Send a Tweet
Most Popular Choices
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on LinkedIn Share on Reddit Tell A Friend Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite View Favorites
OpEdNews Op Eds

The Failed would be Times Square Bomber, a Comment

By       Message Dave Lefcourt       (Page 1 of 1 pages)     Permalink    (# of views)   No comments

Related Topic(s): ; ; ; , Add Tags
Add to My Group(s)

View Ratings | Rate It

Author 40828
- Advertisement -

As far as one can tell, there hasn't been an overreaction to the Times Square, SUV would be bomber.

It was also encouraging to hear President Obama say, "As Americans and as a nation, we will not be terrorized. We will not cower in fear. We will not be intimidated."[1]

And the authorities were able to catch the guy, Faisal Shahzad, before he was able to take flight out of the country. He is being held "on terrorism and weapons of mass destruction charges in a criminal complaint filed in federal court in Manhattan."[2]

As reported, he has been cooperative admitting "to receiving bomb-making training in Pakistan, confessing to buying the SUV, rigging it with a home made bomb and driving it to Times Square."[3]

- Advertisement -

Refreshingly, (so far at least), we haven't heard over the top complaints from the right wing echo chamber clamoring for holding and charging Shahzad as an "enemy combatant" and demand he has no rights and demand he should have been sent and held in indefinite detention (and languish uncharged) in Guantanamo.

It shows what effective investigative police work and cooperation among federal agencies can do when allowed to conduct their work without political interference and media incited hysteria.

Faisal Shahzad was involved in criminal activity, was caught and formally charged as such.

- Advertisement -

Maybe it was the failure in his attempt that has resulted in a calmer reaction as evidenced by the president's statement.

Yet even had Shahzad succeeded, a calm and measured response would have been appropriate.

Would an invasion of Pakistan have been an appropriate response or carpet bombing the Waziristan region of Pakistan (apparently where Shahzad was trained) been a "proportional" response and proper retaliation?

The point is terrorism and terrorists (actual or would be) are criminals. Organized crime activity doesn't require a military response. However, preemptive invasions of countries, particularly Islamic countries, inevitably results in more terrorism and the easier recruitment of more terrorists, particularly when innocents are maimed and killed by us. They may be "collateral damage" to us but they are real innocent men, women and children killed by us that create the suicide bombers and insurgents bent on revenge and taking action against us.

So was Shahzad part of the latter category of would be terrorists? That has yet to be determined.

Would ending our seemingly endless wars and occupations end all terrorism? Most assuredly not, but it would be a good place to start.

- Advertisement -

[1] "Suspect was trained in Pakistan", by Tom Hays and Larry Neimeister, "The Baltimore Sun", May 5, 2010.

[2] See footnote #1

[3] See footnote #1


- Advertisement -

View Ratings | Rate It


Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon Share Author on Social Media   Go To Commenting

The views expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; , Add Tags

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

An Ominous Foreboding, Israel vs Iran

The Evolving Populist Political Rebellion in the Arab World

A Nuclear War Would Be Insane

The Rich Get Richer, the Poor Get Poorer, While the Middle Class Gets Decimated

CIA in the Crosshairs

Iran Offers 9 Point Plan to end Nuclear Crisis, U.S. "No thanks".