New York City terrorism suspect admits subway attack plan
The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.
JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION
-
N Korea stages mass military parade for late leader
( 4 )
-
Maid kills Singaporean widow after being called stupid
( 4 )
-
At least 356 killed in Honduras prison fire
( 3 )
-
Republicans oppose any cuts in nuclear weapons
( 24 )
-
Russia: West 'slammed door' on Syria at U.N.
( 11 )
-
- Financial Advisor
- Select Asset Management KK, Tokyo
- Salary: ¥100,000 ~ ¥999,999 Paid Training Commission Based
-
- Corporate Business English Trainers
- ACT Systems, Inc.（株式会社アクト・システムズ）, Tokyo
- Salary: ¥269,500 ~ ¥280,000 / Month
-
- English Instructor (Osaka, Kyoto, Kobe)
- Berlitz Japan, Inc. (ベルリッツ・ジャパン株式会社), Kansai
- Salary: ¥125,000 ~ ¥250,000 / Month
Order by Time Order by Popularity
29 Comments
Login to comment
0
adaydream
Another terror suspect is convicted in civilian court? WOW.
He actually admitted guilt in civilian court. Unbelievable!!
And this isn't a good venue to hear terrorist? Baloney. < :-)
0
knice
Umm, where does it say that he pleaded guilty in a civilian court. Article clearly states he told a federal judge. I know a major hacker who had to go to that same court for bringing the Internet down
0
adaydream
knice
Have a good read. < :-)
0
adaydream
Oh..Oh.. It says "federal judge in a Brooklyn courtroom."; a civilian court. In the military it's a Staff Judge Advocate. < :-)
0
HonestDictator
Well when they're caught in the US they will be tried in the US federal courts. If they're caught overseas they'll be sent to gitmo most likely.
Appears he doesn't know that american's do know about what the military is doing to civilians in Afghanistan... seems that he forgot what other Afghani's (namely Taliban and AQ) are doing to civilians in Afghanistan as well. Selective perception.
0
Odogma
Normal Americans are probably relieved Johnny Jihad Najibullah Zazi was apprehended. Learning he was a former Denver airport shuttle driver will probably make quite a few wonder about underclass/immigrant pathologies. Reading that Zazi said he went to Pakistan in 2008 to join the Taliban and fight against the U.S. military will increase fears the common folk have.
But the partisans come here crowing about giving a monster like this a civilian trial...
0
adaydream
The Christmas Day Bomber was arrested on American soil. He was only detained by non-police force people. So by your reasoning a federal court is A-Okay. < :-)
0
HonestDictator
I don't get your meaning Aday, note in the article it said Federal judge.
0
adaydream
I was referring to some posters who say that these terrorists shouldn't be prosecuted in federal court. Not you directly, I just used your sentences in my example.
Have a good day. < :-)
0
goddog
Do they mean that if I wanted to drive cross country on the date of 9-11 I could be arrested? Weird.
0
tkoind2
There are lessons in this story that we should heed. First, that our policies abroad have long reaching impact to life at home. Second, while we are convinced that we are the good guys and our actions are for the better good, people on the receiving end of our policies may well disagree.
Third, terrorists are not the one dimensional monsters we like to believe they are. They are frequently pretty normal people who are sucked into it for various reasons. That is where we fail to understand the nature of insurgency and terror. Until we start to see these guys as complex people, we will never have a chance to work against the terror recruiters to help prevent the creation of more terrorists.
Finally. We have to ask ourselves that if another nation fighting a war in our home country killed our civilians, women and children included, how would we react? We can say we'd send the miliary to strike back, but what if your nation didn't have a military? How would you fight back?
The answer for much of the world is terror or insurgency. Also necessary for us to accept and understand if we hope to put an end to it.
I don't agree with terror or with the thinking that goes with it. But more and more I hope we can understand why it happens and learn how to stop it.
0
Odogma
The terrorist in this article trained to kill innocents for the same reason tens of thousands of other like-minded young Afghan and Pakistani males have done so - - a certain religion compelled him.Maybe his understanding of it was warped. Or maybe, after more than ten thousand documented cases of such 'misunderstandings,' since 9-11 alone, he is a fairly representative type, and profiling of his kind is the only option they leave us.
The Taliban are also fighting a war in this lunatic's country. They are killing innocents, far more deliberately than US or NATO forces will.In their corps it gets you promoted. Among US and NATO forces it gets you in serious trouble. The terrorist Zazi chose to take sides in that war, and he chose to target innocent civilians.
The only thing complex here is the mindless knee-jerk rationalising that defeatist terror-enablers engage in...
0
tkoind2
Odogma. Someone trying to teach you to be intelligent about how you address terror is hardly a "terror-enabler" and I deeply resent such an inane comment! Your view is just the kind of thinking that has blinded us to the root causes of terrorism for far too long. And if we don't learn to think outside our little box, we will never get a handle on it.
Further your insinuation that Islam is somehow an inherently violent faith reveals a lot about your thinking.
Roughly 1/3 of the world's religious people are Islamic. A few radicals and terrorists from various countries hardly defines the entire faith as violent. Just as a few abortion clinic bombers and neo-nazi Christians do not define all Christians as terrorists and fascists.
Western policy, American, British and others, for generations has been to occupy, exploit and control the regions where most of the terrorists come from. Our policies have resulted in wars, the impossition of dictatorships, failures to support more peaceful leaders in favor of more compliant ones and has been all about oil and money.
Our policy in Afghanistan was to arm people that we knew could be a threat to us because we wanted the Soviets to lose. Now that comes back to bite us in the behind and we cry foul. Yet our notable absence in the post Soviet withdrawal made it possible for the Taliban and others to exploit the Soviet defeat to prevent peace and the development of a reasonable government.
Now you can try all day to portray all terrorists as murderous nut jobs. But it does not change the fact that most of them are intelligent and committed people who got that way through their feelings about conflicts between the west and their region as well as any religious motivations.
To sell them short of this intelligence is to do a grave security disservice to the American people. We cannot lightly dismiss these people as nuts. If we do, we invite another and another 911. We have to come to terms with the complexity of the issue and learn how to prevent people from turning to terror to express their political and religious outrage. And that includes working to change how we deal with the region and the people living there.
The only "mindless knee-jerking" I see here is your inability to face the reality that we are not winning against terror, we are just biding time. If we are to win, it means changing how the world sees us and how we see the people who are a potential threat. Wake up, the world of 2010 takes a hell of a lot more than flag waving and armies to solve problems. The new era requires a revision of diplomatic relations, regional policies and economic solutions if we are to prevent the expansion of terrorism.
0
Helter_Skelter
tkoindt2
I see. So if it's actually U.S. foreign policy that is creating this Islamic terrorism, then explain how it is responsible for the Islamic terrorism occuring in, say, Southern Thailand, Philippines, and Western China? I'm just throwing this out, but do you think it's possible this is more about the religion of Islam than the Infidels who try to defend themselves against it?
0
guest
Excellent point!! what about the Islamic violence all over Africa?
Moderator: Stay on topic please.
0
skipthesong
how come he doesn't get charged with treason? or is that no longer a crime?
Roughly 1/3 of the world's religious people are Islamic. A few radicals and terrorists from various countries hardly defines the entire faith as violent"
who got that way through their feelings about conflicts between the west and their region as well as any religious motivations." Well, you just hit it about allowing them in the country then, didn't you? If they are American, what is their region really? I still have a residence in NJ, I could have been on one of those trains or my wife or my kid. You want me to just stop and find reason and say hey, I understand?
If they really have a problem, how about trying a different method of letting us know? I lost a lot in 2001, I DON'T CARE why they are doing what they are doing, they need to stop it and try your way: "The new era requires a revision of diplomatic relations, regional policies and economic solutions if we are to prevent the expansion of terrorism."
0
skipthesong
there were many here a while ago saying he's innocent and only being picked up because he's a muslim.
0
tkoind2
I didn't say that it accounts for all terror. And if you read carefully my message indicates that policies from other countries are at fault as well.
Look, there is no single absolute cause for terrorism. It is absurd to think there would be. But it is equally absurd to dismiss the role that both former imperialism and more contemporary cold war politics have played in growing conflict around the planet.
With regard to the Uyghurs in NW China. If another culture were trying to erradicate your culture and heritage would you fight back? The Uyghur issue is not as much about extremist Islam than it is far more about the policies of China to erradicated ethnic minority cultures. The resulting growth of Islamic fundamentalism in this region is largely attributable to very harsh Chinese policies that have marginalized and threatened the Uyghur communities. Read up on this conflict and it will start to make more sense.
As for S.E.Asia. Terrorist recruiters depend heavily upon the presense of young and impressionable people who lack economic opportunity or who are disenfranchised from society. In many of the SE Asian states where Islamic fundamentalism has taken hold, we also see economic depression, lack of educational and developmental opportunities and often repressive or corrupt central and local governments.
Radicals then play upon those issues to engage people in their policies and you end up with terrorists.
The solution, or a key start to one here, is the development of opportunities for these impressionable people to find more positive outlets. That means working with moderate leaders in these communities to reach the youth with education, job opportunities and the creation of hope that the can control and develop their lives.
Now I am not naive enough to think that this will cure all potential terrorists. It won't. Just like the Neo-nazis in the US, there will always be dangerous people with a cause to kill for. But addressing these issues will make recruiting more difficult and discourage the growth of these movements.
As for Islam. First let me be clear that I dislike organized religion of any kind. History is too full of examples where it causes far more harm than good. That said, I equally support the rights of people to follow religious beliefs.
To say that Islam is to blame is simply an indication that you lack and understanding of the religion and how it is practiced by the vast majority of people who adhere to it. Spend a little time reading about Islam from someone other than right wing US sources and you will find it is not unlike Christianity in both its belief foundations.
If you want to apply a blanket concern, then you can apply a regional observation that the same region where these conflicts are so challenging are the same regions that have been heavily exploited or colonized for generations and are just now going through the pains that Europe spend generations fighting and killing to achieve. In their develoment people slaughtered others over political, economic and religious issues for as long as there were countries in existence. Perhaps the real commonality here is humanity itself.
0
SuperLib
He joined the Taliban, a group responsible for killing far more Afghan civilians. With such flawed logic, why would you consider his motivation to be credible? You shouldn't legitimize an absurd position just because someone says it.
What's your answer? If someone invaded the US you'd join a group that kills more Americans than the invaders? You'd use your neighbors' kids as human shields? You'd go to the other country and blow up a bus stop? You'd finance your war by growing opium? You'd take over American cities and kill other Americans who get in your way? If you want me to believe that the Taliban are just doing what any of us, yourself included, would do, then please let me know that you'd do the above.
Um, what part of the world hasn't been exploited by European powers at one point in time? Sorry, but for ever country famous for creating terrorists I can probably rattle off 10 that were exploited that don't produce terrorists to any real extent. I'm sure you'll find a much more credible link through Islam, which you most likely don't want to do.
Or, as our said, before, they are "intelligent and dedicated" people.
I'm inclined to agree with you when you say that improving economic conditions will help stem the flow of terrorists. But your sphere of blame seems to be limited to the US and with the occasional mention of "Western Powers" which is too narrow in scope. A vast majority of your evidence points to one country in particular when global jihad is just that....global. You also aren't taking into account the mission statements for groups like Al Queda which is to rule the entire Middle East. It's an action, a plan, a purpose...not a reaction.
Personally, I think you want to be sympathetic to terrorists because you fear them. If you blame others or justify their actions then you don't have to deal with that fear. It's your "get out of jail free" card.
0
adaydream
Zazi admitted guilt in federal court.
Zazi faces life in prison.
Civilian courts work for terrorists cases.
Slam dunk. < :-)
0
SuperLib
Well I guess I'll be the one to point out to daydream that this guy was caught in the US, not on the battlefield or in a terrorist cell in a foreign country. I suppose someone has to.
0
adaydream
SuperLib, The Christmas Day Bomber was captured by police as he exited the airplane. Then you agree that since he was not captured on the battlefield, he can be tried in civilian court. < :-)
0
Helter_Skelter
Najibullah Zazi
Muslim - check
Male - check
Age 18 to 45 - check
Middle Eastern - check
But, of course, we certainly wouldn't want to profile.
0
Helter_Skelter
One need not be a scholar of Islam to recognize that virtually every conflict occurring in the world today involves Islam. But I have read parts of the Koran and its dealings with the Infidel, so likely have a far better understanding than you.
I hear this from the leftists all the time, yet it somehow never applies to Islam. They're always the first to defend it and reassure us it's a religion of peace. I guess they hate America so much they're willing to make this exception.
0
SuperLib
He was arrested on US soil by American police. Should we send the NYPD to Afghanistan to arrest people captured in the latest offensive?
0
adaydream
Not necessarily. Should be air marshals. My point being that we have a terrorist, tried him in civilian court and got a guilty verdict. Federals courts work and get results. You can actually not have to have military tribunals to get convictions as many post. That's all. < :-)
0
Gurukun
If they would of waterboarded him, he may have given up more information. A Self-Admitted Terrorist needs no rights.
0
SuperLib
You ant air marshals busting into terrorist cells and arresting them?
And my point is that the terrorist and his work were contained mostly within the borders of the United States. It's a completely different animal if you capture someone on the battlefield in a foreign country.
Back to top