Feds: Man planned to blow up Ill. mall By MIKE ROBINSON, Associated Press Writer




A Muslim convert who talked about his desire to wage jihad against civilians was charged Friday in a plot to set off hand grenades at a shopping mall at the height of the Christmas rush, authorities said.

Investigators said Derrick Shareef, 22, an American citizen from Rockford, was acting alone and never actually obtained any grenades. He was arrested Wednesday when he met with an undercover agent in a parking lot to trade a set of stereo speakers for four hand grenades and a gun, authorities said.

"He fixed on a day of December 22nd on Friday ... because it was the Friday before Christmas and thought that would be the highest concentration of shoppers that he could kill and injure," said Robert Grant, the agent in charge of the Chicago FBI office.

Authorities said Shareef had been under investigation since September, when he told an acquaintance that "he wanted to commit acts of violent jihad against targets in the United States as well as commit other crimes."

The acquaintance immediately informed the FBI, officials said.

Federal officials said Shareef planned to set off four hand grenades in garbage cans at the CherryVale shopping mall in Rockford, about 90 miles northwest of Chicago.

Other potential targets that Shareef allegedly discussed included government facilities such as courthouses and city hall, authorities said.

An affidavit quoted him as saying: "I just want to smoke a judge."

Shareef was born in the United States and converted to Islam, officials said. They believe he might have learned about jihad through videos and Web sites.

"While these are very serious charges, at no time was the public in any imminent peril," U.S. Attorney Patrick J. Fitzgerald said in a statement.

Shareef appeared briefly before a judge Friday and was ordered held without bond. He was charged with one count of attempting to damage or destroy a building by fire or explosion and one count of attempting to use a weapon of mass destruction.

Defense attorney Michael B. Mann declined to comment on the charges.

Shareef and his acquaintance cased the mall on Nov. 30, discussing the layout and spots where they might set off several grenades simultaneously to create more pandemonium, according to an FBI affidavit.

A spokeswoman for the mall said officials were cooperating with the investigation but referred all other questions to the U.S. attorney's office.

The sad thing is that I think it’s obvious the motivation was ‘attention’, and even in failing, he seems to have achieved that.

Egad. Now a hand grenade is a weapon of mass destruction.

The sad thing is that I think it’s obvious the motivation was ‘attention’, and even in failing, he seems to have achieved that.We can find solace in the fact that if he goes to jail he'll be getting "attention" he never imagined.

We can find solace in the fact that if he goes to jail he'll be getting "attention" he never imagined.

At your local jail do they hand out the lyrics to "My Cellmate Thinks I'm Sexy" at booking, or with the first breakfast the new inmate attends?

Egad. Now a hand grenade is a weapon of mass destruction.

Obviously they are, if four of them can "blow up a mall." Must have been some primo grenades.

Obviously they are, if four of them can "blow up a mall." Must have been some primo grenades.

Not to mention that you'd need more than four of them just to hit all the Starbucks' in your typical mall.:thumbs:

The sad part is that sooner or later, one of these jihadist wannabes are going to succeed, dammit.

I'm wondering when some idiot is going to fill a couple of barrels with amonium nitrate and kerosene and either set it off in a garage parking lot or blow up a high rise apartment complex. Sooner or later, something like that is going to happen.

Obviously they are, if four of them can "blow up a mall." Must have been some primo grenades.

I think Iran or Syria makes them, dammit.

A hand grenade isn't a WMD, to be sure. Even 4 of them don't qualify for that designation, yet they certainly would put a major hurt on the folks nearby their detonation. Placement would be the key - they could wreck the food court for example, and potentially injure and kill a lot of people.

This is a general description of the current fragmenation grenade used by our military:
The body of the M-67 hand grenade is a 2.5-inch diameter steel sphere designed to burst into numerous fragments when detonated. It produces casualties within an effective range of 49.5 feet (15 meters) by the high velocity projection of fragments. The grenade body contains 6.5 ounces of high explosive. Each grenade is fitted with a fuse that activates the explosive charge. (GRENADES AND PYROTECHNIC SIGNALS Field Manual FM 23-30 Department of the Army, 27 December 1988)

No doubt grenades in a mall would be very ugly, but "weapons of mass destruction" as a descriptor is fear-mongering of the worst sort.

""Blow up our malls"" -------

....is that hilarious or what??

You're laughable, gmsisko.

It was one not-too-bright 22 year old, who never got hold of a firecracker, much less a grenade, who even if he HAD gotten hold of four grenades, could not have "blown up" a single mall, much less malls.

You seem to have overlooked the part of the article saying ; ""at no time was the public in any imminent peril"" ...

...the American public is FAR more threatened by and endangered by things like falling off of ladders and drowning in bathtubs than silly incidents like this.

...the American public is FAR more threatened by and endangered by things like falling off of ladders ....But in this case, as in the numerous cases of myspace borne threats, if they're ignored and the individual does so much as kills a local puppy, local police will be blamed big time, and you'd lead the charge.

Egad. Now a hand grenade is a weapon of mass destruction.See? They did find WMD's in Iraq!

Evolution should eventually weed out the dumbshits who want to kill themselves, but we can always speed along the process

See? They did find WMD's in Iraq!

I'm just waiting for Decka to cheer, "Bush was right!!! See, see! There WERE weapons of mass destruction in Iraq!"

The sad part is that sooner or later, one of these jihadist wannabes are going to succeed, dammit.

I'm wondering when some idiot is going to fill a couple of barrels with amonium nitrate and kerosene and either set it off in a garage parking lot or blow up a high rise apartment complex. Sooner or later, something like that is going to happen.


Yeah, a couple of crazies might fill a Ryder truck with fertilizer and fuel oil and blow up a federal building in Oklahoma. Oh wait, that already happened, and it was terrible.
You can't have a world that is perfectly safe and still have freedom. Of the two, I prefer freedom; but I understand the risk. There will be those who abuse the freedom they have, and they should lose their freedom. The rest of us should get to keep our freedom.

But in this case, as in the numerous cases of myspace borne threats, if they're ignored and the individual does so much as kills a local puppy, local police will be blamed big time, and you'd lead the charge.

You're wrong on two counts.

a) I made no comment or insinuation whatsoever as to whether or not the police should have *ignored* this person or this incident. I simply pointed out the goofiness of naming the thread -- ""Blow up our malls"".

(you know, for a person who has (""If you have to exaggerate my point to make me wrong, you've already given up"") in their sig line, you certainly are prone to exaggeration {not to mention outright fabrication} yourself.......:rolleyes: )

b) Given the virtual impossibility of stopping one lone fanatic intent on injecting mayhem into a public space, I would not be "leading the charge" against the local police having failed to stop any supposed "plot", ----- EXCEPT in a case where (as was true in the World Trade Center attacks of 9/11) certain people in the highest eschelons of power were later discovered to have ordered the authorites and officers in the various investigative services to NOT do their duty and to not follow up on leads, thus purposely allowing the attacks to take place as planned.

See? They did find WMD's in Iraq!
Yeah, weapons of minuscule destruction.

Quit talking about my penis that way!

I can’t personally say that I’ve held a grenade, pulled the pin, and tossed one. However, I can say that I’ve spoken to a number of people that have done so in training and in actual combat. Remarks of WMD’s, specifications, embellishments, and trivializations aside, it would be a very serious situation if a single grenade went of in a crowded mall. Turning it into political aspirations would be just one of the crimes. Not addressing the core issues, would be another.

I'm just waiting for Decka to cheer, "Bush was right!!! See, see! There WERE weapons of mass destruction in Iraq!"

Geez... see how perception can change reality? Just because I don't bite into every Bush conspiracy theory, now somehow i'm his biggest backer? At least Windy thinks so...

I would have no reason to cheer about anything...

But if there were TRULY wmd's in Iraq is something we will never know for sure... so i'm not about to say one side is right and one is wrong... that would be retarded.

Yeah, a couple of crazies might fill a Ryder truck with fertilizer and fuel oil and blow up a federal building in Oklahoma. Oh wait, that already happened, and it was terrible.
You can't have a world that is perfectly safe and still have freedom. Of the two, I prefer freedom; but I understand the risk. There will be those who abuse the freedom they have, and they should lose their freedom. The rest of us should get to keep our freedom.


Gee imagineer, I'll remind you of your little quote here should you ever try to advocate the banning of guns, dammit.

While we're on the subject, you could complain about the various closed circuit TV cams that have started to creep up in busy urban centers.

But I have a sneaking suspicion that you're alluding, implying, infering (one of those words HAS to be right) about Bush's "domestic spying" program. IF our troops or the FBI or some other government agency gets a hold of known terrorist phone numbers and IF people here in the U.S. are calling those numbers or vice versa, THEN it is the responsibility and duty of the U.S. to try and find out who it is they're calling here in the U.S. and what they happen to be talking about, as I doubt they're talking sports or calling out for pizza, dammit.

But I have a sneaking suspicion that you're alluding, implying, infering (one of those words HAS to be right) about Bush's "domestic spying" program. IF our troops or the FBI or some other government agency gets a hold of known terrorist phone numbers and IF people here in the U.S. are calling those numbers or vice versa, THEN it is the responsibility and duty of the U.S. to try and find out who it is they're calling here in the U.S. and what they happen to be talking about, as I doubt they're talking sports or calling out for pizza, dammit.Why do you and the President persist in making this obscenely disingenuous argument?

No one is suggesting that the phone calls of terrorists should not be tapped. What the opponents of the program are demanding is that our Constitution be taken seriously by this administration and that a warrant be obtained when a citizen's phone is being tapped. So give it up already with this they don't want to wiretap the terrorists crap. That is nothing less than an outright lie.

Why do you and the President persist in making this obscenely disingenuous argument?

There's nothing disinenuous about my point of view. Bill Clinton's Justice Department argued it rather brilliantly for me, dammit.

No one is suggesting that the phone calls of terrorists should not be tapped. What the opponents of the program are demanding is that our Constitution be taken seriously by this administration and that a warrant be obtained when a citizen's phone is being tapped. So give it up already with this they don't want to wiretap the terrorists crap. That is nothing less than an outright lie.

Constitutionally, a President, when dealing with matters of National Security can NOT be restrained by the Legislature. No matter how many laws our Congress passes to the contrary, dammit. THAT precedent has been set in stone going back to the Lincoln Administration, dammit.

Gee imagineer, I'll remind you of your little quote here should you ever try to advocate the banning of guns, dammit.

While we're on the subject, you could complain about the various closed circuit TV cams that have started to creep up in busy urban centers.

But I have a sneaking suspicion that you're alluding, implying, infering (one of those words HAS to be right) about Bush's "domestic spying" program. IF our troops or the FBI or some other government agency gets a hold of known terrorist phone numbers and IF people here in the U.S. are calling those numbers or vice versa, THEN it is the responsibility and duty of the U.S. to try and find out who it is they're calling here in the U.S. and what they happen to be talking about, as I doubt they're talking sports or calling out for pizza, dammit.

I would find that reminder perfectly acceptable, since I have never advocated any such thing. I believe that citizens of the United States have the right to own guns, and that the right to do so is written into the Constitution for a damned good reason. It gives them the ability to resist a government that would seek to abridge the rest of the rights written into that document.
Among those other rights is the right to be free from unreasonable searches and siezures. No persons property should be searched, nor their private phone calls listened to without the government obtaining a warrant. If the administration does not like the Constitution, then they should seek to ammend it. If they do, I will oppose that action. I am sure many others would join me in that opposition.
What has actually happened, is that the government has decided the Constitution is inconvenient, and so they will ignore it. Our freedoms can not survive if that is not changed. I am working peacefully to make that change happen, but I am reminded of a couple of quotes.

"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice." Barry Goldwater

"Give me liberty, or give me death." Patrick Henry

Constitutionally, a President, when dealing with matters of National Security can NOT be restrained by the Legislature. No matter how many laws our Congress passes to the contrary, dammit. THAT precedent has been set in stone going back to the Lincoln Administration, dammit.

So I take it that you'd support Mr. Bush if he decided to ban guns for "national security" reasons.

The newspaper may have been guilty of hyperbole but it depends on what you see as mass killing. People who use a gun to kill a half dozen people are described as mass murderers so I guess someone who killed thirty, forty, or more with four hand grenades could be seen as being guilty of mass killing.

Quit talking about my penis that way!
The truth hurts, doesn't it?

The newspaper may have been guilty of hyperbole but it depends on what you see as mass killing. People who use a gun to kill a half dozen people are described as mass murderers so I guess someone who killed thirty, forty, or more with four hand grenades could be seen as being guilty of mass killing.
I see it the exact same way. Actually, I was kind of put off by people here focusing on the hyperbole and not the intent. As a matter of fact, I couldn't believe my eyes....

The truth hurts, doesn't it?

Only when the tweezers slip.

Only when the tweezers slip.
:)

Okay, but the real pain (I mean, the mother of all pain) is when that weapon of miniscule destruction is activated and used to plant the seed of yet ANOTHER Napsterbater in the womb of some pot-smoking Starbucks patron. On THAT day, we'll ALL be made painfully aware of what a real WMD is capable of....

Whatever that little shitter does, it'll be great.

There's nothing disinenuous about my point of view.That may be so. But it's terribly disingenuous for you and the President to go around saying "the other side doesn't want to listen to the turrrist's phone calls." You shouldn't have to tell a lie to argue your point, should you? Well, in your case, maybe you do.

You (Darth) shouldn't have to tell a lie to argue your point, should you? Well, in your case, maybe you do.

ROTFLOL.

Now THAT was as witty as it was insightful.

I vote for it as bon mot of the year, so far.