Majority of Canadians polled say US partially to blame for 9-11

[KrazyHorse]

Or maybe bin Laden wouldn't even be bin Laden...he'd be heading up the family biz.

Picture it this way, MtG.

You've got Xian fundies in the States who are convinced that the UN is the tool of Satan, etc. etc., and that the UN somehow controls the US gov't.

But the level of anti-UN terrorism is pretty low. Maybe it would be higher if more reasonable people believed the propaganda...because it was closer to being true.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Asher

Errm...was it really September 2001?
It was a long while ago but not that long, I think you're getting confused.

You complained about the CBC article last week. That article referred to a poll publish in June.

The initial CP story makes reference to lack of knowledge about Kyoto:
Pollster Frank Graves told the CBC that most Canadians know little or nothing about Kyoto, but support it anyway.

http://www.canoe.ca/NationalTicker/CANOE-wire.Kyoto-Poll.html

A Globe story in May about the polls on Kyoto also notes the lack of knowledge.

http://www.geocities.com/ericsquire/articles/kyoto053102.htm

"poll results show a majority of Albertans cannot explain what the accord means. "Six out of 10 people don't really know what Kyoto is."

So you were incorrect when you wrote: "These are the same people who found that most Albertans supported Kyoto, the news media just reported that and didn't report that the vast majority of Albertans who supported Kyoto didn't know a thing about it. "

[MichaeltheGreat]

Frogger - by "them" I mean the rulers of a pan-Islamic fundamentalist state that would replace the current recognized states.

I'm not denying the backlash - I just see it as more of a convenient rallying point, rather than the root cause.

And the last thing I like is having to pick between these nutcases and a bunch of decadent, corrupt monarchs and dictators, who are doomed in the long term. Being an optimist , I see that this radical fundamentalism is still going to be a dominant foreign policy issue in the 22nd century. And I see precious little hope of secular moderates surviving, let alone ruling, in much of the Islamic world, unless a lot of fundamental social and economic issues are dealt with. Kind of hard to do without being a lackey of the west.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Tingkai
You complained about the CBC article last week. That article referred to a poll publish in June.

I complained about it in far more detail last June, I wasn't talking about the one last week...

And those weren't the articles linked in the thread. Some reports may have included the "don't know" figures, most didn't, and the ones Frogger (I think he linked them) didn't say them either.

Edit: Bingo: http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...threadid=52225

The Canadian Press article linked to by Frogger didn't talk about the "don't know" percentage.

[ckweb]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
We give them real issues, but the spin would be there even if we didn't. And any policy "concessions" or changes we made would allow the fundamentalists to expand their power. So they don't give us much choice in the matter.

I disagree. Take Iran, for instance. Iran is increasingly moving towards a more open and free society. Overall, the citizens of the Iran do not support the radical Islam espoused by the Ayatollahs. But, as long as the US continues to interfere in the region, the citizens of Iran will support the Ayatollahs and their stance against the US. If the US left the region alone, or supported Palestinian statehood more rigourously, you take the issues right from under the Ayatollahs. Their rhetoric ceases to be effective and Iranians could move forward into a free and democratic, moderate state, which would serve as a model to other states in the region. In general, people tend towards moderation . . . I am confident that the vast majority of people in the Arab states, once suitably enfranchised, employed, and empowered would overthrow and purge radical elements in their societies. They would exist in those states only as radicalism exists in the US: on the fringe and ineffective.

[KrazyHorse]

Ah...but part of that's because the internet is a difficult place to find complete stories. Thhe articles online are mainly just headline+2 paragraph.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Asher
duh

Yes, duh. If the US were not so involved in the world they would be ignored, for now.

Originally posted by Frogger
So the US is the only one getting hit because of some strange myopia on the Islamic fundamentalists' part?

They're not the only ones being hit. Ask the Govt. of the Philippines, or the people of Moscow. Someone else mentioned China. I know Israel... nevermind.

The fact is that militant Islam is on the march. The sadder fact is that it was sparked in the final stages of the show down of the super powers when the US dumped ample resources in aiding Muslims from all over the world to defeat a super power. They did, they also learned that they could indeed 'win'. Now the fanatics have the bug. They ain't gonna stop for a while.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Frogger
Ah...but part of that's because the internet is a difficult place to find complete stories. Thhe articles online are mainly just headline+2 paragraph.

Seemed to be a pretty lengthy article to me. It even talked about how it'd hurt alberta's position on it since "most people want it but the government doesn't".

Funny how they feel the need to insert opinion in the article like that, but not hard figures like "only 30 something percent knew what it did".

[KrazyHorse]

And all of the ones you mentioned are territorial issues.

People used to die for religion. Now they die for a flag.

[KrazyHorse]

Funny how they feel the need to insert opinion in the article like that, but not hard figures like "only 30 something percent knew what it did"

Like I said, that's because it's true of any poll they quote.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Frogger
Or maybe bin Laden wouldn't even be bin Laden...he'd be heading up the family biz.

Picture it this way, MtG.

You've got Xian fundies in the States who are convinced that the UN is the tool of Satan, etc. etc., and that the UN somehow controls the US gov't.

But the level of anti-UN terrorism is pretty low. Maybe it would be higher if more reasonable people believed the propaganda...because it was closer to being true.

You have a definite point, but despite the abysmal level of public education in the US, the problem with our fundy carpet chewers is that they're so far out of the mainstream (in a mostly secular, material, who-gives-a-**** society) that they don't have any appeal. If the ZOG and the NWO is real, and our media is run by Jews, who cares as long as we can play civ, get laid, afford beer and pizza, or whatever floats your particular boat? The US is by and large an apathetic society, at least in political and religious terms. The levels of discontent here aren't critical.

It's no coincidence, though, that the two biggest risings of the KKK followed major economic upheavals, where mass frustration and rage looked for convenient targets.

So I still don't think it's a matter (using the US/UN example) of how real the ZOG is, but whether there's enough wrong in our lives for us to believe that there's a convenient source of those problems we can strike back at.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Chris 62
How about a thread of of one line statements on what people feel about what happened, or what they think of it.

Short, concise posts.

Sounds good to me but you guys sort out what you want with Ming because he'll have to moderate it.

I'm going to try and get a little US flag and fly it on my car. That's going to be really really hard for me to do, you have no idea

[Chris 62]

I'll discuss it with Mingy on ICQ tomorrow, but with a few exceptions, I doubt that anyone would ruin it.

I also have a breakdown on people who were killed by country, I should also add that.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by ckweb


I disagree. Take Iran, for instance. Iran is increasingly moving towards a more open and free society. Overall, the citizens of the Iran do not support the radical Islam espoused by the Ayatollahs. But, as long as the US continues to interfere in the region, the citizens of Iran will support the Ayatollahs and their stance against the US. If the US left the region alone, or supported Palestinian statehood more rigourously, you take the issues right from under the Ayatollahs. Their rhetoric ceases to be effective and Iranians could move forward into a free and democratic, moderate state, which would serve as a model to other states in the region. In general, people tend towards moderation . . . I am confident that the vast majority of people in the Arab states, once suitably enfranchised, employed, and empowered would overthrow and purge radical elements in their societies. They would exist in those states only as radicalism exists in the US: on the fringe and ineffective.

Actually, this is another interesting subject, because the Shiite fundamentalism of Khomeini and Khamanei is quite different, and the Iranian people have a much different cultural legacy and modern history than do the arabs. It's also 12:30 am, and I have to get up early to try to get my ass across the US border and to work in the morning.

Tomorrow, or during the week, perhaps, I can try to dig this up and make a non-9/11 thread out of it.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Chris 62

I also have a breakdown on people who were killed by country, I should also add that.

That would be nice. One Aussie guy was actually talking to his mom on a mobile phone when the building collapsed under him.