NSR - Someone explain this to me...[WTC memorial related]

Seriously, what is the beef with the "International Freedom Center" at the WTC site?

I've been to the website http://takebackthememorial.org/?page_id=46, I've read the op-ed that started it all http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110006791, and I just read a quick NYT summary of the IFC attempt to resolve the controversy. http://nytimes.com/2005/09/22/nyregi...rtner=homepage

What I don't get is the nature of the controversy. Can someone explain what people are upset about? I'm not looking to start a political fight, I just don't understand the nature of the complaint. As I understand it, these folks are grumpy that in addition to a memorial to the victims located in the WTC site there will also be an "International Freedom Center". This freedom center will display and address the history of freedom, focusing on instances where freedom has been attacked and oppressed, including 9-11. Instances like,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WSJ Op-Ed

...from Native American genocide to the lynchings and cross-burnings of the Jim Crow South, from the Third Reich's Final Solution to the Soviet gulags and beyond...

---

So in other words, this center will associate the victims of 9-11 with the victims of Nazis, Racism, Soviet Communism, and genocide. This apparently is a bad thing. I'm not too sure why though... would it be better if instead of lumping 9-11 in with some of the greatest horrors of modern history, we discounted the event and its victims as collateral damage in a socio-economic conflict? I really just don't quite get what would be preferred.
(And as bad as 9-11 was, the holocaust was worse. Putting the victims of 9-11 in the same category of "badness" should not be seen as disrespectful)

It is clear that the Op-Ed writer is quite the right-winger, and she devotes most of her column arguing that because left-wingers support the WTC memorial then it must be bad. But she provides little evidence for the "bad". The website claims that this "is not a political issue", but given the tone of the Op-Ed that started it all I kind of doubt that.
So can someone who either shares or does not share this perspective, just lay out for me the problem? Why can't one component of the WTC memorial (and remember, there is also the victims memorial as well) address other instances of attacks on freedom and liberty in other countries - thus tying 9-11 into a larger picture of assaults by against freedom by evil people?

I'm looking more for a factual answer, rather than an emotional one.
(IE - No "b/c republican's suck" or "it's obvious you stupid pinko!" sorts of arguments)

I don't think I can explain it to you in the necessarily 'factual' way you want, as I'm not sure that type of explanation is possible. My understanding of it is, and I've sort of inferred most of it from the little bit I've heard/read about it, is that some of the victims' families don't think that the memorial requires any larger explanation/memorial for suffering in unrelated events. Even if the place stuck narrowly to being a 'freedom center' (whatever the hell that means) I think some would still simply want a memorial to what happened there, without reference to other events.
To a degree, even though I think much of this is being overblown in the knee-jerk anti-PC media, I agree with the people who object to this (or at least have some sympathy for their argument). I even think it's different from a memorial to the holocaust, for example, at which such a 'freedom' exhibit might be more appropriate--you could argue that people who are killed because of who they are, systematically, should have their deaths placed in a larger context. But the people in the WTC were random victims of terrorism, and they weren't killed for having certain beliefs or their backgrounds.
There's a lot of controversy about everything that happens down there, and while I'm not really opposed to building the other exhibit, I would just as soon have it pass. Let the 9/11 memorial memorialize just that event--it should be enough.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Will

(And as bad as 9-11 was, the holocaust was worse. Putting the victims of 9-11 in the same category of "badness" should not be seen as disrespectful)

---

Not disrespectfull to the 9-11 victims... maybe disrespectfull to holocaust victims.

Of course if the Al Qaeda types had their way there would be another Final Solution.

It sounds to me like some people have their partisan blinders and tinted glasses on while wearing their tinfoil hats a bit too tightly...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dexter Rutecki

Let the 9/11 memorial memorialize just that event--it should be enough.

---

See, I can reasonably disagree with you on that.
"Just a Memorial to the victims" versus "Something with a larger context of terrorism, freedom, inhumanity etc.."

I have my reasons and you have yours and I'm sure we could discuss them for a while.

But man... these folks just seem so pissed off about it. And that's the bit that's got me confused.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dexter Rutecki

But the people in the WTC were random victims of terrorism, and they weren't killed for having certain beliefs or their backgrounds...

---

Most would disagree with you here, Dex, especially those responsible.

I only support a memorial if it will have a McDonalds that only serves freedom fries.

It'll be a sub-monument to the American way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Will

This freedom center will display and address the history of freedom, focusing on instances where freedom has been attacked and oppressed, including 9-11.

---

So the Patriot Act is going to be the main focus of this display? That's trippy.

We're losing our freedom to porn you fucks.

NEVER FORGET

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tippster

Most would disagree with you here, Dex, especially those responsible.

---

I will disagree right back at you. The people were killed because of the percieved beliefs of the USA through the heads of state. The people in the Towers were of every religious and cultural background. They were killed to send a message, not for who they were.

They worked in the tallest building in the very heart of capitalism and symbol of imperialism. They'd also tried previously to take those towers down. Ever think that maybe the people killed were less of a goal for Al Qaeda than the symbolism of the Twin Towers being destroyed?

You're right... what were they thinking

Herman Miller was in that building

NEVER FORGET AERON CHAIRS