The "almost" Times Square Bomb

umm, what? first of all... where's the name calling? if you mean "teabaggers" well that term has been used quite a bit all over the spectrum of mainstream media so that was not meant as name calling even though we can all giggle at the thought of glenn beck with someone's nuts in his mouth.

as for your portrayal of someone alledgedly wishing there more mcveighs, okay... as if YOUR heroes on Fox aren't stirring the pot calling guys like that patriots.


and, oh by the way, Obama has largely continued the Bush-Cheney doctrine of no real jury trials for terrorists. they are not coddling terrorists, no matter what Rush Limbaugh is telling you.

but go ahead and blame "the liberals" or claim that Obama is "sort on terrorism." whatever makes you feel better.

Wow. So much media parroting here...can't even respond to such drivel.

Wow. So much media parroting here...can't even respond to such drivel.


oh, hi Pot.

umm, what? first of all... where's the name calling? if you mean "teabaggers" well that term has been used quite a bit all over the spectrum of mainstream media so that was not meant as name calling even though we can all giggle at the thought of glenn beck with someone's nuts in his mouth.

as for your portrayal of someone alledgedly wishing there more mcveighs, okay... as if YOUR heroes on Fox aren't stirring the pot calling guys like that patriots.


and, oh by the way, Obama has largely continued the Bush-Cheney doctrine of no real jury trials for terrorists. they are not coddling terrorists, no matter what Rush Limbaugh is telling you.

but go ahead and blame "the liberals" or claim that Obama is "sort on terrorism." whatever makes you feel better.

Thats just not correct as Bush look at these people as terrorist and Obama by his own word says they are criminals. In this case Obama is going to use the court which is correct because it happened here and he is a citizen. Those four guys Obam wanted to try in NY was a different story on how the two look at these guys differently and sorry that was going to be a jury trial.

Thats just not correct as Bush look at these people as terrorist and Obama by his own word says they are criminals. In this case Obama is going to use the court which is correct because it happened here and he is a citizen. Those four guys Obam wanted to try in NY was a different story on how the two look at these guys differently and sorry that was going to be a jury trial.


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.

oh, hi Pot.

Yeah the last few posts leading up to this on both sides were definitely pot and kettle. (or the worst of our political dialogue.)

The guy was headed to Pakistan, and he admitted he had some taliban training (i believe) HOWEVER he also had been living the "american dream", had an MBA, wife, kids. Who knows what exactly drove him past the point, the foreclosure? the taliban?

Just glad the bomb fizzled and he was caught by an effective police response.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.