Al Qaeda is watching, and drawing lessons

Status
Not open for further replies.

rick_reno

member
Joined
Dec 25, 2002
Messages
3,027
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9468701/site/newsweek/

By Christopher Dickey
Newsweek
Oct. 3, 2005 issue - The shoot-out earlier this month around a seafront villa in the Saudi Arabian city of Ad Dammam lasted almost 48 hours, and ended only when security forces brought in light artillery. They blasted the opulent home until the roof came down on the people inside. In the immediate aftermath police said they couldn't tell from the charred remains just how many members of "a deviant group" had died in the battle. Finally, with DNA tests, they counted five. Police also found enough weapons for a couple of platoons of guerrilla fighters. The inventory given out by the Saudi Interior Ministry included more than 60 hand grenades and pipe bombs, pistols, machine guns, rocket-propelled grenades, two barrels full of explosives, video equipment, a large amount of cash and forged documents.

It was the documents that really set off alarms. According to a Saudi Interior Ministry statement, they included forged passes to enter "important locations." The Saudi daily Okaz quoted the minister, Prince Nayef, saying the cell—which was linked directly to Al Qaeda—had planned major attacks on some of Saudi Arabia's key oil and gas facilities. "There isn't a place that they could reach that they didn't think about," said Nayef. And their ultimate target was the global economy. Saudi Arabia is the greatest source of oil on earth, with a quarter of known reserves and a proven policy of trying to stabilize prices even in today's volatile markets.

If the incident made few headlines at the time, it's because it ended on Sept. 6, when the United States—and oil traders—were focused on the impact of Hurricane Katrina. Yet precisely because of the shortages brought on by that storm and the damage still being counted from Hurricane Rita, Saudi Arabia is more important than ever to world oil supplies. What's worse, according to several analysts, Al Qaeda knows it. "They're watching Katrina. They're watching Rita. They're watching what it's doing to the United States," says former CIA agent Robert Baer, who has written extensively on Saudi Arabia's vulnerabilities. A few ruptured pipes could be repaired quickly, says Baer, but a concerted attack at several points could bring on the kind of nightmare scenario that U.S. officials have been dreading since the Reagan years, pushing oil prices up from their current prices in the range of $60 to $70 a barrel to well over $100 for weeks or even months.

Since Al Qaeda's campaign of terror inside Saudi Arabia began in 2003, the Saudis have dramatically stepped up protection of their oil installations. Security forces have issued several lists of their most-wanted terrorists, and tracked down or killed most of them. (Four of the five in Ad Dammam were on the latest lists.) Officials have sought to reassure the world that the terrorists are on the run. Anthony Cordesman at Washington's Center for Strategic and International Studies, among others, has backed up that basic analysis.

Yet the cells seem to be replaced almost as quickly as they're taken down. The brother of one of those killed in Ad Dammam, himself a wanted terrorist named Muhammad Abdelrahman Al-Suwailimi, put a voice message on the Web afterward claiming the incident was exaggerated by authorities. He also thanked the infamous terrorist Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi, in neighboring Iraq, for his support. Saudi Arabia now is increasingly concerned about the potential blowback of disintegration in Iraq. "I don't see how the Arab countries are going to be left out of the conflict in one way or another," said Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal last week. "I think this is what is going to happen if things continue as they are."

Precisely what the Dammam cell intended to hit, if known, has not been revealed in any detail. But, as Baer points out, Saudi Arabia is a target-rich environment. Certain critical nodes in the general vicinity of Ad Dammam have worried American strategists for years. Past studies suggest a moderate-to-severe attack on the Abqaiq oil-processing facilities, for instance, could cut Saudi output (now about 9.6 million barrels a day) by more than 4 million barrels for two months or more.

Al Qaeda has used suicide boats before. A successful hit against a major offshore loading facility at either Ras Tanura or Juaymah would knock millions of barrels off the market. Baer wrote in 2003 that "a single jumbo jet with a suicide bomber at the controls ... crashed into the heart of Ras Tanura, would be enough to bring the world's oil-addicted economies to their knees." After the one-two punch from Katrina and Rita, it might not take that much.
 
That type of action would also edge public opinion in a few countries besides US towards extermination of the culprits and their friends. I don't think that Europeans are as peace-loving a the US likes to paint them.
 
We are still trying to have business as usual, live our comfortable lives, and marginalize the threat from radical Islam. It's inevitable that Al-Qaeda will up the ante, just as, I believe, it's inevitable that sooner or later we in the West will have no choice but to mobilize and go on a war footing that truly reflects what we are up against.
 
Scary

Just as we are told that the enemy is well in hand, we get a story to confirm what we suspect. Someone needs to inform the enemy that they are almost done. Is this the last act of desperate men or the first act of Henry the VIII? As for the peace loving europeans, I think Oleg is on to something. Sure they cry about us now, but when it's them with feet to the fire, attitudes will change. Americans are peace loving, too, for the most part. It's that whole hijacking planes and killing folks thing that set us off.
 
Speaking from personal recollection, the French and Russians dont hesitate to take the gloves off when there is no more expedient way.

Historically, the teutonic peoples have not exactly been blissninnies either.
 
Teutonic Trouble

Interesting side note, the Germans refer to themselves as Deutch and Germany as Deutchland. This comes from the latin Teuch (sp?), the nickname given them by the Roman Legions. Basicaly, it means "dirty, rotten, mean spirited %$@&%!" No offense meant, my last name is Garlich, care to take a guess where my granddaddy got on the boat?
 
Last edited:
So how does this reconcile with the assertion that the Saudis are funding terrorism?

S.A.E. are a twisted schizophrenic society. It makes perfect sense in their warped universe. The royals are pro-west outside the country and fundamentalist inside the country. They shake hands with GWB in the morning, and write fat checks to terrorist-supporting clerics in the afternoon. They condemn violence in interviews on Fox and stage public executions and maimings in the same day. :barf:
 
Just a remark on the hurricanes and oil production...

The oil companies are in this for money. They KNEW it was coming. I'll bet they'll be back up, and running at previous capacity, a lot faster than most of the government analysts predict.

Why?

They have people who LIVE for this sort of thing. They're trained. They're prepared.

And I'm sure they're getting performance bonuses.
 
Speaking of Saudis and terrorism, if we want to stop the mischief we will use the "ant trap" model. Figure on the poison crumbs going back to Riyadh.

Of course this Administration sees no harm in S.A.
 
Of course this Administration sees no harm in S.A.

That is exactly the problem. Terrorism cannot be defeated without attacking it at its source, which is SAE, not Iraq. It cannot be destroyed in SAE without reforms. Reforms will not happen without pressure from outside. GWB will not apply that pressure on his business friends. So, we have to wait until 2008. But, chances are Hillary will run and win, so things get pushed back in the indefinite future.

IMO, that is ultimately GWB's biggest historic failure. A truly golden opportunity completely mishandled. Sadly, the same can be said just about any other aspect of his policies.
 
Better still, develop a comprehensive system of energy that is 0% reliant on foreign oil.
 
Of course this Administration sees no harm in S.A.
I don't believe that is true. It would be silly to think that our government isn't taking into consideration the anti west activities of SA.

There are enough good people working on this that there has to be a behind the scene plan.

It just would boggle the mind to think that the Pentagon doesn't see what is so obvious to a bunch of folks on an internet forum board.

It is a big chess match and appearances can be deceiving.
 
That is exactly the problem. Terrorism cannot be defeated without attacking it at its source, which is SAE, not Iraq. It cannot be destroyed in SAE without reforms. Reforms will not happen without pressure from outside. GWB will not apply that pressure on his business friends.

(I'll go ahead and ignore the idea that a BUNCH of our terrorist problems come from Iran and even Syria in this post just for expediency.)

How can you say Bush won't push "pressure" on Saudi when you see what we are doing in Iraq? Saudia Arabia did NOT want us to go into Iraq, overthrow Saddam, and start democracy. They get angry enough about US military units bringing in females in uniforms and driving vehicles. Now the US is pushing the most dangerous thing of all: proof that a democracy can actually work in this part of the world.

This is the root of the whole "big gamble" the US is taking in the Middle East. We could have gone in, blown up Saddam and the Iraqi military, and then left. It would have devolved into a civil war then but we could have threatened to go back in any time it started to threaten our national interest. But Bush isn't going for that. 9/11 made him believe that the US could no longer keep hoping that this region was going to "evolve into democracy" on their own. Or "reform" on their own. We got attacked on 9/11 despite the fact that the US government had tried to avoid direct confrontation with these types of groups. If it wasn't going to happen on its own, what was our alternative? We could just go to war against any groups or countries that supported terrorists who opposed us. Or we could take the big gamble and try to "push over the first domino." Try to start reform and democracy right in the heart of the chaos.

This is the most disliked type of pressure you can imagine to the Saudis. They don't want their people to believe a democracy is really possible. They would rather have them tolerate a repressive government because "that's all that will work here." IF (big if) Iraq does end up with a stable democracy, it is a time bomb right in the heart of the Middle East. Saudia Arabia knows that. Syria knows that. Iran knows that. The "urge toward freedom" will spread and the repressive governments will be out on their asses. And their societies will end up being reformed and modernized. And that will lead to societies that produce people with hope for the future. Which destroys your ability to recruit more suicide bombers.

Big gamble for big stakes. My opinion on whether it will work or not varies day to day. But I respect the people who made the hard decision to try it. And who continue to try it despite all the temptations to cut and run. Even Hillary said something like, "I think going in to Iraq in the first place was a mistake but we have NO alternative now but to fight and win."

Gregg
 
RealGun Wrote:

"Tying 9/11 to Iraq is stale Koolaid."


Well, tying Iraq to 2-26 is not stale koolaid, it's a lead-pipe lock.


http://www.fbi.gov/mostwant/terrorists/teryasin.htm


http://www.meib.org/articles/0106_ir1.htm



For those of you with short memories, 2-26-93 was the first attempt at knocking down the WTC by the jihadists.

I am so freakin' frustrated by spoiled, short-attention span Americans who don't realize that 9-11 wasn't the start of the jihadist war against us. It was merely the first time we woke up from our narcissicistic navel-gazing and took note.

I argue this war has been raging against us since the Islamic Revolutionary Republic of Iran took over our embassy and held our people hostage for 400-something days.

Only we refused to see it until Islamic jihadists killed more of us in one day than even the Imperial Japanese Navy could at Pearl Harbor.

hillbilly
 
tulsamal,

I really hope you are right about Iraq getting democracy and transforming the region.

The problem is, nation building takes enormous resources and a lot of time. In the best case scenario, it will take maybe 10 years for Iraq to be strong, stable, militarily secure, and able to play the role described. But, we do not have 10 years at our current burn rate of our own resources. Also, the political situation in ME will come to head far earlier than that, IMO.
 
"There are enough good people working on this that there has to be a behind the scene plan."

There has to be, right. The way there's a plan behind controlling our borders. The way there's a plan behind our energy policies. The way there's a plan behind the growing outsourcing of American jobs. The way there's a plan behind doing an imitation of FDR, only on a trail bike. The way there's a plan behind allowing our schools to become indoctrination centers--and I'm not talking about the dispersion of madrassas in this country.

Yes, there's a plan, but whose plan is it? And where exactly is it taking us?

This country is in crisis--not from hurricanes--and most people on this board can easily tick off the problem areas, but I frankly don't see them being openly addressed.

Bush was handed a golden opportunity to stop the insanity. Disappointment would be an understatement to describe how he's taken advantage of it.
 
+1 longeyes

Since incompetence and stupidity are so much more common than their opposites, it is not statistically sound to attribute policies to the latter in preference to the former.
 
GGB wrote:
"Better still, develop a comprehensive system of energy that is 0% reliant on foreign oil."


I agree. Any ideas, class? Hello? Bueller? Bueller?

Oh, darn, he's out driving again.....
 
+2 Longeyes.

Dissappointment is a polite understatement regarding our "leader". Take a Republican Congress, a Republican (?) President and the ground swell of public approval he enjoyed after 9/11 and what have we got? Nothing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top