US Federal Reserve 'bomb plot' foiled by FBI

cymatty

cymatty

cymatty

Soldato
Joined
27 Sep 2004
Posts
13,305
Location
South Yorkshire
US officials have arrested a man for plotting to detonate what he thought was a massive bomb in front of the Federal Reserve building in New York.

Quazi Mohammad Rezwanul Ahsan Nafis, 21, of Bangladesh, travelled to the US with the intent of planning a terrorist attack, the FBI said.

Mr Nafis was arrested after he allegedly attempted to detonate what he thought was a 1,000lb (454kg) bomb.

There was never a threat, the FBI said, as Mr Nafis had been closely watched.

Mr Nafis travelled to the US in January 2012 and sought out contacts to help him with the attack, officials said in a complaint filed in New York on Wednesday.

One of the people he contacted turned out to be a source working for the FBI, US federal prosecutors said.

Mr Nafis was placed under surveillance, and the undercover FBI agent sold him 20 bags of what he thought were 50lb of explosives. The suspect then bought and assembled detonators and timing devices.

Officials said there had never been any actual threat.

The arrest is the latest in a series of so-called sting operations run by the FBI and anti-terror authorities in the US.

The Federal Reserve building, housing the US central banking organisation, is located in downtown Manhattan in New York City, blocks from the World Trade Center complex in the city's financial district.
Click to expand...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19985987

Would a 1,000lb have been that effective, the Oklahoma City bombing bomb was over 2000kg. I guess it would have been more about the actually act than the destruction.
 
Last edited:
Depends on the strength of the explosives surely? and either way it would have been a very effective psychological weapon.
 
The actual weight of explosives is only part of the story. It is also about how you shape the blast to concentrate the power. Or err.. so I've heard.
 
cymatty said:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19985987

Would a 1,00lb have been that effective, the Oklahoma City bombing bomb was over 2000kg. I guess it would have been more about the actually act than the destruction.
Click to expand...

It would be enough to do considerable damage. Most IRA car bombs were 500lb ammonium nitrate bombs and I've seen first hand the damage those things can do. Like entirely destroy a fortified police station, surrounding buildings and blow out all the windows in surrounding streets and causing structural fractures to the buildings nearby.

Edit: If you're old enough to remember the docklands bombing by the IRA, it was 1000lbs.
 
Last edited:
cymatty said:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19985987

Would a 1,00lb have been that effective, the Oklahoma City bombing bomb was over 2000kg. I guess it would have been more about the actually act than the destruction.
Click to expand...
Um,it was 1.000 lbs, not 1.00.... and yeah,those 1000 lbs would've left many dead if placed correctly.

Mr_White said:
Hardly foiled, sounds like they basically entrapped him.
Click to expand...
Entrapment would mean the FBI instigated the offence.They didn't.It was blind luck he approached someone who was an informant.
 
Can't be bothered to look for sources right now but they do it, it's true.

This case doesn't seem too bad though because it seems like he actually intended to try some kind of attack. There was one case where the FBI constantly approached a guy trying to convince him to carry out attacks and eventually convinced and arrested him.
 
deadite66 said:
nytimes article

the point is would these people have done anything at all if the FBI didn't facilitate.
Click to expand...

Facilitating isn't entrapment,though.

It's akin to an undercover cop making undercover buys from a dealer.The dealer would've made the sale wether cop or not so that's not entrappment....

However walking up to you and asking if you want to start dealing and then busting you,that's entrapment.
 
To be completely fair, the FBI's actions did play quite a large part in his arrest.

Nafis came to the US and got in contact with someone who happens to be an FBI informer and told this person that he wants to wage jihad against the USA. At a later date he met with the informer again and told him that he wants to return to Bangladesh in December this year to join an al-Qaeda training camp. At this point, the FBI introduced Nafis to an undercover agent who told him not to return to Bangladesh for security reasons. The undercover agent told Nafis that he had direct contact with senior members of al-Qaeda. At a later date, the undercover agent told Nafis that the al-Qaeda leadership authorised him to use a remote detonator rather than committing suicide, therefore giving him the chance to return to Bangladesh.

It's clear that US intelligence thought Nafis to be incompetent, otherwise they would've let him go back to Bangladesh. Was Nafis a would-be terrorist? Yes. Could he of ever successfully pulled off an attack if he never spoke to someone who happened to be an FBI informant? We don't know.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom