CU prof's essay sparks dispute (9-11 victims not innocent)

[agitpropagent9]

A University of Colorado professor has sparked controversy in New York over an essay he wrote that maintains that people killed in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks were not innocent victims.

<snip>

The essay maintains that the people killed inside the Pentagon were "military targets."

"As for those in the World Trade Center," the essay said, "well, really, let's get a grip here, shall we? True enough, they were civilians of a sort. But innocent? Gimme a break."

The essay goes on to describe the victims as "little Eichmanns," referring to Adolph Eichmann, who executed Adolph Hitler's plan to exterminate Jews during World War II.

http://www.insidedenver.com/drmn/education/article/0,1299,DRMN_957_3501617,00.html

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

1. What is this guy smoking?

[el_gato]

31. Well before you get all apoplectic maybe you ought to look him up

Ward Churchill knows what he is talking about. He is an American Indian and a hell of an author at that.

On the Justice of Roosting Chickens: Reflections on the Consequences of U.S. Imperial Arrogance and Criminality by Ward Churchill
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbninquiry.asp?pwb=1&ean=9781902593791

Ineterview of Ward Churchill
http://www.zmag.org/ZMag/articles/dec95barsamian.htm

[TexasLawyer]

66. Still sounds like he's smoking serious crack...

[el_gato]

68. Go read Confessions of an Economic Hit Man

Here is an interview with John Perkins describing what he did
while working for the NSA. Now tell me this type of behavior does not
involve guilt. I think John Perkins wouldn't disagree with the
label "little Eichmans" at all.
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/11/09/1526251

[Bono71]

88. Even if this is true, you think this equates murder? And didn't the other

governments have a choice in accepting the debt in the first place? And are we not in the process of dropping much third world debt?

I am sure the 9-11 Terrorists were citing this article as they ran the planes into the buildings.

Little Boy Victimhood.

[Name removed]

90. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bono71]

95. Religious Fanatisism cause this...

it has zero to do with our policies under Carter, Clinton, Bush I, or Reagan...

On edit: deleted 'racism' as a cause.

[el_gato]

107. No it didn't, death and suffering caused this

You really are ignorant of U.S. foreign policy. I'll excuse you for that since, unless you had been closely following it, you would never have heard about what has been going on in the mainstream media. Now is a chance for you to educate yourself a little. Read ON:

"When asked on US television if she thought that the death of half a million Iraqi children was a price worth paying, Albright replied: "This is a very hard choice, but we think the price is worth it."" -- John Pilger, "Squeezed to Death", Guardian, March 4, 2000

http://www.guardian.co.uk/weekend/story/0,3605,232986,00.html

[Bono71]

118. Sensationalism at its best...the Gaurdian is a tabloid...you might

as well read the National Inquirer.

With respect to Churchill's essay, he loses credibility in the second paragraph when he states the US bombing of Iraqi infrastructure was a crime against humanity. Oh, really? Were not over 50 countries (backed by a UN Mandate) fighting Iraq over it unprovoked INVASION of another country? By this logic, Churchill thinks the roosters should come home to every country that was involved in Gulf 1, including Canada...those damned Canucks.

The smartest thing this country did after WWII was setting up the Marshall Plan. We should do the smae for the 3rd world countries in Africa and the mid-east to combat that region's form of nazi fascism (Fanatical Islam).

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

120. The Guardian is not a tabloid. You must be thinking Daily Mirror. n/t

[Bono71]

126. If that is true, my apologies...though I thought they were both

tabloids.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

129. It is true. It seems to me that by the journalistic standards I've seen as

of late. The true tabloids are the Washington Post and The NYT. What exactly made the Guardian a tabloid in your opinion? The fact that they don't read like papers in the US perhaps? I'm curious.

[Bono71]

133. Spent time in London on business and read it once or twice...

also had a couple of (very liberal) British friends call them both sensationalistic (if that is a word).

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

142. By what you read, did it seem like a "tabloid" to you?

Also I must point out that the word "tabloid" is used differently over there. The National Enquirer is in no way like The Mirror even. To them tabloid means sensational journalism. Not that it mkes up fake stories like tabloids in the US. There is a big difference.

[Bono71]

148. Understand...that is why in my first post I used the word

"sensational." Boil it down, bs is bs.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

153. Showing a picture of Bush senior fishing w/ the Invisible Man

and choosing REAL stories that will appeal to the lowest common denominator (because of their sensational appeal) is not the same thing. Don't you agree?

What in the paper seemed to you that was being made up or completely exagerated? I gues that is my question.

[Bono71]

157. I am stating that I though it was SENSATIONAL. n/t

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

164. But still a lot better than US newspapers. Would you agree? n/t

[Bono71]

174. I am partial to the NYTimes. I personally think it is less

sensational. Not as good as it used to be, but still the best.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

177. Even though they make shit up?

I mean Judith Miller (who seems to be able to pull stories out of her ass), the other guy that was making stories up (Jason something)....... What's the deal with that guy Friedman anyway? I don't think the New York Times has seen a US war they didn't like. It's a pretty shitty paper, I think. Don't even get me started on the Wash. Post.

If that's journalism. I'll take sensationalism any day. At least those other "tabloids" seem to be getting their shit straight. Ya' know what I mean?

[Bono71]

178. Lol..I like the Post as well. I think both papers came out and apologized

for their coverage of the war...they definitely ain't what they used to be.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

182. Oh man tell me about it.

I mean they apoligized alright. But it seems to me they served their purpose. Didn't they. I mean, you have a frightened nation - then bulshit scary stories to prop up the war - BOOM they go to war. "Oh we're soooo sorry. But it will never happen again" (wink-wink-nod-nod). They're both s-o-r-r-y indeed.

[Bono71]

188. I think it was sloppy journalism vs an intentional act of misconduct. n/t

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

192. That's Bush's excuse too. But we know better ;- )

It seems to me nobody is ever held accountable for lying to the people. It's funny how "sloppy journalism" alwys seems to benefit the "fucked up foreign policy Du Juor". The NYT was pretty upbeat about the Vietnam debacle until they couldn't whore it out anymore. Didn't they learn from that? It's funny how life works. I guess.

[el_gato]

181. NYT was instrumental in helping bushco justify the invasion of iraq

[Bono71]

183. I don't think so, I think Bushco itself was instrumental in playing on the

country's collective fear, and would have been successful with or without the NYT. The readership of the NYT compared to the viewership of the Big 3 TV newscasts is very small.

[el_gato]

186. I guess you never heard of Judith Miller or Chalabi?

The role NYT played was to make Bush and the administrations exaggerations credible to people just like you.

[Bono71]

191. I didn't go along with the war if that is what you are insinuating

and I certainly didn't vote for Bush.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

189. Sure, but a lot of bullshit stories the networks did.

Would use the NYT as a basis. Wouldn't you agree?

[JoFerret]

163. The Independent -

- home of Robert Fisk - actually IS a tabloid. The Daily Mirror- home of John Pilger - great journo - IS a tabloid.
The question is not the size of the paper but the quality of the writing and reporting.

[Name removed]

122. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bono71]

124. And I enjoyed how you dodged the

initial point that the infrastructure was bombed as a result of Iraq's invasion of Kuwait and was sanctioned BY THE UN.

[el_gato]

137. Again your lack of background knowledge shows

Maybe you should go look up the State Department communications with Iraq days before that event. Take a look at what was said. Also go look up the PR firm that was used to promote Gulf War I. Next you should dig a little furhter into the history of U.S. involvement with the regimes of the middle east.

[el_gato]

140. You are the one dodging the facts here

Now how do you address the comment by Madeline Albright?

[Bono71]

146. I have no idea 1) if that comment was made and 2) the context

in which it was made...those caveats aside, it is disgusting.

Again, if I were in charge, a Marshall Plan (instead of unlimited warfare) would be the way I would choose to combat the evil (yes, evil) Fanatical Islam presents the world.

[frictionlessO]

159. what about the evil (yes evil) that fanatical christians employ?

their mullahs, our evangelists= same difference.

[Bono71]

168. Excuse me,

Othello, this thread is about 9-11 and whether the victims were innocent or not. In case you weren't around back in September of 2001, evil Muslim fanatics hijacked 4 airplanes and murdered 3000 people over the course of 2 hours.

For the record, I can't stand religious nuts of any persuasion. Though, it seems to me, Fanatical Islam is a greater danger to world stability than fanatical Christianity (unless you're an abortion provider, and I don't think a Marshall Plan could save those dip shits from bombing abortion clinics--God only knows what it would take to save their souls.).

[Name removed]

179. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

194. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

195. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

197. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bono71]

202. Your post seems to state the US a government gets a free

pass for atrocities, I never stated that, so I won't respond.

[frictionlessO]

203. Loved the Othello reference! hehehe...

I wasnt calling you out, just making sure you dont forget about the deadly crazy threat of fundies is all. Because right now it is "their" leader running the world. They believe that he was elected through theirs and their gods will.

and said with all the hutzpah of an old Big Red commercial
"no little terrorist organization is gonna kill more people than the neocon agenda."

Please let me make myself clear on this as well Im a LIHOPer so in my view bushco is evenly resposnsible right off the bat.

You do know that right now a large chunk of the world considers us the larger threat??? I do not really agree in total with the essay I think the pentagon was a legitimate military target the manner of attack was not legitimate. The WTC was not a legitimate target and same goes for method.

Let me ask you something if the terrorists hadnt used civil aircraft and had only targeted military/government offices would they in fact still be terrorists?

also do your research on the first gulf war and what really led up to it (start looking after about a year from when Saddam took office). This stuff is common knowledge in the ME and isnt hyped up out of some fanatics mouth.

Finally, Im a devout pacifist so I abhor all violence, ours or theirs and for almost any reason. also sorry for seemingly to have upset you enough to illicit that kind of tone out of you.

[Bono71]

209. No problem...my thoughts in no particular order

1) Bush is bad, as well as fanatical Christians who equate murder with the will of God.
2) Nice catch re: Othello.
3) The thing that upsets me most about Bush (well, almost the most) is that he has destroyed our "image" a broad...no small feat in the wake of sympathy after 9-11.
4) Despite the dangers of our present government, Osama Bin Laden is a nutcase that makes other nutcases proud, he is very dangerous, and fanatical islam is a scourge that must be dealt with.
5) In my opinion, the best way to deal with FI is along the lines of the Marshall Plan (work to eliminate extreme poverty) because people are less likely to go for the ravings of a lunatic when they have access to the basics and their economy is strong.
6) No targets on 9-11 were legitimate.

[frictionlessO]

227. Ok, well we're mostly agreed! See we are on the same side!!

;)

I hope all of us here remind ourselves of that when we log off. We have many enemies AQ and bushco top the list and in many many minds the world over they areeach as evil as eachother.

Thanks for being fair in dealing with me.

[Red State Blues]

242. Speaking of credibility...

Attack the messenger, ignore the message.

Do you think ONE of these 245 hits might be from a reputable source? ANY possibility that she might have actually said it?

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22This+is+a+very+hard+choice,+but+we+think+the+price+is+worth+it.%22&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

In respect to your post, you lose credibility when you confuse bombing military targets with bombing infrastructure.

Sensationalism indeed.

[JackRiddler]

244. Source completely irrelevant

This is what Albright said, well-reported in many press venues at the time.

And you have apparently no idea what the Guardian is.

[vincent_vega_lives]

245. You mean the foreign policy

of supporting Israel and cooperating militarily with the House of Saud? Because that is what "caused" the 9-11 attacks.

[seatnineb]

247. Interesting.........

So BEFORE 9/11.....

The 9/11 hijackers were full of hatred for the U.S due to it's support for Israel and the House Of Saud........

...and AFTER 9/11......

The U.S still supports Israel and the House Of Saud......

With Afghanistan and Iraq in the bag to boot.......

Great achievement for Al-CIA-DA..........

[bloom]

102. Thanks for the links

It's an interesting interview.


"I think the first thing, and the only thing, people can do to mark a point of departure, to turn this around, is to look it squarely in the face and stop lying to themselves, to call things by their right names. Stop pretending fascism is conservatism. Stop pretending that incarceration is freedom. Stop pretending that expropriation is somehow a natural entitlement. All of it."

[el_gato]

114. no problem, glad to see somebody engaging in something besides

knee-jerk reactionary behavior

[CreekDog]

175. This assumes that if we had another foreign policy...

that we would not have been attacked. Unlikely, but even so...

the terrorists killed immigrant restaurant workers and many folks like that, some probably not even citizens and not here very long to be blamed or share in the collective guilt of wrong U.S. policies.

That you could suggest that these people (though not all) in the World Trade Center and Pentagon are culpable suggests that you cannot think straight.

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

236. That is nice. But my friend Mike who died there had nothing

to do with that crap.
Neither did my cousin, who lost both legs there.
Or the other two people with whom I was well acquainted who died there.

This was a CIVILIAN target.

Sorry, don't buy it.

[Name removed]

154. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[supernova]

2. Oh Wow!

:wow: He can deservedly kiss his comfortable professorship lifestyle good bye.

Again, I can't believe anybody not taking medication would say something like this. :wow:

[420inTN]

24. Maybe he needs medication. eom

[el_gato]

127. Maybe you need to go to the source and actually see what he had to say

[420inTN]

152. I did.

[DS1]

3. Colorado, eh? Sounds like he's trying to pull a "Mr. Garrison" and get

fired so he can sue :eyes:

[MrScorpio]

4. This is NEOCON thinking

Pure and simple

Straight out of the POWER OF NIGHTMARES

[Mystified]

5. Truly deluded

in my humble opinion

[McKenzie]

6. the article gives the impression of propaganda

agitpro-type propaganda. Pity the article/essay doesn't cite any empirical data, studies, evidence etc. It's big on sensational comments - devoid of authoritative material. Who knows, the author could be just the type of person who deliberately tries to inflame public debate to further another agenda.

[skypilot]

7. Some of what he is saying...

...isn't that different from what others have said, namely that the Sept.11th attacks didn't just come out of nowhere but were in response to US foreign policy. However, the cavalier tone of the essay is horrifying:

"As for those in the World Trade Center," the essay said, "well, really, let's get a grip here, shall we? True enough, they were civilians of a sort. But innocent? Gimme a break."

It really sounds as though the guy is very deliberately trying to stir up controversy. Ultimately, he sounds like a shit.

[Inland]

9. That 9/11 was a response to US foreign policy doesn't change the

status of the trade center victims.

Most terrorists acts are a response to something. But if the people in the trade center are only civilians "of a sort" and there is a war "of a sort", then there is no such thing as a war atrocity.

[skypilot]

11. I didn't say that it changed their status.

I was merely pointing out that he'd taken an opinion that has been expressed by others and gone way overboard with it. I am as disgusted as anyone that he'd try to make the victims out to be anything other than victims. That is why I hilighted the quote that I did. His statement about the Pentagon victims is just as horrible but I think people get the idea what an asshole the guy is.

[TO Kid]

17. Response to foreign policy? Which one?

Would that be Bubba's random missile strikes in Afghanistan and Sudan or his bombing of Kosovo? Or maybe the Muslim world was outraged over our support for the Muslims in Serbia?

[skypilot]

69. Oh, I see where this is going.

It was Clinton's fault, right? The Muslim world loved us before "Bubba" came along, right? And if you think that those things that you listed that occured on Bubba's watch helped bring on the Sept.11th attacks then you should brace yourself for what Chimpy's little adventures are going to bring our way.

[livinginphotographs]

86. Think a little further back...

i.e. Reagan.

9/11 was a response to America's foreign policy, but I seriously doubt Clinton was too involved in that.

[Inland]

217. Another freeper using 9/11 to score partisan points. Must be Thursday.

Look, I know you want to blame the fact Clinton fought terror for 9/11. Go right ahead. And while you are at it, blame him for Iraq and Enron and the price of tea in China.

The rest of us know that Clinton's attacking alqaeda wasn't random, although it was opposed--by republicans who were more interested in sniffing sheets than fighting terror. I'm not saying republicans are for terror. But they sure don't seem to care much, they don't rally around a democratic president to help defend America, and they seem to profit a good deal come election time blaming everyone but themselves when another day brings thirty or so dead marines.

Sorry if I can't tell which side you are on. Feel free to be on America's.

[Zebulon]

134. No kidding

Most terrorists acts are a response to something. But if the people in the trade center are only civilians "of a sort" and there is a war "of a sort", then there is no such thing as a war atrocity.

This is no different than saying that the tens of thousands of dead Iraqis were only civilians "of a sort". Consider the response if some professor said,

"As for those in the way of American bombs, well, really, let's get a grip here, shall we? True enough, they were civilians of a sort. But innocent? Gimme a break."

Such a statement would rightly be eviscerated.

[Inland]

218. Yes, that would be wrong.

But I also feel many americans feel that way.

I think many are too willing to let God sort them out.

It is just more obvious when we talk of our own.

[diamond14]

75. WE THE PEOPLE are all responsible for what OUR government does

when OUR government BOMBS Iraq, WE THE PEOPLE are responsible...we pay for the Iraq massacre, we fund it, we support it, most Americans cheer it on, so much so, that they SACRIFICE their own children as CANNON FODDER....

There is a collective responsiblity...a good book to read on this subject is

"People of the Lie"
by M.Scott Peck

Dr. Peck reviews individual LIES, and then works up to whole GROUPS that LIE together, as a SOCIETY, as a NATION....which leads to things like the Holocaust and Mai Lai...and right now...the leveling of Falluja with OUR tax money...

[bloom]

116. From Churchills article:

"There may be a real utility to reflecting further, this time upon the fact that it was pious Americans who led the way in assigning the onus of collective guilt to the German people as a whole, not for things they as individuals had done, bur for what they had allowed – nay, empowered – their leaders and their soldiers to do in their name.

 If the principle was valid then, it remains so now, as applicable to Good Americans as it was the Good Germans. And the price exacted from the Germans for the faultiness of their moral fiber was truly ghastly. Returning now to the children, and to the effects of the post-Gulf War embargo – continued bull force by Bush the Elder's successors in the Clinton administration as a gesture of its "resolve" to finalize what George himself had dubbed the "New World Order" of American military/economic domination – it should be noted that not one but two high United Nations officials attempting to coordinate delivery of humanitarian aid to Iraq resigned in succession as protests against US policy."

[Coastie for Truth]

Ward Churchill

is a featured speaker at American Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee presentations and a leader of the Colorado Native American Movement. He generally refers to the US as "occupied territories"--

Although I haven't seen him associated with any movements to call the Treaty of Guadalupe-Dialog null and void (and give the South west back to Mexico)

[Bono71]

8. His punishment should be to read the essay during the 7th inning

stretch of a NY Yankees games in the Bronx...I am sure the good people of New York would take kindly to it.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

10. Well you certainly live up to your name agit man

do you ever find anything good to post on Dems and liberals?

[Bono71]

12. How do we know this professor is a "liberal" or a Dem...he sounds

more like an asshole, to me.

He certainly isn't a main stream democrat.

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bono71]

50. Yep its all our fault...sounds like someone has a "victimhood"

complex...

[Name removed]

59. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

63. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

67. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bono71]

71. Victimhood. n/t

[Name removed]

77. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

78. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[el_gato]

82. how pathetic

[Name removed]

84. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

92. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

94. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rinsd]

167. He sounds more like a right-wing bogeyman if you ask me...

...shit if guys like this didn't exist for the right to point to as an example of the left, they would need to invent him.

[Bono71]

212. I swear I thought the same thing. He reminds me of

the "God Hates Fags" people...my republican friends (yes, I have them) get so pissed when the crazy right-wingers and religious christian nutcases get media face-time becaase they are afriad the entire party will get painted in the same light...I just laugh and tell them that the majority of Repubs to hate gays...

[skippythwndrdog]

13. What an ass. eom

[wicket]

14. What a fucking jackass

Talk about blaming the victim! :eyes:

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

55. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

60. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[el_gato]

64. Is that a non-sequitor ?

I am assuming so since you are not making any sense.

[Name removed]

70. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

79. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

81. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DrWeird]

15. Funny...

he's using pretty much the same arguments conservatives use to justify bombing people in Iraq. They're "military targets," they're "little Osama's," it's "revenge for 9-11."

[diamond14]

16. sadly, most here obviously didn't read the whole article....this prof

makes a LOT of good points....I am so sick of the 911 victims being called HEROES...I am sad for every 911 victim, but the reason they were attacked was RETALIATION for our government's actions...several 911 families have said that....and how much MORE retaliation will occur from bush* wars???....the people at the pentagon were MILITARY TARGETS, they are the 'little eichmanns', they make the WARS and KILL for a living....




From the article, here are the controversial Statements from his essay (and HOW MANY here have read the essay???)...

---------------------------------------

Controversial statements

In his essay Some People Push Back: On the Justice of Roosting Chickens, CU professor Ward Churchill argues that:

• The Sept. 11 attacks were in retaliation for the Iraqi children who were killed in a 1991 bombing raid and for economic sanctions imposed on Iraq by the United Nations following the Persian Gulf War.

• Hijackers who crashed jets into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on Sept. 11 were "combat teams," not terrorists.

• The people killed inside the Pentagon were "military targets."

[DistantWind88]

18. So the secretaries at the pentagon are combatants, how?

I could make a stretch and say those people in uniform that day were legitimate military targets (even if the attack was unprovoked and was given with no warning), but what about the janitors, and salespeople, and cleaning ladies? Are THEY legitimate military targets?

[DrWeird]

20. The Pentagon was indeed a legitimate military target.

It's about as legitimate a military target as legitimate military targets can get. As for the secretaries and janitors, no, they wouldn't be legitimate. Anymore then the janitor working in some chemical weapons factory in some third world country.

[Bono71]

22. It is a military target yes...legitimate, you really want to go there? n/t

[DrWeird]

23. As legimate as anything we've bombed in Iraq.

This guy isn't saying anything different than what people who support the war in Iraq are saying.

[Bono71]

28. Right, and I think those people are dumb, as well. So put this

guy on the list of assholes.

[DrWeird]

34. Indeed I would...

but I suspect he's arguing Devil's Advocate, to point out the hypocrasy of the right, and is being taken out of context.

[diamond14]

37. the prof said the pentagon was a "military target".....adding the

"legitimate" crap is a ploy, in order to shift this to something else....

Where'd you learn those tricks? IMO, such tricks are illegitimate in this discussion of the CU Professor's article (have you read the actual article?)

There is NO ARGUMENT from me that the pentagon is a MILITARY TARGET...in fact, it is THE military target in America...THE big one...

[Bono71]

103. Sorry, I equate "not innocent" with legitimate...I guess there may

be a subtle difference, but in my mind it is a matter of semantics.

[diamond14]

110. here's a LINK to the actual essay...never argue just on MSM distortions

grabbing a distortion by the Rocky Mountain News and running with it all over DU is truly garbage....



the actual essay is very good...explains all the nuances, gives great details....here's the link to THE ESSAY, which the RMN is distorting for you and your peers....

http://www.kersplebedeb.com/mystuff/s11/churchill.html

[comsymp]

125. Thanks - was looking for this

Had hoped to be able to read the actual essay, as opposed to halfassed news reports and opinions, before "sharing" my views.

Yeah, weird concept....

[DearAbby]

166. ALL the Targets that day were military..

World trade Center : Financial
Pentagon - Military Center
White house? (If that was the target of the third plane) - decapitate the leaders

If thought out, each and every one of the targets that day, had a military purpose.

[leftynyc]

193. The towers were office buildings, nothing more

The people inside were innocent victims. If you want to go the financial route (and I really wish you wouldn't as I have many friends who work there), the target would have been the stock exchange. Bin Laden is a fucking monster and I doubt there are more than a handful of New Yorkers that don't want his head on a platter. He wanted the US out of Saudi Arabia (his words) and never acknowledged they Saudi government asked us to be there. I have no patience for anyone who wants to excuse what happened that day because they didn't like our foreign policy. My answer to that is Tough Shit.

[DistantWind88]

223. One could argue that in a "declared war"

the White House and Pentagon WERE military targets; not so the WTC.

[sierrajim]

246. I dont think so

"ALL the Targets that day were military.." World trade Center : Financial

That was such a ridiculous statement that I am speechless THESE WERE EVERYDAY PEOPLE GOING TO THEIR EVERYDAY JOBS.

[DistantWind88]

26. You're trying to have it both ways

Either it was (and all the people in it were) or it was not. Which is it? As relates to the events of 9/11, the Pentagon was NOT a legitimate target.

[DrWeird]

30. No, I think the people who support the war in Iraq want it both ways.

You can't support the war and be upset with this guy, since the arguments are the same.

As for my personal opinions, I think they're both disgusting acts. With the war in Iraq being the greater of two evils, simply for the scale. As for the professor, I suspect he's arguing Devil's Advocate and being taken out of context.

As for the legitmacy of the Pentagon as a target, if you were in an imaginary war with a fictional opponent, how high on your list of legitimate targets would your enemy's central military HQ be?

[DistantWind88]

41. It would be VERY high

And in a declared war would be a legit target. I don't believe it was in this case.

[DrWeird]

43. You don't think the 9-11 hijackers felt it was a war?

nt

[DistantWind88]

51. No

I don't. Attacking a building like that, without an existing "state of war" was, and is, reprehensible. The had no idea they should AVOID the Pentagon...

If the Serbs had attacked the Pentagon during our illegal bombing of Serbia, THAT would have been legitimate targeting.

[Igel]

113. At the risk of stepping on toes ...

It was a state of war.

Bombing embassies, the Cole; cruise missiles launched on their camps.

The question is: Can there be a de jure state of war between the US and a non-state entity? (This is getting perilously close to saying the "war on terror" is a war, by the way.)

If there can be, the Pentagon was a legitimate target, and the WTC was a war crime.

If there can't be, the Pentagon wasn't a legitimate target and the WTC was a crime against humanity.

[DistantWind88]

169. State of war with whom?

I agree with part of your assessment, but you ARE saying the "War on terrorism" is indeed a war.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

83. And the children of Falluja are military combatants how?

[d.l.Green]

139. Hello? And also what about the thousands of innocent Iraqis killed,

women and men, defending their right to their own idea of freedom... from foreign occupation. The 9/11 victims cannot be defined as heroes when these Iraqis made the highest sacrifice(at least to our country's way of thinking). The 9/11 victims were just in the wrong place at the wrong time. You couldn't even define our military as heroes- when they are just taking orders, blindly, without an ounce of justification.

[DistantWind88]

225. They aren't

And they are not PURPOSELY targeted.

[Bono71]

21. That is dumb, and yes I read the article...were the 9-11

TERRORISTS upset with our actions in Serbia (you know, the ones that helped MUSLIMS?) Or does that foreign policy not count?

Were they upset with Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton's efforts to bring peace to the middle east (you know, they seem so concerned about Palestine)?

Civilians who went to work are legitimate targets? There is no way to defend that statement...none.

[diamond14]

27. OUR Government KILLED their civilians, so they came here and KILLED

OUR civilians...it's call retaliation....


eye for an eye....it's done everyday in the Palistine/Israel conflict....


the Professor argues that we should look at the 911 victims, as VICTIMS OF RETALIATION for OUR Government's actions....which some 911 families have also argued....

bush* PRETENDS that the 911 attacks just happened, because they 'hate our freedom'....until we begin to understand that we were attacked because we KILLED other innocents, there will be no peace in the perpetual bush* wars....

[DistantWind88]

29. Which Saudi civilians did our Govt kill?

[DrWeird]

32. I don't think the hijackers were working for the Saudi government.

Anymore than Tim McVeigh was working for the American government.

[DistantWind88]

44. I don't either

But the poster I was responding to said the attack on 9/11 was in "retaliation" for us killing their civilians. I was wondering what civilians he was talking about.

[DrWeird]

52. The US has murdered thousands and thousands of people all over the world.

Take your pick.

[DistantWind88]

57. And this was in retaliation for murdering whom?

So have many other countries, BTW.

[el_gato]

89. Yet do you not think that actions have consequences?

Ignorance has consequences as well and the American people have been ignorant of what the U.S. government has been doing in their name for a very long time now. 9/11 was as Churchill stated "chickens coming home to roost" and as sad as that is we can't just continue to ingore the truth. Over a million children died in Iraq during the 10 years of sanctions and when Madeline Albright was confronted with this fact her response was "Oh, we think it's worth it."

[leftynyc]

196. You are referring to the sanctions supported by the

United Nations, are you not?

[el_gato]

200. Yes

I guess you think the UN is somehow infallible?

[DistantWind88]

222. So the 9/11

murderers focused on the UN sanctions against Iraq and ignored the US led operations in Bosnia and Kosovo, found the US guilty, and massacred thousands of innocents as part of an undeclared war?

[diamond14]

53. the prof explained it....perhaps reading it would help...here's the -snip-

In his essay Some People Push Back: On the Justice of Roosting Chickens, CU professor Ward Churchill argues that:

• The Sept. 11 attacks were in retaliation for the Iraqi children who were killed in a 1991 bombing raid and for economic sanctions imposed on Iraq by the United Nations following the Persian Gulf War.

[DistantWind88]

61. And the Saudis and Egyptians who did this

said that where? Guess they forgot about all the Muslims we saved in Bosnia and Kosovo...

[DrWeird]

80. So, then by your argument...

If Osama bin Laden helps out some Christians in Timbuktu, we should forgive him for 9-11?

:shrug:

[DistantWind88]

185. Nope

Since he declared "war" on the US not Christians.

[diamond14]

121. LINK to the ACTUAL ESSAY.....debating on a news distortion is sick...

This is a very good essay, with lots of details and facts....the debate here on DU should NOT be focused on what the Rocky Mountain News DISTORTED from the CU Professor's essay, but rather on the essay itself....

Here it is:

Some People Push Back, On the Justice of Roosting Chickens
by Ward Churchill
http://www.kersplebedeb.com/mystuff/s11/churchill.html

[rinsd]

187. What distortion?

I found the essay to be worse that what was reported.

Then he has an addendum where he basically abandons his premise of collective gult by giving a free pass to the Japanese.

[leftynyc]

198. Bullshit - then why weren't the two planes that hit the

towers flown into the UN building that also happens to be in NYC?

[Bono71]

35. Here is a newsflash...

Who was Hitler retaliating against? Mohammad Atta was Egyptian...remind me who the US killed in Egypt. Who did we kill in Saudi Arabia? The plan was hatched during Big Dog's presidency, before Bush...who did Clinton kill in Palestine?

It is lunacy to try to defend the actions of sociopaths...they were not combat teams, they were not legitimate. They were sociopaths, religious fanatics not trying to avenge anyone, but bring back a pseudo-Islamic utopia that never existed.


No one on that day was a legitimate victim. If this is what you think the Democratic Party believes, I can assure you, you are mistaken.

[el_gato]

39. Newsflash, u.s. foreign policy has a way of biting you in the ass

if you want to wallow in ignorance go ahead, but this country is paying the price right now for choosing to do just that.

[Bono71]

45. Seriously, if you believe that Al Qaeda is a response to US

foreign policy you are extremely naive...It is a means to an end, but I don't think I should have to spell that out to you.

[DrWeird]

48. I think it's extremely naive to believe it's not a response to US

.. foreign policy.

You don't see them flying planes into buildings in Toronto, do you?

[Bono71]

56. Ever hear of a scapegoat mentality created by someone

who wants to accumulate power? We are the scapegoat of Osama Bin Laden...every ill in the world is the fault of the Jewis Zionist America...He has been able to brainwash his folks into believing this...

[DrWeird]

62. Like Iraq was a scapegoat for 9-11.

Yes, I'm well aware of that.

Are you willing to admit that?

[Bono71]

72. Not a scapegoat...in that it helped bring someone to power,

but certainly an illegitimate war by someone who wanted to start it.

[DrWeird]

74. You don't think Iraq helped Bush win re-election?

You don't think Iraq was a scapegoat for 9-11?

[Bono71]

76. Definitely helped win re-election. n/t

[DrWeird]

42. Au contraire...

I bet the 9-11 hijackers were quite sure they were the victims of US hostility.

Just like millions of Americans felt they were the victims of muslim extremist hostility, even though they weren't in Washington, New York, or Pennsylvania.

[Bono71]

47. Just like it huh? Lol...ok, if you are going to really try to defend

the people who murdered 3000 people on one day, go ahead.

[DrWeird]

58. Strawman.

I haven't defended anybody who's murdered 3000 people in one day.

Are you defending people who have murdered 200,000 people over the course of two years?

I suspect you have, you've probably supported it. But I haven't seen you do so in this thread.

[Bono71]

73. I have never supported that war. n/t

[diamond14]

106. here's the LINK to the ACTUAL ESSAY written by the CU Professor

It's a very good essay, with LOTS of details....

http://www.kersplebedeb.com/mystuff/s11/churchill.html

[Bono71]

108. He loses all credibilty in the second paragraph when he talks about

the bombing of the Iraqi infrastructure as a crime against humainity...why were we bombing Iraq? Oh yeah, it invaded another country and we had a UN MANDATE (international law, hello????)to bomb Iraq during the Gulf war...

Over 50 countries participated in that operation (Gulf 1), including Canada...so maybe the roosters shoudl come home to Toronto.

[bloom]

128. You wouldn't happen to get your news from FOX

would you?

Is this the first time you've heard the US military questioned?

[Bono71]

131. My God no...but unlike some, I don't march in lockstep with

what some "progressives" (The Ghost of JFK forgive me for labeling these guys "progressives") think.

We live in a dnagerous world. Sometimes actions of the US military are warranted. No, not Iraq II...but we had a mandate for the first Gulf War, and if that is what caused 9-11 (I truly doubt it, but for the sake of argument, fine) that still doesn't make the victims less than innocent, as this Churchhill would have us believe.

[RuleofLaw]

132. I hate to rain on your parade

But the "No -Fly" zone imposed bu the US and Britain did not have a UN Mandate. In fact France, who was originally part of the group to enforce the "No-Fly" zone, pulled out they couldn't get a UN resolution to support it.

Concerning International Law, the "No-Fly" zone was illegal.

[Bono71]

135. So the bombing of the infrastructure did not occur as part

of the first Iraq war? Not rhetorical, serious question.

[rinsd]

143. How many times did we bomb infrastructure during the No-Fly period?

There were over 100 incidents dealing US/British fighters bombing stuff. I'm sure you can find a couple of examples.

[Bono71]

151. I thought it was during the war...but that was 14 years ago and

my memory stinks.

[rinsd]

158. It's certainly possible we hit infrastructure during the 98 raid.

Most of the no fly icidents seemed directed at radar facilities and AA emplacements but hey I could be wrong.

[Bono71]

170. No, I think you are right. I think the infrastructure was taken out

during the war...but if someone provides objective proof to the contrary, I'll apologize for the above statement.

I still think this Churchill is an asshat.

[Mystified]

130. If that's the case

Why didn't the hijackers fly planes into the UN building rather than the WTC towers? After all, it was the UN that imposed sanctions on Iraq, and it was a UN sanctioned war that expelled Saddam from Kuwait which led to the bombing of Iraq.

[Bono71]

141. Agree with you...

And I am still waiting for the chickens to roost in Canada, since Canada was a part of Gulf I.

[NashVegas]

210. Really?

Since when did Iraq attack the US on 9/11?

[Mystified]

216. I never said they did

I was responding to the poster who, in post #16, said:

" The Sept. 11 attacks were in retaliation for the Iraqi children who were killed in a 1991 bombing raid and for economic sanctions imposed on Iraq by the United Nations following the Persian Gulf War."

[NashVegas]

220. the article under discussion does

I find that kinda flakey.

[Mystified]

221. It does?

I'll have to read the whole thing later when I'm not at work. That would be yet another fallacy in this guy's theory/thesis/opinion/analysis...or whatever the hell he calls it.

[Redstone]

19. Fuck this guy

and the horse he rode in on.

What an asshole. I hope he meets some of the 9/11 families some day so they can beat the shit out of him.

Redstone

[earthside]

25. Just His Opinion

I haven't read the essay ... so I'm going on what others have said.

On a Denver talk radio show this morning some people were calling in and saying he needs to be fired from his teaching position. But I don't believe there was any reporting that Churchill's essay was used in the classroom. It goes to show you that the radical Republicans just want to punish people for having 'different' ideas.

No matter how crazy this essay might be, it is just an opinion. So what is the big deal ... except that this is now Neocon America where dissent is only just tolerated at best.

But, if you want goofy ideas, why don't we talk about the folks who believe that they are going to someday mysteriously vanish and be taken to heaven -- just before ghost riders come out of the clouds to devastate the planet and kill billions of human beings? (Those people are now running the federal government.)

[Make7]

49. Some People Push Back

"Some People Push Back" On the Justice of Roosting Chickens By Ward Churchill

[diamond14]

100. GREAT essay...everyone on this thread should read the essay...

READING the essay would make it a lot easier to debate...since most of the reaction here is based TOTALLY on a distorted main-stream-media article...

THANKS for posting the actual essay...

[Make7]

115. I figured a few people might want to actually read...

what Ward Churchill was actually trying to say, and to try to understand his viewpoint a little before calling him names.

:) Make7

[rinsd]

147. The essay is worse that the so called distortion.

He's more forceful in claiming the WTC victims weren't Innocent. He blasts the American public in general as not innocent and then even blames those who did object as being no forceful enough and therefore guilty.

Shit he even seems to be making the case that Iraq did it.

Edit:spelling

[bloom]

54. I agree with him that a lot of people need to wake up.

"When you kill 500,000 children in order to impose your will on other countries, then you shouldn't be surprised when somebody responds in kind," Churchill said.

"If it's not comfortable, that's the point. It's not comfortable for the people on the other side, either."

The attacks on Sept. 11, he said, were "a natural and inevitable consequence of what happens as a result of business as usual in the United States. Wake up."


--------

He may have been ruder than what would seem necessary - but most people are asleep - so I can't blame him. If he gets a debate going - at least people will be thinking about it.

[rinsd]

104. Yeah, they'll think what an asshole lefty....

...and the right gets to point to another example of the supposed craveness of the left which of course hates America. Yeah call people killed on 9-11 Nazis. Brilliant. That will really get a debate started...a debate of whether he should be fired tarred and feathered or just fired. Great job.

"We deserved it"...gee where else did I hear that one?

[bloom]

119. It would be nice if people read Churchills essay

instead of a few clips by someone in a news article who would like to think the USA is blameless in everything.

[rinsd]

138. Here it is.....

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/WC091201.html

And irony of freaking ironies (if this was published on Sept 12, 2001 as it says) and he seems to be making the case that Iraq did it.

The essay actually reads worse than the excerpts. He even blames people against the Gulf War and sanctions for not being forceful enough. Mocking them. Class act all the way.

I'll stand by my assessment that he's an asshole more useful to the right than they could dream up.

[bloom]

171. He certainly doesn't spare liberals

peacemakers, even. (I've thought the same things - what have vigils accomplished? - nothing)

But I think he hits it dead on, for the most part.

"The problem is that vengeance is usually framed in terms of "getting even," a concept which is plainly inapplicable in this instance. As the above data indicate, it would require another 49,996 detonations killing 495,000 more Americans, for the "terrorists" to "break even" for the bombing of Baghdad/extermination of Iraqi children alone. And that's to achieve "real number" parity. To attain an actual proportional parity of damage – the US is about 15 times as large as Iraq in terms of population, even more in terms of territory – they would, at a minimum, have to blow up about 300,000 more buildings and kill something on the order of 7.5 million people."

<snip>

"Braided Scoundrel-in-Chief, George Junior, lacking even the sense to be careful what he wished for, has teamed up with a gaggle of fundamentalist Christian clerics like Billy Graham to proclaim a "New Crusade" called "Infinite Justice" aimed at "ridding the world of evil."
 
 One could easily make light of such rhetoric, remarking upon how unseemly it is for a son to threaten his father in such fashion – or a president to so publicly contemplate the murder/suicide of himself and his cabinet – but the matter is deadly serious.
 
 They are preparing once again to sally forth for the purpose of roasting brown-skinned children by the scores of thousands. Already, the B-1 bombers and the aircraft carriers and the missile frigates are en route, the airborne divisions are gearing up to go."

[NashVegas]

213. Oh, That's Freaky

9/12/01

Wow. And he pinned it on our policy toward Iraq?

Either he was jumping the gun and pulling shit out of his ass, or this article could be added to the LIHOP cannon.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

65. After reading this thread...when did DU become a right wng debating site?

[Daybreaker]

101. Not the way I would have put it.

I get what he's saying. I mean, I understand the hypocrisy of saying that every American civilian killed is an "innocent victim" while we bomb civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan and label those casualties "colateral damage."

But you can't expect people to understand that.

Except, maybe, for soldiers. Not all soldiers, but some, probably. I imagine they might have a certain degree of perspective. After all, some of them have killed "innocent civilians."

I think this guy is gonna get his ass kicked a lot. But y'know, if anybody has the moral right to look at American military actions with a certain sense of scope, it's a Native American.

[American Tragedy]

112. It's wrong to classify either as being 'collateral damage'

Neither the employees in the World Trade Center nor the residents in Iraq are conscious participants in the conspiracies and battles that have been cited above, and their race, nationality, and religion do not make them guilty either. These factors may have been used by the perpetrators to justify their murders, but it doesn't make it legitimate.

Both the terrorist networks and the military and government leaders of United States are engaged in a hopeless exchange of violence and retaliation, just like the Palestinians and Israelis. Neither side of that cycle is righteous.

[comsymp]

176. It's really something, isn't it?

Wish everybody would read the fucking essay before, like our rightwardly-inclined brethren (and sistren?), going ballistic.

The addendum was particularly informative, I thought:

The preceding was a "first take" reading, more a stream-of-consciousness interpretive reaction to the September 11 counterattack than a finished piece on the topic. Hence, I'll readily admit that I've been far less than thorough, and quite likely wrong about a number of things.

For instance, it may not have been (only) the ghosts of Iraqi children who made their appearance that day. It could as easily have been some or all of their butchered Palestinian cousins.

Or maybe it was some or all of the at least 3.2 million Indochinese who perished as a result of America's sustained and genocidal assault on Southeast Asia (1959-1975), not to mention the millions more who've died because of the sanctions imposed thereafter.

Perhaps there were a few of the Korean civilians massacred by US troops at places like No Gun Ri during the early ‘50s, or the hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians ruthlessly incinerated in the ghastly fire raids of World War II (only at Dresden did America bomb Germany in a similar manner).

And, of course, it could have been those vaporized in the militarily pointless nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

There are others, as well, a vast and silent queue of faceless victims, stretching from the million-odd Filipinos slaughtered during America's "Indian War" in their islands at the beginning of the twentieth century, through the real Indians, America's own, massacred wholesale at places like Horseshoe Bend and the Bad Axe, Sand Creek and Wounded Knee, the Washita, Bear River, and the Marias.

Was it those who expired along the Cherokee Trial of Tears of the Long Walk of the Navajo?

Those murdered by smallpox at Fort Clark in 1836?

Starved to death in the concentration camp at Bosque Redondo during the 1860s?

Maybe those native people claimed for scalp bounty in all 48 of the continental US states? Or the Raritans whose severed heads were kicked for sport along the streets of what was then called New Amsterdam, at the very site where the WTC once stood?

One hears, too, the whispers of those lost on the Middle Passage, and of those whose very flesh was sold in the slave market outside the human kennel from whence Wall Street takes its name. And of coolie laborers, imported by the gross-dozen to lay the tracks of empire across scorching desert sands, none of them allotted "a Chinaman's chance" of surviving.

The list is too long, too awful to go on.

No matter what its eventual fate, America will have gotten off very, very cheap.

The full measure of its guilt can never be fully balanced or atoned for.

Again, as several members have posted, the essay can be read *in its entirety* here:
http://www.kersplebedeb.com/mystuff/s11/churchill.html

edit: @#$! html tags

[American Tragedy]

85. Fuck this collective guilt bullshit

I resent the implication.

A person does not deserve to die simply for living or working in the United States, any more than people in Iraq deserve what is happening to them. I'd like to see him explain his arbitrary ethics to somebody who lost a member of their family in one of these catastrophes.

[Bono71]

93. Agree. n/t

[el_gato]

117. He explained it quite well if you would actually read what he said

besides getting a mediated view from an article

[American Tragedy]

235. I did read it.

I just happen to object to the implication that the workers in the World Trade Center that morning deserved to be murdered, for the same reason that I don't believe that the citizens of Hiroshima and Nagasaki deserved to die. How could I accept the first proposition and reject the latter?

[leftynyc]

205. Amen!!!

[sweetheart]

87. His point is well made

I've made this point myself repeatedly. People don't realize what
kind of work happened in those towers, and the media disinforms to
prevent people from realizing that the choice of the attack location
was very precisely chosen, both because of the buildings, and what
went on inside them.

Those towers were the heart of the american debt markets, the treasury
bond auctions that finance american wars and imperial actions around
the planet were commanded and controlled from those towers.

As well, there was an advertized conference on at windows of the world
in world trade 1, for a protocol to interconnect all world stock markets
electronically, that capital be free to flow freely across borders that
american finance know no boundaries in its globalization. (called FIX
protocol www.fixprotocol.org). That they attacked the temple of
american finance was certainly a command and control center in a war,
as much as "our" miltiary targeted television studios in belgrade
during the serbian bombing.

The author calls the attackers "combat teams" rather than terrorists,
and i find this appropriately accurate, as that is what they were.
I don't know about passing any judgement on the particular victems,
but it would be fair to say that they were collateral damage on a
legitimate target. With american military attacks, we just call the
collateral damage of 100,000 iraqi civilians a necessary evil.
Perhaps the author should have simply repeated the american way of
saying it.

[Bono71]

91. Yep, I am sure the Terrorists were thinking exactly what you

wrote as they ran the planes into the buildings..."those damned interconnected stock market infidels!!!!"

---sarcasm off---

[sweetheart]

109. First strike, take out command and control

That pretty much is the maxim of the american war machine.
And by the view point of the islamic terrorists who made the
attacks, american finance was responsible for spreading infidel
culture, wars and things they strongly opposed.

/sarcasm off

[Name removed]

123. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sweetheart]

145. I din't show up either

But i lost collegues at that FIX protocol conference i was planned
to attend. The combat teams performed their mission, and the american
economy has never recovered. In a guerrilla mission, you plan for the
actions of your opponent once you hit the target, and these actions
are your primary attack. In this regard, the buildings were not the
primary attack, Patriot II was, the afganistan and iraq wars were, the
bankruptcy of the ameircan treasury was. The well thought out plans
of those combat teams was probably the best bang for the solider-dead
of any deaths in a modern combat attack. America has nothing of the
effectiveness ratio of that asymmetric approach.

Amercia itself used such asymmetric attacks on the british in the
revolutionary war, and it allows the defeating of a superior force,
as the treasury gets drained and ultimately the will to win goes with
the money draining away. The british empire had other wars going with
napoleon stuff that distracted, and could not put enough in to repressing
the rebellion. Similarly, this opposition is making a similar gamble
and it looks to have been dead on accurate as chimpy is nothing if
not predicatable.

I don't know what you're talking about that discredited story about
jews not showing up.

[Bono71]

160. Please explain how 9-11 was payback for the war in Afghanistan. ..

and as far as bang for buck...I'd say a nuclear attack would be a little more "profitable."

[sweetheart]

234. twisting interpretation for a free drink i see...

Afganistan promised to turn over bin laden and needn't we have killed
3+ thousand civilians in a barbaric murder... seems you support that
rather as a barbarian unloosed... unimpressive mate.

[despairing optimist]

229. A waiter for Windows on the World that morning lived in my neighborhood.

I guess the scumbag deserved to die because of the work he was doing. I guess we're all scumbags for putting candles by a tree outside his front door. If you look closely enough, you can still see spots where the melted wax stained the sidewalk.

Sounds like Timothy McVeigh was right about those children in the Murrah Building being collateral damage. A lot of good this line of thinking will do for anyone.

Ward Churchill is a very bitter man. It must be hard to live with the weight of what he knows as truth day after day. Funny though: I don't see any self-examination in it at all. He must have been conceived without sin.

[tedzbear]

96. Our elected officials are responsible for the blowback.

"When you kill 500,000 children in order to impose your will on other countries, then you shouldn't be surprised when somebody responds in kind," Churchill said.
"If it's not comfortable, that's the point. It's not comfortable for the people on the other side, either."
The attacks on Sept. 11, he said, were "a natural and inevitable consequence of what happens as a result of business as usual in the United States. Wake up."


Daddy Bush, Clinton, and the chimp are responsible for this thing, not the victims. They didn't make our foreign policy decisions.

But I applaud this professors courage to peel the 9-11 onion and probe the truth.

[moobu2]

97. He's using logic similar to Bush's -it's completely fallacious

And I'm to lazy at the moment to explain why.

[Bono71]

99. Don't worry, you don't have to explain. we get it. n/t

[Zynx]

98. Fuck him.

Not much more to say, really.

[Burma Jones]

105. I'm surprised that it took as long as it did

For terrorists to hit the USA in a big way. We are an empire and our Government, and our companies (Union Carbide in Bhopal for instance) have done a lot of killing in order to maintain the American way of life. It's only natural that people are going to strike back. Now, does that mean that the thousands that died on 9/11 deserved to die? No, it certainly does not, no more than the folks in Bhopal deserved to die. But Churchill, and others, raise a good point and that is if we do not recognize what our Government AND, more importantly, corporations do to the rest of the world, then we will get attacked again.

Conversely, and this is what seems to be the policy these days, we can acknowledge that we do indeed kill innocents, chalk it up to being a little messy, say that the benefits that the USA bestows upon the world are worth all these little brown lives, and just try to kill anyone that might hit us back.

Personally, I think that stinks.

[el_gato]

111. you are so right nb

[Joe Chi Minh]

149. I doubt if there is

any country gorging itself at the "top table", which hasn't, within the last century, committed such a range of ever more devilish atrocities, that it deserves to be blown from the face of the earth. Most certainly the UK and the US, Germany and Japan.

They've connived with the beasts of the concentration camps and the Japanese chemical chief who performed cryogenic experiments on captured GIs. Why they've even used their own servicemen as guinea-pigs for sarin, radiation, all sorts. And, of course, with impunity. No accountability, whatsoever. When a French minister knowingly allowed Aids-contaminated blood to be used in hospitals, he was jailed. Can you imagine that happening in the US or the UK?

If I'd been a Kurdish villager or an inhabitant of any South American country, (but particularly, perhaps, Chile or Guatemala) there is no punishment I would consider too severe for such countries as the US and the UK. I remember seeing a clip of film on the box, in which a German prisoner of war stated that, when he came to hear of what the Nazis had done to children, it was enough to persuade him that no punishment meted out to his country could be undeserved.

Don't take any notice of the neocon moral bankrupts on this thread, they're only saying what comes naturally to them. You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. Least of all, a self-righteous one!

Still, if God treated us all as we deserved, mankind would have been long gone from the face of the earth.

[Mystified]

150. Bhopal?

I'm fairly certain that Union Carbide did not intentionally blow up their Bhopal plant. The Indian gov't deserves as much blame as UC for allowing lax safety standards at the plant. Yes, the UC plant in Bhopal was evil, what with all the jobs it brought to India. Undoubtedly the plant accident was tragic, but it wasn't put there to kill people.

[Bono71]

155. This fact escapes some of our more "thoughtful"

brothers, doesn't it.

[Burma Jones]

211. No, it escapes ignorant people overseas who are prodded into

hating the USA.

[Bono71]

214. That's true. n/t

[Burma Jones]

161. That's the "messy" part

It doesn't matter that Bhopal was an accident, it still has our name on it. That's what people see of us.

[Bono71]

165. So that somehow excuses what happened on 9-11? n/t

[Burma Jones]

204. No, I'm just being pragmatic

Nothing excuses what happened on 9-11. We have enemies and we need to kill them. However, we also help create these enemies. We need to stop creating them as far as we can. If we want cheap gasoline and decent returns on our stock portfolios, we are going to make enemies, period. What ideas do you have to ameliorate our propensity to make enemies? Or are you willing to pay the price of empire? Because that's what we're doing.

Again, nothing excuses what happened on 9-11 and nothing was wrong with going into Afghanistan and taking out what we could of AlQuada and the Taliban.

[PowerToThePeople]

184. hate to say it..

Seems like we can kill you but if you retaliate then you are a terrorist. Then we even have more of an excuse to kill you. I believe you typically get what you have coming, though indeed there are true innocents in the world that get harmed. IMO US military (pentagon) and big money (WTC) are some of the least innocents in the world. Not condoning killing at all but for those willing to kill, those were two good targets of American imperialism.

[Burma Jones]

207. Actually, many, if not most, of the WTC victims were

pretty low level workers. Higher ups don't get in usually until 10 or so, particularly on real nice days, as was 9-11. And then, of course, there were the FDNY guys...............

[American Tragedy]

233. Well, according to some here, they deserved to be murdered.

Because everybody born in America and employed in America is automatically evil and responsible for every crime perpetuated by an American at any point in history.

[Burma Jones]

240. Well, some of the folks here have their heads up their asses

I suppose that's one way to keep warm...................

[The Magistrate]

241. Have You Ever Heard, Sir

The Sufi tale of the dung-hauler who ventured into the street of the perfumers and fainted dead away? He seemed on the verge of death to all who crowded around him seeking to assist, until a wise man happened along and seeing, fetched a handful of manure which, pressed beneath the stricken fellow's nostrils, revived him completely....

[leftynyc]

208. As I pointed out upthread

THE TOWERS WERE OFFICE BUILDINGS!!!

[RuleofLaw]

136. If you actually read the essay

You will notice the following comments by the author:

ADDENDUM

The preceding was a "first take" reading, more a stream-of-consciousness interpretive reaction to the September 11 counterattack than a finished piece on the topic. Hence, I'll readily admit that I've been far less than thorough, and quite likely wrong about a number of things.

For instance, it may not have been (only) the ghosts of Iraqi children who made their appearance that day. It could as easily have been some or all of their butchered Palestinian cousins.

Or maybe it was some or all of the at least 3.2 million Indochinese who perished as a result of America's sustained and genocidal assault on Southeast Asia (1959-1975), not to mention the millions more who've died because of the sanctions imposed thereafter.

Perhaps there were a few of the Korean civilians massacred by US troops at places like No Gun Ri during the early ‘50s, or the hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians ruthlessly incinerated in the ghastly fire raids of World War II (only at Dresden did America bomb Germany in a similar manner).

And, of course, it could have been those vaporized in the militarily pointless nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.


(More)

[rinsd]

156. See now he lost even more cred....

So the Japanese were innocent even though they charged into war and massacred Chinese, Indochinese, etc etc. and were building an empire.

Oh wait I figured it out...ONLY America can be at fault. Love that reverse black and white thinking.

[Bono71]

172. I am still waiting for one of these guys to blame us

for the Spanish Inquisition.

Because as you know, NOBODY EXPECTS THE SPANISH INQUISITION!

[rinsd]

180. LOL...great now I've got Mel Brooks singing in my head (nt)

[Bono71]

201. The Inquisition, what a show, the inquisition, here we go n/t

[Make7]

224. So the Japanese civilians in their office buildings....

and their homes in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not innocent? What were their crimes?

-Make7

[rinsd]

226. None...which is why collective guilt is BULLSHIT.

I was merely pointing out that the prof likes collective guilt only when applied to America.

[Make7]

237. I must have misunderstood...

when you said this:

"So the Japanese were innocent even though they charged into war and massacred Chinese, Indochinese, etc etc. and were building an empire." - rinsd

It sounded to me like you were implying that the Japanese were not innocent. My mistake.

-Make7

[American Tragedy]

232. Exactly our point.

The Japanese in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were innocent civilians, just as were the civilians in the WTC. Both were totally wrong; both are examples of the fallacy of guilt by association.

At what point did anybody here suggest otherwise, Make7? Or are you one of many here who operate on a simplistic binary thought process?

[Make7]

238. I thought that was what was being implied by rinsd....

in post 156.

No, I am not. Wait...yes, I am. Um, maybe somewhere in the middle.

-Make7

[Emillereid]

144. His opinions are not much different than what Chalmers

Johnson has said before. Both the world trade center and the pentagon were military targets. He has said that the people in the pentagon were 'legitimate' targets while the people in the world trade center would be what we call collateral damage. I don't know that either the professor here or Johnson condone or like to see this kind of death and destruction. I think they're are both saying that 9/11 was predictable 'blow-back' for our actions; that they are historically understandable. The administration likes to paint the 911 attackers as 'evildoers' who attacked us for no reason or because they hate our freedoms. That's nonsense. They were soldiers for their cause using asymmetric warfare (because they don't have an air force or cruise missiles, etc.) and they were doing to us what we have done on a much larger scale to many, many others around the world.

After 911 I kept hoping it would be a wake-up call for Americans -- that we'd realize that raining death and destruction on people would eventually have consequences; that there was something just a tad wrong with our foreign policy; that war itself needs to be abolished. But no -- we have decided to go to war on steroids instead. I fear for our species.

Please keep it in your mind: "WE ARE NOT WORTH MORE, THEY ARE NOT WORTH LESS!"
Brian Wilson

[underpants]

162. What an idiot

:grr:

[dmallind]

190. In some ways valid but of limited scope and much sensationalism

Yes I think few will argue that in being the world's bully we do not as a nation draw the ire of the bullied. The US will always be the principal target for those who feel that the west in general is treating them unfairly or even cruelly. Bombing Denmark isn't the same kind of statement obviously.

But Churchill makes several conclusions based on no evidence. In discussing the sins of the US, OBL and his folk don't put Iraqi sanctions all that high on the list for a start. He also assumes that in discussing roosting chickens you can only go one step to find the roost. Why is it only US actions which have repercussions and which have responsibility? If the sanctions were evil, even let's say put oin place with deliberately evil intent, then isn't some culpability there for sharing with those whose actions caused and maintained the need for sanctions? For example what political will in the UN or even the US would there have been for sanctions had Hussein said in 1991, faced with the obvious fact he was not the military equal of the west and could never prevail if attacked, something like this:

"Yep I'll let all inspectors in unmolested and unrestricted. Yep I'll renounce any claim to Kuwait. Yep I'll stop using my oil money to prop up this regime and line my own pockets. In fact over the next couple of years I'll arrange for free and fair elections and forego any violent reprisals against my political opponents, letting the oil money instead flow into improving the lives of the people".

Unrealistic? yep - about as unrealistic as the US NOT putting sanctions in place without something like that - which in effect would be saying "Here - use a few more billion dollars of our oil imports to build a better army so next time you have a chance of keeping Kuwait and killing more folks".

What would our responsibility and culpability have been then?

So why no culpability assigned to the actions that brought about the political will for sanctions in the first place? A root cause is not necessarily the proximal cause. Where is the acknowledgment of a chain of the events which does not start with undeniable US heavy handedness? Not there!

A further central problem with this essay is assuming association equals guilt. The WTC offices housed a damn sight more than Wall Street traders, and even if it had been chock-a-bloc full of only foreign loan and bond traders, there would still be only a fraction of one percent of them who had any real decision making power to control what happened. Should no-one take a job in an organization connected to foreign policy in any way or risk culpability? That standard is ludicrous. CU is a large school. I'm sure for example it has probably if we look hard enough developed some technology in its research labs which has military use. Is Churchill therefore culpable because he works for the same organization?

Civilian casualties in declared wars between states attacking primarily military targets is one thing - but targeting civilians because they happen to work in the same place as people who tangentially are involved in the daily details of some arguably harmful foreign bond issues is ridiculous, and absolutely no indication of this as a cause of the attack is established in the essay - just a wild surmise.

Where are the quotes from the attackers? Where are the interviews with terrorist or whatever you call them leaders saying that they want to attack worker bees in the foreign bond trade? Not there!

In interviews I have seen and tapes I have heard which do have first hand input from these folks, they almost always stress two things above all - US support for Israel and the profane nature of our culture. None of these are meaningfully derived from the WTC. Whether they make us valid targets for attack is definitely questionable and a long stretch IMO, but there is no connection to what was actually done and condoned in this essay.

[blindpig]

173. Good Americans = Good Germans

harsh truth. Seems like some people can't handle it. Pay your taxes, burn oil like a pyromaniac and enjoy your lifestyle. When someone asks "who benefits?" put your fingers in your ears and sing lalala.

A bit over the top in places but as the author said it was something of a rant, a first draft. Few Americans can admit how soaked in the blood of innocents our history is and few have more right to enunciate that reality than a Native American.

Read it and weep.

[SeekingDemocracy]

199. Guilt by Association = BS

By his logic no one's hands are clean and therefore we all deserve to die. That's the outlook of a disturbed individual.

[Bono71]

215. Agree. n/t

[IA_Seth]

206. Only with a detached logical mind.....

Limiting compassion for the victims and their families, of which I have a lot, it is hard for me not to agree somewhat with his assessment (though not his choice of words, little eichmanns is a bit far).

How often does the US begin a war by bombing phone switches and other communication hubs that often time employ civilians? The purpose of any military attack is to cause the most damage (either mentally or physically) with the least amount of damage to yourself.

While I do not condone, nor do I respect the attacks on 9/11, I do think that the ones who carried out the attack carried it out as an act of war.

[Inland]

219. That's not applicable here. 9/11 wasn't justifable as war at all.

There is a difference between bombing a facility with military value that holds civilians and bombing a facility with no military value because it holds civilians. In one, deaths of civilians is a result that would be avoided. In the other, deaths of civilians is the result sought, and the more the better.

The point of 9/11 was terror, in that it was to kill people who had no connection with the military or foreign policy or government. It was to let us all know that everyone was a target, even if you are a child, even if you are a janitor, a tourist, even if you aren't an American, by picking a landmark and killing everyone in it for no reason except to kill everyone in it. There is no innocent bystander in a terrorist attack, since the terrorist means to kill anyone he can.

That is not to say that the killing of civilians is okay just because it is "collateral" to attacking a military target. We knew the day we declared war against Iraq that tens of thousands of Iraqis would be killed, many of them civilians. Civilian deaths in Iraq weren't "accidental" or "unavoidable", since we knew they would happen when we pressed the button. No, killing them is only one of two things: justifiable, because the war was just and we avoided as many as we could while obeying the need for war, or not justifiable, because the war was not necessary to defend us or them or we were careless in avoiding civilian deaths.

We end up with unjustified killings of civilians too, IMO. It wasn't the goal, but it is the result.

[IA_Seth]

230. My thoughts

As an annoying boss used to say to me, "preception is reality". What she meant was that the way people see things is the way their reality is formed.

9/11 terrorized the shit out of us. It was a terrorist attack. I dare say our "Shock and Awe" program terrorized the shit out of many an Iraqi civilian. In their reality, "Shock and Awe" were terrorist attacks.

I am not saying that I agree with that preception. I disagree whole-heartedly. I agree with you in that 9/11 was a terror attack.

What I ask is that this is looked at as a matter of perspective. To me most acts of war are acts of terror. What constitutes a facility with valid "military value"? In centuries past, the best way to stop an army was cut it off from its fortunes. The effect on our economy was and is staggering (although we will never know how much is "the idiot"'s fault and how much was 9/11 - in my opinion it was his reaction to 9/11). I am sure Al Qaeda sees what it does as a war and the WTC as a target with much "military value".

Wars are ugly, and to glorify war, or to even hold it to a higher standard than the terrorist attacks perpetrated on September 11th is folly, in my opinion.

I am not saying that war is not sometimes justified. What I am saying is that all things in life are a matter of how you look at them. To those that flew their planes into a civilian target, they were doing it to bring down a mighty foe whom they wished destroyed. We now attack them and hope they are destroyed.

The difference, to me, is a matter of how you look at it.

[The Magistrate]

228. Oh, My....

This will provide rum fun down here....

"Welcome back my friends, to the show that never ends!"

[American Tragedy]

231. Well, what do you think of it, Magistrate?

[The Magistrate]

239. Well, Ma'am

It is in the main a pretty foolish piece. Its author is devoted to several untrue beliefs, but they mostly have no relevance to the thrust of discussion here, and so are not worth engaging. He does not have a very good grasp of the laws of war, in particular, or much understanding of what moves people to kill and die in war, but these things are common to people who blankly abhor the whole exercise. Devil's advocacy is best avoided by those who think themselves angels at heart, they cannot avoid striking false notes in that key.

The Pentagon was certainly a legitimate target; there is hardly any more legitimate a military target than the highest headquarters of a military force. The means of striking at the Pentagon, however, would probably be judged criminal, as it involved a large number civilians, and it was probably not necessary to do so. The Trade Center buildings were not a military target, and there is no possible construction that can be placed on that attack that would render it other than a criminal deed. It does not matter to the laws of war that some of the civilians at that premesis may have profitted from exploitation, even exploitation unto death, of some other people: wrecking that place, and killing those people, could have no direct military value, and that is the criterion.

To the degree that the author is in sympathy with the idea that the United States and its people deserve some punishment, he must unavoidably be seen as in sympathy to exactly that degree with the people who carried these actions, that he views as a species of collective punishment against the economic and military elite of the country. He can hardly be surprised by the storm of obloquey called down on his head by this piece, but likely intended to provoke it, and rather enjoys the storm and noteriety it brings. Nor can he sustain any pretense that his mind set is really much different than that of members of the economic and military elite he is so incensed with: he merely takes another side, but would prosecute its aims in precisely the same style as they work to achieve their's.

"Revolution, n.: An abrupt change in the form of mis-government."

[Darranar]

243. An interesting perspective. Some of my thoughts were on similar lines...

Nor can he sustain any pretense that his mind set is really much different than that of members of the economic and military elite he is so incensed with: he merely takes another side, but would prosecute its aims in precisely the same style as they work to achieve their's.

This is the chief problem with his logic - he fails to see that he is adopting the same apologizing attitude towards atrocities that those he condemns are. If it is wrong to kill Muslims who are in some very minor way complicit in the crimes of al-Qaeda, or to kill Latin Americans who are in some very minor way complicit in the crimes of "Communists," then it is wrong to kill Americans who are in some very minor way complicit in the crimes of the US government.

He also imitates those he condemns in his attitude towards the war in Afghanistan. Instead of seeing it as an indication that perhaps the policy of slamming planes into buildings filled with thousands of civilians is a bad one, he claims that it shows that the US needs to be taught another lesson, a larger one, through the same sort of policy. This is much like the attitudes of the US elite towards the situation in Iraq - not "this is a bad policy, let's get out of there," but rather, "let's continue this policy even more avidly, destroying more cities and fighting more insurgents/terrorists, and then everything will be fine."

That said, he does make a few good and relevant points regarding the ridiculous portrayal of the United States as an innocent victim subject to foreign aggression. The attacks were certainly not unprovoked, though it does not follow that they were justified or weren't criminal.

Certainly an interesting essay altogether, somewhat factually accurate if morally vacuous.