home

News Conference: JFK Alleged Terror Plot Busted

By Jeralyn, Section War on Terror
Posted on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 12:27:52 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Update: DOJ press release here. The criminal complaint is here.

****

An FBI - Joint Terrorism Task Force news conference will be underway within minutes.

Three people have been arrested, including a U.S. citizen in connection with an alleged terror plot at JFK airport. Another of those arrested served in the Guyana Parliament. A fourth suspect is being sought.

This was a long-term investigation. The suspects allegedly targeted the infrastructure around the airport (fuel tanks and gas pipe lines), not airplanes.

The plan was aspirational, not operational. It was a preventive bust. It appears the group tried to recruit an FBI agent.

Russell Defreitas, the airport worker, will be arraigned this afternoon. The FBI has released wiretaps to the media.

Here's the main conversation the media is focusing on:

In a recorded conversation following one of the surveillance missions, Defreitas allegedly predicted that the attack would result in the destruction of the “whole of Kennedy.” "Anytime you hit Kennedy, it is the most hurtful thing to the United States,” allegedly said Defreitas in a recorded conversation. “To hit John F Kennedy, wow, they love John F Kennedy. Like, he's the man. If you hit that, this whole country will be in mourning. It’s like you can kill the man twice."

There's no evidence they are tied to al-Qaida, although they are believed to be tapping into a network of muslim extremists from Guyana and Trinidad and Tobago.

< The Bad And Better Joe Klein | Steve Gilliard, RIP >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    News Conference: JFK Alleged Terror Plot Busted | 109 comments (109 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Yep (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by rdandrea on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 03:06:42 PM EST
    Libby sentencing this week, time for a terror bust.

    dueling quotes (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by Sailor on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 05:50:26 PM EST
    But a spokesman for Buckeye Partners, the company that operates the pipeline, said that an explosion at a fuel-tank farm at the airport would not ignite the pipeline.

    "It's not like the pipeline is a stick of dynamite and the whole thing would blow up," said Roy Haase, the Buckeye spokesman. "Pipelines don't blow up."

    And the fibbies:
    "The devastation that would be caused had this plot succeeded is just unthinkable," Ms. Mauskopf said.


    Sailor (1.00 / 1) (#4)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 06:01:45 PM EST
    No, they just catch fire and burn like crazy....

    Then there is those fuel tank farms...

    Sailor.

    Tell me true.

    Why do you try and defend these nut jobs who want, however stupidly, to harm the US??

    Honest to God, I just can not understand.

    No one has made these people do what they have done.

    Yet they seem determined to believe the trash being preached by some Imams, and act on it.

    Link

    Link

    Link

    Link

    [ Parent ]

    I've never seen Sailor (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Edger on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 06:05:30 PM EST
    defend "these nut jobs who want, however stupidly, to harm the US??"

    But you defend them every day, jim....

    [ Parent ]

    edger (1.00 / 1) (#7)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 06:15:05 PM EST
    Your comment was so.... well... over the top I was tempted to just note "yadda yadda" and move on.

    But, if Sailor's comments aren't a defense, what are they??

    [ Parent ]

    I was talking about you (none / 0) (#8)
    by Edger on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 06:28:00 PM EST
    Sailor doesn't defend wackjobs who want to harm his country.

    Why do you?

    [ Parent ]

    Edger (none / 0) (#14)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 07:46:31 PM EST
    Why does Sailor post a comment claiming the damage wouldn't really be caused by an explosion??

    What does that do???

    [ Parent ]

    why does anyone (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by Jen M on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 09:57:56 PM EST
    state facts

    [ Parent ]
    Edger (none / 0) (#16)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 07:51:04 PM EST
    Isn't that the old "wouldn't have amounted to much" defense???

    [ Parent ]
    No, jim. It was a question for you. (none / 0) (#54)
    by Edger on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 11:54:28 AM EST
    Sailor doesn't defend wackjobs who want to harm his country.

    Why do you?

    [ Parent ]

    When I was a kid there was a (none / 0) (#20)
    by JSN on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 10:41:58 PM EST
    large fire at a large tank farm in Indiana where the fire spread and it took a long time for the fire to be contained. They learned a lot from that fire and I doubt a fire would spread in a well designed tank farm today.

    We had a tank that was overfilled so the was a large pool of gasoline in the surrounding moat. The gasoline caught fire but the tank did not burn or explode even though it was very hot because there was a pressure relief valve that vented the tank.

    No doubt that Kennedy would be closed if there was a fire at the tank farm but it probably  would reopen very quickly once the fire was out. As soon as the fire started at the tank farm the pipeline would be shut down very quickly. If the pipeline were bombed it would be shut down and the fire would be over as soon a the available fuel was burned. I suspect the pipeline would be repaired and returned to service very quickly.

    I think a hurricane or a big blizzard is a greater threat to Kennedy than a fire at the tank farm.

    [ Parent ]

    JSN (none / 0) (#26)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 08:37:27 AM EST
    So, a fire that you opine wouldn't shut down JFK very long isn't a very big deal?

    Why the guys were just kidding around, eh?

    [ Parent ]

    BTW (1.00 / 1) (#28)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 09:00:51 AM EST
    Do you understand that if you screw up the fuel farm, then this will screw up how the aircraft are fueled, which means the airport, at best, could be at greatly reduced  capaity for months.

    Do you understand what that would cost the travel industry???

    [ Parent ]

    For tank farm fires in the past ten years they (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by JSN on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 11:35:13 AM EST
    rerouted the fuel distribution system around the tank fire and the impact on fuel distribution was minimal. Most of the fires were put out in less that 12 hours (in several cases they were able to pump fuel out of the tank while the fire was burning). However there was a big explosion and fire in the UK that took about 2 to three days to put out but even in that case the disruption was confined to the local area and was temporary.

    In other words I don't think JFK is operated by a bunch of dolts.

    [ Parent ]

    JSN (none / 0) (#66)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 01:01:26 PM EST
    And SFO was back in operation the next day after the  last big quake..

    What does that have to do with your seeming dsire to mount a defense for the JFK 4??

    BTW - You comment is based on a:

    1. The attack being on the spot that would allow the cut offs to work.

    2. The cutoffs working.

    3. Damage being contained and small enough that enough storage space would survibe and be available to hold enough fuel for normal operation.

    4. None of the damage would harm other infrastructure required for normal operation.

    5. Only one bomb would be used. None against the tanks themselves.

    6. In case of multiple fires access would be available to keep the remaining tanks cool and not torching off..


    [ Parent ]
    I was defending the folks who manage JFK. (none / 0) (#74)
    by JSN on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 01:50:52 PM EST
    I never said one word about the suspects. If the informant is a credible witness and there is sufficient supporting evidence they probably will be convicted.

    [ Parent ]
    JSN (none / 0) (#76)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 02:21:38 PM EST
    The question is this.

    Why would you bring this up to defend the JFK folks?

    They haven't been arrested.

    [ Parent ]

    It seems to me (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 06:13:58 PM EST
    from reading the complaint that the reason they busted now is because in the past week or two they allegedly decided to bypass the Guyana "Jam Leader" and take the plot to associates overseas to look for funding and support.

    If you read footnote 2, the snitch is a very unclean one.  Major drug trafficking convictions, one is still pending and he's getting a deal in it for his work in this case, plus he's being paid money.

    Jeralyn (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by Sailor on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 06:56:41 PM EST
    Why do you continually let ppj make personal attacks when other commenters are just noting differing news accounts?

    [ Parent ]
    So the snitch is in it for himself. (none / 0) (#9)
    by Edger on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 06:30:42 PM EST
    He'll say anything, make up any story, and nothing he says should be assumed truthful.

    [ Parent ]
    AP has an article out (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Edger on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 07:01:10 PM EST
    published on Newsday 15 minutes ago about Russell Defreitas, one of the four arrested, that is probably one of the worst pieces of journalism I've ever seen, containing almost nothing but adolescent emotion stirring fearmongering hot button pushing unsubstantiated garbage, obviously designed to whip the peasants into a frenzy.

    The only reluctant concession to reality in the entire article is:

    Despite their "extraordinary efforts," the men never obtained any explosives, authorities said.

    "Pulling off any bombing of this magnitude would not be easy in today's environment," said Former U.S. State Department counterterrorism expert Fred Burton, though he added that it was difficult to determine the severity of the threat without knowing all the facts of the case.

    Since Defreitas had worked at JFK, security has tightened and his knowledge of the operation was severely outdated.

    I guess we're in for another round of the incompetency defense. These guys, if they exist at all, were so stupid they never would have gotten anywhere with their alleged plot.

    Like the Fort Dix "terrists" the fact that they were such idiots means they were far too stupid to put anything over on anyone as sharp as  the 26 percenters.

    So of course they were nothing to be scared of... were they? Or were they?

    Never mind... It must be time to bomb somebody for this. These guys were terrists, dadgummit!

    Somebody's gotta pay! Who's with me?

    But (none / 0) (#12)
    by Edger on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 07:29:04 PM EST
    the "plot", even though allegedly hatched by people too stupid to fool even though most dense bush supporters, did give Fox a wonderful opportunity to use the words "NYC Terror Plot" in the same article showing a boring video of planes landing at JFK.

    So even if dense bush supporters don't do the reading to find out that these guys were stupider than they are, I'm sure some of them will never see past the deceiving headline and be fooled by the convenient juxtaposition, if they can figure out what it means.

    [ Parent ]

    Edger (none / 0) (#15)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 07:48:11 PM EST
     
    These guys, if they exist at all, were so stupid they never would have gotten anywhere with their alleged plot

    If they exist at all????

    Are you claiming they don't exist????

    [ Parent ]

    The Religion of Peace (1.00 / 1) (#13)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 07:43:06 PM EST
    has strange bedfellows...

    Kadir "was arrested Friday as he was boarding a flight from Trinidad to Venezuela, where he planned to pick up a travel visa to attend an Islamic religious conference in Iran."

    Link

    Makes you wonder what the syllabus was.

    "God Hates Fags" (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Dadler on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 11:35:40 PM EST
    The Reverend Fred Phelps expressing the Christian religion of peace.

    And don't tell me many "Christians" out there don't share his hatred -- they simply won't say so in public like that nutcase does.

    One person's religion of peace is another's religion of hatred.

    It's all in the presentation.

    That said, I was in line the other day, and saw a muslim family.  Dad in shorts and flip-flops, mom and daughters covered in robes and head scarves.  Bugs me.  Bugs me greatly.  Speaks of "I own you women".  But life isn't an episode of Superman.  It just goes on.

    [ Parent ]

    Dadler (1.00 / 1) (#29)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 09:26:12 AM EST
    What does Phelps have to do with this? Perhaps you can show me differently, but none of his flock have flown airliners into buildings, tried to attack Ft Dix, set off bombs in the London Tubes, tried to blow airliners flying from London to the US, attack a US warship, attack a US embassy, etc., etc....

    That the man is a nut is true, but why bring him up?? Are you saying that because we have some nuts we should not worry about other nuts??

    You are an aspiring screen writer. Tell me. What is your motivation??

    I can tell you that it appears that your motivation is to claim equivalence between Christianity and Islam... And while Christianity does have its nuts, there is no comparsion based on the deeds and attempted deeds of radical Moslems. In fact, just by bringing the subject up you make my point.

    [ Parent ]

    The people you reference are nutjobs (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Dadler on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 12:43:07 PM EST
    The peerson I referenced was a nutjob.

    That was the point.

    You know, yesterday, my wife and I were attending our adoption class (we're in the process of adopting through the county office of health and human services), and the guy teaching the class was, guess what, an Muslim guy who came here when he was 17.

    For every example you can cite, I can cite the opposite.  With EVERY religion.

    [ Parent ]

    The Adoption Class teacher (none / 0) (#65)
    by Dadler on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 12:44:30 PM EST
    I should add he came here from IRAN when he was 17.  

    [ Parent ]
    Dadler (none / 0) (#67)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 01:03:41 PM EST
    Puleaseeeeeeeeeee

    Look at the numbers and open your eyes.

    [ Parent ]

    Try to supply some numbers (none / 0) (#68)
    by Edger on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 01:07:18 PM EST
    and facts to back up your case, jim. You can't, or you would be trying.

    [ Parent ]
    edger (none / 0) (#70)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 01:19:03 PM EST
    I also don't need links to show that the sun comes up every morning.

    But just for you..

    I note that the attack on the El Al ticket counter at LAX is not, included, or killings in Seattle... also not shown are the attacks blocked.... the planned attack on LAX... JFK...Ft Dix

    Also not shown are the attacks on non-US citizens and places.... see London Tube... see Airliners bound from London...See Amsterdam killing... etc....

    [ Parent ]

    Repeating your spin doesn't work, jim. (none / 0) (#72)
    by Edger on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 01:33:01 PM EST
    Your claim was that while Christianity does have its nuts, there is no comparsion based on the deeds and attempted deeds of radical Moslems.

    History, factual comparisons, statistical data, body counts, and numbers, jim.

    IOW, supply the numbers that you ask people to look at.

    You're making the charge - it's up to you to supply the evidence.

    So far, you've got nothing in your hand.

    Lay it on the table, and we'll help you dissect it.

    [ Parent ]

    edger (none / 0) (#77)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 02:25:00 PM EST
    Run your parsing someplace else edger.

    The issue at hand is the attacks going on NOW.

    By his attempts to defend he shall be known.

    TA Ta


    [ Parent ]

    Empty hand, huh? (none / 0) (#85)
    by Edger on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 03:12:41 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Good point, jim. (none / 0) (#53)
    by Edger on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 11:52:57 AM EST
    In the entire history of both religions Islam has always been the more peacefully oriented one. It doesn't come anywhere close to the record for encouraging violence than Christian leaders have.

    [ Parent ]
    Edger - That's just wrong. (none / 0) (#57)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 12:18:39 PM EST
    Why do you make up such things??

    Have you read no history???

    Of course you claim that the JFK 4 are "invisible."

    [ Parent ]

    Prove me wrong then. (none / 0) (#61)
    by Edger on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 12:29:35 PM EST
    You can't, or you'd be trying to.

    The only reason you're not trying to is that you know I don't say things I'm not prepared to back up.

    [ Parent ]

    edger (none / 0) (#71)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 01:28:23 PM EST
    Sure. You are the invisible man...

    [ Parent ]
    Yup (none / 0) (#30)
    by Wile ECoyote on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 09:32:55 AM EST
    and progressives burn soldiers in effigy.  Don't tell me most "progressives" don't share their hatred-- they simply won't say so in public like those nutcases do.  It's all in the presentation.  

    [ Parent ]
    which progressives burn soldiers in effigy? (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by conchita on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 11:37:07 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Why it is here. (none / 0) (#80)
    by Wile ECoyote on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 02:32:10 PM EST
    Here ya go

    [ Parent ]
    i agree with edger. it was stupid and hateful (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by conchita on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 12:37:11 AM EST
    and vile.  it was not at all representative of any of the peace rallies in which i have participated over the last 30 or so years of my life.  i have never once seen anything remotely like it.  i appreciate the link, but that you should liken all progressives or even most or many to what is essentially an aberrant event makes no sense.

    [ Parent ]
    And why you would label them (none / 0) (#83)
    by Edger on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 03:04:54 PM EST
    as progressives, I'm also curious about, wile.

    I would not call it progressivism, nor I suspect would anyone without a desire to inflame hatred.

    I'm sure you just misspoke yourself.

    [ Parent ]

    Edger (none / 0) (#86)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 03:17:20 PM EST
    Name me the Left wing blogs that condemned them.

    With links.

    [ Parent ]

    Sure. (none / 0) (#92)
    by Edger on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 03:45:54 PM EST
    Right here. I just did. You can find more here. If I keep doing all your homework for you you'll lose your edge, jim.

    Your mind is like a muscle. The more you use it the stronger it gets. The less you use it the faster it withers to nothing.


    [ Parent ]

    edger (1.00 / 0) (#94)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 05:18:00 PM EST
    No edger, you do something months after the fact and then offer Google as a proof....

    Wow.

    You made the claim. Offer some proof.

    [ Parent ]

    Wow. Really, wile? (none / 0) (#34)
    by Edger on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 10:42:54 AM EST
    All progressives?

    [ Parent ]
    I should have (none / 0) (#46)
    by Wile ECoyote on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 11:25:35 AM EST
    said many.  like Dadler wrote.  

    [ Parent ]
    Actually (none / 0) (#47)
    by Wile ECoyote on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 11:27:06 AM EST
    I said most.  just like dadler wrote.  yup.

    [ Parent ]
    You (none / 0) (#48)
    by Wile ECoyote on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 11:28:09 AM EST
    have no problem with what Dadler wrote?  

    [ Parent ]
    I have no problem with what he said whatsoever. (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Edger on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 11:45:00 AM EST
    I don't see Dadler claiming that all, some, or any, progressives burn soldiers in effigy, wile.

    I would have a problem with it if he'd said that. Wouldn't you?

    [ Parent ]

    All?? (none / 0) (#55)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 12:16:06 PM EST
    Naw... some just want to spit...

    [ Parent ]
    Both sides doing it, according to the link (none / 0) (#63)
    by Dark Avenger on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 12:34:42 PM EST
    so the question is, who is acting reprehensibly here?

    Both, only one(three guesses for PPJ's answer, and the first two don't count), or perhaps neither?

    It isn't the same as someone burning effigies, but PPJ isn't interested in discussion, just his refined GIECO caveman
    version of "Left always bad-They started it-divert-divert-divert"

    Also, a little bit of the mud-slinging as well, PPJ probably would marry this guy if they were both gay:

    These are not Americans as far as I'm concerned," Mr. Sparling said.

    Of course, he's not trying to deny their 1st Amendment rights, just that they aren't entitled to them in the first place.

    T!

    Oh, to save you the trouble:

    Yadda,Yaddah,Yadda

    [ Parent ]

    et al - DA leaves out an important fact (none / 0) (#69)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 01:11:07 PM EST
    Later, as antiwar protesters passed where he and his group were standing, words were exchanged and

    (1)one of the antiwar protestors spit at the ground near Mr. Sparling;

    (2)he spit back.

    Self defense has long been recognized as a right shared by all.

    I am sure DA, and all of you here, will condemn the illegal ahd preemptive spitting by the anti-war protestors.



    [ Parent ]

    Sparling is a proven fake, liar, and shill. (none / 0) (#73)
    by Edger on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 01:40:23 PM EST
    Which is, if anyone spits in his direction, the reason they do so. Go ahead - ask me for evidence.

    Meanwhile - he has nothing to do with this thread, except as another of your attempts at hijacking and diverting, and avoiding the issues of this thread.

    [ Parent ]

    Edger's defense (none / 0) (#78)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 02:28:08 PM EST
    is that Sparling is a liar...

    Got link?

    Here's edger's way of doing business.

    Do we offer them respect? Absolutely not. We do our best to marginalize and get rid of them.


    [ Parent ]
    Sure. (none / 0) (#88)
    by Edger on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 03:26:58 PM EST
    Here's one.

    Here's another one.

    Sparling is a setup job.

    Here's a whole thread about you trying to defend Sparling, jim.

    Here's the rest of the blogsearch on him - the wingnut blogs have bitten down hard on this one and they all have lockjaw I guess.

    And another good dissection of it here...

    Sparling is a pro. After all, it would take a pro to bamboozle you, right jim?

    Was there anything else you needed comprehension assistance with today, jim?

    [ Parent ]

    Now, (none / 0) (#89)
    by Edger on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 03:33:40 PM EST
    What you falling for the Joshua Sparling progaganda has to do with you falling for all the adolescent emotion stirring fearmongering hot button pushing unsubstantiated garbage propaganda about alleged terrorists who are obviously stupider than people who buy into WOT propaganda, I have no idea, other than maybe you just see it as another thread hijacking opportunity?

    [ Parent ]
    After all (none / 0) (#90)
    by Edger on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 03:34:46 PM EST
    You're not stupid enough to fall for either, are you, jim?

    Or are you?

    [ Parent ]

    So, jim... (5.00 / 0) (#91)
    by Edger on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 03:42:23 PM EST
    Should we offer either case, or anyone who tries to spread the propaganda, any respect? Absolutely not. We do our best to marginalize and get rid of them.

    [ Parent ]
    edger (1.00 / 0) (#93)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 05:15:31 PM EST
    I see no proof..

    I especially like the three links to the one TalkLeft thread....

    Guess you think if you claim something loud enough...

    [ Parent ]

    ppj (5.00 / 0) (#98)
    by Edger on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 05:43:02 PM EST
    In the years I have been commenting here there has never been even one instance of you accepting anything as proof of anything.

    When you say "I see no proof" you mean exactly that.

    Want proof? Your reply, if you reply to this, will be proof.

    I offered earlier, but maybe you missed it, so I'll offer one more time. This is your last chance though: Was there anything else you needed comprehension assistance with today, jim?



    [ Parent ]

    Then he'd be stealing your act, PPJ (none / 0) (#96)
    by Dark Avenger on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 05:29:51 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! (none / 0) (#75)
    by Dark Avenger on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 01:58:55 PM EST
    You left out an important fact, that Sparling is a nut case, but thanks for playing "Yet another failed attempt at thread-jacking".

    You did bring intellectual respectability to
    "But they did it first" defense, PPJ.

    Self defense has long been recognized as a right shared by all.

    BTW, et al

    I didn't know that a person's saliva on the ground was such a menace that one's only sensible response is "self-defense" in a similar manner.

    Was the counter-spit suppose to crawl towards the     monstrous anti-war spit and protect everyone from it?

    This would make sense if it were two shamans engaging in some sort of duel, but neither party fits that description, YMMV...............

    Thanks for making my prediction come true PPJ, albeit in a much more humorous manner than even I could've imagined.

    TTFN

    [ Parent ]

    et al For Your Information (none / 0) (#79)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 02:31:43 PM EST
    DA's defense is that Sparling is a nut case...

    It seems he subscribes to both edger's and squeaky's debating methods.... The smear

    Posted by Squeaky at September 19, 2005 11:19 PM
    Rove never needed proof for his smear machine, why should I.

    ppj does as ppj does (none / 0) (#30)
    by squeaky on Sat Mar 03, 2007 at 09:58:35 PM EST
    So because Rove is doing wrong, it is okay for you to do wrong?

    I have no problem with alleging that Rove's grandparents were Nazi's. Even if they were not, he uses Goebbels' propaganda techniques as a bible and may as well be a born and bred Nazi.



    [ Parent ]
    PPJ, you can b**** and moan all you want, (none / 0) (#81)
    by Dark Avenger on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 02:50:46 PM EST
    but you don't like your own tactics when they are used against you, and your nuttiness about 'self-defense' would be a smear if I attributed it to anyone else but your own self.

    TTFN

    [ Parent ]

    da (1.00 / 1) (#84)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 03:12:00 PM EST
    yadda yadda

    [ Parent ]
    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! (none / 0) (#95)
    by Dark Avenger on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 05:24:07 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    OFF TOPIC PERSONAL ATTACK (none / 0) (#102)
    by Sailor on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 08:56:07 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    once again ... (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by Sailor on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 05:34:28 PM EST
    ... powerlie is not a reputable source for anything.

    [ Parent ]
    Hahahahahaha! ROTFLMFAO! (none / 0) (#23)
    by Edger on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 05:20:20 AM EST
    Makes you wonder what the syllabus was, jim? Heh heh heh.

    What makes makes you wonder what the syllabus was, jim? The fact that powerline tells you it should? Or the fact that powerline tells you it should?

    the snitch is a very unclean one.  Major drug trafficking convictions, one is still pending and he's getting a deal in it for his work in this case, plus he's being paid money.

    Makes you wonder what the syllabus was, definitely. Heh.

    I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here, jim.

    You're not that stupid, are you?

    Or are you?

    [ Parent ]

    Edger (none / 0) (#32)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 09:37:44 AM EST
    You know it is possible to believe that the four radical Moslems should reveive a fair trial, and not condemn the US.

    It is. It really is.

    It is also possible to not make comments like:

    These guys, if they exist at all, were so stupid they never would have gotten anywhere with their alleged plot.


    If the exist at all?? I ask again. Are you claiming that these people didn't exist??

    [ Parent ]
    Wait!!!! I understand... (none / 0) (#33)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 09:51:51 AM EST
    This would be the five stages of drunk defense...

    World's greatest:

    philsohper

    lover

    fighter

    bullet proof

    invisible

    Edger... finding new ways to impress us...

    ;-)

    [ Parent ]

    Those 5 stages are (none / 0) (#36)
    by Edger on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 11:00:05 AM EST
    The Bush philosophy of leadership and foreign policy?

    Thanks, that clears up more than few things.

    Now, back to the question you either can't read, or just ignored:

    What makes makes you wonder what the syllabus was, jim?

    [ Parent ]

    What (none / 0) (#35)
    by Edger on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 10:46:35 AM EST
    makes makes you wonder what the syllabus was, jim?

    [ Parent ]
    Edger (none / 0) (#37)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 11:06:02 AM EST
    I thought it would make interesting reading.

    Are you saying they didn't publish one??

    Okay. Invisible people have an invisible syllabus.

    That should work for you.

    BTW - Congrats on the new defense. I'm sure the law journals will be calling..

    [ Parent ]

    BTW - Does this help you?? (none / 0) (#38)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 11:09:12 AM EST

    syllabus

    a summary outline of a discourse, treatise, or course of study or of examination requirements



    [ Parent ]
    I thought it would make interesting reading. (none / 0) (#39)
    by Edger on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 11:09:14 AM EST
    Why? You thinking of converting?

    You're ducking, jim. What makes makes you wonder what the syllabus of a RELIGIOUS CONFERENCE was, jim?

    [ Parent ]

    Edger (none / 0) (#42)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 11:14:59 AM EST
    Tell you what.

    When you explain the invisible comment, I will be happy to share my concerns about religious conferences held in Iran.

    [ Parent ]
    I have. (none / 0) (#45)
    by Edger on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 11:25:23 AM EST
    I can't help with your comprehension issues, jim.

    Only with your denial and avoidance behaviour.

    What makes makes you wonder what the syllabus of a RELIGIOUS CONFERENCE was, jim?

    [ Parent ]

    edger (none / 0) (#60)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 12:29:24 PM EST
    No edger. You haven't.

    Now slip and slide

    Try to hide

    Over the side

    past the edge..

    But some don't play

    Your nasty way

    And write down what you say..

    IOW - Expect to see that comment in the future.

    [ Parent ]

    You can't avoid the question, jim (none / 0) (#62)
    by Edger on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 12:30:33 PM EST
    What makes makes you wonder what the syllabus of a RELIGIOUS CONFERENCE was, jim?

    [ Parent ]
    It makes me wonder ... (none / 0) (#101)
    by Sailor on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 08:54:06 PM EST
    ... why anyone would quote powerlie like it was a news source.

    [ Parent ]
    edger (1.00 / 0) (#104)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 09:06:39 PM EST
    The choice we have here is simple.

    On one side we have Edger and his sources, one of which I showed wouldn't quote the NYT.

    On the the other we have a NYT reporter and the police.

    You pick'em.

    Yep. (5.00 / 0) (#105)
    by Edger on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 09:13:34 PM EST
    Looks like they bought it without questioning, just like you did, jim.

    [ Parent ]
    edger (1.00 / 1) (#106)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 11:21:41 PM EST
    Yeah. Isn't it amazing how facts and logic impress some people??

    [ Parent ]
    It is. (none / 0) (#107)
    by Edger on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 11:28:03 PM EST
    You should try it some time. It might help you understand why you owe Big Tent an apology.

    I don't hold out much hope for you though.

    [ Parent ]

    Because (none / 0) (#108)
    by Edger on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 11:30:41 PM EST
    you also owe the troops and the Iraqis dying in Bush's failing surge an apology that I expect they'll never hear from you.

    [ Parent ]
    The FBI (none / 0) (#1)
    by Edger on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 01:47:20 PM EST
    seems to be taking the initiative in these wot scares lately. [ref. Fort Dix (dicks?)]

    Libby versus the plotters (none / 0) (#17)
    by diogenes on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 08:03:13 PM EST
    Libby's sentencing and the associated blogging is beltway m-turbation.  To middle America, airport terror plots, however early or far-fetched, are real.  
    We should be thankful ... (none / 0) (#18)
    by narius on Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 08:05:48 PM EST
    that this guys are incompetent. Do you prefer competent terrorists who can actually succeed?

    If they are indeed planning to blow JFK up (and if indeed it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt), it is pretty good reason to lock them up for a long long time.

    Fear is all the rage (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by Repack Rider on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 01:24:36 AM EST
    If they are indeed planning to blow JFK up (and if indeed it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt), it is pretty good reason to lock them up for a long long time.

    Planning to rob Fort Knox with a water pistol is no reason to lock anyone up and throw away the key, even if they are "serious."

    Since we have seen umpteen of these dastardly "plots" melt into government lies, I do not take these accusations at face value until ONE OF THEM turns out to be true.

    This is the same government that ignored real warnings about 9/11, but tells us that Jose Padilla is the boogeyman.

    Only 28% of the country can be fooled all of the time.  Are you a member of that minority?

    I am in more danger from a fellow American with a handgun or drunk at the wheel than I am from terrorists, and I don't spend my life quivering in fear of drunks or gangbangers the way George W. Bush wants me to fear "terrorists" like Padilla or the Fort Dix morons.

    If the object of "terrorism" is to terrify me enough to vote Republican, why would I let these clowns control me by being scared?

    Once upon a time America was populated by brave people who understood danger but didn't hide under their beds because the president told them to be scared.

    Once upon a time we had a president who was not himself a coward, and who told us that the worst thing to fear is fear itself.  Now we have a coward for a president and he wants us to be as cowardly as he is.

    Can't do it.  If they get me, they get me, but I won't let my own government use terrorism to control me.

    [ Parent ]

    Nope, not true. Repack writes: (1.00 / 1) (#27)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 08:56:04 AM EST
    This is the same government that ignored real warnings about 9/11, but tells us that Jose Padilla is the boogeyman.

    The following excerpt has been quoted by me many.
    It proves that your comment is just wrong. The "government" was warned.

    At the special meeting on July 5 (2001) were the FBI, Secret Service, FAA, Customs, Coast Guard, and Immigration. We told them that we thought a spectacular al Qaeda terrorist attack was coming in the near future." That had been had been George Tenet's language. "We asked that they take special measures to increase security and surveillance. Thus, the White House did ensure that domestic law enforcement including the FAA knew that the CSG believed that a major al Qaeda attack was coming, and it could be in the U.S., and did ask that special measures be taken."

    Link

    The various departments were warned. Plainly and in a language no one could misunderstand.

    So why do you ignore this? And why do you now complain that the same government you claim wasn't warned, now arrest four people for trying to destroy the fuel farm at JFK because they are "stupid" and couldn't have done it?

    [ Parent ]

    Pay attention, jim. (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Edger on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 11:20:53 AM EST
    These 4 guys were arrested for talking about it.

    They were not arrested for trying to destroy the fuel farm at JFK. Read the complaint.

    They weren't too bright obviously. Despite their "extraordinary efforts," the men never obtained any explosives, authorities said.

    What were they trying to destroy the fuel farm (your words) with, jim? Hot air?

    "Pulling off any bombing of this magnitude would not be easy in today's environment," said Former U.S. State Department counterterrorism expert Fred Burton, though he added that it was difficult to determine the severity of the threat without knowing all the facts of the case.

    Since Defreitas had worked at JFK, security has tightened and his knowledge of the operation was severely outdated.

    In fact, if they even exist as conspirators, they are stupider than MOST (not all) of the 26 percenters.

    Unless you don't think that with "extraordinary efforts" YOU would able to obtain explosives, jim?

    [ Parent ]

    edger (none / 0) (#59)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 12:26:04 PM EST
    Uh, the gas pipeline is connected to the fuel farm...

    Your problem in grasping anything to do with infrastructure, etc., continues.

    [ Parent ]

    BTW - They are charged with consporacy to.. (none / 0) (#87)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 03:19:26 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    You expect to much narius... (none / 0) (#25)
    by Slado on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 08:25:28 AM EST
    The reality of the world is never a reason for thanks when it doesn't fit the partisan view that most on this site cling to.

    [ Parent ]
    So predictable... (none / 0) (#24)
    by Slado on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 08:23:56 AM EST
    I guess the Bush hating liberal playbook for terror plots is this...

    1. Question the infomants immediately
    2. Claim terrorists are too dumb to be a threat
    3. Make snide comments about Fox News
    4. Talk about real threats like natural disaters
    5. Lash out at anyone who takes terrorism seriously

    When I read about the plot I predicted that the usual crew would be using the handbook and they proved me right.

    Every time there is a terror threat or plot that's busted the usual group comes out to deny reality.   It's becoming amusing at this point.  

    Not for nothing Slado.... (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by kdog on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 09:34:24 AM EST
    We should always question the motivations of informants.  In this day and age, nothing will get you out of trouble with the law faster than saying you have info related to terrorism.

    Is it wrong to point out that the people the feds seem to catch are all a bunch of clowns?  Is it wrong to think that maybe the threat of terrorism really isn't equivalent to WW3 and the black plaque put together?  

    Speaking for me, I'm not denying reality.  I'm well aware there are nutjobs in the world who want to hurt people.  I just think the nutjobs are few and far between, and our govt. has an agenda beyond preventing terrorism.  I do not put it past the govt. to railroad some clowns for good press and a "success story".

    [ Parent ]

    kdog (1.00 / 1) (#40)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 11:11:33 AM EST
    Sure seems to be a lot of nut jobs all focused on blowing up the US, eh.

    Must be something in the water.

    [ Parent ]

    In (none / 0) (#50)
    by Edger on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 11:35:35 AM EST
    DC? Or in your water?

    [ Parent ]
    just like all ... (none / 0) (#103)
    by Sailor on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 08:58:01 PM EST
    ... the nutjobs in America focused on blowing up other countries.

    [ Parent ]
    You forgot one. (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Gabriel Malor on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 11:11:57 AM EST
    0. Question the timing; always, always, always question the timing.

    When I read the headline, I knew that we were only minutes away from some moron going "what was the news this week? How can we spin this so as to give the appearance of a gigantic, but invisible, conspiracy of our enemies?"

    [ Parent ]

    Gabe (none / 0) (#43)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 11:17:03 AM EST
    ????

    Are you agreeing or disagreeing with Slado??

    [ Parent ]

    PPJ, get help for your (none / 0) (#56)
    by Dark Avenger on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 12:16:49 PM EST
    comprehension problems, as noted by RR, edger, squeaky, myself, et al.....................

    da (1.00 / 1) (#58)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 12:23:06 PM EST
    yadda yadda

    [ Parent ]
    Edger and et al (none / 0) (#99)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 07:47:58 PM EST
    One of the sources you use to try and impeach Sparling wrote:

    On 27 January 2007, at an antiwar protest at Washington DC, Sparling claimed that a passing protestor may have spit near him, according to the New York Times. [6]

    IndedependentsUnbound

    Now, what did the NYTimes actually write? Link

    Later, as antiwar protesters passed where he and his group were standing, words were exchanged and one of the antiwar protestors spit at the ground near Mr. Sparling; he spit back.

    Note that the NYT article does not say "may have." It also does not quote Sparling, leading a reasonable person to believe that the reporter saw the incident.

    Now, in the very next paragraph we find that:

    Capitol police made the antiwar protestors walk farther away from the counterprotesters.

    Why did they do that? Could it be that the police saw:

    words were exchanged and one of the antiwar protestors spit at the ground near Mr. Sparling; he spit back.

    We have the reporter and the police who were there, yet you chose to believe someone who was not??

    Your source also writes:

    Three WWII vets happened to be getting off flights about that time and just knew what the young man in the wheel chair was so upset about? How did they know? Did someone tell three elderly gentlemen. in civilian attire, about the young man's plight?

    No, I would say that the three vets saw a military uniform, a man wearing it sitting in a wheel chair with part of a leg missing who was crying and upset and just naturally went to help him.

    That would be my guess, and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to arrive at it.

    So in the end all you have are claims. Unsupported claims.

    BTW - Aren't you one of those who who was upset over Gonzales' and Card's trip to the AG who was in the hospital with a very treatable, but painful disease??

    Seems like your sympathy is used only when useful to oppose the war....

    Unsupported claims. (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by Edger on Sun Jun 03, 2007 at 08:38:20 PM EST
    You mean like the NYT?

    And as I asked you earlier, what does this have to do with this thread, other than as one more example of you credulously buying into propaganda, and as an opportunity for you to try to hijack the thread?

    [ Parent ]

    Dear Dadler (none / 0) (#110)
    by bradkohl on Mon Jun 11, 2007 at 04:09:43 PM EST
    Saw that you posted about writing for the koala.  Just curious to what years you contributed.  I was editor from 2005-6 and helped to set up some message boards where contributors of old and new can see what we're working on and contribute if they feel so inclined.  e-mail editor@thekoala.org, go to www.thekoala.org and click on staff, or just e-mail me and I can set you up an account.  Hopefully I'll see you on there,
    -Brad

    News Conference: JFK Alleged Terror Plot Busted | 109 comments (109 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment