Drugs are a bigger threat than terrorism, says expert [UK]

it only staes drugs, not illegal or legal.
drugs have been around before humans have
 
illusion25 said:
it only staes drugs, not illegal or legal.
drugs have been around before humans have
Click to expand...


No that's just not true!

Before humans were around, no one/being sought to alter their conciecness.

Before humans were around, there were no sentinent beings that desired to expand their conciousness.

There were "food" plants and "NOT food" plants; poisons, deleriants, etc. that threatened the survival of the fittest dogma.

Once humans got here the NOT food plants in smaller quantities became drugs.

:p
 
Another article written by someone who wants to equate all drug use with something as evil and destructive as terrorism. What good ever comes from those horrific acts? In contrast, at least can drugs can be positive and instill some insight into things. Terrorism will never accomplish that.
 
dbailey11 said:
Another article written by someone who wants to equate all drug use with something as evil and destructive as terrorism. What good ever comes from those horrific acts? In contrast, at least can drugs can be positive and instill some insight into things. Terrorism will never accomplish that.
Click to expand...


Terrorism - an overt act to instill fear into the general populace.


9/11 wasn't terrorism.
It instilled ANGER in the American people... not fear.

The FEAR was instilled by our government - by failing to act to protect us... by telling us that it would happen again and again...
By giving us the Threat levels and playing with our minds...

The terrorists are in America.
They have been all along...

And all they've given us is a set of freedoms that are more restrictive than a straitjacket, and a fear that lets them keep us confined...
 
I think alot of people were afraid after 9/11. How can you say that wasn't terrorism? It was meant to instill fear and shock people with raw destructive aggression in an attempt to convey religious ideals of righteous killing. How is that not terrorism?
 
^^^^ I think what he's trying to convey is the government response was to invoke emergency measures based on perpetuating the initial fear of 9/11 into legislation aimed at furthering agendas unrelated to terrorism.

The so-called Patriot Act comes to mind, a porcine piece of political tomfoolery which would nauseate any true patriot...
 
tobala said:
^^^^ I think what he's trying to convey is the government response was to invoke emergency measures based on perpetuating the initial fear of 9/11 into legislation aimed at furthering agendas unrelated to terrorism.

The so-called Patriot Act comes to mind, a porcine piece of political tomfoolery which would nauseate any true patriot...
Click to expand...



A little of this, a little of that...


The first thought that ran through my head on the morning of 9/11/2001 was, "We did this."

Now... maybe it's just me, but it angered me.
It wasn't a strong reactive anger... it was a slow steady cold anger that sort of seethed inside me.

Assuming our government did have absolutely nothing to cause the catastrophic events on 9/11, and did everything in their power to prevent them(which it has been proven they did not...), I would still be angry that someone thought they could do that to us.

I would seek retaliation - not out of fear of them doing it again, but out of anger that they believed they could get away with it.

The government created a target - Osama Bin Laden - and carefully crafted the story to create fear.

Osama didn't claim responsibility for the attacks (some say EVER - but officially it was 2-3 weeks after the "attacks") immediately. He congratulated and thanked whomever was responsible at first.

Anyone else remember that?

It sure makes me wonder who's telling the truth.
If Osama was really happy about his achievement, why wait for the smoke to clear (nearly) before claiming responsibility?

It doesn't make sense.


Yes.... I'm sure some people could have been afraid after 9/11... and I'm sure a lot of people were.

But a lot of people were angry.
The government could have swayed the populace in either direction.
They chose fear in order to place more restrictions on the freedoms of the people.
They chose fear to further their personal aims.
They chose fear because an angry populace (which is what they got after Pearl Harbor - that the government ALSO let happen despite prior knowledge - because they didn't want to alert their information source that they were getting information from them) because an angry populace with no target might realize what was going on in the government and take back their country.

So yes.. 9/11 was a successful act of terrorism, IF committed by powers within the USA.
9/11 was a successful act of terrorism ONLY because of the response of the government and media.

Without the actions of the government, it could easily have been a failed terrorist attack that brought retaliation in untold amounts upon the real perpetrators - who are still at large.

With a few different news stories, a slight twist (probably closer to the truth) we still would have been ready for war - just not on the terms wanted by the current administration.
 
Well in an ultimate sort of way you can't divide the populace so 'we' (the entire human race as a whole) did do this. But is there really proof that the U.S. government planned to attack it's own people? That seems far-fetched to me.
 
dbailey11 said:
Well in an ultimate sort of way you can't divide the populace so 'we' (the entire human race as a whole) did do this. But is there really proof that the U.S. government planned to attack it's own people? That seems far-fetched to me.
Click to expand...

My thought of "We" was the US government...
I haven't been proven wrong yet...



Is there proof they planned it? No.
Is there enough evidence to show that they PURPOSEFULLY PERMITTED IT TO HAPPEN? Yes.

Again though - the people guilty of the act committed an act.
That's all.

It was a destructive act that benefited no one but the US government. In an investigation, the first thing you do is look for a motive...

What would destroying the world trade center accomplish for Osama Bin Laden?
Anything?



Again though - who is responsible for the 9/11 attacks is irrelevant.

They were simply attacks.

The response of the media and the government could have enraged the people or placed a blanket of fear over them.
They chose to create fear in the people

This act alone makes the government responsible for TERRORISM.
Not the attacks necessarily, but creating fear in the American people.

They are guilty again each time they raise the threat level to orange or red.

If no attacks take place, there would be no more fear.
But by raising the threat levels, they create the fear that the (usually non-existent) attacks could not have created if they had failed.

The media is a tool of terrorism.
The threat level is a tool of terrorism.

Hitler used the radio to instill fear and coerce cooperation out of a public that would normally have not supported him.

Our government is doing the same thing to enlist our compliance with the new laws that strip us of our freedoms.

Our government is guilty of terrorism and persecution of innocents because of their reaction to the events that took place on 9/11.
The additional suspicion that they caused the events or PURPOSEFULLY permitted them to take place adds to their possible charges.

Everyone is going crazy trying to say who was really behind the 9/11 attacks.

I'm saying I don't really care.

The government took advantage of the attacks and created a police state, created the fear, and stripped us of our rights.

If they caused the attacks or not, they're still guilty of terrorism.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top