Wednesday, October 11, 2006

More Calls for Barrett's Firing

Apparently this time caused by the textbook that Barrett's using:

According to a recent news story, a required textbook for students in Barrett's introductory class on Islam features Barrett's fictitious 9/11 conspiracy theory, harsh criticism of the nation of Israel and compares President Bush to Adolf Hitler. Suder has once again called upon the Governor and the Board of Regents to put an end to what has become a continuing national embarrassment for the UW System.

Suder commented after a WKOW Channel 27 News expose detailed the book, “9/11 and American Empire: Muslims, Jews, and Christians Speak Out." The book features Barrett’s mythical notion of the events of September 11th among essays written by fourteen others.

“Jim Doyle’s Board of Regents continues to allow this hateful individual to tarnish the reputation of the University of Wisconsin,” stated Suder. He continued, “The book described in this news story is anti-Semitic and totally revisionist. It’s simply repugnant.”


More stupidity exhibited by Barrett here:

He added: "Hitler had a good 20 to 30 IQ points on Bush, so comparing Bush to Hitler would in many ways be an insult to Hitler."


Right off the Shore has some choice quotes from Barrett's "textbook".

29 Comments:

At 11 October, 2006 11:30, Blogger shawn said...

I love this "comparing them is an insult to Hitler". Because "Hitler served in the military" or "Hitler actually won the vote".

It's more like comparing them is an insult to the 11 million who died in the camps and the nearly fifty million who died in the Second World War.

 
At 11 October, 2006 12:04, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

Barrett should be fired, plane and simple. I held back on saying it before, hoping he would honor his word and make the 9/11 thing a brief part of his curriculum, but introducing 9/11 fiction as a required textbook...that is the straw.

He needs to go.

TAM

 
At 11 October, 2006 12:52, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sometimes I wish we could send these "Bush is Hitler" types back in time to spend even an hour in Nazi Germany. I guess it's a sign of how good we have it that people like Barrett have no concept of real oppression.

OT: Small aircraft crashed into a NY apartment building today

CT's comparing it to WTC in 3... 2...

 
At 11 October, 2006 13:27, Blogger Alex said...

COVERUP!

One of the articles says:

"Luggage was also found on the street."

But there's no pictures of any airplane parts! Luggage survived but the airplane didn't? COME ON! Clearly it was a cruise missile. Although my buddy george said that some Dylan Avery guy told him it may have been a Trebuchet. Either way, it wasn't a plane!

 
At 11 October, 2006 14:31, Blogger JoanBasil said...

You're not going to stop US historians from writing about Hitler's IQ and Bush's IQ.

 
At 11 October, 2006 14:59, Blogger James B. said...

Hey remember, Bush's grade at Yale were better than John Kerry's. Also Bush has a Harvard MBA, Al Gore flunked out of divinity school.

 
At 11 October, 2006 15:26, Blogger shawn said...

You're not going to stop US historians from writing about Hitler's IQ and Bush's IQ.

What are you talking about? He made the statement, it wasn't in his writing.

And using historian for this guy isn't the best use of the term. I haven't got a degree in history, but I'm a better historian than this clown.

Not like their IQs matter at all. Hitler could've had the highest tested IQ in history, he still slaughtered more people than Bush would in a hundred years.

 
At 11 October, 2006 16:00, Blogger JoanBasil said...

"Hitler could've had the highest tested IQ in history, he still slaughtered more people than Bush would in a hundred years." Hmmm.

 
At 11 October, 2006 16:05, Blogger CHF said...

I'll give you a hint Mr. Barrett:

if Bush were equal to/worse than Hitler...YOU'D BE DEAD.

 
At 11 October, 2006 16:15, Blogger Rayzor said...

Hey joan, is that a "hmmm" as in, "yeah, shawn, you're right" or a "hmmm" as in "too difficult to comprehend"

 
At 11 October, 2006 16:17, Blogger shawn said...

Hmmm.

Why hmmm? I'll put the high limit on deaths from Bush's wars - which is about 100,000 (though it's closer to 50,000). I'll then take a lower estimate of the deaths in Europe - 40 million.

In terms of deaths per year, Bush would have to be office for one thousand six hundred years to match Hitler.

Wanna know what was happening 1600 years ago? Atilla the Hun was born. The Romans have two emperors in a year. The king of the Vandals dies.

 
At 11 October, 2006 16:18, Blogger Alex said...

It's "hmmm" as in "I'm too brainwashed to ever consider the posibility of anyone being worse than Bush".

It's like talking to a brick wall. People like her would rather blow Saddam Hussein than say something nice about Geroge Bush.

 
At 11 October, 2006 17:06, Blogger Lying_Dylan said...

"Hitler could've had the highest tested IQ in history, he still slaughtered more people than Bush would in a hundred years." Hmmm.

Just like a little wise ass kid rolling her eyes.....

Say what the "hmmm" Joans.
Only a total fuckin loser would compare Bush to Hitler and this is coming from a (soon to be leaving) Green Party member.

 
At 11 October, 2006 17:24, Blogger James B. said...

I guess one of Barrett's students is on the O'Reilly factor tonight. Might be interesting...

 
At 11 October, 2006 17:34, Blogger Dog Town said...

He does not make them read his essay, in the book. The class is required to read three others in it! Not a huge issue, but it is. He's gotta be loving this.

 
At 11 October, 2006 18:42, Blogger JoanBasil said...

The "hmmm" was because Shawn says that Bush "slaughtered" huge numbers, just not nearly as many as Hitler slaughtered.

Would that be the 665,000 "extra" Iraqi deaths since Bush invaded Iraq?

 
At 11 October, 2006 18:49, Blogger shawn said...

The "hmmm" was because Shawn says that Bush "slaughtered" huge numbers

I was bringing myself down to your level.

Would that be the 665,000 "extra" Iraqi deaths since Bush invaded Iraq?

Further proof Joan will believe anything as long as it lines up with her preconceived notions.

I guess you ignored my 100,000 dead. That's still overestimating the dead, but it's much closer to the truth than 655,000.

September had 2600 deaths, which is a horrible month. In order to reach the new study's figures you'd need about 16,000 deaths per month.

 
At 12 October, 2006 08:22, Blogger The Masked Writer said...

Those who criticise the State of Israel are not anti-semtic. How many times do people need to be told that?
Making prejudice remarks and taking racial actions against Jews and Arabs is anti-semetic. Uneducated pundits who try to equate critics of Israel with anti-semites should perhaps study the English language.

 
At 12 October, 2006 12:14, Blogger Alex said...

You're right, criticism of Israel does not necessarily constitute anti-semitism. Unfortunately most criticism of Israel is based on anti-semitism. It goes something like this:

"We hate Jews. Therefore, Israel must be wiped off the face of the earth."

See, if you started with a reasonable premise from an unbiased position, that would be ok. You could, for instance, say "I don't think Israel is doing enough to avoid civilian casualties". Such a statement would be wrong, but not necessarily anti-semitic. However, when 5 seconds later you follow the same statement with "and the Zionists control the world", or "and Israel shouldn't exist anyway", then it's rather clear what your criticism of Israel is based on.

 
At 12 October, 2006 12:18, Blogger Alex said...

Further proof Joan will believe anything as long as it lines up with her preconceived notions.

I guess you ignored my 100,000 dead. That's still overestimating the dead, but it's much closer to the truth than 655,000.

September had 2600 deaths, which is a horrible month. In order to reach the new study's figures you'd need about 16,000 deaths per month.


More importantly Shawn, she seems to think 655,000 Iraqis killed by sectarian violence and terrorism would somehow bring Bush up to the number of people slaughtered by Hitler. In short, she's retarded. Even if we accept the 655,000 figure, and even if every single one of those had been executed point blank by a US soldier with a bullet to the back of the head, the number would be nowhere NEAR enough to compare Bush to Hitler.

 
At 12 October, 2006 12:53, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

ok, lets not call them anti-semetic, I mean it hurts their feelings. I mean all they really want is to destroy the statre of Israel. Whether it takes the killing of thousands of jews to do it is not relivant right, they are not anti-semetic...that is the important thing...right.

godamn rediculous and shameful

TAM

 
At 13 October, 2006 08:07, Blogger The Masked Writer said...

ALEX!!! Finally we agree on something.

Unfortunatley, the Israeli lobby in the U.S. likes to link anti-semtism to anyone who critically examines the state and the policies of Israel. By doing so they can name drop Holocaust Deniers Jew haters, skin heads etc. to avoid logical discussion about their country and/or its policies. A great smear tactic indeed and a wonderful way to avoid criticism.

 
At 13 October, 2006 08:16, Blogger The Masked Writer said...

"I'm going to reserve judgement on whether it's anti-Semitic," Madison Jewish Community Council Executive Director Steve Morrison told 27 News. "I find it clearly to be anti-Israel."

Well I guess we can't label this guy anti-Semitic. Aww shucks are Americans, who still have the right to free speech if I'm not mistaken, unable to express that speech when it comes to the state of Israel? Why can't scholars still debate the state and policies of Israel in an academic setting?

ok, lets not call them anti-semetic, I mean it hurts their feelings. I mean all they really want is to destroy the statre of Israel.

1. Who are 'they'?
2. Are we still discussing Barrett?
3. Who wants to destory Israel?
4. Is the Bush Administration anti-semitic for wanting to destroy the state of Iran? Iraq? Syria?

 
At 13 October, 2006 17:59, Blogger shawn said...

Unfortunatley, the Israeli lobby in the U.S. likes to link anti-semtism to anyone who critically examines the state and the policies of Israel

It actually is antisemitic to invoke the monolithic "Israel lobby" (and yes, the recent paper was antisemitic).

Making prejudice remarks and taking racial actions against Jews and Arabs is anti-semetic.

I hate this redefinition. Antisemitism is hatred of Jews. Period. (Look it up if you don't believe me. It doesn't have to do the "Semitic" peoples, it has to do with Jews specifically.)

4. Is the Bush Administration anti-semitic for wanting to destroy the state of Iran? Iraq? Syria?

Iran is Persian. And prejudice against Arabs isn't antisemitic, as I already explained.

Uneducated pundits who try to equate critics of Israel with anti-semites should perhaps study the English language.

You do realize there is an overlap, right? It's only logical that antisemites would also be (hyperbolic) critics of Israel.

 
At 16 October, 2006 09:07, Blogger The Masked Writer said...

It actually is antisemitic to invoke the monolithic "Israel lobby".

At what point do you equate the state with an ethnic group?

(Look it up if you don't believe me. It doesn't have to do the "Semitic" peoples, it has to do with Jews specifically.)

Well here is what I found

Anti-Opposed to; against.
Semite-
A member of a group of Semitic-speaking peoples of the Near East and northern Africa, including the Arabs, Arameans, Babylonians, Carthaginians, Ethiopians, Hebrews, and Phoenicians.
At what point in did semite change to mean only Jews? Got any dates or figures? Care to critcally examine your redefinition?

Israel=country, a nation state
Jew=ethnic group or religious group.

It actually is antisemitic to invoke the monolithic "Israel lobby"

Are you sure about that?

 
At 16 October, 2006 10:19, Blogger Alex said...

Try looking up the whole word, dumbass.

 
At 16 October, 2006 11:39, Blogger The Masked Writer said...

anti-semite-discriminatory especially on the basis of race or religion.
Is that what you mean?

 
At 16 October, 2006 16:50, Blogger Alex said...

Alright, new suggestion. Before trying to read my dictionary.com links, check out this site first.

 
At 18 October, 2006 07:33, Blogger The Masked Writer said...

Alex! What is up bro!

Alright, new suggestion. Before trying to read my dictionary.com links, check out this site first.

I loved that one. I did LOL! Thanks man, even though you call me names and have weak arguements, you still have a sense of humor!

I do say that I saw both definitions of anti-semite. I chose to use the one that isn't used to justify critics of the state of Israel with Jew haters, and you did not. Touche', we are both right!

 

Post a Comment

<< Home