Nigerian tries to blow up plane..

keeponrockin wrote:

Having said that, do we REALLY need to remove personal items from our laps for the last hour now?

Well... it's that or profile passengers, and we can't do that, can we? I mean... why ask young Arab and/or Muslim men to take off their shoes when you can delay things massively by asking old ladies and everyone else to do the same. Now, before some jump all ugly on me, let me get out there that I know a bit about the subject of anti-terrorism and knew as soon as the 2nd plane hit on 9-11 that it was AQ and knew they were hiding in the mountains of Afghanistan, but still stopped at my local gas station on the way home to offer sanctuary at my house to the Arabs working there in case the local meatheads started hassling them. I get that we have to judge people on their individual merit, but we can't let a PC mentality keep us from using common sense. When I was growing up, we understood that if cops are looking for crystal meth dealers, they keep their eyes on members of biker clubs. If they wanted to bust cigarette smugglers, they looked for white guys wearing gold necklaces and nylon shirts on I-95 in one of the states between Florida and New York who were in Cadillacs or rental trucks. If they wanted to infiltrate IRA contributers, they went to certain neighborhoods in Brooklyn and Manhattan, but not in BedSty or Harlem. Is this perfect? No. Can a truly sophisticated terrorist use this to their advantage? Absolutely. Would guys like this one and the shoe bomber probably have been caught prior to boarding? Sure. It ain't perfect, but it's a better use of resources and brains than the current, "All must be inconvenienced so we don't look like racists," policy that has been in place since the last administration.

Brisk. wrote:

surely if you wanted to blow up a plane you would do it over the ocean, not when you were trying to land?

That is absolutely incorrect. Blowing a plane up over water just kills those on board, and maybe keeps people from knowing what you did if all of the evidence sinks to the bottom of the ocean. Blowing it up over land kills everyone on board, and maybe kills a bunch on the ground, further adding to the Terrorism Effect. You can't apply the traits of a compassionate human being when trying to understand what these murderers are doing.

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

YOU CAN NOT WIN A WAR AGAINST A TACTIC!! WAKE UP PEOPLE!!

It's a semantic distinction perhaps, but I don't know that this is correct. For better or worse the US and coalition forces have killed most of the top bomb makers of AQ, and many in other terrorist organizations, too. As a result, Crotchie had a very unsophisticated bomb in his pants. Now, we can debate whether killing all the bomb makers contributes to guys like this signing up to put their balls on the line, pun fully intended, but it seems folly to deny that we're winning the war when it comes to these folks being able to come anywhere near the sophisticated plan that they put in place 8 years ago. WIll it ever be a completely winnable war? Probably not, but I don't know that we will ever see a surrender by the kind of people who are so ruled by hatred that they will stone women to death for getting raped and kill gays for being who they are, so maybe it's good to take the victories that we can as we keep vigilant in this conflict.

i hope usa not bomb nigeria after this,,,maybe not.they dont have oil...or they have????mmm

Nigeria is the 12th largest producer of petroleum in the world and the 8th largest exporter, and has the 10th largest proven reserves. (The country joined OPEC in 1971)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigeria#Economy

concertaholicshirt wrote:

quote="gimmesometruth27"]YOU CAN NOT WIN A WAR AGAINST A TACTIC!! WAKE UP PEOPLE!!

It's a semantic distinction perhaps, but I don't know that this is correct. For better or worse the US and coalition forces have killed most of the top bomb makers of AQ, and many in other terrorist organizations, too. As a result, Crotchie had a very unsophisticated bomb in his pants. Now, we can debate whether killing all the bomb makers contributes to guys like this signing up to put their balls on the line, pun fully intended, but it seems folly to deny that we're winning the war when it comes to these folks being able to come anywhere near the sophisticated plan that they put in place 8 years ago. WIll it ever be a completely winnable war? Probably not, but I don't know that we will ever see a surrender by the kind of people who are so ruled by hatred that they will stone women to death for getting raped and kill gays for being who they are, so maybe it's good to take the victories that we can as we keep vigilant in this conflict.[/quote]

concertaholicshirt wrote:

keeponrockin wrote:

Having said that, do we REALLY need to remove personal items from our laps for the last hour now?

Well... it's that or profile passengers, and we can't do that, can we? I mean... why ask young Arab and/or Muslim men to take off their shoes when you can delay things massively by asking old ladies and everyone else to do the same. Now, before some jump all ugly on me, let me get out there that I know a bit about the subject of anti-terrorism and knew as soon as the 2nd plane hit on 9-11 that it was AQ and knew they were hiding in the mountains of Afghanistan, but still stopped at my local gas station on the way home to offer sanctuary at my house to the Arabs working there in case the local meatheads started hassling them. I get that we have to judge people on their individual merit, but we can't let a PC mentality keep us from using common sense. When I was growing up, we understood that if cops are looking for crystal meth dealers, they keep their eyes on members of biker clubs. If they wanted to bust cigarette smugglers, they looked for white guys wearing gold necklaces and nylon shirts on I-95 in one of the states between Florida and New York who were in Cadillacs or rental trucks. If they wanted to infiltrate IRA contributers, they went to certain neighborhoods in Brooklyn and Manhattan, but not in BedSty or Harlem. Is this perfect? No. Can a truly sophisticated terrorist use this to their advantage? Absolutely. Would guys like this one and the shoe bomber probably have been caught prior to boarding? Sure. It ain't perfect, but it's a better use of resources and brains than the current, "All must be inconvenienced so we don't look like racists," policy that has been in place since the last administration.

Brisk. wrote:

surely if you wanted to blow up a plane you would do it over the ocean, not when you were trying to land?

That is absolutely incorrect. Blowing a plane up over water just kills those on board, and maybe keeps people from knowing what you did if all of the evidence sinks to the bottom of the ocean. Blowing it up over land kills everyone on board, and maybe kills a bunch on the ground, further adding to the Terrorism Effect. You can't apply the traits of a compassionate human being when trying to understand what these murderers are doing.

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

YOU CAN NOT WIN A WAR AGAINST A TACTIC!! WAKE UP PEOPLE!!

It's a semantic distinction perhaps, but I don't know that this is correct. For better or worse the US and coalition forces have killed most of the top bomb makers of AQ, and many in other terrorist organizations, too. As a result, Crotchie had a very unsophisticated bomb in his pants. Now, we can debate whether killing all the bomb makers contributes to guys like this signing up to put their balls on the line, pun fully intended, but it seems folly to deny that we're winning the war when it comes to these folks being able to come anywhere near the sophisticated plan that they put in place 8 years ago. WIll it ever be a completely winnable war? Probably not, but I don't know that we will ever see a surrender by the kind of people who are so ruled by hatred that they will stone women to death for getting raped and kill gays for being who they are, so maybe it's good to take the victories that we can as we keep vigilant in this conflict.

if you want to play terrorist whack a mole in the desert for the next 50 years be my guest. but at no point will we ever say "that's it, we killed them all, no more terrorists." every one of them we kill there has a son or neice or nephew or brother or sister that is going to grow up and wage jihad to avenge the death of their loved one, and so the cycle continues.....and the band plays on....

prfctlefts wrote:

inmytree wrote:

prfctlefts wrote:

I'd like to know why it took Obama's people 3 hrs to notify him and then it took him 3 days to even say anything about it. :wtf: Oh I forgot he was on vacation :roll: Those damn turrist,and I thought there was no war on terror as some on her would like to believe. :roll:

who cares if it took 3 hours to inform him or if it took 3 days to "say anything"...why is this even an issue...?

Because we almost had another major terrorist attack,and hundreds of people could have died that's fucking why !!! He is responsible for keeping us safe. If we are almost attacked he should be notified immediately not 3 hrs later. God forbid we interupt his vacation. If it weren't for some of the passengers that saw what this scumbag was trying to do it would have more than likely happened. What if the plane would have blown up over land.Think about all the innocent people that would have died along with the passengers.This administration is incompetant when it comes to National Security. Not only that the terrorist has already gotten a public defender so now we can't even interrogate him.

relax...

I'd be willing to bet if something did truly happen, i.e., the plane did crash, that the President would have addressed the nation A.S.A.P.

In this case, what would you have wanted him to say...? first reports were that someone set off firecrackers...let's say Obama interrupted your episode of the 700 Club and said "it's come to my attention that moments ago, someone set off firecrackers on a plane...now hear this, I will not rest until firecrackers are eradicated and we'll start with attacking China..."

I'm pretty sure you'd be unhappy with that response...

Why do you need the President to speak to you...are that scared that you need his calming influence...?

As for the the nutbomber getting a lawyer...welcome the US, it's nice that we now follow the rule of law...

Heatherj43 wrote:

aerial wrote:

I just heard on the news that a lawyer that was on the flight saw this guy with another man in a suit...the man in the suit was talking to the ticket sales lady saying the bomber did not have a passport but need to be on the flight ....they were told to talk to the manager....So if this is true how did this guy even get on the plane with no passport?...bribery?

This was said on the news, then they said he did indeed have a passport, so I have no idea why that guy said he heard he did not. They said that guy in the suit also said the guy was a refuge. None of that appears to be true anymore? Oh, and all of that supposedly happened in Amsterdam.

Thanks for the update

Dirtie_Frank wrote:

You two probably gave old W a hard time when he sat at the school after hearing about the attacks. It is the same type of thing right. They both took their time and waited. Right or wrong? Or since it was George Bush you gave him a hard time about it?

sorry dude, but you might recall that 9/11 was a successful attack warranting immediate speech from the chief executive. this was an attempt that failed miserably. no need to jump to conclusions and create a public panic. these are two completely different things entirely. its apples to oranges.

Dirtie_Frank wrote:

You two probably gave old W a hard time when he sat at the school after hearing about the attacks. It is the same type of thing right. They both took their time and waited. Right or wrong? Or since it was George Bush you gave him a hard time about it?

wrong, because 1 actually happened and killed people, the other was stopped before anything happened.

it's like saying a cop got a call about a rape happening and finished his lunch first is the same thing as a cop got a call about a rape suspect being apprehended and finished his lunch first

funny how people forget that it took bush 6 days to even mention the shoe bomber incident....yet they are all over obama for taking 3 days.... :roll: :roll:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/2 ... 06307.html

The bellowing by Republicans over the Obama administration's supposedly lackadaisical response to the attempted bombing of an airliner over Detroit seems as much about political posturing as legitimate national security concerns.

How else to explain the GOP's relatively quiet reaction eight years ago to President George W. Bush's detached response after a similarly-botched terrorist attack?

On December 22, 2001, Richard Reid -- known more infamously as the shoe bomber -- failed in his attempt to blow up a Miami-bound jet using explosives hidden in his shoe. Coming less than four months after September 11, there already were deep concerns about a potential attack during the upcoming holiday break. Nevertheless, President Bush did not directly address the foiled plot for six days, according to an extensive review of newspaper records from that time period. And when he did, it was only in passing.

The day of the attempted attack, for example, the Associated Press reported that "White House officials" were monitoring the situation throughout the afternoon and that "President Bush received two briefings" on the matter while at Camp David for the holidays. Spokesman Scott McClellan, meanwhile, told reporters that administration officials were consulting with acting Massachusetts Gov. Jane Swift -- the plane Reid boarded made an emergency landing at Boston's Logan International Airport.

"The White House has been monitoring the situation since early on today," McClellan said, according to a Washington Post article published on December 23. The lead statement came from Swift, who lauded the "heroic acts" of "the flight attendants and passengers who helped subdue the suspect."

Little changed in the days ahead. The Washington Post, citing administration sources, also reported on Sunday December 23 that Bush would seek an increase in domestic security funds as the centerpiece of his 2003 budget request. On Monday December 24, CNN reported that Bush called members of the U.S. military stationed overseas to pass along holiday wishes. He was joined at Camp David that day by "the extended Bush clan... including the President's parents, the former President and the First Lady."

That same day, The New York Post quoted Thomas Kinton, interim executive director of the Massachusetts Port Authority, discussing how Reid was ultimately subdued. In addition, U.S. Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.), was quoted saying: "The message here... is that terrorists are going to hit us again." The final edition of USA Today that day reported that: "A White House spokesman said President Bush was monitoring the incident." As for an on-the-record comment, The Boston Globe noted that: "Bush has not issued any statements about the incident."

By Wednesday, December 26, Bush had left Camp David and was en route via Air Force One to his ranch in Crawford, Texas, according to ABC News. While there, another equally pressing national security concern entered his radar: Osama bin Laden released another videotape. On the scene in Crawford, then CNN correspondent Major Garrett was asked whether the administration had any reaction.

"No, Wolf," he said to host Wolf Blitzer. "The White House is really a bit hamstrung in this regard. First of all, it didn't expect the tape to be released. Second of all, many senior advisers are not here with the president at the Crawford ranch. Many of them are taking what the president considers to be a well-deserved vacation. And they're scattered around the country. They're trying to get in touch with each other."

By the end of the day, a response was issued -- but from a deputy press secretary and not the president himself. "The Bush administration says Osama bin Laden's latest statements are -- quote -- "terrorist propaganda,'" relayed Blitzer.

"That itself is a story, Wolf," Major Garrett remarked. "Because the White House really feels that now if it responded in any more formal way, any more lengthy way, it would be he elevating bin Laden in a way that's simply not in the United States's or its coalition partners' overall interest."

The real kicker came the next day -- Thursday December 27. CNN led off its report by noting that the president "decided to keep quiet" about "the latest bin Laden tape" in what was a "quiet day at the Western White House." Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, however, held a press conference in which he announced -- to the amazement of some observers -- that he'd "stopped chasing" reports on the terrorist leader.

In that press conference, Rumsfeld was also asked about Richard Reid -- now five days after the incident. "That's a matter that's in the hands of the law enforcement people and not the Department of Defense," he said. "And I don't have anything I would want to add."

It would be another day before Bush himself publicly mentioned the shoe bomber. In a press conference on December 28, in Crawford, the president said that incident was proof that "the country has been on alert."

"A stewardess on an American Airlines flight - or a flight attendant on an American Airlines flight - was vigilant, saw something amiss and responded," he added. "It's an indication that the culture of America has shifted to one of alertness, and I'm grateful for the flight attendant's response, as I'm sure the passengers on that airplane."

And so there you have it. The Bush White House downplayed not just the Reid incident (handing over lead responsibilities to federal law enforcement officials) but also consciously deflected attention away from bin Laden out of concern about elevating his latest antics.

In contrast to that response, the current White House has been quite active. The attempted bombing of the plane over Detroit occurred on December 25. That night, Obama convened a secure conference call with his Homeland Security and counter-terrorism advisers. He did the same the next morning and the morning after that. On the 27th, the president dispatched his press secretary, Robert Gibbs, and the head of the Department of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, to the Sunday shows to take questions on the matter. And on December 28, he gave a public statement while still on site in Hawaii.

Obama may not have worn a tie while giving those remarks (which has annoyed more than a few conservatives). But he did host a public address specifically on the situation (which Bush did not do). And while Napolitano may have gaffed during the first round of interviews by proclaiming that the system worked, it was nothing worse than what then-Attorney General John Ashcroft said about Richard Reid back in 2001.

"Throughout the war on terrorism, our military and intelligence officials have made a concerted effort to share appropriate information with the public in order to enlist their assistance," Ashcroft said, in remarks highlighted by ABC News. "We've asked citizens to be vigilant, to be alert to any possible threat. The success of this strategy was made clear by yesterday's indictment of Richard Reid, who may very well have succeeded in destroying American Airlines Flight Number 63, as the indictment charges, had it not been for the courage and attentiveness of the citizen passengers and crew."‬‪

concertaholicshirt wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

funny how people forget that it took bush 6 days to even mention the shoe bomber incident....yet they are all over obama for taking 3 days.... :roll: :roll:

Ya' see... this is a big part of the problem. As an extremist moderate with socialistic libertarian leanings, my views balance out somewhere near the middle. I came to despise Clinton (after campaigning for him,) and always despised Bush(es). So, I was always dismayed when I heard the Bushies go on and on about "....But Clinton did worse," and I find it just as distasteful when the Obama supporters now do it with things like, "...But it took George 6 days instead of 3." Is W really the standard you want to hold your guy to, and excuse/accept everything as long as you feel you can make the argument that your guy wasn't quite as bad? Is that really where we want to be? Really?

This is our fuckin' lives, Folks. "Not as bad as Bush" doesn't fuckin' cut it. Defending the Dem wing of the RubupliCrat party against the GOP wing doesn't fuckin' cut it. And vice-versa. We need to stop aligning, especially when it comes to our votes, out of hate and fear.

And, just to be clear, aside from the tangential issue of Napolitano being an utter tool from Day 1 of her tenure, I have no major problems with President Obama on this. No system can be 100% successful, and the real failures occurred overseas and outside of US gov't control. We need to crack the whip or block flights from these nations if they don't get their shit together, but it's ridiculous to get overly pissy with the President at this point.

isn't a moderate in themiddle? an extremist would be on one side or the other, so extremist moderate does not make any sense to me. isn't socialistic and libertarian an oxymoron? socialistic is on the left and libertarian is on the right, with those two terms you can't be both, rather its a contradiction. if you will read the thread you will see that people were blaming obama for taking 3 days to address this. i posted this article to show that their guy took 6 days to respond and not one republican made an issue that it took so long and the circumstances are completely different and back then it was much worse with everyone being so paranoid of being attacked again. so spare me your lamenting. it is how it is and the situation in this country is what it is. this "stop aligning" come together rah rah crap is not going to work. the republicans have made it clear that they are not on board for anything other than every man for themselves, lower taxes, no gay marriage, and increased military spending, and NO to anything the dems or obama suggests. they sit back and point fingers at the current president just like others sit back and point fingers at the prior one that fucked everything up so terribly.

if you are going to quote me, can you refute my article or not? or are you just going to sit back and complain about it?