Another thing to irritate Connie
Mar. 29th, 2004 11:03 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
conulyIt's in the Times, so I'll be nice and quote the relevant parts.
Daniel Benjamin suggests that because terrorists target our symbols of liberty and freedom, it is irresponsible to build them ("The 1,776-Foot-Tall Target," Op-Ed, March 23). Perhaps we should put the Statue of Liberty or the Liberty Bell in storage under such logic.
On the contrary, we should rebuild precisely because it would demonstrate what Mr. Benjamin calls "heroic resolve" in the face of terrific adversity.
Mr. Benjamin's concern for human safety is completely valid, of course, but that simply means that the symbols must be guarded with the most vigilant security, and perhaps new security measures must be developed. This will lead to added costs, but the costs are well worth it.
The difference between Lady Liberty or the Liberty Bell is that they aren't practical. They are symbols, not workplaces. I know, I know, people have this idea that the WTC was on public property. That's why they kept saying that they shouldn't rebuild, they shouldn't rebuild. Guess what, guys? That's private property. If somebody gets mad at me and burns my house down and your kid dies, that doesn't mean I shouldn't rebuild on my land. And, unlike the Liberty Bell or other pure symbols, the people who own the WTC have a compelling need to make a profit. I understand that. I don't like it, but I understand it, and I don't see the connection between a workplace and a historic, not that important monument. You'll recall that it was the WTC and the Pentagon that were targeted... important places, places where people work. Frankly, I'd rather have lost the Statue of Liberty or Liberty Bell because they aren't important, but because of that, I don't think they are such targets. I also don't think the costs are well worth it. Extra security can fail. There is NO way to make an entire skyscraper escapable. That's an altogether human cost, a rather stupid price to pay for "heroic resolve".
At this point, terrorists are fully engaged in a war against America and will try to strike again. No amount of architectural modesty will deter them.
I love how he said that, like "terrorists" is the name of one group of people. It's not. Some of them don't even really give a damn about America. Some of them *gasp* are Americans! Does anybody even remember Oklahoma City? Or the Unabomber? Terrorists aren't fully engaged in a war against America. If they are, they're awfully slow, because there hasn't been anything here in three years. More likely, terrorists are occasionally coming up for air to strike at various targets, but only when they remember. They think they're fully engaged in a war, but they're really not. Iraq is engaged in a war against America, I guess....
The construction of the Freedom Tower, far from being "reflexive bravado," in Daniel Benjamin's words (Op-Ed, March 23), sends a breathtakingly simple message to Osama bin Laden and all the would-be bin Ladens: "We do not fear you. We can, and will, protect ourselves, and we will prosper. We will, in our lifetimes, be privileged to see the destruction and defeat of you and your minions of evil."
Another person who thinks that fear is a bad thing. And who reads too many comics. Minions of Evil? Who talks like that? I actually have an honest question here. I recall that when we invaded Afghanistan (has anybody heard any news from there recently?) that we actually had no proof that al Qaeda or bin Ladin had been involved. Has that situation changed? Oh well, at least he hasn't confused bin Ladin with Hussein, like so many people seem to.
Madrid is working to restore its trains so people can get back to work.
One suspects that they need the trains more than we need another skyscraper. We've got plenty of those. Plenty of damn tourists too.
It seems to me, all quibbling aside, that the best way to end terrorism, rather than to just go to war, would be to find out why various groups, terrorist or not, are angry at us, decide if they have a good point, and if so, work to change the situation. I don't think that they just hate us because we've got religious freedom. People don't kill and die because of that. We like to think they do, because it's nicely flattering and it fits with our image of history, but most of the time all this death and destruction can be traced to more tangible causes. Fixing those problems before people get mad enough to kill is, I think, a reasonable idea. Or we could just improve the CIA until nobody can slip through their net.
Daniel Benjamin suggests that because terrorists target our symbols of liberty and freedom, it is irresponsible to build them ("The 1,776-Foot-Tall Target," Op-Ed, March 23). Perhaps we should put the Statue of Liberty or the Liberty Bell in storage under such logic.
On the contrary, we should rebuild precisely because it would demonstrate what Mr. Benjamin calls "heroic resolve" in the face of terrific adversity.
Mr. Benjamin's concern for human safety is completely valid, of course, but that simply means that the symbols must be guarded with the most vigilant security, and perhaps new security measures must be developed. This will lead to added costs, but the costs are well worth it.
The difference between Lady Liberty or the Liberty Bell is that they aren't practical. They are symbols, not workplaces. I know, I know, people have this idea that the WTC was on public property. That's why they kept saying that they shouldn't rebuild, they shouldn't rebuild. Guess what, guys? That's private property. If somebody gets mad at me and burns my house down and your kid dies, that doesn't mean I shouldn't rebuild on my land. And, unlike the Liberty Bell or other pure symbols, the people who own the WTC have a compelling need to make a profit. I understand that. I don't like it, but I understand it, and I don't see the connection between a workplace and a historic, not that important monument. You'll recall that it was the WTC and the Pentagon that were targeted... important places, places where people work. Frankly, I'd rather have lost the Statue of Liberty or Liberty Bell because they aren't important, but because of that, I don't think they are such targets. I also don't think the costs are well worth it. Extra security can fail. There is NO way to make an entire skyscraper escapable. That's an altogether human cost, a rather stupid price to pay for "heroic resolve".
At this point, terrorists are fully engaged in a war against America and will try to strike again. No amount of architectural modesty will deter them.
I love how he said that, like "terrorists" is the name of one group of people. It's not. Some of them don't even really give a damn about America. Some of them *gasp* are Americans! Does anybody even remember Oklahoma City? Or the Unabomber? Terrorists aren't fully engaged in a war against America. If they are, they're awfully slow, because there hasn't been anything here in three years. More likely, terrorists are occasionally coming up for air to strike at various targets, but only when they remember. They think they're fully engaged in a war, but they're really not. Iraq is engaged in a war against America, I guess....
The construction of the Freedom Tower, far from being "reflexive bravado," in Daniel Benjamin's words (Op-Ed, March 23), sends a breathtakingly simple message to Osama bin Laden and all the would-be bin Ladens: "We do not fear you. We can, and will, protect ourselves, and we will prosper. We will, in our lifetimes, be privileged to see the destruction and defeat of you and your minions of evil."
Another person who thinks that fear is a bad thing. And who reads too many comics. Minions of Evil? Who talks like that? I actually have an honest question here. I recall that when we invaded Afghanistan (has anybody heard any news from there recently?) that we actually had no proof that al Qaeda or bin Ladin had been involved. Has that situation changed? Oh well, at least he hasn't confused bin Ladin with Hussein, like so many people seem to.
Madrid is working to restore its trains so people can get back to work.
One suspects that they need the trains more than we need another skyscraper. We've got plenty of those. Plenty of damn tourists too.
It seems to me, all quibbling aside, that the best way to end terrorism, rather than to just go to war, would be to find out why various groups, terrorist or not, are angry at us, decide if they have a good point, and if so, work to change the situation. I don't think that they just hate us because we've got religious freedom. People don't kill and die because of that. We like to think they do, because it's nicely flattering and it fits with our image of history, but most of the time all this death and destruction can be traced to more tangible causes. Fixing those problems before people get mad enough to kill is, I think, a reasonable idea. Or we could just improve the CIA until nobody can slip through their net.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Not REALLY related, but...
Date: 2004-03-29 09:01 am (UTC)Okay, so you know how my parents are pro-war blah blah blah...
I was talking to my mother about the WMD bullshit and the connections certain officials of our government tried to make to justify war. She admitted she didn't think Osama and Hussein were cohorts, but she added that "I don't really care. I think Hussein was a HUGE threat to our country, Katy!"
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You DON'T CARE why we went to war, spent BILLIONS OF DOLLARS, and your fucking president LIED TO YOU AND YOUR FUCKING PRECIOUS COUNTRY?
What kind of warped world do we live in where people JUSTIFY the actions of the leaders by saying they're leaders, so of course they know what they're doing? I mean, seriously. My dad bitches about how he hates communism, yet he doesn't use his RIGHT IN THIS COUNTRY to speak his mind.
At least not in any way that'll be effective.
*sigh* That's my mini rant of the morning while I procrastinate doing actual work...
Re: Not REALLY related, but...
Date: 2004-03-29 09:10 am (UTC)Then why aren't we in North Korea? I think they may well be a greater threat...
Why don't we deal with our threats WITHIN our nation before going after the rest of the world?
Re: Not REALLY related, but...
Date: 2004-03-29 09:13 am (UTC)