When you login first time using a Social Login button, we collect your account public profile information shared by Social Login provider, based on your privacy settings. We also get your email address to automatically create an account for you in our website. Once your account is created, you'll be logged-in to this account.
DisagreeAgree
Connect with
I allow to create an account
When you login first time using a Social Login button, we collect your account public profile information shared by Social Login provider, based on your privacy settings. We also get your email address to automatically create an account for you in our website. Once your account is created, you'll be logged-in to this account.
Actually, you’ll note that it IS on the front page, in the right-hand column just below the fold, in the “Inside” section – a small blurb describes the story. Anyway, I’m not sure why you want to emphasize the importance of the story, since it doesn’t reinforce any worthwhile points. If you believe the story the government has given us, these were non-al-Qaeda connected individuals bent on destroying property without killing anyone, in order to get revenge for US actions in Iraq. So: they are neither radical Islamists, nor are they part of an international terrorist network, but people who were radicalized as a result of failed Bush administration policies. Not a very uplifting story.
Then there’s other reasons to disbelieve the severity of the story. First, it’s based entirely on an informant, who is not necessarily trustworthy. Second, even according to him, these guys were a bunch of asshats who did not pose any kind of credible threat to JFK airport at all. Third, we’ve had a whole shitload of previous cases which didn’t amount to much or were vastly inflated in terms of the severity of the threat (notably that ridiculous episode involving “liquids” aboard airplanes, which now means I can’t take toothpaste when I travel). Some skepticism is maybe in order.
“I’m not sure why you want to emphasize the importance of the story, since it doesn’t reinforce any worthwhile points.”
You might think it worthwhile if you lived or had family members in New York.
“If you believe the story the government has given us..”
As opposed to the one Al Queda is giving us? Which one do YOU choose to believe?
“Then there’s other reasons to disbelieve the severity of the story.”
Sure. Anything but face up to the reality of a WAR that is REAL. Glad you are alive today to make that point.
“Third, we’ve had a whole shitload of previous cases which didn’t amount to much or were vastly inflated in terms of the severity of the threat .”
And you are alive today to complain about it.
“severity of the threat (notably that ridiculous episode involving “liquids” aboard airplanes, which now means I can’t take toothpaste when I travel). Some skepticism is maybe in order.”
Next time you’re sitting next to Richard Reid on a transatlantic flight and he starts fiddling with his shoes let me know how you feel (if you’re still alive).
If you believe the story the government has given us, these were non-al-Qaeda connected individuals bent on destroying property without killing anyone, in order to get revenge for US actions in Iraq.
Love that. First he comes up with the “if you believe the story” then he goes on to say that hey, they had no intention of hurting anyone….it’s all to get some attention.
How retarded.
In a recorded conversation one suspect predicted there would be few survivors and that the attacks would result in the destruction of “the whole of Kennedy.”
Nope, no one hurt there.
in order to get revenge for US actions in Iraq.
Ah, you betray your real motives since if you really knew what your talking about you would have known Iraq was not a point of contention with them. It was our support of Isreal:
The former JFK cargo worker had reportedly been stewing in his hatred of the United States for some time. Defreitas told an undercover informant, that when he was an employee at the airport in the 1990s, he had seen military parts being shipped to Israel, including missiles, that he felt would be used to kill Muslims. He went on to say he “wanted to do something†and that “Muslims always incur the wrath of the world while Jews get a pass.†Defreitas was secretly recorded telling the informant that if the destruction of JFK had been enacted, it would have caused a huge loss of life and devastated the U.S. economy … and, caused a deep symbolic blow against a national icon: President John F. Kennedy
You lefties can never get away from Iraq can you? If you can’t find a connection you lie about it.
Actually, you’ll note that it IS on the front page, in the right-hand column just below the fold, in the “Inside” section – a small blurb describes the story. Anyway, I’m not sure why you want to emphasize the importance of the story, since it doesn’t reinforce any worthwhile points. If you believe the story the government has given us, these were non-al-Qaeda connected individuals bent on destroying property without killing anyone, in order to get revenge for US actions in Iraq. So: they are neither radical Islamists, nor are they part of an international terrorist network, but people who were radicalized as a result of failed Bush administration policies. Not a very uplifting story.
Then there’s other reasons to disbelieve the severity of the story. First, it’s based entirely on an informant, who is not necessarily trustworthy. Second, even according to him, these guys were a bunch of asshats who did not pose any kind of credible threat to JFK airport at all. Third, we’ve had a whole shitload of previous cases which didn’t amount to much or were vastly inflated in terms of the severity of the threat (notably that ridiculous episode involving “liquids” aboard airplanes, which now means I can’t take toothpaste when I travel). Some skepticism is maybe in order.
“I’m not sure why you want to emphasize the importance of the story, since it doesn’t reinforce any worthwhile points.”
You might think it worthwhile if you lived or had family members in New York.
“If you believe the story the government has given us..”
As opposed to the one Al Queda is giving us? Which one do YOU choose to believe?
“Then there’s other reasons to disbelieve the severity of the story.”
Sure. Anything but face up to the reality of a WAR that is REAL. Glad you are alive today to make that point.
“Third, we’ve had a whole shitload of previous cases which didn’t amount to much or were vastly inflated in terms of the severity of the threat .”
And you are alive today to complain about it.
“severity of the threat (notably that ridiculous episode involving “liquids” aboard airplanes, which now means I can’t take toothpaste when I travel). Some skepticism is maybe in order.”
Next time you’re sitting next to Richard Reid on a transatlantic flight and he starts fiddling with his shoes let me know how you feel (if you’re still alive).
Love that. First he comes up with the “if you believe the story” then he goes on to say that hey, they had no intention of hurting anyone….it’s all to get some attention.
How retarded.
Nope, no one hurt there.
Ah, you betray your real motives since if you really knew what your talking about you would have known Iraq was not a point of contention with them. It was our support of Isreal:
You lefties can never get away from Iraq can you? If you can’t find a connection you lie about it.