Afghan man accused of planning an Election Day attack in the U.S. pleads guilty
Nasir Ahmad Tawhedi, 27, pleaded guilty to two offenses: conspiring and providing support to the Islamic State group, and attempting to receive firearms to commit a federal crime of terrorism. The Islamic State is designated by the U.S. as a foreign terrorist organization.
Tawhedi faces up to 35 years in prison.
'The defendant admits he planned and obtained firearms to carry out a violent terror attack on Election Day in 2024, a plot that was detected and disrupted through the good work of the FBI and our partners,' FBI Director Kash Patel said in a statement.
A phone message was left seeking comment from Craig Hoehns, an attorney for Tawhedi.
Tawhedi was living in Oklahoma City last year when he acquired two AK-47-style rifles and 500 rounds of ammunition to target large crowds, according to court documents. Authorities said he had conspired with multiple people, including his brother-in-law, Abdullah Haji Zada, for several months to plot out the attack.
Zada, who was 17 at the time, was charged as an adult and pleaded guilty in April. He faces up to 15 years in prison.
Tawhedi arrived in the U.S. in September 2021 on a special immigration visa shortly after the capital city of Afghanistan, Kabul, was captured by the Taliban. At the time of his arrest on Oct. 7, Tawhedi was on parole while his immigration status was pending, according to the Justice Department. His parole status has since been revoked.
FBI agents had testified earlier that Tawhedi, who worked as a rideshare driver and at auto shops, was under surveillance for more than a month before his arrest.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mirror
2 hours ago
- Daily Mirror
These British Donald Trump fans reckon they've sussed his secret plan for the Epstein files
"I can see what's happening," said Tom English, who travelled from Blackburn to see Trump in the flesh - before explaining the sneaky game he thinks the US President has been playing Donald Trump probably hoped he'd get away from the raging scandal about Jeffrey Epstein when he came to Scotland for the weekend. He certainly seems like he'd rather not talk about it, and tries to divert the conversation to literally any other topic every time it comes up. But questions about his relationship with America's most notorious paedophile, and over why - if, as he says, he isn't in them - he's so reluctant to release the FBI files relating to him, continue to dog his presidency. It's created the biggest backlash from the MAGA movement since he first ran for office - with even the President calling people who question him over it "cowards" and "former supporters". So when we spoke to a small group of British Trump fans today near his golf course in Turnberry, we asked them whether the whole thing bothered them. "I can see what's happening," said Tom English, who travelled from Blackburn to see Trump in the flesh. He said he was not bothered by the scandal - here's why. "If you follow Trump from day one, and you know how he works, and you've read his book, The Art of the Deal, and you know he's studied the art of war, then you can see the tactics he's using." Asked what the tactics he's using are, Tom said: "The Dems don't want it releasing. You've got judges and people in congress who don't want the Epstein files releasing for years on end now. "So he says, it's all fake. It's fake news. The Democrats are making it up. "All of a sudden it's the Republicans that are blocking it and the Democrats are voting for it to be released." Still with us? Good. He went on: "Now what will happen is he'll order the MAGA lot to reverse the vote, and they'll be Trump won't be in there. "But his adversaries will. That's my prediction." So, to recap, the whole of the last few weeks, where Trump has been pulling out all the stops to divert attention away from discussions about the Epstein files, has been a massive red herring. It's a sneaky ruse to trick the Democrats into releasing the files - because it's only them who will actually be damaged by them. This seems like a high risk strategy to us, especially considering the weight of evidence and reporting that contradicts every element of it.
Telegraph
3 hours ago
- Telegraph
Two-tier policing is the nail in the coffin for Britain's social contract
Has a British Government ever appeared so terrified of its own people? More to the point, can you think of one that deserved it more? The social contract has been shredded. You go to work and pay your taxes for a state that seems to be crumbling into disrepair. In exchange, the Government takes your money, and uses it to fund an alleged secret scheme to fly in Taliban fighters to live on your street. But don't worry – we've got a new 'elite police squad' to prevent trouble. That police unit won't be patrolling your neighbourhood to keep you safe from harm. Rather, it will be tasked with scouring social media for protest pre-crime, monitoring your opinions for anti-migrant sentiment. The police might not have enough resources to deal with shoplifting. They might not have solved a single theft or burglary, or recover a stolen bike, across a third of England. But we are to believe they have resources for what really counts: scrutinising your views for wrongthink. The current state of affairs is so absurd that simply writing it down feels almost subversive. But each element is true: we do appear to have flown unvetted Taliban members into Britain. The Government really will be watching your posts for signs of dissent. This isn't some accident, some Civil Service blunder. It's by design. It truly appears that Labour's strategy is to impose ever more restrictions on the freedoms of the law-abiding, in the hope that eventually people will acquiesce with a resigned shrug. The problem is that it isn't working. The population is fed up with being punished for doing the right thing. The hectoring about slavery, imperialism, war and all the other iniquities of history used to justify sacrificing our comforts and liberties on the altar of mass migration is no longer having the desired effect. British citizens living today did not build the empire. They didn't enslave anyone. Why should they foot the bill for housing illegal migrants up in four star hotels in central London? Why should they put up with them working in the shadow economy? Unfortunately for the Government, the previously silent majority is beginning to vocally express its frustration. MPs and ministers are fearful that the country is becoming a 'tinderbox'. But even this isn't enough to convince them that we must change course. Why? Perhaps because doing so would be an admission of past failures. For decades we were told that mass migration was an unalloyed good while critics were denounced as bigots. To concede, after all this time, that it has not come without costs – at times intolerable costs – would be catastrophically damaging to the political class. The pro-migration fanatics, who promised to control numbers while throwing open our borders, who overrode objections to impose their policies despite what they were repeatedly being told at the ballot box, would be discredited. So instead, the state appears to be passing through the stages of grief. At first there was denial that people were worried about migration at all; Brexit had allowed us to be liberals. Then there was anger after Southport, with Starmer's denunciation of the 'thugs' taking to the streets. Now we seem to have reached bargaining: if we can stop people talking about it, perhaps they'll stop caring? It was a strategy that might have worked prior to the social media era, and in particular prior to Elon Musk's buyout of Twitter. Now, even the censorship of protest videos, arrest of people for incendiary content, and threat of mass scanning of output isn't sufficient to quell dissent. And though many of the protests now cropping up across Britain are peaceful, shows of police force are not enough to deter outside agitators from hijacking them. Tiff Lynch, the head of the Police Federation, which represents rank-and-file officers, last week warned that officers were being 'pulled in every direction' and commanders were 'forced to choose between keeping the peace at home or plugging national gaps'. Where do we go from here? As the costs of legal migration become apparent, with talk of labour market infusions and attracting the 'best and brightest' seeming increasingly hollow, overall numbers must be reduced. As the impact of illegal migration becomes clearer, the establishment must stop trying to guilt us into acceptance, and finally stop the influx. It's highly doubtful Yvette Cooper has the will or the way. The Home Secretary would prefer to silence opponents, by censoring and arresting those who speak out.
South Wales Guardian
4 hours ago
- South Wales Guardian
Death toll rises after attack on church in east Congo church
The incident took place in the place of worship in Komanda, Ituri province. Dieudonne Duranthabo, a civil society coordinator, said: 'The bodies of the victims are still at the scene of the tragedy, and volunteers are preparing how to bury them in a mass grave that we are preparing in a compound of the Catholic church.' At least five other people were killed in an earlier attack on the nearby village of Machongani, where a search is ongoing. 'They took several people into the bush; we do not know their destination or their number,' Lossa Dhekana, a civil society leader in Ituri, told reporters. Both attacks are believed to have been carried out by members of the Allied Democratic Force (ADF) armed with guns and machetes. The military has confirmed at least 10 fatalities, while local media reports put the total death toll at more than 40. Mr Duranthabo said attackers stormed the church in Komanda town at around 1am. Several houses and shops were also burnt. Lt Jules Ngongo, a Congolese army spokesperson in Ituri province, confirmed 10 were killed in the church attack. Video footage from the scene shared online appeared to show burning structures and bodies on the floor of the church. Those who were able to identify some of the victims wailed while others stood in shock. A UN-backed radio station said 43 people were killed, citing security sources. It said the attackers came from a stronghold around seven miles from the centre of Komanda and fled before security forces could arrive. Mr Duranthabo condemned the attack 'in a town where all the security officials are present'. He added: 'We demand military intervention as soon as possible, since we are told the enemy is still near our town.' Eastern Congo has suffered deadly attacks in recent years by armed groups, including the ADF and Rwanda-backed rebels. The ADF, which has ties to the so-called Islamic State, operates in the borderland between Uganda and Congo and often targets civilians. The group killed dozens of people in Ituri earlier this month in what a United Nations spokesperson described as a bloodbath. The ADF was formed by disparate small groups in Uganda in the late 1990s following alleged discontent with President Yoweri Museveni. In 2002, following military assaults by Ugandan forces, the group moved its activities to neighbouring Congo and has since been responsible for the killings of thousands of civilians. In 2019, it pledged allegiance to the Islamic State. The Armed Forces of the Democratic Republic of Congo (FARDC), which has long struggled against the rebel group, has been facing attacks since the renewed hostilities between the Rwanda-backed M23.
