In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

Michelle Malkin’s War Memorial

Jill

…because 9/11 was a war. Could have fooled me.

I am not an architect, but here is my 9/11 architectural philosophy: War memorials should memorialize war. If you want peace and understanding and healing and good will toward all, go build Kabbalah centers.

No soldiers. No declaration of war. Sept. 11 was an attack by non-military combatants on a civilian population — and it makes about as much sense to create a 9/11 war memorial as it does to create an Oklahoma City war memorial.

When the designers of the Flight 93 memorial actually had the audacity to try and include aspects like “healing” and “contemplation” — you know, things which suggest that some people might be sad that these people died unnecessarily — boy did Michelle get heated:

This is no way to fight a war. Or to remember those who have died fighting it.

A proper war memorial stirs to anger and action.

I cry whenever I go to the Vietnam Veteran’s memorial in DC. I don’t feel “stirred to action,” although admittedly I walk away feeling angry at our government over involving us in another unnecessary war. I don’t feel like picking up a gun after visiting the WWII memorial, or the Holocaust museum, or the Korean War memorial. If I remember them correctly, all those memorials manage to focus on bravery and courage, while still allowing space for grief, contemplation and hope for peace.

And they were actually war memorials. Do I need to say it again? The innocent passengers on Flight 93 didn’t die fighting in a war. This is not a war memorial. I agree that it’s important to immortalize the heroics of the people on that flight. But it’s completely innappropriate to turn a memorial into a politicized “let’s kick some ass, yay war!” campaign. And for the record, I think that the chosen design is quite beautiful.

66 thoughts on Michelle Malkin’s War Memorial

  1. I mean what can you say to this? There is no logic or common sense to her philosophy (?), it certainly is not moral.

    The woman is a stupid cunt.

  2. Oh and she does not want a war memorial she wants a vengeance memorial.

    Unfortunately, that just goes along with her bigoted, vengeance wet dream of internment camps. So I guess I should not be surprised.

  3. Does she know what a memorial is? You can stir anger and action without evoking violent war imagery (which is not a way to honor the memory people who died or a war). WWII War Memorial (regretting I didn’t have time to take better pictures).

  4. Michelle Malkin’s career is based on being a troll. She trolls for responses by making more and more absurd statements. Sadly, it appears many people take her seriously, and even more sadly, some people believe what she says.

  5. What a fucking creep. Notice the offhand remark about the symbolic resonances of crescents in Islam. Fixation much?

    Also, I find her comment

    These were doers, not hand-wringers, who engaged in a violent and valiant struggle against evil.

    particularly disturbing. I suppose by “hand-wringers” she means the passengers on the planes that flew into the towers. And she means they were left-wing, Kabbalah-center-building, pacifist sissies. Or something.

    Also, you blog rocks. I added a link to it from my site, f.y.i.

  6. Well, this underlines a big philosophical difference (primarily) between “left” and “right.” You don’t consider an act of terrorism that killed a few thousand people a presage to a global conflict, a “war,” whereas others do. Therefore, your logic isn’t as self-evidently true as it is a reflection of subjective determinations about the nature of what took place on that day. Perfectly reasonable individuals look at that day’s act as the spark that caused the United States to finally start fighting back against global terrorism, specifically Islamic extremism, and these same individuals look at the actions of those on Flight 93 as the first return blows in that conflict.

    All this abstract thought is possible – the use of the term “war” – without semantical preconditions of “No soldiers. No declaration of war. … an attack by non-military combatants on a civilian population.”

    PS – And for the record, I think that the chosen design is quite beautiful as well.

  8. Pingback: protein wisdom

  9. I mean what can you say to this? There is no logic or common sense to her philosophy (?), it certainly is not moral.

    The woman is a stupid cunt.

    I never realized calling someone a cunt is considered moral.

  10. You know Sharp, good point.

    It is immoral to call her a cunt. I should be more understanding of Michelle and her obvious anger with Muslims and things symbolic of their culture. After all maybe she really does not hate Muslims maybe she is just angry.

    I should not say she is stupid either. My emotions overwhelmed me, just as her anger obviously overwhelms her and carries her into fits of irrationality which she then communicates to people.

    I am ashamed, my hypocrisy is crushing, I have forgotten my hippie-liberal proclivities of political correctness, turning the other cheek and moderation.

    I accept full responsiblity for my actions, as far as my callous sexual references and demeaning her intelligence goes.

    If I have offended anyone here I apoligized to you as well.

    Sharp? You think you could get Michelle Malkin to apologize for her misguided commentary on the Flight 93 memorial? You seem so good at it?

  11. What is it about Malkin that drives leftists so crazy? I mean, from a left-wing perspective, there should be lots of right wing polemicists to hate on with such frothy, rabid and unhinged anger, but for some reason Malkin reaps the lion’s share of this sort of stuff.

    Is it because she’s a two-fer? Asian and female and not left wing? What?

    Just asking the questions.

  12. Fred –

    No, I don’t think it’s because she’s a “two-fer” (anyone else channeling Norman Mailer?), I think it’s because she’s more unhinged than most of the mainstream right-wing pundits. I mean, she wrote a book defending Japanese internment — that’s pretty off-kilter.

    And in my defense, I don’t think I target Malkin any more than I do other right-wing nuts. In the past couple days I’ve also posted on Dennis Prager and Tony Blankley from the Washington Times. So, you know, we go after all of ’em.

  13. What’s interesting about the “crescent of embrace” is:

    – It uses the ONLY symbol of Islam
    – The trees are red
    – The crescent appears to be purposely oriented towards Mecca

    If you don’t believe me, read what The Belmont Club has to say about the orientation of the crescent. More than a few people are scratching their heads at the architects intent – was it done purposefully or not? Maybe we can smother their hate with our hugs and understanding – I don’t think the jihadis care one whit as long as we’re all either dead or dhimmis in their caliphate.

    In any case, the good people of Pennsylvania will hopefully take care of business should this obscenity of a monument be built.

    As for la Feministe’s comment that the three hijacked planes were not part of a tactical operation but merely steered off course by bad people acting randomly – I call bullshit. Wake up dear and smell the latte – Al Qaeda has plotted and executed numerous operations against the United States at home and abroad. This organization doesn’t represent a nation-state and it’s operatives don’t wear uniforms (unless you count bomb belts) like traditional solders in a military organization.

    This is not a traditional war either – if you are interested, pick up a copy of “The Sling and The Stone” by COL Tom Hammes

    Time to face facts. The US did not CHOOSE to start the conflict with Al Qaeda but we are certainly at war with this terrorist organization and others like it.

    Cheers – DC

  15. I mean, she wrote a book defending Japanese internment — that’s pretty off-kilter.

    Amazing how nobody who brings that up has actually read it.

  17. Ahem, take that with the grain of salt that you usually should handle drive-bys like that with, but I feel that it is worth saying.

  18. Perhaps 9/11 could be considered an act of war, Jill, because Osama bin Laden’s al Qaeda declared war upon the United States in his cleverly titled declaration of war “Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders,” on February 23, 1998?

    I’m sorry Osama forgot the brass band and the snazzy uniforms, but you know, a ragtag bunch of non-color-coordinated Americans (and native Americans) have managed to fight several wars on this continent alone with such accutriments, and that did not invalidate the conflicts as wars, or the fighters as combatants.

  19. Amazing how nobody who brings that up has actually read it.

    Where did I say I haven’t read it? But that’s another issue.

    As for la Feministe’s comment that the three hijacked planes were not part of a tactical operation but merely steered off course by bad people acting randomly – I call bullshit.

    Don’t think I said this, either. They were part of a tactical operation, they were not acting randomly, but it wasn’t an act of war. Calling it an act of terrorism doesn’t demean what happened. Would it have been an act of war if the terrorists were white Canadians? Would we be at war with Canada? Of course not. It would be a heinous terrorist act that needs to be effectively dealt with accordingly, but how can we be at war with “terror”?

    Wake up dear and smell the latte

    Drop the “dear” and the condescending tone. I know it’s easy to think that if a young woman doesn’t agree with you, she must be a silly little bimbo, but if you’re going to come into my space then you at least need to speak (write?) to me with a basic level of respect — and if I’m that stupid, why are you even trying?

  21. I know it’s easy to think that if a young woman doesn’t agree with you, she must be a silly little bimbo,

    Ahem, I’d like to call illegal framing. Where I come from, that tone is taken with ANYONE who shares political views that are “head in the clouds,” regardless of gender. Please, lay off the cheap “sexist” shots. Where I come from, it isn’t always about the poster’s gender.

    Where did I say I haven’t read it? But that’s another issue.

    I’d bet $20 you didn’t. 😛

  22. That tone = DC’s tone. Though occasionally it is framed in harsher terms if directed at the more militant and less reasonable.

  23. Ahem, I’d like to call illegal framing. Where I come from, that tone is taken with ANYONE who shares political views that are “head in the clouds,” regardless of gender. Please, lay off the cheap “sexist” shots. Where I come from, it isn’t always about the poster’s gender.

    So Jeff Goldstein goes around calling guys bimbos? He’s the one who used a gendered word, not me.

    Oh, as for reading Malkin’s book, you lose.

  24. … You talked bad about DC’s tone in that last post.

    Jeff calls guys much harsher words than bimbos. Let’s be reasonable.

    Oh, as for reading Malkin’s book, you lose.

    Really? Well you only dismissed it as off-kilter. I’d figure someone who read it would pass it off less lightly.

  25. Re: DC’s tone — I certainly was more offended by it after reading Jeff’s post calling me a bimbo. But I’ll add in there that calling someone “dear” is also a gendered way of speaking condescendingly.

    Malkin’s book was more than off-kilter. I used those terms specifically to avoid getting into a whole discussion about the merits and non-merits of interning Japanese people, so that we could stay focused on the topic at hand. Clearly, I failed.

  27. Would it be wrong to point out that despite the fact that al Queda is not a country, they did in fact declare war on us before their agents attacked us on 9/11? Wouldn’t that make these specific acts of terrorism, acts of war as well? If not, why not?

  28. Sharp? You think you could get Michelle Malkin to apologize for her misguided commentary on the Flight 93 memorial? You seem so good at it?

    If I had bothered to read it, I might. While she’s on my blogroll, she’s far from a daily read.

    And yes, once I sent her an email correcting her calling Kerry’s discharge dishonorable which was wrong and she corrected it in minutes. So she’s not as stuck on her views as may be seen here.

  29. It seems to me that you and Malkin disagree about whether we’re at “war” with Al Quada or just engaged in a regrettable conflict. So far, you’ve just stated your opinions on whether the memorial is more like, say, the Pearl Harbor Memorial or the memorial to victims of the San Francisco earthquake (if there is one).

  31. You used it as a cheap one-shot against her and expected to get away with it.

    I’m sorry, how is bringing up a book that the author wrote a cheap one-shot? Fred asked why liberals seem to target Malkin so often. I said, well, she wrote this ridiculous book which garnered a lot of attention, which is how a lot of us discovered who she is. I don’t think that was a cheap shot, as it was answering Fred’s question (we occassionally focus on Malkin because her views are so out of the mainstream). I’d also like to point out that I noted that there are a lot of conservatives that I “target” on this blog — just check out the past couple entries. Malkin is hardly a regular.

    As for “getting away with it” … Like Norbizness basically said, what?

  32. Just to fully disclose there Sharp, I was being a snarky before.

    (No Snark)

    Straight up, I went too far with the cunt and stupid remark, but when it comes right to it I’m not in the mood to let her slide on it. She lets her hate rule her and she has a certain amount of power as a pundit. She abuses that power and makes herself a demogogue. Her book is demogoguery and this Flight 93 commentary is demogoguery. She is modern day version of Father Coughlin, perhaps more restrained, but the same M.O.

  33. Jill:

    Thanks for the response. I had, perhaps, too easily conflated you with those that apparently fill Ms. Malkin’s inbox with the most vile bilge. The use of the “c” word and all in your comments.

    Good luck to you in law school.

  34. The fist military land action by the United States of America, was against a NGO of Muslim Terrorists known at the time as the Barbarry Pirates.

    The Congress of the day, Jefferson, and Alexander Hamilton discussed whether a Formal Declaration of War was required.

    They concluded that while a Formal Declaration of War was required to

    initiate
    a War, since our Shipping (the merchant marines were civilians I might add) and our Sovereignty had been attacked we were already in a STATE OF WAR
    with the Barbarry Pirates so no Formal Declaration was required.

    Under the International Accords Customs and Laws of Land War at that time and today, A State of War ensues when either an attack occurs or a Declaration of War is issued.

    Al Queda has declared Holy War upon the United States of America and has attacked us on our soil, and has attacked us elsewhere in the world.

    There is now, and has been for some time, a State of War between us, there is Constitutional Precedent as I stated above for this claim.

  37. Why is it when the left on this planet disagree with someone point of view they end up hurling invectives like “cunt”. Do you wonder why you haven’t won an election in awhile. People read this tripe and figure out that the people who act like this shouldn’t be running a country. I’ll agree to disgree but you’re not helping yourself or your cause with this attitude. My humble opinion is you don’t really like the US but you’ll hide behind all the freedoms given to you by the blood sweet and tears of others.

  38. I could see how she could be fooled. After all, the guy who sent the terrorists on 9/11 said he was fighting a war against us several times.

    Shame on Ms. Malking for actually taking him seriously.

  39. The funniest thing for me about all this?

    Well, all of it.

    But especially the part where the wingnuts froth over the “red trees” in a shape that mathematically illiterate people think is the same as one informal symbol of certain parts of Islam. (It doesn’t help that the designers called it a “crescent,” when it is not.)

    The trees are red because the architects chose to portray them in autumn, at the height of leaf color.

    For 95 percent of the time the trees will have leaves on them, they will be – guess what? – green.

    The actual color that represents Islam to most of its believers is – guess what? – green.

    But a green semicircle on a field of green isn’t quite the blood-curdling image they’re going for, is it? So they blather on about red “crescents,” dispaying their ignorance of Islam, geometry, botany, and, well, everything else as it turns out.

  40. Interesting my post goes thru a lengthy moderation time while somebody else’s “opinion” just goes on by. You wouldn’t be “censoring” my comments would you? I know how the left is so tolerant of opinions. I hope this is not true, but I suspect otherwise.

  41. Time to face facts. The US did not CHOOSE to start the conflict with Al Qaeda but we are certainly at war with this terrorist organization and others like it.

    So the Oklahoma City Memorial should be considered a war memorial?

    By the way, David Niewert has studied the Japanese internment extensively and has crossed swords with Malkin several times over glaring inaccuracies or outright falsities in her book, some of which she was forced to admit to and correct. Just enter “Malkin” at his site.

  42. Well, he declared war on us long ago. It’s not like he’s been twiddling his thumbs since.

    When a few more Timothy McVeighs start blowing up buildings, chopping off heads and repeatedly calling for the destruction of everything that is American, then perhaps I’ll consider the Oklahoma City Memorial a war memorial.

  43. zuzu said:

    For 95 percent of the time the trees will have leaves on them, they will be – guess what? – green.

    The actual color that represents Islam to most of its believers is – guess what? – green.

    Think about that zuzu. Think about it some more. Those two points taken together hardly lessen the point that it will be memorializing the attackers, not the victims.

    Jill, whether you agree with Malkin that we are in a war or not, it’s hard to deny that the form is highly suggestive of certain symbology that would have a positive emotional resonance with the attackers and their sympathizers while at the very same time having little or no emotional resonance with (most or all of) the victims and their sympathizers.

    It’s not that it’s not beautiful, it is lovely in it’s way. It’s inappropriate.

  44. Hm. I think the 93 Memorial design could be modified slightly to keep the arc/allusion to the moon without it appearing quite so Islam-ey (nothing against mainstream Islam, of course, but given that the people trying to kill us believe in this evil off-shoot of same, it’s a little inappropriate). And there MUST be a marker somewhere on-site with a list of passenger names.

    Why is the display on this site so messed up? Is it because I’m using Safari?

    I understand that war is a bit more challenging without a nation-state around to declare it on, but we seem to be accomplishing most of the goals: countries that used to blow us off are now actively rooting out terrorists from their midst; even the damn Saudis are now starting to behave–not to mention the Libyans. And democracy has a beachead in the region other than Israel.

    I mean, it’s not happening as fast as winning a video game, but it’s happening.

  45. That’s odd, whenever I look at the Vietnam memorial, I get very, very angry that liberals caused us to abandon an ally, lose a war, and sentence 70 million people to life it a totalitarian nightmare of mass murder and refugee camps.

  46. I owe you an apology, Jill.

    On PW I referred to you as a “craven, intellectual coward” for what appeared to be a decision on your part to delete a comment I made (#17, above) that shows your underlying argument to be false. The point of refutation, for those of you who do not wish to scroll, was that 9/11 was an unimpeachable act of war because Osama bin Laden released a formal declaration of war, “Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders,” on February 23, 1998.

    I finished my comment by making the observation that:

    I’m sorry Osama forgot the brass band and the snazzy uniforms, but you know, a ragtag bunch of non-color-coordinated Americans (and native Americans) have managed to fight several wars on this continent alone with such accutriments, and that did not invalidate the conflicts as wars, or the fighters as combatants.

    It turns out that you merely decided to hold the comment in moderation for 3 1/2 hours (or more, I did not check to see exactly when it posted) as is your right. Now that the comment has posted and an apology has been issued, would someone, anyone, care to address these refutations of Jill’s premise now?

    And while we’re on the subject of whether or not this was a war, consider reading the Boston Globe op-ed by Mohammad-Mahmoud Ould Mohamedou, “Time to talk to al Qaeda?,” in which he stated, in part:

    Sept. 11 was not an unprovoked, gratuitous act. It was a military operation researched and planned since at least 1996 and conducted by a trained commando in the context of a war that had twice been declared officially and publicly. The operation targeted two military locations and a civilian facility regarded as the symbol of US economic and financial power. The assault was the culmination of a larger campaign, which forecast impact, planned for the enemy’s reaction, and was designed to gain the tactical upper hand.

    Overwhelmingly centered on the martial aspects of the conflict, scholars and policymakers have been too focused on Al Qaeda’s ”irrationality,” ”fundamentalism,” and ”hatred” — and these conceptions continue to color key analyses. The sway of such explanations is particularly surprising in the face of nonambiguous statements made by Al Qaeda as to the main reasons for its war on the United States. These have been offered consistently since 1996, notably in the August 1996 and February 1998 declarations of war and the November 2002 and October 2004 justifications for its continuation.

    When even an eloquent Harvard faculty terrorist supporter agrees that the coordinated 9/11/01 attacks were military operation conducted by commandos after a declaration of war, how can you rationally support your artificial construct that the passengers of Flight 93 did not die fighting that war?

    Could it simply be that you didn’t understand that we were at war, because you weren’t paying attention? Granted, it is a weak excuse, but an excuse that the vast majority of the American population -probably well over 90% – must use prior to 9/11.

    To still feel that way in 2005, however, smacks of willful ignorance of the facts…

  47. Attilla, I have no idea why the template is weird in Safari. Some Safari users see it just fine and others have overlaps and funky margins. Apologies.

  48. zuzu said:

    For 95 percent of the time the trees will have leaves on them, they will be – guess what? – green.

    The actual color that represents Islam to most of its believers is – guess what? – green.

    Think about that zuzu. Think about it some more. Those two points taken together hardly lessen the point that it will be memorializing the attackers, not the victims.

    Seth, if you’re going to admonish people to think, perhaps you could properly identify the person who made the statement in the first place.

  49. Well, zuzu, the point was completely lost on poor Seth, so one can hardly expect him to catch a little detail like who made the point.

    kaos said:

    Interesting my post goes thru a lengthy moderation time while somebody else’s “opinion” just goes on by. You wouldn’t be “censoring” my comments would you? I know how the left is so tolerant of opinions. I hope this is not true, but I suspect otherwise.

    don’t take it personally. It’s not Jill’s doing. This blogging software suite uses an algorithm in which the comment posting delay is inversely proportional to the person’s intelligence. Roxanne’s comments show up right away, as do PZ Myers’. Mine take about fifteen minutes. One guy from Little Green Footballs made a comment here in 1972, and it’s not going to show up until the second Jenna Bush administration.

  50. Good cases have been made that 9/11 was an act of war but I don’t see anyone refuting those arguments, especially Dan’s at 5:18 pm. Is Liberal Avenger speaking for all of our left-leaning friends here? Were your emotions overcome by the facts?

  51. The design was made with the imput of survivors’ relatives, so really, I don’t see why Malkin and other neocons have their undies in a knot. (See the smarmy comments on PW asking if Jill had any relatives who died in 9/11.)

    So, guys, when are we going to actually go after Osama Bin Laden? The man who actually attacked us?

    We invaded Iraq, a nation that had nothing to do with 9/11 (and don’t give me the fairy tale that golly they had a connection to al-Qaeda, because it’s been proven that they didn’t).

    So. . .if we’re in a war with al-Qaeda, why aren’t we using all of our resources to go after them? Why aren’t we using all of our resources to get him? They guy who was behind it. Osama Bin Laden. The spoiled rich-boy pig fucker himself?

    I’m not particularly interested in talking to al-Qaeda or OBL, the mass-murdering moneyed weasel that is happy to send a bunch of fools on suicide missions. But frankly, I’m not that interested in cheerleading a fool’s errand in Iraq, a country that did not attack us. And I’m not buying that waging war in Iraq somehow protects us from terrorism and is bringing the terrorists to justice when the snivelling inbred assmonkey who was behind 9/11 is still running free.

  52. Newsflash: Al Qaeda is not a country. An organization can declare war on us all it wants, but by doing so, it doesn’t have the power to make us, as a nation, enter a state of war.

  53. zuzu, my apologies for getting the name wrong. I was rather rushed when I posted that, as I was on the way to teach a class. What can I say? I’m only human and mistakes do happen.

    Newsflash to your newsflash zuzu: we (America) weren’t a country when we fought our war of independence. The Kurds never had their own country yet they have fought various guerrila wars against Turkey, Iran, and Iraq (not to mention against each other). The Islamic separatists in the Southern Philippines have never had an independent country, yet they wage war.

    Countries don’t have a monopoly on warfare. Any reasonably organized group can wage war to attempt to achieve some end.

    While you are quite correct that no group can compel us to wage war against our will, we would be foolish in the extreme not to respond in kind when they not only declare war, but act upon that declaration.

    Chris Clarke: way to not address my criticism and go ad hom.

    So, ok, smart guy. Why don’t you explain for us slow kids what you meant by posting what you posted.

    Because, my mis-attribution aside, I believe my point still stands.

  54. Because, my mis-attribution aside, I believe my point still stands.

    Oh, you mean this point:

    Those two points taken together hardly lessen the point that it will be memorializing the attackers, not the victims.

    Is that the one you’re saying still stands? The one that’s based entirely on wingnut fever dreams and a misapprehension of geometry, a misunderstanding of the symbolism of Islam, and a bunch of unchanneled testosterone? The one in which you guys have decided the “crescent” is oriented toward Mecca because you can draw a line between Mecca and the center of the memorial?

    Did you know you can draw the same kind of line between The Free Republic’s web server and Bin Laden’s butt hairs?

    “Memorializing the attackers.” What a pathetic, vile slander of the victims’ family members who worked to approve this design. People pushing this line are pissing on the graves of the people who retook Flight 93. Do you know a damn thing about who Richard Guadagno was? Alan Beaven, who was a friend of several of my friends? Mark Bingham? I guarantee you that at least those people who took back Flight 93 – and died in the process – are not the kind of people you’d find spouting ignorant, prejudiced bullshit about offensive red crescents.

  55. Gee Chris, you still haven’t addressed my point. You’ve just spouted off a lot of suppositions about my character which I haven’t really earned. Has my tone been anything less than courteous to you?

    Let me go back over my point since you seem to have utterly missed it the first time:

    You said: For 95 percent of the time the trees will have leaves on them, they will be – guess what? – green.
    This, I guess, is supposed to invalidate the complaint about symbology by showing that it only is a red crescent for a short time.

    You went on to say: The actual color that represents Islam to most of its believers is – guess what? – green.
    This, I guess again, is supposed to invalidate that other 5% of the time by trying to show that a red crescent is less dear to muslims than the color green.

    Here’s the thing, in case you haven’t put it all together: by your own posting it will spend most of its time as a green crescent, a symbol and color dear to people who hold the murderous ideology that caused the attack. Ask your self if this A) makes it less inappropriate or B) more inappropriate. [Hint: the answer isn’t A.]

    By the way, “we” didn’t decide it points toward Mecca because the center and Mecca make a line, but because the opening of the crescent is toward Mecca. Coincidence? Perhaps, but an unfortunate coincidence for the argument against it being symbolic of islamists.

    Wingnut fever dreams? Please. Misapprehension of geometry? Please again.

    Fact: the “crescent of embrace” (by the way, that would be the designer “misapprehending geometry”) is very suggestive of islamic symbology.

    Twelve Muslim nations (Algeria, Azerbaijan, Brunei, Comoros, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritania, Pakistan, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan) have a crescent on their flag. The crescent moon as a religious symbol in Islam goes back to 696 AD, where it is used as a symbol on coins. Look on the spire of a Mosque, there’s a very good chance you’ll see a crescent and a star. The red crescent aid organization was set up to operate in muslim nations.

    Now perhaps you want to argue that it was once a christian symbol, which is true enough. It once was. Since the Turkish empire it has become an exclusively Islamic symbol. So what it once was is irrelivent to what it is now. Just as the swastika was once a good luck symbol (actually still is in Asia), but nobody would suggest a WWII memorail that is even a bit suggestive of a swastika. It would be inapproriate.

    So when the proposed monument to the victims is very suggestive of a crescent (and, uh, called a crescent by the designer), a symbol strongly associated with the attacker’s ideology but not so strongly associated with the attacked, I call it inappropriate. Highly inappropriate.

    Nice job working in the Free Republic reference by the way. Too bad I don’t read them, so you don’t have me pegged, not even a little. Prejudiced? Hardly. Ignorant? At least I can back up my postings with more than invective.

    I anxiously await you debating me on the merits of the points I have made…

    …or you could just froth and insult me some more.

  57. Well it seems I stirred the pot here.

    Last thing I am is a troll – if I’ve got something substantive to say I’ll say it. Otherwise, I’m happy to read and move on.

    You’re offended by what you perceive as “condescension” on my part. I apologize for upsetting you. Try not to carry a chip on your shoulder for being a “young woman” with an opinion – my daughter has lots and lots of opinions but I try to work with her to make sure they are based on facts, not wishful thinking or spurious logic.

    What I am challenging is the your assertion that we are not, in fact, at war with an adversary with a long history of attacking the US both at home and abroad. This has nothing to do with white Canadians – although we can “blame Canada” for a host of other things.

    True, Al Qaeda are not a nation-state in the traditional sense, and as such you cannot declare “war” in a way that has objectives that we are accustomed to from previous military conflicts.

    What I am suggesting is that you read up on insurgent warfare before you posit an opinion that doesn’t jibe with reality. If you read COL Hammes’ book, you’ll find many examples of insurgent warfare dating from Mao all the way to Afghanistan and Iraq. These insurgents are not attempting to defeat our armies, but our national will to continue the fight – and we ARE in a fight whether you like the idea or agree how it got started.

    Cheers – DC

  58. Chris – regardless of the hubub, it’s appropriate that victims from Flight 93 were involved in the memorial design. It’s a shame that isn’t being done in New York City.

    DC

  59. Thinking back to all the war memorials that I have seen, I cannot think of a one that stirs me to anger or action. The message of a war memorial seems to be “God, this was stupid and we lost so much.” At least of the ones which remain standing.

    I agree: compassion for the human condition is what is called for here. An invocation to the reality that we are all fragile, all vulnerable.

  60. Chris, way to not address any of my points. You’re right about one thing though: unlike you, I can’t claim to speak for the dead.

    What I can say is that, regardless of who was involved with the design (were all the families involved? did all the families approve?), ultimately this is a public memorial built at least partly with public funds. Sadly for you, that does give us “wingnuts” a say in the matter. That inconvenient democracy thing and all that.

    But go ahead Chris, avoid all the criticisms I’ve laid out and focus on emotionalism. Because hey, it’s not about reason but feeling, right?

  61. You have no points, Seth. The facts that the shape of the memorial is in no way related to Islam, and that the “orientation toward Mecca” is a probably deliberate misrepresentation, have been abundantly documented.

    I don’t spend a whole lot of time “addressing the points” of people who claim aliens monitor our brain waves through our mercury amalgam fillings, either.

    ultimately this is a public memorial built at least partly with public funds. Sadly for you, that does give us “wingnuts” a say in the matter.

    You’re posting on the Internet in part as a result of spending public funds. Can we vote whether you should be allowed to say anything you want?

    More seriously, you seem to have shifted your argument seamlessly from “it’s an insult to the victims’ families” to “I don’t care what the victims’ families think! It’s my money!”

    Class act.

  62. Chris – regardless of the hubub, it’s appropriate that victims from Flight 93 were involved in the memorial design. It’s a shame that isn’t being done in New York City.

    Christ on a cracker, but BITE ME about the NYC families. The whole frickin’ process and the normalization of acres and acres of downtown is held hostage to the families (and not all of them, since a good percentage is a-ok with the memorial and Freedom Center as is).

    Flight 93 crashed in a field, with nothing around, so it’s appropriate that the families of the dead have the final say. The WTC affected more than just the families of the dead, what with being in a rather densely populated area and being the workplace of some 50,000 people, not to mention those in the frozen zone who were displaced afterwards. While the families of the fallen should have a say, there is a larger community that also needs to have a say.

  63. Chris: I had a very long, detailed post reprising every one of my points and your logical fallacies. Unfortunately, lost it all to the vagarities of the state-owned telecom system.

    I’m too bored with arguing with you to keep making points that you fail to address. I’m comfortable that any reasonable person who reads back over what I posted will at least acknowledge I have a thought out criticsim. I’m further comfortable that any reasonable person will acknowledge that I have a right to have an opinion on the matter. It is a public memorial, I am a member of the public.

    So respond if you want with your snippy little ad hominems and your field of strawmen, I could really care less since you won’t directly address any of my criticisms.

    Chris Clarke, you are truly the Angel of Ennui.

  64. Christ on a cracker, but BITE ME about the NYC families. The whole frickin’ process and the normalization of acres and acres of downtown is held hostage to the families (and not all of them, since a good percentage is a-ok with the memorial and Freedom Center as is).

    You’re kidding – right? The intent of the memorial is being marginalized by those who would use the “International Freedom Center” as our opportunity to roll over on our backs and apologize to the rest of the world for the US’ “historical sins”.

    Last I recall, two large airplanes were driven into very large buildings in New York City and a lot of people died. There were victims and heroes that day and this monument exists to memorialize what happened to THEM, not to editorialize or rationalize about WHY it happened or to explain away how the misguided activists who were NOT part of a war against the US were trying to make a political point and, well,

    …cue hysterical rant…

    we somehow DESERVED it because we’re just bad people, it’s not fair that we have so much money and such a strong military, get Israel out of Palestine, George Bush doesn’t care about black people OR New Orleans, and you know he lied and you know he lied he lied he lied…and people died. Dick Cheney is Satan. (sniff) Cindy Sheehan is Rosa Parks speaking truth to POWER!

    Gasp, gasp, gasp…

    …hysterical rant ends…

    Yes, Zuzu – a lot of people did die in NYC – because Islamic terrorists killed them. That’s what the memorial is meant to honor – the victims that died, those that survived, and the heroes that tried to rescue them. The rest of the political agenda can just get stuffed. You want an apology memorial – go build it in France – they’re very good at surrendering.

    Jeebus – and go bite yourself for gosh sakes. I have to go brush my teeth after biting you.

    Cheers – DC

  66. Pot, meet kettle.

    Le sigh…

    Politics is just a continuation of war by another means.

    There is no middle ground between the left and right in America. Anything, no matter how gory or salacious, is fair game if it furthers your agenda and/or makes the other side look bad. That’s why one side is counting dead bodies in NOLA and the other is counting busses parked in bus stations.

    Until the pot and kettle agree that they have the same goals, the fight will continue. Unfortunately it will continue to be ugly and the left will do whatever it can to bring down Bush. Just like the right did with Clinton.

    DC

Comments are currently closed.