Mansoor Ijaz on Greta Van Suesteren - Al Qaeda Planning on Hijacking Super Tankers!

Fox News - On the Record with Greta Van Susteren ^ | 10 Oct 03 | Mansoor Ijaz

[Alas Babylon!]

Mansoor Ijaz was on Greta's show, he gave a detailed analysis about some very disturbing accounts on the various sea lanes. He mentioned that the Straits of Mollucca, between Singapore, Indonesia, and Maylasia have always been a hotbed of piracy, but recent events have raised alarms. It seems like many ships have been hijacked in the last few months by Islamic radicals but rather than stealing the cargo or kidnapping the crews these terrorists have just wanted to know how to steer the big ships! He compared this to the 9/11 terrorists going to the various flight schools only wanting to know how to fly big jets--not wanting to land them.

Further, he mentioned that in this same area about 12 (?) tug boats have been pirated and have now dissappeared. He is concerned that they could be used to haul or pull a larger ship into position to cause some atrocity in one of our harbors. He also mentioned that several diving experts have been contacted to teach Islamicists on how to swim unnoticed underwater. Demolition charges planned?

He discussed with Greta his thoughts on all this. Is Al Qaeda planning another 9/11, but this time using large ships or super tankers to blow up an American city? He also stated that ships disabled or destroyed in certain waters could destroy the economies of many nations, such as the straits between the Agean and Black seas in Turkey, the Straits of Hourmuz in the Persian Gulf, the Straits of Gibraltar, etc, etc.

[ALOHA RONNIE]

...Let us know how well you're hearing The Judical Watch Report Radio Show Saturday Morning on KRLA 590 AM ..9-11AM Pacific Time.

[RoughDobermann]

If a super-tanker won't explode .. what would be the purpose of taking it ..??

Think delivery platform

[CyberAnt]

Sorry .. I don't run a supertanker .. don't understand what that means.

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

It's okay, you're forgiven :-))

[Brian S]

Just add this to the even growing list of "They Could...

"When "they" decide to..."they" will.

The only reason we have not been hit again is because "they" don't think the "time is right".

My guess...next year, most likely late Aug, early Sept....just in time to influence the election.

Who knows whether the vote will rally around the current Admin versus blaming them for it. Will probably depend on the method...

[WhistlingPastTheGraveyard]

Actually, super tankers aren't explosive.

Neither are skyscrapers.

[WhistlingPastTheGraveyard]

If a super-tanker won't explode...

Well, it won't spontaneously combust. But this is what it looks like when a dingy filled with explosives rams the side of one...

Now imagine if a crew of Islamists had full control of the tanker, with free reign to bring aboard all the explosives the wanted, and enough time to strategically place those explosives wherever they pleased. Now imagine that tanker entering a busy port...

Most of AQ's threats are psyops and misdirection... at least one of them won't be. Whatever that next one may be is anyone's guess. But it's not like they haven't targeted these things before.

[Criminal Number 18F]

The greatest non-nuclear explosion I know of was the Port Chicago, CA disaster in 1944. Two ammunition ships and an ammunition train went up, creating a hellacious kB! that intrigued Manhattan Project scientists. The blast has been estimated at about 5 kt. Roughly 300 men lost their lives.

FMI:

http://www.portchicago.org/

http://www.cccoe.k12.ca.us/pc/welcome.htm


My point: while an optimally placed blast can do a lot of damage, a surface-level blast is not going to produce the dreadful body counts that some fear-mongers are trying to carry over from a nuclear-war scenario. remember that nuclear explosives are much higher yield than this, can be delivered within one metre or less of their intended detonation point, and can be set to function at an optimal altitude above the surface.

None of these things can be done by terrorists with a ship. They can't get their blast up above surface level, they can't get it into optimal position, etc., and they can't get more of a bang out of a boatload of stuff than is contained in the chemical bounds of the material.

Plus... as the anecdote someone posted about Boston notes -- those who are sworn to be vigilant, are still so being.

d.o.l.

Criminal Number 18F

[bluefish]

He actually said they were teaching divers how to go down....but not how to come back up.....sounds weird to me....if they are in the water learning, wouldn't they have to come back up???

Sounds like he wanted to paint a picture - we all know that the 911 terrorists only wanted to learn how to "fly but not land." Given this, and that his statement didn't make sense (your observation), it makes me wonder if he is embellishing with a familiar, analogous theme to make his story more interesting. Is he just selling a story / seeking attention?

I haven't gotten through the rest of the thread, but my thought above might explain the weird statement.

[SendShaqtoIraq]

"He actually said they were teaching divers how to go down....but not how to come back up.....sounds weird to me....if they are in the water learning, wouldn't they have to come back up???
Sounds like he wanted to paint a picture - we all know that the 911 terrorists only wanted to learn how to "fly but not land." Given this, and that his statement didn't make sense (your observation), it makes me wonder if he is embellishing with a familiar, analogous theme to make his story more interesting. Is he just selling a story / seeking attention?

I haven't gotten through the rest of the thread, but my thought above might explain the weird statement."

Well, they have to be teaching them to come back up to finish the lesson. Otherwise, the terrorists would all be dying their first time down.

[jwh_Denver]

Strikes me as more frantic hype from people that don't have a grasp of what they're talking about.

Ok, would you believe an army of soccer moms with butane in the soccer balls?

[Alter Kaker]

A supertanker could also hold a couple of nuclear devices. God forbid!

A tugboat could hold a couple of nuclear devices.

[bonesmccoy]

When people are learning diving, there is a rate of descent and ascent from certain depths.

You can not ascend from deep under water due to the bends.

If the person is making a one-way mission, then they wouldn't care about how to manage the ascension rate to limit the consequences of the bends.

[Colorado Doug]

Even the explosive qualities of Liquid Natural Gas tankers are greatly exaggerated

I would watch liquid oxygen barges. One or two of those, well mixed with a liquid petroleum tanker would make one hell of a fuel air cocktail-one of Tom Clancy proportions.

[bluefish]

Zackley, which is why I suggested the guy is embellishing with a story that is analogous to the 911 terrorists not learning to land. He knew people would all remember that and draw conclusions - an effective way to generate more alarm.

[wolficatZ]

FOX Follow-Up: Mansoor Ijaz

FNC
Mansoor Ijaz

Can you expand on your findings about piracy in the South Pacific and its ties to terrorism?

During the past year, piracy attacks in the South Pacific have become much more sinister in nature. No longer are pirates boarding tankers or other maritime vessels for the purpose of taking cash, kidnapping crews for ransom, or seizing and selling the cargoes. Recent piracy incidents are now occurring because those boarding the vessels only spend a few hours at the helm to develop the necessary skills to navigate them — a bit like the 9-11 hijackers attending flight training schools — and then take the captains and co-captains with them when they abandon the tankers.

Now add to this alarming development the theft of as many as 10 tugboats during the past six months in the South Pacific (which could easily be used to tug a disabled bomb-laden tanker into a busy harbor.) Next add the kidnapping and subsequent release of deep-sea diving experts from prominent resorts in Southeast Asia who authorities have been told were forced to train terrorist operatives how to dive — but curiously not how to resurface — and we have an increasingly serious terrorist threat to maritime security.

Keep in mind that, according to the UN, 80% of the 6 billion tons of the world's traded cargo is transported by ships. Imagine the damage to regional or even large segments of the global economy if a key choke point — the Suez Canal, the Panama Canal, the Straits of Hormuz in the Persian Gulf, or the Straits of Malaca in the South Pacific — were blocked by a chemical or liquified natural gas tanker either set ablaze by terrorists, or worse, laden with radioactive materials and then detonated to create a massive dirty bomb explosion. Recall the October 2002 torpedo attack against the French tanker, the MV Limburg, near Yemen. That, in my judgment, was a calibration run to determine whether external attacks on a tanker were more effective then setting charges directly to the hulls. Clearly, the training for a maritime attack is under way and is intensifying as every day passes.

Are governments in Southeast Asia fighting Al Qaeda? Are they working with the U.S.?

Southeast Asian governments are corrupt, nepotistic and incapable of protecting the vast expanses of ocean around small island nations infested with al-Qaeda affliated terrorist cells. The political will is certainly there in the Philippines to help US efforts in the region, but I question whether Indonesia is fully committed, and I doubt whether Singapore and Malaysia have the technological tools and maritime resources to effectively police anything but the port areas, and that is just not enough for terrorists who hide in coves and raid ships by night on the open seas.

You say Al Qaeda is intent on disrupting the global economy to level the divide between the haves and have-nots. Can the U.S. pacify Al Qaeda without proving to them that terror works?

Civilized people do not negotiate with terrorists no matter what their cause or concerns. We must simply destroy terrorism's infrastructure, and a key to doing that is to identify potential areas of threat early enough that we dismantle their enterprises before they have an opportunity to complete their training or fully develop their instruments of terror (like tanker ships laden with radioactive materials and explosive fuels.)

What do you recommend we. do to prevent a seaborne attack?

At the moment, the U.S. is working with authorities in key foreign ports to check cargo containers for illicit materials before the ships depart for U.S. destinations. But that does not address the fundamental strategy of terrorist groups that want to make the vessels themselves the instruments of terror, much as commercial airliners were converted into flying missiles on September 11th.

The U.S. needs to develop a comprehensive strategy for naval monitoring and intervention that deploys our vast advantage in maritime high technology at the five strategic choke points in global maritime waterways (the Suez and Panama Canals, and the Straits of Gibraltar, Hormuz and Malaca.) Working with local governments for political reasons is important, but there's nothing like having U.S. Coast Guard-type vessels, Navy ships and elite SEAL and other types of anti-terrorist units deployed in these local environments. The U.S. also needs to press hard on international maritime organizations to clamp down on the lax procedures for registering and monitoring ownership of vessels, as well as about the backgrounds of those who work on board.

Is the international community equipped to handle threats to our waterways?

No, and there is little likelihood that the international community will have the ability to combat threats in a timely manner. Only U.S. naval resources and technology can adequately provide the infrastructure, and then local governments in the most threatened areas can add manpower and other resources (language, knowledge of the maritime geography, human intelligence) unique to each environment.

Are our leaders addressing the threat adequately?

Unfortunately not. One of the great tragedies of the post 9-11 period has been the utter complacency of lawmakers in Washington to even understand what the threats are, much less deal with them. There has not been a single hearing, either open or closed, that I know of in Congress to address maritime threats, or to present the data I've presented here, or to make the American people aware of the consequences of an attack on maritime interests far away from our shores.

We are still stuck on airline hijackings and the use of aircraft as terrorist instruments when al-Qaeda leaders, according to my sources, have moved far along in their designs to disrupt the global economy. They've internally handed over airliner attacks to the second and third-tier al-Qaeda operatives who were just trainees when 9-11 happened. The 9-11 attacks were about symbolism, with a secondary emphasis on economic disruption. The next set of attacks will emphasize economic disruption with only an eye to symbolism.

What can average Americans do?

I would ask every American reading these comments today to write a letter or make a phone call to their Congressional Representative or Senator and ask the following questions:

1. What is being done to protect U.S. ports and harbors from conventional maritime attacks, such as terrorists putting explosives on board a cargo vessel or tanker and blowing them up?

2. Is technological assistance of a significant magnitude being given by the U.S. Coast Guard, Navy and Marines to allies whose countries host these key waterways (Panama, Egypt, Singapore, Indonesia, Spain and Morocco) to help them protect against maritime terrorist attacks?

3. Has the U.S. Navy expanded and trained its elite teams to work with local authorities in preventing unauthorized diving expeditions in these environments?

4. Why is Congress not approving funding for the rapid development and deployment of new scanning technologies at seaports around the world, or at the mouths of key choke points, much the way trucks on U.S. highways now pass through checkpoints on interstate highways?

The world cannot afford a maritime disaster that shuts down a key waterway or strait. We should place heavy trade penalties on countries that either refuse our assistance or do not deploy the technologies we provide them with to combat the next generation of terrorist threats emanating from organizations like al-Qaeda

[SendShaqtoIraq]

I think you're trying to read too much into his comments. He didn't say they weren't being taught to come back up.

[Arthalion]

what would be the purpose of taking it ..??

For a very simple purpose that nobody here has mentioned yet. A fully loaded supertanker can weigh well over 500,000 TONS, with over 300,000 tons of that comprised of flammable oil.

Now take that fully loaded ship, pack it with explosives around the oil tanks, crank it up to 15 knots...and slam it into the Golden Gate, Oakland Bay, George Washington, or any of the dozens of high traffic, high profile bridges in our major coastal cities. Not only would the bridges take major damage from the massive force of the impact, but the sudden release and ignition of all of that oil around the base of the structure would have the same effect as the plane fuel in the WTC towers...major structural weakening and the potential for complete collapse.

We're not only talking about a distruption of surface traffic here, but also navigation under the former bridge site. In the case of the Oakland Bay Bridge, the economic effects of an attack like this would be devastating, and it would take years to rebuild.

[lainde]

ping!

[Solamente]

Arrr...shiver me timbers, Allah willing!