This bastard should be murdered!!
- Thread starter Buzzard
- Start date
That fucking hippie has no idea what he is talking about. Professor or not, that was absurd to say. The world is filled with dipshits i guess.
Oblivious Maximus
I am the worm
It was only a matter of time before somebody posted this. This is the honest truth, if I ever see this waste of human life in person, I will punch him in the face. This pathetic peice of shit, waste of air needs to be tortured in the most inhumane and sadistic ways, and then killed. People who think like him do not deserve to live.
What an asshole, the 1st amendment does not give you the right to be heard. Of course the fuckholes at the aclu would pile on to force a university to give this traitor a platform to spew his hate for this country.
If I heard right this dick isnt even an indian.
If I heard right this dick isnt even an indian.
Oblivious Maximus
I am the worm
He has no evidence to prove he's an indian, yet he goes around biching about the loss of indian land. This cum coated dicksicle should have lived in Nazi Germany, because he would not have the right to shoot his semen filled mouth off.
Clearly...this guy is a dick. What bothered me even more was to listening to people applaud his defense. Fuck him, and anyone that admires what he said.
Jinn
Saint
Jinn said:
Go lay down.
He has a right to say what he does he does not have the right to force a university or anything but a PRIVATELY RUN ORGINIZATION to grant him a platform to preach his hate.
He should just go down to the bus station and stand on a soap box and spew his filth when he is not gobbling goo in the mens room.
Jinn
Saint
He didn't force anyone. He set up a lecture, and people voluntarily came to it.
Exactly who was he forcing?
Exactly who was he forcing?
Hawng
Internationaly known
CoverUinOil said:
HE is HIRED to TEACH and has no rights to speak his mind they way he did in a State Universary. That's the law...
And this country has more freedom than all of europe combined.
I have an Idea- don't post here. Freedom of speech doesn't apply to
ingrates.
Hey, Billy
Here's a few words from the "bastard", as you call him. Want to know how I got this, well I get e-mails from Alternative Tentacles. You know, Jello Biafra's label.
"In the last few days there has been widespread and grossly inaccurate
media coverage concerning my analysis of the September 11, 2001 attacks
on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, coverage that has resulted
in defamation of my character and threats against my life. What I
actually said has been lost, indeed turned into the opposite of itself,
and I hope the following facts will be reported at least to the same
extent that the fabrications have been.
* The piece circulating on the internet was developed into a book, On
the Justice of Roosting Chickens. Most of the book is a detailed
chronology of U.S. military interventions since 1776 and U.S. violations of
international law since World War II. My point is that we cannot allow
the U.S. government, acting in our name, to engage in massive violations
of international law and fundamental human rights and not expect to
reap the consequences.
* I am not a "defender"of the September 11 attacks, but simply pointing
out that if U.S. foreign policy results in massive death and
destruction abroad, we cannot feign innocence when some of that destruction is
returned. I have never said that people "should" engage in armed attacks
on the United States, but that such attacks are a natural and
unavoidable consequence of unlawful U.S. policy. As Martin Luther King, quoting
Robert F. Kennedy, said, "Those who make peaceful change impossible
make violent change inevitable."
* This is not to say that I advocate violence; as a U.S. soldier in
Vietnam I witnessed and participated in more violence than I ever wish to
see. What I am saying is that if we want an end to violence, especially
that perpetrated against civilians, we must take the responsibility for
halting the slaughter perpetrated by the United States around the
world. My feelings are reflected in Dr. King's April 1967 Riverside speech,
where, when asked about the wave of urban rebellions in U.S. cities, he
said, "I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the
oppressed . . . without having first spoken clearly to the greatest
purveyor of violence in the world today - my own government."
* In 1996 Madeleine Albright, then Ambassador to the UN and soon to be
U.S. Secretary of State, did not dispute that 500,000 Iraqi children
had died as a result of economic sanctions, but stated on national
television that "we" had decided it was "worth the cost." I mourn the victims
of the September 11 attacks, just as I mourn the deaths of those Iraqi
children, the more than 3 million people killed in the war in
Indochina, those who died in the U.S. invasions of Grenada, Panama and elsewhere
in Central America, the victims of the transatlantic slave trade, and
the indigenous peoples still subjected to genocidal policies. If we
respond with callous disregard to the deaths of others, we can only expect
equal callousness to American deaths.
* Finally, I have never characterized all the September 11 victims as
"Nazis." What I said was that the "technocrats of empire" working in the
World Trade Center were the equivalent of "little Eichmanns." Adolf
Eichmann was not charged with direct killing but with ensuring the smooth
running of the infrastructure that enabled the Nazi genocide.
Similarly, German industrialists were legitimately targeted by the Allies.
* 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. Again following U.S. military doctrine, as announced
in briefing after briefing, those who did not work for the CIA but were
nonetheless killed in the attack amounted to no more than "collateral
damage." If the U.S. public is prepared to accept these "standards" when
the are routinely applied to other people, they should be 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 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, 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. If
we ourselves do not want to be treated in this fashion, we must refuse
to allow others to be similarly devalued and dehumanized in our name.
* The bottom line of my argument is that the best and perhaps only way
to prevent 9-1-1-style attacks on the U.S. is for American citizens to
compel their government to comply with the rule of law. The lesson of
Nuremberg is that this is not only our right, but our obligation. To the
extent we shirk this responsibility, we, like the "Good Germans" of the
1930s and '40s, are complicit in its actions and have no legitimate
basis for complaint when we suffer the consequences. This, of course,
includes me, personally, as well as my family, no less than anyone else.
* These points are clearly stated and documented in my book, On the
Justice of Roosting Chickens, which recently won Honorary Mention for the
Gustavus Myer Human Rights Award, for best writing on human rights.
Some people will, of course, disagree with my analysis, but it presents
questions that must be addressed in academic and public debate if we are
to find a real solution to the violence that pervades today's world.
The gross distortions of what I actually said can only be viewed as an
attempt to distract the public from the real issues at hand and to
further stifle freedom of speech and academic debate in this country.
Ward Churchill
Boulder, Colorado
January 31, 2005"
BTW, I'm a big fan of yours, but I'm going to buy everything this guy put out just to piss you off.
Here's a few words from the "bastard", as you call him. Want to know how I got this, well I get e-mails from Alternative Tentacles. You know, Jello Biafra's label.
"In the last few days there has been widespread and grossly inaccurate
media coverage concerning my analysis of the September 11, 2001 attacks
on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, coverage that has resulted
in defamation of my character and threats against my life. What I
actually said has been lost, indeed turned into the opposite of itself,
and I hope the following facts will be reported at least to the same
extent that the fabrications have been.
* The piece circulating on the internet was developed into a book, On
the Justice of Roosting Chickens. Most of the book is a detailed
chronology of U.S. military interventions since 1776 and U.S. violations of
international law since World War II. My point is that we cannot allow
the U.S. government, acting in our name, to engage in massive violations
of international law and fundamental human rights and not expect to
reap the consequences.
* I am not a "defender"of the September 11 attacks, but simply pointing
out that if U.S. foreign policy results in massive death and
destruction abroad, we cannot feign innocence when some of that destruction is
returned. I have never said that people "should" engage in armed attacks
on the United States, but that such attacks are a natural and
unavoidable consequence of unlawful U.S. policy. As Martin Luther King, quoting
Robert F. Kennedy, said, "Those who make peaceful change impossible
make violent change inevitable."
* This is not to say that I advocate violence; as a U.S. soldier in
Vietnam I witnessed and participated in more violence than I ever wish to
see. What I am saying is that if we want an end to violence, especially
that perpetrated against civilians, we must take the responsibility for
halting the slaughter perpetrated by the United States around the
world. My feelings are reflected in Dr. King's April 1967 Riverside speech,
where, when asked about the wave of urban rebellions in U.S. cities, he
said, "I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the
oppressed . . . without having first spoken clearly to the greatest
purveyor of violence in the world today - my own government."
* In 1996 Madeleine Albright, then Ambassador to the UN and soon to be
U.S. Secretary of State, did not dispute that 500,000 Iraqi children
had died as a result of economic sanctions, but stated on national
television that "we" had decided it was "worth the cost." I mourn the victims
of the September 11 attacks, just as I mourn the deaths of those Iraqi
children, the more than 3 million people killed in the war in
Indochina, those who died in the U.S. invasions of Grenada, Panama and elsewhere
in Central America, the victims of the transatlantic slave trade, and
the indigenous peoples still subjected to genocidal policies. If we
respond with callous disregard to the deaths of others, we can only expect
equal callousness to American deaths.
* Finally, I have never characterized all the September 11 victims as
"Nazis." What I said was that the "technocrats of empire" working in the
World Trade Center were the equivalent of "little Eichmanns." Adolf
Eichmann was not charged with direct killing but with ensuring the smooth
running of the infrastructure that enabled the Nazi genocide.
Similarly, German industrialists were legitimately targeted by the Allies.
* 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. Again following U.S. military doctrine, as announced
in briefing after briefing, those who did not work for the CIA but were
nonetheless killed in the attack amounted to no more than "collateral
damage." If the U.S. public is prepared to accept these "standards" when
the are routinely applied to other people, they should be 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 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, 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. If
we ourselves do not want to be treated in this fashion, we must refuse
to allow others to be similarly devalued and dehumanized in our name.
* The bottom line of my argument is that the best and perhaps only way
to prevent 9-1-1-style attacks on the U.S. is for American citizens to
compel their government to comply with the rule of law. The lesson of
Nuremberg is that this is not only our right, but our obligation. To the
extent we shirk this responsibility, we, like the "Good Germans" of the
1930s and '40s, are complicit in its actions and have no legitimate
basis for complaint when we suffer the consequences. This, of course,
includes me, personally, as well as my family, no less than anyone else.
* These points are clearly stated and documented in my book, On the
Justice of Roosting Chickens, which recently won Honorary Mention for the
Gustavus Myer Human Rights Award, for best writing on human rights.
Some people will, of course, disagree with my analysis, but it presents
questions that must be addressed in academic and public debate if we are
to find a real solution to the violence that pervades today's world.
The gross distortions of what I actually said can only be viewed as an
attempt to distract the public from the real issues at hand and to
further stifle freedom of speech and academic debate in this country.
Ward Churchill
Boulder, Colorado
January 31, 2005"
BTW, I'm a big fan of yours, but I'm going to buy everything this guy put out just to piss you off.
Oblivious Maximus
I am the worm
mentalmeltdown
Horatio McAllister
Stoner On Drugs said:
You know what? That guy just stated facts about the american history regarding your governement's foreign interventions and you call him all kind of names? On what facts are your arguments based? That he's a goo-gobbler?? Yeah, real mature and very important to the societal debate and the advancement of the north american society...
Maybe, just maybe, it's time for some people to look themselves in the mirror. On the other hand, no one in their right mind can agree with the deaths of innocent civilians such as in the WTC or in Oklahoma city or that US embassy overseas but, the american public has to know the truth about how their governements have dealt with the civilians of other countries throughout the centuries. It's all in the books. Go to your local library and stop watching Fox.
Oblivious Maximus
I am the worm
You know what's funny? This Churchill guy denies that Hitler organized the holocaust and killed over 6 million people, yet he calls the 9/11 victems Nazi's. So in that way of thinking, the Nazi's didn't do anything wrong?
mentalmeltdown
Horatio McAllister
Hey I just caught on the Anal Cunt pic in the signature! Fuckin' funny! Kyle from Incantation has a moustache!
Jinn said:
Suing to force a university to give him a platfom to speak is my issue, if the university no longer wants to give him a place to spout off they should not be forced to do so.
corpseripper
Member
- Feb 3, 2005
- 55
- 1
- 8
Buzzard said:
So in his latest lecture, this douchebag was surrounded by all kinds of security. Why is he afraid that harm will come to him? Shouldn't he welcome it? Isn't he technically an American? Aren't Americans, according to him, nazis who deserve everything they get?
Similar threads
