letters on “The New McCarthyism: the witch-hunting of Ward Churchill”

[RBHam]

A reply to readers’ letters on “The New McCarthyism: the witch-hunting of Ward Churchill”
By David Walsh
28 February 2005

The World Socialist Web Site has received numerous letters in response to the article, posted February 11, on the witch-hunting of radical, pro-Native American activist Ward Churchill. (See “The new McCarthyism: the witch-hunting of Ward Churchill”) The University of Colorado professor has come under fire for his essay, “‘Some People Push Back’—On the Justice of Roosting Chickens,” written in reaction to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in New York City and Washington, DC.

In his piece, Churchill argued that the “most that can honestly be said about those involved in September 11 is that they finally responded in kind to some of what this country has dispensed to their people as a matter of course.” He referred to some of those who died in the World Trade Center in New York as “a technocratic corps at the very heart of America’s global financial empire” and “little Eichmanns inhabiting the sterile sanctuary of the twin towers.”

When the article came to light, the right wing in Colorado and nationally (Fox News, Wall Street Journal, etc.) began a campaign against Churchill, denouncing him as a traitor and demanding that university authorities fire him. School officials began a 30-day review of Churchill’s writings, the results of which will be announced in early March, to see if they could discover grounds for dismissing the tenured professor.

The WSWS article defended Churchill against this “new McCarthyism,” while arguing that his view of the September 11 attack was politically false and reactionary. In part, we wrote, “to identify the American people, from whom virtually all knowledge about the consequences of the Persian Gulf War and sanctions has been withheld, with the US war machine is a terrible political mistake and writes off the possibility of profound social change in America. Moreover, the essential callousness of Churchill’s response to the bombings works in the opposite direction of cultivating humanitarian and generous impulses in the population.”

more...
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/feb2005/chur-f28.shtml

The passage I marked in bold is exactly how I felt about Mr. Churchill...he has the right to be heard, even if he's wrong...and he is.

[Inland]

1. He's heard, he's wrong, and that should be the end of the story.

Unfortunatetly, it isn't. Even among DUers, there are too many who believe that the "enemy of my enemy is my friend", so if Churchill points out the wrongs taken by the US government and punctures the self righteousness of the Bush adminstration, he must be a good man.

But in fact, Churchill simply chooses a parochial anti americanism while Bush chooses a parochial Americanism. One devalues lives in America as cogs in a war machine, the other devalues lives in Iraq as cogs in a terror machine. Churchill's only interesting in that he goes against type, like the englishman who converted to radical islam to become the shoe bomber. But he certainly isn't anything more than the flip side of the same coin.

[bpilgrim]

4. the more he's heard the better

i am very grateful the right-wing has brought him out of the obscurity academia and into the public view.

his points need debate and discussion now more than ever since most are ignorant of our evil deeds abroad perhaps this will get even more to think (not including the knee jerk reactionaries, of course, but who are required to help keep the discussion alive)

peace

[Inland]

7. The guy is a disaster for the left, and prevents discussion of issues.

Thanks to the fact that he wrote that the WTC attacks were a befitting penalty on little Eichmanns, it is impossible to take anything else he says seriously.

His positions on injustice wrought by America and Americans aren't even particularly exceptional. Yet, this man is chosen, by himself and by the right, to carry the banner, thus discrediting positions that were brought by better people in better ways.

The right wing wins again. Not only do they preserve their ability to engage in the self delusion of American exceptionalism, but they get to say we support man who thinks attacks on civilians is appropriate. I don't think it could get any worse.

[bpilgrim]

8. we have discussions on this topic quite frequently on DU

he seems to have been a catalyist for even more, which as i've said above is a GOOD THING.

What Uncle Sam Really Wants

Noam Chomsky

Copyright © 1993
Table of Contents

The main goals of US foreign policy

1. Protecting our turf
2. The liberal extreme
3. The "Grand Area"
4. Restoring the traditional order
5. Our commitment to democracy
6. The threat of a good example
7. The three-sided world

Devastation abroad

1. Our Good Neighbor policy
2. The crucifixion of El Salvador
3. Teaching Nicaragua a lesson
4. Making Guatemala a killing field
5. The invasion of Panama
6. Inoculating Southeast Asia
7. The Gulf War
8. The Iran/contra cover-up
9. The prospects for Eastern Europe
10. The world's rent-a-thug

Brainwashing at home

1. How the Cold War worked
2. The war on (certain) drugs
3. War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery.
Ignorance is Strength.
4. Socialism, real and fake
5. The media

The Future

1. Things have changed
2. What you can do
3. The struggle continues
4. Notes

read online...
http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/sam/sam-contents.html

another kick ;->

peace

[Inland]

10. Churchill is a catalyst for discussions on Churchill, which is what he

wants.

But if he is changing minds, he is doing it in the wrong direction. I don't see how any American is going to choose Ward's parochial view that American citizens are appropriate targets over Bush's view that foreign citizens are appropriate targets. One's as amoral as the other, and Bush has the added selfish attraction of not raising the spectre of our own personal death as befitting penalty for Bush's crimes.

And the right beats us over the head, again, because the left isn't smart enough to resist the urge to rally around a man whose sole claim to fame is a provocation. Ugh.

[bpilgrim]

14. thats the same tired canard that is always raised to distract

it's all about him, whatever.

the right beats us over the head because thats their job, hello.

time to fight back and stop trying to fit-in their warped cartoon world view.

please keep this kicked :toast:

peace

[Inland]

15. Willing to fight for anything--except Churchill.

And yet, I get saddled with him indirectly.

Why not just point out the guy has got a serious moral blind spot and distance ourselves from him, to show that in fact we aren't antiAmerican but projustice?

[bpilgrim]

22. fine. but there is no need to lie about him...

he's only doing this for self promotion, whatever.

there maybe better ways to get his point across but he is saying essentially the same thing Thoreau said in his essay on civil disobedience that we are all culpable in our gov foreign policy via our tax dollars and our silence.

why not spend your energy attacking the right instead of joining them in their crusade to squash free speech in our universities.

peace

[Inland]

24. Churchill hobbles the fight on the right.

That's my point. He isn't Thoreau. He isn't Ghandi, or King, or Chomsky. He thought the appropriate penalty for the culpability of the WTC occupants was death by fiery attack. You can't effectively fight, eg, the right's lack of concern about Iraqi civilian dead and collateral damage with Churchill in the same room having a lack of concern about American civilians dead and American collateral damage.

[bpilgrim]

28. in your opinion

which you are entitled to in America and so is HE.

as i said he is another catalyst for discussion and I am glad he is there raising these issues. if you wanna let the right frame the debate, fine... but that is how we LOSE instead of recognizing OPPORTUNITY.

BTW: no one said he is Thoreau, Gandhi, King or Chomsky... just another one of your straw-man tactics which are similar to the ones used by the right.

peace

[Inland]

30. Well, if you don't think that the right is having a field day

you aren't paying attention. The issues being raised are only the issue of the "little Eichmann" essay, mostly because they are provocative and attention getting, and indeed, scandalous. I don't LET the right frame the issue. I would LIKE to frame the issue to one of protecting ALL civilians, even if Americans. But I am getting a lot of resistance from Churchill's defenders.

By the way, I know nobody said Churchill is Thoreau, King, Ghandi or Chomsky. The best one can say about Churchill is that if you carefully edit him to remove all the dumb and immoral stuff, and all the petty provocations and namecalling, he says some things that sound like something somebody bettter and smarter and more moral once said. That's why it is so puzzling that anyone would waste two seconds on him when there are better and smarter people articulating better positions.

[bpilgrim]

34. the right will ALWAYS have a field day with ANYTHING from the 'left'

our job is to not let them get away with it.

we need to see these attacks as an OPPORTUNITY to get the truth out there and broaden the discussion.

disagree with a point he has made, fine, but all his writings aren't about only 1 point and don't adopt the tactic of the right to make these all about the messenger instead of the messages.

move-on

peace

[Inland]

44. They aren't an opportunity, not if Churchill's views are part of it.

They aren't all defensible. If nobody ever said his name again and expressly disavowed the little Eichmann remark, maybe we could get past it.

But for now, the left leads with its chin and the right wins again.

[bpilgrim]

45. that's the mindset of failure (doom and gloom) i'm talking about...

anyways, i know you won't get it... but you aint the only one who reads DU.

cheers :toast:

always remember...
you can't change the direction of the wind, but you can ALWAYS adjust your sails to reach ANY destination.

peace

[Inland]

46. Can I adjust my sails to dump Churchill overboard?

That's what I'm talking about. Or is victory so assured that we can take the additional time and energy for his agenda?

Hope and optimism isn't a plan. Since Churchill said something stupid and amoral anyway, I don't see the point in NOT saying so and moving on.

[bpilgrim]

51. it is MUCH bigger than what churchill said, hello...

NEWSFLASH: Churchill ain't a politician or part of our parties apperatous...

so wtf are you going to 'dump' him from :shrug:

Hope and optimism is the fuel that sustains us and FIGHTING back, not being DISTRACTED, is what is important to WIN.

i think i've made my point so unless you have something more specific on a relevant topic, i'm outta here.

peace

[info being]

59. Another sacrificial lamb. Who's next?

Should Progressives dump DU overboard when we're next? The issue is free speech.

[Inland]

68. My guess it would be some other person who takes bad positions

Why not?

I don't understand the concept of pretending Ward is above reproach. What's invested in HIM?

My guess is, that because Ward took positions that upset the Bushites and righties, that the enemy of our enemy is our friend. Well, it isn't so.

[K-W]

69. Why not? gee I dont know, because some of us respect free speech

and some of us, like you, would rather we reject the idea of liberty and just let you decide what americans are allowed to think and say

[Inland]

71. Ward can say anything he wants. I'm not trying to jail him or fire him.

I'm CRITICIZING him. Which is MY right, and for anyone who wants to make a change, a good strategy.

[K-W]

74. Sorry, but you are doing more than critisizing him.

You cant stand still on a moving train.

When the right is after him with a witch hunt, you cant run around DU finding every churchill thread to lie about him and pretend you arent helping to get him fired.

If you honestly think that making sure we all know 700 times that you disagree with Chuchill is more important than defending the freedom of speech in this country, I seriously question your motives.

[Inland]

80. Stop trying to stifle criticizm by claiming a right.

I believe Churchill has every right to take the unpopular, provocative positions he has taken, the right ones as well as the idiotic ones.

Now, you can stop trying to shut me up with this free speech argument. I'll keep exercising my rights in that regard.

[K-W]

83. I wasnt trying to stifle criticism, can you go one post without lying?

Stifling criticism would be if I tried to get you fired.

All ive done is point out that your BS is BS.

[Inland]

86. All I do is point out Ward's Bull. I don't try to get him fired.

It isn't about Ward's job. Its about the treatment of civilians--you know, the subject you won't discuss--and how we keep the rightwingers from slander all war opposition with the amoral stands Ward takes.

I've never asked that Ward be fired. So stop trying to pretend that criticizing him is against his rights.

[K-W]

87. This is about Ward's job, stop pretending it isnt.

You dont get to pretend there isnt a right wing mob trying to end his career right now.

You are going out of your way to bash him at a time when the right wing is hunting him. And you know full well that is the case.

[Inland]

90. I know what the right wing is doing.

So what, I have to pretend that he isn't an amoral wobbly thinking putz now?

The enemy of my enemy isn't my friend.

[K-W]

93. This has nothing to do with your enemy or your friend.

This has to do with your choice of action.

You have, at a time when the criminal right wing is flexing thier muscles to purge a leftist, chosen the action of enthusiastically bashing that leftist at every opportunity.

That is a suspicious choice, especially considering how truely unimportant Ward Churchill's writing is to the big picture and how extremely important right wing purges are to the big picutre.

We wouldnt even be discussing his work if the right wing werent using it as propaganda.

[info being]

73. Welcome to American 2005

To hell with those with unpopular opinions. We should just move in and cling to the pathetic and misguided hope that if we just shut up and take it we'll "win" the next election.

What on earth could be won that is more important than such a loss?

Inland, you are a troll.

[info being]

39. The point is that not all civilians are necessarily innocent.

Would you support protecting civilians who assisted Bin Laden? Now imagine you are an Iraqi, for example. How are those civilians different from the ones who assist Bush?

[Inland]

41. Maybe they aren't.

What does that have anything to do with the WTC and the people who died there?

[info being]

53. None of this has anything to do with the WTC

That was probably done by the Neocons. I consider Ward's ideas more hypothetical.

[Inland]

82. Ward discussed the WTC. Not a hypothetical.

Just because the neocons loved being able to quote it doesn't mean he didn't say it.

[info being]

38. Do you really not see the point or lesson in this?

- Things done by our government are done in our name.
- When corporations we work for or enable do wrong, we have done wrong.
- When you do wrong, you are not innocent.

I think it is an important idea. I wish German Nazi's could have learned this lesson. Can we before it is too late?

[Inland]

42. Whre does the death penalty fit in?

Because I don't think even the German Nazis or those who fought in the war were given the death penalty for merely working for a corporation or being nazis or being soldiers. Except for those instances where people today expressly think "war crime", like the bombing of Dresden, there wasn't a death penalty visted for being a cog in the machine.

I don't mind learning lessons. I don't even mind a verdict of "not innocent". It's the pronouncement of death as the MOST fitting penalty that bothers me, because I see enough if it in the Bush adminstration and the right wing. Churchill is just the flip side of the same coin.

[info being]

47. You're trolling

It fit in at the part where the rest of the world fought against them to stop them. Of course the term "death penalty" is a misnomer in this case, as the term is actually "war casualty."

You are behaving in an intellectually dishonest way. You are either trolling or deluding yourself.

[Inland]

56. Penalty is what Churchilll called it.

That's all I am saying. I'll call them war casualties, or victims of war crimes if you'd rather. They don't imply that the deaths were deserved. Because I believe that civilians aren't legitimate targets in war.

But Ward's termed the WTC attacks as "a penalty befitting their participation". He also called them "Little Eichmanns." Frankly, even calling the German civilians during WWII little Eichmanns is a stretch. He sees the death as a penalty for their own actions, and in fact, the best one he can think of.

If I were to claim that the people of Dresden got what they deserved, I would be a monster. Churchill says it about the WTC towers and is a hero. The only way I can figure it is that because Churchill says the US does evil things, he is considered to be above American parochial views. In fact, he is merely a holder of antiAmerican parochial views, the opposite side of the same coin of the rightwingers.

[K-W]

61. They were a penalty.

That was his point. The people who flew the planes into the building saw it is a penalty. Thats why it was done.

That was his point, which you continue to ignore, because obviously you have no intention of respecting the truth.

[Inland]

66. Well, another of the WC fan club.

Obviously, what Ward said isn't nearly as important to you as it is to anyone else.

Why don't you just say that IYO the WTC victims did not receive a just penalty for their participation in the American economy, so we can agree on that.

Why don't you?

[K-W]

67. I dont have to respond to questions based on lies.

Unless you plan to become a republican pollster why dont you drop the push polling?

I reject yor premise since you continue to lie about what Ward Churchill wrote and thinks. I dont have to reject something that nobody but your imagination has said.

And, btw, Im not a fan of his. Ive never read anything of his outside of the piece in question and some interviews.

[Inland]

70. Forget what Ward said. Your opinion now.

About the WTC attacks. Fitting penalty?

[K-W]

72. Im not going to forget about the subject and follow your insulting lying

tangent.


How about you stick to the subject of this thread and stop resorting to ad hominem attacks to try and change the subject.

[Inland]

84. Okay, forget I asked you a serious question.

Nobody is going to catch you having an opinion of your very own.

[K-W]

85. It wasnt a serious question.

If you think it was a serious question I will have no choice but to think you have some serious mental problems. I mean how crazy do you have to be to think that people support the 9/11 attacks? Most of us are smart enough not to jump to that conclusion because we know how unlikely it is that anyone holds that opinion.

Actually ive expressed nothing but my own opinions on this thread.

Once again your only resort is lies. I will express opinions on the topic we are dicussing. I will not answer rediculous and insulting questions that you use to try and smear my charecter, change the subject, and continue spreading your lie about Churchill.

[Inland]

88. A yes or no would have done it.

Death is NOT a penalty befitting the participation of the people in the towers.

That so hard to do?

[info being]

77. The world just isn't as simple as you would hope

Is there really such a clear-cut, fine-line between civilians and non-civilians? Civilians can do really bad, oppressive things to the innocent.

[Inland]

89. Not a clear cut line. But its miles away from the WTC tower victims.

Some people might be a tough call. But that doesn't change the fact some aren't even close to the line. The WTC people weren't close.

[K-W]

94. You have no idea if that is true or not.

For all you know one of the people in the towers actually has done something well over the line. I dont know that they have, but you cant say for certain they havent.

But youve just illustrated Churchills poing beautifully. You just assume that the building full of Americans was full of innocent people.

An objective person wouldnt assume anything.

[fat free goodness]

101. I do have an idea.

RE:
"For all you know one of the people in the towers actually has done something well over the line. I dont know that they have, but you cant say for certain they havent.
But youve just illustrated Churchills poing beautifully. You just assume that the building full of Americans was full of innocent people.
An objective person wouldnt assume anything."

There were tens of thousands of people in those buildings, so it’s entirely possible that one (or even a few) of the did something over some line. If that justifies trying to kill them all, then by the same logic, random bombing in the middle east is justified as well. Surely, some of the people killed have done something over the line. The logic is goofy beyond my ability to explain.

Virtually none of the tens of thousands had any particular involvement with the middle east at all. They were innocent of any specific wrongdoing except working in a structure that was symbolic of America. Ward Churchill’s comment “If there was a better, more effective, or in fact any other way of visiting some penalty befitting their participation upon the little Eichmanns inhabiting the sterile sanctuary of the twin towers, I'd really be interested in hearing about it.” is simply disgusting.

[K-W]

102. Nobody said anything justified anything, YOU MADE THAT PART UP

just like people keep making that part up about churchill.

Saying that someone did something wrong doesnt imply that any bad thing that happens to them is justified, what kind of assenine logic is that?

Adolph Hitler's reincarnated body could be dancing on the top of a building full of people, I wouldnt support bombing it, that doesnt mean I have to pretend that Hitler didnt do anything wrong. Notice, I used hitler as a hyperbole, I was not equating Hitler with any of the 9/11 victims (in case you make that mistake easily)

Which was Ward's point. That our actions around the world are no more justified than what the terrorists did, because we too kill innocents to get to people we judge to be guilty and that the people who attacked us did so because they percieved our actions to have hurt them, and that we cannot ignore the link between our actions abroad and the attack on us.

Just because they were wrong to bomb the towers doesnt mean that we shouldnt examine how our actions contributed to situation. And when we do we see that we are putting ourselves in danger to persue policies that arent even in our best interests.

If I run onto my crazy neighbors lawn to steal his law flamingo and he shoots me, yes he was totally wrong to have shot me, the action was violent and unjustified, that doesnt mean it was right to steal his lawn flamingo.

[fat free goodness]

115. No, it's a direct quote from Churchill.

“If there was a better, more effective, or in fact any other way of visiting some penalty befitting their participation upon the little Eichmanns inhabiting the sterile sanctuary of the twin towers, I'd really be interested in hearing about it.”

He clearly says that their deaths were the only befitting penalty that was possible.

That is a direct quote. While the quote is not surrounded by context, the context does not change the meaning. You are free to reread his full essay to confirm this.

You say his point was that we were no more justified than they are. What I clearly read is him saying that "the combat teams" were justified in murdering all those in the WTC because of what we had done to them.
He does not say they were wrong to bomb the towers, as you imply (and clearly believe yourself.) Rather, he specifically says they were right and justified in doing so. he specifically says the most surprising thing is their patience and restraint in waiting so long.

[info being]

36. What is his moral blindspot?

[yodermon]

18. NO, the right beats us over the head

because THEY OWN THE ECHO CHAMBER known as the media. Do you really think the "Left" is "rallying around" this man?? Or have you let yourself be convinced that this is true by the CMC?

[Inland]

27. Enough have rallied to let the MSM make the point.

Go ahead and read the posts to me in DU, or look at the crowd in Hawaii.

I agree that the media appoints him as he appoints himself. But that only means we have to be vigilant and proactive. Instead, as you can see, he has enough adherents who will defend his views.

[Itsthetruth]

20. What Do You Think We Should Do?

Do you propose that we join the right-wing in their attacks on Churchill, abstain or defend his free speech rights without conditions?

[Inland]

29. Tell the truth. Side with the civilians.

Churchill's view that death is a penalty befitting the WTC victims participation in America is profoundly amoral.

That civilians are not legitimate targets in or out of war.

That the pentagon's definition of collateral damage or a just cause for war is wrong, and it's still wrong when applied to America.

That America's unjust and violent policies are wrong in themselves, and are generating hatred which is being exploited by terrorists to make more attacks on civilians and more attacks on the helpless.

[chickenscratching]

9. seriously!

"...but they get to say we support a man who thinks attacks on civilians is appropriate"

i am so SICK of being associated with every democrat that has ever walked this Earth. when did everything become so black and white? apparantly if you are a registered democrat you are instantly a believer in any tidbit that comes out of every other democrats mouth. where is the logic of this?
just because i side towards the left doesnt mean that i never agree with anything a republican says, or whathaveyou...this scares me you know?
really, we are almost living in a 2nd red scare, mccarthyism is alive and well and we can point a finger at every liberal and call them a freedom hater and supporter of all that is evil.

[Inland]

11. No, it isn't right. But as a tactical measure, you KNOW that

the republicans (and their MSM allies) will declare anybody to be the democratic spokesman, or the spokeman for the left, and the nuttier and more repulsive, the more that anybody will be declared our leader.

In part that's because the dems have no real spokesman, because of the incredible disorganization. In part its because cable will put anyone on as the "alternative view", the main criterion being availability.

But why give them the opportunity of going to this guys lectures or cheering him, here or in person?

[chickenscratching]

13. hopefully soon

someone will leap out of the woodwork and be our spokesman....

[omulcol]

100. The Guy is a disaster for anybody who

can't think for themselves !

Churchill has said nothing unpatriotic or anti-American .
He does however possess an ability to open closed eyes, and minds ...... for those prepared to open them.

For those who aren't .... well there's always character assassination .

[fat free goodness]

106. Wait. Did you really say he said nothing anti-American?

How about:

“If there was a better, more effective, or in fact any other way of visiting some penalty befitting their participation upon the little Eichmanns inhabiting the sterile sanctuary of the twin towers, I'd really be interested in hearing about it.”

Virtually none of the tens of thousands of the people in the twin towers were any more or less guilty of anything in particular than most Americans. From this one can conclude that any random group of Americans is equally deserving of this "befitting penalty".

That sounds pretty anti-American to me.

[K-W]

107. Wow, a quote taken out of context.... great.

Had you read and understood the entire piece you would know that he was discussing the point of view of the hijackers and the others behind the attack. His point is that if you felt the desire to take action against the US for what it had done, you probably couldnt think of a better plan.

What he is saying in that quote is that the attackers chose to crash that plane into the tower because they wanted to punish the people involved in the business side of US empire building. He is not arguing that they were right, just explaining why they attacked, because so few people understand that it wasnt just crazy muslims who hate our freedom. It was extreme muslims, with no respect for human life, attacking specific targets because from the way they see it, they are at war with us because we attacked thier nations first.

He's saying that if you are going to go around the world interfering in countries you run a risk of someone wihtout respect for human life deciding to interfere with your country in return. We cant stop bad people from existing in the world, we can stop putting our soldiers on thier holy lands and supporting the regimes that oppress them.

[fat free goodness]

116. Out of context? What are you talking about?

Look at the sentence and the context again. The sentence in in perfect accord with it's context, and taken alone still has the same meaning.

I did read the entire piece. Churchill clearly said that the attackers were justified in their actions.
He also said that the most amazing thing was their patience in waiting so long. (He apparently forgot the first attempt to bomb the building.)

You are wrong, he clearly did say the "punishment" of the people in the building was befitting.
He did say the people in the building were good targets.

He did NOT say it was only extremist Muslims. He said they seemed to have a pretty good idea.

You may or may not agree with the attackers, or with Churchill. But the people in that building were no more or less guilty than any other group of ten thousand Americans assembled in one place. I can't see how one can say they were guilty enough to deserve death and yet say that thought is not anti-American.

[info being]

12. From what I've ready, the man speaks the truth

I've nothing against the truth, as unpleasant as it might be.

[Inland]

16. Then you missed the part where he

wrote that the WTC attacks were a fit penalty for the little Eichmanns for their participation in the American economy.

We really don't need anyone who condones the killing of civilians, in or out of a declared war. If we did, we already have Bush.

[not systems]

17. Distortions continue...

he did not condone terrorism.

He pointed out that by US military standards the WTC was a
legitimate command and control target.

Also by US doctrine the dead innocents would be justifiable
collateral damage.

He did not support the killing by the US or anyone else.

But you will never get this because you are not being honest
in your repeated attacks on a straw man created by the right wing
puppet masters on who strings you gleefully dance.

[Inland]

26. I won't post what he wrote again.

Apparently, there are some truths that the left isn't emotionally or intellectually able to handle. Amazingly enough, that includes the concept of a leftist approving of terrorism, as if it could never happen. Come on back when you grow up and can look the truth in the face.

[not systems]

32. I have read and heard him in his own words...

and you are just wrong about what he said and meant.

Don't worry you and your ideological allies will probable
win and drive him from his job.

You can put his scalp on your wall to remember your days
of happy hunting.

[info being]

35. Through the lens of nationalism or ethnocentrism...

I imagine his words are difficult to hear. As a truth-seeker, they are obvious.

[Inland]

37. The win I want: acknowledgment that civilians aren't legitimate targets.

You tell me who my ideological allies are in that.

You are so wrapped up in defending Ward, because he's the enemy of your enemy. Come on back when you want to talk about the issues.

[not systems]

43. Then start denouncing the doctrine that non-American civilians...

are expendable collateral damage when killed by the American military.

Until you can value the lives of others the same as your own
you will be waving a flag of national supremacy.

Three million died at the hands of the US in Vietnam what
value did these lives have to most Americans.

Answer: NONE.

Until the people here can see what they have done to others
they will keep blindly assuming they are never in the wrong
no matter how bloody minded and genocidal this county acts.

You are so wrapped up in American exceptionalism that you can't
see the truth right in front of your face that Wand didn't justify
anyone being killed anywhere American or otherwise.

[Inland]

48. Enough of what Ward said

since you have a problem with reading comprehension. Why don't you just say that IYO the WTC victims did not receive a just penalty for their participation in the American economy, so we can agree on that.

Why don't you?

[K-W]

58. Because Churchill never said that, you are lying.

He was presenting the terrorists prespective, that from where they stood this action probably looked pretty appropriate. That was his point. YOU DIDNT GET IT.

[not systems]

76. What I said went right past you...

or was filtered out by your ideological blinders.

Neither I nor anything I have heard or read by Ward
said the WTC victims deserved to die.

That said the CIA offices in the WTC were by US doctrine
a command and control center and also by US doctrine the
victims were collateral damage in an attack on what
the US military would consider a valid military target.

I think this is a sick doctrine and that makes me a minority
in a country full of people willing to accept any level of civilian
deaths in order to achieve political and economic goals.

[fat free goodness]

117. Blinders? Take a look in the mirror!

"Neither I nor anything I have heard or read by Ward
said the WTC victims deserved to die."

How about:
“If there was a better, more effective, or in fact any other way of visiting some penalty befitting their participation upon the little Eichmanns inhabiting the sterile sanctuary of the twin towers, I'd really be interested in hearing about it.” (Ward Churchill)

Take off YOUR ideological blinders. He was clearly NOT talking from the terrorists point of view. And by the way, Ward vehemently disagreed with calling them "terrorists".
He said they were “brave combat teams.”

[info being]

50. Exactly.

If Inland lets go of nationalism and ethnocentrism, only truth will remain.

[info being]

49. Civilians aren't legitimate targets when...

They have nothing to do with supporting an evil or unjust system...of if they have done so because they truly have no choice. For example, "civilians" working as snipers in Iraq are fair targets. Halliburton employees in Iraq, probably legitimate targets too because they are stealing oil.

So, really, it is all a question of degree.

Nobody deserves to die, by the way. But it should not be such a surprise when immoral actions come back to bite you. Of course that was his point and, like I said, any intellectually-honest person would have no problem with this premise.

[Inland]

62. That was not Churchill's point. It may have been mine.

In fact, I believe moral actions can come back to bite you as well. All actions have a consequence, some good, some bad. But as I keep saying, something isn't justified because it is predictable.

But Churchill's point was clear enough:
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0204-32.htm
"Well, really. Let’s get a grip here, shall we? True enough, they were civilians of a sort. But innocent? Gimme a break. .... If there was a better, more effective, or in fact any other way of visiting some penalty befitting their participation upon the little Eichmanns inhabiting the sterile sanctuary of the twin towers, I’d really be interested in hearing about it. "

A penalty befitting their participation. Pretty horrible, huh?

[K-W]

64. He was speaking from the terrorists point of view.

But thanks for letting your bad reading comprehension poisen dozens of threads.

[info being]

65. I completely agree with him.

*If* there was a better penalty. What he's saying is that he wishes there was a channel for just recourse. Because there isn't, people may resort to violence.

[Inland]

78. No, it was that he couldn't think of a

"*better, more effective*, or in fact any other way of visiting some penalty befitting their participation". He says call him if you can think of a better or any other way.

Although your position is sufficiently evil. That's justice? They did something wrong, and if death is the only penalty that's practcally available, have at it? Not to mention all the collateral damage. The expressed standards are worse than anything the US adopted in war time, and we weren't even at war.

I can only guess at how you manage to walk around, a fugitive from justice. Tell me, what is it about your life that justifies your continued existence on this good earth?

[K-W]

81. That isnt churchill's personal opinion, YOU MISREAD.

Actually that isnt true, youve made it abundently clear that you are going to continue to lie about Churchill because that was your intention all along.

[K-W]

54. You are the one lying in every thread you can find about churchill.

His point is that when Americans act like the terrorists we are wrong, not that when the terrorists act like us they are right.

For goodness sake.

[info being]

23. As a little Eichmann myself, I take no offense actually.

It is a risk we take to live the life we live.

[Inland]

25. Well, there's always risks of being murdered.

But that doesn't make it right.

[info being]

33. But of course he never said it was right. Inevitable or likely...maybe.

[Inland]

40. He said it was a penalty befitting their participation.

I don't mind inevitable or likely, those being merely assessments of risk that are either good or bad takes on percentages. Like saying that you will be killed in the wrong neighborhood late at night, it neither says that you or your killer is right or wrong.

But Ward says their deaths were a penalty befitting their participation. That's entirely different.

[info being]

52. I don't fully agree with that quote either

It is also interesting that you focus on only those three words and the larger context seems to go ignored.

[K-W]

60. I think it was pretty obvious he was illustrating the POV

of those who attacked.

It was a part of a larger case that the terrorists were acting no more unethically or inappropriately than the US does. It was a put yourself in thier shoes kinda statement. If you saw suffering around you, and blamed the US government and corporations for it, and you had very little power. You would probably see flying plains into military and economic targets as a fitting response.

Churchill obviously doesnt think that himself. Even if it isnt obvious in the piece, it is obvious in his statements since.

[info being]

63. I know. I fully support the man, from what I know of him.

Not just his right to say it...but actually what he says.

[0007]

75. Man get off the little Eichmanns thingie.....no worse than some

of the garbage that Ann Coulter or FAUX news comes up with. I support your right to free speech, and respect Chuchill's rights just as much as I do your's. In fact I support much of what Churchill sez.

[Inland]

91. True, much better than Coulter. But that's faint praise.

I support churchill's right to speak just as much as Coulter, and I like his stuff better. I like everyone better. Coulter's work is amazing solely because she throws in an equivalent in every sentence.

But he was morally obtuse on a central issue, and there isn't any reason not to say so.

[K-W]

95. ignore

mispost

[cyclezealot]

19. Churchill has more love of Americans than Bushie ever could.

The definition of radical is to get at the root...Bush is the top of the weed...Churchill wants America respected about the world, so we will not be hated and therefore subjected to terrorism...
If Churchill had power, we would Not be hated so much..
an anology Americans refuse to listen to ,instead of letting freepers brain wash them....Let's say..How do you think Jews feel about Germans after the Halocaust...You are a part of the German complex, you are sort of guilty...Not fair , but that is how people work...
That is how the rest of the world reaacts to Americans...Churchill wants to be a part of the solution ...Maybe, he could just say it better. So freeprs cant distort his message...in order to hide their agenda from mindless Americans who refuse to look at their countries role in the world..

[Inland]

31. Faint praise, isn't it.

That about sums it up.

[Name removed]

105. Deleted message

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

[K-W]

108. That is hogwash.

Nobody is talking about making him our candidate in 08, we are talking about defending his right to speak and fighting the right wing purge machine because if we dont we are next.

You obviously believe a bevy of lies about Churchill, but that aside, even if he did say bad things, so what? We are only angry at him because the right wing threw him in the spotlight. Stop getting tricked into helping the right. Say, "I disagree with what I read, but I dont see how a book by a radical liberal professor should concern me or any of us, so why on earth is it on the news."

Because the big story here is why he is in the news. He is in the news because the media is part of a organized right wing that is threatning our very way of life and they are only going to get better at purging the left if we let them get away with it because we are afraid of them lying aboug us and saying we agree with churchill (for those of us who dont)

[Name removed]

110. Deleted message

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

[K-W]

111. This has nothing to do with enemies or friends.

Nothing I said fits into the saying "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" that is a complete change of subject from you.

Churchill didnt blame the attacks on the people in the towers. That is a complete lie and shows you never even read the piece.

And guess what, if you dont support freedom of speech for all, you dont support freedom of speech, and if you dont fight the facist tendencies of the organized right, you will one day find yourself its victim.

But youd rather let the right wing chewup Churchill because you read his writing out of context and spun into a lie.

If you cant seperate supporting what someone says and supporting thieir right to say it, you need to do alot more research on the subject.

Regardless, Churchill is just a radical professor. The real story is why he is being made a subject of national debate. Why are you ignoring that? Isnt that what we should be discussing?

[scarletwoman]

112. I agree with just about everything you've been posting, however...

I think it's important to point out that Churchill is NOT "just a radical professor", take a look at his work on government suppression of dissent:

The Cointelpro Papers: Documents from the Fbi's Secret Wars Against Dissent in the United States
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0896086488/qid=1109638845/sr=1-11/ref=sr_1_11/002-7457215-5168811?v=glance&s=books

Agents of Repression: The Fbi's Secret Wars Against the Black Panther Party and the American Indian Movement
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0896082938/qid=1109635667/sr=1-9/ref=sr_1_9/002-7457215-5168811?v=glance&s=books

Is it any wonder that the fascists are howling for his head? And those vichy "liberals" joining the chorus of name-calling and invective are happy to assist.

No, the enemy of my enemy isn't my friend, but those who take up with my enemy ARE my enemy, too.

In case you haven't seen my own Churchill/COINTELPRO thread, it's here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=3184609&mesg_id=3184609

sw

[Name removed]

113. Deleted message

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

[K-W]

114. You wouldnt know free speech if it screamed in your face.

Freedom of speech means that people are free to speak without fear of retribution. Not without fear of some kinds of retribution.

You forget that our government is supposed to represent the people, the idea of free speach is that even all my fellow citizens combined don't have the right to punish me for speech. How on earth you could think that it means it is ok for just one citizen, or a handful of citizens who control your employment to do so is beyond me.

What is happening is an organized right wing attempt to purge a leftist from a univirsity.

You continue to lie and mimick with almost perfect accuracy the right wing talking points.

Someone is restriting his right to speak, and yes, the constitution does say that a state university cant fire him for speaking, that is EXACTLY what the constitution says.

As for the national debate, if you dont see what is really going on you are clueless. But I suspect your motives are more of the issue here.

[xchrom]

2. are americans ever ''held responsible'' for their history?

i'm only musing here and not defending anyone.

but america's representatives act in the name of the people -- and our history whether corporate or political is what i.e. people in the middle east experience.

maybe mr and mrs joe six pak aren't ''aware'' of abuses done in their name -- but they are experienced as abuses doled out by america.

so, who's responsible?
we are experienceing americans giving bushco a pass on tremedous abuses -- and to a certain extent applaud european backlash.
but when the backlash becomes more aggressive and people get hurt -- do we run from the possible root cause?

mind you -- for my money -- osama is a spoiled rich boy -- and so there is huge negative field surrounding anything he does.

but saudi's political leaders have in the past acted against the best interests of their own people and in the best interests of the few and the u.s.
this doesn't go unnoticed by the masses.
that scenario has been replicated many times in recent middle east history.

when does the piper demand to get paid and how?

[Inland]

3. Two different questions there.

Root causes of whatever and what is justice for the actions taken by America.

Root causes may or may not have anything to do with whether America or Americans did something wrong, or for that matter did something right.

Justice for what America did wrong--well, I don't know if countries or nations are culpable. I don't know about collective guilt. Some Christian preachers state that God made 9/11 to punish us as a nation. Some in DU say that the people in 9/11 were culpable as being part of a nation. They have different sins in mind, but the concept is the same.

Me, I think that merely protecting America means being able to see the genesis of violence without the rose colored glasses of believing that America always does what is right or always has the best intentions, much less the self serving Bushite notion that anyone who thinks America is less than pure at all times is against it. But that's got nothing to do with karma or collective culpability.

[gottaB]

5. OBL isn't about dispensing anything but death and feudal oppression

Atta was corrupted by Naziism and murderous anti-Semitism.

So who's responsible?

Who wants to claim OBL as their true political representive? Not the Muslim world. Not the Palestinians. Abu Mazen is their chosen representative.

The US has been a powerful force in world affairs, for better or for worse. I will say one thing in its favor. At least it's morally ambivalent.

Salafist militants like OBL are not in any position to collect on international debts. Of all the groups persecuted for their beliefs within Saudi Arabia, Salafists of any stripe are actually pretty far down the list.

The abuses perpetrated by the Saudi royals are not done in the name of the United States. The regime has its own interests at heart. If they cooperate with the US on any given issue, its only to the extent that they perceive it to be in their interests to do so. No more than that. The US did not create the Saudi government. The US did not choose its leaders or draft its constitution. What the US has done is carry on business with an undemocratic regime. That's a far cry from intending to harm the people of Saudi Arabia, much less being directly responsible for their oppression. At worst, it may represent a kind of criminal negligence in international affairs--a crime which is all too common among great powers and lesser powers alike.

[shadowknows69]

6. for those of us who are pagans on DU

please don't use the term witch hunt excessively...It makes us real nervous.;)

[Democrats_win]

21. Churchill was wrong. 9/11 Hijackers were "little George Bushs'."

The ultra-left and Churchill's dream of poor people rising up seeking justice is not happening and Churchill is doing great harm to the poor everywhere.

Poor people do not have the resources to seek justice nor the desire to take up arms and make their lives even worse.

Do you want Churchill teaching your children? Come on Democrats, we all know that he should be fired because he's lost touch with reality.

[K-W]

55. If you think he should be fired, you arent much of a democrat.

Last time I checked our party supported free speach, but apparently I checked a long time ago.

[info being]

57. Yes, I do want him teaching my children

I want my children to value truth above all else.

[0007]

79. Churchill can teach my children any fucking day of the week or year

as long as they keep Lynne Cheney and William Bennett away from the university. These persons are the real mind fuck propaganda card carrying mafia members of junior's cabal.

[Democrats_win]

96. Who said Democrats have to defend free speech?

As Democrats we can choose when to defend free speech. The good thing about America is that he has hired a lawyer to make sure that he is treated fairly. The Democrats, however, won't get that luxury even though we sure have a case.

As far as teaching, we know that respecting differing points of view is important, but he wrongly connects 9/11 to justice coming to America. Jerry Falwell thought the same thing. In reality, these 19 terrorists were never harmed by America.

Yes, America in general and the GOP in particular has done some terrible things. But one of the most important things a person can learn is that often there never can be true justice. That is the problem with Churchill, he teaches students to expect justice which is just another lie.

[not systems]

97. Gag...

color me unimpressed with your "values".

[K-W]

98. Wow, you said so many false things.

"As Democrats we can choose when to defend free speech."
-The idea of judging some speech as more worthy of defense is completely incompatible with the idea of free speech.

" The good thing about America is that he has hired a lawyer to make sure that he is treated fairly."
-Actually, law and lawyers have nothing to do with America and preceeded it by quite a bit. Are you arguing that our justice system is garunteed to produce justice? Thats pretty funny.

"As far as teaching, we know that respecting differing points of view is important, but he wrongly connects 9/11 to justice coming to -America. Jerry Falwell thought the same thing. In reality, these 19 terrorists were never harmed by America."
Please stop spreading lies. Churchill said nothing of the sort. That is a strawman argument. Churchill was exploring thier point of view, not endorsing it.

"Yes, America in general and the GOP in particular has done some terrible things. But one of the most important things a person can learn is that often there never can be true justice. That is the problem with Churchill, he teaches students to expect justice which is just another lie."
-Absolutely wrong. And clearly you are clueless here. Churchill's main goal is to teach people of all the injustice in the world that they dont know about. Nobody is more cognicent of the lack of justice in the world than somebody who studies what Churchill studies.

He teaches students to see injustice and to work for justice. If you disagree, what are you doing here?

[bpilgrim]

99. "justice, which is just another lie' - holly crap

no wonder we are in this mess.

i hold folks like you personally responsible for the shredding of our bill of rights and our brutal murderous behavior overseas.

willful ignorance will be the death us all.

well at least you hang on DU so maybe you will learn something.

What Uncle Sam Really Wants

Noam Chomsky

Copyright © 1993
Table of Contents

The main goals of US foreign policy

1. Protecting our turf
2. The liberal extreme
3. The "Grand Area"
4. Restoring the traditional order
5. Our commitment to democracy
6. The threat of a good example
7. The three-sided world

Devastation abroad

1. Our Good Neighbor policy
2. The crucifixion of El Salvador
3. Teaching Nicaragua a lesson
4. Making Guatemala a killing field
5. The invasion of Panama
6. Inoculating Southeast Asia
7. The Gulf War
8. The Iran/contra cover-up
9. The prospects for Eastern Europe
10. The world's rent-a-thug

Brainwashing at home

1. How the Cold War worked
2. The war on (certain) drugs
3. War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery.
Ignorance is Strength.
4. Socialism, real and fake
5. The media

The Future

1. Things have changed
2. What you can do
3. The struggle continues
4. Notes

read online...
http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/sam/sam-contents.html

psst... pass the word

peace

peace

[Swamp Rat]

103. OK, I pass the word.

:)

[F.Gordon]

92. "Treason is not protected speech"

For all those that wish to distance themselves from Churchill... this is just a small taste of how the right wing pukes are twisting this "issue"...

Treason, for all of those screaming that Churchill is covered by the First Amendment, is not protected speech.

But I don’t want Churchill hanged. That would be ruining a perfectly good rope.

http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive/m-n/newman/2005/newman020605.htm

Bill Maher lost his job over the comments he made regarding 9/11, and it appears that Churchill will as well. The University is considering a "buy out" with Churchill to get rid of him....(if they haven't already...not following the news today)

I guess...."They attacked us because they hates our freedoms"
:shrug:

Just so I'm clear on this. What is the "liberal position" on this? I wouldn't want to offend anyone by being a "Churchill defender". Maybe that whole free speech thing was overrated anyway.
:eyes:

[scarletwoman]

109. I'm a "Churchill defender" -- but then, I'm not a liberal, I'm a radical.

I've spelled out my own position in my own thread on Churchill here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=3184609&mesg_id=3184609

Can't offer you a "liberal position", but will some critical thinking do?

sw

[Swamp Rat]

104. Yaaaaaaaaay Churchill!!!

Boooooooooooo! to all you RWers attacking this great American! :D

:kick: