FBI Foils Attack by Monitoring Chat Rooms

An anonymous reader writes "A planned terrorist attack on New York City was reportedly foiled by FBI agents who monitored chat rooms frequented by extremists. Lebanese authorities captured an Al Qaeda member who confessed to the plot, and stated that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi had pledged financial and other support for the operation. Although the planning for the operation was not far along, according to U.S. officials, they had already been monitoring the plot for a year." From the article: "A government official with knowledge of the investigation said the alleged plot did focus on New York's transport system, but did not target the Holland Tunnel. New York senator Charles Schumer said: 'This is one instance where intelligence was on top of its game and discovered the plot when it was just in the talking phase.' The Holland Tunnel is protected not just by bedrock, but also by concrete and cast-iron steel. One counter-terrorism source told the Daily News it was doubtful a plot to blow it up would be feasible, saying huge amounts of explosives and a detailed knowledge of blast effect would be necessary."

Comments

Spying on you is good m'kay

[hackstraw]

So, you want to convince intelligent people like those on slashdot that the FBI stopped people from around the world possibly funded by a dead guy to flood a bunch of businesses up hill by lurking in a chatroom?

Shit, if only they had WMDs and lived in one place, maybe we would just take over the country or something.

FUD.

More evidence of FUD from the article itself:

"There was nothing imminent, but it was being monitored for a long period of time," he said. "This is ongoing, that's why I've said nothing about it until now. It would have been better if this had not been disclosed."

A government official with knowledge of the investigation said the alleged plot did focus on New York's transport system, but did not target the Holland Tunnel.

New York senator Charles Schumer said: "This is one instance where intelligence was on top of its game and discovered the plot when it was just in the talking phase."

The Holland Tunnel is protected not just by bedrock, but also by concrete and cast-iron steel.

Who makes this shit up?

They were NOT going to attack the Holland Tunnel, but BTW, it is protected by bedrock, concrete, and cast-iron steel?

More confidence in their ignorance:

One counter-terrorism source told the Daily News it was doubtful a plot to blow it up would be feasible...

But the guy fessed up over a month ago without even being tortured! Now that is real progress!

I feel safer, don't you?

Re:Spying on you is good m'kay

[c6gunner]

Insightfull? Are the mods smoking crack again?

I can just imagine this guy's response if the 9/11 hijackers had been captured BEFORE pulling off the attack:

"So, you want to convince intelligent people like those on slashdot that the FBI stopped people from around the world possibly funded by a CIA agent from hijacking airliners with box cutters?

FUD

I feel safer, don't you?"

Re:Spying on you is good m'kay

[hackstraw]

I can just imagine this guy's response if the 9/11 hijackers had been captured BEFORE pulling off the attack

Probably I would have reacted like most everybody else.

No reaction.

I don't believe it would have been much of a headline before 9/11/01. The people would have been dismissed as lunatics that could have never of pulled this thing off. However, after that date, something as ridiculous as this makes headlines, and the collective conscious here on slashdot is that this was silly and FUD just like my response.

News does not typically get made when things are OK or a potential threat is avoided. Nobody stands on the side of the Mississippi river and says, "Well, its not flooding, its just going North to South as usual". No headline says, "A 300 car pileup was avoided because John Doe went to the state inspection station today and got new brake pads!"

Action by all animals regarding safety is directly proportional to the degree of perceived danger. Cats have no problem climbing on furniture or a few feat off of the ground. Get them stuck high up in a tree, and the fire department comes out. One time when I was working construction, I walked about 200 feet around a 90 degree corner on 8" wide cinder blocks from 2.5 stories up, and I had to be very objective about it and convince myself that 8" was more than sufficient to walk a straight line. If I had to do the same thing one foot off of the ground, I wouldn't of cared.

Humans have this revenge/fear complex of other humans that is pretty much over 99% completely irrational.

Off the top of your head, tell me how many people died on 9/11/01 in the attacks. Now, off the top of your head, tell me how many people died in hurricane Katrina? Now, how about the number in the 2004 tsunami? What about annually due to the flu? Car accidents?

In general, humans are irrational. I would like to believe that slashdotters and others that have scientific thought are a little more on the rational side of things and can look at the raw data and let that speak vs their perception of the data. What I'm getting at, is that the terrorists on 9/11/01 were irrational, and the thing was like a big car accident, and the thing was not preventable then and another thing like it is not preventable now, and if it were, it would be as evident as the avoided 300 car pileup from a person getting their brakes repaired. Negatives cannot be proven, and they just are not that interesting.

The US government uses FUD all the time to maintain their perception of power. Parents (more uneducated ones) do this with their kids as well.

Being a scientist and trying to understand the world in rational terms, I get annoyed when FUD is used to deceive people. I don't see that as progress, but entirely the opposite.

If I were really concerned about my safety, I would not drive to work or anywhere after that. That is the most likely cause of death for a young, healthy person. But people drive to work every day, without fear, but many of the same people fear terrorists, and there is no basis for this from a rational point of view.

Laws?

[Conception]

So, how much warrentless wiretapping and patriot act powers did it take to monitor a chat room?

Hmm...yeah.. that's what I thought.

Re:Laws?

[CheeseTroll]

Assuming the chatrooms are public, then probably no more than they'd need to pretend reading a newspaper while eavesdropping on conversations in the corner coffee shop.

Where's the overt act?

[Animats]

This sounds more like some guys mouthing off rather than a real threat. The real players do not discuss their plans in chat rooms. It's like the group from Miami that was "trying to blow up the John Hancock Building". Turns out they're a bunch of small-time crooks and losers who ran into an FBI agent while blithering.

Al-queda used to have some competent people, and they might eventually get their act together for another big act of terrorism, but what we're seeing now are wannabee terrorists.

Trust

[JackL]

Sounds a lot like the situation down in Miami a few weeks ago. The government really hyped a plot by several people to attack the Sears Tower. Turned out that those people had no more ability to blow up a firecracker than the Sears Tower. Now we get a similar story about a plan that (depending on who you listen to) either targeted a transportation target in New York or the Holland Tunnel specifically. I'd like to think that our government is on top of the situation but after the Sears Tower story and all the orange terror alerts before the last election, I don't. And that is bad. You'd like to think that our government has enough integrity to provide accurate information about terror threats to protect the public, but it doesn't.

The first of many

[sfjoe]

This only the first of many so-called terrorist plots that will be announced as foiled in the months to come. It's an election year, folks.

Re:Read all about it

[Stalyn]

When the next terrorist attack comes you can almost predict the public's reaction.

1. Blame the press.
2. Demand bloodlust.
3. Ask for more government protection.

And all the while it does nothing to prevent terrorism and just gives the government more power over its citizens. That's how dictatorships start, people don't mind giving the government a little more power. And as time goes on more and more powers are given away. Sure this administration and the next may use that power for good but down the road we might elect some maniac(if elections are even in place by then) who will abuse that power. The Romans didn't have a problem with Augustus but they sure did have a problem with Caligula.

When is someone a danger?

[SuperKendall]

Just because someone seems really silly, and wanders around in a robe with a stick does not mean they are not dangerous - sure those Florida guys sounded goofy but on the other hand what would happen if someone did actually hook up the goofy guys with explosives? However goofy they were they were saying they wanted explosives to take the fight to the US...

There was another really goofy guy - Richard Reid. You may remember him from exciting life moments as "I have to take my my shoes off in the airport?!"

I mean he tried to light his shoe on fire on a plane with a lighter. Yet even that bumbling moron managed to aquire explosives and get them on a plane. If he managed, why not the Florida guys eventually as well? Why should we not take someone seriously when they claim they want to blow up something no matter how inept they seem? Would you leave them wandering without supervision until they did manage to succeed?