Much of the UK has suffered from the effects of unrestricted warfare within the living memory of millions of Britons (WWII) e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coventry_Blitz . Other countries have suffered worse e.g. Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki.

Regarding Coventry - that took place after a previous declaration of war involving a nation-state. Somewhere between 500 and 1,000 deaths. And that was the result of a nation state that the U.S. and Brits were fighting (OK, Americans weren't in it at the time, I don't believe, but that doesn't change the point).

How about I start a campaign against the subsequent bombing against the city of Mannheim? I'm sure poor innocent little German children were killed from the resulting firestorms. Those nasty Brits attacked an entire city and killed innocent people in the process. I don't see anyone bitching and moaning. See my point?


Roughly 2,700 deaths from 9/11 due to an organization without a formal recognized notion-state....$100 billion in direct property damages...and long-term damages projected in excess of one trillian dollars. Much more difficult to fight attackers in this context. The rules of engagement had to change.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki are completely different situations - U.S. was completely justified.

You want to re-think your position?

The idea that 9/11 makes the US the world authority on mass-casualty incidents is laughable.

Point me to one line where I said that. But I'll tell you what IS laughable - this "blame America first crap", these ideas that the U.S. Constitution is a suicide pact that is supposed to keep American from defending itself.

Name me one attack from a non nation-state that caused as much bloodshed and damage in a single day as 9/11.