Father of 9/11 Victim Fights to Have 'Murdered by Muslim Terrorists' Inscribed on Son's Me

[Big Don]

Father of 9/11 Victim Fights to Have 'Murdered by Muslim Terrorists' Inscribed on Son's Memorial

Tuesday , October 27, 2009
By Douglas Kennedy

FoxNews.com




KENT, Conn. —
Peter Gadiel wants everyone to remember his son, James, who was killed during the September 11 terrorist attacks. And he also wants people to remember how he died: "Murdered by Muslim terrorists."
For Gadiel, any tribute to his son would be woefully incomplete without those words.
"I think it's important, because I think there's a nationwide effort to suppress the identity of the people who were involved in the attacks," Gadiel told Fox News.
Eight years ago, 23-year-old James Gadiel worked for Cantor Fitzgerald on the 103rd floor of the World Trade Center. He died when a hijacked plane crashed into the North Tower.
<<SNIP>>
For Peter Gadiel, it is a central fact of the Sept. 11 attacks that is often left out.
"It isn't just overlooked, it's suppressed," Gadiel said. "It's simply wrong to imply that people just died. The buildings didn't just collapse, they didn't just fall down — they were attacked by people with a specific identity, a specific purpose."
Town officials call the phrase too controversial for a small town memorial, and they recently voted against erecting the plaque if Gadiel insists on the language.
"We perceive ourselves as a very warm, loving town," said Ruth Epstein, a Kent selectman and one of two town leaders to vote the plaque down. "To disparage any one ethnic group is just against everything that we stand for here."
END EXCERPT
Speaking the truth about that day, isn't "disparaginig any one ethnic group".

 

[Nolerama]

It's a "free" country, right?

The man has yet to overcome his grief and anger, and wants his small world to know. I see no problem. It's not like people will flock to the cemetery every day just to get riled up over a tombstone.

While I don't agree with the father's choice to etch that into stone (it's kind of tacky, and doesn't do justice to his son's life, but rather his death) I don't agree with a municipality stepping in and deciding something so personal.

 

[geezer]

It's a "free" country, right?

The man has yet to overcome his grief and anger, and wants his small world to know. I see no problem. It's not like people will flock to the cemetery every day just to get riled up over a tombstone.

While I don't agree with the father's choice to etch that into stone (it's kind of tacky, and doesn't do justice to his son's life, but rather his death) I don't agree with a municipality stepping in and deciding something so personal.

The story wasn't very clear, but it looked like it was a public memeorial, not a private tombstone. Secondly, a bit further down in the feature the father specifically singled out Muslims, stating that they didn't admit that their "co-religionists" had done this. Now that is provocative. The term "Muslim" covers a lot of ground. The KKK lynched blacks and burned crosses, but we don't erect memorials to those they murdered as "victims of Christian terrorists". I can definitely see that town may have a legitimate point here. Sure we believe in free speech. But we also believe in freedom of religion and don't condone public expressions that sir up ethnic hatred either.

 

[Nolerama]

A public memorial, using public funds would be another issue, which should come down to a vote, with deliberation over a long period of time.

Such a memorial would reflect on the community as a whole, and not only on an individual's perspective on 9/11.

 

[CanuckMA]

The story is clear, it is a public memorial

For years, Gadiel's hometown of Kent, Conn., has wanted to honor the young man with a memorial plaque next to its town hall. But the tribute has hit a snag because James' father wants to include the phrase, "Murdered by Muslim terrorists," under his son's name.

The wording is unduly inflamatory.

 

[celtic_crippler]

So what?

It's a simple statement of fact.

Are any of the following in dispute?

1. The person the memorial is for is this man's son.
2. This person was murdered.
3. The murderers were muslim.
4. The murderers were terrorist.

Why should it be a problem to cite the facts?

 

[Sukerkin]

I don't think it is as simple as that, CC.

Some statements become other than their words when placed in certain contexts. I do reckon that even just dropping the "Muslim" out of it would do the trick of appeasing the fathers wishes and not throwing petrol on the fire of race/religious strife.

 

[CanuckMA]

So what?

It's a simple statement of fact.


Are any of the following in dispute?

1. The person the memorial is for is this man's son.
2. This person was murdered.
3. The murderers were muslim.
4. The murderers were terrorist.

Why should it be a problem to cite the facts?

1,2 and 4 are facts that do not have any other meanings.

3, while factual for that case, is too wide a brush stroke to be used. The fact that 20 men who were member of the Muslim faith perpetrated that act, does not entitle that man to essentially accuse all of Islam in a public memorial.

How about a memorial to a victim of the IRA stating that he was murdered by Catholic terrorists?

While factual, it is inflamatory and deregatory to an entire group.

 

[Bruno@MT]

I don't think it is as simple as that, CC.

Some statements become other than their words when placed in certain contexts. I do reckon that even just dropping the "Muslim" out of it would do the trick of appeasing the fathers wishes and not throwing petrol on the fire of race/religious strife.

A couple of months ago in the Netherlands, some nutter tried to ram his car into the royal carriage, and killed a couple of bystanders. The man drove a suzuki swift.

It got to the point that random people were assaulted because they... drove a suzuki swift. This is how stupid people can be, and what emotions can cause people to do. So I agree that riling up people against an entire group is not a good thing.

 

[Big Don]

I don't think it is as simple as that, CC.

Some statements become other than their words when placed in certain contexts. I do reckon that even just dropping the "Muslim" out of it would do the trick of appeasing the fathers wishes and not throwing petrol on the fire of race/religious strife.

The kind of fuzzy headed kum by ya "logic" that leads to terrorists flying planes into buildings...
The Clinton admin treated Muslim terrorism as a crime (93 WTC, etc) and look what happened.
Not showing the videos of the planes hitting the buildings, or of people leaping to their deaths, or terrorists beheading captives lessens the impact of their evils.

 

[Big Don]

1,2 and 4 are facts that do not have any other meanings.

3, while factual for that case, is too wide a brush stroke to be used. The fact that 20 men who were member of the Muslim faith perpetrated that act, does not entitle that man to essentially accuse all of Islam in a public memorial.

How about a memorial to a victim of the IRA stating that he was murdered by Catholic terrorists?

While factual, it is inflamatory and derogatory to an entire group.

It is not derogatory to ALL Muslims everywhere to point out that SOME Muslims, did, in fact hijack and fly planes into buildings and kill THOUSANDS of innocent people.

Pointing out that 19 Muslim Terrorists did that, only points out that THOSE 19 Terrorists, who were all avowed Muslims, did that, nothing more.

 

[arnisador]

Remember the rash of sting-ray mutilations after Steve Irwin's death?

I'm all in favor of a memorial to the women murdered as witches by Christian terrorists, African-Americans lynched by Christian terrorists, etc. If that seems unpalatable to you...consider why.

 

[Big Don]

Remember the rash of sting-ray mutilations after Steve Irwin's death?

I'm all in favor of a memorial to the women murdered as witches by Christian terrorists, African-Americans lynched by Christian terrorists, etc. If that seems unpalatable to you...consider why.

Not going to include the Republicans lynched by the KKK... i'm shocked

 

[Sukerkin]

Come on Don, you can discuss a matter without picking a fight.

As I'm clearly too sensitive a soul for this discussion, I'll take my apparent "kum by ya" woolly thinking and flounce out.

{throws rattle out of pram}

 

[shesulsa]

Why not say "The Al Qaeda Terrorists who ..." ? And the problem I have with it is that while they may have been Muslim, they were Al Qaeda Muslim which much of the rest of the Muslim world renounces.

I agree it is too broad a brushstroke, but I would agree to a more specific identification of the attackers.

 

[shesulsa]

Come on Don, you can discuss a matter without picking a fight.

As I'm clearly too sensitive a soul for this discussion, I'll take my apparent "kum by ya" woolly thinking and flounce out.

{throws rattle out of pram}

No dear, that wasn't your rattle, that was your katana. No-no throw-throw! Slice-slice, no throw-throw. :shrug:

I must point out the perpetuation of hatred can obscure one's overall view of matters and this is something capitalized on by virtually all politicians, left and right.

 

[Tez3]

People killed by the IRA have that on their memorials not 'killed by Catholics'. Putting 'Killed by Al Queda terrorists' would be more accurate than putting Muslims. The woolly thinking is shown by those that generalise instead of stating the truth that this young man was killed by Al Queda.
You should be aware too that not all Al Queda terrorists are Muslim?

http://news.scotsman.com/latestnews/AlQaeda39s-white-army-of-terror.3667425.jp

 

[Big Don]

People killed by the IRA have that on their memorials not 'killed by Catholics'. Putting 'Killed by Al Queda terrorists' would be more accurate than putting Muslims. The woolly thinking is shown by those that generalise instead of stating the truth that this young man was killed by Al Queda.
You should be aware too that not all Al Queda terrorists are Muslim?

http://news.scotsman.com/latestnews/AlQaeda39s-white-army-of-terror.3667425.jp

It would be more accurate than putting "by arabs"
As many as 1,500 white Britons are believed to have converted to Islam for the purpose of funding, planning and carrying out surprise terror attacks inside the UK, according to one MI5 source.
Doesn't converting to Islam make one Muslim?

 

[CanuckMA]

How about just 'murdered in the 9/11/01 terrorist attack on NYC.'

Says everything you need to know. 20-30 years from now, might even prompt some youngem to look it up and learn something.

 

[Tez3]

It would be more accurate than putting "by arabs"
As many as 1,500 white Britons are believed to have converted to Islam for the purpose of funding, planning and carrying out surprise terror attacks inside the UK, according to one MI5 source.
Doesn't converting to Islam make one Muslim?

Not these no, they aren't Muslims, as it says and you have quoted they are using it for the purposes of terror. Please don't shout at me I'm not in my dotage yet.