# New York's Sept 11 museum to display hijacker perspective



## Big Don (Sep 16, 2009)

*New York's Sept 11 museum to display hijacker perspective*

                                                                    By Joan Gralla                    Joan Gralla                                  Fri Sep 11, 7:52 am ET Yahoo News/Reuters EXCERPT: 
                                                   NEW YORK   A museum dedicated to the September 11 attacks will display written quotations drawn from "martyrdom" videos made by the hijackers, along with witness testimonials that will be screened to prevent sympathizers from praising the perpetrators, museum officials said on Thursday.
                                                   Previous attempts to put into context the motivation of the men who used hijacked passenger planes to attack the United States on September 11, 2001, have been met with emotional public opposition, with politicians canceling plans for an "International Freedom Center" in 2005.
                          But the president of the National September 11 Memorial & Museum said photographs of the 19 hijackers would be displayed along with the quotes as part of the "witness testimony" in the museum.
                          The memorial and museum are planned for the World Trade Center site undergoing reconstruction in lower Manhattan. The underground museum should open by 2013.
                          Museum president Joe Daniels told reporters the exhibit would present the facts, focusing on "what happened on that day, why it happened, what does it mean to live in a 9/11 world."
                          "Let the perpetrators speak for themselves," Daniels said.
END EXCERPT
Lets have a Lee Harvey Oswald Wing at the JFK presidential Library too...


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 16, 2009)

Big Don said:


> Lets have a Lee Harvey Oswald Wing at the JFK presidential Library too...



Yeah, that'd be nice except that Oswald didn't kill Kennedy.  Oh the irony...


----------



## Big Don (Sep 16, 2009)

Then a  Sirhan Sirhan Box at RFK stadium


----------



## Archangel M (Sep 16, 2009)

Or a John Wilkes Booth display at the Lincoln Memorial...


----------



## CanuckMA (Sep 16, 2009)

Only one thing to say.



*WTF?*


The only perspective those animals need is from 6 feet under.


----------



## grydth (Sep 16, 2009)

This is all reminiscent of the effort to sanitize or twist the Smithsonian display on the end of World War II.

It would be so politikally inkorrekt to offend those who've been murdering us, after all.    "I'm okay, you're okay" applied to mass murderers.

Perhaps we could have a theatre addition where DVDs of Osama's rants or Zarkawi's hostage snuff films could be shown hourly. Viewers might have a meditation area to reflect upon just how we must have offended these cannibals to force them into doing such things.

Better to have just left a crater.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 16, 2009)

Let 'em build it.  I think the American perspective will quickly be displayed.  My suspicion is that said demonstration will involve a can of gasoline and a match.  Just a guess.


----------



## David43515 (Sep 16, 2009)

Personally I don`t think it`s a bad idea. It may be in bad taste, but that`s a different topic.

Jewish groups don`t hide the images of the Holocust, so we never forget how twisted and wrong the minds of those invloved were. We don`t hide images of the lynchings and beatings that the American Civil Rights movment had to put up with. It can`t be an abosolutely horrible idea to hold these cockroaches up to the light and be able to point to them and say "This is what a twisted mind looks like. Don`t ever let someone tell you that this kind of thing is right or noble."


----------



## MA-Caver (Sep 16, 2009)

David43515 said:


> Personally I don`t think it`s a bad idea. It may be in bad taste, but that`s a different topic.
> 
> Jewish groups don`t hide the images of the Holocaust, so we never forget how twisted and wrong the minds of those involved were. We don`t hide images of the lynchings and beatings that the American Civil Rights movement had to put up with. It can`t be an absolutely horrible idea to hold these cockroaches up to the light and be able to point to them and say "This is what a twisted mind looks like. Don`t ever let someone tell you that this kind of thing is right or noble."


Maybe 20 or 30 years from now... or even 50 years from now such an exhibit could be used... however the wounds from that horrible day are still fresh... only 8 years ago did this horrific event took place. Love ones are still grieving from it... I say let the wounds heal if they can and then bring the perspective of the perps. 
It's too soon for it IMO. 
The Holocaust was over 80 years ago, by and large most of the survivors have died and are resting in peace, their descendants now deserve to see, know and understand what happened to them. 
Same with the descendants of the Germans who created the holocaust so that they may learn not to ever do this atrocity again... ever.


----------



## CoryKS (Sep 16, 2009)

Ideally, the terrorist perspective would consist of a closeup of a Hellfire missile followed by a brief flash of light.


----------



## CanuckMA (Sep 16, 2009)

The difference is that in Holocaust museums, the historic background is explained. What they want to do in the 9/11 memorial would be akin to show Goebels' speaches as justification.


----------



## David43515 (Sep 16, 2009)

Fair enough, I can accept that it might be too soon. I guess that`s more in the bda taste catagory.

But I don`t think that having quotes from the highjackers would be seen as 'justification' for what they did. Any of those old speeches by Goebels, Himmler, etc. could be played today and followed by the same kind of retoric from the PLO, Hamas, or the Iranian "President" (can`t spell his name).

It serves as a reminder that the twisted hate these people spew is still alive and well, and just because we haven`t had a successful attack in the U.S. since then doesn`t mean it`s gone away.


----------



## CoryKS (Sep 16, 2009)

But you know what, let them show the videos.  I don't know about you guys, but every time I see bin Laden and his like putting that finger up and lecturing like they are talking to children, I swear to God the red curtain of blood comes down over my eyes and I want to kill them.  I don't know why, but that little gesture affects me that way.


----------



## CanuckMA (Sep 16, 2009)

David43515 said:


> , or the Iranian "President" (can`t spell his name).


 
ima****ingidiot


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 17, 2009)

CoryKS said:


> But you know what, let them show the videos.  I don't know about you guys, but every time I see bin Laden and his like putting that finger up and lecturing like they are talking to children, I swear to God the red curtain of blood comes down over my eyes and I want to kill them.  I don't know why, but that little gesture affects me that way.



Maybe that's the point of the museum.  If so, would you say that inspiring such rage is a good thing?


----------



## Big Don (Sep 17, 2009)

CanuckMA said:


> ima****ingidiot


AKA
Imadinnerjacket


----------



## Sukerkin (Sep 17, 2009)

Keeping away from the highly emotive subject matter, is this a memorial or a museum?

Giving my expert opinion, as a qualified (if now ex) member of the profession, if it's a memorial then it isn't really very appropriate to include the troublesome material (too soon as people have already said).  If it's a museum then it can't *not* be included.


----------



## Archangel M (Sep 17, 2009)

> The memorial and museum are planned for the World Trade Center site undergoing reconstruction in lower Manhattan. The underground museum should open by 2013.



Museum or not..its going to be on the site of the attacks...that makes the sensitivity even more acute.


----------



## CoryKS (Sep 17, 2009)

maunakumu said:


> Maybe that's the point of the museum.  If so, would you say that inspiring such rage is a good thing?



I doubt that that's the point.  But yes, I think it's a good thing.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Sep 17, 2009)

I appreciate the educational aspect but feel it would be in extremely bad taste considering the location and purpose of the "museum" as primarily being a memorial. 

Save the "terrorist" perspectives and motivations for History Class discussion.


----------



## CoryKS (Sep 17, 2009)

MA-Caver said:


> Maybe 20 or 30 years from now... or even 50 years from now such an exhibit could be used... however the wounds from that horrible day are still fresh... only 8 years ago did this horrific event took place. Love ones are still grieving from it... I say let the wounds heal if they can and then bring the perspective of the perps.
> It's too soon for it IMO.
> The Holocaust was over 80 years ago, by and large most of the survivors have died and are resting in peace, their descendants now deserve to see, know and understand what happened to them.
> Same with the descendants of the Germans who created the holocaust so that they may learn not to ever do this atrocity again... ever.


 
I don't necessarily disagree with you, but how do you reconcile this viewpoint with your belief that it's okay for the newspaper to run pictures of a dying soldier against his parents wishes? I mean, it's great that you're thinking about the loved ones who are still grieving, I'd just like to know why that consideration doesn't extend to the parents of LCpl Bernard. Is it because these dead people aren't useful in ending the war?


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 17, 2009)

CoryKS said:


> I doubt that that's the point.



You are probably right, however, I can't fathom even a wild reason why we would suddenly want to go "touchy feely" with the "evil" terrorists.  After years of rhetoric to the contrary, that is a complete polar shift.  Someone from New York should actually go to this museum and see what it's like.  We can make all sorts of stories up about what we think, however, this seems so unbelievable, someone has to see it with their own eyes.  Media sensationalism?


----------



## JDenver (Sep 17, 2009)

What's clear here is that some folks don't seem to know the difference between a *MUSEUM AND A MEMORIAL.*


----------



## Sukerkin (Sep 17, 2009)

Which was indeed the point I was trying to make above :tup:.


----------



## Flea (Sep 17, 2009)

David43515 said:


> Personally I don`t think it`s a bad idea. It may be in bad taste, but that`s a different topic.
> 
> Jewish groups don`t hide the images of the Holocust, so we never forget how twisted and wrong the minds of those invloved were. We don`t hide images of the lynchings and beatings that the American Civil Rights movment had to put up with. It can`t be an abosolutely horrible idea to hold these cockroaches up to the light and be able to point to them and say "This is what a twisted mind looks like. Don`t ever let someone tell you that this kind of thing is right or noble."



Right.

I think a broader historical context is very relevant and _should_ be included.  Not with video of rants, however.  That's in very poor taste.  When I went to the OK federal building museum a few years ago, they had a corner explaining domestic terrorism and a computer with a database on several hate groups/militia/extremist groups, their agenda, and a list of transgressions over the years.  (Disclaimer: if there are any militia members on MT, please don't think I'm equating you personally with McVeigh.  It's been a while since I saw the exhibit and my memory is imperfect.)  Visitors were welcome to go out of their way to look at the database, but the whole display was unobtrusive.  

I think this museum set a very high standard for how these things can be done.


----------



## Nolerama (Sep 17, 2009)

I think showing an objective (or as objective as you can get) account on the theories of why the terrorists in the 9-11 attacks did what they did would help enlighten visitors' global view.

Yes, I think a memorial is necessary for Americans to heal. But when it comes to a museum, I think all sides should be investigated in an attempt to decrease hatred and start healing. I think that itself is worth the media flak.


----------



## Gordon Nore (Sep 17, 2009)

Sukerkin said:


> If it's a museum then it can't *not* be included.



QFT.

Displaying materials that portray the POV of the attackers is not a de facto endorsement of their position. It is -- or should be -- an effort to expose the visitor to every facet of the 9/11 story.


----------



## Big Don (Sep 17, 2009)

Gordon Nore said:


> QFT.
> 
> Displaying materials that portray the POV of the attackers is not a de facto endorsement of their position. It is -- or should be -- an effort to expose the visitor to every facet of the 9/11 story.


Contrary to popular opinion, all views are NOT equally valid.
Should they, then, also include a section for TRUTHERS?


----------



## CoryKS (Sep 17, 2009)

Big Don said:


> Contrary to popular opinion, all views are NOT equally valid.
> Should they, then, also include a section for TRUTHERS?


 
In a museum, yes.  In a memorial, no.  Maybe the architects of this project ought to reconsider whether Ground Zero is the best place for an objective display.


----------



## elder999 (Sep 17, 2009)

Big Don said:


> Should they, then, also include a section for TRUTHERS?


 
Depends upon how comprehensive they want to be.

The most reliable place to research the available data on Lee Harvey Oswald, believe it or not, are the archives if the JFK Library. While he doesn't have a "wing" there, it *is* a depository for what information is available.

A comprehensive _museum_ might just have _displays _on  the "planeless sky" we all experienced in the aftermath, and the return of commercial flights (I had to fly a bit in the days after 9/11-even on govenment business, it was a bit of an uncomfortable hassle....), and, yes, a section on the "Truther phenomenon," perhaps. It might have sections dealing with the relationship between al Qaeda, the Taliban and Saudi Arabia, and how almost all the hijackers were Saudis-though I'm willing to bet it won't.

In any case, it's a _museum._ The US Holocuast _Museum_ , for instance, has a _display _of the personal photographs of SS-Obersturmführer Karl Höcker, the adjutant to the commandant of Auschwitz.

It's even called _Auschwitz *Through the Lens of the SS*_.


----------



## Live True (Sep 17, 2009)

Big Don said:


> Contrary to popular opinion, all views are NOT equally valid.
> Should they, then, also include a section for TRUTHERS?


 
No one is saying that Big Don.  Presenting all sides of a debate does not equate to saying all sides are equally valid. It is simply presenting the opinions that exist.  That is how reasonable discussions are held.  Otherwise, it's not a discussion or even an attempt to understand the truth of a situation. It's just a mindless flattering of your own viewpoint...which may or may not be correct.

At least by offering all sides, you will walk away with a valid basis for the opinions you hold.  Refusing to consider any viewpoints but your own....usually means you are afraid they are too easily undermined.


----------



## MA-Caver (Sep 17, 2009)

CoryKS said:


> I don't necessarily disagree with you, but how do you reconcile this viewpoint with your belief that it's okay for the newspaper to run pictures of a dying soldier against his parents wishes? I mean, it's great that you're thinking about the loved ones who are still grieving, I'd just like to know why that consideration doesn't extend to the parents of LCpl Bernard. Is it because these dead people aren't useful in ending the war?


Is it okay to post pictures like this concerning 9/11 ? 





(apologies for the extra large size... my photo editing sw is fubar-ed)... 
No, this poor gentleman hasn't been identified but out of hundreds of families who lost a (male) loved one in one of the towers that day, it could be one of theirs, so is this appropriate? (released by the Boston Globe http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2009/09/remembering_september_11th.html ) (not arguing ... debating quietly and calmly :asian: ) .... It's in your face pictures of death and dying that make the event all the more poignant and true so that our own minds can be made up about what's happening and what to do about it. 
No I wouldn't have wanted to see a photo of a car accident (DUI hitting innocent) that has a close friend or relative's image used for an advertisement but if it gets the message across and helps others get the message... 
I'm not so thick skinned as to be uncaring about how people feel about the death of a loved one, but I am thin skinned when folks die needlessly. ... not that anyone NEEDS to die (except 100% for sure guilty murderers,child molesters, rapists and terrorists).


----------



## grydth (Sep 17, 2009)

Big Don said:


> AKA
> Imadinnerjacket



No...... the proper spelling of the President* of Iran is: Allmadjihad.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Sep 17, 2009)

Perhaps the WWII memorial should have a section portraying the Nazi point of view and perspective that they were the master race and everybody else should be shoved into an easy-bake oven? 

I just don't think a memorial, especially one that is built at ground zero, should contain items like that. 

A memorial is not necessarily geared towards educating the masses. It's a MEMORIAL. It's too honor those that died, those that volunteered to help, the cops and firemen that sacrificed to do their duty during horrible circumstances... it's not intended to clue us in on the the terrorist perspective. 

The whole "PC" thing has clouded many's judgement me thinks.


----------



## elder999 (Sep 17, 2009)

MA-Caver said:


> Is it okay to post pictures like this concerning 9/11 ? .


 
From the article :



> As an example of what will be included, Daniels said the 1979 invasion of the Soviet Union by Afghanistan was vital in understanding "the roots of Al Qaeda."
> *The most horrific pictures, such as those of people who jumped from the top floors of the Twin Towers to escape the heat and flames, will be segregated*.


----------



## Big Don (Sep 17, 2009)

MA-Caver said:


> Is it okay to post pictures like this concerning 9/11 ?


OK? It damned well ought to be required.


----------



## Sukerkin (Sep 17, 2009)

You're missing the point that some of us are trying to make, *CC*. A memorial is an entirely different thing to a museum. 

You have to remember that Curator used to be my profession (it's what my Masters is in) and that for a museum to actually have the right to the name then it has to interpret the evidence and present same in a fashion as unbiased and factual as it can be.  If you like, museums function as a 'court of law' or 'peer-review panel' for the past

If people want a memorial and not a museum at the place where the World Trade Centre once stood, I can perfectly understand and agree with that perspective. Indeed, I think until more time has passed that may well be the preferable option. Place the museum that interprets and presents the events elsewhere for now, in a place where people visiting it are not doing so solely for the purposes of grieving or paying their respects.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Sep 17, 2009)

grydth said:


> No...... the proper spelling of the President* of Iran is: Allmadjihad.


 

*ahem* I be-LIEVE it's pro-NOUNCED...."Iwannajihad."


----------



## grydth (Sep 17, 2009)

It is actually pronounced:  " hit-ler "


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Sep 18, 2009)

Nolerama said:


> I think showing an objective (or as objective as you can get) account on the theories of why the terrorists in the 9-11 attacks did what they did would help enlighten visitors' global view.
> 
> Yes, I think a memorial is necessary for Americans to heal. But when it comes to a museum, I think all sides should be investigated *in an attempt to decrease hatred* and start healing. I think that itself is worth the media flak.


 
Sometimes, hatred of things can be a good thing...


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Sep 18, 2009)

MA-Caver said:


> ... not that anyone NEEDS to die (except 100% for sure guilty murderers,child molesters, rapists and terrorists).


 

Interesting.  

And how would you define murder or terrorism?  Are not the Iraqis fighting against the U.S. in Iraq _Freedom Fighthers_, not terrorists.  We typically define what the 9/11 hijackers did as murder and terrorism, but they do not.  Isn't this a culture based assumption?  But yet, you are asking us to take their perspective, ie. culture, into account here.

And, isn't 100% a high standard.  If we continue with our system of justice, how could any _impartial juror_ be sure that the evidence presented will be taken 100% in correct context, or that he is given 100% of the information.  The only way to be 100% sure is to witness the act for oneself, but then, you would never be on that jury.

Just some food for thought....


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 18, 2009)

Maybe we all should take a print copy of this thread to the Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington DC and compare...


----------



## Archangel M (Sep 18, 2009)

The Holocaust Museum isnt in the middle of Auschwitz.


----------



## Carol (Sep 18, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> The Holocaust Museum isnt in the middle of Auschwitz.



Good point.  I don't think the concentration camps do much to show the perspective of the Nazis.    In fact the sign at Dachau seems to make the point quite readily:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/30/Dachau_never_again.jpg


----------



## MA-Caver (Sep 18, 2009)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> Interesting.
> 
> And how would you define murder or terrorism?  Are not the Iraqis fighting against the U.S. in Iraq _Freedom Fighthers_, not terrorists.  We typically define what the 9/11 hijackers did as murder and terrorism, but they do not.  Isn't this a culture based assumption?  But yet, you are asking us to take their perspective, ie. culture, into account here.
> 
> ...


They found severed heads in Jeffery Dahmler's fridge, and physical evidence of human remains all over his house ... how's THAT for 100%? They found dozens of bodies buried in J.W. Gacy's crawl space and back yard... how's THAT for 100%, etc. etc. 
True that a lot of DNA evidence has shown many to be innocent and so on... on those I won't argue (too much). And it's a different topic/thread altogether. 

Freedom Fighters... (quoting George Carlin: "If firefighters fight fires and crime fighters fight crime... what do _freedom_ fighters fight? They never mention that part of it do they??"
War and murder are simultaneously murder and not murder by definition. Deaths are involved two men pointing guns at one another with the intent to KILL one another is not murder or not the same murder as a man walking up to someone (usually unarmed) with a gun and killing them is murder. 
Yet this was generally defined as execution and not a murder.




What about Mai Lai... was that war, execution or murder? 





> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mai_Lai_Massacre
> The *My Lai Massacre* (Vietnamese: _th&#7843;m sát M&#7929; Lai_ [m&#464;&#704; l&#592;&#720;j]; English pronunciation: /&#716;ma&#618;&#712;le&#618;, &#716;ma&#618;&#712;la&#618;/  (
> 
> listen),[1] Vietnamese: [m&#464;&#704;la&#720;j]) was the mass murder conducted by a unit of the U.S. Army on March 16, 1968 of 347 to 504 unarmed citizens in South Vietnam, all of whom were civilians and a majority of whom were women, children, and elderly people.
> ...


 _(red bold and underlined are mine)

_So was this murder? Is this something that should be posted in the papers? Because it was... (related to another thread)... yet this photo and others are part of several memorials and museums I've been to. 

So giving the hijackers perspective shouldn't be done IMO... not at a memorial where we gather to remember the fallen. 
At a museum yeah show all sides and let the viewer decide for themselves based on their own personal values, morals and character. 

Thanks to Mark for giving that defining difference. :asian:


----------



## celtic_crippler (Sep 18, 2009)

Sukerkin said:


> You're missing the point that some of us are trying to make, *CC*. A memorial is an entirely different thing to a museum.
> 
> You have to remember that Curator used to be my profession (it's what my Masters is in) and that for a museum to actually have the right to the name then it has to interpret the evidence and present same in a fashion as unbiased and factual as it can be. If you like, museums function as a 'court of law' or 'peer-review panel' for the past
> 
> If people want a memorial and not a museum at the place where the World Trade Centre once stood, I can perfectly understand and agree with that perspective. Indeed, I think until more time has passed that may well be the preferable option. Place the museum that interprets and presents the events elsewhere for now, in a place where people visiting it are not doing so solely for the purposes of grieving or paying their respects.


 
Am I? 

What gave you that idea?


----------



## Big Don (Sep 18, 2009)

MA-Caver said:


> 347 to 504 unarmed citizens in South Vietnam, all of whom were civilians and a majority of whom were women, children, and elderly people.


347 to 504? That is as exact a number as they can get? If that is as exact as it gets, we don't have the whole story...


----------



## MA-Caver (Sep 18, 2009)

Big Don said:


> 347 to 504? That is as exact a number as they can get? If that is as exact as it gets, we don't have the whole story...


True... but concerning THAT war... with so many lies and deceits around it (including the one that started the whole damn thing -- Gulf Of Tonkin Incident) who knows what all happened. Yet the picture tells the story. Or is that a lie as well? Perhaps it was the Vietcong that slaughtered the village and the U.S. troops got the blame?
It could be said that the U.S. government orchestrated the attacks on 9/11 and the 19 Arabs who are known now as the alleged hijackers got the blame? 
Where is the truth?
WHAT is the truth?


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 18, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> The Holocaust Museum isnt in the middle of Auschwitz.



Actually, they have holocaust museum there, too...


----------



## Archangel M (Sep 18, 2009)

Suks professional experience aside. I have been to many Civil War Museums and they show relics from the battlefield. Maps. Displays of munitions and equipment. Letters from the soldiers etc. They never really take a political stance for or against the North or the South. They are Battlefied Museums, not "The Civil War Museum".

I have seen photos of the Auschwitz Museum,and I have been to the DC Holocaust Museum. I looks to me that the Auschwitz Museum is a museum about "Auschwitz". They have displays about the camp. Gas Canisters, photographs, clothing, etc. The Holocaust Museum is about the Holocaust.


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 19, 2009)

Like I said before, I think one of our MT comrades needs to take a look at this exhibit and let us know what it's all about.  Media sensationalism aside leaves us with about nothing in which to form a real opinion.  Any volunteers from New York?


----------



## Sukerkin (Sep 19, 2009)

Very true, *Mauna*, we are talking about something none of us has seen.  It's the very idea of it that offends some people tho, or at least the siting of something other than a memorial where the WTC used to stand.

The plans seem to be for a surface memorial and an underground museum - have I understood that correctly?  If it is set out in that way then it may well be able to serve both purposes and do so without offending those who come, as I phrased it earlier, to grieve and show their respects.


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (Sep 21, 2009)

David43515 said:


> Personally I don`t think it`s a bad idea. It may be in bad taste, but that`s a different topic.
> 
> Jewish groups don`t hide the images of the Holocust, so we never forget how twisted and wrong the minds of those invloved were. We don`t hide images of the lynchings and beatings that the American Civil Rights movment had to put up with. It can`t be an abosolutely horrible idea to hold these cockroaches up to the light and be able to point to them and say "This is what a twisted mind looks like. Don`t ever let someone tell you that this kind of thing is right or noble."


 
I like the statement made by providing the terrorists perspective. It would include them saying stuff like "We were repressed by Imperialists", and "our religion demands it of us that we do this thing to the glory of our dieties"...which would prove a point more lucidly than any other thing could at the site: That people do some insane s&#t and hold some insane grudges, causing them to feel justified in committing heinous acts of mass murder for really stupid reasons.

So...some guy is walking along, thinking, "Surely...for a "terrorist" to do this, the Americans must have been running a secret holocaust of sorts against these poor victimized people, and the only way for them to seek justice or call attention to their cause was by committing this hideous act of mass destruction". They wander on a bit more, expecting to see where we have lined up tons of Saudi citizens and gassed them with Zyklon B. But their wandering bring them instead to a wall of pictures and words that say, effectively, "My blatantly stupid and patently ridiculous religious sensibilities caused me not to celebrate god-given life, but end it...cuz I'm a dumba**, unable to think for myself, unable to critically evaluate the slop someone else is feeding to me about the Glory of our God and the Evils of those other people 'over there', so -- as an idiot among idiots, I choose to do this stupid thing."

Said tourist stops wondering about the massive graves of slaughtered genocidal victims and obvious death squads of American forces that must surley be wandering the Middle East, slaying indiscriminately on Saudi soil in order to raise such ire, and gets a sense of these martyrs for what they really were -- functionally retarded and spiritually insane murderers.

So...go ahead and wander through the museum wondering, "My god...who would ever consider doing such a thing, and why?", then bump into that display. And realize that modern humanity is not as modern as all that. And that the enemy we are fighting is not a reasoned man coming from a reasoned decision to fight a reasoned war based on reasonable circumstances. But a religious nutjob kook who must be eliminated and taken out like the morning trash, before they get this kind of momentum going again.

Then make sure you vote for people who insist we get out of there before the job is done, so the nutballs have a chance to reorganize around doing it some more. Cuz we need more monuments to thousands of dead Americans, yeah?


----------



## celtic_crippler (Sep 21, 2009)

Upon further thought...

I think it's nonsense to provide any legitimacy to the motives of the hijackers and their terrorist act, be it in a museum or a memorial. 

The only thing that should be said of thier perspective was that it was evil, warped, and malicious and that we should do what we can to prevent future attacks.


----------



## CanuckMA (Sep 21, 2009)

celtic_crippler said:


> Upon further thought...
> 
> I think it's nonsense to provide any legitimacy to the motives of the hijackers and their terrorist act, be it in a museum or a memorial.
> 
> The only thing that should be said of thier perspective was that it was evil, warped, and malicious and that we should do what we can to prevent future attacks.


 
It has no place in a memorial.

But in a museum, yes. We may not agree with their reasons, but to simply dismiss their acts has disconnected evil is to condemn ourselves to repeat whatever they perceive as being wrong.


----------



## Big Don (Sep 21, 2009)

CanuckMA said:


> It has no place in a memorial.
> 
> But in a museum, yes. We may not agree with their reasons, but to simply dismiss their acts has disconnected evil is to condemn ourselves to repeat whatever they perceive as being wrong.



NO.

We do NOT need to understand the ins and outs of the murdering terrorist bastards to know terrorism is evil, that hijacking planes and flying them into buildings is bad.


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (Sep 21, 2009)

Big Don said:


> NO.
> 
> We do NOT need to understand the ins and outs of the murdering terrorist bastards to know terrorism is evil, that hijacking planes and flying them into buildings is bad.


 
We do not need to know them. But we can represent them in contrast so people can see the idiocy of them.


----------



## Big Don (Sep 21, 2009)

Kembudo-Kai Kempoka said:


> We do not need to know them. But we can represent them in contrast so people can see the idiocy of them.


We can do that without their viewpoints.


----------



## CanuckMA (Sep 21, 2009)

Big Don said:


> NO.
> 
> We do NOT need to understand the ins and outs of the murdering terrorist bastards to know terrorism is evil, that hijacking planes and flying them into buildings is bad.


 
If you don't understand their tinking and rationale, you'll never be able to stamp out terrorism.


----------



## Big Don (Sep 21, 2009)

CanuckMA said:


> If you don't understand their tinking and rationale, you'll never be able to stamp out terrorism.


There is a term for that, but, we aren't allowed to use it here, it refers to the feces of domesticated male bovines.


----------



## Archangel M (Sep 22, 2009)

Like we have been able to "stamp out crime"??


----------



## Tez3 (Sep 22, 2009)

CanuckMA said:


> If you don't understand their tinking and rationale, you'll never be able to stamp out terrorism.


 
This is correct because if you don't know your enemy how will you defeat him? You might as well fight thin air.


----------



## yorkshirelad (Sep 22, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> Like we have been able to "stamp out crime"??


Museum or memorial, we don't need the perspective of these backward bastards. All I want to see of these idiots is a photograph of Bin Laden's head held in the air by a smiling government employee with the caption "Game of soccer anyone?" underneath it. That's it.


----------



## Big Don (Sep 22, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> This is correct because if you don't know your enemy how will you defeat him? You might as well fight thin air.


Are you a thief or a murderer? 
Of course not, but, do you need to know what their thought processes are to know stealing and murdering is wrong? 
Of course not.


----------



## Tez3 (Sep 22, 2009)

Big Don said:


> Are you a thief or a murderer?
> Of course not, but, do you need to know what their thought processes are to know stealing and murdering is wrong?
> Of course not.


 

Wrong perspective, I need to know what their thought processes are to *catch* them. No point in me looking for them in the wrong places, I need to know them to find them.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Sep 22, 2009)

Big Don said:


> Contrary to popular opinion, all views are NOT equally valid.
> Should they, then, also include a section for TRUTHERS?



Imo, yes.
Whether truthers are right or wrong, the fact is that they exist. There is a large group of persons who organize events, protests, etc. For better or worse, they are part of the 911 story.

By listing their ideas and their arguments, people can make up their own mind about them and whether it is believable. Truthers like nothing more than to be denied. It gives them even more punch.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Sep 22, 2009)

Big Don said:


> NO.
> We do NOT need to understand the ins and outs of the murdering terrorist bastards to know terrorism is evil, that hijacking planes and flying them into buildings is bad.



Keep in mind that I am not making excuses here. 911 was an atrocity committed by a group of very bad people.
Terrorism should be dealt with decisively. I agree. Whenever people want to hide other sides of the story, it is because they either know or are afraid that their side of the story is not hunky dory either. Understanding can be the difference between fighting an endless war, and finding a way out.

Part of the reason that the middle east has no shortage in terrorists is that there is a breeding ground of hatred towards the US. We can all dismiss it, but without that, it would be much harder for terrorists to find people willing to die for the cause. It would be far more difficult to find people to strap bombs to their body and get on a bus, or fly a plane into a building.

The US has a long history of disrupting foreign governments whenever it suited their needs. How do you think those people like that? The fundie regime in Iran is there because the US put it there. Saddam rose to power because the US put him there. At one time, Iran and Iraq were fighting each other, both with US support. Think about it: how would you feel towards the US if you were from around those areas, and part of your family got killed because it suited the US. Would you simply go about your life and say 'ah well, that's life' or would you take any chance you get to hit back at the US? Or maybe you would not go that for, but you'd be perfectly willing to turn a blind eye and deliver a container in the docks, or take a package from A to B.

Changing foreign policy is not going to change things right now.
But maybe future generations of hatred can be prevented. From that point of view, it is crucial to understand where terrorism is coming from, even though it doesn't change anything about the events themselves are what you are doing to prevent others.


----------



## jim777 (Sep 23, 2009)

Just my opinion, butI wouldn't like to see a memorial/museum WITHOUT the thoughts and mindsets of the perpetrators. I think everyone should be able to see their words, hear their thoughts and know what was going through their minds when they justified killing thousands of people. Everyone should know what drove them, and what they wanted to accomplish, and it shouldn't be whitewashed over.

And it isn't too soon for that (also IMHO); that's nonsense. I was at my desk in 5WTC discussing with my peers the site wide powerdowns and back up generator tests scheduled for October when the first plane hit, and I'm telling you it isn't too soon to discuss motives here. If it's too soon for something, its the graphic videos of people jumping from the upper floors because the agonizing choice they had for their last 3 minutes on Earth was jump or burn to death. Lots of people jumped, lots. It's too soon for pics of the carnage on the ground before the 2nd plane hit, which still wakes me up at night, once in the last week in fact. But it's not too soon to read quotes from some idiot proudly saying some omniscient omnipotent superhero was going to give him virgins if he punished the Great Satan. People need to know why, not just what or how. People should know what drove them to this, and their own words is the best source of that understanding.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Sep 23, 2009)

Yes...dear-hearts...it's true...

We need to open our minds and hearts to the motivations of these poor misguided creatures...

We must accept our roles in perpertrating the see-ins of nine-eleven. 

How else shall we be fruitful in our seeking of understainding of our brothers and sisters in the Middle East? For are we not all children of Mother Earth? 

We must keep our arms open to embrace their hate of us and turn it into love! 

Until the day comes when we encircle the entire globe holding hands in a great human chain of peace, love, and understanding singing Cume-Ba-Ya so loud the heavens shake! 











:bs:


----------



## Tez3 (Sep 23, 2009)

celtic_crippler said:


> Yes...dear-hearts...it's true...
> 
> We need to open our minds and hearts to the motivations of these poor misguided creatures...
> 
> ...


 

I think you have misunderstood just about what everyone was saying here. No one has expressed any sympathy for the terrorists whatsoever.

When you are out hunting game do you take a penknife out into any forest you come across in the hope of killing something or do you study your prey, learn it's habits, where its den is, what it eats etc so you know where to find it, what weapon to use and have a successful hunt? We need to understand the terrorists or else how do we defeat them. Understanding isn't the same as sympathising. The police don't just hang around street corners waiting to catch drug dealers, they use intelligence and knowledge, understanding how the dealers work so they can catch them. 
We can't stick our heads in the sand and hope these people go away.

_It is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if you do not know your enemies but do know yourself, you will win one and lose one; if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle_*.* 

The Art of War. Sun Tzu


----------



## celtic_crippler (Sep 23, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> I think you have misunderstood just about what everyone was saying here. No one has expressed any sympathy for the terrorists whatsoever.
> 
> When you are out hunting game do you take a penknife out into any forest you come across in the hope of killing something or do you study your prey, learn it's habits, where its den is, what it eats etc so you know where to find it, what weapon to use and have a successful hunt? We need to understand the terrorists or else how do we defeat them. Understanding isn't the same as sympathising. The police don't just hang around street corners waiting to catch drug dealers, they use intelligence and knowledge, understanding how the dealers work so they can catch them.
> We can't stick our heads in the sand and hope these people go away.
> ...


 
So.... you're expecting the average Joe and his family visiting the memorial to view this exhibit on "Inside the minds of the hijackers" and hope or even expect that they will have some sort of epiphany that leads to the ultimate destruction of terrorists? 

I doubt that very much, I must say I'm a doubter.


----------



## CanuckMA (Sep 23, 2009)

No, but there is more to their thinking than the old tired 'They hate us because we're free'. 

Trust me, I'm the last person here to sympatize with the terrorists, but the West is not scott-free in creating the problem. 

Something much deeper than 'they're free' has to motivate one to strap explosives on their chest and detonate it. And until the West gets it, We're going to keep foing the same f'ing thing over and over again. Or do you think Iraq is making us a crapload of friends over there?


----------



## celtic_crippler (Sep 23, 2009)

CanuckMA said:


> No, but there is more to their thinking than the old tired 'They hate us because we're free'.
> 
> Trust me, I'm the last person here to sympatize with the terrorists, but the West is not scott-free in creating the problem.
> 
> Something much deeper than 'they're free' has to motivate one to strap explosives on their chest and detonate it. And until the West gets it, We're going to keep foing the same f'ing thing over and over again. Or do you think Iraq is making us a crapload of friends over there?


 
...k...

So how about the average-Joe-epiphany thing?

I've yet to see how this pertains to a memorial? 

Not saying these aren't valid points nor am I disagreeing that studying the motivations of one's enemies is important to obtaining victory. 

How does expressing the extremist views of Islamic nut-jobs add anything to a memorial dedicated to those that died and/or suffered because of said Islamic nut-job's actions?


----------



## Tez3 (Sep 24, 2009)

I think was accepted on here that a memorial was just that but a museum is where anything about the terrorists would or ought to go.

I find it quite depressing that 'the average joe' is thought so little of, are you telling me the average American is that thick that a visit to a musuem wouldn't be understood because I don't believe you.

I hate that whole 'I understand it but the average man on the street won't so we'll dumb it down' thing. 

What I'm expecting is a basic understanding by the general public of why our soldiers are being killed and maimed and why as Canuck explained, they hate us.


----------



## jim777 (Sep 24, 2009)

celtic_crippler said:


> Yes...dear-hearts...it's true...
> 
> We need to open our minds and hearts to the motivations of these poor misguided creatures...


 
Is this directed at me? I didn't say anything remotely like these scumbags were poor misguided creatures.


----------



## CanuckMA (Sep 24, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> I think was accepted on here that a memorial was just that but a museum is where anything about the terrorists would or ought to go.
> 
> I find it quite depressing that 'the average joe' is thought so little of, are you telling me the average American is that thick that a visit to a musuem wouldn't be understood because I don't believe you.
> 
> ...


 
But Joe-public has been fed a constant diet of the they hate our freedom line. At some point, they believe it.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Sep 24, 2009)

CanuckMA said:


> Only one thing to say.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So you aren't the least bit curious as to why a thing such as this occured?
Sean


----------



## Touch Of Death (Sep 24, 2009)

celtic_crippler said:


> I appreciate the educational aspect but feel it would be in extremely bad taste considering the location and purpose of the "museum" as primarily being a memorial.
> 
> Save the "terrorist" perspectives and motivations for History Class discussion.


So then its just meant to drum up hate for the Muslims. Sounds like we should scrap the whole idea. 
Sean


----------



## Touch Of Death (Sep 24, 2009)

celtic_crippler said:


> Perhaps the WWII memorial should have a section portraying the Nazi point of view and perspective that they were the master race and everybody else should be shoved into an easy-bake oven?
> 
> I just don't think a memorial, especially one that is built at ground zero, should contain items like that.
> 
> ...


Actually, I think we all understand by now what the mentality was behind the "Final Solution".
Sean


----------



## Touch Of Death (Sep 24, 2009)

celtic_crippler said:


> Upon further thought...
> 
> I think it's nonsense to provide any legitimacy to the motives of the hijackers and their terrorist act, be it in a museum or a memorial.
> 
> The only thing that should be said of thier perspective was that it was evil, warped, and malicious and that we should do what we can to prevent future attacks.


 How are we going to prevent future attacks if we don't bother to understand the enemy and their motivations?
Sean


----------



## Touch Of Death (Sep 24, 2009)

Big Don said:


> We can do that without their viewpoints.


 Thats not true. We should at least attempt to predict what will happen given any political move. At least one guy should know what is going on.
Sean


----------



## celtic_crippler (Sep 24, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> I think was accepted on here that a memorial was just that but a museum is where anything about the terrorists would or ought to go.


 
I'm all for a "Why the Terrorists are Nut-Jobs" wing in a museum. 



Tez3 said:


> I find it quite depressing that 'the average joe' is thought so little of, are you telling me the average American is that thick that a visit to a musuem wouldn't be understood because I don't believe you.
> 
> I hate that whole 'I understand it but the average man on the street won't so we'll dumb it down' thing.
> 
> What I'm expecting is a basic understanding by the general public of why our soldiers are being killed and maimed and why as Canuck explained, they hate us.


 
Nice twisting of my words. 

My post was obviously a dis on the low-brow citizenry.  ...obviously. 

It had nothing to do with your assertion that it was necessary for everyone to be exposed to the hijacker's persepctive in order to effectively erradicate terrorism? That you somehow expect every citizen to see this display and suddenly go :duh: -"holy crap! That's it! I have the answer to ending world terrorism!"

We got a pretty good idea why they hate us. History is rife with reasons and examples. 

And...at the risk of sounding rude... it's obvious as to why our soldiers are being maimed and killed. We're at war.   



Touch Of Death said:


> So then its just meant to drum up hate for the Muslims. Sounds like we should scrap the whole idea.
> Sean


 
I have no idea how your retort remotely pertains the the post. :idunno:



Touch Of Death said:


> How are we going to prevent future attacks if we don't bother to understand the enemy and their motivations?
> Sean


 
RTFM


----------



## Touch Of Death (Sep 24, 2009)

celtic_crippler said:


> RTFM


I choose not to know what that means. You are right ignorance is so freeing.
sean


----------



## Live True (Sep 24, 2009)

In the end, I think it's as much about presentation as anything.

I for one, do think that having thier words in a museum, possibly in a memorial, is appropriate.

Here's why:
It's not to help folks sympathize with them.
It's not so we can get touchy feely with our inner child.
It's so we can try to understand the situation as a whole.
    It's not as simple as "they hate us", or "we're free" because they 
    don't hate us as individuals and many of the folks that go and train
    at these camps are coming from "free" countries.  
It's so we can understand that the motivation is partly ideology, and it's partly training and indoctrination...
     and....here's the ironic part...

That training/indoctrination is done by fostering a superficial, hatred-based, misinformed or partly informed, religiously justified or ideology justified mentality.

So, do we become our attackers by encouraging partial truths to comfort us? Or do we become the people we are supposed to be (joe average is not some dumb schmuck unless you encourage him to always be so)?

As for presentation....I would NOT, be it museum or memorial, place the attackers words front and center and glorify it. however, I think it's completely appropriate to have it as part of the presentation. It doesn't have to be flashy or large, but it should be there.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Sep 24, 2009)

Touch Of Death said:


> I choose not to know what that means. You are right ignorance is so freeing.
> sean


 
It means, or rather suggests, that it's a good idea to read everything if you intend to post an relevant retort.  

Let me know how that freedom works out for you. 



Live True said:


> In the end, I think it's as much about presentation as anything.


 
I'll grant you that to a certain extent...



Live True said:


> I for one, do think that having thier words in a museum, possibly in a memorial, is appropriate.


 
Museum, I agree. Memorial, I disagree. 

The bottom line is a memorial is something intended to celebrate or honor the memory of a person or event. Now if you feel it does not _dishonor_ the memory of those who died to share a 9/11 memorial with terrorist propoganda, then I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. You won't convince me otherwise. 



Live True said:


> Here's why:
> It's not to help folks sympathize with them.
> It's not so we can get touchy feely with our inner child.
> It's so we can try to understand the situation as a whole.
> ...


 
From an educational standpoint I don't have a problem attempting to understand their motivations. I actually do, as I've picked up a History book once or twice... 

I just think a Memorial is an inappropriate place. 



Live True said:


> So, do we become our attackers by encouraging partial truths to comfort us? Or do we become the people we are supposed to be (joe average is not some dumb schmuck unless you encourage him to always be so)?


 
What "partial truths" are you referring to? 

The "people we're supposed to be"? I don't suppose you'd like to supply the rest of us with that memo so we'll all know what that is? Seriously, post that would you? 

Perhaps Joe-Average knows that a museum is a building, place, or institution devoted to the acquisition, conservation, study, exhibition, and *educational interpretation* of objects having scientific, *historical*, or artistic value and is a more appropriate place for this than a memorial. 




Live True said:


> As for presentation....I would NOT, be it museum or memorial, place the attackers words front and center and glorify it. however, I think it's completely appropriate to have it as part of the presentation. It doesn't have to be flashy or large, but it should be there.


 
I vote for neon signage. 

And there should be a gift shop too...where you can buy replica box cutters.


----------



## Live True (Sep 24, 2009)

CC, disagreement is fine with me. I'm not trying to bring anyone to my side as much as point out my own thoughts.  I am NOT trying to lead you to the dark side (cue heavy breathing).

As to your question about dishonoring the memory of those who died by sharing terrorist propoganda....that's not quite how I see it nor is it my intent...I can see how that would be an easy viewpoint...so let me try to explain my point....I can only put it in terms of my personal experience, which does not...in *ANY WAY OR STRETCH of the imagina*tion compare with the tragedy of the survivors of 9/11...it's like comparing gnats to pteradactyls (sp?).  so please keep that in mind.

When I lost my mother to a drunk driving accident at a very young age, I spent a lot of time being angry and a bit irrational to the concept of seatbelts (it was a rare case of contributing to her injuries and death), drinking/driving, redneck *******s, and a number of other random things.  Later, as part of the healing and moving on process, I wanted to know more about what happened and why..what was that stupid !@#$%thinking?  Turns out he killed two people in his own car as well, and committed suicide a few months later out of guilt/remorse/whatever....did I forgive him? eventually. Does that mean what he did was right and forgotten? HELL NO!  Did that mean I wanted to weep over his grave? ARE YOU FRIGGIN INSANE?!?!  But, understanding the bigger picture was part of my healing process and allowing me to move on.  

Is that everyone's process...no, i'm sure it's not. And I'm not saying it should be.  But I think that should be an available option for those who may want or need that as part of THIER process.  Again....present and part of the display doesn't mean a significant and glorified part of it.

And I'll grant you that seeking out that information was my choice, and after some time has passed.  Perhaps, as I think MA CAver stated, it has not been long enough. Perhaps, as has also been stated, on the site of the towers is not the best place. But I think at 8 years and counting, we should consider it.  I also think that the site of this tragedy may be the best place for something like this.  Again, it's all in the presentation.

I think it makes sense to offer it as an optional part of the display, especially as it was my understanding this was a museum as well as a memorial...no one has actually confirmed it's meant to be one or the other or both.  The OP title states museum.  When I went to the Holocaust museum in DC, there was a cattle car that was used to transport Jews to the camps.  It was to the side of one of the rooms, and placed in a way you could walk around it, or through it....it was very distressing for some, so it was...optional....again, it's the presentation.  Make it a part of the museum, but make it optional and tasteful...not glorified...being part of the exhibit does not imply agreement or "right-ness" for lack of a better word.

As of the "people we're supposed to be"...ok..I think that was a bit presumptious and obnoxious.  What I MEANT was do we take the easy comforting partial truths or do we look at the full picture and THEN make up our own minds based on facts...not bits and pieces that fit what we want to think.

NOW, keep in mind, I don't think that's going to mean we'll all agree on the motivations, events, etc.....and I would be upset if that were the case...I jsut prefer arguments to be based on facts as well as emotions and beliefs...not just cherry picked items that fit our already established beliefs....if you come to the same conclusions after examination of all the facts, even if you disagree with me...I'm good with that.


----------



## Gordon Nore (Sep 24, 2009)

CanuckMA said:


> No, but there is more to their thinking than the old tired 'They hate us because we're free'.



Thank you.

Gosh almighty. When the former president that bit of maudlin reasoning, I shook my head several times to make sure I heard what I thought I heard.

A museum exhibit is not a newspaper. You don't read it and trash it. A museum exhibit is a broad multi-dimensional document that should stand for a number of years. Picture this exhibit, fifty years on when most of us here are dead, and there are very few people walking around who witnessed 9/11 on television or in person as adults.

Add to this scenario a little plaque that says, "They hate because we're free."

Museum curators, to be sure, have an obligation to be respectful of the dead; however, they also have an obligation to sustain history -- all of it -- and nurture the intellect.


----------



## Shotgun Buddha (Oct 9, 2009)

Just from an outsider point of view here, having a museum at the site of what occured is something that makes sense and has occured in other places around the world. The Documentary Centre in Nuremberg is one of the better examples I know of this, its bulit beside the Zeppelin fields that were used as Nazi rally grounds. Inside the centre is a full and thorough breakdown of how the Nazi's rose to power, process of the Holocaust and the events that transpired within Germany. 
The information contained there, and the understanding of it is in many ways vital to preventing anything of that nature occuring again.

However:
this centre wasn't built until 1994 when it was possible to gather and present this without it tearing open wounds that hadn't healed.
Building a museum now to 9/11 at Ground Zero, it would be impossible to show the information in a way that doesn't hurt more than it helps quite frankly.
A memorial yes. But as I think this thread has shown, its far too soon for many people to want to examine it in that light. Its just throwing salt on the wounds.


----------

