Intellectually Lazy, or just Biased Column Writing??

I just read James McNulty in The Province online. He's writing an article about Canada's Afghanistan mission and takes teh easy route by saying, "...Canada adopts Bush combat role." What's that supposed to mean? is Bush a country? Why do people seem to always single out George Bush as some sort of bogey man in Canadian politics. Isn't it possible that Canada has taken on the combat role in Afghanistan as part of its Nato commitment? Isn't it possible that Canada sees the prospect of a terrorist controlled Afghanistan as being against Canadian National Security interests, especially in light of 17 Muslims being arrested for planning terrorist assaults in Canada? or after seeing what homegrown British terrorists have done in England? Isn't it reasonable to assume that a country where terrorist training facilities are operating is a danger to Canada considering how young Muslims have gone to those types of facilities and then actually carried out terror attacks in their "home"country?

McNulty writes,

Does ongoing expansion of military hardware, boosted by ass-kicking rhetoric from Gen. Rick Hillier and Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor, signal a permanent shift for Canada away from peacekeeping to decades more of combat?

This line is quite disingenuous seeing as how Canada has never been a "peacekeeping" nation. Rather, Canada has a long and storied MILITARY history, with combat forces that are "peacemaking". This whole myth about Canada being a peacekeeping country needs to be eradicated in order for Canadians to better understand the true nature of Canada's military history.

Sikhs should be wary, just as militant pacifists and appeasers have managed to twist Canada's military history, some folks may be inclined to present the Sikh military history in the same twisted manner as Canada's.



Technorati Tags: Sikh, Khalsa, Canada, Afghanistan, Muslim, Terrorist, England

Powered by ScribeFire.