Lawmakers want instructor fired from University for his 9/11 views

Originally posted by 12m8keall2c
Cool - 6 informal fashionably attractive or impressive. Seems to contradict your suggestion, slang is included.

ok, look up the word "hot". it wil say hot temperature, but not "an attractive person". you might be able to find a few slang definitions if you search hard enough. But usually, w-m dont have slang definitions, and CERTAINLY WILL NOT HAVE ALL SLANG DEFS. This is why you just cant seem to grasp nazi=propagandist. It does in slang definitions, get it strait.

Back to the post: the professor is a nazi, he is joseph goebbles reincarnated.

I think that's a good thing because it's important to remember what kind of people the Nazis were and the kind of things they did.

yeah, like use propaganda. nazi=propagandist. stop being in denial about it. You know it, I know it. lets get back on topic.


[edit on 25-7-2006 by bob2000]


(Mod note: Read this post. Do not ignore my requests to stay on topic. Stop insulting other members. --Majic)

[edit on 7/25/2006 by Majic]

Online dictionary - hot'

7. Slang. Sexually excited or exciting.

Wrong again, Bob. Dictionaries, as I've patiently tried to explain, are in a continual game of "catch up" with colloquial speech. But you ARE misapplying the term Nazi, and you should really try to understand the historical aspects of a word you're prepared to bandy around with such abandon. (Sorry Majic, but he won't let go of this misapprehension, and the motto of this forum is, after all, "deny ignorance".) Fascism - as Mussolini put it - "is more properly called corporatism, marking as it does the merger of state and corporate power". It is a term therefore more properly applied to the current government than to the professor, who is "liberal" in his views. (I use the vague US meaning of this term rather than the more strict usage favoured in the UK.)

That said, the professor has freedom of speech and is entitled to use it. There are plenty of FACTS he can call on to support his contentions, and students should really be taught to evaluate arguments and weigh different facts against each other for themselves. Being confronted with an unorthodox viewpoint will be healthy for them mentally.

For example, if a professor were espousing genuinely Fascist viewpoints - by which I mean he would be advocating some sort of racial or cultural superiority, for example - my opinion is that unless he is teaching his subject incorrectly (a criticism I don't think can be levelled here) he should be allowed to continue, and that people should argue against him. When I was at university there was an argument of "no platform for fascists" and I think that's unhealthy. In a rational discussion, (which of course, they try to avoid) fascists WILL LOSE... but if you stifle discussion, it allows one party to say "you'll notice that we're not allowed to discuss this, and that's because they know it's an argument they can't win".

To sum up: don't call the guy a fascist when he's a liberal: and support his first amendment rights. If you're that sure that he's wrong, he won't persuade anyone of the ideas, and any sufficiently savvy student will be able to expose him.

unless he's teaching his subject incorrectly (a criticism I don't think can be levelled here) he should be allowed to continue, and that people should argue against him. When I was at university there was an argument of "no platform for fascists" and I think that's unhealthy. In a rational discussion, (which of course, they try to avoid) fascists WILL LOSE... but if you stifle discussion, it allows one party to say "you'll notice that we're not allowed to discuss this, and that's because they know it's an argument they can't win".

I haven't been following this subject at all. Just to get some context as to if he's teaching his subject incorrectly, what is the subject of his stated class?

He's teaching a course in contemporary Islam and the relevance of his controversial views on the subject is that the vast majority of those in the Islamic world think that 9/11 was an inside job. Not such a stretch, really, is it?

Originally posted by rich23
He's teaching a course in contemporary Islam and the relevance of his controversial views on the subject is that the vast majority of those in the Islamic world think that 9/11 was an inside job. Not such a stretch, really, is it?

Not a stretch at all. I work in Dearborn Michigan... Check out our arabic popluation sometime. Largest outside the middle east... I eat in their restaurants and work in their neighborhoods. The overwhelming majority agree with the above statement.

[edit on 26-7-2006 by Slap Nuts]

Ad hominem attacks began here with the NAZI post attacking the messenger, and going with some assumed finalized understanding of what's going on. That is false, and it is wrong.

The real issue is Norman Mineta and his observation of Dick Cheney on September 11, 2001. Norman Mineta resigned the day after this issue was brought to Fox News by the same professor. Are we going to deny ignorance here, or paste labels like "NAZI," such as typical to a smearing, attacking, and dishonest political campaign?

The professor has every right to cite historical facts, and the legislators who will not even look at the facts remind me of those in power 500 years ago who refused to look in Gallileo's telescope.

Originally posted by Duhh
Here here! The reason he should be fired,has nothing to do with dissention.He flat out lies.He uses out of context ,and simili to present most ,if not all of his theories.That is not scholar behavior! Not in the real world.It will get him in the end.Give it time !The more he talks the more absurd it gets!No worries.

I take it you have taken this man's course and know what he teaches? He flat out lies? Well, so do our government officials....or should we start talking about Iraq and how we got there? If that is the case, then all government employees should be fired.

Originally posted by Griff
...Well, so do our government officials....or should we start talking about Iraq and how we got there? If that is the case, then all government employees should be fired.

SOURCE:

www.pbs.org...

[edit on 26-7-2006 by Slap Nuts]

Originally posted by rich23
He's teaching a course in contemporary Islam and the relevance of his controversial views on the subject is that the vast majority of those in the Islamic world think that 9/11 was an inside job. Not such a stretch, really, is it?

It could be a huge stretch.

Is his course in teaching Islam about Islam or about conspiracy theories?
To my understanding, Islam is a religion. G. Bush..neo-con..PNAC etc. = 911 is a conspiracy theory. Connect the 2 for me in the context of teaching 'Islam'.

First I have my doubts that the majority of the Islamic world thinks 911 was an inside job. How was that conclusion arrived at? Not that it matters...what does it have to do with 'Islam".. which is what the course he's paid to teach is about?

Turn it around. A teacher is hired to teach a class in the foundations and contemporary state of the theory of evolution.

He teaches the theory of creationism based on his 'claim' that a lot of people doubt evolution. O.K...thats makes sense in a teaching plan that incorporates the strenghts and weaknesses of boths theories.
But if he teaches that creationism is the more accurate view and only points out how you've been decieved by the powers that be to believe that the 'official story' of evolution is some plot to retain power, well then it's B.S. and he should go.

But I could be wrong about what he's teaching. I pointed out that I've not followed this.

Is he teaching the strenghts and weaknesses of both sides?

But really, even if he is what does that have to do with Islam?

That Frontline episode is the best I've ever seen. I tried to get a discussion going here a few times but no one wanted to join in. Thanks for posting the link again SlapNuts....I think we two are the only ones here who have seen it. I highly recommend people watch that. But, then again, you'll just hear from the same people that whoever put that show together is a "NAZI".....oh well, I guess the USA propagandists (NAZIS) have already won.

Originally posted by Vushta
. G. Bush..neo-con..PNAC etc.

Are all PROVEABLE FACTS they chose to publish on the Internet.

Source: www.newamericancentury.org...

Originally posted by Vushta

But really, even if he is what does that have to do with Islam?

Maybe because the USA has accussed Islamic fundamentalists without proof. I say without proof because...well ask the FBI why 9/11 isn't on Osama's list of crimes. Or why the CIA has stopped looking for Osama.

BTW, is he teaching a class on religion or social issues dealing with Islam? It sounds more like social issues and not a theology class to me.

Originally posted by Slap Nuts

Originally posted by Vushta
. G. Bush..neo-con..PNAC etc.

Are all PROVEABLE FACTS they chose to publish on the Internet.

Source: www.newamericancentury.org...

Yes.. G.Bush exists.

Yes.'Neo cons' exist.

Yes..there is a group PNAC.

This has what to do with teaching Islam?

Well not exactly.

The USA among many other has accused Islamic terrorists of terrorists acts.
The terrorists have in many cases taken credit of these acts making the 'accusations' fact.

People can and do follow a fundamentalist form of Islam without being terrorists in the same way that people can follow a fundamental form of Christianity without bombing clinics.

But I thought that his class was about contemportary Islam?

well ask the FBI why 9/11 isn't on Osama's list of crimes. Or why the CIA has stopped looking for Osama.

Point?

How do you know what the CIA is doing?

BTW, is he teaching a class on religion or social issues dealing with Islam? It sounds more like social issues and not a theology class to me.

I agree. I don't know what the class description was. Maybe that would clear it up. Still, even in teaching social issues it would seem to be necessary to teach both sides if an environment of critical thinking is to be encouraged and thats what teaching that type of thing is mostly about.

concentrate first on part 5 of this link :
www.pbs.org...

Then dare to tell me who is a nazi, this University instructor, or that evil (proven) constant lier, Dick Cheney.

Cheney, who used every Goebbels trick out of this old Nazi's PR-books.
And tricked first George Tenet and then Collin Powell to spout his fixed lies to the United Nations assembly, and thus booted us all, not only America, into war in Iraq, and MURDER thousands and thousands of Iraqi's AGAIN, for the third time, and let a multiple list of countries be compliant to his murdurous deads.

And do us all a favour, read and see the offered video first, so you can offer us a balanced opinion, instead of jumping in and openly declaring that you don't take even the small time to watch the offered video with the man and his words in it.

That PBS masterpiece is the best documentary to this moment I have seen about the path to deception the USA and the world was steered on, by one, evil man, Dick Cheney, who took a whole nation hostage to his narrowminded ideas.
Ofcourse there's a much wider circle of greedy people behind him, steering him and aiding him, but he's the one in plain sight.

Don't forget to see part 6 also, and then take the time to see all parts.

Originally posted by Vushta
Yes.. G.Bush exists.

Yes.'Neo cons' exist.

Yes..there is a group PNAC.

This has what to do with teaching Islam?

These people/groups have implicated Radical Islamists in many serious crimes. That is what the connection is oh wise one.

Thanks for posting the PBS documentary. Fascinating stuff, although I think there's a level of spin involved, as there always is whenever CIA people open their mouths for public consumption.

One thing that kind of leapt out... at just before 5.00 in the first part, Richard Clarke, then Director NSC Counterterrorism, says, "I think on 9/11, Cheney considered that he looked death in the eye... the building he used to work in blew up..."

An interesting way of putting it.

There's also the fact that Cheney is portrayed as at least thinking that he himself gave a shoot-down order for flight 93 (though he's supposedly mistaken about this).

The second part is an interesting perspective on the "stovepiping" of intelligence and again Richard Clarke has a great little piece at the end when he says that he was upbraided by Scooter Libby for saying that the tale of Atta meeting Iraqi intelligence in Prague wasn't true... "I understood what he was [really] saying... he was saying that 'this is a report that we want to believe, and the Vice President's office has a real problem with you saying that this isn't true.' "

I also was interested to note that Powell insisted that George Tenet sit in camera view at the infamous UN Big Lie presentation, suggesting that despite the "full-on eye contact" of Tenet's assurances, Powell had doubts on much of what Tenet had told him was "iron clad".

It's also noteworthy that although the differences between the CIA and the ideologically motivated Cheney people are delineated, the reasons why Cheney and Rumsfeld were desperate to attack Iraq are simply NOT THERE. PNAC is the elephant in the room, it seems to me. It's all described from the point of view of bureaucratic infighting. The connections between the PNAC players are traced back to the days of the Nixon administration - but if you didn't know about PNAC, this wouldn't even alert you to its existence! I am astonished.

It also makes me wonder about who is going to be the next president. Is Cheney going to come from the shadows and run himself? Or will he cast about for another lazy, inexperienced goof-off whose strings he can pull? Whatever, I doubt very much that he will be willing to relinquish the kind of power he currently enjoys. It's also clear that Rumsfeld's real support is Cheney rather than Bush, which might explain the tetchy "I'm the decider!" outburst.

Originally posted by rich23
It also makes me wonder about who is going to be the next president. Is Cheney going to come from the shadows and run himself? Or will he cast about for another lazy, inexperienced goof-off whose strings he can pull? Whatever, I doubt very much that he will be willing to relinquish the kind of power he currently enjoys. It's also clear that Rumsfeld's real support is Cheney rather than Bush, which might explain the tetchy "I'm the decider!" outburst.

Cheney is NOT electable unless Dieblod does their business.

They will need to run Jeb...

Originally posted by Slap Nuts

Originally posted by Vushta
Yes.. G.Bush exists.

Yes.'Neo cons' exist.

Yes..there is a group PNAC.

This has what to do with teaching Islam?

These people/groups have implicated Radical Islamists in many serious crimes. That is what the connection is oh wise one.

And the Radical Islamists proudly accept the credit for the crimes. So whats your point?

Please connect teaching that 911 was an 'inside job' by the US government and a course in 'Contemporary Islam'.
Do you advocate mixing religion with politics? Just curious.

Horrible how easy you all use the term "Nazi"!

Nazi is a term to describe a person, which stick to the ideology of the third reich in germany.

Nazi comes from the word Ignaz, and was used original to describe a person which had a german-austrian origin, or a german-bohemia origin.

Propaganda was used by the nazis, but propaganda was used by the socialsts too.
Every ideology uses propaganda.

Really astonishing for me, as a German ...

I don´t know much about your claimed professor, but if he is doing this in extra lessons, I think it should be no problem for all. It´s everybodys choice to participate this lessons.

A college is a place, where students habe to learn for their live.
So I think that college students are old enough to decide for themselve, they have all the right to contradict and discuss his opinion. Discussing is an important thing to learn.

Polylux

Sorry about my worse english

[edit on 27-7-2006 by Polylux]