Did Americans overreact to 9/11?

posted at 2:45 pm on September 11, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

Earlier this week, Fareed Zakaria offered an odd allegation that the US overreacted to the terrorist attacks on 9/11 that killed almost 3,000 people.  Zakaria claimed that al-Qaeda had basically overperformed and didn’t pose a threat necessary for the massive response it prompted.  That analysis ignored several previous successful attacks abroad, including one on the USS Cole the year before 9/11, and the ongoing series of attacks around the world committed by AQ, Osama bin Laden, and their affiliates and allies.

In  The New Republic, Reuel Marc Gerecht rebuts the charge of overreaction and compares the US response to European security changes, pronouncing our reaction as both prudent and cautious:

Now for the good news: I just peeked outside and we are emphatically not becoming a police state. We were not doing so under President George W. Bush and we are not doing so under President Barack Obama, who has left untouched most of his predecessor’s intelligence and counterterrorist programs and tactics (with the notable exception that Mr. Obama has been killing a lot more holy warriors with drones and attempting to capture and interrogate far fewer of them).

No doubt: Innocent Muslims find themselves caught in the net, but the truly grievous miscarriages of justice appear to have been relatively rare, especially given the scope of the threat that Al Qaeda and other jihadist organizations present. My former colleague at the American Enterprise Institute, Gary Schmitt, and I spent two years—2006 to 2008—visiting European internal-security and domestic-intelligence services. AEI has recently published a collection of essays—Safety, Liberty, and Islamist Terrorismby Gary and European contributors that compares and contrasts American and European approaches to counterterrorism.

The conclusion: Contrary to received wisdom, Americans have been, if anything, more tentative and cautious in their approach to the jihadist threat than many of our European allies, who routinely use surveillance, administrative detention, and prosecutorial methods much more intrusive than those employed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, our primary counterterrorist organization on the home front.

I’m quite certain that Mr. Zakaria might not approve of some of the things that France and Great Britain do (I don’t), but I doubt he’d depict either country as tilting over the edge of some dark abyss. In fact, even as France and Great Britain were gearing up their counterterrorist machinery after September 11 (the French didn’t have to do too much, as their own internal security organization, the DST, became well aware of what jihadists could do when terrorists tried to derail a high-speed train in 1995), their societies were becoming more open and liberal. Today, civil liberties are no more endangered among our two closest European allies, which also boast the two most effective Western counterterrorist systems, than they were before September 11.

The 9/11 attacks showed serious flaws in our commercial air travel and visa management systems.  The radical Islamists behind 9/11 studied us well and exploited those openings to convert commercial airliners into guided missiles.  The resulting security changes have made flying more tedious but much safer without infringing unnecessarily on privacy rights or on the effectiveness of air travel.  Unfortunately, we still have not effectively addressed our visa system, despite promises from Congress since 9/11 to overhaul it and make it more accountable.  It’s been five years since the 9/11 Commission rightly flagged this as a high priority for national security, and Congresses under the direction of both parties have done little to resolve the issue.

While Gerecht rejects Zakaria’s contention that we overreacted, he does have some objections to the strategies we employed — namely, the American approach of “going big” on security apparatuses.  That, to0, came as a recommendation from the 9/11 Commission, and unfortunately Congress rushed to comply with it.  Those big bureaucracies turned out to have the same flaws as what preceded them, a reality that got exposed in the wake of the almost-successful Christmas Day underwear-bomb attempt on a Northwest flight from Amsterdam.  This time, the radical Islamists in Yemen in the al-Qaeda branch run by Anwar al-Awlaki got more lucky than skilled in getting a previously-flagged terrorist onto a flight bound for the US when miscommunications in the very bureaucracies that were supposed to end miscommunications failed to prevent his boarding the plane.  We need a serious review of the changes made in 2005 and a fresh approach to streamlining the intelligence apparatuses and reducing the bureaucracy rather than adding two more levels of bureaucrats, as Congress did.

Even with those problems, we have improved our national security posture, inflicted serious damage on AQ and its networks, and given law enforcement and national security agencies the proper tools to fight the war without turning our country into a police state.  As I wrote earlier, we now understand that this is the new normal, and that may be the most important part of maintaining our security in the long run.  The US has not overreacted to AQ or the threat of radical Islamist terrorism (and other kinds of terrorism as well), but has maintained its national identity in the face of a serious and insidious threat unlike anything we had ever seen.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

No.

29Victor on September 11, 2010 at 2:46 PM

No.

Fornax on September 11, 2010 at 2:47 PM

Why don’t we just put the mosque right in the damn crater and get it over with?

Monica on September 11, 2010 at 2:48 PM

Hell no!

fesofee on September 11, 2010 at 2:48 PM

No.

angelwing34215 on September 11, 2010 at 2:49 PM

Two words: F*&^%k No!

HawaiiLwyr on September 11, 2010 at 2:49 PM

Not no, but h3!! no!

Never forget who attacked us or why!

jdawg on September 11, 2010 at 2:51 PM

NO, and we didn’t overreact after Pearl Harbor either! We know who the enemy is, even if this bho and others don’t.
L

letget on September 11, 2010 at 2:51 PM

The resulting security changes have made flying more tedious but much safer without infringing unnecessarily on privacy rights or on the effectiveness of air travel.

Do you honestly believe this to be true?

Aquateen Hungerforce on September 11, 2010 at 2:52 PM

When a certain sect of a group declares war on you, and the other 1 billion members agree with them or do nothing to stop it, the answer to the question is a resounding NO.

BobMbx on September 11, 2010 at 2:54 PM

Now if we can just get Pinch and Bill from revealing national security measures in the NYT, maybe we’ll have even greater success in the future.

GarandFan on September 11, 2010 at 2:54 PM

Our layers of intelligence gathering capabilities are redundant and monolithic. We now gather information for the sake of gathering information. This is an unfortunate trajectory of growth for growth’s sake with the assumption that more is better. Intelligence is vital and important but 3,4, or 5 or more agencies gathering on the same source, arriving at similar or contradictory conclusions is either redundant or grounds for a turf war–take your pick. I’d like to see some prudent throttling back on intelligence agencies, costs, and improved performance from a less byzantine secret empire.

ted c on September 11, 2010 at 2:54 PM

Overeact to mass murder?

Wethal on September 11, 2010 at 2:54 PM

..I got your over-reaction to 9/11 here, you limp-wristed, flouncing-nancy panty-waist Newsweek scrivener!

(Grabs crotch and gestures with other hand.)

The War Planner on September 11, 2010 at 2:55 PM

We have under reacted. Bush was willing to just go to war against the Taliban and Saddam. The other side has deceided this is a war of Islam vs the west

William Amos on September 11, 2010 at 2:55 PM

we under-reacted.

still are.

fdrt and truman would’ve reacted properly.

we would have won already.

reliapundit on September 11, 2010 at 2:56 PM

No. I believe we’ve been under reacting. I mean Al Queda still around ain’t it?

FontanaConservative on September 11, 2010 at 2:56 PM

Two of my business associates died on the plane out of Boston.

tarpon on September 11, 2010 at 2:57 PM

No, we did not overreact to 9/11. We under-reacted to previous terrorist provocations, and it only brought escalating violence. Ex-cay-uuuuse the Hades out of us if we did not want to find out what an escalation from 9/11 would be.

Sekhmet on September 11, 2010 at 2:57 PM

Some people seem to confuse “reaction” and “overreaction” with “shake out of complacency”.

Count to 10 on September 11, 2010 at 2:57 PM

The problem is not the size of Al Qaeda. The problem is the size of the Muslim world and the percentage of them that hate America.

pedestrian on September 11, 2010 at 3:00 PM

Our layers of intelligence gathering capabilities are redundant and monolithic. We now gather information for the sake of gathering information. This is an unfortunate trajectory of growth for growth’s sake with the assumption that more is better. Intelligence is vital and important but 3,4, or 5 or more agencies gathering on the same source, arriving at similar or contradictory conclusions is either redundant or grounds for a turf war–take your pick. I’d like to see some prudent throttling back on intelligence agencies, costs, and improved performance from a less byzantine secret empire.

ted c on September 11, 2010 at 2:54 PM

I’d love to see it too. Unfortunately, much of the Left in the 1960s and 1970s were afraid of CIA agents at their drum circles. Thus, distinct agencies had to have distinct missions to gather different kinds of intelligence to keep the little hippies happy.

Sekhmet on September 11, 2010 at 3:00 PM

No we did not overreact..

Dire Straits on September 11, 2010 at 3:01 PM

The first attack against the World Trade Center was in 1993. There was little relative cost to that failed attempt. They came back and tried it again with bigger bombs.

It has to be made clear to every sentient life form on the planet that there will be a cost to pay for these kinds of attacks, a cost that is greater than they want to pay.

Skandia Recluse on September 11, 2010 at 3:03 PM

If anything, we underreacted.

txmomof6 on September 11, 2010 at 3:03 PM

Lets see :
After 9/11/01,
we didn’t secure our borders,
we didn’t deport jihadies,
we didn’t prosecute ALL of the jihady enablers inside USA,
we didn’t investigate Bill Clinton’s enabling of jihadies,
we still give unconditional express visas to young men from muslim countries
we still have to give DL/IDs to anyone and everyone,
we have more mosques in USA than there were on 9/11/01,
we have more muslims and jihadies living in USA than there were on 9/11/01,
so NO.
Not only we did NOT overreact,
we didn’t react AT ALL , even after 9 years.

macncheez on September 11, 2010 at 3:04 PM

Overreacting?

Overreacting??????

Today, as we remember 9-11-2001 and shed tears of anguish while watching the videos of that horrendous day, Islamic thugs in the Middle East are burning the American flag and chanting “Death to America.” No doubt in my mind that if they had half a chance to repeat a similar (or worse) 9-11 attack upon us, they’d do it in a heartbeat.

Overreacting, Mr. Zakaria? You and your liberal jackass media friends can just STFU.

GrannyDee on September 11, 2010 at 3:04 PM

I think the Americans did not react quickly enough or harshly enough. It might have been better to have retaliated immediately, in the full fury of righteous indignation. Perhaps nothing the Americans could have done on day 1000 or day 100 would have been as terrifying as what they might have done on day 10 or day 1.

Fear, uncertainty, and towering fury in the Americans, and cringing fear in everyone else might have excused anything the Americans did in the early days. Nor did one lack targets. Nor did one lack means. I’m disappointed in the Americans’ outlandishly expensive, interminable, boring, measured responses. I wish they would just crush their enemies and have done.

Kralizec on September 11, 2010 at 3:05 PM

Grateful Dead lyricist John Perry Barlow checks in on the subject:

Let us also grieve today the many tens of thousands killed and maimed in America’s thrashing reflexes to 9/11

A mind is a terrible thing to waste.

Del Dolemonte on September 11, 2010 at 3:05 PM

We are under-reacting to this day, and will continue, as long as we have President No Balls, and his court, presiding.

lovingmyUSA on September 11, 2010 at 3:05 PM

If anything we were a model of restraint.

JammieWearingFool on September 11, 2010 at 3:06 PM

Fareed Zakaria’s piece tried to make the argument that since nothing bad has happened since 9/11, then perhaps we gave the terrorists to much credit and they’re not as much as threat as we made them out to be.

He’s a moron. The fact that we reacted in the manner we did is why there hasn’t been any attacks since.

He tries to make light of a failed underwear bomber and a failed shoe bomber as if it would have been akin to a kid lighting a stink bomb off in the street.

If either of those men had been successful, it would have been a great loss of life. Again.

The reason they look so amateurish in their attempts is because keeping terrorists constantly looking over their shoulder and disrupting their financial means will have a tendency to do that.

If anything, we didn’t react harshly enough or fast enough.

ButterflyDragon on September 11, 2010 at 3:08 PM

I echo others–we under-reacted. We continue to under-react.

DrMagnolias on September 11, 2010 at 3:08 PM

Ted Koppel’s old irrelevant a$$ is also trying to push this meme. Even going as far as to say that our reaction has been more than Osama dared to dream.

The a$$hats are coming out of the woodwork.

Phil-351 on September 11, 2010 at 3:09 PM

Why don’t we just put the mosque right in the damn crater and get it over with?

Monica on September 11, 2010 at 2:48 PM

That’s exactly what the filthy scum Michael Moore wants to do.

IrishEi on September 11, 2010 at 3:10 PM

Anyone who dares say we overracted exposes themselves as one who sees us as a bigger problem than Islamic terrorism. In my eyes, such willing ignorance to real evil is evil itself.

thebrokenrattle on September 11, 2010 at 3:10 PM

Speakup on September 11, 2010 at 3:08 PM
HA!!
My husband used to say we should have turned them into a giant parking lot, but Lake Afganistan is definitely more scenic and environmentally friendly as a bonus!

txmomof6 on September 11, 2010 at 3:11 PM

In a sense Zakaria is right.
There’ve been terrorist attacks for decades, and people (those who were even aware of it) knew that there were some fanatics out there reeking havoc very rarely and killing people, and that was the normal.

Even with 3000 people dying, it was the first time anything of this sort happened in the US – the level of success and the scope of a terrorist group. 9/11 once in “ever” is not systematic, and 1-2 attacks per decade with dozens killed is arguably not THAT terrible. 9/11 would likely not have happened again if Bush hadn’t launched 2 wars.

However, America had no choice but to launch a spectacular response. It had to project its might and power otherwise their vital interests in other spheres would crumble. What would’ve happened if tyrannical villains saw that America had NOT responded to 9/11? It would’ve emboldened them to reek havoc and mayhem. Deterrence and influence are often built on perception of what the response might be. If the perception was that America won’t even respond to 9/11 then a lot of pro-US governments and regimes would’ve collapsed quickly and American clout would diminish very very rapidly.

There was no choice but to launch the Afghanistan war, and even though it’s arguable, the Iraq war too. To “get the bad guys”, to preserve America’s image as a superpower, and to protect many of America’s seemingly unrelated interests all over the world.

AlexB on September 11, 2010 at 3:14 PM

Did Americans overreact to 9/11?

WTF kind of question is that? How is it even possible to overreact to the savage murder of 3,000 innocents?

Fishoutofwater on September 11, 2010 at 3:14 PM

Did the passengers on flight 93 overreact?

Electrongod on September 11, 2010 at 3:14 PM

NO

Tyrs Fury on September 11, 2010 at 3:16 PM

At the time I remember thinking, “We’re overreacting.” That is, overextending. Swatting at flies with sledgehammers. And I was the biggest Bush supported there was at the time. Now, 9 years later, we’re STILL in Iraq and Afghanistan, we STILL have not gotten bin Laden or dismantled al Qaeda, and nothing much has been accomplished….except lining the pockets of the war financiers. I’m started to think that was the point all along. Wars create debt; bankers get rich off of lending to countries at war.

You want to know what the best response to 9/11 would have been? Rebuild the towers, bigger, stronger, taller. And immediately. We still haven’t even started that. Pathetic.

[I know, I'm thinking against the grain: set your flamethrowers to stun]

shawk on September 11, 2010 at 3:16 PM

I don’t know if we have a count of the responders who have died as a result of going to help on 9/11, but added in, it is way higher than the almost 3,000 who died that day. They continue to die as a result of the rop type murders that day.
L

letget on September 11, 2010 at 3:17 PM

Did anyone else hear Guiliani say yesterday that he recalled the Fire Chief saying, in response to questions about the people jumping from the building and trying to use helicopters to rescue them, that he could save the people below the fires? Brought all the horror back. Arab filth. They are so lucky we underreacted.

txmomof6 on September 11, 2010 at 3:18 PM

That’s exactly what the filthy scum Michael Moore wants to do.

IrishEi on September 11, 2010 at 3:10 PM

WTF! I was just being sarcastic. I can’t believe someone would really suggest that.

Monica on September 11, 2010 at 3:19 PM

If anything, we underreacted.
txmomof6 on September 11, 2010 at 3:03 PM

+100.

joejm65 on September 11, 2010 at 3:19 PM

Zakaria claimed that al-Qaeda had basically overperformed and didn’t pose a threat necessary for the massive response it prompted.

It depends on your definition of the enemy. If we are only at war with Al Qaeda (As Zakaria believes) then we probably “overreacted.”

The problem is we’re not only at war with Al Qaeda. If we admit to the true enemy then we have certainly not overreacted.

July 10 on September 11, 2010 at 3:20 PM

We have under-reacted. I say we should have gone Roman on their asses. They already hate us and I believe they always will. They should fear us even more.

trigon on September 11, 2010 at 3:23 PM

I think we did militarily. We should have become more focused on the stealth jihad happening across the globe and in the US.

If anything, we should have turned Afghanistan into dust then left.

darwin on September 11, 2010 at 3:23 PM

Zakaria and BHO are on the same side of this hypothesis. They both think we are fighting a small band of jihadists. If only a small percentage of Muslims are truly jihadists, the number would be in the millions…assuming it is a small percentage.

d1carter on September 11, 2010 at 3:24 PM

How can Mr. Zakaria even make this determination without knowing what plots have been foiled? I was watching Wall Street Journal Review on Fox and the were discussing this subject. One of the gentleman said that there had been no deaths at the hands of Muslims since 9/11. I am pretty sure there are some folks a recruiting center in Arkansas and Ft. Hood, TX who would beg to differ.

Cindy Munford on September 11, 2010 at 3:25 PM

Excellent rebuttal, Ed.

John the Libertarian on September 11, 2010 at 3:26 PM

America still has her head buried in the sand
Obama chooses to mislead the public about South of the border but now the policy is to NOT DEPORT
MASSIVE human rights violations , yet we letthem walk across the border in HERDS
The clock is ticking we will see more innocent citizens needlessly killed because we are SOFT on people entering our country
Perhaps we should adapt the policies of CHINA , New Zealand , Mexico and other countries where it is darn near impossible to enter the country .
Let’s all hope some enterprising TERRORIST doesnt decide to bomb a football game this year or other major sporting event

ELMO Q on September 11, 2010 at 3:26 PM

Under-reacted.

Blake on September 11, 2010 at 3:28 PM

If we admit to the true enemy….

July 10 on September 11, 2010 at 3:20 PM

Aye, there’s the rub.

IrishEi on September 11, 2010 at 3:29 PM

To put it quite simply, there is one major difference in practice between Islam and Christianity. The atrocities committed by Christians are contrary to the teachings of Christ. The atrocities committed by Muslims are in keeping with the teachings of Mohammad.

KentAllard on September 11, 2010 at 3:29 PM

Did we over-react on 9/11?

That’s like asking if Godzilla just took a leisurely stroll through Tokyo!

Answer: NO!

pilamaye on September 11, 2010 at 3:31 PM

Simply put……….HELL NO!

hpk1942 on September 11, 2010 at 3:32 PM

I agree will everyone here. We under-reacted and those in power now are more interested in appeasement and atonement than prosecution.

kingsjester on September 11, 2010 at 3:32 PM

Monica on September 11, 2010 at 3:19 PM

Sickening, isn’t it?

He’s also organizing fund raising for the mosque, and has promised $10g of his own.

*spit*

IrishEi on September 11, 2010 at 3:33 PM

Perhaps it is worth reading (or rereading as the case may be) The Three Conjectures.

Aviator on September 11, 2010 at 3:34 PM

If we had over reacted after 9/11/01, there would be no more islam in USA.

macncheez on September 11, 2010 at 3:34 PM

we under-reacted.

still are.

fdrt and truman would’ve reacted properly.

we would have won already.

reliapundit on September 11, 2010 at 2:56 PM

THAT.

RealMc on September 11, 2010 at 3:35 PM

Ted Koppel’s old irrelevant a$$ is also trying to push this meme. Even going as far as to say that our reaction has been more than Osama dared to dream.

The a$$hats are coming out of the woodwork.

Phil-351 on September 11, 2010 at 3:09 PM

I vaguely remembered hearing something about his son dying. Yesterday, I went a googling. It is clear to me that if Koppel had reacted more to their son’s life long problems, he might not have drunk himself to death at age 40. They got him out of jam after jam. But, I guess those smarter than us, think the best approach is under reacting or not reacting at all.

Blake on September 11, 2010 at 3:35 PM

We neither reacted nor overreacted. We RESPONDED. There is a huge difference.

We don’t call them First Responders for nothing.

Sleestak Zacharia is framing the debate inaccurately for deliberate, nefarious purposes.

Christien on September 11, 2010 at 3:35 PM

No, and not only did we not “overreact,” but from today’s conditions and events, it’s obvious that we “underreacted” particularly as to the hapless Left who works feverishly to appease Islam and anyone Muslim, as if we owe them for our suffering and loss.

No doubt: Innocent Muslims find themselves caught in the net, but the truly grievous miscarriages of justice appear to have been relatively rare, especially given the scope of the threat that Al Qaeda and other jihadist organizations present.

And that emphasizes how skewered has been our underreaction, as also, obviously, Europe’s.

The damages, the harms, inflicted on the rest of our world, and on the U.S. specifically, are dreadful, by Islam, by Muslims (look into what is taking place upon what Christians remain — Jews are nonexistent, Buddhists, too, most Hindus are long gone — in Indonesia: children [CHILDREN] are beheaded for “being Christian” and little else, to name but a bit of the horrors occurring by Muslims upon others).

Humanity can easily and soon forget it when one guy blows himself up and murders others — shock, a story here and there, then it’s dismissed or forgotten.

But these are dreadfully horrible acts. The events of 9/11 were beyond comprehension, horrible. The extremes of these behaviors by Muslims should never, never continue to be dismissed or “sent to the past and forgotten” such as, say, Obama would prefer as he urges Americans to take a holiday on 9/11 and to deem the day a day of service for Americans.

He, like many a Muslim and many a Leftwinger, attempts to minimize the evil, the horrors, of what Muslims are responsible for against others. They try to maintain this “but there were the Crusades” and similar “moral equivalency” arguments associating Islam “with just” Christianity and Judaism, “all are equal” or whatever…

They’re not equal. The ideology of Islam is extreme in and of itself. One cannot be a Muslim, in my view, have any association in acceptance of the contents of the Quran and not be extreme. And as to those “moderates” who go about their lives in peace and such in our U.S. communities, I tend to think that their current profiles are simply not switched-on and once switched-on, activated, “extreme” Muslims emerge, BECAUSE their ideology is extreme. It’s just a case of sleepers not being activated.

We have to stop indulging this false sense of peacefulness and properly evaluate the behaviors by Muslims as what they are: abhorrent and intolerable to civilizations everywhere.

Lourdes on September 11, 2010 at 3:37 PM

Sleestak Zacharia is framing the debate inaccurately for deliberate, nefarious purposes.

Christien on September 11, 2010 at 3:35 PM

Yep. And so is Barack Obama AND his Administration.

Lourdes on September 11, 2010 at 3:38 PM

..I got your over-reaction to 9/11 here, you limp-wristed, flouncing-nancy panty-waist Newsweek scrivener!

Best description. Did we overreact? Are Koppel and Zakaria are nuts; of course, they are liberals. My older son was meant to be on the first plane, and at the last minute, his boss went instead, making 9/11 somewhat personal for me. So, no, we DID NOT overreact. It was calculated murder. We should be doing more.

chai on September 11, 2010 at 3:40 PM

No, and we continue to lie to ourselves about the nature of the attack. It scares me.

Vera on September 11, 2010 at 3:40 PM

We have under reacted. Bush was willing to just go to war against the Taliban and Saddam. The other side has deceided this is a war of Islam vs the west

William Amos on September 11, 2010 at 2:55 PM

we under-reacted.

still are.

fdrt and truman would’ve reacted properly.

we would have won already.

reliapundit on September 11, 2010 at 2:56 PM

No. I believe we’ve been under reacting. I mean Al Queda still around ain’t it?

I go with the majority here. Under react. Not at the time perhaps, but as a little time when on and we were lectured about being “careful not to lump all Muslims together!!!!!!” Blah

congma on September 11, 2010 at 3:40 PM

.I got your over-reaction to 9/11 here, you limp-wristed, flouncing-nancy panty-waist Newsweek scrivener!

Best description. Did we overreact? Are Koppel and Zakaria are nuts; of course, they are liberals. My older son was meant to be on the first plane, and at the last minute, his boss went instead, making 9/11 somewhat personal for me. So, no, we DID NOT overreact. It was calculated murder. We should be doing more.

Sorry for bad posting above….

chai on September 11, 2010 at 3:41 PM

And, we most certainly underreacted to Hasan’s murderous spree on Fort Hood…he’s been deemed by the Justice Dept. to have engaged in “workplace violence.”

And perhaps the D.C. snipers were “simply” engaged in murder (which is how they were tried and sentenced), “simply” engaged in murder…no ramifications as to their involvement in Islam.

Same with the U.S. military recruiter who was murdered here in the U.S. by Muslim/s.

Either Islam has a wash of utterly crazed murderers as members or there’s something about Islam that is inspiring if not instructing imbalanced people to go slay other human beings in all manner of hideous brutality.

Lourdes on September 11, 2010 at 3:44 PM

Anything short of a nuclear attack on Mecca was fully justified. Given the Saudi involvement of the attack itself, it is sort of astonishing that we didn’t devastate and occupy that desert shithole. Oil.

Jaibones on September 11, 2010 at 3:44 PM

Chai, I’m so glad that your son was ok. I look at the pictures of the people that died and it makes me want to scream. Those people did NOTHING to deserve what happened to them and our country refuses to place the blame for their deaths where it belongs.

Vera on September 11, 2010 at 3:44 PM

Here is my “Overreaction”

http://nineeleventribute.blogspot.com/

papa_giorgio on September 11, 2010 at 3:46 PM

If anything, we underreacted.

orfannkyl on September 11, 2010 at 3:47 PM

Many good men and women took up the musket because it was the tool for the job. They could have picked up flowers, or Hallmark cards, or the Koran, but those just weren’t the tools that needed picking up. Well done, Joe and Jane. Well done indeed.

Limerick on September 11, 2010 at 3:51 PM

Did the passengers on flight 93 overreact?

Electrongod on September 11, 2010 at 3:14 PM

Did the jumpers from the Twin Towers overreact?

Did NYFD overreact? All of those who lost their lives, did they overreact?

That just about says it all, doesn’t it?

—————————————-

Something that’s been bothering me, that it appears media and is trying to ignore:

“We have some planes, so just sit down and be quiet.”

That’s what the hijackers of Flight 93 (I think it was 93) said as recorded on the open mic they weren’t aware was open during their evil deed.

Imam Rauf: “I have a building, so just go away and be quiet.”

Lourdes on September 11, 2010 at 3:52 PM

Underreacted.

The response I desired would have made any group left think long and hard before ever touching this country again.

Canadian Infidel on September 11, 2010 at 3:53 PM

As I sit here listening to the repeat of what happened then, listening to the surviours, the calls from the people on AA93, watching people jump because it was worse in the towers, I’m inclined to think that only nuking the ME would have been an over-reaction. And yet there are still idiots who say the towers were brought down by our govt.

katiejane on September 11, 2010 at 3:54 PM

That would be a no….

cmsinaz on September 11, 2010 at 3:56 PM

No.

bikerhd on September 11, 2010 at 3:57 PM

From Obama’s speech today “”As Americans we are not — and never will be — at war with Islam,” the president said. “It was not a religion that attacked us that September day — it was al-Qaida, a sorry band of men which perverts religion.”

YOU LIE!

Vera on September 11, 2010 at 3:58 PM

papa_giorgio on September 11, 2010 at 3:46 PM

what was at that link? my browser would not let me go there due to possible malware.

CWforFreedom on September 11, 2010 at 3:59 PM

Since the Islamic states have not paraded Al Queda heads on a pike as a peace offering to the US, we are not who we used to be.

This nation’s civilian authority has failed our military, and has risked and lost an immeasurable amount of young brave lives pussifying our response.

Call me what you want, but the facts are the facts.

Saltysam on September 11, 2010 at 3:59 PM

No. They are still a threat. We’ve been much too cautious. And I say this with a son in the military.

ladyingray on September 11, 2010 at 4:01 PM

Making people take their shoes off before going on an airplane seems like an overreaction.

Speedwagon82 on September 11, 2010 at 4:01 PM

Underreacted.

The response I desired would have made any group left think long and hard before ever touching this country again.

Canadian Infidel on September 11, 2010 at 3:53 PM

The Congress should be required to read and understand The Art of War.

Saltysam on September 11, 2010 at 4:02 PM

Making people take their shoes off before going on an airplane seems like an overreaction.

Speedwagon82 on September 11, 2010 at 4:01 PM

That’s not an overreaction, that is a nation searching for its soul.

Saltysam on September 11, 2010 at 4:04 PM

Zakari is a moron on a epic scale.

Hog Wild on September 11, 2010 at 4:06 PM

No, we did not and have not overreacted…

Remember the 11th of September

What were you doing that day?

Working or playing
Or on your knees praying
Writing in school
Or playing the fool
Singing a song with the radio?

Suddenly all was interrupted…
A Plane had crashed into a tower
We stopped hearts pounding
We listened pins dropped
We held our breath.

A tragic accident they said
I prayed a moment for those
Who died that instant
Then, within the hour
It happened again!!

The horror and disbelief
An audible silence
Thoughts racing minds thinking
Trying to comprehend
An attack on American soil??

NO! This can’t be we cried
We hugged then we prayed
The murderers the cowards
Why? Why? Why? Why…
Who could have done this?

We were glued to our t.v.s
Still in shock and disbelief
Watched as people jumped
Watched our Heroes bravely
Tackle burning buildings

To rescue everyone anyone

Our shock reverberated
Throughout the land
Our skies were empty
the silence….ROARED
No planes no sound.

Our lives were changed
That fateful day changed
Us as a nation we died a little
United us for a common cause
We prayed united for those souls

As we watched, they fell
The twin bastions of America
The New York skyline
Now scarred and marred
Forever changed like us

Now we are under attack again
Our wounds re-opened laid bare
Our hearts ache, we pray
Imam! do not build there
Please move your Mosque

We pray for his compassion
It is in Gods’ hands now
So let us remember our sorrow
Hold our heads up high
And give thanks to God for His mercy

We pray for all who lost their lives
Moms’ Dads’ Sons’ Daughters’
Lest we forget…we will never
We pray for those against us

Remember the 11th of September.

RoxanneH on September 11, 2010 at 4:06 PM

Put Fareed Zakaria’s family in a building and light it on fire.

See if he “overreacts”

stefanite on September 11, 2010 at 4:07 PM

Anything short of a nuclear attack on Mecca was fully justified. Given the Saudi involvement of the attack itself, it is sort of astonishing that we didn’t devastate and occupy that desert shithole. Oil.

Jaibones on September 11, 2010 at 3:44 PM

How about we just try to build a church there?

unclesmrgol on September 11, 2010 at 4:07 PM

Call me what you want, but the facts are the facts.

Saltysam on September 11, 2010 at 3:59 PM

Calling you a great man. Salute!

Schadenfreude on September 11, 2010 at 4:09 PM

No.. overreacting would have been nuking Mecca.

Wolftech on September 11, 2010 at 4:09 PM

Bin Laden and al-Zawahiri are still alive, aren’t they. We didn’t overreact or under-react, we mis-reacted. (like Sarah, I make up words as necessary).

We need to find them and destroy them and everyone else within a 25 mile radius. Then we should take out Iran’s nuclear program.

huckleberryfriend on September 11, 2010 at 4:16 PM

Democrat weasels ducking events.

Schadenfreude on September 11, 2010 at 4:18 PM

Under-reacted. We should have nuked the taliban and where we thought Bin Laden was as a lesson to the rest of the jihadists that this was serious and the US is not to be trifled with.

Ed, you really think that the TSA rules have actually made us safer? Disarming the good guys while the bad guys figure out how to sneak past the rules made flying safer?

AZfederalist on September 11, 2010 at 4:19 PM

Comment pages: 1 2