Both Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri are Killed in the 1980s

[Futurist]

What if both Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri would have gotten killed in two separate incidents in the 1980s?

How would the history of al-Qaeda, Islamic terrorism (in general), and the United States of America have developed in the following years and decades in this scenario?

Indeed, any thoughts on this?

[Futurist]

Also, I am especially curious about the impact of this on U.S. history considering that 9/11 certainly significantly affected U.S. history (by facilitating the U.S. invasions of both Afghanistan and Iraq, by (possibly significantly) increasing George W. Bush's chances of reelection in 2004, et cetera).

[Tim Smith]

Depends on who takes over as head of Al-Qaeda.

[stg 44]

KSM ran his operation independent of bin Laden, but for the check that he cut to pay for the 9/11 operation. So terrorism would still be a thing an 9/11 might well still happen.

[Futurist]

KSM ran his operation independent of bin Laden, but for the check that he cut to pay for the 9/11 operation. So terrorism would still be a thing an 9/11 might well still happen.

What exactly does "KSM" stand for? Khalid Sheikh Muhammad?

[stg 44]

KSM ran his operation independent of bin Laden, but for the check that he cut to pay for the 9/11 operation. So terrorism would still be a thing an 9/11 might well still happen.

What exactly does "KSM" stand for? Khalid Sheikh Muhammad?

Yes. There was a good podcast about him on Spycast, which you can get on Itunes.

[Futurist]

KSM ran his operation independent of bin Laden, but for the check that he cut to pay for the 9/11 operation. So terrorism would still be a thing an 9/11 might well still happen.

What exactly does "KSM" stand for? Khalid Sheikh Muhammad?

Yes. There was a good podcast about him on Spycast, which you can get on Itunes.

OK. Also, though, if KSM would have become the leader (or at least an extremely prominent member) of either al-Qaeda or an al-Qaeda-like terrorist group in this scenario, then would this terrorist group (or at least its leadership) have still been (mostly/primarily) stationed in Afghanistan in this scenario? Or would this terrorist group have been stationed in some other country?

[stg 44]

AQ would probably not exist as we know it without bin Laden and his #2. KSM would do his own thing and probably be less successful if he cannot find another source of funding. KSM was based out of the Philippines IIRC, so Afghanistan probably wouldn't be a major focal point for terror unless AQ found a way to survive the assassination of their leader. But bin Laden seems to have been the major play with elements of the Saudi intelligence/royal family, so with him gone Islamic terror may never have become a major issue outside of the Muslim areas

[T. A. Gardner]

Given that there would be something on the order of a 10 year gap here between when the attack was carried out and when Bin Laden was killed in this ATL, I'd say it would still have likely happened. The principals involved pitched the plan to bin Laden and likely would have still pitched it to his replacement or undertaken it on their own.
If anything, I'd say an earlier demise to Saddam Hussein would have had more impact as it's pretty clear that Hanjour, the leader was in part being bankrolled by Iraq through their Hamburg embassy. Without funding, the plan was impossible as those who were to pilot the planes wouldn't have had the means to move to the US, enroll in expensive pilot schools, like Emory-Riddle, and live as students in the US.
Al-Qaeda hardly begins and ends with bin Laden.

[Futurist]

AQ would probably not exist as we know it without bin Laden and his #2. KSM would do his own thing and probably be less successful if he cannot find another source of funding. KSM was based out of the Philippines IIRC, so Afghanistan probably wouldn't be a major focal point for terror unless AQ found a way to survive the assassination of their leader.

Was the Philippines simply ineffective at hunting down KSM, or what? After all, isn't the Philippines a U.S. ally?

Also, though, I would think to point out that Al Qaeda did survive the assassination of their leader in 2011 in real life.

But bin Laden seems to have been the major play with elements of the Saudi intelligence/royal family, so with him gone Islamic terror may never have become a major issue outside of the Muslim areas

Did elements of the Saudi intelligence and/or Saudi royal family like Bin Laden and cooperate with him due to his and his family's wealth and connections?

Also, though, out of curiosity--(if one completely ignores the butterfly effect) you think that Al Gore would have ran again and won the U.S. Presidency in 2004 if 9/11 or a similar large-scale terrorist attack on U.S. soil wouldn't have occurred before the 2004 U.S. Presidential election, correct?

[Futurist]

Also, off-topic, but can you please also respond to this thread of mine, stg 44? :

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 1&t=222262

[James A Pratt III]

If the US had managed in the late 1990s to kill both Bin Laden and Al-Zawahiri I think it would have greatly disrupted Al Qeada's operations and it would have made their ability to conduct a 9/11 style attack almost impossible. Note there were a number of people at the CIA that warned everyone who would listen to them that Al-Qeada was going to attack and kill Americans, but no one in a position to do anything about it would listen to them. The US from what I understand could have killed Bin laden on a number of times pre 9/11, but they were vetoed by then President Clinton. It is just one disgusting case of government stupidity and inaction after another.

[Futurist]

If the US had managed in the late 1990s to kill both Bin Laden and Al-Zawahiri I think it would have greatly disrupted Al Qeada's operations and it would have made their ability to conduct a 9/11 style attack almost impossible. Note there were a number of people at the CIA that warned everyone who would listen to them that Al-Qeada was going to attack and kill Americans, but no one in a position to do anything about it would listen to them.

That I unfortunately agree with!

The US from what I understand could have killed Bin laden on a number of times pre 9/11, but they were vetoed by then President Clinton. It is just one disgusting case of government stupidity and inaction after another.

Bill Clinton certainly isn't the only one to blame for this, though. Rather, George W. Bush is also to blame for this.