> -----Original Message-----
> From: lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org [mailto:lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org]
> On Behalf Of Charles Brown
> Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2005 9:27 AM
> To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
> Subject: [lbo-talk] US imperialism caused 9/11 (was O'Reilly vs
> Churchill:treason? sedition?)
>
> 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
>
>
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk