Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050204/ap_on_re_us/speaker_protest_5 I abhor everything that Ward Churchill stands for. I think he is dangerous and he poisons the minds of impressionable young people. However, I do believe in freedom of speech. With all freedoms come responsibility. Freedom of speech does not mean you are free from all consequences of what you say. The Constitution only guarantees that the government will not punish you or throw you in jail for your opinions. It does not guarantee that you can keep your job after expressing your opinions. If an employee brings disrepute to their employer by what they say then that employer has every right to fire the employee. College professors should not be immune. Yes "professor" Ward Churchill had every right to say what he said, but he must take responsibility for his words. Do I think the University of Colorado should fire him based on what he said? Probably not, but I would defend the schools right if they did.
Hmmm.....but if he is invited to be a speaker and he expresses his opinion on a subject then he should be fired? I mean because his opinion is unflamatory to some doesnt really reflect on the college does it? Isnt it a reflection upon him? I think all the college has to do is say (like before any other editorial) that their views dont coincide with the Professors and be done with it. By giving his comments extra attention he is getting "Press" that he probably doesnt even deserve.......Kinda sounds unfair to me to say "whats your opinion on______" then fire someone for giving it. I f he would have spoken out on his own then maybe I would feel different but since he was invited to express his opinion then I think that is different :m:
So let me get this strait the university will fire this professor merely because he goes against the grain? Isn’t that a sign of fascism or what! I would understand if the professor was propagating hatred, and violence then he is a threat. The greatest threat to the United States would be firing the professor, not what the professor said.
Did you actually read his essay?? The "Eichmann" comment was really the tip of the iceberg. This is what I would call propagating hate! http://www.kersplebedeb.com/mystuff/s11/churchill.html Yea, here's a guy I want teaching my kids. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Barkhorn.
Did you actually read his essay?? The "Eichmann" comment was really the tip of the iceberg. I read what you posted and no where do I see hatred, or propagating violence. All the prof. did was point out that the magnitude of the 9/11 attacks paled in comparison with the invasion of Iraq. He also pointed out that the United States is not secure from attack as she once believed, and that US actions around the world from supporting Saddam to Pinochet which killed millions with either direct or indirect US support is just what Buddha states, Karma. Now granted the prof is a bit too much for me and his hyperbole really degrades his argument quite a lot. But his basic argument is sound; the US is part of the world, not the world.
i dont see where he is WRONG (in a factual sence not an ethical one) with his comments. Im sorry but i am really over 11/9. You get atacked and rightly ask for the worlds sympathy which you get and then you use it to do whatever you feel like draging other countrys through the mud as well. Well too bad. They died, if you are a family member grive then get on with your life and if your not then stop using them as an excuse to fuck the world for your own profit
Those Americans who died on sept 11 bore a collective guilt , as they are aware of what global criminality their plutocratic government is responsible for . the victims all voted for either the Democrats or the Republican parties , which these 2 parties alternate in leadership and determine the projection of American foreign policy . By voting this meant endorsement of their government , this makes the American people co- conspirators with their goverment , giving carte blanche approval for criminal behaviour . Then the American people stand by their government , American people must accept the consequences of their actions .This attitude is justified by Americas defence of terror bombing of German cities , which was unnecessary and barbaric which led to the deaths of 3 million German non-combatants . The American justification for this atrocity after the war ended was that seeing the German people gave the Nazi government a 99% approval in a referendum in 1939 that made them complicit and just as guilty so this action was justified .
You right wingers are pathetic. It is clear that thought is not free if the profession of certain opinions make it impossible to earn a living. -- Bertrand Russell, Skeptical Essays
I gotta agree with this guy here. Too bad it wasn't Wall Street and not the Twin Towers that was hit. The world could do better with less money-grubbing CEOs, stock brokers, bankers, and lawyers. I feel sorry for the families that are now on their own after this tragedy, and the true innocents that were stuck in the building as well as the firemen and police officers that died, but the people that worked in those towers were everything that is wrong with this materialistic and capitalistic society. This guy is a bit extreme, but really no different than any left or right-winger. Voicing one's opinion and being able to disagree with people is what America is all about. To fire this guy all because he didn't fit the common mold is ridiculous and only goes to show one of the main reasons why America is hated after this event with the whole "you're either with us, or against us". B.S. to that. - N
Undecided; Sorry, but all but promoting the deaths of 495,000 American citizens to "get even" is advocating hatred and voilence. Assguard; Yoda would be so proud of your revolting moral relativism and mind numingly infantile extremism. Brian Foley; Where to begin with your cretinous remarks? Your line of reasoning is as "objectively pro-fascist" as it is bankrupt. Do you even have the vaguest understanding of World War II history or the strategic bombing campaign? Your post suggests not. Repo Man; Yea, um you really showed me. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Neildo; So, you wish it was Wall Street an all those "evil capitalists" and Churchill is pretty much like any left winger or right winger? You are an ass!! I really can't come up with any other reply as words fail me in the face of your "smash the system" idiocy. ******************************************************* This board is like some sort of extremist bizzaro world where the posters try to outdo each other with their hateful claptrap as they applaud each others efforts and excoriate anyone who has a sane point of view. Sick, so very very sick. Thank goodness you are all pretty much irrelevent to what goes on in the real world. Barkhorn.
I say if what the good professor says is true then the fact he is profiting in America he deserves the same punishment as those "Eichmann". What more fitting proof that he stands by his word than for him to go to the middle east and allow them to cut his head off.
Alexander Cockburn: That piece was developed into a book, On the Justice of Roosting Chickens. About those killed in the 9/11 attacks, Churchill wrote recently, "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." At this point Churchill could have specifically mentioned the infamous bombing of the Amariya civilian shelter in Baghdad in January 1991, with 400 deaths, almost all women and children, all subsequently identified and named by the Iraqis. To this day the US government says it was an OK target. Churchill concludes, "If the U.S. public is prepared to accept these 'standards' when they are routinely applied to other people, they should 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 [World Trade Center workers] 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, [they] 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." I'm glad he puts that gloss in about the targets, thus clarifying what did read to some like a blanket stigmatization of the WTC inhabitants in his original paper. http://www.kersplebedeb.com/mystuff/s11/churchill_cockburn.html The death of civilians is wrong. But we are all to quick to downplay them when we cause them in pursuit of our international goals. Churchill's "crime" is to try and view things from an international perspective, rather than the default perspective of a U.S. nationalist. Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it? Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it. --60 Minutes (5/12/96) Then-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright's quote, calmly asserting that U.S. policy objectives were worth the sacrifice of half a million Arab children, has been much quoted in the Arabic press. It's also been cited in the United States in alternative commentary on the September 11 attacks (e.g., Alexander Cockburn, New York Press, 9/26/01). But a Dow Jones search of mainstream news sources since September 11 turns up only one reference to the quote--in an op-ed in the Orange Country Register (9/16/01). This omission is striking, given the major role that Iraq sanctions play in the ideology of archenemy Osama bin Laden; his recruitment video features pictures of Iraqi babies wasting away from malnutrition and lack of medicine (New York Daily News, 9/28/01). The inference that Albright and the terrorists may have shared a common rationale--a belief that the deaths of thousands of innocents are a price worth paying to achieve one's political ends--does not seem to be one that can be made in U.S. mass media. http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1084 And a final quote:"the West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact, non-Westerners never do." - Samuel P. Huntington
Yup, yup, and yup. Now let me just clarify a tad. I wish 9/11 didn't happen. I do not want bad things to happen to anyone. HOWEVER, if something bad DOES have to happen, I'd rather those that worship money to be the first one's to go. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! And yes, I say that with a happy face. It's not about smashing any system, it's about smashing certain types of people. Capitalism is a good thing, when used in moderation, just like anything in general; it's just unfortunate that most people on Wall Street are obsessed with it which is why I'd rather it have gotten struck instead of the WTC and Pentagon. People with any type of fanatical obsesssion is bad. I don't like religious zealots, I don't like capitalist zealots, I don't like any type of zealot whatsoever as they ruin what they're obsessed with. The world would be a much better place without those types of people. People think that religious fanatics are the worse but no, money fanatics are as money and trade controls everything and has more power and effect over people than, yes, God and religion. - N
Undecided; Sorry, but all but promoting the deaths of 495,000 American citizens to "get even" is advocating hatred and voilence. He didn't advocate killing 495,000 Americans, learn how to read properly. He was saying if the death that American brought upon Iraq was done to the United States that would be the figure. This board is like some sort of extremist bizzaro world where the posters try to outdo each other with their hateful claptrap as they applaud each others efforts and excoriate anyone who has a sane point of view. No…that’s the Republican party not sciforums, just we here at sciforums have NEVER meet a conservative who made any sense. Thank goodness you are all pretty much irrelevent to what goes on in the real world. Which is a good thing for the elites. Go fight for America with your gas guzzling truck who u use to drive ur kids to school with and increases the amount of money going to the very same people who are trying to kill you: Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! God Bless Red State America... *note*: not meant for logical, literate Americans.
Now this prof. is on to something; http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/news_columnists/article/0,1299,DRMN_86_3524623,00.html But I've seen that most posters on this board are indeed, "blinded by certain ideological commitments." Barkhorn.
Read this part again; How can you fail to detect the gloating here? Does your limited intellect and ideological orthodoxy render you incapable of rational thought? Barkhorn.
Fire him for being a bore. Fire all the dippy-hippy professors who made nests for themselves in academia decades ago. Their minds are frozen in the late 1960s. Time for new blood.
How can you fail to detect the gloating here? Does your limited intellect and ideological orthodoxy render you incapable of rational thought? No the only thing here that is limiting is your understand of the english language and its meanings. Again this professor did not endorse, or support the 9/11 attacks he stated only the obvious the United States over the past 50 years has destroyed economies, overthrown democratic governments, killed up to 3 million Vietnamese, supported terroristic regimes from Saudi Arabia to Israel to Chile and China, all the while has prided itself as being the "bastion of democracy"? What the author is telling you nationalistic ideologues is simple, America is not special, American actions over the past 50 years needed a counter-reaction. 9/11 didn't happen because those terrorists hated your "freedom", they did it because America has acted like a dick. I am obvious more intelligent then you, more rational, and more philosophical in my approach, sorry if your faggy feelings got hurt, do what so many millions of American fags do, put a stupid flag on your big and tough SUV and pretend to be an American.
Yes, you advertise your scary level of intelligence via your avatar. Your use of the flag of the now (deservedly) defunct DDR says so much about your fascistic sympathies and your lack of understanding of complex historical/political issues. Capitalism EVIL, Marxism GOOD, ugh! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Oh, and calling me a fag? What are you a friggin’ 12 year old? I should not be surprised here, as ad homs are usually the next step for a “progressive” who so obviously and completely looses an argument. Barkhorn.
Forget all the personal stuff Bark.....Undecided does bring up a good point.Do you think that 9-11 happened because "terrorists" were jealous of American freedom(as Bush says) or as a result of American foreign policies?
