What happened on 9/11 was tragic. We say “we will never forget”. I believe we have already forgotten. Don't be mad, Hear me out!
I remember that day vividly. My dad called us early in the morning. He was a joker so I didn't believe him. He insisted we turn on the TV immediately. My husband and I were in shock, as was the rest of the world. We did not turn that TV off for the rest of the month. Day after day keeping track of the body count and shedding a tear for each and every one. Never once did they mention anybody's race, gender, nationality, or sexual orientation.
I watched the entire country come together as a whole in every way they could to help their fellow man. Nobody thought twice about rising to the occasion and seeking out a way to help from afar. Whether it was donations in the way of monetary or physical items, food, or even jumping in the car and driving there to lend a hand. We all did something and felt for one another in our hearts.
It mattered not what color or gender a human was that day. It mattered not who that dying or suffering person was, we just helped them to live and heal.
It was heartwarming to watch a nation be strong together, to help each other carry on, move forward, and never forget what we went through as a whole. Inspiring that our country endured death and destruction together yet we prevailed. Holding one another's hand, we came through the fire and storm stronger than ever.
Only to turn on each other down the road.
Decades later we still use the term "we will never forget" but in the same breath, we speak of killing one another and derogatory remarks at anyone who is different. School shootings, Mass shootings, and even homeowners shooting random people because they touched their property line.
We have police violently killing innocent victims and people hating the very people who are sworn to protect us. The same first responders that risked everything to save every person they possibly could many years ago, can’t remember either.
Now, we are throwing religion and politics into the mix. We are losing the rights we fought for in the past. We are at odds about what, and who is right or wrong. Nobody can agree on how the country should be run, and what religion we should all adhere to. We are completely forgetting the past altogether, we are forgetting each other, and we are forgetting where we came from.
Personally, part of me is slowly losing faith in humanity. Call me naive, but I still have some hope left. I am hoping the younger generations will see how we have separated so badly and decide to come together to make it all peaceful. I have faith that they will unite for peace.
I can’t speak for anyone else, but I will truly “never forget” because it gives me a spark of hope that we can remember. We can remember a day when we didn’t care what someone looked like or what their background was. We only cared about saving the lives we were able to, and helping each other heal, together, as one big happy family.
Can you imagine if something like this happened today? Anytime a major tragedy occurs, the only thing I hear about it is conspiracy theories. We are more interested in the political aspect of a disaster than actually fixing the problems.
As a country, we have lost sight of what is real, what is right, and what we're doing in general. We've lost sight of our American dream. Our time on this planet is short, don't live it with a hateful heart.
Let us take a step back to honor the fallen, the brave, the survivors, and the day to remember. Be kind to one another!
About the Creator
Keep reading
More stories from writers in The Swamp and other communities.
ECC Approves Over Rs. 7 Billion Funds for Armed Forces: What It Means for National Security and the Economy
Pakistan’s Economic Coordination Committee (ECC) has approved over Rs. 7 billion in additional funds for the armed forces, a move that underscores the government’s continued focus on national security amid evolving regional and internal challenges. While defense spending often sparks debate, this latest approval reflects broader realities related to preparedness, modernization, and the economic pressures faced by security institutions in a changing geopolitical environment. Understanding the ECC’s Role The Economic Coordination Committee, a key body within Pakistan’s federal government, is responsible for approving major financial decisions, particularly those that fall outside the scope of the annual budget. ECC approvals typically address urgent or unforeseen expenditures, making this allocation especially significant. According to official briefings, the newly approved funds are meant to cover operational requirements, logistical needs, and critical expenditures faced by the armed forces. These allocations are not unusual, particularly in times when inflation, currency depreciation, and rising global costs increase the financial burden on state institutions. Why Additional Funding Was Needed Several factors contributed to the need for this supplementary funding: Rising operational costs due to inflation and higher fuel prices Maintenance and logistics expenses for equipment and infrastructure Border security and counterterrorism operations, which require sustained financial support Welfare and allowances for military personnel affected by economic pressures Defense analysts note that while Pakistan’s defense budget is allocated annually, economic volatility often creates gaps that must be filled through ECC intervention to avoid disruptions in critical operations. Regional Security Environment The approval comes at a time when regional security dynamics remain complex. Tensions in South Asia, instability in neighboring regions, and global conflicts have reshaped military planning worldwide. For Pakistan, maintaining readiness across land, air, and maritime domains remains a strategic priority. Security experts argue that adequate funding is essential not just for combat readiness, but also for intelligence coordination, disaster response, and peacekeeping commitments. Pakistan’s armed forces frequently play a role in humanitarian relief efforts, from flood response to earthquake recovery, which also require financial resources. Economic Concerns and Public Debate Defense spending in Pakistan often raises questions, especially during periods of economic strain. Critics argue that funds should be prioritized for healthcare, education, and social welfare, while supporters counter that national security is a prerequisite for economic stability. Economists emphasize that ECC approvals do not necessarily mean a permanent increase in defense spending. Instead, they often serve as short-term financial adjustments to ensure continuity. Transparency in how these funds are utilized will be key in maintaining public trust. Impact on Civil-Military Balance The ECC’s decision also reflects the institutional relationship between civilian leadership and the military. Budgetary approvals through civilian forums reinforce constitutional processes and demonstrate oversight mechanisms at work. Observers note that such approvals, when handled transparently, can strengthen democratic governance by ensuring that defense needs are met within a structured financial framework, rather than through ad-hoc arrangements. Broader Implications Beyond immediate military needs, the funding decision has broader implications: Defense preparedness may enhance deterrence and stability Local defense industries could benefit if funds support procurement or maintenance International partners and lenders will watch closely, as defense spending often factors into economic assessments Balancing defense requirements with fiscal responsibility remains a delicate task, especially as Pakistan navigates IMF commitments and economic reforms. Looking Ahead The approval of over Rs. 7 billion for the armed forces highlights the constant balancing act between security and economic management. As Pakistan moves forward, policymakers will face continued pressure to justify defense-related expenditures while addressing public concerns over inflation, employment, and development. For now, the ECC’s decision signals that the government views security readiness as non-negotiable, even in challenging economic times. The real test will lie in how effectively these funds are utilized and whether long-term planning can reduce the need for repeated supplementary approvals.
By Fiaz Ahmed Brohi7 days ago in The Swamp
Trump’s Peace Board Charter and the $1 Billion Membership Proposal
In recent days, a draft charter for a newly proposed international body called the Board of Peace has become the subject of intense global discussion. Circulated by the U.S. administration to around 60 countries, the document outlines the structure and purpose of an organization that officials suggest could play a central role in international conflict resolution, starting with the crisis in Gaza. But one element of the proposal has drawn particular scrutiny: a requirement that nations contribute $1 billion in cash if they wish to hold their membership beyond a basic three-year period. What Is the Board of Peace? According to information from the draft charter and related reporting, the Board of Peace is intended as an international body that aims to promote “stability, restore dependable and lawful governance, and secure enduring peace in areas affected or threatened by conflict.” The initiative was first publicly announced by former U.S. President Donald Trump in January 2026 as part of what the U.S. government describes as the second phase of its broader Gaza peace plan. This phase follows an earlier ceasefire and outlines mechanisms for transitional governance and reconstruction in Gaza under international supervision. plomatic figures — including U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, and Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff — have already been named to an executive committee of the board. Invitations are understood to have been sent to leaders from nations such as Argentina, Canada, Egypt, Turkey, and others. The $1 Billion Membership Proposal The feature that has sparked the most international attention is the charter’s apparent provision linking extended membership privileges to a financial contribution. Under the draft charter’s terms, each member state would serve a three-year term, renewable at the board chair’s discretion. However, those countries that provide $1 billion in cash funds to the Board of Peace within the first year would not be subject to this three-year limit and could effectively retain their membership indefinitely. This requirement appears designed to incentivize significant financial involvement, but it has also raised questions about accessibility, equity, and the broader implications for international cooperation. Supporters of the idea argue that substantial funding would ensure the board has the necessary resources to respond effectively to complex crises — from reconstruction to peacebuilding efforts. Critics, however, worry that the high threshold could limit participation to wealthy states and give disproportionate influence to those with deep pockets. Leadership and Control The draft charter positions Trump as the inaugural chairman of the Board of Peace, granting him substantial authority over membership and governance issues. He would reportedly have the power to decide invitations, renew terms, appoint and remove executive board members, and even designate his own successor. Decisions by the larger membership would be determined by majority vote, but all outcomes would remain subject to approval by the chairman. Critics say this centralization of power could undermine principles of shared leadership and transparency in international affairs. Diverse Reactions from Around the World Reactions from global leaders and diplomatic communities have been mixed: Some invited nations have expressed interest or are considering participation, according to reporting on invitations extended by the Trump administration. Israel’s government has publicly objected to certain aspects of the peace plan, including board composition, noting that consultations were insufficient or potentially counter to its policy preferences. Other voices have raised broader strategic questions about the board’s role in comparison to established international institutions like the United Nations. Given Trump’s past criticisms of the U.N., some observers see this new entity as potentially overlapping with or even challenging traditional multilateral mechanisms. At least one nation — Argentina — has reportedly accepted an invitation to be a founding member, while others continue to deliberate. Debate Over the Financial Requirement The proposed $1 billion contribution for extended membership has become a focal point of debate. Supporters of the provision argue that significant financial commitments are necessary for any meaningful peacebuilding effort. International operations — especially those involving reconstruction, governance support, and humanitarian activities — require substantial funds to be effective. From this perspective, the requirement may help create a solid financial foundation for the board’s work. Critics, however, see potential downsides: Equity concerns: A steep financial barrier could exclude poorer nations from sustained involvement in an initiative aimed at global peace. Influence dynamics: There are fears that wealthy contributors could have outsized influence over decision-making, which may not align with wider international priorities. Institutional tension: The proposal could prompt questions about how this board interacts with established international entities like the United Nations and regional organizations. Some governments are reportedly evaluating the proposal and consulting with diplomatic partners to formulate a collective response. Others are observing developments closely before making commitments public. Transparency and Next Steps The White House has pushed back on some interpretations of the charter’s financial provisions, calling certain reports “misleading” and emphasizing that there is no formal “fee” for joining the board. Instead, officials frame extended membership as a reflection of deep commitment to the board’s goals of peace, security, and prosperity. Despite these assurances, the $1 billion figure continues to circulate in diplomatic and media discussions as a significant point of contention and analysis. It remains unclear how many countries will ultimately ratify the charter, whether the Board of Peace will gain broad international legitimacy, and how its operations might interact with other multilateral frameworks. The coming months — especially conversations at international gatherings such as economic forums and U.N. assemblies — could shed more light on these questions. Looking Ahead As this proposal continues to unfold, its long-term impact on international diplomacy and peacebuilding efforts will depend on broad global engagement and the ability to balance financial sustainability with inclusive, equitable participation. While the draft charter’s objectives reflect an ambition to rethink how peace initiatives are structured, the discussions surrounding its provisions — from leadership models to membership conditions — illustrate the complex terrain of contemporary geopolitics. The coming weeks and months will show whether the Board of Peace can secure widespread support without deepening existing tensions within the international community.
By Saboor Brohi 3 days ago in The Swamp
So You Decided To Become a Nurse Practitioner:
So you decided to become an "Advanced Practice" nurse. Congratulations!... is what I would say if this was a good idea. Grad school? In this economy? What were you thinking? Likely it was something along the lines of either 1) “I've seen these other chucklefucks do it— Why can't I?” or even 2) “I've got a nice career, I should shake it up. I miss feeling like I have no clue what I'm doing.”
By Sandor Szabo5 days ago in Fiction
Comments
There are no comments for this story
Be the first to respond and start the conversation.