"The Coming Attack"

On May 18 the New York Times reported that U.S. intelligence had intercepted a “troubling series of communications among Al Qaeda operatives” about an intensive effort “to carry out an operation as big as or bigger than the Sept. 11 attacks….” According to the Times, the details of al Qaeda’s plans are yet unknown. “There’s just a lot of chatter in the system again,” one official told the Times. This “chatter” is alarming because it contains references to attacks that would cause “vast numbers of American casualties.” What kinds of attacks are indicated? In the last few weeks al Qaeda spokesmen have begun to publicly discuss what the Americans can expect.

In a recent message broadcast on al Jazeera television in the Middle East, al Qaeda spokesman and Kuwaiti-born Muslim cleric Sulaiman Abu Ghaith said that Osama bin Laden is preparing further attacks on the United States. “The al Qaeda leadership is 98 percent intact,” said Abu Ghaith, and bin Laden is still running the show. Earlier this month Abu Ghaith reportedly said, “America should get ready and fasten its safety belt. We will come at them from a direction they do not expect. Yes, we will make attacks but at the right time, at the place we choose after the fashion we please.”

The place of attack will almost certainly be inside the United States and the time may be soon. The Arabic Sahab website (Sahab) has reported that Osama bin Laden will be releasing a video on July 4. The timing is suggestive, adding subtle confirmation to earlier reports that an attack against America has been planned for July. More than two weeks ago the website www.alneda.com (also now defunct) briefly carried a message in Arabic from Abu Ghaith that said, “We are still at the beginning of the road. The Americans have not yet suffered from us what we have suffered from them.” He then added that Islam has “the right to kill four million Americans, including one million children, displace double that figure and injure and cripple hundreds of thousands.”

The key comment in Abu Ghaith’s statement is his reference to “displacing double” the figure killed. Chemical and biological weapons cannot do this in the stated proportions. Furthermore, an attacker cannot come up with large approximate casualty projections for biological and chemical weapons, where the results of attacks depend on weather and variable weapon potency (often incalculable). Only nuclear weapons aimed at cities promise such casualty figures.

A handful of small tactical nuclear devices with yields between one and 10 kilotons could not produce such a large result. The Hiroshima bomb, which was 15 kilotons, only managed to kill 100,000 people. Today’s American cities would probably sustain fewer casualties than a 1945 Japanese city because of modern earthquake and fire standards. Even if the Hiroshima result could be replicated under American conditions, forty Hiroshima bombs would be required to kill 4 million Americans. Quite naturally, it is improbable that al Qaeda would be able to acquire, let alone manage, forty nuclear devices. If Abu Ghaith’s statements reflect an actual plan of attack, it would mean that al Qaeda has several large-yield nuclear devices in the 100 to 500 kiloton range. Such devices could effectively gut a major city, killing millions and leaving millions homeless. Furthermore, the successful use of such weapons against seven U.S. cities might collapse the U.S. economy, discredit the U.S. government and demoralize the American people. Such an attack would also make good on the terrorist promise that the U.S. dollar will become absolutely worthless in short order.

But are Abu Ghaith’s pronouncements reliable? Are they, perhaps, intended to frighten or impress weak-minded people?

It is significant that Ghaith’s statements mirror similar statements made privately among al Qaeda operatives. As a rule of thumb: when secret communications reflect public pronouncements, it is time to pay close attention. Under such circumstances, U.S. officials should be exhaustively investigating all reports suggestive of a possible nuclear attack.

The story of Lebanese-born American Michael Hamdan may be relevant. Hamdan says he overheard a mobile phone conversation in Arabic about a projected attack on Las Vegas: “We are here in the city of corruption,” the Arab speakers allegedly stated, “the city of gambling and prostitution, the city of unbelievers.” They spoke of hitting the city on America’s “day of freedom,” the Fourth of July. While Hamdan’s testimony did not impress the FBI lie detectors, Independence Day has shown up elsewhere in reports related to terror. In fact, the Fourth of July has shown up in the internal al Qaeda “chatter” before. Also remember, as stated earlier, the Arabic Sahab website claims that bin Laden will deliver a special “televised address to the world” via videotape on July 4.

Statements from bin Laden since Sept. 11 have been few and far between. Normally talkative and in love with publicity, bin Laden’s great silence in recent months has been taken by some as evidence that he is dead. Now we are told to expect to hear from him on American Independence Day. Are all these references to one special day merely coincidental?

With limited information, nobody outside of al Qaeda can say with any certainty. What is certain, however, is that the United States remains vulnerable. The basic security problem that brought us 9/11 has not been solved. America has wasted the last nine months, failing to deal adequately with the domestic terror threat. This is obvious when it comes to the issue of foreign infiltrators determined to import nuclear, biological or chemical terror. Despite 9/11, American’s continue to put civil liberties first and security last. The prevailing mindset in the country emphasizes civil liberties at the expense of security, so that law enforcement, counter-intelligence and counter-terrorism are yet hamstrung.

The terrifying significance of countless enemy aliens operating in the United States has not registered. The fact that mass destruction weapons could be smuggled into the country has not altered the country’s adherence to political ideals that have always given way during times of war. But not today.

According to sources in law enforcement, forty terrorist infiltrators are believed to have entered the Los Angeles area by boat in early June. There are clues suggestive of a maritime terrorist attack against San Francisco. It seems that a “Middle Eastern” man recently took the ferry to Alcatraz. When the boat arrived on the island he didn’t get off. Instead, he videotaped naval traffic in the Bay while using a stopwatch. In another incident, dating back to October, three Middle Eastern men boarded a ferry at Pier 41 for Alameda. One of them alarmed the crew by climbing to the upper deck to watch the captain. Meanwhile his associates videotaped Anchorage Terminal 9, also using a stopwatch. In yet another San Francisco incident, dated Oct. 20, six Golden Gate Transit uniforms were taken from a ferry employee’s car, along with ferry schedules and maritime maps. The thieves neglected to steal money and CDs that were left in the car.

Whatever the terrorists are planning, San Francisco is a chief target. There is growing concern that a sea-borne attack against U.S. cities is coming. And why would terrorists be interested in the ferry schedule to Alcatraz? Perhaps it makes sense because Alcatraz offers reliable sheltering and is a good observation point for terrorist operatives immediately after a nuclear weapon is set to detonate in a shipping container sitting at an anchorage terminal.

This column is intended to frighten Americans because Americans ought to be frightened. At present the country acts as if 9/11 did not happen. We are not taking sufficient steps, we are not acting with the warlike emphasis of times past, because America is not sufficiently alarmed. Apparently we cannot rouse ourselves to overhaul inadequate security measures, to pay the price of greater protection, on a basis of simple prudence. It seems that our hair must be made to stand on end. Unfortunately, if something dreadful happens next week (i.e., something nuclear) the attending panic might produce an even worse result – paralysis.

I pray that nothing happens. I pray that the terrorists lack the weapons since they do not lack the will to use them. For it is certain that we lack the will to eject all resident and illegal aliens from the offending region. And lacking that will, infiltration by enemy operatives is relatively easy.

Our principal weapon against Soviet Nuclear Attack was retaliation. I don't see why it wouldn't work against the Arabs. If they are willing to kill 4 million of us then all we have to do is convince them we are willing to kill 400 million of them in retaliation. We have the power to do so.

The key comment in Abu Ghaith’s statement is his reference to “displacing double” the figure killed. Chemical and biological weapons cannot do this in the stated proportions.

On the contrary, the only WMD we know al-Qaeda has access to -- anthrax -- is perfectly capable of doing that just that. A substantial release of the "Daschle" anthrax in the NYC subway -- say a briefcase full of the stuff -- would render the entire sytem unusable for at least several years, in addition to causing up to four million casualties in the space of a few days. Without the subway system, Manhattan is just a useless patch of waste ground.

And people wonder why we haven't attacked Saddam Hussein...

If they are willing to kill 4 million of us then all we have to do is convince them we are willing to kill 400 million of them in retaliation. We have the power to do so.

Retaliation only feeds their egos and lends to their cause. Do a pre-emptive strike and save 4 million Americans.

The storyline behind Swordfish is exactly what's needed in the world today.

This is not a single state we are dealing with, so we can't just respond with an attack on the capital of a Muslim nation. Al Qaeda is made up of nut cases from several muslim states. The only way to retaliate IMO is to turn Mecca into a huge glass parking lot.

I agree.

We must announce publicly to the Arab world. If you hit us again,than Damascus, Bagdad, Tehran, Meeca, Medina and other cities will enjoy the pleasure of glowing in the dark for the next several hundred years. Oh,that rock you walk around in the Saudi Desert will be blown up in a nuclear explosion. When there are is more radation detected from it -- we will use it for the bottom of our toilets.

There is a horrible web site http://www.aztlan.net/ Please visit this pathetic site.

The key to destroying our enemy is to deprive him of his source of revenue which is his power. If it is Iraq, Saudi etc. do not bomb their capital, take their oilfields and sell the oil as your own. Use our special forces and CIA to hunt down and kill those that attack us. If a nation state attacks us, utterly and totally destroy and remove from the face of the earth its presence. Destroy them not in anger but as a simple reality of necessity. Kill those that would kill us but kill them first.

Why stop with just Mecca? If Islam pulls off a WMD attack on the US, those of us who survive will effectively eliminate any Muslim within the US, and probably those nearby in Canada as well. Anyone who would try to stop it would be eliminated as well. As for the official government response to such an attack, I would hope that all of the Arabian peninsula would be carpet bombed with nukes - killing ALL of them. That would free up our conventional forces to search out and kill any Muslim left alive on the face of the earth. Genocide? Ethnic Cleansing? No, the real Final Solution.

You want jihad camelhumper? You don't even know the meaning of the word. To us, it means extermination. Extermination of cockroaches just like you.

To the rest of the country: You should do this the New York way for once; it goes as follows: "I'm gonna screw you first before you even have a chance to screw me"

Never forget! Remember the Pentagon!

"Despite 9/11, American’s continue to put civil liberties first and security last. The prevailing mindset in the country emphasizes civil liberties at the expense of security, so that law enforcement, counter-intelligence and counter-terrorism are yet hamstrung."

This is such bull, why would we give up civil liberties when no deportations or detentions have taken place, the terrorist are still allowed to fly right into the country, the borders are open, visa's are obtainable through Beauty Schools, Travel Agents, and overseas embassies. Immigration from terrorist countries is still ongoing. Why should we Americans be punished and lose more freedom than the terrorists?

It wouldn't be a suprise that they have the ability to wipe out several US cities, like Cheney said "There's nothing we can do", or intend to do. Better to die PC and embracing diversity I suppose. The only "silver lining" is that the PC engineers will be safe deep inside their nuclear bunkers in D.C. Just a little tip for the "Shadow Government", don't get between Dashel and the bunker door, he will run right over you.

Nyquist uses an irrational path of reasoning to arrive at the conclusion that we are about to be nuked. He works back from the assertion that Al Queda has developed an accurate casualty estimate of 4 million and concludes that the only way they could kill that many people is with a nuke strike. That's a rather paranoid way of thinking, and based on a false assumption that a group of semi-crazy people is capable of making accurate casualty estimates. Because there has never been a high-yield nuclear attack, nobody knows what the casualties would be, especially since the assumed nuclear weapons would probably be detonated close to the ground and not way above ground (as in a missile attack). Most likely, these huge casualty estimates are just talk by a bunch of partially insane people. 9/11 was a sneak attack when we weren't looking for it. Now they're going to find it more difficult to attack us.

Otherwise, however, FSO looks like a valuable website. Thanks for the post, bat-boy.

Just for the record, several hundred foreigners have been denied visas to enter America since 9/11 because of their connection to terrorist organizations. As a practical matter, there's no way to completely stop determined terrorists from entering a country as large as America. The only way to stop them is to detect attacks before they occur and launch pre-emptive strikes to destroy the attackers in their home country or while they are en-route to America. That's why the Israelis bombed the Iraqi nuclear plant, and that's why you'll see us making more pre-emptive strikes in the years ahead.

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.