Al-Quaeda linked to failed terrorist attack on Northwest Airlines airliner

Story here in the Houston Chronicle. (H/T ECM)


A Nigerian man who said he was an agent for al-Qaida tried to blow up a Northwest Airlines plane Friday as it was preparing to land in Detroit, but travelers who smelled smoke and heard what sounded like firecrackers rushed to subdue him, the passengers and federal officials said.

[…]The White House said it believed it was an attempted act of terrorism and stricter security measures were quickly imposed on airline travel. It did not specify what those were.

[…]Law enforcement officials identified the suspect in Friday’s attempted attack as Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab. One law enforcement official said the man claimed to have been instructed by al-Qaida to detonate the plane over U.S. soil. All the officials spoke on condition of anonymity because the investigation was continuing.

We had 8 years of constant terrorist attacks under the Democrat Bill Clinton, because, like most Democrats on the secular left, he didn’t believe in being aggressive with terrorists. And now we have a new Democrat President even further out on the left who also believes in being soft and weak with terrorists.

The problem with having a weak foreign policy is that our enemies have no reason to fear us. When George W. Bush was the President, there were no terrorist attacks on American soil after the 9/11/01 attack. That is because terrorists knew that if they attacked us, there would be consequences. Do they believe that today? I doubt it.

You can read more about the conservative view of foreign policy, which is called “peace through strength” here.

8 thoughts on “Al-Quaeda linked to failed terrorist attack on Northwest Airlines airliner”

  1. I like how you downplay 9/11. Under the current blue guy we just had a failed attack while under the previous red guy one of our most secure military installations, the pentagon, was successfully attacked and we had 2 of our most iconic buildings in NYC blown up and we had another plane crashed into a field…but after that, nothing in America happened. Plenty of terrorist/guerilla type attacks continued to happen on our troops, but they’re paid to get killed, so it doesn’t count.

    Lets see, a failed terrorist attack under a blue guy, multiple successful attacks under a red guy…

    I feel it neccessary to state that this is a very poor post wintery.

  2. I should probably state why I think it’s a poor post. Generally the presidents have very little control over those departments nowadays. They can appoint the people in charge, but the majority of the employees that work for those departments are unionized and are guaranteed jobs as long as they don’t burn the place down. On top of that, even with an all out assault on Al-Quaeda, we have not been able to capture or kill their top leadership – they avoid civilization and contact with the outside world as well as the use of most electronic devices. They aren’t swayed by money evidenced by the fact that there have been big bounties on the top people that they’re associates could easily collect if they only turned them in – 50 million for bin laden. They are in it for the cause and the religious belief and will not stop until we get lucky and find them, they die, or they succeed. No president is going to be overly successful against an organization like that – it takes a long term approach.

    1. I am referring to the period following the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. I believe that these invasions acted as a deterrent to ORGANIZED terrorism from terror groups.

      1. It does not matter if a member of some terrorist organization blows up a plane or if some lone wolf nutcase blows up a plane; either way you’re still dead. From the perspective of preventing terrorist attacks, it is irrelevant to draw a distinction between organized and lone wolf terrorism; they are both bad.

        Furthermore, the invasion of Afghanistan began on October 7, 2001. December 22, 2001, the date of the failed shoe bomber attack, is after that date. Richard Reid, the shoe bomber, was a member of Al Qaeda and reported to and was ordered to attack by, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, a high-up member of Al Qaeda (a href=””>cite). The attempted shoe bombing, which was foiled by flight attendants, is therefore as much as an Al Qaeda attack as the recent underwear bombing, which was foiled by a passenger. Hence, there is no way (other than blatant partisanship) to hold the unsuccessful underwear bomb attack against the Obama administration while simultaneously not holding the unsuccessful shoe bomb attack against the Bush administration.

        1. I am talking about no attacks following the armed invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. That’s what stops further attacks from AQ. There is of course a huge difference between lone wolf and AQ attacks in terms of the tactics and weapons used – just compare the number of deaths in the 9/11 attack compared to the beltway sniper.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s