Talk:2007 John F. Kennedy International Airport attack plot

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jahidist terror,Islamist terror[edit]

I prefer not to use the Islamist because it incorrectly implies the religion or the majority of its followers subscribe to use of these tactics. I understand my preferred use of the word Jihadist has its own issues mainly the literal use of the word does not mean what is commonly understood as terrorism. In its current popular use the term does stand for radical fundamentalist Islamic view that proscribes violent hostility against the west. Jahidist was the term used in the 9/11 commission report. I have had disagreements with the 9/11 commission report but I believe they are correct in using that word to describe a point of view that has as its bases in the religion of Islam does not describe the religion. Edkollin 17:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed move[edit]

For NPOV reasons, I'm proposing that this article be moved to 2007 John F. Kennedy International Airport attack plot. Changed "terror plot" to "attack plot" for NPOV, but this was not the only attack plot against JFK, so added "2007" as differentiator. Objections? --ChrisRuvolo (t) 20:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. It is less POV that way, as you say. jwillburtalk 00:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed on the change to 2007 disagree on "attack" plot. Terror is the more emotional word but it is the word that is being used by "credible" sources. The intent was to have the result be "bigger then 9/11" and totally destroy the airport and a section of the borough of Queens. That there was no way in hell they could have pulled it off is irrelevant to this narrow discussion. While "attack plot" is a literally true description it is a weasel word in this instance Edkollin 05:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Time Magazine, NYC Mayor Bloomeberg, NY Times among prominent critics of media hyping of this story[edit]

I think it's worth noting that there were some prominent politicians and media outlets who were critical of the 'hype' surrounding this story. Time Magazine posted an article titled "The JFK Plot: Overstating the Case?" which examines the reasons why the FBI might want to hype a case like this, even though "law enforcement officials said that J.F.K. was never in immediate danger. The plotters had yet to lay out plans. They had no financing. Nor did they have any explosives."

Time Magazine artlice link: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1628169,00.html

NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg had this to say about the story (Text from: http://wcbstv.com/topstories/local_story_155160642.html)

There are lots of threats to you in the world. There's the threat of a heart attack for genetic reasons. You can't sit there and worry about everything. Get a life," he said.
That "What, me worry?" attitude pretty much sums up Bloomberg's advice to New Yorkers on the terror plot. As far as he was concerned, the professionals were on it, so New Yorkers shouldn't let it tax their brains.
"You have a much greater danger of being hit by lightning than being struck by a terrorist," he added.

The NY Times National Editor Suzanne Daley was asked about the NYTimes' coverage of the story in the 'Talk to the Newsroom' section of the Times, here's what she said:

A. Here's the basic thinking on the J.F.K. story: In the years since 9/11, there have been quite a few interrupted terrorist plots. It now seems possible to exercise some judgment about their gravity. Not all plots are the same. In this case, law enforcement officials said that J.F.K. was never in immediate danger. The plotters had yet to lay out plans. They had no financing. Nor did they have any explosives. It is with all that in mind, that the editors in charge this weekend did not put this story on the front page.
In truth, the decision was widely debated even within this newsroom. At the front page meeting this morning, we took an informal poll and a few editors thought the story should have been more prominently played. Some argued it should have been fronted, regardless of the lameness of the plot, simply because it was what everyone was talking about.

Here's the link to that NYTimes page: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/04/business/media/04asktheeditors.html?bl&ex=1181361600&en=20edfabbc569e36f&ei=5087%0A —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.167.106.33 (talk • contribs).

These are good cites. The Bloomberg quotes are more philosophy of life then then comments on this particular incident so I will not cite it but will use the other two. Since your cites do show newsroom debate I will take out mention of publicity in general and say that the criticism of the U.S. attorney's remarks. Also added will be the eight possible reasons for the hype mentioned by Time. While adding all these cites knocking down hype I will add a sentence that will up the hype a Newsday report saying investigators are trying to pin it on Iran based on a trip one of the suspects took. And just because you have not heard of the boxer does not mean he is not famous. Edkollin 05:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Will make this a separate section and show cites that say the plot should be taken seriously to make the piece more balanced. 69.114.117.103 19:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reports that the suspects worked for an airline that is a CIA front[edit]

I have seen reports regarding this plot that the suspects have worked for Everglades Airlines (or something like that), which is a CIA front. Shouldn't these reports be included in the article? Life, Liberty, Property 17:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes with the usual proper citing Edkollin 05:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 15:03, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link 2[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 15:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link 3[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 15:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link 4[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 15:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link 5[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 15:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link 6[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 15:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link 7[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 15:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link 8[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 15:05, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link 9[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 15:05, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link 10[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 15:05, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 2007 John F. Kennedy International Airport attack plot. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:11, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Russell Defreitas and co-conspirator Abdul Kadir sentenced to life in prison, July 2010[edit]

FBI records:

https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/newyork/press-releases/2011/russell-defreitas-sentenced-to-life-in-prison-for-conspiring-to-commit-terrorist-attack-at-jfk-airport

state that Russell Defreitas & Abdul Kadir were sentenced to life in prison for conspiring to commit a terrorist attack.

This needs to be added as a section. Reference 6 is a BBC version of the guilty verdict. It's POV is certainly not neutral. It also does not disclose the sentence, just the verdict.

I also question the NPOV here, as there are several "alleged"-type verbiage. Once a criminal is found guilty, he is NOT an alleged.

Regarding the editor's reluctance to use Islamist because "it incorrectly implies the religion or the majority of its followers subscribe to use of these tactics." The Wiki link to the phrase, IN THIS ARTICLE is "Islamic terrorism is terrorist acts committed by groups or individuals who profess Islamic or Islamist motivations or goals. Islamic terrorists justify their violent tactics through interpreting the Quran and Hadith according to their own goals and intentions."

The above mentioned FBI archive states:

"According to the trial evidence, Defreitas and his fellow plot members attempted to enlist support from prominent international terrorist groups and leaders, including Abu Bakr, leader of the Trinidadian militant group Jamaat Al Muslimeen, and Adnan El Shukrijumah, an al Qaeda leader, as well as the Iranian revolutionary leadership."

All of the mentioned groups are Islamic terrorist groups. If one needs to believe that Defreitas & Kadir were "interpreting the Quran and Hadith according to their own goals and intentions", or, if one believes that the Quran and/or Hadith, in numerous citations, requires war with nonbelievers, the end result is the same. This was a conspiracy to commit Islamic terror, by Islamists who sought assistance from other Islamists. To not state this, is simply taqiyya - lying (usually to the Infidel) which is allowed under Sharia.

AmbidexterNH (talk) 19:25, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2007_John_F._Kennedy_International_Airport_attack_plot&oldid=1196500627"