_sabotage_ wrote:Which Al Qaeda? the one we still support, the one we say Bin Laden was a/the leader of, the one we used to support in Afghan, the one that we put together for the RICO conviction pre-9/11, the one that helps attack errant nations like Libya and Syria, or the regular ol Islamic fundamentalist terrorists?
Can we have an official breakdown of if al Qaeda then which subunit? it's left wingers, an al Qaeda rogue gunman, their stated leader, which exact section perpetrated it and what are their clear motives?
Get to the bottom of it and leave no trails unchecked and the outcome would provide a clear sense of justice, and then we would have a trial that dwarfed OJs and allowed for informed debate.
It is a tragedy, but at which scale and to what response? Dimes says, because we can envision it reoccurring, BBS thinks we have no market for it.
The TSA will tighten, screening of information will increase, "procedure" will be permanently bypassed and at the end of the day, our knowledge of what happened in Boston will be murky at best. Fear the unknown, fear is what will create the market.
The market for terrorism is practically nil--compared to other forms of violent, coercive (non-governmental) business.
By 'terrorism', I'm referring to the primary targeting of innocent civilians. Primarily targeting government facilities and coercive personnel (police, military) counts as 'insurgency'.
Just being clear.