My 15 y/o and I were just in Shanksville for the first time on Monday, 8/25/08. The temporary memorial is heartbreaking in its unpolished sincerity, and the NPS ranger did a fine job describing the events of 9/11. During her talk, she showed some sketches of the proposed design, and spoke of a few elements that would be symbolic. I don’t remember her mentioning or showing a crescent, and I wasn’t aware of the controversy until I Googled “Flight 93 memorial” for info.

Now I’m sick: a Red Crescent? As a former exchange student and a NYC teacher, I’ve spent more time with more Muslim people than most Americans have. Believe me, Muslims here and abroad will be delighted by the presence of a crescent, symbolism intended or not. Shouldn’t that matter to the Ueber-sophisticated advocates of this design? Shouldn’t those people remove their egos from this equation just a bit and use some common sense?

If other iconic shapes–a heart, an infinity symbol, a cross, a circle–were used for this memorial, the symbolism would be clear. The use of a crescent in this context is either ignorant, cynical or cowardly.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

MataHarley typed:

‘And obviously, the architects did not give a nanosecond of thought as to how their design might be viewed by Islamic jihad.’

The jury is out on that one. But as long as we’re speculating I’d wager your typical jihadist wouldn’t give this thing a nanosecond of thought.

We do know how the design is viewed by folks who see ‘Islamic jihad’ round every corner.

A small and very noisy number of people.

And actually Alec Rawls, the main force behind the opposition to the design has in fact decided the architect is a jihadist.

http://www.crescentofbetrayal.com/

Architect Paul Murdoch’s crescent design is only the beginning of the crescent of betrayal. Murdoch’s emergence is actually the easy part of the story to understand. We hosted an open design competition in time of war. Of course the enemy would enter, and try to win a memorial to their heroes instead of ours. What is harder to explain is the year and a half now that the Memorial Project has spent avoiding and then covering up Murdoch’s plot. Those charged with memorializing “the flight that fought back” have struggled mightily to defend and protect their hijacker.

She added:

‘But it comes down to this… a panel of 15 chose. The Families of Flight 93 are “united”… but only in their board member votes. The board members choses to be the mouthpiece for all, stating they are unanimous. But not all familes are thrilled either. And yes, the Burnett family is one of them.’

Right you are. And my experience having served on various boards is that most everyone declines the opportunity to participate at the outset and then a few who didn’t participate whine at the result.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Maybe people are finally tired of being shouted down and bossed around by the right-wing noise machine

wow, another lefting moonbat meme

Like or Dislike: 0  0

This whole thing strikes me as odd that so many resist these modifications when they are easy enough to remedy.

Maybe people are finally tired of being shouted down and bossed around by the right-wing noise machine.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Ah… “Dead Weight” weighs in with his usual value…

________________________________________

Arthur, the Stage I panel chose 5 designs. The final design came down to the Stage II panel of 15. Did they ever provide an aerial of the proposed memorial with the maples in full bloom so that it could easily be noted the similarities to the Red Crescent? I’m quite sure that the artist renderings made the walkway look beautiful at ground level. So one has to consider what was provided when they were soliciting feedback. Evidently, other than the name, the striking similarities of flora choice, orientation and aerial visual did not arise until these voices became vocal.

But it comes down to this… a panel of 15 chose. The Families of Flight 93 are “united”… but only in their board member votes. The board members choses to be the mouthpiece for all, stating they are unanimous. But not all familes are thrilled either. And yes, the Burnett family is one of them.

I don’t think the primary architect is some stealth Islamist attempting an under the table coup for terrorist. But I do think there are some judgments that should be questioned. The 44 translucent boxes for each death, for example… which includes the terrorists. Even the original name, the “crescent of embrace”… which is now probably changed to the “circle of embrace” with the newer modifications…. is offensive.

Granted, the architects probably never thought one thing about it. But it’s not what they or American’s perceive as just coincidence. This is one memorial who’s design should not give the Islamic jihadists any sense of pleasure… or inclusion… in any way. And obviously, the architects did not give a nanosecond of thought as to how their design might be viewed by Islamic jihad.

This whole thing strikes me as odd that so many resist these modifications when they are easy enough to remedy.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

The “Crescent of Embrace” would be a slight against the Heroes aboard Flight 93 and their surviving family members.
It’s a freakin’ Islamic Crescent oriented in the direction of Mecca. There are probably hundreds of other designs that are less offensive. In its current form this THING honors the killers more than the Heroes. There has got to be other ideas and designs.
Gee, maybe with all this PC crap we should fix some other memorials to make them more PC. Maybe paint the Washington momument black so everyone will know he was a slave holder. Add a few Japanese soldiers to the Iwo Jima memorial, maybe shooting the flag raisers that actually didn’t make it back. Fly a Japanese rising sun flag from the USS Arizona to honor the Japanese pilots that lost their lives in WW2.
Makes about as much sense as a Muslim crescent oriented toward Mecca being used to “honor” brave men and women killed by Muslim fanatics.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Yes a 15-panel selection process is a “large number of parties”… not.

Hey, MHarpy: 1989 called. It wants its inane verbal trope back.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

MataHarley wrote:

‘On a side note, I’ve never read one thing of Rawls on this (other than this post, of course..). ‘

You really should. He has spearheaded the opposition to the memorial (such as it is) and has the ear of one victim’s parent. Rawls has the architect pegged as an ‘Islamo-Fascist’ presumably taking orders from some Mullah somewhere. Interesting for an architect working and teaching in Southern California for 20 years. How he found the time to become so accomplished at Islamic symbolism while designing all those convention centers and residences I can only guess. Presumably extension courses.

She added:

‘Again, you are of the mentality you’d fight for something “for the people” (if it was something you agreed with anyway), but you want to ignore “the people” on this one.’

Actually ‘the people’ spoke. As imperfect as these things can be there was a lengthy, open process. The results didn’t go the way a few wanted so they’re making noise. They haven’t been ‘ignored’. Their concerns have been noted and the project goes forward. That a victim’s parent or two has fallen under the sway of group hysteria is too bad.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Hardly ‘rammed down the throat of Americans’ but rather the result of a process involving a large number of parties working (families of victims, NPS, various funders, etc.) in a very transparent way concluding in a competition where the winning design was selected.

Yes a 15-panel selection process is a “large number of parties”… not. Perhaps, the most offensive was the selected name “Crescent of Embrace”. The architect was and is quite willing to modify this design so as to not give a misperception those that may consider a “crescent” a sign of success… as the terrorists would… some quiet self satisfaction.

Why, of course, go there when the families and the nation truly just want Flight 93 memorialized? What they want is something significant of it’s import. And considering it will be a national memorial… thereby something all of us pay for… why pick a design with a name and design so controversial.

Again, you are of the mentality you’d fight for something “for the people” (if it was something you agreed with anyway), but you want to ignore “the people” on this one. Again, a “crescent of embrace” is not the only design. The architect is willing to change it. The nation will pay for it. So why are you so damned against finding something that is “tolerant” to all since you’re so such a “tolerance for all” party member?

Or does that only work for stuff you personally agree with?

On a side note, I’ve never read one thing of Rawls on this (other than this post, of course..). This issue is pure logic to me. And frankly, it’s not one of my prime issues. So nice try as a slice a dice, bozo. But, when up against a preschooler mentality, I am apt to be more patient and tolerant of your asinine comments… when in the mood.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

I would settle for a simple statue of several people in civilian clothes with one shoulder down like they are getting ready to bust in a cockpit door … and on the pedestal the words “Let’s Roll”.

Like or Dislike: 0  0