>Actually, what's so terrible about the explanation he's given in his
>Counterpunch piece?
>[<http://www.counterpunch.org/churchill02032005.html>]
He's a little dishonest when he says:
>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.
Even a bond trader is a long way from a cog in the Nazi death machine.
And he's a little disturbing when he declares the WTC a "legitimate military target":
>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.
If he's turning the standards of the Pentagon against the U.S., then he's adopting the morality of the imperialists, no?
Doug