• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Passenger Ignites Explosive on Delta Flight, Al Qaeda Connection Reported

There was nothing ad hominem about his conclusion. Do you even know what that means or did you use it because it sounded cool?

The left does create more bureaucracy and does increase government far more than Republicans or haven't you been paying attention the last few decades? How about the last year? Hell, how about the last few days?

And he was also right about Political Correctness and being against profiling something the left has been a champion on.

"Big government liberals" was an insult that had nothing to do with the subject at hand. And, again, it still doesn't, so, I'm not going to respond and further hijack thread.

I've addressed profiling elsewhere in this thread and a couple others, and don't feel like repeating myself.
 
"Big government liberals" was an insult that had nothing to do with the subject at hand. And, again, it still doesn't, so, I'm not going to respond and further hijack thread.

That is not what he said.

the big government polices coming out of the Left wing of our government.

If you are going to accuse someone of something, at least try to be accurate.

I've addressed profiling elsewhere in this thread and a couple others, and don't feel like repeating myself.

Its not a matter of debate. Profiling is something championed by the left. Its a well known fact. Do you really need me to dig up a source?
 
"Big government liberals" was an insult that had nothing to do with the subject at hand. And, again, it still doesn't, so, I'm not going to respond and further hijack thread.

I've addressed profiling elsewhere in this thread and a couple others, and don't feel like repeating myself.

Just because you don't like an opposing view doesn't make it an insult. It's called debate.
 
Weren't you just complaining about someone takin swipes at ideology? But, here you go, you're rollin'.

Reminds me of the time a bunch of rednecks threw beer cans at me and tried to run me into a mailbox. I flipped them off while throwing the beer cans back at them. They didn't like that. It was okay for them to do it to me, but not okay for me to do it back, just like the old liberal speak. We heard it all the while Bush was President, now it's not okay for us to bash Obama's soft on terrorism policies.
 
That's ok, profiling will lessen the pool of potential recruits....
Profile & then do some more checks on the 'normal' looking passengers.....
Call it profiling +........;)

Yeah i guess we have to add something un-pc to the mix, otherwise that would spoil the fun.
 
This could be a dry run designed to test the system.

Dry runs generally do not involve getting captured.

Of course, as somebody said, Nigerians do not tend to be that bright.... so maybe the guy just failed to understand.
 
Good of you to admit it.

Riiight. We should just ignore the obvious. Then we could be more like you.

Actually, there's a wee bit more than that isn't there?

Islamic terrorists? Yes

Kill Americans? Yes

Muslims? Yes

Now I ask you again, why did the Islamic terrorist in Texas received every liberal apologist on the planet screaming "wait and see" denying what he was while ignoring the evidence we already had while this guy isn't getting a defense for the same action?

IMO, the differences are pretty obvious.

In the Ft. Hood case, the rational among us urged restraint in our condemnations because it was unclear whether this killing was related to terrorism. First, the guy's name and background didn't come out for quite some time. Second, it was not immediately clear whether the guy had any radical tendencies. Third, mass shootings happen with relative frequency and only a very small percentage of them are related to terrorism.

In this case, the rational among us still urged restraint, but information was available much more quickly. First, the guy's name and background came out relatively quickly. Second, it was immediately clear that the guy was on terrorist watch lists. Third, attempted bombings of planes are very rare and are almost always related to terrorism.
 
Dry runs generally do not involve getting captured.

Of course, as somebody said, Nigerians do not tend to be that bright.... so maybe the guy just failed to understand.

You wouldn't send you #1 guy on a mission where you know he'll be captured. A wet mission will be an obvious suicide mission, so therefore your dry run guy getting captured is par.

I mean, what are we going to do to him? Kill him? Torture him? Naw, he's got it made.
 
The guy was trying to blow up a plane with 220 passengers on it. Of course it was terrorism.

What isn't know is if this was a plot dictated by a specific terrorist organization or just some crazy guy.

And it was terrorism at Fort Hood to but you won't hear a liberal politician cal it that......
 
You know, the TSA's new regulations that came after this incident are outright asinine. I mean, no moving in the aisles 1 hour before landing? Not accessing any baggage for that time? Nothing on your lap at all during landing? With all due respect on the aisle thing, if I'm on a long-ish flight, fall asleep after eating whatever, and I have to pee badly enough, stand aside and let me use the lav, or I'll just piss in my paints in the aisle and let the cleaning crew on the ground deal with it... not my fault you guys tied to keep me from using the bathroom despite pointing out how badly I needed it a dozen++ times.

I wish I was kidding, but I'm not. The TSA has gone beyond asinine now.
 
Last edited:
You know, the TSA's new regulations that came after this incident are outright asinine. I mean, no moving in the aisles 1 hour before landing? Not accessing any baggage for that time? Nothing on your lap at all during landing? With all due respect on the aisle thing, if I'm on a long-ish flight, fall asleep after eating whatever, and I have to pee badly enough, stand aside and let me use the lav, or I'll just piss in my paints in the aisle and let the cleaning crew on the ground deal with it... not my fault you guys tied to keep me from using the bathroom despite pointing out how badly I needed it a dozen++ times.

I wish I was kidding, but I'm not. The TSA has gone beyond asinine now.

Depends are your friend:2razz:
 
My thought process is this: They enforce the rule, they get the immediate result of the rule enforcement. :2razz:
 
You know, the TSA's new regulations that came after this incident are outright asinine. I mean, no moving in the aisles 1 hour before landing? Not accessing any baggage for that time? Nothing on your lap at all during landing? With all due respect on the aisle thing, if I'm on a long-ish flight, fall asleep after eating whatever, and I have to pee badly enough, stand aside and let me use the lav, or I'll just piss in my paints in the aisle and let the cleaning crew on the ground deal with it... not my fault you guys tied to keep me from using the bathroom despite pointing out how badly I needed it a dozen++ times.

I wish I was kidding, but I'm not. The TSA has gone beyond asinine now.

I could be mistaken, but I believe the rules you're referring to are not applicable to all flights, but only to flights from Canada to the US. I heard that those regulations were from the Canadian version of the TSA, not ours.
 
I could be mistaken, but I believe the rules you're referring to are not applicable to all flights, but only to flights from Canada to the US. I heard that those regulations were from the Canadian version of the TSA, not ours.

I think it is for domestic US flights as well, I could be wrong, but our agency isn't exactly being clear right now about what is what.
 
Yeah, Department of Homeland Security was the WORST idea Barack Obama ever had.
No, the Democrats insisted that Bush create the department.
 
Profiling is a viable tool, has been used, and it works. BUT, it has its flaws, and there is a possibility that a person that doesn't fit the description will be used.

As was said eariler by the MSgt, we are at war, we need to either make a decision to step on a persons rights to catch our enemy, or to stand back and get our butts kicked because we are being too politically correct?

The downfall is this, if we choose the first option, then we are giving up some of our freedoms.
 
This jerk was profiled but missed. . . . . . . . again:

Taken from World airport security beefed up following foiled Detroit attack - Haaretz - Israel News

Mutallab boarded the plane in Nigeria and went through Amsterdam en route to Detroit, according to Peter King of the U.S. House Homeland Security Committee. An official briefed on the attack said yesterday the U.S. has known for at least two years that the suspect in the attack could have terrorist ties. King said Mutallab was not on the no-fly list.

A U.S. defense official said that Mutallab has been on a list that includes people with known or suspected contact or ties to a terrorist or terrorist organization. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because the investigation is ongoing.

King, the ranking Republican on the House Homeland Security Committee, said no federal air marshals were on the flights from Nigeria to Amsterdam and from Amsterdam to Detroit. Mutallab did not go through full-body image screening at either airport, the congressman said.

Also seems that we need to serious increase the technology of airport screenings. It is a hassle, but I'd come to the airport an hour earlier to keep these idiots off planes.
 
Profiling is a viable tool, has been used, and it works. BUT, it has its flaws, and there is a possibility that a person that doesn't fit the description will be used.

As was said eariler by the MSgt, we are at war, we need to either make a decision to step on a persons rights to catch our enemy, or to stand back and get our butts kicked because we are being too politically correct?

The downfall is this, if we choose the first option, then we are giving up some of our freedoms.

This straw man is starting to piss me off.The only people bringing up political correctness here are the ones in favor of profiling. Those against it have been arguing against it because its practically unfeasible, nothing more, nothing less.
 
This straw man is starting to piss me off.The only people bringing up political correctness here are the ones in favor of profiling. Those against it have been arguing against it because its practically unfeasible, nothing more, nothing less.

Correct me if I am not interpreting what you are saying:

People are arguing against it because it is not feasible, meaning that the reason we don't profile is because their are too many people to screen? But, if there were less people, we'd profile?
 
Would any profilers care to spot the Muslim bomber in this pic?

bomber2_1549859c.jpg
 
Re: AP sources: Al-Qaida link in failed plane attack

Good of you to admit it.
Call it a late Christmas gift.

Riiight. We should just ignore the obvious. Then we could be more like you.

Generalizations are not the obvious.



Now I ask you again, why did the Islamic terrorist in Texas received every liberal apologist on the planet screaming "wait and see" denying what he was while ignoring the evidence we already had while this guy isn't getting a defense for the same action?


I somehow doubt the liberals at FARC gave two squirts of piss. I bet the radicals at al-Qa'ida weren't screaming "wait and see". The Libyans probably were skeptical that it wasn't a U.S. inside job. The Soviet Unionists might be more sympathetic to the reaction in the Liberal U.S.

I don't see the harm in discussing Fmr. Maj. Hasan's motivations. I don't believe anyone credible doubted the plausibility of it being an Jihadist motivated attack. The discussion took place in what was the nearest, or most relevant, motivation/cause. It was whether or not the Jihadist mentality made him snap, or some other factor (among those introduced was a second-hand PTSD, another form of mental instability, etc).
 
Back
Top Bottom