Scott talks about America’s policy of global dominance on the 22nd anniversary of the September 11th attacks. He spoke to the Travis County Libertarian Party
.
21 thoughts on “Scott Horton Speech on September 11 Anniversary: Provoking al Qaeda, Russia, and China”
Comments are closed.
Scott Horton made a great speech. The USA has a long history of interfering in other nations’ affairs and starting unprovoked wars. In school, we are taught the US is a force for good in the world, never declares war unless it is threatened or another nation is threatened or if there is genocide going on there. We are also taught democracies don’t start unprovoked wars. That is not always the case.
During the Gulf War, the US and UK were democracies and Iraq was not and did nothing to either nation, they declared war on Iraq for invading Kuwait and wanted to control the world’s oil supply and they bombed Iraq after the war ended and had the UN impose sanctions against Iraq which led to the starvation of the people.
The OK for Iraq to go into Kuwait came from the H.W. Bush administration. That is known. What is not known by many is the slant drilling Kuwait was performing, taking oil from Iraqi fields. What is further not known is Kuwait was cut out of Iraq by the British. Colonial meddling in the Middle East was the catalyst for all that has transpired, up to and including the events of 9/11. The late Chalmers Johnson brought up the issue of possible retaliation in his book, “Blowback”. The book received scant attention. After 9/11, it gained attention. Rapt attention. As did his subsequent volumes. I have the entire series on my bookshelf.
The 911 that Americans should be commemorating and mourning is the illegitimate U.S. overthrow of Salvador Allende in Chile in 1973. The attacks on evil U.S. financial centers — that did great harm to people around the world — pale in comparison.
To be clear, I oppose attacking unarmed civilians, but the people who worked at the evil twin towers weren’t exactly innocent. See essay on this topic by Ward Churchill, entitled something like, Chickens Coming Home to Roost.
Mr. Silverstein made out very well. Very well, indeed.
Churchill? Of course you would like that fraud.
“On May 16, 2006, the Investigative Committee of the Standing Committee on Research Misconduct at the University of Colorado concluded that Churchill had committed multiple counts of academic misconduct, specifically plagiarism, fabrication, and falsification. On July 24, 2007, Churchill was fired for academic misconduct in an eight to one vote by the University of Colorado’s Board of Regents.”
— “Ward Churchill” article on Wikipedia.
Nice personal attack. Unfortunately, you totally failed to address the issue. Churchill’s essay on this subject was perfect, regardless of what you or anyone else thinks of him.
And BTW, there’s nothing legitimate about Universities these days. They’ve all been bought off by corporate America, and the people who run them are just political hacks for the establishment. I’ll take Churchill over those jerks any day.
Ward Churchill’s [lack of] credibility as a source should be considered before relying on anything he writes.
Donald Trump also insisted that his phone calls to Volodymyr Zelenskyy in 2019 and Brad Raffensperger in 2021 were “perfect” — just as persuasively [which is to say, not].
Your suggestion appears to be that “corporate America” “bought off” the University to fire Churchill for academic misconduct, specifically plagiarism, fabrication, and falsification. What motive would they have had? Meanwhile, Churchill’s motive to deny and deflect guilt is clear.
Your own credibility suffers from posting such paranoid screeds.
I would say that Churchill’s prior lack of credibility means that anything he writes should be very carefully checked vis a vis sources, etc., before relying on it.
Not having read the piece in question, I can’t say whether it’s reliable or not.
You have no legitimate or substantial counterargument, so you continue to use the distraction of your opinion of Ward Churchill. If Trump said 2+2=4, you would complain about his character instead of agreeing. I encounter this kind of crap all the time from people who have no counterargument.
To answer your ridiculous question, the motive of the establishment is to remove a dissenting voice they considered a threat to their power and influence. The establishment does this all the time, anything from censoring people to killing them. I suggest that you try learning a little about reality instead of being brainwashed by establishment BS.
And BTW, we’re not relying on Churchill for facts here, though I’ve never seen him be wrong on any of those either. The essay was an opinion, so it’s irrelevant whether you think he’s credible.
> “The essay was an opinion, so it’s irrelevant whether you think he’s credible.”
You cited that essay in support of your claim that “the people who worked at the evil twin towers weren’t exactly innocent.”
Is that then not a factual issue?
I have no opinion on Churchill’s alleged misconduct, but that has no relevance regarding his political positions or opinions. Sure, it’s a factual issue per se, but not related to his opinions.
His history of fabrication and falsification is relevant to the question of his honesty… about anything and everything.
Yeah it is.
> “… the motive of the establishment is to remove a dissenting voice they considered a threat to their power and influence.”
To the contrary, Churchill’s political “dissent” was excluded from consideration by the University in their removal decision. As their own preliminary report stated,
However, Churchill’s *academic* misconduct — “specifically plagiarism, fabrication, and falsification” — was NOT protected, and breached the terms of his employment contract.
This is all irrelevant. You asked what the motive was, and I responded. What you replied doesn’t alter that motive one bit.
Do you just take the establishment at their word every time they lie and propagandize?
You’re assuming they, rather than Churchill, lied about this.
Churchill was full of crap but that has always been true.
Yeah, hard to take someone seriously when they think Ward Churchill is a worthy source.
Really? Name one POLITICAL statement or position that he’s said or taken that was factually wrong. I’ve never seen any.