Sq 117 hijack

last SG · 2006-05-14T22:57:37+00:00

You might be surprised.. but the weapons used at that time was not MP5. They used M16 to storm the plane. Yes, i feel it is abit unwieldy to use M16, but...

Icemoon SG

How does it contradict?

I said "I don't think the instinctive reaction upon shock (when the SOF stormed into the plane) is to poke a knife into someone, I mean find a target to poke instead of trying to protect yourself."

Isn't grabbing a hostage an act of trying to protect yourself?

By the way, I heard they had knives. But I don't read of him stabbing his shield.

Also, terrorists can be more quick-thinking than you assume. Case in point: Egyptair 648. Omar Resaq disguised himself as one of the passengers and made it as far as the hospital when the Egyptians caught up with him. he obviously calculated a lot further ahead than the example that fudgester raised, realising that if he had atken a hostage on the aircraft, his chances of getting away would be even slimmer. Again, the facts show that your logic's failed.

I am not arguing against such a case. But let's not stretch too far, if the escaped terrorist pulled a stunt after the passengers were cleared, then it is not part of the hijack ops anymore.

1) About benchmarks, SOF didn't have a blue-on-blue or shoot blindly like the D81 guys did, not did they set the plane on fire with door charges the way the Egyptians did on Egyptair648. All in all, it was a technically perfect execution, so how much more of a benchmark can be reasonably required?

If you allow me to say this, CT forces are trained primarily to deal with armed criminals. Armed as in really armed, please don't say a penknife can kill so having a penknife is considered armed.

As such, I don't consider the ops a good benchmark - it is not a good reflection of their abilities or inabilities. It is just a perfect execution. Don't they have perfect execution for their drills also (I hope)?

2) Yes, those four Pakistanis were not the brightest of terrorists, but realistically speaking, no CT force can arrange to face off with a bunch of gun-toting, Semtex-wearing terrorists, can they? The most the CT teams can do is train for such scenarios, and they already do that. If we wanted to keep score that way, perhaps we could hold inter-CT competitions, but who would be mad enough to want that in real life?

I have to agree with you - even GIGN suffered a few casualties during Marseilles against AKs. Luckily no passengers were killed in the crossfire.

Icemoon SG

Then post the unclassifed accounts lor. Ged just enlightened me with another account about the Egyptians, though that doesn't contradict my points.

I'm waiting for you to post the dramatic plane explosion report. Such accounts couldn't possibly be classified - a blown plane on the tarmac would make headlines.

Does it matter whether I am on that night of SQ117? Even if I was, I would be hiding under my seat, trying to endure my shit and piss instead of asking permission to go toilet. haha

Icemoon SG

I would say SQ117 is an untypical hijack ops, many elements were missing. For example, how did they distract the terrorists .. anyone remember?

The poor guy who was thrown out .. he must have leaked the news that the fools were not carrying guns.

Gedanken SG

I think you're going a little too micro here, Icemoon. Okay, let's be logical about this.

What's the terrorist's motivation for hijacking? I think the pattern is there so that we can assume that they want something in exchange, be it the release of prisoners, or to achieve some other ends as in 9/11.

If it becomes clear that they can't achieve these goals, such as when the aircraft is full of CT troops, would their objective change to trying to get out of the situation, or would it be to take down as many hostages as possible?

In the latter case, the terrosist would be stabbing the hostage, and a dead hostage is no use to a tango.

In the former case, the terrorist would be working on a plan to escape, either by taking a human shield (and keeping said shield alive and useful), or by masquerading as a hostage like Resaq did.

Assuming that the terrorists are not entirely devoid of any sense of self-preservation (9/11 was a suicide mission, so it doesn't apply, but we're talking about cases like 117 and 648 here), the logical option to go for would be the try and escape. Therefore, it simply wouldn't make any sense whatsoever for the terrorist to stab a hostage at that point, because that would simply be throwing a bargaining chip away.

As for what happened with 648, I disagree with you. The op is on until such time that all possible hostages are safe and all tangos are either dead, in custody or long gone.

As for the definition of being armed, let me put it this way. I've got you as a hostage, and while I've got the guns pointed at me, I've got a knife to your throat. Would you consider me unarmed at that point? That's the standard of threat assessment applied to such situations, because a dead hostage is a dead hostage regardless of the killing method.

Icemoon SG

yea, who was the one who raised the stabbing scenario? not me definitely.

well, I suppose you could see the op that way, but this is not fair to the CT. Wink Once all the passengers are cleared and weapons checked clear, the police would take over.

Hmm .. if what you got is a knife, then a group of CIDs and camouflaged police snipers will do. I seriously don't think the SOF would be called in. I'm digressing from hijack ops here.

Gedanken SG

Well, that's the point, Icemoon - the passengers weren't quite cleared yet, were they?

As for the second point, it's not a question of who you call in at that point, is it? SOF were already there, and the question is whether or not a knife would be considered a threat there and then, and my assertion is that it would be.

storywolf SG

Posting so call newspaper articles and heresay is not posting unclassified accounts ! Are you there yourself to see it 1st hand and involve directly with the ops ? If so call read about it then forget it.

I already enlightened you, I was there at the sq117 scene, so was a lot of other standby units which got activated . At least I can tell you what we all saw and happen, and not like you - from third party sources and alway have to "If" I was there !!!

Have you ever go for a single real ops which you carry real ammo ? Ever before ? Pls don't give us the "If" shit if you don't have . Also please don't use other people ops, that is their not yours !!!

Icemoon SG

You mean the Egyptian incident? I suppose if you are not armed, then you are not a tango.

I agree, a knife would be considered a threat - to the hostage. Definitely not to the CT during a stand-off.

Icemoon SG

Were you inside the plane? Or have we progressed to another argument whether they were professional in clearing passengers and other post-killing activities?

So what did you see beside the butter knives and the "explosives"? An AK-47? Laughing

Gedanken SG

Uhh, nope - regardless of whether you're armed or not, you're assumed to be a tango until it's proven that you were a hostage.

The threat to the CTs is secondary to the safety of the hostages - isn't that the raison d'etre of CT teams? As long as there's a threat to the hostage, things are treated with all possible seriousness.

storywolf SG

Well are you inside the plane ? Then how can you comment on SOF professional and the terrorist professional or not ? You ownself just slapped your own face brother !

Where you there to take one look at the explosive and tell that it is not real ?
Where can you tell that it is not ignited by push of button type ?

A good question, while we are securing the perimeters at the scene - where are you ?

Icemoon SG

Even if the passengers are all dispersed? Goodness, the op is never ending like that.

But then in 117, there wasn't any real threat to the passengers. Even the shield was snatched away.

Icemoon SG

Did I comment on SOF professionalism?

Were the terrorists professional? I don't think so .. they sealed their own fates with their dumbness. Can't even grab his shield tightly .. he never eat supper issit?

Whether explosives look real or not is a moot point right? Why is this brought up in the discussion at all?

I salute you for your work in menolong, if you think you deserve more recognition.

storywolf SG

Icemoon if there is no real threat to the passengers then why did SAF mobilise all the standby units and the SOF ?

If there is no real threat then they would call the "KFC" for fried chickens for everyone.

Gedanken SG

Well that's the way it is, and it's a good reflection of how the reality of ops is not as clearly delineated as the theory. Mind you, Resaq was picked up by the Egyptian CT lads, NOT the Maltese cops, even when the hospital was technically in Maltese jurisdiction. That ought to tell you how fuzzy things can get in real life.

Well, when you're on the spot as a member of the CT team, you wouldn't have the luxury of time to make that judgement, would you?

Icemoon SG

The reply before that was about a tango holding a hostage at *knife-point* after the CT stormed in - which did not even happen at all.

Good one. I remember KFC sponsored the chickens during my NDP. Laughing

Gedanken SG

I'll second storywolf's point here. Once the button has been pushed by some minister or other, the ground rules change. There's no space for threat assessment any more, and everything operates on the assumption of the highest possible threat.

That's why it made no difference if the tangos are holding an AK or a stick of butter. They crossed the line, took hostages and made threats, and the only prudent thing to do at that point was to assume the worst and prevent them from doing anything. To treat the situation as anything less than the worst possible scenario at that time would have been foolhardy, wouldn't it?

Icemoon SG

Hey .. I learn something new today .. thanks. So what happened? The CT lads followed the ambulances to hospital?

Yeah .. CT lads are not police negotiators after all.

Gedanken SG

Anyway, going back to your original assertion in this thread:

The Garuda and EgyptAir incidents are proof that things can and do go wrong. In contrast, SOF did not shoot any friendlies, nor did they set the aircraft alight or let tangos slip out. As I've asserted before, they did everything they had to do correctly, and that is a good indicator of their ability from a technical point of view.

Gedanken SG

Apparently, after the smoke cleared, some of the hostages recognised Resaq and alerted the authorities - I'm not sure whether this report was lodged at the airport or the hospital - and the Egyptian CT lads went to the hospital to pick him up.

« Previous Page Next Page »