Prophetic. A fire engine had just pulled up to investigate a call about a smell when a propane tank exploded. Four dead, story is about three hours old.

Freelancer on January 30, 2007 at 10:58 PM

Now to me that’s tragic, but unless there are at least 20 million dead, David Bell doesn’t give a sh*t. He wants to know why everybody’s overreacting.

Imagine you call 911 over nothing but a bad smell in your house. That’s obviously overreacting. Nobody is injured, nobody is dying, its just a smell.

Now, once the Natural Gas leak causes the building to explode, then calling 911 is rational, but when it’s just a smell it isn’t worth bothering with.

Prophetic. A fire engine had just pulled up to investigate a call about a smell when a propane tank exploded. Four dead, story is about three hours old.

It was so bad in fact, that it was far worse than it would’ve been, say, had the LA Times building been hit and taken you and 3,000 of your vile brethren with it instead “Professor”.

Parasite.

georgej on January 30, 2007 at 1:45 AM

The liberals never come out from under their rocks until they think they have an advantage.

The liberals worry about one vote, but not 3,000 lives.
Let’s see him give this speach before a group of 9/11 widows and their children.

Now, once the Natural Gas leak causes the building to explode, then calling 911 is rational, but when it’s just a smell it isn’t worth bothering with.

Looking at events and determining the likely future ramifications, not reality based enough for some. Waiting until a crisis has gotten completely out of control, now that’s just good thinking.

This line of thought has been brought to you by Professor David Bell, from John Hopkins University. What does he teach that gives him insight into how to handle a disaster? French History…

Real, but funny enough I wish I had made it up as a joke.

And to think – they call themselves “reality-based.”

Professor Blather on January 30, 2007 at 11:17 AM

Their reality is different. We will never understand it but shall never ignore it either, lest we perish with them.

Should we just have fired three missiles at a madrassa in Afghanistan and called it a day?

Bell: a mush-headed sophist mororn who should be laughed out of civilized society for insulting the intelligence of anyone who understands to ultimate goal of the nuke-hungering jihadists scum.

Can we deport this boob to Tehran? He’d fit right in with the Holocaust minimizers/deniers.

“Only 6 million Jews died in the death camps. There were still more Jews remaining alive in the world than the number destroyed by the Nazis, even after these millions were killed, so what’s the big deal? It just meant the survivors would simply have to have larger families for a few generations. And don’t Jewish people love children? In effect, Hitler was merely promoting Hebrew family development in a very roundabout way. Plus, the symapthy they gained for the 6 million gone got them Israel. Wasn’t that worth it, looking at the Big Picture? They should really be thanking the Nazis…” Ad nauseam, ad absurdum(b).

I’m just amazed that the guy is actually a historian – actually teaches history (to YOUR children, maybe?).

I can’t even count the number of times throughout history that millions of lives could have been saved if a nation had responded to a “little” attack like 9/11 with overwhelming force — instead of waiting until the bigger attacks came. In fact, I think EVERY major war had a moment preceding in which most of the violence could have been prevented, if the right steps had been taken.

What saddens me is that we can never know if THIS time we did save lives. When you do the right thing for a change, all you get is grief. If you have no imagination, you can’t see the future, I guess.

If we’d invaded Germany in 1936, the liberals would still be marching in the streets over it. And not one of them would believe that tens of millions were saved. They’d be calling Roosevelt a war criminal (But they would NOT be calling him Hitler, now would they? Because he would never have happened, at least not like he did. No Dachau or Treblinka or Stalingrad.)

If you are intellectually stunted and emotionally immature, I guess it just makes more sense to wait until your cities are nuked before responding with real force.

Just sucks if its your family that pays the price for that kind of age old stupidity.

And what really sucks is that that is exactly what’s going to happen. We’re not going to get serious until the worst does happen. Guaranteed.

Then, of course, the liberals will ALL be wondering why we didn’t do more after 9/11.

Sigh. You can’t win with these people. You just. Can’t. Win.

And to think – they call themselves “reality-based.”

Is the widespread belief that 9/11 plunged us into one of the deadliest struggles of our time simply wrong?

Yes, this is a wrong statement. But not for the reasons detailed in the article.

We were already “plunged” into this struggle years prior.

This attack was inevitable, and a significant number of people where/are not surprised, given our lack of response to previous attacks on American interest over the years in other countries.

Therefore our offensive war stance, while better late than never, is very appropriate.

You wound me, I kill you. You take out a boat, I take out your harbor. You nuke a city, I annihilate your whole country. That is how you win a war. I say we haven’t “over” reacted nearly enough to the islamists.

This war on terrorism is not just a reaction to the events on 9/11.

This war is a reaction to all lessons we have learned from other idealogical struggles. You, name the war, I’ll show you how it is connected to our decision to go after Bin Laden and then Saddam.

Had WWII never happened we would not have pre-emtively attacked Saddam. Had the holocaust never happened we would not be discussing pre-emptive attacks against Iran. Had 9/11 been the very first terrorist event, we would not have reacted to it the way we have.

This country has a long and proud history of attempting diplomatic solutions first and foremost. But we have recently, beginning in the Korean war, the shameful history of trying to fight wars morally. This is impossible if you expect total and complete victory. We purposely targeted and killed German and Japanese civilian citizens during WWII. It worked. When Nixon sent B52′s to bomb Hanoi, the North came to the negoitating table. But the liberals mentality eventually prevailed and 3 million people were slaughtered. Gulf War 1….the highway of death was a perfect example of how to wage war, but even as much support as we had for that war, the moonbats criticized the bombing of all those vehicles.

Ths country is in the middle of re-defining who we are as a nation. In the days following 9/11, we were almost unanimously united. Today, about 1/3 of us (a very eerie percentage if you are a believer in biblical numberings of the “hosts of heaven”) have endured in our principled beliefs that led us to finally stand up to terrorists, whereas, if the polls are accurate, 2/3 of people have given up. (I’m not suggesting that this war is armageddon, but it is an interesting thought to consider)

I believe in sticking to a committed course of action until your goals start taking on the “march of dimes” syndrome. We are still fighting the same enemy for the same reasons, so I am committed to this until we win. Some principles are worth our eternal efforts.

2,471 people died in Pearl Harbor. 2,749 people died in the World Trade Center.

That’s what immediately sprang to my mind. Our reaction to 9/11 has been quite tempered compared to our reaction to Pearl Harbor.

And let us not forget that, for better or worse, a nuclear weapon was eventually used to reduce the number of American casualties. Maybe those who think WWII was such a “civilized” war should read up on the bombing of large cities across Europe and Japan, then define “collateral damage”.

Is that just marketing, or some sort of weird psychological self-hatred thing?

One would think, incorrectly in this case, that a history professor at a major university could write a far more intellectually and morally clear essay.

I went to high school in pre-historic times, before liberalism had captured and degraded education in this country. One of the many wonderful teachers I had was my senior year English teacher, a dedicated lady of very high academic standards. I can just imagine all the red ink comments written on this essay, had any of her students submitted it. Comments on unclarity; going off on tangents; contradictory logic, with a “C” written on top next to a comment such as “You can do far better than this”.

Had she been teaching college English, I suspect she would have been even harsher, with a “D” at best, more likely an “F”.

But we see this piece of nebulous vulgarity is written by a university professor from a major university, and published in one of America’s major newspapers!

Books have been written about the decline in American academia and journalism since their highjacking by liberalism. I submit this column is an excellent supporting example of that view.

Absolute lunacy. Just read it. (Hat tip Van Impe at LGF)….

It also raises several questions. Has the American reaction to the attacks in fact been a massive overreaction?

No, actually it’s been a massive underreaction.

Even if one counts our dead in Iraq and Afghanistan as casualties of the war against terrorism, which brings us to about 6,500, we should remember that roughly the same number of Americans die every two months in automobile accidents.

This type of attitude is what drove me from leaning Democratic to leaning Republican.

I hope you don’t find the ropes holding you to the chair too uncomfortable. Alas, they will be the least of your worries quite shortly.

I’m going to use these large pliers to twist your pinky finger until it breaks just above the fingernail, CRACK!!

Now, now, Mr. Bell, …why the fuss? Look at you crying like a little girl. That is only ONE little bone in your PINKY finger. Did you know you have 27 bones in each hand, and 14 in your face? Yes, Mr. Bell, it’s going to be a looooong and painful night.

Question should not have been asked, except it is the LA Times.