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 ...
3000 innocents killed is not enough reason to go to war, but 3000 servicemen killed is a reason to turn tail and run?
"I hope I run into this guy one day. And he had better hope there'll be witnesses if we do."
I'm certain you were with me that day, in case anybody were to ask. ;-)
The left will always, always, always allow slaughter of citizens as long as it doesn't hinder their cause.
And liberals wonder why we think they should be tried and marched in front of a firing squad.
Yeah, I sort of think so. So did these nice folks...
Punch him square in the face with all your might for me. Then ask him not to overreact because it wasn't that bad.
Well, remember that the WTC deaths were likely right-wing capitalist-types, which isn't as bad (historically) as if the 3,000 casualties had been the left-wing socialist-types in the UN building.
Last time we were attacked like that, we laid waste Western Europe and parts of North Africa, along with the islands of Japan.
If anything, we're UNDER-REACTING!
"Do we need to have a 2009 nuke attack with 1.5 million dead before we decide enough is enough?"
It seems so
Another cowardly rationalization for America to remain trembling and frightened with our head in the sand, pretending everything will just go away if we wish it so.
Of course it wasn't that bad... It hit NY--not LA!
Right?
bats. knives. things that hurt.
The death of a single archduke lead to death of 20 million in WWI, so I guess we've got a ways to go.
I'd bet this same leftist wack job would not agree that 3,000 military deaths during the war are not a large amount if you look at history?
An isolationist who thinks we should allow what he admits is our "enemy" to expand into all parts of the world as long as they can't really be a BIG threat to us here. (assuming 2600 innocent deaths give or take a dozen or so aren't significant)
He should move to europe where lots of people think just like he does.
It's not about the previous acts of terrorism. It's about the next ones.
It's about the carnage wrought through collapse of the economy if the terrorists start blowing up shopping malls and restaurants here in the U.S. Not to mention the inevitability of access to chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons.
He thinks war is only worth it when it is about invading armies actually taking over. But he forgets that these are times when a tiny number of people can wield destructive force, at once physically, economically and politically that historically was only made possible by armies of millions.
Now it's about a couple of guys with a truck or a dozen guys with suicide vests. Or one guy with one bomb.
Unfortunately, a lot of us are going to get what they deserve. It would be nice if the terror attacks that are coming as a result of the actions of liberals would only affect the liberals.
I see his point. After, say, 30 million American deaths the left will be able to say that the US government was even more viscous and incompetent than Stalin. This will help rehabilitate Communism. LOL then puke.
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.