Was 9/11 Really That Bad?

LA Times ^ | 1/28/07 | David A. Bell

[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.

[theymakemesick]

"David A. Bell" - What a dingaling! (Don't make me speculate what the "A." stands for...)

I was thinking it was for Art.

[NJRighty]

From the article: "As an instance of mass murder, the attacks were unspeakable, but they still pale in comparison with any number of military assaults on civilian targets of the recent past, from Hiroshima on down."

He's comparing the 9/11 attacks with Hiroshima. You can't be a liberal unless you take a swipe at the US.

[Logic n' Reason]

I suppose by this twisted logic, Pearl Harbor "wasn't that bad" either.

Just a few folks over 1,700 dead; our aircraft carriers and other ships intact, our Pearl Harbor oil tank farms untouched, Honolulu largely intact, no invading forces...what in the world was there to get so excited about, anyway?

After all, most of those that died were in the military, weren't they? It's their duty to die during attacks!

So using this twisted logic, heck, we should have apologied to Japan for harming any of their brave warriors who lost their lives in the attack.

The real problem here is not the twisted logic; it is that there are those who read this crap and actually believe it!

That is the real problem.

[ushr435]

"The attacks were a horrible act of mass murder, but history says we're overreacting."

"Tell that to the people that jumped to their deaths from 100 stories up."

AMEN! Those are the images that have haunted me every day since 9/11. Let's also not forget, Mr. L.A. Times, that it was a mass murder that everyone witnessed.

[Steve_Seattle]

"100 years from now when Europe is under Sharia(sp) law & the US is close behind . . . "

You are a cockeyed optimist. I think more like 20 years . . .

[darth]

How many people have been killed in abortion clinic bombings in the past 5 years? You can bet that leftists and democrats would be screaming for justice if there was even one death per year. They would be willing to fight to the death against their own countrymen, but can't be bothered to fight back against islamonazis. Oh yeah, IMHO abortion clinic bombers should also be prosecuted as terrorists since they are using terror to try to force their views on others just like the islamonazis.

[livius]

I hadn't thought of it that way, but you're right. Maybe they're just finally daring to publish what all these liberals are saying privately now anyway.

That was, after all, the Clinton approach. A certain level of terrorism, a certain number of deaths, was acceptable, from his point of view. It was just a sort of tribute one had to pay to the Muzzies now and then, but didn't really affect "peace."

[stm]

An insult to chimps I know, but it seemed appropriate in this idiot's case.

[TYVets]

david.avrom.bell@gmail.com

[Beth528]

The American people are not overreacting..how about this..Children are being raised by these animals to kill anyone that is Jewish or American..Anyone that doesn't go along with their sick religion..These sick pathetic Muslims will never go away..We can thank the Clinton's for that..And if that old crow Hillary makes it to the white house then we had better all be armed because we are the ones that will be taking care of out family's..

[OESY]

Is Darfur Really That Bad?

1. No WMD found there
2. No connection to 9/11
3. No vital US interests at stake
4. No human shields find it important
5. No unilateral role for the US troops
6. Africa should solve Africa's problems
7. No UN resolutions calling for regime change
8. No Darfur Liberation Act passed by Congress
9. Conflict is a problem that begs to be solved multilaterally (Pelosi?)
10. Sudan leader was not called an international pariah by John Kerry
11. Both sides have not agreed to stop killing each other (Clinton Doctrine)
12. The money can be better used on domestic priorities: Social Security, Medicare, buying votes

.

[Between the Lines]

The author of this article equates the attacks with the number of deaths that occurred. While deaths did occur, death was not the objective in the 9/11 attacks. They were attacking our centers of government, military, and finance in an attempt to bring our country to it's knees.

I honestly believe that had the fourth plane hit the White House that it would have shaken our confidence so bad that we would have went into a recession that would have lasted a decade or more.

The death toll was not the objective for the islamofacists, crippling our government and it's economy was. And if you look at history, attacks on a nations economy inevitably results in war.

I have to wonder how many deaths does it take for a leftist columnist to justify war. Had the towers been full and 10,000 died would it have been enough?

[Cicero]

I thought I saw some signs that the LA Times was waking up and balancing their news a bit more. Evidently not.

That newspaper deserves to die for publishing this article.

[Steve_Seattle]

Hiroshima

Actually, the fact that he mentions Hiroshima undermines the oft-repeated charge that Bush's handling of Iraq and the war on terror involve radically "unprecedented" departures (per Jimmy Carter et al) from American military tradition. During WWII, we showed a cavalier attitude towards civilian populations that would be unthinkable today. Also WWII saw infringements on civil liberties (internment of Japanese-Americans, censorship of mail, censorship of the press, restrictions on the use of basic raw materials, etc.) that go far, far beyond anything done under the Patriot Act. It is also patently false when people say that Iraq is the first time we ever attacked a country without being attacked first. Korea, Vietnam, amd Kosovo are just the most recent examples.

[Steve_Seattle]

"I honestly believe that had the fourth plane hit the White House that it would have shaken our confidence so bad that we would have went into a recession that would have lasted a decade or more."

Maybe not the White House - that is too closely associated with the person who happens to be president at the time - but if it had hit the capital dome, it would have had twice the emotional impact that it in fact had.

[El Gato]

So, this leftist wack job says that 3,000 deaths during 9/11 really were not a large amount if you look at history.

It's more deaths, and many more civilian deaths, than we suffered in the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.

I guess that was no big deal either. We should apologize to the son of Emperor Hirohito, the current Emperor Akihito, for declaring war on his country.

NOT!

[Caipirabob]

I'm sending this out to everyone I know...before the LA Times pulls it.

[Flightdeck]

I do agree, however, that too many people die every year in automobile accidents.

[MikeA]

Blah, blah, blah...and if Bush hadn't mounted a robust response these same media pimps would be screaming that Bush didn't do enough to strike back at Al Qaeda and worldwide terrorism, and would chalk it up to his "lack of a mandate" in the 2000 elections. And if God forbid we had been struck again which is likely had the president not reacted so aggressively to take on terrorism, the same lapdog, agendized media would be blaming it all on Bush and his "timid response to the 9/11 attacks." They're just all so predictable. More of the same tired, "Attack Bush if he does one thing. Attack him when he does the opposite."

[stm]

Muslim Klansmen