Do any of you agree with this essay?

[Bodacious]

This is an essay about how the 9/11 victims deserved their fate and a few other accusations. I am curious if anyone else subscribes to this idea.

Link to the essay

Here is the first few paragraphs:

When queried by reporters concerning his views on the assassination of John F. Kennedy in November 1963, Malcolm X famously -- and quite charitably, all things considered -- replied that it was merely a case of "chickens coming home to roost."

On the morning of September 11, 2001, a few more chickens -- along with some half-million dead Iraqi children -- came home to roost in a very big way at the twin towers of New York's World Trade Center. Well, actually, a few of them seem to have nestled in at the Pentagon as well.

The Iraqi youngsters, all of them under 12, died as a predictable -- in fact, widely predicted -- result of the 1991 US "surgical" bombing of their country's water purification and sewage facilities, as well as other "infrastructural" targets upon which Iraq's civilian population depends for its very survival. [See The Secret Behind the Sanctions -- How the U.S. Intentionally Destroyed Iraq's Water Supply, by Thomas J. Nagy, The Progressive, September 2001.]

Also here is a link to a news article talking about problems people have with the professor.

Link

 

[satch919]

Nope, can't say I agree with the guy. He seems pretty radical.

He's entitled to his own ideas though. Even if they are out in left field.

 

[DarkStar]

Yeah, it's surprising well written for such a radical position.

Nobody deserves such an awful fate however, neither those who lost their lives on 9/11 nor the thousands of Iraqi children who have died over the past 15 years through US sanctions and bombing.

 

[HunterSeeker]

Nobody deserves to die.

 

[Eg.]

yeah, hes a freak, and? selfdefeatism is the worst thing america needs right now, i say be bann it

 

[Viperidae]

Nobody deserves to die.

Mmm someone who finally agrees with me.

 

[seinfeldrules]

Nobody deserves to die.

Hitler? Stalin? Saddam?

 

[Bodacious]

Hitler? Stalin? Saddam? Slobidon? Pol Pot? Mousollini? McVeigh?

Added some more names for effect.

 

[Viperidae]

Depends on pov. Some might say I deserve to die, some say you might deserve to die... for example, the guy in the essay thinks the WTC workers deserved to die, right? But you don't agree, correct? Who's to say the tables can't be turned?

And for those guys, are you talking about retaliatory or once captured? To me there's a bit of a difference.

 

[Apos]

I contend that if you don't think killing civilians is a legitimate tactic, then you can't easily defend the civilian bombings that the US carried out in WWII either, nuclear or non.

I should note that Osama actually points to those events as part of his reasoning for 9/11. We declared that such tactics were justifiable if the cause was important enough. He believes his cause to be important enough, therefore they are justified. Think about that for a second: if you disagree, is it really with his logic, or simply with whether or not his cause was important enough?

 

[seinfeldrules]

I contend that if you don't think killing civilians is a legitimate tactic, then you can't easily defend the civilian bombings that the US carried out in WWII either, nuclear or non.

Different time, different situation.

 

[seinfeldrules]

And for those guys, are you talking about retaliatory or once captured? To me there's a bit of a difference.

1. You have a chance to kill Hitler before it all begins, when he is age 9 or something. Does he deserve to die?

2. You meet Hitler right before the end in 1945. It is just you and him in an abandoned bunker. Do you kill him after he just ordered the murder of over 6 million people?

 

[The Mullinator]

I contend that if you don't think killing civilians is a legitimate tactic, then you can't easily defend the civilian bombings that the US carried out in WWII either, nuclear or non.

I should note that Osama actually points to those events as part of his reasoning for 9/11. We declared that such tactics were justifiable if the cause was important enough. He believes his cause to be important enough, therefore they are justified. Think about that for a second: if you disagree, is it really with his logic, or simply with whether or not his cause was important enough?

I would agree except that the general thinking during the WWII era meant it was ok to drop the bomb. If we were in the exact same situation now we wouldn't have made the same decision and atomic weapons wouldn't have been used. It was a completely different time.

 

[Apos]

Different time, different situation.

What a cop out. Either it was wrong then and it's still wrong now, or morality is meaningless.

And if the point is that the only difference in the situation is that you don't think Osama's cause was as justified as ours was (though I don't think the causes were ultimately justified in either case) then you aren't really arguing with the logic, just that the end didn't justify the means in this PARTICULAR case.

 

[The Mullinator]

What a cop out. Either it was wrong then and it's still wrong now, or morality is meaningless.

And if the point is that the only difference in the situation is that you don't think Osama's cause was as justified as ours was (though I don't think the causes were ultimately justified in either case) then you aren't really arguing with the logic, just that the end didn't justify the means in this PARTICULAR case.

What is considered right and wrong changes depending on popular belief. Today we consider dropping an atomic bomb on civilians to be wrong. In the 1940's it wasn't so bad. Since it wasn't considered so bad in the 1940's are you going to say that anyone who thought it was a good idea at the time to be a "bad" person?

Right now Osama has done something that even during the 1940's would be considered evil, but not for the same reason. Back then it wouldn't be the number of deaths that would make it considered wrong but the way he did it. It was a secretive cowardly act and that is what would make it bad in the 1940's.

You can't use atrocoties commited from another time period to justify atrocities commited now. If you could then native americans would have every right to blow up the white house, France would still be at war with the British, Blacks would be allowed to kill thousands of whites in both Britain and the US.

 

[Eg.]

if it helps, i think we should bomb city centers out, today.

 

[Viperidae]

1. No.

2. No. Even if I did, what would be the point? He's already ordered the killing of Jews, etc, he's got an entire political party willing to follow in his footsteps. And for what, revenge? YAY!!!! I'm a hero, I sunk to a psycho's level and did the same crap he did to people right back at him.


Alright, how bout:

Someone attacks you in an alley (or somewhere...). You kill them in self-defence. A relative of that person decides that you deserve to die, so they kill you. Was it justified?

Yes, I am comparing apples and oranges, but it's the same in either case: killing someone because you think they deserve it won't solve anything, but it will cause more problems. My point is there are other ways of solving things.

 

[Apos]

"What is considered right and wrong changes depending on popular belief. Today we consider dropping an atomic bomb on civilians to be wrong. In the 1940's it wasn't so bad. Since it wasn't considered so bad in the 1940's are you going to say that anyone who thought it was a good idea at the time to be a "bad" person?"

Yes. Once upon a time it was considered ok to own and mistreat slaves. Didn't make it right.

"Right now Osama has done something that even during the 1940's would be considered evil, but not for the same reason."

In the 1940s, the Japanese considered destroying their civilian cities with nuclear weapons to be evil.

"Back then it wouldn't be the number of deaths that would make it considered wrong but the way he did it. It was a secretive cowardly act and that is what would make it bad in the 1940's."

Hiroshima was secretive and cowardly.

"You can't use atrocoties commited from another time period to justify atrocities commited now."

You certainly can if people from that time refuse to disown or de-justify the past acts. If no one is willing to say "Hiroshima was wrong" then I can't have a lot of sympathy for people who argue that when someone else does it, it's wrong. That just seems like a very convienient way of getting away with whatever you want, as long as it's new and you can later bar everyone else from doing it.

Just like laws against people sleeping under public bridges don't much threaten the rich.

 

[Ardoramor]

I dont think that neither Iraqi nor American victims deserved this fate. They were both humans, worried about their familis, and lived their lives in similar ways. The only difference was that normal Iraqi people were called to arms to protect their own families from US (some went of their own will, some needed a bit more propaganda). If I had foreseen similar fate for my family I would also "get on the plane and crash it" in the stronghold of my enemy... it is only but our instinct that guides us to protect our close ones. Again, I want to underline that both sides are correct in this conflict but I dont think that innocent people deserved to die.

 

[Ardoramor]

Hitler? Stalin? Saddam? Slobidon? Pol Pot? Mousollini? McVeigh?

Well, there are a bunch of other people we've ommited only because we see things from one side... example: American may say Osame when Irqi may say Bush... they are all the same if you see them from w/o taking side... they both sign death orders to innocent people while aiming at "the whole" and they both not participate in their own doings.

 

[HunterSeeker]

Hitler? Stalin? Saddam?

They deserve to be imprisioned in a cell on water and bread and never see another living being or sunlight again. But they dont deserve to die.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

I contend that if you don't think killing civilians is a legitimate tactic, then you can't easily defend the civilian bombings that the US carried out in WWII either, nuclear or non.

I should note that Osama actually points to those events as part of his reasoning for 9/11. We declared that such tactics were justifiable if the cause was important enough. He believes his cause to be important enough, therefore they are justified. Think about that for a second: if you disagree, is it really with his logic, or simply with whether or not his cause was important enough?

So, does that then justify our logic behind "human error" when a cruise missle hits a mosque?

 

[Nofuture]

The essay of Churchill approves in generally my theory about war and terrorism (not to apply in all cases).

Is there a big difference between a war and terrorism? Is there a diference?

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

That is the point of the essay.

If you do something bad to someone, do you expect, this someone will turn to you his another cheek? No.
And you shouldn't be surprised when somebody responds in kind.


WTC was a

consequence of what happens as a result of business as usual in the United States. Wake up.

.

Yes. Was it concerning the 500,000 children or smth. else ?... The USA has done so many bad things that one can easily lose the overview... :flame:

The "New World Order" of American military/economic domination

oh yeah

You can't use atrocoties commited from another time period to justify atrocities commited now.

You never know, if you will do get a kind of bill for the bad things done in the past.

A boss of Japanese mafia said about counterfeiting US dollars, it was for Hiroshima (in movie "Black rain" with Michael Douglas; this film is not to be confused with Japanese director Shohei Imamura's BLACK RAIN, which was produced around the same time. Imamura's film deals with the lives of a Japanese family who survived the nuclear-bombing of Hiroshima. The phrase "black rain," used in both films, refers to the deadly fallout caused by the detonation of an atomic weapon).

You certainly can if people from that time refuse to disown or de-justify the past acts. If no one is willing to say "Hiroshima was wrong" then I can't have a lot of sympathy for people who argue that when someone else does it, it's wrong. That just seems like a very convienient way of getting away with whatever you want, as long as it's new and you can later bar everyone else from doing it.

Yes.

Ward Churchill says 9/11 victims were not innocent people

I don`t think that Churchill in his essay claims that.


Not an innocent nation, yes.

The world must learn that what we say, goes," intoned George the Elder to the enthusiastic applause of freedom-loving Americans everywhere.

There were, after all, far more pressing things than the unrelenting misery/death of a few hundred thousand Iraqi tikes to be concerned with.

The essay of Churchill doesn´t tell us, he is happy about WTC`s victims. He just shows the principle that if you do smth. bad, it can come back to you, even if you are the strongest one.





This topic related to the presence:

Imo, Americans had a good chance for a change. But they didn´t make any use of this chance. It was a legal way to "eliminate" the bad one, because of justice and for saving lifes of thousands or more.

Who can you blaim for not using this chance? Are you really still so innocent after this?

Will you go to the street to protest against the aggression against the next one?
No? Than don´t be surprised when somebody responds... with aggression or somehow else...


A nation gets such a leader, what it deserves, rigth? Doesn´t American nation deserve somebody better than Bush?

November 3, 2004

To the American people
To our brothers and sisters in the Middle East
To the whole world

The day began cloudy here in Washington, D.C. either because of the weather or because of what took place yesterday. Today the United States experienced another Black Tuesday. Bush has been reelected once again in an unclear fashion, and the nation awoke more than divided than ever. What awaits us during the next four years? What can we expect from Mr Bush?

By all indications, he offers more death and destruction around the
world. Given his arrogant and self-righteous attitude, we can expect to see new criminal wars that will make all of us victims of his hubris. Using the war against terrorism as his pretext, he will send many more innocent victims either to prison or to the graveyard.

How many children will die? How many women and elderly people? How many American families will be destroyed? How many children around the world will lose their parents? How much blood will it take before the American people understand and act out of conscience in order to reestablish the universal value of respect for life?

Today tears fall from my eyes when I hear about more victims in Iraq and I think that Bush will continue this massacre. I weep as I remember my son Jesus and his fellow soldiers who have died because of Bush. And I am filled with fear to think about the dark future that awaits the world in the next four years if death and destruction rule Bush's administration. I hope I am mistaken.

May God bless the entire world and protect us from George Bush's arrogance and lack of humanity.

Fernando Suarez del Solar
(English translation by Jorge Mariscal)

 

[Javert]

Hitler? Stalin? Saddam?

Nobody innocent deserves to die. Those guys were not.

The essayist (I'm even suspect in calling it an essay) is clearly an extremist.