What is Digg?98 Comments
- RobotGigante, on 10/12/2007, -21/+70Not to mention that Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with the 911 attacks
- runpete, on 10/12/2007, -8/+31Of course any individual(s) who lost a close friend, family member, etc. on 9/11 are going to disagree. However, the opinion article makes a great point that more people die each year through various other ways. Accidents, cancer, heart attacks, homicides, suicides, etc. Yet, it seems that the American government (mostly the executive branch) is more concerned about fighting terrorism when there are so many other problems going on throughout the U.S. With so much attention put on fighting terrorism, it seems as though the U.S. is not doing anything to solve domestic issues that lead to more deaths than 9/11 did.
So, I ask, why isn't the U.S. doing everything possible to end suicides? Why isn't the U.S. doing everything possible to end drunk driving? Why isn't the U.S. doing everything possible to find a cure to cancer? These result in thousands of deaths each year. So, why isn't the U.S. doing everything it can to end these? It seems the U.S. government overreacts to one thing, and under-reacts to most everything else.
Until it happens close to you, you probably won't care. 9/11 seemed to strike a lot of people as "it could happen to me next." The chance you'll die from an act or terrorism: 1:285,000; heart disease: 1:409. My numbers may be off, but you get the point. It's because you're afraid of terrorism that you think the U.S. is not overreacting. If you were afraid of heart disease, maybe you'd want the U.S. to do just as much as it does on terrorism. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -12/+27If anyone start posting Alex Jones demolition 9/11 was staged crap I'm going to stab them.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -12/+24You 9/11 conspiracy theorist can't handle reality. All your 'proof' has been refuted and you nitpick facts and ignore others. Get a life.
- lazydrumhead, on 10/12/2007, -5/+15TakeAction makes my soul cry in scientific anguish.
- Zanwar000, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10werepeople died?
The government is trying to stomp out lycanthropy? - TravisG5, on 10/12/2007, -9/+18It's okay! We got Saddam... Oh, gee, I feel safer every day with that guy gone!
- geekee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8"Was 9/11 Really That Bad?"
Yes. It was an escalation of a terrorist movement that needs to be dealt with. Just because highway deaths don't make the front page news, does not mean people aren't worried about them too, and are taking steps to prevent them. Just look at the evolution of car safety features and drunk driving laws over the last 50 years. - sillyboy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10In 10-15 years time, when the Chinese and Indian economies are well on their way to dominating the world, and Iran and Shiites have massive Middle Eastern influence, then you may regret sitting around moaning about the USA instead of making positive use of your freedom of speech.
Going into Iraq was a mistake. Dubya even admits it these days. But the crossroads the world is at now deserves strong consideration beyond 9/11 emotional rhetoric. - sockpuppets, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9Try to make your point without swearing like a redneck next time. It's only effective at nascar races really.
Freedom isn't given, btw. It's taken from you. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+12Ridiculus analogy. Lives were not the only thing lost that day, that month, that year. The economic impact was incredible, massive and hurt millions of families. The geo-political impact was astounding as well, as the notion that nation-states were the only groups capable of massive military attacks was dispelled forever. There is still a huge hole in the ground where two of the world's tallest and most symbolic buildings once stood. I could go on and on, but saying that 9/11 had the same impact as 3,000 individual deaths is insulting and ignorant
- bobcorrigan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Stephen Goldstein sold his small company to Cantor Fitzgerald a few months prior to 9/11. I carry his NY Times memorial obituary in my wallet to this day, and every anniversary of 9/11 I sit down with my son and showed him the pictures of Steve, his wife and two kids at the different times we shared together - birthday parties, picnics. I ask him to remember, as I remember.
I can't speak for anyone else anywhere else. I'm not a politician, I don't pretend to understand much of what is written here. But Steve didn't deserve to die, his children didn't deserve to be orphaned, his wife made a widow. No one deserves this, not Americans, not Iraqis, not Iranians, no one. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -6/+12And who can remember Perl Harbor? Only about 2500 people died then. Day of Infamy? Please. Over-reactors.
- benijuana, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8yah. it was, and it will continue to be "that bad" until America as a country gets closure that everyone can agree with. Then it will be looked upon like Pearl Harbor, where everyone was terrified, but then we fought Japan, and won, and basically the case was then closed. Where 9/11's closure will come from (if it ever comes) is up for debate.
- metsfansam, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6"Did we overreact to 9-11?" probably would have been a more appropriate title.
- benijuana, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7Kyle: realllllly????
- jetfuel, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6I have an idea! Lets give away a huge amount of freedom so this has a fairly lower chance of happening again!
Sarcasm aside, what happened on 9/11 was tragic, but a population a thousand times the death toll's lives don't need to stop because of it. - dukeeeey, on 10/12/2007, -9/+13The words of the PNAC group
“The process of transformation,” the plan said, “is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event—like a new Pearl Harbor.”
members included Dick Cheney .. Rumsfeld etc. 911 was the pearl harbour they needed to enable their plans of global domination. - Comatose51, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5@lcohiomatty86: Directly or indirectly by destroying the previous government that had manage to hold the country together and dismissing the Iraqi army on ideological grounds, which left many Iraqis, both Sunnis and Shiites, with military training and no employment and lots of AKs. The Bush administration seriously ***** up by making a series of bad decisions. They were too arrogant to even listen to people who were reporting these things. Sure, Bush didn't hold a gun to an Iraqi's head and pull the trigger but he made some important decisions that affected the country dramatically. These terrorists or "insurgents" didn't even exist until after the war. al-Sadr was nothing until Saddam lost power.
- shteinb, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Thousands of murdered brilliant individuals in downtown New York.
The heart of downtown disabled for weeks. Financial markets crash.
Millions of people in New York City are personally affected.
Thousands more are displaced.
Thousands suffered irreparable, yet unknown health effects.
We are not reacting just to this particular event. We are reacting to what could be. What if instead of planes we had 1 nuclear device detonate in New York City. The world's financial heart, a significant portion of the men and women that run the markets would be killed. The defacto capital of the world destroyed and millions dead.
Given even a minor propability of such an event happening, we must do all we can to prevent it. This is not to say invading Iraq was a good choice, it likely only raised the probability of such an attack. At the same time we shouldn't downplay the horrors that might result from ignorance. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7Okay, I agree 9/11 was horrible. But after looking at all of the “so called” facts, I have a few questions. These questions need to be answered. I will back up each of my questions with the appropriate article. I am not a liberal wacko, I am a person just like you that believes that the truth is not being told. I voted for Bush, TWICE, and now do I regret it, Yes, I appreciate your answers to these questions. Please take the time to read each link before just disregarding me as a wacko. Thanks.
Explain the massive “Put Options” prior to 9/11 on the airline stocks?
http://www.hereinreality.com/insidertrading.html
85% of the American Public do not know about the 3rd building that came down on 9/11?
http://www.wtc7.net/
Where is the plane wreckage from the Pentagon strike?
http://www.freedomunderground.org/memoryhole/pentagon.php#Main
Why was Norad told to Stand Down?
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/911stand.html
Why was the US Military conducting “SIMULATIONS” of 9/11 on the same day?
http://www.oilempire.us/wargames.html
Why did we attack Iran, when Iran had nothing to do with 9/11?
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/attack/140133_bushiraq18.html
I could list more of my questions, but just these 6 questions are enough to cause a problem.
Again, I would pray that you would have the answers….but after my research. The questions still remain un-answered. Something is not right! - BeefBaron, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Japanese -military- attack on Pearl Harbor: 2,403 dead
American -civilian- nuclear attack on Hiroshima: 140,000 by the bomb and its associated effects; Nagasaki: roughly 74,000
If history has taught us anything, its that the American military institutions believe 1 American death warrants thousands of foreign deaths; and care little for the difference between military and civilian strikes. - DigitalDud, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Going by your standards, all the nations of Europe need to be nuked off the planet by terrorists. Why don't we nuke Africa too for selling their own people into slavery? Hell, let's just wipe out the human race for being an ***** from time to time.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Sorry on my 5th question I meant IRAQ not Iran, but we will be there soon enough. LOL
- heffae, on 10/12/2007, -0/+39/11 was the worst attack on US soil so from the point of view of an American it is the worst thing that has ever happened. From a global perspective well over 200,000 Japanese died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Almost 50,000 died in the Luftwaffe bombings of the UK. So sure 9/11 pales in comparison.
The real question is 4,000 innocent people more horrific than 200,000. I would argue that at a certain point it doesn't matter what the number is it's just horrific.
As an aside I don't think Iraq doesn't look like an over reaction to 9/11 it more looks like a case of 9/11 driving our government insane. - WebsterJTC, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Yes. It really was that bad.
- bierce, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Actually, we did not expose the entire fleet in Pearl Harbor. You may recall all the carriers were at sea.
- ideadude, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4divesnob, are your airport anal probes an affect of the 9/11 attacks or the "over reaction" to the attacks?
- TonyBuzzan, on 10/12/2007, -6/+9"It's okay! We got Saddam... Oh, gee, I feel safer every day with that guy gone!"
I don't think I'll feel safe until CNN finds Obama! - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -6/+9"Was 9/11 Really That Bad?"
Yes - PoorYorick, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@lcohiomatty86: Both iraqbodycount.org and medical journal the Lancet believe that coalition kills account for between 45 and 50% of the surplus deaths in Iraq despite the fact that the two organizations find a huge discrepancy in the numbers killed. IBC figures between 55,000 and 60,000 civilians dead; Lancet says it's more like 650,000.
- Yetimon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Oh oh yes! Lets do the Scooby Doo ending! Who's really under that George W Bush mask?
- benijuana, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4That's pretty irrelevant. I'm talking about Pearl Harbor as a cultural issue at the time, not about what really happened behind the scenes. The American people didn't know we let it happen. Even if we find out 50 years from now that Bush knew 9/11 was going to happen and did nothing, that has no effect whatsoever on how we as American feel today about it. We operate on accepted truth, and like how Pearl Harbor was in the early 40's, 9/11 was a traumatic event to the American psyche in the 2000's, and closure is needed.
- typo180, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Citing the X Files in an argument doesn't do much for your credibility...
- mfratt, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Was it the worst thing that has ever happened or could possibly happen? Of course not. Was it a terrible, horrible, brutal act of mass murder in the name of some delusioned view of a god? Absolutely. Does it require retaliation against those who wish to kill us? You bet your ass.
However, it should NEVER be used as a justification for tearing apart the Constitution, which politicans on both sides are doing. - PoorYorick, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2You should save that, Kinser. When you grow up, you'll be so embarassed you wrote that.
- nixr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"members included Dick Cheney .. Rumsfeld etc. 911 was the pearl harbour they needed to enable their plans of global domination."
And they would have gotten away with it if it weren't for you meddling kids!
Zoooikes! - foolfromhell, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The article would have made it to the front page if it hit Cupertino.
- GiggaDigga, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I think one has to differentiate between the government reaction and the people reaction. Normally, when events like 9/11 happen, people tend to turn to their leaders in search of guidance. Thus, it is largely in the hands of the latter the decision of which path will be taken.
In the case of 9/11, the administration used this natural reaction to advance the so-called "war on terror", which so far have involved the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, the Patriot Act, Guantanamo Bay and so on. But I don't think one can say that this is the Americans' reaction. Rather, this is how the government took advantage of the situation - with the invaluable help of the mainstream media - in order to push their own agenda.
This is why I don't think Americans are "overreacting." This would imply that there really is a "war on terror" under way and that this is what people are standing for. Though many people think the US is in fact fighting a war on terror, and many support this idea, I don't believe this is the reality. If one wants to lessen the probabilities of being attacked by terrorists, one have to seriously ask oneself what are the causes some extremists want to commit these atrocities, to begin with. Then, with a proper diagnostic, one have to try to find the cure. And I don't think the best cure consists in wreaking havoc around the world.
The problem with the columnist is that he fails to (or doesn't want to) understand that the administration is using the "war on terror" to push its agenda. This is not "overreaction", this planned action. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7American citizens have been very lucky. One look at world war 1 and 2 and its devastating effect on europe and asia and it becomes obvious that american civilians have had to face none of the real horrors of a modern war. 911 was bad but it pales in comparison to the massacre that other nations have faced in the recent past. I think it is obvious that our government over reacted. It is also obvious that they reacted stupidly. Both sides. And they continue to do it . and the really sad part is that americans don't even care what is going on.
- dan.stryker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Amen!
- heffae, on 10/12/2007, -1/+29/11 wasn't a US government conspiracy. When that much ***** happens in a such a short time of course there are going to be questions we can't answer.
Now did the Executive branch take advantage of 9/11 to launch an invasion of Iraq that they had wanted since they took office... More than likely - divesnob, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3It was bad for many reasons. The fact that people are actually talking about the fact of whether is was bad or not is rediculous. Go to the f*cking airport and try to take a trip somewhere w/out getting an anal probe. 9/11 changed the way Americans live. 9/11 changed the way the rest of world looks upon America. 9/11 changed the world and it wasn't for the better - so yes it was bad.
- nixr, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2The headline of that article alone negates any validity it may possess. I understand the point the author is trying to make but it only takes a casual glance at the world's political climate to know that 9/11 was indeed a very big deal. Even without the United States heavy handed and admittedly misguided response, 9/11 was destined to be one of the most defining moments in world history. It's not always about body count and that's something the article's author fails to recognize. The implications of 9/11 are a very big deal in the context of world politics and dare I say it will shape the course of human history for a long time to come. 9/11 changed the rules of engagement and has the entire world at a loss as to how effectively mitigate the potential for another attack while still having its way with the Middle East. Though it by no means a justification, but you can only oppress a people for so long before they finally revolt. Things like this will continue to occur until the global community, particularly the US, takes a long, hard, and honest look at its foreign policy in that region and makes drastic changes and sacrifices.
- nixr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I feel dirty for digging you up Zanwar000.
- Mescaline, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"We are not reacting just to this particular event. We are reacting to what could be."
What could be? Are we gonna start thinking up the worst thing that can happen and reacting to it? Why don't we just imagine that the terrorist have the bomb and are about to blow it up in the middle of the Pentagon. Then we can react to that as well. There is no limit to the human nightmares we can dream up. And because of this we over-react and do stupid things like invade Iraq.
I'll quote from the end of the article: 'To fight them effectively, we need coolness, resolve and stamina. But we also need to overcome long habit and remind ourselves that not every enemy is in fact a threat to our existence.' - PoorYorick, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Well, we might not have invaded Iraq and kept our troops in Afghanistan to help stabilize the country. Who knows? We might have even captured OBL.
- typo180, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I'm not getting into the argument, but trading insults doesn't add much to the public discourse and doesn't educate anyone. Maybe persuasion really is dead...
- nixr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Paging Dylan Avery!
- nixr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@Reaganomicon
Didn't I see you at the meeting down by the docks? I almost didn't recognize you without the beret. -
Show 51 - 97 of 97 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is