Men filming ferry ride raise suspicion [Tacoma, WA]

tribnet.com ^ | July 7, 2002

[PoisedWoman]

Bump for Washingtonians who may have missed this

[per loin]

Yes, this thread is about worn down, but we ought not end it without at least passing reference to how successful our government has been at past "threat assessment".

The World Trade Center Bombing (1993)
Oklahoma City (1995)
Khobar Towers (1996)
Our Embassy in Dar es Salem (1998)
Our Embassy in Nairobi (1998)
USS Cole (2000)
Four Airplanes (2001)
The World Trade Center(2001)
The Pentagon (2001)

In each of these cases, the government had made "threat assessments". In only one of these cases were the terrorists thwarted, and that by unarmed but heroic civilians, not by the government.

[elfman2]

" In each of these cases, the government had made "threat assessments".

No, they probably didn't, at least not in any coordinated and organized way. We were not at war in any of your examples. Circumstances are very different now. See #156.

[per loin]

Are you seriously telling me that the US Navy is so inept that they sailed a guided missile destroyer into hostile waters without doing a threat assessment?

And then you tell us to trust implicitly, and without questions, their present efficiency at threat assessment?

[Chad Fairbanks]

Thanks for the ping - I've been bashing people over the head with this for a while now :0)

[elfman2]

" Are you seriously telling me that the US Navy is so inept that they sailed a guided missile destroyer into hostile waters without doing a threat assessment? "

Are you seriously telling me that the Cole bombing wasn't effected by policy coordination problems or by us being completely asleep? Sounds like a wannabe counter-terrorism expert needs to do a lot more research.

[per loin]

Are you seriously telling me that the Cole bombing wasn't effected by policy coordination problems or by us being completely asleep? Sounds like a wannabe counter-terrorism expert needs to do a lot more research.

Nope. Iwas asking questions, and I reckon that'a your way of answering yes to the first of my two questions, while attempting to avoid answering the second. So I'll re-ask the second:

And then you tell us to trust implicitly, and without questions, their present efficiency at threat assessment?

[elfman2]

" I reckon that'a your way of answering yes to the first of my two questions, while attempting to avoid answering the second. "

Then you're no better at reasoning than you are at reading. Re: " No, they probably didn't, at least not in any coordinated and organized way."

You're purposely acting like an idiot, digging your heals in, refusing to recognize the obvious, that the Cole bombing was a result of a sleeping nation taking a politicized military for grated, and bears no resemblance to today's wartime state of readiness and alert.

Don't bother me again.

[per loin]

Looks like a second attempt at avoiding a direct answer to my second question. As for our supposed "today's wartime state of readiness and alert", that is precisely what is at question in this thread. The first of the two incidents was not even reported to the WSP or the Coast Guard for days.

And BTW, your devolution into personal insults is as foolish and ineffective as your arguments. I suggest you brush up on both.

[elfman2]

"The first of the two incidents was not even reported to the WSP or the Coast Guard for days. And BTW, your devolution into personal insults is as foolish and ineffective as your arguments. I suggest you brush up on both."

So to support of your claim that the US Navy's not on a wartime footing to protect its carriers from Cole type attacks, the only thing you can put forth is apathy of some civilian sailors of a municipal ferry. Nice "reckoning"… {snicker}

Know I'll give your suggestion the attention it deserves.

[per loin]

So to support of your claim that the US Navy's not on a wartime footing to protect its carriers from Cole type attacks, the only thing you can put forth is apathy of some civilian sailors of a municipal ferry. Nice "reckoning"… {snicker}

Yes. It is precisely the lack of preparation by the State Ferry System that is at question here. But the blame for that lack of preparation is not the ferry System's alone, but the Navy's as well, as the Navy comes into great risk by the Ferry System being unprepared.

You appear to believe that the Navy has adequately prepared for the eventuality of a ferry being used as the planes were used on 9/11, but adequate preparation for such an event must begin with steps to prevent the conversion of the ferry into an attack vessel. Nor have you shown any plausible, quick enough defense against such a attack vessel. Or is it your position that the Navy will simply blow such a ferry out of the water?

And BTW, if you think a little harder you may come up with arguments for your point of view that don't need buttressing by juvenile "face making" like your {snicker}.

[elfman2]

"You appear to believe that the Navy has adequately prepared for the eventuality of a ferry being used as the planes were used on 9/11"

You and I have no way to know if it's adequate, but I do presume they've prepared something. I'm no more going to wildly speculate without facts on where it falls short than argue whether Batman can beat up Spiderman.

Since #154, I tried to get you to recognize that assessing such a threat to a carrier is impossible with any data. If you want to claim a takeover would result in the destruction of the Ferry and passengers, fine. Enough information's available. If you want to claim such a takeover's just a minute away from sinking a carrier, you need at least a little information on what protects the carrier.

I explained that nicely to you in #159, and you came back with a list of peacetime attacks on the Navy. I explained why they didn't apply, and you misrepresented my statement in a idiotic way in #164. I snapped back by misrepresenting your last in the identical way. You repeated that previous BS, and here I am showing no respect for you. Understand why now? You're wasting my time.

[per loin]

Fine, you seem to have arrived at realizing that the ferries are not adequately secured. That's progress. But you've still not realized the potential danger to the Navy Yard, and the ships berthed there, that such an unsecured ferry constitutes.

In example, you've assumed that such a ferry would have to acelerate to "maximum speed" (your post #158) to be within 50 seconds of the first slip at the Navy Yard. This shows your lack of familiarity with both the area and the ferries. The 18 knot speed that I gave is the normal cruising speed of the ferry, not a speed to which it would have to accelerate.

Now, given a loaded ferry approaching at that speed, which does not deviate from its normal course until its within less than a minutes time to impact, and which carries a very large truck bomb at the bow of the ferry, not far above waterline, you tell me how you stop it without massive damage and loss of life. Mind you, these are not little podunk half-rafts that we're talking about. The Tacoma class ferries are over 450' in length with a 90' beam, powered by over 13,000 HP.

Loaded with a couple of thousand civilian "hostages", such a ferry makes an excellent attack vessel. The best way to avoid such an attack is secure the ferry system beforehand. If 9/11 taught us anything, it taught us how poorly the government prepares for such non-traditional attacks.

[The KG9 Kid]

"... Taking out a ferry or bridge is way too difficult. The force required for that could better be used on a public event to kill or on a multitude of power lines to disrupt. Those tapes won't have much value."

I'm not sure what to think of these ongoing reports about 'suspicious Middle-Eastern men with videocameras filming passenger ferries', but it should be pretty obvious by now what they intend to do assuming these reports are true.

They'd want to be able to hijack a ferry full of innocent people after rolling a car on board that has a bomb in the trunk.

Then, they could just stop out in the middle of the bay far away from SWAT snipers and hold their hostages until their demands are met -- if they have any demands at all. If any Navy SEAL frogmen attempt to board the ship to take them out, they could just detonate the bomb.

The US government would be at a complete loss as how to respond.

It doesn't take Tom Clancy to figure this out.

[The KG9 Kid]

... Come to think of it, they wouldn't need a bomb at all. They could just say they have one. They would need guns though, and those can be easily hidden in the trunk of a car.

They'd just wait until the ferry got halfway across the bay, get their guns, and halt the ferry.

Pretty damned inexpensive act of terrorism, isn't it? Almost as cheap as plane tickets and box cutters.

It's been done before: Achille Lauro, 1985.

Suspicions of 'dirty bombs' and 'using a ferry to kamikaze a US Navy destroyer' are just too imaginative. Further acts of terrorism will be simple and cheap because Simple + Cheap = Recipe for Success.

[elfman2]

" Fine, you seem to have arrived at realizing that the ferries are not adequately secured. That's progress."

Please look at number #62.

Ships plowing into carriers are stopped with other boats, and with guns. If you really want to investigate this, I suggest you log onto a maritime or Navy forum. Or perhaps you could post a vanity soliciting information from Freepers. I'm not going to get sucked into arguing over what's in our imaginations, like those sucked into vague talk radio debates. (post #66)

If 9/11 taught us anything, it taught us how poorly the government prepares for such non-traditional attacks during peace time .

[per loin]

Ships plowing into carriers are stopped with other boats, and with guns

A 450' ferry at cruising speed has substantial momentum. What sort of boat do you figure it would take to prevent the ferry from traveling that 500 meters to the first slip?

[elfman2]

"but it should be pretty obvious by now what they intend to do assuming these reports are true. "

Maybe, or what they want us to believe they're going to do. Many are al ready terrorized. A lot can go wrong in hostage taking.

[elfman2]

"What sort of boat do you figure it would take to prevent the ferry from traveling that 500 meters to the first slip? "

You're being a pest. Do as I just suggested or don't talk to me.