AQ Attacks After a Failed 9/11

I think as to AQ's actions, that they would try sooner rather than later. UBL was certainly sophisticated enough to understand that Bush would give him the reaction he wanted far more than a Democrat, and more likely to spread the fighting elsewhere.

I'm a little skeptical -- not so much that Osama was looking to provoke a military reaction from the US (which I'll give you), as that he saw Bush as his best shot of achieving it. Unless there's a source I don't know about...

Also, w/o 911, doesn't airport security remain in the piss poor state it was in before the attacks? You know, the lowest bidder private security firm, with minimum wage 70 year old retirees with fused neck veterbrae and cataracts working as scanner operators? I see neither the Patriot Act (15) nor even just the TSA being founded. Say what you will about the other aspects of Bush's security procedures, but when I travel, I'm very glad to see a professional, career-based, YOUNG, and healthy, public employee workforce who knows the consequences of failure.

Without the TSA, good times for airplane high-jackers and bombers alike. Whatever anecdotal evidence we hear about in TSA failures, the fact is their mere existence forces terrorists to look elsewhere for their targets. AQ may not fear death, but they certainly fear failure. When I was growing up in the 60s and 70s, it seemed as though a plane was being highjacked to Havana ever other week.:mad: "The Havana Shuttle" they called it.

So the takeaway here is AQ may well try another "planes plot"?
 

Archibald

Banned
The Madrid and London bombings would certainly be butterflied away - since they were tied to Blair and Aznar support of the invasion of Iraq, itself a byproduct of 9/11.
 
A no 9-11 TL probably avoids the somewhat rightward drift taken by the people of the United States; someone further left could be President in 2004 without the electorial drift it caused.



If there is a Democrat in the White House in 2005, there will be a different ruling on the Citizens United case that gives more political fundraising power to corporations. The Supreme Court may have more swing votes, or it might be more consistently liberal. In any case, I think the USA would be further left and stay there.


As for Obama: The Senate teaches people to cut deals and defend them. Obama isn't a wimp, and I think he's got a sort of Neville Chamberlain approach to politics: be very reasonable in your positions and make the other guy clearly insane by rejecting them; the people know who tried and who stood for what. By consistently taking the middle ground and going for positions offered by the GOP, Obama has forced them into a difficult position: They either accept a moderate offer and face the wrath of the Tea Party radicals, or they fight from the fringes and alienate the independents.


And now the 2012 primaries have already entered the forbidden forest of radicalism. In their quest to win the juicy fruit of nomination, the GOP candidates may well be damned to fail in the general election.


In the 80s or 90s Obama would still have been about as far left as the US will go. Hillarycare went down in flames, Obamacare passed but at the cost of the rest of his agenda going down in flames. The US was well to the right of Europe LONG BEFORE 9/11.
 
I'm a little skeptical -- not so much that Osama was looking to provoke a military reaction from the US (which I'll give you), as that he saw Bush as his best shot of achieving it. Unless there's a source I don't know about...



So the takeaway here is AQ may well try another "planes plot"?


Democrat or Republican the US was going to go to war with Afghanistan or anyone else behind any 9/11 type attack.
 
Democrat or Republican the US was going to go to war with Afghanistan or anyone else behind any 9/11 type attack.

Yeah, that's my thinking as well; if AQ is determined to get a military response from an attack on one hand, but are concerned about logistics after the 9-11 plot falls apart on the other, then they still won't be in any rush to throw something together. I'm thinking the US sees something circa 2006, though I'm not convinced it will just be 9/11 five years later -- for one, I'm still not convinced AQ wouldn't be able to pull off a dirty bomb attack (in, say, lower Manhattan) in this timeframe...
 
Yeah, that's my thinking as well; if AQ is determined to get a military response from an attack on one hand, but are concerned about logistics after the 9-11 plot falls apart on the other, then they still won't be in any rush to throw something together. I'm thinking the US sees something circa 2006, though I'm not convinced it will just be 9/11 five years later -- for one, I'm still not convinced AQ wouldn't be able to pull off a dirty bomb attack (in, say, lower Manhattan) in this timeframe...


In which case it is even more certain and the gloves would probably come completely off.
 
In which case it is even more certain and the gloves would probably come completely off.

Oh, undoubtedly -- in fact, the response to TTL's attack would most likely be even more unhinged than OTL's... or if you really want insanity, just throw in (a now somewhat popular) W getting killed in the blast :eek:
 
Top