U.S. considers failed Times Square car bomb a terrorist attack

[ZeitgeistObserver]

Cristian Salazar and Tom Hays

New York — The Associated Press
Published on Saturday, May. 01, 2010 10:32PM EDT

Last updated on Sunday, May. 02, 2010 11:33AM EDT


The United States views a car bomb that failed to go off in New York’s Times Square as a potential terrorist attack, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said Sunday.

Tipped off by a street vendor, police found an "amateurish" but potentially powerful bomb in a smoking sport-utility vehicle in Times Square, then cleared the streets of thousands of tourists milling through the landmark district so they could dismantle it.

“We’re taking this very seriously,” Napolitano told CNN’s State of the Union program. “We’re treating it as if it could be a potential terrorist attack.”

"We avoided what we could have been a very deadly event," Mayor Michael Bloomberg said. "It certainly could have exploded and had a pretty big fire and a decent amount of explosive impact."

Investigators removed three propane tanks, fireworks, two filled 5-gallon (19-litre) gasoline containers, and two clocks with batteries, electrical wire and other components from the back of the Nissan Pathfinder, Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly said. A black metal box resembling a gun locker was also recovered and will be detonated off site, he said.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/us-considers-failed-times-square-car-bomb-a-terrorist-attack/article1553799/

[Robb]

1. "Potential."

[Warren Stupidity]

2. Prediction: if the perps are rightwing teabag nutters, not terrorism.

On the other hand, if the perps are rightwing jihad nutters: terrorism.

Given that this 'car bomb' appears to have been full of Teh Stupid, I further predict that our domestic bagnuts are involved. Firecrackers?

[ZeitgeistObserver]

3. Yeah, I thought it was a little early to declare that

until we find out what their names are.

[47of74]

5. Regardless of who is involved, it's an act of terrorism

Regardless of whether it's domestic or foreign, it's an act of terrorism.

[Warren Stupidity]

6. Not as for as the Official Story is concerned.

My point was not about the definition of terrorism, it is about the way this story will be covered by our corporate media.

[ZeitgeistObserver]

7. Two different angles on it no matter what happened.

[liberal N proud]

4. Did it inflict terror?

YES! Then it must be called terrorism regardless of the perpetrator(s)

[kestrel91316]

8. An ATTEMPTED (and failed) attack.......

[ZeitgeistObserver]

9. Yes, it failed. That's a GOOD thing.

[nolabear]

10. CNN just reported the exact opposite. "Potential" is not the same as "known."

This has now been reported as amateur and not attached to any group. Please print a retraction as prominent as the original post so the false rumor doesn't become "fact".

[Bluebear]

11. Why does terrorism have to be attached to a "group" though?

If an individual or group of amateur individuals intend to terrorize, why isn't that terrorism? Serious question.

[Iggo]

12. 1. as if, 2. could be, 3. potential...jeezuzaychkeeryst, just say it!

Quit dancing around it. It was an unsuccessful terrorist attack!

Are they so afraid that they can't even call it what it is? Tell me terrorism doesn't work...lol.

I'm living among cowards in Terrified America, and it's disgusting.

EDIT: Hell, maybe it was successful.