Posted on 06/10/2009 5:11:28 AM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
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."
A source working for the French security services told Paris weekly L’Express that the link was "highly significant."
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
I wonder how many have stopped to think that by not claiming responsibility, a terrorist group might do more economic damage to Airbus and Air France by letting it appear the crash was their fault (either or both), rather than a verified (claimed) act of terrorism.
A few extra uniforms around the boarding gates might offset the effects of terrorists' activity, but blaming design 'flaws'/limitations or sircraft maintennance/personnel problems might have a more deep seated effect on potential customers which would be far more damaging in the long run.
I dont really think terror had anything to do with this. Fact: No group has claimed responsibility. Its not hit the news. So nobodys objectives are achieved. I think it was just an unfortunate accident.
In the original list, there were 2 Syrians listed. Shortly after that, the 2 Syrians were removed from the list and the list had 2 missing spots.
The pitot-tube has been around for how long? And the mediots can blame it within days of the crash without flight recorders? Incredible.
Just because nobody claimed responsibility does not mean it wasn’t terrorism.
What if the group was planning other attacks? Do you really think they would make a claim?
That notion is absurd on its face.
It depends on the situation. Take the 1994 Philippine Air bombing by Ramzi Yousef. That went unclaimed because they were trying a new method (liquid bomb) that they intended to use on a grand scale (Operation Bojinka).
It could be something like that. It's been a long time since they've been able to successfully bring down a commercial plane in the western hemisphere (within striking distance of the US). If they've developed a new method that works, I could understand why they'd keep quiet about it for the time being.
That's just one possible scenario. There are others.
Why are they not claiming credit?
Either:
a) As typical of most martyrs, they believe they will find their reward in heaven.
OR (more likely)
b) This is a dry run for a much bigger “event”.
Combine this event with the Buenos Aires bomb scare a few days earlier— both on flights originating in Paris — and one might surmise that an operative in Paris is pre-planting bombs for return flights to Paris. This would mean the martyrs sole responsibility is to detonate the bomb.
THis definately changes everything.
I have been in the camp of this being an airframe failure due to over-stressing because of turbulance, updrafts, computer malfunction, mechanical malfunction. Every message the plane sent showed an aircraft facing problems which lead to break up. Combined with the weather they were flying in it seems to be a no brainer.
When they found the tail section in basically the same condition as the one that seperated from the Airbus in NYC, it seemed to sinch the theory that the computer or the pilots over-stressed the aircraft trying to save it and suffered the same type of catastrophic tail failure as that flight.
However, I have said all along that an internal device of some type could not be ruled out until a definitive answer was found.
I have to say that this revelation raised the likelihood of the failures being caused by something in the plane rather than external forces. At this point a small explosive device or an EMP emitter can no longer be ruled out.
The same final result - Rudder over limit causing tail failure - is probably still the most likely end for the aircraft, but the initial cause of the cascade of failures leading to that is now in doubt big time.
People don’t stop to think at all. This claim of responsibility nonsense is one of the most out-of-control myths I’ve ever seen. I guess this is what media conditioning can do.
You, and others, keep saying this. I guess you missed the list of unclaimed airplane bombings that have been posted on several threads, including this one, since this has happened.
The object of bombing a plane is to kill people, so I would say that IF terrorists brought down this plane they did indeed obtain their objectives.
Not all terrorists claim credit for terrorists acts, and there are several valid reasons why this is so. One of the most important is the fact they may be planning other strikes on more aircraft and don't want to claim credit at this time, another reason is: Why claim credit when fear can be imposed by simply bringing down as many planes as possible. It would soon be evident to even the most dense person that it was terrorism working.
I am not saying this crash was the result of terrorism, I am saying that simply because no one claimed credit doesn't mean it WASN'T terrorism, quite the contrary.
Or a bunch of storm clouds that no other pilot in the area saw.
There is some crackpot who's trying to blame this on weather caused by man-made global warming.
The madness of the Left in full flower.
Even if it truly is a mechanical problem, it may still be terrorism. Mechanics can be terrorists, too.
But people get argumentative over these things. Like the exchange below, for example:
<
Lighning strike in some sensitive area like the fuel tanks or a catastrophic failure due to bad weather.
You still pushing your troll theories?
Thought you would have been zotted by now
A bit overboard, suggesting zotting for having a different theory.
Or B52’s dropping big bombs at the entrance to your finely furnished cave.
This is really a great point. Given that after they knocked down 2 buildings in NYC we invaded 2 countries and killed 1,000’s of jihadists, why would they want you to know that they just blew up a plane?
schu
That wasn’t a case of strangelove merely suggesting it may be something other than terrorism. He was adamant (in a polite way, granted... he insulted no one) that it could only be a weather-related disaster and he moved from one weather-theory to the next, frequently copying and pasting info without attribution. He also ruled out any possibility of terrorism out-of-hand, before any facts were known.
That’s a little different. That kind of behavior, combined with a two week old sign-up date are going to arouse suspicion.
That being said, I didn’t see anything from him that would merit being banned at this point.
OK, I didn't believe this was terrorism because no one claimed credit, but you point out a very possible reason not to claim that credit. Frightening.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.