Posted on 07/03/2006 11:27:03 PM PDT by FairOpinion
LONDON (Reuters) - The threat of an al Qaeda attack from the sea remains an "absolute concern" and could intensify as operations on land are countered, the U.S. Navy's top commander in the Gulf told Reuters on Monday.
Since the September 11 attacks on the United States, governments and security experts have repeatedly voiced fears about the vulnerability of the maritime industry, which carries more than 90 percent of the world's traded goods.
"I don't think there is any question that as we thwart their attacks and disrupt their operations on land, that we should expect them to turn to the sea," Vice Admiral Patrick M. Walsh, who is in charge of U.S. Naval Forces Central Command, said in an interview.
"It is something that is an absolute concern and focus for us, and I will not rest easy in this job (until it is checked)," he said, speaking by telephone from Manama in Bahrain.
Walsh said al Qaeda, which is well known to have a maritime arm, was very adept at blending into the maritime environment.
"I don't take the threat for granted at all, we have had attacks thwarted in Saudi Arabia on land, and to take any other approach to our operations would be irresponsible," said Walsh, who is also head of the Fifth Fleet.
He said al Qaeda had shown its capability a number of times in the past, with a series of high profile marine attacks, while many others had been foiled.
Walsh cited the attack on the war ship the USS Cole off Yemen in 2000 in which 17 U.S. sailors died, the attack on the oil tanker Limburg in 2002, again off Yemen, and a foiled attack on Iraq's Basra oil terminal in 2004.
ENERGY SUPPLIES
He said the unsuccessful attack on Saudi Arabia's huge Abqaiq oil facility, the world's biggest oil processing plant, in February made him especially wary.
"When I look at that, my first reaction is that they (al Qaeda) are going to turn to the sea. I recognize that when they are thwarted in one direction they turn to another."
Walsh said he was "very concerned" about the role al Qaeda had played in the energy sphere and its intention to disrupt global energy markets.
"It continues to be significant, and so I don't think that we can ever sit back on this mission," he said.
He said al Qaeda's stated intention to disrupt energy supplies was all the more worrying when one considered how finely balanced, in terms of supply-demand, energy markets were.
"There is absolutely no surplus in this industry at all, whether it's in drilling, distribution or transportation and so any disruption of world energy reserves would have wide implications regardless of where it had taken place."
ON THE NET...
ICC-CCS.ORG: "THE WEEKLY PIRACY REPORT"
http://www.icc-ccs.org/prc/piracyreport.php
Thanks for all your great relevant links, as usual.
There was a little incident with the USS Cole.
You're welcome Fair Opinion.
If I get a chance, I may pick up some older TM links and/or other reports.
That doesn't make our Navy forever impotent. Amyway, I was refering to the Al Quaeda "navy" of ships. Those we could deal with I think (if we are allowed to that is).
And our politicians still sit on their duffs about Alaska oil. Hello, drilling there doesn't need to mean shipping anything until it's required. It would be so nice to have it ready to go on line at a moment's notice.
stepping back in time...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1138797/posts
"The Mysterious al Qaeda Navy"
Strategy Page ^ | May 19, 2004
Posted on 05/19/2004 4:12:46 PM PDT by John Jorsett
stepping back in time...
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34819
FROM JOSEPH FARAH'S G2 BULLETIN
"New al-Qaida threat:
15-ship mystery navy
U.S., Brits fear high-seas terror posed by bin Laden's vessels"
Posted: September 29, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern
Note: The Threat Matrix on FreeRepublic.com has an index now, so it is easier to review older threads.
---
ON THE NET...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/keyword?k=alqaedanavy
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/keyword?k=alqaidanavy
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/keyword?k=alqaedaships
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/keyword?k=alqaidaships
""New al-Qaida threat:
15-ship mystery navy "
Thanks, Cindy, for finding and posting this.
This is the article I was remembering.
Ok, good.
And allow me to drop out of Lurk & Link mode for a brief comment.
About 25 years ago, a friend and collegue of mine co-authored a paper which asked ( among other things )
"Why should terrorists bother with building bombs, when there are so many nice, fuel-laden aircraft sitting around on tarmacs?"
The paper made it to Washington, for what little that was worth. Let those with eyes, see...
"About 25 years ago, a friend and collegue of mine co-authored a paper which asked ( among other things )
"Why should terrorists bother with building bombs, when there are so many nice, fuel-laden aircraft sitting around on tarmacs?"
====
Remarkable. Thanks for sharing.
But it seems they deemed it "not likely". Even after they found out about the Boinka ( I never remember how to spell it) project, they dismissed that too.
Unfortunately, they underestimated the enemy and their resolve of being willing to kill themselves in the process of murdering us.
And reading the article, the link to which you posted -- I think we may be assuming that "they just wouldn't do "THAT" -- but there is NOTHING they wouldn't do, if they are able.
The general consensus seems to be that Al Zawahiri called of the nerve gas attack on the NY subway, because it wouldn't kill enough people, they want something much more spectacular, well, a nuclear explosion would certainly qualify. Maybe they think they have a chance of pulling it off, that's why they didn't want us to take even more serious measures, which we would, if we have another attack.
We're in 100% agreement. Our superior naval ships will pulverize enemy ships, whether terrorist or otherwise. Boats, watercraft, inflatables, jetskis, or whatever will never again be allowed close to our vessels while they're docked.
~ Blue Jays ~
The DUmmies believe that they have a better chance of getting struck by lightning then a terrorist attack. They refuse to believe the evil that these people are.
Yes, as a matter of fact, I have.
I also know that, if I have a limited supply of plutonium, I'm not going to try to use it at sea.
Try a cargo container at a major US port. ...The title relates to a threat from the sea. AQ obviously doesn't have traditional warships - they have plans to use cargo ships instead - not for conventional weapons either.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.