BP workers held hostage in Algeria

[markjay]

Surely we have the capacity to worry about terrorism and about the planet at the same time? Jihadists threat to the UK is a very serious one, just as the future of the planet is.

 

[redbaron]

Surely we have the capacity to worry about terrorism and about the planet at the same time? Jihadists threat to the UK is a very serious one, just as the future of the planet is.

I'm sure someone does - wonder if i will get an answer to my original question as this is way off topic...?

 

[grober]

Are you seriously suggesting that terrorists could achieve a full take over of a UK oil or gas facility?

Is a take over of a key North Sea Production Control Platform a possibility? I would say yes. Access would be difficult but not impossible. Facility isolation is a form of protection but as we have seen also a hindrance to retaking same in the event of a successful terrorist occupation. Despite lots of fictional narratives concerning same I can only hope the "powers that be" have regarded this as a distinct possibility and taken appropriate precautions.

 

[redbaron]

Is a take over of a key North Sea Production Control Platform a possibility? I would say yes. Access would be difficult but not impossible. Facility isolation is a form of protection but as we have seen also a hindrance to retaking same in the event of a successful terrorist occupation. Despite lots of fictional narratives concerning same I can only hope the "powers that be" have regarded this as a distinct possibility and taken appropriate precautions.

Roger Moore is getting too old to recapture it now.

 

[grober]

Roger Moore is getting too old to recapture it now.

True - but did this answer your original question?

 

[redbaron]

True - but did this answer your original question?

To a degree - an offshore platform will always be an easier target... I remain unconvinced that an onshore asset is a viable target for occupation. Destruction yes. Occupation no.

 

[markjay]

Does it really matter if terrorists capture a large number of hostages, many of whom die in the attack and in the ensuing rescue operation, or they just blow up the while thing, causing many deaths?

If the IRA managed to smuggle a lorry full of explosives all the way to the Docklands in 1996, and an another organisation managed to blow-up two car bombs in Central London in Knightsbridge and Finchley in 1994, I am sure Al-Qaida can launch a deadly attack on an oil and gas - not to mention nuclear - installation - and I am certain that the powers-to-be have considered this possibility and taken appropriate action.

What I would say though is that the oil industry is an obvious target in Africa, as are foreign embassies, because it is the easiest way to attack Westerns.

However, once terrorists do manage to devise a method for large scale attack inside UK mainland (or Europe, or US) they will be spoilt for choice with so many attractive high-profile targets that it is not certain they will go for the energy industry, although this remains a distinct possibility.

 

[Paul/]

However, once terrorists do manage to devise a method for large scale attack inside UK mainland (or Europe, or US) they will be spoilt for choice with so many attractive high-profile targets that it is not certain they will go for the energy industry, although this remains a distinct possibility.

Yes, and even if it were possible to protect against every such scenario, there are innumerable ways for terrorist acts on a smaller scale, e.g. to murder a few 10s of people at a time.

So the only practical overall defences are attempting to prevent people becoming radicalised islamists, and identifying those who become radicalised to neutralise them before they have opportunity to murder. Neutralisation would be a lot more effective if it were possible to operate according to their desired laws rather than those of democracies.

 

[Dryce]

However, once terrorists do manage to devise a method for large scale attack inside UK mainland (or Europe, or US) they will be spoilt for choice with so many attractive high-profile targets that it is not certain they will go for the energy industry, although this remains a distinct possibility.

The question that is rarely asked is why is terrorist activity so low.

And generally why is it so ineffective.

The answer is that it is to a degree self regulating. The World Trade Centre attack was highly unusual. The knock-on repurcussions probably a shock to the perpretrators and those who harboured them (though the one sided presentation by the media tends to mask what is happening on the 'other side'). Most incidents are local to the perpetrators and the trouble spots.

The Algerian incident may hit the news because it involved foreign hostages. The underlying motivation is likely to be local - but the perpetrating group gets more kudos out of making it bigger and more international - and the foreign media finds it much more exciting to explain it as something bigger.

People have forgotten quickly about Algeria's more recent internal conflict involving govenrment and islamic groups and paramilitaries.

Most Islamic terrorism doesn't get more than token publicity via western media because it's in a foreign country and involves a non-western body count. That tends to mean there is a gap in terms of the apparent context in which it is reported as opposed to the context within which it actually occurs.

 

[Bellow]

Difficult though it would be, with appropriate assistance, it is probably possible to take control of a rig in the North Sea.
And that's my point: as per the Algerian attack, complicity of some workers is the key.
If a NS rig were taken, it needn't be carnage - hostages held and the threat of production disruption would suffice.
But it doesn't have to be that even. Think smaller scale concerted actions in workplaces. Disrupt computer networks to order and shut down in one day the airports, rail network, road network, emergency services, fuel distribution, food distribution, etc, etc. All of this by people already in positions to do it. It won't take a siege to halt this country - merely some with the potential to disrupt on command.

 

[Dryce]

Disrupt computer networks to order and shut down in one day the airports, rail network, road network, emergency services, fuel distribution, food distribution, etc, etc. All of this by people already in positions to do it. It won't take a siege to halt this country - merely some with the potential to disrupt on command.

Sounds more like industrial action.

Terrorists tend to be technically limited. Media portrays them as experts but if you look at the attacks the opposite is often true. Means are generally simple. And there is a degree of opportunism involved. Often the means used are a result of lack of skills and resources.

 

[Bellow]

Sounds more like industrial action.

Yes, but instead of picketing outside - inside screwing the computer networks...

Terrorists tend to be technically limited. Media portrays them as experts but if you look at the attacks the opposite is often true. Means are generally simple. And there is a degree of opportunism involved. Often the means used are a result of lack of skills and resources.

Thus far perhaps. That could change - and would have to as we have (or think we have) the wannabe bombers under control. Other methods would be required - and found.

 

[markjay]

I do not know who writes David Cameron's speeches, but as far as speeches go, he did say all the right things when addressing the Commons today. Of, course, following words with actions is a known weakness of politicians, but for what it's worth I thought this paragraph was definitely a case of 'well said":

"We must frustrate the terrorists with our security, beat them militarily, address the poisonous narrative they feed on, close down the ungoverned space in which they thrive and deal with the grievances they use to garner support"

 

[grober]

I do not know who writes David Cameron's speeches, but as far as speeches go, he did say all the right things when addressing the Commons today. Of, course, following words with actions is a known weakness of politicians, but for what it's worth I thought this paragraph was definitely a case of 'well said":

"We must frustrate the terrorists with our security, beat them militarily, address the poisonous narrative they feed on, close down the ungoverned space in which they thrive and deal with the grievances they use to garner support"

One of the ironies mentioned in discussions today was that the same Wahhabism based "funding" that may have indirectly supported the recent Militant Islamic "adventure" in Algeria is currently also supporting the Army of Opposition to the regime in Syria ---- the side which apparently we are supporting too !

 

[markjay]

Wahhabists are Sunni... so they would support the Syrian opposition.

 

[EVL]

Wahhabists are Sunni... so they would support the Syrian opposition.

I'm going a bit off topic here, so I apologise.
They might call themselves Sunni, but extremists like Wahabis are nothing short of evil. Not sure of the exact number, but I think there are 70+ different sects of Muslims (or groups or whatever anyone would like to call them).
Wahabis/Salafis are one of the worst, and unfortunately due to Oil revenue supplied by the Saud family in Arabia have been able to influence alot of poor people. There are other groups, like ismailis, qadiyanis/ahmediyyas who also consider themselves Muslims.
Although I don't have as much knowledge in Islam as I would like to, even basic knowledge shows the Wahabis to be wrong. There is a saying in the Quran (not word for word) that says "if you take the life of one innocent human being, the sin is as great as if you killed all of mankind"
I am continually amazed by the Wahabis and simply can't understand how so called Muslims forget the basics and follow them blindly.
(I am Sunni, but follow the Sufi tariqa)