Abdul Kadir, one of the four men charged in an alleged terrorist plot to blow up a pipeline that fed fuel tanks at John F. Kennedy International Airport, is a former member of the Guyanese Parliament and former mayor of Linden, Guyana. The fuel line the group allegedly planned to sabotage originates in Linden, N.J. This Linden-Linden axis heavily implicates… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (14)Page 1 of 1 pages“But the various terrorist “plots” exposed by the Bush administration so far have been notable for their lack of credible threat, the central role of a criminal informant and the strong whiff of political opportunism.”
And if the plot had been carried out just how would Mr. Muwakkil have written the story? Weeell, perhaps something along these lines…
--------------
The Bush administration, whose foreign policy has provoked the kind of global anger that motivates terrorists, resulted in this unfathomable example of damage, death and destruction.In spite of six years in which to develop a network of human informants and claiming our involvement in Iraq was needed to “keep them over there” we are less secure than ever.
As GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul notes, they attacked us for a reason. “We need to look at what we do from the perspective of what would happen if somebody else did it to us.”
We should now sponsor a “Farm Aid” type fund raiser for the families of the alleged terrorists who perished in the suicidal conflagration. (Willie Nelson, are you there for us?)
--------------
And is this article NOT political opportunism?
Posted by whattheheck on Jun 8, 2007 at 7:09 AM The problem is that we become so inured to the steady stream of bullshit threats that when a real one comes along that needs attention other than government media hype we’ll get Katrina all over again and voters will just yawnnnnnnn......
Posted by ppatt on Jun 8, 2007 at 9:42 AM Based on the bush anit-terror efforts to date one would assume poor, easily misled Black men from Carribean nations are the biggest threat to national security and crooks looking to cut deals are our best intelligence sources. The conspiracy theorist in me says the US is laying the groundwork to justify lableing Carribean nations “terrorist states” so they can be invaded, as in Haiti minus Aristede. Sure, the US can bully little islands but gets its ass kicked everywhere else.
Posted by theloneous on Jun 8, 2007 at 1:02 PM This administration has shown that it will say and do anything to make the public think it is “protecting” America.
Using jailhouse informant’s can be risky. And it can pay off.
That is the trouble with an administration like what we are burdened with now; we never know when they might be telling the truth.
With the Shrub, it is somewhat easier; if’n his lips is moving, he’s likely lying.
Just like the days before the ‘04 “election”, the terror alert kept inching upward. After the “election”, the terror alert all but disappeared.
The Homeland Security Department has proven itself to be a joke almost.
A boat load of refugee’s washes ashore in Southern FL and the first the Coast Guard knew of it was the TV reports of folks jumping out of a boat.
A man has his passport flagged to be held, and the Custom’s agent decides it’s all a mistake.
Meanwhile, the Shrub goes to bed each night at 9pm and sleeps soundly, knowing that he is still “protecting” America, and getting richer by the minute.
Posted by farmer on Jun 12, 2007 at 5:52 AM OK, ITT, let’s try to look at the subject a bit more objectively.
I’ll borrow Ron Paul’s quote from your article to use in a different context.
“We need to look at what we do from the perspective of what would happen if somebody else did it to us.”Article head and subhead:
Entrapping Inflated Threats
Was the terrorist plot to blow up JFK Airport a threat or a joke?We all know your offices are located in Chicago. What if an informant provided information that some wacko who disagrees with your anti-military, anti-administration, anti-Bush general approach to nearly every issue is believed to be planning to blow you up.
Would you want the authorities to take it seriously?
Would you pass it off as a probable joke?
Chances are it would not be a radical Muslim, since if they read your magazine or website, they would be more apt to send a contribution. But the radical right as evidenced in Oklahoma is capable of putting on a pretty damaging demonstration when it decides to.
If they were prevented from carrying it off should the newspapers play it down because they were inept?
Would you want them to leave out adjectives like catastrophic?
If they turned out to be a bunch of elderly discontented immigrants would you urge the incident just be forgotten?
Would you think the police should refrain from using whoever may be effective — like doing a deal with a drug dealer?
On 9/11 when it was reported that there may have been another plane headed for Chicago — I was very concerned because one of my sons was living downtown and working near the Sears tower. Are we so far form that terrible day that we can scoff at a plan as only a “joke”?
You say, “But the various terrorist “plots” exposed by the Bush administration so far have been notable for their lack of credible threat, the central role of a criminal informant and the strong whiff of political opportunism.”
When is a murder plot only a “plot”?
I am less than impressed with the efforts at homeland security — the color coding and frisking grandma while seven thousand Macedonians could somersault over our borders undetected and pass for undocumented guests.
But, could it be possible that someone working on homeland security has the smarts to only reveal the less sophisticated attempts they have foiled rather than tip off the methods they used to prevent the more serious ones?
I, for one, really hope this is so.
Posted by whattheheck on Jun 13, 2007 at 6:22 PM wth
Again, I have to agree with you that nothing can nor should be overlooked.
If anyone had told me, on 9/10/01, that they had heard that some Muslims were going to hijack multiple airliner’s and fly them into various buildings, I would have been looking for the guys in white coats, so I could tell, here is the nut.
The main problem is that this current administration has lied about so many things when it was to their advantage. It is just real hard to separate the wheat from the chaff.
Shortly after 9/11 some businessmen from India, I believe, were in Canton, attending our First Monday Tades Days. They were asking questions about how big a crowd was drawn to these monthly events among other questions. Naturally the Sheriff was called and investigated the men. And found that they were legitimate businessmen, thinking of opening a shop and were just doing some market research.
They took no offense and admitted to the Sheriff that, had they thought it all through, they should have had some form of introduction with them, to allay people’s fears.
We do have to be alert. And we can only hope that someone in Government is alert as well.
But when a boatload of immigrants can wash ashore in Southern Florida with the Coast Guard being unaware, well, it just doesn’t make me feel all that secure.
Now, all we have to do is get the politician’s to stop playing word games and address the real problems that face our country. Sadly, the chances that will happen are much less than my chance at hitting the Mega Millions jackpot.
Posted by farmer on Jun 13, 2007 at 8:11 PM Farmer,
I recently read “The Black Swan” by Nassim Nicholas Taleb. The subtitle is: “The Impact of the Highly Improbable”, but I would say it is a book about how human beings tend to think.
He emphasizes there are things which we don’t know — we don’t know. That we arrogantly form conclusions too soon with too little reliable information and then refuse anymore input or accept only what fits our story.
As Mark Twain put it — “It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you, it’s what you know...that just ain’t true.”
I would add that everything in life is interrelated — now, with the rush to globalization — more so than ever. These tendencies apply in business, economics, religion, ecology, agriculture, politics, virtually everything!We tend to codify, solidify, pontificate and proselytize — making a “religion” of our beliefs.
Whether Bush is always a liar, sometimes a liar, or just always too simple in his approach — the result is the same. He seems to view himself as a “Savior” on a mission from God. His High Priest of War, Donald Rumsfeld, enjoyed a free hand far too long and arrogantly ignored the “theological views” of others (a long list of generals) Now his congregation is plagued with doubt and falling away.
But… The problem of terrorists who hate us is still there and we need to carefully proceed to deal with it. Thomas Edison would optimistically say we now know about a lot of things which don’t work.
No one is immune to this style of thinking. We can see it in many of the articles here at ITT and in The Wall Street Journal. What is almost always missing is an overview of the possible fallout or contagion affecting the rest of life.
So far I see nobody in the long list of candidates who looks really promising. They seem to want the job enough to do/say whatever it takes to get elected. This puts me in the frame of mind of Groucho Marks, who once said, “I would never want to join a country club who would accept me as a member.”
In a couple of interviews Fred Thompson has said if elected he would want to have dialog with the American public on the issue of terrorism and what we can do about it.
I have long thought this is a major failing of the Bush administration. It’s not just that he personally can’t speak a coherent sentence — the whole administration seems out of touch and traveling alone. This is true on the war, the economy, illegal immigration — the major issues affecting average people.
Whether Thompson would or could do what he said is another question, but I’d like to see some genuine exchange take place.
Posted by whattheheck on Jun 15, 2007 at 7:22 AM whattheheck
Rummy was on target with the known unknowns and the unknown unknowns; think that was the only thing he got right.
There is no sure fire way to protect this country from a determined and well financed terrorist, foreign or domestic.
I think that a global coalition of nations will be required. If there is no safe haven for terrorist’s to plan, train, recruit and operate from, the dangers that they pose would be limited.
Such a coalition would be all but impossible to achieve in todays world. Maybe as more countries suffer attacks from terrorist’s, that will change. But how many innocent’s must die or be maimed first?
The trouble with politicians is that they will make a lot of promises, and say the things that we want to hear. Then,after the election, they either forget what they promised or discover that they can’t get the backing to take the actions that need to be taken.
We, the voting public, need a way to remove an ineffective politician, without waiting for the other politician’s to act. We elect people to represent us and they start courting the lobbyist’s to get more money, forgetting about us in the process.
TR was right; Speak softly and carry a big stick. Our big stick has proven to be ineffective in dealing with terrorist’s or guerrillas. Special Forces seems to be our best bet in dealing with such outlaws.
Shock and Awe is impressive, but it doesn’t accomplish the mission. Yet the average senior officer doesn’t seem to want Special Forces, because they don’t follow all the regular Army rules all the time.
Hopefully, dialog such as is happening like this all over the country will cause things to change for the better.
Our country faces too many complex problems for us to get mired down in “my party is better than your party” type thinking. After all, we are all American’s first and foremost.
Posted by farmer on Jun 15, 2007 at 8:22 AM Farmer,
• “I think that a global coalition of nations will be required.”
Yes, that was Plan A for Iraq and too many would not sign on — France, China, Russia were all making too much money with Saddam in power. So were a bunch in the U.N. from Kofi on down. But it is essentially what we had going in Afghanistan.
• “If there is no safe haven for terrorist’s to plan, train, recruit and operate from, the dangers that they pose would be limited.”
We may be able to get more cooperation along these lines now that several other significant terrorist attacks have occurred in Spain, Indonesia, Britain, but certainly not with Bush in office. If we leave Iraq too soon this will be exactly that — one big terrorists’ territory. At least now it is somewhat confined.
I suspect that behind the scenes there is a signifiicant amount of international cooperation going on — I sure hope so. Before we entered into WW2 we had joint ops with the British.
• “TR was right; Speak softly and carry a big stick. Our big stick has proven to be ineffective in dealing with terrorist’s or guerrillas. Special Forces seems to be our best bet in dealing with such outlaws.”I read the history of the Special Forces, “Masters of Chaos” and these guys are really something. In addition to pulling off some behind the lines miracles, they have provided emergency medical treatment for people which greatly improves our image. Even the early stages of the 2003 invasion were having a positive effect.
I spoke with a woman who has had both of her sons over there — one in Afghanistan and one in Iraq. They were welcomed with open arms and all was going well until they had to move on to another area; not enough troops available. They knew when they left that the people who had been working with them would be targeted by the bad guys. It’s a lot like someone testifying against a gang in a major US city, without continuing protection those who cooperate are in deep trouble.
I have a good friend who is a retired Army Lt. Colonel. When we were poised to enter Iraq I asked what he thought. He immediately said they could do it with Special Ops rather than the all out invasion. Maybe he knew we had too small a force to take the country and HOLD it.
Posted by whattheheck on Jun 15, 2007 at 10:39 AM whattheheck
It is a given that the Shrub has alienated far too many leader’s in other countries. The old USSR spent 40 years and no telling how much money in trying to marginalize US influence around the world. Shrub has achieved that in a tenth the time, though with about the same cash outlay.
Granted that other countries and UN leader’s had a vested interest in Iraq, making it impossible to form a unified coalition. But there was no real reason to put our troops into that country, other than his ego. That was the biggest mistake. once we were there, the radical Islamist’s realized that they had a golden opportunity to kick sand in Uncle Sams’ face.
I remember reading of Rummy complaining that there were no sexy target’s in Afghanistan; ya drop a 1000 pound bomb and do $20,000 worth of improvements.
Suddenly, Iraq became a target. Forget that other countries had more connections to 9/11 than Iraq. Forget that other countries would like to damage the US more than Iraq did.
Now, as you say, it is up to the voter’s to find a candidate that can deal with all the problems that this administration has created and not dealt with. Not gonna be easy, for us nor the candidate.
Posted by farmer on Jun 15, 2007 at 3:32 PM To be sure, the Bush administration’s foreign policy is provoking the kind of global anger that motivates terrorists to attack the United States.
I really don’t expect knowledge, much less comprehension and understanding, of history from the likes of Liberals in general, and Muwakkil in particular, but this is ridiculous.
Fundamentalist Islam has motivated terrorists for 1400 years. The only major respites from Islamist terror followed major Western victories and Islamist defeats at Tours/Poitiers, Lepanto, and Vienna.
Islamist terrorism was most recently prominent in the administrations of Carter, Reagan, Bush I, and Clinton. To suggest that Islamist terror is the result of Bush II’s foreign policy is absurd. Islamist terror is a characteristic fixture of militant Islam, and this terror will end when the West chooses to end it. Bush II is the first president to understand this, and do something about it.
To be sure, previous presidents were preoccupied with the Soviet terror, which was a more immediate threat. Carter was prepared to compromise away the natural superiority of free-market, rule-of-law democracy to the Soviets, but Reagan would have none of that, with gratifying results. Then the Islamist threat become the primary focus after the Soviet Union collapsed from corruption and inefficiency. Clinton chose to ignore the rising Islamist threat, but it was hard to ignore 09/11, try as the Dimocrats do.
We are at a pivotal point in world history, following less than twenty years after another pivotal point, the collapse of functional socialism.
The entire Islamist effort now hinges on Iran, which is a dreadfully weak hinge-pin. The Mullahs are not less corrupt and inefficient than the Soviet Union, and they have a much smaller economic base from which to operate. They have overextended themselves into Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, the Arabian Gulf, and Afghanistan, leveraged on a nuclear capability that does not yet exist, and will never exist (Israel and the USA will guarantee this).
President Bush has manipulated the Iranis into a massively unsupportable position, and the posturing EUnucks, Russians, and Chinese will be left sucking wind. I love it.
The only question is how cheaply we can end the terror of the Mullahs. Stay tuned.
Posted by scorp on Jun 17, 2007 at 11:14 AM Scorp
You neglected one point. Iraq.
Iran, or rather the leader’s of Iran, have always been a worrisome threat to the US. So the Shrub attacks Iraq. What the hell, he got the first three letters right. Which, for someone as dumb about the real world as he is, was pretty impressive.
Our troops had no business invading Iraq, other than a clueless President said it was necessary. There is the failure of the Shrubs’ foreign policy. To compound his error, he appointed a great businessman to be in charge of the military.
While there are some similarities between a big business and the Army, none hold true when it comes to fighting a war. But Rummy “re-invented how all wars would be fought in the future”.
I liked the old way, you know, where we fought to win.
To compound that mistake, even after it became apparent to Rummy that his plan was a failure, nothing was done to change the plan. Until the eve of the ‘06 elections when it became apparent that the R’s would lose a lot of votes. Then some window dressing was added. And Rummy was given a send-off that looked like an Italian opera setting.
Yes, we should have gone after bin Ladin and his follower’s. But they weren’t in Iraq. They were in Afghanistan and it was too hard to find them, so the Shrub decides to go after Iraq.
This is what you call leadership?
Oh, and don’t forget, Clinton wanted to go after bin Ladin, but the R’s cried foul; he was trying to divert attention from Monica and the R’s had to get all the details of that. Did she deep throat? Did she swallow? You know, the important stuff that really affected America’s security.
Posted by farmer on Jun 17, 2007 at 1:08 PM Scorp, Farmer,
After having read so many articles here which displayed more sympathy and concern for the terrorists than for the US.
From their first editorial—
http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/1619/the_problem_with_evil/
The Problem With Evil, By Joel Bleifuss
“In the wake of this atrocity, President George W. Bush is talking war.”
All prior attacks outside US borders and the 1993 WTC were ignored. To most of us this is a war — admittedly different than many, but the enemy has made very clear we are the prime target and the object is our demise as a nation. That it is a transnational movement makes it more, not less, of a threat.
The editorial immediately shifts focus and blame to disturbing, but minor reactions.
“In Chicago after the attacks, a Muslim grade school was attacked with a Molotov cocktail; “Kill the Arabs” graffiti was scrawled along a major thoroughfare; more than 300 people waving American flags marched on a mosque in suburban Bridgeview.”
While I believe a total invasion of Iraq (in retrospect) was not the best response at least it was not following the previous weak or non responses.
The fact that Iraq is a continuing problem after so long is a function of a weakened military by former administrations and too long following a misguided approach. This in no way lessens the need to address Iran from a position of strength and whoever is in the Oval Office had better know that and maintain a cooperative, multi nation opposition to this band of religious aggressors.
Posted by whattheheck on Jun 18, 2007 at 7:25 AM whattheheck
Iran, or rather the leadership of Iran, has been a constant problem for American interests since the Shah was deposed.
At that, Islam seems to be divided into two main sects, Sunni and Shiite, with the Shiite being more against America than the Sunni’s are.
My limited knowledge of Islam notwithstanding, I’ve read that the Koran exempts “believer’s of the book” from attacks by Islam. That is, if your religion is ‘codified’ into a Bible, Islam has no problem with that religion.
The trouble arises from the fact that too many Muslims cannot read and have learned the Koran, or selected parts, by rote. This assumes that the teacher was teaching, or reading, what was actually written, and not what they would like to see written.
So, it stands to reason, the US should cultivate ties with the traditional Islamic’s to counter the arguments put forth by the radical’s.
It is in the best interests of the Saudi government to limit/stop the spread of the radical elements.
But they refuse to do so openly, as that would put Muslim against Muslim. So they covertly support our efforts by funding some operations.
But they refuse to put any manpower into the battle.
American politician’s have a hard time realizing that the rest of the world doesn’t always have the same views as American’s. Usually, the President tries to find people who understand the various outlooks of foreign peoples to help him formulate policy and responses. The current one only wants sycophants, not thinkers.
Hopefully,once we get back to having a real President, one that does the job as it was meant to be done, we can start to fix some of the messes that this one will leave behind.
And that includes dealing with the threats posed by radical Islamic’s, among many, many others.
Posted by farmer on Jun 18, 2007 at 7:55 AM Page 1 of 1 pages -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by Salim Muwakkil
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1972 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
462 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
426 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2007 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
