Salon.com and political pundit Adrianna Huffington have teamed up to create public service announcements to inform us of the unpatriotic and downright terroristic ownership of SUVs. Here's your link, courtesy of LA Daily News. A few excerpts: This is George," a girl's voice says of an oblivious man at a gas station. "This is the gas that George bought for his SUV." The screen then shows a map of the Middle East. "These are the countries where the executives bought the oil that made the gas that George bought for his SUV." The picture switches to a scene of armed terrorists in a desert. "And these are the terrorists who get money from those countries every time George fills up his SUV." A second commercial depicts a series of ordinary Americans saying things like: "I helped hijack an airplane"; "I gave money to a terrorist training camp in a foreign country"; "What if I need to go off-road?" At the close, the screen is filled with the words: "What is your SUV doing to our national security?" My name is George. I drive an Isuzu Rodeo. I aid terrorists.
Don't get me wrong, I think sport utility vehicles suck... but how is the gas you put into an Excursion any different than the gas you put into a Metro (aside from quantity)? Seems like if these folks are against gas for SUVs, they should be against gas period and be making public service announcements about alternative energy sources, or some such.
that is the most absurd thing I've read in a long while. everyone uses gas, even people with motorcycles. What about people that travel, they aid terrorist too. Terrorists should be held responsible for their actions, not consumers. I'm sorta pissed. no, I do not have an SUV.
It seems to me that this is an environmental advertisement trying to appeal to people with the whole "Terrorism" argument. Just like those anti-drug commercials that said you supported terrorism if you smoked weed. I don't think this commercial would go over too well. Ideally, if we were to look at this using Huffington's premise, we should stop using ALL oil, not just the gas-guzzling vehicles. Now, there is a point to the idea of vehicle efficiency reducing our need for oil and perhaps aiding regional stabilization, but I don't think this is a very good way of conveying that message. Also, we use oil and petroleum processing for a lot more than just automobiles.
OK people, STOP mowing your lawns. It's obvious that the gas you put into your lawnmower is funding terrorism. Don't fly anywhere and please, please don't watch NASCAR. You're only encouraging them.
I read somewhere (maybe here, I can't remember) that Conoco and Sunoco, among others, buy only American oil to use for their gas. I really wasn't that concerned or impressed with that fact, but if everyone in the US would stop buying that warjuice and only buy ours, then we wouldn't even be f*cking with these people in those r****ded third world countries to begin with. Maybe these SUV r****ds should rethink their campaign and go on to put the gas companies on the spot with their energy instead. On a related note, has anyone seen these same type ads on TV that are sponsored by Anhauser-Busch? The ones that have a bunch of people saying how they support terrorism because they buy mar1juana which gives other countries money to use against us? Those are completely beyond me. Here's a concept: legalize the damn stuff and these same "terrorist supporters" will buy it from our own country and the government can tax them and we will have all the more revenue to use in the destruction of terrorism. That, and mar1juana will lose its "gateway" effect when the people kids get it from are the same people that kids get beer from, rather than the same guy that sells crack, heroin, ecstasy, meth, etc... Okay, that's enough ranting for one post.
The Energy Concern figured SUVs and trucks were so good at destroying the environment that it was a perfect vehicle for destroying other things as well.... http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/07/army.truck.reut/index.html "SmarTruck II" • Modified platform of Chevrolet Silverado pickup • V-8 engine, 350 horsepower • Instead of truck bed, stainless steel interchangeable boxes that can contain anything from small missile and launcher system or communication and surveillance systems. • Vehicle could also carry unmanned dronelike aircraft. • Cab houses 3-D mapping system and communication system dubbed 'hacker in a box' that could monitor e-mail in area, send e-mail or destroy enemy communication system. • Prototype cost: Between $500,000 and $1 million. Source: Reuters
Heroin helps fund terrists, not weed grown in Mexico and the US. I really don't see much of the mary jane industry funding anything past Nuevo Laredo.
I don't agree with it (demonizing SUV owners), but I still think it's funny because those anti-drug commercials are so ****ing stupid.
Saying SUV's and drugs support terrorism is like saying America brought 9-11 onto itself... Does this mean when big Snoop Dogg rolls out of his SUV while smoking a blunt, a terrorist attack will happen? I mean it's not like the boss of Al Quada is loaded with money allready... He gets money for terrorism by selling plants banned by the organization that served him as a safe haven, and sells oil from a country that exiled him, not from a family inheritance for being the son of a billionaire...
I'm not sure what the problem with the ad is. The MORE gas we use, the MORE money there is to be given out to terrorists. The LESS gas we use, the LESS money there is to be given to support terrorists. SUVs are mostly UNNECESSARY and use A LOT of gas. It is simplistic to think we can go immediately to a NO OIL economy, so why wouldn't we START with actions that are completely realistic and achievable? I think its funny that the anti-environment crowd always whines about how the eco-lobby always has such unviable and unrealistic suggestions and this time they target a completely viable one and still take crap. Just pointing out that the ad DOES make sense. If we are going to reduce oil imports, one way to do that is to drive cars that get better gas mileage, duh. Having said that I might still buy an SUV. I like the space and some of them look cool.
Terror on Wheels Do SUVs fund terror? By Eric Peters Guilt-tripping people is a most-effective means of getting them to do what you want — especially when rational forms of persuasion aren't working. The latest tactic in the war on SUVs — other than simply setting them afire, as the eco-terrorist Earth Liberation Front did at a Erie-area car dealership Jan. 4 — has been to imply that owning anything more substantial than a Toyota Corolla amounts to supporting international terrorists. That's a heavy load to shoulder after September 11. But is it a fair argument — or just the latest means of going after a type of vehicle that some folks simply want to see off the roads, no matter how it's done? Various environmental and self-styled public-interest outfits — as well as mostly city-dwelling, big-money media types — have made no secret of their rabid feelings about SUVs. They hated them before September 11 — and they continue to revile them now. Terrorism has merely given them a new weapon. Or more accurately — a new excuse. Usually these same groups and individuals also advocate forcing the public into smaller, more fuel-efficient vehicles — even public transportation. Their position boils down to imposing their preferences upon a public that stubbornly continues to prefer larger, safer, more-powerful and comfortable cars and trucks — as well as SUVs. But it's one thing to openly admit you're gunning for SUVs because you think they're wasteful road pigs and believe that energy conservation is a moral imperative, quite another to establish a casual connection between SUV ownership and terror attacks on Americans. It's a bait-and-switch tactic very much like the one used by anti-gun groups — who have tried, thus far without much success, to implicate legitimate firearms manufacturers for crimes committed by third parties over which they have absolutely no control. We're not buying our unleaded from Osama bin Laden or Hamas, after all; we're buying it from Exxon-Mobil, Texaco, BP, and various other multinational petroleum companies — none of them associated with terrorist groups. These companies may be politically unpopular — "big oil" — but they provide jobs for tens of thousands and are an absolutely critical leg of our economy. Our high standard of living — everything from Palm Pilots to shopping malls to the latest and best in health-care options — is tied to our affluence, which, in turn, is tied to an energy-based economy. For now, that means petroleum — because it is the most-efficient of the various options currently available. A hydrogen-based economy is decades away; other alternatives have been rendered untenable by regulation (i.e., the nuclear power industry — which hasn't been able to get a permit for a new reactor complex in years), or massively expensive and impractical. Exxon-Mobil, Texaco, and the others do buy their raw material — crude oil — from sometimes-sketchy OPEC nations. But what of other multinational business that acquire the raw material used to produce finished goods for eventual sale in the United States? Does the fact that General Motors does a great deal of business in the People's Republic of China mean that driving a Buick is tantamount to supporting Communism? Certainly, larger SUVs use more gas than smaller-sized passenger cars. But if the amount of energy expended is going to become the means by which we measure each American's "support for terror quotient," then we'll have to turn our attention to more than just SUVs. Large homes require more oil energy to keep toasty than humble condos. Will we soon see TV ads guilt-tripping McMansion-dwelling suburbanites — some of whom undoubtedly work in the special interest/environmental "community"? Don't bet on it. Our dependence on oil is pervasive — and while browbeating SUV owners may be satisfying to a certain element, it won't change the reality of the energy equation, let alone defang international terrorism. To suggest that SUV owners are somehow to blame for the events of September 11 represents a new low in the war by special-interest elites on the American driver. — Eric Peters is an editorial writer for the Washington Times and the auto columnist for America Online, Netscape, and CompuServe.
I'll tell you what, I own a SUV and if I ever catch some Osama wannabe messing with it I'm gonna rip his balls out and sell them on eBay.
<A HREF="http://www.earthliberationfront.com/news/2003/010203.shtml">ELF (Earth Liberation Front) TORCHES SUVS IN ERIE, PENNSYLVANIA</A>
Anyone can disagree with the premise of the ads (that SUVs are wasteful and increase our reliance on foreign oil and therefore fund terrorists), but let's not assume the people behind the ad are complete idiots. 1. The similarites to the anti-drug ads that we all hate are by design, not on accident. They're trying to do two things at once: lampoon the anti-drug ads and use an anti-drug ad style message to make a point. Here's what Arianna says: 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. ... 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? Disagree with her conclusion if you want (that she hates the drug ads so much she'll copy them to piss off the Administration), but it's hard to argue with the results. The ads are so shocking and piss so many people off that they've gotten hundreds of thousands of dollars in free publicity. Think they'd get all that pub with some namby-pamby ad calling for more windmills and solar panels? 2. They're not so stupid that they think that the gas in SUVs is somehow different from that in lawn mowers or NASCAR vehicles or a Geo. But, like HayesStreet said, they would be naive to try to argue for an oil-free society/economy. That ain't gonna happen, so they pick cars that get horrible mileage and use a lot of gas. You gotta pick your battles, and this is the one they picked. Again, do you think an ad about lawnmowers or riding more bicycles would have gotten this kind of response? Look, I'm not here to defend the ads. But I do think that, behind the shock tactics, they're making a point -- SUVs that are driven in the city for pleasure are wasteful. I personally agree with that. But I don't agree with demonizing people who make the choice the drive them -- I've got tons of friends and family who own SUVs, and none of them are bad people. Personally, I think we should focus on making SUVs more energy efficient somehow. People like them, they wanna drive them -- fine. Why not figure out a way to put a hybrid engine in an SUV? Then you increase the fuel efficiency, people who like SUVs drive them all they want, and everyone's happy.
