”…forces are seeing more suicide bombs now. Some say that’s desperation on the part of the Taliban because, not only is the BOMBER killed, but also, often civilians are caught between the bomber and its target! …”
—Susan Ormiston, CBC News.
Golly. I hear on Fox News Channel that sometimes, “some say”, civilians are the target! No, not the target of American or Canadian forces (who routinely target civilians if I understand “some” liberals correctly), but civilians are the target of the Taliban! No seriously! This is why some Fox News Channel folks accurately call them homicide bombers (with nary a need for explanation to its viewers).
Here’s another wonderfully astute observation which the pedagogical CBC reporter could possibly consider making to Canadians after vacuously explaining that ”…forces are seeing more suicide bombs now!” : The savage Taliban and other related terrorist groups and all of their divisions are (a) working as a cohesive group in order to win a war; and (b) are far more sophisticated and media savvy than the CBC or any western media (with the possible exception of Fox News Channel and the Washington Times).
I do realize this could be a rather embarrassing admission for the CBC reporter to make. And it won’t help them to win over the troops back home (by which I mean their “progressive” far-left viewers who all want to immediately quit the war and surrender to the Taliban, and then win power over Canada).
But it would only take 20 seconds to more fully inform Canadians. (Cut into some of your “Harper is an unfriendly dictator” time!). It could go something like this:
…forces are seeing more suicide bombs now. Terrorists often appear to increase their murderous terrorist bombings just when they think it’s particularly beneficial to their public relations and war-winning interests. Like when the liberal-left and its media in Canada are on a renewed and vigorous campaign to make clear that we Canadians are all rather indecisive about the very mission itself, with some of us actually demanding we immediately quit the fight because we will never win. This, on the basis that our enemy is too strong for us—and perhaps even more right than we are in their cause.
The result of this anti-war tour de force in and from Canada is that our troops are put in harm’s way, and troops and civilians are at risk of death. But at least the liberal-left is making their point.
Yes Canadians, some of us are actually on the Taliban’s side, or are at least “neutral”, as we at the CBC strain to appear, instead of being on, you know, Canada’s side. That way, and only that way, we can test to see whether we’re war criminals, as George Bush is seen to be by unnamed sources, or simply defending our national security and other interests abroad, as the neo-cons say without blushing. We’re not sure up to now. The Taliban might be the good guys. We’re just. Not. Sure.
Our —I mean the — liberal-left in Canada exemplify this position all day long by, for example, casting doubt and aspersions about the Afghanistan mission, and we —sorry they —purposefully raise doubts about the mission among the citizenry back home, and try to bring into renewed doubt the very worthiness of the mission, and try to convince Canadians that it’s all a waste of time and that we can’t win so let’s give up.
And then of course as a result of all the doubt that has been implanted in the hearts and minds of Canadians, the government in Canada actually has to have constant parliamentary “debates” and “committee” hearings, and then have a cute little carefully staged votes in the House about whether or not it’s all worthwhile (because it’s just that unclear, eh!).
And while the political opposition parties figure out their best politically expedient strategy (all based on their best win the next election “principles”, they prove to the terrorists—sorry, I mean the “misunderstood insurgents”—that the vote to extend the mission actually had a credible chance of failing, after which even our own troops wouldn’t know if they’ve been fighting and dying for shit [CBC could substitute “nothing”], or for what, exactly.
And when even after the vote passes, asses [CBC could substitute “arses”] like far-leftist pantywaist party leader Jack Layton and other liberal-leftists continue to demand we surrender because, well, it’s just not worth fighting for freedom and democracy and national security and our national interests.
Conversely, Canadians, as we know, all of that jibba jabba about a willingness to stay “for 100 years” supported by the likes of Republican presidential candidates John McCain, whose incredibly right-thinking [CBC could substitute “sober”] words are actually now being used against him by liberal Democrat surrender monkeys [CBC could substitute with “incredibly short-sighted and dangerous liberals”] who are just itching to surrender in Iraq in order to prove that Republicans failed, might actually have the effect of helping to discourage terrorists. And that would suck, politically, according to some sources.
And it doesn’t help them—Canada—that in any case, the current debate is also about end-date idiocy, rather than a clear demonstration of our willingness to fight until we win, and to never surrender, ever.
It would be a fairly long report. But today, for example, they’ve spent about an hour, so far, talking about the cool movies to see this weekend, on CBC Newsworld.
I don’t know what side the media is on. Personally, I’m on our side. So I’d go ahead and make that report. It would serve the nation well. In juxtaposition to how the CBC is currently serving the nation.
- We should ignore someone here - Wednesday October 20, 2021 at 1:45 pm
- Only the Globe and Mail is dumbfounded by motive for David Amess stabbing - Saturday October 16, 2021 at 9:33 am
- Biden’s BIG GOV plans get kicked in the balls by poll - Saturday October 16, 2021 at 8:29 am