A University employee downloads a document from the Internet about Al-Qaeda for a colleague in the politics department as part of the University's required reading list, meanwhile, a former Speaker of the House publicly laments the fact that more Americans have not been killed in terrorist attacks. Who gets arrested under terrorism legislation? The University employee of course!

Welcome to the up is down, down is up twilight zone of the post-9/11 world!

Newt Gingrich can publicly encourage the government to allow terrorists to attack America to prove "we're in danger" and people barely batter an eyelid yet woe betide someone read something about terrorists, otherwise they'll be shackled and locked up quicker than you can say "police state".

"This is ... one of the great tragedies of the Bush administration," Gingrich said during a Long Island bookstore appearance. "The more successful they've been at intercepting and stopping bad guys, the less proof there is that we're in danger. And therefore, the better they've done at making sure there isn't an attack, the easier it is to say, 'Well, there never was going to be an attack anyway.' And it's almost like they should every once in a while have allowed an attack to get through just to remind us." Just to remind us of what Gingrich? The Bush administration's blood-soaked eight years in office, the near 3,000 dead on 9/11, the imperial looting and obliteration of Iraq, to remind us that these things really were worthwhile for the greater good? To remind us that "we're in danger"? And you're saying we wouldn't be in danger under a government that willingly allows terrorists to kill us?

Imagine if anti-war demonstrators or 9/11 truthers were calling for violence and killing people to ram through their political agenda? Do you think Homeland Security would turn the other cheek? Do you think Fox News might have something to say about it?

Yet they don't even need to go near advocating violence in order to draw the attention of the authorities - the dastardly crime of downloading a book off the Internet is enough to be labeled a terrorist and have your life ransacked these days, unless you're a frothing-at-the-mouth Neo-Con of course, in that case you can openly call for terror no questions asked.

Nottingham University employees Rizwaan Sabir and Hicham Yezza's deadly conspiracy to obtain a document about terrorism that was on their University's reading list resulted in their arrest, their homes being torn apart, their laptops searched and their friends and family members interrogated.

That's right - reading about Al-Qaeda is now tantamount to being a member of Al-Qaeda according to British cops.

After the arrests, which were cited as a textbook example of "totalitarianism" by Nottingham MP Alan Simpson, police attempted to deport Yezza on immigration charges to sweep their disgraceful actions under the carpet. Yezza subsequently won an appeal and he is free to continue living in Britain in fear of a midnight knock on the door if he dares punch the words "Al-Qaeda Training Manual" into a Google search engine ever again.

Meanwhile, people like Gingrich and his Neo-Con peer Stu Bykovsky, along with a host of other Bush administration cronies, routinely and publicly express their fetish for encouraging terrorist attacks and more dead Americans without a care in the world.

What is wrong with this picture? If we are fighting terrorists then why do those that align themselves with the Bush administration's war on terror mentally masturbate about seeing more terrorist attacks?

Neo-Cons are free to engage in one of the primary definitions of terrorism, spewing terrorist rhetoric by hyping the threat of terror to achieve a political objective.

But you want to download a book that's part of the University reading list to help you put together a research paper? Forget about it - you're a terrorist!

P.S. - I made the mistake of typing "terrorism" into Dictionary.com for the purposes of writing this article. I guess I'll see you all in Gitmo!

------------------------------------