47 ms·

Indeed, and the message was "I'm insecure about my position".

by L_226 10y ago

chongli 10y ago
Emotionally insecure, sure, but extremely dangerous, obviously.
mc32 10y ago
Someone insecure who does not retaliate is of little concern. Someone who can retaliate or do away with people in remote places using extreme methods is more about saying, "don't cross me or I will get you" and insecurity is kind of irrelevant at that point. It's more I don't want to get on this woman/man's bad side. I'm also not sure it's plain insecurity. I'm sure there are people not too far removed from him who if they could, would try to get to him -however, he goes to extreme measures to ensure he neutralizes possible threats when identified --including relatives and "old hands". Although, being such a tyrant (insecure as he might be) why doesn't anyone of the people at his core who live in fear for themselves and everyone else just go on a final mission against him? It's not like he's the only one armed --plus he'd have to remain awake 24x7.
- M_Grey 10y ago
  It's probably a rare person who is sane, intelligent, capable of detailed planning, and willing to potentially have a really nasty and protracted death. It seems to me that far more often you have people who are deluded in some way and don't perceive risk (bad planners, may not be particularly mentally fit), rare cases of extremely violent mental illness (not sane, bad planners), the highly motivated fanatic (good planner, sane, tends not to be the most intelligent). You need a lot of elements to come together to murder someone who is well protected and expects to be the target of violence, while having a state to protect them. The scary thing is that of course, sometimes, this does happen; when it does there is very very little that can be done to stop it, short of you aforementioned 24x7 sleeping cycle.
  - mc32 10y ago
    It reminds me of the Stauffenberg plot. And then there are the bodyguards who got Indira Gandhi --they did not care what happened to them, they "cared" about carrying out their mission. Although, it's quite possible both were equally motivated but one was just not lucky enough to carry things through.
    - groby_b 10y ago
      The Stauffenberg plot is pretty much evidence that assassinating somebody protected by a large force is really, really, hard. Not because that plot itself failed. But because it overshadows the truly impressive number of other attempts at Hitler's life, all failed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assassination_attempts_on_Adolf_Hitler https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assassination_attempts...
M_Grey 10y ago
That's the message we all got, but I think we can agree it wasn't the intended message. "I'm still in control, I can still reach out anywhere, and I don't care that people know it's me." As you say, reasonably that translates into, "I'm insecure."

Indeed, and the message was "I'm insecure about my position".

by L_226 10y ago

Indeed, and the message was "I'm insecure about my position".

chongli 10y ago

Emotionally insecure, sure, but extremely dangerous, obviously.

mc32 10y ago

Someone insecure who does not retaliate is of little concern. Someone who can retaliate or do away with people in remote places using extreme methods is more about saying, "don't cross me or I will get you" and insecurity is kind of irrelevant at that point. It's more I don't want to get on this woman/man's bad side. I'm also not sure it's plain insecurity. I'm sure there are people not too far removed from him who if they could, would try to get to him -however, he goes to extreme measures to ensure he neutralizes possible threats when identified --including relatives and "old hands". Although, being such a tyrant (insecure as he might be) why doesn't anyone of the people at his core who live in fear for themselves and everyone else just go on a final mission against him? It's not like he's the only one armed --plus he'd have to remain awake 24x7.

M_Grey 10y ago
It's probably a rare person who is sane, intelligent, capable of detailed planning, and willing to potentially have a really nasty and protracted death. It seems to me that far more often you have people who are deluded in some way and don't perceive risk (bad planners, may not be particularly mentally fit), rare cases of extremely violent mental illness (not sane, bad planners), the highly motivated fanatic (good planner, sane, tends not to be the most intelligent). You need a lot of elements to come together to murder someone who is well protected and expects to be the target of violence, while having a state to protect them. The scary thing is that of course, sometimes, this does happen; when it does there is very very little that can be done to stop it, short of you aforementioned 24x7 sleeping cycle.
- mc32 10y ago
  It reminds me of the Stauffenberg plot. And then there are the bodyguards who got Indira Gandhi --they did not care what happened to them, they "cared" about carrying out their mission. Although, it's quite possible both were equally motivated but one was just not lucky enough to carry things through.
  - groby_b 10y ago
    The Stauffenberg plot is pretty much evidence that assassinating somebody protected by a large force is really, really, hard. Not because that plot itself failed. But because it overshadows the truly impressive number of other attempts at Hitler's life, all failed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assassination_attempts_on_Adolf_Hitler https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assassination_attempts...

M_Grey 10y ago

That's the message we all got, but I think we can agree it wasn't the intended message. "I'm still in control, I can still reach out anywhere, and I don't care that people know it's me." As you say, reasonably that translates into, "I'm insecure."