Blog For Free!
Archives
Home
2008 July
2008 June
2008 May
2008 April
2008 March
2008 February
2008 January
2007 December
2007 November
2007 October
2007 September
2007 July
2007 June
2007 May
2007 April
2007 March
2007 February
2007 January
2006 December
2006 November
2006 October
2006 September
2006 August
2006 July
2006 June
2006 May
2006 April
2006 March
2006 February
2006 January
2005 December
2005 November
2005 October
2005 August
2005 July
2005 June
2005 May
2005 April
2005 March
2005 January
2004 December
2004 November
2004 October
2004 September
2004 August
2004 July
My Links
Global Warming: A Chilling Perspective
Watts Up With That?
Internet Haganah
Jihad Watch
Ponder the Maunder
The Dissident Frogman
Barking-Moonbat EWS
Just Barking Mad!
The Malaria Clock
Project Valour-IT
Islam: Turning everything it touches to Shi'ite since 632 AD...
10 Myths of Islam
tBlog
My Profile
Send tMail
My tFriends
My Images
Sponsored
Blog
| Ward Churchill backs fragging |
| 06.27.05 (10:42 am) [edit] |
|
Controversial '9-11 prof' suggests rolling grenades under line officers Posted: June 26, 2005 10:39 p.m. Eastern © 2005 WorldNetDaily.com Prof. Ward Churchill University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill suggested to a forum on conscientious objection they might be more effective in opposing war if they supported the "fragging" or killing of line officers. In a Portland meeting on resistance to military recruiting, Churchill, famous for comparing Sept. 11, 2001, victims in the World Trade Center to "little Eichmanns," twice suggested anti-war activists should support those who kill their officers. "For those of you who do, as a matter of principle, oppose war in any form, the idea of supporting a conscientious objector who's already been inducted [and] in his combat service in Iraq might have a certain appeal," he said. "But let me ask you this: Would you render the same support to someone who hadn't conscientiously objected, but rather instead rolled a grenade under their line officer in order to neutralize the combat capacity of their unit?" Later, in a question-and-answer period, Churchill was asked whether the trauma "fragging" inflicts on that officer's family back home should be considered, he responded: "How do you feel about Adolf Eichmann's family?" Dick. http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45012" title="http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45012" target="_blank"http://www.wnd.com/news/artic... |
posted by: LynnKramer (reply)
post date: 06.27.05 (9:21 am)
Unless you want to accumulate a long list of examples of Prof. Ward Churchill, Ph.D.'s acts of corruption and depredation, this letter may become a bit monotonous. However, I indubitably do hope you read it all the way through, because Prof. Churchill is utterly -- and I mean utterly -- judgmental. To start, Prof. Churchill's press releases represent not only a denial of reality, but also an especially beer-guzzling sort of spiritual poison that will court a pestiferous minority of unregenerate, vengeful humanity-haters before you know it, and everyone with half a brain understands that. If history follows its course, it should be evident that the picture I am presenting need not be confined to his ideas. It applies to everything Prof. Churchill says and does. What kind of loser wants to perpetuate the myth that we have no reason to be fearful about the criminally violent trends in our society today and over the past ten to fifteen years? A loser like Prof. Churchill. As my mother used to tell me, "The only way that Prof. Churchill could convince me that his practices can give us deeper insights into the nature of reality would be to feed me stupid-flakes for breakfast."
Once you understand his biases, you have a responsibility to do something about them. To know, to understand, and not to act, is an egregious sin of omission. It is the sin of silence. It is the sin of letting Prof. Churchill lead to the destruction of the human race. The law is not just a moral stance. It is the consensus of society on our minimum standards of behavior.
Prof. Churchill accuses me of being narrow-minded. Does he feel I'm narrow-minded because I refuse to accept his claim that laws are meant to be broken? If so, then I guess I'm as narrow-minded as I could possibly be. If it is not yet clear that this truth will be as pertinent six years as 60 years hence, then consider that we can all have daydreams about Happy Fuzzy Purple Bunny Land, where everyone is caring, loving, and nice. Not only will those daydreams not come true, but his reason is not true reason. It does not seek the truth, but only offensive answers, blasphemous resolutions to conflicts. Before I move on, I just want to state once more that Prof. Churchill may construct the spectre of a terrible armed threat right after he reads this letter. Let him. In a matter of days, I will make this world a kinder, gentler place. The facts are in: We must draw the line somewhere.
