on with your delusion that the CDS is above authority.

Here is the Minister's position. One of the many times he has mentioned it.

http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/newsroom/view_news_e.asp?id=1577

"The men and women of the Canadian Forces have always been part warrior, part diplomat, and part aid worker. Some argue this diminishes the â Å“warrior ethicâ ? or renders our troops less effective on the battlefield. Frankly, I disagree. Because, as I have said, in today's world our soldiers must be capable of not just winning wars, but also of contributing to conditions which make it possible for us to secure the peace."

Your statements as to what veterans of past and recent conflicts fought for are lacking in substance without either interviewing an accurate cross section of those veterans or being one yourself, and knowing what it means.

Oh please.. what I have said is selfevident. Unless there is a ghost army out there readying for war for the right of corporal punishment, veterens didn't fight for that. They fought for freedom. A theme, I believe, you'll find quite commonly used. And you know it.

I noticed you did'nt argue with my statement that you had never been deployed though, so you are building a profile for us after all. Keep up the good work.

I don't argue with many things, I hesitated driving down this course in the first place, but you can make a game of it if you like. I'm no longer interested in talking about it. You know what they say about one who assumes?.. enjoy your profiling.  : I'm going to read that manual, it's quite interesting.

 

[GO!!!]

Dare,
      I made a comment earlier about people who resided in the abstract and conceptual, and not the real world - as the title of that manual aptly demonstrates, have a good read.

The speech Bill Graham gave was to the Rotary Club of Toronto, and concentrated on what they wanted to hear. If the only event that he can pull out of the entire Afghan experience for digestion by a philanthropic organisation is that of a toy gun being taken from child - he proved my point that he decides policy and macro decisions - soldiers take care of the rest.

In addition to this, he said "have always been" not "will soon be" so it was one soon to be replaced man's opinion, not doctrine.

As for not going down this road - you're right, you should'nt have.

And you should even less be professing to tell men who have gone to places like Afghanistan and done missions and lived in a %*&#$ dusty tent the size of a double bed with their fire team partner for six months exactly what they fought for. Because I did, and it sure as hell was'nt so vandals could tag army tents and bleeding hearts like you could tell me that they are just misunderstood.

So read the Concepts of Leadership manual and think you know what it means to be a soldier. Then set your compass to 3200m and double time.

Rant over  :rage:

 

[Infanteer]

So, anyone seen the new Star Wars yet?  I bet you that Anakin was whipped....

 

[1feral1]

;D Good one mate!

 

[Marty]

So, anyone seen the new Star Wars yet?  I bet you that Anakin was whipped....

Yea but didnt he turn out OK  in the end? Oh I forgot its just a movie.

 

[George Wallace]

Are we now going to blame the Sith control of 'the Force' on the irresponsible behavior of these vandals?

 

[Dare]

Dare,
      I made a comment earlier about people who resided in the abstract and conceptual, and not the real world - as the title of that manual aptly demonstrates, have a good read.

The speech Bill Graham gave was to the Rotary Club of Toronto, and concentrated on what they wanted to hear. If the only event that he can pull out of the entire Afghan experience for digestion by a philanthropic organisation is that of a toy gun being taken from child - he proved my point that he decides policy and macro decisions - soldiers take care of the rest.

In addition to this, he said "have always been" not "will soon be" so it was one soon to be replaced man's opinion, not doctrine.

I love how you ignored what the official leadership manual for the Canadian Forces says about a *NEW* type of military professional.. who's qualities include being a **soldier-diplomat**. With the CDS saying in the Forward that "this is what I expect of Officers, Warrant Officers, Non-Commissioned Officers.." Yeah, very slick. Bill Graham also said that on a number of occasions to a number of different audiences. I have been to Rotary Club events, and they're not as "bleeding heart" as you seem to think, just because they like to help people out.. they're good people.. for the most part. Some are just there to help their tax burden..

And you should even less be professing to tell men who have gone to places like Afghanistan and done missions and lived in a %*&#$ dusty tent the size of a double bed with their fire team partner for six months exactly what they fought for. Because I did, and it sure as heck was'nt so vandals could tag army tents and bleeding hearts like you could tell me that they are just misunderstood.

Hahahahaha, I'm a bleeding heart.. oh, that's rich. There's a first for everything I suppose.

My words are twisted again. I am quite sure you did not go to Afghanistan for the right to cane vandals. There might have been some other extenuating circumstances that preceeded your arrival.. maybe having to do with a few planes, and a few buildings..? Or maybe you liked the idea of LIBERATING an OPPRESSED people from a TYRANNY which included severe and extreme punishment? I, personally, think both are sufficient. Unless you fancy mutilation and public executions as a preventative measure as well.. Last I checked, Canada was still a DEMOCRACY, and so is Afghanistan now, so it doesn't seem like the end game has changed a whole lot, and if you know what our democracy allows, it allows me (the supposed "bleeding heart"), to say whatever the hell I want (for the most part) and for your personal opinion to be completely overridden by the majority. What say you to that? As I'll say again. Just because you SUPPORT something, does not mean you FOUGHT for it.

 

[GO!!!]

Dare,

I quit, you are obviously more in tune with my reasons for my actions than I am, I congratulate you on your ESP.

I would suggest that unless you actually join the army and experience the "warrior ethos" that you do not profess to know what it entails or means. As others have pointed out in my occasionally scathing posts, it is only to easy to critisize from the comfort of a home office.

After reading many of your other posts, you do seem to be a slightly more sophisticated version of the average invertabrate troller.

Once you put on a uniform, even once, you will be eminently more qualified than you are now to profess to "know" what the military does and why. And as for the support vs fight? I did both, did'nt see you there.

May your house be vandalised next.

OUT.
*end participation in this thread*

 

[old medic]

I do believe that corporal punishment, in general, is "Extreme harshness or severity; rigor." Tyranny is not always dressed in a swastika or a hammer and scythe. Whipping is pretty severe and harsh, I'm sure you can at least admit to that.

I will say that I think whipping is harsher than what laws currently allow for. I also think current penalties are weak and ineffective.
In any reference to Canadian justice, I do not consider it as having been tyranny.