NationStates Jolt Archive

Found this in a Paki paper

http://dawn.com/2005/10/19/top15.htm
Pakistani, four Americans charged with terror plot
By Anwar Iqbal

WASHINGTON, Oct 18: A Pakistani and four Americans have been charged with plotting terror attacks on military facilities and synagogues in the United States, prosecutors said.

Their trial will start on Oct 24 in a California court.

Levar Haley Washington, 25, Gregory Vernon Patterson, 21, Hammad Riaz Samana, 21, and Kevin James, 29, have been accused of conspiring to wage war against the US government through terrorism, kill armed service members and murder foreign officials.

All but Samana, a Pakistani national, are American-born and Muslim converts.

Prosecutors contend the plot was orchestrated by Washington, Patterson and Samana at the behest of James -— an inmate at the California State Prison, Sacramento — who allegedly founded the radical group Jamiyyat ul-Islam-us-Saheeh.

Washington converted to Islam while imprisoned at the same facility for a robbery conviction.

Police uncovered the alleged plot in July while investigating a string of gas station robberies. They found what they believe was a target listing that included three California National Guard facilities, the Israeli Consulate in Los Angeles and several synagogues.

James’ public defender, Robert Carlin, has previously said his client was “surprised and shocked” to learn that the government believes he orchestrated a terror plot.

Patterson’s attorney, Winston McKesson, had said his client “has been a productive citizen his entire life.”


Does this have any coverage at all in the US media? I cannot find any mention in the ones that I watched today.

This is an indicator of the evolving strategy of terrorists. They no longer rely upon infiltrated cells, because of the increased surveillence and blocking of Middle-easterners and Pakis.

So they are drawing from the converts pool.

Isn't "Paki" a racial slur?

Isn't "Paki" a racial slur?
Which race does it offend?

Which race does it offend?
it is a slur aimed at pakistanis (and any other people from india and the surrounding countries) which i think originates in britain.

it is a slur aimed at pakistanis (and any other people from india and the surrounding countries) which i think originates in britain.
An ethnic slur then, I suppose. Pakistanis aren't a race.

Kevin James is a terrorist? Say it isn't so! Now how will they make new episodes of "The King of Queens"?

With that said, I haven't heard anything about it in the media, but I don't pay much attention to the media. But I suppose it doesn't have the million-replay value of a missing or dead white woman.

Found this in a Paki paper

http://dawn.com/2005/10/19/top15.htm


Does this have any coverage at all in the US media? I cannot find any mention in the ones that I watched today.Not that I've seen. :headbang:
This is an indicator of the evolving strategy of terrorists. They no longer rely upon infiltrated cells, because of the increased surveillence and blocking of Middle-easterners and Pakis.

So they are drawing from the converts pool.After England, you find this suprising in the US?

However, I must again reiterate that attacks against military installations are not terrorisim. They are acts of War.

Isn't "Paki" a racial slur?

Pakis are not a race.

Even if its an ethnic slur, then 50 years back, I was a Paki too. :p

I've heard about these men and the trial.

I also am waiting to see the identities of the men arrested in Baltimore yesterday.

Kevin James is a terrorist? Say it isn't so! Now how will they make new episodes of "The King of Queens"?


You beat me to it. Congratulations sir.

Not that I've seen.
After England, you find this suprising in the US?


No surprises. I predict that the next big attack is going to be from white converts.


However, I must again reiterate that attacks against military installations are not terrorisim. They are acts of War.

Are you saying that those who parked their planes into WTC are terrorists, while those who attacked the Pentagon are not?

Are you saying that those who parked their planes into WTC are terrorists, while those who attacked the Pentagon are not?
Essentially, yes. The Pentagon attackers were terrorists inasmuch as they used a civillian conveyance to make their attack. Had they used a (conventional) ICBM it would not have been considered terrorisim. A conventional weapons attack on the WTCs would still be terrorisim since it was strictly/specifically a civillian target - sort of like shooting an RPG into a school.

Essentially, yes. The Pentagon attackers were terrorists inasmuch as they used a civillian conveyance to make their attack. Had they used a (conventional) ICBM it would not have been considered terrorisim. A conventional weapons attack on the WTCs would still be terrorisim since it was strictly/specifically a civillian target - sort of like shooting an RPG into a school.I don't know this for sure, but I've heard that the World Trade Center had a CIA office in it. Wouldn't the CIA be considered a military installation?

I don't know this for sure, but I've heard that the World Trade Center had a CIA office in it. Wouldn't the CIA be considered a military installation?
I've also "heard" that there was supposed to be a lot of Juews in a Mossad office that turned out to be inexplicably empty... :rolleyes:

Even if true, it's really irrelevant if one of several thousand offices held government officials. The WTC was not an identifiable Government facility - even to New Yorkers - and contained mostly non-government-employed civillians. That kind of "collateral damage" to take out a single office (hell, even a whole floor) would still fall under "Targeting Civillian Non-combatants" under Geneva.

Essentially, yes. The Pentagon attackers were terrorists inasmuch as they used a civillian conveyance to make their attack. Had they used a (conventional) ICBM it would not have been considered terrorisim. A conventional weapons attack on the WTCs would still be terrorisim since it was strictly/specifically a civillian target - sort of like shooting an RPG into a school.

So, by extension,

Mohd.Atta is a terrorist, while the Ahmed whatshisname is a guerilla/militant , although BOTH make no distinction in their intent to kill civilians and the latter would also have had no compunction in doing the WTC parking thing if he had been chose to go with that team.

Please understand (you may very well know this already and sorry if I come across as an all-knowing patronizing kind), that the islamist jihadis have no such distinction amongst their ranks.

I've also "heard" that there was supposed to be a lot of Juews in a Mossad office that turned out to be inexplicably empty... :rolleyes: I wasn't stating that simply because I heard it that it was true, I was asking that if it were true, would it have an impact on how it was perceived? But you answer that in your next paragraph.

Even if true, it's really irrelevant if one of several thousand offices held government officials. The WTC was not an identifiable Government facility - even to New Yorkers - and contained mostly non-government-employed civillians. That kind of "collateral damage" to take out a single office (hell, even a whole floor) would still fall under "Targeting Civillian Non-combatants" under Geneva.So does this mean that the Germans who sank the Lusitania during WWI were terrorists?

The CIA isn't military....for the person who asked if they were.

I wasn't stating that simply because I heard it that it was true, I was asking that if it were true, would it have an impact on how it was perceived? But you answer that in your next paragraph.

So does this mean that the Germans who sank the Lusitania during WWI were terrorists? Weren't there weapons on there? If there were, then no it wasn't terrorism.

I wasn't stating that simply because I heard it that it was true, I was asking that if it were true, would it have an impact on how it was perceived? But you answer that in your next paragraph.

So does this mean that the Germans who sank the Lusitania during WWI were terrorists?Nope;

There was also a public warning given by the German Embassy in the U.S.:

NOTICE!
TRAVELERS intending to embark on the Atlantic voyage are reminded that a state of war exists between Germany and her allies and Great Britain and her allies; that the zone of war includes the waters adjacent to the British Isles; that, in accordance with formal notice given by the Imperial German Government, vessels flying the flag of Great Britain, or any of her allies, are liable to destruction in those waters and that travelers sailing in the war zone on the ships of Great Britain or her allies do so at their own risk.
IMPERIAL GERMAN EMBASSY Washington, D.C. April 22, 1915

So, by extension,

Mohd.Atta is a terrorist, while the Ahmed whatshisname is a guerilla/militant , If you want the terms to mean anything, yes. Their motivations are irrelevant. It is the resultant action I am defining. although BOTH make no distinction in their intent to kill civilians and the latter would also have had no compunction in doing the WTC parking thing if he had been chose to go with that team. Please understand (you may very well know this already and sorry if I come across as an all-knowing patronizing kind), that the islamist jihadis have no such distinction amongst their ranks.
Just because (or especially because)THEY may make no distinction, doesn't mean WE shouldn't. The Ethics to distinguish Combatants/Legitimate Targets from Noncombatants/Illegitamate Targets is what separates "Us" from "Them" - Civilized from Barbarous. As soon as we ceede the distinction between the two, we make Terrorisim (and indiscriminant civillian casualties) equivilant to Lawful Warfare. Are you sure you want to do that? Sure, it would allow us to carpetbomb/nuke most of the middle east, but that wouldn't deligitimize Radical Islamicisim - only prove that we have sunk to their lows.

I wasn't stating that simply because I heard it that it was true, I was asking that if it were true, would it have an impact on how it was perceived? But you answer that in your next paragraph.

So does this mean that the Germans who sank the Lusitania during WWI were terrorists?
Actually, the CO of the U-boat who sank Lusitania thought it was in military use. He didn't know she was carrying civilians. The ships of the Lusitania class were built to mount 6" guns in time of war and also be used as troop carriers or for other military uses. The Maritania, her sister, was in full military use at this time as was the Aquantia. THe CO of the U-boat knew the ship was the Lusitania and he actually consulted a copy of Janes Fighting Ships (A British publication) and found her classified as an armed auxiliary cruiser so he didn't intend to kill the civilians. He believed she was loaded with troops, war material, and probably armed too.

Isn't "Paki" a racial slur?

we care why?

So is honky, but god forbid we should dislike it:mad:

Actually, the CO of the U-boat who sank Lusitania thought it was in military use. He didn't know she was carrying civilians. The ships of the Lusitania class were built to mount 6" guns in time of war and also be used as troop carriers or for other military uses. The Maritania, her sister, was in full military use at this time as was the Aquantia. THe CO of the U-boat knew the ship was the Lusitania and he actually consulted a copy of Janes Fighting Ships (A British publication) and found her classified as an armed auxiliary cruiser so he didn't intend to kill the civilians. He believed she was loaded with troops, war material, and probably armed too.
Schwieger did not (at least officially--a professional sailor should've known that he was attacking either Olympic or one of the two Mauretanias) recognize the Lusitania. The Germans knew very well that the Lusitania was still a Cunard liner carrying civilians.

It can be debated whether the sinking of the Lusitania was legal under then-existing laws of war or not, but your post is distorting facts.