Discussion on Terrorism, September 11th and what could have happened

[Darkest]

September 11th, 2001, was, let's face it, a huge part of history. If this decade is remembered by anything, I would bet anything that people will point to 9/11. Heck, maybe even the 21st century. You all know what it did to the world. Let's talk about some things that might have happened differently.

First of all, I want to talk about terrorism. Some terrorists came close to accomplishing some pretty horrific deeds. If any terrorism wants to be debated here, make it between 1990 and the present.

- Ramzi Ahmed Yousef was a terrorist who planned the the first World Trade Center attack. He was clever, ingenious and quite an examplary to all others. What if he succeeded in assassinating the Prime Minister of Pakistan, Benazir Bhutto, in the summer of 1993? He was interrupted by the police at the last moment. He could very well have succeeded.

- Oplan Bojinka was a huge-scale operation that could have easily rivalled that of September 11th. The problem was that an apartment fire started by Abdul Hakim Murad which led the police to discover everything about it. They also nabbed Ramzi Yousef's laptop, which had everything on the operation.

It would have three phases.
Phase 1 - On January 15, 1995, more than 20 suicide bombers had been trained to dress as a priest and approach Pope John Paul II when he visited the Philippines during the World Youth Day 1995 celebrations. He would have gotten close to the Pope's motorcade and then triggered the bomb, which could have easily killed the Pope. This would deter attention from later operations.

Phase 2 - Five Al-Qaeda operatives would set bombs up on 11 United States bound planes. They wouldn't need passports, as they would switch planes out of the US after arriving. 4,000 people were expected to have been effected.

Phase 3 - Hijack an airliner and crash it into the CIA headquarters in Virginia. There were also plans to hijack and hit other targets, but they would have been sore pressed for recruits.

What woud happen if this massive terrorist operation would have gone down? Its success rate might have been low, but it would result in more casualties than 9/11, despite no skyscrapers falling. Security reforms would save the WTC, perhaps. Would war be declared because of it? They were extremely close to pulling it off as well, if that fire hadn't been started in Manila.

And now for September 11th.

The plan had been originally slated for December 31st, 1999, with attacks on the Times Square as close to the celebrations as well. Coupled with planes colliding into the Two Towers, the Pentagon, and other similiar targets, there could have been a much larger loss of life. However, this is also somewhat unlikely as security would have been ramped up.

- Those who plotted September 11th at first suggested 10 planes. I don't think their backers would allow such a scale of an operation. Six or seven, though? Maybe. What targets would they have hit?

Main Targets often considered by Anti-American Terrorists
The Sears Tower (Chicago, Illinois), The Pentagon (Arlington County, Virginia), the Washington Capitol (Washington, DC), the White House (Washington, DC), the Transamerica Tower (San Francisco, California), and the World Trade Center (New York, New York) would be the likely targets.

What if the Pentagon, the Washington Capital, the White House, the World Trade Center, and Times Square had been hit by hijacked airliners?

- What if the United 93 Flight had a slightly different passenger list, or things had gone a little differently, and it had crashed into the United States Capitol, their most likely intended target? It would be a huge psychological blow against the American Public.

- Plans were made for a simultaneous attack in London on the Palace of Westminister and Tower Bridge. However, the hijackers chickened out and never boarded the planes to crash them.

- Plans were also made, but postponed, by Usama Bin Laden, to crash another plane into the US Bank Tower, or the Library Tower, in Los Angeles, on 9/11 as well. What if they had gotten one or two more terrorists into the United States to hijack a plane and crash it there?

- What if another flight or two rebels against the hijackers and downs the plane before it reaches its target?

 

[CalBear]

- What if another flight or two rebels against the hijackers and downs the plane before it reaches its target?

The two NYC planes were going to kill thousands, regardless of where they hit. Manhatten is too crowded for any other result. You could even build a decent arguement that by hitting the Towers as they did, where one plane hit, which gave those in the second building and in the 1st building below the impact floors, time to escape resulted in reduced casualties from the possible toll.

Just imagine if the hijackers had REALLY wanted to sow terror, instead of their insane belief that the loss of the Towers would result in the total collapse of the American economy. Had they flown (or crashed as happened with Flight 93 due to a passenger assault) one of those planes into any of several Manhatten High Schools with enrollments over two thousand, in a couple cases nearly three thousand, the death toll would have skyrocketed. Had they understood Americans at all, they could have, with the same amount of effort as displayed in taking the aircraft, easily killed ten times their actual numbers, and spread the fear across the entire country.

Luckily they were stupid. Luckily the bastards who took Flight 93 made the mistake of letting the passengers call home, thereby letting the news of what was happening get to the people on the plane, and permitting them to go down fighting.

Above all, luckily, they were so stupid that they wasted what was effectively a one time, high reward, low risk, strategy, in slapping a grizzly bear with a ping-pong paddle.

 

[Doeth]

What if the 1st Osama attack on the WTC worked?

The central beam would of fallen a few feet, then fallen on the other one.

Like dominoes...

 

[Doctor What]

What if the 1st Osama attack on the WTC worked?

The central beam would of fallen a few feet, then fallen on the other one.

Like dominoes...

Not in a million years with the size of the truck bomb that they used. They would have needed an Oklahoma City size truck bomb and even then it would been successful in taking down the tower only through pure dumb luck.

 

[The Abyss]

Not in a million years with the size of the truck bomb that they used. They would have needed an Oklahoma City size truck bomb and even then it would been successful in taking down the tower only through pure dumb luck.

1) that is completely true.
2)no, bigger, they would need about two of thoise big big big big big-rigs
3) more them dumb luck, more like by some act of God

 

[Darkest]

I think they did expect an act of God.

While the terrorists were unwise, they were in alien terrain, and thus its easy to say that they had a natural disadvantage in understanding the best targets in the United States.

I wouldn't say they were stupid, and thought that bombing the WTC would crush all of America. I believe they thought it would have a much horrible effect, but they overestimated.

 

[rewster]

It would have had a horrendous effect, if they had crashed into the towers at say... 11 AM. The towers' population may have been 4 times as great at mid day, and for the tower that had no escape route for the top floors... well, the death toll would have been much worse.
Imagine if 20,000 had died? Or more?
If the other two planes had hit large skyscrapers (the Empire State Building, Sears Tower, etc.) things would have been far worse.

 

[CalBear]

I think they did expect an act of God.

While the terrorists were unwise, they were in alien terrain, and thus its easy to say that they had a natural disadvantage in understanding the best targets in the United States.

I wouldn't say they were stupid, and thought that bombing the WTC would crush all of America. I believe they thought it would have a much horrible effect, but they overestimated.

I have to disagree. They failed to learn from the past. That makes them stupid. ATTACKING the UNITED STATES?! Worse, they did it in a manner that made the results a given. They failed to make a true dent in the American Economy, they failed to put terror into the American public.

They succeeded in filling the average American with a killing rage. They succeeded in losing their stable base of operations. They succeeded in making themselves hunted creatures.

That the President of the United States was foolish enough to become involved in a war lacking strategy had nothing to do with the 9/11 terrorists. The war with Iraq was a given from the Moment Bush became Commander-in-Chief, the only question was when it would start. Despite all the failings of the Iraq War, and they are legion, there is a salient fact; the best and brightest of Islamist terrorism has been engaged in fighting American SOLDIERS. They engage Americans in Baghdad, not in Chicago.

This choice on the part of the 9/11 planners & other Islamist leaders, to attempt to fight the American Army, instead of doing what would have been far more effective, intermitent suicide attacks on American soil, has effectively squandered whatever toehold they had gotten in the American psyche. Terror isn't an item that Americans thing about, not like an Israeli or an Iraqi thinks about the problem. Again, this was foolish, if not outright stupid.

 

[Jesse]

The two NYC planes were going to kill thousands, regardless of where they hit. Manhatten is too crowded for any other result. You could even build a decent arguement that by hitting the Towers as they did, where one plane hit, which gave those in the second building and in the 1st building below the impact floors, time to escape resulted in reduced casualties from the possible toll.

Just imagine if the hijackers had REALLY wanted to sow terror, instead of their insane belief that the loss of the Towers would result in the total collapse of the American economy. Had they flown (or crashed as happened with Flight 93 due to a passenger assault) one of those planes into any of several Manhatten High Schools with enrollments over two thousand, in a couple cases nearly three thousand, the death toll would have skyrocketed. Had they understood Americans at all, they could have, with the same amount of effort as displayed in taking the aircraft, easily killed ten times their actual numbers, and spread the fear across the entire country.

I don't think you can assume that the terrorists' goal was as simple as just maximizing the number of kills--the symbolic effect of destroying the towers may have been more important to them than the number of people who would be killed as a result (certainly if a huge death toll was their goal, they could have picked a better time of day to hit the towers). And I'm sure they had their own twisted moral rationalizations to convince themselves that what they were doing was good and just, it would probably be easier to rationalize killing a bunch of adults working in the heart of america's financial system than it would be to kill a bunch of american schoolchildren. For comparison, think of Timothy McVeigh, who claimed to regret the fact that kids were killed in the Oklahoma City bombing even though he continued to think that destroying the building was a justified blow against an evil government. Also, if the terrorists' goal was to not purely to create fear in america but also to rally like-minded people in the muslim world to their cause, the intentional targeting of children would not be very good publicity.

 

[NapoleonXIV]

I have to disagree. They failed to learn from the past. That makes them stupid. ATTACKING the UNITED STATES?! Worse, they did it in a manner that made the results a given. They failed to make a true dent in the American Economy, they failed to put terror into the American public.

They succeeded in filling the average American with a killing rage. They succeeded in losing their stable base of operations. They succeeded in making themselves hunted creatures.

That the President of the United States was foolish enough to become involved in a war lacking strategy had nothing to do with the 9/11 terrorists. The war with Iraq was a given from the Moment Bush became Commander-in-Chief, the only question was when it would start. Despite all the failings of the Iraq War, and they are legion, there is a salient fact; the best and brightest of Islamist terrorism has been engaged in fighting American SOLDIERS. They engage Americans in Baghdad, not in Chicago.
This choice on the part of the 9/11 planners & other Islamist leaders, to attempt to fight the American Army, instead of doing what would have been far more effective, intermitent suicide attacks on American soil, has effectively squandered whatever toehold they had gotten in the American psyche. Terror isn't an item that Americans thing about, not like an Israeli or an Iraqi thinks about the problem. Again, this was foolish, if not outright stupid.

Were we fighting them in Afghanistan, (where many remain and are growing in power) I might be inclined to agree with you. As it stands, your statement is like saying a child wacking a hornets nest with a stick 10 feet from you is helping you since he is distracting bees that were not attacking you in the first place, ( and can fly to sting you in short order.)

The terrorists we are fighting in Baghdad would almost certainly not be fighting us AT ALL were we not in Iraq in the first place. Terror would continue in the world without Iraq, yes, but is anyone honestly arguing that Iraq has not recruited many, many more terrorists than would ever have existed without it?

No act of terror is done for its direct effect. The terrorist wants to turn public opinon in the victim nation radically against him, he counts on it.

Osama never wanted an ongoing terror campaign in America. He knew he would be hunted mercilessly and would probably never again be able to mount any further attacks whatever the size of his attack. What he wanted was for America to overreact and seem to attack World Islam instead of the terrorists. In that way he would mobilize opinon in the muslim world against the US, and overall strengthen Islamic fundamentalism.

 

[rewster]

Osama never wanted an ongoing terror campaign in America. He knew he would be hunted mercilessly and would probably never again be able to mount any further attacks whatever the size of his attack. What he wanted was for America to overreact and seem to attack World Islam instead of the terrorists. In that way he would mobilize opinon in the muslim world against the US, and overall strengthen Islamic fundamentalism.

Seems he has done his job then. Iran certainly seems more galvanized... and the Islamic world does seem more united than it once was... if only in hatred of the US. The US is actually in a pretty weak position right now... our forces are over-extended and over-engaged, our allies... well, nobody likes us, our enemies hate us more than ever, our civilians don't support the wars we are involved in... we've declared Iran part of an Axis of Evil, with no capability of doing anything about it... I'd say we're pretty bad off. Though most of the blame actually lies on the President, rather than Osama. Iraq War... brilliant.

 

[DuQuense]

Acually Usama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda won just what they wished for on 9/11. -- and be careful what you wish for, you may get it

In 1941 the Japanese Objective was to prevent the US from interfering in their plans for southeast Asia.

Their Stratagy was a Massive attack that would reinforce America Isolation.

Their Tatic was a Aircraft Attack on Pearl Harbor to Destroy the US Pacific Fleet.

The Tatic Failed due to no third wave to destroy the Fuel and Ammo Stores.

The Stratagy failed, when the Attack didn't push America back into Isolation, but provoked it into increased internationalism

The Objective Failed, as the US moved to interfere, as much as It could, up to total defeat of Japan.

So how about 9/11
The Objective was to provoke a Military Reponse, as opposed to a Police one.

the Statagy was a Massive Terrorist attack on American Soil.

the Tatic was to fly 4 planes into symbols of American power.

the Tatic was a Success, if you discount Flight 93.

the Strategy was a Sucess, the Largest terrorist attack in US History

the Objective was a Sucess, they certainly got a Military Reponse.

And due to the US changing Focus from Afganistan, the Talibin & Al-Qaeda, over to Iraq, their Objective, continues doing what they wanted.

 

[rewster]

DuQuense, that pretty much sums up my thoughts as well.

 

[Aldroud]

Above all, luckily, they were so stupid that they wasted what was effectively a one time, high reward, low risk, strategy, in slapping a grizzly bear with a ping-pong paddle.

Now that made me laugh.


I am shocked and somewhat disappointed we did not retaliate with at least one nuclear devise. Prattle about where to detonate it, I don't truely care. Nothing says don't fuck with me like a mushroom cloud and if ever there was a case to use one, 9/11 was it. You hit us with a weapon of mass destruction, we hit right back. Seems we held back and thus encouraged resistance.

If the planes had hit around 11 AM or if the initial reports of 15k+ dead were accurate, I wonder if we would have vaporized a city or two.

 

[Burton K Wheeler]

I am shocked and somewhat disappointed we did not retaliate with at least one nuclear devise. Prattle about where to detonate it, I don't truely care.

What the hell could that ever achieve?

 

[Flocculencio]

Now that made me laugh.


I am shocked and somewhat disappointed we did not retaliate with at least one nuclear devise. Prattle about where to detonate it, I don't truely care. Nothing says don't fuck with me like a mushroom cloud and if ever there was a case to use one, 9/11 was it. You hit us with a weapon of mass destruction, we hit right back. Seems we held back and thus encouraged resistance.

If the planes had hit around 11 AM or if the initial reports of 15k+ dead were accurate, I wonder if we would have vaporized a city or two.

Wait, so you think that nuking a random target (so long as it's a Muslim one) would have been a sane course of action?

So somebody picks a random target, the nuke flies, goes kaboom. Best case- a few terrorists get nuked. The rest would just proclaim them holy martyrs and drum up support by pointing out how the
great Satan has used the abomination of nukes against the Faithful. Worst case scenario- someone picks the wrong target. Lots of civilians get vapourised. Same scenario as above except intensified and with the effect of making America a pariah nation.

Huh.

I never thought I'd say this but even coming from a political extremist that's really disturbing. I thought that a military professional of all people would have the grace not to engage in nukewanking. When I look at the American military I pray to whatever gods there be that there are more people like Baldie in it and fewer like you.

 

[Hendryk]

I never thought I'd say this but even coming from a political extremist that's really disturbing. I thought that a military professional of all people would have the grace not to engage in nukewanking. When I look at the American military I pray to whatever gods there be that there are more people like Baldie in it and fewer like you.

I guess that, in order to be a neocon, a fundamental requirement is the deeply-felt belief that no matter what the problem is, random application of large-scale violence will solve it. Aldroud's choice of words is, in that regard, disturbingly candid: he doesn't even care who gets nuked, as long as somebody does.

I'm reminded of certain primitive hunter-gatherer societies that, when faced with a problem in the community (outbreak of disease, attack by a predator, whatever), simply go out and kill whatever stranger is at hand. It doesn't solve anything, but, from an anthropological perspective, it reaffirms the collective bonds that keep the group together.

 

[Flocculencio]

Aldroud's choice of words is, in that regard, disturbingly candid: he doesn't even care who gets nuked, as long as somebody does.

That was the most disturbing part, really. If the implication was more of intelligence work to, say, find Osama Bin Laden's mountain hideout and hit that with a tactical nuclear weapon of some sort, that would at least be more acceptable, although I don't think it would be wise.

The implication I got from his statement was that he'd be perfectly willing for someone high up to say "Well, let's find us a buncha towelheads to waste" just in order to make a point.

Let's do 'em man! Let's do the whole fuckin' village!

 

[Burton K Wheeler]

The phrasing of Aldroud's post doesn't even imply that "a city or two" would be Kabul and Kandahar. It could very well be Baghdad, Teheran, Damascus, Pyongyang, Cairo, Amman, Beirut, Jerusalem, Islamabad, Delhi, Jakarta, Belgrade, Paris, or San Francisco!
Just drop the nukes and show the bastards that America doesn't fuck around!

 

[Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy]

Now that made me laugh.


I am shocked and somewhat disappointed we did not retaliate with at least one nuclear devise. Prattle about where to detonate it, I don't truely care. Nothing says don't fuck with me like a mushroom cloud and if ever there was a case to use one, 9/11 was it. You hit us with a weapon of mass destruction, we hit right back. Seems we held back and thus encouraged resistance.

If the planes had hit around 11 AM or if the initial reports of 15k+ dead were accurate, I wonder if we would have vaporized a city or two.

A question for Adolf here: A city or 2 in what country that had nothing to do with 9/11?

This is the 1st time in my life that I'm reporting somebody.