Now why would our F.B.I. cover up the terrorist attack at LAX on July 4th, 2002?

7/6/2002 | TLBSHOW

[TLBSHOW]

Now why would our F.B.I. cover up the terrorist attack at LAX?

I mean they tell us we will be attacked and then we are attacked and then they say this was not a terrorist attack. Now why would our F.B.I. cover up the terrorist attack at LAX?

The PEOPLE WHO WERE ATTACKED knows what it was and IT WAS a TERRORIST ATTACK.

We are either being played for fools or the terrorist just maybe are within the FBI. We know the democrats are terrorist helpers so maybe just maybe the FBI HAS BEEN SUBVERTED TOO!

Just a question for comments.

[Uncle Sausage]

I fail to see any conspiracy by the FBI to cover this up. There really is no point. ...... Perhaps you are right, but the point is WE DO NOT TRUST THEM TO TELL THE TRUTH.

[Clifdo]

Gosh, it must be wonderful to be always right! We would be well advised to consider every such act an act of terror. After all, what would we lost - a little PC???????????????

[FITZ]

The guy was a nut case.

The guy was a Middle-Eastern, Muslim, foreigner who targetted Jews. He is a terrorist and what is most frightening is our government is lying to us. Why? They'll try to have us believe he was just an average American that just lost it one morning.

[aristeides]

I've only seen a claim by Debka that Hadayet was a friend of Batouty. Has this been confirmed?

[dalereed]

Their menstrating elephant stroled into a snowbank and they lost her.

[beckett]

The question isn't: Why is the Gov't "covering up" a terrorist attack? The question is: Why do all the conspiracy nuts on FR continually jump to the wrong conclusion and then aid the enemy by spreading fear and confusion?

All the evidence is clearly trending towards this guy being a simple nutcase. Why, for example, would an al-Qaeda sleeper agent make it known to his neighbors that their flying of an American flag irritated him?

The level of debate on FR is slipping drastically. And the major reason for the decline is the domination of this forum by knee-jerk bozos who never hesitate to find the most dumbass point of view and broadcast it loudly.

[FITZ]

It's interesting how the FBI could burn 80 Americans in Waco who never hurt anyone and could try to convince us those were terrorists but meanwhile they allowed and are allowing in all sorts of foreigners into this country who intend to harm us all.

[dawn53]

The guy was a nut case. What difference does it make if he was a disgruntled employee, a Jew-hater, or a wannabe terrorists. This was not some well organized event. I fail to see any conspiracy by the FBI to cover this up. There really is no point

Your name seems to be appropriate in this case.

[HoustonCurmudgeon]

Is there ANY chance this was a random attack? Is everything that happens a terrorist attack? Does the government always lie, even when it's easier to tell the truth?

If this was the organised terrorist attack we were all waiting for on the 4th of July than I suggest we stop worrying as it was poorly planned and carried out. Sending a lone gunman (no bomb)into a place that everyone knows is on watch and armed is not a real smart idea.

Please ping me when some crime hits the news that this group doesn't think is terrorist related.

[swarthyguy]

Did a search and could not find any press reports that confirm it.

[dirtboy]

All the evidence is clearly trending towards this guy being a simple nutcase. Why, for example, would an al-Qaeda sleeper agent make it known to his neighbors that their flying of an American flag irritated him?

Your point is valid, but what is bothering me is the parsing of "terrorist" - does someone have to be part of Al Queda or some other network to be a terrorist? The government has no problem calling McVeigh a terrorist, even though they claim he was part of a cabal of TWO. El Al is a significant target. The motive seems that an Egyptian wanted to kill Israelis. If that were to happen in Tel Aviv, there would be no question that it was a terrorist attack.

[dawn53]

The question isn't: Why is the Gov't "covering up" a terrorist attack? The question is: Why do all the conspiracy nuts on FR continually jump to the wrong conclusion and then aid the enemy by spreading fear and confusion?

Good point!

And how much fear does a guy with a couple guns and a knife cause? Not much in my opinion. People are dead, but people die everyday in our cities from acts of violence committed by American citizens against each other and we carry on as nothing had happened.

[HoustonCurmudgeon]

The question isn't: Why is the Gov't "covering up" a terrorist attack? The question is: Why do all the conspiracy nuts on FR continually jump to the wrong conclusion and then aid the enemy by spreading fear and confusion?

Don't know you, but now like you! ;-)

[Lockbox]

All the evidence is clearly trending towards this guy being a simple nutcase. Why, for example, would an al-Qaeda sleeper agent make it known to his neighbors that their flying of an American flag irritated him?

From the news stories this appears to be a lone gunman and not an al-Qaeda sleeper agent. But he appears to be motivated by the same forces we now face. One does not officially need to be a member of the al-Qaeda to be a terrorist. One can be motived by their cause and act in their place.

[dirtboy]

And how much fear does a guy with a couple guns and a knife cause? Not much in my opinion.

The attack, IMO, was meant to be symbolic to the Israelis. El Al is one of the hardest targets around, but this guy found a way to attack it, even if it was on the periphery.

[onedoug]

Considering Bush's seeming unwillingness to take on the Whabbist underwriters of this business in Saudi Arabia, and the FBI Director's pablum speech to the American Museum Council last week, I constantly vascilate from the idea that we're winning this war against Islamism, to the lamentation that we're done for as a nation.

Talk about terrorism?...

[Lockbox]

80 Americans in Waco

Hey we had to stop these people! It was for the good of the children after all.

[aristeides]

Why, for example, would an al-Qaeda sleeper agent make it known to his neighbors that their flying of an American flag irritated him?

Why do you think Mohammed Atta said all those things to the federal loan officer?

[piasa]

It's not a 'cover up,' it's simply that they don't immediately have 'lawyer proof' data on whether his motive was because he'd flipped out over an unrelated emotional issue like his wife; or because he was involved in a conspiracy with known terrorists; or because he decided to act on his own. The last time they referred to a guy as a 'dirty bomber' people slammed them because the bleeding heart press inisted that Padilla was at worst a 'courier.'

Once they have interviewed the guy to determine his line of reasoning, they will change from the current state of 'inconclusiveness' to one of reasonable certainty.

[dawn53]

The attack, IMO, was meant to be symbolic to the Israelis. El Al is one of the hardest targets around, but this guy found a way to attack it, even if it was on the periphery.

You might be right since there was a second attack on a plane in flight reported in this morning's news.

But I think the Israeli's are well aware that no target is impenetrable. After all, they have such tight security in Israel, and still suicide bombings happen.