Six Arrested in Alleged Fort Dix Murder Plot

[sg1987]

Six Arrested in Alleged Fort Dix Murder Plot
Tuesday , May 08, 2007
Fox News




Six people were arrested on Monday in connection with an alleged plot to murder soldiers at Fort Dix, the U.S. attorney's office said.

Michael Drewniak, a spokesman for the U.S. Attorney's Office in New Jersey, said the men are from the former Yugoslavia and were planning to "kill as many soldiers as possible." Five of them lived in Cherry Hill, he said.

Drewniak said the six were scheduled to appear in federal court in Camden later Tuesday to face charges of conspiracy to kill U.S. servicemen.

During a secret meeting, the men allegedly attempted to purchase AK-47s from an arms dealer working with the FBI and were arrested in New Jersey after officials learned of the plans, a law enforcement source said.

The undercover investigation followed the men, three of whom are brothers, from New Jersey to the Poconos, where they allegedly practiced firing automatic weapons, media sources said.

Officials raided the homes of the men, described as Islamic radicals, and said there is video showing some of the alleged planning.

A law enforcement official, speaking on condition of anonymity because documents in the case remain sealed, said the men were arrested as part of a joint federal and local investigation.

The officials said the attack was stopped in the planning stages.

A news conference was planned for 2:30 p.m. ET.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,270601,00.html

[Pete]

Well, this is either a law enforcement issue or they were foreign agents in civilian cloths about to attack US interests during a time of war.

As long as it's a law enforcement issue and the ACLU backs people who should be put against a wall and shot we will lose.

[stakk4]

On the offchance that they planned to coordinate attacks on multiple installations at the same time, I would think that everyone on/around a military base should be even more careful than usual.

[Goggles Pizano]

Originally Posted by Pete

Well, this is either a law enforcement issue or they were foreign agents in civilian cloths about to attack US interests during a time of war.

As long as it's a law enforcement issue and the ACLU backs people who should be put against a wall and shot we will lose.

Right on target Pete. The reluctance of anyone at any level to call these people terrorists is the PC mindset on steroids. This is not, repeat not, a law enforcement issue it's an American security issue. For the life of me I don't understand why the tendancy to separate information and arrests into the "domestic or international" labels. The quote at the end of the article I read was "reminding everyone we are still at war". Good gracious they had plans to strike during the Army/Navy game-I believe that might have involved a few civilians as well! Sadly we have the dog and pony show years ago in an effort to find out why dots were not connected, and now we are afraid to stinking connect them!

[tk27]

Originally Posted by Goggles Pizano

The reluctance of anyone at any level to call these people terrorists is the PC mindset on steroids. This is not, repeat not, a law enforcement issue it's an American security issue.

What is achieved by calling it terrorism? What is the benefit of doing so?
How do you define terrorism or American security?

Tony Snow just said in press conference that "there is no direct evidence of a foreign terrorist tie." If they are self-starters and did not receive any assistance from the AQAM network, what makes them "terrorists" and Seung-Hui Cho, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold not?

Further, if we are at "war with terror" and if this group is an emergent phenomenon, does this imply anything about our strategy and efforts so far?


Will I call these guys terrorists? Yes, but for lack of a better term, knowing full well the word is malleable and loaded, and accompanied with a host of derogatory terms and explatives.

[The Reaper]

I generally define terrorism as using violence or the threat of violence to influence public opinion. JCS Pub 1-02 defines it as follows: terrorism — The calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological.

Pretty clearly, the school-shooting punks you named were seeking revenge and self-aggrandizement, not to influence popular opinion. The terrorists who intended to attack US military personnel and their families on a US military base here in the US are just that, terrorists.

These arrests imply that since 2001, we have successfully prevented terrorist acts in the US. The policies in place have been adequate so far. But the bad guys only have to get lucky once, we have to get it right every time.

Make no mistake, these are definitely terrorists. They would also appear to be hate crimes to me.

TR

[Goggles Pizano]

Originally Posted by tk27

What is achieved by calling it terrorism? What is the benefit of doing so?
How do you define terrorism or American security?

Tony Snow just said in press conference that "there is no direct evidence of a foreign terrorist tie." If they are self-starters and did not receive any assistance from the AQAM network, what makes them "terrorists" and Seung-Hui Cho, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold not?

Further, if we are at "war with terror" and if this group is an emergent phenomenon, does this imply anything about our strategy and efforts so far?


Will I call these guys terrorists? Yes, but for lack of a better term, knowing full well the word is malleable and loaded, and accompanied with a host of derogatory terms and explatives.

American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source ter·ror·ism (těr'ə-rĭz'əm) Pronunciation Key
n. The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

Seven animals seeking to take the lives of American soldiers/marines/airmen and civilians in an effort to sway the politics of the United States government is how I define terrorism. Murdering innocents in an effort to gain some twisted form of significance to your otherwise pathetic life is how I define terrorism. Many here swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States from ALL enemies both foreign AND domestic. I call them like I see them and these indviduals (along with Richard Reid, Ted Kaczynski, Muhammed Atta, Timothy McVeigh, and others like them) all are disturbed, hostile, extremist, murdering bastards who we should not be afraid to call
T E R R O R I S T S!

I define American security as the United States military, and Law Enforcement. The benefit of those two hardworking and dedicated entities ensures the freedom of this country. Is this perplexing for you in some manner? Do you not feel the need to defend your country against these seven harbingers of hostility, or are you content to throw stones and scream "anarchy" from your dorm window?

[sg1987]

Originally Posted by Goggles Pizano

Seven animals seeking to take the lives of American soldiers/marines/airmen and civilians in an effort to sway the politics of the United States government is how I define terrorism. Murdering innocents in an effort to gain some twisted form of significance to your otherwise pathetic life is how I define terrorism.

WELL SAID! I believe that definition will work for most.

[The Reaper]

All of the people involved are Muslims, at least a couple of them are here illegally. So much for us intervening in Bosnia, Kosovo, Kuwait, and Iraq to help the Muslim people there.

Hmm, could there be a pattern here?

Maybe we should pass a law against that?

I wonder if they went to the same mosque or had someone suggesting this to them?

TR

[Pete]

Daddy worked at a Pizza Place. I wonder if they made and served sausage and pepperoni pizza's?

Foot baths in airports, taxi drivers not picking up people with alcohol and ham sandwich on a school lunch table is a hate crime. I think CAIR needs to get after pizza joints and get them to stop with the pork products in pizza. After all, you never know when a "Good American" might touch it. Oh, wait, they can touch it if they have to.

Pete
Who is in a very sarcastic mood right now.

[The Old Guy]

Since I live next to a large military base and will live clsoe to another large military base upon my retirement, I have planned for just this event in the future.

I believe that actions such as these are the tip of the ..., with the continued polarizatrion of the United States and the political climate we are in for more terrorist actions. The public press and Hollywood icons continue to fuel the warped, and weak minded by giving giving more creative ideas to idiots.

Step up to my front gate, univited, and see how warm the greeting may or may not be.

I love my brothers and sisters in arms and pray for their safe return to a protected and free homeland, the USA!

TOG

[NotME]

Originally Posted by tk27
What is achieved by calling it terrorism? What is the benefit of doing so?
How do you define terrorism or American security?

Tony Snow just said in press conference that "there is no direct evidence of a foreign terrorist tie." If they are self-starters and did not receive any assistance from the AQAM network, what makes them "terrorists" and Seung-Hui Cho, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold not?

Further, if we are at "war with terror" and if this group is an emergent phenomenon, does this imply anything about our strategy and efforts so far?


Will I call these guys terrorists? Yes, but for lack of a better term, knowing full well the word is malleable and loaded, and accompanied with a host of derogatory terms and explatives.

So if for "lack of a better term" you'll call it terrorism, then I guess there's not a better term? So the purpose might be to use the word that actually describes the seven guys and their plans to attack innocent people to prove a political point in the name of Islam? Right? I for one am totally awstruck by your sophisticated look at the seemingly simple matter. At the risk of sounding like a simpleton, I might suggest that you're over thinking this just a bit. All of us who fight bad guys (can I call them bad guys?) in the name of freedom (I'm sure I'm going to get another lecture for using the word "freedom" here) really appreciate the lecture on the use of the word "terrorism", and we appreciate you taking the time to set us all straight about just how we should be looking at this "war on terror" that we're fighting.

[Ret10Echo]

Originally Posted by The Reaper

So much for us intervening in Bosnia, Kosovo, Kuwait, and Iraq to help the Muslim people there.

Hmm, could there be a pattern here?

TR

Now, now, we are not supposed to be putting these together to indicate any sort of pattern.....these are all disparate, unassociated events there is no pattern of young middle-eastern males that practice Islam attempting violent attacks against civilians in Western nations....

These are not the droids you are looking for.......


Yeah, makes me feel good about all that time in the Balkans....

[tk27]

Is this perplexing for you in some manner?

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

JCS Pub 1-02 defines it as follows: terrorism — The calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological.

Both of these, as with all definitions of terrorism are ambiguous. I do not care for loose interpretations, I am not a liberal. Especially on matters related to Posse Comitatus. By your definition of “terrorism” being an American security problem we should have sent the Marine Corps after Patty Hearst and the Symbionese Liberation Army and SEALs after The Order.
So yes, it is perplexing; I have some concern about the Constitutionality of it.

Do you not feel the need to defend your country against these seven harbingers of hostility, or are you content to throw stones and scream "anarchy" from your dorm window?

Is there any middle ground between “anarchy” and “war on terrorism”?

I happen to think other efforts where the government has declared “war on” something ill defined, like drugs and poverty, it has been A.) driven by domestic politics, and B.) a horrible failure. I think immediately after 9/11 the efforts of the Agency working in tandem with Special Forces were immensely successful. And I think since we launched our “war on terror” campaign, with the Pentagon at the helm, creation of DHS, and the pork grab of congress and industry, it has all been downhill.

I am anti big government, this makes me a conservative, not an anarchist. I read Bill Buckley not Bill Bennett, Edmund Burke not Sean Hannity, and detest what has become of the conservative movement. Again this does not make me an anarchist.

I think the authoritarian impulse to try to control everything has been the downfall of many a man and nation. I think we have walked into Osama’s trap, just like a bear swatting a flee. Our economy responded quickly to the effects of 9/11, but it has not rebounded to the effects of our response, AQ can never destroy us but our deficits and spending will. This was Osama’s intent all along.

I think we are giving common cause and meaning to otherwise disparate groups with our “war on terrorism”. I think this is a mistake, the more they have in common, the less time they have to kill each other. Our “Freedom Agenda” boggles my mind, dictatorships like Syria are fantastic at killing Salafi, Mubarak does not need elections – he needs to stay in power. I think it is nonsensical to say we are in a “war on terrorism” and do absolutely nothing with Saudi Arabia.

I imagine agency and SF unconventional warrior types need little meaning in unifying buzzwords like "global war on terrorism" and cheerleading from the public to do their jobs. Had we stuck with what was working, instead of finding meaning, "we're going to change the world", "fight terror", "spread freedom", we would have been much better off.

[dr. mabuse]

Like my 11 year old said after looking at some of the comments on this particular thread,

"Some people just don't get it."

From the mouths of babes indeed