Someone who isn't qualified to be an American

[Texan_Til_I_Die]

CU prof's essay sparks dispute
Ward Churchill says 9/11 victims were not innocent people
By John C. Ensslin, Rocky Mountain News
January 27, 2005
A University of Colorado professor has sparked controversy in New York over an essay he wrote that maintains that people killed in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks were not innocent victims.
Students and faculty members at Hamilton College in Clinton, N.Y., have been protesting a speaking appearance on Feb. 3 by Ward L. Churchill, chairman of the CU Ethnic Studies Department.
They are upset over an essay Churchill wrote titled, "Some People Push Back: On the Justice of Roosting Chickens."
The essay takes its title from a remark that black activist Malcolm X made in the wake of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.
Malcolm X created controversy when he said Kennedy's murder was a case of "chickens coming home to roost."
Churchill's essay argues that the Sept. 11 attacks were in retaliation for the Iraqi children killed in a 1991 U.S. bombing raid and by economic sanctions imposed on Iraq by the United Nations following the Persian Gulf War.
The essay contends the hijackers who crashed airplanes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on Sept. 11 were "combat teams," not terrorists.
It states: "The most that can honestly be said of those involved on Sept. 11 is that they finally responded in kind to some of what this country has dispensed to their people as a matter of course."
The essay maintains that the people killed inside the Pentagon were "military targets."
"As for those in the World Trade Center," the essay said, "well, really, let's get a grip here, shall we? True enough, they were civilians of a sort. But innocent? Gimme a break."
The essay goes on to describe the victims as "little Eichmanns," referring to Adolph Eichmann, who executed Adolph Hitler's plan to exterminate Jews during World War II.
Churchill said he was not especially surprised at the controversy at Hamilton, but he also defended the opinions contained in his essay.
"When you kill 500,000 children in order to impose your will on other countries, then you shouldn't be surprised when somebody responds in kind," Churchill said.
"If it's not comfortable, that's the point. It's not comfortable for the people on the other side, either."
The attacks on Sept. 11, he said, were "a natural and inevitable consequence of what happens as a result of business as usual in the United States. Wake up."
A longtime activist with the American Indian Movement, Churchill was one of eight defendants acquitted last week in Denver County Court on charges of disrupting Denver's Columbus Day parade.
His pending speech at Hamilton has drawn criticism from professors and students, including Matt Coppo, a sophomore whose father died in the World Trade Center attacks.
"His views are completely hurtful to the families of 3,000 people," Coppo said.
A spokesman for Hamilton College released a statement noting that Hamilton is committed to "the free exchange of ideas. We expect that many of those who strongly disagree with Mr. Churchill's comments will attend his talk and make their views known."

[wtnhunt]

How ignorant, you are right. Could think of several others who are also not qualified to be an American.

[OJR]

He must be from France!!!

[ParrotHead]

Well - one can only hope that this sorry POS will have his "chickens come home to roost" very soon - in the form of a rope and a tall-tall-tree

[Nut]

Free speech is not a hanging offense or even treason. He still is a American to me (if born or a naturalized citizen) despite the fact I disagree with his assumptions.

This is a bad precedent to start down. I sure would not allow this kind of talk in the company of my children. Here on the forum it just saddens me that there is this train of thought out there.

[TreeStandBowHunter]

[ QUOTE ]
Free speech is not a hanging offense or even treason. He still is a American to me (if born or a naturalized citizen) despite the fact I disagree with his assumptions.

This is a bad precedent to start down. I sure would not allow this kind of talk in the company of my children. Here on the forum it just saddens me that there is this train of thought out there.

[/ QUOTE ]


HUH

[Nut]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Free speech is not a hanging offense or even treason. He still is a American to me (if born or a naturalized citizen) despite the fact I disagree with his assumptions.

This is a bad precedent to start down. I sure would not allow this kind of talk in the company of my children. Here on the forum it just saddens me that there is this train of thought out there.

[/ QUOTE ]


HUH

[/ QUOTE ]

HUH????

[TreeStandBowHunter]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Free speech is not a hanging offense or even treason. He still is a American to me (if born or a naturalized citizen) despite the fact I disagree with his assumptions.

This is a bad precedent to start down. I sure would not allow this kind of talk in the company of my children. Here on the forum it just saddens me that there is this train of thought out there.

[/ QUOTE ]


HUH

[/ QUOTE ]

HUH????

[/ QUOTE ]


Yeah, that's what I am saying too. Maybe I am tired or something and my eyes are playing the trick game on me. I got confused by your post. Sorry, I'll read it tomorrow and maybe my eyes won't do that again to me. Goodnight Nut!

[VermontHunter]

Real short and simple...makes me gald he's not my neighbor...this is one sad indavidule to make a statement of this kind..

[buckee]

[ QUOTE ]
Free speech is not a hanging offense or even treason. He still is a American to me (if born or a naturalized citizen) despite the fact I disagree with his assumptions.

This is a bad precedent to start down. I sure would not allow this kind of talk in the company of my children. Here on the forum it just saddens me that there is this train of thought out there.

[/ QUOTE ]
Excuse me while this old Canuck pipes in here.
If we were not at war right now, I might agree with the free speech arguement, but we are at war, with the very one organization that preaches this very same line of thought??
Yes, we may have free speech here, but what is being spoken here is the exact thing that Osama has been preaching to his followers. That line of thought is what motivates them.
Now, considering we are at war with Osama and Terrorism in general, that makes this so called "free speech" treason, does it not...or is treason now covered under the rights of free Americans too


TREASON - This word imports a betraying, treachery, or breach of allegiance.

The Constitution of the United States, Art. III, defines treason against the United States to consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort. This offence is punished with death. By the same article of the Constitution, no person shall be convicted of treason, unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

Treason - Definition:
[n] an act of deliberate betrayal
[n] a crime that undermines the offender's government
[n] disloyalty by virtue of subversive behavior

Is siding with the enemy, not subversive behaviour???

[wtnhunt]

What is so sad is that there are those families who have lost loved ones, and that there are those who are making the ultimate sacrifice to make sure that idiots like this can keep their right to free speech.

In a sense many, even some elected officials, "entertainers", and movie producers, are guilty by definition of treason as it reads above however our freedoms ensure you the right to openly express yourself even if it is an anti American sentiment in a wartime.

[VermontHunter]

[ QUOTE ]
[n] disloyalty by virtue of subversive behavior

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's food for thought....I say recind his nationality rights and deport the idiot to the very country he is in support of...MAKE ROOM IRAQ or AFGANASTAN THERE'S ANOTHER MORON ON IT'S WAY OVER..

[horst]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Free speech is not a hanging offense or even treason. He still is a American to me (if born or a naturalized citizen) despite the fact I disagree with his assumptions.

This is a bad precedent to start down. I sure would not allow this kind of talk in the company of my children. Here on the forum it just saddens me that there is this train of thought out there.

[/ QUOTE ]
Excuse me while this old Canuck pipes in here.
If we were not at war right now, I might agree with the free speech arguement, but we are at war, with the very one organization that preaches this very same line of thought??
Yes, we may have free speech here, but what is being spoken here is the exact thing that Osama has been preaching to his followers. That line of thought is what motivates them.
Now, considering we are at war with Osama and Terrorism in general, that makes this so called "free speech" treason, does it not...or is treason now covered under the rights of free Americans too


TREASON - This word imports a betraying, treachery, or breach of allegiance.

The Constitution of the United States, Art. III, defines treason against the United States to consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort. This offence is punished with death. By the same article of the Constitution, no person shall be convicted of treason, unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

Treason - Definition:
[n] an act of deliberate betrayal
[n] a crime that undermines the offender's government
[n] disloyalty by virtue of subversive behavior

Is siding with the enemy, not subversive behaviour???

[/ QUOTE ]


Hate to bring it up but John Kerry met with the enemy during the Vietnam war , among other things,and just got to run as president of the United States.Why would this guys essay even ruffle any feathers after that This whole countrires going to **** fast