College Prof says 9/11 victims not innocent

Originally posted by lmgnyc
Al Qaeda is at war with us because of our political agenda
in the Middle East--not because of our freedom.

Well ... considering that we are dealing with Wahabbi's ...
it's probably BOTH our political agenda and our freedoms.
Remember, Wahabbis are determined that women should
not be voting or getting and education of any kind, women
shouldn't be allowed to drive or go to a male doctor. I heard
one Wahabbi religious leader say that when the Muslims
'convert' the world, that he wants all boys and men to only
read the Quran and not to 'bother' with learning Science and
Geography.

The Wahabbis are definately wanting to convert the world to
this way of thinking ... which is definately a war against
our freedoms AS WELL AS our politics.

Originally posted by mwm1331
I lost frends, co workers, and collegues in those attacks.

My nephew was on a school class trip to the WTC that day.
Thankfully, their school hadn't gotten to the WTC when the
attacks happened. My elderly parents were on an American
Airlines airplane sitting at JFK when the attacks happened.
It was my dad's 70th birthday and they were on their 'dream'
vacation, that he always wanted to take, to go to Normandy
France and to England. They watched the towers come down
and they spent two days on the tarmac of JFK. Obviously they
never made it to France and now they say they are too old and
tired to ever make the trip. At least they are alive and unharmed
(physically) from what happened.

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
Wasn't it the "innocent" Americans who voted for the "innocent" Bush administration? Isn't it the "innocent" Americans who are cheering on this war and their "innocent" heroes. Isn't again, the "innocent" Americans who have done nothing about the overwhelming evidence amassing day by day for Bush's complicity in the 9/11 attacks?

The 9/11 attacks occurred before the war, and before Bush was little more than a choice between an asshole and an idiot. Much like MaskedAvatar, you're retroactively condemning the people who died in the WTC who did nothing more than show up to work.

You also seem to forget that just about 50% of the population did not vote for Bush. NYC didn't, which means in all likelihood the people who died in the attacks did not vote for Bush.

Why won't you people think before you post?

Oh, and MA, I'm still waiting for a defense of your stance. I pointed out the flaws, but you should easily be able to counter them. Right?

So in essence, I am not "innocent" and perhaps even "deserving" to be killed in a terrorist attack because I live and work in America and some people disagree with America's policy. Because I live in a country that elected someone that people internationally don't like, I personally can not claim to be an innocent victim if i get attacked or killed.

By that same token then the following is true. The United States disagrees with Saddam's Iraq. The people of Iraq never overthrew him. Therefore, when the United States sends bombs over Iraq and civilians die, those civilians are also not "innocent" and deserve to die because of where they live.

Sorry it works both ways.

You're dead wrong in both cases. In both cases the civilians killed are innocent, did not deserve to die, and have been murdered.

Whether you like their nation of origin or line of work the fact remains the same. Innocent civilians were murdered on September 11th.

I am one of them. I'm a New Yorker who works in an extremely tall office building every day to make a living. I'll be damned if any of you or some "Professor" are going to say I deserve to die because you don't like the policies of the government I live with.

Professor to speak in New York

According to the article, The Professor makes no apologiesfor his views. The article also seems to center on the Free Speech issue, something I don't think should be impacted because of some dork out for attention. IMO, his point boils down to the wealth of the United States at the expense of others, an issue that needs to be dealt with but that does not excuse his callous remarks.

You know what? If you live in a country with true Free Speech, then you're going to get some of this happening.

While I totally disagree with him that the victims are in any way not innocent (innocent to the degree that they do not deserve to die for some imagined crime that they might have committed), he does say some truths.

"When you kill 500,000 children in order to impose your will on other countries, then you shouldn't be surprised when somebody responds in kind," Churchill said.

"If it's not comfortable, that's the point. It's not comfortable for the people on the other side, either."

The attacks on Sept. 11, he said, were "a natural and inevitable consequence of what happens as a result of business as usual in the United States. Wake up."

Wake up indeed. Pay attention to what you reap, because it's what you'll sow.

The ones to blame are the foreign policy doctors in the Pentagon for the last 50 years, not one single person who died in the WTC that terrible day.

Put yourself in another person's shoes for a sec.

j

The ones to blame are the foreign policy doctors in the Pentagon for the last 50 years, not one single person who died in the WTC that terrible day.

I'm with jakomo 100% on this one. I support every man's right to despise the government of the country he lives in or any country for that matter. Freedom of speech is not always for pleasantries only. People with dissenting views can speak up to.

It is not his right to speak that I question, it is what he is saying that I disagree with.

As jakomo said, if you hate things America has done, voice your displeasure at the American government and those in power. Do not murder its citizens and claim you had every right to do so because of their government's policies. Well said jakomo.

Originally posted by Esoterica

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
Wasn't it the "innocent" Americans who voted for the "innocent" Bush administration? Isn't it the "innocent" Americans who are cheering on this war and their "innocent" heroes. Isn't again, the "innocent" Americans who have done nothing about the overwhelming evidence amassing day by day for Bush's complicity in the 9/11 attacks?

The 9/11 attacks occurred before the war, and before Bush was little more than a choice between an asshole and an idiot. Much like MaskedAvatar, you're retroactively condemning the people who died in the WTC who did nothing more than show up to work.

You also seem to forget that just about 50% of the population did not vote for Bush. NYC didn't, which means in all likelihood the people who died in the attacks did not vote for Bush.

Why won't you people think before you post?

Oh, and MA, I'm still waiting for a defense of your stance. I pointed out the flaws, but you should easily be able to counter them. Right?

I always think before I post actually. It was not because of the war that 9/11 happened. It happened because the people of America were just not in the driving seat anymore of their country. It happend because people were apthetic and lazy and could not restrain their government or took their security for granted. And nothing has changed post 9/11. So how can you say they are innocent?

More than half of America is cheering on the wars today. Who can say they are innocent?

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar
It may be a more telling day, and we know not how soon that day will come, when the number of service men and women lost to the US in Iraq as a result of being sent there by a criminal administration, exceeds the number of innocent victims of the 9/11 plot.

Indeed! A matter of time. How patriotic will the grenade polishers be then?
Hopefully civilian America will stand against the tyrant in their midst. Say no to invasion of Iran.

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?

Accidental???? ROFLMFAO Do you do standup?

Do not murder its citizens and claim you had every right to do so because of their government's policies.

This is just as good for iraq, yet thats just what dubya and American soldiers aswell have done and are doing and likley will continue to do!
Whats good for the goose......


[edit on 093131p://55019 by instar]

Off - Topic !

On page three of this topic Velt posted a pic.

Just wondering.. but has anyone noticed/has it been discussed as to why there is a large smoke ring under the people in the windows?

What floor was that picture of?

Was it above the crash area? If so the smoke could be from the crash, but I doubt it would be a nice neat lil puff of smoke all the way around the building. It should be a stream.


Was it taken after the start of the floor collapse or during it?

Sorry first time I've seen anything besides crappy video of smoke rings around the trade centers. Just wondering where that picture is and why that smoke ring is there.

That picture there makes it look more like demo to me..

[edit on 30-1-2005 by Xerrog]

In response to the topic in this thread: This guy gives Freedom of Speech a bad name. If the victims of 9/11 weren't innocent, then neither were any civilians accidently killed by our troops durring the Gulf War. This man is a lunatic and a poor excuse for an American, much less a human being.

Originally posted by mwm1331
This guy deserves to be charged for treason under anti-sedition laws.
I lost frends, co workers, and collegues in those attacks.
Normal guys just trying to pay for thier kids college tuition, orthodontist bills mortgatge etc.
Yes they were innocent.
No it was not justified.
Bout time if you happen to see this thread, maybe this explains your sig line.

I lost no friends, but did lose collegues, and if not for the Bush Team pushing the recession into play as a catalyst/excuse for their agenda, I would have been onsite since Morgan was a very active client at the time.
Let's frame the events and then adress this professor:

- if you believe that 9/11 WAS NOT brought upon our heads by a complicit faction of the US government, you then believe all of the "war" prose.

- since bombings are consistent with war, and the US/UK forces had run a quarter of a million bombing sorties over Iraq since 1991, as well as enforcing a blockade around the country, all resulting in millions of dead Brown People, you then would have to agree with the terminology ( since it must cover all and not be exclusive) of "military target". High value targets are assessed with the civilian collateral being a low degree variable. In other words, whether it's the WTC or an Iraqi Ministry building in the heart of Bagdhad being taken out with Daisy Cutters, civilians dying does not subtract from the value of the target.

- terror as a military tool, is utilized whether to force is a rag tag militia or a mechanized irresistable force.......the Allied Forces have been terrorizing the Middle East for all of the past century & all of this one.

- while all personal variables in my life were very adversely effected , I can not disregard the pathology findings because of my citizenship, no matter how devout. That is the bone of contention here: We are being marshalled to yell at the screen, like all good citizens of Oceana should.

As for this professor, what is most likely is that he's looking to be on the O'Reilly Factor.....that he's looking to be a lighting rod. This is the Arturo Gatti style of politcal fighting - get hit get bloody, just get close enough to land something. Other than that, the professor is obvious in his argument.

MWM: I would no more take a "professor" from Bob Jones University's lecture on teen sex as indicative of all family counselors positions as I would take this professor opinion. It does not diminish my sig file quotes varacity that those economics professors are valid in their disregard of Bush economic policy - Noble Laureate status & common sense support that.

The difference though Bout is that the WTC had no military value
The difference between hitting a military target which may cause civillian casualities, and hitting a civilian target with no military value, association, personnel, equipment etc. is IMHO huge.
Perhaps an argument can be made that the pentagon was a valid military target, however the same can not be said for the WTC.
Your example of the Iraqi ministry building is flawed. The ministry building was a government building. The WTC was a privately owned property which (AFAIK) had no governmental apparattus.

I disagree that the WTC had no military value. Indeed, we have, and most likely always will, bomb or otherwise destroy the infrastructure in a country to include military headquarters, power plants, sewage treatment plants, factories, Warehouses, bridges, etc. In many cases, these people's worst crime was going to work that day only to get a one ton bomb dropped on them courtesy of the American Taxpayer.

It also had inherent "Shock and Awe" value, which we use as well.

Originally posted by mwm1331
The difference though Bout is that the WTC had no military value

The WTC was of tremendous military value, while the Pentagon was of near zero value.

The targeting of a high profile military target is in direct anaology to the amount of havoc it can cause should it be taken out. For a Capitalist Society, NYC is MECCA.
The Pentagon, on the other hand, is already wired to have multiple doomsday fall back command centers. The companies in the WTC had some disaster recovery space in NJ........not a single US company was configured to have recovery protocols covering a full destruction scenario.

Part of my argument as to why this was an inside job by a faction loyal to the Bush Crime family is exactly dealing with the choice of target: The Indian Point Nuke Facility is within 35 miles of NYC . If I were half a retard and were using expendable resources ( those suicide jockeys) , I would have taken out the nuke plant & left the 100 mile radius around it uninhabitable. The devastation to the country's financial infrastructure would have been crippling, and the death count would have been several million deep.
But no, a big noisy visual/symbolic was targeted instead.........as in "Operation Northwoods".

The WTC was of tremendous military value, while the Pentagon was of near zero value.

So a bunch of financial companies had more value than the highest ranking military officials in the country?
I dont buy it bout.
As a legitimate military target the WTC had no value.
As a terrorist action, IE an action whos sole intent was to cause terror and spread chaos among the civilian populace it had immense value.
However how was the US's military capabilities degraded by the WTC attacks?
It wasn't, however our economic capabiliities were. The 9/11 attacks were not directed against the military or the government (except for the pentagon and perhaps the one that crashed in penn)
The WTC attacks were aimed right at the civillian populace of the US.

Aimed at civilian targets? Yes, but I think that it was more for the infrastructure and import to America. Anyone knowing anything about America would know that the best way to hit us would be to hit us where it hurts, our wallets. That is a huge station of commerce in one of the most important financial cities in the world.

Being that America is economically hemogonous, it stands to reason that spreading terror could have been achieved in hitting a great many places in our country.

there was a "secret" cia office in wtc7....i'm sure nobody here would know if the hijackers somehow knew about that....if they did, then hell, who knows whats hiding in the bigger buildings

just another shining example of how dangerous knowledge can be if you dont have the mental capability to porperly interpret it.

Originally posted by metalmessiah
just another shining example of how dangerous knowledge can be if you dont have the mental capability to porperly interpret it.

Which knowledge are you talking about?