Was Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 Lost Because of Terrorism?


Terrorists want people to know what they did and why they did it. Terrorist groups usually rapidly put out a statement taking credit for an attack that they took part in… or didn’t take part in.

Terrorist groups live off publicity and donations. They need to constantly kill people and issue press releases about it to keep the Saudi, Kuwaiti and Qatari money flowing.

If a terrorist group had been behind the downing of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370, why has no statement been issued, not counting one or two claims that no one is taking too seriously? It’s possible that like Bin Laden, the group responsible decided that they had reached when they saw what they had done and decided to shut up about it.

Possibly with the encouragement of Malaysian authorities.

Lone wolf attackers however have more trouble getting their message out. Consider cases like Nidal Hassan, who was forced to belatedly pass on writings to FOX News years after the attack trying to explain his terrorist motives. And Hassan was still alive.

If a lone pilot had decided to take down Malaysia Airlines Flight 370, he would have left a note or a video, but he had to be careful that it wouldn’t leak until he was in the air. And that might have precluded passing anything on to Jihadist sites, which are rotten with informants. He might have left it on his computer or his place, assuming that it would be found and broadcast.

The only reason why it wouldn’t have been revealed is a deliberate cover up by Malaysian authorities. That appears to be what China suspects and why it’s treating Malaysia so rudely. Rightly or wrongly, the Chinese government believes that the Malaysian authorities have known more than they are willing to say all along. And considering China’s extensive intelligence network, they might even have independent verification of that.

But it’s also possible that this wasn’t terrorism. The left jumps in to deny that every Muslim terror attack is what it is. I try to be careful not to prematurely label an attack as terrorist before there is real evidence. It’s one thing to speculate, it’s another thing to act as if you’re sure before the facts are in.

There are plausible reasons why Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 could have been a terrorist attack. But there are other possibilities too. Unlike the United States, China is not likely to rest until it gets to the bottom of what really happened and once it does, it isn’t likely to cover up the truth for political correctness.

If Malaysia Airlines Flight 370  was terrorism, then I suspect we’ll know sooner or later.

  • truebearing

    Your analysis sounds right to me. Something smells rotten in Malaysia. Maybe the Malaysian government is afraid to admit the truth because they sense China is looking for an excuse to flex its muscle. Who knows, but the way they have behaved, it isn’t any wonder people are suspicious.

    What makes no sense is the theory that the pilot flew for hours just to kill himself. It assumes that he flew for hours until he ran out of fuel, when he could have just nosedived the plane anywhere and anytime he wanted. The debris field is in the middle of nowhere. Why would the pilot fly in that direction just to kill himself?

    • DemocracyRules

      The pilot may have been dead when the plane crashed. It may have been a flying coffin. The autopilot/flight management system is designed to follow a programmed flight path with or without human intervention. The plane may have been flown by the autopilot until it ran out of fuel, and crashed into the sea. All external communications were disabled.

      • truebearing

        He may have…and yet another scenario.

      • The March Hare

        If the pilot and co-pilot were dead due to some catastrophe, the plane would have continued on to the original destination. The autopilot would have had to have been reprogramed to change that. What would that scenario have looked like?

        • DemocracyRules

          The aircraft diverted from it’s flight path near Khota Baru in northeastern Malaysia, turning west. There is evidence that the turn occurred because the autopilot/flight management system had been re-programmed.

          • The March Hare

            We know it turned, but what is the evidence you refer to that it had been reprogrammed? If it had been, what was the pilot doing in the mean time, and why? Why would he reprogram it and then sit there while it flew for hours to a southern area to crash into the ocean? If he was going to commit suicide, why not just crash it right then and there? That still doesn’t sound logical.

          • DemocracyRules

            Good questions. Please read my other comment here about Islamic terrorism. Many points seem to fit that hypothesis. For example the pilot could have had the new flight program ready, from his work with his home simulator. With the automatic pilot in control, the pilot could devote his attention to subduing the co-pilot and any problematic aircrew.

            Shortly after taking the new course, the aircraft suddenly climbed to about 43,000 feet, which is dangerously close to its maximum altitude. If the interior was suddenly decompressed at that altitude, all people without oxygen would die in about 16 seconds.

            Crashing the aircraft with a sudden plunge could be misinterpreted as suicide, and traces would be left which might link the pilot’s intentions back to Anwar Ibrahim. In particular, the pilot had to destroy his personal laptop, because it contained files he used to sequence his disconnections of external communications, and re-program the autopilot.

            Disappearing into ‘thin air’ would be dramatic, would impress the MSM, and destroy most of the evidence. It would also make it difficult to connect the event directly to Anwar Ibrahim.

            The crisis would give Ibrahim an excellent platform to excoriate the government for incompetence and mismanagement, and expand his influence. Ibrahim has done this since the ‘disappearance’.

            However, the Malaysian government would almost certainly see the connections between Ibrahim, the pilot, and the disappearance, and interpret the act as a revenge attack against them.

            Ibraham worked very hard to conceal his numerous links with the pilot. When a British newspaper exposed the linkages, Ibrahim was furious, and blamed it on ‘inside spies’. Why did Ibrahim attempt to conceal these linkages in the first place?

            With some thought, you might see that many more puzzle pieces fit the Islamic terrorism hypothesis.

            I have no vested interest in any of this. But the truth is more useful than fiction.

          • seewithyourowneyes

            Some Jihad is directed more towards economic destruction than loss of life. A quick suicidal crash would have been easily discovered. Heading out to the middle of the Indian Ocean insured that millions of dollars will be wasted trying to locate the plane.

          • DemocracyRules

            Yes, I agree. It also got the attention of hundreds of millions of people. For example, the Chinese news media are still featuring this story. A ‘straight shot into the drink’ probably would not have garnered so much attention.

  • DogmaelJones1

    This is the most rational, calm analysis of the Malaysian flight disappearance I’ve read yet. Malaysia, a largely Islamic country, but its government just might be suppressing evidence of an Islamic terror action; but then again, it may just be incompetent, as Daniel suggests. Fascist, pseudo-Communist China will pursue this until they arm-twist the truth out of Malaysia. Or embarrass it with the truth.

  • DemocracyRules


    Governments and media have concealed many of the linkages bewteen air crashes and Islamists.

    Effective terrorism must produce terror. If no one knows it’s terrorism, no terror occurs. In theory, one can avoid the consequences of terrorism by calling it something else. In theory.

    In the Egypt Air crash before 9/11, the co-pilot seized control of the plane and flew it straight down into the Atlantic while shouting ‘Allah o Akbar’. The MSM seemed to think he was just having a ‘bad day’, and Egypt insisted on his innocence because Islam forbids suicide. No authority called it Islamic terrorism. But that appears to be the only viable explanation.

    After Egypt Air, a missile fired from an Iranian fishing vessel appears to have destroyed an airliner near Long Island New York. It occurred close to Bill Clinton’s’ re-election campaign. Many independent witnesses saw a missile strike, and many experts agree it was a missile strike. Clinton’s White House denied that possibility. But the FBI certainly considered a missile strike, and hired fishing vessels to help search out missile parts. One FBI planning document was left on board one of these vessels, and the boat captain passed it on to independent investigators. They continue to be ignored.

    Also near that time, A Swiss Air flight departed from New York and crashed into the sea near Nova Scotia. Investigators claimed the cause was ‘smoke in the cockpit’ from ‘wiring’, even though they could not identify the wiring, or establish why it caught fire. The possibility of a smoke bomb was rejected outright.

    Until 9/11, the US denied the existence of homeland terrorism. This worked partially, but it left the American people unaware and unprepared for 9/11.

    The denial also induced the terrorists to use multiple simultaneous attacks that could not be dismissed as accidents. They also chose bigger targets, and took credit for them.

    • truebearing

      What if the Malaysian government obscured messages from terrorists?

  • Douglas Mayfield

    In analyzing a threat, you have to take as a strong possibility that which is most likely. Is it likely that without despicable and thoroughly malevolent intervention, a commercial aircraft flew into the ocean thousands of miles off course?
    And since the country, Malaysia, the airline, and both the pilots are all dedicated to Islam, as they say in math books, ‘The proof is left to the reader’.

  • Hass

    Everything points to an act of terror. Especially the course it took.

    • The March Hare

      It hasn’t been proven that the plane went to any of the proposed crash sites. It is all supposition at this point.
      Given that maximum cell site range is limited and site spacing overlaps requires the signal to be tuned down and focused for moving from site to site and use “hand-off”, sites are generally located 1-2 miles apart. Even though they can have a maximum signal range of up to 22 miles, low power cell phones cannot upload a signal to that distance. There is no cell phone coverage out to sea past a few miles.


    • Shue Arie

      Everything points to Islam and the Malay Gov has known all along.
      You can bet on it.

  • DemocracyRules


    It appears to have been a revenge attack against the Malaysian government for the perceived persecution of Islamic opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim.

    THE PILOT had the means, the motivation, and the opportunity to kill everyone on board as part of Islamic Jihad.

    The pilot Zaharie Ahmad Shah was a devout Muslim who was a relative and ‘obsessive’ supporter of Anwar Ibrahim. Anwar Ibrahim is an Islamist politician with many long-standing ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, Islamic terrorist funding sources, and influential pro-terrorist religious clerics. He is viciously anti-Semitic.

    About 7 hours before taking off, the pilot attended the trial/conviction/sentencing of Anwar Ibrahim for forcible sodomy of a male chauffeur. The pilot was observed to be visibly upset by the trial results.

    Recently Anwar Ibrahim was furious when a British newspaper detailed his family, political, and social connections with the pilot.

    More evidence abounds about Anwar Ibrahim at redstate dot com and other sites.

  • Josh Randall

    Malaysia is a muslim country with a horribly corrupt government. The pilot took this plane down in the name of Allah and the Malaysians have known it all along.
    I am no fan of Red China but I hope they open up a can on them.

  • ObamaYoMoma

    The left jumps in to deny that every Muslim terror attack is what it is.

    Of course, they do and that’s because what is in fact really violent jihad is always mischaracterized erroneously by you and your ilk as somehow being terrorism, even though it is really jihad. Indeed, you help to facilitate the problem, at the same time you also completely ignore non-violent jihad, which manifests via stealth and deception astronomically far more relative to violent jihad. Of course, non-violent jihad doesn’t sell nearly as well as the violent variety in which you erroneously call terrorism.

    Nonetheless, while terrorism is perpetrated for all kinds of various causes, by all kinds of people, and is always and only violent, jihad, which is holy war waged by Muslims in the cause of Allah to ultimately make Islam supreme via any and all means, on the other hand, is always and only perpetrated both violently and non-violently by only Muslims and for one reason alone, which is to ultimately make Islam supreme.

    Therefore, if writers like you and your ilk wouldn’t ignorantly mislabel what are really acts of jihad (holy war) as somehow being terrorism erroneously, leftists and Ron Paul kooks couldn’t deny what it actually is, as it would automatically be understood by the masses that such attacks, although similar in appearance to terrorism, are actually acts of jihad, which one more time is a holy war waged by Muslims against non-Muslims to make Islam supreme.

    • DemocracyRules

      The story author wrote, “The left jumps in to deny that every Muslim terror attack is what it is.”

      I don’t understand your reply. Please define what you mean by terrorism, jihad, and violent jihad. Here are the common definitions.
      ter·ror·ism (tĕr′ə-rĭz′əm)
      The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
      ~ American Heritage Dictionary
      ji·had also je·had (jĭ-häd′)
      2. Islam A Muslim holy war or spiritual struggle against infidels.
      ~ American Heritage Dictionary
      According to these definitions, terrorism seems to be one way of conducting violent jihad. Thus, a violent act that fits definition one, and also fits definition two, can be called jihad terrorism, or terrorist jihad, or Muslim terrorism, or Muslim violent jihad, or Islamic/Islamist terrorism, or violent jihad, etc.

      • ObamaYoMoma

        According to these definitions, terrorism seems to be one way of conducting violent jihad. Thus, a violent act that fits definition one, and also fits definition two, can be called jihad terrorism, or terrorist jihad, or Muslim terrorism, or Muslim violent jihad, or Islamic/Islamist terrorism, or violent jihad, etc.

        Not really, jihad (holy war) is far more substantial than terrorism, because it is a holy war in the cause of Allah to ultimately make Islam supreme throughout the world and is multidimensional in that it encompasses any and all means of waging war both violent and non-violent. Meanwhile, terrorism is only one-dimensional in that it is always and only violent. Furthermore, jihad, whether of the violent variety or the non-violent variety, is always and only in the cause of Allah to make Islam supreme and is always perpetrated only by Muslims. As a matter of fact, waging jihad in one form or another is a fundamental holy obligation incumbent upon all Muslims. While, terrorism, on the other hand, is perpetrated by people from all societies and cultures and for various causes and reasons. The only similarity between the two very separate and distinct manifestations is that the violent variety of jihad appears to the uninitiated to be terrorism because of its seemingly extreme violent nature, but it is not because it is jihad, i.e., holy war, which is much more profound. As a matter of fact, when Muslims employ violence, they primarily employ only total war tactics per the dictates of Sharia.

        Furthermore, when PC multiculturalists lump jihad in as being terrorism, it opens the door for all kinds of off the wall false analogies to arise. For instance, according to the Left and Libertarian Ron Paul kooks, the 9/11 violent jihad attacks were America’s chickens coming home to roost, as the Left claimed it was a direct result of “capitalist imperialism” and the Libertarian Ron Paul kooks claimed it was “blowback” stemming from “American interventionist foreign policies.” Nevertheless, they were both wrong, as it was jihad and jihad is a holy war waged against all religions and all infidels by the Islamic totalitarian world to subjugate them into Islamic totalitarianism through both violent and non-violent stealth and deceptive jihad and the eventual imposition of Sharia, which is Islamic totalitarian law, to ultimately make Islam supreme throughout the world. Indeed, that is the sole fundamental purpose of Islam.

        Timothy McVeigh, the Unabomber, Bill Ayers, and Bernadine Dohrn are all examples of terrorists, as they perpetrated their violence for various causes. Meanwhile, Muslims wage jihad both violently and non-violently, but astronomically far more non-violently relative to violently, and it is always in the cause of Allah to ultimately make Islam supreme. However, because violent jihad is almost always mischaracterized erroneously in the press as being terrorism and also because the world has become fixated primarily only on terrorism, the much more prevalent forms of non-violent stealth and deceptive jihad are able to manifests for the most part totally undetected and unacknowledged. For instance, mass Muslim immigration with all of its excess baggage to the infidel world is really non-violent stealth and deceptive jihad for the nefarious purposes of mass Muslim infiltration and eventual demographic conquest. Yet, it is not only not detected or opposed, it is actually often encouraged.

        Finally, if we called violent jihad attacks what they actually are, i.e., acts of jihad, as opposed to lumping it in as being terrorism, there wouldn’t be any questions or doubts with respect to their motivation, as jihad would automatically be understood to be part of a holy war waged by Muslims to make Islam supreme. Therefore, lumping what is really violent jihad with being terrorism in the spirit of PC multiculturalism is a very grave and stupid idiotic mistake. It also opens the door for self-hating morons to blame everything else and the kitchen sink but what it really is at the same time.