Islamic State Plane Attack Claim Could Be Helpful

October 31, 2015

Today a Russian civil airliner came down over the Sinai peninsula. All 224 on board of the Airbus A-320 were killed. The Islamic State in Sinai claims to have "brought down" the plane.

That is unlikely. According to flight radar data the plane was flying at 30,000 feet when whatever happened occurred. IS in Sinai has anti-air weapons but those reach no higher than 10,000 feet. It is in principle possible that IS infiltrated the airport at the Egyptian tourist resort Sharm el-Sheikh where the plane was was coming from and smuggled someone on board. But it is unlikely. The usual travel arrangements for Sharm el-Sheikh are group travels where anyone not belonging to a group would be suspicious. Security at Sharm el-Sheikh is usually tight. There is also a report that preliminary investigations point to a technical failure.

But IS claimed responsibility and the fact that it did can be used. How about a salvo of cruise missile on "IS targets" in Syria and Iraq? No one could really complain now if some of those cruise missiles hit IS … or something else …

But whatever. That IS claims to have taken down an airliner shows that it has intent to do such. That is then the end of stupid arguments to work with IS or to let it live and prosper. The claim will also the end to any attempt to give serious air defense weapons to "insurgents" in Syria. The weapons could easily end up in al-Qaeda or IS hands and it is now clear what they would be doing with them.

Posted by b on October 31, 2015 at 15:52 UTC | Permalink

Comments

The tail strike was more than 13 years ago. It’s a good scapegoat though.

Posted by: Ananymus | Nov 1 2015 19:19 utc | 101

Assad is expecting a visit from Dmitry Rogozin, the Duma speaker Sergey Naryshkin and chair Valentina Matvienko. He announced this on 10/25. I wish they weren’t travelling by air till we know the cause of this crash.

Posted by: Penelope | Nov 1 2015 20:37 utc | 102

@Penelope #102:
I wish they weren’t travelling by air
Don’t worry: they’re not Polish.
Looking over that Wikipedia article, I see that those members of the Polish elite were flying to commemorate the Katyn massacre, which we discussed recently. What a strange world we live in.
Unsurprisingly, what comes up second after the above link if one googles “polish officials plane crash” is “Did Putin Blow Up the Whole Polish Government in 2010?” at the Daily Beast. Also unsurprisingly, Ukie bloggers are blaming Putin for yesterday’s crash (in Russian).

Posted by: Demian | Nov 1 2015 21:17 utc | 103

@Penelope #102:
I wish they weren’t traveling by air
Don’t worry: they’re not Polish.
Looking over that Wikipedia article, I see that those members of the Polish elite were flying to commemorate the Katyn massacre, which we had discussed recently. What a strange world we live in.
I wrote more, but the post got blocked.

Posted by: Demian | Nov 1 2015 21:20 utc | 104

RUSSIAN PLANE:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-34689870. Please, I think everyone is overlooking
this. You need to scroll down to video of a man in a checked shirt. He is Flightradar24’s Mikael Robertsson.
He says the speed went from 400 knots to 62 knots!
If the airframe was intact this cannot have occurred unless it was approaching a stall. (That is, unless the nose
was pulled up steeply so that the airspeed over the wing was insufficient.) Since a pilot would not do that
and there was no ferocious storm, only the electronics being hacked or a backdoor in the software would be
capable of taking the plane’s attitude in the air away from the pilot. However, that is ONLY if the airframe
is intact. I noticed in the pictures yesterday that they said the plane had broken in two, but the two pieces
they showed didn’t add up to a whole plane. If the airframe isn’t intact, then the speed of pieces is meaningless.

Posted by: Penelope | Nov 1 2015 22:46 utc | 105

Video of site:
This does not necessarily rule out an act of terror
“Early reports said that the aircraft split into two and that suggests a catastrophic failure, not a mechanical failure, but that suggests perhaps an explosion on board,” posited Michael Clarke, Director General of the Royal United Services Institute, an aviation think tank. “It’s much more likely to have been a bomb on board rather than a missile fired from the ground.”
Could a problem with the plane or its crew have caused the disaster?
Some contradictions here. Siberian operator Kogalymavia, also known as Metrojet, has said that a technical malfunction, even one as serious as an engine fire, could not have led to such a rapid disintegration, and Egyptian authorities say the aircraft passed the pre-flight check without incidents.
https://www.rt.com/news/320432-russian-sinai-crash-facts/

Posted by: shadyl | Nov 1 2015 23:44 utc | 106

Penelope,
The main developments have been that (1) reports about the pilots sending out a distress call and asking for an emergency landing were false, and (2) the black boxes were found, although damaged (I have no idea of how badly).
Wy initial belief that terrorism can be ruled out was based on the distress call; a plane suffering a catastrophic failure without the pilots being able to notify anyone about it always seems suspicious, to the layman anyway. But this is not like MH17 in that parties who had the ability to shoot the plane down had no reason to do so, whereas terrorists had motive but not capability.
Hopefully we’ll learn something soon after the black boxes are examined, given that Russia is conducting the investigation.

Posted by: Demian | Nov 1 2015 23:51 utc | 107

Demian, thank you for the summation.
There was reported an actual name of a person at Aviation Incidents Committee in Egypt. Ayman al-Muqadem: Pilot reported his intention land at the nearest airport. Didn’t Russia also say, early on, that the pilot had requested permission to land at Cairo a/p? Of course they wd have been depending on reports out of Egypt. Certainly looks like somebody’s purposely muddying the water.
I checked for terrorist presence in Sinai & this is what I found:
SINAI ISIS TOOK DOWN SHIP W GUIDED MISSILES. TURKEY INTELL PRESENT IN SINAI
A group that’s active in the Sinai were most recently (Tu, 10/27) lobbing rockets at Al-Goura where there’s a UN peacekeeping camp. They are called Ansar Beit al Maqdis. Egypt is finding Turkish intelligence in the Sinaii. 7/21/15: Egypt was accusing Turkey of involvement with militants who had killed hundreds of Egyptian police and army officers since Morsi’s overthrow. http://linkis.com/egyptindependent.com/EgyptTurkey_tensions.html
US State Dep lists as terrorist w same beliefs as AQ, but no formal connex
[Erdogan is going to make himself a scapegoat yet.]
Jul 16, 2015 ISIS Claims Responsibility for Rocket Attack on Egyptian Navy Ship The Islamic State of Iraq and Greater Syria (ISIS) has claimed its first naval attack on an Egyptian frigate in the Mediterranean, according to reports Thursday from SITE Intel Group. The Sinai branch of ISIS said they destroyed the naval ship with a guided missile. The Egyptian military said in an early statement that a navy vessel had caught fire just off the coast of Sinai following a clash…

Posted by: Penelope | Nov 2 2015 0:46 utc | 108

ShadyLady thanks for your long post @ 83. I won’t get to read it til t’might.
Noirette @81,
Thx for posting the Vienna declaration. Regarding which groups are terrorists, in the UN’s eyes, I understand that both Al Qaeda & Al Nusra is on their list of terrorist groups. Russia tried and failed to get ISIS listed as a separate group rather than just a branch of Al Qaeda. Don’t know why that was important.

Posted by: Penelope | Nov 2 2015 0:50 utc | 109

Penelope@107
> http://linkis.com/egyptindependent.com/EgyptTurkey_tensions.html
Thanks for link, interesting regardless if this flight was “brought down”, or not.
I’ve been trying to catch up on this multi-headed Hydra ISIS’s activities. You might me interested in this well documented (very good quotes from Gorgian/Ukranian/Russian official comments, tieing a lot “activity” to ISIS. (this is Sibel Edmonds site).
http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2015/10/29/the-new-great-game-round-up-october-28-2015/

Posted by: jdmckay | Nov 2 2015 2:09 utc | 110

While the news is focused on the Egypt crash and the Axis of Resistance forces are stalled by the Army of Conquest the Islamic State is moving further west in Syria routing the SAA forces from the town of Maheen in Homs province. The town 13 miles from the Homs/Damascus highway had a large military complex and arms depot which is probably empty now.
If the recent Fort Russ report is accurate Russian troops will soon be facing angry Syrian nationalists, increasing Muslim volunteers and the truck bombs of the IS followed by their hardened determined fighters.

Posted by: Wayoutwest | Nov 2 2015 2:44 utc | 111

…
Russia tried and failed to get ISIS listed as a separate group rather than just a branch of Al Qaeda. Don’t know why that was important.
Posted by: Penelope | Nov 1, 2015 7:50:23 PM | 108
It’s important because ISIS is a US/Saudi-Israelia joint venture. Russia’s ‘failure’ is circumstantial ‘proof’ equivalent to a confession and allows Russia to treat it as a confession.

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Nov 2 2015 5:10 utc | 112

As a big fan of BBC’s 3-part air crash investigation series Black Box, I know it’s extremely unusual for a structurally undamaged airliner to break up due purely to performing unconventional manoevres. I’m happy to wait for Russia’s official report which will have to explain ALL of the crash site indications (something the Dutch ‘investigators’ of MH17 have taken far too long to do).
Like most air crashes, this one is an open and shut case and we won’t have to wait for months, or even weeks, for the Russian report.

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Nov 2 2015 5:32 utc | 113

jdmckay @ 109,
Thanks for the link. I’ll take a look. Re: multi-headed Hydra, it appears the Saudis have given the port of Aden, Yemen to the Takfiris, who are mostly ISIS. I wd think that port is strategically important. http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13940810000716

Posted by: Penelope | Nov 2 2015 7:02 utc | 114

RJB, S. Brennan, Lochearn or anybody knowledgeable about flying:
Is it possible that a plane that climbs & dives repeatedly is trying to blow out a fire?
No, right?

Posted by: Penelope | Nov 2 2015 7:11 utc | 115

Speaking of plane crashes–
Apparently that moron John McCain was planning one of his own:
October 6, 2015, the Attorney General of the Russian Federation opened an investigation into the recording of a conversation between Saakashvilli and his former Defense Minister now under the protection of France & 2 other people.
According to this recording, the jihadists received instructions from the US Senator John McCain to organize -along with the CIA and from Ukraine the downing of a US airliner in Syria and attributed to Russian forces to provoke a conflict between the US and Russia
http://www.voltairenet.org/article189144.html

Posted by: Penelope | Nov 2 2015 7:16 utc | 116

@114, Never mind, stupid question. The story about the plane climbing & descending just one more lie.

Posted by: Penelope | Nov 2 2015 7:53 utc | 117

Could a drone hit a civilian jet flying at cruising altitude?

Posted by: Sun Tzu | Nov 2 2015 13:59 utc | 118

@117 Yeah. They cruise for hours at such heights. ‘… the “Predator B-003”, referred to by GA as the “Altair” … has … a maximum ceiling of 52,000 feet (15.8 km), and an endurance of 36 hours. ‘ wikipedia

Posted by: jfl | Nov 2 2015 14:24 utc | 119

@ Penelope 115, I am convinced McCain and Graham are running secret operations with rebels and ISIS. I think it’s treason.
When McCain demanded we supply missiles to rebels, I figured they already had them, and McCain was covering his tracks. But, now that it’s come out the planes were made in “FRance”, I think there could very well be a back door to the plane’s software.
The link I posted in the long comment showed plans to take down seven countries: General Wesley Clark: Wars Were Planned – Seven Countries In Five Years.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RC1Mepk_Sw
And now that Russia is involved, Israel has fast tracked the Leviathan gas field. Obviously, a weaken Syria can’t reclaim Golan Heights nor gas fields, which is their intent. And France doing Israel’s dirty work.

Posted by: shadyl | Nov 2 2015 14:37 utc | 120

jfl wrote:

@117 Yeah.

No wonder Russia is being guarded in what it says about the disaster. (I guess “crash” is no longer the correct term.)

Posted by: Demian | Nov 2 2015 14:39 utc | 121

@117 Google maps shows the flight distance from Chabelley in Djibouti to the middle of Sinai to be on the order of 2300 kms or 1500 milex.
The Tyranny of Distance

Surveillance flights are limited by fuel — and, in the case of manned aircraft, the endurance of pilots. In contrast with Iraq, where more than 80 percent of “finishing operations” were conducted within 150 kilometers of an air base, the study notes that “most objectives in Yemen are ~ 500 km away” from Djibouti and “Somalia can be over 1,000 km.” The result is that drones and planes can spend half their air time in transit …

I’d imagine that – airline schedule in hand – a drone equipped with an ‘AIM-92 Stinger air-to-air missile’ (see wikipedia above) could fly up, pop the Russian jet, and fly back, no problem.

Posted by: jfl | Nov 2 2015 14:46 utc | 122

@117 4600km / 390km/hr = 11.794 ~ 12 hrs. Up and back. The 390km/hr is old-fashioned predator-piston speed, presumably a newer, turboprop reaper could accomplish the mission in less time.

Posted by: jfl | Nov 2 2015 14:59 utc | 123

Penelope. The point I was suggesting in my first comment was that four minutes is a long time. It is plenty of time to send out an SOS which seems a likely thing for the crew of a stricken airliner to do. Then again, if for some reason the aircraft was out of control the flight crew may have put all their attention to trying to stay alive and not thought of spending time radioing that they were about to die. But, back to my first point, not sending out any information after it must have been totally obvious that the plane was experiencing a critical emergency is an indication that they were unable to do so. That, to me, is an indication that the cockpit had been damaged enough to either disable the flight crew or the radios or both. Not proof, but something to consider as we speculate. Engine failures or the tail section falling off or a bomb anywhere rear of the cockpit itself would not seem to me to likely do that. The black box voice recorder should tell what the crew knew or believed had happened to the aircraft if the crew was able to speak until the end. I hope it is all cleared up with a story that we can have some confidence in.

Posted by: RJB | Nov 2 2015 15:12 utc | 124

According to wikipedia, American drones can fly at 50,000 (soon 60,000) feet … I’ve got my fingers crossed that this isn’t the case, however gross American tit-for-tat towards Putin has been a feature for a couple of years now — playing on meme I’ve seen expressed more frequently in various conflicts — “turnabout is fair play” — which should be caution about turning into the monsters you claim as foes…. “We” largely got away with shooting down an Iranian airliner … redux meant to exploit the ongoing “mystery” of flight MH17?

Posted by: Susan Sunflower | Nov 2 2015 15:18 utc | 125

Thanks jfl. Hypothetically speaking, I figure that a (stealth) drone would have to fly close enough to ID the plane before launching missile. However, missile fragments could leave a signature and a calling card with return address. I hope this scenario is just a far fetched hypothesis and not what actually happened.

Posted by: Sun Tzu | Nov 2 2015 15:18 utc | 126

@RJB #123:
not sending out any information after it must have been totally obvious that the plane was experiencing a critical emergency is an indication that they were unable to do so.
Sounds right to me. The pilots are professionals. They would not have been so distracted by the problem of trying to save their lives not to send out a message saying what had happened. Most airline pilots have a military background anyway, as far as I know.
This scenario is entirely plausible. (1) The absurd media coverage of MH17 would have led certain elements to be more brazen than ever, thinking they can get away with anything as far as Western public opinion goes. (2) Russia is looking stronger than ever since the breakup of the USSR.

Posted by: Demian | Nov 2 2015 15:27 utc | 127

@81 Noirette
I’m down for ‘Or false, in the sense that he [Obama] is 100% on the aggro [aggressive, I assume] US side but needs to appear ‘respectable’ to others on the international scene, while perpetuatin’ myths to the US public (US fights IS etc.)’
Fits Obama to a tee, as far as I can see.

Posted by: jfl | Nov 2 2015 15:29 utc | 128

USG may have dusted off the madman theory.

[Nixon’s] administration, the executive branch of the federal government of the United States from 1969 to 1974, attempted to make the leaders of other countries think Nixon was mad, and that his behavior was irrational and volatile.

The downing of KGL9268 (if indeed it was downed) could be a signal from USG that it would go all the way to strategic use of nuclear weapons as a result of a regional conflict outside of Europe not going its way.
I’m virtually certain that people inside the Kremlin are thinking along these lines right now.

Posted by: Demian | Nov 2 2015 15:52 utc | 129

RJB @ 124. Certainly agreed. I didn’t challenge you on that; somebody else did. Something happened which disabled them and/or radios.
It’s a waste of time to speculate til we have more data, but I can’t help observing:
Turkish intell had been arrested in the Sinai, SISI had accused them of working w the terrorists to destabilize Egypt. ISIS had taken down an Egyptian ship in the Mediterranean w a guided missile. Erdogan calls SISI illegitimate, wept when Morsi was overthrown, is host to MB parliament in exile. Erdogan has definitely found his Islamist roots & is furious also w Russia for messing up his expansionist plans & now for trying to compel him to stop aiding ISIS.
Lot of motivation there, though not a rational act. Wd certainly harm Egypt. (tourism) But I don’t know what he could have hoped to accomplish against Russia; seems like a dangerous act.
Just saw this: A large number of body parts may indicate that a powerful explosion took place aboard the plane before it hit the ground,” said an Egyptian forensic expert who took part in the examination of the bodies of the A321 crash victims.–http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-11-03/forensic-expert-says-mid-air-explosion-likely-cause-deadly-russian-plane-crash

Posted by: Penelope | Nov 4 2015 0:52 utc | 130

Following is my latest thinking on a possible explanation of the crash. It is complete speculation based on an attempt to connect the dots we have been given in a way that makes a coherent picture. The dots themselves are speculation in most cases or are provided by sources that have not yet been verified. Change of any dot might change the entire picture.
The plane’s rear section behind the aft bulkhead broke of fairly cleanly and landed some five miles from the rest of the fuselage. That means it broke loose somewhere in the air before the rest of the craft hit the ground and does not appear to have been caused by some external force. That separation may have been the total cause of the crash and may have been caused by a combination of the damage done previously and repair that probably probably was not be as strong and well engineered as was the original build. Every time an airliner climbs to cruising altitude the cabin experiences an air pressure change of more than ten pounds per square between the inside and outside. That is a lot and it flexes the airframe and can lead to metal fatigue which can lead to structural failure, especially at a point that was modified by the repair. It might have flexed more than the metal could stand over time or the repair may have made a hard point which concentrated flex, which was necessarily designed for, at a too rigid spot created by the repair. Picture bending a wire until it breaks. It will break much quicker if held in a pair of pliers and the bend is concentrated right at the pliers jaws.
This aircraft might have experienced such failure gradually at first. The beginning of a break may have caused a slow but accelerating leakage of air that was picked up by instruments and seen as a ‘technical’ problem before it became a complete disaster. That could explain the call requesting landing permission at the closest available airport but not an SOS notifying of a critical situation. Then the structural problem [could have] suddenly reached the breaking point resulting in the entire tail section breaking free. In the process of the tail section breaking free it would have thrown the entire tail end of the plane either right, left, or up or down and there would have been zero ability to correct that but I can easily imagine the plane spinning away much like a frisbee. Linked below is a video of a Cessna in a flat spin. Keep in mind the reported rate of drop in altitude of about 6000 meters per second. For simplicity’s sake, consider this to be about one mile per minute or 60 miles per hour. If the plane was free falling straight down it could not do so that slowly. If it did spin violently away from the tail section the center of the spin would be at approximately the center of gravity which is always located at the main wing somewhat behind the leading edge. The cockpit being a long way forward of this point would mean that a rotation of the craft, of say one revolution per second, would have thrown very high ‘g’ forces on the cockpit crew, likely enough to incapacitate them and prevent their last words being broadcast. I have read that the last words heard on black box recordings is nearly always the very same; “Oh shit”. Decompression alone of a passenger craft, even sudden and complete, has been survived numerous times before.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=64hO3QAl6Ck

Posted by: RJB | Nov 4 2015 19:11 utc | 131

Bomb likely downed Russian airliner over Siani: UK government

“While the investigation is still ongoing we cannot say categorically why the Russian jet crashed. But as more information has come to light we have become concerned that the plane may well have been brought down by an explosive device,” said a spokeswoman for British Prime Minister David Cameron’s office on Wednesday.
Meanwhile, an US intelligence official familiar with the subject also said the blast was probably caused by a bomb planted on the plane.
“There is a definite feeling it was an explosive device planted in luggage or somewhere on the plane,” CNN quoted the unnamed official as saying on Wednesday.

I guess we can rule out a bomb then.

Posted by: jfl | Nov 4 2015 22:42 utc | 132

it is odd that the talking heads have all changed their tune from definitely not an act of terrorism to unnamed officials saying it probably was an explosive device. this all coincides with a lot of scary talk about how TSA agents have been able to smuggle fake bombs and guns on board with something like 87 percent success rate. seems like there is a fairly well coordinated media campaign designed to secure funding for more expensive machines to do full body scans and who knows what else.
as for the pitching up and down and changes in altitude, you have to know that an airplane without a tail does not fly any better than a wooden box or a door. the tail strike most likely caused metal fatigue which eventually failed. finding these cracks even with very rigorous inspections and looking hard in the area which would fail (supposing you suspected it could happen) would be difficult even with closely spaced inspection routines that would lead to the aircraft sitting in a hangar and not flying. Flying airplanes produce revenue, sitting ones do not. So simple economics cause less frequent inspections and inspections are done as quickly as possible. Inspectors are very often more or less unskilled workers who fix the problems that are visible such as the lights along the aisle which come on to aid in egress.
flight 587 leaving from New York about two months after the attacks on the twin towers lost its tail from excessive rudder inputs. it too was an airbus. the composite materials holding the rudder onto the fuselage failed. it is entirely possible that composites failed in this case as well. I bring this up because it is even more difficult to predict failure in composite material than it is in steel or aluminum.
sometimes shit happens. it is not always because bad people do evil things. the thing that runs through my mind is those poor bastards inside that jet had a lot of time to think about dying.

Posted by: dan of steele | Nov 5 2015 23:10 utc | 133

@133 dos
I’ll wait to hear what the Russians say when they’ve concluded their invesigation. I have no reason not to believe them.
I have every reason on earth to disbelieve M16/NSA. In fact it is prudent to assume they are lying, unitl proven otherwise, no matter what they say. That’s their job.

Posted by: jfl | Nov 6 2015 0:00 utc | 134

I had the same reaction to the way the US and Britain are playing up this tragedy:
Russian plane crash shows US/UK losing their grip along with their terrorist narrative

Their straw-grasping and agenda-hyping has reached critical mass preceding meltdown.

The Masters of the Anglosphere seem to be encased in their bubble more than ever so that they have no idea of what their propaganda sounds like to the rest of the world.

Posted by: Demian | Nov 6 2015 17:15 utc | 135

I can’t decide what’s going on with this public-relations slug-fest … the Egyptian Tourism Minister was on BBC, very upset to be losing major income and making it obvious (though he denied it) that he has not been kept in “the loop” so British and US announcements have been baffling to him. Putin has grounded all flights to Egypt — Sharm al Sheik being a very popular Russian vacation destination — cheap cheap cheap … which is interesting since I think all this talk about it being a bomb in retaliation for Russian intervention in Syria, I think is meant to “bring the war home” to the Russian people … which it has been noted is unnecessary since Syria is not-nearly far enough away for ISIS to be a merely a hob-goblin, imaginary threat — the Russians have experienced and weathered multiple terrorist attacks … they don’t particularly need convincing that ISIS and Islamic terrorism threatens Russia.
It may have been a bomb … does not move the narrative beyond pre-investigation speculation and it’s obvious the UK and the USA are being manipulative and likely political agenda driven in this show business. Putin, again, looks like the mature adult waiting for genuine investigation findings (but he must be furious to be diverted to more pressing matters and wondering how this plane crash will be framed next)

Posted by: Susan Sunflower | Nov 6 2015 17:40 utc | 136

… and — inexplicably — Egypt just denied suspending “some” British flights …
Egypt denies suspending British flights into Sharm al-Sheikh
cnbc .
Did Britain try to blame “grounded flights” on the Egyptians?
http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-the-papers-34728808

Posted by: Susan Sunflower | Nov 6 2015 18:07 utc | 137

@Susan Sunflower #136:
Yeah, I don’t think we can read too much into Putin’s decision to halt flights into Egypt. That strikes me as a precautionary move in response to Britain doing the same.
The Russian blogger Colonel Cassad wrote that the FSB advised Putin to halt flights, so it must have obtained noteworthy information as to this being a terrorist attack, but that is speculation on Cassad’s part.
My intuition tells me that a terrorist attack on an airliner is not in the style of any of the jihadi groups fighting in Syria. The jihadis must know that such terrorist attacks will not change Russia’s behavior in Syria one way or the other. IMO, this was either an accident or part of the anglo psyops war on Russia and Western publics. Like you said, Russians are used to terrorism directed at them.

Posted by: Demian | Nov 6 2015 18:13 utc | 138

likely a bomb

Posted by: acrimonious | Nov 6 2015 18:29 utc | 139

I’m not arguing that it’s NOT a bomb … but so far the forensic fingerprints of a bomb have not been reported to have been found … the nature and sophistication of any bomb will yield clues to its origin -0- as will its parts, if found — how it was allowed on board will be better probed AFTER a bomb has been proven … “bomb” became considered likely as a matter of exclusion … not evidence … which is why the US/UK pronouncements are likely politically motivated. because they had already predicted terrorist retaliation

Posted by: Susan Sunflower | Nov 6 2015 18:39 utc | 140

@Susan Sunflower:
I’m not arguing that it’s NOT a bomb
All I’m saying is that whatever it was, I don’t think that any jihadi group fighting in Syria, including IS, was behind it (which is not to say that people involved with jihadi groups could not have been involved). This kind of terrorist attack strikes me as something from the Western, not jihadi, imagination.
Jihadis have MANPADS, which can be used to shoot down passenger jets on takeoff and landing. But you never hear about jihadis trying something like that.
I think that a problem here is that by labeling the jihadis in Syria as “terrorists”, head-choppers, and cannibals, we lose sight of the fact that they are rational in an instrumental sense, in the same way that anglo policy makers are. I don’t see what putting a bomb on a Russian passenger jet accomplishes for jihadis. Western powers however are at their wits’ end when it comes to what Russia is doing in Syria, so I can see them doing something crazy just to vent.
Another consideration is that terrorist attacks on Western targets make sense for jihadis, but attacks on Russian targets do not, because (1) the Russian government is less sensitive to public opinion in the short term; (2) Russians are completely accustomed to making sacrifices for the common (Russian) good.
Jihadis must know all this. And assuming that they were behind the bombings of Moscow apartments which served as the justification for the second Chechen war, they know from experience that terrorist attacks on Russian targets don’t accomplish anything for them.

Posted by: Demian | Nov 6 2015 19:09 utc | 141

oh, I don’t know … we haven’t heard from Al-Qa’eda’s best bombmakers in AQAP in a looong time and al-Zawahiri just proposed a DAESH/Al-Qa’eda alliance to fight the Russians (although I suspect this suggestion was just a ploy for publicity to announce he and Al-Qa’eda were still alive) … Egyptian control of the Sinai is an evergreen “concern” … I’m waiting for the finger to point which ever usual suspects haven’t already been fingered — Muslim brotherhood maybe??/ anyone/everyone is a suspect — yes, obviously, including “respectable” superpowers and their friends however unlikely that may be… I’m not sure what Putin was telegraphing by grounding all flights … refusing to provide another target for another scare or “concern” might be enough temporarily … he might well be trying to prod Egypt …

Posted by: Susan Sunflower | Nov 6 2015 20:14 utc | 142

Wasn’t there something about 4 minutes?

Russia’s Interfax news service, citing a source in the investigation, said Tuesday that there were no signs of a malfunction with the plane and that the pilots were chatting normally with air-traffic controllers until four minutes before an “emergency situation occurred on board unexpectedly.”
“In the recordings, sounds uncharacteristic of a standard flight precede the moment of the airliner’s disappearance from radar screens,” the news service reported without elaboration. “The pilots had no time to send out a distress signal.”

WaPo- 11/04/2015.
latest from Telegraph:

Chaos in Sharm el-Sheikh: rescue planes are forced to turn back, as Russian plane crash investigator suggests a ‘sound of explosion’ on black boxes – latest news
Only eight of the 29 rescue flights from Sharm El-Sheikh are expected to leave today as tourists are turned away at airport and lights suspended

independent (today).

Posted by: Susan Sunflower | Nov 6 2015 23:12 utc | 143

@122 A reaper can do no more than 300mph going flat out. And it certainly can’t do anything remotely approaching that speed at the normal cruising altitude of a modern passenger jet.
Meanwhile, the cruising speed of an Airbus A321 is 510mph, and that’s the speed it would have been going when your supposed “intercept” took place.
Can’t see it, myself.
The drone would have to be perfectly positioned to “pop off” a stinger, because there is no way a drone could plot an intercept course for something that is going twice its speed.
Not impossible, no, but anyone attempting it would have to be outrageously lucky to pull it off.

Posted by: Yeah, Right | Nov 6 2015 23:49 utc | 144

AntiWar.com has several posts about US media saying that MJ9268 was brought down by a bomb placed by ISIS. Nowhere do American reporters, as far as I’m aware, raise the question of why ISIS would mount a terrorist attack on Russia in response to Russian bombing of terrorists in Syria, when the US has supposedly been bombing ISIS for ages without ISIS making any response.
Maybe ISIS is just too terrified of the US to attack any US assets? That must be it.

Posted by: Demian | Nov 7 2015 5:42 utc | 145

@145 D
Antiwar.com is quoting the French on ‘kinda sounds like a bomb on the recording’ and the Brits on the ‘sudden massive decompression’.
The two add up to a rocket as well as to a bomb to me. Or to the weakened tail assembly separating from the rest of the plane.
Wait for the Russians. They’re doing the work, these guys are shooting off their mouths trying to muddy the water.
They’re doing real well with the MSM … and they’ve even got antiwar.com repeating re-spinning their spin.
Wait for the Russians.

Posted by: jfl | Nov 7 2015 6:32 utc | 146

@145 D ‘Maybe ISIS is just too terrified of the US to attack any US assets?’
Excellent point. Because they’re on the same side, the USA/KSA are the masters and al-CIAda/Da’esh are the slaves.
Check out this map of Yemen.
Is it the Saudis against the Houthi? or al-CIAda/Da’esh?
Or is there no difference between USA/KSA and al-CIAda/Da’esh?

Posted by: jfl | Nov 7 2015 6:40 utc | 147

@145 D
And if there’s no difference … then who is it, actually, who’s brought down that Russian airliner and killed 224 blameless Russians?
We do know who’s good at bringing down airliners and killing hundreds fo blameless civilians, don’t we.

Posted by: jfl | Nov 7 2015 6:46 utc | 148

@144 YR
I’m not competent to assess the probability of success, but I can imagine how the operation might proceed …
– the schedule and route of the Russian airliner are known to the terrorists
– the terrorists pre-position their drone at a place they know the airliner will appear, in advance of its appearance
– the Russian airliner appeats, the terrorists launch their missle(s) and head ‘home’ to one of their ‘constellation of secret drone bases … in the Horn of Africa and the Arabian Peninsula‘
Drone technology has advanced … MQ-9_Reaper, AIM-92_Stinger, AIM-9_Sidewinder …

Posted by: jfl | Nov 7 2015 7:19 utc | 149

@144 YR
They may well have used multiple drones with multiple missiles … if they used any.

Posted by: jfl | Nov 7 2015 7:25 utc | 150

Back to Main