TexasCHLforum.com

seamusTX wrote:The people who plan terrorist attacks use bombs because bombs are impersonal. A bomber can kill people that he never sees. Once the trigger is set, the whole incident is over in a second.

Lone bombers and shooters can also be insane to the point they can barely function in society.

The scenario that I described would have to involve fairly intelligent, sane, disciplined people who can work as a team. That means they have some level of empathy. They may hate others on the basis of ideology and religion, but there is a crack that possibly could be exploited.

Stockholm syndrome can work both ways. Captors sometimes develop sympathy for their hostages. In a few cases, hostages have used this opportunity to escape or be freed.

Quite a few terrorist airplane hijackings have involved the release of women and children.

It's also possible that the captors in this scenario are totally amoral and suicidal, and will not negotiate.

In that case, what is the flaw in their plan? (I really don't know.)

- Jim

The general public has only a very fuzzy understanding of how terrorists work, and the operating methods of widely different types of groups with widely different goals are often mixed into discussions like this. That's what's happening here.

There is no direct correlation between intelligence and empathy. Sociopaths are often highly intelligent, and completely without empathy. They consider their own goals to be much more important than anyone else's and act accordingly. Religious fanatics are similar in action - they consider what they see as the mandate of their religion to be superior to the needs or wants of anyone else on the planet.

Stockholm syndrome may develop in incidents where there is extensive interaction between the hostage takers and the hostages. In today's terror incidents, that isn't allowed. Communication is only at the direct behest of the actors and limited to fulfilling the demands of the captors. Hostages are bound and usually blindfolded as well to help dehumanize them, remove any opportunity for resistance, and make Stockholm syndrome much less likely. The folks who plan these things are well aware of the dynamics involved, even if the actors (who do not need to be very intelligent, as the backgrounds of the cadre in Mumbai showed) are not. In cases where the victims are not killed outright, they are often killed later or held for years. I don't give the Stockholm syndrome a thought where terrorists are involved.

While airplane hijackings of the past by some groups (PLO etc.) did involve hostage releases, they were different than today's incidents involving Al Queda and related groups. Those hijackings were done with specific demands in mind - usually the release of imprisoned personnel. Seen any in the last 5 years? Those are a bygone era. Today's incidents by Al Queda and similar groups are not designed to make demands and achieve a limited goal like release of an imprisoned leader. They involve massive killing to make a point - see the OSAC Overview of the Mumbai attacks for the new paradigm - a small, well trained cadre of actors, merciless mass attacks, 500 dead or injured.

Immediate effective counterattack by armed people who are in the intended victim pool during the first few seconds of the encounter is the only opportunity I see to prevent these actors from accomplishing their goal of inflicting mass casualties to gain recognition and achieve political objectives such as crippling the economy through fear or destabilizing the relations between nations. It's no guarantee of survival, but it's the best chance you'll have unless you're lucky enough to be in the immediate vicinity of a viable escape route when the balloon goes up.

Perhaps you are right, Sadiqi. But motivations and plans can remain unknown, and as long as you are alive you have choices about courses of action.

P.S.: This sounds pretty obscure. I mean that terrorist groups do not follow one plan. They experiment with various strategies. One year it is hijackings. The next it is bombs.

Here's an interesting article: http://clintvanzandt.newsvine.com/_news ... -situation" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

- Jim

seamusTX wrote:Perhaps you are right, Sadiqi. But motivations and plans can remain unknown, and as long as you are alive you have choices about courses of action.

P.S.: This sounds pretty obscure. I mean that terrorist groups do not follow one plan. They experiment with various strategies. One year it is hijackings. The next it is bombs.

Here's an interesting article: http://clintvanzandt.newsvine.com/_news ... -situation" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

- Jim

You're absolutely right that terrorist groups don't follow one plan, and it's helpful to know which type you're dealing with.

Since when an incident starts you won't have time for interviews and research, so here's a rule of thumb:

If they come in shooting, you're dealing with a group whose objective is mass casualties.

If they come in "bank takeover style" without hurting people, you're probably looking at people who are looking to take hostages and negotiate for something they can't get otherwise. In that case, expect to be searched. You'll find yourself in a position similar to LEO's who know that being found with a badge and gun in a situation like that is not predictive of long life.

Make decisions accordingly.

Excaliber wrote:If they come in "bank takeover style" without hurting people, you're probably looking at people who are looking to take hostages and negotiate for something they can't get otherwise.

Like 9/11

AWB09 wrote:

Excaliber wrote:If they come in "bank takeover style" without hurting people, you're probably looking at people who are looking to take hostages and negotiate for something they can't get otherwise.

Like 9/11

In previous posts in this thread I was addressing incidents that occur on the ground, but the point is well taken.

Aircraft takeovers are an exception to the "rules of thumb" I suggested. 9/11 clearly changed the thinking on the tactics that had been used up until that time.

The folks on the aircraft that hit the twin towers and the Pentagon had no knowledge of their actual destiny and adhered to the best advice available prior to that time.

The folks on Flight 93 knew what had happened at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon through cell phone contacts with people on the ground, and they improvised their own counterattack. That was a real feat because they rapidly overcame the denial that is normal in those circumstances, recognized that something that wasn't in the rulebook was happening, and organized people and tactics to address it. Their situational awareness and heroics will stand forever as an inspiration to all who take the time to understand what happened on that flight.

I designed this scenario to be a simplified version of the Mumbai incident.

Hijacking is completely different and much more complicated. For one thing, very few weapons can be brought onto a plane now, and the defense is going to require more courage, physical strength, and quick thinking.

It is heartening that so many passengers have successfully stopped hijackers since September 11, 2001. It must be affecting the planning of such incidents. Most of the recent intended hijackers have been deranged, not terrorists.

- Jim

seamusTX wrote:I designed this scenario to be a simplified version of the Mumbai incident.

Hijacking is completely different and much more complicated. For one thing, very few weapons can be brought onto a plane now, and the defense is going to require more courage, physical strength, and quick thinking.

It is heartening that so many passengers have successfully stopped hijackers since September 11, 2001. It must be affecting the planning of such incidents. Most of the recent intended hijackers have been deranged, not terrorists.

- Jim

I would agree that it has.

Trying to move around in very tight spaces with over a hundred people who are ready to take a piece of you at the first opportunity is an extremely difficult challenge, even for someone armed with a firearm.

The fact that the cockpit crew may well decide that a hijacking attempt is a fine opportunity to show folks the maneuvers their aircraft is really capable of(e.g. barrel rolls, flying upside down, and climb / descend maneuvers that cause weightlessness in the cabin) and will greet any attempt to get into their space with a hail of .40 S&W welcome souveniers also gives pause to those who might contemplate taking over an aircraft.

Hijacking is no longer the fun sport it used to be for the terroristically inclined.

Any future airplane hijackings are going to have to include co-opting a member of the flight crew.

There was that Egypt Air crash that no one likes to talk about, where it seems one of the pilots committed suicide along with the murder of everyone else aboard: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EgyptAir_F ... onclusions" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The instigators of the most spectacular terrorist incidents seem to crave novelty. I suspect we've pretty much seen the end of hijacking for now, and the next major incident will be something different.

- Jim

seamusTX wrote:Any future airplane hijackings are going to have to include co-opting a member of the flight crew.

There was that Egypt Air crash that no one likes to talk about, where it seems one of the pilots committed suicide along with the murder of everyone else aboard: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EgyptAir_F ... onclusions" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The instigators of the most spectacular terrorist incidents seem to crave novelty. I suspect we've pretty much seen the end of hijacking for now, and the next major incident will be something different.

- Jim

They're intelligent, adaptable, and realistic about what works and what doesn't.

Novelty isn't really important to them for its own sake. They generally keep going with something that works as long as they continue to get the results they want. When effective countermeasures are deployed, they change tactics with an emphasis on high impact and surprise (this is where the novelty comes in). The focus will continue to be on soft targets, because that's where their logistics work the best in asymmetrical warfare.

Stockholm syndrome can work both ways.

Technically speaking, no it can't. The reverse condition is known as the Lima Syndrome. :)

I didn't know there was a name for it.

- Jim

Here're my thoughts: without the bigotry mind you, these doods don't seem to take hostages for negotiation purposes. They either want to film each one being executed, or they wanna go out with a bang (pun intended, of course). I bet Nathan Berg thought he'd be released. he wasn't even an enemy combatant, he was just some guy doing some volunteer work.
these guys (just generalizing terrorists overall) that would do that, probably don't posess the empathy that you're (jim) talking about. although you might be able to turn an underling that's just their version of Joe Collecting a Paycheck.

on the other side

so, where is the projection room, and what kind of vantage point does it have? does it have a blind spot, or would a fire create smoke as to occlude the vision of the person(s) in that booth. those projectors may or may not be nailed to the floor. I don't know how much personal knowledge you (jim) have about projectors, but the one's I have seen are either the reel to reel (which are pretty big and cumbersome) or the new digital projectors (which are significantly smaller).
so, if it's a reel to reel, the "overwatch" guy just might be secluded to one side of the projector. which side is he on, as opposed to which side you are. If he's got full control of the "window," then how big is the window (going back to the fire/smoke thing)?

course, you gotta think about if there are any more "sleepers" in the crowd. probably can pick them out, as they are the ones who probably don't look scared, or are scanning the crowd. but then again, that's you, too!
that's all I have time to type for now....

My scenario was explicitly designed with Islamic or pretend-Islamic terrorists rather than criminals, thus narrowing down the possibilities. Terrorists usually want to produce maximum casualty count, but not always.

As recently as 2006, a deranged Turk hijacked a plane with the goal of getting political asylum: http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/10/03/news/hijack.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I do think it's possible that one of the underlings might lose his resolve after looking frightened women and children in the eyes. That's why most terrorist incidents now involve bombing and don't give the participants a chance to back out.

I don't know about the layout of the projection room. It just seemed like an ideal place for a sniper to cover nearly the entire audience. The walls of the theater immediately below the projection port would not be visible from the projection room, but presumably other terrorists would be guarding the doors.

DoubleJ wrote:course, you gotta think about if there are any more "sleepers" in the crowd. probably can pick them out, as they are the ones who probably don't look scared, or are scanning the crowd. but then again, that's you, too!

This is an excellent point. The terrorists don't have to bother with the people who are fainting and wetting themselves, but an adult and particularly a male (men from Muslim cultures having certain biases) who looks alert and composed is going to attract their attention.

- Jim

seamusTX wrote:This is an excellent point. The terrorists don't have to bother with the people who are fainting and wetting themselves, but an adult and particularly a male (men from Muslim cultures having certain biases) who looks alert and composed is going to attract their attention.

Keep the element of surprise!



until

I think that this is the best point to come out of this discussion.

The appearance of awareness and confidence that warns off panhandlers and creeps can be a liability in some situations.

- Jim