Bojinka
by matt at 8:00 am on August 11th, 2006 in Media, War on TerrorAs I wait for my CHI-NYC flight, 36 hours into the latest TERROR ALERT!!!, I notice that the media is just now noticing that the liquid bomb threat isn’t exactly new. The original bojinka plan is more than 10 years old, as Peter Lance explained to us in our first interview with him more than two years ago:
The Bojinka (Manila Air Bombing) plot involved a scheme by Yousef and three cohorts to smuggle the components of bomb triggers aboard U.S. jumbo jets inbound from Asia. The devices would be assembled on the first leg of two-leg flights. The conspirator would then exit the plane which would take off, only to blow up, hours, days, maybe even weeks or months later.
I know that having a “pre-9/11 mindset” is supposed to be the kiss of death, but if the government (and the media) can’t remember what happened before, the result is nearly five years of exposure to a very real threat.
I’m so happy that we’re “fighting them over there so we don’t have to fight them over here.”
Winux wrote:
Until world opinion gets tired of the root cause (muslim extremist war with the world), then we will continue to have these terrorists. You have to fight them on their turf. Europe, Thailand, Philipinnes, Russia, etc., are all places where Muslim extremists are fighting, but World Opinion seems to rule and say “no, don’t fight them, don’t do anything to them, it will just upset them. Let’s all be peaceful and follow the rules of war.” There are no rules in a fight–you fight to win. Eradicate the Muslim Extremists and the problem goes away. Right now, the world lives in fear, and rules are created to keep them out, while making our lives miserable and stepping on our own bill of rights.
Posted 11 Aug 2006 at 8:57 am ¶
matt wrote:
iraq?
Posted 11 Aug 2006 at 9:07 am ¶
Winux wrote:
Iraq is their turf. So if Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, et all. These extremists come from the entire area over there. Muslim extremists hate anyone who do not follow their rules. We are at war with a group of people, not a country. There is no military to fight, no uniforms to shoot at. This is a new type of war, and someone has to show that if they screw with us (or whichever country) then we’ll kick the crap out of them and hunt them down (like in Afghanistan). You can’t stand by and let these people come to us and blow us up first…. Think of it this way: Iraq gives us manuevering room to kick the crap out of whichever terrorist sponsered country (Iran, Syria) that strikes us or provokes a strike.
Posted 11 Aug 2006 at 10:40 am ¶
matt wrote:
who’s all that working out for you so far?
Posted 11 Aug 2006 at 10:44 am ¶
TO wrote:
I know that having a “pre-9/11 mindset†is supposed to be the kiss of death, but if the government (and the media) can’t remember what happened before, the result is nearly five years of exposure to a very real threat.
Too bad there are at least 20 other “real threats” that are impossible to screen for, that is short of flying naked with no luggage and submitting to a cavity search and cat scan.
Posted 11 Aug 2006 at 12:33 pm ¶
sac wrote:
How does this prove that the gov’t and the media had forgotten about Bojinka? Is the media supposed to run stories reminding us about it daily? Is the gov’t supposed to crank up the alert level just as a reminder? Of course the media is going to run with the sensationalist hysteria to sell papers, but there appears to have been a real threat that was thwarted. I’m glad it was. I really don’t understand what you’re criticizing here.
Posted 11 Aug 2006 at 1:11 pm ¶
Winux wrote:
I think Matt is upset that Iraq is no longer the front-runner in the news, and he’d rather talk about mistakes instead of the good stuff that goes on. You can’t critize a government if it did something right….
Posted 11 Aug 2006 at 1:24 pm ¶
matt t wrote:
I can’t speak for anyone but myself, but I might criticize a government who knowingly allows bomb-making elements on commercial flights.
If those tasked with protecting us knew ten years ago that it was possible for someone with a digital watch and a bottle of faux-Gatorade to blow up a plane, why on earth would they not ban those items in carry-on luggage right along with box-cutters, fingernail-clippers, and RPGs?
Posted 11 Aug 2006 at 2:15 pm ¶
sac wrote:
Why not just walk around in a plastic bubble?
There comes a point where you just have to accept that there are no guarantees. I suppose not allowing carry-on liquids isn’t an insurmountable hardship, but I have a feeling many people, including those who write here, and probably myself as well, would be bitching and moaning about such a policy and how it was misguided and wouldn’t do anything to solve the terrorism problem.
Posted 11 Aug 2006 at 2:32 pm ¶
Winux wrote:
It was never thinkable in anyones mind 10 years ago that something like 9/11 would happen. Public thought no one would ever attack us on our own turf, or blow up our planes, etc. Ten years ago was the height of the internet commerce boom, the economy was good, everyone was happy. Even Bill Clinton passed up on receiving bin Laden as a prisoner when Saudi Arabia offered him up (and Clinton, after being asked why, said the threat wasn’t thinkable). Time changes…you can’t change the past, and we all learn from our mistakes, from our personal lives even. If you think the government is here doing you absolutely no good, then perhaps you should find somewhere else to go.
And we shouldn’t have to not worry about people blowing up our planes or nuking LA–we should take care of the threat beforehand, by doing what we did recently: gathering good intel and taking them out before it happens. If it was a group in Pakistan and we arrested them there, or we had to blow up a terror cell in Syria because they were boarding a plane en route to the US, then we should do it…
Posted 11 Aug 2006 at 2:40 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
Back in the days before JimC was banned, there was discussion from time to time about his reading comprehension skills, or more accurately, his lack thereof.
He continues to prove that point from beyond the grave, by repeatedly submitting comments asking “Am I still banned, etc.” Nobody has apparently ever been able to teach him the difference between a ban and a suspension.
He was banned. And that means what it means.
Our spam filter doesn’t always work as we would like it to, and sometimes his comments sneak through, and remain up for a little while before Matt or Jason or I see them and take them down.
But let there be no doubt. He was banned. Period.
Any comments of his that manage to sneak through will be removed on sight.
Posted 11 Aug 2006 at 2:44 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
Ah yes, how indeed?
It’s clear that Sac thinks the only thing the govt. can or should do about a threat is to crank up the alert level. I wonder what Matt thinks the govt. should have been doing for the last five years if they hadn’t forgotten, and did indeed take the threat of such an attack seriously?
Posted 11 Aug 2006 at 3:04 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
JimC used to try and read minds too. It worked just about equally well for him, I think.
Posted 11 Aug 2006 at 3:08 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
You can’t have it both ways. You asked sarcastically how recent events proved the government had forgotten about Bojinka. Matt t supplied you the perfectly obvious answer. And now your response is that they were right to forget?
As for the rest of your comment, I haven’t noticed either Matt or myself bitching and moaning that the policy of not allowing carry-on liquids is misguided.
Posted 11 Aug 2006 at 3:17 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
Yes, all 60 or 70 percent of you.
Posted 11 Aug 2006 at 3:18 pm ¶
sac wrote:
That’s what I’m asking. Matt’s post may very well point out the ways in which we have forgotten, I just don’t see it and was asking for clarification.
Me too. In fact, this is the second time I’m agreeing with a question of yours. For what it’s worth, I think the color-coded threat alerts are ridiculous. My puny brain just can’t think of another way “the gov’t” could’ve proven that they hadn’t forgotten the lesson of Bojinka other than permanently banning all liquids from carry-on luggage, which I think is an extreme measure.
I wasn’t being sarcastic. I honestly can’t see how recent events prove that “the gov’t” has forgotten the lesson of Bojinka. I read Matt t’s answer and disagreed with a permanent policy of no liquids on carry-on luggage.
Posted 11 Aug 2006 at 3:59 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
It’s their job to do what is necessary, without worrying about whether someone will consider it extreme. Matt t said it perfectly well; there’s no point my repeating his words.
Doing nothing to address a known, real threat can certainly be described in all fairness as forgetting or ignoring the threat.
Whether or not the government ignored the threat is a totally separate issue from whether you or anyone else agrees with a proposed response to the threat. Just because you disagreee with the only response you can imagine doesn’t mean they didn’t ignore or forget the threat.
And just because you consider it extreme doesn’t mean that others will too. In fact, by all accounts, none of the passengers who arrived in the U.S. from Britain yesterday considered any of the extraordinary security measures extreme in the sense that you seem to be using the word.
Posted 11 Aug 2006 at 4:44 pm ¶
sac wrote:
I meant a permanent ban on all liquids would be extreme. I did use the words “permanent ban,” so I wasn’t hoping you’d simply read my mind. I agree with the current measures. Would you like to see a permanent ban on liquids in carry-on luggage? I’m genuinely asking.
I don’t think you can say government agencies are doing nothing to address the threat when what seems to be a major threat has been thwarted with these arrests. Just because the public isn’t aware of any activity doesn’t mean nothing is being done. Seriously, what are you and Matt arguing here? The only thing I can think of is that you would have wished for a ban on liquids in carry-on luggage since Bojinka. If that is what you are arguing, OK, I disagree with it, but I can understand the argument. From the tone of this post, it seems that Matt has had Bojinka on his mind this whole time and is upset that the gov’t, as far as he can tell, hasn’t. Of course, I don’t remember him bringing it up in the 2 years I’ve been reading this site. I could be wrong, I just don’t have the patience to look it up right now.
Posted 11 Aug 2006 at 5:32 pm ¶
sac wrote:
By the way, this sentence of yours:
is beyond fucking hilarious coming from you. I think you can figure out why. Here’s a hint: Guantanamo.
Posted 11 Aug 2006 at 5:33 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
That doesn’t require any reading between the lines. That’s precisely what matt t said, and precisely what I agreed with him saying.
Come off it. I think it’s pretty clear that Matt, matt t and I have all said the same thing: the U.S. govt did nothing to address this very real, known threat for the past 5 years. The fact that the British govt, with Pakistani assistance, foiled this threat does not demonstrate that the U.S. government did any damn thing about it.
Posted 11 Aug 2006 at 6:44 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
First of all, you put the words “permanent ban” in matt t’s mouth (“I read Matt t’s answer and disagreed with a permanent policy of no liquids on carry-on luggage.”), and he never used them or implied anything to that effect.
Second, I think “permanent ban” is totally meaningless, in this context.
The real point is when the current measures should have started. Matt, matt t and I are saying it should have happened 5 years ago. And the fact that these measures have not been in place for the last five years means that this known, real threat was ignored by the U.S. government. Are you seriously trying to argue that you agree we should have the current measures now, but you think we shouldn’t have had them for the last five years? If so, you’ll need to explain that to my puny female brain.
So what you’re asking is how long I think the measures should continue? Can anyone who supports them now argue they shouldn’t continue as long as the threat exists? Does that mean temporary or permanent? The threat is open-ended, at this point. If the measures continue as long as the threat does, that’s extreme according to you?
Posted 11 Aug 2006 at 7:04 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
Yes, it is indeed fucking hilarious if you consider that their fucking job at Guantanamo includes fucking torture.
Only you could equate banning liquids in aircraft cabins because it’s necessary to defend against a Bojinka type plot with treating Guantanamo prisoners in unconscionable ways. What is that supposed to be necessary for, according to you?
Just to make sure I understand, you are actually arguing that:
a) Doing nothing about the threat of Bojinka type plots for the last five years was better than banning liquids.
b) Treating Guantanamo prisoners in unconscionable ways was better than treating them as per the Geneva conventions
c) Therefore it is hilarious that I support banning liquids but rail against treating Guantanamo prisoners unconscionably?
Posted 11 Aug 2006 at 7:13 pm ¶
matt wrote:
sac, you’re really swimming on this.
i’m not allowed to be pissed because i haven’t been railing about it for 2 years? I DON’T WORK FOR THE GOVERNMENT. nor do i receive payment for threat reduction. i provided a forum for an expert to expose the threat, and then recommended said expert’s book probably a dozen times. that’s really not enough?
and whether someone considers something extreme has fuck all to do with it. the government has the right and responsibility to restrict what gets on and doesn’t get on airplanes. they have neither the right nor the responsibility to break international law by torturing people.
tighten up.
Posted 11 Aug 2006 at 7:45 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
I’m having a really hard time seeing how Sac’s initial comments here are consistent with the position he later claimed to hold, namely that “I agree with the current measures.”
matt t said:
Sac replied:
I’d love for someone to explain to me how that’s consistent with “I agree with the current measures.”
Posted 12 Aug 2006 at 4:18 am ¶
Flashbuck wrote:
For anyone interested, I’ve detailed a factual account of Operation Bojinka with analysis. It can be found here:
http://flashbuck.com/2006/07/04/operation-bojinka-and-9-11/
Posted 12 Aug 2006 at 7:15 am ¶
sac wrote:
Again, I meant that I disagree with a permanent ban.
I never said the US gov’t specifically. Stop Putting Words In My Mouth.â„¢ I said “gov’t agenices. I applaud the gov’t agencies in England and Pakistan.
This is the argument that has used by the Bush administration to justify all kinds of shit. The threat is open-ended, therefore, TWAT (nice one, btw) is global and we don’t know when it will end and we must use extreme measures. I know banning liquids and invading a country are not equatable, but it’s the same type of mindset.
Posted 12 Aug 2006 at 7:41 am ¶
sarabeth wrote:
You were challenged to explain how the statement I quoted in my last comment — and that was your entire comment in response to matt t — is consistent with “I agree with the current measures.” Is this the best you can do, this totally lame dodge?
If so, there’s a name for the game you’re playing, and the name is dishonesty. JimC used to play it relentlessly. He seems to think he’s left you behind here as his intellectual heir. You seem to think so too.
Another pathetically lame dodge. If you agree with the current measures, do you or do you not think they should continue as long as the threat continues?
It’s pretty clear at this point that you’re just playing one big elaborate game of bait-the-bloggers, cut-and-run, bait-the-bloggers-again. So I don’t expect you to actually respond to a single substantive point (just like you didn’t respond meaningfully to anything from the last round). And this is probably the last time I give you a serious response to your nonsense. Don’t let that stop you, though. You just go right ahead, and keep on having fun.
Posted 12 Aug 2006 at 12:15 pm ¶
sac wrote:
No, I don’t. The “threat” is always out there. You count account for everything. I’m obviously no security expert and I don’t have access to information regarding terrorist groups and their plans, but it seems that the probablity of one or another thing happening rises and falls. Right now, with 20-odd people arrested and the possibility of more involved with this plan still out there, the known probability of someone sneaking liquid explosives onto a plane is higher than it was a month ago.
I’ll say it again, it seems prudent right now to ban liquids on planes, but I don’t think a permanent ban would do any good.
Posted 12 Aug 2006 at 5:51 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
At what point, and on what basis, should they discontinue the ban even though the threat still continues to exist?
Posted 12 Aug 2006 at 6:46 pm ¶
matt wrote:
this is idiotic.
still waiting for answers to my questions.
Posted 12 Aug 2006 at 8:53 pm ¶
sac wrote:
Yes, Matt, you have gone above and beyond in TWAT. There, I answered your question.
Posted 12 Aug 2006 at 10:11 pm ¶
matt wrote:
i’ve gone above and beyond in trying to educate them, anyway.
Posted 13 Aug 2006 at 4:06 am ¶
sarabeth wrote:
Slipsliding away…
This is why I said he’s just playing games.
Posted 13 Aug 2006 at 4:40 am ¶
sac wrote:
That’s what I meant.
I’m not sure what sequence of letters and words you’d like to hear, Sarabeth. Ones that line up to make sentences which parrot your beliefs, I’m assuming. Otherwise, I’m just playing games.
Posted 13 Aug 2006 at 1:42 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
An actual, direct, serious response to any of the very large number of direct questions that you were invited to answer would have been fine.
Instead, you not only dodge the questions but then you try to hide behind JimC’s pathetic blather that we insist people parrot our beliefs. (Parroting JimC! How low can a person sink?)
As Matt and I said repeatedly to JimC, no one expects or wants you to agree with everything we say (or even, anything we say). But if you express an opinion, you need to be prepared to defend it. You just dodge every real question, every real challenge to your comments, and slip-slide away into inanities that you presumably find totally hilarious.
But at this stage I’m just going to go “Whatever!” I’m done playing .
Posted 13 Aug 2006 at 3:33 pm ¶
sac wrote:
Where? What question on this thread have I not answered? One more time, with feeling:
I don’t think a permanent ban on liquids in carry-on luggage is a useful tactic. It sustains a climate of fear and most likely would not make us any safer. I honestly don’t know how else to say it or what other questions I may be avoiding here.
Posted 14 Aug 2006 at 7:26 am ¶
sac wrote:
Hey, this is most likely coincidental, but a security expert agrees with me regarding such measures as permanently banning things in carry-on luggage. Believe it or not, I wasn’t searching for vindication. Kottke had a link to it and I stop by there daily.
Posted 14 Aug 2006 at 8:10 am ¶
matt wrote:
here:
If those tasked with protecting us knew ten years ago that it was possible for someone with a digital watch and a bottle of faux-Gatorade to blow up a plane, why on earth would they not ban those items in carry-on luggage right along with box-cutters, fingernail-clippers, and RPGs?
here:
i provided a forum for an expert to expose the threat, and then recommended said expert’s book probably a dozen times. that’s really not enough?
and what of this:
and whether someone considers something extreme has fuck all to do with it. the government has the right and responsibility to restrict what gets on and doesn’t get on airplanes. they have neither the right nor the responsibility to break international law by torturing people.
or do you just concede the point?
Posted 14 Aug 2006 at 8:13 am ¶
matt wrote:
i never understood why people do that. now i think i get it.
Posted 14 Aug 2006 at 8:15 am ¶
sac wrote:
Because I don’t think it prolongs a climate of fear and I don’t think it makes it any safer to fly. I believe that, and it appears some others do, too. I’ve already stated as much.
I already said you go above and beyond in that regard.
I agree they have the right to decide if an item is potentially dangerous and therefore, restrict it. However, I disagree that permanent restrictions are effective. And of course, there is a difference between FAA restrictions, which are entirely legal, and torture, which is not. Although, like torture, permanent bans and other such methods don’t seem to be that effective other than giving the appearance that something is being done. Once again, I’ve already stated as much.
So no, I’m not conceding anything. I simply disagree with you on this.
Posted 14 Aug 2006 at 9:10 am ¶
sac wrote:
Crap, this:
Should be this:
Posted 14 Aug 2006 at 9:11 am ¶
sac wrote:
i never understood why people do that. now i think i get it.
Not sure if you’re being facetious, but yeah, Kottke is pretty good at the link thing, although this guy is the king. You probably already know of him. He must spend every waking hour online, he posts things before anyone else. Kottke gets much of his stuff from him.
Posted 14 Aug 2006 at 9:14 am ¶
Winux wrote:
I agree with sac here. Banning this or that, limiting what we can do, etc., causes fear in most people. I flew a few days after they just re-opened the airports after 9/11, and the fear in people was very thick. Everyone was quiet, everyone was afraid of each other, if you coughed too loud it drew attention, if your carry-on bag was overstuffed people stayed away from you. That’s not the way I for one do no want to live in. If that’s what battling terrorism is on our homeland is all about, then the terrorists win because they are terrorizing the public. The root cause of all these problems is fanatic muslims, not the US government, not the British government, none of that. The fanatic muslims have been fighting centuries before America was even born, and they fight against the Hindus, the Christrians, the Armenians, the Buddhists, etc. How best to resolve the root cause? There is no right answer, but I do believe that it has to start with a stronger uprising of good muslims educating their own people. In Pakistan, many scholars, muslim leaders, etc write and write to educate each other on the fundamentals of Islam and teach that being a fanatic like bin Laden is not the way to go….sadly, only 37% literacy rate in Pakistan doesn’t help, and countries like Iran who persecute other Muslim groups in their country don’t help the cause either.
Posted 14 Aug 2006 at 9:30 am ¶
sarabeth wrote:
One of the biggest unanswered questions was:
You think we should have the ban now, and it should be lifted at some point. At what point, and on what basis?
Posted 14 Aug 2006 at 12:09 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
They why “agree with the current measures”?
Posted 14 Aug 2006 at 12:21 pm ¶
Winux wrote:
The ban only gives a sense of security to some, while still not tackling the root cause. It’s not safe to do anything on airplanes. In fact, luggage is not safe. There is no right time to lift the ban, because its just a detterent used as a facade to hide the real problem, therefore the ban is moot.
This threat has existed more than 5 years, more than 10 years. We have always been the target of fanatic terrorists, therefore the threat will remain no matter what power is in the white house. That is something people forget: the threat has been here for decades and will continue to exist. We can ban everything, outlaw guns, etc., and the threat will remain unless the root cause is addressed.
The questions should be: How long should the American people live in fear before the root cause is addressed, and how should the root cause be addressed? At what point is enough?
Posted 14 Aug 2006 at 12:35 pm ¶
sac wrote:
I think it’s prudent, in this case, to ban liquids as the investigation is focused on a plot that included liquid explosives, it was shown that the plot was nearing completion, and so a ban may do some good in the short term as there is no time for potential terrorists to change course. But to extend that indefinitely would, once again, merely prolong a climate of fear and make us no safer in the long run.
The ban should be lifted once authorities are confident that the specific threat, in this case the plot to blow up 10 planes, has been dealt with.
Check out that link I mentioned a few comments up. He explains it better than I can.
Posted 14 Aug 2006 at 12:43 pm ¶
matt t wrote:
this conversation appears to be dead, but I just caught up so I figure I’ll stir the shit a little.
Didn’t the plot in question deal with planes out of the UK? Wouldn’t that mean the “specific threat” didn’t affect domestic US flights? If we only need a temporary ban on liquids when there’s a specific threat, why have we banned liquids on US flights at all. Furthermore, why are box-cutters still banned? Or lighters? There isn’t a known plot involving them, is there?
As for ignoring Gatorade in favor of attacking the root of the problem, I can only say, well duh. Why shouldn’t we do both? Why can’t we try to cure the disease while also treating the symptoms? I mean, if that’s the way you’re approaching this, why bother trying to thwart specific terror attacks at all?
Posted 17 Aug 2006 at 9:04 am ¶