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: 5
0
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 1 2005 @ 12:38 AM
link   
I was talking about the article from the original post, and more specifically the professor...that wasnt directed at any members. guess I should have been more specific but I was pressed for time when I posted that and just couldnt resist commenting. that guy is a nutcase




posted on Feb, 12 2005 @ 07:14 AM
link   
As I said before, the WTC is not a necessarily military target, in fact it wasn't at all, that does not mean it is not a valid target. In essence for me to explain myself, i would have to describe the policies of the WTO and many of the other multi national corporations that exploit and demean 4/5 of the earth's population for the profit and growth of a small percentage of humans in the west. I do not have the time or the space in which to do so, but needless to say I truly believe that these practices helped create the animosity towards America.

Unfair trade barriers, practices, tariffs, wage control, energy and supply domination, people in the so called 3rd world are sick of it, and wish to strike back. Backed by the strongest military in the world, these corporations heed no one but their own search for profit. The situation is not unlike a David and Goliath, with these small countries backed against a wall and their governents powerless to fight back either militarily or through diplomatic channels (we all know the UN is a joke, and just another means of control for the G7 countries).

What are the citizens of these countries supposed to do? What becomes valid or invalid? They come from countries that the United States bombs at whim, where innocents die everyday, where they see injustice and misery in the name of American profit. For all these reasons, the WTO is the perfect target, striking a blow to the core of American Capitalism, their ultimate symbol, as phallic as one could get. For these reasons I submit that they were valid targets, I do not agree with terrorism, either perpetrated by small militant organizations, nor large governments and corporations, but the argument we are having is valid or invalid.

I think many Americans and westerners were quick to blame and ignore any faults of their own or their governments for what occured. America and the west are not intrinsically innocent as so many believe.

[edit on 12-2-2005 by jawapunk]



posted on Feb, 12 2005 @ 08:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar
What is "innocence"?

Are merchant bankers and stock brokers and financial instruments of the state innocent, whether they have families or not?

"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone", etc etc.


Yes, to answer your mindless question.

MA, you've cast quite a few stones here on ATS. How about following your own advice above, or just come out and admit being the hypocrite you've demonstrated yourself to be.



posted on Feb, 12 2005 @ 10:27 PM
link   
People, did you guys read his 26 page essay that people are getting mad about? Did those people read his essay or read the spin by the media?
What was said was out of the context and you know the media is good at it!
I'm not saying this Churchill is right but at least read the essay and judge for your self.
Here is a link to his essay
www.kersplebedeb.com...



posted on Feb, 13 2005 @ 03:57 AM
link   
Everyone who agrees with Churchill, including myself are very careful, "Not that I agree..." "I'm not saying he is right but.." I am going to say it, I agree with the man, the people in the WTC were not innocents. Their companies were involved in everything that the rest of the world abhors, and those companies are responsible for the millions of who suffer because of thier immoral and irresponsible trade policies/practices. Just becuase you have the biggest army on earth backing you up, doesn't mean you should act like an !@%##^$. And I'm sorry, obvioudly no expects to die, no expects to be a target, but if anyone of these people had cared or stopped for even a moment to realize what their companies and operations were doing then they should have stopped working for them. I stopped workng at the Gap when I realized their sweat shop practices. It is not a crazy step to take, to leave one's job and have some moral conviction and a little backbone. Otherwise, in knowing what your company does and not caring, you are as guilty as any terrorist, or fundamentalist because you embody what they are fighting against, what everyone should be fighting against.

I said earlier in this post, is any simple nazi secretary or office worker innocent because they only dictate the orders, or deliver them where they go? Are they not just as culpable in knowing what those orders and practices entail? Is any office employee innocent when knowing that in saving his comany 3 million dollars a year, he also is forcing thousands to survive on pennies a day?

[edit on 13-2-2005 by jawapunk]



posted on Feb, 13 2005 @ 06:09 AM
link   
Some crazy collage professor thinks the 911 victims are not innocent?What makes him believe they're not innocent?Does he know every single one of them?

This article could be just an Anti-U.S government propaganda which I don't really care because I too hate the U.S government but the fact that he said the victims are not innocent had pissed me off.NO proof is brought forward by the article.Hence,there's no need to believe in anything that professor said.It's credibility is suspect.His ideas are unsympathetic and controversial.



posted on Feb, 13 2005 @ 06:58 AM
link   
To all of you who say the 9/11 victims weren't innocent:

Are/were Iraqi civilians killed by Saddam or durring both Gulf Wars innocent?

Were Japanese civilians killed by the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki innocent?

If I was killed tomorrow by a muslim fanatic, being the pro-War/conservative that I am, would it be murder or a just act of war?

By your logic, would Bush be justified in arresting any anti-War/liberal minded Americans for hindering morale and thus aiding the enemy?



posted on Feb, 14 2005 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Langolier
To all of you who say the 9/11 victims weren't innocent:

Are/were Iraqi civilians killed by Saddam or durring both Gulf Wars innocent?

Were Japanese civilians killed by the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki innocent?

If I was killed tomorrow by a muslim fanatic, being the pro-War/conservative that I am, would it be murder or a just act of war?

By your logic, would Bush be justified in arresting any anti-War/liberal minded Americans for hindering morale and thus aiding the enemy?



Great post, Langolier (BTW, Langoliers was a creepy movie).

Voted you for Way Above.




posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 05:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Langolier
To all of you who say the 9/11 victims weren't innocent:

Are/were Iraqi civilians killed by Saddam or durring both Gulf Wars innocent?

Were Japanese civilians killed by the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki innocent?

If I was killed tomorrow by a muslim fanatic, being the pro-War/conservative that I am, would it be murder or a just act of war?

By your logic, would Bush be justified in arresting any anti-War/liberal minded Americans for hindering morale and thus aiding the enemy?



If you think Bush should be able to arrest people for speaking their minds then you live in a different America than the one that your forefathers intended. I am not American and I can speak my mind as much as I like, Bush cannot stop me nor any other American government entity, but I wouldn't look kindly if the so called land of the free started rounding up citizenry for using one of their basic rights.

I think you are missing the poing on some of your examples. Americans didn't perpetrate this crime so it cannot be likened to what Saddam did to his own citizens. The japanese and the americans were openly involved in total war, which included the bombing of cities as targets, as means of cutting off the supply economically of the enemies, I'm sure you are aware that the Japanese struck first. Again a bad example.

Your last example is the only one that makes sense logically, I agree that the killing of an individual for his beliefs would be wrong and murder and that you would be an innocent if it happned to you. However, the people within the corporate towers were not killed for their personal beliefs, they were killed becasue of their companies actions, their companies expoitation of the third world, especially the middle east. They are not innocents in the sense that they willingly engage in the rape of 4/5 of the world for profit, and they are not innocent because they do so hiding behind the largest military on earth, and an american public easy to fool, and quick to anger.

You do not recieve my vote for way above, sorry



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 05:22 AM
link   
Then by your logic jawapunk, the 10,000 or so Iraqi's who have ded in the liberation of Iraq were not innocent either. After all they supported saddam hussein even if only by not dissenting. The went to the pols and elected him over and over again. By not refusng to vote, they are as guilty as those in the WTC.
Or are you not willing to extend your line of reasoning to its logical conclusion?



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 05:46 AM
link   
I am not sure I understood your response entirely, which 10000 Iraqis who died? The ones involved in the uprising right now? or you mean the ones who are fighting the uprising?
And I didn't take my reasoning that far as the voting public because it seems more of a stretch to do so. That would mean that every American is guilty for enabling its government to bow to certain lobby groups, as in large corprations. I don't think that many Americans are informed enough to draw that connection and thus vote on those lines. I am not saying Americans as a whole are ignorant, there is ignorance everywhere, but I think a large portion of Amercan voters are not informed, atleast to a deeper degree as to lobby groups, and corporate sponsorship etc.
As for Iraqi voters, well, I would hardly call them voters until last week or so, would you? I don't think the one name on the past ballots was much of a choice.



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 05:52 AM
link   
As an aside, I would also like to ask what Iraq has to do with 9/11? Saddam Hussein was not involved with Al Qaeda directly, he and Bin Laden detest one another, because of Saddams tendency to attack his brother Arab nations.
You all do realize that most of the attackers were Saudi citizens, and the Iraq invasion really doesn't have a direct link to 9/11 other than the American government riding a huge wave of popular support and backing to carry out plans that have been on the backburner since 1991.



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 05:54 AM
link   
I mean the 10,000 iraqi civilians who have ded due to collateral damage.
I really dont think its a strecth in the logic of this professor at all jawapunk.
You see if those in the WTC were guilty due to thier employment at a finacial firm (never mind that not all companies inthe WTC were financial) Then you are saying that thier guilt is as a result of being a part of the politial-economic system that as you put it "rapes 4.5ths of the world" By that logic anyone who in anyway participates in any system,in which any part of that system is "guilty" is also "guilty"
Theefore by voting for saddam even though there was no other choice, the iraqi people are just as guilty of war crimes as saddam himself. By that same logic all americans who take part in any facet of american society are "guilty of raping 4/5ths of the world"
By that logic any citizen of any government any employee of any company which commits any wrong is themselves guilty of that wrong.
So tell me jawapunk, has your government or the company who employes you ever done anything unethical? Becuase if either has, by this professors logic you persoanlly are guilty of that crime and desrve to bear the punisment.



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 06:07 AM
link   
Well if you read my last posts I said that I left the Gap because of sweat shops, I said that, we living in our free society, have a responsibility to be responsible. We have freedom of movement and choice, both in our employment and our voting, so your argument about the Iraqis is a little skewed as they have neither. I am not exactly aware of elections being held in Iraq to tell you the truth, other than the ones that occured last week.

As to you taking my logic to its fullest extremes, it was never my intent to draw those lines so far stretched, as my argument wasn't based on the entire system, only a part of it, being the World Trade Organization, and the companies involved in it. I am fairly sure that not every person could be held accountable nor would it be prudent to go down that road if they could be. Rather I was only trying to argue the points of innocence with the individuals both in the pentagon and the world trade center, I was also trying to get inside the professors mind as to how he was talking about it. Remember, I do not condone attacks, I am just trying take a methodical look at the whole argument and I tend to agree with the points he was making.

How about we look at it this way, as individuals, certainly they were innocent, but as a collective, acting for their companies etc, they were not innocent, not that they deserve death, but I still believe they were not innocent, because they knowingly enact company policies that impoverish and take advantage of billions.

Thanks for the discussion though it is interesting to hear your side of things.



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 07:35 AM
link   

Civilians 'of a sort'?
Pregnant women were murdered.
Children on their way to DisneyWorld were murdered (on the
airplane). Chefs, waiters, custodial care, etc. etc. etc. were
murdered and they were 'civilians of a sort'??


Um, and how's that different from the innocent women and children who died in Iraq from the bombing just because they happened to live next to a military target? This is a war! Not a war on terror but a war of religion and ideology. You can't fight terror with more terror, you have to understand the reasons behind it and educate them. For every child killed by a US Bomb you sign up 10 more suicide bombers. At some point we've got to stop and see that bush's war on terror will never be won, at least not the way he is waging it.


Oh ... BTW Prof Churchill ... the children in Iraq didn't die from
American sanctions, they died because Saddam AND THE UN
stole billions from the Oil for Food program. Al Jazeera loooooves
to make propaganda that it was 'the great Satan', but it wasn't.


that’s not strictly true! Accepted that if Saddam wasn't there they may not have died but you have got to understand that the US refused to back down over sanctions that restricted the delivery of basic medical supplies and drugs. People died because they could get any stronger painkillers than aspirin! They couldn't get basic antibiotics or antiseptics and so people died after minor operations from infections.


What an idiot. I can't believe morons like this are teaching
our youth. No wonder the world is so screwed up


I'd rather sit and listen to this guy than to have to sit and listen to the propaganda broadcast by Fox or the lies and half truths spewed out by bush. Just listen to what he has to say, at least this gets people to talk about these things and not sweep them under the carpet.



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 07:53 AM
link   
I have to clarify something, there were some innocents involved in the WTC, they being firemen, policeofficers and people merely visiting the buildings either in a tourist capacity as many do or delivery types who aren't affiliated with these companies and have no idea what they are delivering. Other than that I agree to the non-innocence of the employees.



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 07:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by jawapunk
I have to clarify something, there were some innocents involved in the WTC, they being firemen, policeofficers and people merely visiting the buildings either in a tourist capacity as many do or delivery types who aren't affiliated with these companies and have no idea what they are delivering. Other than that I agree to the non-innocence of the employees.


Agreed these people who died were not soldiers of the US Army they were innocent but my point is that so are the people who have died in Iraq, Afghanistan, Yugoslavia etc. War has killed innocent people, millions of them! This is not and never will be a war on terror, such a thing cannot exist therefore it is fake; it is a war plain and simple. A war of ideology and religious beliefs.

edit for spelling

[edit on 16-2-2005 by arnold_vosloo]



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 08:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by arnold_vosloo
US refused to back down over sanctions that restricted the delivery of basic medical supplies and drugs. People died because they could get any stronger painkillers than aspirin! They couldn't get basic antibiotics or antiseptics and so people died after minor operations from infections.


No. People in Iraq died becaues the U.N. and Saddam were stealing
billions from the Iraqis in the U.N. Oil for Food program. The system
was in place for the Iraqis to be able to get food, medicine, and
education. Saddam, Koffi Annan, France, Germany and all the rest
who stole billions in the Oil for Food program ... THEY are the ones
that killed Iraqis during sanctions.

I'd rather sit and listen to this guy than ...

I'd rather go to the dentist and have root canal work done
than listen to this freak. He's an idiot. He's a fake. There
is a thread here about how Churchill went to Libya in 1983
just before that Pan Am Flight was blown up by Libya. He
went when Americans were not allowed to go, so he lied
and traveled saying he was really an Indian. Churchill
also helped the infamous domestic terrorists - the Weatherman -
learn how to build bombs. This, and other information on
the creep, is on the ATS thread Churchill is a Traitor. Until
I read all that, I figured Churchill was just an idiot. Now I
see how he's a possible criminal as well as an idiot and he
should be completely investigated!

www.abovetopsecret.com...


[edit on 2/16/2005 by FlyersFan]



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 08:45 AM
link   
ter·ror·ism

n. The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

so we didnt do this in iraq the first time around? please.



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 10:02 AM
link   
the guy in essence is advocating anarchy. you could use his logic to attack anyone you think has wronged you. someone could wage a "justifiable" attack on the vatican because a family member was killed during the crusades. it is an endless loop. israel should be bombing germany right now. why aren't we bombing all islamic countries and executing muslims in this country? the mere fact they are muslim makes them a military target if you use this guys philosophy. every person on earth is someone else's military target if you go down this path of thought.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join