WI in addition or instead of hitting the WTC on 9/11, AL-Queda rams a plane into the UN building?
They hit the UN on 9/11 also
- Thread starter gladiator8085
- Start date
Derek Pullem
Donor
The General Assembly would probably vote to condemn the USA for its failure to recognise the legitimate grievances of the Palestinian people and the Security Council would vote 14-1 to condemn the attack which would fail due to a veto.
Situation normal, a complete irrelevance.
Well this seems about accurate.
But seriously.
I imagine that the UN HQ in New York was probably populated but not in any sort of session, so most of the ambassadors would be safe. It would be interesting to see how other nations react if emissaries are killed and the symbolism of hitting the UN is massive.
I think hitting the UN would be a calculated mistake by al Qaeda, but only because it's not in session. But even then, I don't think it should be an "instead of" target to the World Trade Center, but an "also" target.
The attacks on the towers crossed that invisible line of legitimate military/government targets versus civilian targets, and made all Americans feel vunerable. Not to mention the financial implications. Hitting the UN building instead of the WTC doesn't cross that line, making 9/11 much less sucessful and much less important as an event in American history.
The attacks on the towers crossed that invisible line of legitimate military/government targets versus civilian targets, and made all Americans feel vunerable. Not to mention the financial implications. Hitting the UN building instead of the WTC doesn't cross that line, making 9/11 much less sucessful and much less important as an event in American history.
Yes. An attack on the UN by Al Qaeda is highly unlikely because if it did, it would lessen the impact of the attack as one directly aimed at the US but also make it more an attack on the system of international relations symbolozed by the UN. The US would respond pretty much as it did, and as in OTL, the response would have roughly the same international support - which if I remember correctly was at first (before the Iraq idiocy) pretty much universal.
I think such an attack would also significantly weaken whatever message Al Qaeda had that it was fighting a war only against zionism and western cultural and economic imperialism against traditional Islam. The attack would be universally condemned in the Islamic world with no weasel excuses about "ultimate reasons" involving US supprt of Israel and so forth. There's a really good chance that the Taliban regime would have turned Osama over to the US or UN within days and make a serious effort to eliminate Al Qaeda presence in the country - but I think US demands for a fundamental change in Afghanistan would still lead to an invasion to topple the Taliban
I think such an attack would also significantly weaken whatever message Al Qaeda had that it was fighting a war only against zionism and western cultural and economic imperialism against traditional Islam. The attack would be universally condemned in the Islamic world with no weasel excuses about "ultimate reasons" involving US supprt of Israel and so forth. There's a really good chance that the Taliban regime would have turned Osama over to the US or UN within days and make a serious effort to eliminate Al Qaeda presence in the country - but I think US demands for a fundamental change in Afghanistan would still lead to an invasion to topple the Taliban
What if they had made some sort of statement that they hit the UN because it was a Zionist tool and authorized the Crusaders to invade the holy land (Mecca and Medina)?
Then everybody laughs at them and they lose all credibility?
sharlin
Banned
The UN replies with a politely worded letter in blue pen. If they are angry its in red. Then you better watch out sanctions are coming against something your country stopped needing 30 years ago!