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



## Big Don (Oct 29, 2009)

*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 (Oct 29, 2009)

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 (Oct 29, 2009)

Nolerama said:


> 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 (Oct 29, 2009)

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 (Oct 29, 2009)

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 (Oct 29, 2009)

So what? 

It's a simple statement of fact. 

Are any of the following in dispute? 

The person the memorial is for is this man's son.
This person was murdered.
The murderers were muslim.
The murderers were terrorist.
Why should it be a problem to cite the facts?


----------



## Sukerkin (Oct 29, 2009)

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 (Oct 29, 2009)

celtic_crippler said:


> So what?
> 
> It's a simple statement of fact.
> 
> ...


 

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 (Oct 29, 2009)

Sukerkin said:


> 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 (Oct 29, 2009)

Sukerkin said:


> 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 (Oct 29, 2009)

CanuckMA said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


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 (Oct 29, 2009)

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 (Oct 29, 2009)

arnisador said:


> 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 (Oct 29, 2009)

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 (Oct 29, 2009)

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 (Oct 29, 2009)

Sukerkin said:


> 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 (Oct 29, 2009)

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 (Oct 29, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> 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 (Oct 29, 2009)

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 (Oct 30, 2009)

Big Don said:


> 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.


----------



## shesulsa (Oct 30, 2009)

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 (Oct 30, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> 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 (Oct 30, 2009)

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 (Oct 30, 2009)

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 (Oct 30, 2009)

shesulsa said:


> 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 (Oct 30, 2009)

CanuckMA said:


> 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 (Oct 30, 2009)

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 (Oct 30, 2009)

Reggy said:


> 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 (Oct 30, 2009)

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 (Oct 30, 2009)

shesulsa said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


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 (Oct 30, 2009)

CanuckMA said:


> 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 (Oct 30, 2009)

Reggy said:


> 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 (Oct 30, 2009)

Reggy said:


> 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 (Oct 30, 2009)

shesulsa said:


> 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 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 (Oct 30, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> 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 (Oct 30, 2009)

Reggy said:


> 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 (Oct 30, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> 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 (Oct 30, 2009)

*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 (Oct 30, 2009)

Sukerkin said:


> *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.
> 
> ...


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 (Oct 31, 2009)

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.


----------



## Reggy (Oct 31, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> 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.


Tez3....

I am new here, a virtual "nobody", a lowly white belt, and you are clearly "someone" on this forum, a "martial talk Grandmaster".....wow. Your condescending tone, inability to empathize, coupled with your obvious desire to belittle someone of my teeny tiny stature on this site, is really indicative of what this site is all about. Or is it?....Maybe you don't realize that with your seniority here, you also get the responsibility of being a good ambassador, and not just throwing your weight around. Interesting how you "project" and advise me to never let my passion blind me....see much, do you?....Finally, humility allows one to honestly take advice and to "mull things over"....not belittle the person who advises......that's just bad form.

Quite sad, this site is billed as a "friendly discussion about the martial arts". I understand that this topic is "off topic" and is a "touchy subject", but I must say that if little sarcastic jabs, and snarky, snide remarks and "put-downs", are all this site's "mentors" and "GrandMasters" have to offer....y'all can have fun playing with yourselves. 
I'll just go elsewhere.....Sukerkin, thank you for trying....honestly.


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 31, 2009)

Fine, on your advice then I shall leave this forum to you.


----------



## The Last Legionary (Oct 31, 2009)

It's accurate. It's also tasteless and disrespectful of the dead, in my opinion.

Hate crimes against anyone looking arab since 9/11/01: 785 (as of 10/01)

Victims of 9/11 included more than just American's, and more than just Christians. 


> Casualties of the September 11 attacks included a total of 2,974 fatalities, excluding the 19 hijackers: 246 on the four planes (from which there were no survivors), 2,603 in New York City in the towers and on the ground, and 125 at the Pentagon.[1][2] An additional 24 people remain listed as missing.[3] All of the fatalities in the attacks were civilians except for 55 military personnel killed at the Pentagon.[4] More than 90 countries lost citizens in the attacks on the World Trade Center.[5] In 2007, the New York City medical examiner's office added Felicia Dunn-Jones to the official death toll from the September 11 attacks. Dunn-Jones died five months after 9/11 from a lung condition which was linked to exposure to dust during the collapse of the World Trade Center.


 (Found at Wikipedia)

The international community, including many of the US's long standing opponents expressed disbelief, and condemned the attacks.  Countries like Iran, Cuba and China offered condolences. Even terrorists like Arafat condemned the attacks.

To paint all Muslims by the actions of the few responsible, is wrong, as wrong as to paint all Christians by the actions of it's few fanatics.

And Reggy, you're new here. A word of advice. Come in swinging, and you don't last long. You have an issue, report it and let the staff handle it. This isn't what you're most likely used to, but, we don't mix the bull here.


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 31, 2009)

Ten minutes ago I was thinking sod it, I'll leave MT as I really am not in the mood to be faffed around with but now I'm thinking, no I won't give anyone the satisfaction.

Reggy, 'grandmaster' means nothing other than a high post count, having been here a while that's natural enough.
I have not patronised you at all, in fact I've been honest with you, if you don't understand my English sense of humour, pm and I'll explain. I use 'my dear' a lot, it's an English expression. 
As many could tell you here, if I was out to belittle you I would have done so thoroughly. You would have come out feeling so small you could have hidden under a pebble.
Put downs? snide comments? you have clearly been reading things that aren't there.
Your 'advice' did make me chuckle, why shouldn't I say so, I'd be fascinated to know exactly how you see me? A large muscle bound, tattooed MMA fighter with anger issues? But that would be too amusing......
I've been under the weather with some foul virus and really very depressed but a little bit of fighting spirit is peeping out so Reggie if you don't like my posts you have a couple of alternatives, you can report them or you can put me on ignore but don't ever throw accusations at me again.


----------



## sadantkd (Oct 31, 2009)

arnisador said:


> 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.


 

Your ridiculous post would make more sense if you talked about African-Americans lynched by Democrat Party terrorists, since that's what the KKK actually were.


----------



## sadantkd (Oct 31, 2009)

Religion matters because whether we want to believe it or not, their religion was the driving influence that led them to murder his son, and have led them to murder hundreds and hundreds of thousands of other innocent people be they Christian, jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim or of any other religion.  Muslims across the middle east and around the world celebrated the 9-11 attack, and I'm pretty sure they weren't all members of Al Qaeda.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Oct 31, 2009)

And Muslims across the world also condemned the attacks.
People in the US applauded the attacks.

The terrorists are guided by a misunderstanding of their faith, are led by cowards who send children to die under threat, cowards who are a disgrace to their faith. 

America is seen as both a great good for all the charity and aid we provide, and a great evil for all the harm we bring and all the corrupt regimes we've supported in the name of politics.  Ask that family in Afghanistan whose wedding was disrupted by American bombs, if we're heros or terrorists.  

I condemn all acts of terrorism, regardless of source.  When someone is dead, it doesn't matter whose bullet killed them.


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 31, 2009)

sadantkd said:


> Your ridiculous post would make more sense if you talked about African-Americans lynched by Democrat Party terrorists, since that's what the KKK actually were.


 

You may not agree with Arnisador but it's unecessary to call his post and opinion ridiculous.
A good many of those who 'celebrated' 9/11 weren't Al Queda, in that you are correct, but were mostly supporters if not members of terrorist groups such as Hamas and other anti American groups.


----------



## sadantkd (Oct 31, 2009)

I take it you have some documentation of the rash of attacks on hinus and seiks, or anybody for that matter in response to 9-11.  I've heard a lot of rumors and inuendo, but to date haven't seen any evidence of it actually having happened.


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 31, 2009)

sadantkd said:


> I take it you have some documentation of the rash of attacks on hinus and seiks, or anybody for that matter in response to 9-11. I've heard a lot of rumors and inuendo, but to date haven't seen any evidence of it actually having happened.


 
Who are hinus and seiks?


----------



## jks9199 (Oct 31, 2009)

A word to the wise...

This is a volatile topic, with strong emotions on many sides.  I also think it's a worthy topic to discuss, and lots of interesting points have been made.

So let's try to watch the shots and snipes, huh?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Oct 31, 2009)

sadantkd said:


> I take it you have some documentation of the rash of attacks on hinus and seiks, or anybody for that matter in response to 9-11.  I've heard a lot of rumors and inuendo, but to date haven't seen any evidence of it actually having happened.


I have first hand knowledge of at least 1 attack 5 minutes from me, and 2nd hand knowledge from the victim of continuous harassment who also happens to be a member of this site. He can pipe up if he wants to, but he's posted it before here.

As to the rest, see wiki.


> *Hate crimes*
> 
> Numerous incidents of harassment and hate crimes were reported against Middle Easterners and other "Middle Eastern-looking" people in the days following the 9/11 attacks.[151][152] Sikhs were also targeted because Sikh males usually wear turbans, which are stereotypically associated with Muslims. There were reports of verbal abuse, attacks on mosques and other religious buildings (including the firebombing of a Hindu temple) and assaults on people, including one murder: Balbir Singh Sodhi was fatally shot on September 15, 2001. He, like others, was a Sikh who was mistaken for a Muslim.[151]
> According to a study by Ball State University, people perceived to be Middle Eastern were as likely to be victims of hate crimes as followers of Islam during this time. The study also found a similar increase in hate crimes against people who may have been perceived as members of Islam, Arabs and others thought to be of Middle Eastern origin.[153]
> ...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks#Hate_crimes


----------



## sadantkd (Oct 31, 2009)

Last Legionary, are we to assume then that you trust wikipedia as a source in other areas as well?  You realize of course that there is absolutely no fact check for that site.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Oct 31, 2009)

Bob Hubbard said:


> I have first hand knowledge of at least 1 attack 5 minutes from me, and 2nd hand knowledge from the victim of continuous harassment who also happens to be a member of this site. He can pipe up if he wants to, but he's posted it before here.
> 
> As to the rest, see wiki.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks#Hate_crimes


[FONT=verdana, geneva, helvetica]*Muslim           Victims of September 11th Attack 
*[/FONT]





> [FONT=verdana, geneva, helvetica][FONT=verdana, geneva, helvetica]Imagine being the family of Salman Hamdani.  The 23-year-old New York City police cadet was a part-time ambulance driver, incoming medical student, and devout Muslim.  When he disappeared on September 11, law enforcement officials came to his family, seeking him for questioning in relation to the terrorist attacks.  They allegedly believed he was somehow involved.  His whereabouts were undetermined for over six months, until his remains were finally identified.  He was found near the North Tower, with his EMT medical bag beside him, presumably doing everything he could to help those in need.  His family could finally rest, knowing that he died the hero they always knew him to be.[/FONT][/FONT]
> [FONT=verdana, geneva, helvetica][FONT=verdana, geneva, helvetica]Or imagine being Baraheen Ashrafi, nine months pregnant with her second child.  Her husband, Mohammad Chowdhury, was a waiter at Windows of the World restaurant, on the top floors of Tower One.  The morning of September 11, they prayed _salaat-l-fajr_ (the pre-dawn prayer) together, and he went off to work.  She never saw him again.  Their son, Farqad, was born 48 hours after the attacks -- one of the first 9/11 orphans to be born.  In an interview with CTV Canada, she relates that in the months to follow, she mourned for her husband and endured the hostility of some ignorant people around her.  "When they saw me ... I'm wearing a scarf. There is a hate look."[/FONT][/FONT]


http://islam.about.com/blvictims.htm

[FONT=verdana, geneva, helvetica][FONT=verdana, geneva, helvetica]*Partial List of Muslim 9/11 Victims
See above link
*[/FONT][/FONT]


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Oct 31, 2009)

Bob Hubbard said:


> [FONT=verdana, geneva, helvetica]*Muslim           Victims of September 11th Attack
> *[/FONT]
> http://islam.about.com/blvictims.htm
> 
> ...


Found this as well


> [FONT=verdana, geneva, helvetica]A full report of backlash incidents has been compiled and published by the Council on American Islamic Relations.  They documented 1717 incidents of violence, threats, and bias in the first six month alone.  While the report highlights the worst cases of hatred and violence, it also brings out the positive:  the American Muslim community's assistance in 9/11 relief and law enforcement efforts, and support offered to Muslims by Americans of other faiths.[/FONT]
> [FONT=verdana, geneva, helvetica]The full report is available to download from the Council on American-Islamic Relations:[/FONT]
> [FONT=verdana, geneva, helvetica]*American Muslims: One Year After 9/11
> *(Microsoft Word and Adobe Acrobat versions)[/FONT]​[FONT=verdana, geneva, helvetica]A summary of the report can be found by clicking here.[/FONT]


http://islam.about.com/library/weekly/aa091401a.htm


----------



## sadantkd (Oct 31, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> You may not agree with Arnisador but it's unecessary to call his post and opinion ridiculous.
> A good many of those who 'celebrated' 9/11 weren't Al Queda, in that you are correct, but were mostly supporters if not members of terrorist groups such as Hamas and other anti American groups.


 

And, what is the main thing those terrorist groups have in common?  It's right on the tip of my tongue.

And by the way, the point of his post is absolutely ridiculous.  There is nothing in Christianity, or in our holy book that justifies lynching blacks.  It was Christians who formed the abolitionist movement that led to the formation of the Republican party and the Civil war faught to end slavery.


----------



## The Last Legionary (Oct 31, 2009)

sadantkd said:


> Last Legionary, are we to assume then that you trust wikipedia as a source in other areas as well?  You realize of course that there is absolutely no fact check for that site.


If you're looking for doctorate level citations, you won't get them from me.  I posted a link and a decent site.  You can follow it's supplied references, or you can keep your head in the sand. Either way, it's not my job to work hard to correct your ignorance.  Spend some time on Google or Bing or Yahoo and you will find articles at CNN, Fox, ABC, NBC and other credible news sources. Or don't.


----------



## The Last Legionary (Oct 31, 2009)

sadantkd said:


> And, what is the main thing those terrorist groups have in common?  It's right on the tip of my tongue.
> 
> And by the way, the point of his post is absolutely ridiculous.  There is nothing in Christianity, or in our holy book that justifies lynching blacks.  It was Christians who formed the abolitionist movement that led to the formation of the Republican party and the Civil war faught to end slavery.


*Cough* Crusades *Cough*.

Genocide against Jews and Muslims, blessed by several Popes, over centuries.

Not in the book, but blessed, sanctioned and insisted upon by the leaders of the faith.

Edited to add: Your history is wrong mate. The Civil War fallacies were debunked here by Kaith and a few others way back when. But that's a huge tangent.  As is the arrogant view of missionaries that resulted in numerous cultures being wiped out in the name of the Christian "God". Spanish conquest in South and Central America, the Crusades, The Spanish Inquisition, the forced conversion of Native American's in the US, etc.  Not in the book, but still done by Christians in the name of Christ. Christianity is about as peaceful as a mosh pit if we look not at the words, but the actions of those professing the words.


----------



## sadantkd (Oct 31, 2009)

Just so everybody knows, I have no hatred or dislike for anybody who hasn't earned it.  Not that I feel the need to justify myself to anybody, but the simple fact is that I have friends, co-workers, students and long time associates of all races and religions.  That said, the facts are the facts.  Islam is the driving force behind Islamic Terrorism.  Until, large numbers of Muslims are willing to stand up and drive the changes their religion requries (not unlike the number of Catholics who have risen up to demand an end to the clergy abuse), their religion will continue to be used to drive people to commit heinous acts like 9-11, the U.S.S. Cole, the first WTC attack, the Kobar Towers and the attacks that have killed countless Muslims around the world.

Fantasies, lies and hoaxes perpetrated by CAIR aside, there have been very few attacks on Muslims in this country or anywhere else in the world in retaliation for 9-11.  The FBI, the ACLU and the justice department are very aggressive in investigating and prosecuting hate crimes, but how many prosecutions have we seen.


----------



## sadantkd (Oct 31, 2009)

the crusades?  Oh you mean the struggle to get back the lands the invading Muslims had stolen from Christians?  I don't know what kind of so-called proof somebody used to try and change the history of the civil war, but the facts are well known.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Oct 31, 2009)

What do terrorist groups have in common?

They use threat and terror to instill control in those around them.
- You will do this or your sister will die.
- You will do this or we will blow something up
- You will do this or you will suffer.

Some do it for political gain, some for personal, and some in the name of religion.

The KKK was formed to defend the rights of Southerners that were being trampled on after their nation was conquered by the United States's illegal war of subjugation over trade tariffs (not slavery). It (the KKK) resorted to terrorist activities to force the local puppet governments hand and influence local events, by attacking innocent blacks and whites who they saw as enemies.  It's violence was condemned by numerous former Confederate Generals, including Nathan Forrest (rumored to be the 1st Grand Wizard). It was disbanded shortly, only to be reborn years later as a hate organization.  I debunked the Slavery myths repeatedly, a search of this site will turn up those debates.

I've read about 6 or 7 versions of the Christian bible. It's an interesting book, one filled with sex, incest, violence, and worse.  It's also an enlightening book filled with hope, and positive thoughts, and advice on love, life and everything.    I find the Koran to be similar, though geared towards a different culture than mine, so it speaks things in different ways.

Islam, Christianity, Judaism, in fact most main stream faiths are peaceful.  What we have is people, misunderstanding, misinterpreting, mistranslating and misleading for personal and political gain.

Again, the subject of the OP, it is factually correct. His son was killed by Muslim terrorists. It's also wrong, in that if you understand the faith, you would understand that the terrorists were not true Muslims, any more than Jim Jones was a true Christian.


----------



## sadantkd (Oct 31, 2009)

With all due respect, your version of history is completely wrong.  Just because you posted a bunch of untrue talking points from racist organizations doesn't debunk the history the entire world knows.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Oct 31, 2009)

sadantkd said:


> the crusades?  Oh you mean the struggle to get back the lands the invading Muslims had stolen from Christians?  I don't know what kind of so-called proof somebody used to try and change the history of the civil war, but the facts are well known.


*Crusades*
These wars were fought centuries after the land was conquered.  It would be akin to England invading the US today to regain their former colony.

*Civil War*
Revisiting the Past - The Road to War : Causes
Researching the Past - An examination of the concept of Secession
Revisiting the Past : Part 3 - An re-examination of the concept of Secession
Revisiting the Past : Pt 4 - The Institution of Slavery as a cause for war. By Bob Hubbard


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Oct 31, 2009)

sadantkd said:


> With all due respect, your version of history is completely wrong.  Just because you posted a bunch of untrue talking points from racist organizations doesn't debunk the history the entire world knows.


History was written by the winners. My writings on Lincoln's Tariff War are backed up with solid fact.

Also, have you read the Koran?  I have.
How many Christian bibles have you read?  I own 6, have read them all cover to cover.


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 31, 2009)

sadantkd said:


> the crusades? Oh you mean the struggle to get back the lands the invading Muslims had stolen from Christians? I don't know what kind of so-called proof somebody used to try and change the history of the civil war, but the facts are well known.


 
Oh it was the Christian's lands in the first place was it? I don't think so. 


This thread is staggering away from the OP and is in danger of imploding.

It's human nature to want to hit out when people they care for are hurt and killed but we don't all carry that threat out. Of course there were attacks on Muslims, we had them here after the July bombings, they were carried out by the ignorant, the stupid, the bigotted and the malicious. That doesn't mean the whole of a country is like that, it means we have people like that everywhere. Denying that fact is sticking your head in the sand, luckily we have more 'good' people than bad but it doesn't do any of any good by pretending these attacks didn't happen or that they 'couldn't happen'. 

The majority of Muslims are like the rest of us, they worry about their families, their jobs, keeping a roof over their heads, just as we do. External factors heap pressure on them as it does with us, heaping blame on all Muslims is unfair. How many of you disagree with your current president? How many of you are in a position to overthrow him? I can't get rid of my government so how do you think Muslims are likely to get rid of theirs when in many places they don't have a democracy? Oh it's so easy to judge sat in your livingrooms watching your televisions, how many are brave enough to stand and be counted when your families lives are at risk? How many times have you got angry when 'all Americans' are maligned or America is blamed for all the worlds ills? 

Place blame squarely on the shoulders of those to blame, Al Queda and the Taliban have killed as many Muslims as they have non Muslims, if not more actually.


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 31, 2009)

sadantkd said:


> With all due respect, your version of history is completely wrong. Just because you posted a bunch of untrue talking points from racist organizations doesn't debunk the history the entire world knows.


 
Actually the entire world doesn't know, I didn't learn anything about the American Civil War whilst at school and only have a hazy idea of what it was about so I'd bow happily to Bob's knowledge of the whys and wherefores. The American Civil War isn't covered at all in most countries educational curriculum.
Here in the UK it was one specific group of Christians who fought to have slavery abolished and that was The Society of Friends (Quakers) the only group of Christians Iknow who truly haven't laid a finger in anger against any other human and have done everything they could to aid others. 

Bob now there's a thought, England coming to take over America! It would only be the lands though presumably that we lost not all the 'newer' bits?


----------



## jks9199 (Oct 31, 2009)

*Attention all users:

Please return to the original topic.

jks9199
Sr. Moderator*


----------



## shesulsa (Oct 31, 2009)

sadantkd said:


> And, what is the main thing those terrorist groups have in common?  It's right on the tip of my tongue.



Mine too. That word is "hate."  

Friend, there are Christian terrorists, Islamic terrorists, atheist terrorists, you name it.  The word is "hate" and that's ALL she wrote.



sadantkd said:


> With all due respect, your version of history is completely wrong.  Just because you posted a bunch of untrue talking points from racist organizations doesn't debunk the history the entire world knows.



What would be YOUR reference points to support your statements? Please link.  Cuz that's how it works around here. Thanks.


----------



## shesulsa (Oct 31, 2009)

Sorry, mods.

The point, though, is - I think - whether there is a bona fide need to put "muslim" on a headstone in reference to the 9/11 terrorists.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Oct 31, 2009)

To wrap up some tangents here, I provided 4 threads for civil war discussion, We can also spin that off into a new one if anyone would care to discuss that more. Please start a thread is so.

Regarding the Crusades, it's an interesting topic, and again, I would love the chance to really dig into that topic, so if anyone else does, please feel free to start a new thread.

We can then return this one to the headstone topic.


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 31, 2009)

A Civil War thread would be good, I'd like to learn more about the history and also how it has affected people today.  I imagine apart from slavery it changed a great many things.
A Crusades thread would be useful because it is very much in modern Muslims minds and I know many fear a modern crusade, a discussion could be constructive. I don't have enough knowledge of either to start them though.


----------



## JDenver (Oct 31, 2009)

I'm getting to this way late, and this may seem odd, but here goes;

I have no idea who perpetrated the attacks on 9/11.

Why?  Well, cause the FBI, despite that desks and file cabinets were obliterated into dust in those buildings, managed to find intact photo ID's of the hijackers.  They were all Muslim men from the Middle East.  Only problem was those men were still alive, still living in the Middle East.  Still are.  They peacefully go about their lives.  Those passports were either stolen or faked.

I guess I could assume that the hijackers were Muslim terrorists from somewhere in the Middle East, but because we don't actually know all of their identities, this becomes a wee problem.


----------



## Reggy (Oct 31, 2009)

shesulsa said:


> Mine too. That word is "hate."
> 
> Friend, there are Christian terrorists, Islamic terrorists, atheist terrorists, you name it.  The word is "hate" and that's ALL she wrote.
> 
> ...


Shesulsa.

It is the moral equivalence, that I see as problematic. I know that you believe all these religions have been equally immoral at times in their own histories and have been terrorists towards other civilizations....I agree with you on this.....But.....at THIS point in time (and this is the only point in time that we can affect), it is people under the banner of Islam (and I've already said, it's just a few of millions of peaceful Muslims), that are terrorizing many areas of the world and that is why I believe it is fine to call it what it is, right now.....Islamic Terrorism. Doesn't mean that Christians haven't done it, and Jews haven't and Hindus haven't and when these religions did terrorize others, don't you think that those victimized civilizations called, it what it was at THAT time, be it Christians, Jews, etc.....?????Sure they did!.....my issue is more with how we've all become uncomfortable with calling evil, evil. Whereas, in the past, we did seem able to do so, to face the facts.....so you see, I believe that it's the "slippery slope" of moral equivalency and false civility, that are the greatest threat to our civilized way of life....not, who happens to be doing the evil at this time in history.....Does that make sense?

This is why I would prefer that this Father get his wish....not to "stick it" to Islam.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 1, 2009)

The problem with saying Muslims killed his son, is that while the religion of his killers was that, it's also the religion of a huge number of people who have no wish to kill anyone and are being tarred with the same brush. Hence it's more accurate to state he was killed by Al Queda terrotists. Stating blandly 'oh it was Muslims' is to ignore that Islam has different beliefs and sects some of which are persecuted by the same terrorists that target us. There are many Muslims who have no part in terrorism such as the Maldive Islanders, Indonesians,Malaysians, the people of Brunei etc. 
We have to be accurate and lay this evil at the door of those who perpetrate it. As I said before those killed here by the IRA, have that stated, we know who the IRA are, what they stand for and who they are killing ( yes it's in the present tense because their terrorists are still active) The only people who say the dead were killed by Catholics are those Protestants who also perpetuate and practice violence which is why this conflict has gone on for so long and despite peace talks look to continue well into this century and probably the next.  
To many peoples minds it is 'politically correct' and very wrong to lay the blame on 'Muslims' as such, it spells out that we don't want to actually blame the people responsible but would rather use mealy mouthed generalisations and labels.
 Far better to put on the memorial the names of the killers and who they did their horrible work for.


----------



## shesulsa (Nov 1, 2009)

I think the bottom line here is that there are people who think there is value in acknowledging the difference between a religious group and a terrorist religious group even to the extent of demarking another's grave, and those who don't.

Reason has nothing to do with it - to include "Muslim" is an emotional choice made by a grieving father. It's understandable given the situation.  It's also just not what I would do.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 1, 2009)

sadantkd said:


> And by the way, the point of his post is absolutely ridiculous.  There is nothing in Christianity, or in our holy book that justifies lynching blacks.  It was Christians who formed the abolitionist movement that led to the formation of the Republican party and the Civil war faught to end slavery.



It was Christians who effectuated New World slavery and Christianity that was used to justify it. Robert E. Lee states the position that what was being done to the Africans was for their good, as the Jews' time in Egypt ultimately was for them:



> "The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, socially & physically. The painful discipline they are undergoing, is necessary for their instruction as a race, & I hope will prepare & lead them to better things. How long their subjugation may be necessary is known & ordered by a wise Merciful Providence."



Christianity was the means of identifying the Africans as heathens in need of Christian help, for their own good. Intolerance of non-Christians a fundamental tenet of Christianity, and saving others forcibly from the Christians' view of hell is certainly ensconced in the Christian tradition.



The Last Legionary said:


> Edited to add: Your history is wrong mate. The Civil War fallacies were debunked here by Kaith and a few others way back when.



A few conspiracy theorists here--actually, it was mostly just Kaith--convinced themselves that up was down. The rest of the world hasn't yet accepted the Great MartialTalk Debunking.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 1, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> Actually the entire world doesn't know, I didn't learn anything about the American Civil War whilst at school and only have a hazy idea of what it was about so I'd bow happily to Bob's knowledge of the whys and wherefores.



Please, please, _please _don't do that. Wikipedia would be a much better source.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 1, 2009)

shesulsa said:


> atheist terrorists



Example, please?


----------



## arnisador (Nov 1, 2009)

Having seen now the request to get back on topic:

The terrorists had many qualities in common, including being male, but their voluntary membership in Al Qaeda seems to be the main factor here. Their religion was of course a factor in what happened--all the Abrahamic religions are violent and their members are prone to extremism of various sorts (not always violent). Putting their religion on the marker seems spoiling for a fight--a last chance to hurl an insult.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 1, 2009)

*Admin Note:*

Please continue the US Civil War discussion here
 US Civil War Myths and Facts


----------



## Reggy (Nov 1, 2009)

Bob Hubbard said:


> *Admin Note:*
> 
> Please continue the US Civil War discussion here
> US Civil War Myths and Facts


Arnisador.

Not to beat a dead horse, but, your comment, "all the Abrahamic religions are violent", is exactly the concern that I have, with much of the blog/forum posts that I see in the news these days. This sweeping statement, could make one take the "next step" and formulate the thought that since "all the Abrahamic religions are violent", then the "jihad" that some in Islam are waging against the non-Muslim world, is, OK, ...."since, you know, everyone's doing it"......This is why I feel a better route, is to call it out, when we see it and had I lived during the Crusades, I would have been ok with "calling out" that bit of Christian barbarity. In my view, this is a Muslim issue and it is they who should reign in the "violent jihadis" in their midst. I believe they would get all the help and appreciation that they could stand, should they go that route.....unfortunately, I'm not seeing much of this on their end and the silence can be (and sometimes is) taken to be, acceptance and even condoning of these terrorist actions....and given that "their" problem is killing "us" and "them"....it has now become "our" problem too.....so maybe "us" calling it out (Muslim Terrorists), will embolden some within Islam to say "TRUE!"...and "shame on us, this is NOT what we want and we don't condone it!".....I know a few Imam's have said this, but I'm talking about a ground-swell, massive, world shaking, "NO"....Think how that would send a message of solidarity, to all peace loving people's of the world.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 1, 2009)

It's not the religions that are violent, it's people. With or without religions people can be inhumanely cruel, religion is just the excuse. If it's not religion it would be another excuse. 
If one lived in the time of the Crusades criticising them would have got you swiftly tortured and killed, the same applies in many countries where 
Muslim extremism holds sway. Do you honestly think that it's about religion and not power? It's always about power, land and wealth, thats why we have wars, religion is just an excuse. You think the Middle East is about Jews v Muslims? Think again, it's about land, water. power and wealth just as it was in the days of the Crusades,not one of which was actually about religion or even G-d.


----------



## Sukerkin (Nov 1, 2009)

arnisador said:


> Example, please?


 
The terrorist groups which were active in Europe during the 70's are a classic example of Atheist Terrorists- tho admittedly still driven by an ideology, it was an ideology of anti-establishment nature rather than A-N-Other-God-botheryness.


----------



## CanuckMA (Nov 1, 2009)

arnisador said:


> example, please?


 
eta


----------



## arnisador (Nov 1, 2009)

Sukerkin said:


> The terrorist groups which were active in Europe during the 70's are a classic example of Atheist Terrorists- tho admittedly still driven by an ideology, it was an ideology of anti-establishment nature rather than A-N-Other-God-botheryness.



Like the Red Brigade in Italy, you mean? Weren't these generally indifferent to religion? Would any of them have refused to accept a Christian member on grounds of his religious persuasion? There may have been some communist group that incorporated atheism in as a secondary consequence of their communist beliefs, but as a rule I think these groups simply didn't have a religious stance _as groups_. Certainly they weren't specifically targeting anyone or anyplace based on (ir)religious grounds.



CanuckMA said:


> eta



The Basques? They're largely Catholic--it's just that the ETA opposes having a _state _religion.


----------



## Carol (Nov 1, 2009)

The most vicious "atheist" terror group that I can think of is the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam.  They aren't well known in the west, but when referred to over here they are typically called the "Tamil Tigers".

Atheist is in quotes because I highly doubt that you'd find them reading James Randi and debating critical thinking.  They do, however, promote an independent Marxist state for the Tamil where they are (naturally) the only authority.

http://www.satp.org/satporgtp/countries/shrilanka/terroristoutfits/LTTE.HTM


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 2, 2009)

The Maoist insugents in Nepal. 
The Tamil Tigers are well known here for their sheer viciousness and for having both male and female suicide bombers.
The Red Army Faction also known as the Bader-Meinhof Group.
The Shining Path in Peru.
ETA is Markist-Leninist in outlook, it adopted those principles in the 1960s.


----------



## Sukerkin (Nov 2, 2009)

arnisador said:


> Weren't these generally indifferent to religion?


 
Ah, I see.  That's generally what I mean by 'Atheist'.  

I know that some here apparently see Atheism as some sort of organised anti-religious crusade but that's not how I interpret it.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 2, 2009)

Yes, I see what you mean...I meant that as opposed to those fighting to advance or defend or destroy a particular religion, were there atheist groups doing the same in the name of atheism, or even groups composed wholly of atheists. Some of the communist groups might be entirely atheist or at least atheistic in their propaganda because that's a common aspect of a communist viewpoint, secondary though it is.

For example, according to Wikipedia the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam "is a secular organization, regarding the religious beliefs of its members as private matters". I don't see that as atheistic: The members might be quite religious, and the motivation is political, not religious or anti-religious. I don't know of statements on religion by the Bader-Meinhof Group, though their communism likely entailed it. The Nepal Maoists are probably closer--they want a secular communist state. Of course wanting to overthrow a state religion in favor of no state religion isn't necessarily atheistic--it happened here in the U.S., for example.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 2, 2009)

Nepal is a secular state, it doesn't have a state religion.


----------



## Carol (Nov 2, 2009)

> The LTTE, moreover, is a secular group which regards religion as a private matter. The cult of personality, however, prevails. The devotion of the Tigers is to the LTTE chief who is considered supreme.



A secular devotion to me sounds atheitistic in nature.  It may not be done in the name of Atheism.  But if the devotion is to the Chief, then there does not seem to be room for devotion elsewhere.

There is no indication that religious practices could flourish under the LTTE.  They are statist in nature and don't want to share their power.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 2, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> Nepal is a secular state, it doesn't have a state religion.



That's as of 2006, and they've been at it since the early 90s.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 2, 2009)

arnisador said:


> That's as of 2006, and they've been at it since the early 90s.


 
Well I'm not about to disagree with the Gurkhas, you may if you wish but it was Ghurka colleague I consulted thinking that he may know more about their country than I.


----------



## arnisador (Nov 2, 2009)

I was going by Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Nepal



> Nepal was formerly the world's only constitutionally declared Hindu state, but following the movement for democracy in early 2006 and the breaking of King Gyanendra's power, the Nepali Parliament amended the constitution to make Nepal a secular state.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 2, 2009)

arnisador said:


> I was going by Wikipedia:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Nepal


 
I'll direct my Nepalese colleague to that, I'm sure he'll be unamused. He also explained a lot about who actually are Nepalese and who aren't, the various tribes, religions and customs but I expect I shall have to go to Wiki for the 'truth'


----------



## arnisador (Nov 2, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> I'll direct my Nepalese colleague to that, I'm sure he'll be unamused. He also explained a lot about who actually are Nepalese and who aren't, the various tribes, religions and customs but I expect I shall have to go to Wiki for the 'truth'



The NY Times and the CIA agree with me. From the NY Times (17 Dec. 2006):
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/17/world/asia/17nepal.html



> The new Constitution is to determine whether Hinduism will remain the official state religion.


From the CIA World Factbook (as of 2001, periodically updated):
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/np.html



> _*note*:_                                    only official Hindu state in the world


Also a major Nepalese newspaper:
http://www.telegraphnepal.com/news_det.php?news_id=6522



> On May 18, 2006, the re-instated parliamentary government severely stripped the Kings power and, to the surprise of most Nepalese citizens, Nepal was declared a secular state.


But perhaps some random guy you know knows better.


----------



## Carol (Nov 2, 2009)

I suspect you are both right.   Nepal may be a secular government on paper, but I dont't in any way think that a culture that is centuries old has changed seemingly overnight. 

The world's largest Democracy (India) is a secular state, yet certain rights in the constitution are defined by religion.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 3, 2009)

How strange to argue with someone who's country it is! I've since asked other Ghurkha colleagues and they agree with what I was first told so I guess I'll go with what they say. 
These aren't random guys these are serving Ghurkha SNCOs and a serving (but ex Ghurkha soldier) Ministry of Defence Police Officer all of whom I would trust my life with. The Ghurkhas have served with distinction recently in Afghanistan and are now training Ghurkha recruits here. All of whom are Nepalese of different religions and beliefs.


----------

