Glenn Greenwald: Canada, at war for 13 years, shocked that "a terrorist" attacked its soldiers

[Occam's Banana]

h/t LRC: http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/10/no_author/canada-at-war-for-13-years-is-shocked/

Canada, At War For 13 Years, Shocked That "A Terrorist" Attacked Its Soldiers
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/10/22/canada-proclaiming-war-12-years-shocked-someone-attacked-soldiers/
Glenn Greenwald (22 October 2014)

[...] the national mood and discourse in Canada is virtually identical to what prevails in every Western country whenever an incident like this happens (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/may/23/woolwich-attack-terrorism-blowback): shock and bewilderment that someone would want to bring violence to such a good and innocent country (“a peaceable Canadian community like Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu”), followed by claims that the incident shows how primitive and savage is the “terrorist ideology” of extremist Muslims, followed by rage and demand for still more actions of militarism and freedom-deprivation. There are two points worth making about this:

First, Canada has spent the last 13 years proclaiming itself a nation at war. It actively participated (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/editorials/now-that-our-war-in-afghanistan-is-over/article17501889/) in the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan and was an enthusiastic partner (http://rabble.ca/columnists/2014/08/poland-torture-hot-seat-canada-next) in some of the most extremist War on Terror abuses (http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/omar-khadr-reattempts-to-sue-canada-for-20m-1.2753689) perpetrated by the U.S. (http://www.salon.com/2010/08/11/khadr/) Earlier this month, the Prime Minister revealed (http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/10/03/isis-motion-calls-for-air-strikes-no-troops-in-iraq/), with the support of a large majority (http://globalnews.ca/news/1595317/majority-of-canadians-back-use-of-fighter-jets-to-strike-isis-in-iraq/) of Canadians, that “Canada is poised to go to war in Iraq, as [he] announced plans in Parliament [] to send CF-18 fighter jets for up to six months to battle Islamic extremists.” Just yesterday, Canadian Defence Minister Rob Nicholson flamboyantly appeared (http://www.edmontonsun.com/2014/10/21/fighter-jets-depart-from-cfb-cold-lake-alberta-to-middle-east) at the airfield in Alberta from which the fighter jets left for Iraq and stood tall as he issued the standard Churchillian war rhetoric about the noble fight against evil.

It is always stunning when a country that has brought violence and military force to numerous countries acts shocked and bewildered (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/may/23/woolwich-attack-terrorism-blowback) when someone brings a tiny fraction of that violence (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/apr/16/boston-marathon-explosions-notes-reactions) back to that country. Regardless of one’s views on the justifiability of Canada’s lengthy military actions, it’s not the slightest bit surprising or difficult to understand why people who identify with those on the other end of Canadian bombs and bullets would decide to attack the military responsible for that violence.

That’s the nature of war. A country doesn’t get to run around for years wallowing in war glory, invading, rendering and bombing others, without the risk of having violence brought back to it. Rather than being baffling or shocking, that reaction is completely natural and predictable. The only surprising thing about any of it is that it doesn’t happen more often.

The issue here is not justification (very few people would view attacks on soldiers in a shopping mall parking lot to be justified). The issue is causation. Every time one of these attacks occurs — from 9/11 on down — Western governments pretend that it was just some sort of unprovoked, utterly “senseless” act of violence caused by primitive, irrational, savage religious extremism inexplicably aimed at a country innocently minding its own business. They even invent fairy tales to feed to the population to explain why it happens: they hate us for our freedoms. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/specials/attacked/transcripts/bushaddress_092001.html)

Those fairy tales are pure deceit. Except in the rarest of cases, the violence has clearly identifiable and easy-to-understand causes: namely, anger over the violence that the country’s government has spent years directing at others. The statements of those accused by the west of terrorism (http://www.salon.com/2010/06/22/terrorism_22/), and even the Pentagon’s own commissioned research (http://www.salon.com/2009/10/20/terrorism_6/), have made conclusively clear what motivates these acts: namely, anger over the violence, abuse and interference by Western countries in that part of the world, with the world’s Muslims overwhelmingly the targets and victims. The very policies of militarism and civil liberties erosions justified in the name of stopping terrorism are actually what fuels terrorism and ensures its endless continuation.

If you want to be a country that spends more than a decade proclaiming itself at war and bringing violence to others, then one should expect that violence will sometimes be directed at you as well. Far from being the by-product of primitive and inscrutable religions, that behavior is the natural reaction of human beings targeted with violence. Anyone who doubts that should review the 13-year orgy of violence the U.S. has unleashed on the world since the 9/11 attack, as well as the decades of violence and interference from the U.S. in that region prior to that.

Second, [... more at link: https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/10/22/canada-proclaiming-war-12-years-shocked-someone-attacked-soldiers/ ...]

[Anti Federalist]

The issue here is not justification (very few people would view attacks on soldiers in a shopping mall parking lot to be justified). The issue is causation. Every time one of these attacks occurs — from 9/11 on down — Western governments pretend that it was just some sort of unprovoked, utterly “senseless” act of violence caused by primitive, irrational, savage religious extremism inexplicably aimed at a country innocently minding its own business. They even invent fairy tales to feed to the population to explain why it happens: they hate us for our freedoms.

Those fairy tales are pure deceit. Except in the rarest of cases, the violence has clearly identifiable and easy-to-understand causes: namely, anger over the violence that the country’s government has spent years directing at others. The statements of those accused by the west of terrorism, and even the Pentagon’s own commissioned research, have made conclusively clear what motivates these acts: namely, anger over the violence, abuse and interference by Western countries in that part of the world, with the world’s Muslims overwhelmingly the targets and victims. The very policies of militarism and civil liberties erosions justified in the name of stopping terrorism are actually what fuels terrorism and ensures its endless continuation.

http://i.imgur.com/dhMeAzK.gif

[jllundqu]

http://i.imgur.com/dhMeAzK.gif

nuf said.

//

[A Son of Liberty]

The issue here is not justification (very few people would view attacks on soldiers in a shopping mall parking lot to be justified). The issue is causation. Every time one of these attacks occurs — from 9/11 on down — Western governments pretend that it was just some sort of unprovoked, utterly “senseless” act of violence caused by primitive, irrational, savage religious extremism inexplicably aimed at a country innocently minding its own business. They even invent fairy tales to feed to the population to explain why it happens: they hate us for our freedoms.

Those fairy tales are pure deceit. Except in the rarest of cases, the violence has clearly identifiable and easy-to-understand causes: namely, anger over the violence that the country’s government has spent years directing at others. The statements of those accused by the west of terrorism, and even the Pentagon’s own commissioned research, have made conclusively clear what motivates these acts: namely, anger over the violence, abuse and interference by Western countries in that part of the world, with the world’s Muslims overwhelmingly the targets and victims. The very policies of militarism and civil liberties erosions justified in the name of stopping terrorism are actually what fuels terrorism and ensures its endless continuation.

http://i.imgur.com/dhMeAzK.gif

Pfft. Sean Hannity said just yesterday that we didn't cause it; they're just crazy and evil. No idea what Greenwald is talking about here. ;)

It's remarkable how guys like Hannity, and their retarded (and I mean that literally) audiences can stare cold, hard facts right in the face and act as though they don't exist. There's talent in that, I suppose. But perhaps one day whilst they're singing hallelujah's and burning incense to their lesser gods the CIA and the Pentagon, they might note that even those minor deities acknowledge their own culpability? god forbid (and by "god", of course, I mean the state).

[Occam's Banana]

Ron Paul weighs in, backs up Greenwald ...

h/t LRC: http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/10/ron-paul/canada-kills-for-the-war-empire/

Once-Peaceful Canada Turns Militaristic; Blowback Follows
http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2014/october/26/once-peaceful-canada-turns-militaristic-blowback-follows/
Ron Paul (26 October 2014)

In 1968 the government of Canada decided to openly admit Americans seeking to avoid being drafted into the US war on Vietnam. Before, would-be immigrants were technically required to prove that they had been discharged from US military service. This move made it easier for Americans to escape President Johnson’s war machine by heading north.

Although a founding member of NATO, Canada did not join the United States in its war against Vietnam. The Canadian government did not see a conflict 7,000 miles away as vital to Canada’s national interest so Canada pursued its own foreign policy course, independent of the United States.

How the world has changed. Canada’s wise caution about military adventurism even at the height of the Cold War has given way to a Canada of the 21st century literally joined at Washington’s hip and eager to participate in any bombing mission initiated by the D.C. interventionists.

Considering Canada’s peaceful past, the interventionist Canada that has emerged at the end of the Cold War is a genuine disappointment. Who would doubt that today’s Canada would, should a draft be re-instated in the US, send each and every American resister back home to face prison and worse?

As Glenn Greenwald pointed (https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/10/22/canada-proclaiming-war-12-years-shocked-someone-attacked-soldiers/) out this past week:


Canada has spent the last 13 years proclaiming itself a nation at war. It actively participated (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/editorials/now-that-our-war-in-afghanistan-is-over/article17501889/) in the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan and was an enthusiastic partner (http://rabble.ca/columnists/2014/08/poland-torture-hot-seat-canada-next) in some of the most extremist War on Terror abuses (http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/omar-khadr-reattempts-to-sue-canada-for-20m-1.2753689) perpetrated by the U.S. (http://www.salon.com/2010/08/11/khadr/)

Canada has also enthusiastically joined President Obama’s latest war on Iraq and Syria, pledging to send fighter jets to participate in the bombing of ISIS (and likely many civilians in the process).

But Canada’s wars abroad came back home to Canada last week.

Though horrific, it should not be a complete surprise that Canada found itself hit by blowback last week, as two attacks on Canadian soil left two Canadian military members dead.

Greenwald again points out what few dare to say about the attacks:


Regardless of one’s views on the justifiability of Canada’s lengthy military actions, it’s not the slightest bit surprising or difficult to understand why people who identify with those on the other end of Canadian bombs and bullets would decide to attack the military responsible for that violence.

That is the danger of intervention in other people’s wars thousands of miles away. Those at the other end of foreign bombs – and their surviving family members or anyone who sympathizes with them – have great incentive to seek revenge. This feeling should not be that difficult to understand.

Seeking to understand the motivation of a criminal does not mean that the crime is justified, however. We can still condemn and be appalled by the attacks while realizing that we need to understand the causation and motivation. This is common sense in other criminal matters, but it seems to not apply to attacks such as we saw in Canada last week. Few dare to point out the obvious: Canada’s aggressive foreign policy is creating enemies abroad that are making the country more vulnerable to attack rather than safer.

Predictably, the Canadian government is using the attacks to restrict civil liberties and expand the surveillance state. Like the US PATRIOT Act, Canadian legislation that had been previously proposed to give the government more authority to spy on and aggressively interrogate its citizens has been given a shot in the arm by last week’s attacks.

Unfortunately Canada has unlearned the lesson of 1968: staying out of other people’s wars makes a country more safe; following the endless war policy of its southern neighbor opens Canada up to the ugly side of blowback.


Copyright © 2014 by RonPaul Institute. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit and a live link are given.