Those Brits kicked some butt and captured most of the attempted bombers already, plus a substiantial number of other members. Why is it that our own “Homeland Security” forces can’t seem to find any real terrorists in America? Really, who have they captured, tried, and convicted so far after spending billion$? Pretty pathetic.
It’s not as if we haven’t captured, tried, and convicted terrorists over here. Or maybe you don’t read the news.
Yeah, like who, that gang member kid from Chicago? The fool trying to cross the border into the US from Canada? The shoe bomber? Who are you referring to?
That “gang kid” from Chicago was much more than that. No job or apparent source of income, several trips to Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc, and contact with known AQ cells since rolled up.
The terrorists who struck the US were suicide attackers and they succeeded. Any other questions?
So who are we fighting the war of terror against, if all the terrorists committed suicide?
like who, that gang member kid from Chicago? Doesn’t count?
The fool trying to cross the border into the US from Canada? Doesn’t count?
The shoe bomber? Doesn’t count?
Who are you referring to? Well, there’s those guys, and there’s Moussaoui, and there was that terror cell in Buffalo, and there were those recent arrests in California . . .
But I guess none of those count, for some reason.
If the US can kill four terrorists with a missile fired from a drone in the middle of Yemen, why can’t the Brits?
Outstanding point…we are trying to kill them overseas before it becomes necessary to capture them over here. And capturing terrorists after they have struck is not the goal of the war on terror…its to prevent further attacks (although I will go on record here stating that I think no matter how successful you are, you can only limit, not completely eliminate, terrorism).
Ya, that kid and father in CA was in Lodi. Difference here was they never was able to make even a failed attempt. Sounds like at the very least, US was ahead of the game in this one.
Chris
I suspect the Brits would be more than capable of carrying out an attack given good intelligence.
If you have the Brits and Aussies as allies, why would you want anyone else?
** Difference here was they never was able to make even a failed attempt.**
They don’t count unless they make that attempt first, and then we shoot an innocent guy to death before capturing them. *Then *they count.
At least they were good shots. Five out of five in the head from what I heard. Think US cops could shoot that well?
Five out of five in the head from what I heard. As I heard it, they were pretty much sitting on top of the guy at the time. SAS influence, I’d say.
** Think US cops could shoot that well?** Not in NY, but probably in Idaho. 
Five out of five in the head from what I heard. As I heard it, they were pretty much sitting on top of the guy at the time. SAS influence, I’d say.
Think US cops could shoot that well? Not in NY, but probably in Idaho.
And he had no discernable explosives on or near him. Impressive work.
At least they apologized, sort of.
And in New York, at least they hit the guy 19 out of 41 shots. The fact that he had nothing more than a wallet in his hand is sort of problematic, but hey, how can cops’ competence ever be questioned?
We’re killing terrorists with missile drones? In Yemen, no less! Wonder why I still have to take my shoes off at the airport?
There are probably terrorists living right outside of Detroit in the muslim community. I don’t think bombing Detroit is a bad thing … already looks like it has been. Maybe we should try it.
“We’re killing terrorists with missile drones? In Yemen, no less!”
Yes we are. Happened about 2 yrs. +/- ago. You really need to read the paper once in a while ;^). Taught them a lesson, too–cell phones can be used to pinpoint your location.
I read, on CCN I believe, that the American’s wanted to arrest one of the suspects in the recent bombings in London about a month before it happened, but the British government did not allow it for some reason.
See this article on the NT Times, which in fairness has a slightly different bent -
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/29/international/29london.html
matt
Wow, I’m sure the Patriot Act and Homeland Security had a lot to do with that missile attack. Our Homeland Security program has yielded nothing but more bureaucracy.
What is your measure of effectiveness for the Homeland Security Department? Arrests made or attacks prevented? I say preventing an attack is a lot better than arresting people afterwards.
No attacks on US soil since 9/11–we can’t be doing everything wrong. I don’t know for sure, but if I were a betting man, I’d bet there is a heck of a lot of stuff going on on the terrorism front we don’t know about.