Thread: Seat 19A

I never input my agreement with a post. I don't understand. What I'm saying is that there was nothing particularly unusual about what happened. It happened over 14 years ago. I'm not disagreeing with anyone, I'm just trying to inform.

Here's the info on the 9/11 commission report which bears some scrutiny.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationa..._United_States

Note: only a few of the 41 recommendations from the commission have been initiated. This was a bipartisan commission with both politicians and administration people who have been working in the field for many many years. It's THERE. It's all there.

The commission was criticized for significant alleged conflicts of interest on the part of commissioners and staff.Further, the commission's report has been the subject of much criticism by both the commissioners themselves and by others.
The commission members were appointed by George W. Bush as well as Congress, which led to the criticism that it was not a commission truly independent from the U.S. government whose actions it was supposed to review. The commission stated in its report that "[their] aim has not been to assign individual blame," a judgment which some critics believed would obscure the facts of the matter in a nod to consensus politics.
In addition, commissioners believed that key agencies of the U.S. government, including The Pentagon, the FAA and NORAD were deliberately deceiving them, and that the CIA was deliberately impeding the work of the commission.On the whole, the chairmen of the commission believed the commission was set up to fail.

John Farmer, senior counsel to the Commission stated that the Commission "discovered that...what government and military officials had told Congress, the Commission, the media, and the public about who knew what when — was almost entirely, and inexplicably, untrue." Farmer continues: "At some level of the government, at some point in time … there was a decision not to tell the truth about what happened...The (NORAD) tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public."Thomas Kean, the head of the 9/11 Commission, concurred: "We to this day don’t know why NORAD told us what they told us, it was just so far from the truth."

Originally Posted by nnuut

Phil you are a very intelligent guy and I appreciate your input, but you never input your agreement with a post, you always disagree. Why not play both sides of the fence?

Quote:
Originally Posted by nnuut
Phil you are a very intelligent guy and I appreciate your impute, but you never input your agreement with a post, you always disagree. Why not play both sides of the fence?


I apologize for my statement you really were wrongly accused, I was wrong and admit it, I need to read the entire post before jumping to conclusions.

Not a problem. Sometimes I am critical, but not in this case. Sometimes an incident is just an incident, and a cigar is just a cigar.

But Bill said it worked better with the wrapper off. She agreed.

This maybe something like what the Nigerian was trying to set off..but a whole lot more than just a match head amount.

It is never going to be easy to prevent when someone is determined to try.

By the way-

nearly 1,000,000 people on U.S. "Watch lists", and 14,000 on "No Fly Lists".
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126205922889608567.html

Kind of difficult to monitor them all.

A copy of the criminal complaint filed against "The testicle bomber":

http://a.abcnews.go.com/images/US/pd...int_091226.pdf

Also, the truly poor state of our intelligence on the matter is mind-boggling. For example: we think that someone named Mohammed in the middle east may be a terrorist. Gee......that's only about 400 million people.

What happened after 9/11 was that the administration could not believe that a group of people who had been living in huts in Afghanistan could carry out the most damaging attack ever on the US. We're STILL making the same errors. I see an enormous amount of money is going into conventional warfare, fighting a foe we could understand: Iraq. As Cheney put it: there were a lot of targets in Iraq. We spend billions on satellite systems and pricey high end tech items, but relatively little was spent on providing a secure means of travel.

Now it's still the same answer. A small group of individuals can still probably succeed using low tech/high concept operations, just like 9/11. Nothing forgotten, nothing learned. The groups in question are probably even more motivated to strike at the US. No one has looked at why A-Q was trying to attack us.

After 9/11, one million people rallied in sympathy in Tehran. That was all squandered after we named them as the axis of evil and invaded Iraq. It's as if we had wanted to alienate people around the world.

Lawmaker wants military trial for alleged airline bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab

The leading Republican on the House Homeland Security Committee says the Nigerian man accused of attacking an airliner as it approached Detroit should be tried by a military tribunal rather than a civilian court.

Rep. Peter King of New York said Tuesday it will be more difficult for authorities to get useful information from the suspect if he is given the legal rights afforded to defendants in civilian courts, including the right to a lawyer.
The suspect, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, has been charged in federal court with trying to detonate the device as the plane approached Detroit last Friday. The device burst into flames instead, according to authorities, and he was subdued by passengers. http://www.todaysthv.com/news/local/...6709&catid=288

Question: What is the difference between this TERRORIST and the ones being transferred from Guantanamo, the guys that DESTROYED the TWIN Towers and Tower #7 killing over 3000 Americans? It's a travesty of justice giving these murderers the rights reserved for American Citizens!!

He's NOT a soldier. No rights as an "enemy combatant". Not military, no military trial. That guy probably only knows "in theory" how to wield a weapon; he doesn't deserve the right to a military trial.

Originally Posted by Silverbird

He's NOT a soldier. No rights as an "enemy combatant". Not military, no military trial. That guy probably only knows "in theory" how to wield a weapon; he doesn't deserve a military trial.

Here is the statement delineating what is planned for him.
Lawmaker wants military trial for alleged airline bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab.
There is no difference between him and the Guantanamo group, none are considered military or enemy combatants so they are getting a Civil Trial. They ALL should get a Military Trial as far as I'm concerned, why is it called tThe WAR on Terrorism against the Holy War. They have declared WAR against US!!!

And WHY do the Guantanamo transferees deserve a Civil Trial?