Comments on: Blowing up pipelines

By: Left Field

Left Field — Thu, 05 Feb 2004 19:30:12 +0000

If it is true – hooray for the good guys (you know – the ones to the left of that former big wall).

By: Marc M

Marc M — Thu, 05 Feb 2004 10:07:38 +0000

A good analogy. If the U.S. were to steal pipeline equipment from Ansar Al-Islam, an al-Queda subsidiary operating as terrorists/insurgents in Iraq, and they knew we were thinkin about stealin their pipeline equip, so they purposely rigged it so it would go ker-pow/boom when we used it. So hopefully we’re not going to steal oil pipeline equipment from Ansar Al-Islam. I’m suspecting this be a fairly safe bet. And y’all might just do a googette, a single google, before you talk skeptical and worldly wise about that doubt you have. Seen more intelligent discussions at my niece’s barbie doll site.

By: Sigivald

Sigivald — Wed, 04 Feb 2004 20:04:09 +0000

Raven: Nope. I don’t think it’d be okay. But, assuming you could convince me that this publicly-known action would somehow not create terror, the action would not be terrorist, but mere arson and vandalism. (Please do not confuse “not terrorism” and “acceptable”; many actions that are not terrorism are still unacceptable. I was arguing strictly and only that “terrorist” does not describe the alleged activity – while I also think it was, given the cold war and theft contexts, acceptable, I did not argue that. And I explicitly deny it in the context of destroying things in your own country to make a political point.) I’m not sure, of course, that you could convince me that the publicly known (because not in Siberia, not in a closed society that doesn’t report things like that, etc) act of burning down people’s houses in an inhabited area (subdivisions are rarely built in areas that have no people at all, but near other already inhabited subdivisions) for political reasons was not intended to cause “terror” … or at very least halt the construction of new homes through “fear” (syn. “terror”) of further attacks. I find it difficult to seriously consider the cases even vaguely analagous in the relevant categories.

By: Lexey

Lexey — Wed, 04 Feb 2004 15:22:53 +0000

Guys, this story is an urban legend, a very old one and a RUSSIAN one to boot, probably brought to the west by one of defectors. Speaks volumes about current state of CIA if they resort to planting urban legends in NYT.

By: Raven

Raven — Tue, 03 Feb 2004 20:04:10 +0000

Sigivald: so you would think it is okay for so-called “ecoterrorists” to torch newily built and as yet uninhabited homes in suburbia? You seem to think this would not consitute terrorism, since it does not kill people, it might look like an accident, it does not affect most people (only those cutting clear forest to build their new homes) and only the investigating government officials would only ever have reason to suspect it might have been arson and anything other than an accident? Or are perhaps these criteria not such a good idea to exclude exclude something from being “terrorism”?

By: Raven

Raven — Tue, 03 Feb 2004 20:03:58 +0000

By: linden

linden — Tue, 03 Feb 2004 06:29:40 +0000

But this leaves aside the most important distinction. Al Qaeda is at war with the US. Russia was not. Lordy. I must have imagined the Cold War.

By: Michael B

Michael B — Tue, 03 Feb 2004 05:49:02 +0000

Farewell Dossier, a fuller account from the CIA’s own declassified records, informative and not bad reading. This has been out for some time now, several years already, a great story from the Cold War: we won, the gulag guys lost.

By: ZD

ZD — Mon, 02 Feb 2004 20:55:36 +0000

Booby trapping stuff they were stealing from us was funny as well as legitimate. The point was, as Safire explained, not one explosion but the vast range of technical projects the Soviets then had to abandon because they all relied on stolen technology through a program whose cover had been blown.

By: Sigivald

Sigivald — Mon, 02 Feb 2004 20:47:50 +0000

How is an explosion that killed no-one (let alone was aimed at killing civilians), and looked like an accident "terrorism"? It would not, of course, have created terror in anyone much, as nobody outside of a small number of Soviet officials would have any reason to believe that it was anything but an accident. That small number of officials, of course, might know that it was sabotage of some sort... which does not exactly inspire terror either. Terrorist acts are those that use terror (wanton destruction, targeting of civilians, etc.) in an attempt to achieve some goal. Where, precisely, is the terror here? When Iraqis (or, as often, non-Iraqis in Iraq) blow up pipelines, it's part of a (semi) organised "resistance" movement, meant to help inspire fear by demonstrating that coalition (ie, mainly US) forces Can't Stop Them Completely. Thus we have at least some aspect of "terror" - though more accurately I'd call it guerilla warfare, on behalf of a more or less loosely defined group that also makes terrorist attacks. Simply "blowing stuff up in some sort of sneaky way" doesn't suffice to make it "terrorism".

By: anon software dev

anon software dev — Mon, 02 Feb 2004 20:21:24 +0000

This story assumes that oil and gas pipelines are totally standard, such that off-the-shelf software could be used to run them, with few modifications or customizations. Somehow, I doubt this highly. I especially doubt this twenty years ago.

By: Paul

Paul — Mon, 02 Feb 2004 20:09:42 +0000

Another dull day at the office, I see.

By: silly u

silly u — Mon, 02 Feb 2004 18:11:23 +0000

profundis orifice magnificus, ‘morality has very little to do with choosing sides’ Well that thar thang be a morul statement itself, t’aint it? An’ you all be choosin’ sides in this here thang, aint ya? Inbreedin’ be the problum har?

By: Theophylact

Theophylact — Mon, 02 Feb 2004 16:52:00 +0000

I meant to add a link here: Ken MacLeod comments (with respect to a separate but related issue), “Morality has very little to do with choosing sides. It can tell us that a given act is dreadful, but it can’t tell us whether to say, ‘This is dreadful, therefore …’ or ‘This is dreadful, but …’ We still often believe that we oppose our enemies because of their crimes, and support our allies despite their crimes.”

By: Theophylact

Theophylact — Mon, 02 Feb 2004 16:44:46 +0000

And, of course, Safire’s source is now safely dead.