Terrorism

[Silver Incubus]

I think people fear more, when they know that it is possible for something to happen, because even a near miss, makes it seem like it wasn't planned.

But don't think of it as "all government" it is only the top elite, who have much to gain from the american support, and of couse the absurd war in Iraq. im not big into plain theorys about government conspiracy, I just see this stuff happening, hear what is being said, by many different people, investigators, news outlets, people somewhat involved, and the story never stays the same. It should be apparent, that the government chooses big money corporate intrests over the people because greed and corruption run rampant if the opportunity is there. I mean just look at history and things that were reported years ago, and then you find out that the government did lie about that stuff, and it was just a cover up. If they have to they do, and they won't let major new broadcasts report it. I tend to believe the people who witnessed these things, and had nothing to gain, then those who stand to gain from such things.

The biggest lie from 911, is the pentagon, They said a plane hit it. If you actually look at the pictures and the evidence, there is nothing of a plane to be found. The hole in the pentagon was too small to be a jumbo jet, and the 4 photographs they had show some kind of exhust, but not the same as a jet, it all seems very dubious. NO plane wreckage, no bodies. I don't know if this is true or not, but i have heard as well that the section it did hit was somewhat in construction and there wasn't many people in that section of the building, which would also make sense. The last thing about that 'jet' hitting the pentagon, is that it would have to be flying 2' off the ground at incredible speeds, and make almost a 270 degree turn from the direction it was supposedly comming from. The closest thing they can figure that hit it was something called a "drone". But would terroist have acess to one? No. Plus I find the fact that none of the other planes hit the target, because they weren't suppose to. And what good would flying a airplane into a building really do for a terrorist? Not a whole lot, it would make more sense to use a dirty bomb.

Guess what is on the news now?? They think a terroist is going to use a dirty bomb 'somewhere' in the US. That sounds more like a terroist action to me.
One day the US will be in a state of emergency, and stay a police state for years. They are already preparing for this by having military like police forces, and army involvement in police work (which is btw illegal)

 

[speed]

----------------------

You're my kind of people Speed.

Step 1 - define terrorism

Step 2 - define enemy

"What makes a terrorist believe killing infidels will lead to a change in Britain and America's foreign policy?"

History, actually. Vietnam was in many ways a vicory of terrorism as the images of war led the American people to a state of panic. In Somolia, the same thing happened. Americans saw the reality of war and freaked out. The movie cameras were the most powerful weapon. Those movie cameras are the real weapons of mass distruction. Those are the strenght of the terrorists. Bin Laden and his crew thinks that they economically destroyed the Soviet Union and that they can do the same to the West.

"Why kill innocents instead of focusing on previous anarchists and terrorists eventually effective strategy of killing important officials (Russians, Irish, Israelis)?"

Economics and democracy. If you kill a leader, the business continues. If you make a democracy panic, business panics. Our long term strength is our short term weakness. Assassinations are not as effective as manipulation of the masses.

"Do terrorists actuallly believe they will be rewarded in heaven? Are they doing Allah's work?"

Some think so. Islam is actually more varried than Christianity. Some are convinced through religious propaganda that dying for Islam is a ticket to heaven. These people are never given a good debate on what is the true path and what does God really want. They have no debate on the subject. They fall into a version full of hatred and revenge. They are the furious youth looking for something in which they can believe. The people leading these kids around by the nose: money, land, guns, and power.

And do the terrorists have a point? Are they the last stand of religion against the secular deified state?

Some terrorists have a point. The people who recruit these kids sure as hell have a whole list of very good points. The ideas of their struggle are completely logical. Honestly, so are their methods. These people are rational: but detatched. They are the global version of isolated extremists. They preach that Brittany Spears will be an icon worshiped by a brainwashed, sex-obsessed society. They argue that everything which is wrong with Vegas will dominate their small towns. They are arguing the exact same thing as small town America. They are not the last stand. The stand is constantly being made.

"Is a life worth more sacrificed to a God, or to a flag?"

This is an easy one. The answer is no.

"Or, in the Palestinian case, are they so oppressed and feel they have no future, that their lives mean nothing?"

If you killed my cousin, I would probably want to kill you. If I grow up thinking that your people have been killing my cousins for decades; grow up believing that the only reason my community is not living on easy street; growing up understanding that the only reason my Father is dead is because those people on the other side of the street considered him less than human....

"Finally, how about us? How many Americans' have ever ruminated upon the significance of the attacks on the commercial and military centers of our country? Do any of us Americans' realize that most of the world despises our way of life and foreign policy? "

I think that you underestimate us.

You make some good points. You state small town America is arguiing the same points on culture as the Terrorists, and I have often thought the Christian religious fundamentalists in American have been preaching essentially the same message. I still think that the average person has forgotten what the world trade center symbolically stood for.

 

[Silver Incubus]

here's a good line

"If terrorist hate our freedom, then why is the government slowly taking them away."

I have read a great number of clauses from the patriot act and let me just say that I'm glad I don't live in United States, because I'd be more scared of what the government can do then any 'cave dwelling terrorist'

 

[Kenneth R.]

You make some good points. You state small town America is arguiing the same points on culture as the Terrorists, and I have often thought the Christian religious fundamentalists in American have been preaching essentially the same message. I still think that the average person has forgotten what the world trade center symbolically stood for.

yes indeed!

 

[Iridium]

The problem with this sort of thread is that many debaters lack common sense, and there are enough sources on the internet to support any point of view. Both sides, at one point or another, will probably agree that "the media is biased," and that it is foolish to believe everything you hear/read. So what can we actually trust? The conspiracy theorist will call anyone trusting legitimate government sources as being fooled by the system or something like that; the more rational thinker will call the conspiracy theorist an idiot for mentally manstruating all over the thread. In short, it's little more than an exercise of attacking the opponent's sources and bias. However, a scientific approach would utilize Occam's Razor more than often to trim off the excess entities that the conspiracy theorist proposes.

 

[infoterror]

"Terrorism" is a fancy and biased term for urban guerrilla warfare. What are the warriors of an impoverished nation supposed to do? Stand up and get destroyed from 20,000 feet by bombs?

Terrorists are heroes.

 

[Iridium]

There is probably a host of definitions for the word, but I like to think of it as any sort of violent attacks on non-combat personell. The attack on the World Trade Centers is a terrorist attack, whereas a car bomb killing American soldiers is not. There was recently an explosion when Americans were giving out candy to Iraqi children, with many casualties. The terrorist leaders generally justify this by claiming that the Iraqis they kill will go to heaven, since they are innocent. Do heroes butcher their own people, brushing the totally unwarranted slaughter off as a favor to those killed, that they sent them to heaven while they were still guiltless? If so, I question your definition of the word "hero."

 

[Silver Incubus]

Occam's Razor

Debunking The [Propaganda Mechanics] Debunkers

by Eric Hufschmid

In regards to the issue of NORAD, I think the best response is the public hearing in which Norman Mineta mentions that Dick Cheney and others were watching an airplane fly towards the Pentagon.

They were not describing a mysterious airplane with its transponder off. Rather, they were observing it as if they knew where it was going and had no concern :

NATIONAL COMMISSION ON TERRORIST ATTACKS UPON THE UNITED STATES
Public Hearing, Friday, May 23, 2003

MR. MINETA: No, I was not. I was made aware of it during the time that the airplane coming into the Pentagon. There was a young man who had come in and said to the vice president, "The plane is 50 miles out. The plane is 30 miles out." And when it got down to, "The plane is 10 miles out," the young man also said to the vice president, "Do the orders still stand?" And the vice president turned and whipped his neck around and said, "Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?"
--------------------------


I have some specific responses below. The red color is from Popular Mechanics article.

A general remark about the Popular Mechanics article is:

There are a lot of silly remarks about 9-11 on the Internet, some from children, and some for amusement only, such as the possibility that Martians destroyed the World Trade Center towers. The article in Popular Mechanics has selected some of the sillier arguments. If they were serious researchers, they would address the issues that are brought up by Jimmy Walter and Eric Hufschmid. Jimmy Walter is offering this information at low cost to help educate the population.

--------------------------
THE WORLD TRADE CENTER
The collapse of both World Trade Center towers--and the smaller WTC 7 a few hours later--initially surprised even some experts. But subsequent studies have shown that the WTC's structural integrity was destroyed by intense fire as well as the severe damage inflicted by the planes.


Where are these "subsequent studies"? The FEMA report about the collapse of the buidings admits that they could not figure out why Building 7 collapsed. The FEMA report is proof that there are still unsolved mysteries. Therefore, Popular Mechanics is foolish to claim that the issue has been resolved.



--------------------------
"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."


What is this "rest of the stuff" that was burning? The floors were concrete, and the frame was steel, so what was burning? Carpeting, styrofoam cups, and office paper?

The fire in the South Tower was so small that it did not even spread from one side of the floor to the other. This issue is covered in detail in Chapter 4 of Painful Questions. Figure 4-1 on page 27 even shows a woman standing in the hole created by the airplane. How hot could these fires have been if people are walking around in the crash zone?



--------------------------
Like all office buildings, the WTC towers contained a huge volume of air. As they pancaked, all that air--along with the concrete and other debris pulverized by the force of the collapse--was ejected with enormous energy. "When you have a significant portion of a floor collapsing, it's going to shoot air and concrete dust out the window," NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder tells PM. Those clouds of dust may create the impression of a controlled demolition, Sunder adds, "but it is the floor pancaking that leads to that perception."



If the floors slid down like pancakes, then there should be a large pile of flooring on the ground, with office furniture, people, and carpeting squashed between the floors. Figure 5-4 is a diagram to show this dilemma. There is nothing in the rubble that suggests any floor fell down in one piece. The reports from the firemen and the photos, such as Figure 5-19, prove that every floor disintegrated into tiny pieces, and the pieces were scattered hundreds of feet.

Besides, the diagram in Figure 5-22 shows even if a floor fell down like a pancake, it would create a corresponding vacuum above it. Therefore, the air that was pushed out the windows would be sucked up through the windows above. The air would be displaced, it would not be thrown hundreds of feet out the windows at extreme velocity. The explusion of dust and the lack of a corresponding suction implies that gas was being created, such as from explosions. The floors were not simply falling down.

Another serious problem with the Pancake Theory is that photos, such as Figure 5-10, show that the top of the South Tower broke off and tipped over, and fell onto Building 4. None of the government reports mention that the top of the South Tower broke off, nor do they explain why the entire base of the South Tower would disintegrate after the top fell off.

Are the editors of Popular Mechanics getting their information from the government? If so, it is no wonder that they are naïve about the 9-11 attack. They should get the packet of books and DVDs that Jimmy Walter offers before they write any more articles.

Since nobody has explained the mysteries of the South Tower, only a fool would say that this issue has been resolved.

--------------------------
FACT: Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom--approximately 10 stories--about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.


Where are the photos that prove 25% of Building 7 was scooped out? The photos published in reports, and those available on me Internet do not show anything other than trivial damage, such as some broken windows.

Tom Franklin, a professional photographer for a New Jersey newspaper, traveled quickly to the World Trade Center to get photographs. According to his own report, he was standing in front of Building 7 at about 4 p.m.. He took lots of photos, but where are his photos of Building 7? Why would he ignore a skyscraper with 25% of its first 10 floors scooped out?



--------------------------
NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research.

Where is evidence that there was an intense fire in Building 7? The photos taken in the afternoon do not show intense fires. Just because a few investigators believe something, that does not make it true. They need evidence to support their beliefs.


--------------------------
Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."


How can a fire burn for seven hours without spreading to other offices or other floors? Perhaps some diesel fuel was dripping from a supply pipe. Since the fire was small, and since the building had a steel frame with concrete floors, the fire could not travel to other offices. So how could such an insignificant fire bring down an entire skyscraper?

--------------------------
FACT: When American Airlines Flight 77 hit the Pentagon's exterior wall, Ring E, it created a hole approximately 75 ft. wide, according to the ASCE Pentagon Building Performance Report.


Where is a photograph that shows a hole 75 feet wide? All the photos available in reports and the Internet show only small holes. What are we to believe, one person's wild speculation, or the photographs?

--------------------------
Why wasn't the hole as wide as a 757's 124-ft.-10-in. wingspan? A crashing jet doesn't punch a cartoon-like outline of itself into a reinforced concrete building, says ASCE team member Mete Sozen, a professor of structural engineering at Purdue University. In this case, one wing hit the ground; the other was sheared off by the force of the impact with the Pentagon's load-bearing columns, explains Sozen, who specializes in the behavior of concrete buildings.

Nobody expects an airplane to create a cartoon-like outline of itself when it hits a building. However, if one wing hit the ground, where are the photographs of that wing? The photographs do not show anything resembling a wing.


--------------------------
What was left of the plane flowed into the structure in a state closer to a liquid than a solid mass.


Did the passengers and their luggage also turn into a liquid state and flow into the building? After they got into the building, did they solidify back into a solid state? What sort of physics is this? How were they able to identify human parts when metal melts at temperatures far beyond that necessary to reduce flesh to nothing buy carbon ash?

When airplanes crash in other locations, every piece of the plane can be found, even if it is in small pieces. Pieces of the passengers and their luggage can also be found. How is it that when a plane hits the Pentagon, everything suddenly changes and the plane is liquefied?

https://secure.reopen911.org/ericreubt.htm

 

[Silver Incubus]

http://reopen911.org/video/Reopen911_part_1.wmv

if your too lazy to read all that, watch this, its very helpful in seeing some of the faults in the Official explanation

 

[Iridium]

That's precisely what I mean. The internet has sources to support every point of view, no matter how idiotic.

MR. MINETA: No, I was not. I was made aware of it during the time that the airplane coming into the Pentagon. There was a young man who had come in and said to the vice president, "The plane is 50 miles out. The plane is 30 miles out." And when it got down to, "The plane is 10 miles out," the young man also said to the vice president, "Do the orders still stand?" And the vice president turned and whipped his neck around and said, "Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?"

Is it just me, or was this scene missing from the last Star Wars movie, where Darth Cheney fools the Republic into thinking that the Imperial Palace on Coruscant was destroyed in a terrorist attack? I especially like the last part, where the vice president "turned and whipped his neck around."

Sorry, Silver Incubus - I cannot take you seriously. I'm done here. Read this link, however - I hope it enlightens you more than yours have enlightened me. http://ourworld-top.cs.com/mikegriffith1/refute.htm

 

[Silver Incubus]

hahah you are an idiot, that is from the official story. The investigation.

 

[Kenneth R.]

"Terrorism" is a fancy and biased term for urban guerrilla warfare. What are the warriors of an impoverished nation supposed to do? Stand up and get destroyed from 20,000 feet by bombs?

Terrorists are heroes.

heroes who destroy in revenge for destruction, an eye for an eye. outlaws is a more fitting word.

heroes would find a way to give resistance to their assailants without killing innocents.

 

[Silver Incubus]

The wealth of evidence that has emerged in the month following the 7/7 London bombings only leads us to one clear conclusion, that the attacks had to have been orchestrated by or with help from the very highest levels of British intelligence.


The latest piece of evidence to suggest that the official story is a fraud focuses again on the contention that the bombs were placed under the trains and were not detonated by suicide bombers wearing backpacks.

The first eyewitness to report this was Bruce Lait, a victim of the Aldgate Station bombing.

He told the Cambridge Evening News,

"The policeman said 'mind that hole, that's where the bomb was'. The metal was pushed upwards as if the bomb was underneath the train. They seem to think the bomb was left in a bag, but I don't remember anybody being where the bomb was, or any bag."

Now another credible source, Guardian journalist Mark Honigsbaum, talked to eyewitnesses at the Edgware Road bombing, who essentially described the same thing.

Eyewitnesses told Honigsbaum that "tiles, the covers on the floor of the train, suddenly flew up, raised up."

How could the floor of the train raise up from a bomb supposedly in the backpack of an individual seated in the carriage, above the floor?

The victims then heard "an almighty crash" as a train traveling in the opposite direction collided, clearly indicating that the train had derailed due to the bomb being placed under the carriage.

Click here to hear the audio.

For individuals to plant bombs underneath trains and secure them in place without being caught, they would need to secure access to the trains. In this scenario, London Underground could have been told that a dummy device was to be placed underneath the train as part of an exercise to test security an alertness. When the real attacks happened some LU officials would have been alarmed but their suspicions would have dampened when it was revealed that the bombs were carried in backpacks, meaning that the drill was just a strange 'coincidence'.

The fact that the bombs were actually planted underneath the trains could have easily been buried in an avalanche of official announcements to the contrary.

On the other hand the backpack bombs could have just been the diversionary blasts to enable patsies to be framed, just like the planes flying into the towers acted as the diversionary cover for the explosives planted inside the World Trade Center.

The fact that the ID's of all the so-called suicide bombers were found in pristine condition right next to where the bombs went off strongly suggests the planting of evidence to frame patsies. The ID's would have had a very good chance of surviving if the bomb was not in the backpack with them, but underneath the train.

The drill scenario would have provided culpability cover if investigators started asking questions about objects underneath the carriage.

As we have exhaustively documented, such a drill did take place on the morning of 7/7.

A consultancy agency with government and police connections was running an exercise for an unnamed company that revolved around the London Underground being bombed at the exact same times and locations as happened in real life on the morning of July 7th.

On a BBC Radio 5 interview that aired on the evening of the 7th, the host interviewed Peter Power, Managing Director of Visor Consultants, which bills itself as a 'crisis management' advice company, better known to you and I as a PR firm.

Peter Power was a former Scotland Yard official, working at one time with the Anti Terrorist Branch.

Power told the host that at the exact same time that the London bombings were taking place, his company was running a 1,000 person strong exercise which drilled the London Underground being bombed at the exact same locations, at the exact same times, as happened in real life.

How can anyone credibly claim that this was sheer coincidence when pieced together with the rest of the evidence?

Our original article on this matter is the top link on Google when you type in 'London bombing' - above BBC, CNN and ABC News, proof of how much attention this article received.

Our suspicions were aroused just hours after the bombing when it was reported by Associated Press that Israeli Finance Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had received a warning from the Israeli Embassy not to leave his hotel for a speech he was to give that morning. The location of the speech was right next to the site of one of the bombings.

Despite debunking attempts from much of the establishment press, Associated Press never retracted the story and later Mossad admitted that it was true.

The so-called claim of responsibility for the attack was made by a group that is known to not physically exist and which at best is one guy sitting at a computer posting messages on a forum.

And yet the establishment media still report Al-Qaeda responsibility for the attack as if it were the gospel truth.

Exactly what evidence have we seen to even agree with the contention that four men with rucksack bombs carried out this attack? Four grainy CCTV pictures of dark skinned men with rucksacks? Should we not question this evidence especially when verified witnesses on two of the three trains that were bombed said that the bombs were underneath the train and that they saw no men with rucksacks even in the area?

Questions about the attacks are never ending.

Why was it reported that the explosives used were military in origin but then the story changed to say they were homemade? Can explosive experts not tell the difference or was the story changed for a reason?

Why would a man with an 8-month old baby, another who was only interested in sports, and another who taught disabled children, want to kill themselves, other innocent people and cause so much carnage in the process?

Even the establishment media started speculating that the bombers were duped into killing themselves by someone else.

Why did the cameras on the targeted bus malfunction that day? Why was the bus diverted from its usual route? We personally visited the site of the bus bombing at Tavistock Place and verified that no number 30 bus travels down that road.

What are we to make of claims by Stagecoach bus employees who say that a different group of contractors inspected the CCTV cameras in the days before the bombings and that they took two entire days to carry out tasks which normally take just hours to complete.

What is the reason behind Alan Greenspan's decision to flush nearly $40 billion in liquidity into financial markets two days before the attack? Was this an attempt to preemptively head off a run on the markets? If Greenspan had information about a terror attack then why didn't the people on the trains and buses get the same warning?

Who were the individuals that profited from short-selling the British Pound in the ten days before the attack? The pound fell 6% for no particular reason. Fortunes were made after the pound dropped even further in the aftermath of the attacks. This directly mirrors short selling of United and American Airline stocks in the days before 9/11. These suspicious transactions led directly to the CIA.

Why was an innocent man, Jean Charles de Menezes, shot in the head eight times at Stockwell tube station? Why did the police change their story, from saying Menezes was wearing a heavy jacket to admitting it was a lightweight denim jacket? Why did the media initially report that Menezes was shot in the stomach but then change the story when it was pointed out that it would be stupid to shoot suspected suicide bombers in the very place that the bomb would be.

Was Menezes shot because he knew something about the drills? Menezes was an electrician by trade. Did he have damaging knowledge of why the bombings were reported as an electrical surge for over an hour?

Why did Tony Blair immediately reject a public inquiry into how and why the bombings took place? In Britain, there is a public inquiry for every event, no matter how insignificant, and yet after Britain's biggest tragedy since the blitz, Blair shuts the door. What is he frightened of?

The final nail in the coffin regarding inside involvement emerged when it was admitted that the so-called mastermind of both the 7/7 and 7/21 attacks, Haroon Rashid Aswat, is a British Intelligence Asset.

Terror expert John Loftus told Fox News,

"Back in 1999 he came to America. The Justice Department wanted to indict him in Seattle because him and his buddy were trying to set up a terrorist training school in Oregon... we've just learned that the headquarters of the US Justice Department ordered the Seattle prosecutors not to touch Aswat... , apparently Aswat was working for British intelligence."

The mastermind of the London bombings was under the direction and protection of MI6. How much more obvious does it need to be that criminal elements of the intelligence agencies were involved in this attack.

 

[Kenneth R.]

... just like the planes flying into the towers acted as the diversionary cover for the explosives planted inside the World Trade Center...

stopped reading and started laughing about here. ---^

 

[Silver Incubus]

well i will take eye witness accounts before I take major news anyday.

 

[Iridium]

The problem is that it's fairly easy to forge eye-witness accounts. Check it out:

1. Obtain a website like www.conspiracytheoristsareidiots.com.
2. Think up a stupid conspiracy theory.
3. Include the account of a fictional "eye-witness" such as Joe Nobody, to use his gas station mechanic's knowledge of ballistic missile sound frequencies to prove their case to morons like you. Since nobody gives a shit about conspiracy theorist sites, as no-one with anything resembling common sense would ever even consider their worth, the government doesn't see them as threatening, merely annoying and useless. I'd like you to consider Watergate - after real evidence of a scandal got out, it led to the impeachment of the most powerful man in the country at the time. Trust me, if any of your stupid conspiracy theorist friends were onto anything substancial, something they could prove, federal agents would shut down the site and take them in for questioning, justifying it with references to "intelligence and security." This is a good strategy because an impeachment of the president or even those below him would result in far more damage to morale, and general well-being of the nation than whatever relatively minor offense the public figure had committed for which he would be impeached.

How you take yourself seriously is beyond me. Honestly, are you trolling? Because if you are, good job.

The logic of the consiracy theorist is quite simple, really: anything that can be made into a Tom Clancy-poseur novel automatically has a higher chance of being true than something presented on the mainstream media. They may get something right occasionally, but these theories must have what the majority lack: motive.

 

[Kenneth R.]

well i will take eye witness accounts before I take major news anyday.

well of course, however your "eye witnesses" seem no more credible in this case.

 

[dreaming neon darkspot]

Sorry if this has already been stated, but ... imo, religion is a large part of terrorism. Religion is, afterall, what will dictates good and bad, right and wrong, what is desired and what is abhorred, to a certain group of people. And terrorism is, as far as I know, when a group of people go after another group of people that they believe is wrong or abhhorent and should be destroyed or has power they want. And I guess it's because we have a president with such a limited world veiw that we can only think of Middle Eastern people as terrorists ... we/they/he/whoever can't see that we are just as much terrorists in the eyes of Iraqis and Afghanis because we are invading them and changing their lifestyle, or because we don't shoot gay people in the street (well, we're not LEGALLY encouraged to).

While anyone with a scope of human rights can see that what was being done by Middle Eastern men was totally wrong and abhorrent, it seems like terrorism itself isn't actually the thing we need to fear because we are terrorists to a certain group of people (many, actually).

And when gay marriage takes top priority over terrorism in deciding an election ... it kinda seems like it's not such a pressing issue anymore. What, a matter of supposed national security? What's that compared to keeping a bunch of backwoods good ol' boys secure in their sexuality by making sure it's a law people who don't affect them at all can't get married? P'shaw.

 

[Iridium]

 

[Kenneth R.]

terrorism = action with intent to cause fear and hesitation.

it does not have to be violent, nor religious, nor committed by any specific racial or national group.