Officials: 'Chatter' hints at major attack

Oerdin · May 20, 2003, 14:28

US officials are stating they believe the recent attacks in Saudi Arabia and Morocco may be just a prelude to another 9/11 style attack in the US. They are basing this upon "chatter" they have been hearing on intercepted Al Qaeda communications and upon human intelligience from recently captured Al Qaeda operatives. British and Israeli officials recently grounded their countries' planes leaving from several east African countries based upon similiar intelligence data. This is according to a newly released article on CNN. Also the BBC is reporting that Saudi Arabia has closed access to the US and UK embassies based upon intelligence reports that Al Qaeda might be planning to attack those countries' embasses in Saudi Arabia. The Australian government has also intiated new security measures for its embassy in Saudi Arabia.

So what do you folks think? Is AlQaeda capable of pulling off another 9/11 style attack or are the fears over blown?

PLATO · May 20, 2003, 14:34

The threat appears to mainly be in Saudi. British and American Embassies have been closed for the time being.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,87365,00.html

Az · May 20, 2003, 14:34

I think it can. and it will. And the war with Iraq has nothing to do with it, for better or for worse.

Ned · May 20, 2003, 14:51

Oerdin, they Al Qaeda can only pull off another 9/11 here in the United States is if it can assemble a cell and remain anonymous even while the entire United States is looking out for suspicious activity. The only way they could do that is is if there were Americans who supported them. However most Moslems in United States say they are against Al Qaeda.

What gives me pause, though, is that trooper who attacked the 101st Airborne headquarters in Kuwait. He was an American convert to Islam. He appeared to be very radical and very anti-American. This tells me that at least some Moslems in United States could be on the side of Al Qaeda.

But, hopefully the FBI knows who they are watching closely.

Jac de Molay · May 20, 2003, 14:54

Another sky is falling Armageddon alert.

Guess it's time once again to stock up on duct tape and Lunchables.

Oerdin · May 20, 2003, 14:59

DD: So does that count as a "this is over blown" vote?

Ned: There are always traitors in every group. Anything is possible.

Azazel: I'm with you. I think it is possible but I don't think it is very likely. If they could they'd be attacking inside western countries instead of blowing up night clubs in Morocco.

Jac de Molay · May 20, 2003, 15:04

Quote:

DD: So does that count as a "this is over blown" vote?

Not necessarily. But the impact of non-specific "everyone freak out" warnings tends to fade over time.

I remember from 7/4, Memorial Day, 9/11 anniversary.....

lord of the mark · May 20, 2003, 15:07

alert level raised to orange today

oedo · May 20, 2003, 15:12

Al Qaeda = Emmanuel Goldstein
that´s what I actually believe. but maybe I only read too much.

Andrew1999 · May 20, 2003, 15:18

It's an orange alert! Do you know where your Tang is?

DinoDoc · May 20, 2003, 15:31

At least it isn't an off white alert

Alex · May 20, 2003, 16:01

I don't think they'll be able to do any big attack in the USA right now. Other countries, well...

MichaeltheGreat · May 20, 2003, 20:12

Quote:

Originally posted by Ned
What gives me pause, though, is that trooper who attacked the 101st Airborne headquarters in Kuwait. He was an American convert to Islam. He appeared to be very radical and very anti-American. This tells me that at least some Moslems in United States could be on the side of Al Qaeda.

Based on what? All that has come out from the investigation and background info so far is that the guy was a long service E5 with an attitude problem regarding race and being passed over for promotion. Classic sad sack material plus fragging a couple of officers he didn't like, with a little extra race twist.

Nothing at all indicating any Islamic aspect, except for a lame initial attempt to make it look like an infiltrator threw the grenades by yelling Islamic slogans.

Worthingtons · May 20, 2003, 20:16

Maybe next time they will try for England?
England has not yet been Hit.
We have our Canary Wharf Tower.

Q Classic · May 21, 2003, 02:31

does anybody know the history of the alert threat? as in, when it's been yellow, when it's been orange...?

what i honestly don't understand about the scale is why we even have "green" or "blue", because so long as this administration is in power, it'll always be at least yellow, and so long as we remain american, it's only logical to be at least yellow...

Edan · May 21, 2003, 02:41

Quote:

Originally posted by Q Cubed
does anybody know the history of the alert threat? as in, when it's been yellow, when it's been orange...?

what i honestly don't understand about the scale is why we even have "green" or "blue", because so long as this administration is in power, it'll always be at least yellow, and so long as we remain american, it's only logical to be at least yellow...

IIRC, it's been orange 3 times. Once in September on the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. Once in Jan or Feb. And now.

alva · May 21, 2003, 03:02

I really feel sorry for the guy who has to keep changing them lightbulbs all the time.

ixnay · May 21, 2003, 03:34

Hopefully they don't decide to hijack my flight tomorrow. That'd kinda ruin my day.

HershOstropoler · May 21, 2003, 03:40

Quote:

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Based on what?

What based on what? That there is a sympathizer field for islamist terror in the US?

Eli · May 21, 2003, 04:15

It will be delusional to say that there will be more attacks.

There will be attacks.
Not like Sept 11, and not daily "small" attacks like in Israel, but definitely similar to the medium sized Riad&Casablanca attacks.

Dr Strangelove · May 21, 2003, 08:12

I wonder what sort of attack they will try to pull? Do they have anymore access to chemical or biological weapons? Could some have been smuggled out of Iraq before it fell? I doubt the latter. If Iraq had had significant stocks of NBC weapons surely they wouldn't have been able to transport the entire stock, inn whih case their should be at least some evidence left behind.

If NBC attacks aren't feasible then what? They've tried vehicular bombs here with results that were less than they had hoped, still, such weapons have been the stock in trade for Islamic terrorists for 30 years, so that might be what they try. Most of the good targets in Washington however are not easily reached by vehicular bombs. Most of the major Federal buildings (White House, Capitol, Supreme Court) are set back from the street and woul be insulated from a blast by distance.

Would they try hijacking airplanes again? Are the airlines adequately protected?

Eli · May 21, 2003, 09:25

One big truck/car bomb that blows up adjacent to an average sized residential building can take the building down. If the building has an underground parking lot and they can get in there, it will be even easier.

10 floors, 4 apartments per floor, 1 family of 5 per appartment, half of them home and you have 100 dead. And that doesnt include nearby bystanders, etc.

High rises may be well secured, but I dont think anyone will have problems with knocking down residential buildings, if the explosives are present.

Even with a relatively small number of dead, it will add a lot of fear since even homes wont be safe.

Az · May 21, 2003, 09:28

a truckload of explosives, with a two or three "field operatives" with Assault Rifles, at night.

bang.

HershOstropoler · May 21, 2003, 09:28

"They've tried vehicular bombs here with results that were less than they had hoped"

Yes, but that's a wild card - as could be seen with a building in Oklahoma.

Lefty Scaevola · May 21, 2003, 09:29

Without extensive code breaking, 'chatter' could mean almost anything. Like "Did you see the hot new babe with the slinky burka at the International House of Cous-Cous".

Eli · May 21, 2003, 09:43

Quote:

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
"They've tried vehicular bombs here with results that were less than they had hoped"

Yes, but that's a wild card - as could be seen with a building in Oklahoma.

Not only that.

The goal is not to kill, but to terrorize. Until now people knew that not getting close to landmarks like the White House, the Empire State Building, etc will keep them safe.

But what if residential complexes start blowing up? Then almost everyone will be in danger.

rah · May 21, 2003, 10:05

I think a rash of snipers would be the most effective from a terror standpoint. Look how disruptive the last sniper was. Imagine 25 to 50 of them spread across the country.

orange · May 21, 2003, 10:15

Quote:

Originally posted by lord of the mark
alert level raised to orange today

f33r me

Zkribbler · May 21, 2003, 10:27

[Zkribbler does a quick check to ascertain how much money has come from Washington to help finance the homeland security efforts of states, counties and municipalities. Despite the promises of the Bush administration, the amount remains at $0.]

MikeH · May 21, 2003, 10:35

There are certainly Islamic radicals in the UK who might get involved in such an attack. Some of these groups have as their agenda turning the UK into an islamic state.