Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Realistbear

Al Qaeda Plan To Destroy The Economy By Disrupting Oil

Recommended Posts

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12786605/

US 'must beware' rise in al-Qaeda oil strikes

Financial Times

By Guy Dinmore in Washington

Updated: 1:41 p.m. ET May 14, 2006

The US and its Arab allies must expect an increase in attacks on their oil infrastructure in the next phase of the war by al-Qaeda targeting the US economy,
the former Central Intelligence Agency official who was responsible for hunting down Osama bin Laden warns on Monday.
Writing for the Jamestown Foundation, a Washington security think-tank, Michael Scheuer says
Mr bin Laden's intention to bankrupt the US economy
by driving up world oil prices is very likely to lead to attacks inside the US by al-Qaeda, its allies or unrelated groups.
Houston's gas refineries, oil import facilities and ship canal and pipeline systems, and the trans-Alaska pipeline are potential targets.
Al-Qaeda's failed attack on Saudi Arabia's Abqaiq facility on February 24, which led to a $2 a barrel jump in world oil prices, should also be seen as the beginning of a new and more systematic phase of targeting of the kingdom's oil infrastructure.
Two days after the attack, an al-Qaeda-affiliated cleric issued a religious justification for attacking oil processing installations.
The cleric, using the internet, also claimed that attacks on prominent Muslim oil officials were justified.
The militant organisation's media apparatus is also being used "to stir the troubled pot of oil-related international worries", Mr Scheuer writes, noting encouragement for Nigerian insurgents in the Niger Delta and "mujahideen" in the Caspian Sea region.
Tracing al-Qaeda's evolving strategy, Mr Scheuer, who left the CIA in 2004, notes that Mr bin Laden has never threatened to cut oil supplies to the US. Instead he is driven by the belief that Muslim oil is bought too cheaply.
In December 2004, Mr bin Laden wrote that a minimum of $100 a barrel was a "fair price"
.
In his September 1996 "Declaration of War against Americans", Mr bin Laden argues that oil in the Islamic world is a treasure to be preserved for future generations of Muslims and thus should not be wasted through attacks.
As a result, Mr Scheuer says al-Qaeda's plans rule out attacks on oil wells but focus on the infrastructure needed for refining and transporting oil, as well as industry personnel.

Perhaps "Mr. " Bin Laden is getting a cut on the oil that is sold at inflated prices? If he is controlling world prices he is going to use that power to line his pockets. After all, he comes from a very rich Saudi family who have done well selling oil to the West for decades. Seems Mr. Bin Laden is in the war just to exploit oil and make he and his cronies rich and very powerul. At the same time he is working with his Mullah fascist cronies to keep the prices up and the stranglehold in place as the Western economies buckle. Its all about the money, so what else is new?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...so what else is new?

Bin Laden is already rich RB, I don't think a man who has taken to cowering in caves is prone to chasing more material wealth.

He is, incidentally, Saudi. You know, from a US 'ally'. If only he was Iranian! :rolleyes:

I think 'Mr' Bin Laden's intention, whether this report is true or not, is ending US financial / proxy militarist hegemony in the middle east. The West does not have a 'right' to middle eastern oil. You can bet that if the remaining productive oil fields were in Alabama the rest of the word would be paying at least $100 a barrel.

Edited by tahoma

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bin Laden? Dead isn't he? Just some PR bogeyman to scare us into surrendering more liberties and a surveillence state? 7/7 bombers were just angry young men turned psychopaths not part of an organised 'global terror threat'. There's no such thing.

When the central banks reign in the money supply once more, and the rich set about hoovering up assets for a bargain price, there will be one of those periodic crises of capitalism and the anger will need to be diverted someplace else.

'It wasn't our fault, peeps - it was that nasty, evil man Bin Laden. That's why you're losing your job, that's why your home is being repossessed. Don't blame us'

http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=483&row=1

You must keep in mind who paid for George's ranch and Dick's bunker: Big Oil. And Big Oil -- and their buck-buddies, the Saudis -- don't make money from pumping more oil, but from pumping less of it. The lower the supply, the higher the price.

It's Economics 101. The oil industry is run by a cartel, OPEC, and what economists call an "oligopoly" -- a tiny handful of operators who make more money when there's less oil, not more of it. So, every time the "insurgents" blow up a pipeline in Basra, every time Mad Mahmoud in Tehran threatens to cut supply, the price of oil leaps. And Dick and George just love it.

Edited by CrashedOutAndBurned

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bin Laden? Dead isn't he? Just some PR bogeyman to scare us into surrendering more liberties and a surveillence state? 7/7 bombers were just angry young men turned psychopaths not part of an organised 'global terror threat'. There's no such thing.

When the central banks reign in the money supply once more, and the rich set about hoovering up assets for a bargain price, there will be one of those periodic crises of capitalism and the anger will need to be diverted someplace else.

'It wasn't our fault, peeps - it was that nasty, evil man Bin Laden. That's why you're losing your job, that's why your home is being repossessed. Don't blame us'

http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=483&row=1

I'm inclined to agree.

NDL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bin Laden is already rich RB, I don't think a man who has taken to cowering in caves is prone to chasing more material wealth.

He is, incidenatally, Saudi. You know, from a US 'ally'. If only he was Iranian! :rolleyes:

I think 'Mr' Bin Laden's intention, whether this report is true or not, is ending US financial / proxy militarist hegemony in the middle east. The West does not have a 'right' to middle eastern oil. You can bet that if the remaining productive oil fields were in Alabama the rest of the word would be paying at least $100 a barrel.

As far as I know BL was "cut off" from his rich Saudi relatives. In any event, wealthy people like BL crave power it s the highest level of motivation in meglomaniacs. The West has a right to all the middle eastern oil they are willing to pay for and the Middle East are willing to sell. Its legitimate trading--the Arabs have been traders since time imemorial now they have something valuable to trade. If they don't sell the oil they have too much for their own use so it makes a lot of sense to market it to willing buyers. The oil Sheiks get their palaces and megalopolisis like Dubai and the West get petrol for their motors.

The problem is not trading between Arabs and the West but the politicising of trade. The "Mahdi" mind-set of BL and his bombing the infidel campaign has done very little other than made the Sheiks ever richer with higher profits per bbl. Fair enough as they control the supply and the West have the demand.

I am not so sure that the West want hegemony over the Middle East. They certainly want stability for the sake of the oil market. The US and UK have tacitly guaranteed Israel's right to exist and this is no doubt historical and based on centuries of Jewish influence in Western Civilization. The Arab world has never integrated into the Western World which is why the conflicts in world views today. A "Jew" is essentially "Western" despite their middle east origins. Their long dormant religion is Judaism which has been integrated into the Western legal system and culture. Islam has never made significant inroads into the Western world view and it remains an essentially Eastern concept.

So today we have conflicting world views and culture trying to do business together. The ground is ripe for "Mahdi" type figures to exploit the differences and appeal to those who feel left out--90% of Arabs are still dirt poor. To date the Sheiks of Saudi have managed to remain in power by appealing to the people's religion that remains in tension with the west. The "enemy" is therefore the West and not the rich Sheiks who exploit the people. This is why BL was kicked out by his family who had much to lose if an Islamic revolution took place replacing the princes with Mullahs.

BL is a loose cannon and many Arabs would like to see him dead for the sake of preserving the nice earner they have going selling oil to the WEst (and the East of course). I am not so sure that he isn't dead and that old tapes are rolled out every now and then with his "death to America" rants. "Mahdi" types usually like to bask in the adulation of their followers and do not hide in caves.

Edited by Realistbear

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When the central banks reign in the money supply once more, and the rich set about hoovering up assets for a bargain price, there will be one of those periodic crises of capitalism and the anger will need to be diverted someplace else.

'It wasn't our fault, peeps - it was that nasty, evil man Bin Laden. That's why you're losing your job, that's why your home is being repossessed. Don't blame us'

http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=483&row=1

Spot on! (again)

Two minutes hate, anyone?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as I know BL was "cut off" from his rich Saudi relatives. In any event, wealthy people like BL crave power it s the highest level of motivation in meglomaniacs. The West has a right to all the middle eastern oil they are willing to pay for and the Middle East are willing to sell. Its legitimate trading--the Arabs have been traders since time imemorial now they have something valuable to trade. If they don't sell the oil they have too much for their own use so it makes a lot of sense to market it to willing buyers. The oil Sheiks get their palaces and megalopolisis like Dubai and the West get petrol for their motors.

The problem is not trading between Arabs and the West but the politicising of trade. The "Mahdi" mind-set of BL and his bombing the infidel campaign has done very little other than made the Sheiks ever richer with higher profits per bbl. Fair enough as they control the supply and the West have the demand.

I am not so sure that the West want hegemony over the Middle East. They certainly want stability for the sake of the oil market. The US and UK have tacitly guaranteed Israel's right to exist and this is no doubt historical and based on centuries of Jewish influence in Western Civilization. The Arab world has never integrated into the Western World which is why the conflicts in world views today. A "Jew" is essentially "Western" despite their middle east origins. Their long dormant religion is Judaism which has been integrated into the Western legal system and culture. Islam has never made significant inroads into the Western world view and it remains an essentially Eastern concept.

So today we have conflicting world views and culture trying to do business together. The ground is ripe for "Mahdi" type figures to exploit the differences and appeal to those who feel left out--90% of Arabs are still dirt poor. To date the Sheiks of Saudi have managed to remain in power by appealing to the people's religion that remains in tension with the west. The "enemy" is therefore the West and not the rich Sheiks who exploit the people. This is why BL was kicked out by his family who had much to lose if an Islamic revolution took place replacing the princes with Mullahs.

BL is a loose cannon and many Arabs would like to see him dead for the sake of preserving the nice earner they have going selling oil to the WEst (and the East of course). I am not so sure that he isn't dead and that old tapes are rolled out every now and then with his "death to America" rants. "Mahdi" types usually like to bask in the adulation of their followers and do not hide in caves.

the problem is the same there as it is here...basically too much power concentrated on too few individuals with excessive influence.The US being a primary power and financial hub works as a focal point,but the problem is basically systemic throughout humanity.

some folks will use every trick in the book to rule the henhouse.....the oil sheiks could have distributed power and wealth fairly,but they didn't.....breeding a generation of frustrated and impoverished "revolutionaries".We in the west are likely to follow the same path,when it becomes apparent that capitaism hasn't gone to plan,but socialism hasn't either and has robbed us of our freedom in the process.

while the divisions between the faiths are cited as grounds for war etc then it provides a smokescreen,but we are all basically in the same boat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://today.reuters.com/business/newsarti...-BRITAIN-DC.XML

advertisement

Chavez sees oil at $100 a barrel if US hits Iran

Sun May 14, 2006 3:31 PM ET

Printer Friendly | Email Article | Reprints | RSS

By Osborne Long

LONDON (Reuters) - Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez said on Sunday that if the United States attacked Iran in its dispute with Tehran over nuclear technology, the price of oil could soar to triple figures.
Visiting London following an EU-Latin American summit in Vienna at the weekend, Chavez, leader of the world's fifth largest oil exporter, said the Iranians would have no choice but to respond to a U.S. assault by cutting oil production.
"If the United States attacks Iran ... oil could reach $100 a barrel or more," Chavez told a meeting hosted by London's left-wing mayor Ken Livingstone. "The English middle classes would have to stop using their cars."
Chavez was welcomed to London by Livingstone, who opened the meeting by accusing President Bush of running "a gangster regime."
In a speech broadcast in Venezuela as Chavez's regular "Alo Presidente" program,
Chavez extolled the virtues of Fidel Castro's Cuban government.
"
We salute you Mr President," Livingstone told Chavez. "Londoners stand with you
, not with the oil companies and the oligarchs."

Looks like Kenneth is still in his Viva El Revolucione' phase and "up the Guerrillas." Funny how he supports a pro-Stalanist-Fascista (Fidel "el dictator for life" Castro) a form of government that was rejected years ago by the South American Revoluciones in favour of prolateriat Maoism which alternates about every 7 years with hard right Military Regimes.

I wonder if Kenneth is going to refuse the tax revenues from BP, Shell etc. who rent ofices in his City and who employ a large number of workers? It would be hypocritical to do so and he should stand by his revolutionary principles.

Edited by Realistbear

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as I know BL was "cut off" from his rich Saudi relatives. In any event, wealthy people like BL crave power it s the highest level of motivation in meglomaniacs. The West has a right to all the middle eastern oil they are willing to pay for and the Middle East are willing to sell. Its legitimate trading--the Arabs have been traders since time imemorial now they have something valuable to trade. If they don't sell the oil they have too much for their own use so it makes a lot of sense to market it to willing buyers. The oil Sheiks get their palaces and megalopolisis like Dubai and the West get petrol for their motors.

Wealthy people like the Bush dynasty crave power as it is the highest level of motivation in megalomaniacs. Peaedeophiles have the right to all the child pornography they are willing to pay for and fellow paedeophiles are willing to sell. If Arabs don't sell oil it will stay in the ground safe and sound. The oil Sheiks get as much as their Western backers facilitate.

The problem is not trading between Arabs and the West but the politicising of trade. The "Mahdi" mind-set of BL and his bombing the infidel campaign has done very little other than made the Sheiks ever richer with higher profits per bbl. Fair enough as they control the supply and the West have the demand.

The problems is not between Arabs and the West but the politicisation of the middle east. The 'Neocon' mindset of GWB and his bombing of the 'terrorist' campaign has done very little other than made the Sheiks ever richer with higher profits per bbl. Fair enough as they control the supply and the West have the demand.

I am not so sure that the est want hegemony over the Middle East. They certainly want stability for the sake of the oil market. The US and UK have tacitly guaranteed Israel's right to exist and this is no doubt historical and based on centuries of Jewish influence in Western Civilization. The Arab world has never integrated into the Western World which is why the conflicts in world views today. A "Jew" is essentially "Western" despite their middle east origins. Their long dormant religion is Judaism which has been integrated into the Western legal system and culture. Islam has never made significant inroads into the Western world view and it remains an essentially Eastern concept.

The West want hegemony over the Middle East. They certainly want 'stability' for the sake of the oil market. The US and UK have frantically tried to enforce Israel's 'right to exist' and this is no doubt ahistorical and based on decades of rabid lobbying. The Arab world has never integrated into the Western World which is why they deserve to be nuked. A "Jew" is essentially "Western", providing they are 'Ashkenazi' as opposed to another type of Jew. Their long dormant religion is Judaism which has been integrated into the Western political lobbying system. Islam has never made significant inroads into the Western world view and it remains an essentially Eastern concept, as if it has a duty to be anything else.

So today we have conflicting world views and culture trying to do business together. The ground is ripe for "Mahdi" type figures to exploit the differences and appeal to those who feel left out--90% of Arabs are still dirt poor. To date the Sheiks of Saudi have managed to remain in power by appealing to the people's religion that remains in tension with the west. The "enemy" is therefore the West and not the rich Sheiks who exploit the people. This is why BL was kicked out by his family who had much to lose if an Islamic revolution took place replacing the princes with Mullahs.

So today we have basically compatible world views and culture trying to do business together, unfortunately neocons want to screw it up. The ground is ripe for 'peaceful' figures to appeal to those who feel like they are being used as sheep - 90% of Arabs are still dirt poor. To date the Sheiks of Saudi have managed to remain in power by appealing to western governments and their hunger for cheap oil. The "enemy" is therefore the people who exploit people. This is why BL was kicked out by his family who had much to lose if the US got annoyed with them.

BL is a loose cannon and many Arabs would like to see him dead for the sake of preserving the nice earner they have going selling oil to the WEst (and the East of course). I am not so sure that he isn't dead and that old tapes are rolled out every now and then with his "death to America" rants. "Mahdi" types usually like to bask in the adulation of their followers and do not hide in caves.

BL is a loose cannon and many Arabs would like to see him glorified for opposing their common enemy. I am sure that lookalikes are rolled out to speak "death to America" rants.

Edited by tahoma

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the problem is the same there as it is here...basically too much power concentrated on too few individuals with excessive influence.The US being a primary power and financial hub works as a focal point,but the problem is basically systemic throughout humanity.

some folks will use every trick in the book to rule the henhouse.....the oil sheiks could have distributed power and wealth fairly,but they didn't.....breeding a generation of frustrated and impoverished "revolutionaries".We in the west are likely to follow the same path,when it becomes apparent that capitaism hasn't gone to plan,but socialism hasn't either and has robbed us of our freedom in the process.

while the divisions between the faiths are cited as grounds for war etc then it provides a smokescreen,but we are all basically in the same boat.

You are so right--religion is the smokescreen. Three things motivate most self-proclaimed (as opposed to elected leaders whose term in office is limited by a constitution) "Mahdis" or "Fuehrers" no matter what culture they are from: Power, money and/or sex. In that order :)

They will "use" religion (to include. among others, Ubermenschen ideas of the Nazi party, or Jihad of the extremist Moslems) as a way to manipulate their followers who are willing to follow a cause even though the cause if for the fulfillment of the leaders dream of power, money or sex.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They will "use" religion (to include. among others, Ubermenschen ideas of the Nazi party, or Jihad of the extremist Moslems) as a way to manipulate their followers who are willing to follow a cause even though the cause if for the fulfillment of the leaders dream of power, money or sex.

Christianity, on the other hand, is so, so, very different.

Not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Christianity, on the other hand, is so, so, very different.

Not.

You missed it again. Those who "use" religion to manipulate others.

Many have used other's ideas by distorting them to fit their agenda. "Birds of a feather flock together", a Biblical saying that was "used" by racists in the Confederacy to justify segregation.

Hitler used ideas from Nietsche and Martin Luther to justify his genocide programs.

However, I am not so sure that BL is "using" the Koran to justify his war against the infidel as this is one of the dictates of that book. Mao's "Little Red Book" was followed to the letter when the Chinese were forced to abandon everything for the sake of Mao's party (Fenshui).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You missed it again. Those who "use" religion to manipulate others.

RB, anyone from any rabidly self-assured viewpoint will 'use' anything to 'assure' followers. Holding their beliefs above those of other mystics is another puff of smoke in front of the mirror.

That's my point. Mao, Christ, Hitler, David Koresh, Jim Bakker, Mohammed, Norse gods, Paganism, Osiris, I don't care.

If you reject rationale, you deserve all you get.

Edited by tahoma

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guy_Montag

However, I am not so sure that BL is "using" the Koran to justify his war against the infidel as this is one of the dictates of that book. Mao's "Little Red Book" was followed to the letter when the Chinese were forced to abandon everything for the sake of Mao's party (Fenshui).

Yet more bigotry from the Rev. Ian Paisley of HPC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

However, I am not so sure that BL is "using" the Koran to justify his war against the infidel as this is one of the dictates of that book. Mao's "Little Red Book" was followed to the letter when the Chinese were forced to abandon everything for the sake of Mao's party (Fenshui).

And don't have a go at Fensui, either. It's done wonders for my living room, very peaceful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bin Laden? Dead isn't he? Just some PR bogeyman to scare us into surrendering more liberties and a surveillence state? [Check] 7/7 bombers were just angry young men turned psychopaths [Check] not part of an organised 'global terror threat' [Check] . There's no such thing.

When the central banks reign in the money supply once more [Check] , and the rich set about hoovering up assets for a bargain price [Check] , there will be one of those periodic crises of capitalism and the anger will need to be diverted someplace else [Check] .

'It wasn't our fault, peeps - it was that nasty, evil man Bin Laden. That's why you're losing your job, that's why your home is being repossessed. Don't blame us'

http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=483&row=1

Oh dear, ticks all the boxes....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RB, anyone from any rabidly self-assured viewpoint will 'use' anything to 'assure' followers. Holding their beliefs above those of other mystics is another puff of smoke in front of the mirror.

That's my point. Mao, Christ, Hitler, David Koresh, Jim Bakker, Mohammed, Norse gods, Paganism, Osiris, I don't care.

If you reject rationale, you deserve all you get.

But to have beliefs without conviction will not get any followers. Churchill eventually turned opinion his way because of his great conviction and belief that Hitler had plans to subjugate Europe. Winstopn was, howver, considered to be irrational by most MPs who thought he was past it. Rationalism does not hold all the answers because the history of humankind demonstrates people are not very good at putting rational thought into actual practice. The "Enlightenment" period which re-birthed rationalism eventually gave way to Napoleon and two centuries of European conflict. Worl War 1 marked the end of confidence in man's rationalism or ability to bring peace on earth. Most people just do not get it.

Not all great thinkers, leaders or philosophers were irrational. Hitler had "some" good ideas but he also had a lot of bad ones. It seems that you are rejecting the thoughts and teachings of everyone down through the ages to rely on your own notions of what is good or truth etc.? Fair enough but if everyone followed their own ideas of what was rational?

Some of the great ideas have validity such as it is wrong to steal or commit murder. It is a good thing to be charitable toward the poor and to care for the sick. To be truthful and to act with humility not thinking of yourself as superior to others. Some of these ideas are encapsulated in belief systems and it is difficult to assess them in terms of "rational." To help a person in need may be kind but it seems that it would not be "rational" as to do so might cost something in terms of your time or money. Thus, if your rationalism is to be a person who sees the accumulation of wealth as a good thing to spend it without expecting anything in return is to be irrational. One person's rational behaviour might be another's irrational behaviour. Without any standards it all gets a bit subjective. Hence the development of belief "systems" or "relgions." Some good, some not so good but not all irrational.

Iam Paisley (With a gruff roar: Orrn Paislawwwrr to his followers) is regarded by many as a self-righteous biggot whose only interest in life is to further the cause of Celtic supremacy over the ancient tribes of Southern Ireland. IN my system of rationalism the Right Reverend Pailsey would com eunder the categarory of beligerent hypocrite. "Religion" has provided the banner of warfare in all the wars that have ever occured whether the belief system is right or wrong. People always fight for a belief system no matter what label it is.

So rejecting rationalism is not the answer. The answer is to seek truth and apply it.

And don't have a go at Fensui, either. It's done wonders for my living room, very peaceful.

Sorry--I didn't mean Fensui--I mean't Fanshen! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Al Qaeda Plan To Destroy The Economy By Disrupting Oil, World economies at risk as Bin Laden presses for $100 bbl

Are you suggesting that Gordon Brown and Tony Blair are in fact part of a complex terror cell setup by Al Qaeda to destroy the British Economy ?.

We should sell this one to the papers, it would be worth a mint.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They really could cause problems by attacking pipelines.

I can imagine an Al-Quada team planting loads of landmines around an area of pipeline, then blowing up the pipeline - the any emergency or repair vehicles coming to repair the pipeline get take out by land mines. The whole area would be covered in oil - would be a disaster, and cause huge distruption.

Im surprised they've not gone for an all out attack on oil supplies already to be honest. Surely attacking pipelines, or even oil tankers would be far easier than attacks in built up areas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You must keep in mind who paid for George's ranch and Dick's bunker: Big Oil. And Big Oil -- and their buck-buddies, the Saudis -- don't make money from pumping more oil, but from pumping less of it. The lower the supply, the higher the price.

It's Economics 101. The oil industry is run by a cartel, OPEC, and what economists call an "oligopoly" -- a tiny handful of operators who make more money when there's less oil, not more of it. So, every time the "insurgents" blow up a pipeline in Basra, every time Mad Mahmoud in Tehran threatens to cut supply, the price of oil leaps. And Dick and George just love it.

And the tool for this is GB-Bushes long standing links to the Saudi royals and Bin-Laden who is just playing bad cop under instruction from the white house or became an enemy the Saudi royals and by virtue, the Bush administration who together control the worlds oil and invented a plan.

The scientific evidence against the towers being destroyed by the fire and aeroplanes is overwhelming and physics laws have been restored as steel does not get heated so that it stays liquid three days later.

This Madrid building did not fall down after being on fire for 22 hours

1146107943752574.jpg

and we are supposed to believe that This one did in less than an hour :lol:

wtc_fires_long2_small2.jpg

Now we are seeing the results of this event on 9-11 as GW-Bush makes a grab for the oil with the blessing of the Saudi Royals and the other governments attempt to protect their own interests and the inevitable result of oil prices going up all over the world. Personally the Texas based Bush family knew this would happen and are making a fortune from there oil investments worldwide.

Edited by Justice

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the tool for this is GB-Bushes long standing links to the Saudi royals and Bin-Laden who is just playing bad cop under instruction from the white house or became an enemy the Saudi royals and by virtue, the Bush administration who together control the worlds oil and invented a plan.

The scientific evidence against the towers being destroyed by the fire and aeroplanes is overwhelming and physics laws have been restored as steel does not get heated so that it stays liquid three days later.

This Madrid building did not fall down after being on fire for 22 hours

1146107943752574.jpg

and we are supposed to believe that This one did in less than an hour :lol:

wtc_fires_long2_small2.jpg

Now we are seeing the results of this event on 9-11 as GW-Bush makes a grab for the oil with the blessing of the Saudi Royals and the other governments attempt to protect their own interests and the inevitable result of oil prices going up all over the world. Personally the Texas based Bush family knew this would happen and are making a fortune from there oil investments worldwide.

A couple of our companies are doing handsomely as well: BP and Shell (part Dutch). Not to mention all the power companies that are raking in the dough due to the natural gas prices. The Arabs do well also as they are selling more around the world and really screwing over the Chinese whose demand is growing exponentially. Even Iran is doing nicely at $74 bbl as they go on a weapons spending spree in Russia. Then there is Dubai with all those high rises and exotic lakes and country clubs springing up everywhere. Bottom line it not just the Bush family that are doing well (they were already multi-millionaires without stock prices of oil rising). So as Bush makes a "grab" for oil that others pay for (The Arabs do not give oil away free-they make big profits from the "grab") inflation is increased causing IR to rise and HPCs to follow. Good on yer George.

They really could cause problems by attacking pipelines.

I can imagine an Al-Quada team planting loads of landmines around an area of pipeline, then blowing up the pipeline - the any emergency or repair vehicles coming to repair the pipeline get take out by land mines. The whole area would be covered in oil - would be a disaster, and cause huge distruption.

Im surprised they've not gone for an all out attack on oil supplies already to be honest. Surely attacking pipelines, or even oil tankers would be far easier than attacks in built up areas.

Al Qaeda have said they do not want to waste "Allah given" riches by blowing up oil lines. They want to take out the infrastructure such as refineries, depots, tankers. And, of course, Shias in Iraq.

Edited by Realistbear

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 302 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.