Plot to bomb the Holland Tunnel

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 7/7/06 at 12:04pm

I'm watching the news, and apparently something was intercepted on the internet today, discussing a terrorist plan to bomb the Holland Tunnel so that it would cause waves that would flood lower Manhattan, particularly the financial district. One suspect has been arrested, with the search on for the others.

The FBI says that there's no imminent threat at this time to any location in the United States, and their engineers say that due to the tunnel's construction and the fact that lower Manhattan is above sea level, the plot was not at all sound, and would not have worked.

The NYPD and the Port Authority are having a press briefing at one o'clock.

Oh, and by the way, today is the one-year anniversary of the bus and subway explosions in London.

Updated On: 7/7/06 at 12:04 PM

[new_philosophy_girl]

Posted: 7/7/06 at 12:08pm

What's scary is that with all the traffic that is always flowing through that tunnel, it would be damn near impossible to screen for bombs or anything of that nature. Another reason why I hate that tunnel...

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 7/7/06 at 12:09pm

Oh, and meanwhile, our idiot president is taking a glamour tour around the country, yapping about how we're gonna beat the terrorists.

Are we? Really?

Updated On: 7/7/06 at 12:09 PM

[new_philosophy_girl]

Posted: 7/7/06 at 12:13pm

And don't forget that while he's doing that, North Korea is still attempting to fire missiles directed towards Hawaii and/or the Northwestern coast of the US.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 7/7/06 at 12:16pm

I guess the news was right when they said his plate was full. He looks all... befuddled. Rightfully so.

God. What a useless human being.

Updated On: 7/7/06 at 12:16 PM

[new_philosophy_girl]

Posted: 7/7/06 at 12:17pm

"God. What a useless human being."

Couldn't agree more...

[JohnBoy2]

Posted: 7/7/06 at 12:22pm

What do you want him to do?

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 7/7/06 at 12:29pm

That was more of a general comment. There's nothing he can do about this. However, I don't really think his priority should be touring the country and waving like the queen of England in vain effort to make himself look better when there are things of importance to be dealt with.

I'm sorry, he must be an *excellent* president just because he's not the only one who is powerless against the terrorists! Give me an effing break. I can think of exactly ONE thing this guy has done right, and I can assure you that while lovely, it's less-than politically relevant.

What a ridiculous question.

Updated On: 7/7/06 at 12:29 PM

Posted: 7/7/06 at 12:30pm

resign... let someone else try their hand at fixing this mess.

[JohnBoy2]

Posted: 7/7/06 at 12:34pm

Whoa. I wasn't defending Bush, I was asking you what you thought he should do, since you mentioned him, in light of a plot to bomb the Holland Tunnel, which was foiled. So, Rose, you'd rather have Dick Cheney as your President? That's what would happen, if Bush resigned.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 7/7/06 at 12:34pm

I'm glad they stopped the plot.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 7/7/06 at 12:37pm

I wasn't mentioning him in light of this plot. I thought he was an idiot before that. Besides, it's not about one plot that was foiled. It's about his overall lack of ANY qualities of a good president. I wonder if perhaps we had a decent leader who wasn't a chronic screw-up, these things wouldn't still be happening. Really, I was just commenting on the general situation, given what I saw on the news... since I rarely do get involved in the political discussions here. I'm not saying this specifically was a misstep, I'm looking at the bigger picture. Reactionary, that's all.

Updated On: 7/7/06 at 12:37 PM

[JohnBoy2]

Posted: 7/7/06 at 12:39pm

Okay, forget I asked. You keep speaking in generalities. I was asking what he should do. I meant, specifically.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 7/7/06 at 12:43pm

I said nothing. There's nothing he *can* do at this point about this incident. Is that what you want to hear? What else am I supposed to say other than that he should've done a better job of taking care of this whole situtation in the first place? What do you want me to say, that he should go out there and strangle the people who plotted this himself, as if that'll suddenly win us his war?

What do you want from me, other than to make me look stupid? I've admitted that don't know, so fine, you win. I'm not responsible for an entire country, so really, I shouldn't have to know what the president should do. If he were actually doing his job, those kinds of questions wouldn't even have to be asked; there's always room for dissent, but that's totally different from looking around and asking, point-blank, what he should do.

This must be one of those "don't criticize if you can't do it better" things, right? Frankly, it's his job, not mine. He should be doing it well, and until he does, the right to criticize remains, whether I can do a better job or not.

Updated On: 7/7/06 at 12:43 PM

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 7/7/06 at 12:47pm

johnboy, specificity was banned on bww in early june of '04. i know you're new, so i wanted to let you know. please limit your political discourse to general demagoguery of one side or the other. failure to do so will only result in your being bashed furiously by both sides and your subsequent demonization. nuance and thoughtful propositions towards solutions are not welcome here and if you insist upon making efforts to force people to consider them i will be forced to taunt you. no one wants that.

Updated On: 7/7/06 at 12:47 PM

[Garland Grrrl]

Posted: 7/7/06 at 12:48pm

some plot. these people had no explosives, no $$ and no plans of any of the tunnels, and they weren't even in the US. blowing up stuff in the US is just typical brunch conversation in some parts of the world. i wish they'd kept an eye on these people and nailed anyone who funded their craziness or gave them access to actual weapons, etc
this is just grand-standing by the administration.

Updated On: 7/7/06 at 12:48 PM

[JohnBoy2]

Posted: 7/7/06 at 12:50pm

Why are you so defensive? I don't understand that. Also, why are you putting words in my mouth? I never said any of the things you are implying. You started a thread about a plot to bomb the Holland Tunnel, then you mentioned the President in the same thread, and implied he wasn't doing enough or anything right. The logical question would be what should he be doing? That's all I asked. You could have just said, I don't know. I just don't like him, and that would have ended it. You keep implying that I have some agenda? The only agenda I had was wanting to know what you thought he should be doing. That's it. Not sure why you're so defensive about your own words, though. I mean, it's a message board, not your diary. Didn't you expect any responses?

Edit: Thanks papa, for the warning. I'll keep that in mind!
Updated On: 7/7/06 at 12:50 PM

[RobbO]

Posted: 7/7/06 at 12:52pm

speaking of specificity; haven't "they" mentioned since initial reports that the holland tunnel was not targeted specifically?

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 7/7/06 at 12:52pm

Hush, papa. :-P

My intention was just a general comment, for what it's worth. I'm sorry if that doesn't please y'all.

I will readily admit that I'm not in possession of the knowledge or authority on the topic to get into a discussion about what should specifically be done. While I don't think there's anything wrong with a general statement of opinion, and I do think I took the better road by admitting that I don't know, rather than pretending I know what I'm talking about when I don't. I'm not about spewing crap, and I admit what I don't know, but next time, if some will like it better, I'll just make things up so you can have your specificity.

Please, flog me.

RobbO, I don't know. The thing I saw about 45 minutes ago said it was specifically the Holland Tunnel.

Updated On: 7/7/06 at 12:52 PM

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 7/7/06 at 12:56pm

Johnnyboy, I don't know if I'm misreading your tone, or what. I read "you keep speaking in generalities" with a really negative tone like "go ahead, keep doing that." If I misread, I'm sorry.

By all means, have your discussion about specifics. As the starter of the thread, I'm not required to be involved. Of course I expected responses, but since when can one not start a thread without having to be interrogated? I admitted that I don't know; I didn't post it with the intention of being involved in the debate inevitably to come. I was just posting an interesting bit of news and I've admitted my ignorance. I posted what I heard on the news when I started the thread. I did not criticize the president based on this one issue, but it is within the realm of possibility to say that if he hadn't made mistakes in the past, maybe it wouldn't have happened. I didn't start it expecting to suddenly *have* to know what I would do if I were president or have some specific plan in mind. I'll be more careful before I post about news next time, and make sure I'm actually ready to make such weighty choices. I'll also keep in mind that it's suddenly not permissible to make a general sidebar comment about the bigger picture when posting about a specific incident.

Updated On: 7/7/06 at 12:56 PM

[JohnBoy2]

Posted: 7/7/06 at 1:08pm

I may be in my dotage, but I'm going to make one more attempt at this. I have no issue if you want to start a thread to make a statement, and not engage in any discourse, beyond that statement. You're saying you already said you didn't know what he should do and that should be enough. And, you're right, it would have been enough, but that's not all you said in your answer. Here's your answer:

That was more of a general comment. There's nothing he can do about this. However, I don't really think his priority should be touring the country and waving like the queen of England in vain effort to make himself look better when there are things of importance to be dealt with.

I'm sorry, he must be an *excellent* president just because he's not the only one who is powerless against the terrorists! Give me an effing break. I can think of exactly ONE thing this guy has done right, and I can assure you that while lovely, it's less-than politically relevant.

What a ridiculous question

Can you see where I might have an issue with your answer? You're stating implications on my part, that were never intended by me. You're still stating what he shouldn't be doing; but, not offering any suggestion on what he should be doing, which goes back to my original question. And, you're saying that I was asking a ridiculous question. Frankly, I don't see the ridiculousness in my question. It was a simple, honest question.
Updated On: 7/7/06 at 01:08 PM

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 7/7/06 at 1:29pm

Okay, fine. I'll break down that post for you. There are two basic things going on in there.

- Defense, because I felt you were being condescending. If I misread, again, I am sorry. Really. And in that sense, if I did misread, then yes, I can see why you would take issue, because you were seeing a twist of your words. I said it was a ridiculous question by virtue of the tone I read, and you saw my answer as totally off-base because of that. It's like dominoes.

- Criticism. No, I don't know what I would do. I think it's much easier, for example, to discuss how another president or politician might handle the situation better because you can draw on at least a small basis, than it is to say "well, what do you want him to do?" That's a difficult statement because frankly, it isn't my decision. I know that can look like a cop-out, in terms of discussing things you're not equipped to discuss; however, I feel like you can obviously disagree with something a president does, but if he's doing his job well, people shoudln't have to babysit his decisions. I didn't take on a job I can't handle, so it shouldn't really be my responsibility to know exactly what I would do, or what I would want someone to do with the state of world affairs, however, it doesn't take a genius to know that Bush has messed up, and the right remains to comment on that. So what I'm saying is that my criticism comes out of the fact that we shouldn't even *have* to be asking these questions. I guess this also does relate to the first part of the breakdown, because of defense of my criticism.

It takes a lot more to say what he *should* be doing than what he shouldn't be doing, but one doesn't particularly invalidate the other.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 7/7/06 at 1:48pm

On another note, for any curious and not near a TV, the press conference is on now, and most of the information is still in confidence, but Bloomberg says that the plot has been destroyed, even though not all involved (many not even in the States) are yet in custody, and there is "not a shred" of evidence that it progressed beyond the planning stages.

To answer RobbO's question, they did say that it's been found that the Holland Tunnel was not as speficically targeted as originally thought.

More interestingly, though, he's talking about how he thinks the federal government should distrubte funds for homeland security based upon risk levels.

Updated On: 7/7/06 at 01:48 PM

[Dirty Rotten Scoundrel]

Posted: 7/7/06 at 1:52pm

PEOPLE. Please. It's obviously a conspiracy to get people to buy more McDonalds.

[BluCat500]

Posted: 7/7/06 at 1:53pm

The Big Mac conspiracy of '06!