Iran attacked by way of their Yemeni proxies, but that’s how Iran always attacks.
Ten drones launched by Iran-backed militants sparked a huge fire at the world’s largest oil processing facility and a major oilfield in Saudi Arabia in the early hours of this morning.
The fires at Abqaiq in Buqyaq, which contains the world’s largest oil processing plant, and Khurais, which contains the country’s second largest oilfield, have now been brought under control since the drone attacks at 4.00am local time.
Tensions are running high in the region after attacks in June and July on oil tankers in Gulf waters that Riyadh and Washington blamed on Iran.
A military spokesman for Yemen’s Houthi rebels, considered an Iranian proxy force in the region, has claimed responsibility for today’s attacks on Abqaiq and Khurais, two major facilities in eastern Saudi Arabia run by state-owned oil giant Aramco.
“….but Islam is a peaceful religion”.
Yeah, love those liberal lies.
How many civilians did the USA kill in Iraq, Kevin?
>How many civilians did the USA kill in Iraq, Kevin?
Rationalization 101. Thanks @Pat.
jjf, what does Iraq have to with Saudi Arabia and their conflict with Iran?
Jason,
That was another comparison, not a rationalization. If you’re going to attempt to apply logic by quoting me you should first know the difference between a comparison and a rationalization.
Oh, just asking Kevin about whether the USA is a Christian nation, and whether he’s in a religion of peace.
jjf,
Christianity is not a religion of “peace” as you use the term here. Christianity is at war with evil. That war, sometimes includes eliminating evil that is unrepentant when it comes to hurting us and our way of life. Christians, as a first resort, want to spread grace, in hopes the unrepentant evil is reformed and joins civil society.
I realize, in the war against evil, you side with the evil, ignore the evil, and sometimes enable the evil, but we still have hope for you anyway. It is when you get to the point of constantly hurting others in your unrelenting evil is when society needs to take action with physical force. That is what these Islamic regimes do in their sheltering of terrorists.
You think the followers and promoters of Islam don’t have a similarly nuanced and inner-contradicted view of “peace” and “war” and “struggle” and “grace”?
I heard the orange guy you voted for wants to to give them $15 billion.
Who gets to define “evil” ? Same folks that brought us the crusades? Spanish Inquisition?
jjf,
Islam has no concept of grace, forgiveness, reconciliation or redemption.
That is why it is a false religion.
Nord,
Absolute truth of Christ defines good and evil.
>Oh, just asking Kevin about whether the USA is a Christian nation, and whether he’s in a religion of peace.
Another example of rationalization Pat.
So because of your arbitrary “truth”, so called christians get to murder 1000’s, 1000000’s in their crusades/inquisitions? That doesn’t show much in the way of grace, forgiveness, reconciliation, nor redemption, does it?
Nord,
If the cause is just in fight against evil, it is not murder.
Those that stormed the beach at Normandy were fighting a just cause. Just as we are fighting a just cause against evil radical Islam.
I understand you are willing to surrender to evil.
Same folks that brought us the crusades? Spanish Inquisition?
No. But this is a two-part answer and I don’t know if you can follow two parts consecutively.
There is a Moral Law. There is Fallen Man. Often, despite knowing the law, man (men) break it.
BTW, both your examples have far less evil attached to them than your Howard Zinn History-Fables book told you.
If you want to see wanton murders, take a gander at the Socialist-Statist Heroes or the Eugenics-With-Death crowd at the local abortuary.
k:
So you are making the claim that the crusades and the inquisition were “just”? Murdering people because they are of a different belief system? And you are always whining about religious freedom. Hypocrite.
And comparing crusaders and inquisitors to G.I. s on D-Day is the height of ignorance. Did you ever take (and pass) a history class?
Nord,
If you have an issue with a Crusade. Name which one. Many of the crusades stopped western civilization from falling into hands of Islamic barbarians.
You should thank Christians for saving humanity from that.
However, your twisted liberal revisionist view of history may be too far gone to even have a coherent conversation.
All of them were acts of religious intolerance. Go ahead, spout your revisionist history, alternative facts, and self-righteous platitudes..
Will not sit well with SA.
Iran oil filed destruction in 5….4…….3…..
“field”
Nord,
Tough to have a rational conversation with you, when you are so in denial about the advancement of brutal, barbaric, Satanic, Islam attempting to take over the entire world.
I understand you side with evil Islam from time to time, but wow.
Expecting LeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeRoy to know the actual history is a bit much, Kevin. He’s too invested in his atheist-Statist ignorance.
Do you feel more invested when you use Capital Letters, Dad29? Does it imply that your beliefs are better than anyone else’s?
k:
So your “absolute truth” condones the murder of innocents during the crusades and inquisition?
Told you, point to something specific. You have a twisted view of history favoring advancement of Islamic evil. Hard to decipher your cryptic insanity.
I did, see above. And get help for that reading deficiency.
Nord,
Reading deficiency is not my issue. Your inability to put a coherent historical though together is the issue.
And you complain about coherent thought. Amazingly hypocritical.
Nord,
In case you are in denial about costly,damaging rule making from liberals and the DNR: (from League of Municipalities this AM)
DNR Begins PFAS Rulemaking
The Department of Natural Resources has begun the process of promulgating three rules regulating PFAS in groundwater, surface water and drinking water. Governor Evers has approved all three scope statements and the Joint Committee for the Review of Administrative Rules ordered DNR Secretary-Designee Preston Cole to hold a preliminary public hearing on each scope statement.
Based on initial compliance cost estimates prepared by DNR for the scope statements, local governments and industry stand to incur millions of dollars in compliance costs. In order to comply with drinking water standards, DNR estimates that a municipal wastewater treatment facility could be facing costs up to $25 million per facility.
Following the public hearings, the rules will need to be approved by the Natural Resources Board and ultimately be reviewed by the Legislature and signed by the Governor, a process that could take more than two years. The League will monitor these rules and continue to advocate against unnecessarily costly or burdensome regulation.
See the three scope statements here: Drinking Water: SS 089-19, Groundwater: SS 090-19, Surface Water: SS 091-19.
Nord,
In case you are in denial about costly,damaging rule making from liberals and the DNR: (from League of Municipalities this AM)
DNR Begins PFAS Rulemaking
The Department of Natural Resources has begun the process of promulgating three rules regulating PFAS in groundwater, surface water and drinking water. Governor Evers has approved all three scope statements and the Joint Committee for the Review of Administrative Rules ordered DNR Secretary-Designee Preston Cole to hold a preliminary public hearing on each scope statement.
Based on initial compliance cost estimates prepared by DNR for the scope statements, local governments and industry stand to incur millions of dollars in compliance costs. In order to comply with drinking water standards, DNR estimates that a municipal wastewater treatment facility could be facing costs up to $25 million per facility.
Following the public hearings, the rules will need to be approved by the Natural Resources Board and ultimately be reviewed by the Legislature and signed by the Governor, a process that could take more than two years. The League will monitor these rules and continue to advocate against unnecessarily costly or burdensome regulation.
See the three scope statements here: Drinking Water: SS 089-19
So poisoning folks for profit with PFAS is ok? Explain that to the good folks in Peshtigo and Marinette.
FYI: you are on the wrong thread.
Nord,
Where do you get that I favor poisoning the water out of that?
So I take it water affordability, and water access to the poor, has no compassion in your book?
Up to $25 million in compliance cost for each sewer plant! That is insane!
Noteworthy that Evers’ bunch of wackdoodles is studiously ignoring Barrett’s poop-flushing-into-Lake Michigan.
Also noteworthy: Ever’s wackdoodles are proposing standards FAR higher than Fed standards. No surprise there, as all the wackdoodles want to legislate/regulate Perfection. Perfect temperature, Perfect Water, (etc.)
They can never get there, of course, but that’s by design. Power needs a ’cause’.
k:
Well you were whining about “costly,damaging rule making from liberals and the DNR”. So are you for or against keeping PFAS out of the environment?
One minute the scientists don’t whether to scratch their watch or wind their ass, the next we’re supposed to trust whether they can tell us how much PFAS we should be drinking or not.
And yet there’s only one guy here capitalizing Perfection. Who’s striving for Perfection around here? It’s like they’re trying to get into heaven.
I am against costly regulation where there is little benefit.
k:
So what or who determines if the health risks of PFAS outweigh the cost? Certainly not a science denier like you, right? Will you explain your rationale to the folks in the Marinette and Peshtigo are that are already affect?
All we need to do is find a scientist who says PFAS is safe – problem solved!
I’m sure the stable genius can come with some sycophant to make the proclamation.
Nord,
Explain how these specific rules would have prevented any of the issue in the towns you cite.
The problem you have is: these rules make no difference to any of the issues you cite….they onlypunish those with clean water and make it unaffordable.
k:
“they onlypunish those with clean water and make it unaffordable”.
No they don’t. You are again making assumptions with out any knowledge base.
Nord,
$25 million in compliance costs in Kewaskum would triple the water bill! Taking a bill that is already $1000 a year in Kewaskum to $3000/year is insane.
It shows no compassion for poor/middle class in your liberal bureaucratic insanity.
What is it about these regulations that would have prevented any issue you cite? there is nothing in these regs that would prevent any issue you talk about. It is full time employment for overpaid engineers and and bureaucrats.
Come on, you allege to have the science. What in these proposed regs would prevent the poor local decisions and leadership in your neck of the woods up north.
k:
I can’t do your homework for you. If you want to belive what you said above, fine. But there is nothing you can provide that will make it true. Geez, don’t you ever learn?
Nord,
Thought you had nothing.
If you actually read this bill/proposed rule, it targets entities NOT responsible for the underlying issue.
All cost, no benefit.
This is why average Americans hate liberalism.
The League of Municipalities wholeheartedly opposes these rules….they are anti-science as well?
k:
FYI: A proposed rules is not a bill. Nothing has been enacted. No one is “targeted”.
Isn’t safe drinking water, or a safe environment, a benefit? Quality of life means nothing to you. Only your wallet.
I doubt is any American other than you hates safe drinking water.
Kevin, you’re the party of responsibility. Who is responsible for PFAS in the water? Or manure? Or anything else?
Nord,
So you are declaring the League of Municipalities being against “safe drinking water”,”safe environment”?
Pretty bold claim.
All regulations are a cost benefit analysis. If there is tremendous cost with liuttle to no benefit, why make water unaffordable?
The 2 communities you cite could filter their water today beyond the standard if they so choose. Why inflict cost on communities that have no issue?
That is both evil and crazy.
k:
No, but it sure appears that you feel that way.
And again you are making assumptions with little knowledge or information. Based on your comments you are no doubt clueless on the rule making process. Once again you have to do your own homework.
Nord,
Your arrogance is unbelievable.
You make no benefit argument to the rule to justify the cost. You scream those opposed support dirty water, including League of Municipalities.
You seriously think that organization is for dirty water? They want affordable clean water, that is why they are opposed to this latest round of rule making.
Don’t tell me I am ignorant of rule making process. I fully know the consequences of bureaucratic rules on municipal and private levels.
It is jerky liberals like you, that ignore the consequences and impose great burden on everyone for little to no benefit that drive me crazy….and then scream someone is ignorant without making any effort to explain the benefit.
That is the height of elitist, ignorant, arrogance.
Kevin, if you were in charge of clean safe affordable water, how would you respond to new data from your scientists about a chemical that seems to be seeping into the public waterways and public water supply?
Again I ask, who is responsible?
k:
Here are some facts. And we all realize that facts are burdensome to you and your agenda. But here goes:
* These are PROPOSED rules.
* They are NOT bills.
* There is no way to determine costs for water treatment upgrades until the rules. limits, standards, etc., are final.
* “the Joint Committee for the Review of Administrative Rules ordered DNR Secretary-Designee Preston Cole to hold a preliminary public hearing on each scope statement”. Remember who controls this committee?
* “Following the public hearings, the rules will need to be approved by the Natural Resources Board and ultimately be reviewed by the Legislature…”. Remember who controls the legislature?
* “The League will monitor these rules and continue to advocate against unnecessarily costly or burdensome regulation”. Do you understand what this sentence means? Did you even read any of what you posted?
In the past I have made the claim, supported by substantial documentation, that you are willfully and aggressively ignorant. It appears that I haven’t used strong enough language in that description. I’ll let you fill in the blanks.
Nord,
Just because they are proposed does not make them any less damaging when implemented.
The discussion is: The cost vs. lack of benefit.
You fail to even touch that because you realize in your liberal, bureaucratic, regulatory, blindness, these rules,as proposed, have the incredible potential make water unafordable for no dicernable benefit.
The League’s comments are getting to: if benefit far outweighs cost, great. If cost far outweighs any benefit, the League opposes strenuously. The League is concerned about the cost here, stop being idsmissive of their concerns, they are very educated on these regulatory crazy topics.
I guess you don’t care about affordable water. Figures.
Hah, hah, hah. Who derailed this post? I thought it was about Iran.
Kevin, you’ve read about PFAS, aren’t concerned, think this is a new issue, not worth worrying about?
k:
What is your definition of the word “proposed”? Share with us all your wisdom gleaned from the Book of K. How can something be damaging if it doesn’t exist?
And what value do you place on human health? So let us all see your C/B analysis. It would probably look something like this:
Cost= something we don’t know because standards haven’t been set, no rules or legislation enacted,nor has anything been designed, bid or built.
Benefit= human health and welfare.
And more flippity-floppity waffling once presented with some facts, now you are using the word “if”. A far cry from your previous:
“If you actually read this bill/proposed rule, it targets entities NOT responsible for the underlying issue”.
“All cost, no benefit”.
“This is why average Americans hate liberalism”.
“That is both evil and crazy”.
jjf,
Pretty fitting to link radical Islamic terrorism with radical liberal environmental weaponization against the poor and the innocent.
jjf:
k started his rant on PFAS on the wrong thread at 859AM 9-16-19 (see above). But in his version of alternative absolute truth it matters not where he rants. He is always right, and we are always wrong.
But think about this for a minute; you are a poor, innocent family living here in WI. Your public water supply is no longer safe to drink and you and your family are having health issues because of that unsafe water. But that is OK with k, because it is too costly to treat the problem, nor should the parties that polluted the drinking water be made to to pay for clean up because it is too onerous, and would be a public taking of private property. Such is life for the poor and innocent in kevinworld.
Or my farm’s well water is contaminated by increased manure spread on nearby fields. Tough luck, right, no one’s to be held responsible? Can’t prove where it came from? The farm down the road has a right to harm others because it’s business, right, and business trumps life and home, right?
Kevin, those tricky liberals! One minute they’re trying to save the poor, the next they’re making their water cost more!