Article

2004-03-30 Terror Networks

Insane Arabic Website Predicts Attack on Kitty Hawk Aircraft Carrier

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Mike Sylwester 2004-03-30 12:44:46 AM|| || Front Page|| [11134 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 See what happens when you let these Islamic semetaries have an unlimited supply of processed poppies and ganja??

Posted by anymouse 2004-03-30 1:23:37 AM|| 2004-03-30 1:23:37 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 Say WHAT?? Run that by me one more time...kinda hard to follow. What's the point in communicating, if you can't?

Posted by Halfass Pete 2004-03-30 2:23:17 AM|| 2004-03-30 2:23:17 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 You may laugh but large ships at anchor or in confined waters are sitting ducks. All you have to do is ram them with a large enough ship at sufficient speed to sink them.

Posted by Phil B 2004-03-30 2:33:35 AM|| 2004-03-30 2:33:35 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 Mike why don't you mail the original arabic text to Dan Darling, maybe he could shed some light on the translation.

Posted by Evert Visser in NL 2004-03-30 2:36:36 AM|| [http://chinditz.buzznet.com/user/] 2004-03-30 2:36:36 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 On the other hand maybe "brother Zuhair" received a copy of Johnny Carsons' Greatest Tonight Shows and thought Carnac the Magnificant was a role model.

Posted by Stephen 2004-03-30 4:02:57 AM|| 2004-03-30 4:02:57 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 Haha, according to navy.mil, the Kitty Hawk is in the South China Sea and the George Washington is in the Arabian Gulf. The Jihadis need to lay off the opium.

Posted by sg 2004-03-30 4:03:51 AM|| 2004-03-30 4:03:51 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 An aircraft carrier rammed by a dinghy? The sky is falling down on my head. Woof woof. Tweet.

Posted by Howard UK 2004-03-30 4:04:27 AM|| 2004-03-30 4:04:27 AM|| Front Page Top

#8 How would a vessel large enough to sink an aircraft by ramming it, ever get close enough before being stopped? I thought carriers were protected by a screen of smaller ships whose job was precisely to intercept anything hostile-looking headed the carrier's way?

Posted by Bulldog 2004-03-30 5:14:06 AM|| 2004-03-30 5:14:06 AM|| Front Page Top

#9 Simple answer to all this. Ignore it and issue a counter threat: on the 17th day of some month soon Mecca and Medina will be vaporized in a great ball of light. Difference between this threat and the carrier threat? This one could actually happen, the other is never going to happen.

Posted by RMcLeod 2004-03-30 5:49:57 AM|| 2004-03-30 5:49:57 AM|| Front Page Top

#10 You guys missed the disclaimer at the end:

"But if the leading target remains then the attack was expected and it will be postponed."

Posted by Rafael 2004-03-30 7:10:53 AM|| 2004-03-30 7:10:53 AM|| Front Page Top

#11 nuclear roux

What's that? Flour, butter, and a couple of teaspoons of Dave's Insanity Sauce?

Posted by Robert Crawford 2004-03-30 9:03:34 AM|| [http://www.kloognome.com] 2004-03-30 9:03:34 AM|| Front Page Top

#12 This vision was mentioned to my teacher

Heh. I wonder when they'll figure out that the djinni are on our side.

Posted by Robert Crawford 2004-03-30 9:04:29 AM|| [http://www.kloognome.com] 2004-03-30 9:04:29 AM|| Front Page Top

#13 Does anyone really beleive that any unauthorized ship is gong to get within 5000 yards of the Kitty Hawk? I don't think so Tim.

Posted by Bill Nelson 2004-03-30 9:59:40 AM|| 2004-03-30 9:59:40 AM|| Front Page Top

#14 "All your Kitty Hawk are belong to us"

Posted by Yosemite Sam 2004-03-30 10:07:33 AM|| 2004-03-30 10:07:33 AM|| Front Page Top

#15 I read this last night and am convinced these people are not even on the same plane of reality as we are anymore.
Aside to Phil B. - a Cole type attack on Miss Kitty while in port could indeed do impressive damage to her - but without at all depreciating the danger and potential loss of life, most of the damage would be cosmetic. It is not much of an exaggeration to say that it would take a direct hit - within a few hundred yards - to sink a modern American CV, and even then it would not necssarily be a sure thing. Now, I'm thinking this is what the Bizarro Jihadi was raving about - an attack on a moored carrier with a nuke. If that's the case, then indeed all bets are off - but then a Muslim city somewhere will be glassed, and then it's a whole new war.

Mike

Posted by Mike Kozlowski 2004-03-30 10:08:36 AM|| 2004-03-30 10:08:36 AM|| Front Page Top

#16 ...should read "would take a direct hit - within a few hundred yards - with a nuclear weapon..."

Mike

Posted by Mike Kozlowski 2004-03-30 10:10:00 AM|| 2004-03-30 10:10:00 AM|| Front Page Top

#17 Mike K - a fully laden bulk ore carrier of say 200,000 tonnes travelling at 10 meters per second has a huge kinetic energy. 2 million kilojoules.

TNT by way of contrast releases 4,500 KJ per kilo. So the ship in my example is equivalent to 500 kilograms of TNT, although unlike TNT the energy in a collision is directed in one very focused direction and in terms of the damage it would do, it is probably more like a 5000 kilos of TNT explosion.

Posted by Phil B 2004-03-30 10:53:39 AM|| 2004-03-30 10:53:39 AM|| Front Page Top

#18 In that part of the world an unauthorized ship couldn't get within 200 MILES of the Kitty. Unless somebody sold these schmucks an old electric boat or something. That might make it within the 200 mile ring before being sunk.

Posted by mojo 2004-03-30 10:59:09 AM|| 2004-03-30 10:59:09 AM|| Front Page Top

#19 Phil-
Completely understood, I was thinking about a dinghy-style attack with a much lower amount of expended energy. Thanks for the clarification.

Mike

Posted by Mike Kozlowski 2004-03-30 11:16:05 AM|| 2004-03-30 11:16:05 AM|| Front Page Top

#20 You may laugh but large ships at anchor or in confined waters are sitting ducks.

Highly doubtful that a naval vessel in open water would be anchored. Away from port, a stationary target is not what a Navy ship wants to be. Also, the Persian Gulf isn't that small a body of water to actually manage to "confine" a carrier-sized vessel. If it were, the Navy would probably prohibit carriers from going into that area.

Posted by Bomb-a-rama 2004-03-30 11:34:14 AM|| 2004-03-30 11:34:14 AM|| Front Page Top

#21 Isn't the Shitty Kitty about ready to retire? Maybe we'll end up sending it to the Karachi breaker yards.

Posted by Shipman 2004-03-30 11:49:34 AM|| 2004-03-30 11:49:34 AM|| Front Page Top

#22 Here in San Diego Bay, the Carriers tie up at North Island/Coronado, and the Navy's put up a floating barrier that keeps traffic away fom the Carriers (same at Ballast Point sub base). Anyone breeching the barrier would, I'm sure, have to "say hello to my leeettle friend"

Posted by Frank G 2004-03-30 11:54:48 AM|| 2004-03-30 11:54:48 AM|| Front Page Top

#23 Damn, it looks like those million monkeys with typewriters finally came up with something...

Posted by snellenr 2004-03-30 11:58:14 AM|| 2004-03-30 11:58:14 AM|| Front Page Top

#24 Phil - you neglect to mention the protective screen surronding a carrier..able to defend from below, above and on the surface. For any ship to get within ramming range would be almost science fiction even in harbour.

Posted by Dan 2004-03-30 12:19:47 PM|| 2004-03-30 12:19:47 PM|| Front Page Top

#25 I sure wouldn't want to be on or in any waters near a US Carrier in port right now. Especially after those protecting the ship have been forewarned. And VERY likely to empty magazines and ask questions later!

Posted by Jack Deth 2004-03-30 1:23:02 PM|| 2004-03-30 1:23:02 PM|| Front Page Top

#26 Lol snellenr!

What might be fun is to leave a retiring ship "unguarded" as a lure. Then when the Islamotwerps approach up close in their little boats we could net 'em. Then we could leave them for shark bait.

Posted by ex-lib 2004-03-30 1:39:19 PM|| 2004-03-30 1:39:19 PM|| Front Page Top

#27 Dale you might care to check out these pictures of a US aircraft carrier in Sydney Harbour.

Posted by Phil B 2004-03-30 4:54:39 PM|| 2004-03-30 4:54:39 PM|| Front Page Top

#28 Phil, nice pics, but these are NOT "aircraft carriers". They're Assault Landing Ships, a hybrid "mini-carrier" used for Marine assault landings, with helicopters and some Marine AH-8 Harrier VTOL aircraft. ALL the true US aircraft carriers are designated as CV or CVN. The LHDs are "only" about 2/3 the size of a true carrier.

Posted by Old Patriot 2004-03-30 5:20:42 PM|| [http://users.codenet.net/mweather/default.htm] 2004-03-30 5:20:42 PM|| Front Page Top

#29 OP thanks for the correction. My point was that the pics show civilian craft close (200 metres?) to large US Navy ships with nothing in between.

Posted by Phil B 2004-03-30 5:29:43 PM|| 2004-03-30 5:29:43 PM|| Front Page Top

#30 Those pix are of ships docked in a friendly port. Change the location from Sydney Harbor to some ME port, and it's practically a certainty that any civilian craft in the vicinity won't be able to get as close as it needs to in order to inflict substantial damage. The Cole attack saw to that.

Posted by Bomb-a-rama 2004-03-30 6:09:00 PM|| 2004-03-30 6:09:00 PM|| Front Page Top

#31 OP It used to be that the Wasps were the third largest carriers in the world. Call 'em what you will. If it got AH-8s on it.... it's a carrier.
:)

Posted by Shipman 2004-03-30 6:58:29 PM|| 2004-03-30 6:58:29 PM|| Front Page Top

00:22 Apfelbaum TROLL
00:09 Levi TROLL
00:04 Vladimir Eizenstein TROLL
00:02 Willy TROLL
00:01 Sam TROLL
00:00 Frank Stein TROLL
23:42 Lazar Berg TROLL
23:40 Simon Berg TROLL
23:38 Theodor Goldfarb TROLL
00:17 Grunspahn
00:17 Grunspahn
00:15 Mortengau
00:15 Mortengau
00:05 Marc Diamond
00:05 Marc Diamond
21:04 Poster
21:04 Poster
21:03 Chuck
21:03 Chuck
21:01 Charlie TROLL
20:58 Friedrich TROLL
20:55 Doctor TROLL
20:53 John Doe TROLL
20:49 Enforcer of Free Speach TROLL