Wednesday, January 31, 2007

9-11 Not That Big a Deal, Says Prof

This extraordinarily stupid Op-Ed in the LA Times has attracted quite a bit of attention in the last few days.

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.

Iowahawk, a very funny guy, took that Op-Ed and parodized it rather well:

Of course, the 9/11 attacks also conjured up the possibility of far deadlier attacks to come. Ooooohhh, booga booga booga. Despite the nightmarish fantasies of the post-9/11 era (e.g. the TV show "24’s" nuclear attack on Los Angeles), Islamist terrorists have not come close to deploying weapons other than boxcutters, knives, guns, conventional explosives, and maybe a little anthrax here and there. And despite the nightmarish fantasies of 1980s slasher movies, these lumbering, inept, under-armed Islamist Jasons and Freddy Krugers can be easily be avoided if we only remember two little rules: (a) do not split up in the woods, and (b) don’t go on a moonlight skinny-dip with the hot blonde chick. A war it may be, but does it really deserve comparison to an existential battle against a demonically-possessed ventriloquist doll?


At 31 January, 2007 13:34, Blogger James said...

What an asshole. It doesn't matter how many people died under terrorism, its still a tragedy. Hell, its a tragedy when anyone dies. Except bad people.

At 31 January, 2007 15:08, Blogger Andrew said...

When will these silly liberals wake up to the fact 9/11 was allowed to happen by criminal fanatics within the US government? The supposed "overreaction" makes perfect sense when you can open your mind to such a possibility. It's no coincidence that Irans neighbors are Iraq and Afghanistan.

At 31 January, 2007 19:48, Blogger Richard said...

Point being? Let me guess, it involves a pipeline...

At 31 January, 2007 20:04, Blogger shawn said...

It's very scary when a professor of history has now idea how to analyze history, rather than just state body counts.

America hadn't been attacked since the War of 1812. We'd never had civilians targeted en masse. We'd never had some of our largest structures destroyed by militant zealots.

Nor are the Soviets a good example as to "overreaction". They weren't too kind to the populace they took over when they drove the Nazis out. Also, they had just gone through one of the bloodiest revolutions in world history. Death on a massive scale was a very recent memory.

If anything, our actions after 9/11 were an underreaction.

Nemo me impune lacessit.

It's no coincidence that Irans neighbors are Iraq and Afghanistan.

It would've actually made sense to attack Iran - they're one of Hizbollah's major sponsors.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home