Student sent home over anti-Bush T-shirt

[KevinTheOmnivore]

QUESTION: Why would this shirt piss off ARAB Americans.....?


http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/nation/1787522

Feb. 20, 2003, 9:34AM

Student sent home over anti-Bush T-shirt
Associated Press

DEARBORN, Mich. - School officials ordered a 16-year-old student to either take off a T-shirt emblazoned with the words "International Terrorist" and a picture of President Bush or go home, saying they worried it would inflame passions at the school where a majority of students are Arab-American.

The student, Bretton Barber, chose to go home. He said he wore the shirt Monday to express his anti-war position and for a class assignment in which he wrote a compare-contrast essay on Bush and Iraq President Saddam Hussein.

Schools spokesman Dave Mustonen said students have the right to freedom of expression, but educators are sensitive to tensions caused by the conflict with Iraq.

"It was felt that emotions are running very high," Mustonen said.

Dearborn is the center of an Arab-American community of about 300,000 in southeastern Michigan. About 55 percent of the district's 17,600 students are Arab-American.
-30-

[Ronnie Raygun]

It didn't say "piss off".

It said "inflame passions".

That means that they might agree and start a Jihad and kill all the teachers in the name of Allah. Then they would take the skins of all the teachers and stuff it with straw making a 100 foot tall G.W.B. and burn it in effigy. Then they might beating all the females in the school because.....HEY! they shouldn't be there in the first place.

"And put on your black sheet and cover your face.....JIHAD!"

Seriously though.....I think you took it the wrong way.

[FS]

Yes. They're not angry at this guy wearing a shirt. They're afraid all their ticking timebomb-terrorist students will simultaneously explode in their faces.

Shirts like these can't be allowed until all of the Arabian-Americans have been properly stored in deathcamps. Did I say deathcamps? I meant happy camps...

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Your reaction is precisely why I refused to take it the "right" way.

[Ronnie Raygun]

You didn't know my reaction or that I would even respond to this thread.

Try again.

[BombsBurstingInAir]

Around here I've seen people wearing shirts that show a anti-war (read anti bush) protestor hung from a tree and other shirts that show a gun next to the head of an Arab saying "die motherfucken rag head."

These people were sent home.

Guess it is all in the eye of the beholder.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Raygun

You didn't know my reaction or that I would even respond to this thread.

Try again.

is the only appropriate emoticon.

I meant that what was being implied in the article was ridiculous. It wasn't an attack on you.

Bombs, I agree, but I just found the underlying assumption in the article humorous.

[FS]

I don't understand why this school didn't feel justified in just sending the kid home for wearing a shirt bashing the president, like probably any school would. Instead they try and formulate a diplomatic excuse for doing it, thereby looking even more stupid and grossly condescending towards their Arabian-American students.

[mburbank]

The principle just wanted to see the kid with his short off.

[ranxer]

i dont get why people keep saying women arent allowed in school in iraq.. my understanding is that it is one of the FEW middle east countries where women go to school. Saddam brought womens literacy from 6% or so to over 80% before the iran war.. now he's reversed that? not according to waht ive seen he didnt.

[FS]

Well, that's a no-brainer. The general public has to believe a war on Iraq means liberating its population, like in Afghanistan (though there it was mostly true). Saddam does oppress and abuse his people, but saying he's mean to women never hurts.

[Helm]

(though there it was mostly true)

Hahaha. Check the situation in Afghanistan as it is right now, and tell me how population-liberating you find it. Too much stonekeep, sir.

[El Blanco]

Helm, you are right. There is still a long way to go. But, I often say democracy takes longer to develope than a polaroid. Why are people so shocked about the rough transition. Look at what we went through when we broke off from England.

[Abcdxxxx]

holy shit, are you guys still trying to talk up saddam's good points?
you do realize you can be anti-war without pretending Iraq's some democratic peacefull nation full of liberated free people.

that t-shirt thing's screwy just the same way that girl who got sent home in california for saying she was pro-bush was screwy...or the teacher that burned a flag in front of her classroom...etc. etc.

[kinot]

Or unless the fact that the kid wanted to go home early or just look cool cause he's 'different' for 'standing up for what he believes for' It's more like a fucking idiot trying to get some attention by exploiting the freedom of 'speech' (I always thought that speech that was free was really just the freedom to express ideas, not to get unnecessary attention)

[FS]

Originally Posted by Helm

Hahaha. Check the situation in Afghanistan as it is right now, and tell me how population-liberating you find it. Too much stonekeep, sir.

I meant mostly that it was true that women were being oppressed under Taliban rule. But from what I've seen (which may or may not be very significant), people are gradually shrugging off the restrictions laid upon by the Taliban. There's still women walking around in burqas and people adhering to the old rules, but I figure that will pass in time. I don't expect them to just change their culture overnight.

[Helm]

What the fuck? The war on Afghanistan was never for democracy and human rights. The political situation there has been getting quite worse than it originally was after the US stepping in. And if you'd like to take it that far, the 'fundamentalists' that established their 'tyrannical rule' there fifty years ago where originally funded by the US, because of the vast geopolitical importance of the ground that goes from Lybia to Afghanistan. Resources in oil, footing towards the east, cold war communism twarting, you name it. The US played it's role in part of the major transnational conglomerates, and you're talking about women's rights? Fucking Osama Bin Laden was then recruited, trained and sent there to destroy the Afghan Communist regime. And to top it all off, the struggling fractions that they've got there now aren't any better in terms of 'democratic spirit' than the ones they took down, they're just more easy to manipulate by the US.

Where exactly do human rights come into play? How much do you know about that situation?

[El Blanco]

The political situation there has been getting quite worse than it originally was after the US stepping in.

It is less stable because we took out the regime that was pressing down on the people. Now, you have parties from a hundred different directions wanting a piece of government.

You also have 20 years worth of routine getting shaken up. Things are going to be tought for a while. Remember, an entire infastructure has to be built.

The war on Afghanistan was never for democracy and human rights.

No, but those will be by-products, so whats the problem?

fundamentalists' that established their 'tyrannical rule' there fifty years ago

They siezed rule less than 20 years ago. The Taliban didn't become the "official" rulers until 1994. And only 2 countries ever recognized them. I think they were France and Iran.

the struggling fractions that they've got there now aren't any better in terms of 'democratic spirit' than the ones they took down, they're just more easy to manipulate by the US.

Thats why we got people watching them like hawks. In two years the provisional government there will be replaced by a democratically elected government with fair representation (including women).

That region does not have a history of democracy. How the hell are they supposed to figure it out themselves? They need established governments to help them set up infastructure and make processes for doing things. This is all going to take a long time.

[Mockery]

[GAsux]

"Fucking Osama Bin Laden was then recruited, trained SOUP sent there to destroy the Afghan Communist regime"

One of the most frequently and absolutely unsubstantiated claims made in regards to Al Queda. The CIA was definitely involved in funneling money into Afghanistan. However, virtually all of that money was done by intermediaries. The mistake the CIA made was to allow the Israeli agencies they were working through pick and choose who the money went to.

Regardless, the idea that bin Laden was running around Afghanistan being personally selected to receive CIA training is utterly baseless.

There is plenty of blame in the affair to go around to not need to resort to fabricated over-dramtizations.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by GAsux

Regardless, the idea that bin Laden was running around Afghanistan being personally selected to receive CIA training is utterly baseless.

There is plenty of blame in the affair to go around to not need to resort to fabricated over-dramtizations.

I don't believe this is accurate, at least to my understanding of the matter from reading a biography on Binny baby. To my understanding the CIA knew full well of Bin Laden, because he started out in the Afghan war as a paper work guy on the border of Pakistan during the war (hence where he made all of his "Afghan" connections). I may be wrong, though.

[GAsux]

This from Peter Bergen, the now relatively famous CNN resident "bin Laden Expert" with regards to bin Ladens CIA ties....

**Note**
In the previous post I mistakently implied that CIA funding went through Israel. Actually, it was Pakistan. My bad!

"...One author charges the CIA had funded and trained the Afghan Arabs during the war. Another refers to the central role of the CIAs Muslim mercenaries. Both authors present these claims as axioms, but provide no real corroboration.

Other commentators have reported that bin Laden himself was aided by the CIA. (*Here he quotes a Guardian atricle which staes that the CIA helped bin Laden build a terrorist training camp in Afghanistan in 1986)*. However, American officials rarely ventured into Afghanistan during the war against the Soviets for fear of handing the communists a propaganda victory. bin laden, meanwhile, had espoused anti American positions since 1982, and thanks to the fortune derived from his family's giant construction busniess had little need of CIA money. In fact, the underground camp at Khost was built in 1982 by an Afghan commander, with Arab funding.

A source familiar with bin Laden's organization explains that bin Laden "never had relations with America or American officials. ...he was saying very early in the 80s that the next battle is going to be with America...No aid or training or other support have ever been given to bin Laden from Americans."


Anyway, here is all I am getting at. I'm not trying to make some infallable claim that America does no wrong and everything was kosher with what went down in Afghanistan. I'm not that niave. But what I am saying is that I grow tired of the notion that the CIA, and the U.S. was somehow responsible for turning bin Laden in to some kind of Arnold-esque super terrorist commando.

And even if they did, they did a piss poor job because even amongst Arabs there is little to suggest that bin Laden was a great warrior. His actual battlefield prowress is unsubstantiated. Most argue that his influence came with money and charisma, not CIA taught commando skills.

Like I said, there are plenty of reasons, well documented at that, to criticize U.S. involvement in Afghanistan. I think the case that the CIA somehow was providing bin Laden himself some kind of hands on training that he later utilized in terrorism is shaky at best.

[Helm]

That region does not have a history of democracy. How the hell are they supposed to figure it out themselves? They need established governments to help them set up infastructure SOUP make processes for doing things.

Absolutely NOT! If they ever were to arrive at a democratic state, that should be done that by their own volition, or by DIPLOMATIC pressure by the United Nations and the US over a very long period of time. We (or you, in this case) have no right to step in and 'make everything right'. This is what most americans fail to understand: You are in no position to play sheriff. Not only your motives are questioned, but also your methods completely inhumane in themselves. It is absurd, crazy to think that by bombing the hell out of a country you can establish freedom, equality and a chance for a better future. What you ARE establishing, are good ol' military bases. Get a grip. Global politics are a tug of war over geopolitical power. That power is, and has been for over 100 years an end in itself. There's no such thing as intervention over ethical reasons, and there's no such thing as an act of good will. Take the fucking blinkers off.

[roonTing]

HELM... they are called blinders you dumb fuck. Right now, the only military action going on in Afghanistan by American forces are one of two things... self-defense. And major dissarmament. Special Forces have been going village to village to gain information on where vast stores of weapons are hidden. These stores are then found, and destroyed. The role of Americans in Afghanistan right now is entirely as a peace keeper. Keeping one faction from attempting to do as the Taliban did.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Here's a little piece from the book "Bin Laden: The Man who declared war on America," written by Yossef Bodansky, who was a top advisor to both the departments of State and Defence during I BELIEVE during the term of Bush I. He has also been the director of the Congressional Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare:

All this time [during the Soviet invasion] the Afghan Jihad was gaining support in Washington, and more money was being appropriated for covert and not-so-covert support for the Afghan mujahideen. The U.S. was convinced that it was supporting a genuine national liberation struggle, albeit with a strong Islamic foundation, and Islamabad went to great lengths to ensure that the U.S. did not discover firsthand the kind of mujahideen the American taxpayers were supporting. Toward this end the CIA was isolated by the ISI (Pakistan's secret police) from the training infrastructure it financed. Brigadier Mohammed Yousaf, then head of the ISI Afghan Bureau, stressed that General Akhtar Abdul Rahman Khan, chief of the ISI from 1980 to 1987, "faced many problems with the Americans and the CIA." Akhtar adamantly refused American requests to train the mujahideen or even have direct access to them. "Akhtar never allowed Americans to become directly involved in the Jihad," Yousaf recalled. Akhtar and the ISI high command strongly insisted on "keeping Americans out" of the entire training and supply system they were sponsoring.

So, I guess it varies by who you get the info from, but I think it's rather clear that we provided the infrastructure for Bin Laden's network, despite having little knowledge of what was REALLY going on. Still, whether or not we helped create it seems to be a moot point, and probably something we need to learn from and move on with.