Please see...
It's missing the quote from the article I included in the original post, but you get the point. However, to be fair, this is the same system we had under Bush...it's probably just the people running it now are dumber or aren't as vigilant as they should be considering we had an underwear bomber in December. !!!!
Your opinion has been proven wrong.
True. That said, the type of standards you require to commence surveillance would have been met since 1999, when this administration was not in power, and neither was the previous one. If you're blaming these guys for inaction then you're also automatically blaming the previous guys for the exact same thing.
That's not what I said or claimed.
If the bomb had detonated, it would have been exponentially more difficult for law enforcement to collect evidence and, as such, I don't think they would have effected an arrest as quickly.
In fact, I think if the bomb had detonated, they would have chased leads -- many driven by the false narrative advanced by Mayor Bloomberg and seemingly supported by the now irrelevant security footage of that white guy -- down rabbit holes and completely hampered their investigation.
As a result, I think this terrorist would now be in Pakistan with his family.
Being sufficient to raise flags isn't the same as should have raised flags.
Look, you seem intent on defending Janet Incompitano and the rest of our Department of Homeland Security apparatus. Fine, go ahead.
In my opinion, they failed this country miserably and, but for an equally incompetent terrorist, we would all be mourning another dozens, or hundreds, of New Yorkers.
It can't be proven wrong without a detonation.
Proven wrong, indeed.
This guy didn't attempt a terrorist act when the other guys were in office. How do you know he wasn't being surveilled by the previous guys?
You know I'm not privy to that information. But neither are you.
I can tell you, however, that I've spent months overseas with my family in another country. And there's plenty of legitimate reasons why a person born in another country would leave the family there. Off the top of my head, his wife could have gotten sick, and he couldn't avoid losing any more work time.
They could have had a fight and she decided to divorce and stay.
I mean, now that you know the guy was a bad guy, you don't think about any of the common scenarios. You're looking at this with 20/20 glasses and you have it all figured out. It doesn't work like that.
We now know that if the bomb would have detonated, it would have taken LE the exact same amount of effort to obtain the VIN number than it did when it didn't detonate. And I'm pretty sure LE followed all the leads they could gather regardless of the lack of detonation.
There's obviously a threshold. It's simply unrealistic to track down every person. I'm sure those rules are being reviewed in light of this incident.
I'm having a conversation with you. I couldn't care less about DHS or the head of any agency. I didn't vote for them and I don't work for them.
While you were on a watch list and in a country that is known to be a safe haven for terrorist training camps?
Is that the case here?
Is that the case here?
This guy was on a watch list, visited a country with terrorist training camps, stayed a long time, left his family behind. Oh yeah, he's a Muslim.
Tell me how many others are so situated and we can continue to defend Janet Incompitano. Otherwise, I don't see this as anything but a massive failure by DHS -- only mitigated by the fact the terrorist was more incompetent than our own government.
Look, we're not going to agree. If we can't argue new positions, we might as well agree to disagree and move on.
How do you know that?
You think?
But, you're just saying the same things over and over again. I get your argument, I simply disagree and nothing you've said has changed my opinion on the matter.
So you claim more expertise than the NYPD explosive experts? I'm sorry if I just don't take you seriously on this one.
Well, we did learn he was in a watch list since 1999, didn't we?
A.) The NYPD expert was talking about the amount of evidence that would have been intact had the bomb performed like the Glasgow device.
B.) I'm talking about the amount of evidence that would have remained had the bomb performed as the terrorist intended.
Maybe he was being watched.
The Glasgow car had the exact same components, and that one did detonate.
The car was intact after the incident.
Because you keep on repeating the same fallacies over and over.
You:
A) Claim the car would have exploded instead of merely igniting, when actual bomb experts claim otherwise.
B) Claim LE could not have gathered evidence if the car would have detonated, when we already experienced a similar detonation and the car was basically left intact.
C) Claim that a guy born in Pakistan with an American citizenship that flew back to his home country and then came back could only do so because he was plotting something, when the reality is that there's plenty of legitimate reasons to do such a trip.
Furthermore:
D) You admit you don't have all the information that DHS had.
E) You admit you don't know how many other Pakistani-Americans were in the same situation
F) You admit you don't know if he was under surveillance previously.
But none of that prevents you from claiming you have it all figured out.
It's actually quite comical really.
We're dealing in reality here. The bomb would have operated exactly like the Glasgow device. Wether it was because this individual was an amateur or incompetent, it's really irrelevant.
Fertilizer too?
Nope, never claimed that. It's fairly obvious the bomb wasn't capable of exploding. That doesn't mean it wasn't intended to be an explosive device by the manufacturer.
Nope, never claimed that, either. I said that if the bomb had detonated as intended by the terrorist, it would have been exponentially more difficult to collect evidence and that would have possibly delayed investigators in identifying and locating the suspect.
Nope, again, you've mischaracterized my argument.
You're leaving out the element of him already being under su ion and on a watch list.
If there were more information that would exculpate DHS, you can bet Incompitano would have it out there. I suspect the information to which I'm not privvy is only more damning of their failure to detect this terrorist before he attempted an act.
So, neither do you. I'd be interested to know.
Nope. Not that it matters. We know he wasn't under surveillance when he drove the bomb to Times Square. And, we relatively sure he didn't commit a prior terrorist act so, I'm not sure what relevance you statement has.
Because most of what you just said doesn't represent my side of the argument at all.
Well, at least you can laugh at yourself.
What is irrelevant is how the bomb would or did perform.
The failure is in not detecting this terrorist, before he committed the act.
I personally think yoni is being too hard on the Bush administration for failing to track this guys every move during its term and taking him off the Traveler Enforcement Compliance System list in 2008.
I don't know exactly what the Obama DHS was supposed to do with this guy once the Bush DHS decided not to bother anymore. Yoni should explain exactly what Bush did wrong and what Obama should have done to correct Bush's horrible up.
By the way, I read your linked Wikipedia entry on the Glasgow event. No mention of fertilizer.
So, unless you can show me where the Glasgow terrorists had constructed a device identical to the Times Square SUV bomb, I'm calling bull on this statement:
Yoni, why did the Bush administration take Shahzad off the Traveler Enforcement Compliance System list? Everything I've read says he was on the list until 2008.
Last edited by ChumpDumper; 05-07-2010 at 12:56 AM.
There was no fertilizer in Glasgow or London.
Then again, the fertilizer this guy used was not explosive, and you admitted as much. Regardless of intent, the fact is the actual active components of the device were the same: gas, propane and nails.
Should the Times Square device would have detonated, would it have caused an explosion and destroyed the car into tiny pieces as you claim?
It's a very simple question, Yoni.
So now the bomb doesn't matter.
What actual evidence do you have that this guy was a threat, other than your perceived opinion that whoever travels to their native country and are on a government watch list are a de facto bad guy?
The performance of the bomb is irrelevant to whether or not the Department of Homeland Security failed to detect and prevent a terrorist act.So now the bomb doesn't matter.
When it's time for the bomb to perform, the DHS failure has already occurred.
Sources: Shahzad Had Contact With Awlaki, Taliban Chief, and Mumbai Massacre Mastermind
If Janet had been watching him or using the Bush-era NSA surveillance programs demonized by her boss, she might have discovered this before Times Square.
And BTW, if 'the bomb had detonated as intended by the terrorist' it would have still not exploded. I think you mean to say 'if the bomb was actually built the way the terrorist intended'. Then again, it was built how it was built.
I'm not leaving it out. I just don't think you understand what being on a watch list means. It doesn't mean mandatory surveillance for life. He was ultimately dropped from the list, so whatever they suspected from him didn't seem to carry much weight.
I don't understand what they need to be exculpated from exactly. They admitted they screwed up with the no-fly list. And ultimately they captured the guy.
Sure, but I'm not claiming that it's obvious this guy was a bad guy because he traveled to Pakistan and came back 6 months later.
That didn't prevent you from advancing the idea that maybe he was under surveillance before, did it?
That's indeed the problem. You don't have an argument. You merely have taken a side.
It's been already stated, but your expectation of 100% prevention is simply unrealistic. There will be more of this, under different administrations, and you better get used to it.
The guy itself admitted as much:
The Pakistani-American man accused of trying to detonate a car bomb in Times Square has told investigators that he drew inspiration from Anwar al-Awlaki, a Yemeni-American cleric whose militant online lectures have been a catalyst for several recent attacks and plots, an American official said Thursday.
FWIW, there has been a presidential order for the assassination of Awlaki. It was a big deal back when it happened, because it was the first publicly known assassination order for an American citizen.
You probably glossed over that while ing about Obama...
It appears you and Robert Gibbs are similarly afflicted:
White House: Let's 'celebrate the success' of catching Times Square bomber
In light of the terrorist attack in Ft. Hood, Texas and the attempted terrorist bombing of a passenger jet in Detroit on Christmas Day, many people are concerned that a Taliban-trained radical was able to operate freely in this country, place a car bomb in Times Square and very nearly escape the United States before being caught. But the White House wants you to "celebrate the success" of the apprehension of Times Square bomber Faisal Shahzad. At Wednesday's briefing, press secretary Robert Gibbs was asked this question:
Not at all, Gibbs answered. Shahzad was identified and taken into custody quite quickly, and federal, state and local authorities worked together on the investigation. "So in many ways, we want to celebrate the success of, rightly so, of what law enforcement was able to do," Gibbs said.After the Christmas Day incident, the president used the words "systemic failure." Would you put this suspect’s ability to plan a bomb and almost get away from the country in the same category as a systemic failure?
The reporter persisted. "Well, if it wasn't as grave, say, as a systemic failure, would you concede then there were some failures that allowed both the planning of the bomb and his ability to re-enter the U.S. and plant this bomb and almost get away -- there were a number of failures?"
Gibbs claimed not to understand the question. "I guess I would just ask you to be more specific about each one of your -- I don't want to try to parse what you’re saying, but I don't -- " he said.
The reporter spelled it out for the press secretary: Shahzad left the U.S. He went to Pakistan, came back, was interviewed by authorities on his return, made a bomb, drove to Times Square, where he planted the bomb, etc.
Gibbs still claimed not to understand. "I guess I’m not entirely sure what would -- I'm not the police commissioner for New York. I’m not the mayor of New York…"
Gibbs never answered the question. He wouldn't even say whether the president would order a full-scale investigation of the security lapses involved. As for the actual mayor of New York, Michael Bloomberg, Shahzad's near-escape is a matter of more concern. "Clearly the guy was on the plane and shouldn't have been," Bloomberg said. "We got lucky."
If you think we are, you have reading problems. I admitted that there were things that needed to be improved on, including the failure of having the guy board a plane. I honestly believe that. I also don't believe everything is 100% preventable, and that everyone involved didn't do a good job catching the guy after the incident.
Where do I claim to expect 100% prevention?
I merely suggest this terrorist should have been detected before he was able to drive a car bomb to Time Square. I suspect the more we find out the more I will be convinced of that.
I don't get your point.
I'm all for killing the bas s. However, I confess to being a bit perplexed by Obama's willingness to murder but not apply enhanced interrogation techniques.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
