| Submit your comments on this article |
| Terror Networks |
| Al-Qaeda's new targets |
| 2006-01-11 |
| AL-QAEDA leaders have circulated a 12-page list targeting oil and gas installations in the West and the Middle East. It names specific targets in the US, Iraq, Afghanistan and Turkmenistan, and claims that al-Qaeda could cripple the US economy by attacking its dependence on imported oil. The document is one of several detailing new orders from the al-Qaeda leadership to emerge in recent days. They followed the release of a video tape last month by al-Qaeda's deputy leader, Ayman al-Zawahiri, in which he called on supporters to attack oil-related targets. And a new strategy document currently being circulated says the terror network is in a similar position to the British during the Falklands crisis. It even goes as far as to compare Al-Qaeda with Britain's Falklands War military commanders. The campaign to reclaim the Islands is being used as a prime example of the kind of war al-Qaeda is fighting. In a lengthy analysis of possible future strategies, al-Qaeda says its goal of evicting US and UK troops from Iraq and the Middle East is directly comparable to Britain's campaign to oust Argentinean troops. It adds that only a sustained military onslaught can achieve the same successful result. Militant groups appear to be responding to the new orders, as oil pipelines in Nigeria have been subject a series of attacks by a previously unknown Islamic militant group. They have led to drastic cutbacks in production by the world's eighth largest exporter of oil. Iraq's largest oil refinery was shut down last week because of the threat of attacks by insurgents. Militants groups have also started to regularly target oil and petrol tankers in Iraq with roadside bombs. Security experts believe that the terrorists want to cause petrol shortages in Iraq to move public opinion further against the presence of Coalition troops. The damage and disruption caused by the Buncefield oil depot explosion in Hemel Hempstead has also been highlighted in subsequent Internet "chatter". Jihadist Internet forums were quickly filled with messages of jubilation on the day of the Hemel blasts. One correspondent - using the online name "Osama1" said: "God has made the petrol and gas stolen from Muslim countries burn in their faces." Another suggested Buncefield was no accident, as Zawahari had just threatened the UK and called for attacks on oil installations. Neil Doyle, terrorism expert and author of the book Terror Base UK said: "Al-Qaeda leaders had been calling for such attacks before the start of the Iraq war, but it seems they lacked manpower. "The latest traffic suggests that is no longer such a problem and they are re-focussing on their long-term aim of sapping the will of the West by attacking its economic lifelines. "Even though it was an accident, Buncefield has been held up as a graphic example of the damage and disruption that might be wrought." |
| Posted by:Dan Darling |
| #9 A pretty good argument for SA running AQ. Why. If SA is the only safe oil exporter they command golden prices. AQ's policy is a definite aid to the SA oil barons. |
| Posted by: 3dc 2006-01-11 02:06 |
| #8 To FOTSGreg If the Argies on the Island had enough supplies already all they needed was better leadership and they could have out-waited the British. |
| Posted by: bernardz 2006-01-11 02:01 |
| #7 My sources tell me that the letter from Binny said, "P.S. vote Democratic". |
| Posted by: Master of Obvious 2006-01-11 01:39 |
| #6 And yet, still no word from Binny himself... What's that smell? Did something die around here somewheres? |
| Posted by: FOTSGreg 2006-01-11 00:54 |
| #5 The Falklands War? As an example of success this is really a stretch. The Brits were overextended (badly so), the Argentines poorly led (badly so), and the weather was a major factor in virtually every op. The Brits get a success mainly because their commandoes managed to take and hold S. Island against Argentinian troops that weren't half their equal (the Argies were also out of supply, cut off from any hope of reinforcement, and completely without air cover - the Brits ruled the skies), because the Brits managed to sink the Gen Belgrano (not really even all that credible a threat since it couldn't even find the sub that sank her and couldn't have outranged the Brit missiles with her guns), and because they managed, with difficulty, not to lose more ships than they had to to Argentine aircraft carrying outdated Exocets that shouldn't even have hit the British ships (if they'd had their AAM radars programmed correctly). A great military victory the Falklands simply was not from the standpoint of most military historians. It may have seemed so, and been touted as such, at the time, but we've had more than 20 years to look back and analyze what really happened. |
| Posted by: FOTSGreg 2006-01-11 00:51 |
| #4 Why Turkmenistan? A large natural gas supplier to Europe and I believe particularly nasty to its islamacists. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2006-01-11 00:50 |
| #3 It names specific targets in the US, Iraq, Afghanistan and Turkmenistan, and claims that al-Qaeda could cripple the US economy by attacking its dependence on imported oil. Why Turkmenistan? |
| Posted by: gromgoru 2006-01-11 00:39 |
| #2 I'd argue that blocking the Straits of Hormuz or the Straits of Malacca is a better strategy. Equivalent to blowing thousands of oil wells. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2006-01-11 00:33 |
| #1 Killing the Goose that Lays the Golden Egg - as my mom used to always say. The end result is that we will focus our energies on our Alaska, hybrids, fuel cell and other types of fuel. Then as we decrease our dependence on foreign oil - the Saudi Princes won't have all of that extra cash to build mosques and fill them with Jihad supporters or fund the terrorists. Soo...they win - they lose. |
| Posted by: 2b 2006-01-11 00:27 |