Rev_Beezer wrote:When I was in first grade, our teacher told our class that Memorial Day started out to remember all the Veterans who had died, but "now we really just remember everyone who died."

That's the understanding I had, up until just a few years ago.

It's supposed to honor those that died fighting in wars and, tangentially, all veterans. It's become more about celebrating the start of summer and getting trashed at the shore.

I'm still in awe of the United 93 people. The movie made me weep uncontrollably. Who knows how many lives they saved(at the expense of their own) or what buildings they saved from destruction like the Capitol or the White House.

By now, I imagine that most here realize that I hate most people and most things in today's world. I am quite aware of how negative I am. However, it still doesn't change the fact that it is possible for someone (don't worry, I'm not saying me) to not be cold, a douche, stupid, etc. and to not be emotional about 9/11. Not being emotional about 9/11 does not equal a terrible person

I do think 9/11 needs some kind of common mode of observance better than burning Korans.

gpicaro wrote:

Barry Jive wrote:i got an off-duty stripper's number last night

At the club?

at the Republican, but that's not where she works

and yes, i was bombed but she was cute and talked to me for a long time

happy 9/11 everybody

how many george washingtons did you bid adieu

I was in Philly last night.

where at

I think we were on Kelly drive at that point, but I'm not positive.

why?

anything go down last night?

nah just curious. i was off last night anywho.

My friend just asked me if Michael Jordan was still in the NBA.

why did you edit that post?

9/11...

It's tough, because there is no denying the horror, the absolute horror, of the day, and the empathy one ought to feel for those innocents who were killed, particularly the very brave people on Flight 93 and the very brave firemen and police officers who lost their lives to preserve the lives of others.

But I don't think it's (morally) wrong to assert that the wrong narrative about 9/11 has won the day. We hear about how these hijackers targeted us because of our "freedoms" and how they hated our "freedoms," and that's why they came after us, and that 9/11 is about drawing a line in the sand between those who would work against tyranny and those who would establish it.

Like most narratives, it's not without its basis, but it is, at best, a gross oversimplification of why what happened that day happened. Something that planned and that coordinated over as long a time as that attack was planned and coordinated isn't motivated by a simple distaste for another country's political system, or because of its dominant religion. If that were true, how come places like Germany, Brazil or South Africa weren't the targets? All three are federal republics, like the United States, and all three are predominantly Chrisitian nations. Moreover, Germany and South Africa are as or more socially liberal than ourselves - South Africa is the largest country in the world, by population, with same-sex marriage. And all three countries are at least as protective of the rights of women as the United States.

Obviously, the root of the intense hatred for the United States, though it may be couched in religious narratives for Al Qaeda and other radical Arab/Islamic groups (and it is from this narrative that the "they hate our freedoms" narrative here takes its cue), is in the long and dubious role the United States has played in affairs in the Arab world - in Israel, in Saudi Arabia, in Afghanistan, in Iraq, in Iran, etc. The Arab world, plain and simple, has something the United States wants, and something it has never been very interested in paying very much for: oil. Thus, the United States has always used its considerable economic and military power to give itself influence, both directly and indirectly, over politics in the various countries of the Middle East region. We've supported puppet regimes responsible for some pretty eyebrow-raising atrocities. We've done all sorts of questionable things, all in the name of the United States' narrow domestic economic interests, all while offering very little help to the poorest of the poor in those countries.

There is no doubt that the countries in the Middle East often feature regimes that are totalitarian and brutal. No surprise, then, that radical groups that form within them turn their ire not toward their domestic governments - ire that could get those who participate in radical politics quickly and painfully tortured and executed - but rather to the United States, who, rightly or wrongly, is all too often perceived by the disenfranchised in these countries as the puppet master which, in a de facto way, underwrites the conditions of their economic oppression, and is thus responsible. We are, in other words, a convenient proxy - and a "safer" target than domestic governments, who have direct power to punish seditious citizens - for populist rage in the places where Al Qaeda has most fruitfully operated. This is the price the United States has elected to pay - for years - in this region, instead of the fair-market price for oil (by an agreement reached under FDR, the United States provides military defense for Saudi Arabia, and in exchange they sell the United States their oil at a rate 50% less than they sell it to everyone else; this is the biggest reason gas is so much more expensive everywhere else you ever go).

That some of these radical groups wish to install even more repressive regimes than the ones currently in power is neither surprising - political radicalism and religious dogma have been bedfellows since the Roman-age Jewish zealots and earlier - nor is it the least of the ironies created by the United States' ongoing involvement in the region. Among my favorites of these ironies is the neo-con response to 9/11: in order to "make us safe from terrorism," they have extended, and want to keep extending, United States hegemony in the region - which is itself one of the proximate causes of the violence of that day. Fight cancer with cancer seems to be the mantra here.

mozartpc27 wrote:No surprise, then, that radical groups that form within them turn their ire not toward their domestic governments - ire that could get those who participate in radical politics quickly and painfully tortured and executed - but rather to the United States, who, rightly or wrongly, is all too often perceived by the disenfranchised in these countries as the puppet master which, in a de facto way, underwrites the conditions of their economic oppression, and is thus responsible.

This "sentence" contains 8 commas and a clause that you set off with hyphens

This is why I hate hippie liberals. Also the content.

eh, I work in a special library that has a lot of dense bull-shit. that sentence is downright short.

jerseyhoya wrote:

mozartpc27 wrote:No surprise, then, that radical groups that form within them turn their ire not toward their domestic governments - ire that could get those who participate in radical politics quickly and painfully tortured and executed - but rather to the United States, who, rightly or wrongly, is all too often perceived by the disenfranchised in these countries as the puppet master which, in a de facto way, underwrites the conditions of their economic oppression, and is thus responsible.

This "sentence" contains 8 commas and a clause that you set off with hyphens

This is why I hate hippie liberals. Also the content.

If that is too long or too complex a sentence for you, you are not getting that Ph.D., son.

mozartpc27 wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

mozartpc27 wrote:No surprise, then, that radical groups that form within them turn their ire not toward their domestic governments - ire that could get those who participate in radical politics quickly and painfully tortured and executed - but rather to the United States, who, rightly or wrongly, is all too often perceived by the disenfranchised in these countries as the puppet master which, in a de facto way, underwrites the conditions of their economic oppression, and is thus responsible.

This "sentence" contains 8 commas and a clause that you set off with hyphens

This is why I hate hippie liberals. Also the content.

If that is too long or too complex a sentence for you, you are not getting that Ph.D., son.

It's just googoo drivel, like the majority of your post. They don't attack South Africa cause South Africa ain't ballin like we are.