Bill Maher and Ward Churchill

[No Limit]

He has clearly stated in his interviews that the little "eichmans" are anyone who support the capitalist/technocrat society of the US. In fact your claim is just silly, simply because an analogy between Eichman and the CIA is nonsensicle. Churchill's point was that Eichman was a bureaucrat, outside of the millitary establishment, who indirectly through his bureaucratic actions, caused the deaths of untold jews. The people, working in the WTC were compared to Eichman, because he believes that by supporting these financial institutions, these people are causing millions of deaths around the world with their bureaucracy. Just like Eichman.

While I find Churchill's views reprehensible, at least I took the time to understand them. You are apparently defending him when you have no idea what the point of his statement was.

Damn, you must understand him better than he does. From his statement:

* 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.

 

[GhostFox]

Read your own quote. The "little eichmans" are the people who worked for and supported the financial companies. Like I said before.

They are not people in the millitary establishment. We are talking about accountants and such.

 

[No Limit]

Read your own quote. The "little eichmans" are the people who worked for and supported the financial companies. Like I said before.

They are not people in the millitary establishment. We are talking about accountants and such.

* 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. Again following U.S. military doctrine, as announced in briefing after briefing, those who did not work for the CIA but were nonetheless killed in the attack amounted to no more than "collateral damage." If the U.S. public is prepared to accept these "standards" when the are routinely applied to other people, they should be not be surprised when the same standards are applied to them.

------

 

[Calanen]

No Limit - you keep publishing deceptively, Churchills later spin, recant, desperate attempt to make things right as if it was the original essays.

The quotes with the asterisks are the spin.

Again, he did not apply the Eichmann comment to the quote you posted:

I changed the above quote to make it a little easier for you to understand as you are completely ignoring what he is saying. So no, you didn't prove anyone wrong. He clearly stated earlier in the essay that when he talks about little Eichmanns he is talking about the CIA and the military in the pentagon.

No he did not. The only place the word Eichman appears in the entire essay, is in the paragraph I quoted. And what he meant was clear.

I'd ask the judge permission to declare you a hostile witness No Limit for evading the questions?

When do the CIA have power lunches and bray on mobile phones? Is this a stereotype that the general public or anyone has about the CIA...NO! Is it a stereotype they have about business people in the WTC? Yes....

So isn't it likely, he was talking about Little Eichmans that 'bray' on their mobile phones, that he is not talking about the CIA, and in fact talking about the stereotype of the worker that is in the WTC? hem haw, ahhh...

And publishing his later backpedlle spin about what he *really* meant from a person who has little or not ethics or integrity is not indicative of what he really said. Just what he really hoped he'd have said after the firestorm erupted. That later bullet point thing you published is a later statement not from his essay.

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.

This was just the PR damage control. Thats not what he said....and we have seen what he said, many many times.....

/me has reached his No Limited with No Limit.

 

[No Limit]

No Limit - you keep publishing deceptively, Churchills later spin, recant, desperate attempt to make things right as if it was the original essays.

The quotes with the asterisks are the spin.




No he did not. The only place the word Eichman appears in the entire essay, is in the paragraph I quoted. And what he meant was clear.

I'd ask the judge permission to declare you a hostile witness No Limit for evading the questions?

When do the CIA have power lunches and bray on mobile phones? Is this a stereotype that the general public or anyone has about the CIA...NO! Is it a stereotype they have about business people in the WTC? Yes....

So isn't it likely, he was talking about Little Eichmans that 'bray' on their mobile phones, that he is not talking about the CIA, and in fact talking about the stereotype of the worker that is in the WTC? hem haw, ahhh...

And publishing his later backpedlle spin about what he *really* meant from a person who has little or not ethics or integrity is not indicative of what he really said. Just what he really hoped he'd have said after the firestorm erupted. That later bullet point thing you published is a later statement not from his essay.

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.

This was just the PR damage control. Thats not what he said....and we have seen what he said, many many times.....

/me has reached his No Limited with No Limit.

You already gave me this explaination 3 times and I already had my reply to it every time, no need to repeat it again. Again, he is talking about technicians, go back for an explaination on this; we are beating a dead horse here.

 

[Bodacious]

The sad thing is, no matter how anyone tries to spin what he was referring to, it is all the justification of killing innocents.

 

[No Limit]

The sad thing is, no matter how anyone tries to spin what he was referring to, it is all the justification of killing innocents.

Ok, please, go read the essay. The killings were justified only if we follow our own rules of warfare on killing innocent people. So yes, he has a good point there and it has nothing to do with the controversy; the controversy is about the Eichmanns comment.

 

[GhostFox]

No Limit, what are you trying to argue? I am confused.

You started off claiming that the "eichman" comment did not referr to civillians, then posted quotes supporting that it does, and now you've moved on to trying to justify it.

Could you please clarify your position for me?

 

[No Limit]

No Limit, what are you trying to argue? I am confused.

You started off claiming that the "eichman" comment did not referr to civillians, then posted quotes supporting that it does, and now you've moved on to trying to justify it.

Could you please clarify your position for me?

The above reply was to Bodacious and has nothing to do with what we were discussing.

My position on Churchill I have argued over and over again and provided quotes. Everything you and Calanen said was discussed in good detail in the other thread. I am tried today and simply don't feel like repeating everything over and over again. To put it simply (and again, we already discussed this) is that he applied the Eichmann to government officials working in the pentagon and the CIA. Adolf Eichmann was a government official working for Hitler, not a civillian, though he never directly killed any Jew.

 

[GhostFox]

is that he applied the Eichmann to government officials working in the pentagon and the CIA

So then you are denying that he applied it to civillians working in the offices of the WTC? (Just for clarification)

 

[No Limit]

So then you are denying that he applied it to civillians working in the offices of the WTC? (Just for clarification)

Yes. And gee, I wonder what you will post next. Look, like I said, we had this discussion already and everything was repeated at least twice, you are about repeat the same point, I will counter with the same points that were already made and this will just spin in cricles. If you want my reply to what you are about to post go read through the last thread we had. I am too worn out for this shit today, sorry.

 

[GhostFox]

Actually I was just going to ask you to watch the interview which started this thread, where Churchill repeatedly makes it clear that the "little eichmans" were the civillians working in the WTC towers.

 

[No Limit]

Actually I was just going to ask you to watch the interview which started this thread, where Churchill repeatedly makes it clear that the "little eichmans" were the civillians working in the WTC towers.

I though you were going to say something else; however, this was also addressed. I already said he looked extremely nervous in that interview (as I would be) and I was extremely disappointed in his performance. I suggest you read his statement, not what he said on TV. Most of us can't deal with a national audience.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

I though you were going to say something else; however, this was also addressed. I already said he looked extremely nervous in that interview (as I would be)

Oh for Christ sake, he was'nt nervous -- he thought Bill Maher would agree with him!

and I was extremely disappointed in his performance.

Well, you can't take it back now -- and judging from his behavior, he clearly believes the people in the World Trade Centers, had it coming.

There's no denying this -- well, except for you.

 

[Scoobnfl]

Only the left trots up "heroes" like Ward Churchill, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Dan Blather etc.... that are unequivocal frauds and liars. How can anyone support anything that dumbass has to say when so much of what he has said is an outright lie?

 

[bliink]

Only the left trots up "heroes" like Ward Churchill, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Dan Blather etc.... that are unequivocal frauds and liars. How can anyone support anything that dumbass has to say when so much of what he has said is an outright lie?

Are you just saying that to start another fight? or were you planning on introducing some form of argument, you know: "the advancement by each side of facts and reasons intended to persuade the other side"

Calling someone a "dumbass" hardly constitutes fact or reason.

 

[kmack]

The sad thing is, no matter how anyone tries to spin what he was referring to, it is all the justification of killing innocents.

Like how the U.S. is justifying killing the innocent Italian?

what did Maher do to get in so much trouble a while ago?

 

[Bodacious]

HAHAHHAHAH!

You are why I still have my sig even with Jondyfun and No limit begging me to change it.

Like how the U.S. is justifying killing the innocent Italian?

First, OMG U R OFF TOPIC, WTF?!

Technically, in this case, he wasn't innocent. We don't have to justify killing him because his death is his own fault, not the US's.

At least that is what I believe. We have to wait and see the results of the investigation. Seeing as how Ms. Sgrena has changed her story so many times I am siding with the US.

what did Maher do to get in so much trouble a while ago?

The people inside the towers were innocent, every single one of them.

That is the difference.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

what did Maher do to get in so much trouble a while ago?

He meant about three years ago.