NYTimes blogger: Let’s play terrorist!
This blog post soliciting terrorism attack ideas by best-selling author/economist Steven Levitt at the NYTimes yesterday has caused quite a stir:
Inspired by an article about TSA restrictions, Levitt muses about terror plot possibilities: “Hearing about these rules got me thinking about what I would do to maximize terror if I were a terrorist with limited resources. I’d start by thinking about what really inspires fear. One thing that scares people is the thought that they could be a victim of an attack. With that in mind, I’d want to do something that everybody thinks might be directed at them, even if the individual probability of harm is very low. Humans tend to overestimate small probabilities, so the fear generated by an act of terrorism is greatly disproportionate to the actual risk…”
It goes on and on. You get the sense that conjuring up ways to kill Americans on American soil is really tickling Leavitt’s neurons. Gee, what a fun academic parlor exercise this is! Finally, he concludes: “My general view of the world is that simpler is better. My guess is that this thinking applies to terrorism as well. In that spirit, the best terrorist plan I have heard is one that my father thought up after the D.C. snipers created havoc in 2002. The basic idea is to arm 20 terrorists with rifles and cars, and arrange to have them begin shooting randomly at pre-set times all across the country. Big cities, little cities, suburbs, etc. Have them move around a lot. No one will know when and where the next attack will be.”
Putting on a public service posture, Levitt throws open a contest–he’s just being helpful, of course–to his commenters:
I’m sure many readers have far better ideas. I would love to hear them. Consider that posting them could be a form of public service: I presume that a lot more folks who oppose and fight terror read this blog than actual terrorists. So by getting these ideas out in the open, it gives terror fighters a chance to consider and plan for these scenarios before they occur.
The NYPost excoriates Leavitt in its lead editorial today:
Now, real terrorists probably don’t troll the Times for inspiration - though you never can tell. But, at the same time, America doesn’t lack for well-armed terrorist wannabes - to say nothing of plain old nut-cases looking to get their names in the Paper of Record.
Levitt probably is a smart guy - certainly “Freakonomics” is a smart book - but you couldn’t tell it from yesterday’s blogging.
That the Times indulged his pretentious nonsense is unconscionable.
I’m less concerned that terrorists will get ideas from the Freakonomics author’s blog than I am about the message Levitt’s flippancy sends.
We are at war. Leave counterterrorism planning and analysis to the experts who have dedicated their lives to preventing another jihadi mass murder.
This is not a freaking intellectual game.
***
If you are a survivor of a terrorist attack or relative, friend, or co-worker of someone injured or killed in a terrorist attack, how would you respond to Levitt? E-mail me (malkinblog-at-gmail.com) or leave a comment.
Consider it a form of public service. Sensitivity training for the NYTimes.
***
Reader M.S.:
I respect your question, but frankly what difference will the answer make to the New York Times? Regardless of the consequences, they have chosen defeat in the war on terrorism and defeat in Iraq because, at least in their view, it gives some liberal Democrat a shot at the White House. I am not a relative of those lost in the 9/11 attacks, but I am personally, intimately, and permanently involved in the war. I returned from Iraq seven months ago after suffering injuries at the hands of those emboldened by American publications such as the New York Times.
A better question is: Why is it now taboo to question the patriotism and loyalty of our fellow citizens when their actions are an obvious boon to the enemy? Or: When do people like Mr. Levitt begin to grasp the consequences wrested from their 15 minutes of fame?
I will live, enjoy the comforts of family and life, but some of my friends and many, many Iraqis who have placed their futures and lives in our hands will not.
Your question to the friends and relatives of the deceased is, “How does this make you feel?” A better question is, “Why is this still happening?”
***
AllahPundit gives it to Levitt like only AllahPundit can:
You’re conducting a thought experiment, dude, mostly for sh*ts and giggles; it’s not a crime, but if you’re going to do it, own it. If he was that concerned about the public interest, he’d have asked readers to e-mail him their suggestions and forwarded the lot of them to DHS.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- Hot Air » Blog Archive » NYT blogger to readers: Post your best terrorist ideas in the comments
- Pajamas Media
- Bill's Bites >> 2007.08.09 Politics and National Defense Roundup
- PAXALLES
- Hypothetical Terrorism Plots » The American Mind
- Hashmonean.com | Israel vs The Global Jihad » It takes a village.. of Idiots
- Soccer Dad
- Michelle Malkin » No, we don’t need another 9/11
- Grand-Pianos.org
- Steven Levitt - Author of Freakanomics and NY Times blogger solicits terrorism attack ideas?? « Fusion of Media, Culture with an Entertainment Twist
If this was handled it a slightly different way it could be very helpful to law enforcement. They could find potential avenues of attack and could train officers on what to look for as warning signs.
It needs to be a more controled think tank kind of operation that has better security then the editorial section of the NYT.
This is the NYT. Why would anybody be upset with the idea that a rag like this, which has done its best to help terrorism and terrorists, think that it can do no wrong.
I only wish I had a subscription so I could cancel it – again. Thankfully, I have never given a dime to them. I wish, however, I was in the area so I could pull one from the garbage can and look at who advertises with them and avoid these companies like the plague!
Why don’t we just do a Dateline story about what the exact vulnerabilities of the body armor and vehicle armor protecting our soldiers. I would love to hear all your ideas! If you wanted to destroy a Stryker vehicle, precisely where should the EFP enter the armor for maximum damage? How much explosive would it take, exactly? What about the new “Mine Resistant Ambush Proof” vehicles? There must be a weakness in that thing somewhere, wouldn’t it be fun to prove how smart we are and publish that to the world? I’m sure all of the smart readers here can crack this nut, if you really put your thinking caps on! What a fun game this is!
This is just plain irresponcable.
The NYT talks about the war on terror as if were a sitcom that had “jumped the shark”. To them, it’s now an amusing anecdote and nothing to be taken seriously.
Check out this video:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/08/gingrich/index.html#cnnSTCVideo
Malkin’s over-reaction to the NYTimes column illustrates its main point, that people have an irrational fear of terrorism. Even the World Trade Center attack did relatively little damage to the US — we lost a little under 3000 people and a few billion dollars. The invasion of Iraq has cost more lives and much much more money.
lgm, Keep you’re head buried in the sand….geez
Actually,kidnapping and or murdering reporters seems to be a way the terrorist gain the most attention.
When they kill a few Korean christian aid workers and hold another 20 hostage you hear nothing,but when they cut Danny Pearle’s head off or kidnapp Steve Centani then that’s all you hear for days.
JLP
While people probably will not come up with ideas that are new to terrorists, I also agree that some of this speculation should be left to the experts. On the other hand, the ‘experts’ didn’t seem to think of using airliners as guided missiles.
There are two end results here, depending on how the public takes this after reading the various scenarios. One, it may cause much more fear as people realize just how easy it would be to terrorize a city, such as the random snipers, and many such others I won’t speculate on here. The other could be that at least for a short time, people may be a little more vigilant, taking note of strange people and behaviors they happen to observe in their daily travels.
And, after while of nothing happening, people once again forget, get complacent, and things go back to normal.
We do not need to give terrorists good ideas. I would be much more impressed if the NYT had turned this around and asked people how they would go about minimizing terror attacks. The War on Terror is international in scope and involves at least 30 countries.
This kind of silly “let’s play a game” is just going to get people killed.
Mass murder on a scale and in a manner not previously seen or imagined - this was “relatively little damage”?
LGM - YEP,only 3,000 killed, no big deal? The invasion of Iraq - Afghanistan - hunting terrorists, etc.,has cost too many lives? Yes it has and, it would have cost many lives less without the left and their sub-rosa support of the bad guys.
If we weren’t there, they would be here.
I wonder how Steven would feel if he were to see an article such as this …
Hearing about these rules got me thinking about what I would do to eliminate hacks like Steven Levitt if I were a terrorist with limited resources.
Not so funny
LGM is right. In the grand scheme of things, America has been very lucky to avoid casualties on a truly massive scale. I mean, juxtapose 3,000 with the millions killed in the Vietnamese Invasion or the twenty million Russian soldiers killed in WWII or millions lost in the man-made Ukranian famine and the Holocaust.
I would also agree that this is an over-reaction to a silly article. The tone is all wrong, but is considering the many ways for terrorists to “get” us really such a bad thing?
It’s kind of a reminder that all of the wars in the world won’t stop someone with a little bit of money and an unnerving desire to do us harm.
If John Q. Everyman comes up with some scheme that counter-terrorism authorities had never considered…then I’d be really scared.
Here is the better question:
“If you were a Republican elected official in Washington, how would you secure our borders and keep the Democrats from flushing our great nation down the toilet?”
super-gluing fingers to desktop for fear of getting in trouble on this thread for responding to morons.
Oh yeah, lgm the evnts of 9-11-01 were no big deal at all! It was just an act of war that exceeded Pearl Harbor in casualties, only this time civilians. USS Cole, no big deal. Just something we have to learn to live with, nothing to see here, move along.
That must be one of the most stupid comments I have ever read anywhere. At least in Iraq the terrorists are facing the most effective military force the world has ever seen, and they are getting their a$$es kicked. I would prefer to fight the GWOT with the military instead of the NYFD, you idiot.
lgm - taking over where MikeB left off!
Attack on our homeland did little damage? We should have answered the “little damage” calls when Clinton was in office. I can never recall a time when our homeland was attacked (numerous times) and we did nothing (until a blue dress got stained and we needed a diversion). By doing nothing during the Clinton years, it cost thousands of lives and billions of dollars. Let’s just get the facts straight!
So is there a rational fear of terrorism?! The whoop dee doo attitude to the NYT article and insistance to link it to Iraq in regards to lives lost and money does not work with me. If you want to play the comparison game then will you consider D Day cost more money and lives in a single day than Iraq?
So true…..
Tell me lgm, what color is the sky in your world?
lgm, the world trade center attack cost this nation more like one ‘trillion’ dollars, stop listening to pundits and get your facts straight. Trade in this nation came to a complete standstill costing billions hourly.
As for this sick charade of journalistic insanity. What Levitt fails to realize is the simple fact that terrorists are opportunists. They do listen to inane ideas.
A talented individual could create havoc in many ways with little, or no weapons. Years of careless planning, lack of ergonomics, shoddy materials and contracting, failed inspection detection, failed safeguards and just plain lack of security awareness make it possible.
It does not matter if it is a minor factory, or major military complex, one can create a considerable amount of collateral damage with nothing more than talent and an idea. The fact that one is willing to die for the cause makes them just that much more dangerous.
Of course, with the exception of a few, I preach to the choir
Did anyone respond to him “I’d give them the Latitude and Longitude of the Old Decrepit Vicious Gray Lady?”
Because if *I* was going to help out terrorists, that’s probably how I’d do it.
I mean, if there really is nothing to be afraid of, as IGM says, why not? In fact, why not tell them “every Tuesday the guards take an extra long lunch. Nobody guarding anything. Come on in.” ??
This has got to be the most clueless statement I have ever read,ever.
The absolute disdain of the left for the lives of their own countrymen never ceases to amaze me.
I’m betting that you didn’t lose a loved one in any terror attack, whether on the WTC, The Cole, The Marine Barracks, etc…did you? Otherwise you wouldn’t have made such a stupid remark.
The WOT didn’t begin after 9/11, we just decided to start fighting back on the battle field as opposed to the courthouse.
Hopefully you will never know the pain and the rage of having a loved one taken by another whose sole purpose in life is to kill innocents in the name of his “religion”.
Are we sure Levitt isn’t O.J.?
Rob, I have to agree with you 1000%. I would bet though that the Old Gray Dog would have someone investigating you quicker than you could imagine. As for LGM, I also believe you’re another plant from Kos just like MikeyB. Maybe you’re the same person.
That would do more harm to the terrorists than America. Why would the terrorists want to destroy their most effective media outlet?
It’s the same argument made with the Pentagon during the Cold War. There was no way the Russians ever targeted the Pentagon, because without it, the military would be more effective
What’s truly “irrational” is the incessant denial of the reality we find ourselves confronting, that we are a nation at war. A war that must be won, if we are to preserve our freedoms right here at home. The terrorists in Iraq are losing, and losing big time. They are dying in big bunches because they can’t handle a straight up fight with our military, or the military we are helping the Iraqis to build. They have to bomb children in the street, so our media will help them re-create an Islamic version of the Tet Offensive, and demoralize you and me. That is their plan, and lgm is falling for it, happily so, it seems.
It’s really disturbing to me that people like lgm refuse to stay mad enough to do what has to be done for all of us. Thank God there are enough Americans that don’t think like him.
Sheesh.
A bit of context for understanding the comments of lgm:
To leftists, what is actually good is “bad;” what is harmful is “safe;” what is truly repulsive is “just a matter of taste.”
To the Left, ergo, 9-11 was a pinprick to which people are overreacting; abu Ghraib was “frightening.” Acts of terror (beheadings, kidnappings, genital mutilation) are understandable expressions of socioeconomic frustration; flushing a Koran down the toilet is a “hate crime.”
No wonder that on the Left, it’s okay to crack wise about actual terrorist acts (and those who take offense are comically “overreacting”), while using the word “macaca” is grounds for the loss of employment (and seeing such punishment as disproportionate is “frightening” “bigotry”).
When the Left sees something (national sovereignty, national defense) as a silly joke, it’s serious. When it sees something (ethnic quotas, manmade global warming) as serious, it’s a joke.
Meh. Sounds like Levitt was engaging in a little red-team exercise. Not uncommon, not terribly harmful, tho not terribly bright to do it right out in public where the Bad Guys can see it.
Interesting how you left out the 450,000 Americans that died in WWII to defeat the evil that confronted their generation, through all the FUBARs and foulups they managed to destroy our enemies and lay the foundation for peace that we all enjoy today. Is that a little too much John Wayne flag waving for your taste?
May 13th, 1940
Winston Churchill
Lgm. It’s all about the money with you dems. People are trying to protect humanity and you want the cash to buy votes so you can rule forever.
LGM - Perhaps nobody has pointed this out to you, but about 3000 American civilians were killed in a single day.
It’s ironic how you’ll discount the loss of life on 9/11 yet use the loss of life our our enlisted service men and women as a reason for us to leave Iraq. Even if we put aside your callousness toward American citizens, your argument is illogical.
Of course there is a fear of terrorism. I live in NYC. Do you live here?
Do you ride a train, full of hundreds of people, that has been a confirmed target of terrorists?
Do you work in a high rise in the financial district?
I don’t need Levitt to tell me the many ways that a terrorist could try to kill me in NYC, I think our police force and counterterrorism unit has thought of most of them.
And I sure as hell don’t need you to tell me about some “irrational fear” of terrorism.
Those of us who live and work in NYC, ride mass transit, and work in high rise buildings know that it’s just a matter of time before another attack occurs. Yet, we go to work and live in the city daily and rely on our city and country’s law enforcement to protect us.
Irrational? I think not. And let me be the first one on this blog to offer up a big F-YOU for all my friends who lost family and loved ones on 9/11.
Of course, the NYT is the same rag that two years ago published diagrams depicting vulnerable spots in our soldiers’ Kevlar vests, so why am I not surprised?
What the author and those like LGM & Rusty seem to confuse is ‘fear’ of terrorism, and ‘vigilance’ against terrorism.
I, for one, have never once ‘feared’ terrorism - I can only, rationally, surmise that those who have felt that fear were innocent civilians aboard 4 hijacked airliners on 9-11-2001, the thousands of innocent civilians and heroic civil servants in and around the WTC and Pentagon, as well as every other location where terrorist have struck.
There is a concerted effort on the left to attribute warnings of potential attacks to an effort to strike fear in the hearts of all of us.
Rational thinking realizes that a warning is not meant to encourage fear - it is meant to encourage logic and vigilance.
If the police say there is a prowler in your neighborhood - do you shudder with fear? No - 99% of us would be more observant, more vigilant, and more proactive in protecting our homes, families and neighbors.
This article makes a mockery of the true status of our Nation and our World by minimizing the true threat and making it into a game.
By LGM & Rusty’s logic - the attack on Pearl Harbor was ‘miniscule’ - and not worth the cost in lives & dollars to fight WWII.
lgm must be MikeB’s intellectual twin. Only he appears to be the Danny DeVito half. Making light of 3,000 civilian deaths is despicable.
“lgm must be MikeB’s intellectual twin. Only he appears to be the Danny DeVito half.”
ROFL
If I had a vote that counted, lgm would be tossed now. No patience this time around ,sorry.
Levitt was beaten to the punch by OJ “If I Did It”
My good friend, Sgt Nicholas S. Nolte, USMC, was killed in Iraq by terrorists. Nick and I served together in the Marine Corps at two different duty stations, and consequently we became very, very good friends. Our wives spent time together. Our kids played together. Not a day goes by that I don’t think about him. He is an American hero.
Levitt clearly isn’t thinking. Certainly more good guys read his bologna than bad guys, but it only takes one bad guy reading it to set the wheels in motion. This is the real world, not Tom Cruise’s “Minority Report.”
What would I say to him? I’d start with, “Wake up, pal.” I’d ask him how he’d feel if someone plotted his death, or the death of his mother, wife, or children. Finally, I would call to his attention that that’s exactly what he is doing. These terrorists want him dead, along with his mother, wife, and all of his children. How would N.O.W. react to a man who asked his readers for suggestions on how to kill his wife? How would college administrators react to an article in the student paper asking for suggestions on how to commit date rape? How would New York Times editors react to an article asking for suggestions on how to molest children? How would the NAACP react to a blogger asking for suggestions on how to ensure a successful lynching?
Absolutely disgusting…
I am with you on this one. I sure wish there was a “Buh-bye” button you could push. After so many posters pushed it - you are gone. I trust MM and company with their calls and their unending patience. That is what makes this site so special.
Trolls do keep it interesting but lgm just went too far on this one – I think most of us with a brain will agree.
I would venture he either works for the NYT or is a major stock holder!
“You ask, what is our aim? I can answer in one word: It is victory, victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror…” Sir Winston Churchill
EXCELLENT quote! Just wanting to add that this was Sir Winston’s first speech as PM and after all the resistance he had met with by lefties of his time prior to being PM, the House rushed him after this speech w/roars of approval and pats on the back…They finally knew that their England would be properly fought for and saved.
Thank you, and your friend Nick, for all you have done to ensure our freedoms endure beyond our own lives for our children. Your sacrifices are appreciated, and will never be forgotten.
How long before some idiot takes one of these suggestions - acts on it - then uses this article as a defense, or sues the NY Times for ‘putting ideas in his head’?
Side note:
LGM = Lingering Ghost of MikeB ?????
LGM-Liberal Gone Mad!
Kevin:
Eternal gratitude to you, and Nick, and every other Marine you’ve served with.
Semper Fi
lgm,
Relatively little damage? “Relatively” as related to what?! In relation to every attack that has ever happened in this country, 9/11 was the worst. If you’d like to compare it to what has happened elsewhere, you can find examples of worse occurrences, no doubt, but don’t you think that America is a bit different than the rest of the world? Aren’t we above the sort of violence and despotism that has caused worse things to happen in other parts of the world?
This place sure attracts the loonies.
What Michelle and AP said.
Thank you for the kind words. I made few sacrifices. Thank Nick, Bunny, and the others. Never forget them. I trust that you won’t.
He sure is quiet!
American Heroes. Each and every one.
The Blog’s Author states, “Humans tend to overestimate small probabilities,” in his argument about projecting fear into the populace.
This wouldn’t be the same as having a bridge accidently collapse after 30 years of use, and suddenly telling us all that our Nation is falling apart and we have to act, would it?
Maybe he’s had an epiphany and realized how wrong he was. Nah. That couldn’t be it.
“Lobes Gone Missing”
This is probably already being done within the intelligence agencies. 10,000 more smart, and creative people, doing this in a secure and controlled way would provide alot for counterterrorism. The 911 report did mention, “Lack of imagination”.
Ditto and Amen
If he was serious about helping the intelligence community and not mocking the efforts against terrorism, he would make it where the submitted ideas could only be viewed by the authorities and not the general public. That way, you would get the “brain storming” without the ideas being available for all to see.
There seems a similarity to Beauchamp in this: a smiling mockery. Past his smiling facade, Levitt is directly assisting the enemy by giving them ideas to kill us. Is treason still in the public vocabulary today? In our society is it possible to be charged with aiding and abetting the enemy? This is more of the unconscienable — and should be intolerable — behavior of the people who leaked national security secrets of FISA.
Yeah, and the Japanese attack on a remote naval base in what wasn’t even a state on December 7, 1941 only sank a handful of obsolescent battleships and killed only 2,403 servicemen. Heck, that’s fewer people than were murdered on 9/11 … I suppose we “overreacted” back then, too?
Rusty, I’d like you to back up that “millions killed in the Vietnamese invasion” claim with an authoratative source. I don’t think you can.
And where do you draw your lines when it comes to how many casualties we’re supposed to tolerate? Are you implying that having “only” 3,000 civilians murdered on American soil in one day somehow makes us snivelers? Are we really supposed use the Holocaust or Stalin’s Ukrainian famine as benchmarks? How many millions of Americans must die before your validity threshhold is reached?
——-
As to the blog in question, it comes as little surprise considering the source. Remember, to liberals of the NYT variety the War on Terror is nothing but an excuse for Republicans to frighten Americans into voting for them; by making mockery of the threat, it’s a stab at sarcatic humor, and is a litmus test: you can get a good idea of where readers stand by observing who laughs, and who spits.
Count me in the latter category.
Re: Brian72 #48. DITTO.
I’m suprised that no libs have countered my Churchill quotes with a misrepresentation of FDR:
That’s what they usually do when confronted with the will to win no matter what the cost.
Brian - that’s why I stated what I did - it’s not fear that our Government wants from us - it’s vigilance and awareness. There is a HUGE difference.
Unfortunately, the left can’t fathom any of those terms.
On August 9th, 2007 at 2:14 pm, Regulus
Great post and historical perspective.
So many issues and so little time.
The left can’t fathom honesty or integrity either. And you can forget about honor and courage as well.
Speaking of silly Democrats, Darby Conley, of the comic strip ‘Get Fuzzy’ is outdoing himself this week - check it out - you can go back to Monday, 8-6-07 to see the start of the ‘liberal’ body slam he provides through his characters:
http://www.comics.com/comics/getfuzzy/index.html
That’s exactly right, the libs always confuse readiness, or preparedness with irrational fear of the boogyman. Only thing is, the boogyman didn’t set your bedroom on fire while you were alseep, did he?
LGM wrote, “Even the World Trade Center attack did relatively little damage to the US — we lost a little under 3000 people and a few billion dollars.”
Yeah. In fact, President Bush should’ve turned the figurative cheek and offered another building with more than 3,000 people.
Then… the Islamofascists would’ve been happy and placated…. maybe… they still might’ve wanted our women to wear burka’s……
Convert or die lgm … you first ! It’s all good !
No. The boogyman in my house steals my remote control and hides it from me.
That’s a funny cartoon Farve! Almost as funny as Skeletor Colmes!
Ha!
First, Brian, re your comment #33, I was referring to American soil. The Vietnamese, Russians, Jews, and Ukranians were all killed on their home soil.
And, Christ, people. Obviously we should have fought back after 9/11. I was just pointing out that was lgm was saying wasn’t wrong. In terms of money and casualties, Iraq has been worse than 9/11. You can make a case that it’s worth it. You can make a case that it isn’t. But what he said was indeed true. So lay off the guy.
As Americans, we’ve been mostly untouched by terrorism, thank God. But you wouldn’t know it. My Metro station was closed yesterday because of a box someone forgot on the train. It was filled with paper. Paper! And it shut down the second busiest subway in America (Washington, DC). That is irrational. Whenever something blows up or a bridge collapses, we need to point out that terrorism wasn’t the cause. That’s irrational. We are so constantly in terror of another attack that it seems to me the terrorists have won.
Well, thanks for implying that I’m being intellectually dishonest. An authoratative source is impossible since North Vietnam way undercounted casualties for morale purposes. The generally accepted number is around four million dead Vietnamese. That’s not counting the Cambodians.
This link should be helpful.
Or this:
I don’t mean to hijack the thread like this, but I don’t like it when people imply I am being less than truthful.
Let me answer point by point EdDantes:
From 2000 until today, we have lost about 3000 to domestic terrorism and more than that number of US servicemen and women in Iraq.
I didn’t discount anyone’s life. More US lives have been lost in Iraq than on 9/11. All of them were precious.
Callous is not caring about the lives of US soldiers, to say nothing of others. If preventing terrorism costs more lives than terrorism itself, where does logic lead?
I live in lower Manhattan. I rushed to the scene to offer help. I lost friends.
no.
medium rise, about a mile away. I used to go to the WTC on business.
Then don’t read him.
I think you do. It’s like irrational fear of flying.
That was the Clinton strategy — anti terrorism as law enforcement. The Bush strategy is to invade a country that was not responsible for 9/11, and cause an even greater and more tragic loss of US lives.
And who says liberals are hateful?
Yawn…
That’s a moot point because you don’t know how many thousands of lives were saved here in the U.S. by those 3,000 plus servicemen giving up theirs.
Bush caused the loss of lives? That’s just dumb. Bush isn’t smuggling EFP’s into Iraq and setting ambushes in the most cowardly way possible. The terrorists are causing the loss of life, and the U.S. military are fighting them, saving lives. Pull your head out of your a$$ and come up for air, the view is nice out here.
Fighting AQ with the FBI worked out real well in the ’90’s, didn’t it? USS Cole attack was an act of war, and BJClinton sent the FBI to Yemen. That was sooo effective, now we have a smoking hole in lower Manhattan. Nice job.
Had we done nothing after 9/11, how many more terrorist attacks would have happened? Why should we have to wait for the body count to rise before defending ourselves by being pro-active against terrorism?
LGM - I’ll make this short and boil it down to this:
You seem to tout the Clinton “anti-terrorism as law enforcement” strategy as being a better reaction than GWB’s military one.
If that were true - and your idea is supposed to protect us? Why, after we were struck with the 1st WTC attack, and then the USS Cole - and law-enforcement was already doing some anti-terror work…. did we get hit on 9-11?
And why - if Military action is not the answer - haven’t we been struck here since?
Touchdown Farve!
On August 9th, 2007 at 2:42 pm, jrlingreenbay said:
If that were true - and your idea is supposed to protect us? Why, after we
Excellent point.
This is the same mentality that wants us to put Enemy Combatants - ’soldiers’ captured on a battlefield in another country, for God sakes - civilian LAWYERS and public TRIALS!
These are also the same people who decry vigilant law-enforcement as ‘big-brother’ and compare them to storm-troopers.
I ask you - which would you rather have? US Soldiers fighting terrorism abroad, or US Soldiers / National Guard / Law Enforcement actively engaging in battle inside the borders of the United States?
Brian72….I’d do a Lambeau Leap - but I’m a bit full from lunch….
Good day all. Time to go play some volleyball!
Edit: asking your opinion.
And sorry for everything in bold.
lgm
ROFLMBO
Where did Clinton send the “law enforcement” missiles? Was it not IRAQ? The Clinton administration and EVERY Dimocrat (including Ted the swimmer Kennedy) were screaming about doing something in Iraq because of WMD’s. Bush finally does something about Iraq (after Clinton let the weapons get out) and had an almost unanimous vote (save a few Dimocrat votes).
Here we go with the Iraq war compared to Vietnam – “law enforcement”. The Iraq war is not a war it is a Bush/Rove (Pinky/Brain) plan to take over the world. Just thought I would head you off at the pass.
Riddle me this batman, who was the BIGGEST killer of Muslims in the world? Bush? Who brought freedom to at least half of the population of Iraq (females)? France?
I mean, the biggest terrorist attack in American history was on Bush’s watch after receiving a memo titled “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US.” A lot more US civilians dies under GWB than Clinton. Make of that what you will.
Despite that cheecky comment, I don’t blame Bush for 9/11 and I don’t credit him for preventing future attacks. Attacks on the US are so rare. A sample consisting only of the USS Cole and the two WTC attacks (93, 01) is not enough to determine who is doing a better job. For all we know all the invasions and wiretaps aren’t doing crap. It could just be good luck. Let’s not pretend that we, typing furiously at our keyboards, have any freaking idea how to stop terrorism. The one thing I am sure of is that this NYT article neither helps or hurts us. So what’s the big deal?
I would insist that the USA redouble our efforts on all fronts, and make the bastards pay wherever they are. Quitting in Iraq is not the answer to anything in the GWOT. It’s nothing but politics here for Democrats.
DarkKnight -
You make an interesting argument - especially with the timeline, but neglect a few points…..
What about all the failed attempts SINCE 9-11? Shoe-bomber? Sears Tower? Fort Dix? etc., etc., etc.,?
I’m not advocating a non-police effort for a sole-military one…
Both must be present. But these failed attempts - even if NOT attempted by true Al Qaida operatives:
1.) Proves that we must be vigilant
2.) Proves that there are idiots out there that could read this guy’s article and be ‘inspired’. ( Have you read the blog and some of the wacked ideas people are suggesting? It’s sick )
You list a few things that conservatives would do if we do get struck in a hard way again…
None of them would prove that our current War had failed - it would prove that our homeland security department / law-enforcement dropped the ball.
You mix intentions here…. certainly, there are elements of Radical Islamist factions in Iraq, affiliated in various ways with Al Qaida or Iran or Syria… but the purpose of our presence in Iraq is / was to:
1) Remove Saddam
2) Allow for a more moderate government
I’m not going to go into all the WMD arguments - those are overdone.
As I’ve said, over and over again - these Military actions have not been executed or planned perfectly - not many are - but the question is - what would you have us do? Nothing?
I would really like to know what you think LIBERALS would do if we were struck HARD again?
I can give you one guess? “Blame Bush”
Knight - you forgot one other thing Conservatives would call for immediately:
Seal the borders - all illegals out.
( Oh, yeah, we’re already calling for that )
Yet another new low for the traitors at the New York Times. Why in heaven’s name doesn’t anyone who loves our country buy that paper?
Oops….I meant to say “…does anyone…”
lmg,
I hear Lenscrafters is having a sale on clear lense glasses. I suggest you trade in the rose color lenses.
In my opinion, this is the issue. You can’t say “because the Iraq War is happening, we haven’t been attacked” and turn around and say “if we get attacked, then it’s the blame of law enforcement here.”
That would mean, that no matter what happens, the Iraq War is justified. While this may be your belief (as you stated above, but the WMD argument is still very much valid), I think that your argument leaves ZERO room that perhaps (PERHAPS) the Iraq War drained the United States in precious money and resources that could have been spent to prevent another attack. For example, spending more money on Homeland Security Infrastructure (Police, Fire, Paramedics), the Doubling or Tripiling of DHS Officers or Police Officers in airports and train stations, etc.
jrl, No Lambeau Leaps this early in the Season, We need you in the Starting Lineup….enjoy the comments…
Even tho you’re a Pack fan 
The WMD issue is very valid, in the context that by all accounts, ours and internationally - both Democrat & Republicans - Saddam had WMD’s. And with the attack on 9-11, came a renewed sense of what any enemy of the US would do if they gave WMD’s to terrorists.
Saddam had already shown his propensity to sponsor terrorism many times over. He was under UN Sanctions, including a no-fly zone enforced by US forces, which he violated and thumbed his nose at for how many years?…With no response or consequence.
If the WMD argument is a ‘trojan horse’ to carry us into Iraq - then, by that logic, all the cries of WMD danger from the liberals leading up to the invasion, going back into the Clinton administration, must have been a showpiece for the Democrats, trying to shine up their ‘hawk’ image, correct?
You can’t blame Bush for WMD lies, yet say the calls before Bush for Saddam’s ouster were justified.
If a member of some group picks a fight with me - I can’t just fight that one individual and forget about the rest of the group. That’s a good way to get blindsided.
Yep. And it makes me NUTS to think these idiots out there are treating it as some sort of elite salon discussion. This wont change until (God Help us!) we are attacked again and it is more horrible than before. Only then will these fools wake up and then it just might be too late!
Image: Bear1909 sitting on a ledge overlooking all the battlefields where Americans have died in combat.
War has indeed made us who and what we are as a Nation, for better and for worse, in every conceivable aspect.
But ask yourself, what were the likely consequences of not taking to the battlefield in every instance that we did?
On a separate point from lgm’s fog bank-
Irrational fear?
What is that exactly? Fear is an authentic primary emotion. Fear by its very nature is *NOT RATIONAL*.
The rub for most of us is that our brains “memorize” emotions, and replay them for us, anchoring them inside new experiences causing us to “feel” afraid.
But that is fundamentally different from the instinctive response to Islamic killers training in our countrysides and lying in wait for the order to come out shooting, gassing, and dirty-bombing us while we are told by the Left, Mikey Chertoff, elitist writers, lgm, and others that it is just an “irrational fear” that we have.
One thing I should have added to that list of lessons last nite was:Fear your enemies. It’s a healthy response to the reality that they want to kill you.
It impresses upon you that you must take them and their stated intentions seriously.
Then move past it into the business of readying oneself for the conflict that is here and going to escalate beyond anybody’s fantasy about this just being “irrational fear”.
As I sit on this ledge, I vivdly see the Northerners from DC who took their carriages and picnics out to Manassas to “view” that early battle of the Civil War, and who didn’t have any “irrational fear” about the war. And within minutes as the carnage became real and they watched men being butchered at point blank range, heard their screams, and smelled that smell, authentic fear gripped them and they fled the scene all the way back to Washington. Some knew they had been duped by their “sensibilities” that there was nothing to fear about their enemies from the South.
History ryhmes today with so many pieces of the American past, the human past. All I can say to folks like lgm is use the time you have left to learn something outside the comfort zone of memorized emotions from yesterday’s world.
My salute to the Fallen Heroes. Aho!
We don’t have the metrics, as Donald Rumsfeld would say. There may be countless American lives lost in the future because of Bush’s unprovoked invasion of a Moslem country, which turned pretty much the entire Moslem world against the U.S. This would seem to be the logical conclusion: the more angry Moslems, the more terrorism.
Back to Levitt, there are so many ways to make mischief there is really no defense against terrorism. Putting so much of our resources into airline security is emotion speaking, not logic.
OK so you answered the point about whether or not the WMD argument is valid. But getting back to the issue, just answer me the question of if (again, God forbid) we get attacked again, would the Iraq War still be justified? “We’re fighting them abroad so we don’t have to fight them here…” etc.
Are there any circumstances that you will look at the Iraq War and say “In the end, did we make the right choice?”
If that’s what you feel, it’s a free country. I’m just trying to understand where you are coming from. No, I won’t make the assumption that your answers are a reflection of all conservatives.
labwrs, I hope you are wrong and I fear that you’re not.
Dear Lord, I pray that it does not come to that.
DarkKnight- you raise an excellent point earlier in your message re blame for an attack on law enforcement.
However, funding the Iraq War did not create shortfalls in first responder budgeting.
DHS and the morass of agencies involved with the law enforcement aspects of this situation are bleeding money.
The TSA is a $45 billion case in point.
The war in Iraq is something more than just the mantra “The US invaded a country that didn’t attack us.” The financing of the war is something more complex than writing checks to pay for what we want to accomplish over there.
This war is being underwritten by taxpayers- yes. But not solely. There is not room here to elaborate.
The question for us here is, can we discuss it beyond the mantras and cliches that control the present debate?
Always good to read you.
On any given day, the World Trade Center contained over 50,000 people. The fact that only 3,000 died was a miracle. The saddest part of the 9/11 story is how rapidly the left has been able to shift the blame from the Islamic terrorists to Bush. If I hadn’t been here to witness it, I would have assumed that it was some type of fiction like Brave New World or 1984.
Well, following the invitation to play this little game, if I were a terrorist, I would remember the first rule of terrorism: it’s not how many people you kill, it’s how big the media plays it up. Ergo, the most bang for the buck for budding terrorists would be to attack the New York Times. They could start by plinking a few high-profile columnists, then work their way up to blowing up their print distribution centers or even crashing a jetliner into the NYT headquarters building. Imagine the worldwide headlines and frenzied news coverage. The terrorists now are going after US, their allies!
Mind you, this is all hypothetical, but since the NYT asked for all such ideas, I think that this indeed would be the most cost-effective strategy for terrorists to create the most terror possible. Yup, the NYT itself.
Yes. They are many in number. And my standard is high.
For me it is whether the Iraq front becomes the anchor of the effort to:
1) destroy the government of Assad in Syria,
2)bring about the absolute destruction of the Ayatollah Kameini’s mulla-ocracy in Iran,
3)initiate and support the savaging and utter destruction of Hezbollah and HAMAS,
4) precipitate the abdication of the House of Faud in Saudi Arabia,
5)inspire the obliteration of N/S Yemeni power structures,
6) ultimate the eradication of Khaddafi in Libya,
7) trigger the destruction of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, and
8)motivate the deportation of every proven Muslim jihadist *supporter* from the shores of this Nation to their country of origin.
And who says liberals are hateful?
is there a reason you didn’t include the Khobar Towers bombing of 1996 which killed 19 U.S. servicemen or the bombings of two U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 which collectively killed over 200 people and wounded another 4000. Should we ignore these terrorist attacks just because they only killed a few dozen Americans and happened on foreign soil? Don’t tell me you are one of those people who think that if we catch bin Laden then all terrorism around the world against U.S. interests will suddenly stop. Remember that this is a War on Terror, that means all terror, not just a war on Al Qaeda or bin Laden.
DarkKnight:
As to the Iraq War - as you pose, “In the end, did we make the right choice?”
I don’t know….that’s my honest answer. Since we aren’t at ‘the end’ - it’s impossible to say.
I’m sure that even in such clear-cut actions as WWII - some asked that same question DURING the conflict. But, truth be told - we won’t have that answer for a while.
My greater point is - while Iraq did not invade us on 9-11 ( despite what many liberals think we conservatives believe ) - and Al Qaida were the attackers that day - Al Qaida is not a country. The greater threat is overall world-wide terrorism.
Whether it be Al Qaida or whomever. We made the right decision to go into Afghanistan, obviously. But the problem is that - liberals can’t disseminate that Afghanistan and Iraq, while tied to the OVERALL war on terrorism ( Afghanistan due to Al Qaida / 9-11, Iraq due to Saddam Hussein’s sponsorship of terrorism and potential possession of WMD’s, not to mention his UN sanction problems ).
*falls out of my chair*
Oh my goodness, someone paid me a compliment on here.
** thinks: “Don’t let it go to your head… don’t let it go to your head…” **
Well bear, I thank you. It’s reassuring to know that there are plenty of good people on the net who can debate without saying things that they know would be insulting. Sometimes I read things said by people like gayle (not all things, gayle, but there are a few) who say things that they might believe, but they say it anyway knowing it is inflammatory and will cloud discussion.
So, again, thank you.
NOW, back to the discussion. I guess I will say in response to planetgeo that I am always afraid of venues where there are large amounts of people like sportings events or something. It’s scary sometimes. I keep on flashing back to McVeigh, etc. Then I tell myself “I’m not going to go, it’s too risky.” Then I tell myself, “if you don’t go, they win.” So I end up going.
But honestly, I think that sports venues need to be extra vigilant because they are the safe haven for Americans (remember Yankees baseball after 9/11?).
There are no circumstances under which I will change my mind about Saddam deserving what he got. He had it coming for years, and we gave it to him. It was the right thing to do. As to the difficulties afterwards, some could have been prevented, some not. The fact is that Saddam was an Arab Stalin, only he did not get the luxury of dying a natural death, insulated from his own people by his paranoia.
They broke through and he got what he , and Stalin, deserved. Look at Japan today. Who could have hoped that the maniacal regime in Japan would be replaced with a free ally, and economic powerhouse? South Korea is also a close ally and economic partner, after we saved them from the Norks. Was that worth the blood and treasure? Many people at the time said it wasn’t, and Truman paid a political price. But South Korea is far more prosperous than anyone hoped 50 years ago. Odds are that your cell phone or LCDTV was made in South Korea and somebody there is supporting their family in more wealth than that people had ever known before.
Who can say that in 10-15 years Iraq won’t be the freest, most prosperous country in the Mideast? Will it have been worth it? Ask the Iraqis.
Please olblueyes, do not make any assumptions about me without reading my posts in context. I am going to believe that you made an honest mistake and missed what my post was in reponse to. jrlgreenbay’s post in #79 mentioned only the attacks in 1993 and then the USS Cole.
It is foolish to think that our freedom has only been attacked twice ‘93 and ‘01 and ignore all attacks in between.
But it would just as foolish to ignore attacks since 9/11. The Iraq War did not stop the 7/7 bombings in England, nor the Spain Bombings in 2004.
I only asked jrlgreenbay in good faith about the 7 year span that he used as a backdrop for his argument.
DarkKNight - I’ll compliment you too…
As for the mention of two incidents - those were the ones that stood out in my mind as the most glaring. I haven’t forgotten about the others in between - nor the attempts here on our homeland since.
No - the war didn’t stop London, Glasgow, Spain or others…. it is not logical to think it would. We’re talking about a global effort of terrorism.
However, I’d rather be moving forward than sitting still.
If - and at this point, it is still a big if - we do see success in Iraq, with an ally state in the Middle East and a diminished rivalry between Sunni / Shia / Kurd - then yes, it will have been worth it.
If we don’t - then we’ll have to evaluate things then. However, I am glad Saddam is gone. So are thousands upon thousands of Iraqis whose family members were tortured and killed by his regime.
An important point - the biggest failure in Iraq right now is not ours - it is the Iraqis themselves. Their political rivalries are the greatest obstacle and most glaring reason of our continued involvement. However, without our involvement at this point - they have very little chance to reconcile in a productive manner, and without wholesale slaughter and genocide being the result.