Freedom Tower No More!

[Traitorfish]

You don't see anybody saying we should rename the Statue of Liberty.

But that was built to celebrate liberty, it's sincere. The Whatever-They-Are-Now Towers were built to celebrate, if anything, the fact that several square kilometres of space in the middle of Manhattan is simply too valuable to leave flat. All this "Freedom" stuff was always a farce, just a way of dressing up a financial investment as a memorial. If it's a good thing that they've changed the name, it's because it's honest. It's an admission, of a sort, that the Western obsession with consumption takes priority.

That's what it's always been about. It was never about showing defiance, celebrating freedom or remembering the dead. It was, and is, about the money. It always is.

 

[Formaldehyde]

That's what it's always been about. It was never about showing defiance, celebrating freedom or remembering the dead. It was, and is, about the money. It always is.

They should rename it 1 Target Place and put their logo on the roof.

At least it would be honest and they could get big bucks for the sponsorship.

 

[CIVPhilzilla]

I still want to see two small towers with one tall tower in the middle, so it looks like New York is giving the finger.

 

[Narz]

But that was built to celebrate liberty, it's sincere. The Whatever-They-Are-Now Towers were built to celebrate, if anything, the fact that several square kilometres of space in the middle of Manhattan is simply too valuable to leave flat. All this "Freedom" stuff was always a farce, just a way of dressing up a financial investment as a memorial. If it's a good thing that they've changed the name, it's because it's honest. It's an admission, of a sort, that the Western obsession with consumption takes priority.

That's what it's always been about. It was never about showing defiance, celebrating freedom or remembering the dead. It was, and is, about the money. It always is.

Well said. "World trade" and "freedom" are worlds apart. Literally.

I still want to see two small towers with one tall tower in the middle, so it looks like New York is giving the finger.

How about two spherical/egg shaped "towers" & one large middle one?

 

[CIVPhilzilla]

How about two spherical/egg shaped "towers" & one large middle one?

That'll work. I have faith in architects out there finding the best way to embody the one finger salute in building form.

 

[Godwynn]

I still want to see two small towers with one tall tower in the middle, so it looks like New York is giving the finger.

lol yeah go America!

WE'LL PUT A BOOT IN YOUR BUM IT'S THE AMERICAN WAY!1111

HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR

 

[Miles Teg]

Being stubborn & not evolving is their racket not ours.

Wrong on both counts, for different reasons. Stubborn is an excellent trait to define what the opposition of the free world should be to people who want to kill civilians to further and insane ideology. And an attack by a bunch of nutjobs hardly qualifies as evolutionary pressure. It's random.

With that in mind, I have to say that I like the idea of rebuilding the WTC more or less in it's original form. Forget some rude finger gestures or overt phallic symbols (more subtle ones are hard to avoid in skyscrapers). Just rebuilding and getting on with life is a much better monument.

 

[Narz]

Wrong on both counts, for different reasons. Stubborn is an excellent trait to define what the opposition of the free world should be to people who want to kill civilians to further and insane ideology. And an attack by a bunch of nutjobs hardly qualifies as evolutionary pressure. It's random.

huh? It's certainly not "random" & I wasn't calling it evolutionary pressure. Also you just agreed with me on half my equation (backwards anti-Western fundies are not evolved, even though American materialism & much of mainstream culture is depraved) and the other half you didn't address.

 

[WhiteEagle22]

I think they did the right thing with the rename and the design. Smart people is all I have to say.

 

[Miles Teg]

huh? It's certainly not "random" & I wasn't calling it evolutionary pressure.Also you just agreed with me on half my equation (backwards anti-Western fundies are not evolved, even though American materialism & much of mainstream culture is depraved) and the other half you didn't address.

I think what we have here is a failure to communicate. I don't see any real problem with the old WTC, other than it being a bit on the ugly side. And I like the symbolism of rebuilding it more or less as it was more than I like the idea of a slightly prettier building.

When I addressed the first half of your comment, what I meant was that if rebuilding the WTC without changes was stubborn, it's the right kind of stubborn. I wasn't to sure what you meant in the second half, so perhaps instead of saying that the terms didn't seem to match the situation, I should have explained my confusion.

Obviously however, it was random. Any building or monument could have been chosen. In the larger sense, of course, it was targeted at creating fear and general killing of infidels, but that has nothing to do with rebuilding.

As me agreeing with half your equation, I don't really. Both sides are stubborn, or at least they should be. Islamic Fundamentalism is at war with Sanity and Free Market Democracy (it's up to you whether there is a connection between the two). Neither side can really afford to compromise, and this can only end with one side destroying come of the other and subverting the rest. Saying that stubbornness is only fit for our enemies is as far from the truth as can be.

 

[Fifty]

I'm more worried about the obvious freemason symbolism in the architecture than the name.

 

[general_kill]

Okay, but you're misunderstanding the cause-and-effect relationship here. We didn't kill a bunch of Iraqis and then try to justify it with the word "freedom." That's nutso conspiracy stuff right there. We invaded Iraq (in the process killing some Iraqis) IN ORDER TO free Iraq.

I respect your point of view but allow me to explain history from how I remembered it:

We invaded Iraq mainly because of its "illegal" possession of WMDs. The WMD was how the government sold us the war.

After invading Iraq and subsequently killing quite a lot of Iraqis, we found no WMD. Therefore, the Bush administration needed another reason to justify the invasion in the first place. This was when they came up with the "spreading democracy" and "spreading freedom" talking points. Even though we did not go in there with the intent of killing Iraqis, they died as a direct result of our military operations and our destabilization. Therefore, the freedom clause, imo, did in fact help justify the deaths we caused. Because it justified the reason we needed to use military force.

Before you reply, I would like to ask you if you truly think we invaded Iraq to free its people. If we did, then why was the war sold on completely false pretenses? And why free Iraq? Surely there are at least a dozen countries with populations that need the freedom much more than Iraqis? If spreading freedom and democracy was our only motive, why not invade a country like North Korea? A country who has repeatedly threatened and extorted our allies up until present day? A country with a dictator who has caused millions upon millions of deaths from starvation and otherwise? A country that makes Iraq look like a democratic paradise?

 

[Hygro]

Great, so from vacuous patriotism to conspiracy theory material.

my mother's first concern as well.

 

[Narz]

I think what we have here is a failure to communicate. I don't see any real problem with the old WTC, other than it being a bit on the ugly side. And I like the symbolism of rebuilding it more or less as it was more than I like the idea of a slightly prettier building.

When I addressed the first half of your comment, what I meant was that if rebuilding the WTC without changes was stubborn, it's the right kind of stubborn. I wasn't to sure what you meant in the second half, so perhaps instead of saying that the terms didn't seem to match the situation, I should have explained my confusion.

I don't necessarily think it's the best type of stubborness though I understand you now.

Obviously however, it was random. Any building or monument could have been chosen. In the larger sense, of course, it was targeted at creating fear and general killing of infidels, but that has nothing to do with rebuilding.

It certainly wasn't random. Destroying the WTC's had a much greater impact that would, say, blowing up a museum. The Statue of Liberty would have had major psychological impact but it wouldn't have caused near as much human & business destruction.

As me agreeing with half your equation, I don't really. Both sides are stubborn, or at least they should be. Islamic Fundamentalism is at war with Sanity and Free Market Democracy (it's up to you whether there is a connection between the two). Neither side can really afford to compromise, and this can only end with one side destroying come of the other and subverting the rest. Saying that stubbornness is only fit for our enemies is as far from the truth as can be.

They "should" be? Stubbornness is leading us on the road to nowhere as you yourself just said.

 

[Miles Teg]

It certainly wasn't random. Destroying the WTC's had a much greater impact that would, say, blowing up a museum. The Statue of Liberty would have had major psychological impact but it wouldn't have caused near as much human & business destruction.

I highly doubt that destroying the WTC would be the most efficient target choice. The Empire State Building + Whatever would probably be a more effective use of resources, but either way, I guess it amounts to personal preference/

They "should" be? Stubbornness is leading us on the road to nowhere as you yourself just said.

I think we can both agree that religious fundamentalism isn't compatible with modern life. So, sadly enough, eternal war actually is the only applicable choice for them. Obviously, we can't sit around and let other people bomb out countries, so we're just as dedicated to wiping them out.

We can all agree on that whether or not we like the term "War on Terror" or our views on the way said war has been conducted. I'm not content myself, although I imagine to a lesser extent than you. We can't simply kill them all, but we do need to find a way to demolish the philosophy, which probably includes eliminating the prophets and rabble rousers. The trick is in drawing the line on what we can accept.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

United States Freedom Liberty Eagle Stars Spangled Banner Tower.

Who's with me?

 

[Masada]

United States Freedom Liberty Eagle Stars Spangled Banner Tower.

Your only missing awesome

 

[BasketCase]

But that was built to celebrate liberty, it's sincere. The Whatever-They-Are-Now Towers were built to celebrate, if anything, the fact that several square kilometres of space in the middle of Manhattan is simply too valuable to leave flat.

And you know this precisely how??? I'm pretty sure you're not psychic.

Only Miss Cleo knows, and she ain't tellin'.

When the replacement for the World Trade Center was decided on, they didn't call it the Kill Iraqis Tower. They didn't call it the Several Square Kilometers of Space Too Valuable to Leave Flat Tower. They called it the Freedom Tower. For that matter, that big bronze babe standing out in the shallows of the Atlantic Ocean isn't called the "Statue of Taking Over the World Through Capitalism" or the "Statue of Imperialism", it's called the Statue of Liberty. Unless you can prove what the builders of any of these monuments were thinking (and you can't), then......errrrr, how can I put this politely......shut the hell up.

All this "Freedom" stuff was always a farce, just a way of dressing up a financial investment as a memorial.

If you really believe that, allow me to show you a peek at your future:

Spoiler :

*** All Hail Cobra!!! ***

 

[Cutlass]

Sounds good, though I don't really care their much.


Why? The WTC's were not particularly attractive (inside or out).

But it's a much better "in your face"

So what about 1,337 World Trade Center?

Or how about an actual street address? How about World Trade Tower at x x street?

 

[warpus]

Thats so low key it borders on being unamerican.

It should be as garish, loud and offenesive to the senses as possible. That'd show those terrorists.

Actually, that is what they are doing - there will be pools at the footprints of the old buildings. The new buildings are going up at slightly different footprints.

As for the word "Freedom", it's been mis and overused for years now by American politicians and media. They're not even using the word right - it's simply a talking point.. and I think it's silly to name buildings after talking points.