Shouldn’t a Sept. 11 vigil remember those who died on Sept. 11?

Three thousand Americans died that day, and you can bet they’d be grieving if it was us trapped inside the twin towers instead of them. Among the dead were 343 of New York’s bravest fire-fighters and police officers, who rushed into the flaming towers — even seconds before they crumbled — prepared to leave everything in this world behind to save a few more people, a few more of their fellow Americans.

How, pray tell, would they respond to a supposed “”memorial service”” where more time was spent condemning America and claiming false victimization than remembering innocent lives lost? At UCSD’s recent Sept. 11 memorial service, A.S. President Jenn Brown did just that, and I don’t think the true victims would have appreciated it one bit.

Sure, she acknowledges that the thousands of murdered Americans — though she did not use the “”A-word,”” which apparently is offensive to her — were victims. I thought that was quite generous of her.

Unfortunately, she spent more time lamenting the deaths of those killed in Afghanistan. But just the Afghans, of course; she clearly couldn’t care less about the 40 American servicemen and women who have been killed in Operation Enduring Freedom. After all, our troops were only there to kill a bunch of terrorists trying to kill us; who cares about our lives or our freedom, anyway? Brown obviously doesn’t.

We lost 3,000 innocent human lives, without warning, in the sick name of militant Islamic genocide; comparatively, the nation of Afghanistan lost a couple hundred civilians because of cowardly butchers who choose to hide among women and children, using them as human shields for their own protection.

By attributing Sept. 11 victimization to “”hatred … a lack of understanding … the power of economic interests [and] a general lack of tolerance,”” she criticizes American culture. However, I think such rhetoric is far more aptly applied to those who attacked us.

Their economic interests are at stake not because the United States is evil enough to sell them Coca-Cola and McDonald’s, but because rather than teaching their children math and science, they teach them to hate the United States and blame us, on the other side of the world, because their civilization has failed to advance along with the rest of civilization.

Before we invaded Afghanistan, women were publicly executed in soccer fields for wearing makeup. Before we invaded Afghanistan, television and radio were illegal. Before we invaded Afghanistan, the foreign aid we provided to the suffering masses was stolen by the Taliban.

Before we invaded Afghanistan, those masses suffered under a ruthless, fascist regime. Although it is sad that there may be a recently married Afghan couple that won’t grow old together, the vast majority of that nation is far happier now than it was a year ago.

As revolutionary an idea as this may be to some, these terrorists pervert Islam and use it as a crutch because they want the power and the money of the United States, since their theocratic dictatorships are incapable of generating wealth on their own.

Nearly all Americans hate to see the loss of human life. But we fought a war in Afghanistan in self-defense; the Sept. 11 animals waged war in the name of hate.

There is a fundamental value difference explaining why lives were lost in America and in Afghanistan; we apologize for the loss of innocents, while they promise to slaughter more. Anyone who doesn’t recognize that fundamental difference is either stupid or even sicker than those making such promises.

Brown also characterized Arab-Americans facing harassment as victims of Sept. 11. I have great sympathies for anyone facing discrimination on the basis of race or religion; I give everyone a fair shake, and look down upon those who do otherwise. Unfortunately, despite our nation’s progress, there are still bigots, and there will always be bigots; human thought can’t be regulated.

Unlike Brown, however, I choose to look at how remarkably well the strong majority of Americans have reacted to Sept. 11. Throughout the history of civilization, you’ll find that the inhabitants of nations at war have been outwardly and violently hateful toward persons whose ethnicity would apparently ally them with the enemy. Yes, there were a few such incidents in America following the attack, and my heart goes out to the victims of such treatment. But I prefer to focus on the fact that violence against Arabs in this country has been remarkably low; far lower, in fact, than even the greatest optimists would have predicted.

Would Western European nations, whose populaces are blatantly hostile toward non-white immigrants, have been so tolerant had they been attacked? Certainly not. Do you think the Middle East is a tolerant place? During the strikes, my parents’ friend from Afghanistan told them that if they were in Kabul, he would be expected to shoot them in the middle of the street, and if he didn’t, somebody else would shoot all three of them. If the United States is the intolerant, hateful nation Brown depicts it to be, then it must sure be terrible to be a minority elsewhere in the world.

What really made me angry about Brown’s speech, however, is her claim that leftists whose radical views are scoffed by the majority of Americans are also victims of Sept. 11, because they’re “”called un-American because they question their government.”” Therefore, our elected A.S. president, who has totally lambasted our nation in the past, is, in a speech remembering victims of Sept. 11, claiming victimization herself.

Who is she to think she’s exempt from criticism? If she and her friends share a view that the vast majority of this country thinks is ridiculous, why is she so surprised when people are eager to criticize her?

Moreover, by calling herself a victim, she disgraces the true victims of that terrible day. She’s still alive. As far as I know, she didn’t have to grieve the loss of any loved ones, or attend a single funeral void of a casket. She lives nowhere near Manhattan. Or the Pentagon. Or Shanksville, Pa. She didn’t rush into the World Trade Center to rescue a single soul before its collapse, nor does she seem to care that anyone did. It is an outrage that she could possibly have the audacity, or even the ego, to merely entertain the possibility that she is a victim.

If she thinks she’s a victim, maybe she should have attended the recent memorial service at Ground Zero and shared her sad, sulking speech of victimization with a crowd of thousands whose friends and loved ones had perished violently and senselessly. I suspect they’d tell her “”thanks but no thanks,”” and, with absolutely all due respect, tell her where to shove it.

The people who attended UCSD’s service expected better than the speech she delivered. The families of those who died, as well as our brave servicemen and women, would have wanted better than that. And there are 3,000 dead Americans whose memory deserves better than that.