Guess Who's Planning to Shine Lasers on Pilots

In article ,
Larry Dighera wrote:

It's one thing to have an opinion. No one is going to be worried about some
wacko comparing the victims of 9/11 to the Nazis.

I don't think Churchill did compare the victims to Nazis.

you keep saying that, and then post Churchill's "justification" which actually
contradicts your claim.


The public knee jerk shock at hearing his statement is probably,
because most folks equate 'Eichmann' and 'Nazi'.

Apparently Churchill didn't intend that statement to imply that the
majority of those WTC "technocrats" were consciously guilty of fascist
ideology.

and since those "technocrats" were not unconsciously facist, the
comparison is absurd.


Here's how Churchill justifies his statement:

* 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.

Not much of a justification.

--
Bob Noel
looking for a sig the lawyers will like

All this aside, I want to know what the USAF feels constitutes a "safe
laser." And once defined, will those who shine "safe" lasers at
aircraft still be hysterically declared Enemy Combatants and lose
their right to legal due process as occurred in New Jersey?



On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 06:31:54 -0500, Bob Noel
wrote in
::

In article ,
Larry Dighera wrote:

It's one thing to have an opinion. No one is going to be worried about some
wacko comparing the victims of 9/11 to the Nazis.

I don't think Churchill did compare the victims to Nazis.

you keep saying that, and then post Churchill's "justification" which actually
contradicts your claim.

I don't want to defend Churchill, but perhaps its so subtle, that you
overlooked the distinction between the Nazi aspect of Eichmann and the
his enabling, managerial aspect. I don't doubt that Churchill chose
Eichmann for his comparison in an attempt to inflame, but apparently
he could have used the names of the German industrialists
"legitimately" targeted by the Allies with the same implications, and
no one would have taken offence.

The offence taken by the American public probably stems from the
general lack of knowledge of Eichmann's role in WW-II (coupled with
the emotional hysteria generated by the felling of the WTC towers); at
the sound of his name all anyone recalls is the gut wrenching images
of emaciated corpses stacked high like firewood created by the Nazis,
and the public's lack of knowledge causes them to believe, that
Churchill is implying that the WTC "technocrats" were directly
responsible for the same Holocaust. Of course, such a comparison
would truly be absurd.

Without the context in which he made his statement, it is difficult to
discern his true intent, and the public's hysterical knee jerk
reaction is inevitable.

At any rate, with very limited knowledge (one web page) of Churchill's
pronouncements and views, I find the thought of the establishment
dismissing him for what he _said_ to be infinitely more appalling, and
a true insight into the current trend of trampling citizen's rights
granted under the Constitution. His dismissal for this utterance
would be a another _tangible_ example of the totalitarian course set
by the current administration.

After all, noble journalists are currently facing jail time for
exercising their 1st amendment rights in providing the American people
the truth. Is that what we Americans want: the news media to only
report what the administration dictates, or a free press? The choice
is ours.

Are we going to give Churchill the _power_ to prove that the
Constitution has become meaningless, or are we going to tolerate
disparate opinions?

(Robin Williams delivered this gem on last night's Bill Marr show,
"Now the Iraqi people must spend time drafting a constitution for
their country; we could give them ours; we're not using it anymore.")

If we're going to deny Churchill his 1st Amendment rights, then
perhaps we should stop "mad cowboy disease," and impeach the "son of a
Bush" for what he said:

"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we.
They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country
and our people, and neither do we." - George W. Bush

I think our great nation, founded on liberty and freedom, is secure
enough to tolerate opposing views without committing unconstitutional,
totalitarian acts in the name of patriotism. It's the Salem witch
hunt mentality all over again. Is that what we want for the 21st
century?

--

A great civilization is not conquered from without until it
has destroyed itself from within. ***
- Ariel Durant 1898-1981

In article ,
Larry Dighera wrote:

I don't want to defend Churchill, but perhaps its so subtle, that you
overlooked the distinction between the Nazi aspect of Eichmann and the
his enabling, managerial aspect.

It's not subtle at all.

--
Bob Noel
looking for a sig the lawyers will like

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
[...]
I think our great nation, founded on liberty and freedom, is secure
enough to tolerate opposing views without committing unconstitutional,
totalitarian acts in the name of patriotism. It's the Salem witch
hunt mentality all over again. Is that what we want for the 21st
century?

I've avoided this thread, as I try to avoid all threads so far off topic.
However, I've been impressed with your tenacity, and am compelled to at
least contribute a heart-felt "Well said!" to this post, as well as all your
other responses.

I think you're spitting in the wind and I doubt most of your audience is
getting what you're saying, but I agree 100% with all you've written
regarding "the Churchill Incident" here.

Pete

I think you're spitting in the wind and I doubt most of your audience is
getting what you're saying, but I agree 100% with all you've written
regarding "the Churchill Incident" here.

While I agree with academic tenure, and I fully support every professor's
right to say whatever he wants, to whomever he wants, in the context of
"education", without fear of retribution -- I think there is a legitimate
point at which an employer has to start questioning the mental stability and
ability of the person in question.

Going around pretending to be an American Indian -- when you're not -- and
calling 9/11 victims little Adolf Eichmanns seems to cross the line from
academic freedom to mental illness -- although I admit that line is very
tenuous.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:z_9Sd.33326$tl3.26137@attbi_s02...
[...] I think there is a legitimate point at which an employer has to
start questioning the mental stability and ability of the person in
question.

We have appropriate legal channels for determining "mental stability". It
isn't up to the employer to make that decision, and should an employer fire
someone based on an illegal determination of a psychological disorder, they
would be open for a lawsuit for unlawful termination.

Related to that are all the accusations here that Churchill is mentally ill.
No one here is competent to make that determination, both due to lack of
sufficient information as well as lack of sufficient expertise.

Going around pretending to be an American Indian -- when you're not -- and
calling 9/11 victims little Adolf Eichmanns seems to cross the line from
academic freedom to mental illness -- although I admit that line is very
tenuous.

Lots of people pretend to be things that they are not. It's called fraud.
It's not an indication of mental illness. That's assuming the allegations
on that topic are true...I haven't seen any proof that they are, and I don't
know enough of the facts one way or the other to comment on whether they
are.

As far as "calling 9/11 victims little Adolf Eichmanns" goes, I don't know
if you've bothered to read Churchill's comments regarding that, but I have
and I feel that he has indeed been quoted out of context, and seriously
misunderstood. Perhaps purposefully...it's not uncommon for enemies of
someone to do anything they can to discredit that person, even to the extent
of severely mischaracterizing what they've said.

Nevertheless, even if the general public's misconception of what his
comments meant was accurate, his comments are only an indication of mental
illness if you believe that ANYONE who disagrees with you is by definition
mentally ill. A perfectly rational person can take the exact same
situation, and come to a completely different evaluation that you do, in
spite of not being mentally ill. It happens here all the time (I don't
think I need to remind you of just how wrong I think pretty much ALL of your
political beliefs are...but I don't consider that a sign of mental illness
on your part).

More importantly, I think that there's some truth to the general gist of
Churchill's comments. His point was that we are ALL complicit in the origin
of terrorism. Terrorists didn't just appear out of nowhere. As awful as
their tactics are, their motivations are related to our demonstrably unfair
and in some cases highly disruptive meddling in Middle Eastern affairs.
Inasmuch as we as Americans continue to tolerate our government's
paternalistic and selfish behavior in the Middle East, we are just as guilty
as our government itself.

The victims in the WTC towers could be thought of as particularly complicit,
in that many of the people who worked there were indeed "movers and shakers"
in the American economy and political arena. They facilitated the American
activities in the Middle East to a much greater extent than probably most
other Americans, simply due to their proximity to the hub of the American
economy.

Do NOT construe any of my comments as condonement of the terrorist
activities. That's not what I'm saying. But to pretend that the terrorists
are just randomly choosing to attack Americans is ridiculous. They targeted
us for a reason, and frankly continuing a policy of aggression rather than
reconciliation is just making terrorism worse.

There. I got sucked in and said my fill. Probably more than I should have.
No doubt people here will jump all over my statements and call me mentally
ill or (worse?) a traitor. Whatever. It would just prove my point.

Pete

In article ,
"Peter Duniho" wrote:

More importantly, I think that there's some truth to the general gist of
Churchill's comments. His point was that we are ALL complicit in the origin
of terrorism.

Then he is an idiot.

By the same "logic" victims of rape are complicit in the origin of rape.

QED

--
Bob Noel
looking for a sig the lawyers will like

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
More importantly, I think that there's some truth to the general gist of
Churchill's comments. His point was that we are ALL complicit in the
origin
of terrorism.

Then he is an idiot.

By the same "logic" victims of rape are complicit in the origin of rape.

Really? Your claim is the rape victims actually encourage rape through
their support of government policies that interfere and disrupt other
governments and societies?

I'd say there's an idiot around here, that's true. I'm not convinced it's
Churchill though.

QED

I don't think that means what you think it means.

Pete

On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 20:47:41 -0800, "Peter Duniho"
wrote:

Do NOT construe any of my comments as condonement of the terrorist
activities. That's not what I'm saying. But to pretend that the terrorists
are just randomly choosing to attack Americans is ridiculous. They targeted
us for a reason, and frankly continuing a policy of aggression rather than
reconciliation is just making terrorism worse.

Actually Pete, I think they claimed that the attacks were planned as a
reaction to their belief that the holy land was desecrated when
infidels (coalition troops) occupied Saudi Arabia and Kuwait in 1991
during "Desert Storm".

They chose the WTC and the Pentagon, and apparently were also
intending to hit the White House or the Capital building (but that
flight crashed due to the attack of the passengers on board the
airliner when they figured out what their likely fate would be) for
their symbology and, in the case of the WTC, it's vulnerability.

I'd lay the blame at the foot of religion...again.

Corky Scott

"Corky Scott" wrote in message
...
[...]
I'd lay the blame at the foot of religion...again.

The issue is "slightly" more complicated than a single statement about a
single event. Religion is no doubt in the mix, but as usual it's been used
more as a tool for motivation than being the actual root cause.

Pete