Consensus Emerging Russian Plane Crash Likely a Bomb

By Jeralyn, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Wed Nov 04, 2015 at 05:16:44 PM EST
Tags: ISIS, Russia, Egypt (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Intelligence experts in the U.S. and elswhere are now saying a bomb brought down the Russian airplane in Egypt. The U.K. and Ireland have suspended flights to Sharm el-Sheikh.

Wilayat Sinai released another audio message today taking credit. Here's the last part according to one translation: (dashes inserted by me)

"To the skeptics and decriers we say: die in your rage! We downed it by the grace of G-d, but we are not required to explain how we did it.

So, inspect the wreckage of the aircraft, analyze your black box, make your conclusions based on your expertise, and prove that we did not down nor else prove how it fell. Eat your hearts out! We downed it by the grace of G-d. G-d willing, we will explain how we did it at a time and manner of our own choosing.

[More...]

Did you not notice that it fell on the 17th day of Muharram [corresponding to 31 October 2015), which is G-d's forbidden month? Do you know that this day coincides with the day we pledged allegiance to the caliph of Muslims, may G-d protect him? Eat your hearts out! We are the ones who downed it by the grace of G-d. So, analyze and cast doubts. You know we tell the truth and that telling the truth is part of our worship to G-d. So, wait! The days are pregnant.

Arabic is here.

So, it sounds like ISIS's Sinai wilayat either had someone on board the plane with a bomb, or had someone leave it on the plane. If it really was planned for a certain date, it doesn't sound like a lone wolf attack but the work of a cell. Was it detonated it by someone on board or by remote control?

I wonder if anyone is looking at the 16 people who had reservations to be on the flight but cancelled the day before?

< Tuesday Open Thread | Mexico Supreme Court Opens Door to Legal Marijuana >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Consensus Emerging Russian Plane Crash Likely a Bomb | 70 comments (70 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Horrible people... (5.00 / 2) (#1)
by fishcamp on Wed Nov 04, 2015 at 05:56:05 PM EST

Count me still skeptical (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by Militarytracy on Wed Nov 04, 2015 at 06:04:23 PM EST

I'll wait for something official with named sources.

Thank you for common sense MT (5.00 / 1) (#28)
by smott on Thu Nov 05, 2015 at 08:46:41 AM EST

No explosive material or traces found thus far. After this long, if it was there they would know it.

It's a funny batch of competing agendas. Airbus would breath a sigh of relief if it was a bomb and not a failure of the aircraft.

The Egyptians on the other hand are probably praying for that, coz a bomb would really slam tourism there.

Also interesting they are saying they don't have the CVR reading yet - it looked virtually undamaged in the pics I saw.


I noticed that about the CVR (5.00 / 1) (#31)
by Militarytracy on Thu Nov 05, 2015 at 09:03:24 AM EST

That was pictured in photographs too. I was also puzzled when it was reported that it was badly damaged, because originally it was reported both were recovered in very good condition. And then the photo of one of them, still attached to the structures around it so it didn't take the brunt of crashing to the ground completely on its own.

Also, we have been told that they recovered the odd sounds heard before the plane disappeared from radar.

It isn't adding up very well.


Makes you wonder (5.00 / 2) (#33)
by smott on Thu Nov 05, 2015 at 09:13:00 AM EST

If there was something on the CVR they'd rather not be public.
Tail strike on TO would be one of them - speculation of course.

But listening to pilots decide to press on after something like that would reflect very badly indeed on the airline.

Similar stuff has happened before though. Just recently a Qatar 777 hit runway lights at the end of TO in Miami and kept going 13 hrs overseas. Crazy.

There are also rumors from employees that this particular aircraft was not sound and had some kind of pressure leak, often making the FAs dizzy at altitude. Take as you will. Door seals are a maintenance item. Love to see the aft bulk cargo door, situated right where tail strike damage could compromise it. Have not seen pics of that yet. Maybe coz it departed early in the upset....


OMG. a pressure leak? (5.00 / 1) (#36)
by Militarytracy on Thu Nov 05, 2015 at 09:24:22 AM EST

God forbid, that's just insane if found to be true. The carrier insisting it was impossible it was mechanical failure doesn't make much of an impression on me. No carrier would say anything different under any circumstances.


: Rumored complaints (5.00 / 1) (#41)
by smott on Thu Nov 05, 2015 at 09:40:25 AM EST

From flight staff. The aircraft had to be over-pressured to compensate for the leak.
2 of the 5 galley ovens were supposedly inoperable.
Again, all grain of salt.
I'm more concerned re the difficulty testing things like skin repair due to the laminate/composite construction. Laminations separate and cannot be seen/properly inspected without expensive testing.
Expensive testing does not sound like something Metrojet could afford.

With all due respect, Jeralyn, ... (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Nov 04, 2015 at 08:27:52 PM EST

... the curiously scripted musings of one single anonymous source in Washington does not constitute a consensus, "growing" or otherwise. While there are currently multiple references in search engines to the numerous websites that are presently reporting this story, they all point to this same anonymous intel official. If this source had any veracity at all, he or she would have gone on the record.

While I'm more than willing to accept the official findings, whenever they're released and whatever they may be, I'm finding it much harder to countenance the speculation of others who are in an apparent hurry to blame a specific group for having caused this crash. These sorts of charges can be very hard to walk back, once they've become embedded in the public consciousness.

Why can't we wait until the actual crash site investigators on the ground in Sinai have concluded their preliminary inquiry into the cause of the crash? Let's please first ensure that our suspicions are in fact well-founded and correct, before we start leveling charges.

Aloha.

It is all over the news now Donald (5.00 / 1) (#16)
by Militarytracy on Wed Nov 04, 2015 at 08:38:55 PM EST

Someone doesn't want us all to wait patiently. The same people who adore their leader Pootie are probably deliberately being stirred. He does love to be loved.


Not just one source (none / 0) (#19)
by Jeralyn on Wed Nov 04, 2015 at 11:20:51 PM EST

Multiple U.S. intelligence officials have said the U.S. intelligence assessment point to a bomb. See CNN article (no link due to autoplay video.)

The latest U.S. intelligence suggests that the crash was most likely caused by a bomb planted on the plane by ISIS or an affiliate, according to multiple U.S. officials who spoke with CNN.

AFP (London):

The United States and Britain said a bomb may have brought down a Russian airliner which crashed in Egypt, as the Islamic State group insisted it caused the disaster.

UK Foreign Secretary today:

"There is a significant possibility that the crash was caused by an explosive device on board the aircraft," Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond said after an emergency cabinet meeting.

The only people clamming up are Egypt and Russia.


But they're all repeating the same prattle ... (5.00 / 2) (#59)
by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Nov 05, 2015 at 08:18:31 PM EST

... from that same source, which renders all this to be nothing more than noise from an echo chamber, during which the media's coverage has escalated from the crash "possibly" caused by a bomb to "likely," without the provision of any additional information whatsoever.

Further, I think it's important to note that both the Egyptians and the Russians have said that thus far, investigators have uncovered no evidence to support such contentions about a bomb being on board.

Still further, it appears that all this "chatter" picked up by intelligence agencies took place subsequent to the plane's crash and not prior to it, so this storyline is starting to be walked back.

Now, I honestly don't know what caused this crash, nor do I care to speculate any further. But I find the apparent eagerness of some parties to blame ISIS for this tragedy to be rather unseemly, particularly since it dovetails all too neatly with the agenda of those who promote a more vigorous interventionist policy in the Middle East.

Lest we forget, we're still dealing with the lingering effects from a similar effort by many of these same U.S. and U.K. intelligence agencies 13 years ago, when the Bush administration and Blair government pressured them to link Saddam Hussein and Iraq with the 9/11 atrocities.

41 years ago, Congress got stampeded into an agreement to massively escalate the U.S. military role in Vietnam, thanks in no small part to the Pentagon's haste to blame North Vietnam for an attack on in the Gulf of Tonkin which apparently never took place.

117 years ago, the United States declared war on Spain in large part because the McKinley administration quickly blamed that country for the Jan. 1898 sinking of the battleship USS Maine in Havana Harbor. Only later did we learn that the Maine's destruction was caused not by a Spanish mine or torpedo, but rather by its own fuel caches of bituminous coal, which is known for releasing firedamp, a volatile gas prone to spontaneous explosions.

We really need to wait until the evidence is conclusive, and not rush to judgment and decision in its absence.

Aloha.


Well, for many of us over here... (none / 0) (#25)
by gbrbsb on Thu Nov 05, 2015 at 08:20:20 AM EST

...the two would still add up to 'one' source!


It's being reported this morning (none / 0) (#26)
by CaptHowdy on Thu Nov 05, 2015 at 08:31:09 AM EST

That there is "a piece of evidence" that has not been public ally released that mor or less confirms a bomb.

Is this true? Who knows. But it seemed unlikely they would say such a thing without having some evidence to produce at some point.


Intercepted communications (5.00 / 2) (#27)
by smott on Thu Nov 05, 2015 at 08:43:20 AM EST

That gives the impression there may have been a bomb.

Just wake me up when they find any trace of explosive material, which after 5 days, they have not.

The investigators should know by now if it was a bomb.


Chatter has been wrong and (3.50 / 2) (#29)
by Militarytracy on Thu Nov 05, 2015 at 08:51:09 AM EST

Misleading many times before.


Actually (none / 0) (#35)
by CaptHowdy on Thu Nov 05, 2015 at 09:23:35 AM EST

They specifically said physical evidence.

Not chatter.

I'm not invested either way.


Perhaps they have perfected (none / 0) (#39)
by Militarytracy on Thu Nov 05, 2015 at 09:32:45 AM EST

A currently undetectable explosive using our standard detection measures. It is something they have been working on. Or if they planted an explosive device around an engine, perhaps bodies avoided coming in contact with residue that way.


CNN just listed why US intelligence (none / 0) (#49)
by Militarytracy on Thu Nov 05, 2015 at 11:31:04 AM EST

Is thinking bomb. No physical evidence. Intercepted conversations and chatter along with poor airport security is the only evidence the leaking is owning up to right now.


jim miklaszewski (none / 0) (#53)
by CaptHowdy on Thu Nov 05, 2015 at 12:00:00 PM EST

This morning on MSNBC said there was physical evidence.

Is that true? As I said, I'm not invested.


I just saw same guy again (none / 0) (#58)
by CaptHowdy on Thu Nov 05, 2015 at 04:31:59 PM EST

Thus time saying it "probably" was intercepts.

That is absolutely not what he said earlier this morning.


I'm not surprised (none / 0) (#61)
by Militarytracy on Fri Nov 06, 2015 at 06:27:58 AM EST

It seems like someone is trying to use the plane crisis for political outcomes. Syria, the refugees, it's a pretty desperate situation.

The UK may have someone on the ground confirming that a chattered baggage handler is indeed a factual baggage handler with extremist ties.


The story is still ongoing... (none / 0) (#63)
by gbrbsb on Fri Nov 06, 2015 at 11:44:54 AM EST

...and its liquid bombs that are the suspect and something about British spies informing about this.

All of which reverts back to a comment you made upthread about liquid explosives, however reading up about them (I'm probably being tracked!), I would think, and I haven't found direct info on this so I'm probably going out on a limb, but I would think that although it appears they are not only easy to make but pretty much undetectable for boarding purposes when disguised as soft drinks, sun cream, etc., with the advances and ever more minucius techniques of present day forensics, not sure their use would still be undetectable after they detonate with some residue being left at least in the direct vicinity of the explosion.


: I was gone all day yeaterday (none / 0) (#70)
by Militarytracy on Sat Nov 07, 2015 at 06:35:57 PM EST

And madly paddling through life tasks this morning. So just now catching up. Read that they believe the in flight recording is indicating a bomb.
And my husband said this morning something about an onboard sensor and that heat/light flash indicating it was a bomb.
Damn shame
And is probably going to be the dumbest thing ISIS ever did.

White House briefing coming up (none / 0) (#50)
by Militarytracy on Thu Nov 05, 2015 at 11:34:46 AM EST

But Cui Bueno? (none / 0) (#38)
by FlJoe on Thu Nov 05, 2015 at 09:30:43 AM EST

What do the intelligence agencies and governments have to gain by lying? It doesn't seem to be part of a long term agenda because eventually the forensics will show the truth. I really see no short term gain by spinning this as a bomb without solid evidence.


: You can get the Russian populace (none / 0) (#40)
by Militarytracy on Thu Nov 05, 2015 at 09:40:17 AM EST

Focused on taking out ISIS and also considering it important to pressure Assad to step down in order to stabilize Syria. That's what they stand to gain. And they aren't exactly lying.
It could take months for the investigation to conclude and make determinations.

: Robert Baer says rockstar Putin (none / 0) (#47)
by Militarytracy on Thu Nov 05, 2015 at 10:10:50 AM EST

Is going to take a hit with his people if this is a bomb.
Russians have signed onto his policy that he can suppress ISIS while supporting Assad.

Why unlikely? (5.00 / 2) (#37)
by kdog on Thu Nov 05, 2015 at 09:26:56 AM EST

When the (oxymoron alert) "Intelligence Community" wanted to drum up a war in Iraq with the help of the media...well, we know how that turned out.

I heard a report Metrojet hasn't paid their employees in two months...if that's true, and absent definitive evidence to the contrary, I think the safe assumption is mechanical problem.


Obama isn't known for allowing (none / 0) (#42)
by Militarytracy on Thu Nov 05, 2015 at 09:45:22 AM EST

Intelligence to pull such crap.

It is odd though that this still remains an unnamed source but all the news agencies are running this story. That means they have been able to confirm this leak...but the leak remains unnamed after this many confirmations?


Neither was JFK... (none / 0) (#43)
by kdog on Thu Nov 05, 2015 at 09:52:56 AM EST

they pulled mad crap anyway.

I can think of a few reasons why the "intelligence community" would benefit by misleading the world...get Russia to deal with ISIS, thus weakening Russia and ISIS. Or to draw the US further into the Mideast quagmire.

Iraq and mushroom clouds, Gulf of Tonkin, Operation Northwoods...there is a track record for this type of thing.

: Obama has a firm hold on intelligence (none / 0) (#44)
by Militarytracy on Thu Nov 05, 2015 at 09:59:45 AM EST

Very firm. He'll beat yer arse :)That's not to say people don't pull stuff. Obama's intelligence pulls with him though, and the cold war CIA doesn't really exist anymore. The circumstances that JFK had to survive are no more. And Clinton really jacked them up too, stripped them down, fired the insane. Too many deductive reasoning people involved in intelligence now :)

: Bahahaha! The US and UK say BOMB! (none / 0) (#46)
by Militarytracy on Thu Nov 05, 2015 at 10:04:27 AM EST

Russia and Egypt say, "Not so fast, still no real evidence."
That Putin, he is rebellious :)
Cameron says, "A bomb was more likely than not." He has been in direct contact with Putin, is sharing his intelligence.

Another report said that (none / 0) (#23)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Nov 05, 2015 at 07:19:18 AM EST

passengers in the front died of shock and blood loss...passengers in rear from shock and burns.

That's an explosion, Domnald.


It would take an enormous bomb (5.00 / 1) (#30)
by smott on Thu Nov 05, 2015 at 08:56:03 AM EST

To be seen in daylight by satellite.
A large flash fire from exploding fuel, maybe.
Said flash fire in a 400kt slip stream will cause burns, indeed.


Any sort of aircraft experiencing (none / 0) (#32)
by Militarytracy on Thu Nov 05, 2015 at 09:12:38 AM EST

A mechanical failure can result in badly burning people on board. Jet fuel + mechanical failure very often leads to a horrible high heat fire. Most of my husband's flight clothing involves fire retardant design and materials now.

15 yrs ago they resorted to wearing wool gloves and socks because they were more fire resistant than cotton or polyester.


Entirely consistent (none / 0) (#34)
by smott on Thu Nov 05, 2015 at 09:14:53 AM EST

With in flight breakup and fire. Passengers in front not subject to it, but pax in rear are.
RIP


: Uh, the breakup was caused by a bomb (none / 0) (#67)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Nov 07, 2015 at 02:03:50 AM EST

those in the rear were burned/killed by the explosin while those in the front part died of blood loss and shock.
That's what those on scene have noted.
But hey! What do they know?

And all that's based on - what, exactly? (5.00 / 1) (#60)
by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Nov 05, 2015 at 08:35:29 PM EST

Jet fuel is volatile and can explode, you know. Look at all the nonsense that got trafficked in the wake of the crash if TWA 800 off Long Island, in which some people insisted that the airliner was shot down by a missile. None of that speculation ended up being true.

We need to wait until crash site investigators have completed and released their preliminary findings, and not jump to hasty and possibly unfounded conclusions in its absence.

: Actually Donald (none / 0) (#68)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Nov 07, 2015 at 02:18:25 AM EST

an explosion is a rapid burn in a controlled space.
Jet fuel exploding is not in a space designed for an explosion and it burns much slower than chemicals designed to damaged things by exploding.
So since the bodies recovered that were scattered from the front of the plane died of blood loss and shock and the ones in the rear from burns we can accurately piece together that a bomb blew the tail off killing people by the blast/burns while the front started falling scattering people immediately.
The jet fuel may have caught fire (exploded) while in the air or when it struct the ground.
But in either event it was after the bomb exploded
and the plane broke apart forward of the tail and aft of the wings.

: Not some (none / 0) (#69)
by TrevorBolder on Sat Nov 07, 2015 at 06:22:23 AM EST

"TWA 800 off Long Island, in which some people insisted that the airliner was shot down by a missile"
Many eyewitnesses, from land and water, which were ignored. Have a personal friend, a state trooper that worked during the aftermath, he told me many troopers said something did not feel right, lots of witnesses they dug up were never interviewed , or ignored. These are NY State Troopers that felt something was being covered up, and additional aviation investigators thought so also , and pursued their claims of a cover up.
But you cannot beat the government when it want something silenced, which is why so many in this country do not like or trust their government.
Too many people saw otherwise and witnessed how the investigation took place, and changed course
Just a couple of theories, Daily News, Popular Mechanics
http://tinyurl.com/n8644s5
http://tinyurl.com/oezva6z
http://tinyurl.com/nklprhk

FWIW... (5.00 / 1) (#45)
by ScottW714 on Thu Nov 05, 2015 at 10:02:28 AM EST

...it is illegal for an airline to send international baggage without the passenger on board.

ISIS seems to be be taunting with the notion that they used something exotic. There most certainly can be an explosion that doesn't involved traditional explosives. Remember the oxygen generators brought down a... can't remember the name of the airlines as they no longer exist, but it was over the everglades. Found it ValuJet Flight 592.

Lithium batteries are another, short them out and they will explode and start a fire, pack them next to some flammable like alcohol... They are especially sensitive to pressure charges, and why they require you pack them in your carry on.

There are thousands of ways to bring down a plane that would not include nitrogen based explosives, which is generally what they test for when looking for explosives.

That being said, these same things can happening, like ValuJet Flight 592, by accident. I am not in any way suggesting this was intentional, only that just because they didn't find traditional explosives doesn't mean it wasn't an intentional explosive.

The pronouncments of (5.00 / 2) (#48)
by KeysDan on Thu Nov 05, 2015 at 11:19:51 AM EST

the cause of the plane disaster is not necessarily related to its actual cause. It seems that the basis for the bombing conclusion, at this preliminary stage, is more geopolitcal than forensic. It is sad, but realistic, to invoke "Rahm's Rule," ...never let a crisis go to waste.

If it is of advantage to know quickly, that can be done. And, easy, and tell-tale, to get the Brits aboard. If it is of disadvantage, such as not knowing too quickly what or who downed Malaysia flight 17 over Ukraine, that can be done.

MH 17 needed time, and was left to the Dutch; a missile, but from whom? These matters take a lot of time, anything said at the moment is premature, if not irresponsible.

Now, in the case of the Russian plane tragedy, the political pressure put on Putin, both at home--sort of a chickens come home to roost scenario for the Russian people to chew on, plus, pressure on resolving the wars in Syria--let Assad go, join in the ISIS fight, seem plausible.

Of course, when the time- and detail intensive analysis is completed, the bomb scenario will have been valuable, and, if something other, then we will have to chastise the media for relying on "unnamed intelligence sources" who were all in a circle agreeing with one another. And, as for the Brits, that was just Cameron (or Blair, or some other poodle).

: It's hard to overlook our position (none / 0) (#51)
by Mr Natural on Thu Nov 05, 2015 at 11:38:38 AM EST

on the information foodchain.
People who know literally nothing but what they've been fed by "circles," as you said, of rumor-passers, are digging in. Weird.

: The White House is about (none / 0) (#52)
by Militarytracy on Thu Nov 05, 2015 at 11:48:57 AM EST

To brief the press. No exact time yet.

This is not good (none / 0) (#3)
by TrevorBolder on Wed Nov 04, 2015 at 06:37:42 PM EST

"So, it sounds like ISIS's Sinai wilayat either had someone on board the plane with a bomb, or had someone leave it on the plane."
Additional reports- CNN
Additional intelligence supports the theory that someone at the Sharm el-Sheikh airport helped get a bomb onto the plane, another U.S. official said.

"This airport has lax security. It is known for that," the official said. "But there is intelligence suggesting an assist from someone at the airport. "

Putin jabbed the stick into the hornets nest, with horrific consequences for Russian citizens.
Now what?

You know what makes us all cringe (none / 0) (#5)
by Militarytracy on Wed Nov 04, 2015 at 07:02:54 PM EST

In this house is when the GOP stands up there and talks about how much they hate everyone else in the world, and how they are going to line the world out. They have no allies, only enemies. The world has proven time and again that if you menace the world, the world will snuff your ass.

If ISIS has done this, this is the single dumbest thing they have ever done. That nonsense about how you can't kill an idea, BS...the menaced world has united and killed a couple of working ideas.

We have a military working relationship with Russia. They allow us to use some of their bases to equip and provision our forces in Afghanistan. Our relationship used to be as clear as mud. Poke the Hornets nest indeed, ISIS may have at this point poked the whole world. I predict their all out demise if they have truly done this.

Egypt is full of Muslims too, Muslims who cherish their working relationship with the US, and Russia, and Israel. Good luck ISIS, you're gonna need it.


I think that's right (none / 0) (#6)
by CaptHowdy on Wed Nov 04, 2015 at 07:06:57 PM EST

This is all Putin needs.


Putin also needs cash. (1.00 / 1) (#7)
by Mr Natural on Wed Nov 04, 2015 at 07:12:50 PM EST

I'm sure "we" will send some his way.


Look for those oil prices to rise once Putin (5.00 / 2) (#20)
by ruffian on Thu Nov 05, 2015 at 06:46:32 AM EST

makes the right cooperative noises.


: And then blame it (5.00 / 3) (#21)
by CaptHowdy on Thu Nov 05, 2015 at 07:04:31 AM EST

On the Arabs

There are many ways to skin (none / 0) (#9)
by Militarytracy on Wed Nov 04, 2015 at 07:35:23 PM EST

A fiver.


Maybe better to send him money (none / 0) (#10)
by CaptHowdy on Wed Nov 04, 2015 at 07:57:48 PM EST

Than to send boots in the ground. Pootie likes to talk tough. Let him deal with the boys in black.


You'll have to assist in some way (none / 0) (#11)
by Militarytracy on Wed Nov 04, 2015 at 08:07:41 PM EST

To seal the alliance.


Richard Engel (none / 0) (#14)
by CaptHowdy on Wed Nov 04, 2015 at 08:29:31 PM EST

"I expect a BIG Russian response.

We could see Russia very aggressively targeting ISIS."

I don't expect that to be wrong.


: I don't either (none / 0) (#17)
by Militarytracy on Wed Nov 04, 2015 at 08:39:53 PM EST

My husband just came in from working (none / 0) (#8)
by Militarytracy on Wed Nov 04, 2015 at 07:28:43 PM EST

Outside. He saw the TV and started laughing. I told him there was no named source yet. He said of course not. If he wanted Putin to join him in killing ISIS he would "leak" this too.


Say What???? (none / 0) (#12)
by jimakaPPJ on Wed Nov 04, 2015 at 08:17:59 PM EST

The world has proven time and again that if you menace the world, the world will snuff your ass.

MT, whether you like it or not the radical Muslim world has been at war with us for a very long time.

Here's what Osama bin Ladin said about it to Peter Arnett in this March 1997 interview:

REPORTER: Mr. Bin Ladin, will the end of the United States' presence in Saudi Arabia, their withdrawal, will that end your call for jihad against the United States and against the US ?
BIN LADIN: ..... So, the driving-away jihad against the US does not stop with its withdrawal from the Arabian peninsula, but rather it must desist from aggressive intervention against Muslims in the whole world.

That's plain. There can be no peace unless we let them do what they want to do.


Sigh....whatever Jimbo (5.00 / 2) (#15)
by Militarytracy on Wed Nov 04, 2015 at 08:35:32 PM EST

I see the Obama administration making a play with Russia that unites us in purpose, safer/saner ME. As long as we are polarized with Russia, we cannot work toward common goals.

The cold war in the end failed, the Bush administration through thrusting the greedy into and onto Russia caused that.

This is Obama's world now. He's the busiest most important lame duck President in my lifetime. HIS footfalls will resound through history, simply because he wasn't a dumb lizard brained D*ck. I understand your Conservative concern right now though. If I were a Conservative isolationist I'd be freaking out right now too, because I'm about to become irrelevant for at least a generation.


Let me see (1.00 / 1) (#22)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Nov 05, 2015 at 07:16:41 AM EST

... I am a conservative isolationist who supported invading Iran and have called for taking out ISIS....

Look, if you're gonna be nasty at least be intelligent.


: I don't really understand how I'm nasty (5.00 / 2) (#24)
by Militarytracy on Thu Nov 05, 2015 at 08:08:17 AM EST

Here considering the consequences for everyone when diplomacy fails. You and those with your attack the world philosophy seem to always miss a basic fact, shared interests beats mutually assured destruction every single time. It is healthier. It is healthier for everyone's mind, body, spirit, and soul.
With Putin leading Russia right now it won't be the easiest thing to accomplish, and problems will still arise. When problems do crop up though negotions don't start with going DEFCON. It starts with something a whole lot saner.
Same when dealing with Iran's leadership. Negotiations get to start with something a whole lot less dehumanizing than We Will Kill You All!

Now what? (none / 0) (#4)
by Mr Natural on Wed Nov 04, 2015 at 06:53:23 PM EST

Body counts.

From The Telegraph (none / 0) (#18)
by TrevorBolder on Wed Nov 04, 2015 at 09:40:08 PM EST

Is it safe to travel to Egypt? Germany's Lufthansa, Emirates and Air France said they would halt flights over Sinai until the reasons behind the crash became clear. Russia has grounded Kogalymavia's fleet of six A321s until at least November 30 - the airline only has eight planes. Reports on social media suggest Russians have been cancelling flights and package tours with Kogalymavia in the wake of the crash. For Britons, The Foreign Office advises against "all travel" to the northern half of the Sinai Peninsula and has suspended all flights to and from Sharm el-Sheikh, the Red Sea resort where the aircraft took off. The Foreign Office cautions there is a "high threat from terrorism" throughout Egypt, adding: "We believe that terrorists continue to plan attacks. Attacks could be indiscriminate and occur without prior warning."

Low information tourists (none / 0) (#54)
by Mr Natural on Thu Nov 05, 2015 at 12:25:52 PM EST

: Well, this news flash (5.00 / 1) (#55)
by KeysDan on Thu Nov 05, 2015 at 12:41:13 PM EST

of the Brits sounds profound: " We believe that terrorists continue to plan attacks. Attacks could be indiscriminate and occur without warning." The wise tourists would decide to stay home, safely under their beds.

: No, It's the GD Government (5.00 / 1) (#57)
by ScottW714 on Thu Nov 05, 2015 at 12:46:43 PM EST

HERE is a list of countries with travel warnings, it includes the Philippines, Israel, Columbia, and Mexico, none of which I would think twice about visiting. I have been to four of the countries and never felt unsafe. As a Texan, I have been to Mexico more times that I could ever count.
This is how they define a Travel Warning:

We issue a Travel Warning when we want you to consider very carefully whether you should go to a country at all. Examples of reasons for issuing a Travel Warning might include unstable government, civil war, ongoing intense crime or violence, or frequent terrorist attacks. We want you to know the risks of traveling to these places and to strongly consider not going to them at all. Travel Warnings remain in place until the situation changes; some have been in effect for years.
If planes stopped flying over dangerous areas, it would seriously change modern day travel.

Body found (none / 0) (#56)
by smott on Thu Nov 05, 2015 at 12:44:50 PM EST

More than 20 miles from crash site.
This will widen the search area and hopefully provide more clues.
Still missing rudder and half HS. And many victims I think.

But suggests breakup beginning very early ...

putin isn't worried about his people (none / 0) (#62)
by pitachips on Fri Nov 06, 2015 at 10:57:48 AM EST

Russian intelligence bombed its own people to justify its policies towards Chechnya. Why would he be worried about the nation's reaction to this incident (if it turns out to be a bomb). Frankly, he will probably use this to justify an even greater incursion in the Middle East.

: It appears from today... (none / 0) (#64)
by gbrbsb on Fri Nov 06, 2015 at 11:49:54 AM EST

...Putin has cancelled all flights to Egypt. At least something call-me-Dave told him must have impressed him. Just hope it wasn't the same as impressive as the weapons of mass deception... Oooops... destruction!

CNN (none / 0) (#65)
by FlJoe on Fri Nov 06, 2015 at 04:04:49 PM EST

now reporting that the blackboxes show an explosion, with no prior mechanical issues.

: The sound allegedly heard on the black boxes ... (none / 0) (#66)
by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Nov 06, 2015 at 08:24:54 PM EST

... could have also been caused by an explosive decompression, which breached the A-321's fuselage. Numerous survivors from United 811 in Feb. 1989 told NTSB investigators that they all heard what sounded like a huge explosion when the port side of their B-747 got splayed open, and the flight deck crew initially assumed that the extensive damage had been caused by a bomb detonating in the cargo hold.
Investigators eventually determined that the culprit was a faulty cargo door latch, which was prompted by a short circuit in the aircraft's electrical system to rotate uncommanded, thus compromising the door's pressure seal. When the airliner reached 22,000 feet, the inside pressure blew out the door, which then ripped a gaping hole in the plane's fuselage.
Let's please wait until investigators have released their preliminary findings, and not continue to offer assumptions that as of yet are supported only by conjecture, i.e., purported facts not yet in evidence.
Aloha.