9/11 victims deserved their fate

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Oh, ok. I understand what you mean now. Fair enough.

I would remind you, that when the Jews of Europe were being murdered by the millions, Jewish partisans attacked nazi forces, and economic targets, such as railroads. AFAIK the partisans as a general rule did NOT target innocent civilians, in order to "make their case".

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
If by admission their case/cause is sooo weak that they feel compelled to resort to terrorism they have admitted that they have no legitamacy

Only the strong can have a claim to legitimacy?

Well, I knew the Libbies want a society that will inevitably end up in a "might makes right" anarchy, but you guys are supposed to dislike it

[laurentius]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I don't recall using fuel air bombs (the equivilant of tactical nukes) on Fallujah if you reall want to compare the two.

You should be thankful to the combat teams did not use depleted uranium like you did '91....

Not only millions of Iraqi lifes continue to be destroyed by the uranium ammunition you used but about 150 000 US, Canadian and British veterans and their childrens as well.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Atahualpa
Weird interpretation, I fail to see the link to genocide being a conclusion.

You clearly have not read my interpretation of "The Matrix"

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
If you want to discuss the morality of strategic bombing or of Israeli actions, there are numerous threads in which to do that. The logic that defends those actions, CORRECT OR NOT, is NOT the logic used by Mr. Churchill and is therefore irrelevant to what we are discussing.

No, it's the same logic. Both groups argue that its acceptable to kill civilians for certain reasons which each side claims is legitimate. Churchill is nothing more than the opposite number of those who claim it's acceptable for Israel to kill a house full of children in order to get one guy. The same logic is behind the thinking that it's acceptable to kill a whole building full of people in order to get them to stop engaging in economic oppression.

Furthermore, while you'd like to narrow the discussion to Churchill's support of violence, Churchill's essay is the one that brings in the arguments as to why the WTC was legitimate in the first place (rightly or wrongly) for the same arguments I mentioned earlier. You may disagree, but they are hardly tangential to the thread.

BTW, Ward Churchill has resigned as head of ethnic studies.

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

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by laurentius
You should be thankful to the combat tems not to use depleted uranium like you did '91....

Actually, we are using DU.

[chequita guevara]

Ward Churchill Responds to Criticism of
"Some People Push Back"
In the last few days there has been widespread and grossly inaccurate media coverage concerning my analysis of the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, coverage that has resulted in defamation of my character and threats against my life. What I actually said has been lost, indeed turned into the opposite of itself, and I hope the following facts will be reported at least to the same extent that the fabrications have been.

* The piece circulating on the internet was developed into a book, On the Justice of Roosting Chickens. Most of the book is a detailed chronology of U.S. military interventions since 1776 and U.S. violations of international law since World War II. My point is that we cannot allow the U.S. government, acting in our name, to engage in massive violations of international law and fundamental human rights and not expect to reap the consequences.

* I am not a "defender"of the September 11 attacks, but simply pointing out that if U.S. foreign policy results in massive death and destruction abroad, we cannot feign innocence when some of that destruction is returned. I have never said that people "should" engage in armed attacks on the United States, but that such attacks are a natural and unavoidable consequence of unlawful U.S. policy. As Martin Luther King, quoting Robert F. Kennedy, said, "Those who make peaceful change impossible make violent change inevitable."

* This is not to say that I advocate violence; as a U.S. soldier in Vietnam I witnessed and participated in more violence than I ever wish to see. What I am saying is that if we want an end to violence, especially that perpetrated against civilians, we must take the responsibility for halting the slaughter perpetrated by the United States around the world. My feelings are reflected in Dr. King's April 1967 Riverside speech, where, when asked about the wave of urban rebellions in U.S. cities, he said, "I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed . . . without having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today — my own government."

* In 1996 Madeleine Albright, then Ambassador to the UN and soon to be U.S. Secretary of State, did not dispute that 500,000 Iraqi children had died as a result of economic sanctions, but stated on national television that "we" had decided it was "worth the cost." I mourn the victims of the September 11 attacks, just as I mourn the deaths of those Iraqi children, the more than 3 million people killed in the war in Indochina, those who died in the U.S. invasions of Grenada, Panama and elsewhere in Central America, the victims of the transatlantic slave trade, and the indigenous peoples still subjected to genocidal policies. If we respond with callous disregard to the deaths of others, we can only expect equal callousness to American deaths.

* Finally, I have never characterized all the September 11 victims as "Nazis." What I said was that the "technocrats of empire" working in the World Trade Center were the equivalent of "little Eichmanns." Adolf Eichmann was not charged with direct killing but with ensuring the smooth running of the infrastructure that enabled the Nazi genocide. Similarly, German industrialists were legitimately targeted by the Allies.

* It is not disputed that the Pentagon was a military target, or that a CIA office was situated in the World Trade Center. Following the logic by which U.S. Defense Department spokespersons have consistently sought to justify target selection in places like Baghdad, this placement of an element of the American "command and control infrastructure" in an ostensibly civilian facility converted the Trade Center itself into a "legitimate" target. Again following U.S. military doctrine, as announced in briefing after briefing, those who did not work for the CIA but were nonetheless killed in the attack amounted to no more than "collateral damage." If the U.S. public is prepared to accept these "standards" when the are routinely applied to other people, they should be not be surprised when the same standards are applied to them.

* It should be emphasized that I applied the "little Eichmanns" characterization only to those described as "technicians." Thus, it was obviously not directed to the children, janitors, food service workers, firemen and random passers-by killed in the 9-1-1 attack. According to Pentagon logic, were simply part of the collateral damage. Ugly? Yes. Hurtful? Yes. And that's my point. It's no less ugly, painful or dehumanizing a description when applied to Iraqis, Palestinians, or anyone else. If we ourselves do not want to be treated in this fashion, we must refuse to allow others to be similarly devalued and dehumanized in our name.

* The bottom line of my argument is that the best and perhaps only way to prevent 9-1-1-style attacks on the U.S. is for American citizens to compel their government to comply with the rule of law. The lesson of Nuremberg is that this is not only our right, but our obligation. To the extent we shirk this responsibility, we, like the "Good Germans" of the 1930s and '40s, are complicit in its actions and have no legitimate basis for complaint when we suffer the consequences. This, of course, includes me, personally, as well as my family, no less than anyone else.

* These points are clearly stated and documented in my book, On the Justice of Roosting Chickens, which recently won Honorary Mention for the Gustavus Myer Human Rights Award. for best writing on human rights. Some people will, of course, disagree with my analysis, but it presents questions that must be addressed in academic and public debate if we are to find a real solution to the violence that pervades today's world. The gross distortions of what I actually said can only be viewed as an attempt to distract the public from the real issues at hand and to further stifle freedom of speech and academic debate in this country.

Ward Churchill
Boulder, Colorado
January 31, 2005

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

BTW, Ward Churchill has resigned as head of ethnic studies.
http://www.kersplebedeb.com/mystuff/s11/backlash.html

Being a department head is not really a big deal. It's really more of a duty.

[laurentius]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Actually, we are using DU.

Still? Thats just evil

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Being a department head is not really a big deal. It's really more of a duty.

It added 20% to his already staggering paycheck ($94+K).

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by laurentius


You should be thankful to the combat tems not to use depleted uranium like you did '91....

Not only millions of Iraqi lifes continue to be destroyed by the uranium ammunition you used but about 150 000 US, Canadian and British veterans and their childrens as well.

You use combat teams again. There was no combat it was a suicide mission..

As far as you saying : "Finland ha done nothing why should they attack us?"

Great Britain and France said that before WWII.

ACK!

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by laurentius
Still? Thats just evil

The Pentagon feels it's worth it and disputes the poisonousness of the debris.

[laurentius]

Combat teams dont do suicide missions?

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by laurentius


Still? Thats just evil

Nope.

Stupid? yes. Evil? Only if you are an America hating Finn.

ACK!

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Tuberski
Great Britain and France said that before WWII.

We didn't (we knew full well what we did). And it is us who declared warto Germany also.