another 9-11 attack planned?

[Guest American Woman]

According to this article, an Afghan-born man, who was apprehended, had plans to carry out another terrorist attack in NYC on 9-11.

An Afghan immigrant wanted to carry out a New York City terror attack involving hydrogen peroxide bombs to coincide with the Sept. 11 anniversary before federal authorities foiled the plan, a U.S. prosecutor said Friday.

Zazi's attorney, Arthur Folsom, argued at the hearing that Zazi should be released on bond with electronic monitoring. He said Zazi has family ties in Colorado: His parents and five siblings.

"If that's not an indication of strong family ties to the state of Colorado, I don't know what is," Folsom said.

Shaffer disagreed, saying Zazi had been in Colorado less than a year. "He has very little reason to stay," the judge said.

Why would anyone even consider releasing him? I doubt whether his "strong family ties" mean much if he was willing to chance imprisonment. And yes, I know he's innocent until proven guilty, but the evidence sounds damning enough that the charge should be strong enough to keep him locked up until he can prove innocence.

Edited to add:

From an updated article:

Law enforcement experts have called the alleged conspiracy, if proven, one of the most significant security threats in the United States since the attacks of September 11, 2001.

Edited September 25, 2009 by American Woman

[eyeball]

Why would anyone even consider releasing him?

Its not just anyone considering this, it's his lawyer. It's a lawyer's job to do that.

I know he's innocent until proven guilty, but the evidence sounds damning enough that the charge should be strong enough to keep him locked up until he can prove innocence.

It sounds like the judge agreed.

Any ideas on why the attack(s) didn't occur, as planned?

[Guest American Woman]

Its not just anyone considering this, it's his lawyer. It's a lawyer's job to do that.

I agree; it is his lawyer's job to do that. But I anticipated an outcry from people who think it would be wrong not to let him out until proven guilty. I guess I get so used to criticism about the US that I 'get my guard up' when I read something like this. I doubt I'm wrong, too; I'm sure that some will say this is just another instance of the US holding someone without just cause.

Any ideas on why the attack(s) didn't occur, as planned?

Since carrying out terrorist attacks isn't my area of expertise, I wouldn't specifically know why it/they didn't occur -- except to speculate that any number of things could have gone wrong, preventing the attack(s) from occurring. I would imagine carrying out terrorist attacks isn't necessarily 'smooth sailing.'

[GostHacked]

There have been about 4 or 5 plots that have been averted in the last week alone. Full moon?

[Guest American Woman]

There have been about 4 or 5 plots that have been averted in the last week alone. Full moon?

Kinda makes you feel as if it's just a matter of time before one is carried out. It's why I never put any stock in the "we haven't had a terrorist attack on our soil since 9-11" false sense of security. It's why I also can't understand Canadians who feel as if they are free from the 'threat,' since other attacks have been successfully carried out in other nations.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Security is a relative thing. We never were and never will be perfectly safe. No such place exists on this planet.

[eyeball]

Kinda makes you feel as if it's just a matter of time before one is carried out. It's why I never put any stock in the "we haven't had a terrorist attack on our soil since 9-11" false sense of security. It's why I also can't understand Canadians who feel as if they are free from the 'threat,' since other attacks have been successfully carried out in other nations.

I wonder about that a lot too - not for the same reason you do, but for the same reasons that most nations are being attacked. I put a fair bit of stock in the threats that have been made against us and I think the best we can hope for is a lucky break.

Edited September 26, 2009 by eyeball

[BubberMiley]

I think the best we can hope for is a lucky break.

In the meantime, I guess we'll have to spend billions of dollars, sacrifice our personal freedoms, and cower before every disaffected religious whackjob who wants to kill himself in god's name.

[kimmy]

I think Canadians who don't feel concerned about terrorism are probably people who doubt the threat is significant anywhere else either.

People who believe 9/11 was an isolated event (or was fake). People who assume the fact that there's been only a handful of significant successful terror attacks on Western countries since 9/11 is evidence that terrorist activity doesn't exist to the degree that the authorities would claim. People who believe that the danger has been hyped out of proportion for political reasons.

I doubt that many Canadians still fall into the "we're safe because we're Canadian and everybody loves Canadians" school of thought.

-k

[BubberMiley]

The odds of dying from a terrorist event are so small you would have to be irrational to be concerned about it in terms of your own personal safety.

[Guest American Woman]

I wonder about that a lot too - not for the same reason you do, but for the same reasons that most nations are being attacked. I put a fair bit of stock in the threats that have been made against us and I think the best we can hope for is a lucky break.

I'm not sure what you are saying here. What do you think my reasons are?

[sharkman]

There have been about 4 or 5 plots that have been averted in the last week alone. Full moon?

No, Obama is the reason why. The guy who has stricken the phrase war on terrorism from the white house, is down sizing the border security on the Mexican border, and has neutered the CIA has brought hope to terrorists everywhere.

[eyeball]

I'm not sure what you are saying here. What do you think my reasons are?

I just assumed our reasons were different - you've never appeared to put much stock in the idea that 9/11 was a retaliatory attack, whereas I'm pretty sure we'll be attacked in retaliation for...counter-retaliating I guess.

I think most Canadians who (naively) feel safe will say its because we're 'over there' fighting the terrorists. I believe the opposite. We're even deeper in harm's way now.

[Guest American Woman]

I just assumed our reasons were different - you've never appeared to put much stock in the idea that 9/11 was a retaliatory attack, ....

I think it's in retaliation for our way of life, so in that regard I think it was "retaliatory."

If I understand what you've said in other threads correctly, you believe the U.S. "started it" back in Iran, in 1953. I don't see that as starting bin Laden's anger towards the U.S. since he was more than willing to accept our assistance in Afghanistan's fight against Russia. Evidently his 'problem' towards the U.S. came later.

You've also said: In short, the west's foreign policies in this region, starting with Iran helped cause 9/11 to happen. That's different from saying it was in retaliation for that policy. But even so, one cannot say what you claim with certainty. The Shah, evidently hand-picked by the U.S. AND Britain, though ruthless, moved Iran forward. He created a modern economy and granted rights to women. Many of his reforms, especially those involving women, infuriated conservative Muslims. I would think they would have been infuriated by those reforms even if they had been carried out by someone who wasn't seen as "a puppet of the west."

That doesn't excuse what Britain and the U.S. did, but it doesn't mean conservative Muslims wouldn't have revolted anyway. Would they have been able to topple the government on their own without the support of those who wanted more political freedom? I suppose the obvious answer would be that it would have been much more unlikely, so in that sense the actions did "help" conservative Muslims gain political control; ie: power.

As for the rest of the sentence from your post that I quoted above:

[...] whereas I'm pretty sure we'll be attacked in retaliation for...counter-retaliating I guess.

I'm not sure what you mean by that. I'm reading it as you'll be attacked in retaliation for supporting the U.S. in "retaliating" for 9-11. I don't see the war in Afghanistan as retaliating, I see it as fighting back. But I suppose that's another topic. So I would like to address the idea that you think the U.S. was a target for "retaliation" prior to 9-11 while Canada is only after your involvement in Afghanistan.

In that regard, I'd like to go back you what you, in effect, say 'started it all,' and that's the overthrow of the government in Iran in 1953.

To begin with, our involvement was at the request of Britain, pretty much the same as you see Canada's involvement in Afghanistan being at the request of the U.S.

It was Britain who initially had a problem with Iran's new government because under Mosaddeq, Iran's oil, which had been under British control, was nationalized. When Britain couldn't get anywhere with him, they came to the U.S. with a request to aid in overthrowing him. The U.S. did.

At this time, Canada had strong ties to Britain. It was just six years after the Canadian Citizenship act gave Canadians Canadian citizenship so they were no longer British subjects, and it was just one year after Canada proclaimed Elizabeth II "Queen of Canada." And it wasn't until 1956, when Britain attacked Egypt, that Canada opposed a British foreign policy initiative. That would mean Canada didn't oppose Britain's policy to overthrow Mosaddeq.

The U.S. helped Britain because we benefited from that relationship, same as you supported the U.S. in Afghanistan; you support us because you benefit from your relationship with us. If we had not been the 'rich' nation that we are, Canada, by its close trade ties, would not be as economically sound. So Britain first made plans based on what would benefit them financially, we made our decision based on what would benefit us financially, and Canada made decisions based on what would benefit Canada financially. In the end, we are all pretty much the same.

I think most Canadians who (naively) feel safe will say its because we're 'over there' fighting the terrorists. I believe the opposite. We're even deeper in harm's way now.

I think Canada was always in harm's way, but now it's come more to a head. As I pointed out, Canada wasn't 'innocent' regarding prior issues.

Btw, I found this interesting -- two of the reasons Canada is not safe from a terrorist attack according to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service:

* Graduates of terrorist training camps in countries such as Afghanistan reside in Canada or continue to seek access toCanada.

* Canadians have been involved in planning terrorist attacks in other countries, either while residing in or outside Canada.

Edited September 26, 2009 by American Woman

[Guest American Woman]

Security is a relative thing. We never were and never will be perfectly safe. No such place exists on this planet.

I totally agree. But we still strive to be as safe as possible.

[GostHacked]

Kinda makes you feel as if it's just a matter of time before one is carried out. It's why I never put any stock in the "we haven't had a terrorist attack on our soil since 9-11" false sense of security. It's why I also can't understand Canadians who feel as if they are free from the 'threat,' since other attacks have been successfully carried out in other nations.

We won't worry about it until it happens I guess. Why spend yor time worrying about something that might happen.

[eyeball]

I think it's in retaliation for our way of life, so in that regard I think it was "retaliatory."

That resonates closely with the sentiment they hate freedom. This just doesn't make sense to me, its like saying people hate breathing or something. I think its more accurate to say they hate our abuse of our freedom - to secure our way of life by installing dictatorships who were/are inimical to the exact type of freedom we claim to value so much, starting with Iran. The overthrow of Mossadegh was certainly not the direct trigger for 9/11 but it marked the beginning of the west's fall from whatever grace it could claim in the region and it clearly poisoned relations between the west and much of the Muslim world. It created a lasting impression that has been reinforced with every shipment of arms or development aid the west sent to other dictators in the region.

As for the rest of the sentence from your post that I quoted above:

I'm not sure what you mean by that. I'm reading it as you'll be attacked in retaliation for supporting the U.S. in "retaliating" for 9-11. I don't see the war in Afghanistan as retaliating, I see it as fighting back.

You read me right.

I would like to address the idea that you think the U.S. was a target for "retaliation" prior to 9-11 while Canada is only after your involvement in Afghanistan...

...I think Canada was always in harm's way, but now it's come more to a head. As I pointed out, Canada wasn't 'innocent' regarding prior issues.

That's what I generally think too. The threat has only become more acute.

Btw, I found this interesting -- two of the reasons Canada is not safe from a terrorist attack according to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service:

* Graduates of terrorist training camps in countries such as Afghanistan reside in Canada or continue to seek access toCanada.

* Canadians have been involved in planning terrorist attacks in other countries, either while residing in or outside Canada.

Perhaps, I don't put a lot of stock in the threat assessments of CSIS, I think this is mostly fearmongering. I also largely disregard the idea that we had to invade Afghanistan because its a haven, a breeding ground, or some sort of grand central training center for global terrorism. I've seen the same images you have of people doing calisthenics and the sort of things you might see in a paint-ball park and I just don't buy it. You don't need to go all the way to Afghanistan to do that. The terrorists that attacked on 9/11 clearly did not use flight simulators in Afghanistan. As for Afghanistan being a center where terrorists become indoctrinated...maybe in the past before the advent of the Internet and instantaneous communications, but not now.

I can understand how radicalized people might be persuaded to do something awful. What I can't see is how an otherwise democratic freedom loving people like us can be persuaded to think its completely normal to prop up a dictator but I can certainly see how this grotesque contradiction would radicalize people.

[Guest American Woman]

That resonates closely with the sentiment they hate freedom. This just doesn't make sense to me, its like saying people hate breathing or something. I think its more accurate to say they hate our abuse of our freedom - to secure our way of life by installing dictatorships who were/are inimical to the exact type of freedom we claim to value so much, starting with Iran. The overthrow of Mossadegh was certainly not the direct trigger for 9/11 but it marked the beginning of the west's fall from whatever grace it could claim in the region and it clearly poisoned relations between the west and much of the Muslim world. It created a lasting impression that has been reinforced with every shipment of arms or development aid the west sent to other dictators in the region.

I don't think it's anything close to "they hate our freedoms." I think they hate our choices, not the fact that we have "freedoms." We live life totally in contradiction to their fundamental/conservative/radical Islamic beliefs. In other words, they hate our culture. They go after Muslims who don't follow/adhere to their radical beliefs, too. I think they see us as infidels, and feel it's their job to keep us at bay; in other words, to dictate our foreign policy -- perhaps the way the Taliban dictates what Afghans can and cannot do. And what gives them the right to control anyone else's beliefs?

I can understand how radicalized people might be persuaded to do something awful. What I can't see is how an otherwise democratic freedom loving people like us can be persuaded to think its completely normal to prop up a dictator

Have we been persuaded that its completely normal to prop up a dictator? Because I don't think it is, and I'm sure there are plenty of others who feel the same way.

...but I can certainly see how this grotesque contradiction would radicalize people.

So can I. What I can't understand is how it would make them want to kill innocent people.

Furthermore, as I said, they kill their 'own,' too, for not adhering to their Islamic rules. So it's about more than just hatred of the west for things that we've done; it's about their religious beliefs, which they would still have regardless of what we have or haven't done.

And this is the most puzzling thing-- they come to live in our countries. So if they feel we should stay out of their lands, what are they doing coming to live in ours; especially when they detest our values/culture? Furthermore, we let them. They would not do the same for us; they would no tolerate us as we have tolerated them.

[Shady]

There have been about 4 or 5 plots that have been averted in the last week alone. Full moon?

On that theme, I saw a great stat related to Countdown with Keith Olberman. Number of times he mentioned Palin last week, 56. Number of times he mentioned the averted terrorist attacks, 0. Why am I not suprised.

[Black Dog]

No, Obama is the reason why. The guy who has stricken the phrase war on terrorism from the white house, is down sizing the border security on the Mexican border, and has neutered the CIA has brought hope to terrorists everywhere.

And yet they've averted all these alleged terror plots. Doing more with less?

[eyeball]

I don't think it's anything close to "they hate our freedoms." I think they hate our choices, not the fact that we have "freedoms." We live life totally in contradiction to their fundamental/conservative/radical Islamic beliefs. In other words, they hate our culture.

We're guilty of some pretty glaring contradictions ourselves everytime we prop up some dictatorship.

They go after Muslims who don't follow/adhere to their radical beliefs, too. I think they see us as infidels, and feel it's their job to keep us at bay; in other words, to dictate our foreign policy -- perhaps the way the Taliban dictates what Afghans can and cannot do. And what gives them the right to control anyone else's beliefs?

They're clearly nuts alright. That's the nature of fundamentalism.

Have we been persuaded that its completely normal to prop up a dictator? Because I don't think it is, and I'm sure there are plenty of others who feel the same way.

Considering the usually secretive dealings our governments, and corporations, have with these dictators most people haven't even had a clue its been happening, this is why the blowback has seemed so surprising and shocking to people that can't or won't put it into this perspective. It seems obvious to me that the critical mass of people who do think its normal to prop up dictators is big enough to make it happen. Like the Taliban, they probably believe they have a right and a duty to do what ever it takes to pursue their interests too.

Furthermore, as I said, they kill their 'own,' too, for not adhering to their Islamic rules. So it's about more than just hatred of the west for things that we've done; it's about their religious beliefs, which they would still have regardless of what we have or haven't done.

That's the really debateable part. No doubt there was and will be for some time an extreme fundamentalist muslim fringe, as there is in any religion. I think there are enough compelling reasons to conclude however that our ongoing long term interference in the region has provided much of the oxygen that's fuelled the malignant growth of extremism. People will counter that by asking why people from other cultures we've diddled with haven't felt the compulsion to retaliate. My only answer is that we've been lucky and unfortunately for us the more radical elements of Muslim culture have a history of nursing grudges and seeking vengence, this is what's feeding the malignancy. A good contrast in my mind is to compare these to the people in the region around Vietnam. There is a strong Bhuddist influence in folks from southeast Asia that appears to me to have compelled most people to let go of the past and move on. That compulsion just doesn't seem as strong in the Muslim culture. I can't help but notice the people around southeast Asia slaughtered themselves by the millions too so what is the explaination for that? The commonest factor in both cases seems to be the presence of outside interference - which acts like a trigger that drives cultures insane. Some just recover faster whereas others may never get over it. It was only a matter of time before our culture bit off more than it can chew.

And this is the most puzzling thing-- they come to live in our countries. So if they feel we should stay out of their lands, what are they doing coming to live in ours; especially when they detest our values/culture? Furthermore, we let them. They would not do the same for us; they would no tolerate us as we have tolerated them.

I think you've fallen into the trap of letting the extreme actions of a few bad people characterize all people from these regions as being radical extremists. I suspect most of the immigrants from the worst 'lands' are fleeing them as opposed to invading ours.

Edited September 30, 2009 by eyeball

[Shady]

And yet they've averted all these alleged terror plots. Doing more with less?

Nope. These are situations that have been under investigation for quite some time.

[Guest American Woman]

We're guilty of some pretty glaring contradictions ourselves everytime we prop up some dictatorship.

I never said we weren't guilty of contradictions, but I'm not sure what that has to do with Islamic Extremists hating our culture and their desire to force other Muslims to live by their rules.

They're clearly nuts alright. That's the nature of fundamentalism.

They are nuts, and if we let nuts start dictating our foreign policy to us, what does that make us?

Considering the usually secretive dealings our governments, and corporations, have with these dictators most people haven't even had a clue its been happening, this is why the blowback has seemed so surprising and shocking to people that can't or won't put it into this perspective. It seems obvious to me that the critical mass of people who do think its normal to prop up dictators is big enough to make it happen. Like the Taliban, they probably believe they have a right and a duty to do what ever it takes to pursue their interests too.

I'm sure the Taliban does think they have the right to pursue their interests too. So did Hitler. Doesn't make it right and it doesn't make it a blowback; there's more involved.

That's the really debateable part. No doubt there was and will be for some time an extreme fundamentalist muslim fringe, as there is in any religion. I think there are enough compelling reasons to conclude however that our ongoing long term interference in the region has provided much of the oxygen that's fuelled the malignant growth of extremism. People will counter that by asking why people from other cultures we've diddled with haven't felt the compulsion to retaliate. My only answer is that we've been lucky and unfortunately for us the more radical elements of Muslim culture have a history of nursing grudges and seeking vengence, this is what's feeding the malignancy.

Not just nursing grudges and seeking vengeance, but doing what they perceive to be "Allah's bidding."

A good contrast in my mind is to compare these to the people in the region around Vietnam. There is a strong Bhuddist influence in folks from southeast Asia that appears to me to have compelled most people to let go of the past and move on. That compulsion just doesn't seem as strong in the Muslim culture.

I think a big part of that is because they aren't extremists, and they don't seem compelled to force other people to live by their religious standards/beliefs.

I can't help but notice the people around southeast Asia slaughtered themselves by the millions too so what is the explaination for that? The commonest factor in both cases seems to be the presence of outside interference - which acts like a trigger that drives cultures insane. Some just recover faster whereas others may never get over it. It was only a matter of time before our culture bit off more than it can chew.

You seem to see only one side when you see it all as us biting off more than we can chew. You seem to think that if it weren't for our actions, they would be fine and dandy with the West/Israel. Fact is, they see us as infidels, and that has everything to do with them and their beliefs. I suppose if we bowed down to all of their demands and did their bidding, they would leave us alone. Do you see that as a viable solution?

I think you've fallen into the trap of letting the extreme actions of a few bad people characterize all people from these regions as being radical extremists. I suspect most of the immigrants from the worst 'lands' are fleeing them as opposed to invading ours.

You couldn't be more wrong. I never so much as insinuated that I think "all people" from these regions are radical extremists. I was referring to the ones who are.

[Shady]

I think there are enough compelling reasons to conclude however that our ongoing long term interference in the region has provided much of the oxygen that's fuelled the malignant growth of extremism. People will counter that by asking why people from other cultures we've diddled with haven't felt the compulsion to retaliate. My only answer is that we've been lucky

What complete and utter nonsense. It's our fault that homosexuals are stoned to death? It's our fault women are beaten for wearing pants? It's our fault that females are forbidden from obtaining an education? And it's our fault that Islamic extremists' goal is to "kill the infidels (non-believers)"? I'm not sure if you're aware, but Muslim countries have been ruled by dictators before the United States was even a country. And Muslim countries were regressing long before "the west" as we know it even existed. Your post is void of any logic, reason, and facts.

[eyeball]

What complete and utter nonsense. It's our fault that homosexuals are stoned to death? It's our fault women are beaten for wearing pants? It's our fault that females are forbidden from obtaining an education? And it's our fault that Islamic extremists' goal is to "kill the infidels (non-believers)"? I'm not sure if you're aware, but Muslim countries have been ruled by dictators before the United States was even a country. And Muslim countries were regressing long before "the west" as we know it even existed. Your post is void of any logic, reason, and facts.

The entire planet was pretty much ruled by dictators before the US was a country, what's your point? Your post completely overlooks the fact that western societies regard for democracy and basic human rights was barely a few decades more advanced than what was developing in, say Iran in 1953 for example.

Your post is filled with a self-rightous hubris that is downright loathsome.

Hubris (/hjuːbrɪs/) (ancient Greek ὕβρις) is a term used in modern English to indicate overweening pride, haughtiness, or arrogance, often resulting in fatal retribution or Nemesis.

Source

Edited September 30, 2009 by eyeball