Sunday, August 27, 2006

The Continuing Demolition of the Scholars

Here's some stuff from Ginny Howard, apparently about to become a former member of "Scholars" for 9-11 Denial:

This is a letter Ginny (worked for Scholars) asked me to post on forums for her in relations to recent problems in ST911:

QUOTE:
Below is the lengthy e-mail I wrote Jim on August 18th which lays out the serious problems I had identified in ST911 and explains the situation Jim refers to from my point of view (followed by his response). However, this was NOT the first time these issues were broached; there had been a full airing with Jim of some of the most striking ones in what could be called The 'Two Great Engineers' Saga, which occurred right at the first of August. During this event, which involved Steve trying to insert into Full Membership status (i.e., those with full academic credential)-- on the basis of claims that proved to be FALSE or UNVERIFIABLE and that he had to KNOW were so -- two people who had not even applied for membership! Jim wanted me to accede to Steve's demands on the issue; I refused.

What is MOST telling to me about this whole situation is that, with Judy Wood now removed as webmaster (on trumped-up charges), guess who are now listed as Full Members? That's right! Those 'two great engineers' (nothing intended against them personally), Srs. Winterton and Phelps -- one an elderly gentleman with a B.S. in civil engineering; the other of which we know nothing about. Check it out yourself. [In case these names are removed from the FM roster, the page as of today has been captured.]

And who has control of the webpage? Jim Fetzer.

SO: What this means is that Jones is perfectly willing to LIE about credentials to pad the roles of ST911, and Fetzer is perfectly willing to ACCOMMODATE those lies even after he has been informed in no uncertain terms that that is EXACTLY what they are.

This puts in stark relief the noteworthy lack of integrity that informs the work of ST911. That is, if there is not even an INTENTION to maintain integrity in the membership roles, how can anyone trust there is integrity anywhere else? As I have said more than once, Scholars for 9/11 TRUTH cannot succeed when founded on a pack of LIES.

Speaking of which -- with respect to Jim's claim of 'embracing' me because I was Judy's friend, IMV, I was recruited as membership secretary because I was perceived as a convenient and willing dupe (though no more). Also, as you will see, my actions were not based merely on my 'opinions' about Steve, but rather on a considerable amount of evidence of the general dysfunctionalilty of ST911, as well as the 'quality' of its leadership.

I do need to make one correction about the e-mail below. At the end of it, I said I would continue to work on the applications. In fact, conditions with Jim and ST911 rapidly deteriorated, such that I became even LESS sanguine about the quality of ST911 and about the advisability of continuing to support it. Thus, mostly what I did afterwards was to send out letters of receipt and enter names in the address book. (I, of course, also spent time gathering together materials to inform the new membership secretary, Dave Doering, of the situation and to provide the necessary files so that he could carry on -- if he chooses to do so.

THUS, sadly, ST911 appears to be an organization with a corrupted leadership. If I were a betting woman, I'd put my money on the proposition that it is in fact a creation of, by, and for the perps. Unfortunately, some good people have already been hurt and others will be because we allowed ourselves to be taken in by the attraction of 'credentials' -- without paying sufficient attention to verify the quality and integrity they should have stood for.

Under the circumstances, I believe the only way to limit the damage of this awful situation is for the 9/11 Truth Movement to distance itself as quickly as possible from such low-down chicanery.

My final observation is that the leadership (Jones and Fetzer) have abused the trust placed in them (too willingly) by the ST911 membership. It is therefore up to the MEMBERSHIP to re-establish it's commitment to high standards of integrity in thought and action, and to bring these men to account. I suggest members begin to organize themselves to figure out how this can be done in a way most supportive of the long-term health of the 9/11 Truth Movement.

And, undaunted, to move forward.

The August 18th assessment appears below.

Ginny



August 18, 2006
Jim --

This is a long e-mail; I hope you read it, thoughtfully, all the way through.

For my part, I have been thinking quite a bit about the current situation with ST911.

I do not accept your frame. For me this is not about who I’m more ‘committed’ to: ‘my friend’ or ‘the society’ (i.e., ‘Jim Fetzer’).

It’s not about loyalty in that sense.

Instead, I’m evaluating the situation according to a set of criteria which include the following:

(1) Does the organization have a structure that can accommodate a growing membership and provide reasonable avenues to make use of members’ gifts and talents? Is it able to adapt appropriately as it grows and meets new challenges?

(2) How savvy is the leadership in handling the trolls and operatives who inevitably infest the membership of any organization like ours and then try to take over and create an ineffective mess?

(3) How willing is the leadership to create a strong, clean advisory counsel so that problems, issues, and potential actions and directions can be viewed from a variety of perspectives and decisions arrived at by wise, informed consensus?

(4) When indications of serious problems arise, can the leadership objectively evaluative the data and handle the situation in a timely, effective manner, or will problems be allowed to fester until they blow up?

I believe that, however ST911 was originally conceived, its rapid growth and public image, not to mention the fulfillment of its purpose, require the attention, organizational structure, and leadership I am suggesting. Ad hoc is no longer 'good enough'. However, what I believe I am currently seeing with ST911 is an organization without effectiveness in any of these areas.

I know, for example, that I have more than once expressed my strong dismay at the quality of the forum and at the idea that decent new members are to be turned loose there, where discussions * best I can tell * are dominated by trolls with the primary purpose of wasting people’s time and confusing them about the issues.

I have not gotten one response from you about that.

As a consequence, one thing I’ve done is try to drag my feet as much as possible, without looking totally incompetent, on admitting new members. Why? Because I can’t stand the thought of sending decent, caring people, many of whom write quite compelling personal statements, into the forum snake pit, which is the only thing ST911 offers them by way of contact with the organization. I’ve been hoping (now, I fear, against hope) that ‘something’ would soon change for the better so that I could admit them in good conscience.

I also notice that the entire ‘leadership’ of ST911 seems to consist of you * with Judy and me in the only subsidiary roles * covering membership, website, and forum moderating * i.e., virtually the entire ‘substance’ of the organization per se. (In my case, I know there’s WAY too much membership work for me to do alone.) This ‘structure’ * if one can call it that * is completely inadequate for meaningfully supporting a membership in the hundreds * unless those numbers are intended only to serve as window dressing for a few public personalities.

And this gets at another key issue for me: RESPECT.

If we are set upon ‘saving democracy’, I am very, very clear about one thing: You can’t do that without a competent citizenry. And the first step in having a competent citizenry is treating people with respect.

It isn’t RESPECTFUL to invite people to join you to save their country * and then provide them no structure in which to even begin to serve a useful purpose.

In my role as membership secretary, this has been tearing me up.

And yet as I watch in the background, I don’t see any indication that if I approached you on these issues I would get a thoughtful, helpful response. What I see, especially lately, is very erratic, dictatorial behavior.

It’s very disturbing to me.

And now we come to the issue of Steve Jones.

I have in a number of e-mails to you expressly named what this man is: A LIAR!!

This FACT is provable beyond a shadow of a doubt on a number of fronts.

Because he is the co-chair of ST911, this is a very, very serious issue.

The matter of ‘non-glowing, silvery-gray-at-all-temperatures’ aluminum is so obvious and egregious a fabrication as to be laugh-out-loud laughable if the matter were not so deadly serious. You doubt me? Go to his PDF (you’ll need to do this fairly quickly because he keeps changing it) and visit page 69 (of 189):
http://www.journalof911studies.com/J...radeCenter.pdf (In case it’s changed, I can send you saved screen shots of the page.)

What you’re going to see are four pictures:

(1) ‘Molten metal’ (allegedly) pouring out of a South Tower window -* though NIST states the picture is ‘color enhanced’ (or something like that), not to mention there’s a serious question about whether the whole thing isn’t a total fake.

(2) A picture presumably of thermite burning.

(3&4) Two pictures of aluminum being poured.

These four pictures are supposed to offer conclusive ‘proof’ that what is pouring out of the window in the (probably faked) picture is 'thermite' -- and most certainly 'cannot' be aluminum.

Now, what is the problem with this picture? The problem is that the color of molten metals is determined by temperature * not the material itself * as any high school physics student would know. Whatever is shown as pouring out the window (if indeed something did pour out) is of a MUCH higher temperature than the aluminum (which melts at approx. 660 degrees centigrade) shown in pictures 3 & 4. Why is the molasses-like aluminum silvery-gray and NOT the color of the stuff in the ‘window’? BECAUSE IT ISN’T ANYWHERE NEAR HOT ENOUGH!!!!

This is the 'detail' Jones fails to mention.

No way is Jones this stupid. Nope. He’s lying straight to our faces. Indeed, he lied about it to Judy back in February; he lied about it to Bonnie Faulkner and her listeners on Guns and Butter; he lied about it on your program, he lies about it on the ST911 forum (with his lies being affirmed there by his chorus of groupies); and on C-SPAN, he lied about it to the whole nation.

Why is he doing this?

More to the point, why are you not treating this behavior as the unconscionable breach of scientific integrity it is, but are acting as if Jones is being defamed when somebody calls him on it? Why instead are you not dismissing Jones from ST911 for conduct unbecoming a ‘scholar’, and thus protecting the long-term good name of the organization??

(BTW * as I’m writing this, I just received a copy of an e-mail from Alex Floum in which he makes the definitive assertion that Jones is an ‘impeccable’ scientist. Again, what I want to know is, why is an ‘impeccable’ scientist LYING about an item of high school physics that anybody can recognize as false? IMV -- ‘Impeccable’ is as impeccable does. What I’ve just named * the evidence of which is available for the whole world to see in Jones' PDF -- is the opposite of ‘impeccable’.)

But let’s say you don’t want to deal with the ‘non-glowing, silvery-gray-at-all-temperatures’ aluminum issue?

How about this one:

Jones LIES about the people he recruits as members of ST911.

How do I know this?

In THREE CASES * count them * 1, 2, 3 * that we know about * Jones has corrupted or attempted to corrupt the membership roster by getting people listed as Full Members when they did not have the necessary credentials * AND HE KNEW IT! Who are they:

Jeffrey Farrer:
a BYU Dept. of Physics lab manager; apparently a graduate student
Doyle Winterton:
a man in his 70s who worked as a civil engineer but has no advanced
degrees and never held an academic appointment
Joseph Phillips
we don’t really know, but he might be a vineyard owner who once
got a degree in construction engineering.

In the first case, Jeffrey Farrer was listed as a Full Member until Judy Wood saw that he was ‘thanked’ as one of the students who helped in preparing Jones’ PDF. (This statement, which appeared on the cover page and which I saw myself, has since been removed.) In the latter two cases Judy and I wasted an absurd amount of time preventing those individuals from being listed as Full Members -- which you were insisting that I do on Jones’ recognizance alone -* BEFORE we even had their permission to be listed in the first place, which is a legal issue!

Now *

I have a GIGANTIC problem with the fact that the co-chair of ST911 is a PROVEN LIAR!!

He lies in his science, and he lies in his personal communications.

I don’t have to know WHY he’s lying; I just know that ST911’s INTEGRITY is being compromised egregiously and at the highest levels -- and that this CANNOT be good!!

I also know, for example, that there’s NO fixing the forum as long as Jones is a part of it and ST911, and is accepted as THE unquestioned scientific authority figure there.

The corruption of this man is so glaring (the aluminum issue being the tip of the iceberg) that I’ve believed up until today you would surely see it and take appropriate action.

MY BOTTOM LINE:

‘Scholars for 9/11 TRUTH’ will ultimately fail if it has LIARS at the helm -- and protects them to keep them there. Trying to cover up for Jones * or whatever it is you’re doing * can, at best, have a temporary effect. In the end, it will be a disaster.

This is not rocket science. It’s about basic, common decency. If we don’t have that in our organization * or at least are making an honest attempt to strive for it -- we don’t have anything.

My opinion: Either Jones is a paid covert operative, which is surely what he looks like * OR he’s doing a damned good imitation of one, such that the BushCo criminal regime is getting excellent service -- for free!!

I don’t know which is worse.

There’s much more that could be said, but I’ll leave my description of the problem at this.

Now, you probably are interested in what I plan to do:

I will reiterate: I am HORRIFIED at admitting to a dysfunctional, deceitful organization decent Americans who feel honored to be a part of Scholars for 9/11 Truth (as they imagine it to be) and who want to help save their country by joining.

Still, I have taken on the duties of membership secretary, and I likewise feel a certain responsibility in that role.

Although I am no longer sanguine that, under present leadership, the concerns I have enumerated can be addressed, yet I do not wish to leave the society’s membership applications in disarray.

Therefore, I am willing to spend a few more days trying to catch up as best I can so that whoever takes over from me will at least have some sense of what has transpired in the three weeks or so I have been at this. Although I remain very concerned about what unsuspecting new members are getting into, I do not wish to inflict harm on ST911.

I hope this information is helpful to you.

Sincerely,
Ginny Howard




Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 09:02:44 -0500
From: jfetzer@d.umn.edu
To: Ginny Howard
Cc: jfetzer@d.umn.edu
Subject: Re: ST911 and Membership

Ginny,

Thank you for this extremely interesting post. I had thought it was odd that new members were not showing up, but now I understand. I will see what I can do in arranging a replacement. I appreciate your assistance and am considering everything you have told me. Thanks very much.


So there we have it. On the one hand we have folks who are at least interested in making a plausible case that the "Scholars" are really scholarly, and we have Fetzer and Jones, the heads of the organization.

Of course, if Fetzer wanted to be honest, he would have replied something like this:

Ginny,

Thank you for this extremely interesting post. What you have to understand is that we really have no case against the Bush Administration. Almost everything we claim is a lie, so it's a little late in the game to start pointing fingers at Professor Jones, who at least is providing us with interesting lies that deceive the simpletons of the movement. Have you seen my "Top Ten Reasons the Hijackers Were Fake?" Virtually every word in there is a lie, with the arguable exception of the first reason which even I can't figure out what I was getting at.

42 Comments:

At 27 August, 2006 13:08, Blogger debunking911 said...

I hope you don't mind but I just couldn't let this stuff disapear. I put it up on my 'Jones' page.

Great stuff!

 
At 27 August, 2006 14:06, Blogger Sword of Truth said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 27 August, 2006 14:52, Blogger CHF said...

Oh Dear.

Seems the great 9/11 "Tooth" revolution has turned into a civil war.

 
At 27 August, 2006 15:29, Blogger Andrew said...

Ok it's pretty apparent now

Fetzer = Naive and unprofessional, a perfect stooge

Jones = Government Agent

This is exactly what "THEY" wanted

 
At 27 August, 2006 15:32, Blogger Andrew said...

I believe REYNOLDS is a government plant as well. Now that the Scholars have reached a level of notoriety it's time for "THEM" to play BOTH sides and "demolish" the movement... How sad and predictable

 
At 27 August, 2006 15:41, Blogger Lying_Dylan said...

It is VERY VERY apparent that this whole situatio boils down to the simple fact that the Bush administration know FULL WELL what was occuring and did NOTHING but simply stood by while all this craziness boiled to the surface and that there are patsies running amuck and continuing to reinforce the "status quo" and the belief that in fact it was LRH himself who in fact ordered this and took great steps to prevent the information from leaking yet IN FACT the information was brought to light DESPITE the ominous efforts of the people who in fact have much to gain by the information NOT being shown in the light!!!!!!!!!!!!

 
At 27 August, 2006 15:44, Blogger shawn said...

Ok it's pretty apparent now

Fetzer = Naive and unprofessional, a perfect stooge

Jones = Government Agent

This is exactly what "THEY" wanted


This is why I called you a moron and won't apologize.

 
At 27 August, 2006 15:56, Blogger Sword of Truth said...

If Jones and Fetzer have been engaging in this kind of shennanigans, then I think it's a safe bet that this guys resume is all padding and no substance was well: http://www.911blogger.com/node/2257

The 9-11 "Truth" Movement: STILL 100% structural engineer free or your money back!

 
At 27 August, 2006 16:22, Blogger Dog Town said...

I love the fresh smell of Ct implosion in morning! It smells like....VICTORY! Great job JREF,and SLC folk's! The end is near!

 
At 27 August, 2006 16:36, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

andrew are you twelve?

My god, the 9/11 truth movement is a speck of dust on the USGs ass. I doubt they know, or care whether Fetzer and Jones, and the rest of the movement live or die.

This is not Tom Clancy World. It is not Splinter Cell...Please man, grow up and get it straight.

Jones is a scientist who chose to believe the wrong side, and is now paying for it.

Fetzer is a sad, tired, Philosophy Prof, who speaks above his level, and out of his range of knowledge.

EOS.

 
At 27 August, 2006 17:43, Blogger nesNYC said...

Jones is a scientist who chose to believe the wrong side, and is now paying for it.

Yeah, reminds me of Galileo.

 
At 27 August, 2006 17:55, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

nah....more like copernecious...

 
At 27 August, 2006 18:07, Blogger default.xbe said...

How sad and predictable

if its so predictable why werent you predicting it months ago?

 
At 27 August, 2006 18:37, Blogger shawn said...

Yeah, reminds me of Galileo.

And another horrible comparison by nesnyc.

 
At 27 August, 2006 19:27, Blogger CHF said...

These CTers really do think they're real-life Neos fighting agaist all of us Agent Smiths.

They simply refuse to consider the possibility that they're just nuts.

 
At 27 August, 2006 20:38, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

They are too far down the rabbit hole to do that...lol

 
At 27 August, 2006 21:07, Blogger Alex said...

That's the thing, insane people never know they're insane. That's why psycopaths are easier to deal with to an extent - at least they realize that what they're doing is wrong, they just don't care. Truly insane people however really don't see anything wrong with their behaviour. Take non-sync as an example. The guy regularily makes undefendable statements, and claims which would appear ludicrous even to most other 9/11 deniers. Yet he sees his every argument as perfectly logical, and beleives it's the other 99.99% of the world population that's messed up. There's nothing you can do to convince him otherwise because his mental condition ensures he'll never be able to realize his own insanity, let alone actually do something about it.

 
At 28 August, 2006 00:31, Blogger mrfreeze said...

There is one major difference between Jones and Copernicus.

People remember Copernicus long after he is dead.

 
At 28 August, 2006 06:57, Blogger nesNYC said...

Whilst these little squabbles between scholars commence, yet another academic joins the fight!

Then, They Came for the Professors

 
At 28 August, 2006 07:06, Blogger nesNYC said...

People remember Copernicus long after he is dead.

Well, history is in the making as we speak, no? Time will tell.

 
At 28 August, 2006 07:11, Blogger James B. said...

So what, nobody has ever accused the "Scholars" of a lack of psychology professors, and he has been a member for some time now.

 
At 28 August, 2006 08:46, Blogger JoanBasil said...

Another Don't-let-the-door-hit-you-on-the-way-out post about the 911 Scholars organization. Does she believe that the guy in the cave in Afghanistan organized the attacks of 9/11 or doesn't she? If Ginny now supports the official version, it would be worthwhile to know her reasoning but it seems like she's just miffed about some tiff.

Your problem is that your side doesn't take the field. They want to pass laws saying analysis of the 9/11 official version is not to be countenanced in state universities, I guess. I don't think they'll succeed.

 
At 28 August, 2006 10:47, Blogger Alex said...

They want to pass laws saying analysis of the 9/11 official version is not to be countenanced in state universities, I guess.

Where the hell did you get THAT idea from, you silly tit?

 
At 28 August, 2006 11:29, Blogger Augie said...

In the immortal words of the Wicked Witch of the West, with a slight change...

"they're melllltttting"

 
At 28 August, 2006 12:03, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

alex:
name calling not gonna get you anywhere with Joan....

Joan:
I am not a big believer in schools teaching anything that doesn't have sound evidence to back it up. That includes the teaching of any particular religion as "The Truth" as well. I do believe in teaching critical thinking, but part of critical thinking involves deducing conclusions via SOLID evidence.

Next thing you'll want them teaching classes on the Locknest Monster, Sasquach, and alien abductions, which have as much sound evidence as the 9/11 truth movement have for the majority of their theories.

Kevin Barrett, mocks the teaching profession. He clearly, CLEARLY is using his RESPONSIBILITY as a teacher to further his agenda as a "Truther" and anyone who says he is not is a FOOL. What he is doing is wrong, and a breech of any ethical code teachers try to adhere to.

As for the Scholars, and Ginny's article, It is typical of the "Truthers" to condemn anyone who speaks out against "The movement" so I half expected you and others to dump on her. Next you'll be calling her a CIA shill or some other crap...

 
At 28 August, 2006 12:15, Blogger Lying_Dylan said...

Where's Charlie Sheen when you need him!!!

 
At 28 August, 2006 12:18, Blogger Alex said...

name calling not gonna get you anywhere with Joan....

Civility and logic don't get me anywhere with Joan either, so I may as well enjoy myself.

 
At 28 August, 2006 12:44, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

Well put sir...lol

 
At 28 August, 2006 14:12, Blogger JoanBasil said...

artistic,
What I meant above was that I don't see "Ginny" telling the world that she now believes the official version. All groups have their in-fighting, from the PTAs to the Kiwanis Clubs to the volunteer firefighters. People are always leaving in a huff.

Regarding academia, the history of this period of time, the "War on Terror" is going to include so much analysis of lies, of deliberate deception and misinformation and intricate multilayered campaigns of deception. Its not going to be possible to hold the official version of 9/11 as off-limits for analysis.

I've brought up the issue of the Bukharis and Ziad Jarrah's letter to his girlfriend in Germany many times. These are items that I'd compare to critical analysis of, say, "The Ambassadors" by Holbein in a "Development of Europe" course
(a young relative of mine told me about studying this painting in such a course). In other words, thats what scholars do, take a seemingly discrete item/issue and connect it to the larger context. There is no logical reason why the Bukharis were ever suspects unless someone was collecting Arab identities; what is the truth about the lost/stolen passports and "hijackers" who told major British news outlets that they were alive and well? And then the whole thing disappears down the memory hole???? Why? The Ziad Jarrah "farewell" letter to a girlfriend of 5 years being addressed incorrectly and thus returned and thus coming into the custody of the FBI is so unbelievable as is the "Rosetta stone" of a documents found in luggage and a rental car. Remember Colin Powell's speech at the UN making the case for "weapons of mass destruction" and now there's no argument that the whole speech was a pile of lies. So, the "War on Terror" is chock full of lies and maybe it started with a big lie and there are so many items for the student's consideration of that proposition.

 
At 28 August, 2006 15:08, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

I am not saying, that in an elective class labeled "alternative theories of historical events", that it wouldn't be a plausible lesson plan to include "9/11 was an inside job" as part of the curriculum, but he is suppose to be teaching "Introduction to Islam". In addition, he is pushing his own private agenda.

It is like you visiting the doctor, for lets say, plantar fascitis (Bone spurs). At the end of the interview he tells you that the best treatment is not standard orthotic inserts, but the latest in technology, "magnetic" insoles. Not only that, but he tells you that his company, "magnetofoot" makes the best, and he gives you a prescription for a pair of "magnetofoot" insoles.

The doctor is in a position of authority and trust, and as a patient you expect, and are entitled to be presented with an unbias, expert opinion on your condition and the treatment options for it. The Physician in this scenario (1) has a conflict of interest, and openly exploits your lack of knowledge to promote something that benefits him. (2) He does not provide any concrete evidence that his "insoles" work, but rather uses his leverage in the power differential between you and he in this matter to avoid having to. He knows you, or most like you, will accept his word at FACE VALUE in this matter.

Barrett, is doing the same thing. He knows most students coming to his class will know very little on the matter, that they look upon him as an expert in the subject he is teaching them, and hence will take most, if not all, that he says as truth. He is in a position of trust.

Knowing this, does he do the ethical thing and leave his own personal opinions and agenda out of his class (does the doctor not mention his magnetofoot insoles, but simply tell you inserts as well as other therapies can be used to treat your condition and give you options)??

No, he decides to push his agenda (the magnetofoot inserts), despite the unethical nature of doing so...

 
At 28 August, 2006 17:30, Blogger JoanBasil said...

I saw Kevin Barrett on Hannity and Colmes and his reason for discussing 9/11 is entirely reasonable: he's teaching a course about the Muslim world and (per Barrett) most people in the Muslim world believe that the official version is untrue.

 
At 28 August, 2006 17:59, Blogger Alex said...

Ah, yes, once again Joan shows us what passes for logical thought in CT land.

Next up, it's ok for Automechanics teachers to spend 50% of class time talking about the war in Iraq! Why? Because everyone knows it's all about oil! :p

 
At 28 August, 2006 18:30, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

His course is suppose to be an Introduction to ISLAM...not Arabs...not The middle East...not muslims...

In a 12-16 week course, suppose to be an introduction to the RELIGION OF ISLAM, do you really believe a full week is appropriate for 9/11?

So would you defend a teacher dedicating a week of "The Holocaust was fraud" in a course that is suppose to be an "Introduction to Judaism". It is a topic that Jewish People feel very strong about, so perhaps this "alternative" view should be included in your mind Joan?

 
At 28 August, 2006 19:24, Blogger shawn said...

he's teaching a course about the Muslim world and (per Barrett) most people in the Muslim world believe that the official version is untrue.

They also believe the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is real (they made a miniseries about it in Egypt recently), and that Jews use the blood of Christian children to make matzo (they made a TV movie about this).

I doubt he'll contrast the 9/11 conspiracy theories with those other equally ridiculous ideas.

 
At 29 August, 2006 10:30, Blogger CHF said...

joan,

A lot of Muslims think the USA attacked itself on 9/11 and that Uncle Sam deserved it.

Make sense to you?

Me neither.

 
At 30 August, 2006 03:22, Blogger shawn said...

that Uncle Sam deserved it.

More than a few Americans think that.

 
At 30 August, 2006 11:56, Blogger JoanBasil said...

If the course is an "introduction" to Islam, of course it especially fits that he'd discuss 9/11 as Americans have been told by their own government that the attacks of 9/11 were motivated by the Islamic religion.

How could you leave out 9/11 in an introductory course when 9/11 is the main thing those students come to the course with regarding the Islamic religion?

 
At 30 August, 2006 13:17, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

I would assume as an "Introductory" to Islam, one might focus on the core teachings of the Koran, the myths, the origins of the religion, the ties to Judaism and Christianity.

I will give you this...If he has time in his 12-16 week course of "Introduction" to Islam, to spend some time on "extreme" Islam, than within that segment, there might be room to mention the 9/11 attacks, but that is the only place I can see it fitting.

And are you really naive enough to think he is talking about 9/11 in his class FOR ANY OTHER REASON except to further his own views and to RECRUIT new believers...PA-LEAZE.

 
At 30 August, 2006 13:19, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

Find me one other university, where the prof is not a 9/11 kook, and show me where any of the intro to Islam courses have a "9/11 was an inside job" section...JUST ONE!!!!

 
At 31 August, 2006 13:52, Blogger JoanBasil said...

Why should a class at a university follow a nationwide curriculum for this or any other course? You might as well have a recording of a professor/instructor and play it on a big TV in front of the class.

The US government - President Bush actually using the term "Islamic fascists" says that the 9/11 attacks were carried out by people motivated by their religion but most people of the Islamic religion believe that the US official version is a lie and, hence, the US government is misrepresenting and lying about the Islamic religion. Its a pretty darned important fact to get straight, i.e., that the majority of the worlds Muslims would think that you know nothing about their religion if you believe that their religion was the motivation for the 9/11 attacks. It would be irresponsible and a disservice to the students for the professor/instructor to let that conflict go unaddressed in that class. It would be like a class in the 2000 presidential election leaving out the Palm Beach butterfly ballot.

 
At 31 August, 2006 18:10, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

Joan;

I'm done arguing with you, since there is no way to sway you (stupid for me to think there was).

In my opinion, and I would venture to guess, in the opinion of most North Americans, the 9/11 was an inside job curriculum being teached by Barrett is inappropriate and an abuse of his privelege as a professor.

I am glad to see that you are a believer in bringing your personal agenda into the classroom...

Your opinion, my opinion...and never the two shall meet...

 
At 31 August, 2006 18:10, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

"taught"

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home