A New AQAP Airplane Plot

The CIA says it thwarted a planned attack on a commerical airliner by al Qaeda Arabian Penisula (AQAP) in Yemen. They say it was more sophisticated than the Underwear Bomber's device.

The FBI is conducting tests on the device. It may have been made by AQAP bomb-maker Ibrahim Hassan al-Asiri.

The bomb had not been picked up by the would-be suicide bomber who was to do the attack. A target had not even been selected.

The would-be suicide bomber, based in Yemen, had not yet picked a target or bought a plane ticket when the CIA stepped in and seized the bomb, officials said. It's not immediately clear what happened to the alleged bomber.

Did the suicide bomber get cold feet and go to the authorities? CBS reports:

The would-be suicide bomber was told to buy a ticket on the airliner of his choosing and decide the timing of the attack. It's not immediately clear what happened to the would-be bomber, the AP reported.

< Bunny Mellon's Lawyer: Money was Gift, Not Campaign Contribution | John Edwards Trial: Tim Toben and Andrew Young >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Some reports (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by Zorba on Mon May 07, 2012 at 06:42:29 PM EST
    I read indicated that it would not have set off a metal detector, and they're not sure if it would have been picked up by the back-scatter scanners, either.  So, what will be the TSA's response now?  I probably won't want to know.

    Naked flying...I mean, how else are (5.00 / 4) (#2)
    by Anne on Mon May 07, 2012 at 07:18:25 PM EST
    they going to know for sure...?

    Maybe this will help with the obesity problem...

    Sorry for the snark - it's what I thought when I saw the news report.  That and I wondered what new incursion into personal privacy they were setting us up for.

    After reading about the Obama administration's wanting a back-door entry into all Internet communication, I couldn't help it.


    CNET`s excellent technology reporter, Declan McCullagh, reports on ongoing efforts by the Obama administration to force the Internet industry to provide the U.S. Government with "backdoor" access to all forms of Internet communication:

    The FBI is asking Internet companies not to oppose a controversial proposal that would require firms, including Microsoft, Facebook, Yahoo, and Google, to build in backdoors for government surveillance. . . . That included a scheduled trip this month to the West Coast -- which was subsequently postponed -- to meet with Internet companies' CEOs and top lawyers. . . .

    The FBI general counsel's office has drafted a proposed law that the bureau claims is the best solution: requiring that social-networking Web sites and providers of VoIP, instant messaging, and Web e-mail alter their code to ensure their products are wiretap-friendly

    I really don't trust anything they tell us anymore.


    Yes, unfortunately, (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Zorba on Mon May 07, 2012 at 07:30:43 PM EST
    I thought the same thing, Anne.  How much more will it take to wake the American people up, though?  {sigh}
    And I don't trust what they tell us, either.

    Flying nude would not suffice. (5.00 / 0) (#4)
    by oculus on Mon May 07, 2012 at 07:59:05 PM EST
    Full body cavity search.  

    "Casual Friday" takes on an (none / 0) (#8)
    by jeffinalabama on Tue May 08, 2012 at 02:06:16 AM EST
    entirely different meaning. Now it's Tong-and-bits sales!

    I've kind of given up on convenient flying (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Militarytracy on Tue May 08, 2012 at 08:22:17 AM EST
    I'm glad that Josh's surgeries are now going to take place in Atlanta.  We used to fly sometimes when they were in San Antonio and I had no patience going through the TSA stuff with a nervous child or a hurting child.

    I will submit to the ridiculous probably next summer, we will most likely spend the summer with my husband in Korea.  It is worth to me for that, but flying has to be "worth it" now.


    You know what (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by womanwarrior on Mon May 07, 2012 at 09:04:35 PM EST
    Internal ultrasound wands, of course.  Wait until they tell us the bomber was to be a woman.  

    Coming soon: Lee Press-On Explosives (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by Dadler on Mon May 07, 2012 at 09:06:02 PM EST
    In a variety of festive spring colors and designs.

    And after that it'll be the hair plugs made of spun TNT.

    And then, and then, and then...

    We'll fly under sedation, in pods, naked (as Anne has presciently suggested), to be brought back to consciousness upon landing.  First class will just get you better sedation drugs.

    Sh*t man... (none / 0) (#16)
    by kdog on Tue May 08, 2012 at 10:23:37 AM EST
    I'm already flying sedated, who could stand it any other way?  And a pod sounds like an upgrade from sardine can coach.

    A Nimitz-Class spliff, flop a 'Cet, and a belt or two at the airport saloon...it's the only way to do it.

    Though if anal cavity is the next TSA goose-step, an epidural might be a necessary addition to the pre-flight regimen.


    Keep in Mind (none / 0) (#20)
    by ScottW714 on Tue May 08, 2012 at 11:25:29 AM EST
    You can bring alcohol on the mothership, but you can't take it through security.  Find a duty free shop and don't buy more than you can consume if you have to go through security on a connecting flight.

    And as far as the other, that green butter can be a life saver, my poison is Chex Mix, undetectable and makes a nice little snack at 30,000 ft.

    But the real kicker is I don't partake anymore, been years, but the GD TSA has me indulging to keep my GD sanity.  

    And that my friend is a GD fact, I need to drink heavily and consume Schedule I substances to deal with the TSA.  I can not be a lone wolf on that one.


    Shoulda seen me at SFO last year (5.00 / 0) (#22)
    by Dadler on Tue May 08, 2012 at 01:00:07 PM EST
    Sweating and salivating, and generally freaking out inside even worse, trying to sneak my lousy couple of buds through TSA on the way to play poker in Florida (I never travel with it when flying with the wife and son). Had a bud in each sock basically. But forgot to take my laptop outta my shoulder bag, so just as I'm about to get body-scanned with the contraband on my ankles, the lady running the bag x-ray yells out "Who owns this bag?!" while holding up my black satchel.  I'm sweating high caliber bullets, worried I'd left a bud in my bag, but no, she tells me there's a laptop in it, and then I remember...Bah!  I have to get out of the scan line, do the whole routine with my laptop for her, put it in its own plastic bin, then get back in the scan line, and, oh, was I sh*tting cinder blocks praying they wouldn't pick up the buds rolled into my tube socked lower legs.  But they didn't, and I was shaking like a leaf as I put my shoes back on and high-tailed it outta there to my gate.  Good times, good times.  

    I Think You Might Be Better Off... (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by ScottW714 on Tue May 08, 2012 at 03:16:46 PM EST
    ...getting a roller and rolling a couple and sticking them in with a pack of filterless smokes... or just tossing it in your checked bags.

    Before scanners, I never thought twice about having a little on my person, now it's like GD prison, just waiting for the order to spread 'em one of these days.

    Not sure what they do, but it is the Fed.

    Speaking of, I was reading about the underwear bomb maker.  He implanted explosives in his brother for some assassination attempt that failed because the brother didn't get close enough.  It didn't say what implant meant, but GD I really hope the TSA doessn't get a hold of that little tidbit.  

    Asiri has also implanted a bomb inside his brother in a failed attempt to assassinate Prince Mohammed bin Nayef, the Saudi deputy interior minister. The minister survived, but Asiri's brother did not.


    How in the F are we suppose to prevent a dude from striking when he blew up his own brother.  Someone needs a GD hug.


    Jeezus (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Rojas on Tue May 08, 2012 at 06:51:27 PM EST
    and they say Hillary's got balls...

    Would they have even cared? (none / 0) (#23)
    by nycstray on Tue May 08, 2012 at 01:49:00 PM EST
    after all it is SF and if they found it on you on the street, it might be a ticket or not . . . .

    they probably woulda ticketed me (none / 0) (#26)
    by Dadler on Tue May 08, 2012 at 03:00:02 PM EST
    and let me go.  you always think it will be worse.  i'm just a little paranoid by nature.

    I'm not too sure about that... (none / 0) (#32)
    by kdog on Tue May 08, 2012 at 03:31:01 PM EST
    TSA is a federal agency...I tried googling and can't seem to find a straight answer as to where local jurisdiction ends and federal begins.

    I can't imagine serious trouble over a doobie, but stranger things have happened.  At the least you're getting jammed up and sent to a little room...unless the agent takes pity on you and looks the other way, which happened to me pre-TSA when I sh*t the bed at the metal detector and flashed my stash accidentally.  


    Yeah, I wouldn't want to find out (none / 0) (#40)
    by nycstray on Tue May 08, 2012 at 06:08:43 PM EST
    personally what the real answer is :) It's just the casualness here about things of this nature, lol!~

    Is this serious? kdog too? (none / 0) (#25)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue May 08, 2012 at 02:37:30 PM EST
    I don't fly a lot, but I'm never really nervous. At least not like I am when I let my kids hold the wheel of my car...

    I remember when I use to be excited to fly (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by CST on Tue May 08, 2012 at 05:24:30 PM EST
    As a kid.  Then when I was 16, I took an international flight home from Germany on Christmas Eve that was delayed 7 hours in Philadelphia (a 6 hour drive from home - after I'd already been on a 10 hour flight + customs, etc...).  The worst part is that the flight wasn't originally delayed for 7 hours.  It was delayed for 30 minutes, then moved to a gate on the opposite side of the airport, then delayed another 60 minutes, then moved back to the original gate, etc...  And this is before I was old enough to drink in the US.  Finally, by the time the flight actually came, my luggage missed the plane because of all the switches.  So I spent Christmas day at the airport picking up all my stuff.  Since then, I've kind of despised flying.  That's far from my worst flying experience, but it's definitely when the bloom came off.  I wouldn't say I get nervous flying, I just hate it.

    Although when I first left home all of my friends and family were able to see me off at the gate, since it was before 9-11.  That was nice.

    I love to travel, but getting there is definitely a chore.  I will choose to drive up to about 6 hours.  The train is really the way to go up and down the east coast but it's expensive.


    I hear you, CST (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Zorba on Tue May 08, 2012 at 06:06:36 PM EST
    I love to travel, too, and flying used to be much, much less of a pain.  Although I must say, I have had a few of pieces of luggage delayed over the years, and I have never had to go back to the airport and pick it up myself- they have always delivered it to my destination.  Not always happily, but they did.  In fact, they delivered one piece of luggage to my home that had some CD's in it that were not ours, and I got them to come back to my house with a second trip and get those CD's.  But maybe I'm just pushy.   ;-)
    In any case, there are places I visit that I have to fly because of distance, but we drive when we can, or take Amtrak.  Amtrak may be a bit more expensive, but you can get to the station 15-20 minutes before your train leaves, carry on whatever food and drink you want, and the seats are way more comfortable, plus they don't look at you twice if you want to get up and walk around for a bit (which, given my arthritis, is often necessary).
    And I have found that flying overseas, on foreign airlines, is much more pleasant than flying domestically.  Going through customs (at least in Western Europe) is also quicker and easier than going through customs coming back to the good old "U.S. of A."

    CST (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by ScottW714 on Wed May 09, 2012 at 09:03:49 AM EST
    Snow storm left me stuck at the Detroit airport and by the time we got in, no rooms so a lot of people had to sleep at the airport.  That was scary and one of my fist flying experiences.

    Beyond that, my experiences have been pretty good, one time I was so loaded I went to the wrong gate, got on a plane sat down and the Captain started talking about the weather in NYC.  They physically drove me across the airport on a luggage cart to my awaiting plane where I was welcomed with a hardy applause.  So embarrassing, but in my defense, I got off the plane, looked at my ticket, and the gate I needed was right there, right next to a bar, too bad the terminal was wrong.  That was super cool of them.

    Nope, just remembered, blew out my knee in Hawaii and the C Suckers made me sit in my assigned seat in the middle of the middle row of a 747.  Did I mention I am 6'3" and had a leg brace on...  Hawaii to Chicago, worse flight ever.

    I hate flying, and never boarded a Delta plane after that, but will be in September as they are one of two carriers that go to Bonaire.


    I'm serious... (none / 0) (#27)
    by kdog on Tue May 08, 2012 at 03:00:29 PM EST
    I have no fear of the flying...it's the bullsh*t hassles that go with it that get my goat.  Tuning up beforehand makes it the whole rig-a-ma-roll more bearable. Not to mention no cigs for several hours, believe you me my fellow passengers want me to have taken my edge off;)  God bless ATL airport for still having smoking rooms!  

    I Fall in That Class... (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by ScottW714 on Tue May 08, 2012 at 03:38:44 PM EST
    ...of not real anxious to fly, not scared, but definitely don't like the flight itself.

    So back in the day that was plenty, now add in all the TSA BS and it's a very stressful situation, plus I am 6'3", and those GD seats keep shrinking.  So it's layer upon layer for me.  

    But I like traveling more than all the BS.

    And a really cool tip, I always buy passes for one of the lounges.  Just in case I get delayed or if I have long layover.

    They sell them on eBay for ~$25, and they have free booze and food, so it's actually cheaper then sitting in an overcrowded bar for me.  They have couches, big screen TVs, free Wifi, and some have showers, and they are rarely crowded.

    Just make sure you get airport has the corresponding lounge.


    OK, I get it. For me it's just annoying, (none / 0) (#29)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue May 08, 2012 at 03:15:49 PM EST
    although the last couple times I flew the lines went fast and there were really no hassles.

    Gotta say though if the trip will take less than, say, 6-8 hours to drive, I'd rather drive.

    I just don't like the stress of finding parking, dragging bags on the shuttle, dragging bags on the line to the ticket counter, standing on lines for the TSA, and then being stuck in the gate until it's time to board.

    I'd much rather cruise in my car taking in the views and having the freedom to stop anywhere, anytime I like.

    The TSA has little to do with my preference to drive, I preferred to drive long before 9/11 changed everything w/in airports.


    Next week... (none / 0) (#31)
    by kdog on Tue May 08, 2012 at 03:21:46 PM EST
    I'm on a 12:30 AM flight...that should help, I hope.  With any luck I'll score an empty row and try to sleep.

    I'm with you on driving...a much preferred option.


    Exactly my reaction the one time (none / 0) (#28)
    by oculus on Tue May 08, 2012 at 03:03:23 PM EST
    I hadn't succeeded in mailing a box b/4 getting to airport.  Different contents though.

    Like Moms always said... (none / 0) (#21)
    by kdog on Tue May 08, 2012 at 12:56:24 PM EST
    "you're gonna drive me to drink!" ;)

    So... decifering the words... (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by jeffinalabama on Tue May 08, 2012 at 10:31:39 AM EST
    Maybe a person could possibly board a plane, and using their underwear, blow a hole where their sear used to be. Maybe damage to the deck, and if a window seat, then those damned masks fall out.

    Does any regulator have the least bit of training in structural engineering?

    Engineering training? Regulation? (none / 0) (#24)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue May 08, 2012 at 02:07:07 PM EST
    Well, you would hope the people who inspect things and write rules would have it but hope is all I have...

    On the other hand, movies and books aside, a hole blown through the side of a jet at 40,000 feet is going to cause some serious problems. Wasn't there a 747 that had a structural failure between HI and the mainland?? Blew out a piece of the side. And a 737-200 blew out its top above the FC section. One flight attendant was sucked out but the pilots got it on the ground with no further problems. And a DC 10 had a structural failure at the Paris airshow and crashed... And going back to the very first commercial jets structural failure caused them to crash and the lovable Electra which became the P3 for the USN had structural problems resulting in crashes. Of course those were in the wing.

    So I ain't pleased with TSA but I can't really find a way around them that makes sense.


    Gimme 'Security Circa 2000' Airlines... (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by ScottW714 on Tue May 08, 2012 at 04:19:40 PM EST
    ...and let me decide if the one in a million chance some idiot will blow up my plane is worth the the hassle.  I will risk it, every single time.

    And 'scared of their own shadow crowd' can choose the 1 in 5 million 'TSA in your bung hole' Airlines.

    But let the people decide the risk, don't shove in down their throat and then ask us thankful for the BS.

    We got the people who make their kids wear helmets running the TSA where no risk at any cost is the motto.  Some of us crazy risk takers (I occasionally don't wear a seat belt) think it's pure garbage.  

    Since you are a market kinda guy Jim, let the market dictate the risk people are willing to take, not some TSA a$$hat who gets off on making his people check diapers and frisk little kids.


    SJ (none / 0) (#37)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue May 08, 2012 at 04:37:58 PM EST
    I never mentioned frightened. What I said was:

    So I ain't pleased with TSA but I can't really find a way around them that makes sense.

    Given the history of terrorists and airplanes I think a little enlightened self interest dictates that we take certain precautions. So far the search for automated and speedy security measures hasn't flipped my bic and heaven knows the reported dumb actions of some TSA persons is enough to curl your hair.

    But imperfect methods beat no methods at all. Of course I am sure that you would be all aghast if we started profiling... You know. Looking for 20-30 something ME types who trigger the interviewer's "danger" profile.

    ScotW - You know, being for a single payer health care system kinda screws up my  "market kinda guy" credentials. Do you have another one you'd like to toss out?

    You can re-read my comments to SJ if you like.

    But really. Do you think we should have no security? What's next? Coke based medicine across the counter and copper bracelets for cancer??

    I think most people are like me. They don't like the TSA but they can't think of a better way.


    I see that as (none / 0) (#43)
    by sj on Wed May 09, 2012 at 02:11:08 AM EST
    unenlightened self-interest.  I don't know who these "most people" are. I guess it depends on the crowd you hang with.  Most people that I see in airports are more aggravated about the aggravation then they are afraid of terrorists.  Most of them can think of a better way -- if they ever flew before 2001.  

    And there is a HUGE difference between using "no methods at all" and the current TSA processes.  And there is also a HUGE difference between profiling and being suspicious of that brown guy on the one hand, and being observant of behaviors, on the other hand.  Like Israel (apparently the leader in air safety) and other nations do.  In fact, here is one "better way" promoted by the author of the legislation that created the TSA.  And here is another "better way" by a former TSA Administrator.  People need to use the brains they were born with.  Or else it atrophies.


    Well, I guess that makes you a security expert. (none / 0) (#44)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed May 09, 2012 at 07:05:18 AM EST
    And that attitude you mention would flip after the first incident that killed people.

    Can we improve?? Yes. Would turning it over to private industry make it better? Well, probably cheaper. A lot cheaper.


    Jim's Signator Move... (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by ScottW714 on Wed May 09, 2012 at 08:48:09 AM EST
    ...calling you out on something too ____ to realize he's doing the exact same thing.  Unless Jim is a security expert in this example, he can't use it to disqualify someone else's opinion.  This is his move, assuming what he thinks is know fact, like the TSA actually provides a useful service.  
    !?! Unquestionable known truth !?!

    Back to the discussion, Jim, pay attention, I clearly said I wanted security back to the year 2000, which is pre-TSA.  I am fine with that.  I did not suggest no security, that is a figment of your imagination you projected onto me.

    Let one airline operate under the year 2000 guidelines and see who bites, I have a feeling the only people who cling to the TSA are the people who never ever travel.

    Which brings me to another point, how often do you travel ?  I fly about 6 times a year, with probably 2 flights being international.

    Which brings me to another point, how do foreign governments seem to keep terrorists off planes without the TSA or a TSA like security ?  How do those crazy socialized governments operate more efficiently, treat people with respect, and keep flight travel safe ?

    It's a GD puzzler.


    Pre 2000? (none / 0) (#47)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed May 09, 2012 at 09:39:19 AM EST
    Do you understand that the box cutters used by the terrorists were legal to take on board.

    I'm retired. So my flight travel is limited. Pre retirement I was a UAL 100K for years and years and have over 2 million actual air miles after the programs started. No idea as to the amount before that.

    BTW - I don't claim to be an expert. I just state my opinions.


    Exactly (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by ScottW714 on Wed May 09, 2012 at 11:13:33 AM EST
    Jim, here you are commenting on a blog and box cutters where permitted and you traveled a lot of miles, ditto for nail clippers, liquids, steel toe shoes, walking canes, and on and on.  Metal detectors did just fine, and like any form of travel there is always a sliver of a chance something could happen.  But we don't make the speed limit 10mph to avoid ever single possibility of tragedy on the road, yet with the TSA that is what they are doing.

    Now that they know the bomb maker in the foiled attempt actually implanted and blew up his brother with a bomb, is TSA going to try and make sure that can't happen at all costs, or they going to act rationally and realize that there is a point in which normal people realize there is a risk to flying.

    That being said, removing knives seems like common sense, same with securing cockpits.  But the TSA can go.  And at this point, I think I am pretty safe in saying no one will ever overpower a plane with a box cutters should they be allowed.

    But this really brings me to an important point, why are even part of the conversation, you don't fly.  Of course you are down with all the rules from you house.  I don't know, but seems possible when you were booking all those miles, your view would be quite different.  It's one thing to say 'safer, safer, safer' when you aren't out there dealing with the BS.  

    And I am not suggesting you can't comment, but you have no idea what's going on.  It's one thing to see it on YouTube or read about it in the paper, it's quite another to sit there and deal with their inane rules that seem more like a way to dehumanize people then to make planes secure.

    IOW you are saying it's OK for them to do it without actually experiencing it, that to me is non-sense.  And it somewhat validates my point, the people who don't fly are more likely to be down with the TSA because they aren't actually dealing with the problem.


    As Co Potter said: (none / 0) (#51)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed May 09, 2012 at 07:06:10 PM EST
    Horse Hockey.

    I didn't say I don't fly. I said I fly less.

    Now, what started all this nonsense. I wrote:

    Given the history of terrorists and airplanes I think a little enlightened self interest dictates that we take certain precautions. So far the search for automated and speedy security measures hasn't flipped my bic and heaven knows the reported dumb actions of some TSA persons is enough to curl your hair.

    But imperfect methods beat no methods at all. Of course I am sure that you would be all aghast if we started profiling... You know. Looking for 20-30 something ME types who trigger the interviewer's "danger" profile.

    Go fuss with someone else over something else.


    Scott, a thought (none / 0) (#55)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 10, 2012 at 06:54:55 AM EST
    As I noted, I still fly, but millions don't. You wrote:

    But this really brings me to an important point, why are even part of the conversation, you don't fly.

    You may want to ask the families and friends of those who died on the ground on 9/11 about security on aircraft.

    They may have a thought or two.


    box cutters? (none / 0) (#50)
    by sj on Wed May 09, 2012 at 11:21:59 AM EST
    If we haven't solved the boxcutter issue then what business do we have creating a whole bloated bureaucracy.  Again: did you read the links I provided to you?  And if so, did you understand the information?

    Oy (none / 0) (#49)
    by sj on Wed May 09, 2012 at 11:19:28 AM EST
    Did you read the links?
    Well, I guess that makes you a security expert.
    and, did you read the links?
    Would turning it over to private industry make it better? Well, probably cheaper.
    I'm doubting that you did since you aren't even characterizing my comment correctly.  Much less the information provided to you.

    Yeah, I read'em (none / 0) (#52)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed May 09, 2012 at 07:11:55 PM EST

    Just making sure (none / 0) (#53)
    by sj on Wed May 09, 2012 at 07:38:48 PM EST
    that either
    1. you chose to ignore them because they didn't fit your predefined narrative, or
    2. you didn't read them at all, or
    3. you didn't understand what you read

    So apparently option 2 is out.  That leaves 1 or 3.

    Why are you asking??? (none / 0) (#54)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 10, 2012 at 06:51:13 AM EST
    I also read the local paper yesterday.

    Several chapters in a John Sandford novel...

    Some interesting things in a gardening magazine....

    And had nothing to say about them.

    What narrative? Do I need to repeat again?? Perhaps I was too detailed.

    1. Enlightened self interest says that we need protection from terrorist attacks.

    2. Commercial flights have proven to a target of terrorists.

    3. The various hi-tech solutions of the TSA don't seem to be all of the answer and antics of some of their employees bother me.

    4. That said, I can't think of a better solution.

    'Nuff said on the subject..

    Why am I asking? (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by sj on Thu May 10, 2012 at 09:02:00 AM EST
    Because you keep talking about how you can't think of a better idea.  When lots of better ideas have been put forth.  

    Apparently you equate a knowledgeable opinions and ideas that conflict with your fantasies as being equal to fiction.  

    You write pretty well.  Based on that, for some reason I continue to think that your reading comprehension and desire to learn would be greater than what you have displayed so far.  I keep having high hopes for you, but you absolutely don't want to progress past the visceral emotional reaction so many had circa September 12, 2001.

    And yes, it's enough said.  I'm almost embarrassed for you.


    Speaking of reading comprehension (1.00 / 1) (#57)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 10, 2012 at 11:57:24 AM EST
    I wrote what I wrote about three times and you still don't get it.

    I am embarrassed for you.


    ha ha ha ha (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by sj on Thu May 10, 2012 at 02:33:49 PM EST
    You wrote what you wrote 3 times.  Before AND after being provided reading material which you are making shockingly clear you either never read or completely disregarded in favor of your biases.  And you're embarassed for me?  Ha ha ha.

    Okay, maybe you should be after all.  I said, because you can string a few words together I continue to expect you to be able to also think.  And integrate new information.  In spite of all evidence to the contrary.

    You are a very funny guy.  In a sad ... mime ... sort of way.


    Glad to know you have a sense of humor (1.00 / 1) (#59)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri May 11, 2012 at 06:11:32 PM EST
    As to why you think I'm supposed to read what you provide and then comment on them, I really don't know.

    As to why you feel insulted because I refused to debate a point of no particular interest to me I really don't know.


    If you're that frightened (none / 0) (#34)
    by sj on Tue May 08, 2012 at 03:46:19 PM EST
    Take a train.  Leave the planes for those that aren't terrified of a structural failure and hoping that the TSA can save them.  And for those of us who are more concerned about losing our freedom of movement and anonymity than we are of terrorists.

    I'll wear a thong... (none / 0) (#7)
    by jeffinalabama on Tue May 08, 2012 at 02:04:25 AM EST
    fine for me, unpleasant for others. And I'm so used to body cavity searches in the name of medicine, hearing that the TSA only found fiber? i won't complain.

    Off topic... a new diary. Off-off topic...Dadler, please email me!

    JeffinAlabama (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by Peter G on Tue May 08, 2012 at 04:10:28 PM EST
    Great to hear from you!

    SITE VIOLATOR - ZamoraCarl (none / 0) (#10)
    by jbindc on Tue May 08, 2012 at 06:19:13 AM EST

    A really, REALLY busy (none / 0) (#14)
    by sj on Tue May 08, 2012 at 09:10:06 AM EST
    site violator.  As of now, he's got 18 of these comments posted.

    The Implication on the Today Show.. (none / 0) (#13)
    by ScottW714 on Tue May 08, 2012 at 08:48:01 AM EST
    ...by one of the President's men is that the bomber was taken out by a drone attack.

    In my opinion, some skepticism (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by KeysDan on Tue May 08, 2012 at 10:19:35 AM EST
    is warranted with regard to this story, at least until more is known--if that is to be.   The drone attack and the new underwear bomber, the chicken or the egg.    

    I worry that this is the thing they (5.00 / 4) (#18)
    by Anne on Tue May 08, 2012 at 10:38:59 AM EST
    float when they start feeling they need to fend off criticism about all the drone attacks we're engaging in: "see, we do need to do this because, look! - we foiled a plot!  We saved lives!"

    Is there anyone besides Glenn who is making the argument that perhaps it is the constant droning, and the deaths of civilians in those attacks that are driving anti-American sentiment and seeding terrorism?

    You sure aren't going to hear a Brian Williams or a Diane Sawyer or a Scott Pelley ask that question - that might shut off their access to the halls of power, where they can bask in their own importance while munching on fabulous hors d'oeuvres.


    Whoever made the implication was (none / 0) (#42)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue May 08, 2012 at 06:56:55 PM EST
    dead wrong.  Turns out the would-be suicide bomber was a double agent, presumably working for the Saudis, and he bugged out of the operation, taking the bomb with him to the Saudis and/or Americans.

    Killing in combat OR arresting (none / 0) (#19)
    by jeffinalabama on Tue May 08, 2012 at 10:46:34 AM EST
    to stand trial are one thing... drone attacks quite another.  Why not extraction raids?