[b]New York ‘lone wolf’ was one hour away from finishing his bomb[/b]
She also praised the New York Police Department, saying, “I think they handled it well.”
Officials with the NYPD, which conducted the undercover investigation using a confidential informant and a bugged apartment, said the department had to move quickly because Pimentel was about to test a pipe bomb made out of match heads, nails and other ingredients bought at neighborhood hardware and discount stores.
Two law enforcement officials said Monday that the NYPD’s Intelligence Division had sought to get the FBI involved at least twice as the investigation unfolded. Both times, the FBI concluded that Pimentel lacked the mental capacity to act on his own, they said.
The FBI thought Pimentel “didn’t have the predisposition or the ability to do anything on his own,” one of the officials said.
The officials were not authorized to speak about the case and spoke on condition of anonymity. The FBI’s New York office and the U.S. attorney’s office in Manhattan both declined to comment on Monday.
Pimentel’s lawyer, Joseph Zablocki, said his client was never a true threat.
“If the goal here is to be stopping terror … I’m not sure that this is where we should be spending our resources,” he said.
Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly defended the handling of the case Monday, saying the NYPD kept federal authorities in the loop “all along” before circumstances forced investigators to take swift measures using state charges.
“No question in my mind that we had to take this case down,” Kelly said. “There was an imminent threat.”
Added Kelly: “This is a classic case of what we’ve been talking about �� the lone wolf, an individual, self-radicalized. This is the needle in the haystack problem we face as a country and as a city.”
Authorities described Pimentel as an unemployed U.S. citizen and “al-Qaida sympathizer” who was born in the Dominican Republic. He had lived most of his life in Manhattan, aside from about five years in the upstate city of Schenectady, where authorities say he had an arrested for credit card fraud.
His mother said he was raised Roman Catholic. But he converted to Islam in 2004 and went by the name Muhammad Yusuf, authorities said.
Using a tip from police in Albany, the NYPD had been watching Pimentel using a confidential informant for the past year. Investigators learned that he was energized and motivated to carry out his plan by the Sept. 30 killing of al-Qaida’s U.S.-born cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, police said.
Pimentel was under constant surveillance as he shopped for the pipe bombmaterials. He also was overheard talking about attacking police patrol cars and postal facilities, killing soldiers returning home from abroad andbombing a police station in Bayonne, N.J., authorizes said.
It's impossible for Japan to win in A&A Pacific
-
Way to stand up for yourself Doug, but I have to say that I think there is a serious flaw somewhere in your thinking.
By the way, a CAP can defend against air units if those units are attacking the sea zone the CAP is in. -
Doug, I thought the same as you when we first got the game. How many games have you played so far? I think that as time passes and Japan works out all the myriad moves of first turn, you will find that the allies can easily blow the game by one false move, whereas Japan can choose its battles. Japan was winning so steadily in our group that we took up bidding VP’s to see who got to be Japan. 25 to 30 victory points is not unheard of.
-
Hey Bossk (and everyone else),
Maybe the problem is my understanding of the CAP - I need your help to figure out if this is the case.
I don’t have the rules in front of me, but I remember the CAP section only stating that it prevents ships from moving through a sea space - a way of slowing down Allied ships.
How does a CAP work if it is in the same seas space as the ships I want to attack? Let me give you an example, tell me what you think.
Japan has three carrier and six planes at Midway to start the game. After the first move, these ships are located somewhere (where is unimportant). Under my plan, the Allies build a bunch of bombers, and using the airbase on Hawaii or some other island, can attack this fleet.
Now if I understand your take on the CAP rule, the Japanese can set up a CAP with a single fighter directly above its three carrier and remaining five fighters. Therefore, when I try to attack the carrier group with just bombers, they all get stopped by the single CAP fighter. The battle is obviously lopsided - 12 bombers against the single CAP fighter - but it costs the Allies a turn and prevents them from getting at the Japanese ships. Since the Japanese have a bunch of carriers and enough fighters, they can defend their fleet very effectively.
If that is the case, then I will have to agree with you that it would extremely difficult to sink the Japanese navy - and for that matter, for the Allies to win.
So how does it work? I’ve got 12 bombers attacking a Japanese fleet where they have a CAP in that sea zone.
The way I understand it is that the CAP in the same space as Japanese ships defends normally - that there is no layering type effect where I have to defeat the CAP before I can attack the ships (a sort of oceanic “amphibious” assualt where I have to attack in two steps - forcing me to split, and weaken, my total attack).
I’m pretty sure that aircraft can fly through a CAP when their aren’t ships, so why wouldn’t the same apply for when their are ships (therefore allowing me to fly through the CAP and attack the ships and planes - CAP units included - in a combined attack)?
So what are your thoughts on this CAP scenario? I think this might be the culprit.
-Doug
-
I just reread the CAP rule, and I think the CAP defends along with any units in the same sea zone.
-
Aircraft can fly through CAPs to attack another sea zone, but what I’m saying is that a CAP can defend in the sea zone your attacking. Therefor the Japanese can have much more defensive power than just their navy and whatever fighters can fit on their carriers.
-
See the problem with your Strategy is eventually Japan will get the 22 Vps. I go right for Japan, but the first turn I agree building all bombers is the best choice. Why? Because you need to take out the Japaneese fleet first then bring your own into the fray. Second turn I build Destroyers, Third Turn I build transports and Infantry. Fourth turn, the british have already started to capture ports on the way to Japan. Build Transports + Marines + Artillery for awhile, Turn 6 or 7 or so I take Japan.
-
Hey Everyone:
Thanks for the responses. I sent an email to Avalon Hill/Hasbro asking them to clarify if the game(s) had been designed to favor the Allies. Here is my question and their email response:
My Question for game designers Larry Harris, Stephen Baker, or Rob Daviau (names found on the bottom of the Pacific box):
Is Axis & Allies (Pacific) designed to be a fair game, or is the game lopsided in such a manner to ensure the Allies always win?
My dad and I (age 61 and 29, respectively) have enjoyed playing all of the A&A games over the last several years. We have analyzed the game(s) extensively and have not been able to find a scenario where the Axis has a realistic chance of winning.
Any input into ways to make the two sides more evenly matched would be greatly appreciated.
Sincerely,
-Doug
Question Reference #011228-000082
Suggested Answer
–-------------------------------------------------------------
At 01/04/2002 02:38 PM we wrote - Thank you for contacting us. The Axis and Allies board games are designed based on the wars that were fought in real life. These wars were won by the Allies and that is how the game is based. However, the Axis can win the game, it is just more difficult. We apologize for any confusion.From my end, this pretty much slams the door on the issue. If Hasbro/Avalon Hill admits that the game is designed to favor the Allies, that’s good enough for me. I sent this questions as part of the customer service section of the axisandallies.com webpage. Feel free to send your own question and pass along any contradictory responses you receive from Hasbro/Avalon Hill.
My suggestion to everyone on this web page: Before you go and make it harder for the Axis, Germany, or Japan to win in each of the respective games - take heed of Hasbros own opinion of the game and try to figure out what inefficiencies you have in your play for the Allies. I firmly believe - and the game creator appears to support - that a good player should not lose when playing the Allies. In the end I think you will find you need to make it easier for the Axis to win, not the other way around.
-Doug
-
does anyone really care about pacific.let’s face it it’s a bad game. iused to like it but now i can’t stand it.
-
Unless the good allied player is playing an exceptional axis player, Doug.
-
Pacific and Europe are cheap imitations of original A&A. Play that its better
-
I still say both AAE and AAP are slanted toward the axis****(accidently put allies in original post). In AAE, its a race, and Germany can have a big advantage in that race. In AAP, its whether Japan can hold off the Americans long enough to get the needed Vps.
“History is just a set of lies agreed upon”
- Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte
“Two roads diverged in a wood, and I, I took the one less traveled by. And that has made all the difference”
- Robert Frost
[ This Message was edited by: Yanny on 2002-02-13 11:43 ]
-
btownthug16, the original is not better than AAe or AAp it is more basic. it is dull, certainly if you have played it for years.
-
Where are all the conversations about AAP?
-
I would post some stratagies if I could ever find the time and people to play with; then perhaps I could actually make some up. I should have one ready by next week for your critical evaluation.
-
lol, tight AAP is fun, its like the peeps on this site dont enjoy it.
-
I don’t understand how anyone could not enjoy playing anything related to axis & allies.
-
AAP is not a bad game, just I prefer the longer games of Axis and Allies regular.
-
Winning with Japan is easy if you hold out for victory points avoid direct conflict with the US Navy (That is after you wipe out what you can after on the first turn) fighters defend at 4 instead of 3 and Carriers defend at 3 instead of 1 so pick your spots and force the US player to attack your units on the defense are stronger.
-
Not only that, Anonymous dude, but the CAPs add greatly to the defence of navys stationed around islands. Bonus!
-
I’ve only played AAP 4 times, all as Japan and I am 4-0 with 4 fairly easy victories, 3 from VPs and 1 from getting India via a brutal allied error. As stated earlier, hit the US then slowly give up ground. If Japan ensures that most of the airforce/navy can hit any advancing allied navy you can easily hold them off for long enough to get your VPs. Japan really only needs to build subs and the odd fighter perhaps a transport if most of them are tied up south maintaining VPs. I love it when my American foe looks to a forward sea zone then counts 8 fighters from the carrier to battle to land and 8 more fighters from land to battle to the carriers, toss in 4 destroyers… 20 times 3 is oh my 60 offense in fighters/Destroyers alone, 20 from 3 battlewagons and 2 bombers, 15 more offense from say carriers and subs gives 95 offense, 15 hits on round #1. Since land based US bombers are useless for US fleet defense and with my transports and battleships absorbing US hits the Japs do 15 more hits on round #2. For US bombers to be of use you must get them close to Japan. To do this you have to sail up against the combined Jap fleet and be tough enough to survive their first strike. Since the Japs really don’t need to build any more land units when going for VPs they can build all subs save a few fighters (not as cost effective as subs but are more mobile and can attack land).
It just takes too long to build a navy strong enough to withstand everything the Japs can toss at it and be strong enough to capture convoy routes fast (lots of subs left…).
Suggested Topics
