"A videotape of the Newark incident shows the man embracing a woman at the C-1 security checkpoint before she passes through passenger screening.... The man, who was not a passenger, walks past a spot where a Transportation Security Administration (TSA) officer should have been stationed to move closer to the woman... The woman holds up a rope meant to keep unscreened people out of the secure area so that the man can pass underneath, and they walk hand-in-hand toward the boarding area before disappearing from view...."
The fact that these two individuals kissed and walked hand-in-hand does not and should not wash away suspicion. If it did, terrorists would know how to stage a security breach. Have male and female confederates. The woman passes through security and then lets in the man, who has whatever weapons/bombs on him that may be desired. The two act like lovers, and the TSA workers sit back and think ain't love grand. A few hours later, hundreds of human beings are blown to pieces.
January 7, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
99 comments:
Everything is about sex today--even the terrorism post.
Wait until the TSA announces where they suspect that suicide bombers will be hiding the good stuff now that full body scanners are cranking up. The will be recruiting for proctologist screeners.
Both Althouse and traditionalguy allude to the same thing: that terrorists who want to take down a plane can, and will, eventually figure out how to do it. Whether by "acting" like innocent lovers, or hiding bombs in body cavities.
It's all leading to an inevitable conclusion. The real question is: What happens then? At what point does our tolerance for incidents like Ft. Hood and the underwear bomber reach the breaking point? I figure it will take a nuclear event.
Ann, you really need to shut up. This constant harping on security is starting to sound racist.
The system worked. Napalitano told us so.
Obama didn't even bother to stop his vacation things are humming along so well. Michael Leiter didn't even come down off the ski slopes. Why are you so paranoid? Everything is under control. Nothing to see here. Move along.
Terrorists can't make Obama cancel his tee time? If they could ... then the terrorists win, you see? Don't you read Yglesias? It's all part of the strategy.
I see a stern rebuke for you from one of Andrew Sullivan's ghost posters very soon.
you don't screen the tools you screen the people ...
do you think Atta and his thugs really needed the box cutters they used to take over the planes ?
If the goal is to bring the plane down starting a fire in the cabin would eventually bring it down. Good thing there are no ignitable liquids like hard liquor on a plane. Or maybe a quick trip down to the avionics section and pull a few wires ... or maybe just opening a door at high alltitude ...
4 maybe 3 thugs on a plane can bring it down with nothing but their hands.
Screen for terrorists not just for their tools.
Both Althouse and traditionalguy allude to the same thing: that terrorists who want to take down a plane can, and will, eventually figure out how to do it. Whether by "acting" like innocent lovers, or hiding bombs in body cavities.
Or simply bribe a baggage handler.
Talking about security, have they ever fixed the walls in DFW to prevent people from easily sliding things under them?
"It's all leading to an inevitable conclusion. The real question is: What happens then? At what point does our tolerance for incidents like Ft. Hood and the underwear bomber reach the breaking point? I figure it will take a nuclear event."
Oh, for Christ's fucking sake.
Have male and female confederates
If they used two males, no one would profile them as fanatical Muslims if they got all smoochy.
WV - asersole - deodorizing spray for the procto screening area
you don't screen the tools you screen the people
Yes, this apparently is the key to Israel's success.
Put Muslims on Muslims-only flights.
My previous response was due to my misreading of the passage quoted. I interpreted it to mean that at some point our "tolerance" will end and we will have to throw a nuke or several in the general direction of the Muslim world.
I see I was mistaken, but my response is still somewhat the same. We're jumping to rather hysterical conclusions, aren't we, when we extrapolate from a lone would-be bomber who can't even succeed in exploding a bomb in his underwear to a terrorist nuclear device somehow being smuggled here and exploded.
And the Ft. Hood incident is simply another case of a malcontent with psychological problems going berserk with a gun; that's as American as torture. That was not a terrorist incident.
I see I was mistaken, but my response is still somewhat the same.
LMAO.
Cook, no worries. There's no need to apologize, here amongst friends. Especially when you don't mean it.
You misread me. Where did I apologize? I'm simply clarifying that my first reading of your post was mistaken. Nonetheless, although not as appalling as I had thought--you aren't advocating that we nuke the Muslim world, are you?--it is hysterical to assume the next step is a Muslim Terror Nuke set off next to the local elementary school.
Oh, for Christ's fucking sake.
No, kidding. Can we do without the sky-is-falling hysteria? It seems like we can feed the terror all by ourselves. Focus. With this your anger should be at the two kissing goofs at Newark.
"...the Ft. Hood incident is simply another case of a malcontent with psychological problems going berserk with a gun; that's as American as torture."
Oh for fucking Christs sake. This is the most retarded thing you've ever written. It's demonstrably false even to the casual observer.
The Ft. Hood shooter didn't just come out of the blue. His animus toward American combat troops was well known to the superiors in his chain of command. They refused to act because it would jeopardize their career. They would be accused by liberal politicians of profiling and have their careers terminated. So of course now 16 people are dead on the liberal alter of political correctness.
It's the exact same reason why this terrorist was let into our country an onto our aircraft: The Obama Administration refused to cancel his State Department issued visa, even after his own father told us he was a terrorist and would attack us.
These are not isolated nutcases unknown to us - who suddenly go berserk. They were identified suspected terrorists well-known well in advance of their terrorist acts to the Obama Administration.
The Obama Administration refuses to fucking act when presented with terrorists on a silver platter.
So, we need to fire this group of morons. They aren't protecting us.
Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't read closely. NOT!!
hint: a sense of humor helps sometimes.
Does anyone doubt that if they wanted, that they could get a bomb on board a plane? I know I could, the first time, no doubt. I have often taken items that are not allowed, either due to accident or stubbornness. I've never had anything confiscated or even discovered, and I fly more than once a month. Now add the will to sacrifice your own life and you can see that the security measures now in place are not effective, but they are necessary politically. Like many things in our society, you have to do something - inaction is never allowed. This is how we got the colored threat levels, the duct tape attack defense, and much more. I don't blame the officials for coming up with this stuff, because we demand action, useless or not.
The nagging question for me is" Why have we not suffered such an attack yet? I really can't explain it.
The responses will be ridiculous when it happens, but we will demand them anyway, because we want something, knowing inside that there is nothing. Life has all kinds of risks and this is just gonna be one from now on.
Robert Cook:
But you would concede that should a dirty bomb go off in a schoolyard that it was the work of a lone madman? Perhaps a lone Muslim madman, but a lone incident, unfortunate, at that? And while the Detroit guy was the "would be" bomber what would you call the successful bomber? I know. A suspect.
Heh heh. knox rules!
So basically a terrorist infiltrated the TSA and was caught only after he turned his back and allowed some random dude inside the secure area?
The result wasn't the loss of any life, just total havoc and economic disruption.
This TSA inside man is absolutely an enemy combatant. Send him to Gitmo! Torture him! TORTURE HIM!
I understand that, right now, this TSA inside man terrorist is being protected by others in the TSA who have placed him on "administrative leave". What about these others? Are they terrorists too? Better torture them also, just to be safe...
The thing hasn't really happened until a court says so.
When you are at an airport something happens to you. Even you are just dropping somebody off. The allure of travelling on a plane still (at least for me) like anticipating sex.
bagoh20, why not yet? I think perhaps our screeners aren't as dumb as we make them out to be. They do profile against a list of behaviors and markers. They just have to pick a grandma out of the line occasionally to salve our consciences of racism and to make the terrorists think we're soft, causing them to be careless. At least that's my optimistic perspective on the issue.
We're jumping to rather hysterical conclusions, aren't we, when we extrapolate from a lone would-be bomber who can't even succeed in exploding a bomb in his underwear to a terrorist nuclear device somehow being smuggled here and exploded.
Perhaps you are ignorant, but I suspect Knox was extrapolating from other sources. That should be obvious, since Professor Althouse's post didn't even mention the underwear bomber or Ft. Hood. But as others pointed out, you're free to overreact based on your ignorance.
It's funny how the hysterically blind, hysterically accuse the concerned of hysteria.
"The nagging question for me is" Why have we not suffered such an attack yet? I really can't explain it."
But we have suffered an attack lately.
The Nigerian kept his US-issued visa and was escorted right onto the plane, even though the Obama Administration had been amply warned well in advance that he was likely to try something like this.
They even had his name on a list of suspected terrorists. Didn't matter. They let him keep his permission to come to America anyway.
That his bomb was a dud was merely a matter of luck, but doesn't change the fact that we were attacked.
It is trivially easy for known Islamic terrorists to get permission to visit the United States and get on our aircraft. That much is blindingly obvious.
The reason is that the Obama Administration, when presented with an identifiable threat, chose to do nothing. Merely revoking the visa would have prevented the attack. They couldn't even be bothered to do something this simple.
Of course, given the epic stupidity on display by our government, terrorists are going to eventually succeed.
All their bombs can't be duds.
We're jumping to rather hysterical conclusions, aren't we, when we extrapolate from a lone would-be bomber who can't even succeed in exploding a bomb in his underwear to a terrorist nuclear device somehow being smuggled here and exploded.
Hardly hysterical when you already have one Muslim nation (Pakistan) with nuclear weapons or a cash starved nation (North Korea) who would most likely sell them. As for 'somehow' smuggle, that's fairly easy as well. Stick it in a cargo container and detonate it outside a major port.
And the Ft. Hood incident is simply another case of a malcontent with psychological problems going berserk with a gun; that's as American as torture. That was not a terrorist incident.
Hardly unique to America Robert. Just last week a maniac in Finland went on a shooting rampage, although unlike Major Hasan, he wasn't yelling Allah Akbar while squeezing off rounds.
All true Florida, but 8 years and nothing like what is easily possible. Something is wrong (or right) with this picture. The only guys we have seen have been to totally inept retarded terrorists who can't light a match or even be slightly sly. One guy with an IQ over 90 could succeed today with ease. Why have they not sent him?
the entire process is riddled with holes. if you have photoshop or for that matter just a decent mspaint and a printer you can dummy up a boarding pass to match your ID and get to any gate and get on any plane if you have an accomplice who buys the ticket online.
the point of attack and stopping it is at the screening area for both passengers and baggage, checked or not.
these breaches are probably multiplied by 100 each day and it is only by the grace of god and not man that we haven't had more incidents and that is both Bush and Obama and the next guy until we get serious.
Florida:
Yes, all those things were known, but in the eye of the current administration there was no Probable Cause!
"The real question is: What happens then? At what point does our tolerance for incidents like Ft. Hood and the underwear bomber reach the breaking point?"
The real question is "What do we do about it?" Democracies, by their very nature, are vulnerable to these kinds of attacks. But in order to seal up the Democracy from attacks, you have to start infringing on the rights of the citizens. And that's where people start getting upset. They want better security, but they don't want it at their expense, or at the expense of their God given rights. As with everything in the law, it's often difficult to find the right balance between things, and that's what we're going through right now. Airlines want better security, but they don't want such onerous security that they will lose passengers. Passengers want better security, but they don't want to be inconvenienced too much. Terrorists don't care, because when the US becomes obsessed with airline security, they can just move on to easier targets. Finding the right mix for our security efforts, given budgetary and economic and effectiveness constraints, is the difficult part.
it is hysterical to assume the next step is a Muslim Terror Nuke set off next to the local elementary school.
I'm curious Robert, do you think if a Muslim terrorist group had access to a nuclear weapon would they use it and if not, what based upon events of the last 10-15 years would make you conclude they wouldn't?
Oh, for Christ's fucking sake.
and FLORIDUHHH
I asked you a while back to give one clear bit of evidence that, one clear cause and effect that goes to Obama and you can't except to cite significantly similar circumstances to Obama and this and Bush and the shoe bomber.
And I ask you, what are the chances that anyone could walk into any embassy of the United States anywhere in the world and ask for the station chief for the CIA and get to see him to give him important information....that, some information was turned into the embassy is probably true but the specifics are out of this world so not possible.
"I asked you a while back to give one clear bit of evidence ..."
Opus, you aren't open to evidence.
Therefore, I'm not responding to your questions or concerns. You're a troll, and I won't feed you.
"Yes, all those things were known, but in the eye of the current administration there was no Probable Cause!"
I agree. They think like law professors ... as if this is some sort of exercise up for debate in the law review.
What a bunch of maroons.
We need a leader. Not a professor. We need someone who understands how to react to threats in order to prevent attacks ... not someone with their nose stuck so far up in the air they can't see the threat when it's handed to them on a silver platter. Someone who wants to debate whether we are even in a war against terror.
We need serious leadership.
And what we have are pretenders.
I asked you a while back to give one clear bit of evidence that, one clear cause and effect that goes to Obama and you can't except to cite significantly similar circumstances to Obama and this and Bush and the shoe bomber.
I don't think there is any cause and effect but I do appreciate the public tends to adhere to the theory of perception equals reality.
Campaigning on a promise to close Gitmo and appointing Napolatano who thinks the bigger threat are disenfranchised white ex-military doesn't exactly inspire confidence that he has his thumb on the pulse of what is important. In other words, some people recognize the threat of radical Islam and the question is whether the President does as well. At this point, I'm not sure.
It's just hysterical to think some goat herders in Afghanistan are gonna bring down the twin towers, 4 jetliners, hit the Pentagon and kill thousands on some September morning.
I agree that does sound impossible, even now... BUT
My impression is that as much as we would like to think profiling for people would be less inconvenient than making us randomly take our shoes off and patdowns..
I would submit profiling for people would become more disruptive and challenging in that it would inevitably lead to abuses of power.
Just look at the most famous Sheriff in America.
Apparently the sheriff has been detaining what appeared to him to be illegals and later turned out to be citizens.
It's just hysterical to think some goat herders in Afghanistan are gonna bring down the twin towers, 4 jetliners, hit the Pentagon and kill thousands on some September morning.
Actually the 9/11 hijackers weren't goat herders but educated middle class fellows who were simply following the call to jihad.
Meade, OhforfuckingChristssake, thanks!
... to be shorthanded in the future by simply typing OFCFS.
until we get serious
Just curious, hd, what does "get serious" mean to you? Not being sly, I really want to know.
Lem, that guy has done some stupid shit, but if we are not willing to be detained occasionally, we will be killed occasionally instead.
If these terror attacks were being perpetrated exclusively by well endowed white guys, then I would be fine if I got profiled a lot. It would be up to me to try to convince guys like me to stop trying to kill people, rather than just expecting others to die for my honor or convenience.
"Actually the 9/11 hijackers weren't goat herders but educated middle class fellows who were simply following the call to jihad."
Yea, I know, but that does not make me feel any better either. There are plenty more of those.
You mean that it was not due to poverty and oppression by the west?
These Jihad young men are mind controlled by the Muslim High Priests to be willing human sacrifices to allah. That is easy after they have memorised Mohammed's book by reciting it and bowing to Mohammed's Chants 5 times a day since they were 6 years old. A spiritual truth is that whatever you worship has power over you. GWB took a wild try to install a democratic system in the middle of the middle east to stop this deluge of mind controlled suicide bombers from being sent out from Saudi Arabia. That worked to keep the AlQaeda's supporters off stride until Obama convinced them that they have nothing to fear from us any more. Apres Bush, Le Deluge. Will the Saracuda post a facebook on how to solve the coming mass attack? Obama frankly doesn't give a damn, my dear. He thrives in a crisis needing a calm negotiator who, for lots of money, will organise a community into accepting its fate.
IMHO Althouse represents the concerned view of most reasonable Americans. Robert Cook, Florida, David and the other lefties are the radical fringe accusing the rest of us of being hysterical.
These Jihad young men are mind controlled by the Muslim High Priests to be willing human sacrifices to allah.
tradguy - most lefties will dispute that assertion as racist or whatever.
Meanwhile, a guy shot up his workplace in Missouri, eliciting exactly 0 polemical cries for policy change or rolling heads from the Althouse Ostrich brigade.
What if we focus on the cases where people ACTUALLY DIE when we allocate our societal outrage?
I forgot, Muzlimz are trying to kill all of us and our dog.
Monty - you obv feel there is no difference between a lone, crazed madman and an organized death cult. I feel sorry for your feeble mind.
I say all middle-aged men who are known hunters/gun-owners should be screened before being allowed into their workplace.
Meanwhile, a guy shot up his workplace in Missouri, eliciting exactly 0 polemical cries for policy change or rolling heads from the Althouse Ostrich brigade.
What policy changes do you recommend or whose head should roll for a random person who goes beserk? Perhaps mandatory mental health tests for everyone?
..then I would be fine if I got profiled a lot.
I was profiled many times coming home, after going to see my mother in Washington Heights, getting off the GW to 1&9 .. it was nothing pleasant.
After the third time I started coming back home via the Lincoln..
Once you institutionalize profiling for one thing .. there is no going back .. it will be done for everything else, to every minority, at the drop of a hat.
How about restricting public access to high-powered military grade rifles? Oh wait, that would infringe on civil liberties, would'nt it. Unlike singling people out on the basis of their muslim name, like many of the people here advocate.
Civil liberties for me but not for thee.
"Perhaps you are ignorant, but I suspect Knox was extrapolating from other sources. That should be obvious, since Professor Althouse's post didn't even mention the underwear bomber or Ft. Hood. But as others pointed out, you're free to overreact based on your ignorance."
Another commenter here referred to those things, and my response was to that person.
Montagne:
I think you are absolutely right. Let's reserve our umbrage for after. I mean we should be outraged by the nut in St. Louis who was, after all, successful in his little terrorism attempt and since he is dead we don't even have to refer to him as the "alleged" killer. Much more satisfying don't you think?
Monty - I've got news for you. the VA Tech killer used semi auto pistols, not "assault rifles". Just admit you want to ban all guns from law-abiding citizens. You are in favor of people being defenseless in their homes or when they travel to predators.
Montagne:
Actually, the guy in St. Louis had an AK-47, the ownership of which is a felony. It was against the law for him to own that gun much less use it to kill 3 co-workers and injure 5 others. So, like you, I am pretty pissed off that he broke the law.
I don't know if this guy was a hunter but your suggestion is a good one. But it would be wrong wrong wrong to profile. Because of the St. Louis incident I think everyone in the U.S. should be frisked every day before they go into work, particularly people who hate guns. You know those wiley gun guys, they would trick some granny into carrying in their AKs.
Yes, Alex, that's absolutely correct-- I hope deadly predators invade the homes of the defenseless and murder them, and pee on the corpses after. And why don't you take advantage of this atmosphere of confession to admit that you enjoy rubbing your naked body on goats, chickens, and other farmyard beasts, for fun? HMMMMMMM? Isn't that right?
Or HEY-- maybe I believe in gun rights AND I'm against ethnic/religious profiling in airports???? WOAH, MIND BLOWING!!!
"How about restricting public access to high-powered military grade rifles? Oh wait, that would infringe on civil liberties, would'nt it. Unlike singling people out on the basis of their muslim name, like many of the people here advocate."
Yes it would. Although I have no problem with people getting extra screening to avoid guns getting into the hands of ex-cons, or people deemed suicidal or otherwise mentally disturbed (like the V. Tech gunman), you have gone down the road of deciding some people are more equal than others, and denying consitutional rights on that basis.
Anyway, the terrorists on planes don't have guns: these are gun-free zones. So it's inherently safe there, right?
Arturius asks,
"I'm curious Robert, do you think if a Muslim terrorist group had access to a nuclear weapon would they use it and if not, what based upon events of the last 10-15 years would make you conclude they wouldn't?"
Oh, I don't doubt that a Muslim terrorist group--or any terrorists who have a grudge against us--would like to set off a nuclear device here and would try to do so if they could.
But there's the rub: if they could.
While it is not impossible that terrorists could obtain a nuclear device of some kind, and while it is not impossible that they could somehow convey such a device to our country and try to set it off, there's a long distance to travel from "not impossible" to "do-able" and farther still to "imminent."
It's not impossible that I could apply to medical school, be accepted, successfully complete my studies and my internship, and become a doctor, but I don't think anyone with pressing medical issues better be waiting for such a day to seek attention.
Another commenter here referred to those things, and my response was to that person.
I scrolled up, and I see your second comment also referenced your first comment, which only references Knox's post. It's quite confusing. I don't see a single commenter, prior to your comments that mentioned a nuclear device other than Knox. But hey, I guess we should take your word as an honest broker?
Every one of those so-called screeners should have been fired after being thoroughly grilled (Waterboard? Why not!). That scene should have set off alarm bells with any thinking human being. This is the logical outcome of Terrible Tiny Tommy Daschle's, "You don't professionalize unless you federalize". If you've ever called Social Security or Internal Revenue with a simple question, you know the caliber of people at TSA. Add to that Norman Mineta's desire to get even for the internment of the AJAs, as they were known, and you have an organization intended to fail from the start.
And, yes, Dubya, deserves some of the blame for letting Daschle and Mineta get away with this nonsense.
And now the Demos want this out fit unionized by SEIU!!
Knox, of course, was right about what it will take to get enough people mad to tell the Lefties, "This IS your fault because yo set up a system that was more about political obstructionism and opportunism than protecting this country". Either that, or successful attacks of some other type in several big cities at once.
And, believe it or not, Cook was right in saying a foreign policy/military response, as well as a domestic security one, may be demanded by the American people.
Consider a little history. Most people know Phil Sheridan is credited with, "The only good Indian is a dead Indian"; that's not what he actually said, but it's the meat of it. As a young Army engineer, he had discovered the Gunnison Massacre, where a party surveying for a projected transcontinental railroad had been attacked by Indians and wiped out. The mutilation of the bodies was so shocking to his Victorian eyes that he became a lifelong Indian hater. As commander of the Department of Texas and, subsequently, the Military Division of the Missouri, he had to deal with hundreds of similar incidents. As such, he had no time for people like Wendell Phillips demanding the settling of the West should be abandoned
I think we may be entering a similar period where the deaths of loved ones at the hands of murderers may become a frequent occurrence (Cook's usual Leftist sneer of, "Aren't taking this a little too seriously?", will be right up there with Lindbergh's warning that we should be ready to deal with Nazi Germany, instead of Britian). Anyone who has read any contemporary accounts of the Indian wars (any of them) will recognize the sentiments. At that point, the demand to do something substantive (read what the British did to anyone who took part in the Cawnpore Massacre), will be able unanswerable because Americans will have reached the breaking point.
Arturius said, in reply to my comment about the Ft. Hood incident:
"Hardly unique to America Robert. Just last week a maniac in Finland went on a shooting rampage, although unlike Major Hasan, he wasn't yelling Allah Akbar while squeezing off rounds."
I didn't say it was unique to America, I was simply pointing out that the man at Ft. Hood was not a terrorist but a crazed mass killer such as is all too common today, from the workplace to the schoolhouse. Such incidents create terror, yes, but their perpetrators are not terrorists pursuing a larger agenda; they are desperately sick people inflicting their hostility and hatred of themselves and others on the world.
Leland,
Knox is the commenter I was responding to.
Robert Cook:
You should get some sort of award. I believe you must be the last person in America holding on to that view of the Ft. Hood killer. I assume you also believe that those who collude to produce man made disasters are the products of poverty stricken childhoods. I think you are a lap behind.
Everything about airports and airplane security is reaching hysterical proportions. It's absurd. It is far more safe to fly now than to walk down the street - or frankly travel by train, subway, bus or car. I say as soon as this country reaches full lockdown then the terrorists will truly have won.
The trick of passing a bomb to a love-smitten innocent who can pass security checks at an event is straight out of Vantage Point and, no doubt, countless thrillers before it.
Agreed, Matt, and I would add, that there will be more attempted attacks in the future (doesn't take a genius to recognize that fundamental truth) and it's likely that one or more of these attempts will actually succeed. Now, the way I see it, is we can choose to learn from this, and build a better mouse trap or we can continue to cower in fear at a threat infinitely smaller than the danger we face ever time we get behind the wheel of a car? Is the latter really how we want to live the rest of our lives?
Arturius said...
Or simply bribe a baggage handler.
You're getting warm. Better, hire Muslim screeners. Like Europe.
rhhardin said...
Put Muslims on Muslims-only flights.
With Muslim-only crews.
Cook - And the Ft. Hood incident is simply another case of a malcontent with psychological problems going berserk with a gun; that's as American as torture. That was not a terrorist incident.
Cook, always a couple weeks late and a dollar short. Apparantly, Obama will devote a considerable part of his speech to how Nidal Hasan was a terrorist and all the red flags people missed that a dangerous Islamoid bent on Jihad was in our midst.
I was simply pointing out that the man at Ft. Hood was not a terrorist but a crazed mass killer such as is all too common today, from the workplace to the schoolhouse.
Pity your Idol Obama now is saying "dangerous Islamoid who acted at the behest of AQ in Arabia".
---------------------
Arturius - "Hardly unique to America Robert. Just last week a maniac in Finland went on a shooting rampage, although unlike Major Hasan, he wasn't yelling Allah Akbar while squeezing off rounds."
Actually, the gunman was a Muslim, and it was an "honor killing". He was an Abanian Kosovar refugee, Ibrahim Shkupolli, that was stupidly admitted into Finland as a refugee. He hooked up with a Finnish woman who did not last with his dominating Islamoid ways, left him and took out a restraining order against him - staining his family honor.
The other 4 were just infidels that were in the way of an Islamoid murder-suicide. No, he didn't yell Allahu Akbar as he killed them..Now - this is not terrorist - just another Islamoid honor killing in Europe. But why bring "those people" who refuse to assimilate - in- to foul up your own nation as badly as the lands they fled were made by the "noble refugees"??
Statistically while flying is "safer" then other means of transport, there is nothing more violating of one's dignity then going through TSA or being dealt with as suspicious by all flight attendants if you so much as waggle your finger. What about the spiritual cost of all this diversity-religion crap?
I didn't say it was unique to America,
I suggest you re-read your statement.
I was simply pointing out that the man at Ft. Hood was not a terrorist but a crazed mass killer such as is all too common today, from the workplace to the schoolhouse.
Unfortunately the facts do not lend much support to your theory although you are of course free to believe whatever soothes your sensibilities.
k*thy
I think you're agreeing with me. Anyway, yes there probably will be more attacks. But I'm not about to ask for the Gov't to build a wall or strip seach every Muslim or hamper travel in this country because of fears of what might happen.
I also find it odd that the shoe-bomber attempt elicited a yawn and a laugh from most people. But the underwear bomber is causing an uproar.
Put Muslims on Muslims-only flights.
With Muslim-only crews.
And only allow them to fly into Muslim-only buildings.
By the way, the Newark lovebirds weren't terrorists; they were frequent flyers.
Matt said...
I also find it odd that the shoe-bomber attempt elicited a yawn and a laugh from most people. But the underwear bomber is causing an uproar.
I think there are two reasons. First was timing. The shoe bomber was close enough to 9/11 that people were expecting something else to happen. Eight years later without another plane related incident and people were not expecting it as much.
The other reason may be location. Attempting to blow up a plane over Detroit feels a lot closer to home than doing so over the Atlantic.
I'm not saying these are good reasons to differentiate, just trying to explain the reaction.
And only allow them to fly into Muslim-only buildings.
Actually, I hadn't thought of that; all-Muslim flights would terminate on the 75th floor of the Empire State Building.
"I'm not about to ask for the Gov't to ... hamper travel in this country because of fears of what might happen."
Of course not, only if it will definitely happen or even better after it happens.
Stopping an attack without anticipating it? That's a plan.
I think the panties bomber is taken more serious, because, people are concerned that a new president with an entirely different attitude, may embolden the bastards. They may not want to accept it, but they fear it deep inside, below the political mind.
bagoh20 said...
I think the [Muslim] panties bomber is taken more serious, because, people are concerned [incensed] that a new president with an entirely different attitude, may embolden the bastards.
No question, with Obama as leader of the now so-called free world, it's open season on infidels. And it will continue for the duration.
To put it another way, the "systemic" problem Obama alluded to is... himself.
Cedarford said,
"Pity your Idol Obama now is saying 'dangerous Islamoid who acted at the behest of AQ in Arabia.'"
You are quite mistaken; I dislike Obama and consider him a war criminal just as his predecessors were. I certainly did not vote for him, although I did stand in line for an hour on a cold day to vote in that election. (I didn't vote for McCain either.)
Did Obama really say "Islamoid?" I don't think so.
And as to whether he has accused the Ft. Hood shooter of acting at the behest of AQ--did he?--that doesn't mean it is so. He also disgracefully accepted the Nobel Peace Price while justifying his escalation of troops in Afghanistan by telling lies about a "just war." Obama has little credibility.
"'I didn't say it was unique to America....'"
"I suggest you re-read your statement."
I have and I still don't see any remarks by me suggesting the Ft. Hood killer's acts were unique to America. Can you clarify, please?
Obama: Business as usual.
He's oblivious, a cosmetic punk of the first order.
And his jackasses remain in place.
Praise Allah.
Almost Ali
Try using the head on your shoulders once in a while. If Obama is to blame for this bombing attempt then whose to blame for 9/11? Or the shoe bomber? Get it? Double standards get us no where.
"I certainly did not vote for him, although I did stand in line for an hour on a cold day to vote in that election. (I didn't vote for McCain either.)"
Even if millions did the same it would not change the result. It's a two party system, pick one or you don't have any impact. I didn't like the choices either, but after the primaries, you really need to pick one, or else they get picked for you. They choice may suck but the TWO candidates are always significantly different and one is gonna win.
Bush inherited 9/11 and the shoe bombing, because Clinton blah blah blah blah.
We in the west have a strange vulnerability. We have water boarding, a perfect interrogation method that clearly gets people to say what they don't want to without hurting them at all. What more could you ask for? But, we don't want to use it.
Just hypothetically:
If we found out that being forced to wear a shirt made of pig skin so terrified devout Jihadis that it actually would dissuade them from attempting terrorist attacks far more than execution or long imprisonment, do you think we would make it a punishment when they got captured?
I'm pretty sure we would not make that policy. Am I describing a sane people?
bagoh - Captain Picard would decry waterboarding or pigskin wrapping because "torture never works". Believe me, he literally said that in an episode on ST: TNG.
Matt, yes I was agreeing with you. I'm not looking for a wall, either. By overreacting we do the heavy lifting for the terrorists.
Matt said...
If Obama is to blame for this bombing attempt then whose to blame for 9/11?
Bush.
One doesn't excuse the other. You want to give Obama a pass based on school-yard politics, have at it.
Meanwhile, Americans are now a lot less "comfortable" flying, following Obama abysmal performance after-the-fact. His words no longer inspire confidence. Especially with his bullet-dodging appointees in full cover-his-ass and he'll-cover-our-ass mode.
American Power tracked-back with, 'Kissing Terrorists?.
The woman holds up a rope meant to keep unscreened people out of the secure area so that the man can pass underneath,
Can we have more of a barrier between secure and unsecure than a rope? Everywhere I go there are solid transparent walls.
although I did stand in line for an hour on a cold day
OFCFS
The Reuters report says "The man left the airport and has not been identified."
Since the report doesn't identify the woman either, she's either lawyered up or, more disturbingly, she hasn't been ID'd yet either.
This looks like a dry run that actually got caught. Which I guess is a good thing. But pardon me if I don't feel terribly wonderful about it.
Post a Comment