[unitedstatesaction.com news] Al-Qaeda is now after the U.S. Navy and their families [several articles]

al-qaeda is now after the U.S. Navy and their families [several articles]

http://www.sondrak.com/index.php/weblog/is_precedent_poofter_still_on_vaykay/ Richard Wachtel, a spokesman for the Middle East Media Research Institute [MEMRI], tells Scoop Deck about a post on a jihadist Web site Wednesday: The affair with the U.S. Navy began several years ago, when the lions of Al-Qaeda struck the destroyer U.S.S. Cole, in Yemen; now, with Allah’s help, all the American vessels in the seas and oceans, including aircraft carriers, submarines, and all naval military equipment deployed here and there that is within range of Al-Qaeda’s fire, will be destroyed… “To this end, information on every U.S. naval unit – and only U.S. [units]!! – should be quietly gathered [as follows:] [the vessel’s] name, the missions it is assigned; its current location, including notation of the spot in accordance with international maritime standards; the advantages of this naval unit; the number of U.S. troops on board, including if possible their ranks, and what state they are from, their family situation, and where their family members (wife and children) live; what kind of weapons they carry; the [vessel’s] destination…; the missions it has carried out; the [recommended] way to monitor it around the clock; if its location is changed, define its movements and its route; monitor every website used by the personnel on these ships, and attempt to discover what is in these contacts…; identify the closest place on land to these ships in all directions…; the number of any nuclear arms that might be on these ships, and the extent of the damage should they be attacked; the simplest way of neutralizing these naval units; the newest technology used by these ships; all scientific developments in the area of naval warfare; which naval units are closest to Islamic countries; which naval units are close to Western countries in general; searching all naval websites in order to gather as much information as possible, and translating it into Arabic; search for the easiest ways of striking these ships… “My Muslim brothers, do not underestimate the importance of any piece of information, as simple as it may seem; the mujahideen, the lions of monotheism, may be able to use it in ways that have not occurred to you.” http://militarytimes.com/blogs/scoopdeck/2009/12/31/the-terror-threat-at-sea/ The terror threat at sea December 31st, 2009 Blogs Maritime operations Ships The Middle East Posted by Phil Ewing A boarding team from the destroyer Laboon approached a suspicious small boat in the Red Sea in July. Internet chatter about at-sea terror threats has increased this week // Navy All of a sudden, there is lots of discussion online about terrorist threats to U.S. warships in the Middle East. Galrahn has an excellent post today about a new warning for ships, including this money quote: “We assess a direct, grave threat, by Al Qaeda, against U.S. Navy warships and U.S.-flagged vessels. Moreover, if U.S.-flagged merchantmen are still steaming anywhere in the U.S. 5 Fleet area of responsibility without armed security, they do so now at a considerably elevated risk.” There’s more: Richard Wachtel, a spokesman for the Middle East Media Research Institute, tells Scoop Deck that a post on a jihadist Web site Wednesday called for people to “gather intelligence” about the U.S. and international warships that patrol the Gulf of Aden, the Arabian Sea and the Persian Gulf. Here’s the whole post, provided by Wachtel: “The affair with the U.S. Navy began several years ago, when the lions of Al-Qaeda struck the destroyer U.S.S. Cole, in Yemen; now, with Allah’s help, all the American vessels in the seas and oceans, including aircraft carriers, submarines, and all naval military equipment deployed here and there that is within range of Al-Qaeda’s fire, will be destroyed… “To this end, information on every U.S. naval unit – and only U.S. [units]!! – should be quietly gathered [as follows:] [the vessel's] name, the missions it is assigned; its current location, including notation of the spot in accordance with international maritime standards; the advantages of this naval unit; the number of U.S. troops on board, including if possible their ranks, and what state they are from, their family situation, and where their family members (wife and children) live; what kind of weapons they carry; the [vessel's] destination…; the missions it has carried out; the [recommended] way to monitor it around the clock; if its location is changed, define its movements and its route; monitor every website used by the personnel on these ships, and attempt to discover what is in these contacts…; identify the closest place on land to these ships in all directions…; the number of any nuclear arms that might be on these ships, and the extent of the damage should they be attacked; the simplest way of neutralizing these naval units; the newest technology used by these ships; all scientific developments in the area of naval warfare; which naval units are closest to Islamic countries; which naval units are close to Western countries in general; searching all naval websites in order to gather as much information as possible, and translating it into Arabic; search for the easiest ways of striking these ships… “My Muslim brothers, do not underestimate the importance of any piece of information, as simple as it may seem; the mujahideen, the lions of monotheism, may be able to use it in ways that have not occurred to you.” This isn’t the first time MEMRI has found online threats to Navy ships, but it’s one of the most detailed. http://www.informationdissemination.net/2010/01/disturbing-direct-mujahideen-threat.html Friday, January 1, 2010 Disturbing Direct Mujahideen Threat Against US Navy Just in case you were not paying attention to the threats issued by Al Qaeda in Yemen to the Navy, or didn't think it was serious, it turns out there is a lot more. If you have a membership, see this Dec 31 MEMRI blog entry. If you don't, check out this post over at Scoopdeck. Here is a portion of a jihad forum posting on Wednesday last week (between the first and second official threat), translated by Richard Wachtel of MEMRI and reported by Phil Ewing at Scoopdeck. “To this end, information on every U.S. naval unit – and only U.S. [units]!! – should be quietly gathered [as follows:] [the vessel's] name, the missions it is assigned; its current location, including notation of the spot in accordance with international maritime standards; the advantages of this naval unit; the number of U.S. troops on board, including if possible their ranks, and what state they are from, their family situation, and where their family members (wife and children) live; what kind of weapons they carry; the [vessel's] destination…; the missions it has carried out; the [recommended] way to monitor it around the clock; if its location is changed, define its movements and its route; monitor every website used by the personnel on these ships, and attempt to discover what is in these contacts…; identify the closest place on land to these ships in all directions…; the number of any nuclear arms that might be on these ships, and the extent of the damage should they be attacked; the simplest way of neutralizing these naval units; the newest technology used by these ships; all scientific developments in the area of naval warfare; which naval units are closest to Islamic countries; which naval units are close to Western countries in general; searching all naval websites in order to gather as much information as possible, and translating it into Arabic; search for the easiest ways of striking these ships…" Mr. Juan Garcia, Al Qaeda on line 1. While not uncommon, I do think you have to take a Jihad call for direct intelligence on family members to sailors seriously. This type of thing raises legitimate questions regarding the value of a Facebook Fan Page for Navy family programs, not to mention a review of security procedures for ombudsmen. It will be interesting how the Navy reacts to the specific threat against families of sailors, because I think considerable thought is necessary for a responsible reaction. It is another reminder how much major newspapers and TV in the media desensitize the nature of the enemy our nation confronts in the ongoing conflicts. I am not suggesting the way we act (like surging into Afghanistan) is justified by the enemy behavior; completely unrelated and off topic. I am saying there is a role in the freedoms of journalism to protect the people, and part of that role in wartime is to insure we articulate well the very real dangers facing our nation. Whether people choose to take the enemy seriously or not is their choice, but the government truly has no choice and must take it seriously. Several months ago I made a choice to stop listing the vessels operating in the 5th Fleet AOR every weekend. It was in response to some comments from someone I admire and trust during a wargame I participated in this summer. I'm starting to think that was a good decision, because even though it is completely possible to track naval vessels generally, I don't want to do the legwork for would be adversaries. Remember the first rule: Don't believe everything you read on the internet. Also remember the asterisk, some places on the internet mean more than others, and those Jihad forums MEMRI covers are as legit to the terrorist groups as the Small Wars Journal is to the US military - and the SWJ is highly influential. The only thing that can be concluded by the recent statements and activity regarding Al Qaeda is that the Navy is now on their radar. Who do you think Al Qaeda associated groups will look to learn sea tactics? Still think piracy is no big deal? I wonder how well financed and organized terror groups look at the tactical situation for successful operations in Middle Eastern seas when examining the catch and release system for armed bandits at sea currently in place dealing with piracy? If at first you don't succeed and get caught, no worries, you'll be released if you dump your arms before your caught and act like a poor, dumb former fisherman... It is sad but true. It is also sad that a direct Al Qaeda attack against US Navy ships is more preferable than direct Al Qaeda attacks against international merchant ships, because at least our ships have a chance of defending themselves. If ships start blowing up instead of being captured, many things are going to change; starting with the higher cost of imported goods for you and me, and ending with blood. http://www.informationdissemination.net/ Saturday, January 2, 2010 New Year Begins With 2 Ships Hijacked It is not a good sign for piracy in 2010 when on the first day of the year, two ships are hijacked. From the Washington Post. A British-flagged cargo ship and a chemical tanker from Singapore have both been hijacked by pirates in the perilous waters off the coast of Somalia, officials said Saturday. The Asian Glory highjacking happened late Friday roughly 600 miles (1,000 kilometers) east of Somalia, said Commander John Harbour, a spokesman with the European Union task force charged with combating piracy off Somalia. That same day, the Singaporean-flagged Pramoni, a chemical tanker with a crew of 24, was seized by pirates in the Gulf of Aden, one of the world's busiest waterways. That is the third hijacking of a ship in the Gulf of Aden in the last couple weeks, which is odd because before those three there had not been a hijacking in the Gulf of Aden since July. It raises questions regarding what has changed. Are the pirates using new tactics, tools, or techniques to get on ships in the Gulf of Aden? Is it a weather issue? Had pirates stopped trying to attack ships in the Gulf of Aden but only recently returned? Are there fewer ships right now part of the international coalition and that has decreased the speed which naval forces can respond to an attack? I do not know the answer, but two hijackings is not a good way to begin the year. See more information on the M/V Pramoni hijacking here. Posted by Galrahn at 10:00 AM View Comments » Excellent Sea Blog: http://www.informationdissemination.net/ Al Qaeda Looks to Sea With Latest Threats The Osen-Hunter Group is a global, private security company that also puts out daily intelligence assessments, similar to the intelligence services of the popular STRATFOR service. Today's analysis concluded with an assessment worth consideration: Assessment: Just as a strike against an American ship in the Suez would double the value for AL QAEDA, we would warn that Mombasa is a port of concern, given its proximity to southern Somalia where AL SHABAAB is strongest and where piracy contacts in the Kenyan port authority are ample. Inasmuch as this represents a second reference to ships at sea – unprecedented in a single AL QAEDA statement – we make the following, unequivocal judgment: We assess a direct, grave threat, by AL QAEDA, against U.S. Navy warships and U.S.-flagged vessels. Moreover, if U.S.-flagged merchantmen are still steaming anywhere in the U.S. FIFTH FLEET Area of Responsibility without armed security, they do so now at a considerably elevated risk. In this connection, we should also note a reference to the Fort Hood massacre and a call to Muslims “in the Crusader armies” and “agent governments” to replicate the 5 November killings at Fort Hood. We would interpret this as a call on sufficiently radicalized sailors to sabotage warships. They come to this conclusion based on an observation that I do think is certainly noteworthy. On December 27th, Al Qaeda in Yemen (AQIY) responded to airstrikes in the eastern province of Shabwa conducted by Yemen air force with new threats. The full English transcript (PDF) of the AQIY threat is here, but this part stuck out. “And lastly, we call upon the proud tribes of Yemen—people of support and victory—and the people of the Arabian Peninsula, to face the crusader campaign and their cooperatives on the peninsula of Muhammad, prayer and peace upon him, and that’s through attacking their military bases, intelligence embassies, and their fleets that exist on the water and land of the Arabian Peninsula; until we stop the continuous massacres on the Muslim countries." While not unheard of, it is uncommon for any Al Qaeda statement to mention attacking western fleets or attacks on water in general. Plenty of threats discuss planes, bases, and embassies... but rarely targets at sea. That is why the Al Qaeda in Yemen AQIY claim of responsibility for the Christmas airline attack was also interesting. Full English transcript here (PDF), but again, this part stuck out: “We call upon every Muslim protective of his religion and doctrine to remove the polytheists from the Arabian Peninsula and that’s through killing every crusader working in the embassies or other places, and you ought to declare it a full-scale war against every crusader in the [Arabian] Peninsula of Muhammad, Allah’s prayer and peace upon him, on land, on water, and in the air.” The Osen-Hunter Group's assessment is in direct response to threats made by Al Qaeda against sea targets twice in one week, because as it turns out, Al Qaeda has never made threats against targets at sea twice in one week, ever. I'm not going to speculate the conclusions, but let me give the folks in DC something to consider regarding this issue. If you have followed the fallout from the underwear bomber, the only clear conclusion is that the Department of Homeland Security, and in particular Secretary Janet Napolitano, got caught with their pants down. They had no plan of action in place to respond to the attempted bombing of the airline, and when the event took place on a slow news day like Christmas, it became the only thing to talk about and a major issue to the American people. So now everyone is talking about the event, and to make things worse, now we have instant experts on everything from underwear bombs to Al Qaeda in Yemen, and in many cases those "experts" couldn't name the Capitol city of Yemen if they had a gun to their head. In politics, actual expertise is completely irrelevant though, and that is the problem. The STRATCOM fallout from the bomber got out of control quickly, and with no coherent response ready to either a successful terrorist attack or even a failed attack, DHS looks like an agency of fools. So what if Al Qaeda is successful, or even fails, an attack on a commercial or even naval warship in the Gulf of Aden? Who is the lucky person (or people) who will take the plane to New York and be on Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC? How ready is the Navy to defend the bombardment of questions rooted in total ignorance sure to come from the host of any given show? How might such an event influence FY 2011, and would a successful terrorist event against a warship throw a curve ball into the ongoing QDR assessment? Consider some of the questions. It will be noted that piracy in 2009 peaked in that region, highest level in decades. It will be noted that Al Qaeda is operating not just in Yemen, but Somalia, and Iran will be a constant point of discussion. It will be noted how important oil transport at sea is. The multi-national effort in the Gulf of Aden will be discussed, which will lead to topics such as the Chinese and Russian naval vessels in the region. They may bring up the UN statistics for the human trafficking in the region, stunning numbers of human suffering. Most importantly though, they are going to ask what the Navy is doing there and if the Navy is lucky, they won't ask for some form of tangible results of naval operations... but what if they do? What is the STRATCOM when the Navy accurately notes the few number of ships hijacked in the Gulf of Aden since July of 09 when at the same time, more ships are being hijacked just south in the Indian Ocean than ever before, including as far as 1000 nautical miles east of Somalia. When asked how the Navy intends to deal with the piracy problem or Al Qaeda in Somalia or Yemen, what is the answer that doesn't turn millions of politically active Americans into millions of politically frustrated Americans? How will the Navy explain themselves to the American people following a highly dramatic crisis at sea that unfolds on TV when it doesn't end like the Maersk Alabama? We just spent the entire first year of the Obama administration publicly debating military strategy for Afghanistan on TV and on the internet. Should a few incidents at sea occur in early 2010, the Navy is going to get that conversation with the country on maritime strategy two years later than anticipated, and unless the Navy is ready for that conversation from the very beginning, expect the opinions of "experts" to dominate any Navy STRATCOM and more importantly - watch those "experts" heavily influence the political reaction. Posted by Galrahn at 12:00 AM 3 Comments and 4 Reactions

__._,_.___

If reposting elsewhere, please credit source of this research as UnitedStatesAction.com

__,_._,___