If this is true, it’s both scary and reassuring.
Scary because they almost hit us again. Reassuring because we (apparently) stopped them.
This time.
Excerpt from the AP article:
The plot had been in the works for months, and its goal was horrific. One after another, planes would have exploded in the sky, sending hundreds of men, women and children to their deaths.
Counterterrorism officials said Thursday the plan thwarted in London appears to bear the fingerprints of al-Qaida, and may even have been “the Big One” they have been dreading since Sept. 11, 2001…
“In terms of scale, it was probably designed to be … a new Sept. 11,” said Jean-Charles Brisard, a French private investigator who works with lawyers of many Sept. 11 victims. …
There have been dozens of thwarted plots around the world since the Sept. 11 attacks, and several were murderously successful. Suicide bombers killed 52 people in London on July 7, 2005, 58 in two attacks in Istanbul, Turkey in 2003, and 202 in Bali in 2002. Islamic radicals killed 191 people in Madrid on March 11, 2004, then blew themselves up days later as police closed in.
While al-Qaida’s call for global jihad clearly acted as inspiration, there has been no direct evidence that bin Laden or his No. 2, Ayman al-Zawahri, had advance knowledge of those attacks, that they helped plan them, or that they provided financial or logistical help to those who carried them out.
The group’s failure to match the destruction it inflicted on Sept. 11 has led to speculation that a global dragnet that has forced bin Laden into hiding and ensnared many of his most trusted deputies may have degraded al-Qaida’s abilities.
Analysts said Thursday that is a theory to be believed only at the world’s peril.
The plan thwarted by the British had the potential to dwarf the attacks of recent years - killing hundreds, perhaps thousands.
Thousands? Yes… thousands. Donald Sensing writes that if there were, as some reports state, as many as ten targeted planes, all Boeing 747s…
…the death toll might have exceeded that of al Qaeda’s attacks on Sept. 11, 2001. Ten Boeing 747 airliners easily carry far more than the 3,000 people who died in New York, Arlington and Pennsylvania.
Back to the AP article:
Magnus Ranstorp, a terrorism expert at Sweden’s Center for Asymmetric Threat Studies who has done extensive research on al-Qaida’s recruiting efforts in Europe, said the foiled plot in Britain “could very well have been an attempt at ‘the Big One.’”
He warned against doubting the gravity of the threat.
“This was really serious. Police have no reason to play politics. I think one should take what they say very seriously,” he said.
Andrea Nativi, a researcher at the Rome-based Military Center for Strategic Studies, said the plot resembled the Sept. 11 attacks in ambition and was entirely different in scope from other terror schemes of recent years.
“By comparison, the London subway attacks look like child’s play,” he said.
The BBC has more:
According to BBC security correspondent Gordon Corera, the authorities believe the target of the plot included US as well as UK airlines flying to all parts of the US and it seemed to have involved a number of waves of simultaneous attacks.
It is thought there could have been three waves of attacks on different days, targeting three planes each time.
Security experts believe there were plans to detonate liquid explosives on up to 10 planes.
Officials say the explosives could have been sophisticated and extremely effective. It is possible they could have been carried in fizzy drink bottles or cans.
The plot was expected to be carried out soon.
“Soon,” eh? Does anyone else wonder if the planned date for the attack was August 22?
P.S. More on the timetable:
The terrorist attack foiled by British authorities on Thursday was aimed at blowing up as many as 10 airplanes on trans-Atlantic flights, and plotters hoped to stage a dry run within two days, according to U.S. intelligence officials.
The actual attack would have followed within days.
August 22, the date Iran’s president has been dropping hints about, is arguably “within days” — it’s just 12 days away.
What did Ahmadinejad know, and when did he know it?
UPDATE: According to Time, “We have no evidence this was timed to any particular holiday or special event.” Also, “We’re not convinced this particular operation is connected to the al Qaeda chain of command.” See new post here.
|
Categories: Terrorism & Homeland Security
|
August 10th, 2006 at 3:07:15 pm
How about, why the hell haven’t we caught Bin Ladin yet? Its been almost five years since Bush promised that we would get him, you’d think with all our vast resources we’d have caught him by now…
August 10th, 2006 at 3:11:51 pm
David: I disagree. How often have manhunts on a smaller scale failed? Bin Laden can just hide out in a country we have a hard time finding him in, and viola! We don’t get him.
Besides, Bin Laden isn’t the problem anyway. Catching him isn’t going to do anything but make us feel good for a few weeks. This is an ideology we are fighting, and Bin Laden isn’t going to stop it.
August 10th, 2006 at 3:11:55 pm
Ha ha ha ha. You are such an idiot David. Leave it to you to turn a huge success into a bitch session.
August 10th, 2006 at 3:12:14 pm
As awful as this would have been, I don’t believe it is “the big one.” I believe Bin Laden’s 9/11 sequel involves a nuke. Not a radiological device. Not anthrax. Not sarin. A full-fledged Soviet-era nuke in Tel Aviv or New York or London or…
I’m also not re-assured by the developments of today. Why? As much as I distrust this Administration, I was hopeful that their declaration a few months back that Al Qaeda had been marginalized operationally was accurate. This plot provides ample evidence to the contrary.
August 10th, 2006 at 3:45:00 pm
Brendan, nice article.
I seriously doubt, however, that these attacks were to take place in the span of 3 days. That is illogical as all flights would have been grounded from the offset.
Now, these guys were booked to fly into the US. How did they manage to book flights?
What scares me is the realization that while we sleep, others are plotting to viciously kill us. What is their psychology behind that? Is their fanaticism so radical that they have lost all sense of morality and value for the lives of others. If these people are adamant about heaven they should plot ways to kill themselves and leave the rest of us to enjoy life on Earth and to make our world a better place to live. Such morbid mentality is so difficult to fathom.
Given that these people have lost all sense of values, anyone who argues against the Administration noble intentions to go to war in Iraq needs to take some deep time to reflect and reconsider. This successful event on part of the British intelligence proves once more that the fundamentalist believers want to destroy our way of life, which in turn proves that society is not ready for wishy-washy leadership that sits around and hopes for a peaceful resolution which will never come to pass.
August 10th, 2006 at 3:54:36 pm
uscroger-
Note - American military in Iraq did not defeat this plot. Intelligence and law enforcement did. The same law enforcement Bush and company derided the Democrats for promoting in the 2004 election.
Bush’s intent in Iraq may be noble (by the way, Sudan has just been taken over by “Islamo-fascists” in a country with no oil and lots of black people, and I don’t hear anything noble coming out from Bush about that). But no matter how noble it might be, it’s been a debacle. Bush is incompetent.
August 10th, 2006 at 3:59:49 pm
Given that these people have lost all sense of values, anyone who argues against the Administration noble intentions to go to war in Iraq needs to take some deep time to reflect and reconsider.
Hmm. As a supporter of the Iraq war (well… let’s say I believe it was justified; I’m not entirely certain whether it was wise, though I lean tentatively toward yes; I believe the jury is entirely still out on its ultimate success or failure; and I believe those are three distinct questions), and as a person who does in fact believe that Bush’s intentions were (primarily) noble, let me just chime in and say that I disagree entirely with your logic.
Certainly it’s true that the subhuman terrorist subhuman scum who wanted to kill thousands of innocent airline passengers — men, women, children; Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Bhuddists, etc. etc. — over the Atlantic have entirely lost their moral compass. They are unspeakable monsters and they deserve to rot in Hell for all eternity.
But I don’t see how that necessarily translates into a conviction that Bush’s intentions in Iraq are noble. I mean, it could be that Bush is a scum-sucking oil-mad Hitler clone who just happens to be lucky enough to have a real, legitimately evil enemy to combat, rather than having to make one up! That’s not the case, of course (the Bushitler part, I mean), but logically there’s no reason why the utter immorality of the terrorsts precludes it.
August 10th, 2006 at 4:08:00 pm
Mad Max,
Your blind eye to the reality our world is facing and is augmented with your hatred of Bush. Your saying that “American military in Iraq did not defeat this plot” is like saying that the American military is sacrificing nothing. Just the same, American military did not start sectarian civil war, but many opt to blame the Administration. That is irrational thinking.
Now, let me ask you kindly: Where is France, where is Germany, what are other countries doing to spare some of the burden? Why do you assume that it is only America’s responsibility to create stability around the world. If you spent more time concentrating on the positive as opposed to the negative you would find a spark of nobility. Perhaps you haven’t read this article that points to European countries inability to act:
http://boifromtroy.com/?p=5701#comments
That being said, you know from history how Islam propagated like cancer to the western world, forcibly inculcating and propagating their views. I guess that’s Bush’s fault as well.
August 10th, 2006 at 4:13:50 pm
Sudan doesn’t have oil? Tell that to China.
August 10th, 2006 at 4:18:22 pm
I thought Sudan did have oil.
https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/su.html#Econ
August 10th, 2006 at 4:22:29 pm
Brendan,
Oil or no oil; if these fundamentalists are allowed to ran rampantly, they will arm themselves and strike viciously. History can attest to that:
Secular historians place Islam’s beginnings during the late 7th century in Arabia. Under the leadership of Muhammad and his successors, Islam rapidly spread by religious conversion and military conquest.[5] Today, followers of Islam may be found throughout the world, particularly in the Middle East, North Africa, South Asia and Southeast Asia. [wikipedia]
Keep in mind that salt and silk were more important then than oil.
August 10th, 2006 at 5:28:54 pm
Ah, right, we haven’t gotten bin Laden yet. If only Bush succeeded in that, this whole Islamo-fascism thing would be gone by now! [/sarcasm]
As much as I distrust this Administration, I was hopeful that their declaration a few months back that Al Qaeda had been marginalized operationally was accurate. This plot provides ample evidence to the contrary.
Dude, you think that despite everything we’re doing, al-Qaeda is just going to roll over? Do you think that, even if al-Qaeda was completely non-operational, other terrorist groups aren’t still plotting?
Note - American military in Iraq did not defeat this plot. Intelligence and law enforcement did. The same law enforcement Bush and company derided the Democrats for promoting in the 2004 election.
Can you explain to me how this is an either/or situation–that going on the attack militarily negates our ability to sic law enforcement and intelligence personnel on these bastards where they roost in our nests? What’s your next example of dumb logic–we’re spending too much money in Iraq and thus Detroit can’t afford to fix its potholes?
And yes, Sudan has been controlled by genocidal Arabs for decades now, and while the killings in Darfur are more recent, the slaughter and enslavement of southern Sudanese blacks went largely unabated during Clinton’s administration. I don’t know why, but neither party in America cares about Africa.
August 10th, 2006 at 6:07:16 pm
I think Mad Max, Esq. may be referring to Somalia, not Sudan. Sudan has been controlled by Islamic zealots for a long time. They just took over in Somalia, or most of it.
August 10th, 2006 at 6:12:14 pm
Er, Max, Not only does Sudan have oil, it has not been taken over by “Islamo-facists”. You have obviously confused Sudan with Somalia.
And you call Bush incompetent.
August 10th, 2006 at 6:53:10 pm
“Note - American military in Iraq did not defeat this plot. Intelligence and law enforcement did. The same law enforcement Bush and company derided the Democrats for promoting in the 2004 election.”
Good lord, Max. British law enforcement conducts surveillance of its citizens that would make Bush blush and make you shit your pants with lame ass cries of “Civil liberties are being violated!!” Spare us.
August 10th, 2006 at 6:57:11 pm
The “Big One” is a Shiite attack. This was a Sunni plot. My guess is this attack was going to happen September 11. August 22 is an Iranian nuke.
August 10th, 2006 at 7:05:55 pm
August 22 as the attack date. No way. Even though it is a general date of importance to Islam, that is probably more of a Shiite date. Since this seem to be an al Qaeda/Sunni attack, there is no way they would have picked that date. If anything–they would have picked just before that date to take the wind out of anything the Shiites, Iran, and Hezbollah might have had planned for August 22.
August 10th, 2006 at 7:43:10 pm
Your right Andrew, leaving a terrorist mastermind and major figure head out there isn’t hurting our cause at all. What kind of idiotic strawmen are you going to put out there next? I never claimed that it would SOLVE the problem, doesn’t mean it won’t HELP the problem.
Every day we, the most powerful nation can’t catch bin Ladin is a motivational boost for Al Qaeda everywhere. It might not solve the problem but it would make it better, but I suppose you are too wrapped up in kissing Bush’s ass to be willing to admit the failures of his administration. Guess what, the blind partisanship only hurts this country and Bush and co. have done more to encourage that sort of un-American behavior than any political leader since McCarthy.
August 10th, 2006 at 7:58:21 pm
David,
Better to kiss a gop ass than no leads in the Dems party.
August 10th, 2006 at 8:02:35 pm
I love how ankle-biting naysayers bemoan our inability to catch OBL, as if our catching/killing him would change all the superficial Monday morning-quarterbacking one iota. Finding OBL will change the critics’ rhetoric no more than killing Zarqawi did, i.e., not one damn bit.
August 10th, 2006 at 8:04:32 pm
If OBL was killed tomorrow, the first instinct of far too many would not be “Good riddance,” but “What took Bush so long?” Godwin’s law and all . . .
August 10th, 2006 at 8:15:58 pm
al-Qa’ida is not a terrorist group, per se. This is why there is so much confusion about “getting them all.”
It literally translates to “The Base.” Think of it as a “central ops” where loosely aligned groups can work together against their common enemy, The West.
This is why it is difficult to eliminate the group, because there is no group. It is made up of other groups, of other terrorist organizations. As we knock off their key organizers, others step up to take their place. Killing the key players is helping and marginalizing their ability to work effectively, but it doesn’t mean al-Qa’ida is gone. The group will only be gone when all members of radical Islamic terrorist groups are killed.
For more:
FAS.org Para-States al-Qa’ida
August 11th, 2006 at 12:22:15 am
Joe Mama - are you forgetting that K R has instructed that OBL is not to be ‘found’ until October 26 (remember Operation Evaristo ?) …
Now, hush, before the noble investigatory journalists uncover our plot !
August 11th, 2006 at 4:29:32 am
OBL will likely never be “found”. That would be a net propaganda loss and quite without value. A better scenario would be to quietly eliminate him (it may have already been done) then keep him ficticiously holed up and crippled or ill. Much more to be gained.
Similarly, we should be ridiculing islamic fundamentalists at every opportunity, making them into the clowns they really are for letting themselves be used by wealthy Saudis.
August 11th, 2006 at 6:07:53 am
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=400114&in_page_id=1770&ct=5
The planned date was August 16. It’s hard being right all the time.
August 11th, 2006 at 6:08:42 am
David -
Is there a reason your acting like Bin Laden is simply at some corner cafe in Paris and we are simply just being derelict in not picking him up?
If he’s in Pakistan, we can’t just send the entire army in there to look. Same as if he’s in Iran. Same as if he’s in Syria, etc. He could be in Afghanistan, but given the terrain, you could flood the mountains with troops and still never find him. What is this magic ability you ascribed to Bush in that he just hasn’t tried hard enough?
August 11th, 2006 at 6:14:05 am
As for the plot, the more I read on how these guys were brough down, the more heartened I am getting.
Turns out the Pakistani authorities were working in tandem with British authorities. That the british had a damn undercover agent that had infiltrated the group (apparently Pierce Brosnan taking the whole Bond thing to seriously) and they captured all the major figures and almost all of them. With a last, but not least, tip from the Muslim community that lead to all of this from MI-5.
And that fact alone, the tip coming from the Muslim community, will do more PR for moderate Muslims in one day than CAIR can hope to damage in a year.
Wow. I mean, this isn’t just a foiled plot, Britian handed the terrorists’ asses to them. Not to mention enough evidence that even Ramsey Clark would defend. He’d just scooch away saying, “I get it.”
August 11th, 2006 at 7:34:38 am
David K., it turns out after all the carping the Left has done about McCarthy, HE WAS RIGHT AFTER ALL! Hollyweird and Washington were full of Communists (and still are, calling themselves “progressives” today).
Wild Bill
August 11th, 2006 at 7:38:27 am
Maybe the law enforcement approach of Kerry works?
And I heard that they actually used the FISA court and got warrants, so that evidence gathered could be used in the legal case against the terrorists.
Unless you really think we should invade the UK so ‘we can fight them over there instead of over here’?
Who woulda thunk?
August 11th, 2006 at 7:44:45 am
From news reports, it appears that the date chosen for the Real Deal (as opposed to the Dry Run) was August 16th, not August 22nd. If I have figured correctly, that’s 27 Rajab this year. 27 Rajab is the date of the Mi’raj, when Muslims believe that Mohammed ascended to Heaven and communed with God. As the trip took place at night according to Muslim tradition, it would be interesting to know whether those flights were scheduled to be over the Atlantic at night.
August 11th, 2006 at 7:55:53 am
On the capture bin Laden issue:
For my part, I started out post-9/11 as a charter member of the Prosecute the GWOT Anywhere Anytime Against Anyone Who Deserves It Club, and I could give you back any justification or argument made in the Weekly Standard, National Review, Big Strategy books and conservative blogosphere.
But having seen Flight 93 and now World Trade Center, that immediate anger still comes back to me. And it’s five years later and bin Laden is still out there. You don’t even see half-hearted updates about what we’re trying to do to get him anymore. In fact, didn’t I read somewhere that the Pentagon and/or the CIA recently disbanded the task force set up to get him? If that’s the case, then tell me we haven’t quit.
It’s too complicated to bring him in because he’s hiding out in Pakistan and we have to walk a tightrope and whatever else? Please. Eighteen months after Pearl Harbor we were able to ambush Admiral Yamamoto in the skies, and here we are five years after 9/11 and we’ve got nothing?
If Bush can’t bring in bin Laden before the end of his Administration, seven years after 9/11, he will be a failed President for me on that criteria alone. And let’s not get into whether he and Rumsfeld will enter history as the GOP’s Johnson and McNamamara over Iraq. Honestly, between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden, who truly should be in the dock right now? It’s a no-brainer.
9/11 was a Jacksonian moment for this country, but five years later we’ve been given a Johnsonian mess.
August 11th, 2006 at 8:22:37 am
Sarge -
I love the examples people use when comparing to Bin Laden.
Yamamoto was on a military plane flight. He was an Admiral of the Japanese Navy. Its not like he could realistically go into hiding.
Bin Laden is a terrorist leader. He can go hide in some hole somewhere for a year or more and never be heard of. He is not attached to any particular nation. He has no army except followers that needs to hear his recorded voice occasionally and they will keep fighting.
Apples and Oranges.
August 11th, 2006 at 9:38:13 am
Lojo:
It’s not the specific mechanics of the analogy but the larger premise: retribution.
Regardless of the larger strategic concerns during WW2, we made it an operational priority to take down Yamamoto as the architect of an attack on the United States, and it was done decisively and relatively swiftly.
Notwithstanding all the different circumstances in bin Laden’s case (which I acknowledge), it still appears that we’ve given up on doing the same with him (and I do stand to be corrected on whether we have disbanded various efforts to find bin Laden). I don’t accept that.
In fact, some of your distinctions tend to make my point. Bin Laden hasn’t hid in a hole for a year, he’s hidden for five. Not being attached to any nation should be less of an impediment to our pursuit. The fact that his voice still inspires his followers to fight means it should be a priority to silence it.
So as long as I’m throwing around historical analogies, here’s another one: Pershing’s failed Punitive Expedition to capture Pancho Villa.
The record can be judged on Bush’s own promise: “The search is underway for those who are behind these evil acts. I’ve directed the full resources of our intelligence and law enforcement communities to find those responsible and to bring them to justice. We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them.”
August 11th, 2006 at 10:41:10 am
Sarge -
Granted on the premise. And I’m not going to really defend the gov’t on whether it is trying enough or not trying enough to find him. I imagine they aren’t going to announce developments in the search for him until he is found, so its a moot point there.
But not being tied to a government is a SERIOUS impediment. Are you kidding? If he’s hiding in Pakistan, the Pakistan government can say, we’re not harboring him, he’s hiding here, but we’ll look for him.
Can’t send troops in because they would very likely not be trying to harbor him. Nonetheless, that could very well be where he’s at, but unless we convince Musharf or declare war on Pakistan, we can’t march troops in and start conducting a search.
And sure he’s hidden for five years. He’s got a ton of real estate to move around in, no major cities to avoid, with some populaces that will actively harbor him, if they government wouldn’t.
So in closing, I don’t mind criticism of Bush for not trying hard enough. But I certainly mind how alot of people are characterizing the capture of Bin Laden as being a chore Bush simply hasn’t done. That it is one big piece of cake. The guy is not out in the open with a neon sign around his neck.
August 11th, 2006 at 4:09:39 pm
Thanks, Brendan.
Welcome to seeing it clear.
April 23rd, 2007 at 2:21:25 pm
SKY TERROR IN UK: 3…
News Items (Blogs & Opinion below) Fading Humor: Sierra Mist Super Bowl XL Commercial Follow the money: Investigators on 3 continents follow the funding for the air terror attack at least some of which came from Pakistan. (Guardian) 17:42 PDT……