Archive for the ‘Blogroll’ Category
The WordPress.com stats helper monkeys prepared a 2012 annual report for this blog.
Here’s an excerpt:
4,329 films were submitted to the 2012 Cannes Film Festival. This blog had 51,000 views in 2012. If each view were a film, this blog would power 12 Film Festivals
Thanks for reading, thanks for your suggestions, thanks for your contents – I’m looking forward to continuing to provide you with intriguing tidbits of Canadian defence information into 2013!
In case you hadn’t already noticed, instead of piling on a whole swack of news in the first MILNEWS.ca update of the day, I’m breaking it down a bit.
The first post of the day (Eastern Time) will be news dealing with the CF, military and security issues in general, and things of concern to veterans/wounded warriors.
The second post of the day will be news dealing with Canadian defence buying and selling.
Taliban propaganda tidbits will continue to appear from time to time as items of interest pop up on the interwebs.
Same information, in smaller, more manageable chunks.
One other minor change – you won’t be seeing a Sunday edition unless there’s critical breaking news to share. You will be seeing the material, though, in the Monday edition.
I hope you keep enjoying MILNEWS.ca – feedback (good, bad or ugly) always welcome.
Here’s who I’m nominating for this year’s “Defence IQ Blogging Awards” (all in the “Regional Military” category):
- CDFAI’s 3D’s blog: Great, up-to-the-minute coverage of Canadian and international military news
- Thin Pinstriped Line: Intelligent and detailed (but accessible) analysis of a wide range U.K. military issues
- Registan.net: Detailed and in-depth coverage of a range of breaking news and issues from south and central Asia
Don’t be shy – cast your vote by e-mailing email@example.com – deadline’s 2pm GMT/10am Eastern 6 Jun 12!
Sincerest condolences to the families, colleagues and friends of those killed in the tragedy.
Hopes for a speedy and full recovery to all the wounded (both physically and emotionally).
Right now, I have to agree with this, from a terrorism analyst/blogger:
I find it disturbing that there are those in my field out there rushing to publish, throwing their judgment around in what is, to be perfectly frank, a self aggrandizing race to be the first to comment.
Their choice. But in complex situations like this, and before clear information has emerged making what can only then be characterised as ill-informed comment can cause great harm to already marginalised and vulnerable communities, and I think it would be extremely poor form for me to offer comment, before the facts are in, let alone go announcing this is some new jihad as I note some are already doing.
I await more on this once everyone has regained their breath a bit.
The War on Terror News (WOTN) blog was kind enough to mention MILNEWS.ca in a piece on how mainstream media (MSM) isn’t reporting the effort in Afghanistan objectively. One bit stands out for me:
If they wished to be objective, the MSM would report daily how many civilians were killed by the enemy, purposely, clearly attributing the deeds of the enemy to the enemy, instead of portraying it as they did in Iraq as a failure of American Troops. They would report daily the number of Taliban killed by friendlies. They would report daily the number of Taliban captured by friendlies. They would report daily the schools built by US Forces or Germans or NATO. They would report daily how many schools were burnt or exploded by the enemy.
Case in point: the bad guys say they’re killing about 13 Canadians for every one that is actually fallen (at least since October of last year).
Thanks for the kind mention WOTN – if you want to follow their stuff, WOTN also has a Twitter feed worth keeping track of.
A few tidbits fro here and there that have caught my eye.
1) Kudos to Hallmark Canada for giving away “Canadian Heroes” greeting cards at its stores November 9 through 11 as a way to promote the product line and encourage folks to write to our troops overseas.
2) It appears bigger IEDs, combined with more troops being tossed around the inside of armoured vehicles during IED strikes, are leading to more spinal injuries among American troops being evacuated out of Afghanistan – one out of five over the past summer, to be precise.
3) Aussie counter-terrorist consultant and blogger Leah Farrall is picking up bad vibes in her ongoing research and exploration of the world of the jihadi:
There are some people asking for advice about how to bomb buses carrying staff in an unknown western country as well as attacks on public transport systems and shopping centres.
Not so unusual but they happen to be asking the guru for these types of attacks who I thought was dead or incarcerated, but who it turns out *may* not be.And I do mean *the guru* who I’ve watched for years.
I haven’t seen him directly surface for a while and he last used intermediaries. But this concerns me. I’m not posting who what or where up here for obvious reasons, it’s just an FYI.
Also some questions about how to hit petrol stations, trains, shopping centres, and integrating toxins into devices.
I’ve seen *a lot* of things like this in my day and this looks reminiscent of some I saw several years when a cell was starting to activate and this is precisely how this stuff goes down. Of course it could be a hoax and said guru could be dead/incarcerated and this be a ploy, but given the person they are asking I’d be taking it seriously enough to keep in the back of my head at the *very* least.
Leah’s blog – All Things Counter-terrorism – is worth a read, especially when she comments back and forth with jihadi ideologues.
4) Wounded warriors in both Canada and the United States are receiving Segways as a way to make it easier for them to get around – well done to woundedwarriors.ca and Disability Rights Advocates for Technology and all the others who made that happen.
Regarding how the Taliban have been bashing the U.N. lately (more here and here), after posting a comment to a jihadica.com post, AQ expert Anne Stenersen (links to bio; a research fellow with the Norwegian Defence Research Establishment, and author of a book on AQ’s quest for weapons of mass destruction) was kind enough to respond to my questions re: why the recent bashing.
1) U.N. bashing is far from new for the Taliban (I obviously pointing to how much more reading I need to do).
The Taliban’s leaders have criticized the UN on a number of occasions, in addition to the one you mention. In 2006 Mullah Omar accused the UN of being nothing but a “tool for America” and Mullah Baradir echoed this in 2008, saying that “we regard all the decisions of the United Nations towards Afghanistan, as American orders.” I do not think their 12 Oct 09 statement was issued as a direct response to forum criticism, since it is pretty consistent with the Taliban’s past propaganda statements on the UN.
2) And how about hating the U.N. vs. wanting to get along well with the neighbours? Stenersen says you can have both:
In the 1990s there was a huge debate within the Taliban regime on whether to join the UN or not – the main argument against it was that joining the UN would mean that the Islamic Emirate would have to subordinate itself to “infidel” laws (the UN Charter, etc). Having strategic alliances with other countries is another matter, which may also be easier to defend from a religious point of view …. But clearly, there are many within the wider jihadi community who do not agree to this distinction.
3) The ideological differences suggested in the recent statements, according to Stenersen, won’t affect the current fight (as long as the Taliban see themselves as winning).
AQ central are probably not too happy about the Taliban-IEA’s recent propaganda statements, although I do not think it will have any practical implications for the insurgency – there is simply not enough incentive for neither the Quetta Shura or AQ central to “turn on” the other as long as there is a common enemy to fight and the Quetta Shura see themselves in a position of strength (i.e. there is no need for them to enter into negotiations with the Afghan regime, in which they would probably have to renounce their relationship with al-Qaida)
Special thanks to Anne Stenersen for the information.
Let me just make note of a few things in this terribly researched Canada.com story. The author, “Jane Seyd”, seems to interview only a few people for the story, but the main source is a close friend of Beverly’s named Glen Cooper.
Any person who was close friends with Beverly Giesbrecht will also meet one or more of the following criteria: very stupid; on the Leftwing fringe; a terror supporter; or the kind of person who finds it necessary to befriend the crazy old lady with all the cats down the street.
Besides the source, here are the two major problems:
1) Nowhere does the article mention that Jihad Unspun was an objectively pro-terrorist and pro-Taliban publication.
2) The friend tells us that Beverly went to Pakistan to make a documentary. What it does not mention is the fact that the documentary was meant to portray the Taliban as the good guys in the war.
Accurate, brief and clear – the ABCs of good writing.