He's not all by himself

Did Times Square bomber act alone? Define 'alone'

  • Follow Editorials

News outlets continue to try to create the impression that the Times Square bomber was "acting alone." For some reason, this is an important, perhaps comforting, notion to some reporters.

"The Pakistani-American accused of the failed Times Square car bombing is believed to have been working alone," the Associated Press insisted as recently as Wednesday.

Never mind that authorities were even then investigating whether Muslim Taliban radicals in Pakistan were involved, perhaps in training the chief suspect.

But let's just say for argument's sake that Faisal Shahzad technically worked alone. Does that mean he harbored unique resentments -- maybe, oh, because his Connecticut house was foreclosed on? CNN personality Jim Acosta, in a bizarre bit of empathy for an accused attempted bomber of innocent civilians, noted recently that, "One would have to imagine that (foreclosure) brought a lot of pressure and a lot of heartache on that family."

Over at CBS, reporter Bob Orr, oddly proposing that Shahzad's motive is "unclear," nonetheless speculated that it might be because, even after a year of citizenship, Shahzad "has not realized any American dream."

Think about what that man just said. That CBS reporter said, in essence, that America may have let Shahzad down .

So he just snapped. And obviously, as any one of us would have done, he tried to bomb Times Square.

What planet have these people been reporting on?

The truth is, if Faisal Shahzad is the Times Square bomber, he's not a depressed former homeowner. How many foreclosure victims leave a smoldering, bomb-filled SUV to explode in a busy tourist spot on a Saturday night?

It's most likely he had technical support along the way. But if nothing else, he had the moral support of fellow radicals who have gone before him and will most surely follow him. They may not be co-conspirators, per se, but they're ideological accomplices. They share a kindred spirit, a belief system that says Americans and other Westerners are evil and either need to be converted or exterminated.

Reporters delusional enough to try to sell us fairy-tale nonsense that this bomber, or any other Muslim radical, honed their craft in a lonely vacuum are not only world-class naive, but are hazardous to this nation's security because they're peddling a fiction designed to lower our guard and try to make us feel better. The underlying message of their chronic "lone wolf" fable is that the danger has passed; it wasn't connected to anyone else, after all. Of course, that's just demonstrably untrue.

Meanwhile, you have to wonder if the Obama administration has its guard up sufficiently. Of course, they are loath to use the word "terrorism" to begin with -- and neither Mr. Obama nor press secretary Robert Gibbs could bring themselves to call the Times Square incident "terrorism" at first. Mr. Obama also had implored us not to "jump to conclusions" after Nidal Hasan shouted "God is great!" and killed his comrades at Fort Hood. In the Times Square and Detroit "underwear bomber" cases, the suspects were foiled only through the vigilance of citizens around them. "Luck," to the layman.

And while searching for Shahzad, the government decided not to call airlines and alert them about his addition to the no-fly list. They barely stopped his plane from leaving for Dubai.

Most troubling, after four Muslim attacks on U.S. soil in his first year-plus in office, you've got to wonder if President Obama's entreaties to the Muslim world are making us any safer -- or if we're just less girded for attack.

Comments (143) Add comment
ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.
JohnRandolphHardisonCain
576
Points
JohnRandolphHardisonCain 05/10/10 - 09:29 pm
0
0
"Report: Torture and Cruel,

"Report: Torture and Cruel, Inhuman, and Degrading Treatment of Prisoners at Guantanamo Bay" | Center for Constitutional Rights

http://ccrjustice.org/learn-more/reports/report:-torture-and-cruel,-inhu...

KSL
143268
Points
KSL 05/10/10 - 09:32 pm
0
0
You have found a site that

You have found a site that backs up your opinion? Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

KSL
143268
Points
KSL 05/10/10 - 09:35 pm
0
0
Who is the money behind the

Who is the money behind the Center for Constitutional Rights? You know you have to follow the money.

Snopes is a busted "truth teller."

Sargebaby
4693
Points
Sargebaby 05/10/10 - 09:34 pm
0
0
Here's the rest of the story

Here's the rest of the story on that article;

"Finally, given the limitations of access to the base, this report cannot provide a full accounting of the incidents of prisoner abuse at Guantánamo. Rather, by offering examples of the abuses described to attorneys and, in many cases, corroborated by independent government or other documents, this report compels the conclusion that a more detailed investigation must be conducted into the treatment of prisoners at Guantánamo."

I couldn't find one reference to "most prisoners" being tortured! You sure like to puff things up a bit on your behalf, dontcha, Cain?

Sargebaby
4693
Points
Sargebaby 05/10/10 - 09:38 pm
0
0
"The Center for

"The Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) is a non-profit legal advocacy organization based in New York City, U.S., co-founded in 1966 by self-described "radical lawyer" William Kunstler. In recent years, CCR has been frequently in the news for its civil liberties and human rights litigation and activism, as well as its legal assistance to the people imprisoned in the Guantanamo Bay detainment camp."

Ha, a "radical lawyer" setting up a non-profit organization, that will eventually make a profit (somewhere), because it cannot function without support. Go figure!

JohnRandolphHardisonCain
576
Points
JohnRandolphHardisonCain 05/10/10 - 09:45 pm
0
0
"FBI files detail Guantánamo

"FBI files detail Guantánamo torture tactics" by Mark Tran | The Guardian (UK) | Wednesday 3 January 2007

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/jan/03/guantanamo.usa

KSL
143268
Points
KSL 05/10/10 - 09:49 pm
0
0
Sarge, you just nullified his

Sarge, you just nullified his earlier comment.

KSL
143268
Points
KSL 05/10/10 - 09:50 pm
0
0
2007?

2007?

JohnRandolphHardisonCain
576
Points
JohnRandolphHardisonCain 05/10/10 - 09:53 pm
0
0
"Detainee Tortured, Says U.S.

"Detainee Tortured, Says U.S. Official" by Bob Woodward | The Washington Post | Wednesday, January 14, 2009

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/13/AR200901...

KSL
143268
Points
KSL 05/10/10 - 09:54 pm
0
0
I do appreciate you pasting a

I do appreciate you pasting a link to something that supports your opinion. You don't usually do that.

JohnRandolphHardisonCain
576
Points
JohnRandolphHardisonCain 05/10/10 - 09:55 pm
0
0
"Doctors and Torture" by

"Doctors and Torture" by Robert Jay Lifton, M.D. | The New England Journal of Medicine | July 29, 2004

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/351/5/415

KSL
143268
Points
KSL 05/10/10 - 09:56 pm
0
0
2004. And nothing has been

2004. And nothing has been done?

Pay What U Owe
5
Points
Pay What U Owe 05/10/10 - 09:56 pm
0
0
This is a bizarre discussion.

This is a bizarre discussion. It seems the evidence that the U.S. has committed violations of the Geneva Convention is so abundant that even monsters like Dick Cheney rationalize it rather than deny it. Yet JHRC seems compelled to exaggerate these reports or state things that are essentially unprovable to try to win his case. Whether most, many or all of the prisoners held in U.S. custody were tortured is essentially unknowable even by the staff of Guantanamo. It's not like they kept logs of such things.

That said, like murder, the violation is not important in frequency. While it make one angrier is someone tortures 1000 people instead of 100, even 1 is a crime under international treaties to which the U.S. is a signatory. We said we would not commit torture by mutually agreed upon terms. The Cheney administration violated that law. We now live in an extra-legal state that degrades our credibility as icons of honor the world over. Because we have lied, no one trusts our word. The number of lies we have told is not important and so the attempts of JHRC to count, or worse, exaggerate them is ultimately irrelevant.

KSL
143268
Points
KSL 05/10/10 - 10:00 pm
0
0
No, it is not irrelevant,

No, it is not irrelevant, pay. If you were on trial and he was testifying, would you consider his exaggerations irrelevant?

JohnRandolphHardisonCain
576
Points
JohnRandolphHardisonCain 05/10/10 - 10:02 pm
0
0
"Afghanistan's new Guantanamo

"Afghanistan's new Guantanamo Bay raises serious ethical questions about US war efforts" by Thomas Sbrega | California Independent Voter Network (CAIVN) | Tue, Apr 06th 2010

"In January 2002, detentions at Bagram Air Force base in Afghanistan began. With a reputation worse than Guantanamo Bay, President Obama continues to oversee its operations. Today, the number of detainees at Bagram has climbed to 800, a number greater than its better known Cuba counterpart at its height. The fact is, while the number at Guantanamo diminishes slowly, the number of detainees held at other “black sites” increases, most notably at Bagram."

~~~contd~~~

KSL
143268
Points
KSL 05/10/10 - 10:01 pm
0
0
When is it OK to exaggerate

When is it OK to exaggerate and when is it not OK?

KSL
143268
Points
KSL 05/10/10 - 10:04 pm
0
0
pay, with your attitude, I

pay, with your attitude, I hope you never serve on a jury.

Pay What U Owe
5
Points
Pay What U Owe 05/10/10 - 10:05 pm
0
0
Actually, I would be

Actually, I would be delighted to be on trial if he were the accusing witness. Our legal system is based on assumption of innocence, not guilt. If you were accused of 2 murders and he was the stand insisting that you had committed 10 and could provide no more evidence than he provides here, he would be discredited and you would be as free as a bird.

What would be frustrating (and actually happens more often than one likes to think) is that one if he was the prosecutor and became overzealous in his desire to convict. In so doing, he mixes good evidence with speculation, supposition and fabrication. The good defense attorney will do what often happens here, distracting the jury away from the case and making the argument about the credibility of the prosecution. Once that battle is lost, many criminals walk free. The world would be a far less safe place if JHRC were actually a D.A.

Sargebaby
4693
Points
Sargebaby 05/10/10 - 10:05 pm
0
0
Excellent post, Pay What U

Excellent post, Pay What U Owe, but not all that is known is factual, nor is all that is known a lie. We may never know the extent of violations, or their alleged violations, but one thing you nailed that was absolutely correct, was Cain! Good shootin, and have a great night to you, and everyone!

JohnRandolphHardisonCain
576
Points
JohnRandolphHardisonCain 05/10/10 - 10:13 pm
0
0
Look, KSL, this isn't about

Look, KSL, this isn't about me being an expert witness against somebody accused of torture. Here is what you are faced with, and this bears directly upon the editorial above. Pakistanis and Muslims from other countries, Somalia for example, Nigeria for another example, believe with considerable evidence that United States tortures detainees.

I'm not your problem. Your problem is when Nadal Hassan, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, and Faisal Shahzad show up on your doorstep. More are coming because, among other reasons, United States has engaged in the widespread practice of torture at Abu Ghraib, at Bagram, at Guantanamo, at other U.S.-run prisons abroad, at CIA black site prisons, and it continues until this very day.

brayton99
0
Points
brayton99 05/10/10 - 10:15 pm
0
0
that was just a rambling rant

that was just a rambling rant if i have ever heard one.

Pay What U Owe
5
Points
Pay What U Owe 05/10/10 - 10:27 pm
0
0
Or more to the point, large

Or more to the point, large numbers of individuals in those countries believe that the U.S. does and there is sufficient evidence to substantiate that belief. Whether it was or was not widespread is basically irrelevant. What is relevant is that they believe it.

A more acute example is the Iraqi question. We explained to Saddam Hussein that he would abandon his WMD programs or we would wipe him out. By all evidence accumulated since the Iraqi invasion, Saddam had ended his WMD programs. We wiped him out anyway. America's word is now worthless in the part of the world which controls most of our energy sources. It does not matter if we say we don't engage in much torture. A few isolated cases and our ruined reputation is enough to fuel all kinds of bizarre and destructive behavior.

Like most trash passed off as opinion, the AC's contribution today continues it's ongoing inability to understand the issue. The Times Square bomber was not alone in the sense that he is not isolated example or that he did not have access to internet resources on Muslin extremism. However, it is stupid to think that he was an agent in some vast plot to blow up America. He was just another random individual who crossed a threshold of violence, not an emissary of vengeance of some shadowy evil mastermind.

What the AC (and most of it's readers) never seem to get is that this is new world order. We are not going back to the 70's, when most of the world couldn't afford a plane ticket to U.S. soil and everyone was a lilly white Christian heterosexual who wore Old Spice and believed in John Wayne. That world is gone and we are stronger for it's passing. The new world we live in, however, has new risks and we must adapt to accommodate them. Rather than misrepresent these threats as fictional super-villains, it will be more successful to neutralize them through inclusion. The best news is the Faisal Shahzad story is that he clung to his own life. The deadliest extremist are those who so devalue their own lives that they will guarantee the success of the mission with their own blood. Faisal couldn't do that. He wanted to live, just like all of us do. If he is the future of the Taliban, it is a good sign. It means they are weakening. The want their iPods and their own parking place. They want the virgins now, not in the afterlife. They no longer value the dogma of the Taliban over their own lives. That's progress. We should take it for that.

Nat the Cat
1
Points
Nat the Cat 05/10/10 - 10:39 pm
0
0
That is exactly what makes

That is exactly what makes them terrorist. That they are willing to waste their lives, not as nature would have a human do, such as sacrificing your life for your children for example. These deranged people strap explosives on themselves, their women, and their children and blow themselves up and as many women and children as they can possibly murder at the same time which is very, very unnatural......for the twisted purpose of murdering infidels because of their sick twisted Muslim religion.
And don't hand me that BS about how bad Americans or Christians are and how many people that Americans have murdered. You act like a bunch of whining kids. Why don't you stand next to a suicide bomber or have your child blown up on the late night news. No American and no Christian would have committed the acts on 9/11. And all I hear about from you people is waterboarding [where people don't even die]--it sounds kind of like a sport to me compared to the hideous murders of 9/11 and insane suicide bombers.

KSL
143268
Points
KSL 05/10/10 - 10:59 pm
0
0
pay, note my comment. I

pay, note my comment. I didn't say anything about you being on trial. I said on the jury. You are not the child of an attorney are you?

Nor did I say anything about Cain being an expert witness. He isn't the trial of an attorney either.

JohnRandolphHardisonCain
576
Points
JohnRandolphHardisonCain 05/10/10 - 11:00 pm
0
0
United States killed over

United States killed over 100,000 people in Iraq in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, and Iraq had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11. American supremacist wackos who call themselves "Christians" always site 9/11 as the excuse for unleashing America's military might on 3rd world countries. 3000 innocent Americans lost their lives on 9/11. United States has killed more than 30 times that number and unleashed sectarian violence in Iraq that resulted in many months when the death toll of innocent Iraqi lives exceed that of 9/11. Today alone 102 innocent Iraqis died in sectarian violence that still rages in that country more than 7 years after United States invaded Iraq under pretests that were known to be lies. America is not an innocent bystander, but a front line participant in terror. As long as we keep on waging unnecessary wars of choice, terror will continue to stalk us.

JohnRandolphHardisonCain
576
Points
JohnRandolphHardisonCain 05/10/10 - 11:07 pm
0
0
Well, that's peculiar, KSL.

Well, that's peculiar, KSL. Here's what you wrote at 11:00 pm on May 10th:

"No, it is not irrelevant, pay. If you were on trial and he was testifying, would you consider his exaggerations irrelevant?"

Now that sound like you are addressing Pay What U Owe as the person on trial for terror charges and that you are referring to me as a person testifying and exaggerating the torture incident he was accused of.

Of course this scenario like most of those you come up has little or no bearing on the truth which is that United States has used torture extensively since 9/11.

Nat the Cat
1
Points
Nat the Cat 05/10/10 - 11:24 pm
0
0
We did not ask for these

We did not ask for these terrorist to come to our Country and kill us. I hope the U.S. kills all of them before they kill us. You pacifists who sit behind your little protected computers and spout out criticism of the very force that keeps you and your family from being blown to bits by a suicide bomber amaze me. Do you think that this World is somehow fair? Well I have news for you...it isn't! You have the luxury right now to sit back and explain to all of us how unfair the U.S. is to the World. Don't make me sick.

JohnRandolphHardisonCain
576
Points
JohnRandolphHardisonCain 05/11/10 - 06:48 am
0
0
Oh Yes, Nat the Cat, United

Oh Yes, Nat the Cat, United States has most certainly "asked" terrorists to strike this country and to try to kill Americans. United States is in the business of killing people in Iraq, a country that never attacked this country or threatened this country. 15 or 16 of the 19 hijackers who perpetrated the 9/11 attacks were from Saudi Arabia. The rest were from Egypt and the Persian/Arab Gulf States. None were from Iraq, from Afghanistan, or from Pakistan.

United States has been launching missile strikes into Pakistan since before Obama took office. He expanded the program. Hundreds of innocent civilians have been killed. Relatively few Al Qaeda or Taliban leaders have been killed. These drone strikes amount to extrajudicial executions. United States should expect blow back from its illegal drone strikes in Pakistan. They are a destabilizing force. Peter Bergen wrote an article several months ago on a study that found that the drone strikes have reached the limits for their effectiveness and have now become counterproductive.

Faisal Shahzad's action in attempting to bomb Times Square in New York and the contact he is said to have with the TTP in Pakistan put United States on notice of what to expect in future. Reports indicate the drone strikes have given Al Qaeda new life because now they are working with formerly disparate Taliban groups in Pakistan and are helping them extend their reach beyond Pakistan and as far as this country.

If United States keeps killing and killing and killing in Afghanistan and keep launching air strikes into Pakistan, the result is a strengthened Al Qaeda, a strengthened Afghan Taliban, a strengthened Pakistan Taliban, which all unite and conspire with other groups including criminal gangs to attack United States. Faisal Shahzad, who is now a hero in Pakistan, is a harbinger as well as a coal mine canary. American intelligence officers should listen closely to the song he sings.

Finally, Nat the Cat, today United States launched up to 18 missiles into Pakistan killing 14 alleged insurgents in the third missile strike since Faisal Shahzad's failed attempt to bomb Times Square. Americans can expect retaliation for these latest U.S. missile strikes in Pakistan. United States most certainly is "inviting" terrorists to come over here and kill us in retaliation.

proud2bamerican
441
Points
proud2bamerican 05/11/10 - 09:40 am
0
0
JRHC....beyond words....

JRHC....beyond words....

proud2bamerican
441
Points
proud2bamerican 05/11/10 - 09:41 am
0
0
The evidence, the proof, the

The evidence, the proof, the reason, the truth, comes out of his very own mouth... http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=tCAffMSWSzY#t=28

Back to Top

Top headlines

MCG student, class buy kids' books for Ferguson library

Three weeks after the Missouri grand jury indictment verdict, Ashee Nicole Sharer created a Ferguson wish list on BarnesAndNoble.com, urging classmates to purchase a book for the Ferguson ...
Search Augusta jobs