11 comments

• 

  Wendy Norris

  10 months ago

  Only in America would somebody attempt to cash-in on al-Qaeda by erecting a museum to display terrorism's greatest hits. Sheesh.
  reply
• 

  phouse

  10 months ago

  When I was taught to write in highschool and college, they always said that if you want to present an argument and still retain credibility, you need to discuss both sides of the issue. That means discussing the pros and cons of something before making a judgement call.
  
  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.
  reply
• 

  Cyrus Hall

  9 months ago

  I'd say this commenter has a bias, and is therefore not a credible commentator, but that would be rather dismissive wouldn't it?
  
  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?
  reply
• 

  ErinRosa

  9 months ago

  Cyrus, those are all valid questions, and it's clear that none of them are addressed by the "with us or against us" ideology in the terror museum.
  reply
• 

  ErinRosa

  10 months ago

  First off, thank you for your comment.
  
  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.
  reply
• 

  Loring Wirbel

  10 months ago

  Like Erin Rosa, I find this far more disturbing than enlightening. And particularly disturbing in that the Mizel Museum is tied to a display run by a former AIPAC executive, and funded by the likes of US DHS and the Dershowitz Group.
  reply
• 

  Stagarite

  10 months ago

  It would be interesting to see who's behind this. Who's on the board and who's funding he thing? Sounds like it's a combo of the downtown charity ball crowd and some Hyatt-Faber-Bronstein characters with a wild hair for paranoia.
  reply
• 

  Evi

  9 months ago

  Thank you for writing this review. I pass the outside of the exhibit when I go to work. i've been wondering how the topic of terrorism is approached and if "state terrorism" is dealt with in any way. Though I haven't seen the exhibit yet, I did inquire at the desk as to who funded it. I was told that Mr. Mizel was one of the people who had spearheaded this exhibit. Perhaps someone could dig into the whys of that?
  reply
• 

  ErinRosa

  9 months ago

  Thank you readres, for your smart comments. Consider me on it! (Who is behind it that is.)
  reply
• 

  lucas

  9 months ago

  i am ashamed and embarrassed to have this museum in denver. and, when others see what this place really is about, i think they will be too, to see that a fear-mongering "center for learning" in a civic space l.
  
  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.
  reply
• 

  andrewwang

  4 months ago

  Speaking of terrorism:
  
  George W. Bush committed hate crimes of epic proportions and with the stench of terrorism (indicated in my blog).
  
  George W. Bush did in fact commit innumerable hate crimes.
  
  And I do solemnly swear by Almighty God that George W. Bush committed other hate crimes of epic proportions and with the stench of terrorism which I am not at liberty to mention.
  
  Many people know what Bush did.
  
  And many people will know what Bush did—even to the end of the world.
  
  Bush was absolute evil.
  
  Bush is now like a fugitive from justice.
  
  Bush is a psychological prisoner.
  
  Bush has a lot to worry about.
  
  Bush can technically be prosecuted for hate crimes at any time.
  
  In any case, Bush will go down in history in infamy.
  
  Submitted by Andrew Yu-Jen Wang
  B.S., Summa Cum Laude, 1996
  Messiah College, Grantham, PA
  Lower Merion High School, Ardmore, PA, 1993
  
  “GEORGE W. BUSH IS THE WORST PRESIDENT IN U.S. HISTORY” BLOG OF ANDREW YU-JEN WANG
  ______________________
  I am not sure where I had read it before, but anyway, it is a linguistically excellent statement, and it goes kind of like this: “If only it were possible to ban invention that bottled up memory so it never got stale and faded.” Oh wait—off of the top of my head—I think the quotation came from my Lower Merion High School yearbook.
  reply