Successful Attacks
 

Pan Am 103, the 9/11 crashes, and the Chechen attacks in 2004 seem to be the total of successful aviation bombings. I have to believe that the list of unsuccessful plots must be huge. Are there any successes I haven't listed? Is there a list of aborted missions anywhere? I'm just amazed that this global conspiracy has failed so completely.

wiki lists quite a number of bombings, explosions and hijackings causing loss of aircraft.

edit: I found this also, quite interesting.

http://ec.europa.eu/transport/air_po...appendix_b.pdf

AI 183 - Kanishka Bombings. Largest casualties in an aviation related attack before 9/11

You don't specify a timeframe but yes, there are many, many more although not all terrorism per se:
http://aviation-safety.net/database/....php?Event=SEB

interesting list. hmmm, quite a litany of

weapons smuggled onto aircraft with complicity of ground crews

bombs in baggage compartments

surface to air missiles.


Nope, don't see any incidents of 90 yr old grandmothers in wheelchairs. No 13 year old girls either.

So what is that list supposed to prove?

So the theory that all hijackings previously were for the purpose of negotiations is really ignorant of history. Some were, many weren't. But I'm wondering if the passengers on 9/11 knew any of this history. Did they get blinded by things like the Entebbe raid? Long before the 9/11 conspiracy occurred, planes were blown up in the air by Muslims (and Sikhs too, I think)

I think that you have missed entire decades of history, including attacks on the ground in airports around the world.

AND you missed (as do many Americans) the single largest loss of life in an airplane attack prior to 9/11, and the largest mass murder of Canadians in history. It is an insult to those people and their family and friends that they are completely overlooked by millions who go on about how 9/11 changed everything.

You are absolutely correct. And funny how we didn't go down the route of initiating ridiculous security protocols at airports, at least not as a result of the Air India bombing.

Unfortunately, our current government love kissing american *ss and "fears" economical impact so is now following the US insanity (to a certain degree). It infuriates me.

Ironically, OP made my point for me. I often use that example here and used to use it on a leisure travel board and it was astounding how many Americans have no idea about that reference. To paraphrase someone here (I cannot find the original quote :( ) that incident involved a lot of brown people flying from some country somewhere north of the US to some other insignificant country, and oh yes, some other non-American somewhere on the ground in Asia. (To be clear, that poster didn't feel that way, but was trying to explain why it was not on the US conciousness when it comes to airline safety)

I find it very disturbing that such a large event went largely unnoticed in the US. Then again, I equate it to the media coverage in the US of Somali pirates. When there was Americans captured, Hala Gorani actually made the comment on CNN International that Somali pirates had been launching attacks for years, but only now that an American was involved did it reach the American media. (It was quite the snide little comment and I do wonder if she was disciplined for saying what many were thinking at the time)

As subsequent posters have shown, the incidents listed in the first post were absolutely not the only 'successes', but unfortunately I believe that OP is not alone in thinking that way.

Absolutely, and I do wish Americans would shut up about 9/11 - they had already overblown it and their response within a few hours of the event. No country in history has made such a spectacle of themselves by outspending, out-stripping-rights, out-murdering and out-preaching pursuant to a single minor event, and I do hope the next time an event such as this occurs that a more pragmatic post-incident approach is adhered to, similar to that taken by other countries.

Personally, I think the way to approach such tragedies is to not make a Hollywood production out of them. Perform the clean up, continue life in a resilient manner and work behind the scenes to attempt to close up any security lapses, if possible without siphoning away the rights of the people. Above all, understand that the deaths of citizens as it relates to the actions of those known as international terrorists (plurist reactionaries is a better term I suppose) is going to happen if one's government is engaged in or massively supportive of the mass murder of people in other countries in the world. It is unfortunately an element of Karma and there is nothing you will ever be able to do prevent it occurring, so live life, enjoy every moment and realize that the best form of security has nothing to do with checkpoints and people in silly blue uniforms playing with your wotsists. @:-)@:-)@:-) (if I do say so myself)

It also involved travelers from an intermediate country and airport that many americans are familiar with.

TSA isn't there because of ground attacks. They are clearing people to FLY. So I'm not particularly concerned about every single incident that ever happened that was remotely connected with aviation. The argument is that security must prevent hijacking of planes for the purpose of crashing them. Out of that whole long laundry list, there were very few that directly pertain to 9/11.

Actually, I am aware of that bombing because I am an American who reads Canadian newspapers. In the last decade, Canada has been the destination of four trips I've made. And the next trip will probably be across the width of Canada.

But again, is TSA looking for the people who caused that plane disaster? Not that I've understood. I don't think TSA is focused that way, at all. Canada's security and India's security surely WILL focus on what killed their nationals and well should.

Actually weren't there TWO bombings? And the only conviction from the 20 year prosecution was Inderjet Singh Reyat, who I don't think is a jihader.

Yes, there were two attempts on that day.

And yet you didn't include it in your initial post.


And again, you make my point for me. You are an American, and you are aware of it because you read Canadian newspapers? It was the single greatest loss of life in an airplane bombing prior to 9/11, and one would think that Americans would be aware of it because it was covered by the American media.

I suspect that Lockerbie would not be remembered in the US by many if it didn't involve Americans on a US carrier. Many of us think of it and refer to it as 'Lockerbie' in reference to the people who died on the ground.

I disagree - many countries are not so inward looking as the US, and do consider worldwide events.

The reality is that you created a list of 'successful' bombings, and your list overlooked many events, including one of the most catastrophic in history. You are not alone in overlooking this event, but the reality is that your original post did not refer to it at all. And that is what I am trying to point out - for so many, it seems that 9/11 'changed everything' and is the focus of airline security.

I think the Tokyo attack was on a plane that was being repositioned. And it was actually the basis of the one conviction. I don't know that the Air India attack ever led to a conviction.

@exbayern. I don't get why you are saying the Canadian government shouldn't be responding to acts that caused huge fatalities. Granted, Sikh extremism is probably way in the background nowadays, but the Air India attack does show how Canadian nationals can be targeted should support an anti-terror security effort. If all the bombings were by Chechens against Russians, I don't think we'd have a TSA. But jihaders have verbally said over and over they are out to kill as many US citizens as they can. So our government has to be active against them (not those of us who haven't desired the death of anyone ever).

I think Canada shouldn't even consider what the attitude of the US government is. It has little or nothing to do with the safety of Canadians.

Based on what I think you are saying, I conclude that you know nothing about Jihad and how Muslims incorporate the concept into their lives on a daily basis.

I reject any call for the government to be active against what you disparagingly call Jihaders for multiple reasons. First, I doubt you know what constitutes a "Jihader". Second, I'm not sure how one determines who is and who is not of this category. Third, there should be no link between one's beliefs and ones human rights, including the right to travel, freedom of speech and assembly. Why should someone of this category be the target of the government?

My interpretation of your post may be incorrect. Would you mind explaining yourself vis a vis your statement above and justifying it in light of the points I have brought up above?

When it comes to world events - many many americans are ignorant. It does matter what the subject is related to. Simple point - how many americans know a second language?

BTW I will admit that I do not remember the Air India Flight. Not sure why ... perhaps because I had just finished my undergrad. But PanAm 103 will be forever known to me because a friend was on that flight.

(bolding mine) AMEN brother! I agree with all you say.

Reject all you want. Activity against this group of people is what US voters WILL support. Not squeezing body parts of little old ladies who pose no threat to anyone. And did I really read that you think jihaders have the "right" to threaten American air travelers with death? As a First Amendment right? Does Bin Laden deserve the protection of the the US Constitution?

If you believe all that, you need to join the loonies who work for TSA.

Perhaps the "global conspiracy" has "failed so completely" because it's not as global as all that. If some group of people ("jihaders" :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: or whatever) are so committed to killing so many US citizens, what makes you (or the TSA) think they are only capable of, or interested in, doing so by blowing up commercial aircraft? Every day, there are tens of thousands of places in the US where several hundred people are in the same place: schools, office buildings, theaters, shopping centers. Why aren't there attacks every day? It has been argued that attacking an aircraft has symbolic value that attacking a shopping mall doesn't, but if it's sheer number of casualties they want - as you claim, why pick such a difficult target?

For my part, I believe that (a) there aren't all that many people trying to attack the US, (b) they aren't as well-resourced as many fear, (c) they are interested in the symbolism of attack, not just in "killing as many as possible" - the goal of terrorism is to produce terror in the living, not just to kill, (draining the financial resources of the US is a related goal) and (d) the US gov't, through the TSA and DHS, is successfully promoting fear and wasting money at such a rate that the Bad Guys don't really have to try any more.

There's also an odd circular logic in discussing 9/11 in relation to other air-travel terror events.
TSA supporters: TSA/DHS procedures are justified because of 9/11.
TSA's critics: ... but the rest of the world doesn't have such extreme airport "security."
TSA supporters: ...but 9/11 didn't happen to the rest of the world, it happened in (and to) the USA. (And everyone knows that 9/11 is the Worst Thing That Has Ever Happened in Human History.)
TSA's critics: ... but there have been terrible attacks in/to other countries, for example, Air India, and other countries didn't go nuts with security in response.
TSA supporters: Oh, well, if other countries didn't implement TSA-style measures, their disasters must not have been as bad as 9/11. QED.

:rolleyes::rolleyes:

When people start treating jihader speech as protected, I had to go to law.com and look up a couple of things:

Now, to my knowledge, the speech part of assault is a felony. It isn't considered something one can say and then defend as a First Amendment right. Maybe there is case law where the Supreme Court has incorporated threatening words as "intended" by the writers of the Bill of Rights.

http://www.legalmatch.com/law-librar...st-threat.html

To me, this is really just some sort of refinement of assault. But again, it seems to me clear that, again, jihaders' tendency to shoot their mouths off makes them prima facie criminal's in western law. So it isn't like they haven't been told that they are in legal jeopardy. And it also isn't like I'm hatching new concepts in saying they are suspects by virtue of the groups they belong to.

No. It really isn't hard to find the details. Even wikipedia gets it right http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1985_Na...irport_bombing

I think PhlyingRPH has proved his point, as with this, and other posts, you demonstrate clearly that your understanding of the term "jihad" is sketchy at best and probably gleaned from the very limited and narrow definition disseminated by the mass media.

From Wikipedia:

In Modern Standard Arabic, jihad is one of the correct terms for a struggle for any cause, violent or not, religious or secular (though كفاح kifāḥ is also used). For instance, Mahatma Gandhi's satyagraha struggle for Indian independence is called a "jihad" in Modern Standard Arabic (as well as many other dialects of Arabic); the terminology is also applied to the fight for women's liberation.

The term 'jihad' has accrued both violent and non-violent meanings. It can simply mean striving to live a moral and virtuous life, spreading and defending Islam as well as fighting injustice and oppression, among other things. The relative importance of these two forms of jihad is a matter of controversy. A poll by Gallup showed that a "significant majority" of Muslim Indonesians define the term to mean "sacrificing one's life for the sake of Islam/God/a just cause" or "fighting against the opponents of Islam". In Lebanon, Kuwait, Jordan, and Morocco, the majority used the term to mean "duty toward God", a "divine duty", or a "worship of God", with no militaristic connotations.

Just saying...

Thanks. However, upon re-reading my words in bold font as they are, I just want to be sure people understand that there is no insensitivity or malice intended. Mine is a purely clinical analysis, perhaps a little brusque, based on my experience in some uncomfortably close shaves in other countries around the world (as in four doors down from my own home in one instance and less than 1,000 yards in two city centres at other times)

The fact that you have to go to law.com to further clarify something you demonstrate zero knowledge of, while of great entertainment value, really, really, scares me.


Would you mind clarifying what you were trying to do, exactly, on law.com? Could you point us to the source of the spoken phrase you consider to be assault, please? Also, would you be kind enough to provide an analysis of how you consider the phrase you have chosen to be a threat? Finally, could you tell us why the rights of someone who may have said something you don't agree with should be suspended - in particularly the right to travel?

I said nothing of the sort!

I find it bizarre however that someone would start such a thread and overlook the vast majority of bombings, which are easily found via a Google search. One of the first to respond posted just such a list.

Yet at the same time I also believe that you represent a large cross-section of Americans who are so focussed on recent events that they fail to remember (if they ever learned about) events which occured around the world, and which continue to occur.

I also do not understand why you discount 'successful' ground attacks at airports.

After Lockerbie a number of measures were put in place regarding airline safety. I find it hypocritrical that even after 9/11 the US did not put similar measures in place, and large holes still exist today in US air travel, whilst other countries are being forced to violate the rights of their own citizens by that same US.

I do not understand the purpose of this thread, as the original premise that less than a dozen airline attacks were ever 'successful'.

I absolutely support what you are saying, especially since it arose from my original quote. I don't want to minimize or negate the horror of 9/11, nor do I suggest that anyone forget what occured that day.

However there are many millions of people who use 9/11 as a reason for their beliefs, all the while overlooking Air India and the many other attacks which occured elsewhere. Sadly, I also believe that there is ignorance of the facts, and that many who fear 'flying while brown' equate Sikhism to Islam.

9/11 was a horrible event; Air India was a horrible event. So was every other airline bombing, but fortunately the reaction to most was not the same reaction as to 9/11.

Yeh, yeh, I've heard that argument. But we know what the terrorists call jihad. Since we're not discussing the finer points of Muslim theology since the jihaders don't really practice the religion whose label they've hijacked, dragging in theology here is as relevant as dragging Christianity into the Crusades. Jihaders and Crusaders really are opposite numbers in that they think God authorized mass murder.