Saudi group wants Canadian oil facilities hit


Avro
#1
Al Qaeda's Saudi wing is calling for attacks on all oil suppliers to the United States, listing Canada among its targets.





In a message posted on its website, the al Qaeda Organization says Canada's oil and natural gas facilities should be attacked in order to "choke the U.S. economy."
"It is necessary to hit oil interests in all regions which serve the United States not just in the Middle East. The goal is to cut its supplies or reduce them through any means," reads the posting on the organization's Arabian Peninsula e-magazine.
"We should strike petroleum interests in all areas which supply the United States ... like Canada."
Canada is the main supplier of both oil and natural gas to the U.S. Mexico and Venezuela are the other western nations singled out in the group's call to arms.
The al Qaeda organization was behind the failed February 2006 suicide attack on the world's largest oil processing plant at Abqaiq in Saudi Arabia. Officials said two tonnes of explosives were used in that attack.
The Canadian Security Intelligence Service says it's aware of the posting, but will not comment on whether they consider it a legitimate threat.

http://news.sympatico.msn.ctv.ca/Top...howbyline=True
 
tamarin
#2
Are those people stupid? Any terrorist organization with IQ warming its head would target the power grid. That would cripple us. I hope our authorities recognize this and have instituted sufficient security to protect us.
 
thomaska
#3
I wonder if Hugo Chavez will enjoy that dagger when it gets stuck in his back?

I don't imagine it will matter though. It will still be the U.S's fault. Even when they find tiny little arab pieces all over their destroyed refineries, the tin foilers will scream that they were planted there by the CIA.

Well, hopefully it won't be the refinery that was going to send free oil to Harlem...I understand its really cold in New York these days..from all that glowbull warming.
 
blugoo
#4
Just goes to show that there really are groups who want to attack Canada, along with America and other countries. It's not something Bush and the Republicans made up. It's a real life-or-death struggle.

The sad thing is, no doubt someone will say Canada should cut off trade with the US, to supposedly placate groups like these...
 
DurkaDurka
#5
I won't lose too much sleep over these threats, Al-Qaeda operatives would stick out like a sore thumb anywhere in Alberta.
 
Avro
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by blugoo View Post

Just goes to show that there really are groups who want to attack Canada, along with America and other countries. It's not something Bush and the Republicans made up. It's a real life-or-death struggle.

The sad thing is, no doubt someone will say Canada should cut off trade with the US, to supposedly placate groups like these...

Bush makes things up to invade soveriegn nations who pose no threat to anybody but themselves and kills thousands in the process.

Like it or not terroists are the result of the West's meddling in countries we have no right being invovled in.

Every action has similar and negative reaction.
 
RUEZ
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by Avro

Like it or not terroists are the result of the West's meddling in countries we have no right being invovled in.

Every action has similar and negative reaction.

I know the families of those killed on 9/11 will sleep better knowing that somehow it was their own fault.
 
blugoo
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by Avro View Post

Bush makes things up to invade soveriegn nations who pose no threat to anybody but themselves and kills thousands in the process.

Like it or not terroists are the result of the West's meddling in countries we have no right being invovled in.

Every action has similar and negative reaction.

Totally wrong on almost every point.

First, Bush didn't "make it up" to invade Iraq. He was given information at the time, believed by almost all other major nations as well, that Iraq was a threat. Did he want to believe that information? Was he already suspicious of Iraq? Absolutely he was. That doesn't mean he fabricated the entire thing, though. He was given information and evidence from multiple sources, and had to make a tough decision in a post 9/11 world. The whole "Bush lied and made it all up" stuff belongs in a Michael Moore movie, not in serious discussion.

And tell me exactly how Mexico has "meddled" in middle eastern affairs? How about about Saudi Arabia, which IS a middle eastern country? Is Venezula meddling?

These extremist groups believe they are in a holy war against the infidels, which includes America first and foremost, Israel, other western countries, and ultimately every other country that isn't a fundamentally Islamic state. They want war and violence. The leaders of these organizations are not poor, oppressed people, (although they recruit among these) they hold to a twisted form of Islam, calling for the destruction of America and the West, not merely satisfied with America to just leave Iraq. (Which, as I remind you, America didn't invade, until after the attacks made upon it in 2001).
 
Avro
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by blugoo View Post

Totally wrong on almost every point.

First, Bush didn't "make it up" to invade Iraq. He was given information at the time, believed by almost all other major nations as well, that Iraq was a threat. Did he want to believe that information? Was he already suspicious of Iraq? Absolutely he was. That doesn't mean he fabricated the entire thing, though. He was given information and evidence from multiple sources, and had to make a tough decision in a post 9/11 world. The whole "Bush lied and made it all up" stuff belongs in a Michael Moore movie, not in serious discussion.

And tell me exactly how Mexico has "meddled" in middle eastern affairs? How about about Saudi Arabia, which IS a middle eastern country? Is Venezula meddling?

These extremist groups believe they are in a holy war against the infidels, which includes America first and foremost, Israel, other western countries, and ultimately every other country that isn't a fundamentally Islamic state. They want war and violence. The leaders of these organizations are not poor, oppressed people, (although they recruit among these) they hold to a twisted form of Islam, calling for the destruction of America and the West, not merely satisfied with America to just leave Iraq. (Which, as I remind you, America didn't invade, until after the attacks made upon it in 2001).

Western countries meaning the G8, I wasn't being literal.

I don't believe Bush persoanly lied but I do believe the evidence was cooked. Mr. Blix was asking for more time, why the rush?

If you can tell me you bought into that crap fed to the UN by Powel was enough to invade a country and turn it into a chaotic powder keg then I a rock that keeps tigers away.

Not one single thing said at that meeting was true.

This of course does not mention how the war itself has been handled. another complete disaster and again for nothing other than to emolden the very terrorists we are suppose to be fighting.

Way to go George.
 
blugoo
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by Avro View Post

Western countries meaning the G8, I wasn't being literal.

I don't believe Bush persoanly lied but I do believe the evidence was cooked. Mr. Blix was asking for more time, why the rush?

If you can tell me you bought into that crap fed to the UN by Powel was enough to invade a country and turn it into a chaotic powder keg then I a rock that keeps tigers away.

Not one single thing said at that meeting was true.

This of course does not mention how the war itself has been handled. another complete disaster and again for nothing other than to emolden the very terrorists we are suppose to be fighting.

Way to go George.

I know you weren't meaning Mexico and Venezula when you were referring to the West's meddling. The reason I mentioned those 2, along with Saudi Arabia, is because there was an attempted attack in Saudi Arabia, and Mexico and Venezula were mentioned as possible targets.

Why attack non-G8 nations, if the fault lies with the G8?

As far as the lead up to Iraq goes, I believe the Bush administration was fed-up with delays. There had been stalling and cover-ups ever since the conclusion of the first Gulf War, and I think powerful people wanted a final resolution to this issue, and conceivably believed military force was the only way to do that.

I also think evidence and opinion to the other side was largely ignored, as some administration officials possibly thought a war with Iraq would further geo-political interests in the region, and others honestly, truly, felt Iraq was a dangerous threat that needed to be dealt with. Still others might have had a mixture of the two.

It's nearly impossible to say for sure who believed what, but it's only fair to judge based on the information they had at the time. And some of that information said Iraq was, or could be, a threat to the United States.

Now as to how the war has been handled...

I agree that it's been a mess. They misjudged things terribly, and in the process, allowed Iran to increase its influence in the region.

I hope things can be turned around, because a chaotic Iraq isn't good for anyone. Not for the Iraqi people, not for the region, and ultimately, not for the world.
 
Avro
#11
Quote:

I know you weren't meaning Mexico and Venezula when you were referring to the West's meddling. The reason I mentioned those 2, along with Saudi Arabia, is because there was an attempted attack in Saudi Arabia, and Mexico and Venezula were mentioned as possible targets.

They were targets to disrupt oil to the U.S.

Quote:

Why attack non-G8 nations, if the fault lies with the G8?

They want to disrupt oil to the U.S.

Quote:

As far as the lead up to Iraq goes, I believe the Bush administration was fed-up with delays. There had been stalling and cover-ups ever since the conclusion of the first Gulf War, and I think powerful people wanted a final resolution to this issue, and conceivably believed military force was the only way to do that.

Delays for what....proof? Well I don't know about you but I'd want proof if I was sending my countries children off to war no matter how long it took.

Quote:

I also think evidence and opinion to the other side was largely ignored, as some administration officials possibly thought a war with Iraq would further geo-political interests in the region, and others honestly, truly, felt Iraq was a dangerous threat that needed to be dealt with. Still others might have had a mixture of the two.

Even though they were wrong and the evidence was BS from the start and was made to look significant.

Quote:

It's nearly impossible to say for sure who believed what, but it's only fair to judge based on the information they had at the time. And some of that information said Iraq was, or could be, a threat to the United States.

The probelm was that everyone was afraid to speak out against a war after 9/11 for fear of being labeled unpatriotic.....nobody did their job because of this and just rode this train wreck to where they are now.

A quote from someone with experience in taking a population to war.....

"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."
-- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials


Quote:

I agree that it's been a mess. They misjudged things terribly, and in the process, allowed Iran to increase its influence in the region.

That's right, do the same as what the Bush adminstration is doing now, try to blame someone else for your own failures.

The Bush regime is a joke but nobody's laughing.

Quote:

I hope things can be turned around, because a chaotic Iraq isn't good for anyone. Not for the Iraqi people, not for the region, and ultimately, not for the world.

I doubt it and who do we have thank for that?

The worst president in histroy that's who.

Thanks GWB
 
blugoo
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by Avro View Post

They were targets to disrupt oil to the U.S.

They were attacks on sovereign countries other than the US. You can't simply claim it's a extension of the war against the US. It's an attack on other nations themselves. Which I might add, is something they want to do, anyway.

Quote: Originally Posted by Avro View Post

Delays for what....proof? Well I don't know about you but I'd want proof if I was sending my countries children off to war no matter how long it took.

No...Iraq had delayed, made excuses, and stalled many times in living up to the conditions that concluded the first Gulf War. Look it up.

Quote: Originally Posted by Avro View Post

That's right, do the same as what the Bush adminstration is doing now, try to blame someone else for your own failures.

Stating facts is not blaming anyone or anything. Fact: Iraq is a mess. Fact: Iran has increased its influence in the region with the instability of Iraq.

You'll have to try again on this one.

Quote: Originally Posted by Avro View Post

I doubt it and who do we have thank for that?

The worst president in histroy that's who.

I've never doubted your pessimism.

Feel free to respond, and I can respond to those other comments in more detail later, but I have to go for now. I'll check back later.
Last edited by blugoo; Feb 15th, 2007 at 02:51 AM..
 
Avro
#13
Quote:

They were attacks on sovereign countries other than the US. You can't simply claim it's a extension of the war against the US. It's an attack on other nations themselves. Which I might add, is something they want to do, anyway.

Still attacks designed to disrupt U.S. oil supply.

Quote:

No...Iraq had delayed, made excuses, and stalled many times in living up to the conditions that concluded the first Gulf War. Look it up.

You mean like the ten thousand page report they provided on it's weapons program.

You can twist this as many times as you like but the war was based on nothing but everybody was hungry for one anyways.

Quote:

Stating facts is not blaming anyone or anything. Fact: Iraq is a mess. Fact: Iran has increased its influence in the region with the instability of Iraq.

Sorry, but it's true, the blame is being shifted, even U.S. generals have doubts on what sort of influence Iran has, but even if it is controlling what is happening there the U.S. is the one that opened that door. Saddam was many things but he had Iraq under control, something the U.S. and it's "follow the leader" allies have failed to do.
 
Avro
#14
Downing street memo.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downing_Street_memo


The on the media forgot about and ignored.
 
blugoo
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by Avro View Post

Still attacks designed to disrupt U.S. oil supply.

I don't get your point with this. Let's even assume that it is soley aimed at the US, which is obviously untrue, given the attacks in many different countries around the world that have nothing to do with supplying the US with oil, but let's put that aside for the moment.

Are you saying it's alright? That attacking countries around the globe is somehow justified, when "it's designed to disrupt U.S oil supply"? That these aren't terrorist acts?

Quote: Originally Posted by Avro View Post

You mean like the ten thousand page report they provided on it's weapons program.

Uh...no. I mean the UN resolutions Iraq was defying, the many weapons declarations that were untruthful and incomplete, failing to account for chemical and biological stockpiles, the stalling and playing games with the weapons inspectors, trying to play for more time at the UN. Those types of things. As to that 12,000 page report you are referring to, Hans Blix himself said it was incomplete and inadequate.

Quote: Originally Posted by Avro View Post

You can twist this as many times as you like but the war was based on nothing but everybody was hungry for one anyways.

Based on nothing? Now THAT, is twisting things. There was definitely something. Whether or not it was enough to start an invasion is arguable, but saying there was nothing is disingenuous at best...

Quote: Originally Posted by Avro View Post

Sorry, but it's true, the blame is being shifted, even U.S. generals have doubts on what sort of influence Iran has, but even if it is controlling what is happening there the U.S. is the one that opened that door.

No, you are quite mistaken on this one. The American military is very aware of the rising Iranian influence with regards to Iraq, and the region in general. There is even an order to kill Iranian agents who are believed to be working with the insurgents inside Iraq. There is no doubt at all that Iran's influence has grown, and it's hungry for more. I'm not sure where you heard otherwise, but it's quite untrue.

Quote: Originally Posted by Avro View Post

Saddam was many things but he had Iraq under control, something the U.S. and it's "follow the leader" allies have failed to do.

And yes, Saddam had Iraq under control. By killing, torturing and terrorizing his own people. I hope you aren't one of those people who think Iraq was fine and dandy under Saddam's rule, because that would be truly d.i.s.gusting, along with being woefully misinformed.
Last edited by blugoo; Feb 15th, 2007 at 04:03 AM..
 
Walter
+1 / -1
#16  Top Rated Post
Oil To Hit $100? Half Of Saudi Oil Output Shut After Drone Strikes Cripple World's Largest Oil Processing Facility
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitic...facility-saudi

If Turdoh would get his ass in gear the werld could use Canadian oil instead. Not to worry though, the US is now the werld’s biggest producer of oil and gas.
 
Cannuck
-1
#17
Too bad Harper shit the bed before Trudeau. Do you think the Conservatives will ever again elect a competent leader?
 

Similar Threads