"Operation Hemorrhage": AQAP Mocks Airline Security

AQAP has released the third issue of Inspire Magazine. (Inspire is the "al Qaeda for Dummies" version of their propoganda releases.) You can read it here. (H/T Jihadology and IntelWire.)

In it, they explain how they made the cargo bombs and why. It wasn't to kill people. Their motives are economic. They want to cause a hemorrhage in the airline industry. They knew our predictable response would be to spend billions ramping up ineffective airline security measures. They are laughing at us, and on this point, with good reason. They also promise many more of these operations, by sharing their findings with their followers in other countries, so they can mail packages and get them on civilian planes going to the U.S. [More...]

During the initial discussions of the team it was determined that the success of the operation was to be based on two factors: The first is that the packages pass through the latest security equipment. The second, the spread of fear that would cause the West to invest billions of dollars in new security procedures. We have succeeded in the former and we are now witnessing the inception of the latter.

We will continue with similar operations and we do not mind at all in this stage if they are intercepted. It is such a good bargain for us to spread fear amongst the enemy and keep him on his toes in exchange of a few months of work and a few thousand bucks. We would gladly dispense with a remote controlled device that does not require us to put a mujahid on board a plane. For our enemies to think that intercepting such a package is evidence of their success is truly ridiculous.

They spent $4,200. and we respond by spending billions on airport security measures, that they say they can beat. They have five new devices with no metal components. As for the advanced imaging devices and explosive detectors, they say they can easily beat those as well.

What comes next? They lay out their future plans, and say they don't mind spilling the beans because their current principal intent is not the "maximum kill" factor, but to cause the collapse of the aviation industry, because its vitality is essential to trade and transportation.

The next phase would be to disseminate the technical details of our device to the mujahidin around the world to use from their respective countries. The following phase would be for us to use our connections to mail such packages from countries that are below the radar and to use similar devices on civilian aircrafts in Western countries We are laying out for our enemies our plan in advance because as we stated earlier our objective is not maximum kill but to cause a hemorrhage in the aviation industry, an industry that is so vital for trade and transportation between the U.S. and Europe.

They have dual targets: The West, including the U.S. and Europe, and Saudi Arabia. Their anger at the Saudis results from their belief the Saudi's are protecting Israel and Jewish people. They blast the Saudis for sharing intelligence about the cargo bomb with the U.S.

On the technical side,

After the operation of brother Umar Farouk we have been experimenting with ways to bring down airplanes. We have researched the various security systems employed by airports. We looked into X-Ray scanners, full body scanners, sniffing dogs and other aspects of security. The resulting bomb was a device that we were confident that, with the will of Allah, it would pass through the most stringent and up-to-date security equipment.

They describe in detail the weaknesses of current and future imaging technology and explosive detectors, and their successful use of advanced sealing devices that prevent detection, even from drug sniffing dogs. I wonder if they will share the information with the drug cartels, so that the cartels can ship more of their product by plane, avoiding the risks of enhanced border security. Between the amount we are spending on border security in the name of the war on drugs, and the amount we are spending on airport security to keep Americans safe, it's no wonder we have little money left for things like health care, education and jobs.

< Saturday Night Open Thread | Hillary Defends Federal Criminal Trials for Terror Suspects >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Failure (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by lentinel on Sun Nov 21, 2010 at 01:51:13 PM EST
    The muslim countries have grievances.
    Many of them are justified.
    The West has acknowledged none of them.

    If the West continues to do so, these terrorist actions will continue.
    And worse- they will acquire a life of their own.

    Now is the time for serious talk with no preconditions.
    An exchange of feelings and ideas.

    I wish the Obama administration has at least a smidgeon of imagination.

    Obama is a war criminal the (none / 0) (#2)
    by observed on Sun Nov 21, 2010 at 02:02:47 PM EST
    equal of Bush already. Arthur Silber I might add, his moral sense seems damaged much like W.s

    I think this defines banality of evil: (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by observed on Sun Nov 21, 2010 at 02:04:39 PM EST
    "Why do you have to blow up so many of our fields and homes?" a farmer from the Arghandab district asked a top NATO general at a recent community meeting.

    Although military officials are apologetic in public, they maintain privately that the tactic has a benefit beyond the elimination of insurgent bombs. By making people travel to the district governor's office to submit a claim for damaged property, "in effect, you're connecting the government to the people," the senior officer said.

    Talk about WHAT? (none / 0) (#9)
    by nyrias on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 12:23:49 PM EST
    banning cartoon drawing?

    Shutting up and not condemning fundamentalists when they beat women because they walk with the wrong man to the market?

    And do you believe if we talk to them (actually who? bin laden? his cronies?), they will stop plotting terrorist attacks?


    No, stop invading their countries and (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by observed on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 03:34:27 PM EST
    killing them by the thousands, which was happening long before 9/11.

    Easy. (none / 0) (#12)
    by lentinel on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 04:26:19 PM EST
    You talk to whomever is representing those who feel that they are suffering because of our actions.

    We could have talked to Bin Laden twenty years ago, you know.
    It is probably too late for that.
    But not too late for his "cronies" as you call them.

    You know, there is a history here.
    No matter what you think about Israel and its right to exist, the Palestinians have suffered through no fault of their own.
    America supported a hated dictatorship in Iran.
    You've also seen the photo of Rumsfeld happily shaking Saddam's hand...

    If we don't acknowledge our involvement in things that helped make life miserable for people in Muslim countries, we will have to continue to endure reactions from victims of that involvement.

    Do you seriously think that if Obama wanted to talk to someone who is representative of Al Qaeda that he couldn't find anyone?

    This will all end someday with us talking to someone. Better sooner than later.


    I predict it will never end. Been going on for how many hundreds or thousands of years so far?

    Everyone wants power, even if it's "just" - in their view - the power to be left alone. Every group wants power. There's never enough to go around, by definition, and those that feel they don't have enough with never stop trying to take it from those who have more, and visa versa.

    Ebb and flow, sure, but end? No, sadly, the pragmatist in me really doesn't think so...


    I'm (none / 0) (#14)
    by lentinel on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 06:23:47 PM EST
    not saying that all conflicts will end.

    I'm saying that the antagonism between these two opposing forces will end.

    All wars have an end.

    Germany and Japan are our best buddies now.

    For the moment, we have to attend to the injustices meted out to people from Muslim countries or they will continue to fight with us.

    At some other time, we may face another adversary. But I would rather try to negotiate and understand than have people in airports groping ever more invasively as our solution to this current nightmare.


    No, it is clear that Muslim countries (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 05:39:33 PM EST
    are just like any other. Not suprising, really, as they are merely human beings just like the rest of us. Same needs, wants, etc. They want (more) power, that's all.

    Rather (none / 0) (#21)
    by lentinel on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 06:39:52 PM EST
    than say that they want more power, I would say that they feel that they need more power to counter what has been thrust upon them.

    On the other hand, what terrorists have proven is that they have the means to neutralize a nuclear power. A bunch of guys with box cutters. I think that's what makes the heads spin in D.C.

    It's time to talk.


    "they feel that they need more power" (none / 0) (#22)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Nov 24, 2010 at 12:05:23 PM EST
    they feel that they need more power to counter what has been thrust upon them
    Sure, same as everyone else. Anything and everything that doesn't go the way you want it to go is unfair to you.

    Hey, I'm not against the idea of talking. Clearly our gov wants to talk and has been actively pursuing it. Albeit with resounding failure, see recent news articles on Mullah Akhtar Muhammad Mansour.

    Clearly, however, this incident shows we are trying to talk. And, also, that they are not.

    Should "they" be willing to come to the table, I think we should as well. I just don't have a lot of confidence that such talking will lead to any significant improvement.

    Just like drug rehab, it only works if you realize how truly effed up you are and accept that you have to make big, permanent, changes.

    I don't think anyone's anywhere near that point.


    I don't (none / 0) (#23)
    by lentinel on Wed Nov 24, 2010 at 04:05:54 PM EST
    think it's accurate to describe the infiltration or overthrow of a sovereign government or the invasion of a country - or the mass resettlement of people - as "things not going the way (they) want it to go."

    You have to give (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by NYShooter on Sun Nov 21, 2010 at 03:07:25 PM EST
    Those people a grudging sense of respect. They feel the powers-that-be have inflicted a great injustice on the little people and have taken action to extract a price from them.

    Our greed-beyond-description banksters & politicians have caused us more damage than a million "terrorists" could and we respond by meekly submitting without so much as a peep in protest.

    nah .. (none / 0) (#10)
    by nyrias on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 12:24:23 PM EST
    we just voted a bunch of them out of office.

    Chairman Mullen of Jt. (none / 0) (#4)
    by oculus on Sun Nov 21, 2010 at 02:51:45 PM EST
    Chiefs of Staff says pay no nevermind to Obama-ordered review and recommendations re Afghanistan. Due in Dec.  Mullen says U.S. Will have combat troops in country til '14 despite the report's bottom line. Not to worry.

    Better to go after people (none / 0) (#5)
    by waldenpond on Sun Nov 21, 2010 at 02:52:36 PM EST
    If they are trying to destroy the 'American way of life' it seems it would be more effective to target passenger planes.  No one is going to get very excited because a shipment of diamond watches, wines and caviar go down with a couple of pilots.  Also, wouldn't you be able to down more cargo (if commerce is your target) by going after shipping?

    A better plan would be to have a bomber use an internal (rectal, vaginal or surgical) bomb and force Americans to be probed for each flight.  Alot of money could be sucked up on ultrasounding each flyer.

    ZOMG---you are on the side (none / 0) (#7)
    by observed on Sun Nov 21, 2010 at 03:09:01 PM EST
    of the terrorists. For those wanting natural alternatives, a garlic bomb--eat 1 head of cooked garlic 12 hrs before flight, and 1 head of raw garlic upon leaving home--may be used.

    False dilemma ... (none / 0) (#8)
    by nyrias on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 12:19:33 PM EST
    The goal of killing people and having us spend billions are not mutually exclusive.

    In fact, if we fail to screen even one bomb, that is exactly going to happen ... dead americans, AND THEN we spend billions more.

    next- the Tampax bomb (none / 0) (#15)
    by diogenes on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 10:33:14 PM EST
    Rush Limbaugh thinks that the next smuggled bomb will be in Tampax, thus creating MASSIVELY intrusive hysteria and searches.

    next- the Tampax bomb (none / 0) (#16)
    by diogenes on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 10:33:32 PM EST
    Rush Limbaugh thinks that the next smuggled bomb will be in Tampax, thus creating MASSIVELY intrusive hysteria and searches.

    but unemployment (none / 0) (#17)
    by diogenes on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 10:34:37 PM EST
    However, the TSA is a great make-work device for thousands of unskilled but moderately honest folks who would otherwise be pushing up the unemployment rate.

    Does Rush have anything to say (none / 0) (#18)
    by Harry Saxon on Mon Nov 22, 2010 at 10:57:19 PM EST
    about the folks who started this 'security theater' in the first place?

    Oh, please stop it. (none / 0) (#19)
    by FreakyBeaky on Tue Nov 23, 2010 at 12:18:57 AM EST
    Anyone who puts bombs on airplanes intends to kill.  The other stuff is always a secondary goal, but not the primary one.  You all are being WAY to credulous.  

    Furthermore, I have zero respect, grudging or otherwise, for AQ and their offshoots.  You all are projecting the reasons you think people ought to fight onto AQ, but those aren't their reasons.  They are nihilists who believe only in action, specifically killing, and planning to kill.  They have no political agenda.  They are supposed to have a religious agenda, but when you scratch beneath the surface there's nothing there but excuses.  Their actions belie their rhetoric; they kill far more Muslims than westerners.  Look at Iraq - they'd rather kill Shia than Americans.

    Of course Shia are considered infidels, which makes it ALL DIFFERENT, right?

    It's all fine to want concrete changes in policy to put our relations with the middle east on a humanistic footing - but forget AQ.  They are not your friends - or anyone's.