The Plane is in Pakistan?

[Tom Ligon]

Then thing about a transport is the carrying capacity for conventional explosives.

An L-1011, for example, can carry about 100 tons. Not a Hiroshima bomb, but it would make one helluva bang. That much manufactured high explosive might raise flags, as well, but ammonium nitrate and fuel oil might be obtained with less notice, somewhere in the third world.

[ladajo]

I think instead of saying "Islam", it would be more appropriate to say "Extremist Sociopath".
Last I checked Timothy McVey and all the Abortion Clinic bombers and shooters were not muslim.

Timothy McVeigh was agnostic. The Abortion Clinic bombers and shooters might have been "Christian", but they weren't killing people because Christ told them to, they were killing people to (in their mind) stop the bloodshed of innocents. I am sympathetic to this perspective and this goal.

I would personally shed no more tears for abortionists being shot than I would for SS Camp guards. Were I on a jury, I would vote to acquit anyone who shot one of those B@stards. Of course, i'm pretty much out of the mainstream in that regard, but I make no apologies for what I think about this topic.


But getting back to your point, yes it is unfair to portray all Muslims as Extremist Sociopaths, but the fact that many can embrace their religion without resorting to head off-cutting does not ameliorate the fact that a far too high of a percentage of that faith cannot but do otherwise.

Now i'm guessing that the Dangerously Fanatical component of Islam represents about 30% of the overall group. (Because for some reason, populations tend to divide into thirds. 1/3rd in favor, 1/3rd against, and 1/3rd which is clueless. See "US war of Independence" e.g. )

Now I don't mean 1/3rd of all Islamists would cut off people's heads, i'm asserting that 1/3rd would support such an effort and take no steps to prevent it, and probably cheer loudly at the accomplishment of it. Probably 10% are of the violent intolerant head cutting-off sort.


The fact remains, did they not have explicit instructions in their religion to induce them to this action, they would likely be far less willing and able to commit it.

"historian Koenraad Elst estimates that between the year 1000 and 1525, eighty million Hindus died at the hands of Muslim invaders, probably the biggest holocaust in the whole history of our planet. "

http://necrometrics.com/pre1700a.htm#MusConInd

Yes, I agree with the general idea of the 1/3 principle. And I point out that it applies pretty much to any group. Yours included.
I would also point out that I specifically did not mention what religion they may be in my post. That was on purpose because the sample grouping I cited was diverse at best. The one thing they had in common is that they are all Extremist Sociopaths. The rational they used to justify the behaviour was irrelevant for my point.

[Diogenes]

I would personally shed no more tears for abortionists being shot than I would for SS Camp guards. Were I on a jury, I would vote to acquit anyone who shot one of those B@stards. Of course, i'm pretty much out of the mainstream in that regard, but I make no apologies for what I think about this topic.

And this puts you pretty much in line with the other religious fanatics like those Muslims that you hate so much. Think about that for a second.

Only in irrational minds. I am of the Curtis LeMay school of warfare, and I am of the John Brown school of human rights.





Oh, and I don't "Hate" the Muslims, I just think they are woefully deluded in their beliefs, very much like yourself.

[Diogenes]

But the explanation of WHY is still beyond comprehension of sane and reasonable people.

Islam.

Then where is the rant and the claim that they did it for Allah?

If there were any rants, they were safely away from the eyes and ears of potentially interfering westerners.

The 9-11 attacks were kept pretty quiet too, before the fact. I would suggest that these people can learn some lessons.


In any case, "Islam" is an Occam's razor argument. I have no proof of it, but given the history of that movement and airplanes, it is not ridiculous speculation to suggest that Islam is likely involved.

[Diogenes]

Nuking Israel for example, even if it was an air burst at 20k feet that didn't do a LOT of damage, would be a magnificent thing in their eyes.

Till Israel turned them into a windswept glassy plane which glows blue in the dark.

[Diogenes]

Yes, I agree with the general idea of the 1/3 principle. And I point out that it applies pretty much to any group. Yours included.

It's fractals all the way down.

I would also point out that I specifically did not mention what religion they may be in my post. That was on purpose because the sample grouping I cited was diverse at best. The one thing they had in common is that they are all Extremist Sociopaths. The rational they used to justify the behavior was irrelevant for my point.

I disagree with the characterization of people who shoot abortionists as "Extremist Sociopaths." They have no particular desire to go on a killing spree, so I don't see it as a pathology at all. More like it is a lashout response to emotional distress not of their making.

Like the man who deliberately shot and killed that man who molested his son, they were responding to an intolerable condition with Violence because it was the only real solution left to them.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oi3Hyxuf5AE

[hanelyp]

An L-1011, for example, can carry about 100 tons.

The dirty bomb possible in that capacity boggles.

[ladajo]

I disagree with the characterization of people who shoot abortionists as "Extremist Sociopaths." They have no particular desire to go on a killing spree, so I don't see it as a pathology at all. More like it is a lashout response to emotional distress not of their making.

Like the man who deliberately shot and killed that man who molested his son, they were responding to an intolerable condition with Violence because it was the only real solution left to them.

There is no valid comparison that I see. You offer a false relation.

A man whose own child has been assaulted will certainly seek justice against who did it. He may want to use society to do so. If he does not, that puts him on a scale of Sociopath by definition. In his case, I would offer it is not Extreme, unless he turns into a roving vigilante that seeks out and shoots any he determine are wrongdoers against children.

People who shoot or bomb "abortionists" are lashing out at folks they don't know in support of "folks" they don't know. They are completely outside of Society in doing so. This makes them Extreme Sociopaths by definition. Who are thye to know who they are killing? For all they know, they are blowing up the contracted illegal immigrant cleaning staff who have nothing to do with what happens in the clinic. They could be shooting a lady that went in to tell the clinic operators that she disagrees with what they are doing and gets capped coming out the front door. These attackers are Extreme Sociopaths that do not care they are doing wrong and violence against others. They use a rationality to justify it that is well outside the norms of greater society. They are willing to accept collateral damage to innnocents (who they may try to rationalize as guilty).

By definition, Extreme Sociopaths. What you are trying to argue for is Anarchy. You just don't see it that way.

[Skipjack]

As I said, to avoid a paper trail. (Shrug.) What are you going to do, pay for the charter in cash? Yeah, THAT won't send up any red flags at all. You'll get all sorts of interest from drug enforcement agencies to boot.

And a disappeared plane full of passengers attracts so much less attention? I mean totally obviously that is the case [/sarcasm]
Anyone(!) can charter a plane if he has the money. Plenty of travel agencies charter planes to fly tourists to resorts (I have been on several of these flights myself). A pilot could definitely charter a plane with money he got through channels from the Saudis. Besides it is not like they care that the paper trail can be followed. Neither did Bin Laden. It would attract no attention at all, much less than stealing a plane full of passengers that then causes it to be world wide news for weeks.

Oh, I agree there - they grow under mountains in Iran.

We do not know for sure that Iran has nuclear bombs. I would be much more concerned about Pakistan TBH. They have nukes and they are infested with Al Quaida. But no one seems to worry about them.

Hiroshima-style cannon devices are simple, reliable, and easy to construct. You could, if you had sufficiently pure uranium, get cast-iron piping from somewhere like Home Depot, and build your own.

That's why North Korea has been so successful with that (all of their nukes fizzled) [/sarcasm] Besides getting the material is luckily not that simple.

To you, no. It made no sense to slam aircraft into the WTC and the Pentagon to me. Tactically, it was stupid. Strategically, it was counterproductive as all hell. But its what they could manage logistically, and was an incredible propaganda success.

No, it does not even from that POV. The 9/11 attacks were very simple and well planned. They made perfect sense from a terror attack point of view as they caused terror in the population with negative political effects (unpatriot act, etc) that last until today (and cost billions in tax payer money).

Nuking Israel for example, even if it was an air burst at 20k feet that didn't do a LOT of damage, would be a magnificent thing in their eyes.

Well, generally you want to explode a nuke higher above ground to maximize the effect. The "problem" is that countries do have airspace control, especially Israel. If an plane that is NOT supposed to be there approaches Israel, they will take it down, especially after 9/11. This is why 9/11 will not work anymore today and definitely not with a stolen plane. It would be too suspicious.

[ladajo]

generally you want to explode a nuke higher above ground to maximize the effect

Nope.

You explode a nuke purely based on the target effect you are looking for.
There is no "generally".

[Diogenes]

There is no valid comparison that I see. You offer a false relation.

A man whose own child has been assaulted will certainly seek justice against who did it. He may want to use society to do so. If he does not, that puts him on a scale of Sociopath by definition. In his case, I would offer it is not Extreme, unless he turns into a roving vigilante that seeks out and shoots any he determine are wrongdoers against children.

People who shoot or bomb "abortionists" are lashing out at folks they don't know in support of "folks" they don't know. They are completely outside of Society in doing so. This makes them Extreme Sociopaths by definition. Who are thye to know who they are killing? For all they know, they are blowing up the contracted illegal immigrant cleaning staff who have nothing to do with what happens in the clinic.

Perusing this list of violent acts committed against abortionists and clinics, I don't notice any cleaning crews getting injured or killed. It's pretty much the Abortionists themselves or their staff and supporters. It also appears that the perpetrators were quite aware of who their targets were in most cases.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence


Apparently the Anti-Abortion people were more discriminating as to their targets than were say, the IRA.

They could be shooting a lady that went in to tell the clinic operators that she disagrees with what they are doing and gets capped coming out the front door. These attackers are Extreme Sociopaths that do not care they are doing wrong and violence against others. They use a rationality to justify it that is well outside the norms of greater society. They are willing to accept collateral damage to innnocents (who they may try to rationalize as guilty).

By definition, Extreme Sociopaths. What you are trying to argue for is Anarchy. You just don't see it that way.

I see it differently. I see it on the same moral footing as attacking the "Legal" camp guards at Auschwitz, or Liberating "Legally owned" Slaves.

[ladajo]

Apparently the Anti-Abortion people were more discriminating as to their targets than were say, the IRA.

Or they got lucky. In any event, as I said, by definition, pursuit of actions outside societal norms is Sociopathic. Personally, I see killing fellow members of your own society based on personal opinion or rational as Extreme Sociopathy. Just because you can find a few like minded Sociopaths, does not make it morally right. We have a society with systems and rules in place to address perceived wrongs. Why jump right out of the system and start killing?
You are arguing that two wrongs make a right. They do not, they make anarchy.

Love the wiki cite by the way. Oh so reliable is wikepedia. I would get fired if I tried to use that as a ref.

Your moral footing is at the extremity of societal norms. That makes you something of a moral sociopath.

[ladajo]

December 30, 1994: Two receptionists, Shannon Lowney and Lee Ann Nichols, were killed in two clinic attacks in Brookline, Massachusetts

Guilty as charged. Being a receptionist deserves being murdered.

January 29, 1998: Robert Sanderson, an off-duty police officer who worked as a security guard at an abortion clinic in Birmingham, Alabama, was killed when his workplace was bombed.

Guilty as charged. Being a security guard deserves being murdered (by the Olympic Park bomber no less).

July 29, 1994: June Barret was shot in the same attack which claimed the lives of James Barrett, her husband, and Dr. John Britton

Guilty as charged. Being a husband and wife deserves murder and attempted murder.

December 30, 1994: Five individuals were wounded in the shootings which killed Shannon Lowney and Lee Ann Nichols.

Guilty as charged. Being an individual deserves being shot or shot and killed.

January 29, 1998: Emily Lyons, a nurse, was severely injured, and lost an eye, in the bombing which also killed Robert Sanderson.

Guilty as charged. Being a nurse deserves being blown up.

May 21, 1998: Three people were injured when acid was poured at the entrances of five abortion clinics in Miami, Florida

Guilty as charged. Being at the entrance of an abortion clinic deserves having acid poured on you.

April 25, 2007: A package left at a women's health clinic in Austin, Texas, contained an explosive device capable of inflicting serious injury or death. A bomb squad detonated the device after evacuating the building.

Guilty as charged. Being a Womens Health Clinic deserves being bombed.

July 16, 2001: Steven Rogers, a security guard at a clinic in Melbourne, Australia was shot in the chest and killed by Peter James Knight.

Guilty as charged. Being a security guard at a clinic deserves being shot and killed.

You are out of your mind if you think that the above people deserved to die.
You are also out of your mind if you think that the use of bombs, firebombs, arson and spraying of bullets is discriminatory and coul donly kill the intended target(s).
You are also out of your mind if you think that your cited list indicates that the attackers

were quite aware of who their targets were in most cases

[JLawson]

Nuking Israel for example, even if it was an air burst at 20k feet that didn't do a LOT of damage, would be a magnificent thing in their eyes.

Till Israel turned them into a windswept glassy plane which glows blue in the dark.

That's the tactical and strategic failure on their part. It's STILL a propaganda coup.

And I could also argue that it doesn't matter if they WIN - or even survive as a nation state - as long as they can look good to Allah while doing so. Besides, that glass would be SO much smoother for the 12th Imam to walk on when he returns.

(At which point he goes "Well, screw this. You're all a bunch of idiots and I'm going back where I came from before I hit LD-50 on this radiation shit.")

[Diogenes]

Apparently the Anti-Abortion people were more discriminating as to their targets than were say, the IRA.

Or they got lucky. In any event, as I said, by definition, pursuit of actions outside societal norms is Sociopathic. Personally, I see killing fellow members of your own society based on personal opinion or rational as Extreme Sociopathy.

That abortionists were killing babies is not a matter of opinion. This isn't a disagreement over a football game, this is about human beings being put into a waste disposal. (Or lately, burned for fuel to power homes in Oregon.)


I will also point out that Abortion was outside of societal norms until a Court took it upon itself to create a nonsensical claim of constitutionality to permit it.

Just because you can find a few like minded Sociopaths, does not make it morally right. We have a society with systems and rules in place to address perceived wrongs. Why jump right out of the system and start killing?

A "System" is not inherently moral. Immoral laws have been created all throughout history. A "System" does not grant immunity for what is done beneath it, as with the Nuremberg trials in which we didn't accept the argument that they "were just following orders."

Why jump right out of the system and start killing? Because (as with a slave revolt) there is no viable solution from within the system.

You are arguing that two wrongs make a right. They do not, they make anarchy.

I find your perspective puzzling for a warfighter. Is not the entire vocation built on the premise that problems can be solved by killing sufficient quantities of the right people? The Military solves problems by destroying people and things until there is no further opposition left. Whatever anarchy is created is temporary.

Love the wiki cite by the way. Oh so reliable is wikepedia. I would get fired if I tried to use that as a ref.

The easy link is intended more as a reminder. Wikipedia is like a cheap Chinese made hammer, used because it's the first one within reach and a really good quality one isn't necessary for the task at hand. There was no suggestion in my mind that this discussion was anything like a work product, and therefore needing good material. It is just an offhand discussion of my opinion regarding feeling no compulsion to punish people who kill abortion providers.


It has been my long experience at debating with people that for most of them the facts are rather immaterial to their opinions anyway, and if they are intent on ignoring them, not terribly reliable sources will suffice just fine to be discarded.

I'm not sure I do serious discussions any more. Doesn't really seem to be a point. People are just going to believe what they want to believe, and they are generally not sway-able with contrary facts.

Your moral footing is at the extremity of societal norms. That makes you something of a moral sociopath.

Or it means that Society has moved away from it's original norms, while I didn't. I would say that makes me consistent, and them faddish and unreliable, like Wikipedia.

You must remember, the population didn't make abortion legal. A Bunch of Unelected Potentates did it against the will of the people. Again, I fault Roosevelt and Truman for polluting the Federal bench with so many crackpots.


Modern Society has become subject to whichever social winds happen to be blowing nowadays. In 1992, Bill Clinton was against Gay Marriage, as was Barack Obama in 2008. Now you are considered some kind of intolerant freakazoid if you agree with Bill Clinton's 1992 position or Barack Obama's 2008 position.


Nowadays, societal norms aren't. They are Whims, disconnected from any semblance of fundamental principles, and nowadays they are gradually resembling the guise of forced compliance, whether you agree with them or not.


Nowadays you aren't allowed to have a dissenting opinion, (See guy with Basketball team) or you will be considered "at the extremity of societal norms." I figure that if you recognize you are just going to be outside of societal norms, you might as well stake out an objective, consistent and morally defensible position.


Someone kills babies for a living? Yeah, they are outside of moral law, and secular law does not inspire obedience. "Do it because I say so " is simply ineffective as a compelling argument.

Once again, Edmund Burke.


The use of force alone is but temporary. It may subdue for a moment; but it does not remove the necessity of subduing again: and a nation is not governed, which is perpetually to be conquered.