The Gauntlet

Do SUVs fuel terrorism?

Like a subversive anti-drug campaign from the U.S. government last year, an American environmental group has created similar ads, ridiculously placing much of the responsibility behind terrorism on SUV drivers.

Publication YearIssue Date 

According to an American protest group, driving an SUV fuels terrorism. Gas profits incurred by corrupt oil companies in the Middle East are used to blow up buildings, build secret weapons of mass destruction and pay Osama Bin Laden's utility bills. SUVs consume more gas than most vehicles, therefore SUV drivers are mutually responsible for the plight of the Persian Gulf--and perhaps the world, should war break out. Fuel-efficient automobiles, like Echos, require only enough gas to support small-scale terrorism, and at present do not pose a significant risk. SUV owners are clearly undercover terrorists.

Likewise, according to the Bush administration in the U.S., drug users foster anarchism. Profits incurred by corrupt drug dealers are used for the aforementioned expenditures; therefore junkies and stoners provide important terrorist support whenever they purchase their illegal substance of choice. Drug users are not interested in getting a fix. Instead, when a drug transaction is made, the buyer has only one thing on their mind: "Can I trust this dealer to donate these funds to terrorism?" Honest dealers are a serious concern among druggies.

This type of logic is a great way to determine who is at fault for the world's problems. Child labour? Gap shoppers. VLT addiction? Convenience store patrons.

Obesity? Farmers. Drunk driving? B.C. voters. Destruction? Drivers and drug addicts. Obviously it isn't the terrorists who are personally responsible for their actions. Factory owners employing children are mere puppets of the fashion industry. Gamblers would donate their money to charity if it weren't for stores with VLTs. McDonald's would serve healthy food if cows were hard to come by. Terrorists would turn into peace-loving hippies if they weren't endorsed by drug dealers and SUV owners.

Isn't it obvious?

The American anti-terrorism campaign is revolutionary. Who cares about the environmental effects of fuel emissions? The important problems created by drug use are not health or lifestyle related after all. This discovery will undoubtedly lead to societal reform as thousands trade in their SUVs for Jettas and crack-heads turn in their habits to disconnect Bin Laden's electrical supply. Where will he hide now? Saddam will go bankrupt when gas sales plummet, and weapon manufacturers will be out of work. The war against terror will soon be won.

So please sell your Envoy. Stop shooting up, or at least find an ethical dealer. Together we can make a difference.





Of course SUVs fuel terrorism. Not so much in the sense of the oil sales profits, but by draining the world oil supply faster than if SUVs and other gas guzzlers weren't around.

As world oil declines, competition for control over the last remaining oil reserves increases. It is America setting its sights on mid-east oil that understandably threatens people in the region (with our bombs for oil, now, and planned for the future), prompting many in the mid-east to rightfully resent us, and unfortunately, some to hate us. We are foolish to be gas guzzling. War for oil (err, "terrorism") has not made us safer. Only petroleum conservation, and stopping road and parking construction, and car-dependent sprawl, can do that.

As world oil is declining, and the globe warms up, SUVs are a disgrace: a symbol of human, and especially American, arrogance toward the environment and toward all people who share this planet.