Churchill Thesis not there???

Was it written and now it's missing?
Was it never written at all?
Was it supposed to have been written?

Hmmmm. Interesting. LOTS of possibilities here. Was his thesis
so wild and bizzare that someone stole it and hid it? Was there
supposed to be one and Churchhill never wrote it but got his
degree without finishing his school work? Or is this just a bunch
of smoke without a fire ... that there wasn't a need to have a
thesis and so there wasn't one to begin with?? Who knows...
this could get interesting ...



rockymountainnews.com...

Excerpt - coming

School can't locate Churchill's thesis
U. of Illinois officials not sure if master's paper was required

By Berny Morson, Rocky Mountain News
February 23, 2005

University of Illinois officials said Tuesday they can't locate
Ward Churchill's master's thesis and aren't sure if he was
required to write one.

The embattled University of Colorado ethnic-studies professor
claims undergraduate and graduate degrees from the University
of Illinois' Springfield campus, which was known as Sangamon
State University until 1995. Springfield is in Sangamon County.

University of Illinois at Springfield spokeswoman Cheryl Peck
confirmed that Churchill received a bachelor's degree in 1974 and
a master's degree in 1975. But no thesis is on file, she said.

"We can't say for sure he didn't write one," Peck said. It is not clear
if a thesis was a requirement at the time Churchill received the
degree in communications, she said.

... more ....

The program included an "applied-studies term," in which students
earned credit by working off campus. Projects ranged from working
with a state legislator to community organizing.

The students were required to take part in a seminar and write
journals or term papers as part of the program, Golden said.

"You couldn't just go to an anti-war rally in Washington and say, 'That's
my experience,' " Golden said




[edit on 2/24/2005 by FlyersFan]

The embattled University of Colorado ethnic-studies professor
claims undergraduate and graduate degrees from the University
of Illinois' Springfield campus ...

If this 'claim' is anything like his 'claim' to be Indian ... no wonder
people suspect him. He has a history of lies and deceit. He has
only himself to blame for people checking into his claims and not
taking them at face value.

I know I'm opening myself up to a storm of questions here, but I'll bet you dollars to pesos that this guy is CIA, same as John Gray (yes they guy who wrote Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus).

Phoney-doctor John Gray has links to the Heaven's Gate Cult through cult leader Marshall Applewhite and to the disinfo campaign from 9/11truth.org, not to mention corrupt financial dealings with Iran-Contra celebrity Adnan Khashoggi.

Phoney-professor Churchill seems to be building himself an army of potentially violent angry leftists students if half of what is reported about him turns out to be true. (In the interest of fairness, allegations of violent threats made by Churchill against colleagues are only hearsay at this point). I'm anxious to get the full scoop on this guy when the bloggers and such are done with him.

My gut feeling though is that Churchill has a purpose. He's too much of a character- too over the top. If I had to guess I'd say he's a scapegoat to justify a slight tightening of federal control over the educational establishment (which leans heavily against our current government's party at this point). I also wouldn't be shocked if violence on behalf of Churchill's students was used as an excuse to tighten down on 1st ammendment rights on campuses.

Wow. You think he's a plant? I didn't think of that. I just
figure he's a wacko who has turned so far to the left that he's
facing backwards. There are a bunch of 'em running around
this country. People who turn so far to the left or the right that
they end up facing backwards and can't see what is happening
or where they are going. This guy is such a loon. Do you think
the government could make something (or someone) up to be
this bad?

Here is a link to an interview with Ward Churchill and while I did not have a clue who this guy was before this incident that now has his name all over the place I did do some research and find I agree with him in many ways. Before you condemn him and believe all the rhetoric you are hearing in the mainstream media read this and the interview with him. Below is just one sentence of what he said if you want to read more go to the link.
www.democracynow.org.../02/18/157211&mode=thread&tid=25
Well, I posit my conclusions that if you want to avoid September 11s, if you want security in some actual form, then it's almost a biblical framing, you have to do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Originally posted by goose
sid=05/02/18/157211&mode=thread&tid=25
Well, I posit my conclusions that if you want to avoid September 11s, if you want security in some actual form, then it's almost a biblical framing, you have to do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Goose, I'm a Christian - not a very good one - but a Christian none-the-less. Churchill picked the wrong Bible passage or he has a flawed understanding of it's interpretation. Does he mean, since we have been attacked by terrorist we are to show them compassion so they won't attack and kill us again? That scenario is called appeasement. Appeasement toward terrorist - who have been killing Americans - goes back 26 years. Here's the timeline:

1. November 1979 a group of Iranian students attacked and seized the American Embassy in Tehran. This seizure was an outright attack on American soil; it was an attack that held the world's most powerful country hostage and paralyzed the Carter presidency.

2. April of 1983 a large vehicle packed with high explosives was driven into the U.S. Embassy compound in Beirut. When it explodes, it kills 63 people. America did nothing.

3. Six months later, a large truck heavily laden down with over 2,500 pounds of TNT smashed through the main gate of the U.S. Marine Corps headquarters in Beirut and 241 U.S. servicemen are killed. America did nothing.

4. December 1983, another truck loaded with explosives is driven into the U.S. Embassy in Kuwait, and America continues to do nothing.

5. September 1984, another van was driven into the gates of the U.S. Embassy in Beirut and America did nothing.

6. April 1985 a bomb explodes in a restaurant frequented by U.S. soldiers in Madrid, and America did nothing.

7. Then in August a Volkswagen loaded with explosives is driven into the main gate of the U.S. Air Force Base at Rhein-Main, 22 are killed and America did nothing.

8. Fifty-nine days later a cruise ship, the Achille Lauro, is hijacked and we watched as an American in a wheelchair is singled out of the passenger list and executed. Again, America did nothing.

9. The terrorists then shift their tactics to bombing civilian airliners when they bomb TWA Flight 840 in April of 1986 that killed four and the most tragic bombing, Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988, killing 259. Again America did nothing.

10. In January 1993, two CIA agents are shot and killed as they enter CIA headquarters in Langley, Va. Again America did nothing.

11. February 1993, a group of terrorists are arrested after a rented van packed with explosives is driven into the underground parking garage of the World Trade Center in New York City. Six people are killed and over 1,000 are injured. Again, America did nothing.

12. November 1995 a car bomb explodes at a U.S. military complex in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, killing seven service men and women. Again, America did nothing.

13. June of 1996, another truck bomb explodes near the U.S. military compound in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. It destroys the Khobar Towers, a U.S. Air Force barracks, killing 19 and injuring over 500. The terrorists are getting braver and smarter as they see that America does not respond decisively.

14. They move to coordinate their attacks in a simultaneous attack on two U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. These attacks were planned with precision. They kill 224. America responds with cruise missile attacks, that were ineffective.

15. The USS Cole was docked in the port of Aden, Yemen, for refueling on Oct. 12, 2000, when a small craft pulled along side the ship and exploded killing 17 U.S. Navy sailors. Attacking a U.S. war ship is an act of war, but we sent the FBI to investigate the crime and Again, America did nothing.

16. And of course you know the events of Sept. 11, 2001.

We haven't been treating others (terrorist) as they have been treating us(Americans). I think it's pretty one sided and America has been on the short side of the stick. Not one president including Bush's dad have committed themselves to fight terrorism. Appeasement led to September 11, 2001. People who hate America like Churchill would sit on their behinds and let terrorist rape, pillage and kill until there was no America - then they would come for him.

The other day I was researching and found a link to 70 anti-American groups operating in the USA. I was stunned when I saw a number that large. I don't have the link and I'll have to go through allot of computer history to find it again. I want that page showing the groups by name.

Goose, this country is in a hell of a bad shape - from within and without - thanks to people like Ward Churchill - a man filled with hatred of America. I would not want this man to teach my kids. His use of a Biblical passage to justify his senseless rants and raves is pathetic.

www.angelfire.com...

www.caledonianrecord.com...

www.opinionet.com...

Chief

Who cares?

The guy is an idiot. He's demonstrated it. Now everyone that is upset with him being an idiot is digging up dirt on him. In other words, he is being attacked, for merely being unpopular.

The guys a jerk, but people who try to smear him even more in public are making him into a hero.

you have to do unto others as you would have them do unto you

Ok, so the US now has the right ot go to any country in the world and commit mass murder, especially if its over one of those countries supporting a third party (ala the israel justification for 911) or has companies that sell product in the US or even compete with the US in foreign markets (ala the mcworld claim). Heck, even countries that act like they want to help the US, but don't do enough, are open to have their citizens murdered.

Churchill is a putz. He is a pathetic example of "white guilt" where he wants desperately to be a memeber of the oppressed underclass.

He also has a right to speak whatever he wishes. I will defend to the death his right to spew his venom.

Originally posted by w555hc

Originally posted by goose
sid=05/02/18/157211&mode=thread&tid=25
Well, I posit my conclusions that if you want to avoid September 11s, if you want security in some actual form, then it's almost a biblical framing, you have to do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Goose, I'm a Christian - not a very good one - but a Christian none-the-less. Churchill picked the wrong Bible passage or he has a flawed understanding of it's interpretation. Does he mean, since we have been attacked by terrorist we are to show them compassion so they won't attack and kill us again? That scenario is called appeasement. Appeasement toward terrorist - who have been killing Americans - goes back 26 years. Here's the timeline:

Have you ever considered that he is saying the only way to truly feel safe and stop terrorism is to stop creating it? a prime example of that is the wa in Iraq, we were greeted at first by the majority of people with smiles and children asking for the military personnel autograph but now after 100,000 civilian Iraqies have died as a result of this war no one is smiling. Another prime example is Abu Gharib.

Originally posted by Nygdan

you have to do unto others as you would have them do unto you

Ok, so the US now has the right ot go to any country in the world and commit mass murder, especially if its over one of those countries supporting a third party (ala the israel justification for 911) or has companies that sell product in the US or even compete with the US in foreign markets (ala the mcworld claim). Heck, even countries that act like they want to help the US, but don't do enough, are open to have their citizens murdered.

Yes Nydgan, the US does have the right to go into any country to protect it's citizens and to honor treaties made with other countries. Senator John McCain, Speaking of the attacks on the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and Camp David said, "These attacks clearly constitute an act of war" so we went into Afganistan.

"The president, as Commander in Chief, has the power and authority to use force defensively to protect the lives and property of US citizens on US soil, and to protect foreign powers bound by treaty. Such protection includes the power to strike against military targets directly supporting acts of aggression, regardless of international borders."

"Lacking an explicit declaration of war from Congress, the president is restricted from general war of attrition, active invasion of another foreign soil - EXCEPTING - in hot pursuit OR TO destroy materials or personnel actively supporting aggression, destruction of civilian infrastructure, interference with civilian commerce, or performing other overt acts of war."

Saddam was paying Palistanian families money to get their children to blow themselves up while trying to kill Israelis or anyone who happened to be in the blast area. If an American happened to be there - do you think Saddam cared? By doing that, Saddam was actively supporting agression and destruction of Israel. We have an agreement to protect Israel.

Reagan was instrumental in the enhancement of the U.S.-Israel Strategic Cooperation Agreement, which resulted in the establishment of the Joint Political-Military Group [JPMG], a Pentagon program which oversees joint intelligence and military ventures between both nations.

www.mfa.gov.il...

www.aipac.org...

polyticks.com...

www.newsmax.com...

countrystudies.us...

Chief

W555hc: I do not believe that your interpretation of Churchill's message is a little backwards in terms of cause and effect (not as a matter of reality but as far as what Churchill was trying to say).
Churchill was trying to say that those attacks were basically the Islamics trying to fight back based on the same rules that we fight by. I don't think he's entirely correct, but I do see why he would think that way. The terrorists don't seem themselves as the ones who struck first, and neither does Churchill. He thinks that if we'd be civil to them, the fight never would have started. Of course he's wrong, but still it's not really appeasement he is attempting to suggest. Thats because if he was not wrong and if we had started this problem unilaterally, then stopping it wouldn't be considered appeasement.

As for what to make of Churchill himself- I read the entire interview. I thought it would probably make me sick but I was at least moderately impressed to find out that he wasn't just a left-wing Anne Coulter. His problem isn't that he's 100% wrong (although he is wrong to a very appreciable degree), and his problem isn't even that he's not entitled to speak his wrong opinion. The problem is that he's giving encouragement to those who would commit violence. We can't have people encouraging violence against civilians. We need to take away the platform from which he shouts such things and we have to monitor him so that we'll know if his idle chatter ever rises to the level of conspiracy.
If I'm an intelligent young Iraqi-American trying to decide which side I'm really on, and here's my professor telling me that American civilians are analogous to Eichman and that by their failure to object the average American citizen is made guilty for all of these supposed wrongs of the US government (which Churchill takes in issolation from the circumstances that prompted them, making them even more evil than one would normally suspect- typical white-guilt thinking) then as an Iraqi American hearing all of that, I would be more inclined to take up arms against my fellow Americans than I otherwise would be.

Aside from the things which are constitutionally enforceable, there is another consideration which although it doesn't allow us to strip somebody of their 1st ammendment rights, can be taken into consideration when determining his future in the university. This man has made the mistake of forgetting that the world is not one big happy family. People rob, streal, oppress, rape, kill, etc all over, not only on a personal level but on a national level. This person is preaching a deeply flawed doctrine of guilt and complacency which would make us vulnerable. Wanting to play fair with the world is one thing, but forgetting the sad truth that it's a dog-eat-dog world is another. Do we want this man's misguided views to be a part of our educations? If this man doesn't give the opposing viewpoint equal time and doesn't allow students to freely draw their own conclusion then he's not education- he's indoctrinating. Are we going to pay for students to be indoctrinated with flawed theories?

Originally posted by w555hc
the US does have the right to go into any country to protect it's citizens

I agree entirely, I was pointing out that its a load of b/s to say that the US 'got what it deserved' on 911 and that it was all part of 'what goes around comes around'. The US has great power, and would be justified in doing a lot of things, and yet it restrains itself, acting responsibly. If somone liek bin ladin were president of the US, and his cronies were in teh government, the world would be a terrible place. So I do not, infact, accept that al-qaida was justified in doing 911 because of some misdeeds on the part of the US, and the very 'logic' of the US being similarly justified demands that everyone hope that such justification is false.