So the "accepted" framing of the Ward Churchill storyn is that he said

9-11 victims were "nazis" who "deserved to die." This is the way that a Cathy Sabin of News 4 colorado defined Ward Churchill's statements.

Fuck people, he didn't SAY that. He called them "little Eichmans," which is not a good thing to say about people you don't know who die in a tragedy, but its not the same thing as "nazi/" He said in effect that when the west acts with impunity those chickens come home to roost. I haven't read the entire document myself and I can't defend its academic value, but I know that he did not use those exact words, yet that is how this broadcast presented it.

Just so you know this is not a 100% defense of Churchill, but if you're going to despise him, despise him for what he actually DID say.

and apologies to all.

and since he largely organised the mass round up and murders, I think it would be a well known fact (such as the rumour that Hitler himself had some Jewish blood). Unless you can source the idea, I think you must be mistaken.

He looked very Jewish and was the subject of ridicule for it as a child in Austria and that kinda caused his anti semtism, you must be thinking of Reinhard Heydich who looked very "Aryan" but had a Jewish father supposely.

sorry

Eichmann as far as I know was Austrian with no Jewish blood but he looked Jewish and got picked on for it as a kid. He was actually relatively young compared to most Nazis, he was born in 1906.

From what I have seen of his explanation as to what he said I don't think its wrong in anyway. Especially the part about so long as the american people refuse to accept responsibility for their actions there will continue to be 9/11's.

with the tone and language that he used. What I really despise is Kathy Sabin and her right wing framing of the issue. She just matter-of-factly says he called 9-11 victims "nazis" who "deserved to die"

since you're specifying one of the worst of them, who organised the death of millions. And he said he couldn't think of a more fitting thing to happen to them than to be killed in the WTC. So I think that was a fairly accurate summary of what he said.

I still don't think that the anchor was being objective.

Our govt. is responsible for horrible atrocities all over the world in order to feed its politicians, and corporations greed for money and power...At what point do you start blaming the people who allow that government to do what it does?

(A Serous Question to you)

is overreacting. He has the right to say it, of course, but I question his judgement, and his professional ability, with the 'little Eichmanns' remark. This can also be said to equate the Holocaust with capitalism - and that would offend a lot of Jews. For a professor of ethnic studies to say that is careless.

While you may make a case for developed countries having collective blame for what their governments have done, I don't think you can then translate that to "therefore it's OK if some of them die". They wern't to blame more than the rest of us. You might say that the loss of jobs to other countries is more of a fitting punishment - or it would be, if it hit those who have benefitted most. At least it is more proportionate, and spreads the punishment some more, than deaths.

It's about sending a message for people to wake up by themselves or they'll do it...I don't like it but thats how it is...And what makes it worse is people like bin laden highjacking religion, which can easily spark a fire under a people.

Who is this guy, Churchill, never heard of him. Its just as bad if not worse to call someone an Eichmann since Eichmann played a key role in the final solution.

Check out this post

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=3058871&mesg_id=3058871

Only the corporate whores who kill people by the boat loads for their bottom line that died in the WTC attacks. He specifically stated that and the MSM lied and spun it to mean otherwise. I applaud what he said.