Mumbai attacks nearly identical to New York "Landmark" plan of 93

[sleazye]

Here is an excerpt from a Stratfor Intelligence email I get each week from www.stratfor.com (http://www.stratfor.com/).







On the surface, last week’s attack on Mumbai was remarkable for its execution and apparently unconventional tactics. But when compared to a plot uncovered 15 years ago that targeted prominent hotels in Manhattan, it becomes apparent that the Mumbai attack was not so original after all.
The 1993 New York Landmarks Plot

In July 1993, U.S. counterterrorism agents arrested eight individuals later convicted of plotting an elaborate, multistage attack on key sites in Manhattan. The militants, who were linked to Osama bin Laden’s then-relatively new group, al Qaeda, planned to storm the island armed with automatic rifles, grenades and improvised explosive devices (IEDs). In multiple raids on key targets combined with diversionary attacks, they aimed to kill as many people as possible.


The planned attack, which came to be known as the “Landmarks” plot, called for several tactical teams to raid sites such as the Waldorf-Astoria, St. Regis and U.N. Plaza hotels, the Lincoln and Holland tunnels, and a midtown Manhattan waterfront heliport servicing business executives and VIPs traveling from lower Manhattan to various New York-area airports. The militants carried out extensive surveillance both inside and outside the target hotels using human probes, hand-drawn maps and video surveillance. Detailed notes were taken on the layout and design of the buildings, with stairwells, ballrooms, security cameras and personnel all reconnoitered.


The attackers intended to infiltrate the hotels and disguise themselves as kitchen employees. On the day of the attack, one attack team planned to use stolen delivery vans to get close to the hotels, at which point heavily armed, small-cell commando teams would deploy from the rear of the van. Stationary operatives would use hand grenades to create diversions while attack teams would rake hotel guests with automatic weapons. The attackers planned to carry gas masks and use tear gas in hotel ballrooms to gain an advantage over any security they might come up against. They planned to attack at night, when the level of protection would be lower.


The targeted hotels host some of the most prestigious guests in Manhattan. These could have included diplomats like the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, who traditionally keeps an apartment in the Waldorf-Astoria, or even the U.S. secretary of state, who is known to stay at the Waldorf during U.N. sessions. They also host various business leaders. If successful, the attackers doubtless would have killed many high-profile individuals key to New York’s stature as a center for financial and diplomatic dealings.

Meanwhile, the plots to detonate explosives in the Lincoln and Holland tunnels would have blocked critical transportation infrastructure, sowing chaos in the city as key escape routes were closed off. And VIPs seeking to escape the city via the midtown heliport would have been thwarted by the attack planned for that location. In fact, the heliport attack was planned to be carried out using watercraft, which also could have been used to target transport ferries, further disrupting transportation in and out of Manhattan. The New York City Police Department could plausibly even have quarantined Manhattan to prevent the attackers from fleeing the city.


With the city shut down and gunmen running amok, the financial center of the United States would have been thrown into chaos and confusion until the attackers were detained or killed. The attacks thus would have undermined the security and effectiveness of New York as a center for financial and diplomatic dealings.


At the time, U.S. counterterrorism officials deemed that the attack would have had a 90 percent success rate. Disaster, then, was averted when federal agents captured the plotters planning the Landmarks attack thanks to an informant who had infiltrated the group. Along with the 1993 World Trade Center bombing just four months earlier, which killed six people but was intended to bring down both towers, the United States dodged a major bullet that could have been devastating to New York.



http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20081203_new_york_landmarks_plot_mumbai_attack

[GibbsFactor]

I saw an awesome powerpoint on how this attack was carried out during a security threat assessment the other day.

They had this well planned out for months.

[Mad Mike]

It's also notable that this was done by a group *associated* with al Qaeda. The kind of group that people have told me was not important when I point out that Saddam supported several groups associated with al Qaeda.

My point being that if you just want revenge for 9/11, you just target bin Laden and al Qaeda itself. But if you want to prevent the NEXT 9/11, you target everyone associated with them as well.

:2cents:

[GibbsFactor]

It's also notable that this was done by a group *associated* with al Qaeda. The kind of group that people have told me was not important when I point out that Saddam supported several groups associated with al Qaeda.

My point being that if you just want revenge for 9/11, you just target bin Laden and al Qaeda itself. But if you want to prevent the NEXT 9/11, you target everyone associated with them as well.

:2cents:

We should have built them schools after the Afghan/Soviet war.

[twa]

We should have built them schools after the Afghan/Soviet war.

A number of them come from schools in England and elsewhere.

We really need to address the root cause,which is not poverty.


Another similar attack in the past

The Mumbai terror attack's first prototype: Mike's Place, Tel Aviv, 2003

http://www.debka.com/headline.php?hid=5744

[Predicto]

It's also notable that this was done by a group *associated* with al Qaeda. The kind of group that people have told me was not important when I point out that Saddam supported several groups associated with al Qaeda.

My point being that if you just want revenge for 9/11, you just target bin Laden and al Qaeda itself. But if you want to prevent the NEXT 9/11, you target everyone associated with them as well.

:2cents:

Your definition of "associated with" includes every non-Israeli human being between Algeria and Indonesia. :)

[Mad Mike]

Your definition of "associated with" includes every non-Israeli human being between Algeria and Indonesia. :)

So. Is this supposed to be funny or are you just trying to be an ass?

http://a.abcnews.com/images/pdf/Pentagon_Report_V1.pdf


Captured Iraqi documents have uncovered evidence that links the regime of Saddam Hussein to regional and global terrorism, including a variety of revolutionary, liberation, nationalist, and Islamic terrorist organizations. While these documents do not reveal direct coordination and assistance between the Saddam regime and the al Qaeda network, they do indicate that Saddam was willing to use, albeit cautiously, operatives affiliated with al Qaeda as long as Saddam could have these terrorist–operatives monitored closely. Because Saddam’s security organizations and Osama bin Laden’s terrorist network operated with similar aims (at least in the short term), considerable overlap was inevitable when monitoring, contacting, financing, and training the same outside groups. This created both the appearance of and, in some ways, a “de facto” link between the organizations. At times, these organizations would work together in pursuit of shared goals but still maintain their autonomy and independence because of innate caution and mutual distrust. Though the execution of Iraqi terror plots was not always successful, evidence shows that Saddam’s use of terrorist tactics and his support for terrorist groups remained strong up until the collapse of the regime.



When attacking Western interests, the competitive terror cartel
came into play, particularly in the late 1990s. Captured documents reveal that the
regime was willing to co-opt or support organizations it knew to be part of al
Qaeda-as long as that organization's near-term goals supported Saddam's longterm
vision. A directive (Extract 24) from the Director for International Intelligence
in the IIS to an Iraqi operative in Bahrain orders him to investigate a particular
terrorist group there, The Army of Muhammad.

"[July 2001]
We have learned of a group calling themselves The Army ofMuhammad... has
threatened Kuwaiti authorities and plans to attack American and Western interests
...We need detailed information about this group, their activities, their objectives,
and their most distinguished leaders. We need to know [to] whom
they belong to and with whom they are connected. Give this subject your ut-
. 82 most attentIon."

"Information available to us is that the group is under the wings of bin
Laden. They receive their directions from Yemen. Their objectives are the
. 83 same as bIll Laden..."



A later memorandum from the same collection85 to the Director of the IIS reports that the Army of Muhammad is endeavoring to receive assistance [from Iraq] to implement its objectives, and that the local IIS station has been told to deal with them in accordance with priorities previously established. The IIS agent goes on to inform the Director that "this organization is an offshoot of bin Laden, but that their objectives are similar but with different names that can be a way of camouflaging the organization."

[Predicto]

So. Is this supposed to be funny or are you just trying to be an ass?

Both. Plus, it's an accurate characterization.

[Mad Mike]

BTW predicto, did you read the Bergen piece yet?

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/04/bergen.pakistan/index.html?iref=mpstoryview


The mapping of the social networks of terrorists should also include identification of the clerical mentors of suicide bombers, as it seems likely that only a relatively small number have convinced their followers of the religious necessity of martyrdom. Armed with such intelligence, the United States and NATO could ask Pakistan, where most of the suicide attackers originate, to rein in especially egregious clerics.

From the Iraq report I quoted above...


Iraq was a long-standing supporter of international terrorism. The existence
of a memorandum (Extract 10) from the lIS to Saddam, written a decade
before OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM, provides detailed evidence of that support. Several of the organizations listed in this memorandum were designated as international terrorist organizations by the US Department of State. 31

We list herein the organizations that our agency [IIS] cooperates with and
have relations with various elements in many parts of the Arab world and
who also have the expertise to carry out assignments indicated in the above
directive [the cited directive has not been discovered yet].


The Afghani Islamic Party
It was founded in 1974 when its leader [Gulbuddin Hekmatyar] escaped
from Afghanistan to Pakistan. It is considered one of the extreme political
religious movements against the West, and one of the strongest Sunni parties in Afghanistan. The organization relies on financial support from Iraq
and we have had good relations with Hikmatyar since 1989

Jam'iyat Ulama Pakistan - Pakistan Scholars Group
Established in 1970, its goals are religious and political reform. It is well
known in Pakistan and well into India. The organization maintains offices
in England and Holland. Our agency has had relations with them since 1987. They were not tasked with commando operations during the war, but were tasked to undertake protest demonstrations against American aggression in several countries. They did undertake activities for this purpose. 32

[Mad Mike]

Both. Plus, it's an accurate characterization.

No. It's a lie meant to discredit me because you can't come up with a real argument. Tell me, what's it like for a lawyer to be owned so bad in a debate?

[ACW]

How 'bout that. The Stratfor weekly emails are free for anyone :)
I just signed up :)
https://www.stratfor.com/join/free?source=FreeWeekly

[Mad Mike]

How 'bout that. The Stratfor weekly emails are free for anyone :)
I just signed up :)
https://www.stratfor.com/join/free?source=FreeWeekly

Thanks for the tip. I did too.

[Dan T.]

With easy access to weapons in the U.S. and freedom of movement, I'm almost surprised such a low-tech attack hasn't already happened here.

[SkinsHokieFan]

With easy access to weapons in the U.S. and freedom of movement, I'm almost surprised such a low-tech attack hasn't already happened here.

I agree. Sort of

It is just evidence though that US Muslims are simply not radicalized and more concerned with paying the mortgage and meeting white women then blowing up and terrorizing their neighbors

[cjcdaman]

So. Is this supposed to be funny or are you just trying to be an ass?

http://a.abcnews.com/images/pdf/Pentagon_Report_V1.pdf


Look where he lives and what he has repeatedly posted on this site.

[Joe Sick]

If Clinton hadn't treated these terrorists' actions as criminal acts instead of acts of war, we might have stopped them before they could strike. Oh, wait. We did, along with the WTC bombers. And we didn't have to give up our Constitutional rights to do it.

Wow Stratfor, you mean terrorists may want to attack their enemies, cause chaos and fear and kill a lot of people? And that had never been thought of before 1993? They infiltrated the hotels by looking like restaurant workers. How else is a guy that is so poor that he would kill himself for $3000 going to stay in a 5star hotel? I'd also love any links that back up the "At the time, U.S. counterterrorism officials deemed that the attack would have had a 90 percent success rate" statement. The way it is phrased makes it sound like NOW they wouldn't have said the same thing. I see why they send that email out for free...

Comparing Manhattan to freaking India is just too much, even if it is their "financial capital" or whatever. The police force there doesn't have enough guns for everyone! Some hadn't shot a gun in 10 years. I keep hearing that this was "India's 9-11". Seriously? They are getting bombed every other month, and have been for 5+ years. (Here's a list http://www.mapreport.com/citysubtopics/india-c-o.html) This shouldn't have been that big of a surprise. They had direct warning of a naval attack on Mumbai, unlike Bush's more generic OBL warning. Is there an Indian translation of "My Pet Goat"? At least their leaders had the honor and integrity to resign after they failed the country so badly.

Now, if they had promoted these incompetents and given them medals the U.S. analogy may have been closer to the US on 9-11.

[Joe Sick]

The Afghani Islamic Party
It was founded in 1974 when its leader [Gulbuddin Hekmatyar] escaped
from Afghanistan to Pakistan. It is considered one of the extreme political
religious movements against the West, and one of the strongest Sunni parties in Afghanistan. The organization relies on financial support from Iraq and we have had good relations with Hikmatyar since 1989

What is the point of bringing this guy up? Why leave out the part about the U.S. giving this guy just as much money as the Saudis. Seems a little intellectually dishonest.

In 1982, Ronald Reagan dedicated Space Shuttle Columbia's flight to the resistance fighters in Afghanistan.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipszh14WPFY

Just as the Columbia, we think, represents man's finest aspirations in the field of science and technology so too does the struggle of the Afghan people represent man's highest aspirations for freedom. I am dedicating, on behalf of the American people, the March 22nd launch of the Columbia to the people of Afghanistan.

As well as Juan Cole's Reagan "eulogy":
Reagan's aggression led him to shape our world in most unfortunate ways. Although it would be an exaggeration to say that Ronald Reagan created al-Qaeda, it would not be a vast exaggeration. The Carter administration began the policy of supporting the radical Muslim holy warriors in Afghanistan who were waging an insurgency against the Soviets after their invasion of that country. But Carter only threw a few tens of millions of dollars at them. By the mid-1980s, Reagan was giving the holy warriors half a billion dollars a year. His officials strong-armed the Saudis into matching the US contribution, so that Saudi Intelligence chief Faisal al-Turki turned to Usamah Bin Laden to funnel the money to the Afghans. This sort of thing was certainly done in coordination with the Reagan administration. Even the Pakistanis thought that Reagan was a wild man, and balked at giving the holy warriors ever more powerful weapons. Reagan sent Orrin Hatch to Beijing to try to talk the Chinese into pressuring the Pakistanis to allow the holy warriors to receive stingers and other sophisticated ordnance. The Pakistanis ultimately relented, even though they knew there was a severe danger that the holy warriors would eventually morph into a security threat in their own right.

http://www.juancole.com/2004_06_01_juancole_archive.html#10865404941274831 9

[Mad Mike]

If Clinton hadn't treated these terrorists' actions as criminal acts instead of acts of war, we might have stopped them before they could strike. Oh, wait. We did, along with the WTC bombers. And we didn't have to give up our Constitutional rights to do it.

Wow Stratfor, you mean terrorists may want to attack their enemies, cause chaos and fear and kill a lot of people? And that had never been thought of before 1993? They infiltrated the hotels by looking like restaurant workers. How else is a guy that is so poor that he would kill himself for $3000 going to stay in a 5star hotel? I'd also love any links that back up the "At the time, U.S. counterterrorism officials deemed that the attack would have had a 90 percent success rate" statement. The way it is phrased makes it sound like NOW they wouldn't have said the same thing. I see why they send that email out for free...

Comparing Manhattan to freaking India is just too much, even if it is their "financial capital" or whatever. The police force there doesn't have enough guns for everyone! Some hadn't shot a gun in 10 years. I keep hearing that this was "India's 9-11". Seriously? They are getting bombed every other month, and have been for 5+ years. (Here's a list http://www.mapreport.com/citysubtopics/india-c-o.html) This shouldn't have been that big of a surprise. They had direct warning of a naval attack on Mumbai, unlike Bush's more generic OBL warning. Is there an Indian translation of "My Pet Goat"? At least their leaders had the honor and integrity to resign after they failed the country so badly.

Now, if they had promoted these incompetents and given them medals the U.S. analogy may have been closer to the US on 9-11.

Now THAT is intellectual dishonesty because we DID treat the first bombing like a criminal case and we acted like it was over and done with. Had we treated it as an act of war we would have aggressively gone after bin Laden when he publicly declared war on us.

And if you don't understand the difference between an occasional bomb and a massive coordinated attack on a nations landmarks and financial stability, well... deet de dee. :doh:

[Mad Mike]

What is the point of bringing this guy up? Why leave out the part about the U.S. giving this guy just as much money as the Saudis. Seems a little intellectually dishonest.

In 1982, Ronald Reagan dedicated Space Shuttle Columbia's flight to the resistance fighters in Afghanistan.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipszh14WPFY

Just as the Columbia, we think, represents man's finest aspirations in the field of science and technology so too does the struggle of the Afghan people represent man's highest aspirations for freedom. I am dedicating, on behalf of the American people, the March 22nd launch of the Columbia to the people of Afghanistan.

As well as Juan Cole's Reagan "eulogy":
Reagan's aggression led him to shape our world in most unfortunate ways. Although it would be an exaggeration to say that Ronald Reagan created al-Qaeda, it would not be a vast exaggeration. The Carter administration began the policy of supporting the radical Muslim holy warriors in Afghanistan who were waging an insurgency against the Soviets after their invasion of that country. But Carter only threw a few tens of millions of dollars at them. By the mid-1980s, Reagan was giving the holy warriors half a billion dollars a year. His officials strong-armed the Saudis into matching the US contribution, so that Saudi Intelligence chief Faisal al-Turki turned to Usamah Bin Laden to funnel the money to the Afghans. This sort of thing was certainly done in coordination with the Reagan administration. Even the Pakistanis thought that Reagan was a wild man, and balked at giving the holy warriors ever more powerful weapons. Reagan sent Orrin Hatch to Beijing to try to talk the Chinese into pressuring the Pakistanis to allow the holy warriors to receive stingers and other sophisticated ordnance. The Pakistanis ultimately relented, even though they knew there was a severe danger that the holy warriors would eventually morph into a security threat in their own right.

http://www.juancole.com/2004_06_01_juancole_archive.html#10865404941274831 9

Thank you for another un-informed post with filled with anti american assumptions.

Do you have some evidence that the rest of the world does not to assume that the US gave Gulbuddin Hekmatyar money? NO. You dont. it's just another stupid anti american assumption like the idiot theory that the US trained bin Laden.

Bergen: Bin Laden, CIA links hogwash
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/08/15/bergen.answers/index.html

Now even if you assume that some US money went to foreign fighters like bin laden while we were aiding real afghans like Massod. It in NO WAY compares to Iraq giving aid to terrorists with the intent of targeting the US.

Here is a little excersise for you...

If I help a man on the side of the road fix his car out of an act of kindness and he drives off to kill someone. Am I responsible? No. It makes me a victim.

Now on the other hand, If I know about the killers intent and I help him fix his car to do it. THAT makes me responsible.

Logic is a wonderful thing. You should try it some time.

[Mad Mike]

Oh, and BTW just to be perfectly clear. Reagan was right to honor the Afghan resistance. He was talking about people like this...

Ahmad Shah Massoud
http://www.massoudhero.com/English/biography.html

[SnyderShrugged]

Oh, and BTW just to be perfectly clear. Reagan was right to honor the Afghan resistance. He was talking about people like this...

Ahmad Shah Massoud
http://www.massoudhero.com/English/biography.html


Unfortunately, Massoud was a hero that hadnt been able to build a powerful enough base of power to have longevity and protect himself. If he had lived, much of the war there would be very different today. I read in Scheuer's book (Imperial Hubris) that the assassination of Massoud (a very heinous act of betrayal) was the death knell of any quick and decisive victory in Afghanistan.

[sleazye]

If Clinton hadn't treated these terrorists' actions as criminal acts instead of acts of war, we might have stopped them before they could strike. Oh, wait. We did, along with the WTC bombers. And we didn't have to give up our Constitutional rights to do it.

Wow Stratfor, you mean terrorists may want to attack their enemies, cause chaos and fear and kill a lot of people? And that had never been thought of before 1993? They infiltrated the hotels by looking like restaurant workers. How else is a guy that is so poor that he would kill himself for $3000 going to stay in a 5star hotel? I'd also love any links that back up the "At the time, U.S. counterterrorism officials deemed that the attack would have had a 90 percent success rate" statement. The way it is phrased makes it sound like NOW they wouldn't have said the same thing. I see why they send that email out for free...

Comparing Manhattan to freaking India is just too much, even if it is their "financial capital" or whatever. The police force there doesn't have enough guns for everyone! Some hadn't shot a gun in 10 years. I keep hearing that this was "India's 9-11". Seriously? They are getting bombed every other month, and have been for 5+ years. (Here's a list http://www.mapreport.com/citysubtopics/india-c-o.html) This shouldn't have been that big of a surprise. They had direct warning of a naval attack on Mumbai, unlike Bush's more generic OBL warning. Is there an Indian translation of "My Pet Goat"? At least their leaders had the honor and integrity to resign after they failed the country so badly.

Now, if they had promoted these incompetents and given them medals the U.S. analogy may have been closer to the US on 9-11.

Did you actually read the link? The plans to attack the cities were almost exactly the same. Let's not get into a pissing contest to see which attack killed more- 9/11 or Mumbai. They were both carried out by agents of the same agenda with similar tactics and desired outcomes.

Their email service is really fascinating, I would recommend it highly.