Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: unclewest who wrote (340634)	12/30/2009 6:09:42 AM
From: Nadine Carroll	1 Recommendation Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793955

If the intent was to blow up the fuel tank or to create a large hole in the fuselage, the charge was too small and poorly placed. If the intent was to use a minimal charge to create a real bloody and messy suicide with a possible few murders, the charge was very well placed. Small messy suicides have never been al Qaeda's style. However, there are plenty of examples of intended mass casualty attacks where the splodeydope flubbed the detonation, either because he got stopped and exploded prematurely, or got nervous, or because he changed his mind and decided to survive the attack. In the latter set of cases he has usually been available for questioning. It's hard to assume that placement was executed just as intended when the detonation failed - unless you also assume that too was intentional.