I want to know what you people think about the essay that Ward Churchill worte. It said that the victums of 9/11 were linked to mortoriuos Nazis.

I have read 1984 quite a few times and had to write a 15 page paper on it. An amazing book.

Personaly thank you Bushsupporter for telling off XxGiltterxGutzxX. Becasue I agree with you. Eventhough I am not a fan of Bush but I agree with you about the technocrate thing. I watch the response to the alegation that Churchill made I do not remember him saying that he was refearing to only the technicians as "Little Eichmanns, becasue honestly if he meant that wouldn't he have said that in his eesay.

I googled for the latest on Churchill and found your debate, and you got me onto youth board. Kudos to those dealing with his words. Lots of questions came to mind looking at the posts.

Who gets to decide what's American and why? Don't we all, especially people descended from the First Americans?

What's this about hiding behind free speech? It's a basic principle of the U.S., the very first right protected in the bill of rights, and always has been under attack. People always have to push to protect it.

How are universities actually funded? Reality is that universities are funded by big corporate dollars. While public money is a part of the flow, it's not a simple formula of the public paying his salary.

Anyone here read George Orwell's 1984?

I took the word technician out of his response to the media attacks directed toward him. "It should be emphasized that I applied the "little Eichmanns" characterization only to those described as "technicians." Thus, it was obviously not directed to the children, janitors, food service workers, firemen and random passers-by killed in the 9-1-1 attack."

"There is simply no argument to be made that the Pentagon personnel killed on September 11 fill that bill. The building and those inside comprised military targets, pure and simple. As to those in the World Trade Center . . . Well, really. Let's get a grip here, shall we? True enough, they were civilians of a sort. But innocent? Gimme a break. They formed a technocratic corps at the very heart of America's global financial empire – the "mighty engine of profit" to which the military dimension of U.S. policy has always been enslaved – and they did so both willingly and knowingly. Recourse to "ignorance" – a derivative, after all, of the word "ignore" – counts as less than an excuse among this relatively well-educated elite. To the extent that any of them were unaware of the costs and consequences to others of what they were involved in – and in many cases excelling at – it was because of their absolute refusal to see. More likely, it was because they were too busy braying, incessantly and self-importantly, into their cell phones, arranging power lunches and stock transactions, each of which translated, conveniently out of sight, mind and smelling distance, into the starved and rotting flesh of infants. If there was a better, more effective, or in fact any other way of visiting some penalty befitting their participation upon the little Eichmanns inhabiting the sterile sanctuary of the twin towers, I'd really be interested in hearing about it." This is the quotation from the essay in which he refers to little eichmans.

quote:

He was taken out of context, like I said before, the little Eichmanns reference was toward the technicians and only the technicians. The reference was because Eichmann had not actually killed anyone but "ensured the smooth running of the infrastructure that enabled the Nazi genocide" The first paragraphs lead up to this reference and explain how they are similar.

Your areguments have made no sense for a while, but I figured that it may have been due to a misreading of the text on my part. I have gone back to reread the essay again and you now make less sense than before.

I don't know what the hell you mean by "technician." He never uses that term. I think you mean "technocrat," one of his buzz words for those who support the "mighty engine of profit." By his definition you are/will be a technocrat. By his definition, he is a technocrat. The word technocrat and other dillusional descriptions have no place in a mature discussion such as this. HE WAS NOT TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT. The problem is that he was in context when quoted.

Maybe you should reread the essay and stop using the word technician when you mean technocrat, a useless and idiotic word.

He was taken out of context, like I said before, the little Eichmanns reference was toward the technicians and only the technicians. The reference was because Eichmann had not actually killed anyone but "ensured the smooth running of the infrastructure that enabled the Nazi genocide" The first paragraphs lead up to this reference and explain how they are similar.

While I support the University's right to fire Churchill, I feel that Churchill had and still has the right to make inflamatory comments. However, Churchill must understand the consequences of making such remarks. I wonder if he will sue the university if he is fired.

I am so proud to have a governor here in Colorado who is willing to stand up for what is right, even if it isn't popular. Governor Owens has come out strong against Churchill and his statements and I support this stance. He should be fired. He lies about being indian, and he makes statements that hurt the University of Colorado. That is reason enough.

quote:

You people have obviously gotten your information from the distorted media. He did NOT compare the 9/11 victims to Nazis, he compared the World Trade Center Technicians to someone who helped organize the genocide by the Nazis. I heard what you heard on the news, but at least I bothered to read it for myself before criticizing him.

This is so idiotic. He was not taken out of context. He said that the people were little Eichmans not innocent victims. Do you agree with this. If you do you are most certainly a technocrat.

What I want to know added on to waht I said is do you think that he should be fired for what he said about them? The govener of colorado siad that he should. Do you agree?

Hm, and why is that?

quote:

Besides, comparing the technicians to Eichmann is no worse than comparing President Bush to a terrorist.

You make me sick. You disgust me. You should be ashamed of yorself.

Actually, it is better. It leaves out so many people that didn't do anything wrong. Besides, comparing the technicians to Eichmann is no worse than comparing President Bush to a terrorist. I really don't think that there is anything wrong with that as long as you have something logical to back up the comparison.

You guys are right that this guy is a radical and extreme thinker, the thing is he makes some interesting points in his essay. Unfortunately rather than ponder those points most of you are ignoring the interesting parts in favor of picking apart the statements that are obviously a bit out there.
What I agree with is his statement about us pushing the terrorists to what they did and how we should have seen it coming, due to our middle eastern foreign policy that basically equates to imperialism and arab opression. To argue that the US is not empire building right now under the front of "spreading democracy" is a moot point. We have obviously gone into 2 countries already, destabilized their governments and replaced them with American style "Democracy", with Iran and north Korea looking like candidates for 3 and 4. We have done this under 2 false premises. Osama bin laden still wanders freely (unless he's dead) and our own government has admitted that they found no WMD's in Iraq. As for the spreading of democracy, I say whatever happened to Sovereignty? How would we as Americans feel if another country, any country, imposed their will on us. Did we stop the spread of communism in the middle east just so we could replace it with democracy instead? We already get very angry when the EU flexes it's financial muscles to push us around, I can't even imagine the public outcry if they demanded political reform.
I also agree with his statement that nobody on 9/11 was an "innocent" victim. The pentagon is definitely a military target and the WTC is definitely a key part of our infrastructure and military funding. We do not hesitate to drop bombs on neighborhoods where we think "insurgents" are hiding, nor do we discriminate against water treatment or utilities in Iraq.
I'm not saying this guy is right about everything he says, but he definitely makes some good points.
As for him being an Indian, can't someone check his birthline or something?

quote:

He did NOT compare the 9/11 victims to Nazis, he compared the World Trade Center Technicians to someone who helped organize the genocide by the Nazis.

As if what he actually said was better than the way Marine phrased it. Either way you say it, it's messed up. 6 one, Half dozen the other.

quote:

Nice try Glitter, we have all read the article. There is a link to the article below. Why don't you let the big boys handle this and go back to your diapers.

I'd rather be a fourteen year old with an opinion than twenty one year old with pointless insults.

quote:

Originally posted by FreeMarketLover:

You make no sense.

What doesn't make sense?

quote:

He did NOT compare the 9/11 victims to Nazis, he compared the World Trade Center Technicians to someone who helped organize the genocide by the Nazis.

You make no sense.

quote:

Nice try Glitter, we have all read the article. There is a link to the article below. Why don't you let the big boys handle this and go back to your diapers.

Your seniority does not make your opinion more valid than glitter's. At least she has the sense to make a statement instead of an insult, not to mention use correct grammar and spelling. However, I have noticed you've gotten better at it.

Nice try Glitter, we have all read the article. There is a link to the article below. Why don't you let the big boys handle this and go back to your diapers.