Skip to comments.New poll says most Canadians blame U.S. for 9/11 attacks
Posted on 09/07/2006 8:31:19 AM PDT by jmc1969
A majority of Canadians believe U.S. foreign policy was one of the root causes that led to the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, and Quebecers are quicker to criticize the U.S. administration for its international actions than other Canadians, a recent poll suggests.
Those conclusions are found in a newly released poll conducted by Léger Marketing for the Association for Canadian Studies.
The poll suggests that 77 per cent of Quebecers polled primarily blame American foreign policy for the Sept. 11 attacks. The results suggest 57 per cent in Ontario hold a similar view.
Canadian opinions have hardened against the United States and its role on the world stage, said Jack Jedwab, executive director of the Association for Canadian Studies. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have contributed to a change of heart among people, he said.
(Excerpt) Read more at cbc.ca ...
CommonSense, your post is a perfect illustration of what is stereotypically called the 'Obnoxious American' in places outside the U.S. Canadian policy, domestic and foreign, is independent of the U.S. It is rude and vulgar to expect the resident citizens of other nations to be loyal to a country that is not theirs. And to compare the interrupted travelers of 9/11 to draft dodgers is asinine. By and large, Canadian people have demonstrated their hospitality many times and don't attach strings to it. Can you say the same?
Dino's first rule of polls: All polls are crap.
You pick up a NY Times and the headline reads, "The MAJORITY of Americans are disapprove of the Bush Administration. Many people predict the Republican party will soon be disbanded".
Then somewhere in the last paragraph on page Z-6, you find out that the poll was conducted at 11:00am on Sunday morning in a shopping mall in Ithaca, NY, and the question actually asked was, "Are you satisfied with the performance of your government?"
And making it even more funny, these people are also likely the same people who complain the most loudly that we (the USA) don't get enough respect when someone or something does not go our way.
I would think, and still do, that a huge number of americans were dumbshi&s for voting for Bill "the swine" Clinton. I have no problem with calling a spade a spade, but the old tactic, just used by Chavez by the way, is that you are ok, but the guy you put in office sucks. I like americans, but President Bush is a jerkoff. Well, Bush won a majority of the popular vote and electoral vote in the last election. Do not patronize me by saying Bush is a fool, but I'm ok. If you think that voting for Bush was stupid, have the balls to say so.
That really bugs you doesn't it? Oh, well. Like the extremist terrorists muzzie murdering enemy is really going to use the fact that I don't do the capitalization as a tool against the USA. Hee Hee.
GMMAC & all,
I have NOT changed my FR home pg since I originally created it. I presume GMMAC you're accusing me since you've already referred to my home pg in another post.
I'm real close to accusing you of lying about me but I'm not saying you did YET BUT I very well could say that you did if you continue to accuse me of altering said pg or don't state that it was another that did the changing of their pg.
You can keep calling me a troll if you like, I guess, but no matter how many times you say it it still isn't true. As for your other adjectives in describing me...well I guess you're entitled to your opinion no matter how wrong.
See last line I said to GMMAC.
See last line I said to GMMAC.
When one claims to be a "friend" to another they should not do things against them. Examp, If someone had a "friend" who had a spouse that abandoned them & their kids & wasn't paying child support (even though they had the means to do so) that they agreed to (VOLUNTEERED to) in the divorce settlement...should that someone help hide the runaway spouse in their home & prevent the authorities from getting the runaway spouse to charge them w/ failure to pay child support? And if they did hide them & prevent them from being turned over should the friend & their children still consider the hider their "friend"? Of course not. Even if in the past the hider had helped them in some other manner. The country of canada has been letting USA military personnel that VOLUNTEERED for military service then become deserters stay up there & individual citizens are helping those same deserters financially incl but not ltd to providing housing for them. Also, I wasn't comparing the passengers of the planes on 9-11 to the deserters but was just pointing out that just b/c someone does something good doesn't mean that they always do in all situations.
I'm sure if the events of 9/11 had been reversed btwn the USA & canada we would have done the same w/o discussion of "strings".
(1) Since I've not repeated it to you directly & in case you missed it b/c the partial post of mine you quoted didn't show my previous "reserve" (b/c I so previously said the reserve from before the post that you quoted me from) so I'll tell you directly.
"I reserve the right to make individual decisions per canadian citizen"
Now that reserve means that I can & do make what you might call exceptions to the "on the whole". I'm not going to give you a "list" since I don't have one written down any place & I think I don't have to tell you specific names anyway.
(2) 1st, I still maintain that the whole/complete sentence is correct (not a lie). 2nd How do you know what poll's I've seen to make your statement b/c I did say "...poll after poll I see..."? Answer is: You don't. Since you can't know then your allegation of me lying is wrong. 3rd I never said "blame Americans". I've said "blame us" & "blame the USA" which I meant in both cases as blaming the USA in general. 4th I was referring to polls in re to placing blame for 9-11 not any other kinds of poll.
So you are incorrect re your allegations to me b/c I did not lie (notice I said "incorrect" not that you lied which is what you accused me of...even though I could say that you lied about me but I didn't/won't [even though I could & probably should] b/c to do so would be accusing you of purposely/knowingly mistating facts which is what a lie really is).
conservative in nyc,
You keep referring to the word "primarily". Technically, Where, pray tell, did I ever use that word in any of my postings? Answer: Nowhere.
Now granted previously to this post of mine I had never been to the link you provided & I was only posting according to the info I had at the time of ea posting, however, after reading the info at the link I'm still of the opinion that I don't like/agree w/ the opinons of the canadians reflected in the poll results.
As where I didn't use the words "primarily"/"primary" right there on pg 2 & elsewhere repeatedly @ the link it does use the word "primarily". (Which is probably why the CBC link used the word.) Examp of where the link used it - Quote: "A similar share (63%) believe that the Sept. 11 attacks were primarily the result of U.S. Foreign Policy." So I suggest that if you have a problem w/ the word "primarily" & how/when it's used & the corresponding results you take it up w/ the researchers/poll writers/link composers not I. And if you have a problem w/ the way I'm intrepretating the data then you also have a problem w/ the way Claire Hoy intrepretats/views it too. Now I certainly don't agree w/ everything the man says in his life but he has written an article discussing this poll & the other canadian poll about the "9/11 conspiracy" & it's results. http://www.citizen.on.ca/news/2006/0914/columns/036.html
The link clearly uses the words "primarily the result of" in ea area & then they gave them choices of "Strongly Agree", "Somewhat Agree", "Somewhat Disagree" & "Totally Disagree". The results on the question/statment of "The Sept. 11 attacks were primarily the result of U.S. Foreign Policy" was 26% "Strongly Agree" & 37% "Somwhat Agree" resulting in the total of 63% agreeing in some manner which, IMHO, is far too high. Only 11% "Strongly Disagreed" & 13% "Somewhat Disagreed" for a total 24% disagreeing w/ the question/statment which, IMHO, is far too low.
BTW, I did notice there were differentials incl one of 13% (but the link said 12%) & I can't explain that so you'll have to ask them but I do know that no matter who creates/designs poll there is usually some differential. And if you have a problem w/ the acutal responders not making sense btwn the 3 questions/statements I suggest you find them & take it up w/ them.
Check out the result I also found @ the link for the following question/statement:
"Tell me if you STRONGLY AGREE, SOMEWHAT AGREE, SOMEWHAT DISAGREE or STRONGLY DISAGREE with the following statements? Canada needs to be more sensitive to the concerns expressed by members of terrorist organizations in the Middle East."
The results were: 15% "Strongly Agree" & 34% "Somewhat Agree" resulting in a total of 49% agree in some manner. 15/34/49%!!! What the (fill-in)?!?! "Sensitive"?!?! Does that mean that some or all of those respondants think canadians should find out their concerns & be "sensitive" about them so they can be capitulated to in some manner? I Hope not. I certainly hope that @ least some of them only mean they think canada just needs to be informed of what terrorist orgs are "concerned" about in order to use that info against the enemy in some manner...as in "Know thy enemy". Now, on the other side the results were 19% St. Da../23% So. Da./42% Da. in some manner w/ the question/statement & a differential of 9%.
Now in re to my post part that said: "But when given a choice of picking only one the majority (esp from quebec) picked the USA.". You need to talk to the cbc staff & other canadian media staff b/c that is what they said, no I didn't find that in the link you gave but maybe they got it somewhere else you'd have to as them.
Stop calling me a troll for I AM NOT a troll. What I see as your incessant name calling of me & other false accusations of me, a fellow poster - newbie or not, is growing tiresome. I've gotten accused by another of being childish, well IMHO, the continued name calling of a fellow poster is what is childish.
And I am not going to answer any more of your questions/accusations unless/until you either say that you WEREN'T accusing ME of changing my FR home pg (in an attempt to "hide" something) or if you WERE accusing me... until you retract the incorrect statement of accusing me of changing my FR home pg. It is one thing to disagree w/ my opinions/conclusions/analysis of things BUT quite another to make completely inaccurate statements about what I have/have not done esp when it insinuates deception on my part.
I was using the general "you" not you specifically though the post was addressed to you. I forgot to check back, but I believe that my initial post was to Capt. Canada for his post which may have been #222. His post irked me.
My apologies for not being clear.
It hard to argue with such genius, but let's see if I understand the beauty of your logic:
If Americans elect Bill Clinton twice (which they did) and vast majority of Canadians like Americans, but 40% don't like Bill Clinton and his policies, then (by your logic) Canadians are anti-American? Correct?
And how is that any different from the current situation where the same majority of Canadians like Americans, but a sizeable portion don't like Bush or his policies?
Liberal Canadians will always dislike a Republican POTUS' policies and Conservative Canadians will always dislike a Democrat POTUS' policies and because of that (according to your logic), Canadians will always be anti-American.
CommonNoSense are you so thick that you can't see when you are making no impact whatsoever. Why don't you go and converse with the lunar left where you belong.
How moronic does one have to be not to see the difference between Pierre Trudeau and Stephen Harper?
Ohhhh, my head hurts - you have me mentally wrapped around the axle with all that so, I can only respond by giving you a good old fashioned Canadian kick in the nuts:
I was referring to YOUR, as in YOUR, comment in post 222. I did not address what Canadians think.
If you weren't such an arrogant ass who thinks that he speaks for all Canadians you might be tolerable. So once again, put it up your arrogant, condescending, ignorant, blow hole.
In case you haven't read any history books, the Japanese bombed the us (if its good enough for Canada its good enough for the US) during World War 2. Does that mean you spell Japan with a small j?
I have reread my post (#222) and fail to see what part of it you either take issue with or disagree with or where I speak "for all Canadians"..
I simply stated facts as they are.
As for being an arrogant ass, that may be, but it doesn't make me wrong (or ignorant)...