Submitted by rafi brown(Belgium), Aug 30, 2006 at 18:01
while i agree with almost every sentiment expressed here, i do think we should cut the parents some slack. not because of what they say, but because of who they are: the parents of a dead kid, who presumably had his opinions because he was rebelling against where he was from (them) - they are mourning deeply and have to find, if only for themselves, a way to find peace with that.
what they basically say, and what may well be taken out of context, is the universal, "it's what he would have wanted (us to say) ". this is not a berg situation, where the father kidnaps his son's death in order to glorify himself. it resembles more the parents of that poor black kid Anthony Walker in the UK, whose mother immediately forgave the racist axe-murderers, "because she had to, because she's a christian". i think it's a way of dealing with something very very hard. i also think it's a form of denial, but that's beside the point. for us outsiders, he's a symbol, true. but for them, he's their baby, and his death has to make sense. it's still fresh, and they may well come to their senses in time. so any criticism should not go to the parents's remarks per se, but to the journos who write it up as if it was well-thought out comment.
Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened for relevance, substance, and tone, and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome, but comments are rejected if scurrilous, off-topic, vulgar, ad hominem, or otherwise viewed as inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the Guidelines for Comments. For informational purposes, we identify countries from which comments are sent.