Posted on 01/28/2007 10:29:05 AM PST by 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?
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
What a maroon. OF COURSE every enemy who desires you dead is a threat to your existence! Their relative ability to inflict it can change in a moment. The treat of a muzzie whacko with a box cutter in Boston was small threat to the "A" ring at the Pentagon, until that place and time made them a huge one. But the threat was ALWAYS there and ALWAYS prosecuted to the extent the extremist could.
So at which point would Professor Bell prefer to deal with it at: arrest them for visa violation in 2000, or try to wrest control of the airplane from them two minutes before they crashed it?
What kind of a soulless, spineless, de-balled craven coward would one ghave to be to write such CRAP??? I wish that we, as a nation, could once and for all divest ourselfs of such puny and pathetic parasites. We'd be so much better off.
Is either one of those the declaration made by OBL?
Imagine that, on 9/11, six hours after the attacks, some columnist had had the sheer idiocy to publish a column minimizing the impact of those 3,000 murders. Imagine how short-lived his journalism career would have been. Imagine how little credibility he would have had. Imagine the chances of him surviving the trip home, if someone on the street had pointed him out to the anguished crowd.
Does time somehow diminish the horror of those events? Do the 3,000 lives matter less because 20 million other lives were lost somewhere else? Does this idiot think that just because America elected a few Democrats the events of 9/11 are forgotten, or that that wound is somehow healed?
What publisher in his right mind would waste a column inch on this drivel?
Yes we have been restrained. In a time gone past the result of a 9-11 type attack would have been the invasion of the enemies territory, the plunder of their wealth, the execution of all adult males and the enslavement of all the enemy women and children.
I think Prof. Bell would prefer to hold nuclear arms "talks" with Iran....
This should work:
97 Reasons Democrats Are Weak On Defense And Can't Be Trusted To Govern In Wartime
http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=247450843953666
What a great observation! No trans fats...but terrorists...well....
Do it and we can continue the discussion. Keep yelling and it isn't worth my time.
We didn't say, for example, that the the North Korean invasion of the South was so small in comparison to what Hitler or Tojo did that we didn't need to worry about it. We didn't ignore, say, the Greek Civil War because it wasn't on the scale of WWII.
And in fact, we didn't say that Pearl Harbor was a small thing in comparison to what was going on in Europe or to our own Civil War of the 1860s.
Political argument, especially among academics, tends to get away from basic realities. We see in views we oppose the extreme case, and present our own views as moderate, sensible, and rational. But our views may be wrong or foolish and only look wise in comparison to the exaggerated straw man we have invented.
FWIW, David Bell is the son of Daniel Bell, a very wise sociologist, but one who had the misfortune of predicting The End of Ideology in 1960, on the eve of the rise of the New Left and a period of great ideological conflict. I daresay his son ought to have learned a lesson about scholars' pronouncements on public questions from the difficulty his father's prediction caused him.
But really, one guy's opinion, however misguided, isn't cause for great outrage or harassment. It ought to be enough to point out where he's wrong and get to what's really important.
One would think that any sophomoric student of history would understand that conflicts between nations (say geopolitical bodies of people) have continued since human history began and that world domination has been a reoccuring theme throughout human history.
Additionally, the parallels between the US at the beginning of the 21st century and many past empires in decline suggest that a conflict of fundamental nature between Islam and western Judeo-Christian culture is just the type of conflict to threaten the very existence of our culture as we know it.
Of all the intellectual disciplines to have insight into the threats against empires and established cultures, one would think a person with any formal education in history would be acutely and obviously aware of the threat.
IMHO, his comments merely cast doubt on his credibility.
Nobody asked you to post.
Have a nice day. We'll live without you.
Coolness: Well, this should go without saying. We as a people should keep it together and realize that when you're fighting an enemy who hides and targets the vulnerable, you will be hit. It's just a matter of when. It will be sad, and fingers will be pointed. I think it's amazing we haven't actually had another 9/11.
Resolve: Again, we have to admit that some short-term sacrifice in the way of conveniences, etc., is inevitable. The government and military, meanwhile, need to plan for the long term and realize that as we win battles, we'll lose some, too, and those will be demoralizing, whether it's metaphorical (not being able to bring shampoo onto airplanes, which it's OK to take as a battle) or literal (another 9/11, God forbid). This is no time to go soft or worry about popularity.
Stamina: This is going to be a long war. LONG. We need to cut the people fighting this war some slack as long as there's reason for hope, and they have to resist the urge to make symbolic but empty gestures -- as important as symbolism is -- if they divert resources from the long-term struggle.
Now, I don't know if the writer meant all that, but it's pretty simple to me. I think it's possible to write a column like this and not be a total kook, though clearly the writer didn't (and possibly is).
I weep for this country!
I was being sarcastic. I guess I should have used /sarc.
My point was, we ARE doing all that!
Not "eye for eye," but stop it at the beginning.
Suits me. But you know something? I don't think you read or understood the very article you posted. And that's a shame, because the Professor needs to be refuted, not dismissed. Hope your day is nice as well.
A good example of the fact that liberalism to this extreme is a mental illness.
Bears repeating.
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.