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 (ÇáÕÝÍÉ ÇáÚÑÈíÉ ÇáÅÓáÇãíÉ ÓÍÇÈ ) 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.

Far be it from me to call myself an expert on such matters, but, (and I say this with a big "but"), it seems that it shouldn't be too hard to test each and every ship and plane and truckload that enters our country from a foreign point of origin, with simple test equipment that could detect radiation being emitted from any sort of nuke device, or even biological or chemical devices.

Again, I'm not an expert... but, if the government would put me to work, I would gladly climb aboard each and every ship that stops in Seattle with said test equipment, and run tests on all cargo, and all spaces, contained in that ship. Heck, I'm sure lots of other guys and gals would be willing to volunteer their time to do just that! So I don't see why a lot of this terrorism threat can't easily be countered. Just put the right people to work at all the obvious border points, with the right test equipment...

This is an alarmist article very similar to those that appeared in the waning days of 1999 (remember Y2K?). I think that 9/11 was the terrorists best shot and if they had weapons of mass destruction, they certainly would have used them by now. But should they in the future obtain and use such weapons against us, one can safely assume that the U.S. response will be massive and mostly likely nuclear. You can bet that the U.S. military already has planned responses to virtually any future terrorist attack. Unlike 9/11, retribution will be swift and deadly. Perhaps this is the reason we haven't had any terrorist attacks since 9/11.

Yes, even without those dreaded WMD they can still wreak havoc, but I'm not going to change too much of my lifestyle because of this threat... it's scary enough in America as it is, what with the assorted native crazies we have to contend with who go berserk and waste people and property.

(I'm going to go to the Seattle 4th of July fireworks display just the same, I'll probably just keep myself a little further away from the crowded throngs more than I normally do, and have a good time to boot....)

One major step to stopping a worse attack is getting rid of the PC mentality that has taken over the U.S. Unfortunately, I doubt that will happen.
It will happen right after the big attack.

We would have said the same thing 09-10-01. Somehow, even the loss of the Twin Towers, the attack on the Pentagon, the attempted destruction of the White House, 3000 murdered innocent souls, dozens of televised cases of Americans who had to choose between jumping to their death or burning to death, and the "promise" of further attacks didn't cure the disease of PC mentality. I agree with inflorida... I'm not sure anything ever will or could cure it. "The patient is terminal, doctor."

You also assume the epdemic does not spread to parts of the world where it cannot be controlled through quarantines.

In that case we are no longer talking about "millions" of casualties in the U.S. which pretty much makes the poster's original point.
Besides, the idea that the epidemic would spread to other parts of the world much less prepared to deal with it than the U.S. especially third world nations, makes it less likely it would be the attack of choice.

" Do we wipe the middle-east from the face of the earth? We would have done that to the USSR."

For all its incalculable evils, the USSR was a "civilized" enemy, and culturally not too far removed from the US. (Closer, in fact, than Western Europe has proven to be.)

Now, here's something to consider: the cold war was expensive, very expensive. And protracted. However, the upside is that it kept us on our toes, and motivated us to build and maintain the strongest military in the world.

So if not for the cold war, we'd be in far worse shape today to deal with terrorists. And regardless of anything else, we'd still have them to deal with. They're a modern day counterpart to the Barbary Pirates (and the islamist rulers who were targetted by the Crusades). Only now, they're living in a world where the stakes are much higher, thanks to the cat being out of the bag with respect to technology.

Finally, the USSR was destined to collapse from its inception, because communism is flawed at its root. There's hope of a bright future for the US and Russia, as the latter joins the West (even as the rest of the Western nations seem to be leaving it wholesale).

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.

If you look at the enormous economic cost resulting from 9/11 and 3,000 deaths---it would hardly take 7 cities x millions of deaths to collapse the U.S. and world economy. It would take a fraction of that to destabalize the globe and send the world into a second dark age (courtesy of the people who brought us the FIRST dark age.)

My fear is that history will be the story of how the USA failed after 9/11 to take the threat of the cult of islam seriously, and the nation and all civlization paid the price (just as history for the last 1 and 1/2 millenia tells the story of the failure of civlized people to deal with the savages on an unrelenting jihad that can end only with our deaths.)

I fear we will look back and realize---too late---what the HELL were we thinking when we were quibbling over "profiling" and torqued about "diversity" yadayada, when we could have been taking decisive action.

Perhaps THEN, after this next attack, we will have the will to go after Mecca, for example. But our children and grandchildren will cry for decades, why, oh why, did we not take both punitive and pre-emptive action both abroad and at home in the days, weeks and months following 9/11?

I've heard this same story too many times for this not to be happening-group of Middle Easterners taking pictures of city/industrial site and no one questioning them. Is as if the police/investigative personnel are afraid due to PC brainwashing to put their careers on the line to do their duty.

The problem, according to the opinion-makers and cognescenti, is people like Charlie Daniels and Toby Keith, people pledging allegiance to the USA, and doing other things to hurt the feelings of those whose allegiances are to Mohammed and Bin Laden.

Good analysis re Seattle. Also, Seattle is huge, busy port, is it not? Gateway for surface vessels to-and-from Asia. Yet another reason why it would be ripe for targeting by the mohams.

Maybe---hopefully---President Bush knows things that we don't know that assure him the USA is NOT going to be hit by a huge terror attack. If he does NOT have this assurance, while I believe he is doing the best he can, people in the U.S. just are NOT taking this seriously.

The hit to the domestic and the global economy from 9/11 was enormous. The airlines are very close to going under. The stock market is about where it was on September 12. And THAT is just with the lost of 3,000 lives and a handful of buildings. (The cost of protecting airports and planes from old white men with hip replacements is gigantic, both to government and to the private sector; here again, I fear that in the future people will look back and think, gosh, if we'd just taken one TENTH of that money and fought like we have something to FIGHT for and to LIVE for, instead of fretting over hurting the feelings of mohams...)

The losses to the national and world economy in the event of an attack only 10 times as big are unfathomable. Forget the 7 cities multiplied by millions of people---how about just ONE city, like New York, lower Manhattan, say, contaminated for the next few thousand years by a relatively small nuke (along with a few tens of thousands of lives lost.)

I am just afraid that people grossly underestimate what another attack can do to the course of history and the viability of the USA and of civilization itself. These hordes of mohams have been at this for centuries; they count on our taking them lightly.

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.