Not So "Isolated", And More Than "Extremist". The airline bomber was an al-Qaida-linked terrorist. So why is B. Hussein Obama mincing his words?
PJ O'Donovan
Not So "Isolated", And More Than "Extremist". The airline bomber was
an al-Qaida-linked terrorist. So why is B. Hussein Obama mincing his
words?
"Isolated extremist" was the label President Barack Obama initially
slapped on the Nigerian Muslim who flew into Detroit on Christmas Day,
burning himself in a botched attempt to take down the plane with
explosives sewn into his underwear.
If anyone seems isolated here, it is the U.S. president himself. For
three days after the terrorist attack, Obama carried on with his
Hawaii holiday, "monitoring" the situation while leaving his staff to
deal with the public. When Obama finally appeared on Monday to make a
statement, he gave a boilerplate nod to the potential terror
connections of the "suspect," Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab: "We will not
rest until we find all who were involved and hold them accountable."
But in the same statement he went on to say that "This incident, like
several that have preceded it, demonstrates that an alert and
courageous citizenry are far more resilient than an isolated
extremist."
At what point, in Obama's scheme of the universe, did Abdulmutallab
qualify as "isolated?" By the time Obama spoke up, Abdulmutallab
himself had already confessed to U.S. authorities that he'd trained
with al-Qaida bomb-makers in Yemen. Weeks earlier, Abdulmutallab's
father had warned U.S. officials that his son had become radicalized
by Islamic extremists and might be in contact with terrorist groups.
Before the attack, the name of the "suspect" was already listed in the
ample company of some 400,000 likely terrorist affiliates, if not on
an actual no-fly list. By the time Obama spoke, al-Qaida's Yemen
franchise itself was chiming in to take credit for the Christmas
airliner demolition plot.
On Tuesday, Obama backtracked--sort of. While not actually repudiating
his words about an "isolated extremist," he referred obliquely to "al-
Qaida and other extremist networks around the world" (their salient
characteristics, in this philosophy, are neither terrorist nor
Islamic, but simply global and extreme). But that was a sideshow to
his focus on the two reviews he's ordered: of U.S. air travel
screening procedures and of the U.S. terror watch list.
Obviously there's some work needed in those areas. But what's far more
in need of review is a White House mindset that instinctively bypasses
the reality that there is a global war of radical Islamists targeting
America and other free societies. It instead defaults to the
conclusion that a Muslim trying to ignite high-tech explosives aboard
an airplane is an "isolated extremist," by Obama's account the latest
of "several." How could Abdulmutallab be seen as "isolated"? Because
once Northwest Airlines Flight 253 took off from Amsterdam to Detroit,
he appeared to be the only "alleged terrorist" onboard?
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano showed the same mindset
Sunday in an interview with CNN. Asked about the Christmas bomb
attempt, she came out with the astounding statement: "Right now we
have no indication that it's part of anything larger, but obviously
the investigation continues." Again, that was after Abdulmutallab
himself told U.S. authorities he'd picked up his explosives kit from
an al-Qaida-linked bomb expert in Yemen.
A similar mindset imbued the early reports of Nidal Hassan's shooting
spree in November at Fort Hood. As information emerged about that
particular systemic failure, it turned out U.S. authorities monitoring
Hassan had seen nothing actionable in his seeking "spiritual guidance"
online from a Yemen-based imam with connections to the Sept. 11 al-
Qaida terrorists.
There's more at work here than a presumption of innocence extended by
the administration to the likes of explosives-toting airplane
passengers (or, indeed, to al-Qaida and its comrades). Such evasions
of dangerous realities are part of a broader philosophy that says if
you just downplay these terrorist-networking types, if you just keep
trying to wish them away, maybe they'll be less of a nuisance, and at
the very least confine themselves to attacks that can be handled, in
isolation, by alert and brave citizens willing to put their own lives
on the line to stop them.
Nor is this mindset confined to the administration. Time magazine, in
an end-of-year round-up, reports that in 2009 domestic terrorism
incidents "hit a peak." The article quotes a Rand terrorism expert,
Brian Jenkins, saying that of 32 terrorism-related incidents within
the U.S. since Sept. 11, 2001, 12 have occurred this year. That's a
trend President Obama should consider with even more alarm than his
sinking approval ratings in the public opinion polls.
The Time article then goes on, however, to discount the likelihood
that there is any trend here at all, saying, "For one thing, the cases
are unconnected." The article quotes Ibrahim Hooper, spokesman for the
Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), saying, "Each case has
its own special circumstances."
No doubt each terror scheme has its own special touch. But what they
all have in common is an Islamist ideology, in the service of which
the "suspects" feel impelled to try to kill Americans and savage not
only the visible infrastructure, but also the unseen bonds of ease and
trust that are part of the fabric of America's free society.
Obama in his second pass at addressing the Christmas Day terrorist
attack blamed the system, stressed his order for reviews of U.S.
procedures and promised he will "insist on accountability at every
level." That cannot get the job done until there is accountability at
the highest level, in the form of the president himself recognizing
and addressing that there really is a global war against America and
her allies.
The biggest security risk the American system harbors right now is a
president who could spend three days "monitoring" the discoveries
about this latest attack in U.S. air space, and emerge to describe the
"suspect"--however briefly--as an "isolated extremist." When does that
brand of systemic failure get the review it desperately needs?"
Related headline:
Domestic Terror Incidents Hit a Peak in 2009
TIME - Bobby Ghosh
GLOBALIST
fear-monger like your twisted ole fart, Cheney.
freeisbest
> Not So "Isolated", And More Than "Extremist". The airline bomber was
> an al-Qaida-linked terrorist. So why is B. Hussein Obama mincing his
> words?
>
> The biggest security risk the American system harbors right now is a
> president who could spend three days "monitoring" the discoveries
> about this latest attack in U.S. air space, and emerge to describe the
> "suspect"--however briefly--as an "isolated extremist." When does that
> brand of systemic failure get the review it desperately needs?"
It's be more honest if you just admitted that you're STILL
fixated on your silly little puppet Bush, all dressed up in his Gucci
combat boots, his Versace flight suit, and his Alfred E. Newman
smirk. You can buy one of those outfits for yourself if you really
need to, you know.
rtk...@gmail.com
One might reasonably wonder why the previous administration didn't
revise the watch lists and other reporting systems, or institute full
body checks in airports, etc.
Most of the same people are serving in the various intelligence
agencies as under Bush.
We learn often after something occurs -- that was true with 9/11,
with the shoe bomber and now with the panty bomber.
And whatever measures are put into effect now, the terrorists will
most surely come up with something new.
I think it does us all a disservice to spead the notion that there
ever will be a perfect security system. This is not a popular notion
but the only rational one.
freeisbest
> On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 06:05:08 -0800 (PST), freeisbest
>
>
>
> <demeter547op...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On Jan 5, 7:22 am, "PJ O'Donovan" <pjdnvn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Not So "Isolated", And More Than "Extremist". The airline bomber was
> >> an al-Qaida-linked terrorist. So why is B. Hussein Obama mincing his
> >> words?
> >-snip-
>
> >> The biggest security risk the American system harbors right now is a
> >> president who could spend three days "monitoring" the discoveries
> >> about this latest attack in U.S. air space, and emerge to describe the
> >> "suspect"--however briefly--as an "isolated extremist." When does that
> >> brand of systemic failure get the review it desperately needs?"
> >----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > It's be more honest if you just admitted that you're STILL
> >fixated on your silly little puppet Bush, all dressed up in his Gucci
> >combat boots, his Versace flight suit, and his Alfred E. Newman
> >smirk. You can buy one of those outfits for yourself if you really
> >need to, you know.
>
> One might reasonably wonder why the previous administration didn't
> revise the watch lists and other reporting systems, or institute full
> body checks in airports, etc.
>
> Most of the same people are serving in the various intelligence
> agencies as under Bush.
Bummer, isn't it? One of the saddest facts about complex
information systems in a complex government and economy is that if you
fire everybody who needs firing, you start over in the Stone Age. So
Obama is stuck with a fifth column of Bush's religious-college
dimwits, many of whom are hard of thinking and worse, don't 'believe'
in the Constitution. They will cling to those jobs until the last
possible day before retirement, too.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> We learn often after something occurs -- that was true with 9/11,
> with the shoe bomber and now with the panty bomber.
> And whatever measures are put into effect now, the terrorists will
> most surely come up with something new.
Imho, that's got to be in the top three things that women find
endlessly amazing about men: Y'all can out-think, out-imagine, and out-
subvert one other in an endless roiling process that absolutely never
stops. It's like watching the real world of events be converted into
a kind of technicolor surf with occasional tsunami.
Women tend to stay on the sidelines so we won't get trampled by
the crazed elephants...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> I think it does us all a disservice to spead the notion that there
> ever will be a perfect security system. This is not a popular notion
> but the only rational one.
You're right, which brings us back to basic republican crowd
control - sure it's a disservice to us, the American people to be kept
in the dark and fed bullsh*t. But fear, the demand for certainties,
and childish dependence are all great tools, if you're a rightwing
pol. Keeps that pesky Bill of Rights from interfering with profits.
El Castor
I can't disagree, although Obama does not deserve high marks for
improving the system. What I do object to is his plan to release many
of the al Qaeda prisoners in Guantanamo, and try others on US soil
with all the rights of a US citizen. A very bad idea. I am heartened
by the fact that he is suddenly backing down on his plan to ship a
bunch back to Yemen. As for the Panty Bomber, he should be in
Guantanamo, strapped to the water board right now.
rtk...@gmail.com
You seem to unaware Bush released 20 prisoners from Guantanamo to
Yemen. Did you object when he did it? If not, why not?
El Castor
Didn't object. Didn't even know. Perhaps I should have. But, I do
object to shutting down Guantanamo, and the New York show trials. I
also object to Obama's enormous deficits and pathetic foreign policy,
as well as a lot of other things you don't want to hear.
rtk...@gmail.com
And wny didn't you know? Because the Bush administration was not
forthcoming in announcing this? Put one over on you on the sly?
No, you didn't complain because you just didn't complain about how
Bush handled terrorist issues, including trying the shoe bomber and
other international terrorists in federal courts and stashing them in
federal prisons on U.S. soil. Didn't hear the right go ape over those
trials, now did we.
How about:
Zacarias Moussaoui, the alleged "20th hijacker" in the September 11,
2001 attacks. Spared the death penalty when it was determined he was
not directly involved in the 9/11 attacks. He is resting comfortably
in a U.S. supermax prison.
Jean Smith
GLOBALIST <free....@gmail.com> wrote:
> President Obama "listens" and asks for facts and is not an ancient
> fear-monger like your twisted ole fart, Cheney.
He has to root out the Cheney moles out to sabotage government.
--
Israeli Settling http://gop.am/fxb2 http://gop.am/RrPK http://gop.am/0WNU
Rachel Maddow http://gop.am/ouyu Health Care http://gop.am/YV6d
Look at the Rich Guys http://gop.am/Uv45 http://gop.am/6gdh
http://northalabamahealthcareforall.org http://healthcareforamericanow.org/
El Castor
Hardly. The Left wing press was eager to endorse anything that
involved turning terrorists loose from Guantanamo, and the right wing
press, rare and virtually non-existent though it is, was reluctant to
criticize Bush.
>No, you didn't complain because you just didn't complain about how
>Bush handled terrorist issues, including trying the shoe bomber and
>other international terrorists in federal courts and stashing them in
>federal prisons on U.S. soil. Didn't hear the right go ape over those
>trials, now did we.
I didn't complain because I didn't know it had happened, however I
doubt I would have complained anyhow, because I trusted Bush's
handling of terrorists. Perhaps my trust was to a degree, misplaced.
At any rate, I do not trust Obama.
>How about:
>
>Zacarias Moussaoui, the alleged "20th hijacker" in the September 11,
>2001 attacks. Spared the death penalty when it was determined he was
>not directly involved in the 9/11 attacks. He is resting comfortably
>in a U.S. supermax prison.
Better there than Yemen.
mg
. . .
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Bummer, isn't it? One of the saddest facts about complex
> information systems in a complex government and economy is that if you
> fire everybody who needs firing, you start over in the Stone Age.
The 9/11 terrorist attack, of course, occurred in 2001 and it is now
2010 and, including the wars, and the spending on homeland security we
have literally spent trillions on the problem. So, one would presume
that by now, the government would have one of the most sophisticated
computer systems in the world designed specifically to "connect the
dots", with at least some form of rudimentary artificial intelligence
assisting humans to connect the dots. One would also presume that this
computer system would be available to all government and law
enforcement agencies and has perhaps a couple of dozen computer
scientists refining the program daily and one would presume that the
users had leading-edge capabilities to specify their own search
criteria and methodology for connecting the dots.
So, my question would be, is there such a computer system in place,
and if not, why not and if there is, how could it have possibly failed
to missed such an obvious terrorist suspect?