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

[Leo Caesius]

Will I be banned now?

This topic has already come up numerous times on this forum, and people have lived to tell the tale. If you don't believe me, just search for it.

 

[Susano]

OTOH, apparently desperaly trying to provoke the Admin cannot be considered to be a Good Thing (TM)...

 

[Superdude]

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.

Killing more people, killing STUDENTS would make the USA more enraged than any attack on the US economy.

 

[Kaptin Kurk]

So, ASBs put Alhroud in GWB's shoes just long enough to order the nuking of Mecca, Medina & Baghdad. (Does the U.S. Nuclear Forces carry out the command? Is there any concievable way in which the Alhroud-Bush could be stopped?)Afterwich, the minds are replaced. What horrors are wrought? How does the world respond to a U.S. that's suddenly gone all 'Scots-Irish' as people like to say now adays for some reason or other. In otherwords, what are the consequences of a bat-shit insane U.S.?

 

[Jbenuniv]

Who could stop us? I, mean, not to advocate nuking the middle east, but who is going to do anything. It's not like Europe, the PRC, etc. are going to launch nukes back. We'd now be at war with all of the mid east, and israel might be forced to join in the conflict. While it was happening, anyway, a nuke would probably get thrown at Tehran, too. Our main allies, Bahrain and Kuwait, probably get pretty pissed.

 

[Kaptin Kurk]

Who could stop us? I, mean, not to advocate nuking the middle east, but who is going to do anything. It's not like Europe, the PRC, etc. are going to launch nukes back. We'd now be at war with all of the mid east, and israel might be forced to join in the conflict. While it was happening, anyway, a nuke would probably get thrown at Tehran, too. Our main allies, Bahrain and Kuwait, probably get pretty pissed.

True. Once you get passed all the morality of the issue, and attempt to approch it with the same 'emmotional distance' with which one might craft a Draka or Hitler Victorious TL (I.E., TL's dealing with distasteful subjects) it does seem that - at least in the near-time aftermath of such U.S. nuclear hysterics - no one would dare respond.

Would European nations cut off diplomatic relations? Muslims nations probably would, but anyone else? Muslims living in the U.S. would probably be much more radicalized of course. And since we put GW back in his body after the launches, he might not be so quick to do an Alhroud round them all up and put them in camps.

But then, I don't think a lot of people enjoy contemplating a U.S. gone bad like they would a Draka-TL or something. Probably seems a little more close to reality for some people...

 

[orbeyonde]

OTOH, apparently desperaly trying to provoke the Admin cannot be considered to be a Good Thing (TM)...

No, but standing up for somebody elses free speech rights , is definitly a good thing. Feel free to disagree with somebody all you want and call them names, but to ban them for stating their opinion on an issue of history is wrong.

There was no racism, misogny, antisemitism, jingoism, or bigotry in his post. (Those may be possible reasons to ban someone) The issue was his opinion on a possible ATL response to 9/11.

Banning him was wrong. Period.

 

[Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy]

No, but standing up for somebody elses free speech rights , is definitly a good thing. Feel free to disagree with somebody all you want and call them names, but to ban them for stating their opinion on an issue of history is wrong.

There was no racism, misogny, antisemitism, jingoism, or bigotry in his post. (Those may be possible reasons to ban someone) The issue was his opinion on a possible ATL response to 9/11.

Banning him was wrong. Period.

Just so you'll know where this is coming from:

https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=33401

 

[Leo Caesius]

The issue was his opinion on a possible ATL response to 9/11.

Actually, that's not the issue at all, and you know it.

Here's what he ACTUALLY said:

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.

 

[CalBear]

Killing more people, killing STUDENTS would make the USA more enraged than any attack on the US economy.

Sure it would. But what further action would we have been able to take? We would not have crossed the nuclear threshold, even with specific attacks on schools.

My point is that we in the U.S. are blessed that the bin Laden's of the world really don't understand what makes us tick. The day they realize that we are, once the cultural differences are filtered, EXACTLY like them, motivated above all else by family and concern for our children, and not this money driven, android emotionless, ungodly, Bay Watch viewing construct that the Islamists seem to imagine populates this country, things will turn ugly quickly.

For half effort squandered on 9/11, a truly knowledgable enemy could have turned the United States into a quivering pile of terrorized disfunction. THey wouldn't have brought down the state, but they would have impacted this nation on a fundemental level that has never been experienced. The eventual American reaction would have been much closer to that desired by bin Laden, namely a Holy War, than anything that actually transpired.

Hopefully, the Islamist are too blinded by their own hate to see the truth. The day they do we are in the shit for sure.

 

[Superdude]

The eventual American reaction would have been much closer to that desired by bin Laden, namely a Holy War, than anything that actually transpired.

Elaborate on why this result would actually help bin Laden, even if it was desired.

 

[Fyrwulf]

Elaborate on why this result would actually help bin Laden, even if it was desired.

Classic terrorist strategy is to polarize opinion and provoke extreme reactions in order to paralyze an opponent. Of course, that only works with internal threats. With an external threat, bin Laden would have been a screwed pooch. You're right in that it wouldn't help bin Laden, but he isn't all there, you know?

 

[Susano]

No, but standing up for somebody elses free speech rights , is definitly a good thing. Feel free to disagree with somebody all you want and call them names, but to ban them for stating their opinion on an issue of history is wrong.

There was no racism, misogny, antisemitism, jingoism, or bigotry in his post. (Those may be possible reasons to ban someone) The issue was his opinion on a possible ATL response to 9/11.

Banning him was wrong. Period.

Pretty ironic considering how I argued about the banning of nazi symbols in Germany (of which I am against, in the name of free speech).

However, this is an internet forum, not a state, and thus something else: Just look at OTL.com to see to what non-interventionism on parts of the admins leads!

 

[CalBear]

Elaborate on why this result would actually help bin Laden, even if it was desired.

bin Laden's greatest hope, as is the case in many Islamist terrorists, is a true Holy War between Islam and the West (i.e. Christians & Jews). This is thought to be critical to the establishment of Islamic rule across the world. This faction believes that, once the Infidels have been brought to battle by the Faithful, Allah will intervene on the side of the Faithful, ensuring their victory and the victory of the "True Faith". Most of bin Laden's efforts have been aimed at causing or advancing this goal.

This is not a position that is common in Islam at large, but it is devoutely believed by those who espouse it. One can equate this with some fundementalist Christian churches that support Israel regaining control of the "Holy Land" (despite their absolute dismissal of Judaism & all other faiths as untrue) as the restoration of Israel is a necessary step in bringing about the Second Coming. Most Christians shake their head at this belief, but it is central to those who embrace it.

Now Imagine in place of 9/11:


***

Chemical tankers hitting 4 NFL stadiums on 9/9/01 loaded with Chlorine or a similar gas. Two popular "Mega churches", one on each coast, suffer similar fates. The Mall of America is struck by a Hijacked Jet. Death total - 25K, with an additional 50K injured (over half the casualties are the result of crowd panic) No responsibility is claimed.

9/10/06 Gasoline trucks detonating in the main Quads of a total of 10 very large middle schools & High schools located in New York, Detroit, Chicago, Denver & LA, as well as truck bombs at the primary Federal Building in each City. Casualties are actually lower than on 9/9, with less than 5,000 dead and 20K wounded, however most are tweens and teens, horribly burned (making for Must See TV).

9/11/01 00:01 GMT Reuters, BBC & CNN receive Email's detailing the names and target of the terrorists who have already acted, complete with .pdf attachments of the dead men's driver licenses, Visa's and Passports. Messages promise continued attacks on sites of "Infidel gatherings" where the sexes are allowed to mix freely. Great mention is made of the involvement of Holy Warriors from the outskirts of Mecca (Mekkah) and the rest of the Saudi kingdom. The e-mail and attachments imply that at least 20 more "Holy Warriors" are waiting for a signal to strike.

With the howls of millions sounding in his ears, President Bush reacts, striking suspected terrorist sites throughout the Middle East. Strikes NEAR Medina are rumored to have been actual attacked ON the Holy City.

9/13/06 Shit hits fan as Americans throughout Islamic world fall prey to "revenge" attacks. American forces respond in kind.

American economy grinds to a crawl as every vehicle heading into a city or school zone is stopped and inspected.

In his Afghan cave Osama smiles.


***

The United States striking out blindly at Islam as a whole (some posters, even on this board, have mentioned targeting Mecca & Medina with nuclear weapons) in the aftermath of a more properly targeted 9/11 attack would directly play into the bin Laden branch of Islamist activism. Such an attack, which was not infrequestly called for on various radio talk shows (by callers, if not directly by hosts) in the wake of OTL's 9/11 would initiate a religious war by a shocking (to most Americans) percentage of Islam against the United States & by extention, the rest of the West.

That is, in short, how an overreaction would have aided bin Laden

 

[Count Dearborn]

What if Al-Quada had targeted the Statue of Liberty, and the Empire State Building?

 

[Kaptin Kurk]

I'm still somewhat amusedly suprised you never hear considerations of what happens the DAY AFTER America uses her nukes. Or the week, month, or year after...

 

[Floid]

I'm still somewhat amusedly suprised you never hear considerations of what happens the DAY AFTER America uses her nukes. Or the week, month, or year after...

That's because the people who suggest it don't think at all. Period.

 

[orbeyonde]

That's because the people who suggest it don't think at all. Period.

You are correct. The use of overwhelming force against a people always works out poorly. Just look at the US's use of atomic attacks on Japan that killed hundreds of thousands as well as the US bombardment of German cities like Dresden, also killing hundreds of thousands.

Ever since then the US has been dealing with nonstop attacks by German and Japanese terrorist groups swearing revenge. It was a clear failure in that circumstance. Americans to this day are hated by the Japanese and Germans. An American cant go to either of those 2 countires without being attacked on the streets and killed.

If only the US had been smart enough to understand the German and Japanese viewpoint and made the appropriate changes in its own behavior, maybe all that hate and violence would have gone away.

 

[NapoleonXIV]

You are correct. The use of overwhelming force against a people always works out poorly. Just look at the US's use of atomic attacks on Japan that killed hundreds of thousands as well as the US bombardment of German cities like Dresden, also killing hundreds of thousands.

Ever since then the US has been dealing with nonstop attacks by German and Japanese terrorist groups swearing revenge. It was a clear failure in that circumstance. Americans to this day are hated by the Japanese and Germans. An American cant go to either of those 2 countires without being attacked on the streets and killed.

If only the US had been smart enough to understand the German and Japanese viewpoint and made the appropriate changes in its own behavior, maybe all that hate and violence would have gone away.

Bad comparison, the Germans and Japanese were GOVERNMENTS, which had clearly been at war with the allies, (and had been bombing them as well) for several years.

The idea there was to make the people of those countries stop supporting these governments. If you are at war with a nation you must make war upon the people of that nation. Sherman recognized this.

Terrorists are criminals. They are emphatically NOT nations. They (AT FIRST) are almost never supported by the people of the countries they are from, in fact they are usually hated even more in those countries, for they have been victimising these people for years.

After the target nation attacks the terrorist's nation, and kills several thousand inhabitants which either had nothing to do with or even actively opposed the terrorists, then they may acquire some support from that populace, yes. The terrorist counts upon this.

And if the target nation attacks a nation which not only wasn't harboring the terrorists but in fact actively opposed them, apparently just because they share a religion, then the terrorists wildest dreams have come true.

And yes, the wholesale bombing of civilian populations is generally considered one of WWII's biggest mistakes. It diverted resources to endeavors which were amazingly costly in trained men and expensive equipage while doing little more than stiffening resistance on both sides. It probably, overall, prolonged the war and cost thousands of lives unnecessaily in the process.

 

[Ian the Admin]

It would be a new cold war of the US vs. practically everyone. A nuclear first strike against defenseless nations for a random atrocity they didn't commit isn't just a huge atrocity, it's a fundamentally insane action. To the rest of the world the US leadership are not just mass murderers, they are flat out lunatics.

You'd see a substantial realignment of nations against the US, and nuclear nonproliferation would be a faint memory - all the nuclear nations would be beefing up their arsenals at full speed, and Russia and China at the least would be making alliances by selling nukes and/or modern delivery systems to anyone they wanted to court as an ally. The US might not like it but they can't pull a cuban missile crisis over every minor country and every semi-secret deal. This would be just the start of the proliferation fallout.

The aftermath would be seen on TV - blasted craters, seared buildings, tens of thousands of corpses dug from the rubble, huddling hordes with radiation sickness, all kinds of medical care overwhelmed by hideous burn victims and people suffering the slow death of radiation poisoning. It would be a scene vastly more hideous than anything ever televised before, and utterly unending. The President would probably be impeached, unless he attempted a military coup against the other branches of government. Naturally Bin Laden would send out tapes condemning the slaughter of innocents, making it obvious that the attack didn't het him. This would just be the start of the domestic political fallout.

NATO would effectively dissolve. If the US vetoed UN sanctions, condemnations, and/or calls for war crimes trials, then the UN would be practically abandoned (literally speaking, UN headquarters in New York would almost certainly be abandoned in protest, in favor of a location in some other country). Most countries with overseas US military bases would demand their immediate withdrawal, especially all former allies in the Middle East (leaving the US with no staging areas there unless it intends to fight those former allies for the bases). This would be just the start of the diplomatic fallout.

There would probably be significant economic sanctions. All Middle Eastern oil producers would likely halt shipments in general for a while, and refuse to sell to the US later (not necessarily so important as the US doesn't get most of its oil directly from there anyway). But in the immediate aftermath no Muslim government can be seen to be aiding the US in any way, leading to a dramatic oil shortage. This would be just the start of the economic fallout.