Uh oh: Terrorist names on doomed Air France passenger list?

posted at 11:30 am on June 10, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

The tragic crash of an Air France flight into the Atlantic Ocean could turn out to be more than just an accident.  According to Sky News, as reported by Fox, French investigators say that two names on the passenger manifest match a list of radical Muslims considered dangerous to French security.  The revelation puts terrorism on the list of causes of the mysterious deaths of oveer 220 people (via Brian Faughnan’s Twitter feed):

Two passengers with names linked to Islamic terrorism were on board the Air France flight that crashed in the Atlantic Ocean, killing all 228 on board, it has emerged.

French secret servicemen established the connection while working through the list of those who boarded the doomed Airbus in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, on May 31.

Agents are now trying to establish dates of birth for the two dead passengers, and family connections.

There is a possibility that the name similarities are simply a “macabre coincidence,” the source added, but the revelation is still being “taken very seriously.”

The Paris-based L’Express quotes a French security official who calls this development “highly significant.”  It certainly seems to make more sense than the previous hypotheses, that a lightning strike disabled the plane’s computers, which caused the pilots to fly directly into a massive turbulence.  That explanation was plausible, but deemed very unusual.  That hasn’t happened in decades to large commercial aircraft, although the particular Airbus might have had some vulnerabilities along these lines.

Also, one must keep in mind that France has always been suspected of entering this investigation with a particular mission: to keep the heat off of Airbus.  The aircraft manufacturer would lose billions if an investigation put the airplane itself at fault, in lost sales and retrofitting of the existing global Airbus fleet.  They wouldn’t falsify records to reach that conclusion, but they may show more enthusiasm for certain leads over another — including leaks to French media about them, regardless of their worth.

One point that neither Fox nor Sky News notes is that no terrorist group has yet taken responsibility for the crash.  Most of the time, they show little reluctance in making those claims; after all, the point for them is to terrorize people, and if they don’t take credit, people won’t react in the way they hope from the attack.  Al-Qaeda could use the boost in credibility, after having a number of its operations abroad thwarted by Western security.

There are still plenty of reasons to remain skeptical of all the publicly-floated hypotheses, especially since the flight had indicated some computer problems before the crash.  If these two names indicate that known terrorist risks were on the plane, though, one has to wonder how they slipped past security to get aboard, and whether they caused the crash.

Update: Added a question mark to the headline for better clarity.  Also, several people note in the comments that AQ hasn’t usually claimed credit immediately for their attacks, such as in Madrid and elsewhere, which is a good point.  I left out an icing hypothesis on the crash; be sure to read the comments.

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

Comment pages: 1 2

…two names on the passenger manifest match a list of radical Muslims considered dangerous to French security…

If this is the case, how did they get on the flight?

Tommy_G on June 10, 2009 at 11:33 AM

The plot thickens – but terrorists usually boast about their successes.

Nice little twist though. Fully expect the terrorist PR department to start claiming this one.

PunditFight on June 10, 2009 at 11:34 AM

Bomb threats a couple days before.

Terrorists on the plane.

Coincidence, I’m sure.

Daggett on June 10, 2009 at 11:34 AM

I think a “wait and see” approach is proper here. There are all sorts of names on our US no-fly list that are mistakes.

myrenovations on June 10, 2009 at 11:34 AM

Given the French bureaucratic tendencies, they probably didn’t figure this out until the plane was already in the drink.

teke184 on June 10, 2009 at 11:35 AM

When I heard about the crash, I immediately suspected terrorism, despite the pooh-poohing of the talking heads. There could be several reasons why no terrorist group would have claimed responsibility just yet. Maybe they are testing new “delivery methods” and have a larger target in mind in the near future.

Puddleglum on June 10, 2009 at 11:35 AM

So, what the hell were they doing on the flight in the first place?

BigD on June 10, 2009 at 11:35 AM

i thought fists were being unclinched?

BPD on June 10, 2009 at 11:35 AM

one has to wonder how they slipped past security to get aboard

Ed, it isn’t like the Airline Stewardesses are carrying and I doubt they would be able to defend themselves well.

wow :(

upinak on June 10, 2009 at 11:35 AM

One point that neither Fox nor Sky News notes is that no terrorist group has yet taken responsibility for the crash.

Money.

My aunt and uncle were the two Americans lost on that flight, so I remain more interested than most in what caused this tragedy.

CDeb on June 10, 2009 at 11:35 AM

French investigators say that two names on the passenger manifest match a list of radical Muslims considered dangerous to French security

How big is the list? Also, let me guess: Mohammed and Abdul.

LibTired (KO) on June 10, 2009 at 11:35 AM

maybe the passengers are simply “Lost” on a disappering Island, and the terror suspects are playing the role of Sayid

jp on June 10, 2009 at 11:35 AM

I guess the “appeasement tour” didn’t have much influence, eh?

LeperKhan on June 10, 2009 at 11:36 AM

anyone remember the TWA flight during the 90′s that went down mysteriously?

jp on June 10, 2009 at 11:37 AM

dang….well there goes all the fun conspiracy theories….

alexraye on June 10, 2009 at 11:37 AM

My aunt and uncle were the two Americans lost on that flight, so I remain more interested than most in what caused this tragedy.

CDeb on June 10, 2009 at 11:35 AM

My sincere condolences and prayers for you and your family.

Puddleglum on June 10, 2009 at 11:37 AM

Were, these “Freedom Fighters” recently released from Gitmo and turned into “Man caused disasters” once released?

Also I have condolences for those innocent who were lost.

FontanaConservative on June 10, 2009 at 11:38 AM

Can you imagine the grief the families are going through after hearing this news? Horror piled on top of tragedy.

csdeven on June 10, 2009 at 11:38 AM

It depends on the name. I’m sure there’s an IRA member named Patrick Murphy as well. Doesn’t mean it’s the same one.

RBMN on June 10, 2009 at 11:38 AM

Man-caused Disaster?

trs on June 10, 2009 at 11:39 AM

My aunt and uncle were the two Americans lost on that flight, so I remain more interested than most in what caused this tragedy.

CDeb on June 10, 2009 at 11:35 AM

My sincerest condolences to you and yours and I pray that only the memories of the best days with them remain with you.

csdeven on June 10, 2009 at 11:39 AM

One point that neither Fox nor Sky News notes is that no terrorist group has yet taken responsibility for the crash. Most of the time, they show little reluctance in making those claims;

Al Quaeda has never claimed responsibility for its acts until long after. You are confusing terrorist groups, Ed, as many seem to be doing these days.

I have no idea where this, “No one claimed responsibility” argument came from, but it’s really stupid and ignorant of recent history.

progressoverpeace on June 10, 2009 at 11:40 AM

CDeb on June 10, 2009 at 11:35 AM

Sorry for your loss.

FontanaConservative on June 10, 2009 at 11:40 AM

anyone remember the TWA flight during the 90’s that went down mysteriously?

jp on June 10, 2009 at 11:37 AM

That was totally different, one was an explosion on a trans-Atlantic flight in the northern hemisphere and the other was an explosion on a trans-Atlantic flight in the southern hemisphere.

How could the terrorist brain evolve to adapt to two completely different geographical hemispheres? Your theory just doesn’t make sense. The debate is over.

jeff_from_mpls on June 10, 2009 at 11:40 AM

They wouldn’t falsify records to reach that conclusion,

Are you sure about that? We’re talking about the same conglomerate that, as far as I’m concerned, engineered France’s betrayal of the US on behalf of Saddam Hussein. The French aero industry was making billions off of arms sales to Saddam, and there is no doubt in my pointy little head that they’re the ones who took Chirac aside and told him how France would be voting at the UN.

You’re talking about the same people who are willing to support a genocidal dictator with a historic act of betrayal. You really don’t think they’d alter a few documents to save their bottom line?

One other possibility that is very real in my mind is that the carbon composite materials that make up much of the Airbus suffered a delamination and/or fatigue failure. These are new materials in the sense that those parts out there in use are only now starting to get rather high in milage. We may have to learn from hard experience whether or not they handle fatigue well enough for the job.

CDeb – my condolences to you. I hope we get to the bottom of this.

commenter on June 10, 2009 at 11:40 AM

The plot thickens – but terrorists usually boast about their successes.

Nice little twist though. Fully expect the terrorist PR department to start claiming this one.

PunditFight on June 10, 2009 at 11:34 AM

I agree. So far it seems to be an accident. My wife is flying to Brazil this month. She doesn’t like this news.

shick on June 10, 2009 at 11:41 AM

So, what the hell were they doing on the flight in the first place?

BigD on June 10, 2009 at 11:35 AM

Thread winnar.

LibTired (KO) on June 10, 2009 at 11:43 AM

CDeb on June 10, 2009 at 11:35 AM

You from Lafayette?

darclon on June 10, 2009 at 11:43 AM

Ugh… I hope that this doesn’t screw up my planned European vacation (flying from Chicago on June 24th).

Illinidiva on June 10, 2009 at 11:43 AM

The plot thickens – but terrorists usually boast about their successes.

PunditFight on June 10, 2009 at 11:34 AM

Al Quaeda has never claimed responsibility soon after an event. Never.

progressoverpeace on June 10, 2009 at 11:44 AM

My aunt and uncle were the two Americans lost on that flight, so I remain more interested than most in what caused this tragedy.

CDeb on June 10, 2009 at 11:35 AM

I’m sorry to hear that. My condolences to your family. Were they living in France, Brazil or other?
My wife is from Brazil.

shick on June 10, 2009 at 11:45 AM

Puddleglum on June 10, 2009 at 11:37 AM

I love your nick.

shick on June 10, 2009 at 11:45 AM

One point that neither Fox nor Sky News notes is that no terrorist group has yet taken responsibility for the crash. Most of the time, they show little reluctance in making those claims

that is simply wrong; especially if a state sponsor of terrorism (Iran for instance) is involved

runner on June 10, 2009 at 11:46 AM

I think the focus of this tragedy should fall directly on Airbus.

GrammarPolice on June 10, 2009 at 11:46 AM

Maybe they are testing new “delivery methods” and have a larger target in mind in the near future.

Puddleglum on June 10, 2009 at 11:35 AM

I think you are on to something here, PG.

Bruno Strozek on June 10, 2009 at 11:46 AM

as obama would call it………a man-made disaster

marktarheel on June 10, 2009 at 11:46 AM

My aunt and uncle were the two Americans lost on that flight, so I remain more interested than most in what caused this tragedy.

CDeb on June 10, 2009 at 11:35 AM

Oh CDeb, that is heart-wrenching. My sincerest condolences to you and your family.

conservative pilgrim on June 10, 2009 at 11:46 AM

CDeb on June 10, 2009 at 11:35 AM

CDeb, so sorry to hear about your loss. Prayers for you and your family. God be with you.

sherry on June 10, 2009 at 11:47 AM

that is simply wrong; especially if a state sponsor of terrorism (Iran for instance) is involved

runner on June 10, 2009 at 11:46 AM

You are correct, and the bombing of the Jewish center in Argentina (right around the corner, down there) has yet to have anyone claim responsibility. But, so many fools have glommed onto this idea that terrorists must claim responsibility. It’s sheer idiocy.

progressoverpeace on June 10, 2009 at 11:47 AM

no terrorist group has yet taken responsibility for the crash. Most of the time, they show little reluctance in making those claims

Not saying that I think there is yet compelling evidence for terrorism in this plane’s loss, but I don’t recall quick calls to claim responsibility for 9/11, the Bali nightclub bombing, the Madrid train bombing, or the London tube attacks. I honestly don’t remember whether Al Qaeda jumped within days to say it had bombed the USS Cole and the US embassies in Tanzania and Kenya.

But I do think that there is sufficient precedent to say that the absence of a claim of responsibility on the part of a terrorist group does NOT constitute evidence one way or the other that terrorism may have been responsible.

ProfessorMiao on June 10, 2009 at 11:48 AM

dang, I feel like a jerk now for making the “Lost” joke/reference….sorry CDeb, condolences

jp on June 10, 2009 at 11:48 AM

My aunt and uncle were the two Americans lost on that flight, so I remain more interested than most in what caused this tragedy.

CDeb on June 10, 2009 at 11:35 AM

I’m so very sorry for your loss.

trigon on June 10, 2009 at 11:48 AM

Illinidiva on June 10, 2009 at 11:43 AM

I’m sure you’ll be fine.

sherry on June 10, 2009 at 11:49 AM

Ditto on condolences to CDeb. I’m very sorry for your loss.

okonkolo on June 10, 2009 at 11:49 AM

no terrorist group has yet taken responsibility for the crash

That was my thought. If this was an act of terrorism, they would consider it a “success.” So, why wouldn’t one of the nuts claim “victory”? I don’t doubt that it could be terrorism, but if so, they aren’t following the usual protocol.

Overall, the reports coming out have all been suspicious, as if they’re trying to get their lies straight. But that’s just the cynic in me. A wait and see approach is best I think.

conservative pilgrim on June 10, 2009 at 11:49 AM

But, so many fools have glommed onto this idea that terrorists must claim responsibility. It’s sheer idiocy.

progressoverpeace on June 10, 2009 at 11:47 AM

exactly. no one claimed the attacks of 9/11 either, as far as I know

runner on June 10, 2009 at 11:49 AM

…two names on the passenger manifest match a list of radical Muslims considered dangerous to French security…

If this is the case, how did they get on the flight?

Tommy_G on June 10, 2009 at 11:33 AM

Note to self: Do not ever fly on a French airliner.

bluelightbrigade on June 10, 2009 at 11:51 AM

If this is the case, how did they get on the flight?

Tommy_G on June 10, 2009 at 11:33 AM

The answer is likely in the quote you cited: “French security.”

————-

Question: how big are these watchlists and how unusual are the names in question?

Professor Blather on June 10, 2009 at 11:51 AM

CDeb on June 10, 2009 at 11:35 AM

May God comfort you and your family in your loss.

If this was a “test”, then the terrorists would feel the need to stay quiet about it.

kingsjester on June 10, 2009 at 11:51 AM

Bomb threats a couple days before.

Terrorists on the plane.

Coincidence, I’m sure.

Daggett on June 10, 2009 at 11:34 AM

+1

Just a couple of “youths” with no jobs in Paris, huh?

bluelightbrigade on June 10, 2009 at 11:52 AM

Well it looks like they unclenched their fist long enough to detonate an explosive device. Thanks for that TOTUS.

deadbackpacker on June 10, 2009 at 11:53 AM

I’m sure you’ll be fine.

sherry on June 10, 2009 at 11:49 AM

I’m sure I will as well. I’d just like to remain blissfully ignorant about this.

Illinidiva on June 10, 2009 at 11:54 AM

What would cause more damage to French interests? A heinous terrorist attack, or a mysterious crash leading to doubts about the safety of the Airbus?

hawksruleva on June 10, 2009 at 11:54 AM

My aunt and uncle were the two Americans lost on that flight, so I remain more interested than most in what caused this tragedy.

CDeb on June 10, 2009 at 11:35 AM

I am very sorry for your loss.

runner on June 10, 2009 at 11:54 AM

With the direct threat 2 days before, lack of ANY Pilot call or mayday and now this….I think you have your cause…

It all adds up with a shoe bomb type…immediate and severe decompression, plan breaks apart mid air…pilot either killed in explosion or frantically trying to keep a disintegrating bird in the air…..that is why no Mayday calls….

Clearly, these two did not hear the ONE’s Cairo speach…

SDarchitect on June 10, 2009 at 11:54 AM

Well it looks like they unclenched their fist long enough to detonate an explosive device. Thanks for that TOTUS.

deadbackpacker on June 10, 2009 at 11:53 AM

That’s really jumping to conclusions.

ProfessorMiao on June 10, 2009 at 11:55 AM

No one has taken credit for the act of terrorism, is it was terrorism. And, why would they attack the French?

SC.Charlie on June 10, 2009 at 11:55 AM

Not saying that I think there is yet compelling evidence for terrorism in this plane’s loss, but I don’t recall quick calls to claim responsibility for 9/11, the Bali nightclub bombing, the Madrid train bombing, or the London tube attacks. I honestly don’t remember whether Al Qaeda jumped within days to say it had bombed the USS Cole and the US embassies in Tanzania and Kenya.

But I do think that there is sufficient precedent to say that the absence of a claim of responsibility on the part of a terrorist group does NOT constitute evidence one way or the other that terrorism may have been responsible.

ProfessorMiao on June 10, 2009 at 11:48 AM

You make very good points, but it seems all but 9/11 had terrorists claiming responsibility for the terrorist acts. Someone else with a better memory (or time to use a search engine) could set the record straight.

I agree with you that the lack of someone claiming responsibility doesn’t negate this catastrophe as an act of terrorism.

AllahPundit is top notch on this issue, would like to hear him weigh in on the subject.

conservative pilgrim on June 10, 2009 at 11:55 AM

anyone remember the TWA flight during the 90’s that went down mysteriously?

jp on June 10, 2009 at 11:37 AM

I’m guessing you mean TWA 800.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TWA_Flight_800

Nelson DeMille wrote an outstanding book (“NightFall”) that uses the crash as a key plot point.

Professor Blather on June 10, 2009 at 11:56 AM

It can’t be terrorism! Obama has united the world! Evil-doers tremble at the mere mention of his name!

/sarc

CDeb…my condolences.

jennifernaz on June 10, 2009 at 11:57 AM

Note to self: Do not ever fly on a French airliner.

bluelightbrigade on June 10, 2009 at 11:51 AM

Ha! They’ve been added to my growing list of DO NOT FLY ON airlines.

conservative pilgrim on June 10, 2009 at 11:57 AM

Of course the question that begs asking, even if it wasn’t terrorism, why isn’t al qaeda trying to take responsibility? Or is the mule just that slow?

Canadian Imperialist Running Dog on June 10, 2009 at 11:57 AM

Thank God that AT LEAST nobody was waterboarded!

Star20 on June 10, 2009 at 11:58 AM

Nelson DeMille wrote an outstanding book (”NightFall”) that uses the crash as a key plot point.

Professor Blather on June 10, 2009 at 11:56 AM

Excellent book. Excellent author. My favorite was Up Country.

sherry on June 10, 2009 at 11:58 AM

just googled around, American THinker is calling for the TWA 800 investigation to be re-opened

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/06/reopen_the_twa_flight_800_case.html

never happen under Obama, it would likely connect to Saddam Hussein along with possibly the Ok. CIty bombing…instead it gets swept under the rug, maybe we’ll know more in 50 yrs

http://jaynadavis.com

author of “The Third Terrorist”

jp on June 10, 2009 at 11:58 AM

That’s really jumping to conclusions.

ProfessorMiao on June 10, 2009 at 11:55 AM

Uh, just saying if it is terrorism, the TOTUS’s brilliant strategy of engagement is not working. Not that negotiating with rabid, hellbent, murderous terrorists is much of a strategy.

deadbackpacker on June 10, 2009 at 11:58 AM

Are Brazilian airports known for being careful monitors of who boards flights leaving from there?

jeanie on June 10, 2009 at 11:59 AM

The plot thickens – but terrorists usually boast about their successes.

PunditFight on June 10, 2009 at 11:34 AM

Unless they’re dead…..

BobMbx on June 10, 2009 at 11:59 AM

…two names on the passenger manifest match a list of radical Muslims considered dangerous to French security…

If this is the case, how did they get on the flight?

I hope it’s just the cynic in me and not what I think it is – deflection from Airbus by French authorities in releasing names of supposed terrorists. Asking “how did they get ON the plane with these names” raises all sorts of stink in my mind.

– PS..CDeb, sorry for your loss. Tragic.

Thunderstorm129 on June 10, 2009 at 11:59 AM

Also, one must keep in mind that France has always been suspected of entering this investigation with a particular mission: to keep the heat off of Airbus. The aircraft manufacturer would lose billions if an investigation put the airplane itself at fault, in lost sales and retrofitting of the existing global Airbus fleet. They wouldn’t falsify records to reach that conclusion, but they may show more enthusiasm for certain leads over another — including leaks to French media about them, regardless of their worth.

Also want to point out – France’s Air Show kicks off this weekend and all next week – that attracts every major player around the world… and leads to millions in contracts.

Odie1941 on June 10, 2009 at 11:59 AM

I’m sorry for your families loss CDeb.

BL@KBIRD on June 10, 2009 at 12:00 PM

maybe the passengers are simply “Lost” on a disappering Island, and the terror suspects are playing the role of Sayid

jp on June 10, 2009 at 11:35 AM

Considering from what I recall of Sayid being a complete d-bag, perhaps….

Seriously, it wouldn’t surprise me in the least if this was terrorism. Which make me very sad.

mjk on June 10, 2009 at 12:00 PM

No worries… the plane crash was before the Cairo speech.

mjbrooks3 on June 10, 2009 at 12:00 PM

The longer you obfuscate about possible terrorism, the more money you make in the meantime on non-cancelled flights.

Downplaying terrorism is a business decision.

You “acclimatize” the public gradually to the idea and, in the meantime, you’ve made further millions, thus, when it is revealed that it was terrorism (if it was, which seems likely), no member of the public is really that surprised, and the flying continues.

In the current economy, it’s a smart move.

As long as the security services know the truth and act on it, in the backround, to prevent further disasters.

profitsbeard on June 10, 2009 at 12:01 PM

It certainly seems to make more sense than the previous hypotheses, that a lightning strike disabled the plane’s computers, which caused the pilots to fly directly into a massive turbulence

Ed, no offense, but I’ve been following this story pretty closely and that’s just not even remotely accurate.

There really isn’t (yet) a prevailing hypothesis, but to the extent there was one (prior to today), it was that speed sensors on the plane iced over, giving faulty airspeed indications to both the computers and pilots. This “pitot icing” issue, as it’s called, could have been one failure in an entire cascade of events that caused the crash.

Purple Fury on June 10, 2009 at 12:01 PM

conservative pilgrim on June 10, 2009 at 11:55 AM

You are confusing claims of responisbility with the authorities figuring out who did the acts. Al Quaeda did not claim credit for Madrid. If you recall, no one knew and the Spanish government started off with the theory that it was the Basques. There was no claim before the elections and I don’t think there ever was after, either. But the Spanish figured out that it was AL Quaeda. It was much the same in Bali and the other AL Quaeda acts.

One of the hallmarks of Al Quaeda was that they didn’t claim responsibility, unlike the arab terrorists the West had gotten used to (and eventually accepted as governing organizations).

progressoverpeace on June 10, 2009 at 12:01 PM

Also, one must keep in mind that France has always been suspected of entering this investigation with a particular mission: to keep the heat off of Airbus.

Airbus began as a government initiative. Your assessment is correct.

Del Dolemonte on June 10, 2009 at 12:01 PM

CDeb, so sorry for your loss. I will be praying for your family and also for the truth to come out quickly.

truetexan on June 10, 2009 at 12:01 PM

Also, one must keep in mind that France has always been suspected of entering this investigation with a particular mission: to keep the heat off of Airbus.

Won’t there be a conflict of interest when the group responsible for keeping the heat off Islam show up?

BL@KBIRD on June 10, 2009 at 12:02 PM

My aunt and uncle were the two Americans lost on that flight, so I remain more interested than most in what caused this tragedy.

CDeb on June 10, 2009 at 11:35 AM

Deepest condolences on your loss. As I recall reading, they had lived in Brazil for 10 years and were on their way to France for a vacation?

Del Dolemonte on June 10, 2009 at 12:03 PM

Two terrorists killed in an airliner incident that could be ‘an act of GOD’? Now that’s irony.

Skandia Recluse on June 10, 2009 at 12:04 PM

If this is the case, how did they get on the flight?

Tommy_G on June 10, 2009 at 11:33 AM

Probably the same answer as to how 19 men got on our planes with box cutters.

BetseyRoss on June 10, 2009 at 12:04 PM

I believe Brazil has a large Muslim population and of that Muslim population there ia a large amount of the extreme Muslim faith. It would not surprise me if the plane was brought down by terrorism and if so, Brazilian Muslims as the suspects.
My info on the Brazilians is quite old, 2001 or 2002, so take it for what its worth.

the Coondawg on June 10, 2009 at 12:05 PM

You are confusing claims of responisbility with the authorities figuring out who did the acts. Al Quaeda did not claim credit for Madrid. If you recall, no one knew and the Spanish government started off with the theory that it was the Basques. There was no claim before the elections and I don’t think there ever was after, either. But the Spanish figured out that it was AL Quaeda. It was much the same in Bali and the other AL Quaeda acts.

progressoverpeace on June 10, 2009 at 12:01 PM

Thanks for the information!

conservative pilgrim on June 10, 2009 at 12:05 PM

I’m curious to see if Al Gore still thinks globull warming continues to be a bigger threat to our survival than terrorism.

ErinF on June 10, 2009 at 12:06 PM

Ed,

Also, one must keep in mind that France has always been suspected of entering this investigation with a particular mission: to keep the heat off of Airbus.

Suspected by whom?

Seven days ago an expert from the University of Indianapolis said that signs pointed towards the possibility of terrorism:

Air France crash: History lends credence to terrorism theory, UIndy expert says

The plot thickens – but terrorists usually boast about their successes.

Yes but in what sense is this a success? The plane went down. If terrorists had hijacked it they would probably have flown it inot a building.

The political motive of an attack may possibly have been to influence the EUP elections, just as al-Qaeda tried to influence the German nation election with a terroritst attack a few years back.

It that was the intention then this has been a definite failure and there’s nothing to boast about.

aengus on June 10, 2009 at 12:06 PM

CDeb
May G-d comfort you and yours in your grief.
If this was something other than an act of G-d I hope that justice will come swiftly and ruthlessly.

annoyinglittletwerp on June 10, 2009 at 12:06 PM

Nelson DeMille also wrote By The Rivers of Babylon, that I am currently reading and is very good.
CDeb may your Aunt & Uncle have eternal joy in the presence of God and may your family find comfort in His infinite grace.

fourdeucer on June 10, 2009 at 12:07 PM

it seems all but 9/11 had terrorists claiming responsibility for the terrorist acts. Someone else with a better memory (or time to use a search engine) could set the record straight.

conservative pilgrim on June 10, 2009 at 11:55 AM

According to various sources I turned up, the only claim for responsibility made the Madrid train bombing was the false claim from the Basque separatists; the only claims made for the US embassy bombings in Africa were from the “Islamic Army for the Liberation of Holy Places”, and no claim was ever made for the attack on the USS Cole. Al Qaeda took ownership of the Bali nightclub bombing 3 days later, and Bin Laden claimed “credit” for the London tube bombings 3 months later.

So it’s a real mixed bag.

The real question is how these two got on the plane (not to mention how they got on a plane to get to Brazil in the first place).

ProfessorMiao on June 10, 2009 at 12:09 PM

after all, the point for them is to terrorize people, and if they don’t take credit, people won’t react in the way they hope from the attack.

A popular model plane crashing over the ocean for unknown reasons is a lot less terrifying to the public than one blown up. That’s why the former costs sales and the later does not. The known is always more terrifying than the unknown. The predictable and fixable more terrifying than the unpredictable and unfixable. /sarc

TheBigOldDog on June 10, 2009 at 12:10 PM

just as al-Qaeda tried to influence the German nation election with a terroritst attack a few years back.

That should read a failed attempt at a terrorist attack a few years back. I’m not referring to the successful Madrid attack.

aengus on June 10, 2009 at 12:10 PM

Two terrorists are dead? I consider this a silver lining to an otherwise horrific tragedy.

Also I seem to remember another pilot saying he saw a flash when the plane went down. Reported here.

Has that been debunked? Every day there’s something new in this story that makes it look more suspicious to me.

Advocate For Change on June 10, 2009 at 12:16 PM

L’Express also said they cannot verify the terrorists’ identity because the passenger lists do not include birthdates. I think that’s nonsense.

Carl in Jerusalem on June 10, 2009 at 12:19 PM

Unlike many terrorist acts, this one isn’t clearly a bombing or an act of terror. While they might not always claim responsibility, usually it’s still clearly an act of ‘man-mad-destruction’ — in this case that’s not at all clear. That means it doesn’t strike terror into anyone that isn’t already afraid of flying. I think if it were terrorism there’d be a bit more of a footprint to track. Of course, we don’t have all the details, so it’s possible, but my first thought is that it’s pretty unlikely.

WashingtonsWake on June 10, 2009 at 12:21 PM

I’ll stick with icing for now. It’s a known vulnerability, and one that has occurred (with non-fatal outcomes) on similarly-equiped A330′s in this type of weather in this region. It is also a single causative event that could plausiby trigger the entire failure sequence as we understand it at this time.

NeighborhoodCatLady on June 10, 2009 at 12:22 PM

The real question is how these two got on the plane (not to mention how they got on a plane to get to Brazil in the first place).

South America’s Triangle area of Argentina, Brazil and Paraguay – the “terrorist triangle” (you can look that up if yo like); was great concern for the Bush admin.

runner on June 10, 2009 at 12:23 PM

Looks like it’s time for another apology/surrender tour.

WordsMatter on June 10, 2009 at 12:23 PM

al Qaeda did take credit for the 9/11 attacks, but not for awhile as others here note. The most telling claim came in a video released several years after the attacks, where bin Laden is shown meeting with several of the 9/11 hijackers.

I also heard bin Laden once state that the attacks were originally intended to happen on Clinton’s watch, but that Mohammed Atta told him they needed much more time to properly train.

Del Dolemonte on June 10, 2009 at 12:23 PM

My aunt and uncle were the two Americans lost on that flight, so I remain more interested than most in what caused this tragedy.

CDeb on June 10, 2009 at 11:35 AM

We cannot imagine your grief and that of your family. Our most sincere condolences.

Are they the professor(s) from the Houston area?

newton on June 10, 2009 at 12:23 PM

progressoverpeace on June 10, 2009 at 12:01 PM

You are correct, this phenomenon of claiming responsibility was established by the progenitors of modern terrorism, the Palestinians. Their purpose was to focus attention on their cause, hence the many claims in airline hijackings, munich etc.. for the TV Cameras.

But, as you have pointed out, neither Hezbollah nor Al Qaeda, or even the homegrown European Jihadist cells are very big on claims. I am not advocating this was a terrorist incident per say, but agreeing with POP.

saus on June 10, 2009 at 12:26 PM

Comment pages: 1 2