http://disqus.com/by/phouse/enSat, 06 Sep 2008 22:20:59 -0000http://www.coloradoindependent.com/?p=7092#comment-2191621<p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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?</p><p>This reporter has an obvious bias and is therefore not a credible source.</p>phouseSat, 06 Sep 2008 22:20:59 -0000