Sunday, February 26, 2006
Ground attack:Last week there was an attempt, later claimed to be by al Qaeda, against a huge refinery in Saudi Arabia. From the news: Saudi security forces Friday thwarted an attempted suicide car bombing at an oil processing facility in eastern Saudi Arabia, Saudi security sources told CNN.
Three Saudi security forces were killed and 10 were injured after they opened fire on three cars believed to have been carrying suicide bombers, Saudi security official Nawaf Obaid told CNN.
The cars had forced their way through an initial entrance to the Abqaiq plant, and were met with gunfire between the first and second security perimeters, Obaid said.
The gunfire is believed to have caused two of the vehicles to detonate before they could enter the facility, he said. This just reinforces our view that al Qaeda is nothing more than a bunch of suiciders with car bombs. They sure don't seem to have any RPGs or Stingers. But even given their lack of real military hardware, why a car bombing? Couldn't Osama fork over the money for a used airplane? Not a jet liner, but perhaps a Lear Jet, or even a Piper Cherokee? (You can purchase an old Cherokee for under $50,000) An explosives-laden small craft could certainly do a hell of a lot of damage if it were flown into the most critical part of a refinery. But it wasn't done. Why not? Is al Qaeda without the funds? Isn't bin Laden still a guy with lots of money? Curious. Also curious, why, in the wake of the failed attack, the oil markets were relatively sanguine.
posted by Quiddity at 2/26/2006 07:07:00 PM
7 comments
Some have speculated that this is franchise al Qaeda that has little to do with the operational expertise of 9/11 or even USS Cole. Just a bunch of guys blowing up Saudi targets, carrying the al Qaeda brand but little more. Jim Henley, for example, thinks this (meaning attacking Saudi oil infrastructure) runs counter to Osama's designs on eventually running Saudi. I'm not clear myself.
I think the lack of significant spikes in the oil market probably have a lot to do with the relative ease with which the attempted attack was thwarted, and perhaps also because of what the attack says about al Qaeda's capacities (and lack of apparent imagination).
What surprised me, Quid, was that AQ would claim responsibility for a failed attack (if indeed they did claim it). Other than the death of the two guards, this one is so neat and clean that I wonder if it happened at all. tlaloc's point about AA is well taken. You have to launch that airplane from somewhere. I don't know how much private aviation is allowed in SA (probably LOTS) -- but -- remember that since 9/11, lots of people have been VERY concerned about aviation security. Probably AQ will never attempt an air attack again. And Kuwait and Iraq might be even less permisisive. So, using car bombs is not surprising. As for the failure to use RPGs, that would be in some sense a military attack, and the car bombs (using ARAMCO markings) were supposed to achieve SURPRISE. And it's good for morale to create new martyrs. As to Stingers, you've got a good point. Take the train from now on. Let's just hope that this WAS an AQ attack and that they ARE out of new ideas.
P.S. Take a look at my blog today, in which Ted Rall appears to be flat wrong on his facts.
(heh) You know, the only "al Qaeda" cell that's ever been captured was in Palestine and, as it turns out, was comprised of Mossad agents.
Think about that for a second. What if al Qaeda was nothing but a useful contrivance to use as a boogeyman in order to carry out a particular agenda?
Have you ever noticed that we were never shown a single frame from an airport security camera (in the 9/11 airports) showing a single one of the "Arab" terrorists at the airports they were supposed to have departed from? The technology exists to fly airliners remotely (drone target planes are routinely flown like this) and this is likely what took place on 9/11.
Is it too absurd to suggest that the same kind of controls that are used on toy radio controlled cars might be at work with these "car bombers"? How is it that car bombers in Iraq end up using vehicles that have been reported stolen in the US? Isn't that a hell of a long way to go in order to get a car to blow up?
If you ask me, the last thing that Americans should be afraid of is al Qaeda (which probably doesn't actually exist). I'm much more concerned with rogue elements within the US government ...who have little or no concern about how many humans (including their own countrymen) die, as long as they are able to play around with "shaping history" (and this, in spite of how inept they are at it).
This will scare the shit out of you.
http://www.citypages.com/databank/27/1315/article14125.asp
Gas markets may have been calm but locally they went up $0.20 per gallon from morning to evening commute.
Anonymous,
> Have you ever noticed that we were never shown a single frame from an airport security camera (in the 9/11 airports) showing a single one of the "Arab" terrorists at the airports they were supposed to have departed from?
Even this site that doubts the chroniology of events has the pictures:
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a553portlandfilmed
Have you ever noticed how ideology can blind people to the facts?
Brainhell,
"Have you ever noticed how ideology can blind people to the facts?"
Yeah, I've noticed that. It also blinds them to what they're responding to. In case you aren't well versed in the happenings of that day, Atta didn't take off from the "terror" flight at Bangor, he was supposed to have left from Boston. If you'd like to dig up a photo of Atta at Logan, I'd be delighted to see it...but don't get your hopes up about that ('cause it ain't out there bro).
Take another shot?
|
