No, it wasn't that bad. Bleep you, Bell.
Posted on 01/29/2007 9:21:58 AM PST by technomage
Was 9/11 really that bad?
The attacks were a horrible act of mass murder, but history says we're overreacting.
It also raises several questions. 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?
More:
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
Yet, he is probably one of those that ignores the history of wars when it comes to the media and politicians 'death count' in Iraq.
And the media wonders why they are losing readers and viewers.
The war that created America began with only 5 dead. Was that really that bad? YES you useless bastard.
Tell that to the people that jumped to their deaths from 100 stories up.
The leftie has a point. We should wait until one of those islamofascist nuts sets off a nuke in downtown LA. Maybe 5 million deaths will be enough for the US to act.
This idiot is the democrats personified.
Speaking as someone who was in downtown Manhattan that day...the title of this piece makes me sick.
And, so far, it has gotten far less reaction.
So in answer to Bell's idiotic question, do you think World War II was an overreaction to Pearl Harbor?
No, it wasn't that bad. Bleep you, Bell.
I hope I run into this guy one day. And he had better hope there'll be witnesses if we do.
Well, the number of infants aborted every day in the U.S. is greater than the number killed in the 9/11 attacks.
I am sick of these liberal tards. they will get what they desreve. I wish bad bad things on him.
And the MSM wonders why readership/viewership is down across the board.
Yep. 1993 WTC attack - 6 dead.
2001 WTC attack - 3,000 dead.
Do we need to have a 2009 nuke attack with 1.5 million dead before we decide enough is enough?
and the clowns at the LAT wonder why their circulation and advertising income have dumped
Liberalism is indeed a mental disorder.
100 years from now when Europe is under Sharia(sp) law & the US is close behind, history will say we didn't do enough.
bell is a ding dong.
I can't write what I think of him.
Yes, but when you consider even 5 million, historically speaking, that's not a lot. The top one or two diseases, such as cancers and diabetes, kill that many every year
< / s >
We kicked Mexico's ass because they killed a few American soldiers; we should have entered WW II vs. Germany after the Lusitania and some of the other sinkings; and we had grounds to attack Nazi Germany after the attack on and sinking of the "Reuben James."
The acknowledgement of aggression is not related in any way to the size of the offense but rather to the intention of the enemy and willingness to do harm again.
Most scholars now agree, for example, that the Revolutionary War was less about taxes per se than about the PRECEDENT set by the British in levying "taxes without representation." You see, Mr. Idiot Reporter, it's about principle and not numbers.
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.