Was HS Teacher Suspended For Telling Untruths To His Students? - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

nezmot · 03-07-2006, 08:47 AM

If the teacher were explaining to his class that the fundamentalist right-wing abortion bombers were killing people and threatening violence because they believed that abortion was an abomination. That would be fine. It's reporting a fact isn't it?

If the teacher were expressing an opinion that the Muslim religion was violent, that would be out of place, because it's an opinion.

If the teacher states that the WTC bombers believed that the WTC was a legitimate target - is that opinion, or fact?

If the teacher states that worldwide opinion on US foreign policy has seen better days. Is that opinion, or fact?

You don't appear to be able to tell the difference.

The difference is that in the first case (and in the case of the teacher in this thread) the teacher was expressing facts (people really do feel that way), and in the case of the Muslim bashing, it would be wrong because he is expressing an unjustified (personal) opinion.

If the teacher tried to say that George Bush was a fool, or that Americans were idiots, that would be wrong and he should go. But he wasn't doing that - as the transcripts show quite clearly.

Willravel · 03-07-2006, 08:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

Geography =! Politics class.
It had no relevancy to what he was SUPPOSED to be teaching.

The syllabus explains this is a political-geography class.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

The kid did think for himself. He decided that his teacher was creating a hostile learning environment and did the correct thing, he reported it to the principal. That's what you do with teachers who are out of line.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

As we now know, the kid didn't take it to the principal. He took it home and his father arranged for him to take it to a talk radio station.

There never was a complaint to the school or the school board.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

Talking about how the WTC was a legitimate military target and implying that everyone in the class who supports Bush are brown shirt nazi's is NOT a good way to begin conversations. That is what he was doing when he was so "innocently" making kids think in depth.

Seaver...did you read the OP? Did you read the articles or listen to the recording? Did you read the transcript? All you've done in this thread is strawman.

The parents who complained are obviously more whitless Bush slaves who are an enemies of free thought. "What?! Critical thinking in MY childs school? He's saying Bush isn't the son of God? Something must be done about this!!! They are threatening my values (even thought I don't have any values)!!! I will threaten the district administrators, and they will quickly and easily bow to my will!!!!"

This was an attempt by a good teacher to raise the level of discourse in his classroom, an attempt to actually follow the rule that he is now accoused of breaking. The fact that all these parents are outraged PROVES that these kids get plenty of republican propoganda at home. Let them sample liberal propoganda at school in order to regain some sense of reality.

stevo · 03-07-2006, 08:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nezmot

If the teacher states that the WTC bombers believed that the WTC was a legitimate target - is that opinion, or fact?

Its an opinion.

This thread isn't about debating al-qaeda's motives, so I'll keep this brief. but I read your interpretation, nezmot, and the transcript, and the justification of the WTC as a legitimate military target doesn't fit with the rest of alqaeda's actions.

using civilian aircraft full of passengers as missles
madrid train bombings
london attacks

to name 3.

So to get back on topic, no he was not stating fact, he was stating his opinion behind the 9/11 attacks.

stevo · 03-07-2006, 08:57 AM

but then to al-qaeda anything West is a legitimate target.

nezmot · 03-07-2006, 09:01 AM

No! Once again, you've missed the point - this is getting *really* frustrating.

The teacher *did not* state the opinion that the WTC was a legitimate target.

He stated that the people responsible for it *thought* it was a legitimate target. Which they must have done, or they wouldn't have done it. If they were not able to justify their own actions to themselves, would they have been able to go through with it?

I think it's reasonable for us all to agree that those bombers did what they did deliberately. Perhaps they were coerced into doing it by someone else - but I didn't think that was a commonly held belief.

Quote:

but then to al-qaeda anything West is a legitimate target.

[edit] Sorry - cross post.

Yes, you get it now. To Al Quaida - it was a legitimate target. That's what the teacher was saying. That, I think we can all agree is probably a reasonable statement, is it not?

Charlatan · 03-07-2006, 09:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by reconmike

What if this teacher just happened to spout off how bad abortion is? How wrong it is to take a fetus while in the womb?
Or how about how violent the muslim religion is?
Would the same results occur? And if so how up in arms would the left stringers be? Would the ACLU jump right in? Think they would be fighting for this man's job?
I think not, he got what was coming to him just like if he was to spout off about any other subject that was frowned upon in school policy.

You know what? If the teacher was trying to introduce debate in the classroom, why not?

You seem to have missed, although I'm not surprised because it was absent from the recording, that the teacher, after saying what he did, opened the floor to debate.

So yes, with only half of the information about what was said in the classroom, I would expect that so-called "leftist" organizations would be up in arms about similar statement about abortions.

I stand by my assertion that "what he had coming to him" was not a suspension. Perhaps, given further investigation, the guy deserved a reprimand (and even that is highly questionable).

Willravel · 03-07-2006, 09:04 AM

I think everyone should stop and go back to read the transcript of the lecture, just so we can avoid arguing something that has no root in reality.

ubertuber · 03-07-2006, 09:09 AM

Given the fact that the teacher states that globalization is an upcoming topic of study, and he makes the point that the State of the Union address is aimed at the whole world (not just the American public), it seems to me that this topic is fair game - global and alternative perpectives on American actions and American political discourse seem like valuable things to even consider.

Besides, it sounded a lot more like a dialogue than a diatribe to me... I'd be surprised if there's anyone here that never had a teacher that opened up a dialogue (at student prompting) on a parallel subject. The claims that suspension was legitimate on the grounds that "Benning wasn't doing what he is paid to do" are a little facile without some sort of evidence that the kids in his class aren't learning the material that's on the syllabus.

And to all the people who seem to be posting in this thread without having listened to the lecture we're discussing - that seems a little presumptuous and rude to me. Please have the courtesy to exert that minimal effort before posting your thoughts.

stevo · 03-07-2006, 09:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nezmot

Yes, you get it now. To Al Quaida - it was a legitimate target. That's what the teacher was saying. That, I think we can all agree is probably a reasonable statement, is it not?

We all know alqaeda thinks anything not fundamentally muslim is a legitimate target. What I'm arguing as opinion is the rational used to paint the picture of alqaedas rational. To be more clear - that the CIA and FBI have offices in the WTC etc, etc. They don't need any of that. We're infidels, thats all they need. the rest is opinion.

Charlatan · 03-07-2006, 09:19 AM

I don't see why this "WTC is a legit target" is an issue here?

The teacher was arguing from one point of view and then asked the class to refute. This is the nature of debate. Regardless of the debate, it was legit as far as Al-Queda is concerned. So what?

nezmot · 03-07-2006, 09:34 AM

Exactly Charlatan - so what? And yet this guy has still been suspended...

You can see from Seaver and other's complete mis-interpretation of what the teacher was saying has forced this teacher out of work. The teacher was reporting things that the students might not have previously heard. With no political bias. And yet, due to the ignorance of the boy who seemed to believe that there was bias, and the following media frenzy, we get this insane situation where someone is suspended for doing their job well.

The WTC is not a legit target. The teacher did not say it was a legit target. The teacher does not believe that the WTC is a legit target. And yet so many people seem to believe that's what he said and thinks. The reason (apparently) why the teacher is suspended is because his non-partisan reporting of facts has been twisted into this insane (and deeply ironic) mess.

The teacher was not arguing anything. He was teaching his students his class.

Here's the extract again:

Quote:

"You need to understand something — that when al-Qaida attacked America on Sept. 11, in their view they're not attacking innocent people. The CIA had an office in the World Trade Center. The Pentagon is a military target. The White House was a military target. Congress is a military target. The World Trade Center is the economic center of our entire economy. The FBI, who tracks down terrorists and so on and so forth around the world, has offices in the World Trade Center. Some of the companies that work in the World Trade Center are these huge, multinational corporations that are directly involved in the military industrial complex, in supporting corrupt dictatorships in the Middle East. And so in the minds of al-Qaida, they're not attacking innocent people. They're attacking legitimate targets, people who have blood on their hands as far as they're concerned. We portray them as innocent because they are our friends and neighbors, family, loved ones. I mean I had one of my best friends from high school, elementary school and birth, lives in lower Manhattan. .

The point he's making is that the people who commited these atrocious acts did them for their own reasons, reasons that *they* must have thought legitimate.

You'd think it would be obvious. Yet somehow, all these people seem to think the teacher is defending, or condoning the actions of the bombers. He's not. It's simple English comprehension. Why is he being suspended because people are unable to understand their own language?

nezmot · 03-07-2006, 09:37 AM

Quote:

We all know alqaeda thinks anything not fundamentally muslim is a legitimate target. What I'm arguing as opinion is the rational used to paint the picture of alqaedas rational. To be more clear - that the CIA and FBI have offices in the WTC etc, etc. They don't need any of that. We're infidels, thats all they need. the rest is opinion.

And so what's wrong with making some tactical assumptions? If it were a history class about WWII, it might be reasonable to say that the War in North Africa was conducted by Rommel and Montgomery in order to secure oil reserves for their respective countries. Yes it might be opinion, but it's not a political one is it?

Are you saying that he should ignore the reasons why the bombers did such atrocious things? Or that we shouldn't try to figure out why they did it? Or that we should believe that they just see us as infidels? Is thinking about different motivations they might have had, displaying a politically biased opinion? Something that could get someone fired?

roachboy · 03-07-2006, 09:42 AM

the problem being run into across positions here is obvious:

at issue is the definition of "terror" or "terrorism" as posited within the shallow waters of bushworld since 9/12/2001----you know the drill, i assume---everything about this "definition" was predicated on stripping away any possible political motivation for the attacks and substituting for them arbitrary, useless attributions as to motive (evil, jealousy, blah blah blah)--all in the interest of sliding this referent under the aegis of the Persecuting Other, which i am increasingly seeing as a central motivating signifier in conservative ideology.

this move was self-evidently false on 9/12/2001. i remember doing a presentation that day (or on the 13th) to a class that had a number of students who were still unsure of whether relatives and/or friends were still alive--- the function of the presentation was to show that a political choice was being made across the construction of this "explanatory" signifier and that the students should consider what they were watching unfold before them as rooted in a political choice---not a rational response to the attacks--but a political response.
and i outlined what the effects of it could be--and it turned out that it has functioned as i thought it would.

then, as now, i considered this point to be essential:

laying out a plausible rationale for the attacks is not the same thing as condoning them.

since i have no faith in the apprehension of subtlety on the part of the far right, i'll paste it again:

laying out a plausible rationale for the attacks is not the same thing as condoning them.

another way:
to say that the atttacks of 9/11/2001 were political is to say the obvious.

it is obvious that the processes that comprise "globalizing capitalism" played a significant role in shaping the attacks.
it is also obvious that globalization is seen elsewhere--with cause--as americanization--and that within this the trade center and pentagon acquired significant symbolic value.
that most folk on the right appear at least to operate with no understanding whatsoever of globalizing capitalism simply indicates that their politics do not enable them to function rationally in this context.

so the attacks made sense as political actions.
they do not, and have never made sense as acts of "evil" or "jealous people" etc.

this seems so obvious that i am surprised that there is even a debate about it, here or anywhere else.

in the context of a political geography class that is heading toward a unit on globalization, these matters are completely germaine.

i think the folk who raised a hue and cry about it are, quite simply, idiots.

ARTelevision · 03-08-2006, 06:54 AM

This thread is proceededing quite well. The issues are as potentially loaded as most other issues discussed here. Reading the give-and-take offers a great model for respectfully and decently discussing hot topics. Thanks.

reconmike · 03-08-2006, 03:05 PM

Having listened to the tape of this "so called educator" he sounds more like a mouth piece for Soviet Union than a teacher in the United States. In his whole 20 plus minute
diatribe on the American Government I did not hear one fact spewed from his mouth.
On the contrary everything he said was a matter of opinion.
I also noticed how said "educator" left out the fine military hardware AQ used to destroy these targets of opportunity.
Maybe just maybe he has a job waiting for him in the self-righteous, America loathing Hollyweird.

Willravel · 03-08-2006, 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by reconmike

Having listened to the tape of this "so called educator" he sounds more like a mouth piece for Soviet Union than a teacher in the United States. In his whole 20 plus minute
diatribe on the American Government I did not hear one fact spewed from his mouth.
On the contrary everything he said was a matter of opinion.
I also noticed how said "educator" left out the fine military hardware AQ used to destroy these targets of opportunity.
Maybe just maybe he has a job waiting for him in the self-righteous, America loathing Hollyweird.

Just some facts you obviously missed:
The CIA had an office in the World Trade Center. The FBI, who tracks down terrorists and so on and so forth around the world, has offices in the World Trade Center. Some of the companies that work in the World Trade Center are these huge, multinational corporations that are directly involved in the military industrial complex, in supporting corrupt dictatorships in the Middle East.

reconmike · 03-08-2006, 03:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Just some facts you obviously missed:
The CIA had an office in the World Trade Center. The FBI, who tracks down terrorists and so on and so forth around the world, has offices in the World Trade Center. Some of the companies that work in the World Trade Center are these huge, multinational corporations that are directly involved in the military industrial complex, in supporting corrupt dictatorships in the Middle East.

You are absoultly correct these were facts, and with that logic: then the planes were made by Boeing, who also make defense systems and military aircraft so these civilian airliners were actually products of the multinational corporations that are directly involved in supporting corrupt military dictatorships in the middle east, which means the people onboard were also supporting these said corporations, making them really military targets, or should they have been prisioners of war at the point they were captured?

Ahhh now I see these planes were in fact military hardware by this reasoning,
and AQ just commandeered theses military vessels and all military personnel onboard and used it to destroy their targets.

Willravel · 03-08-2006, 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by reconmike

I did not hear one fact spewed from his mouth.

You were incorrect, and I was proving so.

Quote:

Originally Posted by reconmike

You are absoultly correct these were facts, and with that logic: then the planes were made by Boeing, who also make defense systems and military aircraft so these civilian airliners were actually products of the multinational corporations that are directly involved in supporting corrupt military dictatorships in the middle east, which means the people onboard were also supporting these said corporations, making them really military targets, or should they have been prisioners of war at the point they were captured?

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by reconmike

Ahhh now I see these planes were in fact military hardware by this reasoning,and AQ just commandeered theses military vessels and all military personnel onboard and used it to destroy their targets.

If you're going to be sarcastic and silly, then I hope you don't expect serious responses.

nezmot · 03-08-2006, 04:27 PM

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?

Marvelous Marv · 03-08-2006, 06:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Just some facts you obviously missed:
The CIA had an office in the World Trade Center. The FBI, who tracks down terrorists and so on and so forth around the world, has offices in the World Trade Center. Some of the companies that work in the World Trade Center are these huge, multinational corporations that are directly involved in the military industrial complex, in supporting corrupt dictatorships in the Middle East.

By the logic above, since Al Qaeda has minions in a great many countries, the US is justified in nuking the hell out of any middle eastern country we please.

Hey, if it's acceptable to kill thousands of civilians to get your target ...

reconmike · 03-08-2006, 06:22 PM

Now if you listen to the whole 20 minute recording, this educator not only gives his opinion on why he thought AQ attacked the WTC, but also his "known facts" as to why Israel was created, his facts that America was responsible for over 7000 terrorists attacks on Cuba, the US being the most violent country on the planet,(I am assuming that this geography teacher should know of countries like, Uganda, Angola, Darfur, but maybe he does not count genocide by a government as being violence).

He also failed to mention when he said that the Iraqi invasion was illegal was that Desert Strom was never over, just a cease-fire and we just resumed firing.

Charlatan · 03-09-2006, 06:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marvelous Marv

By the logic above, since Al Qaeda has minions in a great many countries, the US is justified in nuking the hell out of any middle eastern country we please.

Hey, if it's acceptable to kill thousands of civilians to get your target ...

No one here said it was acceptable. Take a moment. Rub your eyes and read the posts again.

The argument being made by the teacher and everyone else is that it is possible for the "Terrorists" to see the WTC as a military target. We don't have to agree with their point of view to understand it. In understanding it we don't have to embrace their point of view... quite the contrary.

Personally, I see arguing about whether or not they saw it as a military target as entirely beside the point. Civilians were going to die regardless of the target. In the end it served their purpose to blow up big American symbols (Pentagon, WTC, and potentially the White House). It was big. It was spectacular. It hit American (and by extention the west) where it hurts. In the military (pentagon), the leadership (the white house) and it's wallet (WTC). Big symbols all.

There is no need to justify it one way or the other.

Willravel · 03-09-2006, 08:06 AM

Charlatan, don't worry about it. It's obvious that some people read what they want to read. To comprehend the fact that the teacher was NOT trying to justify the actions of the al Qaeda members - something that is very obvious when you listen to the lecture - is too much for some people. As I read through this thread it's painfully obvious that selective reading has ruined many peoples perceptions.

Marv, I respect you a great deal. I'm not sure how you are missing the fact that the teacher was simply explaining the mindset of the terrorists. I hope you are not a victim of your own political views.

03-07-2006, 08:57 AM	#44 (permalink)
stevo Rail Baron Location: Tallyfla	but then to al-qaeda anything West is a legitimate target. __________________ "If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser

03-07-2006, 09:09 AM	#48 (permalink)
ubertuber spudly Location: Ellay	Given the fact that the teacher states that globalization is an upcoming topic of study, and he makes the point that the State of the Union address is aimed at the whole world (not just the American public), it seems to me that this topic is fair game - global and alternative perpectives on American actions and American political discourse seem like valuable things to even consider. Besides, it sounded a lot more like a dialogue than a diatribe to me... I'd be surprised if there's anyone here that never had a teacher that opened up a dialogue (at student prompting) on a parallel subject. The claims that suspension was legitimate on the grounds that "Benning wasn't doing what he is paid to do" are a little facile without some sort of evidence that the kids in his class aren't learning the material that's on the syllabus. And to all the people who seem to be posting in this thread without having listened to the lecture we're discussing - that seems a little presumptuous and rude to me. Please have the courtesy to exert that minimal effort before posting your thoughts. __________________ Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

03-07-2006, 09:19 AM	#50 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	I don't see why this "WTC is a legit target" is an issue here? The teacher was arguing from one point of view and then asked the class to refute. This is the nature of debate. Regardless of the debate, it was legit as far as Al-Queda is concerned. So what? __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

03-07-2006, 09:42 AM	#53 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	the problem being run into across positions here is obvious: at issue is the definition of "terror" or "terrorism" as posited within the shallow waters of bushworld since 9/12/2001----you know the drill, i assume---everything about this "definition" was predicated on stripping away any possible political motivation for the attacks and substituting for them arbitrary, useless attributions as to motive (evil, jealousy, blah blah blah)--all in the interest of sliding this referent under the aegis of the Persecuting Other, which i am increasingly seeing as a central motivating signifier in conservative ideology. this move was self-evidently false on 9/12/2001. i remember doing a presentation that day (or on the 13th) to a class that had a number of students who were still unsure of whether relatives and/or friends were still alive--- the function of the presentation was to show that a political choice was being made across the construction of this "explanatory" signifier and that the students should consider what they were watching unfold before them as rooted in a political choice---not a rational response to the attacks--but a political response. and i outlined what the effects of it could be--and it turned out that it has functioned as i thought it would. then, as now, i considered this point to be essential: laying out a plausible rationale for the attacks is not the same thing as condoning them. since i have no faith in the apprehension of subtlety on the part of the far right, i'll paste it again: laying out a plausible rationale for the attacks is not the same thing as condoning them. another way: to say that the atttacks of 9/11/2001 were political is to say the obvious. it is obvious that the processes that comprise "globalizing capitalism" played a significant role in shaping the attacks. it is also obvious that globalization is seen elsewhere--with cause--as americanization--and that within this the trade center and pentagon acquired significant symbolic value. that most folk on the right appear at least to operate with no understanding whatsoever of globalizing capitalism simply indicates that their politics do not enable them to function rationally in this context. so the attacks made sense as political actions. they do not, and have never made sense as acts of "evil" or "jealous people" etc. this seems so obvious that i am surprised that there is even a debate about it, here or anywhere else. in the context of a political geography class that is heading toward a unit on globalization, these matters are completely germaine. i think the folk who raised a hue and cry about it are, quite simply, idiots. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 03-07-2006 at 09:46 AM..

03-08-2006, 06:54 AM	#54 (permalink)
ARTelevision I change Location: USA	This thread is proceededing quite well. The issues are as potentially loaded as most other issues discussed here. Reading the give-and-take offers a great model for respectfully and decently discussing hot topics. Thanks. __________________ create evolution

03-07-2006, 08:47 AM	#41 (permalink)
nezmot Registered User	If the teacher were explaining to his class that the fundamentalist right-wing abortion bombers were killing people and threatening violence because they believed that abortion was an abomination. That would be fine. It's reporting a fact isn't it? If the teacher were expressing an opinion that the Muslim religion was violent, that would be out of place, because it's an opinion. If the teacher states that the WTC bombers believed that the WTC was a legitimate target - is that opinion, or fact? If the teacher states that worldwide opinion on US foreign policy has seen better days. Is that opinion, or fact? You don't appear to be able to tell the difference. The difference is that in the first case (and in the case of the teacher in this thread) the teacher was expressing facts (people really do feel that way), and in the case of the Muslim bashing, it would be wrong because he is expressing an unjustified (personal) opinion. If the teacher tried to say that George Bush was a fool, or that Americans were idiots, that would be wrong and he should go. But he wasn't doing that - as the transcripts show quite clearly.

03-07-2006, 09:04 AM	#47 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	I think everyone should stop and go back to read the transcript of the lecture, just so we can avoid arguing something that has no root in reality.

03-08-2006, 03:05 PM	#55 (permalink)
reconmike Thank You Jesus Location: Twilight Zone	Having listened to the tape of this "so called educator" he sounds more like a mouth piece for Soviet Union than a teacher in the United States. In his whole 20 plus minute diatribe on the American Government I did not hear one fact spewed from his mouth. On the contrary everything he said was a matter of opinion. I also noticed how said "educator" left out the fine military hardware AQ used to destroy these targets of opportunity. Maybe just maybe he has a job waiting for him in the self-righteous, America loathing Hollyweird. __________________ Where is Darwin when ya need him?

03-08-2006, 06:22 PM	#61 (permalink)
reconmike Thank You Jesus Location: Twilight Zone	Now if you listen to the whole 20 minute recording, this educator not only gives his opinion on why he thought AQ attacked the WTC, but also his "known facts" as to why Israel was created, his facts that America was responsible for over 7000 terrorists attacks on Cuba, the US being the most violent country on the planet,(I am assuming that this geography teacher should know of countries like, Uganda, Angola, Darfur, but maybe he does not count genocide by a government as being violence). He also failed to mention when he said that the Iraqi invasion was illegal was that Desert Strom was never over, just a cease-fire and we just resumed firing. __________________ Where is Darwin when ya need him?

03-09-2006, 08:06 AM	#63 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Charlatan, don't worry about it. It's obvious that some people read what they want to read. To comprehend the fact that the teacher was NOT trying to justify the actions of the al Qaeda members - something that is very obvious when you listen to the lecture - is too much for some people. As I read through this thread it's painfully obvious that selective reading has ruined many peoples perceptions. Marv, I respect you a great deal. I'm not sure how you are missing the fact that the teacher was simply explaining the mindset of the terrorists. I hope you are not a victim of your own political views.