[GarryPaterson]

As I said before, I am not a fan of airport security. Not because I think that they are all perverts, I believe they are just doing their jobs, and probably NOT liking it very much!

But I do not believe that they will just kidnap your wife to finger her!(actually, they would more likely kidnap you and finger your anal cavity! yuk!)

And if you're so afraid of that . . . take the body scan!

Now, the reason I am not a fan of airport security is because I believe it would be a lot easier for a terrorist wanting to bomb an airport to do it about 2 minutes before they reach the screener. Why wait until they get on a plane, where ONLY a maximum of about 300 people could be killed, when they could explode their bomb just before the scanner, and kill every security guard, and every passenger waiting to be screened, plus created such a chaos that another 200 people could easily be trampled and the airport damaged, and flights disrupted for weeks, if not months!

So, I think it is kind of silly to search people. The only thing that seems pretty efficient are the dogs. They would detect a terrorist BEFORE scanning!

We're always going to have heightened security--especially at airports. But, I believe because the head of snake's head has been cut off--and Al Queda is toast--doesn't mean that there won't be some other organizations determined to attack Americans.

[harriettvanders]

Okay! I will hold YOU responsible for any further act of terrorism!

I do like your optimism. I think if we can imagine a future that is brighter, with more respect for all, we have a better chance to make it happen, than if we focus on "preparing" for wars and destruction.

The only people who benefit from that are the CEO's of the defense industry!

Just Al Queda terrorism PLEASE. I will not take responsiblity for Hamas or any other-- But I can tell you--through-out the middle east--we have put a silver bullet in every would-be terrorist's heart in the middle east with USB'S death.

[Wluwsdtn]

OK, a partial vaginal examination.

Are we "safe" if we let government partially penetrate our wives at airports?

The worse thing that can happen to anyone who refuses the full body scan is to be patted down.

It has happened to me at least 3 times and, although I don't like it, it is so quick, and so non-intrusive, that its really done before you even know it.

A woman always pats down women, and a man always pats down men. They wear gloves, and (at most) lightly insert their fingers around the inside of your belt (or whatever you have around your waist).

I guess you are not a frequent flyer?

[Zavdpacq]

The worse thing that can happen to anyone who refuses the full body scan is to be patted down.

It has happened to me at least 3 times and, although I don't like it, it is so quick, and so non-intrusive, that its really done before you even know it.

A woman always pats down women, and a man always pats down men. They wear gloves, and (at most) lightly insert their fingers around the inside of your belt (or whatever you have around your waist).

I guess you are not a frequent flyer?

I had to get patted down coming back from vacation--because I sprained my ankle (bad) on vacation--was wearing a cast--get used to it--it will be the norm in our free society.

It didn't bother me that much--in fact they were very apologetic about it.

[mymnduccete]

As I said before, I am not a fan of airport security. Not because I think that they are all perverts, I believe they are just doing their jobs, and probably NOT liking it very much!

But I do not believe that they will just kidnap your wife to finger her!(actually, they would more likely kidnap you and finger your anal cavity! yuk!)

And if you're so afraid of that . . . take the body scan!

Now, the reason I am not a fan of airport security is because I believe it would be a lot easier for a terrorist wanting to bomb an airport to do it about 2 minutes before they reach the screener. Why wait until they get on a plane, where ONLY a maximum of about 300 people could be killed, when they could explode their bomb just before the scanner, and kill every security guard, and every passenger waiting to be screened, plus created such a chaos that another 200 people could easily be trampled and the airport damaged, and flights disrupted for weeks, if not months!

So, I think it is kind of silly to search people. The only thing that seems pretty efficient are the dogs. They would detect a terrorist BEFORE scanning!

The inconveniences that we have all had to put up since 9/11 will remain--even though terrorism may be on the decline. This country--has mandated that--and lets face it--you want your children and grandchildren to be able to get on a plane and arrive at their destination safely. So there's no big deal in this.

[bmwservis]

Who is USB?
Did someone come out with a new standard for serial ports?

[RogerButton33]

The inconveniences that we have all had to put up since 9/11 will remain--even though terrorism may be on the decline. This country--has mandated that--and lets face it--you want your children and grandchildren to be able to get on a plane and arrive at their destination safely. So there's no big deal in this.

?? You say that as if these TSA checkpoints actually serve some real purpose related to airline security.

We didn't have a problem before, and we won't have a problem in the future. Just locking the cockpit doors would have stopped the 9/11 attacks.

As soon as the terrorists force us to change how we live, they have won. We can not allow that to happen, and we did.

[arrismVam]

1. The head of the snake has been cut off--and congratulations to President Barack Obama to make that decision when some in his adminstration were against it. This nation has a reason to celebrate. The head of the snake has finally been cut off.


2. Not surrender--but just fade away into the distance.

You do love flashy gimmicks and loud noises!.. Then again, if you will not pat yourselves on a back, who will?


2. Why would radical Islamists "fade away into the distance" especially now after US/international community gave them MANPADs from Libyan arsenals?

[ssupermegatone]

I remember 9/11 very well--and as I became so interested in USB--I started reading as many books as I could get my hands on about how they think--why they attacked us versus their other two targets, etc. which was 9/11.

The head of the snake has been cut off--and congratulations to President Barack Obama to make that decision when some in his adminstration were against it. This nation has a reason to celebrate. The head of the snake has finally been cut off.

But the question we see from ALL networks--is who is going to take Bin Laden's place. My answer after all these years and what I have read is. NO ONE.

They are defeated--there are no other generals or terrorists co-ops to take Bin Laden's place. They simply do not THINK or plan like anything like us. We are a different breed--and most of them "the fighters" come from what we know as the 13th century.

They're have lost their leader--or the poster boy of terroismn--and now their done.

They had U.S navy special forces sticking a gun right in USB's face in the best stealth attack ever known to man--"instead of bombing" and this is one thing that terrorist's actually RESPECT. It's over.

He had to do something to have something in his portfolio for Nov 2012. He pushed his chips all in and won the hand. IMO, he had nothing to lose if the mission had failed or didn't turn up bin laden. The folks wwouldn't have bashed him for trying.
Now lets see if he cuts the 3 billion we are giving to Pakisatn this budget year since he couldn't even trust them enough to let them know what was going to go down. That should take a whole lot less guts.

[IrrettelatWet]

Just because there is no apparent leader in the wings right now does not mean that one will not emerge to fill the power vacuum left by the death of bin Laden.

Don’t know who he is or how effective a leader he will be but one will emerge.

[Kokomoxddcvcv]

Just because there is no apparent leader in the wings right now does not mean that one will not emerge to fill the power vacuum left by the death of bin Laden.

Don’t know who he is or how effective a leader he will be but one will emerge.

Osama Bin Laden was the real deal, a prince, anointed by Allah, to lead Jihad, he didn't come off an Org Chart, no one died and left him King, he simply emerged, a charismatic, inspirational leader, a legend.

You don't replace a guy like that with the next guy in line.

Like the Mahdi, he fades into history and takes his army with him, Jihad just lost their poster boy, and it's taken the shine off the apple.

People like to identify with winners. Suddenly for millions, the Obama brand is replacing the Osama brand.

[XYTommy]

Seriously? The rest of them will just surrender?

No, but with a less experienced, competent leader the org will suffer. Example: Barack Obama.

[geaveheadeNox]

The centralized international leadership and funding able to to put together massive 9/11 style attacks might be finished, at least in that part of the world. But there are other places they could take root, like Somalia, or any mideast country where a protracted rebellion takes place, like Libya.

And we'll still have to deal with local nationalist level groups. And we will still get the occasional self-radicalized cell hiding behind a mosque here and there.

You might say that now that their hero is sleeping with the fishes, they have nothing to coalesce around, so maybe, just maybe, the worst is over.

But its the nationalist groups you have to watch out for. The Muslim Brotherhood is using the Arab Spring to gain pan-Arab political power. Egypt is circling their drain, and they are said to have a hand in Syria as well. If they are allowed to fall, they could attempt a new caliphate, where terrorism against the West is a matter of policy and could spark a third world war. There are also indications that they are working with Iran, representing at least a "temporary" alliance with their Shiite adversaries.

Pakistan is also reaping what is has sown, with its own spy agency supporting the Taliban, that is just as much a threat to them as it is Afghanistan. That cancer will continue to pick away civil society in Pakistan, with the civilian leadership and even the Army seemingly unwilling to rock the boat enough to eliminate the threat.

[Z1IRo4Ap]

The centralized international leadership and funding able to to put together massive 9/11 style attacks might be finished, at least in that part of the world. But there are other places they could take root, like Somalia, or any mideast country where a protracted rebellion takes place, like Libya.

And we'll still have to deal with local nationalist level groups. And we will still get the occasional self-radicalized cell hiding behind a mosque here and there.

You might say that now that their hero is sleeping with the fishes, they have nothing to coalesce around, so maybe, just maybe, the worst is over.

But its the nationalist groups you have to watch out for. The Muslim Brotherhood is using the Arab Spring to gain pan-Arab political power. Egypt is circling their drain, and they are said to have a hand in Syria as well. If they are allowed to fall, they could attempt a new caliphate, where terrorism against the West is a matter of policy and could spark a third world war. There are also indications that they are working with Iran, representing at least a "temporary" alliance with their Shiite adversaries.

Pakistan is also reaping what is has sown, with its own spy agency supporting the Taliban, that is just as much a threat to them as it is Afghanistan. That cancer will continue to pick away civil society in Pakistan, with the civilian leadership and even the Army seemingly unwilling to rock the boat enough to eliminate the threat.

Para 1 applies to any country any where in the world, revolt or not and includes the USA itself

So does para 2, both are why we have police forces.

There never was any "worst", not for a long time and never really was. The whole shebang was a bandit cadre who got incredibly lucky (mainly in running into outstanding incompetence) which was then trumped up to justify spending bilions and billions more on "defense" and warfare that is not only ineffective but actually harmful to our real intentions.

Please give a link where ANY credible analyst (and no, I don't include Beck, Rush, O'loofah or any of their ilk, I want someone with journalistic/diplomatic CREDENTIALS ok??) says anything resembling what you are saying about the Arab Spring. We, of course, are already starting to CAUSE such a reaction, in Libya, but I've heard no one say that's where it comes from. The Muslim Brotherhood are considered "radicals" by their own (some former, some struggling) governments because they want things like Freedom, Democracy, fair elections, and no dictators within a muslim framework and even in getting them they renounced using violence a long time ago.

And your answer to Pakistan's problems is to leave our ally in getting OBL in the lurch because they didn't realize the well-disguised and connected businessman who, for all we know, was living in Podunk NJ all this time and just went back there to get some Allah statuettes he forgotten, was actually the most feared mastermind in the world and worth 25 mill to anyone who saw thru his deception. Yeh, let's take all our money and support away from Pakistan now, that will really hurt what remains of al-Qaeda.

[Smeaphvalialm]

I remember 9/11 very well--and as I became so interested in USB--I started reading as many books as I could get my hands on about how they think--why they attacked us versus their other two targets, etc. which was 9/11.

The head of the snake has been cut off--and congratulations to President Barack Obama to make that decision when some in his adminstration were against it. This nation has a reason to celebrate. The head of the snake has finally been cut off.

But the question we see from ALL networks--is who is going to take Bin Laden's place. My answer after all these years and what I have read is. NO ONE.

They are defeated--there are no other generals or terrorists co-ops to take Bin Laden's place. They simply do not THINK or plan like anything like us. We are a different breed--and most of them "the fighters" come from what we know as the 13th century.

They're have lost their leader--or the poster boy of terroismn--and now their done.

They had U.S navy special forces sticking a gun right in USB's face in the best stealth attack ever known to man--"instead of bombing" and this is one thing that terrorist's actually RESPECT. It's over.

I really wish I could agree with you as it would be nice to conclude that muslim or islamic radicalism will fade away. The reality is there is no real evidence to support anything you have come up with. For one, Osama Bin Laden is not the first person in the world to conclude that his faith allows for terrorism against one's "enemies." Second, al Qaeda is not the only organization out there determined to cause harm to Israel, the US, quite a few countries in Europe, and other targets. Third, al Qaeda and even sister organizations around the globe are still around. And last, there is no real assurance that just because of Osama's death there will be any real change in attitudes towards other governments, such as ours, that often are the prerequisite for one to then join others determined to do something about it.

For the most part, we all agree this was a key victory in a fight against those determined to bring harm to the US and our allies. We do have the right to celebrate what has been accomplished. Understand I am not trying to diminish the impact of Osama's death, just trying to be realistic with your conclusions of what it means. We also mostly seem to agree (a reference to the other post on this subject of Osama's death) that this is a real victory for the military and our government. However, no one is operating under the assumption that it is all done and the snake is dead. If anything we already have plenty of evidence to support that our own country has already warned us to even be more diligent and observing of our actions especially when traveling. It is not over, it was however a good victory in a long term and still existing fight. No one necessarily has to take Osama's place.

[Ettiominiw]

Well, Terrorism is not the work of one organization that is run like a state or regular army.

Sure you can destroy a terrorist organization by killing all the members or enough to cripple their organization capability.
But I doubt alot of "Al Qaeda's" activity was organized in a centralized way... It's a mixture of ideas, the wrong people getting in thouch with even worse people... I doubt that many people inside such a network know who they are exchanging messages with.

I would suppose that it's like a "spy network" free for all... designed in a way that uncovering a single piece has a minimal impact on the entire network.

That's propably also why it was so hard to find Osama bin Laden...

It should also be noted that Terrorism usually accourse in waves, which tend to get more extreme until the cycle is broken... I got no idea in which cycle of escalation we are today...

But one thing is certain:
The death of Osama Bin Laden certainly damaged the nimbus of invincibility that the American inability to track down the most wanted man on the world, gave Al Qaeda.

[Eh085zE7]

Can you prove this? My bullshit meter is detecting something.

Your bullshit meter should be off the scale - better check the batteries.

[byncnombmub]

Not surrender--but just fade away into the distance.

And you base this off of....

Your advanced Middle Eastern studies?
Your advanced degree in counterterrorism?

What, exactly, leads you to believe that the entire organization is going to just "fade away?"

[CatLuvkaLover]

There never was any "worst", not for a long time and never really was. The whole shebang was a bandit cadre who got incredibly lucky (mainly in running into outstanding incompetence) which was then trumped up to justify spending bilions and billions more on "defense" and warfare that is not only ineffective but actually harmful to our real intentions.

No doubt still on the CIA payroll, right?

Please give a link where ANY credible analyst (and no, I don't include Beck, Rush, O'loofah or any of their ilk, I want someone with journalistic/diplomatic CREDENTIALS ok??) says anything resembling what you are saying about the Arab Spring. We, of course, are already starting to CAUSE such a reaction, in Libya, but I've heard no one say that's where it comes from. The Muslim Brotherhood are considered "radicals" by their own (some former, some struggling) governments because they want things like Freedom, Democracy, fair elections, and no dictators within a muslim framework and even in getting them they renounced using violence a long time ago.

The Muslim Brotherhood was founded for the purpose of reestablishing the furthest extent of the Caliphate, from Spain to Indonesia, under Islamic law.

And your answer to Pakistan's problems is to leave our ally in getting OBL in the lurch because they didn't realize the well-disguised and connected businessman who, for all we know, was living in Podunk NJ all this time and just went back there to get some Allah statuettes he forgotten, was actually the most feared mastermind in the world and worth 25 mill to anyone who saw thru his deception. Yeh, let's take all our money and support away from Pakistan now, that will really hurt what remains of al-Qaeda.

Its kind of like keeping you cattle in a really old barn, one that you can tell can not weather many more storms. You can either get your cattle out, and kick the thing over, or you can wait for it to fall on your cattle.

[UMATURLIN]

No doubt still on the CIA payroll, right?



The Muslim Brotherhood was founded for the purpose of reestablishing the furthest extent of the Caliphate, from Spain to Indonesia, under Islamic law.



Its kind of like keeping you cattle in a really old barn, one that you can tell can not weather many more storms. You can either get your cattle out, and kick the thing over, or you can wait for it to fall on your cattle.

Common sense says you fight terrorism by going after the TERRORISTS, not killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people of the same religion, somewhere in the same world region. Common sense says that if you kill a person's whole family for something done by somebody he probably regards as a crazy criminal but who lives in the same country, you've just enlisted that man as follower of a cause he may have hated himself up until then, but wait, I forget, common sense doesn't apply here, you're a conservative.

Really, this is exactly the same reasoning that won Vietnam for MacNamara, "...why can't they understand that we have superior forces and firepower?" Yeh...we just killed all their friends and family while destroying all their property, why don't they surrender now as they have nothing left to live for but revenge.

So says the Great Commodore....hey, I'LL take it on your word alone but my little brother here still wants some sort of link....and so what anyway? as they have renounced violence? Should we bomb the Vatican and arrest Pope Benny for threatening our freedom (not moletsting little boys this time) as he does, after all, run the Holy, Catholic and UNIVERSAL Church. (Which is a sort of Department of Redundacy in the Bureau of Repetition as Catholic MEANS universal.)

Or you could fix the barn, but, wait......conservatism and common sense again.....