i need the meaning to the metaphor.\n"Terrorist attacks can shake the foundations of our biggest buildings, but they cannot touch the foundation of America"\n  \ndon't know how to do it.
120674
As Laura and Lisa point out, the foundations of America are intangible. The buildings are the physical expression of ideas, feelings, and beliefs. Because Americans see ourselves as resilient, imaginative, creative, and strong, we can respond to adversity with passion and compassion, while we reorganize and rebuild. We may argue, but somehow we work things out. All the bad guys in the world can't shake our internal foundations. That's how we see ourselves, and sometimes that is exactly how we are.
26312
Very good link, Pops but you are missing the point!  Liberals say things to garner votes (which way is the wind blowing?) not to make the world safer.  They don't even believe we are in a war, just arrest a few terrorists and haul them into US courts to mete out fines - Poof! - problem ended.  If you read the link below you will get a very different impression of what Bush must deal with (without liberal support).
204325
George Bush\n\n      Terrorism is the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives. - US Federal Bureau of Investigation\n\nRead the sentence carefully. You didn’t hear it on any corporate media newscast since 9/11. It’s the official US FBI definition of terrorism.  In its official definition, the FBI does not limit terrorism to stateless individuals or groups. In its official definition, the FBI does not suggest that terrorism cannot be perpetrated by the leader of a nation state. But even more amazing is that the official FBI definition of terrorism describes exactly what George Bush did in the aftermath of the attacks of 9/11!\n\nAPPLYING THE DEFINITION\n\n    *\n      George W. Bush, in his unprovoked attack against the sovereign nation of Iraq, openly violated the UN Charter, to which the US is a signatory.  The Charter's core principles contained in Article 2(4) and Article 51 prohibit one nation from attacking another except in self-defense or with the authority of the U.N. In effect, George Bush launched an unlawful use of force against persons and property.\n    *\n      The invasion launched by George W. Bush was heralded by the most frightening and powerful use of force and military violence in recent history. His Shock and Awe bombardment of Baghdad was designed to intimidate and coerce the government as well as the civilian population of that nation to change its existing leadership. That, in itself, was a political objective.\n    *\n      The purpose of the invasion and ensuing occupation of Iraq was to replace the existing dictatorship with an American-backed form of democracy that would not permit the emergence of a government headed by the majority Shia religious leadership.  These motives were unquestionably political and social.\n\nSo, what part of the FBI definition of “terrorism” do the voters of the United States not understand?  And what acts of terrorism as defined by the FBI do the voters of the United States not recognize?  Is there any doubt at all that the Bush administration committed acts of terrorism when it unlawfully used force and violence against the nation of Iraq to intimidate and coerce its government and the civilian population, in furtherance of the Bush/PNAC political and social objectives.\n\nTherefore, by any definition, if George W. Bush is guilty of terrorism, he can accurately be identified as a TERRORIST. And if he is truly a terrorist, it is only fitting that George W. Bush be scrutinized in terms of his success in that capacity.  What is his standing among the other murderous terrorist activity in the world today?  Is it possible that George W. Bush actually has claim to being the very BEST at something during his reign in office?
489752
I'm very mixed on it.  I can really agree with the point that we need to rebuild and be strong.  I also understand the other side that says to leave it down and let it go.  My wife says rebuilding would just make a new target for terrorists.  I would say let the relatives decide but I understand that there are surviving relatvives on both sides of the argument.  Myself, I am sincerely and completely undecided.  I just hope that whatever happens that it can be best for everybody.
311041
As far as I can interpret, this is what they mean (I am not a lawyer so I can't say mine is the right interpretation).\n1. As the issues that threaten the security of the nation cannot be completely eliminated, there can be no limit to the amount of power granted to provide defence and protection of the country.\n2. The President has the power to determine who participated in any way with the attacks on 9/11/01, and has the right to exercise the military against them in any way he sees fit to protect the US public from these people or whoever he determines.\n\nSo in otherwords, the war in Iraq is not an "unjust" or "illegal" war because the president has been granted power to determine who is "the enemy" and if they need to be attacked.
287023
Yeah, I sort of remember that. I don't think it was a terrorist effort, but it could happen. What was the weather like? I mean, if it had happened in Texas or something it would make more sense; we have the huge winds and tornadoes, but It's weird for it to happen along the East Coast. What time of year was it? If it was winter, maybe snow from trees could have weighed down branches and then the trees could have fallen on them. I don't know what could explain it happening here and in Italy.
195196
you've rephrased your question, so i'm just gonna repost my answer:\n\nconspiracy theories posit a centralized concentration of power that generally is simply untenable in most (though not all) cases. \nan appropriate analogy is the power disparity between a parent and a small child. having superior explicative resources, the grownup can and often does fabricate deceptive modes of understanding events (santa claus must have been here, we sent the dog to a farm where he can run around and play, etc). but these deceptions are almost always planned far in advance, and always involve a taciturn complicity on the part of the child.\nin the case of 9/11, conspiracy seems unlikely because of the suddenness and publicity of the event.\nis it possible that insidious shadow elements of the american government engineered the attacks of 9/11 in order to manufacture consent in a war and oil grab in the middle east? well--anything is possible, but this seems highly unlikely as it is a blatant violation of the principle of ockham's razor (the simplest explanation is generally correct). not only does it unnecessarily add factors by positing a near supernatural power concentration in the hidden nether regions of u.s. government, but it further assumes the complicity of huge networks throughout the middle east, including bin laden (all functioning preternaturally to maintain the shroud of secrecy). a much simpler (and therefore almost indubitably more accurate) description of events can be constructed by simply decentralizing the nodes of agency--the demands of an enormously diffuse industrialized society for large quantities of energy resources concentrated in the middle east has resulted in a need for a level of cooperation that is nigh upon impossible to sustain given the disparate ideologies of the millions of individuals engaged in the complex operation. mix in a large measure of volatile historical tension, and a destabilizing imbalance in resource distribution, then heat the situation with the complete failure of conventional warfare to develop traction, and terrorist tactics on a major level are a natural reaction--the first major bubble in a solution starting to boil. \n\nbesides, if there were an all-powerful secret society working deep behind the curtains, do you really think that the united potheads of the world are going to form a viable resistance?\n\nis everything about what happened on 9/11 transparent? no. but conspiracy theories are for people that can see some of the picture but just can't connect the dots. so they make up fantastic mythologies to connect them. \n\nby the way--lightning isn't an angry anthropomorphic god throwing bolts of electricity either.
634065
Jade, this question is about fighting terror, not about how much you and that idiot Michael Moore hate the president. No one gives a damn if you don't like Bush, and just because you let Moore's nonsense delude you doesn't give you any particular insight.\n\nAmrinder, just be vigilant. What this means is, find out what's going on around you. Terrorists thrive on ignorance, so don't fall victim to lethargy or to the opinions of the half-witted. Make sure that others around you are vigilant also; point things out, raise questions when things you see around you don't make sense.\n\nRemember when you first learned that the 9/11 terrorists had taken flying lessons, but that they told their instructor they wouldn't need to learn to take off or land? If someone had asked questions, raised the issue with others, maybe even confronted them, maybe 9/11 would be just like any other day.
311588
In case of anti-terrorist caution... well firstly they must tightened their borders. Then Caution the local law enforcement agencies on such threats...And mainly educate the public on how to respond in case of terrorist threat. In case of threat coming from outside the country...then strict message should be given that such inhumane activities will not be taken lightly... And use necessary force next time there is such a threat.\nIn case the threat is coming from within the country...then the govt. should use force and tactics to subdue the threat and most importantly educate the people on terrorism.
597653
Do you have a link?  I haven't seen any.  If you don't know what they mean, I think it might be strtching things just a little to start thinking they are terrorist communications.\n\nA more rational explanation would merely be that it is someone asking a question using an arabic script.\n\nIf you provide a link, I can try to decipher it.  It might be fun.
348701
No -- it refers to a person going crazy and randomly shooting people. It refers specifically to that incident with Mr. Whitman (who was found to have a brain tumor by the way).\n\nIf someone says "I wanted to make sure you're not gonna start firing shots from the clocktower" they are specifically alluding to that event in history.
338113
the answer to this is ONE MANY TERRORIST IS ANOTHER MAN'S FREEDOM FIGHTER  it all makes sense if u think about to the israealies sucide bombers are terrorists and to the plastinians they are freedom fighters trying to get the occupiers out of THEIR homeland.
248970
By discrediting its methods and success. Terror is not a noun either. It is a abstract concept. That said, militarily, you can't win a war on terror unless you kill everyone, which would mean no agents for terror to use. \n\nRationally, to win, one must win the hearts and minds and show that terror doesn't work in achieving goals. \n\nSuffice to say, we aren't doing a very good job.
639012
That was such and upsetting movie. It made me have a small panic attack before I fell asleep that night, because I was silly and watched it right before bed.   I don't know what to think about it.  I can see the towers collapsing because of a pancake affect.  That maybe the reason that it looked like bombs going off in the building was because the floors were collapsing sending big gusts of air and drywall flying through the building and breaking the windows.  At least, that's similiar to how my dad explained it to me.  It's so scary to think that something like this would happen at all.  Especially if it was caused by our own government.  But why would our government even do that?  But I suppose there is always a chance of that.
90312
I was brought to tears when I saw the twin towers at the end of that film. of course 9-11 is an emotional subject, but i was broken up more because of the huge significance and symbolism of the scene. the movie is a beautiful illustration of how violence only begets violence, and showing the WTC just showed how until this cycle is broken, that events of 1947 will lead to events of 1972 will lead to events of 2001. i will never understand why people keep thinking that the solution to 9-11 and other attacks is the same, ridiculously ineffective reaction man always comes up with.  it is like repeatedly throwing gasoline onto forest fires and insisting every time that it is starting to put it out.
389990
Terrorism doesn't threaten our COUNTRY. Only the President's misguided actions in rolling back civil liberties and abandoning our national principles threatens our COUNTRY.\n\nTerrorism threatens individuals and property. \n\nConservatives have totally lost sight of the reality of the situation.
520039
It doesn't sound like he's referring specifically at 9/11 at all. K.S. Mohammed described how terror operatives are instructed to blow up a building to maximize casualties. What makes you think he's talking about -those- buildings and -those- operatives?\n\nI'm totally anti-Bush, but I'm not seeing anything incriminating or suspicious here.