No more Freedom tower

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-19-2008
No more Freedom tower
11
Fri, 03-27-2009 - 7:05pm

There won't be a Freedom tower to replace 1 World Trade center. Instead it will be called 1 World Trade center. This to reduce the prospect of terrorism against it. After all, it isn't like terrorists would ever attack a building named 1 World Trade Center.

There is no longer a war on terror, there are no enemy combatants (they're about to come to the U.S. and qualify for welfare). Former suspected terrorists will be TANF families.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/03262009/news/regionalnews/port_authority_doing_away_with_freedom_t_161457.htm

PORT AUTHORITY DOING AWAY WITH FREEDOM TOWER NAME

Freedom is so passe at Ground Zero.

Once hailed as a beacon of rebirth in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 terror attacks, the Freedom Tower's patriotic name has been swapped out for the more marketable One World Trade Center, officials at the Port Authority conceded today.

But more than seven years after the terror attacks and amid an effort to market the iconic tower to international tenants, sentiment gave way to practicality.

"As we market the building, we will ensure that the building is presented in the best possible way," said Port Authority Chairman Anthony Coscia.

"One World Trade center is its address. It's the address that we're using. Its on the one that's easiest for people to identify with and frankly we've gotten a very interested and warm reception to it."

Port Authority officials addressed the name change after signing a lease with the Chinese firm, Vantone Industrial, which is the first private tenant to take space in the 2.6 million square foot tower. Vantone will lease 190,000 square feet over six floors.




Edited 3/27/2009 7:08 pm ET by postreply

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-03-2009
Fri, 03-27-2009 - 7:42pm

A name is "patriotic"?! Phooey! Many in this nation have lost any real sense of what patriotism is. The word is used loosely, indiscriminately, and with very little idea of what true patriotism COSTS.

As you pointed out, changing the nomenclature wouldn't stop a terrorist. And as Shakespeare noted, "a rose by any other name would smell as sweet".

Nobody would ever construe those being held at Guantanamo as "about to come to the U.S. and qualify for welfare". BushCheney got their minions to create a new category of "enemy combatants" in order to bypass both U.S. and international laws. But granting detainees Geneva Convention protections is the mark of a society which is the polar opposite of a medieval mindset such as that of Al Qaeda.

BushCo were hypocritical, arrogant, short-sighted, and subversive of democratic principals.

Jabberwocka

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-30-2002
Fri, 03-27-2009 - 8:40pm

"There is no longer a war on terror"


Terror is a word. I've often wondered how one goes to war with a word. Going to war with "terror" or "terrorism" meant we were at war with anybody or anything that word represented to our military leaders. The last administration used war with that word to wire tap their own innocent countryman, in the



iVillage Member
Registered: 02-19-2008
Fri, 03-27-2009 - 8:51pm

The current administration is sending troops to the war in Afghanistan. The war we can't win, the expensive war, the war without an exit strategy, the war we are losing, the war that won't stop drug trafficking, the war without end, the war where Americans will die, the war where innocent civilians will die and be maimed, the war where Democracy will not be created.

Is that really a better war? Where is liberal angst against war? :)

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-03-2009
Fri, 03-27-2009 - 9:57pm

Wait a second. The OP inveighed against a name change for the building at Ground Zero, but trying to eradicate the perpetrators of 9/11 in Afghanistan is "The war we can't win, the expensive war, the war without an exit strategy, the war we are losing, the war that won't stop drug trafficking, the war without end, the war where Americans will die, the war where innocent civilians will die and be maimed, the war where Democracy will not be created"? Huh? What? Where's the "patriotism"?

BTW, my son served in Iraq as regular Army. He's going to be deployed with a National Guard unit into Afghanistan in a couple of months. I'm not thrilled about the danger inherent in his return to a combat zone but IT MAKES A HELLUVA LOT MORE SENSE TO WAGE WAR AGAINST AL QAEDA (THE PERPETRATORS OF 9/11) IN AFGHANISTAN THAN WAGING WAR AGAINST SADDAM HUSSEIN!

Jabberwocka

Avatar for claddagh49
iVillage Member
Registered: 07-20-2004
Sat, 03-28-2009 - 9:40am
Exactly! Some will never admit that Bush was a screw-up President. We should have never went into Iraq, had we done it right when we first went to Afghanistan, maybe we'd be through now.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-23-2003
Sat, 03-28-2009 - 3:10pm

First of all, who cares what it's called?


iVillage Member
Registered: 08-30-2008
Sat, 03-28-2009 - 6:20pm

True - I agree - we shouldnt dictate the way other countries govern --

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-23-2008
Sat, 03-28-2009 - 7:37pm

You say that "a free society is a society where it is safe to be unpopular", this country has always allowed those who differ from one another to have the freedom to do it.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-03-2009
Sun, 03-29-2009 - 8:46am

No, this county most definitely has NOT "always allowed those who differ from one another to have the freedom to do it".

In fact, I can think right off the bat of at least three shameful episodes within the past century. The incarceration of the Nisei during WWII, Joseph McCarthy's infamous witch hunts for communists, and the Bush regime's secret wiretaps are proof positive that we may preach freedom of speech and civil rights but do NOT always practice those same rights.

Jabberwocka

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-30-2002
Sun, 03-29-2009 - 1:02pm


Pages