[Sir Gawain]

What does it take to be “terrorism-related” exactly, I wonder?

[TRY ONE]

“What does it take to be “terrorism-related” exactly, I wonder?”

Voting for a liberal DemocRAT, for one!

[Brilliant]

“determined the incident was not terrorism-related.”

I bet this is based upon a conclusion that the perps are not Muslim. Probably the perps were afraid that someone else would try to hijack the plane, and they wanted to be prepared.

[pennboricua]

when they are actually used on a flight crew member.

[nyyankeefan]

a white male doing anything is deemed a terrorist....a patel carrying karate knives....come on man...you gotta be pc and multicultural sensitive!!!

[VeritatisSplendor]

They’re a little old and a little Hindu to be terrorists, maybe? Profiling, tsk.

Maybe just planned hijacking-for-profit, not politics.

Maybe just stupid. But you really have to work to be that stupid.

Mrs VS

[RobRoy]

>>What does it take to be “terrorism-related” exactly, I wonder?<<

They are probably not muslims...

[njrep]

"What does it take to be “terrorism-related” exactly, I wonder?"

Ah yes, well, one must scream "allah akbar" and "death to America, death to the infidels", while slashing anyone within reach AND drawing copious amounts of blood.

[arthurus]

It is only “terrorism related” if AQ claims responsibility, maybe.

[subterfuge]

What does it take to be “terrorism-related” exactly, I wonder?

Investigators question them, and when the terrorist replies that "no, I am not a terrorist you infidel!", then they are deemed Not Terrrorists. That's how it works. NEXT!

[theFIRMbss]

>What does it take to be “terrorism-related” exactly, I wonder?

Many concurrent
events, a subsequent claim
explaining the acts,

and prior postings
to the 'net predicting them.
And US outlets

would still hem-and-haw
everything probably was
coincidental . . .

[elephantlips]

How the #&^@*% do you pronounce Chhaganbhai ?