Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Grey Templar wrote: Indeed. These people need to be vilified, not humanized.
On the contrary, humanization goes a long way towards actually understanding the issues at play when dealing with terrorism(which is what this was).
Look at the "Us vs Them" mentality surrounding Islam.
Now, if you want to argue we've tried too hard trying to "humanize" white supremacists and their ilk? I'll agree with that. Signs are starting to come up that this individual targeted Austin because it is known as a more "liberal" area of Texas.
Sure, behind closed doors and while talking about ways to stop it. But the general discussion in the media shouldnt go anywhere near humanizing killers like this. So as to prevent the copycat effect. And this should apply to all types of terror events, regardless of the perpetrators motivation.
The news probably should be talking about what happened, not why it happened, who happened or how you should feel about it.
but then again media today is all about getting the views and nothing gets people riled up more than the word terrorism or politics.
Grey Templar wrote: Indeed. These people need to be vilified, not humanized.
On the contrary, humanization goes a long way towards actually understanding the issues at play when dealing with terrorism(which is what this was).
Look at the "Us vs Them" mentality surrounding Islam.
Now, if you want to argue we've tried too hard trying to "humanize" white supremacists and their ilk? I'll agree with that. Signs are starting to come up that this individual targeted Austin because it is known as a more "liberal" area of Texas.
Sure, behind closed doors and while talking about ways to stop it. But the general discussion in the media shouldnt go anywhere near humanizing killers like this. So as to prevent the copycat effect. And this should apply to all types of terror events, regardless of the perpetrators motivation.
But there's the rub. It should...but it's not. Christ, a guy local to me was arrested for making threats to an officer and threatening to detonate bombs in a mobile trailer park...and they post old mugshots of him.
This guy in Austin literally acted in the way that terrorists act and we're seeing nothing but old photos of him smiling on a couch.
You want a way to "discourage" this kind of stuff? To "dehumanize" the actors in this way?
Show the corpse. Show his body after he felt cowardly enough to end himself rather than be taken alive by police to face the consequences of his action.
The news probably should be talking about what happened, not why it happened, who happened or how you should feel about it.
Strictly speaking, the news should be discussing news. The why and how are important, same as the what.
"How you should feel about it" is just that: how you should feel about it. They can't really tell you that.
but then again media today is all about getting the views and nothing gets people riled up more than the word terrorism or politics.
The issue here is that there's a double standard with regards to the word "terrorism". There are people trying to argue it's for legal purposes("it's harder to prove terrorism charges" and things of that nature), but that boat just doesn't float.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/03/21 18:52:39
To avoid humanising, we need to stop the lop sided reporting.
As covered, if you’re white and you start planting bombs, or shoot up a school or church, it’s your mental illness.
Any other colour, and it’s your religion, or your ‘hood, or just plain old racism that makes the headlines.
Both are dangerous approaches. The former prevents a meaningful dialogue on the root cause (mental illness is a reason, not an excuse). The latter simply scapegoats - and can add to a feeling of alienation in which extremism and terrorism can take root.
Consider what young Muslim men have now grown up being told. September 11th was 17 years ago this year. And since then, irresponsible voices have maintained ‘it’s the religion. It’s inherent. It’s unavoidable. They’re all sleeper agents. You can’t trust Them’.
An entire faith has been demonised because of the acts of a literal handful (look up informed estimates as to the number of Islamist Extremists in the world. You’re talking a tiny, tiny fraction of 1% of all Muslims. Like 0.0004, give or take a zero).
Young men can be angry. Our world is pretty much a factory for mental health strains. And when a young Muslim man has been demonised his entire life, subjected to entirely unwarranted distrust? There’s an ‘in’ for the poison of the Islamist Extremist.
That’s not, and will never be, to absolve those that fall for it of their crimes. But an honest analysis in the wider media, free from sensationalism would go some way to reducing that cause.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/03/21 19:45:20
Fed up of Scalpers? But still want your Exclusives? Why not join us?
From what media have lifted from his life so far the guy sounded like an absolute delight...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/03/21 23:03:30
Sorry for my spelling. I'm not a native speaker and a dyslexic.
1750 pts Blood Specters
2000 pts Imperial Fists
6000 pts Disciples of Fate
3500 pts Peridia Prime
2500 pts Prophets of Fate
Lizardmen 3000 points Tlaxcoatl Temple-City
Tomb Kings 1500 points Sekhra (RIP)
Kilkrazy wrote:When I was a young boy all my wargames were narratively based because I played with my toy soldiers and vehicles without the use of any rules.
The reason I bought rules and became a real wargamer was because I wanted a properly thought out structure to govern the action instead of just making things up as I went along.
As covered, if you’re white and you start planting bombs, or shoot up a school or church, it’s your mental illness.
Any other colour, and it’s your religion, or your ‘hood, or just plain old racism that makes the headlines.
Both are dangerous approaches. The former prevents a meaningful dialogue on the root cause (mental illness is a reason, not an excuse). The latter simply scapegoats - and can add to a feeling of alienation in which extremism and terrorism can take root.
Consider what young Muslim men have now grown up being told. September 11th was 17 years ago this year. And since then, irresponsible voices have maintained ‘it’s the religion. It’s inherent. It’s unavoidable. They’re all sleeper agents. You can’t trust Them’.
An entire faith has been demonised because of the acts of a literal handful (look up informed estimates as to the number of Islamist Extremists in the world. You’re talking a tiny, tiny fraction of 1% of all Muslims. Like 0.0004, give or take a zero).
Young men can be angry. Our world is pretty much a factory for mental health strains. And when a young Muslim man has been demonised his entire life, subjected to entirely unwarranted distrust? There’s an ‘in’ for the poison of the Islamist Extremist.
That’s not, and will never be, to absolve those that fall for it of their crimes. But an honest analysis in the wider media, free from sensationalism would go some way to reducing that cause.
In today's "climate", a white offender is more likely to be painted as a "right wing extremist" by the media cartels than mentally ill.
The left-leaning clickbait sites, like TMZ (who probably found out by lurking /pol/), have already tried to spin this into him being a "right-wing extremist" by publicizing a school blog from six years ago (2012). In the aforementioned blog, he expressed politically incorrect opinions on abortion, homosexuality, and sex offenders. While they would offend some, they were not violent or radical by any stretch of the imagination. In fact, it was in line with mainstream conservatism.
Somebody on /pol/ managed to screencap the guy's Farcebook profile before it got Zucc'd. He had a few friends, and they were a mixed bag in terms of race and ethicity, and were clean cut looking kids. Also, he was bragging on Reddit the whole time the cops were looking for him (probably why the law was able to keep track of his cell phone on a near continuous basis during the hunt). None of his comments that I've read were political in nature. It was more along the lines of another misanthrope sick of his life and pissed off at the world.
As covered, if you’re white and you start planting bombs, or shoot up a school or church, it’s your mental illness.
Any other colour, and it’s your religion, or your ‘hood, or just plain old racism that makes the headlines.
Both are dangerous approaches. The former prevents a meaningful dialogue on the root cause (mental illness is a reason, not an excuse). The latter simply scapegoats - and can add to a feeling of alienation in which extremism and terrorism can take root.
Consider what young Muslim men have now grown up being told. September 11th was 17 years ago this year. And since then, irresponsible voices have maintained ‘it’s the religion. It’s inherent. It’s unavoidable. They’re all sleeper agents. You can’t trust Them’.
An entire faith has been demonised because of the acts of a literal handful (look up informed estimates as to the number of Islamist Extremists in the world. You’re talking a tiny, tiny fraction of 1% of all Muslims. Like 0.0004, give or take a zero).
Young men can be angry. Our world is pretty much a factory for mental health strains. And when a young Muslim man has been demonised his entire life, subjected to entirely unwarranted distrust? There’s an ‘in’ for the poison of the Islamist Extremist.
That’s not, and will never be, to absolve those that fall for it of their crimes. But an honest analysis in the wider media, free from sensationalism would go some way to reducing that cause.
Jeez do we have to go there?
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Language is important in a society. The usage of language is what can or cannot potentially affect discussions and influence the way people think of things. It's why there are people who object to news outlets describing African-American police shooting victims as "thugs" when there's no evidence to suggest any kind of gang affiliations or things of that nature. It's a loaded term used to imply certain things without outright saying it.
This particular individual was a terrorist, plain and simple. He apparently left a 25 minute message on his cell phone(likely a manifesto--dollars to donuts he'll rail against Austin being a "safe space" or promoting homosexuality or some other ridiculous nonsense) for the police.
By referring to him as "mentally ill" or "a troubled youth"...it implies that he was not in control of his actions, that he was somehow led to this behavior by outside forces.
Kanluwen wrote: That's been the biggest thing frustrating me of late. We saw this during the whole walkouts last week, where there was an attempt to 'hijack' it with a "Walk Up" movement--the idea being that if you went and talked to the weird kids that nobody talks to or that are constantly bullied it suddenly was going to be okay or that kid wasn't going to shoot up the school?
Yep, I think there's almost a naivety in that kind of approach. Thing is, a lot of young men are just pretty angry dudes. And it often isn't really about any particular thing, its just a base emotional level. Being nice to them in the school hall doesn't change that anger.
That doesn't mean there's nothing we can do, but just being nice to weird kids is not part of the solution.
There's definitely something to be said for 'erasing' the fame and mythos surrounding these shooters whenever the events happen, but I do believe that we should look at these events and go from there.
Agreed.
nels1031 wrote: But only one of those two were charge and punished by the federal government for terrorism. Ergo, by legalistic standards, only one is a terrorist.
No, it doesn't work like that. The law won't convict a person of serial killing, it will convict them of 4 counts of murder. A mob boss isn't convicted of 'mob bossing', he's convicted of conspiracy and racketeering. But we still call them serial killers and mob bosses, because those are terms used to describe the person and their motivations, not the exact breaches of the law they will end up being convicted of.
Same with terrorists, when they use random acts of violence against the general population in service of some kind of worldview, that's terrorism.
Unless its post 9-11 and the attacker is white, then it gets a bit strange.
Disagree. Its usually the legal complexities of the definition of terrorism.
How a person is described in society in general has little to do with the exact list of crimes the person is charged with. You kill a man in a bar fight and in a lot of jurisdictions you'll end up being charged with 'manslaughter'. That's just how the law is defined in many places - any killing that has intent but no pre-meditation is called manslaughter. It'll still get you 10+ years.
But even after the charges are laid, we wouldn't start describing you as a manslaughterer, you'd still be referred to by all and sundry as a murderer.
Case in point is the Ft. Hood shooter.
People called him a terrorist, and rightly so. When the charges were filed it didn't change how he was described by the general public and officials, they kept calling him a terrorist.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/03/22 03:26:26
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios
So it seems the cell phone recording doesn’t have any real reasoning for the attacks. Just rambling about what he did, but nothing as to why. No manifesto, no nothing.
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
Desubot wrote: The news probably should be talking about what happened, not why it happened, who happened or how you should feel about it.
There is most definitely a place in the news for discussing why something happened. That's a pretty major part of long form and investigative reporting.
As covered, if you’re white and you start planting bombs, or shoot up a school or church, it’s your mental illness.
Any other colour, and it’s your religion, or your ‘hood, or just plain old racism that makes the headlines.
A white guy murders people with bombs and we start looking for reasons why. A black guy is murdered and we start looking for stuff to trash his reputation.
Now, I'm not saying this shows any kind of overt racism from any particular person involved. But there's a pattern to how these things play out - and its pretty fething ugly.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/03/22 03:42:22
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Desubot wrote: The news probably should be talking about what happened, not why it happened, who happened or how you should feel about it.
There is most definitely a place in the news for discussing why something happened. That's a pretty major part of long form and investigative reporting.
As covered, if you’re white and you start planting bombs, or shoot up a school or church, it’s your mental illness.
Any other colour, and it’s your religion, or your ‘hood, or just plain old racism that makes the headlines.
A white guy murders people with bombs and we start looking for reasons why. A black guy is murdered and we start looking for stuff to trash his reputation.
Now, I'm not saying this shows any kind of overt racism from any particular person involved. But there's a pattern to how these things play out - and its pretty fething ugly.
The difference is that there was a media blitz that attempted to paint Trayvon Martin as a sweet little angel murdered by an evil white racist thug (never mind the fact that Zimmerman was half-hispanic), and Zimmerman's ass was on the line. It was necessary to dig up the facts that Trayvon Martin was a troubled, delinquent kid well on the road to a very bad place before his death. Nobody trashed Martin's reputation. He was doing a good job of that himself. It was a matter of the so-called "news" media, and Old Media shills like Nancy Grace and Piers "Jeremy Clarkson Kicked My Ass" Morgan, were playing the part of judge and jury in the media court of public opinion. They weren't interested in being unbiased or presenting both sides of the incident in clear manner.
On the other hand, this flying rodent gak crazy Unabomber wannabe is a big unknown. People merely assume that to go around setting off bombs, with no clear motive as of yet, and posting on Reddit about it via a cell phone, is off their rocker. And it's a pretty safe assumption to make until facts prove otherwise. Attempts to paint this is a racial light when it comes to the reporting, with the comparison between the two incidents, is being disingenuous at best.
oldravenman3025 wrote: It was necessary to dig up the facts that Trayvon Martin was a troubled, delinquent kid well on the road to a very bad place before his death.
Too bad that was never demonstrated.
On the other hand, this flying rodent gak crazy Unabomber wannabe is a big unknown. People merely assume that to go around setting off bombs, with no clear motive as of yet, and posting on Reddit about it via a cell phone, is off their rocker. And it's a pretty safe assumption to make until facts prove otherwise. Attempts to paint this is a racial light when it comes to the reporting, with the comparison between the two incidents, is being disingenuous at best.
And yet, when the suspect is not a white guy people don't hesitate to jump to conclusions about how it must be something more than "just a crazy person being crazy". If it's a Muslim-looking person it's immediately labeled "terrorism" and everyone starts looking for connections to Islamic extremism, talking about how we need more restrictions on immigration, etc. That's the racism issue, the double standard on when we assume motives beyond "crazy".
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
And yet, when the suspect is not a white guy people don't hesitate to jump to conclusions about how it must be something more than "just a crazy person being crazy". If it's a Muslim-looking person it's immediately labeled "terrorism" and everyone starts looking for connections to Islamic extremism, talking about how we need more restrictions on immigration, etc. That's the racism issue, the double standard on when we assume motives beyond "crazy".
I'm just as okay with starting dialogue about restrictions on immigration in this situation as I would be if he was "Muslim-looking".
djones520 wrote: That's typically the case with these people. They're just nutbags.
They can be both nutbags and terrorists. In fact I can't think of a person we've ever designated a terrorist who wasn't always pretty nuts. We never hesitated in calling Kaczynski McVeigh terrorists, and they were both off their rockers.
Something changed though, post 9-11. Terrorist became a word we are now reluctant to apply outside of Muslims. I don't think this is a big racist thing or anything like that, but it is driven by some pretty weird politics that to be honest I haven't really gotten my head around.
Yeah. In Finland there was school shooting in last decade. Guy put up tons of videos about his political views and how he was doing this to force change in finnish politics. Well let's see. Fairly common definition I see in terrorism is: "Terrorism is, in the broadest sense, the use of intentionally indiscriminate violence as a means to create terror among masses of people to achieve a financial, political, religious or ideological aim."
So let's see...How come that incident wasn't classified as terrorism? But rather as case of mental illness.
oldravenman3025 wrote: The difference is that there was a media blitz that attempted to paint Trayvon Martin as a sweet little angel murdered by an evil white racist thug (never mind the fact that Zimmerman was half-hispanic), and Zimmerman's ass was on the line. It was necessary to dig up the facts that Trayvon Martin was a troubled, delinquent kid well on the road to a very bad place before his death. Nobody trashed Martin's reputation. He was doing a good job of that himself. It was a matter of the so-called "news" media, and Old Media shills like Nancy Grace and Piers "Jeremy Clarkson Kicked My Ass" Morgan, were playing the part of judge and jury in the media court of public opinion. They weren't interested in being unbiased or presenting both sides of the incident in clear manner.
On the other hand, this flying rodent gak crazy Unabomber wannabe is a big unknown. People merely assume that to go around setting off bombs, with no clear motive as of yet, and posting on Reddit about it via a cell phone, is off their rocker. And it's a pretty safe assumption to make until facts prove otherwise. Attempts to paint this is a racial light when it comes to the reporting, with the comparison between the two incidents, is being disingenuous at best.
You've gotten confused. I've made no comment on the attacker's motive, racial or otherwise. All I've said on the attacker's motives is that people should speculate less (though that was before the attacker was caught and killed).
My comment is only on the media coverage. And in that regard, its quite telling when you say Martin was 'a delinquent kid on the road to a very bad place' is exactly the problem. The kid had been busted for possession and petty theft. It's obviously not what anyone wants their kid to do, but most of my mates smoked weed and couple stole stuff or traded in stolen stuff to pay for their drugs. They're lawyers, engineers and teachers now. Not saying Martin was going to turn out to be an astronaut, but it is telling how some minor stuff helped you create a whole story in your head.
And before you say it, no I am not saying you formed that story because he was black. This isn't about saying anyone is racist. I'm sure you and a lot of other people would have formed the same views on hearing that white shooting victim was involved in crime. The point being that you heard that story, his brushes with crime, and that helped you build your narrative about what happened.
What should then be noted is that we don't see that same pattern happen with other stories. Instead we get very different patterns - in this case for instance from the very beginning the reporting is showing Conditt is being reporting in a positive light.
No-one involved is doing any of it because they are racist. Exactly why it's happening is complex, and honestly I haven't seen a particularly good explanation on why. Your justification here was contrived, and very specific to Martin's circumstances, and ignored that this happens repeatedly.
And whatever the reason, it is impossible to deny its repeated instances produce a racial impact.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Nah, I think that's a trope for when they interview neighbors. And if you think about it, what do you expect them to say? "Yeah, he always did seem like a crazy person, and I never reported it"?
Although I suppose with that last shoot shooter (well, this is the US, so like 3 school shooters back now) quite a few people did report it. So it's not a hard and fast rule.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/03/22 23:30:19
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
oldravenman3025 wrote: It was necessary to dig up the facts that Trayvon Martin was a troubled, delinquent kid well on the road to a very bad place before his death.
Too bad that was never demonstrated.
On the other hand, this flying rodent gak crazy Unabomber wannabe is a big unknown. People merely assume that to go around setting off bombs, with no clear motive as of yet, and posting on Reddit about it via a cell phone, is off their rocker. And it's a pretty safe assumption to make until facts prove otherwise. Attempts to paint this is a racial light when it comes to the reporting, with the comparison between the two incidents, is being disingenuous at best.
And yet, when the suspect is not a white guy people don't hesitate to jump to conclusions about how it must be something more than "just a crazy person being crazy". If it's a Muslim-looking person it's immediately labeled "terrorism" and everyone starts looking for connections to Islamic extremism, talking about how we need more restrictions on immigration, etc. That's the racism issue, the double standard on when we assume motives beyond "crazy".
Unabomber was a terrorist. Most terrorists are pretty messed up. What's the issue?
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
whembly wrote: ...that we shouldn't call him a terrorist?
Both Unabomber and this dude is a terrorist. Full Stop.
Indeed. Being crazy seems almost a requirement to.being a terrorist, at least the terrorists going boom and not running the show.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
whembly wrote: ...that we shouldn't call him a terrorist?
Both Unabomber and this dude is a terrorist. Full Stop.
Indeed. Being crazy seems almost a requirement to.being a terrorist, at least the terrorists going boom and not running the show.
Yeah, see, that's the thing though, people are mixing slang terms up with actual medical stuff.
Spree killers, mass shooters, bombers, people who commit murder because someone cut them off in traffic or spilled their drink, all that kind of stuff is "crazy" in the colloquial sense, but a lot of the time those people are not mentally ill. Often they're not cognitively impaired, they don't have a recognised disorder, they're not incapable of moral reasoning in a clinical sense, they're just angry arseholes who lose control, or people caught in loops of faulty ethical logic due to some ideological nonsense.
Actual, genuine, diagnosed mentally ill people are orders of magnitude more likely to be victims of crime than perpetrators of it, and the most common thing that a genuine, diagnosed mentally ill person would do if they got hold of a weapon and had an episode is to harm themselves.
Pushing the "that dude just be crazy" angle is troublesome; it others a vulnerable group to make "normal" people feel better by disassociating themselves(nobody normal could do something so horrible, and I'm normal, phew, goes the logic), and it serves as a useful smokescreen to deflect any inconvenient attention from structural social issues or specific corporate interests(which we won't get into here).
"Your society's broken, so who should we blame? Should we blame the rich, powerful people who caused it? No, lets blame the people with no power and no money and those immigrants who don't even have the vote. Yea, it must be their fething fault." - Iain M Banks
-----
"The language of modern British politics is meant to sound benign. But words do not mean what they seem to mean. 'Reform' actually means 'cut' or 'end'. 'Flexibility' really means 'exploit'. 'Prudence' really means 'don't invest'. And 'efficient'? That means whatever you want it to mean, usually 'cut'. All really mean 'keep wages low for the masses, taxes low for the rich, profits high for the corporations, and accept the decline in public services and amenities this will cause'." - Robin McAlpine from Common Weal
Would be curious to know why he used such exotic and specific batteries....fro. Asia, did I read?....seems to me like he was just wantung to get caught from the get-go using something so unusual.
TheMeanDM wrote: Would be curious to know why he used such exotic and specific batteries....fro. Asia, did I read?....seems to me like he was just wantung to get caught from the get-go using something so unusual.
What makes them exotic and specific?
Far as coming from Asia, that's a lot of batteries, really. I've ordered batteries for electronics projects from places like ebay and they'll show up from China post.
TheMeanDM wrote: Would be curious to know why he used such exotic and specific batteries....fro. Asia, did I read?....seems to me like he was just wantung to get caught from the get-go using something so unusual.
What makes them exotic and specific?
Far as coming from Asia, that's a lot of batteries, really. I've ordered batteries for electronics projects from places like ebay and they'll show up from China post.
“These weren’t your store-bought Duracells,” a senior law enforcement official told NBC News about the batteries, which came from Asia.
Mark Anthony Conditt reportedly used the “unusual” batteries in the explosives he sent out, which helped investigators track him down.
I suspect his bomb recipe called for a specific battery as one of the ingredients, and he just went with it.
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
Even laptop batteries blow up for almost, like, no reason sometimes.
Obviously, we'll never really find out, and knowing law enforcement and the media, they probably wouldn't even be able to communicate it to us if they wanted to. I can't help but remain forever curious though.
Looking closer at it, I HAD that model laptop for work for several years. Kinda gives you a certain amount of pause when you've got the thing strapped to your back.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, I'm assuming that the battery was part of the payload, it might not have been, but then there would be no reason for any special type of battery.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
About 3:30 is the good parts if you don't want to hear what he's doing to cause it.
Seriously. Now picture the manufacturing process being cheap enough that you can sell those for a couple bucks at the gas station. I'm continually amazed that more people don't get hurt from those unintentionally even.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2018/03/23 18:37:08
1750 pts Blood Specters
6000 pts Disciples of Fate
3500 pts Peridia Prime
2500 pts Prophets of Fate
Lizardmen 3000 points Tlaxcoatl Temple-City
