Free Markets, Free People

Why is it so important that we believe the Times Square bomber acted alone?

Or perhaps a more precise questions is, “why does it appear the government would prefer we believe the Times Square bomber acted alone?”

Does it somehow make this all much less threatening? Frankly, if true, it makes it even more threatening to me. Or is it because if they deny connections to other terrorists and insist on the “lone wolf” scenario (see Ft. Hood, see Arkansas, etc) they can deny “global terrorism” and not have to face questions about Islmaic jihad?

On the one hand we have:

No credible evidence has been found so far that the Pakistani-American man accused in the Times Square bombing plot received any serious terrorist training from the Pakistani Taliban or another radical Islamic group, six U.S. officials said Thursday.

“There is nothing that confirms that any groups have been found involved in this for certain,” one U.S. official told McClatchy. “It’s a lot of speculation at this point.”

Faisal Shahzad may have, at the most, had “incidental contact” with a terrorist organization, and he may have been encouraged to act, said one of the officials, who declined to elaborate further.

So he went broke here, let his house go into foreclosure, rounded up the family and headed back to Pakistan where he stayed 5 months, came back loaded with money and decided, on a whim to blow up Times Square. But we’re pretty sure that when this guy was hanging out in an area of Pakistan infested with Taliban and other terrorists, he had, at best “incidental contact” with a terrorist organization.

Now to be fair, the bomb he built says if he did indeed get training, whoever trained him wasn’t so great or he was one hell of a bad student – or both. But why did he come back alone and how did he make all that money it is reported he had?

And what about this report?

Investigators of the failed car bombing in Times Square are looking for a money courier they say helped funnel cash from overseas to finance a Pakistani-American’s preparations to blow up the crude gasoline-and-propane bomb in the heart of New York, a law-enforcement official told the Associated Press.

Investigators have the name of the courier who they believe helped Faisal Shahzad pay for the used sport utility vehicle and other materials to rig up a car bomb that would have caused a huge fireball in Times Square if it had gone off, the official told the AP. The official didn’t know how much money may have changed hands.

The official spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the investigation.

So if he acted alone, is a “lone wolf” and only had “incidental contact” with a terrorist organization, whose name to investigators have and why are they trying to find him?

If you’re getting the feeling you’re not getting the whole picture (and there may be security reasons for that – we may be seeing a little disinformation going on here while they pursue other links. Or maybe not and what you’re seeing is how authorities would prefer to have it all spun) you’re probably right.

~McQ

[ad] Empty ad slot (#1)!

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

3 Responses to Why is it so important that we believe the Times Square bomber acted alone?

  • Some theories:
    1)  He was a loner. The money came from family in Pakistan for this guy to make a fresh start in America. (His wife might pressure him on that.) Loner dude doesn’t really want to do that, so he tries to self-deport via “Honey, I made a bombing attempt so I can’t ever come back to the USA.” But this dude had no plans to flee. If you are making a fresh start why not bring back the family? Kids in school, etc. Or maybe the wifey is more Islamic than this guy and he has to prove himself??? Weird.
    2) He was trained, but he had second thoughts and so made a fake bomb on purpose – one that would say “Hey, I tried, but it did not go off.” The fact that he fled the car, leaving it running, and forgetting his keys, makes it seem like he really wasn’t interested in success or was nervous as hell.
    3) The state of training in Pakistan is not as good as it once was due to predator strikes. I just finished reading The Old Breed, a book about Marines fighting in Okinawa, and the author talks about the poor state of replacements coming in at the end…replacements who did not know how to use hand grenades, for example. Now, if the USMC could produce such poor replacements during war when the pressure for live bodies was great, maybe the Taliban has the same trouble. Yes, this dude was educated, but maybe the Taliban could only train him a few times, as they were afraid to congregate for proper classes. Maybe they were afraid this guy was not Islamic enough and was a plant. Maybe the Taliban’s internet classes aren’t so good…
    4) My money is that this guy whether trained or not, he made the bomb like that on purpose. Maybe he borrowed that money in Pakistan for use in setting himself up in life, but did the bomb thing so he doesn’t have to repay. You think the lenders will force the wife and children of a martyr to pay up?
     

  • I’ve heard the recession narrative.  No job, lost his house, had to take it wife back to Pakistan, …
     
    The reality is he quit his job.  Stopped paying his mortgage at the same time.  Its logical to assume if he was planning to do something for some time, why pay your mortgage?  Why leave your family here?  He took his wife to Pakistan to secure her away from US authorities.  And that’s where he was going later.
     
    His decision to bomb could easily explain quitting his job, stopping payments on his house, taking his wife to Pakistan.  Which is what I thought right away.  The tortured logic (or willful disinformation) to change the order of cause and effect in order to blame the recession (and indirectly Bush) show a complete in the tank for Obama mentality that makes it impossible for Obama to ever do wrong.
     
    I’ve come to the conclusion that Obama could eat babies live on national TV and a sizable block of people would defend him.  They aren’t just in the tank advocates like they were for Clinton.  These people have become disturbed.

  • jpm100, its Occams’ Razor. I think you are correct. The question why the messed up bomb?
    poor training?
    second thoughts?