COLUMBUS, Ohio  A Columbus resident was one of at least a dozen Somali-Americans who was accused of supporting an Al-Qaeda-linked group in Somalia, 10TV News reported on Thursday.According to an unsealed indictment obtained by 10TV News, the person, whose identity has not been made public, helped funnel funds to the group al-Shabab, which has been designated as a foreign terrorist organization by the U.S. government.
The federal indictment said that a Columbus resident helped a Minnesota woman raise money for the terrorist group, 10TV's Paul Aker reported.
The individual in Columbus was directed to "always collect (money) under the name of the poor," so that those funds could be sent to Somalia.
U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said that 14 people were charged with providing support for al-Shabab.
Columbus Underground Messageboard » General Columbus Discussion » Politics
Columbus Resident Accused Of Supporting Al-Qaeda-Linked Group
[22 posts] [10 contributors]





Rate this topic:
-
Posted 1 year ago #
-
check out that wbns comment section..... ah never mind they removed it.
Posted 1 year ago # -
If it's true, they should deport the shit out of this person.
Posted 1 year ago # -
It's interesting that so many of those indicted, from what I can suss out, seem to be women. It makes me wonder how much they'd know about where the money from the fundraising they were doing was actually going, and how much of a choice they had in doing that fundraising.
Also. I briefly dipped into the Dispatch comments and MY EYES.
Posted 1 year ago # -
It took her over two years and all she could send was $8,600?
This doesn't appear to be a cell of devious master planner.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Twixlen wrote >>
It's interesting that so many of those indicted, from what I can suss out, seem to be women. It makes me wonder how much they'd know about where the money from the fundraising they were doing was actually going, and how much of a choice they had in doing that fundraising.
Also. I briefly dipped into the Dispatch comments and MY EYES.That the indicted are women means they can only be dupes?
Posted 1 year ago # -
rus wrote >>
Twixlen wrote >>
It's interesting that so many of those indicted, from what I can suss out, seem to be women. It makes me wonder how much they'd know about where the money from the fundraising they were doing was actually going, and how much of a choice they had in doing that fundraising.
Also. I briefly dipped into the Dispatch comments and MY EYES.That the indicted are women means they can only be dupes?
I'm saying that if the women are fully veiled (which the pictures have shown), they are practicing some pretty conservative Islam - where women are, at best, second class citizens. They submit to their men, or... well, else.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Twixlen wrote >>
rus wrote >>
Twixlen wrote >>
It's interesting that so many of those indicted, from what I can suss out, seem to be women. It makes me wonder how much they'd know about where the money from the fundraising they were doing was actually going, and how much of a choice they had in doing that fundraising.
Also. I briefly dipped into the Dispatch comments and MY EYES.That the indicted are women means they can only be dupes?
I'm saying that if the women are fully veiled (which the pictures have shown), they are practicing some pretty conservative Islam - where women are, at best, second class citizens. They submit to their men, or... well, else.
Point... but if they're practicing conservative Islam they could also be supportive of Islamic terrorism all on their own.
Posted 1 year ago # -
rus wrote >>
Twixlen wrote >>
rus wrote >>
Twixlen wrote >>
It's interesting that so many of those indicted, from what I can suss out, seem to be women. It makes me wonder how much they'd know about where the money from the fundraising they were doing was actually going, and how much of a choice they had in doing that fundraising.
Also. I briefly dipped into the Dispatch comments and MY EYES.That the indicted are women means they can only be dupes?
I'm saying that if the women are fully veiled (which the pictures have shown), they are practicing some pretty conservative Islam - where women are, at best, second class citizens. They submit to their men, or... well, else.
Point... but if they're practicing conservative Islam they could also be supportive of Islamic terrorism all on their own.
It's true. But simply being a conservative Islamic person does not a terrorist make. Much like not all conservative Christians are abortion clinic bombers.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Twixlen wrote >>
rus wrote >>
Twixlen wrote >>
rus wrote >>
Twixlen wrote >>
It's interesting that so many of those indicted, from what I can suss out, seem to be women. It makes me wonder how much they'd know about where the money from the fundraising they were doing was actually going, and how much of a choice they had in doing that fundraising.
Also. I briefly dipped into the Dispatch comments and MY EYES.That the indicted are women means they can only be dupes?
I'm saying that if the women are fully veiled (which the pictures have shown), they are practicing some pretty conservative Islam - where women are, at best, second class citizens. They submit to their men, or... well, else.
Point... but if they're practicing conservative Islam they could also be supportive of Islamic terrorism all on their own.
It's true. But simply being a conservative Islamic person does not a terrorist make. Much like not all conservative Christians are abortion clinic bombers.
True, but of the abortion clinic bombers how many are conservative Christians? Similarly, how many Islamic terrorists are fundamentalist Muslims?
Point is: I don't think being a woman is an excuse for supporting a terrorist organization. Certainly, a fundamentalist Muslim could support such a group based on religious ideology. Doesn't mean all fundamentalist Muslims support terrorists, just like not all Christians blow up abortion clinics, but it's apparently a factor.
Posted 1 year ago # -
^ All I am saying is that women are generally given fewer choices in those cultures - something it can be extremely hard for us (even well-traveled us) to understand.
We could go on about this for a while, I think. There's a bit of chicken and egg mixed in there.
Posted 1 year ago # -
The article says "accused of" not "convicted of".
Posted 1 year ago # -
Twixlen wrote >>
^ All I am saying is that women are generally given fewer choices in those cultures - something it can be extremely hard for us (even well-traveled us) to understand.Of course that's true. One of the reasons to despise islam. The main one, of course, is they don't eat bacon. ;-)
But because that's true, that does not mean a fundamentalist muslim woman could not support an islamic terrorist group all on her own.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Twixlen wrote >>
JonMyers wrote >>
The article says "accused of" not "convicted of".The article in the Dispatch said that the Columbus person wasn't even necessarily living in Columbus currently? It was confusing. And also hadn't even been indicted.
An indictment in Minnesota says that someone from Columbus is an unindicted conspirator who helped one of those charged - Amina Farah Ali, 33, who court documents say is a Somali national who became a U.S. citizen in August 2004 and lived in Minnesota.
The person from Columbus is called "unindicted conspirator 7," or "UC7," in the court documents. He or she was "a resident of Columbus, Ohio, who assisted Ali in collecting money and forwarding it to al-Shabab." It isn't clear whether that person remains here.
Being an unindicted conspirator "simply means that the government believes the person was involved with the conspiracy but at this time has not been charged," said Jeanne Cooney, a spokeswoman for the U.S. attorney's office in Minnesota. The term does not indicate whether the person will be charged.
The documents say that on Jan. 12, 2009, Ali directed "UC7" to "always collect under the name of the poor" so the money could be sent to terrorist fighters in Somalia.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Got it.
Posted 1 year ago # -
If I understand the process (and I'm not sure I do) an unindicted co-conspirator is often someone from whom the police/legal system is either trying to get more information or about whom they do not have enough evidence to present for an indictment.
ETA: see above as I type slowly.
Posted 1 year ago #
You must log in to post.



Launched in August 2010, TheMetropreneur.com is a local online resource devoted to small business development and entrepreneurship. Its aim is to tell the stories of Central Ohio's business community, foster regional economic development and assist entrepreneurs with its resource-heavy focus.