Canadians blame US for 9/11?!?
 

While I disagree with the methodology and simplistic nature of the questioning, I can’t say I’m all that surprised by the results…

Most Canadians do believe that American foreign policy was a major contributing factor to the 9/11 attacks, but I had no idea that so many viewed it as the primary or root cause of the attacks.

off topic

Are people from Quebec called "Quebecers"? I always thought it was "Quebecois"?

Or is Quebecers just the anglicized version?

/off topic

That's interesting. I hope people don't just brush that off.

Is Canada a terrorist state?

What do you mean "brush that off"? I brush it off as complete nonsense. Does Canada blame the Columbine shootings on the students who were killed? I guess being ridiculed gives you the right to shoot up a school, under their ideology. After all, they think that the U.S. supporting Israel is the cause for a bunch of terrorists flying into a buildings filled with civilians. Oh right, they're crusaders, not terrorists. I'm about to learn to play hockey just so I can wage war on Canadians.

They would be a terrorist state because the majority believe that the US foreign policy provokes these kinds of attacks?

In Canadian hockey, if you high stick a guy, they also make him sit in the penalty box I'm told.

While I don't agree with the Columbine shootings, I do think the kids brought it on themselves, just as the US brought most terrorist attacks upon ourselves.

Editted to add: It's just like an animal, there is only so much abuse it can take before it turns around and attacks.

Wow. I'm stunned.^

Kids are cruel. If they hadn't been, the shootings wouldn't have happened. There are a ton of variables including all those surrounding the shooters. But there was a cause-effect relationship between the shooters and the peers.

I don't believe that anyone else is to blame for the shooters actions, but we all shape each other.

That is quite the dangerous idea though. There must be a level of personal responsibility in controlling one's actions. One of our primary reasons for punishment is to avoid retribution. In most crimes (and in people's lives in general) something prompts a response. If I hadn't gotten fired, I wouldn't have stolen. If he hadn't said that, I wouldn't have killed him. Hell, if I hadn't gotten paid this afternoon, I wouldn't have bought that crack. The boys at Columbine should have taken the appropriate route regarding being made fun of. Millions of teens are made fun of daily, and few respond violently (at least to this level). Continuing my most constant theme on these boards, our society must adopt and return to the notion of personal responsibility.

Quebecers is the anglicized version...

According to Newt Gingrich and Pat Buchunan that'd be a yes... but then again Newt thinks the 9/11 terrorists came from Canada and Mexico :rolleyes: and good'ol Pat is convinced Canada is a Communist state...

Would most Canadians think that the students that tormented the shooters in Columbine were partly to blame... well that'd be a yes if one looks back at the polls then; but they also blame the parents, the teachers and school administration, and mostly the shooters themselves.


Like Drolefille stated, I think most Canadians simply believe that there is a cause-effect relationship to terrorism... in fact our PM back after 9/11 stated as much.

Oh I agree. But as I have a psychology degree and am working on my Masters, I see it as a causal relationship nonetheless.

They still chose to act as they did. And the terrorists are still responsible for 9/11. But, America's policies helped to put those terrorists in the position they were in, just as the other teens at that school helped to create killers.

ETClarify: this is not a way of "blaming" America or absolving Bin Ladin. But after Columbine, teachers and students stepped back and said "what could we do differently. I think America should do the same thing.

See that's a punative mindset - in that punative action seen as the primary stoppage to inappropriate action. Whereas in Canada the common public ideology is preventative; ie. stopping the situation before it even gets to the point where punative action comes into play... I guess playing into the cause-effect relationship mentioned in the post above... preventative seeks to remove the cause, while punative threatens with effect.

I agree with this too... yes there is a cause-effect relationship to terrorism, but that doesn't excuse or explain it. Like you said it's a casual relationship, not one that is the be all and end all to the terrorism dynamic. So yes there are always going to be the nutjobs, the insane, the power-hungry, the hateful, and the downright evil... but it is important to stepback and not create a supportive enviroment for these misanthropes.

Let's see, they want to spread Islam all over the world and destroy Western culture. Years of planning went into this. Yeah we caused that. Only an idiot would believe that.

-Rudey
--I'm sorry that Canada has so many idiots but perhaps they can move to Mexico or something.

I totally agree.

As a teacher, I see it day in and day out (in first graders) of not taking personal responsibility. Their first graders! Who the hell do you think their learning it from. If kids are learning at 7 years old (if not younger) that they don't have to take responsibility for any of their actions, it is most definately going to translate to how they behave as a teenager and as an adult.

As for being teased, I'm sorry, unfortunately being a kids and growing up you get teased. Fact of life. How you deal with it is a whole other issue though. I was tormented in elementary school, teased in middle school, and got some teasing in high school, doesn't mean I went out and got a gun and shot up the school because I was teased.

Hence 9/11, I don't care how crappy our foreign policy is, we DID NOT deserve, nor did we ASK for a bunch of psychotic terrorists to hijack 4 planes and kill over 5000 people, and 95% of them were civilians. So I'm not sure how 9/11 was "our fault" or that we somehow "asked for it", because our foreign policy sucks.

Just my opinion. Agree with me or disagree with me.

This absolutely DOES 'blame' America.

If, upon reflection, "something should be done differently" this means that the past actions had a flaw in them. This flaw would then be your 'causal' relationship - and, just as in your psych experiments, causation = responsibility = fault = blame.

You can talk in circles all you want, but I don't think you realize the gravity of what the inference cycle requires here.

This is getting more complicated now. Of course America's actions prompted some terrorism directed towards us, that doesn't mean America is to "blame." Regarding preventative action, just because something is punishing does not keep it from being preventative. The two are not mutually exclusive. My mindset, and the one I hope is shared by other Americans, is that we should not live in fear of retribution for our actions. If we believe something to be right, we need not cease action to avoid future retribution. If we acted this way, I'd stop driving a car, as driving obviously can lead to death. Hence the Americans who continued to fly following the attacks. I obviously think we should have some level of caution, especially in foreign policy, but we should absolutely refuse to cower to the terrorists who threaten us. If we allow them to dictate our actions, they have usurped our freedom.

This is why I think most Canadians, as it turns out, "blame" America for 9/11...

Now as for whether America "deserved" to be attacked - I think that the vast majority of Canadians would state that America didn't deserve to be attacked. Nor did 3000 civilians deserve to die (not the 5000 stated earlier) because of American policy. Saying America deserved it, and blaming American policy for it are two different animals all together.

Oh. my. God.

Do you also "blame" women who get raped because they were wearing a short skirt to the bar. It was their own actions that brought the rape upon them, correct?

A close friend of mine just got back from Deployment #3 to Iraq and he's shared a lot of his observations from being there for so long. I also had a friend who has spent most of his military career in Afgahnistan (so sorry.. I know I spelled that wrong :( )

He said it is a very depressing place to be and couldn't imagine living in some of the conditions that he has seen there.

Despite all of the money and other non-monetary support that the U.S. gives to other countries, I don't think it will ever be enough in the eyes of others.

Many of our people live at or below poverty levels, but that isn't neccessarily the view of some people overseas. They think all Americans are arrogant, snobby, wealthy people when in actuality only a handful are really living that care-free life and many children over there are groomed to hate Americans because we supposedly have it all.

Did we "have it all" when Katrina hit and devastated that part of the U.S.? No. At that point other countries came to our aid. Even a year later they aren't recovered from that.

But it's things like that that they just don't see. Heck, they probably had a party when that happened for all we know.

To say that it's our fault is really messed up. That's like trying to solve a complex algebra equation without knowing what all the variables are.

How typical- blaming the victim.

NOTHING can justify the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

As far as our foreign policy (or anything else, for that matter): No matter what we do, SOMEONE is going to be pissed off. That someone may or may not be a crazy, homicidal mofo or mofos.

That's pretty much it in a nutshell :shrug:

Precisely what I was about to post. We cannot please everybody and there are extremists of every belief, so there is no way to be totally "safe" from being attacked.

Now, we have all been dancing around or talking about the Who, the What, and the Where... the Who being the Canadians, the What being holding the US to blame for 9/11, and the Where well Canada again but a bit divided by province...

Anyways, I figured being the academics we are (well some of us) some discussion would centre on the How and the Why? Or Why do Canadians believe this? and How did they come to believe this?

Given that our cultures and societies have alot more in common than different, why is there such a fundamental difference? Is it simply a product of anti-Americanism? or rather a gross misunderstanding of world politics and reality? or is it difference in national ideologies? or have recent events coloured the past?

I think it is probably a dislike for many things American, including the harsh nature of American policy. I don't think Canada understands what it is like to be a super power, especially to be the only one.

NO

But we encourage women to change their behavior. Stay with a group. Don't leave your drink, etc.

I don't think this is even remotely similar to changing things like "foreign policy" and "operating procedure for dealing with extremist groups."

In the rape scenario, there are clear-cut, common sense, easy methods to help obviate (although not eliminate - that is an important distinction) the dangers.

In the foreign policy scenario, answers are never clear-cut, common sense is second to 'best interests'/long-term planning/idealogy of a nation, and the methods implemented are difficult, volitile and results are distant.

Let's put it this way: outside of some nebulous "US foreign policy", which actions EXACTLY lead to 9/11? Give specific examples. If you want to start with support for Israel, you've probably already lost any basis for further argument . . .

Whoa dude. I'm not that political. Or emotionally invested.

I'm not a foreign affairs/relations specialist, any more than you are. But you're right, there aren't any clear cut answers. And the fact that our government changes every 4-8 years mean that policies change that quickly as well.

However, I don't see how saying that the US should look back on their policies and actions and possibly make changes in its future actions= It's the US's fault.

Same with Columbine. Teachers and students looked back and said "what could we have done differently. It's still the shooters faults. They are responsible. But could we, as peers, have encouraged different behavior?

There are almost always other options.

You've backed into a corner here, I think.

The concept of reflection that you're pushing really only gives two options:

1 - Was there something we could have done to prevent what happened?

2 - Was there something we did that caused what happened? (Note: this is akin to "is there something we could have NOT done to prevent what happened?" - this is important for logical consistency, I think)

#2, which is basically how I thought you'd phrased this earlier, is quite literally a 'blame' scenario - if you eliminate some action to prevent the undesirable response, we are left with no other choice but to determine that action was the 'cause' and thus they are at 'fault'.

#1, which is not nearly as direct in terms of 'blame', is much more important in something like Columbine, since it deals more directly with things like oversight, social interaction, etc - all malleable to an extent. I'm not sure that a nation's policies are comparable - the temporal nature of actions on this level means that the Monday Morning Quarterback implicitly acts with the benefit of hindsight and, most importantly, knows the action/response dynamic of uncontrolled, volitile and often chaotic groups, individuals and systems affected by policies.

Sitting around going "Where did we go wrong? Why do Arab extremists hate us? Why did they feel the need to perform one of the most awful acts of modern history?" seems inherently flawed. Even if a situation was handled somewhat poorly, do you think the response was justified?

If the response was above and beyond what was justified, can we really assume that other situations would not have led to the same unjustifiable response?

I'm not saying there shouldn't be an examination of policies post hoc, but rather that this examination should be rooted in overall utility for the nation - not in some sort of knee-jerk/reactionary "Why oh why did they take that particular harsh action!" paralysis (or worse, politics).

I don't really feel like I"m stuck in a corner, so whatever.

I don't know the answers to that. I was 17 when 9/11 occured. And though I feel like I'm rather well informed, I was certainly not an expert in US Foreign Policy then, or now.

Take a step back from this and look at it from a psychological or philosophical point of view. All actions are the result of an accumulation of causes. People don't just wake up one day to become a suicide bomber... there's a reason why. Maybe they lost their parents, maybe they were put in a conservative school, maybe their own livelihood was threatened.

Whether we like it or not, the US contributed to those causes.

Said bomber is still responsible for the choice he made to become a suicide bomber. Since we cannot control his choice directly, and we find being blown up to be bad, then it may be in our best interest to determine and adjust our contribution to the "causes" in his life.

We can also look back and say, yeah, what we did may have influenced him, but our other options would have put us worse off.

This is exactly my point. I think people like Shinerblock should read this post, then read it again and again until he calms down and digests this point. Shooting off the mouth doesn't help any exploration of ideas and the possibility that people, specifically Americans vs. other Americans can discuss issues that affect us all without resorting to insults and put downs. America's hands are not squeaky clean, never have been and I am no less patriotic or American for stating that and attempting to listen to others, whether they are American or not, who have various opinions about this country.

And your mindset is quite similar to those who felt that their cause was legitimate and were not going to "cower" to the American's who feel that their way of life is the only way to go. Its all about perspective.

So what's the point? This is EXACTLY what I'm getting at. None of your posts have addressed this issue at all - in fact, you seem content to punt it. That's not a discussion, that's go-nowhere proselytizing, isn't it?

How come nobody has the balls to say what it was specifically that we should be blamed for?

Here's my previous post for those that want to play dumb: Let's see, they want to spread Islam all over the world and destroy Western culture. Years of planning went into this. Yeah we caused that. Only an idiot would believe that.

Can we discuss why Americans are infidels and their Western culture is disgusting and deserves to be destroyed now? Or do the morons on here just want to accept that while enjoying the fruits of such inferior culture?

-Rudey
--I'm sorry that Canada has so many idiots but perhaps they can move to Mexico or something.

My point is that we should not only look at the actions of the terrorists and say "BOO THEY SUCK AND THEY DESERVE TO GET INVADED" blah blah etc.

We should also look at our own actions as they helped to cause the terrorists behavior. If upon review there was no other satisfactory option then fine, but still review them.

Face it, if the kids at Columbine hadn't been teased and tormented they wouldn't have snapped. That tragedy would not have occured. If that action had been changed, there probably would NOT have been a school shooting. Maybe the kids would be better adjusted, maybe not. We are terrible at predicting the future and much better at looking back at the past.

<sidetrack> What Ifs only get you so far anyway. What if in the Twin Towers was the mother of the next Hitler or something. And without the terrorist attack on 9/11, within 50 years America would be under martial law run by a facist dictator. </sidetrack>

And to answer your question: I do not think the response to US Foreign Policy was justified. But a response to a different policy would not necessarily be unjustified. Too many variables. No one here is saying the US deserved it. Only acknowledging that we helped to create the situations leading to it.

Phasad, yeah it is about perspective. MY perspective is from a country targeted by terrorism. Here, I'll just put it out there, I hope it doesn't harm the sensibilities of some on this board...

1) I don't really care how other countries feel America should protect her interests. The majority of them have little at stake in this battle, but will surely come calling when they're threatened. One day their calls will go unanswered.

2) I value American lives more than others. If it takes killing 1000 islamic militants to save one American soldier, I'd be happy to give the order.

3) Contrary to what some may believe, we all don't have the same interests. We're not "one big world," we're distinct nations who believe differently and don't always need to get along. Our core ideologies conflict with those of the countries we're up against. Sitting down to talk to them won't do any good, as they've given no indication that they can be trusted. Don't believe me? Ask Israel.

I think anyone who believes this is about religion is foolish and pretty much lied to. It just a smoke screen to mask the real issue here: Power, Profits and securing scarce resources. The root of all dirty politics.