Greenwald on the recent terror attack: Canada had it coming. They were wallowing in war glory

[Cali_Democrat]

<...>

Canada has spent the last 13 years proclaiming itself a nation at war. It actively participated in the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan and was an enthusiastic partner in some of the most extremist War on Terror abuses perpetrated by the U.S. Earlier this month, the Prime Minister revealed, with the support of a large majority 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 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 when someone brings a tiny fraction of that violence 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.

<...>

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/10/22/canada-proclaiming-war-12-years-shocked-someone-attacked-soldiers/

[Tarheel_Dem]

1. More crap from ISIL's press secretary.

[Cali_Democrat]

10. I wonder how much the job pays. nt

[Tarheel_Dem]

15. Well, they're making about a million bucks a day on blackmarket oil, so it's probably pretty good.

[Marr]

16. Gross.

That's the kind of comment I'd expect from a Bushie.

[Tarheel_Dem]

19. Oh, I'm sorry. I forgot where I was for a moment. Silly me.

[Marr]

24. Two in a row. /nt

[Tarheel_Dem]

104. Sorry.

[riqster]

128. OK, that's funny.

[Tarheel_Dem]

131. All the credit goes to Whisp.

[Fawke Em]

269. The PTB do this every time some person

likes someone we're supposed to hate.

This is NOTHING.

Apparently, if us average folk read someone they don't like, we're fangirls or something. Really stupid.

[Tarheel_Dem]

276. Couldn't agree more. Remember the term "Obamabots"? "BOGgers"? "Turdway"?

"Gay hugging corporatists"?

[Legalequilibrium78]

179. Speaking as a Canadian there is only one thing

I want to say about Glenn Grenwald's piece, it's a piece of shit much like the author himself.

[laundry_queen]

188. Also speaking as a Canadian

Greenwald uses a tad too much hyperbole for my tastes, but the premise is not wrong. If Harper wants to follow the US on its war conquests, he has to expect some blowback. My only issue is that Greenwald conflates Harper with Canadians. It's not the same as with Bush - far less than 50% of Canadians voted for Harper (technically only Harper's Calgary Southwest constituents actually voted for him). I also notice he totally avoided mentioning Canada's staunch refusal to participate in the GWB's Iraq war. However, even given that, Greenwald makes some valid points about the overuse of 'terrorism' and the predictable reaction to 'terror' attacks. I'm not saying I 100% agree, but there is really nothing in his piece that deserves the kind of response he gets from a certain faction here at DU.

[liberalhistorian]

204. I'm not trying to be snarky or difficult

with this question, I'm just genuinely curious because I admit I don't know as much about Canadian politics and election policies as I should. But how did Harper manage to get both initially elected and re-elected if, as you say, far less than 50 percent of Canadians actually voted for him? I was, frankly, amazed when he was re-elected.

[laundry_queen]

212. It's how our parliamentary system works

We have several parties - not just 2. The prime minister is never directly voted for, except by his direct constituents. He is, however, elected the leader of his party by party members. The party that wins the most seats in the house of commons is the winner, and their party leader is the prime minister. We have several parties that have seats currently - Conservative, NDP, Liberal, Green, and Bloc Québecois (and some independents). Socially, all are liberal except for the conservative party. So, basically, the vote on the left is split many ways (Well, the Bloc is only active in Québec, so they are not an issue elsewhere). Sounds like a warning for the US and advocates of third parties, right? Not exactly. Here, the right wing has a history of getting into power, becoming disillusioned with politicians governing from the centre, so they start a new party. Then the right is split in the middle and the left coalesces and gains power. The split on the right is why the Liberals were in power for most of the 90s and half the 2000s.

Also, even though some Canadians on DU will disagree with me, Canadian conservatives traditionally are not the same as American conservatives. They are NOT against the concept of government, and most, if they are right-wing Christians, hide it. Canadians do not like to mix politics and religion. Canadians are also fiercely proud of their health care system and even Harper himself wouldn't be brave enough to try to make large changes to the health act. We also have efficient, verifiable paper ballots, and Canadians generally are not afraid to 'vote the bums out' (even their own MPs) so I think they feel like there is more accountability. And the Conservatives I know are fiercely pro-choice, pro-social programs (to a degree) and don't hate government in general. Canadians believe that government is a force of good for the most part, so there is less cynicism (which is probably not so good with regards to Harper).

One thing to also keep in mind - Harper never won a majority until this last term. He was strictly in a minority gov't. The ONLY reason he won a majority was that the Liberals - traditionally it's either party in power with the other in opposition with a few exceptions - were in SUCH disarray that the NDP won official opposition. 60% of the population voted for either the NDP (a socialist party) or the Liberals. However, because of the way the seats are situated where a strong regional showing for any part can result in them gaining enough seats to win (which is why the official opposition was actually the Bloc Québecois at one point) the Conservatives carried the West (especially Alberta) and only needed a certain amount of seats in Ontario to win. People had become accustomed to Harper being PM under a minority gov't (where he can face a non confidence vote so there's a lot of accountability) where he didn't have much power and got used to him, thinking he wasn't so bad. So they gave him a majority gov't. Many of those people subsequently regretted their vote, but at that point, an election is 5 years away.

Oh, and Harper was initially elected into power (in a minority situation) because the Liberals had been in power for 12 years and there was a corruption scandal ongoing.

So, not sure if that was a good explanation or not. I'm sure others will jump into help or correct me, LOL.

[flamingdem]

224. Thanks for the primer

I'm starting to admire Canada more, seems so .. sane there.

[NanceGreggs]

205. Not a Canadian here ...

... but a Canadian resident for the last forty years.

To state that "Canada has spent the last thirteen years proclaiming itself a nation at war", or that Canada has been "run(ning) around for years wallowing in war glory", goes far beyond "a tad too much hyperbole".

They are ludicrous statements that are in no way reflective of the attitude or mindset of the citizenry, nor of those who make their home here.

"I also notice he totally avoided mentioning Canada's staunch refusal to participate in the GWB's Iraq war." But that's par for the course with Greenwald - simply ignore any actual facts that might prove inconvenient to the agenda-driven narrative he attempts to pass off as honest journalism.

"Wallowing in war glory", my ass. As though I needed any further confirmation - which I didn't - GG proves once again that he doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about. But that never prevents him from talking about it anyway.

[laundry_queen]

213. I think he's off the mark and I said so

but I would prefer to discuss the content of his articles than concentrating on his character. I know enough people who have uttered the words "nuke the fuckers" with regards to the middle east that I know there are war supporters here. Maybe you live in a different part of the country. Anyway, the part you pointed out was what I meant when I said he was conflating Canadians with Harper. Harper DID and DOES do those things. And from time to time, the media here does it too. It's a bit more nuanced than south of the border, but it happens here too.

[NanceGreggs]

237. But that's the point ...

... I am discussing the content of his articles - which are almost invariably strewn with over-the-top hyperbole, personal opinions presented as facts, and the convenient omission of facts that are directly relevant to the subject matter.

"Wallowing in war glory" and "spending years proclaiming itself a nation at war" would be rightly attributable to the Bush administration, and the GOP as a whole, during the Iraq War, e.g. "Mission Accomplished" photo-ops, "don't criticize a president in a time of war", etc. To attribute those sentiments to Canadians is so far off the mark as to be laughable.

(I'm in Toronto, BTW)

[laundry_queen]

240. And that's not different from any other American journalist, really.

Anyway, that's not discussing content, that's discussing his style of journalism. And I gathered you were in the East by your comments. Things were/are quite different out here in conservaland aka Alberta. Greenwald's not so far off if you include the West. Lots of that kind of sentiment out here and a lot of Harper fans.

[NanceGreggs]

243. I don't think ...

... that utterly ridiculous hyperbole and the omission of relevant facts is a matter of "journalistic style". It is a lack of journalism, full stop.

No doubt things are different in Alberta, or other parts of the country. But would you describe Albertans as "wallowing in war glory", or having spent the last thirteen years "proclaiming themselves to be a nation at war"?

[laundry_queen]

244. Again

I said that a lot of what Greenwald said was hyperbole. I *HAVE* seen letters to the editor in the local SUN newspaper (articles too, given that it's the 'SUN') to that effect "we are a nation at war" "we should support the PM as a war time PM" "blahblahblah <insertrightwingcraphere>" HOWEVER this sentiment only began with Harper in power. When Chrétien decided to NOT go into Iraq, you should've seen the apoplectic LTEs about how horrible of a country we were for not supporting our friends to the south - never mind we were in Afghanistan. So, there IS a certain faction here that do that and I HAVE seen it. But definitely not all, or even most, or even a large fraction of Canadians or even Albertans. Hence hyperbole, conflation, broad brushing. But it's not like it doesn't exist at all.

At any rate, I think we are splitting hairs here now. I didn't agree with a lot of what Greenwald said in this article, but I get the larger point he is trying to make. You aren't going to make me change my mind about him by nitpicking about hyperbole vs lying.

[NanceGreggs]

249. Thanks for the well thought out response.

But the fact remains - for me, anyway - that one cannot dismiss Greenwald's hyperbolic rants and omission of relevant facts as "journalistic style".

Had GG said - as you just did - that "a certain faction of Canadians" hold a particular view, that's one thing. But to state that Canada is "wallowing in war glory" or has "proclaimed itself to be a nation at war" is neither factual nor even remotely reflective of the country as a whole.

I have a problem with ignoring such things - which, for me, renders an entire article suspect, in terms of its truthfulness and its conveyance of actual facts.

On a personal note ...

Are you in a small town or a city in Alberta? I have several Toronto friends who are native Albertans, and although most have come to love TO, they never miss an opportunity to remind their Ontarian acquaintances of the natural beauty that is bountiful in their home province. I'm a native of NYC, and it took me a long time to adjust to Toronto - HATED it when I first arrived.

But now I cannot imagine living anywhere else on earth as happily and contentedly as I live here.

[laundry_queen]

254. I love Toronto

Even though it's been a long time since I was there. I have relatives that live there.

I currently live in a small town close to Edmonton. So, I get the small town AND city vibe (I work downtown). Around here, it's not particularly spectacular (though I do love it) when it comes to natural beauty...farmer's fields dotted with towns much like what surrounds Toronto (at least that's how it was last time I was there!) However, a few hours west or north...it's breathtakingly beautiful. I lived in the northern part of the province. Hundreds of miles of forests. Have you ever been to Banff? I think that is the most spectacular place in the province for sure. The drive from Calgary to Banff is my favorite drive, ever. We used to go all the time (first as a kid we went camping there, then as a teen we went skiing all the time, then as an adult, my IL's lived in southern BC so we drove through once a year). However, unless your Alberta acquaintances are FROM Banff/Jasper, Alberta is not that different from the rest of the prairie provinces. There are beautiful places everywhere in Canada. But I'm weird - I am one of those people who ENJOYS driving through Saskatchewan, LOL. Saskatoon has an amazing river valley. And I'd love to move to Winnipeg, I LOVE it there. So, I'm really no judge at all.

[NanceGreggs]

267. Most of the Albertans I knew ...

... when I first came here had moved here from either Edmonton or Calgary, but I have no idea if they'd come from other parts of the province originally.

I worked in the music biz back in the 'seventies, and met a lot of musicians from Alberta. The major record labels were located here in TO, so this was the "place to be" if you were looking for a record deal in those days.

Sad to say, I have never been "out west", as we say here. So there is soooo much I haven't seen.

[laundry_queen]

271. I know the feeling

I'm not a traveller. I've been to a few northern states. I've never been to the east coast of Canada. I've seen a lot of the west though. I really want to go spend some time in Newfoundland (I have a few Newfie friends, and every Newfie I've ever met was a fabulous person. I'd love to go to their province.) But yeah, there is SO much I haven't seen either.

If you ever do come out west you must see Banff. I haven't been to any other mountain ranges to compare it to, but to me, it's so overwhelmingly HUGE it makes you feel very insignificant. Puts things in perspective, that's for sure.

[Mister Nightowl]

241. Agreed, LQ

Greenwald gets a lot of undeserved flak for skewering Sacred Cows, most notably Holy Mother Israel, but also including American hegemony, yes-man allies, and our Mighty M-IC.

[okieinpain]

159. LOL.

[flamingdem]

223. Hey, I'm the press secretary

said the redhead at Isis headquarters. Glen just works for me.

[Comrade Grumpy]

231. Speaking of crap, that's some real crazed-ape shit-slinging you've got going on.

[Tarheel_Dem]

274. Why, thank you "Comrade"!

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

2. Well, that will go over wonderful with the warhawks.

They hate anyone pointing out that those who sow violence tend to eventually reap violence.

[Luminous Animal]

5. And he made no such claim as asserted in the title of the OP.

[LondonReign2]

8. Well of course not

But you see, once Greenwald opposed Obama on domestic spying, so he is EEEVVILLLLLLLLLLL!

[VanillaRhapsody]

28. are we talking about Canada or Obama here?

[stevenleser]

32. Doesn't matter much to Greenwald or his supporters. Any possibility of taking a swipe at either...

... is joyfully taken regardless of the facts.

[VanillaRhapsody]

33. very true....he just has a burr under his saddle because he owes US money!!!

Pay your taxes asshole!

[Andy823]

130. Exactly

Seems like those who support Greenwald also support those who bash the president daily. And some of the seem to be able to bash the president even when the OP has nothing at all to do with him.

[brush]

49. That description fits the US absolutely . . . but Canada?

Come on, Greenwald, buy a program already. You can't tell your countries apart without one.

[Luminous Animal]

74. Canado joins the fight against ISIS (as they have joined every ME war since the Persian Gulf).

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/08/canada-parliament-votes-join-anti-isis-strikes-iraq

[brush]

85. Canada wallowing in war glory?

You don't think that's even a slight exaggeration?

And what do you suggest be done about ISIS?

[gcomeau]

134. Ahem. Canada stayed out of Bush's invasion of Iraq

In case you missed that.

[stevenleser]

135. As I noted above, facts don't really matter to Greenwald or his supporters. They seek to inflame

folks against the US and its allies. Anything that can be twisted to do that is used and it doesn't seem to bother their conscience at all.

[Luminous Animal]

137. As noted below (post #136), Journalist Leser, Canadian military personnel were indeed involved with

Bush's war.

[stevenleser]

138. LOL, Flying a C17 is now "Wallowing in war glory" to you and Greenwald, eh?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_C-17_Globemaster_III

The Boeing C-17 Globemaster III is a large military transport aircraft. It was developed for the United States Air Force (USAF) from the 1980s to the early 1990s by McDonnell Douglas. The C-17 carries forward the name of two previous piston-engined military cargo aircraft, the Douglas C-74 Globemaster and the Douglas C-124 Globemaster II. The C-17 commonly performs strategic airlift missions, transporting troops and cargo throughout the world; additional roles include tactical airlift, medical evacuation and airdrop duties.
.
.
.
---------------------------------------------------------

Oh yeah, real gungho stuff there to wallow in that war glory all about!!!!

[Luminous Animal]

144. I see you have forgotten Afghanistan and Libya, Journalist Leser. And thanks for

acknowledging that I was correct in my claim that the Canadian military was involved in the Bush's war.

[stevenleser]

145. gcomeau: "Get a little perspective. Under those grounds the Red Cross joined the war too."

Couldnt have said it any better myself.

Get some perspective, LA.

[Luminous Animal]

151. The Red Cross leads 35,000 troops in offensive combat missions? Have you reported on this Journalist

Leser?

[stevenleser]

152. Are you responding to me or the person who said it? nt

[Luminous Animal]

153. Oh I am sure you can figure out the answer to that question yourself.

[stevenleser]

155. Lets sum up your latest failed attempt to justify Greenwalds statement and your support thereof

One Canadian general who led non-Canadian troops, and "in all 40-50 Canadian military members who participated in the conflict" and let's remember this was 10 years ago.

And that is "Wallowing in war glory" and justification for a retaliatory terrorist attack this week.

And we're only at about try #4 or #5 on your part to try and justify Greenwald's attack on Canada and your support thereof.

[Luminous Animal]

162. And again. You omit Canada's role in Afghanistan and Libya. gcomeau made the claim that Canada

was not involved in Iraq. Then you chimed in claiming that my post was factually incorrect. I proved to you both that Canada was indeed involved in Iraq. Rather than admitting you were wrong, both gcomeau and you attempted to describe Canada's involvement as benign. When, again, I proved again that you both are wrong, rather than admit to your mistake you resort to minimization and ignore Canada's very real involvement in other recent theaters of war.

[stevenleser]

163. We're only going on the evidence you have provided to justify your position. You have failed. nt

[Luminous Animal]

166. "Canada joins the fight against ISIS (as they have joined every ME war since the Persian Gulf)."

That is my description and it is 100% factually correct.

Furthermore,

Canada Day in Harperland: Militarism, militarism, militarism
http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/views-expressed/2014/07/canada-day-harperland-militarism-militarism-militarism

The NHL and the New Canadian Militarism
https://canadiandimension.com/articles/view/the-nhl-and-the-new-canadian-militarism

Harper promotes Canadian militarism
http://yvesengler.com/2013/08/16/harper-promotes-canadian-militarism/

Let's Talk about Creeping Canadian Militarism
http://thetyee.ca/Views/2007/05/23/CanMilitarism/

Militarism on rise in Conservative Canada
http://www.ipolitics.ca/2012/07/27/yves-engler-militarism-on-rise-in-conservative-canada/

Six and half years into Harper’s Conservative government Canada has become so militaristic that the head of the armed forces can demand a new war and few bat an eye.

The Chief of the Defence Staff’s warmongering is the logical outgrowth of the Conservatives’ bid to make Canadian society more militaristic. During the Conservatives’ first six years in office the military budget increased from $15 billion to $23 billion and the number of troops rose by about one quarter to 95,000. The special forces, which Ottawa can deploy abroad in total secrecy, more than doubled.

.....


By setting up overseas bases and increasing the military’s size, the Conservatives are preparing for future wars. They’ve also built the cultural and ideological foundation for constant war. In one of innumerable examples, the updated 2011 citizenship handbook Discover Canada: the Rights and Responsibilities of Citizenship praised this country’s military history with more than a dozen photos depicting war or armed forces personnel.

Similarly, over the past few years soldiers have regularly appeared at major sporting events rappelling down from the rafters or in sombre moments of silence for the fallen. Incredibly, reports Embassy, the Canadian Forces admit to having spent $353.6 million and directed 661 staff members to promoting their work in 2010-11.

The Conservatives’ militarism is unrelenting. After waging war in Libya they organized an $850,000 nationally televised celebration for Canada’s “military heroes”, which included flyovers from a dozen military aircraft. Harper told the 300 military personnel brought in from four bases: “We are celebrating a great military success. Soldier for soldier, sailor for sailor, airman for airman, the Canadian Armed Forces are the best in the world.”

[Vattel]

172. facts will get you nowhere with the irrational.

[Luminous Animal]

193. Oddly enough, he kicked the thread thinking he had won,. Confuzled.

[Luminous Animal]

197. And the propagandist.

[Marr]

187. I've got to say, my opinion of that poster has dropped a lot in this thread.

Refusing to admit when you're wrong (or simply caught in a lie) is not exactly a mark of good character.

[Luminous Animal]

195. +1 Thank you.

[Legalequilibrium78]

202. Why do you stupidly insist that we Canadians

Were involved in the Iraq War II. I should know better because I followed the debate and the decision of then, Prime Minister Jean Chretien, not to follow suit with the Americans on it's planned invasion of Iraq. There were no military combat roles that the Canadian Forces participated in.

As for Afghanistan, yes we have joined in conjunction with other NATO countries on assisting the U.S. on post war, peace and stability operations in Afghanistan. Most Canadians are proud of our participation on that mission. We went in Afghanistan - not because we lusted for War as your idiotic hero seems to suggest- but rather we we're there as allies of your country as the majority of Canadians felt was the right mission. One can argue with the merit of such a mission but one thing is for certain, Canada and us Canadians need not be insulted by shit stirrer like Mr.Greenwald.

[Luminous Animal]

206. I intelligently provided evidence that Canadians were involved in both Iraq Wars.

As for the rest... blah blah blah blah blah,

[Legalequilibrium78]

238. Intelligently provided?

What was so "intelligent" about the so called "evidence" you provided? You are just I think unfortunately an America hating first individual, who likes to lay all the blame and ills of the world on your country and it's allies. That is both sad and pathetic; Mr.Greenwald and your ilk do belong with each other.

[Luminous Animal]

136. Canadian pilots flew missions in Iraq

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/story.html?id=46f230d1-ca87-47a6-99aa-d14e77652d18&k=52254&__federated=1

Canadian Forces personnel learned to operate Canada's newest military plane, the giant Boeing C-17, by training on American jets, including flying those planes into Iraq in support of the U.S. war, according to a memo written by Canada's top general and obtained by Canwest News Service.

Gen. Rick Hillier, the chief of Canada's defence staff, wrote to Gordon O'Connor, then minister of national defence, in May 2007 that in the summer and fall of that year, Canadian military aircrew would fly into Iraq in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. That decision was taken without informing Parliament.

Canadian Commander Takes Leading Role In Iraq
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/story.html?id=66e345c2-f3e1-448b-9c95-93d01ba822fe&p=1

A former commander of the Joint Task Force 2 counter-terrorism unit is now in Iraq helping U.S. forces there and preparing to co-ordinate coalition units in the war-torn country.

....

But a number of high ranking Canadian officers have been involved in helping direct operations in the Iraq conflict.

In 2004 Lt.-Gen. Walter Natynczyk, then a major general, served as deputy commander of the Multi-National Corps during operation Iraqi Freedom.

At the time, he was in charge of 35,000 soldiers. Natynczyk oversaw planning and execution of all multi-national corps-level combat support operations.

...

Other Canadian soldiers have served in front-line positions. In May 2003 a Canadian Forces exchange officer was wounded near Baghdad airport after a grenade exploded next to the convoy he was traveling in. At the time there were 16 Canadian military members serving on exchange programs with various foreign forces involved in the Iraq war.

[stevenleser]

139. ROFLMAO, musta been those rambo transport pilots flying those C-17s wallowing...

... in all that war glory!!!

[gcomeau]

142. Really, some supply flights and participating in some rebuilding operations?

That's your grounds for saying Canada participated in the war?

Get a little perspective. Under those grounds the Red Cross joined the war too.

[stevenleser]

146. No exaggeration is too great for Greenwald and his devoted followers when attacking the US and

its allies.

Supply flights is grounds for "wallowing in war glory" and retaliatory terrorist attacks. Yep, that is what they are pushing here.

[Luminous Animal]

149. Really. Your Gen. Natynczyk led 35,000 personnel in offensive operations.

September 2008: Canada's Real Role in Iraq
Our new Defence Chief commanded U.S. troops in Iraq

- See more at: https://www.policyalternatives.ca/publications/monitor/september-2008-canadas-real-role-iraq#sthash.SlvIJHVr.dpuf

During his three decades of military service, Canada’s new Chief of Defence--L.Gen Walter Natynczyk--has led soldiers in Bosnia, Croatia, Kosovo, and East Timor. But his fighting career reached a crescendo during his 2004 stint in Baghdad.

In that year, while embedded in the highest levels of command of Multi-National Corps Iraq (MNC-I), Natynczyk led 35,000 troops fighting throughout Iraq. Working first as its Deputy Director of Strategy, Policy and Plans, and then as its Deputy Commanding General, he helped MNC I fulfill its mission to conduct "offensive operations to defeat remaining non-compliant forces and neutralize destabilizing influences in Iraq." (This information may be obtained from his senior officer biography.)

Natynczyk's leadership in the Iraq war contradicts one of our country's most popular misconceptions: that the Liberal governments of Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin defiantly stood up to George Bush by refusing to participate in the U.S.-led invasion and occupation of Iraq.

And there is more.

Military participation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_and_the_Iraq_War

Though no declaration of war was issued, the Governor General-in-Council did order the mobilization of a number of Canadian Forces personnel to serve actively in Iraq.[2] On 31 March 2003, it was reported in Maclean's that in the previous month Canadian officers, aboard three frigates and a destroyer, had been placed in command of the multinational naval group Task Force 151, which patrolled the Persian Gulf region. A further 30 Canadians worked at the US Central Command in Qatar, and 150 troops were on exchange with US and British forces in proximity to combat.[4] North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) stationed Canadian Air Force pilots also flew combat missions with the US Air Force E-3 Sentry, and exchange officers fought with US units. Canadian pilots also flew Boeing C-17s into Iraq to "season" the flight crews.[8] In all, 40 to 50 Canadian military members participated in the conflict.


Because of this Canadian involvement in Iraq, the Ministers of the Crown at the time were criticised by Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition as hypocritical, and demands were made for the return of these Canadian Forces personnel. The Prime Minister stated that the Canadian military was not involved in direct combat, while still fulfilling its commitment to NORAD. However, it was claimed by Janice Gross Stein and Eugene Lang in The Unexpected War that people from Canadian ministries were in Washington, D.C., openly vaunting Canada's participation in Iraq;[2] as Stein and Lang put it: "in an almost schizophrenic way, the government bragged publicly about its decision to stand aside from the war in Iraq because it violated core principles of multilateralism and support for the United Nations. At the same time, senior Canadian officials, military officers and politicians were currying favour in Washington, privately telling anyone in the State Department of the Pentagon who would listen that, by some measures, Canada's indirect contribution to the American war effort in Iraq– three ships and 100 exchange officers– exceeded that of all but three other countries that were formally part of the coalition."[2][9]

Amongst the Canadian officers who were sent to Iraq were: Brigadier General Walter Natynczyk, who was later appointed Chief of the Defence Staff; Major General Peter Devlin, who served since 14 December 2006 as Multi-National Corps-Iraq Deputy Command General as part of his role as Deputy Commander of the US III Corps through an officer exchange program;[10] and General Nicolas Matern, a special forces officer and former commander of Canada's elite counter-terrorism unit, who in mid February 2008 began service as deputy to Lieutenant General Lloyd Austin.[11]

[gcomeau]

169. And by that you mean...

...there was ONE Canadian military official there in an embedded capacity in the middle of 35,000 US troops.


Yeah, Canada totally went to war in Iraq.

[Luminous Animal]

170. My claim is that Canada was involved in the Gulf war. And see post 162.

Funny, I'm listening to Greenwald's speech at McGill right now and he talked about what we, citizens in our nations, think we are and what we really are.

You can listen here (it is quite good):

http://bcooltv.mcgill.ca/Viewer1/?EventID=201410077910

[gcomeau]

171. And to repeat...

...your support for that claim is some pilots delivering supply as part of the reuiblding effort... and Canada loaning the US ONE FREAKING GUY.

Once again, get yourself some perspective.

[Luminous Animal]

194. Nope. My support for that clam is your military SECRETLY WITHOUT THE ADVICE OF PARLIAMENT

providing military support the Gulf War. Minimize however you want but your minimization does not erase the facts.

[gcomeau]

207. And... AGAIN..

...the "support" you are talking about is pilots flying supplies for the rebuilding effort and

ONE

FREAKING

GUY


Perspective. Look it up.

[Luminous Animal]

211. Indeed. Let's ignore those ships in the gulf. Face it. You've blood on your hands & you are lackies

to the U.S.

That is my description and it is 100% factually correct.

Furthermore,

Canada Day in Harperland: Militarism, militarism, militarism
http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/views-expressed/2014/07/canada-day-harperland-militarism-militarism-militarism

The NHL and the New Canadian Militarism
https://canadiandimension.com/articles/view/the-nhl-and-the-new-canadian-militarism

Harper promotes Canadian militarism
http://yvesengler.com/2013/08/16/harper-promotes-canadian-militarism/

Let's Talk about Creeping Canadian Militarism
http://thetyee.ca/Views/2007/05/23/CanMilitarism/

Militarism on rise in Conservative Canada
http://www.ipolitics.ca/2012/07/27/yves-engler-militarism-on-rise-in-conservative-canada/

Six and half years into Harper’s Conservative government Canada has become so militaristic that the head of the armed forces can demand a new war and few bat an eye.

The Chief of the Defence Staff’s warmongering is the logical outgrowth of the Conservatives’ bid to make Canadian society more militaristic. During the Conservatives’ first six years in office the military budget increased from $15 billion to $23 billion and the number of troops rose by about one quarter to 95,000. The special forces, which Ottawa can deploy abroad in total secrecy, more than doubled.

.....


By setting up overseas bases and increasing the military’s size, the Conservatives are preparing for future wars. They’ve also built the cultural and ideological foundation for constant war. In one of innumerable examples, the updated 2011 citizenship handbook Discover Canada: the Rights and Responsibilities of Citizenship praised this country’s military history with more than a dozen photos depicting war or armed forces personnel.

Similarly, over the past few years soldiers have regularly appeared at major sporting events rappelling down from the rafters or in sombre moments of silence for the fallen. Incredibly, reports Embassy, the Canadian Forces admit to having spent $353.6 million and directed 661 staff members to promoting their work in 2010-11.

The Conservatives’ militarism is unrelenting. After waging war in Libya they organized an $850,000 nationally televised celebration for Canada’s “military heroes”, which included flyovers from a dozen military aircraft. Harper told the 300 military personnel brought in from four bases: “We are celebrating a great military success. Soldier for soldier, sailor for sailor, airman for airman, the Canadian Armed Forces are the best in the world.”

[laundry_queen]

239. That poster is not going to change their mind

Never mind Chrétien was in charge at the time and not Harper and Chrétien was very vocal in OPPOSITION to the war. Bringing Harper into the conversation about the Iraq war is laughable. Loaning a person or a plane several years into a war (that is winding down) does not equal support. I suppose that poster understands that, though. It's not even about perspective, it's about being intellectually dishonest in order to try to win an argument - something both sides are doing in this stupid thread.

[stevenleser]

156. After you read LA's latest attempt to justify his and Greenwald's statements, see my #155 above.

Again, he exaggerates the point by posting the 35,000 number. The problem was it was 35,000 US troops, not Canadian.

[Luminous Animal]

167. At the top of my post: IN BOLD "Our new Defence Chief commanded U.S. troops in Iraq"

I exaggerated nothing. And I am a woman.

[cherokeeprogressive]

54. The FIRST word of the subject in the OP was "Greenwald". We're talking about GREENWALD.

Do try and keep up.

[VanillaRhapsody]

115. no You should keep up ..we are talking about what that

Tax cheat Greenwald said now...

[cherokeeprogressive]

116. We're talking about cheating on taxes? Shit. I missed that.

[VanillaRhapsody]

117. Yep he owes US....you and I money...he is a liar

And tax cheat...

Do try to keep up indeed!

[cherokeeprogressive]

120. Let me add some more relevance to the discussion...

I had 1 egg and 2 strips of bacon for breakfast today.

[VanillaRhapsody]

123. bullshit as expected....when you have no defense!

[pnwmom]

43. Yes, he did. He linked Canada to countries that are "wallowing in war glory."

[cherokeeprogressive]

55. "Canada had it coming." Care to point out that part for me?

Or are you simply parsing... while bathing in a huge tub of confirmation bias?

[pnwmom]

57. You're splitting hairs. He blamed the attack on Canada's wallowing in war glory.

Whether he used the exact words "had it coming" is unimportant.

[cherokeeprogressive]

58. If I'M splitting hairs, you're holding the other side of the razor blade.

Because he never used those words.

[Doctor_J]

247. facts don't matter that much in the BOG

Hysteria and outrage and fawning are big though

[JI7]

4. did he say the same about the terrorist attack at the Russian Train Station ?

[Luminous Animal]

6. Why would he? He didn't say it about Canada, either.

You can actually, click on the link and read what he really said.

[JI7]

9. what did he say when Russia was attacked at the train station ?

[stevenleser]

26. Nothing. He wouldn't say anything about China either, or about most other countries.

Only the US, Canada, the UK and some of their allies.

He has an agenda.

[VanillaRhapsody]

30. same agenda some on DU have....

thats why they like him too!

[truebrit71]

252. Unlike the agenda either one of you have?

Don't make me

[VanillaRhapsody]

256. you mean voting for the winner of the Democratic Primary whoever that is agenda?

that one?

indeed!

[truebrit71]

258. Sure....

... let's go with that...

[pnwmom]

44. You should read the whole article yourself and not stop with the first paragraph.

[pnwmom]

46. Yes, he did. Why are you telling people to click on the link when you didn't yourself?

"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."

[Luminous Animal]

50. No. He does not say they had it coming. Never once ever. The entire article is focused on why

Canada is shocked that it happened. Not whether or not they deserved it.

FYI, I have read the article at least 10 times today.

[eissa]

7. Take that, Canada!

You stupid, poutine-eating warmongers!

[enough]

11. Actually, he did not say that Canada had it coming. (nt)

[stevenleser]

27. Yes, pretty much, he did. nt

[Scootaloo]

36. Except he didn't.

I know you really wish he did, to the point where you will lie to claim he did... but he didn't.

[pnwmom]

47. What do you think he's doing in these two paragraphs? He's saying Canada brought it on itself.

"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."

[Scootaloo]

51. he says it's not surprising.

Cali_Democrat claims he says Canada "had it coming."

He didn't.

"Unsurprising" and "deserved" are different things, with different meanings.

[pnwmom]

52. In this context, this is called

"splitting hairs."

[Scootaloo]

59. The context being...

A pack of nitwits looking for their daily outrage at Glen Greenwald, and having to literally make shit up to get it.

[wildbilln864]

75. BOOM! You nailed it! n/t

[Luminous Animal]

82. Indeed.

[pnwmom]

86. The nitwits are libertarians like Greenwald, and his acolytes. n/t

[Scootaloo]

88. Not in this thread, they aren't

[ProfessorGAC]

108. Not Sure That's Accurate

Actually, i'm quite sure it's not.

[Fawke Em]

270. I want to thank you.

This site is becoming the same yakkish puke as any right-wing site.

I don't always agree with Greenwald's politics (nevermind he lives in South America where it's NOT the same), but I find it odd when liberals don't cotton to how awful Obama is on core issues.

[Tarheel_Dem]

277. Try to keep up. This thread isn't about Obama. It's about "Canada wallowing in war glory".

[Luminous Animal]

80. His thesis is why should Canada be surprised. Can you answer that?

[tkmorris]

161. If Greenwald is as bloody terrible as everyone says he is...

Why is whenever people here criticize him they seem to misquote him? It's all well and good to call it "splitting hairs" but if the guy is as awful as his detractors seem to believe aren't his ACTUAL words sufficient to make the case?

Mind you, I'm not even a Greenwald supporter. I don't read him and I think the article quoted in the OP is at the least in bad taste considering the timing. I just notice that when GG is the topic du jour around here it seems to be the ones attacking him that lack the most objectivity.

[Luminous Animal]

64. Do you honestly think that when you engage in war that people are not going to fight back?

It is not about blame. It is about the logical outcomes of war.

His article is about how surprised people are that they have become targets when engaged in a war. It is not about casting blame.

[LanternWaste]

122. You are then unable to read the implicit and are limited to the literal?

You are then unable to read the implicit and are limited to the literal?

[DisgustipatedinCA]

38. Go ahead and point that part out. You're a "journalist" so I expect you can back your claim.

[Luminous Animal]

42. Good luck on getting getting that.

[pnwmom]

48. Here:

"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."

[DisgustipatedinCA]

53. Thanks, but Greenwald's isn't claiming Canada "had it coming".

He's saying it's not surprising. These are very different things.

[pnwmom]

56. He said it was the result of Canada's actions. Which is closer to

"had it coming" than "not surprising." -- Though making this distinction in this context is hair splitting.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

63. The issue here is not justification

"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. " --Greenwald

[stevenleser]

66. Yep, he said it was cause and effect. I.e their acts brought on the attack.

That's pretty much saying they had it coming

[DisgustipatedinCA]

68. Do I have to paste this again?

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. END QUOTE

Do you actually publish articles to your blog using this level of journalistic standards?

[stevenleser]

70. You can wish your spin to be accurate as many times as you want

But it won't ever be accurate

[DisgustipatedinCA]

72. You ducked the question. I win the Internet. Bye.

[stevenleser]

73. You have no question, only spin. Nt

[Luminous Animal]

78. Nope. He questioned why should Canada be surprised. Can you answer that question?

I'd like to see you try.

[Luminous Animal]

89. If I leave a dollar peeking out of my pocket and someone steals it, that is a result. It does

not mean I had it coming.

[Marr]

173. It's nothing of the sort.

Saying a thing is morally justified is not the same as describing cause and effect. They're completely different positions and pretending otherwise is absurd.

[stevenleser]

175. I get that you are desperate to defend Greenwald, but it is exactly as the OP says. nt

[Marr]

176. Deceit does not become you.

I don't believe for a second that you don't see how dishonest this particular attack is. There's nothing respectable about helping push such smears.

[stevenleser]

177. That's why I never engage in it. nt

[truebrit71]

253. No, you just put words into people's mouths....

Much more ethical...

[stevenleser]

65. Pnwmom beat me to it. Nt

[wildbilln864]

79. a journalist!?

wow, had me fooled. The definition for that gets looser every day I guess.

[stevenleser]

90. Something tells me you being fooled is not an uncommon occurrence nt

[wildbilln864]

92. and something tells me...

you have a strong case of Dunning-Kruger going there.

[stevenleser]

118. Something tells me you have no idea what Dunning-Kruger actually means. nt

[wildbilln864]

178. you don't!

I know exactly what it is!

[Luminous Animal]

200. And I got your point 100% And I agree 100%

[msanthrope]

126. Watch and learn.....

http://m.

[tkmorris]

158. Klaatu Barada Nikto

"Wiseman: "When you removed the Necronomicon from the cradle, did you speak the words?"
Ash: "Yeah, basically."
Wiseman: "Did you speak the exact words?"
Ash: "Look, maybe I didn't say every single little tiny syllable, no, but basically I said 'em, yeah."
Wiseman: "Dung-eating fool! Thou hast doomed us all! When thou misspoke the words, the Army of the Dead awoke!"

[stevenleser]

160. Thats the difference between engaging with a computer/robot and comparing a human's assertions

with similar ideas.

[tkmorris]

164. Wrong Klaatu

The point is there is a big difference between actually saying a thing, and saying a thing which your opponents can twist into a different thing. If you are going to criticize what a person says, especially as vociferously as you are doing, you had better be using their ACTUAL WORDS. Surely a man as vile as Greenwald can be hung using direct quotes, yes? If not, perhaps your case is not as strong as you'd like others to believe.

[stevenleser]

165. You're the one who brought up talking to the robot and the reference doesnt work. nt

[tkmorris]

180. My reference had nothing to do with a robot Steven

I know the Klaatu you are referring to, but that isn't the one *I* was talking about. The quote I referenced is from a different movie altogether. I would have thought I made that clear, but I get the feeling you really aren't listening to anyone in this thread, so no real surprise there.

My point stands. Triumphantly, in my opinion.

[JoePhilly]

12. What a hoser, eh??

[MannyGoldstein]

13. Is there anything specific you disagree with?

Thanks.

[Vattel]

14. Another falsehood about Greenwald courtesy of Cali Democrat.

He didn't say that Canada had it coming, but why let the truth stand in the way of a good smear?

[grasswire]

17. the smears against Greenwald are getting uglier and uglier.

Perhaps there's some homophobia driving the hatred for him. I can't see any other reason for such vitriol.

[Cali_Democrat]

20. LOL. nt

[otohara]

34. I Always Forget He's Gay

until someone mentions it.

Can't stand Greenwald - even during the Bush years.
He liked Bush, yes?

[Luminous Animal]

39. He wrote 3 books skewering the Bush admin. Three. His blog that he started in 2005 was

specifically started to highlight the Bush admin's illegal and immoral excesses post 9/11.

[otohara]

60. Not Until He Changed His Mind

and I'm glad he changed his mind. Odd that someone who considers himself smarter than everyone - once bought into the bullshit we were being fed by those lying incompetents in Bush admin.

[Luminous Animal]

69. As he has explained. Oh so many times. He was politically disengaged and relied on the

self-correctiveness of the democratic system. This is common in the U.S.; reaffirmed by our educational system that teaches us not active civic engagement (and the greatness that can result) because... checks and balances, and why we have a pitiful election turnout. Checks and balances are drilled into our head as if civic engagement begins and ends with voting.

82% of the U.S. population supported invading Afghanistan. 70% supported invading Iraq. There were a lot of Democrats in those stats. Including leading Dems in congress.

And as a person who interacted regularly with Greenwald when he first started his blog, he has never considered himself smarter than everyone. Never. He has always fought fiercely for his position, as anyone should, but graciously conceded or backed off to reconsider when he felt he might be wrong.

[Major Hogwash]

96. "He was politically disengaged . . ."

I'll say!

[Luminous Animal]

97. You think that is funny? Because my life work has been to engage the politically disengaged.

I don't just talk it. I walk it. Since age 12. And the first mistake you can make is to mock those who are politically disengaged,

[msanthrope]

121. Politically disengaged when he was running for public office? nt

[Tarheel_Dem]

279. "I'll say!"

[Cha]

83. Greenwald.. "I believed that Islamic extremism posed a serious threat to the country.."

GG was for him before he was against him..

"Glenn Greenwald Decries The Spying He Helped Enable When He Supported Bush!"

"I believed that Islamic extremism posed a serious threat to the country, and I wanted an aggressive response from our government. I was ready to stand behind President Bush and I wanted him to exact vengeance on the perpetrators and find ways to decrease the likelihood of future attacks. (emphasis mine)

from Glenn Greenwald’s own keyboard…

During the following two weeks, my confidence in the Bush administration grew as the president gave a series of serious, substantive, coherent, and eloquent speeches that struck the right balance between aggression and restraint. And I was fully supportive of both the president’s ultimatum to the Taliban and the subsequent invasion of Afghanistan when our demands were not met. Well into 2002, the president’s approval ratings remained in the high 60 percent range, or even above 70 percent, and I was among those who strongly approved of his performance. [...]

I’m sure Glenn regrets writing that preface, just a little more of his love for President Bush.

Despite these doubts, concerns, and grounds for ambivalence, I had not abandoned my trust in the Bush administration. Between the president’s performance in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, the swift removal of the Taliban in Afghanistan, and the fact that I wanted the president to succeed, because my loyalty is to my country and he was the leader of my country, I still gave the administration the benefit of the doubt. I believed then that the president was entitled to have his national security judgment deferred to, and to the extent that I was able to develop a definitive view, I accepted his judgment that American security really would be enhanced by the invasion of this sovereign country.

What a whack job..

"Feel free to make your own conclusions about why Greenwald was so supportive of the administration that brought on most of the NSA abuses but has nothing but contempt for President Obama, one of the very few voices in the lead up to the Iraq war who was brave enough to stand up as a State Senator and say…

What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

More.. http://extremeliberal.wordpress.com/2014/07/11/glenn-greenwald-decries-the-spying-he-helped-enable-when-he-supported-bush/

[Cha]

37. Get a grip.. pushing back against Greenwald has nothing to do with his being Gay.. as you well know.

Pitiful that you even bring that up about People who Support Gay Rights and are Allies.. as is the President.

[Scootaloo]

61. Having a smilie in your sig doesn't make you an ally

Just thought you might like to know. 'Cause you seem pretty confused over that.

[Luminous Animal]

81. I really and truly LOLed. Thank you, Scootaloo!

[davidpdx]

192. A call-out and an accusation all in one post

That's a pretty fucking ugly thing to say. Want to back it up with actual proof?

I didn't think so.

[Scootaloo]

208. What on earth are you talking about?

A smilie in a signature line doesn't make someone an ally of any cause or the other. Duh?

Also, you can't "call out" someone who's actually participating on the thread.

[davidpdx]

214. Whatever

You know what you've done. It is yours to live with. Congratulations!

[Scootaloo]

215. Reel in the line and put the chum back in the cooler.

You're not catching anything here.

[davidpdx]

216. Nah, you already caught enough by opening your mouth

[Luminous Animal]

40. Yes. Bart Gellman gets none of this crap. People go to Glenn's twitter feed to criticize him for

articles other people wrote.

Dozens of times I've seen him tweet back, "I am not the author of that article."

[deurbano]

248. Yeah, why is that? He also works for a billionaire.

[Luminous Animal]

257. So does Bart Gellman

[deurbano]

261. Sorry I was unclear. That was my point. Gellman works for a billionaire, too.

As you said, he doesn't get all the crap Greenwald gets for the same "transgressions"-- including working for a billionaire and writing books.(And as you also said, sometimes Greenwald even gets crap for what Gellman and others have written!)

[Luminous Animal]

262. Oops! Reread and you were perfectly clear!

[NCTraveler]

132. That is a disgusting comment. nt.

[Tarheel_Dem]

278. On the flipside: "Perhaps there's some racism driving GG's hatred for Obama, I can't see....

any other reason for such vitriol". See how that works?

[Marr]

18. Very dishonest post. /nt

[randome]

21. Oh, so the ISIS supporters were 'paying Canada back' for Afghanistan. It's all so clear.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]TECT in the name of the Representative approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]

[Luminous Animal]

25. #1. Where did you get the news that any of the killers were ISIS supporters.

#2. As Greenwald wrote in the article, the day before yesterday Canada joined the U.S. bombing campaign in Iraq. Parliament voted affirmatively earlier in the month.

[randome]

87. Well, ISIS is congratulating them so there's that.

So these ISIS-or-other-terrorists are supposedly paying back Canada for bombing Afghanistan some years back. Makes no sense, from Greenwald's perspective or from a common-sense perspective so one wonders why he mentioned it.

'ISIS' will rapidly become conflated with any Muslim terrorist from now on. That's what ISIS wants, and all run-of-the-mill terrorists will claim whatever gets them to their 72 virgins in the afterlife.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]TECT in the name of the Representative approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]

[Luminous Animal]

91. Talk about making no sense. First you claim that the connection to ISIS was inconceivable

(I do not think it means what you think it means), now you claim that it is.

[Ykcutnek]

22. Despicable. nt

[Rex]

23. Canada wallowing in war glory? Really?

I think Glenn might be hitting the vodka.

[stevenleser]

29. Anything he thinks he can twist into an attack on the US, Canada and the UK is what he's about

he really doesn't care about the facts.

Here, he conveniently forgets about the fact that correlation does not imply causation.

[Luminous Animal]

45. How is this "Islamic act of terror" specifically defined as so by the Canadian govt. a correlation?

[VanillaRhapsody]

31. that must be the Narcissist brand vodka too!

[SidDithers]

35. Greenwald. LOL...nt

Sid

[Cha]

41. RIP Nathan Cirillo and Fuck Off Greenwald.. you "stunned" blithering idiot.

The Globe and Mail ✔ @globeandmail
Follow
#Breaking: Soldier killed at war memorial identified as Cpl. Nathan Cirillo #ottawashooting http://trib.al/LztzGDO
10:26 AM - 22 Oct 2014 3,118 Retweets 848 favorites



Megan Underwood @megunder
Follow
On Sunday, we asked a very handsome guard for a picture with my friend visiting from Cali - RIP Nathan Cirillo
11:15 AM - 22 Oct 2014 5,593 Retweets 3,616 favorites

http://theobamadiary.com/2014/10/22/a-tweet-or-two-150/

Nathan Cirillo

[RandySF]

251. +1

[Luminous Animal]

259. His article wasn't about Nathan. His article was written and posted before Nathan was killed.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

62. You should probably learn to read more carefully before engaging in analysis

this little snippet was directly below your excerpts. I wonder how it is you failed to include this, then created an untrue subject title that is shown to be false by the little part you omitted. It seems to me that if you feel strongly enough about an issue, you should argue that issue with some honesty and integrity.

It's not too late. Just edit your OP to include this part of the article.
"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."

[scarletwoman]

67. It's SOP for the Greenwald haters. Cherry pick quotes, add negative spin - et voilà

more "proof" that Greenwald is a very bad person.

I like Greenwald. I like his honesty and directness. He is no enemy of mine.

Don't hold your breath waiting for the OP to include the "The issue is causation" quote.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

71. I won't hold my breath

we have a self styled journalist in the posts above claiming that causation and justification are "pretty much" the same thing. On the bright side, maybe we have a nominee for the first annual Doocy Award.

[msanthrope]

129. How are full paragraphs a "cherry pick" of quotes? Seems pretty

comprehensive to me.....

[KoKo]

236. It happens constantly....

And...agree..."don't hold your breath." It won't be coming.

[Barack_America]

77. At least we now know Putin's opinion on the matter.

[scarletwoman]

84. The only thing your obsessive ongoing smear campaign against Glenn Greenwald convinces me of,

is that you are not my ally.

Greenwald is not my enemy. You are not my ally.

[Cali_Democrat]

93. ...

[Cha]

94. lol.. It's Greenwald "smearing" himself. Such a fucking idiot always Smearing himself.. but, oh

poor GG.. he's getting "smeared" again.

[Major Hogwash]

95. "You are not my ally."

That's petty.

[grasswire]

99. in this thread, you single *that* out as petty? nt

[msanthrope]

127. You are correct....also petty is the claim of "homophobia"

as the reason behind critique of Mr. Greenwald. I dislike GG because he took Koch money and is a tax cheat. Being the intellectual property attorney for Neo-Nazis is also pretty stomach-churning.

[davidpdx]

191. The sad thing is that claim has already been made in this thread by someone

toward a long time member who isn't. So much for civility.

[Behind the Aegis]

198. Some people are only interested in gay "rights" when they can use it as a weapon.

To me, it is a form of homophobia.

[davidpdx]

199. A very good point

I'd alert it, but I can guarantee beyond the shadow of it doubt it won't get hidden.

[TheKentuckian]

275. I find it interesting how many supporters where calling gay rights a "pony" and called advocates

whiners at worse that were in process of setting progress back a generation with said demands "for ponies".

Now those same folks are supposedly fierce advocates and equality is one of the defining issues for them.

[Marr]

111. Dishonest smears are what's petty. /nt

[Union Scribe]

181. Amen.

Shit like the OP are what's wrong with politics. Party hack character assassins are not my allies either.

[Marr]

185. +1

[treestar]

229. The OP only quotes Glenn

So if he can be smeared with his own quotes, how is that the OP's fault?

[ucrdem]

98. Oh how the mighty have fallen.

Here it is nearly election day and Glenn is reduced to squeezing a few stale drops of blowback out of a rather dubious Canadian incident.

Sad.

[Major Hogwash]

100. Fuck Ron Paul!

And his acolytes!!!!


[img]
[/img]

[ucrdem]

103. Panetta basically blew the clown car off the road

and then flattened it for good measure. Personally I don't think it was unintentional. In any case the usual suspects have fallen strangely silent on the subject of the world's greatest terrorist. Refreshing, isn't it?

[Major Hogwash]

105. The GOP Klown Kar ran out of gas in 2012, after blowing all their tires out!

That's why the GOP hasn't moved anywhere in the last 2 years!!!

By the way, who is that older guy in the upper left of that picture?

[PDJane]

107. Noam Chomsky. MIT professor and thorn in the body politic.

[ucrdem]

109. That's Klown King "Obama Is ‘Dedicated To Increasing Terrorism’"

Noam and yeah he's really said that, several times in fact, in several ways:

Noam Chomsky: Obama Is 'Running Biggest Terrorist Operation That Exists'
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017127394

Chomsky: Obama Is ‘Dedicated To Increasing Terrorism’
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017127394

Chomsky praises Snowden and condemns US hypocrisy
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023359571

Noam Chomsky: The U.S. Continues to Be a Terrorist State
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8320633

All 2010 or later. Yeah go figure.

[PDJane]

101. Of course, while the 'terror attack' by a drug-addicted, very confused young man was going down,

Harper was planning to pass draconian surveillance laws. Yes, he did.

Convenient, yes?

[ucrdem]

219. Yes, very.

Funny how life imitates art too. Here's a scene from the last Bond movie where surprise, a "terrorist" arrives to shoot up parliament at a similarly convenient moment:

Coincidence no doubt but convenient nonetheless.

[joshcryer]

102. Clickbait journalism.

[stevenleser]

124. Yep, as a friend of mine said, the journalistic equivalent of trolling. That's who Greenwald is.

And like most trolls, he doesn't care if he is accurate or not. He takes a tiny grain of truth somewhere tangentially attached to an issue and makes this whole big thing out of it that long since exceeded the truth of the matter.

[NanceGreggs]

106. As someone who has lived in Canada ...

... for the past forty years, I can tell you that describing this country as "wallowing in war glory", or having spent "the last thirteen years proclaiming itself a nation at war", is just too laughable for words.

Once again, Greenwald proves that he hasn't a clue as to what he's talking about.

[PDJane]

110. Funny, I have been listening to Harper talk about our illustrious dead for some time now.

He doesn't want to do much for today's vets, but the ones from prior wars can be safely gassed about without having to pay anything.

I've lived in Canada all of my life, and I hate what Harper is doing to this country.

[NanceGreggs]

112. I agree with you about Harper.

But describing Canada - and, obviously, the people who make up this country - as "wallowing in war glory", or having spent "the last thirteen years proclaiming itself a nation at war" is ludicrous.

[PDJane]

113. It's an exaggeration, yes.

Ludicrous? Depends on where you are living and who is around you!

[NanceGreggs]

114. Yeah, an "exaggeration".

A rather big, fat whopper of an exaggeration that has zero basis in fact.

[LawDeeDah]

119. This sounds like Putin's lackey raising his dumbass head over Canada's space.

[msanthrope]

125. What a disgusting insult to Nathan Cirillo. I hope the Highlanders

return the sentiment.

[Bragi]

133. He is correct: Our government IS wallowing in war glory

I'm a Canadian, and Greenwald is correct: Our right wing government has spent its 9 years in office wallowing in war glory, to the approval of the third of the country they need to win elections. All Canadians know that to be the case. The problem is that the 2/3 who would support peace split their votes between 3 parties, allowing the cons to win seats with far less than majority support.

And lest there be any doubt, to the hyperactive Greenwald haters here, I say this: I agree with Greenwald on most things, and consider him to be the most important journalist alive today. No-one else even comes close.

[stevenleser]

140. Oh yes, those rambo transport pilots yield much war glory to wallow in!

[Luminous Animal]

141. Keep pretending their involvement is restricted to only one war.

[stevenleser]

147. Keep pretending I am not responding to the evidence you yourself are providing. nt

[Luminous Animal]

150. Canadian Gen. Natynczyk led 35,000 troops in offensive operations in Iraq.

September 2008: Canada's Real Role in Iraq
Our new Defence Chief commanded U.S. troops in Iraq

- See more at: https://www.policyalternatives.ca/publications/monitor/september-2008-canadas-real-role-iraq#sthash.SlvIJHVr.dpuf

During his three decades of military service, Canada’s new Chief of Defence--L.Gen Walter Natynczyk--has led soldiers in Bosnia, Croatia, Kosovo, and East Timor. But his fighting career reached a crescendo during his 2004 stint in Baghdad.

In that year, while embedded in the highest levels of command of Multi-National Corps Iraq (MNC-I), Natynczyk led 35,000 troops fighting throughout Iraq. Working first as its Deputy Director of Strategy, Policy and Plans, and then as its Deputy Commanding General, he helped MNC I fulfill its mission to conduct "offensive operations to defeat remaining non-compliant forces and neutralize destabilizing influences in Iraq." (This information may be obtained from his senior officer biography.)

Natynczyk's leadership in the Iraq war contradicts one of our country's most popular misconceptions: that the Liberal governments of Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin defiantly stood up to George Bush by refusing to participate in the U.S.-led invasion and occupation of Iraq.

And there is more.

Military participation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_and_the_Iraq_War

Though no declaration of war was issued, the Governor General-in-Council did order the mobilization of a number of Canadian Forces personnel to serve actively in Iraq.[2] On 31 March 2003, it was reported in Maclean's that in the previous month Canadian officers, aboard three frigates and a destroyer, had been placed in command of the multinational naval group Task Force 151, which patrolled the Persian Gulf region. A further 30 Canadians worked at the US Central Command in Qatar, and 150 troops were on exchange with US and British forces in proximity to combat.[4] North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) stationed Canadian Air Force pilots also flew combat missions with the US Air Force E-3 Sentry, and exchange officers fought with US units. Canadian pilots also flew Boeing C-17s into Iraq to "season" the flight crews.[8] In all, 40 to 50 Canadian military members participated in the conflict.


Because of this Canadian involvement in Iraq, the Ministers of the Crown at the time were criticised by Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition as hypocritical, and demands were made for the return of these Canadian Forces personnel. The Prime Minister stated that the Canadian military was not involved in direct combat, while still fulfilling its commitment to NORAD. However, it was claimed by Janice Gross Stein and Eugene Lang in The Unexpected War that people from Canadian ministries were in Washington, D.C., openly vaunting Canada's participation in Iraq;[2] as Stein and Lang put it: "in an almost schizophrenic way, the government bragged publicly about its decision to stand aside from the war in Iraq because it violated core principles of multilateralism and support for the United Nations. At the same time, senior Canadian officials, military officers and politicians were currying favour in Washington, privately telling anyone in the State Department of the Pentagon who would listen that, by some measures, Canada's indirect contribution to the American war effort in Iraq– three ships and 100 exchange officers– exceeded that of all but three other countries that were formally part of the coalition."[2][9]

Amongst the Canadian officers who were sent to Iraq were: Brigadier General Walter Natynczyk, who was later appointed Chief of the Defence Staff; Major General Peter Devlin, who served since 14 December 2006 as Multi-National Corps-Iraq Deputy Command General as part of his role as Deputy Commander of the US III Corps through an officer exchange program;[10] and General Nicolas Matern, a special forces officer and former commander of Canada's elite counter-terrorism unit, who in mid February 2008 began service as deputy to Lieutenant General Lloyd Austin.[11]

[stevenleser]

157. See my #155 above. nt

[MannyGoldstein]

203. It's not the warriors who wallow

It's the prople of wealth and power who send other people's kids into battle, as their own children go to Goldman Sachs. And whoinvest in companies that economically sodomize the poor suckers who went to war.

[malokvale77]

272. I wish I could rec this post

There seems to be a good percentage of posters here who seem to fit that profile, or at the very least, agree with the philosophy.

It is a damned shame what has happened to the democratic party.

[laundry_queen]

196. +1

This fellow Canadian agrees with you.

[treestar]

217. Why are they splitting their votes then?

You inadvertently proved that it's stupid to do that. They could have peace but they split their votes over other issues. Sounds like what is often passively aggressively advocated here about abandoning the Democratic party for not being liberal enough. Talk about letting the conservatives win.

Glenn is an editorialist, not a journalist. And that amount of worship is unhealthy.

[Bragi]

222. Why do we split our votes?

Polls show that most people who vote NDP or Liberal want the parties to cooperate so we can defeat the conservatives. Stalwart organisers and apparachnics from both parties care more right now about defeating each other than they do about defeating the cons. That's how 1/3 of the voters now run Canada.

Yes, I think there is a lesson here for Democrats: If you had 2 centre-left parties for centre-left voters, you risk having the GOP in power representing a minority if voters. Not fun.

We disagree on Greenwald. I don't "worship" him, I just admire his work, and acknowledge his huge influence right now as a journalist.

[laundry_queen]

242. I don't necessarily think it's a lesson for Democrats

as the way our system works, a split on the right is why we had more than a decade of Liberal rule here - it works both ways in Canada. The US system just isn't set up the same way, so yeah, it's not good. But I wouldn't want to see a 2 party system here in Canada.

And I agree with you on Greenwald - and so do most Canadian journalists. His interview with Peter Mansbridge was really good.

[MineralMan]

143. Time to change your Depends, Glenn.

You've shat yourself once again. Pity, that.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

148. You can read the same thing a dozen times a day, right here. nt

[Peacetrain]

154. Why am I not the least bit surprised by this..

While back in mother Russia.. ahem.. as they support the destruction of the Ukraine..

[stevenleser]

168. Kick nt

[Union Scribe]

182. Par for the course though. nt

[Marr]

189. +1

[AgingAmerican]

210. It is what a person does

...when they are wrong and facts are not on their side.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

183. This clown was a homeless crackhead drifter according to the Calgary news

I think any deep analysis is probably wasted here.

[Fumesucker]

186. BOOOM!!

And tiny fragments of the OP splash gently into the water for hundreds of meters around...

[riderinthestorm]

220. Why the hell was Union Scribes post hidden? S/He simply re-posted Cali Democrats own words!

Its insanity!! It's directly related to this OP.

(And since I can't reply to US directly I picked the first post to respond to...)

I hope anyone else reading this convo reads that hidden post.

[QC]

221. Many people here approach jury duty like ninth graders voting for homecoming king.

From time to time there are enough of them on a jury to result in something like this.

[Marr]

225. The fact that Union Scribe's post was hidden only makes this crew look twice as bad.

I mean, it's bad enough to make dishonest, hypocritical arguments. But it's even more cowardly to just hide a post because it proves that fact, rather than engaging.

[QC]

227. Par for the course.

Not shocking at all.

[Fumesucker]

228. Then there's this...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025712478

[riderinthestorm]

230. I saw that... Nt

[Iggo]

264. Hmm.

Well.

[malokvale77]

273. Hmmm

I wondered about that myself. I hadn't read this thread at the time.

[tritsofme]

235. I was on the jury, still don't understand why it was hidden.

On Sat Oct 25, 2014, 02:18 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

Cali_Democrat: US deserved 9/11; Had it Coming
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5711931

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

This accusation is false, and making such a claim about another member is over-the-top. This is a discussion board, where we discuss public figures, and personal attacks on other members are inappropriate. Please hide, thank you.

JURY RESULTS

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat Oct 25, 2014, 02:35 AM, and the Jury voted 4-3 to HIDE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: If the original post is making false accusations then the post is highly inappropriate and should be deleted
It is the responsibility of the individual making the accusation to either place the 'claim' in the same thread or provide a link.
Hide it
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Meh... hypocrisy is fair game.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Agree with alerter. Referencing a 2-year-old post to diss a longtime DUer is inappropriate.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: disgusting that you would try to hide this...pathetic.
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given

[deurbano]

250. Wow. I hadn't seen that. Don't understand why it was hidden.

[truebrit71]

260. How dare someone point out that the OP said the same thing...

... that Greenwald said.... that's hypocrisy.... or something....

[Comrade Grumpy]

233. Rank hypocrisy, thy name is...

[Douglas Carpenter]

266. What Union Scribe posted was objectively and empirically true - It is flat out impossible for ANYONE

operating in the world of reality and reason to deny this. This truly shows the twisted and perverse mindset of the personality cult purist who believe with all their heart that telling any lie, advancing any falsehood propagating any act of deceit is completely legitimate if it serves what they think in their depraved minds is the interest of "the PARTY" and its leadership. Mao's Red Guard never had such intellectual servitude as this.

[Marr]

190. OH MY GOD.

I think I've got the vapors. What an America-hater.

I assume all the curses that applied to Greenwald here also apply to Cali Democrat. Right, Hate Club?

[grasswire]

209. you winh the thread nt

[baldguy]

218. Just Greenwald self-identifying as an asshole again.

That he must use so many words merely shows that he's inconsiderate too.

Nothing new here.

[Marr]

226. Is Cali_Democrat an asshole, too?

Just asking. The post showing him/her expressing exactly the same sentiment (#184, above) was hidden without even getting a response from CD or any of the people cheering this dishonest, chickenshit smear-- but you can still see it by clicking "Show".

[arthritisR_US]

232. What he is addressing is 'blowback' and

that unfortunately is a reality.

I'm a Canadian and have had to watch as Harper pees all over our good name and reputation.

[Comrade Grumpy]

234. These continuing anti-Greenwald tantrums are an embarrassment to DU.

A lot of it is on the intellectual level of "he's a big poopie-head."

[truebrit71]

255. There are a vocal few that cannot help themselves...

... it's almost as if they had a set agenda, or something...

[GliderGuider]

246. As a left-wing Canadian with family roots going back to the CCF, I have to say

I agree with him 100%. This is Canada's very own version of the 9/11 blowback.

[Man from Pickens]

265. Rather astonishing

that anyone believed they could engage in war after war in the Middle East, while participating in an increasingly globalized world, and not see the violence done abroad return home

stop bombing people and they won't see you as the enemy - it's not that tough, folks

[Fawke Em]

268. Congrats on learning how to spread propaganda.

Really?

[Tarheel_Dem]

280. Politico: "Has Greenwald, Inc. Peaked? Thanks to Ed Snowden, Glenn Greenwald went from blogging....

to the big time. But his stock may be dropping fast."

Boom. Bust. Bye.

Only a year and a half ago, Greenwald was a left-wing blogger who was known mainly to a devoted band of online followers for his invariably harsh view of American national security policy and fierce advocacy of openness in government. Among those who was said to follow Greenwald’s writings was a discontented digital operative working deep inside what both he and Greenwald viewed as a Big Brother-style surveillance state. That guy’s name was Edward Snowden.

Today, riding on his international fame—a winner of the Pulitzer Prize, among other awards— Greenwald is still a one-man exposure industry whose main stock in trade remains these same “Snowden archives.” He continues to drizzle out fresh revelations about the NSA based on Snowden’s documents, including some neatly timed with the rollout of his book, No Place to Hide, in May. He has started up a digital magazine called The Intercept from his base in Brazil—with 20 journalists hired so far, and 30 more hires to come, he says—thanks to backing from a new $250 million company called First Look Media founded by billionaire admirer Pierre Omidyar, the French-Iranian-American creator of eBay. Omidyar and Greenwald also have launched a new foundation to help journalists in legal trouble, the Press Freedom Litigation Fund, the first grantee of which is Greenwald’s Brazilian live-in partner, David Miranda. Though he’s not a journalist, Miranda is suing the British government over the seizure of Greenwald’s documents, which the Brazilian was trying to carry to his partner by going through London’s Heathrow Airport in August of last year.

Will there be many more Snowdens to come, based on Greenwald’s “model”? Perhaps. But it’s more likely that Greenwald Inc. has already peaked. The NSA, duly chastened by Snowden’s leaks, is changing under presidential directives that will rein in its mass collection of telephone “metadata”—its most controversial program—while most of the rest of us have moved on. “I think there’s a bit of Snowden fatigue out there right now,” said former NSA director Michael Hayden, who points to the public’s less-than-inflamed response to Greenwald’s recent revelation that the NSA under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) monitored five prominent Muslim-Americans whose names appeared among 7,485 email addresses examined between 2002 and 2008. Greenwald “thought that FISA thing was going to be a grand finale for the fireworks display, but frankly it didn’t bounce very much,” said Hayden.

Snowden’s personal stock appears to be in decline as well. At the end of July Rick Ledgett, the same NSA official who late last year floated the idea of amnesty for Snowden in exchange for the documents he hadn’t yet disclosed, told the Aspen Security Forum that the calculus had since changed. The secrets that the NSA leaker escaped with have grown somewhat outdated. “As time goes on, the utility for us of having that conversation becomes less,” Ledgett said.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/09/glenn-greenwald-inc-peaked-110576.html#ixzz3HKfiqvHO