Texas Teacher Suspended For Allegedly Taunting Muslim Girl About Death of Her “Uncle” Osama Bin Laden

In another example of the depths of anti-Muslim sentiment in this country, a Texas high school teacher has been placed on administrative allegedly telling a 9th grade Muslim girl in his algebra class “I heard about your uncle’s death” and “I bet that you’re grieving” the death of Osama bin Laden.

The shocking incident occurred at Clear Brook High School in Houston and involved an “American-born girl of Muslim faith.” The mother says that, when the teacher saw the girl crying, he was told by another student that it was due to what he had said and the teacher showed no remorse and simply smirked. We have not heard the account from the teacher.

As various politicians pick up increasingly anti-Muslim rhetoric to play to the lowest common denominator, we will see more of these incidents. It is a measure of such prejudice that a teacher would allegedly taunt a child.

Source: Chronicle

60 thoughts on “Texas Teacher Suspended For Allegedly Taunting Muslim Girl About Death of Her “Uncle” Osama Bin Laden”

  1. Tootie’s screed is remarkably similar to that unhinged Tuscon feller who was also obsessed with language in a twisted, irrational way.

  2. How do you know when the thread has been jacked by a far flung psychopath?

  3. As evidenced by our own irrational bag o’ hate, Tootles.

  4. Christians, Jews, Muslims . . . who cares?

    It’s not the flavor of the Kool-Aid that’s the problem.

    It’s the poison of Fundamentalism that’s been added to the Kool-Aid.

  5. James

    The left has controlled the public schools for decades. That is why they are a mess. I was speaking “in general” (just to get you mad). 🙂

    I didn’t say “only” the left was joyous about Osama’s death. You made that part up. You employed a Straw Man argument.

    You wrote:

    “And now he/she/it bears his/her/its teeth. What a horrible comment from anyone, much less out of the foul mouth of an alleged christian.”

    You said that in response to my comment which reads:

    “So if Jesus Christ had sex with a nine year old, you’d let that information not impact your opinion of contemporary Christians who adore him?”

    Answer the question James. Don’t be a weak-kneed cry-baby. Would you or would you not ignore it if Christ had had sex with a nine year old (when he was an old geezer)? And would you or would you not confront Christians about it or suggest that it would be impossible (if not utterly horrifying) that a just or true god would condone such conduct?

    You are being hysterical and irrational.

    And please direct your hateful comments elsewhere.

  6. Mike Appleton

    I realize the Democrats (or as you might wish me to say “Democratics”) don’t want the labels that most intimately apply to themselves in modern times because they carry with them so much unseemly and loathsome baggage.

    But they will fail in their attempt to cover their despicable tracks by manipulating the language (a favorite trick of fascists and Marxists). It is a futile attempt to escape from their evil deeds as history has now recorded them and they have gone viral, so-to-speak.

    They can pretend: OH! those “liberals” did such and so (evil or stupid thing), but we are not liberals. We are progressives and are innocent of it (abortion slaughter, war-mongering for decades, genocide, treason, Marxism, large scale thievery, or whatever might prove evil of them in the days or years to come).

    But it will not work.

    The new media has taken names, dates, and places, and we know who did what.

    This is what leftists are are trying to do with the word Democrat and Democratic. They are playing word games. It is like how that the main-stream media will not use a word in conjunction with a Democrat when he or she does something evil in order for that word to not show up in a Google type search.

    I don’t care if Democrats want to call themselves a monkey’s uncle. I’m still calling them Democrats. And the more they press me on it the more I’m likely to do it.

    If one looks back into relatively recent magazine and newspapers articles (going back even 50 years or so) even from leftist sources, the word Democrat was customarily used to refer to the dirtball-pondscum that makes up the “Democratic” Party.

    Rush isn’t doing anything that Democrats themselves have not done in the past for decades. And the pious protestations by those who regularly seek to undermine the truth by widespread corruption of the language have no credibility with me about the subject.

    It is similar to the word anti-Semite being considered as applying to only Jews, when in fact Arabs are also Semitic people. For decades, in America, everyone knew what anti-Semitic referred to and it didn’t refer to Muslims or Arabs. And even Jews used the term that way. It wasn’t precise, but it was customary and everyone knew what it meant. Actually, I support not using the term to refer to only Jews since Arabs are in fact Semitic.

    This is not to say that a language doesn’t develop. But that is not what I refer to. You are just being a snob. Rush isn’t proper because you found him using a term you don’t like.

    I don’t ever write B.C.E. or C.E. instead of B.C. or A.D either. This is because I don’t let leftist dirt-bags control me through their demands on the language.

    Leftists corrupt the meaning of words in order to destroy others and to destroy liberty and I don’t play their games. If they weren’t busy trying to corrupt the language I would probably grant them their wishes. But since they are such dirt-bags, I make sure to bother them about it.

    For example, their drive to criminalize hate. They pretend it is an object we can see. Correction. They pretend it is an object only they can see and determine for the rest of us what it is to be defined as. And surely hate is something only right-wingers are guilty of and leftists say so. They play these word games where they make the abstract concrete.

    I don’t buy into that trickery either.

    Neither Rush nor I made the domain name for the blog link below. I suppose those who didn’t use the “proper” spelling were Ditto-heads?


    Actually, I prefer spell it this way: DemocRATS.

    This is Timothy Pickering to George Cabot:

    “Some Connecticut gentlemen (and they are all well-informed and discreet) assure me that, if the leading Democrats in that State were to get the upper hand (which would be followed by a radical change in their unwritten constitution), they should not think themselves safe, either in person or property, and would therefore immediately quit the State.”

    You will notice in the second line the word Democrats. That was written in 1804 to refer to members of the Democratic (Republican) Party. Pickering was a Federalist.

    Though a Wikipedia article says

    “”The earliest reported use of the term, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, came in 1890: “Whether a little farmer from South Carolina named Tillman is going to rule the Democrat Party in America – yet it is this, and not output, on which the proximate value of silver depends.””

    As to the grammar, the Wikipedia article states:

    “the use of a noun as a modifier of another noun is not grammatically incorrect in modern English in the formation of a compound noun, i.e. “shoe store,” “school bus,” “peace movement,” “Senate election,” etc.[33] The use of nouns as adjectives is part of a broader linguistic trend, according to language expert Ruth Walker, She says, “We’re losing our inflections – the special endings we use to distinguish between adjectives and nouns, for instance. There’s a tendency to modify a noun with another noun rather than an adjective. Some may speak of “the Ukraine election” rather than ‘the Ukrainian election’ or ‘the election in Ukraine,’ for instance. It’s ‘the Iraq war’ rather than ‘the Iraqi war,’ to give another example.”[34]””

    So it is a common trend in our language (because we are dropping inflections) which knuckleheads in the Democrat Party have a hissy fit over. I grew up in a country that called a Democrat a Democrat and I’m keeping it that way.

    I also learned to say “blacks” because that is what blacks wanted to be called when I was growing up. They didn’t want Negro. Or Colored. And I’m not doing the stupid term African-American. They couldn’t decide who they were so I decided for them. I’m white. Asians are Asians until further notice.

    Wiki again:

    “”Political analyst Charlie Cook attributed modern use of the term to force of habit rather than a deliberate epithet by Republicans.[6] Ruth Marcus stated that Republicans likely only continue to employ the term because Democrats dislike it.[7] Marcus stated that disagreements over use of the term are “trivial'””

    Trivial indeed.

  7. M.S. Huiner,

    I watched your antidote last night … and watched it again this morning … as anon nurse said, “perfect antidote …”


  8. JBH

    You’ve taken away so many -isms as mistakes there is very little left to be. I want to be an Anti-Mistakism. Is that ok?

  9. M.S.Huiner,

    Re: Big Mohammed’s House

    Thanks for the perfect “antidote”…

  10. It occurs to me that there is a simple indicator of possible human blundering, and it may often lurk within words which end with -“ism”.

    Examples which come to my mind now might (or might not?) happen to include Fundamentalism, Adversarialism, Communism, Socialism, Democratism, Fascism, Nihilism, Christianism, Islamism, Judgmentalism, Judaism, Libertarianism, Buddhism, Confucianism, Legalism, Racism, Jingoism, McCarthyism (decidedly not named for Eugene McCarthy), Nixonism (decidedly not named for E. D. Nixon), Republicanism, Ridiculism, Ostracism, Isolationism, Exorcism, Establishmentarianism, Disestablishmentarianism, Antidisestablishmentarianism, Monotheism, Polytheism, Atheism, Retaliationism, Relativism, Agnosticism, Absolutism, Ignorantism, Reaganism, Stupidism, Apathism, Malapropism, and the list is, perhaps, unending…

    Of course, I make mistakes, and some items on that list do not belong on it, and other items which do belong were omitted (because of my Ignorantism and Stupidism?).

    To me, “-isms” tend to be about beliefs sincerely held by some batch of people and not so held by other batches of people. Yet every batch of people who share a sincere belief is a batch of people for whom I can concoct an “-ism” label, even if my Labelism is itself a terribly wrongful Mistakenism.

    The problem I have with my personal Mistakenisms is terribly simple. Because I am mistaken about them, I fail to recognize them by mistake. And that is the essential nature of Mistakenism(s); those persons and batches of persons who have been engulfed by a Mistakenism are unable to recognize their having been so engulfed because they mistakenly believe they have not been so engulfed because of being mistaken.

    Of course, I am no more immune to Mistakenism than is anyone else, except for the slight chance that I am mistaken about that?

    When I at my delusional best, I imagine the possibility of the process of the making of mistakes and the process of learning being the same actual process which has been given two contrasting names by mistake.

    A mistake is when someone dislikes what is being learned?

    Learning is when someone likes a mistake which is being made?

    Beware of Educationalism?

    Otherwise, some batch of people might learn enough about the nature of mistakes to avoid being engulfed by -“isms”?

    Then there is that Notionism of “a deep and pervasive defect in the process of human thought” as described by Bohm, Factor, and Garrett…

    What if it is eventually learned that a deep and pervasive error within the process of human thought is the ultimate basis of all destructive -“isms”?

    What if there “really” is somesuch form of error and what if, being error, it is subject to effective error-correction?

    Would that result in yet another unending falsehood, one of Correctionism?

    Or, is the making of mistakes the process through which mistakes made can become recognizable; and, perhaps eventually, correctable?

  11. To paraphrase the Navy, the best policy is “respect up and respect down.” -mespo

    A good “policy”…

  12. I am disturbed by this incident but also by the growing disrespect I see teachers showing high school students. Having one who just finished high school, I occasionally appeared to discuss some legal topic with a class or two. In the main I found that teachers were polite and respectful to the students, but there was a definite vibe of informality and, to my mind, certain inappropriate comments made to the kids under the guise of humor. I certainly realize that high school kids are “feeling their oats” and are not the most respectful to their teachers, but I believe the informality shown by SOME teachers fosters this dearth of respect. The teachers are the adults after all.

    To paraphrase the Navy, the best policy is “respect up and respect down.”

  13. Behold! The deconstruction utter clap trap:

    T: “I’m not a lefty, union, Democrat thug. So I cannot be that teacher.”

    Ergo, according to Tootles, all teachers are Democratic. Demonstrably false.

    T: “As I recall from recent events it is the left that is spontaneously gushing with joy in the streets about the killing of Osama.”

    Ergo, only Democrats are “happy” about UBL’s demise. Again, demonstrably false.

    T: “And, of course I am not a lefty. More evidence it is not me.”

    Disingenuous. If Tootles was actually christian, he/she/it would be to the left of Jimmy Carter. Clearly, this is not the case.

    T: “So if Jesus Christ had sex with a nine year old, you’d let that information not impact your opinion of contemporary Christians who adore him?”

    And now he/she/it bears his/her/its teeth. What a horrible comment from anyone, much less out of the foul mouth of an alleged christian. It amounts to “my god’s better than your god.” It is the desire to have an ongoing argument based on a crippling superiority complex and false hope.

    T: “The anti-Christian bigotry at this blog seems hard to top anywhere on the internet. So a better question might be why it is so.”

    I do not find the reggies here in any way unchristiian. Most use words that reflect a certain thoughtfulness, and a desire for a calmer world in which harpies like Tootles are given constructive work to do, if only so they stop making that awful sound.

    Tootles, you are either a very bad liar, or hopelessly deluded. Either way, I find nothing christian in your remarks, now or ever. You are a creature of hate, not of love.

Comments are closed.