20 years you.re kidding right? Even his charge sheet will read more than 20 counts and he'll most likely get maximum sentence for each count, even if he chickens out and gave info that leads to the arrest of bin Ladden, he still be in for as long as Methusela lived

You are using a strawman style argument here. My point is that when someone of his caliber comes to the U.S. embassy to inform you of the radicalized behavior of his own son, and his son's intent of planning something dangerous, it should be taking more seriously.  I never said his statement should be conclusive of his son's behavior but should definitely be giving substantial weight.

How do you know if that "someone" who pointed earlier that drugs strapped the same way would have been detected during the normal security search is an expert or knows what he is saying. Again, even if it should have been detected under normal routine, it does not negate the proposition that he should not have been subject to a heightened search, since they were aware of his radicalized behavior.

Yes. Whether you are paying for the food or not. If  you own a restaurant and the father of someone informs you that a paying customer wants to come and rob you at night, I would hope that you would be extra cautious in observing that when that customer walks into your restaurant at night, or if possible deny service to that customer as long as it is within dictates of the law. Here, the govt. could have legally revoked his visa or denied him entry to the U.S., or at the very least subject him to a heightened search.

bigfoot79:

@kobojunkie . In one statement, what is your view in all these

Kobojunkie:

I wasn’t offering you a strawman so I see no reason why you should consider it such. The authorities listened to him and hence the reason why his name was even on the watch list in the first place. But again, without solid evidence, there was no way of taking it further than that, which is what we know happened.




Agreed that He is not an expert but WE KNOW that drug traffickers are detected daily across the world, by the same NORMAL inspection, as the person stated. In fact, sniffers do a good job of this at some airport so the person does not have to be an EXPERT to tell us what we already know happens across the world, to date. In fact, we do know that NIGERIANS are high on the list of potential drug traffickers, and are sometimes subjected to even more vigorous searches across the world for just that reason.

They were NOT AWARE of his RADICALLIZED Behavior. Please let us stop jumping ahead of ourselves here. The Father called in making a CLAIM with no evidence. And the Authorities had no solid evidence to go by before this act.

What is your problem? You are now saying his father made the claim without evidence. How do you know that? Are you the father who was dealing with his son's behavior? The father stated that his son's behavior was of serious concern to him and he has been radicalized. For example, behaviors such as going to Yemen and sending text messages stating that he was going on a course of Islam was sufficient for the father to conclude of his son's radicalized behavior. You have started fabricating and saying stuff you no know nothing about. You don't even know if the father provided any direct evidence to the embassy. The father's statement, anyway, is circumstantial evidence, which is sufficient to make the U.S. act

HUH?? Dude, quite coming up with these ridiculous analogies! It is not on the same level at all. Legally revoked his Visa with NO EVIDENCE? Do you know what that could mean here? We are saying this in a world were people who were detained in Guantanamo with next to no evidence have been known to have sued the same government and won?

What do you know about International Law? From the looks of it, nothing! Yes you can legally revoke a visa with circumstantial evidence that shows that he was linked to Al Qaeda. Since traveling to a country of which you are not a national is not a right, the country that granted the Visa can revoke your visa or deny you a visa for any reason whatsoever including but not limited to circumstantial evidence of ties to Al Qaeda. Obviously, even if the father did not provide any direct evidence to the U.S. initially, all the U.S. had to do was to ask the father to provide direct evidence (if any was available) that will be used to substantiate his (the father) claim. You will not expect that people who make such claims will have more than circumstantial evidence; I mean, do you want his father to provide video tapes or recorded conversations?

bigfoot79:

I don't get it , 'we are discussing ' and you dare say your own opinion is of no importance? So why waste your time contributing  

After the 9/11,the united states signed the USA PATRIOT ACT into law WITHIN A MONTH.It covers all area of anti-terrorism both legal and illegal.It involves wire-tapping,phone bugging,interception of e-mails,static and mobile surveillance,illegal detentions,abuse of peoples' freedom,opening of guantanamo bay and other high profile dention centres and so many more.I learnt that apart from the israelis,the united is the best when it comes to counter-terrorism.That your analysis that the father did not call the boy a terrorist is a big joke.They  know more than us as they have their spies  everywhere who knows if they are on nL.A little intelligence is not wasted in the united states.

the sad part is that our green passport just got darker
president obama administration do not like nigeria
now they now have one more excuse to hate nigerians
sorry to dora's rebranding project.

What is your problem? You are now saying his father made the claim without evidence. How do you know that?

His father, a prominent Nigerian banker and former government official, warned the US embassy in Abuja in October that his son had developed radical views and might have travelled to Yemen.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/8432934.stm

Are you the father who was dealing with his son's behavior? The father stated that his son's behavior was of serious concern to him and he has been radicalized.

For example, behaviors such as going to Yemen and sending text messages stating that he was going on a course of Islam was sufficient for the father to conclude of his son's radicalized behavior. You have started fabricating and saying stuff you no know nothing about. You don't even know if the father provided any direct evidence to the embassy. The father's statement, anyway, is circumstantial evidence, which is sufficient to make the U.S. act

What do you know about International Law? From the looks of it, nothing! Yes you can legally revoke a visa with circumstantial evidence that shows that he was linked to Al Qaeda.

Since traveling to a country of which you are not a national is not a right, the country that granted the Visa can revoke your visa or deny you a visa for any reason whatsoever including but not limited to circumstantial evidence of ties to Al Qaeda. Obviously, even if the father did not provide any direct evidence to the U.S. initially, all the U.S. had to do was to ask the father to provide direct evidence (if any was available) that will be used to substantiate his (the father) claim. You will not expect that people who make such claims will have more than circumstantial evidence; I mean, do you want his father to provide video tapes or recorded conversations?

yeyeruzi:

Have being reading through the posts and searching the internet to clear my mind about glaring issues which a few had noticed

It is all political and many didn't ask the right questions.

Many got lost in sentiments, ethnic and religious issues based on things not related to the matter and left the USA to do the investigating for us.


(1) Why would security experts in the US tell the media what faruq as said without proof or solid investigation on their part before disseminating his alarming statements?

yeyeruzi:

(2) Why would someone like faruq, who was said to be trained  for the job, fail like someone just being instructed to do it and even respond on the plane that he had an explosive in his pocket?  

yeyeruzi:

(3) If he his mad to want to kill himself and innocent victims on the strong faith of going to paradise like many of these terrorists, why would he be giving information about himself and al qaeda as if he was instructed to without torture during the investigation (he was undergoing medical care and torturing would not be allowed)?

yeyeruzi:

(4) How did faruq get on the watch-list before this incident and why?

yeyeruzi:

(5) If he were on the watch-list why haven't the US embassy  gotten in touch with faruq's father since he had sought help that he is seeking after his son's welfare?

yeyeruzi:

(6) Why is nobody questioning the route that faruq took (making sure he passed through Nigeria before the incident) and the time factor related to his  movement. Aviation experts in Nigeria here should tell us if this is the only route possible and why?

yeyeruzi:

(7) Why is al qaeda spending so much on terrorist attacks and continue to produce jerk-like products like terrorist faruq  who seems to have sloppy training at the last minute in public and still continue to produce more who don't learn from past mistakes apart from the 9/11 incidents which the USA till to day can't fanthom?

yeyeruzi:
I have a strong feeling that faruq was monitored through out his route and even instructed on the flight to the USA in the bathroom and he had to do things so obviously silly (like choosing to detonate the explosive in his sit and not  even creating a distraction and had to be jumped. I can even simulate a far better plan based on thriller movies and write a much convincing novel on it.

I believe faruq is not himself and his being used as a scapegoat to pull Nigeria into the scene of international terrorism

Kobojunkie:



Al Quiada might realize after this that Nigerians may not be good candidates for such acts. Roflmao!!

HIO4:

LOL WTF @ man

So what's the essence of having a watchlist that is not closely monitored or properly regulated to protect citizens from terror.

(6) Why is nobody questioning the route that faruq took (making sure he passed through Nigeria before the incident) and the time factor related to his  movement. Aviation experts in Nigeria here should tell us if this is the only route possible and why?

~Sauron~:

It is just there to play with like a kiddie's teddy bear.
USA messed up big time. . . . .They had the info and they did nothing with it.
Fair play to the Homeland Security though.

angel101:

all this may have been avoided if the US had refused for the boy to fly as his father had sought their help in finding him and returning him home.
shouldnt even the nigerian immigration have done that if the father had allegedly reported to the naija authorities as well?

angel101:

all this may have been avoided if the US had refused for the boy to fly as his father had sought their help in finding him and returning him home.
shouldnt even the nigerian immigration have done that if the father had allegedly reported to the naija authorities as well?

HIO4:

Yup. . . .
Another FEMA-like catastrophe that they will continue to downplay and fail to own up to.
They find it easier to focus on profiling and propagating stereotypes