?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Serious bizness

I've been a bit perplexed as to why a dude who bombed two empty buildings was added to the FBI's list of "most wanted terrorists".

Is it because we need to show the world that we too have home-grown terrorists? Is his vegan diet a threat to national security? Will his capture end the terrorist acts of blowing up empty buildings and cars?!?

I'm not going to argue in support of San Diego's actions - I'm not a fan of detonating bombs, no matter how just the reason behind the act may be (and I do believe fighting against research on animals is a noble cause, don't try to argue on that point with me, mkay). I won't even argue that his actions could be construed as "terrorist" in nature.

What baffles me is who he's being clumped with.

He's on the same list as folks who have:
- hijacked an airplane, killing one person
- killed 19 and injured more than 350 in the Khobar towers attack
- detonated a 1,500 lb bomb and killed 6, injured 1,000 in the 1993 World Trade Center attack
- killed more than 200, injured more than 4,000 in the 1998 United States embassy bombings
- killed 17 american sailors in the USS Cole attack
- started/participated in a jihad movement that has killed hundreds of people

And then there's San Diego who's sole claim to fame is setting two pipe bombs that caused minimal property damage and injured no one.

Yes, he was in the wrong. Yes, it was an illegal act. Yes, it was an act to financially inflict damage on a company. Yes, it was probably an act to frighten employees and researchers.

But should it be the type of activity that warrants being placed on the FBI's Most Wanted Terrorist list? I don't think so, and I think, given the egregious acts of violence perpetrated by those already on the list, it's almost laughable that San Diego is included. Almost.

Tags:

Comments

( 2 comments — Leave a comment )
xsaltyx
Apr. 23rd, 2009 07:27 pm (UTC)
I hadn't heard anything about this, but I think that most of these kinds of "attacks" are always intended to cause financial damage, not to kill or injure people. I think that this kind of direct action is effective in that regard, but people also freak out because "what if someone was hurt?" and they miss the point entirely. Companies care much more about the financial impact, but they redirect attention to scare the public, which is pretty typical I'm afraid.
rozae
Apr. 23rd, 2009 10:06 pm (UTC)
They want to make an example of him and scare others away from such acts? *shrug* It doesn't seem to make sense, otherwise.
( 2 comments — Leave a comment )

Latest Month

October 2012
S M T W T F S
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031   

Tags

Powered by LiveJournal.com