-
Website
http://coloradoindependent.com -
Original page
http://www.coloradoindependent.com/?p=7092 -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
Top Commenters
-
ErinRosa
21 comments · 1 points
-
Wendy Norris
181 comments · 5 points
-
DOUGLASFIELD
27 comments · 4 points
-
prsmith
39 comments · 8 points
-
markw4786
34 comments · 2 points
-
-
Popular Threads
-
John Andrews’ strange, clueless ‘Coloradan of the Year’ column
1 day ago · 10 comments
-
Report of ‘secret’ immigration detention centers raises rights concerns
1 day ago · 1 comment
-
Stimulus funds aimed at rural areas dumped into metro regions
1 day ago · 1 comment
-
Freshman Year, the gay marriage episode: Polis versus Chaffetz
1 week ago · 6 comments
-
The pro-government anti-capitalist anti-American worldwide science hoax
2 days ago · 1 comment
-
John Andrews’ strange, clueless ‘Coloradan of the Year’ column
That said, I have toured the museum extensively and I must say that this reporter obviously did not participate in any of the interactive items. She only discusses the film versions and does not even mention the educational tools throughout the exhibit. The museum's mission statement, posted on the wall as you enter, clearly states the purpose of the exibit is to educate the public and help to empower them. One of the last sections of the museum reinforces that goal with speeches given by world leaders as to how we can combat terrorism and how we need to be informed in order to do so. Finally, she quite obviously bypassed the sections on the indoctrination of children into terrorist groups, terrorism in the media, the new ways that terrorists are shaping technology to their purposes, and the kiosk outlining the debate over civil liberties vs. security.
Finally, I'll grant you that the sixteenth street mall spectacle is meant for shock value. However, it also is meant to wake people up so that they realize that it [terrorism] is their problem, that it is everyone's problem. That's why the movie ends with the statement "It can happen anywhere, it can even happen here." As to the comment about bloody faces, crying, and sirens, what does she expect in the aftermath of a simulated terrorist attack, rainbows and butterflies?
This reporter has an obvious bias and is therefore not a credible source.
I think you should reread your own comment. It reinforces the story: a focus on indoctrination instead of grievances; speeches by world leaders who make use of state-sponsored terrorism. Doesn't sound like a particularly even-handed museum to me.
On another note, is someone who is "an elite member of the Israel Defense Forces" and innocent victim, particularly when it sounds they joined the organization without compulsion? Doesn't joining a military organization make one a valid target of those one is trying to kill?
You're incorrect in assuming that I did not participate in the interactive displays and “educational tools,” as you call them.
In fact, I examined and used every display that was working. So yes, I used the one-handed metal ear pieces and listened to the numerous speeches by world leaders. I thought the one by Colombia president Álvaro Uribe was especially interesting, considering that he's refused to prosecute the numerous terrorists who continue to elicit fear in his country by assassinating an increasing number of union organizers each year.
And yes, I did watch the indoctrination videos, which, let's be honest, were really quite dull. Even the one with the Hezbollah Mickey Mouse was grossly uneventful. Tell me, where was the action? It just looked like a furrie weather report.
You see, it's not that I missed these things you describe, it's just that they weren't interesting or coherent.
As for my “bias” I'm somewhat perplexed as to what exactly you're talking about. Are you saying I'm some how in favor of terrorism rather than against it? Or that I somehow choose civil liberties over safety?
Such simplistic arguments really are endemic of the black and white perspective I criticize in my commentary, and I criticize it for good reason. Nothing intelligent can be gained from logical fallacies disguised as questions.
i live close by and have seen this space go up from the very beginning. that provocative LED sign on the side is still up, but any hope for a rational, educational, and thought-provoking discussion is out the door. the exhibit and seemingly sole purpose of this "museum" seems to be based on the idea of perpetuating a simplistic view of right and wrong, us vs. them. the aim seems to be to get visitors into a mindset of "there's a bad guy out there we can all rally against" and "let's all work in concert with X and Y" to fight the bad guys, without exploring the depth of root causes. it's a cop-out to ignore the roles of our own foreign policies and how that plays into the mix of what's happening.