Must read: Did the New York Times compromise a terror investigation?
posted at 10:47 am on October 15, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
Quite possibly, says Rusty Shackleford, and if anyone would know, he would. He’s been writing for months about his Internet jousts with a degenerate who calls himself “Inshallahshaheed” but I hadn’t paid it much attention until this morning, when Inshallahshaheed went front page at the New York Times. That plus the fact that Russ is famous for his counter-cyberjihadi activities should be all the background you need to follow the link and read his post. Do it now because this story could get very big in one of two ways: either the Times did blow an investigation, in which case it’ll make that story from last week about the SITE leak pale by comparison, or Inshallahshaheed’s a strong candidate to turn up in the mix of a terror plot someday. Either way, build your knowledge base early.
Here’s a video interview they did with him. The Times insists “there is nothing to suggest that Mr. Khan is operating in concert with militant leaders, or breaking any laws,” but if Rusty’s right then this turd is, or should be, looking at a treason charge. Click the image to watch.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
That should read…’another terror investigation.’
James on October 15, 2007 at 10:54 AM
The NY Times. Near the top of the enemies within list.
Ordinary1 on October 15, 2007 at 11:08 AM
No surprise if they did. They are traitors. This is what as known as the enemy working from within.
katieanne on October 15, 2007 at 11:10 AM
Maybe now the Slimes will finally be prosecuted for treason……well I guy can hope cant he?
doriangrey on October 15, 2007 at 11:14 AM
Do you hear the rhetoric this guy uses? ONE successful attack and they are ‘winning’. He doesn’t even mention the successful attacks American soldiers have against these jihadis. I wish our media would be like that and only show the successful attacks and claim that we are winning rather than show the handful of enemy successes as ‘proof’ we are losing.
There are many people in America who hope America loses. It is a shame.
ThackerAgency on October 15, 2007 at 11:25 AM
Instead of asking the Times to not run a story investigators should beg them to run the same story saying it would help catch, stop, etc terrorists. They can then be assured it would not run.
KelliD on October 15, 2007 at 11:28 AM
My guess is the NYT saw the problem not through the paradigm of getting the bad guy… but of getting the scoop in front of a competitor.
They don’t care about the security of this country… just about their “ratings”.
Romeo13 on October 15, 2007 at 11:30 AM
Yeah. See the Pelosi thread. Our own politicians are working against us from positions of power and are being supported by MSM. The enemies within are getting our soldiers killed and put all of us at risk. Thank God for HotAir and other outlets that tell the truth and stand for America.
Ordinary1 on October 15, 2007 at 11:34 AM
Nothing to worry about here; check out these NYT highlights:
Mr. Kahn is “a young jihad enthusiast who… wrestles with his worried parents about his religious fervor.
“…there is nothing to suggest that Mr. Khan is operating in concert with militant leaders, or breaking any laws.” He only associates with IONA, “a fundamentalist but nonviolent group” and has “also befriended members of the Islamic Thinkers Society, a tiny group that promotes radical, nonviolent Islam.”
See, he’s just overly enthusiastic.
If you must worry, fear the anti-free-speech “vigilante groups opposed to jihadi sites” and “citizen watchdogs who are working to knock sites likes his off the Internet.” Bad vigilantes!
saint kansas on October 15, 2007 at 11:40 AM
No, not even close. Every since Bush was elected the management at the Slimes hasn’t given a rats a$$ about their rating or making money. Thats why they have loss some 60 percent of their subscriptions base since Bush’s election.
All they are about any more is trashing republicans bashing the Bush administration and getting democrats elected. The management has made the deliberate decision to sacrifice what ever it take to ensure that another republican does not get elected to POTUS.
doriangrey on October 15, 2007 at 11:42 AM
The reporters at the NY Times are not nearly as biased as the reporters from the Boston Globe, Washington Post and LA Times. Those newspapers are insufferable. Granted the Times lineup of columnists Maureen Dowd, Nicholas Kristo and Thomas Friedman speak in one voice. Their columns should be under one byline: FreidmanKristofDowd. In addition to being mindless repetitive, their column is always boring and written in 5th grade schoolyard insult style.
But, and I know I am going to get people angry, I do think that many of the reporters at the Times try to be fair. Let’s recall that back in 1991 and 1992, it was the NY Times that broke the story about Hillary Clinton and the cattle futures scandal and the Times did lead the pack in reporting about the Whitewater scandal.
Larraby on October 15, 2007 at 11:44 AM
I despise the Times as much as anyone… but:
In Moss’s defense, he seems to have asked the FBI if there was an investigation into Khan, and they declined to comment.
Maybe I missed something since I haven’t read all the links at Jawa… but if it’s just Rusty’s word that there is some sort of official investigation (not that I don’t believe him), and the FBI declined to comment, why shouldn’t Moss have run with this story?
krakatoa on October 15, 2007 at 11:45 AM
Why do liberals have such annoying voices? This guy Moss on the NYT video has a voice every bit as grating as the announcers on NPR, which I call “The Network of Annoying Voices.”
rivlax on October 15, 2007 at 11:57 AM
[krakatoa on October 15, 2007 at 11:45 AM]
THe NYT is going to do what they want to do and the FBI telling them there is an investigation just means the story will have a sentence saying so. It might even prod the NYT to edit the story to be more sympathetic to this guy.
As for the “… why shouldn’t Moss have run with this story?”, why didn’t the NYT do a lot more investigation and maybe come up with an ironclad report that would, if Rusty’s points about this guy is accurate, put him in jail for treason? Would they do the same if he was an embezzling industry executive or a bank robber or a kidnapper? If not, then why the human interest story for this guy that might just as well be in the “Living” section of a newspaper?
Like I tell the NYT’s subscription marketers when I tell them “No!” the third time: “You don’t understand. I want the NYT’s to go out of business.”
Dusty on October 15, 2007 at 12:24 PM
I just watched the video, curious as to why they’d black out his face if they’ve already revealed his name and hometown.
Turns out: He asked them to, fearing for the safety of his family.
Of course, fear for the safety of our troops in a war zone is no reason not to reveal every secret plan of the Bush administration they can find.
saint kansas on October 15, 2007 at 12:48 PM
You are aware that the FBI never comments on on going investigations right? When there is no investigation the FBI says, hey were not investigating.
doriangrey on October 15, 2007 at 12:54 PM
Rivlax-
It’s so we don’t confuse their voices with those who need to have pleasant voices in order to encourage listeners to suppost their sponsors and therefore earn some filthy lucre.
Thus, annoying, arrogant, sycophantic voices drip honey when interviewing their ilk, and drip venom when interviewing others. I used to support public radio, mainly for the classical music broadcasting, and some fun shows from BBC radio, but no more. (Except with tax dollars unavoidably allocated to NPR, PBS, NEA, etc.)
By the way, the female radio voices are just as grating.
Qzsusy on October 15, 2007 at 12:56 PM
wait he has no problem with our men and women being blown up but he hides his face out of fear of what might happen to him here at home.
Mojack420 on October 15, 2007 at 1:28 PM
Bet his Mamma is sooo proud.
Bicyea on October 15, 2007 at 2:34 PM
We need to put a stop to this, one way or another! I’m talking about the war against our Country from within. By PC, the left or whomever it may be. This sh!t has got to stop. Our Military is paying the price now, the left don’t and won’t care until it hits their own doorstep!
abinitioadinfinitum on October 15, 2007 at 2:53 PM
“Pinch” Sulzberger. Rope. Lamppost.
Some assembly required.
georgej on October 15, 2007 at 3:01 PM
Our enemy KNOWS the camera (print included)and what is made by it is a weapon of war. Why do our own intelligence or laws or what ever, not go after wrong usage of this weapon? I hope this leak will change that.
abinitioadinfinitum on October 15, 2007 at 3:06 PM
Rusty Shackleford says:
But in the story of the N.J. AQ operatives, the F.B.I. says:
What has to be said in this “communication” to cross the line, I wonder?
Buy Danish on October 15, 2007 at 3:24 PM
Why does the New York Times keep getting away with this? It’s treason!
SoulGlo on October 15, 2007 at 6:36 PM
Something needs to be done about this guy. Where the hell do his parents put up with that crap? If my son was a wackjob/fundie/terrorist sympathizer, he’d go on being a wackjob/fundie/terrorist sympathizer under his own roof with his own money…
BadBrad on October 16, 2007 at 6:55 AM
Comment pages: