Comments on: A Severe Case http://bluecrabboulevard.com/2007/01/29/a-severe-case/ Summum nec metuas diem, nec optes - Marcus Valerius Martialis Tue, 02 Aug 2011 22:27:18 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.4 By: The Political Pit Bull http://bluecrabboulevard.com/2007/01/29/a-severe-case/comment-page-1/#comment-54382 The Political Pit Bull Mon, 29 Jan 2007 23:30:57 +0000 http://bluecrabboulevard.com/2007/01/29/a-severe-case/#comment-54382 <strong>Was 9/11 Really That Bad?...</strong> According to historian David Bell, no, it wasn't. 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...... Was 9/11 Really That Bad?…

According to historian David Bell, no, it wasn’t. 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……

]]> By: The Heretik : Welcome to My Apocalypse http://bluecrabboulevard.com/2007/01/29/a-severe-case/comment-page-1/#comment-54375 The Heretik : Welcome to My Apocalypse Mon, 29 Jan 2007 20:53:50 +0000 http://bluecrabboulevard.com/2007/01/29/a-severe-case/#comment-54375 [...] It’s the end of the world as we know it, it’s the end of the world as we know it, it’s the end of the world as we know it. And I feel fine. Welcome to my apocalypse. You want somebody to blame for all this passionate intensity? Blame those dudes from the Age of Reason. All this Battle of Light and Darkness, we must save the world blather? Blame it on the lights of The Enlightenment. The war that used to be a background noise to civilization? Somehow it all had to be a grand symphony, with each side always on the side of the seraphim and the Almighty. The unexpected consequence of this change was that those who considered themselves “enlightened,” but who still thought they needed to go to war, found it hard to justify war as anything other than an apocalyptic struggle for survival against an irredeemably evil enemy. In such struggles, of course, there could be no reason to practice restraint or to treat the enemy as an honorable opponent. [...] [...] It’s the end of the world as we know it, it’s the end of the world as we know it, it’s the end of the world as we know it. And I feel fine. Welcome to my apocalypse. You want somebody to blame for all this passionate intensity? Blame those dudes from the Age of Reason. All this Battle of Light and Darkness, we must save the world blather? Blame it on the lights of The Enlightenment. The war that used to be a background noise to civilization? Somehow it all had to be a grand symphony, with each side always on the side of the seraphim and the Almighty. The unexpected consequence of this change was that those who considered themselves “enlightened,” but who still thought they needed to go to war, found it hard to justify war as anything other than an apocalyptic struggle for survival against an irredeemably evil enemy. In such struggles, of course, there could be no reason to practice restraint or to treat the enemy as an honorable opponent. [...]

]]> By: protein wisdom http://bluecrabboulevard.com/2007/01/29/a-severe-case/comment-page-1/#comment-54374 protein wisdom Mon, 29 Jan 2007 20:27:15 +0000 http://bluecrabboulevard.com/2007/01/29/a-severe-case/#comment-54374 <strong>The Cowardice of Capitulation or the Bravery of Clear Sightedness?...</strong> Over at Hot Air, Allah links to a Daily Mail (UK) story highlighting the growing concern over the progressive's multiculturalist project -- a story that, in its way, dovetails nicely with the Melanie Phillips post Dan cited earlier (LGF vi... The Cowardice of Capitulation or the Bravery of Clear Sightedness?…

Over at Hot Air, Allah links to a Daily Mail (UK) story highlighting the growing concern over the progressive's multiculturalist project -- a story that, in its way, dovetails nicely with the Melanie Phillips post Dan cited earlier (LGF vi…

]]> By: 91B30 http://bluecrabboulevard.com/2007/01/29/a-severe-case/comment-page-1/#comment-54373 91B30 Mon, 29 Jan 2007 18:35:06 +0000 http://bluecrabboulevard.com/2007/01/29/a-severe-case/#comment-54373 Hmm-screwed up the italics somehow, but the quote continues until the very last paragraph, which is my closing. Hmm-screwed up the italics somehow, but the quote continues until the very last paragraph, which is my closing.

]]> By: 91B30 http://bluecrabboulevard.com/2007/01/29/a-severe-case/comment-page-1/#comment-54372 91B30 Mon, 29 Jan 2007 18:32:28 +0000 http://bluecrabboulevard.com/2007/01/29/a-severe-case/#comment-54372 Having followed the link to Mahablog and read through some of the lefties "he's right, what's the big deal" responses (I guess they feel safe and confident enough now, 5 years on, to make them). I can only post <a href="http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1775115/posts?page=36#36" rel="nofollow">this</a> response (#36 in the thread) to Bell's foolishness: <i>Actually if you read the entire article the Professor has some perfectly valid points, and the "overreacting" thesis is only one of the two poles of his consideration of the topic although regrettably it is the one he comes to advance. I think, though, that to consider the matter purely in terms of body count is to miss the entire point of terrorism - it is the expression of the potential of violence, and not necessarily the violence itself, that is terrorism's objective. For example, a suicide bomber attacking a school may succeed in killing "only" a half-dozen children. To parallel the Professor's argument, what's a half-dozen children compared to the thousands killed by, say, drunk driving? Well, that isn't an argument that is likely to appeal very much to their parents, for one thing, but the objective wasn't to kill the kids, it was to place the fear of a similar activity into every parent's heart. It was to destabilize the existing society by proving that it cannot protect its constituents. Now, a true believer in "proportionality" would respond by saying that assigning surveillance and SWAT teams and locking down schools is a disproportionate expenditure of resources in response to "only" a half-dozen dead children, and that a proportionate response to such a "low" number of casualties might properly be no response at all. And that is where the argument from body count breaks down entirely. It implies that an aggressor who proclaims his intention to attack but who can only kill a few people must be tolerated. That is the nexus of the Professor's argument here, and it is the grand swindle of the entire "proportionality" approach - it means that a terrorist who tunes his attacks to take place under a specific threshold will be safe to continue them indefinitely. That isn't an academic argument, it's the way it actually has been for decades now. Modern terrorism counts on this. In order to combat this evil game the response must be disproportionate. Two buildings down, two governments taken down. And Iran's frothing at the mouth despite, nobody wants to take the third building down at the cost of being the third government. And that's one reason nobody has. Disproportionality is absolutely the answer against terror and it demeans the value in human life of its victims to imply that they're only worth so much in the grand scheme of things.</i> Of course, if we are struck again the loonies will simply blame Bush and do nothing. What loathesome creatures they are. Having followed the link to Mahablog and read through some of the lefties “he’s right, what’s the big deal” responses (I guess they feel safe and confident enough now, 5 years on, to make them). I can only post this response (#36 in the thread) to Bell’s foolishness:

Actually if you read the entire article the Professor has some perfectly valid points, and the “overreacting” thesis is only one of the two poles of his consideration of the topic although regrettably it is the one he comes to advance. I think, though, that to consider the matter purely in terms of body count is to miss the entire point of terrorism – it is the expression of the potential of violence, and not necessarily the violence itself, that is terrorism’s objective.
For example, a suicide bomber attacking a school may succeed in killing “only” a half-dozen children. To parallel the Professor’s argument, what’s a half-dozen children compared to the thousands killed by, say, drunk driving? Well, that isn’t an argument that is likely to appeal very much to their parents, for one thing, but the objective wasn’t to kill the kids, it was to place the fear of a similar activity into every parent’s heart. It was to destabilize the existing society by proving that it cannot protect its constituents.

Now, a true believer in “proportionality” would respond by saying that assigning surveillance and SWAT teams and locking down schools is a disproportionate expenditure of resources in response to “only” a half-dozen dead children, and that a proportionate response to such a “low” number of casualties might properly be no response at all.

And that is where the argument from body count breaks down entirely. It implies that an aggressor who proclaims his intention to attack but who can only kill a few people must be tolerated. That is the nexus of the Professor’s argument here, and it is the grand swindle of the entire “proportionality” approach – it means that a terrorist who tunes his attacks to take place under a specific threshold will be safe to continue them indefinitely. That isn’t an academic argument, it’s the way it actually has been for decades now.

Modern terrorism counts on this. In order to combat this evil game the response must be disproportionate. Two buildings down, two governments taken down. And Iran’s frothing at the mouth despite, nobody wants to take the third building down at the cost of being the third government. And that’s one reason nobody has. Disproportionality is absolutely the answer against terror and it demeans the value in human life of its victims to imply that they’re only worth so much in the grand scheme of things.

Of course, if we are struck again the loonies will simply blame Bush and do nothing. What loathesome creatures they are.

]]> By: The Thunder Run http://bluecrabboulevard.com/2007/01/29/a-severe-case/comment-page-1/#comment-54368 The Thunder Run Mon, 29 Jan 2007 16:07:05 +0000 http://bluecrabboulevard.com/2007/01/29/a-severe-case/#comment-54368 <strong>Web Reconnaissance for 01/29/2007...</strong> A short recon of whatÂ’s out there that might draw your attention.... Web Reconnaissance for 01/29/2007…

A short recon of whatÂ’s out there that might draw your attention….

]]> By: TC@LeatherPenguin http://bluecrabboulevard.com/2007/01/29/a-severe-case/comment-page-1/#comment-54367 TC@LeatherPenguin Mon, 29 Jan 2007 15:38:10 +0000 http://bluecrabboulevard.com/2007/01/29/a-severe-case/#comment-54367 "...and although Islamist extremists can certainly do huge amounts of harm around the world, it is quite different to suggest that they can threaten the existence of the United States." This numbskull doesn't truly realize how vicious the "American Street" can get if pushed over the line. THAT is what can threaten the United States; our hairtrigger getting yanked just a little bit and we collectively decide "to hell with it." Then, the "international community" would be begging that we bring Bolton and his mustache back to the UN, because those two would look sane in comparison. “…and although Islamist extremists can certainly do huge amounts of harm around the world, it is quite different to suggest that they can threaten the existence of the United States.”

This numbskull doesn’t truly realize how vicious the “American Street” can get if pushed over the line.

THAT is what can threaten the United States; our hairtrigger getting yanked just a little bit and we collectively decide “to hell with it.” Then, the “international community” would be begging that we bring Bolton and his mustache back to the UN, because those two would look sane in comparison.

]]> By: The Mahablog » Unspeakable Truth http://bluecrabboulevard.com/2007/01/29/a-severe-case/comment-page-1/#comment-54366 The Mahablog » Unspeakable Truth Mon, 29 Jan 2007 15:08:16 +0000 http://bluecrabboulevard.com/2007/01/29/a-severe-case/#comment-54366 [...] Naturally a number of rightie bloggers already are hyperventilating over Professor Bell’s op ed, and their reactions prove once again that righties have the reading comprehension skills of gnats. And you absolutely can not challenge a rightie’s overblown senses of righteousness and victimhood without getting snarked. [...] [...] Naturally a number of rightie bloggers already are hyperventilating over Professor Bell’s op ed, and their reactions prove once again that righties have the reading comprehension skills of gnats. And you absolutely can not challenge a rightie’s overblown senses of righteousness and victimhood without getting snarked. [...]

]]> By: Guy http://bluecrabboulevard.com/2007/01/29/a-severe-case/comment-page-1/#comment-54364 Guy Mon, 29 Jan 2007 14:52:36 +0000 http://bluecrabboulevard.com/2007/01/29/a-severe-case/#comment-54364 Good grief! I don't know who's worse. Bell or the leftist nut jobs that were on the mall this week-end. The both certainly aproach the situation from different angles. Good grief! I don’t know who’s worse. Bell or the leftist nut jobs that were on the mall this week-end. The both certainly aproach the situation from different angles.

]]>