Trying to make my peace with Ward Churchill and 9/11...

[JackRiddler]

From his article at
http://www.kersplebedeb.com/mystuff/s11/churchill.html

"In fairness, it must be admitted that there was an infinitesimally small segment of the body politic who expressed opposition to what was/is being done to the children of Iraq. It must also be conceded, however, that those involved by-and-large contented themselves with signing petitions and conducting candle-lit prayer vigils, bearing "moral witness" as vast legions of brown-skinned five-year-olds sat shivering in the dark, wide-eyed in horror, whimpering as they expired in the most agonizing ways imaginable."

In the article, Churchill overdoes the point. The WTC workers, even the "technicians," are not little Eichmanns; Eichmann knew he was overseeing the logistics of murdering a population. Almost none of the WTC "technicians" honestly know their actions are essential to a machinery of killing.

Furthermore, snuffing them out does not change a thing - they are disposable to the machine. In fact, it objectively worsens things - it is an act morally equivalent to the US crimes Churchill describes.

I attacked Churchill as a hot-dog in the earlier discussion, but I felt differently about his comments when I realized he had already written them in the passion of Sept. 12.

On that day, when I was very angry and traumatized by the events in my hometown, I might have attacked him even more fiercely for saying this stuff.

In retrospect, I feel some forgiveness: he was writing in the seemingly reasonable assumption that the official story was somehow true; and in the less reasonable, but not entirely ridiculous assumption that the attacks were answering US atrocities IN KIND, with "collateral damage" of the sort the Pentagon routinely commits.

Although I had read Churchill's work on COINTELPRO, I had not realized until now that he is of native American descent. I can better understand that he would feel resentment at the way 9/11 was treated as a horrible crime and disaster, when 500,000 dead Iraqis don't mean shit to the American taxpayer who is financing their murder, and are usually treated by the American opposition as one of many hobby issues.

But even then, it's a stretch to think of 9/11 as a case of the "Third World fighting back." I don't believe in the right of self-appointed secret cells to commit such acts conspiratorially on behalf of larger groups. It is a miniature of the mentality of the state, of the CIA. I suspect many of the innocent people killed abroad in the subsequent "retaliations" for 9/11 by the US military would agree with me that (even granted the official story) "the hijackers" did not act in THEIR name.

The Third World fighting back? That's what Venezuela is demonstrating, or the Bolivians who stopped the Bechtel takeover of their resources.

Churchill's assumptions cannot be held true today by any stretch, and for him to insist on this reading of 9/11 becomes ignorant and counter-productive.

First, the evidence points to a facilitated attack: 9/11 as a false-flag act designed to support US policy plans. (If you are still in denial about this, I'm sorry. Please go to Justicefor911.org and read the whole complaint, or get one of David Ray Griffin's two books on the subject for a start.)

I can't take anyone seriously in 2004 who merely writes as though 9/11 was conceived and seen through to execution entirely by a conspiracy of 19 hijackers who managed to elude detection, had no outside help, and benefitted from US authorities' incompetence (the theory of luck).

Nothing in the evidence supports that anymore. How do you explain military scenarios based on the 9/11 model being planned and held on the very morning when it the attacks themselves were committed? How do you explain the foreknowledge, or the dozens of foreign and domestic agents from several countries hovering around the alleged hijackers in the months before the attacks? How do you explain the ACTIVE SUPPRESSION (not mere incompetence) of investigations that could have uncovered the alleged plotters?

9/11 was not a strike that "taught anything" to Americans who needed teaching. It was the exact opposite, it blinded many who already knew better. It was used as a pretext to make American policy worse - according to plans hatched openly long in advance. It was used as a New Pearl Harbor to put through the PNAC plan. It was treated as a GODSEND by the Bush crew. Should that not make Churchill pause?

Given that, 9/11 is not a misguided and criminal "retaliation" to the long list of atrocities committed by US government and allied forces around the world; it is actually another item in the same list of crimes!

How can Churchill ignore all that in 2004, and still insist on an essentially romantic (in the 19th century sense) view of the event, as though it emboides an inevitable revelation?

He can only do that if he is entirely ignorant of the 9/11 research and truth movement of the last three years. His views have much internal logic (despite the extreme moral caricature), but can no longer be said to bear relation to reality as established by empirical standards.

By a form of laziness (not bothering with the suppressed evidence) or stubborn ignorance (please don't take away my romantic ideas about retaliation and Leviathan's weakness against determined men), he serves as a defender of the official conspiracy theory and official cover-up - albeit with an opposite spin. He is serving the lie, perhaps unwittingly but nevertheless stubbornly, and missing the opportunity to turn everyone's perceptions of 9/11 (and Leviathan) on their head.

If you've read this far, please discuss...

[bobbieinok]

1. my comment from another Chuchill thread

SCARY..in checking out some of the linked articles to the right, Churchill


http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36%257E53%257E...

is being attacked on all fronts....his Vietnam service, his claim to be part Indian, etc.......some of this does make him sound 'iffy'

BUT, the scary thing here is.....speak out publicly and YOU will be investigated, your past will be investigated, your family and ties will be investigated, and ANYTHING that is or can be spun to appear 'off' will come out.......all this investigation done NOT by the govt but by 'concerned citizen groups'........SO, are you SURE you want to publicly disagree with our great govt and its policies??????

[JackRiddler]

4. My earlier mistake...

Because I didn't realize that the O'Reilly brownshirt crew had dug up an article that was more than 3 years old to hit him now, I thought he was hot-dogging to get attention (which he may be, for all we know).

But there is no doubt he is now the cutting-edge target in a continuing campaign to shut down all dissident voices and assure a more fascist future.

[TR Fan]

8. But, isn't that exactly what happens here?

How many posts have you seen on DU requesting all background information that can be obtained about certain figures in the news, even to the extent of refering to that information as "dirt."

[Democrats_win]

2. Your conclusion versus my observation.

Your conclusion on Churchill: "he serves as a defender of the official conspiracy theory and official cover-up"

My observation: African-Americans, Gays, and now Native-Americans like Churchill know that it is a myth that America was or ever will be a benevolant country intent on doing what is right.

Perhaps he ended up being part of the cover-up, but it doesn't change his hypothesis and perhaps your belief too, that bad things are going on in the USA.

[bloom]

3. I think it would be interesting

to hear Ward Churchill's response to what you wrote.

It does seem rather ironic that that the people who seem to want to believe the "19 hijackers from the Middle East who are the evil ones" story - are the ones most threatened by Churchill saying that there might be a reason that they did what they did. :shrug:



I think it comes down to who do you feel most at odds with.

I feel that I am at odds with the B**h Administration and CEOs, etc. who have no concern for workers, people in general (outside of their own circle) or the planet as a whole.

Other people see themselves at odds with the people of the Middle East. I think the only reason that people of the Middle East feel at odds with me are because of people like Bush and the CEOs.


I can understand people who feel they are at odds with the people of the Middle East feeling threatened by Churchill saying we should be at odds with B**h and the CEOs - because they identify with the people he is at odds with.

I have a harder time understanding why progressives are threatened by what Churchill is saying.

[JackRiddler]

5. Here are several simple reasons why...

this progressive dislikes Churchill's analysis.

He's wrong about what really happened on 9/11 and thus lends credence to the official story.

In effect, this re-classifies a crime of the ruling class as one of the oppressed. The victims of 9/11 should be allying with the historic victims of US policy against the perpetrators responsible for both 9/11 and US policy. Only the official mythology prevents that.

Instead he is romanticizing counter-terror as heroism, and pretending that the 19 self-appointed conspirators of the official story somehow spoke on behalf of the victimized Third World.

That ignores how many people in the victimized Third World themselves abhorred 9/11, and understood immediately that they would become the indirect victims of 9/11 -- that it granted carte blanche to US policy to make things much worse for them, to kill 1,000 brown people for every one killed in NY and DC.

Nobody asked the Third World if they wanted a 9/11 on their behalf.

He is ignoring the obvious effect of 9/11, which served as the justification, bolstered and energized the doings of the most criminal elements in our society -- and he is ignoring that this was the PREDICTABLE effect of the crime, surely known to the perpetrators (whether you believe the official story or not).

He is saying things that split the potential coalition to expose 9/11, when exposing 9/11 would be the most effective way to finally wake up the American people to the reality of their system and turn them against its policies.

He is ignoring that the majority of "little Eichmanns" are, because of ideology and information control, unaware of their role within the system, or how the system really works. The vast majority honestly believe they are innocent victims based on what they actually know about what they do -- which is untrue of an Eichmann.

He is viewing "America" as a simple collective, in the same way that others reduce peoples to a single-word nation. Guilt is always individual, or at least attaches to conscious, coherent groupings who operate together. Almost nothing "America" has committed as a crime outside the borders of the present US (where the Indian genocide occured, true) could have been done without help from willing collaborators in a multitude of foreign nations.

The real divide in the global class war runs through every city, every plantation.

He should at least have the courage to admit that he himself could have been killed at random by the 9/11 attacks.

I wish you would address at least one or two of these points yourself, instead of trying to out-flank me as the greater critic of American policy. That's not the point, and I think you can see that.

All that being said:

Churchill has been selected on the basis of an obscure piece, written more than 3 years ago, as the target of a coordinated offensive to roll back all dissident voices. If he had not offered such a target, someone else would have been selected. The O'Reilly brownshirts remain the real enemies on this front, and I am conscious of that.

[Wind Dancer]

10. I recently read this article by Chomsky.

I will throw it out for consideration, I'm not sure what happened that day.

E-mail question: What do you make of the various conspiracies that have flourished online since the terror attacks?

On the conspiracy theories about 9/11, I'll comment, but reluctantly. There are far more important things to be concerned about, and these things can become an awful waste of time.

As for the theories, I don't think they can be taken very seriously. I think they are based on a misunderstanding of the nature of evidence, and also failure to think through the issues clearly. I really am rushed, so I hope you won't mind if I just paste in one of the 100s of letters I've written about this, in response to a deluge of queries: it really is an industry. I should say, however, that I never become publicly involved in these matters, if I can help it.



I might perhaps add that all of this reminds me of a 1998 DOD report on declassification decisions. Among other things, it suggested that information about the JFK assassination should be released now and then as a "diversion," as "distraction material," which could keep people busy on wild goose chases so they wouldn't investigate the serious questions. A smart decision on the part of US intelligence. You can find the details in an excellent book by British political scientist Richard Aldrich, The Hidden Hand (p. 7), the best study by far of British intelligence (with a lot about US intelligence too, for one reason, because the British were of course spying on the Americans, just as conversely).

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=11&ItemID=7143

[JackRiddler]

12. Chomsky's stance is unfortunate...

Chomsky is substituting his feeling that 9/11 evidence is distractive for an actual examination of that evidence and of the history of false-flag operations, which would make 9/11 part of a chain.

Do you want to substitute citation of the honored authority Chomsky for your own examination of that evidence? Nothing's stopping you from taking the step he won't. Rather than leaving yourself in uncertainty, as you say, you could actually do something like read the complaint at Justicefor911.org, trace the sourcing, apply scholarly and journalistic standards, and then test where you stand.

Of course rehashing JFK and the arcane details of the past is used as a distraction - on the other hand, Chomsky's own view that Oswald did act alone is untenable, and colors his analysis of all subsequent history.

I think he would never be as naive or dismissive (for example) about a coup d'etat sponsored by the CIA in a country other than the US. That is what JFK was, and I believe a form of coup d'etat was sponsored by successor networks ensconced within many US and foreign agencies on 9/11. Based on the evidence, the timing, the aftermath and the history.

Chomsky wants an easy out of this discussion, because he feels he doesn't need it for his own analyses.

I do think I sense a counterproductive and rather hardhearted attitude to Americans on the intellectual left: "Well, if the same apparatus that I abhor elsewhere also happens to commit crimes against the middle classes of its own people, that's their own tough luck for not having paid attention to my excellent analysis in the past. I shall prefer instead to believe it was an act of retribution by the oppressed, contrary to the evidence, and engage in schadenfreude that horrors have finally been visited upon the wonder-bread-eating, ignorant multitudes who make the US government possible in the first place."

This attitude may have its satisfactions for some - I am not immune to it when it comes in the form of a good disaster movie - but in the real realm, it serves nothing toward changing things. No true agent of change would want to miss the opportunity to change their enemy (something well understood by the most effective agents of change historically, the great leaders of movements we so admire, whatever their defects).

[Wind Dancer]

23. You raise an interesting point.

Chomsky doesn't need it for his own analysis and does seem uncomfortable answering the questions. I've often wondered why he avoids this topic in his books and articles since he is so detailed in other areas.

I didn't mean to imply that I believe the official 9/11 story, I don't know what happened that day. I've been researching it for a long time, read all the theories and haven't come to a conclusion.

I will probably never find out the answers to all of these questions in my lifetime. The secrecy surrounding this administration is unprecedented. The full scope of Watergate has never been exposed, Zinn does reveal a few interesting facts in his book.

I also believe JFK was a form of coup d'etat, many of the same players are now working within the highest levels of the government.

Thanks for your post, we share many of the same concerns and opinions.

[bloom]

19. it's possible

that he might figure if he tries to discuss 9/11 from the "conspiracy' POV that he would be taken less seriously than he is now.


"Instead he is romanticizing counter-terror as heroism, and pretending that the 19 self-appointed conspirators of the official story somehow spoke on behalf of the victimized Third World....

Nobody asked the Third World if they wanted a 9/11 on their behalf."


Yes - I do see that as his focus - victims standing up for themselves as it were. I expect he's read Zinn and the history with the point of view of the victims.

With hindsight - I suppose people in the Middle East - Iraq, at least - would do what they could to stop the terrorists if it were possible. Such things are not.

It was my impression that there were some in the Middle East who seemed happy to see someone manage to attack within the US. If one shares the POV of the victimized - it's hard to blame someone having feelings like that.

That is why it seems to me that it gets down to whether one thinks the USA is victimizing people or not.

[Dorian Gray]

6. Do you really think

that people are infuriated over blaming America? I think more of the outrage geared toward Churchill comes from the statement that the Towers were filled with "Little Eichmans." Blaming the victims of the attack.

To me, at least, that's what I find most offensive. On an intellectual level, I can listen to the rest of what he has to say, and agree with a lot of it, actually.

[bloom]

17. "people... infuriated over blaming America"

yes.

I think the O'Reilly thing (followed by Limbaugh, I believe, and who knows who else) - is targeted toward people who want to believe that the USA is blameless.

Patriotism, nationalism, etc. That is what is drilled into the heads of FOX viewers. And the people motivated to call or write in death threats - I imagine were patriotic fanatics that can't stand to have any one casting any aspersions on anyone in our country (except onto the leftists, of course).

Some took issue with the "Eichmans" reference. But generally - I think that was partly because they don't see the USA as doing anything wrong. (People at campuswatch and littlegreenfootballs would probably have a different focus than the FOX/Limbaugh audience).



From the Freeps:
---
Since he hates the U.S. so much perhaps we should deport him to Fallujah, just dump him on the street and see how much sympathy his views bring him.

4 posted on 01/31/2005 6:33:36 PM PST by 1LongTimeLurker

---
this guy is !@$#% lying piece of !@$#% that needs to get the !@$#% out of our country if he !@$#% hates it so much

!@$#% him and the !@$#% propaganda machine he road in on

8 posted on 01/31/2005 6:34:57 PM PST by Texas_Jarhead (I believe in American Exceptionalism! Do you?)

---
Underneath it all it's no more than regurgitated "we had it coming." Churchill is an insignificant fool living in his own little fantasy world. I really wouldn't waste a lot of time on him.


58 posted on 01/31/2005 8:07:57 PM PST by Billthedrill

---
He's still a jerk.

Saddam and only Saddam is totally responsible for any and all deaths that occurred during the sanctions. Period.

11 posted on 01/31/2005 6:36:06 PM PST by Felis_irritable

---
It is the policy of those of the left to blame anyone other than themselves as they are never wrong...

16 posted on 01/31/2005 6:38:56 PM PST by GW and Twins Pawpaw (Sheepdog for Five )

---

Free speech, even that left-leaning twaddle that passes for academic free speech, is one thing. Outright lies, distortions, and pro-terrorism rhetoric in a time of war shouldn't be tolerated. That Hamilton invites this creep to speak when 3 of its alumnae were killed and a current student had a parent killed in 9/11 is beyond belief. The school deserves the economic screwing it's going to get.

59 posted on 01/31/2005 8:09:30 PM PST by radiohead (revote in washington state)

---
I've never heard of him before but from reading this I'd say this guy's a traitor. Thanks for outing yourself, Ward. It's good to know who the traitors are.

64 posted on 01/31/2005 8:39:27 PM PST by TigersEye (Intellectuals only exist if you think they do.)

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1333122/posts

[K-W]

20. He never blamed the victims.

He was blaming americans for allowing our government to committ equally heinous acts in other countries.

His point was that the people in the towers are nor more innocent than the people in the buildings we bomb in other countries so if we reserve the right to bomb office buildings in our military campaigs, which we do, how can we cry foul when someone bombs our office buildings?

He is exploring the many ways of looking at innocense and US hypocrisy and how we judge the world by different standards than we hold ourselves to.

He didnt blame the victims for the attack, that is a horrible summery of his point.

[JackRiddler]

7. I would very much like to hear...

Ward Churchill respond to this particular criticism. I hope, by at least acknowledging the existence of an alternative understanding of 9/11 as some form of conscious, stage-managed inside job, and taking that view into account in his analysis. Let him question the official story, and if he finds it compelling nevertheless, at least he won't be ignoring that others believe 9/11 was something completely different than what he thinks.

[SpiralHawk]

9. Who is next?

Great discussion. Churchill has riled the waters in AIM (American Indian Movement) for years.

Quite a mess. Government ops? Could well be.

http://www.aimovement.org/moipr/USvAIMbackground.html

"These co-conspirators calling themselves the confederation of autonomous AIM chapters have attempted to infiltrate, misdirect, divide, disrupt and cause confusion by claiming to be American Indian Movement on the one hand, and on the other hand they continue their campaign to vilify and discredit the legitimate leadership, and members of the American Indian Movement Grand Governing Council as part of their campaign to destroy the American Indian Movement."

At any rate, I agree with Riddler that this is an Opening Salvo in the RW purge of "free thinkers" and "free speakers."

Who is next?

[Wind Dancer]

11. Wow, that is interesting.

It's so hard to figure how many are involved in these psych-ops.

[bobbieinok]

13. so who is Churchill???? here he disrupts the Am Indian Movement

is he now disrupting the whole group who dissent against bushco???

ie, is his article 'real' or was it written to provide a target to justify renewed outrage against dissenters??

what a messed up world we live in

[JackRiddler]

14. His article was real...

In that it was written immediately after 9/11 and reflects a viewpoint truly felt by many, including (judging from its passion) W.C. himself on 9/12/01.

[poe]

21. You Are-Here is who is presently being attacked at Northeastern Univ.

The words of M. Junaid Alam professor under assault by the neo-fascists: "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.
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."
<snip> Read entire essay at www.counterpunch.org
It is now acceptable to threaten the lives of antiwar activists, as Tom Frank did recently at the New Republic. As I wrote in a email to the New Republic, “Mr. Frank’s remarks bring to mind Hitler’s Sturmabteilung, or brownshirts, paramilitary goons who not only talked about using physical violence against their opponents but engaged in it with frighteningly sadistic and, eventually, genocidal results. Is it possible the writers and editors of the New Republic wish to emulate the actions of the Nazis, responsible for the murder of millions of innocent people?”We can write this piece off as just another one of the smarmy New Republic 20-something writers getting his jollies slamming the left. We can say that Frank -- his entire piece an exercise in poorly executed humor, ill-written grammar, and awkward phrasing -- just forgot to break his Prozac in half that morning. But there is something far more insidious at work here.

This piece is yet another effort to intimidate and silence people who aren't willing to toe the "party line" espoused by Democrats and Republicans alike that the death of 1,400 US troops and 100,000 Iraqi civilians is somehow justified. Frank's piece is an exercise in hate and intimidation. To be quiet in its face is to give ground in a period when we have precious little to give.
All decent people, whether Republican or Democrat, liberal or conservative, should denounce the views of Ward Churchill,” Bill Owens, the Republican governor of Colorado, writes in a letter he sent to Isaiah Lechowit, the president of the University of Colorado College Republicans, who will read it to a lynch mob demanding the resignation of Churchill, the latest victim of the Bushzarro world purge of academe. “Not only are his writings outrageous and insupportable, they are at odds with the facts of history.”
Are they really?
Unfortunately, this is the America we now live in. It will only get worse because the Strausscons and their neoliberal allies have more invasions and bombing runs in mind. In order to accomplish this, America will need to be polarized even further and threats of violence will indeed become actual acts of violence, as Hitler’s Sturmabteilung moved from murmured threats in beer halls to kicking in the doors of dissidents and disappearing them into the night.
www.kurtnimmo.com
Throughout history, it has been the inaction of those who could have acted; the indifference of those who should have known better; the silence of the voice of justice when it mattered most; that has made it possible for evil to triumph: Haile Selassie
Words from Ward Churchill-Keetowah Band Cherokee, Viet Nam Vet, Lifelong Activist under assault by the neo-fascists:
"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.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."

"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."

I hope you will contact UC-Boulder and Northeastern U. in Boston and express your solidarity for these two professors

[K-W]

15. I think that misses his point entirely.

He argued that Americans are hypocrites because American fighters bring down buildings full of people who are mostly innocent because they contain what is identified as military infrastructure.

It wasnt about 9/11 being right, it was about the double standard. How America sits by while our government terrorizes the world and when we get terrorized we fill with riteous indignation at the horrers perpetrated on us.

It is about the fact that the people who did this dont think they were wrong and have a very similar case for thier actions that the US does for its actions in many places.

[JackRiddler]

16. No. I get his point.

My point is that his point only works as long as you view 9/11 as an outside attack.

Once you see the loose ends and it unravels into the likelihood of an inside job, you also see that Churchill is missing the essential meta-level:

9/11 was carried out by elites and operators associated with the US government to exploit the wrongful attitude among Americans that values their own lives (and comfort) so much more highly than the lives of brown peoples.

So there's no conflict between realizing the hypocrisy in American attitudes (even given the official story) and getting to the more essential point about the actual event: that the official story is a lie, that 9/11 was planned and exploited to place a new leash on the American psyche, and to direct that psyche to even more violent ends than before.

Please acknowledge this!

[K-W]

18. Then why are you singling him out.

A large majority of people think the official story is more or less true. Why are you singling out this professor now?

[poe]

22. Missing the point even though you know it? 9-11 used for everything and...

to justify attacks on any who challenge empire including you and me Attack Afganistan 9-11, Attack Iraq 9-11 Attack Constitution 9-11 Attack Dissidents 9-11.It is now acceptable to threaten the lives of antiwar activists, as Tom Frank did recently at the New Republic. As I wrote in a email to the New Republic, “Mr. Frank’s remarks bring to mind Hitler’s Sturmabteilung, or brownshirts, paramilitary goons who not only talked about using physical violence against their opponents but engaged in it with frighteningly sadistic and, eventually, genocidal results. Is it possible the writers and editors of the New Republic wish to emulate the actions of the Nazis, responsible for the murder of millions of innocent people?”We can write this piece off as just another one of the smarmy New Republic 20-something writers getting his jollies slamming the left. We can say that Frank -- his entire piece an exercise in poorly executed humor, ill-written grammar, and awkward phrasing -- just forgot to break his Prozac in half that morning. But there is something far more insidious at work here.

This piece is yet another effort to intimidate and silence people who aren't willing to toe the "party line" espoused by Democrats and Republicans alike that the death of 1,400 US troops and 100,000 Iraqi civilians is somehow justified. Frank's piece is an exercise in hate and intimidation. To be quiet in its face is to give ground in a period when we have precious little to give.
All decent people, whether Republican or Democrat, liberal or conservative, should denounce the views of Ward Churchill,” Bill Owens, the Republican governor of Colorado, writes in a letter he sent to Isaiah Lechowit, the president of the University of Colorado College Republicans, who will read it to a lynch mob demanding the resignation of Churchill, the latest victim of the Bushzarro world purge of academe. “Not only are his writings outrageous and insupportable, they are at odds with the facts of history.”
Are they really?
Unfortunately, this is the America we now live in. It will only get worse because the Strausscons and their neoliberal allies have more invasions and bombing runs in mind. In order to accomplish this, America will need to be polarized even further and threats of violence will indeed become actual acts of violence, as Hitler’s Sturmabteilung moved from murmured threats in beer halls to kicking in the doors of dissidents and disappearing them into the night.
www.kurtnimmo.com
Throughout history, it has been the inaction of those who could have acted; the indifference of those who should have known better; the silence of the voice of justice when it mattered most; that has made it possible for evil to triumph: Haile Selassie
Words from another professor (muslim) under assault by tne neo-fascists: 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.
The words of M. Junaid Alam attacked by neo-fascists shortly after Ward Churchill read the whole article at www.counterpunch.org
More from Ward Churchill-Keetowah Band Cherokee, Viet Nam Vet, Lifelong Activist
"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.
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."


Pretty sad for any who would consider themselves lovers of freedom and agents against the insidious empire(s) to criticize Ward. Read more:
Essay: The Earth is our Mother:Struggles for American Indian Land and Liberation in the Contemporary United States.
Essay:Native North America: The Political Economy of Radioactive Colonialism, co-authored with Winona LaDuke

[sehlatik]

24. My thoughts on Ward Churchill

I really didn't hear about this whole controversy until last week when I saw it on of all places, "The O'Reilly Factor", which I usually don't watch. I think that perhaps Professor Churchill has been maligned by the right and possibly misquoted as well. O'Reilly seemed to delight in pointing out that a father of a young man he had on the show was allegedly compared to Eichman. It sounds to me from reading this thread like Churchill was merely putting the blame for 9/11 where it belongs-partially on the Saudi terrorists, partially on American government for its arrogant policies towards other countries. I see nothing wrong with that assessment. I think it's very possible that the right is making a big deal over nothing, and has possibly misquoted Churchill. Even if they didn't misquote him, who's to say Churchill is wrong?

[sehlatik]

25. By the way, he had the young man on the show, not the father.

The father was killed on 9/11.

[JackRiddler]

26. Why I "single out" Churchill for believing the official story.

Actually, I do not. I go after everyone who accepts the official story, especially when they do not even note that there is an alternative account and that they have to deal with the evidence.

Because once the official story is rejected, 9/11 can no longer romantically be categorized as an act of insurgency by people angry at US policy (whether they are right to appoint themselves to this role or not). It becomes a deception. It becomes a simulated "act of insurgency" used to mobilize new wars, a scam by the very powers supposedly struck on 9/11. Surely you can all finally see that this changes the picture entirely.

A critical voice like Churchill has an added responsibility to examine whether the government is lying about 9/11, whether it really was simply the attack of outside "insurgents" (whatever you want to call them) acting on their own, without help, with no hidden motive.

If O'Reilly accepts the official story, he's merely being O'Reilly. It's reprehensible but nothing I need bother with directly. I need to first convince the critics that there is something to 9/11 that they have missed. Churchill by ignoring the evidence of US government complicity in 9/11 entirely serves as a gatekeeper against reality.

And we get mired in an abstract discussion about "retaliation" for US crimes when in fact it is very unlikely that 9/11 was a retaliation. It was far more likely a simulated retaliation, a pre-emptive psychological operation by the Empire to mobilize the people on behalf of its interests.

9/11 is not a response to "US crimes." It is itself almost certainly another operation by the same criminals responsible for "US crimes," and its victims though relatively few earn our sympathy in exactly the same way as the victims in Iraq.

[JackRiddler]

27. kick