New York ‘lone wolf’ was one hour away from finishing his bomb
She also praised the New York Police Department, saying, “I think they handled it well.”
Officials with the NYPD, which conducted the undercover investigation using a confidential informant and a bugged apartment, said the department had to move quickly because Pimentel was about to test a pipe bomb made out of match heads, nails and other ingredients bought at neighborhood hardware and discount stores.
Two law enforcement officials said Monday that the NYPD’s Intelligence Division had sought to get the FBI involved at least twice as the investigation unfolded. Both times, the FBI concluded that Pimentel lacked the mental capacity to act on his own, they said.
The FBI thought Pimentel “didn’t have the predisposition or the ability to do anything on his own,” one of the officials said.
The officials were not authorized to speak about the case and spoke on condition of anonymity. The FBI’s New York office and the U.S. attorney’s office in Manhattan both declined to comment on Monday.
Pimentel’s lawyer, Joseph Zablocki, said his client was never a true threat.
“If the goal here is to be stopping terror … I’m not sure that this is where we should be spending our resources,” he said.
Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly defended the handling of the case Monday, saying the NYPD kept federal authorities in the loop “all along” before circumstances forced investigators to take swift measures using state charges.
“No question in my mind that we had to take this case down,” Kelly said. “There was an imminent threat.”
Added Kelly: “This is a classic case of what we’ve been talking about �� the lone wolf, an individual, self-radicalized. This is the needle in the haystack problem we face as a country and as a city.”
Authorities described Pimentel as an unemployed U.S. citizen and “al-Qaida sympathizer” who was born in the Dominican Republic. He had lived most of his life in Manhattan, aside from about five years in the upstate city of Schenectady, where authorities say he had an arrested for credit card fraud.
His mother said he was raised Roman Catholic. But he converted to Islam in 2004 and went by the name Muhammad Yusuf, authorities said.
Using a tip from police in Albany, the NYPD had been watching Pimentel using a confidential informant for the past year. Investigators learned that he was energized and motivated to carry out his plan by the Sept. 30 killing of al-Qaida’s U.S.-born cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, police said.
Pimentel was under constant surveillance as he shopped for the pipe bombmaterials. He also was overheard talking about attacking police patrol cars and postal facilities, killing soldiers returning home from abroad andbombing a police station in Bayonne, N.J., authorizes said.
Presidential Election (as a current event- watch the tone or it's gone)
-
Actually Jen, the NYT ALREADY endorsed McCain, in early January.
-
@ncscswitch:
Actually Jen, the NYT ALREADY endorsed McCain, in early January.
Darlin, I’m not disputing that the NYT endorsed McCain early last year. (Dunno about this year, I think it was 2007, not 2008 - could be wrong.)
What I’m arguing is that the NYT and their compatriots fought to make McCain the Republican nominee because they had the dirt on him already researched and assembled from decades of his history and because he does not poll well with the grass roots Conservatives (with the blue bloods he does really well, however.)
This is their consolation prize. If, by some miracle, Obama loses in November, they at least get the most liberal republican who ran AND a man they know will cave on conservative principles to court their favor later.
Now, maybe he WILL win, and maybe we’ll see a miracle and he’ll return to his conservative roots from the 80’s. But I doubt it. It’s like trying to run your bomber of 4 AA Guns to bomb an enemy capitol. Sure, you COULD survive, but the odds are not in your favor. (about 48/52 actually, which is far better then I would give the McCain scenario.)
Oh, and yes, I am almost certain that Hillary is out. That’s why I voted Obama in the Illinois primary. (I had to vote a straight democrat ticket because some upstart was running against my Congresswoman Bean and I had to fight to keep her in power. She’s a good friend of the family…even if she is a Democrat.)
Anyway, the rationale was Anyone But Hillary. :) Looks like I succeeded there at least.
-
In case anyone missed it, Nader is in the race again this year…
-
@ncscswitch:
In case anyone missed it, Nader is in the race again this year…
I think it pretty safe to say just about EVERYONE missed it. :P
(That was an attempt at humor.)
-
@Cmdr:
@ncscswitch:
In case anyone missed it, Nader is in the race again this year…
I think it pretty safe to say just about EVERYONE missed it. :P
(That was an attempt at humor.)
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/nader
GG
-
Nader? what’s that? must be a typo. Radar was already invented long ago.
That guy is about as remote as Ron Paul or whoever is running on the communist ticket this year.
-
Actually he has less chance then Paul (8% Nationally)… And whoever is running on the Communist Ticket probably has more Kalashnikov’s voting for him then Humans…
GG
-
I believe Ron Paul is a Libertarian, not a Communist. Most Communists have moved into the Democrat party. Not that being Communist is a bad thing. You want all resources to be distributed fairly to all citizens, you want the government to ensure equitability. These are noble goals. Unfortunately, humans are involved and that totally screws up the system, which is why liberalism (which is very close to socialism, or what most Americans think of when they think of communism - aka USSR, China, Cuba, etc).
Honestly, I don’t know where I really fall. I think corporations should be the only governments. That way you can live anywhere in the world you want and be in any government you want. No borders. No armies. You don’t like your company, you resign from that government and join a competing government.
And, to be quite frank, I think society is heading that way. Over many centuries we have moved from absolute authority resting in one man, one government to authority in just one government, to authority in many governments and many men. It would only take a few nudges to move us into infinite numbers of governments (aka corporations) with people changing “citizenship” (aka employment) at any time. And people would run these micro-governments because they would purchase shares in those governments. Unlike the USA where every “shareholder” only gets one vote and it doesn’t really count for anything (electoral college, judges, etc can all over rule the popular vote) now you can invest in a lot of nations, have dual citizenship in many and even vote as many times as you have shares.
Dunno, maybe that makes me a Super Capitalist?
-
If Nader is the ONLY third party candidate, he will hurt Hitlery in the General Election. If Paul also runs as a Libertarian then the Republicans are net negative votes, and the Democrats almost certainly win the White House in 2008.
-
I don’t think Vader will hurt Celery Clipping, but i do think Huckleberry Hound should just give up because mathematically he has no chance and is only running for first dibs in 2012.
-
Actually Huckabee might be keeping in to prove to McCain that he is his logical choice for running mate, assuming he grabs some more delegates…
GG
-
@Jen:
Unfortunately, humans are involved and that totally screws up the system
http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/kropotkin/mutaidcontents.html
I suggest reading some of this book. Kropotkin argues that mutual aid and assistance of others within a species comes naturally to all animals and that war is avoidable if everyones stops competing and begins to pool resources. The need for competition and war over resources is a capitalist social construct.
Libertarianism (or classic liberalism) is definitely not socialism or communism. I dont know if you were trying to say that but your train of thought cut off mid sentence and confused me, hahaha.
Honestly, I don’t know where I really fall. I think corporations should be the only governments. That way you can live anywhere in the world you want and be in any government you want. No borders. No armies. You don’t like your company, you resign from that government and join a competing government.
Corporations as government is called corporatism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism
Dunno, maybe that makes me a Super Capitalist?
“Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power.” - Benito Mussolini
-
think of GE and its campaign to “go green”. they are trying to please the democrats. and hope to be the corporation that will make tons of money from contracts from the government to make invent green products.
and this photo scares me. :|
-
@Jen:
Unfortunately, humans are involved and that totally screws up the system
http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/kropotkin/mutaidcontents.html
I suggest reading some of this book. Kropotkin argues that mutual aid and assistance of others within a species comes naturally to all animals and that war is avoidable if everyones stops competing and begins to pool resources. The need for competition and war over resources is a capitalist social construct.
is that why both China and USSR expanded and conquored nations around them?Libertarianism (or classic liberalism) is definitely not socialism or communism. I dont know if you were trying to say that but your train of thought cut off mid sentence and confused me, hahaha.
classic liberalism (not Demacrats) was born around the 1920’s or 30’s. this was around the time of “The Great Deal” where FDR inacted many socialist ideas into the US government. Social Sacurity and other government aid programs are part of that.now i don’t think socialisam can work on any large scale. it can work if I am with a group of say 100 families as if i stop working then i will directly feel the pinch, but when you look at it on a national level then it inables people to be lazy, we see this already with people who work as little as posible and gather as much as they can from the government. this is why socalisam can not work for even a government as large as a state.
-
Liberalism and libertarianism are not the same. Libertarians want to reign in government spending. Liberalism, by definition, is spending as much money as possible.
“I do not know a single problem that cannot be eased by throwing money at it.” Senator Barrack Obama - IL Senate.
Anyway, Benito was a moron. No one quotes him. :P Corpratism or whatever is a catchy phrase. Anyway, the idea is that there would be no more counties, states, nations, alliances, etc. People would be free to live where they want too, work for who they want too and thus, change employment whenever it becomes beneficial for them to do so.
Companies, already handling security, health care, vacations, corporate espionage, etc can easily handle this. Meanwhile new industries would surely arise to contract out these services to smaller companies to keep them viable. Capitalism should end up ruling the day with Unions and Corporations meeting in arbitrations to ensure the best possible policies, products, services and human relations so that none are hurt.
Finally, Americans would be able to buy the cars they want because the companies would be free to build the cars the people want. No cafe standards, since there’s no US Government.
-
China and the USSR did not advocate Libertarian Socialism (or anarcho-communism), but a far more iron-fisted government run version of communism. If people are free, they will naturally realize it makes more sense to pool resources and work towards a better communtiy. The communism used in China and the USSR was simply another form of working class exploitation (except by a totalitarian government rather than the owners of capital), but under the guise of ‘class equality’ and redistribution.
I mean classic liberalism as in the type advocated by Thomas Paine, which is essentially libertarianism. The term was simply morphed into the 1920’s to mean soft socialism instead of the more laissez-faire economics of classic liberalism. Its the same way how ‘conservative’ went from following the protected rights of the constitution to the word, to its new definition in the media of any politician that doesnt like gay people. Its actually pretty sad that such definite terms have gotten lost in the haze of media.
EDIT: Well I think we can all agree that whether one favors people living in communes and a classless society or people having complete rights to their claimed property, government intervention into either field is one of society’s ills.
-
why would hillary even bring up the the whole lewinsky scandal? even if asked about her most difficult time. just bad memories. she did get a standing ovation for it though. why? reminding people you cant please your husband?
-
@Cmdr:
“I do not know a single problem that cannot be eased by throwing money at it.” Senator Barrack Obama - IL Senate.
I can think of a couple problems that would be eased if I threw Barack Obama at them…
-
Their is some picture of Hussein Obama wearing a Muslim costume.I still looking for it and will post. I knew something was up once nation of Islam endorsed him.
here it is. All he needs now is an RPG and hes good to go. :-D :-D :-D :mrgreen: ( that was a joke BTW)
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/obama-wore-muslim-gear-during-kenya-trip
-
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article3433485.ece
well, is he still the agent of change. and will democrats fall for that kind of talk again.
if i remember correctly, the reason the dems got congress in 2006 is people were sick of a bad plan in iraq and wanted change. the dems “promised” change like always, and then like always, spit in their supporters faces and then tell them to keep voting for them. and some people do, b/c jon stewart tells them to.
obama is not going to be an agent for change. unless change means ineptness. and thats not really change either.
Suggested Topics
