Now wait a minute. What happened to all those signs in airports everywhere, warning people not to joke about security issues, and that such jokes will be taken seriously? If the plane was already in flight at the time Abdulmutallab said this, the flight attendant should at least have made sure that he was closely watched and guarded for the duration of the flight -- by other passengers if no one else was on hand to do the job.
"Bomber was on US watch list," by Angela Montefinise for the New York Post, December 28 (thanks to Trotsky):
[...] He was read the charges at a hearing, where he appeared smiling in a medical gown and a wheelchair.Several key details came to light yesterday:
* Al Qaeda operatives in Yemen sewed into Abdulmutallab's underwear a condom filled with three ounces of a nitroglycerin-like compound after he spent a month training with the terror organization, sources told ABC News.
"One flight attendant asked him what he had had in his pocket, and he replied, 'Explosive device,' " according to the Justice Department.
* Abdulmutallab was added to the 550,000 suspects on a watch list kept by the US National Counterterrorism Center in November and had been on government radar for months. Yet there wasn't enough negative information about him to put him on the no-fly list.
* His father, Alhaji Umaru Mutallab, a prominent Nigerian banker who retired recently, reportedly contacted the US Embassy there about six months ago to inform authorities about his son's increasingly extreme behavior.
* Michigan Rep. Peter Hoekstra, the senior Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, said he believes Abdulmutallab is linked to radical US-born Yemeni cleric Anwar al-Aulaqi, a mentor to the US Army psychiatrist who gunned down 13 people at Fort Hood, Texas, last month.
* Abdulmutallab -- who boarded a flight in Nigeria to Amsterdam, and then transferred to Northwest Flight 253 to Detroit -- did not go through full-body scans at either airport, and it's unclear how he was screened as a transferring passenger in Amsterdam....
Could it be that sympathetic security officials made sure he got through?
In the event of jihadist attack, tend to the wounded but do not clean up the remains of the dead, the blood, twisted cars, the landscape of the atrocity. Round up the local muslims and march them through the carnage. Force them to confront the horror perpetrated in their name.
It's what we did in Nazi Germany with the concentration camps. Do it again now.
Robert,
Your coverage of flight 253 has been - like the Fort Hood atrocity - excellent and very, very thorough. Was just wondering about the growing demonstrations in Iran...hardly a word about them.
Is this lack of coverage an editorial statement of sorts? Do you believe like some here at JW that the events in Iran are irrelevant to the anti-Jihad?
"One flight attendant asked him what he had had in his pocket, and he replied, 'Explosive device'"
Now wait a minute. What happened to all those signs in airports everywhere, warning people not to joke about security issues, and that such jokes will be taken seriously?
....................
I had heard about this—I had assumed—perhaps incorrectly, it now seems—that this is what Abdulmutallab replied *after* he had tried to explode his bomb and had been subdued by brave and quick-thinking passengers.
If it is possible that Abdulmutallab told a flight attendant that he he had an explosive device—*and he or she did nothing*—then this is deeply disturbing, and only the faulty detonation device saved passengers from this flight attendant's—what? Political correctness and hesitancy to "racial profile"? Her refusal to take such a threat seriously if it appeared to be said in jest? Appalling, if correct.
I have a question, as well, for Abdulmu5allab's father—he must, it seems, had had rather more specific information about his son's murderous plans than his just having become "increasingly extreme".
Note, he contacted *the US Embassy*—if his concern was more general, why wouldn't he have contacted the *British Embassy*—since his son was living in England at the time? He must have known something, at least, about his son targeting America.
Lots more questions here.
Waiting for the television trivializing jokes, of the predictable type.
Infidel to Muslim: "Is that an explosive device in your pocket, or are you just mad at seeing me"?
I have seen comments that indicate that he boarded in Amsterdam without a passport. Can anyone tell me if it is known if this is or is not true? Was arranging for him to evade the need for a passport a part of the services that his handler provided? Do we know who that person is yet?
It is beyond comprehension that we, as a nation, tolerate these continued attacks without the slightest evidence that we intend to protect ourselves by excluding everyone who has jihadist associations. As a nation, we are genuinely insane.
From Hugh...Infidel to Muslim: "Is that an explosive device in your pocket, or are you just mad at seeing me"?
You must be watching Mae West on youtube...She also said...
'I generally avoid temptation unless I can't resist it'.
As well as...'I like restraint, if it doesn't go too far'.
Google her name and you get a long list of her salty quotes...
Schiphol airport authorities have some serious explaining to do. There are 50,000 employees there and almost half of them are Muslim, with a considerable number of them working in baggage handling and on the air side. I go through Schiphol about once a month and I've noticed security there is rather slack to say the least. They are inconsistent and don't always follow the same procedure. I've often walked through scanners freely with my wallet, my belt, my shoes and so on. Many of the staff at the scanners are Muslims.
The so-called multi-faith'meditation' room at Schiphol is virtually a mosque.
Do the right thing.Stop with the political correctness.
Start profiling Muslims.There is too much participation in
terrorist activity and widespread sympathy for such activity
by Muslims.Even in the mainstream.Be like EL AL airlines.
In the event of jihadist attack, tend to the wounded but do not clean up the remains of the dead, the blood, twisted cars, the landscape of the atrocity. Round up the local muslims and march them through the carnage. Force them to confront the horror perpetrated in their name.
It's what we did in Nazi Germany with the concentration camps. Do it again now.
There's one big difference. Germans were ashamed at what they saw in the concentration camps following World War II. In contrast, Muslims would be proud of what they would see - even if they don't show it on their faces.
In the event of jihadist attack, tend to the wounded but do not clean up the remains of the dead, the blood, twisted cars, the landscape of the atrocity. Round up the local muslims and march them through the carnage. Force them to confront the horror perpetrated in their name.
It's what we did in Nazi Germany with the concentration camps. Do it again now.
There's one big difference. Germans were ashamed at what they saw in the concentration camps following World War II. In contrast, Muslims would be proud of what they would see - even if they don't show it on their faces.
How many of the screeners at the airport in Amsterdam are muslim?
This world is insane. We let the enemy who has declared never-ending warfare on us control OUR destiny.
A very good question. And we can certainly imagine Muslim screeners letting their fellow Muslims through.
In my experience, most of the staff attending scanners at Schiphol are Muslim....Turks and Morrocans mainly.
Spirit of 1683
Yeh, good point.
What I'm trying to hit on is a possible, meaningful and suitable response to the endless jihadi atrocities committed against our people. Can I throw this one in for the consideration of JW readers?
In the event of any future jihadi attack we should drop half a dozen cruise missiles at random into populated areas of the Muslim world. This should happen as often as attacks occur, each terrorist attack resulting in a wave of retaliatory missile strikes. No warning as to timing or targets will be given, and each wave of missiles marks the end of our retaliation, until the next jihad bombing or shooting occurs. If the attacks stop, the retaliation stops, thus putting the onus of responsibility onto the Muslim nations to rein in their own militants and end their war against the west.
This should not be taken as motivated by a desire for revenge. The populations of Muslim nations are largely inured to the pain and horror of the attacks carried out by their co-religionists, cushioned by their Islamic sense of divinely-sanctioned self-righteousness. This policy of retaliation will therefore have the effect of shocking the Muslim world out of its insular, magickal delusions and force them to confront the fact that they actually live in a world of cause and effect.
Many might find this idea shocking, repellant - it's certainly a major departure from the way we in the west usually view the morality of justifiable retaliation. However, we must remember that the jihadis have been studying our morality for centuries and they think they now know the limits of our willingness. Therefore it is now time we started thinking 'outside the box' in dealing with our own self-defence.
In a previous thread I also expressed the following opinion:
"If our leaders are unwilling to oppose Islam we should withdraw our troops from all Muslim lands, including those states that we are told to regard as allies, such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. We should then redefine our military policies unapologetically along the lines of our own interests and right to self-defence. We should increase co-operation and joint planning structures with our democratic partners and re-draw our military formations for increased and improved surveillance, intelligence gathering and long-range strike capability. We should then move at will across the middle East and South Asia, neutralising and destroying threats as they arise, without prior warning. Such a policy would be firm, coherent, clear and easily justified. It would send a powerful message to our enemies, encourage our allies and would, at a stroke, make the world a safer place."
I'd be interested to know what other readers think of these ideas. They're not all mine, other better writers have been here before, but if anyone has any input, for or against, I value your opinions and I'd be grateful for your feedback.
The Underwear Bomber was black, hence he was immune from the usual security procedures foisted on whites :) The U.S. needs to begin ideological profiling of all Muslims boarding planes now and reserve full body scans for them, not the 99% non-Muslim majority.
http://go.to/islamhistory
I bet the stewardess thought he was hitting on her. Ha ha!
I can't understand how this swine Mutallab was on a watch list, but not a no fly list. How could he be on a watch list and still get a visa? I think that our intelligence community needs to look at ALL THE OTHER possible bombers who have been influenced by this Imam Anwar Al-Awlaki. He was a figure in the Islamic community in my town, and I am curious as to who else thrived on his jihad preaching and justification for slaughter of innocent people.
Off Topic Misc. Terrorist Info regarding Anwar al-Awlaki
from Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki#cite_note-nytimes_homegrown-12
Al-Awlaki was arrested in San Diego in 1996 and 1997 for soliciting prostitutes.
While he was in San Diego, witnesses told the FBI he had a close relationship with two of the 9/11 hijackers (Nawaf Al-Hazmi and Khalid Almihdhar) in 2000, and served as their spiritual advisor.[14][25][27] Authorities say the two hijackers regularly attended the mosque Al-Awlaki led in San Diego, and Al-Awlaki had many closed-door meetings with them, which led investigators to believe Al-Awlaki knew about the 9/11 attacks in advance.[23][25]
Retaliation. Hey, now there's an idea. Its also called self defence. Its also called self preservation instinct. Most of us have it and it has historically worked well. One problem. Jihadists have been brainwashed from toddlerhood. I have seen vidios of preschoolers who are shouting their obsession with dying while taking as many infedels with them as possible for the sake of allah and securing their place in paradise.
This is the worst kind of mass mental illness (Satanically driven)insanity.
Please let it be noted that most parents of all religions raise up their children in their faith hoping that one day they will hear out of the mouth of that child words to the effect of "I believe". This is not the case with Islam. If a child is born of Muslem parents he is AUTOMATICALLY a Muslem. To defect is death. Murdered by his parents for the sake of their honor. It does not get more insane than that.
Tamara
Thanks for your thoughts on the policy of retaliation and I agree with you that the radicalisation of children in the Muslim world is one of the major problems we face. In fact, it's a key issue, and one on which I believe the policy of retaliation would be most effective.
We have to be realistic about what we can and cannot achieve. It's simply not possible for us to micro-manage the lives of people in distant lands, so it's impossible for us to stop anyone from turning their children into fanatics. And politics is the art of the possible. The policy of missile retaliation I outlined would shock the world, but the military element of it, the actual firing of missiles, would only be a small part of the whole operation (that's the easy part, if you like). Most of the real work in such an operation would be political and diplomatic - keeping our friends and allies on side, defending the policy against hostile criticism etc etc.
The governments of Muslim nations may be dictatorships, but they are not immune to political pressure, both from outside and also from within. While we could defend our policy on the grounds of rational self-interest, the governments of the Muslim world would come under pressure to do something about it, to switch it off, to make it stop. And some of the loudest voices raised would be from the home populations of those nations suffering under our retaliaton, or from competitor elements within their own power structures (they always have them), forcing them to take action. They would squeal like piggies in the corridors of the UN but would be unlikely to strike back militarily against us, for fear of escalating the possible response of the newly assertive West. Even in a dictatorship, politics is still the art of the possible, so they would consider what could realistically be achieved. Most likely they would do what they do best, turn inwards against their own populations and suppress the Islamists. They could no longer merely re-direct them out of the country against the West, as the Saudis do. Such a move would only increase attacks against us and thereby merely trigger more retaliation against them, making their positions even more precarious.
By this method we would actually be subverting the governments of enemy states to operate on our behalf. We would, in effect, be co-opting their unwilling co-operation. We might not be able to stop Muslims from radicalising their own kids, but their own governments might be persuaded to, if we apply the necessary pressure in the correct manner and measure.
Would such a policy be effective, or am I just whistling Dixie? Thoughts anyone?
She probably thought he was joking with her, just a thought!
That is truly shocking!!
How can airlines employ muslims to do these jobs?
Political correctness and multiculturalism will definitely be the death of us!!