I don’t have a problem with it; the text for the plaque seems accurate.
Would you have a problem with a relative of a victim of the Oklahoma city bombing to erect a plaque saying “murdered by a christian terrorist” ?
The claim “The father has taken a stand because he believes there has been a determined effort to “suppress” the identity of the terrorists who were, in fact, Muslim terrorists.” seems pretty weak. In anycase, if such a determined effort exists, it certainly isn’t having much success.
Memorials usually try to have a sense of decorum, I’m not aware of any Perl Harbor memorial that memorializes the victims has “blown up by the sneaky Japanese”, though that’s certainly true, as well.
“Fucked up by our military and intelligence agencies” would be a more apt inscription.
Yes, because (unlike Muslims) Christians represent a tiny fraction of the modern-day terrorists.
This tired comparison that gets trotted out every time is inaccurate. For it to be equivalent, the Oklahoma plaque would have to say “murdered by an anti-government terrorist.” What McVeigh did had nothing to do with being a Christian. The 9/11 terrorist actions were directly related to their Muslim faith. And I emphasize “their” because it is only the interpretation of a small minority of Muslims.
Having said that, I think the city is allowed to set the tone it wants in its memorial and therefore can prohibit the suggested wording.
From your link -
So your plaque would have to say “Murdered by an agnostic terrorist, for whom Science was his religion”.
Regards,
Shodan
Interesting that. The plaque would be no less accurate. But you read the plaque as “muslim terrorist” being one word. Therein lies the issue. You are reading the plaque as a (correct in your opinion) aspersion cast on Muslims, whilst defending the same slant being cast on Christians. And about now it becomes emotive.
Everyone needs to step back. Historically it is hardly true that Christians represent the tiny fraction of terrorists. The IRA and Loyalists killed thousands over the decades. In Ireland the number of plaques that could read “Killed by a Catholic terrorist” or “Killed by a Protestant terrorist” well exceeds the number that died in 9/11.
It is never possible to get this sort of thing right. Personally I don’t think it ever does the deceased any sort of honour to be tagged with residual hatred. The mooted plaque is in one reading perfectly accurate. But if a possible plaque for the Oklahoma victims can’t be considered as equally accurate, it is clear that there is a subtext to the meaning that goes beyond pure accuracy. There is a hidden text which wishes to taint all Muslims as complicit in the act. And that is hardly acceptable. Unsurprising, but unacceptable.
If we could show it was accurate, could we also put other relevant things on the plaque? Like, “James Gadiel (1978-2001), a gentleman and a gentle man, who thought his father was a jerk, murdered by Muslim terrorists.”
Accuracy in fact isn’t the test of a decent memorial.
And I think it is only in the mind of crypto-racists that people don’t know damn well who perpetrated 9/11.
None of us can ever know the reasons why Timothy McVeigh or the 9/11 plotters did what they did, but “killed by a christian terrorist” and “killed my a muslim terrorist” is exactly as accurate in both cases.
Quite right.
If the plaque read Al Qaeda terrorists, well there you would be precise and not unduly cast aspersion on an entire religion.
Agreed, in resolving the Troubles, getting away from the labelling was an important part of the effort.
Also right.
Yeah, did you read the link you posted at all? It seems clear that McVeigh, while raised a Christian, did not identify as a Christian as an adult. How is “exactly as accurate” to call McVeigh a Christian?
Now in this case, it’s perfectly accurate. Not only were the IRA Catholic, but their Catholicism was what in large part led to their actions. So IRA victims could easily be characterized as victims of Catholic terrorists; Loyalist victims were indeed victims of Protestant terrorists, and the whole mess of 'em were victims of Christian terrorists.
I don’t see a problem with the town setting limitations on what can be written on a memorial they are thinking about putting in place.
Reasons given by Osama bin Laden for 9/11:
They are both inaccurate labels… thats the point.
Eric Robert Rudolph would probably be a better example of a domestic “Christian Terrorist”, as he was both a Chrisitian and apparently motiviated by his relgion to blow people up.
Memorials are probably best served calling attention to the worth of the life lost as opposed to being a warning about perceived dangers. Stating that his son was a gentleman and a gentle man accomplishes this. Casting aspersions about the motivation behind his son’s murderers does not.
I suppose that if the father wishes he can make whatever statement he’d like to within the confines of a private memorial, like on his son’s or his own tombstone. But in the public arena such a display of residual hatred is of questionable accuracy and lends an inappropriate air, forever compromising the solemn mood for all who would visit.
I agree with this.
(If you go down this road, you can describe thousands of IRA victims as ‘killed by Christian terrorists, funded by American money’.)
Republicanism and precieved oppression by a imperialist power led to their actions, it had nothing whatsoever to do with religion. A lot of IRA men where lefty atheists, in fact the few(Acquaintances/friends of my father) I know are all lefty non-believers. Catholic and Protestant are just handy pointers to which side the person most likely falls on really.
The Loyalist groups were mostly acting as a reaction to Republican acts.