Iranian oil profits soared at $70 (US) per barrel.

All the extra profits (or windfall profits) go into nuclear developments.

So the Saudi's, a bit frightened by Iran's nuclear program, have been willing to supply enough to hold prices around $50.

Al Qaeda's plan A was hitting the Saudi pipelines.

Now plan B is hitting other sources internationally.

It's not gonna happen. Not in any meaningful way. US, Canadian, and Mexican security has been tightened up around these resources.

There deemed much more valuable to national security than citizens.

Plan C is ... well, more of the usual terror and rhetoric.

Posted by: LoneRanger at February 14, 2007 2:18 PM

As terrible as it would be, and the innocent lives it would cost, one can only hope the first strike, if there is a successful one, will occur in Venezuela. Perhaps it will dislodge the warped and irrational one enemy viewpoint from Chavez's brain -- it's too late to hope the same from those uneducated masses who put him in complete power, as their opinions and future votes don't mean anything anymore (they don't have any).

Better would be a wave of jihad timebomb immigrants to Venezuela. Perhaps an Al Quaeda group has already done so under the radar? This has probably already happened. Question is, who will Chavez blame when the first jihad suicide manaic ignites himself? The United States, no doubt. How dare Joe Kennedy and pals endorse cheap Venezuela socialist oil... you made us a target of the Islamic Fundamentalists!

Posted by: Abraham_Lincoln at February 14, 2007 2:20 PM

If there's one thing that should make Americans furious, it's the knowledge that this country could have been energy independent 2-3 generations ago. But, for whatever reason, administration after administration refused to get off their asses and do something.

It might have taken a Manhattan project to get the job done, but it would have been worth the money and effort.

If we're vunerable to blackmail by foreign enemies today, it's the fault of our own government. Period.

Posted by: rational at February 14, 2007 2:34 PM

I wish them success in the Persian Gulf, in Iran, and in Venezuela. We'll see how long those dictatorships can survive when the local folk get hungry and unhappy. I'll be happy to stop driving for a few months. Bombs away!

Posted by: Infidel33 at February 14, 2007 2:34 PM

Lets see they mention Canada, l would think any middle eastern muslim poking their heads around Alberta tar sands might find themselves against armed Westerners. time to tell our governments to put a stop to all muslim immigration and send those here back when found guilty of laws, which would be 100 percent of them time.

Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at February 14, 2007 2:34 PM

Why didn't bush al-saud even try to institute an energy independence plan as a matter of National Security after 9-11?

Spring, a time for lovers.
http://img.slate.com/media/1/123125/123063/2111846/2116263/050426_BUSH-ABDULLAH_ex.jpg

No, instead we get to listen to the 9-11 terrorist's brothers continue jihad 5 years later.

Posted by: Arm A. Geddon at February 14, 2007 2:35 PM

>Another thing we wouldn't have to worry about if we gained independence from foreign oil.

Right. Independence from foreign oil. Tell that to Jim Baker, George H. W. Bush, et al. That's like the NHL calling for independence from amateur hockey players in Canada.

Posted by: Drum at February 14, 2007 2:39 PM

There was a front-page feature here in Canada about al-qaeda targeting Canada's tar sands. And our dhimmi paper does what? yeah, it publishes a map of the pipelines. i kid you not...

Posted by: J.S. at February 14, 2007 3:02 PM

I hope so...it will be the straw that broke the camel`s back.
Americans will put up with all sorts of indignities and compromises but take their petrol
away and the faeces will hit the fan!
KABOOOOM !

Posted by: aladdinsane57 at February 14, 2007 3:03 PM

There are positives to draw from a success in this venture. First, the US hand might be forced to seek alternative fuels much quicker than is currently calendered in the US. The current projection when alternative solutions will be sought is....never. Until then, we must continue to play ball with the Saudi's.

Al Qaeda and Saudi Arabia are strikingly similar. Both have their roots in Sunni Islam, not to mention also being Bin Laden's country of origin. Bin Laden's separatist movement from the Saudi timetable, and variation from the desired Saudi tactics employed, wholistically dedicated to the ideolgoical destruction of the West, is really the only difference between the two.

Bin Laden's Al Qaeda network is an overt threat to the West, with it's gratuitous degree of violence and murder which it displayed on 9/11. The Saudis, on the other hand, whose abhorrence of the West is no less vitriolic than that of Al Qaeda, but rather seeks to appear as an ally, employing an agenda of deception that has been quite successful for them to date, poses the same threat, but is latent in nature.

The ultimate goal of both is nearly identical, with the means of achievement being the only differing factor. Saudi Arabia does not condemn Al Qaeda's actions, in fact they view them as quite noble. They just cannot appear to support them, lest they be seen as what they truly are, a concrete example of Islamic deception and intolerance, seeking to dominate all.

It is becoming more apparent that no amount of blogging will bring about the necessary awakening of the West, at least not to the degree that another 9/11 or two would accomplish, regardless of how disheartening that premise may be.

Posted by: awake at February 14, 2007 3:06 PM

Drum:

Last time I checked, President Bush was in favor of drilling for more oil domestically. The dependence on foreign oil is a direct result of the dhimmicrat opposition to nuclear power for several decades and their opposition to drilling for oil domestically. As I recall, they even tried during the Reagan years to impede our use of coal as a fuel source.

Bush can be blamed for a lot of things, but lack of oil independence is not one of them.

Posted by: JSobieski at February 14, 2007 3:11 PM

J....you are very correct!!

Posted by: exsgtbrown at February 14, 2007 3:22 PM

I should also point out that the options for fossil fuel alternatives are as follows: (1) nuclear; and (2) nothing we can count on thinking up that is capable of meeting our energy needs (we can count on wind, solar, and hydro, but they will never meet our aggregate needs).

We already had a Manhattan project---we have the ability to use nuclear power. The idea that simply throwing billions of dollars at R&D will allow us to create a liquid fuel better than oil is wishful thinking. Its possible, but its not likely.

As a patent lawyer, I can tell you that many many smart people are looking to create a silver bullet for this problem. We are making progress on the margins, but the economics of oil will be hard to beat for a long long time.

Posted by: JSobieski at February 14, 2007 3:31 PM

The threat is hollow. Any diminution in oil supplies anywhere will lead to a rise in price, but not to a cutoff to any particular oil-consuming nation. If, say, oilfields in Venezuela were to be damaged by Islamic terrorists (thus ending that brief and apparently unrequired love-affair with los-de-abajo Chavez, caudillo of all he surveys), then the market price for the United States goes up, but it also goes up for China, and France, and ever other oil-consuming nation.

The price rise, of course, also would give a boost to oil-producers, and for all we know, such a plot would be welcomed by those oil-producers, including most obviously Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Russia.

There is no country-specific damage, among the world's oil-consuming states, that Muslim terrorists can inflict. They can, however, inflict damge on oil-producing states, and I suggest they try their hardest. I'd recommend Saudi Arabia, but also the U.A.E. and Kuwait and Qatar (with its gas), so that the cost of those corrupt regimes staying in power goes up and up, and their frightened need for Western military help also rises (for which of course we should expect to be paid, and very handsomely, to recoup some of the $750 billion squandered in Iraq, and on the first Gulf War, and in maintaining ships in or near the Gulf, and not only by the Muslim oil states that require such protection, but by all the oil-consuming states -- why, after all, should American taxpayers be shelling out hundreds of billions of dollars to "protect" the oil of the Gulf for China, and for the countries of Western Europe, and others? If it is so important to them, either make them pay, right now, or skip the protection altogher. In case of need, simply seize the Saudi oil fields, as the biggest, and the easiest to offload oil from onto waiting ships, and forget the rest. Make noises about sharing the wealth --once sums are deducted for the costs of security associated with the Saudi promotion, through mosque-and-madrasa building, through propaganda and well-funded and carefully-targetted systematic campaigns of Da'wa, are toted up, and the sums deducted from the sale of that formerly "Saudi" oil.

There's so much that could and should be done. But the notion that we are to protect, and pay for the oil supply on which so many others rely, and rely far more than we do, is idiotic.

But we are run by a good many idiots. Oh, you already knew that.

Posted by: Hugh at February 14, 2007 3:34 PM

> It is becoming more apparent that no amount of > blogging will bring about the necessary
> awakening of the West, at least not to the
> degree that another 9/11 or two would
> accomplish, regardless of how disheartening
> that premise may be.

awake:

I am not entirely convinced.

Day-by-day in the UK, there is another atrocity, another incident, another comment in the
newpaper, tv, radio etc about Islam

And the net effect of these is to bring to the surface in everybodys mind what Islam is like.
It is a confusing process as there is a lot of mis-information as well.

Last Tuesday (13th Feb) I noticed in the freebie newspaper (Metro) available on the Tube in London two comments to a Muslim's comment in Monday's Metro about violence and one of the comments mentioned the Hadith and Muhammads slaughter of the Jews at Medina. And that paper is read by the whole of London in the morning.
So bit-by-bit the news on Islam is leaking out.
And I will work to those ends as well.
I am emailing newpaper editors etc.

The people I most dislike to deal with are the politically correct people, the left-wing intelligensia.

Posted by: UK Infidel Lover at February 14, 2007 3:36 PM

Didn't I hear that Israel is sitting on as much oil as the "magic kingdom?"

Posted by: Carolyn2 at February 14, 2007 3:39 PM

If American policy were to shift from endless handouts both economic and military (ie: Islamic Jizyah on infidels) to the more logical payment by Islamic states for American protection from nutbars, the tables would indeed turn, Hugh. The free world would be in the driver's seat and, surprise, surprise, Islamic Jihad would soon be crushed under the economic pressure against its existence.

But you are correct -- we are run by a good many idiots.

Posted by: Abraham_Lincoln at February 14, 2007 3:43 PM

> Problem is now: We have millions and millions
> of foreigners in the United States (I believe
> you all know just WHICH foreigners I am talking
> about) who are now also "legal" citizens,
> or "legal residents" of the United States, and > the problem with that is simply that they don't > give a rat's a... about what happens to America.

At the point where they are trying to sneak over the border, can't you kill them? Because that is invasion of the country - a pure act of war.

And vote for whichever party will deport them home. None should be legally resident if they illegally arrived in the country

Posted by: UK Infidel Lover at February 14, 2007 4:07 PM

UK Infidel Lover,

I hope you are correct, I really do. It's just that the West seems remarkably resistent to the gentle yet steady tap on the shoulder from Dar al-Islam. I think the forceful, open-hand slap will prove to be more valuable.

Posted by: awake at February 14, 2007 4:11 PM

In Canada, we also have a gazillion illegals. but we can't deport them (or, at least, our politicians lack the will to do so). One of the ways in which illegals get to stay in Canada (can't be deported) is that they tear up any papers (all I.Ds, etc) when they arrive -- then the authorities can't figure out from which country they came from. This act (destroying identity while en route to Canada) in itself is illegal -- but, does anyone care? No, they're then admitted as "refugees." (No detention, just admitted into Canada). All of this has got to change. But, even to broach the topic risks being called a "racist."

Today, we had front page headlines about al-Qaeda putting Canada in its cross-hairs as its number one target (to get the pipelines), and what does one listen to on the television news? Well, of course, one hears from the Arab association about "Arabophobia" and how much Muslims live in fear in Canada. Followed by the claim that Islamophobia is everywhere in Canada (as I laugh).

Then, our anti-terrorism laws which were passed in 2001 (that means that the police can detain suspects for a short period of time without a warrant if they suspect an attack is imminent.) These anti-terrorism laws HAVE NEVER been put into effect. None of these laws drafted back in 2001 have EVER been used. Thus there can be NO complaints about them -- yet what did our CTV all news channel broadcast? The Arabs whining about these anti-terror laws. Then, get this, these laws which have NEVER been used will no longer be in effect (there's a sunset clause) -- they will be taken off the books as of this Friday. Yet, still there's the whining, sniveling, "We're being discriminated against by racist Canadians!"

Their lies never cease to amaze me. But, I fear, much of the Canadian public just eats it up..."yeah, Arabs are discriminated against!!" even though there's zero evidence.(and in my opinion, the situation is precisely the opposite, they are granted special, preferential treatment, no questions asked...like giving one 'em 10 million dollars!)

Posted by: J.S. at February 14, 2007 4:32 PM

Didn't I hear that Israel is sitting on as much oil as the "magic kingdom?"
Posted by: Carolyn2

I imagine you are referencing this:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=46428

Obviously, this is nonsense. All literal biblical interpretation is always proven as nonsense when tested for fact and science. Over and over and over again. This is reality.

But this is even worse. It is the flimsiest of iliteration held up for evidence. It's not even specific and, in fact not related. Oil, in Biblical context, always refers to often valuable vegetable oil. Oil that has value and is a reward after a hard journey. Often you read about people on a long journey being refreshed/rewarded with washed feet and vegetable oil (olive usually) for grooming.

Think about it: if there was even a sniff of oil production in Israel that would allow it to replace the Islamic Fundamentalist Fascist states to supply the US, both it and every single US oil corporation would be on that like white on rice. Imagine the millions they'd save on security alone in Israel... which is peanuts next to the billions in Islamic Jizyah paid directly and indirectly. It would make inescapable economic sense to go all out on such a thing if it existed.

Posted by: Abraham_Lincoln at February 14, 2007 4:56 PM

Since the 1940s approximately 410 oil wells have been drilled in Israel -- but these wells are not productive.

Recently, there was an important natural gas discovery off-shore. (More info is available at "Jewish virtual library" if you're interested.)

Posted by: J.S. at February 14, 2007 5:18 PM

Boy, that'll be an inferno, if Arabia get's hit. The only problem is, the Saudi's will eat-em up; they don't put up with terrorism as well as we Americans and Brits do.

Posted by: Jeff at February 14, 2007 5:32 PM

Last Tuesday (13th Feb) I noticed in the freebie newspaper (Metro) available on the Tube in London two comments to a Muslim's comment in Monday's Metro about violence and one of the comments mentioned the Hadith and Muhammads slaughter of the Jews at Medina. And that paper is read by the whole of London in the morning.

Metro is not just read by the whole of London, but the whole of the country as well.

Posted by: Spirit Of 1683 at February 14, 2007 6:18 PM

Once again this is good news in showing that al Qaeda can not muster operations in USA proper, is being hindered immensely around the world and is resorting to pleaing for a local Canuck crazy to come out and do a solo attack.

If al Qaeda was in control they would be acting and not talking.

Posted by: Lame Cherry at February 14, 2007 6:50 PM

How long before Hugo Chavez says 'he must now have American protection of oil fields and transport or he does not ship to America'.

It would be Hugo's way of cutting off Venezualians oil to America, being protected by International law, and America would not be able to militarily force Hugo to turn the oil back on.

This is a perfect ploy.

Remember you heard it hear before you heard it from Hugo.

Posted by: alaskan1000 at February 14, 2007 6:56 PM

As terrible as it would be, and the innocent lives it would cost, one can only hope the first strike, if there is a successful one, will occur in Venezuela.

Posted above by Abraham Lincoln (like the moniker although he crushed my ancesters)

I couldn't agree more, although I really love the country of Venezuela. It causes me much anger what that pig Chavez is doing to such a great place.

I was there for about six months in the early eighties when it had a large and vibrant middle class. It was a prospering society. Sure there was poverty. Jesus said the poor would always be with us (our own dhimmicrats need them), but Venezuela was addressing that problem and also allowing foreign aid orginizations to help them. Under the pig, Venezuela is becoming increasingly isolated. No one wants to go there except Iranian jihadies, and people who can are fleeing much like the people who fled Cuba in the sixties.

Posted by: TexasInfidel at February 14, 2007 8:05 PM

Islamo facists bombing the oilsands and our pipelines? hmm... not sure if I like that prospect.

Posted by: Sheik Canuck (swt) at February 14, 2007 8:08 PM

I wouldn't be too quick to condemn Canada's immigration policies in comparison with that of the US. For starters, there may be as many as 30-40 million illegals in the US. Second, the Mexican border is still the biggest security risk on the continent. And finally, we're actually a lot more hardcore on people sneaking into Canada than the US is. Seriously. Remember when we had that wave of boat people arriving in BC a few years back? We rounded all those people up, put them in detention centres, and sent most of them home.

OTOH, the US doesn't do this, maybe because of the whole Cuba thing in Florida. I live on the border, and a number of years ago when I was working for the local newspaper, a boatload of Chinese illegals were caught crossing into upstate NY from Ontario in the middle of the night. I called US Border Patrol, who confirmed that they'd picked up 20 or so people. Then asked if they'd been detained, would be deported, etc., and was told that they'd actually all been released, many given bus tickets to get to relatives in places like LA and Chicago. That blew me away. Asked the guy, "Don't a lot of these people just disappear?" He said "Sure, but we've got no place to hold them."

This was long before 9/11, but still, don't buy into the hype that Canada admits everyone and the US has a tight border. Ain't the case at all. 9/11 itself is proof of how screwed up US immigration policies are. If the US was really tougher than Canada, some of the 9/11 killers would have snuck in from Canada.

Posted by: OutOfAqaba at February 15, 2007 4:05 PM