Reply #17: A typical strawman from your corner, robcon... [View All]

[IrateCitizen]

You said, "Anyone who concentrates on excusing the bombers..." Let's look at what Churchill REALLY said on this, as opposed to your spin of his statements.

I am not a “defender”of the September 11 attacks, but simply pointing out that if U.S. foreign policy results in massive death and destruction abroad, we cannot feign innocence when some of that destruction is returned. I have never said that people “should” engage in armed attacks on the United States, but that such attacks are a natural and unavoidable consequence of unlawful U.S. policy. As Martin Luther King, quoting Robert F. Kennedy, said, “Those who make peaceful change impossible make violent change inevitable.”

This is not to say that I advocate violence; as a U.S. soldier in Vietnam I witnessed and participated in more violence than I ever wish to see. What I am saying is that if we want an end to violence, especially that perpetrated against civilians, we must take the responsibility for halting the slaughter perpetrated by the United States around the world. My feelings are reflected in Dr. King’s April 1967 Riverside speech, where, when asked about the wave of urban rebellions in U.S. cities, he said, “I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed . . . without having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today – my own government.”

Do you seriously call this "defending" such attacks? If you do, then you have a serious reading comprehension problem. I would bet that if you had been of age during the time of Vietnam, you'd be saying similar things toward MLK's renunciation of US aggression in Vietnam, as detailed in his address to Riverside Church.

You then said, "... ans (sic) labeling all the people who died in the towers as "little Eichmanns" doesn't have a moral sense." Let's look at what Churchill ACTUALLY said, as opposed to your spin of half-truth and innuendo.

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....

It should be emphasized that I applied the “little Eichmanns” characterization only to those described as “technicians.” Thus, it was obviously not directed to the children, janitors, food service workers, firemen and random passers-by killed in the 9-1-1 attack. According to Pentagon logic, were simply part of the collateral damage. Ugly? Yes. Hurtful? Yes. And that’s my point. It’s no less ugly, painful or dehumanizing a description when applied to Iraqis, Palestinians, or anyone else. If we ourselves do not want to be treated in this fashion, we must refuse to allow others to be similarly devalued and dehumanized in our name.

Are you at all familiar with the works of Hannah Arendt, particularly "Eichmann in Jerusalem" and "The Banality of Evil"? I would guess that you are not, judging by your responses. So, I'll summarize. The thing that amazed Arendt so much while she observed the trial of Adolf Eichmann first-hand wasn't the brutality of what had taken place under his watch -- it was the way in which he approached his duties. He was not what one would think of as an "evil" man, or a "monster" in appearance or demeanor. Rather, he was the ultimate technocrat. He sought to move up through the Nazi ranks not by doing direct harm to others, but rather by doing his job dilligently and efficiently. In short, he was really just a talented bureaucrat whose work just happened to be applied to the willful extermination of millions of people. What disturbed Arendt most about this, was how unbelievably ORDINARY Eichmann was, and how his rather common, ordinary nature demonstrated that some sort of genocide on this scale was hardly out of the question in the future, given the right circumstances.

This is hardly a condemnation of those working in these buildings as "Nazis". Rather, it is simply a demonstration of how technocrats in various fields, seeking just to do their job well in order to gain recognition and move up in the business heirarchy, can easily contribute to some rather dubious and immoral ends without even batting an eyelash. Such is not indicative of a monster -- rather, it is an even more sinister indication of how basic human nature can be exploited.

Finally, Churchill concludes: The bottom line of my argument is that the best and perhaps only way to prevent 9-1-1-style attacks on the U.S. is for American citizens to compel their government to comply with the rule of law. The lesson of Nuremberg is that this is not only our right, but our obligation. To the extent we shirk this responsibility, we, like the “Good Germans” of the 1930s and ’40s, are complicit in its actions and have no legitimate basis for complaint when we suffer the consequences. This, of course, includes me, personally, as well as my family, no less than anyone else.

Personally, I fail to see how asking such questions in any way hurts us as a nation. Perhaps it's just too difficult for many to confront uncomfortable truths, so they completely avoid even asking the questions altogether. Based on your response to this thread, along with much of the other responses I've seen from you on these boards, I'd have to place you firmly in that category -- along with the vast majority of the population. It's just a shame that we will all suffer for such folly -- even those of us who ripped the scales off our eyes and tried to incite others to do the same, but to little avail.