Police Find Explosives in an S.U.V. in Times Square
By RAY RIVERA and KARIN HENRY
A suspicious vehicle in the heart of Times Square led the police to clear thousands of tourists and theatergoers from the area on a warm and busy Saturday evening.
There was no explosion.
Police officials said a witness reported a running Nissan Pathfinder with Connecticut plates, with smoke coming out of the back. A bomb squad robot popped the back latch of the Pathfinder, and officers found what they initially believed was a bomb. The vehicle was found to contain explosives, gasoline, propane and burned wires, a Fire Department officer told Reuters.
The officer, who did not give his name because he was not authorized to speak to the news media, said that a man was seen fleeing the S.U.V. and that the police evacuated the area in case there were other threats nearby.
The officer said that the police were treating the vehicle as a “failed device.” The police were searching for a suspect.
A federal official said that it was not considered a terrorist threat and that the New York Police Department had told the Department of Homeland Security to stand down.
The license plates on the Nissan were registered to a Ford, the police said.
A New York City firefighter who told Reuters he arrived early on the scene said that the vehicle was smoking and that he saw “a flash” from the back of the it. “We put two and two together” and the evacuation was ordered, he said.
Broadway was closed between at least 43rd and 46th Streets, and the police also appeared to be closing off part of Eighth Avenue.
The police said they planned to close down Broadway shows in the vicinity, Reuters reported, but it was not clear whether any theaters had actually been evacuated.
Onlookers crowded against the metal barricades encircling the area, taking pictures with cellphones and video cameras, although only a swarm of flashing fire trucks and police cars was visible.
Many people stayed to watch after being shut out of Broadway shows or prevented from getting back to their hotels, trading rumors about what was happening.
The Toy “R” Us, between 44th and 45th Streets, was empty.
Gabrielle Zecha and Taj Heniser, visiting from Seattle, had tickets to see “Next to Normal” at the Booth Theater on 45th Street but could not get into the 8 p.m. show because the area was blocked off. But they made the best of the spectacle. “It’s a whole different kind of show,” Ms. Heniser said, adding, “It’s almost the equivalent of a $150 show.”
In December, the police closed Times Square for nearly two hours as they investigated a suspiciously parked van, delaying the rehearsal of the New Year’s ball drop. However, the van turned out to contain nothing but clothing.
Reporting was contributed by Al Baker, Micah Cohen and Steve Kenny in New York and Eric Lipton in Washington.
A 'failed device' is a heckuva lot better than a successful one but this is really scary.
All I can say is, whoever set it is an idiot. You do NOT try and Bomb NY when NY is the most vigilant about that sort of thing. If these guys were serious, they would have gone for Chicago or Hollywood.
All I can say is, whoever set it is an idiot. You do NOT try and Bomb NY when NY is the most vigilant about that sort of thing. If these guys were serious, they would have gone for Chicago or Hollywood.
If you assume the primary goal is death and damage to property.
Media reaction and symoblism play a much bigger part.
If you want to hit something in NYC, you don't use a car bomb. You park a car in a private parking lot/garage six blocks away with an IRA style mortar in the back seat, calmly walk away, and then remotely activate.
All I have to say is: I prefer having enemies this dumb. Don't you?
It seems as though the stupidity was focused on either using a fuse which was too long, or generally poor construction.
Additionally, the lack of a suicide component points away from Islamist influence, but that means very little. It will be interesting to see what investigation turns up.
Don't assume that lack of suicide equates non-Islamic.
My money is on shoddy workmanship. Probably an inexperienced, first time bomb builder. What little has been said about it suggests that it was not a terribly sophisticated device.
While electronics are expensive, they're your friend in the world of high ex mayhem. A good quality encrypted remote detonator made from a single eprom and a toy walkie-talkie available in any store is worth it's weight in plastique..
BaronIveagh wrote:Don't assume that lack of suicide equates non-Islamic.
I didn't. Note how certainty was not referenced in my language.
BaronIveagh wrote:
My money is on shoddy workmanship. Probably an inexperienced, first time bomb builder. What little has been said about it suggests that it was not a terribly sophisticated device.
While electronics are expensive, they're your friend in the world of high ex mayhem. A good quality encrypted remote detonator made from a single eprom and a toy walkie-talkie available in any store is worth it's weight in plastique..
Electronics are more prone to human error than flame detonation.
Unlikely that this was from a foreign terrorist org. more likely this was something like the OK city bombing just whoever made this had no training in explosives unlike mcbeal
Kid_Kyoto, I'm sure Al Qaeda isn't lurking Dakka Dakka for tips on how to bomb things.
OT: I'm just glad they caught it. I'm a little surprised that they even got it into Times Square though... Perhaps vigilance is becoming a bit slack?
Doesn't mean it's my favorite subject to dwell on though. And FYI the best way to do it is simultanius bombings during rushhour in the subway and tunnels.
Have you guys considered putting a bunch of bombs on a ferry filled with civilians, and a ferry filled with criminals, and then giving each one the detonator to the other one, and telling them that if they don't blow the other ship by a certain time then you will blow both ships up, while wearing badly smeared makeup all over your face?
BaronIveagh wrote:Not a truck. New York is a harbor. I'm talking about a LNG tanker.
Are they shooting this tanker with a missile? Hijacking it? How often does a liquid natural gas tanker need to come to new york? There are no facilities to handle one there as far as I know. It would be awfully out of place.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Orkeosaurus wrote:Have you guys considered putting a bunch of bombs on a ferry filled with civilians, and a ferry filled with criminals, and then giving each one the detonator to the other one, and telling them that if they don't blow the other ship by a certain time then you will blow both ships up, while wearing badly smeared makeup all over your face?
Orkeosaurus wrote:Have you guys considered putting a bunch of bombs on a ferry filled with civilians, and a ferry filled with criminals, and then giving each one the detonator to the other one, and telling them that if they don't blow the other ship by a certain time then you will blow both ships up, while wearing badly smeared makeup all over your face?
LOL then we would get some crazy mother teling overprotective parents that videogames will turn them into criminals
BaronIveagh wrote:If you want to hit something in NYC, you don't use a car bomb. You park a car in a private parking lot/garage six blocks away with an IRA style mortar in the back seat, calmly walk away, and then remotely activate.
All I have to say is: I prefer having enemies this dumb. Don't you?
Id have to agree on that one. Its a bit freaky that was planted there, but at least they failed to arm a simple bomb properly. So I guess that is a plus anyways
BaronIveagh wrote:Not a truck. New York is a harbor. I'm talking about a LNG tanker.
Are they shooting this tanker with a missile? Hijacking it? How often does a liquid natural gas tanker need to come to new york? There are no facilities to handle one there as far as I know. It would be awfully out of place.
Um, actually, no. LNG ships are actually common in the waters off NY. The site of one putting into port NY temporarily, particularly if there's a storm at Boston, is not uncommon. To effectively weaponize a LNG tanker would require about five armed men, some explosives and the know how to use them, and a working knowledge of LNG tankers. On your approach to the harbor, slowly open a few of the valves. This serves a double purpose, first by lowering the pressure in the tank, causing the LNG to boil more rapidly. The second is to allow air to enter the tanks, warming it, and introducing oxygen into the tank.
You have now created a Fuel Aerosol Explosive. A really big one.
Now: for extra fun, mount a few shaped plastique and magnesium charges on the tanks to breach the insulation, as well as one on the ships own NG storage tank, near the engines. Now, unless you're a suicide team, get out of dodge. Remotely detonate with a timer backup.
BaronIveagh wrote:Not a truck. New York is a harbor. I'm talking about a LNG tanker.
Are they shooting this tanker with a missile? Hijacking it? How often does a liquid natural gas tanker need to come to new york? There are no facilities to handle one there as far as I know. It would be awfully out of place.
Um, actually, no. LNG ships are actually common in the waters off NY. The site of one putting into port NY temporarily, particularly if there's a storm at Boston, is not uncommon. To effectively weaponize a LNG tanker would require about five armed men, some explosives and the know how to use them, and a working knowledge of LNG tankers. On your approach to the harbor, slowly open a few of the valves. This serves a double purpose, first by lowering the pressure in the tank, causing the LNG to boil more rapidly. The second is to allow air to enter the tanks, warming it, and introducing oxygen into the tank.
You have now created a Fuel Aerosol Explosive. A really big one.
Now: for extra fun, mount a few shaped plastique and magnesium charges on the tanks to breach the insulation, as well as one on the ships own NG storage tank, near the engines. Now, unless you're a suicide team, get out of dodge. Remotely detonate with a timer backup.
I'm glad you've put so much work into figuring all this out. Aluah Akbar.
So we have to have a ship hijack, a hurricane, quiet entry into a port, and the successful navigation of an incredibly large ship by people likely not trained in any of its steering or navigation systems. All this then has to happen unnoticed. You're ambitious!
<tinfoil> BaronIveagh is really an NSA Sleeper Agent tasked with seeding ideas into the minds of potential domestic terrorists so that the FBI can watch for people trying to do these plans. </tinfoil>
Kilkrazy wrote:BP is making a pretty good mess of the Gulf of Mexico at the moment without any assistance from international terrorism.
<moar tinfoils>
Anyone else find it odd that as soon as Obama says "go drill off shore", something which is really unpoppular, that there is a massive disaster, allowing Obama to save face and stop offshore Drilling?
</moar tinfoils>
I'm glad you've put so much work into figuring all this out. Aluah Akbar.
So we have to have a ship hijack, a hurricane, quiet entry into a port, and the successful navigation of an incredibly large ship by people likely not trained in any of its steering or navigation systems. All this then has to happen unnoticed. You're ambitious!
Please note where I said 'and a working knowledge of LNG tankers.' And it doesn't take a hurricane. Any good Nor'easter would cause them to divert and wait as a safety precaution. In theory, you could overwhelm one already waiting in harbor, if you're patient and have a skilled team.
Gwar! wrote:
<tinfoil>
BaronIveagh is really an NSA Sleeper Agent tasked with seeding ideas into the minds of potential domestic terrorists so that the FBI can watch for people trying to do these plans.
</tinfoil>
I once got to ride along with a Tiger Team and infiltrate CIA HQ at Langley. Does that count?
And I personally find the 'Deep Horizon' indecent to be an almost hilarious counterpoint to all those right wing guys that have been screaming 'Drill, Baby, Drill!" Or I would if it hadn't just wiped out 1/5 the US seafood production and started the ball rolling on a possible famine in the Caribbean.
Please note where I said 'and a working knowledge of LNG tankers.' And it doesn't take a hurricane. Any good Nor'easter would cause them to divert and wait as a safety precaution. In theory, you could overwhelm one already waiting in harbor, if you're patient and have a skilled team.
A working knowledge of a tanker sized vessel is not an easy thing to gain, nor is the experience in handling one. Tanker pilots take years to train. They would be better off attempting to overcome one already in harbor though that would be a brazen and difficult operation in one of the busiest ports on the planet (during bad weather no less!). They would likely have coast guard or local law enforcement on them in minutes. Sounds like the setup to a rather formulaic action film.
Please note where I said 'and a working knowledge of LNG tankers.' And it doesn't take a hurricane. Any good Nor'easter would cause them to divert and wait as a safety precaution. In theory, you could overwhelm one already waiting in harbor, if you're patient and have a skilled team.
A working knowledge of a tanker sized vessel is not an easy thing to gain, nor is the experience in handling one. Tanker pilots take years to train. They would be better off attempting to overcome one already in harbor though that would be a brazen and difficult operation in one of the busiest ports on the planet (during bad weather no less!). They would likely have coast guard or local law enforcement on them in minutes. Sounds like the setup to a rather formulaic action film.
Is it much harder to steer a boat into a harbor than to fly a plane into a specific building? Al Qaeda had people training for years to become pilots to carry out 9/11 so it's really not all that far-fetched to imagine them figuring out how to pilot an LNG tanker.
And who says the tanker needs to be hijacked? If the pilot is in on the plot from the beginning there would be no warning.
Is it much harder to steer a boat into a harbor than to fly a plane into a specific building?
Yes. You should probably find out what it takes to actually pilot a two hundred thousand ton tanker. Because it takes a lot more than one dude with knowledge of thrust and wheel controls.
Al Qaeda had people training for years to become pilots to carry out 9/11 so it's really not all that far-fetched to imagine them figuring out how to pilot an LNG tanker.
Good luck getting weekend lessons for piloting private hundred million dollar tankers.
And who says the tanker needs to be hijacked? If the pilot is in on the plot from the beginning there would be no warning.
Those are usually jobs that people have for a minimum of years before they are even allowed to pilot themselves. Though you're right there could be black devils infiltrating our bodily fluids as we speak. It could be any one of us.
A working knowledge of a tanker sized vessel is not an easy thing to gain, nor is the experience in handling one. Tanker pilots take years to train. They would be better off attempting to overcome one already in harbor though that would be a brazen and difficult operation in one of the busiest ports on the planet (during bad weather no less!). They would likely have coast guard or local law enforcement on them in minutes. Sounds like the setup to a rather formulaic action film.
.. not really. Considering it's one of the busiest ports on the planet, and you only have to maintain control of the ship for about ten min. There are less then 20 people on board. Hit it at night, at dock?
Just by using guys I know: Ten (estimate) to get past dock security, five min to clear the ship, six to set the charges and start the gas mix, seven for ex-filtration (estimate).
ShumaGorath wrote:
You know they track commercial fertilizers and who buys them.
Which is why, of course, you steal it.
EDIT:
Monster Rain wrote:
Is it much harder to steer a boat into a harbor than to fly a plane into a specific building? Al Qaeda had people training for years to become pilots to carry out 9/11 so it's really not all that far-fetched to imagine them figuring out how to pilot an LNG tanker.
And who says the tanker needs to be hijacked? If the pilot is in on the plot from the beginning there would be no warning.
A few key members of the rest of the crew would also have to be in on it. Particularly anyone inspecting the tanks.
Is it much harder to steer a boat into a harbor than to fly a plane into a specific building?
Yes. You should probably find out what it takes to actually pilot a multi million ton tanker. Because it takes a lot more than one dude with knowledge of thrust and wheel controls.
Al Qaeda had people training for years to become pilots to carry out 9/11 so it's really not all that far-fetched to imagine them figuring out how to pilot an LNG tanker.
Good luck getting weekend lessons for piloting private hundred million dollar tankers.
And who says the tanker needs to be hijacked? If the pilot is in on the plot from the beginning there would be no warning.
Those are usually jobs that people have for a minimum of years before they are even allowed to pilot themselves. Though you're right there could be black devils infiltrating our bodily fluids as we speak. It could be any one of us.
TRUST NO ONE!
A: You clearly have no inkling what you're talking about. 9/11 Hijackers went to actual schools, not "weekend lessons." Also, they don't just let anyone walk in off the street and pilot a plane either.
B: The bodily fluids bit was straight up trolling, so no dice there. Suffice to say that you are just being obtuse or see the first sentence of statement A.
.. not really. Considering it's one of the busiest ports on the planet, and you only have to maintain control for ten min. There are less then 20 people on board. Hit it at night, at dock?
Just by using guys I know: Ten (estimate) to get past dock security, five min to clear the ship, six to set the charges and start the gas mix, seven for ex-filtration (estimate).
Couldn't they just use the chronosphere?
A: You clearly have no inkling what you're talking about. 9/11 Hijackers went to actual schools, not "weekend lessons." Also, they don't just let anyone walk in off the street and pilot a plane either.
And neither do you. Where are the schools for piloting supertankers? Also all flight schools are called schools. It's where you go to learn the lessons. Schools. They operate on the weekends.
B: The bodily fluids bit was straight up trolling, so no dice there. Suffice to say that you are just being obtuse or see the first sentence of statement A.
It was also a movie reference and a snide quip implying that your comment was hysterical or illogical.
A: You clearly have no inkling what you're talking about. 9/11 Hijackers went to actual schools, not "weekend lessons." Also, they don't just let anyone walk in off the street and pilot a plane either.
And neither do you. Where are the schools for piloting supertankers? Also all flight schools are called schools. It's where you go to learn the lessons. Schools.
The funny thing is, I do know what I'm talking about. Good comeback though. As for the bolded red bit? Google it.
ShumaGorath wrote:
B: The bodily fluids bit was straight up trolling, so no dice there. Suffice to say that you are just being obtuse or see the first sentence of statement A.
It was also a movie reference and a snide quip implying that your comment was hysterical or illogical.
My comment is also borne out by historical fact. 9/11 involved learning how to pilot a plane and getting on a plane and piloting it. What's hysterical or illogical is someone insinuating that it would be impossible for someone to learn how to pilot a LNG tanker.
Not unless we want the Coast Gaurd to send Summer Glau back in time to stop you.
ShumaGorath wrote:
And neither do you. Where are the schools for piloting supertankers? Also all flight schools are called schools. It's where you go to learn the lessons. Schools. They operate on the weekends.
You might contact the International Maritime Pilots Association, if you're really interested in lessons. Most local pilots associations can provide training under a skilled navigator.
The funny thing is, I do know what I'm talking about. Good comeback though. As for the bolded red bit? Google it.
Did, didn't find anything terrorists could make use of.
My comment is also borne out by historical fact. 9/11 involved learning how to pilot a plane and getting on a plane and piloting it. What's hysterical or illogical is someone insinuating that it would be impossible for someone to learn how to pilot a LNG tanker.
Yes, and it's easier to pilot a plane thats already near its target and all you have to do is hit something (not land). I've played a good bit of microsoft flight simulator, I could probably glide a plan into a building. Piloting a supertanker into the busiest port on the east coast AND DOCKING IT is a totally different animal.
You might contact the International Maritime Pilots Association, if you're really interested in lessons. Most local pilots associations can provide training under a skilled navigator.
What do they pilot during their training? The ships control systems, operating systems, and console systems all differ widely by make and manufacturer.
A: You clearly have no inkling what you're talking about. 9/11 Hijackers went to actual schools, not "weekend lessons." Also, they don't just let anyone walk in off the street and pilot a plane either.
And neither do you. Where are the schools for piloting supertankers? Also all flight schools are called schools. It's where you go to learn the lessons. Schools.
The funny thing is, I do know what I'm talking about. Good comeback though. As for the bolded red bit? Google it.
ShumaGorath wrote:
B: The bodily fluids bit was straight up trolling, so no dice there. Suffice to say that you are just being obtuse or see the first sentence of statement A.
It was also a movie reference and a snide quip implying that your comment was hysterical or illogical.
My comment is also borne out by historical fact. 9/11 involved learning how to pilot a plane and getting on a plane and piloting it. What's hysterical or illogical is someone insinuating that it would be impossible for someone to learn how to pilot a LNG tanker.
BaronIveagh wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:
Couldn't they just use the chronosphere?
Not unless we want the Coast Gaurd to send Summer Glau back in time to stop you.
ShumaGorath wrote:
And neither do you. Where are the schools for piloting supertankers? Also all flight schools are called schools. It's where you go to learn the lessons. Schools. They operate on the weekends.
You might contact the International Maritime Pilots Association, if you're really interested in lessons. Most local pilots associations can provide training under a skilled navigator.
ShumaGorath wrote:What do they pilot during their training? The ships control systems, operating systems, and console systems all differ widely by make and manufacturer.
Combination of simulators and real world piloting with the experienced pilot. Same basic system that guilds and unions the world over have used for years. Since LNGs aren't a very old class of ship and only produced in a few yards, there's a lot of standardization, too.
ShumaGorath wrote:What do they pilot during their training? The ships control systems, operating systems, and console systems all differ widely by make and manufacturer.
Combination of simulators and real world piloting with the experienced pilot. Same basic system that guilds and unions the world over have used for years. Since LNGs aren't a very old class of ship and only produced in a few yards, there's a lot of standardization, too.
There use to be, in regards to modern navigation technologies thats not really the case. We're back around to what I said from the beginning, learning to pilot a supertanker is a different animal from a plane. There is a far smaller margin of error and far more to keep track of, especially if your intent is to dock and not just ram the shore. There are even more natural checks to intent due the the much closer relationship you would have with your instructor and the prospective companies that would be performing background checks on you while you co. on their ship.
Even then, just whats the point? The chances of you hijacking the ship silently is very low and you had better bet that an f-22 can go significantly faster than a supertanker. There's no way it would ever reach the shore. Just go with your earlier idea of a forced entry while it's docked, though your terrorists could get bored waiting for a storm and a supertanker to happen at the same time.
ShumaGorath wrote:What do they pilot during their training? The ships control systems, operating systems, and console systems all differ widely by make and manufacturer.
Combination of simulators and real world piloting with the experienced pilot. Same basic system that guilds and unions the world over have used for years. Since LNGs aren't a very old class of ship and only produced in a few yards, there's a lot of standardization, too.
There use to be, in regards to modern navigation technologies thats not really the case. We're back around to what I said from the beginning, learning to pilot a supertanker is a different animal from a plane. There is a far smaller margin of error and far more to keep track of, especially if your intent is to dock and not just ram the shore. There are even more natural checks to intent due the the much closer relationship you would have with your instructor and the prospective companies that would be performing background checks on you while you co. on their ship.
Even then, just whats the point? The chances of you hijacking the ship silently is very low and you had better bet that an f-22 can go significantly faster than a supertanker. There's no way it would ever reach the shore. Just go with your earlier idea of a forced entry while it's docked, though your terrorists could get bored waiting for a storm and a supertanker to happen at the same time.
Actually, the chances of hijacking a ship like that undetected are very good. A bunch of fisherman took over an oil tanker, stripped it of anything valuable, and left it steaming down the straits of Malacca unmanned for two hours. I think I can do better with a trained team, and better planing then 'Let's get that one!'
An aside: Only two classes of LNGs are in the same ballpark as a super tanker, and both of them are smaller by a third. Most operating on the US east coast are closer to midsized cargo ships in size. Though I admit, one of those two classes blowing up in NYC harbor would level the city for quite a distance. Unfortunately, they also would not be able to approach the idea spot, due to their unwieldy size. You're also leaving out that most of the navigation is computerized.
Also: I checked the pilots guild that managed the port of Vancouver. I'm right about how they're trained, even for the big oil tankers.
Am I the only one that thinks people are insane? I mean, seriously, if the police told me that there was an unexploded device around, I'd be out of town before they saw the dust rising in my wake.
agnosto wrote:Am I the only one that thinks people are insane? I mean, seriously, if the police told me that there was an unexploded device around, I'd be out of town before they saw the dust rising in my wake.
Orkeosaurus wrote:It's always good to know that in the case of a fascist takeover, BaronIveagh will be able to blow up part of New York.
I studied under Johnny Hopper.
And I have an entirely different plan for that party. New York isn't a good target unless you're looking for publicity. If you want to cripple a fascist regime that tries to set up in the US, I have a list of targets, their weaknesses, and a list of options to ensure operational success with minimum loss of life.
... though, in all honesty, I doubt I'll ever get to use it. All the worthy enemies have died long ago, or withered away as old men.
Eh. Maybe the South will Rise Again, and give me some entertainment.
Last I checked they were investigating a gun locker found in the vehicle. Supposedly it may have had more explosives in it.
There was definitely what could be referred to as an explosive device, apparently some type of crude nail bomb. It seems to have been more for show than anything else.
I would wait for solid information before coming to any conclusions.
"We're taking this very seriously," Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said on CNN's "State of the Union." "We're treating it as if it could be a potential terrorist attack."
What... a car filled with explosives in Times square... seriously. What else could it be, if not freaking terrorism.
Because you want as few variables as possible. There's always the chance that they'll ground the ship, trying to 'save' people. It's best to bring your own.
that and it makes damn sure that if everything goes south, there are no witnesses.
Wrexasaur wrote:Last I checked they were investigating a gun locker found in the vehicle. Supposedly it may have had more explosives in it.
There was definitely what could be referred to as an explosive device, apparently some type of crude nail bomb. It seems to have been more for show than anything else.
I would wait for solid information before coming to any conclusions.
"We're taking this very seriously," Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said on CNN's "State of the Union." "We're treating it as if it could be a potential terrorist attack."
What... a car filled with explosives in Times square... seriously. What else could it be, if not freaking terrorism.
Nobody has ever accused Napolitano of being a genius. LOL.
As the suspect is a mid-40s white male, basic racial profiling tells us he couldn't be involved in a terrorist plot.
Clearly it was a man on his way home from the DIY superstore where he had picked up some gas canisters for his barbecue, a few bags of nails to repair his garden shed, some fertilizer for the garden, and some bits of electrical equipment.
Then his car goes and breaks down in Times Square. His mobile phone batteries have run out, so he goes off to find a public phone to call the towing service.
Kilkrazy wrote:BP is making a pretty good mess of the Gulf of Mexico at the moment without any assistance from international terrorism.
Yea but they have Mother Nature on their side. You don't feth with Mother Nature. she'll hit you with a hurricane, then an earthquake, then a volcanic eruption!
ShumaGorath wrote:Yes, and it's easier to pilot a plane thats already near its target and all you have to do is hit something (not land). I've played a good bit of microsoft flight simulator, I could probably glide a plane into the ground.
Kilkrazy wrote:BP is making a pretty good mess of the Gulf of Mexico at the moment without any assistance from international terrorism.
<moar tinfoils>
Anyone else find it odd that as soon as Obama says "go drill off shore", something which is really unpoppular, that there is a massive disaster, allowing Obama to save face and stop offshore Drilling?
</moar tinfoils>
No, I think it's f-ing funny. (not the oil leak, the whole Obama owned himself part)
On a side note, at work on the radio, I heard something about Obama having an affair. Any of you heard this?
ShumaGorath wrote:Yes, and it's easier to pilot a plane thats already near its target and all you have to do is hit something (not land). I've played a good bit of microsoft flight simulator, I could probably glide a plane into the ground.
Fixed your typo.
You know skyscrapers are basically sitting on the ground? I don't have to go through any flying golden rings to get to them. I won't even have to use the boost to get through.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Soladrin wrote:
Gwar! wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:BP is making a pretty good mess of the Gulf of Mexico at the moment without any assistance from international terrorism.
<moar tinfoils>
Anyone else find it odd that as soon as Obama says "go drill off shore", something which is really unpoppular, that there is a massive disaster, allowing Obama to save face and stop offshore Drilling?
</moar tinfoils>
No, I think it's f-ing funny. (not the oil leak, the whole Obama owned himself part)
On a side note, at work on the radio, I heard something about Obama having an affair. Any of you heard this?
Nope. You probably shouldn't listen to political radio.
Barack Obama is the target of a shadowy smear campaign designed to derail his bid for the US Presidency by falsely claiming he had a close friendship with an attractive African-American female employee. The whispers focus on a young woman who in 2004 was hired to work on his team for his bid to become a senator. The woman was purportedly sidelined from her duties after Senator Obama’s wife, Michelle, became convinced that he had developed a personal friendship with her. The allegations were initially circulated in August, just two weeks before the convention at which Obama finally beat his opponent for the Democratic Party nomination, Hillary Clinton. The woman, now 33, vigorously denies the vicious and unsubstantiated gossip. And some Washington insiders suggested that she was the victim of an 11th-hour attempt to smear Obama by die-hard Hillary supporters. But now the rumours have resurfaced, suggesting that they may be coming from elements in the Republican Party. According to sources interviewed by The Mail on Sunday, the respected Los Angeles Times, the tabloid Natio...
This thing? The six year previous acquaintance that was already used as a short lived smear attack in 2008?
In the rear of the SUV, police found a makeshift bomb made up of three tanks of propane similar to those used in backyard barbecues; two jugs of gasoline; dozens of M-88 firecrackers, which are legal for purchase in some states, and metal gun case holding 100 pounds of fertilizer that police said was incapable of exploding.
Firecrackers and fertilizer that wasn't going to explode.
A federal law enforcement official who is an expert on explosives noted that the propane tanks had not been twisted open, meaning that it would have taken longer for the fire in the car to heat up to the degree needed to ignite the fuel. Still, New York police investigators said the car bomb would have torn the car apart and caused "sizable" deaths and injuries if it had detonated.
The propane tanks wouldn't have even gone off until people had had a chance to get clear.
In the rear of the SUV, police found a makeshift bomb made up of three tanks of propane similar to those used in backyard barbecues; two jugs of gasoline; dozens of M-88 firecrackers, which are legal for purchase in some states, and metal gun case holding 100 pounds of fertilizer that police said was incapable of exploding.
Firecrackers and fertilizer that wasn't going to explode.
A federal law enforcement official who is an expert on explosives noted that the propane tanks had not been twisted open, meaning that it would have taken longer for the fire in the car to heat up to the degree needed to ignite the fuel. Still, New York police investigators said the car bomb would have torn the car apart and caused "sizable" deaths and injuries if it had detonated.
The propane tanks wouldn't have even gone off until people had had a chance to get clear.
BaronIveagh wrote:Let's just say that if I ever indeed, went bad, I would be a veritable 'Napoleon of Crime".
Hey Baron if you ever consider becoming a crimelord, would I be able to join your gang? Because a life full of drugs, booze, women, action, guns, traveling, adventure and physical activity sounds very appealing.
BaronIveagh wrote:... neither cheese, nor ShumaGorath have a clue who I was referring to, I'm guessing...
During his first year in jail, Shinburn hired other inmates to beat Worth up. Later Worth heard that Johnny Curtin, who was supposed to have taken care of his wife, had raped her. She had gone insane and been committed to an asylum. The children were in the care of his brother John in the United States.
The idea that Moriarty was based off Adam Worth originated in the 1940's, as a friend of a friend tale repeated by a reporter.
"He is a man of good birth and excellent education, endowed by nature with a phenomenal mathematical faculty. At the age of twenty-one he wrote A Treatise on the Binomial Theorem, which has had a European vogue. On the strength of it he won the mathematical chair at one of our smaller universities, and had, to all appearances, a most brilliant career before him.
But the man had hereditary tendencies of the most diabolical kind. A criminal strain ran in his blood, which, instead of being modified, was increased and rendered infinitely more dangerous by his extraordinary mental powers. Dark rumours gathered round him in the University town, and eventually he was compelled to resign his chair and come down to London. He is the Napoleon of Crime, Watson, the organiser of half that is evil and nearly all that is undetected in this great city..."
Does not seem to me to me to be even a passing resemblance to Worth.
While Worth was a passable crime boss, he was hardly a genius.
Simon Newcomb is a far more likely specimen, though I suspect that much of the mastermind of evil was made up in it's entirety.
BaronIveagh wrote:The idea that Moriarty was based off Adam Worth originated in the 1940's, as a friend of a friend tale repeated by a reporter.
"He is a man of good birth and excellent education, endowed by nature with a phenomenal mathematical faculty. At the age of twenty-one he wrote A Treatise on the Binomial Theorem, which has had a European vogue. On the strength of it he won the mathematical chair at one of our smaller universities, and had, to all appearances, a most brilliant career before him.
But the man had hereditary tendencies of the most diabolical kind. A criminal strain ran in his blood, which, instead of being modified, was increased and rendered infinitely more dangerous by his extraordinary mental powers. Dark rumours gathered round him in the University town, and eventually he was compelled to resign his chair and come down to London. He is the Napoleon of Crime, Watson, the organiser of half that is evil and nearly all that is undetected in this great city..."
Does not seem to me to me to be even a passing resemblance to Worth.
While Worth was a passable crime boss, he was hardly a genius.
Simon Newcomb is a far more likely specimen, though I suspect that much of the mastermind of evil was made up in it's entirety.
Or you would just get shot at random by a friend/enemy/some dude. There's a reason supervillains don't actually exist.
BaronIveagh wrote:The idea that Moriarty was based off Adam Worth originated in the 1940's, as a friend of a friend tale repeated by a reporter.
"He is a man of good birth and excellent education, endowed by nature with a phenomenal mathematical faculty. At the age of twenty-one he wrote A Treatise on the Binomial Theorem, which has had a European vogue. On the strength of it he won the mathematical chair at one of our smaller universities, and had, to all appearances, a most brilliant career before him.
But the man had hereditary tendencies of the most diabolical kind. A criminal strain ran in his blood, which, instead of being modified, was increased and rendered infinitely more dangerous by his extraordinary mental powers. Dark rumours gathered round him in the University town, and eventually he was compelled to resign his chair and come down to London. He is the Napoleon of Crime, Watson, the organiser of half that is evil and nearly all that is undetected in this great city..."
Does not seem to me to me to be even a passing resemblance to Worth.
While Worth was a passable crime boss, he was hardly a genius.
Simon Newcomb is a far more likely specimen, though I suspect that much of the mastermind of evil was made up in it's entirety.
But you still didn't answer my question, would I be able to join your gang if you ever created one?
Simple cell structure. If one cell is compromised, the damage is limited because one group has no idea who the other groups are, or what they're doing. Makes it hard to take down.
BaronIveagh wrote:Simple cell structure. If one cell is compromised, the damage is limited because one group has no idea who the other groups are, or what they're doing. Makes it hard to take down.
Yes, but it also makes the concept of control moot. It's not your organization at that point. You would also need strong and commonly held ideological principles on which to base this, which is something hatin' the south doesn't really pull off too well.
BaronIveagh wrote:So Joseph Mengele, Vlad Tepes, Erzsébet Báthory, Nicolae Ceauşescu, François Duvalier, and Slobodan Milošević were all fictional?
Virtually all there were given power via political appointment or rank. About the only supervillain like that I can think of out of hand is doctor doom, and he's a gypsy sorcerer superscientist. It's also entirely disimilar from what you are proposing and none of them are what I would classify as a supervillain.
*sigh* Never, EVER fly out of an airport in the state you're wanted in. Drive. Canada is an hour away and they wouldn't have been looking for him there.
BaronIveagh wrote:*sigh* Never, EVER fly out of an airport in the state you're wanted in. Drive. Canada is an hour away and they wouldn't have been looking for him there.
You also don't want to use fertilizer that wont blow up and firecrackers that can't penetrate the propane tanks. Can we stop acting like an armchair terrorist for a few minutes?
BaronIveagh wrote:*sigh* Never, EVER fly out of an airport in the state you're wanted in. Drive. Canada is an hour away and they wouldn't have been looking for him there.
I'm sure they had alerts on the border as well.
Pakistani. Yep.
Anyone notice the bomb was next to viacom. South Park...threats...mmm.
BaronIveagh wrote:*sigh* Never, EVER fly out of an airport in the state you're wanted in. Drive. Canada is an hour away and they wouldn't have been looking for him there.
I'm sure they had alerts on the border as well.
Pakistani. Yep.
Anyone notice the bomb was next to viacom. South Park...threats...mmm.
If right next to means a block away and clearly not threatening too. I doubt they're connected.
BaronIveagh wrote:Simple cell structure. If one cell is compromised, the damage is limited because one group has no idea who the other groups are, or what they're doing. Makes it hard to take down.
BaronIveagh wrote:*sigh* Never, EVER fly out of an airport in the state you're wanted in. Drive. Canada is an hour away and they wouldn't have been looking for him there.
I'm sure they had alerts on the border as well.
Pakistani. Yep.
NY boarder is even more porous then the Texas boarder. Further, if he'd crossed the boarder with a bunch of Native Americans, they would have given him a very perfunctory search (and probably not realized he was Pakistani), since we can cross the US Canadian boarder with a wide variety of things that most people can't, so the boarder patrol rarely bothers to look.
Or just swim the Niagara river. It's cold, but poorly patrolled.
@Shuma: I'm just ignoring you from now on. Attempting to explain my relationship with terrorism would be a waste of time and keystrokes explaining everything to you. Let's just say that I know some things about it and leave it at that.
I don't think we'll see it come from Al-Qaeda, at this point. We're more likely to see the next one internal to the US, considering how volatile internal politics is getting.
The Baron will make a prediction:
The next 'real' terrorist attack (one with significant property damage and/or loss of life)will be politically motivated and come from within.
While we hardly lack for enemies abroad, most of them don't have any teeth. They realize that the US army will come down on their countries like a bag of hammers, and for all thier posturing, most are more concerned with thier own wellbeing. There are only two types of foe that we need to worry about, those who have no country, and those that are inside our own country.
ATM: there's relative peace in Ireland. Hamas and Israel would rather kill one another. Any solid threat from Al-Qaeda is pretty much a thing of the past if they're down to people like the ones in NY. We're not involved in Chechnya or any of the African conflicts (officially). China isn't saying a word about the Uighurs and Tibetans, but that's not news, and we support both those groups anyway.
So what does that leave us? Some nut who's heard too much of Rush/Olbermann/Farrakhan deciding to 'do something about it".
ATM: there's relative peace in Ireland. Hamas and Israel would rather kill one another. Any solid threat from Al-Qaeda is pretty much a thing of the past if they're down to people like the ones in NY. We're not involved in Chechnya or any of the African conflicts (officially). China isn't saying a word about the Uighurs and Tibetans, but that's not news, and we support both those groups anyway.
You can make that argument 9/10 and pre embassy bombings as well though, and we were still attacked.
Didn't Bush pull most of our military presence, etc. out of Saudi Arabia, though? IIRC, that was one of the things that had set off OBL. I'm sure he can find another excuse, mind you. But I thought it was our infidel presence that was at the root of his issues with us.
Granted, at the time, Al-Qaeda was a relative unknown in the area of international terrorism, too, having not too long before been our ally in the Russians war in Afghanistan.
I'll admit, that it's always possible that a heretofore unknown enemy might attack us. Hell, the leader of the Boston bowling association might fly off the handle having lost his house to a banking scandal and decide to blow one up.
I was looking at it from the view of enemies we know about. There's always the chance that a random person will fly off the handle, or we'll do something stupid to slot off a former ally.
@Shuma: I'm just ignoring you from now on. Attempting to explain my relationship with terrorism would be a waste of time and keystrokes explaining everything to you. Let's just say that I know some things about it and leave it at that.
I guess it's my loss having another dimestore anarchist ignoring me, but what praytell is your relationship with terrorism?
Go ask the FBI. I'm not admitting to anything other then then being on the tiger team that breached security at Langley a few years back. And they paid us about 30k a head for that one, which wasn't a bad afternoons work.
BaronIveagh wrote:Go ask the FBI. I'm not admitting to anything other then then being on the tiger team that breached security at Langley a few years back. And they paid us about 30k a head for that one, which wasn't a bad afternoons work.
gorgon wrote:Didn't Bush pull most of our military presence, etc. out of Saudi Arabia, though? IIRC, that was one of the things that had set off OBL. I'm sure he can find another excuse, mind you. But I thought it was our infidel presence that was at the root of his issues with us.
Yes, our military footprint in Saudi Arabia is now very small. It was redundant after we took control of Iraq, as its primary purpose was the protection of Saudi Arabia from Iraq. It was also a root cause for bin Laden's hatred of the US.
Terrorists are dumb. All they try and do is blow stuff up. I had an American friend who challenged to come up with a better plan once to cause havoc. In the space of ten minutes, I came up with:
-Breaking into the water stations, and poisoning the water supply.
-Setting off explosive charges on oil tankers as they move up and down the coast, to create economic/enviromental damage.
-Hacking the traffic lights in major cities to cause mass accidents.
-Systematically co-ordinating explosions on widely used rail tracks, as trains go over them.
and several more.
You'd think they'd have moved past the 'set a bomb' stage by now. It's almost pathetic they're so hard up for new ideas.
BaronIveagh wrote:Granted, at the time, Al-Qaeda was a relative unknown in the area of international terrorism, too, having not too long before been our ally in the Russians war in Afghanistan.
Al-Qaeda didn't exist when the Russians were present in Afghanistan, it was formed just after that conflict, and gradually transitioned into the cellular structure we see today; eventually being enabled by internet communication. That is, among other reasons, why its such a problematic beast. We're dealing with a series of formerly independent organizations, formed together in Afghanistan, that now operate in a lose network of cells; each one having its own ever expanding web of connections.
Its not really sensible to look at the groups that spawned Al-Qaeda, as similar to the organization that is Al-Qaeda. We did that of course, but it was quite stupid. Though simply recognizing a threat isn't going to prevent that threat from causing injury. The embassy bombings et al were the products of reasonable security expectations vis a vis deployment costs, and political goals.
BaronIveagh wrote:
I'll admit, that it's always possible that a heretofore unknown enemy might attack us. Hell, the leader of the Boston bowling association might fly off the handle having lost his house to a banking scandal and decide to blow one up.
The advantage of a networked organization is that its agents, if they can even be called that, can come from nearly everywhere.
BaronIveagh wrote:
I was looking at it from the view of enemies we know about. There's always the chance that a random person will fly off the handle, or we'll do something stupid to slot off a former ally.
Networks are random by nature, that's why they're so dangerous.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ketara wrote:Terrorists are dumb. All they try and do is blow stuff up. I had an American friend who challenged to come up with a better plan once to cause havoc. In the space of ten minutes, I came up with:
-Breaking into the water stations, and poisoning the water supply.
-Setting off explosive charges on oil tankers as they move up and down the coast, to create economic/enviromental damage.
-Hacking the traffic lights in major cities to cause mass accidents.
-Systematically co-ordinating explosions on widely used rail tracks, as trains go over them.
and several more.
You'd think they'd have moved past the 'set a bomb' stage by now. It's almost pathetic they're so hard up for new ideas.
One of the limitations of a network organization is that there is very little support from other members of the network. They'll push you to action, but by the very nature of internet communication (public accessibility, distance between individuals) are prevented from providing the physical support necessary to carry out large scale attacks. That barrier to physical organization is what prevents most major incidents from taking place. Obviously, as they've happened before, they aren't impossible to orchestrate, just harder than one might think.
I'm actually Russel Crowe. I only made that movie A Beautiful Mind because I wanted other players to think I was smart enough for 40k. Well, that and the paycheck.
I have a statue of a deep sea diver on my desk. If you look carefully one of the hoses isn't connected so all his air would be rushing out and water filling his helmet....
BaronIveagh wrote:... I have the feeling I could post a dozen pics of it and my bank statement and you'd just claim 'shopped!'.
So piss off.
(and he's now on 'ignore'.)
Anyone can fake a bank statement these days.
The point you made is exactly the kind of totally unverifiable claim that Internet Tough Guys are likely to make on forums to support their arguments.
I'm not saying you're a liar. I don't know anything either way.
That's why your statement has to be discounted, because no-one has any way to determine the truth.
What if I claim to be President Obama, dictating my posts to an English butler to get the idiom and spelling.
Ok, valid point.
At the time, there was a Civil War exhibit going on at the park across from it. Basically we dressed up as union soldiers, and played lost. There had been enough genuine incidents of that it didn't trip any alarms. It wasn't a wild commando raid like most people would picture, we basically conned the guards they sent out. Once we were inside the perimeter, we made the call, and let them know that we had gotten the armed men inside.
BaronIveagh wrote:So Joseph Mengele, Vlad Tepes, Erzsébet Báthory, Nicolae Ceauşescu, François Duvalier, and Slobodan Milošević were all fictional?
Virtually all there were given power via political appointment or rank. About the only supervillain like that I can think of out of hand is doctor doom, and he's a gypsy sorcerer superscientist. It's also entirely disimilar from what you are proposing and none of them are what I would classify as a supervillain.
Even though I know you're just being a pain in the ass on purpose...
Al Capone, John Gotti, Osama Bin Laden... Also, your idea that being a "super-villain" is contingent on not ever being killed or captured or whatever is silly. They all end up in some sort of unpleasantness.
Too bad the guy with the killdozer wasn't a better driver...
I'll toss in John Dillanger, Captain William Kidd, Pretty Boy Floyd, Edward England, Baby Face Nelson, Calico Jack Rackham, Jesse James, Ned Kelly (armored bandits! who'da thunk?), Billy the Kid, and one Captain Edward Teach, AKA Blackbeard, who held the City of Charleston ransom.
And for escaping and never being killed? Henry Morgan, who burned Panama City, and sacked half the Caribbean.
BaronIveagh wrote:So Joseph Mengele, Vlad Tepes, Erzsébet Báthory, Nicolae Ceauşescu, François Duvalier, and Slobodan Milošević were all fictional?
Virtually all there were given power via political appointment or rank. About the only supervillain like that I can think of out of hand is doctor doom, and he's a gypsy sorcerer superscientist. It's also entirely disimilar from what you are proposing and none of them are what I would classify as a supervillain.
Even though I know you're just being a pain in the ass on purpose...
Al Capone, John Gotti, Osama Bin Laden... Also, your idea that being a "super-villain" is contingent on not ever being killed or captured or whatever is silly. They all end up in some sort of unpleasantness.
All of those personalities were entirely dependent on organizations that were more often than not largely out of their control. Supervillains can certainly be killed, but no one has ever done enough to be a supervillain without being killed first. It's what separates fantasy from reality. As for the list, I would only really count Konopka, the rest were too run of the mill (and killdozer wasn't even a villain).
Fateweaver wrote:It appears our bomb suspect was on a no fly list and STILL managed to get aboard a plane for the US.
So Napolitano, your people have everything under control and are doing their jobs?
If I did my job the way Homeland Security is doing theirs I would lose my job. LOL.
I thought you did. Zing!
It's also at the discretion of the airlines to enforce the no fly lists. They aren't government airlines (And indeed they did eventually do their fething jobs).
Only if she is blonde or redhead, built like Barbie with an IQ so low as to not realize she doesn't need to be cavity searched 3 times.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I worked a liquor store for 9 months. Everyone that wasn't at least 70 was a potential shoplifter in my eyes. Trust me, it never got old nor did I cease being inquisitive.
Shuma is right Fate,after months...hell years on the job,complacincy would grow,it would soon take something like this to even get you to raise an eyebrow.
Fateweaver wrote:I never got bored of liquor retail...best retail job I ever held was a liquor salesman.
Anyway, wandering OT so I'm just saying that apparently airline didn't do it's job and Napolitano is STILL a moron.
Of course we all know he'll get tried in civilian court, slapped on the hand and allowed to return home.
Not likely, if he's successfully convicted the penalty for attempted terrorism is pretty severe. Even taken as separate civilian crimes he has quite a substantial list of crimes under his belt. He wasn't some dude that was picked up in his villaige for no reason than tortured for 2 years, he was caught after an unsuccessfull attempt at terrorism. It's a pretty different situation .
I am curious though, what's with the opposition to trying terrorists in American courts?
We still do execute people in this country, though I personally think that being a nameless prisoner to the end of time is a far worse fate.
Death is quick.
Then again, I also think that we need to reopen Alcatraz for the terrorists. We can keep them nice and secure, the most liberal state in the union can make sure we're not burning their nipples off with blow torches, *and* it has a reputation for being a hardassed prison known the world over for containing the worst scum known to western civilization.
Sort of America's version of the Tower of London or Devil's Island.
Terrorism is an act of war, hence they should be tried in a military court.
Humanitarians don't want that because they believe a fairer trial will be conducted in a civilian court and we can't have terrorists rights violated now can we?
When you look back at history, you find that a lot of criminals traded on inflated reputations, or were hardly viewed as 'super villains' in their own time.
Al Capone, to this day, has a famously positive reputation in Cicero, and Jesse James was often thought of as a popular hero by former Confederates. Pretty Boy Floyd's funeral is the largest in Oklahoma history. And the support for Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda are well documented elements of recent history.
I can't think of anyone who is really comparable to the idea of a comic book super villain; tenting his fingers in a secret lair, or blowing up random bridges in order to create universal anarchy. There's always a significant group of people standing behind every successful criminal or terrorist.
Fateweaver wrote:Terrorism is an act of war, hence they should be tried in a military court.
Humanitarians don't want that because they believe a fairer trial will be conducted in a civilian court and we can't have terrorists rights violated now can we?
Except war can only occur between nations, and one dude isn't a country. Terrorism is a violent form of international crime as the moment it becomes a war they stop being terrorists and become a foreign military body. Given that the civilian court system is a hell of a lot better than the military one I fail to see the issue.
dogma: most successful super villains in comics have the backing a large amounts of money or organizations behind them (Lex Luthor, The Kingpin, ) guys who don't seem to tend to spend their down time in prison (Jigsaw, Bullseye, Rhino, Titania, The Absorbing Man).
Or an asylum. (The Joker, Carnage)
Most are not James Bond super villains who appear out of no where with huge organisations of spies bent on world conquest.
Blofeld, No.
Wilson Fisk, Yes.
I might point out that historically, civilian courts have a higher rate of prosecution then military tribunals for war criminals.
Fateweaver wrote:Terrorism is an act of war, hence they should be tried in a military court.
It cannot be an act of war unless the terrorist is considered to be the agent of a state. Additionally, if they are tried in military courts they must be tried in accordance with the uniform code of military justice.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BaronIveagh wrote:dogma: most successful super villains in comics have the backing a large amounts of money or organizations behind them (Lex Luthor, The Kingpin, ) guys who don't seem to tend to spend their down time in prison (Jigsaw, Bullseye, Rhino, Titania, The Absorbing Man).
There's a distinction between organizational support, and popular support. Bin Laden was, and is, supported by people who are not affiliated with Al-Qaeda. Jesse James was supported by people who were not affiliated with the James Younger gang. Unlike a comic book super villain, there are people who look at bin Laden, and what he's done, and say "Good work!", or minimally "meh." The absence of that sort of polarizing effect is what makes me hesitate to make the comparison, or even use the term. Really, I don't even like using the term 'villain' when discussing reality, as it cheapens it.
Hmm... that's a tricky one. In the case of an organization like the IRA or Hamas, you could argue it as an act of war by a deposed (or existing) government, which would bring it under acts of war.
However, if they aren't a legitimate deposed government, it would be a criminal organization.
