Quote:
|
There is a difference between a plane (an object or tool) and people or organizations. You canot hold a gun responsible for murder, but you can hold a eprson responsible for murder. The PEOPLE in the building had direct ties to the war on terror. This explains why the terrorist believed that the building was a military target.
|
I don't personally agree with the teacher in thinking that the terrorists thought the WTC was a valid 'military' target (with the argument that the CIA etc have offices there), I think they believed it was a valid tactical one. I personally believe that they felt that by striking against such an obvious and symbolic target, that they would force the US into a knee-jerk military response, that would polarise the Arab and Middle Eastern world into direct military against the west. In some respects it worked, and in some respects it failed. But my opinion isn't what's at issue here.
The point at issue here is whether the teacher, in exploring the motivations of the terrorists, beyond the grade-school "They hate us and they want to kill us all." line, was being informative, or spinning a web of communist propaganda as recconmike might have us believe.
Is it really left-wing to try and figure out why things happen outside our borders? In the confines of a geography class? Perhaps they should change the lesson to only cover topics within the US, so as not to offend anyone.
Also, does anyone know what's happened to this teacher since this story broke?