CIA prevents use of upgraded underwear bomb
The CIA stopped a potential underwear bomber from boarding a flight while he was still in Yemen. According to the Associated Press, the detonation device was supposed to be more reliable than the one which toasted the nuts of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab over Detroit on Christman 2009;
The FBI is examining the latest bomb to see whether it could have passed through airport security and brought down an airplane, officials said. They said the device did not contain metal, meaning it probably could have passed through an airport metal detector. But it was not clear whether new body scanners used in many airports would have detected it.
The would-be suicide bomber, based in Yemen, had not yet picked a target or bought his plane tickets when the CIA stepped in and seized the bomb, officials said. It’s not immediately clear what happened to the alleged bomber.
Although they kept it quiet for a week, the AP released the story a day before the Obama Administration had asked them to release it because AP wanted to get ahead of the planned release tomorrow.
The attack was supposed to coincide with the anniversary of the death of bin Laden.
Thanks to Sporkmaster for the link.
Category: Barack Obama/Joe Biden, Media, Terror War
Damn, another one trying to “follow us home”…..
No, actually, that one was trying to prevent others from getting home.
Yet another plot foiled by the intelligence community instead of worthless minimum wage slaves fondling grandma and looking inside your anus.
So much for the War on Terror being over.
They probably caught it in the pat down. I know on my last flight three weeks ago they stuck their hands inside the waistband of my pants, inside my pockets, and patted up my leg until they hit “resistance” which for the record is vagina. If I had known they were checking me for an underwear bomb I might have felt a little less violated.
Now the Assclowns at TSA will have us all boarding naked.
I don’t think TSA had anything to do with this. The article is a bit murky on the details, but it says that the bomber hadn’t picked a target or even bought a ticket when CIA grabbed him.
#7, right…the TSA never has anything to do with actually catching anybody trying to get on a plane with a bomb….but they’ll expand their procedures to cover this. Like the one time a dumbass had a shoe bomb—out of millions of passengers, they still have you take off your shoes because they can’t figure out who the bad guys are.
So, an underwear bomber V.2, who had not bought a ticket, had no destination, and no one really knows who he is? But, the “bomb” was intercepted?
And, it’s the work of a “master bomb maker”, who’s constructed other, deadly works of mass distraction, except “Both of those bombs used a powerful industrial explosive. Both were nearly successful”. Those would be the printer cartridge bombs, which blew nothing up. And, the first underwear bomb, which roasted some nuts. And, nearly successful? Is that a lot like being nearly pregnant?
UpNorth, you beat hell out of the “professional” comedians !!
I’m surprised that Obama hasn’t taken credit for removing the underwear bomber’s underwear.
Pinto Nag: Joe actually has a point. If the previous example (the Christmas wienie-roast bomber from a couple of years ago) is any guide, had this one been successful it would probably been detonated over a US city in order to maximize casualties. So yes: this would have been an example of terror “following us home”.
That’s nothing new. The foiled West Coast millenium bombing plot, the first WTC bombing, and 9/11 itself were all examples of terror “following us home”. Terrorists have been attacking US interests for four plus decades. Most attacks have just been against US interests overseas. But a handful have been domestic.
Of course, I believe Joe has also previously argued that terrorists “following us home” is a myth. I wonder what changed his mind?
Hondo: you are expecting consistency, logic, critical thought, rational thought, and facts out of joe?
I have this bridge I’d like to sell you, guaranteed money maker and at a price that is a steal!
Then again, joe is probably bright enough to go for that deal…
Laughing Wolf: Expecting consistency from Joe? That would be a no. I was just taking the opportunity to comment, and to remind everyone here – again – that Joe’s positions on any given issue can vary.
That’s probably unnecessary, but it’s enjoyable nonetheless. (smile)
Joe’s positions on any given issue can vary.
That’s like saying wind speed and direction “can vary.” In Joe’s case, the positions vary depending on how much he’s getting his ass handed to him at any given point.
NHSparky: When it comes to our “friend” Joe, for me wind often comes to mind. Both in the sense of “finger in the wind” and “passing wind”.
Hondo, Joe was being sarcastic. He was referring to some comments make awhile back in another thread.
PintoNag: Possibly. Or possibly not. With Joe, he changes his arguments often enough it’s difficult to tell.
I’m aware of his previous comments. However, here he was correct. Whether he was correct intentionally, accidentally, or in a failed attempt at sarcasm is immaterial.
[…] via This ain’t Hell, but you can see it from here » Blog Archive » CIA prevents use of upgraded …. […]