You don’t need a protractor to think that a crescent and tower are inappropriate symbols for a 9/11 memorial.

The intentions of the designers are irrelevant. When a memorial is, by definition, an exercise in symbolism, it seems rather perverse to insist on denying that there are symbolic implications in the choice at issue here.

jihadwatcher on August 20, 2007 at 8:35 PM

In all fairness, that was me, not the big A.

doriangrey on August 20, 2007 at 6:00 PM

well done. 147 here.

Einstein died still trying to find the theory of everything, of God. IMO he trumps even Newton, but they both are believers.

Even with preview I’m a moron.

Give me some evidence of intent, then.

I can’t give this evidence. But I can provide my own experience.

I went out to Shanksville for the unveiling of the second design. It’s about 90 minutes from my home.

They had poster after poster of information, personnel on hand, and a 3D model of the proposed site. It was a real production like you would see at a trade show. Not the usual small town presentation.

The 3D model disturbed me. The crescent was still there, but they had the surrounding foliage colored in fall colors. Mostly red with some bright orange and yellow. They camouflaged the red crescent to make it more palatable.

Also, one of the people stationed there was not very complimentary to Eric Rowles. I don’t remember what she said but it looked to me like they stacked the deck.

I posted my comments and left before I acted completely out of character – I was close to splitting my shirt and turning green.

I still have the digital photos around here somewhere.

For them to use that particular shape is not nessecarily a conspiracy but, it does really lack common sense. Come on, it is the symbol of those who murdered the folks on not only that flight but thousands more on that dreaded day. Why would they not think people might be offended?

Something doesn’t smell right.

jihadwatcher on August 20, 2007 at 8:35 PM

Quick! Duck! The UN helicopters are approaching!

How can a person be cast out of their political views? Political views are not the property of some social club with a revokable membership. No one can take away your conservative political stripes, unless, of course, you are insinuating yourself, as others have, that you don’t really have conservative stripes, and this conservative blogging job is just a gig and you are just waiting to be “cast out”.

Something doesn’t smell right.

You literally can’t get an opinion in edgewise without the mob raining hellfire down on you akin to accusing you of committing treason.

Nonfactor on August 20, 2007 at 7:12 PM

Good points — and an example of why the Republicans seem bent on ensuring they don’t win the WH next year.

1. I think we ought to ratchet down the invective here. It’s an emotional issue, but we DO have a preview button now. Nobody here is being interviewed live on camera, in the heat of passion. Take a deep breath and think of ways to say what you mean without calling our host a prick, or telling people of faith they’re all knuckle-dragging retards who believe in sky gods. Let’s not turn this place into Daily Kos… there’s one too many of them already.

2. I suspect the original thinking behind the “Crescent of Embrace” was less a matter of sinister Wahhabist influence or weak-kneed dhimmitude, than a mushy multi-cultural sense that a crescent of love would represent some kind of universal atonement from the vast majority of peace-loving Muslims, a great big hug made of red trees. You know, the kind of expression that is conspicuously lacking from actual “moderate Muslims”. Along with the memorial stones for the hijackers, it was meant as an expression of overwhelming multicultural buy-the-world-a-Coke-and-teach-them-to-sing-in-perfect-harmony liberalism, not Islamist triumphalism or submission (although one could argue the latter will be the inevitable result of the designers’ philosophy, it’s not what they were shooting for.) I think the idea the Crescent shape was chosen in innocent ignorance is roughly as absurd as the idea it was dictated to the park service by agents of al-Qaeda.

3. Comparing those who perceive sinister motives behind the Crescent to Troofers was harsh and uncalled-for, although it did get the old comment pot boiling. I’d say this much for the analogy to Trutherism: the right cannot afford to sink its emotional and intellectual energy into an unwinnable battle over a memorial, that will make it seem as conspiracy-obsessed and deluded as the Left. Besides it being a bad idea on its face, it’s something the media will use to beat us like a drum. You may rest assured that the press will not cheerfully apply the soap and disinfectant to us that they’ve been slathering Kos with.

So zane and I are the only ones who think this is a tad overblown?

Oh well.

Allahpundit on August 20, 2007 at 11:39 AM

I agree it is a little overblown. Of course having me agree with someone is akin to them getting stuck next to the big fat stinky guy on a long bus trip with no A/C!

If a square had been associated with Genghis Khan, I daresay it would have little emotional impact today. We are, however, talking about current events and the association is today and not hundreds of years ago.

Take a look at the flag of the Arab League and the flags of its members. Look at a few other Islamic countries: here and here. The crescent is associated with Islam.