Press "Enter" to skip to content

Monday miscellany


  1. Matt, another
    Matt, another July 25, 2011 5:49 am

    Funny how Al Quaeda is always responsible even though Al Quaeda has shown little ability for force projection beyond the middle east. It is easy for an islamist group to claim affiliation after fact though.

    The question about the tragedy in Norway is who benefits? I find the lone gunman theories to be tough to believe. I suppose one evil genius could have rigged bombs to go off in one place whilst slaughtering children in another, but your timing has to be perfect or the whole thing fizzles. It is also interesting that terrorists operating in foreign countries are generally able to make bombs that go off, but the U.S. terrorists always flub it at the last moment.

    Is it possible it was islamist extremeists, until they found a suitable culprit so as to blame it on someone else?

  2. Joel
    Joel July 25, 2011 7:53 am

    Al Queda is not Emmanuel Goldstein. Al Queda has never been Emmanuel Goldstein.

    That’s crimethink, Claire. Report to Room 101.

  3. Claire
    Claire July 25, 2011 10:22 am

    Two good ones, Ellendra! Thank you.

    I had seen a less-detailed version of the “man with no name” story. Both versions make me wonder why they don’t just let the man out. What possible reason could they have for jailing him indefinitely? Strange …

    And the WSJ article … yeah. That could have been written by one of us, couldn’t it?

  4. JuliB
    JuliB July 25, 2011 4:09 pm

    Well, if I’m walking in a forest with where there have been multiple bear attacks, and I hear of an attack, I think it reasonable to make that assumption. If it turns out to be a rabid golden retriever, is it such a wild mistake to make?

    Also – I believe that some islamic group initially claimed responsibility for it (a safer way to make a name for one’s terrorist group, I suppose).

Leave a Reply