SUV-terrorism connection?

Quote:

---

Welcome to Americans for Fuel Efficient Cars. The idea for this project came to me while watching -- for the umpteenth time -- one of those outrageous drug war ads the Bush administration has flooded the airwaves with. You know, the ones that try and link using drugs to financing terrorism. Instead of shaking my head in disgust and reaching for the Mute button like I usually do when I see these ads, I decided to channel my indignation. Why not turn the tables and adopt the same tactics the administration was using in the drug war to point out the much more credible link between driving SUVs and our national security? Thus began our campaign to create a series of TV ads designed to win the hearts and minds -- and change the driving habits -- of American consumers by asking them to connect the dots and think about the effect energy wastefulness is having not just on the environment, but on our foreign policy.

---

This was taken from the home page of The Detroit Project who has been placing ads on TV that SUV owners are supporting terrorists.

I personally own two SUVs and I think this is outrageous. What do you all think about this? I've seen the ad, and it's similar to the one regarding drugs and terrorism (This is <someone> who bought the <something> which funded <someone> etc...) If you haven't seen them, check them out on the page I listed above and let me know what you think.

AJ

Yeah, I have seen those commericals and they are quite humorous to me (imo).
If they really want to sit there and say, purchasing gas for SUV's supports terrorism, well then maybe we should ban gas altogether? better yet, let's ban automobiles, in fact while we're at it, let's ban capitalism (after all, wasn't it free enterprise that funded Osama Bin Laden's businesses and provided the cash to pull off 9/11?)
It justs irritates me that people are so tunnel visioned these days. These commercials are very one-sided and misleading to consumers.

I also own a 4x4 suv and if anyone saw the amount of snow we normally get they would not question why I have one. As for being hard on gas maybe the bigger suvs are but my little one gets great gas milage. The bigger cars use more gas per mile and cost alot more to insure. To say that because we drive suvs we support Bin Ladden or any of these creeps is wrong.
On the same token what about diamonds they had on the news that diamonds were being bought and sold for Bin Ladden to raise money for more attacks, so anyone who bought diamonds for their wifes or girlfriends or mothers are supporting terrorists. This is sad because my kids gave me diamond earrings for christmas and I really like them, they maybe small but they look nice.

If we push this parallel further we can assimilate the trading on stocks exchange to be financing terrorism since the terrorist speculated on the dollar during 9-11 let all stop trading at once !!!! lol

This is another case of the special interest groups using scare tactics to control us. No one pays attention to the known fact that the majority of our oil comes from S. America. Instead, we are lying in order to rectify a situation that we created. Osama bin Laden did not make his money from oil; he made his money from investing and building. Then, during the war in Afghanistan, the U.S. government armed and trained the same men that committed these atrocities to fight against what used to be the Soviet Union. These commercials, just like the anti-marijuana ads, are scare tactics meant to prey on the weak minded. Once again, a group is making an unproven claim that has nothing to do with the original problem. What needs to be addressed is the anti-American sentiment that many other countries deal with due to our political shortsightedness.

Does anyone know who created and funded the anti-SUV commercials?

Quote:

---

Does anyone know who created and funded the anti-SUV commercials?

---

It was posted by adven already.

Quote:

---

This was taken from the home page of The Detroit Project who has been placing ads on TV that SUV owners are supporting terrorists.

---

i guess the compact car manufacturers figure if its good enough for our president to use to get what he wants its good enough for them too

This morning another "gooder" was spouting this same tripe on the radio. This type of propaganda has to be aimed at those who cannot think for themselves. It was not too long ago there was an article about her jetting around the country in her private jet-fuel guzzler, and now she's claiming we should all sell our go-mobiles and trade them in for the hybrids, or better yet, the rest of us should just stick with bicycles so her and her Hollywood buddies could look down and see how obedient all the little sheeple are... I gotta quit, this subject is irritating me, since it's just the latest in a long line of brainless-BS coming from the talking heads that believe we can't think for ourselves. From what i've read above, the perpetrators and Spin-Meisters on several special-agenda fronts have misjudjed at least some of the AO'ers. Three cheers for the ability of AO'ers to view political rubbish with the light of logic.
"And that's a fack, Jack"
("Fack" rhymes smoothly with "Jack"; where "Fact", pronounced properly, does not flow smoothly in that particular slang experession, OK?... ;) )

Well, this is another crap warning. I mean just take a look at some likely to be accurate statistics. Americans who buy SUVs to support terrorism:

0: 285,343,223

I'm not saying SUVs are fuel efficiant; they do have a point when they say they consume tons of gas. But, I'd rather drive something safe and reliable (meaning if a teenager doing 135 in a tuned up Civic slams into me, HE'LL get crushed and not me) then driving a hybrid with a topspeed of what you do in an SUV pulling out of your driveway. But that's just me ;)


Regards,
Silentstalker

PS
And if SUV owners are supporting terrorists, what is Bush doing? His Limo probably consumes as much gas.

[imo] bush and his oil mongers of a texan family are more bent on terrorist actions than any current members of the 'terrorist groups'. i think if anything were to be called 'terrorism' it should be all the mindfsckin they do on tv, radios, billboards, and every kind of shirt/sweats/and button u can think of. if u think about it, how can buying some pot be considered funding terrorism? buying a pack of cigarettes is more likely to fall into that catagory. and, that not being enough, they go and blame it on suv owners... (we will get this out of the way now, i dont use a car, or truck, or anything else motorized, i mean, if u got feet, maybe they are there for a reason?) but i dont think that having a certain vehicle should put u in such a catagory.... i bet when big baby bush iz mobbin in hiz air force one he iz wasting fuel, and polluting the air more than 20 suv's.. i guess all i am saying is this: if we are going to let ourselves stoop as low as to stare at a t.v., in most cases all day long, ran by profetteering biggots, what else can we can we expect but to get flooded by this proppiganda? becuase of this, i have made my choice, many years ago, to stop watching and paying attention to t.v., and i guess i hope some of u will do the same.. i mean, come on people... let's cut this plaque from our brains and our daily existance, maybe even just untill it chooses to give us knowledge... not that t.v. could ever be as usefull and information filled as the net, but hey, i guess we all have our own screens we stare at...
and i guess not everyone is on my side, but when it comes to whats new, or cool...

just say NO to the 'mainstream',

thanx for listening,

h4x0r3d

Maybe the commercials would want to say that if you drive a fuel inefficient car, you will have to buy a lot of gas and thus you fund the large oil companies, which are the real leaders of the "free" world.

Imho, this SUV commercial thing is as ridiculous as the current war against terrorism.

Hello AO's,
There is no denying our absolute addiction to fossil fuels that heat our homes and power our vehicles. There are alternatives.

Check out this link http://www.biomass.org/links.htm There are some real interesting links and articles on various websites listed there.

I am currently reading Gore Vidals book named "Dreaming War: Blood for Oil and the Cheney-Bush Junta” Anyone interested in 9/11, the proposed Iraq conflict and a variety of foreign policy/history issues should pick it up. There are so many links between the current administration and oil that it is scary.

I believe the issue here goes a little bit deeper then terrorism and SUV's. There are complex historical and diplomatic issues that are the source of our current troubles. But I ask, what if we were to end our dependency on oil and stop supporting Israel so blindly? Where would we be then?

captfb

captfb: Wake up and think for a minute please!!!!!!!!

In a society that relies _so_ heavily on fossil fuels for it's very existance it is all but impossible for _any_ administration not to have links to oil in some way or another...... Just because the Bush administrations have not tried to hide their links doesn't mean that their links are any more or less sinister than the Clinton administrations for example!!!!!!

Tiger_shark,
Wow I sure am "awake and thinking" after your post. Maybe you should re-read my post and take a look at what I really said. My comments were directed at the "current" administration and their ties to the oil business. There is no need to make a comment about another administration. But if you wish to do so, please use your amazing cognitive abilities to enlighten me on the subject. If you know so much about Clinton and his connections to big business why not show us some of the proof or evidence?

I understand more then you can know about the connection between politicians and big oil business. Sorry for not specifying "other administrations” Thanks for your comments though.....I need a good laugh every once an awhile! :)

Captfb

captfb:

Your comment _precisely_ was "There are so many links between the current administration and oil that it is scary". What's scarey? That people in political power had a life prior to their political one? That because of their links to oil they are going to go to war with another country simply to make more profit for themselves? What if the next president was a beer manufacturer - would it be scarey that he might repeal drinking and driving laws so he can make more money? That is absolutely as unlikely as GWB taking America to war so he and his buddies can make more profit from oil!!!!!!!!

While I have utter contempt for almost all modern politicians most of them are not so blatantly self serving as a comment like yours intended to purvey. You will also note that when I mentioned the Clinton administration I immediately followed it with the words "for example". I picked that administration because it was the most recent - nothing more, nothing less.

Clearly, you spent far too much time learning about "more than you can know about the connection between politicians and big oil business" and insufficient time concentrating on basic comprehension of the English language.

Keep on giggling....... I'm sure the idiotic look befits you........

Tiger_shark,

It is scary that........Unocal or Union Oil of California has been for years trying to extend from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan to Karachi in Pakistan which is near to the Indian Ocean an oil pipeline. Unocal is just one company to which Bush-Cheney and big oil have interests in. Unocal realized that the Taliban could not provide security for the pipeline. I must credit Gore Vidal through his book for bringing this information to my attention.
Big oil then began pushing ever harder on oil friendly interests to do a little regime changing in Afghanistan. Along comes Osama Bin Laden, his zealots and their blessed terrorism which provided perfect cover for the real reason why America went to Afghanistan. For years oil interests have coveted Afghanistan as a doorway into the mineral rich Caspian region. England in part invaded Afghanistan in the 1920's seeking a buffer between its interests in India and powers in that region.
As far as my powers of comprehension.....I understood exactly what you were trying to say. I laughed because your argument and analogies are glib and trite. The Bush Administration has tried to hide W's involvement in Arbusto, which was in part financed by one of Bin Ladens brothers. Thanks again Mr Vidal. Try to use logic and analysis backed up by facts before you lecture me on my ability to comprehend English.

captfb

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by silentstalker
I'm not saying SUVs are fuel efficiant; they do have a point when they say they consume tons of gas. But, I'd rather drive something safe and reliable (meaning if a teenager doing 135 in a tuned up Civic slams into me, HE'LL get crushed and not me) then driving a hybrid with a topspeed of what you do in an SUV pulling out of your driveway. But that's just me ;)

---

Bush and some of his boys / girls oil men???? so maybe ........., just maybe.....

Silentstalker, I agree with you to a point, but I drive restored 1960's Mini Coopers, so the last thing I want is, some mother / father on the school run running into the back of me driving a tank. (I've lost 2 expensive cars that way) and due to this I always hang back when there is an SUV anywhere near me.

Some SUV drivers use the size of their vehicle as a sort of bullying tactic.

So i'll go one step further and say some SUV drivers are terrorists in their own little way "give way to me or get hurt!"

Flame me baby one more time.

/me goes, and hugs a tree

captfb:

There you go again...... Off on your Vidal tangent. What _exactly_ did your last post have to do with my previous post. Nothing...period. You continue to talk as if the Bush administration is the only administration in the history of the US that has ever been beholden to others which is naive in the extreme. Your accusations, based on a book you are currently reading written by someone who despises the republican party, are beginning to come across as the illogical partisan ranting of a screaming liberal who has an agenda and cannot see past it.

At no point in this conversation have I discussed the right or wrong of _any_ administration. I have been speaking in general terms about administrations and the possibility that they are all beholden in one way or another to persons outside the political arena. You on the other hand keep returning to your imbecile notion that this administration is automatically bad and that everything is being done for oil including taking the country to war for their own personal gain.

You clearly have no intent of having a conversation outside of your own agenda. You clearly do not read and comprehend what I have written to you. I have made no "arguments" to be considered "glib and trite" since I have made no arguments for or against anyone or anything in particular.

To echo your parting sentiment - read what is written - understand it - then use logic and sense to respond to what is _actually_ written not what you think should have been written to allow you to continue your puerile and unsubstantiated claims. (Consistently quoting a single book by a single author with political motivation is hardly considered properly substantiated data - but that is a concept that probably eludes you).

Since you have clearly proven that actual dialogue is not what you desire - our conversation is closed sweety-pie......

i own a european car which goes at 230mph thxs :)