 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
laurentius
|
 |
Helsinki, Finland
Jun 2001
time: 07:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DinoDoc
I don't recall using fuel air bombs (the equivilant of tactical nukes) on Fallujah if you reall want to compare the two. |
You should be thankful to the combat teams did not use depleted uranium like you did '91....
Not only millions of Iraqi lifes continue to be destroyed by the uranium ammunition you used but about 150 000 US, Canadian and British veterans and their childrens as well.
Last edited by laurentius on 02-02-2005 at 22:43
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
 |
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:27
|
|
quote:
Ward Churchill Responds to Criticism of
"Some People Push Back"
In the last few days there has been widespread and grossly inaccurate media coverage concerning my analysis of the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, coverage that has resulted in defamation of my character and threats against my life. What I actually said has been lost, indeed turned into the opposite of itself, and I hope the following facts will be reported at least to the same extent that the fabrications have been.
* The piece circulating on the internet was developed into a book, On the Justice of Roosting Chickens. Most of the book is a detailed chronology of U.S. military interventions since 1776 and U.S. violations of international law since World War II. My point is that we cannot allow the U.S. government, acting in our name, to engage in massive violations of international law and fundamental human rights and not expect to reap the consequences.
* I am not a "defender"of the September 11 attacks, but simply pointing out that if U.S. foreign policy results in massive death and destruction abroad, we cannot feign innocence when some of that destruction is returned. I have never said that people "should" engage in armed attacks on the United States, but that such attacks are a natural and unavoidable consequence of unlawful U.S. policy. As Martin Luther King, quoting Robert F. Kennedy, said, "Those who make peaceful change impossible make violent change inevitable."
* This is not to say that I advocate violence; as a U.S. soldier in Vietnam I witnessed and participated in more violence than I ever wish to see. What I am saying is that if we want an end to violence, especially that perpetrated against civilians, we must take the responsibility for halting the slaughter perpetrated by the United States around the world. My feelings are reflected in Dr. King's April 1967 Riverside speech, where, when asked about the wave of urban rebellions in U.S. cities, he said, "I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed . . . without having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today — my own government."
* In 1996 Madeleine Albright, then Ambassador to the UN and soon to be U.S. Secretary of State, did not dispute that 500,000 Iraqi children had died as a result of economic sanctions, but stated on national television that "we" had decided it was "worth the cost." I mourn the victims of the September 11 attacks, just as I mourn the deaths of those Iraqi children, the more than 3 million people killed in the war in Indochina, those who died in the U.S. invasions of Grenada, Panama and elsewhere in Central America, the victims of the transatlantic slave trade, and the indigenous peoples still subjected to genocidal policies. If we respond with callous disregard to the deaths of others, we can only expect equal callousness to American deaths.
* Finally, I have never characterized all the September 11 victims as "Nazis." What I said was that the "technocrats of empire" working in the World Trade Center were the equivalent of "little Eichmanns." Adolf Eichmann was not charged with direct killing but with ensuring the smooth running of the infrastructure that enabled the Nazi genocide. Similarly, German industrialists were legitimately targeted by the Allies.
* It is not disputed that the Pentagon was a military target, or that a CIA office was situated in the World Trade Center. Following the logic by which U.S. Defense Department spokespersons have consistently sought to justify target selection in places like Baghdad, this placement of an element of the American "command and control infrastructure" in an ostensibly civilian facility converted the Trade Center itself into a "legitimate" target. Again following U.S. military doctrine, as announced in briefing after briefing, those who did not work for the CIA but were nonetheless killed in the attack amounted to no more than "collateral damage." If the U.S. public is prepared to accept these "standards" when the are routinely applied to other people, they should be not be surprised when the same standards are applied to them.
* It should be emphasized that I applied the "little Eichmanns" characterization only to those described as "technicians." Thus, it was obviously not directed to the children, janitors, food service workers, firemen and random passers-by killed in the 9-1-1 attack. According to Pentagon logic, were simply part of the collateral damage. Ugly? Yes. Hurtful? Yes. And that's my point. It's no less ugly, painful or dehumanizing a description when applied to Iraqis, Palestinians, or anyone else. If we ourselves do not want to be treated in this fashion, we must refuse to allow others to be similarly devalued and dehumanized in our name.
* The bottom line of my argument is that the best and perhaps only way to prevent 9-1-1-style attacks on the U.S. is for American citizens to compel their government to comply with the rule of law. The lesson of Nuremberg is that this is not only our right, but our obligation. To the extent we shirk this responsibility, we, like the "Good Germans" of the 1930s and '40s, are complicit in its actions and have no legitimate basis for complaint when we suffer the consequences. This, of course, includes me, personally, as well as my family, no less than anyone else.
* These points are clearly stated and documented in my book, On the Justice of Roosting Chickens, which recently won Honorary Mention for the Gustavus Myer Human Rights Award. for best writing on human rights. Some people will, of course, disagree with my analysis, but it presents questions that must be addressed in academic and public debate if we are to find a real solution to the violence that pervades today's world. The gross distortions of what I actually said can only be viewed as an attempt to distract the public from the real issues at hand and to further stifle freedom of speech and academic debate in this country.
Ward Churchill
Boulder, Colorado
January 31, 2005 |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Cruddy
|
|
I don't think the people on board the planes (other than the terrorists) can be classed as anything other than random, innocent victims.
You can argue until blue in the face about the Pentagon and people in the WTC. But those passengers WERE innocent - the terrorists almost certainly had no way of knowing who they were, and indeed didn't care.
This professor clearly ignores this fact.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Cruddy
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by lord of the mark
EVERYONE in the WTC was an innocent, as far as international law is concerned. Who in the WTC was bearing arms? |
Since when did you give a stuff about international law?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Cruddy
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by lord of the mark
Ergo, Churchill is totally ignorant of the history of the holocaust. QED.
|
Just as you are ignorant of any other genocide that occurs apart from that which affected your nearest and dearest.
Black, white, yellow or brown, we all bleed red you know.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
|
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cruddy
This professor clearly ignores this fact. |
Actually, he doesn't.
quote:
* 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. |
If it's okay to kill civilians to get at Hussein, then it's okay to fly a plane into the Pentagon. If you acept the logic that it's okay to kill civilians, you're stuck. Since I don't accept the logic that it's okay to kill civilians, I can freely criticize both.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Cruddy
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by BeBro
... That there were/are other IL violations does not mean it is ok to violate IL permanently. |
How can you permanently violate a law? Sooner or later you're dead anyway.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Cruddy
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Actually, he doesn't.
quote:
* 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. |
If it's okay to kill civilians to get at Hussein, then it's okay to fly a plane into the Pentagon. If you acept the logic that it's okay to kill civilians, you're stuck. Since I don't accept the logic that it's okay to kill civilians, I can freely criticize both. |
Ah, but you are putting the cart before the horse.
9/11 happened BEFORE the attack on Iraq.
Another point... what chance did the passengers on the planes have of surviving? Zero.
What chance did SH or any other Iraqi have of surviving? Higher than zero.
Not the same thing at all.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:27.
Apolyton Time is 00:27. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
02-02-2005 22:17
ACK!
|