RUTHFULLY YOURS

On Christmas Day, the “BVD bomber” attempted to destroy a commercial aircraft over Detroit, Michigan, and murder approximately 300 innocent men, women and children. If not for the quick reaction of other passengers, this militant radical Islamic jihadist would have ignited his tidy-whities, leaving bits and pieces scattered across the city while those who are theoretically in charge of our homeland security and the airlines would rush to “calm” potential future passengers by claiming a faulty fuel tank or other such tired, lame excuses used before.

 

One would think that, in the years since the 9/11 attacks on the United States, we would be beyond such sophomoric reactions to terrorism and the plain-as-day scenarios being played out before our very eyes. Yet, Washington cannot make the all-important decision – are we at war and will treat terrorism as an act of war, taking preemptive actions or is each and every terrorist attempt an isolated criminal act, equating BVD bombers and flying imams with gang members hitting up the local convenience store?

 

As a private military contractor working in Iraq, I flew commercial airlines frequently around the world. Even with my Department of Defense identification, this 40ish American, with a strong south Arkansas drawl, was subject each and every time to boot removal. In one incident, I was detained for nearly two hours trying to catch my connecting flight from Detroit to Little Rock, Arkansas, due to the corner of my passport page being slightly torn. However, due to kowtowing instigated by CAIR and the fear of lawsuits and nonsensical claims of “profiling,” all one apparently has to do to be “waved through” airport security is be a young Muslim man with explosives sown in his shorts and a syringe up his rear. Allegedly, no need for a passport, either. Mohammad, Farouk or any other Middle Eastern name, regardless of its place on this watch list or that watch list will suffice, just the word of a mysterious “well-dressed man” to vouch for you.

 

We are now faced with an administration clearly unwilling or unable to deal with the looming threat of radical Islamic terrorism that has been rearing its murderous head with increasing frequency since the last election. While President, George W. Bush could have, and should have, done much more in the fight against Islamic terrorism, including investigating CAIR and other terrorist supporting organizations rather than, in the interest of “fairness” and “political correctness,” being “friends” with them, inviting them to become part of the solution when, in fact, they are a huge part of the problem.

 

The decision by Attorney General Eric Holder and his office to have a show trial for Khalid Sheik Mohammad in civilian court, just minutes from where the World Trade Center was destroyed by the very Islamic militants Mohammad assisted, is a travesty of the very “justice” to which the administration claims to want to adhere. Now, we have a lawyered-up BVD bomber who, like Mohammed, will be afforded the same rights that your local gang member would have after his arrest for knocking off the Food Mart on the corner. Is this how we fight a war, which both men are clearly a part of, based upon the known facts in the case?

 

Umar Farouk Abulmuttalab, the Detroit BVD bomber, has now been released from a local hospital and is being represented by Detroit attorney and public defender, Miriam Diefer, no stranger to representing terrorism suspects. By treating Abulmuttalab as a common criminal, he now has “the right to remain silent,” as anything he says can be used against him in a court of law. While our intelligence services lose potentially important information on further terrorist attacks and the ability to learn from Abulmuttalab to pre-empt another strike, Washington, from the administration on down, is busy trying to point fingers at this agency or that agency, as well as the dead horse of the Bush administration, totally overlooking the fact that the last year has been spent re-tooling the policies of the Bush administration. 

 

The basic facts in the case are clear – Abulmuttalab boarded an airplane in Nigeria, BVDs full of IEDs. Using cash for a one way ticket and no luggage to check, his name on a “watch list” (although not the “right” watch list) and, if rumors are correct, no passport, he was allowed to board a flight to the United States. His choice of seat was no accident, requesting a spot directly over the fuel tank. An explosion above the fuel tank would be easy for even Janet Napolitano to “explain” without having to admit the act was Islamic terrorism. 

 

With several witnesses surrounding him, Abulmuttalab attempts to ignite his IED in his BVDs, but the attempt was thwarted by a quick thinking passenger. What should be a cut-and-dried act of war (we are currently at war with radical Islam) has now become yet another circus of this motion and that motion, possible profiling lawsuits against the airline for arresting a Muslim, possible assault charges brought against the courageous passenger who thwarted the attack, although he saved hundreds of lives. As we know with previous cases such at the Flying Imams, the American government and the airlines have become the poster children for Islamic appeasement.  

 

The underlying question remains – will we begin to treat these acts of Islamic terrorism, whether it be “dry runs” or detonation of a BVD IED, as acts of war or will we continue to play into the plan of CAIR, al Qaeda and other such groups and allow the abuse of our civilian court system, a system set up for the common American criminal, not a radical terrorist?  

 

After reading and studying the facts in the case of Umar Farouk Abulmuttalab, as well as the continuing list of dry runs, I have come to one conclusion within my ongoing investigation. Political correctness and appeasement, not the individual act of radical Islamic terrorism, will be the cause of death for countless innocent men, women and children across the globe.  

 

(Disclaimer: FamilySecurityMatters.org and The Taylor Company are aware that the authorities have neither confirmed nor denied the brand of the underwear as BVD brand.)