Rebuilding the Twin Towers

[Ranger2]

Recently I saw in the news the official plans of what to do at Ground Zero: An American architect is building the memorial called "Reflecting Absence." It will pretty much have where the towers were be two deep pools with the names of the fallen inscribed on the side at street level.

While I think it is appropriate, I don't think it's enough.

If it were up to me, we would rebuild the Twin Towers and open them up to business again. They may not be the original WTC but it would truly heal NY and the US in my opinion, to see the Twin Towers standing strong and tall again. It would send a message to the world of American resilience; that whatever was destroyed, America can rebuild.

I'm aware that it would cost more and would take much longer to complete. But I think a brand new WTC (with a memorial inside of course) would be far more healing than a memorial.

What do you think?

[sharpnova]

I agree with you. But not because of healing or perseverance or any of that childish crap.

It's just that using that space as a memorial is a horrendous waste of real estate. Why waste a big plot of land for something that produces nothing?

I know some people feel the need to cry and cry and act like babies till the end of time over things that happened in the past, but the world must go on.

We should replace that spot with equal or greater towers that serve equal or greater business needs.

The trade towers are gone. Lives were lost but lives are lost every day. What about the tens of thousands of deaths in motor accidents or heart disease? Get over it.

Use the valuable land in the middle of a business-oriented city to develop something business-related.

That shit helps the economy and the people that are around now. Just because it doesn't honor a bunch of people who are no longer here doesn't mean squat. The only people it would help who are around now are worthless crybabies who spend most of their time accomplishing nothing anyways.

[Angry-Hatter]

If it was up to me, I would have rebuilt the towers to look exactly the same as they were before the 9/11 attacks (although perhaps with some additional anti terror measures and improvements to the structure that would prevent them from being knocked down in the event of another plane crash, but otherwise exactly the same). What better way to tell those Islamist terrorist fuckheads that if you knock down one of our buildings, we'll just rebuild it and go about our regular business? What better way to give two big middle fingers to Al Qaeda than to rebuild the towers just like they were? You won't change the way we live our lives with your terrorist tactics, assholes.

Sadly, it's way too late for that. Close to 10 years after the attacks, and the towers still haven't been replaced. And we did change the way we live our lives and run our government. Fear from these attacks brought us into two wars, one of which was completey unnecessary. Fear that led us to abandon the principles of the Constitution of the United States, ignoring the right to privacy with warrantless wiretaps, leading us to imprison hundreds of people without a trial for years and years. Leading us to torture.

I could go on and on about the terrible things that our side has done in the name of the victims of 9/11, but my thoughts are clear. The 9/11 attacks was the most successfull terrorist attack in human history. The terrorists got exactly what they wanted.

[SteveGuzzi]

i remember a year or so after 9.11 there were at least several different architectural firms pitching their plans for the WTC land... one of em had designs to build a new interlocking triple-tower business/entertainment/hotel structure with a memorial park at its ground level.

i thought that would've been pretty badass.

y'know, serving both functions of paying respect to the dead and announcing "fuck you, now we're just gonna make it even bigger" to the world.

[SteveGuzzi]

At 8/14/11 01:11 PM, Angry-Hatter wrote: The 9/11 attacks was the most successfull terrorist attack in human history. The terrorists got exactly what they wanted.

i was under the impression that the 9.11 attacks were perpetrated as a response to the U.S.'s global military actions, especially those in middle eastern lands, including their unwavering support of Israel.

if they wanted us to stop messing with their shit then uhhhhh i think their plan kinda backfired.

[Camarohusky]

In so far as the WTC towers were architectural masterpieces and perhaps the most efficient use of space in Manhattan, they should have been rebuilt, not replaced with some gaudy tower with half the real estate...

[SouthAsian]

Wait what the FUCK!? I thought they were building the Freedom tower that was going to be like 1,775 feet tall!? When did they decide on this pool?Thats bull shit.Like some one mentioned before that's wasting prime real estate.

[Ericho]

Wouldn't the people there have the original blueprints of the World Trade Center? They could certainly use those if they had, but according to Wikipedia, this new building be officially be called the One World Trade Center. It will apparently be completed by 2013, but it seems strange that it would take so long to build this. I believe this will be a good thing to show to Americans for hope. Granted, I don't even know what people in the World Trade Center did.

[Angry-Hatter]

At 8/14/11 02:07 PM, SteveGuzzi wrote:

At 8/14/11 01:11 PM, Angry-Hatter wrote: The 9/11 attacks was the most successfull terrorist attack in human history. The terrorists got exactly what they wanted.

i was under the impression that the 9.11 attacks were perpetrated as a response to the U.S.'s global military actions, especially those in middle eastern lands, including their unwavering support of Israel.

Well, yes. But their goal wasn't to attack the US like they did as if to say, "alright, we hope you've all learned your lesson, now stay out of our business in the future, ok?" No, they wanted the US to come after them, to waste their resources persuing a small band of criminals in a hostile foreign country. Bin Laden even stated as much. They'd never be able to bring America down simply by doing attacks in the US; they wanted to cripple the economic infrastructure of America, and where are we now? The economy is in the toilet, in a huge part because of the two wars that were started as a direct response to the 9/11 attacks, both of which together have cost the US approximately 1.23 trillion dollars to date, and counting. Al Qaeda couldn't have dreamed of a better outcome.

[Camarohusky]

At 8/14/11 03:03 PM, SouthAsian wrote: Wait what the FUCK!? I thought they were building the Freedom tower that was going to be like 1,775 feet tall!? When did they decide on this pool?Thats bull shit.Like some one mentioned before that's wasting prime real estate.

They will be building the Freedom Tower. The vast majority of the space the memorial will take up will be former plaza space for the WTC towers. That space was essentially wasted before the towers fell.

[Ranger2]

At 8/14/11 02:07 PM, SteveGuzzi wrote:

i was under the impression that the 9.11 attacks were perpetrated as a response to the U.S.'s global military actions, especially those in middle eastern lands, including their unwavering support of Israel.

Also because we don't preach radical Islam in the government, support Westernized, free nations, and actually allow Jews to pray safely. 9/11 isn't a "response" to anything. Osama bin Laden was a freak and his actions cannot be rationally explained or justified.

[SteveGuzzi]

At 8/14/11 09:51 PM, Ranger2 wrote: Also because we don't preach radical Islam in the government, support Westernized, free nations, and actually allow Jews to pray safely. 9/11 isn't a "response" to anything. Osama bin Laden was a freak and his actions cannot be rationally explained or justified.

uh no, his actions can be rationally explained; whether you believe they were 'justified' or not is a matter of your politics. it's kinda stupid to claim that a premeditated attack perpetrated by an organized group of people just happened outside the bounds of rational explanation, without cause, as if all their feelings had no origin or as if there was no catalyst whatsoever to spur them to action. like they existed alone in the fuckin vacuum of space or some shit.

its way too easy to say "the guy was crazy, that's all" (as if he acted alone or something) or that "they just hate us for our freedom" (as if people over there really give that much a shit how we live over here). U.S. interventionism and who-and-what we support overseas has far-reaching repercussions. there are consequences to EVERYTHING. EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEVERYTHING. that's the point.

now, i'm not saying "well if we just didn't ____________ then they wouldn't be mad and the towers would still be there!" because that's stupid too. i don't see any use for hypothetical scenarios or asking what-if questions in relation to past events. the global effects of international actions are long in the making and hard to predict and it makes no sense to attach 'justification' to any of it. 'justification' implies a goal of some sort and not everyone shares the same goals or visions of the future. it's like asking if the Holocaust was 'justified' because it led to the rebirth of Israel. that wasn't the intention behind the Holocaust, but, it WAS one of its consequences. so, if you're happy with the consequences (the existence of Israel) then would you change the events that led up to it if you could? its a ridiculous question to ask and an overall fucked-up way to look at history... but people ask those sorts of questions all the time and look at history with that kind of lens on a regular basis anyway. pfft.

---

AAAAAAAAAAAANYHOO that's all neither here nor there... this is a thread about uhhhh what people think about a parcel of NYC real estate or something. right? i dunno.

[Angry-Hatter]

At 8/14/11 09:51 PM, Ranger2 wrote:

At 8/14/11 02:07 PM, SteveGuzzi wrote:

i was under the impression that the 9.11 attacks were perpetrated as a response to the U.S.'s global military actions, especially those in middle eastern lands, including their unwavering support of Israel.

Also because we don't preach radical Islam in the government, support Westernized, free nations, and actually allow Jews to pray safely. 9/11 isn't a "response" to anything. Osama bin Laden was a freak and his actions cannot be rationally explained or justified.

I don't disagree with that, but I don't think those are the most signifigant reasons for why Al Qaeda attacked the US. You don't travel across state lines to kill somebody just because disagree with the way they're raising their kids, or how they practice their religion; if you did, then you'd really be a complete nut. If, however, that person is responsible for robbing your home town and killing a bunch of your relatives, or you at least perceive it that way, then you are much more likely to take action.

"Free people do not relinquish their security. This is contrary to Bush's claim that we hate freedom. Let him tell us why we did not strike Sweden, for example." ~~ Osama Bin Laden, 2004

Sweden is very similar to the United States in terms of religious freedom and support of democracy around the world. Sweden differs from the United States in that it's foreign policy is largely neutral and non-interventionist (or at least it used to be before Sweden started piggyback riding Uncle Sam into the middle east). Whether this is always the best policy or not is up for debate, but one thing is certain; if you walk around with your chin stuck out and acting like you own the place, you're far more likely to get punched at some point than if you just keep to yourself.

The crimes that Al Qaeda comitted on 9/11 were reprehensible, but it's not like they were random acts of madness, as if Canada or Sweden might just as likely have become the target of the attacks. No, Al Qaeda chose to target innocent American civillians as retribution for what they perceive as the United States government's meddling in the middle east. And considering the US's history of interventionist foreign policy, their concerns might not be completely without foundation.

The United States government would like to pretend that the attacks of 9/11 came out of nowhere, motivated only by a general hatred of life, liberty and apple pie, and that the US government is always, always the good guy, no matter what kinds of shenanigans they pull in the 3rd world. It doesn't excuse the crimes of Al Qaeda one iota, but it helps to understand that their motives aren't as simplistic and cartoonish as the US government would want them to be.

[Ranger2]

At 8/14/11 11:58 PM, SteveGuzzi wrote: [it's not like 9/11] just happened outside the bounds of rational explanation, without cause, as if all their feelings had no origin or as if there was no catalyst

now, i'm not saying "well if we just didn't ____________ then they wouldn't be mad and the towers would still be there!"

Pick a side. You contradict yourself. Either it was a response to something we did or it wasn't.

[Ranger2]

At 8/15/11 12:16 AM, Angry-Hatter wrote:

You don't travel across state lines to kill somebody just because disagree with the way they're raising their kids, or how they practice their religion; if you did, then you'd really be a complete nut.

Hi there, my name's Al-Qaeda, nice to meet you.

If, however, that person is responsible for robbing your home town and killing a bunch of your relatives, or you at least perceive it that way, then you are much more likely to take action.

Funny, because we helped out Osama and his friends in the 1980s in Afghanistan, so still not seeing your point.

"Free people do not relinquish their security. This is contrary to Bush's claim that we hate freedom. Let him tell us why we did not strike Sweden, for example." ~~ Osama Bin Laden, 2004

Because it would send a deeper message to strike America. Bin Laden would have no problem with striking Sweden; it just wasn't the right time. Remember, jihadists are not content with only the Middle East.

but one thing is certain; if you walk around with your chin stuck out and acting like you own the place, you're far more likely to get punched at some point than if you just keep to yourself.

Yes, because we were definitely being snobby bastards when we rescued Kuwait from Iraq or Afghanistan from the Soviets. Remind me, what country were we actually controlling and occupying in the Middle East before 9/11?

[SteveGuzzi]

At 8/15/11 01:05 AM, Ranger2 wrote:

At 8/14/11 11:58 PM, SteveGuzzi wrote: [it's not like 9/11] just happened outside the bounds of rational explanation, without cause, as if all their feelings had no origin or as if there was no catalyst

now, i'm not saying "well if we just didn't ____________ then they wouldn't be mad and the towers would still be there!"

Pick a side. You contradict yourself. Either it was a response to something we did or it wasn't.

um, yes, it was a response to something.

i thought it was clear enough but i guess i overestimated your reading comprehension. the "now, i'm not saying..." paragraph was meant to convey the futility of trying to define international actions as being 'justified' or not. as in, there's no point in going back to claim that we shouldn't have done ____________ because we couldn't have predicted the long-term consequences of ____________ anyway. the specific consequences at least. it's pretty obvious that if you step on someone's toes long enough then you're probably going to incite them to act against you in some way, but even knowing that much doesn't inform you of the exact methods they'll use to act against you.

[SouthAsian]

At 8/14/11 07:10 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

They will be building the Freedom Tower. The vast majority of the space the memorial will take up will be former plaza space for the WTC towers. That space was essentially wasted before the towers fell.

Oh!Well as long as they do it justice!

[Ranger2]

At 8/15/11 01:28 AM, SteveGuzzi wrote:

it's pretty obvious that if you step on someone's toes long enough then you're probably going to incite them to act against you in some way, but even knowing that much doesn't inform you of the exact methods they'll use to act against you.

What did Norway do to deserve Anders Breivik's actions? They must've also been stepping on his toes.

[SolInvictus]

At 8/15/11 09:02 AM, Ranger2 wrote: What did Norway do to deserve Anders Breivik's actions? They must've also been stepping on his toes.

but he did have a a reason and "rationale" to his attack, as did Al-Qaeda on 9/11... so did Hitler for trying to take over the world and kill the Jews...

who said motives have to be sane and considerate of innocents?

[altanese-mistress]

Freedom Tower, anyone? No?

If it were up to me, and 1WTC and anything like it were out of the question, I'd say we build a multicultural center there that promotes tolerance of all races, religions, and creeds. I swear it's only partly to troll Fox News.

[Angry-Hatter]

At 8/15/11 01:12 AM, Ranger2 wrote:

At 8/15/11 12:16 AM, Angry-Hatter wrote:

You don't travel across state lines to kill somebody just because disagree with the way they're raising their kids, or how they practice their religion; if you did, then you'd really be a complete nut.

Hi there, my name's Al-Qaeda, nice to meet you.

Your implication being that every member of Al Qaeda suffers from an irrational hatred of American culture so strong that they'd all be willing to kill themselves to bring America down? And nothing else? No other motivation? Just, "I don't like your religion, therefore I will sacrifice my life to bring you down"?

If, however, that person is responsible for robbing your home town and killing a bunch of your relatives, or you at least perceive it that way, then you are much more likely to take action.

Funny, because we helped out Osama and his friends in the 1980s in Afghanistan, so still not seeing your point.

First of all, were you really helping out the Afghanis, or were you sticking it to the Soviets?

Second of all, Osama did praise America at the time, thanking the US for it's support.

Third of all, history didn't stop between 1989 and 2001.

"Free people do not relinquish their security. This is contrary to Bush's claim that we hate freedom. Let him tell us why we did not strike Sweden, for example." ~~ Osama Bin Laden, 2004

Because it would send a deeper message to strike America. Bin Laden would have no problem with striking Sweden; it just wasn't the right time. Remember, jihadists are not content with only the Middle East.

The Swedish Empire ended more than 200 years ago. The American Empire is still going strong though, with a widespread presence throughout the middle east which really started to expand after the Gulf War ended in 1991.

but one thing is certain; if you walk around with your chin stuck out and acting like you own the place, you're far more likely to get punched at some point than if you just keep to yourself.

Yes, because we were definitely being snobby bastards when we rescued Kuwait from Iraq or Afghanistan from the Soviets. Remind me, what country were we actually controlling and occupying in the Middle East before 9/11?

I'd just like to point out that I never mentioned occupation of middle eastern countries by the US. You were the one to bring that up, so before I answer your question, I'd like to ask you one first: you seem to be implying that nothing short of complete occupation of a country by the United States is motivation enough to take hostile action against the US; would you then consider such action against the US understandable, now that such occupation exists in both Iraq and Afghanistan at present time?

Now then, some of what the US was ACTUALLY doing which might have garnered quite a bit of ill will among muslims in the middle east during the 1990's.

1. Trade embargo on Iraq.

After Iraq invaded Kuwait, the UN security council (of which the US is a permanent member) passed a resolution which imposed a trade embargo on everything going into and out of Iraq. All exceptions had to go through the so-called 661 Committee, where the US commonly used it's veto power as a permanent council member to deny essential supplies such as food and vaccines from being sent into Iraq, on the basis that they might be used to create weapons. This embargo, which wasn't lifted until December of last year, led to a crippled Iraqi economy, hyper inflation, and a skyrocketing infant mortality rate, essentially pushing Iraq back into the pre-industrial age.

2. Permanent US troops in Saudi Arabia.

Saudi Arabia, the home of the holiest of all muslim places; Mecca and Medina. And after the Gulf War, also the permanent home of about 5000 US troops charged with the task of enforcing the no-fly zone on southern Iraq, also known as Operation Southern Watch, which lasted all the way up until the 2003 invasion of Iraq. The exact number of civilian casualties caused by this policy is difficult to ascertain, but between January 1999 and April 2000 air operations [...] caused the deaths of 175 civilians and wounded nearly 500. Osama Bin Laden cited the presence of American troops so close to the holy city of Mecca as one of the reasons for Al Qaeda's attack on the US. I'd also like to remind you that 15 out of the 19 September 11 hijackers were Saudi nationals.

3. US support of Israel.

You wanted an example of American occupation in a middle eastern country? Well, American support of Israel's occupation of Palestine will have to suffice I guess. It did for Al Qaeda anyway.

At 8/15/11 09:02 AM, Ranger2 wrote: What did Norway do to deserve Anders Breivik's actions? They must've also been stepping on his toes.

Now, just let me reiterate; nothing excuses the mass murder of thousands of innocent civillians. That's the most obvious thing in the world. The people who died on September 11 had done nothing to deserve the fate that Al Qaeda imposed on them, but their reasons for targeting the US were clearly stated, and based on actual events and actions taken by the United States government in the middle east. This is what separates Al Qaeda from someone like Anders Breivik, who is a different animal altogether. His reasons for committing his crimes were based on paranoid delusions and wild conspiracy theories based on absolutely nothing; he might even be suffering from a mental illness of some sort, so your comparison doesn't really hold water.

[Ranger2]

At 8/15/11 05:38 PM, Angry-Hatter wrote:

Your implication being that every member of Al Qaeda suffers from an irrational hatred of American culture so strong that they'd all be willing to kill themselves to bring America down? And nothing else? No other motivation? Just, "I don't like your religion, therefore I will sacrifice my life to bring you down"?

When you're raised in poverty and the people who give you food and money tell you to kill the infidels, you kill the infidels. These people haven't been raised like your or me. This hatred is all they know. They suffer from no education and a backwards culture.

First of all, were you really helping out the Afghanis, or were you sticking it to the Soviets?

The Muhajideen didn't seem to care.

The Swedish Empire ended more than 200 years ago. The American Empire is still going strong though, with a widespread presence throughout the middle east which really started to expand after the Gulf War ended in 1991.

Will you quit calling the United States an empire? How can we debate when you're going to insult America right off the bat by calling it an empire? We are not one and never were.

I'd just like to point out that I never mentioned occupation of middle eastern countries by the US. You were the one to bring that up, so before I answer your question, I'd like to ask you one first: you seem to be implying that nothing short of complete occupation of a country by the United States is motivation enough to take hostile action against the US; would you then consider such action against the US understandable, now that such occupation exists in both Iraq and Afghanistan at present time?

Now that we are in Afghanistan, yes, I can understand why Al-Qaeda is attacking us. But we were not in Afghanistan before 9/11.

Now then, some of what the US was ACTUALLY doing which might have garnered quite a bit of ill will among muslims in the middle east during the 1990's.

1. Trade embargo on Iraq.

After Iraq invaded Kuwait, the UN security council (of which the US is a permanent member) passed a resolution which imposed a trade embargo on everything going into and out of Iraq. All exceptions had to go through the so-called 661 Committee, where the US commonly used it's veto power as a permanent council member to deny essential supplies such as food and vaccines from being sent into Iraq, on the basis that they might be used to create weapons. This embargo, which wasn't lifted until December of last year, led to a crippled Iraqi economy, hyper inflation, and a skyrocketing infant mortality rate, essentially pushing Iraq back into the pre-industrial age.

Then maybe we should stop the no-fly zone on Libya. We are preventing food and humanitarian aid from getting to the people of Tripoli.

Dictators like Saddam have ways of controlling the imports and exports of their country. Do you honestly think that Saddam, a man who gassed his own people and oppressed the Shi'a majority wanted to help his people? The embargo prevented him and his cronies from getting richer. Yes, embargoes hurt everybody but should we have just turned the other cheek after 1991? What message would that have sent to Saddam? In fact, the embargo didn't do enough. In 1998 Bill Clinton said that Iraq had WMDs, which the embargo tried to prevent.

2. Permanent US troops in Saudi Arabia.

Saudi Arabia, the home of the holiest of all muslim places; Mecca and Medina...I'd also like to remind you that 15 out of the 19 September 11 hijackers were Saudi nationals.

It's completely irrelevant that Mecca and Medina are considered holy. What does it matter? If I see French soldiers in Tahiti, should I crash planes into France? And I don't get your point about the Saudi nationals. I know that Saudi Arabia funds Al-Qaeda. Why did bin Laden bomb us, because we were in Saudi Arabia or by his holy cities?
Keep in mind that the Saudis were glad we were there to protect them from Iraq.

3. US support of Israel.

You wanted an example of American occupation in a middle eastern country? Well, American support of Israel's occupation of Palestine will have to suffice I guess. It did for Al Qaeda anyway.

I support Israel but let's stay on topic.

At 8/15/11 09:02 AM, Ranger2 wrote: What did Norway do to deserve Anders Breivik's actions? They must've also been stepping on his toes.

Now, just let me reiterate; nothing excuses the mass murder of thousands of innocent civillians. That's the most obvious thing in the world. The people who died on September 11 had done nothing to deserve the fate that Al Qaeda imposed on them, but their reasons for targeting the US were clearly stated, and based on actual events and actions taken by the United States government in the middle east. This is what separates Al Qaeda from someone like Anders Breivik, who is a different animal altogether. His reasons for committing his crimes were based on paranoid delusions and wild conspiracy theories based on absolutely nothing; he might even be suffering from a mental illness of some sort, so your comparison doesn't really hold water.

This is where I disagree with you. Both of their attacks were based on conspiracy theories and hate. Remember, it's not something that America did to deserve 9/11. It's their own hatred of our culture and our ideals. Bin Laden hates us because we do not espouse his ideology. You think wars based on religion are only in the past? For the West, yest. But they are still going on in the Middle East.

[aviewaskewed]

Ranger, you're aware you posted another thread that covers your feelings about the reasons bin laden planned 9/11? It's still very prominent on the front page. Either you all stick to discussion of what is going to be built on the WTC site, or take the conversation over there and let this sink or be locked. You all decide.

[SolInvictus]

At 8/16/11 05:25 PM, Ranger2 wrote: When you're raised in poverty and the people who give you food and money tell you to kill the infidels, you kill the infidels. These people haven't been raised like your or me. This hatred is all they know. They suffer from no education and a backwards culture.

meh, the background of Islamic terrorists (both leaders or operatives) seems to vary pretty widely; from poor individuals who have been promised their families will be cared for monetarily by Al-Qaeda, to well educated, metal-loving western converts. when Americans aren't immune to switching sides, it would seem their ideology is more complex then the misogynistic and xenophobic leanings of certain cultures.

thats not to say that an American military presence in Saudia Arabia can reasonably be considered an insult to Islam, but we seem to be unable to convince some people of that fact.

[djack]

At 8/16/11 08:56 PM, SolInvictus wrote:

At 8/16/11 05:25 PM, Ranger2 wrote: When you're raised in poverty and the people who give you food and money tell you to kill the infidels, you kill the infidels. These people haven't been raised like your or me. This hatred is all they know. They suffer from no education and a backwards culture.

meh, the background of Islamic terrorists (both leaders or operatives) seems to vary pretty widely; from poor individuals who have been promised their families will be cared for monetarily by Al-Qaeda, to well educated, metal-loving western converts. when Americans aren't immune to switching sides, it would seem their ideology is more complex then the misogynistic and xenophobic leanings of certain cultures.

thats not to say that an American military presence in Saudia Arabia can reasonably be considered an insult to Islam, but we seem to be unable to convince some people of that fact.

Actually most of the western converts were either introduced to Islam in prison or were raised as orthodox Muslims and taught by their parents that all infidels need to be killed so it isn't quite as varied as you think. While there are certainly some who don't have the same background as them you're more likely to find potential terrorists in poor families that are either pre-disposed to violence via a criminal past and time in prison or raised to believe in the backwards laws of the Islamic Middle East (not Islamic law in general as there are many Muslims around the world who don't live this way but many of the laws of Islamic Middle Eastern nations are extreme by any standard). For example in the Middle East if a woman is raped outside her home it is considered her fault and she is stoned to death for it, while laws have generally been harsher on women throughout history no other society in the history of the world has punished a woman for being raped. If you are raised to believe that laws like that are good you aren't going to question someone when they tell you that there is an entire nation that deserves to die.

[paradigmvulpes]

you are right in a lot of ways, but i cant help but draw to a major flaw. im pretty sure that it would actuaaly be a target for terrorist, i mean, they destryoed the twin towers... we rebuild them, and to be dicks, they would probably attempt it again, and again and again. its like building a sand castle and having a bully kick it down, if you rebuild it, you might have a parent around( symbolizing stepped up security) but their sure as hell gonaa take another crack at it.

[SolInvictus]

At 8/16/11 10:27 PM, djack wrote: Actually most of the western converts were either introduced to Islam in prison or were raised as orthodox Muslims and taught by their parents that all infidels need to be killed so it isn't quite as varied as you think.

while i can't say how radical the parents and upbringing of most American members of Al-Qaeda were (wiki doesn't say for most/a number were indeed raised as Muslims), the idea that prison time is a source of indoctrination seems to be completely false. even those raised in radical Muslim households did attain university degrees and relatively lucrative jobs before going "fuck this shit; i should blow up everyone".

which is what brought me to say that this is a little more worrisome than (and not as dependent on) the spread of fundamentalist Muslim culture.
probably not complete, but this is who i looked into; Adam Yahiye Gadahn, Sharif Mobley, Aafia Siddiqui, Bryant Neal Vinas, Najibullah Zazi, Naser Jason Abdo, Anwar al-Awlaki, Hasan Akbar, Nidal Malik Hasan, Michael Finton
p.s. i'm not saying Al-Qaeda is very interested in having itself a rainbow team of diverse backgrounds and ideals, but it does seem to have little trouble taking what it can get.

[Shaggytheclown17]

At 8/14/11 01:11 PM, Angry-Hatter wrote: we'll just rebuild it and go about our regular business? What better way to give two big middle fingers to Al Qaeda than to rebuild the towers just like they were? You won't change the way we live our lives with your terrorist tactics, assholes.

Well that may be seen as disrespectful to the people who died in that same area, by just covering it up n going about like it was, I'd say best to just let it be and build some overpriced skyscrapers somewhere else, maybe have them spaced a bit further apart n have some anti aircraft guns mounted close to them just in case.

[Camarohusky]

At 8/17/11 01:07 PM, Shaggytheclown17 wrote: Well that may be seen as disrespectful to the people who died in that same area, by just covering it up n going about like it was,

You could say that rebuilding the Towers in defiance to the effect of terrorism is perhaps one of the best ways to honor those killed in terrorism. It ensures that they weren't just a pawn in the terrorists' game. You know, how the 9/11 victims eventually became.

I'd say best to just let it be and build some overpriced skyscrapers somewhere else,

Actually, the WTC Towers were the most efficient use of office space in the united states. Yamasaki's design where the szkin and the core were the main weight beaers gave the offices a huge amount of usable space that would not exist otherwise in a traditional steel grid.

[SadisticMonkey]

Rebuilding