three terrorists were arrested today at jfk and they were planning to blow up a fuelline that ran through nyc to jfk

6/2/2007 12:36:14 PM

what?

6/2/2007 12:50:41 PM

they were gonna blow up nyc via a fuelline running underground to the airport

6/2/2007 12:52:31 PM

would that, indeed, have blown up all of New York City?

I don't follow.

6/2/2007 12:53:59 PM

no but the explosion of the pipeline wouldve caused fires in the vast residential area near jfk that it runs through.

6/2/2007 1:21:25 PM

its not "funny how they do that"

if they didn't postpone the arrests until the last safe possible moment, they would be derelict in their duty.

6/2/2007 1:31:25 PM

if they didn't fake grand-slam/close call to catostrophe arrests they would be derilict in their duties

6/2/2007 1:34:20 PM

lies......they were just in the planning stage......not about to do anything....the articles clearly state that....

thus why they were arrested overseas....durrrrr(they had gone there to figure out what to do based on there pics and videos)



[Edited on June 2, 2007 at 1:47 PM. Reason : w]

6/2/2007 1:46:05 PM

you're right - they have no interest in finding out as many connections and associates as they can before they move in

the entire gov. is out to git u

6/2/2007 1:46:26 PM

Quote :

"lies......they were just in the planning stage......not about to do anything....the articles clearly state that...."

heres what i said

Quote :

"they were planning to blow "

read mutha fucka

6/2/2007 1:48:49 PM

Read your thread title and tell me that you wouldnt assume that the OP was misrepresenting what was clearly stated in all of the articles. Sure, you used the term 'planning' but you also used the phrase 'last second'

6/2/2007 1:58:51 PM

Do you also expect police to catch bank robbers before the heist?

6/2/2007 2:00:17 PM

Quote :

"you're right - they have no interest in finding out as many connections and associates as they can before they move in"

6/2/2007 3:51:03 PM

i think its more like this:

Quote :

"Four Muslims sitting around at a coffeehouse. Muslim 1: man, i hate freedom. Muslim 2: yeah, me too. but what can you do? Muslim 3: I dunno. maybe we could blow up JFK airport. i read theres like this huge fuel line that runs to it under the city. wouldnt it be cool if that all went "boom" too! Muslim 4: yainorite. Hey, we'd be able to go drink beer at some titty bars before we did it too. Now would that be cool or what? Muslim 1: Word. Tittys and Beer. Muslim 2: No way. my cousin's an Imam in Philly. He says thats not true. Muslim 4: Bullshit. those guys who bombed the Towers did it. Muslim 2: what do you know, bitch? I'll send him an email tonight and ask him. NEWSFLASH: officials broke up terrorist ring plotting to blow up JFK and the underground jet fuel line. Homeland Security calls this a "major blow" to domestic terror cells operating in the US. President Bush says "heckuva job, Cherty. Heckuva job."

[Edited on June 2, 2007 at 6:13 PM. Reason : ]

6/2/2007 6:10:43 PM

another double standard:

somebody shoots up a post office/school/office/wherever...some media says "this person listened to violent rock/rap and played violent video games"...rational people say "come on, video games dont make you kill people"

somebody literally plots to kill people...people dismiss it as "oh they probably saw a movie and were like 'hey lets rob this bank'"...people dismiss it as nothing serious

you cant have it both ways people...well actually you can, as thats completely necessary in order to have double standards

6/2/2007 6:41:00 PM

I guess we're lucky they didn't have tuberculoisis, they would've gone right through.

6/2/2007 10:32:55 PM

^^ wtf are you talking about?

^ heh

6/2/2007 11:59:42 PM

^im not surprised that you cant understand the most simple things

6/3/2007 3:40:15 AM

no, youre right. i dont really understand the incoherent mumblings of stoned retard.

sorry.

6/3/2007 6:06:51 AM

"i call people names like a little bitch once they call me out for not knowing anything at all except what time the next soundgarden concert is...as an old man environazi from seattle i like to think i know everything since i'm so damn old! i pretty much know everything there is to know even though i'm just a deranged old man posting on a college messageboard since at 3am pacific time where i am, im not satisfying my wife or taking care of my kid, i'm arguing with a "stoned retard" on a messageboard...even though my entire faggot city of seattle is stoned retards, i like to chat on the internet cause i'm an old bald man on a college messageboard"

- joe_homo

*awaits another mindless old man faggot rant from seattle where the hippies all supersaturate the entire atmosphere with weed smoke so even the old men who rely on college messageboards stay stoned and stuck on stupid*

6/3/2007 7:03:44 AM

yeah and i was a bald old faggoty college student a few years ago, too. but im too bald, old, and faggotty to argue with you any more. also, ive got a wicked contact high from the morning Seattle breeze, so i couldnt come up wth a retort if i wanted to.

anyhow.

it would be kind of neat if the Govt ever actually caught some "terrorists" who actually possessed some sort of weapons/explosive/skills who might have actually posed a threat.

instead all they seem to get is old men who talk about hating freedom, but have no weapons or skills and theiir knowledge of the area and its security is 10+ years out of date.

that or ghetto kids from Miami who dream about becoming terrorists and blow up Chicago, so they solicit undercover narcs for money so they can buy "uniforms, walkie talkies, and a pimped out terrorist ride"

i dont know which is funnier. the fact that this happens, or that its reported by the "liberal media" as a "major blow against domestic terror"

i feel safer already

6/3/2007 3:02:54 PM

i feel safer because we havent been attacked in the US since 9/11...that seems fairly convincing

you may be more convinced that the US has no enemies and that no other terrorist attacks are even possible in the US and that anytime one of these suspects is arrested, its probably just a political ploy

6/3/2007 3:06:15 PM

until GWB showed up, we hadnt had a foriegn attack causing massive loss of life and property damage since...

oh, the Japanese Empire aligned with the Nazis on FDR's watch, 'round about 1941.




[Edited on June 3, 2007 at 3:26 PM. Reason : ]

6/3/2007 3:24:37 PM

yeah i also choose to not remember when the WTC was attacked in 1993...thats not convenient for my argument

6/3/2007 3:26:55 PM

Quote :

"foriegn attack causing massive loss of life and property damage"

6/3/2007 3:30:30 PM

ah ok

so the half dozen lives in WTC in 1993 under Clinton werent "massive enough losses of lives or property damage" for you

i guess the 150+ people and destroyed building in Oklahoma City when Clinton was in office werent "foreign" enough for you

bombing AMERICAN embassies in Kenya and Tanzania and killing 200+ and injuring thousands wasnt close enough to american soil for you even though Clinton was in office

the sailors lives on the USS Cole under Clinton's presidency probably again werent close enough to home for those to matter for your criteria

but please, just blame it on bush and act like before 2000 the whole world loved us and come january 09 (assuming a dem wins) the rest of the world will all love us again

6/3/2007 3:42:43 PM

Quote :

"i guess the 150+ people and destroyed building in Oklahoma City when Clinton was in office werent "foreign" enough for you "

I dont feel like going back and reading but I think Joe_schmoe said attacks by foreign actors, Oklahoma City was domestic terrorism by backwoods militia types that simply hated the GOVERNMENT. Where as now it seems like we are on a crusade against islam and arabs as a whole in our War on Terror.

Anyway, I believe while these guys could have been a threat, I dont know that releasing this to the public is anything more than a political ploy. Just like the guys from Miami the other year that were just having talks of their wishful thinking about blowing up the sears tower. Those guys had no laid out plans, no means of doing anything, and basically were just a bunch of dumbasses that talked a little too loud. Yet, the feds bust them (this part I understand, don't get me wrong) then put out this HUGE press release (because you know they dont release info in 99% of terrorism cases they investigate and possibly make arrests in) that they had "foiled a serious terrorist attack against the united states". You cant tell me that releasing this to the press was anything more than a desperate attempt to boost presidential approval ratings, and make it look like all this money we've wasted on preventing terrorism in the past 6 years has actually done a lot of good, and possibly strengthen the GOP in voters eyes.

This JFK thing is probably the exact same shit.

And I'm not trying to say "Bush is the only president to do this kind of thing" because I know he's not, so don't try and push that shit against me.

6/3/2007 5:55:19 PM

'last second' ?

they were caught in the planning stages... not the '24 jack baur shoots them dead seconds from the trigger'


if you're gonna troll at least try to mask it some

6/4/2007 10:20:51 AM

if they had caught the 9/11 hijackers a week before 9/11 and prevented the attack, you'd have plenty of ignorant idiots who would try to say it was some fake staged political maneuver since terrorism is created by haliburton

6/4/2007 10:24:22 AM

Quote :

"i feel safer because we havent been attacked in the US since 9/11...that seems fairly convincing"

How does one actually feel safer, for not being attacked? Statistically speaking, with the idea that we'll never ever eliminate terrorism, if another attack is inevitable, then as time goes on, the likelihood of an attack gets higher and higher. If another attack is not inevitable (which you seem to imply) then you just feel safe.

You can either feel safe, or not safe. But to feel safer and safer, to me seems like a warped and misunderstood sense of reality, which is what the neoclowns want. Congrats, you have bought the FNC kool aid and it must taste good!

6/4/2007 11:13:32 AM

Im pretty glad the govt is seemingly catching alot more of these. I think another attack that gets through security is bound to happen, but we should applaud all those involved that have stopped many attacks.

Or you can just choose to be critical of anything the govt does, even when they get it right.

6/4/2007 11:24:28 AM

Quote :

"until GWB showed up, we hadnt had a foriegn attack causing massive loss of life and property damage "

The guy hatched this plan back in the 90's, just FYI. I'm sorry that doesn't fit in with your plan to blame GWB.

[Edited on June 4, 2007 at 11:33 AM. Reason : 2]

6/4/2007 11:32:20 AM

ooh! can we talk about civil liberties being trampled on a daily basis too? or how about the increased powers we've given to the FBI and the like so that they can more easily trample on our rights!??!

6/4/2007 11:33:35 AM

Quote :

"The guy hatched this plan back in the 90's, just FYI. I'm sorry that doesn't fit in with your plan to blame GWB."

What does when the planning started have to do with who was president when the plan was allowed to be carried out to completion?

6/4/2007 11:51:56 AM

^

The point is that the earlier argument attempted to say "George Bush shows up and BOOM we have terrorists trying to kill us".


Bush was in office for what...eight months? Planning for 9/11 had been going on for at least 8 years. Clinton's admin missed signs too or didn't do enough to discourage terrorism. Both share responsibility according to the 9/11 commission.

6/4/2007 11:56:09 AM

Yea, but the signs about imminent attack were probably the signs the should have been paid attention to real closely, and they weren't.

No one is saying all the blame is with Bush...well, maybe some folks are saying that.

6/4/2007 12:07:00 PM

Quote :

"Clinton's admin missed signs too or didn't do enough to discourage terrorism. Both share responsibility according to the 9/11 commission."

Obviously, componets of his administration could have performed better, like the FBI, CIA; same as in the Bush administration.

If I remember correctly though, after the embassy bombings, Clinton actually launched strikes on al qaeda targets, launching cruise missiles into afghanistan at the location where Bin Laden was for a period of time. I much prefer this to the beating around the bush we've done in our "war on terror" currently. Hell, when was the last time you even heard anything about Bin Laden. You cant tell me Bush is serious about terror when he doesnt even give a fuck about finding the guy who provoked the war on terror in the first place. All of those resources wasted in Iraq would be much better suited in Afghanistan actually looking for bin laden.

6/4/2007 3:02:44 PM

iirc, clinton had the chance to kill bin laden but chose not to

6/4/2007 3:04:17 PM

That was a rumor going around, but from what I recall he launched cruise missiles into afghanistan at the location where bin laden was supposed to be but he had already moved. I would be curious to see a source saying which one is correct.

Either way, Bush hasnt even had the chance to kill him because he doesn't seem to care enough to find him.

6/4/2007 3:27:50 PM

yeah i'm sure he's real easy to find

6/4/2007 3:32:59 PM

Hey, don't say Bush isn't trying hard to catch bin laden, he has gone to extreme effort to pay Pakistan the money they need to find him for us

http://www.crooksandliars.com/Media/Download/17567/1/Countdown-Pakistan-Outsourcing.wmv

and hey, no need for oversight, they are probably doing exactly what we expect with that money.

6/4/2007 4:09:04 PM

Quote :

"On Monday, NY Mayor Bloomberg finally weighed in (on the airport attack), but his response was not what some would have expected. "There are lots of threats to you in the world. There's the threat of a heart attack for genetic reasons. You can't sit there and worry about everything. Get a life," he said. "

Rhino mayor Bloomberg displays the liberal mindset on islamic terrorism... Don't worry Be Happy.


"You can't sit there and worry about everything. Get a life"

6/5/2007 12:14:11 PM

Quote :

"if they didn't fake grand-slam/close call to catostrophe arrests they would be derilict in their duties"

Oh give me a break. Ever think they might want to wait until the end to get more people involved other than the low-level idiot who leaked the info in the first place? When they plan stings on drug-deals they don't raid their house and say look I found a couple joints, they wait until a major deal goes down and catch them in the act.

Sure you aren't a salisburyboy alias?

6/5/2007 1:04:17 PM

Quote :

"That was a rumor going around, but from what I recall he launched cruise missiles into afghanistan at the location where bin laden was supposed to be but he had already moved. I would be curious to see a source saying which one is correct"

I'm pretty sure that was not a rumor. He was arrested in the Sudan and had a choice to make, and did nothing.

6/5/2007 1:50:06 PM

link please.

and no Newsmax either, thanks.

6/6/2007 2:37:39 AM

yeah, i mean you ^^

6/7/2007 3:49:30 AM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A61251-2001Oct2

6/7/2007 1:44:00 PM

wait is the Washington Post known as a liberal or conservative newspaper? Because obviously that will affect the reponses that that article gets

6/7/2007 2:07:01 PM

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-ushype0606,0,6561947.story?coll=ny-top-headlines

Quote :

"When U.S. Attorney Roslynn Mauskopf described the alleged terror plot to blow up Kennedy Airport as "one of the most chilling plots imaginable," which might have caused "unthinkable" devastation, one law enforcement official said he cringed. The plot, he knew, was never operational. The public had never been at risk. And the notion of blowing up the airport, let alone the borough of Queens, by exploding a fuel tank was in all likelihood a technical impossibility. And now, with a portrait emerging of alleged mastermind Russell Defreitas as hapless and episodically homeless, and of co-conspirator Abdel Nur as a drug addict, Mauskopf's initial characterizations seem more questionable -- some go so far as to say hyped. ... Michael Greenberger, director of the Center for Health and Homeland Security at the University of Maryland [said] "I think they were correct to take this seriously," he said. "... But there's a pattern here of Justice Department attorneys overstating what they have. I think they feel under tremendous pressure to vindicate the elaborate counterterrorism structure they've created since 9/11, including the Patriot Act." "

There's a video of the guy's family commenting on the issue there too.

^ That information aligns with the 9/11 Commission report, IIRC, which was a bipartisan group.

[Edited on June 7, 2007 at 2:09 PM. Reason : ]

6/7/2007 2:08:38 PM

Funny how The New York Times buried the JFK terrorist plot story on page A30--many readers were outraged. They certainly wouldn't want to help Giuliani or any other Republicans, would they?

Quote :

"In truth, the decision was widely debated even within this newsroom. At the front page meeting this morning, we took an informal poll and a few editors thought the story should have been more prominently played. Some argued it should have been fronted, regardless of the lameness of the plot, simply because it was what everyone was talking about."

Suzanne Daley, The Times's national editor

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1846343/posts



[Edited on June 7, 2007 at 3:14 PM. Reason : .]

6/7/2007 3:13:42 PM