Was 9/11 really that bad? (I KNEW IT WOULD COME TO THIS)

Los Angeles Times ^ | 1/28/07 | David A. Bell

[paulat]

Was 9/11 really that bad?
The attacks were a horrible act of mass murder, but history says we're overreacting.
By David A. Bell
January 28, 2007

IMAGINE THAT on 9/11, six hours after the assault on the twin towers and the Pentagon, terrorists had carried out a second wave of attacks on the United States, taking an additional 3,000 lives. Imagine that six hours after that, there had been yet another wave. Now imagine that the attacks had continued, every six hours, for another four years, until nearly 20 million Americans were dead. This is roughly what the Soviet Union suffered during World War II, and contemplating these numbers may help put in perspective what the United States has so far experienced during the war against terrorism.

[snip]

Has the American reaction to the attacks in fact been a massive overreaction? Is the widespread belief that 9/11 plunged us into one of the deadliest struggles of our time simply wrong? If we did overreact, why did we do so? Does history provide any insight?

[snip]

The people who attacked us in 2001 are indeed hate-filled fanatics who would like nothing better than to destroy this country. But desire is not the same thing as capacity, and although Islamist extremists can certainly do huge amounts of harm around the world, it is quite different to suggest that they can threaten the existence of the United States.

[snip]

Even if one counts our dead in Iraq and Afghanistan as casualties of the war against terrorism, which brings us to about 6,500, we should remember that roughly the same number of Americans die every two months in automobile accidents.

[snip]

So why has there been such an overreaction?

[april15Bendovr]

Growing up on Long Island seeing the World Trade Towers going into the city was a permanent fixture of my environment. I could only imagine this is the same thoughts for many New Yorkers. Now that its longer a part of the landscape when I drive down to NYC from New England where I live now my blood still boils thinking about my fellow Americans killed that day.

So much for "Was 9/11 really that bad?"

[MarkL]

I suppose that David Bell also believes that the US should no longer protect the LA metropolitan area from terrorist attacks.

So, let's have the city and county of LA return any money they've received from the Department of Homeland Security, since we've overreacted so badly.

Mark

[muleskinner]

The full capacity of the Twin Towers was 50,000 people.

Yeah, Bin-Laden was just trying to make a statement and only knock down the buildings by planning the attack around 9:30 A.M. on a work day, when everyone would be inside. Nah, wasn't that bad. /ultra-sarc/

[BUSHdude2000]

The communist vision of revising history alive and well...

[paulat]

Disproportionality is absolutely the answer against terror and it demeans the value in human life of its victims to imply that they're only worth so much in the grand scheme of things.

You are COMPLETELY missing the point. Flight 93 was aimed, either at the Capitol or the White House. Think about THAT, pal.

Also...the Bush Administration has kept us SAFE all these years. Who knows what the "capacity" would have been???

[Greystoke]

David, I come over to your house and slap you in the face as hard as I can. You do nothing (but cry). The next day, I do it again, and each day following that. Why? Because I have a grudge with you and you do nothing to prevent me from coming over and slapping you.

[paulat]

... seems like the sane version of what I think he was trying to say.

Okay...tell me what is the practical application of: "To fight them effectively, we need coolness, resolve and stamina."

[LexBaird]

97 Reasons Democrats Are Weak On Defense And Can't Be Trusted To Govern In Wartime

Dead link

[zook]

On one hand, he claims that the total homeland casualties are relatively small--like those caused by traffic accidents. On the other hand, he claims we're now involved in one of the "deadliest struggles of our time," despite the fact that our military casualties are also near or below the "traffic accident" level.

While he argues that Islamists pose no real threat to the existance of the United States, he hides the fact that our losses at Pearl Harbor were also very small and that Hitler posed virtually no threat at all to mainland America.

This man is a disloyal fool, a terrorist fellow traveler. His e-mail box should be filled with messages to that effect.

[DarthVader]

This guy is a complete fool. I heard yesterday from the College Republicans that the goofy prof from Wisconsin who was teaching that 9/11 was a inside job got the hook and will never teach there again.

[conservativepoet]

Here's just another example of an intellectual unable to resist the insanity overcoming the world. Thanks for posting this unbelievable piece from another sophisticated mind without a clue. These impoverished professors are going to get the rest of us killed. When people jettison the best of Western thought they will believe anything.

[MarkL]

Hmmm.... Let's see. A terrorist act designed to take out as much of our government as possible is carried out. The same act is designed to disable aspects of our financial system. At the same time, 3,000 people are murdered in the attack--and for all we know they were actually trying to murder 10,000 or so--they just attacked too early in the day.

Hmmm...nope, no overreaction that I notice.

This is something that idiots like this can't seem to grasp. Had the planes struck the towers at about 11:00am or 2:00pm, and had the buildings come down immediately, possibly striking other buildings, the death toll would have approached 60,000. Just the twin towers, when fully populated, had nearly 50,000 people in them.

As horrific as it was to see nearly 3,000 people murdered, it could have been VERY MUCH WORSE.

This a**h**e is beneath contempt!

Mark

[zook]

You nailed the key contradiction in this idiot's thinking. I'm sure he thought about this, but figured that most LA Times readers wouldn't. Like all leftists, his aim is to weaken American morale and will.

[mware]

I suggest Mr David Bell ask these folks if it was an overreaction.

Oh, that is right they all were murdered on 911.

[paulat]

As horrific as it was to see nearly 3,000 people murdered, it could have been VERY MUCH WORSE.

...and...as I keep pointing out...what if Flight 93 had succeeded!!!

[Skip Ripley]

An overreaction? Hardly... WW II was nation vs nation...armies massed, air forces were launched, ships sailed...there was a strucutre to it. 9/11 was an unprecedented event. A group joined by a belief in a perverted religious ideology launched a seemingly random set of attacks against civilians using civilians as the primary weapon.

This is a war like no other in our memory. Random, asymmetrical and driven not by a political or even ideological goals. The enemy only wishes to kill and maim. They claim to be battling for an ideological end, but any fool can see their goals are hopelessly unrealsitic. They know they won't drive us from the Middle east, they know we won't convert to Islamm...they don't really want those things.

They just want an excuse to kill us. They want an excuse and opportunity to kill Professor Bell. He's just too dumb to realize it.

[DocRock]

"And despite the even more nightmarish fantasies of the post-9/11 era (e.g. the TV show "24's" nuclear attack on Los Angeles), Islamist terrorists have not come close to deploying weapons other than knives, guns and conventional explosives."

In Aug. of 2000, Osama bin Laden tried to blow up a nuclear reactor in the suburbs of Sydney during the 2000 Olympics. LINK and in Jan. of this year, the same reactor was targeted again. LINK

The first attempt on this nuclear facility was over a year before the attack on Sept. 11, 2001 and was targeting a multi-national audience at the Olympics just a few miles away. This is not a suitcase nuke, but a dirty bomb plot and a heck of a step from box cutters. The author of this editorial is an idiot or an enemy, or both.

[ChildOfThe60s]

Hmm, Hitler's invasion of Czechoslovakia was deemed insufficient provocation for war. Besides, why should we assume this might be the start, rather than the end, of Hitler's aggressions?

And, gee whiz, a lot more people died in WW1 anyway.

Liberals carry on about protecting and saving lives from every little thing. But, in reality, when it contradicts their causes, life is the cheapest, most inconsequential thing in the world.

[omega4179]

It figures liberal writers would use the soviet union as an example, thats what they want to emulate. A socialist utopia savaged by a white male dominated society is the essence of liberal anxiety and hate.

[omega4179]

BINGO!