ABC: Secret DHS doc reveals three foiled hijacking plots
posted at 9:46 am on June 21, 2006 by Allahpundit
Airplanes, embassies, skyscrapers: the jihadis know what they like.
The previously secret plots include one in which “Al-Qa’ida planned to hijack flights departing London’s Heathrow Airport and crash them into the airport and a skyscraper in the Canary Wharf financial district of London.”…
The third previously secret al Qaeda plot revealed in the document involved a May 2003 al Qaeda plan to fly “an explosive-laden general aviation aircraft into the U.S. Consulate in Karachi, Pakistan.”
ABC’s also got a photo of the 20th hijacker, whom I wrote about last week. He’s an Arab male in his twenties. Go figure.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Thank you for posting this.
One of the sad tragedies of the War on Terror – and on all operations that are based more on intelligence work than actual combat – is that the general population never sees the successes.
We never see the countless triumphs, only the few failures. And those with an anti-American agenda can then happily use the failures for political gain.
I strongly believe that if the full story of the last five years were published, a lot of liberals would be stunned at the successes we’ve had. Some of our greatest victories in the Cold War are just now coming to light; I’m sure in 30 years we’ll be hearing a lot about what is going on behind the scenes right now.
Again, thank you for the reminder. We’ve got a lot of unsung, unknown warriors working in the shadows, keeping us safe.
Professor Blather on June 21, 2006 at 10:10 AM
If the full story of the last 5 years is ever known the libtards will be screaming for the heads of the intelligence departments. This is SOP for them though, they think they should be consulted on everything so they can thwart it.
Duty, Honor, Country
(in THAT order)
Rowane
Rowane on June 21, 2006 at 10:24 AM
Great post professor, my sentiments exactly. For anyone to think we dont have a plan should just look at the Pentagon. One of the largest office buildings in the world and all they do is plan. Do they think that the 70 raids that were conducted just one day after Zark-owie was killed, was all just a coincidence? Maybe someone had a plan for just this scenario? And maybe a couple others?
Are the Dems and the MSM stupid enough to believe they have a right to know any of our plans?
Thanks to all of you who do thankless work to keep us safe.
shooter on June 21, 2006 at 10:38 AM
I just happen to believe that taking out Saddam is the smartest thing Bush has done in past five years. I believe Saddam was the one behind 9/11 plot and he bankrolled the AlQeada with the money from the oil for Food scam. I believe Saddam wanted to revenge the Gulf war.
When the money links are gone, ALQeada found it hard to tranfer funds to USA to finance the sleeper cells. I also think NSA has done a great job in exposing the cells via eavsdropping.
This is almost a miracle that we have not been attacked in past four years. Our border was totally porous and illegals were coming in by millions!
No wonder the Demo want to get rid of the eavesdropping network.
easy87us on June 21, 2006 at 10:46 AM
This is just the tip of the iceberg and dealing with just aviation. There are memos that detail photography of resevoirs, trains, shipping terminals, parking garages, shopping malls…..
One of the best things about DHS here in America is that anyone can call in a tip and it gets investigated. Americans have been policing their own country reporting on suspicious people doing suspicious things… Like Arabs snapping pictures of things they should not be photographing.
BelchSpeak on June 21, 2006 at 10:46 AM
As an American, I may have the right to know what our intelligence people are doing but I do not need to know.. In fact, I would rather not know, so that our methods & sources of information are not compromised.
Too many people forget that you may have the right to do something but that doesn’t make it the right thing to do.
Abigail Adams on June 21, 2006 at 10:49 AM
well said Abigail, and I could not agree with you more. Let the agencies do their job in the quiet way that they need to in order to protect the american people.
robo on June 21, 2006 at 1:07 PM
Abigail Adams, this is not the start of a fight with you, just a clarification.
Simple link to follow: CIA mission, vision and values
http://www.cia.gov/cia/information/mission.html
Please see bullet #3 in Mission.
Covert means exactly that – every state/country has such operations and they are covert for obvious reasons. We have no right to know about them.
Our President might have flaws – having strengthened these missions is not one of them. Would the Clinton admin. not have tied the hands of the CIA, who knows how different 2001, Sept. and what followed would have been?
I only wish that all intelligence folks follow one of their own values and “act with total discretion”, at all times.
Entelechy on June 21, 2006 at 2:36 PM
Entelchy- I should have included in my comment the fact that the media is continually attempting to “de-cloak” intelligence operations, covert or not. I don’t want the media nosing around and then claiming “the public’s right to know” on my behalf when they publish/televise something they shouldn’t. That is what I was driving at with my original comment.
Abigail Adams on June 21, 2006 at 3:42 PM
Abigail Adams, we agree :) Best regards and thanks for driving this important thought.
Entelechy on June 21, 2006 at 4:12 PM
One has to be totally ignorant and/or deranged to not be aware that there has not been a successful terrorist attack in our country since 9/11 because our government under Bush is doing the job to deter terrorism that it didn’t do very well under Clinton. What other proof do we need? We certainly don’t need the details.
docdave on June 21, 2006 at 4:53 PM