Skip to comments.Northeastern University Prof likens 9/11 hijackers to American Founding Fathers
Posted on 12/30/2004 5:51:10 PM PST by velocityguy
Northeastern University Prof likens 9/11 hijackers to American Founding Fathers In this fiendishly obscene essay, Professor Shahid Alam of Northeastern University portrays the mass-murdering thugs of 9/11 as heroes on the order of the American patriots of Lexington and Concord. Check out also (at LGF) the sneeringly anti-Semitic reply he made to an email reproaching him for his hateful views. From Dissident Voice, with thanks to Anthony and MB:
On April 19, 1775, 700 British troops reached Concord, Massachusetts, to disarm the American colonists who were preparing to start an insurrection. When the British ordered them to disperse, the colonists fired back at the British soldiers. This shot heard round the world heralded the start of an insurrection against Britain, the greatest Western power of its time. And when it ended, victorious, in 1783, the colonists had gained their objective. They had established a sovereign but slave-holding republic, the United States of America. The colonists broke away because this was economically advantageous to their commercial and landed classes. As colonists, they were ruled by a parliament in which they were not represented, and which did not represent their interests. The colonies were not free to protect and develop their own commerce and industries. Their bid for independence was made all the more attractive because it was pressed under the banner of liberty. The colonial elites had imbibed well the lessons of the Enlightenment, and here in the new world, they had an opportunity to harness liberty in the service of their economic interests. Backed by the self interest of their landed and commercial elites, and inspired by revolutionary ideas, the colonists had a dream worth pursuing. They were prepared to die for this dream and to kill. They did: and they won.
On September 11, 2001, nineteen Arab hijackers too demonstrated their willingness to die and to kill for their dream. They died so that their people might live, free and in dignity. The manner of their death and the destruction it wreaked is not merely a testament to the vulnerabilities that modern technology has created to clandestine attacks. After all, skyscrapers and airplanes have co-existed peacefully for many decades. The attacks of 9-11 were in many ways a work of daring and imagination too; if one can think objectively of such horrors. They were a cataclysmic summation of the history of Western depredations in the Middle East: the history of a unity dismembered, of societies manipulated by surrogates, of development derailed and disrupted, of a people dispossessed. The explosion of 9-11 was indeed a shot heard round the world.
Let us do this. We have to give CAIR their own medicine. If it were some American non-Muslim professor saying something against Islam that is anti-islamic, the CAIR and its associates would have demanded the termination of such a professor.
So let us demand Northeastern University to terminate this Muslim professor.
The only similarity between the two is that they are both dead.
This socialist piece of feces needs to get out of the country and move to DPRK. I am so sick of these pathetic elitist educational muck heads!
God what a disgrace-----thanks for the info!
Typical left wing radical professor.
That moron should be thrown into jail. Or Fallujah.
I never knew the Founding Fathers used box cutters and airliners. You learn something new everyday around here.
Somebody ought to call, or e-mail the FBI, or DHS about this guy. He's begging for a visit from either.
M. Shahid Alam vs. M. Shahid Alam
Friday, September 20, 2002
M. Shahid Alam is a professor of economics at Northeastern University in Boston who maintains in a CounterPunch article that he is the victim of a smear campaign designed to make it appear as if he supports Palestinian suicide bomb attacks. The problem is Alam does support Palestinian suicide attacks.
As Alam notes, this all began when he decided to write an essay in support of a noxious academic boycott against Israel. Started in Europe, the boycott called on Western academic institutions to refuse to have any contacts or dealings with Israeli academic institutions. In the most celebrated case of this, one European journal fired two Israeli professors simply because of their nationality.
Alam writes of the fallout over his essay in support of the academic boycott,
There was worse to come. On September 3, the Jerusalem Post carried a report on my essay, without any mention its title or substance, under the heading, "US Prof Justifies Palestinian Terror Attacks." This provoked more angry emails to me, the Chair of Economics, and some others at Northeastern University.. . .
On September 5, taking the cue from the Post, the Herald published another malicious and sensational report on my essay. It was headlined, "Prof Shocks Northeastern with Defense of Suicide Bombers." It claimed that my article "sent shock-waves through the Fenway campus yesterday," but quoted only one of my colleagues. This report too made no mention of the title or substance of my essay, justifiably raising suspicions about the reporter's motive.. . .
It is curious how these reports had inverted the objective of my essay. My essay made a case for an academic boycott, a quintessentially non-violent act, as an alternative to the recent Palestinian acts of desperation. By showing greater solicitude for the Palestinians' desperate plight, I argued, international civil society could give hope to this beleaguered people, and persuade them to act with greater patience in the face of Israel's brutal military Occupation. The Post and Herald had twisted a moral case for non-violent action into justification for terror.
In his essay for CounterPunch, Alam does not quote from his essay either, so here is what he wrote in his July 31, 2002 essay, The Academic Boycott of Israel,
Mr. Leonid Ryzhik, of the University of Chicago, argues that academic boycott "indirectly encourages the [Palestinian] terrorist murderers in their deadly deeds." Does he mean to say that this boycott "indirectly encourages" the Palestinian resistance; and anything that questions, delays or weakens the extension of the Zionist project to the West Bank and Gaza must be challenged, and neutralized. It must be affirmed in the face of such posturing that resistance is a right of the Palestinians, as it was of all colonized peoples who faced dispossession. Of necessity, dispossession is implemented by force-unless this project is aided by pathogens; and, it follows, that resistance to the colonizer must be violent.
The question is not, why do the Palestinians resist, or why do they resist by violent means? There is a different question before world conscience. Why have we for fifty years abandoned the Palestinians to fight their battles alone, beleaguered by a colonizer whom they cannot fight alone? Why have we allowed the Palestinians to be battered, exiled from their lands, herded into camps-in villages and towns that have been turned into concentration camps-exposed to the mercy of a colonizer who freely draws upon the finances, political support and military arsenal of the world's greatest power? In despair, marginalized, pauperized, facing extinction as a people, if the Palestinians now use the only defense they have-to weaponize their death-who is to blame?
And if now world conscience shows the first signs of acting on behalf of the Palestinians, we can hope that this will mitigate the Palestinian's deep despair. When the young Palestinians learn that academics the world over, that young people on campuses in Britain, France, Canada, and United States are stirring on their behalf, this will convince them that they are not alone; and once they are so convinced, they may be persuaded to renounce their acts of desperation. The academic boycott of Israel uses non-violent means, it leverages moral suasion, to reduce the violence of the colonizer as well as the colonized.
I fail to see why Alam wrote a defense of Palestinian "resistance" and then is upset that people interpret this as justifying Palestinian terrorism. Had Alam wanted to make it clear that violent resistance was permissible and understandable but the terroristic targeting of civilians was not, then he could easily have inserted this. But, in fact, he didn't. In his CounterPunch essay complainig that he has been portrayed as a supporter of terrorism, Alam never bothers to actually say that he isn't.
Not surprising given his views on suicide bombers from yet another article in CounterPunch criticizing an op-ed by the New York Time's Thomas Friedman (emphasis added),
But there is another way of posing the question that would shift the onus to the Israelis. A quick glance at the recent history of settler colonialism reveals that there have been many episodes, both long and short, of occupation and resistance to occupation, but it is not too often that the oppressed have employed 'suicide' bombing against their occupiers. Is it mere happenstance, then, that every time the Israelis occupy another people-whether it is Southern Lebanon, Gaza and West Bank-they have had to face 'suicide' bombers? Might the fault lie in the occupiers, and not the occupied?
The Palestinians must account for another sin of omission. They had the option of engaging in nonviolent resistance-à la Ghandhi-that would have won them an independent Palestine 30 years ago. But, instead, they chose the path of violent resistance. Oops! I mean, 'suicide' bombing. Mr. Friedman writes as if Israeli occupation had somehow earned the right to expect Gandhian nonviolence from its victims-as if this was part of the divine package which gave them exclusive rights to historic Palestine. . . .
I have been placing 'suicide' in 'suicide' bombings within quotes. This requires an explanation. The Oxford English dictionary defines a suicide as "one who dies by his own hand." This definition is clearly inadequate. In the absence of a motive, we cannot distinguish between (i) a person who takes his life because he wants to die and (ii) a person who takes his life because this will save her soul-or her honor, her family, her friends, her community, or her country. The first suggests suicide; the latter is ordinarily regarded as a martyr. Judge for yourself then whether the Palestinians are suicides or martyrs.. . .
Use your imagination again. Consider a different history of Germany and Europe-one without the Second World War, without the Final Solution, with-out Auschwitz-all because a lone Jewish 'suicide' bomber in 1938 had penetrated the inner chambers of Nazi leadership and blown them to smithereens while also killing herself. Would this 'suicide' bomber-and her likes-also be regarded as a threat to all civilization? What would Mr. Friedman say about her?
And yet Alam is complaining that newspapers characterized him as a supporter of Palestinian terrorism? I think he might want to look in the mirror a bit more.
Lies of Desperation: Answering Thomas Friedman by M. Shahid Alam, Counter Punch, April 3, 2002.
The Academic Boycott of Israel. M. Shahid Alam, Counter Punch, July 31, 2002.
A New Theology of Power. M. Shahid Alam, Counter Punch, September 16, 2002.
Actually the proper response is to run the Universtiy President out of town on a rail with this guy. As knowledgable as he claims to be of history he must know what the proper response to this anti-human ranting would have been in Boston 230 years ago.
No one writing this has any business teaching anyone anything, other than possibly at an art school where pure creativity is valued. It is evidence of terminally illogical condition. This person cannot handle basic concepts and relationships - he lives in a fantasy world.
This supporter of terrorist and anti-American needs to be fired.
There is a very big difference for one thing. In 1775, it was armed colonists fighting armed redcoats. In 2001, it was islamic criminals flying aircraft into buildings containing unarmed civilians. To equate them with the colonists of 1775 is a disgrace and he does not deserve to be teaching. For a university to condone this kind of irresponsible BS they should have their certifications removed and the university sent to the trash heap in which they currently reside.
This guy is too eveil to see his reflection in a mirror.
He is an excuse maker for murderers, and emboldened by getting away with his previous documented support of murdering innocent women and children - as you have kindly reprinted for us - he now wants to make bizarre moral relationships between Patriots at War against a military and Muslim murderers of iinnocents.
This guy has the brains of a turtle, and his writing demonstrates that. There is no reason he should not be removed from the University for cause - he is an idiot. If he does not know the difference between an army and mudering an unarmed secretary, or Hitler vs an unarmed school child on a bus, then he should be removed from teaching with cause - how can his logic be trusted on any topic?
Keep him on the payroll, but ostracise him.
Please call/email the President of the Northeastern University. Please do this for your country. DO NOT SIT AND WAIT ON SOMEONE TO DO GOOD FOR AMERICA. Let us all start a e-mail demand to the President of Northeastern University. This is important we do this to prevent these "academic terrorists" spoiling the fabric of USA.
Here is the e-mail address of Dr. Richard M. Freeland. He is the President of the Northeastern University. I beg you, let us all please e-mail to the President of Northeastern University demanding the termination of this "academic terrorist".
Dr. Richard M. Freeland
Phone number: 617 373 2101
Room number: 110 CH
Department: Office of the President
e-mail address: email@example.com
Thank you to all in advance.
Alumni of Northeastern need to withhold all contributions until this putz is terminated. That is the only language that the universities really understand.
--Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary
"Professor Shahid Alam"
A muslim I presume ..?? Must have been watching Moore's movie.
Here's what he thinks of the United States.
Worlds Greatest Country:
Do the Facts Lie?
by M. Shahid Alam
March 23, 2004
It's long article, but to sum it up, he goes on and on about how inferior we are.
I am really unhappy with this SOB. My daughter starts NE on January 3, 2005. I am sure that his mailbox is overflowing now and I will help add to it.
This islamofascist piece of sh*t should be put down like a diseased animal.
The colonists were also fighting for the highest ideals; the islamic maniacs are fighting to set up a woldwide caliphate with a seventh century mentality, amputations, floggings, stonings for adultery, death to apostates and infidels, women in veils, etc. But of course, he won't be fired, for this wonderful liberal university values tolerance and diversity!/sarcasm off
"But of course, he won't be fired, for this wonderful liberal university values tolerance and diversity!"
There is no way this professor should live in peace. We must definitely act on this. If the University does not take action, then we have to do everything in our power to get this guy to aoplogize.
I will research some more. If this guy is from India, I promise my life on this, I WILL confront this a$$hole.
Perhaps if students refuse to take his course, the university might get the message.
Better yet, send this article to Bill O'Reilly.. love him or hate him he gets on this kind of thing like a dog with a bone.
This is the same liberal garbage I have been hearing from several sources (maybe it's a fashion now).
Chris Matthews made this comparison on MSNBC a while ago.
I have a liberal acquaintance who asked me how I would feel if someone invaded my home. Wouldn't I try to kill him? He said the Iraqis are fighting for their country, the same as the American Revolutionaries.
I think liberals have an identity crisis - they have to invent these fantasies so they can seem relevant (in their own eyes).
The scumbag doesn't seem to have an e-mail address. Very brave of him. I spit on him. He is a coward and a liar.
Hello, I have put the e-mail address of the President in post number 25. So please use that e-mail address and let the Northeastern University's administration know that you want this anti-American "academic terrorist" to be terminated.
Liberals are on a guilt trip. They feel guilty about being so successful. They fear that they will be accused of being successful. You hear them everyday complaining that American is at fault, America never does enough, Now the American President did not comment SOON enough about the Tsunami and the resultant distruction.
They are so full os Crap, a Tsunami cannot wash away their Guilt of Being accused of being successfull.
A Very Good site and a Great one to Join, very inexpensive:
This wins a Twilight Zone award. He should write for The Onion.
Oh come now, this guy may be wrong, but he's not a terrorist. Also, I know Pakistani academics who are not "bloody America-hating vermin" or anything like that. And there do seem to be a fair number of people in Western Europe who match that description, so you may want to broaden your geographic criticism.
...the history of a unity dismembered, of societies manipulated by surrogates, of development derailed and disrupted, of a people dispossessed....VICTIMHOOD, THE LAST REFUGE OF THE LOSER.
The shot heard around the world was against a military force and face to face, 9-11 was against innocent people and by treachery. The professor is a loser and like the islamofacists a coward.
He should be fired.
Professor Alam holds a BA from the University of Derka Derka...
Remove this guy from teaching.
Remove this guy from teaching.
In his subjective sense, he is 100% correct; until we recognize and respond to this mentality we are at extreme peril.