flyerORD

Oh I'm not putting them down for their contributions. However this fascination with acting like babies over aircraft/airport security is deserving of some fun. I hear finasteride works wonders at calming old guys down.

bhrubin

What is the big debacle in this thread? TSA and Homeland Security, based on credible threats from intelligence agencies, are deciding to increase security screenings abroad for flights into the USA. Makes perfect sense to me.

This announcement seems to have engendered all sorts of criticism from people herein. I don't really understand the reason for it.

If you don't like increased security, feel free to not fly from abroad to the USA.

If you don't like the TSA, feel free not to fly at all within/to the USA.

As a very frequent flyers both domestically and internationally, I think the TSA does a decent job overall--but won't stop everything. Same with Homeland Security. People, I remind everyone, are human. The TSA is a huge agency employing hundreds of thousands of people. Any organization that large makes mistakes--just ask GM.

Those of us who fly internationally know the security abroad can be just as onerous in some places. I've had nightmare security screenings in Tel Aviv, Paris, London, and Moscow of all places...just like I've seen messes at Chicago, LAX, and SFO. It's the cost of doing business or enjoying global travel in today's world.

petaluma1

What threat?

GUWonder

You may consider a serious, factual comment to be a joke if you wish, but the facts are that most terrorists aim for the kind of targets which they hit and that their primary target choices are overwhelmingly non-aviation targets. I'm not kidding.

jpetekYXMD80

The cookie monster. What do you think? The use of an IED targeting American (or other) interests through commercial aviation. The subject of this very thread.

halls120

There should be doubt, because there isn't a single shred of credible evidence to suggest that TSA has stopped a single terrorist attack.

Al Gore is young?

Except that it's easy to claim that there are so-called "credible threats" without having to substantiate them.

jpetekYXMD80

Well how does one attribute causality to a deterrent? Have their attempts and strategies not adapted to changes in security emphasis and screening? They have. It's made their jobs much more challenging. Sometimes the lack of hard evidence can be proof of a deterrents effectiveness. You can look for it all you want, but I have no hesitation in believing there would have been several successful attempts had their existing methods not been snuffed out. But more than anything, it certainly has prevented attacks compared to the alternative reality of the security-free wonderland some on here advocate.

jpetekYXMD80

I will humor you, GUWonder. You said I spoke fiction that commercial aviation is a favorite terrorist target. Well, consider this my argument. If you do not agree upon reading it, I would like to hear your argument that it's not.

Source: Me. Please excuse any grammatical errors you come across, i'm not sure if this is a final draft version.



In August of 2006, disaster was averted in London. U.K. police uncovered a plot by a British Islamic terrorist group to detonate suicide bombs on seven transatlantic flights departing from London’s Heathrow Airport bound for North American destinations. The plot was foiled and arrests of key suspects took place on August 9, 2006. The alleged terrorists had planned to carry out these bombings by creating a new type of bomb that could infiltrate security. The key component was a liquid hydrogen peroxide explosive that could have been carried onboard disguised as a soft drink. Common household items such batteries and disposable cameras would have acted as detonators. If successful, the attacks would have claimed 2,000 lives . This 2006 plot was obviously not the first time commercial flights have been the target of terrorist attacks, and it will almost certainly not be the last. What is it about commercial aviation that makes it a continually attractive target for terrorism?

Defining Terrorism
Since commercial aircraft have been used as a prominent target by both terrorists and common criminals, it is important to differentiate and define what constitutes terrorism. Definitions for terrorism can vary widely and have evolved over time. According to Bruce Hoffman, terrorism is “violence or the threat of violence used and directed in pursuit of, or in service of, a political aim.” The Oxford English Dictionary additionally defines a terrorist as “Any one who attempts to further his views by a system of coercive intimidation.” The short Hoffman definition contains many qualifiers. It says that terrorism is an inherently violent act, designed to have “far-reaching psychological repercussions beyond the immediate victim or target.” Hoffman argues that while a tightly organized, hierarchal terrorist organization with a chain of command had been the norm, terrorists can now be more decentralized and must only have a shared philosophy. Finally, terrorism must be the work of a sub national group or a non-state entity .

Airliner Hijacking
Historically, the most prevalent form of terrorist attacks on commercial aircraft have been hijackings. Hijacking is the forceful takeover of an aircraft to achieve a personal or political objective. Hijacking has been a relatively common occurrence throughout the history of modern aviation. The vast majority of early aircraft hijackings were based on personal objectives rather than terrorists pursuing political aims. The apparent ease and proliferation of hijackings resulted in opening the door for terrorist attacks using the same method.
The motives for a hijacking can be divided into two subcategories: transportation hijacking and extortion hijacking . Transportation hijacking is the takeover of an aircraft to force to pilot to fly to a desired destination. This type relies mainly on the inherent transportation abilities of the airliner and typically produces little danger for the passengers or crew as long as they comply with the hijacker. Transportation hijackings were very common during the late 1950’s and 1960’s, when the phenomenon of civil aviation hijacking began. The surge in instances of seizing aircraft for transportation was fueled by the tenuous relationship between the United States and Cuba during that period.
The 1958 and Cuban Revolution and subsequent Cuban/United States relations were the cause for the escalation in number of instances of aircraft hijacking. This was precipitated by the need for transportation between the two countries. After Castro’s 1958 revolution, Cuban aircraft were hijacked and flown to the United States. After the Bay of Pigs invasion in 1961, this trend reversed itself as Cuban exiles began hijacking U.S. aircraft for transportation into Cuba. The number of hijackings from the U.S. to Cuba only increased as the U.S. State department banned travel to Cuba. Between 1958 and 1969, there were 177 aircraft hijackings worldwide, and a staggering 77% involved Cuba . These hijackings were so common and non-violent, crews were instructed to comply with the hijackers, and outcomes were favorable. U.S. airliners even carried approach plans for Havana airport.
The heyday for the number of aircraft hijackings was between 1968 and 1972 . During this time, the motives and execution of hijackings diversified. While still being used as a tool for transportation, hijacking was also becoming a tool used by terrorist groups to achieve political aims through extortion. Extortion hijackings occur when the hijackers have demands other than, or in addition to, transportation. This kind of hijacking usually involves taking the aircraft, passengers, and crew hostage in order to secure the demands. These demands typically are of monetary, political, or social objectives. Hijackings for money became a fad in the early 1970’s when the infamous D.B. Cooper hijacked a U.S. airliner, secured his ransom payment, and parachuted into the Oregon forest never to be heard from again.
It was at that time, where the scale and scope of incidents increased, that commercial aircraft terrorism became a popular medium for political and social causes. From the late 1960’s to the present day ‘hijacking’ and ‘terrorism’ became synonymous. The first terrorist hijacking of this era occurred in 1968 when members of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) hijacked an El Al Israeli Airlines flight bound for Tel Aviv and diverted to Algeria. In Algeria, a supportive government facilitated as the PFLP held the passengers hostage in order to coordinate the release of 16 convicted Arab terrorists from Israel . This event set a precedent for terrorist hijackings and sparked much replication. The concept of terrorists hijacking commercial aircraft and taking hostages to negotiate political aims caught on like wildfire in the early 1970s. In 1970, the Japanese Red Army hijacked a domestic Japan Airlines flight and took hostages to Seoul before continuing to North Korea where they were granted asylum.
Case Study: Dawson’s Field Hijackings
The largest extortion hijacking perpetrated by a terrorist organization occurred in 1970 when the PFLP attempted to seize control of four large commercial jetliners simultaneously and fly them to the Jordan desert to begin negotiations. 1970 was a very tumultuous time in the Middle East as the Arab-Israeli conflict simmered and numerous political and terrorist organizations in favor of the liberation of Palestine looked for ways to exert influence. Furthermore, significant tension existed between Palestinian supporters and the Kingdom of Jordan following conflict as a result of the Six Day War of 1967. King Hussein of Jordan had recently survived several assassination attempts at the hands of Palestinians just days before the hijacking.
The initial plan of the PFLP operatives planned for the hijacking of four jetliners bound from European destinations to New York City on Sunday, September 6, 1970. The alleged reason for the weekend date and those particular flights was the hope of taking many vacationing American civilians hostage. The day’s events began when two PFLP members armed with grenades and a gun tried to take control of El Al Flight 219 from Amsterdam. Passengers and crew were able to successfully disarm and subdue the hijackers, and the plane safely diverted to London. Shortly after this attempt, A Trans World Airlines 707 from Frankfurt was successfully hijacked and headed for the Middle East. Simultaneously, the same event occurred on a Swissair DC-8 shortly after departing Zurich. As the world watched and waited, the hijackers ordered the two aircraft to land at a small training airfield in the Jordanian desert, which was used by the British during World War II. “Dawson’s Field” was quickly renamed “Revolution Airstrip” and became the site of the ensuing hostage standoff. Earlier in the day, two of the hijackers planned for El Al 219 were denied boarding for security suspicion. Acting on their own accord, the pair purchased tickets on a later flight- a Pan Am 747. Despite arousing suspicions again with their Senegalese passports, Pan Am 93 took off with them aboard. With their revolvers, the two men were able to gain control of the aircraft and head for Beirut, Lebanon. Since this hijacking had been unplanned, it had to be improvised. The Boeing 747 was larger than the other two aircraft and would not be able to land with the others in Jordan. The jumbo-jet landed in Beirut while the PFLP decided what to do with this unforeseen hijacking. It was decided that demolition expert guerillas would board and wire the lane with explosives, and then the 747 would be flown to Cairo, Egypt, in a symbolic move to express discontent with Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser. While on final approach to Cairo, the terrorists began lighting fuses onboard. They announced that passengers would have eight minutes to evacuate the aircraft on the ground. Sure enough, seconds after all 153 passengers and crew hurriedly evacuated, the state of the art 747 exploded into flames. Meanwhile, the worlds affected countries began strategizing how to handle the hostage situation in Jordan.
Switzerland was the first involved country to offer a deal for the release of the Swissair hostages in exchange for the release of three convicted terrorists in Swiss custody. This move generated scorn from the other involved nations, and was withdrawn. The International Committee of the Red Cross was then installed as a collective bargaining agent. Subsequently, diplomats and high officials from the implicated countries gathered in Switzerland to act as the “crisis council.” Back in the Jordan desert, it had become clear that this plot was aimed at scorn for the United States Middle East policy favoring Israel, and they would be negotiating for the freeing of Arab terrorists in custody. The hostage situation began to intensify when the hijackers began to separate Jews and Israelis from Gentiles. Non-Jewish women, children, and elderly were then bussed to several hotels in Amman. On the whole, the hostages were treated fairly well despite extreme weather conditions, and supplies were eventually let in to sustain them. Negotiations between the Red Cross and PFLP were very chaotic and disorderly. Some tension arose when Switzerland and West Germany showed their willingness to release prisoners, rather than the reluctance of Britain and Israel. In order to increase their bargaining leverage with Britain, PFLP sympathizers hijacked another aircraft on September 9, 1970. A British Overseas Airways Corporation VC-10 from Bahrain to London was hijacked and brought to “Revolution Field”. Due to street fighting in Amman, the chief negotiator from the Red Cross was able to extend the PFLP deadline for negotiations for three days. With the lead member of the PFLP away from the region, there was a lack of clear leadership and specific demands being made.
The first deal offer from the PFLP was rejected by the crisis cartel on September 10th which would have exchanged hostage for prisoners, but left Jews and Israelis as hostages to be part of a later deal with Israel. The next day, it had become apparent that the United States and Israel were preparing for potential military intervention. Twenty-five U.S. Phantom fighters and six C-130 transport aircraft were mobilized at a U.S. Air Force Base in Incirlik, Turkey, and an aircraft carrier was sent to the region . These events sent the PFLP into a state of panic and paranoia. The hijackers wired the aircraft in preparation for detonation. Pressure from other Arab nations was put on the PFLP to turn over negotiations to Yasser Arafat and the Palestinian Liberation Organization. On the night of the 11th, the remaining hostages at Revolution Field were bussed into Amman and to a separate location. Shortly afterwards, all three airliners were detonated with explosives. This act was seen around the world on television, and sent a clear message that the PFLP meant business. Shortly after the explosion, the majority of the hostages were released to the surrounding Jordanian Army. However, the PFLP held on to 54 Jewish passengers and all of the male crewmembers for further negotiation. The hostages were exchanged for the release of seven militant prisoners in Europe, including the prized attempted hijacker of the El Al flight- Leila Khaled, by the end of September. The event also sparked the month of violence in Jordan known as “Black September”, which resembled a civil war and resulted in nearly 8,000 deaths .
The 1970 Dawson’s Field hijackings were very influential on future terrorism tactics as well as prevention policies. The PFLP was able to consider their hijacking plan a success. The group bragged by saying “the headlines have shown that our cause is now clearly publicized.” On top of publicity, they had managed to destroy more than $50 million dollars worth of aircraft, free terrorist prisoners, play hardball with the most powerful governments in the world, and strike fear into millions. The success of the operation certainly inspired many similar hijacking attempts. Within a few months of September 1970, there were similar political hijacking attempts in Iran, Costa Rica, and India. By the end of the 1970’s, terrorism had become the main motive for hijacking attempts. The Jewish Journal of Los Angeles has gone as far to say “The modern era of global terrorism was launched on Sept. 6, 1970” , and a PBS documentary of the standoff called it the beginning of a new era: “a more violent and dangerous time when terrorists would no longer hesitate to take the lives of innocent people” .
Following the 1970 hijackings, dramatic new measures were taken to increase airport security. Nixon immediately implemented a limited sky marshall program to deter hijackings. At the start of 1973, the FAA required all airlines to screen passengers and their carry-on baggage. Despite the increased emphasis on security worldwide, airline hijackings continued to plague the industry from the 70’s into the 21st century for reasons that will be discussed later in this paper.

Airliner Sabotage
Hijacking is only one of the means by which terrorists target commercial aviation. Commercial aircraft have been a very popular target for terrorist attacks. These attacks aim for the complete destruction of the aircraft through use of explosives, surface-to-air missiles, and various other techniques. While commercial airliner sabotage has come to be associated with a terrorist act, the use of bombs to destroy aircraft in-flight predates modern terrorism significantly. Airline bombings have been around just as long as commercial airlines themselves. There have been over 80 documented airline bombings throughout the world, not to mention hundreds of foiled plots .
Like aircraft hijacking, airliner sabotage has roots outside of terrorism. The first known aircraft bombing occurred in 1933 when a United Airlines Boeing 247 exploded over Indiana, with no motive or suspect ever discovered. Throughout the 1940s and 50’s, airliner bombings were an extremely rare occurrence. During this period, the instances of bombing were predominantly to murder a particular passenger on board. The most common motives for this dealt with insurance policy fraud, political assassinations, and murder-suicdes. For instance, the 1949 bombing of a Canadian Pacific Airlines DC-3 was a plot by a disgruntled husband to subvert the strict divorce laws of Quebec by bombing his wife’s plane and collecting the insurance money. A man bombed his mother’s flight and hoped to collect $37,500 of insurance policies bought from the airport vending machine in 1955 on a United Airlines DC-6. A 1955 bombing of an Air India L-749 was intended to assassinate Zhou Enlai, the premier of China who had mysteriously cancelled his trip .
1970 marked the entry of modern terrorism into the world of airliner bombing. As indicated by the section on aircraft hijackings, this timing also coincides with “the modern era of global terrorism.” While hijackings were used to collect hostages and property for political negotiations, aircraft bombings were used as pure destruction causing large loss of life to publicize their cause and strike against targeted countries. It was common for terrorist groups to use both the hijacking and bombing routes concurrently. Aircraft sabotage gradually became one of the primary methods of killing for terrorist groups. The number of fatalities from terrorist attacks on aviation targets has been on the rise throughout each decade from the 1960’s on. Even with increased security measures implemented in the 1970’s to deter hijackings and caused the number of airliner terrorist incidents to drop, airliner sabotage was able to adapt and continue to increase lethality of attacks. Between 1969 and 1996, there were 70 known attempts of airliner sabotage, resulting in 15 crashes and 1,732 fatalities . As an example of the escalating number of fatalities, this cumulative figure has been dwarfed by the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Airliner sabotage has been and continues to be a major threat, and a favorite tactic of terrorist organizations.
As they were ushering in the new era of global terrorism and airline terrorism with the massive Dawson’s Field hijacking plot, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine was also bombing airliners at the same time. In February of 1970, the PFLP placed an improvised explosive device aboard both Swissair and Austrian Airlines flights eventually bound for Tel Aviv Israel. The explosives were placed in mailbags and had barometric triggers that would detonate when a certain altitude was achieved. Both devices detonated accordingly and the Austrian flight was able to recover and land, while the Swissair flight could not, causing all 47 aboard to perish .
The increased airport security measures in the wake of the frequent hijackings between 1968 and 1972 marked the beginning of a shift from hijacking to sabotage as the method of choice for a terrorist attack. The security checkpoints and search of carry-on baggage that was legislated in the U.S. in 1973 did act as a deterrent for hijacking. However, the technology and implementation of explosive screening devices for checked baggage was a very long ways off at this time. The increased bombings also follow the increasingly violent trend of terrorism in the 1970’s. Terrorism expect Brian Jenkins says that “the terrorists’ shift of emphasis from hijacking to sabotage bombing of airliners reflects a well-established terrorist trend ‘toward large-scale indiscriminate violence’, also mirrored, for example, in the tactic of using huge truck bombs in city centres.”
The first mid-air bombing of a U.S. airliner by a terrorist group occurred in 1974 when a Boeing 707 of Trans World Airlines exploded over the Mediterranean on a flight from Tel Aviv to New York. The NTSB investigation concluded an explosion from a suitcase in the aft cargo compartment and responsibility was claimed by a Palestinian organization with strong suspicion that the dangerous Fatah leader Abu Nidal was behind it. Nine years later, the same Abu Nidal orchestrated the bombing of a Gulf Air flight in order to pressure several Arab nations to pay him off in the name of protection to avoid future attacks .
The deadliest airliner bombing in history occurred in 1985 when Sikh separatists brought down an Air India 747 en route from Montreal to London. With a suitcase bomb interlined from Vancouver onto Air India Flight 182 and a cruel twist of fate in the form of a lengthy delay, the bomb detonated off the coast of Ireland causing the death of all 329 passengers onboard . This attack still remains the largest murder in Canadian history. At the same time, another similar bomb exploded at Tokyo Narita airport, where it was in the process of being transferred to another Air India flight. These terrorist bombings were the work of Sikh separatists of the group Babbar Khalsa, who desired an independent Sikh state in Punjab, India.

Case Study: Pan Am 103
The most infamous and deadly airliner bombing against an American target was the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 in 1988. If the threat of terrorist airliner bombing was not center-stage before the Pan Am bombing, it certainly was after. The United States and world was shook by the gruesome explosion and aftermath, backed by famous haunting images of well-preserved cockpit wreckage of the once majestic Boeing 747- Clipper Maid of the Seas. The Pam Am 103 explosion remained the deadliest terrorist attack against an American target until September 11, 2001.
On December 21, 1988, Pan Am Flight 103 took off from London’s Heathrow Airport bound for New York Kennedy Airport. The flight was carrying some unexpected cargo. Roughly 40 minutes after takeoff, an explosion suddenly occurred in the forward baggage compartment. The explosion caused the immediate break-up of the 747, separating the cockpit area from the fuselage, and sending all 259 passengers on a 31,000 foot free fall to their death. The wreckage came crashing down on the quaint Scottish town of Lockerbie. Unfortunately, the fuel-laden wing section of the aircraft impacted a residential area of Lockerbie. This caused a large explosion on impact, which killed an additional 11 Scots . In all, 270 people were killed that day including 180 Americans as well as citizens of a multitude of countries. The bombing of Pan Am 103 sparked outrage in the U.S., U.K. and the world. Several groups from the Middle East immediately claimed responsibility for the bombing. The attack coincided with a warning that came to the U.S. embassy in Helsinki on December 5th of that month. The caller warned that there would be a bombing attempt on a Pan Am flight from Frankfurt to New York within 2 weeks . An extensive three-year long joint investigation by Scottish authorities and the FBI ensued.
After a painfully long process, which was described as “the most extensive criminal investigation in history”, convictions in the bombing of Pam Am 103 were handed down in January 2001. While Syria and Iran had initially been the prime targets of investigation, the blame was determined to fall on Libya. The trial of the bombing was centered on the indictment of two employees of Libya’s national airline who were alleged to have been agents in Qaddafi’s intelligence service . One of the men was convicted and sentenced to life, while the other was acquitted . As a result of the trial, the U.S. sought compensation from the Libyan government. In 2002, Libya offered a $2.7 billion settlement for the victims, dependent on some U.S. and UN sanctions being cancelled. Although Libya never officially admitted guilt, a lawyer for the victims called the verdict the first time a state sponsor of terrorism has offered compensation to victims families.
From the investigation, it became clear what caused the horrific explosion on that December night. Using their knowledge as former employees of the Libyan Arab Airlines with official status as representatives, Abd al-Basit Al-Merahi and Lamen Fhimah were able to facilitate checking a bomb-filled suitcase from Malta airport, to Frankfurt, and eventually connecting on to Pan Am 103 in London. The bomb was made of a notoriously difficult to detect plastic explosive named Semtex. The Libyan government had received explosive from the former Communist regime of Czechoslovakia. A timer was attached to the bomb, which was set to detonate around an hour after the scheduled departure of Flight 103. Despite the increased security measures in place at the time, the sinister plot unfolded seamlessly. The official alleged motive for the attack was the on and off military confrontations in the 1980’s between the U.S. Navy and Libya. There have been many rumors of further support from other Islamic states.

It does not always take a successful terrorist attack to realize the draw of civil aviation for terrorist attacks still very much exists. Two enormous bombing plots illustrate that its very much an uphill battle for law enforcement to stay a step ahead as terrorists look for new and innovative ways to attack. In 1995, the alleged mastermind behind the 1993 World Trade Center bombing- Ramzi Ahmed Yousef- devised a plot to destroy up to 12 U.S. airliners on flights from Asia last year. Dubbed “Project Bojinka”, the plan was to set timers and detonate explosives in flight. The group even had a successful test run of the explosives, setting off a bomb on a Philippine Air Lines flight to Tokyo , as well as a Manila theatre bombing. The plot could have killed as many as 4,000 people onboard the aircraft. The prosecution attorney for the U.S. called horror the plan “impossible to comprehend.” Yousef and his two co-conspirators were convicted on all counts in their trial. In 2006, there was a similar plot to bomb seven flights from London with liquid explosives that was discussed in the introduction .

Airliners as Weapons
September 11, 2001 is often simply described as a day when the world changed. This assessment could not be more accurate when describing how the attack completely changed the landscape of aviation terrorism. The act of hijacking an airliner and using it as a weapon of mass destruction completely caught the United States and world off guard, and turned the accepted policy of dealing with hijackings upside down.
It is a common misconception to assume that hijacking a commercial airliner fully loaded with fuel and passengers and turning it essentially into a 400,000 explosive missile was a radical new idea that had never been attempted before. That is not the case. This concept had been planned and attempted on several occasions, but was concern for this kind of attack was painfully non-existent on 9/11.
A largely forgotten attempted assassination of President Nixon in 1974 bears a striking resemblance to the method of the 9/11 attaacks. A disgruntled man named Samuel Byck, who blamed the President and the government for his hardships, came up with the idea of flying a commercial airline into the White House to kill Nixon. On February 22, 1974, Byck headed to Baltimore/Washington Airport set to fulfill his mission. He shot and killed a police officer at the security checkpoint, and rushed aboard a Delta Air Lines DC-9. Byck ordered the pilots to depart immediately, but this was not possible due to the wheel blocks in place at the time. Byck became frustrated and shot the pilots and became desperate. A standoff ensued with police as they attempted to storm the aircraft, and Byck eventually committed suicide. A Department of Justice attorney took an interest in this case and the considered the prospect of the U.S. having to shoot down an airliner. In his analysis, he concluded that a fueled 747 used as a weapon “must be considered capable of destroying virtually any building located anywhere in the world.”
The 1990’s also contained numerous plots involving flying commercial airliners into buildings. In 1994, an Algerian group hijacked an Air France A300 on the ground in Algiers. After tense negotiations, a forced landing stop in Marseille, and an eventual raid by authorities, the situation was defused. An investigation concluded that the terrorists planned to fill the aircraft with explosives to explode over Paris, or possibly crash into the Eiffel Tower. This tactic was also explored by infamous terrorist Ramzi Yousef, the man involved with the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the Bojinka plot, and the bombing of a Philippine Airlines flight in 1994. His accomplice in the Philippines bombing told authorities that they had discussed crashing an airliner into CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia. There have been numerous threat reports uncovered by the 9/11 Commission that mention possible plots to fly an aircraft into a U.S. City. In 1998, intelligence was received about the hope of Libyan terrorists to fly a plane in to the World Trade Center.
Following the explosion of TWA Flight 800 in 1996, later determined to not have been a terrorist bombing, President Clinton instructed the Vice President to report on aviation security shortcomings. When the Gore Commission Report came out, there was no mention of possible suicide hijackings or airliners being used as weapons. After the FAA Civil Aviation Security office created a report on the hijacking thread posed by Bin Laden and al Qaeda, they came to the conclusion that this type of attack is very unlikely, since “it does not offer an opportunity for dialogue to achieve a key goal of obtaining Rahman and other key captive extremists….A suicide hijacking is assessed to be an option of last resort.” Despite the warning signs, plans and attempts, such an attack remained perceived as a very remote possibility by the security community up until 9/11. The Counterterrorism Center has been blamed with a lack of “red-team analysis” from the enemy perspective, which could have linked Middle Eastern terrorists’ propensity for suicide missions to civil aviation security. In the post 9/11 era, this type of attack has become the most predominant and pressing concern, after we all saw first-hand what kind of destruction can be accomplished.

Without a doubt, civil aviation has become one of the most popular and most publicized targets of terrorism. In the 1970’s, commercial aviation incidents accounted for an astounding 30% according to William A. Crensha. Modern terrorism has seriously affected international civil aviation more than any other major industry group. He noted the strong ties between terrorism and civil aviation in July 1988, before the Pan Am 103 bombing and well before the 9/11 attacks that helped further his claims. In his book and writings, Brian Jenkins reiterated “sabotage of passenger aircraft is one of the deadliest threats posed by contemporary terrorists.”
One of the reasons why civil aviation has been used by terrorists is to gain publicity. Crenshaw noted that even though terrorist attacks against commercial aviation represent a small percentage of total attacks, “there appears to be an unusual quality about civil aviation that, at least at the tie, galvanizes pubic attention to focus on an aerial hijacking or related incident more than violence in a more static environment does.” Considering this was written before the two most damaging and infamous terrorist attacks against the U.S. were perpetrated using civil aviation, this theory is only strengthened. Robert T. Holden wrote extensively on the contagiousness of aircraft hijacking and tested the hypothesis that “the motivation to hijack aircraft spreads from one individual to another as a result of the media coverage of hijacking incidents. Although this study did not study terrorist hijackings specifically, Holden concluded that his results tend to support the common belief that hijacking spread as a result of publicity, and that the media coverage of hijackings in the U.S. was extremely extensive. There is good reason to believe that the hijacking phenomena between 1968 and 1972 opened the eyes of terrorist organizations to use civil aviation as an effective mechanism for publicity.
Bruce Hoffman uses the lack of attacks on air cargo transport as a way of finding the motivations behind the use of civil aircraft. He concluded that “Terrorists have not attacked air cargo integrators because they lack…identification or associational value, are considerably less well-known than commercial air passenger carriers, and since they do not carry passengers whose death and injury is grist for the media, do not have the same ‘sensationalism’ and publicity value as established passenger carriers.”
The desire for publicity fits right in line with a terrorist’s objectives. “Terrorism is theatre”, according to terrorism expect Brian Jenkins, and “terrorists attacks are often carefully choreographed to attract the attention of the electronic media and the international press.” Dr. Frederick Hacker agreed with this view and said of terrorists: “They want to impress. They play to and for an audience and solicit audience participation.” While the tendency for deadly attacks has been on the rise, there is a balance between publicity and the desire to inflict mass casualties. In the book America’s Achilles’ Heel discussing the prospect of nuclear, biological, and chemical terrorism, the authors argue that mass casualties do not serve the purposes of most non-state actors. While some of the terrorist incidents on commercial aircraft have sought to inflict mass casualties, many have used aviation as a method to garner attention only. They conclude similarly “much of the terrorist activity of the last century has been animated by the basic notion that violent action produces political results by working through the media to influence the attitudes of the people watching. Indeed, in the era of CNN, the mechanism for transmitting terrorist imagery to the target audience has become more efficient than ever.” While the current state of commercial air terrorism is certainly primarily to inflict casualties, it has been also used as an outlet for publicity in cases like the Dawson’s Field hijackings.
Another primary reason for the targeting of commercial airliners is their clear national symbolism and identification. Airliners act essentially as property of a nation that travels around the world. In many cases, it has been ideal to attack a U.S. aviation target abroad, since it is the property and symbol of America conveniently flying to a location more vulnerable for attack. Airliners provide an ideal target in this sense, since terrorists can attack a nation without infiltrating that nation. The draw of commercial airliners abroad is strongly analogous to embassies and their tendency to be terrorist targets. Another factor that contributes to making aviation an attractive target is that it “offers terrorists concentrations of people- mostly strangers- in enclosed environments, generally poses little security challenge, and allows easy escape., says Jenkins ”
Aviation offers a very convenient way of targeting a specific nationality or ethnicity. Jenkins explains this concept, saying “commercial aviation historically has been a favorite target of terrorists who have viewed airliners as nationally-labeled containers of hostages in the case of hijackings, or victims in the case of sabotage.” If a terrorist wants to attack Americans abroad, there are few better ways than ensuring to target a high percentage of American’s than an aircraft of an American airline. International commercial aviation enables terrorists to capture their desired hostages, or inflict causalities on the desired group with high accuracy. One of the best examples of these type of targeted actions are from the Arab-Israeli conflict and the many instances that El Al Israeli Airlines has been the target of terrorism. After a hijacking in 1968, El Al has been extremely proactive on security issues ever since. Despite being the repeated target of many attacks, they have developed the most stringent and comprehensive security procedures in the industry and hold the title for being the world’s most secure airline .
The sheer economic impact that an attack on a civil airliner can bring may be another reason why terrorists have chosen this tactic. Attacks are very damaging economically on an already volatile aviation sector. These attacks can send shockwaves through the rest of the economy, and bring a serious hit on the economic well being of the country as a whole. Pan Am 103, as well as an array of other planned or successful attacks against the airline, was a prominent factor in the bankruptcy and eventual liquidation of the once-prestigious American flag-carrier airline in 1991. To this day, there is still pending litigation on behalf of Pan Am against Libya, seeking $4.5 billion.
Paul Wilkinson specifically mentions the aviation industry being disrupted in the aftermath of 9/11. In his article over viewing the terrorist threat, he says “disruption
and damage not only to the United States economy but to the global economy; and, of
course, the plight of the aviation industry has been one that has been most immediately
noticed. The attacks have been felt in the aerospace industry, in tourism, in the financial
sector, in the confidence in the stock markets, and so on.” Obviously, major economic impact has been felt by airlines due to the loss of aircraft, travel demand immediately following 9/11, and increased security costs. However, the impact on the industry has been even more far reaching. The lingering effects have contributed to a string of bankruptcies, liquidations, and an overall unhealthy state of the industry. Since air travel is more of a luxury than other forms of transportation, and consisting of a high percentage or tourism, terrorist attacks on civil aviation have more pronounced economic impact than those involving necessities such as commuter transportation or indiscriminate targets such as random bombings. The deterrent and fear that the terrorist threat against air travel has produced had led to many economic problems for airlines and tourism industries. Between the fluidity of the demand for commercial aviation open to fluctuation from terrorist attack, the overall volatility of the aviation industry, and the large impact the aviation sector can have on the total economy, commercial aviation makes sense to the terrorist with the goal of economic damages in mind.

Conclusion
The threat of terrorism is always present, but also always evolving. Terrorist attacks on commercial airliners have been a relative constant since the 1970’s. Despite our best attempts at keeping the skies safe and secure, it is clear that airliners persist to be a popular target of terrorist organizations. Commercial aviation is a lifeblood in the modern global economy, and the crossroads of the world now exist in the sky. Civil aviation is such a potent target for terrorists for many reasons, such as national symbolism, high visibility for publicity, high potential for economic impact, and the ease of accurately targeting desired victims. But perhaps above all, commercial aviation is a symbol: a symbol of our freedom of mobility and an important aspect of the American lifestyle. The role of the aviation industry is summed up in American Airlines post-9/11 advertising campaign: “ We are an Airline. But we realize, we are something more. We are an engine that powers the free flow of people…and ideas….and products…and joy.” It is essential to continue to defend the skies to the best of our ability as the quest to stay one step ahead continues into the future.

DeafBlonde

Well let's see...
I was around in 1956. My dad helped design and build 747s at Boeing, and spacecraft at Lockheed-Martin. He is now retired (very comfortably, I might add).
What's your point, youngun'?

flyerORD

In 1956 terrorists weren't using 2000s methods (hydrogen peroxide) to make bombs. In 2025 they will have evolved further. Old people who fail to acknowledge security evolving as well are standing in the way. It's one thing to be set in your ways, it's another to do so when it risks actual lives of other people. I'm sure old guys at the time balked at the idea of airplanes and other technologies. They were standing in the way. Security isn't perfect, and never will be, but the methods of pre 9/11 security aren't sufficient to prevent evolving tech used by evolving terrorists.

petaluma1

Except I was talking about the lack of terrorist attacks on non-aviation targets here in the states.

JW76

MAN just has a stable of idiots manning their security screening. It still stands out in my mind as an outlier, and I've only flown out of there twice.

GUWonder

Your post's plagiaristic cutting and pasting left out all the other terrorist attacks in those same years that were not aviation related -- that means the claim that aviation is a primary fetish/target of terrorists is based on ignoring facts about all the terrorist attacks that are not targeted at aviation -- in otherwise it ignores the bulk of historical reality: aviation isn't a favorite target of terrorists; rather planes are close to the bottom of the list of targets hit or aimed at by terrorists in each and every year going back at least forty years.

jpetekYXMD80

My what? You mean my paper on commercial airline terrorism left out non-aviation related terrorist attacks? Why, I was wondering why my apple pie left out blueberries.

GUWonder

Self-fulfilling prophesies by self-believers.

Terrorists are evolving? Only state actor terrorists have evolved when it comes to using new compounds for explosives. The non-state actor terrorists aren't evolving, and only play copy-cat of sort. The dog and pony show of questioning passengers or of banning full water bottles greater than 100ml is a sign of security degradation and of the inherent technological backwardness of the TSA and its favorites; it has nothing to do with scientific or technological evolutionary advancements of terrorists.