It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

College Prof says 9/11 victims not innocent

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 06:42 PM
link   
Ward Churchill is an idiot with nothing to do with his life




posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 06:49 PM
link   
Just an aside, the 'roosting chickens' comment was also attributed to General Macarthur. [LINK]

I wonder how many times Malcolm X and Doug Macarthur were in such agreement?

It's sad to me that Americans see their dead as being more valuable than Iraqi dead. Continuing this mindset will result in heaps more of both.



posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 06:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by EsotericaAs for your little spiel about a conspiracy (can't anyone just discuss the issue without brining in these tangents?)


You´re in the wrong place mate, this IS a conspiracy website. Not?



Al + O2 --> Al2O3


I bellieve that should be 4(Al) + 3(O2) --> 2(Al2O3) , but what does it mean?


Peace



posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 06:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by gekko
You´re in the wrong place mate, this IS a conspiracy website. Not?

Yeah, but that doesn't mean that you should just pop off with any theory you've got in any thread where it is vaguely applicable. There are a billion threads on ATS about potential warnings to WTC employees the day of the attack, so bringing it up (and not exactly explaining what it has to do with the issue at hand, even when asked) does nothing to add to ATS, just make it a more confusing mess than it already is



I bellieve that should be 4(Al) + 3(O2) --> 2(Al2O3) , but what does it mean?


Peace

I know the type. Make some asinine post that goes against the grain so you can get people to bitch at you so you feel special and superior to all the sheeple. If he actually meant it to be an intellectual discussion, he would have clarified his position when asked, instead of selecting one sentence and declaring victory.

So I felt like being a jackass and giving him exactly what he wanted- a reaction. Probably just not of the type he was looking for



posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 07:03 PM
link   
I do not believe that the people who went to work that day in the Twin Towers were guilty of anything. Yes, they were in the wrong place at the wrong time.

As for the U.S. itself... yes, there has been a lack of self-examination by America after 9/11 as to *why* it happened. The only discourse was "They're religious fanatics who are jealous of our freedoms."

However, neither the U.S. nor the West as a whole can claim innocence. The Middle East has been a playground for Western power plays since the beginning of the 19th century, and France, Britain and the United States each took turns asserting influence in the region.

But influence doesn't necessarily mean fairness. Everybody has interests, the U.S. included. It took sides on issues plenty of times, and wasn't always on the side of virtue. 9/11 was a sad, sad event, but it wasn't unpredictable, nor did it come out of nowhere.

As for the 3,000 victims of 9/11... with all due respect to them and their families, they weren't the first martyrs nor will they be the last.

Yes, 3,000 civilians died... and we acted as though it was the end of the world. But has anyone looked at Darfur lately? Does anyone even care to?



posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 07:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by smallpeepsIt's sad to me that Americans see their dead as being more valuable than Iraqi dead. Continuing this mindset will result in heaps more of both.





where do you get this? being mad over him saying they werent innocent on 9/11 is being uncaring for iraqi's?



posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 07:12 PM
link   
Sadly, no, nobody really does seem to care. Then again, millions dying in the third world is so commonplace that it isn't even newsworthy any more. Part of the problem is that there really isn't anything that can be done in many of those places.

As to why the 9/11 attacks were so important to the US? Well, it was an attack on mostly innocent civlians (I will concede that the attack on the Pentagon was a military operation in the loosest sense of the term, since most of those people there were in the military and signed a contract to put their lives in danger). This was not an attack on the military, this was an attack on the very peopl of the US. We tend to take things like that personally.

It may have been meant as a 'wake-up call', but that doesn't excuse the action. If you're going to try to change win the hearts and minds of the American people to see things from your point of view, it's not really the best idea to kill a few thousand people then to release video tapes declaring an end to the Western world (in so many words). I mean, we've seen what accidental civlian deaths in Iraq have done to cement opposition to the occupation, can you really expect anything less of the American people?



posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 07:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by OttsThe Middle East has been a playground for Western power plays since the beginning of the 19th century, and France, Britain and the United States each took turns asserting influence in the region.


and each time muslim aggression was the reason....



posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 07:17 PM
link   
I agree Otts, but many people don't want to introspect, because they do not like the vapid things that they find, and prefer to conform and launch into battle cry.


"Innocence" also implies, in many a respect, the absence of guilt.

If

(A) the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks were dead on the day, then there is no-one to chase.

(B) the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks were under the direction of some ultimate authority and sponsor/co-ordinator such as OBL, then who is guilty of not bringing him to justice, having promised to do that?

(C) the administration keeps stonewalling all levels of enquiry from the families of the innocent victims on the most important unanswered questions, then what is there that the guilty have to hide under the pretext of "national security"?

(D) some people were not amongst the innocent victims because of pre-alerts, just why is that?


These remain just questions of "innocence" and "guilt" that can be managed by responsible people.



posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 07:23 PM
link   
Namehere - not so. A lot of what happened in the 19th century was a rush to colonies (the British had Egypt and Lybia, so the French had to have Algeria and Tunisia).

In 1919, it was more about going through the spoils of the late Ottoman Empire, which had just fallen. Britain got Iran and Iraq, France got Syria and Lebanon, as protectorates in both cases, if memory serves.

In the 1980's, American support to Iraq was due to the revolution which overthrew the Shah of Iran (a US supporter in the Cold War), and a desire to see the Ayatollah's regime fall.



posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 07:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar
I agree Otts, but many people don't want to introspect, because they do not like the vapid things that they find, and prefer to conform and launch into battle cry.
"Innocence" also implies, in many a respect, the absence of guilt.

Um, no, it doesn't 'imply' that, it's the definition of the wordin this context. Innocent and guilty are antonyms, after all. But ncie to see you're still hiding behind a cloak of obfuscation.

See, I can use esoteric words too.


If

(A) the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks were dead on the day, then there is no-one to chase.

(B) the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks were under the direction of some ultimate authority and sponsor/co-ordinator such as OBL, then who is guilty of not bringing him to justice, having promised to do that?

(C) the administration keeps stonewalling all levels of enquiry from the families of the innocent victims on the most important unanswered questions, then what is there that the guilty have to hide under the pretext of "national security"?

Please xplain what these have to do with the professor being discussed at hand. I would truly like to know.

(D) some people were not amongst the innocent victims because of pre-alerts, just why is that?

Let's take this to it's logical conclusion-
Assume everyone that was warned of the WTC attacks was somehow complicit in their events (and not that an employer knew something was up and simply told his employees to stay home, they being totally unaware of what was transpiring). This means that all fo the 'guilty' were not there, leaving only the 'innocent' in harms way.

These remain just questions of "innocence" and "guilt" that can be managed by responsible people.

These questions have absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the civlians killed on 9/11 were innocent or not. They're just random points that have been discussed ad nauseum on ATS, and really everywhere else that free discourse is allowed.



posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 07:34 PM
link   
Don't like the topic or inputs on who is "innocent" and who is "guilty", go elsewhere, no skin off anyone's nose.



posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 07:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar
Don't like the topic or inputs on who is "innocent" and who is "guilty", go elsewhere, no skin off anyone's nose.


I asked you to twice to explain your position and clarify what anything you've posted has to do with the topic being discussed, especially on the 'innocent and guilty' aspect.

Both time you ignored the questions and comments I've posted. Instead of defending yourself when I poked holes in your arguments, you told me twice to be quiet and go away. If anyone doesn't like the topic and inputs in this thread, it's you, since you seem completely adverse to actually discussing what you're saying. Instead, you sit on your High Rocking Horse, looking down on all the little plebes who obviously can't comprehend your superior intellect.

Please, put up or shut up.



posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 07:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar
I agree Otts, but many people don't want to introspect, because they do not like the vapid things that they find, and prefer to conform and launch into battle cry.


"Innocence" also implies, in many a respect, the absence of guilt.

If

(A) the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks were dead on the day, then there is no-one to chase.

(B) the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks were under the direction of some ultimate authority and sponsor/co-ordinator such as OBL, then who is guilty of not bringing him to justice, having promised to do that?

(C) the administration keeps stonewalling all levels of enquiry from the families of the innocent victims on the most important unanswered questions, then what is there that the guilty have to hide under the pretext of "national security"?

(D) some people were not amongst the innocent victims because of pre-alerts, just why is that?


These remain just questions of "innocence" and "guilt" that can be managed by responsible people.
\


no proof anyone was warned anywhere thats brought up.

what stonewalling, and whos hiding, do you ever make sense?

bush cant magically know where osama is, no intelligence agency has been able to, most muslm groups have always been almost impossible to penetrate but noone seems to understand this.

um yes the terror group is someone to chase.



posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 07:41 PM
link   

being mad over him saying they werent innocent on 9/11 is being uncaring for iraqi's?


No, the author of this essay is just trying to be incendiary. I don't agree with his words.

Americans have not researched the history of their military or of their country's relationship to Saddam. I'll quote Chomsky from "Hegemony or Survival":


The 1991 war, involving the purposeful destruction of water power and sewer systems, took a terrible toll, and the sanctions regime imposed by the US and the UK drove the country to the level of bare survival. As one illustration, UNICEF's 2003 Report on the State of the World's Children states that "Iraq's regression over the past decade is by far the most severe of the 193 countries surveyed," increasing from 50 to 133 per 1,000 live births, placing Iraq below every country outside Africa apart from Cambodia and Afghanistan. Two hawkish military analysts observe that "economic sanctions may well have been necessary [sic] cause of the deaths of more people in Iraq than have been slain by all so-called weapons of mass destruction throughout history," in the hundreds of thousands, according to conservative estimates.


My point is that Americans don't give sa damn about dead bodies unless they are American. Saddam's evilness does not cleanse us of these people's deaths. We were responsible for Saddam's being there. All of this was done to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan. We have not helped the Iraqi people any more than we helped the Vietnamese. Their culture was wrecked and millions killed for what? Protecting them from communism? Don't kid yourself.

My question is this: If the 9/11 event had not been milked for maximum television effect --say there had been no video of it, would Iraq War II have been possible? It is now understood that all our reasons for going in were outright lies. I suggest that the horror of 9/11 has been used for every bit of 'shock-and-awe' as possible. It has made many people rich and they are very happy that it happened.

Americans are now labelled crusaders and torturers, but really they will happily accept these labels so long as there's bread on the shelf at Albertson's and they have Paris Hilton's goofy semi-clad antics on tv.

Researching their leaders' actions is not the American way.



posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 07:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by namehere

no proof anyone was warned anywhere thats brought up.

what stonewalling, and whos hiding, do you ever make sense?

bush cant magically know where osama is, no intelligence agency has been able to, most muslm groups have always been almost impossible to penetrate but noone seems to understand this.

um yes the terror group is someone to chase.




namehere,

Yes I make good sense. But I suggest you have a look at what you have said above, to see if your readers can truly understand you.

"Stonewalling" means obscuring the truth and blocking the flow of information - preventing it from surfacing by calling it classified, and taking testimonies not under oath, and taking evidence behind closed doors... that is, the performance at every enquiry to date on 9/11.

What makes you believe that the whereabouts of Osama Bin Laden is unknown, exactly?

You can go on encouraging the chasing of "the terror group", even to countries that have nothing to do with terrorists until a Bush-led coalition invades them illegally... if you think you're being a good citizen by supporting criminality, then go to it.

If doing that makes sense to you.

What is "the terror group", by the way?



posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 07:56 PM
link   
smallpeeps sanctions werent our idea you know we only enforced UN policy, dont blame us for it, it was gw3 by the way, you forgot the air war in 1998.



posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 07:59 PM
link   

as posted by MaskedAvatar
What makes you believe that the whereabouts of Osama Bin Laden is unknown, exactly?



Lets rephrase this one, MaskedAvatar, and see if you care to reply with an answer:
What makes you believe that the whereabouts of Osama Bin Laden is known, exactly?



seekerof



posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 08:01 PM
link   
ma back your words with facts, you never do.



posted on Jan, 27 2005 @ 08:02 PM
link   
Ward Churchill is one angry Native American. I disagree with his assessment of the WTC victims as not being innocents and I think that his rage has distorted the argument that he is trying to make.

Michael Scheuer (aka Anonymous) does a much better job in "Imperial Hubris." If you can wade through the vitriol that Churchill holds against white people (and pretty much all people), he makes the point that what happened on 9/11 did not happen because these "terrorists" hated us for our freedom.

The economic, political, and diplomatic policies that the U.S. government put in place starting in the 80's began a history of influencing Muslim lands and support of Israel over Palestine (Churchilll claims that it starts with Clinton--or Lyndon Johnson's initial support of Israel in the 60's, but Scheuer traces it back to funding the mujahaddin against the Soviets in Afghanistan.) Some of these policies have led to the horrible deaths of Muslim women and children, as well as economic disadvantages and unwanted Western occupation. It was these policies that gave rise to Al Qaeda declaring jihad against the United States and the West--not a hatred of our lifestyle. Al Qaeda is at war with us because of our political agenda in the Middle East--not because of our freedom.

Churchill points out that like other groups that have been persecuted by the imperialistic west, they eventually retaliate in a violent way. Churchill also feels that because Americans are so blind ("Hubris" as Scheuer defines it), we don't even understand where the retaliation is coming from and view it as an unprovoked attack.

However, Churchill insinuates that the people killed in the WTC were somehow responsible for these governmental policies. Using that same logic--Churchill himself should also be as much to blame, he is a citizen, right?

He contradicts himself as he rails against the government and how the people are powerless, but then turns around and damns these same people for being caught in the crossfire of governments misdeeds. This guy is a wolf in sheep's clothing---he claims to be an activist and fights elitism and racism, but he is nothing but an elitist racist himself.

Read the essay for yourself...
www.ratical.org...



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join