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