Police Action Gets Another Win Vs. Terror In Times Square Bomber Case

1:00 pm EST October 5th, 2010 | Terrorism | 9 Comments

The Times Square bomber’s conviction and sentencing is proof – yet again – that law enforcement can in fact fight terrorism. Just like John Kerry said back in 2004. He was right.

Related Posts

  • No Related Post
«
»

9 Responses to “Police Action Gets Another Win Vs. Terror In Times Square Bomber Case”

  1. jr says:
    October 5, 2010 at 1:17 pm

    “SHOULDN’T YOU BE WINDSURFING?”-Matt Drudge

  2. Frank DiSalle says:
    October 5, 2010 at 3:12 pm

    The Times Square bomber’s conviction and sentencing is proof that if you are fortunate enough to catch a terrorist in the act of, but not actually having completed, an act of terrorism, you can prevent THAT act of terrorism. You can then arrest, try and convict him – if you are lucky, and hope he is not released in a few years for political reasons, to return to committing acts of terror once again.

    It doesn’t take a military strategist or a geopolitical analyst to see that going where THEY are, and killing them, is way more effective, and less costly in innocent American lives.

    But, I guess vindicating Kerry and making jokes at Drudge’s expense fight terrorism, too – in some odd way.

  3. Oliver Willis says:
    October 5, 2010 at 3:28 pm

    It doesn’t take a military strategist or a geopolitical analyst to see that going where THEY are, and killing them, is way more effective, and less costly in innocent American lives.
    And yet there you were in 2003, supporting the invasion of Iraq where there weren’t any terrorists and detracting from Afghanistan where the terrorists were.

  4. Frank DiSalle says:
    October 5, 2010 at 7:27 pm

    a) Saddam Hussein was supporting terrorists
    b) We sure killed a lot of ‘em, considering there weren’t any there, 40,000 last I heard. Of course, it’s possible they all went to Iraq to get killed, because there was nothing on TV.
    c) And I never “detracted” from Afghanistan, whatever that means. I still consider tossing the Taliban out of Afghanistan lock, stock and barrel, a high priority, unlike our current President, who is trying so hard to get out in some politically expedient way his head is spinning around like Linda Blair’s in The Exorcist.

  5. Prodigal says:
    October 5, 2010 at 9:19 pm

    Saddam had nothing to do with the terrorists who were responsible for 9/11, in no small part because they hated him only slightly less than they hate America.

    And if Bush had made getting the Taliban out of Afghanistan any sort of priority whatsoever, rather than ignoring it in favor of going into Iraq, maybe they’d be out of there by now.

  6. Jaim says:
    October 5, 2010 at 9:51 pm

    “If you are fortunate enough to catch a terrorist in the act of, but not actually having completed, an act of terrorism, you can prevent THAT act of terrorism.”

    Given that we live in a world where ESP and clairvoyance are impossible, this is kind of the fucking point your mongoloid.

    To follow your logic Frank, if we simply killed everybody everybody, there’d be no terrorism! If we aborted all babies, no more terrorism!

    I say we start with you. We can never be too sure.

  7. Frank DiSalle says:
    October 6, 2010 at 11:31 am

    Jaim, I do not come from, nor I have I ever been near Mongolia. If you are referring to me using an antiquated term for developmentally disabled, you are politically, clinically, and factually incorrect – nothing new for you.

    But, just for a moment – a brief moment – pretending your point has some salience to this discussion, I will say this: Capturing any perpetrator of any crime (including, of course, terrorism) after it is committed is neither a reduction of, nor a prevention of, crime. See how that works, you anencephalic delinquent?

    Saddam had nothing to do with the terrorists who were responsible for 9/11
    Correct! But that isn’t what I said. He did, however, send a small fortune to the families of those fanatics who had chosen to blow themselves up, along with dozens of others, in the name of Allah.

    The bottom line here is that acts of terrorism are not crimes; they are acts of war. Terrorists are not criminals; they are warriors / combatants.

  8. Prodigal says:
    October 6, 2010 at 4:19 pm

    The 9/11 hijackers aren’t the terrorists whose families Saddam sent money to. But at least you’re consistent in being completely wrong.

  9. Zython says:
    October 7, 2010 at 1:47 am

    The bottom line here is that acts of terrorism are not crimes; they are acts of war. Terrorists are not criminals; they are warriors / combatants.

    Ok, so we don’t treat them as POWs, why?