Twelve Steps Towards Eradicating Terrorism

1. Kill an Arab - In Arizona, Francisco Roque shot and killed Balbir Sodhi, while he was landscaping outside his business. Do not trust "innocent" immigrants! Sure, Sodhi, being from India, was neither Arab nor Muslim, but who cares? He certainly wasn't a REAL American, like our man Francisco.

2. Sing "God Bless America" - Whether you're a corporate-sponsored legislator or a Wall Street hoarder, nothing proves your dedication to your nation like singing a song. True, it was the abuses of these two groups that prompted the terrorist attacks in the first place, but so what? They must be innocent. They sang!

3. Watch video replays of the inferno on CNN - Surprisingly, the variety of angles from which you have repeatedly seen two airliners plow into the ex-towers of the World Trade Center do not increase your knowledge one iota. This is not information, but entertainment. Similarly, photos of people leaping to their death are useful only as unit-shifters. So grab some popcorn, set the VCR on extended play, press record and enjoy!

4. Ruin someone's life - In these scandal-soaked times, it's good to see that CNN has not forgotten the power of libel. CNN reported that Adnan Bukhari and his brother Ameer were two of the pilots who crashed into the former World Trade Center. While their investigative techniques were above reproach, the truth of these accusations is doubtful. Adnan is still living in Florida, and his brother died last year in an unrelated plane crash. Kudos Ted Turner!

5. Purchase a piece of official World Trade Center Shrapnel^TM - Sorry to say, eBay has already pulled the plug on auctions of pieces of the WTC. Don't worry, though, you're in luck! Simply send me $3,000 and I'll mail you a piece of concrete that could very well have come from a building much like the WTC.(1)

6. Fly the American flag - The House of Representatives recently passed a bill urging all Americans to fly the stars and stripes at home. You can even download a free flag screensaver! Fun fact: in recent years, the phrase "flag-waving" has become a synonym for pointless actions masquerading as legitimate ones. I wonder why...

7. Label all who oppose you - Look, it's simple: If you believe in killing American civilians, you are a radical terrorist. If you believe in killing Middle Eastern civilians, you are defending freedom. Similarly, if you sacrifice yourself in a battle against a much larger foe, you are a coward, while if you hunt out pockets of lightly-armed militias with the world's most heavily-funded military, you are a brave leader. Understand?

8. Give an interview - National leaders, eyewitnesses, experts and incidentals have been furiously speaking to cameras throughout the rescue effort. While some might say this accomplishes nothing, others would agree. Of course, this will provide a wealth of footage for campaign commercials in years to come. Joy!

9. Join the Army - Unfortunately for the newly-shorn, a campaign against the military might of Afghanistan is likely to be short lived. Your humiliation, hazing, and reconstruction (read: boot camp) will take far longer than the few weeks of carpet-bombing we have planned. Do not despair! We will no doubt be targeting another defenseless country of non-white people in the near future. Hurrah!

10. Make some money - Take a mediocre song. Re-release it, but this time sample some timely news clips and run them during the bridge. Don't worry that the song was originally a love ballad, and that the sampled clips are obviously tacked on. Label the single "A Heroic Salute: <song name> WTC Remix 2001" and watch the cash roll in!

11. Participate in a post-attack poll - Surprisingly, 97% of Americans polled had participated in a poll following the terrorist attack in NYC.(2) 39% reacted angrily towards the poll, 28% were sad, and 19% asked me to repeat the question. An additional 14% were unsure, while a further 5% were extraneous.

12. Kill an Afghan - While this may seem the same as killing an Arab (see #1) it's not. An Arab is a member of any Arabic-speaking people, include countries such as Jordan, Syria and Malta. An Afghan, on the other hand, is a citizen of Afghanistan. Perhaps they don't speak Arabic at all! For bonus points, try wrapping an Afghan in an afghan and beating him to death with the frozen corpse of an Afghan hound.(3)

There you are! Now is the time to step up, be counted, and get behind America's effort to rid the world of terrorism (or at the very least, afghans). After purging the world's terrorism, George W. has sworn to eliminate crime, traffic, and night worries. Have no fear, Georgie, no one would dare call you a wimp after this! We're behind you 100%!(4)

(1) Shipping and handling not included.
(2) Margin of error ± 3%
(3) I do not endorse the freezing of canines.
(4) Margin of error ± 99.9%

	exactly what would not be funny? (5.00 / 2) (#7)
	by philipm on Mon Oct 29th, 2001 at 04:47:21 PM PST

	The Author seems very confused about this whole terrorism thing. As with countries, the key to terrorism is setting up the proper link between cause and effect. For example, make a statement that for every 1000 americans that die on american soil, an area the size of texas will be nuked, centered on the first group that thinks its not such a bad idea after all to kill 1000 people. And make it 1000, we want to make it hard for the kooks. For every building that falls down, 10 random American extremists will be shot, along with 1000 extermist middle easterners - I guess the're not that many moderates there. Also make it punishable by death to report on terrorism. See, all these things actually do something. God forbid we try a solution that actually works. Of-course, the jews are not the good guys either. Be sure to read the Einstein Hoax part. --philipm

	Liberalist "arithmetic" (5.00 / 1) (#8)
	by tkatchev on Mon Oct 29th, 2001 at 09:45:54 PM PST

	Oh, I see. Obviously, one American life is equal to 100 non-American lives. This is exactly the kind of warped double standard the U.S. liberalist regime encourages; and you wonder why people hate you?! Wake up, you're the Evil Empire now. -- Peace and much love...

	Liberalism (4.50 / 2) (#10)
	by Richard C Suquer on Mon Oct 29th, 2001 at 10:30:18 PM PST

	As a lifelong Liberal (bleeding heart and proud of it), I take offense at your stereotyping of Liberals. We are not killers. The "Liberalist Regime" has never been in power in the United States of Amerikkka long enough to make a difference, but if we were, we'd pass a law making War and Violence illegal. As an oppressed class, terrorists need to be treated with respect and dignity. This is the policy of the "U.S. Liberal Regime" -- not violence. We realize that USia is seen as an "evil empire" as you succinctly put it, and to counter this negative image we have encouraged many programs like Affirmative Action and Meals On Wheels. Yes, George W. Bush and his cronies may have a stranglehold on our country now, but please don't think that all Americans share his views. Myself and other members of the Liberalist Regime, Inc. are working hard to have him kicked out of office. We are even hiring interns to seduce him (so far we've not been successful). Of course there are a few minor exceptions to our policy of non-violence: I for one encourage the killing of Americans, so long as they are white males. Also, Palestinians. Palestinians should be all killed. Why? Simply because the best way to end oppression is to kill the oppressors! Thoughtfully yours, Richard -- Revolution from Below! GPL the Constitution!

	interns from heaven (none / 0) (#18)
	by linuxrulez on Tue Oct 30th, 2001 at 06:24:20 AM PST

	We are even hiring interns to seduce him (so far we've not been successful). Why's that? He too drunk to fuck?

	Once again (none / 0) (#38)
	by Husaria on Wed Oct 31st, 2001 at 12:52:09 PM PST

	Mr. Suger shows his true colors by advocating genocide. A liberal would not advocate the killing of a ethnic group, but Suger, a self proclaimed liberal has done so, any other country would have you shit on and flushed away, but the US protects your right to state bullshit, and for that you should be thankful Sig sigger

	Liberalism == Genocide. (none / 0) (#42)
	by tkatchev on Wed Oct 31st, 2001 at 01:14:27 PM PST

	With rare exceptions, of course. Sometimes non-liberalists commit genocide, too. -- Peace and much love...

	Cluebador (1.00 / 1) (#45)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Oct 31st, 2001 at 01:49:03 PM PST

	Ah, Husaria, another bright bulb immune to irony...

	Of course American lives are more valuable (5.00 / 1) (#14)
	by moriveth on Tue Oct 30th, 2001 at 02:12:54 AM PST

	The U.S. government is a government by and for the people of America. Why could a democratic government possibly value the lives of its own citizens? Your "logic" leads to the perposterous--not to mention self-destructive--conclusion that America is morally obligated to sacrifice an American life save, say, 1.3 Nigerians. There just aren't that many of us, and a whole lot more of them. In any case, as a democratic government, America will take whatever measures necessary to effectively defend its citizens, even if it means spilling a little non-American blood. It would be grossly negligent, and possibly treasonous, to do otherwise. But, in fact, this is a win-win situation for America and Islam. In the long run, tough love will be as beneficial for Islam as for America. Muslims might not yet speak the language of freedom and democracy, but they understand the language of force. For example, when Syrian President Hafez al-Assad literally leveled the rebellious city of Hama in 1982, he successfully quelled the Islamic radical dissent; Syria has been free of internal strife ever since, a tremendous long-term gift to its citizens. Shouldn't we consider a similar approach? tkatchev, your mistake, like that of many analysts, lies in thinking like a Westerner. It's time we start thinking like Muslims.

	Bakunin on for the people (none / 0) (#66)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sat Nov 3rd, 2001 at 03:46:15 AM PST

	"The sacremental formula for governing the masses of people - for their own good no doubt, for the salvation of their souls, if not their bodies - used by saints as well as by the nobles in the theocratic and aristocratic States, and also by the intellectuals and the rich people in the doctrinaire, liberal, and even republican States based upon universal suffrage, is always the same: "Everything for the people, nothing by the people."" -Mihail Bakunin The people in republican states vote for representatives. No direct control is excercised by the people.

	Relative worth (none / 0) (#20)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 30th, 2001 at 12:04:31 PM PST

	Damn right my fellow countrymen are worth more than yours. Ten of ours for one of yours, more if you'd like. If you dare to attack my family, my friends or my country, I will kill as many of you as possible. If some of your family, friends or countrymen die because you hide behind them, is that my fault? If you'd like to ramp up the battle, I'm sure that that could be arranged.

	*wince* (none / 0) (#28)
	by SpaceGhoti on Wed Oct 31st, 2001 at 03:17:10 AM PST

	This is gonna hurt me to ask this, but I am genuinely curious. Please bear in mind that I voted against Clinton in both elections and considered the man a liar and a cheat just from his campaign promises. But in spite of all that, just how did Clinton demonstrate the "one American life is equal to 100 non-American lives?" It is the duty of any President (or any national leader, for that matter) to put the welfare of his fellow citizens against that of the rest of the world, but I don't recall Clinton ever demonstrating the level of amorality that you seem to assign to him. I might sound like a broken record, but I keep asking because it keeps being relevant. Exactly how is it that liberals are guilty of the abuses you claim? What actions justify your statement? A troll's true colors.

	Totalitarianism in action... (none / 0) (#29)
	by tkatchev on Wed Oct 31st, 2001 at 05:32:48 AM PST

	Um, hold on: what about bombing maternity homes and television stations in Serbia? Bombing Red Cross vans? Bombing passenger trains? There is absolutely no way you can justify that. You are guilty, and the world will not forget, much less forgive. -- Peace and much love...

	Don't make accusations like that. (none / 0) (#58)
	by em on Thu Nov 1st, 2001 at 01:19:11 AM PST

	Tkatchev is not a troll. He is a prolific Adequacy poster. If he were a troll, we would have deleted his account already. But, since he's not a troll, he has never been subject to any such account deletion, neither here nor in any other site you may have heard of. This is a fact, and as such, indisputable. --em Associate Editor, Adequacy.org

	"Impresision"? (none / 0) (#40)
	by tkatchev on Wed Oct 31st, 2001 at 01:10:08 PM PST

	Wow, that is an understatement... No comment. Look, bombing a maternity home is not "military impresision". It is a bona-fide war crime, a horrible atrocity. Calling the slaughter of innocent mothers with their infants "military imprecision" is like calling Nazi death camps an "unfortunate mismanagement error". -- Peace and much love...

	What the FUCK? (none / 0) (#25)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 30th, 2001 at 09:35:59 PM PST

	Obviously, one American life is equal to 100 non-American lives. This is exactly the kind of warped double standard the U.S. liberalist regime encourages .. Are you out of your mind? You obviously have very little clue as to how the political machinery of the U.S. works. The liberals in the U.S. have always been the ones preaching equality ("we all share the same world, we all breathe the same air, and we are all mortal.") The conservative and fundamentalist types are the ones who believe that one American life is worth the same as 100 Arab lives. This is because they (apparently) believe that we are the "chosen people" of various gods, jesuses, etc. and that we are superior to everybody else on the planet in virtually every way. They are the ones taking notes on who isn't flying flags and singing "god bless America" and accusing anybody who questions U.S. policy of "treason." If you had an ounce of sense in that god damned cranium of yours you would realize that your "liberalists" are actually your allies.

	No. (none / 0) (#27)
	by tkatchev on Wed Oct 31st, 2001 at 02:28:53 AM PST

	Clinton is a liberalist, and one of the best examples of the kind of American double-standard thinking that the world hates. No matter what American liberals say, I think their actions speak louder than words. -- Peace and much love...

	Either you are a troll or an idiot. (none / 0) (#36)
	by FreemoreJohnson on Wed Oct 31st, 2001 at 12:45:56 PM PST

	You are guilty, and the world will not forget, much less forgive. This is insane stereotyping. Thousands of innocent people die in one day in New York City and somehow we Americans, as a group, are collectively guilty? This is just insane. If you are going to make accusations against a people freshly wounded at least have the brains and the balls to explain yourself. For the record, I think the U.S. government is making the only responsible and possible choice in trying to destroy the terrorists who did this, but that's just me. (Personally I think that there is a moral difference between intentionally targeting civilians and unintentionally killing people.) My country is a plurality of opinions and it's baseless to say all citizens are guilty of wartime actions. You should be wary of the type of collective guilt you are advocating for tkatchev.

	I am advocating nothing. (none / 0) (#39)
	by tkatchev on Wed Oct 31st, 2001 at 01:07:22 PM PST

	Sorry if I was sloppy in my wording, but I had no intent to advocate anything. I was simply stating a fact. An obvious fact, if you live outside of the U.S. Personally, I think blaming the American people for the actions of a few deranged individuals is just plain wrong. But, what can you do? -- Peace and much love...

	Precisely (none / 0) (#44)
	by FreemoreJohnson on Wed Oct 31st, 2001 at 01:48:19 PM PST

	Personally, I think blaming the American people for the actions of a few deranged individuals is just plain wrong. Exactly so. And, by the way, you should be able to see the difference between fighting a regime protecting terrorists and targeting civilians. Even if innocent people are killed in both scenarios, as I said before, there is a real moral difference.

	Hmm... (none / 0) (#37)
	by SpaceGhoti on Wed Oct 31st, 2001 at 12:48:36 PM PST

	Military imprecision is the hobgoblin of any armed conflict. My opinion of using military force is on record here, but by your logic, any country that uses military force is going to be damned for committing such attrocities, and the rest of the NATO nations involved in Serbia are just as guilty. The art of destruction is simply not that precise. This is not to say that the death of innocents is in any way justified. I'm saying that the death of innocents is the only constant in war, and I don't believe Clinton or the US should be any more villified for it than Britain, France or Russia. I'd be happier if it wasn't done at all, but I'm not going to blame it on any "Liberalist" agenda. The "Conservative" agenda is just as guilty. A troll's true colors.

	Oh, I am so dreadfully sorry... (none / 0) (#41)
	by tkatchev on Wed Oct 31st, 2001 at 01:12:09 PM PST

	Sorry for the horrible misspelling -- "imprecision" instead of "impresision", of course. My fingers are getting ahead of my brain. :((( -- Peace and much love...

	Management error (none / 0) (#46)
	by SpaceGhoti on Wed Oct 31st, 2001 at 01:54:42 PM PST

	Did I suggest that it is anything less than evil? Did I imply that it was acceptable or justified? No. I simply said that it is a fact of military action that things like that happen. The only thing I said was that neither the US nor Clinton can be held any more responsible than any other nation that engages in military action. It happens all the time no matter who is behind the bomb. The fact that the press has more tools and is used more often during military conflicts means it comes to light more often. Call it a mistake or a war crime, it's gotten any worse than before. The US did not say "let's go bomb a maternity home!" They said "let's bomb a military target." Either their intelligence was faulty or the bomb went astray. Either way it's a crime that has been repeated throughout military history, and will continue as long as humans engage in war. There is no excuse for bombing innocent targets. That doesn't mean that anyone is more guilty than anyone else. The only ones who are blameless are the victims themselves. A troll's true colors.

	You are so dreadfully deluded... (1.00 / 1) (#52)
	by tkatchev on Wed Oct 31st, 2001 at 03:04:52 PM PST

	But, that is exactly the point: *The U.S. did* say "let's go bomb a maternity home".** It was not a mistake. There is no way it could have been a mistake. Saying that bombing a maternity home happened "by mistake" is tantamount to saying that the Nazi government gassed 6 million people "by mistake". As far as I am concerned, the Clinton government is as evil as the Hitler government. -- Peace and much love...

	Uh HUH. (none / 0) (#54)
	by SpaceGhoti on Wed Oct 31st, 2001 at 03:49:04 PM PST

	And where is this nefarious statement recorded? Who scooped this story? I admit I didn't much care for the Serbian conflict, but I like to think I would have noticed a news item like that. A troll's true colors.

	Goebbels would be proud. (none / 0) (#57)
	by tkatchev on Thu Nov 1st, 2001 at 12:18:55 AM PST

	"The more outrageous the lie, the more people believe it." (Sorry, don't want to look up the exact quote right now.) Of course, unless the state-run U.S. media machine reports it, it cannot be true. Even if it contradict the most basic laws of logic and physics. -- Peace and much love...

	Forget the State (none / 0) (#69)
	by SpaceGhoti on Mon Nov 5th, 2001 at 10:40:10 PM PST

	This is a hell of a news item. If it's true, somebody had to mention it somewhere. So what's your source? I'm still betting it's from the depths of your fevered imagination. A troll's true colors.

	Explain (5.00 / 1) (#62)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Nov 1st, 2001 at 03:50:05 PM PST

	Given their (repugnant and indefensible) beliefs and goals, all well-documented, the Nazis' systematic extermination of members of minority groups, also exhaustively researched and documented, was a logical series of actions undertaken for the sole purpose of reaching a desired outcome. I'm not familiar with the other incident (bombing of the maternity home), but as you emphatically assert that it was no more a mistake than the Nazi's actions, I invite you to summarize the logical reasons why the perpetrators would have taken this deliberate action, including why it was the appropriate method, what goal it would achieve, and why this goal would outweigh the forseeable negative consequences, as well as providing some reasonable amount of concrete evidence supporting the existence of such a goal and the veracity of the deliberateness of the subsequent actions. (N.B. I don't want to put words in your mouth: I'm not suggesting that you would contradict the first paragraph, although if you want to, it would be an acceptable way of proving your ludicrous allegation of equivalence of the two actions.)

	Dense and denser... (1.00 / 1) (#63)
	by tkatchev on Thu Nov 1st, 2001 at 10:12:25 PM PST

	The reason for maternity home bombings (among others, I repeat; there were many similar atrocities perpetrated) was simply to terrorize the world. To prove to the world that the U.S. will not be stopped by any moral, ethical, or religious qualm. To prove to the world that nobody is safe, that the U.S. is perfectly happy to slaughter infants to achieve e.g. lower oil prices, or more convinient trade routes[1]. To prove to the world that the U.S. has a kind of "carte blanche", that moral or ethical issues simply do not concern the U.S. government. That from now on, an infant child is no different to the U.S. government from a frozen chicken. -- Peace and much love...

	Silly me (5.00 / 1) (#68)
	by vor on Mon Nov 5th, 2001 at 01:46:03 PM PST

	I see. So perhaps what you are suggesting is that in places like Afghanistan, the millions of dollars of military hardware is actually targeted at maternity hopsitals, and anything that happens to miss, and fall on a Taliban tank, is just an accident? Most states or organisations that utilise terrorist methods do not spend 99.99% of their time and money on self-defeating actions like denouncing terrorism, providing humanitarian aid, attacking legitimate military tagets, and building international coalitions against their own strategies. If they wish to prove "that moral or ethical issues simply do not concern the U.S. government" then they don't seem to be going about it in a very intelligent fashion. It seems to me that if I wanted the world to know that I was a ruthless unpitying bastard, and I had an arsenal full of nice shiny nuclear weapons, there would be a somewhat simpler route...

	There is a precedent... (none / 0) (#70)
	by dmg on Sat Nov 17th, 2001 at 08:58:36 AM PST

	It seems to me that if I wanted the world to know that I was a ruthless unpitying bastard, and I had an arsenal full of nice shiny nuclear weapons, there would be a somewhat simpler route... Its been done in the past don't forget, WWII was a nuclear war. time to give a Newtonian demonstration - of a bullet, its mass and its acceleration. -- MC Hawking

	force ANTHRAX to change their name!!! (1.00 / 1) (#61)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Nov 1st, 2001 at 02:50:55 PM PST

	YEP.

	Flying flags... (none / 0) (#9)
	by tkatchev on Mon Oct 29th, 2001 at 09:55:52 PM PST

	You know, the U.S. government's urging to fly flags reminds me of something -- in the xUSSR, the regime used to love pointless self-aggrandizements like that. For example, they had a penchant for highway billboards with slogans like "Glory to the party!" or somesuch. All in all, the U.S. government's actions are eerily similar. Also, I noticed recently that Bush W. has taken to wearing a little pin-up flag on his suit lapels; this is also a hallmark of a totalitarian regime. Look at the current North Korean dictator, if you don't believe me; I think the guy has not one but two pin-up pennants on his suit. I guess he thinks that makes him some some sort of heavy-duty industrial-strength dictator... -- Peace and much love...

	13. Accuse Congressman Condit of a coverup (3.00 / 2) (#3)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Oct 29th, 2001 at 10:16:51 PM PST

	I boobalicious babe is worth all of Afghanistan. Well, its true isnt it?

	Give me a string bean! (2.33 / 3) (#11)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Oct 30th, 2001 at 12:39:18 AM PST

	I'm a hungry man!