Fighter planes patrolled the skies above the nation's cities, police and
military personnel were placed in a high state of alert, thousands of extra
police and soldiers were deployed, and the people were promised the best
protection the state could offer against any possible terrorist attack that
might be thrown at them.Despite all the precautions and promises, it didn't stop an armed gunman
strolling into Los Angeles International Airport, walking up to the ticket desk
of El Al, the Israeli airline, and opening fire.
At 11:30 local time, two people were dead, including the gunman, and many
more were injured, some critically.
Israeli Transport Minister, Ephraim Sneh, said he believed the shooting was
a terrorist attack and El Al's official statement supported that view.
Los Angeles Mayor, James Hahn, and FBI officials said there was no indication
it was a terrorist attack, but admitted that it was too early to rule anything
out.
Media reports that the gunman may have been an ex-employee, or someone
who held a grudge against El Al, have not been confirmed, but is a distinct
possibility; the United States not only introduced the the world to "Friendly
Fire", but was also the source of the rather sick euphemism, "Going Postal".
Who the gunman was, and why he did what he did is not, however, really that
important.
On the day when America was bracing itself for a possible terrorist attack,
how did an armed man walk into a busy international airport, carrying a gun
with an intent to use it ?
Weren't the American authorities expecting an attack at an airport ? Surely
this would have been the one place where terrorists could be expected to
mount an attack, to cause serious damage on the infra-structure, hordes of
people or attempt to undertake a September the 11th operation again.
It may well be that the gunman was known at the airport, had the right ID cards
and was let through without checking, which would explain why he wasn't caught
before reaching his intended target. Luckily international terrorists aren't
bright enough to get fake ID, or go to the trouble of working for an airport
company until their face becomes familiar.
This potential mass murderer only brought a gun into Los Angeles Airport;
imagine if he'd been carrying a dirty-nuke, a half-hundred weight of anthrax,
a bottle of nerve gas, or had simply wired himself up as the explosive start
to America's day of celebration ?
If this was the work of a man with a grudge, who woke up one morning and
thought, "F--k it; why not ?", what chance does any country stand against
determined terrorists ?
It is a message which America has not yet understood.
Bush may make a big play of having the Air Force flying sorties over
major cities ( it's a very good demonstration of his commitment to fighting
the war on terror ), but it does nothing to stop terrorist activity.
The nature of terrorism is not about a full-frontal, well announced, attack
against a well defined target. It is not the process of conventional war. It
is about creating terror and fear, and slowly destroying a country from the
inside. It scores its victories by making its victims succumb to agreeing
to whatever is necessary to make such attacks cease.
Bombing Afghanistan flat and labelling any number of countries as being part
of an axis of evil does not prevent the perpetration of terrorist acts, it just
p--ses off the victims of the American onslaught and creates a false sense of
security.
The American people, on the whole, have believed that an all-out war against
terrorism will bring them victory, and that going to Defcon 1 will allow them
to sleep safely in their beds at night.
As soon as Americans wake up to reality, the sooner they may start looking to
create world peace and harmony, rather than trying to enforce it by bombing
dissenters off the face of the earth.
Although the Los Angeles gunman was probably not a terrorist, it was the
terrorists who won the battle of July the 4th. They won because the fear of
terror kept fighter planes scrambled, the police and army on the streets and
everyone worried s--tless that something might happen. That's what terrorists
want to see, and they know how much it costs a country; their biggest weapon is
instilling the fear that they may do something, and win the war by doing
nothing.
They were no doubt also celebrating the deaths at LAX. If an ex-employee with
a grudge can cause mayhem on the one day when America has thrown everything
it has got into protecting its citizens, it has shown that America is still
an incredibly easy target to hit.
"Here come the planes.
They're American planes.
Made in America"
O Superman ( for Massenet ), Laurie Anderson
One thing no one has managed to explain to me is why the Air Force was
flying sorties over cities on July the 4th, but it seems that not one American
has bothered to query their deployment.
The only credible explanation is that it's for no other reason than to offer
some reassurance that the people are safe from terrorism under the wing of the
world's mightiest military force. A protection shown to be hopelessly flawed
in the wake of the Los Angeles Airport massacre.
Beyond that, the enormous cost of flying these fuel hungry fighters can only
be justified if they are there to prevent a re-run of the events of September
the 11th.
How they are intended to achieve that is a mystery. They don't stop gunmen
walking into airports, and do nothing to stop terrorist minded individuals
getting on planes if they manage to avoid detection in the airport.
Fighter planes are only effective when firing at ground targets or engaged
in air combat missions.
I can't see an F16 strafing an airport car park with high calibre rounds, or
smart-bombing an apartment block should reports of a possible terrorist in
motion be reported; we're talking the heart of America here, not some desolate
dessert at the other side of the world which most of the population couldn't
find on a map.
And, I don't see what good any number of fighter planes will do if terrorists
have seized control of a plane once it's in flight.
Is the Air Force going to tail an airplane, blue lights flashing, hoping that
the terrorists throw in the towel; "It was a good try, but it looks like
we're beaten" ? I think not.
So is the plan to shoot the plane down ? It would make sense; the loss of a
few lives is better than the loss of many more, as may happen if the terrorists
hurl their plane into a well populated target. Lives may well be far less
important than the saving of popular landmarks like the Statue of Liberty,
and other symbols of America.
I can see Bush quoting Mr Spock now, but I'm not sure how the citizens of
America would feel, knowing that, if they were to become part of a hostage
situation, the American Air Force are going to be blowing them out of the sky.
There have been continuing rumours that at least two of the hijacked planes
in September, 2002, were shot down to minimise other catastrophic outcomes,
but it would take a brave man to face his electorate and tell them that he
is happy that they should lay down their lives for the greater good. Many
may, in the right circumstances, but only on their own terms, and if it is
a decision that they have made, not as a result of political policy in which
they have no say.
If this is the official policy in effect, it would not surprise me, but it
may surprise a few Americans who haven't been told. The discovery of secretive
plans, showing that the people come secondary to the state, are never welcomed
with enthusiastic arms, except by those who are protected by such plans, even
though it is obvious that most governments have them.
Perhaps the air force are intending to avert a terrorist hijacking by some
peaceful process ?
I find it hard to see how. Following them around until they get bored isn't
going to help, and attempting to frustrate their flight path is going to a
tough one. I can't believe that a hard-nosed terrorist is going to be worried
about being clipped by an F16, they're probably wired with explosives and
prepared to blow themselves and the planes up if circumstances dictate. They
may not make their intended target, but the plane will be destroyed, and it'll
be a bit embarrassing for the Air Force to have to admit that they brought it
down by flying into it, if they admit it at all.
And bringing a plane down, which is the only thing a fighter jet can do, is
fraught with difficulties. Shooting at it, colliding with it, even nudging
the wings up as British pilots used to do with incoming Buzz-Bombs will work,
but when a plane comes down it causes one hell of a mess and lots of
consequential casualties.
The only hope that the Air Force have is to bring the plane down in open
countryside where damage can be limited, and the whole crash can be conveniently
blamed on bad flying or a brave pilot deliberately downing his own plane as a
last resort.
Terrorists aren't stupid, and they will have considered all these scenarios and
possibilities. So in the worse case, all they need to do is put their hijacked
plane into a tight circle, and fly it round a major city, until the Air Force
knocks it out the sky ( with numerous witnesses watching the event ), or wait
for it to run out of fuel, and plummet earthwards of its own accord.
A plane falling out of the sky is one of America's least worries. Having one
hit the ground is a major one.
The Air Force are in a complete no-win situation, they're damned if they do
nothing, and damned if they do. With no clear public mandate on what costs the
American people are prepared to pay in terms of their own lives, it is going
to be a tough one to call. My money's on Bush having a "Damn the people; this
war is bigger than any one of them", attitude. You won't find me wandering
around American streets in the near future.
The only thing the Air Force will be good for, is when the terrorists finally
decide that their cause isn't moving forward fast enough, and they climb into
their own planes in a finally bid to destroy the capitalist, imperialist, enemy.
Now that will be a sight to see; "Whose are those planes ?", "They're American
planes", "No, the ones they're firing at !", "Oh ... they're made in america
too".
