Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 12/28/2003 5:19:05 AM PST by yankeedame
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: yankeedame
They tend to repeat previous acts of terrorism.

They already did this with the Achille laura.

I suspect the difference is that if they tried hijacking a cruise ship again, the passengers might rise up in a mutiny.

Or they could attack a ship with a small ship full of explosives like the USS Cole.

But the Cole was a smaller ship than these passenger liners. Does anyone know the logistics of making a huge hole in a liner, if it would sink?

2 posted on 12/28/2003 5:24:47 AM PST by LadyDoc (liberals only love politically correct poor people)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: yankeedame
Fox terrorism expert Mansoor Jibaaz sp.? mentioned Al Quaeda's interest in maritime targets several days ago. Said it was series. Must have had this in mind.
3 posted on 12/28/2003 5:28:25 AM PST by hershey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: yankeedame
[O]fficial said it would be "extra-ordinarily difficult" for a light plane to crash into a large passenger plane due to collision avoidance systems in larger airliners.

Not if the small aircraft turns off his transponder, which is the only way automated collision avoidance system can sense another aircraft. At many airports (e.g., Heathrow) ground controllers turn off the "primary" radar display and depend entirely on "secondary" or tranponder echoes. The 9-11 hijackers turned off the transponders.

Steering a collision course isn't that hard, all you do is "null the line of sight rate", which is easier than it sounds.

If you miss you can always try again on the next arrival.

10 posted on 12/28/2003 5:58:39 AM PST by Lonesome in Massachussets (Uday and Qusay are ead-day)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: yankeedame
Everything is a potential target. Next thread.
23 posted on 12/28/2003 7:00:40 AM PST by Consort
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: yankeedame
I think the container ship scenario is the most likely. That could be very devastating.
It's time to have armed guards on cargo and cruise ships. An attack similar to the USS Cole attack could have been thwarted with an M-16. The inflatable 'attack' boat would have been sunk before it reached its target.

We need to use the Russian strategy, Make the terrorists pay with loss of what they treasure so expensive to them ( family, assests, ) that they think twice about attacking us.

Terrorists kidnapped a Russian Diplomat in Beruit yrs. ago. The Russians found out who was behind the deed, kidnapped a relative (brother I think), killed him, stuffed his genitals in his mouth and told the terrorists more was in store.
The terrorists released the diplomat and never kidnapped another Russian.

Unique and effective use of cojones.

25 posted on 12/28/2003 7:03:42 AM PST by Vinnie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: yankeedame
Plans for the attack emerged after a US spy plane discovered scores of acoustic sea-mines had disappeared from a naval base in North Korea.

North Korea.
So that's why are troops are backing up out of the DMZ. They don't wanna get hit by the fallout.

26 posted on 12/28/2003 7:05:27 AM PST by PokeyJoe (Go ahead Al Queda. Make my day - punk.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: carlo3b; MinuteGal
Be careful out there...
28 posted on 12/28/2003 7:21:36 AM PST by jellybean (Proud retro-sexual :))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: yankeedame
I agree with the tone of this article. I have thought since 9-11 that cruse ships are vulnerable to a terrorist attack. The owners of these lines have to realize this as well and I assume have taken appropriate measures. The cruse line companies can probably control who gets on the ship but out side attacks are tougher to control. An airplane or another ship crashing into the ship is very hard to counter against. We have a number of friends who used to take regular cruses but now are not doing so anymore.
39 posted on 12/28/2003 10:06:44 AM PST by Uncle Hal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: yankeedame
Isn't it just great for us targets that the democrats are working as hard to take away our 2d ammendment right to defend ourselves?????????
This is one of the reasons for the 2d ammendment and is also why it "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED".
The founders knew what they were doing.
The gov can not protect us from every threat of this kind without becoming the complete federal police state the founders and our founding documents were/are so against.
44 posted on 12/28/2003 10:34:26 AM PST by chuckwalla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: yankeedame
Why would terrorists want to sink a cruise ship when burning it to the water line would kill just as many people and make far more spectacular TV than the oil slick and flotsam left by a sinking?
46 posted on 12/28/2003 11:02:03 AM PST by Pilsner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: jellybean; yankeedame
Whoa.. I spend a lot of time on these luxury beauties, if I suspect any of these slimy basta#ds in my attendance, so help me, I'll saute em.. :)
49 posted on 12/28/2003 11:20:23 AM PST by carlo3b (http://www.CookingWithCarlo.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: yankeedame
wonderful, my folks are heading out on the maiden QM2 voyage....
63 posted on 12/29/2003 7:34:30 AM PST by finnman69 (cum puella incedit minore medio corpore sub quo manifestus globus, inflammare animos)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson