German authorities continue hunting for 10 more bomb plotters
posted at 10:40 am on September 6, 2007 by Bryan
Before I get to the German terror plot broken up this week, a little history from William F. Buckley:
I am informed that French pacifists, ensconced in the French Academy in 1939 and determined to understate Nazi military exercises (even those being done as close by as Czechoslovakia), refused to acknowledge such a creature as a “bombardier.” Right, “bombardier” would have meant “bomber pilot.” The pacifists were prepared to use the word bombardier, but only as the flying instrument — an airplane from which one drops bombs. Since no such creature as a pilot who drops bombs from such an airplane was acknowledged to exist, the schoolmen of the academy at first refused to authorize that use of the word.
And a word from one of the presidential candidates:
“It is now clear that George Bush’s misnamed ‘War on Terror’ has backfired — and is now part of the problem,” [ambulance chaser turned presidential candidated John] Edwards told the Council of Foreign Relations in New York. “The War on Terror is a slogan designed only for politics, not a strategy to make America safe. It’s a bumper sticker, not a plan.”
Right, John. Sleep tight. Meanwhile, in the real world:
German authorities said Thursday they are pursuing as many as 10 additional suspects in connection with a plot to bomb American interests in the country, a day after announcing the arrest of three men believed to have trained at militant camps in Pakistan.
Deputy Interior Minister August Hanning, a former chief of Germany’s foreign spy service, said the men being sought included Germans, Turks and other nationalities — all believed to be part of a support group helping with plans for a massive bombing to kill Americans.
That would make 13 total suspects just in the German plot. Among them are several recent converts, and several who have traveled to Pakistan in recent months for terrorist training:
Prosecutors said the men — two Germans who had converted to Islam and a Turkish citizen who lived in Germany — had trained at camps in Pakistan run by the Islamic Jihad Union, a Central Asian network that is a close ally of al-Qaeda.
Counterterrorism officials said the three were among more than a dozen residents of Germany who had journeyed to Pakistan in recent months and were subsequently arrested or placed under surveillance. Key suspects in the London transit system attacks in July 2005 and a plot to blow up transatlantic airliners last summer also received training in Pakistan before returning to Europe for attacks, investigators believe.
U.S. intelligence officials have said in recent weeks that al-Qaeda and its affiliates have reconstituted themselves in Pakistan’s remote mountain regions along the border with Afghanistan and have bolstered their ability to launch attacks on the West from there.
Blogger Bill Roggio was among the first to tell the world about Pakistan’s surrender of Waziristan to the tribes and the Taliban, while the MSM slept and John Edwards was getting his hair done. It’s in that sanctuary that al Qaeda has been able to reconstitute its training camps, and from which the Taliban has been able to launch fresh offensives in Afghanistan. And from there, we now have what the Germans are describing as what would have been the largest terrorist attack ever on German soil, a plot to attack US bases and interests in Germany, emanating from those camps in that sanctuary in Waziristan. Musharraf is going to have to shut those camps down, or let us do it. And faster, please.
Update (AP): Of the 10 still at large, one is Pakistani, another is Lebanese, and some are, ahem, “stateless.” Combine that with the two German converts and the one Turk in custody and you have an unusually diverse group by nations, which supports the theory that they might have hooked up in an AQ camp. Also, note this:
An American intelligence official said that the United States helped German authorities track the location of two of the German suspects by eavesdropping on their cellphone conversations as they moved out of training camps in Pakistan.
Update (AP): Rusty Shackleford e-mails wondering if “stateless” means Palestinian. German reader Niko K. tells me it probably means Bosnian, several hundred thousand of whom were admitted in the 1990s. Bosnian jihadis are especially prized by Middle Eastern terror groups since they’re caucasian and can fly under the radar in the west.










Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
John Edwards is totally right — insofar as you quoted him.
The war is against radical Islam. It may come down to yet another war against Islam without the adjective. But it is not a “war on terror” any World War 2 was a war against Blitzkrieg, World War 1 a war against trenches, and the seven-year war a war against oak and teak.
Christoph on September 6, 2007 at 11:07 AM
* any more
Christoph on September 6, 2007 at 11:08 AM
If Musharraf has “given” Waziristan to the Taliban, then I think we should take it back and make it it’s own country, Americanistan. The economy of Americanistan will be driven primarily by security and opium eradication services. They make Imperialism so easy to justify these days!
AZCON on September 6, 2007 at 11:08 AM
Bryan,
Great history lesson. You know, I would love to see a comprehensive history of pacifist groups like the French group you described above brought to light and compared to the modern peace movement. I bet it has countless of shocking similarities.
BelchSpeak on September 6, 2007 at 11:12 AM
Look, I’m not a fan of the WoT formulation either, but there’s quite a bit of denial in Edwards’ statement. “War on terror” is shorthand for what we’re fighting, and was never intended to be a plan in and of itself. When you mention the “war on terror,” by now everyone knows what you’re talking about: The war against al Qaeda and its ideological allies and hangers-on. Edwards is substituting the phrase for strategic thinking and then attacking it as though it were the actual, strategic plan. What he’s saying is that the war itself isn’t real, it’s just a bumper sticker phrase that the administration is using for political ends. So he’s not right, not by a long shot.
Bryan on September 6, 2007 at 11:14 AM
Oh, and it’s not “George Bush’s war,” either. George Bush wasn’t attacked on 9-11. America was. It’s America’s war, whether John Edwards has the stomach for it or not. And I don’t think he does.
Bryan on September 6, 2007 at 11:22 AM
So who is more treasonous, the unnamed intelligence official who leaked the sources and methods or the news service that repeated it?
tmitsss on September 6, 2007 at 11:23 AM
Bryan, substantially I agree with you, which is why I use the clause “insofar…”
Edwards is a dolt. But without meaning to he hit the nail on the head and you quoted that part.
A slogan is not a plan and this is a bad slogan that misfocuses a lot of minds, which is to say leads to likelihood of diminished results.
WW2 was a war on the Axis, Seven Years on the French, etc… much clear definitions.
But the shorthand you refer to was a glaring error I noticed the moment it was made and remains an error. It’s a huge one.
We’re in a civilizational struggle and I want the woman I love to grow up free and alive and not in terror. Our leaders need to take it seriously and this phrase doesn’t indicate that.
I don’t. Is it against terrorist cells? Or to roll back expansive Islam?
Because if it’s the latter, we should already have decimated Iran and Syria’s military in 2003.
Christoph on September 6, 2007 at 11:24 AM
Department Of Poppy Eradication…..where can I buy stock?
Back to the story…..I lived in Germany for 3 1/2 years. Say all you want about their ‘union’ society and liberal judges, but once the Polizei are told sic-em……they sic-em. Nonsense isn’t something the Polizei take from suspects.
Go get em boys!
Limerick on September 6, 2007 at 11:26 AM
So, when I said “John Edwards” was right, I misspoke, although I was hoping you’d get my meaning. John Edwards actual opinions are dangerous, naive, and weird (ordering people to see their doctors).
But the quote you picked, taken in isolation not considering who uttered them, would be true.
Christoph on September 6, 2007 at 11:30 AM
The slogan and the plan aren’t the same thing. You know that, I know that and John Edwards ought to know that. To call it George Bush’s war, as he regularly does, and to minimize the threat, as he regularly does, is indefensible whether you like the slogan or not. If Edwards doesn’t like it, as a presidential candidate he has the chance to come up with his own slogan. What does Edwards do? He blames all setbacks on Bush and minimizes the entire war as a bumper sticker invented for political reasons. It’s unserious and indefensible.
Bryan on September 6, 2007 at 11:31 AM
How easy it is to be on the Left. Terrorisim isn’t a problem, and if it is, it’s pushback against our imperialism.
How simple the world is to soft-racists and self-loathing Westerners.
Asher on September 6, 2007 at 11:33 AM
Bryan-
I know Christoph can speak for himself, but I didn’t think he was defending Edwards. I think he was just using his statement tangentially to make the point that it’s time to identify (and even demonize) radical Islam. Even the use of the term “radical” is a hedge, for now.
JiangxiDad on September 6, 2007 at 11:34 AM
No, they wouldn’t. It’s not George Bush’s war and it’s not a bumper sticker that he came up with for political reasons, and “war on terror” isn’t and never was the actual strategic plan — it’s shorthand. And, it’s hasn’t backfired and made things worse — there hasn’t been an attack on US soil since 9-11, for starters. What has backfired and made things worse is Musharraf’s surrender in Waziristan, and that wasn’t Bush’s fault nor was it part of the plan, or even part of the slogan.
Edwards is just a facile creep who’s either ignorant or in denial.
Bryan on September 6, 2007 at 11:34 AM
sorry- didn’t see the comments above while I was writing.
JiangxiDad on September 6, 2007 at 11:36 AM
Or calculating.
To me he is the perfect example of the Southern Flim Flam Man. Slimeball who will do anything for a buck.
Limerick on September 6, 2007 at 11:38 AM
Let’s face it, what this war is is a continuation of a hundreds years war between the Judeo-Christians and the Islamist movement, started around AD 700 by the writing of Mr. Muhammed himself. And what it is about are the fundamental diferences and resulting political and social systems of the two belief systems. The goal of the Islamists is to rule the entire world, their way. Our goal, so far, is to contain the islamist to their existing footprint and “foil” their “terrorist” plots to kill Westerners. Success in this limited effort will not stop the war, it will only attempt to contain the disease. To end the war, we as a civilization need to convince 1/4 of the population if the world that what they believe in is wrong, resulting in the Islamic world’s toleration of other belief systems existing peacfully with theirs.
.
Good luck with that.
AZCON on September 6, 2007 at 11:39 AM
Yeah, definitely.
Yeah, it would, depending on how you parse the words. How Edwards means them is it’s all George Bush’s war, which is looney. So you’re right.
If, however, he was referring to the terrible name and a lot of resulting misfocusing because of it:
… then he’d be right. But he doesn’t mean that so it’s all semantic.
I’m just pointing out that one of the first mistakes made was misdefining our enemy and I’m not at all convinced George Bush fully gets this.
I think he gets it a lot more… but was slow to grasp, just like he was slow to grasp the threat Putin poses, and slow to grasp the threat Mexico poses.
He’s a Christian man I admire and love… but he’s a sitting president who admits to the world he cries, for goodness sakes.
Christoph on September 6, 2007 at 11:40 AM
I’m with you on that, but that isn’t what Edwards was saying. He’s coming at Bush from the left, not the right, and that makes all the difference in the world when you’re parsing out what he means by what he says. And that’s only dealing with one small part of the quote, the meaning of “war on terror.” Everything else, Edwards just gets factually wrong. It’s not Bush’s war, etc.
Bryan on September 6, 2007 at 11:44 AM
Brilliant sentence. I wonder if the notion that we are in another “active” phase of a millennial conflict will revive the question of just exactly where the borders of the “Umma” should lie. Since the Islamists have opened the issue, perhaps we ought to respond.
JiangxiDad on September 6, 2007 at 11:45 AM
Better than most people would define it, but still a recipe for defeat.
If this is war, our goal should be to undermine state sponsors of terror’s states economically, militarily, and culturally (i.e, a the cold war approach mixed in with hot war from time to time) and diminish their footprint, not “contain”.
Ronald Reagan’s goal wasn’t to contain the Soviets… that’s what everyone else’s was… his goal was to defeat them. And he did.
So while you’re right about what our goal is, that’s not what it should be. We have to win all the time to have success using that strategy and we can’t. The enemy gets to have a victory every time there is a successful attack or new territory held or even cultures undermined a la immigration and intimidation.
So it’s a recipe for failure.
Christoph on September 6, 2007 at 11:51 AM
I just wonder if any of those fellows shared the same religion….
But it’s only a bumper sticker, right john?
rightside on September 6, 2007 at 11:52 AM
He said, “so far.”
Just like you originally said, “insofar as you quoted him.”
He wasn’t saying it should be our goal.
JiangxiDad on September 6, 2007 at 11:55 AM
Yeah, I read his comment, Jiangxi.
Christoph on September 6, 2007 at 11:58 AM
I agree 100% with you, but to take the thought process any further (beyond controlling jihadi activity) here will get you banned.
It’s as if we are trying to convince the Nazis that Jews are OK.
AZCON on September 6, 2007 at 12:00 PM
You hit the nail on the head in every respect.
Ultimately, we need a little more willingness to nuke Mecca if required, Hot Air policy notwithstanding.
I’m not saying we do it… but we must be willing to do it. Failing that, we must be willing to use all weapons at our disposal when the time comes.
Christoph on September 6, 2007 at 12:02 PM
Well, interesting, AZCON, it looks like great minds think alike. I posted my 12:02 comment before reading your 12:00.
Christoph on September 6, 2007 at 12:03 PM
“Stateless” in this context means that they are from Bosnia, probably civil war fugitives from the 90s. Germany admitted a few hundred thousand during that time, many of which never returned to Bosnia.
By the way, guess which other prominent jihadi received a passport from Bosnian officials in the 90s …
Niko on September 6, 2007 at 12:19 PM
By the way,
The front page NYT story about the German would-be terrorists notes that “dozens” were killed in the London and Madrid bombings…. 191 were killed in Madrid alone…
that’s a lot of dozens, eh?
talk about intentiaonal MSM understatement!
max1 on September 6, 2007 at 1:28 PM
Edwards is gambling that most people think this is Bush’s war. It’s been the basis for his whole “Bumper Sticker” campaign. Whereas current event worldwide show something completely different.
Kini on September 6, 2007 at 1:39 PM
Boy, these people seem to be from such a broad strata of society. I don’t know that I’ll ever be able to tell what brought them together.
eeyore on September 6, 2007 at 2:40 PM
Bush, to be honest, is not fighting a war on terror. Never has been. He has paid lip service to the idea, but even then, won’t implicate islam in it. Which is like saying WW II was a war on terror, but not implicating the Germans, or their religion – Nazism.
This is why Bush welcomes Saudis as our friends, welcomes Pakistanis as our friends, thinks islam is a religion of peace, and has no problem at all with PC islamic indoctrination in our school system, or our press, and won’t even consider anything written by Robert Spencer, Ali Sina or anyone critical of islam. Instead, he has Karen Hughes, muslim apologist, be his advisor.
War on terror? I see no war on terror anywhere. I see a half-assed military effort in Afghanistan, that let the Taliban flee only to come back, and that allowed a sharia-based constitution to almost execute a man for converting to Christianity. I see that. I also see another half-assed military expedition into Iraq to topple a secular dictator who, ironically, used his brutality to suppress the very shiite extremists that we are fighting right now.
Meanwhile, he holds hands with the very evil bastards that takes our gasoline money and use it to fund madrasses and mosques around the world to spread islam terror far and wide. This man is a good friend of his.
War on terror? Bush has no war on terror going. I hope that the next president will finally start one.
jihadwatcher on September 6, 2007 at 5:42 PM
Wow, I focus on my work, instead of the news, for just two days, and all hell breaks loose.
Kralizec on September 6, 2007 at 5:51 PM