# Bomb plot suspect arrested trying to catch flight to Dubai



## Big Don (May 4, 2010)

*Bomb plot suspect arrested trying to catch flight to Dubai*

By the *CNN Wire Staff EXCERPT:
*




*New York (CNN)* -- A U.S. citizen has been arrested in the Times Square bombing probe, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder announced early Tuesday.
Faisal Shahzad was arrested at JFK airport in New York as he prepared to board a flight to Dubai, Holder said.
"It is clear the intent behind this terrorist act was to kill Americans," Holder said. "We will not rest until we bring everyone responsible to justice."
Law enforcement officials said the suspect is the person who bought the Nissan Pathfinder used in the bombing attempt.
Earlier, a law enforcement official said the buyer is a naturalized U.S. citizen from Pakistan, and that investigators are looking at more than one person in connection with the unsuccessful bombing.
CNN has learned that the Joint Terrorism Task Force investigating the bombing attempt is considering the possibility that the attempt involved more than just a "lone wolf."
According to a source familiar with the investigation, investigators believe the plan was an intended terrorist attack to set off explosives in the heart of midtown Manhattan on Saturday night, but the individuals didn't have the expertise to detonate their device.
The Nissan Pathfinder had been sold three weeks ago in a cash deal with no paperwork exchanged, a law enforcement source with knowledge of the investigation told CNN earlier Monday. The $1,800 deal was closed at a Connecticut shopping mall, where the buyer handed over the money and drove off, the source said.
The seller described the buyer as a man in his late 20s to early 30s, and investigators are checking into phone records between the two, the source said.
A bomb made up of propane tanks, fertilizer and gasoline failed to detonate inside the SUV. New York Police Commissioner Ray Kelly said the device could have produced "a significant fireball" in the heart of Midtown Manhattan on Saturday night had it detonated properly.
Earlier, authorities said they were searching for two people they wanted to question in connection with the would-be bomb. A video obtained from a tourist in the area shows a person apparently running north on Broadway, while another video shows a balding man with dark hair removing a shirt and putting it in a bag before walking out of view of the camera, which was inside a restaurant.
"These are not suspects," Kelly said. "These are people we would like to speak to."
END EXCERPT


> "It is clear the intent behind this terrorist act was to kill Americans," Holder said. "We will not rest until we bring everyone responsible to justice."


 Echoes of the Clinton Administration rules for dealing with terrorism.


----------



## Archangel M (May 4, 2010)

It wasn't a "teabagger"???

The press and some posters here must be SOOOO disappointed.


----------



## Bruno@MT (May 4, 2010)

This failed, not because of DHS, not because of vigilant citizenry, but because they were morons who had no clue what they were doing. And he only got caught because he was trying to flee the country when everybody was on high alert.

I am not complaining, I am just wondering... if DHS and their ilk are unable to stop even a bunch of untrained yokels, how are they supposed to stop someone who is going about it in an organized manner. Imo it also raises doubt about the dangerousness of al qaeda and the severity of the terrorist threat.

After all, it seems that if a bunch of pros with reasonable funding had wanted to execute a terrorist attack, they'd have succeeded.


----------



## MJS (May 4, 2010)

Bruno@MT said:


> This failed, not because of DHS, not because of *vigilant citizenry,* but because they were morons who had no clue what they were doing. And he only got caught because he was trying to flee the country when everybody was on high alert.
> 
> I am not complaining, I am just wondering... if DHS and their ilk are unable to stop even a bunch of untrained yokels, how are they supposed to stop someone who is going about it in an organized manner. Imo it also raises doubt about the dangerousness of al qaeda and the severety of the terrorist threat.


 
I have to disagree with you on the bold part.  You'd be surprised at how many crimes in progress have led to an arrest, where I work, due to people being vigilant.  How many times do big drug rings get broken up.....because of a tip from the CI (confidential informant)?  

Thing is, in a place as large as NYC, there are things that probably don't phase a quarter of the population there, yet for someone like myself, who frequents NYC once a year, I see things that make me stop, look and wonder why nothing is done about it.  Why do I do that?  Because these are things that I dont see on a regular basis, unlike NYC residents.  Yet interestingly enough, it was a street vendor, someone who's in that area all the time, that noticed this vehicle.  

So going on your comments on this topic, am I also safe to assume that the guy that hangs around on the street corner, looking for his next vitim to mug, is a moron, because he failed to find a victim, or is it because maybe, just maybe, the victim was aware of the dirtbag?


----------



## Bruno@MT (May 4, 2010)

I think there is a misunderstanding. I meant that in this case, the ploy was not prevented by vigilant citizenry (or DHS) but it was pure blind luck. People paying attention will only make a difference if there is something worth noticing. I would bet that the simple act of parking a car happens hundreds of thousands times per day someplace in NYC.

If someone parks his car someplace and goes out shopping or clubbing or whatever, that is perfectly normal, and would not cause anyone to think twice about it if there was nothing else noteworthy about the vehicle. If the person driving the car behaves normally and makes sure that the car is plain looking, it is virtually guaranteed that noone will notice it in time to prevent the attack.


----------



## seasoned (May 4, 2010)

No matter how the car bomb was detected, it is up to all of us to stay alert. Gut feeling goes a long way, so if it don't look right, get involved. Keys in the vehicle, running, with no driver, needs some attention. People like this are paving the way for the deadliest of one's that will follow.


----------



## Omar B (May 4, 2010)

There is no parking in Times Square man, that's why it raises eye brows.  There are drop offs and pick ups, but never parking.  Can you imagine what the busiest intersection in the world would look like if they allowed parking?

Also, these terrorists are dumb as ... well you know.  To think, they thought this was a good idea, "well take a plane."


----------



## Satt (May 4, 2010)

Terrorism fail. :flushed: <--Terrorist


----------



## Empty Hands (May 4, 2010)

Bruno@MT said:


> I am not complaining, I am just wondering... if DHS and their ilk are unable to stop even a bunch of untrained yokels, how are they supposed to stop someone who is going about it in an organized manner.



They aren't and they do.  A number of attempted attacks have been detected and dealt with beforehand by law enforcement.  It's just easier to forget the attacks that were prevented compared to the attacks that simply failed.

That said, there is no 100% security, no matter how competent the police, or how thoroughly we turn the nation into a police state.  That must be understood, and it must be understood that some attacks will succeed eventually.  We must be right every time, they only must be lucky once, etc.


----------



## Marginal (May 4, 2010)

Big Don said:


> Echoes of the Clinton Administration rules for dealing with terrorism.


Worked just fine til a different administration fell asleep at the wheel.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 4, 2010)

http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/05/04/new.york.bomb.suspect/



> The suspect in the failed Times Square car bombing is a Pakistani who became a naturalized U.S. citizen in April 2009 *and was on a national security no-fly list. * Faisal Shahzad, 30, of Bridgeport, Connecticut, was arrested Monday night at John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York as his flight to Dubai was about to take off, law enforcement officials said.
> *He was able to board the plane because he made his reservation on the way to the airport and it takes time to check flight manifests against no-fly lists*, a law enforcement official said Tuesday.



Two thoughts - first; the thought occurs to me that perhaps he was not even a suspect in this bombing; officials put two and two together after stopping the plane and taking him off it when they found out he was on the no-fly list.  Second, it bothers me to find he was nearly able to escape even though he was on the no-fly list because the check is not instant.  WTF, over?  In this day and age?   OMG.


----------



## Bruno@MT (May 4, 2010)

If he was on the no fly list, then how did he get in the country?
Presumably, if you're on the no fly list you can't fly to the US because otherwise you can't leave the US?

I don't understand why he didn't lie low for a month or so. Hiking in the woods or something. Playing tourist (with a fake ID) in a loud Aloha shirt. Possibly in company of a couple of dupes. Maybe even on a fake honeymoon with a spouse to provide an alibi (weak, but better than none).

And anyone with half a brain knows the airports are under watch after an alert like that. Why not take a cruise ship out to travel both in luxury and under the radar. Or bribe someone on a freight ship to stow away. Or drive to Mexico. The possibilities are endless, even on a limited budget (let's assume terrorist can spare a couple thousand bucks) but somehow, they figured that racing to the airport was the safest exit strategy.


----------



## Empty Hands (May 4, 2010)

Bruno@MT said:


> If he was on the no fly list, then how did he get in the country?



He's a citizen.  Presumably that means he's been here for quite a while.  He probably got involved in activities that would put him on the list right here.


----------



## Big Don (May 4, 2010)

Empty Hands said:


> He's a citizen.  Presumably that means he's been here for quite a while.  He probably got involved in activities that would put him on the list right here.


Like?


----------



## Archangel M (May 4, 2010)

...bomb making training in Pakistan.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (May 4, 2010)

Archangel M said:


> ...bomb making training in Pakistan.



From what I heard on WWJ on the way home tonight, that's right.  He has been in the USA since 1998, got his BA and MA here, but last year he became a citizen in 2009.  He flew to Pakistan after that, spending six months in Peshawar, and from what I heard on the radio, he admitted receiving bomb-making training there.  I would suppose that it was the six months in Peshawar that would have gotten him on the list, nothing he had done previously.  Just guessing, though.


----------



## MA-Caver (May 4, 2010)

Funny how it seems that those who are hunting terrorists just seem to go after the countries that have absolutely NO money to sustain terrorist organizations (unless you want to count illegal opium trade) and those rich countries (ahem Oil Bearing ones) are the ones that a lot of the terrorists have originated from or are going TO. 
Maybe Dubai was just a stop off point before continuing on to the poverty stricken areas of Pakistan and Afghanistan... umm... no. 

But how dare we accuse those who are feeding us our lifeblood of oil of harboring terrorists.

Hell, I shouldn't even be THINKING that.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (May 4, 2010)

MA-Caver said:


> Funny how it seems that those who are hunting terrorists just seem to go after the countries that have absolutely NO money to sustain terrorist organizations (unless you want to count illegal opium trade) and those rich countries (ahem Oil Bearing ones) are the ones that a lot of the terrorists have originated from or are going TO.
> Maybe Dubai was just a stop off point before continuing on to the poverty stricken areas of Pakistan and Afghanistan... umm... no.
> 
> But how dare we accuse those who are feeding us our lifeblood of oil of harboring terrorists.
> ...


 
Gonna take a shot in the dark here:

I would say that what is more likely is that the plots stopped by our government agencies from the "rich" countries that you are refering to are not making the news, and for very important reasons.  It might destabilize our relationship with those countries, even if that government was not involved, but its citizens were.  It might cause a destabilization of their government based on in-fighting.

Let's be honest here.  There are political considerations.  I can't stand it when people from both sides talk about how we are "politicizing" the war.  As Von Clauswitz said, war is politics by other means.

Complain all you want that its about oil.  Fine, whatever.  But when the oil stops flowing and you have to hump 62 miles to work like I would have to do, it makes a big deal.


----------



## Bruno@MT (May 5, 2010)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> Complain all you want that its about oil.  Fine, whatever.  But when the oil stops flowing and you have to hump 62 miles to work like I would have to do, it makes a big deal.



Sounds like someone really got the US by the balls if it is not even allowed to explore the dubai / saudi arabia angle, if the terrorism is really not government supported.


----------



## Archangel M (May 5, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> From what I heard on WWJ on the way home tonight, that's right. He has been in the USA since 1998, got his BA and MA here, but last year he became a citizen in 2009. He flew to Pakistan after that, spending six months in Peshawar, and from what I heard on the radio, he admitted receiving bomb-making training there. I would suppose that it was the six months in Peshawar that would have gotten him on the list, nothing he had done previously. Just guessing, though.


 
Actually, I just read an MSN article that stated the guy was put on "The List" specifically because he was a suspect in the bombing attempt. They were still putting the case together and didn't want him leaving the country.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (May 5, 2010)

Bruno@MT said:


> Sounds like someone really got the US by the balls if it is not even allowed to explore the dubai / saudi arabia angle, if the terrorism is really not government supported.


 
I didn't say they don't explore it.  What I am saying is that they don't talk to the press about it.

Kinda the same possible reasoning as to why the sections of the 9/11 Commision report about Saudi Arabia were not open to public consumption. 

Personally, I think there is a basis in that theory which gave an incentive to invade Iraq.  We might have realized that Saudi Arabia is not our friend, and sought to establish a significant stronghold in the region.  

Once again, war is politics by other means.


----------



## MJS (May 5, 2010)

Bruno@MT said:


> I think there is a misunderstanding. I meant that in this case, the ploy was not prevented by vigilant citizenry (or DHS) but it was pure blind luck. People paying attention will only make a difference if there is something worth noticing. I would bet that the simple act of parking a car happens hundreds of thousands times per day someplace in NYC.
> 
> If someone parks his car someplace and goes out shopping or clubbing or whatever, that is perfectly normal, and would not cause anyone to think twice about it if there was nothing else noteworthy about the vehicle. If the person driving the car behaves normally and makes sure that the car is plain looking, it is virtually guaranteed that noone will notice it in time to prevent the attack.


 
But there was something worth noticing.  IIRC, the guy who noticed the car said that he thought it was odd that it was parked there, and Omar said the same thing.  Now, had this been in another area, where parking on the street in allowed, then yes, I'd say it'd be much harder, but not impossible.  I say not impossible, because it is possible that someone may notice something out of the ordinary.


----------



## cdunn (May 6, 2010)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> I didn't say they don't explore it. What I am saying is that they don't talk to the press about it.
> 
> Kinda the same possible reasoning as to why the sections of the 9/11 Commision report about Saudi Arabia were not open to public consumption.
> 
> ...


 
More proof that an alternative to oil is desperately needed.


----------



## MA-Caver (May 6, 2010)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> Complain all you want that its about oil.  Fine, whatever.  But when the oil stops flowing and you have to hump 62 miles to work like I would have to do, it makes a big deal.


 You (and everybody else) wouldn't HAVE to hump 62 miles to work if the technology for NON petroleum based product cars would be allowed to be mass produced in this (and every other country). But no, those guys at Shell, Exxon, Standard and all the others still want their cash cow to keep the flow into their pockets. 
It's been LONG past the time where we would use electric, hydrogen and other alternate fuel vehicles on our roads. 
So I won't complain how "it's about OIL" ... it's about MONEY!


----------



## Archangel M (May 6, 2010)

Hydrogen..electric..ethanol..all require as much or MORE energy to produce the "fuel" than oil does. 

The old "big oil is squashing fuel tech" meme is BS. If they could figure out how to produce hydrogen tech at a profit they would be cutting each others throats to corner the hydrogen fuel market.


----------



## elder999 (May 6, 2010)

Archangel M said:


> Hydrogen..electric..ethanol..all require as much or MORE energy to produce the "fuel" than oil does.
> 
> The old "big oil is squashing fuel tech" meme is BS. If they could figure out how to produce hydrogen tech at a profit they would be cutting each others throats to corner the hydrogen fuel market.


 

South Africa has produced all it's gasoline and diesel fuel from coal and natural gas for more than 50 yrs., processes which are readily available, date back to before WWII, and are not carried out anywhere in the U.S.-chiefly because of the oil companies (though there are some environmental issues, they are not insurmountable.


----------



## Bruno@MT (May 7, 2010)

elder999 said:


> South Africa has produced all it's gasoline and diesel fuel from coal and natural gas for more than 50 yrs., processes which are readily available, date back to before WWII, and are not carried out anywhere in the U.S.-chiefly because of the oil companies (though there are some environmental issues, they are not insurmountable.



Not only some environmental issues, but I would suspect that those technologies can in no way produce the amount of oil required by the rest of the world. I think that Africa probably uses very little oil compared to Industrialized countries.

Imo, the only reasonable alternative is to harvest solar energy on a large scale in such rich places (like deserts which are good for not much else) and then use that energy either directly on the grid, or use it to create hydrogen from water to power combustion engines. I don't yet believe in the spread of electric cars because of the battery issues.


----------



## elder999 (May 7, 2010)

Bruno@MT said:


> Not only some environmental issues, but I would suspect that those technologies can in no way produce the amount of oil required by the rest of the world. I think that Africa probably uses very little oil compared to Industrialized countries..


 
1 ton of coal= 1.5 barrels of gasoline with the process as it currently exists.

THe U.S. has *ENOURMOUS* coal reserves: as of last year, the U.S. had 17.9 billion in recoverable reserves-that is to say,the amount that is available in mines that are currently being worked. The most recent estimate of total resources-all the coal in the ground, mineable or not- is _4 trillion tons_- a great deal of this figure may not be recoverable with current mining practices, though. The best estimate of  total recoverable coal is around 489 billion tons.

489000000000X1.5X55=40342500000000 gallons of gasoline

That's over 40 trillion gallons of gasoline. 

Average annual gasoline usage in the U.S. is about 329 million barrels a year, or about 2.75 trillion gallons per year. So, worst case, the goal that we know we can currently get out of the ground represents nearly 15 years of Saudi-free, Venezuelan-free, Canadian-free, Kuwaiti-free, Iraqi-free, Irani-free oil-our own somewhat limited oil production in addition to this notwithstanding.

Best case, that 4 trillion tons, represents _120 years_ of gasoline.

Of course, we use a great deal of coal to make electricity, so both figures are optimistic, but one can see how the production of gasoline from coal, coupled with conservation, could not only wean us away from foreign oil dependency, but lower the price of foreign oil by decreasing that demand. 

And yeah, the best thing to do is come up with something besides internal combustion-it's bad for the environment, anyway.....


----------



## Bruno@MT (May 7, 2010)

Thanks for those numbers. I notice you mention gasoline specifically. How about all the other byproducts from oil, like plastic, diesel, kerosene, Sulphuric acid, and all the other stuff that our western society pretty much relies on?

I am also curious about the economic angle. Labour in Africa is cheap, and safety and environmental regulations are pretty much non existing. Would it still be affordable to implement the coal - > fuel process.


----------



## elder999 (May 7, 2010)

Bruno@MT said:


> Thanks for those numbers. I notice you mention gasoline specifically. How about all the other byproducts from oil, like plastic, diesel, kerosene, Sulphuric acid, and all the other stuff that our western society pretty much relies on?
> 
> I am also curious about the economic angle. Labour in Africa is cheap, and safety and environmental regulations are pretty much non existing. Would it still be affordable to implement the coal - > fuel process.


 
IT's the country, _South Africa_. They did it because of sanctions imposed by apartheid. While labor was probably cheap, their safety and environmental regulations weren't "pretty much nonexisiting." Of course, the company that produces it is a government created entity, so.......

As for all the other byproducts from oil, the coal process can produce a variety of thos products:diesel, kerosene and H2SO4-I dunno about plastic, though I'm pretty sure the answer is yes....can't that be made from plants, though? The process itself is more than 80 years old-it was invented by the Germans for pretty much the same sort of reasons as South Africa's....there's a real interesting book called _The Alchemy of Air_ which touches on it, while detailing the early twentieth century quest for man made fixed nitrogen....


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (May 7, 2010)

MA-Caver said:


> You (and everybody else) wouldn't HAVE to hump 62 miles to work if the technology for NON petroleum based product cars would be allowed to be mass produced in this (and every other country). But no, those guys at Shell, Exxon, Standard and all the others still want their cash cow to keep the flow into their pockets.
> It's been LONG past the time where we would use electric, hydrogen and other alternate fuel vehicles on our roads.
> So I won't complain how "it's about OIL" ... it's about MONEY!


 
Don't get me wrong.  I've been telling people that I know for YEARS that we have the answer to this problem.  With a combination of technologies, we absolutely could wean ourselves off of oil or at least foreign oil. 

But, for whatever reason, we aren't doing it.  So, we go to the Middle East to change to political make-up of the region.  I understand that it's government collusion with the oil industries, and others that are causing this problem.

But that's what happens when you let the government become involved in those enterprises, and then make it so you need millions of dollars to run an election campaign.

HUH!  I guess that's why I'm for non-interference by the government to a large extent.


----------

