Obama Administration Soft On Terror !!

Forums: Politics, Terrorist
Email this Topic • Print this Page

and yet...

Quote:

Four arrested for planning New York terror attacks

NEW YORK (AFP) " Four men are expected to appear in a federal court to face charges linked with planning attacks against a Jewish synagogue and US warplanes based at a New York military base, prosecutors said.
The group, residing in New York, where Al-Qaeda extremists with hijacked commercial airliners destroyed the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, were arrested Wednesday on charges of plotting to detonate explosives near a synagogue in the Bronx borough of New York, according to court documents.
The men, who according to a US congressman were all born in the United States, also "planned to shoot down military planes located at the New York Air National Guard Base at Stewart Airport in Newburgh, New York, with Stinger surface-to-air guided missiles," officials said.
The suspects -- identified as James Cromitie, David Williams, Onta Williams and Laguerre Payen -- were all residents of Newburgh and had been tracked for over a year, officials said.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5i3wjVijzEGMiqKaDH5Xra9VxLxgA

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 7 • Views: 2,811 • Replies: 40

@DontTreadOnMe,

You're trying to trick me into agreeing with you. It didn't work, but look at this related article. I mean, suddenly, C-4 has become a weapon of mass destruction. Okay, but I had thought the term was reserved for chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. Just any day now, we're going to find out it includes tanks, machine guns, and aircraft.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090521/ap_on_re_us/us_temple_plot

Quote:

James Cromitie, David Williams, Onta Williams and Laguerre Payen, all of Newburgh, were charged with conspiracy to use weapons of mass destruction within the United States and conspiracy to acquire and use anti-aircraft missiles, the U.S. attorney's office said.

1 Reply

@roger,

Perhaps the charge is in error, I don't' know but will take your word for it. However, they were going to blow up a temple and shoot some military planes and it is good they were stopped before doing so and proves the Obama administration is not an impediment at least on this effort of stopping terrorist as of yet which has been the charges from Cheney and his ilk making the rounds.

0 Replies

The 4 had been under investigation for a year. Obamastration had zero to do with this beyond not stopping the investigation.

2 Replies

@McGentrix,

Maybe we should just congratulate the FBI and leave Presidents Bush and Obama out of it. I don't know why the original AFP article mentioned Al-Qaeda and the WTC. This group doesn't seem in any way connected.

0 Replies

@McGentrix,

I agree, however it does dispel the view being voiced around that the Obama administration would be an impediment to the war on terror.

2 Replies

@DontTreadOnMe,

AND NOW, THE REST OF THE STORY.................................................

In June 2008, Cromitie told an FBI informant about his anger over the US-led war in Afghanistan. The suspect then "expressed an interest in doing 'something to America,'" the complaint said.

He also expressed interest in joining the Pakistan-based Jaish-e-Mohammed, which Washington designates as a terror organization, to "do jihad."

Beginning in October 2008, the informant began meeting with the four men at a house in which the FBI had concealed video and audio equipment.

The group "expressed desire" to attack targets in New York, and Cromitie "asked the informant to supply surface-to-air guided missiles and explosives," court documents said.

In April 2009, the group agreed on the synagogue they intended to attack and proceeded to conduct surveillance, including taking photographs of the warplanes at the military base.

"As alleged in the complaint, the defendants wanted to engage in terrorist attacks," said acting US attorney Lev Dassin.

"Fortunately, the defendants sought the assistance of a witness cooperating with the government. While the weapons provided to the defendants were fake, the defendants thought they were absolutely real."

King warned that "this would have been a tragic loss of life if the FBI and the NYPD (New York Police Department) had not been monitoring it.

"Thank God for the NYPD and it shows what a real threat we face from homegrown terrorists, and it shows especially those of us living in New York, we live with this every day," he said, warning that "we can never let our guard down and we have to be extremely vigilant."

Good work as usual by the NYPD and the FBI working TOGETHER.

0 Replies

@revel,

revel wrote:

I agree, however it does dispel the view being voiced around that the Obama administration would be an impediment to the war on terror.

gold star to Revel for recognizing the point of the post. doin' kentucky proud, babe!

0 Replies

@revel,

revel wrote:

I agree, however it does dispel the view being voiced around that the Obama administration would be an impediment to the war on terror.

You mean like if he just arbitrarily ended it?

Obama 'declared end' to war on terror: media

What better way to weaken it?

2 Replies

@McGentrix,

McGentrix wrote:

You mean like if he just arbitrarily ended it?

and yet, he doesn't seem to have ended the fbi and nypd investigation and subsequent roll up, does he?

1 Reply

@DontTreadOnMe,

A single case of an extended investigation does not even come close to proving jack about whether Obama has weakened national security or not. To pretend it does is pretty ******* stupid.

If in 4 years, we have had no terrorist attacks, I will say Obama has done a good job on national security.

2 Replies

@McGentrix,

McGentrix wrote:

A single case of an extended investigation does not even come close to proving jack about whether Obama has weakened national security or not.

if it makes you feel better to be frightened all the time, knock yourself out.

it makes absolutely no sense to believe that obama has any less interest in preventing terrorist attacks than any other american president.

that's what's pretty ******* stupid, mcg.

1 Reply

@McGentrix,

Quote:

If in 4 years, we have had no terrorist attacks, I will say Obama has done a good job on national security.

Oh, this is a wonderful argument . . . this, essentially, is the argument the Shrub's Forty Thieves of Baghdad used to claim the efficacy of its policies, despite possible violations of our civil rights.

Have i ever told you about my "never fail" elephant repellant? No . . . well, you never see any elephants around here.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

Quote:
If in 4 years, we have had no terrorist attacks, I will say Obama has done a good job on national security.

Oh, this is a wonderful argument . . . this, essentially, is the argument the Shrub's Forty Thieves of Baghdad used to claim the efficacy of its policies, despite possible violations of our civil rights.

Have i ever told you about my "never fail" elephant repellant? No . . . well, you never see any elephants around here.

You should market that if it works for you.

Me, I'll wait for his term to be over before deciding if he weakened our national security or not. 4 months is hardly enough time to say. His policies thus far would seem to point in that direction though.

1 Reply

@DontTreadOnMe,

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

McGentrix wrote:

A single case of an extended investigation does not even come close to proving jack about whether Obama has weakened national security or not.

if it makes you feel better to be frightened all the time, knock yourself out.

it makes absolutely no sense to believe that obama has any less interest in preventing terrorist attacks than any other american president.

that's what's pretty ******* stupid, mcg.

Frightened? nah. I have no fear of terrorists up here. I did not say that Obama has any less interest in preventing terrorist attacks. I have inferred that his policies may make another terrorist attack more possible.

0 Replies

Are any of you OBAMANIACS going to give credit to the NYPD and the FBI who will do everything they can to protect us regardless of what the Administration does or does not do?

2 Replies

@McGentrix,

Quote:

Me, I'll wait for his term to be over before deciding if he weakened our national security or not. 4 months is hardly enough time to say. His policies thus far would seem to point in that direction though.

The point, which you are apparently too dense to absorb, is that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The fact that there have been no attacks of the scale of September 11th since 2001 is not evidence that the Shrub and his Forty Thieves of Baghdad were sufficiently vigilant to prevent them. The greater likelihood is that the invasion of Afghanistan, and the war between the Pakistanis and the Taliban in Waziristan, and especially the successful sequestration of Al Qaida funs in Europe by European security agencies have made it difficult, if not actually impossible for A Q to launch another such attack. On that basis, all that the current administration need do is to continue to maintain the military pressure in Afghanistan.

The lack of a successful terrorist attack on American soil is not ipso facto evidence of the efficiency and efficacy of the policies of any administration--there's far too many variables and far too many potential extenuating circumstances involved to come to such a simple-minded conclusion.

Unless, of course, one is McWhitey, and one's mind is already made up.

2 Replies

@Woiyo9,

Woiyo9 wrote:

give credit to the NYPD and the FBI.

already been done. but here, i'll do it again;

"dtom gives a big thumbs up to the nypd and fbi on identifying and apprehending the goons in white plains."

okay. you can put away the tiny violins now. Wink

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

blah blah blah

Instead of waiting to only be able to say "see, I told you so." I will instead state my opinion on the subject. All the things you mentioned in your haughty screed are the results of "Bush and his 40 thieves" national security policy. Your continued denial of those facts does not change them. As Obama and his liberal advisers weaken those policies, the risks of future terrorist attacks increase. I'd rather not wait to express my condemnation til after the fact.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

The fact that there have been no attacks of the scale of September 11th since 2001 is not evidence that the Shrub and his Forty Thieves of Baghdad were sufficiently vigilant to prevent them.

and there had not been one on the mainland previous to 9/11, either.

i'm not all that interested in crushing on bushy, though i could. the point is that there is no reason to believe that obama has less interest in the security of the united states than any other president.

that's what mcg and woiyo are missing.

2 Replies

Obama Administration Soft On Terror !!

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know