Un-freakin-believable

[Don Corleone]

The International Herald Tribune has a rant, excuse me, and editorial, about the Freedom tower, which will be built on the site of the former twin towers.

No shot too cheap to take (http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/06/29/news/critic.php)

Essentially, the guy whines for 3 straight pages about how they considered safety and structural integrity in the design of the tower. He declares it to be an

an ideal symbol for an empire enthralled with its own power, and unaware that it is fading

Yes, Mr. Ouroussoff, you're absolutely correct. We should have made this one even easier to knock down. How dare we interfere with Al Queda's plans by making it bomb resistant. I mean, it's their right to knock it down. Who are we to interfere with them...

And you wonder why Americans are becoming distrustful of Europe. One of your leading newspapers runs an editorial saying 'shame on us' for wanting to build a safe building.

[Franconicus]

Hey Don,
There are to many idiots to quote them all. Don't you have some in the US as well. If not, we could send some from Europe ~:cheers:

[PanzerJaeger]

If this guy is in fact not an American, he needs to mind his own business. Its our city, its our money, if we want to erect a huge fist with the middle finger extended - its our own business.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

I hate to say it but I agree with much that he says. I really didnt like the original towers either.
He was doing ok until he got to here.


Absurdly, if the Freedom Tower were reduced by a dozen or so stories and renamed, it would probably no longer be considered such a prime target. Fortifying it, in a sense, is an act of deflection. It announces to terrorists: Don't attack here - we're ready for you. Go next door.


Although even here he is probably right. But that would also show we are afraid.

[Don Corleone]

Yes, there are idiots everywhere. You can find instances of people saying anything. But this transcends that. It shows a contempt, not just by the author, but by a major media outlet, and the society that funds it, for the United States. To me, it sounded like the IHT, which arguably, is fairly middle of the road for the UK, is deeply disappointed somebody won't be able to crash a plane into the Freedom Tower and knock it down too.

I'm not saying every European has out out for America. But I think you members of the .org are sadly naive about how deeply the animosity among your countrymen truly runs.

Yes, we have people who bash France. But you would never see the NY Times publish an editorial saying "Gee, it's a shame the Eiffel Tower isn't easier to knock down". And if they did, there would be a massive uproar HERE, let alone in France, because they would be deeply wrong to have done so.

So yeah, maybe this is where we as socities part ways. Go ahead and fantasize in your newspapers about people committing more terrorist acts against us. Whine about how it isn't as easy as it used to be. Just don't insult our intelligence and claim we're all on the same side.

[Ser Clegane]

And you wonder why Americans are becoming distrustful of Europe. One of your leading newspapers runs an editorial saying 'shame on us' for wanting to build a safe building.

Uhm ... pardon me, but Nicolai Ouroussof is the New York Times architecture critic and the IHT is also fully owned by the NYT.

I wonder indeed why this article would make you become distrustful of Europe ~:confused:

EDIT to add:
I think the article should be just seen as what it is. The opinion of an architecture critic who seems to express his dismay over the decision to favour (at least in his opinion) substance over style

[Don Corleone]

:embarassed: I apologize. Rant mode off.

I was unaware that Mr. Ouroussof worked for the NY Times, or that the IHT is owned by the NY Times. Looks like the people that want more terrorist activity are right here in the US with me.

This certainly gives me a warm fuzzy about my countrymen. :furious3:

[Al Khalifah]

Yes, we have people who bash France. But you would never see the NY Times publish an editorial saying "Gee, it's a shame the Eiffel Tower isn't easier to knock down". And if they did, there would be a massive uproar HERE, let alone in France, because they would be deeply wrong to have done so.
Its a problem in general with the newspapers in Britain that they seem to be far more of a vessel for personal opinions than a reliable source of information about current events.
To further this, the sensationalist nature of the British media means that the most popular (in terms of people's desire to read them) opinions tend to be the most extreme ones rather than the more intelligent and reasoned ones.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Yes, we have people who bash France. But you would never see the NY Times publish an editorial saying "Gee, it's a shame the Eiffel Tower isn't easier to knock down". And if they did, there would be a massive uproar HERE, let alone in France, because they would be deeply wrong to have done so.

Don I dont know how you got this from the article. He seems to me to be stating its a shame this place has to be designed like a bunker. Not that we should make it easier to knock down.

[The_Doctor]

I hate the fact that it is 1,776 ft tall. It is like they are rubbing the War of Indepence in our face. :furious3:

[Ironside]

I hate the fact that it is 1,776 ft tall. It is like they are rubbing the War of Indepence in our face. :furious3:

Use metric instead ~;)

[The_Doctor]

That would be 540 metres tall.

I suppose that is better.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/540

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Its also 592 yards. If you want to impress peeps you could always measure it in inches.

[The_Doctor]

If you want to impress peeps you could always measure it in inches.

LOL, my dirty mind found that funny.