September 14, 2005
NYC Letter: Idiot Stockholm Syndrome Maudlinism
Idiot Stockholm Syndrome Maudlinism, or ISSMism. (Hat tip to LGF for putting us onto the scent.)
September 12, 2005 (The Irish Times) - Four years on, plans for the Flight 93 National Memorial have now been revealed. The winning design, chosen from 1,011 entries, will be built in that pasture in Pennsylvania where those heroes died. The memorial is called “The Crescent of Embrace”.
How more ass-backwards could this be? Is the descriptive choice of "Crescent" coincidental with the Islamite's red crescent? Here is the official National Park literature: "A curving arc of maple trees [shown as bright red maples] along a walkway unites the Ridge and forms an edge to the Bowl with a focus on the Sacred Ground."

Can you connect the big dots? (Hint: The dotted line.)
The memorial jurors themselves connected the dots.
FLIGHT 93 MEMORIAL DECRIED AS ISLAM SYMBOL
Memorial's Crescent Shape Criticized As Inappropriate
September 10, 2005 (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette) - Eight family members served on the second-stage jury that selected the final memorial design.The jurors recognized there could be some backlash because of the crescent. That's why, in their recommendations, they wrote: "Consider the interpretation and impact of words within the context of this event. The crescent should be referred to as 'the circle or arc,' or other words that are not tied to specific religious iconography."
Michelle Malkin has a more telling presentation for those struggling with the obvious.
At best “The Crescent of Embrace” is a grotesque lapse. At worst, well, Mr. Steyn continues.
That sounds like a fabulous winning entry - in a competition to create a note-perfect parody of effete multicultural responses to terrorism. Indeed, if anything, it’s too perfect a parody: the “embrace” is just the usual huggy-weepy reconciliatory boilerplate, but the “crescent” transforms its generic cultural abasement into something truly spectacular. In the design plans, “The Crescent of Embrace” looks more like the embrace of the Crescent – ie, Islam. After all, what better way to demonstrate your willingness to “embrace” your enemies than by erecting a giant Islamic crescent at the site of the day’s most unambiguous episode of American heroism?Okay, let’s get all the “of courses” out of the way – of course, the overwhelmingly majority of Muslims aren’t terrorists; of course, we all know “Islam” means “peace” and “jihad” means “healthy-lifestyle lo-carb granola bar”; etc, etc. Nevertheless, the men who hijacked Flight 93 did it in the name of Islam and their last words as they hit the Pennsylvania sod were no doubt “Allahu Akhbar”. One would be unlikely even today to come across an Allied D-Day memorial so misconceived in its spirit of reconciliation as to be called the Swastika of Embrace. Yet Paul Murdoch, the architect, has somehow managed to produce a design whose two most obvious interpretations are a) a big nothing or b) a splendid memorial to the hijackers rather than their victims.
If Mr Murdoch sincerely believes in a “crescent of embrace”, let him build one – at the headquarters of a “moderate” Islamic lobby group, or in the parking lot of your wackier colleges. To impose it on Flight 93 – to, in effect, hijack those passengers a second time – is an abomination. Flight 93 is about what happens when you understand that some things can’t be embraced.
Instead, in its feeble cultural cringe, the Crescent of Embrace hands the terrorists of Flight 93 the victory they were denied on September 11th. And it profoundly dishonours Todd Beamer, Thomas Burnett, Jeremy Glick, Mark Bingham and other forgotten heroes of that flight.
Most of us are all but resigned to losing New York’s Ground Zero memorial to a pile of non-judgmental if not explicitly anti-American pap: The minute you involve big-city politicians and foundations and funding bodies and “artists” you’re on an express chute to the default mode of the cultural elite. But surely it’s not too much to hope that in Pennsylvania the very precise, specific, individual, human scale of one great act of American heroism need not be buried under another soggy dollop of generic prettified passivity.
The “crescent of embrace”, in its desperation to see no enemies and stand for nothing, represents the precise opposite of Beamer, Glick, Burnett and co: Are you ready, guys? Let’s roll over.
You can e-mail the National Park Service regarding this memorial here.
Or, as the e-mail form seems faulty, call the NPS: Superintendent, Flight 93 NMEM: 814.443.4557
Fax the NPS: 814.443.2180
Write the NPS:
National Park Service
109 West Main Street, Suite 104
Somerset, PA 15501-2035
Well, of course it should be a crescent. It is so obvious as to why!
It is the shape of the slit made to the throats of the elderly man in First Class and the flight attendant of Flight 93.
That certainly should not be forgotten.
Posted by: Valerie, Texas at September 15, 2005 06:08 PMI wonder, what would have Jews said if Holocaust memorials were shaped as swastikas?
Posted by: ashamed-frenchman at September 17, 2005 04:19 PMAsk and ye shall receive, A-F.
Posted by: Doug at September 27, 2005 05:30 PM
I understand perfectly that this design has set off the rabid usual suspects.
But once you wade through the foam dropping from their mouths, one simple fact remains: the crescent is a symbol of a religion embraced by hundreds of millions of people around the world, and only a minute minority of them are crazed terrorists.
Islam itself was maligned as much as the victims of the crash on that horrible day.
The parallel made with the inappropriateness of the swastika on a WWII memorial is fallacious. The swastika embodied Nazi Germany. The red crescent does not embody Islamic terrorism. It is this distinction that the frothy-mouthed fail to make over and over and over again, and for the rest of us, it is just tiring.
As for Malkin's claim that the crescent is giving the hijackers the victory they did not get that day: that's wishful thinking. The terrorists did win that day, even though they did not hit their prefered target. America was thrown into conniptions of fear, and was pushed to immediately start betraying its own values. Sad but true. And we are only just recovering from it.
No: in this current situation, the worst case scenario is an escalation of hostilities between Muslims and the US, and the current choice of design is actually a very good step towards reconciliation. Remember that most Muslims don't want blood shed. Maintaining good ties between communities will keep it that way.
wantsToKnow
Posted by: WantsToKnow at August 27, 2006 01:02 PMMr. WantsToKnow jumps in the thread -- a year after the fact -- and claims to have mopped up buckets of spittle foam to get to a simple truth.
If we concede Mr. WantsToKnow's simple truth, to wit, "the crescent is a symbol of a religion embraced by hundreds of millions of people around the world", the question becomes, so what? That Muslims and Islamites both use this symbol makes it no more appropriate for an American memorial where the murdered were neither Islamites nor Muslims. That Mr. WantsToKnow thinks that America should make a conciliatory nod to Islam for "a tiny minority of its members" murdering Americans suggests that he thinks 9.11 is about American comeuppance. That is, just desserts.
Mr. WantsToKnow has it on good authority that most Muslims don't want blood shed but somehow has overlooked that most of those shedding blood by terrorism are self-advertised Muslims conducting the what they claim is the religiously sanctioned business of Allah. Those who disagree, whether kaffir or Muslim, are fair targets for Islamite terror.
Mr. WantsToKnow apparently disapproves of the swastika though hundreds of millions of Hindi have employed it as a religious symbol. The Nazis would represent "only a minute minority" of users. We would hazard the minutest of minorities.
So let's recap, Mr. WantsToKnow thinks America should conciliate with Islam for Islamites murdering Americans, makes an uninformed and conflicted symbology defense, and repeatedly claims that everyone but himself is frothing at the mouth.
Well, Mr. WantsToKnow appears to be Mr. KnowNothing frothing in disguise.
DGB
Posted by: Damian Bennett at August 28, 2006 09:12 AM




