<p>But the attack was not simply motivated by the size of the twin towers (the Empire State Building and Sears Tower weren’t attacked). And obviously this kind of Freudian psychology occurs unconsciously (the terrorists didn’t think “Hey, let’s attack America’s p-e-n-i-s!”). I think there is that current of dominance behind the towers (which house many multinational corporations)…and in Freudian terms, that is exactly what the p-e-n-i-s represents. And to make them bigger may seem like a healing mechanism, but it also beckons attackers further…kind of like a “what now?” attitude. They could have shifted location or made a few smaller buildings…instead they want to demonstrate their dominance again. The fact that they were some of the biggest buildings in the U.S. only lends to the phallic theory.</p>
<p>I don’t necessarily believe in the idea (especially since I don’t believe in Freud or p-enis envy); I just think it’s an interesting interpretation. This wasn’t the first time the towers specifically were targeted. I hope I didn’t scare anyone off with my p-enises.</p>
<p>This brings up another point. WHY are we rebuilding? If it’s so we can once again have a space dedicated to work that was lost when the building was first destroyed, then fine, that’s a good reason, but if we’re rebuilding so that we can show how strong we are, then we are making a big mistake. Showing-off shouldn’t be a driving force behind reconstruction, but it is my fear that this is exactly what’s going on, seeing as the building is being made bigger.</p>
<p>Why does America have to be tough? Why do we have to show we aren’t “weak?” Can’t we just be a country that doesn’t care about being the biggest kid in the sandbox?</p>
<p>but that is america fridge, it is what we do. we they did pearl harbor we did Hiroshima and Nagasaki. not a peace offering.</p>
<p>and we are doing it for both reasons.</p>
<p>and because we totally went back on the monroe doctrine. we decided to be all up in other people’s business since the “big stick policy” said we could. i dont think there was a good reason. but we just didnt want to be left behind.</p>
<p>Well, the Twin Towers were THE biggest building in New York. Also, the attack was kinda of a follow-up for Bin Laden. He attacked the World Trade Center in the early nineties, but failed in his attempt(he had a truck filled with explosives that was parked in the building’s garage, but it didn’t do any real damage). He attacked the building again to show that he and his followers were determined in their endeavor of worldwide shariah law.</p>
<p>What they did to Pearl Harbor we did to Hiroshima and Nagasaki…exponentially.</p>
<p>I think the rebuilding is a powerplay and an emotional appeal at the same time. It’s an opportunity to remind the world of our superiority and dominance, the “you can’t touch this” attitude. At the same time, it’s also a ploy to promote more emotional forms of Nationalism…</p>
<p>The WTC may be big, but they aren’t the most important buildings in the U.S. The physical impact might have been bigger in attacks elsewhere too. But there is also the metaphor behind the towers and what they represent that made them targets, not just sheer size.</p>
<p>what metaphor, the Freud stuff?
and yeah it is will totally be “oh you broke us down but we came back” and shots of tearfully 9/11 survivors. totally transparent.</p>
<p>and maybe so but they got something, and for some people the fear they received was enough.</p>
<p>I think Freud thought to much about the male equipment, if you catch my drift. </p>
<p>Not ever symbol of power is phallic related. If a man with a small johnson built the WTC I would concede to your point, but in this case, we don’t know that information(thank god), so we can’t just say it was a subconscious phallic image because it was big.</p>
<p>I use the term phallic in that it was Freud’s representation/symbol of power (not necessarily that the towers looked like phalluses…that would be a more literary interpretation, I think). Use any word you like, phallic or otherwise, but 9/11 was clearly a direct attack upon America’s power/dominance (domestically and internationally), not because of the physical repurcussions, but because it was a symbollic destruction of wealth/power. The reason they are planning to build them even bigger is to reestablish/reclaim that power they were stripped of…that’s the way I interpreted it, anyway.</p>
<p>And not subconscious…unconscious <– that’s the beauty of it.</p>
<p>How do you guys feel about the plans to rebuild and what they say about America? Are we an idealistic/optimistic country, ready to pick up the pieces of a tragedy…or just metaphorically reasserting our dominance? Why do the towers need to be so much bigger? I don’t think it’s just a matter of saving space. Why do they need to be in the same spot?</p>
<p>I wasn’t taking it literally, I was taking the word “phallic” to mean “penile related,” which I don’t think the WTC in anyway is. Our misunderstanding occurred when I thought you were implying that the ***** is a symbol of dominance, which i don’t think it is.</p>
<p>If I can be frank, I don’t think of mine anymore than my third toe. It’s just a body part. It’s not like men stand in front of mirrors, admiring their “power.” (:</p>
<p>I’m sure some do.
And you’ve already sacrificed your masculinity…on multiple occassions :P</p>
<p>But I didn’t mean to sound inflammatory with my statements…I was just referring to Freud’s position on the issue (and Freud was a strange man indeed).</p>
<p>New topic?</p>
<p>Haha Panic. You’re a character (that’s a compliment).</p>
<p>I say, let people destroy their bodies if they so wish to. Maybe the stupid people will die and we will have a better gene pool. I apologize if I offend any weed-smokers here.</p>
<p>Of course, there are a million arguments against the logic of legalizing marijuana. But really, its effects are similar to those of tobacco…only five times worse.</p>
<p>Still, is it the government’s responsibility to tell us how to live? People smoke marijuana as it is, and there is little effort to stop them. Why not just make it legal so we can tax it? :)</p>
<p>Prohibition didn’t work, and government spent millions trying to prevent the distribution of alcohol. The same thing is happening with marijuana. Put that money towards catching rapists/murderers.</p>
<– that’s the beauty of it.</p>