hoyaalf
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
I like what your doing very much. Why squirrel hate me?
Posts: 688
|
Post by hoyaalf on Apr 9, 2010 8:36:53 GMT -5
How about a real life explanation: the dude has a hot date; he's dragooned into flying to Denver; he hates flying; he hates the diplomatic corps; he hates his boss; he hates this jerk he has to go talk to, and he hates that he just broke his promise to his nine-year old that he give up smoking; and he hates this 'itch getting in his toilet space.
He does a wise-ass dumb thing as I have done, but forgets he's not Swedish.
And no one has yet adduced evidence that he was not on his way to meet someone in the men's room!
|
|
The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Post by The Stig on Apr 9, 2010 11:22:24 GMT -5
So...one Washington Post online chatter, identified as "Maryland", has made this a race thing, so it's officially a race thing? Not buying it. And the answer from the Post guy here refers not to what actually happened on the plane, but to screening that happens before anyone boards. In short, meh. "As word of Madadi's fate traveled quickly through Washington's diplomatic community, the reaction at Arab and Muslim embassies was twofold. There was widespread agreement that Madadi appeared to have done a dumb thing. But many think that profiling was involved, and that the situation would not have gone so far if Madadi were not Arab. "We all share the same concerns about profiling of Arabs and Arab Americans in a time of strong anxiety, particularly in the air travel industry," said one ambassador. Enhanced security, he said, is in "everyone's best interest, and we hope and expect the security procedures are implemented uniformly." One of his colleagues was more blunt, saying that the incident "never would have happened if [Madadi] were Swedish." Several diplomats from Arab and Muslim-majority countries said they had been stopped while boarding domestic flights in the United States, many for secondary searches and pat-downs they think were initiated because of their names or nationalities. "They're not supposed to do pat-downs of ambassadors," said one chief of mission, "but my choice is to argue about it or just get it over with." "I have a U.S. passport" in addition to that of the country he represents, another diplomat said. "But I've had situations where I'm traveling with a blond, blue-eyed person and I'm the one who gets pulled out for secondary checking."" At the same time, Madadi probably wouldn't have made the joke if he's Swedish. Arabs/Arab looking people get so much cr*p from airport security that it sort of becomes an inside joke among them. I've got some Pakistani friends, and it's always one of the stock jokes we use with them. That said, it was mind-numbingly stupid to use the joke when you're on a freaking airplane. |
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Apr 9, 2010 11:47:45 GMT -5
How about a real life explanation: the dude has a hot date; he's dragooned into flying to Denver; he hates flying; he hates the diplomatic corps; he hates his boss; he hates this jerk he has to go talk to, and he hates that he just broke his promise to his nine-year old that he give up smoking; and he hates this 'itch getting in his toilet space. He does a wise-ass dumb thing as I have done, but forgets he's not Swedish. And no one has yet adduced evidence that he was not on his way to meet someone in the men's room! How about: maybe he's in a bad mood for whatever reason but he remembers that smoking on planes is against the law -- because they only tell you that 50,000 times when you get on a plane. He decides to obey the law. And not one of us knows his name today. And he maintains his diplomatic status which, despite the overwhelming annoyance of......having to travel, is not exactly an un-cushy lifestyle. Sorry, if I'm the US marshal, I take him down too. (For being a dick if nothing else. ) |
|
hoyaalf
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
I like what your doing very much. Why squirrel hate me?
Posts: 688
|
Post by hoyaalf on Apr 9, 2010 12:06:03 GMT -5
Well, he isn't much of a diplomat.
And he really should give up smoking.
Tant pis.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,987
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Apr 9, 2010 15:15:35 GMT -5
I realize I don't know any of the people involved, but doesn't this just scream "entitled diplomat does something against the law he know he won't get punished for, then stupidly escalates it because he's entitled."
Even before 9/11, everyone knew not to ever joke about a bomb around airline security. And everyone knows not to smoke on a plane. No matter the skin color, I expect this ends this way more often than not. I don't really feel bad for the guy.
|
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on May 3, 2010 23:11:35 GMT -5
MSNBC is reporting that a US citizen has been arrested in connection with the NYC car bombing attempt. The suspect is Shahzad Faisal - few details known at this time. He was apparently arrested at JFK by customs officials.
|
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on May 4, 2010 8:06:27 GMT -5
WOW! Pretty Dramatic stuff. Sounds more like a movie. Apparently, the suspect was on a flight from JFK to Dubai. Plane had left the terminal but had not yet taken off when it was recalled to the gate. All 77 passengers were removed, including the suspect. Great work by NYPD and US Anti-terrorism group! www.washingtonpost.com/?sub=new |
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on May 4, 2010 11:08:24 GMT -5
Why does nobody mention he is a Muslim? Question: he became the NYPD's and FBI's primary suspect yet he was able to use his passport, get through security and board the plane. What does this say about our homeland security inter-communications?
|
|
The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Post by The Stig on May 4, 2010 12:07:42 GMT -5
Every news source I've read mentions that he was a Pakistani-born Muslim.
Let's wait for all the facts about his arrest before we pass judgment. I've heard conflicting reports about whether he boarded the plane before he was arrested. He might have also used a false name/ID to get into the airport. It's also possible that the authorities deliberately let him in as part of a trap.
I think it's actually very impressive that they managed to identify him as the perpetrator, track him down, and arrest him before he fled the country. They had less than 2 days to catch him, but they still got it done. Hats off to all those involved.
|
|
|
|
Post by strummer8526 on May 4, 2010 12:14:39 GMT -5
And now they've worked with Pakistani authorities to arrest two more individuals in Pakistan. Overall, I'd say this has been a successful operation.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on May 4, 2010 12:45:38 GMT -5
And now they've worked with Pakistani authorities to arrest two more individuals in Pakistan. Overall, I'd say this has been a successful operation. With the minor exception of a couple of people saying things to the media that they should really know better than to say (Janet Napolitano, Mayor Bloomberg), I would agree. Very good job by all to date & hope for continued successful prosecution of the investigation. |
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on May 4, 2010 12:51:30 GMT -5
One thing hasn't been touched on yet in the media (to my knowledge), which is that the use of a car bomb is a relatively new development as to international terrorism in the US. We've confronted it with home grown extremists - McVeigh, Rudolph, et al. However, to the extent that it becomes the mode of choice (or suicide bombing) for supposed Muslim terrorists and they remain interested in attacking, we've got ourselves a very serious problem.
Such attacks are very difficult to prevent once they are operational. Note here that even the street vendor's timely report would not have been enough if the bomb functioned as it was intended. It would have blown up before he could even call the authorities.
|
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on May 4, 2010 14:15:36 GMT -5
One thing hasn't been touched on yet in the media (to my knowledge), which is that the use of a car bomb is a relatively new development as to international terrorism in the US. We've confronted it with home grown extremists - McVeigh, Rudolph, et al. However, to the extent that it becomes the mode of choice (or suicide bombing) for supposed Muslim terrorists and they remain interested in attacking, we've got ourselves a very serious problem. Such attacks are very difficult to prevent once they are operational. Note here that even the street vendor's timely report would not have been enough if the bomb functioned as it was intended. It would have blown up before he could even call the authorities. I thought this would have been more of an incendiary event, not an explosive event. That is, it would have been a fire, not an explosion. Were early reports incorrect on this? |
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on May 4, 2010 14:29:40 GMT -5
One thing hasn't been touched on yet in the media (to my knowledge), which is that the use of a car bomb is a relatively new development as to international terrorism in the US. We've confronted it with home grown extremists - McVeigh, Rudolph, et al. However, to the extent that it becomes the mode of choice (or suicide bombing) for supposed Muslim terrorists and they remain interested in attacking, we've got ourselves a very serious problem. Such attacks are very difficult to prevent once they are operational. Note here that even the street vendor's timely report would not have been enough if the bomb functioned as it was intended. It would have blown up before he could even call the authorities. I thought this would have been more of an incendiary event, not an explosive event. That is, it would have been a fire, not an explosion. Were early reports incorrect on this? I think incendiary would have been the event, but I'm pretty sure that would have been by accident. I think the fact that the car was packed with fertilizer is a strong indicator that the person wanted an explosion, not a fire. The fact that he didn't know how to properly make this happen is simply fortunate. (On a side note, Jon Stewart was very funny last night showing all of the media clips of news broadcasts saying all the things the guy did wrong to cause an explosion. ) |
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 19,458
|
Post by SSHoya on May 4, 2010 14:31:01 GMT -5
I think the early reports are a bit confused, as was the attempt at crafting the weapon. The use of propane tanks, gasoline and conventional fireworks would seem to indicate an attempt at creating an incendiary device. However, if the reports of the gun locker containing 200 pounds of fertilizer are correct, it would appear that the terrorist may have been attempting to detonate an ammonium nitrate/fuel oil (ANFO) explosive similar to the McVeigh ANFO bomb in OKC.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on May 4, 2010 14:53:49 GMT -5
One of the other things I've been wondering about today is the apprehension & I'll bet we never really know the truth.
Everyone seems to be asking today, "How did this guy get on a Dubai-bound jet if he was on the no-fly list?" And everyone is exclaiming how lucky we are that we caught him in the nick of time.
Hmmm, I wonder.
Sure, if that's the case, we've still got a lot of kinks to work out from the Christmas bomber, not to mention all the years preceding that.
But what if.....
Wouldn't it be so much cooler if what actually happened was the FBI and DHS told the airline to let him on the plane, told the pilot and tower to proceed as normal, and only told the tower to call the plane back at the very last possible minute on purpose?
Immediately, I can think of two reasons they would do this. First, clearly, to see if he was signalling or meeting anyone on the plane. There may have been the potential for HUGE amounts of additional intelligence, just by purposefully letting things play out that long.
Second, (the lawyers have to help me out here, because I'm not sure this is accurate) if they had arrested him before he got on the plane, fine. But who knows, maybe a really good lawyer (or really bad judge) could have gotten him some kind of bail arrangement. After all, if you consider just the act and not intent, this is not the worst crime/act of terrorism ever. By arresting him on the plane, that's pretty much a guarantee that he's a flight risk and also a much better guarantee that he will not have ANY possibility of bail, yes?
Oh, I know. it was probably the former and there was a screw up somewhere that let him get on the plane. But I do like to ascribe as much credit as I can to law enforcement and intelligence, so I like my way better. Besides, my scenario is SO much more Tom Clancy.
|
|
theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506 
|
Post by theexorcist on May 4, 2010 15:03:55 GMT -5
Not really. If he checks in or even buys a ticket, he's a flight risk.
Oh, and if you've got a terrorist on a plane, you're never positive if JFK security caught everything. Someone with nothing to lose on a flight could potentially try to hurt those around them, leading to the airline getting sued and allegations of a cowboy attittude at DHS.
Oh, and trying to blow up Times Square, even when you consider the act only and not intent, may not be THE WORST crime/act of terrorism ever, but it's up there.
Thanks for playing!
Side note - the Simpsons chose the wrong time to broadcast an episode mocking "If you see something, say something".
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on May 4, 2010 15:06:30 GMT -5
Not really. If he checks in or even buys a ticket, he's a flight risk. Oh, and if you've got a terrorist on a plane, you're never positive if JFK security caught everything. Someone with nothing to lose on a flight could potentially try to hurt those around them, leading to the airline getting sued and allegations of a cowboy attittude at DHS. Oh, and trying to blow up Times Square, even when you consider the act only and not intent, may not be THE WORST crime/act of terrorism ever, but it's up there. Thanks for playing! Side note - the Simpsons chose the wrong time to broadcast an episode mocking "If you see something, say something". You're no fun at all.  But thanks for clearing up the legal part. I wasn't sure about that, I was thinking mostly of the intelligence gathering angle. The bail thing was kind of an afterthought I wasn't sure about. |
|
|
|
Post by strummer8526 on May 4, 2010 15:20:37 GMT -5
Not really. If he checks in or even buys a ticket, he's a flight risk. Oh, and if you've got a terrorist on a plane, you're never positive if JFK security caught everything. Someone with nothing to lose on a flight could potentially try to hurt those around them, leading to the airline getting sued and allegations of a cowboy attittude at DHS. Oh, and trying to blow up Times Square, even when you consider the act only and not intent, may not be THE WORST crime/act of terrorism ever, but it's up there. Thanks for playing! Side note - the Simpsons chose the wrong time to broadcast an episode mocking "If you see something, say something". You're no fun at all. But thanks for clearing up the legal part. I wasn't sure about that, I was thinking mostly of the intelligence gathering angle. The bail thing was kind of an afterthought I wasn't sure about. I'm still with you on this Boz. I really think there was a reason they let him get that far. Maybe they thought that he'd actually be less a threat on the plane where he'd be stuck in a seat w/ only carry-on luggage and people pressed in around him than he would have been if they tried to take him in the terminal where there would be far more people and easier access to bags. They may have also wanted to see who else got on the plane or if he met up with anyone. They may have been using some time to search his checked luggage and the luggage of everyone else on the plane. Who knows. But I would be shocked if this came down to "Whoops, they missed all the signs and just happened to nab him last second." The obvious question that would raise is: how did they suddenly realize it was him once the plane was moving? If the plane got as far as it did without the authorities knowing what was going on, then why wouldn't it have just taken off? What new red flag would have gone up once he was sitting in his seat? |
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on May 4, 2010 15:24:55 GMT -5
I read this morning that he purchased the ticket en route to JFK from the airline and agreed to pay cash. Unfortunately, what probably occurs is a gap between the airline as business, airline as safety-provider, and DHS. It still seems like there may be a gap between airline and DHS (and most certainly your garden-variety passport screener in JFK). It is likely that the passenger manifest review was only completed when the plane was taxiing on the runway.
Nonetheless, we don't know all of the details. There are good reasons to wait for him to board for the reasons Boz mentioned. There is also the risk of mistaken identity if you try to pull him at the gate - then your investigation is botched. Ideally, you get him when his passport is screened.
|
|
