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

[shesulsa]

What about violence carried out by those who claim to be Christian? Do we need to say "Jonathan Michael Doe; suicide because he couldn't cope with the molestation carried out upon him by Catholic priests," or "Jane Katherine Smith, evisceration by Jewish social outcast" or "killed by scientologist ..."

The problem is the association of the religion with a terrorist group which practices their version of the Muslim religion which - again - had been denounced by the rest of the nation of Islam. The inference is all Christians are Jonesians (Jim Jones? Nicaragua? ring a bell?) or all priests molest little boys ... it's too broad a stroke.

I'm still waiting for an answer, Don, as to why you don't think "Al Qaeda" is a more appropriate (and more accurate) usage?

 

[Big Don]

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.

They are the only converts not Muslim than. They aren't Arab, but, they ARE Muslim.

 

[Tez3]

They are only accepted as Muslim by the terrorists, they aren't accepted as Muslim by actual religious and practising Muslims. It's a device whereby they can go around hurting, maiming and killing people, nothing more. Anyone of us can call ourselves anything we like, it doesn't however make us that in truth. I can say I'm a Christian now to get into an American golf club but it doesn't make me a Christian does it?
Blind hatred and ignorance is to be deplored and it's always a sad thing to see.

 

[shesulsa]

WHO CARES if they were muslim, christian, jewish, athiest???

*Still waiting* on why the religion matters rather than the terrorist leader whose FACTION HAS BEEN REJECTED BY THE NATION OF ISLAM?!?!?!?!?

 

[Live True]

WHO CARES if they were muslim, christian, jewish, athiest???

*Still waiting* on why the religion matters rather than the terrorist leader whose FACTION HAS BEEN REJECTED BY THE NATION OF ISLAM?!?!?!?!?

I suspect it matters to those that like simple brush strokes because it makes the world easy to categorize instead of the messy, complicated, and often contradictory place it is.

While it's understandable to a point, it's sad that this man's father is so focused on his hatred, that he's not remembering his son. He is in so much pain that he can't look past his son's death, to his life.

As it's a public memorial, I think the town has every right to limit the direct hate speech, but a compromise would be nice. I think "Al Queda terrorists" is a very good compromise...true, specific...and impactful.

Don,
I'd ask you why is thier race and religion more important to point out than the terrorist organization for which they died and killed? What point does this serve other than division?
It certainly doesn't pay any more respect to the dead, and it doesn't do any more harm to the terrorist. In fact, by your own comments, they use this as a way to divide the world's attention and focus. So, by focusing in on the religion aspect, that as you stated is often a convenience more than a true creed, aren't you just helping them distract from the real problem?
I really would like to know the logic behind this...because I just see anger and arguing for the sake of it...WHY is this so important a point to you?

 

[MA-Caver]

The story is clear, it is a public memorial



The wording is unduly inflamatory.

I agree... if it was private then it's a private opinion just like those on this forum, can be said on anything basically as long as it's on private property or on a private headstone in a cemetery (which ironically is in a public place) ... to make it a public memorial is to generalize EVERYONE'S feelings about the subject.
While he's specific... "Muslim Terrorists" and doesn't generalize there unless one would want more specifics then he could say "Muslim Terrorists of Iraqi & Saudi (and wherever) Descent" Muslims who are NOT terrorists would know they're not being lumped in with that bunch and I would presume they'd be grateful to know that nobody else is including THEM into that bunch.
I can appreciate the grief the man is feeling, there are 3000+ families feeling the same way and hundreds of thousands more friends of families that empathize with their feelings and millions more who sympathize. Yet inviting the public to share in the pain of loss and hatred of those who caused the loss is not right. I was sadden and horrified on that terrible day and feel for the families but I'm not going to carry it around and have it shoved in my face... I've my own life to live and to honor those fallen is to carry on with life to show the terrorists that we will not be manipulated.

 

[Reggy]

I'm new here...but not new to this issue.

Sad to say I see a few really fuzzy facts being injected into this discussion. First....the "nation of Islam" is Louis Farrakhan's group, it is not the sum total of all Muslim's in the world. Second, a very small number of Muslim groups in the world have publicly stated that they distanced themselves from the 9/11 attacks or that they disapproved of them, mush less that they believed these to be abhorent, evil or even just "wrong".
Third, I have no problem in saying that witches were put to death by Christian clerics or that Catholic Priests have molested children and in fact, these stories ARE stated using these particulars, so why not be factual in that these terrorists WERE Muslim's. We can't all help the fact that there will be some that jump to the erroneous conclusion that, if some Muslim's are terrorists, then all must be, but I see no reason to lie or distort the facts, in an attempt to minimize a faulty generalization. Lastly, to call KKK members who lynched Blacks, terrorists, is silly. These KKK'ers weren't called terrorists back then and wouldn't be called terrorists today...these KKK members were/are hate filled, racist, murderers, as were the 9/11 hijackers, who were also, terrorists (in today's parlance). I truly feel for this poor man and I'm sure that he is trying to make a point by calling the murderers of his son, Muslim terrorists, but, I also believe that he is correct and in our PC'ing of America, pointing out certain truths has become, well, inconvenient and distasteful and much to be avoided, sorry to say.

 

[shesulsa]

I'm new here...but not new to this issue.

Sad to say I see a few really fuzzy facts being injected into this discussion. First....the "nation of Islam" is Louis Farrakhan's group, it is not the sum total of all Muslim's in the world. Second, a very small number of Muslim groups in the world have publicly stated that they distanced themselves from the 9/11 attacks or that they disapproved of them, mush less that they believed these to be abhorent, evil or even just "wrong".
Third, I have no problem in saying that witches were put to death by Christian clerics or that Catholic Priests have molested children and in fact, these stories ARE stated using these particulars, so why not be factual in that these terrorists WERE Muslim's. We can't all help the fact that there will be some that jump to the erroneous conclusion that, if some Muslim's are terrorists, then all must be, but I see no reason to lie or distort the facts, in an attempt to minimize a faulty generalization. Lastly, to call KKK members who lynched Blacks, terrorists, is silly. These KKK'ers weren't called terrorists back then and wouldn't be called terrorists today...these KKK members were/are hate filled, racist, murderers, as were the 9/11 hijackers, who were also, terrorists (in today's parlance). I truly feel for this poor man and I'm sure that he is trying to make a point by calling the murderers of his son, Muslim terrorists, but, I also believe that he is correct and in our PC'ing of America, pointing out certain truths has become, well, inconvenient and distasteful and much to be avoided, sorry to say.

While the adjective is somewhat correct, it is incomplete and unnecessary.

I am a Christian and descended from southerners. The KKK is a southern Christian organization. Yet YOU just stated - correctly - that the KKk lynched blacks - you didn't say southern Christians lynched blacks.

KKK is to southern Christian as Al Qaeda is to Muslim.

If we *have* to include the religion, then it would be accurate to say southern Christian KKK memebrs lynched blacks just as it would be accurate to say Al Qaeda Muslims killed thousands.

And I'm sorry - but this matters to people like me who don't want to be associated with Jim Jones, Jerry Falwell or even the Pope let alone the KKK. I'm sure there are plenty of Muslims who - in their quiet suffering - don't want to be associated with Al Qaeda or other terrorist groups.

It does matter.

 

[CanuckMA]

You don't generalize beause people are stupid. Remember the rash of attacks on Hindus and Sikhs after 9/11 because they were wearing turbans? I know a couple of Sephardic Jews who were also harrased because of the colour of their skin and because they like to wear Bukharan kippot, which is larger than a traditional kippa and can be confused for the Muslim cap.

The difference between 'murdered by Muslim terrorists' and 'murdered by Al Queda terrorists' is about as great as the difference between 'murdered by American racists' and 'murdered by KKK racists'

It's not PC. Its just not tainting 1.6 billion people by the action of a tiny minority.

 

[Reggy]

While the adjective is somewhat correct, it is incomplete and unnecessary.

I am a Christian and descended from southerners. The KKK is a southern Christian organization. Yet YOU just stated - correctly - that the KKk lynched blacks - you didn't say southern Christians lynched blacks.

KKK is to southern Christian as Al Qaeda is to Muslim.

If we *have* to include the religion, then it would be accurate to say southern Christian KKK memebrs lynched blacks just as it would be accurate to say Al Qaeda Muslims killed thousands.

And I'm sorry - but this matters to people like me who don't want to be associated with Jim Jones, Jerry Falwell or even the Pope let alone the KKK. I'm sure there are plenty of Muslims who - in their quiet suffering - don't want to be associated with Al Qaeda or other terrorist groups.

It does matter.

Ok...point taken....Christian KKK members, lynched Blacks. That was, is and forever will be an abomination, that is evil and wrong and should be punished to the full extent of human and God's law......I have no problem with this evil being attributed to Christian KKK members and I know that a vast majority of Christians do not condone these evil acts and I understand that Christianity is not "about" lynching....But the equivalency ends there....you see, a vast majority of Muslim's have not and will not say publicly what I just said....either for fear of retribution(which should tell you something about Islam in it's current state) or because they really agree with the terrorist's acts.....

In the end...I agree with you that words "matter".....I disagree with you that because some people are stupid and generalize, we should cater to the lowest intelligence in our midst and fear speaking the truth.

One last comment.....I find it intereresting that you lump the KKK and Jim Jones with the Pope....seems these days in America, you can say or do pretty near anything as long as it's aimed at the Catholics or Jews and not the Muslims....hmmmmmm.

 

[Reggy]

You don't generalize beause people are stupid. Remember the rash of attacks on Hindus and Sikhs after 9/11 because they were wearing turbans? I know a couple of Sephardic Jews who were also harrased because of the colour of their skin and because they like to wear Bukharan kippot, which is larger than a traditional kippa and can be confused for the Muslim cap.

The difference between 'murdered by Muslim terrorists' and 'murdered by Al Queda terrorists' is about as great as the difference between 'murdered by American racists' and 'murdered by KKK racists'

It's not PC. Its just not tainting 1.6 billion people by the action of a tiny minority.

First of all, I take exception to the "rash of attacks on Hindus and Sikhs after 9/11" comment.

Given the horror and shock of those attacks, the paucity (really just that poor Sikh fellow in Texas) of retribution (given the available "targets") really speaks to the goodness, patience and forebearance of 99.999% of Americans....Why would you attempt to highlight the miniscule number of cases of violence caused by idiots who don't know the difference between a Sikh, a Hindu and a Muslim?

You mention "tainting 1.6 billion people (Muslims) by the action of a tiny minority....I'm not tainting Islam and I don't think of Muslims as "tainted", because 19 of their co-religionists, decided to carry out an evil, murderous, terrorist act.

 

[Tez3]

First of all, I take exception to the "rash of attacks on Hindus and Sikhs after 9/11" comment.

Given the horror and shock of those attacks, the paucity (really just that poor Sikh fellow in Texas) of retribution (given the available "targets") really speaks to the goodness, patience and forebearance of 99.999% of Americans....Why would you attempt to highlight the miniscule number of cases of violence caused by idiots who don't know the difference between a Sikh, a Hindu and a Muslim?

You mention "tainting 1.6 billion people (Muslims) by the action of a tiny minority....I'm not tainting Islam and I don't think of Muslims as "tainted", because 19 of their co-religionists, decided to carry out an evil, murderous, terrorist act.

Canuck isn't exaggerating and really there was more than one chap attacked. It's not a new thing either.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/reac_ter1.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7103244.stm

 

[shesulsa]

One last comment.....I find it intereresting that you lump the KKK and Jim Jones with the Pope....

The Pope has done little, IMNSHO, to dissuade the opportunities for sexual misconduct and for the retribution of such in the Catholic church and since he's the "go-to" guy ... he carries a certain amount of responsibility. To continue to shuffle priests and others from parish to parish and diocese to diocese could be considered to be helping the matter continue. The difference with the Pope and other religious figureheads is that the buck stops there - his words are followed by Roman Catholics all over the globe and he does have some power to make some difference in how sexual misconduct in the church is regulated and punished.

seems these days in America, you can say or do pretty near anything as long as it's aimed at the Catholics or Jews and not the Muslims....hmmmmmm.

You clearly missed what I said - allow me to quote myself and to emphasize:

it would be accurate to say southern Christian KKK memebrs lynched blacks just as it would be accurate to say Al Qaeda Muslims killed thousands.

You are new so you don't know I've said before that there is not a religious group on this planet which has no sect to blame for some kind of abomination somewhere against someone. Even though I hold the Pope to be in part accountable for the aforementioned horrors, not every catholic priest is to blame here, nor are priests and pastors of other Christian churches (while this problem is not isolated to the Catholic church alone), hence I would refer to the priests who molest children as "the priests who molest children." Not Catholic men, not the Catholic priests, not Methodists, not the Methodist priests, the Jehovah's witnesses ... but the priests and pastors and religious guides who molest children.

The muslims who are responsible for the 9/11 attacks are Al Qaeda terrorists specifically.

We can do the semantics dance all day. You want to lump everything into a religion you don't like because of a few people? You don't need my permission, but if you want to discuss it, don't expect me to agree with you.

 

[Reggy]

The Pope has done little, IMNSHO, to dissuade the opportunities for sexual misconduct and for the retribution of such in the Catholic church and since he's the "go-to" guy ... he carries a certain amount of responsibility. To continue to shuffle priests and others from parish to parish and diocese to diocese could be considered to be helping the matter continue. The difference with the Pope and other religious figureheads is that the buck stops there - his words are followed by Roman Catholics all over the globe and he does have some power to make some difference in how sexual misconduct in the church is regulated and punished.



You clearly missed what I said - allow me to quote myself and to emphasize:


You are new so you don't know I've said before that there is not a religious group on this planet which has no sect to blame for some kind of abomination somewhere against someone. Even though I hold the Pope to be in part accountable for the aforementioned horrors, not every catholic priest is to blame here, nor are priests and pastors of other Christian churches (while this problem is not isolated to the Catholic church alone), hence I would refer to the priests who molest children as "the priests who molest children." Not Catholic men, not the Catholic priests, not Methodists, not the Methodist priests, the Jehovah's witnesses ... but the priests and pastors and religious guides who molest children.

The muslims who are responsible for the 9/11 attacks are Al Qaeda terrorists specifically.

We can do the semantics dance all day. You want to lump everything into a religion you don't like because of a few people? You don't need my permission, but if you want to discuss it, don't expect me to agree with you.

You say that I wish to "lump everything into a religion you don't like", meaning Islam. Please point out to me where I have been disrespectful of Islam in this thread. The truth is, I have not and I have gone to great lengths to mention the truth that it is a very small number of adherents, of one religion (at this time in history), who are unleashing terrorists acts against others. All I have been saying is that I don't believe it does anyone any good to hide facts with euphemisms, to not "name, names", or to bow to the wishes of any group that attempts to pressure one into silence as some within Islam seem intent on doing.

I have no desire to "do the semantics dance all day", as you put it, but I believe that we both agreed that words were important, thus my persistence.

Have a pleasant weekend.

 

[Reggy]

Canuck isn't exaggerating and really there was more than one chap attacked. It's not a new thing either.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/reac_ter1.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7103244.stm

With all due respect, I looked at your posted links. The fact that an organization (with dubious contributors like CAIR) can only drum up 14 attacks, 4 which ended in fatalities and again, with dubious "proof" that these were in any way directly attributable to anti-Islamic sentiment, as a direct result of the 9/11 attacks, strikes me as unbelievably tolerant of a country that had just been attacked in such a heinous fashion. I am NOT saying that even one voiced racial slur should have been uttered, much less any of the violence that these poor people encountered, but the links site 14 occurences of violence, that befell human beings, who may have been mistaken to be "the enemy". Again, a tragedy, but certainly not proof that this was Americans gone mad, rampaging through the streets, taking out everyone who remotely looked Middle Eastern.....Come on!...In a country the size of America, with as many weapons as ordinary citizens have available, you think it appropriate to take America to task on it's response to the horrific attacks of 9/11?
No. What I believe should be noted and voiced strongly is the unpopular (currently) refrain, that America, and Americans, are some of the finest, kindest, most tolerant folks the world has ever seen. Not the scant exceptions to that very real truth.

 

[Tez3]

With all due respect, I looked at your posted links. The fact that an organization (with dubious contributors like CAIR) can only drum up 14 attacks, 4 which ended in fatalities and again, with dubious "proof" that these were in any way directly attributable to anti-Islamic sentiment, as a direct result of the 9/11 attacks, strikes me as unbelievably tolerant of a country that had just been attacked in such a heinous fashion. I am NOT saying that even one voiced racial slur should have been uttered, much less any of the violence that these poor people encountered, but the links site 14 occurences of violence, that befell human beings, who may have been mistaken to be "the enemy". Again, a tragedy, but certainly not proof that this was Americans gone mad, rampaging through the streets, taking out everyone who remotely looked Middle Eastern.....Come on!...In a country the size of America, with as many weapons as ordinary citizens have available, you think it appropriate to take America to task on it's response to the horrific attacks of 9/11?
No. What I believe should be noted and voiced strongly is the unpopular (currently) refrain, that America, and Americans, are some of the finest, kindest, most tolerant folks the world has ever seen. Not the scant exceptions to that very real truth.

My dear, I'm not turning this into anything at all, you seem to have the knack of grasping the wrong end of the stick with peoples posts. I'm not taking anyone to task for their reactions to anything other than your reaction to Canuck's post where you more or less called him a liar which I found objectionable.

 

[Reggy]

My dear, I'm not turning this into anything at all, you seem to have the knack of grasping the wrong end of the stick with peoples posts. I'm not taking anyone to task for their reactions to anything other than your reaction to Canuck's post where you more or less called him a liar which I found objectionable.

1) My dear?

2) "I'm not turning this into anything at all"

I agree, didn't imply that you were, although you do seem quite combative.

3) "you seem to have the knack of grasping the wrong end of the stick with peoples posts"

I'll take that criticism and mull it over.

4) "more or less called him a liar"

That is false. It is your opinion, clearly entitled to it, but false. I did not imply that he was a liar and I find your characterization, well, objectionable....but hey, no big deal.

Finally. Your default quote seems to indicate that you are "fighting" an awful lot....maybe relax a little and stop the fighting....might make life seem like less of a battle and more like a trip....oh, and you'll probably find your opinion changing as to which "end of the stick" makes sense, or maybe, both ends are really just names for parts of the same stick....so it doesn't much matter which "end" you grasp............mull it over.

Have a pleasant evening.

 

[Sukerkin]

Reggy, a little advice if I might make so bold.

As you said, you are new to this site and altho you are clearly a man of intelligence with an ability to couch your views well, it is probably not best to 'come out swinging' until you've had a chance to settle in, learn who people are and how they react.

The same thing happens the other way also. For example, to me, at present you appear overly argumentative, prone to misinterpreting what people have written and shaping what they have said to form bullet-point 'clubs' to beat them with.

Now if that is actually what you are like then it's something I'll have to come to terms with both as a poster and a moderator here. But it's more than likely a false impression formed because I've only seen a couple of your posts yet.

So give yourself a bit of time to find a 'seat', let people learn where you stand and how you 'talk'. It'll make things better all round.

 

[Reggy]

Reggy, a little advice if I might make so bold.

As you said, you are new to this site and altho you are clearly a man of intelligence with an ability to couch your views well, it is probably not best to 'come out swinging' until you've had a chance to settle in, learn who people are and how they react.

The same thing happens the other way also. For example, to me, at present you appear overly argumentative, prone to misinterpreting what people have written and shaping what they have said to form bullet-point 'clubs' to beat them with.

Now if that is actually what you are like then it's something I'll have to come to terms with both as a poster and a moderator here. But it's more than likely a false impression formed because I've only seen a couple of your posts yet.

So give yourself a bit of time to find a 'seat', let people learn where you stand and how you 'talk'. It'll make things better all round.

Sukerkin....Thank you for your tone and your advice. I will let it "sit with me".

Respectfully....I see that both you and Tez3 are from England and clearly, Canuck is Canadian, but given that I am an American, who lives and works within sight of the Pentagon, you may understand how, discussions of who is, or isn't a terrorist, what constitutes free speech or the suppression of our freedom of speech and other such discussions, especially when it comes to 9/11 and the tragedy that our nation and clearly the families of our fallen have endured....all, might be "touchy" subjects. I make no excuses for this, but I do present it for your consideration....might explain my passion, or what you have interpreted as my being overly argumentative.

Have a most pleasant evening.

 

[Tez3]

Reggy, it may be a 'touchy' subject for you but consider that you are not the only one for whom it's a touchy subject. I have worked against terrorism all my working life,I still do. I have lost many friends and loved ones to terrorists and earlier this year I lost a student to a terrorist bomb in Afghanistan where nearly all my students or their fathers /mothers will be from next spring. You may have overlooked too that we have had deaths in this country too from Al Queda bombers.
Passion is good but should never blind you.
I'm glad you enjoyed my signature, your 'advice' made me chuckle.