I thought we were safe under GW: Feds warn of terror plotting against NYC subways

[NeverMind]

"The internal bulletin says al-Qaida terrorists \"in late September may have discussed targeting transit systems in and around New York City. These discussions reportedly involved the use of suicide bombers or explosives placed on subway/passenger rail systems,\ according to the document. wrote:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081126/ap_o...or_warning

[$tevie]

I took the train (DC to Boston line) from Baltimore to Philly a week ago and I noticed that the security seemed quite ramped up, way more than I remembered it being since 2001. I was wondering at the time what it was all about and worried that maybe they knew something we didn't. I guess they did.

[swampy]

We have had any number of warnings about terrorist plots. Thank goodness we have the spooks (CIA, FBI, SS, etc.) and the Patriot Act listening in to the jihadis plans and none have come to fruition.

Quit your bitchin'

[Acer]

Correct me if I am wrong...

Successful Terrorist attacks on U.S. soil since January 23, 2001
1. World Trade Center
2. um...

#1 is a biggie, of course, but after that the safety record looks pretty good.

[mattkime]

>>Thank goodness we have the spooks (CIA, FBI, SS, etc.) and the Patriot Act listening in to the jihadis plans and none have come to fruition.

I attribute it to my anti-terrorism rock.

[Greg the dogsitter]

mattkime wrote:
>>Thank goodness we have the spooks (CIA, FBI, SS, etc.) and the Patriot Act listening in to the jihadis plans and none have come to fruition.

I attribute it to my anti-terrorism rock.

I attribute it to your anti-terrorism rock, too! Let's set up a blog!

[MacGurl]

http://AntiTerrorismRock.com

[Greg the dogsitter]

Dammit! I clicked! :-)

[kj]

The title is just as logically wrong as the opposite conclusion. Probably _more_wrong. You absolutely can not conclude that we have not been safe "under GW". It is possible GW and the rest of the gov't has done a good job defending us from terrorism. Do you think it's likely there would have been no terrorism if we did absolutely nothing to stop it? If so, I would like to hear a compelling argument for why that would be advantageous for the terrorists. kj.

[mattkime]

>>Do you think it's likely there would have been no terrorism if we did absolutely nothing to stop it?

if by "absolutely nothing" you mean "allow people to board planes without removing footwear" then yes.