Thursday, May 13, 2010

Terrorists a Few Miles from Harvard University? Now That Would Be a Problem

The Other McCain and DaTechGuy have been on top of this. 

From NECN:
BOSTON (AP) - A top Massachusetts law enforcement official says two men who have been taken into custody in connection with the failed Times Square car bomb are considered to have had a "direct connection" to the suspect, Faisal Shahzad.
The official says the men are believed to have provided money to Shahzad, but investigators are not sure whether they were witting accomplices or simply moving funds as is common between Middle Eastern and Central Asian nationals who live in the U.S. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because the investigation is ongoing.
The official says "these people might be completely innocent and now know what they were providing money for, but it's clear there's a connection.
At least one of the men lives at 39 Waverly Avenue in Watertown, Massachusetts, up river from Harvard University, which might ring some alarms in the White House and among the Obama elite that not every terrorist is an essentially harmless lone amateur nut job. Also, a stomach-churner for parents everywhere from The Other McCain:
12:52 p.m. ET: In his latest update via telephone from scene, Da Tech Guy reports that the 2-story boarding house at 39 Waverly Ave. is located two doors down and across the street from Watertown Middle School (68 Waverly Ave.). 
FBI agents were also on the scene at a gas station in Brookline, Massachusetts, and sites in New Jersey and Long Island, N.Y.

So far today, three men have been arrested in connection with the attempted Times Square bombing.

Update: Two of the men were picked up in Massachusetts and one in Maine. All three are from Pakistan.


  1. They might not have known what the money was for? Is that because they know Obama and Holder think all Muslims are 'lone wolves?' or maybe because Napolitano tends to refer to bombings as 'on offs?'

  2. Hiding large sums of cash under the radar.

    It used to be that the IRS didn't regard that as "innocent" behavior.