Controversial CU prof resigns as department chair (over 9-11 essay)

[intheflow]

http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36~53~2684392,00.html

Controversial CU prof resigns as department chair
By Howard Pankratz
Denver Post Staff Writer

University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill, under fire for comparing victims of the Sept. 11 World Trade Center attack to Nazis, resigned today as chairman of CU's ethnic studies department but will continue on as a teacher.

(snip)

"I have never characterized all the Sept. 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.' 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," Churchill said.

Churchill said he isn't a "defender" of the Sept. 11 attacks, but meant to point out that if U.S. foreign policy results in massive death and destruction abroad, "we cannot feign innocence when some of the destruction is returned."

In Churchill's essay, he said the Pentagon was a military target, "pure and simple."

"As to those in the World Trade Center ... Well, really. Let's get a grip here, shall we? True enough, they were civilians of a sort. But innocent? Gimme a break. They formed a technocratic corps at the very heart of America's global financial empire - the 'mighty engine of profit' to which the military dimension of U.S. policy has always been enslaved."

(snip)

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

External links/more information

Churchill's essay in question: "Some People Push Back" On the Justice of Roosting Chickens

Churchill, a Native American, has compared the oppression, enslavement, torture, relocation and extermination of Native Americans in America to the genocide Jews experienced at the hands of the Nazi's in his book "A Little Matter of Genocide: Holocaust and Denial in the Americas, 1492 to the Present."

Churchill's ZNet HomePage

[OldVlad]

1. Sad pathetic man gives RWer's tons of material

Wish you could have retroactively stepped down and never published this insipid nonsense.

relocation and extermination of Native Americans in America to the genocide Jews experienced at the hands of the Nazi's in his book

Yeah, seems to be a one trick pony for Ward, he compared the people in the towers to the Nazi who "kept the trains running on time" but "obviously" was not directing it at the people killed in the 911 attack. Thanks for marginalizing all on the Left who disagree with Bush's policies.

[Djinn]

3. so when native americans were slaughtered

that wasn't so bad but when it happens to european jews/socialists/gays/trade unionist etc it's awful???

how does that work - I'm not big on Nazi comparisons either but the genocide of the native american population was just as systematic, just as pre-planned as the Holocaust and frankly it was more "effective" - why would you have a problem with THAT comparison.

I think this prof put it a little clumsilly but to say the wealthy investment bankers/stock traders etc working in the WTC were CLEARLY benefitting from the foreign policies actions (bombing/torturing/theiving etc) of the US, he's not wrong, I wouldn't have gone there but the point is actually valid. You can't just expect that ONLY the rulers of a nation be accountable for the actions of that country - EVERYONE in it has some culpability, how many Americans were protesting their taxes helping to pay for military hardware that kills innocent childern in Palestine? How many people stopped buying gas? how many people gave a shit about Abu Ghraib?

Cetainly the Pentagon was a FAR FAR more legit target than pretty much ANYTHING the US bombed in Iraq.

[poe]

6. Right on Djinn-What people don't want to look at is the totality....

of violence,ecological devastation,torture etc. that are the predominant features of the misnamed America. Churchill is right and if he states it point blank it makes the knees quiver of those who hang on to vestiges of this fuzzy psycopathic American Fairy Tale.

[Djinn]

10. i include myself too

Despite my views on native title and reparations for the deliberate destruction of families (in in Australia btw not US) I still have to acknowledge that my current lifestyle, and the abililty to live in this beautiful country has occured at the expense of Australia's indigenous population.

I guess it's a case of being able to see things from the other side - sure those people, even the humungo rich facist bastard ones, killed in the WTC attacks didn't "deserve" what they got, they were just making a living but in the same breath the Iraqi army and many many members of the Baath party were ALSO just making a living yet people tend not to view them as blameless.

Factory owners who used slave labour during the Holocaust were also just making a living and any noise from them would have resulted in execution something few investment bankers need to worry about if they decide to "drop out" yet they weer also complicit in the crimes of the Nazi's.

If ones income depends on the exploitation of the third world (and anyone in the high finance industry does) then one has some culpability if th third world decides to fight back

[JackRiddler]

27. This is what I'm talking about below...

The naivete about 9/11 on the lettered left.

Even granting for a moment the official story with its outrageous implausibilities, you're going to tell me 9/11 was a case of the "Third World fighting back?"

Dude, what brand of romantically-colored glasses are you wearing?

Osama, the disaffected billionaire with high-testosterone, millenarian fantasies, who happens to be a former CIA asset (we'll assume the "former" for the purposes of argument). A man best known for assisting the destruction of a comparably humane regime in Afghanistan so as to bring to power his druglord-warlord friend Hekmatyar and then the Taliban. A few years later (so goes the official fairy tale), he dispatches a small self-appointed cadre of his suicide soldiers, on orders Straight from God, to strike a blow against the Satan. Nineteen guys - now that's a liberation movement! They act in a hermetic conspiracy to kill a few thousand worker-ants and poison a city, not coincidentally giving to the worst of their ostensible enemies (Bush and crew) the greatest political windfall they could hope for, and carte blanche to step up their own murderous activities worldwide.

And apparently you've so thoroughly imbibed the "propaganda of the deed" in your PJs that you think this is the Third World fighting back?! (At least the image has me laughing.) Pathetic! Naive! Incroyable!

What's next, you going to compare 9/11 (official story version) to the Chavez revolution, or the Bolivians who pushed out Bechtel, or maybe Gandhi or the Civil Rights movement?

Shame on you!

[Djinn]

39. is their something wrong with your comprehension

personally I don't actually think 9/11 was perpetrated solely by a bunch of blokes in caves BUT if that was the case then the prof has a point.

Bin Laden may be from a very priviledged background - but do you think all his supporters are? do you think he'd HAVE that many supporters were it not for issues like the US presencce in and support for a repressive monarchy in Saudi, the occupation of Palestine etc etc.

so you can get off your high horse and stop pretending you you best on all this

[JackRiddler]

71. The problem really is...

That he is accepting the master narrative of what 9/11 was in relativizing it to its comparably minor scale. He is ignoring 9/11 as psychological operation and assuming the hijackers. The "third world" did not choose to fight back this way! Even in the official story: only its self-appointed, would-be heroes.

[intheflow]

8. So true about the taxes.

No one's hands are clean in America. :(

[OldVlad]

18. What planet are you from?

that wasn't so bad but when it happens to european jews/socialists/gays/trade unionist etc it's awful???

Uh where did I give the slightest implication that I believed that? I have a problem with someone making comparisons to the Nazi's constantly, specifically innocent people in the towers who were murdered indiscriminately in some way to Ivan Eichman.

I think this prof put it a little clumsilly but to say the wealthy investment bankers/stock traders etc working in the WTC were CLEARLY benefitting from the foreign policies actions

"Clumsily"? Meaning he was too clear and laid out his naked aggression towards the American people too honestly?

Your agreement of Ward's despot-like "collective guilt" of the Americans is far more in common with Nazi exterminators and the frontier soldiers who looked at Jews and Native Americans as a group that was collectively guilty. He displays the same attitude regardig the American people who dared go to work on Tuesday, 9/11/2001 to get a paycheck-blame of the victim.

EVERYONE in it has some culpability

Wrong, just as the Jews who happen to the be the same faith as the couple of people that Hitler felt wronged by, or the Native Americans that where grouped with the handful that raided white settlements were all assigned collective guilt by the murderers--the only ones "culpable" were the Nazis and the soldiers...you would blame the victims of 911, but that is the same as blaming the Jews for the Holocaust. Absolute madness. Stay in Australia.

Cetainly the Pentagon was a FAR FAR more legit target than pretty much ANYTHING the US bombed in Iraq.

Target in what exactly? Do you want my people ethnicly cleansed? This lazy stereotyping is no different then newspapers that viewed Wounded Knee as justified for the handful of crimes 1 or 2 of the slaughtered amongst the hundred there might have committed against the whites. When you allow your hate to get the best of you, you start to think of human beings as targets.

[Djinn]

40. what on earth are you on

and can I have of some of it?

Because I pointed agreed that the Pentagon was NOT a civilian target you accuse me of wanting to "ethnically cleanse" you people - btw there is no "American" ethnicity.

When the US bombed Iraq's presidential palaces innocent workers were killed it was STILL a military/political target and not a civilian one

[sw04ca]

33. Bull...

The erradication of Indian culture was systemic. Slaughtering them wasn't, and was more caused by the ignorance of the government or the fear of the general population than any 'kill all Indians' plan. Hell, Andrew Jackson, who spent his entire time as president trying to wipe out Indian culture, adopted several Indian children.

Not our finest hour by any stretch of the imagination, but to even consider comparing it to the Holocaust or Stalin's genocides is asinine.

[Djinn]

65. you don't actually have to kill everyone to attempt genocide

the Nazi's didn't manage it either. To say the slaughter of Native AMericans was down to ignorance and not a plan ignore reams of evidence and the hundreds of massacres planned and carried out by the army who as far as I'm aware are directed by the government.

australia didn't attempt to kill every indigenous child either we just stole them from their families and placed them with good god fearin' white folks - it's STILL attempted genocide.

I think you've also ranged off the point a bit - people are comparing the CULPABILITY of ordinary Americans in the actions of your government and the culpability of Germans for THEIR governments actions

[JackRiddler]

72. It's entirely true about the massacres of the original Americans

Frequent, deliberate, pre-planned, promoted in advance as good things, carried out at times without mercy. What means it that Jackson should adopt three of the orphans out of some desperate kindness to cleanse his soul? Over and over, the massacre went on.

But it's not the Indians retaliating in the case of 9/11, and who says they would choose such a path if offered to them? It's not clear what 9/11 even was. Who decides who should die or be rendered expendable, or why? The action of a self-appointed ring mimicks the structure of the White Man's massacres.

[Dorian Gray]

60. Perhaps that's true to an extent

But, it doesn't work when you call the lot of them "Little Eichmans." Most of the people working there had little to do with the exploitation of anybody, let alone the Jewish or the Native Americans. There were secretaries, janitors, and dish washers who were killed. There were firemen and policemen who were killed.

[Djinn]

66. so when the US bombs Iraq's presidential palaces

ansd kills cleaners, dish washers etc there does that make the Presidential Palace a civilian target or one with civilians in it (who are just called collateral damage when it's US doing the killing)

[G_j]

13. did Hitler use US reservation system as a model for concentration camps?

according to Russell Means (and I have read this elsewhere)

"The United States of America, its reservation system and its laws governing American Indians were first used by the Nazi, Adolf Hitler as an example to create his concentration camps. This can be verified by Hitler's own writings."

http://www.russellmeans.com/current_03.html

[Charon]

81. US reservation system

Does this mean that President Roosevelt used the reservation system as a model for the interment of thousands of American citizens of Japanese descent.

[G_j]

86. I have no idea

I guess it is possible that he did.

[jdots]

59. have you heard the man speak ?

What do you know about 9/11 just some questions.

[intheflow]

2. This is being discussed in the 9-11 forum as well.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x30995#31119

[theresistance]

4. Wow, that guy could have joined forces with the Unabomber...

[poe]

7. You're using the language of the oppressors

:think:

[theresistance]

14. With respect, how many people are going to support

this sort of talk:

"As to those in the World Trade Center ... Well, really. Let's get a grip here, shall we? True enough, they were civilians of a sort. But innocent? Gimme a break. They formed a technocratic corps at the very heart of America's global financial empire - the 'mighty engine of profit' to which the military dimension of U.S. policy has always been enslaved"

I don't like being compared to the oppressors as I'm most definitely fighting against the Police State etc, but heavens above, railing against the victims of 911? Let's fight Bush and the neocon-nazis and their wars etc, but we don't have to agree with every thing posted up. Let's even fight the corporate elite, military-industrial complex, globalisation which I'm all against...

[poe]

15. you weren't being compared to the oppressors

you were using their lexicon that creeps into the fabric of our everyday language. we all must be diligent in not using their platitudes and phrases. often we don't even know it as the PR beast is insidious and non-stop.

Not many people are going to support ward churchill but that doesn't mean he isn't right. read his stuff then source his material-he's right. his research is meticulous. many on the left also remain in wilfull denial of the numerous american holocausts and how fluid and constant these processes are.
we're on the same side brother peace to you and for the children of Iraq.
Se rebeller est juste, désobéir est un devoir, agir est nécessaire !

[theresistance]

26. That's fair enough, but I guess he just marred what may be good

arguments with a statement that was unecessary. It will just turn so many people off...

I edited this after reading further stuff below. Very touchy subject, but I agree that US foreign policy is responsible for a lot - I've written books about this! I was pointing out that his reference to 911 victims was unecesary etc...I could go on forever, but I hope you know what I mean.

[Djinn]

67. you're "against" all those things

but you still help PAY for them and you benefit from them, do you honestly think that if the west didn't exploit the rest of the world that your standard of living would be so high?

[poe]

5. How much of Ward Churchill's writings have people read?

He's right about most everything and if he comes across as caustic too bad. The lily-livered left needs a cold slap in the face to awaken to what's grabbing their throat and cooking their children. Stop living the lie that is America. And if you don't believe Ward read de la Casas journal as he traveled with Columbus to the misnamed "Americas." Look it up on the old map the area in question was known as Hindustan at the time.

[intheflow]

9. This is actually why I posted this.

It's shameful what we Americans don't know/willfully deny about our history. My eyes were seriously opened when I read la Casas journal.

[T Town Jake]

11. Good...

...but he deserved to fired outright. Anyone who defends him anywhere is simply beyond the pale of decency, as is he. EOM.

[Make7]

12. Exactly what did he deserve to get fired for? n/t

[Djinn]

68. yep academic should get fired for saying something

that pisses people off - I beleive THAT's what it says in the Bill of Rights. :eyes:

[livinginphotographs]

16. That's disappointing.

I think that when making a point that may be true but incredibly unpopular, one would do themself a favor to tone it down a bit, but I think his basic point is completely correct.

- The Pentagon WAS an appropriate military target.
- America is definitely responsible for quite a bit of suffering in the world, so we can't cry foul when someone strikes back.

That said, I still think the 9-11 attacks were awful, not because of an attack on America necessarily, but because I don't like the idea of massive loss of life ANYWHERE, American life or otherwise.

[Igel]

17. And I'm almost 100% sure that he went home and celebrated.

He's tenured faculty. They teach and research. Oh, and do "community service", whatever that is.

As chair, he chairs dept. meetings (always a load of fun), meets with administrators defending dept. interests, deals with complaints and tussles between students and faculties, and has many other meetings to go to.

In exchange, he gets "course relief": he's exempted from teaching one or two courses a year.

If he does what he's supposed to, the amount of time taken up by chairship duties far exceeds the amount of time he's given through course relief.

If he gets a net increase in available time, he shouldn't be chair.

Every good chair has relished the day s/he exited the position.

Students/faculty relish the day bad chairs leave theirs.

[poe]

19. Ward Churchill-Truth Teller

In a piece appearing on the Rocky Mountain News web site, Churchill responded to the “defamation of my character and threats against my life” as instigated by WorldNetDaily, which made sure to include Churchill’s email address:

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. … 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. … 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 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.
Of course, right-wingers do not make these distinctions and will, to suit their purposes—in this instance, get rid of Ward Churchill—distort the truth. It has been obvious for some time that right-wingers are determined to purge universities in America of all voices that do not march in step with Bush and the Strausscons. This desire to crush all opposition, all dissenting viewpoints, beginning with America’s universities, demonstrated its determination and urgency with the formation of AVOT, Americans for Victory Over Terrorism, instigated by William Bennett and Lynne Cheney, wife of Dick Cheney.

“Bennett and Cheney are working in tandem to target U.S. citizens who ‘hate’ America by exercising independent thought, who pose a real ‘threat’ —such as college professors and faculty, former presidents, concerned legislators and writers,” Sheila Samples explained on March 21, 2002, after AVOT issued a hit list of American academics.

In a report issued last November, Cheney’s group “outed” 117 college professors in an enemies-of-the-state blacklist reminiscent of the McCarthy era. One professor even went so far as to say, “Ignorance breeds hate…” Another dared to plead for an “end to the cycle of continued global violence.” For infractions such as these, Cheney’s November ACTA report attacked college and university faculty as being “the weak link” in America’s 9-11 response, and concluded, “the message of much of academe was clear: BLAME AMERICA FIRST.” … Bennett’s group ran a full-page ad in the March 10 Sunday New York Times with the dark warning that such individual thought “stems from either a hatred for the American ideals of freedom and equality or a misunderstanding of those ideals and their practice.” Bennett’s AVOT ad blasted as traitors those who dare to speak out, and accused them of “attempting to use this opportunity to promulgate their agenda of BLAME AMERICA FIRST.”

As for Churchill, he has resigned as chairman of the University of Colorado at Boulder’s ethnic studies department, though he will continue to teach there. Churchill, according to the New York Times, “is still invited to take part in a discussion Thursday at Hamilton College in Clinton, N.Y., despite widespread protest that has been building since news of his visit became public. … Hamilton College’s switchboard and e-mail system were jammed yesterday with thousands of comments—mainly protests, though some were in favor of the college’s stance. Some protests came from a form letter that Internet users could access from Bill O’Reilly’s official Web site.”

This is, of course, the same Bill O’Reilly who lambasted University of South Florida professor Sami al-Arian, accusing him of supporting terrorism (naturally, defending the Palestinians is always considered terrorism, especially over at Fox News, where O’Reilly draws a paycheck). During an interview on the O’Reilly Factor on September 26, 2001, Bill said to al-Arian, “if I was the CIA, I’d follow you wherever you went. I’d follow you 24 hours.” Soon thereafter, Sami al-Arian was arrested and thrown in solitary confinement.

Chances are Ward Churchill will not be thrown in prison for the crime of disagreeing with the government, even with the likes of WorldNetDaily and Bill O’Reilly orchestrating attacks against him. However, as a COINTELPRO researcher and author, no doubt Churchill understands that the government is watching him, maybe even attempting to make sure he never works again, at least not as a teacher.
www.kurtnimmo.com

[ck4829]

20. He might have got better treatment if he blamed 9/11 on Liberals...

or Clinton.

He might also still be a Professor if he blamed the Pagans, GLBT people, Feminists, and the Abortionists.

[JackRiddler]

21. Churchill is ignorant about 9/11 - just another doctrinaire hot-dog

His approach obfuscates the issues and is merely provocative, not enlightening.

The attacks killed a lot of service workers and incidental people, and somehow missed hitting any CEOs.

Even in the case of the CEOs, we must recall the special ideological and psychological qualities of our system of remote-control cannibalism, which manages to insulate most everyone from the criminal consequences of their roles in society, while also partly implicating everyone.

An Eichmann may be a desk worker, but certainly the real Eichmann was well aware of what he was executing. Very few of the modern capitalist system's avatars know that they are engaging in indirect genocide. Your average modern business person has been conditioned in and swallowed a "bigger pie" ideology that completely separates him from whatever starving multitudes he may be indirectly holding down. On the one hand the ideological system effectively blames those starving multitudes (they just have no business sense, they have fallen for false ideas, their problems are unrelated to our actions, they lack entrepeneurship, etc.). On the other, it tells him that he is actually a creator of growth and wealth, an economic hero embodying the happy dictates of the "invisible hand."

It also keeps him and the vast majority ignorant about the real prices paid for their prosperity. Prosperity is thought to be an individual product, not the product of a system that needs a lot of blood and trampled bodies (conveniently out of view) to keep functioning. Even here at DU, the Iraq war is viewed by many as the product of a foolish leader's folly, rather than a logical consequence of systemic forces that prepared it for 30 years...

Of course you can blame most people for this ignorance, but not entirely - not in the way you can blame an Eichmann. There are plenty of Eichmanns around, of course, but still a tiny minority.

Churchill's argument may justify attacks on particular individuals or even agencies, but it can hardly be applied to everyone who happened to be in or near the WTC on 9/11. It creates false dichotomies and posits false emnities.

It's also spectacularly ignorant about what really happened on 9/11, i.e. that the attacks were intentionally allowed to take place and apparently stage-managed by networks ensconced within "our" own clandestine services.

As right-wingers have argued, there is a genuine tendency among some leftists (and lots of people outside this country) to accept and champion the official story because they actually glorify the crime as a brave if not downright noble act of justified retaliation for US policy. (I have met the most stubborn resistance to the 9/11 evidence among committed liberals who feel their abstract worldview endangered.)

ZNET has been one of the primary gatekeepers forwarding spurious philosophical arguments to prevent the left from waking up to the reality of 9/11 as inside job.

Given the real impact of the official story of 9/11 - that it justifies the worst US policies both retroactively and eternally - Churchill is breathtakingly naive.

Academics like him live off the controversy of provocation. I doubt he knows shit about 9/11, I doubt he's even read the 9/11 Commission Report let alone researched the actual events of the day.

www.Justicefor911.org
www.911Truth.org

[LibertyorDeath]

22. Thank you for that

:toast:

[poe]

23. Churchill no doctrainaire hot dog

While my views coincide with yours on 9-11 i think it is important to understand what this attack on churchill was all about. if you haven't already, read much of his other stuff. then ask yourself why this incident is being highlighted and whose behind it. the right wingers have been trying to get ward out of the education system for years. there is much more more to this than an inflammatory statement. we should be in solidarity with churchill and the numerous other college professors who are being targeted by cheney-bennett etc. it's for the usual reasons-chilling effect,marginalization, etc. he also specifically mentions the issue with the other workers. my point being let's realise who is behind this and know that they will leap at the throat of any academic, or public figure who speaks strongly against empire.

[JackRiddler]

24. Sorry

What he said was rather stupid. I can't imagine he didn't realize it would elicit these reactions from the predictable quarters, whether deserved or not, and find it hard to believe it did not occur to him that this would enhance his name recognition. He laid out the bait with a simplistic provocation.

I certainly can't forgive the ignorance of 9/11 (or even of its aftermath and ideological function after the fact). Even accepting the official story, can't he see that the crime is irrational as a retaliation, in that it does not actually damage "the machine" and strengthens the hands of our own hardliners, and was directed mainly at "collateral" victims? If 9/11 wasn't an inside job, it was certainly a godsend to the war planners and hard rightists.

If Osama and his crew did 9/11 by themselves, they would certainly have realized that, and calculated that they would raise their profile and recruitment numbers after the predictable massacres in counter-counter-retaliation by the US against "their" own peoples. Hardliners are always in a tacit alliance with the hardliners of the enemy side. And talk about cynical!

You might expect Churchill could figure this shit out.

Is he a victim? Please. He wasn't fired, as someone writes above. His tenured position, Internet platform and book sales remain secure. He's gained an additional national platform and apparently new fans on this site. For all you know, he calculated in advance the trade-off of resigning as department head (which, for all you know, was a pain in the ass to him, as it is for many department heads who would rather be reading and writing than administrating) against the value of everyone knowing his name. Even if he didn't act from that motivation, you can't tell me he's so stupid the thought did not occur to him. His "travails" merely trivialize and exploit the real atmosphere of censorship on the right and in the government.

If I bet what his motives are, I bet he's a hot-dog. Courageous would have been to question the official 9/11 story. Then you'd really see the wolves lining up to howl for his carcass. Or, possibly even worse: not reacting at all. Ignoring him completely, as they tend to do with the "unthinkable" in the case of 9/11... There's the real censorship!

[poe]

28. Sorry riddler you missed the point

the issue isn't about churchill at all-how much of his stuff have you read?what about him beyond what you are getting from the press do you know? who is behind this and what are their motives? What is bill bennetts role in this? who is organizing this campaign? what other professors are targeted and have been for years? what was churchill's role in outing COINTELPRO and who did that anger? this guy isn't some ivory tower academic he's gotten his hands in the dirt much more deeply than most of us. you are supporting the very people who i suspect you loathe, albeit in a tenuous way, when you support their agenda unwittingly. dick cheney hates this guy. noone i know said he was a victim ,even if he was, and frankly he wouldn't give a shit. before you do your betting look up a few things about this man and read more than an essay or two. don't you see what is going on here? by the way o'reilly has been recruited to organize a smear campaign against churchill. and by the way the man is on target about all the time. stop living the lie that is america,america.

[JackRiddler]

29. Okay, so Cheney hates him...

As it happens, I've read his COINTELPRO stuff and regarded him very highly until now. This discussion isn't about that.

NOW READ WHAT HE SAID ABOUT 9/11 AND TELL ME IT ISN'T STUPID!

And don't come at me with a bunch of abstractions about loving my secret America imago. Apparently you cannot deal without hating your negative version thereof, to the point where it blinds you in this case.

Let's start simple. Do you buy the official story of 9/11?

[poe]

34. isn't about my view or personalities such as churchill since you asked...

My view on 9-11,and i have read most all on it as i'm sure you have is that it was not only "allowed" to happen but was orchestrated by forces in the West. The possibilities of stopping it were also snipped by those same forces in various ways in a fluid manner. but you see it is all back to USA and 9-11 which in the scheme of things is a trifling. all arguments come back to the center of the universe USA. it's pathetic. churchill has also said far more incendiary stuff than what was in his speech. Have you read the whole thing? whether what he said is stupid is irrelevant. i've said plenty of stupid things in public but this does not negate the entirety of my work and/or philosophy/beliefs. i neither love/hate the artificial and pathologically sick entity misnamed "america"-i do not live in that story.
i live in a watershed with the land-so do you.

in the americans calculus 9-11 takes on a meaning distorted exponentially. nothing changed after 9-11-the West continues it's assault on the rest of the brown-skinned world to steal their goods. same old song.
I pose this question to American taxpayers; why do you allow your taxpayer money to be used to cause death and distruction to millions of people around the world? Yet you do not say a thing when your government refuses to spend any taxpayers money to relieve the disastrous destruction of a natural disaster such as the Tsunami or the 100,000 dying in the Sudan of starvation and millions in other parts of the world?
To use and overuse colloquialism. What is wrong with this picture?

[DalvaThree]

25. 'doctrinaire hot dog' - that is exactly right

This guy is paid big bucks to come up with what - a bunch of warmed over, cliched, boring, pathetic, useless tripe.

I could have written his lame essay in my sleep. It's just a bunch of cobbled together hot button catch phrases.

It shed no light on the subject. It offers nothing new, nothing original.

We need new ways of thinking. This idiot gets paid big bucks to do nothing but spin his wheels.

[poe]

30. This is what he is talking about

and the "American Way of Life" that necessitates the genocides. How much of the world do you colonize with your daily habits? We all must ask ourselves that and then act.
SOUTH DAKOTA 1890 (-?) Troops 300 Lakota Indians massacred at Wounded Knee.

ARGENTINA 1890 Troops Buenos Aires interests protected.

CHILE 1891 Troops Marines clash with nationalist rebels.

HAITI 1891 Troops Black workers revolt on U.S.-claimed Navassa Island defeated.

IDAHO 1892 Troops Army suppresses silver miners' strike.

HAWAII 1893 (-?) Naval, troops Independent kingdom overthrown, annexed.

CHICAGO 1894 Troops Breaking of rail strike, 34 killed.

NICARAGUA 1894 Troops Month-long occupation of Bluefields.

CHINA 1894-95 Naval, troops Marines land in Sino-Japanese War.

KOREA 1894-96 Troops Marines kept in Seoul during war.

PANAMA 1895 Troops, naval Marines land in Colombian province.

NICARAGUA 1896 Troops Marines land in port of Corinto.

CHINA 1898-1900 Troops Boxer Rebellion fought by foreign armies.

PHILIPPINES 1898-1910(-?) Naval, troops Seized from Spain, killed 600,000 Filipinos.

CUBA 1898-1902(-?) Naval, troops Seized from Spain, still hold Navy base.

PUERTO RICO 1898(-?) Naval, troops Seized from Spain, occupation continues.
GUAM 1898(-?) Naval, troops Seized from Spain, still use as base.

MINNESOTA 1898(-?) Troops Army battles Chippewa at Leech Lake.

NICARAGUA 1894 Troops Month-long occupation of Bluefields.

CHINA 1894-95 Naval, troops Marines land in Sino-Japanese War.

KOREA 1894-96 Troops Marines kept in Seoul during war.

PANAMA 1895 Troops, naval Marines land in Colombian province.

NICARAGUA 1896 Troops Marines land in port of Corinto.

CHINA 1898-1900 Troops Boxer Rebellion fought by foreign armies.

PHILIPPINES 1898-1910(-?) Naval, troops Seized from Spain, killed 600,000 Filipinos.

CUBA 1898-1902(-?) Naval, troops Seized from Spain, still hold Navy base.

PUERTO RICO 1898(-?) Naval, troops Seized from Spain, occupation continues.

GUAM 1898(-?) Naval, troops Seized from Spain, still use as base.

MINNESOTA 1898(-?) Troops Army battles Chippewa at Leech Lake.

NICARAGUA 1898 Troops Marines land at port of San Juan del Sur.

SAMOA 1899(-?) Troops Battle over succession to throne.

NICARAGUA 1899 Troops Marines land at port of Bluefields.
NICARAGUA 1899 Troops Marines land at port of Bluefields.

IDAHO 1899-1901 Troops Army occupies Coeur d'Alene mining region.

OKLAHOMA 1901 Troops Army battles Creek Indian revolt.

PANAMA 1901-14 Naval, troops Broke off from Colombia 1903, annexed Canal Zone 1914-99.

HONDURAS 1903 Troops Marines intervene in revolution.

DOMINICAN REP. 1903-04 Troops U.S. interests protected in Revolution.

KOREA 1904-05 Troops Marines land in Russo-Japanese War.

CUBA 1906-09 Troops Marines land in democratic election.

NICARAGUA 1907 Troops "Dollar Diplomacy" protectorate set up.

HONDURAS 1907 Troops Marines land during war with Nicaragua.

PANAMA 1908 Troops Marines intervene in election contest.

NICARAGUA 1910 Troops Marines land in Bluefields and Corinto.

HONDURAS 1911 Troops U.S. interests protected in civil war.

CHINA 1911-41 Naval, troops Continuous occupation with flare-ups.

CUBA 1912 Troops U.S. interests protected in Havanna.
HONDURAS 19l2 Troops Marines protect U.S. economic interests.

NICARAGUA 1912-33 Troops, bombing 20-year occupation, fought guerrillas.

MEXICO 19l3 Naval Americans evacuated during revolution.

DOMINICAN REPUBLIC 1914 Naval Fight with rebels over Santo Domingo.

COLORADO 1914 Troops Breaking of miners' strike by Army.

MEXICO 1914-18 Naval, troops Series of interventions against nationalists.

HAITI 1914-34 Troops, bombing 19-year occupation after revolts.

DOMINICAN REPUBLIC 1916-24 Troops 8-year Marine occupation.

CUBA 1917-33 Troops Military occupation, economic protectorate.

WORLD WAR I 19l7-18 Naval, troops Ships sunk, fought Germany

RUSSIA 1918-22 Naval, troops Five landings to fight Bolsheviks.

PANAMA 1918-20 Troops "Police duty" during unrest after elections.

YUGOSLAVIA 1919 Troops Marines intervene for Italy against Serbs in Dalmatia.

HONDURAS 1919 Troops Marines land during election campaign.

GUATEMALA 1920 Troops 2-week intervention against unionists.

WEST VIRGINIA 1920-21 Troops, bombing Army intervenes against mineworkers.
TURKEY 1922 Troops Fought nationalists in Smyrna (Izmir).

CHINA 1922-27 Naval, troops Deployment during nationalist revolt.

HONDURAS 1924-25 Troops Landed twice during election strife.

PANAMA 1925 Troops Marines suppress general strike.

CHINA 1927-34 Troops Marines stationed throughout the country.

EL SALVADOR 1932 Naval Warships sent during Faribundo Marti revolt.

WASHINGTON DC 1932 Troops Army stops WWI vet bonus protest.

WORLD WAR II 1941-45 Naval,troops, bombing, nuclear Fought Axis for 3 years; Over 200,000 civilian casualties in 1st nuclear strikes.

DETROIT 1943 Troops Army puts down Black rebellion.

IRAN 1946 Nuclear threat Soviet troops told to leave north (Iranian Azerbaijan).

YUGOSLAVIA 1946 Naval Response to shooting-down of U.S. plane.

URUGUAY 1947 Nuclear threat Bombers deployed as show of strength.

GREECE 1947-49 Command operation U.S. directs extreme-right in civil war.

CHINA 1948-49 Troops Marines evacuate Americans before Communist victory.

GERMANY 1948 Nuclear threat Atomic-capable bombers guard Berlin Airlift.
PHILIPPINES 1948-54 Command operation CIA directs war against Huk Rebellion.

PUERTO RICO 1950 Command operation Independence rebellion crushed in Ponce.

KOREA 1950-53 Troops, naval, bombing, nuclear threats U.S.& South Korea fight China & North Korea to stalemate; A-bomb threat in 1950, & vs. China in 1953. Still have bases.

IRAN 1953 Command operation CIA overthrows democracy, installs Shah.

VIETNAM 1954 Nuclear threat Bombs offered to French to use against siege.

GUATEMALA 1954 Command operation, bombing, nuclear threat CIA directs exile invasion after new gov't nationalizes U.S. company lands; bombers based in Nicaragua.

EGYPT 1956 Nuclear threat, troops Soviets told to keep out of Suez crisis; marines evacuate foreigners.

LEBANON 1958 Troops, naval Marine occupation against rebels.

IRAQ 1958 Nuclear threat Iraq warned against invading Kuwait.

CHINA 1958 Nuclear threat China told not to move on Taiwan isles.

PANAMA 1958 Troops Flag protests erupt into confrontation.

VIETNAM 1960-75 Troops, naval, bombing, nuclear threats Fought South Vietnam revolt & North Vietnam; 1-2 million killed in longest U.S. war; atomic bomb threats in 1968 and 1969.

CUBA 1961 Command operation CIA-directed exile invasion fails.

GERMANY 1961 Nuclear threat Alert during Berlin Wall crisis.
KOREA 1950-53 Troops, naval, bombing, nuclear threats U.S.& South Korea fight China & North Korea to stalemate; A-bomb threat in 1950, & vs. China in 1953. Still have bases.

IRAN 1953 Command operation CIA overthrows democracy, installs Shah.

VIETNAM 1954 Nuclear threat Bombs offered to French to use against siege.

GUATEMALA 1954 Command operation, bombing, nuclear threat CIA directs exile invasion after new gov't nationalizes U.S. company lands; bombers based in Nicaragua.

EGYPT 1956 Nuclear threat, troops Soviets told to keep out of Suez crisis; marines evacuate foreigners.

LEBANON 1958 Troops, naval Marine occupation against rebels.

IRAQ 1958 Nuclear threat Iraq warned against invading Kuwait.

CHINA 1958 Nuclear threat China told not to move on Taiwan isles.

PANAMA 1958 Troops Flag protests erupt into confrontation.

VIETNAM 1960-75 Troops, naval, bombing, nuclear threats Fought South Vietnam revolt & North Vietnam; 1-2 million killed in longest U.S. war; atomic bomb threats in 1968 and 1969.

CUBA 1961 Command operation CIA-directed exile invasion fails.

GERMANY 1961 Nuclear threat Alert during Berlin Wall crisis.

CUBA 1962 Nuclear threat Naval Blockade during missile crisis; near-war with USSR.

LAOS 1962 Command operation Military buildup during guerrilla war.
PANAMA 1964 Troops Panamanians shot for urging canal's return.

INDONESIA 1965 Command operation Million killed in CIA-assisted army coup.

DOMINICAN REPUBLIC 1965-66 Troops, bombing Marines land during election campaign.

GUATEMALA 1966-67 Command operation Green Berets intervene against rebels.

DETROIT 1967 Troops Army battles Blacks, 43 killed.

UNITED STATES 1968 Troops After King is shot; over 21,000 soldiers in cities.

CAMBODIA 1969-75 Bombing, troops, naval Up to 2 million killed in decade of bombing, starvation, and political chaos.

OMAN 1970 Command operation U.S. directs Iranian marine invasion.

LAOS 1971-73 Command operation, bombing U.S. directs South Vietnamese invasion; "carpet-bombs" countryside.

SOUTH DAKOTA 1973 Command operation Army directs Wounded Knee siege of Lakotas.

MIDEAST 1973 Nuclear threat World-wide alert during Mideast War.

CHILE 1973 Command operation CIA-backed coup ousts elected marxist president.

CAMBODIA 1975 Troops, bombing Gas captured ship, 28 die in copter crash.

ANGOLA 1976-92 Command operation CIA assists South African-backed rebels.
IRAN 1980 Troops, nuclear threat, aborted bombing Raid to rescue Embassy hostages; 8 troops die in copter-plane crash. Soviets warned not to get involved in revolution.

LIBYA 1981 Naval jets Two Libyan jets shot down in maneuvers.

EL SALVADOR 1981-92 Command operation, troop advisors, overflight aid anti-rebel war, soldiers briefly involved in hostage clash.

NICARAGUA 1981-90 Command operation, naval CIA directs exile (Contra) invasions, plants harbor mines against revolution.

LEBANON 1982-84 Naval, bombing, troops Marines expel PLO and back Phalangists, Navy bombs and shells Muslim and Syrian positions.

HONDURAS 1983-89 Troops Maneuvers help build bases near borders.

GRENADA 1983-84 Troops, bombing invasion four years after revolution.

IRAN 1984 Jets Two Iranian jets shot down over Persian Gulf.

LIBYA 1986 Bombing, naval Air strikes to topple nationalist gov't.

BOLIVIA 1986 Troops Army assists raids on cocaine region.

IRAN 1987-88 Naval, bombing US intervenes on side of Iraq in war.

LIBYA 1989 Naval jets Two Libyan jets shot down.

VIRGIN ISLANDS 1989 Troops St. Croix Black unrest after storm.

PHILIPPINES 1989 Jets Air cover provided for government against coup.

PANAMA 1989-90 Troops, bombing Nationalist government ousted by 27,000 soldiers, leaders arrested, 2000+ killed.

LIBERIA 1990 Troops Foreigners evacuated during civil war.

SAUDI ARABIA 1990-91 Troops, jets Iraq countered after invading Kuwait; 540,000 troops also stationed in Oman, Qatar, Bahrain, UAE, Israel.

IRAQ 1990-1992 Bombing, troops, naval Blockade of Iraqi and Jordanian ports, air strikes; 200,000+ killed in invasion of Iraq and Kuwait; no-fly zone over Kurdish north, Shiite south, large-scale destruction of Iraqi military.

KUWAIT 1991 Naval, bombing, troops Kuwait royal family returned to throne.

LOS ANGELES 1992 Troops Army, Marines deployed against anti-police uprising.

SOMALIA 1992-94 Troops, naval, bombing U.S.-led United Nations occupation during civil war; raids against one Mogadishu faction.

YUGOSLAVIA 1992-94 Naval Nato blockade of Serbia and Montenegro.

BOSNIA 1993-95 Jets, bombing No-fly zone patrolled in civil war; downed jets, bombed Serbs.

HAITI 1994-96 Troops, naval Blockade against military government; troops restore President Aristide to office three years after coup.

CROATIA 1995 Bombing Krajina Serb airfields attacked before Croatian offensive.

ZAIRE (CONGO) 1996-97 Troops Marines at Rwandan Hutu refuge camps, in area where Congo revolution
LIBERIA 1997 Troops Soldiers under fire during evacuation of foreigners.

ALBANIA 1997 Troops Soldiers under fire during evacuation of foreigners.

SUDAN 1998 Missiles Attack on pharmaceutical plant alleged to be "terrorist" nerve gas plant. Over 30, 000 civilian casualties. US blocks UN war-crimes inquiry at the security council.

AFGHANISTAN 1998 Missiles Attack on former CIA training camps used by Islamic fundamentalist groups alleged to have attacked embassies.

IRAQ 1998-2003 Bombing, Missiles Four days of intensive air strikes after weapons inspectors alleged Iraqi obstructions.

YUGOSLAVIA 1999. Bombing, Missiles Heavy NATO air strikes after Serbia declines to withdraw from Kosovo.

YEMEN 2000 Naval Suicide bomb attack on USS Cole.

MACEDONIA 2001 Troops NATO troops shift and partially disarm Albanian rebels.

UNITED STATES 2001 Jets, naval Response to hijacking attacks.

AFGHANISTAN 2001 Massive U.S. mobilization to attack Taliban, Bin Laden.

IRAQ 2003. Occupation with the pretext of existence of "mass destruction weapons". No mass destruction weapons found.

[Djinn]

41. yeah but apparently

only President's need to feel any responsibility for any of that, citizens of nations can be guilt free as they benefit from the exploitation of others and do nothing while their governments kill and steal. (sarcasm off now)

[poe]

44. Wait do you mean bananas don't grow in temperate climates?

Are you suggesting water doesn't run uphill towards money? Are you suggesting the coltan in my cell phone is fueling civil wars in the Congo (fought with Western weapons)? Are you suggesting i have to give up some of my toys and gadgets so that others can live peaceably on my uh uh i mean well okay maybe their land. heresy. go straight to the catherine wheel.
I pose this question to American taxpayers; why do you allow your taxpayer money to be used to cause death and distruction to millions of people around the world? Yet you do not say a thing when your government refuses to spend any taxpayers money to relieve the disastrous destruction of a natural disaster such as the Tsunami or the 100,000 dying in the Sudan of starvation and millions in other parts of the world?
To use and overuse colloquialism. What is wrong with this picture?

[JackRiddler]

74. Correcting myself...

It changes a great deal in this discussion to consider the essay was written on September 12, 2001. Some of its assumptions become more forgivable.

[sandnsea]

31. WTC was a legitimate war target

Hit the economic engine and the military engine. Realistically, you can't defeat an enemy if you haven't accurately defined the enemy and the enemy's strategies. As long as we act as if terrorists are just hitting targets randomly, we waste defense money. So even putting aside the truth of backlash due to corporatism, the professor is right to put the attacks into proper perspective. I'd rather that then this continued flopping around like fish defending some bizarre notion that they hate us because we're free to drive to the beach or some such stupidity.

[Peak_Oil]

35. You're saying the people in the office building WTC1 and WTC2

were legitimate targets?

[intheflow]

38. Here are 3 companies that might have prompted the attacks.

WTC1

Pure Energy Corp.
Baltic Oil Corporation
Bank of America

And the many, many investment firms that reap profits through others by exploiting labor and resources.

I'm not saying those people deserved to die. Most people go to work and don't think about the consequences of the work they do. It's a paycheck, a means to an end.

But the people who hijacked those planes live in places that are on the opposite end of our nation's prosperity--or at least see their own chances for prosperity diminish with every Western company that extracts sweat and natural resources from their country. Desperate people do desperate things.

As a whole, Americans like to think we live good lives if we don't go home and slap our spouse around. And that's true. But we ignore the consequences of our actions, our employment, in the larger world and then are surprised when that comes back to us. Churchill is saying that we need to wake up to the way in which we act in the world, not just in our own day-to-day circles. 9-11 was a tragedy, to be sure, but on reflection, it should have been expected and we should own up to our complicity in it.

[sandnsea]

In pure military target terms

Disrupting a country's economy is a military strategy. That's why the WTC is a legitimate military target. Outside of whether the reasons for attack are legitimate.

Defining the reasons for attack is a whole other issue. I think economics has more to do with it than "they hate us for our freedoms". But I think it is also cultural, with a certain element of religiosity mixed in. You would think a board as far left as DU would be able to have that debate without falling back on "you're saying people deserved to die", which couldn't be further from the truth

[JackRiddler]

70. What you say is beautiful and true - but you ignore a certain point?

Who hijacked those planes? How? Why? Do you know?

[intheflow]

83. I don't know why.

Who knows what motivates people into doing such inhuman acts?

But, yeah, I know that bin Ladin comes from money, as have others that have been associated with 9-11 and al Qaida.

However, I still disagree with the Princeton U. report that says there is little connection between terrorism and economics. The report correctly states that politics and "long-standing feelings of indignity" played a role in the attack. But from where did the ignidnity arise? The report ignores two points: that religion also played a role in the attacks, and that the politics and resentment grew from centuries of Middle East/Western interactions.

Leaving religion out of it for the moment (for the sake of making a clean argument), the West has exploited the Middle East since the rise of the Roman Empire, and has been occupiers in the region for as long. This exploitation has come in the form of trade (economic policies), strategic military occupation, and labor exploitation.

There's another thread on DU where people were talking about what Iraq was originally called. "Mesopotamia," for instance, was a Greek name for the region. What does that say about the West's long-standing presence in the region?

Throwing a simplified piece of religion into the picture, the West has been claiming the Middle East for its own since it co-opted a nice Rabbi's teachings into a cult worship of Jesus, changing his Torah interpretation into Christianity. Going to Muslim countries to convert them to Christianity didn't start with the tsunami victims.

To deny that economic policies had an effect on 9-11 is to deny the full, nuanced complexity of the relations between the two ideological camps. Oil and gobalization are just the latest chapters in a long, long history.

[sandnsea]

45. Did I?

I said the WTC is a huge part of the economic engine of this country and the world. It makes it a legitimate war target, particularly since our economic policies are what they object to. The WTC would be a legitimate war target for any country that would want to attack the US. That has nothing to do with the people in the buildings. Whether the reasons al qaeda attacked are legitimate is another issue as well. But they haven't attacked US targets randomly, they've all been legitimate war targets. They declared war on us and so far, that's how they're conducting their attacks. If we don't tell the truth about the enemy, we can't defeat them. That's just hard reality.

[Peak_Oil]

47. OK

Let's clarify then.

Were the people in the office buildings WTC1 and WTC2 legitimate military targets?

Please give me a Yes or No.

[sandnsea]

48. The people weren't the target

The economic power of the WTC was the target. So the question doesn't really pertain to what I said.

Saddam's palaces, legitimate military target. Dead servants as a result, not legitimate.

But that's war.

Which leads to the obvious, the terrorists were wrong and Bush was wrong.

Not very complicated to me.

But if we don't start talking about the terrorists real motives and tactics, we'll just stay on this path forever.

[Peak_Oil]

49. I see the whole yes/no thing isn't going to work.

I'll try another one. Do you think that the terrorists were targeting a legitimate military target when they attacked WTC1 and WTC2 on 9-11-01?

Yes or no?

[sandnsea]

50. I already said yes

The WTC is a legitimate miltary target. As is Wall Street, power plants, etc. The mall, grand canyon, disneyworld, are not legitimate targets. The point is, an enemy who has put himself on a war footing with the US is much more dangerous than some lunatic hitting randomly. We're dealing with people who see themselves as conducting a war.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with whether attacks on the US are justified in general. That's another discussion.

[Peak_Oil]

51. Wow. That's horrible.

A coworker of mine died in one of those buildings that morning. How dare you spout off that crap.

[sandnsea]

52. Okay, they hate us for our freedoms

And are just a bunch of lunatics that are attacking targets at random. They aren't conducting an organized war at all. If it makes you feel better to believe that, go ahead.

[Peak_Oil]

53. I know what they're doing.

I acknowledge that the terrorists (whoever they are) chose that target for a reason.

What I'm saying is that a coworker of mine died in that building. If you think that his life was legitimately risked as the result of going to work that day, then you and I are not going to agree with each other much from here on out.

I have an idea why we were attacked.

What I'm saying is maybe you shouldn't be in such blatant SUPPORT for attacks on US soil. In my opinion, saying that the WTC is a legitimate military target is fairly close to justifying the attacks. If you want to risk your own friends and family by mailing their addresses to [e-mail], go right ahead.

Have some respect.

[sandnsea]

55. You're twisting my words

I have no idea what pleasure it gives you, but whatever. You acknowledge the target was chosen for a reason. The reason is its economic importance. That makes it a military target, a legitimate military target. Not a random attack for the sole purpose of terror. I never remotely said I supported attacks on the US, I don't even support them against our troops in Iraq as some around here appear to do. So fuck you and your sick twisted desire to make people out to be something they're not. Why don't you have some fucking respect.

[Djinn]

64. ignore it sandnsea

most of us understand there is a difference between acknowledging that those who attacked the WTC saw themselves as being at war and chose a target that reflected the financial might of the US.

it's the same as saying that bombing places in Afghanistan where the Taliban were hanging out is legitimate (I don't neccesarily agree the WTC was entirely legit - the Pentagon absolutely was) even though there were no doubt innocent workers killed too.

Loosing a friend or relative in a terrorist attack doesn't make one's opinion more valid, questioning what happened that day and the reasoning behind the choice of targets isn't "disrespectful" to say it is, is to buy into the right wing "with us or with the terrorists" bullshit.

[Name removed]

69. Deleted message

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

[Make7]

75. You shouldn't advocate...

committing crimes against people on US soil. Have some respect!

-Make7

[Djinn]

93. I'm not sure who you're talking to

if it was me please explain how I'm advocating anything of the sort

[Make7]

97. I was responding to NAME REMOVED.

Peak_Oil was mis-characterizing what others had said, so I wanted to see if a complaint would be forthcoming if the tables were turned.

I thought one good word twisting deserved another. If the post I had responded to had not been deleted, it might make more sense. (Then again, it might not.)

:) Make7

[Djinn]

92. CAN YOU READ

I said I beleive the PENTAGON was a legit target - I said that if one is a fundie nutbag hanging out with Osama and you view the US as an enemy THEN it's a legit target.

Just like factories and financial districts have ALWAYS been targets in war - MY view of the legitimacy of that war is IRRELEVANT as is yours as it's not you or I planning the attacks.

If you wanna go with the "hate us for our freedoms" crap then by all means delude yourself.

I'm not sure whether you're deliberately obfuscating what I and others say or whether you are simply too young or intellectually ill develeoped but going by your witty and erudite post heading I'm guessing you're about 15 right?

[poe]

57. How Much of Ward's Work Have You Read?

Have You Read "On The Justice Of Roosting Chickens" which won the Gustav Myers Human Rights Award? How many of his essays have you read? It's all about the US isn't it? Al Qaeda is a myth. America is the worlds most dangerous and irresponsible global citizen by far, as well as the worlds most criminal terroristic entity. Stop living the lie that is america.
From Wounded Knee to Afghanistan (and to Iraq)

 

Compiled by Zoltan Grossman

The following is a partial list of U.S. military interventions from 1890 to 1999. This guide does NOT include:

Demonstration duty by military police; Mobilizations of the National Guard; Offshore shows of naval strength; Reinforcements of embassy personnel; The use of non-Defense Department personnel (such as the DEA); Military exercises; Non-combat mobilizations; The permanent stationing of armed forces; Covert actions where the U.S. did not play a command and control role; The use of small hostage rescue units; Most uses of proxy troops; U.S. piloting of foreign warplanes; Foreign disaster assistance; Military training and advisory programs not involving direct combat; Civic action programs and many other military activities.

Among sources used, besides news reports, are the Congressional Record (23 June 1969), 180 Landings by the U.S. Marine Corps History Division, Ege & Makhijani in Counterspy (July-Aug. 1982), and Daniel Ellsberg in Protest & Survive. "Instances of Use of United States Forces Abroad, 1798-1993" by Ellen C. Collier of the Library ofCongress Congressional Research Service.
SOUTH DAKOTA 1890 (-?) Troops 300 Lakota Indians massacred at Wounded Knee.

ARGENTINA 1890 Troops Buenos Aires interests protected.

CHILE 1891 Troops Marines clash with nationalist rebels.

HAITI 1891 Troops Black workers revolt on U.S.-claimed Navassa Island defeated.

IDAHO 1892 Troops Army suppresses silver miners' strike.

HAWAII 1893 (-?) Naval, troops Independent kingdom overthrown, annexed.

CHICAGO 1894 Troops Breaking of rail strike, 34 killed.

NICARAGUA 1894 Troops Month-long occupation of Bluefields.

CHINA 1894-95 Naval, troops Marines land in Sino-Japanese War.

KOREA 1894-96 Troops Marines kept in Seoul during war.

PANAMA 1895 Troops, naval Marines land in Colombian province.

NICARAGUA 1896 Troops Marines land in port of Corinto.

CHINA 1898-1900 Troops Boxer Rebellion fought by foreign armies.

PHILIPPINES 1898-1910(-?) Naval, troops Seized from Spain, killed 600,000 Filipinos.

CUBA 1898-1902(-?) Naval, troops Seized from Spain, still hold Navy base.

PUERTO RICO 1898(-?) Naval, troops Seized from Spain, occupation continues.
GUAM 1898(-?) Naval, troops Seized from Spain, still use as base.

MINNESOTA 1898(-?) Troops Army battles Chippewa at Leech Lake.

NICARAGUA 1894 Troops Month-long occupation of Bluefields.

CHINA 1894-95 Naval, troops Marines land in Sino-Japanese War.

KOREA 1894-96 Troops Marines kept in Seoul during war.

PANAMA 1895 Troops, naval Marines land in Colombian province.

NICARAGUA 1896 Troops Marines land in port of Corinto.

CHINA 1898-1900 Troops Boxer Rebellion fought by foreign armies.

PHILIPPINES 1898-1910(-?) Naval, troops Seized from Spain, killed 600,000 Filipinos.

CUBA 1898-1902(-?) Naval, troops Seized from Spain, still hold Navy base.

PUERTO RICO 1898(-?) Naval, troops Seized from Spain, occupation continues.

GUAM 1898(-?) Naval, troops Seized from Spain, still use as base.

MINNESOTA 1898(-?) Troops Army battles Chippewa at Leech Lake.

NICARAGUA 1898 Troops Marines land at port of San Juan del Sur.

SAMOA 1899(-?) Troops Battle over succession to throne.

NICARAGUA 1899 Troops Marines land at port of Bluefields.
NICARAGUA 1899 Troops Marines land at port of Bluefields.

IDAHO 1899-1901 Troops Army occupies Coeur d'Alene mining region.

OKLAHOMA 1901 Troops Army battles Creek Indian revolt.

PANAMA 1901-14 Naval, troops Broke off from Colombia 1903, annexed Canal Zone 1914-99.

HONDURAS 1903 Troops Marines intervene in revolution.

DOMINICAN REP. 1903-04 Troops U.S. interests protected in Revolution.

KOREA 1904-05 Troops Marines land in Russo-Japanese War.

CUBA 1906-09 Troops Marines land in democratic election.

NICARAGUA 1907 Troops "Dollar Diplomacy" protectorate set up.

HONDURAS 1907 Troops Marines land during war with Nicaragua.

PANAMA 1908 Troops Marines intervene in election contest.

NICARAGUA 1910 Troops Marines land in Bluefields and Corinto.

HONDURAS 1911 Troops U.S. interests protected in civil war.

CHINA 1911-41 Naval, troops Continuous occupation with flare-ups.

CUBA 1912 Troops U.S. interests protected in Havanna.
HONDURAS 19l2 Troops Marines protect U.S. economic interests.

NICARAGUA 1912-33 Troops, bombing 20-year occupation, fought guerrillas.

MEXICO 19l3 Naval Americans evacuated during revolution.

DOMINICAN REPUBLIC 1914 Naval Fight with rebels over Santo Domingo.

COLORADO 1914 Troops Breaking of miners' strike by Army.

MEXICO 1914-18 Naval, troops Series of interventions against nationalists.

HAITI 1914-34 Troops, bombing 19-year occupation after revolts.

DOMINICAN REPUBLIC 1916-24 Troops 8-year Marine occupation.

CUBA 1917-33 Troops Military occupation, economic protectorate.

WORLD WAR I 19l7-18 Naval, troops Ships sunk, fought Germany

RUSSIA 1918-22 Naval, troops Five landings to fight Bolsheviks.

PANAMA 1918-20 Troops "Police duty" during unrest after elections.

YUGOSLAVIA 1919 Troops Marines intervene for Italy against Serbs in Dalmatia.

HONDURAS 1919 Troops Marines land during election campaign.

GUATEMALA 1920 Troops 2-week intervention against unionists.

WEST VIRGINIA 1920-21 Troops, bombing Army intervenes against mineworkers.
TURKEY 1922 Troops Fought nationalists in Smyrna (Izmir).

CHINA 1922-27 Naval, troops Deployment during nationalist revolt.

HONDURAS 1924-25 Troops Landed twice during election strife.

PANAMA 1925 Troops Marines suppress general strike.

CHINA 1927-34 Troops Marines stationed throughout the country.

EL SALVADOR 1932 Naval Warships sent during Faribundo Marti revolt.

WASHINGTON DC 1932 Troops Army stops WWI vet bonus protest.

WORLD WAR II 1941-45 Naval,troops, bombing, nuclear Fought Axis for 3 years; Over 200,000 civilian casualties in 1st nuclear strikes.

DETROIT 1943 Troops Army puts down Black rebellion.

IRAN 1946 Nuclear threat Soviet troops told to leave north (Iranian Azerbaijan).

YUGOSLAVIA 1946 Naval Response to shooting-down of U.S. plane.

URUGUAY 1947 Nuclear threat Bombers deployed as show of strength.

GREECE 1947-49 Command operation U.S. directs extreme-right in civil war.

CHINA 1948-49 Troops Marines evacuate Americans before Communist victory.

GERMANY 1948 Nuclear threat Atomic-capable bombers guard Berlin Airlift.

PANAMA 1989-90 Troops, bombing Nationalist government ousted by 27,000 soldiers, leaders arrested, 2000+ killed.

LIBERIA 1990 Troops Foreigners evacuated during civil war.

SAUDI ARABIA 1990-91 Troops, jets Iraq countered after invading Kuwait; 540,000 troops also stationed in Oman, Qatar, Bahrain, UAE, Israel.

IRAQ 1990-1992 Bombing, troops, naval Blockade of Iraqi and Jordanian ports, air strikes; 200,000+ killed in invasion of Iraq and Kuwait; no-fly zone over Kurdish north, Shiite south, large-scale destruction of Iraqi military.

KUWAIT 1991 Naval, bombing, troops Kuwait royal family returned to throne.

LOS ANGELES 1992 Troops Army, Marines deployed against anti-police uprising.

SOMALIA 1992-94 Troops, naval, bombing U.S.-led United Nations occupation during civil war; raids against one Mogadishu faction.

YUGOSLAVIA 1992-94 Naval Nato blockade of Serbia and Montenegro.

BOSNIA 1993-95 Jets, bombing No-fly zone patrolled in civil war; downed jets, bombed Serbs.

HAITI 1994-96 Troops, naval Blockade against military government; troops restore President Aristide to office three years after coup.

CROATIA 1995 Bombing Krajina Serb airfields attacked before Croatian offensive.

ZAIRE (CONGO) 1996-97 Troops Marines at Rwandan Hutu refuge camps, in area where Congo revolution
LIBERIA 1997 Troops Soldiers under fire during evacuation of foreigners.

ALBANIA 1997 Troops Soldiers under fire during evacuation of foreigners.

SUDAN 1998 Missiles Attack on pharmaceutical plant alleged to be "terrorist" nerve gas plant. Over 30, 000 civilian casualties. US blocks UN war-crimes inquiry at the security council.

AFGHANISTAN 1998 Missiles Attack on former CIA training camps used by Islamic fundamentalist groups alleged to have attacked embassies.

IRAQ 1998-2003 Bombing, Missiles Four days of intensive air strikes after weapons inspectors alleged Iraqi obstructions.

YUGOSLAVIA 1999. Bombing, Missiles Heavy NATO air strikes after Serbia declines to withdraw from Kosovo.

YEMEN 2000 Naval Suicide bomb attack on USS Cole.

MACEDONIA 2001 Troops NATO troops shift and partially disarm Albanian rebels.

UNITED STATES 2001 Jets, naval Response to hijacking attacks.

AFGHANISTAN 2001 Massive U.S. mobilization to attack Taliban, Bin Laden.

IRAQ 2003. Occupation with the pretext of existence of "mass destruction weapons". No mass destruction weapons found.



I Skipped ALOT.

[Peak_Oil]

61. I agree with many aspects of that list.

However.

Saying that an office building is a legitimate military target is not... whatever it is you're trying to say. US foreign policy is violent and greedy, therefore it is legitimate for terrorists to attack the WTC?

Is that what you're trying to say?

I'm working backwards from, "It is a legitimate military action to attack the WTC."

Am I missing something?

[bloom]

62. Did you read post #54

Ward Churchill's press release.

<snip>
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....

-----------------
It seems clear to me.

He certainly isn't the only one to say we reap what we sow. He sure is being vilified, though.

[Peak_Oil]

63. Just read it.

I think it's got some good logic behind it, and very little compassion for the janitors who were working on 93rd floor of WTC1 who were burned to death with 1000 degree jet fuel. There were totally innocent people there. There were secretaries working for Cantor Fitzgerald who greeted the father of somebody I knew when I was working this horrible boilerroom job in an office building elsewhere in the US. This guy I knew, he had connections that could get him a much better job. His dad hooked him up with a job doing something for the bond desk at CF. He had been a yacht broker where I live for a while until he got that job. Nice job, good benefits, way better than the bullshit we were dealing with at this horrible boilerroom telemarketing job.

Good luck, dude! Hope it works out for you!

As it happens, he and his dad died together that day. They were burned to death with jet fuel. Every once in a blue moon I wonder if he jumped instead of burning to death. It's not very often, maybe once or twice a year. I bet his mom thinks about that every five minutes, and will do so for the rest of her life.

If you're trying to tell me that he was working in a LEGITIMATE military target that could be expected to be hit by military force, then you are full of the shittiest shit there ever was. And if you believe that you're RIGHT in saying that this guy died because of ANYTHING, then there's other words for that. We all collectively share the blame for being 5% of the world population and consuming 25% or more of the Earth's resources. But to say that he in particular is guilty of something or could have reasonably expected to be attacked in a military manner because of the job he had as an assistant bond trader at Cantor Fitzgerald in a big office building is just finger-pointing.

The key to this whole thing is the word legitimate. I believe that this attack was not on a legitimate military target, and thus is a horrible tragedy performed by depraved evil opponents of civilization itself. By legitimizing the attack on this civilian office building, I think you're trying to turn my friend into a casualty of war.

We clashed last night on a fairly theoretical point, but I take this issue very personally.

In my opinion, if you say that this attack was performed on a LEGITIMATE military target, you have supported terrorist attacks on civilian office buildings. If you say that this attack was performed on a target that was not a LEGITIMATE military target, then this was a national tragedy that should be mourned.

I understand that WTC1 and WTC2 were selected for these attacks (by somebody). I understand that military forces were (probably)used to perform these attacks. As a totally separate issue, these forces chose targets for their attacks.

The Pentagon was a legitimate military target.

By extreme contrast, the civilian office buildings WTC1 and WTC2 are not legitimate military targets. Have I made my position crystal clear?

That said, please answer this question.

Were the 9-11-01 attacks on the WTC buildings 1 and 2 performed on LEGITIMATE military targets?

Please answer Yes or No.

[bloom]

82. I think they are

as legitimate as any military target is legitimate.

I'm a pacifist myself - but what I think a lot of people don't get is we have been in a war against these people for a long time and Americans refuse to recognize it. If we didn't want to be in a war - why did we continue to stay in it?

We are not the only victims. I think anyone who thinks we are - is all about our own Nationalism - blind to what we're doing - not unlike the Germans.

For some reason people can see what a tragedy it was for the Germans to go blindly along - but can't see the tragedy that we do by doing the same.

And this business of shutting up people like Churchill does not do our country any favors, either.

[smb]

78. Again, The Consistency Check

Was the Alfred P. Murrah Building a "legitimate military target"? (Sorry, you have no way to come up with any answer other than "yes", and to defend McVeigh's admirers as fervently as you defend this idiot professor.)

[sandnsea]

87. Yes

In his mind he was waging a war against the government and that's the reason he chose that building. Federal buildings are military targets. They would be true no matter who attacked. It differentiates these attacks from a pscyho going off at the McDonalds. If you don't understand the why of something, how in the world do you combat it effectively? Defining the fight does not mean you justify the fight. I honestly don't know what is so hard to comprehend about this.

[Fifth of Five]

90. It's simple...

emotions blind people to any facts that may tend to invalidate their emotion.

I see no contradiction in mourning the loss of life while also contending that the World Trade Center could be seen as a legitimate target from an enemy's point of view.

Americans have, for the most part, been extremely lucky through out history to have most of our wars fought on foreign soil. We have very few people left who remember American civilian deaths in war. Pearl Harbor may be the last time prior to what we now call the "War on Terror."

Other peoples have not been so lucky. They fully understand, through experience, that war inevitably means the death of civilians, not just occasionally, but as a daily occurrence.

[intheflow]

36. Putting the attacks into perspective.

Roughly 3,000 American civilians died on 9/11.

Over 100,000 Iraqi civilians have died in response.

The Iraqis had nothing to do with 9/11.

At least some of the people that worked in the WTC worked in the military/industrial/globalization system that that prompted the attacks.




You're so right, sandnsea. We Americans have no sense of perspective, of the Big Picture. We are a small-minded and self-centered people. :(

...well, not all of us. People like you and Poe (above) give me hope for humanity.

[poe]

42. I remember a shower curtain we had in our house

of the world. Of course the US was smack dab in the middle of it and size wise larger than the rest of the world combined. i bet those things sold like hotcakes. China was some miniscule land mass down in the right hand corner. Thanks alot for your words. Churchill's transgression is that he makes people squirm and dismisses thier 'politics of comfort' which is what much of the dialog on the left amounts to. I am an optimist who will look the Beast of El Norte right in the eyes without regard for it's political acceptability or consideration of it's palatability for the listening audience. I guarantee you, i F------ guarantee you most people commenting right now haven't read one book by the man, maybe not even the entire article/speech in question.

I pose this question to American taxpayers; why do you allow your taxpayer money to be used to cause death and distruction to millions of people around the world? Yet you do not say a thing when your government refuses to spend any taxpayers money to relieve the disastrous destruction of a natural disaster such as the Tsunami or the 100,000 dying in the Sudan of starvation and millions in other parts of the world?
To use and overuse colloquialism. What is wrong with this picture?

The American Enterprise Institute...........

"Creative destruction is our middle name, both within our own society and abroad. We tear down the old order every day, from business to science, literature, art, architecture, and cinema to politics and the law. Our enemies have always hated this whirlwind of energy and creativity, which menaces their traditions (whatever they may be) and shames them for their inability to keep pace. Seeing America undo traditional societies, they fear us, for they do not wish to be undone. They cannot feel secure so long as we are there, for our very existence -- our existence, not our politics -- threatens their legitimacy. They must attack us in order to survive, just as we must destroy them to advance our historic mission."

[Medium Baby Jesus]

37. If that is true than the war in Iraq is also legitimate

Establish a military base in the heart of the middle east. Take the fight to the enemy. etc...

:puke:

[sandnsea]

46. two different things

I never said al qaeda's reasons for war were legitimate. Rather, suggesting that we would be far ahead if we defined their motives and actions accurately. In Iraq, anything to do with oil and banks that process oil monies are legitimate war targets. Whether an outside country is hitting them, or the isurgents are hitting them. Defining targets is a completely separate issue than saying a war is legitmate.

[forgethell]

80. Let's say you're right.

People who declare war have no legitimate argument when war is then waged upon them. And in war, it is not necessarily the virtuous, but the strong, who prevail. Who do you think that might be?

[guajira]

32. Just heard today that he is getting "death threats"

Probably from the knuckle-dragging O'Reilly and Joe Scarborough viewers. Scarborough was asking his viewers to try and get Churchill fired from his job.

So much for FREE SPEECH!!!!

[KG]

43. bound to happen when someone dares to utter the truths that so many

americans just don't want to know.

[poe]

54. Ward Churchill Press Release and Statement of Support-Media Distortion 101

Ward Churchill says:

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
In support of Ward Churchill

You may or may not be aware of the hoopla surrounding scholar, activist, and author Ward Churchill. If not, AK Press sent out the following info today:

“After finding himself at the center of a media firestorm--and receiving a barrage of death threats--AK Press author, Ward Churchill, has stepped down from his position as Chair of the Ethnic Studies Department at the University of Colorado. Not satisfied with this, Colorado Governor Bill Owens is demanding that Ward resign his position as a tenured professor as well.





“The controversy is based on an essay Ward wrote soon after 9-11, which he later expanded into an AK Press book, ‘On the Justice of Roosting Chickens: Reflections on the Consequences of U.S. Imperial Arrogance and Criminality.’ Conservative protestors used the essay to force Hamilton College in New York to cancel a speaking engagement Ward had scheduled there. The mainstream media (including Bill O’Reilly and Fox News) has picked up the story, distorting and misrepresenting the facts, as usual.
“AK Press wishes to voice our support for Ward in this struggle--in terms of both his well-researched analysis of factors that contributed to the 9-11 attacks and his right to express that analysis in public without having his life and livelihood threatened. We also recommend that you read ‘On the Justice of Roosting Chickens’ yourself, rather than relying on the media’s version on it. Individuals can order it here: http://www.akpress.org/2003/items/onthejusticeofroostingchickens
(end of AK release)




I may not always agree with Ward Churchill (or anyone), but it shouldn’t even be necessary for me to say I fully support him (or anyone) speaking his mind (and I urge you to read the book in question). Sadly, I have no delusions that something like this can’t and won’t happen to someone like me...in the blink of an eye.

Let’s show some solidarity for Churchill ASAP...in whatever way we can. For now, here’s something I wrote a while back thanks to his latest book:
http://www.counterpunch.org/mickey12202003.html

[bloom]

58. "Gustavus Myer Human Rights Award. for best writing on human rights"

I wonder what his accusers are doing for Human Rights.


Sheesh.

[AuntiBush]

56. Scarface was all over it tonight.

Scar country had a field day with it, in all his glory. Another freeper payole in my book.

[Pushed To The Left]

73. Statements like this

give progressives a bad name. I wonder how this professor would feel if one of his family members or friends was in one of those buildings.

[Disturbed]

76. Freedom of Speech

People want him fired but still say Freedom of Speech. That's Amerikan Hypocrisy! He should not be fired.

If he hadn't said, “little Eichmanns” it is my guess that he wouldn't be news. Maybe he knew that he would be news if he published that. I don't know that. I do agree that the U.S. Policies in the ME are the cause of much suffering and Muslims all over the world are not pleased about the policies. I do agree that the ME people have legitimate grievances toward the U.S.

Legitimate military target when they attacked WTC1 and WTC2?

No not military targets. Financial targets? Yes.

Pentagon legit target? Yes.

I don't advocate either of those actions but I do understand them.

Was it LIHOP? I strongly suspect that it was.

[Pushed To The Left]

84. He has a right to say

what he wants without being penalized. I totally agree with you there. I was just expressing my displeasure with what he said.

[K-W]

85. No, you and your ilk on this thread are the problem.

For singing up to help the republicans lynch leftists who dare to express opinions too frige for you.

Gee I wonder why they have found it so easy to systematically purge the left from Amrican institutions for decades.

[Pushed To The Left]

89. I am on the left

and you are disagreeing with me. Does this mean you are trying to help the Republicans? I don't consider what he said about 9/11 victims to be representative of what most progressives believe in. I probably agree with a lot of his other views, but not that one. He has a right to say what he wants to, and I have a right to disagree.

[Djinn]

94. we can all disagree

but I wouldn't say that YOU are giving progressives a bad name - I think it's that suggestion that KW had a problem with

[smb]

77. He's Make More Sense If He Were Consistent

If this Churchill guy had defended Timothy McVeigh on the same grounds (the US Government drove him to it), then at least his position would be coherent.

[baldguy]

79. You only have a right to be an asshole if you're a RIGHT WING asshole.

[SchizoTypal7]

88. Many of his speaking engagements have

also been canceled. Colorado's govenor said he should be fired.

[bloom]

91. CU student protests - for and against

The controversy surrounding embattled CU ethnic studies professor Ward Churchill escalated Tuesday as student activists entered the fray.

A mid-day event at the UMC fountain area featured a little of everything: a protest and a counter protest, as well as dueling signature drives - and a man yelling incessantly, wearing a cowboy hat and sweatpants with "Jesus is Lord" emblazoned on his pant leg.

The CU College Republicans and a small splinter group of Republican protesters, as well as a group of Churchill supporters coalesced at the Dalton Trumbo Fountain behind the University Memorial Center, creating a spirited, loud - and borderline chaotic - debate.

Former students of Churchill who attended the rally were generally supportive of the professor.
<snip>

Meanwhile, a smaller group of Republican protesters disagreed with the College Republicans' anti-Churchill stance.

http://www.coloradodaily.com/articles/2005/02/01/news/news01.txt

[alarimer]

95. He is not entirely wrong

I would disagree with how he phrased some of it. I too am thoroughly sick of how the victims of 9/11 are lionized as heroes for simply DOING THEIR JOBS. It is true that what happened was horrible but the US basically created Osama. They funded him during the Afghan war.

[poe]

96. Another Professor in the Crosshairs of Fox News-Ward's Not Alone

FoxNews Puts Me In Its Crosshairs

By M. SHAHID ALAM

I published an essay, "America and Islam: Seeking Parallels," in Counterpunch on December 29, 2004. A day later, I began to receive nasty and threatening emails, all at once. These were orchestrated by a www.littlegreenfootballs.com. Shortly thereafter, other right-wing websites got into act, posting excerpts from the essay; these included jihadwatch.org, campuswatch.org, frontpagemag.com, freerepublic.com, etc. The messages posted on these websites were equally vicious, and some of them, containing explicit death threats, were 'kindly' forwarded to me.

What did I say in this essay? I made two points. First, that the 9-11 attacks were an Islamist insurgency: the attackers believe that they are fighting--as the Americans did, in the 1770s--for their freedom and dignity against a foreign occupation/control of their lands. Secondly, I argue that these attacks were the result of a massive political failure of Muslims to resist their tyrannies locally. It was a mistake to attack the US.

I followed the first essay with a second one, "Testing Free Speech In America," where I elaborate on the points I had made earlier. This too was published in Counterpunch.Org on Jan 1/2, 2005.It appears that Bill O'Reilly is doing a series on 'unAmerican' professors on US campuses. Last night, my wife tells me, he did a piece on Ward Churchill. Tonight will be my turn. I expect he will make all kinds of outlandish accusations that will resonate well with the left- and Muslim-hating members of his audience. This will generate calls and emails to Northeastern and to me ? containing threats, calls for firing me, and threats to withhold donations. I am not sure how well NU will stand up against this barrage.

If we can generate a matching volume of emails, letters and call to NU supporting my right to free speech, it might be helpful.

What else can we do?

The contact information for President Richard Freeland is available
at:

http://155.33.227.141/president/letters.nclk

Contact for Provots and Senior VP for Academic Affairs:

Ahmed Abdelal
Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost
112 Hayden Hall
[phone]
[e-mail]

The contacts for the leading people in the President's office are
available here:

http://www.president.neu.edu/cabinet.htmDean, College of Arts and Sciences

James Stellar
100 Meserve Hall
Northeastern University
360 Huntington Ave.
Boston, MA 02115
[e-mail]
[phone]

M. Shahid Alam, professor of economics at Northeastern University