Go Back   I-Mockery Forum > I-Mockery Discussion Forums > Philosophy, Politics, and News > Goodbye Freedom of Speech
FAQ Members List Calendar Today's Posts

Thread: Goodbye Freedom of Speech Reply to Thread
Title:
Message
Image Verification
Please enter the six letters or digits that appear in the image opposite.


Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

Topic Review (Newest First)
Feb 12th, 2005 07:54 PM
davinxtk
Quote:
How about we make a deal? If some politician, like George Pataki for example (a lark if you lived in NYS) turns into the next Joe McCarthy, and some sort of "list" begins to grow, then you guys can unearth this thread and tell us you told us so. How about it?

Feb 12th, 2005 05:54 PM
ItalianStereotype Incendiary in Academia May Now Find Himself Burned
By KIRK JOHNSON
<http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/11/national/11professor.html>
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/11/na...professor.html
BOULDER, Colo., Feb. 10 - Prof. Ward L. Churchill has made a career at the
University of Colorado out of pushing people's buttons, colleagues and
students say, clearly relishing his stance as radical provocateur and
in-your-face critic.

Whether it is getting arrested by the Denver police for trying to disrupt
Columbus Day, which Professor Churchill has described as a "celebration of
genocide" because of the deaths of Indians that resulted from European
colonization, or ruffling feathers in the faculty lounge, hyperbole and
bombast have always been ready tools in the Churchill kit bag, people here
say.

Now many of the offended are pushing back. The storm of controversy that has
blown up around Professor Churchill over his essay about the Sept. 11
attacks, with its reference to the Nazi Adolf Eichmann - the "technocrats"
at the World Trade Center were "little Eichmanns," Professor Churchill said
- has turned the professor into a talking point and a political punch line.
On conservative talk radio, on campuses across the country, and especially
here in Boulder, debate about Professor Churchill means debate about freedom
of speech, the solemnity of Sept. 11 and the supposed liberal bias of
academia.

Many people here say that the professor - with his scholarly record under
investigation by the university l and with Gov. Bill Owens, a Republican,
calling for his dismissal - has become a symbol of academic expression under
fire. Others worry that subjects like Sept. 11 have become "sacred," and
cordoned off from unpopular analysis. Some say that the vitriolic debate
itself is the message and that people have been transformed into mirror
images of the man they love or loathe - little Churchills, as it were, who
are just as entrenched, over-the-top and, apparently, eager to offend as he
himself.

"Two sides are being presented without a lot of people listening," said Joe
Flasher, 24, a graduate student in astrophysics. "You already have your
opinion, right. So it's one person saying what they think and then the other
person saying the complete opposite. It seems very polarized. But I guess it
is the ultimate exercise in free speech."

Student organizations like College Democrats and College Republicans have
skirmished over Professor Churchill, a member of the ethnic studies
department. The Democratic group began a petition this week saying, "The
attacks on Professor Ward Churchill are attacks on the academic freedom of
the university." The Republicans, in calling for his dismissal, said that
alumni should freeze donations and that parents should send their children
elsewhere until political balance is brought to the professorial ranks.

"It's probably in their best interest to get rid of guys like that, but why
hide what this place really is: a bunch of lunatic leftists," said Matthew
Schuldt, senior vice chairman of College Republicans.

The undercurrent of the debate, faculty members and students say, is anxiety
about how the outside world regards the university. A football recruiting
scandal and several alcohol-related deaths among students over the last year
created waves of bad publicity for the institution. Now some people fear
that everyone will think the university is full of people like Professor
Churchill, whose essay, which drew little attention at its publication after
the attacks, gained notoriety when he was scheduled to speak at Hamilton
College in upstate New York last week. It suggests little emotion about the
deaths of thousands of people on Sept. 11 and a cold logic of foreign policy
analysis salted with terms that seemed calculated to enrage rather than
enlighten.

"If he had just been a little more thoughtful, nothing would have happened,"
Uriel Nauenberg, a professor of physics and the former chairman of the
Boulder Faculty Assembly, said. "He did not have to say these things in the
manner that he did."

Nonetheless, Professor Nauenberg said he did not believe that Professor
Churchill should be forced out because of the essay, though he added that he
personally found the expressions in the essay obnoxious.

Professor Churchill, 57, a Vietnam War veteran who became a lecturer at the
university in 1978 and was granted tenure in 1991, has claimed affiliations
over the years with many vociferous left-wing groups, including the Black
Panthers, Students for a Democratic Society and the American Indian
Movement. He said in an interview that winning peoples' attention often
meant not being nice. The United States' foreign and domestic policies, he
said, are brutal, and the words to describe that can be painful.

"I don't believe in the theory that we get to treat people like dogs, but
you have to talk to us in a polite way," he said.

Faculty members say that an objection to his writing style or opinions,
however outrageous or unpopular, is not enough to justify firing him. The
30-day review of his "writings, speeches, tape recordings and other works,"
that was announced last week by the university's governing body, the Board
of Regents, must find evidence of outright academic dishonesty, said R L
Widmann, a professor of English and the chairwoman of the Academic Affairs
Committee of the Boulder Faculty Assembly.

" 'I published a falsehood and I knew it to be untrue' - that's what they'd
have to find," Professor Widmann said.
But the passions have led to some dishonesty. University officials said on
Monday, for instance, that they were canceling a speech by Professor
Churchill because of security concerns. The student organizers of the speech
had received death threats because of their support for the professor,
university officials said, and safety could not be guaranteed.

The students, whose names were not released, admitted on Tuesday that the
death threats were embellished.
"They said, 'We were just being political,' " Ron Stump, the vice chancellor
for student affairs, said. "We expressed our disappointment."

The speech came off without incident - and without any apologies from
Professor Churchill.
Many students interviewed on campus in recent days said they feared that the
lines being drawn around Professor Churchill were also creating boundaries
about what could be freely and safely talked about in the United States.

"I think it's no longer about free speech - it's turned into this kind of
thing that we can't talk about Sept 11, that it's kind of become a sacred
issue," said Erin Langer, 22, a senior humanities major from Naperville,
Ill. "People forget we're in a university setting, and the way ideas are
challenged is by looking at an extreme view. The fact that he is so extreme
challenges people to think more."

Michelle York contributed reporting from New York for this article.


a decent article, though I don't agree with everything that was said. this guy just seems like a major douche, but I'm sure nobody is questioning that.
Feb 12th, 2005 05:22 PM
kellychaos I think that they chose the target on account of it's symbolism more than any legitimate military/intelligence threat posed by it. It inspired outrage and fear which was their goal. In other words, it was kind of a "Look what I can do!" :stuart

P.S. By this, I'm not doubting that the terrorists aren't capable of intelligent thought or planning, I just don't see taking on such a complex target (which they've attempted before) on the basis of it's military or intelligence value when easier targets could have been taken without the collateral damage. Besides, how much could the fear an intelligence agency that wasn't even doing that great of job of keeping tabs on them?
Feb 12th, 2005 04:09 PM
derrida from counterpunch:

surprisingly (!), churchill doesn't sound nearly as EDGY or controversial when not presented in we report, you decide sound bites:

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, 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. 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 9-11-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.
Feb 12th, 2005 03:35 AM
KevinTheOmnivore Okay, I think that case is COMPLETELY different than what we've been discussing here.

How about we make a deal? If some politician, like George Pataki for example (a lark if you lived in NYS) turns into the next Joe McCarthy, and some sort of "list" begins to grow, then you guys can unearth this thread and tell us you told us so. How about it?
Feb 11th, 2005 03:41 PM
ziggytrix Modern McCarthyism or justice?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...portaltop.html

We were watching the news about this at lunch. I'd like to know exactly what evidence they had against her, that she willingly conspired with her client. But those kind of details don't make it into the papers.

I'm done with this thread, but I want to end on the note that I don't think we've entered a new era of McCarthyism where terrorists/arabs are the new commies/ruskies. I just wish I could say I were certain that we have not.
Feb 11th, 2005 01:44 PM
davinxtk Also, an idea that's spur of the moment isn't necessarily poorly thought out. It's hardly poorly thought out to take a look at this not from an emotional, "holy shit look at those dead guys, tragedy, terrorism" standpoint, and think about it rationally as collateral damage in an ongoing religious and economic war. If anything it's poorly thought out to, three years later, not take an objective fucking look at this.


On top of which, if this was really about publishing poorly expressed ideas or points that haven't been thought out, it would have been addressed when he first wrote the goddamn thing.

What are you guys not seeing about this situation that would make it as bad as I'm saying it is? Because it's really fucking getting there.
Did either of you even check on any of the links I included?
Here, I'll make it really easy for you:

Quote:
Originally Posted by NCAC
While the government has no obligation to fund educational institutions, once it provides funding it cannot dictate what ideas may be expressed in the classroom or in professors' published work. The university is a special kind of marketplace where all kinds of ideas can be voiced and argued, error discovered, and truth affirmed. If academia became subservient to political concerns, if controversial and oppositional ideas were banned, education would become indoctrination. Thus, the announcement by the University of Colorado Board of Regents and Chancellor they have launched a "thorough examination of Professor Churchill's writings, speeches, tape recordings and other works," searching for "cause for dismissal" is particularly distressing.
Feb 11th, 2005 10:07 AM
ziggytrix
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Papa Goat
There's nothing wrong with firing a professor for the ideas he publishes, because writing down ideas is part of the job, and if his ideas are offensive and poorly thought out, not to mention poorly expressed, then he is just doing a poor job, and there's nothing wrong with firing him.
I agree with poorly thought out and expressed, but offensiveness should not be criteria for dismissal. Biology teachers' ideas are offensive to strict creationists, do you think they should be calling for the dismissal of professors who write about evolution?
Feb 11th, 2005 03:31 AM
Big Papa Goat As a professor, it's your job to publish well thought out and researched papers. Publishing some spur of the moment opinion piece on a controversial issue is pretty much the opposite of that part of your job description.
There's nothing wrong with firing a professor for the ideas he publishes, because writing down ideas is part of the job, and if his ideas are offensive and poorly thought out, not to mention poorly expressed, then he is just doing a poor job, and there's nothing wrong with firing him.
Feb 10th, 2005 07:22 PM
KevinTheOmnivore And Brandon just handed me my argument.....
Feb 10th, 2005 06:13 PM
Brandon Oh stop being so fucking dramatic. Has any legal action been taken against him? Have the big black government helicopters started hovering over his house? Has he been hauled off to Gitmo?

No, he lost his job because he chose to write nasty, stupid, hateful, hurtful things. The man slandered the victims of a national tragedy and then openly declared that he thinks more 9/11's should occur. If Churchill had been boycotted or fired for writing something racist or homophobic, you'd be quite fine with it -- hell, you might even be participating in the movement and signing petitions.
Feb 10th, 2005 03:46 PM
davinxtk I'm sorry I'm not contributing much to this, but I've got books, tuition, and homework coming out of my eyeballs all of a sudden. I barely have enough time to keep up with the conversation, but I like where it's going.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinTheOmnivore
I agree that there is clearly a (dare I say) coordinated attempt by the Right-Wing talking heads to play this up, blow it up, and harp on it.
...
But these pundits, the Sean Hannitys, the Brit Humes, and the Joe Scarboroughs, ARE in fact focusing a LOT of attention on this. I don't think it's about money ... it serves an ideological purpose for him. That's why these guys are focusing on this Churchill guy. It's not about him per se, but rather, it's about the "liberal campus elites" who hate America, and the south, and are the antithesis of "Joe Six-pack."
Kevin, you just handed me my argument. This is a culture war, and the more the public is able to call him a traitor, the closer we are to his name topping a big black list. Or worse, he could end up like Sami Al-Arian, rotting in a prison for expressing his opinions.

"Goodbye Freedom of Speech, Hello New McCarthyism" wasn't me saying "HEY GUYS NEW RED SCARE IN DA HOUSE WUT WUT," and I'll admit it was a sensationalist thing to say -- but no more sensationalist than accusing this guy of treason.
This is where it begins, this is where we set the precedent that it's A-OKAY to fire people as sympathizers.

Quote:
It merely states that Congress (i.e. "the state") will not prevent citizens from exercising their freedom.
The NCAC has even picked this one up, linky.
We're not talking about UCB staff pushing for his dismissal or protesting his lectures. We're talking about Governor George Pataki (NY, of course) and Governor Bill Owens (Colorado). Which one of them is the next McCarthy?

He knows that he's pissing people off and he resigned as chairman of ethnic studies.

Quote:
"I don't think it is appropriate that under these conditions, that I represent my department," said Churchill, who added that he has recently received numerous "credible" death threats.
So he doesn't represent his department anymore. Why does his opinion get to end his career just because it's "traiterous?" And why the fuck is this happening at the demand of Governors and radio hosts?
Feb 10th, 2005 01:40 AM
KevinTheOmnivore
Quote:
Originally Posted by ziggytrix
But either way this guy is still fucked. The conservative media machine will do it's thing, Rupert Murdoch will get richer, and Americans can feel OK about themselves. Yay, happy ending.
I agree that there is clearly a (dare I say) coordinated attempt by the Right-Wing talking heads to play this up, blow it up, and harp on it.

Blanco, you made some comment about it not being that slow of a news week. I think that's the point. The president is trying to sell his s.s. package, Condi is throwing the gauntlet at Iran, and other more important things. But these pundits, the Sean Hannitys, the Brit Humes, and the Joe Scarboroughs, ARE in fact focusing a LOT of attention on this. I don't think it's about money. The Weekly Standard has never made a dime for Rupert Murdoch, but it serves an ideological purpose for him. That's why these guys are focusing on this Churchill guy. It's not about him per se, but rather, it's about the "liberal campus elites" who hate America, and the south, and are the antithesis of "Joe Six-pack."

This is a culture war thing to them, no doubt.......BUT, that doesn't make them wrong about this one. The guy is a douche bag, and frankly, he sounds like a shitty professor who would only be able to teach in the most liberal, esoteric departments in the country. He said at a rally yesterday that he stood by his Eichman comments, and that all of the so-called "techno-crats" in the WTC were silently in compliance with the evil American regime. Please.
Feb 10th, 2005 12:22 AM
ziggytrix "And yet you have an opinion"

About some schmuck getting fired for running his mouth in a unpolitically correct manner: yes; about what Hannity may have said: no. I don't see why I should have had to explain that to you.

"And this is good ratings? Its not that slow a week."

It's not as good as when Clinton got a blow-job, I'll give you that, but it's a story about WTC and Nazis and liberal professors and something every good American can get self-righteous over.

"So, why are you and davin upset?"

I can't speak for Davin. As for myself, I'm upset that I used a genric insult "suck my cock" and you mistook it for a come-on. I mean, that's REALLY depressing.

"I have no clue what you are talking about because you keep trying to switch up and back pedal. You've even managed to cross yourself up."

Yes, I can tell by the way you quoted examples of me back pedalling, no wait, you didn't do that. I think you're full of shit.
Feb 10th, 2005 12:03 AM
El Blanco
Quote:
Originally Posted by ziggytrix
1. I don't know what they've said, and I don't really fucking care.
And yet you have an opinion

Quote:
2. Rupert owns FOX News, if ratings are good he get's richer.
And this is good ratings? Its not that slow a week.

Quote:
3. This man's employer hasn't dropped him, they've started a process that MAY lead to his dimissal.
So, why are you and davin upset?

Quote:
4. You don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about,
I have no clue what you are talking about because you keep trying to switch up and back pedal. You've even managed to cross yourself up.

Quote:
I'm not being "uppity and pissy," I'm just saying what's on my mind.
You're whining about some imagined freedom of speech violation and getting all dramatic over this non-issue

Quote:
I'm not "crying about how wrong things are" - I'm just setting myself up for the big "I TOLD YOU SO" when some shithead releases a doomsday virus or some shit and we all get to meet up in hell.
OK, tell your mommy you need more lithium.

Quote:
5. El Blanco can SUCK MY COCK.
While I am flattered that you would find me attractive, I am not gay. I'm not judging you or your lifestyle. I am just not a homosexual.

I hope you don't take this too harshly and try and hurt yourself. I'm sure in due time you will fin d someone to return such affection. I am just not that person.
Feb 9th, 2005 11:14 PM
ziggytrix 1. I don't know what they've said, and I don't really fucking care.

2. Rupert owns FOX News, if ratings are good he get's richer.

3. This man's employer hasn't dropped him, they've started a process that MAY lead to his dimissal.

4. You don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about, I'm not being "uppity and pissy," I'm just saying what's on my mind. I'm not "crying about how wrong things are" - I'm just setting myself up for the big "I TOLD YOU SO" when some shithead releases a doomsday virus or some shit and we all get to meet up in hell.

5. El Blanco can SUCK MY COCK.
Feb 9th, 2005 10:20 PM
El Blanco
Quote:
That shows that this is pretty much nothing new out of the guy's mouth. It's just some rubbish shitstorm whipped up by the likes of Limbaugh, Hannity, or whomever is currently upping their ratings by calling this guy a disgrace for somethign he wrote 3 and a half years ago.
And what exactly have they said about it? Aside from their usual cheerleading?

And how does this make Rupert Murdoch richer?

This man's employer decided that they would not let him use their resources to bring unwanted heat onto them. He's done it before, this was just the last straw.

You can get all uppity and pissy and cry about how wrong things are all you want. It won't change that the university was well within their rights to drop him.
Feb 9th, 2005 09:43 PM
ziggytrix 1st amendment violated, no. Fired? Myabe, but check this out.

Quote:
At first, the colleges involved stood by the professor, citing the transcendent value of unfettered scholastic debate. "Prof. Churchill's comments have precipitated a discussion we ought to have," said Colorado President Elizabeth Hoffman. Chancellor DiStefano said, "I must support his right . . . to hold and express his views, no matter how repugnant." At Hamilton, Prof. Nancy Rabinowitz, who runs the forum where Churchill was to speak, argued last week that "the students should hear his whole argument before they boil it down to a few sound bites."
and

Quote:
Students said Churchill makes a similar argument in his undergraduate course called "American Holocaust." His books, including "Fantasies of the Master Race" (1992) and "Colonization and Genocide in Native North America" (1994) regularly compare the American establishment to the Nazis, the same comparison he made about financial industry workers killed on 9/11.
That shows that this is pretty much nothing new out of the guy's mouth. It's just some rubbish shitstorm whipped up by the likes of Limbaugh, Hannity, or whomever is currently upping their ratings by calling this guy a disgrace for somethign he wrote 3 and a half years ago.



It should also be noted that he's offered something in the way of justification for his words, though not an apology:

Quote:
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 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.
But either way this guy is still fucked. The conservative media machine will do it's thing, Rupert Murdoch will get richer, and Americans can feel OK about themselves. Yay, happy ending.
Feb 9th, 2005 09:18 PM
KevinTheOmnivore
Quote:
Originally Posted by ziggytrix
Those men did not get on those planes thinking "oh man, we're gonna take out some janitors, this is GREAT". They were targetting Americans and America, and ALL I'm saying is we'd do well to think about WHY they did it, and not just write them off as hating America because they're just EVIL men.
I have an opinion on the 9/11 attacks, as do I have an opinion and some thoughts on American foreign policy, globalization, Islamo-fascism, etc.

BUT, as I said before, I think that's a bit off topic. You seem to be jumping to this guy's defense because you feel he makes some good points about 9/11 and American policy abroad in general. Fine. You're entitled to that, and you may even be right about some stuff.

However, what we're talking about is freedom of speech and censorship. That's the discussion. So-called "McCarthyism," that's the discussion.

Whether or not he makes valid points isn't the point. You yourself have acknowledged that his comments were sensational. You said "The majority of the essay was a look into why these people did what they did. ONE line compared, by use of hyperbole, the vicitms in the WTC to a Nazi murder. I don't agree with that comparison, but the rest of the essay should not be discounted."


Now the true debate is whether or not he has had his 1st amendment rights violated, and whether or not he should get fired for the Nazi comparison.

On the latter point, I think enough has been presented to justify his termination. On the former, regarding his rights, they have not been violated, IMO. He had his speech, and like all of us, he may need to deal with the consequences of that speech. Nothing in the 1st Amendment guarantees absolute shelter from any backlash that might result from your free speech. It merely states that Congress (i.e. "the state") will not prevent citizens from exercising their freedom.
Feb 9th, 2005 08:55 PM
Ant10708
Quote:
Originally Posted by ziggytrix
BUT I don't think it right for an elected official to call the man treasonous
Agreed. Thats going way to far.
Feb 9th, 2005 04:54 PM
kellychaos Is the question whether we have done things in the past to warrant such hostility or that they think that we have? And, if we have in their minds, done such actions as to warrant retribution; do two wrongs make a right? Are the two evil acts equally evil? Or, in the end, is there an underlying cause of money and/or power that has nothing to do with the questions I posed above.

I'd like to thank my fans, my family and, especially, God for helping me win this Super Bowl. Peace!
Feb 9th, 2005 04:48 PM
ziggytrix
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ant10708
If you honestly are so taken away by Churchhill's essay then thats your problem. Its poorly written and he makes several bad analogies which in my opinion will cause lots of people to dismiss it. I wonder if he really hates capitalism or he is like Moore and thinks capitalism is evil but reaps in the tremendous benefits of it. I mean I bet more people have read his article in the past week than in the past three years. He is probaly happy and selling tons of his other books. I'm sorry I may come off as one sided but I am trying to defend the U.S.(without approving of everything in our history).
I missed this bit before, but you're totally right. As I failed to make clear, I hadn't read the essay before Brandon posted a link, and responded before giving it a very thorough read. There are many much BETTER authors who more eloquently state the message against our corruption of capitolism and imperialistic behavior like Gore Vidal or Chomsky or heck, even Al Franken - this guy is pretty weak. BUT I don't think it right for an elected official to call the man treasonous and push for his dismissal because of what he wrote.

Also, since you mentioned it, I think you mischaracterize Moore when you say he "hates capitalism." One can hate the sleazy things our big corporations do without hating free enterprise. It's not such a stretch.
Feb 9th, 2005 04:32 PM
ziggytrix
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ant10708
And to answer your condescending question about why we are the only superpower: we are the only current superpower because the Soviet Union went bankrupt and collasped.
The condescention your reading into my statements is just me being a sarcastic, jaded asshole - it's not personal.


Quote:
Its funny how you mock me about thinking we are a superpower because of God because you assume Christians are dumb, all the while defending(or coming close to it) the actions of people who believe in the most radical and dangerous forms of Islam.
I believe religious extremism in ALL forms is the single greatest threat to the future of all humanity. You assume I assume Christians are dumb, but you're wrong there chief, I don't think they're dumb, though I do think most of them aren't paying attention, except through extraordinarily biased filters.


Quote:
I heard claims that the 9/11 hijackers may actually of been more secular than many of their contempories but even so the main financer of the 'combat squads' is someone who orginally declared Holy War on us for having troops based in Saudi Arabia. As far as I know we didn't drop many bombs on innocent Saudi chrildren recently. And Bin laden was in favor of Saudi Arabia attacking Iraq if Iraq posed a threat to them until they allied themselves with the Great Satan, good old US of A.
Yeah, you're right. We should have invaded Saudi Arabia, not Iraq! They have more oil anyway. In all seriousness, OSB is a bastard child of Saudi Arabia, they've revoked his citizenship, ya know. They're our allies (even though what, 9 of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi nationals).

Quote:
People always find it convenient to ally themselves with us when there is a greater threat to them. Even the one who has declared war on us and sent the freedom fighting combat squads at our Towers has American taxpayer blood money on his hands!
Yeah, he'd probably say he was used and discarded by America. I'm pretty sure the chronology backs me up here. WE financed a good bit of his actions in Afghanistan. I don't think he sent anyone to the US to ask for that backing. We were allied with Saddam Hussien too, hell we practically set him up and gave him the keys to Iraq. It's kind of strange the people we say are our allies when we stand to benefit from it, but you make your bed with snakes, you get bit. And then you get mad and kill all the snakes. It's the American way!
Feb 9th, 2005 04:00 PM
Ant10708
Quote:
Originally Posted by sspadowsky
While I agree with Churchill's basic premise that we should fully expect terrorist acts to be attempted against us due to our foreign policy in the Middle East, I think he went over the top. While some people are indeed guilty of perpetuating corporate plundering and pillaging in Third World countries, it's totally unfair and unreasonable to include the guy sweeping the floor at the WTC among the "Little Eichmanns." I haven't read a lot of Chomsky, but I doubt even he would go that far.
Hits the nail on the head. I missed your post before. I didn't even need to post it seems.
Feb 9th, 2005 03:13 PM
Ant10708 When do you guys think the gypsies will get their priorities straight and fly a plane into a German building?


And to answer your condescending question about why we are the only superpower: we are the only current superpower because the Soviet Union went bankrupt and collasped. We also have the largest arsenal of nuclear missles which I guess is one of the things you need to be classified as a superpower nowadays. We have established fair and unfair trade deals with many countries. To go back farther we became one of two superpowers after WW2. And we increased our power abroad after WWI which has now lead us down the road of a superpower. Its funny how you mock me about thinking we are a superpower because of God because you assume Christians are dumb, all the while defending(or coming close to it) the actions of people who believe in the most radical and dangerous forms of Islam. I heard claims that the 9/11 hijackers may actually of been more secular than many of their contempories but even so the main financer of the 'combat squads' is someone who orginally declared Holy War on us for having troops based in Saudi Arabia. As far as I know we didn't drop many bombs on innocent Saudi chrildren recently. And Bin laden was in favor of Saudi Arabia attacking Iraq if Iraq posed a threat to them until they allied themselves with the Great Satan, good old US of A. Good old Osama is also one fo the main reasons the Soviets lost in Afghanstan(and later collapsed) which evntually led us to become the sole super power. People always find it convenient to ally themselves with us when there is a greater threat to them. Even the one who has declared war on us and sent the freedom fighting combat squads at our Towers has American taxpayer blood money on his hands!
This thread has more than 25 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

   


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:00 PM.


© 2008 I-Mockery.com
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.