January 29, 2007

9/11? No. Big. Deal.

David Bell says we've overreacted to 9/11. No, seriously. Those are his words. Why have we overreacted? He blames the Enlightenment.

So, I guess David Hume and Descartes are really to blame, and not Osama bin Laden and Mohammed Atta?

He's right, though, when he says that the Islamists may be just as bad as Hitler, but they lack the capacity to inflict the damage of a Hitler. But that is not to say they lack the potential for that harm. And isn't that an argument for the alleged "overreaction to 9/11"? That states such as the Taliban, which openly supported the Salafi jihad, and states such as Iraq, which covertly supported it, might be even more dangerous than Hitler--who never perfected atomic weapons--was?

As John Donovan says, "granting that Islamofascists don't necessarily have the capacity, to constitute an existential threat to the United States, neither did Adolf Hitler when he sent his Army in to re-occupy the Rhineland." QED, I believe.

It also seems to suggest that we've underreacted to 9/11 on another front. That Iran, which is both hostile to the U.S. and openly supports jihad (albeit of the Khomeinist variety), is also on the fasttrack toward developing nuclear weapons. And if nuclear weapons in the hands of the Iranian Mullahs isn't every bit as dangerous as the Luftwaffe, I don't know what is.

HT: Dave Schuler who's point about Soviet casualties is well taken.

By Rusty Shackleford, Ph.D. at 03:37 PM | Comments |