Madpaddy you make a good point.

With our southern border practically wide open, it should be relatively easy for a "terrorist" to enter this country.

If a few suicide bombers were to detonate themselves at shopping malls, I think that would terrorize the American population much more than 9/11 did.

That would hit closer to home. How many people would go to malls if something like that happened? It would be devastating to the economy.

The lack of "typical" terrorist attacks here is one of many factors that causes me to doubt the existence of Al Queda.

The other question I ask myself is: Who really benefitted from the 9/11 attacks. Occam's razor applies here. It sure as hell wasn't the Taliban, or Iraq. I'll leave it at that.

although i find it difficult to believe the US government was involved in 9/11 (you never know though), i do find it absolutely baffling how there has not been a single terrorist incident on US soil since 9/11 by any group related to al-qaeda etc.

maybe the simplest explanation is that al-qaeda does not exist, and that bin-laden is simply a rogue element in the world. maybe bin laden is dead? who knows.

it is terriby convenient for the US to have this war on terror though. it is allowing them to roll back liberties and no one cares.

in the UK, they're proposing ID cards again - the main reason being to prevent terrorism. what utter nonsense. the chances of being ivolved in a terrorist attack in the UK have probably never been lower. Why didnt we have ID cards when we were being bombed by the IRA/UDA etc?

There is obviously another reason. So what is it? The conspiracy theorists say police state, and i agree all the facts fit, but will it actually happen? I really hope not. Im refusing to get an ID card and wouldn't even mind going to court for not having one.

ALCIADA... hahahaha spot on!

One plausible explanation for why this hasn't happened may be that Islamic terrorists simply don't understand Americans. You know, if you're from a place like Afghanistan, where you'll be shocked by the silence if the bombs ever stop going off, you may not exactly realize the shock value of a few mall attacks...

Of course, it works both ways, too, with Americans not really having a clue about how people in these terrorist-spawning countries think. Remember how you'll be "welcomed as liberators"...

It's all a ruse people. Al CIAda, Hamas, Mossad are one in the same.
You must first realize that terrorism benefits the elites so they can keep the people divided and scared. Someone mentioned how it didn't make sense for Al CIAda to strap on bombs and kill civilians.

Follow your instincts and common sense.

But if you want to tickle your fancy, listen to what Richard Clarke said on this subject. It's a fascinating read.

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/prem/200501/clarke (subscription required)




This was in the Jan/Feb 2005 issue of the Atlantic.

This is off-topic, but I found it appalling.


http://www.wisinfo.com/postcrescent/new ... 5655.shtml

So, let me get this straight. A kid breaks into a mink farm, and lets a bunch of animals loose, and that somehow equates to terrorism??

I can't figure it out. Nobody got hurt. In fact, a bunch of animals who would have got hurt were actually saved. So where's the "terror"? If the charge was larceny, or vandalism, I could understand, but terrorism?

Apparently he faces 82 years in prison. He's a "danger to the community". Undoubtedly, the bailiff and the judge and all the sycophants in the courtroom maintained a grave decorum befitting the severity of this horrible, horrible crime.

What a complete crock of S-H-I-T.

I'm starting to wonder what is the legal definition of terrorism in the States...

terrorism, according to the modern definition and as far as i can tell, is anything that disrupts the flow of money/property/transactions.

i dont think the government of any country cares at all about their citizens in a terrorist event, they'll just care how much damage was done and how long/how much it will take to get 'back to normal'.

I don't see how it was "terrorism" either. Maybe if you break ANY law anymore, you are a terrorist?

But, he certainly didn't "save" any animals either. The minks were bred in captivity and do not know how to feed or shelter themselves in the wild. So instead of a crappy life with a quick death, they will now likely starve, die of exposure, be hunted by natural predators or catch a disease that they were protected from in captivity. In the end, everything dies.

Carla

It's worse than that. The same thing happened over here, and the mink are still a problem. They decimate wildlife and are a big problem for domestic poultry. It was a seriously stupid thing to do, and it's only going to damage the indigenous wildlife of the area. It's not like this is the first time it's been done either, that guy should have read up all about the introduction of non-native species such as mink and the effects it has on the surrounding eco system. *sigh*

I wonder if minks are edible?

Minks are vicious predators and could be considered WMD.

That's a silly thing to say. The kind of people who blew up the Murrah building in Oklahoma City are the nation's top domestic terrorism threat.

If you read the article above, it wasn't a state court, it was a Federal court.

I agree that Terrorism has been stretched too far if this guy gets charged under a terrorism law. This has already gone too far.

Linlthgowoil's definition of "anything that disrupts the flow of money/property/transactions" sounds fairly vague and ambiguous to me. It's so ambiguous, that doing anything that "disrupts" the flow could be a terrorist action. Even entering your car and turning it on dirsupts the flow of money/property/transactions because your car is using gas and the gas was taken out of the stream of commerce. If that's ultimate definition we are headed for, I better work on my immigration papers.

Riverside would have it right: "you break any law anymore, you are a terrorist".

By Webster's definition he is a terrorist. Not that I agree with the applicaton.

ter·ror·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (tr-rzm) n.
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

According to the Patriot Act, anyone who breaks a law in the United States can be considered a terrorist. So, hypothetically a jay walker can be considered a terrorist. It's all about control. They want to expand the view of what a terrorist is in the public mind. Don't be surprised when the day comes and they're charging political protesters with terrorism.

I'm remembering the anti-abortion nut jobs who think it's a good idea to blow up abortion clinics and murder doctors who perform abortions. That's my idea of a real domestic terrorist.