• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should inscription 'Murdered by Muslim Terrorists' be allowed on Memorial Plaque?

Should inscription 'Murdered by Muslim Terrorists' be allowed on Memorial Plaque?

  • Yes, there should be nothing wrong with stating the truth

    Votes: 35 67.3%
  • There must compromise language that won't offend

    Votes: 5 9.6%
  • No way, it would offend Muslims

    Votes: 2 3.8%
  • other, please explain

    Votes: 10 19.2%

  • Total voters
    52
I see you've forgotten what we talked about already. Do you not remember when I said that this type of "speech" fuels the extremists? This is absolutely a reason why everyone should care, whether the statement is about them or not. Extremists in this country brings the entire country down.

And I see that you forgot my response your points.

And while it might "fuel the fringe extremists" it can also have the effect of fueling people against the fringe extremists. And since there are more non-extremeists it could very well overwhelm them to the point of canceling out any fuel that they gather from this.
 
I provided more than one defination of PC'ness in that post.

And your definition is not consistent, since you don't apply it judiciously. Rather makes it pointless.

Where did I say that it is hiding the truth? You seem to keep forgetting that I am not argueing against the words "<insert name> died on 9/11" Please stop infering that I am. Arguing for something doesn't always mean that you are arguing against something.
So if we omit "Murdered by Muslim Terrorists" its not hiding the truth? Then why does it matter if the inscription was omitted?
 
Last edited:
If your memory hasn't failed you, then you already know what my response to that was.

Your response was...

Simple solution is to not include the plaque and avoid the problem altogether. Why go thru the hassle?

It's not a simple solution to what the father wants. You're basing your arguement around "it will offend people" and because of that crime will ensue. Not a valid arguement as those that were harmed after 9/11 was in response what happened on 9/11. We have since moved past that stage. Do you really think that regular muslims will be harmed at the simple erection of this memorial if it says what the father wants it to? Some how I doubt it very seriously. When was the last time a muslim was harmed because of what happened on 9/11?

And your definition is not consistent, since you don't apply it judiciously. Rather makes it pointless.

There are lots of words and phrases that have multiple meanings and each one is applied to the context that it belongs to. For example "Gay". It has two different meanings. That is what I did. How I apply each one is consistant.

So if we omit "Murdered by Muslim Terrorists" its not hiding the truth? Then why does it matter if the inscription was omitted?

It may not matter to you. It does to the father. Try looking at it from his point of view. Since it is about his son I think that we should respect his wishes. Since either phrase is the truth and it should not offend anyone but the terrorists what is the problem?

Ugh. I can see this whole arguement going round and round and round. How about we just agree to disagree on this?
 
No given the chance I would rather be telling the truth instead of hiding it. And I do have a choice. As is evidenced by the fact that I support the father in what he wants quite openly.
No one is "hiding" the truth. Hyperbole is not bolstering your argument.
 
Your response was...

It's not a simple solution to what the father wants. You're basing your arguement around "it will offend people" and because of that crime will ensue. Not a valid arguement as those that were harmed after 9/11 was in response what happened on 9/11. We have since moved past that stage. Do you really think that regular muslims will be harmed at the simple erection of this memorial if it says what the father wants it to? Some how I doubt it very seriously. When was the last time a muslim was harmed because of what happened on 9/11?

No actually I advocate being pro-active, rather than re-active. If the extremists were not given the recognition, they wouldn't be receiving any legitimization. If you wait until somebody became a victim of a hate crime, it's already too late.

So again, I ask you, why do you insist on choosing to be inflammatory while it is so much easier to choose not to? If you choose to opt out of having that inflammatory inscription, the memorial wouldn't be any less important, nor would it be any less effective. Furthermore, it wouldn't instigate. I see very little value in what you are arguing for.

There are lots of words and phrases that have multiple meanings and each one is applied to the context that it belongs to. For example "Gay". It has two different meanings. That is what I did. How I apply each one is consistant.

No, you were arguing that omitting certain phrases such as "Murdered by Muslim Terrorists" would be hiding the truth. Your inconsistency lies in your explanation that you were able to infer all of those things mention when you were talking about the Vietnam Veteran's Memorial.

You were very inconsistent.

Now if you respond with "Well I didn't say that omitting that phrase would be hiding the truth", then I gotta ask you, why are you so adamant about including the phrase in the inscription?

It may not matter to you. It does to the father. Try looking at it from his point of view. Since it is about his son I think that we should respect his wishes. Since either phrase is the truth and it should not offend anyone but the terrorists what is the problem?

The problem is that it will offend, regardless of whether you think it should. And also the my point about fueling the extremists.

Ugh. I can see this whole arguement going round and round and round. How about we just agree to disagree on this?

I don't mind going round and round in the discussion. What I'm really interested in actually is how you came to your position. If there's one thing you should know about me, it's that I'm only interested in conversation. I don't really come here to debate (on occasion I do, but for the most part), I come here to see how people work, how they think.
 
Dont call it free speech then. Call it agreeable respectful speech. Thats the way the white house wants it right now.:shrug:

I do not care how the White House wants "it". On a memorial, only the best of taste ,respect,honor are acceptable. "Muslim, Islam" do not qualify.
On a political plaque, separate from the grave site, I'd agree with the father, whatever he or the town wish to say, I surely do not care if Muslims or Islamics are offended...that their problem to fix, their house to clean.
 
(1) There are serious doubts over who carried out 9/11, and, even if it was the "Muslims", they were only retaliating against the aggression that was previously initiated by the U.S. government, so a more accurate tombstone line would be "Caught In The Crossfire Between Two Gangs Fighting For Supremacy".

(2) Free speech.
 
(1) There are serious doubts over who carried out 9/11, and, even if it was the "Muslims", they were only retaliating against the aggression that was previously initiated by the U.S. government, so a more accurate tombstone line would be "Caught In The Crossfire Between Two Gangs Fighting For Supremacy".

(2) Free speech.
Are you serious? You're not one of them, are you?
 
I don't mind going round and round in the discussion. What I'm really interested in actually is how you came to your position. If there's one thing you should know about me, it's that I'm only interested in conversation. I don't really come here to debate (on occasion I do, but for the most part), I come here to see how people work, how they think.

Unfortenately I do mind going round and round. Though I like conversing with people I don't like repeating myself. Suffice it to say that as far as I'm concerned this whole issue is a PC issue and it's stupid to dictate what we say just because it might offend some people.

Are you serious? You're not one of them, are you?

With a signature like his? Some how I wouldn't doubt that he is.
 
(1) There are serious doubts over who carried out 9/11, and, even if it was the "Muslims", they were only retaliating against the aggression that was previously initiated by the U.S. government, so a more accurate tombstone line would be "Caught In The Crossfire Between Two Gangs Fighting For Supremacy".

(2) Free speech.

THIS FORUM IS NOT A PLACE WHERE THE U.S. FOREIGN POLICY OR THE MIDDLE EAST CAN BE DISCUSSED FAIRLY AND HONESTLY. I ENCOURAGE EVERYONE TO FIND A DIFFERENT WEB-SITE INSTEAD.

I'm wondering, with the statement you have on your signature, can you explain why you posted? ;)
 
Unfortenately I do mind going round and round. Though I like conversing with people I don't like repeating myself. Suffice it to say that as far as I'm concerned this whole issue is a PC issue and it's stupid to dictate what we say just because it might offend some people.

I'd like to point out that we're only going round and round because you became inconsistent with your judgements.

You don't think the Vietnam Veteran's Memorial was hiding truth, yet you think differently of this particular memorial. Why the difference?

In one you can infer all sorts of things without ANY words but the title of the memorial, and yet you argue that the inscription must be included so that people would not be confused about what the memorial is about.

This
has been the reason why we are going round and round.
 
No. It's just not the type of thing Americans would do. Just remove the word "Muslim."
 
I think people just had more class back in my day. Bobby Kennedy was killed by a Palestinian terrorist, and his memorial doesn't say "murdered by Palestinian terrorist".
But maybe it should. Maybe plain speech would promote clear thinking.
 
Should inscription 'Murdered by Muslim Terrorists' be allowed on Memorial Plaque?
Yes, there should be nothing wrong with stating the truth
The TRUTH??? you can't handle the truth, the truth is WTC7 colapsed without even being hit by planes, because the plane that was supposed to hit it got shot down over PA and it was already riged up with demolition explosives.
The truth is Bush refused 1 on 1 duel with Saddam Hussein that could have saved the country 3000 soldiers and over trillions of dollars instead settling for a president named Hussein Obama.
DO YOU REALLY THINK YOU CAN HANDLE THE TRUTH?
I doubt it
 
The TRUTH??? you can't handle the truth, the truth is WTC7 colapsed without even being hit by planes, because the plane that was supposed to hit it got shot down over PA and it was already riged up with demolition explosives.
The truth is Bush refused 1 on 1 duel with Saddam Hussein that could have saved the country 3000 soldiers and over trillions of dollars instead settling for a president named Hussein Obama.
DO YOU REALLY THINK YOU CAN HANDLE THE TRUTH?
I doubt it

:rofl...............
 
The TRUTH??? you can't handle the truth, the truth is WTC7 colapsed without even being hit by planes, because the plane that was supposed to hit it got shot down over PA and it was already riged up with demolition explosives.
The truth is Bush refused 1 on 1 duel with Saddam Hussein that could have saved the country 3000 soldiers and over trillions of dollars instead settling for a president named Hussein Obama.
DO YOU REALLY THINK YOU CAN HANDLE THE TRUTH?
I doubt it
If I knew something was the absolute, unchangeable, completely proven, constant-of-the-universe truth, then of course I could handle it.

But nothing has ever existed in such a state. Or anything close. So I have to settle for the best man can do, which, IMO, does not include any of your statements.

Additionally, are you TRYING to get this thread sent to the conspiracy forums?
 
Back
Top Bottom