I think ^(link) therefore I err

Monday, January 29, 2007

Monday Funnies

via the LATimes entitled
Was 911 Really That Bad?

Ok, you would be aghast, I'm sure. But the funny part here is the complete and utter disregard for reality. The premise is that basically we didn't lose that many people on 911 and the Islamists weren't that much of a threat.
Ok - we've all heard that before, but seriously, this guy David Bell, while comparing our losses on 911 and adding in our losses during the war in Afghanistan and Iraq to losses during WWII comes to the conclusion that we are overreacting!!

Oddly he doesn't once compare the death and destruction of WWII with the death and desctruction of the war in Afghanistan and Iraq!!

How can a professor be this obtuse??
The intro:

IMAGINE THAT on 9/11, six hours after the assault on the twin towers and the Pentagon, terrorists had carried out a second wave of attacks on the United States, taking an additional 3,000 lives. Imagine that six hours after that, there had been yet another wave. Now imagine that the attacks had continued, every six hours, for another four years, until nearly 20 million Americans were dead. This is roughly what the Soviet Union suffered during World War II, and contemplating these numbers may help put in perspective what the United States has so far experienced during the war against terrorism.

It also raises several questions. 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?