DBWI: A terrorist attack with airplanes?

[Teshuvah]

Now some of you younger members might not know about this, but in the autumn of 2001 there was a bit of controversy over a foiled terrorist attack that involved airline hijacking. Apparently these people intended to take control of these airplanes and fly them into various targets throughout the country. The attack was foiled, and other than not being allowed to carry sharp objects through security there hasn't been much of a legacy from the failed plot.

So: what if they succeeded?

IIRC they were planning on hitting the White House, the Pentagon, and the Empire State Building. How would President Bush handle this? I've read from his memoirs that he always regretted not ousting Saddam Hussein, and that he believed the Syrian Partition* would have gone more peacefully if the administration had a mandate to interfere in the Middle East more than the standard Israel protection stuff.

What do you guys think?

*OOC: Earlier, more violent Syrian Civil War which saw the country divided between West Syria (remnant based around Latakia), North Syria (Sunni), and South Syria (Shi'a/Druze/some Christians)

 

[Osakadave]

Been reading Tom Clancy again, eh? That sort of thing only happens in bad novels or TV shows.

 

[overoceans]

Been reading Tom Clancy again, eh? That sort of thing only happens in bad novels or TV shows.

Yeah, but if the terrorists themselves were inspired by the bad novels or TV shows, they might just go do that. It wouldn't be the first time that a real-life group of people took their style and/or practices from pop culture.

 

[troosvelt_68]

If such an attack did happen might it not tarnish the image of the Bush years ?

I mean he's not in the top ten or anything but like Clinton he's fairly well respected. Had an attack happened perhaps he would not be.

 

[Osakadave]

If such an attack did happen might it not tarnish the image of the Bush years ?

I mean he's not in the top ten or anything but like Clinton he's fairly well respected. Had an attack happened perhaps he would not be.

Well Bill's fairly well respected, but Hillary's mishandling of the 2010 financial crisis was a mess!

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

There would have been a taint of scandal had it occured. There are a few reports from the era, both 'official' like the FBI study, and from journalists on how unprepared both the Federal, state, and airline authorities were to deal with this situation. The plot was foiled when Federal & European law enforcement got wind of it well in advance and made arrests of several key leaders long before preparations were complete. What the reports show is how unready any federal agency, including the Dept of Defense, was for dealing with two or more hijacked airliners headed to unknown destinations. The odds of stopping any of the airliners before it reached its target were judged near zero. There was some speculation on the possibility of the passengers interfering, but that is usually dismissed as ASB so to speak even tho a few still argue the case in other situations. Examples of passengers assisting the crew in subduing drunk or mentally disturbed passengers are usually raised.

Post 2001 the Air Marshals were re embarked with appropriate publicity, and some passenger screening was tightened up. Both of those have variously been described as ineffective, unnecessary, a violation of civil liberties, a profit loss point for the airlines and airport operators, a danger to the passengers, ect...

There is another prediction for a successful airliner plot occasionally raised. There has been the discussion of how frustrated VP Cheny & Wolfowitz were over their inability to instigate another war against Iraq. It can be argued the bombing campaign of 2003-2005 & the special forces operations were effectively a war. Point taken, however Cheny & Co seem to have wanted much more. Rumsfeld who was a fellow traveler in this obsessed on keeping Central Commands plans for invading Iraq up to date, while neglecting similar plans for operations in Iran, on the Arabian peninsula, or Pakistan. The idea here is this attack made sucessfully would allow the 'war hawks' to push their agenda through.

 

[Teshuvah]

There would have been a taint of scandal had it occured. There are a few reports from the era, both 'official' like the FBI study, and from journalists on how unprepared both the Federal, state, and airline authorities were to deal with this situation. The plot was foiled when Federal & European law enforcement got wind of it well in advance and made arrests of several key leaders long before preparations were complete. What the reports show is how unready any federal agency, including the Dept of Defense, was for dealing with two or more hijacked airliners headed to unknown destinations. The odds of stopping any of the airliners before it reached its target were judged near zero. There was some speculation on the possibility of the passengers interfering, but that is usually dismissed as ASB so to speak even tho a few still argue the case in other situations. Examples of passengers assisting the crew in subduing drunk or mentally disturbed passengers are usually raised.

Post 2001 the Air Marshals were re embarked with appropriate publicity, and some passenger screening was tightened up. Both of those have variously been described as ineffective, unnecessary, a violation of civil liberties, a profit loss point for the airlines and airport operators, a danger to the passengers, ect...

There is another prediction for a successful airliner plot occasionally raised. There has been the discussion of how frustrated VP Cheny & Wolfowitz were over their inability to instigate another war against Iraq. It can be argued the bombing campaign of 2003-2005 & the special forces operations were effectively a war. Point taken, however Cheny & Co seem to have wanted much more. Rumsfeld who was a fellow traveler in this obsessed on keeping Central Commands plans for invading Iraq up to date, while neglecting similar plans for operations in Iran, on the Arabian peninsula, or Pakistan. The idea here is this attack made sucessfully would allow the 'war hawks' to push their agenda through.

The bombing campaign wasn't really more than a few airstrikes around Fallujah and Mosul, though. I mean, they succeeded in getting the Kurds more autonomy (and now they're talking about unifying with Kurdish Syria, but I don't know if North Syria will allow that), but Saddam is still in charge, even if he's softened his image a bit.

 

[lucaswillen05]

The bombing campaign wasn't really more than a few airstrikes around Fallujah and Mosul, though. I mean, they succeeded in getting the Kurds more autonomy (and now they're talking about unifying with Kurdish Syria, but I don't know if North Syria will allow that), but Saddam is still in charge, even if he's softened his image a bit.

As did Bashar Assad. The Middle East today might not be pleasant. Just look at Saudi policies towards women for example. And the regiemes in Baghdad and Damascus are still pretty brutal - they just put a more benign face on it.

The older readers will remember the reasons we did not march on Baghdad in March 1991 after our victory in Kuwait. Iraw might well have broken apart into sectarian warfare with extremist groups such as Al Qaeda andd the more recent one that appeard a cople of years ago calling itself Islamic State operating n Northern Iraq and Syria. They seem very fanatical and commonly murder hostages. But for he most prt they just explode a few bombs every now and then. But what could they have done in ahuge sectarin civil war in Iraq and Syria following a US wiithdrawl frm a, probably failed, occupation.

No, the Middle East today is probably much better off as it is despite dictators and monrchs o varying unpleasentness.

 

[Talwar]

Now some of you younger members might not know about this, but in the autumn of 2001 there was a bit of controversy over a foiled terrorist attack that involved airline hijacking. Apparently these people intended to take control of these airplanes and fly them into various targets throughout the country. The attack was foiled, and other than not being allowed to carry sharp objects through security there hasn't been much of a legacy from the failed plot.

So: what if they succeeded?

IIRC they were planning on hitting the White House, the Pentagon, and the Empire State Building. How would President Bush handle this?

Well, he might've had time to curse or something.

I've read from his memoirs that he always regretted not ousting Saddam Hussein, and that he believed the Syrian Partition* would have gone more peacefully if the administration had a mandate to interfere in the Middle East more than the standard Israel protection stuff.

What do you guys think?

My recollection is that the plane guys were Saudis, not Iraqis, so I'm not seeing the connection with Saddam. Even Cheney wasn't stupid enough to get the two mixed up.

And invading Saudi's not on, really. They're allied to the Americans, they're the big oil exporter. Military action - even the suggestion of it - is going to send oil prices soaring, and the resulting shock is going to either make 2010 look like a hiccup or put Hillary in the Oval Office four years earlier.

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

...My recollection is that the plane guys were Saudis, not Iraqis, so I'm not seeing the connection with Saddam. Even Cheney wasn't stupid enough to get the two mixed up. ....

Mostly Saudis, A case could be made a few were Germans of Saudi ancestory. IIRC all those recruited or known were living in Europe. A lot of people have tried to connect the plot to Iraq, Iran, Israel, extreme right wing groups in the US, the Illuminate, liberal college professors. But, it is clear the central instigator was A Saudi expatriate and the money trail led back to a few wealthy families in Saudi Arabia. That is likely why the plot, like several others were not more aggressively pursued. The house of Saud is skilled at politics & plays the oil money well.