Captain's Quarters -

But, Mayor Bloomberg the other day basically said the plot to blow up JFK was no big deal, heart attacks happen all the time, terror what terror, get a life.

I guess Mayor Bloomberg believes terrorism is no big deal up until the point he is sitting before some Federal Congressional money machine at which point he passionately pleads more, more, more of the $200 million plus a year Homeland Security terrorism funds he already receives so he can profile old ladies in the subway and fund Islamic madrassas in Brooklyn.

Guiliani should never have endorsed Bloomberg as a candidate; big mistake on Rudy's part. This is the one thing which prevents me from supporting Rudy 100%...he supported lifelong Democrat Bloomberg who only joined the Republican Party because there were too many Democrats running on the Dem ticket. Rudy's endorsement of Bloomberg makes him so much a part of the billionaire Collectivist club it ain't funny.

Same reason that newspapers don't want to talk about what may happen if we withdraw soon from Iraq: it would be carrying water for Bush.

The elements of the plot that were released when it was broken up were already very serious. That's why the MSM and their Democrat pets have downplayed this story - they believe that the entire War on Terror is a GOP plot to rule the world.

Frankly some of the statements made by the arrested Muslims seem to me to be exaggerated: "Half of the Brooklyn will blow up"?? Gimme a break. Maybe they would like it to happen, but the jet fuel is not an explosive. All they could get is a pipeline fire, or two, or even ten. it is still a long way from blowing up Brooklyn.
There is more danger with saturation of the emergency response teams, something we seldom think about (do we have enough equipment and manpower to deal with five large fires at the same time?). But IMHO blowing up Brooklyn is a red herring.

Bloomberg was right. Instead of calling a terror plot that was NOT anywhere close to being implemented nor may not have been technically possible "one of the most chilling plots imaginable" that could bring "unthinkable" devastation to New York, he kept his cool and kept things in perspective.

Yes, terrorism is now a threat in the US. But he's right, we're at far more risk of being killed my many other things. I prefer a more pragmatic outlook on terrorism. One that Bloomberg has. One that John Kerry has.

Terrorism is meant to spread terror. One of the best ways to combat it is not to be terrified by it. At least not terrified by a foiled plot that was near being brought to fruition.

And don't mistake not losing one's head with not taking it seriously. I'm sure the mayor of New York takes it very seriously.

And personally, I'm not gonna pee my pants because some douche bags in a cave caught us off guard and crashed planes in the WTC.

Terrorism is a real threat, one that deserves much diligence, money and effort to combat. But let's not help them out with their goal of spreading terror and keep things in perspective.

Bloomberg has it exactly right. The point of terror is not to blow stuff up and kill people it is to induce fear and terror ( that's where the term terrorism comes from). I am not afraid.

Paul and Tom

If it is truth you speak why then does Bloomberg use the fear of terrorism to garner $200 million plus a year from the Federal government to fight against that which is merely a means to induce fear? Yeah I am really afraid of old ladies riding the subway.

That said, I am sure that had the plot not been foiled Bloomberg would have blamed Bush for not connecting the dots.

TomB

It wasn't Brooklyn that would have been blown up, it was Queens. JFK is in Queens, the madrassas are in Brooklyn.

Well, Syn, do you have an example of Bloomberg using "fear" to get federal anti-terror funds?

I don't think Bloomberg has ever downplayed the fact that New York is a top target for terrorists, and I think that's part of the reason why he made his recent remarks about the foiled plot. You can either become overwhelmed or get in a lather about the fact that the city is being targeted, or you can do you what can to stop it and go on with your life. If you are a New Yorker, you do have greater odds of being hit by a terrorist attack, but at the same time, those odds are still relatively low.

I just have the sneaking feeling that people attacking are Bloomberg, dems, MSM for "downplaying" this plot because of Iraq. It's sort of saying, "see, they don't take terrorism seriously. they want to leave Iraq, the central front on the war on terror(tm) They downplay this threat... why would we trust them to fight the war on terror?"

It's a nice little script to follow.

Would some smart person please explain to me the Trinidad connection. I'm confused over whether a bunch of rastafarians are mad at America and want to blow us up, or if the Saudi's are buying and funding Trinidadian terrorists just because, or if bad guys from the Middle East are going there because it's much closer to US soil than Germany to plot and plan in while waiting to blow things up.

I'm seeing where the FBI has been tracking "terrorism in Trinidad" but what does that mean? Would it also be fair to say that there's terrorism in Puerto Rico, terrorism in Arbua, and terrorism in pretty much every other country south of us where there's an illiterate, unemployed desperate population willing to do anything for the right money?

Are these Caribbean terrorists strict Muslim Wahhabi's, or just guns for hire?

NahnCee-

They seem to be a Black Muslim prison inspired type gang with more interest in criminal activities than religious fundamentalism. Yes, they would be the type of people to contact to buy weapons but would they have anything to do with it if they weren't making money on it? I doubt it.

Has anyone noticed that outside of Iraq there have been no terrorist attacks on American assets, either here or abroad since 9-11, hmmm.
Mr. Shipley I am sure would not have noticed.

Jet
Fuel
Doesn't
Explode

Ed,

The NYTimes reported on Sunday about the Trinidad tie, though they report that the group decided not to continue to pursue involvemnet with them.

The suspects had ties with a dangerous Islamic group that once engineered a deadly coup attempt in Trinidad and Tobago, which was approached about underwriting a plot, but in the end, the men decided to stop courting that group and resolved to shop elsewhere overseas for financing.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/04/nyregion/04plot.html

I assume the "more players" the feds are looking for are the other groups these guys "shopped" the plot to.

Look, these guys and this plot were a threat because they did want to commit a terror attack on US soil, but as one law enforcement official said of the group:

“Capability low, intent very high,” a law enforcement official said of the suspects.

Decades of listening to Govspeak make me wonder if "the investigation...is widening beyond the four men in custody..." doesn't translate to "we oversold our case against these four guys so we're going to distract you...."

Well, we'll see. But keep Jewell and Hatfill in mind.

This seems to be another of the distractions that come from the White House when ever they want to misdirect our attention from what ever crime they are currently involved with. The result is always the same,"today we broke up a.....", but yet nothing ever seems to come from it. They are forced to keep prisoners in secret without any real charges. When they are willing to actually put these people in front of a jury with real evidence, then they will be believed. Not until..

You moonbats hallucinate so much all the time any way, how can you possibly be concerned about having your attention misdirected? If you see pink elephants floating around over there with "Impeach Bush" signs painted on them, then how can that possibly affect your Bush Derangement Syndrome reality if I point to white unicorns in the other direction with "Trinidad Terrorist" painted on its side.

In either case, you're just plain nuts (and bitter and probably stupid) and should shut up and hide under the bed because that's all you're good for.

Well, dwyvan, during the Clinton administration, plenty came from the terrorist plots that Clinton & company didn't break up. Would you prefer to go back to that approach?

We keep getting a "so what" reaction from those who are constantly trying to tell us there is no "war on terror." These people could never have carried this off!

I suspect they would have said something quite similar if we had caught nineteen conspirators at the stage where all they had accomplished was taking some flying lessons and bought some box cutters.

Captain -

The Media chose not to make a big deal out of this because:

*It was a Black Muslim plot and that politically explosive fact had to be buried to be politically correct.
*The Trinidad connection to the plotters who in the 1990's took over Parliament and shot the Prime Minister to establish an Islamic Republic reinforces Bush WoT and thus must be buried as a thought crime.
*That the main plotter was a naturalized citizen hurt the Amnesty-Open Borders bill and had to buried as a thought crime as well.
*The connections to serious AQ people like Shrukmjahj and that another plotter planned to go to TEHRAN were also dangerous facts that by definition represent thought crimes and so must be suppressed.
*That a dangerous, anti-American, hate-filled, Caribbean Black Muslim was employed at JFK was another dangerous fact to bring before the public. Because it shows PC over security at it's most basic. Another thought crime.

But what is most dangerous about this plot is that it very well could have led to another hijacking if a serious AQ or Iranian Qods Force commander had gotten a hold of this guy (as they were reaching out and making connections). The pipeline plot was never serious. But the man had airport access, had done much surveillance, was known to the security personnel (and thus not considered a plot). I could construct lots of possibilities off that one key plotter, not the pipeline but access to fully fueled planes as a missile. Consider say Yankee or Shea Stadium filled with people. A jet fueled for a transcontinental flight and the flight crew "replaced" by an AQ flight crew before passengers board.

There would not be enough time to do anything.

Azzam the American promised a bigger terror attack than 9/11. AQ is not in the habit of idle boasts. And the American elites who run the Media and Political empires have an understandable opposition to any serious effort to fight terror.

Their world is full of teas, society events, dinner parties, and really important meetings with impressive powerpoint decks. Who you know and your family is all.

Meanwhile fighting terror is ugly, dirty, risky, and dangerous work that allows non-genteel people to rise to positions of power and influence. Bravery and courage and initiative count for more than family connections and really important meetings.

Are you really shocked by any of this Captain? I'm shocked the story got as much play as it did.

I'm not being original here but what I have to say is a fact: the only thing that will wake people up is another 9/11 style attack

And I am scared to death that it will make 9/11 look like a day at the beach

Since they are going for many more times as many people to kill as 6 years ago, I would think that the NY Times would mention it on at least page 3 or 4.

I'm curious why.

it doesn't fit in with the agenda.

Until the 2008 election the Democrats and their propaganda wing (the MSM) need to push back the clock to make everyone think it is still September 10th, 2001. They know that there is no way they can win if national defense and terrorism are foremost in the minds of the electorate in 2008. So they will bury anything that might remind people that the world is not one big happy bunnyland.

Unfortunately for the Democrats their Islamofascist allies have a different agenda. They will move when it suits them.

Terrorist's First Law: You must be lucky every time we try something. We only have to be lucky once.

Tom Shipley

January 9, 2007 Mayor Bloomberg testified before the US Committee on Homeland Security"

"As residents of the world's media capital, the nations financial hub and a center of international diplomacy, we in NY realize that the attack on the World Trade Center was not intended to be a single, solidary event. We remain a prime-if not the prime- target for al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups"

"New York City-which has enormous needs, which has been attacked before, has been targeted many times since, will most likely be targets again-goes wanting.....Homeland Security funds should go to the places where we need those monies. Do not confuse risk with targets. Every place there are risks, but there aren't that many targets and targets are what the enemies of this country will focus on. I think it is fair to say that both the Administration and Congress share the blame for the politicalization of homeland security funding. For the sake of NYC-and the sake of our nation-I hope you will stop writing politically-derived formulas into Homeland Security bills"

"What this country really needs is a federal policy-making process that recognizes NYC for what it truly is: One of the largest, most densely populated areas in the world, a powerful symbol for what our enemies despise, and a city that already has been targeted many time. This is our reality-and it is one that defies a mathematical formula-no matter how well-intended."

Blooomberg's JFK comment June 5, 2007:

"There are lots of threats to you in the world. There's the threat of a heart attack for genetic reasons. You can sit there and worry about everything. Get a life. You have a much greater danger of being hit by lightning than being struck by a terrorist"

I live in NYC and cannot figure out which Bloomberg to believe-the one who believes NYC is the prime target for our enemies or the one who believes terror is the same as heart attacks, plots to kill us are no big deal and that I should get a life.

In your opinion Tom Shipley which Bloomberg should be believed?

I live in Queens, the intended target of the attack.

On 9/11, there were widespread reports of Arab communities in Brooklyn dancing in the streets in celebration of the attacks.

Bloomberg has chosen a policy of appeasement towards the local Muslim population. Translated, that means that "if we're really, really nice to them, maybe they won't hate us".

There have been violent incidents involving Muslims and Jews in NYC in the past, including the murder of a Jewish child shot by an enraged Muslim while riding in a school van a little over a decade ago.

There also was an incident last year where the Muslim chaplain of the NYC jails, a paid city employee, was tape-recorded making a virulently anti-Semitic speech on the West Coast, for which Bloomberg refused to discipline him.

We've had racial unrest in the past. Bloomberg's downplaying of this incident is an effort to "keep the lid on" potential clashes with the Muslim community locally. I don't blame him for the impulse, but we tried to placate black militants during the administration of David Dinkins. That strategy failed. If a local Muslim connection to this incident is established, the mayor's appeasement strategy has failed.