[lbo-talk] US imperialism caused 9/11 (was O'Reilly vs Churchill: treason? sedition?)

Charles Brown cbrown at michiganlegal.org
Thu Feb 10 09:26:39 PST 2005


And the most original main point is that U.S. imperialism's military occupations and wars all over the globe are the main cause of 9/11. The innocence of the WTC victims is a non-issue. That is the main point that must be drawn from the discussion of Churchill's article. In other words, that the WTC victims were pure as the driven snow is a irrelevant to deciding what must be done about the 9/11 attack.

As citizens of the Evil Empire, it is an objective fact that more of us will be killed if we do not stop whining we are "good, innocent Americans and didn't deserve it ", rise up, and stop our War Machine from doing its dastardly deeds continuously. More and more innocent Americans will be killed if they continue to neglect their duty to stop their government's crimes against humanity. Failure to stop U.S. imperialism is contributory negligence to our own harm. If we take the risk of not stopping the U.S. military adventures, then as a matter of chance some of us will be killed along side those U.S. state agents who _are_ guilty of crimes against humanity and peace. That's an objective fact. As a matter of chance, a certain percentage of the victims of U.S. colonialism will fight back against it, will fight fire with fire. History is a history of class struggle. It's real world kharma.

The focus on Churchill's phraseology and the moral status of the WTC victims is a diversion from the real issue of the responsibility of American masses to do something about its rogue state.

CB

^^^^^^^

jthorn65 >

By posting on this I'm contributing to the problem. The best reason not to discuss any problem with Churchill's scholarchip or even his footnoting practices is because no problem exists. There is nothing to the charge and continuing to discuss it suggests that there is. People will assume if there is an ongoing discussion concerning these matters then there has to be something to the charge. It also distracts from the real issue concerning free speech which is what I believe it is intended to do.

John Thornton



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list