Feds: VA Man Plotted Bombings At D.C. Metro Stations

Feds: VA Man Plotted Bombings At D.C. Metro Stations

tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com< br />

A 34-year-old Virginia man was arrested on Wednesday for allegedly plotting multiple bombings of Washington, D.C.-area Metrorail stations along with individuals he believed to be members of al Qaeda.

The Justice Department announced the arrest of Farooque Ahmed, 34, of Ashburn, Va. on Wednesday afternoon.

Officials emphasized in a press release "that at no time was the public in danger during this investigation and that the FBI was aware of Ahmed's activities from before the alleged attempt began and closely monitored his activities until his arrest."

"The public should be assure

(visit the link for the full news article)

It is just a matter of time before they finally carry out one of these attacks.

I have always wondered why they hadn't done smaller attacks since 911. I dont think that our security measures are keeping us any safer.

Think about how easy something like this would be for an educated person. At least from my point of view, I think I could pull something like this off. But maybe I am not considering some things.

tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com< br /> (visit the link for the full news article)

It just seems that these little attacks would be happening all over the place..

Imagine if they just wanted to shock and awe... Metro stations - bridges - Shopping malls - Hotels.... And on and on..

Do you think these terrorists are over thinking these attacks? Or do the majority of you think that all of these attacks are allowed to get to pre-attack stage and then our Govt. swoops in.. This would keep the public keen to the "war on terror"

Originally posted by MiMobs
It is just a matter of time before they finally carry out one of these attacks.

But who are They... aside from the arrested individual?

It would seem rather apparent that the "individuals he believed to be connected to al-Qaeda", that he met with or provided information, security assessment, etc. on multiple occasions, were in fact undercover FBI agents conducting a sting operation.

To me it would seem akin to recognizing someone with suicidal tendencies, and then encouraging, aiding, abetting and/or assisting them right up until the moment or time they're about to commit the actual act .... then arresting them. (?)

Somewhat of an orchestrated "non-event" designed solely to keep the fear of war on terror an ever-present concern to the public at large.

Honestly, how hard would it be... ?

Monitor internet activities, emails, message board and social-networking site postings, looking for someone with a demonstrated or apparent radical disdain for the US .gov, the wars, war on terror, politics and policies, etc.

"befriend" and align with them in an effort to garner their trust and to gauge their "allegiance" to "the cause", or whathaveyou... further fueling their "fires" and drawing them deeper into a hole they may have otherwise never Actually ventured down in the first place - on their own. (?)

What better way to "manufacture" a situation or headline designed solely to perpetuate concern amongst the populace?

FBI sting operation thwarts planned terrorist attack

whew!? that was a close one.

wash-rinse-repeat

... when the accused would have most likely just continued on their way, spouting their distrust, disdain and negativity all the while, never actually acting out in the first place.

With regards the aiding/abetting aspect....
It would seem akin to giving a gun to a guy who just got his ass kicked in a bar fight ... what's he likely to do. (?)

reply to post by 12m8keall2c


I have always thought that exact same thing.. They do exactly that.. This guy may have never carried out any attack unless encouraged.

I just find it odd...
Any one of us in the US could cause mass panic with just a stop at the local hardware.

Why haven't more attacks happened? Imagine in DC if they shut down the 2 bridges to the south....cutting off all Virginia traffic into DC...

Seems that a few pipe bombs and some automatic weapons 2 to 3 days in a month would send that entire area into mass panic...

I just dont get it... With all of these "enemies" we have created, why aren't they acting on their hate? Are they only going for the big scores?

Or...like you stated.. Maybe they aren't here. Maybe the only attacks that are about to happen, are the ones that our own Govt. creates...

I am confused!!!

Originally posted by MiMobs

It is just a matter of time before they finally carry out one of these attacks.

Not meaning to beat a dead horse..... BUT ......

I expect that any forthcoming attack cannot happen without the direct involvement of an FBI or CIA operative. It seems they are most fervently encouraging their 'targets' to believe in misbegotten fantasies about Jihad and or martyrdom. There always seems to be one of them 'providing' access, materials, and or a venue to "attempt" the crime.

And for the record, I would prefer to be wrong about this opinion... but history seems to bear the theory out.

reply to post by 12m8keall2c


I came here to say that exact thing 12.

The FBI/other agencies egg them on, then pull the rug out from under them at the "last minute". Then they go on TV and say "Look what we did" *high fives* * bro grabs*

It's quite silly.

Now I don't doubt that people are "out to get us" but not the guys they find. (maybe me not doubting though means their plans worked?! :puz

reply to post by Maxmars


See this is where the confusion enters my mind...

We can all agree that we have enemies far and wide.

Some specific questions
1. Do you think they are already here awaiting orders?
2. Do we really have home grown terror cells here?
3. Are they only after the BIG scores?
4. Is it possible for a large scale attack to be planned without the involvment of the CIA/FBI
5. Is it possible that we have been 100% misled to believe that they want to kill innocent civilians?

I find it impossible to believe that they couldnt pull off a shock and awe attack....

Am I weird for brainstorming ways that they could possibly attack...

I have come up with some very very easy ways the could paralyze society. Am I that much more intune with our society and what will scare the hell out of the people?

I am baffled that more of these have not happened.

I am dumbfounded that this army psycho choose to attack an army base.. If he was looking for a "terror" attack, he should have gone into a subway station - mall - concert... If he was really looking to pull off an attack that would take america by the scruff of the neck, paralyze the people.

Originally posted by MiMobs

Some specific questions
1. Do you think they are already here awaiting orders?
2. Do we really have home grown terror cells here?
3. Are they only after the BIG scores?
4. Is it possible for a large scale attack to be planned without the involvment of the CIA/FBI
5. Is it possible that we have been 100% misled to believe that they want to kill innocent civilians?

1 - Possible but less likely than the reverse. Former administrations (I can't speak about this one) have been guilty of doing this in other countries. I ran comes to mind, although they are by no means the only ones.

I think it's more likely that such fundamentalists are seeking zealots who will "take up the mantle" of Jihad. In that regard we DO need to be wary and ready... but NOT by spying on US, but them. Then there are always the zealots who 'self-activate' - and they are by no means all Muslims... we (and EVERY other country on Earth) has their own set of potential extremists to worry about. But seeking them out actively and dangling opportunities in front of them is hardly what I would consider 'making us safer' (re: WTC '93)

2 - Yes and no.
"Yes" in that people naturally seek out companionship of like-minded individuals and should their aim be to commit mass murder and destruction they could be terrorists waiting for an opportunity. Since their is always a possibility of such a deviant desire in a person, there must logically follow that more than one person could have such a desire. In other words, if it is possible, it CAN happen.

but

"No" in that "home-grown" implies an active fundamentalist terror organization actively operating within the country. Such an organization cannot hide from public notice unless they are all living in caves in Montana or something... because it's not like they can gather to plan.... the internet and telecommunications are heavily monitored, organized crimes tolerates no competition and would be their only source for materials and necessities for actually doing some kind of 'shock and awe' action (aside from the FBI and such), and believe it or not, organized crime for the most part are a fairly patriotic lot... this is their playground after all.

But remember... only the government gets to define who is a terrorist. It is a crime they define at their whim. They can be very creative in who they call a terrorist and who they don't.

3 - Absolutely! Terrorism has NO value if it is not SHOCKING and IN-YOUR-FACE. It is either that or it is petty crime. Insurgencies can get away with little annoyances and harassment...(although most governments define any insurgents as terrorists anyway terrorists are publicity seekers at ALL times... their message and operation is based on that.

4 - One would think that the larger the target the more closely it is secured. The real important targets - the "tempting' targets are the ones that these organizations use as bait for the 'would-be' common garden-variety zealot. And those targets almost inevitable require "inside" information to attack. When a large-scale bank robbery takes place where millions are stolen the first people the police look at are the staff.... When a huge terrorist target gets struck.. the same will happen; and usually we find high-level officials somehow involved or connected to the presence of the terrorist.... sort of like when the FBI was ordered to 'stand down' on investigating the pilot training that was going on for these unusual Saudi students... etc.

5 - No. They do want to kill innocent civilians. It wasn't always so. But there was a shift in radical extremism in Muslim Fundamentalism after the fall of Iran. New ideological leaders decided that unless civilians are killed and massive and visible pain and suffering inflicted the "West" simply would ignore their message and continue to subvert their leaders into a materialistic mentality... which they hate. Personally, I think they should target those useless architectural wonders in Dubai..... THOSE are the people they should be mad at... not us.


OK - that should be enough to get you folks chatting (or flaming me) ....

The reasoning behind agents playing the part of an accomplice is to infiltrate any network that an individual might be a part of and to gauge the seriousness of the individual’s intentions. For authorities to take them seriously they wouldn’t need any encouraging and not only that but for authorities to detect them in the first place they need to be pretty dedicated.

The job of the agent is to string them along for as long as possible. You are an accomplice but you aren't offering them too much support, if you give the individual the impression that you are an absolutely brilliant contact then they are unlikely to risk trying to find anyone else (genuine) to assist them and it ruins your chances of neutralising a larger network as opposed to snatching one guy and perhaps a few warped buddies.

This guy was detected when he tried to gather "unspecified materials", generally meaning materials used to make explosives, which is a typical scenario and one that security services often rely on to snatch potential terrorists. The fear of an organised "Mumbai" or "Commando" style attack - basically one using firearms as the dominant means of killing - stems from the fact that they remove a good portion of the options available to detect a terror attack before it occurs.

Added to this is that they are more psychologically traumatic for an observer (interpersonal killing vs impersonal killing) and therefore a more effective means of “terrorism” and it is virtually certain that people will be killed before it is over (as opposed to the attack being botched due to an explosive not detonating, as we have seen many times before).

Lone-wolf attacks using firearms (Fort Hood for example) are an even more worrying prospect because they can occur suddenly and are extremely difficult to pick up beforehand without a lot of luck. The fact that we are not seeing such attacks on a regular basis points to both the rarity and stupidity of people who wish to commit terror attacks.

Originally posted by Soshh
The reasoning behind agents playing the part of an accomplice is to infiltrate any network that an individual might be a part of and to gauge the seriousness of the individual’s intentions. For authorities to take them seriously they wouldn’t need any encouraging and not only that but for authorities to detect them in the first place they need to be pretty dedicated.

However, this was no network. In fact, all of this particular would-be terrorist's associates were FBI.. the network was 'theirs' and they brought the suspect in to make their determinations. A lawyer might have been inclined to call that entrapment... except that defense is moot in terrorism cases - thank you Patriot Act.

The job of the agent is to string them along for as long as possible. You are an accomplice but you aren't offering them too much support, if you give the individual the impression that you are an absolutely brilliant contact then they are unlikely to risk trying to find anyone else (genuine) to assist them and it ruins your chances of neutralising a larger network as opposed to snatching one guy and perhaps a few warped buddies.

Except again, after all the time invested in the 'case' they did not expose a 'network' at all. A person planning terrorist acts on their own must be stopped, but let's not inflate this to a case any more than the masters of FBI public relations do. One guy.. no network, multiple agents, no 'connections' to report.

This guy was detected when he tried to gather "unspecified materials", generally meaning materials used to make explosives, which is a typical scenario and one that security services often rely on to snatch potential terrorists....

... When he tried to gather 'unspecified materials' FROM the agents themselves... how did he get the impression that the agents could provide him with those 'materials' in the first place? Again, not saying they didn't stop a terrorist act from occurring... rather they made it appear to a person of misbegotten motivations that he actually might be able to pull off an attack....

The fear of an organised "Mumbai" or "Commando" style attack - basically one using firearms as the dominant means of killing - stems from the fact that they remove a good portion of the options available to detect a terror attack before it occurs....
.....
Lone-wolf attacks using firearms (Fort Hood for example) are an even more worrying prospect because they can occur suddenly and are extremely difficult to pick up beforehand without a lot of luck. The fact that we are not seeing such attacks on a regular basis points to both the rarity and stupidity of people who wish to commit terror attacks.

This is the scenario I most fear as 'inevitable'.... like Fort Hood, such incidents may not be 'preventable' unless someone is psychically prescient or somehow in the right place at the right time.... It just seems to me that the FBI are 'making' the right place and the right time available to people who are screwed up in their social values and ideology... then snagging them and having the press report how they 'saved us.'

I have nothing against the effort to secure our communities, but I would be more at ease if they focused on the sources of terrorism rather than the half-assed afficionados who might otherwise be relatively impotent. Now I know this may sound naive, but his church and congregation might have eventually convinced him that there is no 'war' and that killing innocent people is no expression of faith. Also, once they found no "network" behind this man, they could have simply arrested him for conspiring and shut the hell up. Instead, in typical FBI-Madison Avenue-Hollywood MBA fashion, they tout it as some sort of victory over 'terrorism.' It was no such thing. All they did was arrest yet another exceedingly bitter and angry follower of Islam... perhaps enabling the connections he didn't have before to become inevitable now. Who knows Maybe that's the plan?

Am I the only one that has thought about this: Why is it OK for police to break the laws they are supposed to enforce to catch "bad guys"? That never really sat right with me since I began thinking for myself. When police are out there actively roleplaying as criminals, wouldn't that make it easy for a cop to actually profit from crime, while claiming they are just doing the undercover thing? I don't know, maybe I am just weird for thinking such things lol.

Originally posted by Maxmars
However, this was no network.

Do you expect them to know this upon first contact with him? Explain the logic in capturing one guy and ending the operation there when you have the chance to neutralise a network, whether they are just more people like him or not. It isn't about him it's about them, that's the point.

A person planning terrorist acts on their own must be stopped, but let's not inflate this to a case any more than the masters of FBI public relations do.

"Inflating the case" for what purpose? In reality that isn't even tertiary. Don't you think that he might have had some idea of what to do with the explosives that he intended on constructing once he had obtained the necessary materials?

One guy.. no network, multiple agents, no 'connections' to report.

That being a conclusion of the operation and he was arrested once this was established. I’m not sure what your problem is, why not offer your expertise and explain how you would go about detecting and neutralising terrorist networks without using methods that you consider questionable.

reply to post by Soshh


I am not going to beat around the bush. I picture the FBI taking a guy that is questionably disgruntled, and turning him. Maybe this guy was angry, but was only in the anger stage. I could see the FBI pushing him to the next level, supporting this, with the theory he would have eventually attacked anyway.

I am not claiming this as fact. I am simply taking notes from experiences and stories from which they obtained their reputation.

reply to post by MiMobs


I see what you suggest as being very unlikely indeed, considering that there is nothing real to gain from it. Then again I have never been in the FBI, perhaps they enjoy wasting their time doing ridiculous and pointless things.

If what you believe is true then the entire story of this case from beginning to end would have to be a fabrication, so why did you post this thread without making this assertion to start off with?

reply to post by Soshh


More information has come out since I posted this. I didnt know that the only "terrorists" that this guy had contact with were FBI agents.

I am just tossing a theory out there. Until the entire story becomes clear I will call it a theory and not an opinion.