Tag: Antiwar movement

Just like I said when the story broke.

LA Times:

Aviation experts cautioned Saturday that the alleged plot targeting John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York would have faced many hurdles, not least of which is the fact that jet fuel does not easily explode.

“The level of catastrophe that may be created is much more limited than most people would expect,” said Rafi Ron, former head of security at Tel Aviv’s Ben Gurion International Airport. “The fuel that we are talking about is mostly jet fuel, which, unlike the gasoline most people put into their cars, is not that susceptible to explosion.”

That difficulty apparently concerned one of the alleged plotters — an engineer who, federal authorities said in their complaint, explained to his associates that the tanks at JFK would probably require two explosions to provide enough oxygen to ignite the fuel.

But even then, aviation security experts said, fire would not have spread through the pressurized pipelines that bring fuel out to airplanes parked at gates.

“The probability that an explosion would travel through the pipeline and destroy targets along the tarmac is almost nil,” said Ron, now president of New Age Security Solutions in Rockville, Md. “The exception would be pipelines that are not in use and contain vapor.”

New York Times:

The criminal complaint filed by the federal authorities against the four defendants in the case — one of them, Abdel Nur, remained at large yesterday — suggests a less than mature terror plan, a proposed effort longer on evil intent than on operational capability. …

Some law enforcement officials and engineers also dismissed the notion that the planned attack could have resulted in a catastrophic chain reaction; system safeguards, they said, would have stopped explosions from spreading.

The complaint, filed in Federal District Court in Brooklyn, also suggests that at least two of the suspects had some ambivalence. One of the men was game for bombing the airport but leery about killing masses of people, the complaint says. Another dropped out of the plot for a time to tend to his business. …

As with many post-9/11 terror plots, the line between terrible aspiration and reality can get lost in a murky haze.

In case after case, from what authorities said was a dirty bomber to the Lackawanna Six, federal prosecutors hail arrests of terrorists and disruptions of what they describe as sinister plots. But as these legal cases unfold, the true nature of the threats can come into question. …

The papers give reason for doubt about the competence of the suspects. The details tend to suggest a distance between Mr. Defreitas’s dream and any nightmarish reality.

There is, too, the question of the role played by the unidentified undercover informant who befriended Mr. Defreitas.

The informant is a convicted drug trafficker, and his sentence is pending as part of his cooperation agreement with the federal government, said the authorities. …

Many of the plot’s larger details are left to the imagination.

Surprisingly frank discrediting of the DoJ’s assertions by the two Timeses, I’d say.

Generally, I think the rule of thumb is that the louder TV yells the less scared we should be.

Update: The AP has more on the informant-provocateur here.

Update 2: Arthur Silber takes on the case and the sissy-pants scaredy cats at the National Review.

Whom to despise most? Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, Bill Richardson, the talking heads, or the whimpering audience of welfare-warfare half-wits? My mind changes as each opens his or her mouth.

UPDATE: Holy sh*t, Joe Biden just uttered a non-appalling sentiment! When asked how he’d deal with Iran acquiring nuclear weapons, Biden said (paraphrasing), The first thing I’d do is end this policy of regime-change. We’re saying to Iran: get rid of the only thing that keeps us from attacking you, then we’ll attack you.

He then followed up by grunting that he’d “take out” any weapon Iran may build. Ho-hum. Status quo ante.

UPDATE 2: Biden has since taken credit for the U.S. intervention in the Balkans and sworn to bomb Sudan real good.

FINAL: It’s too dispiriting to list and rebut every wrongheaded policy on sale tonight, so I won’t. Suffice to say that, despite the frequent references by CNN’s John King to the strength of the antiwar movement among Democratic voters, each of the candidates with a shot at becoming president or vice president is a committed imperialist. If this is how they play to their supposedly antiwar base, imagine what they’ll be saying when they turn right after the primaries.

Update: ABC has posted a toned-down version of the story.

“ABC News Learns of Plans to Keep Troops in Iraq Beyond 2009,” was the top story posted on Saturday morning’s edition of Antiwar.com. Then the story disappeared.

The link now says “You’ve requested an ABCNews.com page that does not exist.”

The story said that US officials had told ABC News that the troop levels in Iraq cannot be maintained at the present level, either politically or practically, with the military stretched so thin.

It went on to explain that this had not deterred the plans of top US commanders in Iraq want the surge to continue until at least December and expect to report enough progress by September to justify the extension.

This was an important story, but elements of it still exist. Gen. Odierno had said on Thursday that he would probably need more time than September to assess the results of the new strategy. The same day Defense Secretary Gates indicated that our presence in Iraq would be for a “protracted period of time.” The previous day, White House spokesman Tony Snow indicated our 50-year presence in Korea should be a good future model for Iraq.

A portion of the article was retrieved from a bulletin board posting:

U.S. officials told ABC News that the troop levels in Iraq cannot be maintained at the present level, either politically or practically, with the military stretched so thin.

But that does not imply an immediate drawdown. Officials told ABC’s Martha Raddatz that the senior commanders in Iraq — Lt. Gen. Ray Odierno and Gen. David Petraeus — want the surge to continue until at least December and expect to report enough progress by September to justify the extension.

The drawdown would begin in February 2008, although each of the two generals supports a slightly different plan.

Plan one, which officials say Odierno is pushing, calls for a reduction in troops from roughly 150,000 today to 100,000 by December 2008.

Petraeus champions a slightly different approach that would cut the troops down to roughly 130,000 by the end of 2008, with further reductions the following year.

Presence in Iraq Beyond 2009

There is also discussion of how long U.S. troops will remain in Iraq.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates envisions “some presence” on the part of the United States that “provides reassurance to our friends and to governments in the region, including those that might be our adversaries, that we’re going to be there for a long time,” Gates said.

A senior official said one long-term plan would have 30,000 to 50,000 U.S. forces in Iraq for five to 10 years beyond 2009.

During that period, the bulk of the troops would be deployed to bases at strategic points throughout Iraq to respond to crisis in those areas. Camp Victory would continue to operate as the U.S. military headquarters in Baghdad.

On May 15th, Dr. Ron Paul, the antiwar Republican presidential candidate and congressman from Texas, was denounced by “America’s Mayor” in the second Republican presidential debate when he sited the role of American foreign policy in motivating the murderers of 9/11. Giuliani demanded a retraction and an apology for the statement, which Paul refused to do. (For a full account of Paul and Giuliani’s clash, click here.)

On May 24th, Dr. Paul assigned a list of books to help get Giuliani familiar with the realities of American foreign Policy:

The 9/11 Commission Report

Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire by Chalmers Johnson

Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror by Michael Scheuer (the former Chief of the CIA’s bin Laden Unit, Alec Station)

Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism by Professor Robert A. Pape of the University of Chicago

But by the look of Rudy Giuliani’s beady little eyes, and knowing how busy he is collecting investments – er, donations – from those who plan to make their living off of the taxpayer in a Giuliani administration, it is easy to imagine that the self-described hero of 9/11 and terrorism expert has not been able to sit down and read these books.

(Much less, Perfect Soldiers by Terry McDermott, The Looming Tower by Lawrence Wright, A Pretext for War by James Bamford, Terror Incorporated or Insurgent Iraq by Loretta Napoleoni, 1000 Years for Revenge by Peter Lance, The Far Enemy by Fawaz A. Gerges, Holy War, Inc. by Peter Bergen, Ghost Wars by Steve Coll, or anything else about the people who took part in the attacks.)

Now Rudy Giuliani and anyone else out there who can’t see too well, were never taught how to read by their government school teachers or just can’t find the time in their hectic schedule can relax. Antiwar.com has done your homework for you.

You can listen to MP3 audio of in-depth radio interviews with the authors of the books on Ron Paul’s list (less Philip Zelikow), recorded just in the last two weeks for Antiwar Radio and the world at large.

Former CIA analyst Michael Scheuer May 18th

[audio:http://dissentradio.com/radio/07_05_18_scheuer.mp3]

Professor Robert A. Pape June 1st

[audio:http://dissentradio.com/radio/07_06_01_pape.mp3]

Former CIA advisor Chalmers Johnson May 17th

[audio:http://dissentradio.com/radio/07_05_17_chjohnson.mp3]

Two other former CIA officials have also told Antiwar Radio that Dr. Paul is right about al Qaeda terrorism against the U.S. being a consequence of our interventionist foreign policy:

Former CIA counter-terrorism agent Philip Giraldi May 23rd

[audio:http://dissentradio.com/radio/07_05_23_giraldi.mp3]

Former CIA analyst Ray McGovern May 25th

[audio:http://dissentradio.com/radio/07_05_25_mcgovern.mp3]

Bottom line: The only reason that Osama and his gang are able to recruit suicide terrorists is by pointing to real, earthly grievances: specifically the presence of foreign occupying armies in their countries – not 72 virgins in heaven, not freedom, nor a plan to create an Islamic Caliphate.

Occupation.

Yeah, yeah, big scary terrorist plot.

Every time this happens, it turns out that the whole damn thing was either made up by the state out of thin air, the idea to do something violent came from the undercover FBI informant or the “truth” was tortured out of the guy.

There’s no al Qaeda in America. As always, the biggest threat to our lives and liberties is the national government of the United States. Now you know how the rest of the world feels.

Partial list of bogus domestic terrorism plots “busted” by the Federal Cops since 9/11 (all the false warnings are too numerous to mention.):

• Lackawanna Six
• Detroit
• Virginia Paintball guys
• The tortured Abu Ali
• Jose Padilla
• Lodi, California
• Miami plot against the Sears Tower
• New York subway tunnels
• New York subway station
• “Liquid explosives” plot on UK to US flights
• Ft. Dix Six

But, I’m so sure we can believe them when they tell us to be frightened about a plot at JFK!

What, just because there has not been a single case where they have actually busted domestic terrorists since 9/11?! Surely they’re not lying this time!

Someday there will be real terrorists and Americans will die because the FBI is screwing around with a bunch of nonsense. Again.