You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Arabia
Al Qaeda claims responsibility for Saudi attack
2006-02-25
Saudi-born Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda group claimed responsibility for Friday's attack on a major Saudi oil facility at Abqaiq, the group said in an Internet statement.

The statement, posted by the al Qaeda group in the Peninsula on a Web site often used by militant groups, said two of its members carried out the suicide operation, but gave no details.

"With grace from God alone, hero mujahideen from the squadron of Sheikh Osama bin Laden succeeded today (Friday)...in penetrating a plant for refining oil and gas in the town of Abqaiq in the eastern part of the peninsula, and then allowed two car bombs in driven by two martyrdom seekers," it said.

The statement added: "These plants help in stealing the Muslims' wealth of oil."

The group said it would give further details of the operation and those who carried it out at a later stage.

It said the operation was within the framework of efforts by al Qaeda to prevent the theft of Muslims' wealth by "crusaders and Jews" and to force "infidels" out of the peninsula.

Al Qaeda leaders have called on militants to wage attacks on oil targets in the Gulf region.

The authenticity of the statement could not be verified.
Posted by:lotp

#18  Wow! Did this turn polite or WHAT?

It's time they felt the pain too. Typical of Al-Q though, they had little vision. One refinery, Hah! should have gone after the pumping facility at the port, or sunk a tanker in the straits.
Posted by: Skidmark   2006-02-25 23:07  

#17  Old Patriot, that last paragraph was a classic: I'm copping it for my website, with attribution.

If you want less of something, tax it. If you want more of something, subsidize it. Elementary facts no leftist wants to confront.
Posted by: Ptah   2006-02-25 17:00  

#16  #13, if it would work out that way .... I think we'd see the usual western EU suspects desperately elbow each other out of the way in their haste to proclaim solidarity with the Eurabia ideal.
Posted by: lotp   2006-02-25 14:39  

#15  I think the Saudis got lucky.

Here it's 65F day and 60F at night. I drive a Ford Escort and the Wife drives a Ford Focus. My personal space is heated by a bunch of computers. energy price doubled while consumption is down.

We are getting more Insulation by hook or crook.
Posted by: SPoD   2006-02-25 14:38  

#14  I say turn up the heat. Ok...maybe not, but the faster we get to fuel cells and renewable energy sources, the sooner the Saudis princes will not have money to fund Wahabbi terrorism.

Our own oil industry won't be hurt. They will stay busy here in the US and Alaska for years to come and won't have to act like serfs for the Saudis anymore.

Let's move forward faster.
Posted by: 2b   2006-02-25 14:36  

#13  Better a major upset now than dhummitude 20 years down the road, lotp.
Posted by: gromgoru   2006-02-25 14:30  

#12  I drive a "gas-guzzling" Dodge Caravan, because it's the only vehicle that doesn't HURT to drive. My house is 68 during the day (got used to it in Europe), and 60 at night. I do what I can to conserve, don't make unnecessary trips, combine trips when I can, and all those other conservation ideas people have come up with. My utility bill has almost doubled in the last two years, partly because of increased cost and partly because of poor management by the local city government.

We could greatly increase national production by reviewing, and in most cases loosening, federal and state restrictions imposed by "conservationists". We need to drill in the ANWR. We need to drill off ALL our coasts where there is oil. We need to develop a viable oil shale industry, increase efficiency, do better with coal, and look into what others are doing in such places as Brazil and South Africa. It all takes money, and the only money that's going to be effective in the short term is that invested in private enterprise.

The one thing we're going to have to do for any of this to work is to make those people that demand we don't do ANYTHING pay a price for their behavior. Until they have to foot part of the bill themselves, they will continue to "do good" at the expense of the rest of us, with no cost to themselves. It's time to rein in these "useful idiots" and shut them down. It's also time to get the Saudi influence out of our government and NGOs.
Posted by: Old Patriot   2006-02-25 14:26  

#11  HC the woids you're looking for is: you'uns, yawl, yawls, we'all - youse, youseguys or us guys also acceptable.

You do suck in the plural. :>
Posted by: 6   2006-02-25 13:43  

#10  giggedy, giggedy, giggedy.
Posted by: Hupomoger Clans9827   2006-02-25 12:49  

#9  We should just make sure the price of oil never goes below $50 a barrell by putting an import fee on any imported oril or oil derivative product that raises the price to $50. If domestic producers of alternatives know that the price will never go below $50 per barrell, there will be plenty of domestic alternatives developed. Just be prepared to hear lots of squeals when Arabian oil goes to $10 per barrel and every body realizes that gas could cost $1.00 per gallon if only we got rid of that pesky import fee.
Posted by: Nimble Spemble   2006-02-25 12:46  

#8  LOL lotp. thanks for understanding.

Gently noted. I'm freezing my butt off with lowered thermo and cranky today. Got my heating bill yesterday - up 150%. How you doin'?

(I do French better than English - admitted, but I never mean offense. just get too passionate, sorry. je m'excuse)
Posted by: Hupomoger Clans9827   2006-02-25 12:31  

#7  Thanks, HC - and I agree. Just ask my daughter who keeps eyeing the thermostat which is a few degrees lower than in other winters, or my husband who has to wend his way past wooden racks with clothes airdrying. ;-)

And yeah - we can and should (gently) encourage one another to take this seriously.
Posted by: lotp   2006-02-25 12:24  

#6  Apologies lotp: I most certainly didn't mean to use a personal YOU. Heaven forbid! I admire you. Sorry for the implied personal - not at all my intent. scusi!

It's hard to use a "one" or "average man" ,you in english. I do echo your fears of economic impact. I just think there is a lot that "average guy" could do to reduce dependence on foreign (or simply unfriendly) oil. There may well be a dearth of it in the offing.
Posted by: Hupomoger Clans9827   2006-02-25 12:15  

#5  I can accomodate both of you -- there's this 50 km wide strip of sand on the eastern edge of the Arabian penisula ...
Posted by: Steve White   2006-02-25 12:06  

#4  Well, Canadian troll, I don't own an RV, I don't weigh 300 lbs and I don't eat at McDonalds.

I do, however, have a pretty good handle on what a major oil shock would do to a lot of economies -- not the US so much as most European states and an awful lot of poor people.
Posted by: lotp   2006-02-25 12:05  

#3  Sure there's an upside. Park your honkin SUV in the driveway for a few weeks and walk your obese ass the 300 yards to McDonald's for the supersized take-out.

Lose weight. Reduce oil consumption. Look for alternatives. Paradigm shift. It's all choice.
Posted by: Hupomoger Clans9827   2006-02-25 11:57  

#2  ?????

I know how much you .... dislike, disdain, (fill in the blank with your favorite harsher word) the Arabs, and perhaps the Saudis in particular, what with their Wahabist fundees and all.

But are you really cheering for a major interruption of the international economy? Is there an upside that would outweigh the downside for lots of people?

honest question, not flaming you
Posted by: lotp   2006-02-25 10:12  

#1  Too bad they've failed.
Posted by: gromgoru   2006-02-25 08:11  

00:00