Freedom Tower No More!

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

A hypodermic is now a freemason symbol?

And someone was just mentioning conspiracy theories too...

Obviously however, it was random.

Um, no, it clearly wasn't 'random'? Did you forget about the previous attack? It was clearly the most obvious target in all of Manhattan. The WTC dwarfed all the other downtown buildings by far, and no matter which direction you came from it was always the first thing you saw.

WorldTradeCenterNYC.jpg


Islamic Fundamentalism is at war with Sanity and Free Market Democracy.

Ah. So now they hate our rationality and capitalism instead of our constant meddiling in their own affairs. :rolleyes:

Saying that stubbornness is only fit for our enemies is as far from the truth as can be.

No, stubborness is quite fitting for those who hate Muslims and have irrational fears of them. I wouldn't expect anything less from that particular group.
 
You'd have to be a risk-taker to set up shop in that tower, I think.
And let's hope the government isn't dumb enough to set up an office there.
 
But it's a much better "in your face" :p
Yeah, but we're adults, not five year olds. And "in your faceness" tends to promote more violence not less.

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.
They could try to destroy us from the inside out (though we're all doing a pretty decent job ourselves).

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.
I think the more we try to "demolish their philosophy" and "USA USA USA!!!" & "Feedom Tower in your face biatches!!" & "World Trade, globalization, MTV, kill the tererists FTW!!" the more we're going to feed it. They don't hate us cause we beautiful, they hate us cause we beautiful & vain & simply don't give a flying duck about them save for their resources. Maybe if we cut off Israel's allowence & stopped invading Middle Eastern countries for fake reasons (WMD's, etc.) while Dafur & other world crises go on without a bat of the eyelash on our part we'd decrease terrorism significantly. But to gung-ho knuckleheads this amounts to defeatism. If we're not halfway down to their level we're not "showing 'em who's boss". :rolleyes:
 
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?

Don't confuse the way that the war was sold to you and the reason that we actually invaded. Bush is a neoconservative and surrounded by the like, and if you look at the rhetoric of these guys, it should be very clear what their motives are. Take a look at 1998's Iraq Liberation Act, which says that it shall be the policy of the United States "to establish a program to support a transition to democracy in Iraq." The reason we invaded was to liberate the Iraqi people and provide a foothold for democracy in the Middle East. Now, I think the administration recognized that this wasn't as compelling a selling point as Iraq's supposed weapons of mass destruction, and so in their public case for war they played up the WMD side of the argument.

As for why we invaded Iraq and not North Korea, there are a few reasons. Arguing whether Kim Jong Il or Saddam is more oppressive isn't going to lead us anywhere, but let's not forget that Saddam committed genocide against his own people. In addition, Saddam also invaded an American ally, and was violating the sanctions put in place after the Gulf War (in addition to taking potshots at our planes patrolling the No Fly Zone). In more practical terms, Iraq has more people than North Korea, we wouldn't have to deal with a China angry about having American troops in its backyard, and Iraq seemed at the time is much more likely to initiate a domino-like expansion of democracy than North Korea, given their neighbors.
 
Don't confuse the way that the war was sold to you and the reason that we actually invaded.

You mean the supposed reason the neocons have been using as an excuse to invade since the first Gulf War?

Amercains will buy into anything as long as you repeat it frequently enough on Fox News, and then get attacked by completly unrelated terrorists due to blowback from our own misdeeds.

We now know a neoconservative is someone who sets his house on fire then boasts six years later that nobody can put it out. Bill Moyers
 
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.

We certainly cant kill them all, and eliminating the influential radical religious figures would definitely help, but this problem will not cease until the underlying political and economic forces which breed terrorism are alleviated. Otherwise there is going to still be kids growing up to be radical figures and we have to go through the process of finding and killing them. Its just a lot easier to send in a bunch of troops and raid terrorist mosques and training centers than it is to enact policies which wont get any results for another generation.
 
I look forward to a day where we can ban freedom and democracy along with religion so we can advance as a species.
Ummm....

WTH?
 
Uh, sure. Surely you agree that WMD is not why the neocons actually wanted to invade, right?

Yeah. It's quite obvious that was an excuse to implement their pro-Israel anti-Muslim warmongering, which they had been advocating for a decade. But it certainly wasn't to inflict freedom and democracy on Iraq as you claim either. That again was merely an excuse. They wanted and needed a base of operations in that region to support even more future warmongering, and Saudi Arabia made it quite clear we were no longer welcome, especially with that sort of anti-Muslim agenda.
 
Thanks to the events of the past 7 years, the word "freedom" has lost much of its altruistic appeal to me and has gained a more sinister definition.

I always thought Freedom Tower was incredibly overdone and creepily patriotic.

'Freedom' - like 'democracy' - is rapidly becoming meaningless newspeak and besides, Freedom Tower was always a laughable name. Why not the 'Excuse to end my Dad's unfinished business' Tower?
 
'Freedom' - like 'democracy' - is rapidly becoming meaningless newspeak and besides, Freedom Tower was always a laughable name. Why not the 'Excuse to end my Dad's unfinished business' Tower?

come on, the usa is the most free country in the world. no reason not to be proud of this!
 
come on, the usa is the most free country in the world. no reason not to be proud of this!

Not even close.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_(political)

Political freedom is the absence of interference with the sovereignty of an individual by the use of coercion or aggression. The members of a free society would have full dominion over their public and private lives. The opposite of a free society would be a totalitarian state, which highly restricts political freedom in order to regulate almost every aspect of behavior. In this sense ‘freedom’ refers solely to the relation of humans to other humans, and the only infringement on it is coercion by humans.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act

USA PATRIOT Act, commonly known as the "Patriot Act", is a statute enacted by the United States Government that President George W. Bush signed into law on October 26, 2001. The contrived acronym stands for Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (Public Law Pub.L. 107-56).

The Act increases the ability of law enforcement agencies to search telephone, e-mail communications, medical, financial, and other records; eases restrictions on foreign intelligence gathering within the United States; expands the Secretary of the Treasury’s authority to regulate financial transactions, particularly those involving foreign individuals and entities; and enhances the discretion of law enforcement and immigration authorities in detaining and deporting immigrants suspected of terrorism-related acts. The act also expands the definition of terrorism to include domestic terrorism, thus enlarging the number of activities to which the USA PATRIOT Act’s expanded law enforcement powers can be applied.

The Act was passed by wide margins in both houses of Congress and was supported by members of both the Republican and Democratic parties. It has been criticized for weakening protections of civil liberties, as well as being overboard in regard to its circumstances of application. In particular, opponents of the law have criticized its authorization of indefinite detentions of immigrants; searches through which law enforcement officers search a home or business without the owner’s or the occupant’s permission or knowledge; the expanded use of National Security Letters, which allows the FBI to search telephone, e-mail, and financial records without a court order; and the expanded access of law enforcement agencies to business records, including library and financial records. Since its passage, several legal challenges have been brought against the act, and Federal courts have ruled that a number of provisions are unconstitutional.

And that's not even broaching the subjects of torture, or capital punishment, or why our prison population is so huge compared to any other democracy on the face of the planet.

My guess is the US is now mired somewhere near the bottom of the pack for representative democracies.
 
Um, no, it clearly wasn't 'random'? Did you forget about the previous attack? It was clearly the most obvious target in all of Manhattan. The WTC dwarfed all the other downtown buildings by far, and no matter which direction you came from it was always the first thing you saw.

Right, perfectly true. But why downtown (that's an ironic word to be saying considering my current avatar) New York? Since you're clearing looking at the symbolism angle, why not the Statue of Liberty. Why not any of a dozen buildings in Washington DC?

Ah. So now they hate our rationality and capitalism instead of our constant meddiling[sic] in their own affairs. :rolleyes:

Maybe you haven't realized something. They committing suicide with the express purpose of killing civilians that have done nothing to them. The west has meddled in dozens of regions, for East Asia to Latin America. And yet it's only the Islamic fundamentalists that are waging war in such a way.

There is no justification for that. There are no excuses. There are explanations as to why people these people are fighting, and often enough they take the form of the culturally relevant, politically correct type that you hint at. But that does not explain how they fight and who they target. That is motivated purely by religious fanaticism.

No, stubborness[sic] is quite fitting for those who hate Muslims and have irrational fears of them. I wouldn't expect anything less from that particular group.

Let's get this straight. I do not fear Muslims, not in a David Duke way, and not in a Pannonius style "freak out whenever they show a hint of religious conviction/ascending power" I have no problem with 99.99% of the Muslim world. But that last .1% wants to kill me and you, and is convinced he will go to heaven if he dies in the attempt. I am afraid of that person, and you should be two. Not so afraid that we loose judgment, and go off and fight unnecessary and costly wars, but healthily afraid and looking to neutralize him.

Yeah, but we're adults, not five year olds. And "in your faceness" tends to promote more violence not less.

I disagree. To me, building some fancy memorial is "in your faceness" rebuilding and going on with life is adult-like. Rebuilding the same structure is a little more defiant, but the human psyche requires symbols, and a simple "rebuild, keep on living" message is a good one.

They could try to destroy us from the inside out (though we're all doing a pretty decent job ourselves).
These are the wrong kind of fanatic for that I'm afraid.

I think the more we try to "demolish their philosophy" and "USA USA USA!!!" & "Feedom Tower in your face biatches!!" & "World Trade, globalization, MTV, kill the tererists FTW!!" the more we're going to feed it.

Honestly, when have I gone overly nationalistic on you? Trying to convince them not to kill us is common sense, and the rest I haven't even hinted at.

They don't hate us cause we beautiful, they hate us cause we beautiful & vain & simply don't give a flying duck about them save for their resources.

Eh? How are we supposed to care in a way that would satisfy both you and them? Aside from military involvement, we have quite a bit of commercial involvement. That's the region's best hope of joining the first world in the long run, and they hate it. Liberated women and secular justice administering fair punishment, schools teaching non-Koran compliant science and people leaving Islam for other religions. The fanatics that blew up the WTC are horrified by our greatest gift, and just as horrified by the variation that you would offer. What else are we to do? Give them tons of cash by aerial drop, so that their minds might not be infected with heathen ideas?


Maybe if we cut off Israel's allowence [we'd decrease terrorism significantly.]

The Palestinian situation is a real can of worms and no mistake. Whatever mistakes we may have made in forming Israel however, if we "cut their allowance' sooner or later their will be a second Holocaust. Not little petty act of war and murder like we see now. Genocide with a captial G.

[Maybe if we] stopped invading Middle Eastern countries for fake reasons (WMD's, etc.) while Dafur & other world crises go on without a bat of the eyelash on our part we'd decrease terrorism significantly. But to gung-ho knuckleheads this amounts to defeatism. If we're not halfway down to their level we're not "showing 'em who's boss". :rolleyes:

I agree with the bolded. We need to fight smarter and and we need to fight using things other than missiles and tanks. However I think you're misunderstanding how I'm using stubborn. By "stubborn" I mean that we accept that these attacks are intolerable, we move to cut them off at the sources, and we keep doing do until we find a way. Bad leadership and honest mistakes may lead to horrendous loss of life on the way, but we'll grit our teeth and try to minimize that, until we find a way to make the world safe, not necessarily for democracy, but safe from the fear of being killed by the hundreds and thousands while conducting our own business.

We certainly cant kill them all, and eliminating the influential radical religious figures would definitely help, but this problem will not cease until the underlying political and economic forces which breed terrorism are alleviated. Otherwise there is going to still be kids growing up to be radical figures and we have to go through the process of finding and killing them. Its just a lot easier to send in a bunch of troops and raid terrorist mosques and training centers than it is to enact policies which wont get any results for another generation.

Agreed. I would have emphasized some of the more economic and political methods of stabilizing SW Asia, but I was more focused on arguing on arguing with people who take umbrage at the presence of any military component. However, it's definitely going to be more economic than political. Our focus right now should be on getting ourselves out of a tied down presence in Iraq and Afghanistan, and concentrating on targeting Al Qaeda and related terrorist cells. If we do this write, we keep terrorism down and letting the famous Western Capitalism spread it's tentacles until we make life in SW Asia better, and remove the incentive for extreme religious/ militant behavior in the process.
 
the deaths of a million Iraqi civilians -OP
More like 100k.

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

But hey, feel free to multiply it by ten for propaganda.

Note:

The count encompasses non-combatants killed by military or paramilitary action and the breakdown in civil security following the invasion.
So all violent crime is included, as are the suicide bombs etc; so really it's more like 80k and even less if we only count stuff the US actually did. But meh, let's call it an even billion.
 
More like 100k.

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

But hey, feel free to multiply it by ten for propaganda.

Note:


So all violent crime is included, as are the suicide bombs etc; so really it's more like 80k and even less if we only count stuff the US actually did. But meh, let's call it an even billion.
With all them recent Bailouts, even a million or a billion doesn't sound like much anymore.
 
Back
Top Bottom