Bomb Plot In Germany Foiled

The most massive would-be terrorist attack on German soil ever, so authorities say.

Three terror suspects held in Germany planned to carry out “imminent” and “massive” bombs attacks on a U.S. air base and Frankfurt’s international airport, according to officials.

“They were planning massive attacks,” Federal Prosecutor Monika Harms said.

“As possible targets … the suspects named discotheques and pubs and airports frequented by Americans with a view to detonating explosives loaded in cars and killing or injuring many people,” Harms told a news conference on Wednesday.

The suspects, two Germans aged 22 and 29 and a 29-year-old Turk, received terrorist training in Pakistan and had close ties to al Qaeda, according to Jorg Ziercke, president of Germany’s Federal Criminal Investigation Office.

The chemicals seized included 1500 pounds of hydrogen peroxide, used in a terrorist favorite explosive known as TATP. Confederate Yankee notes that's a fairly ambitious explosive to synthesize, and is skeptical the guys involved had the know-how to pull it off.

Once again terrorist attackers in the West are linked to Al Qaeda in Pakistan, and not, notably, Al Qaeda in Iraq. Our very tough, strong liberal war critics may argue this indicates that Al Qaeda in Iraq won't "follow us home" if we stop fighting in Iraq, but this seems a farcical claim. Of course the Arab branch of Al Qaeda would be plotting against us at home were they not engaged with us more directly on what they consider more friendly ground.

It also undermines, yet again, liberals' favorite claim: that fighting terrorists in Iraq "only makes more terrorists." If that's the case, then it seems that fighting terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan should also "make more terrorists;" indeed, for those keeping track, it certainly seems to be the "Asian" (as the Brits say) jihadis most animated to and capable of attacking the West directly. So should we stop fighting them there, in order to make fewer of them?

I actually think that's what they believe, but dare not say. They never supported the War In Afghanistan so much as they reluctantly acquiesced to it, thinking that they had to concede this particular war to the crazy jingoistic rightwing war lobby and the easily-misled "sheeple" who were enraged by 9/11. But following the logic of all their various arguments against fighting terrorists in Iraq suggests, inevitably, that not fighting them in Pakistan and Afghanistan must be preferable to fighting them. After all, we'd "make" fewer of them there, and they're the ones actually reaching out to strike the West.

Surely it can't be the War in Iraq is "making" terrorists in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Wouldn't Asian jihadis be more incensed by the bombs falling on their own heads then all the bombs dropped in Iraq? This whole argument seems based on the premise that Pakistani terrorists are minted by the War in Iraq, considering that war unjust and an insult against Islam, and yet somehow believe that the ongoing coalition military actions in Afghanistan and Pakistan are perfectly justified and nothing to be especially upset about. I rather doubt they share in the exquisite nuance of liberal anti-war critics and doubt they are passionately angry about the War in Iraq while conceding "Okay, I'll give you this one, my bad" about the War in Afghanistan.

Relalted: Freedom Watch's anti-MoveOn ad below. Calling them out. Questioning their patriotism.

posted by Ace at 10:22 AM

| Access Comments