Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 29 Dec '09 18:25
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8433844.stm

    Yemen has said it is not getting enough support from the West to tackle al-Qaeda, as details emerge of the suspected US jet bomber's time there

    "Foreign Minister Abu Bakr al-Qirbi told the BBC that Yemen had the will and ability to deal with al-Qaeda, but was undermined by a lack of support.

    He estimated that several hundred al-Qaeda members were operating in Yemen and could be planning more attacks.

    A Yemen-based branch of the network has claimed it planned the failed attack.

    Yemeni officials said Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, 23, the Nigerian man accused of trying to blow up the Detroit-bound jet on Christmas Day, was living in Yemen from August until the beginning of December, the official Saba news agency reported.

    US officials are said to be concerned there may be more al-Qaeda-trained young men in the country planning to bring down US planes."


    ..................

    It really makes me wonder what the hell they're doing in Iraq when they should be in yemen. Not only that but why is it so easy for terrorists to bring down US planes (or attempt to), the incompetence in dealing with this international threat is truly puzzling.
  2. 29 Dec '09 19:00
    From the times:
    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article6969892.ece

    "Yemen seen as new focus for terror training after Flight 253 bomber"
  3. 29 Dec '09 19:51
    after we invade Yemen then it'll be Somalia and then where? Then where next?
  4. 29 Dec '09 20:36
    Originally posted by PsychoPawn
    after we invade Yemen then it'll be Somalia and then where? Then where next?
    Im not saying you have to invade yemen (though Im not against such policy), however, I think they should give its govt the support it needs to combat terrorism.
  5. 29 Dec '09 21:47
    Originally posted by generalissimo
    Im not saying you have to invade yemen (though Im not against such policy), however, I think they should give its govt the support it needs to combat terrorism.
    Heck, I wish we could invade our own country - we might actually feel obligated to fix it if we did.
  6. 30 Dec '09 00:57
    Originally posted by generalissimo
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8433844.stm

    [b]Yemen has said it is not getting enough support from the West to tackle al-Qaeda, as details emerge of the suspected US jet bomber's time there


    [i]"Foreign Minister Abu Bakr al-Qirbi told the BBC that Yemen had the will and ability to deal with al-Qaeda, but was undermined by a lack ...[text shortened]... r attempt to), the incompetence in dealing with this international threat is truly puzzling.[/b]
    Indeed. The US does not do enough in Iraq, Afaghanistan, Pakistan, or Yemen. Its almost as if the whole lot of them is against the US. Crazy, huh?
  7. 30 Dec '09 00:58
    Originally posted by TerrierJack
    Heck, I wish we could invade our own country - we might actually feel obligated to fix it if we did.
    Req'd!!!
  8. 30 Dec '09 01:01 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by generalissimo
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8433844.stm

    [b]Yemen has said it is not getting enough support from the West to tackle al-Qaeda, as details emerge of the suspected US jet bomber's time there


    [i]"Foreign Minister Abu Bakr al-Qirbi told the BBC that Yemen had the will and ability to deal with al-Qaeda, but was undermined by a lack r attempt to), the incompetence in dealing with this international threat is truly puzzling.[/b]
    The issue is airport security. All they have to do is employ the tactics of the Israeli airline El Al, who have no terrorist attacks despite being their #1 target. So the question begs, what are they doing differently? That's right, they profile their passengers so that jokers like the one that tried to blow up this other airline, would never have been granted access to the flight!!! Too bad its politically incorrect to do so in the US.
  9. 30 Dec '09 01:10
    Originally posted by whodey
    The issue is airport security. All they have to do is employ the tactics of the Israeli airline El Al, who have no terrorist attacks despite being their #1 target. So the question begs, what are they doing differently? That's right, they profile their passengers so that jokers like the one that tried to blow up this other airline, would never have been granted access to the flight!!! Too bad its politically incorrect to do so in the US.
    There's a whole lot more to Israeli security than profiling and frankly, the reason we don't do what Israel does has nothing to do with political correctness and more to do with litigiousness and laziness. Here they'd rather come up with reactionary rules than train people to profile not on the basis of race or religion but on the basis on the answers in words and body language to questions they ask them.
  10. 30 Dec '09 01:12
    Originally posted by generalissimo
    Im not saying you have to invade yemen (though Im not against such policy), however, I think they should give its govt the support it needs to combat terrorism.
    That's why I think we need a better way of handling things. We can't just go invading every country that hosts al-quaeda unless we want to play the most expensive game of whack-a-mole ever in history and then we'd be accomplishing their goal of truly bankrupting our country.

    I think we should give their government support. The question is what does it need and what has it even asked for?
  11. 30 Dec '09 02:07
    Originally posted by PsychoPawn
    There's a whole lot more to Israeli security than profiling and frankly, the reason we don't do what Israel does has nothing to do with political correctness and more to do with litigiousness and laziness. Here they'd rather come up with reactionary rules than train people to profile not on the basis of race or religion but on the basis on the answers in words and body language to questions they ask them.
    No arguements there. So why the questions about Yemen? Whether they are there or did not exist at all would not stop these kinds of attacks. They will continue regardless. That is why this whole talk about what to do with Yemen, as if it would stop such attacks, is mind boggling to me. Either make the needed changes in security or get used to these types of attacks. It is just that simple.
  12. 30 Dec '09 02:53
    Originally posted by whodey
    No arguements there. So why the questions about Yemen? Whether they are there or did not exist at all would not stop these kinds of attacks. They will continue regardless. That is why this whole talk about what to do with Yemen, as if it would stop such attacks, is mind boggling to me. Either make the needed changes in security or get used to these types of attacks. It is just that simple.
    It's not a bad thing to do something about Yemen or other countries that host and allow Al qaeda to stay there. The question is what. Diplomacy and other things can work wonders.

    This in addition to making sure security is tight as possible without trampling on people's rights. It isn't an either or.

    It's also possible that whatever security we do have then we might just get a near miss like this one or even a successful attack nonetheless.

    I also think El-AL's security also succeeds through reputation. They have the reputation of having bulletproof security, but how often has someone really tried to bring a bomb on an El-AL flight? I don't think I have ever seen a news article saying that a bombing attempt was thwarted.
  13. 30 Dec '09 04:35
    Originally posted by PsychoPawn
    [b]It's not a bad thing to do something about Yemen or other countries that host and allow Al qaeda to stay there. The question is what. Diplomacy and other things can work wonders.

    This in addition to making sure security is tight as possible without trampling on people's rights. It isn't an either or.

    It's also possible that whatever security we do have then we might just get a near miss like this one or even a successful attack nonetheless.
    Agreed.
  14. 30 Dec '09 04:37
    Originally posted by PsychoPawn
    I also think El-AL's security also succeeds through reputation. They have the reputation of having bulletproof security, but how often has someone really tried to bring a bomb on an El-AL flight? I don't think I have ever seen a news article saying that a bombing attempt was thwarted.[/b]
    So why do you think they have not even attempted to do a terrorist attack to them even though we all know they are or should be the biggest target?

    YOu can either argue with success, or adopt it. It is the choice we all have in life.
  15. 30 Dec '09 14:14
    Originally posted by whodey
    So why do you think they have not even attempted to do a terrorist attack to them even though we all know they are or should be the biggest target?

    YOu can either argue with success, or adopt it. It is the choice we all have in life.
    I don't know. It's one of those things where you have to infer what is in the minds of the people who would think of committing such an act.

    I have no problem with trying to adopt successful techniques. I also don't claim to know exactly what all of them are.

    I know the answer isn't just to make sure everyone has their hands in sight during the last hour of a flight though.