Today's attempted attack on the Saudi oil processing facility should have been a huge wake-up call for everyone.

ABQAIQ, Saudi Arabia (AP) - Suicide bombers carried out a bold attack on the world's largest oil processing facility Friday but were stopped from breaking in by guards who fired on their cars, exploding both vehicles and killing the attackers.

Al-Qaida purportedly claimed responsibility for the attack, the first on an oil facility in Saudi Arabia.

Al-Qaeda has been threatening to do something like this for quite awhile, which is probably why the attack failed miserably.

However, if we do not get our own oil out of our own ground, or figure out an economcially feasible way to get off foreign oil, we could be seriously screwed if one were to suceed.

Posted by: Vinnie at 12:29 AM | Comments (21) | Add Comment
Post contains 144 words, total size 1 kb.

1 what u gotta think is if they cant keep their own lands safe from terrorists how on earth are they gonna keep US ports safe ? later g

Posted by: girish at February 25, 2006 12:41 AM (05ati)

2 ANWR is just waiting for the enviro dolts to shut up and get out of the way. As I recall however, a year or so back, my President left that issue on the table, for some "reason".

Posted by: forest hunter at February 25, 2006 12:59 AM (Fq6zR)

3 We can't drill in our own back yard because the enviro groups, the Democrat party beholding to them, most in our MSM portraying it as destruction rather than safe production, and a percentage of weak-kneed moderate Republicans. No matter what Bush wants its simply impossible to get passed now. We're gonna have to experience huge price hikes doing serious damage to our economy as a result of foreign dependency before the majority of citizens demand it.

Posted by: Javapuke at February 25, 2006 01:16 AM (hg4kb)

4 I'm almost looking forward to a price increase in oil. The irresponsibility of Americans vehicle of choice is only taylored to looking as big, and expensive as possible with little to no consideration on mpg (at least before the oil price spike) Out of the immediate people I know that drive huge trucks, or SUV's none of them have more than two children, or use them to carry large amounts of cargo. At least two of these people have told me we should do something about our oil dependency, due to the price of gasoline -- there was not the same concern when gas was ninety-nine cents a gallon! The only way to make Americans care about breaking the dependency on foreign oil and stop them suckling the oil teet is to make it too expensive. Sad but true.

Posted by: dave at February 25, 2006 02:32 AM (CcXvt)

5 Dave, we own a F-150 and an Expedition. What a person in this country drives is really none of your, or my, business. To say that what we drive is "irresponsible" is as wrong as to say that those who chose to have the Clydesdale draw a wagon rather than a Shetland Pony was irresponsible because the Clydesdale has far bigger road apples. We have the resources to sustain our chosen way of life sitting underneath our feet, and currently inaccessible for whatever reason. I also agree that the greeniacs have played a large part in blocking our access to the resources bubbling below, but, we also have to acknowledge the fact that there are a large number of people on our own side willing to capitulate to their demands. If I'm not mistaken, it was our side that blocked installing more oil rigs in the Gulf of Mexico. I believe that, for now, we have to get our own oil, from our own soil (hey, there's a bumper sticker!), until we have viable, affordable (g'bye hybrids!) alternatives. One last thing, it isn't just us. China and India are starting to place huge demands on oil. The have a quarter of the world's population, all by themselves. So our truck and SUV are but a drop within a drop within a drop of that. Be careful of berating people of their vehicle of choice, lest someone starts berating you of your air conditioner of choice, or heater of choice, or refrigerator of choice. You get the picture.

Posted by: Vinnie at February 25, 2006 04:03 AM (f289O)

6 I have a Jeep Wrangler and a Tahoe. My husband drives farther to work so he drives the Jeep. I work three miles from home and use less gas than the guy next door with a Civic. Being a home owner, and owning two other properties that need work all the time, I refuse to give up my Tahoe. Everytime I go to Home Depot (which is nearby too) I need that vehicle. Whatever the gas costs, I'll pay it. Try bringing a toilet back in a compact car, or lumber, or eight-foot lengths of PVC. If someone wants to give me grief about my big car, I have one word for them: Shutthehellupandhelpmeloadthismulch.

Posted by: Oyster at February 25, 2006 06:57 AM (YudAC)

7 I have a fuel efficient car, sadly. Today, I will pour a gallon of gasoline down the drain, to show solidarity with my fellow gas-guzzling citizens and to flout the stupid collectivist ramblings of Dave. Also, hey, I found the greatest solution ever to our oil problems. Stop shackling American businesses with tons of retarded/ing regulations and a fearful legislative environment where any big company has to buy off politicians just to not get his business effectively outlawed. I think that would work wonders for American efficiency.

Posted by: MiB at February 25, 2006 07:39 AM (tFcEO)

8 Kindly do not pour your gasoline down the drain. That is environmentally unfriendly, and you certainly don't want that! Besides, the EPA and the environmentalists will come visiting, so have the tea and cookies ready.

Posted by: Tom at February 25, 2006 08:38 AM (+Ip9P)

9 Oil can be extracted from coal for about $30 a barrel and from tar sands for about the same. Hydrogen is a pipe dream, electric cars impractical and alcohol at best a supplement. Environmentalists are the major obstacle to self-sufficiency. America and Canada have enormous petrochemical reserves. What we suffer now is a shortage of cheap, easily extractable oil. What we have is a huge reserve of more difficult to extract and therefore more expensive oil.

Posted by: Ken Lydell at February 25, 2006 10:26 AM (fEegS)

10 "We can't drill in our own backyard"... Well, if you're referring to ANWR you are a bit confused on the facts. True, environmentalists have fought exploration in ANWR for years. But there was another group opposed to the free market exploiting ANWR. Oil Companies. Not a single bill has been proposed over the years to develop ANWR that didn't include both tax breaks and royalty forgiveness for companies bidding on leases. Today with $55 + per barrel oil I think production in ANWR can be economically feasible without paying companies to explore there. And so I'm all for it. But in the past I was adamantly opposed to subsidizing exploration. Especially in ANWR. If you're wondering why it's not open now, you'll have to ask the GOP because the certainly could have suceeded in opening it up if it had been as big a priority as say, letting the UAE run a few ports.

Posted by: Davebo at February 25, 2006 11:04 AM (KqO+b)

11 You gonna amend your "Howard the Coward" post now, or are ya gonna make a "Bill the Pill" piece?

Posted by: jawablaster at February 25, 2006 11:45 AM (FkiCe)

12 I guess we should all get behind eminent domain then, in case geologists find an oil well below someones house flout the stupid collectivist ramblings of Dave. I'm sure that talking about peoples vehicles of choice is not popular, but it pretty much proved the point: if gas was down to 99¢ again, where it was five years ago no one would care about breaking dependency on foreign oil, just like there was no talk of it back then. The problem is not so much the fact you drive a big vehicle period, just it's consumption habits -- However you can have the same vehicle with cheaper fuel source. My father has two vehicles in the U.K, one a van and the other what we might concider an SUV. The price of Gasoline is around $5.74 a (U.S) Gallon in the U.K, he had both modified to use Propane fuel so much like an hybrid once the propane is gone, it starts using regular gasoline, while on Propane it is significantly lower price per mile to run. He told me the price he paid for modification paid for itself after the first year. What prompted alternatives in the U.K is exactly what I am talking about, unaffordable gasoline, apart from driving smaller engines (I'd never seen an engine the size of a V8!) peoples driving habits were unaffected when petrol was cheap, now money is being poured into cheaper alternatives. China and India are starting to place huge demands on oil. Indeed, which means if we continue to consume a huge portion of foreign oil, and block their access to it we're looking at a war, there will be real wars for oil. I'd prefer by that time we didn't care who got what oil, and domestic was used for things like pesticide and other oil-based production. My support for breaking dependency on oil, doesn't stop at access to cheap gasoline, especially the more expensive it gets the more people will demand an alternative.

Posted by: dave at February 25, 2006 12:24 PM (CcXvt)

13 Vinnie: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HB23Ak03.html No wonder we're trying to solidify ties with member countries of OPEC like the UAE, we're going to need all the influence we can buy.

Posted by: dave at February 25, 2006 01:53 PM (CcXvt)

14 Propane is just another gas that's produced from natural gas processing and crude oil refining. I thought the idea was to get away from oil and gas? If it's strictly for environmental purposes, then yes, it's cleaner. But you still gotta go through the old fossil fuel and gas extraction process to get it. Raising the price of oil may encourage people to buy more fuel efficient cars, but what about all the transportation industry? When it costs twice as much for your groceries and clothing and everything else because the cost of shipping them has become astronomical we've still got issues. "Great, I only spent five bucks to drive around in my car this week but eggs were three dollars a dozen." The impact of raising gas prices has wide-ranging ramifications.

Posted by: Oyster at February 25, 2006 04:28 PM (YudAC)

15 Geez, guys, I literally spent minutes slaving and sweating and typing my fingers into bloody stumps working on that cartoon riot post and ya'll are down here still being all serious and shit. It's the weekend d00ds and d00dettes, let's lighten it up a bit!

Posted by: Vinnie at February 25, 2006 04:34 PM (f289O)

16 Oyster: I gave an example of how the price of Gasoline caused for a focus on alternatives, not that we should all shift to propane. It isn't a relevation -- UPS vans all over the U.S use it as fuel. There is no reason the transportation industry couldn't follow suite, isn't that the reason that bio-diesel is catching on - requires little(?) / no modification. Read the article I pasted below to Vinnie, the Saudi's are courting two Nuclear nations, this could have severe ramifications for the U.S. If you believe that the U.S would protect certain OPEC members regimes from being toppled, to protect our interests, this is obviously beneficial to both parties; however with China selling them arms, and being closer in the region -- what would those regimes need us for? they can outsource their security to China instead of the U.S. The China/India deals also come at a time when nations are looking to secure their oil in case of problems, wonder what would happen if we all needed more oil (because of war/embargo/etc) and China / India offered to pay much more money over market price? if they no longer need the U.S for protection you can guarantee whoever is protecting them gets the oil they need.

Posted by: dave at February 25, 2006 04:48 PM (CcXvt)

17 hah, I'm still at work, no lightening up for me for a few hours ;/

Posted by: dave at February 25, 2006 05:07 PM (CcXvt)

18 We could always just invade. Make the oil producing parts of SA the 51st state, then everyone would just have to suck up to us. Y'know, like we did in Iraq.

Posted by: Vinnie at February 25, 2006 05:22 PM (f289O)

19 Yeah, all that cheap Iraqi oil is the 'bestist'! I think the 51st state is already allotted to Iran :/

Posted by: dave at February 25, 2006 05:33 PM (CcXvt)

20 Well, at least Iran has like, mountains and stuff.

Posted by: Vinnie at February 25, 2006 05:51 PM (f289O)

21 I like pie.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at February 26, 2006 07:26 AM (0yYS2)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

AP photo of Wassim I. Mazloum, on of the 3 Ohio conspirators.

Yeah, they talk a big game. But when an Islamotard* gets busted, he's too chicken to show his ugly face to the world. more...

Posted by: Vinnie at 04:32 PM | Comments (15) | Add Comment
Post contains 76 words, total size 1 kb.

More robots in the war-zone. Hasta la vista, terrorists.

Posted by: Rusty at 08:37 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 19 words, total size 1 kb.

First, they start with the rock throwing...

If the Gallup Independent gets a fatwa and we don't, I am going down there with a full load of cinderblock in my truck.

And just who do they think it is, the local Rotarians?

However, no evidence has been recovered proving the incident was in retaliation for the publication of the cartoons or was done by a member of the local Arab community.

Whoever did it, we all know it's really George Bush's fault.

Posted by: Vinnie at 12:05 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 90 words, total size 1 kb.

The F-14 Tomcat has been officially retired from the Navy's service. And except for that brief Top Gun fiasco in 1986, the Tomcat has served our country with distinction. What? Are you still suffering under the delusion that Tom Cruise is straight?

Pssst--I hear that the new F-22 Raptor refuses to let any Scientologist--including jet pilot John Travolta--come near it.

Posted by: Rusty at 12:42 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 68 words, total size 1 kb.

I found this on the Beeb.

Nah, no ties to terrorism there. No WMD, either.

Meanwhile, I have done my duty as a good Jawa correspondent and found more pictures of Iraqi prisoners being abused. Graphic images below the fold. more...

Posted by: Vinnie at 06:07 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 87 words, total size 1 kb.

Local guy just called me back to tell me that D.C. knew about it and was working on it already.

Which means someone saw my post and reported it even before I did.

What can I say, but thank you, and we get results!

If you don't know what I'm talking about, scroll down, I have to go back to work.

Posted by: Vinnie at 09:57 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 71 words, total size 1 kb.

Talked to a Secret (sooper sekrit?) Service agent at the local field office regarding that comment.

They're going to get their computer guys on it and talk to me tomorrow.

It could be nothing, it could be something, either way, someone overseas is going to be hauled in for interrogation.

I hope so, anyway.

Posted by: Vinnie at 05:51 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 64 words, total size 1 kb.

Michelle Malkin says that the Cartoon Jihadists are winning the battle of the Free Press.

The first two examples come from Malaysia and Yemen, hardly bastions of press freedom to begin with.

The rest are either socialist countries, or former Communist countries. And the U.N. And the E.U.

I am to going finally place the last brick into the wall that keeps me in the bowels of the blogosphere dungeon by disagreeing with Michelle Malkin.

I will believe that the Cartoon Jihadists are winning when they finally prevent me from posting offending images of Mohammed.

Why we are choosing to die upon the hill of whether or not what MSM outlets publish these pictures makes me want to pull out the duct tape for head wrappage again.

If the blogosphere truly wants to be the new media, then we have got to stop worrying about what the MSM does or doesn't do.

Who gives a flying blank at a rolling donut if the L.A. Times didn't publish the photos? I've posted them numerous times, and so have others. So many that the google searches for these caricatures far outstrip the daily readership of any newspaper in the world.

That is what free press is. And that's why I disagree that the Cartoon Jihadists are winning.

And this is why I should resign myself to being a bottom-feeding blogger. Forever and ever.

Posted by: Vinnie at 02:11 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 239 words, total size 1 kb.

My very dear friend Beth sent the remaining two brain cells in my head to furiously rubbing against each other in order to create a spark by reminding me of the Islamic practice of taqqiya.

And the comments she refers to, I've seen them as well, I have no choice, they show up in my inbox now on a daily basis.

I first learned of taqqiya from Patrick al-Kafir. Here's his definition from his C&R lexicon:

taqiyya: Dissimulation; lying for the sake of ones religion; concealing ones true religious beliefs for strategic reasons. Taqiyya is a lie by commission, rather than by omission, as in kitman. The concept of al-taqiyya is one historically associated with Shia Islam. This is because Sunni Muslims, who believe that Shiites are heretics, would impel them to denounce their faith, thinking this would expose them as mushrikeen when they refused to. In response, the Shia would do so, but hold true to their faith in their hearts, thus preserving their faith and their lives. Taqiyya is now used by all Muslims as a means of deceiving infidels about Islam's aims, practices, and aspirations.

Let's revisit Beth, she's on to something here...

I’m tired of reading the same line in damn near every thread related to the cartoons, where the liars say Islam “respects all religions.” Exactly who do these people think they’re kidding? Maybe they can peddle that bunch of hogwash to the blind dhimmis on the Left, but that’s not flying here. As far as I’m concerned, ANYONE who claims that Islam “respects all religions” has showed their true colors–that they are exactly the kind of Islamofascist with whom the civilized world is at war.

...because, like I said, I've been on the receiving end of these comments.

So the question begs, is Islam tolerant of other religions? Another meme I've noticed is one that basically goes "Muslims don't defame the other prophets, like Jesus, and Moses, how dare you!"

The answer, of course, is no. Islam is not tolerant of other religions. Not only is Islam intolerant, it spits in the face of the very religion it claims to be the one true extension of. Jew hating aside, if Islam respects and doesn't defame the prophets that came before Mohammed, then how then do they rationalize the concept of taqqiya? Or the practice I noted in the post below, the muta'a?

Their hypocrisy is exposed by what was written in stone, thousands of years ago, and brought to the world by a prophet supposedly revered in Islam, Moses:

14 “You shall not commit adultery. (muta'a)

16 “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor. (al-taqqiya)

Then we proceed with the obvious:

13 “You shall not murder. (duh, applies to every other major, or minor for that matter, religion on Earth)

17 “You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his male servant, or his female servant, or his ox, or his donkey, or anything that is your neighbor's.” (just who invaded Spain, anyway?)

For a group that proclaims religious superiority over the rest of us, you would think this would present a problem.

Nah.

F.E.T.E

Posted by: Vinnie at 08:56 PM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 548 words, total size 3 kb.

1 Outstanding catch, only in need of one addendum. God wrote down the ten commandments, is it blasphemy to reject the word of God? Breaking the individual commandments is bad in so far as they're concerned but what happens when they reject the commandments outright? I would make sure that those 72 virgins got a medical checkup if I were smart.

Posted by: Mike H. at February 06, 2006 09:14 PM (DGg0m)

2 I’m tired of reading the same line in damn near every thread related to the cartoons, where the liars say Islam “respects all religions.” What religion "respects all other religions?" Name one that respects any other religion, for that matter. The whole point of sectarianism is not that the sects "respect" one another, but that none is able to get such a stranglehold on the state that it can use the state's resources to crush the others. I'm not sure whether Islam is less tolerant, but suppose that depends on the sect of Islam we're talking about. I'm not sure how far one can get with this religion-bashing thing. But as a practical matter shouldn't we try to differentiate between sects that at least tolerate the idea of religious diversity and those that don't? Not that they "honor it" mind you. Just that they're willing to put up with it. But anyway, you guys are proving my point. There is large-scale willingness to just consign the entire Muslim world to the dust bin, because of the reaction against a few cartoons. Listen Muslims, can you just imagine what this would be like were any of your holy warriors successful enough to destroy an American city, or even a neighborhood? Still think it's a good idea to get the bomb? The only reason things don't look worse for you in the West is that your holy warriors just haven't been very successful. And for that you can thank Allah and George Bush, not to mention a few apostate Muslims.

Posted by: Demosophist at February 06, 2006 09:36 PM (GHzDS)

3 Demosophist, we're not consigning them to the dustbin, they're doing it all themselves. That post smacked of apologetics.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at February 06, 2006 10:15 PM (0yYS2)

4 Thank you for reminding me of this. I reread all of the Chronicles of Narnia, and you might be interested in reading "The Last Battle". It might take you a day, and you will be surprised by its common day relevance especially where taqiyya is concerned. C.S. Lewis knew this was coming and how it would come long before I was even born...

Posted by: RepJ at February 06, 2006 10:19 PM (ZKVg+)

5 Re #17: does that mean you can't covet your Kuwaiti neighbour's oil, cars, tvs, gold...

Posted by: Matthew at February 06, 2006 10:20 PM (/LA+Y)

6 Why don't you go over to Beth's site and debate it with her, Demosophist? I didn't write that, she did. But anyway, you guys are proving my point. There is large-scale willingness to just consign the entire Muslim world to the dust bin, because of the reaction against a few cartoons. Sorry, but I don't know how old you are, but I clearly remember Munich in 1972, the oil embargo of 1973, and the hostage crisis of 1979. My perspective on Islam goes alot farther back than just this current cartoon issue, Demosophist. Finally, it's not "religion bashing." It's "getting out the facts."

Posted by: Vinnie at February 06, 2006 10:20 PM (f289O)

7 abu hamza convicted by british court for incitement to murder! woohoo!

Posted by: ian uk at February 07, 2006 07:26 AM (GhCfc)

8 I'm going to do a little "religion bashing" here. This is just my own opinion, but Mohammed was just an egomaniac with control issues. And he was smart too. I mean "real" genious. He coupled his ability to imagine some pretty advanced ideas about the universe and mathematics (even though his math doesn't add up when disbursing inheritances among the family - and in other instances) with his own perversities and personality defects to create an unquestionable self-made existence. He proclaimed himself a prophet by playing on the superstitions that were prevalent at the time. He proceeded to destroy knowledge gained by others so that his Koran was the only word. The destruction of books, scrolls and other sources of knowledge were routinely destroyed by him and his followers for centuries after. And look at some of the most ridiculous proclamations he made: * Angels won't visit a house with a dog in it? * Jews were turned into rats? His proof? Rats don't drink camel's milk and neither did Jews. * The devil resides in your nose while you sleep? (there are many, many more) And this "word" is eternal and must never be questioned? And to this whole issue about not allowing any depiction of Mohammed; this was NOT Allah's word. This rule was made up by other men after Mohammed died. Funny how God's edicts always benefitted Mohammed over everyone else. Even his followers. He got the pick of women after their husband's were killed. He got a full fifth of all the booty from conquests. He claimed to speak for God yet, changed the rules regularly to suit himself, and after he died it was proclaimed that Muslims live their lives patterned after his. And there you have it.

Posted by: Oyster at February 07, 2006 07:37 AM (YudAC)

9

Posted by: ian uk at February 07, 2006 08:42 AM (GhCfc)

10 Actually, I have heard of one religion that is tolerant of all others. I is called something like the Church of Latter Day Messengers, or something like that. It seems that they believe all religions are based on messengers of hope and salvation, and are told at different times, in different places, to different people. They maintain it is just the same message and has been that way since the dawn of time. I seem to recall that they thought John Lennon was one of the last(est). Something about "love being all you need" and the "inability to purchase love". Their central tenent around which every thing revolves is the belief that 'War is a crime' (in other words 'peace') and that this is the revelation foreseen and foretold by Nostradamus, amongst others. I happened to overhear a conversation about it on the bus in from Yass (about 45 minutes out of Canberra) last Monday. It was a probably a crack-pot fringe sect. Rupert Murdoch has a farm out that way, if that means anything. Peace and Out Jack

Posted by: Jack Russell at February 10, 2006 12:21 AM (DCfOe)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Histories and commentaries about Islam often mention the ironic labels that Muslims place on the two "houses" that define the two parts of humanity, as they see them. In this cosmology the realm of the infidels is referred to as the "House of War" while the sphere of Islam is called the "Ummah" (roughly, the community of the virtuous and faithful). The implication is that the West is condemned by their failure to "submit to the will of Allah" to a process of internecine struggle. This has been a useful fiction for the Ummah because not only does it provide a sense of moral superiority, but serves as a figleaf to hide the Ummah's private shame. The term "House of War" manages to convey the notion that the long struggle for justice, freedom and responsible government in the West was the mere pathology of an inferior and faithless people. But the current "cartoon crisis" informs the confused that what the Ummah has really been in submission to for these many centuries is not Allah's will, but a long tradition of tyranny that oppresses in the name of Allah. Avoidance by the Ummah of the kind of struggle that, for centuries, plunged the House of War into a bloody-but-purifying crucible has left the "House of Mankind" contaminated with dross.

And threatens to plunge us all, this time, again into the crucible.

(Cross-posted to Demosophia)

Posted by: Demosophist at 11:43 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 239 words, total size 2 kb.

Then I have to go back to work.

If today is an official "International Day of Anger" in the Ummah, what was 9/11, a mild disagreement?

Posted by: Vinnie at 10:13 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 30 words, total size 1 kb.