This guy is a good example of why the concept of academic tenure needs to be eliminated.

Churchill's statement

January 31, 2005

The following is a statement from Ward Churchill:

In the last few days there has been widespread and grossly inaccurate media coverage concerning my analysis of the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, coverage that has resulted in defamation of my character and threats against my life. What I actually said has been lost, indeed turned into the opposite of itself, and I hope the following facts will be reported at least to the same extent that the fabrications have been.

Advertisement
* The piece circulating on the internet was developed into a book, On the Justice of Roosting Chickens. Most of the book is a detailed chronology of U.S. military interventions since 1776 and U.S. violations of international law since World War II. My point is that we cannot allow the U.S. government, acting in our name, to engage in massive violations of international law and fundamental human rights and not expect to reap the consequences.

* I am not a "defender"of the September 11 attacks, but simply pointing out that if U.S. foreign policy results in massive death and destruction abroad, we cannot feign innocence when some of that destruction is returned. I have never said that people "should" engage in armed attacks on the United States, but that such attacks are a natural and unavoidable consequence of unlawful U.S. policy. As Martin Luther King, quoting Robert F. Kennedy, said, "Those who make peaceful change impossible make violent change inevitable."

* This is not to say that I advocate violence; as a U.S. soldier in Vietnam I witnessed and participated in more violence than I ever wish to see. What I am saying is that if we want an end to violence, especially that perpetrated against civilians, we must take the responsibility for halting the slaughter perpetrated by the United States around the world. My feelings are reflected in Dr. King's April 1967 Riverside speech, where, when asked about the wave of urban rebellions in U.S. cities, he said, "I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed . . . without having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today — my own government."

* In 1996 Madeleine Albright, then Ambassador to the UN and soon to be U.S. Secretary of State, did not dispute that 500,000 Iraqi children had died as a result of economic sanctions, but stated on national television that "we" had decided it was "worth the cost." I mourn the victims of the September 11 attacks, just as I mourn the deaths of those Iraqi children, the more than 3 million people killed in the war in Indochina, those who died in the U.S. invasions of Grenada, Panama and elsewhere in Central America, the victims of the transatlantic slave trade, and the indigenous peoples still subjected to genocidal policies. If we respond with callous disregard to the deaths of others, we can only expect equal callousness to American deaths.

* Finally, I have never characterized all the September 11 victims as "Nazis." What I said was that the "technocrats of empire" working in the World Trade Center were the equivalent of "little Eichmanns." Adolf Eichmann was not charged with direct killing but with ensuring the smooth running of the infrastructure that enabled the Nazi genocide. Similarly, German industrialists were legitimately targeted by the Allies.

* It is not disputed that the Pentagon was a military target, or that a CIA office was situated in the World Trade Center. Following the logic by which U.S. Defense Department spokespersons have consistently sought to justify target selection in places like Baghdad, this placement of an element of the American "command and control infrastructure" in an ostensibly civilian facility converted the Trade Center itself into a "legitimate" target. Again following U.S. military doctrine, as announced in briefing after briefing, those who did not work for the CIA but were nonetheless killed in the attack amounted to no more than "collateral damage." If the U.S. public is prepared to accept these "standards" when the are routinely applied to other people, they should be not be surprised when the same standards are applied to them.

* It should be emphasized that I applied the "little Eichmanns" characterization only to those described as "technicians." Thus, it was obviously not directed to the children, janitors, food service workers, firemen and random passers-by killed in the 9-1-1 attack. According to Pentagon logic, were simply part of the collateral damage. Ugly? Yes. Hurtful? Yes. And that's my point. It's no less ugly, painful or dehumanizing a description when applied to Iraqis, Palestinians, or anyone else. If we ourselves do not want to be treated in this fashion, we must refuse to allow others to be similarly devalued and dehumanized in our name.

* The bottom line of my argument is that the best and perhaps only way to prevent 9-1-1-style attacks on the U.S. is for American citizens to compel their government to comply with the rule of law. The lesson of Nuremberg is that this is not only our right, but our obligation. To the extent we shirk this responsibility, we, like the "Good Germans" of the 1930s and '40s, are complicit in its actions and have no legitimate basis for complaint when we suffer the consequences. This, of course, includes me, personally, as well as my family, no less than anyone else.

* These points are clearly stated and documented in my book, On the Justice of Roosting Chickens, which recently won Honorary Mention for the Gustavus Myer Human Rights Award. for best writing on human rights. Some people will, of course, disagree with my analysis, but it presents questions that must be addressed in academic and public debate if we are to find a real solution to the violence that pervades today's world. The gross distortions of what I actually said can only be viewed as an attempt to distract the public from the real issues at hand and to further stifle freedom of speech and academic debate in this country.

Ward Churchill
Boulder, Colorado
January 31, 2005  

i found his statement here
 http://www.kersplebedeb.com/mystuff/s11/churchill.html

this is the offending line:
"If there was a better, more effective, or in fact any other way of visiting some penalty befitting their participation upon the little Eichmanns inhabiting the sterile sanctuary of the twin towers, I'd really be interested in hearing about it."

Obviously he thinks the 50,000 who worked in the towers deserved to be punished for being in an building that housed a CIA office, and that 9/11 was an appropriate punishment. I'm sure there were shitty crony capitalists in the WTC, but there were a lot of really wonderful human beings who died that day. Then again, our country's response was to kill wonderful human beings in Afghanistan for living in the same country as bin Laden.

When does it end?

I would like to point out that Churchill says there was no "better, more effective, or in fact any other way" to punish America than 9/11. I think that would indicate he is more than a defender of 9/11, but an endorser. I have no respect for him - if you're going to say something like that and then say you didn't say it not only are you a jackass, you're a weasel as well.

Ward Churchill must be profoundly backward as he has not even done basic reading.

On 9/11/01, as the Reichstag Fire unfolded, it was obvious that it was an inside job as we have an excellent air defense system over the entire nation, and certainly over New York City and the Pentagon, which could easily have stopped the first plane crash, must less all the rest, if they had obviously not be told to stand down, which clearly they were, and such orders can only come from the president, vice-president or secretary of defense.

By the end of 2001, we knew from many articles circulated widely on the Internet and many excellent websites carefully compiling the evidence, that this was the CIA's Operation Northwoods realized, a plan approved by the entire Joint Chiefs of Staff in 1962 to carry out agent provocateur actions, such as blowing up a US airplane and blaming the act on Cuba, so as to have an excuse to invade Cuba.

This 9/11/01 Hoax was the latest action on the part of the US Government to do the same thing to Americans that they have been doing to the rest of the world as the government, as representative of the capitalist class, has total contempt for all of us. All they care about are their profits.

Now, with Michael Ruppert's book, Crossing the Rubicon, and David Ray Griffen's second excellent book on the subject: The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions, as well as many other books published on the subject, there is no doubt whatsoever that the US military, directed by VP Cheney from his White House bunker, perpetrated the 9/11/01 mass murder of 3,000 people so as to promote fascism at home and blood for oil wars abroad, the same reason as the Nazis burned down their own government building, the Reichstag.

There were no hijackers on those planes; 9 of the so-called hijackers are known to be alive. The planes were on automatic pilot guided by the US military. The Twin Towers and Building 7 were brought down by construction explosives, and the Pentagon was damaged by construction explosives. The plane that flew over Pennsylvania was shot down by the US military.

We have the evidence; we are simply awaiting the legal indictment. The court of public opinion around the world has already read the books and websites and we know Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice, as well as various other government officials, are guilty of perpetrating the mass murder of 9/11/01.

Ward Churchill should be told to either read these books and retract his stupid, idiotic, reactionary statements or resign from his teaching position.

I have read all of the Ward Churchill statements, including the "bullet point" statement, and they are all completely stupid as none of them recognize that this Reichstag Fire was perpetrated by the US government against the American people. Basic logical thinking, much less all the evidence of this crime, mandates the obvious conclusion that it was an inside job. Ward Churchill is still of the same reactionary mentality that allowed him to murder the Vietnamese people, rather than refusing to do so by (1) not enlisting if he did enlist, (2) refusing to cooperate with the draft, (3) once in Vietnam, seeing that he was shooting Vietnamese women and children, he could have and should have turned in his gun and refused to fight. Thousands took all of these options and many went to jail. One way of resisting the draft if one was not in college,had no disability or was not gay (being gay was considered a psychiatric exemption) was to join a radical organization on the Attorney General's subversive list, thus getting the political exemption. All socialist organizations were on that list.

The United States government is certainly guilty of mass murder around the world, and in fact, allows mass murder annually right here with the annual deaths of 42,000 people in auto accidents, mostly preventable with decent, affordable mass transit. The automobile, and its related oil industry, are clearly more profitable and maximization of profit is the primary law of this society. It is the profit motive that was the motivation of the 9/11/01 Hoax.

IT IS ALSO MANDATORY that everyone reading this website read these two books and learn what all peaceniks around the world and most in the US know for sure: The 9/11/01 Mass Murder was an Inside Job!

Beagle, you need good professional help to deal with your schizophrenia.

My first reaction was similar to Beagle's, that Mr. Churchill was just one more person perpetuating the flimsy boogeyman story. However there are always different levels on which to examine ideas. And Americans acknowledging responsibility for spreading violence would be a positive step.

Churchill has incorrectly identified the methods used to carry out 9-11 but somehow comes around to a valid point. The monsters responsible for imagining that attack on civilians were created by American indifference. We have allowed the US Government to go around the globe slaughtering people for too long. After the fall of the Soviet Union the people started expecting some peace. It makes sense that the US Government, psychopathic after years of indulgence and corruption, would have to kill it's own people to keep war going. No one else could have pulled it off.

While it would be nice for Ward Churchill to use some evidence from Sept. 11th, his focus on peace and airing of dirty laundry could be helpful for those still unable to look beyond the US Government's 9-11 cover story. After all peace is most important. Just like talking to a pro-peace Bush supporter, engaging pro-coverup peace activists must be done on their level.

Regardless of how he arrives there, Churchill seems to be saying that the history of the US Gov should be acknowledged. I wholeheartedly agree, let's have that discussion.

actually,

beagle is totally wrong. i always find it funny when 9/11 conspiracy theorists wander into nyc, because here no one belives them and everyone knows they're full of shit. because, among other things, people here actually saw the towers get hit by planes.

Churchill's politics are terrible. He tries to defend what he wrote but it's clear the intention when he wrote them. But he should not be fired over them.

One of my best friend's father was a fireman posted there who I have known for many years.

Conspiracy theories are for the weak-minded. Everything fits, makes sense -- confirms your pre-existing worldview. How convenient!

According to the wacko-conspiracy nuts: only Bush (and his puppet masters who are alternatetely Masons, "Jews," Halliburton, "neocons," Arab petrodollars, et al) could have attacked the US. The fact that an Islamicist army was developed from many countries in Afghanistan and that this army has turned against the US -- that's all just hocus-pocus! It's really just Bush!

What's this based on? Nothing. Speculation, insinuation and banking off the ignorance of Americans about their history in other countries.

The same conspiracy theories who deny planes flew into the WTC (that I SAW WITH MY OWN EYES) also deny AIDS exists, think floridation is a mind-control plot and generally believe that everything can be explained by placing blame on the same small group for everything in the world.

he has every right to say what he said, and when considered within the context of u.s. genocide against indigenous peoples, africans, and tens of millions since then around the world, i think he's right on. "cia office" and "crony capitalists" aside, and of course i'm not talking about the busboys in windows on the world or the low-level secretaries or janitors, but shit... if you think i'm gonna cry for some 6-figure earning, suv-driving suburbanite who by their very day-to-day job contributes to human suffering, fuck that!

churchill said what a lot of people were and still are afraid to say. let's be real about who the "innocent" people on "9/11" were.

I have encountered professors with pretty obnoxious right wing attitudes at colleges too, in business classes and so forth.

The thing is, just compare these few offensive sentences from Ward Churchill's essay against his entire body of work, where he pretty much lets primary documents speak for themselves that he obtained via Freedom of Information Act relating to the FBI's underreported campaign against Martin Luther King, and other areas of history. In most of his books, you can ignore his voice and focus, for instance, on the horrible injustice of indian residential schools, which most americans are barely aware of.

Then, compare his few offensive sentences against people like Ann Coulter or David Horowitz and many other conservatives who, objectively, express far worse thoughts. Ann Coulter has two top selling conservative books, and she and her cohort actually *do* call for mass killing and war in the muslim world. Coulter calls for forcibly converting people to christianity.

Remember, these people are about to set something off in Iran too. I bet in a few years, many more people will recognize the validity of the content behind Churchill's essay, however stupidly he chose to express it.

Most countries outside of the U.S. are in a pretty bad situation right now, and that's not going away soon.

People are angry because he is correct. Americans love to sit around dropping bombs on innocent people and think this it is honorable. When poor people do suicide or car bombings, this is considered cowardly. America is a country of bureaucrats. If you aren't actively protesting your tax dollars being used to kill children, you are helping to kill those children. But maybe you are someone who doesn't feel anything for them because they aren't nice and white? I'm also sick of "the families" who don't want to hear anything except what heroes the deceased were supposed to be. They got their million dollar payoff, and really, they've had their time to drown out our voices with their crying. Its time to move on and not let the national discourse be manipulated by rightwingers under guise of an indefinite mourning period.

Coincidence theories are for the weak-minded. Everything fits, makes sense -- confirms your pre-existing worldview. How convenient! How socially approved!

"broadcast networks ... showing high tech CGI of planes crashing into buildings."

Many people captured the second plane on cheap consumer camcorders, not to mention broadcast quality TV cameras - no CGI that time. Hey, there doesn't need to be high-tech conspirancies at the government for something like this to happen.

Would it have made a difference if the towers hadn't fallen? I don't think so. It would still be "9/11", with four planes crashed and the Pentagon hit. Whoever planned it probably just got "lucky" that the towers friggin' collapsed.

FWIW, I watched the towers from the roof of my employer's building, four blocks away - fire on the second tower was not very far down from the crash site, although it was spread from wall to wall - my photos show it at all windows. If one floor collapsed into the next, would the cumulative energy of succeedingly heavier objects crashing into lower floors not precipitate a collapse? There are many opinions on this, and brighter minds, but I think it's possible.

Finally, it doesn' matter whether the U.S. government did or didn't directly cause this to happen. It did, and they took advantage of it in a big way. Because of the magnitude of the attack, they have a certain right to do certain things.

I don't believe that invading Iraq is one of those things, nor even Afghanistan. We should've invaded Saudi Arabia, where most of the hijackers were from, in the first place. Or at least investigated the Saud's involvement, financial or otherwise.

There is one thing that is not mentioned on this thread, but is also mentioned in the Hamilton College Student Newspaper which is linked to from here, that Hamilton college offered a position to Susan Rosenberg, the convicted domestic terrorist, who Clinton pardoned. I never was able to see the Weather Underground documentary, but I was wondering if Clinton ever gave a reason for his pardon?

Did he have to? You don't seem to be picking a fight, and I'm not either - it just seems that presidents don't much care how they use that kingly power. Bush I didn't, Ford didn't, Clinton didn't, etc.

Chomsky had a good interview posted on znet yesterday where he adressed the conspiracy theorizing, His point is basically, why waste time trying to prove the government did terrible things covertly, when they're doing so many terrible things OVERTLY?




E-mail question: What do you make of the various conspiracies that have flourished online since the terror attacks?



CHOMSKY: On the conspiracy theories about 9/11, I'll comment, but reluctantly. There are far more important things to be concerned about, and these things can become an awful waste of time.

As for the theories, I don't think they can be taken very seriously. I think they are based on a misunderstanding of the nature of evidence, and also failure to think through the issues clearly. I really am rushed, so I hope you won't mind if I just paste in [see below] one of the 100s of letters I've written about this, in response to a deluge of queries: it really is an industry. I should say, however, that I never become publicly involved in these matters, if I can help it.



I might perhaps add that all of this reminds me of a 1998 DOD report on declassification decisions. Among other things, it suggested that information about the JFK assassination should be released now and then as a "diversion," as "distraction material," which could keep people busy on wild goose chases so they wouldn't investigate the serious questions. A smart decision on the part of US intelligence. You can find the details in an excellent book by British political scientist Richard Aldrich, The Hidden Hand (p. 7), the best study by far of British intelligence (with a lot about US intelligence too, for one reason, because the British were of course spying on the Americans, just as conversely).



[Comment pasted in by Noam Chomsky from an e-mail response to a query:]



There's by now a small industry on the thesis that the administration had something to do with 9-11. I've looked at some of it, and have often been asked. There's a weak thesis that is possible though extremely unlikely in my opinion, and a strong thesis that is close to inconceivable. The weak thesis is that they knew about it and didn't try to stop it. The strong thesis is that they were actually involved. The evidence for either thesis is, in my opinion, based on a failure to understand properly what evidence is. Even in controlled scientific experiments one finds all sorts of unexplained phenomena, strange coincidences, loose ends, apparent contradictions, etc. Read the letters in technical science journals and you'll find plenty of samples. In real world situations, chaos is overwhelming, and these will mount to the sky. That aside, they'd have had to be quite mad to try anything like that. It would have had to involve a large number of people, something would be very likely to leak, pretty quickly, they'd all be lined up before firing squads and the Republican Party would be dead forever. That would have happened whether the plan succeeded or not, and success was at best a long shot; it would have been extremely hard to predict what would happen.

One part of the standard story is that they exploited the tragedy for their own purposes, which is certainly true, and was completely predictable; I pointed out in my first interviews a few hours later that every power system in the world would do that, including Washington, as they all did -- one of the easiest predictions. So that shows nothing.

The point IS Free Speech, isn't it?

An anti-war academic and Native American activist is having his life ruined for expressing an opinion publicly that many of us have thought privately- had he made blatantly racist comments against Muslims or Homosexuals I'm sure he would NOT be going through the hell he's going through now.

I'm appalled that so called activists would join in the attack against him and fall into Rush Limbaugh's trap. If you don't like what he wrote, that's fine- that what debate is for. I'm sure Churchill would be the first person to defend your right to tell him to go fuck himself.

Destroying his career and his reputation is a different story. This isn't just about Ward Churchill- he's not the first activist professor the be attacked and he certainly will not be the last. He needs our support whether he ticks you off or not.

I don't agree entirely with what he wrote, or how he wrote it (mind you- this essay was published YEARS ago) but he has an view point that's worth chewing on...I sure as hell hope its not silenced.

= Ostracization and Dismissal

"The point IS Free Speech, isn't it?"

Maybe... but what's your point? Ward Churchill said something, and now people are criticizing him for it. Should people be able to say whatever they want, and be immune to criticism? The people criticizing him have freedom of speech, too. If someone says something I don't like or disagree with, I'm going to stand up and say something.

Ward Churchill exercised his freedom of speech, and now a lot of people are exercising their freedom of speech right back at him. Boo, hoo. He should be more careful about how he phrases his diatribes in the future. Comparing office workers to Nazis - how CLEVER! After all, no one on the left ever compares people to Nazis, or calls someone they don't like "Hitler". What a superlative, innovative debating technique!

"If you aren't actively protesting your tax dollars being used to kill children, you are helping to kill those children"

aside from Churchills's dismissal, which seems typical institutional knee-jerk stuff (i.e. when a prof does something which sparks controversy in the public eye -- that is goes beyond merely academic circles and his name and the institutions is rolled around in the annals of journalism with some taint of a "problem") they drop him like a hot potato. It is furthermore no coincidence that this often happens to people of color (Cornel West for different reasons... but...essentially having to do with a pop culture level wherein the academic WASP (proper white boy) patriarchy-System is not being tip-toed around as a matter of 'ethics', but is rather being 'insulted' by the upstart actions of one of the chosen few welcomed in type of thing..)

Aside from that circus, what about this either-or critique of Churchill's in this case?

Does America have it coming?

Are *ALL* people living in the USA either assholes or mad-active fighting-to-the-death to overthrow the system.

Seriously. It is hot rhetoric, but is it accurate or even useful as analysis, critique, etc. THAT IS, as an underpinning of belief and ideological framework.

Again, are ALL people living in the USA. And if not ALL people then who makes the breakdowns. Do we set up a point system?

If you are black you are 1 point less guilty (and hence you also don't have to fight as hard agains the system by this logic, right?)

If you are black and a women you get 2 points less.

If you are white but were raised in poverty you get 1 point.

If you are... etc etc..

_____

This blame-OR-get-revolution-in-exactly-the-way-I-want-you-to either-or rhetoric is a mad sweep across a far more heterogenous multi-leveled 'landscape' of politics and actual positions of power that people experience living in the actual structure of the United States, in neighborhoods, states, cities, etc. etc.

______

Whatever happened to analysis which has to do with misinformation, how people are blinded, how people are seduced/lulled into dys-awareness from the media/humanism as used by the state, etc. etc.

???

If we go down the road of this either-or shyte we start taking believing that ALL people are imperialist swine unless "THEY" are like "US" -- the us being the chosen, righteous few who know what it is really, really all about and are fighting to make a difference.

DIdn't the Weathermen go down this type of road, with their dumb white vs. people of color analysis and approaches.

If you want to go underground, with all the sexy glamour that goes with, you can rile yourself up with this either-or rhetoric, and look down your nose at all the "assholes" who are allowing imperialism -- no endorsing it.

But what you forget is that it takes education to free people's minds. MANY MANY TIMES.

The Black Panthers knew this.

Are we all guilty of Panther leadership death?

Are we?!!



It sounds a hell of a lot like original sin guilt.

read what he wrote and address that

people throw aorund the word "nazis"

and he didnt backpedal but clarified and asserted even more, pretty courageous I thought, since the usual script is to apologize and try to move on like that...

what does it mean?

"the technocrats of empire"?
that is the key phrase
maybe folks not pulling a trigger
but the whole system facilitating thst moment
and if you pay taxes
know how much of your money goesto the pentagon etc etc, your money paying for the war machin DIRECTLY

this is not absolving me or accusing you
this is information that shouldntt be lost

and USA is still stealing land from indigenous people right now in this very country, let alone the rest of the world

"the whole system facilitating that moment"

this is where it gets dicey. is there a 'whole' system, or rather multiple systems, powers, struggles, etc. Is there really a 'whole' 'way of life' and that sort of thing. Can we really mush everyone into a one way street?

yes, it is no surprise that wall street was attacked. and we can can even go so far as to say that the technocrats of empire have a more or less direct hand in oppression, without hesitation.

BUT.. even there, even among those who work in financial companies in wall street, there are codes, regulations, rules etc. which go beyond individual agency. Which are the conditions of flourishing and surviving, etc in the firm. Ethics and expectations, etc.

Corporate Power, structurally, works in ways which alienate people from a tangible awareness of a cause-and-effect ethic, beyond the ethic to the firm, to the production of profit, to own's own family or 'interests', etc. Not to mention how the media works to valorize the 'freedom' and pleasures of Empire, isolated and outside of any cause-and-effect negative effects.

I am not apologizing for technocrats of empire. Nor, am I saying that technocrats of empire are not aware of what they are doing. I think many are.

And I also think that many really are not. That this dis-awareness is constantly crafted and re-instituted in the very structure of the organization.

The organization itself is the agency. Much more then the individual in it. Which is not to say that people can't resist or that ruptures, fissures etc. don't happen. They do.

Are we not all technocrats of empire, in some real sense, by merely living in the modern day Rome, and by in some sense forging a paycheck or even living off other's monies. Don't we all learn to develop 'technologies' of survival and sustenance, or else we die in these modern cities, towns, countries, neighborhoods, etc. And doesn't that almost always mean some kind of working with the institutions demands, requirements, ethics, codes, etc.

Which is why education in the widest sense is critical. People can resist, and forge new possibilities only when they are aware of a counter-hegemonic body of knowledge that they can learn from and develop, and that means something in their own lives.

Right now, I am asking whether the type of blaming which involves largely pointing the finger at a class or body of people or even a whole country's population! moves us towards actually critically understanding and then strategically fighting how the system works to bring about devestation and colonization of 'others', lands, resources, etc.

It shouldn't be forgotten that technocrats and the corporate order are in effect destroyers of worlds.

so, now what? scream at them?!

"It should be obvious that if a 9-11 style attack was carried out by a domestic group that the outcome would be martial law. "

Uh duh, people, do you guys forget oklahoma city bombing already?

That was the worst terrorist attack on America pre-9/11 and it was carried out by a domestic group.

So what would happen is not theoretical since it already happened.

I don't take offence at this prof.'s statements. It is more unhealthy to squash discourse on a campus than it is to ask uncomfortable questions. Yes, the events of 9-11 were spawned from this administration. The proof is in the video of building 7. And also in Jr.s actions on the day of. Does no one remember the air crash (by 'suicide') the year before by an Egyptian airline in L.I. Sound? Do you think midtown remained ungarded after THAT??
As for the business that went n inside the towers ... there was a prior attack. It was an announced target by many for obvious reasons. It wan't just the CIA... it was the entire global network of 'trade' that oppresses people worldwide. I doubt 'trade' victems were behind the attacks... but I we have no shame in blowing up hotels, embassies and as many innocent people as we want to. They all suffer just as much as we suffer. A million Iraqis fatally contaminated with DU won't sate us. We are a force of death on the globe.

read it here:

 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/02/309823.shtml

The Genocide of Dissenting 'Indians' Continues...

From the Declaration of Independence:
...governments are instituted among people, deriving their just powers from the consent
of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these
ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it and to institute new
government...

The recent character assassination of Native 'American' University of Colorado
professor Ward Churchill elucidates just how much people in this country are in denial
of their true history.

Churchill, who teaches ethnic studies, was invited to speak at Hamilton College in
Clinton, NY. The panel discussion was to be entitled "Limits of Dissent". The fact that
we should even have to be discussing limits on dissent in this country says a lot about
where we, in the land of free speech, are heading.

The talk has been scrubbed. Why? The school said it was because of "credible threats
of violence" (maybe war should be scrubbed for the same reason). Most likely it was
because people don't want hear the things that we as a people have to know, no
matter how much they may bump us out of our comfort zones. The things we don't
discuss gave rise to the day that that comfortable bubble burst, Sept. 11, 2001.

Shortly after that horrible day, Churchill wrote an essay entitled: "Some People Push
Back: On the Justice of Roosting Chickens". At the time, not much was said about it,
and it didn't make the mainstream newswires. There were too many ugly truths about
US foreign policy in it for most American people to handle in one pop.

Being a native of Turtle Island (now disrespectfully renamed to North America,
assuredly not with the consent of the natives), Churchill has studied the genocide of
his ancestors, and he knows the horrors all too well. He also knows that this 'manifest
destiny' did not stop at the Pacific Ocean. The Hawaiian Islands come to mind first,
let's work to see that Iraq will be the last.

He made a case in his post 9-11 essay that what happened was 'blowback'. And that
some of the people killed were not so innocent. The target, the WTC, was
described as "America's global financial empire – the mighty engine of profit" (over
people, I might add). And in the rubble was the bodies of those who the day before
were "arranging power lunches and stock transactions," out of mind and out of sight of
the "rotting flesh of infants".

His reference to the infants was from the information freely available to all of us. In
1996, when Leslie Stahl on 60 Minutes asked the then secretary of state Madeline
Albright if the price of 500,000 dead Iraqi children as a direct result of the sanctions
was worth it, she callously replied, "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price, we
think the price is worth it." So who exactly is 'we'? 'We' are not so innocent if 'we' do
not put an end to atrocities our government commits. Like the words from the
declaration of independence, it is our right, and it should be our duty.

What's not very clear is why the establishment pundits on TV have waited until now to
attack Churchill's four year old essay. It was OK for him to speak at the Local To
Global Justice Conference at Arizona State University at Tempe in February, 2004. A
clue may be found in the words his trembling voice offered up as he fought back the
tsunami of supressed tears manifested by 513 years of oppression and genocide:

"Justice begins locally...a delivery of justice on a first priority basis to the first
'Americans'. The internal decolonization of native North America...will not however be
done by vote. It will not however be done by petition. It will not be done by rallies. It will
not be done by marches. It will not be done by anything that could lead to a liberal
reshaping of the system in order to maintain the sanctity of the status quo. It will have
to be done, every inch along the way, in the fashion of struggle, kicking and
screaming, knowing that the state will apply the means of power to maintain itself that
it has readily in hand, and that is not a non-violent process."

Frank Gubasta
Pahayokee (Fort Myers, FL)

the interesting aspect of Churchill's predicament is how his "little Eichmanns" comment about some WTC victims can be properly construed as a anticipatory characterization of the Colorado University Board of Regents

the Nazis scrutinized books, paintings, films and writings by people, Jews, gays, lesbians and leftists for any sign of what the Reich considered deviant thought

which is exactly what the CU Board of Regents is doing to Ward Churchill, they would have felt right at home in the Nazi legal system, conducting investigations and developing justifications for why someone like him ought to be purged and/or arrested

for an interesting artistic presentation of this phenomenom, and the pseudo-scientific justifications behind it, see the recent post-minimalist opera, "Finding Goya", by Nyman and Hardie

one wonders how Churchill would have scored through the application of the Lomborosian examination of his physical appearance as emphasized in the first half of the work

would he have been considered a burglar like Goya, resulting in the burning of his paintings by the Nazis?

and, the comparison becomes even more compelling when you contrast the treatment of Churchill with the laxity with which the CU Board has treated the athletic department in regard to a scandal in which sex has been used to recruit football players, and several alleged instances of sexual assault, with one complainant discouraged from going to the police by the football coach, Gary Barnett

of course, the Nazis revered the perfect body image, and the idea of national identity and achievement through sporting competition, so they would have been equally understanding of the special needs of the athletic department, so, again, the "little Eichmanns" comment is an apt description of the Board and it members

repost from:
 http://prorev.com/2005/02/stupid-college-administrator-tricks.htm#comments

And in a surprising twist, David wHorowitz is defending Churchill's right to free speech. I guess hatemongers like wHorowitz and Coulter rely on the same right to free speech.

 http://edition.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/02/08/speaker.protest.ap/index.html

O' Reilly is a loofah-scrubbing chicken weasel who is so desperate for ratings that he goes after people who dare tell the truth. May tenure prevail.

The occupation continues:

 http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_6165.shtml

Someone is comparing the Churchill controversy
to that with Larry Summers.
Takers...?

You may find it interesting to check out the sites about roulette roulette  http://www.casino7-online.com/roulette.html ...