A Radical Takes The Stand, Ward Churchill Gets His Day In Court Options

[Lights]

Hi, everyone. I received this in one of my Google WTC Alerts and thought it might be interesting. Personally, after his remark about those who died in the WTC being "little Eichmanns", I have no sympathy for this creep. Maybe it's karma finally catching up to him.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123811620345153723.html

[painter]

Personally, after his remark about those who died in the WTC being "little Eichmanns", I have no sympathy for this creep.

Indeed. What I don't like is it getting framed in an "old hippie" cultural context -- as if it is representatives of how "old hippies" (I being one) view this and things like this. NOT SO! That is right up there with the ridiculous idea that we spit on returning V vets. I'm not saying that might not have happened once somewhere -- maybe it did -- but that wasn't the prevailing attitude (although the media made it seem that way). We opposed the war because we wanted to save peoples lives not because we necessarily supported Ho or Communism but because we supported the right of indigenous people to be sovereign and self determining. It wasn't the military we opposed but the fact that it was being used by an elite class for imperialist purposes (not national defense). Etc.

Anyone who would take the stance that working class citizens killed at the WTC -- or military men and women killed at the Pentagon, for that matter -- deserved what they got is, frankly, sick. What is worse, from this perspective, the "attack" theory is legitimated as "blow back" rather than questioned as having all the earmarks of a false-flag.

All of which leads me to suspect that this whole uproar is a bit of a "handled" operation in its own right.

[grizz]

Related topic here.

We must not be quick to judge, and it would be a good idea to see what Mr Churchill later said about his comments.

The issue isn't what he wrote about 9/11 on 9/12, but rather that he was fired for it years later.

[Daniels]

I'm all for free speech -- if it attempts to be genuine opinion rather than just hurtful antagonism (probably a fine line there bearing in mind my assertion of Peal Harbor).

Smashing that guy in the media is all about stirring up our emotions to curtail free speech.

That media piece belongs firmly in Bush's "You're either with us, or you're with the terrorists" style of rhetoric -- the demagoguery of the media.

[albertchampion]

FIRSTLY, i think you have to know more about the writings of ward churchill.

to understand what he thinks about the murderous usg.

one of his most interesting books is ISLANDS IN CAPTIVITY. THE INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNAL ON THE RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS HAWAIIANS.

though many lament the lost lives of those who worked at the purported aircraft collision with terrain sites on that day in september, who was it that took those lives?

i don't think it was a bunch of saudi arabians. i think it was operatives of the mossad and the us and brit intell services. and in a very real sense, that was ward churchill's point, that the official conspiracy theory energized the usg and its very ignorant populace to invade afghanistan, iraq. invasions where the usg killed thousands of noncombatants. is still killing thousands of noncombatants.

interlopers on this board are entitled to their ignorance. that does not mean that this board should give them an airing.

and if this board will give them an airing, i shall refrain from listening to their whining.

the usg[and its surrogates] has been murdering scores of thousands of innocents all over the world for decades. those terminated in the events of 11/09/01, in the pursuit of americo-israeli objectives, were, in the imperial scheme of things, valueless.

you can contort yourself to believe that the murdered on that day were victims of some group of arabs[al fresco], but your contortions would be the result of misperceptions.

much as you may hate to hear it, the murderer was the usg. and its closest ally, israel.

that is the reality. that so many want to run from.

until i die, i shall not allow you to duck that reality.

now, ward churchill thinks that saudi arabians did the deeds of 11/09/01. chickens coming home to roost, as the saying goes. and there is an element of truth to that. certainly there are a large number of aggrieved individuals who have a justification for murdering murderers. that cannot be denied.

but in a very real sense, ward churchill functions as if an agent of the usg[the state]. his argument is that the events of that day were justified: that "al fresco" had a legitimate grievance that could only be slaked by mass murder.

my pov is that the events of that day were orchestrated, created by the usg. directly. with no surrogates involved.

and that is why i think that ward churchill is a shill for the state. a fraudulency.

much like robert fisk.

all who want to foist on you the notion that some external agencies caused the events of that day.

the big lie.

[Daniels]

...
and that is why i think that ward churchill is a shill for the state. a fraudulency.

much like robert fisk.

all who want to foist on you the notion that some external agencies caused the events of that day.

the big lie.

(IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/thumbsup.gif)