Amsterdam-Detroit Flight Fireworks Now a Failed Terror Bomb

Earlier today the press was reporting someone set off fireworks on a flight from Amsterdam to Detroit. Now, the feds believe the man, a Nigerian living in London, was acting on behalf of al Qaida and trying to set off a bomb. The Washington Post reports:

The suspect is 23-year-old Abdul Farouk Abdulmutallab, a federal official said...Although not on the TSA's "no-fly" list, Abdulmutallab's name appears to be included in the government's records of terrorism suspects, according to a preliminary review, authorities said.

...Abdulmutallab has told federal investigators that he had ties to al-Qaeda and traveled to Yemen to collect the incendiary device and instructions on how to use it, according to a federal counterterrorism official briefed on the case. But authorities have yet to verify the claim, and they expect to conduct several more interviews before they determine whether he is credible, the official said.

< Christmas Morning Open Thread | Charlie Sheen Arrested For Felonious Domestic Violence Crimes in Aspen >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Well, this makes a convenient diversion (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by scribe on Sat Dec 26, 2009 at 08:12:43 AM EST
    from stories about Rahm Emmanuel and his doings on the boards of Fannie and Freddie, and from stories about Fannie and freddie getting  unlimited bailouts from your US Treasury.

    Yes, how Rahm set this up (none / 0) (#21)
    by domer5000 on Sat Dec 26, 2009 at 02:47:57 PM EST
    is amazing

    The Language Of Terror Is All Too Familiar (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by aeguy on Sat Dec 26, 2009 at 10:52:54 AM EST
    An attempted terror attack during the time of the Afghanistan war escalation and NY terror trials?  Very interesting! When did fireworks become a damn bomb? The hyping up of this incident is politics 101.

    Um...not just fireworks (none / 0) (#12)
    by jbindc on Sat Dec 26, 2009 at 11:29:36 AM EST
    He had a powder.liquid combination that he mixed with the fireworks.



    There were no fireworks (none / 0) (#15)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 26, 2009 at 12:04:55 PM EST
    The failed attempt sounded like fireworks according to one passenger.

    You're right (none / 0) (#25)
    by aeguy on Sat Dec 26, 2009 at 05:17:09 PM EST
    I was basing it off the first reports where the confusion level was high.

    It seems the authorities have known about (none / 0) (#16)
    by prittfumes on Sat Dec 26, 2009 at 12:07:30 PM EST
    the suspect for "at least two years".

    [An] official told The Associated Press that the suspect, Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab, has been on a list that includes people with known or suspected contact or ties to a terrorist or terrorist organization. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because the investigation is ongoing.

    Call me jaded... (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by lentinel on Sat Dec 26, 2009 at 11:00:33 AM EST
    but this story doesn't smell right.

    It follows on the heels of a release, allegedly by the Taliban, showing an American soldier as captive.
    This was on Christmas day. It has been widely publicized. This shows how inhuman and nasty the Taliban is and is meant to fully justify Obama's escalation.

    I can't help it.
    I am used to all the BS from the Bush era.
    All lies.
    And Obama is acting so much like Bush, I can hardly stand it.

    i agree about the funky smelling timing and all (none / 0) (#13)
    by sleepingdogs on Sat Dec 26, 2009 at 11:31:36 AM EST
    but do you really think this is a plot by the Obama administration or the story is false?  I am not being facetious, I want to understand.

    I don't know. (none / 0) (#23)
    by lentinel on Sat Dec 26, 2009 at 04:15:38 PM EST
    I wouldn't say the Obama "administration".
    But some people pulling the strings...
    The same as before.
    I admit I have come to feel that Bush and Obama were front men for the power that is really running things. Some power that profits mightily from these wars and won't let us up.

    Pure speculation.
    But nothing makes sense to me otherwise.
    I have no "facts" to back up what I sense to be the case.


    It (none / 0) (#24)
    by lentinel on Sat Dec 26, 2009 at 04:43:38 PM EST
    reminds me of the times during the Bush years... when things would get a little dicey for the government, suddenly we would get  a raised terror alert level.

    It just so happens that liberals and progressives and many democrats are getting fed up with Obama - the dissembling - the fake healthcare (insurance-industry-bonanza) bill - the continuing wars - the disregard for civil liberties - the disregard for the rights of suspects...

    And suddenly - two days in a row - first the Taliban and then Al Qaeda threaten and Obama rises to protect us.

    Healthcare bill? What healthcare bill?


    Duct tape and saran wrap at the ready (none / 0) (#26)
    by Cream City on Sun Dec 27, 2009 at 12:51:33 AM EST
    here for an orange alert!  Or perhaps this administration will pick more palatable hues -- but otherwise, it does feel like deja vu all over again.

    Perhaps heightened (none / 0) (#8)
    by oculus on Sat Dec 26, 2009 at 09:14:48 AM EST
    security accounts for this morning's rescreening of my stone Xmas gift, jewelry, abd camera. .  

    It is now being reported that his father (none / 0) (#14)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 26, 2009 at 12:03:16 PM EST
    reported him to US authorities some time ago.

    Yet he was able to purchase a ticket and carry explosive chemicals on board.

    Obama needs to fire some people. Very loudly and very publicly.

    I am not holding my breath.

    Funny, I dont remember (5.00 / 0) (#19)
    by jondee on Sat Dec 26, 2009 at 02:01:55 PM EST
    you saying Bush needed to fire people. Just that he needed to fire on people.                                            

    And that the whole thing was Clinton, Carter, LBJ, Kennedy, Michael Moore and whoever invented fluoridated drinking water's fault.


    Your memory is in error (2.00 / 0) (#29)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Dec 27, 2009 at 02:28:45 PM EST
    And what does Clinton, Carter, Bush et al and fluoridated drinking water have to do with with Obama doing the right thing?

    please take this discussion to (none / 0) (#33)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Dec 27, 2009 at 10:56:58 PM EST
    an open thread

    stop with the insults please (none / 0) (#20)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Dec 26, 2009 at 02:41:35 PM EST
    Please respond to the comment, not attack the commenter.

    This was reported 12/26 (none / 0) (#28)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Dec 27, 2009 at 02:25:58 PM EST
    Family members said the father had become uncomfortable and concerned about his son's fanatical religious views in recent months. They said, as a result, he reported his son's activities to the U.S. Embassy and Nigerian security agencies six months ago.


    Did you miss it or do you not believe it?


    Obama cant protect this country (none / 0) (#30)
    by jondee on Sun Dec 27, 2009 at 02:31:56 PM EST
    the way Bush/Cheney did after allowing the worst attack in U.S history. Point taken.

    Wrong (none / 0) (#31)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Dec 27, 2009 at 10:03:33 PM EST
    The Left continues with its attempts to rewrite history. The always popular subject is that Bush did nothing to prevent 9/11. Of course that is pure nonsense, and deserves to be scorned. In addition I note that that doesn't track with what Richard Clarke, Clinton's NSA who was retained by Bush, has said. From an interview:

    "RICHARD CLARKE: Actually, I've got about seven points, let me just go through them quickly. Um, the first point, I think the overall point is, there was no plan on Al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration.
    Second point is that the Clinton administration had a strategy in place, effectively dating from 1998. And there were a number of issues on the table since 1998. And they remained on the table when that administration went out of office -- issues like aiding the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, changing our Pakistan policy -- uh, changing our policy toward Uzbekistan. And in January 2001, the incoming Bush administration was briefed on the existing strategy. They were also briefed on these series of issues that had not been decided on in a couple of years."

    Clarke rambles a bit here, but there are two key points. There was no PLAN but there was a STRATEGY. But since Clinton could not solve the Northern Alliance, Pakistan, etc. problem, and had not for over two years, Clinton couldn't produce a PLAN.

    "And the third point is the Bush administration decided then, you know, in late January, to do two things. One, vigorously pursue the existing policy, including all of the lethal covert action findings, which we've now made public to some extent.
    And the point is, while this big review was going on, there were still in effect, the lethal findings were still in effect. The second thing the administration decided to do is to initiate a process to look at those issues which had been on the table for a couple of years and get them decided.
    So, point five, that process which was initiated in the first week in February, uh, decided in principle, uh in the spring to add to the existing Clinton strategy and to increase CIA resources, for example, for covert action, five-fold, to go after Al Qaeda."

    Clarke rambles again, but the two key points is that within days of the start of the start of the Bush administration it was decided to increase resources for going after al-Qaeda, "five fold."  
    The second point is that nothing Clinton had started was stopped. "...the lethal findings were still in effect."

    So Bush kept Clinton's CIA going and decided to increase the resources 500%.

    Now you can argue that this wasn't enough, but the facts are that this was 7 months before 9/11 and demonstrates Bush's belief that there was a problem and pledged to increase the resources.
    Plus, the problems with the Northern Alliance and Pakistan that Clinton could not solve for over two years still remained.

    "ANGLE: So, just to finish up if we could then, so what you're saying is that there was no -- one, there was no plan; two, there was no delay; and that actually the first changes since October of '98 were made in the spring months just after the administration came into office?
    CLARKE: You got it. That's right."


    Now the Left likes to make much over the Presidential Daily Briefing that Bush received on 8/6/01 that said that al-Qaeda was going to attack. Bush's response was less than nice, dismissing the briefer with an "Okay, now you've done your job" type comment.

    Why was he grumpy? Most likely because there was nothing new in the report and he regarded it as a CYA by staff. Why do I say this? Because he already knew it.

    (Rice)"At the special meeting on July 5(2001)were the FBI, Secret Service, FAA, Customs, Coast Guard, and Immigration. We told them that we thought a spectacular al Qaeda terrorist attack was coming in the near future." That had been had been George Tenet's language. "We asked that they take special measures to increase security and surveillance. Thus, the White House did ensure that domestic law enforcement including the FAA knew that the CSG believed that a major al Qaeda attack was coming, and it could be in the U.S., and did ask that special measures be taken."


    The above is from an interview with NSA Rice and shows that 32 days before the meeting Bush knew about it and had his NSA warn all the agencies. And there was little more he could have done outside declaring martial law and taking control of all entrances into the US and all movements within the US.

    So there you have the facts. Clinton dithered and Bush took action. It may not have been enough but it was all he could have done, and should have done based on the information he had.

    BTW - As you know the above has been posted before. I bring this back only because you decided to jump on Bush after I had merely said I hoped Obama fires some folks.

    I think the expression is: "Me thinks thou protests too much."


    the topic is the Xmas bomber not (none / 0) (#32)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Dec 27, 2009 at 10:56:25 PM EST
    Bush and Clinton. Please stay on topic.

    1 + 1 always equals 2 (none / 0) (#35)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 12:34:48 PM EST
    Facts don't change.

    I zapped him, thanks (none / 0) (#17)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Dec 26, 2009 at 12:14:49 PM EST