Seriously, follow the links on this one and consider the argument I am making. then ask yourself whether or not it makes sense to you — especially if you count it as a piece of a larger puzzle:
Building Control By Eliminating Everything Labeled As A Threat
At first glance, this next story might seem as though it borders on the edge of insanity, but I have come to suspect this is intentional. The appearance of irrationality serves to mask the motive behind the assertion:
“A World Trade Centre, a Mumbai hotel, a Boston marathon, a Nairobi shopping mall are all enticing to extremists. Defending them is near impossible. Better at least not to create them. A shopping mall not only wipes out shopping streets, it makes a perfect terrorist fortress, near impossible to assault,” he wrote (emphasis added).
On the surface, banning something because of what other people do with it or to it definitely meets the definition of irrational. Inanimate objects to not cause people to do things. And yet, more and more, this is exactly what we are being told these days. We are told “Guns kill people,” rather than people use guns to kill other people. Read the headlines and you’ll find stories about SUV’s running people down rather than someone driving and SUV running people down. Inevitably, the answer is never to address the hearts of those who seek to harm others, it is to do away with whatever object is blamed for the action. In our first two examples, we are told we must get rid of guns and SUV’s. Now, because terrorists see places where people congregate as prime targets, we are told we should get rid of shopping malls.
Now, read the rest…