Skip to comments.
Was 9/11 really that bad? (I KNEW IT WOULD COME TO THIS)
Los Angeles Times ^
| 1/28/07
| David A. Bell
Posted on 01/28/2007 10:29:05 AM PST by paulat
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-80, 81-100, 101-120 ... 161-163 next last
To: paulat
Bell.......you are a complete MORON!!
81
posted on
01/28/2007 11:29:31 AM PST
by
PISANO
To: paulat
Damn, this guy needs to be taken outside for a serious beating...
82
posted on
01/28/2007 11:32:47 AM PST
by
Geronimo
To: Generic_Login_1787
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.
83
posted on
01/28/2007 11:36:14 AM PST
by
Cvengr
To: conservativepoet
84
posted on
01/28/2007 11:43:32 AM PST
by
BronzePencil
(if we outlaw nuclear energy only outlaws will have nuclear energy)
To: paulat
We removed your posts #9 and #25. Do not bypass copyright restrictions by posting additional text on the thread.
Thanks
To: paulat
Please, do not try to get around posting restrictions. The 300 word limit applies downthread too. Thank you.
To: paulat
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?"
87
posted on
01/28/2007 11:48:27 AM PST
by
CFC__VRWC
(Go Gators! NCAA Football and Basketball Champions!)
To: Admin Moderator; Lead Moderator
Any more of you want to pile on?
88
posted on
01/28/2007 11:48:30 AM PST
by
paulat
To: paulat
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.
To: paulat
...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.
90
posted on
01/28/2007 11:49:26 AM PST
by
advance_copy
(Stand for life, or nothing at all)
To: paulat
Don't get snarky. You've been here long enough to know the rules on copyright material. Don't make us warn you again.
To: paulat
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.
To: paulat
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.
93
posted on
01/28/2007 11:50:15 AM PST
by
edsheppa
To: paulat
Any more of you want to pile on? Sure, I'm in
To: paulat
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
95
posted on
01/28/2007 11:54:26 AM PST
by
Criminal Number 18F
(Kitchener faced a 'Mahdi Army' too... how'd that work out?)
To: paulat
Coward, this is what you are.
96
posted on
01/28/2007 11:57:45 AM PST
by
bmwcyle
(If no one buys illegal drugs, we win the war on drugs)
To: paulat
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.
To: paulat
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.
98
posted on
01/28/2007 12:05:20 PM PST
by
ChessExpert
(Reagan defeated America's enemies foreign and domestic. I hope Bush can do the same.)
To: DarthVader
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.
99
posted on
01/28/2007 12:07:29 PM PST
by
rabscuttle385
(Sic Semper Tyrannis * Allen for U.S. Senate in '08)
To: rabscuttle385
"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.
100
posted on
01/28/2007 12:22:07 PM PST
by
DarthVader
(Conservatives aren't always right , but Liberals are almost always wrong.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-80, 81-100, 101-120 ... 161-163 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson