Talk:2007 Fort Dix attack plot

Paintball?

I looked at the source that followed the sentence "and they trained by playing paintball in the woods." The source never says anything about paintball, so I deleted the unsourced statment. PBGuardsman 17:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Assault Weapons or Assault Rifles?

Shouldn't they really be called "assault rifles"? Were they capable of full-auto fire? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by UnneededAplomb (talk • contribs) 02:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

AK-47 and M16's are fully automatic assault weapons. Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 03:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe the point is that "assault weapon" is a term made up by the US Government, while assault rifle is an actual military term of specific definitions. We should stick to calling them rifles, since that's what they are. CumbiaDude 17:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Edited to add: The rifles they were going to buy were fully-automatic (assault rifles), but the ones they had beforehand, and practiced with, were semi-automatic (according to what they're charged with). I'm reluctant to use the term "assault weapon" here, but you definintely can't use assault rifle. It'd be better if we knew specifically what rifles they used, since "assault weapon" is so vague and arbitrary. CumbiaDude 17:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Timeline not meshing with article

When was the video made, January 31, 2006 or 2007? --Joelmills 03:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

According to the sources I read, the video was made in 2006, which tipped the FBI off to really start investigating them. All of the references from news sources say that the video was made in January 2006, or don't mention the date of the video at all. I've moved a paragraph in the "Preparations" section to reflect this as well. Gracenotes^T § 04:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Terror group/cell

I have removed all instances where they were referred to as a terror group/cell. Terrorism is on Wikipedia:Words to avoid and should generally only be used when referring to someone describing them as terrorists. It should not be used in the 'narrative voice' of the article. This is especially important in this case since as with the USS Cole bombing, it appears to have been a plan to attack a military target without involving any civilians (unlike the Pentagon attack for example) so designating it as a a terrorist plan is questionable in the eyes of many Nil Einne 07:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Cell is also suspect as it implies they were a small part of a larger group. Totnesmartin 12:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

You're right. I believe I changed all references from terror cell to group earlier but I didn't bother to replace distinct references to cell Nil Einne 09:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Isn't the target list a bit over the top

About the list. It is not like these guys were planning attacks on all these places, they merely considered them, before settling on Fort Dix. How about removing it? 130.161.182.29 10:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

CltFn (talk · contribs) added it; if it could be incorporated into the text (or merged with some bits of the timeline), that would be good as well. Gracenotes^T § 10:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

What is your source? then we can add it under the third paragraph of preparation, with the other potential sites.145.94.72.97 10:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

"Target list" is a bit ambiguous; I am positive that CltFn meant "considered targets", rather than "all planned targets". That clarification couldn't hurt, if the section were reinstated. Gracenotes^T § 03:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Racist terminology

The term "towel head" is an absolutely racist term and should immediately be removed from this article. I am new and don't know how to do such things, but I found the use of this term completely shocking. 64.222.44.148 10:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Such vandalism is generally swiftly corrected. See Help:Reverting for instructions on how to revert pages. - Quirk 10:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

In all posts they were mentioned as being from former Yugoslavia. They names clearly revealed that they are Albanians from Kosovo, but it could be tricky to mention that right now, when USA is trying to separate Kosovo from Serbia and to give it independence. Thus, try to refer to their origin as it is, this will give clearer picture of the bacground of this event.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dreadnot (talk • contribs)

Apparently the guys are not from Kosovo, but Albanians from Macedonia. I could not find a reliable source though. 145.94.72.97 11:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

As this is claimed to be an Islamist plot rather than a nationalist plot, their origin isn't that crucial - but it would be encyclopedic. Totnesmartin 11:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Innocent until proven guilty

"Innocent until proven guilty" seems to have fallen out of fashion nowadays, but it's still the law. The article should reflect that the group is alleged to have planned this act, rather than stating it as truth. Wikipedia is not the prosecution. Totnesmartin 11:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree 145.94.72.97 11:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree as well. In fact, I'm surprised that somebody had to point this out. The lead para should be revised to something like the following:

"A group of 6 men were arrested by the FBI on May 7, 2007 and charged with planning an attack on the Fort Dix military base in New Jersey. U.S. law enforcement authorities suspect the men to be members of an Islamic terror cell." Lexo 12:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Done Totnesmartin 12:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, according to wikipedia, Karl Rove is guilty of everything. Get used to it.

"Wikipedia is not the prosecution." We’re not the defendants, either. I believe that we have sources, even those from the US government, that indicate that the men were going to do this. Controversial information is fine so long as it’s sourced. So why not? Gracenotes^T § 17:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Eh, after thinking it over, it may be best to make the language of the article a bit less assertive, or at least for now. The thing I more have more of a problem with is the use of the word "alleged", per this. Gracenotes^T § 18:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

"One of the men, Eljvir Duka, is said to have explained the group's motivation as follows"? This is excessive. It's one thing to doubt the sincerity of this explanation. It's another to gainsay that the words were said at all, against sources to the contrary. Gracenotes^T § 22:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

If no one minds, I might remove some ambiguity from the article. .. are there any objections? Gracenotes^T § 13:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

On one hand I agree that the entire article sounds a tad weasely - but on the other we may leave the Wikipedia Foundation open to charges of libel (is that the term I'm struggling to remember at 1:15am?) if we assert guilt before proven. I'd say we can tone down the excessive use of the words, but make it still clear in the prose that these are charges and accusations not trail-proven facts. Perhaps use the section titles to set tone? As per "Timeline of alleged events" and so on. Definitely leave the first "alleged" in the opening paragraph. But we can remove most of the redundant/repetitive ones. --Monotonehell 15:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Just as a ps; any assertions backed up by references from early newspaper articles should be treated with due caution. The news media has a well known track record of getting first to hand reports quite wrong. --Monotonehell 15:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

• It's not libel - the thing I'm trying to talk about is Contempt of Court which (over here) forbids media discussion of criminal cases, but I don't know how it applies in America. Totnesmartin 22:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The only thing about "alleged" is—who alleges it? Rather than some of the news articles, I noticed some reckless ambiguity surrounding the document released by the government, and methinks it is a weasel. Gracenotes^T § 17:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

"A lie is halfway round the world before the truth has got its boots on" is always a useful quote to remember. Please de-weasel the government document, Gracenotes. Hmm, perhaps a general Boilerplate thing at the top to say These statements are allegations and may not be true or similar (and better?) Totnesmartin 18:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

(Wikipedia does have a such a statement, the general disclaimer. But that's not going to improve the article one bit.) Now, I certainly don't want to make the article extravagant and sensational, but it should have relevant and true information. Regarding the criminal complaint, would you be against treating Attachment B as a reliable piece of information? Attachment A is a bit less neutral; after all, it is a complaint. Gracenotes^T § 20:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Seems useful. However, it's still on one side of the argument. There's a danger of this article being one-sided. I'll try to find something that's not tabloid- or FBI-originated. Tomorrow, i'm off to bed now. Totnesmartin 22:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

• AFAIK, in the US it's everything goes Nil Einne 12:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

"Former Yugoslavia"

Kind of ambiguous. One news report said the three were ethnic Albanians from Kosovo. Can anyone confirm?-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 11:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Kosovo and Macedonia (another possible origin for the men, as stated above) are both in the area covered by the Former Yugoslavia. Totnesmartin 12:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The area was protected by NATO troops during Kosovo War Sea diver 09:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Terrorism categories

I removed some categories relating to terrorism. It is debatable that the men had a terrorist motive. In US law, terrorism is defined (in part) as aiming:

"(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction" (from the Definition of terrorism article).

Which the groups statement {as given in the article) does not say. Also, in plotting to attack a military base, the "targeting civilians" definition of terrorism does not apply.

If you think I've got this wrong, please revert my removal. Totnesmartin 12:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Leader?

The list of Group Members indicates that

Dritan Duka, was the alleged leader of the group.

Is there a source for this? The indictment doesn't appear to single out any one individual.--James968 13:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I cannot find a source, I am editing it out, if anyone disagrees please give a source 145.9.226.69 14:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Were did the weapons and arrest section go?

They are still in the code 145.9.226.69 14:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

There was a ref tag left open that was hiding the text in html. Fixed now. --Monotonehell 14:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

well spotted145.9.226.69 14:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Separating media alarmism from what actually happened

It appears to me from reading this that they didn't actually have any automatic weapons, but were rather practicing with a motley assortment of rifles, shotguns, and pistols; the media appears to have taken "semiautomatic rifles" and dropped the "semi." They were trying to buy assault rifles from FBI informants. It is very unlikely that they actually had automatic weapons, and I would imagine that if they did, it would be mentioned in the official court document.

However, this sounds a lot like I'm engaging in original research. I'm not proposing that we put my "it's unlikely that they had automatic weapons" OR into the article, but would anyone be opposed to my removing references to automatic weapons with milder language that doesn't specify whether the weapons were automatic or not? I realize that the "automatic weapons" content is sourced, but your average local news outlet is hardly a reliable source on technical matters. TomTheHand 14:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

go ahead, its only one reference anyway 145.9.226.69 14:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

It's the nature of editors rushing to add to these breaking news style articles that they grab items from sources that are questionable. The news media has a lot to answer on verifiability. I guess we'll just have to wait out the initial edit frenzy and see how things settle down. Right now I'd suggest that we just take out any totally unsourced, alarmist or infotainment style passages or claims. I've been skirting around the worst of these. --Monotonehell 14:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and replaced "automatic" with "assault." TomTheHand 14:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Assault rifles are automatic by definition. If they're not automatic, you can't call them assault rifles. I'm going with "semi-automatic assault weapon" since that's what they're charged with. CumbiaDude 17:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, having a quick look at the ref list, I'd say that the key document we (as an encyclopedia) should be relying on is what appears to be the official FBI charges, although its source is WNBC.com so it's still a little wobbly. Anything that isn't in there I'd treat with suspicion. However, it's way past my bedtime so I'll have to leave this up to others to sort out :( --Monotonehell 14:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely. It's an excellent source. It's easy to misinterpret, though; someone had wrote up a little bit about how the terrorists were this close to getting their hands on a massive arsenal from an Egyptian arms dealer, and sourced it to that document. What they failed to mention is that their arms contact was actually an FBI informant. TomTheHand 14:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved hard drive

"On a retrieved laptop, the downloaded last will and testament of two September 11 hijackers[7] and militant Islamist recruiting speeches given by Osama bin Laden and others were allegedly recovered.[8]"

Are the documents available from the internet or did these people have special access to them? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.131.1.131 (talk) 14:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

They're easy enough to find, from people who look for them. Holy crap, I shudder to think what law enforcement would think of my hard drive if they looked at it, I have hundreds, if not thousands of such documents, everything from receipts with Mohammad Atta's credit card number, will and testament, fatwas, even a Training Guide recovered from a "terrorist training camp" in Afghanistan and the illusive "bomb-making instructions" that the FBI accidentally posted online, not realising what the Arabic translations meant. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 18:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Well now you know... Hope you enjoy your new life in Guantanamo Bay. BTW, is waterboarding really as bad as they say it is? Nil Einne 12:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Name of Fort Dix and (lack of) vandalism

Fortunately, there has not been very much vandalism related to the name of Fort Dix (Dix = Dicks = Penises, one might logically conclude, so I would imagine that someone would be tempted). I only found one such vandal edit, on the Fort Dix page's history section, and, even then, it dated to mid-2006. Keep up the good work, guys! 204.52.215.107 14:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

For the record, the edit in question pointed out that Fort Dix was right above "Fort Nutz". 204.52.215.107 14:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Date of arrest

Two dates are listed, 7th and 8th of May. Which is correct?Pennywisepeter 15:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

This report [[1]] says it was the 7th so i've changed it. Pennywisepeter 15:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Is there a reliable source that states that the three brothers are from Kosovo?

I keep reverting edits back to former Yugoslavia, if anyone has information to the contrary please provide it. Bas van Leeuwen 15:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

FOX News. They also said that they're illegal aliens who came here via the Mexican border, found in "Sanctuary Cities". Had this terror plot succeeded, reactions would be worse than 9-11 as innocent nationals and legal aliens get shot at, worse by the enraged people. 205.240.146.147 05:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Title

Why '2007'? How many other plots on Fort Dix have there been? --84.67.250.92 16:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Another in 1970 by some anarchist. Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 19:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

improperly cited/uncited inflammatory lines

Um, where did the line in the introduction/summary about these men "repeated claiming" to be "of homosexual decent [sic]" (etc.) come from? It supposedly comes from the Washington Post article, but it doesn't show up anywhere else in the Wikipedia article and there's no mention of any such thing anywhere in WaPo.

Certainly, if someone can come up with a real citation, it's interesting information. But it seems like a highly offensive (on numerous levels), completely bogus insertion.

Just refreshed the page and I see now that it's gone. But I'm posting this anyway to show that someone noticed.

Does this happen often?

Dresdenia 16:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism, in the first section pertaining porking some young girls. 216.153.166.69 17:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)chefantwon

Front page position of this article

It is interesting that this foiled attack made wikipedia front page, but a foiled attack by a Christian abortion clinic bomber in Texas two weeks ago didn't. Is it because attempted radical Islamic attacks are more important than attempted radical Christian attacks? Or because wikipedia does not rank front page positioning by the actual event but rather by media volume in reporting the event (which was greater for the radical Islamic attack)? Sad mouse 19:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

It has more to do with the fact that this is an international event, not local news. Sorry to deflate your righteous indignation.68.152.95.130 19:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, no kidding who peed in your cheerios this morning?Isaac Crumm 19:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Both were US domestic terrorist attacks foiled within two weeks of each other by the FBI. As for who pee'd in my cheerios - that would be extremist religious terrorists. I was actually trying to get a serious answer on the criteria used to make the front page. Sad mouse 22:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The Dix affair IS NOT domestic -- as I stated about it was an INTERNATIONAL plot; hence, all the foreign nationals involved. Please read before you post.69.140.94.158 16:04, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Serious answers? Come now, you are expected to know everything prior to asking :) Was the news item to which you refer suggested on WP:ITN/C? If not, there is nary a chance that it would appear on the Main Page. Gracenotes^T § 22:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Assume good faith. Sad mouse 03:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

...as it might be remotely divined, the first comment was a bit facetious. Have I not assumed good faith by assuming that the item wasn't mentioned on WP:ITN/C? If so, sorry... Gracenotes^T § 13:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Things appear on the front page if people suggest them and if they meet the criteria for insertion. First however, there needs to be an article in Wikipedia on the topic. I suspect your item doesn't have one? --Monotonehell 03:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for giving a polite answer. Until the link to ITN/C, I did not know what the process was for choosing the articles, and I was not sure if it was nominated ahead of the very similar attempted radical Christian attack by one of the people who constantly search for any link of Islam and terrorism (for example, see the front page of Conservopedia), or if it was nominated because it was much more in the news than the other foiled terrorist attack (which it was, going by google news). An honest question, even if the person who actually nominated it, Gracenotes, refused to answer it. I had hoped that wikipedia has a system in place such that the items that make the news are selected in a random, non-biased manner (for example using most hits on google news or something), so I am rather disappointed that two or three people can push an article onto the front page, making selection bias quite easy. Sad mouse 04:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

There is an inherent bias in all of Wikipedia. People tend to only work on topics that they are interested in or familiar with. It is quite possible that if the majority of suggestions for In The News are on a particular line then those will be the main kinds of items you will see. Just due to simple supply and demand. Long term editors who watch that page however tend to notice such trends and discuss any further inclusions of any over exposed topic. However one thing that is important to understand regarding ITN is that it is not a news service. That is we don't place headlines simply because they are in the news media (yes the title is a little misleading) - Items that are placed in ITN are reasonable quality Wikipedia articles that have been updated with current event information. It is expected that those articles provide a more in depth discussion of the phenomena than a reader would reasonably expect from a newspaper article. So if an encyclopedic article is created or updated and the event is in the news media's attention and the item is of International importance or at least interest, then it may have a chance of being included. Most people who complain that XYZ news hasn't been mentioned are not aware of the way things work, many believing that it is a news service. --Monotonehell 04:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - there is a bias in what people work on, of course. And that is reflected in which articles make the featured article. I had hoped that the ITN used a system to counter this, it is unfortunate that they do not. I wasn't really complaining that the foiled Christian terrorist attack wasn't mentioned, more trying to work out why one of two similar news items was mentioned and the other wasn't. Sad mouse 16:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Basically wikipedia is driven by bias, it is the reason why articles are written in the first place and promoted and why others notice inconsistencies and are distraught at the fact. Wikipedia acknowledges this; if you want your side to be mentioned, write an article on the anti-abortion plot and promote it, just as the Fort Dix attack plot article was written and promoted by another side.

Not "my side", I have no interest in promoting an article on Christian terrorism, I was more concerned that religious bias was being used to determine ITN. Sad mouse 16:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Also I'll try to answer your rhetorical question. This article's plot concerned a large group of individuals that were plotting to mass murder federal employees. It was also much more planned out. The abortion clinic plot was relatively simple, not as dangerous, by a single person, and targeted a few select civilians, which would qualify as regular homicide. It appears that federal cases also have much more priority.

Perhaps, although by alternative measures attacks on civilians usually gather more attention than attacks on military targets, and gun attacks are usually more associated with homocide than car bombs, which usually count as terrorism. Also, the car bomb was actually found at the site of the target, which is a sign that it was further along in the plans. Also keep in mind that this article made ITN when almost none of these details were known. Sad mouse 16:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Islamic terrorists are viewed as a bigger threat to an average person's life than Christian terrorists by the public, this should explain the relative external media coverage.--Exander 09:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Just a little addition to this debate:I live in Britain, I don't watch TV much, and I wouldn't have known about this event (and been able to contribute to the article/talk) if it hadn't been on the main page. Totnesmartin 10:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - the perception is that Islamic terrorists are a bigger threat than Christian terrorists, agreed that that is both a cause of and a consequence of greater media coverage. Hence my original question - was this article placed in ITN because of the bigger coverage? It was answered above, no wikipedia does not use an algorithm like Google News to determine ITN based on coverage, and it doesn't use an alternative metric to assess relative importance, but rather places articles on that meet minimum requirements and are actively pushed by a few people. I think that is a rather large flaw for the home page of Wikipedia, but I guess this is not the right place to continue that. Sad mouse 16:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood some of what I tried to say above. There's no reliable metric that can be developed (or has been so far) that would calculate International Importance. It's judged by discussion and consensus on a purely objective basis. Some items are pushed heavily by a group of people but still don't get in on their merit. There's often a HUGE discussion on some items. But no, this isn't the right place for this discussion, really. --Monotonehell 03:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

"Yugoslavia" inappropriate

Many news sources persist in claiming that the Albanian brothers are "Yugoslavs" or "former Yugoslavs". This is probably best avoided. Firstly, Albanians are not ethnically or linquistically Slavic; this is the root of the conflicts in Serbia and Macedonia. Perhaps more importantly, "Former Yugoslav" is a term to be avoided, as it is offensive to virtually everyone to whom it might be applied. One would not want to call Estonians or Kazakhs "Former Soviets" merely to avoid specifying their ethnicity or for the sake of familiarity. The brothers are Albanians from the Macedonian side of the Serbian-Macedonian border region, so they are very likely Kosovars(I assume; clarification needed); ethnic Albanians from the semi-autonomous Serbian province of Kosovo. A large number of Kosovar refugees live in Macedonia, especially near the border, and the Albanian communities of Kosovo have strong cultural ties with those of Macedonia. The Albanians were, in general, opposed to being part of Yugoslavia, were disappointed with their place in it, and now want independance from or autonomy within the succesor states. Calling these men "Former Yugoslavs" or "Yugoslavians" is factually untrue (they are not Slavs) and politically insensitive to all parties. Paving over tremendous ethnic rifts in the former Yugoslavia by lumping disparate peoples together does a disservice to readers trying to understand the political motivations of these men. The only time "Former Yugoslav" should be used is when referring to the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia; Greek pressure (to avoid confusion with Greek Macedonia and the "historic region") has prevented the Macedonians from formally (and sensibly) dropping the appelation.

--JovanPanić 21:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Well they are either Albanians from Macedonia, Serbia (Kosovo or Central Serbia) or possibly Montenegero. A Kosovar could be anyone, one irrespective of ethnicity from Kosovo. I can only guess that reports are using terms such as "Former Yugoslavia" as they don't want to be specific, or that the people only hold ID papers from either the SFRY or the FRY -- Phildav76 22:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, the problem lies in the murky circumstances of Eastern European geopolitics and ethnicity. Being equally offensive to everyone is far superior to giving preferential treatment to any one of the several groups competing for their place in the sun. "Former Yugoslavia" is a wonderful blanket term which avoids the nasty tendancy to make anyone learn something new- as as far as these regional skirmishes go, that usually means something as new as last week's updates. Isaac Crumm 00:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Entrapment Suspicions Section

I figured I'd add this section because of its strong relevance to this alleged plot. I'm going to improve upon the section and get better sources once the LewRockwell.com site publishes articles regarding this attack in the next few days. Life, Liberty, Property 22:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Can you find better sources for this in the immediate future? The claims in this section seem to be speculation and opinion extrapolated from interpretation of the FBI charge sheet. Not exactly verified information - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a newspaper. I suggest removing this section until it can be sourced from official channels. --Monotonehell 03:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, I'd advocate removing it --Jason Catlin

I'm removing it...since both sources are from blogs. Also, any STING operation can be considered "entrapment", but that doesn't mean that the suspects would not have illegally obtained the weapons from other sources. Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 05:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe the Entrapment Section raises a very important point about the government and alleged terrorism involving Muslims in the US. Entrapment will be/is a big issue in the case. In almost EVERY similar govt case, entrapment was an issue. I suggest bringing back the Entrapment section with maybe modifications to its wording. Or there might be a Yellow Journalism section. Furtfurt 16:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

No Yellow Journalism please - just because it's out theredoesn't mean it should be in here. we're struggling to weed out the POV as it is. We're not here to spread sensationalism, but to make as accurate an article as possible, bearing in mind that this matter is sub judice and will most likely end up in a trial. Most the current news articles (as of may 2007) will fade into the ether by the time of the trial, but this article will not. Let's not compromise the chance of a fair trial. Totnesmartin 17:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia not a news service. WP:NPOV does not allow us any journalism or editorialism. We must only report the established and verified facts. We should also be paying closer attention to the veracity of our sources. Rushed first account news reports are often wobbly with the truth. --Monotonehell 03:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Here's an updated source. Life, Liberty, Property 05:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Can you find a source from the mainstream media? Thanxs. Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 08:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Durka?

Some smartass renamed them to Durka. I just fixed it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.252.225.224 (talk) 19:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC).