Yesterday, September 24, 2009, almost became another “Islam Outreach Day” on par with September 11, 2001. But due to the actions of the FBI, it became a day with a few minor news stories, soon to be forgotten.
Officials: Terror Plot Most Significant Since 9/11
Afghan-born Najibullah Zazi set up shop in suburban Denver, scouring the Web and visiting beauty supply stores in a hunt for chemicals needed to build bombs for Al Qaeda, authorities charge, calling the alleged plot one of the most significant terror threats to the U.S. since 9-11.
The 12-page memorandum outlining the alleged conspiracy also used the repeated phrase “and others,” evidence of a possible Al Qaeda cell plotting a homemade bomb attack on U.S. soil.
A chemist posts here that Zazi could have made about six pounds of the unstable explosive triacetone triperoxide (TATP) given the supplies he procured. Six pounds of TATP would have done a good job of converting everyone on a bus or a subway train into hamburger.
Also yesterday there were two further attempted bombings of note:
In unrelated terrorism cases elsewhere around the country Thursday:
— Michael C. Finton, a 29-year-old man who idolized American-born Taliban soldier John Walker Lindh, was arrested after attempting to detonate what he thought was a bomb inside a van outside a federal courthouse in Springfield, Ill., officials said. FBI agents had infiltrated the alleged plot months ago.
— A 19-year-old Jordanian was arrested after placing what he thought was a bomb at a downtown Dallas skyscraper, federal prosecutors said. The decoy device was provided by an undercover FBI agent. Federal officials said the case against Hosam Maher Husein Smadi, who is charged with attempting to use a weapon of mass destruction, is unrelated to the Illinois case.
Ummm… holy crap. Two *unrelated* major carbombings on the same day?
This brings up something else for me to rant about… “attempted” vs “successful” and the legal differences. To my mind, there ain’t none. If Johhny Jihad takes a gun and shoots someone in the head, killing them, or he takes a gun and shoots *at* someone, misisng them, why the difference in punishment? We arrest people and try them and jail/execute them for not only what they do, but *why* they did it. Someone who kills another person could be an out-and-out murderer, or it could have been in self defence, or it could have been an accident. The legal system properly recognizes this. But why the difference if the murderer just happens to have bad aim?
Let’s say that rather than these jackasses having been tricked by the FBI into trying to set off carbombs filled with flour (or whatever the phony explosive was), they had actual carbombs with actual explosives.
<>In alternate reality A, the detonator had a faulty battery. When they pushed the button, nothing happened. And then they were caught and the bombs disarmed.
In alternate reality B, the wiring was done properly, and a thousand people died.
What did they *do* that was truly different? In reality A, nobody died. In reality B, a thousand people died. But the terrorists *actions* were entirely the same. The terrorists *motives* were entirely the same. The differences in outcomes were not due to differences in intent or action. So why should “attempted murder” get a lesser punishment than “murder”? Is the terrorist who failed somehow less of a danger to society than the successful one, just due to a trick of chance?
