|
|
Post by lordroel on Feb 11, 2016 21:10:11 GMT
Okay have posted this also on my forum, but as there is not much activity going on there i also post it here, was thinking about a different 9/11 and came with this.
On November 11th, 2000 during the Festival of Remembrance in the Royal Albert Hall a KLM passenger plane hijacked by al-Qaeda terrorists flies into the Royal Albert Hall killing Queen Elizabeth II, Prince Charles, Prime Minister Tony Blair, hundreds of people in the Royal Albert Hall and also 88 crew and passengers on board the KLM flight.
On November 17th, the 18-year old Prince William is crowned a few days later as King William V.
On November 20th, in the wake of the November 11th attacks, Prime Minster (former Deputy Prime Minister of the United Kingdom) John Prescott deliveres an ultimatum to the Taliban government of Afghanistan, the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, to turn over Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda leaders operating in the country or face attack. The Taliban demanded evidence of bin Laden's link to the November 11th attacks attacks and, if such evidence warranted a trial, they offered to handle such a trial in an Islamic Court.The United Kingdom refused to provide any evidence.
On December 7th 2000, British and with support from the United States begin conducting airstrike against enemy targets in Afghanistan.
|
|
|
|
Post by MinnesotaNationalist on Feb 11, 2016 21:46:52 GMT
Remember Remember of the Eleventh of November
|
|
|
|
Post by lordroel on Feb 11, 2016 21:54:14 GMT
Remember Remember of the Eleventh of November Well that sounds like the Gun plot of November 5th 1605, wonder when the British capture Osama Bin Laden if they will do the same to him as they did with Guy Fawkes. |
|
|
|
Post by MinnesotaNationalist on Feb 12, 2016 2:29:41 GMT
Remember Remember of the Eleventh of November Well that sounds like the Gun plot of November 5th 1605, wonder when the British capture Osama Bin Laden if they will do the same to him as they did with Guy Fawkes. I imagine many Brits would be comparing the two, probably even depicting al-qaeda as wearing the Guy Fawkes Mask with a turban on their head (because they need the modern stereotypes as well) |
|
|
|
Post by orvillethird on Feb 12, 2016 3:31:36 GMT
A few thoughts:
Would Britain invoke NATO? I think they likely would. (The Netherlands would certainly support this.)
How would the UK political spectrum change? I could see the EDL and their ilk get bolstered by this. (I also think some in the Security Services could be asked to resign.)
Would Prescott want to go into Iraq? Depends. Blair did, but Prescott may not be so attached. (If there is no going into Iraq, the terror threat would be lessened.)
Would the US change? I'm not sure. 2000 could go either way.
How would Russia react? They'd likely back the operation, as they did OTL.
Would the monarchy remain? Her Majesty may have been less popular then than now.
|
|
|
|
Post by crustyoldssg on Feb 12, 2016 17:24:38 GMT
interesting scenario-one has to wonder in such a case if the UK would have taken the lead in the GWOT,rather than the US
|
|
|
|
Post by huojin on Feb 12, 2016 18:37:13 GMT
A few thoughts: Would Britain invoke NATO? I think they likely would. (The Netherlands would certainly support this.) How would the UK political spectrum change? I could see the EDL and their ilk get bolstered by this. (I also think some in the Security Services could be asked to resign.) Would Prescott want to go into Iraq? Depends. Blair did, but Prescott may not be so attached. (If there is no going into Iraq, the terror threat would be lessened.) Would the US change? I'm not sure. 2000 could go either way. How would Russia react? They'd likely back the operation, as they did OTL. Would the monarchy remain? Her Majesty may have been less popular then than now. As a Brit, I'll happily field these questions, and then some others. I can see us trying to involve NATO, yes. NATO's been involved historically since December 2001, I don't see any major reason for that to change. The EDL wasn't founded until 2009, the National Front is a crumbling relic, and the BNP isn't electable by 2000. If there were a rise in right-wing sentiments, they would likely manifest with the Conservative Party, rather than engendering a rise to power of any minority party. Iraq is a separate question to Afghanistan. We link them a lot, but at the time the focus was much more on WMDs. The "45 minutes" claim was still a major influence on British public opinion. We'd probably still go to war. The hypothetical supposes that the Queen and Princes Charles die and William succeeds to the throne. The monarchy was unpopular around Prince Diana's death but recovered afterwards. I think it'd still exist in this scenario, and not only that, William's popularity ratings would be sky-high. Important thing to point out! Being Deputy Prime Minister does not mean you are in any order of succession in the British government. The Prime Minister is the leader of the party with a majority in Parliament, or rather, customarily so because the monarch must ask them to form a government. For all intents and purposes though, it would be whoever succeeded Tony Blair as Leader of the Labour Party - not John Prescott by default. And not John Prescott at all, actually. The Deputy Prime Minister post is a rarely created position usually utilised as a concession to some influential group in the Party or Government you need to make a concession to. There is no formal role or portfolio for the Deputy Prime Minister, they may well end up sitting around twiddling their thumbs. The leader after Blair would almost certainly have been Gordon Brown. Beyond even the supposed "Blair-Brown Pact", Gordon Brown was alongside Tony Blair as leaders of the New Labour movement within the party and entirely likely to win a vote at the Labour Party Conference to select a new leader. |
|
|
|
Post by lordroel on Feb 12, 2016 21:08:10 GMT
Thanks for explaning, so would Gordon Brown be in charge of a war cabinet.
|
|
|
|
Post by orvillethird on Feb 13, 2016 0:58:12 GMT
Thanks for explaning, so would Gordon Brown be in charge of a war cabinet. Very likely- perhaps even the potential for a unity government. As for the mention of Guy Fawkes being replaced by Bin Laden, it could be- though the Guy Fawkes masks are more a thing of V for Vendetta, a film that was not released until after the PoD. |
|
|
|
Post by lordroel on Feb 13, 2016 6:41:31 GMT
Thanks for explaning, so would Gordon Brown be in charge of a war cabinet. Very likely- perhaps even the potential for a unity government. As for the mention of Guy Fawkes being replaced by Bin Laden, it could be- though the Guy Fawkes masks are more a thing of V for Vendetta, a film that was not released until after the PoD. No not the mask but the way Guy Fawkes was excexuted in front of parlement. |
|
|
|
Post by huojin on Feb 13, 2016 18:03:37 GMT
Yeah, other issues:
1. V for Vendetta is a 2006 film, which is considerably past the POD.
2. The association of a Catholic with a radical Islamic movement seems extremely unlikely.
3. Al-Qaeda and the Taliban already have their own fun way of hiding their identity, they don't really need a new one. They're also not an internet hacker collective in need of making pop culture references. They're pretty serious people.
4. A unity government seems likely. Labour had its biggest landslide victory in 1997, they have a commanding majority in Parliament. Moreover there's no question that most or all of Parliament would back action in this event. It might be a de facto unity movement in Parliament and a lot of talk of national unity, but they don't need the Conservatives in government and would likely not seek to involve them in the Cabinet beyond a consultation role in Parliament. You also have to remember that despite everything, the Tories had been in power since 1979 until 1997, so there's no real inclination to get them back in the Cabinet.
|
|
|
|
Post by MinnesotaNationalist on Feb 13, 2016 19:40:34 GMT
Yeah, other issues: 1. V for Vendetta is a 2006 film, which is considerably past the POD. 2. The association of a Catholic with a radical Islamic movement seems extremely unlikely. 3. Al-Qaeda and the Taliban already have their own fun way of hiding their identity, they don't really need a new one. They're also not an internet hacker collective in need of making pop culture references. They're pretty serious people. 4. A unity government seems likely. Labour had its biggest landslide victory in 1997, they have a commanding majority in Parliament. Moreover there's no question that most or all of Parliament would back action in this event. It might be a de facto unity movement in Parliament and a lot of talk of national unity, but they don't need the Conservatives in government and would likely not seek to involve them in the Cabinet beyond a consultation role in Parliament. You also have to remember that despite everything, the Tories had been in power since 1979 until 1997, so there's no real inclination to get them back in the Cabinet. 1. It's also a 1982 book, which I believe already promoted the mask. 2. It's less associating the religions, as much as associating people who the Brits would be considering as enemies to state, comparing their tactics in trying to destroy the government. |
|
|
|
Post by lordroel on Feb 13, 2016 21:40:23 GMT
Yeah, other issues: 1. V for Vendetta is a 2006 film, which is considerably past the POD. 2. The association of a Catholic with a radical Islamic movement seems extremely unlikely. 3. Al-Qaeda and the Taliban already have their own fun way of hiding their identity, they don't really need a new one. They're also not an internet hacker collective in need of making pop culture references. They're pretty serious people. 4. A unity government seems likely. Labour had its biggest landslide victory in 1997, they have a commanding majority in Parliament. Moreover there's no question that most or all of Parliament would back action in this event. It might be a de facto unity movement in Parliament and a lot of talk of national unity, but they don't need the Conservatives in government and would likely not seek to involve them in the Cabinet beyond a consultation role in Parliament. You also have to remember that despite everything, the Tories had been in power since 1979 until 1997, so there's no real inclination to get them back in the Cabinet. 1. It's also a 1982 book, which I believe already promoted the mask. 2. It's less associating the religions, as much as associating people who the Brits would be considering as enemies to state, comparing their tactics in trying to destroy the government. You do not understand me, i do not speak about Guy Fawkes the mask, but how he was executed in front of parlement, i was wondering if the British would do the same with Osama Bin Laden executed in front of parlement. |
|
|
|
Post by huojin on Feb 14, 2016 23:20:26 GMT
1. It's also a 1982 book, which I believe already promoted the mask. 2. It's less associating the religions, as much as associating people who the Brits would be considering as enemies to state, comparing their tactics in trying to destroy the government. You do not understand me, i do not speak about Guy Fawkes the mask, but how he was executed in front of parlement, i was wondering if the British would do the same with Osama Bin Laden executed in front of parlement. MNN: It's an irrelevant point, the masks were not common in any form prior to the film, and an organisation like al-Qaeda or the Taliban wouldn't compare themselves to a dystopian work of fiction anyway, shared methods of terrorism or not. lordroel: No, we wouldn't execute Bin Laden in front of Parliament. Partially because abolished the death penalty in 1965, but mostly because it's not the 1600s any more and we wouldn't execute someone in Parliament Square >_> |
|
|
|
Post by silentrunner on Mar 9, 2016 19:49:24 GMT
I wonder how the Dutch would react. After all, it was one their planes that was used in the attacks, so a lot of Dutch citizens would obviously be killed.
|
|
|
|
Post by orvillethird on Mar 9, 2016 22:22:11 GMT
I wonder how the Dutch would react. After all, it was one their planes that was used in the attacks, so a lot of Dutch citizens would obviously be killed. They are part of NATO, and if NATO retaliated after 9/11, they would retaliate here, particularly with a country losing a Head of State and Head of Government. I do have an idea in which a different terror attack takes out HM, the PM, numerous other UK officials and politicians (from the Archbishop of Canterbury to George Galloway (who dies a bit after the others), as well as a bunch of other leaders, celebrities, athletes, journalists, UK citizens and others, but I may need a lot of help with it. |
|
Firesofdoom
New Member
Posts: 13 
Pronouns: Fe/Fi/Fo/Fum
Gender (Custom): Giant
|
Post by Firesofdoom on Mar 23, 2016 17:05:37 GMT
The worst effect here, clearly, is that Elizabeth would not be the longest reigning monarch of England
|
|
|
|
Post by lordroel on Mar 23, 2016 17:43:25 GMT
The worst effect here, clearly, is that Elizabeth would not be the longest reigning monarch of England No that title will for a long time stay with here great-great-grandmother, Queen Victoria, that is unless King William V mange to rule until the year 2064. |
|
