[dirtboy]

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

Sheer gross incompetence that comes across as a cover-up?

[Hans]

This has become standard for our crime fighters. First, they spend a great deal of time saying little or nothing. You can't get in trouble for saying nothing.
Before you know it a year has gone by and everybody forgets that the FBI has done nothing. They do dress nicely!

[LarryM]

I wouldn't believe a word the FBI says. It appears that the terrorist was part of a sleeper cell associated with the Egyptian Jihad organization. Perhaps the FBI doesn't want people to know about the prevalence of terrorist sleepers. After all, isn't the FBI responsible for internal security?

[LibWhacker]

If there hadn't been 90 million eyewitnesses, the FBI would've said two planes striking the WTC on 9/11 was just a coincidence. It's as if the FBI wants to be the repository of all classified information and does not trust the American people to make decisions or demands of the government.

[Always Right]

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.

[Lockbox]

TWA 800, Ok City, etc, etc..........Clinton mentality lives on in the FBI

[R. Scott]

I don’t believe it was a case of a cover up or incompetence, but a case of definition. This guy was not a part of a terrorist organization; therefore it was not an act of terrorism.
I saw the same thing here in Newport News around ten years ago. We were starting to experience gang violence – but the Chief of Police announced that he was commissioning a study to show that we had no gangs. By his definition he was correct – we had no organized gangs – no membership rosters, no formal clubhouse – therefore no gangs.

[FreedomPoster]

I was talking about this last night with an out-of-town friend who is visiting for the weekend. As I/we see it, there are only a couple of answers, and the implications of them aren't good:

A) The people saying this really believe what they are saying. In which case, our employees (the civil servants saying this) are blithering idiots, as anyone with half a brain recognizes this as a terrorist attack.

B) The people saying this think they are fooling us, and really know it was a terrorist attack. In which case, they are untrustworthy liars who also think that we are blithering idiots, if they think we will buy their line of Bravo Sierra.

It goes without saying that neither possibility leaves me with a good taste in my mouth concerning the government employees involved.

[Havisham]

I've given the question much thought these last two days and I've concluded that the FBI brass is loyal to their paychecks and nothing else. They will be the last to figure out that we're not listening anymore and that they've lost all credibility with pro-law enforcement Americans.

[tonyinv]

Egyptian National Shoots 2 Jews in terrorist attack on American Airport.

How would our "allies" like that for a headline? There are international sensitivities at stake here.

The elephant in the room is getting harder and harder to ignore.

[swarthyguy]

Funny how the definition of terrorism has changed to the following:

-Formal Membership and explicit connections to an organized terroristic jihadi group.

-Effectiveness of the act; he can't be a terrorist because he didn't kill enough people. (It's not about ideology, its about competency)

Why the coverup?
A father and an uncle (retd generals)in the Egyptian Army.
Saudi Money.
Fear of widespread reprisals against muslims.
Opens up the can of worms with EgyptAir Flight 990 (Friend of the jihadi pilot, Batouty)
A bigger plot that was thwarted; accomplices at LAX or other airports or airlines.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[TomGuy]

I read one "official" comment yesterday that went something like this: "This isn't a terrorist incident because he acted alone."

Of course, by that logic, shoebomber Reid "acted alone" too, so he isn't a terrorist. So what if he was funded and trained and supported by terrorist groups. He acted alone; thus, he shouldn't be considered a terrorist.

"Officials" either don't have a clue or they are trying to keep the public isolated from the real dangers that exist--because of the infiltration of ME/Islamic/al-Qaeda/Jihad persons. We have nests of these cockroaches in many of our major cities, but little overt action to clean out the infestations seems to be happening.

[Mixer]

I mean they tell us we will be attacked and then we are attacked and then they say this was not a terrorist attack.

I have been trying to figure this out right along. Even 9/11 would have not been explained as terrorism if there had only been one plane involved. No group to this day has come forward to claim responsibility for 9/11 so if it had only been one plane an accident would have been ruled and we would have went on as usual. Now we have high alerts but then when something happens the FBI is right there to deny terrorism before all of the facts have even been revealed.

Flight 587 and flight 800 along with a lot of other unexplained "accidents" are no doubt in my mind the acts of Muslim terroists.

[Paulus Invictus]

Why was it not a terrorist attack? The Israelis say it was, it sounds like one, it involved a Muslim with weapons, only Jews were killed at the El Al airline desk, hence it was a terrorist attack. The FBI is out to lunch on this one. It also may just the start of similar attacks at airports or anywhere else the Muslim plants in the US wish to attack people. We are at war. Add the LA victims names to the already long list of casualties. Deport all Muslims!

[Dave S]

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.

Apparently you are not being played for a fool, you must be one. The FBI isnt covering anything up. Havent you seen wall to wall coverage on TV and in the papers about the attack at LAX? I would say they must be doing a poor job of covering it up.

There seems to be a lack of preciseness in language around here lately. When the government is talking about terrorism and terroists they are not talking about long wingnuts who might be copy cats but the real thing that is part of an organized effort to cause harm to our country. The lone screwballs that go postal are always going to be with us and there is nothing that the government can do to prevent them from doing harm if they are willing to die in the process.

The FBI is still investigating this case and they say it may turn out to be terrorism. Based upon whats made it into the Press, there are no known links to any terrorist group, the guy was NOT on a watch list, there are a lot of contradictory claims that need to be investigated before one can make a snap judgement like those here on FR feel so free to do.

What would the FBI lose by calling this terrorism? To me it would seem that they and the government would benefit by calling it terrorism. If in the nine months following 9/11 all the "terrorists" can manage to accomplish is to kill off two Israelis at an International terminal, that is likely to make the US public less fearful of the terrorists, not more. If attacking El-Al is the new M.O., then just avoid El-Al and Temples and you can breath easily.

[McGavin999]

Because we don't want the word "Terrorist" to be used for every single crime that comes down the pike. If this guy went out and killed a bunch of people because he hates Jews, that doesn't automatically make him a terrorist. It does make him a vile murderer.

Let's not lose site of what we're into here. We're out to find the groups who encourage these things, finance them, and organize them. Some dumb bigot who goes out on his own is NOT a terrorist. If we allow this word to be misused, we've lost the war. BEWARE the misuse of the language.

[asneditor]

It could be that the FBI is fulla dumb*****!