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 does this have to do with 9-11-2001? Nothing. The entire force we have in Baghdad, roughly 150,000 troops is a drop in the bucket compared to the armies fielded in WWII. The roughly 2,685 hostile losses we've suffered in four years in Iraq almost equals our losses in the first three hours of WWII at Pearl Harbor. The whole article is bogus.
Reminds me of the movie the “Untouchables” where they say if the criminals use fists use a stick, if they use a knife use a gun. Or from Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, where Ted Cassidy says “There are no rules in a knife fight.”
We have been taught this rule for years, yet this low class slime dares to lecture us on what is the proper or proportionate response.
From Patton,
"There are all kinds of low class slime who are trying and will continue to try to wreck this country from the inside. Most of them don't know it, but they are actually working for the Russians. Some of them do know it, though. It doesn't matter whether they call themselves Communists, Socialists, or just plain foolish Liberals. They are destroying this country."
You missed the first World Trade Center attack.
You missed the first World Trade Center attack.
The Twin Towers had 50,000 employees and who knows how many visitors at any given moment, but, as you stated, the terrorists were too early in the day. Perhaps the different time zones confused them. The terrorists were definitely hoping for more than what they got.
If the author were to apply the same logic to war casualties from WWII and now, he'd have to admit that the military is doing a great job.
B4Ranch YES it is. The enemy is not due respect, and should be shouted down and humiliated.
Mr. Bell,
A problem that academics face today is that they live in a bubble where they only talk to those with similar views. Add that to the fact that most are for socialism and against conservative and religious viewpoints, and therefore see to it that no Republicans or Conservatives are ever hired. A result is that there is no exchange of ideas or challenging debates. No real world experience. No effort to put themselves in harms way.
As General George Patton said “When everyone is thinking the same, no one is thinking at all.”
Your article is intellectual garbage, it makes no sense in the real world except to weaken the President, this Country, and the war effort, by strengthen the enemy. Most true Americans feel we are UNDER reacting for 9/11, not over reacting. The real lesson from Viet Nam was to not fight a politically correct war where the enemy is not totally destroyed. It was only after both Germany and Japan were broken was there lasting peace. Had President Bush let go the dogs of war and ignored civilian casualties, the war would be over by now.
It could also be said if Clinton had reacted more strongly after the first WTC bombing in 1993, maybe we wouldn't have had 9-11. The terrorists will keep escalating, if we let them. I can see you are already promoting the new Dem policy -- the pre-9-11 let's keep ignoring terrorism one.
Ironically... It was the LA Times and their liberal leftist media sisters hammering every casualty number in our heads, to show how bad we are losing the war... BLAM ...and now it fits their political agenda to tell us, it isn't so bad at all... HYPOCRITES!
So is the fix in for the Democrat? I'm simply astonished at the kinds of articles that appearing in the papers this week. "9/11 wasn't all that bad" and "the aftermath of pulling out of Iraq prematurely won't be that bad" and on and on. Not to mention John Kerry's comments that Iran has the "right" to nukes. These are all comments of LOSERS and COWARDS. While real men were out fighting, the cowards stayed in school and became today’s teachers.
Worse, all their pompous egos will never let them realize it.
Again to quote Patton "There are all kinds of low class slime who are trying and will continue to try to wreck this country from the inside. Most of them don't know it, but they are actually working for the Russians. Some of them do know it, though. It doesn't matter whether they call themselves Communists, Socialists, or just plain foolish Liberals. They are destroying this country."
The author's primary point is that since the Enlightenment we have gotten ourselves into a state of mind in which our enemies are always the ultimate in evil and must not just be defeated, they must be destroyed. We have no mental mechanism for fighting a limited war in which we recognize
that we are fighting not for survival of all that is good and pure but rather for our own interests, while recognizing that the other side has equally valid interests from its perspective.
This is a very good point and I think accurate. It handicaps us because we seem psychologically unable to fight anything but a war to the death. IOW, we have to convince ourselves that we are in danger of being destroyed before we can fight back.
However, I think the author's mistake is assuming that Islamism does not constitute such a threat. The disconnect between their intentions and their capabilities is correct.
For Hitler to destroy DC he would have had to invade America, mobilizing all the resources of conquered Europe for at least a decade to build a sufficient fleet and army.
For Ahmed to destroy DC all that is needed is a million bucks and a corrupt Russian general who will sell him a nuke.
IOW, the disconnect between intentions and capability is much smaller than ever before. We cannot afford any longer to ignore those with malovelent intentions because they have not (yet) demonstrated their capability to destroy.
That explains a lot.
I'd play those recordings for starters.
bttt
Rush talking about it now...
Why wait for more disaster? Nip it in the bud!!!
Lotta callers to Rush on this!
>>Has the American reaction to the attacks in fact been a massive overreaction?<<
The answer to that question is "no". This makes the rest of the article an exercise in irrelevance.
Little hard for him to use the nukes on his own soil where
terrorist attacks happen daily.
Excellent. I'd never noticed. Thanks.
Nope. you missed it entirely. I read nothing in what Billthedrill (BTD) wrote that is different from your desired outcome (pro-USA, anti-terrorists), except maybe you just don't understand big words.
He (BTD) is saying that because we kicked a lot of a$$ after 9/11, the terrorists, and especially those governments who support them, will not be as eager to attack us. BTD is saying this Professor Bell is full of manure.
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.