moonbattery.gif


« German Pol Suggests Temporary Marriage | Main | Hey Moron! Pull Your Pants Up! »


September 21, 2007

Star Simpson, Artistic Pseudo-Bomber

From MIT — the same school that gave us Hugo Chavez's favorite intellectual, Noam Chomsky — comes sophomore Star Simpson, who thought Boston's Logan International Airport would be a fitting place to show off her new art project: a phony bomb.

Simpson employed a computer circuit board, wires, a battery, and Play-Doh to create her masterpiece. She's been charged with disturbing the peace and possessing a hoax device. No doubt she'll be back at MIT, learning about the evils of American hegemony, within a few months.

Needless to say, terror hoaxes undermine our security and threaten the safety of not only the hoaxer, but of everyone in the vicinity. Two of the four jets hijacked on 9/11 took off from Logan.

Star_Simpson.jpg
Star Simpson: Apparently MIT is now accepting idiots.

On tips from Wiggins, The Matterhorn, and Bill.

Posted by Van Helsing at September 21, 2007 11:04 AM

Comments

Star: Got a great idea for your next "stunt": take several hostages at MIT using a plastic AK-47 (be sure and remove the little orange fire suppressor at the end of the toy rifle), then point it at the SWAT guys who show up -- we'd all like to see what happens then!

Posted by: jc14 at September 21, 2007 11:41 AM

Two sons...19 and 17, soon to be 20 and 18.

If dumb was a source of energy...

And stupid is multiplicative, where smart is simply additive.

The worst stupid was older son's project--when he was 16--called the Kiddy Korrection Kit...or somesuch thing. I met him after school, his carrying his project, which from across the parking lot was a box with large letters "KKK".

He and I had an intense 10-minute discussion on the power of words and images, explaining that any complaint of racism would be made first, published in the local newspaper second, and that his motives (alliteration) would never be discovered.

I've been lucky that some of the dumber things my sons have done have gone unnoticed.

But this act required intent.

When I was a senior in high school, I demonstrated "How to Make a Molotov Cocktail" in my English class. Bottle. Cloth. Yellowish water. This was in 1971. I kinda expected to get kicked out of class. But then I explained how it was a weapon used to defeat the Soviet invasion of Finland.

Sure.

But assembling a fake Molotov Cocktail in speech class is different than taking what looks like a MC into a public space. Isn't it?

Would I do it again? Huh? Look, I don't want to get shot. A middle-aged white guy with a bottle appearing to hold gasoline with a rag stuffed in its top? I think the likely outcome would be at least a vacation at the local mental hospital. And then an expected conversation with the criminal justice system. So, I can predict certain outcomes as a result of my actions. When I was 17 years old? Not so much.

I assume that the picture of Star is from Facebook or MySpace. Look at how she identifies herself. Her Circle of Friends look just like her. And the guys she has contact with wear dreads or some silly type of hat. And, she'll be offended by The Man. As will her friends.

The critical question is, will her parents have an intense 10-minute discussion with her about the appropriateness of her behaviour? Will the University point out the transparency of the consequences to her actions? I guess the best answer will be to monitor The Tech, MIT's online student newspaper.

Will anybody ask, "What were you thinking?"

Posted by: OregonGuy at September 21, 2007 11:53 AM

From what I understand, they nearly used deadly force against her. Pity that they didn't.

Posted by: Refuter Of Liberal Vermin at September 21, 2007 12:04 PM


Troublemakers always bring the fug.

Compensating for something?

Posted by: Anonymous at September 21, 2007 1:04 PM

This otherwise intelligent MIT student is very lucky that the professionalism of the law enforcement officers kept this situation in check. Do you have any idea how these things play out in countries where national security professionals are not so professional? A lot of Americans seem to think these days that law enforcement and national security is a joke; some sort of scare tactic of the Bush administration they loath. Well, regardless of your political opinions, we live in a place that a small but determined group of extremists wants to destroy. They don't care that you are a conservative or a liberal or even tuned out of politics. They care only that you are not a Muslim, and for that you must die. The professionals at Logan International are prepared to meet that threat, and they don't have the luxury to determine if some hooded person with a "device" is holding Play-Doh or something else meant to do harm. Rational people understand this and do not prank airport security for this reason. She is lucky.

Posted by: JRCV at September 21, 2007 3:34 PM

Is it just me, or is 'art' excuse wearing rather thin?

Posted by: Harris at September 21, 2007 3:35 PM

One more bit of data for the argument that IQ tests don't really measure intelligence. This stupid stunt will probably result in a 15 minute time out from some moonbat People's Republic of Taxachussets judge; followed by her triumphant return to the halls of multiculturealism. No Harris, it's not just you.

Posted by: Mack the Knife at September 21, 2007 3:40 PM

Gotta tell you, IF she appeared at Logan on the same day as the Job Fair or whatever it is/was that she alleges she was pimping for, the authorities -- while they did no less than what was called for at that moment --- ought to have let the gal go back into her deliria without all the commotion.

Some folks think the whole thing was out of bounds when referring to the authorites: they did feel different September 12, 2001, and would feel different if they were in the terminal with sweet Star Simpson, which is likely what brought her to the notice of the authorities in the first place: someone reported her "actions."

She may be silly. If her story has credence, they are foolish -- but not by taking action, but by delaying a complete reversal.

Posted by: The Good Doctor at September 21, 2007 5:12 PM

I wish these artistic types would lean to understandthat the worst terrorist attack in American History started out in Boston. You have heavily armed people who are understandably jumpy about strange objects with blinking lights, particularly around bridges and airports. Wasn't this Star Simpson reading the papers last year when Cartoon Network left smilar devices on a bridges to advertise it's programming?

Posted by: James F McEnanly at September 21, 2007 5:15 PM

Stupid slut. I'm comming to rape you!

Posted by: T.S.A. at September 21, 2007 5:44 PM

>>Stupid slut. I'm comming to rape you!

WTF? Shut up and get out of here.

Posted by: Brooklyn Red Leg at September 21, 2007 6:36 PM

She didn't make "a phony bomb," she made an LED display of a star, referring to her name. The airport security thought it was a bomb.

Posted by: Aaron at September 21, 2007 7:46 PM

Don't you get it? The thought of a bomb never crossed her mind. That is why she didn't think twice about wearing her shirt to the airport. She didn't equate it with a bomb. The media or police are the ones who are putting it out there that she had a fake bomb strapped to her chest. The country has gone crazy and has lost common sense. Do you actually think that her shirt even remotely resembles a suicide bomber's vest? Why weren't people on the T running from her when she was traveling to Logan? She could not have looked too intimidating. She is being railroaded by a runaway media and an over zealous prosecutor.

Posted by: Laura at September 21, 2007 8:08 PM

I can NOT even begin to believe that the men and woman in this country can be so downright stupid as to believe that this girl did something wrong.

perhaps if everyone in this nation were as smart as this one girl it would be IMMEDIATELY recognized that her outfit was harmless. instead everyone jumps to their own conclusion and we are supposed to believe that lives were saves and evil thwarted? give me a fucking break! boston is a racist town that is showing its true colors more and more...

i support star simpson and her choice in fashion. in fact, i think her sweatshirt is "da bomb", not a BOMB. see there is a difference. white men need to stop ruining this planet with all their lies and fear mongering bullshit. there are REASONS why bombs blow up just as there are reasons why Americans love explosions and gun fire in movies. Hmm, a connection maybe?

white people can not trick anyone on this planet into believing that they are victims at this point in history, it is FAR too ironic...the only people foolish enough to believe those lies are dumb white people themselves. enough of this already! should this girl have been shot by "authorities" because of an led light? or what some airport worker thinks? when is this country going to wake up???


Posted by: bzzzt! at September 21, 2007 8:50 PM

The police claim it is a hoax device. To sensationalize, Fox News is calling it a fake bomb. The cops did the right thing, but it doesn't seem like she planned a hoax. It sounds like she spent a lot more time on planning the outfit than considering whether it would be appropriate for the airport. If she is surrounded everyday by MIT students who would immediately recognize the art as what it is, then it's not too hard to see how she could have failed to realize it was inappropriate to wear to the airport.

Posted by: Dan at September 21, 2007 9:34 PM

Its a fucking litebrite, how is that art. Why the hell was she holding playdo by the way. I used to live in Cambridge and let me say, these people are wacked out of there mind. Most of them are little rich brats from all across the country who don't have to work and pay bills like the rest of us. As a result, they have plenty of free time to come up with their stupid ideas. People like her can't understand why people like us might be angered by her actions. I guarantee you that she knew what she was doing and did it to try and push some boundaries. These people think they are the smartest people on earth. She figured she would pull a fast one on the officials at Logan and look what happened. Also, she was smiling about it.

Star, I am not smiling, my father died in the World Trade Center honey and I live in Cambridge. I am going to spit on you if I see you for acting like some dumb spoiled little brat. Have respect, the terroist attacks came out of Logan, I am sure you knew that. I also think you had that in mind when you put on your stupid sweater. Looks like your not as smart as you thought you were.

Posted by: Star, ha ha at September 21, 2007 9:46 PM

She is lucky she wasn't peppered with bullets... silly girl nearly got herself killed. Sometime some people are so smart but lack common sense..

Posted by: peteman at September 21, 2007 10:17 PM

> Sometime [sic.] some people are so
> smart but lack common sense..

"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen."
- Albert Einstein

Posted by: Anonymous at September 21, 2007 10:26 PM

What is wrong with americans? Do they watch so much TV and movies that they really think somone would just walk up to an airport in the intention of bombing it WITH THE BOMB EXPOSED???

The media has most americans so dam paranoid that they are letting the police and goverment to violate our civil rights whenever they want by using the excuse "it may be a terrorist". Whats next, strip serches on the street? "they might have a bomb up their butt!"

Ms. Simpson was going to the airport to pick up her boyfriend, she most likely wore the shirt to show it to him, it does not seem that her intent was to scare people or even to make a political point. The media however is doing their typical thing and twisting the story to make it "news worthy". But now there will be copycat protestors doing this kind of thing all over, thank you Rupert Murdoc!!

People need to wake up, get off their asses, stop watching TV and start thinking for them selves.

Posted by: realist at September 21, 2007 10:59 PM

OK, so we go with the its just my 'pretty circuitboard hoody' defence - then why was she carrying playdough which makes it even more suspicious? what was the purpose of carrying it? it clearly wasn't related to the shirt.
Also a M.I.T student with electronics on their sweaters first defense is "it's art" not "my bad, it was a project I did at M.I.T, I'm sorry"

This is just another media stunt like "Don't tazer me bro!!! arrrggggh!" she knew exactly what response she was going to get.

Posted by: xantl at September 21, 2007 11:22 PM

For all the Liberals fogging up the thread with their 'it wasn't a threat' theory, welcome to September 10th 2001 thinking.
I'm sure if Mohammed Atta had been arrested with his boxcutter, you'd have been all "omgz that chimpymchiltlers Nazi stormtroopers arrested a guy with a boxcutter??! that has what? a 1 inch blade!1!one!eleventy!! nazis1! they're taking our fweeeddooms!!"

Posted by: xantl at September 21, 2007 11:28 PM

wake up, a box cutter is not a deadly weapon. the cockpit of airplanes should have been locked all along, the fact thet these people made it in there is the fault of the airline indstury.

did everyone forget that the passengers of one of the planes managed to overcome the hijackers. why did none of the other planes passengers do the same? Have americans lost their back bones? Or is there somthing else going on. The CIA has released paperwork admiting to planning possible fake hijackings in the 1960's to rally public support against cuba.

there is way more going on with the 9/11 attacks then anyone in the public really knows. I am not saying that the goverment was behind it but there is a lot that we are not being told.

once a crackhead tried to rob me with a box cutter on the boston common, I laughed at thim and porceded to kick the shit out of him. I have a feeling that Mr. Atta had some other weapon and the goverment is covering their asses for fucking up and letting it on the plane.

Posted by: realist at September 22, 2007 1:08 AM

wake up, a box cutter is not a deadly weapon. the cockpit of airplanes should have been locked all along, the fact thet these people made it in there is the fault of the airline indstury.

did everyone forget that the passengers of one of the planes managed to overcome the hijackers. why did none of the other planes passengers do the same? Have americans lost their back bones? Or is there somthing else going on. The CIA has released paperwork admiting to planning possible fake hijackings in the 1960's to rally public support against cuba.

there is way more going on with the 9/11 attacks then anyone in the public really knows. I am not saying that the goverment was behind it but there is a lot that we are not being told.

once a crackhead tried to rob me with a box cutter on the boston common, I laughed at thim and porceded to kick the shit out of him. I have a feeling that Mr. Atta had some other weapon and the goverment is covering their asses for fucking up and letting it on the plane.

Posted by: realist at September 22, 2007 1:11 AM

You sound like you hit the crack-pipe yourself, or alas its your extra chromosome talking?

Posted by: xantl at September 22, 2007 1:30 AM

xantl: She didn't have a weapon, and didn't even attempt to cross the security check point. Also, how is playdough so suspicious? I've yet to hear of anyone attempt to assemble a plastic explosive in a public area after carrying all the piece in plain view.

Just a couple years after 9/11/01, I carried a lead-lined bag on an international flight. My intent was to prevent the x-rays from going through it. Was I a terrorist? No. I just put the bag through their machines, and left it as that. No one cared. When needed, I let them search it, and had good reason for having it. No one freaked out that I might have a bomb in it, and no one accused me of anything. They checked my bag first, and let me go, as they should have done with Star.

Posted by: Aaron at September 22, 2007 2:15 AM

I have a few friends who are photographers, they also use the lead bags to protect film from being damaged in the bag scanner. Most have said that they have made it through a few times without being searched, even after 9/11. Whats to say Mr. Atta did not use one to get a good sized knife or some other weapon on board.

The Mass. State Police should have questoned her prior to pointing their guns at her. I am from Boston and trust me the state police are known to abuse their power when ever they can and the judges usally allow them to do it (unless the person complaining is rich or a Kennedy).

Posted by: realist at September 22, 2007 2:36 AM

realist
You're a fool. You8 keep saying "they SHOULD HAVE known" it was harmless. The problem is that THEY HAVE NO WAY OF KNOWING! These are ordinary people, not infallible SUPERHEROS with mind-reading powers.
Let's take a few of your idiotic point one by one:

>>..a box cutter is not a deadly weapon.

Yes it is. Both by law and reality. Box cutters have a RAZOR SHARP blade and often a point. Have you ever seen a pen knife? They look like TOYS, right? General Bedford Forrest cut a man's guts open with one with a single thrust and he died a few hours later.

>>the cockpit of airplanes should have been locked all along,

There you go with the "should have" arguement. Well, they7 WEREN'T LOCKED, so shut up! Besides, the highjackers were threatening to KILL THE PASSENGERS, the crew's first thought was for their safty. Now we go back my first point: they DIDN'T KNOW that the Muslims were going to kill them anyway.

>>the fact thet these people made it in there is the fault of the airline indstury.

No, it's the fault of fools like yourself who have said for DECADES "don't resist an attacker. Give him what he wants or he'll hurt you". Airline crews were taught NOT to resist for fear of harm to the passengers.

>>did everyone forget that the passengers of one of the planes managed to overcome the hijackers. why did none of the other planes passengers do the same?

The people on flight 97 learned the fate of the other planes by cell phone, the others DIDN'T KNOW. Again, you are saying "they SHOULD HAVE known". Well, THEY DIDN'T KNOW!!

>>Have americans lost their back bones?

Yes, thanks to people like you.

>>The CIA ............. public really knows.

So you're saying that this was planned in THE SIXTIES? There's one thing all conspiracy theorys have in common: they make no damn sense!

>>I am not saying that the goverment was behind it but there is a lot that we are not being told.

Stop talking crap.

>>once a crackhead tried to rob me with a box cutter on the boston common, I laughed at thim and porceded to kick the shit out of him.

Good for you. Have yopu ever tried to f=do that in the cramped insides of an airliner when there were two or more hijackers ready to die for their cause and you were belted in your seat?
I didn't think so.

>>The Mass. State Police should have questoned her prior to pointing their guns at her.

And if it WERE a bomb, then what? Their first priority is public safty, they have to err on the side of caution, and not think about hurting someone's feelings.

This has been brought up on another message board about that stupid Cartoon Network stunt. "WHAT DOES A BOMB LOOK LIKE?"
Well......

It looks like a bowling ball with a string sticking out of it.
It looks like a large firecracker.
It looks like a bundle of paper clock attached.
It looks like a metal barrel with fins on one end.
It looks like a wooden barrel.
It looks like a lump of coal, a block of wood, a tube of tooth paste, a book, a rock, a camera, a bottle of wine, a letter, a doll, fence post, or a shoe.
In fact, a bomb can be made to look like ANYTHING.
But according to you, realist, and the other head-inthe-sand denyers, everyone SHOULD KNOW instinctivly whether or not something or someone poses a threat. Did you KNOW that the crackhead was a threat BEFORE he pulled out the blade?
I didn't think so.

Posted by: KHarn at September 22, 2007 4:49 AM

wow the ignorance...
do you really think this was the first time someone hijacked a airplane?
do you really think this was the first time a hijacker crashed a plane full of people?
do you really think this is the very first time muslums hijacked a plane full of people annd crashed it?

all 3 happened before.

the CIA thing was a plan to rally the public against CUBA when JFK was president, he told them not to do it. My point was this was a pervious idea proposed by our goverment to trick us everyday americans into supporting some kind of war. Not that they planed to crash airplanes into a building THAT DID NOT EXIST YET!!

Posted by: realist at September 22, 2007 5:32 AM

A clear overreaction. The police owe her an apology.

Posted by: Cathy at September 22, 2007 6:25 AM

Obviously a bad prank from a spoiled MIT kid who meant to push buttons and when confronted wasn't bright enough to conjure up anything more than the tired "it's art" charade.

Security should have ripped up her shirt and sent her home sans media frenzy. Unfortunately, she got exactly what every libtard brat wants: publicity.

Posted by: fellowes at September 22, 2007 8:18 AM

What kind of idiots are running TSA. LEDs on a circuit board is no indication of a bomb. Don't they know what real bombs look like? Haven't they watched movies or the news?
Everyone knows what bombs look like.

Suitcases and backpacks.

It's true. Suitcase bombs and backpacks filled with explosives.

They should be arresting everyone with suitcases and backpacks.

They probably should taser them first just to be safe.

Remember that Pan Am Flight 103 which crashed over Lockerbie Scotland was blown up by a Samsonite suitcase bomb and those subway and railyway bombings in London and Madrid used backpack bombs.

Someone should tell TSA to be on the lookout for suitcases and backpacks. That should keep them, and us, occupied.

Another thing, suitcases and backpacks are bad for business. If we just banned them, then everytime people traveled, they would have to buy new clothes, toiletries and gadgets. We would be safer and the economy would boom.

Ooops! I guess "boom" is not the right word.

Posted by: rupert at September 22, 2007 8:31 AM

There's way to many comments about attending MIT makes you smart. I attended and graduated from college and my kids attended and graduated from college (one from MIT). I can vouch from personal experience that the college years represent the absolute dumbest portions of our lives. College/University in NO way equates to smart!

Posted by: Steve at September 22, 2007 9:48 AM

Also, how is playdough so suspicious? I've yet to hear of anyone attempt to assemble a plastic explosive in a public area after carrying all the piece in plain view.

Well I never mentioned "Plastic Explosives" however you evidently thought about the PE & Playdough connection -- as it has nothing to do with her shirt we can only assume its only purpose was to further make her look suspicious to authorities.
Until Ramzi Yousef assembled his bomb from wires, batteries and liquid explosives hidden in a contact lens bottle on a Philippine airlines there had never been a terrorist who assembled his device on a plane either, so what is your point?

"realist" you might want to adjust your tinfoil hat, the operation of which you speak was a proposal initiated by the DoD and the Joint Chiefs not the CIA. The fact that Kennedy removed the chairman of the JC shortly after this proposal speaks volumes to what he himself thought about such a plan.


Posted by: xantl at September 22, 2007 10:23 AM

She's as Smart as a FOX folks....Don't be fooled...she knew EXACTLY what she was doing...she was pushing boundaries to see if she could get famous...and she has...now the book will come, and the appearance on Oprah...this society and the people in it are SICK....we are ALL DOOMED.

Posted by: anonymous at September 22, 2007 12:57 PM

>>do you really think this was the first time someone hijacked a airplane?
do you really think this was the first time a hijacker crashed a plane full of people?
do you really think this is the very first time muslums hijacked a plane full of people annd crashed it?

>>all 3 happened before.

And yet we were still working under the "co-operation is best" rule. That was my point.
Even AFTER 9/11, aircrews were forbidden BY LAW to be armed, even though many pilots and passengers demanded it. The media in particular had worked out a masive campagne against it, useing the old anti-gun propiganda that they would shoot eachother and the passengers, blast away with the least provication, shoot down their own planes, or patrol the passenger cabin, looking for trouble like a movie gunfighter instead of flying the plane.
I'm not making this up or exagerating.

Posted by: KHarn at September 22, 2007 6:10 PM

She had the play-doh from Career Day the day before and she had been wearing the sweatshirt around campus for several days without incident.


I rather think the police and airport people are embarrassed that it was an LED light and play-doh that they got all excited about and are charging her for crimes to intimidate people into not questioning their actions.


It's a lot easier to blame the girl and to play it up as "hoax device" rather than admit they almost shot a girl for wearing an LED light on her shirt. And she had told them it was art and an LED light.


A hoax device is where someone walks in with, say, a shoebox, and says "I have a bomb!" That's a hoax device. It's not wearing the same sweatshirt you've been wearing around campus without incident for days, and telling people "It's art" when they ask what it is.

Posted by: jw at September 22, 2007 8:17 PM

Oh yeah? what was her Career choice -- being one of these?
still doesn't explain why she was holding it in her hands
"She was holding what was later found to be Playdough." as I said there is no need to be holding it, she isn't six years old.

`when the employee asked Star about the device and Playdough - she walked away without responding.`
Almost guaranteeing a confrontation - which she got.

Posted by: xantl at September 22, 2007 9:34 PM

This is ridiculous. She was wearing a breadboard with LEDs attached. Perhaps the police should have questioned why she had wires hanging off her shirt at the airport, but when it was clear she didn't intend to shout, "hey, I'm wearing a bomb," she should have been released with a warning that this is an airport and people get nervous about these kind of things. It was totally blown out of proportion. Get over it people!

Posted by: db at September 22, 2007 10:14 PM

It's worth remembering that the Massachusetts State Police did two things to Star Simpson. They stopped her at gunpoint to determine whether she posed a danger. Then they arrested her. Only one of those actions was proper.

For those who think Simpson should have been shot, do y'all mind if I apply a little hot lead prevention to one of you if I think you're doing something suspicious?

Posted by: JC at September 23, 2007 12:48 AM

The only overreaction here are the bloggers desperate to make this an issue.

She, in all likelihood, acted innocently. Oblviously as well? Certainly. But with malicious intent? Far-fetched to say the least. Young artistic people often do exactly things like this and don't consider the entire range of consequences. Could it of been a stunt? Possibly. Could she be an intelligent, artistic person who isn't quite as paranoid about terrorism as some others? Probably.

The security acted well. They *didn't* shoot her, using their judgement in what is a difficult situation for them to figure out quickly. They should be commened for that. And other security operations should be directed to observe how they excercised restraint in a potentially confusing situation.

No. The only overreaction here are bloggers from both specturms striving to make this an issue. To make some quick and overly simplistic "gotcha" points.

Both sides should settle down.

Posted by: jumpy at September 23, 2007 1:45 AM

My issue is not this specific incident, but the pattern of incidents aimed at eroding our civil liberties. The security is emphasizing they could have shot her, and I believe they are doing that as a warning to other people that they could be shot if they do something "unusual". So if you don't look mainstream American at Boston Logan you might get shot is the message they want to send.
And the issue with that is that it doesn't actually make us safer. But it does give 'the right looking' people power and advantage over everybody else.
Incidents like this intimidate and demonize anybody who doesn't look 'right'. It creates a culture of fear and that's a culture with corrupt power.

Posted by: jw at September 23, 2007 9:41 AM

Jw:
In your mind 'acting unusual' is what the Police is emphasizing might get you killed eh?
All aboard the clue train -- first stop YOU! let me help you out here seeing as you're having a hard time comprehending the way things work.
We can deduce that the first person who reported this incident was the person at the ticket counter who asked her about the circuit boards (which she ignored) as I doubt most ticket counter people are also bomb experts they reported to security that a person with electronics, and wires on their person was acting suspicious. A request for an armed response team was most likely relayed to intercept a person with a possible bomb.
As in the above, the team that respond are not there to assess if the device is a threat. Their whole purpose is to affect an arrest in the safest manner possible, and if the threat escalates to neutralize it. At the point when someone is told not to move, the situation is no different from carrying a fake/real gun your movements are scrutinized for a threat - they are not analyzing if your weapon is real or not - that can be done once you're safely in police custody.
The police were emphasizing the serious nature of how they responded. Once you are identified as being a serious threat you should comply with an officers orders in order to assure officer safety, and your own - otherwise you're on youtube getting a nightstick shower, or tazer'd or in the worse possible situation dead.
In all situation no officers purpose is to analyze your device/weapon for how dangerous it is -- until you are in custody.

Posted by: xantl at September 23, 2007 1:02 PM

Here's the latest from The Tech, MIT's on-line student newspaper.

It will be interesting watching the follow-up, through letters to the editor. Which letters are chosen? What is their message?

We'll be learning a lot about the campus culture in the next few days.

Posted by: OregonGuy at September 23, 2007 1:09 PM

OregonGuy:
Thanks that article also reflects what I was saying:
We did have MP5 officers respond to the scene immediately.” State police determined that the device was not a bomb after her arrest.
“She followed instructions as was required by the State Police and within minutes [Explosive Ordinance Disposal] unit found that it was an innocuous device and we took her into custody,”

That the analysis of the device was left to the experts in EOD, rather than first responders.

Posted by: xantl at September 23, 2007 1:22 PM

send her and others like her to prison, she will get her attention there.

Posted by: Dave at September 23, 2007 2:25 PM

Stupid brat knew exactly what she was doing. Career Day my butt. Hope the judge lays into her and gives her a real world lesson. MIT ! Big Freaking Deal. Too bad they don't check the psychos out before the let them in school

Posted by: Linda at September 23, 2007 3:48 PM

As a commenter said, it was the police that claimed Star Simpson's "art" was a bomb. She did not, nor did she announce to others that she was in possession of an explosive device. I wish people would stop jumping to conclusions. Of course it does not help when some braindead cop says it would've been perfectly ok to kill her because of her dress. What a country. Welcome to Amerika! Thanks Mr. Bush. :-(

Posted by: Mark at September 23, 2007 10:16 PM

Mark,
Ironic you use the phrase 'braindead' I was thinking the same reading your comment, that she didn't announce she had a bomb.
Perhaps you have reality confused with a cartoon where the bad guy carries a ball with a burning fuse with the word bomb stenciled on the side.

Posted by: davec at September 23, 2007 10:28 PM

It figures that the liberal trolls would view this as a ‘gotcha’ moment. As if the police should apologize to a dimwitted moron who scares the hell out of an airport employee working at an information booth as well as other people who fled when seeing her contraption with wires sticking out of it. It is unbelievably foolish to walk into the same airport that half of the 9/11 bombers used for their attacks in such a manner.

While the articles here at Moonbattery.com shed light on the lunacy of moonbats, it is the ignorant comments of moonbat trolls that completes the overall picture of what they are really about.

The troll TSA comes here to leave short racist and sexist comments in order to frame the website because he or she cannot engage in rational debate. Instead this person resorts to leaving derogatory comments that match his or her misconceptions of the people who read this blog.

Another commentator even blames Fox News for covering the article about Star Simpson and their use of the term fake bomb to describe the device. Yet even a sympathetic article that does almost nothing but cite references supportive of Simpson refers to it as a fake bomb in the first paragraph!!!

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/09/23/in_hawaii_sympathy_for_mitstudent/

Not to mention that Salon’s overwhelmingly pro-Simpson article states that every news outlet uses the term fake bomb. While not every news outlet used the term, as Salon’s propaganda-like statement suggests, many did and not just Fox.

http://machinist.salon.com/blog/2007/09/21/star_simpson/

Clearly this commentator has a grudge with Fox News and is completely blinded by bias against the news organization. This is another example of how such leftwing bias can lead to incorrect judgments.

Here are a few other news outlets that use the same term that Fox News used to describe Star Simpson’s unusual artwork that was suspected by witnesses and police to be a fake bomb…

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6939539,00.html

http://wbztv.com/topstories/local_story_264104114.html

http://www.theage.com.au/news/news/student-claims-fake-airport-bomb-was-artwork/2007/09/24/1190486177577.html

http://www.abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=3634595

http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news/14172687/detail.html

http://www.news24.com/News24/World/News/0,,2-10-1462_2188245,00.html

http://www.usatoday.com/travel/news/2007-09-21-mit-student-bomb_N.htm?csp=23&RM_Exclude=aol

http://www.afriquenligne.fr/news/daily-news/woman-wearing-fake-bomb-arrested-at-boston-logan-international-airport-200709219104/

http://www.nbc30.com/news/14172274/detail.html

For moonbats to turn this thoughtless woman into a cause celebre is sad. She created a huge scene and frightened a number of people who were worried that she could have been a terrorist. Leftwing bloggers have taken to calling the frightened people and the police who responded to their calls as idiots. Yet how smart is Simpson for wearing such a device strapped to her chest while walking into the same airport that many of the 9/11 hijackers used to launch their attacks? Let’s be honest, how intelligent was that decision?

Posted by: Freedom Now at September 23, 2007 11:29 PM

If you want some insight into just how insane the Bay State is, take a look at some of the comments written in response to Michele McPhee's "Schools baby kids born under lucky Star" found at the Boston Herald http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/general/view.bg?articleid=1033642. Keep in mind, this is the Herald, not the Boston Globe. Yikes!

Posted by: Byron at September 24, 2007 12:23 PM

As much as I hate to interrupt a perfectly good rant with a few facts, let's take a look at this supposed "fake bomb"

Image: here

Found in : this article

No receiver, nothing that looks like explosives, just an LED board, about as scary as a lightbrite, which is basically what it was, and easily recognizable as such.

Posted by: Joseph Dunphy at September 24, 2007 10:54 PM

> What a country. Welcome to Amerika! Thanks Mr. Bush. :-(

This is the impression one gets reading the comments on how appropriate the reaction of The Force to the incident was.

For an European bystander, the conclusion left is that the unholy alliance of Islamism, current US administration and public hysteria has achieved its goal - making Orwell's darkest projections come true.

What she did was maybe mindless, but what has been made out of it is unreasonable - PERIOD.

Watching this, and recent developments in some of the EU countries, I start getting worried...

MB
=-=

Posted by: mb-de at September 25, 2007 9:45 AM

Was she thoughtless? Clearly, but that is the point. Much like the mooninite case, without intent, there is no crime.



Whether she should have expected this is a better question. You can buy these things (light up accessories and clothing) in airports (SJC, SFO, DEN) in this country, and they don't look all that different. If she's been flying back and forth to the islands from Boston, she's probably seen them during layovers. What flies in one airport should fly in all of them, no? That's why we have a nationalized standard for security? To prevent some airports from being "softer" than others? BOS has the same security standards and procedures as DCA, OGG, FAT or DFW. All of this, "They hijacked here," is a BS red herring. She had no reason to expect that a breadboard and LED would cause such a stir.



Dumb ass MSP flipped their shit over nothing, again. It's play out like a summer rerun. This is the city that blew up a traffic counter and a batch of Light Brites because they were feared to be "infernal devices". All that remains is for the prosecutor to drop the charges (which they will). The MSP and BPD really need to get a handle on this before someone ends up dead or injured by their hand, and the lawyers get on the trail.


NB: The putty? Reports indicate that it was a play-doh rose for her boyfriend.

Posted by: Mason at September 25, 2007 10:08 AM

No one addressed the fact that she could have defused the situation simply by answering the ticket counter employees concerns. She instead refused to answer any more questions, and walked away which lead to it being escalated to airport security:

"
She “said it was a piece of art” while at the information booth, Margolis said, and “refused to answer any more questions.” Jake Wark, spokesperson for the Suffolk County District Attorney, said that Simpson only described the LED lights after she was “repeatedly questioned by the MassPort employee.” Simpson then “roamed briefly around the terminal,” Wark said. Margolis said this caused several Logan employees to flee the building.
"

It would seem to me the smart thing would have been to answer the questions, and not try the liberal defence of 'It's art"


Posted by: xantl at September 25, 2007 10:59 AM

Xantal, she did answer. "It's art" is an answer. What more did she need to say? Did she need to give a inventory of the materials used in it's manufacture? That would have done zippo to diffuse the situation. I don't see how else she could have answered the question, "What is that?"

She's not responsible for knowing everyone else's paranoias and adjusting to avoid them. None of us are.

Posted by: Mason at September 25, 2007 12:19 PM

Then neither is the Police responsible for having to stick a sub-machine gun in her face, when someone reports her as having a bomb then are they? -- see how that works?

Posted by: xantl at September 25, 2007 12:56 PM

Xanthal, Apples and oranges.

What I said was that she's not responsible for knowing what other people's unreasonable fears (paranoias) are. Everyone is still responsible for their actions. I doubt that anyone would deny that it's her fault for wearing that hoodie. The MSP's response wasn't an abstract irrational fear. It was a concrete action, with concrete results, in response to an actual situation. The situation, however, was caused by the desk clerk and MSP's paranoia.

The MSP would have been completely fine if they had had a reasonable suspicion of a bomb being on her person first. Where the MSP ran off the tracks was taking word of a braindead Logan desk clerk.* Did they observe her before fast roping in? How?

I still fail to see how that breadboard could possibly be mistaken for an IED. Go on Google image search. Look up "suicide vest", "illuminated clothing", and "LED art". You'll note that they look nothing alike. Like the mooninites, where's the space for the charge, the detonator? Why is it drawing attention to itself? In short, there's no reasonable way that's a bomb, even from 20 m. When reason and logic have been eliminated from the equation, all that remains is paranoia, and that's no basis on which one should act. Even though we're not responsible for knowing others paranoias', we must know and control our own. In this, the MSP failed. By charging her to CYA, they only compounded their error.

I note that you still have not answered how she should have answered the desk clerk when asked, "What's that?"

*These people are worthless - one couldn't tell me if the D branch track work was over, despite the fact that he had a computer with the MBTA website open right next to him. I hate BOS. I'd fly to MHT to avoid it but it's a trek to my in-law's from there. More PVD for me!

Posted by: Mason at September 25, 2007 2:31 PM

Mason:
I'll explain it again for your benefit. Once the first responders get the call that someone is acting in a threatening manner they don't dispatch people with the job to ask 'is that a real gun, could you point it at me so I can see the end of it?' or 'is that a plastic knife?' There whole job is to affect an arrest in the safest manner possible ensuring the safety of the officers, bystanders and the target.

The job of checking if a weapon is real or not, comes after the fact when the person is in custody.

Starr had no problem explaining to reporters that she was an M.I.T student, that had made a LED star just like her name for career day and she was only there to meet her boyfriend. Perhaps if she had said that to the desk clerk instead of ignoring them she would have never been arrested in the first place.

Posted by: xantl at September 25, 2007 5:58 PM

Sheez, you could at least get your facts straight. It wasn't a "phony bomb".



If THIS is what America is to become, then you betcha, higher learning can have all my tax dollars. Oh! for the sake of crop of writers who know how to think, tell the truth and competently judge human behavior.



It wasn't a prank, already. It was a near lethal moment of flakiness. She had been wearing her LED nametag sweatshirt for days. She didn't think to remove it before going into the airport. Dumb as poop, yes, but not an ounce of mischief or malice in it. Five minutes of research will straighten you all out on that one.



With such fine contributions to society as this blog, who needs crabbiness. Sheez.

Posted by: Bill Russ at September 25, 2007 6:17 PM

Xanthal, I'll explain it again for yours:  There was no acting in a heartening manner.  There was a breadboard and some LEDs on a sleep-deprived MIT student.  She probably hadn't even done laundry in a week.  There was a paranoid gate agent who who probably couldn't tell a bomb from an iPhone.  S/he alerted police to a non-existent threat.  The MSP then overreacted, and the prosecutor compounded that overreaction by pressing the "Boston-special" hoax charge.  Of all of these, I fault the prosecutor the most.  He has time to calmly look at the evidence and use prosecutorial discretion, yet failed to.  Odd, when you consider how the Suffolk County DA got their tails handed to them in the Mooninite case.



Secondly, you are absolutely kidding yourself if you don't think that those in charge of, and executing, airport security haven't ever told bystanders that what they have just seen is indeed not a threat.  It's actually quite amusing to watch.  In this case, they should have done exactly that.  It is their responsibility to see to it that travelers are safe and not inconvenienced.   This day, they accomplished neither.



I think that's an overly long and detailed explanation for a lowly airline or airport functionary.   Comparing a post-detainment-arrest-arraignment statement to an 0800 answer to a curious onlooker is, once again, apples to oranges (or should I say pineapples to coconuts).  In one case, you know you're in for it and you need to explain yourself.  In the other a person lacking malintent would assume that a brief, direct answer would most likely suffice.  But heck, so long as we're playing the "who's-to-say" game, who's to say that some AQer couldn't come up with the same cover story?  Hmmm?  How about that?  Scared yet?  They could be living next door to you...



Look, just so you understand where I'm coming from: I live and work five miles from the Capitol. My wife works three blocks away from the dome. When AQ comes for George, or Hill, or Rudi, she'll be instantly vaporized and our home will be destroyed. The only way I figure I'll survive is if I manage to survive the fall from the Woodrow Wilson Brige into the Potomac. Yet we get out of bed every single day and go to work with the dream of one day moving to a tropical place where we can raise goats. Sometimes, we even fly on planes. It doesn't matter what the threat level is, we go about our lives as if every day were 9/10/2001. You know why? Because it is. AQ and radical Islam had a stong dislike for us then, and nothing has changed. They got lucky once and managed to kick their way through unlocked doors onto the Flight Decks before anyone knew what the hell was happening. They might get lucky again, but the minute we stop doing the same damn thing we did before 9/11, the terrorists have won. Some people think that time has already come. I don't, but things like this just make me wonder.

Posted by: Anonymous at September 25, 2007 8:00 PM

Oh, God.... There was no acting in a threatening manner either. *Sigh* Proofread twice, post once, right?

Posted by: Mason at September 25, 2007 8:04 PM

Mason:
Once again, you're ignoring the fact that the first responders were given the information that she was behaving in a threatening manner and acted according to their training, they do not access the danger until the person is safely in custody.

Even M.I.T condemned what she did:
"MIT is cooperating with the state police in the investigation, according to a statement released by the MIT News Office this afternoon. “As reported to us by authorities, Ms. Simpson’s actions were reckless and understandably created alarm at the airport,” the statement continues.
“The statement was drafted in a consultation among colleagues who gathered to review the information we had on the incident,” MIT Chancellor Phillip L. Clay PhD ’75 said in an e-mail to The Tech. “We prepared a statement after we discussed what our responsibilities are to the public regarding the incident.”
Clay said that MIT had not spoken with Simpson before issuing the statement.
Clay said that MIT considers Simpson’s actions to be “reckless,” because taking the reported items to an airport could reasonably be foreseen to cause alarm. “We all have a responsibility not to cause alarm and to be mindful of security requirements.”

I'm not sure why others feel like they need to make excuses for her.


Posted by: xantl at September 25, 2007 8:21 PM

Oh. So beause the Institute feels the need to instantly cover it's ass, no one else should point out the steaming pile of bullshit when it's sitting on the tarmac? They put that presser out before anyone was even sure what exactly had happened. Don't forget, they just got burned by the Na in the Charles episode. MIT probably still had the PR flak on retainer and figured they'd get their money's worth out of him.

The MSP acted on bad info from an untrained source. This seems to have been the sole impetus for their action. The sole job of the MSP at BOS is airport security. Shouldn't their training involve the ablility to differentiate a harmless machine from an "infernal" one? Finally, stop perpetuating that she was acting in a threating manner. She asked a question, answered one, and then wandered around the airport waiting for an arriving passenger. If that's threatening behavior, my God, I must be on a watch list. The only material "threat" was the blinky on the sweatshirt.

You're right that they acted according to training, and that's the problem. Bombs can look like anything. Cellphones. Walkmen. Laptops. I can't positively identify a bomb. You probably can't positively identify a bomb, but I absolutely postively expect the cops in charge of airport security to be able to say "Yep. Bomb," or "Nope. Geek wearing illuminated clothing." Nevertheless, as court proceedings will surely soon bear out, no reasonable person could have looked at that device and think "bomb". This is the third time that this has happened this nine months in the City of Boston, and in that time, it has not happened once elsewhere (that has made the news). Hopefully, the police there will look at the failure of their charges to stick as a cause to rewrite their training. It is not too much to ask them to think a little before storming a traffic island. Otherwise, someone is bound to get hurt.

Posted by: Mason at September 25, 2007 9:34 PM

Is there a new law in Boston that makes it a crime to be mistaken for a terrorist? Or, a crime to have an object that some idiot mistakes for a bomb? If so then idiots will rule our lives.
eg:

Cops: Hey you! Stop! Hands up! That lady over there thinks your iPod is actually a bomb because the ear buds aren't standard Apple white.

Perp: Uh, I painted them red 'cause I like red. It's art.

Cops: Oh, then you are under arrest for possession of a hoax device.

Posted by: daheath at September 26, 2007 11:09 AM

no reasonable person could have looked at that device and think "bomb".
Simpson then “roamed briefly around the terminal,” Wark said. Margolis said this caused several Logan employees to flee the building.
Yet, more than one employee fled the building.

Shouldn't their training involve the ablility to differentiate a harmless machine from an "infernal" one?
No, actually there are trained experts that deal with explosives. They're called "EOD" and they were on the scene after she was arrested. I would prefer to use the right tool for the job.
“She followed instructions as was required by the State Police and within minutes [Explosive Ordinance Disposal] unit found that it was an innocuous device and we took her into custody,”
and yet today we get the news:
"Police shut down the checkpoint and adjoining concourse D from 5:10 to 6:20 a.m. A perimeter was set up and a bomb squad from the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department rendered the device safe.
The suspected bomb appears to be a simulated explosive device, the report stated. The device included a battery, wires, a switch, and a plastic bag containing a modeling-clay-like substance labeled as a semtex imitation.
"
All the components of a 'Star Simpson' hoody! In your world, it's marked as imitation explosive - so what an over reaction right?


Posted by: xantl at September 26, 2007 12:36 PM

"It wasn't a prank, already. It was a near lethal moment of flakiness. She had been wearing her LED nametag sweatshirt for days. She didn't think to remove it before going into the airport. Dumb as poop, yes,"

Dumb as poop, no. Speaking as somebody who actually has studied Electrical Engineering at the graduate level, I can tell you that just looking at the device in question is enough to render the suggestion that it might be a bomb wildly implausible. We are looking at a circuitboard, all components at the surface, no interior to speak of in which anything could be hidden, and there is no sign of anything resembling any sort of antenna. Ergo, what we're seeing can't be a remote control bomb, especially because there's no explosive charge on it. Silicon is not an explosive material, itself.

If, on the other hand, this was a bomb intended to be detonated manually - why oh why oh why would our shorthaired terrorist have used a blinky and power draining LED display, when a simple circuit breaker would have more than sufficed, drawn less attention and been more reliable?

"The device included a battery, wires, a switch, and a plastic bag containing a modeling-clay-like substance labeled as a semtex imitation."

That part of the story seems to change every ten minutes. First, it was a lump of the material in her hand - and Pare so described it that way, himself. Then we were told that the material was the foamlike paint used to decorate the shirt, which would tell one what some of it was doing on her hand - ever paint something before? One tends to get paint on one's hands. Then we heard that it was a playdoh rose she made for her boyfriend.

And now we have the lump of material, formerly in hand, now sitting in a bag, strangely enough not mentioned before. What blows my mind is not that the police would throw the bull, because I do live in the city that brought us the Jon Burges Torture case, or that they would trip over the details. What blew my mind was that so many people were willing to look the other way and not notice the discrepancy, and most of all, that the position that the facts were beside the point was something I was hearing from conservative commentators. That kind of postmodern silliness is something that one expects from the Left.

But then somebody raised an interesting factoid that I had heard once, but then mentally filed away and semi-forgot : Massachusetts elected a Republican governor in 2002 - how did that happen? At any rate, a good many republicans apparently remember that, but forget that Romney did not seek reelection, leaving us with the governorship back in democratic hands, I believe. (Deval Patrick, elected 2006, Clinton's assistant attorney general for civil rights). End result - we now have a small army of far right wingers clutching at straws to defend anything done in the most liberal state in the union, under the mistaken impression that they're defending a republican.

Liberal democrats are laughing their heads off about this one, I'm sure, and if so, this former republican has to shrug and accept that. Nobody has done this to my formerly fellow conservatives but they, themselves. As for Ms.Simpson's supposed "dumbness" - that's 20-29 hindsight. Expecting her or anybody else to anticipate the form somebody else's ignorance would take in advance is simply not reasonable, and given the fact that this 2007 and solid state electronics have been in wide circulation for decades now, a hysterical response to a circuit board isn't just irrational, it's freaking bizarre. It would be like watching somebody freaking out in 1965, because he had just seen a vacuum tube in a TV repair shop.

To those who spoke in support of the police, congratulations. In a few short days, you've validated every American bashing remark made in the European press for the last few years. Where Al Jazeera failed, you succeeded; we now look like a nation of would-be stormtroopers, which isn't going to help the credibility of our government as it tries to bring democracy to the Middle East. As for MIT's remark - gee, an adminstrative type doing something gutless. Imagine that.

Good job.

Posted by: Joseph Dunphy at September 26, 2007 10:09 PM

You know the most amusing thing about kneejerk liberals? their reading comprehension:
"Police shut down the checkpoint and adjoining concourse D from 5:10 to 6:20 a.m. A perimeter was set up and a bomb squad from the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department rendered the device safe." -- discussing yet another fake device which no one should ever have been alarmed about because it was marked "imitation semtex" /sarc

Posted by: xantl at September 27, 2007 12:59 AM

Protecting ourselves against Islamic fascism does not constitute a police state with storm troopers running amuck.

Look how detached from reality these comments are. Daheath asked;

“Is there a new law in Boston that makes it a crime to be mistaken for a terrorist?”

It’s obvious that this person doesn’t take terrorism seriously. Lets put things into perspective. Terrorism is a real problem. It isn’t manufactured by CIA operatives who blow up buildings like the twin towers, the pentagon and African embassies.

Scared civilians made an urgent call to the police so it wasn’t overzealous storm troopers that overreacted. Are you going to regulate the emotions of innocent people who are afraid of being victimized by mass murderers? These police officers were responding to the concerns of regular people like you and me. They were just doing their job. A report of a possible terrorist with a possible bomb was seen at the airport that half of the 9/11 bombers used for their attacks. These police officers had to be prepared for the worst.

You guys are quickly prepared to give the benefit of the doubt to anybody except for the law enforcement officials whose job is to save our lives and protect us from bloodthirsty murderers. They don’t have much time to act when a terrorist carries out a suicide bombing.

Posted by: Freedom Now at September 27, 2007 9:25 AM

Freedom Now -

The thing about "giving somebody the benefit of the doubt" is that there has to be some doubt to give. The moment that the pictures of the materiel in dispute were published and out for all to see, we ceased to be in the realm of guesswork and entered the realm of facts.

How interesting that you've taken the position that those don't matter.

Posted by: Joseph Dunphy at September 28, 2007 2:42 PM

Did those police officers have the luxury of knowing what they were up against when they got the call of a possible bomb strapped to a woman's chest? Were they able to do a google image search for "Star Simpson Bomb"?

If you engage in criticizing past events using only the information that was not available at the time then you are taking the facts out of context.

When responding the police had no idea whether or not they were up against a real bomber or not. They performed very professionally.

Simpson acted like a clueless moron.

Posted by: Freedom Now at September 28, 2007 6:51 PM

HOPEFUL IDEAS BEFORE 9-11
“of course, we can always get Lucky" and "providentially" get hit with a terrorist attack .. like "Pearl Harbor". ~ Michael Ledeen

"A renewed threat to American security would clearly do the trick." ~ James Lindsay

... "invent a security threat" and turn the job of running America over to the military. ~ Fallows

.... "some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor." ~ Perle, Wolfowitz, Kristol, etc.

"a sudden threat or challenge to the public's sense of domestic well-being" ~ Brzezinski
"a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat" ~ Brzezinski

"National sovereignty is no longer a viable concept." ~ Brzezinski

"cataclysmic crisis to impose on its people sacrifices" ~ Huntington

AFTER 9-11
We need a NEW 9-11: Bykowsky, Gibson, Prager, Gallagher, O'Reilly, ...

Why the hell are you COMPLAINING about 9-11? Your Neo-Con/Trilat heroes are love it. EMBRACE IT. Let's have one every week!!

You know, if Al-Qaeda didn't exist it's almost like we would have had to create it. Wait, we DID create it.

the “biblical checklist” was “support for the Afghan ‘freedom fighters.’ ~ Christian Coalition

THREE pro-Mujahideen (led by OBL) lobby groups housed in Heritage Foundation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TlNkbHhHfbw

We are radicals, working to overturn the present power structure of the country. ~ Paul Weyrich

Posted by: Gary at October 25, 2007 9:19 AM