Thoughts Ten Years Later, September 11, 2001

[dre]

Have you read this entire post or the others on the same topic .....take a minute and catch up.

Shit you even acknowleged it below ....that is one of your posts is it not....

Are you saying that Bin Labin may have had legitimate excuses for Sept 11, or are you saying US foreign policy may of been one of the dozens of excuses Bin Ladin used to attack....

Trust me, if there is one Canadian that could stop this conflict with out blood shed i'd would be that guy...but i've seen these guys in action up close and personal and nothing is going to stop them except the use of force. And until you understand that then your not understanding the problem....

perhaps it is you that needs to answer some tough questions like is your money on the right horse....just maybe these so called hawks are right...and maybe just maybe you need to sit down and listen alittle.

My vailed suggestion?..I have no problem with questions debates,what ever....but there is not much to question here is there, Bin Ladin planned and carried out an attack on the Towers, killing over 3000 people in the matter of minutes....we all watched in horror that day the events unfolded..we as a nation also cheered the day our nation sent over Combat forces to assist in this new conflict....started by a man with some twisted ideas to get even at the great satin for evil things they had done to whom exactly....

No where in my post did i suggest we could not question any action, our governmant has taken...but this is not about our government is it....as far as the US government decision to react to the murder of 3000 of it's citizens "giver"uestion all you wantbut i'd like to think it was the right one, on both nations part. if that makes me a toadie so be it....any other toadies out there....or do you beleive Bin ladin had justification for the attck.

Shit you even acknowleged it below ....that is one of your posts is it not....

Blowback does NOT mean that anyone "had it coming". Even benign and well intentioned acts can cause unintended consequences. It doesnt mean you "deserve" it, but it does mean you should probably "expect" it, and intelligence agencies have been warning us for decades that the fight we are potentially in over there might reach our shores.

but there is not much to question here is there

Yes theres an awful lot to question. Like is borrowing trillions of dollars to finance our adventures in the middle east really in our best interests? How are we supposed to benefit from it, and is it working? What unintended consequences is there? Is it possible some of the "friends" we sponsor, enable, and empower over there today might cause big problems for us later? Is the GWOT in its present form sustainable or winnable? Is it working or making things worse? Is nation building the right way to fight it? Does western policy in the ME survive a cost benefit analysis?

Theres a whole shitload of questions that we should all be asking.

[dre]

You tell me.

In the Wake of Wikileaks: A Media Critique of Revelations about Canadian Duplicity in Iraq

“One of the most striking differences between a cat and a lie is that a cat has only nine lives.”

Wouldnt suprise me in the slightest. Id gladly frog-march Mr Chretien and other liberal and conservative politicians in front of a public inquiry and find out how much they have been telling us is the truth, and how much has been hidden.

Im also fine with using any interrogation techniques that they authorized on THEM to see if we can make em talk.

[bush_cheney2004]

You tell me.

In the Wake of Wikileaks: A Media Critique of Revelations about Canadian Duplicity in Iraq

“One of the most striking differences between a cat and a lie is that a cat has only nine lives.”

Well played!

[Bob]

Chretien knew this was an ilegal war and kept Canada out of it. What do Canadians have to be ashamed of?

"Illegal war". Are you now going to back that irrelevant rhetoric with some "authorities" from the "international community"? Perhaps the Iraqi courts have deemed it illegal, as well?

[GostHacked]

Well played!

All of a sudden Wikileaks is an approved source? Well then ....

[GostHacked]

No. We didn't "retaliate" by going to war. We sought justice, an attempt to end the terrorism, by going to war.

Is this like trying to cure an alcoholic by gettin them drunk?

[CitizenX]

Both wars are not related to each other....Afghanistan is the result of the 9/11 attacks....

2and Gulf war...happen well after the 9/11 attack in which the UN approval was not intially granted, and the alligations of torture happened ...like i said some research....

You believe what you want.

Edited September 16, 2011 by CitizenX

[capricorn]

Chretien knew this was an ilegal war and kept Canada out of it.

Hogwash. Chretien kept Canada out of Iraq because of his ideology. He believed poverty was at the root of 9/11. He didn't develop that attitude overnight. All along he believed that poverty explained why terrorism existed.

In a CBC interview taped in July and aired last night, Mr. Chrétien suggested that the root causes of the Sept. 11 attacks were global poverty and an overbearing American foreign policy.

"It's always the problem when you read history -- everybody doesn't know when to stop. There's a moment when you have to stop, there's a moment when you are very powerful," he said.

Immediately following Sept. 11, Canadian politicians rejected the "root causes" argument, saying the attacks were the work of irrational fanatics that had nothing to do with legitimate grievances.

But Mr. Chrétien told CBC that religious fanatics are using the anger and resentment of the world's poor to fuel their terrorism.

"I do think that the Western world is getting too rich in relations to the poor world," he said.

"And necessarily, we're looked upon as being arrogant, self-satisfied, greedy and with no limits. And the 11th of September is an occasion for me to realize it even more."

http://www.ctv.ca/special/sept11/hubs/canadian/mccarthy01.html

[Moonlight Graham]

Hogwash. Chretien kept Canada out of Iraq because of his ideology. He believed poverty was at the root of 9/11. He didn't develop that attitude overnight. All along he believed that poverty explained why terrorism existed.

My view at the time and still remains is that Chretien stayed out of the war mainly as a domestic political calculation.

In the run-up to the war I remember he never publicly stated any support or condemnation of the war, and when asked about it he simply stated that he would support whatever the UN decided and that would determine Canada's involvement. The war was very controversial in Canada, with many detractors as well as supporters. By not supporting it either way and leaving it up to the UN, Chretien made a very smart political move and avoided any major controversy among voters.

Edited September 16, 2011 by Moonlight Graham

[Guest American Woman]

...when asked about it he simply stated that he would support whatever the UN decided and that would determine Canada's involvement.

Exactly.

Yet .... even as Chrétien told the Commons that Canada wouldn't participate in Operation Iraqi Freedom, Canadian diplomats were secretly telling their U.S. counterparts something entirely different.

[maple_leafs182]

Your premise is absurd. You're equating regular Muslims with Al Qaeda and other terrorists. When they (normal Muslims are killed), they (Al Qaeda) retaliates. That's pretty darn racist if you think all Muslims are terrorists. Secondly, their deaths unfortunately are a result of their reprehensible governments and/or leaders. Do you blame the allies in world war two for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Germans? Or do you blame the regime that brought violence upon them because of their actions?

I don't think most people are terrorists. I know don't believe Islam is an evil religion, I think it is a peaceful religion. Muslims are simply people whom embrace the culture of Islam, I don't think they are bad people or terrorists. I think that a lot of the people who are attacking NATO forces over in the middle east are simply trying to defend their home land from the invading force. They are not terrorists.

For WW2, I blame both sides, that was a failure of humanity.

The way I see things now, the Allied forces are the Germany of this World War. We are the ones invading other countries and murdering people. It is kind of crazy too, the governments label these war as being humanitarian so if you these oppose wars you seem like a bad person.

This is what I have been trying to say this whole topic, I posted this in the Ron Paul section but nobody replied.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99Xei97NQ8E

Listen to what he is saying...what would you do?

Edited September 16, 2011 by maple_leafs182

[eyeball]

Hogwash. Chretien kept Canada out of Iraq because of his ideology. He believed poverty was at the root of 9/11. He didn't develop that attitude overnight. All along he believed that poverty explained why terrorism existed.

http://www.ctv.ca/special/sept11/hubs/canadian/mccarthy01.html

But as your own link pointed out, Chretien believed poverty and overbearing American foreign policy was at the root of 9/11.

I think it would have been closer to the truth to say poverty caused or exacerbated by overbearing American foreign policy but I suppose Chretien was trying to be more diplomatic and neighbourly about saying what needed to be said. You know, in the spirit of friends who don't let friends...fill-in-blank-here.

Of course that's all water long under the bridge now and now we too, have it coming.

[Guest American Woman]

I think it would have been closer to the truth to say poverty caused or exacerbated by overbearing American foreign policy but I suppose Chretien was trying to be more diplomatic and neighbourly about saying what needed to be said. You know, in the spirit of friends who don't let friends...fill-in-blank-here.

Yeah, that's it. He was "trying to be neighborly." He was also trying to make Canada smell like a rose if he didn't also mention Canada's foreign policy. But then, he is the guy who 'kept Canada out of Iraq.'

Edited September 16, 2011 by American Woman

[bloodyminded]

To say the US had it coming is absolutely Moronic, in fact damn right insensitive to our southern neighbours, and to those Canadian citizens who also died that day ....a day of remembrance no less....and judging by what a few posters that have based their opinions on what sounds like regurgitated propaganda spewed out by the left

Please. The entire "day of remembrance" was not some apolitical act of grieving; it was a politicized day inherently. "Political ritual" one writer has accurately termed it.

To give the actions of Bin Ladin and his merry crew or for that matter any terrorist group with an axe to grind any credence is just plain retarded...yes I said retarded ....Who gave anyone the right to take innocence lifes because they did not like anyones foreign policy

If you're going to tell me that the Western powers do not take innocent life because they don't like or agree with other countries' foreign (and domestic!) policies, then you certainly have lost any right to be condemning "propaganda."

Your comment is, in fact, entirely what I meant in my first point: your views on these matters are 100%, entirely as politicized as those you denigrate.

Edited September 16, 2011 by bloodyminded

[Army Guy]

You believe what you want.

It's not what i believe it is fact....

1 st Gulf war started Aug 1990.

Afghan war started Oct 2001

Should we ignore the fact that the American Government reaction was criminal. Should we ignore the fact of 102,417 - 111,938 Documented Iraq civilian deaths. What about the use of torture?The rest of the world doesn't have the balls to call them on it. Place the blame on the people responsible, and I'm not just talking about the so called terrorists. Blowback is a bitch. The American people paid the price for having a Corporatocracy.

2 and Gulf war started in March 2003. This is the War in which your own sources are reflected at...Flawed as they are, for instance while the head of the UN has publically said according to the UN charter the invasion was in his words illigal, Britain and the US have quoted that "The attorney-general made the "legal basis... clear at the time". "

Your documented Iraqi civilian death count is also flawed as it counts all deaths occured during the conflict including those inflicted by the insurgents...you can't hold the coalition responsable for their enemies actions....

The use of torture was not documented until the 2 And Gulf war so it is a mout piont that does not support your argument of blow back.

If you had read Bin Ladins translated letter which explains why he attacked the US , he clearly mentions one of the reasons he attacked was the UN sanctions again'st Iraq, we can hardly blame the US for UN sanctions can we....

reasons

[bloodyminded]

If you had read Bin Ladins translated letter which explains why he attacked the US , he clearly mentions one of the reasons he attacked was the UN sanctions again'st Iraq, we can hardly blame the US for UN sanctions can we....

reasons

The US and UK fucked with the sanctions, illegally breaking the sanctions rules, primarily by holding back allowable items (including foodstuffs and medicines).

This was against the strong objections of other UN member states, including Canada, France, Russia, and dozens of others.

But the boss does what he likes...something you seem to applaud, in the usual formulation of servility to Great Power.

Many members of the Security Council have been sharply critical of these practices. In an April 20, 2000, meeting of the 661 Committee, one member after another challenged the legitimacy of the U.S. decisions to impede the humanitarian contracts. The problem had reached “a critical point,” said the Russian delegate; the number of holds was “excessive,” said the Canadian representative; the Tunisian delegate expressed concern over the scale of the holds. The British and American delegates justified their position.

.....

In 1991, a few months after the end of the war, the U.N. secretary general's envoy reported that Iraq was facing a crisis in the areas of food, water, sanitation, and health, as well as elsewhere in its entire infrastructure, and predicted an “imminent catastrophe, which could include epidemics and famine, if massive life-supporting needs are not rapidly met.” U.S. intelligence assessments took the same view. A Defense Department evaluation noted that “Degraded medical conditions in Iraq are primarily attributable to the breakdown of public services (water purification and distribution, preventive medicine, water disposal, health-care services, electricity, and transportation). . . . Hospital care is degraded by lack of running water and electricity.”

According to Pentagon officials, that was the intention. In a June 23, 1991, Washington Post article, Pentagon officials stated that Iraq's electrical grid had been targeted by bombing strikes in order to undermine the civilian economy. “People say, 'You didn't recognize that it was going to have an effect on water or sewage,'” said one planning officer at the Pentagon. “Well, what were we trying to do with sanctions-help out the Iraqi people? No. What we were doing with the attacks on infrastructure was to accelerate the effect of the sanctions.”

......

Nearly everything for Iraq's entire infrastructure—electricity, roads, telephones, water treatment—as well as much of the equipment and supplies related to food and medicine has been subject to Security Council review. In practice, this has meant that the United States and Britain subjected hundreds of contracts to elaborate scrutiny, without the involvement of any other country on the council; and after that scrutiny, the United States, only occasionally seconded by Britain, consistently blocked or delayed hundreds of humanitarian contracts.

In response to U.S. demands, the U.N. worked with suppliers to provide the United States with detailed information about the goods and how they would be used, and repeatedly expanded its monitoring system, tracking each item from contracting through delivery and installation, ensuring that the imports are used for legitimate civilian purposes. Despite all these measures, U.S. holds actually increased. In September 2001 nearly one third of water and sanitation and one quarter of electricity and educational—supply contracts were on hold. Between the springs of 2000 and 2002, for example, holds on humanitarian goods tripled.

Among the goods that the United States blocked last winter: dialysis, dental, and fire—fighting equipment, water tankers, milk and yogurt production equipment, printing equipment for schools. The United States even blocked a contract for agricultural—bagging equipment, insisting that the U.N. first obtain documentation to “confirm that the 'manual' placement of bags around filling spouts is indeed a person placing the bag on the spout.”

......

In the late 1980s the mortality rate for Iraqi children under five years old was about fifty per thousand. By 1994 it had nearly doubled, to just under ninety. By 1999 it had increased again, this time to nearly 130; that is, 13 percent of all Iraqi children were dead before their fifth birthday. For the most part, they die as a direct or indirect result of contaminated water.

The United States anticipated the collapse of the Iraqi water system early on. In January 1991, shortly before the Persian Gulf War began and six months into the sanctions, the Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Agency projected that, under the embargo, Iraq's ability to provide clean drinking water would collapse within six months. Chemicals for water treatment, the agency noted, “are depleted or nearing depletion,” chlorine supplies were “critically low,” the main chlorine-production plants had been shut down, and industries such as pharmaceuticals and food processing were already becoming incapacitated. “Unless the water is purified with chlorine,” the agency concluded, “epidemics of such diseases as cholera, hepatitis, and typhoid could occur.”

All of this indeed came to pass. And got worse. Yet U.S. policy on water-supply contracts remained as aggressive as ever. For every such contract unblocked in August 2001, for example, three new ones were put on hold. A 2001 UNICEF report to the Security Council found that access to potable water for the Iraqi population had not improved much under the Oil for Food Programme, and specifically cited the half a billion dollars of water- and sanitation-supply contracts then blocked—one third of all submitted. UNICEF reported that up to 40 percent of the purified water run through pipes is contaminated or lost through leakage. Yet the United States blocked or delayed contracts for water pipes, and for the bulldozers and earth-moving equipment necessary to install them. And despite approving the dangerous dual-use chlorine, the United States blocked the safety equipment necessary to handle the substance—not only for Iraqis but for U.N. employees charged with chlorine monitoring there.

http://harpers.org/archive/2002/11/0079384

Your documented Iraqi civilian death count is also flawed as it counts all deaths occured during the conflict including those inflicted by the insurgents...you can't hold the coalition responsable for their enemies actions....

All deaths were the consequences of the invasion, and were predictable...in fact, predicted.

From the Nuremberg Trials:

...to initiate a war of aggression...is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole

Edited September 16, 2011 by bloodyminded

[Army Guy]

Please. The entire "day of remembrance" was not some apolitical act of grieving; it was a politicized day inherently. Political ritual.

Your piont of view...I'm sure those that those people who's lives are changed forever on 9/11 think differently, and to them i'm sure having the President of the US there personally involed in these rememberances is some what a comfort...

If you're going to tell me that the Western powers do not take innocent life because they don't like or agree with other countries' foreign (and domestic!) policies, then you certainly have lost any right to be condemning "propaganda."

Your not telling everyone.... that western powers in Afghan and Iraq conflicts have targeted inocent cilians are you.....Or are you saying the intentional targeting of civilians and the accidental deaths of cilvilians are the same.....

Your comment is, in fact, entirely what I meant in my first point: your views on these matters are 100%, entirely as politicized as those you denigrate.

Really...I agree with you, and why should i or for that matter anyone else not take issue with with what happen on 9/11, why should we not be as committed as they are to their total destruction as they are ours. After all it was them that took this fight to us was it not. What separates us and them is how we conduct ourselfs.

[Army Guy]

bloodyminded

The US and UK fucked with the sanctions, illegally breaking the sanctions rules, primarily by holding back allowable items (including foodstuffs and medicines).

This was against the strong objections of other UN member states, including Canada, France, Russia, and dozens of others.

But the boss does what he likes...something you seem to applaud, in the usual formulation of servility to Great Power.

Question when has any UN sanction met it's primary goal, in your opinion are they effective?

Strong objections...Since when does the US or the UK run anything in the UN, the head of the UN could have imposed or lifted any of those actions if it wanted to....thats the difference between actions and words....

And while it is your opinion that what ever the Boss does i appluad , that BS.in the case of 9/11 yes i do agree, in the case of Iraq yes i do agree...

All deaths were the consequences of the invasion, and were predictable...in fact, predicted.

thats a load of crap....Sadam and the powers to be in Iraq could have prevented it all...but then i guess it isOK to over run another country and not pay for that in any form of justice...whats the piont of any sanctions if they are not to be enforced....what is the piont of any laws if they are not to be enforced....

...to initiate a war of aggression...is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole

Funney you bring this up but is this not what Sadam did....so in bringing him and his cronies down the coalition is now war criminals....

[Guest American Woman]

Please. The entire "day of remembrance" was not some apolitical act of grieving; it was a politicized day inherently. "Political ritual" one writer has accurately termed it.

The "day of remembrance" was our day, done our way. Just as other nations did it their way. Your 'approval' is totally unnecessary.

[GostHacked]

The "day of remembrance" was our day, done our way. Just as other nations did it their way. Your 'approval' is totally unnecessary.

But .. but I thought you said it was an attack on the entire western civilization? There was a time I could distinguish your posts from that of BC_2004.

At least the USA is learning from it's mistakes ... okokokok sorry, that was out of line!!

[Guest American Woman]

But .. but I thought you said it was an attack on the entire western civilization?

Did you miss the part where I said other countries did it their way?? Countries around the world had ceremonies in remembrance of the attack. So yes, it was an attack against the entire western civilization - and there were ceremonies around the world. Ours was done our way, theirs were done their way.

Does that help clear things up for you?? Because my post didn't say it was an attack against just America - it didn't contradict the fact that it was an attack against the western world at all.

There was a time I could distinguish your posts from that of BC_2004.

First of all, you can't even grasp what it is I said. Secondly, I couldn't care less what you think of my posts. I could tell you what I think of yours, but quite frankly it doesn't mean enough to me.

At least the USA is learning from it's mistakes ... okokokok sorry, that was out of line!!

It was also ignorant.

Edited September 16, 2011 by American Woman

[bloodyminded]

Your piont of view...I'm sure those that those people who's lives are changed forever on 9/11 think differently, and to them i'm sure having the President of the US there personally involed in these rememberances is some what a comfort...[/quote\

Certainly, survivors of victims have a profoundly more profound and painful stake in the matters.

That has little to do with the overall day, which about American international politics (propaganda version), not about the very human aspect of it.

Your not telling everyone.... that western powers in Afghan and Iraq conflicts have targeted inocent cilians are you.....Or are you saying the intentional targeting of civilians and the accidental deaths of cilvilians are the same.....

I am saying that the policies of Western democracies, certainly including the U.S., and let's not forget our beloved Canada, have long been involved in overthrowing democracies, supporting terrorism, and other such direct contradictions of how we prtend we naturally behave.

Really...I agree with you, and why should i or for that matter anyone else not take issue with with what happen on 9/11, why should we not be as committed as they are to their total destruction as they are ours. After all it was them that took this fight to us was it not. What separates us and them is how we conduct ourselfs.

Then the separation remains dubious, on the international scale. Domestically, yes, matters are radically different.

[bloodyminded]

bloodyminded

Question when has any UN sanction met it's primary goal, in your opinion are they effective?

I think that's an excellent question, and I have no idea. But that's totally beside any point I was making.

Strong objections...Since when does the US or the UK run anything in the UN, the head of the UN could have imposed or lifted any of those actions if it wanted to....thats the difference between actions and words....

The US and UK were primarily in charge of the sanctions. Hence the tootless objections by other member states (including a strong Canadian objection...formal and useless.

And while it is your opinion that what ever the Boss does i appluad , that BS.in the case of 9/11 yes i do agree, in the case of Iraq yes i do agree...

And in the case of murderous subversion of the sanctions you also agree. You disagree with virtually the entire world, including the Western democratic world...because if the US and UK did it, then Canada, France, russia, and everybody else must be wrong.

thats a load of crap....Sadam and the powers to be in Iraq could have prevented it all..

The sanctions didn't hurt Saddam. They strengthened his hold over his own suffering people, thanks to the way the humanitarian component was intentionally subverted by the two most influential member states. The US/UK could have prevenetd much suffering as well...and simply by adhering to the proper mandates of the imposed sancions, rather than breaking them.

....whats the piont of any sanctions if they are not to be enforced....what is the piont of any laws if they are not to be enforced....

Exactly. If the sanctions are to subverted, the rules broken, to cause more needless suffering among the Iraqi people...what's the point?

We haven't been told yet why US/UK officials behaved this way, so maybe you should ask them.

[Army Guy]

Bloodyminded:

That has little to do with the overall day, which about American international politics (propaganda version), not about the very human aspect of it.

Maybe i'm not getting the same Sat coverage as you, but all the coverage i seen the entire day was about the Human aspect of it...in the west, in the middle east certain groups might see it as the day a blow was delivered to the US.....but here in America it is seen as mostly a day of rememberence like Nov 11.

I am saying that the policies of Western democracies, certainly including the U.S., and let's not forget our beloved Canada, have long been involved in overthrowing democracies, supporting terrorism, and other such direct contradictions of how we prtend we naturally behave.

I'm sure if we look back far enough in history one could say that about every nation. As for pretending how we behave there is a major difference between western countries and say middle eastern countries....in every aspect there is no comparison...

Then the separation remains dubious, on the international scale. Domestically, yes, matters are radically different

There is a clear separation...NATO is restricted by the genva convention, and how it conducts warfare, it controls the conduct of their soldiers or holds them responable.... i don't recall any NATO nation cutting off girls hands to make a statement, or intentionally targeting civilians, limiting who gets an education, etc etc the list is long....

and while it might seem to you the separation remains dubious, great pains go into limiting cilvilian cas, and deaths...to the piont NATO soldiers lives have been sacraficed to limit civilian cas or damage to non military targets...But as in any war, civilians normally pay a higher price than the army.

[Guest American Woman]

Maybe i'm not getting the same Sat coverage as you, but all the coverage i seen the entire day was about the Human aspect of it...

Same here. I saw clips of ceremonies all over the world, read about ceremonies all over the world - including Canada, and to insinuate the U.S.'s remembrance was politicized rather than a day of remembrance along with the rest of the world is insulting.