This is what I think. Just personal opinion, but here's what I've been able to formulate on this:
(the following comments are in response to
if that link doesn't work go here
and look for "Father of bomber speaks out on allegations" - it's a 29 minute
interview by a father who is working his way to the radio and tv talk show circuit. He's talked to anybody and everybody who has tried to talk to
him so far, and hasn't shown a bit of emotion yet.)
Daddy was a weird, disconnected callous parent who really didn't even know where his son lived (i.e. He states he lived in the Triangle Fraternity
back in January when he saw his son for the first time in MONTHS AND MONTHS (for 30 minutes) on a pass through visit with the Triangle Fraternity
brothers. The Triangle states he never lived there.), or how he was doing - doesn't even know for sure when his son, who he admits himself to be on
the verge of genius, lost his National Merit Scholarship.
As a professed parent of a child who was fighting demons from the time he was in 8th grade (see the portion about the year he spent in the school
"for bad kids"), he also admits that the communication between himself and his wandering dark soul of a son was limited because his son didn't call
his parents and involve them in their lives. Well, had I not been to Colorado Springs several times in my life I would assume it was some backwater
place where the phone system wasn't as up to snuff as the less than 2000 people town I live in - where the phone lines WORK BOTH DAMNED WAYS!
He has the audacity, in an interview that should be entirely centered on the loss soul that was his son, to lack any humility and instead blather
parental advice to those of us WHO HAVEN'T HAD A SON BLOW THEMSELVES UP on how we can gage whether we had our heads so far up our backsides we
didn't notice we had a child burgeoning into the U.S.'s first suicide bomber...he even takes a phone call in the middle of his "lesson" and then
comes right back to it as if he was returning from a cut in a taping of an infommercial. He even breaks into a promotional - looking straight at the
camera - on how parents should seriously consider becoming judges in debate tournaments - and never mentions a squat about how he felt his son did in
the two years the son was a debater - an area where his son showed a very exceptional ability in articulation before audiences, when he himself admits
his son was painfully not social. So much for accolades in a lost life.
But then I find this...
An opinion piece written by the cold-hearted father Joe Hinrichs, Jr. himself in response to the defense of Ward Churchill, a professor at CU who
wrote a paper in which he applauded the 9/11 terrorists
and condemned the
victims of the 2001 attack.
No matter how acerbic you find Churchill's statements (which I personally do), you can't help but note that the Letter to the Editor submitted by
Joe Hinrichs, Jr. - the father of exploding boy - shows about 1000% times more emotion than any he's shown since his youngest son blew himself in
half 14 hours from him:
Double standard rules speech at Boulder campus
University of Colorado faculty members are defending Ward Churchill’s right to free speech (“Colleagues defend beleaguered CU prof,” Metro, Feb.
2). Evidently they wish to ignore the difference between his right to say whatever he wants (a useful starting definition of free speech) and his
entitlement to a professional position of trust.
Let someone with a visible position in business or government make a statement one-tenth as laughably jejune, hackneyed, insular, provincial and
downright stupid, and the giant sucking sound that follows is the poor devil’s job/career imploding.
Yet at the university, where we send our brightest minds to learn critical thinking skills, we see a double standard predicated on confusing the
freedom offered to all with a contrived immunity actively denied to every other occupation. Does tenure rightly need to protect provocative speech? Of
course it does. Does academia need, therefore, to be “Caesar’s wife,” vigilant and above suspicion when it polices its own ranks? Again, yes.
That’s not Calpurnia we see up there, rearranging her smock and daring us to take note.
Was it that long ago that CU’s football coach was made to sit in the corner and suffer a major time-out, dunce cap glued to his head, for making one
off-the-cuff, unguarded remark about a rape victim’s poor performance as a kicker? Ah, but that’s different. Football is commercial speech, rather
than ideological idiocy; in Boulder one is profane, the other sacred.
As you can detect in the father's "speech", as well as in researching various news reports that make statements concerning the family, Joel the III
apparently didn't live up to the bar that his two older brothers set. I think this "father" couldn't handle a child that didn't "turn out
well" all on his own; and now the "father", with his gift of articulation, is trying to paint his own child's life in a manner that leaves him
(the "father") looking like a saint working aginst all odds. This "problem child" was dismissed most likely early in life, with little attention
from his father....accept for an occasional defense to make sure his (the father's) name didn't look bad.
What better way to get dad's attention than to mark yourself as the first American suicide bomber with potentially Islamic ties?
This I find extremely interesting....and not a train of thought that can be easily dismissed.
[edit on 10-7-2005 by Valhall]