TA-THREATS: Al Qaeda Plans to Hijack Oil Tanker

The United States intelligence has reportedly intercepted communications from a terrorist network linked to Al Qaeda called Jemaah Islamiah. According to the report the group is planning on hijacking an oil tanker or freighter and use it as a floating bomb. They plan on using local pirates to seize the vessel, located in shipping lanes to several countries.



Detained militants in Pakistan claim that the release of the newest video tape by Ayman Al-Zawahiri is meant to be a trigger to new attacks. Al Qaeda cells are on "standby" and the tape was meant to be the trigger for them to attack.

"We were told that a new tape either carrying bin Laden or his deputy's message was on its way, and that it was intended to trigger a major terror attack," a senior Pakistani intelligence official told The Telegraph. "The cadres linked to the terror network were told to carry out an attack once this video is released."

Following the attack on the Australian embassy in Jakarta, investigators, following a tip, found traces of explosives in an abandoned home. They also found residue matching the residue from the bomb site.

Jemaah Islamiah (JI) made claims of the Jarkarta bombing on a website and also threatened Australia with more attacks if it did not remove its troops from Iraq.

[edit on 12-9-2004 by deeprivergal]

[edit on 12-9-2004 by Nerdling]

All the little bits of past and present intel roled up into one nice neat little plausible ball.

IF a tanker is used as a floating bomb, I doubt it will be against the US mainland. Phillipines perhaps?

The economic and ecological impact of an action like this would be just as bad as any human toll.

An oil tanker as a floating bomb? Cmon. They move so dang slow you'd have a weeks notice. lol

Lets see... float to the Golden Gate Bridge and blow it up
Or maybe a oil refinery since most of them are located on the coast.

Originally posted by Indy
An oil tanker as a floating bomb? Cmon. They move so dang slow you'd have a weeks notice. lol

I have to agree with this, those boats are to slow..

Wow, either AQ is getting desperate or the US government is getting desperate in ways to scare people. Hard to say.

This one doesn't scare me in the least. Its an absolute non threat. Just something either the news or the government cooked up. A tanker could be used in other ways to cause harm but loss of life isn't a concern in my opinion. Hide explosives in the tanker and set it off as its docked somewhere. That would take out the oil and the off loading system it was connected to. That will cause financial harm. Certainly not going to strike fear into the public.

Yet if one of these ships were to get into port at Los Angeles or maybe explode in the Panama Canal, a lot of economic damage would result. It wouldn't kill many people, but imports and exports would suffer.

You could get a way better reaction by sinking an entire super tanker off a major tourist attraction or ecologically fragile area than you could by blowing one up.

The Valdez didn't lose all it's oil, it just had a leak. If you let a fully-loaded tanker go it could be a really horrid situation.

Or, maybe it's just government / oil seeding the US public's mind to a connection between oil leaks / terrorism. So, next time there's a gigantic oil spill they could just say the ship had been boarded by terrorists.

Its also planting the seed so they can justify raising gas prices. Oil prices go down and strangely enough things are so dangerous in Iraq that oil shipments have to stop. Prices drop and all the sudden we need sanctions on Venezuela.

I wonder, if we had taken the money spent on Iraq and floating aircraft carriers around the Gulf for the past 20 years, if we spent that dough on making this country energy independent, so we didn't have to import a drop of oil, would that have been a better strat?

i'm no expert, but i don't think this would make a bomb at all. unlike what we've all seen in the movies, liquil oil does not blow up. it will burn, and put on a pretty good show, but oil has to be atomized before it can blow up. this is what your carb or fuel injectors do. it would be much more effective as a weapon against the environment than anything manmade.

As crazy as this bit of intel seems, here in Indonesia there are modern pirates that board ships, including tankers several times a week. Modern large tankers only have a small crew and taking over a large vessel is not a remote or difficult idea as it might seem. Such an operation could take place and carry out it's planned attack at the target location all at the same time.

There are two logical targets for such a plan would be the Straights of Malacca - the narrow seaway that is one of busiest sea lanes in the world or the Port of Singapore - one of the busiest in the world.

A tanker could be use to both cause ecological damage and create an explosion similar to a nuclear level device, without the use of nuclear material. Look up info on, or see the movie on Cable TV on the explosion in Hallifax, Nova Scotia around the end of WWI.

The Malacca Straights are the pathway for the US Navy into the region of the Middle East and should the straights be blocked it would be both expensive and time consuming to take other routes.

We live in Central Java, Java, Indonesia and there seems to be a fever pitch of activity by the local security to find the two missing explosive experts suspected of masterminding and carrying out the BIG explosion in Jakarta last week.

Let's all hope and pray these creeps are found as soon as possible.

The tanker wouldnt have to be hauling crude oil....there are plenty of products that could be used including refined gasoline, naptha, chlorine or some other noxious substance.

Highly explosive stuff like gasoline or naptha would make one hell of an explosion....and could cause a wide blast area of damage.

Other noxious chemicals could just be released in/near a population to act as a chemical weapon....Blowing up these kind of haulers wouldnt be as effective as just releasing the contents into the atmosphere...burning off the product would be less effective than letting it spew into the area...like a lethal cloud sweeping over the surroundings.
Anyone remember Bhopal India's dow chem accident?

As far as the speed of a ship this size, that can be an advantage too...
if its already close or docked....you just cant push/tow it out of the area quickly, and moving it may be more of a danger than dealing with it in place.

The monetary value of a tanker and its cargo would make them appealing targets to mess with the big companies that use/own/insure them...
just blowing up/sinking4-5 from the same fleet could cripple a single company.

Dont underestimate the value of these targets.

Liquid Natural Gas [LNG] would be a Big Boom.

actually, as LIQUID natural gas (and gasoline) doesnt burn...its VAPORS do....youd have to find a way to allow the vapors to spread before you lit the match so to speak. trying to get tons of liquid to burn at once in a blast would require an almost equal size blast to spread out the liquid into a flamable mist first....the resulting fireball would be intense, but not as much force as a actual blast wave would be.

The MOAB works in a similar fashion..spraying out its flamable stuff just before ignition....WHOOSH!

All you would have to do is crack open a couple valves and release it to the atmosphere then wait a little while till the fumes are overwhelming and light a match or even better a stick of dynamite. Diesel is not said to be explosive either. However up here on a very cold winters night a driver pulled over to check his fuel tanks. He turned on his flashlight to see the level and that set off the fumes and the 100 gallon fuel tank blew up and threw him 20 feet back and set him on fire. Now multiply that in your mind by about a 100,000 and it will give you an idea of the size of an LNG transport vessel going up!

I similar disaster has already happened. Back in 1947 a tanker full of amonium nitrate pulled into a Texas port. An accident occured, and the resulting explosion destroyed just about an entire town.

Alot of ports already have in place everything you need for an incredible and destructive explosion. Including refineries and chemical plants. You just need to get a tanker with the right explosive close enough to one of these, and BOOM! Havoc will ensue.

Link to a story on the Texas City, TX disaster in 1947.

No worries. The U.S. would just deploy a SEAL team probably by submarine. They would then take a zodiac to the tanker and sieze it. Or they could fast rope in. Click HERE

Being a member of a Naval Baording Team, CDN navy, I can say its not hard to sieze a tanker at sea, the hard part would be to keep it quiet enough that you've done so and to get the vessal to a port other that its designated port. Once you "deviate" from your route, you'll have only a few hours before you're investigated especiallly nearing the US seaboard. After that, military intervention would be very swift in regaining control of the vessel or disabling it to point where its not longer mobile. (just floating). Board it when you're ready or sink it.

Getting into a port would be a long shot, but possible if you did your research and siezed a vessal going to a particlar port that you intended on.

If you did sieze Tanker "A" going to NYC for example, and road it in with a terrorist held crew, simply sinking it in a major seaway (SUEZ??) would really mess up the port channel. Ramming it into a Navy Carrier or other high value target tied up in that port.....MMmmmm, possible? Whats going to stop a fully loaded tanker doing 20kts in a confined harbour with almost no notice on a colision course?

Exploding up one, I agree is far fetched, however as a enviornmetal threat, this has a bigger merit.

However, whats if its not a tanker but a cruise liner?
Cheers.