Thursday, August 10, 2006
The Heathrow plot
[Bumped to the top and updated until noon EDT; scroll down for posts on other subjects]
We Americans woke up this morning to learn that the British had rolled up 21 suspects in a massive plot to blow up trans-Atlantic flights from Heathrow to the United States en route, probably using liquid explosives that could be mixed on board. The conspirators apparently were targeting American, United and Continental airlines flights; Reuters says that there are unconfirmed reports that six to ten planes were involved. British authorities say the plot is massive, international in character, and has footprints back to al Qaeda. Casualties would have been at an "unprecedented" level; six to ten jumbo jets might well have carried more passengers than the total dead on September 11. American terror level raised to "red" for flights into the United States. Pajamas Media already has a massive round-up of news and blog reactions, which I'm sure it will update all day long.
The war in Londonstan rages on, apparently. So does the self-loathing of the West. Reuters story contains this utterly gratuitous paragraph:
British Prime Minister Tony Blair has also come under fire at home and abroad for following the U.S. lead and refusing to call for an immediate ceasefire in the conflict between Israel and Lebanese Hizbollah guerrillas.
Why gratuitous? Because the British had the plotters under surveillance for "several months" before the arrests last night. It is astonishing the extent to which the international progressives who work in the mainstream media will go to blame the West for decisions by Muslim extremists to slaughter thousands of innocent people.
Meanwhile, if you were going to fly out of Heathrow in the near future, don't.
MORE: The Counterterrorism Blog has a brief post on al Qaeda's ambition to use liquid explosives to blow up aircraft, a dream that goes back to Ramsi Yousef's 1995 plan to blow up a dozen airliners over the Pacific.
We learned last month that one cannot carry on liquids at Beijing Airport. Various of the Americans I was traveling with wondered why the Chinese imposed this rule, and expressed surprise when I said that I was sure that it was to prevent the smuggling of liquids that could be mixed into explosives on board. This is a subject about which Americans are not well enough educated. Perhaps after today they will be.
We should impose the same rule in the United States. No passenger should be able to bring any liquid through security, or on board. Yeah, yeah, I know it's important to stay "hydrated." It would be no big deal for airlines to hand out a bottle of water when they take the ticket at the gate. [UPDATE: Homeland Security takes our advice and bans liquids in carry-on bags. Good move. Make it permanent.]
STILL MORE: Michelle Malkin is all over the story, updating like a woman possessed.
BONUS!: "UK Panel Asks: Why Do They Hate Airplanes?"
UPDATE 11:35 am: Stratfor's morning "red alert" suggests four "lessons" that may be drawn from today's foiled attack:
First, while there obviously remains a threat from those not only sympathetic to al Qaeda, but actually participating in planning with those in the al Qaeda apex leadership, their ability to launch successful attacks outside of the Middle East is severely degraded.
Second, if the cell truly does have 50 people and 21 have already been detained, then al Qaeda might have lost its ability to operate below the radar of Western -- or at least U.K. -- intelligence agencies. Al Qaeda's defining characteristic has always been its ability to maintain operational security. If that has been compromised, then al Qaeda's importance as a force has diminished greatly.
Third, though further attacks could occur, it appears al Qaeda has lost the ability to alter the political decision-making of its targets. The Sept. 11 attack changed the world. The Madrid train attacks changed a government. This failed airliner attack only succeeded in closing an airport temporarily.
Fourth, the vanguard of militant Islam appears to have passed from Sunni/Wahhabi al Qaeda to Shiite Iran and Hezbollah. It is Iran that is shaping Western policies on the Middle East, and Hezbollah who is directly engaged with Israel. Al Qaeda, in contrast, appears unable to do significantly more than issue snazzy videos.
I'm too busy to comment extensively on this, other than to suggest that the fourth point is clearly gaining currency in security circles. Indeed, the war on al Qaeda and its cognates has been far more successful than most critics of the Bush and Blair administrations are willing to acknowledge.
6 Comments:
By 
John B. Chilton, at
Thu Aug 10, 08:10:00 AM:
My flight through Heathrow is Monday.
By TigerHawk, at
Thu Aug 10, 08:18:00 AM:
I don't think you will be allowed to carry anything on. Maybe a paperback book. Look at it this way -- you can finally get through "The Brothers Karamazov."
By The Leading Wedge, at
Thu Aug 10, 09:24:00 AM:
Get through "The Brothers Karamazov"?? I couldn't put it down :-)
I am always left wondering when I hear about things like this whether I should feel safer because the authorities are doing their jobs, or more insecure because it seems that there are endless numbers of plots out there.
Regarding Heathrow, I have always tried to avoid it. Ever since my first trips back in the 80's when they already had very strict security and you had to walk past many heavily armoured police sporting sub-machine guns to get anywhere. The plot about the anti-aircraft missile to be fired from the Legoland close to Heathrow a few years ago just confirmed my policy of avoiding Heathrow. I used to feel pretty good about going through Kastrup (Copenhagen), but have been wondering about that one after the Muhammed cartoons hoo-hah. For a number of reasons, I think smaller is better when it comes to airports.
By Miss Ladybug, at
Thu Aug 10, 01:03:00 PM:
I used to make trans-Atlantic flights when my father was in the Army and stationed in Germany (more frequent when I was going to college and Daddy was still stationed in Germany). The last move to Germany had us fly out of JFK (1986) with a layover in Heathrow. During that layover, we never left the secure area, but we had to be screened again before being able to board out connecting flight to Frankfurt. I liked the secure feeling that brought (being a teenager, and aware of terrorist attacks that had happened recently). My, how times have changed. I also used to travel for business for a previous job. It was strange, after 9/11 - my first flight after that being 9/22, but I got used to the changes. Flying is just going to become downright inconvenient, especially for people who need to have ready access to things liquid - medications, for one. I always packed my basic toiletries in my carry-on, becuase I had my luggage delayed too many times....
By Unknown, at
Thu Aug 10, 03:48:00 PM:
I think that Stratfor is getting a little ahead of themselves in their third observation. Less than 24 hours has passed sice the plot was revealed—not nearly enough time to change the world. Plus this incident didn't actually kill people while 9/11 and 3/11 indubitably did.
By Dawnfire82, at
Thu Aug 10, 09:10:00 PM:
"Second, if the cell truly does have 50 people and 21 have already been detained, then al Qaeda might have lost its ability to operate below the radar of Western -- or at least U.K. -- intelligence agencies."
Or British Intelligence got lucky on a routine check, or the terrorists fucked up and did something stupid to get caught, or a prisoner from overseas got interrogated and spilled the news... none of this information has been released yet. This doesn't necessarily mean that we don't need to worry about attacks any more because our people are obviously better than theirs or they've suffered some critical penetration. That's too optimistic.
"Third, though further attacks could occur, it appears al Qaeda has lost the ability to alter the political decision-making of its targets. The Sept. 11 attack changed the world. The Madrid train attacks changed a government. This failed airliner attack only succeeded in closing an airport temporarily."
That's because it didn't succeed. The Sarin attack in France didn't succeed and it didn't do much either. This is a hollow point.
"Fourth, the vanguard of militant Islam appears to have passed from Sunni/Wahhabi al Qaeda to Shiite Iran and Hezbollah. It is Iran that is shaping Western policies on the Middle East, and Hezbollah who is directly engaged with Israel. Al Qaeda, in contrast, appears unable to do significantly more than issue snazzy videos."
This is kind of silly. 'International terrorism is no longer the province of Salafists because they got caught this time, even though they succeeded in Spain, London, New York, Washington, Bali, India, Russia, Kenya...'
In a stricter reading of the 4th point (ignoring the context and thereby assuming that they are talking purely about 'militant Islam' in the political sense) it's still not a strong point. Hezb'Allah's adventurism triggered the conflict with Israel (which they've admitted was an accident), not the crusading spirit to destroy Western civilization that motivates Salafist (as they prefer to be called nowadays) terrorists.
