Reply With QuoteIt is indeed off the memorial topic. But just to throw a hand grenade into the architectual debate about Osama's accomodations. There's considerable speculation that he's in Iran.Originally Posted by Ninjahedge
So you are saying that the international recognition as a force to be reckoned with and dealt with is a bad thing?
Yes he is hiding in caves right now, but for how long? Are you comparing the immediacy of the situation to the circumstances a few hours before the attack? Stop making exaggerated unequivocal comparisons like that. It is like saying that it is much warmer now than it was earlier this year.
It has little to do with the argument and is only used as a sticking point because of the significance 9-11 has now gained.
BUT THIS IS ALL OFF TOPIC!!!!!!!
On this thread, we have to remember to keep the conversation centered around the memorial, which DOES bring up subjects like Osama from time to time. But keeping that in mind, we must also acknowledge that this is NOT a discussion about war efforts or about what Osamas current condition or future plans are. That is an entirely different subject that has only a small bridge point involving the memorial and its development.
So although I do respect a good conversation on topics like this, as I have demonstrated myself by being sucked into "off topic" discussions, I think we need to continue this line of discourse on another thread.....
It is indeed off the memorial topic. But just to throw a hand grenade into the architectual debate about Osama's accomodations. There's considerable speculation that he's in Iran.
No, I am not saying that at all.
I not only stated my point, but repeated it. One more time:
to draw us into a war in the Middle East to highlight American imperialism
Even though better judgement tells me not to continue keeping this off topic. The more specific strategy is to draw America into a war that proves it not nearly as omipotent as people think (just as they believe that Afghanistan caused the undoing of the Soviet Union).
I don't think they intended to actually destroy the WTC which would unify the U.S. along the lines of the Alamo or Pearl Harbor. Rather they thought they would just wing a couple tall buildings with charred upper floors lording over NYC.
Who wouldda thought that U.S. leadership on so many fronts would then so spectacularly bungle seemingly everything after having seemingly the entire world (including much of the Arab world) united after 911 behind the U.S.
And to get it back on topic. The big foul ups at GZ is that they have to tried to rewrite and obliterate the history of the site with a billion dollar "new" sinkhole rather than just letting a few historical elements tell the story (as has been done so eloquently for hundreds of years).
I try to work on the situations I am able to impact. Sorry, but I'm not part of the War on Terrorism discussion as of yet. Everyone has to take care of what they are responsible for, and New York is my home.
I agree with many of your points, but you haven't quite figured out where we diverge yet. Perhaps I'm not being clear enough.
Bin Laden pulled back on the idea of a subway attack because he thought it wouldn't kill enough people. He isn't satisfied with where he is, he just hasn't been able to do the things he would like to do. 9/11 spoiled him.
We have wasted a lot of money by not following a rational, disciplined, cost effective strategy for fighting terrorism and fundamentalist Muslim. Just like we've wasted a lot of money on the WTC site and on the memorial. We are acting out of fear.
That said, Al Queda has been seriously weakened and that they don't have a lot going for them from their specific strategy. What they have is an endless pool of people who will fill the shoes of every terrorist we ever kill. We will not be able to end terrorism by killing all the terrorists.
Leaving a hole in Manhattan for a year encourages potential terrorists to see us as weak. It sends the wrong message. Any place a terrorist attacks should be recovered as quickly as possible . . . like, say, the Pentagon. Paying respect for the deceased should not stand in the way of recovery. Recovery is part of the process through which we honor the deceased.
Last edited by davestanke; July 8th, 2006 at 02:28 AM.
In the course of war, repairing the damage is not obliterating history. It is establishing your intent on how to deal with the war. It is creating history. It is demonstrating your intent.
What part of history is more important, the history of what others did to us, or the history of what we did in response. Rebuilding should take precidence over preservation of ruins. When rebuilding is done, re-introduce the ruins in a way that makes sense, with a little distance from the event. The misprioritization of the WTC has been the fundamental flaw which has left us where we are and it is why the hole WTC plan has become a financial sink hole.
We diverge on this point. Bin Laden can be described loosely as an Islamist, who wants to set up fundamentalist Muslim theocracies in the Middle East. He has stated before 09/11 that he would continue to sell oil to the West, but he wants to eliminate Western influence in the region.
You are overestimating the impact of conditions in Lower Manhattan outside of NYC. Move away from the metro area, and it hardly registers as news. Right now it is Washington, and what goes on there, that greatly impacts national and global economics. The "wrong message" we are sending is not the condition of Lower Manhattan, but the occupying army in Iraq. And as I stated, the economic health of NYC is better than it was the months before 09/11. I understand it sucks for those of us who live here, but I don't think Bin Laden cares.
The fact that a 09/11 memorial is involved in the rebuilding of the WTC tends to blur the fact that the rebuilding is a typical New York City development event. Bin Laden put the hole there, but the reasons it still exists have more in common with:
Pier A
Penn Station
Atlantic Yards
Rail access to JFK
2nd Ave Subway
Hudson Yards
The list goes on and on.
One of the few mega projects that has been moving along relatively on schedule and within budget is the 3rd Water Tunnel
Reasons?
No people or interest groups;
Few photo-ops for posturing politicians.
If the city can figure out and correct why these projects take so long, it will know how to fill up the hole.
I am in almost total agreement with Zippy on this. The more interesting point (and article?) of the WTC is why does NY find it so very difficult and so very time consuming to get any major project moving and why do they end up being so dumbed down when they finally do.
Consensus politics. Everyone must be satisfied --or at least be given their opportunity to delay the project and mouth off.
We like to say we have an adversarial system in this country. In such a system there must be winners and losers, not everyone more or less satisfied.
If we plugged this into the system early on, we could just shut some categories of folks out of the process. My prime candidates for exclusion would be NIMBYs (not preservationists, who are completely different).
This is as close to an absolute truth as I have read on any thread of this board. And I disagree with Zippy that the giant hole in our midst means little outside of Lower Manhattan. If nothing else, the site is visited every day by visitors from around the world. You only need to spend a few minutes around the site to realize this. How we handle this site will be the message we send out to the world. Can we win the war on militant Islamic fundamentalism by rebuilding the WTC site? Of course not. The war itself if unwinnable. But what we do down here sets the tone. We should try to make it the right one.
If we can't win the war, does that mean we have to live with this curse for the rest of the century?
Maybe we can find a way to make friends?
Or bribe them into peacefulness through appeal to materialism as an antidote to the religion of violence?
If we can't win, what's the point?
Not to lose. Because beyond that day lies only darkness.
^ Fatalism.
Actually, it is political posturing.
It is what leads us to attach the name Freedom Tower, and all the baggage that brings, to a building that should symbolize nothing more than New York City's sense of itself as a skyscraper city. That is why most New Yorkers want it, not to stick it to the man in the cave.
What does a man who is willing to blow himself up care if we are weak or strong. He sees us as the Devil, so it's probably better if we are a Strong Devil - he will get better looking virgins in the afterlife.
Except for the memorial, which is inexorably tied to the terorists, the rest of the site should be viewed like Hudson Yards. Make it a fuctioning part of the cityscape, and forego the heroic sound-bites.
Political posturing? I don't think so. Politic is about trying to obtain elective office, and I don't see that the fate of the WTC site ultimately will even elect a City Council member. What it is actually is about is resilience in the face of aggression, instead of surrender. The Israelis decided long ago that as soon as the terrorist attack ends, the rebuilding begins. I have seen scenes in which, 2 days after the attack, there is no longer any evidence of it on the street. Having greater experience with terrorism than we do here, they have figured out a lesson that we are still learning: You may not be able to stop the terrorist act, but you can stop it from controlling the way you live.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks