The "almost" Times Square Bomb

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Rainy Parade

but will it be? no.

and good job by Bush making these guys "enemy combatants" and talking about "war" because that's what they want. they want that attention, they need to feel like they are waging a war against us and giving them that status emboldens them.

do a little research on how every other country deals with them as criminals, tries them, and locks them away successfully. these worst of the worst can and would easily lose every trial cuz most of them are so dangerous and the terrorism laws are so strong. no reason to be afraid of our system. here we are allegedly defending our freedom and championing our great democracy and then not abiding by it ourselves.

You just made my piont. Bush treated them as enemy combatants and Obama is treating them as criminals. Your other post you said he was pretty much continued the Bush doctrine. Which one is the correct way I really could not say. Remember though most of the guys Bush had to deal with where captured durn war and not on our grounds.

What scares me is that they have now failed three times, shoe bomber, underwear bomber, and now this guy. Each time if their devise would have worked they would have succeeded and its just a matter of time before our luck runs out.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by firstdown

You just made my piont. Bush treated them as enemy combatants and Obama is treating them as criminals. You other post you said he was pretty much contiuen the Bush doctrine. Which one is the correct way I really could say. Remember though most of the guys Bush had to deal with where captured durn war and not on our grounds.

What scares me is that they have now failed three times, shoe bomber, underwear bomber, and now this guy. Each time if their devise would have worked they would have succeeded and its just a matter of time before our luck runs out.

Well, I imagine that a big part of the reason that their devices didn't work is because they have to be designed around our security regulations, so in that sense it's still a win for our system. For example, he used a fertilizer that was easier to get, because it was less explosive. Had he gotten the correct fertilizer mix, one would hope that the flag would have prevented the situation all together. You can't stop terrorists (home grown or otherwise) from trying, you just hope there are enough blockades in their way to stop them or minimize them.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Well, I imagine that a big part of the reason that their devices didn't work is because they have to be designed around our security regulations, so in that sense it's still a win for our system. For example, he used a fertilizer that was easier to get, because it was less explosive. Had he gotten the correct fertilizer mix, one would hope that the flag would have prevented the situation all together. You can't stop terrorists (home grown or otherwise) from trying, you just hope there are enough blockades in their way to stop them or minimize them.

I know we cannot stop an attack put to have three fail for what ever reason we have been very lucky. I'm actually surprised at how poorly this guy built this bomb and he had training.

[saden1]

Our biggest asset in combating terrorists is that they tend to be not so bright people. Someone with half a brain cannot be stopped with road blocks. They simply don't have the brain power to pull off an attack. The universe is nice like that.

[Rainy Parade]

Originally Posted by firstdown

You just made my piont. Bush treated them as enemy combatants and Obama is treating them as criminals. Your other post you said he was pretty much continued the Bush doctrine.

not really.
"criminals" and "enemy combatants" is pertains to word choice by Bush, Obama, you, and me, is only about semantics. those semantics make a slight difference in elevating their self-perception of their status as "warriors vs. america" but in actual practice, Obama is still sticking to "military tribunals" or "locked away with no charges/due process" just like Bush/Cheney.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by Buster

First of all, grow up and stop pretending to be like your heroes on the Comedy News Network with the immature, offensive name calling.

Pretty much all of the major media and a lot of politicians don't want to admit it's a Muslim. A lady on NBC actually said on the air she's disappointed that this wasn't another white Timothy McVeigh because it only makes people racist for thinking of Muslims when terrorist attacks occur. What kind of insane, twisted thinking is that? Wishing there are more McVeighs?

Wake up...they've been attacking us since the late 1970s. There's more than a trend, there's an all-out war to kill you and I. They won't let one of us go because we pretend we support them and stand up for their "rights"...they'll kill you and me without caring...because we're Americans. All of the "tolerance" and "understanding" in the world won't spare you.

This Administration's "terrorists have rights too, lets read them their rights and allow them to be silent and get a lawyer after trying to murder hundreds or thousands of Americans" views are going to get us all killed.

There are 3 legal exceptions to the Miranda Rights, one being PUBLIC SAFETY. Even if this terrorist was a legal citizen, we don't need to treat them like they are a bank robber...they're trying to kill Americans in mass. Get info out of them, care about their feelings later. This is now 2 attempted attacks in a row that the process was botched in favor of the terrorist.

Are you talking about Contessa Brewer, because what she said was:

“There was part of me that was hoping this was not going to be anybody with ties to any kind of Islamic country because there are a lot of people who want to use this terrorist intent to justify writing off people who believe in a certain way, or come from certain countries or whose skin color is a certain way,” Brewer said Tuesday during a radio interview with host Stephanie Miller. “I mean, they use it as justification for really outdated bigotry.”

“So, there was part of me really hoping this would not be the case, that here would be somebody who is not that defined,” she continued. “I mean, he’s accused, he’s arrested, you know, I don’t want to convict him before it’s time to do so. He’s the guy authorities say is involved. But that being said, I mean, we know even in recent history you have the Haitari militia from Michigan who have plans to, let’s face it, create terror.”

Read more: Rush Limbaugh, Contessa Brewer terror comments ripped - Andy Barr - POLITICO.com

Maybe you want to call that insane, twisted thinking but then what do you call this?

“Of course, he’s a Democrat. Who knows how many times he voted and where,” Limbaugh said. “I would love if this guy were a member of ACORN.”

[saden1]

Joana Goldberg:

When the Times Square story first broke there was a part of me that said, “Man, I hope it’s not some white militia nutjob.” When I saw the news this morning that it was a Pakistani, the same small part of me was relieved. I don’t want to speak for many conservatives on this, but I know I’m speaking for more than just myself.

And, I will simply assert that I believe lots of liberals had something very close to the opposite series of reactions (here’s one small example of what I’m talking about). If this had been some Tim McVeigh type, Frank Rich would know exactly what he was going to write for his Sunday column, and he would be excited about writing it. I don’t want to say he’d be happy about it (and he certainly wouldn’t be happy about the murder victims if the bomb went off). But he would certainly be smug and righteous and full of a certain emotion that looks a lot like the glee one feels when you get to say “I told you so.”

Instead, that state of mind no doubt describes quite a few conservatives this morning.

[mredskins]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Are you talking about Contessa Brewer, because what she said was:

“There was part of me that was hoping this was not going to be anybody with ties to any kind of Islamic country because there are a lot of people who want to use this terrorist intent to justify writing off people who believe in a certain way, or come from certain countries or whose skin color is a certain way,” Brewer said Tuesday during a radio interview with host Stephanie Miller. “I mean, they use it as justification for really outdated bigotry.”

“So, there was part of me really hoping this would not be the case, that here would be somebody who is not that defined,” she continued. “I mean, he’s accused, he’s arrested, you know, I don’t want to convict him before it’s time to do so. He’s the guy authorities say is involved. But that being said, I mean, we know even in recent history you have the Haitari militia from Michigan who have plans to, let’s face it, create terror.”

Read more: Rush Limbaugh, Contessa Brewer terror comments ripped - Andy Barr - POLITICO.com

Maybe you want to call that insane, twisted thinking but then what do you call this?

“Of course, he’s a Democrat. Who knows how many times he voted and where,” Limbaugh said. “I would love if this guy were a member of ACORN.”

Comments like this from Hannity and Rush are just to stir the pot. Every time the pot stirs their wallets grow. I don't even think they beleive i nhalf the crap they spew they just want deeper pockets.

[MTK]

Speaking of Rush did you hear he suggested that environmentalists bombed that oil rig in order to sabotage the oil companies?

I thought he was leaving the country already.

[mredskins]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

Speaking of Rush did you hear he suggested that environmentalists bombed that oil rig in order to sabotage the oil companies?

I thought he was leaving the country already.

Perfect example there is no way he believes they should do that but he says it for shock value.

[firstdown]

Well I'll have to say the same thought has crossed my mind because of the timing of this to Obama saying we are going to open more areas for off shore drilling.

[dmek25]

first, what is the difference between trying them as criminals, or enemy combatants? isn't the end result the same? i know one is tried in civilian court. and the other in military court. is that the only difference?

[Rainy Parade]

Originally Posted by dmek25

first, what is the difference between trying them as criminals, or enemy combatants? isn't the end result the same? i know one is tried in civilian court. and the other in military court. is that the only difference?

well i dont know all the legalese... but i dont care what you call them. just charge them with something, make them aware of the charges, and then have a real trial. i dont think that's coddling them. everyone should have due process. most of these guys can/would be easily convicted and locked away. and then the ones you hear about being held from age 14-19 with no charges and no contact with family cuz they threw a rock or some shit... they can be let go.

imagine if an american was held overseas indefinitely with no charges/trial, etc...

[CRedskinsRule]

Did we ever close the Gitmo detention camps? I know we did move a lot out, but don't remember any finality.

[mredskins]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Did we ever close the Gitmo detention camps? I know we did move a lot out, but don't remember any finality.

Shhhhhh....we want everyone to forget about that place.