Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: unclewest who wrote (340391)	12/28/2009 6:24:19 PM
From: MulhollandDrive	Respond to of 793957

agree it could be devastating if you were sitting next to the perp when and if the explosion occurs. That is why I think he was a suicide bomber. That is the most damage a skilled demo man would foresee. who cares if this was a 'suicide bomber' or a well schooled terrorist in the science of explosives? i for one do not want to be the 'collateral damage' of a suicide bomber the point of terrorism is WHAT? if TSA (and correlated foreign agencies) were either unable or unwilling to keep this individual with intent to kill off of airplanes, what good are they? how many 'one off' events like this before people decide it is unsafe to fly. period. terrorists 1 TSA ZERO event though he didn't bring the plane down, this was a complete success for al qaeda

To: unclewest who wrote (340391)	12/28/2009 6:45:26 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793957

I'm sure they were trying to blow a hole in the plane and bring it down. But the weak link as usual is the splodeydope, who in this case couldn't even remember instructions on how to detonate the bomb, let alone where to place the explosives.

To: unclewest who wrote (340391)	12/28/2009 7:01:56 PM
From: MrLucky	5 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793957

That is why I think he was a suicide bomber. No doubt that he was suicidal. Homeland Security, based on Janet Incompetano's running commentary, shows that the US continues its failed policy in airport security. They embrace the rule of using a shotgun policy to secure the airline passenger. This procedure will continue to fail which only gives AQ further impetus to threaten our airline system. The result is that we further restrict how, when and if we fly. That makes AQ a winner. Janet Incompetano must wake up and give some some of obama's stimulus money to the Israelis and ask them to develop a version of their system for this country. The Israelis use a rifle versus a shotgun and "seemed" to have been quite successful in minimizing terrorist threats on El Al. Granted, their operation is much smaller than the USA. But, while they are prone to political correctness, they aren't nuts about it like our current military, police, FBI and government agencies at all city/state and federal levels. From what I have read today, this guy purchased a ticket with cash - a one way ticket. I had more than my share of exposure to the hijacking episodes occurring in the 60's and 70's. A one way ticket, paid in cash and with no checked luggage was a clear indicator of a bad odor. Of course, USA airline pilots followed company policy and flew the hijackers anywhere they demanded. That continued until americans were getting kille; then marshalls were placed on board and the airlines got smart in their policy. So what we have now is a "criminal" in a Detroit jail, who should be sitting in GITMO as the terrorist he is, waterboarded to determine whether he is part of a cell and knows of other plans etc. Instead, we have a federal judge who says no to DNA. And our president(who is carefully monitoring the situation) has declared this to be an "isolated incident". Apparently, he could not bring himself to call this what is was - an act of islamist/jihadist terror against America.