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?

[PISANO]

Bell.......you are a complete MORON!!

[Geronimo]

Damn, this guy needs to be taken outside for a serious beating...

[Cvengr]

I suspect this particular war is closer to home than many wish to recognize.

I say this not because of mass open attacks in full view of the public, but because the same occultic saaviness which is accrued by many brotherhoods in the west is observable in the thinking, behavior, and proven activities of a greater Islamic front.

Such obfuscation of ulterior motives by Islamic extremists are intuitively sensed by those with wherewithal in the US and West, both on the conservative and liberal sides of the political spectrum.

If the left astutely perceived that threat, they wouldn't use their power to deny its existence, but would find conservatives to better meet their interests than the Islamic extremists.

Unless, of course, there might already exist real brotherhood type ties between international socialism and Islamic extremism, making it merely another tool for them to manipulate. As history unfolds, and power structures follow specific authorities, the latter case IMHO has possible credibility.

[BronzePencil]

Office Phone: (410) 516-7578
Email: david.avrom.bell@gmail.com
Alternate Fax Number: (410) 516-7586

[Admin Moderator]

We removed your posts #9 and #25. Do not bypass copyright restrictions by posting additional text on the thread.
Thanks

[Lead Moderator]

Please, do not try to get around posting restrictions. The 300 word limit applies downthread too. Thank you.

[CFC__VRWC]

Now imagine that the attacks had continued, every six hours, for another four years, until nearly 20 million Americans were dead.

So is this asshat saying that we need to just sit back and wait until they kill 20 million of us before we respond, otherwise we're "over reacting?"

[paulat]

Any more of you want to pile on?

[Generic_Login_1787]

Well, I just think that this column is closer to sanity than a lot of people here are giving it credit for. Again: I think the writer brought most of this on himself, but a reasonable person could have made most of these same points, and depending on his argument I wouldn't swear he'd be wrong.

[advance_copy]

...by the standards of past wars, the war against terrorism has so far inflicted a very small human cost on the United States.

Thanks to God Almighty and the leadership of President George W. Bush, along with that of Vice President Cheney.

And, BTW, Cheney is a great leader. It is too bad he does not seek to be President. He is a true patriot, and a fantastic leader. And anybody who does not like that can kiss my bodingus.

[Lead Moderator]

Don't get snarky. You've been here long enough to know the rules on copyright material. Don't make us warn you again.

[new cruelty]

Not every adversary is an apocalyptic threat.

And not every apocalyptic threat results in the death of millions- thanks to our "overreaction".

Using Dumbbell's logic, we should cease trying to cure any disease- after all, we wouldn't want to overreact.

[edsheppa]

I'd love the Democrats to take up this argument. It's what they believe in the hearts, they just won't say it openly.

[Sidebar Moderator]

Any more of you want to pile on?

Sure, I'm in

[Criminal Number 18F]

This guy's hilarious. Another ivory tower dweeb pining for his lost USSR. He probably strokes himself to pictures of Stalin.

Maybe the Sovs took 20 million in war losses in stride because they were used to lossing millions. All in sll, Communism killed over 100 million in the 20th Century, more than all the wars of all recorded history, combined.

No doubt Professor Bell would say that Communism didn't really fail, they just weren't trying hard enough.

I never realised until now just how desperately the dreary LA Times was missing just this touch: slapstick.

d.o.l

Criminal Number 18F

[bmwcyle]

Coward, this is what you are.

[Princip. Conservative]

I wonder what these fools will say when the result of Democratic liberals in Congress makes it so President Bush can't protect us the same way.

[ChessExpert]

If this is overreacting, World War II was REALLY overreacting. The US casualties on 9/11 were greater than the US casualties at Pearl Harbor. Did Pearl Harbor warrant a war in which 400,000 American soldiers would die? The 9/11 attack was merely the most recent Jihadist attack against Americans. It was time to stop this upward trend.

"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." Ah yes, the courageous commies. And weren't the French communists in the vanguard in the resistance movement too Mr. Bell? And wasn't Ho Chi Min a "nationalist"? All this has a familiar ring. Always a kind word for the communists. America at war is entirely different, then it's blame America first.

[rabscuttle385]

This guy is a complete fool.

Fools can be dangerous at times.

it is quite different to suggest that they can threaten the existence of the United States.

Sure, and the invading hordes of barbarians didn't threaten the existence of the Roman Empire. Also, one equals two! </sarc>

Only a fool is unable to connect the dots and see that the terrorists wanted to destroy (or disable) the financial (New York) and governing (Washington) centers of the United States.

[DarthVader]

"Only a fool is unable to connect the dots and see that the terrorists wanted to destroy (or disable) the financial (New York) and governing (Washington) centers of the United States."

You are so right and that's whats wrong with liberals. They do not sense the danger.