Sunday, May 9, 2010

New York City Times Square, The Pakistani Taliban, and Being Prudent

Three headlines this morning, with pretty much the same story:That's The New York Times, FOXNews, and CNN: There's the usual listing at the end of this post.

Isn't this a reversal of earlier claims that the New York City Times Square bombing wasn't related to terrorism? No. What's been said before by various authorities is that there is no evidence to support the idea that a terrorist organization is behind the failed bombing. (May 2, 2010)

Now, it looks like they've got evidence.

But, rather prudently, we're not being told exactly what the evidence is.
"...Mr. Shahzad, who was arrested at Kennedy International Airport aboard an Emirates Airlines airplane bound for Dubai little more than two days after the bomb was discovered, soon told police that he trained in Waziristan, the main base for the Pakistani Taliban and Al Qaeda. Neither Mr. Holder nor Mr. Brennan indicated what new information led them to the firmer conclusions about the role of the Pakistani Taliban."
(The New York Times)
Exactly, no: generally, yes:
"...Attorney General Eric Holder and White House counterterrorism adviser John Brennan said the investigation has led authorities to believe that suspect Faisal Shahzad trained with the Taliban in Pakistan and was funded by them.

"Brennan told 'Fox News Sunday' that Shahzad had 'extensive interaction' with the group, which he described as virtually 'indistinguishable' from Al Qaeda...."
The 'public has a right to know' - but I think law enforcement and the Department of Homeland Security also have a responsibility to keep terrorists from leaning exactly how much they know.

"Loose lips sink ships" is an old saying, but the principle still applies.

Related posts:In the news:

No comments:

Unique, innovative candles

Visit us online:
Spiral Light CandleFind a Retailer
Spiral Light Candle Store


Note! Although I believe that these websites and blogs are useful resources for understanding the War on Terror, I do not necessarily agree with their opinions. 1 1 Given a recent misunderstanding of the phrase "useful resources," a clarification: I do not limit my reading to resources which support my views, or even to those which appear to be accurate. Reading opinions contrary to what I believed has been very useful at times: sometimes verifying my previous assumptions, sometimes encouraging me to change them.

Even resources which, in my opinion, are simply inaccurate are sometimes useful: these can give valuable insights into why some people or groups believe what they do.

In short, It is my opinion that some of the resources in this blogroll are neither accurate, nor unbiased. I do, however, believe that they are useful in understanding the War on Terror, the many versions of Islam, terrorism, and related topics.