Terrorism Class

I've been thinking about this story for a couple weeks because it bothered me and I really didn't know how to approach it. Nonetheless, I'll go ahead and bring it up and see if it has legs.

The story is by Larry Grard, a staff reporter with Blethen Maine Newspapers, and he writes about Thomas College (Cost - $10,500/year) of Waterville, Maine, where a post-9/11 course in terrorism has been added to the curriculum. The course, "Terrorism: The New World Disorder," provides an in-depth study of the history and reasons for the "phenomenon" and was instituted due to the urging of Judy Hansen-Childers, chairwoman of the arts and sciences department. To prepare, Hansen-Childers attended a seminar in Northern Ireland and gained a deeper understanding of worldwide conflicts and their resolutions.

Today, Hansen-Childers can conjure up a thoughtful definition of terrorism, but she lets her students do that for themselves. [and]

As for the politics of terrorism, Hansen-Childers said she has her own views, but does not push them on her students.

This all sounds well and good, but a different take was presented by two students who were interviewed after taking the course.

Matthew Gagnon, president of his class, said that the terrorists are poverty-stricken and:

"A majority of (foreign terrorists) don't consider themselves terrorists," Gagnon said. "They consider themselves freedom fighters. A lot of them are poor people being led by one person."

Excuse me, but neither Osama Bin Laden nor Muhammad Atta were poverty stricken. In fact, they had tremendous wealth at their disposal. Also, the murderers who killed over 3,000 on September 11th were not poverty-stricken and they were not fighting for freedom. They were and are nothing more than murderers obsessed with cult-induced hatred.

And so we have 200 people die in a nightclub in Bali in a 'freedom fight?' I don't think so. Tell that to the orphans and widows in Australia who the terrorists, according to Mr. Gagnon's statement, are supposedly fighting to gain their freedom.

This course is teaching crap. Nobody is infringing on these peoples' freedom and these people are not poverty-stricken. They are a cult of hatred and murder.

Ah, but there is more. Angela Bard, a 4.0 GPA graduate of Thomas College, opines:

"The U.S. is pushing (itself) upon other countries . . . ."

Can someone tell me what that means? I suggest that the statements uttered by Gagnon and Bard mean that the US has to be held responsible for terrorism because the US pushes itself on poverty-stricken freedom fighters.

In closing, let's examine a statement by Hansen-Childers defining terrorism.

"It is a strategy of the weak using asymmetrical methods to strike fear and terror in groups or populations to bring attention to religious or political or societal issues and grievances," Hansen-Childers said.

In the case of the 9/11 perpetrators, this definition needs to be revised as follows:

"It is a strategy of the weak using asymmetrical methods to strike fear and terror in groups or populations to bring attention to religious or political or societal issues and grievances to kill people we hate."

In conclusion, when you read or hear of a strong liberal bias in academia, think of this example. Thomas College is teaching that we should understand and have feelings for the murderers of 9/11. Whether they are understood and whether or not someone has feelings for them will not change the eventual resolution of the conflict between Western civilization and the Osama Bin Laden terrorists. The terrorists will be eradicated.

One final thought. Not too long ago, about thirty-five people known as the Heaven's Gate cult voiced their intention of committing mass suicide so they could go to the "other side" in a spaceship that was following the Hale-Bopp comet. Many people tried to dissuade them. Every logical argument was presented to them as to why it was wrong. It made no difference what anyone had to say. They were a cult displaying typical cult behavior. And now they're dead.

Not too long ago nineteen travelers boarded four large airplanes, then hijacked and crashed the planes into four prominent, occupied buildings with the intentions of killing themselves and as many innocent citizens as possible and, thereupon, martyrdom achieved, enter heaven. Could they have been talked out of it? I contend, no. It made no difference what anyone had to say. They were a cult displaying typical cult behavior. And now they're dead.

The terrorists have no religious, political, nor societal issues or grievances, so talking about it and studying it really doesn't make a difference. They are a cult, a cult of seething hatred. Only death or imprisonment will stop them.

Of course, I could be wrong. I'm sure the liberals in academia would disagree with me.