The "Little Eichmann's" at the World Trade Center

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally posted by transplant99@Feb 9 2005, 06:53 PM

Thanks, to me this always means im using common sense when it comes from leftwing radicals.

Pretty disappointing response. Who says the poster you responded to is a "leftwing radical"? Why did you associate leftwing and radical? Seem you're getting defensive for no reason.

[transplant99]

Ahh, but he does not believe that those people in the towers were innocent civilians.

Yes he does...well at least some of them, as evidenced by this quote, made after he was brought to answer for them

"No I did not call a bunch of food service workers, janitors, children, firefighters and random passers-by little Eichmanns," he said. "The reference is to a technical core of empire - the technicians of empire ... obviously I was not talking about these people."


Also, and this starts to get off topic, what about the fact that people from 63 countries died that day.....not just US citizens. Does that not fly in the face of his beliefs as well?

I stumbled across this quote from his boss as well...sounds like a guy that lives under the umbrella of "academic freedoms" isnt even sure that this guys writings have a place in university.

As a faculty member, he's spent his career talking about oppressed people's rights, and the essay tries to make some kind of connection," Gleeson said. "I think his comments were ... ill-thought-out and hurtful, and I certainly don't agree with them."

He added: "It's hard to say he's overstepped his bounds. I don't quite know what the boundary is."

So is this guy just questioningthe boundaries of what his freedoms as a prof are? If so, I have a feeling he isn't going to like the answer.

[MarchHare]

Yes he does...well at least some of them, as evidenced by this quote, made after he was brought to answer for them

"No I did not call a bunch of food service workers, janitors, children, firefighters and random passers-by little Eichmanns," he said. "The reference is to a technical core of empire - the technicians of empire ... obviously I was not talking about these people."


Also, and this starts to get off topic, what about the fact that people from 63 countries died that day.....not just US citizens. Does that not fly in the face of his beliefs as well?

Not to put words in Churchill's mouth, but I can only assume if he feels those people are innocent, their deaths would amount to "collateral damage", a term the US is so fond of using when they accidentally bomb civilians.

But we're getting really off-topic now. I don't think anyone is trying to agree with Churchill or support his position -- I'm certainly not. The debate here is whether or not he has a right to publish what he did, and whether the university should be permitted to fire him.

[moon]

I don't see how his academic freedom is being infringed on here.

He is fully allowed to research the topic and if he found any info that actually supported his research then he would be allowed to present it. THe problem I have is that he has no basis of fact for his views he is just a bitter man who feels it necessary to spout of personal opinions.

In my view academic freedom is in place so that professors can feel free to research any topic and not be threatened by the university to change topics. It is not there so that people can spout lies and then claim them as academic works.

[MarchHare]

THe problem I have is that he has no basis of fact for his views he is just a bitter man who feels it necessary to spout of personal opinions.

In my view academic freedom is in place so that professors can feel free to research any topic and not be threatened by the university to change topics. It is not there so that people can spout lies and then claim them as academic works.

Are Churchill's ideas so far-fetched that we can immediately dismiss them as having no basis of fact, though? Granted, I don't think any reasonable person would agree with him, but I can certainly see his point of view, and his line of thinking warrants academic pursuit; he's far from the first person I've seen make the claim that the American people must shoulder the burden for the actions of their government, and are therefore legitimate targets for terrorists.

[Looger]

last week on jeff rense's radio show there was a one-hour frank discussion aboot the left-wing militant bias emerging in america's post-secondary institutions, and how many students are told straight away that everything they've been taught to this point is WRONG and everyone has lied to them.

one example of a boil-over from this attitude, take with a grain of salt considering the source:

http://www.libertyforum.org/showflat.php?C...8#Post293300308

to me this is simply college culture, as polite society drifts towards extreme tendrils of the right (christian crusade, god's destiny for america, etc.) a natural reaction of this from the counterculture is an extreme viewpoint from the opposite end of the spectrum.

look at what happened during the vietnam war, protest at colleges and universities resulted in riot police and shootings. more extreme times in some ways, i know, but in some other ways those were less extreme times - the whole homeland security, loyalty on the home front issue.

i do wonder if america is hurtling towards a political polarization, sometimes with extreme opinions from left and right being uttered by pillars of community such as professors and mayors etc. it seems something is happening.

take how many people in the excited states rely on michael moore and rush limbaugh for factual accounts of events, for example...

[Lurch]

Thanks, to me this always means im using common sense when it comes from leftwing radicals.


QUOTE
We should only teach one view in order to indoctrinate our society with the entrenched viewpoint. God forbid we expose 20 somethings to ideas that fly in the face of our own, and in fact are offensive to a great many people.



Who said that? Nice stretch though.

Where's the stretch? You state a man should be fired for espousing a view you find offensive and goes against the vast majority of American opinion. Ergo, in order to not be fired we must strive to not offend the majority and stick with what is accepted as appropriate discourse. Further, we should all recognize what constitutes this appropriate discourse via some innate sense of 'decency', as defined by the majority - and it should be obvious that this guy stepped over the bounds to anyone with 'common sense'. Seems a lot like indoctrination to me.

As for the weak shot at my supposed left-wing radical standing, it is off the mark by a long stretch. I would hardly call the belief that one can be free of economic sanction for stating an opinion on a controversial topic, especially when one's job is to produce opinions on relations between ethnic groups, left wing or radical. You are making a large assumption that I share some (or any) portion of this 'little Reichmann' opinion, thereby branding me as a left-wing radical (again in your mind only). So what part of my position is radical left wing: attacks on free speech include economic sanctions and should not be tolerated in a free society, or that my beliefs and those of whom I choose to defend are not necessarily linked.

[moon]

Originally posted by MarchHare@Feb 9 2005, 01:39 PM

Are Churchill's ideas so far-fetched that we can immediately dismiss them as having no basis of fact, though? Granted, I don't think any reasonable person would agree with him, but I can certainly see his point of view, and his line of thinking warrants academic pursuit; he's far from the first person I've seen make the claim that the American people must shoulder the burden for the actions of their government, and are therefore legitimate targets for terrorists.

I think he should be able to research it but until he has facts that back up his statements I don't think that academic freedom should be used to stop his firing if he is teaching these things or even to a more limited extent spouting them off in public. (Not saying that his is teaching these views. I haven't seen anything saying whether he has or hasn't)

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by MarchHare@Feb 9 2005, 08:39 PM

Are Churchill's ideas so far-fetched that we can immediately dismiss them as having no basis of fact, though? Granted, I don't think any reasonable person would agree with him, but I can certainly see his point of view, and his line of thinking warrants academic pursuit; he's far from the first person I've seen make the claim that the American people must shoulder the burden for the actions of their government, and are therefore legitimate targets for terrorists.

I consider myself reasonable, and I don't have a big problem with his works.

Just because one doesn't agree with his viewpoint is no reason to censor them. I'm sure Democrats and Republicans claim different 'truths' during election time... do we identify and fire individuals who are caught lying? No, we dismiss it as 'politics', and re-elect them.

I think the major issue here is people automatically assuming he's crazy and wrong. Guess what. You're crazy and wrong.

I have no idea where some of 'us' get off thinking we know all there is to know, and this University Professor is obviously either stupid or a liar.

I think a little humility and open-mindedness is required on this board.

I'll go out on a limb. I don't value or lament the lives of those lost in 9/11 one inch more or less than civilians killed in Iraq. When innocent Iraqis are killed, its 'war is hell'. When innocent Americans die, vengeance is necessary and its considered morally reprehensible, and the world is moved to correct it.

I like Churchill's book, "On the Nature or Roosting Chickens" I think its called (I own it, but its at home). Maybe read his book and then come back with a little more education on his viewpoint. Oops, I forgot, he's been tried and judged, no need for further investigation.

[moon]

The difference for me is that the Americans are not specifically targeting those citizens in their attacks. There are always going to be civillians kill when violent methods are used within urban areas but to target them speciafically is what bothers me.

Churchill can try and link the people working in the World Trade center as non-civlians and part of the problem all he wants but it won't convince me. The fact that these people are perpetuating a economic system that he doesn't agree with is not a basis to make them targets. Also what about the janitors etc. that died. How exactly are they "Little Eichmans"?

[MarchHare]

Was that post aimed at me, Agamemnon? If so, you've picked the wrong target -- I've been the most vocal supportor of Churchchill's academic freedom in this thread (even though I disagree with his beliefs)!

[moon]

Originally posted by Flames Draft Watcher+Feb 9 2005, 12:45 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Flames Draft Watcher @ Feb 9 2005, 12:45 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-transplant99@Feb 9 2005, 06:53 PM

Thanks, to me this always means im using common sense when it comes from leftwing radicals.

Pretty disappointing response. Who says the poster you responded to is a "leftwing radical"? Why did you associate leftwing and radical? Seem you're getting defensive for no reason. [/b][/quote]
How is Tranny's response anymore disappointing then someone saying "How very typically conservative"?

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally posted by moon+Feb 9 2005, 02:58 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (moon @ Feb 9 2005, 02:58 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-MarchHare@Feb 9 2005, 01:39 PM

Are Churchill's ideas so far-fetched that we can immediately dismiss them as having no basis of fact, though? Granted, I don't think any reasonable person would agree with him, but I can certainly see his point of view, and his line of thinking warrants academic pursuit; he's far from the first person I've seen make the claim that the American people must shoulder the burden for the actions of their government, and are therefore legitimate targets for terrorists.

I think he should be able to research it but until he has facts that back up his statements I don't think that academic freedom should be used to stop his firing if he is teaching these things or even to a more limited extent spouting them off in public. (Not saying that his is teaching these views. I haven't seen anything saying whether he has or hasn't) [/b][/quote]
This is what is bugging me. The people that appear to be all for firing this guy want him to prove it. For the love of god, this isn't something that can be proved, it is an oposing position on the causes/justifiablitly of the 9/11 attacks. This is a moral and social issue, not some physical law.

He can no more prove that this is the case than you can prove whether or not nudity is right or wrong. This is an opinion based on his interpretation of the actions and responses of different groups of people, no one can either prove no disprove it.

[Lurch]

The difference for me is that the Americans are not specifically targeting those citizens in their attacks. There are always going to be civillians kill when violent methods are used within urban areas but to target them speciafically is what bothers me.

Does that make the attack on the Pentagon ok in your books?

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally posted by moon@Feb 9 2005, 03:12 PM
The difference for me is that the Americans are not specifically targeting those citizens in their attacks. There are always going to be civillians kill when violent methods are used within urban areas but to target them speciafically is what bothers me.

Churchill can try and link the people working in the World Trade center as non-civlians and part of the problem all he wants but it won't convince me. The fact that these people are perpetuating a economic system that he doesn't agree with is not a basis to make them targets. Also what about the janitors etc. that died. How exactly are they "Little Eichmans"?

I don't think you get the point of the topic. You're pretty much arguing with the wall here. Not one person has said that they agree with him. We are simply saying that he should be able to present that opinion without being fired.

[moon]

I don't want him fired just don't think that academic freedom should be used as justification for a professor to spout off views on which he has no proof.

I find it very difficult to say that a janitor who cleans buildings deserves to die because the people that works in that building may or may not be supporting an economic system that he feels is wrong/damaging whatever. And that therefore those involve in the economic deserve to die.

There are issues that are not 100% true or false and there needs to be leeway on what professors can teach and what they can't.

I don't feel that this situation warrants that leeway. I think his view is too far out there to fit within the parameters of what is within reason.

[moon]

Originally posted by Bring_Back_Shantz+Feb 9 2005, 02:19 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Bring_Back_Shantz @ Feb 9 2005, 02:19 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-moon@Feb 9 2005, 03:12 PM
The difference for me is that the Americans are not specifically targeting those citizens in their attacks. There are always going to be civillians kill when violent methods are used within urban areas but to target them speciafically is what bothers me.

Churchill can try and link the people working in the World Trade center as non-civlians and part of the problem all he wants but it won't convince me. The fact that these people are perpetuating a economic system that he doesn't agree with is not a basis to make them targets. Also what about the janitors etc. that died. How exactly are they "Little Eichmans"?

I don't think you get the point of the topic. You're pretty much arguing with the wall here. Not one person has said that they agree with him. We are simply saying that he should be able to present that opinion without being fired. [/b][/quote]
Okay I see what your saying and I believe that he could be fired because of the fact that his views should not be covered under academic freedom.

Not saying that he should just that I obviously have a more limited view on academic freedom than others i.e. you and agamemnon.

[Lurch]

I find it very difficult to say that a janitor who cleans buildings deserves to die because the people that works in that building may or may not be supporting an economic system that he feels is wrong/damaging whatever. And that therefore those involve in the economic deserve to die.

It's really not the point that you agree or disagree with his position - you cannot absolutely refute it as a falsehood without resorting to subjective arguments such as the morality of this attack versus the morality of a cruise missile attack gone wrong. What bothers me is that you feel no tug that says "Despite the fact that I disagree with this guy, he should be free to state it free from fear of being fired". Where exactly do you draw the line on what is an acceptable opinion and who gets to say where that line falls?

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by moon@Feb 9 2005, 09:12 PM
The difference for me is that the Americans are not specifically targeting those citizens in their attacks. There are always going to be civillians kill when violent methods are used within urban areas but to target them speciafically is what bothers me.

Churchill can try and link the people working in the World Trade center as non-civlians and part of the problem all he wants but it won't convince me. The fact that these people are perpetuating a economic system that he doesn't agree with is not a basis to make them targets. Also what about the janitors etc. that died. How exactly are they "Little Eichmans"?

The difference for me is that the Americans are not specifically targeting those citizens in their attacks. There are always going to be civillians kill when violent methods are used within urban areas but to target them speciafically is what bothers me.

Right, but the militants who destroyed the WTC didn't think of their targets as 'innocent civilians', they thought of them as part of the financial infrastructure supporting their Imperial enemies; the US. Just as the US is targeting 'terror', not civilians.

I doubt the 9/11 terrorists would suggest they were going after the janitors the same as the stock brokers. I'm sure there was 'collateral damage' in WTC, just as in Iraq. Didn't the US waste a wedding there? Where was the international response to bring those responsible to justice? Non-existant, wasn't an issue. War is Hell. As long as you're not American...

[MarchHare]

I don't want him fired just don't think that academic freedom should be used as justification for a professor to spout off views on which he has no proof.

How is he supposed to prove his theory, since it's a highly subjective social issue? For that matter, how does one prove any theory? Scientists still haven't proven Einstein's theory of relativity -- is that then not an acceptable topic in a physics classroom? What about evolution, which many on the right insist is a "controversal theory". Is anything that we cannot say is absolutely-without-a-doubt-100%correct not grounds for publication? Is not the whole point of the academic community to challenge existing "truths" and have new ideas critiqued in peer-reviewed journals?

I don't feel that this situation warrants that leeway. I think his view is too far out there to fit within the parameters of what is within reason.

The authorities at the time said the same thing about Socrates and Galileo. I'm just saying...