Authorities arrested three people and were seeking a fourth in an alleged terror plot that planned to blow up a fuel line feeding into John F. Kennedy International Airport that runs through residential neighborhoods, authorities said.
At a news conference, U.S. Attorney Roslynn R. Mauskopf called it "one of the most chilling plots imaginable."
"The devastation that would be caused had this plot succeeded is just unthinkable," she said.
Now, I could go on and on about how blind Liberals are; how Jihad and Radical Islam are dangerous and how we are the center of their cross hairs; how irresponsible someone like John Edwards is for calling the War on Terror a "bumper sticker slogan" and the irony of something like this happening just a little over a week after he said it, but I won't. The proof is in the pudding (as they say).
Of course, I'm sure someone like Ron Paul would probably say we deserved this anyway.
2 comments:
Ron Paul has never said we deserve terrorism. He simply said that intervention in foreign policy and operations increases the risk of terrorism. I'm guessing that Ron Paul would support police effort, and (assuming this is as it seems) this effort in particular.
In this particular case, Defreitas, the New York instigator, seems to be a hot-head, however based on the Complaint, it seems he was also motivated by what he considered unfairness of the West and the US in evaluating Israeli-Arab conflicts. The US needs to have the right foreign policy, but on the other hand we must know what increases our risk. As it turns out, US foreign policy does take a biased view. A policy of nonintervention would not be biased. The motivations of the other players are not clear, none made serious steps beyond simple plotting.
The risk was not as high as Mauskopf said it was; she was confusing that with the intent. The conspirators were not competent and got no further than vague plans that wouldn't work. One might wonder why the big announcement. Ron Paul would not use this as an excuse for removing our liberties.
This seems to have been handled with conventional police work. No wars, bombings, international threats or assasinations seemed to be needed, even for the out-of-country arrests. Ron Paul would favor the police effort, assuming the investigation is as it seems, over war. He would not declare war on Guyana. He wouldn't even ask congress to declare war on Guyana.
I'm not sure how the Ron Paul campaign got this announced just before the debate, it should help him quite a bit. Hmmm. Maybe Rudy's campaign instigated this, actually thinking it would help him.
Okay, so maybe my comment on Ron was unfair, but no matter how you spin our "intervention in foreign policy," we have always had the best interests of the middle east nations in mind. I can't believe that we desire terror attacks when all we wanted is to free Iraq's people of a leader who saw them as nothing but test subjects for his weapons, or for propping those countries up by teaching them to drill for oil. You think those backwood nations could export the most oil in the world without western intervention?
What about Isreal? They are constantly under threats and attacks from Al Queda, Iran, Iraq, just about every other country over there. Should we just allow them to become a crater? Of course if we stopped it, we would be intervening, and thats bad.
Libertians carry the same political view of the war as liberals. We leave them alone, they'll leave us alone. Sorry my friends, don't work that way. I wish it was that simple.
Post a Comment