Gay Patriot Header Image

9/11 Attacks: Ain’t No Big Thang!

I’m guessing many of the GayPatriot moonbat parade will have a lot of praise for this piece in the LA Times on Sunday.

Was 9/11 really that bad? – David Bell

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?

Certainly, if we look at nothing but our enemies’ objectives, it is hard to see any indication of an overreaction. 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.

Unfortunately, Bell suffers from terrorist-apologetic delusions (a disease afflicting many in the American Left).  Technology now allows a MUCH quicker bridge between “desire” and “capacity”.  Bell ignores that fact.  It is one of the many reasons Saddam had to go after 9/11, by the way.

Of course, the 9/11 attacks also conjured up the possibility of far deadlier attacks to come. But then, we were hardly ignorant of these threats before, as a glance at just about any thriller from the 1990s will testify. And despite the even more 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 knives, guns and conventional explosives. A war it may be, but does it really deserve comparison to World War II and its 50 million dead? Not every adversary is an apocalyptic threat.

No, but if the tyrants of our past had been stopped early on in their bloodthirsty careers instead of appeasing them, perhaps there never would have been 50 million dead in WWII.   That is the whole point of pre-emption by Western democracies (the Bush Doctrine).  Unfortunately, the “progressive liberals” have created moral equivalence between America and Islamic terror groups.  Just a rehash of the 1960s, of course.

There are some great comments at Dean’s World about this piece, too.

The comparison to the Soviet Union is unbelievably asinine. That same country had only years before killed millions of its own people in forced famines.  Sadly, this kind of idiocy is pretty much par for the course. Half the world sees 9/11 as our Reichstag fire.

The guy’s right: we should wait until we’ve racked up massive civilian casualties before we take action. That’s much better than proactively preventing casualties. Better to wait until our enemies can threaten us than to stop them before.  Sheesh. What a maroon…

So have at it, gang!

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Share

66 Comments

  1. 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.

    Well, that sums up the lord BJ foreign philosophy in a nutshell.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — January 30, 2007 @ 7:40 am - January 30, 2007

  2. We see this same liberal denial in claiming that Islamist grievances are all about Israel, and if we appease them by selling out Israel, all terrorism will go away. These are the same types who thought Hitler only cared about the Sudeten.

    I’ve long said the main reason lefties are in denial about Islamo-Fasicsm is because if Islamism is a threat, it means everything liberalism believes is wrong; because Global Jihad is an existential threat that can not be appeased or bought off, only defeated. The idea that Islamists are a threat is as alien to lefties as the concepts of personal responsibility and hygiene, which is why they have to construct elaborate, often self-contradicting conspiracy theories to explain how the real enemies are corporations and Judeo-Christians; because those are the only “enemies” the left believes in.

    Comment by V the K — January 30, 2007 @ 8:22 am - January 30, 2007

  3. BTW, I am wondering if either of the patriots will comment on Dinesh D’Souza’s thesis that many of the grievances of Islamists are less against Christians and democracy, but against the cultural imperialism of the “progressive” secular left; which itself represents an existential threat to traditional Islam.

    It is a tough concept for us to address honestly, because while we may agree that promoting gross consumerism, abortion, and cheapened sexuality may be bad, we also think the promotion of women’s rights and tolerance of religious and sexual minorities are good, but to Islamists, these are all part of the same bag of progressive cultural imperialism.

    Comment by V the K — January 30, 2007 @ 8:24 am - January 30, 2007

  4. Who is “lord BJ”? I think I missed that at some point.

    Comment by Mike — January 30, 2007 @ 8:33 am - January 30, 2007

  5. V the K: I second your motion.

    The left is so mired in 1968think that it refuses to see the new world, much like a small child who is mad at its parent and puts its hands up to cover its eyes.

    Comment by Vince P — January 30, 2007 @ 9:14 am - January 30, 2007

  6. Mike – “Lord BJ” is Billy Jeff Clinton, aka the Syphilitic Hillbilly, aka the Horny Hick.

    V, you’re quite right about Israel, and if I might add to your thought, I’d also suggest part of Bell’s shrugging off of 9/11 is a barely-concealed certainty that we “had it coming,” because of our foreign policy re: Israel. 9/11 was then, karmic justice for our support of Pinochet, the School of the Americas, Rummy’s handshake with Unca Saddam, our amen corner of JOOOOOOOOS – you know, all the usual moonbat grievances.

    Comment by Christopher — January 30, 2007 @ 10:26 am - January 30, 2007

  7. All of the comments above are great. It’s sad to say that the anti-American rally in DC over the weekend has our Islamofascist and commie enemies just salivating all over again. They figure that divisiveness at home will lead to another pullout a la Saigon circa 1975.

    What’s really sad is that (God forbid) if a nuke detonates in a US city like on “24,” the very next day you will see the same libtards that gathered in DC (and vandalized the Capitol), marching in the streets to (a) denounce Bush for NOT PREVENTING this attack and (b) offering to capitulate to the enemy like the French did in World War II.

    If the libtards fought against the Islamists the way they fight against Bush, we’d have no more terrorism to speak of.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — January 30, 2007 @ 10:32 am - January 30, 2007

  8. It is kind of interesting that to the left, 3,000 Americans slaughtered in about two hours is “no big deal,” but 3,000 Americans killed over four years while fighting terrorists and liberating millions is supposed to shock us into surrendering.

    Comment by V the K — January 30, 2007 @ 10:45 am - January 30, 2007

  9. Bruce, interesting post… I just assumed the anti-Iraq and anti-WOT approach now ascendant and out in the open air of the Left was based on two “first” principles for them: 1) they distrust and dislike any option that places a premium on exercising physical strength or discretion in the use of military force and 2) they’d rather pursue paths which stress accommodation on a global scale (getting along with others is more important than being right… getting along proves you are tolerant… getting along means you support diversity of interests even if it means your countrymen may suffer harm… getting along is l-o-v-e).

    The Left doesn’t wonder if downplaying the impact of 9-11 is warranted… the modern age allows us to rewrite history with flair even while the issues remain in play. It aint no big thing… now NYC and NJ have their gorging share of the feed-time at the federal trough. Can you imagine what it would have been like a year later if Liberals had tried minimizing the impact of 9-11 or threat to American interests at home and abroad? I guess we need look no further than this week’s whine-fest in New Orleans over the President’s “snubbing” of Katrina Victimhood in the SOTU.

    Talk, get along, be nice.

    I think it’s why the Left is so adamant about “talking to Iran” even if it means we put aside something as vital as Iran’s unabated progress toward nuclear weapons development. Talk, get along, and be nice –it’s all so… so… well, so feminine.

    In a very real way, conservatives in this country evidence the kind of qualities one observes in the conventional male gender role and liberals cater to the softer, gentler side of conventional female traits. Hence, the Left is more interested in getting along with bad neighbors, talking, appeasing, making cookies and conservatives want to protect family, home, property and are willing to protect the neighborhood by kicking some bully’s butt.

    And it also demonstrates why the Left thinks the worst they can say about Bush right now is to hype their own spin that the Administration and President are thinking about attacking poor ole’ defenseless Iran. And why I wish we actually did have a President who believed in WildWest CowBoy politics like TeddyRoosevelt practiced… the world would be better off, our enemies and allies would hear us when we talk, and our country would feel safer.

    Sometimes generalizations and oversimplifications just make sense.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — January 30, 2007 @ 10:47 am - January 30, 2007

  10. VdaK, I think others have pointed out that more people are killed in the US each MONTH by drunk drivers than all Coalition casualities in Iraq and Afghanistan together… or that more patients are killed by docs and nurses via itatrogenic accidents (not a disease) in a month than all Coalition casualities in Iraq and Afghanistan together.

    Is CodePink hitting the streets to stop the drunk drivers? Hell, just take away the Kennedy clan drivers licenses would help a lot. Are we outraged about stupid docs making more errors? Nope.

    It’s all so shallow by the Left. And it’s led by the MSM.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — January 30, 2007 @ 10:55 am - January 30, 2007

  11. VtheK and Michigan Matt in 2008!!!!

    Comment by EssEm — January 30, 2007 @ 11:07 am - January 30, 2007

  12. Cute EssEm… not in a million years for a political office. Been there, done that.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — January 30, 2007 @ 11:14 am - January 30, 2007

  13. Only if I can rule by decree like leftist heart-throb hugo Chavez gets to do. (Amy Carter named her kid Hugo, and he was born a few months after Chavez took power. I guess ‘Fidel’ was already taken).

    In the meantime, you can vote for my brother when he runs for the Michigan state senate.

    Comment by V the K — January 30, 2007 @ 11:36 am - January 30, 2007

  14. #13 – Good luck on your brother’s race, V da K.

    Anyone ever get the feeling that Hugo Chavez and Manuel Noriega were separated at birth? Just a thought.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — January 30, 2007 @ 11:57 am - January 30, 2007

  15. On a related note, what flaming leftist has got Ahmadinejihad’s back.

    “Not once since its 1979 revolution has Iran started a war. In any war with America, or Israel with its hundreds of nuclear weapons, Iran would not be annihilating anyone. Iran would be risking annihilation.

    It sounds like something lester would say, but it’s actually someone who knows how to spell. Is it: A.) John Kerry, B.) Cindy Sheehan, C.) Noam Chomsky or D.) Jimmy Carter

    You’ll be surprised….

    (note the left… you can have him!)

    Comment by V the K — January 30, 2007 @ 12:07 pm - January 30, 2007

  16. The fact that he is correct, though? Don’t let that stand in the way of your warmongering.

    Comment by Cycloptichorn — January 30, 2007 @ 12:59 pm - January 30, 2007

  17. People who think they’re going to get 72 virgins in paradise for killing infidels aren’t really bothered by the threat of nuclear annihilation.

    Comment by V the K — January 30, 2007 @ 1:03 pm - January 30, 2007

  18. That doesn’t have anything to do with what we’re talking about, though; the vast majority of the people of Iran are not fanatical terrorists who believe they are going to get virgins in the afterlife. Just regular people who don’t want to be blown up any more than you or I.

    Hyperventilating doesn’t help make your case. Buchanan – who I don’t even like at all – is correct that Iran doesn’t constitute a threat to the US in the slightest, and doesn’t even currently constitute a threat to Israel.

    Comment by Cycloptichorn — January 30, 2007 @ 1:14 pm - January 30, 2007

  19. Using Pat Buchanan talking about protecting Isreal is about the same as Jimmy Carter talking about protecting Isreal.

    Comment by Bruce (GayPatriot) — January 30, 2007 @ 1:36 pm - January 30, 2007

  20. #3 – V – D’Souza’s thesis is getting a lot of criticism in the dextrosphere, and I think rightly so.

    First: I think D’Souza is right that hippies, leftist Hollywood elites, academics, etc. have been systematically degrading and debasing our popular culture and moral standards for at least 45 years. He’s right that Britney Spears is disgusting. He’s right that the Islamists object to her. And he’s right that their objection is one of the few (very few) points where they might be right.

    Having said all that: D’Souza’s is trying (I gather) to imply that if only we listened to social conservatives to the point of totally cleaning up our popular culture, the Islamists wouldn’t hate us. And that is nuts. It’s as silly as the Left saying, if only we abandoned Israel then the Islamists wouldn’t hate us.

    The Islamists hate democracy as such. They hate capitalism as such. They hate the scientific method as such. They hate women as such (except as sex slaves / chattel). They hate gays as such. They hate “kuffar” – i.e., unbelievers; the fact that some people are non-Muslim – as such. And they’ve been at it for 1400 years now. They were at it before the downfall of American popular culture, just as they were at it before the creation of Israel.

    If we cleaned up our popular culture or ended the “cultural imperialism of the ‘progressive’ secular left” – but still kept democracy, capitalism, Judeo-Christianity, and “women’s rights and tolerance of religious and sexual minorities” – the Islamists wouldn’t change.

    #18 – Cycloptichorn – The vast majority of Germans in the 1930s weren’t war-mongers or Jew-haters, either. It’s the rulers & ruling ideology that are the enemy – and that, because they rule, have great power and must be stopped.

    Comment by Calarato — January 30, 2007 @ 1:40 pm - January 30, 2007

  21. The vast majority of people in Iran don’t control the weapons. The fanatical, holocaust-denying, Israel off the map wiping, terrorist-supporting, 12th imam summoning leadership of Iran controls the weapons.

    Comment by V the K — January 30, 2007 @ 1:42 pm - January 30, 2007

  22. None of that changes the fact that what Pat wrote is categorically true: Iran hasn’t started a war since 1979 and doesn’t currently constitute a threat to either the US or Israel.

    Your personal opinions about the leadership of Iran are immaterial. They don’t provide justification for aggressive warfare, from neither a legal standpoint nor a moral one. Bush’s stubborn insistence on not negotiating with Iran is a terrible mistake, just another one on top of many….

    Comment by Cycloptichorn — January 30, 2007 @ 1:51 pm - January 30, 2007

  23. V, I put in my own answer to #3 – I think it’s sitting in moderation – stay tuned.

    Comment by Calarato — January 30, 2007 @ 1:56 pm - January 30, 2007

  24. My personal opinions of the leadership of Iran are based on statements made by the leadership of Iran.

    The idea that Iran is not a threat to anybody is based on wishful thinking and fairy dust.

    Comment by V the K — January 30, 2007 @ 2:09 pm - January 30, 2007

  25. he’s absolutely right. the United states is the embodiment of liberty. one terrorist attack can not kill it. we will have everything we had back and more.

    he’s wrong when he says we over reacted. All we did was invade afghanistan and Iraq. We were probably going to invade oraq anyway for one reason or another. We certainly haven’t changed any of our foreign policy as a result of 9/11 nor do we inspect our cargo any more than we did.

    Comment by lester — January 30, 2007 @ 2:10 pm - January 30, 2007

  26. v to the k- name one city in iran besides Tehran

    Comment by lester — January 30, 2007 @ 2:10 pm - January 30, 2007

  27. 23 – the onus is on those who wish to start aggressive wars to provide compelling reasons why they should happen. I don’t care what you base your personal opinions about Iran on, it doesn’t constitute justification for war.

    Until someone provides compelling and accurate evidence that Iran constitutes an imminent threat to the US, then we don’t have justification to go to war with them. Iran’s problems with Israel do not provide said justification. Buchanan’s piece stands unchallenged due to the fact that you cannot provide any evidence showing that he is wrong; only suppositions and predictions of doom. Not good enough.

    Comment by Cycloptichorn — January 30, 2007 @ 2:21 pm - January 30, 2007

  28. Bandar Abbas.

    Now, lester, empty water out of a boot. (Hint: The instructions are written on the heel).

    Comment by V the K — January 30, 2007 @ 2:31 pm - January 30, 2007

  29. Re: #25 & #27….not to take anything away from the seriousness of this debate started by GP’s posting, but….

    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    That was too funny.

    Yahoo Maps

    Comment by Mike — January 30, 2007 @ 2:35 pm - January 30, 2007

  30. In Psychoopticon’s world, I guess we have to wait until a major city is nuked before we’re allowed to do anything to prevent it.

    He also needs to show where I’ve advocated war against Iran, since he seems to be claiming that’s what I’m pushing for. Since he can’t do that (because I haven’t advocated it), I think we can write off the rest of his naive foolishness as just that, naive foolishness.

    Comment by V the K — January 30, 2007 @ 2:36 pm - January 30, 2007

  31. you guys are circo 03 conservatives. your movement is over evidence: the last election. No one cares about “islamofascism” anymore.

    Comment by lester — January 30, 2007 @ 2:55 pm - January 30, 2007

  32. Still stumped on the boot thing, huh, les?

    Comment by V the K — January 30, 2007 @ 2:58 pm - January 30, 2007

  33. 29 – insulting me unfortunately doesn’t add any validity to your argument, though if it is the kind of thing that makes you feel happy and better about things, I encourage you to continue to do so.

    I was merely responding to your criticism of Pat Buchanan’s article, which was not factually incorrect. You stated that he has ‘Ahmendinejad’s back,’ but there is no evidence that this is true, either. You seek to character assassinate the man based upon an article he wrote decrying those who advocate violence in Iran, but cannot provide any reasons as to why he is wrong.

    Comment by Cycloptichorn — January 30, 2007 @ 3:02 pm - January 30, 2007

  34. n’s problems with Israel do not provide said justification.

    Or in other words, the fact that Iran is threatening to wipe Israel off the map while acquiring the weapons to do it means nothing to you.

    What’s another few million Jews or so erased from the planet?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 30, 2007 @ 3:24 pm - January 30, 2007

  35. Actually, I have stated that Pat Buchanan is wrong because his assessment of the situation ignores the statements of Iranian leadership vis-a-vis their intention to wipe Israel off the map and destroy the USA. Also, holding in moderation, is a link to an article about Iran’s threat to kidnap American troops.

    My position is built on an understanding of the stated intentions of the Iranian regime. Mr. Buchanan’s article is intended to help Iran in its quest for nuclear weapons against the will of the international community, and it is in that respect that he has Ahmadinejihad’s back. It is those who are in denial who have nothing but wishful thinking to back themselves up.

    Comment by V the K — January 30, 2007 @ 3:41 pm - January 30, 2007

  36. 33 –

    Israel’s problems are not our problems in perpetuity, sorry. I am unswayed by your doomsday scenario. Israel has a complete deterrence in the form of their nuclear arsenal. It has worked as a deterrent for the US for many years. I find arguments that Iran’s leaders are willing to have their entire country nuked into non-existence to be rather uncompelling, because they don’t rely on any actual evidence, but rather suppositions about the fanatical nature of the Iranian leadership.

    34 –

    It is not Buchanan’s, nor myself, nor anyone who is against war with Iran’s responsibility to ‘back themselves up.’ Not making war against countries which have not attacked you is the baseline state. Those who would wish to elevate us past that baseline state bear the responsibility to prove that this is the only possible course of action we can take.

    You state that ‘Mr. Buchanan’s article is intended to help Iran in its quest for nuclear weapons against the will of the international community,’ but you have provided no evidence that this is Buchanan’s intention. You draw on nothing but the fact that he disagrees with you on the subject to reach the conclusion that he conspires with our foes and aspires to help them achieve primacy; this is a ludicrous allegation. I guarantee that you wouldn’t say something like that to his face if you had a conversation with him, so why say it here?

    Comment by Cycloptichorn — January 30, 2007 @ 3:52 pm - January 30, 2007

  37. 33north dallas- you are aware that there are 25,000 jews who live in Iran, including a jewish MP in parliament.

    Israel has been whining about irans alleged nukes since long before ahmedenjad was elected less than 2 years ago. remember bush saying “that being said…all options are on the table” that was summer 04. no one knew who ahmedenejad was. and Israel should be wiped off the map. not literally, but as a jewish state. it’s obsolete. theres no hitler anymore. no need for it

    Comment by lester — January 30, 2007 @ 4:02 pm - January 30, 2007

  38. Have any of you read the attached article? The article is a level-headed look at 9/11 and America’s reaction to it. The author goes out of his way to say that it was NOT an overreaction, just slightly unfocused. Maybe you should try to read and comprehend his points before you start hurling invective and GOP polemic. Geesh!

    Comment by PleasePlease — January 30, 2007 @ 4:11 pm - January 30, 2007

  39. And how is writing an article that advances the position that a nuclear-armed Iran is not a threat not intended to support Iran’s quest for nuclear weapons?

    It’s kind of funny the way Psycho-opticon constantly asserts without any basis that I support war with Iran, or that I wouldn’t tell Pat Buchanan what I thought face-to-face, and then makes the claim that I am assuming facts not in evidence. Projection? He’s soaking in it.

    Comment by V the K — January 30, 2007 @ 4:16 pm - January 30, 2007

  40. 38 – It’s okay if you wish to ridicule my name. I’m sure you could come up with other pretty funny things to say as well, if you like.

    Iran isn’t currently a significant threat to the US. It currently isn’t a significant threat to Israel. The addition of a nuclear bomb to their arsenal hardly raises the level of their threat, when discussing countries who themselves have far more of the same weapons, far more. There is no objective evidence that it does so, only supposition.

    You are assuming facts which are not in evidence. Writing a piece of literature which includes several facts is not the same thing as advocating on the behalf of the enemy. Under the rules you have set up, anyone who dares suggest Iran isn’t a deadly threat is intentionally supporting the enemy. This is a laughable position, for it belies the fact that your worldview is more important than actual factual statements when it comes to making decisions about the intentions of someone’s writing.

    You wouldn’t call Buchanan a traitor to his face. You’re kidding yourself if you think that you would. Instead, you would disagree with him more politely. The only reason you use the words you do is because it’s quite easy to run one’s mouth off on the consequence-free internet. This doesn’t make for a compelling argument, however.

    Comment by Cycloptichorn — January 30, 2007 @ 4:25 pm - January 30, 2007

  41. If you can just ignore the actual statements of the Iranian leadership (which you have consistently chosen not to address) and deny they’re a threat, you’re living in a fantasy world and there is no hope for you.

    Comment by V the K — January 30, 2007 @ 4:40 pm - January 30, 2007

  42. #40 – V da K, it reminds me of the same tired old arguments from the libtard left about nukes. It doesn’t matter that _____ (fill in the blank: USSR, India, Pakistan, Iran et al) has the ability to acquire the nukes, because it is THEIR business and the USA is EVIL.

    And as Madame All(but not)bright used to say as Secy of State, the US is wrong to be the only superpower in the world. I bet those words haunt her now, eh?

    But God forbid we should ever plan on expanding OUR nuclear facilities or even (gasp!) OUR energy production capabilities. OH NOOOOO!! That will hurt the spotted owl/diminish the rainforest/cause irreparable damage to the ecosystem/blah blah blah.

    You can’t have it both ways, people. Deal with it.

    Anyone who thinks that Iran is building nuclear reactors for energy when they are sitting on the world’s biggest supply of petroleum is either evil, stupid or a combination of both.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — January 30, 2007 @ 5:01 pm - January 30, 2007

  43. Who knew that statements by the figurehead of Iran trump things like facts and evidence about the capabilities of his country and Israel?

    I guess you thought Iraq was a threat as well based upon the ramblings of Baghdad Bob.

    Comment by Cycloptichorn — January 30, 2007 @ 5:07 pm - January 30, 2007

  44. 41 –

    I support the production of new nuclear facilities in the US.

    I honestly think they should be renamed something else. Much of the problem is in the branding. For example, ever have an MRI? Doctors use ’em for everything nowadays. But, people used to be highly resistant to them and hate them – because they were called NRIs, or Nuclear Resonance Imaging. Exact same machine, different name, completely different public response.

    America needs to build some ‘controlled molecular decay’ reactors as soon as possible…

    Comment by Cycloptichorn — January 30, 2007 @ 5:09 pm - January 30, 2007

  45. I find arguments that Iran’s leaders are willing to have their entire country nuked into non-existence to be rather uncompelling, because they don’t rely on any actual evidence, but rather suppositions about the fanatical nature of the Iranian leadership.

    That makes one large assumption, Cycloptichorn; namely, that those of you who make excuses prior to Iran’s nuking Israel would stop making excuses afterwards and actually do something about their having done it.

    People like yourself and Pat Buchanan, whose thought process is continually trumped by ideology, simply do not realize that we could not afford to retaliate against Iran for destroying Israel. Do you realize the destructive potential of setting off enough nuclear bombs to destroy Iran in that close of a time and geographic proximity to their already having set them off in Israel?

    You’re talking sufficient radiation to kill millions of people downwind. You’re talking enough dust pushed into the atmosphere to bring on massive global climatic alteration. You’re talking about making areas that hold an enormous amount of the world’s oil uninhabitable and impassable. And on top of that, you’re talking about killing 70 million people in Iran.

    Put simply, the Iranians know you don’t have the balls to pull the trigger. Oh, sure, they may have to deal with economic, political, and diplomatic sanctions for a while, but who cares? They just got rid of 7 million infidels, all in one fell swoop.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 30, 2007 @ 5:49 pm - January 30, 2007

  46. iran has 25,000 jews including a jewish mp in parliment. any conservatives want to explain how hitler would allow that? come on.

    Comment by lester — January 30, 2007 @ 5:54 pm - January 30, 2007

  47. The article does state that “The people who attacked us in 2001 are indeed hate-filled fanatics who would like nothing better than to destroy this country,” so David Bell acknowledges that the radical islamic fanatics are out to get us. But obviously, none of you wingnuts read that sentence, but either skipped it, conveniently glossed over it, or pulled your sleep masks over your eyes while reading it. I don’t see any apologist delusions anywhere in that aritcle. What he writes is true. Not every fanatic group who hates us is a major threat. We should NOT be at war, or contemplating a war with other nations who pose no imminent threat to us (i.e. Iraq and Iran). Simple as that, no more no less. The entire Iraq campaign should’ve been conducted in Afghanistan and Pakistan, where the Taliban has resurged and pretty much taken control of that territory, except for maybe inner city Kandahar…they’re also resurging in Kabul. The local governments there have very little (if any) control….but if we absolutely had to invade a middle eastern country, why couldn’t it have been Syria? They are known to harbor terrorist cells and training camps, and turn em out on the rest of the world like goldfish crackers. They have done this for many years.

    That said, I completely disagree with the statement that “islamist terrorists have not come close to deploying weapons other than knives, guns and conventional explosives.” I think they may gain access to more powerful weapons, as well as low level ‘dirty’ nukes with help from bin laden’s laundered bank account (more of an underestimation by Bell than sympathy for the radicals). Bin laden and co. may have been wiped out by now had bush and cronies conducted the campaign properly (and in the right eff-ing locations). Instead, what did he do? Pull most of the funding from the wot efforts in Afghanistan for God’s sake!

    Comment by ndtovent — January 30, 2007 @ 6:05 pm - January 30, 2007

  48. iran has 25,000 jews including a jewish mp in parliment. any conservatives want to explain how hitler would allow that? come on.

    Lester, aren’t you one of the liberals that regularly compares gay conservatives to the Jewish Nazis that you claim existed during the Third Reich?

    And now to ndtovent:

    Not every fanatic group who hates us is a major threat. We should NOT be at war, or contemplating a war with other nations who pose no imminent threat to us (i.e. Iraq and Iran).

    And yet you argue this:

    That said, I completely disagree with the statement that “islamist terrorists have not come close to deploying weapons other than knives, guns and conventional explosives.” I think they may gain access to more powerful weapons, as well as low level ‘dirty’ nukes with help from bin laden’s laundered bank account (more of an underestimation by Bell than sympathy for the radicals).

    So on the one hand, you’re arguing that these people are not a threat…..but on the other, you’re worried about terrorists getting their hands on something that WAS well within Saddam’s capability to build and IS well within Iran’s capabilities to build today because that IS a threat.

    What liberals like yourself refuse to acknowledge, ndtovent, is that a country like Iran no longer needs things like missiles and ships to deal death and destruction to their enemies; they have far better things than that, and they’re called terrorists. Iran can calmly give one of their terrorist buddies a binary chemical weapon that s/he brings across our southern border, breaks open in the New York subway system at rush hour, and kills thousands of people — while Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Ted Kennedy, Barbara Boxer, John ‘Khatami’ Kerry, John Edwards, Dennis Kucinich, Cindy Sheehan, and other Democratic leaders stand at the podium whining about how ‘Iran is no threat to us’.

    What 9/11 showed is that another country doesn’t need a massive army or high-tech weaponry to deal death and harm to Americans in our own country. And the more you talk, the more obvious you make it that Democrats have not and cannot grasp that fact.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 30, 2007 @ 6:30 pm - January 30, 2007

  49. north dallas- if iran hates jews so much why don’t they kill the 25000 that are in their country?

    and your argument about iran acknowledges that they aren’t going to LAUNCH a nuke at us. at best you are saying they could give nuclear material to terrorists. meanwhile, there has NEVER been a terrorist attack that i know of that used nuclear anything. they use taped together things with their alarm clocks from their room. the whole thing costs about 4 dollars. why would they risk trafficking nuclear materials when they cold put a bomb together with stuff they already have?

    You’re paranoid. Besides, we could easily trace the stuff back to whoever provided it and nuke them mercilessly.

    the fact is we’re being draggted into war with iran because israel knows the middle east doesn’t want them there and they want to keep them scared. well they can fight their own battles. Iran is no threat to us

    Comment by lester — January 30, 2007 @ 6:54 pm - January 30, 2007

  50. north dallas- if iran hates jews so much why don’t they kill the 25000 that are in their country?

    Actually, you illustrate the reason why; it provides a convenient excuse for leftists like yourself to argue that “some of their best friends are Jewish”.

    Come the day of annilhating Tel Aviv, I wouldn’t want to be in their shoes.

    You’re paranoid.

    I’m sure you say the same to a man who sees his new neighbor setting up a meth lab in his back yard and who calls the police.

    Besides, we could easily trace the stuff back to whoever provided it and nuke them mercilessly.

    Right. That assumes that a leftist like yourself actually has the balls to pull the trigger on someone else when they do it.

    As we saw above, the correct response for people like you to Palestinian terrorists murdering and throwing overboard an American in a wheelchair was to play human shield for them and help them kill Jews. Given that, I find it more likely that you’d nuke an American city before you’d turn on your buddies in Tehran.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 30, 2007 @ 7:12 pm - January 30, 2007

  51. One point to make about nuclear/chemical weapons. Yes, the capability exists to make smaller weapons of mass destruction, but it’s not quite like hollywood would have us believe. I’ve listened to a couple of interviews with nuclear phycisists/scientists who have been on some of the radio talk shows I listen to (one of them called into Michael Savage’s show a few months ago. He had worked with all of it–chemical, nuclear, biological materials). I’ve also read a couple of articles in WaPo written by scientists who worked with the materials and chemicals used in making these kinds of wmd’s (I wish I could site specifics, but I can’t. I can’t remember specific names, dates, etc. as it wasn’t that recent that I heard the interviews and read the articles)… But the gist was: It’s very difficult to acquire enough ‘yellow cake’ uranium to build a bomb like that for transport, and also exremely difficult to find facilities to manufacture it into a weapon. With the tight tabs we (and other countries) keep on these materials, it’s always discovered when significant amounts of these materials end up in the wrong hands. Also: it would be very difficult for someone to carry a suitcase sized weapon around like a briefcase. The smallest crude weapon they could make would weigh about 60lbs and would be about the size of a trunk (larger than a suitcase). Whoever carries this thing around wouldn’t be able to carry it for long because the radiation emanating from it would burn the s**t out of them within a few hours, even with a ‘proper’ container with proper insulation. They wouldn’t be able to carry it around for very long, or over long distances without special clothing, like decommination type suits. Now, that’s not to say that someone couldn’t carry a device with enough radiation to poison a lot of people, similar to the one that killed that russian agent recently (I forget his name — I’m having a sr. moment). That’s a possibility, but I think it highly unlikely that a ’24’ scenario could happen anytime soon. I like ’24’ too. It’s a great show, but don’t let the tv drama cloud realistic thinking. Maybe some of you who are more scientifically inclined could shed some light (??)

    Comment by ndtovent — January 30, 2007 @ 7:27 pm - January 30, 2007

  52. Besides, we could easily trace the stuff back to whoever provided it and nuke them mercilessly.

    Lester, as satisfying as that might be, getting to that point means the war is lost. Millions dead, environmental disaster and all that.

    As I mentioned in a long ago post, we need our enemies to either fear us or respect us. Fear and/or respect lowers the odds of a hot war. The danger is that the national leadership is determined to tell our enemies that we’re not to be feared.

    Which brings up another point: while the Iranians have certainly not launched a conventional war against us, they have certainly launched an unconventional proxy war (that’s what state-sponsored terrorism is).

    And as far as the $4 bombs: make no mistake, that’s our good luck. Given widely available and cheap technology, terrorists could construct terrible weapons. There are worse things than fission nukes. Smallpox, for example.

    We’ve not been hit either because the terrorists can’t get it together or because the GWOT has seen some success interrupting these efforts.

    We may never know.

    Comment by Robert — January 30, 2007 @ 7:35 pm - January 30, 2007

  53. #50 – yes, a small nuke presents some design challenges but remember that the US built at least three atomic bombs (I’ve read there was a fourth) at Los Alamos in WW2.

    The biggest logitical challenge was getting the fuel (Oak Ridge and Hanford were enormous operations).

    It was done with no computers and primitive machine tools – and it had never been done before.

    The Iranians are producing fuel and the theory is well understood. And there are any number of countries (North Korea, Russia, China) that probably wouldn’t mind helping out a little here and there with the hard parts.

    The Islamists may be nuts but that doesn’t mean they’re not smart enough to do it.

    Comment by Robert — January 30, 2007 @ 7:47 pm - January 30, 2007

  54. If Iran passed off a nuke to a terrorist group (or to the 40,000 martyrs the regime signed to give their lives in suicide operations for the glory of Jihad) and detonated it in a major western city, how long do you think it would take the tinfoil beret crowd to begin shrieking “False Flag” even if forensic evidence and intelligence pinned it to Iran? How long would it take France, Russia, and China to caution against “over-reaction” and “escalation?” How long would it take Ward Churchill and Noam Chomsky to proclaim, “we had it coming?”

    Of course, we could avoid that scenario entirely by not burying our heads in the sand now and taking whatever steps are necessary to assure it never happens.

    Comment by V the K — January 30, 2007 @ 8:16 pm - January 30, 2007

  55. #25
    nor do we inspect our cargo any more than we did.

    TGCpartner works for a major import/export company in Houston. He works on the import side for the past 3 years. ALL of his containers go through customs.

    Which can be interesting because the Port of Houston starts charging the company, not the customer, demurrage if the containers are not picked up in 72 hrs. This is regardless of whether they are still in customs for inspection.

    POP QUIZ:

    1. How many containers go in and out of the country every year?

    2. Name at least one liberal who has whined about cargo inspection that has actually put forth any ideas on how to inspect them all.

    3. Name at least one liberal in Congress who has the foggiest idea of how our import/export business works.

    Extra Credit:

    If Bush is the enemy and we can have convicted felons working in the ports, why bother inspecting any of them?

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — January 31, 2007 @ 2:27 am - January 31, 2007

  56. Physical inspection of all cargo containers is a stupid idea anyway. Besides being inefficient from both a security and an economic perspective, but I don’t think some union-thug inspector who got his job because his uncle is the union’s mafia liaison is going to recognize WMD unless it’s stenciled ‘WMD’ on the side.

    Meanwhile, we leave the southern border wide open with a big ol’ welcome mat.

    Comment by V the K — January 31, 2007 @ 5:34 am - January 31, 2007

  57. #56
    I’ll drink to that.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — January 31, 2007 @ 5:45 am - January 31, 2007

  58. After the Iranian Revolution and the taking of our US diplomats as hostages and seizing of our embassy and consulates in Iran 25+ years ago, it is amazing that some here are still arguing whether or not the govt of Iran is a major threat to us, to our allies, to our vital interests, to the Middle East and world. Amazing.

    It reminds me of the story about Professor Teller responding to a student who asked why they should be in favor of nuclear arms reduction and non-proliferation. Prof Teller returned the question by asking if there WAS a nuclear attack, would that student do everything within their power to help their family, friends and neighbors survive?

    Supposedly, the student agreed to do everything to survive.

    Then why not the same level of commitment when the threat is real?

    Iran’s leadership intends us great harm and want in on the nuclear weapons club ala Pakistan… where the world is a single gunshot away from anarchy.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — January 31, 2007 @ 7:27 am - January 31, 2007

  59. #58 – M-Matt, I lived through those 444 days of the Iranian occupation of the US Embassy as other Americans did, and I can tell you in no uncertain terms that the ultimate failure of the entire hostage taking/rescue attempt was ALL CARTER’S FAULT.

    Face it, Carter’s legacy was and always will be his disastrous foreign policy. For the same tired folks to say that Iran will never be a threat are either young or stupid. Or both.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — January 31, 2007 @ 3:21 pm - January 31, 2007

  60. Lefties cite the Camp David peace accords as a great achievement of Carter’s foreign policy; but in retrospect, both Egypt (Sadat) and Israel (Begin) wanted peace with each other very badly, and that probably had a lot more to do with it than any unusual gift of Carter’s.

    That Carter undercut the Shah and thereby aided the 1979 Iranian revolution, responded weakly to the hostage-taking, let himself be deluded and taken advantage of by the Soviet Union and others, etc., is beyond doubt.

    Comment by Calarato — January 31, 2007 @ 4:49 pm - January 31, 2007

  61. michaegin matt- so you want to invade iran because of the iranian revolution of 1979? in the context of all this other stuff? as a response to 9/11 we’re going to invade iran because they were another group of muslims who did something to us once. that makes no sense.

    also, we are already in the middle of two wars. neither of which are going well. attack Iran and the shia in Iraq turn on us. and the price of oil goes to about 200 a barrel, bringing the world economy to a screeching halt. and giving muslims all over the world the incentive to plan and perpetuate terrorist acts on their own. with no way of tracing or stopping them.

    You republicans are in way over your head when it comes to foreign policy. You think people in Yemen or pakistan are impressed by our “power”? they don’t care. there are suicide bombings EVERY DAY in Iraq. think about that. you cna’t scare people who are basically already dead. it’s an impossible situation politically. we have to leave th middle east or we will be forced out one way or another.

    besides, muslims are nice.

    Comment by lester — January 31, 2007 @ 5:53 pm - January 31, 2007

  62. #61: Thanks for the laugh of the day. Including “…giving muslims all over the world the incentive to plan and perpetuate terrorist acts on their own” and “muslims are nice” in the same space.

    Comment by Attmay — January 31, 2007 @ 6:48 pm - January 31, 2007

  63. Oh, but Attmay – It is the never Muslims’ fault. If tens of thousands of them become vicious mass murderers (and millions more, their supporters), allegedly to address their grievances: it is surely the fault of non-Muslims (us). Even though other ethnic or religious groups manage not to become like that.

    Blame America First! 😉

    Comment by Calarato — January 31, 2007 @ 8:14 pm - January 31, 2007

  64. lester at 61 writes: “michaegin matt- so you want to invade iran because of the iranian revolution of 1979?”

    No, lester, I said nothing of the sort. I said it is amazing to me that some people here think Iran is not a threat to US interests, global interests, world peace, etc. The Iranian Revolution marked the beginning of what ought to be any Westerner’s perspective. The ensuing 25+ years should be informative and instructive to confirming the point that Iran is a real, tangible threat.

    They are not “another Paris of the Middle East” –as some contend. They are governed by evil, single minded leaders and they intend us great harm.

    I’m not competent to judge whether or not we should “invade Iran” as the Left likes to cry out as an indictment. That’s a decision I’d leave in the hands of better informed policy makers. I do not need to rely on them or their knowledge to know that Iran is dangerous.

    I’ve been one of the few commenters here who took on some of the liberal, muslim hating, religion bashing bigots and critics here (Gryph-Patrick for one). I know moderate and progressive muslims and count them as friends… here in Michigan, in Ireland, in Spain, in Mexico, in Egypt, in Japan and Australia.

    A few of them alerted me a long time ago to the threat of radical muslims within Islam… and they were concerned their faith and religious institutions worldwide were being manipulated for political ends.

    They were right. The radical muslims today share more with the Christian Crusaders of the Middle Ages than they would care to admit.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — February 1, 2007 @ 7:25 am - February 1, 2007

  65. The radical muslims today share [much] with the Christian Crusaders of the Middle Ages…

    Matt, I object to that strongly. You need to learn a lot more about the Crusades, if that’s what you think. Sometimes, the revisionism is correct. Despite their faults, the Crusaders were nothing like the vicious, evil Islamists of today. They didn’t commit female genital mutilation. They had no interest in forcing others to their religion. Their bottom-line goal was to protect Christian pilgrims going to & from the Holy Land. Their goal was essentially defensive – as in, “taking the war to the enemy” (sound familiar?) – given that their contemporary Muslim leaders were Islamists and had been attacking, raping, slaughtering and enslaving Christian countries for centuries by that point. In fact, our struggle with Islamo-fascism today has much in common with the Crusades – meaning that as a positive compliment to both.

    Comment by Calarato — February 1, 2007 @ 1:32 pm - February 1, 2007

  66. matt – your friends are probvably sunnis who want us to fight their shia enemies for them. sunnis HATE Shias because of stupid religious stuff.

    “think Iran is not a threat to US interests, global interests, world peace, etc”

    I don’t care about those things.

    Comment by lester — February 1, 2007 @ 1:33 pm - February 1, 2007

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.