Talk:2007 John F. Kennedy International Airport attack plot

Learn more about this page

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2007 John F. Kennedy International Airport attack plot article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Crime and Criminal Biography: Terrorism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Terrorism task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Jahidist terror,Islamist terror

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

Proposed move

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

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

Agreed. It is less POV that way, as you say. jwillbur^talk 00:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

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

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

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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

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

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

There are lots of threats to you in the world. There's the threat of a heart attack for genetic reasons. You can't sit there and worry about everything. Get a life," he said.

That "What, me worry?" attitude pretty much sums up Bloomberg's advice to New Yorkers on the terror plot. As far as he was concerned, the professionals were on it, so New Yorkers shouldn't let it tax their brains.

"You have a much greater danger of being hit by lightning than being struck by a terrorist," he added.

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

A. Here's the basic thinking on the J.F.K. story: In the years since 9/11, there have been quite a few interrupted terrorist plots. It now seems possible to exercise some judgment about their gravity. Not all plots are the same. In this case, law enforcement officials said that J.F.K. was never in immediate danger. The plotters had yet to lay out plans. They had no financing. Nor did they have any explosives. It is with all that in mind, that the editors in charge this weekend did not put this story on the front page.

In truth, the decision was widely debated even within this newsroom. At the front page meeting this morning, we took an informal poll and a few editors thought the story should have been more prominently played. Some argued it should have been fronted, regardless of the lameness of the plot, simply because it was what everyone was talking about.

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

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

Will make this a separate section and show cites that say the plot should be taken seriously to make the piece more balanced. 69.114.117.103 19:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

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

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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

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