The other day on I saw a video realistically and dramatically re-enact (or provisionally anticipate) the scene in a crowded market when a suicide bomber sets of his bomb. No dialogue, just images juxtaposed; no text. It was compelling to watch the last 30 seconds unfolding before the carnage erupted. Everything was so normal; there was a child playing quietly by the kerb, who catches the eye of the malefactor just as the bomber's jacket opens to reveal the cylinders of explosive; then there is a flash and a huge conflagration...I've never been anywhere near where such an act had occurred. It was, as I recall, slugged as part of an anti-bombing campaign. I went looking for it again today when I started to write this column and cannot find it via my own googling skills. If it shows up again (youtube, anyone?), I'll post the link.
I mention this because, among the apparently damning bits of evidence discovered by British police among the effects ond possessions of the accused 'chem-lab bomber' conspiracy are what are reported to be 'suicide-bombing' videos. These are alleged to be videos used by terrorist organizations to accustom volunteer suicide bombers to their chosen tasks.
(I have never seen an example of one such, but it must be a fascinating text to study, and I would very much like to see one: how fascinating to analyze the construction of the necessary languages...)
The apparent complexity and delicacy of the chemistry necessitated by the volatility of the ingredients, the mixing of which more or less privately would be required to fashion said bomb, that have so far been disclosed or discussed notwithstanding, the fact that these suspects were in possession certain videos should not, I think, be admissable as evidence of their intentions.
I haven't seen the alleged conspirators' alleged suicide training videos, but I have seen that San Andreas video.
So I wanna know: How, if the argument shall be made that the actions and situations 'acted out' in San Andreas are deemed NOT to have a deleterious effect, or NOT make any 'dangerous' impressions on the participants' psycho-social stabilityhow, under these claims can the intentions of the alleged terror plotters be thought to be reliably indicated by their possession of any video whatsoever?
Nick Anderson/Hearst: Subtle Differences
1 week ago