Even though every attatck ,failed attack ,and plot discovered during Obama's term has had direct links to jihadi organizations overseas ,with most of them being either recruited or influenced by Imam Anwar Al Awlaki;the President and his staff continue to insist that these are lone wolf operations.
They should rethink this jump to conclusions. Then they wouldn't have to recant so often as Eric Holder did today on ABC's ' This Week ' .

It must be embarrassing enough to them to first falsely presume that it was a domestic attack by right wing fringe groups or by Tea Partiers who were angry over Obamacare . At this point it would be a much safer bet to make the presumption that it was a jihadi terrorist . Oh but wait...

I believe it is Ann Coulter that said that the liberals will always side with the barbarians over the civilized people. She seems to be right.

Therefore they always hope that the object of their scorn is responsible for every heinous act against society.

This is strange, because wasn't Daniel Pearl a reporter?

Wasn't it a jihadist that removed his head with a knife?

One of their own killed by the barbarians, but they still like the barbarians. If the jihadists had their way, those same reporters would be among the first to be murdered.

Oh, well!

Actually there is credible evidence that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was the person who wielded the knife that decapitated Pearl.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

lone wolf operations

---

I could have built a more effective bomb. If they aren't "lone wolf," why are they so inept?

Only a theory... couple things that the President's people are doing right against the jihadists. One is in the targeting of their camps in the Waziristans and Yemen . This is disrupting the training . The other thing he has gotten right is in putting the squeeze on Pakistan ;and they have taken the fight to the jihadi also .

The terrorists are coming to the country underfunded and lacking the training and infrastructure in the US... that is why the attacks have gotten cheap.

BTW ,it is not as easy as you think the build a VBIED .What Shahzad used was easily obtainable materials .

However ;you are also seeing this attack through 20-20 hindsight. As constructed ;the bomb he crafted had the potential to kill scores of people . What is more notable is that he constructed the bomb plotted his attack ;rented the SUV,delivered his weapon to the site of the attack ,and purchased a plane ticket to Dubai . ALL WITH $100 dollar bills of JIHADI FUNDING . If not for the vigilance of a street vendor and a lot of luck (he decided he wasn't going to be a martyr ),he would've succeeded .

Why are they so inept? I like to imagine it is because someone with higher intelligence wouldn't attempt such acts of terror. I like to imagine that the men who do these acts of terror are brain damaged to begin with, and or mentally ill, with resulting inability to effectively carry out complicated schemes. The success of the 9/11 group, however, rules out necessary low intelligence or brain damage and severe mental illness. I wonder why they are inept too, maybe they just get too nervous? I don't know but I tend to believe it when someone takes credit for an act of terror.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thisisit

Why are they so inept? I like to imagine it is because someone with higher intelligence wouldn't attempt such acts of terror. I like to imagine that the men who do these acts of terror are brain damaged to begin with, and or mentally ill, with resulting inability to effectively carry out complicated schemes. The success of the 9/11 group, however, rules out necessary low intelligence or brain damage and severe mental illness. I wonder why they are inept too, maybe they just get too nervous? I don't know but I tend to believe it when someone takes credit for an act of terror.

---

Atta and company had over two years to plan 9/11. These single terrorists are trying to do something before they get caught. Homeland Security is starting to slip, but they're still getting a lot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thisisit

Why are they so inept? I like to imagine it is because someone with higher intelligence wouldn't attempt such acts of terror. I like to imagine that the men who do these acts of terror are brain damaged to begin with, and or mentally ill, with resulting inability to effectively carry out complicated schemes.

---

That was shown to be the case with the most recent one. His personal history bears this out, that he is a loser in many ways.

And is it true what I hear in an early report? That he was going after Viacom and Comedy Central's South Park for the disrespect shown to the prophet Mohammed? The SUV was parked near Viacom's headquarters.

As mentioned in the OP ;the Obama administration (in a couple of Sunday news shows ) admitted that he was trained and financed by the Pakistani Taliban,closely allied with AQ. He may have chosen the target ,but he was under their marching orders. He probably was trained as a suicide jihadist . Yes it is true that he parked near Viacom ;but if you were going to attack their employees ,he was too far away from the entrance;and his attack was on a weekend.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

I could have built a more effective bomb. If they aren't "lone wolf," why are they so inept?

---

Let’s see, we have a group of people known to strap explosives on and detonate themselves in the hopes of getting 72 virgins and the last guy set his genitals on fire. Is there something you’re not getting in this pattern?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

the President and his staff continue to insist that these are lone wolf operations.

---

Hello tom:

This is one of those "death panel" things... You see something, and you think it's a death panel... I see something, and I think it's end of life counseling... I also, heartedly, disagree with your underlying assumption, which is... Obama is weak on national security... In fact, he is George Bush on steroids. I don't know how you missed that.

When I heard the words "one off", I got that he acted alone, and it appears that he did. I say that, because I don't believe the terrorists ARE inept. I believe that if it was an ORGANIZED plot, it would have worked. He may have had their moral backing, and even some of their money, but he had no physical help. He DID operate alone in that respect. I believe that is what Janet Napalitano meant.

But, if what you're suggesting is accurate, then we've won the war... They, apparently, LOST the ability to attack us. That's good, no?

excon

I gave the President credit for some of his counter-terrorism steps . But his administration needs to do more because incidents of actual attacks inside the US are on the rise.

In this case ,and in the Christmas bomber case ;they delivered their bomb at the target ;but in both cases it failed to detonate. I don't them failures ;just a whole lot of good luck . Major Hasan under the direction of jihadistan successfully executed his mission.
Abdulhakim Muhammad trained in a jihadi camp in Tennessee before he attacked and murdered at an Army recruting station.

Now contrast that to the many plots that were broken up before execution before the current administration . Perhaps it is just a change in tactic ;but it appears that we are letting more and more plots slip through the cracks.


But on a posititive note . I am encourged that Holder is revisiting this flawed obsession with a quick application of Mirandizing .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Now contrast that to the many plots that were broken up before execution before the current administration . Perhaps it is just a change in tactic ;but it appears that we are letting more and more plots slip through the cracks.

But on a posititive note . I am encourged that Holder is revisiting this flawed obsession with a quick application of Mirandizing .

---

Hello again, tom:

Like I said above, what you see as a "positive" note, I see George Bush on steroids. Additionally, what you see as "slipping through the cracks", I see as a free country at work. I say that, because I believe that in a free country, ALL the plots against it cannot be stopped.

Even if we made ourselves into a police state, like what George W. Bush, Cheney, YOU, and now Barrack Obama, would like, it STILL wouldn't stop attacks. In fact, it would spawn them - because I, myself, would join that resistance. I can hit a tea bag dead center at 100 yards.

excon

If all we're fighting are tea bags then I guess we can relax.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, tom:

Like I said above, what you see as a "positive" note, I see George Bush on steroids. Additionally, what you see as "slipping through the cracks", I see as a free country at work. I say that, because I believe that in a free country, ALL the plots against it cannot be stopped.

Even if we made ourselves into a police state, like what George W. Bush, Cheney, YOU, and now Barrack Obama, would like, it STILL wouldn't stop attacks. In fact, it would spawn them - because I, myself, would join that resistance. I can hit a tea bag dead center at 100 yards.

excon

---

Here is one take on this:

Boom! Doesn't Go the Dynamite | May 4, 2010 - Mark Moffett | ColbertNation.com


If I were to claim that the USA is becoming a police state, why would I brag about shooting someone expressing their First Amendment right?

Real shooting here:

Record-Setting British Sniper Craig Harrison Kills Taliban Fighters From 1.5 Miles - AOL News


G&P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inthebox

If I were to claim that the USA is becoming a police state, why would I brag about shooting someone expressing their First Amendment right?

---

Hello again, in:

You need to sharpen your reading skills. The operative word above is IF. IF the USA becomes a police state, I WOULD, indeed, join the resistance. The resistance would be AGAINST policies the tea baggers support. Consequently, when I bragged about shooting a tea bagger, I presumed he'd be SHOOTING back. That AIN'T expressing a First Amendment right. That's taking up arms in a civil war.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

The resistance would be AGAINST policies the tea baggers support.

---

Hi Ex,

Which policies would those be? The lower taxes? The smaller Federal Government? The curtailment of entitlement spending?

Oh, wait, I know. You'd be resisting the policy of securing the border so all those dishwashers and landscapers could keep working at your house while letting their cousin the cocaine mule stay in their apartment. That must be the one. Buenos Dias, Amigo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, tom:

Even if we made ourselves into a police state, like what George W. Bush, Cheney, YOU, and now Barrack Obama, would like, it STILL wouldn't stop attacks. In fact, it would spawn them - because I, myself, would join that resistance. I can hit a tea bag dead center at 100 yards.

excon

---

By "it," do you mean a "police state?" Because we are a free state, more so than a police state, and NYC has been under jihaddi attack since the first WTC bombing. Obviously a "Free state" spawns these attacks as well. A point that those blinded by their dislike of America, and in particular the tea partiers, either ignorantly or willfully ignore. In the meantime, the true threat of jihaddi war is played down in the name of "tolerance," political correctness, and diversity.

What resistance? To a police state? To a government that takes your hard earned money, IF you are one of the 53% that pays federal taxes, to give to big banks. Resistance to a government that passed a healthcare bill that mandates, via penalties, buying health insurance? A government that takes taxes out of every WORKING person under 50 to pay for the ponzi scheme that is Medicare and Social security, that won't be available when they may qualify?

Your aim should be to peacefully vote out those who have been growing this government; one that has been slowly boiling away our liberties.

But alas, it is one viewpoint to suggest, VIOLENCE, against an enemy that the MSM and the Whitehouse, have made up. Sad, Real sad.



G&P

Such unwarranted and unnecessary vitriol against people who are exercising a peaceful right the left used to champion.

I just got my June issue of Atlantic and see on the cover that one of the feature articles is by that mousy man Michael Kinsley entitled "My Country, Tis of Me...
There’s nothing patriotic about the Tea Party Patriots."

I will read it tonight in between pitches during the Yankees game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catsmine

Which policies would those be? The lower taxes? The smaller Federal Government? The curtailment of entitlement spending?

---

Hello again, Cats:

Nahhh. You know what a police state is like, doncha? The cops can search you anytime they want. They can stop you on the street and ask to see your papers. The government spies on you. Your neighbors snitch on you. No dissent. You don't have a right to an attorney if you're arrested. You don't even get a trial. They can torture you into confessing... No appeal rights.

That kind of stuff. You know, the stuff we used to say were so horrible about the Soviet Union.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

That kinda stuff. You know, the stuff we used to say were so horrible about the Soviet Union.

excon

---

Oh, the stuff we experienced under Janet Reno...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, Cats:

Nahhh. You know what a police state is like, doncha? The cops can search you anytime they want. They can stop you on the street and ask to see your papers. The government spies on you. Your neighbors snitch on you. No dissent. You don't have a right to an attorney if you're arrested. You don't even get a trial. They can torture you into confessing...... No appeal rights.

That kinda stuff. You know, the stuff we used to say were so horrible about the Soviet Union.

excon

---

Let's disect this hyperbole

The cops can search you anytime they want. Isn't happening here .

They can stop you on the street and ask to see your papers. Nope still need probable cause

The government spies on you. Haven't heard of a case yet where the government is randomly spying on anyone .

Your neighbors snitch on you. That could mean you have crappy neighbors ;yes that happens in free and police states .

No dissent . You just called the dissenting tea partiers the enemy that you can see yourself shooting .

You don't have a right to an attorney if you're arrested. Not in this country ;or please document the example where that has happened .

They can torture you into confessing. What you call torture and I call enhanced interrogation has only happened to jihadists foreign enemies .

No appeal rights. What citizen has been denied the right to appeal ? For that matter ;what foreigner has been denied that?

I can't believe what I read here sometimes. Cops if anything act more restrained then they ever have in our history . If nothing else ;everything they do are subject to someone video taping them .

Did you see the President's disconnect yesterday ? He went to NYC to visit their Real Time Crime Center ;and to praise the rapid response to the Time Square terror attack on the same day he announced that he was slashing the money NYC receives to fight terrorism.

Even rabid Democrat Rep Anthony Weiner said that the decision by the President was mind-numbingly, insanely wrong.Even Schmucky Schumer spoke out against the decision.

Very scary

The Obama adminstration's disconnect knows no bounds.

On the original subject, Pakistan arrested an admitted accomplice of Shahzad while two were arrested in Boston, Pir Khan and Aftab Khan, suspected of financing Shahzad.

Some lone wolf.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Some lone wolf.

---

Hello again, Steve:

The jury is still out on that verdict. Besides, I'm not sure whether there's much difference. If you perceive an international plot, then I suspect you want to whisk him off to Gitmo to get a little torture, and reveal what he knows... Of course, NOT treating him that way resulted in the capture of the people you cite above. I guess you forgot about that. Maybe torturing him would have done it too. I don't know.

Nonetheless, the terms "lone wolf" and "international terrorist", AREN'T as clear as you would have us think. The first clue I had that he operated alone, was his astoundingly inept attempt at car bombing. One thing I know about committed jihadists is, they know how to build a bomb.

Yeah, this want to be jihadist went to Pakistan to meet some brothers, and he did. But, I don't know WHO he met. Frankly, I doubt he met anyone of consequence, because anyone of consequence would NOT let a new person, especially an AMERICAN new person into their circles. I say that, because the second thing I know about committed jihadists, is that they're NOT stupid,

We wonder WHAT terrorist group they were associated with because we want our terrorist groups to be defined in tight little packages... But, over there, there aren't tight little packages of terrorists who can be identified as belonging to a particular group. There's only brothers in arms. You can't throw a rock over there without hitting one. They don't like us much.

So, I don't know WHO he connected with. But, in terms of your definition, I'd call 'em lone wolves.

excon

Wow, thanks for defining my terms. You've really begun to speak for me quite a lot, and as the usual case for those who speak on my behalf unsolicited, you got it wrong. Sometimes I'm just addressing the OP as in this case, and not looking to address all the nuances of certain terms, beyond "jihadi terrorist" that is. This is what I was addressing from the OP:

Quote:

---

It must be embarrassing enough to them to first falsely presume that it was a domestic attack by right wing fringe groups or by Tea Partiers who were angry over Obamacare . At this point it would be a much safer bet to make the presumption that it was a jihadi terrorist . Oh but wait...

---

The facts just keep proving tom right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Wow, thanks for defining my terms.

---

Hello again, Steve:

You're welcome.

excon

Tom they use Homeland Security as an excuse to not have probable cause then when they are put on the spot about what was the probable cause they make one up. The police are stopping people and even tazering them for no real reason.
There are even YouTube videos of cops doing these things.
One is a guy and his girlfriend (or wife) visiting from Canada. They end up arresting him because he questions them why they are giving him the third degree.
Another is a woman and her kids and the cop tazers her twice in front of her kids when she wasn't posing any threat to the cop. I have seen a lot of videos like this and even know people in real life that this happens to. My 60 some year old neighbor that was in bad health simply asked the cops why they were arresting his son. Instead of just replying warrants they shoved him into the 6 ft fence.

But what do those videos show ? Are you looking at systemic abuse ;policy ,or random acts of excess police work that have always happened but are now being caught regularly on video tape ?

As I mentioned on the drug war op. These are snapshots in time that the viewer is not privy to content.

The other day on the news there was a nationally shown video of police stomping on presumable illegals. Yesterday there was a video of a teacher beating a student. I contend these are the exceptions .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

I contend these are the exceptions .

---

I disagree. I contend that it's been a policy for a long time. The victims are foreign when conservatives are in the White House and Citizens when the lib-progs live there. Reference Ruby Ridge, Waco, Elian Gonzalez, and these latest videos versus Abu Gharib, Extraordinary rendition, et. al. It depends on the President's focus.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, Steve:

The first clue I had that he operated alone, was his astoundingly inept attempt at car bombing. One thing I know about committed jihadists is, they know how to build a bomb.

Yeah, this wanna be jihadist went to Pakistan to meet some brothers, and he did. But, I dunno WHO he met. Frankly, I doubt he met anyone of consequence, because anyone of consequence would NOT let a new person, especially an AMERICAN new person into their circles. I say that, because the second thing I know about committed jihadists, is that they're NOT stupid,

We wonder WHAT terrorist group they were associated with because we want our terrorist groups to be defined in tight little packages... But, over there, there aren't tight little packages of terrorists who can be identified as belonging to a particular group. There's only brothers in arms. You can't throw a rock over there without hitting one. They don't like us much.

So, I dunno WHO he connected with. But, in terms of your definition, I'd call 'em lone wolves.

excon

---

I was listening to Armstrong and Getty, and a caller, with some military ties, called in and theorized that a seemingly well educated man of Shazaad's background should have been capable of making a functioning bomb. We all see that.

As a recently naturalized AMERICAN CITIZEN, he may have been targeted by jihadist. Already westernized and assimilated, as well as having legit documents.

Shazaad has not been linked to any Iman or mosque, unlike major Hassan. This is the other disconnect. I'm not sure there is anything, yet, in his background to indicate he was radicalized.

Anyway, the theory proposed is that they blackmailed him, [threatened family or financial ruin?] to do this. He may have seemed incompetent and amateurish, but perhaps he WANTED the mission to fail and to be captured? Wasn't his first statements "are you FBI or police?"

Just a theory, but if true, just goes to show you how ruthless and cunning these people are. Who would have done this --
Handicapped bombers kill dozens in Iraq - Conflict in Iraq- msnbc.com

Sun Tzu would approve.



G&P

It's become clear enough that Shahzad was not acting alone that the White House made a u-turn (which WaPo brilliantly terms an "escalation") and blamed the Pakistani Taliban. Who needs to be linked to a mosque after a five-month trip to Waziristan?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

It's become clear enough that Shahzad was not acting alone that the White House made a u-turn (which WaPo brilliantly terms an "escalation") and blamed the Pakistani Taliban. Who needs to be linked to a mosque after a five-month trip to Waziristan?

---

And it's clear that they "acted stupidly." I love turning that phrase around.

Cats ,Gen. Janis Karpinski was demoted for her lack of oversight of the Abu Gharib prison ;and 12 guards from Abu Ghraib were convicted of crimes related to the abuse.\\

If this was indeed a drift to a police state then why would they be held accountable for the abuses ?


Suspect Says He Was Inspired by Imam's Writings - WSJ.com

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Cats ,Gen. Janis Karpinski was demoted for her lack of oversight of the Abu Gharib prison ;and 12 guards from Abu Ghraib were convicted of crimes related to the abuse.

---

Horiuchi was forced to resign and charged with Manslaughter, Tom. All the incidents still happened. It's incipient in a police force to form an "us versus them" mentality.

My contention is that the focus of those in charge of police oversight determines where that mentality is "aimed." I believe, as I assume you do, that foreign enemies are more appropriate targets.