Posted on 07/07/2002 4:10:56 AM PDT by TomGuy
Men filming ferry ride raise suspicion
The Associated Press
State ferry officials have told the U.S. Coast Guard and the Washington State Patrol about two groups of men taking extensive videotapes on state ferries in the past 10 days.
Four men who appeared to be of Middle Eastern descent were videotaping, taking notes and talking on cellphones during two round trips June 24 on the ferry Spokane between Edmonds and Kingston, said Susan Harris of the Washington State Ferries.
"They seemed to be filming more of the interior of the cabin rather than the normal tourist filming, which is always the exterior," she said.
They became agitated when told to leave the vessel at each terminal as required, she said. The captain went home and decided to report the incident the next day.
On July 3, a different group of men appearing to be of Middle Eastern descent took extensive videotapes on the ferry Tacoma between Bainbridge and Seattle, she said.
"They were filming all over the place" even before boarding the ferry, and some observers said they were just tourists, she said.
She said no terrorist incidents have occurred on the ferries.
"There's no proof that there's anything to be concerned about; it's just that we're on heightened alert," she said.
Chief Warrant Officer Ray Cain with the Coast Guard said the incidents have been reported to the State Patrol, which handles law enforcement on the ferries, because they are considered part of the highway system.
"They were notified and they would investigate, trying to identify any such individuals," Cain said.
State Patrol officials were not available for comment late Friday.
(Published 12:30AM, July 6th, 2002)
You're probably right. Better to abandon all fears and just wing it if the situation ever pops up like we did on 9-11.
Did you stomp your feet and get all read in the face when you wrote that? Sorry that it bothers you if I think it's a poor target. I've listed more economical ones on this thread that I hope they pass over for this.
To pretend that the use of other boats or guns adequately deals with the threat is nonsense, but it does fit nicely with the lunacy of opting to have our fighters shoot down commercial aircraft rather than to allow armed pilots.
But in all fairness, the ferries are taking some steps. This week they announced that no one but the crew would be allowed on the bridge.
Judging by your replies in this thread, you're the one prone to conniption fits.
You read other people's posts on FR with an angry voice in your head, don't you?
I just expected more from a self-professed 'military intelligence analyst' is all.
... Or, maybe I shouldn't have.
Because you're too stubborn to dig up a single fact on carrier defenses to support you clam and take that discussion out of a fantasy level. I told you how to fix it. You're just being a little pest now.
Hmmm, then that was a sincere statement that you thought demonstrated respect? I must have overestimated you as well.
BTW, I do realize that the Navy has the capability of sinking a Tacoma class ferry. Those of us who ride these ferries don't find that to be the proper way to deal with such a threat.
If I listed a boat or two that would likely be available to stop the ferry, would it stop this question? Or would you then just then start into some drawn out juvenile debate regarding a half dozen scenarios that neither of us are really qualified to answer and consider it my job to disprove each of your subsequent claims?
I don’t have anything to prove here. You're the one invested in claiming the carriers are sitting ducks. If you were serious about this you'd follow one of my suggestions, and enlist the input of people that really do know what they're talking about. But you won't do it, perhaps because I suggested it.
Now who's ego is blocking resolution here?
As for others with direct knowledge, they're certainly welcome to chime in at anytime - fr is quite open. But I'm sure that we'ed both expect any such sharing of expertise to be circumspect as to what is said in so public a forum.
How Clintoneque of you to say, just when I offered made a second conciliation toward resolution.
If I had meant to be disrespectful, I would have said something along the lines of "Did the 1983 suicide truck bombing of the 8th Marine barracks in Beirut that killed 241 troops while you were serving as a military intelligence analyst for 1st Marines make you even less suspicious for the likelihood for potential terrorist attacks?"
I understand your point with people jumping to alarmist conclusions -- and I have my own reservations, as I noted before -- but I think you're going too far in the opposite extreme in thinking that 'the terrorist just want us to be scared' when they've proven many times that they're perfectly capable of carrying out operations both here and abroad.
It shouldn't be the trait of an intelligence analyst to be so patently dismissive, but maybe the Marines were just trying to make me paranoid by constantly bombarding me with 'Loose Lips Sink Ships' and 'Boris Is Watching' propaganda when I served.
"Okay", and then we start another round of drilling into the minutia of what we're unqualified to analyze? Or "okay" and a fairly reasonable answer puts this "can't be done" implication to bed until it's passed by some people who know what they're talking about?
I might not have taken that as disrespect. Actually, your original jab was pretty good, and if I wasn't being pestered I would have taken it better.
I spoke to the Intelligence Chief of that unit about 3 months after that bombing. He was touring commands and giving presentations. He was still pretty shaken, I wondered if this role he was assuming was also a kind of therapy. He wanted people to know that he'd received something like 1300 various bomb threats, as I recall, the week before the attack, and that was typical. They were overloaded with un-analyzable information. There was no way to determine which was significant.
I suspect that in the noise, a lot of them were significant, and there were a lot of probes before a operation was selected. I think the Seattle ferry's a reasonable concern. I think there are hundreds maybe thousands of reasonable concerns in like this in this war.
What you were asking for was not clarification, but some sort of relief from justifying your answer, should you give one.
But I've wasted enough time with you. Adios.
You're weren't serious about this or you would have looked for experts rather than insisting that I be your opposition. It was just a juvenile ego game that you were playing, and you probably sensed you would lose with someone informed. Get some rest.
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.