We’re supposed to be scared of this?

[bigtree]

al-Qaeda’s Desperate Bid For Relevance, The Failed Plane Attack . . .

Saturday December 26, 2009

by Spencer Ackerman

For the sake of argument, let’s take the most expansive theory of how Abdul Farouk Abdulmutallab tried to blow up a Detroit-bound passenger jet. According to the Wall Street Journal, Abdulmutallab gets an explosive device from al-Qaeda operatives in Yemen; takes a couple of layovers to get on the plane; boards with his device; ignites it; it fizzles; passengers and crew subdue him. And we’re supposed to be scared of this?

As I said, we’re going to assume those direct ties exist for the sake of argument. The Times account is more skeptical. But go with it. What does this say about al-Qaeda?

First, al-Qaeda’s signatures are redundance and simultaneity. Think 9/11, Madrid, London: all used multiple operatives focused on multiple targets, acting in unison. That’s to ensure something blows up if and when something goes wrong. But here Abdulmutallab acted alone. There can be little doubt the operation was intended to go off on Christmas, for the obvious symbolism, so we would have seen evidence of a coordinated attack by now. The inescapable if preliminary conclusion: al-Qaeda can’t get enough dudes to join Abdulmutallab. And what does it give the guy to set off his big-boom? A device that’s “more incendiary than explosive,” in the words of some anonymous Department of Homeland Security official to the Times.

And if Abdulmutallab didn’t have clear ties to al-Qaeda? That he’s part of the cohort of self-starters al-Qaeda is trying to inspire, not train and direct? That’s good news too, because his capabilities weren’t sufficient to bring down the plane. As I reported in this piece (http://washingtonindependent.com/70710/security-experts-claim-administration-overstates-domestic-al-qaeda-threat), the most salient facts about this recent slew of attempted terrorist attacks is that they either failed or they didn’t kill many people.

Combine that, as I did in that piece, with the growth in capability of U.S. intelligence and law enforcement since 9/11 and we have… a manageable threat. As Matthew Yglesias writes, it doesn’t do any good to blow this out of proportion, since blowing things out of proportion to spur an overreaction is Usama bin Laden’s explicit strategy. If the Democrats had an equivalent of Rep. Peter King, that Ersatz-King would ask whether the permanently hysterical King is actually working for bin Laden.


read more: http://attackerman.firedoglake.com/2009/12/26/al-qaedas-desperate-bid-for-relevance-the-failed-plane-attack-afghanistan/


related:

US Plane Disturbance 'Al-Qaeda Related,' King Says
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2009-12-25/u-s-plane-disturbance-al-qaeda-related-king-says-update1-.html

[NJmaverick]

1. Only a fool wouldn't appreciate that we got lucky on this one

[HipChick]

3. You know what happens when people say they were directed to do something by God..

“President George W Bush told Palestinian ministers that God had told him to invade Afghanistan and Iraq - and create a Palestinian State, a new BBC series reveals. “

http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2005/10_october/06/bush.shtml

[NJmaverick]

12. Not on my topic, but I agree. It's dangerous whenever people think they

are being directed by their God

[Gman]

4. Luck had nothing to do with it

I was not on the plane, the rest of the country was not on the plane so I don't see it as a "we got lucky". And actually, I don't think luck had anything to do with it It sounds like the other people on the plane did what they had to do to stop this guy so there was no luck.

[NJmaverick]

8. I don't take a pure self interest view of the world. If good people are not killed in a terrorist

act then WE are lucky.

[pnwmom]

34. Of course luck had something to do with it. What if the guy who jumped

the aspiring bomber hadn't been nearby? Why do you assume someone else would have acted in time? As it is, that young man burned himself trying to stop the incident. He's a hero.

[Gman]

37. We could go through a whole slew of calculations

based on the number of possible seating arrangements in the plane. It was what it was and people on the plane acted according to their abilities and self preservation instincts.

[pnwmom]

39. And therefore we were LUCKY. The outcome could have been far worse

and it was only chance that brought a hero to a position where he could do some good.

Not everyone automatically acts in the way that best ensures self-preservation. Many people would have been frozen in fear -- and probably were on that plane.

[Gman]

49. Ok fine!

We were lucky! :-)

[bigtree]

6. nuts are everywhere

The point of Ackerman is that nuts and disturbed individuals like we've been catching in acts like these don't need to have their idiocy elevated to a level of a national emergency in response.

[NJmaverick]

11. nuts don't usually have access to sophisticated explosive devices

[pnwmom]

44. Or to people who will train them in their use. n/t

[rug]

7. Not necessarily.

This event also points out the weakness of these attempts. An imbecile who can't light a match doesn't mean we're lucky. It means we're being attacked by imbeciles.

[NJmaverick]

9. News reports say the sophistication of the device was what allowed it to get past security

a malfunction only makes us lucky

[HipChick]

13. security looking for metal

wont pick up powder..so I wonder if they will start adapting procedures for this and how?

[NJmaverick]

15. I am sure in time they will come up with a counter measure

but with things like this it's always measure vs counter measure. There's always going to be a window for every new measure to succeed. In this case we were very lucky the device malfunctioned.

[HipChick]

16. I agree...but then we get into privacy issues v safety...people were having a fit

with these new devices..

http://studenttravel.about.com/od/planes/f/tsa_backscatter.htm

[rug]

14. I haven't read all the reports but I thought he got it through by taping it to his leg.

The more extreme measures they take to get this stuff on board also increase the likelihood they won't work. Add in the mental state of the people recruited to do this and the effectiveness of these plans drop.

Either way, these threats do not warrant the massive contortions of foreign and military policy that we've seen.

[NJmaverick]

19. We clearly differ on that point. I feel very strongly that we most do all we can

to protect the innocent and our citizens.

[Vinnie From Indy]

22. That's cool!

How many of your civil liberties are you willing to trade for a false sense of security?

[JoeyT]

48. All of them, apparently.

All of ours too, it would seem.

[pnwmom]

35. There was an actual fire. We were lucky the quick-thinking, quick-acting

man sitting in the opposite row was able to jump across his seatmates in time to stop the fire.

[HipChick]

2. uh-oh....Peter King raised money for Irish Terrorists killing innocent Brits..

[annabanana]

43. Yup. And that tidbit might be enough to keep him from

getting the nod to run for Gillibrand's seat.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

5. Uh.... Unless someone has no clue what a bomb is, and/or has never been on a plane....

and has never picked up a paper and read about 9/11 (and one would have to be one ignorant, miserable idiot for that to be), one would be afraid of this.

How dumb to not be afraid of assholes on planes, with bombs.

Unless one is pretending to be some sort of Clint Eastwood in movies - afraid of nothing, and that's not reality, that's cinema.

[bigtree]

18. the issue Ackerman has is not about your individual fear

. . . but about the ginning up of our national anxiety and the exploiting that manufactured fear - like the right's attempt to suggest this validates the present militarism because there's some emerging al-Qaeda threat which needs to be defended against in Afghanistan. The last administration exploited imagined linkages so much that they often served to amplify each and every pronouncement by the fugitive terror suspects from the presidential podium - elevating the terrorists to a level equal in influence to a nation-state. We should regard airplane terror like we regard any potential for violent crime. As far as this reported incident goes, I'm not sure it's something to get excited about.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

20. Excuse me, but as far as PLANES are concerned, I'm in no mood for laxity

I fly too much to not be concerned about Islamic bombers. Planes don't travel on the ground. Thank you.

[bigtree]

26. I don't hear him arguing for 'laxity' at all

. . . just some proportionality in reaction and response. I don't think that's insignificant in the wake of Bush's deliberate overreactions to terror 'threats' in his term.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

29. Up in the air? Nah-uh. ZERO proportionality.

Not up in the air. No room for anything up there. Not with my life or those I love.

[TwilightGardener]

30. I think it highlights a failure on several counts by authorities--that he got a visa,

that he wasn't on a no-fly list despite his radicalism (reported by his own father), and that he was able to sneak this device onto the plane. I am actually horrified by this--came very close to being a big tragedy.

[nadinbrzezinski]

27. Wait, this happened, a guy tried to blow up a plane

he didn't do a good job out of it. But it happened.

Some people will become anxious over this, some (me) will not. But this is not about your individual fear. IT DID HAPPEN.

Now if you will excuse me I will FLY tomorrow, and I added an hour to my stay in the airport. I hate to go through all that added security, but you know what? I AM SURE GLAD they do that. I hate the extra hour at the airport instead of family, but you know what? THAT IS LIFE.

Now if you chose to play the game of this is a conspiracy to frighten you... so sorry to hear that. The real world where I live is a place where there are REAL dangers. This just happens to be one of them.

[bridgit]

38. Is there no collective "fear"? Or has Obama's decision to drone Yemeni al-Q been vindicated...

as a prescient read into what others do believe remains a dangerous world?

[timeforpeace]

47. He did that before this happened. Maybe this was reprisal.

[blondeatlast]

10. "...supposed to be scared?" Fear is a gutr reaction--and bombs are scary. Geez. nt

[WilliamPitt]

17. Tough talk from a guy on the ground.

:eyes:

There's an awful lot of dumb on the board today.

No offense, bigtree, but this isn't one of your better efforts.

[bigtree]

23. I'm not as disciplined a poster as you are

It's fair to disagree with Spencer Ackerman, as I sometimes do. But, I don't think he's just 'talking tough' here. He's measuring the reported level of the danger and the linkage reported to al-Qaeda in response to the predictable reaction from the right who has already conflated it with other instances and defined these as some 'emerging' threat which justifies whatever militarism they proscribe. It make sense that we make these judgments, lest we just succumb to the police-state mentality which infected America post-911.

[WilliamPitt]

25. "I'm not as disciplined a poster as you are"

:rofl:

Good one.

:toast:

You make a good point, but I think this Ackerman post is a total misfire. Saying it's dumb, wrongheaded and pro-militarist to be afraid of a guy trying to light an airborne plane on fire might cheer the souls of those who think terrorism is a myth designed to feed the war machine. But for those of us who think terrorism is both mythical and very, very real . . . along with anyone who gets a chill imagining being inside a flaming, hurtling metal tube 20,000 feet in the air . . . will turn away from Ackerman and whatever valid points he has to make.

It's like saying sharks are not as scary as they're telling us. Well, jump into a shark tank and find out. I'll be over here watching you get eaten.

[whatchamacallit]

41. The "eaten" will most surely be

throngs of nameless, faceless, innocents a world away. :banghead:

[anigbrowl]

40. It's not like Obama is talking about 'threat level yellow' or something, now is it?

It was a fairly serious incident. At the very lest it could have threatened the lives of people on the plane with a fire, at worst it would have been a hideous disaster. I think the response has been measured and proportional so far.

[nadinbrzezinski]

21. Fear not... just added an hour at the airport though

security will be a NIGHTMARE...

Take IPOD with books, money for food, money for coffee and spend three long hours at the airport instead of two.

JOY.

[TwilightGardener]

24. I'd be scared. Even if he didn't pack enough explosives to blow

the plane to bits, he could have blown a hole in the side of the plane, damaged some of the systems or killed some seatmates.

[Hydra]

28. This was a MAJOR fail

I'm surprised you posted this.

The original report was fireworks. Suddenly it was Al-Queda terror attack(Like we've never heard that before).

Next thing we'll see is another OBL tape with a guy 2 sizes too big to be him.

[malaise]

31. +1

Firecrackers - be afraid, very afraid.

[bigtree]

32. The author is just as skeptical as you are

from the article:

"As Matthew Yglesias writes, it doesn’t do any good to blow this out of proportion, since blowing things out of proportion to spur an overreaction is Usama bin Laden’s explicit strategy. If the Democrats had an equivalent of Rep. Peter King, that Ersatz-King would ask whether the permanently hysterical King is actually working for bin Laden."

he then includes this quote:

“Al-Qaeda’s are capabilities basically almost nothing these days,” the ex-official said. “Sure, they’ve got a couple good operatives, and maybe will try to pull something big to make themselves relevant again … If we make them appear relevant — they’re at war with the greatest country on earth — then guess what? They’re gonna be big.” Instead, the ex-official continued, “if we treat them as insignificant, small, pathetic men with nothing to do with Islam, they’ll lose their relevance.”


Why would you be surprised that I'd post this?

[Nikki Stone1]

33. The original report was fireworks and not a bomb?

Are you saying that DHS got lucky with a nice little scare for the holidays and decided to milk it?

:evilgrin:

[StarfarerBill]

36. Sorry. Al-Qaeda will still exist after we leave Iraq and Afghanistan,

and they primary reason for that continued life will be our invasions and occupations of those countries.

Anyway, people will use the boogeyman al-Qaeda to justify all sorts of insane acts; is there any evidence to prove that this man even had any contact with them, much that they less aided and abetted him?

This excellent documentary, The Power of Nightmares, goes a long way in proving that al-Qaeda was and is nowhere near as organized and powerful as the fearmongers claim(ed) it to be:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vt-FyuuWlWQ

[cliffordu]

42. Had that little device ignited, the result would have been

REALLY spectacular.

We got very lucky.

[tabasco]

45. You're fuckinay right I'm afraid of it.

My gf regularly flies from Europe to the US.

All these assholes have to do is get it right ONCE.

I don't give a shit if we get a cavity search before we fly.

[PacerLJ35]

46. Ask the people on that airplane...

They are probably thinking that were it not for luck, incompetence or a mixture of both, they would be dead now.