9/11 victims deserved their fate

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Sorry for the threadjack, but I'm in need of education here:

I thought the Cambodians horrors were driven not by a willingness to wipe out the Cambodgian population (Pol Pot was a Combodgian himself, and I don't remeber the obliteration of his population was hi aim), but to re-organize the whole Cambodgian society by killing the "irrecuperables". It doesn't hamper on the fact that Cambodgia was a nightmare (for the record, I think Earth has never known a regime more evil than Pol Pot's), but I don't see it as a genocide. The "cide" component was available aplenty, but I have never heard of the "geno" component.

They aimed at eliminating an entire group of people. I think that qualifies.

[Kidlicious]

LotM,

I think the point is that the attack was aimed at the managers of the economy. Saying so isn't really a Marxist argument.

[laurentius]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


No, you didn't get it. You were advocating people doing undemocratic means to change the course of their government's policy. This renders your little caveat of "democracy" meaningless, as people in a dictatorship can resort to such means as well. So, since the Iraqis didn't, I guess they all share the blame for Saddam's regime of torture and bloodshed, eh?

Or I guess all those Germans in WW2 were collectively innocent, since they were also under the yoke of a brutal dictator, right?

How is strikes and direct action undemocratic? Do you think only voting is allowed in a democracy? If a leadership is committing war crimes in a democratic system the people who elected them or did not remove them are guilty.

People in nazi Germany or Saddams Iraq cannot be held responcible because of the totalitarian nature of their systems. Get it?

What does age have to do with it? Plenty of elderly people also oppose such behavior by the U.S. government.

If you were 8 years old when the Gulf War 1 broke out there wasnt much you could have done as an individual to stop it. But if you were 15 or older you could have challenged the adminstration not to kill babies with an embargo. Thats why age matters.

, you haven't a clue what you're talking about. MOST Americans live well below such "shareholder value" concern. The U.S. has 8 times the population of Finland living below the poverty line, and I'd love to compare their standard of living to yours.

The rich and middle class are responsible. Wich one do you belong to? Your systems internal flaws are not part of the discussion. The poor could have revolted, this hasent happened.

Despite your cartoonish view, Americans aren't, by and large, greedy fatcats sitting at corporate desks raking in profits and chortling to the bank. Again, a healthy percentage of those who died at the WTC weren't even that. They were secretaries, file clerks, temps, interns, janitors, busboys, waiters, etc. Some of them hadn't even been in the U.S. for a year. And, if you knew anything about NYC, you'd know they weren't "gas guzzlers" either, as they relied on public transportation.

You seem to think most of the people working in WTC were janitors
Look the people are just as responsible as any American. It doesnt matter what they were doing in the buildings.

Hell, not even all of the offices in the WTC were for big, evil corporations. There was a college campus inside it, you know. And plenty of companies that are big into philanthropy. But don't let that interfere with your broad brushstrokes.

And yeah, they were working to provide a quality life for their family and themselves. How dare they, huh?

The students are perhaps the most guilty as they are the finest of your country but still did nothing to prevent the war crimes.

And yeah the others were to provide a quality life for their family and themselves from the misery of others. How dare they, huh?

Oh no?

http://usinfo.state.gov/sa/Archive/2004/Dec/02-148951.html

Tell me, do you think the Al Queda terrorists look positively on that or negatively? Hmmm?

Uh the American government can lie all they want. We are not sorry about giving money to rebuild something you have destroyed just because it gives you the wrong signal.

Bull****! Finland voted along with the UN to authorize the invasion of Iraq in 1990. Your government voted to authorize the invasion.

Oh come on, get real! We voted in protest of the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. Where did anyone vote to authorise the killing of 500 000 babies? You can justify your war crimes just because you were asked to do the thing properly and without committing war crimes.

Your country officially recognized Israel in 1949 and, yes, maintains diplomatic relations with it. You do realize that is still part of the grievances of Al Queda, yes? They view Israel is illegitimate, and nations recognizing it are culpable. Welcome to the guilt club.

OMG We dont hate teh jews!!1 Look any sensible country maintains diplomatic ties to any country they are not at war with. I'm not particularly interested about the grievances of AQ. They see things their way. Theres no guilt about this. Finnish people are much more sympathetic towards the Pals anyway.

Finland has trade ties with Israel in excess of $150 million annually. Not much compared to the U.S., but do you think that makes a difference to Al Queda? It's still "supporting the enemy." Why don't you get off your lazy butt and demand your government cease trade ties with Israel (or the U.S., if you think it's so evil)? Not doing all you can because it's too inconvenient?

Apparently it does. I boycott israeli products myself but see no need to cease trading with them as it would cost the Palestinians thousands of jobs in Israel. An honest trade is a bit different that giving BILLIONS for FREE annually

How many of those military bases are welcomed by the countries of those governments, and how many of the citizens of those countries who live near the bases are thankful to have the economic boon it provides?

I'm sure millions in Iraq, Japan, South Korea or Saudi Arabia welcome your presence every day. Just look at all those gifts left to the roads in Baghdad everyday.

Waaah, waaaah... "We just make cell phones!" Yeah, right. Hey, do you think the U.S. military utilizes any of the technology you've developed at all in their operations? Gee, I wonder. And how much trade from Finland do you think is helping to enrich the big bad U.S.? And how much of our ill-begotten billions is going to your country, helping support your infrastructure and way of life? And why aren't you bombing your government offices in protest over your ties to it? Hey, national borders are just imaginary boundaries, you know. Sitting back and absolving yourself from the collective guilt because you're in another country and are to ignorant to really bother checking out how things work in the world isn't an excuse.

Yeah like the US army would trust an European firm in its communications needs....
We arent the ones doing the bad things here you are, why should we hurt ourselves by not trading with you?

Ask the British what they learned from Gandhi.

Retaliation against military targets is fine. The French did it all the time in WW2, as did others who resisted the Nazi oppression. They were smart enough to make the destinction between a government doing bad things and civilians who weren't.

Apparently you arent capable of making that distinction, so why should the others be?

Why cant you do the right thing? At least once.

[laurentius]

Originally posted by Oerdin


I've pwnd our little Finnish boy on DU before but he doesn't he likes to still go through the teary eyed routine.

Our Mr. Iraq here is obviously self righteous ass enough not to bother reading my posts

[Ming]

HEY... DISCUSS THE TOPIC.. NOT THE POSTERS.

I don't care who started it, but it will end!

[laurentius]

Sure Boss. I just returned the insult.

[Berzerker]

chegitz

I would say that's an interpretation that has some merit. As with Churchill's assertion, it is neither 100% correct nor 100% incorrect. Let's face it, if people didn't buy drugs, that money wouldn't be used to fund all sorts of bad things.

Aside from their lumping "drugs" together to taint all illegal drug users, our taxdollars and dollars for oil and diamonds etc funded terrorists too, so at what point in a sequence of events do we become innocent when some a-hole decides to start murdering people and we start pointing fingers at everyone who had some "impact" on how the guy bought a gun or boxcutter? And the reverse argument has more merit, drugs can make lots of money for terrorists because they are illegal, therefore the people who made them illegal created the potential for that profit.

Alcohol dealers in 1930 = gangsters (and terrorists), alcohol dealers in 1950 = resolve disputes in court.

Who induced the terrorism, the law makers or the lawbreakers?

Given the lack of credibility in Washington, what proof is there Al Qaida raised money thru drugs? When this question is asked we're told about Columbia where we are waging our drug war or some seizure allegedly linked to AQ after the war began. Ignore this if your response was based on the assumption of a factual link between drugs and terrorists.

When they refuse to cooperate with the system. It's not an easy choice. It means living in poverty. It means not having nice things. People do it, willingly. I don't. I don't want to live like that. I accept that I am part of an evil system, because I don't want to live like a hippie anarchist, squatting in abandoned buildings and dumpster diving for food. The point is, if we wanted to ensure that we don't contribute to the oppression of others, there are things we could do.

What does Ward do other than speak out and offend people? I presume he consumes, even has a government job.

Does that mean, me, buying my Coke products, which puts money in the pocket of a corporation that hires death sqauds to kill union organizers in Columbia bears the same responsibility as the corporate heads making the decisions? Does a mail clerk in Atlanta bear the same responsibility as para thug? Of course not. Will the Fed's still send a Mafia account to jail even though he isn't the one peddling the drugs or pulling the trigger? Yes, but not for as long. The fact we have reduced responsibility doesn't mean we have no responsibility. The fact that we have some responsibility doesn't mean we should be murdered for it. Just because we aren't as innocent as we want to believe doesn't mean we're as guilty as some would say we are.

So the only "Innocent" people are those who have no control over what they consume? Ya'll spread the net of guilt so wide virtually everyone of age is "guilty". Churchill is throwing his ideology into the reasons AQ hit the towers, they did it to hurt our economy and make a big splash, not endorse Marxism (or whatever this guy is). AQ could care less that America is capitalistic, they chose the buildings for other reasons. Even OBL said he got the idea of hitting the towers from a vision he had of 2 buildings in Beirut getting hit by bombs. Oh well, I think we are on the same page but disagree about how far guilt spreads. If I vote for a politician and he sends people around the world to screw with other people and I do nothing about it upon learning the truth, then I share responibilty if I continue to support them in office.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Presuming people innocent in order to make a justice system fair is one thing, but actually believing that all people are innocent is quite another.

And again for those of you missed me saying it at least three times. I don't justify the attacks. I'm merely saying that not all of the people who died were innocent.

The presumption of innocence is just that- they are innocent, whether you like it or not. Anything else is vigilante justice, and puts you fair and square on the side of lynch mobs, 'street justice' dealers and fascists.

If you have a car, and run it on petrol, you are 'guilty' of supporting global trade. If you buy food or goods from Safeways, Wal-Mart, Target, or large electronics goods outlets you are 'guilty' of supporting global trade.

In effect, you are supporting in your own way the same system that you imply some of the people in the World Trade Centre are 'guilty' of supporting. It's just the support comes in bigger or smaller degrees.


Unless all your food purchases are fair trade purchases, you are 'guilty' of supporting the maintenance of Third World Debt, where countries are forced to rely on the sale of foodstuffs to the developed world simply in order to pay off the interest on their debts.

Your coffee will most likely come from large scale coffee plantations in Central and South America, land and products obtained as a result of American governmental and corporate interference in Central and South American politics all through the 20th Century.

Are you implicit in the crimes of Kissinger & Nixon, the Eisenhower and Reagan administrations ? Do you feel responsible for the profits American corporations get from corrupt regimes and paramilitary suppression of trade unions?

Should make your coffee taste a tad more bitter the next time you have some.

Similarly with cocoa beans from Africa. Not a pleasant thought, is it?


I consistently voted against Tory governments in Great Britain, demonstrated, marched, protested, wrote letters to the Home Secretary, et cetera, et cetera.

I'd have hated some Libyan funded terrorist to assume that I was 'guilty' only by virtue of being British and working in Central London.

Equally, by assuming or stating the guilt of people in the World Trade Centre as 'fact' or 'proven', you are denying them the justice they deserve.

Not all Americans are 'guilty' because they are Americans- some, for instance, opposed American governmental interference in Nicaragua and El Salvador, exposed the lies behind America's foreign policy, and some gave their lives helping the citizens of those countries.

And equally importantly, not everyone killed in the World Trade Centre was American.


Unfortunately, airliners turned into ballistic missliles do not scruple to apportion blame, letting some go free whilst killing others.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Sorry for the threadjack, but I'm in need of education here:

I thought the Cambodians horrors were driven not by a willingness to wipe out the Cambodgian population (Pol Pot was a Combodgian himself, and I don't remeber the obliteration of his population was hi aim), but to re-organize the whole Cambodgian society by killing the "irrecuperables". It doesn't hamper on the fact that Cambodgia was a nightmare (for the record, I think Earth has never known a regime more evil than Pol Pot's), but I don't see it as a genocide. The "cide" component was available aplenty, but I have never heard of the "geno" component.

If you explicitly aim at the destruction of whole religious, cultural or ethnic groups, you are carrying out genocidal acts:

" Religion was banned, all leading Buddhist monks were killed and almost all temples destroyed. Music and radio sets were also banned.

One Khmer slogan ran 'To spare you is no profit, to destroy you is no loss.'

Also targeted were minority groups, victims of the Khmer Rouge's racism. These included ethnic Chinese, Vietnamese and Thai, and also Cambodians with Chinese, Vietnamese or Thai ancestry. Half the Cham Muslim population was murdered, and 8,000 Christians."

http://www.ppu.org.uk/genocide/g_cambodia.html

[PeteH]

If you have a car, and run it on petrol, you are 'guilty' of supporting global trade. If you buy food or goods from Safeways, Wal-Mart, Target, or large electronics goods outlets you are 'guilty' of supporting global trade.

Yes, exactly

The problem is, now that you have followed the logic back, most people will back off and say 'oh that just can't be right' and bring in some kind of religious or otherwise supernatural explanation why all this is ok

I prefer instead to remain consistant and and say "If these are what our current culture and economic system are built on, and I think it is wrong, then it is my duty to help destroy that system"

By coincidence I happened to be reading one of Ward's collections of essays off and on lately, there is a quote that I think is appropriate here:

Knowledge, associated as it is with power, demands action. To Posess knowledge and ignore its demands is to nullify claims of innocence. Ignorance, in effect, equates to complicity, a variety of guilt

[Kidlicious]

molly bloom,

Actually I do feel guilty for being an American. I have to function within the society that I live in, but I don't seperate my own guilt from that of my society.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Oh well, I think we are on the same page but disagree about how far guilt spreads.

I think that's a fair assessment.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Some things to consider. Ward Churchill is a member of a group of people the United States nearly exterminated; he's an American Indian, a member of the Cherokee nation.

Or maybe not.

"
The American Indian Movement Grand Governing Council representing the National and International leadership of the American Indian Movement once again is vehemently and emphatically repudiating and condemning the outrageous statements made by academic literary and Indian fraud, Ward Churchill in relationship to the 9-11 tragedy in New York City that claimed thousands of innocent people’s lives.

Churchill’s statement that these people deserved what happened to them, and calling them little Eichmanns, comparing them to Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann, who implemented Adolf Hitler’s plan to exterminate European Jews and others, should be condemned by all.

The sorry part of this is Ward Churchill has fraudulently represented himself as an Indian, and a member of the American Indian Movement, a situation that has lifted him into the position of a lecturer on Indian activism. He has used the American Indian Movement’s chapter in Denver to attack the leadership of the official American Indian Movement with his misinformation and propaganda campaigns. "


and from Indian Country Today, via Instapundit:


"Suzan Shown Harjo, a columnist for ICT who has tracked Churchill's career, said that aside from the in-laws of his late Indian wife, he has not been able to produce any relatives from any Indian tribe.

Beyond the question of his personal identity is the question of his standing to represent Indian opinion, not only on 9/11 but also in his other published works. Mohawk ironworkers helped build the World Trade Center and other monuments of the New York City skyline, and one crew was actually at work in the flight path of the plane that struck the second tower. St. Regis Mohawk Chief James Ransom noted that they joined rescue teams at great personal risk.

Churchill's other writings repudiate not only the U.S. but also most Indian tribal institutions. In one 1994 essay, he described tribal self government as a ''cruel hoax'' carried out by ''puppets'' of ''an advanced colonial setting.'' He equated the status of Indian tribes in the U.S. to that of European colonies in Asia and Africa. His analysis reflected an extreme version of European left-wing ideology."

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
[The sorry part of this is Ward Churchill has fraudulently represented himself as an Indian, and a member of the American Indian Movement, a situation that has lifted him into the position of a lecturer on Indian activism. He has used the American Indian Movement’s chapter in Denver to attack the leadership of the official American Indian Movement with his misinformation and propaganda campaigns. "

How do you fraudulently represent yourself as a member of your ethnicity?

[DinoDoc]

Perhaps because he isn't an Indian.