As has been noted frequently, but with disappointingly little effect, that phrase "war on terror" is itself a consciously fashioned frame, and an extremely successful one.
If the effort to deal with terrorism is a war, that provides an excuse for all the things commonly done in wars, even war crimes. If the war is not against a specific enemy, just "terror," anyone you want to target is fair game.
And since those pesky terrorists can pop up anywhere, anytime, the war can go on forever and probably will. And because the phrase is just so darned easy to say, even people who know better keep on using it and reinforcing the frame nonetheless.
Careem was also the brains behind the UK tribute to Nelson Mandela, which included a House of Common Book of Tribute messages, a poem by the poet laureate, a song by the diva Joan Armatrading and a concert in Trafalgars Square. He is currently working on promoting and producing a major anti-hate play about his close freind Eva Schloss - step-sister of wartime diarist Anne Frank. Careem also recently launched with his close freind the TV star June Sarpong and US Star John Legend their plan to help address extreme poverty in the African states of Ghana and Mozambique. Careem is also Campaigns manager for London Mayoral candidate - founder of the Big Issue John Bird
Nonpartisan, historically literate, objective readers will understand that Sadaam Hussein was indeed the prime mover that set the chain of events leading to 9/11 in motion. His invasion of Kuwait led to the first Gulf War.
You can debate whether responding to Saddam's invasion of Kuwait was or was not the right thing to do, but the U.S. didn't have to do it. It takes two to tango.
You've arbitrarily chosen one link at which to cut off the causal chain of events that led to 9/11. For example, you don't mention all the enabling support Saddam received from the U.S. before he invaded Kuwait. The most you can say about Saddam Hussein in relation to 9/11 (although it doubtless made his day when he heard the news) is that he was one of many indirect and unwitting sub-prime movers.
We know that Al Qaeda was in Iraq prior to our 2003 invasion.
Um...not really. How many were there? A half-dozen? Fifty? Several thousand? Where did they go, who did they talk to, and what did they do? Please give us something less ectoplasmic than "it is certainly not beyond the realm of possibility" and more directly relevant to 9/11 than Saddam's support for suicide bombers in Israel. All you've offered is a lot of speculation and one unsupported claim that "we know" something we don't.
And many would want to pin a medal on Hussein for trying to kill a Bush. For those of you with such sentiments, imagine if it was a Clinton Sadaam had put a hit on.
Just what makes nonpartisan, historically literate, objective you think any of us would harbor such sentiments? It's a gratuitous, sleazy accusation, and it makes me wonder if you really don't harbor that very wish about Bill Clinton.
And yes, the claim that Saddam Hussein was personally involved in 9/11 really is a Big Lie.
Nonpartisan, historically literate, objective readers will understand that Sadaam Hussein was indeed the prime mover that set the chain of events leading to 9/11 in motion. His invasion of Kuwait led to the first Gulf War. Deployment of US troops on Saudi soil was Osama Bin Laden's causus belli for declaring war on the US. 9/11 was (to date) the most successful operation in that ongoing war, arguably followed in effectiveness by the Al Qaeda led insurgency in Iraq. So Iraq has been and will continue to be a central front in the war against the jihadis, regardless of the outcome of the current US incursion.
To seek revenge for Gulf War I, Huessein attempted to assassinate George Bush the elder while the former President was in Kuwait, evidence that the Baathist swere aggressively and recklessly seeking revenge for their humiliating defeat.
While no "smoking gun" has been found to connect 9/11 with active Baathist involvement, it has been well documented that the regime supported terorism against Israel by awarding "martyrdom" death benefits to families of suicide/homicide bombers. We know that Al Qaeda was in Iraq prior to our 2003 invasion. It is certainly not beyond the realm of possibility, in spite the chilly relations between the two, that at some point after Gulf War I "the enemy of my enemy became my friend", to paraphrase the Arab saying. One certainly wouldn't advertise or document such connections for fear of the wrath of the US. As Don Rumsfeld once said about WMD, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".
Of course, there are few nonpartisan, historical literates among us these days. And many would want to pin a medal on Hussein for trying to kill a Bush. For those of you with such sentiments, imagine if it was a Clinton Sadaam had put a hit on. And remember that the enemies of the current President are as eager to kill you as they are to kill him.
Sacramento Bee - March 30, 2007
[http://www.sacbee.com/101/story/146589.html More lung damage found: Another 22 workers have breathing problems linked to butter flavoring]
By Chris Bowman
Ongoing medical screening of California flavoring industry workers has turned up another 22 young employees with abnormally low lung capacity -- evidence of chemical poisoning on the job -- a top state health official said.
The workers will undergo further testing to determine whether they have a "fixed obstructive airway" disease, an untreatable impairment strongly linked to a butter-mimicking chemical called diacetyl, said Kevin Reilly, the health department's deputy director of preventative services.
[. . .]
Earlier this year, state health and job safety officials confirmed that at least eight workers have lost nearly all use of their lungs.
"These employees are very young. They are nonsmoking, and they're Latino," Reilly said.
[. . .]
The food industry favors workplace restrictions over a chemical ban.
As has been noted frequently, but with disappointingly little effect, that phrase "war on terror" is itself a consciously fashioned frame, and an extremely successful one.
If the effort to deal with terrorism is a war, that provides an excuse for all the things commonly done in wars, even war crimes. If the war is not against a specific enemy, just "terror," anyone you want to target is fair game.
And since those pesky terrorists can pop up anywhere, anytime, the war can go on forever and probably will. And because the phrase is just so darned easy to say, even people who know better keep on using it and reinforcing the frame nonetheless.
Careem was also the brains behind the UK tribute to Nelson Mandela, which included a House of Common Book of Tribute messages, a poem by the poet laureate, a song by the diva Joan Armatrading and a concert in Trafalgars Square. He is currently working on promoting and producing a major anti-hate play about his close freind Eva Schloss - step-sister of wartime diarist Anne Frank. Careem also recently launched with his close freind the TV star June Sarpong and US Star John Legend their plan to help address extreme poverty in the African states of Ghana and Mozambique. Careem is also Campaigns manager for London Mayoral candidate - founder of the Big Issue John Bird
You can debate whether responding to Saddam's invasion of Kuwait was or was not the right thing to do, but the U.S. didn't have to do it. It takes two to tango.
You've arbitrarily chosen one link at which to cut off the causal chain of events that led to 9/11. For example, you don't mention all the enabling support Saddam received from the U.S. before he invaded Kuwait. The most you can say about Saddam Hussein in relation to 9/11 (although it doubtless made his day when he heard the news) is that he was one of many indirect and unwitting sub-prime movers.
Um...not really. How many were there? A half-dozen? Fifty? Several thousand? Where did they go, who did they talk to, and what did they do? Please give us something less ectoplasmic than "it is certainly not beyond the realm of possibility" and more directly relevant to 9/11 than Saddam's support for suicide bombers in Israel. All you've offered is a lot of speculation and one unsupported claim that "we know" something we don't.
Just what makes nonpartisan, historically literate, objective you think any of us would harbor such sentiments? It's a gratuitous, sleazy accusation, and it makes me wonder if you really don't harbor that very wish about Bill Clinton.
And yes, the claim that Saddam Hussein was personally involved in 9/11 really is a Big Lie.
Nonpartisan, historically literate, objective readers will understand that Sadaam Hussein was indeed the prime mover that set the chain of events leading to 9/11 in motion. His invasion of Kuwait led to the first Gulf War. Deployment of US troops on Saudi soil was Osama Bin Laden's causus belli for declaring war on the US. 9/11 was (to date) the most successful operation in that ongoing war, arguably followed in effectiveness by the Al Qaeda led insurgency in Iraq. So Iraq has been and will continue to be a central front in the war against the jihadis, regardless of the outcome of the current US incursion.
To seek revenge for Gulf War I, Huessein attempted to assassinate George Bush the elder while the former President was in Kuwait, evidence that the Baathist swere aggressively and recklessly seeking revenge for their humiliating defeat.
While no "smoking gun" has been found to connect 9/11 with active Baathist involvement, it has been well documented that the regime supported terorism against Israel by awarding "martyrdom" death benefits to families of suicide/homicide bombers. We know that Al Qaeda was in Iraq prior to our 2003 invasion. It is certainly not beyond the realm of possibility, in spite the chilly relations between the two, that at some point after Gulf War I "the enemy of my enemy became my friend", to paraphrase the Arab saying. One certainly wouldn't advertise or document such connections for fear of the wrath of the US. As Don Rumsfeld once said about WMD, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".
Of course, there are few nonpartisan, historical literates among us these days. And many would want to pin a medal on Hussein for trying to kill a Bush. For those of you with such sentiments, imagine if it was a Clinton Sadaam had put a hit on. And remember that the enemies of the current President are as eager to kill you as they are to kill him.
And that's no lie!
Sacramento Bee - March 30, 2007
[http://www.sacbee.com/101/story/146589.html More lung damage found: Another 22 workers have breathing problems linked to butter flavoring]
By Chris Bowman
Ongoing medical screening of California flavoring industry workers has turned up another 22 young employees with abnormally low lung capacity -- evidence of chemical poisoning on the job -- a top state health official said.
The workers will undergo further testing to determine whether they have a "fixed obstructive airway" disease, an untreatable impairment strongly linked to a butter-mimicking chemical called diacetyl, said Kevin Reilly, the health department's deputy director of preventative services.
[. . .]
Earlier this year, state health and job safety officials confirmed that at least eight workers have lost nearly all use of their lungs.
"These employees are very young. They are nonsmoking, and they're Latino," Reilly said.
[. . .]
The food industry favors workplace restrictions over a chemical ban.
Pages