Friday, March 5, 2010

The difference between terrorists and nut-jobs.

Terrorists attack civilian targets, aiming for large civilian casualty rates, like they did in New York City, the attack on the Pentagon (using a loaded civilian jet as a missile), and the attempted attack on the White House on September 11, 2001. Three thousand civilians died in those attack, with several REMFs killed in the Pentagon. Terrorists are made angry that we are free, affluent, comfortable, and don't have our assess in the air five times a day praying to their god.

Nut-jobs attack the source of whatever they think causes their discontent. Like the guy that rammed his plane into the IRS building (not that I blame him--I think a lot of us quietly cheered him on). Or this guy, who was planning a mass shooting in the worst possible place, and got killed for his trouble.

Honestly, these attacks are more than a bit troubling for me. They're symptomatic of a breakdown of the trust that our government framework is still solid.


  1. Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

    Before we knew much about the muslims, let alone muslim terrorists and their attacks--we always had NUT JOBS!

    ie: Charlie Manson, etc.

    I suspect it would be very hard for a NUT CASE to get a hold of a nuke...easier for a muslim terrorist.....

    In either case, kill them all.

  2. Agreed. However, usually, individual nut-jobs didn't have as good of organizational skills as, say, al Qaeda or Hamas. Not to mention that, most of the time, their targets are different--terrorists target for maximum terror effect, and nut-jobs either target their individual grudges, or just don't have the coherence to choose targets the rest of the time.