Yesterday, David A. Bell, a professor of history at Johns Hopkins University wrote an opinion piece for the LA Times stating that we as a country have overreacted concerning 9/11. Comparing it to the loses the Soviet Union incurred in WW2.

Link to opinion piece




I will add my opinions later in the thread.

Question for debate:

1. Do you believe Mr. Bell is correct that we have overreacted to the attacks on 9/11?

2. Is Mr. Bell working an agenda with his opinion piece? If so, what kind?

Overreacted, you mean Iraq, then I would say yes. Overreacted that it was a horribly tragic event, no, not even close.

So overall if his question is simply how we felt after 9-11, then no I don’t agree with him. How we came to act overall taking everything into consideration post 9-11, really the Iraq war, then I would have to agree with him somewhat. When I think off it, such reminds me of crossings animals have to make at times on the continent of Africa. These crossings are riddled with death because of crocodiles, one of natures most successful creatures currently attacking, the results are a mad trample in which many die simply from that, no organization, no nothing, just a fear induced stampeded killing as many as the crocs do. I find it hard not to be mad at the American public in general because of Iraq, but I simply just have to remember 9-11 and of course our respective liars in power, and then the last issue to remember is the voted in a fashion that let me know that simply did not forget about them back into some illusion of safety.

I did not mention Iraq did I? *Goes and reads my opening post* Nope I did not say Iraq.

Iraq and 9/11 are two totally different things. One is the topic of this debate the other is not. Now let's see if you can answer this question without mentioning Iraq

I thought I embedded my opinion on that one in the above post. Sorry. Minus Iraq and various others issues such as the various breeches of our constitution and overall destruction of our government leading to the current fiasco no I don’t think the public overreacted at all and I don’t agree with him.

So really minus government, I don’t think the American public overreacted and I don’t agree with him.

Is that better?

I would have made is shorter but I wanted to avoid one liners and all.

No Prof Bell is wrong. The attack on Afghanistan was fully justified. A follow up on Saudi Arabia would have been nice... but you know. Professor Bell is clearly working an agenda. We shouldn't be upset about 9/11 - that many people die in car accidents?

The comparision to Russia who after WWII would have gladly taken over the entire world save for the US and the bomb. I mean talk about overracting. You simply cannot compare the WOT to WWII. Hitler and Stalin lead Nations and they had uniformed armies that fought legitimate wars.

What agenda do you think he is working here, I have an idea myself but am curious to others opinions on this as well...

Think I will add this to the debate questions. Thanks.

Sleeper,

Actually, I believe Mr. Bell himself may be alluding to Iraq when he states "...and contemplating these numbers may help put in perspective what the United States has so far experienced during the war against terrorism (emphasis added). As such, I consider gordo's reference to Iraq to be appropriate albeit over-the-top.

Now to your point - I don't consider the American response to be an overreaction. Of course, when you compare this with other travesties throughout history it rather pales in comparison. This does not mean however that we should be mindful of these "larger" events in order to temper our grief and mourning. Our initial response was entirely appropriate.

I do have a bit of an issue with how we have sought to compensate the victim's families. The notion of government recompense for the loss of life has always struck me odd and especially when the government was not at fault. Did the victims of Oklahoma City receive such returns? What kind of precedent are we setting? In this sense our actions do seem a bit overreactive.

Well since he's hitting all the standard "No War For Oil" slogans with a sympathetic look at old Mother Russia. Chuck in a nice Hiroshima equals mass murder and I would be willing to bet this gentleman hasn't voted R in a while.

Or maybe he has and this is a serious case of backlash. Professor Bell seems to be anti-war and not on a rational level. On a completely irrational never take up arms against another way. So 9/11 is to him an event that is difficult to wrap his anti-war stance around - especially since it's so unpopular - he's had to keep it under his hat for some time. His "reasoned" article is some sort of catharsis.

Iraq is part of the so-called Global War on Terror. Bush has said, "You can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam," so for gordo to include Iraq is justifiable.

In Bush and Sean Hannity speak it's part of the way or terror but it is not in my speak. Iraq had to do with removing Sadam from power for various infringements on the cease fire of the first Gulf War. Sure there are terrorists in Iraq now but I don't really. Now if you guys(gordo and barnaby) are done 'blogging" about Bush and Iraq can we stay on topic about Mr Bell's assertion that 9/11 was not that bad?

How can Iraq not be pulled into this? The author considers this as well.



Does considering the 9-11 attacks the equivalent of waging World War I or World War II not seem an overreaction? Are we engaged in a war?

I think the author poses some rational questions into an emotionally charged debate. The easy solution is to point out the liberal academia is liberal academia and this simply proves that the left is hopelessly incapable of understanding American citizenship or something like that.

1. Do you believe Mr. Bell is correct that we have overreacted to the attacks on 9/11?

Let's see what he says:



I guess the counter argument could be, if this is one of the deadliest struggles of our time (I wonder if he meant all time, because our concerns about terrorist attacks clearly are a major event of our time) then why aren't we asking for a greater sacrifice and a more focused effort to eradicate this enemy, the remaining pieces of Al Qaeda.


This doesn't seem to suggest that Americans overreacted emotionally to the horrors of 9-11. But is there an enemy in this struggle that is threatening our existence today. I think there surely is not one. Future attacks could definitely happen, but if we are limiting the definition of the struggle to Al Qaeda, they clearly are no match to topple the United States.



Again is see no error here. This is true. One can quibble with the comparison to state armed forces at war targeting civilians to a non-state group targeting civilians as THE way to fight, but there is no wild eyed crazy statement here. More people clearly are being murdered in the Sudan in very short intervals than Americans who have died in this era, even including Afghanistan and IRaq in the tally.

Stripped down this is a simple equation. The difference is that the United States has the resources and the will to act to demonstrate that actions against the United States will have consequences.

And finally



I agree with this statement as well. We are not involved in much of a war at all. Officially we are at war with an idea. And the existence of people who use terrorism was also used to justify invading Iraq as a country that had the potential to develop and distribute WMDs. This I believe was part of our overreaction and in turning this event into an epochal crusade, i believe we have weakened our national security, and as the author implies, elevated these thugs to the level of importance and historical relevance they crave.

Emotionally one can cry out about the outrage of not thinking the American deaths were a tragedy that ushered in a new age in American history. But this author points out multiple times that 9-11 was a brutal and detestable event.

2. Is Mr. Bell working an agenda with his opinion piece? If so, what kind?

I believe he is. I believe he is trying to popularize his view that the well-intentioned Enlightenment era transformed human warfare from a mundane and routine event, to one in which civilized nations must claim that each war is so important that it justifies using this barbaric foreign policy tool that should be beyond civilized nations. And this need to justify going to war and heighten the importance of the present conflict, elevates the intensity and scope of fighting and actually creates more uncivilized and decimating conflicts.

That's what I am reading, and I disagree with it as being a little too simplistic. I think the world has moved too far away from the Enlightenment era and the economic, social, and political reality of the days of Napoleon to draw such a conclusion. But that is our author's field of study and he, naturally is comparing his historical era to his contemporary era.

His book? "The First Total War: Napoleon's Europe and the Birth of Warfare as We Know It."

I feel this is too emotional of an issue to be tolerated by many people as the subject of a more rational historical comparison. I predict that in this thread, the author will be dismissed as evidence of the deranged people allowed to teach our young and that I will be guilty by association for saying he has clear and clearly stated points.

I am going to lump all of you together and commit the big sin and say... You liberals like to bring Iraq into everything because it is going badly. Fine bring up Iraq and side with Mr Bell and say we are overreacting. But I will not say that 9/11 'was not that bad'.

How about the next time a small plane crashes and some family loses a loved one, we can tell them... Oh it's not really that bad... There have been jet liners where 100+ die, so your loss is really just not that bad.

No one has said that though. That’s the problem I mean if you want simply the emotional reaction directly after 9-11 as the only thing compared to the opinion you are trying to debate on then no, I don’t think we overreacted and I doubt anyone will. His point though as many are trying to point out, though I don’t know if objective of course is nothing more then comparative history. He does also go into points on a timeline past the day and event of 9-11 of course.

No one is downplaying 9-11 and to be honest I avoid viewing the video anymore because I don’t care to watch it simply because of the negative emotions involved, that being said I can still attest to the author of the opinion having a point I will agree with if allowed to expand out from the day of 9-11. I personally think if bush simply wanted to the American public would have backed a war to invade Utah on the basis that terrorists were in the caves there.

Question for debate:

1. Do you believe Mr. Bell is correct that we have overreacted to the attacks on 9/11?
No, I believe he is mistaken. It is my contention that we, collectively, have underreacted. There is a large segment of our population, and an even larger proportion of our political and cultural leadership that consider Islamic fascism (which is an insult to real fascists) to be nothing more than an annoyance that can be addressed via yak yak and law enforcement. These folks are ignorant of history.

The Newest Phase of a Very Old War

Upon ascertaining that the attack was another in a long series of such attacks, carried out across the world, by Islamic radicals, we should have put paid to Islam.

Fly 12 B-52s over Mecca, dropping leaflets in every written language in the world informing the folks there that in exactly 7 days, it will be nuked. If Saudi Arabia has any issues with the B-52s, point out that 19 of the hijackers were Saudi...., and we have more than enough B-52s to take out Riyadh also...

And then, exactly 7 days later, nuke Mecca.

2. Is Mr. Bell working an agenda with his opinion piece? If so, what kind?
I believe that he is. First, his agenda is moderately left of center (more "anti-Right"), and my guess is he would like to take the law enforcement approach, but he does appear to grasp that this is not a mere momentary situation.

1. Do you believe Mr. Bell is correct that we have overreacted to the attacks on 9/11?

No. We have underracted in some ways and overreacted in others and not reacted at all in other area. (see link below)

The invasion of Afghanistan was proper. The invasion of Iraq was a misplaced overreaction.

The use of the terror card to produce an overreaction in the public is damnable.

There has been an underreaction in protecting vital domestic interests. There was an article about railroad security in Sunday's Fort Worth Star Telegram.

http://www.dfw.com/mld/startelegram/16566591.htm

I would say that we have been inconsistent in our reaction. The overreaction in Iraq has drained funds that could have been spent for more pressing security needs.

"We liberals" were bringing up Iraq when it was going "well." In fact, we were bringing it up as soon as the ill wind of neoconservative chicanery began to blow anywhere near that nation. More - "we liberals" were railing against the daily airstrikes and choking sanctions directed by President Clinton for his entire two terms.

It seems to me that you have essentially formed your opinion of this column based on a few words in the subtitle. Can you not see the context in which Bell places the word "overreaction?"

From the article:


Obviously, as is clear from reading the entire essay, he is in large part using the term "overreaction" to refer to the way so many in the US seem to perceive 9/11 as changing everything fundamentally, to being the event that tipped us into global catastrophe.



Read further, and you'll realize this guy isn't even some far-left wack-job:


Is our rhetoric of GLOBAL WAR ON TERROR and World War IV (his reference to Norman Podhoretz) an overreaction, as he says, in an historical context? Well, he makes a pretty good case of that.

And as for your second paragraph here, he's not minimizing the loss, just read the whole essay, how could you even come to such a conclusion? I'll reiterate his point about historical context: "by the standards of past wars, the war against terrorism has so far inflicted a very small human cost on the United States."

And need I remind you of Brit Hume's embarrassing statement about US deaths in Iraq?


Of course his math is pretty bad, it's easy to see what an awful comparison this was.

If he were saying, or even implying, anything like what your second paragraph seems to conclude, I would dismiss this guy in a flash. No deaths are insignificant.

And though if he were saying that I would disagree, I would still respond to your outrage about it with a hearty dose of cynicism - I'd say, why is it that when the shoe is on the other foot, "you conservatives" take a particular joy in minimizing death - how many threads about the war have we had here where there wasn't some conservative talking about how the US military hardly ever kills civilians, how they get referred to as collateral damage so we don't have to think of them as human beings as innocent as you or me or anyone in the WTC on 9/11, how, well, we may kill some, but.... gosh the other guys are so much worse!

A side note, after reading bikerdad's post about nuking Mecca...

I've never understood how religions that worship the same god could fight each other so fiercely. From the outside looking in, they're all nuts. And it's not the warlike nature of the "Islamists." Or the crusading of the "Christianists." If you want to solve the problem - the real problem - with nukes, I'd say, evacuate Jerusalem and then nuke it. The evangelical Christians want to precipitate the chaos that will fulfill their insane prophecies about the Temple of Solomon (which makes their support of Israel rather strange, because ultimately they want to bring about events which will cause the eradication of all non-Christians, including specifically Jews), the Jews have declared it theirs, the Muslims declare it theirs... golly. Just raze it! Understand, of course, I do not actually advocate such actions. But really, Bikerdad, I wonder how you can even put the two ideas in the same post - chiding others for lacking historical understanding, and then proposing that we can somehow solve our problem by eliminating the "enemy" through some sort of massive genocide... I'm baffled you can get through the conjoining of those thoughts without tasting the bitter irony.

Then why was it "you liberals" held so little sway over your "liberal" elected representatives that they went off and voted for the Iraq war anyway?

Iraq Senate results

Hillary? Yes.
Kerry? Yes.
Edwards? Yes
Reid? Yes
Biden? Yes
Schumer? Yes
Feinstein? Yes


All liberals to the core including people that you likely voted in behalf of for president.

We don't have a system of direct democracy. We have a system of representative democracy. And the people who represent the liberal point of view voted FOR the Iraq war. Do you disagree with our democratic process? If so, where? why?

But why does that matter now? Why is the left obsessed with "nyaa, nyaa, nyaa, nyaa told you so!!" childish games?

We ARE at war.

How we got there isn't really any issue anymore.

Our troops ARE in harm's way.

We have staked our national reputation on the outcome.

There is NO "do over" button that one can conveniently push and just make it all go away.

At this point, you are either FOR the USA, or you are AGAINST the USA.

Are you for us or against us?

911 was a direct military attack on our nation. It killed more Americans than Pearl Harbor. Therefore, Bell's assertion that it "wasn't that bad" is absurd. But Bell, like Chomsky, enjoy the freedoms that people who they ostensibly hate EARNED for them. When it comes to freedom, Bell/Chomsky and their ilk are bonafide freeloaders.

And I'll remind you that after the Japanese attacked us on 12/7/41, we responded by attacking Germany, Italy, Vichy France, and Northern Africa.

So, I'm sure you can find fault with F.D. Roosevelt's historical decision to "attack the wrong country" in response to the Pearl Harbor attack.

Me? I don't fault him at all. He attacked the root cause of the problem in a comprehensive and "holistic" way.

I also don't fault Bush for attacking Iraq as part of a comprehensive and holistic response to 911. What good would it do if we focused all of our resources on Tora Bora, took out one Jihadist leader, and ignored the GLOBAL aspect of the Jihad and the states that actively supported their efforts against the USA?

Answer? We'd be back to the inept and ineffective Clinton administration policy that led up to 911 in the first place.

What would have happened if we allowed Iraq under Saddam to violate the terms of the Gulf War cease fire, allow them to continue their WMD aspirations, fire at our aircraft, and attempt to assassinate our ex-presidents with impunity? How could that possibly be good for our country when Jihadists have declared war against us and are willing to destroy themselves, and innocents, in their quest to destroy our nation?

But, I'm sure you are against all of those things. After all, you are "against all war".

By my way of thinking, if one is against all war, then they should not be the recipients of war's spoils.

And in the case of the USA, that would be our freedoms, our constitution, the bill of rights, and our economic prosperity.

To paraphrase a US senator.....

"Quarkhead, do you speak Russian?"

"Japanese?"

"German?"

"No?"

"You're welcome".

No. The unprovoked attack on a civilian target should be compared to Pearl Harbor and not all of WWII.

If we want to compare casualties then lets compare our troop deaths in Iraq to WWII. We have just over 3,000 dead – in WWII in the Pacific we, on several occasions, such as Iwo Jima lost 7,000 + in 2 weeks. And over the same time period in WWII (4 years) we had nearly 400,000 killed (about 133 times the deaths in Iraq) . So yes he is working an agenda.

1. Do you believe Mr. Bell is correct that we have overreacted to the attacks on 9/11?

If we were talking purely about casualty rates, then yes perhaps our reaction to 9/11 was an 'over'reaction. But what Mr. Bell fails to realize is how much more 9/11 affected us aside from just the number of bodies that it compiled. For the first time since the beginning of air travel, no planes flew in the sky. Wall Street was shut down and no trading could be done. And not to mention of the famous buildings that were demolished. My sentiment probably echoes that of BoF, Afghanistan was certainly not an overreaction while Iraq probably was. Terrorists could do a lot worse than take thousands of lives. Attacking financial centers and infrastructure could set back our economy and lead to worldwide depression. That's what we should be defending against.

2. Is Mr. Bell working an agenda with his opinion piece? If so, what kind?

Well obviously he has some sort of agenda. He is trying, but failing, to make the point that 9/11 was not as significant an event in US history as we make it out to be. While some points may have value, Mr. Bell can't tell thousands of readers the significance of an event that everyone understands and saw with their own eyes.

My issues with the Bell article are a combination of factual and contextual. Firstly, he has his facts in error in at least one case: the USSR did not suffer 20 million dead during WWII, it suffered between 35 million and 45 million war dead. Not that this in any way affects his point, but its never a good sign when one is making a comparative statement based on false data.


Obviously as a strict compaiason it is invalid. 9/11 was a single attack by a terrorist organisation, the Eastern front was a large scale open war between two world powers that featured constant warfare and literally hundreds of major offensives. To compare the two is apples and oranges, they are simply two entirely different events.

Secondly, Bell states the United States has 'overreacted' to 9/11, and used as evidence the massive casualties suffered by the USSR in WWII. Yet, if you are going to claim an over-reaction, it doesn't even pass basic logic 101 to compare to another casualtry figure, you need to compare to the reaction to that casualty figure. So how did the USSR react to its massive war dead? Well, it established a frighteningly efficient military state running the largest conventional army on planet earth, pushed with no regard to life of money for technological advanacemnt in military technology, invaded and occupied two states and established a series of almost a dozen client states as buffers around its borders to protect against any further attack. The US reaction to 9/11 has been far less sever 9though many would say still too severe) so once again, there is no real comparason.

Lastly, the basic foundation behind this kind of comparative is flawed, and always will be when used by people on either side of the spectrum. By reducing validity of reaction down to a body count, and then using the USSR's war dead in WWII as the gold standard, then of course 9/11 does not compare. neither does pearl harbour, or the Invasion of Poland, or the Armenian genocide, or the Holocaust for that matter.

Once you start comparing reactions to the 35 million Soviet war dead, then by extension EVERY single reaction taken to EVERY event in human history is an overreaction, since no war has ever produced that number of dead in any nation, in any war in th entirety of human history.


That deals with the substance of the original post. To address some of the subsequent responses...:




I think you will find that the majority of democrats in the Senate voted against the war. Period.



I think you will find that the majority of democrats in the Senate voted against the war, thus those who represent the liberal point of view voted against the war, thus you are in error.

What does this have to do with anything, by the way? It seems common for you to tell us that (regarding Bush's actions) the past is the past and questuioning them is pointless, yet in the same post you bring up the votes of the democrats at the same time.



What does that mean? Do you mean the opinion of the United states in the workld? Then you have already lost it, and primarily as a direct result of the actions of Bush jr. So if you are referring to HIS reputation, he has no more reputation to stake. If you are referring to the reputation of the United States, I think it would be significantly improved if the government followed the will of the people of the world, and the people of the US, and the people of Iraq, and the predominant will of the US forces in Iraq, and set a timetable for withdrawal. Defying the collective will of the majority of all these groups to pursue a losing war is hardly the way to regain the national reputation so badly squandered by the president.




I am sorry, are you now stating that, because of the article Bell wrote, which bwas by the way full of respect and concern for the victims of 9/11, that you think Bell HATES US soldiers and US heroes, and I suppose by extension, the US?



I am forced to remind you that you are in error. After pearl harbour, the United states was involved ina singulr war against the Empire of japan, and nobody else. It was the fact that Hitler and Mussolini loudly and publicly DECLARED WAR on the United States three days later that brought them into that conflict.




Well, for one, you might have caught Bin laden, you might have continued to pressure Al qaeda, as opposed to taking pressure off them and allowing them to rebuild themselves into a force stronger now than it has ever been, That is what actually happened. For another thing, the US might not have committed its entire projectable military to an action which destabilised the entire Middle East, and wasted the moment of stirling international approbation the US had after 9/11. Lastly, Iraq had nothing to do with the Global war on terror, it was the single least sponsor of anti-Israeli terrorism in the entire gulf, less even than Kuwait and the UAE. The invasion had been a boon to global terrorism. Since you asked.

Starting from the bottom and working up:

21 voted against, the remainder, 29, voted for the war. Period. but its never a good sign when one is making a comparative statement based on false data.


Our reputation is little different than its always been, except now we're more aware of it.

Since they aren't the same god, its no surprise that you fail to understand it. And it should be pointed out that the history of conflict between Islam and Christianity is basically one of Islam attacking, and Christianity retaliating. After 14 centuries of this, I think its high time to put an end to it.

There's no irony to it, and it is chockful of bitter historical understanding.



Because we crushed them. And forced a reform of their ideology. We can solve our problem by eliminating the enemy.

Islam is very big on symbolism, hence the attack on the WTC, when there were other targets of greater economic and/or military value. The most significant symbol in Islam is Mecca. Frankly, I'd much rather we nuke Mecca, than find ourselves in a position of nuking Tehran, Cairo, Damascus, Jakarta, etc...

Bell is right about the effect the Enlightment had on the West's view of war. I, personally, would prefer to keep our view of war, and more significantly, keep it rare. I've no interest in seeing another 150 years of warfare between Islam and the rest of the world, because history shows us that Islam won't stop coming with the sword until they're soundly defeated. End it now.

Who do you think Allah is, bikerdad? He is the God of Moses, the God of Abraham. Where Christianity, Judaism, and Islam differ, is all in who they think the more important prophets are after the OT. The Muslims and the Jews see Jesus as a prophet, while the Christians see him as the Son of God. The son of the same God, by the way, that the Jews and the Muslims worship.

And of course, when I said "I don't understand," I didn't think you would take me quite so literally. Religion was my choice of study at university, I do understand why these conflicts happen. Heck, my ancestors, the Anabaptists (forebears of the Mennonites and the Amish) were massacred in Europe for believing that baptism should be a conscious choice, not done as a baby. Massacred by other Christians.



Interesting that you put Native Americans in there amongst your beating the drums of total annihilation. I'm not really sure what to say about that. Other than the fact that we made many of them our enemies by choice, so that we could claim all their land. But we did not eliminate them. Are there Native Americans today? Yes. We did not eliminate the Confederates. We warred them until they surrendered. Growing up in Virginia, I've also seen just how "reformed" the ideology is of some of them good 'ol boys.

But I think I know what you mean. You don't really mean "eliminate." You mean defeat. But the language and strategies of war have always been inadequate to deal with crimes. 9/11 was an awful crime. A crime against humanity. The perpetrators should be prosecuted and jailed. There is no "war" against terrorism, other than the fact that Bush uses the word war.

Our entire approach has been wrong from the beginning. To treat people like Bin Laden as enemies in a war of ideologies is to give his stature - and his ideology - way more credit than I do. He is a thug. End of story.

Our overreaction to 9/11 was to anoint Bin Laden as an enemy worthy of war. Bell is correct in his assessment of capability versus intent. Osama is a crook and should be treated as one.

I really believe your view of Islam is wrong. Throughout history people have used religion to justify warfare and murder, oppression and authoritarianism. Those who wield religion as a sword are the true enemies of rational and enlightened humanism. Not just Muslims, or Jews, or Christians. Believing there's some irreducible creator who protects, endorses, and even urges us to kill our fellow beings is the real enemy of the 21st century. It's time for us to grow up and embrace the brotherhood of man. But though I say this, it is also true that the vast majority of religious people - in my opinion - do not care if their religion is made universal. They worship at the institution in which they were raised, and do not look far outside it. They do not see others as dangerous enemies to be put down or eliminated. Within those religions are zealots whose satisfaction can only be had by the complete subjugation and elimination of all other faiths. The Christians who want to precipitate the apocalypse in Israel. The Muslims who want to convert or kill all infidels.

The particular faith in which I was raised believe that conversion is only effective by example, not subjugation. If one behaves in a Christ-like way, one will win more converts than one who completely negates those teachings by practicing oppression and authoritarianism.

As for your lecture on symbolism - do you really think these two groups are that far apart? What would the Western response be if the so-called Islamists nuked Jerusalem in an attempt to end this pointless struggle?

And wouldn't the Statue of Liberty be a more symbolic target than the WTC? I mean, since we've been told they "hate our freedoms" and all...

My apologies, i stand corrected: I had my houses mixed up. In the senate a small majority of democrats voted for the war, it is in the House of representatives where a majority of Democrats voted against the war, 126 to 81.



Well that is clearly false. It seems a convenient trick of memory that many on the right seem to have, choosing to forget just how popular the United States was under Clinton compared with how staggeringly unpopular it is now under Bush jr. However, allow me to refresh your memory...

http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=252

The huge drop in popularity in every country surveyed is as obvious as it is compelling. Well almost every country: Bush is more popular than Clinton in Nigeria!

This further study shows opinions of the American people (not America as a nation) over the same timeframe: http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?PageID=802





That is hardly the historical reality. In fact it could be arged that Muslims struck first, though more against the Turks and persians than against Chriostians, since that time there has been plenty of agression and attack on both sides. Claiming 'he hit me first' after 1200 years of very egalitarian agression is hardly justified.




I seem to recall several British Kings suggesting the very same solution regarding the Scots in the 1300s, and Lords suggesting the same thing regarding the Irish in the 1800s, and the Turks suggesting the same thing regarding Armenian terrorists in 1910, and countless other examples when people suggested genocide, or at the very least mass conquest of an entire segment of society for the actions of an extremist few.

Ignoring for the moment that it didn't work in ANY of the previous times it has been tried as a solution, lets just focus on your plan to 'crush' them.

Step 1: If you want to crush them, stop selling them weapons. Britain was just told its request for JTF strike fighters would be delayed because the US was selling them to saudi Arabia first.
Step 2: Stop supporting their excesses when it is politically convenient to do so.
Step 3: Crush the enemy: Fine. at current estimates, 20.12% of the Planet is Muslim. Thats about 1.4 billion people. Where do you suggest starting the war? may I make a suggestion, perhaps the first place to start would NOT be the only secular state in the Middle east, Hussein's Iraq?



I am curious, that is the second time you have suggested nuking Mecca. Apparently you feel killing the 1.3 million inhabitants, plus 200,000 or so tourists at any one time, to be a good first step in your war. So, ignoring for the moment that this site is not a military target, has no military bases, little or no industry, and is in Saudi Arabia, a US ally... ignoring those annoying practicalities for a moment, what exactly do you think nuking mecca would accomplish?

You say it as if nuking mecca would end the Jihad, as if all those fanatic Muslims would see their holiest site vanish in a nuclear fireball, then realise the error of their ways and lay down their arms. Is that what you think would happen? Or would the US turn the 1.28 billion Muslims who are peaceful, moderate and law abiding into fanatic enemies of everything the US stands for, not to mention all the non-Muslims in the world who would see this (quite rightly) as a horrific act of genocidal lunacy on the part of the US?

Here, here! More elected natives cowering behind Green Zones in Arab states (if they bother entering the country at all to hold quorum) will wtfpwnz those Islamic invaders.

Do you believe Mr. Bell is correct that we have overreacted to the attacks on 9/11?
Yes, but I’m answering that question from the perspective that WWII was already and repeatedly compared to Iraq by the administration for political purposes. The comparison was already out there. Once our engagement in Iraq became longer than WWII they dropped the analogy like a hot potato. Notwithstanding factual mistakes in the article covered by V and the fact that an imminent, WWII-like threat would in all seriousness demand nothing less than reinstating the draft, yeah, I believe we overreacted by enabling the administration to engage in extraordinary rendition, illegally wiretap citizens etc., with quiet, fearful consent “for our own good.” That fear turned out to be invaluable.

Is Mr. Bell working an agenda with his opinion piece?
Uh. No.

Well, clearly the Jews and the Christians disagree with the Islam on the identity of God, and whether or not Allah and Jehovah are one and the same. You may think all three religions worship the same god, but they don't.

Say whatever you want, but don't misrepresent what I've said. I'm not calling for "total annihilation", although if that were necessary I would support it. However, the example of the Native Americans is quite instructive. Whether you agree or disagree with what our forefathers did, the end result is undeniable. They present no meaninful threat to us. Ditto for the Nazis, Japanese Imperialists, and Confederacy. We did not eliminate any of them, but we did crush them and "reform" them. And that is what I advocate we do to Islam.

Yes or no, are the "good ol' boys" a credible threat to our country?



It was not a crime, it was an act of war. Those who carried out the attacks considered themselves to be at war with us. What does it take for some of y'all to believe that when the jihadists say they intend to kill us whereever and whenever possible, that they are serious?

An interesting description of him that you've chosen.

Thug - In the U.S.A., a petty criminal, especially one who assaults victims (an enforcer) on the instructions of a crime boss or other higher-up in organized crime. Who is Bin Laden's crime boss? Oh, right, he's the boss...

Perhaps you meant this meaning of "thug" - A member of the now-extinct Indian cult Thuggee. This is the origin of the word. Ironic, in that the Thuggee, are no longer a threat because the British crushed them.

He is not a crook, although he does engage in criminal activities. A crook is a parasite on society. A crook has no interest in destroying or remaking society, Osama and the rest of the jihadists do.

History supports my view, as does the Koran itself.
Would this be the same "rational and enlightened humanism" that gave us the French Terror, the Killing Fields, the gulag, the Holocaust, Mao's Cultural Revolution, etc, etc... Yes, it is.

Don't you mean "sisterhood of, of, of..." gosh, there's no way we can refer to our species in a gender neutral fashion, is there? Not even "homo sapiens" cuts it. sigh... There is no "brotherhood of man", and your belief in one is as much, nay more, of a metaphysical construct than any of the great religions of the world.

True, we actually agree on something. Unfortunately, there is in the Islamic world, a very vocal, active, and violent minority that does care, very much. Mind you, there are also a lot of Christians who care as well. There is one teeensy, weensy difference though. Jihad vs. missionary work. While you will find instances of forced conversion to Christianity, they are few and far between, and in direct contradiction to the Bible. Such is not the case with Islam.

pfft!! Perhaps in the world as a whole, but certainly not in the United States. Church hopping, denomination hopping, faith hopping is almost a hobby here.

Again, with the spurious and vicous comparisons of Christians and Muslims. Simple question: if the "Religious Right" has had control of Washington for the last 6+ years, and another dozen during the Reagan-Bush years, why haven't they precipitated the Apocalypse? Because the vast majority (a population you seem to be entranced with) won't let them. The fact that there's probably fewer Christians who think that way than there are surviving members of Al-Qaeda is another factor. In contrast, there are tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of members of Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, etc, etc.... And by and large, their own "brothers" in faith do nothing to stop them.

Gee, the "faith" that I was raised in apparently believes completely differently, at least based on history. I only need look at the Killing Fields to see where "rational and enlightened humanism" (the faith of my childhood home) leads, and that's a path of evil. Oh, sorry, even acknowledging the existence of evil is contrary to the "faith" (in human nature) that I was raised in.

I would hope that the West's response would be to either a) allow Israel to nuke Mecca,
Medina, Tehran, and Damascus, or do it ourselves.

"pointless struggle" - I'm sorry, but surviving in freedom is not "pointless." Perhaps to you it is. With the exception of converting to Satanism or becoming Thuggee, as a practical matter I don't care much what religious belief system Muslims adopt after we crush them. Only that they abandon the ideology that is Islam.

Yes, but who's telling us that? Not the jihadists. They hate us.

I am often times finding myself in agreement with you but I have to disagree with you here.

9/11 was a crime. We simply can't be at war with an idea. We can't be at war with a group. War is a specific thing and it has rules. We can't be at war against Jihadist because Jihadist have no way to wage war against the US. The dilemma that puts us in as a Nation is that we'd need pretty much kill every person who practices or practiced Islam to "win" this war. We're just not those people. On September 11th at about 1015 I was certain we were as I made my way to the World Financial Center (a complex behind WTC) to find my mother. It's become clearer now that we are not. We renamed our freaking war so we wouldn't offend the enemy!

That's not why this isn't a war though. While "thugs" doesn't exactly cover it it's close. Consider if the Mafia declared war on the US. How would we fight a war with the Mafia? I see this in a very similar vein.

I like this topic. It steps outside of the usual left-right schism so many of us fall into here.


I think that what he's really getting at here is not that we over-reacted... stricly by casualty numbers, pearl harbor was a comprable event in our history.

But perhaps we reacted with the wrong paradigm in mind.

For example, check this out:



One of the worst developments post-9/11 was our dependence on using Vietnam and WWII as historical precedent. Vietnam, while as quagmireish as Iraq appears to be at the moment, involved a much higher US casualty rate, and more importantly perhaps, did not involve a country tearing itself apart, rather the opposite. But enough about Vietnam.

The WWII comparison is sickening and continues to this day. For example, "Islamo-fascists"? Last I looked a fascist was a proponent totalitarian, secular regime whose leaders attempted to apply the strict hierarchical order of military life onto a civillian population. Explain to me how a new Muslim Caliphate would be a secular, Hitler-esque state? A repressive theocracy, sure. But a New Axis of Evil?

Then there's the way we point to Eastern Europe, Germany, Japan as shining examples of how to nation build post-war... meanwhile the comparison obviously does not translate from industrialized, homogenized, first world nations onto more ambigious, theocratic states designed by the British to be contentiously heterogenius.

So I think this article is really only hinting at the fact that we didn't over-react to 9/11... merely that our reaction was wrong in terms of being too based on military action, nation building, etc.

I dunno.

Seems the creation of people trying to deny the religion they were raised under. Religious people who turn away from what they were indoctrinated in always seem to be bitter and hateful. Generally seems to be the majority mold of those who end up under the humanist banner. As for the events listed, keep stretching BD.


Quarkhead, these are people who listen to voices they hear in their heads, Are you surprised? You don't take people who from psychiatric illnesses seriously, you should try to get them some meds and some therapy.


God Told me to!
Uhm, Yeeah! Ri-ight. avoid any direct eye contact and NO Sudden movements that might spook that person. Back away SLOWLY
Did we over react to 9/11? Overreact NO, but definetly chose the wrong response. Reality-wise, until we deal with the hateful people of the world, the Bin Ladens and the Bikerdads, we will always be dragged back down into the muck they require to attack those they disagree with. Clear thinking prevents them from being able to spread their hate.
By building up people like Bin Laden we merely make them more important and give them more influence than they actually have--or ever would have had. But by building them up we give certain personality types the excuse they are constantly searching for to take freedom away from those they disagree with and force others to submit to their will. Bit by bit they chip away and their bad decisions eventually come back to harm those who had nothing to do with the decisions made by others (9/11).


Is Bell working an agenda? I am sure he thinks we are going about it wrong so i guess he is supporting that view, so yes he is.

1. Do you believe Mr. Bell is correct that we have overreacted to the attacks on 9/11?

Within the context that he constructed, yes, but not all of us. Those who have and are overreacting are doing so to advance their own agendas. For example, President Bush tried playing the terrorist card during the last election season. It worked before, so it was to be expected. What was not expected was that it didn't work a second time. That surprised me too. People had become weary with the same old argument: Vote Republican to Feel Safe.

The author that Professor Bell refers to is one of the overreaction types. Writing books that pander to the right wing's fears makes pretty good money these days, so there's another agenda.

2. Is Mr. Bell working an agenda with his opinion piece? If so, what kind?

Professor Bell is selling a primary idea that he expounds upon more in his newly published book. He's promoting his book, which promotes his ideas. Looks to me that the central idea is that those who make comparisons of the GWoT to any war in the past are, for the most part, full of hot air. Thought it was interesting that he traces back to the Enlightenment period before the French Revolution.

Any book on history has an agenda. History is closer to fiction than nonfiction, something to keep in mind.

The agenda Professor Bell has involves the sales figures of his book. That's basic capitalism. Second to that is the selling of his ideas, which might happen or might not. Depends on how well he builds his case. Behind all this is the need for professors to publish or perish, and the internal workings of the publication industry within the journalistic realm. Professor Bell's publisher had the publicity people get him column inches in a paper. He'll be going to book signings too. He might get on radio and maybe TV to push the book. That's the nature of the industry.

Now for the real agenda of this debate: Reduce Professor Bell to Mr. Bell, thus discrediting his ideas based on the study of history. Promote the idea that the GWoT is indeed a war comparable to World War II. Salvage whatever is left of President Bush's credibility. Bait liberals into senseless arguments about what is and what is not a war. Deny that the Iraq project has anything to do with terrorism.

Agendas are all over the place! Guess that's not supposed to be a good thing for others to have.

Well, my agenda is to write a little before doing what I do to make a living. So it goes, and so I go.

Sleeper.... Wake up!! Read the opinion piece, before attacking the man's idea.

Let's start with you first and biggest mistake... the whole debate is based on a strawman. When did Bell ever write "9/11 not that bad" He specifically states in that opinion piece.

Bell writes...


You want to argue what he's not saying because it very much harder to go against what he is saying.

Here what else he wrote that maybe you skimmed over.



So in the context Bell is making his opinion I have to agree with him.

People are overreacting in both instances of war. However, and this is an important however, I don't think our reaction is uncommon from what any nation given our power would do.

We invaded afghanistan and freed... Kabul. We replaced one power structure with another, a weaker one at that... now we can run a oil pipeline through Afghanistan.. Whoopeee

Bell makes a great point...

The have no capacity.... their greatest attack on us... the best they could do... was three thousand people. Not to minimize that.. but imagine unleashed what we could do to them in a day.

They have no capacity. They have will, but they do not have the means...

That is what Bell is writing... that is how he explains we are overreacting... by making our enemies and this "war on terrorism" as the worst thing to happen since World War II. By making OBL the most evil villian to face America... in our generation. Maybe he is... but if this is the best they got... he's no Skeletor or Cobra, he's definately not an enemy that was worth invading a country and killing thousand of other humans for.

The bigger threat to America is our policies of fear mongering. But get real... we are at WAR with this "scourge" of villians...

But how many of us are huddled in fear of being attacked and how many of us are preparing for Superbowl Sunday with the Da Bears and the COLTS

This doesn't seem that complicated. Looking at the big picture, we never over-reacted. We've under-reacted. The war in Iraq has nothing to do with 9/11, so any conversation regarding our reaction to 9/11 should be limited to those decisions and policies surrounding Iraq - not including it.

As pointed out by someone, Al Qaida declared war on us and attacked us - twice. In the 13-14 years since the first attack, they've managed to kill a few thousand of their enemy. As tragic as those lives lost were, that's hardly substantial figures. So, Al Qaida attacks have not been effective at all and have for the most part, been more symbolic.

But Bush did the right thing by going to Afganistan and take out the state sponsor of their activities - the Taliban - because we needed to defend ourselves. Afganistan was clearly self-defense and finding people who opposed that war were difficult to find. Had Bush stopped there, protected our borders, and began a foreign policy that would have put the fear of God/Allah into other countries that have sponsored terror just like the Taliban (Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, etc), I'd be asking for Bush to be put on Mt. Rushmore. And that would have been the common-sense reaction.

But Bush stopped the response to 9/11 with Afganistan. He's never protected our borders and he's waiting to declare amnesty for illegals. I don't recall him saying Mexicans would be granted amnesty, but not Muslims that break our laws and come across the border. In fact, he refuses to implement steps provided by the 9/11 commission to help prevent another 9/11. Clearly, he could care less about 9/11.

All Bush cares about is Iraq and he's taking the country and republican party down with him. 9/11 is a cheap excuse for poor foreign policy skills. But he's still fooling some of the people. Thankfully, only 30% are too hard-headed to face reality.

Over reacted? hell if we did not take action it would have been that bad, except instead of regular bombs and plains crashing in to buildings it would have been dirty bombs and biological war fare on U.S. soil as well as all over the civilized world A.K.A. all of western world. So i would have to say 2. The only reason he would have said such a thing is because he wonted ratings.

1. Do you believe Mr. Bell is correct that we have overreacted to the attacks on 9/11?
Unfortunately, I do feel that the USA was a little "over the top" in compensating the families of those who lost their lives in 9/11. In my opinion we have now set a dangerous precedent for the handling of any future "hits" on home ground. Even during World War II, Korea, or Viet Nam, we were not battling on home soil, and I do think that the shock of such an event happening here affected us all, as well it should. The USA can't afford to
make restitution in the event we have further terrorist attacks here at home.

2. Is Mr. Bell working an agenda with his opinion piece? If so, what kind?
I am sure Mr. Bell does have an agenda but at this point it is not clear.

droop:

Sorry, friend, but Afghanistan was not and is not an overreaction. And the point isn't their ability to destroy us all, just me. You see, my government owes ME a duty to keep ME alive and safe. And if we need go to war in Afghanistan to do so, then we go to war. The same applies for you. And for everyone here who is an American. We don't do nothing and offer you up as a sacrifice for our "peace." The error in the man's thinking is otherwise simply that it isn't just 9/11. That was the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back, since there was WTC 1, Dar Es Salaam, Nairobi, the USS Cole, Khobar Towers, etc. Our embassy in Pakistan was otherwise even more protected and dug-in than that fire base during the Vietnam War, and not after 9/11 but BEFORE. It simply came to the point when things could no longer remain the same. And now back to the main point, Mr. Bell is not my kind of American, or even my kind of human for that matter, since he doesn't value my life, nor yours either. If he did, he'd be saying that we ought to crush like bugs those who would take it upon themselves to harm you and I. And for what it means to be American, since somebody asked that here on AD, well, that's what it means to be American. It means that I get to walk in a relative safety just about anywhere in the world because the rest of the world knows that if they [radio edit] with me, well, then there's just gonna be hell to pay.

Lastly, though, glad that he mentioned again for me the number of our dead from vehicular accidents, since that does bring some perspective, I mean, well, let this "rightist" simply ask, if our dead in Afghanistan and Iraq equate to only 2 months worth of vehicular accident related deaths, then why the outrage? Or, why no outrage over the two months of vehicular accident related deaths? So maybe it isn't the end of the world, as some have claimed here. And so maybe it is not "rightist" me but some others who are overreacting by claiming that the "sky is falling" when it isn't, I mean, in two months, we'll lose the same number of dead here at home because she was driving too fast, he was fiddling with the radio dial, she was simply not all there since her mind was on the subject of the conversation with the human on the other end of cellular phone, and, well, he was just too stupid to know that sometimes weather is so inclement that you don't drive in it. I'd rather we die trying to bring somebody some freedom. But, hey, I'm just "brutal", or so I've been told. And so you know, my motto for us at war, well, to borrow that adage, no quarter was given and none was asked for.

Sorry, I lied again, but Hiroshima as a civilian target? Really? Didn't the bomb detonate within shouting distance of the one gate to the Chugoku Regional Army headquarters, and maybe that's why Hersey reports in his Hiroshima of Father Kleinsorge's encounter with those Japanese Army troops who quite literally had their eyes melted from their sockets [perhaps they were looking up when the bomb detonated]? And I don't suppose that real debate can even be had by our author, I mean, it wasn't but the other Jesuit who was there that day who wrote that for those who believe and practice total war, as Japan did at that time, then hard to complain about a war involving and against civilians. Oh, and those students used to clear the fire lanes, well, they met up at the Hiroshima Army Ordnance Supply Depot, so what were they again? So total war involving civilians does come with a steep price and some have no right to complain, or as the other hibakusha put it, it was war and so we had to expect it.

Sorry, I am a habitual liar, I mean, speaking of overreacting, well, if we had gone in and raped the female population just like the Russians did during the end of that war, well, then we could call that overreacting since we lost a little more 3,000 while the Russians lost about 40 million, so maybe they were entitled to take some liberty with the local female population while we are not. But since we didn't, then we're okay. I'll let you figure out why our author left that part of the Russian reaction out.

Sorry, as I said, I'm habitual, but to relate the two, my government having the duty to protect ME, and the vehicular accident related deaths, sorry, but our author doesn't get to throw me under the bus. And so the world needs to know that when my government says that your life means something and that it is duty bound to preserve your life, well, the world needs to know that my government is entirely sincere in that regard and that there will be a helluva price to pay should one or more seek your life.


drewyorktimes:

A minor correction, but you said:

"I like this topic. It steps outside of the usual left-right schism so many of us fall into here."

The author said:

"Yet a great many Americans, particularly on the right..."

droop otherwise highlighted that part of the author's piece, so apparently droop does see the matter in terms of right versus left. I otherwise cannot see how we have stepped outside the schism when the author himself puts us there.

Oh, sorry, almost forgot, but you are letting your leftist tendencies slip, I mean, you blamed the British again. Check your history, since the British-created-Iraq wasn't the first time that Sunni, Shia, and Kurd lived together under one roof, as I'm sure the former Ottoman Empire would be glad to attest were it still existing to speak for itself. Then we could go back to some former caliphates... I would simply suggest that you hold these people responsible for their own actions, and nothing that the British did otherwise justifies the violence between these people now. Oh, sorry, re the Ottoman Empire:

"Absorbed piecemeal by the Ottoman sultans Selim I and Süleyman I in the 16th century, this region on the empire's eastern periphery was the battleground in recurrent struggles between the Sunnite Ottomans and the Shi'ite rulers of Iran and was subject to frequent Arab and Kurdish tribal disturbances. It was never as thoroughly integrated into the empire or as directly administered by the Ottomans as was the western half of the Fertile Crescent. Nevertheless, bearing in mind the destruction, chaos, and fragmentation that had beset the region in the preceding centuries, the expansion of the vast Ottoman political and economic sphere to include Iraq brought with it certain advantages."

And so things apparently remain the same when it comes to the destruction, chaos, and fragmentation that had beset the region in the preceding centuries...And that Shia-Sunni divide, well, old news there friend:

"From the sixteenth to the twentieth centuries, the course of Iraqi history was affected by the continuing conflicts between the Safavid Empire in Iran and the Ottoman Turks. The Safavids, who were the first to declare Shia Islam the official religion of Iran, sought to control Iraq both because of the Shia holy places at An Najaf and Karbala and because Baghdad, the seat of the old Abbasid Empire, had great symbolic value. The Ottomans, fearing that Shia Islam would spread to Anatolia (Asia Minor), sought to maintain Iraq as a Sunni-controlled buffer state. In 1509 the Safavids, led by Ismail Shah (1502-24), conquered Iraq, thereby initiating a series of protracted battles with the Ottomans. In 1514 Sultan Selim the Grim attacked Ismail's forces and in 1535 the Ottomans, led by Sultan Suleyman the Magnificent (1520-66), conquered Baghdad from the Safavids. The Safavids reconquered Baghdad in 1623 under the leadership of Shah Abbas (1587-1629), but they were expelled in 1638 after a series of brilliant military maneuvers by the dynamic Ottoman sultan, Murad IV.

The major impact of the Safavid-Ottoman conflict on Iraqi history was the deepening of the Shia-Sunni rift. Both the Ottomans and the Safavids used Sunni and Shia Islam respectively to mobilize domestic support. Thus, Iraq's Sunni population suffered immeasurably during the brief Safavid reign (1623-38), while Iraq's Shias were excluded from power altogether during the longer period of Ottoman supremacy (1638-1916). During the Ottoman period, the Sunnis gained the administrative experience that would allow them to monopolize political power in the twentieth century. The Sunnis were able to take advantage of new economic and educational opportunities while the Shias, frozen out of the political process, remained politically impotent and economically depressed. The Shia-Sunni rift continued as an important element of Iraqi social structure in the 1980s."

Oh, and now all concerned know just why I said that some have called the division and rivalry "insoluable." I mean, those souls are reading the same history that I am, and it's a helluva long history. So it wasn't going to be short, sweet, and to the point. Oh, and you don't get to blame Dubya because you didn't know your history and so didn't tell him to learn his.


quarkhead/christopher:

We do not worship the same God. My God is Yahweh, the Jewish conception of Deity, and referred to as such. In God's more general sense, i.e., God as a God that is merely omnipotent and omniscient and so can do what a God does, and never mind any consideration of what we would call moral character, that more general God we call 'elohim. So you get as far as 'allah = 'eloahh, but 'allah is not Yahweh, not even close, and for that matter, since 'allah and 'eloahh are both singular in number, you don't even get to the plural 'elohim. So given the Semitic nature of both languages, as it were, why don't you instead say that Mohammed used the Arabic cognate to the Hebrew 'eloahh to describe a being of a moral character differing from that moral character ascribed to YHWH by both Jews and Christians.

Speaking of hearing God, well, I won't speak to that, but I do know when I and some others have had a rather close encounter with that One, call it "possession" if you like. By way of example, this hibakusha had such an encounter [as reported in James Hersey's Hiroshima]:

"Her [Toshiko Sasaki's house] stood by a cliff, on which there was a grove of bamboo. One morning, she stepped outside, and the sun's rays glistening on the minnowlike leaves of the bamboo trees took her breath way. She felt an astonishing burst of joy--the first she had experienced in as long as she could remember. She heard herself reciting the Lord's Prayer. In September, she was baptized."

Lastly, if listening to the voice of Deity is so insane, then please explain Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot aka Saloth Sar, Ieng Sary, and Khieu Samphan. As I remarked to Julian a while back, the godless killed more faster last century then we lunatics who hear voices had ever thought possible. I'll let the both of you figure out for yourselves what that says about your criticsim of those who hear voices.

In the end, you care only for yourself... well, in the end most human slip to survival mode when placed in an extreme position. ahhh and thus is the difference between us, you slip into survival mode at the thought of death, while I'd likely slip in it at the brink of death.

How many people are you willing to kill just so you can feel safe??... Tomorrow isn't promised for any of us. No Mr. Bell is likely a lafty that doesn't value your life or mine. But as a lefty, he likely values life. Not just American... and our allies.... or not just "western civilization"... but Life.

It amazes me how afraid you simply are... and that's why we overreacted. Let's say we get OBL... tomorrow. What did we truly accomplish?? How are you safer??

This is what we mean by overreacting. We went to WAR for one man... We did not fight a war against a military. We went to war for a MAN. A man while certainly a figure head for Al Queada, like

There are 300 million people in America. We experience 3000 deaths... 3,000/300,000,000 = .00001 Do you run to the hospital when a mesquito bites you?? Would that be an overreaction??

Truth be told, I experienced the same blood lust as most Americans on 9/11. I remember thinking "oh they got us good, but that's okay." And at the time of invasion of Afghanistan I wasn't gung ho for it, but I wasn't against it either.

But what is Bell saying.... The lust and anger is gone... Did we overreact?? Well going to war for A man is a little bit of an overreaction. Why not just float drones over Afghanistan until the 6'4 cripple came out of a cave and hit him. Hell, 5 years later of war we got no closer to getting him... and if he is dead, people like you are still scared and need the troops in harms way so you can feel safe.

LOL.. listen to yourself... our government should be down to ride..... kill thousands in a heartbeat if anyone in the world dares to harm you... They should be ready to topple governments... spreading chaos and death for even thinking to harm you?!?!?! American military members should lay down their life... not for the nation, not for ideals, but for you.

I sincerely hope you've