NationStates Jolt Archive

I know this is all over this forum by now, but no one has posted what intelligence indicates that al-Qaeda may target.
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=5838639
The buildings include NYSE, Citigroup complex, the Prudential complex, the World Bank, and the IMF. If any one of those buildings, especially the NYSE, are destroyed by terrorists, like the World Trade Center, then a new global recession will come. That's what worries me the most, since, fortunatly, destroying these buildings won't be a catastrophic loss of life, although any civilian killed by the enemy is tragic.

The buildings include NYSE, Citigroup complex, the Prudential complex, the World Bank, and the IMF. If any one of those buildings, especially the NYSE, are destroyed by terrorists, like the World Trade Center, then a new global recession will come.

Has the US not heard of the concept of 'backing up data'?

Its probably another distraction. Anyways, its funny when they refer to cameras as if they would stop a suicide car bomb, like dead people are afraid of being arrested.

Has the US not heard of the concept of 'backing up data'?
If you mean were the source came from, then yes, they have actually released that (fools). They say it was an al-Qaeda operative, pretty credible. I have to believe them in this sort of thing, partly because they are the only thing protecting the US, and partly because I can. Besides, believing them has no major consequences for me. If I stop my life because of this, then the terrorists have suceeded.

And when it doesn't happen? The president that cried wolf perhaps too many times, as to make terror alerts become pointless as people just shrug and go "oh, a terror alert, big deal" This administration does a great disservice to their people every time they come out with non-specific terror alerts. If it doesn't happen and no one is arrested trying to make it happen.. wolf, wolf, wolf!

If you mean were the source came from...


No, I mean your claim that the destruction of one of the buildings listed would bring about a global recession. Do said centres of finance not operate a policy of backing up data off-location?

Its probably another distraction. Anyways, its funny when they refer to cameras as if they would stop a suicide car bomb, like dead people are afraid of being arrested.
Well, it's easy to stop car bombs on Wall Street. The Street itself is barricaded already, and no vehicle has gone down it since 1998. I guess barricades can work on the others, but that'd be a major inconvinience. Especially for barricading the roads around the Citigroup plaza, as many people work nearby, and that area is a major traffic area in Manhatten.

Its probably another distraction. Anyways, its funny when they refer to cameras as if they would stop a suicide car bomb, like dead people are afraid of being arrested.

They may however, notice people carrying out a dry run before an actual attack. (I am not arguing for surveillance here, merely pointing out how it is used.)

No, I mean your claim that the destruction of one of the buildings listed would bring about a global recession. Do said centres of finance not operate a policy of backing up data off-location?
They all do. But that's not the point. The markets are very emotional these days. All of the information at the World Trade Centers had duplicates somewhere else, but that didn't matter. The global economy skydived, if only for a few months. Even so, 2002 isn't exactly remembered as a year of stellar growth, now is it?

I remain skeptical that they could actually "destroy" any one of these buildings in the first place. I think, if they did, that would come as a serious blow to Bush and something tells me he's not about to let that happen at this point. Also, I find the timing of this, as always, suspicious. There is an alarming coorspondence for these elevated threat warnings to other events recently and, while I'm not willing to fully admit that it is blatant manipulation, there are too many parallels to ignore completely.

No, I mean your claim that the destruction of one of the buildings listed would bring about a global recession. Do said centres of finance not operate a policy of backing up data off-location?
If the NYSE was blown up...no NYSE stocks would be able to be traded...which...would mean...there would be no recession because people can't make massive sells causing stocks to drop...by the time they got ready to trade again, they'd have thought things through and the hit to the economy wouldn't be that bad.

If the NYSE was blown up...no NYSE stocks would be able to be traded...which...would mean...there would be no recession because people can't make massive sells causing stocks to drop...by the time they got ready to trade again, they'd have thought things through and the hit to the economy wouldn't be that bad.


I would be surprised if the NYSE did not already have contingency plans for relocation which would be able to be put in effect surprisingly quickly. There is nothing which demands stock trading must go on in that actual building as opposed to some other location, is there?

I remain skeptical that they could actually "destroy" any one of these buildings in the first place. I think, if they did, that would come as a serious blow to Bush and something tells me he's not about to let that happen at this point. Also, I find the timing of this, as always, suspicious. There is an alarming coorspondence for these elevated threat warnings to other events recently and, while I'm not willing to fully admit that it is blatant manipulation, there are too many parallels to ignore completely.
I'm not saying that they'll try complete destruction of these buildings, but they've done it before. After all, our air defences are in miserable shape, and the last time I flew into New York, I flew right over Manhatten. No one has considered that a terrorist may try loading a private plane with explosives and crash it into a building. And with the state of security at Los Alamos and probably our other defense installations, I wouldn't even be surprised if a rocket attack happened.
As for timing, well timing is always suspicious. I'm sure that in the four or five other times the government has raised the alert level, someone, somewhere, blamed it all on politics. If Kerry becomes president, the same accusations will fly, too.

No one has considered that a terrorist may try loading a private plane with explosives and crash it into a building.

This claim is pure conjecture on your part, and merely weakens the rest of your arguing position.

I would be surprised if the NYSE did not already have contingency plans for relocation which would be able to be put in effect surprisingly quickly. There is nothing which demands stock trading must go on in that actual building as opposed to some other location, is there?
No, but they have all the resources in place. The computers, the brokerage data, and most importantly, the people inside. It'd be a great disaster if they were lost. In any case, the market doesn't like being closed for a day. It'll take a few weeks before NYSE can open shop elsewhere, and in all that time, the stock market will be hurt bad, and most companies would trade at NASDAQ, or whatever that one in Chicago is called.

No, but they have all the resources in place. The computers, the brokerage data, and most importantly, the people inside.


It should take no more than 15 or 20 minutes to evacuate the people, or else they shouldn't even be in there as the place would be a death trap even in the case of an accidental fire. You allow that the brokerage data is backed up off-site, so that isn't an issue. Computer systems are possibly an issue, but it is unlikely that the NYSE runs on a particularly advanced network: it should be easily replicable elsewhere.

This claim is pure conjecture on your part, and merely weakens the rest of your arguing position.
All possibilites have to be considered. I know this is speculation, but it isn't outside the realm of terrorists to do this. They are not limited to anything. For example, it'd be pure speculation if I said that some country would nuke the US to the stone age. This isn't likely at all, but why does the president still carry the launch codes? Because they're preparing for all eventualities.

It should take no more than 15 or 20 minutes to evacuate the people, or else they shouldn't even be in there as the place would be a death trap even in the case of an accidental fire. You allow that the brokerage data is backed up off-site, so that isn't an issue. Computer systems are possibly an issue, but it is unlikely that the NYSE runs on a particularly advanced network: it should be easily replicable elsewhere.
Still, perhaps a suicide bomber may bolt on the trading floor, detonate, and kill most of the traders there. We already know about the abysmal progress in security. Why should we rule this possibility out?

All possibilites have to be considered. I know this is speculation, but it isn't outside the realm of terrorists to do this. They are not limited to anything.


No, you misunderstood: it was your assertion that "no one has considered X" that I was rejecting as uninformed speculation on your part. You will admit that you have no evidence for this claim?

Still, perhaps a suicide bomber may bolt on the trading floor, detonate, and kill most of the traders there. We already know about the abysmal progress in security. Why should we rule this possibility out?


Many things may happen, but your scenario no longer matches your original claim that "If any one of those buildings ... are destroyed by terrorists ... then a new global recession will come."

No, you misunderstood: it was your assertion that "no one has considered X" that I was rejecting as uninformed speculation on your part. You will admit that you have no evidence for this claim?
True, I have no evidence. I don't sit in on NSA or HLS briefings. However, the way terrorists operate is by being flexible. Those that may attack us have most likely been in the US for years, as were some of the 9/11 hijackers. They have time to learn a few tricks. 9/11 was a very creative idea on the terrorists' part, but it was simple to execute. So is doing something like flying small planes into buildings, or even something as simple as firing a gun inside the lobbies of one of these buildings. It may do no real damage, but it'd have a psycological impact, mostly saying that it is unsafe for Americans to go to these places.

Many things may happen, but your scenario no longer matches your original claim that "If any one of those buildings ... are destroyed by terrorists ... then a new global recession will come."
Right, it doesn't. Then again, a recession will only happen if they are destroyed, which they are capable of. However, it is unlikely that will happen, but something that shouldn't be discredited. After all, if I were Timothy McVeigh, and I was bragging to a friend in '94 that I'd blow up a building with a truck bomb, I'd be laughed at. Now the method has been emulated by terrorists the world over, often having terrifiying effects.

It may do no real damage, but it'd have a psycological impact, mostly saying that it is unsafe for Americans to go to these places.

It seems like quite a bizarre step to release this information about possible targets: in Northern Ireland such information was a closely guarded secret so as to protect the sources from whence it came (and thus allowing those sources to be used again) - if there was advance knowledge of a particular attack then it would not only be at said location that security was stepped up, but at several locations, so that it appeared to merely be a chance event which could lead to the foiling of an attack.


Hmm. On reflection the above tactics are not entirely unlike those used in WWII with regard to the enigma device. The British knew where some of the submarines were going to be located, but in order to not let on that they had cracked the communication system, they would send out a spotter plane (visible to the subs) so that it appeared they were just located by accident or bad luck. Thus the codes were not changed and the sources of information remained usable next time.

The publication of information regarded intercepted AL Qaeda communications seems like a bad tactic, as it encourages that group to keep changing modes of communciation, thus making them harder to monitor.

If you knew your phone was being tapped... wouldn't you start communciating by letter or other more devious methods?

After all, if I were Timothy McVeigh, and I was bragging to a friend in '94 that I'd blow up a building with a truck bomb, I'd be laughed at. Now the method has been emulated by terrorists the world over, often having terrifiying effects.

The Oklahoma bomb was far from the frist use of a truck bomb. They have been used routinely to destroy embassies, checkpoints and other such soft targets around the world for years by many different groups. Nor was it even the first use of the term - "truck bomb" appears on Usenet back in 1983, and I am sure that it predates that by a good few years.

It seems like quite a bizarre step to release this information about possible targets: in Northern Ireland such information was a closely guarded secret so as to protect the sources from whence it came (and thus allowing those sources to be used again) - if there was advance knowledge of a particular attack then it would not only be at said location that security was stepped up, but at several locations, so that it appeared to merely be a chance event which could lead to the foiling of an attack.


Hmm. On reflection the above tactics are not entirely unlike those used in WWII with regard to the enigma device. The British knew where some of the submarines were going to be located, but in order to not let on that they had cracked the communication system, they would send out a spotter plane (visible to the subs) so that it appeared they were just located by accident or bad luck. Thus the codes were not changed and the sources of information remained usable next time.

The publication of information regarded intercepted AL Qaeda communications seems like a bad tactic, as it encourages that group to keep changing modes of communciation, thus making them harder to monitor.

If you knew your phone was being tapped... wouldn't you start communciating by letter or other more devious methods?
Sure I would. As you said, this is probably a diversion tactic. The Northeast is rich in targets that can act as a second, but if destroyed, most don't have the potential to trainwreck the economy. The exception is nuclear plants, which have excellent ground security, but are vulnerable from the air. Still, it'd probably take a few months more of planning for the terrorists to hit anything, much less such a well guarded target.
As for revealing our sources, I have a feeling that it doesn't matter if the government reveals the source's name, and his wife and kids' names. The source is probably held in a military base somewhere, guarded by Marines that shoot at anything that moves. The family, of course, can enter some form of witness protection. It probably came from a jailed source if the government hinted at who it was.

The Oklahoma bomb was far from the frist use of a truck bomb. They have been used routinely to destroy embassies, checkpoints and other such soft targets around the world for years by many different groups. Nor was it even the first use of the term - "truck bomb" appears on Usenet back in 1983, and I am sure that it predates that by a good few years.
Yeah I thought they appeared earlier. In any case, most Americans probably didn't know that it only took a bag of fertilizer to make one good bomb.

As for revealing our sources, I have a feeling that it doesn't matter if the government reveals the source's name, and his wife and kids' names. The source is probably held in a military base somewhere, guarded by Marines that shoot at anything that moves. The family, of course, can enter some form of witness protection. It probably came from a jailed source if the government hinted at who it was.

I would describe this as a counter-productive tactic - in Northern Ireland the tradition has been to keep the sources inside the paramilitary groups and thus to keep them passing on fresh and up to date information.


(I am not endorsing the tactics used in Northern Ireland from a moral standpoint here, merely discussing the lessons that the security forces learnt here since 69).

I know this is all over this forum by now, but no one has posted what intelligence indicates that al-Qaeda may target.
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=5838639
The buildings include NYSE, Citigroup complex, the Prudential complex, the World Bank, and the IMF. If any one of those buildings, especially the NYSE, are destroyed by terrorists, like the World Trade Center, then a new global recession will come. That's what worries me the most, since, fortunatly, destroying these buildings won't be a catastrophic loss of life, although any civilian killed by the enemy is tragic.

Who's enemy?

Yeah I thought they appeared earlier. In any case, most Americans probably didn't know that it only took a bag of fertilizer to make one good bomb.

And thus much hilarity ensued in the Northern Ireland Legislative Assembly when it looked like Martin McGuinness might end up as Minister for Agriculture...

Who's enemy?

Surely, by definition, any civilian killed by anyone is a tragic death, no? If they are a legitimate target then they are, by definition, no longer a civilian?

Also, another point to consider about potential world economic collapse from the destruction of the NYSE. They tried that. It didn't work. The dip we saw was less from the action of the terrorist and more from the surprise and uncertainty the action caused. However, should it happen again, I would be very surprised if the dip were as severe because we have concrete proof now that, even if you kill 3,000 people and destroy both buildings where the NYSE is located, the markets will reopen on Monday morning. Unless they can literally wipe New York off the face of the Earth, I can't imagine it having the same sort of impact if it happened again.

Unless they can literally wipe New York off the face of the map, I can't imagine it having the same sort of impact if it happened again.

I think you mean "literally wipe New York off the face of the Earth", literally wiping it off the face of the map is only going to cause a lot of travellers to get very lost and cause the cartographers some confusion.

I think you mean "literally wipe New York off the face of the Earth", literally wiping it off the face of the map is only going to cause a lot of travellers to get very lost and cause the cartographers some confusion.

Yes. All right. I changed it. Nitpicker. ;)

I would describe this as a counter-productive tactic - in Northern Ireland the tradition has been to keep the sources inside the paramilitary groups and thus to keep them passing on fresh and up to date information.


(I am not endorsing the tactics used in Northern Ireland from a moral standpoint here, merely discussing the lessons that the security forces learnt here since 69).
That's dangerous to do with the terrorists, because it is very unlikely that they'll defect. In the IRA and other groups, they were fighting a mostly political war. Here, most of the terrorists believe this is about religion, even if the leaders want it more of a political group. Political affiliations can be fickle, but religious ones don't disappear quickly. For example, for the right price, I feel that many Americans can be double agents, including myself, I'll admit. But I'm Catholic, and if you tell me to become a Taoist, I'd never do it. And if a Taoist government came to power and deprived Catholics of their rights, I'd fight them. That's the type of situation terrorists are in, and why it's dangerous for us to keep them in these groups. After all, we run the risk of them being triple agents.

Here, most of the terrorists believe this is about religion, even if the leaders want it more of a political group.

Ah. This is where we must disagree: I believe that the political motivations outweigh the religious motivations even for the footsoldiers of Al Qaeda.

Yes. All right. I changed it. Nitpicker. ;)

Without pedantry the internet is nothing.

Surely, by definition, any civilian killed by anyone is a tragic death, no?

Si, and the sons of Saddam Hussein were hiding in a building until they are slaughtered for hours. I find that pretty destructive myself. I agree. They were citizens of Iraq, had no power, were pretty much civilians, right?

Also, another point to consider about potential world economic collapse from the destruction of the NYSE. They tried that. It didn't work. The dip we saw was less from the action of the terrorist and more from the surprise and uncertainty the action caused. However, should it happen again, I would be very surprised if the dip were as severe because we have concrete proof now that, even if you kill 3,000 people and destroy both buildings where the NYSE is located, the markets will reopen on Monday morning. Unless they can literally wipe New York off the face of the Earth, I can't imagine it having the same sort of impact if it happened again.
Even that wouldn't destroy the global economy entirely. In the US alone, there's the NASDAQ in Hartford, Conn. and the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, which handles commodities. Of course, wiping New York from the planet is another possibility that can't be ruled out. We know that al-Qaeda and Jemal Islamiyah have worked with pirates in the Strait of Mallaca, and have actually commadeered ships before being forced out by the Singapore navy. All a terrorist has to do is hijack one of the many oil tankers coming into the US, plant a bomb in the oil tank, then sail it into New York Harbor. Detonate it, and the terrorist has a homemade WMD, guranteed to take out a few million people.

Si, and the sons of Saddam Hussein were hiding in a building until they are slaughtered for hours. I find that pretty destructive myself. I agree. They were citizens of Iraq, had no power, were pretty much civilians, right?


Sorry, you appear to be confusing me with someone that advocated or supported the invasion of Iraq.

Si, and the sons of Saddam Hussein were hiding in a building until they are slaughtered for hours. I find that pretty destructive myself. I agree. They were citizens of Iraq, had no power, were pretty much civilians, right?
It takes hours to slaughter someone?

Ah. This is where we must disagree: I believe that the political motivations outweigh the religious motivations even for the footsoldiers of Al Qaeda.
In that aspect then, I think that it is best to agree to disagree.

You know, I've been thinking that, if they wanted to attack the NYSE, an information attack would work well. The losses would be quickly recouped, of course, but it's very likely that the market could suffer a crash as cataclysmic as the one in '87.

It takes hours to slaughter someone?

Read up on the history of the way the US deals with paramilitary groups within its own borders: how many shots exactly were fired into the house where the SLA were holed up? 3,771, IIRC.

Read up on the history of the way the US deals with paramilitary groups within its own borders: how many shots exactly were fired into the house where the SLA were holed up? 3,771, IIRC.
Yeah, we've never been experienced with groups like that. We can defeat them, but look at the intergration of the fifties, and the subsequent race riots of the sixties. Both required the National Guard to be deployed. The most recent one I can think of is Branch-Davidian. It should've been a simple operation. It turned into a fifty-two day seige that required tanks to end.

In other words "Yes, it can take hours to slaughter someone". Not that this is really a bone of contention, or anything.

All a terrorist has to do is hijack one of the many oil tankers coming into the US, plant a bomb in the oil tank, then sail it into New York Harbor. Detonate it, and the terrorist has a homemade WMD, guranteed to take out a few million people.

There I must disagree on specifics, given that those oil tankers carry crude or semirefinied oil, which while rather flammable, would not explode. Hell, even liquid gasoline cannot easily be forced to explode (only the vapors). However, I wholeheartedly agree with the general idea. Pirating on the high seas has become very nasty in some areas, and it only takes 20 terrorists with assault rifles to seize such a tanker, which they could then if nothing else set off in the manner you describe to knock New York Harbor totally out of commission for months and cause hundreds of millions of dollars in damage, likely.

In fact, if someone were to do such a thing to San Francisco harbor, especially with more than one tanker, it would hurt the economy far worse than blowing up any bank HQ or financial entity, IMHO. Seeing that the SF harbor receives some massive percentage of all West Coast imports, a couple million gallons of flaming oil could cause enough damage, mayhem, and sheer fear to cut off the daily millions that flow in from Asia. And our fine President has not yet done a damn thing to improve coastal security...

Or, heck, take a fishing boat or container ship and fill it with explosives. I'm sure that a terrorist group with full government assistance (Iran, for example) could easily arrange for a container ship to be routed to New York or Charleston or SF claiming a legitimate cargo but loaded with a couple thousand tons of explosives.

Ever read about ammunition factory or ship accidents? Generally they destroy the town the factory/ship was in (Halifax suffered one such incident during WW2). A container ship packed to the gills with any sort of military explosive would devastate the waterfront, possibly knock down high-rise buildings, annihilate any ship in the harbor, kill many thousands, knock down the Statue of Liberty, destroy the symbolic Ellis Island immigration depot, and destroy enough infastructure to make fixing all the fires and getting in to rescue people quite difficult. And the force of the explosion could actually screw up the harbor floor enough to make parts of the harbor unsafe and require dredging. And the wreckage from everything happening would take the harbor out of action for quite some time, with aforementioned economic disasters looming. What happens to the EU and US when they cannot trade?

Shit. Now I've gotten myself scared that something just like that will happen.

Shit. Now I've gotten myself scared that something just like that will happen.

If it is any consolation I believe custard-powder factories are still more prone to explode than oil tankers.*





* Here is a not particularly technical page on the subject.
http://reporter.leeds.ac.uk/432/s4.htm

Shit. Now I've gotten myself scared that something just like that will happen.

Again, I wouldn't worry about it undully. While a tanker might be able to be hijacked, they're not airplanes and don't go nearly as fast. Unless the terrorists managed to hijack the thing immediately outside of New York, I doubt it would actually ever get into the harbor.

It takes hours to slaughter someone?

It did with the Sons. Americans surrounded the building where the sons were located and started unleashing it's arsenal into it that took a few hours to complete.

There I must disagree on specifics, given that those oil tankers carry crude or semirefinied oil, which while rather flammable, would not explode. Hell, even liquid gasoline cannot easily be forced to explode (only the vapors). However, I wholeheartedly agree with the general idea. Pirating on the high seas has become very nasty in some areas, and it only takes 20 terrorists with assault rifles to seize such a tanker, which they could then if nothing else set off in the manner you describe to knock New York Harbor totally out of commission for months and cause hundreds of millions of dollars in damage, likely.

In fact, if someone were to do such a thing to San Francisco harbor, especially with more than one tanker, it would hurt the economy far worse than blowing up any bank HQ or financial entity, IMHO. Seeing that the SF harbor receives some massive percentage of all West Coast imports, a couple million gallons of flaming oil could cause enough damage, mayhem, and sheer fear to cut off the daily millions that flow in from Asia. And our fine President has not yet done a damn thing to improve coastal security...

Or, heck, take a fishing boat or container ship and fill it with explosives. I'm sure that a terrorist group with full government assistance (Iran, for example) could easily arrange for a container ship to be routed to New York or Charleston or SF claiming a legitimate cargo but loaded with a couple thousand tons of explosives.

Ever read about ammunition factory or ship accidents? Generally they destroy the town the factory/ship was in (Halifax suffered one such incident during WW2). A container ship packed to the gills with any sort of military explosive would devastate the waterfront, possibly knock down high-rise buildings, annihilate any ship in the harbor, kill many thousands, knock down the Statue of Liberty, destroy the symbolic Ellis Island immigration depot, and destroy enough infastructure to make fixing all the fires and getting in to rescue people quite difficult. And the force of the explosion could actually screw up the harbor floor enough to make parts of the harbor unsafe and require dredging. And the wreckage from everything happening would take the harbor out of action for quite some time, with aforementioned economic disasters looming. What happens to the EU and US when they cannot trade?

Shit. Now I've gotten myself scared that something just like that will happen.
Well, I guess it couldn't explode, at least not much. However, as you said, it'd create a huge fire, and it may splatter oil around. Some of it could be burning, and an entire city could be destroyed. The fire departments, like the experienced NYFD, can't stop the fire, and the only way to prevent it from burning everything would be to destroy some select buildings in its path. They do the same thing to trees in forest fires.
There's also the possibility of an LNG tanker exploding in port. There aren't that many coming into America yet, and most of the new LNG terminals are in Baja California. Still, one of the few LNG terminals is in Boston, and that was a worry during the Democratic Convention. It'd probably explode as a blasted hull would turn the liquified gas into a gaseous state. It'd be very likely to explode, and natural gas burns hotter than oil. Ouch.

Again, I wouldn't worry about it undully. While a tanker might be able to be hijacked, they're not airplanes and don't go nearly as fast. Unless the terrorists managed to hijack the thing immediately outside of New York, I doubt it would actually ever get into the harbor.
Even if it were taken into a smaller harbor, it could do some damage. Besides, oil tankers could be blown up in other ports around the world that are less secure, like Kuwait, Shenzen, even Rotterdam.