You have commented 278 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Terror Networks
Al-Qaida plans high-sea terror - International hunt continues for Osama’s 15-ship ’navy’
EFL, From Joseph Farah’s G2 Bulliten
While al-Qaida continues to hide from international authorities 15 ships it has purchased, there are growing warnings around the world the next dramatic terror attack is more likely to come at sea than in the air. Earlier this year, a chemical tanker, the Dewi Madrim, was hijacked by machinegun-bearing pirates in speedboats off the coast of Sumatra. But these weren’t ordinary pirates looking for booty. These were terrorists learning how to drive a ship. They also kidnapped officers in an effort to acquire expertise on conducting a maritime attack. This attack, reports Joseph Farah’s G2 Bulletin, was the equivalent of the al-Qaida hijackers who attended Florida flight schools before the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
The article continues. I would require registration of merchant ship captains permitted to dock in the US - fingerprints required.
Posted by:Super Hose

#14  Pirating a ship with a lot of freeboard (approximately height between the waterline and maindeck) would be very hard to do while it is underway.

If I were going to do some pirating, I would drive my ocean going tug into anchorage In the Gulf of Oman. You could probably board a good sized cargo ship in that location at night and be able to use the crew to get underway. I doubt they would get far.

I would estimate that an ocean-going tug could pack 3000 gallons of explosives below deck, but ocean-going doesn't mean that you would want to cross the Pacific Ocean in one packed with explosives.

Another attack liek the attack on the French tanker would be what I would envision. If they wanted to make a big bang, they could pull a barge of nitrates into the Oman anchorage and boom it there.
Posted by: Super Hose   2003-10-13 6:30:52 PM  

#13  "Do we have the capability to take out a large (pirated) freighter which is going full speed toward the NY (or Iraqi or Israli) waterfront with a shaitload of explosives?"
Depends on how much time you had and where it was, I'd wager. If sinking it (by Harpoon, JDAM, or Seals?) was not an option, I figure only a gaggle of those powerful tugs with Kamikaze Kaptains™ could handle that gig.

Or should that be The Kaptains Kamikaze™?
Posted by: .com   2003-10-13 3:19:41 PM  

#12  As the structural engineer here I'd say no to taking out the columns/piers, too difficult to direct the blast force. The bridge decks could be damaged badly from the blast and displacement.... However, the Texas City blast would do it - too huge to stop damage
Posted by: Frank G   2003-10-13 3:19:39 PM  

#11  Could even a ocean going tug packed with enough explosives bring down something like the golden gate bridge or some other large bridge if you get it close enought to one of the pylons?

Do we have the capability to take out a large (pirated) freighter which is going full speed toward the NY (or Iraqi or Israli) waterfront with a shaitload of explosives?
Posted by: CrazyFool   2003-10-13 2:51:24 PM  

#10  Chemical or gas tankers turned into seaborne bombs? Messy.

To be sure. A freighter full of ammonium nitrate fertilizer has tremendous potential for destruction. Check out the Texas City blast of April 16, 1947. The explosion had force enough to knock people down in Galveston 10 miles away and it was heard as far out as 150 miles.

Worry about our sea ports? I sure as hell do!
Posted by: eLarson   2003-10-13 2:08:53 PM  

#9  Pirate: ha-HARR me maties! Scurvy luxury liner up ahead!
Parrot: Squawk! Allahu Akbar!
Pirate: ha-HARR! There be many small children! You know what to do!
Parrot: Eep! *flies away*
Posted by: Atrus   2003-10-13 1:07:37 PM  

#8  While the rumor is the purchace of 15 "ships", I speculate that the "ships" are actually "boats" of some kind. While Bin Laden is supposed to be rich, his group has shied away from forking out that amount of capital for assets that can be readily seized.
Ocean going tug boats might be the largest I would Al Q to have purchased. A tug is no joke as they can push or pull a barge full of explosives or even petroleum would be enough.
Posted by: Super Hose   2003-10-13 12:40:27 PM  

#7  Mansur also said they're kidnapping divers. They want to go down, but not learn how to go up.

Sinking cargo ships??

Do they really think the Chicoms will stand for their livelihood being sunk?

They're also stealing tugboats.
Posted by: Anonymous   2003-10-13 12:40:02 PM  

#6  I'd bet Depp could just swash his buckle right into the role, if they'd have him. OBL, he's in Pfrawnce. You're welcome. BTW, please make it one of those huge mother-loving LNG bombs. I hear Marseilles is nice this time of year... Bon voyage, mon ami!
Posted by: .com   2003-10-13 12:35:10 PM  

#5  No the Piracy will make them more 'romantic' as 'swashbucklers' to the public. Its a P.R. thing...
Posted by: CrazyFool   2003-10-13 12:18:01 PM  

#4  Some days ago, Mansur Ijaz, on FoxNews, explained that they could try to explode and sink the ships as a way to lock Suez or Panama, or both. The idea is to create a huge quake in the world economy. They are working to create a stone-age scenario.
Posted by: Poitiers   2003-10-13 11:58:31 AM  

#3  Chemical or gas tankers turned into seaborne bombs? Messy.
Posted by: Anonymous   2003-10-13 11:14:58 AM  

#2  Why trash their ships when they can trash someone elses? Also, the piracy angle makes them less predictable.
Posted by: Robert Crawford   2003-10-13 9:52:13 AM  

#1  If they own/operate 15 ships, why do they have to hijack someone else's to learn how to operate them? Doesn't jibe...
Posted by: Frank G   2003-10-13 9:24:07 AM