I'm Sick of 9/11 Memorials (Vanity)

I don't know about other FReepers, but I am sick and tired of the 9/11 memorials. Maybe you read my headline and thought I am an insensitive jerk, a troll, a liberal or a lunatic who doesn't have the sense to realize the importance of marking this day appropriately. You'd be 180 degrees wrong and that's just my point. I mean I'm sick and tired of the way this day is remembered. I mean the weepy, maudlin preoccupation with the "tragedy" of 9/11. Of course, I don't mean that there should be no solemn observance to pay the proper respect to the victims and to comfort their families. I just mean the obsessive singular focus on the aspects of loss and so-called tragedy to the exclusion of what I believe should be the true American, patriotic form of remembrance.

For reference, I think we should look at the one day in our history that comes closest to the events of 9/11, Pearl Harbor. A study of public reaction from contemporary resources shows a nearly uniform sentiment: dignified rage. Recruiting offices around the country were mobbed with men who shared this dignified rage and knew in their hearts that the correct and proper thing to do is to destroy the vicious and treacherous enemy who dared to commit such wanton acts of murder and destruction on America. Beyond those who were willing and able to bear arms, the entire nation rallied around the flag and their government in full throated support of an unapologetic war to visit annihilation on the perpetrators.

Mind you, the righteous anger of America that blazed on December 7, 1941 and the unity of purpose to destroy our enemies did not wane in 4 weeks or 6 weeks or 6 months as it did after 9/11. Politicians did not tell Americans to just go out and shop or otherwise behave as if nothing had happened. Fierce American resolve from the President down to the private in the foxhole to Rosie the riveter kept burning brightly from the day of the attack until and even after Hiroshima and Nagasaki were smoldering piles of ash. Setbacks along the way did not diminish, but renewed, American determination to see vengeance through to victory.

Of course, there were memorials for the soldiers, airmen and sailors killed at Pearl Harbor. Although I haven't had the privilege to visit, I understand that the Arizona memorial is a most solemn and sobering tribute to the men who died that day. But I find no evidence that Americans reacted to and remembered Pearl Harbor with such intense focus on the victims and their families or that they regarded the attack as a "tragedy". It wasn't a tragedy - it was an outrage, it was the worst kind of villainy, it was evil incarnate and Americans back then knew what to do and how to behave. And, I might add that the American culture of the day was more stoic and more dignified in their sorrow. You didn't have every single surviving family member making tear filled speeches and reading poetry. Again, for those who might misunderstand, I am not taking one iota away from their pain and suffering, but I believe the preoccupation with that part of 9/11 diminishes its significance and the national resolve and sense of purpose that are needed to finish the job of eradicating the barbarians who would visit a thousand 9/11's on us every day if they could.

Separate and apart from the tragedy of the loss of life for the victims and their families, the message of 9/11 and its remembrance on the national level is not one of tragedy at all, but should follow the example of the Greatest Generation: 9/11 should be a solemn, dignified remembrance of loss but it should also be a time to reflect on the vicious, evil atrocity that was done to our country and to renew our united determination to obliterate every last vestige of the people and the ideology that brought death to our shores.

I do understand your point, when I got fed up I got on FR to clear my mind.

My reasoning is simple for me. I’m still PO’ed and will probably will be until I die.

Having said that, I do like to hear from like minded individuals who have learned to calm themselves, otherwise today is just more of my hatred for those cowards who chose to pick on defenseless civilians.

Today is the 10th anniversary and my blood boils as much today as it did on that day!

I don’t watch ncis anymore. Got mad several years ago when they made fun of Sarah Palin.

Then their Christmas special was about an honor killing. A Christian killed his brother because he had converted to mooselimb. There are thousands of honor killings by mooselimbs each year but ncis decided to manufacture one about Christians.

Go to hell ncis. And any company advertising on their show.

Thank you.

I too have been thinking the same thing about all you said.

I also think about Normandy. That was beyond belief. No tribute there.

I put the TV on this a.m. for 1 second. There was idiot Rove yammering. I turned if off and has not been on all day.

Thank you again. I agree with all you said.

I appreciate your detailed answer. Certainly, I don't believe that President Bush is above criticism.

You think he laid it on too thick, and that's fine. From what I remember, al-Qai'da not only had presences in the Middle East but also in Africa. I think the fear of al-Qai'da setting up hidden bases all over the world made the Bush team go out of their way to push the "RoP" line.

What I was really criticizing Bush for was two-fold: one, in many speeches to and about Muslims in America, he kept up this drivel about Islam being a religion of peace. He could just as well have left the issue alone or said some nice things about Muslims generally without resorting to an out-right poisonous lie which has not befriended the Muslims but emboldened them to exploit this perceived naivete. Now, every time someone wants to suggest that maybe Islam is not so peaceful (such as the Peter King hearings) they are relentlessly savaged as racists bigots and Islamophobes. Bush greatly contributed to that. Debate is squelched and our people are hampered in rooting out the terrorist cells that are forming right now in American mosques.

I think he learned that the hard way. Bush was notorious for not responding to the hatred of him during his terms; you mentioned it yourself. That was one of his miscalculations. I think he underestimated the strength of the anti-war movement and overestimated the strength of what Washington insiders like to call "nationalism."

In fact, I think he went out of his way in the RoP department to euchre out a policy of internment. For whatever reasons they highlighted, he and his team decided that internment would make things worse on balance. As a result, as you mentioned, certain questions have been cut off at the knees and debate has been squelched.

In domestic policy, his mistakes were that of a war President. I think he tried to run what the Brits call a "National Government" out of the Oval Office. (In times of war, all major parties get seats in the Cabinet to fortify national unity.) Trouble is, the national-government approach doesn't fit well onto the American system. Certainly, the Dems didn't reciprocate.

Unfortunately, through his domestic policy, he wound up adding to America's fiscal woes. That's part of his legacy too, as you implied.

Again, thanks for your detailed reply.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.