The proposed “artwork” for Flight 93 memorial site–called the “crescent of embrace”. Does this just make you sick to your stomach when the remains of the victims are buried here and the perpetrators were muslim extremists? How many of these victims were muslims, do you suppose and since when is this appropriate in any stretch of the imagination?
This project was paid in part by money from the Heinz Foundation.
Here is the contact information for this project.
General Correspondence
By Mail
National Park Service
109 West Main Street, Suite 104
Somerset, PA 15501-2035
By Phone
Superintendent – Flight 93 National Memorial
(814) 443-4557
By Fax
(814)443-2180
You can also email your suggestions and concerns to Paul Murdoch, the winning architect, at paul@paulmurdocharchitects.com
I strongly suggest people who agree to express their outrage for the incredible insensitivity shown toward the victims/heroes of the Flight 93 crash.
I wish I had known earlier…and what is incredibly peculiar is that I would find this at Erik and Joe’s–at No Pasaran.
Update from the Northeast Intelligence Network on 9/14:
The final decision regarding the design of this memorial must be ultimately approved by The Secretary of the Department of the Interior, Ms.Gale A. Norton. We must let her know in strong numbers that this anticipated design is completely unacceptable. Messages can be sent to her via e-mail at: gale_norton@ios.doi.gov, or use the site’s Internet contact page. If you choose to call, her telephone number is (202) 208-3100.
Before reaching Ms. Norton, however, the design must also be approved by the Superintendent of the Flight 93 National Memorial, National Park Service, 109 West Main Street, Suite 104, Somerset, PA 15501-2035. You can voice your comments by e-mail, by telephone at (814) 443-4557 or by fax to (814) 443-2180.
In any event, you CAN let your voice be heard and hopefully make a difference.
More at Captains Quarters, LGF, Michelle Malkin, Blackfive
You are aware that the red crescent is the symbol used by the Red Cross in the Arab world? Why is it bad to build a memorial that holds at its center a symbol of peace easily recognized by our enemies? I think it’s a very subtle message to the Arab world that we understand them better than they understand us.
Of course I know what that represents–that’s why it’s such an outrage. It’s a blatant and horrible sign of disrespect and appeasement -a slap in the face to the dead who fought the Islamic ********–and a slap in the fact to their families-completely disrespecting their memories and giving more respect to Islamist murderers who would kill us all. Having the sign of their Moongod on a memorial to people who died fighting them is like putting up a flag for Hezbollah or Hamas on that land over their graves. It’s horrible!
Please explain how a shape widely recognized as a symbol of peace is in any way similar to flags of terrorist organizations like Hamas or Hezbollah?
Also, please explain how a symbol contrary to the terrorist’s actions (symbol of peace vs. hijacking a plane) represents a slap in the face to those who died on Flight 93. If anything, the symbol is a slap in the face to Arab terrorists who want to unite the Arab world in a war against the infidels.
I think the symbolism represents the continuation of the fight brought by the passengers of Flight 93. Their fight against terrorists will continue by symbolically denying the will of those terrorists — to split the Muslim world from the United States. For that reason and others, I think the symbol is a stroke of genius.
Dancing With The Devil: My Chat With The ACLU!
Ken:
When a muslim named El Sayyid Nosair murdered Israeli political activist Meir Kahane in New York City on November 5, 1990, authorities ascribed the killing not to jihad but to Nosair’s depression, and when a co-pilot crashed EyptAir flight 990 on October 31, 1999, killing 217 people, officials posited no link to terrorism, although the co-pilot exlaimed “I rely on Allah” eleven times as he crashed the plane.
Of course, in light of the fact that many muslims advocate jihad and base their arguments on the Qu’ran and Sunnah, I’m not inventing a connection between terrorism and Islam. At Faithfreedom.org, Ali Sina and a bunch of ex-muslims have risked their lives to leave their faith and are trying to warn the world that “the enemy is Islam”. They receive numerous death threats as a result. Theirs is first-hand experience with what it’s like to live as a muslim, and what it’s like to live under sharia law.
The book you’re not supposed to read is–The Raft of Mohammed by Jean-Pierre Peroncel-Huboz, St. Paul, Mn: Paragon House, 1988. Besides vividly detailing the prejudice against non-Muslims that is rampant in the Islamic world, Peroncel-Hugoz devastatingly describes the intellectual dhimmitude of numerous American and European writers, politicans, and other public figures. He shows how eager PC Westerners, like you, are to believe the best about Islam–and even to exchange fact for fantasy in order to do so.
The whitewashing of Islam and jihad goes further than tendentious propaganda. Honest investigations of the causes of Islamic terrorism are increasingly termed “hate speech” by the PC establishment. CAIR has filed numerous lawsuits for a chilling effect on those who speak the truth about the religion–that it is the Religion of War. “There’s not doubt that CAIR understand this”, notes National Review’s John Derbyshire. “They have Saudi oil money behind them and finance is no issue at all to them. They essentially have infinite funds. They will shut up everyone. On the topic of Islam, free speech is dead.”
Meanwhile, jihadists have their own methods of silencing critics, as the murder of Theo van Gogh last year on the streets of Amsterdam illustrates.
Click here for an example of the religion of peace
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Michael Graham interviewing Robert Spencer on Islam and terrorism and the religious reasons they fight–and the reasons why it’s not a religion of peace.
Van Gogh’s death shows that everyone who values freedom should worry because murder committed by a Muslim enraged at “blasphemy” is not new. Nor is it a relic of the distant past. In 1947, Islamic radicals murdered Iranian lawyer Ahmad Kasravi in court; Kasravi was there to defend himself against charges that he attacked Islam. Four year later, members of the same Muslim group, Fadayan-e Islam, assassinated Iranian Prime Minister Haji-Ali Razmara after a group of Muslim clerics issued a fatwa calling for his death. In 1992, Egyptian writer Faraj Foda was murdered by Muslims enraged at his “apostasy” from Islam–another offense for which traditional Islamic law prescribes the death penalty. Foda’s countryman, the Novel Prize-winning novelist Naguib Mahfouz, was stabbed in 1994 after accusations of blasphemy.
Under Pakistan’s blasphemy laws, many non-Muslims have been arrested, tortured, and sentence to die on the slimmest shreds of evidence. And of course, there is Ayatollah Khomeini’s notorious death fatwa against Salman Rushdie.
But for such things to happen in Iran and Egypt, two countries where Islamic radicalism is widespread, is one thing; to have a “blasphemer” brutally murdered on the streets of Amsterdam in broad daylight is another.
Quotes by Louis Farakhan:
Farrakhan :”I want to be one of the flame-throwers of God, break white folks’ backs. I want to give you hell all the way to your graves. I ain’t scared to die and I’m ready to kill.”
Farrakhan : said this in South Africa: “I say give ‘em [whites] 24 hours to get out of town. If they don’t, kill everyone white in sight. Kill the men, kill the women, kill the children, kill the blind, kill the crippled. God damn it, kill them all.”
Farrakhan :”We want you to know white people, we know how to strike you in the pocketbook.”
That one sounds like Bin Laden talking about destroying American financial interests.
Farrakhan :The Nation of Islam is consistently anti-American. This is why Mahmoud Abdul-Rouf would not stand during the National Anthem at Denver Nuggets’ basketball games. According to him, the United States’ flag symbolized only “oppression and tyranny.”
In the wake of the Million Man March, blacks burned a white man alive in a Chicago neighborhood. He later died.
Yeah. What about this realization; that these religious murders are now occurring on our soil? Some religion of peace.
Flight 93 is yet another example and the symbol of the moongod over their graves is a disgusting example of dhimmitude.
Partly paid for by the Heinz Foundation, huh?
Farrakhan :”I want to be one of the flame-throwers of God, break white folks’ backs. I want to give you hell all the way to your graves. I ain’t scared to die and I’m ready to kill.”
Farrakhan : said this in South Africa: “I say give ‘em [whites] 24 hours to get out of town. If they don’t, kill everyone white in sight. Kill the men, kill the women, kill the children, kill the blind, kill the crippled. God damn it, kill them all.
Farrakhan :”We want you to know white people, we know how to strike you in the pocketbook.”
Louis Farrakhan has always been a royal pain in the ***, and he gets Blacks in an uproar everywhere he goes — someone needs to take him out some night; one bullet oughta do it.
Better yet – since this was paid for by the Heinz Foundation, I think that ugly-*** whining, crying Heinz-Skerry *****, along with that dumbass Communist-loving alleged Husband, need to go over there and meet Louis personally; maybe we wouldn’t have to think of him running for Office again.
John “HANOI FONDA” Skerry is guilty of war crimes and lying to the people – he should be strung up in a tree; shot at sunrise; kicked in the nuts; and ran out of America along with:
* Louis Farrakhan
* Al Sharpton (not the brightest crayon)
* Michael Moore
* Cindy Sheehan
* Stephen Pearcy
* Ted Rall
* Theodore Kennedy
* Frank Church
Interesting. I didn’t hear any accounts of how the “Red Crescent Society” was there in New Orleans to help those people. If they’re so interested in mankind, what happened THERE?
Of course, since most of the victims of the Tsunami were muslims, hate America and wear Bin Laden t-shirts, they were there for that case of disaster relief…to help their own.
Two Issues, One Word
For me the defining question is, “If the crescent shape has no meaning other than subjective, was never meant to imply anything, the WHY was the simple request of the families ignored?”
If the Crescent has no definitive symbolic meaning in the titl…
As a new visitor to your blog I was not aware of your position that we ought to be at war with Islam, not just Islamic terrorists. Given that new knowledge I see your original position regarding the red crescent in a new light.
Though this certainly goes outside the bounds of your original post, I wonder, given your position against Islam in its entirety, what do we do with the over one billion people who claim it as their faith?
Listen to the audio links above–Michael Graham’s interview with Robert Spencer on comment #6 pretty much spells out the problem with the millions of “moderate” muslims who don’t condemn terrorism. The problem is there is no “tolerance” of other faiths in the Qu’ran. Consider that interview above in comment # 6 my response to that question.
I’ve listened to the clips and Mr. Spencer does make good points. My only comment on Mr. Spencer is that for over 1300 years the interpretation of the Koran described by Mr. Spencer was among a very small minority. In fact, the radical interpretation described by Mr. Spencer was favored by so few and was so extreme that many Muslims were ostracized for it. It is only since the 1920’s that the interpretation described by Mr. Spencer has come into vogue. Perhaps Mr. Spencer would argue the transformation over the past 87 years is so entrenched that it is impossible to moderate the current upswell in militant Islam. That’s a very difficult argument to prove either way.
Beyond that, Mr. Spencer does not address the question I asked you: If our enemy is Islam and not just Islamic terrorists, what is the proper course of action? As I asked, with over one billion Muslims in the world across multiple nations, what is your suggested plan of action?
If you heard what Spencer said, then I don’t understand why you continue with your questions.
You’re talking the revisionist view of the Crusades, Mark. The Crusades were defensive conflicts. Bill Clinton said:
Such usage is quite widespread. In this analysis, Clinton curiously echoed Osama bin Laden himself (see How Bill Clinton sold our children to Islam), some of whose own communiques spoke of his oganization not as Al Qaeda but of a “World Islamic Front for jihad Against Jews and Crusaders” and called in a fatwa for “jihad against Jews and Crusaders.”
Shortly before the beginning of the Iraqi war that toppled Saddam Hussein, on November 8, 2002, Sheikh Bakr Abed Al-Razzaq Al-Samaraai preached in Baghdad’s Mother of the Battles mosque about
When Islamic jihadists bombed the U.S. consulate in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, in December 2004, they explained that the attack was of a larger plan to strike back at “Crusaders”;
“One of the crusaders’ big castles in the Arabian Peninsula”? Why would Islamic jihad terrorists have such a fixation with thousand-year-old castles? Could Clinton be right that they see the Crusades as the time that their troubles with the West began, and present-day conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan as a revival of the Crusader ethos?
In a sense, yes. The more one understands the Crusades–why they were fought, and from what forces within Christianity and Islam they sprang–the more one will understand the present conflict. The Crusades, in ways that Bill Clinton and those who bombed the consulate in Jiddah only dimly fathom, hold the keys to understanding the present world situation in numerous ways.
Misinformation and half-truths about what Islam teaches and what Muslims in the United States believe have filled the airwaves and have influenced public policy.
Much of this comes in the analyses of the “root causes” of jihad terrorism that took so many lives on September 11 and has continued to threaten the peace and stability of non-Muslims around the world. It has become fashionable among certain media people and academics to place much, if not all of the blame for what happened on September 11, 2001, not on Islam and Muslims, but on the United States and other Western countries. A pattern of mistreatment of the Islamic world by the west, say learned professors and self-important commentators, is continuing. It began centuries ago, they say-at the time of the Crusades.
But, in fact, the seeds of today’s conflict were planted much earlier than the first Crusade. In order to understand the Crusades properly, and the peculiar resonance they have in today’s global conflict with Islamic jihad terrorists, we must begin with a survey of the prophet of Arabia and the religion he founded. For the Crusades were fundamentally a reaction to events that were set in motion over 450 years before the battles began.
When Bin Laden killed innocent non-combatants in the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, and later his co-religionists captured and beheaded civilian hostages in Iraq, American Muslim spokesmen blandly asserted that this target of innocent people was forbidden by Islam. This was debatable, since some Islamic legal authorities allow the killing of non-combatants if they are seen as aiding the enemies of Islam in war. However, even if the principle were correct, it would give way to another that rose out of the Nakhla raid: “Persecution is worse than killing.” And therefore, to fight against the persecution of Muslims, by any means necessary, is the highest good.
Mohammed, (570-632) the prophet of Islam, was a man of war. He taught his followers to fight for his new religion. He said that their god, Allah, had commanded them to take up arms. And Mohammed fought in numerous battles. These facts are crucial to anyone who really wants to understand what caused the Crusades centuries ago, or in our own time, what has led to the rise of the global jihad movement.
In the course of these battles, Mohammed articulate numerous principles that have been followed by Muslims to this day. Therefore, it is important to acknowledge Mohammed’s battles, which provide insight into today’s newspaper headlines–insights that continue to elude many analysts and experts.
Raiding the Quraysh in 622. The Battle of Badr in 624. The Battle of Badr was the first practical example of what came to be known as the Islamic doctrine of jihad–a doctrine that holds the key to the understanding oboth the Crusades and the conflicts of today.
Mohammed vs. Jesus
Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you. Matthew 5:44
Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into the hearts of the enemies of Allah and your enemies, and others besides, who ye may not know, but whom Allah doth know. Qu’ran 8:60
I suggest that you ponder very carefully what the response should be against an enemy who has taken a blood oath to kill you–and whose religion preaches violence and death to the infidel. Which is you, incidentally. They’ve been at this literally since 1968 (going after the US), you think our withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan is going to do anything? Do you think honoring their religion over the graves of Americans who were murdered by them is the thing to do? Unless you “submit” to Islam, you are a target for death…it’s written in the Qu’ran.
And if you REALLY listened to the interview (which I don’t think you did because the answers are all in there to the questions you keep asking), you know that Michael Graham suggested a solution to this problem. I clearly said my answers to your questions are in that interview.
[...] ncredibly peculiar is that I would find this at Erik and Joe’s–at No Pasaran. X posted at CB Said Cao @ 2:54 am
| [...]
[I tried posting a similar response last night but it simply disappeared. Perhaps it is held for review and you simply haven't had a chance to get to it. But just in case, I have rewritten my response.]
You’re right, I did not listen to all three parts. They are quite long and I do not have the time right now to sit at my computer and listen to them all. I should have time this weekend but by then this post will be in your archives and, well, out of sight out of mind.
Your responses are always well supported which is unique in the blogosphere so I do applaud you for that. However, you have spent a great deal of time and effort defending yourself against an argument I have not made.
At no time have I disagreed with your position regarding the Islamic world as a clear and present danger. You have made assumptions regarding my position presumably because of my response to the red crescent and my inquiry regarding how you would deal with over one billion Muslims. But such positions and inquiries do not necessarily develop into a weak-kneed view of the danger posed by the Islamic world, or as you have charged, a politically correct agenda. You have fallen into the trap of turning assumptions into facts. As proof, I have not offered nor have you asked for my view regarding Islam and the danger it poses. Though your responses are interesting and insightful, I would prefer ones that were on point.
In the time and space you have devoted to defending a position I have not challenged you could have easily summarized Michael Graham’s suggested course of action which you claim reflects your own. As I said above, I should have time to listen to the last two clips this weekend but, for the purposes of discussion, I would appreciate a summary of your own thoughts.
CAIR: “I don’t See No Islamic Symbols?”