Thursday, February 16, 2006

Update On The Flight 93 Memorial

See what Error Theory has to say here.

Update on the proposed memorial

From
this posting by Error Theory, an excerpt:
"...Interestingly, there expected announcement of final approval for the crescent design never came. Did our advance contact with reporters, who read our information and were doing advance interviews, scare the announcement off? Did the twenty minutes I spent explaining the design's terrorist-memorializing features to one of Interior's communications officers have some effect?..."
More information available here.

27 Comments:

At 2/16/2006 10:18 AM, Blogger Iran Watch said...

The Crescent of Embrace? Is Murdoch serious? Why isn't there more news coverage on this story? Isn't this more important than the Cheney timeline? I can't believe that anybody would seriously suggest this type of Memorial.

 
At 2/16/2006 3:23 PM, Blogger Cubed © said...

Iran watch,

Yeah, Murdoch is serious. There was enormous pressure the first time he publicized his design, and he took it back to "re-work" it. You can see just how different it is now in the "after" picture.

If the design isn't changed, it'll be time to pull out our chain saws and brush killer.

They--the Muslims and their sympathizers--are nothing, if not persistent.

This must be stopped.

 
At 2/16/2006 3:38 PM, Blogger Avi Green said...

I said on my blog two months ago that if Murdoch keeps trying to foist his filthy little trick upon the public, he should not be allowed to submit any designs at all, nor does he even deserve any customers. For heaven's sake, he should've been thrown out of the job the minute his dirty stint was publicized! There should be a lawsuit filed against him too, IMO.

 
At 2/16/2006 6:29 PM, Blogger American Crusader said...

Western apologist are going to far. I'm sure there aren't any family members that want any "embracing of Islam" to be included in this Memorial. Why don't they paint a crescent and star on the side of the Pentagon?

 
At 2/17/2006 6:33 PM, Blogger Mr. Beamish the Instablepundit said...

Why don't we put a Pepsi billboard on the side of the Kabaa?

 
At 2/17/2006 6:40 PM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

I've been to Shanksville, and what's there now is very moving. People visiting the site speak in hushed tones, and even the Dons Johns' graffiti is patriotic or religious.

Visiting Shanksville is quite an experience--very different from visiting the other 9/11 sites.

When Murdoch submitted the first design--a travesty--why was he recommissioned? He shouldn't have been!

Sure, we Americans like formal memorials, but a plainly American design is in order.

 
At 2/18/2006 6:29 AM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Error Theory may be attending this weekend's meetings on the memorial. Check his site in a few days, in case there are updates.

 
At 2/18/2006 7:57 AM, Blogger Bassizzzt said...

Pandering and apologetics strikes again. Let's all be friends, that, along with "Islam is a religion of peace" makes me want to go all out and go postal on these muslim motherfuckers.

 
At 2/18/2006 10:44 AM, Blogger Mr. Beamish the Instablepundit said...

Patience, Bassizzzt.

 
At 2/18/2006 12:13 PM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Beamish calling for patience? Have the earth's magnetic fields undergone a reversal? Hehehe.

 
At 2/18/2006 1:47 PM, Blogger LASunsett said...

I wonder just what part of NO, do they NOT unserstand.

 
At 2/18/2006 3:05 PM, Blogger Gindy said...

I am sickened by the fact that this is continuing. They pretended to change the memorial for the Islamic terrorist, but that was just as dishonest as them making it in the first place. What I don't understand is Norton approving it.

 
At 2/18/2006 11:39 PM, Blogger Mr. Beamish the Instablepundit said...

AOW,

I like Sun Tzu as much as Clausewitz. I think they'd stalemate each other to death.

But, as much as I share Bassizzzt's desire to preempt the coming and necessary genocidal conflict, we'll be fighting them over here soon enough. Especially if leftists are not marginalized in the minds of everyone smarter than a bowl of elbow macaroni.

 
At 2/19/2006 6:31 AM, Anonymous Don said...

Youse Guyse are unfortunately correct. It is coming and it aint gonna be purty. I am dreading it.

 
At 2/19/2006 12:09 PM, Blogger maccusgermanis said...

This plan memorializes nothing but its own design and the controversy surrounding it. Why are the designers and family members so content to have the memory of Flight 93 obscured by, however accidental it may be, islamic design?

 
At 2/19/2006 5:02 PM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

From this source:

Interestingly, there expected announcement of final approval for the crescent design never came. Did our advance contact with reporters, who read our information and were doing advance interviews, scare the announcement off? Did the twenty minutes I spent explaining the design's terrorist-memorializing features to one of Interior's communications officers have some effect?

 
At 2/20/2006 11:52 AM, Blogger Storm said...

Always,

I read something the other day which was probably a link from some one comments on or about this topic.

The general topic was myths about Islam. The myths centered on several things but one was the depiction of Muhhamed. The link had the actual quotes from the Quran.

I was wondering if you are only else remember posting anything like this.

I forgot to bookmark it and I am interested because I what to refute some liberals who are parroting the media protrayal that depiction is prohibited.

Thanks

 
At 2/20/2006 3:17 PM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Storm,
I'm not sure where you saw that information, but you might start here.

From Wikipedia, not the best source, I know:

Blasphemy in Islam constitutes speaking ill of the Prophet Muhammad, or any other Prophet mentioned in Quran or all Biblical Prophets. It also holds true for speaking ill of Allah. It is considered a very serious offence and may be punishable by death if charges are proven. British author Salman Rushdie's novel The Satanic Verses was seen by many Muslims to contain blasphemies against Islam, and Iranian clerical leader Ayatollah Khomeini issued a fatwa in 1989 calling for Rushdie's death (although strictly this was in response to Rushdie's claimed apostasy, not the novel's supposed blasphemy). The fatwa was not accepted universally by the Muslim Ulema as the way to deal with the problem of Rushdie's book. Some British Muslims called for Rushdie to be tried under English law for blasphemy, but no charges were laid, as the English legal system recognises blasphemy only against God, Jesus Christ, and the Christian scriptures. The Rushdie case stimulated debate on this topic, with some arguing the same protection should be extended to all religions, while others claimed the UK's ancient blasphemy laws were an anachronism and should be abolished. Despite much discussion surrounding the controversy, the law was not amended. The last British person to be imprisoned for blasphemy was John William Gott in 1922, for comparing Jesus to a clown.

Also, you might check on the Islamic concept of idolatry.

BTW, I've heard that Shi'ites will allow images of MTP.

 
At 2/20/2006 3:25 PM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Storm.
Some more information for you.

From the WaPo:

PARIS, Feb. 1 -- Newspapers across Europe reprinted cartoons Wednesday ridiculing the prophet Muhammad, saying they wanted to support the right of Danish and Norwegian papers to publish the caricatures, which have ignited fury among Muslims throughout the world.

Germany's Die Welt daily newspaper published one of the drawings on its front page and said the "right to blasphemy" is one of the freedoms of democracy.

"The appearance of 12 drawings in the Danish press provoked emotions in the Muslim world because the representation of Allah and his prophet is forbidden," the French afternoon newspaper France Soir wrote. "But because no religious dogma can impose itself on a democratic and secular society, France Soir is publishing the incriminating caricatures."

The newspaper's front-page headline declared: "Yes, We Have the Right to Caricature God," accompanied by a new cartoon depicting religious figures from the Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist and Christian faiths on a cloud. The Christian is shown saying, "Don't complain, Muhammad, we've all been caricatured here."

France Soir paired its story and caricatures with a column by French theologian Sohaib Bencheikh, who admonished: "One must find the borders between freedom of expression and freedom to protect the sacred." He added, "Unfortunately, the West has lost its sense of the sacred."

Italy's La Stampa newspaper and the daily El Periodico in Spain also published some of the drawings Wednesday.

Islam considers any artistic renditions of Muhammad blasphemous. In many Muslim nations, English-language newspapers are so reverential that any mention of his name is followed by the letters PBUH, for "peace be upon him."

Outrage over the appearance of the cartoons in Danish and Norwegian newspapers -- one of which depicted Muhammad as an apparent terrorist with a bomb in his turban -- has ignited demonstrations from Turkey to the Gaza Strip, prompted a boycott of Danish products throughout the Middle East, and spurred calls for a religious decree to attack Danish troops serving in Iraq.

The newspapers also have riled Muslim populations in their home countries. Many of Western Europe's estimated 15 million Muslims feel alienated by cultural barriers and job discrimination and stigmatized by anti-immigration movements and anti-terrorism laws that they believe unfairly target members of their faith.

Dalil Boubakeur, president of the French Council of the Muslim Faith, said the French newspaper's decision to publish the offensive cartoons was an act of "real provocation towards the millions of Muslims living in France."

The conservative Danish daily Jyllands-Posten, which first published the caricatures in September, this week apologized for offending Muslims but defended its right to publish the cartoons. Two offices of the newspaper were evacuated this week after receiving bomb threats.

The controversy began when the newspaper asked 12 artists to draw caricatures of Muhammad in response to an author who complained that he could not find an artist willing, under his own name, to illustrate a book about the prophet.

Three weeks ago, a small, evangelical Christian newspaper in Norway, Magazinet, reprinted the cartoons.

Government ministers from 17 Arab nations have asked the Danish government to punish the Jyllands-Posten newspaper for what they called an "offense to Islam."

The French-based Carrefour grocery chain pulled Danish products from its shelves in Egypt, the United Arab Emirates, Oman and Qatar in response to a boycott the company said was costing it $2.4 million a day, about 8 percent of its global revenue.


Also see the discussion here.

 
At 2/20/2006 6:18 PM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Storm,
Here is some additional info.

 
At 2/20/2006 10:05 PM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Storm,
I hope this link is correct; definitely worth checking out:

Numerous passages in the Qur’an prohibit idolatry, and worshipping statues or pictures, but there is not even single verse in the Qur’an that explicitly says not to have any pictures of Muhammad.

In fact, there are some verses in the Qur’an which mention images in a positive context and which therefore presuppose that some statues or images were approved by God, see the article Muhammad and Images.

However, the vast majority of Muslims are Sunni Muslims, who regard six authorized collections of hadiths as the highest written authority in Islam after the Qur’an. The hadiths are records, often very detailed, of what Muhammad taught and did.

Where multiple trustworthy hadiths agree, Sunni Muslims will take this as binding. In other words, people today are kicked out of Islam, or even killed based on the hadiths.

Pictures of Muhammad are "not exactly" forbidden in the hadiths either. The hadiths do not single out Muhammad’s picture. Rather, in the hadith we find the prohibition of all pictures of people or animals, which would include pictures from a camera.

Conclusion: It is clear that the hadiths prohibit pictures of animals or people, especially in homes. There is no focus on pictures of Muhammad per se. All pictures of people and animals are forbidden. It is a completely general prohibition.

 
At 2/21/2006 1:19 AM, Blogger Mr. Beamish the Instablepundit said...

When I hear Muslims around the world claiming on international television that if Europe and America do not submit to demands to make criticism of Islam illegal that they'll join Al Qaeda, I am encouraged.

This means Al Qaeda terrorism is not beyond the pale with the majority of the Muslim world.

It also means using expensive precision guided bombs to avoid "civilian" casualties in the war on terrorism is unnecessary.

 
At 2/21/2006 6:05 PM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

No stampede of moderates to take back the "hijacked faith," huh?

 
At 2/21/2006 10:45 PM, Blogger Mike's America said...

They said they changed the name of memorial and dropped the "Crescent" part. But if you visit the official Flight 93 Memorial web site and load the page for the design, the page title still says "Crescent of Embrace."

Not that it matters what you call it. You have only to look at it to see what it is: an abomination.

 
At 2/22/2006 6:40 AM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Mike: if you visit the official Flight 93 Memorial web site and load the page for the design, the page title still says "Crescent of Embrace."

Definitely an abomination!

Why not get a different architect and start over?

 
At 2/22/2006 1:23 PM, Blogger Storm said...

So basically Always

The statement that images of Muhhamed are prohibited is B.S.

So currently we the rest of the non-muslims are supposed to adhere to follow the "trust us this is banned by our religion therefore you are offending us"

So let me get ths straight we are wrong for offending Muslims because they say it is banned by their religion but there is no place written down to show us it is banned.

So we were supposed to read their minds?

More importantly to give a darn that they are offended?

"We the people hold these truths..."

That they shall not be offended

 
At 2/22/2006 1:46 PM, Blogger Storm said...

That the shall not be offended

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home