College Prof says 9/11 victims not innocent

Ward Churchill says 9/11 victims were not innocent people

By John C. Ensslin
Rocky Mountain News
January 27, 2005

A University of Colorado professor has sparked controversy in New York over an essay he wrote that maintains that people killed in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks were not innocent victims.

Students and faculty members at Hamilton College in Clinton, N.Y., have been protesting a speaking appearance on Feb. 3 by Ward L. Churchill, chairman of the CU Ethnic Studies Department.

They are upset over an essay Churchill wrote titled, "Some People Push Back: On the Justice of Roosting Chickens."

The essay takes its title from a remark that black activist Malcolm X made in the wake of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.

Malcolm X created controversy when he said Kennedy's murder was a case of "chickens coming home to roost."

Churchill's essay argues that the Sept. 11 attacks were in retaliation for the Iraqi children killed in a 1991 U.S. bombing raid and by economic sanctions imposed on Iraq by the United Nations following the Persian Gulf War.

The essay contends the hijackers who crashed airplanes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on Sept. 11 were "combat teams," not terrorists.

It states: "The most that can honestly be said of those involved on Sept. 11 is that they finally responded in kind to some of what this country has dispensed to their people as a matter of course."

The essay maintains that the people killed inside the Pentagon were "military targets."

"As for those in the World Trade Center," the essay said, "well, really, let's get a grip here, shall we? True enough, they were civilians of a sort. But innocent? Gimme a break."

full article
****************************************************
I have read some really stuuuuuuuuuuupid things in my day,
but this really takes the cake. This freak-wad says that the
people in the WTC were civilians 'of a sort' and then he says
they were not innocent and to 'give him a break'. Yeah ...
I'd like to 'give him a break' ....

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'??

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.

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

This guy is insane. He an author for Jihadunspun.com? Actually, he says 9/11 was an Iraqi military action. That would work in Dubyas favor.

No one cares about this goon. If he still has a job I think he should be fired. If he gets another job, I think he should be kept below the glass ceiling.

I can respect someone for disagreeing with the common opinion.

You may or may not say that America's policies have caused people to hate us. That's up to you to decide. I don't think so, but we all have our own opinions. Criticizing the government is one thing...

But please explain to me how it's alright to murder civilians who did nothing other than show up to work that day.

These were business folks. Investment people, law firm people whatever. Workers. Not soldiers, not spies, not combatants. They were regular people who made a living in that building.

How dare this guy say in his mocking tone that they were not innocent and perhaps somehow deserving of the horrible death they died.

I don't understand for the life of me how people like this become "educators".

[edit on 1-27-2005 by Djarums]

This so called "professor" is another liberal leftist "nazi" who enjoys taking apart in "character assassinations" and conspiring with "communists" and "terrorists". This guy needs to be hung by piano wire from a meat hook for treason against America and trying to destroy America from within.

Wow hung by piano wire from a meat hook for treason?
I am glad to hear the first ammendment means nothing to you. I'd rather hear way out there opinions from socialist apologists than risk being hung for treason because I slipped up and said something I shouldn't have.

Originally posted by FlyersFan
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.

The children in iraq where not killed by the UN but instead by the same goddammed family that is friends with usama and terrorists around the world!
God damm us ! Damm us to hell for our crimes and the criminals we created to save our own worthless asses! Its the children and teenagers like me that will pay!

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.

Who is this dude anyway? Just another legend in his own mind. A higher educated whatever who has had his fifteen minutes in the limelight.

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

Does it bother you that someone goes out and makes a living to support his/her own family? Their choice of career makes them a financial instrument of the state and thereby deserving of an attack? By your logic, every postman, police officer, fireman, state/federal accountant, wall street employee, sanitation worker etc would be deserving of any attack on the state.

I fail to see the point of the statement. What you have said does not change the fact that the people killed in the WTC were civilians, who's only action was coming to work that day.

Interesting to see people cry when a wayward bomb tragically kills an Iraqi citizen, but show no compassion for 3,000 citizens who died from an intentionally placed attack. I guess it all depends who is responsible doesn't it. When it's America it's so much more fun to throw blame around.

I like to think that civilized compassionate people would feel bad for any uninvolved innocent person trying to make a life for himself that got killed as a result of these conflicts. And I'm right about that, a civilized compassionate person would.

[edit on 1-27-2005 by Djarums]

Come on guys, it's his first amendment right to say what he thinks and besides with all the secrecy and stonewalling the Bush-Cheney whitehouse did with 9/11 we'll never know the full story we just haven't (the public) got the evidence to disprove his claim IMO.

thanks,
drfunk

OH how i wish it were the old western days when justice would serve it to the right people...............

Originally posted by Djarums

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

I fail to see the point of the statement.

What you fail to see is that I asked a question, I did not make a statement.

The question was to focus the attention on "innocence" in a broad sense and not on victims or the utterer of the supposedly controversial utterings.

A little further... and not to the denigration of the loss that many families suffered... there were certain individuals who did not arrive at work at the WTC buildings that day, on notice. And there were certain individuals warned to get out. And certain others warned not to fly the week of 9/11, by the newly appointed Secretary of State.

Who is innocent and who is not?

First of all, I 'd like to say I do not side with what this guy is saying, I abhor the killin gof innocents like many of you, even the innocents of our enemies.
But I am going to have to say that the basic idea he is trying to relay is true enough, I will try to put it into a different context for you all and maybe you will agree also, maybe you will not, remember it is all only opinion and not fact.

First of all, I agree wholeheartedly that the targets within the pentagon are military in nature and therefore justified in the context of a war, if indeed these jihadists and militants were soldiers of a sort and their intent was to carry out a military action. Then I would have to say if this is true then a target containing officers and soldiers of the highest levels in your enemies army is and must be a valid target.

Second as to his comments of the people in the WTC buildings being 'hardly' innocent. This is where it gets tricky and I didn't read his article, but I would have to say that reading that comment made me think waht exactly he meant by that. Now perhaps you know or don't know the WTO is a massive organization that is designed to enable the richer countries to reap the benefits of the poor, maybe you believe this or don't, maybe you think this to be a right of the wealthier countries, a survival of the fittest type argument, maybe like me you don't, but regardless, the WTO does basically personify everything that is western capitalism, and American hegemony. Taking that into context maybe we can then look at the WTC buildings as being the pride and symbol of that organization and the fortune 500 companies it incapsulates. They would be a perfect target for a country that feel they are being raped by these companies and the unfair trade practices allowed by the WTO. Now let's look at this another way, would you consider people who worked as clerks nad secretaries for the nazis, or other dictators, the ones that wrote the reports, delivered the orders to kill, the ones that passively and willingly cooperated with all the evil as innocents? People go to work everyday as innocents yes, but what are they working at? What does their company do? Think about these things and then you will perhaps grasp what this professor was trying to talk about.

Now remember this is only an opinion of his and only what I think to be his reasoning, not what I personaly think is right. So who agrees with this reasoning or will you still just write him off as being insane?

911 was an atrocity, no question. I believe loss of innocent life is NEVER acceptable, wether in the USA or in Iraq.

The part about the "Roosting Chickens" though is right. USA has done so much evil on this planet, some form of retaliation was inevitable. As no one on this planet has the power to attack the US conventionally, they did what they could. Dirty but effective.

On the part of innocence; since poverty is responsible for millions of children dying every year, and the Twin towers were the center of "the world economy responsible for this", some people would look at them as legitimate targets. Civilians? Collateral damage... Also, in the eyes of many people; anyone that is part of a system responsible for electing (and re-electing) Bush is a target.

I´m sorry for the people who became innocent victims, but this is the harsh reality.


[edit: jawapunk, you got your post in while I was typing mine, and you explained the innocense part better than me.]

[edit on 27/1/05 by gekko]

What does their company do? Think about these things and then you will perhaps grasp what this professor was trying to talk about.

I suppose by his logic then the only people who should be considered innocent and not deserving of such attacks would be he and his fellow "academics"?

Jawa, I appreciate your analysis of the subject. I must disagree from a personal standpoint in the sense that I think only a twisted person would feel that way.

I am American and I live in a Capitalist society. I do not agree with everything my government does, I obey its laws and consider myself a good citizen.

Somewhere in another country is a guy just my age living under a very different type of system. He is also a law abiding citizen, doesn't always agree in his heart with his government, and he lives under their laws.

Are we each tools of our government? Am I a capitalist pawn and he is a socialist, or communist or whatever pawn? Don't we believe in individuality anymore?

I see it as each of those 3,000 people was a life with a family that was murdered with no cause, no reason, and no justification. We may come from different backgrounds, but your dislike for America and it's economy and policies does not allow you the justification to end lives and claim them to be political in nature.

The bottom line is this was murder of innocents. The "professor" has the right to say whatever he wants, due to the fact that in this country we don't behead, flog, and disembowel dissenters. That does not make it right.

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.

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar
What you fail to see is that I asked a question, I did not make a statement.

The question was to focus the attention on "innocence" in a broad sense and not on victims or the utterer of the supposedly controversial utterings.

A little further... and not to the denigration of the loss that many families suffered... there were certain individuals who did not arrive at work at the WTC buildings that day, on notice. And there were certain individuals warned to get out. And certain others warned not to fly the week of 9/11, by the newly appointed Secretary of State.

Who is innocent and who is not?

The people who died in the WTC were people who were going to work for the same reason everyone else went to work, which I will assume I don't need to explain. That they had the bad luck of landing a job at the WTC is not their fault.

As for your little spiel about a conspiracy (can't anyone just discuss the issue without brining in these tangents?), unless you believe that all (or even a vast majority) of the 3,000 people who died, including several hundred foreigners, had received warnings and just ignored them...

You know what, it's not even worth it to try to explain things to you. The fact that you didn't think this through yourself, and attempted to hide it with big words and pseudointellectual ramblings tells me you don't actually care, you're just looking for a reaction.

Originally posted by Esoterica
You know what, it's not even worth it to try to explain things to you.

Thank you for not "explaining" things to me, please keep to that policy, it's good.

React away.

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar
Thank you for not "explaining" things to me, please keep to that policy, it's good.

Since you didn't actually reply to the part of my post that was actually insightful, concession accepted.

React away.

Al + O2 --> Al2O3?