Authorities Foil Terror Plot at JFK Airport

[Brando @$$ Fat]

http://www.comcast.net/news/index.jsp?cat=GENERAL&fn=/2007/06/02/679149.html&cvqh=itn_terrorplot


4 Charged in JFK Airport Terror Plot
By ADAM GOLDMAN, Associated Press Writer
27 minutes ago

NEW YORK - Three people were arrested and one other was being sought Saturday in connection to a plan to set off explosives in a fuel line that feeds John F. Kennedy International Airport and runs through residential neighborhoods, officials close to the investigation said.

The plot, which never got past the planning stages, did not involve airplanes or passenger terminals, according to the two officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because details of the arrests had not yet been announced.

Details were to be given out at a 1 p.m. news conference.

The pipeline takes fuel from a facility in Linden, N.J., to the airport. Other lines service LaGuardia Airport and Newark Liberty International Airport.

The arrests mark the latest in a series of alleged homegrown terrorism plots targeting high-profile American landmarks.

A year ago, seven men were arrested in what officials called the early stages of a plot to blow up the Sears Tower in Chicago and destroy FBI offices and other buildings.

A month later, authorities broke up a plot to bomb underwater New York City train tunnels to flood lower Manhattan.

And six people were arrested a month ago in an alleged plot to unleash a bloody rampage on Fort Dix in New Jersey.

______________________________


Damn, I guess we'll never know how close we come....

[Lynn7]

Yeah the article I read said they are targetting the beloved name of Kennedy and they are also trying to disrupt our economy again. Glad they caught these guys. I guess it's just a matter of time.

[bigred760]

It's scary to think that these guys weren't even linked to al Qaeda; though whether or not they were part of some kind of Islamic militant group is still up in the air.

[electriclite]

Terrorisim seems to be evolving at an alarming rate. Most of these cells are operating sans a high profile group like Al Qaeda. They're forming completely independently and carrying out ideas and plans all of their own making. The same thing happened with the terror suspects in Canada and the subway bombers in London.

It'll be quite a daunting task trying to weed out this relatively new class of independent terrorists.

[Brando @$$ Fat]

The most shocking thing about this is that one of them was a former Parliament member from Guyana. It's gotten to the point where the terrorists aren't just a bunch of crazies, but well educated people with good reputations as well.

[MadsenOMC]

Originally posted by Brando @$$ Fat
It's gotten to the point where the terrorists aren't just a bunch of crazies, but well educated people with good reputations as well.

The result of our disastrous "war on terror" of the last four+ years. We have created more terrorists than we've defeated or killed or however you want to put it, and worldwide acts of terrorism have skyrockteted. I just heard on the radio today that the man responsible for selling our foreign policy globally quit out of frustration, saying that "they" hate us more than ever before.

[The Postmaster General]

Plus, I think there is a surge because of how we redefined the term "terrorism" as per the new laws and homeland security. I think by today's standards, the Columbine massacre would technically be considered a terrorist act.

[Cyclonus]

It seems that way. I just hope that the working definition of "terrorism" doesn't end up including legitimate political dissenters.

[MadsenOMC]

Originally posted by Cyclonus
It seems that way. I just hope that the working definition of "terrorism" doesn't end up including legitimate political dissenters.

Sadly we may be headed in that direction. Did you read about how prior to the Republican National Convention in 2004, the NYPD kept close tabs on people who planned to protest?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/25/nyregion/25infiltrate.html?ei=5090&en=b3a5c0cbb8a69e66&ex=1332475200&adxnnl=1&partner=rssuse

[Vong]

And there was much rejoicing...

yay...

[Lynn7]

We haven't had a terror attack in 5 1/2 years but now that the media and the Amreican people are always criticizing the US government and never the terrorists, they have gained confidence. They see themselves as winning the war! It excites them to try to collapse our government.

[Brando @$$ Fat]

Originally posted by Lynn7
We haven't had a terror attack in 5 1/2 years but now that the media and the Amreican people are always criticizing the US government and never the terrorists, they have gained confidence. They see themselves as winning the war! It excites them to try to collapse our government.



Are you even attacking the left anymore or just anyone else who disagrees? I've said on a number of ocassions that it's beyond pointless to criticize terrorists because it should be ASSUMED that we don't like them. Do you know anyone who goes around saying the Holocaust was bad? It's beyond redundant. Yet you constantly ignore this because it contradicts your argument.

Exercising First Amendment rights is the reason why terrorists are so much stronger? The fact that we haven't had a terror attack in 5 1/2 years should be NORMAL. Although, to be honest I think the Virginia Tech shootings should count, simply because terror attacks don't always have to be conducted by muslims.

One thing I want you to answer is do you think it's acceptable that Bush said bin Laden isn't a priority? Don't you think it aids terrorists when we avoid bringing the man who killed over a thousand people of our own people to justice?

You must have read a different Constitution than I did. I won't get into any more detail, because I think Teddy Roosevelt said it best:

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president... is morally treasonable to the American public."

[The Postmaster General]

Originally posted by Lynn7
We haven't had a terror attack in 5 1/2 years...


And we had an average of how many terrorist attacks per year?

Don't even start on the USS Cole, and embassies, because if you are going to include terrorist attacks that take place outside our borders and against political and military targets, you really should include the terrorist attacks that take place EVERY SINGLE DAY IN IRAQ AND TAKE THE LIVES OF US SOLDIERS.

So, yeah, if we go another 3 years, we'll have gone as long between terrorist attacks as we did prior to 9/11. Then we'll start sucking each other off, instead of blowing smoke up each other.

[electriclite]

Originally posted by Lynn7
We haven't had a terror attack in 5 1/2 years but now that the media and the Amreican people are always criticizing the US government and never the terrorists, they have gained confidence. They see themselves as winning the war! It excites them to try to collapse our government.


Yeah and before 9/11 we went 8 years without a terrorist attack. What were the American people and media doing then that brought that attack about?


And so long as this country is still called The United States of America and not Stalinist Russia, people are going to continue to have the privilege of having an opinion about their government. Because once upon a time the Republican motto was "Don't trust the governemnt", before this administration turned it into "Don't question us".

I like to keep some traditions alive.

I'm sure if a Dem is president you'll be holding your tongue and praising all their plans against terrorism for the sake of our country's National Security now won't you?

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by Brando @$$ Fat
Are you even attacking the left anymore or just anyone else who disagrees? I've said on a number of ocassions that it's beyond pointless to criticize terrorists because it should be ASSUMED that we don't like them. Do you know anyone who goes around saying the Holocaust was bad? It's beyond redundant. Yet you constantly ignore this because it contradicts your argument.

Exercising First Amendment rights is the reason why terrorists are so much stronger? The fact that we haven't had a terror attack in 5 1/2 years should be NORMAL. Although, to be honest I think the Virginia Tech shootings should count, simply because terror attacks don't always have to be conducted by muslims.

One thing I want you to answer is do you think it's acceptable that Bush said bin Laden isn't a priority? Don't you think it aids terrorists when we avoid bringing the man who killed over a thousand people of our own people to justice?

You must have read a different Constitution than I did. I won't get into any more detail, because I think Teddy Roosevelt said it best:

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president... is morally treasonable to the American public."

I am attacking a culture that refuses to label things correctly. Today, a radio guy I listen to from Boston was saying how in the New York Times, the story about the terrorists in NY plot was featured on page 30, while there was a story about the Cuban US prison on page 1. And then the story about these terrorists went on to say how one of these terrorists loves to listen to Jazz, especially saxophone and how his neighbors say he seems nice but maybe not too bright. Humanizing of a man who wants to kill more people than who were killed on 9-11. Brutal, painful, gruesome killings of innocents and yet whitewashed by a premier US newspaper! It is NEVER beyond pointless to criticize terrorists.

If I beleived for one minute that President Bush did not consider catching Bin LAden a priority then I would be furious! Has he ever said he told anyone to stop hunting for him? Did he ever say that he has cut back on people looking for him? No. He was making a point that this is a movement that goes beyond Bin Laden. If he is caught and killed there will be another to take his place. Bin Laden's capture will not end Al Qeada or the Islamo fascist movement. You know that and so does everyone else. That statement is an excuse to bash President Bush on a sentence that was deliberately misunderstood- gotcha!

I have never said we cannot criticize presdient Bush. I just want the criticism to have some merit- calling him a murderer is not constructive or truthful. Murderers deliberately set out to kill innocents. Terrorists are murderers.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by electriclite
Yeah and before 9/11 we went 8 years without a terrorist attack. What were the American people and media doing then that brought that attack about?


And so long as this country is still called The United States of America and not Stalinist Russia, people are going to continue to have the privilege of having an opinion about their government. Because once upon a time the Republican motto was "Don't trust the governemnt", before this administration turned it into "Don't question us".

I like to keep some traditions alive.

I'm sure if a Dem is president you'll be holding your tongue and praising all their plans against terrorism for the sake of our country's National Security now won't you?

The terror attacks against the US were off our soil but were happening.

No one has ever said not to question this goverment. When President Bush has faced boos and jeers he has said that is democracy and a good thing. I have heard him say it many times. He also has said that is what we have been seeing in Iraq- the beginning of the people's abilities to express dissenting opionions and they won't be killed for it.

I cna't see that I would be praising their plans against terrorism cause it seems like they want to appease the terrorists. We'll just play nice and you will like us and stop trying to hurt us. Clinton really wants to increase our diplomacy. Yeah, that will help. Sure. Diplomacy always stops raving lunatics.

I do beleive in national security and I hope the country will wake up and see that certain steps have to be taken. One is that we need to have a team spirit. United we stand and divided we fall. This is the fight for our country's very survival not a petty political power play. People just don't get it.

[electriclite]

Originally posted by Lynn7
The terror attacks against the US were off our soil but were happening.

I was referring to the FIRST bombing of the World Trade Center. As I recall, that was a terrorist act.

Originally posted by Lynn7
No one has ever said not to question this goverment. When President Bush has faced boos and jeers he has said that is democracy and a good thing. I have heard him say it many times. He also has said that is what we have been seeing in Iraq- the beginning of the people's abilities to express dissenting opionions and they won't be killed for it.

Yeah, and I've seen news footage, straight from the mouths of people in the government where they've completely contradicted that sentiment.

Originally posted by Lynn7
I cna't see that I would be praising their plans against terrorism cause it seems like they want to appease the terrorists. We'll just play nice and you will like us and stop trying to hurt us. Clinton really wants to increase our diplomacy. Yeah, that will help. Sure. Diplomacy always stops raving lunatics.

Hillary is a two-faced, opportunist. You can actually find LIBERAL articles bashing her and calling her a warhawk, which would explain why she has YET to call her vote for the Iraq war a mistake. She's even been quoted in the past as saying she'd go to war with Iran!

Originally posted by Lynn7
I do beleive in national security and I hope the country will wake up and see that certain steps have to be taken. One is that we need to have a team spirit. United we stand and divided we fall. This is the fight for our country's very survival not a petty political power play. People just don't get it.


Yeah well a team is only as good as the coach who motivates them. And if you haven't noticed, our coach has bad motivational skills.

[Brando @$$ Fat]

Originally posted by Lynn7
Yeah, that will help. Sure. Diplomacy always stops raving lunatics.


It depends on what kind of raving lunatic you're talking about. I think most dictators can be handled with. Saddam Hussein, although he was uncoopertive with the U.N. weapons inspectors, wasn't completely irrational when it came to looking for diplomatic solutions. Our diplomacy with Josef Stalin and the Soviet Union may have been what prevented him from conquering the rest of Europe, because many of our allies were there as well. Hell, Stalin could've done it. He was an evil sociopath, but what could we really have done there? Gone to war? Right after WWII? We can't attack every country that has crooked leaders.

Besides, America isn't totally innocent when it comes to insane dictators. Just look at Chile and El Salvador.

Just look at Vladamir Putin. He was a close ally of ours not too long ago, and now there's a lot of serious talk between our two nations that hasn't been seen since the Cold War. These are the kind of people running this country. When it comes to diplomacy our leaders are so incompetant it's pathetic. Clinton saying she wants to expand diplomacy is like me saying the desert needs more water.

Looking back at the last 5 presidents, they have all been exponentially better not only in terms of diplomacy but foreign policy as well. Nixon's detente with the Soviet Union would have been dismissed by Bush's people as weak foreign policy, which to me is extremely saddening. Yes, the terrorists are awful and I hope we succeed in eliminating them all, but that has nothing to do with how horrible the current administration has been in foreign affairs. I do think Carter was right before he apologied for what he said and rephrased it.