[CyberAnt]

Excuse me .. I know the story wasn't about cruise ships - I'M SAYING WHY ISN'T A CRUISE SHIP A BETTER ALTERNATIVE ..?? If a super-tanker won't explode .. what would be the purpose of taking it ..??

[RoughDobermann]

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

Think delivery platform

[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.

[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.

[pepperdog]

"Excuse me .. I know the story wasn't about cruise ships - I'M SAYING WHY ISN'T A CRUISE SHIP A BETTER ALTERNATIVE ..?? If a super-tanker won't explode .. what would be the purpose of taking it ..??"

CyberAnt, you and several others on this post have mentioned cruise ships and I think you are all correct to be concerned. Just think, if they could hijack four cruise ships, like they did four airplanes on 911, then they could have at least 8,000 or 10,000 people (figuring at 2,000 plus per ship, including crew). They could run those ships anywhere they wanted, get tons of media attention and cause terrible fear in the hearts of millions then kill everyone. What a great feat for terrorists. This is the reason I will not cruise again in the forseeable future, until the whole middle east mess is contained, which seems not to be promising in my lifetime.