Moment of silence my ass

[CAFKIA]

On this the anniversary of an unfortunately successful criminal attack on our nation, I refuse invitations of a moment of silence. That is indeed the problem. Too many of us have been too silent for too long. To honor those who had all taken from them, who were killed in most ironic fashion as are all victims of "Holy Wars", I pledge not a moment of silence but instead, a lifetime noisy, raucous, unwavering support for the Constitution that the criminals and their cowardly cohorts in our own government are attempting to fully obviate.

Honor those killed, disabled, destroyed, or broken hearted by the attack and the response by never NEVER giving in to efforts to curtail the rights outlined in the Constitution. Honor them by making sure that the nation is what we want it to be not what a small group of malintentioned individuals, regardless of their nationality, attempt to pervert it to be.


Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?
Forbid it, Almighty God!
I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death! - Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775.

[fluffy]

you do realize that the moment of silence is meant to honor those civilians that died, right? not bush or gore or cheney or clinton or any other politician or party?

It had nothing to do with the constitution, and dont turn it into an excuse for political posturing. To do so is to co-opt it and cheapen the tragedy. you dont like it when the republicans do it(Guliani being the most obvious example), so why is it ok for you?

[CAFKIA]

you do realize that the moment of silence is meant to honor those civilians that died, right? not bush or gore or cheney or clinton or any other politician or party?

It had nothing to do with the constitution, and dont turn it into an excuse for political posturing. To do so is to co-opt it and cheapen the tragedy. you dont like it when the republicans do it(Guliani being the most obvious example), so why is it ok for you?

Why would I only honor the civillians who died? Are those in the military worth less because of their choice to serve? In any case, it is my contention that the memory of those who died is better served by acting as I stated. I am not now, nor have I ever been confused by who I was honoring regardless of the method I chose.

For YOU this may have nothing to do with the Constitution. For me, it has everything to do with it. I will assume that you meant that I should not turn it into an excuse for partisan posturing but, I certainly did not mention party or ideology. IX/XI has been used for all manner of political posturing, partisan and otherwise but, most offensively, it has been used as the political crowbar to pry apart the support beams of the Constitution. It is my contention that to allow this grossly dishonors the memory and the donation of blood, whether made willingly or forced.

The belief that the actual perps of the criminal act should be brought to justice is in no way political. The belief that attention should be paid to the fact that the overwhelming majority of the actual hijackers were Saudi citizens is not political. The belief that giving in to what the criminals desired and changing our Constitution, limiting our rights, is a sign of weakness IS NOT POLITICAL.

But then, I bet sheep aren't political either.

[rikki]

I firmly believe that if the 3,000 dead were to return, they would die all over again for shame at what has been done in their name. They would be appalled at the mock investigation of how the attacks happened, sickened that we re-elected the coward who could not stand before God nor Congress to defend his inaction, mortified that we sought not justice but vengeance and despondent over the lying, spying, torture and belligerence.

When at last they could no longer gaze upon the sickness of America's leaders, they would turn their tear-choked eyes to us and ask, "How could you let this happen?" That would be the time for silence; that is every day in this nation. Today is a day to speak up. We will not be truly honoring the dead of September 11, 2001 until we purge the silence from our cowardly belly.

[fluffy]

Why would I only honor the civillians who died? Are those in the military worth less because of their choice to serve?

good attempt to be coy. are you a politician? 9/11 should be about the people that died on that day, period.

For YOU this may have nothing to do with the Constitution. For me, it has everything to do with it.

really? what part of the constitution has to do with 3000 people dying from islamists crashing planes on our soil?

I will assume that you meant that I should not turn it into an excuse for partisan posturing but, I certainly did not mention party or ideology.

again, dont play coy. its been the GOP calling all the shots for the past 6 years so its pretty obvious who you were alluding to.

IX/XI has been used for all manner of political posturing, partisan and otherwise but, most offensively, it has been used as the political crowbar to pry apart the support beams of the Constitution.

so then you ARE saying its ok for you to politically posture about this since others do. ok, thanks for the clarification.

It is my contention that to allow this grossly dishonors the memory and the donation of blood, whether made willingly or forced.

The belief that the actual perps of the criminal act should be brought to justice is in no way political. The belief that attention should be paid to the fact that the overwhelming majority of the actual hijackers were Saudi citizens is not political. The belief that giving in to what the criminals desired and changing our Constitution, limiting our rights, is a sign of weakness IS NOT POLITICAL.

what you see as a limiting of rights others see as a necessary tool to investigate possible future terrorist activity. see how making such a claim IS political?

[Randall's Randy Rebecca]

Why would I only honor the civillians who died? Are those in the military worth less because of their choice to serve? In any case, it is my contention that the memory of those who died is better served by acting as I stated. I am not now, nor have I ever been confused by who I was honoring regardless of the method I chose.

Those military women and men whose decision to serve placed them in harm's way are not "less worthy," and I don't think anyone implied that they were. But September 11th is a day to remember civilian deaths because it was primarily civilians who perished in the largest terrorist attack in modern U.S. history. They did not have the option of a dignified death on the battlefield. 911 victims were blind-sighted in a an attack that most were not expecting.

As for your contention, that people act rather than keep silent...I think you are willfully overlooking the point. "Moment of silence" has become a euphemism for prayer, meditation, deep speculation etc. I really don't think that when families of 911 victims suggest that you honor their perished loved ones in a moment of silence, they are actually telling you to shut up and not do a damned thing.

As for me, I am very much in favor of thought that PRECEDES action.

[CAFKIA]

good attempt to be coy. are you a politician? 9/11 should be about the people that died on that day, period.

So, it is just my being coy to quote you when you said:

you do realize that the moment of silence is meant to honor those civilians that died, right?

really? what part of the constitution has to do with 3000 people dying from islamists crashing planes on our soil?

NEWSFLASH!!: The criminals who did the deed were not simply looking for new and different ways/places to die. They had an agenda. Their bosses likely had a slightly different agenda that was nonetheless, compatible with the actions taken. Should I also explain gravity? (Whoops, there I go being coy or something)

again, dont play coy. its been the GOP calling all the shots for the past 6 years so its pretty obvious who you were alluding to.

Dogs bark. Snakes strike. Fish feel slimy. I expect republicans to be republicans. It is those with no strong ideological calling and/or those who profess an ideology inconsistent with things the republicans have done in our names that I direct my message to. You have my permission however, to feel as much guilt as seems appropriate.

so then you ARE saying its ok for you to politically posture about this since others do. ok, thanks for the clarification.

It is the nature of things to be as they are and of animals to do as they do.

what you see as a limiting of rights others see as a necessary tool to investigate possible future terrorist activity. see how making such a claim IS political?

I cannot control what you feel or what you see when you look through your eyes. I can suggest that my reading and understanding of certain secular and sacred documents are at odds with the actions taken by some individuals who have publicly claimed a respect for and/or a duty to defend the ideas outlined in said documents. As always YMMV. But I have neither heard nor read any arguments that suggest that it is I who has the misunderstanding.

[CAFKIA]

Those military women and men whose decision to serve placed them in harm's way are not "less worthy," and I don't think anyone implied that they were. But September 11th is a day to remember civilian deaths because it was primarily civilians who perished in the largest terrorist attack in modern U.S. history. They did not have the option of a dignified death on the battlefield. 911 victims were blind-sighted in a an attack that most were not expecting.

As for your contention, that people act rather than keep silent...I think you are willfully overlooking the point. "Moment of silence" has become a euphemism for prayer, meditation, deep speculation etc. I really don't think that when families of 911 victims suggest that you honor their perished loved ones in a moment of silence, they are actually telling you to shut up and not do a damned thing.

As for me, I am very much in favor of thought that PRECEDES action.

My point was that at the Pentagon, the plane probably killed military and civilian side-by-side. It seems like folks are being awfully casual with military lives.

There is probably less chance for a dignified death on the battlefield than there is is your average discount whorehouse. There is nothing dignified about having your buddies note which parts of you are missing and deciding whether you are worth the effort to save (triage).

I can accept that a moment of silence is euphemistic for prayer. However, for those who tend towards the dominant religious belief in this nation, we are past the point of prayer doing those folks any good. Obviously, one may still request peace for those left behind. I like the way Rikki phrased it, we went for vengeance rather than justice. I suggest that we now raise our voice to demand justice and a return to our identity. That is the honor I feel capable of sincerely offering.

[fluffy]

But I have neither heard nor read any arguments that suggest that it is I who has the misunderstanding.

go figure. quite an ego you have. are you sure youre not a politician?

[Hayduke]

Do the 3,200 people who died in traffic accidents last month get a moment of silence? Nearly all civilians. Would it have any effect on the 3,200 or so who will die this month? Whatcha gotta do to rate a little silence?

"How about a moment of muffled conversation for the treated and released?" - G. Carlin