View Full Version : Lying to ourselves
Warrior-Mentor
12-29-2009, 08:00
Lying to ourselves
By RALPH PETERS
December 29, 2009
On Christmas Day, an Islamist fanatic tried to blow up an airplane whose passengers were mostly Christians. And we helped.
Our government gets no thanks for preventing a tragedy. Only the bomber's ineptitude preserved the lives of nearly 300 innocents.
How did we help Umar Abdulmutallab, a wealthy Muslim university graduate who decided that Allah wanted him to slaughter Christians on their most joyous holiday?
By continuing to lie to ourselves.
Although willing -- at last -- to briefly use the word "terror," yesterday President Obama still refused to make a connection between the action, the date and Islam.
Was it just a ticketing accident that led to a bombing attempt on Christmas? Was it all about blackout dates and frequent-flyer miles?
It wasn't. You know it. And I know it. But our government refuses to know it. Despite vast databases crammed with evidence, our leaders -- of both parties -- still refuse to connect Islamist terrorism with Islam.
Our insistence that "Islam's a religion of peace" would have been cold comfort to the family members of those passengers had the bomb detonated as planned.
Abdulmutallab's own father warned our diplomats that his son had been infected by Islamist extremism. Our diplomats did nothing. Why? Because (despite a series of embassy bombings) the State Department dreads linking terrorism to Islam.
Contrast our political correctness with Abdulmutallab's choice of Christmas for his intended massacre. Our troops stand down on Muslim holidays. A captive terrorist merely has to claim that a soldier dog-eared a Koran, and it's courts-martial all around.
We proclaim that the terrorists "don't represent Islam." OK, whom do they represent? The Franciscans? We don't get to decide what's Islam and what isn't. Muslims do. And far too many of them approve of violent jihad.
It gets worse. Instead of focusing on the religious zeal and inspiration of our enemies and how such motivations change the game, our "terrorism experts" agonize over whether such beasts as Abdulmutallab or Maj. Hasan, the Fort Hood assassin for Allah, are really members of al Qaeda or not.
As a Sunday Post editorial pointed out, al Qaeda's far more than a formal organization; it's an idea, a cause. If a terrorist says he's al Qaeda, he is, even if he doesn't have a union card from Jihadi Local 632.
We're dealing with a global Muslim movement, not a Masons' lodge.
And that "global" aspect is especially worrying. Despite limited Special Operations strikes beyond our recognized combat zones, we still don't accept the nature of the threat from jet-set jihadis. Our leaders and our military are obsessed with holding ground in Afghanistan -- even though al Qaeda's growth areas are in Yemen and Africa.
We voluntarily tie ourselves down, while our enemies focus on mobility. Worse, we've convinced ourselves that development aid (the left's all-purpose medicine) is the key to defeating al Qaeda.
That's utter nonsense. Abdulmutallab's a rich kid. He didn't come from a deprived background, bearing the grievances of the slum. He's a graduate of a top English university. And Osama bin Laden's from a super-rich family. How does building a footbridge in Afghanistan deter them?
Most of our home-grown Islamist terrorists hail from middle-class families -- such monsters as Maj. Hasan or the Virginia virgin-chasers under arrest in Pakistan (where jail conditions are a lot worse than at Guantanamo -- can't we just leave 'em there?).
This isn't a revolt of the wretched of the earth. These terrorists are the Muslim-fanatic versions of Bill Ayers and the Weathermen, pampered kids unhappy with the world. Al Qaeda's big guns are rebelling against privilege. There's a lot of Freud in this fundamentalism.
Spoiled brats remade their god in their own vengeful image. And we have to kill them. This one really is a zero-sum game.
We're not just fighting men but a plague of faith.
Until Washington accepts that, we'll continue to reap a low return on our investments of blood and treasure.
On Christmas Day, a Muslim fanatic attempted to butcher hundreds of Christians (dead Jews would've been a bonus). Our response? Have airport security analyze the contents of grandma's mini-bottle of shampoo -- we don't want to "discriminate."
With our lies, self-deception and self-flagellation, we're terror's little helpers.
Ralph Peters' latest book is "The War After Armageddon."
SOURCE:
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/lying_to_ourselves_sjQTP9OuIQIrjE0oaYch2K
Paul_31-B
12-29-2009, 14:36
It's a scary thought. Just about every word of that is true. I love my country and will defend her with alll my being, but i hope the day comes when our government realizes that we wont always be so lucky in the future.
Was it just a ticketing accident that led to a bombing attempt on Christmas? Was it all about blackout dates and frequent-flyer miles?
It wasn't. You know it. And I know it. But our government refuses to know it. Despite vast databases crammed with evidence, our leaders -- of both parties -- still refuse to connect Islamist terrorism with Islam.
Our insistence that "Islam's a religion of peace" would have been cold comfort to the family members of those passengers had the bomb detonated as planned.
I said this already about nothing said in the news about the Attempted bombing and it being done on Christmas Day.
Abdulmutallab's own father warned our diplomats that his son had been infected by Islamist extremism. Our diplomats did nothing. Why? Because (despite a series of embassy bombings) the State Department dreads linking terrorism to Islam.
Why is this.. For me it's just like about everything MOST of DOS people do. Sit in their Offices and ride home scared out of their minds in an armored car or van with a driver hoping they will make it home. Even if they are in a US Friendly Country. They push paperwork and not truly meeting with the Local Government or Local nationals.
USAID and other DOS departments will never go out to the places that really need the infrastructure improved, but stay in the capital cities and hire locals to do their work for them and they submit the reports on the DoS mission. So in turn they don't know what is really happen and alienates themselves for the real world.
I loved watching and hearing what Tom Ridge had to say on CBS Early Show this morning. When asked about the new 1 hour prior to landing rule and if it is effective measure. Wish I could find and transcript of it.
BLUF - He made it clear he thought it was a Joke.
that an organization could bring the TSA and accompanying LEO's to their knees by simply creating a massive invasion of security personnel in airports accross the country? Say 10 individuals ea., in most all of the 300+ airports.
All that would be required, would be 12 D sized batteries, wire, elec. tape, handbag full of wooden blocks wraped in Ductape, with the words "INERT - Training Purposes Only" and speak no English.
It would certaining make the news.
The system is broke, and I'd rather see it tested to a failing point, then see it fail after 30,000 or 300,000 suffer needlessly.
A lot of people are lying to themselves, but these lies will only go on as long as the enemy keeps fumbling the ball. A successful plot along the lines of 2006 bomb plot (multiple airplanes over the Atlantic) and we will not be able to hide the truth from ourselves. I dread the day these guys get their game together but eventually they will succeed at taking down more airliners.
that an organization could bring the TSA and accompanying LEO's to their knees by simply creating a massive invasion of security personnel in airports across the country? Say 10 individuals ea., in most all of the 300+ airports.
All that would be required, would be 12 D sized batteries, wire, elec. tape, handbag full of wooden blocks wrapped in Ductape, with the words "INERT - Training Purposes Only" and speak no English.
It would certaining make the news.
The system is broke, and I'd rather see it tested to a failing point, then see it fail after 30,000 or 300,000 suffer needlessly.
Didn't we do something like this once. More the half the fake bombs made it thru screening. I remember seeing pictures of the fake bombs. They were incredibly obvious. Alarm clocks, sticks of dynamite and wires sticking out of them. Yet many still made it thru detection.
dirtyshirt
12-29-2009, 19:10
For the most part,Airport security screeners are "affirmative action" hires,and I mean,just looking at them,you can tell they dont give a shit. It is just a Gubberment job, so they can suck on Uncles teat fo' ben-ee-fits. They have no pride in their appearance or uniform,which translates over ,directly,to not caring about their job.
Are there a "few" who try and care? Sure. Are they they majority tho; No.
Gut the Airport screeners,to start with, and hire people who show pride in appearance and job. Do not go the "Politically Correct" route and use "affirmative action" to fill your slots. That was the 1st mistake. When Shanika comes in with her gold "grill", and DeWayne with his pants around his ass,and you HIRE them, what do you expect. I have seen this in every airport I go to. Hire people who dress well, who speak well, who's PAST EXPERIENCE shows they are professional,mature and motivated to perform their job, which is a vital national security position,when you really get down to it.
political correctness has again,and will continue to, put our country and Americans,you and me included,at risk, and it is due to the "affirmative Action" and needing a certain amount of this color,that color is over-represented ect. Bull is what it is.
Am I racist? No, I hate everyone equally. Non-Hackers and leeches are what they are,I just see alot more black disgraces in TSB than any other,be it white,latin,asian ect.
Lying to ourselves
It wasn't. You know it. And I know it. But our government refuses to know it. Despite vast databases crammed with evidence, our leaders -- of both parties -- still refuse to connect Islamist terrorism with Islam.
[/I]
SOURCE:
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/lying_to_ourselves_sjQTP9OuIQIrjE0oaYch2K
Our government "knows" it...
...they also "get it"
They refuse to acknowledge it. I am certain there are MANY reasons why they refuse that range from things as harmless as absolute social blindness to the refusal to admit a mistake, call abject naivete or even things more sinister...
...but they definitely "know it"
just my two cents
For the most part,Airport security screeners are "affirmative action" hires,and I mean,just looking at them,you can tell they dont give a shit. It is just a Gubberment job, so they can suck on Uncles teat fo' ben-ee-fits. They have no pride in their appearance or uniform,which translates over ,directly,to not caring about their job.
Are there a "few" who try and care? Sure. Are they they majority tho; No.
Gut the Airport screeners,to start with, and hire people who show pride in appearance and job. Do not go the "Politically Correct" route and use "affirmative action" to fill your slots. That was the 1st mistake. When Shanika comes in with her gold "grill", and DeWayne with his pants around his ass,and you HIRE them, what do you expect. I have seen this in every airport I go to. Hire people who dress well, who speak well, who's PAST EXPERIENCE shows they are professional,mature and motivated to perform their job, which is a vital national security position,when you really get down to it.
political correctness has again,and will continue to, put our country and Americans,you and me included,at risk, and it is due to the "affirmative Action" and needing a certain amount of this color,that color is over-represented ect. Bull is what it is.
Am I racist? No, I hate everyone equally. Non-Hackers and leeches are what they are,I just see alot more black disgraces in TSB than any other,be it white,latin,asian ect.
If Reagan could fire the Air Traffic Controllers, why can't TSA be fired and we us the USMC to guard Airports?. They do fairly well with the Embassy. No weapons, class B's, shinny shoes, clean haircuts. After Basic and AIT, 6 months on the Airport line, move to next assisgnment. I'd trust a green (young) Marine over the last TSA egg-head I had.
If Reagan could fire the Air Traffic Controllers, why can't TSA be fired and we us the USMC to guard Airports?. They do fairly well with the Embassy. No weapons, class B's, shinny shoes, clean haircuts. After Basic and AIT, 6 months on the Airport line, move to next assisgnment. I'd trust a green (young) Marine over the last TSA egg-head I had.
Damn good idea Wet Dog! I'm pretty sure they'd figure out a way to speed up the process while improving security too. Plus the ACLU would be happy since there's NO WAY they would profile passengers. Never. :D
dirtyshirt
12-29-2009, 22:20
Wet Dog- I believe you have hit upon something!
Hey,NG and RES soldiers were called up and performed airport security duty as well. BOTH (USMC and NG/RES) have pride in their appearance,which (more often than not) translates over into pride in their job,knowing they perform a vital front line,homeland security function.
IMO - the first line of defense is an aware and alert citizenry who are paying attention and willing to take action when necessary.
The TSA is the equivalent of placing PVT Smedlap on guard duty at the motor pool with a pickaxe handle and a set of simplified general orders - to keep honest people honest and make it appear as if something useful is being done...and - maybe - identify the occasional fool.
The 'real' security are the many layers of intelligence, military, and LEOs which - for the most part - have done a commendable job in preventing many such attempted happenings - apparently 14 so far this year according to NPR.
To that end, the situation with the latest 'profile template fitting' young, lonely, disaffected male who sought some sort of purpose in life and the hereafter concerns me.
Richard's $.02 :munchin
IMO - the first line of defense is an aware and alert citizenry who are paying attention and willing to take action when necessary.
The TSA is the equivalent of placing PVT Smedlap on guard duty at the motor pool with a pickaxe handle and a set of simplified general orders - to keep honest people honest and make it appear as if something useful is being done...and - maybe - identify the occasional fool.
IMHO, There is an element of personal responsibility in war time -- and we are at war -- that even civilians hold. Right after 9/11, when we could fly again, the flights were pretty empty. Usually, there were only 2-3 people in first class those days on the East Coast, usually me and 2 older gentlemen. But we always agreed at take-off, no one unauthorized gets past us to the front of the aircraft, period. None of us assumed prior military service of the other or spoke of it, but probably all had served.
I've included the annual pay scale of TSA entry level jobs -- most of the people we encounter are at this A-B end of the scale -- we do not seek out professionals in this job. (A: $16,831-$24,608; B $19,281-$28,124)
We seek out people looking for low paying, repetitive jobs. I like the Marine idea much better. Good training for new troops before further AIT, deployment. Anyone remember the Pakistani guards we had at the Kasernen in Germany? How I wished for an American guard!
just my .02
greenberetTFS
12-30-2009, 06:58
that an organization could bring the TSA and accompanying LEO's to their knees by simply creating a massive invasion of security personnel in airports accross the country? Say 10 individuals ea., in most all of the 300+ airports.
All that would be required, would be 12 D sized batteries, wire, elec. tape, handbag full of wooden blocks wraped in Ductape, with the words "INERT - Training Purposes Only" and speak no English.
It would certaining make the news.
The system is broke, and I'd rather see it tested to a failing point, then see it fail after 30,000 or 300,000 suffer needlessly.
Good point WD,it is scary that such a plan like that would/should wake up this country....... :rolleyes: Maybe!!!!! :confused:
Big Teddy :munchin
that an organization could bring the TSA and accompanying LEO's to their knees by simply creating a massive invasion of security personnel in airports accross the country? Say 10 individuals ea., in most all of the 300+ airports.
All that would be required, would be 12 D sized batteries, wire, elec. tape, handbag full of wooden blocks wraped in Ductape, with the words "INERT - Training Purposes Only" and speak no English.
It would certaining make the news.
The system is broke, and I'd rather see it tested to a failing point, then see it fail after 30,000 or 300,000 suffer needlessly.
Oh about those high speed explosive detecting machines. The ones I have seen don't work half the time. They require constant maintenance. We had the Saber 2000. Same this TSA used. They sucked. We couldn't even get them to pick up a bag of TNT after they were only a year old.
Dozer523
12-30-2009, 08:02
For the most part,Airport security screeners are "affirmative action" hires,and I mean,just looking at them,you can tell they dont give a shit. It is just a Gubberment job, so they can suck on Uncles teat fo' ben-ee-fits. They have no pride in their appearance or uniform,which translates over ,directly,to not caring about their job.
Are there a "few" who try and care? Sure. Are they they majority tho; No.
Gut the Airport screeners,to start with, and hire people who show pride in appearance and job. Do not go the "Politically Correct" route and use "affirmative action" to fill your slots. That was the 1st mistake. When Shanika comes in with her gold "grill", and DeWayne with his pants around his ass,and you HIRE them, what do you expect. I have seen this in every airport I go to. Hire people who dress well, who speak well, who's PAST EXPERIENCE shows they are professional,mature and motivated to perform their job, which is a vital national security position,when you really get down to it.
political correctness has again,and will continue to, put our country and Americans,you and me included,at risk, and it is due to the "affirmative Action" and needing a certain amount of this color,that color is over-represented ect. Bull is what it is.
Am I racist? No, I hate everyone equally. Non-Hackers and leeches are what they are,I just see alot more black disgraces in TSB than any other,be it white,latin,asian ect. Read this and just had to say I wondered if you put on "black face". Wasn't sure because you never mentioned "Mammy" or that they work on "colored peoples" time. Are you a racist, looks like it to me. does it make it "all better" that you hate everyone? Well, Harry Callahan, as funny as that line was when spoken by his Mexican partner in the original it doesn't gain much traction here.
Maybe success for the bad guys can be measured as we marginalize more and more Americans
This was a failure of the security procedures in Europe, right? I did not realize TSA ran the screening all over the world.
Wet dog, Sure it is within the realm of possibilities "that an organization could bring the TSA and accompanying LEO's to their knees by simply creating a massive invasion of security personnel in airports accross the country? Say 10 individuals ea., in most all of the 300+ airports."
But that requires an organization that can mobilize and coordinate 3,000 individuals. Not going to happen. And if it did they would be nuts to not do a live fire. The effect? After all the finger pointing it would be noticed that the attacked occurred before they went through airport security. Just like the doff your shoes rule all that would happen is bags would be checked at an OIF/OEF style ECP. And that would be a ways from the terminal. Wanna bitch about the wait now? Imagine security one CAR at a time. . . then one passenger at a time. Or I guess we'd just get on a bus at the ECP. If they really want to disrupt our Air travel all they need to do is give us a little reason to do it to ourselves.
Nothing was more annoying then showing up in ACU's for the trip back to Afghanistan then to be made to remove my boots!
6.8SPC_DUMP
12-30-2009, 08:43
I'm also a huge advocate of calling this failed attack terrorism inspired by Islamic extremism, but I got much different information than what Ralph Peters from the NY Post wrote below:
Abdulmutallab's own father warned our diplomats that his son had been infected by Islamist extremism. Our diplomats did nothing. Why? Because (despite a series of embassy bombings) the State Department dreads linking terrorism to Islam.
The version from a special that CNN had on Abdulmutallab yesterday was:
On Nov. 19, 2009 Abdulmutallab's father went to the US embassy in Nigeria and told them that his son may be under the influence of radical islamics and may be looking to commit Jihad against the US.
The next day (Nov. 20th) the State Department was informed of this by our embassy in Nigeria. They put him on a watch list of possible terrorists (containing 500K names) and that information was uploaded to what Immigration & Customs would see on his file when returning to the US.
What struck me as something that could be improved upon is that under our current system the customs screener ( who had information that Abdulmutallab is a possible terrorist) would let him go through in to the US and Abdulmutallab would not be investigated as a possible terrorist until he re-reapplied for an extension for his two year visa...
I can understand not putting him on the do not fly list. I can understand that we don't control Dutch airport security so if another country lets someone on with a bomb it's not necessarily our intelligence failure.
But having a terrorist watch list and not investigating foreign people on it when they enter the US - opting instead to wait until if they decide to follow our laws and reapply for a visa - is completely ineffective in my eyes.
Is anyone in disagreement with the factuality of this account or the conclusions I drew from it?
Dozer523
12-30-2009, 08:51
The next day (Nov. 20th) the State Department was informed of this by our embassy in Nigeria. They put him on a watch list of possible terrorists (containing 500K names) and that information was uploaded to what Immigration & Customs would see on his file when returning to the US. 6.8, I'm on the freaking watch list. I have a common first name and an Irish last name akin to "Jones". I always get stopped, questioned, searched even in uniform.
What are you laughing at Big Teddy. . .:confused:
Say, you still dating that hot TSA Momma on the side . . .:eek:
Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. You!:D
But that requires an organization that can mobilize and coordinate 3,000 individuals. Not going to happen. And if it did they would be nuts to not do a live fire. The effect? After all the finger pointing it would be noticed that the attacked occurred before they went through airport security. Just like the doff your shoes rule all that would happen is bags would be checked at an OIF/OEF style ECP. And that would be a ways from the terminal. Wanna bitch about the wait now? Imagine security one CAR at a time. . . then one passenger at a time. Or I guess we'd just get on a bus at the ECP. If they really want to disrupt our Air travel all they need to do is give us a little reason to do it to ourselves.
Nothing was more annoying then showing up in ACU's for the trip back to Afghanistan then to be made to remove my boots!
Everyone agrees that the system is broke, especially a politician. But a politician is not going to put his neck out there. Remember Rule No. 1, never underestimate the value of good crisis. Rule No. 2, spend other peoples money. I want the system to be abolished, I want it corrected before another 9/11 happens. I want, I want, I want,...
The enemy gains more ground when we fail to work cohesively as a society and as a nation. We are a polarized nation, and I'd like to use Rule No. 1 to unite us. At the end of the day, we are responsible for our own safety, not the politican.
Beyond the small percentage of the general population most people want someone else to do everything for them, someone else takes out the trash, someone else assists with my child's homework, someone else fixes my car, someone, someone, someone,...
This day, we don't even guard our own military bases, (Ft. Hood, TX), we expect someone else will do it. We have completely outsourced our security, I'm saying we need to start doing it ourself.
While many of the enemies attacks have been coordinated, many have not. Some of the more interruptive activities that have "not" ended in US deaths, have drained much of our resources. These attacks are being done by individuals, or maybe groups of 2-3. Politicians turned blind eyes to rebel forces after the North South Civil War, it was only when rebel activities began to affect and interrupt their commercial business interests that the politicans began to take the matter seriously.
I feel that money could be spent on better things, we need to slow down our spendig and cut back our costs and utilize our current resources much better. What I don't want to do is fight our enemies on our soil, I don't want to fight with or amongst my fellow US citizens. We have an enemy, he has told us who he is, what his intent is, and we must act as one in defeating him.
WD
Beyond the small percentage of the general population most people want someone else to do everything for them, someone else takes out the trash, someone else assists with my child's homework, someone else fixes my car, someone, someone, someone,...
This day, we don't even guard our own military bases, (Ft. Hood, TX), we expect someone else will do it. We have completely outsourced our security, I'm saying we need to start doing it ourself.
WD
Imagine being on a FOB in Iraq where the inner gate & DFAC were "guarded" by a group of Ugandans working for a contract company. At least the DFAC entrance was augmented with Albanian soldiers. :eek:
I always wondered why only certain civilians were allowed to carry hot whereas average Joe soldier had to present a clear weapon before entering the DFAC.
Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to share and learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so.
And so it goes...;)
Richard's $.02 :munchin
6.8SPC_DUMP
12-30-2009, 10:49
These two AP articles disagree with the CNN special; they say he was on a lesser database than the 500K people on the terrorist watch list, but they don't give the name of the list he was put on.
I'm still interested about CNN's claim that foreigners with visa who are on the terrorist watchlist aren't investigated until they re-apply for their visa and I'll try to find out later.
Abdulmutallab was not on the government's terrorist watch list - though he was on a less sensitive and broader database. He was able to maintain a valid U.S. visa despite warnings about him to U.S. embassy officials in Nigeria from his father. Those facts are prompting a broad review of the government's terrorist detection efforts. Link (http://www.ktiv.com/Global/story.asp?S=11737970)
Abdulmutallab had been placed in one expansive database, but he never made it onto more restrictive lists that would have caught the attention of U.S. counterterrorist screeners, despite his father's warnings to U.S. Embassy officials in Nigeria last month. Those warnings also did not result in Abdulmutallab's U.S. visa being revoked.
Intelligence officials began laying blame on other agencies.
The CIA said it worked with embassy officials to make sure that Abdulmutallab's name made it into the government's database of suspected terrorists and noted his potential extremist connections in Yemen. The CIA said it forwarded that information to the National Counterterrorism Center.
Intelligence officials say they learned the suspect's name in November, when his father came to the U.S. Embassy in Nigeria and sought help in finding him.
One U.S. intelligence official said Abdulmutallab's father didn't provide sufficient information to earn him a spot on the no-fly list.
"Abdulmutallab's father didn't say his son was a terrorist, let alone planning an attack. Not at all," the official said on condition of anonymity in order to discuss sensitive intelligence matters. "I'm not aware of some magic piece of intelligence that suddenly would have flagged this guy - whose name nobody even had until November - as a killer en route to America, let alone something that anybody withheld." Link (http://content.usatoday.net/dist/custom/gci/InsidePage.aspx?cId=guampdn&sParam=32402175.story
)
GratefulCitizen
12-30-2009, 10:59
IMO - the first line of defense is an aware and alert citizenry who are paying attention and willing to take action when necessary.
Concur wholeheartedly.
The only reason the first 3 plane attacks worked on 9/11 is because the citizenry has been systematically conditioned not to take action when necessary.
When citizens do take necessary action, they are often bombarded with legal problems.
..., they are often bombarded with legal problems.
That's the next enemy, but we'll get to it a little later.
Dozer523
12-30-2009, 11:49
Imagine being on a FOB in Iraq where the inner gate & DFAC were "guarded" by a group of Ugandans working for a contract company. At least the DFAC entrance was augmented with Albanian soldiers. :eek:
I always wondered why only certain civilians were allowed to carry hot whereas average Joe soldier had to present a clear weapon before entering the DFAC.
Oh how I remember that freaking debate -- over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, again on Camp Eggers.
At the risk of encouraging this can of worms, cleared weapons in the DFAC and inside the FOB is because most discharges are negligent; not intentional. Even fewer for defense.
As I used to ask the "holier then thou" PSD dorks (who always seemed to be SPC's, cute and girls) "Who you gonna shoot? me?"
"If I need to."
"Better hit me with the first one, then. Cuz I'll be re-loading before you hit the ground."
Had to 'splain that one to the CG's aide.:D
A Visa is a privilege not a right. As soon as he went on the watch list DoS should have revoked his Visa. End of story no bomb on that plane. The DoS does not have the balls to revoke Visas.
Blue
armymom1228
12-30-2009, 12:37
that an organization could bring the TSA and accompanying LEO's to their knees by simply creating a massive invasion of security personnel in airports accross the country? Say 10 individuals ea., in most all of the 300+ airports.
All that would be required, would be 12 D sized batteries, wire, elec. tape, handbag full of wooden blocks wraped in Ductape, with the words "INERT - Training Purposes Only" and speak no English.
It would certaining make the news.
The system is broke, and I'd rather see it tested to a failing point, then see it fail after 30,000 or 300,000 suffer needlessly.
TSA investigators created a waist belt bomb with C4 and a not attached detonator. Put it around the waist of an investigotor team member and proceeded to go into Tampa International Airport in2007 and even passed a pat down by a TSA employee. It was filmed and I happened to watch it on cnn while channel surfing the other night. These were middle class looking white males who went thru. The belt was just at and below the waist. The pat down cursory. He later pulled the TSA employee aside to explain what she did wrong and how to do it right.
that an organization could bring the TSA and accompanying LEO's to their knees by simply creating a massive invasion of security personnel in airports accross the country? Say 10 individuals ea., in most all of the 300+ airports.
All that would be required, would be 12 D sized batteries, wire, elec. tape, handbag full of wooden blocks wraped in Ductape, with the words "INERT - Training Purposes Only" and speak no English.
It would certaining make the news.
The system is broke, and I'd rather see it tested to a failing point, then see it fail after 30,000 or 300,000 suffer needlessly.
I think a test like this would probably be more of an "overload"; The coordination required for the 2700+ "terrorists" would have to be VERY exact. As motivated as they are, with that many Ts it won't be clockwork. It would however give a good indication of the national (and international) response system.
I would imagine that after a small amount (probably less than 150-200; still frightening numbers) made it through security, or successfully infiltrated, someone would be caught and security would go red. Things would then happen VERY fast, possibly moving faster than your timetable. Maybe a lot of the people working airport security are goobers, but when it goes from losing your job to getting a good look at an Islamic wedding suit I think they would start paying attention. And our one large asset is a fairly good comm network in regards to heightening security. I would imagine a lockdown similar to 9/11 once people started getting caught, it would only take 2-3 at separate airports to draw a pattern. The biggest disadvantage would be all those televisions at the airport, having "breaking news" on the TV when Ts are still being rounded up would be unfortunate.
Now, a smaller scale infil, at one airport, possibly two, with a higher amount of personnel moving in, and with people on the inside...If anything large scale is going to happen, why not that. Islamists DO seem to love planes; I can see them using the planes as a target at the airports themselves. NOW you're talking fear and panic, having several security pass in people with bombs, or having the bombs pre-staged in the secure areas, having them fly into a terminal, and then having multiple explosives set off by your infiltrated personnel. This could probably be accomplished by 15-20 dedicated, trained and hardened Islamists with the dedication to sit tight for an extended period of time, and not tip their hand through blogging, email, or even religious practice (a truly secure practice of taqiyya).
I wonder how many non-Arabic personnel AQ has in their roster?
My (probably inaccurate, completely speculative) 2 cents
greenberetTFS
12-30-2009, 13:30
6.8, I'm on the freaking watch list. I have a common first name and an Irish last name akin to "Jones". I always get stopped, questioned, searched even in uniform.
What are you laughing at Big Teddy. . .
Say, you still dating that hot TSA Momma on the side . . .
Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. You!
Didn't work Dozer,the Missus knows I'm too old to get myself into trouble,good try though.......... ;););)
Big Teddy :munchin
Warrior-Mentor
12-30-2009, 14:41
6.8, I'm on the freaking watch list. I have a common first name and an Irish last name akin to "Jones". I always get stopped, questioned, searched even in uniform.
What are you laughing at Big Teddy. . .:confused:
Say, you still dating that hot TSA Momma on the side . . .:eek:
Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. You!:D
That makes two of us! :mad:
dr. mabuse
12-30-2009, 19:33
I've posted this before.
Years ago, my wife was asked by security at DFW ( American Airlines term. 2 )
to walk, escorted, through x-ray/met. det. with a ridiculously large wooden revolver wrapped in foil in her purse.
They had to run it through x-ray 3 times before it was spotted. It was so large, my wife said it looked exactly like Dick Tracy's revolver in the cartoons with a barrel about 1 1/2 " in diameter.
I have witmessed security talking to each other as my stuff ( and others ) whizzed through x-ray. Let me see, in Dallas, Denver, Phoenix, L.A., San Fran.
Hell, in Phoenix, I was transporting a weapon (usually am), and the Delta cluck, er clerk assumed I was LEO and handed me some kind of a form so I could take a weapon on board. Uh huh. She didn't seem too flustered when I let her know I wasn't LEO.
And so it goes, indeed...because we let it happen. :munchin