NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110006791

If there needs to be a memorial to general human-rights abuses, so be it. But to co-opt the 9/11 Memorial to make a political point is just wrong.

I think the link will work without subscription, but...

MEMORY FAILURE

The Great Ground Zero Heist
Will the 9/11 "memorial" have more about Abu Ghraib than New York's heroic firemen?

BY DEBRA BURLINGAME
Wednesday, June 8, 2005 12:01 a.m. EDT

On Memorial Day weekend, three Marines from the 24th Expeditionary Unit who had been wounded in Iraq were joined by 300 other service members for a wreath-laying ceremony at the empty pit of Ground Zero. The broken pieces of the Twin Towers have long ago been cleared away. There are no faded flags or hand-painted signs of national unity, no simple tokens of remembrance. So why do they come? What do they hope to see?

The World Trade Center Memorial will break ground this year. When those Marines return in 2010, the year it is scheduled to open, no doubt they will expect to see the artifacts that bring those memories to life. They'll want a vantage point that allows them to take in the sheer scope of the destruction, to see the footage and the photographs and hear the personal stories of unbearable heartbreak and unimaginable courage. They will want the memorial to take them back to who they were on that brutal September morning.

Instead, they will get a memorial that stubbornly refuses to acknowledge the yearning to return to that day. Rather than a respectful tribute to our individual and collective loss, they will get a slanted history lesson, a didactic lecture on the meaning of liberty in a post-9/11 world. They will be served up a heaping foreign policy discussion over the greater meaning of Abu Ghraib and what it portends for the country and the rest of the world.

The World Trade Center Memorial Cultural Complex will be an imposing edifice wedged in the place where the Twin Towers once stood. It will serve as the primary "gateway" to the underground area where the names of the lost are chiseled into concrete. The organizers of its principal tenant, the International Freedom Center (IFC), have stated that they intend to take us on "a journey through the history of freedom"--but do not be fooled into thinking that their idea of freedom is the same as that of those Marines. To the IFC's organizers, it is not only history's triumphs that illuminate, but also its failures. The public will have come to see 9/11 but will be given a high-tech, multimedia tutorial about man's inhumanity to man, from Native American genocide to the lynchings and cross-burnings of the Jim Crow South, from the Third Reich's Final Solution to the Soviet gulags and beyond. This is a history all should know and learn, but dispensing it over the ashes of Ground Zero is like creating a Museum of Tolerance over the sunken graves of the USS Arizona.

The public will be confused at first, and then feel hoodwinked and betrayed. Where, they will ask, do we go to see the September 11 Memorial? The World Trade Center Memorial Foundation will have erected a building whose only connection to September 11 is a strained, intellectual one. While the IFC is getting 300,000 square feet of space to teach us how to think about liberty, the actual Memorial Center on the opposite corner of the site will get a meager 50,000 square feet to exhibit its 9/11 artifacts, all out of sight and underground. Most of the cherished objects which were salvaged from Ground Zero in those first traumatic months will never return to the site. There is simply no room. But the International Freedom Center will have ample space to present us with exhibits about Chinese dissidents and Chilean refugees. These are important subjects, but for somewhere--anywhere--else, not the site of the worst attack on American soil in the history of the republic.

More disturbing, the Lower Manhattan Development Corp. is handing over millions of federal dollars and the keys to that building to some of the very same people who consider the post-9/11 provisions of the Patriot Act more dangerous than the terrorists that they were enacted to apprehend--people whose inflammatory claims of a deliberate torture policy at Guantanamo Bay are undermining this country's efforts to foster freedom elsewhere in the world.

The driving force behind the IFC is Tom Bernstein, the dynamic co-founder of the Chelsea Piers Sports and Entertainment Complex who made a fortune financing Hollywood movies. But his capital ventures appear to have funded his true calling, the pro bono work he has done his entire adult life--as an activist lawyer in the human rights movement. He has been a proud member of Human Rights First since it was founded--as the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights--27 years ago, and has served as its president for the last 12.
The public has a right to know that it was Mr. Bernstein's organization, joined by the American Civil Liberties Union, that filed a lawsuit three months ago against Donald Rumsfeld on behalf of detainees in Iraq and Afghanistan. It was Human Rights First that filed an amicus brief on behalf of alleged "dirty bomber" Jose Padilla, an American citizen who the Justice Department believes is an al Qaeda recruit. It was Human Rights First that has called for a 9/11-style commission to investigate the alleged torture of detainees, complete with budget authority, subpoena power and the ability to demand that witnesses testify under oath.

In fact, the IFC's list of those who are shaping or influencing the content and programming for their Ground Zero exhibit includes a Who's Who of the human rights, Guantanamo-obsessed world:

• Michael Posner, executive director at Human Rights First who is leading the worldwide "Stop Torture Now" campaign focused entirely on the U.S. military. He has stated that Mr. Rumsfeld's refusal to resign in the wake of the Abu Ghraib scandal is "irresponsible and dishonorable."

• Anthony Romero, executive director of the ACLU, who is pushing IFC organizers for exhibits that showcase how civil liberties in this country have been curtailed since September 11.

• Eric Foner, radical-left history professor at Columbia University who, even as the bodies were being pulled out of a smoldering Ground Zero, wrote, "I'm not sure which is more frightening: the horror that engulfed New York City or the apocalyptic rhetoric emanating daily from the White House." This is the same man who participated in a "teach-in" at Columbia to protest the Iraq war, during which a colleague exhorted students with, "The only true heroes are those who find ways to defeat the U.S. military," and called for "a million Mogadishus." The IFC website has posted Mr. Foner's statement warning that future discussions should not be "overwhelmed" by the IFC's location at the World Trade Center site itself.

• George Soros, billionaire founder of Open Society Institute, the nonprofit foundation that helps fund Human Rights First and is an early contributor to the IFC. Mr. Soros has stated that the pictures of Abu Ghraib "hit us the same way as the terrorist attack itself."

While Gov. George Pataki, Mayor Michael Bloomberg and LMDC are focusing their attention on the economic revival of lower Manhattan, there has been no meaningful oversight with respect to the "cash cow of Ground Zero." Meanwhile, the Freedom Center's organizers are quickly lining up individuals, institutions and university provosts with this arrogant appeal: "The memorial to the victims will be the heart of the site, the IFC will be the brain." Indeed, they have declared the World Trade Center Memorial the perfect "magnet" for the world's "great leaders, thinkers and activists" to participate in lectures and symposiums that examine the "foundations of free and open societies." Put less grandly, these activists and academics are salivating at the prospect of holding forth on the "perfect platform" where the domestic and foreign policy they despise was born.

Less welcome to the Freedom Center are the actual beneficiaries of that policy. According to the New York Times, early renderings of the center's exhibit area created by its Norwegian architectural firm depicted a large mural of an Iraqi voter. That image was replaced by a photograph of Martin Luther King and Lyndon Johnson when the designs were made public. What does it mean that the "story of humankind's quest for freedom" doesn't include the kind that is fought for with the blood and tears of patriots? It means, I fear, that this is a freedom center which will not use the word "patriot" the way our Founding Fathers did.

The so-called lessons of September 11 should not be force-fed by ideologues hoping to use the memorial site as nothing more than a powerful visual aid to promote their agenda. Instead of exhibits and symposiums about Internationalism and Global Policy we should hear the story of the courageous young firefighter whose body, cut in half, was found with his legs entwined around the body of a woman. Recovery personnel concluded that because of their positions, the young firefighter was carrying her.
The people who visit Ground Zero in five years will come because they want to pay their respects at the place where heroes died. They will come because they want to remember what they saw that day, because they want a personal connection, to touch the place that touched them, the place that rallied the nation and changed their lives forever. I would wager that, if given a choice, they would rather walk through that dusty hangar at JFK Airport where 1,000 World Trade Center artifacts are stored than be herded through the International Freedom Center's multi-million-dollar insult.

Ground Zero has been stolen, right from under our noses. How do we get it back?

Ms. Burlingame is a member of the board of directors of the World Trade Center Memorial Foundation and the sister of Charles F. "Chic" Burlingame III, pilot of American Airlines fight 77, which was crashed at the Pentagon on September 11, 2001.

Real pity that. Damn that was long. Well, I don't like New York much so this could be one more reason to never go there.

I fail to see the problem.....

The so-called lessons of September 11 should not be force-fed by ideologues hoping to use the memorial site as nothing more than a powerful visual aid to promote their agenda.

Mmm...delicious, delicious irony.

I don't think the memorial should be politicized either.. it should be simple, relatively small, and dedicated to the people who died, and only the people who died. That shouldn't have been complicated.

Much as I hate to admit it; I kind of support this. Its just as important to remember what we did because of 9/11 as it is to remember 9/11 itself. Cause and effect.

It may be painful, it may be aggrivating, but guess what, the best medicines taste bitter. The best advice will anger and upset you. We mustn't lose sight of what we've lost, and what we may yet lose, because of 9/11.

Some call it "US Bashing". I disagree strongly. This is the exact opposite of bashing the US, this is showing us where we've done right and wrong, and how we overcame our mistakes in the past to become what we were before 9/11. And show us that mistakes can still be made if we aren't careful.

No one has ever accused the US of being perfect; but the US was once considered the great bastion of hope and freedom in the world. Its about time we remembered that, and reclaimed that distinction.

Much as I hate to admit it; I kind of support this. Its just as important to remember what we did because of 9/11 as it is to remember 9/11 itself. Cause and effect.

It may be painful, it may be aggrivating, but guess what, the best medicines taste bitter. The best advice will anger and upset you. We mustn't lose sight of what we've lost, and what we may yet lose, because of 9/11.

Some call it "US Bashing". I disagree strongly. This is the exact opposite of bashing the US, this is showing us where we've done right and wrong, and how we overcame our mistakes in the past to become what we were before 9/11. And show us that mistakes can still be made if we aren't careful.

No one has ever accused the US of being perfect; but the US was once considered the great bastion of hope and freedom in the world. Its about time we remembered that, and reclaimed that distinction.
The problem, as I see it, is that - despite the connections attempted by the Administration - 9/11 has/had nothing whatsoever to do with Iraq or any of the other "human rights violations" attributed to the US.

It was a cold calculated attack on the US for Theo-Political gain. nothing more. If people want to link 9/11 & our policies in Iraq, fine, but don't do it on the bodies of the NYFD/PD and all of the thousands of civillians who had nothing to do with US policy - past or present.

I don't even necessairly care if they have their "human rights violation museum" on the WTC site... just don't call it part of the 9/11 memorial!

That's just crass and politically opportunistic.

Oh, and just because it's Ironic, doesn't make it a Right or good thing to do - from either side of the argument. :mad:

Mmm...delicious, delicious irony.
Save me a slice of that irony! [/hijack]

If people want to link 9/11 & our policies in Iraq, fine, but don't do it on the bodies of the NYFD/PD and all of the thousands of civillians who had nothing to do with US policy - past or present.


Erm... last thing I remember your own president did that. Didn't he give Saddam Hussein's alledged link to Al-Q'aeda as one of his very valid reasons to invade Iraq in the first place?

Erm... last thing I remember your own president did that. Didn't he give Saddam Hussein's alledged link to Al-Q'aeda as one of his very valid reasons to invade Iraq in the first place?

Well, even the UN said in its own reports that 1800 gallons of weaponized anthrax was missing in Iraq since 1993.

Would you really wait until an avowed enemy of the United States, who had ties with Palestinian terrorists (including Abu Nidal) and was supplying Palestinian terrorists with rockets and explosives, grew some ties with al-Qaeda?

Would you really wait for that to happen? Really?

Erm... last thing I remember your own president did that. Didn't he give Saddam Hussein's alledged link to Al-Q'aeda as one of his very valid reasons to invade Iraq in the first place?

No. Not Al Qaeda, at least.

Erm... last thing I remember your own president did that. Didn't he give Saddam Hussein's alledged link to Al-Q'aeda as one of his very valid reasons to invade Iraq in the first place?
Erm, you seem to have very selective reading skills. Didn't I say that? I rather thought we should have done Saudi Arabia instead of Iraq, but that wasn't my call.

I don't care WHO tries to make political hay out of 9/11. It's just wrong.

Oh, and IIRC even with the Administration's nonsesical attempt to link 9/11 to Iraq, Saddam needed to go away. Maybe not the way we did it, but he needed to go away.

The problem, as I see it, is that - despite the connections attempted by the Administration - 9/11 has/had nothing whatsoever to do with Iraq or any of the other "human rights violations" attributed to the US.

That is irrelevant. The change that has taken place within the US and the rest of the world since 9/11 is definately worthy of a monument that can serve as a warning to future generations.

The problem, as I see it, is that - despite the connections attempted by the Administration - 9/11 has/had nothing whatsoever to do with Iraq or any of the other "human rights violations" attributed to the US.

It was a cold calculated attack on the US for Theo-Political gain. nothing more. If people want to link 9/11 & our policies in Iraq, fine, but don't do it on the bodies of the NYFD/PD and all of the thousands of civillians who had nothing to do with US policy - past or present.

I don't even necessairly care if they have their "human rights violation museum" on the WTC site... just don't call it part of the 9/11 memorial!

That's just crass and politically opportunistic.

Actually I think it's all irrelevant nonsense. in the first place It is private property and no businessman in his right mind is going to take that much of some of the most expensive real estate in the World to put up a leftist propaganda attraction, even in New York.

That is irrelevant. The change that has taken place within the US and the rest of the world since 9/11 is definately worthy of a monument that can serve as a warning to future generations.
But why call it the 9/11 memorial? Call it anything else. Call it the "I hate what the US has become" Memorial. Just don't co-opt 9/11.

Conspiracy theories, links to Iraq (or lack thereof), and general politics aside, just under 2800 people died in New York on 9/11.

Surely the easiest way to avoid more left vs right arguments over politicisation of the memorial is to have a simple memorial to those who died and recognise the bravery of those who helped people escape (not least the firefighters and police).

And is anyone else sick of the word "freedom"?

Conspiracy theories, links to Iraq (or lack thereof), and general politics aside, just under 2800 people died in New York on 9/11.

This may sound harsh, but 2800 dead people is a rather insignificant number...
Many millions on the other hand view 9/11 as a turning point in history.

Well, if more will be said about Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo than about 9/11, you know who're the only ones you've got to blame, right? Right?

This may sound harsh, but 2800 dead people is a rather insignificant number...
Many millions on the other hand view 9/11 as a turning point in history.

True, just IMO there is too much room for abuse by politicians trying to further their own agendas. The right seems to be claiming a monopoly on the word "freedom" and neo-patriotism, and i'm sure the left would turn it into something self-serving as well.

Well, if more will be said about Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo than about 9/11, you know who're the only ones you've got to blame, right? Right?

Not really. Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo are regrettable consequences of the reaction to 9/11, but when it comes to the memorial itself I feel it degrades those who died to turn it into a political structure. Just look at the war cemeteries of Western Europe - simple memorials to those who died with no political interference with regards to their content.

This blows. What's with this seige of really crappy monuments?
(alluding to the Reagan monument -- he totally didn't deserve one in the first place, anyways)

Can't they just leave the simple 9-11 monument as it is? You don't need nor want lectures at a monument. Keep it for museums or something.
Museums OFF the site.

I was never one to cry much over 9-11. I too, am quick to point out the obvious fact that 2,800 is nothing compared to other deaths.
However, memorials are memorials. People find 9-11 important, and indeed it was the site that led to several declerations of war under the nomenclature (and/or facade) of a War on Terror. Like it or not, it is a site of history.

Like it or not, some people get their kicks from going to memorial sites and getting all weepy over people they don't even know. It's just one of those things. It's part of life, of every culture.

In short, nothing should mess with the feng shue of a memorial site, and some "exhibit" or whatever like the one described totally does. (Much like the Reagan one does with the memorials and statues of our more elder presidents)

Liverbreath']Actually I think it's all irrelevant nonsense. in the first place It is private property and no businessman in his right mind is going to take that much of some of the most expensive real estate in the World to put up a leftist propaganda attraction, even in New York.

1. It's not private property.

2. It's in the People's Republic of New York. Nothing can be built here unless it is ideologically correct*. (Why do you think they won't build a stadium for the olympics).

*This is really more a function of the century old corruption in the Democratic Party.

Not really. Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo are regrettable consequences of the reaction to 9/11, but when it comes to the memorial itself I feel it degrades those who died to turn it into a political structure. Just look at the war cemeteries of Western Europe - simple memorials to those who died with no political interference with regards to their content.

Well, it's clear that we need big "Hitler = Bad," "Mussolini = Bad," etc. signs on all the graves then, right? After all, without pounding home the message at the memorial, how will the ignorant general public know?

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110006791

If there needs to be a memorial to general human-rights abuses, so be it. But to co-opt the 9/11 Memorial to make a political point is just wrong.
Well, actually ( and I hope you won't be upset with an old soldier about this ), I think an unvarnished picture of the truth is a fitting memorial for both the 9/11 victims and for those who have surrendered their lives in the events which followed.

The US military has made, and by its nature as part of a vast nation, will continue to make mistakes. Seeking the truth through freedom to speak your piece is an important part of why many people join the military. I know it was for me. If by a multitide of small acts, such as presenting a truthful picture of freedom at a memorial, we help insure a continuation of this search for truth and help put an end to the need for conflict, how better could we honor those who died?

Well, actually ( and I hope you won't be upset with an old soldier about this ), I think an unvarnished picture of the truth is a fitting memorial for both the 9/11 victims and for those who have surrendered their lives in the events which followed.

The US military has made, and by its nature as part of a vast nation, will continue to make mistakes. Seeking the truth through freedom to speak your piece is an important part of why many people join the military. I know it was for me. If by a multitide of small acts, such as presenting a truthful picture of freedom at a memorial, we help insure a continuation of this search for truth and help put an end to the need for conflict, how better could we honor those who died?

I agree. Why shrink away from our past? Its our past, they are our mistakes, let us live up to them. Let us make amends for our transgressions and push foreward with our lives. The victims of 9/11, those who lost their lives, they deserve more than flowery words and empty praises, they deserve the truth.

Why reserve 9/11 memorials to one aspect of the sacrafice? 9/11 did not happen in a vaccum. These lost lives didn't happen in a vaccum; they were not numbers, they were people with valuable lives, things to share, familes and friends. All things are conected. Perhaps those who fight against this are the ones most in need of its teachings.

Well, actually ( and I hope you won't be upset with an old soldier about this ), I think an unvarnished picture of the truth is a fitting memorial for both the 9/11 victims and for those who have surrendered their lives in the events which followed.

The US military has made, and by its nature as part of a vast nation, will continue to make mistakes. Seeking the truth through freedom to speak your piece is an important part of why many people join the military. I know it was for me. If by a multitide of small acts, such as presenting a truthful picture of freedom at a memorial, we help insure a continuation of this search for truth and help put an end to the need for conflict, how better could we honor those who died?
Like I said, I've got no problem (ok, some "slant" issues with the cruuent IFC focus) with the idea of having a memorial for the events subsequent to 9/11. I just think it's wrong to tie the two so closely.

One was about civillian death and heroics in the absence of politics. The other is about the political realities of warfare & patriotisim/nationalisim. IMO they are two very different things requiring two very different memorials. The current IFC "plan" basically makes a somber memory into a shrill talking point. It would be like Amnesty Intl. installing a Prisoner Abuse Memorial at the Wall that only made a passing reference to the Hanoi Hilton but prominantly included stock press footage of AbuGarib & Gitmo.

The problem, as I see it, is that - despite the connections attempted by the Administration - 9/11 has/had nothing whatsoever to do with Iraq or any of the other "human rights violations" attributed to the US.


While 9/11 may have had nothing to do with Iraq, it had everything to do with very similar projects. And for all we know the next 9/11 stands a very good chance of having something to do with either Iraq, or the next Iraq.

A simple memorial to 9/11 isn't enough, because most Americans never had a clue what it was about, thus can't really remember it.

1. It's not private property.

2. It's in the People's Republic of New York. Nothing can be built here unless it is ideologically correct*. (Why do you think they won't build a stadium for the olympics).

*This is really more a function of the century old corruption in the Democratic Party.

Funny that. Bitching about New York establishing an improper memorial to a tragedy that happened in New York. If it's so much a factor of a corrupt Democratic stranglehold on NY politics then how come we've had Republican mayors for over a decade now?

And we don't want to build the stadium because it has nothing to do with the Olympics, they've been trying to get that statium built for the Jets since at least the mid 90's. If the Jets want a stadium they can either build it themselves or start calling themselves the New Jersey Jets. It's just corporate socialism.

Not really. Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo are regrettable consequences of the reaction to 9/11, but when it comes to the memorial itself I feel it degrades those who died to turn it into a political structure. Just look at the war cemeteries of Western Europe - simple memorials to those who died with no political interference with regards to their content.

Funny, I felt it degraded them to turn it into a cheap propaganda tool to promote an invasion that Bush had been chomping at the bit for all along. in order to set up a memorial, I think it's important to show how we remembered it. I.E. By declaring war on a world that had just declared its love for us in the wake of our tragedy.

While that article was directed against using the WTC memorial for leftist politics, it seems to promote using it for rightist politics. I think it shouldn't be used for either, and if it is abused, both sides should get an equal share.
I disapprove of creating a place with the thought in mind that those visiting should feel the whole pain of September 11th in order to get people angry at the enemies of the US. A memorial is a site for remembrance but if all that is called back to memory is anger and the desire to get even with someone, then I wouldn't want any such memorial.

To be honest, I'm kind of curious why they are bothering to memorialize anything yet. The purpose of a memorial is so that people who didn't live through an event will keep it in their thoughts, so that history does not repeat itself. The people who didn't live through it are currently all less than four years old, making them incapable of appreciating a memorial. So what's the point?

I agree. Why shrink away from our past? Its our past, they are our mistakes, let us live up to them. Let us make amends for our transgressions and push foreward with our lives. The victims of 9/11, those who lost their lives, they deserve more than flowery words and empty praises, they deserve the truth.

Why reserve 9/11 memorials to one aspect of the sacrafice? 9/11 did not happen in a vaccum. These lost lives didn't happen in a vaccum; they were not numbers, they were people with valuable lives, things to share, familes and friends. All things are conected. Perhaps those who fight against this are the ones most in need of its teachings.
Perhaps so. I well remember the fight over the Vietnam Veterans Memorial. Many of the veterans said they thought the design was depressing and a shameful thing. Now, it's one of the most popular attractions in DC.

While 9/11 may have had nothing to do with Iraq, it had everything to do with very similar projects. Please explain how.

And for all we know the next 9/11 stands a very good chance of having something to do with either Iraq, or the next Iraq.
So? Preaching to people at what is essentially the gravesite of innocents won't change the motivations of people who would kill innocents to make a point.
A simple memorial to 9/11 isn't enough, because most Americans never had a clue what it was about, thus can't really remember it.
9/11 NYC was about nutburger fanatics flying planes into civillian buildings. What's so hard to understand about that? Trying to "understand where the terrorists were coming from" smacks of trying to somehow justify their actions against civillians.

If people want a memorial that discusses the political rammifications of US Foreign Policy, then install it at the site of the attack made against a US Government installation - The Pentagon. That attack was a legetimate act of war. The attack on the WTC is in no way comparable to any other military/political action in history. It was a barbaric attack made without warning, specifically against non-combatant civillians in a non-government non-war-industry building. I don't care what their motivations were. The memorial isn't about the motivations of the terrorists. The memorial is for the families and friends of the innocent dead.

You can talk about the motivations of the terrorists somewhere else. :mad:

To be honest, I'm kind of curious why they are bothering to memorialize anything yet. The purpose of a memorial is so that people who didn't live through an event will keep it in their thoughts, so that history does not repeat itself. The people who didn't live through it are currently all less than four years old, making them incapable of appreciating a memorial. So what's the point?
A memorial is also for those who died and their families. Besides, if they don't do it now, it may never happen. Look how long it took to get a WWII memorial! :(

Like I said, I've got no problem (ok, some "slant" issues with the cruuent IFC focus) with the idea of having a memorial for the events subsequent to 9/11. I just think it's wrong to tie the two so closely.

One was about civillian death and heroics in the absence of politics. The other is about the political realities of warfare & patriotisim/nationalisim. IMO they are two very different things requiring two very different memorials. The current IFC "plan" basically makes a somber memory into a shrill talking point. It would be like Amnesty Intl. installing a Prisoner Abuse Memorial at the Wall that only made a passing reference to the Hanoi Hilton but prominantly included stock press footage of AbuGarib & Gitmo.
You think it's going to be that bad? Rather a harsh comparison there.

Please explain how.


So? Preaching to people at what is essentially the gravesite of innocents won't change the motivations of people who would kill innocents to make a point.

9/11 NYC was about nutburger fanatics flying planes into civillian buildings. What's so hard to understand about that? Trying to "understand where the terrorists were coming from" smacks of trying to somehow justify their actions against civillians.

If people want a memorial that discusses the political rammifications of US Foreign Policy, then install it at the site of the attack made against a US Government installation - The Pentagon. That attack was a legetimate act of war. The attack on the WTC is in no way comparable to any other military/political action in history. It was a barbaric attack made without warning, specifically against non-combatant civillians in a non-government non-war-industry building. I don't care what their motivations were. The memorial isn't about the motivations of the terrorists. The memorial is for the families and friends of the innocent dead.

You can talk about the motivations of the terrorists somewhere else. :mad:
"Political correctness" gone wild. :(

While that article was directed against using the WTC memorial for leftist politics, it seems to promote using it for rightist politics. I think it shouldn't be used for either, and if it is abused, both sides should get an equal share.
I disapprove of creating a place with the thought in mind that those visiting should feel the whole pain of September 11th in order to get people angry at the enemies of the US. A memorial is a site for remembrance but if all that is called back to memory is anger and the desire to get even with someone, then I wouldn't want any such memorial.
I agree. The memorial should be for the families, about the dead... not for the World, about the Politics.

You think it's going to be that bad? Rather a harsh comparison there.
Yes, given the principals involved, unfortunately I do. Look at the people involved and their historical intent. the Victims of the WTC towers are getting pushed aside by political agendas.

I don't want the NYC 9/11 memorial to have ANYTHING to do with ANYBODY's politics.

A memorial is also for those who died and their families. Besides, if they don't do it now, it may never happen. Look how long it took to get a WWII memorial! :(

That's because for a very long time, just about every house in America had its own memorial, in the form of momentos, souvenirs, and laughing children who didn't have to understand the horrors of what the Greatest Generation went through. Anything more than that was simply unneccessary: they had a job to do, they did it, and that was the end of story.

I'm not trying to be an ass about this, but I just don't understand what kind of therapeutic benefit comes out of a crass memorial (and mind you, just about any memorial about a day like that will be crass, as there really aren't words in our language to describe events like that). For one thing, grief is grief, irrespective of how many other people are around you. For another, it's been almost four years now; if you haven't been able to recover from that day yet, you need a psychologist, not a memorial.

Please explain how.


So? Preaching to people at what is essentially the gravesite of innocents won't change the motivations of people who would kill innocents to make a point.

9/11 NYC was about nutburger fanatics flying planes into civillian buildings. What's so hard to understand about that? Trying to "understand where the terrorists were coming from" smacks of trying to somehow justify their actions against civillians.

The fact that you think that's all there was too it indicates that you don't know what it was about. Do you have any idea how many governments around the world we've destroyed for matters of expediency, greed, and pride? How many people's lives we've left in ruins or, in many cases, whisps? Frankly, almost none of us do.

To reduce 9/11 to a mere "sad day" is not to remember it, it's to pigeonhole it.

If people want a memorial that discusses the political rammifications of US Foreign Policy, then install it at the site of the attack made against a US Government installation - The Pentagon. That attack was a legetimate act of war. The attack on the WTC is in no way comparable to any other military/political action in history.

Germany's sinking of the passenger liner the Lusitania.

Right now our biggest weapon of global conquest is international corporate infestation. One of the nerve centers of international commercial activity was the WTC. In weaker countries multi-national corporations are more powerful than legitimate governments, and nowhere near as accountable as even the most brutal of military dictators. That's what was at the WTC. As for civilian casualties, I'd wager that Iraq has seen quite a few more than 3000 of them by now.

It was a barbaric attack made without warning, specifically against non-combatant civillians in a non-government non-war-industry building. I don't care what their motivations were. The memorial isn't about the motivations of the terrorists. The memorial is for the families and friends of the innocent dead.

You can talk about the motivations of the terrorists somewhere else. :mad:

Well one of my loved ones used to work right across the street from the WTC (she was out sick that day, just so noone thinks I'm trying to play a pity card or anything). I have as much reason to be mad about it as most anyone else in the country, especially those who think of New York as a town full of corrupt liberals. And yet, I still see global terrorism as a symptom of our diseased policies. Not because I think that terrorists are decent people deep down or anything like that, just that looking to other people about our problems will only get us so far. If we're going to think about these things, which is what memory is all about, then we're going to have to start thinking about what we can do better, not just angrier and meaner.

*shrug*

Seems perfectly reasonable to me. I must be missing your point.

The fact that you think that's all there was too it indicates that you don't know what it was about. Do you have any idea how many governments around the world we've destroyed for matters of expediency, greed, and pride? How many people's lives we've left in ruins or, in many cases, whisps? Frankly, almost none of us do.

To reduce 9/11 to a mere "sad day" is not to remember it, it's to pigeonhole it.



Germany's sinking of the passenger liner the Lusitania.

Right now our biggest weapon of global conquest is international corporate infestation. One of the nerve centers of international commercial activity was the WTC. In weaker countries multi-national corporations are more powerful than legitimate governments, and nowhere near as accountable as even the most brutal of military dictators. That's what was at the WTC. As for civilian casualties, I'd wager that Iraq has seen quite a few more than 3000 of them by now.


yes, Islamic Militants and Ba'athists have managed to rack up quite an impressive Iraqi Bodycount. They(the Islamic Fanatics) are and have been always a lot more successful killing civlilians than fighting soldiers, you know. It's part of that whole masochistic-coward thing.


Well one of my loved ones used to work right across the street from the WTC (she was out sick that day, just so noone thinks I'm trying to play a pity card or anything). I have as much reason to be mad about it as most anyone else in the country, especially those who think of New York as a town full of corrupt liberals. And yet, I still see global terrorism as a symptom of our diseased policies. Not because I think that terrorists are decent people deep down or anything like that, just that looking to other people about our problems will only get us so far. If we're going to think about these things, which is what memory is all about, then we're going to have to start thinking about what we can do better, not just angrier and meaner.

Why? Nobody in the world is doing any different-other than the ones that still think Chamberlain had the right idea at Munich.
Appeasement has never yet guaranteed either liberty, or safety for the victims. Apologists for these scumbags can rant all day-so long as it's understood that They are also among the targets for conversion by the Plastique. (or the rusty knife-what was it? a nurse?)

I don't think the memorial should be politicized either.. it should be simple, relatively small, and dedicated to the people who died, and only the people who died. That shouldn't have been complicated.

Reading the article, that's exactly what is happening:
While the IFC [International Freedom Center] is getting 300,000 square feet of space to teach us how to think about liberty, the actual Memorial Center on the opposite corner of the site will get a meager 50,000 square feet to exhibit its 9/11 artifacts, all out of sight and underground.

So, there will be a relatively small memorial center dedicated to 9/11. At the same time there will also be something called the "International Freedom Center", and the authors of the article are utilizing an invented 'confusion' about which is which to argue that this International Freedom Center is desecrating the memory of the 9/11 victims. Personally I think it's the author of the above article who is (ab)using the memory of the 9/11 victims to rally against a center which s/he does not agree with on ideological grounds.

Ballotonia

I'd wait to see what happens when the damn thing gets built. They've changed the design how many times so far?

I don't know... I think it might be about as appropriate as putting a museum honouring Japanese War dead from Okinawa on top of the U.S.S. Arizona at Pearl Harbour.

That's just me, though.

I don't know... I think it might be about as appropriate as putting a museum honouring Japanese War dead from Okinawa on top of the U.S.S. Arizona at Pearl Harbour.

That's just me, though.
And that came from way out of right field now didn't? The design isn't a memorial to the terrorists at Ground Zero.

I don't think the memorial should be politicized either.. it should be simple, relatively small, and dedicated to the people who died, and only the people who died. That shouldn't have been complicated.

Yes.

You don't want this to become a place of conflict again, so leave political opinions - on both sides - out of it. No 'Look how badly we responded to this', and no 'We will avenge them on the evil terrorists' either. If you're going to remember them, do it right. Just the list of names, and a single word:

Remember.

Then people can remember whatever they like.

Does anyone know what they did with regards to memorials of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? It's a similar event (in scale, I'm not bringing politics into this). What was their response? Gardens, as I recall.

If you want to remember the political side, build something near the Pentagon.

Does anyone know what they did with regards to memorials of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? It's a similar event (in scale, I'm not bringing politics into this). What was their response? Gardens, as I recall.

Depends what part you're talking about. The Peace Memorial Park in Hiroshima consists of the (really UGLY looking) Peace Museum, dedicated to education on the atomic horror, and three other memorials, including the A-Bomb Dome (left as it was), and the memoral hall. The actual memorial though is a reflecting pool next to an arch that covers the stone Memorial Cenotaph with a coffin containing the list of a-bomb victims. Between the pool and the arch is an eternal flame. All major memorials rest on the same axis so that from the peace museum's windows you can look through the arch and see the flame, pool, and A-Bomb Dome. There are other memorials in the park, inlcuding the children's one.

Nagasaki has a park with it's famous statue, but I haven't been there yet so I cannot decribe it well. Does that answer your question?

Depends what part you're talking about. The Peace Memorial Park in Hiroshima consists of the (really UGLY looking) Peace Museum, dedicated to education on the atomic horror, and three other memorials, including the A-Bomb Dome (left as it was), and the memoral hall. The actual memorial though is a reflecting pool next to an arch that covers the stone Memorial Cenotaph with a coffin containing the list of a-bomb victims. Between the pool and the arch is an eternal flame. All major memorials rest on the same axis so that from the peace museum's windows you can look through the arch and see the flame, pool, and A-Bomb Dome. There are other memorials in the park, inlcuding the children's one.

Nagasaki has a park with it's famous statue, but I haven't been there yet so I cannot decribe it well. Does that answer your question?

Partly. I guess the real question was, do they have anything saying 'Look how evil the Americans were, to do this to us!' or 'Look how evil Japan used to be, that America had to do this to us!'?

Partly. I guess the real question was, do they have anything saying 'Look how evil the Americans were, to do this to us!' or 'Look how evil Japan used to be, that America had to do this to us!'?
Depends on how you take it. I, personally, felt that the museum was fair, if somewhat vague as the why the war started in the first place. It was more consered with noting the effects of the bomb and introducing the human tragedy of it in order to drive home the point of not again, never, ever again. It wasn't blaiming the US for it, but neither was it noting Japan's agression.

However, other American friends have come out ranting about how the museum is biased and blaims America as if America just one day decided to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima without noting why it happened.

My Japanese fiancee, who's grandfather was at Hiroshima that day, felt somewhat guilty that I would think her country was blaiming mine for this.

But then again, her mother also said she felt as if she was being blaimed when she visited the USS Arizona.

I guess it's how you take it.

Depends on how you take it. I, personally, felt that the museum was fair, if somewhat vague as the why the war started in the first place. It was more consered with noting the effects of the bomb and introducing the human tragedy of it in order to drive home the point of not again, never, ever again. It wasn't blaiming the US for it, but neither was it noting Japan's agression.

However, other American friends have come out ranting about how the museum is biased and blaims America as if America just one day decided to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima without noting why it happened.

My Japanese fiancee, who's grandfather was at Hiroshima that day, felt somewhat guilty that I would think her country was blaiming mine for this.

But then again, her mother also said she felt as if she was being blaimed when she visited the USS Arizona.

I guess it's how you take it.

Hello Nagano!! You lucky bastard! I am stuck down here in sweaty Mie and you get beautiful Nagano. Not fair at all. I went to the Hiroshima memorial, unfortunatly it was new years day and everything was closed. It was a gray day and quiet. Very moving to be there. I am from the US and I thought it was very well done, at least what I saw.

Hello Nagano!! You lucky bastard! I am stuck down here in sweaty Mie and you get beautiful Nagano. Not fair at all. I went to the Hiroshima memorial, unfortunatly it was new years day and everything was closed. It was a gray day and quiet. Very moving to be there. I am from the US and I thought it was very well done, at least what I saw.
*lol* On the contrary, MOST of Nagano remains nice and cool, but I happen to be living in one of the hotest spots in Japan. We hit 32! Not too much humidy thank God for THAT!

I visited shortly after New Year's this year as well. Gray day, and a very, very somber mood.

And what are you complaining about? You have easy access to the sea in Mie, I'm land locked and would kill for some wonderful fresh sushi and sashimi! :D

*lol* On the contrary, MOST of Nagano remains nice and cool, but I happen to be living in one of the hotest spots in Japan. We hit 32! Not too much humidy thank God for THAT!

I visited shortly after New Year's this year as well. Gray day, and a very, very somber mood.

And what are you complaining about? You have easy access to the sea in Mie, I'm land locked and would kill for some wonderful fresh sushi and sashimi! :D

Have you ever been to the beach in Yokkaichi or Tsu? he he, you wouldpray to be sent back to Nagano. But, Ise Shima is incredible!!

Those bastards, co-opting the memorial!
I now declare myself an 'America-hating liberal' hater!

This is terrible. You know what it says to the families of those who died? It says "We're sorry for your loss, but guess what? They deserved it."

This is terrible. You know what it says to the families of those who died? It says "We're sorry for your loss, but guess what? They deserved it."


Didnt they?

Didnt they?
Are you saying that the 9/11 victims deserved to die? If so, your a sick twisted freak, ya dumbass. If not, sorry for the confusion.

Are you saying that the 9/11 victims deserved to die? If so, your a sick twisted freak, ya dumbass. If not, sorry for the confusion.


Perhaps they did. They continually supported 2 administrations that continually stuck their noses where they were not wanted. They supported 2 administrations that, through economic and military actions, have killed millions of people, and overthrown the legitimate governments of several nations.

Collective punishment...

Perhaps they did. They continually supported 2 administrations that continually stuck their noses where they were not wanted. They supported 2 administrations that, through economic and military actions, have killed millions of people, and overthrown the legitimate governments of several nations.

Collective punishment...
You... sick... f***.

Go die.

And tell Satan I said "Hi."

You... sick... f***.

Go die.

And tell Satan I said "Hi."


Ahhh, yes. Resorting to name calling and personal attacks, I see. Not enough knowlege to debate.

Typical American.

Go tip a cow, or something...

Ahhh, yes. Resorting to name calling and personal attacks, I see. Not enough knowlege to debate.

Typical American.

Go tip a cow, or something...
Not enough knowledge to debate? Inoccents died, seems like enough knowledge to me... You're acting like some kind of neo-nazi arachist...

Excuse me, I didn't realize you weren't American. I suppose that explains why you have no respect for the lives of inocent American civilians. Imagine they were from your country, then. Would it still be their fault?