6 ms·

> If free citizens of free countries can't live in freedom because of fear of terrorists, the terrorists have already won As a dark-skinned man who oftentimes

> If free citizens of free countries can't live in freedom because of fear of terrorists, the terrorists have already won As a dark-skinned man who oftentimes sports a beard, I'm treated like a terrorist every single time I walk through security. To them, I'm a second-class citizen - no question about it. I avoid flying like the plague; I'd gladly take a 12 hour train ride over a 2 hour flight just to avoid this treatment. It's been 12 years, and I still haven't gotten used to the degradation. I hope I never do. > Because I remember the peace and freedom I long enjoyed here to welcome visitors to the United States from around the world, I want the leaders and active participants in terrorist networks to identified through constant surveillance and intelligence, and I want terrorists to be attacked relentlessly where they live, so that they have to hide in caves while people all over the world who renounce their goals get to lead civilized, peaceful lives in the Twenty-First Century. There's a certain degree of irony in that statement; the Beirut bombing, the (first) World Trade Center bombing attack, and 9/11 were, at least in large part, a response to the destruction that the US has been wreaking on foreign soil for years. > The people who are destroying diplomatic buildings and killing diplomats are declining to use thoughtful discussion to show that they are anything other than blights on humankind This same line of reasoning could be applied to the US - we're a little bit better at disguising it, but we've been responsible for terrorism abroad (and domestically!) for decades.

Aloha 14y ago
I'm a white guy (as white as wonder bread and twinkies, only thing missing is the blond hair, and blue eyes) but with an very common first and last name and a Persian middle name. For 5 years every time I flew, I was subjected to 'random' extra inspection, and was unable to check in online. When I questioned this, I was absolutely assured it was random, and there was nothing I could do about it. I don't plan on living the rest of my life in fear of the unknown, planes crash, people die, these things happen, its statistically less likely to die from terrorism then it is from a normal plane crash, consider that. I feel your pain, and its absolutely not right, and I hope in my lifetime, we come to our senses or I fear it may eventually result in a revolution.
- gph 14y ago
  > its statistically less likely to die from terrorism then it is from a normal plane crash, consider that. From a purely passenger point of view this might be true, but if you include the total deaths from WTC/Pentagon I bet it comes out in a wash. Normal plane crashes do not occur that frequently in the US, I doubt the total deaths from commercial flights is much higher than ~3000
  - MaysonL 14y ago
    Essentially, on 9/11, the US total death rate doubled for a day. From a statistical point of view, a minor blip.
    - refurb 14y ago
      I'm going to assume the US daily death rate is a pretty constant number. You wouldn't consider the doubling of it to be more than a statistical blip?
      - aurelianito 14y ago
        I would just consider it an outlier and don't fret too much about it if went down to the usual level the next day.
  - dalke 14y ago
    Depending on the window that you use, you've lost that bet. Using the numbers from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accidents_and_incidents_involving_airliners_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accidents_and_incidents... and including the fatalities on the ground: 985 fatalities in the 1980s, 1277 in the 1990s, and (excluding 9/11) 512 in the 2000s. This adds up to 2774. I started to include the pre-1980 numbers, but it became too tedious. From what I got so far, there have been 3606 commercial aviation related fatalities since 1970, and over 4656 fatalities total in US-located commercial aviation history. Pan Am Flight 830 had 1 fatality due to a terrorist bomb, which I put in the non-9/11 column. I put EgyptAir Flight 990 as a suicide+murder (or accident) and not due to terrorism. However, this excludes accidents from US carriers not in the US (Pan Am 1736 in Tenerife; 583 fatalities in 1977), and includes accidents from non-US carriers which took place in the US (Air Canada 797; 23 fatalities in 1983). I did it this way because you qualified it as "in the US." Just under 3,000 fatalities occurred due to 9/11. The full statistical analysis would decrease the chance of death slightly to remove the 19 hijackers and observe that the same person could not be on all flights at the same time, reducing the count by about 150. These minor details don't affect the overall analysis. The worldwide numbers are listed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_accidents_and_incidents http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_accidents_and_incident... . From 2002 to 2011 there were 11,068 aviation fatalities. This likely includes fatalities on the ground because it lists 4,140 fatalities for all of 2001, which is about 3000+(11068/10). I don't know how many of those other fatalities are due to terrorism. Worldwide then, if you pick any period of three or more years, you are more likely to die by a plane accident than by terrorist attack. In the US, if you look at the last 40 years of flights, you are still more likely to die by accident than by terrorist attack. For the usual sense of scale for these matters, there were 32,367 automobile deaths in the US in 2011, or 1.10 deaths per 100 million vehicle miles traveled. Airlines have about 1 death for each 2,000 million miles traveled. (Neither of these statistics include non-traveler fatalities.)
jlgreco 14y ago
> I'd gladly take a 12 hour train ride over a 2 hour flight just to avoid this treatment. To add to that, three times now I have driven straight across the country (3 thousand miles) instead of fly. I can't say TSA harassment was the only factor (fun and desire to have a car on the other side factored in), but I would be lying if I said it wasn't a major point of consideration.
refurb 14y ago
>This same line of reasoning could be applied to the US - we're a little bit better at disguising it, but we've been responsible for terrorism abroad (and domestically!) for decades.< I'm going to have to argue with your moral relativism here. I would challenge you to provide examples of US gov't supported terrorist actions. Note, I'll ask you stick to the commonly held definition of terrorism which is the intentional targeting of innocent civilians in order to incite terror.
- fpgeek 14y ago
  Does Iran-Contra ring a bell?
  - mc32 14y ago
    I think I-C was a proxy war. In any given war there are acts of terrorism in that either side in this case (the local proxies of the US) and the adversarial proxy (in the case Cuban/soviet) engaged in some terrorism against the people either side saw as supporters of the opposition. The contras were a coalition of both deposed affiliates and disaffected revolutionaries who switched sides. I knew someone who was once an optimistic 'internationalist', as they called themselves. Anyhow, I suppose you could argue that all the soviet-US proxy wars resulted in some terrorism by the local proxies. But we could go further and say that most major wars involved some form of terrorism.
  - jonah 14y ago
    Heh, Khashoggi's brother lives down the street from me. ;)
  - tsotha 14y ago
    Supporting a rebel movement isn't terrorism.
- erichocean 14y ago
  I would challenge you to provide examples of US gov't supported terrorist actions. Note, I'll ask you stick to the commonly held definition of terrorism which is the intentional targeting of innocent civilians in order to incite terror. I think this hinges somewhat on the meaning of the word "innocent". What I think you mean is innocent in the sense of "uninvolved", rather than in the moral sense. It's no secret that the CIA (among other US agencies) captures, kills, and torturers people in other countries. But it's my understanding, at least, that the US does not purposefully do so to "uninvolved" citizens of those countries. These actions are done against violent members of the ruling class actively opposing US interests, and their allies. None of these people are "uninvolved" in the sense that charges of "terrorism" would require. To put it more bluntly: the US does not attempt to incite "terror" in uninvolved citizens in any country, ever. It just not how our government works to achieve US goals abroad. Whether the US policy of intervention abroad is good or bad is certainly open to debate, and the reality of "collateral damage" is ever present. But I don't think that US intervention abroad counts as "terrorism", under the standard definition of the word, which is why arguments that try and equate the two tend to fall on deaf ears.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
tworats 14y ago
For what it's worth I'm a brown man with the occasional beard and I've never felt singled out or degraded when flying. I've been selected for pat downs and further screening surprisingly infrequently, and the TSA have been nothing but professional. I miss the pre-TSA days as well, but I'm no more hassled by it than the average non-brown guy.
kerryfalk 14y ago
As a dark-skinned man who oftentimes sports a beard, I'm treated like a terrorist every single time I walk through security. To them, I'm a second-class citizen - no question about it. I travel frequently and I'm on the other side of the spectrum. I'm younger, caucasian, dress professionally when I travel and have never been searched and haven't seen anyone get through customs faster than I do. I'm practically invisible to airport security. I don't think I do anything differently than anyone else other than I'm probably a little more hurried than others because I've been through it many times so I want to be efficient. But I've heard and witnessed others having troubles many times. They must be profiling people on some scale that I just don't register on. I'm not sure how much value this comment adds to the discussion other than perhaps adding a point to validate your comment from a different perspective.
- cubix 14y ago
  Maybe you're lucky? I fit your description and have been pulled aside for additional screening several times.
fpgeek 14y ago
> As a dark-skinned man who oftentimes sports a beard, I'm treated like a terrorist every single time I walk through security. To them, I'm a second-class citizen - no question about it. As a dark-skinned, long-haired main who (usually) doesn't sport a beard when flying, I've learned to stick very close to my (fairer) wife and daughters whenever I can when going through security/immigration/customs. On 9/11, I had a job where I racked up the frequent-flier miles. I still remember my friends and co-workers urging me to cut my hair to avoid hassles at the airport (among other things). While it has been an inconvenience from time to time, I'm still glad I didn't.
enraged_camel 14y ago
>>There's a certain degree of irony in that statement; the Beirut bombing, the (first) World Trade Center bombing attack, and 9/11 were, at least in large part, a response to the destruction that the US has been wreaking on foreign soil for years. Yep. It's actually funny because that's exactly what George Soros's General Theory of Reflexivity says: in any given situation, thinking participants have partial and biased views, and the actions they base upon those views, while inappropriate, end up influencing the situation to become more congruent with those views. Basically, by treating the Middle East as a terrorist haven, the USA has turned it into one.
- Turing_Machine 14y ago
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hashshashin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hashshashin 1080 < 1776.
  - vacri 14y ago
    The Hashashim were destroyed when the Mongols invaded. Not much of a haven.
    - Turing_Machine 14y ago
      That's not really the point, which is that terrorist tactics were being used in the region long before the United States existed.
      - vacri 14y ago
        Can you provide some examples of terrorism in the middle-east for the 500 years in-between the downfall of the assassins and the creation of the US? The GP was talking about a terrorist haven - you've pointed out a single order. Incidentally, Europe has historically been awash with terrorism, and up until 9/11, there have been plenty of Americans happy to financially and socially support terrorism in the form of things like the IRA. Terrorism has been often featured in the history of Africa and central, south, and east Asia. So tell me more about how this single species of extinct terrorist made the middle east some innate sort of special, super-terror playground for all eternity. EDIT: Also, if we're playing the 'once upon a time' game, then I'd like to point out that historically, the US was one of the greatest users of slaves, and through the wonders of Manifest Destiny, engaged in genocide, terrorism, and straight-out wars of conquest.
mrcrassic 14y ago
> As a dark-skinned man who oftentimes sports a beard, I'm treated like a terrorist every single time I walk through security. To them, I'm a second-class citizen - no question about it. As another (very) dark-skinned man who has also donned something close to a beard, I've noticed that (a) I've been treated the same as everyone else at all of the major hubs and (b) Everyone else gets treated like cattle. Same for when I've travelled with my family, and my Mom and Dad are dark. I've definitely had my fair share of stupid racists (okay, maybe less than my fair share; I got lucky somehow); going through airport security hasn't been it. Maybe it's a regional thing?
chernevik 14y ago
"the Beirut bombing, the (first) World Trade Center bombing attack, and 9/11 were, at least in large part, a response to the destruction that the US has been wreaking on foreign soil for years" Because nothing says "retaliation" better than deliberately attacking innocents with zero culpability for whatever it may be that is pissing you off. By your thinking, we could have gotten bin Laden by announcing that, until he was turned over to us, we'd drop a 1000lb bomb on some occupied point in Afghanistan every day. There would be logic, right? They had harbored a known murderer and killer, who had gone and killed thousands of people. The Afghans were responsible, in some sense, for the safety from which he operated, and culpable by knowledge of his aims. They should have settled him a long time ago. So let them settle the problem now, or pay the price. By _your_ logic. Which is stupid. If everyone behaved that way the world would be completely unlivable. The US is by no means perfect but it is, by and large, a nation of laws. That means very little to those innocents killed in its mistakes and evils, but means an enormous amount to the very many people who are not killed by its adherence to some standard of humanity. And to all of us, living in a world where the mighty hold themselves in some manner accountable to something looking like justice. Here is a thought experiment on the difference between the likes of the US and bin Laden. Imagine what bin Laden would have done if he got ahold of, say, a single nuclear missile submarine. Or any of the destructive powers of this country. That is the difference between an imperfectly ethical power, and a murdering piece of crap. For me, I think it is a really, really important difference.
- notdrunkatall 14y ago
  We are a nation of the people, by the people, for the people. Bin Laden wrote a letter to the American people and published it after 9/11 wherein he explains the motivation behind his attacks. Other than the obligatory fundie religious crap, his reasoning was thus: your government has been fucking with us for decades, and we're sick of it, yet we cannot attack your government because it is too powerful. Because your government represents you, that makes you culpable, hence the attack. The easy conclusion is that all 'terrorist' are vile, murderous, evil people with not a drop of decency in their bodies. However, the reality is that 'terrorists' are usually just normal people who have frustratingly little recourse against that which they are opposed to.

Aloha 14y ago

I'm a white guy (as white as wonder bread and twinkies, only thing missing is the blond hair, and blue eyes) but with an very common first and last name and a Persian middle name. For 5 years every time I flew, I was subjected to 'random' extra inspection, and was unable to check in online. When I questioned this, I was absolutely assured it was random, and there was nothing I could do about it. I don't plan on living the rest of my life in fear of the unknown, planes crash, people die, these things happen, its statistically less likely to die from terrorism then it is from a normal plane crash, consider that. I feel your pain, and its absolutely not right, and I hope in my lifetime, we come to our senses or I fear it may eventually result in a revolution.

gph 14y ago
> its statistically less likely to die from terrorism then it is from a normal plane crash, consider that. From a purely passenger point of view this might be true, but if you include the total deaths from WTC/Pentagon I bet it comes out in a wash. Normal plane crashes do not occur that frequently in the US, I doubt the total deaths from commercial flights is much higher than ~3000
- MaysonL 14y ago
  Essentially, on 9/11, the US total death rate doubled for a day. From a statistical point of view, a minor blip.
  - refurb 14y ago
    I'm going to assume the US daily death rate is a pretty constant number. You wouldn't consider the doubling of it to be more than a statistical blip?
    - aurelianito 14y ago
      I would just consider it an outlier and don't fret too much about it if went down to the usual level the next day.
- dalke 14y ago
  Depending on the window that you use, you've lost that bet. Using the numbers from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accidents_and_incidents_involving_airliners_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accidents_and_incidents... and including the fatalities on the ground: 985 fatalities in the 1980s, 1277 in the 1990s, and (excluding 9/11) 512 in the 2000s. This adds up to 2774. I started to include the pre-1980 numbers, but it became too tedious. From what I got so far, there have been 3606 commercial aviation related fatalities since 1970, and over 4656 fatalities total in US-located commercial aviation history. Pan Am Flight 830 had 1 fatality due to a terrorist bomb, which I put in the non-9/11 column. I put EgyptAir Flight 990 as a suicide+murder (or accident) and not due to terrorism. However, this excludes accidents from US carriers not in the US (Pan Am 1736 in Tenerife; 583 fatalities in 1977), and includes accidents from non-US carriers which took place in the US (Air Canada 797; 23 fatalities in 1983). I did it this way because you qualified it as "in the US." Just under 3,000 fatalities occurred due to 9/11. The full statistical analysis would decrease the chance of death slightly to remove the 19 hijackers and observe that the same person could not be on all flights at the same time, reducing the count by about 150. These minor details don't affect the overall analysis. The worldwide numbers are listed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_accidents_and_incidents http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_accidents_and_incident... . From 2002 to 2011 there were 11,068 aviation fatalities. This likely includes fatalities on the ground because it lists 4,140 fatalities for all of 2001, which is about 3000+(11068/10). I don't know how many of those other fatalities are due to terrorism. Worldwide then, if you pick any period of three or more years, you are more likely to die by a plane accident than by terrorist attack. In the US, if you look at the last 40 years of flights, you are still more likely to die by accident than by terrorist attack. For the usual sense of scale for these matters, there were 32,367 automobile deaths in the US in 2011, or 1.10 deaths per 100 million vehicle miles traveled. Airlines have about 1 death for each 2,000 million miles traveled. (Neither of these statistics include non-traveler fatalities.)

jlgreco 14y ago

> I'd gladly take a 12 hour train ride over a 2 hour flight just to avoid this treatment. To add to that, three times now I have driven straight across the country (3 thousand miles) instead of fly. I can't say TSA harassment was the only factor (fun and desire to have a car on the other side factored in), but I would be lying if I said it wasn't a major point of consideration.

refurb 14y ago

>This same line of reasoning could be applied to the US - we're a little bit better at disguising it, but we've been responsible for terrorism abroad (and domestically!) for decades.< I'm going to have to argue with your moral relativism here. I would challenge you to provide examples of US gov't supported terrorist actions. Note, I'll ask you stick to the commonly held definition of terrorism which is the intentional targeting of innocent civilians in order to incite terror.

fpgeek 14y ago
Does Iran-Contra ring a bell?
- mc32 14y ago
  I think I-C was a proxy war. In any given war there are acts of terrorism in that either side in this case (the local proxies of the US) and the adversarial proxy (in the case Cuban/soviet) engaged in some terrorism against the people either side saw as supporters of the opposition. The contras were a coalition of both deposed affiliates and disaffected revolutionaries who switched sides. I knew someone who was once an optimistic 'internationalist', as they called themselves. Anyhow, I suppose you could argue that all the soviet-US proxy wars resulted in some terrorism by the local proxies. But we could go further and say that most major wars involved some form of terrorism.
- jonah 14y ago
  Heh, Khashoggi's brother lives down the street from me. ;)
- tsotha 14y ago
  Supporting a rebel movement isn't terrorism.
erichocean 14y ago
I would challenge you to provide examples of US gov't supported terrorist actions. Note, I'll ask you stick to the commonly held definition of terrorism which is the intentional targeting of innocent civilians in order to incite terror. I think this hinges somewhat on the meaning of the word "innocent". What I think you mean is innocent in the sense of "uninvolved", rather than in the moral sense. It's no secret that the CIA (among other US agencies) captures, kills, and torturers people in other countries. But it's my understanding, at least, that the US does not purposefully do so to "uninvolved" citizens of those countries. These actions are done against violent members of the ruling class actively opposing US interests, and their allies. None of these people are "uninvolved" in the sense that charges of "terrorism" would require. To put it more bluntly: the US does not attempt to incite "terror" in uninvolved citizens in any country, ever. It just not how our government works to achieve US goals abroad. Whether the US policy of intervention abroad is good or bad is certainly open to debate, and the reality of "collateral damage" is ever present. But I don't think that US intervention abroad counts as "terrorism", under the standard definition of the word, which is why arguments that try and equate the two tend to fall on deaf ears.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

tworats 14y ago

For what it's worth I'm a brown man with the occasional beard and I've never felt singled out or degraded when flying. I've been selected for pat downs and further screening surprisingly infrequently, and the TSA have been nothing but professional. I miss the pre-TSA days as well, but I'm no more hassled by it than the average non-brown guy.

kerryfalk 14y ago

As a dark-skinned man who oftentimes sports a beard, I'm treated like a terrorist every single time I walk through security. To them, I'm a second-class citizen - no question about it. I travel frequently and I'm on the other side of the spectrum. I'm younger, caucasian, dress professionally when I travel and have never been searched and haven't seen anyone get through customs faster than I do. I'm practically invisible to airport security. I don't think I do anything differently than anyone else other than I'm probably a little more hurried than others because I've been through it many times so I want to be efficient. But I've heard and witnessed others having troubles many times. They must be profiling people on some scale that I just don't register on. I'm not sure how much value this comment adds to the discussion other than perhaps adding a point to validate your comment from a different perspective.

cubix 14y ago
Maybe you're lucky? I fit your description and have been pulled aside for additional screening several times.

fpgeek 14y ago

> As a dark-skinned man who oftentimes sports a beard, I'm treated like a terrorist every single time I walk through security. To them, I'm a second-class citizen - no question about it. As a dark-skinned, long-haired main who (usually) doesn't sport a beard when flying, I've learned to stick very close to my (fairer) wife and daughters whenever I can when going through security/immigration/customs. On 9/11, I had a job where I racked up the frequent-flier miles. I still remember my friends and co-workers urging me to cut my hair to avoid hassles at the airport (among other things). While it has been an inconvenience from time to time, I'm still glad I didn't.

enraged_camel 14y ago

>>There's a certain degree of irony in that statement; the Beirut bombing, the (first) World Trade Center bombing attack, and 9/11 were, at least in large part, a response to the destruction that the US has been wreaking on foreign soil for years. Yep. It's actually funny because that's exactly what George Soros's General Theory of Reflexivity says: in any given situation, thinking participants have partial and biased views, and the actions they base upon those views, while inappropriate, end up influencing the situation to become more congruent with those views. Basically, by treating the Middle East as a terrorist haven, the USA has turned it into one.

Turing_Machine 14y ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hashshashin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hashshashin 1080 < 1776.
- vacri 14y ago
  The Hashashim were destroyed when the Mongols invaded. Not much of a haven.
  - Turing_Machine 14y ago
    That's not really the point, which is that terrorist tactics were being used in the region long before the United States existed.
    - vacri 14y ago
      Can you provide some examples of terrorism in the middle-east for the 500 years in-between the downfall of the assassins and the creation of the US? The GP was talking about a terrorist haven - you've pointed out a single order. Incidentally, Europe has historically been awash with terrorism, and up until 9/11, there have been plenty of Americans happy to financially and socially support terrorism in the form of things like the IRA. Terrorism has been often featured in the history of Africa and central, south, and east Asia. So tell me more about how this single species of extinct terrorist made the middle east some innate sort of special, super-terror playground for all eternity. EDIT: Also, if we're playing the 'once upon a time' game, then I'd like to point out that historically, the US was one of the greatest users of slaves, and through the wonders of Manifest Destiny, engaged in genocide, terrorism, and straight-out wars of conquest.

mrcrassic 14y ago

> As a dark-skinned man who oftentimes sports a beard, I'm treated like a terrorist every single time I walk through security. To them, I'm a second-class citizen - no question about it. As another (very) dark-skinned man who has also donned something close to a beard, I've noticed that (a) I've been treated the same as everyone else at all of the major hubs and (b) Everyone else gets treated like cattle. Same for when I've travelled with my family, and my Mom and Dad are dark. I've definitely had my fair share of stupid racists (okay, maybe less than my fair share; I got lucky somehow); going through airport security hasn't been it. Maybe it's a regional thing?

chernevik 14y ago

"the Beirut bombing, the (first) World Trade Center bombing attack, and 9/11 were, at least in large part, a response to the destruction that the US has been wreaking on foreign soil for years" Because nothing says "retaliation" better than deliberately attacking innocents with zero culpability for whatever it may be that is pissing you off. By your thinking, we could have gotten bin Laden by announcing that, until he was turned over to us, we'd drop a 1000lb bomb on some occupied point in Afghanistan every day. There would be logic, right? They had harbored a known murderer and killer, who had gone and killed thousands of people. The Afghans were responsible, in some sense, for the safety from which he operated, and culpable by knowledge of his aims. They should have settled him a long time ago. So let them settle the problem now, or pay the price. By _your_ logic. Which is stupid. If everyone behaved that way the world would be completely unlivable. The US is by no means perfect but it is, by and large, a nation of laws. That means very little to those innocents killed in its mistakes and evils, but means an enormous amount to the very many people who are not killed by its adherence to some standard of humanity. And to all of us, living in a world where the mighty hold themselves in some manner accountable to something looking like justice. Here is a thought experiment on the difference between the likes of the US and bin Laden. Imagine what bin Laden would have done if he got ahold of, say, a single nuclear missile submarine. Or any of the destructive powers of this country. That is the difference between an imperfectly ethical power, and a murdering piece of crap. For me, I think it is a really, really important difference.

notdrunkatall 14y ago
We are a nation of the people, by the people, for the people. Bin Laden wrote a letter to the American people and published it after 9/11 wherein he explains the motivation behind his attacks. Other than the obligatory fundie religious crap, his reasoning was thus: your government has been fucking with us for decades, and we're sick of it, yet we cannot attack your government because it is too powerful. Because your government represents you, that makes you culpable, hence the attack. The easy conclusion is that all 'terrorist' are vile, murderous, evil people with not a drop of decency in their bodies. However, the reality is that 'terrorists' are usually just normal people who have frustratingly little recourse against that which they are opposed to.