Yeah, paxx. I thought that was a little presumptuous myself. I thought that lots of Americans were probably even even scratching their heads at that. I doubt, when it really comes down to it, that there is anything that really 'speaks to the whole world'.

/me used to get scoldings that ended with that point, so that phrase is problematic to begin with.

Which Dick would that be? Dick Clark? Dick Tracy? Dick Van Dyke?

Oh, stop-it Patric...you know what dick I'm talkin bout

Oh....Dick Nixon....he was one of the biggest....

No need to build such a thing to show the world we have the biggest penis. Everyone know's america has "the big dick"!

I thought his name was "George"..

Which Dick would that be? Dick Clark? Dick Tracy? Dick Van Dyke?

'Dick Head"?

Stop living in fear....

It's not living in fear, it's just common sense. The best way to react to a bully isn't always to have the last word, which is effectively what they're trying to do with this. It's like one giant glass middle finger to terrorists around the world.

The worst thing you can do to a terrorist is taunt them. If America wants to stop terrorism directed toward their country, they need to stop promoting themselves as the world's police. If they would take the time to listen to the feelings of other nations, then perhaps they wouldn't be seen as overstepping their welcome in the global scheme of things. Peace isn't about showing how much stronger you are than the other powers, it's about learning to co-exist with them.

I certainly wouldn't feel safe working in the new building. Can anyone here honestly say they would?
[Message Edited]

The worst thing you can do to a terrorist is taunt them. If America wants to stop terrorism directed toward their country, they need to stop promoting themselves as the world's police. If they would take the time to listen to the feelings of other nations, then perhaps they wouldn't be seen as overstepping their welcome in the global scheme of things. Peace isn't about showing how much stronger you are than the other powers, it's about learning to co-exist with them

I certainly agree with you on that, grayhaze. Its just that there seems to be a lot of fear around these days. And fear breeds hatred.

Terrorists wants all of us cowering, and not building the tower means we're cowering. Hell with 'em and let's party.

I'll say this again, it's better to die on feet than live on knees.

Terrorists wants all of us cowering, and not building the tower means we're cowering.

So not building a target for terrorism would be considered a cowardly act? That's some twisted American logic there...

The United States (I know someone will be on my case eventually if I keep saying 'America' ) always seem to feel that they have to prove something. What does it matter what the terrorists think about your actions (or lack thereof), as long as you can be confident that you're maintaining a safe environment for your citizens?

Only Americans, and Americans alone, would look at a decision not to build another towering ego-target as cowardice. If anything, the only action with the potential to produce strong hostile feelings would be the building of the new tower. Build a nice quiet park with a memorial and the unanimous reaction would most likely be one of comfort and contemplation.

[Message Edited]

Silly thing to remember , people...is no-one is building a 'target' or a 'taunt to terrorists'....they are simply building a building.

No-one can help it if other people interpret their own meanings into it.

I think it's total bull that it'll be 1776 feet tal for some creative reason when the reality is that old ego thing that it must be the biggest.

Grollo in Melbourne [Oz] was aiming for a 1 Kilometer high building.....it could still happen....[that's twice the height of the WTC proposal]....and it was neither a flaunt or taunt at anyone....just a wanker with an ego....

Grayhaze,

While I agree that there are some issues with the various foriegn policies of the US, and that changing some of the policies might go some way to mitigating the damage, it won't make the problem go away, so we'll have to deal with it one way or the other.

As for the tower, no matter what we build in its place, it won't change a thing in regard to those who would attack us. While a memorial park could have some value, I still prefer a working monument of some type. It can then serve as a memorial as well.

It's also not just an effort to prove something, it can also be a morale issue as well. The existence of this new tower will not make any future attack either more or less likely.

'Ground Zero' will always be more important commercially than 'monumentally', only wishfull thinkers would think otherwise.

Commercial pressures will control the design/outcome, not grieving relatives, indignant Communities or plotting miscreants.

The land value per square foot will determine the resulting commercial project size and height....and at the other end of the scale perhaps 'normal' aircraft flight-path clearance limitations.

Public pressure will necessitate some 'form' of commemorative tribute/memorial, but commercial constraints will make certain it's not at the expense of the project's overall viability.

Welcome to the real world of big building...

The existence of this new tower will not make any future attack either more or less likely.

Well I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on that point. If I were a terrorist (which, I hasten to add, I'm not ), I would personally see the building of a 'bigger, better' tower as something akin to issuing a challenge, especially if I followed a similar line of thought to the terrorists who chose to attack the WTC because it was a symbol of American superiority and stability.

Silly thing to remember , people...is no-one is building a 'target' or a 'taunt to terrorists'....they are simply building a building.

So are you honestly saying that this is just a simple everyday building project, and is no way intended as a message to those who would attack America?

Yes.

The 'message' is inferred by those who want to find an inference.

The closest it comes to a message or response is that which 'succeeds' with grafitti .....the best way to deal with it is to remove the 'damage' as soon as possible.

In this case, the 'hole' in the NY skyline is the damage....THAT is the 'message'...it's a constant notice that damage was done.

Solution is to replace the structure as soon as possible....business as usual....and the damage is 'removed' and does not invite more through evidentiary success.

Grafitti on a wall attracts more.  Keep the wall clean and no-one will 'need' to tag it in response to another's tag.....simple...

/me has visions of terrorist organisations trying to outdo each other in a sick version of a 'graffiti war'...

A strange analogy there Jafo, and not one that has any real grounding in the truth. The result of a terrorist attack doesn't prompt other terrorists to try and do better in 'response'. If that were the case, we would have already seen countless repeats of those terrible events in New York.

There I was thinking my 'building block' analogy was tenuous...