Assuming this is true, I have a question. Since when do students get to be selective in the questions they are asked on an exam?

Granted, a fairer question might have been is either/both George W. Bush or Saddam Hussein a War Criminal?

I have doubts about stuff that comes in the mail from sources like David Horowitz.

First of all, no one is contrasting Churchill's words with Falwell's. Why do you assume that if someone thinks what Churchill said was terrible, that someone doesn't also think what Falwell said was terrible? I certainly do.

Second, if we were to compare the statements...

Falwell's occurred a few days after 9-11. Clearly this is not a current newsworthy event. Also, Falwell pointed his finger (wrongly IMO) at groups of people who did not follow the teachings of his religion claiming their sins brought this horrific act upon us. Churchill, by contrast, does not think the act was horrific at all. Furthermore, he points his finger AT THE ACTUAL VICTIMS OF THE ATTACK, claiming they deserved to die. Clearly, this is going further than Falwell's statement, although I believe both were terrible things to say.

The crux of this that nobody seems to be able to discuss is "What is Churchill's point" I've seen accusations of his "false Indianhood", lots of patriotic support, and Ol Sarge's more pragmatic approach. I noticed the GOPUSA articles, but...what would you expect from them? I watch Horowitz speech to the Campus Republicans on C-SPAN, and was unimpressed. If collegiate academia is over balanced with liberals, I couldn't tell it in my college experience. I can tell yo uclearly that elementary and secondary are clearly not "liberal" in their approach. None of that addresses the real point that I see in Churchill's stances.

American actions have given many, many peoples across the globe a reason to want to attack, harm and destroy us. We should not be so shocked when it occurs. We would be well served to pay attention to it. We cannot fight an ongoing multiple front war, indefinately. I don't care how much confidence I have in our military prowess, Rome couldn't do it, Great Britian couldn't do it, Napolean couldn't do it, the USSR couldn't and neither can we. All of them eventually fell, as Empires. So will we, unless WE do something very different soon.

We have an opportunity to evaluate things here, and perhaps change the course of our future. America has the potential to truly be a leader in the world as a moral state. We have the infrastructure, the democratic capability, the humanitarian intellect to be that "beacon of freedom" that we would like to consider ourselves. .

Unfortunately, it seems to me that the most of the "people" are so innundated with propaganda that most are numb to it, and don't care. It's hard work to pay attention. I think Churchill's point is really that if we continue on the path that we are presently on, we can expect more attacks, and they will be as horrific as we can imagine. It is clearly true that our military actions have left many times more dead innocents than attacks against us. I love America. I love what I thought it stood for, but the more I learn about the realities of our ACTIONS, the more I realize that we have gone astray, and are headed to the path of collapse.

I would love to be wrong about that...but I am afraid that it's coming in my lifetime. I'm comitted to doing everything I can do to make a difference. Our government is not acting in my name.

Not according to Ward. According to him, the 'ghosts of Iraqi children', butchered Palestinian cousins, Indochinese who perished between (1959-1975), Korean civilians from the early 50s, Japanese from WWII, Filippinos, Navajo Indians and Cherokee, and of course, the small pox we spread at Fort Clark in 1836 has all led to our eventual comeuppance. Since we can't undo the small pox incident or others to quote Ward, "No matter what its eventual fate, America will have gotten off very, very cheap." So, no, his message is not to learn from the past and change it. It is that we all deserve to die (I guess foreigners and first generation Americans are culpable, too, for having the audacity live here).

1.) Does Ward Churchill owe anyone an apology for his statements?
Well, let's examine just a bit of what he said:

There really is no going back after that. What is the point of an apology?

2.) Should his job as an Ethnics Professor at the University of Colorado be at risk? If he lied on his job application, yes.

3.) What have you seen or heard about it through the mainstream media? Is there a media bias in the coverage of this story? I don't watch the news. I hope this isn't getting much attention. Ward should be ignored.

The mainstream media covers this as a one day story or possibly a little more. People like Joe Scaborough hammer it into the ground and then accuse the maninstream outlets of being biased. I would suggest that, as is often the case, Scarborough and his like, are manufacturing news. Scarborough was on this again tonight. He does journalism a disservice and MSNBC should fire him.

1.) Does Ward Churchill owe anyone an apology for his statements.

No I don't think so. I mean does a pilot who drops a bomb owe every innocent person killed an apology?? Well, Ward Churchill only lobbied words so he owes quite a bit less.

2.) Should his job as an Ethnics Professor at the University of Colorado be at risk?

Should it be, no. But is it realistic to think, after the conservative media jumps the guy, that it wouldn't be. I mean look at what people are saying here. I don't think he should get fired because his beliefs, but hey he should be fired cause he may not be an Indian (wink, wink) Oh yeah he lied on his resume...(wink, wink) The funny, sad, but funny thing is some of you will really believe that that is TRULY the reason he got fired. It wasn't cause we punish free speech in this country... no it's because he not 1/16 indian or whatever he needs to be

3.) What have you seen or heard about it through the mainstream media? Is there a media bias in the coverage of this story?

Uhhhh, yep, but the media has no choice. Our media needs money, being objective might seem like... condoning. And not many mainstream media organizations want that.


4.) Does Churchill have a valid point with his writings, and positions?

Yes, but does that mean everything he says is dead on?? No. I mean let's face it some of us could talk to we were blue in the face and others are just incapable of seeing their beloved nation in a negative light(unless it gives to the poor). Such is the price of nationalism and patriotism.

Take Hayleanne


Do we not calculate that civilians will die by our actions?? Is it not why we have dubbed the term "Casualties of War" or "collateral damage". You posit that it is not our intent, yet, it is not an accident. In fact, it is a calculated, and acceptable necessity. Sanctions also will kill. It is know it will kill. It's purpose is to make life miserable for the populace in order to make it easier to show them a "better" life.
Lets talk about their primary point is to kill civilians?? If this is so why the targets of choice?? The World Trade Center... The Pentagon... The (believed) Capitol building or white house. Do you not see the symbolism?? Our economic dominance = World Trade Center. Our military dominance = The pentagon. Our political dominance = Washington D.C. where the last plane was headed. If it was simply mass death of innocents, why not just hit a bunch of hospitals??

carlitoswhey


So before we invaded there was not this problem? After we toppled Saddam this problem occurs and we are just help fixing the mess we created. I'm not criticizing this, because certainly, fixing your own mess is the right thing to do... But do you have to seem so.... what's the word for exuberantly patting yourself on the back for fixing your own mess up. It like going into the artics killing thousands upon thousands of polar bears, then turning around and saying "Aren't I just the greatest, I saved these two bears so they won't go extinct"
But here is an even bigger thing you said in this post that made me so happy I almost.... had an accident You say:

Many of the "freedom" fighters weren't even Iraqis, so how could they be freedom fighters?

Good God say it again!!! So what are we doing over there?? I keep hearing that we are fighting for freedom too. I keep hearing the words "Fighting for a free Iraq" spewing from our Presidents lips. But how can we be fighting for freedom if, as you say, many of our "freedom" fighters aren't even Iraqis.

Hold up I just had an epiphany. Could it be?? Could... it... be?? This may sound strange, but what if everyone thinks they are dying and fighting for freedom?!?! How weird would that be?? We are all fighting for the same cause, but kill each other to do it.

Amlord

Here is what you say Churchill writes:



Here is what you say Bush writes



Wow!! seems pretty similar to me... Bush: what we say goes... Churchill: What we says goes... Context?? Bush: talking about people around the world... Churchill: talking about people around the world.

Does Ward Churchill owe anyone an apology for his statements.

As has been pointed out by other posters, his apology is irrelevant. UC owes these families an apology for giving this man a platform and actions to rectify that situation.


Should his job as an Ethnics Professor at the University of Colorado be at risk?

He most certainly should and will be terminated for professional incompetence, insubordination and conduct that falls below the standards of professional integrity.


CU Law of Regents; Article 5; Part D: Principles of Academic Freedom; Section 1; Clause (B) states:



In his essay, Prof. Churchill states:



Ward Churchill clearly asserts the 500,000 children under 12 have been killed by US bombs- "on the order of 25 percent" of that demographic. As if this simple statistical assertion was not enough, Prof. Churchill also states that this measure of casualties was "predictable – in fact, widely predicted." He has no "rational method by which truth is established" to back up this assertion. His mistake here was not one of political ideology but of factual truth - which, in my opinion, satisfies the requirement for professional incompetence.


Section 2; Clause (D) of the same statute states:



Prof. Churchill's essay was published with the following footnote:



Since Prof. Churchill did not "make every effort to indicate that they are not speaking for the institution" or "be accurate at all times" or "exercise appropriate restraint," the case can certainly be made for insubordination. Certainly some acts of insubordination can be handled by professional counseling (in the administrative and not medical sense) but for some acts the first bite is the last. In my opinion, this is a case for the latter.

Also on many occasions, including quite possible in his employment process, Prof. Churchill has claimed membership in the Keetoowah Band of the Cherokee tribe. For instance, his biography in the published essay states:



However, Prof. Churchill's membership honorarium was revoked, with Churchill's knowledge, by that tribal group. Continuing to assert membership status is dishonest and, in my opinion, falls well below standards of professional integrity. I would comment that this alone, in my opinion, would not be sufficient cause to terminate Prof. Churchill (I would recommend professional counseling) but when tallied with other offenses would support that action.



What have you seen or heard about it through the mainstream media? Is there a media bias in the coverage of this story?

It would be hard to claim media bias in this case, since there seems to be an almost universal appeal for his head on a platter.


Does Churchill have a valid point with his writings, and positions?

Things we do have consequences, some of which are unforseen, uncalculated or ignored - just as those of a fireman who dies trying to save another's life. Sometimes the payment for doing something very right is something horribly wrong. It's something my grandmother taught me at an early age and it is as true now as it was then.

For Prof. Churchill and those who support him I would remind them that:

"Some People Push Back"

Droop224 wrote:




What are you trying to say droop? The only way this point makes any sense at all is if you start with the premise that all war is wrong. If you acknowledge that war will exist, then you must make the distinction between the terrorists actions on 9/11 and our actions in Iraq. If you don't then you have relegated warfare to a state of barbarism. That is fine if that is what you meant. Personally, I am a realist and I understand that war will always exist. We can criticize a particular war as wrong or unnecessary but what purpose does it serve to say all war is wrong? The world will never eradicate wars. So the best we can do is have a discourse on how to limit it or force rules in warfare.

I think when someone makes the argument that you made which is to equate the actions of the terrorists with our actions in Iraq based on the consequences only -- there are two problems:

(1) It is an entirely unrealistic view;

and
(2) It presents a justification for the actions of the terrorists and takes warfare down to a level of barbarism.

Should his job as an Ethnics Professor at the University of Colorado be at risk?
Droop people who share views like you are the person I spoke of in my last post who will want to have the upper control of opinion of right and wrong in the classroom. You would like nothing more than to convince the world that Ward sends the correct message and would condemn an opposing view. I’m saying yes, he can have his views as long as his message is countered by an equal opposing point of view. Just imagine how fun it would be for you to debate with everyone who thought just like you? (Wink wink)

I just don’t see Ward being fired for his views but neither should someone like Horowitz be denied equal time right behind him to speak to create balance. Actually the professor should be more neutral and invite opposing views to create thought. Wards views would have no value if there were a counter point of view similar to that presented on this board offered to students, it simply wouldn’t be news. This guy would have been arrested during WWII for his views but the progressive liberal movement want to reinforce the progressive thought away from Good & Evil, so people like Ward are hired to present “Hate America”, build a Department of Peace and tear down the Department of Defense. Your thinking is of anti-war progressive person that could never justify war under any circumstance and to you evil does not exist. You and like thinking individuals live in the lyrics of the song Imagine, in a la la land.



Does Churchill have a valid point with his writings, and positions?
All views are valid until refuted and they have been refuted quite well in this public forum and if equal rebuttal had taken place on the campus then it just wouldn’t be news or a discussion topic because the view is just too biased.

Vietnam caused you and others to think in the manner of the above quote. Colleges filled to the brim with draft dodgers who homesteaded there until too old to be drafted and then liked it so well they stayed as professors to fill your head with crap.

The above quote could equally be applied to common crime and would require the government to fire the police and try and understand where they went wrong when a perfectly good citizen robbed someone. Take the money from the police payrolls and study the problem; maybe a social program would prevent future robberies?

Peace activist all say the same illogical junk, it is our fault not evil. If in medieval Japan the rice farmers hadn’t planted rice the robbers wouldn’t come to get the free bounty. You profess just give them some free rice and live in peace but the evil ones want all the rice and they want to return next year for all of the rice again so you buy and train a Samaria Warrior. Sanctions kill innocents; well stealing the rice kills farmer’s families that grow the rice. Bombs kill innocents; will so do hoards of evil attacking the innocents. You cannot give the evil part of the rice they want it all like a robber will not take only half the money from your wallet.

I’ve beat up on you enough but just want to point out that the absence of evil folks all align with the liberal party, I speak of the anti-war anti sanction folks. People who respect rule of law, don’t blame America and support a strong Samaria and will paste your send flowers all over the liberal party and cost your objective defeat after defeat because of perceived un-American thinking. You can’t share the rice with a thief! Dennis K. and Gov. Dean anti-war didn’t get traction and I hope they never do!

I apologize for being unclear, but you didn't understand my points. Or... Maybe you won't allow yourself to? But I will try to be clearer.

My first point to you... the idea of intent.

Many try to separate acts of terrorism by saying what is their intent. They minimize their intent to "they want to kill innocent civilians" but what do they base this on?? The fact that innocent civilians die?? Well I'm sure if they could they would be happy to to fly their superior air force over here and use their precision guided missile to "minimize" civilian casualties. But since we are being realistic we know they can't. They have no air force... They have no Navy... so when they feel they are being targeted by the U.S., do you propose they simply lie down and take it?? Maybe they should, but that's unrealistic isn't it.

So what I pointed out was that maybe the targets weren't people, but buildings... It makes perfect sense to me.... representative buildings of our dominance, attacked in an attempt to make us lose face. It really doesn't matter how many people were in the planes or how many people were in the buildings, because the buildings were the target. Does believing this make me an apologist or does it make me more like you, a realist?? I'm not apologizing, just being real. If we strike a target and civilians die, they strike a target and civilians die. I don't believe the target was humans on September 11, but the knowledge that civilians were going to die really didn't persuade them not to complete their objectives.

Now should we care??? You see that is the biggest question. As ConservPat says:



Exactly, but if we are being realistic why do any of us think they think differently?? Oh you think they are going to take the time to understand our reasoning for killing civilians?? "Oh you know that's just collateral damage, don't worry it was just my wife and child" No, they are not. They are humans that will react just as the humans here will react. We don't care why they kill us, and they don't care why we kill them!! They don't care about our reasoning and plans when we sanction them cutting their food, medical, and sanitary needs. They don't care why we love Israel so much and arm them to the teeth. Because just like alot of you here, they are not appeasers either. What they care about is that their people are dying and we have our hands all in it. That's what is real.

Allow me to address your logic, now



On whose orders?? On what level?? Logistically there are infinite distinctions. They don't have our technology they can't fight a war as we do.
But conceptually, the distinction is not that great. They want something they are willing to kill to get it. We want something we are willing to kill to get it. It all boils down to such simplicity if you really want to be a realist.



War is the legalization of mass slaughter of human beings... I have not relegated war to a state of barbarism... barbarism is what war is. Even if you want to argue which methods of war are less barbaric, barbarism it STILL is.



Every war is right, every cause is just, every action is necessary. How can this be?? Right and wrong are subjective so there are going to be masses of people who agree to their cause. How do you like that for realism. We think we are rights, so do they. We think we are just, so do they. We think the actions we take are necessary, guess what? So do they. If you think any other way, all you are going to do is make a hypocrite of yourself. That's war as it happens. We can paint a clear picture of the "good" guy and the "bad" guy but that is simple fiction. That is people trying to appease their need to find moral justification for heinous actions.

Update ... Ward Churchill is apparently also a fake artist. source


There lots more and video if you click the link. This guy should be fired for stupidity if nothing else. He hit the cameraman with a stack of papers while being filmed. Also, Michelle Malkin has posted some other art by Churchill that looks plagiarized. This guy is not having a good couple of weeks.

I do not believe that their target was the buildings. It just so happens the buildings have symbolic meaning-- but don't kid yourself. They intended to kill innocent people-- so as to strike TERROR in the hearts of every american.




Unfortunately there are levels of barbarism. Warfare that seeks to identify targeted areas and soldiers and in so doing minimize civilian casualties is LESS barbaric. It is as simple as that.



The justification for war is not relevant to this distinction. Yes, all war has each side believing that it is on the "right" side. That is the nature of war. The point I am making is that -- given that war exists-- we must make certain distinctions in the level of barbarism. That, I believe, is the only limitation the human race will ever be able to put on War. Up until the onset of terrorism, both sides could at least agree that it was immoral to target civilians. But the terrorists have breached that agreement. They are barbaric in that regard and we ought to say as much and continue to make that distinction throughout the world.

I didn't get the assertion that all the children were killed by bombs. It also includes the deaths from starvation and malnutrition and disease due to the sanctions imposed by Un (US led).

Everyone also seems to ignore that fact that at the end of the article he writes:



This was a work based on his emotional response to 9/11, not research and study. He wrote it quickly, this quote from an interview sums that up:


http://www.kersplebedeb.com/mystuff/s11/ch...terview_pw.html

People can pick the man's writing apart all day, but the emotional response is point. That's what it provides, and that's what it was written to provide.

Rather than face that sort of real emotion so opposite of people's own, many would rather bash Ward. I personally had similar thoughts on 9/11 when I saw the towers coming down. I was aware of some of the US's not-so-noble foriegn interventions, and thought it was inevitable that we would be hit. I was thinking it would be more like poisoned water supply, or disease or something. But nevertheless, I had the same sort of emotional response..."wow, they got us back..."

The oil for food program offered plenty of food aid. Saddam used the OFF program and sanctions to starve his own people for propaganda purposes, and sold the oil on the blackmarket instead. He built something like 6 palaces during the time his people were starving. It's a very convoluted sort of logic which could turn that into "the US government killed 500,000 children".



Did you read what he wrote after that? He retracted nothing that he said, but merely added to it. He forgot to include our treatment of the American Indians, World war I, World War II, the Korean war, ect. in his original for justification of the attacks on the "little Eichmanns".

I think you need to re-read the context of the statements of each, droop. Bush isn't talking about nations around the world. He is clearly speaking about "lawless aggression in the Persian Gulf". Churchill strongly implies that Bush meant what we say goes in all matters.



The World Trade Center, besides being the center of international business is also one of the most concentrated places of business in the world. Upwards of 50,000 people work in those buildings and had they toppled sooner, many more thousands would have died (as was the terrorists' intention). I remember discussing this with our CEO the morning of the attack: we predicted hundreds of deaths from the planes (they turned out to be lightly passengered) and many thousands from the towers. Luckily, we over-estimated. Much of that was luck however (and Providence).

The point is that there are very few locations where that many people can be easily targetted. The terrorists chose the Trade Centers for maximum casualties (as they did in 1993).

So now you can speak for the intentions of the 9/11 terrorists? They could've gotten more people at a pro sports event. What are you talking about? It's pretty remarkable that you claim to know why the terrorists chose their targets, and it has nothing to do with America's financial empire. I disagree 100%.

BTW, yes I read the rest of what he wrote about it all. Afterthoughts, but it doesn't change the disclaimer he put in there about the "stream of consciousness" writing. That certainly applies to the afterthoughts at the end as well.




What was the intent of America's "Shock and Awe" campaign in Iraq, not even the country behind 9/11, if not to strike "TERROR" into the hearts of every country who might even think about looking like they might have the audacity to possible have WMD? Nevermind the fact that we pioneered their usage, you better not, or we'll "Shock and Awe" you too.

I mean, we used blitzkrieg tactics against a nation that wasn't even responsible for the attack against us. And people refuse to look at it like we may have some fault here...

Can people really not see that point?

The purpose of terror is to change society through fear. The target is regardless and only the objective is terror to gain the goal of the terrorist, which is the maximum effect of terror on its enemy. First you must acknowledge the basis for the enemy’s action and determine if they are correct or America is correct. In our case we have a representative government and they do the deciding based on a “republic” style democracy.

To understand the terrorist mission you can look into a movement right here in America in the 1950’s. It was the birth of rock and roll that was considered totally against the religious beliefs of many religions and they fought back with all of their will limiting violence and lost. In the case of the 9-11 targets were similar to the Southern Baptist attempt to keep the clock standing still with religious values controlling society. Had a radical element of the Baptist, with strict interpretation of the Old Testament, decided to bomb the radio stations and recording studios would be a like jihad. The terrorist do not like western influence on their society, no movies, no women’s rights, no American commerce to change their religion stuck in time and that is the reason they cause terror. The events of 9-11 were not the first and you clearly know that. Darn I was extended three months in 1982 because of the same OBL group shooting RPG’s at American and German General officers in Germany. There were the embassies; the USMC barracks the first WTC and the Cole just to mention a few terror attacks. This has nothing to do with Israel it has to do with a loss of a society norm in Islam where the youth want to be “like” Americans and they hate it enough to destroy our society to prevent this change. There just isn’t a choice other than ending the American way of life voluntarily or fighting the “religious terrorist.” Just moving off their sacred sand will never be enough they want the thoughts out of their women’s and youth’s minds of such a vile life as lived in western society.

So was our republic representing us when they declared war on terror? You bet they were unless you would volunteer all Americans to live like Quakers to prevent war.

War is declared when diplomacy has been exhausted. War is cruelty and there is no refining it. The choices were American Quaker life or war on terror to prevent more events like 9-11. Do you think we should reconsider on the Quaker option? If so please contact your elected representative because that is the only way it will end short of cruelty towards the terrorist that want to devastate our society back to stone age.

Now the Iraq situation is something completely different but a subject for another debate. There just is no anti war argument against the war on terror other than arguing for Quaker life.

Let me repost the relevant quote:




On second read I see how he added in the secondary deaths due to lack of water and disease. The problem with his assertion is that he states that fully 1/4 of every child under the age of 12 has died in Iraq. He has no rational basis for this specific claim. The Law of Regents clearly states that you can draw whatever conclusion you like, but you are restricted to rational methods of gathering fact. No matter how much certain elements of society ratchet up the rhetoric, facts and opinions are and should be seperate items. You cannot include sactions in this toll and even if you could, I gaurantee that the statistic still does not add up. His logic turns the academic process on its head. Churchill starts with an opinion-based conclusion and he manufatures facts - clearly a violation of the spirit and the letter of academic freedom.



It doesn't work that way. The terms of his tenure specifically admonishes him to be accurate at all times and to show restraint in his external writings. You can't just slap a little caveat on everything and call it disclosure. That just doesn't pass the sniff test.

Thanks for pointing that out though, it actually supports my position. Prof. Churchill in the same essay does indeed accept the fact that he knew or should have known that what he was asserting has no foundation in fact, as much as rational methods are used to determine facts. Hopefully the Board of Regents have noticed the same admission.



Then, by virtue of the Law of Regents, his conclusions are limited to those of opinion and he is no longer free to assert matters of fact. To bad he decided to choose a number (wink, wink). Remember, some people push back.

1 - Pro sports events don't take place 80 stories up in the air, where non-professional pilots can hit them in flight simulator software.

2 - As to the intentions of the terrorists, Bin Laden has already talked about this. It's clear that they were both symbolic and full of people.


If he's to be believed, Bin Laden was planning this in 1982, when Reagan was only 2 years into his first term. The CIA began funding groups along with Bin Laden in Afghanistan in 1983 or 84. They then set off a bomb at the towers in 1993, one year into Clinton I, then tried again in 2001, 9 months into GW Bush. University students don't need a fraud's stream of consciousness on this, what they need is a real history course taught by a real professor.

Well, I did not check every single fact he has written in his essay but every real historian must agree that the history of the US is a very bloody one. I is not very suprising that when the US has started its war to "free" the people of the world, that such issues are brought up.

There are many who believe that what happened on the WTC were very similar to what had happaned on Hiroshima or Nagasaki, though on a much more smaller scale. Both were bruteless attacks against civilians and were intended to kill civilians to terrorise the "enemy" and make them yield to their demands.

Yes, Churchill could have exaggirated some but he does have valid points. US actions during the last parts of the 20th Century are not very nice. Combine that with such a bloody history, it is very natural that many people (especially whom have suffred by the actions of the US) hate the US.

I find it difficult to believe that many people hate the U.S. based on its "bloody history". I think the more likely explanation for much of the animus against the U.S. has more to do with envy. The U.S. is the most powerful nation in the world as well as the richest. There is no other super power to "check" its power. Much of the world is not comfortable with these facts.

Keeping up with the Jones's doesn't engender violent anger like 9/11. Having one's family killed does. Luckily there is really no need to try to imagine why they attacked us, it's clearly spelled out in Bin Ladens messages which rarely seem to get printed in American newspapers....

It's also been quoted on this board.


but I think it's best articulated here in a letter from bin laden that was published in by the Guardian of london. It covers two essential questions

(Q1) Why are we fighting and opposing you?
(Q2) What are we calling you to, and what do we want from you?

Bin Laden Letter to US

That's an excellent letter by the way and I wish every American would read it. This makes clear that envy is not a primary reason for attacks on the US.

What is truly disturbing to me is that letters from bin laden tend not to make it into the press. Sure reports of the letters do. Sometimes they even mention some of what bin laden says. I don't really know why that's the case but I think it's the base that shapes how we responded to 9/11.

An "excellent letter" you say? I wonder what that means. Does it mean you agree with it? For example, let's look at a few passages in that letter.....



Do you agree with this?



Do you agree with this?



Do you agree with this?



Do you agree with this?

I suppose I could go on, but this is enough for now.

Perhaps you are right in one aspect, it's not envy, but rather, it is pure hatred that drives fanatics like bin Laden. I don't know what drives charlatans like Ward Churchill. Greed perhaps? From the Denver Post



So, it's really about the money afterall isn't it? This is your champion?

Edited to add irony.....

I love irony. I find it highly ironic that after I had finished my post here I returned to the AD main page menu only to find this little gem as an advertisement listed on that page. I certainly don't have any problem with AD listing this at all, but I do find it ironic. And, I love irony.

From this advertised book site.....



"Kill the Indian to save the man". This was the stated goal? Anyone have any background on this?

Later on.....



Someone needs to tell Professor Saito that Ward Churchill isn't even sure about which tribe he belongs to, if indeed he is actually an American Indian at all. (Which he isn't, even though Antny thinks he "looks like one") I'm at least 50% Comanche from my birth mother's side and I don't know much about my birth father, but I can say with "painstaking accuracy" that we all don't look alike.

1.) Does Ward Churchill owe anyone an apology for his statements.

Well, only if you feel Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coltier or GW Bush owe apologies for their statements, I would say, to be consistant, no. He is a blowhard, and hot air is only as harsh as you allow it to be. IF no one listened to him, it would be a non-issue.

2.) Should his job as an Ethnics Professor at the University of Colorado be at risk?

Only if he is engaging in some kind of academic misconduct that has been expressly prohibited in his contract.

3.) What have you seen or heard about it through the mainstream media? Is there a media bias in the coverage of this story?

It makes an interesting news story- therefore, it is played in the media. I have never been one to think that the media is either liberal or conservative (unless it is Fox or one of the blantantly leaning shows like Hannity or something) - but as an industry, they are out to make a profit- and poeple tuning in is what they are all about- and this is controversial enough for folks to tune it- heck, we are debating it, right?

4.) Does Churchill have a valid point with his writings, and positions?

Well, there is SOME truth to what he says- 9/11 was a natural outgrowth of our own horrible foriegn policy IMO, but those folks in the buildings were innocent victims as well! Yes, I think the twin towers were definately a legitimate military target as well, and compared objectively to US bombings, fairly small in loss of life. It is very hard to be objective when we are talking about innocent victims of political warfare in our own country. It was only a matter of time before someone "got" us. It is only a matter of time before the next one hits again I think.

It's not convoluted logic when it's examined.

First the bombing campaign against Iraq in January and February 1991 systematically targeted food warehouses, irrigation systems, water and sewage treatment plants, the electric production and distribution system, refineries, pipelines, bridges, roads,etc. I believe that this violates international war conventions as these are very distinctly non-military targets. The intention at the time was to make the Iraqi people hate the war so much that they would overthrow Saddam Hussein themselves.

Then look at items that were prohibited under the Military Embargo. Medicines, medical equipment, ambulances. Since infrastructure was never rebuilt what little medicine they did have perished without proper refridgeration. That lack of electricity also meant they couldn't properly store food. The list of embargo items is HUGE and totally ridiculous. They couldn't import pencils because the graphite could be extracted and used to coat planes to make them harder to spot on radar. this quote is from an article in the NY Times entitled Smart Bombs, Dumb Sanctions January 3, 1999


----

That's not accurate, again according to the NY Times article cited above....


But the point is moot, without proper storage....

So that viscious level of initial destruction in conjuction with knowingly ineffectual, deadly sanctions provides a fairly strong foundation for the sort of claim that the US government knowingly and intentionally killed 500,000+ children. And half a million is actually the low estimate.

Dennis Halliday who resigned as Head of the Oil For Food progam in disgust called for a criminal prosecution of Bill Clinton for genocide. Clinton vowed to used security council veto if the UN voted to lift the sanctions.

Can anyone PROVE that Churchill is not a Native American anymore than he can PROVE what tribe he belongs too? Lots of allegations, not much fact. I'll grant that there is a wealth of information. The opposition to what he is saying has dug into every closet they can find and produced volumes of slander, but they can't prove the accusation (fake Indian) anymore than they can prove that Iraq had WMD. I call it slander. Of course Native peoples "don't all look alike". I never even implied that they did. I did say that Churchill looks enough like the Natives I know to remain consistent with the appearance.



Do you have to agree with something to appreciate it? Can it be excellent if you don't agree? If you can open your mind and read it as a piece of information, perhaps you can learn something about the culture and logic behind those who are fighting us. I certainly think it's important for the PEOPLE in America to know why people want us dead. Should we just trust the government and their blatant propaganda? Perhaps if the American People had a bit more information on the real reasons, the ones OBL cites, they may have a different perspective on the War on Terror. His communications have been less than adequately relayed to the American People by our media. Remember, when you votes are responsible for electing the people who make the decisions, you better be informed about those decisions.




I agree, we need to teach the REAL HISTORY to students. That means when you teach the children about Thanksgiving, you should teach them about the plight of those "Indians" also. When you teach about reality, people may not be so quick to repeat those same mistakes. Let's really teach Vietnam to students. Let's really teach what our country has done. Let's talk about Columbia. Let's teach IranContra, let's talk a bit about CIA setting up puppet governments, and funding opposition "terrorist" groups to oppose regimes we didn't like. Agreed, we need to teach "real history". In my observations as a college student, the history only teaches the selected parts. Selected by whom? Why?

As he already admitted that he is not an American Indian, should we still insist he is because he looks like one?

TitaniumDreads, I am not a sanctions supporter, but I do understand the difference between requiring food, medicine, and infrastruction development exchanges for oil and the purposeful slaughtering of hundreds of thousands. The bottom line is, the sanctions were never intended to continue indefinitely. Saddam had full authority to end them by compliance with his ceasefire obligations. Furthermore, he refused to allow the oil for food trade until 1996. One might wonder how the people survived for five years with no food and medicine aid at all. Rather, the people were denied aid and the sanctions were used for propaganda purposes. I won't delve any further on this, because it will go too far off-topic. We can start a new thread on this subject if you'd like.

"Real History", to the histrionic left, always means taking aggressive actions by America out of context. The Baathist's are just the latest socialist party that we have run out of power. This is based on the ideal that there is a strong relationship between democracy, capitalism and freedom. In the Cold War the most important thing was to fight for capitalism and let it's fruits, democracy and freedom, come later. It seems the left both opposed sanctions and war to curb Hussein. What were we supposed to do say "Pretty please, Mr. Hussein, be nice."

On a personal note I have just been adopted by a black family. I am thinking of pursuing a Phd so I can get a ethnics studies director position. They complain only white history is taught yet we have all these ethnic studies departments.

The letter from Bin Laden was quite clear that a condition for peace requires us to convert to Islam and adopt sharia law. I think I will prefer to risk death.

Ward should not be fired for his speech. He should be fired for being a plagiarist and most probably lying on his job application. His speech does provide ammunition to his opponents. By attacking the 9/11 victims he destroyed his credibility and cast a black eye on his foreign policy positions.

I'm not so sure that Churchill was "attacking the 9/11 victims". I've not seen where he plagarised. His writing is aggressive, blunt, and certainly has an opinionated bias, but I wouldn't call him a plagarist. His history has certainly given the right plenty of ammo to use against him. He's a good target in the "War on Dissent". http://www.alternet.org/story/12612

Here's an interesting article that has sort of changed my perspective on the whole thing. The debate has been convoluted and distorted by the "fake Indian" campaign. It's really impressive to watch the propaganda machines work. What a clever choice. Singling out Ward to attack, and lumping the "left" in with him. I myself am just as guilty of falling for it as anyone. Churchill's a divisive bomb, cleverly exploited by the Rovian Empire of propagandist media.

http://www.infoshop.org/inews/article.php?...005020616361080

It sort of comes into perspective. Churchill is out there in "left field" in the first place. His dubious history, and "fake Indian" status make him the perfect propaganda target. Clever, very clever...effective too.

Yep, that sure dun put things in perspective for the Billy Bobs who vote for them darn fascist Republicans. That link you just produced is a perfect example of how the left attempts to censor speech and action. The absurd cry of racism at every turn, Want to end affirmative action?..racist. Want to cut welfare?...racist. Want to lower taxes?..racist. Don't like Ward ?...racist. Absolutely amazing the attempt to condemn O'Reilly's free speech. Of course Ward's left wing propaganda is wonderful and we should not bring out his fake Indian status. Somehow, O'Reilly's personal problems are perfectly valid to bring up though.

My mailman is a government employee. He has no right to curse out people along his route and be certain of keeping his job. The fact Ward is a government employee does not mean his free speech cannot cost him his job, the fact he is a US citizen means he can't be jailed for it.

The article didn't accuse anyone of racism. I assume you are referring to this:



The comparison of O'Reilly to "racist demagogues who, having whipped a mob into a murderous frenzy, made sure they were at a safe distance from the lynching tree when their victims were strung up." is an interesting perspective. O'Reilly treats people with less respect than Churchill, but he's hailed as a beacon of reason by the right. He is certainly working double time to whip America into a pro-war frenzy.

Let's look at O'Reiley's treatment of Jeremy Glick, if we're gonna bring O'reiley into this. Glick's father was killed in 9/11, and O'reilly treated him like DIRT
on National TV. You're gonna talk "freedom of speech" about a guy who regularly tells anyone he doesn't agree with the "SHUT UP"?

Here's the transcript of the interview with Glick. Who's up in arms about O'reilley disrespecting the 9/11 families? That was truly disgusting, and may warrant a thread of it's own. Too bad the transcript can't show the intimidation, bullying and rudeness of O'reilley.

http://www.bushpresident2004.com/oreilly-transcript.htm

After the incident, O'reilly went on the next day to distort the truth and insult Glick some more. Glick wanted to sue him, and the lawyers told him that O'reilly was a compulsive liar, and it would be hard to win any suit against him because of it. If you want to talk about someone disrespecting the victims of 9/11, there's a good one for ya.

And so, I guess Churchill's essay is more powerful somehow than O'reilley's in person, face to face televised disrespect? O'Reilley using the guy's dead father against him in the end of that transcript is terrible. Who's demanding O'Reilley's job? He's spouting off on our public airwaves.

O'Relly is a red herring. He is employed by a private organization. It is their choice to hire or fire him. No taxpayer pays a cent of his wages. As long as it is O'Reilly's show he can tell anyone he wishes to shut up. You don't have the freedom to utilize other's assets to spread your own perverse views unless they permit you to do so.

The Moore's and O'Reilly's of this world are entertainers, I expect more out of educators. I guess you don't.

Hugo makes a good point about the private organization- but, I actually expect more from someone with the much larger forum. Ward Churchill's comments are far less egregious than some of, well, say Rumsfeld, but he is also a goverment employee as well.

I do not agree with Churchill's comments in thier entirety, I DO think those folks in the twin towers were innocent victims, and am offending when they are presented otherwise. I am equally offended by the use of the word "collateral damage" when talking about innocent victims of US shelling either- in fact, I think they are of equal "sin" so to speak. I just had to say that to distance myself from his position.

That being said, Ward Churchill's comments should be no more sanctioned than, say, (is it Gonzoles (sp) that basically said torturing non-US citizens is legally and morally defensible?

Far, far, far more egregious comments have come out of this administration without sanction. Why should we hold Ward Churchill to a higher standard than our highest goverment officials?

Good point CruisingRam. Why US officals said that there were WMD in Iraq and that turned out to be a big lie, none of the US officals who said it resigned. So why should Churchill resign?

I agree that it is a sad tragedy that non-combatants in the US die (after all, you can't condemn an entire nation just because of the immoral actions of a some politicians.) but it is sadder tragedy when much more people in Iraq die and they are called victims of colleteral damage.

- You're not sure he was "attacking" 9/11 victims by calling them "little Eichmans"?
- Churchill has admitted that he's not an indian, but has repeatedly said in public that he was, although the tribe has varied, and this shouldn't be noted by anyone questioning his credibility? The guy doesn't even know who / what he is!
- Churchill has plagiarized artwork and sold it for profit (see my post above, I'm not reposting) but you wouldn't call him a plagiarist? Would "fake artist" suit?
- Incompetent schmucks like this idiot are being paid to teach our children and spewing their mindless pap without fear because they have tenure and yet there is a "war on dissent" ?

My use of Google is all part of a propaganda plan? Karl Rove lied on Ward Churchill's employment application? What kind of logic is this? No one is "exploiting" Ward Churchill to make "the Left" look bad, those who are defending him seem perfectly capable of making themselves look bad.

(edited for grammar)

http://starbulletin.com/2005/02/23/news/story2.html

"Little Eichmans", what's the signifigance of that phrase...Eichman was an architect in the Nazi regime. He was in charge of logistics, and seldom had bloody hands. He was a mastermind in the quest to dominate things. He was responsible for thousands of deaths, but he wasn't doing any killing.

How does that relate to the American financial empire in the world, and the power brokers that run it? The "technocratic core" so to speak...

Regarding the Churchill admitted he's an Indian argument, I found this little bit of news:



As they say, a lie will make it half way around the world before the truth can even get it's pants on. The red herring is the "fake Indian" issue, not to mention the outright lies of those "misquoting" Churchill.

He said he is less than one-quarter Indian, so he does not qualify to be a full member. Not exactly saying "I'm not an Indian" is it? The smear campaign is incredible. It makes what they did to Clark when he came out in the 9/11 Commission hearings look like a walk in the park.

That little "misquote" is what I call the Rovian Propaganda plan. You use Google however you want, just like me. The smear campaign, and the targeting of Churchill are the propaganda plan.

Calling Churchill and "incompetent schmuck" and referring to his teaching as "mindless pap" doesn't exactly make you look good. I'd like to see what the student surveys of his classes say. I assume, b/c they do at my college, that Colorado has the students fill out survey reports on teachers. I wonder what they say? Is he incompetent as a teacher because of his opinions in the essay? You think he stands up and tells that stuff to his classes? I doubt it.

Come on Antny! This is a little bit silly. But let me put it this way, do you think that Churchill meant "little Eichman" as a compliment? Do you honestly think that Ward Churchill was not trying to attack September 11th victims by calling them Eichmans? If you seriously don't, then what was he trying to do? There is really no way to justify what he said, or make it seem less offensive, the only thing I can say in his defense is that he shouldn't be fired for what he said.

CP

Didn't poor little picked on Ward just get caught plagiarizing some art work as well?
He deserves to be fired for a lot of reasons, and this little tidbit is just one more reason.



http://news4colorado.com/topstories/local_..._055200531.html

I think Churchill was trying to say that to those people who are fighting against America, the WTC victims of 9/11 were not viewed as "innocent civilians", but rather participants in the military-industrial complex that enable's America's empirialistic aspirations to effect their lives in their own countries. It is not that far fetched to think for a second that perhaps the terrorists viewed the WTC employees as "Enemy combatants" of a sort, albeit economically, not militarily. Nevertheless, the Industry produced the military hardware, and they know that: The "iron triangle" (military-defense industry contractors-politicians). Of course, the victims on the planes were clearly "innocent civilians"

I don't think he was attacking the 9/11 victims, I think he was putting a different perspective on the motives and intent of the attackers than the ones used by our media and government.

Finally, If the story about artistic plagairism is true, the man has no business in Education. If this controversy has uncovered that he is a liar, and plaigarist, he should be fired.

I still think there is a point worth looking at in his "roosting chickens" piece. It is just one that a proud people in America can't see very readily.

Bill55A,

Copyright infringement on artwork isn't a good reason to fire someone who teaches a completely different subject for a living. Plagiarizing acedemic written works and publishing as his own would be, since that is common policy among colleges and universities.

I'm pretty close to a college professor, and this subject comes up often among faculty discussions. The old thing about publishing or perishing drives academic plagiarism -- and more modern institutions have dropped the requirement. Some great professors are horrible writers.

Anyway, let the copyright holder bring suit -- no reason to fire. If Churchill taught art, then maybe