Obama says terror attack 'dots' not connected

The system screwed up.

He'd better get the system fixed and tell Janet Napolitano either tell the truth or shut up. < :-)

keep the fear and paranoia cranked up - more profits for weapons and security systems makers

The system screwed up." Especially given the fact that you allow those who want to blow people out of the sky lawyer up. keep the fear and paranoia cranked up - more profits for weapons and security systems makers" Well, I thought that was going to change? The only ones have fear and paranoia are us, The Jihadists are laughing.

That is why have to respect them or we will continue to lose.

skipthesong what can the military get out of Abdulmutallab that the FBI can't get? What techniques would the military use that the FBI wouldn't? The military would make what difference? < :-)

skipthesong: "Especially given the fact that you allow those who want to blow people out of the sky lawyer up....The Jihadists are laughing."

And whom are the Jihadists, my friend? Oh wait... those caught after committing terrorist acts, right? and they are laughing because you want to become very much like them -- no lawyers, fair trials, etc. What do you propose instead? beheading?

The system screwed up." Especially given the fact that you allow those who want to blow people out of the sky lawyer up.

If the fight is not for the rule of law and freedom and if these don't matter, then what exactly is the fight over? America was suppose to be special, but if it is on the same level as Iran, then why bother supporting it or its institutions? Yeah, the rule of law is a b..tch at times, but that is what we should be fighting for when we fight, not complaining that the pillars holding up our way of life are too unwieldy to fight the terrorist who want to destroy our way of life. The way you talk, you would rather roll over for the terrorists rather that support the rule of law.

“When a suspected terrorist is able to board a plane with explosives on Christmas Day, the system has failed in a potentially disastrous way,” Obama said. Is B. Hussein Obama living on this planet? "suspected" terrorist? When 200 people witness your act, you ARE a terrorist...

They are only doing super checks on people flying into the US. So does this mean say that someone flying out of NY to Asia would never ever contemplate blowing up a plane just as it takes off and causing a major catastrophe over US territory? Get a clue!!!

There was "news speak" in the book 1984, then "Fed speak" out of Greenspan. Now it's "Obama speak".

"intelligence was not fully analyzed or fully leveraged" - In other words, remaining freedoms you have will be taken, more spending on monitoring you.

Kurt Haskell is a credible eye witness to the suspect getting onto the plane 1) with assistance 2) without a passport 3) without security:

http://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/index.ssf/2010/01/kurt_and_lori_haskell_we_talke.html

Haskell tells of another person video taping him throughout the flight (backed up by a 2nd witness). He tells of another man after deboarding.

IMHO, it stinks high heaven.

smithinjapan

"What do you propose instead? beheading?"

How about taking them out to a secluded spot like White Sands and letting them blow themselves up? That is what they desired to do after all right? I'm all for letting them fulfil their suicidal wishes, just not their homicidal wishes...

Dots not connected...

and that from the guy who continues to blank out the biggest dot that connects all others.

Mind-boggling stupidity.

skipthesong what can the military get out of Abdulmutallab that the FBI can't get?" He doesn't have to say a thing that isn't relevant to HIS case for one.. I'm sorry, I thought you want/like to know things that aren't just about him, but his group. You can't legally do anything to a person for being in a group. They really now can't legally ask him about his history, training, nope. Now they have to prove he committed an act of terror. Even I could probably get this guy off with no legal training.

and we get smith again, acting like a little girl. Look, its not me doing the beheading but those who you are somewhat trying to appease. Look in a different direction. You are the only one here who is in favor of letting AQ spread. I propose what ever, short of killing the guy, to get what ever it is out of them. If you want to play nice, doll house like, and if it works, fine. But if it doesn't so be it. My kid or even your kid could be on a plane or in a place of another attack... oh, I forgot, you don't believe there is going to be another attack. That's only for right wingers.

Don't give me the America is "supposed to be", half the world's countries proclaim the same damn thing. So quit it. If it means we have to cuddle up to this group, then I want no part of it.

Why give freedom and rights to those who not only oppose it, but would prefer you didn't have them and go to any length to stop you from having them - especially if they are not a citizen who is protected by unalianable rights. Jeez, thank god you guys weren't around when they were rounding up Nazi during those days.

skipthesong

He doesn't have to say a thing that isn't relevant to HIS case for one.

He doesn't have to say anything anywhere, whether with the FBI or military. But they already got a lot of information because he spoke for the FBI.

The military can't get anything that the FBI can't. But maybe you expect the military to waterboard or something. < :-)

USAinJapan2: "How about taking them out to a secluded spot like White Sands and letting them blow themselves up? That is what they desired to do after all right? I'm all for letting them fulfil their suicidal wishes, just not their homicidal wishes.."

I am too, but the thing is that skip is talking about all Muslims, seeing as you can't detect the homicidal people from the regular ones (be it other than Muslims as well, which is my point). Let's take a look at skip's response:

"and we get smith again, acting like a little girl."

You see, skip, the self-declared American Cuban, is all for racial profiling (until it's against himself, of course). Again, you cannot simply see a person and know if they are homicidal; so his and your calls for blowing themselves up somewhere else in retrospect are silly.

skip: "Look, its not me doing the beheading but those who you are somewhat trying to appease."

I was being sarcastic, but interestingly enough you never caught on and STILL wish to do about the same as terrorists, then call me a 'little girl' for calling you up on it.

"My kid or even your kid could be on a plane or in a place of another attack..."

For all we know, with your beliefs that 'anything short of killing them' is fine, your children will grow up to be the next wave. Sorry to say it, but there you go. You never learned anything from your father's death when it came to guns, so why would your kids learn anything from your bad example. You don't have to play dollhouse with them, but teaching them that torture and terrorism are okay will bring them up to be... well... not very good people.

"oh, I forgot, you don't believe there is going to be another attack."

Where did I say that? I believe that as the US isolates itself more and more there will probably be more attacks, yes. But there's a difference between thinking there might be and the paranoia of people like yourself who announce the attacks as fact.

"That's only for right wingers."

Nah, I don't think so. There are morons who probably think they're liberal who are just as scared as you.

skip: "Why give freedom and rights to those who not only oppose it, but would prefer you didn't have them and go to any length to stop you from having them - especially if they are not a citizen who is protected by unalianable rights. Jeez, thank god you guys weren't around when they were rounding up Nazi during those days."

You mean the Nazis that were given trials before being executed? But hey... you aren't for 'lawyering up', you said! Man, your hypocrisy is not even amusing anymore.

skip: Do you not see your own hypocrisy? seriously?? You are talking about denying rights to 'jihadists' in retrospect of their acts and applying that to others who may or may not be jihadists, then say you are not as bad as they.

Bizarre... utterly bizarre... but as I said, wouldn't be skipthesong if you didn't let your emotions get in the way all the time.

aday: He doesn't have to say anything anywhere, whether with the FBI or military. But they already got a lot of information because he spoke for the FBI." Right, and you are right there overhearing all of this.

The military can't get anything that the FBI can't. But maybe you expect the military to waterboard or something." And I also think we should treat him to cup cakes and brownies if that works. I don't care who talks to him, its giving him the rights to plead the fifth. You along with smith, must not care about anyone except your agendas.

U.S. President Barack Obama scolded 20 of his highest-level officials...

What a farce. Obama gets all heated up about a terrorist act that could have killed a couple of hundred people, all the while barely concerning himself with Iran's terrorist-exporting regime building nukes that could kill tens of thousands. The president is clueless.

Nylex4: keep the fear and paranoia cranked up

Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean people aren't out to get you.

There's no way to prevent a determined terrorist. What are you going to do, cavity searches for everyone? What if they swallow some exposives?

Obama needs to look at the big picture and go after the punks who are showing him up in Mexico and Somalia.

Why are the terrorists so obsessed with bombing planes, anyway? With all the security in place you'd think they'd go for the unguarded targets like buses, trains and segways.

Altria: unguarded targets like buses, trains and segways.

Segways? One person at a time. :-)

skip: "You along with smith, must not care about anyone except your agendas."

We care about equal rights for all, whether the terrorists do or not -- that's what separates us from them. Why you want to be the same as them while proclaiming they are the problem is beyond logic. Fortunately, you don't make the laws.

Common sense check- THERE ARE NO EQUAL RIGHTS IN WAR!

Nothing seperates you from them, you both hate the USA, its simply an inferiority complex. If someone is trying to kill you or your family you would kill them or want the police to kill them, anything thing else is hypocritical nonsense.

Altria: unguarded targets like buses, trains and segways.

Segways? One person at a time. :-)

They're the perfect symbols of corpulent American greed.

Besides, Muslims and infidels alike can agree that a guy on a Segway going up in flames would be really, really funny.

Why is anybody surprised they screwed up? A system that spends its time and energy fingerprinting grannies and throwing out kid's medicine can't be taken seriously in the first place.

Smith thats what you're missing out on. "equal rights for all" what do you do if your enemy knows what rights you will allow them that they won't allow you if you were caught in their situation? The issue is they will use your own system AGAINST you because you're trying to hold a standard that they certainly won't adhere to unless it benefits themselves. Its nice to be able to use your enemies justice system for your own gain and know that you're safe even if you get caught. You can't lose if its like that.

guest: "Nothing seperates you from them, you both hate the USA, its simply an inferiority complex."

Your paradox rests in the middle part, and of course the 'nothing separates you from them' part, insinuating you are different while declaring there are no equal rights in war.

"If someone is trying to kill you or your family you would kill them or want the police to kill them, anything thing else is hypocritical nonsense."

If someone is trying to kill me and my family I wouldn't know what I would do, and neither would you, fortunately. At the very least I would want them CAUGHT (not killed), and expect they be given a trial like everyone else -- which makes me better than them.

Get one thing straight: simply saying you want terrorists dead makes you the same as them; never mind that you can't know whom they are before a terrorist event, as was the case with this.

At the very least I would want them CAUGHT (not killed), and expect they be given a trial like everyone else --

Caught, with a strainer? not much is left with high explosives.

Get one thing straight: simply saying you want terrorists dead makes you the same as them;

Right, I want their families DEAD, and their friends DEAD too. That way I will be the same as them, its a war and I want to win and make an example for the next SOB"s who think they can kill my friends or family with no repercussions, only 70 virgins. They will only stop if their families feel the pain. Thats the point of war, it sucks but its true...

If someone is trying to kill me and my family I wouldn't know what I would do, and neither would you, fortunately.

I hope I would hop on my Segway and fight back, as would you...

Oh man, smith's really got me laughing... equal rights for all... then you really need to question your support/understanding for these radical jihadists (I know you think its wrong to call them that, but I don't). first of all, all countries that have such rights (notices hardly any Muslims countries have such laws) makes those rights for their people. Not for people to come prancing in and causing destruction, at least that is the way it should be. I would never, ever go to your country and ask for rights and not be a citizen.

Get one thing straight: simply saying you want terrorists dead makes you the same as them;" No, it doesn't. Who makes up that rule - you? You need to get off you high horse. Now, wanting to kill them makes you as bad as them. I simply would like them to just stop what ever they are going. But what risk do they face now?

Hey, our guest seems to have it right.

"Smith thats what you're missing out on. "equal rights for all" what do you do if your enemy knows what rights you will allow them that they won't allow you if you were caught in their situation? The issue is they will use your own system AGAINST you because you're trying to hold a standard that they certainly won't adhere to unless it benefits themselves"

And that is why Smith is right. He and I agree that if you have to be like them, then what you are fighting for is already gone. It seems so tough and gritty to say this is war, but it isn't. America needs to interact with the world and carry on in a pretty normal way, or it will curl up and die. America needs to look this in the eye and say, "look... you might blow up an airliner every year til the end of time, but you are NOT going to change me and make me into you. You are not going to cow me or scare me. We will fight hijackers in baggage claim or row 19D if we have to, but we will NOT search our grandmothers and infants."

Being an American is not just living in an armed camp behind high walls. If America is going to win this struggle, it has to stay open and take the pain as it walks across the border, along with all the students, vacationers, and relatives... America's strongest allies and fans. Turn the other cheek to terrorism? Heck YES! It worked for a little old man with a spinning wheel in India. Earn that moral authority every day. Confound the enemy and get others on your own side by standing instead of cowering. Embrace Muslims as brothers! Insane? What is the alternative? Killing them all? America fought to defend islamic people in Yugoslavia and Iraq, why not now? America can talk the talk, now it has got to walk that walk. It is not foolishness or weakness, it is the ONLY way to win. The rest of the world will support a US that practices vigilance AND tolerance, but the world will turn away if pushed away.

Equal rights for all, and treating our enemies as we would treat each other under our own law, are principles worth fighting and dying for. Still.

I have to give the President some real credit on part of this and the actions he has taken. Not on the closing of GITMO or giving a international terrorist his American civil rights, most posters here know my opinion on that explicitly and doesn't need more repeating. It is a bad idea but that is my opinion and it isn't going to change.

But I give President Obama real credit here for the subtle way he is going to profile young Muslim males after all but not actually having to say it out loud. All passengers from Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Pakistan, Nigeria and other muslim countries with Islamic extremists in their midsts are going to be subject to full body and pat down searches. In short, he is profiling a whole nations population and not "specific individuals" but that policy will target the exact specific individuals we need to be targeting after all. This will keep us safer in the future.

President Obama is walking a fine line in his foreign policy and I think he actually hit a home run by doing this "subtle profiling" in trying to keep that fine line intact between no further alienation of friendly muslim countries by being strident in his rhetoric and in dealing with the practical reality as to where our focus really needs to be on who gets enhanced security checks prior to entry in the country on foreign flights.

Good job Mr. President on this one and your decision. If that policy was in effect prior to this bombing incident, it would have never happened and it looks like that lesson was learned by the White house after all.

Ahem. On another note... I am skeptical that there is any way to "connect the dots" on any kind of timely basis. The no fly list is HUGE, and includes many aliases and false information. I think that they need a good computer programmer and statistician, frankly. The problem is that fuzzy logic will give a lot of false positives.

What would people think of being selected for "enhanced measures" by a computer program rather than a person? And what would they think if they knew that five people on every plane load of people were selected for no reason at all? Random discrimination is not discrimination, is it? If you combined that with a point system that would incorporate opinions of airline employees, TSA people, etc., then no ONE person would necessarily be able to single you out, but the opinions of many trained workers could. It could function almost in real time and it would NOT give feedback to terrorists.

MIT wiseguys have already said that TSA measures will not work. Their analysis is impeccable. But I wonder if there is some system that can function in an automated fashion with spotty information. I bet there is. Should we let machines make the hard choices? What if they can do it better than we can?

We could call it SKYNET.

While Obama babbles on about connecting dots and Afghanistan and Yemen, muslim students in Michigan glorify the 9/11 bombers, look here:

http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/22129881/detail.html#

Wonder where they got that idea from. Not that any particular religion of peace can have anything to do with it...

skip: "I simply would like them to just stop what ever they are going."

Well, that's where we're the same. Where we are not is in the fact that you wish to treat terrorists as they would treat you, thereby being no different.

5SpeedRacer5: " Embrace Muslims as brothers! Insane? What is the alternative? Killing them all?"

That's what a number of posters on here would like, yes, according to their own declaration. I believe skip said something along those lines a couple of years back, as did a number of other posters who are now banned, saying, "death by the sword to all Muslims" and other such rubbish. People like skipthesong and sailwind just canNOT understand that you cannot justify hate even if it is directed at hate; it is still simply hate. They just want to put a little lipstick on it.

WilliB Wonder where they got that idea from. Not that any particular religion of peace can have anything to do with it...

Not surprisingly you are confusing theology and politics. While properly understood, Islam is a religion of peace. However, human nature being what it is, how peaceful do you think you'd feel if your country was invaded, your economy shattered, your infrastructure destroyed, your relative drone-bombed during a wedding or while they slept, your kids executed by US Marines after they'd been raped, etc. etc. etc.? Radical jihadis have been created by US/Israeli foreign policy and military misadventures. Just how peaceful do you think you'd be if they were treating Americans in their own country in that manner? This is not to justify violence, but it certainly might give you some insight as to why it happens the way it does.

But, of course, that's common sense. That's not something Washington and Tel-Aviv have a good relationship with, is it? You want to stop jihadi terrorism? Solve the issue of Palestine once and for all. Remove US troops from Muslim land and Afghanistan. Follow Jefferson's advice; Commerce with all, entangling alliances with none.

Embrace Muslims as brothers! Insane? What is the alternative?

A Deterrent is best. The only reason that we dont nuke each other is MAD, Mutually Assured Destruction. Its imposable to stop these thugs from blowing them selves up, so we need to deter them from thinking that its a possibility to swallow a bomb and blow your self up. D-E-T-E-R-R-E-N-T, make it not worth the trouble.

I understand that your into peace and love, me too. The only way to deter someone who gives themselves the death penalty is to impose an even greater penalty on them, killing their innocent would do the trick.

While Obama babbles on about connecting dots and Afghanistan and Yemen, muslim students in Michigan glorify the 9/11 bombers, look here:

More of WilliB's hate-filled hand-wringing.

Why not offer your proposed solutions instead of just whining?

Yabits,

sorry pal, I didn´t make this up. If you want to talk about hate, take that up with the muslim students in Michigan.

Any solution, of course, would include addressing the issue, which is the ideology of islam. But you know that.

Obama is busy to connect all sorts of polka dots while ignoring the only dot that really matters.

LIBERTAS:

" Not surprisingly you are confusing theology and politics. "

Islam does not make that distinction. It is a political system as well as a religion.

" While properly understood, Islam is a religion of peace. "

LOL! And you would be the one to redefine it that way, right?

Any solution, of course, would include addressing the issue, which is the ideology of islam. But you know that.

No I don't. How would you "address" the ideology of Islam?

Be specific.

Damn, smith has really gone out of his way to paint me as a crazy nut out to kill masses of people and has basically found me guilty of a crime I did not commit yet he wants all of you to find understanding as to why those who have taken up the Jihadist route and its really not their fault. But me, no he throws me to the into a pit.

yabits:

" No I don't. How would you "address" the ideology of Islam? "

Just like you address the ideology of nazism or communism, of course. Discuss it, expose it, and orient policy towards defeating it, not pretend it is not there and pretending that radical nazis and communists are just "misunderstanders" of their ideologies of peace.

Gee, that was hard, wasn´t it.

WilliB:

It is a political system as well as a religion.

No, it's not. That's a cultural nuance. In some states, secular authorities rule. But then, nuance, where do I start? Just.....look it up.

And you would be the one to redefine it that way, right?

I'm not defining anything. The very name Islam and Muslim comes from the Arabic (Semitic) root "sala'am" سلام which means peace. Regrettably, and uninformed US public is kneejerking its way to a tragic comedy of errors by presuming that Islam is the enemy. It's not. A failed foreign and military policy is the cause. The result is simply consequence. Lies, like "Islam is the enemy", simply speak of widespread ignorance among a 40%-plus illiterate in any language US public. (Dept. of Ed. numbers!) Have a read: http://desertpeace.wordpress.com/2010/01/01/who-are-the-real-terrorists-2/ Remember first, look up the word "nuance" and see if you can find any.

LIBERTAS:

" No, it's not. That's a cultural nuance. "

Oh yes it is. Every islamic reference site can tell you that. Islam is more than a personal religion, it is a political ideology and legal system besides a religion... and not one you´d wish to live under, especially not if you are female, Jewish, or homosexual.

" The very name Islam and Muslim comes from the Arabic (Semitic) root "sala'am" سلام which means peace. "

LOL, no. It means submission in Arabic, and muslim is someone who has subitted. I strongly suggest you inform yourself before lecturing.

skip: "Damn, smith has really gone out of his way to paint me as a crazy nut..."

Nah, I just quoted you a few times; you yourself drew the logical conclusion.

Seriously, I don't mean to offend you, my friend, but I'm asking you not to offend yourself. You are so hypocritical sometimes it makes all your arguments ridiculous; I've come on here sometimes to see you ranting about crazy, unrelated things and blaming me for very odd, off the wall things I never commented on to begin with. In short, you let your emotional baggage take over on issues like this, and undermine all your other comments.

WilliB: You have a limited internet dictionary, my friend. Next we'll be hearing from you how 'jihad' means war against the USA and not 'struggle'. Good luck with figuring out the numbers beside the definition (hint: there are oft times more than one!).

WilliB writes:

Discuss [Islam], expose [Islam], and orient policy towards defeating [Islam]...

What specific policies would you recommend be enacted against Americans of the Islamic faith? Since you appear to be saying that all of Islam is the enemy.

(I am a terrible mind-reader, so you'll have to enlighten me.)

skipthesong you're starting to sound more and more like Sarge.

What could the military do that the FBI hasn't?

What is the agenda that I'm advocating. I'm trying to understand why you republicans are crying that Abdulmutallab is getting special treatment. What treatment is he getting that so special?

I think it's just that the republicans are looking for something to whine about. So whether he was given over to the military or FBI you'd be complaining, no matter what. < :-)

adaydream:

" What treatment is he getting that so special? "

He is getting the treatment of a US citizen... as if he was not a foreign national, loyal to a hostile ideoloy, who tried to commit an act of war against the county.

In effect, the US administration is expanding the constitution to encompass the whole world. Which is not only incredibly arrogant, but also ruinous for the country.

Or was that a trick question?

Yabits:

" What specific policies would you recommend be enacted against Americans of the Islamic faith? "

The same policies that would enact against Americans of the Nazi faith. Listen to what they say, take it seriously, address it, and do not support it in the name of religous freedom.

I thought that would be obvious.

Smithjapan:

" You have a limited internet dictionary, my friend. Next we'll be hearing from you how 'jihad' means war against the USA and not 'struggle'. "

Jihad means what it means to the jihadis. That it can also be used in other contexts does not change that.

Fwiw, "Mein Kampf" also means simply "My struggle" in German. That does not make the book a book of love and the ideology one of peace.

Get real.

Guest.

A deterrent? A deterrent to Islam? I think there is a lot of arguing going on about apples and oranges here. I dont think that islam is any more dangerous of a motivation than Christianity, it is just getting a lot of attention recently from certain extreme acts by radicals. There have been various movements in history that have been demonized and which have swept the world up in a panic. Most notably communism and hypernationalism. But there have also been things like the yellow peril, perfidious Albion, manifest destiny, remember the Maine, etc.

Point being that here we are years later, and we find out that the Russians are no better or worse than the Japanese or Chinese or Quebecois nationalists. People just want to get along. Someday it is going to be that way with Islam too, so getting through the next decade or so without ripping the world apart is the goal, not killing every last person who worships the Koran, or even putting them in camps and tormenting them.

WilliB, attributing bizarre motives to people based on quirks in a language can be done for any language. I have no doubt that some people make a big deal about this. Just as I don't doubt that most people have no intention of dominating others based on religion. Just for fun, the word for peace in Russian is also the word for world. Does that mean that Russians want peace, or that they want the world? Seems pretty sinister to me... Think about how phrases like "Evil empire" "New World Order" and "Nuke em" sound to people of other countries when Americans say them. Think about how words like WELFARE get your blood boiling despite its real meaning. You put a lot of stock in your understanding of words, but you don't realize how they are manipulated and how you are being manipulated by them.

WilliB writes:

Listen to what they say, take it seriously, address it, and do not support it in the name of religous freedom.

And if a Moslem tells you they are opposed to terrorism, do you "take that seriously?"

Regarding policies, there are none that I know of that are enacted against American-based Nazis. You are claiming that all of Islam is the enemy and have endorsed making policies to defeat the enemy. And yet, when asked for specifics, you dance around the issue just as much as you claim the political leaders in Washington are dancing around it.

You were the one who touted discussing and exposing, followed by making policies. So why can't you describe some specific policies that you would recommend taken against all Moslems? After all, discussion is just lip service, is it not?

Yabits:

" And if a Moslem tells you they are opposed to terrorism, do you "take that seriously?" "

Well, it would be great if would hear such declarations, and without buts and ifs, blaming terrorism on the victims. Can you quote some?

And they should also be asked how they can be muslim and be against terrorism at the same time. If you find a good way to pull that off, you should become an imam.

Speedracer:

" I think there is a lot of arguing going on about apples and oranges here. I dont think that islam is any more dangerous of a motivation than Christianity, it is just getting a lot of attention recently from certain extreme acts by radicals. "

....and guess what belief system these radicals are acting on. Surprise -- it is not the New Testament or the Torah.

Adressing the islamic jihad without adressing islam is like fighting WW2 without addressing nazism. Ridiculous!

5SpeedRacer5 at 11:37 PM JST - 6th January

Guest.

A deterrent? A deterrent to Islam?

Not a deterrent to Islam but to its followers who are mislead into blowing themselves and innocent non Islamic people up. Suicide bombers must be deterred from using that specific tactic to bring about change.

smithinjapan: never mind that you can't know whom they are before a terrorist event, as was the case with this.

Actually the article outlines the problem where we did have information about the man but failed to act.

And seriously, it's about time you stop trying to use the words of radicals to define a very complex situation with Muslims. You don't have to want to kill all Muslims to know that there is a problem that is mostly contained within one religion. We've built a system of beliefs where racial profiling is wrong, now we're faced with a situation where you're about 98% guaranteed that a suicide bomber on a plane will be Muslim. We're in a transition phase where we don't really know the best way to handle it. Right now we're doing spot checks on 70-year old grandmas from Burbank to give us the feeling that we aren't racist, but in reality it's creating one problem by attempting to solve another.

What's the solution? I can't say I'm 100% sure yet. Obviously you can't treat ever Muslim as a suspect. But obviously you can't solve terrorism by having dogs sniff the bags of college coeds from Arizona State University, either. You can't have a list where anyone can make a call and get anyone else's name on it, but then again you can't say you're protecting that rights of all people to the point where you're making it easier for those same people to be murdered.

Like I said, it's a complex problem, yet you always just argue with the people who want the most drastic solutions without have any real solution of your own that's proven to be workable. We created a system of rights and beliefs when the world didn't have these threats, and now that they're real and happening we're finding that our system can lead to counterproductive results. You can't just bury your head in the sand and pretend that it isn't so.

Smith. I guess I can see how this goes. Threads degrade into this kind of pure vitriol. It just goes to show that people can get so worked up into irrational feelings about people who do irrational things. Religion, nationalism...etc. I hate to get all John Lennon on everyone, but he pinned it down pretty well.

If you really believe in heaven or martyrdom or holy war, or even if you believe that others believe in them, then anything is justified. It is a full on prisoner's dilemma. If a government can push people just enough into believing that communism is evil, or islam, or the US government, then they will begin to interpret the world that way and do what you want out of sheer paranoia. The center collapses, and you wind up with Yugoslavia.

The only way out is mutual trust and sincere respect for others, DESPITE what some of them might do.

WilliB... I just keep digging up treasure in your posts: "Every islamic reference site can tell you that. Islam is more than a personal religion, it is a political ideology and legal system besides a religion... and not one you´d wish to live under, especially not if you are female, Jewish, or homosexual."

You know, every evangelistic Christian site has the same problem. What about radical theology in the US? Why aren't you as worried about radical Christians taking over the US as you are about radical Muslims? Just to challenge you a little, there ARE Mormons engaging in polygamy in the US, and there is misogyny, anti-semitism and homophobia. Not too long ago, it was systemic. Why not declare your holy war against problems in the US? Once that gets straightened around to your liking, then the world can see how well that works out. Tolerant moderate Islamic states used to look to the US as an example of how people can live together despite religious differences.

WilliB

He is getting the treatment of a US citizen.

We treat Non-US citizens differently? What are we giving Abdulmutallab that so special?

It's not a trick question. This country has said that we treat everybody the very same, but you sound as if we're giving him cookies and milk.

What is the big difference? Be specific.

The republicans keep whining about special treatment but they don't give any specifics. < :-)

5Speedracer:

" You know, every evangelistic Christian site has the same problem. What about radical theology in the US? Why aren't you as worried about radical Christians taking over the US as you are about radical Muslims? "

The day when evangelistic Christians fly planes into buildings or behead unbelievers on camera to please their god, you´d have a point.

Until then, take your strawman back into its closet.

But I am glad you acknowledge that people do act on their beliefs, and therefore we should take those beliefs seriously.

5speedracer:

" Tolerant moderate Islamic states "

By the way, please name some of those "tolerant islamic states". Fact is, it is an oxymoron. A state is either tolerant, or islamic.

WilliB writes:

Well, it would be great if would hear such declarations, and without buts and ifs, blaming terrorism on the victims.

So I guess your answer is that, contrary to your earlier statement, you don't take what any Moslem says seriously without a lot of buts and ifs.

You avoided the more important question of the specific policies you think need to be in place to address this "enemy" you keep whining about. You have identified the enemy as all of Islam, unless you'd like to correct me if I've gotten that wrong.

You said that policies should be enacted similar to those against other groups like Nazis, but haven't identified a specific policy in place in the United States against them. Why are you unable or unwilling to discuss specific policies against Americans of the Islamic faith? Especially after saying that was one of the key things that needed to be done after discussion and exposure.

WilliB appears that he s/he is immune from being reasoned with right now. He's right. Everyone else is wrong, and there isn't any telling it otherwise. All problems begin and end with Islam.

Actually adaydream, the folks at Gitmo aren't getting the same treatment as US nationals. That's well documented in US law journals. And many Senators like it that way. Appearing to be tough is good for votes.

But, as a help to our friend, here's a primer on Islam, without nuances so he can get it: http://www.aljazeerah.info/Islamic%20Editorials/2007/May/Islam%20A%20Brief%20Introduction%20By%20Hassan%20A.%20El-Najjar.htm Nothing in there about flying planes into buildings, anti-Americanism or anything like that.

Third time: Failed foreign and military policies are to blame for creating militant jihadis. Change the policies, and you'll change the results you get. It's really that simple. Being tough sometimes means that you have to say you were wrong! Sometimes, R E A L L Y wrong!

yabits:

" So I guess your answer is that, contrary to your earlier statement, you don't take what any Moslem says seriously without a lot of buts and ifs. "

No, I said what I said, not what you "guess" I said. Please quote islamic authorities (imams, spokesmen of CAIR, etc.) who condenm terrorism, period. Not who condemn terrorism "against innocents", or "except as a resistance against oppression", or immediately relativize it by bringing up Israel or all the evil things the US has done.

I am not holding my breath.

WilliB, you do realize that the moment you are given an example of an Islamic religious leader who unequivocally is opposed to violence, it will render false your position that all of Islam is the enemy, will it not?

WilliB, back to the topic of policies against what you see as the enemy.

You said the policies should be the same as those against American Nazis. There are not any special policies against Nazis in the U.S. That being the case, what policies should be enacted against those of the Islamic faith in the U.S.?

yabits:

" You said that policies should be enacted similar to those against other groups like Nazis, but haven't identified a specific policy in place in the United States against them. "

Decide yourself if Nazis are allowed to run schools, educate children, open places of Nazi worship, pressure the government not to publish Nazi cartoons, lobby for freedom of Nazis to live according to Nazi law, get Nazi lecturers into universities, suppress any discussion of Nazi ideology... are you serious?

The West is perfectly willing to address one totalitarian ideology head-on. Another one is allowed to fly completely under the radar.

"extremists"

What the heck is wrong with these people?

The West is perfectly willing to address one totalitarian ideology head-on. Another one is allowed to fly completely under the radar.

Those who practice Islam do not follow a totalitarian ideology.

You asked for examples of Islamic clerics who reject violence, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf is one. The entire branch of Islam known as Sufism is another.

If there is anything that is totalitarian, it is your single-minded hatred of a religion you know nothing about.

LIBERTAS

Even if you turned Abdulmutallab over to the military, what's to say he'd be going to Gitmo? What are they doing to them in Gitmo that isn't done in civilian prison? Are they being beat? Waterboarded?

Like I ask earlier, what would be the difference?

The FBI already extracted everything he knows. You think he knows where Ossama bin Laden is? They know where he was trained and how he got to there. < :-)

yabits:

" Those who practice Islam do not follow a totalitarian ideology. "

Oh yes they do, to the degree that they practise islam. To the degree that they do not follow a totalitarian ideology, they do not practise islam.

That is, incidentally, the trap that the moderate muslims find themselves in: If they accept that the Koran and Haddith are perfect and non-debatable, they lose every argument with the radicals.

Incidentally, this line has been discussed quite eloquantly in the Sam Harris / Chris Hedges debate. Go to Youtube and look for "Religion, Politics and the End of the World". If you are in a hurry, cut to video 5. Sam Harris explains the point better than is possible here.

yabits:

" You asked for examples of Islamic clerics who reject violence, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf is one "

Incidentally, I asked you for examples of islamic authorities who reject terrorism without any buts and ifs. I do not know how much of an authority your Feisal Abdul Rauf is (he obviously does not carry the same weight as Khomei or Al-Qaradafi), but just out of curiosity, can you point to a source where he condems islamic terrorism without qualifications?

Because a pretty certain bet that you find the usual qualifiers there.

yabits:

Well, I was not holding my breath for a quote from you, so I check briefly, and unsurprisingly, your anti-terrorist imam Feisul Abdul Rauf puts the blame for islamic terrorism plainly on the West:

"The US and the West must acknowledge the harm they have done to Muslims before terrorism can end, says an Islamic cleric"

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/03/21/1079789939987.html

Condemning islamic terrorism without the usual qualifier? I don´t think so...

Everything in the article you linked is the truth. Rauf wants terrorism to stop but realizes it won't as long as there are Westerners like yourself who believe that Islam is the enemy.

Rauf is essentially saying that it takes two to tango, but I suspect you knew that. A much more thorough example of Rauf's views:

http://www.theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/a_call_to_bridge_the_abrahamic_faiths_judaism_christianity_and_islam/

LIBERTAS: Radical jihadis have been created by US/Israeli foreign policy

Really? You mean Jihadists in southern Thailand are attacking Buddhists because of US/Israeli foreign policy?

We've had radical jihadists for years. Long before we went into Afghanistan and Iraq. It's just that there are a lot more than there were before. We've pissed them all off and now they have a real target. Not just another Arab or Asian that live inside their own country. They have a whole new country to attack. The US.

We have been very very lucky with Abdulmutallab's and Ried's attempt to blow themselves up. Ried's attack took us totally off guard. Bombs in shoes? Then Abdulmutallab's failed attack. Wow, we're lucky that civilians were ready top act.

We screwed up on Abdulmutallab's attempted attack. I mean Daddy Abdulmutallab told us he was radicalized and we allowed him to slip through our fingers. OMG!!

But to sit on the side lines and whine about who has jurisdiction and that the military would do..... That's just an empty whine when you have nothing to add that would make your comments constructive. < :-)

Speedracer, there is a Big difference between, "I will kill my enemy because they want to destroy me..." and "I will kill my enemy and whoever else is in the vicinity just because I want to."

Compare a soldier that accidently throws a grenade and weeps because a pregnant woman was killed along with his enemy, and a soldier that dances on his enemies grave with no remorse of the pregnant woman that happened to be too close to the area. Think about it.

there is a Big difference between, "I will kill my enemy because they want to destroy me..." and "I will kill my enemy and whoever else is in the vicinity just because I want to."

Much depends on who you define and consider the enemy. Take WilliB on this board. To him, Islam is the enemy -- therefore every devout Moslem is the enemy. There are many in the U.S. who think that way.

Secondly, there are a lot of killers who fit the description you described above who are not Moslem. The guys who bombed that building in Oklahoma City, for example.

I can't think of many scenarios where a soldier "accidently" throws a grenade. It may be thrown in the wrong place, but usually the throwing is pretty intentional.

there are a lot of killers who fit the description you described above who are not Moslem. The guys who bombed that building in Oklahoma City

yabits says "there are a lot" and then has to go back a decade and a half to find one. Too funny.

yabits:

" To him, Islam is the enemy -- therefore every devout Moslem is the enemy. There are many in the U.S. who think that way. "

A "devout moslem" is somebody who takes the commands of the islamic ideology seriously. And the islamic ideology commands the hatred of and fight against non-islam. So how do you want to separate the two? There are plenty of moderate muslims, but islam is not moderate.

" Secondly, there are a lot of killers who fit the description you described above who are not Moslem. The guys who bombed that building in Oklahoma City, for example. "

Thats funny -- I remember clearly that after the Oklahoma bombing, Bill Clinton loudly condemned right-wing radio hosts, who in his mind had caused the bomber to do this. The entire left wing of the media enthusiastically agreed with this.

So, regardless if the charge is true or not -- at that time, the consensus was that the belief system that people have actually matters.

When did that change?

yabits:

" Everything in the article you linked is the truth. Rauf wants terrorism to stop but realizes it won't as long as there are Westerners like yourself who believe that Islam is the enemy. "

In other words, he blames the victims for islamic terrorism. That is not the unconditional condemnation of terrorism that from an islamic cleric that you promised.

Keep looking -- just as I promised, it will be a long, long search.

Still waiting for yabits promised islamic clerics who unconditionally condemn terrorism....

I better get comfortable. This will be a long wait.

WilliB writes:

A "devout moslem" is somebody who takes the commands of the islamic ideology seriously.

You are obviously wrong. There are only five commands, or pillars, of the Moslem faith and none of them involve violence. There is not a "pope" or single "leader" of the faith, and Moslems are free -- as Christians are -- to interpret their holy book according to their intelligence and conscience. So again, you are 100% wrong in your statement.

"Terror attack 'dots' not connected" "Unemployment will not go above 8 percent" "Health care negotiations will take place in the open, and even be broadcast on C-SPAN" He can't open his arrogant mouth without telling a lie.

WilleB writes:

Still waiting for yabits promised islamic clerics who unconditionally condemn terrorism....

You have been supplied with an example. The problem is that your irrational hatred and hysteria causes you to refuse to acknowledge it.

To put this in a like context, you would also reject the non-violence of a Gandhi or a Martin Luther King. On many occasions, Gandhi explained the underlying reasons for the violence between Hindus and the British. (The way that King tried to explain the underlying reasons for race riots and the rage of African American men.) The key fact is that neither of the two endorsed the violence. So it is with Rauf.

You've said many times that Islam is a totalitarian ideology. You've been proven wrong about that. The link to Rauf's statements -- and he's one of the leading imams in North America -- clearly indicates a divide between Muslims: those who endorse violence and hatred between the religions and those who do not. (As it can be said that you are person who endorses and devotes a constant stream of posts dedicated to inspiring hatred of all towards all of Islam.)

As for other examples of unqualified rejection of violence, one can look to the branches of Islam that totally reject it -- such as Sufism. Sufis read the Koran and pray to Allah. I mentioned Sufism earlier, but it's clear that you didn't do any research on it.

What is totalitarian is your rigid insistence to classify everying into your own narrow definition without any acceptance of exceptions. Fortunately, that state is confined to your own mind.

In other words, he blames the victims for islamic terrorism.

In a world that is filled with people like yourself who believe in returning violence with violence, it is very hard to say just who the true victims are.

The examples of Christian hatred for the Moslems are many over the centuries, even though the two sides have had centuries of peaceful co-existence as well. Your personal hatred of one of the world's major religions can only serve to inspire actions which will create more victims -- which will only help you fuel your hatred.

Intelligent and wise people will not be influenced by you.

Yabits: Ouch! You sure told WilliB!

WilliB: "Condemning islamic terrorism without the usual qualifier? I don´t think so..."

You condone terrorism all the time, my friend, you just call it 'preemptive strike', 'regime change', or some equally inane term to cover up the fact that you are, with your hatred, NO different.

"Christmas Day terror attack"

What the heck is wrong with some people?

You condone terrorism all the time, my friend, you just call it 'preemptive strike', 'regime change', or some equally inane term

It's interesting to watch smith's slow decent into Islamic radicalism.

Well at least he recognizes the obvious, unlike Bush. That makes him a little better I guess.

Once again, the administration ignores legal precedence. Unlawful combatants (e.g. foreign terrorists) should be before a military tribunal, not a civil court.

[edit]"civilian criminal court" not "civil court."

Timothy McVeigh was not a right winger he was anti-government just because one does not identify with the left does not make them a right winger by default and vice-versa.