Back in 2001, almost everyone misinterpreted my comment sometime after 9-11 that whoever planned it had the right to protest but I disagreed with its execution. Yet the moderate Muslim clerics in America soon decried it.
Ever since then, the mainstream media (MSM) has filtered out their response and provided what I perceived as unfair commentary. What rankled me the most was the Russian Orthodox church taking a Crusader attitude to it.
Then the US government led a neo-Crusader war in Afghanistan and later in Iraq. I call these conflicts neo-Crusader because the optics in the Middle East and most Muslim countries is colored by religion.
According to Muslim claims, one reason 9-11 happened because of one US military base on Saudi soil. The result of this is the current Islamic State in northern Iraq, and the radicalization of individuals in the West sympathetic to the jihadi cult and its extremism, worldwide.
Not all of this war is positive: the Taliban, al Qaeda, and even the Islamic State are barely contained.
FWIW I view in general terms the conflict in the Middle East as a global conflict where secularism and its variety of consumerism versus the political extremism that I call "the jihadi cult."
To call it radical Islam may be mistaken, since the MSM have filtered out the historical justification that the jihadi cult makes, which paints it as a continuation of the Crusades but with American secularism having replaced the Catholic church as defenders of Western values.
After reading about the Jordanian pilot being burned alive by the Islamic State, I heartily agree with the Jordani call to "wipe them out."
However, it is because of the oil wells in Syria that that conflict continues; it is because of the pipeline across Afghanistan that region may see more conflicts with the Taliban; and it is because of the pipeline from Russia into the Ukraine that is behind that conflict.
No nation is willing to admit to that. Even the US government will censor it. Instead, the Islamic State is a distraction as are the terrorist incidents in America, in the UK and even in Canada.
So is the Charlie Hebdo attack, the killing of a British soldier in the UK, the Bostom Marathon bombing, and the bombings in London. The MSM will never expose the fact that our worldwide oil supply is running out is the main reason for these conflicts.
Instead, the pretext for the conflicts (the West's demand for oil and its consumption) will be discounted as conspiracy theory.
Meanwhile, the propaganda against Islam continues unabated, despite the fact that most of the propaganda is too a distraction from the truth: the jihadi cults of al Qaeda, Islamic State and the Taliban are no longer tacitly supported by most moderate Muslim clerics. Ergo, the Islamophobes' fear mongering is no cause for concern, for it only feeds into the fears of right-wing conservatives without balancing it with the simple fact that most Muslims are not blood-thirsty terrorists.
Even Salafi Muslims are distancing themselves from the Islamic State.
Radical Islam is the threat, but not one MSM outlet will suggest bombing those oil wells that the Islamic State own. That is because the conflict is over oil and who owns it.
Update: February 13, 2015
Perhaps the Noble Qur'an in Surat Al-Baqarah, specifically Surah 2:6-21 (Shakir translation) best sums up extremist groups such as Al Qaeda, Islamic State and the Taliban as well as their allies in Nigeria and in Kenya.
Surely those who disbelieve — whether you warn them or not, it is the same to them — will not believe. God has set a seal upon their hearts and upon their hearing and there is a covering over their eyes, and there is a great punishment for them.
There are some people who say: "We believe in God and the last day"; and they are not at all believers. They desire to deceive God and those who believe, but they deceive only themselves and they do not perceive.
There is a disease in their hearts, so God added to their disease and they shall have a painful chastisement because they lied. When it is said to them, "Do not make mischief in the land," they say: "We are but peace-makers."
Now surely they themselves are the mischief makers, but they do not perceive. When it is said to them: "Believe as the people believe," they say: "Shall we believe as the fools believe?" Now surely they themselves are the fools, but they do not know.
When they meet those who believe, they say: "We believe;" and when they are alone with their Shaitans, they say: "Surely we are with you, we were only mocking." God shall pay them back their mockery, and He leaves them alone in their excessiveness, blindly wandering on.
These are they who buy error for the right direction, so their bargain shall bring no gain, nor are they the followers of the right direction. O men! serve your Lord Who created you and those before you so that you may guard against evil.
This quote is in reference to Muslims, specifically extremists, and in it God admonishes the true believer in Islam to not "make mischief in the land" while declaring themselves peace-makers and reformers.
Apparently the extremists in the Islamic State claim to be serving God yet their acts speak for themselves: wanton acts of violence against innocent Christians, Muslims, Yazidis and humanitarian aid workers. This is not Shariah; this too is a mockery of Shariah.
Despite claiming to be Muslim, the Islamic State has mocked God while committing horrible acts of violence, contrary to Islamic law. It is no wonder that the whole world has decried what they did to the Jordanian pilot.
Because of this latest spectacle of violence, most Muslims have aligned with the West, specifically America, including Canada, Japan, the UK and also Jordan, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), and even Saudi Arabia — to name a few of the Middle East nations. Their religious leaders have condemned the violence, and their political leaders have sent personnel to bomb the extremists. Other nations have sent humanitarian aid.
Recently the Syrian Foreign Minister criticized the violation of Syrian air space by the Jordanians. He has also rejected plans by the West to send in ground troops on Syrian soil.
Since the Islamic State occupies both sides of the border between Syria and Iraq, it is expedient to deal with the imminent threat of the extremists and let the diplomats both Syrian and Jordanian to work out the rules of engagement.
As well, the lack of protection of humanitarian aid workers has led to kidnappings and murders by the Islamic State. This is sad and tragic for their surviving families, especially since innocent lives have been lost.
Earlier I have endorsed the opinion that Jordan should help wipe out the Islamic State. Now that the UAE is also stepping up to the plate to help defeat the extremists, this is both good news and bad news. The bad news: more innocent victims might be killed. This is a given, considering the ruthless violence that the Islamic State is capable of. As for the good news, it disproves the conservative fallacy that "all Muslims are not to be trusted."
For not all Muslims are terrorists.
Indeed, extremism and other acts of violence that lead to terrorism are the work of jihadi cult members who pretend to believe in God and violently carry out their version of Sharia as the only true law. Were they truly believers of God's Oneness, they would not excuse their violence against Muslims and non-Muslims by misquoting the Quran.
Instead, they would treat both Muslims and non-Muslims kindly. Indeed, the extremists commit acts of violence that invalidate their claims of being Muslims, for they have become a law unto themselves.
While this war could be shortened by taking out the oil wells and sabotaging the oil pipeline leading to Banias, Syria, both sides want to keep these assets from harm, lest pollution from burning raw oil contaminate the landscape. Most importantly, if oil assets are destroyed, the war may escalate into a scorched earth scenario that will lead to more innocent lives being lost.
Since neither side wants that to happen, we shall see the continuation of the endless war which began when the US government sent its troops to "liberate" Baghdad in 2003.
It is quite clear that the West wants Assad's oil. Heck, the West also wants Russia's oil, which explains the current Ukraine crisis.
So this endless war is not going to stop any time soon. Meanwhile, more home-grown terrorism in Asia, Europe, The Americas (Canada and the US) and even Australia and New Zealand will be uncovered in the future.
Originally posted Feb 7, 2015 at 1:14 AM PST
References:
Background on Islamic State: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant
The Oil Factor: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Oil_Factor
Drop in Oil Prices - News Junkie Press: http://newsjunkiepost.com/2015/02/07/a-discussion-about-saudi-arabia-will-isis-come-home-to-roost/
Muslim American associations and organizations that condemned 911:
http://gandhara.blogspot.com/2015/02/muslim-american-organizations-that.html
Quote from Quran: http://quran.com/2
Syrian Foreign Minister says Syria does not need help: http://www.cp24.com/world/syria-s-foreign-minister-says-country-doesn-t-need-help-battling-is-1.2227156
Syria rejects foreign ground troops to fight ISIS: http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/middle-east/2015/02/09/Syria-rejects-foreign-ground-troops-to-fight-ISIS-.html
Background on the Yazidis: http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-magazine-monitor-28686607
Humanitarian aid worker dead: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-31375445
Oil from Iraq and Saudi Arabia are moved through pipelines to Banias in Syria and Sidon and Tripoli in Lebanon. — page 226, The Arabs, Edward Atiyah
Showing posts with label oil. Show all posts
Showing posts with label oil. Show all posts
20131220
My Reply to Vancouver Observer (satire)
Throughout this article I emphasized that Ottawa considers any confrontation between radicals and politicians and their corporate sponsors to be terrorist acts.
However, I did not identify anyone to filter out of the anti-pipeline meetings for security purposes.
Instead I pointed them to Greg Renouf's genuinewitty website, which is slanted in favor of the right but I feel that Greg uses rightwing rhetoric to bait the New Left radicals.
Hopefully the lady who runs the Observer will reply.
Anyway here is the email I sent her:
When the oil pipeline goes to the US, will the anti-pipeline activists condone confrontational and potentially violent radicalism like Harsha Walia did two years ago?
IMO we won't know until the fermented fat of animals and plants sluices southward in the pipeline in a couple years' time.
However, nobody understands that Harper will get his way because he's afraid of a US invasion, should he really fuck things up by helping everyone to realize that the anti-cyber-bullying bill should be killed and separated into the wheat of a real cyber bullying bill (4 pages long) and a privacy compliant cyber security bill (650+ pages) that still has warrants to keep it morally correct.
Note: since I sit on the political fence a lot, my hope is no pipeline but feel that nobody is listening to the refinery in Texas the pipe is terminating at when they said: "We have no urgent need of frakked tar-sand because we can find other sources of oil."
Therefore, Ottawa is pushing the pipeline to skim a few thousand dollars of oil lobbyist money in taxes from it when Texas sends us the checks for delivery of high sulphur tar sand oil; which nobody really wants to buy because it destroys car engines, exhaust pipes, the ozone layer, and people who breathe the sulphur dioxide laden air and develop asthma.
However, I did not identify anyone to filter out of the anti-pipeline meetings for security purposes.
Instead I pointed them to Greg Renouf's genuinewitty website, which is slanted in favor of the right but I feel that Greg uses rightwing rhetoric to bait the New Left radicals.
Hopefully the lady who runs the Observer will reply.
Anyway here is the email I sent her:
From Me
To Vancouver Observer
Today at 1:06 PM
You realize that the pipeline will go through. The problem now is when it does, what will you do to prevent radicalism?
You could do the Harsha Walia move and condone it, but any radical action against the pipeline is a Terrorist Act in Ottawa's eyes.
We don't need any Squamish Five incidents.
Why? Because radicalism leads to violent acts against corporate monoliths like McDonald's, banks, etc.. It would be a waste of potential volunteers and not solve anything.
Radicalism wouldn't survive in the prison system since it would require everyone being middle class radicals from upper middle income families, the people who made it through financial crises by buying low and selling high.
Instead, you need to come up with contingency plans to deal with radicalism e.g. including a list of people who are barred from your meetings because they tend to show up at the rally to mete confrontational "justice" including "pie in the face" attacks, which are also a Terrorist Act in Ottawa's eyes.
I suggest you Google Greg Renouf and look at his genuinewitty website to see the faces of radicals who have crossed the line into criminal behavior.
Thank you very much for your time
Sincerely,
When the oil pipeline goes to the US, will the anti-pipeline activists condone confrontational and potentially violent radicalism like Harsha Walia did two years ago?
IMO we won't know until the fermented fat of animals and plants sluices southward in the pipeline in a couple years' time.
However, nobody understands that Harper will get his way because he's afraid of a US invasion, should he really fuck things up by helping everyone to realize that the anti-cyber-bullying bill should be killed and separated into the wheat of a real cyber bullying bill (4 pages long) and a privacy compliant cyber security bill (650+ pages) that still has warrants to keep it morally correct.
Note: since I sit on the political fence a lot, my hope is no pipeline but feel that nobody is listening to the refinery in Texas the pipe is terminating at when they said: "We have no urgent need of frakked tar-sand because we can find other sources of oil."
Therefore, Ottawa is pushing the pipeline to skim a few thousand dollars of oil lobbyist money in taxes from it when Texas sends us the checks for delivery of high sulphur tar sand oil; which nobody really wants to buy because it destroys car engines, exhaust pipes, the ozone layer, and people who breathe the sulphur dioxide laden air and develop asthma.
20121201
Why Benghazi Was Underprotected
Benghazi fell because Libyan policy before after Gadaffi fell from power was this: "you may bomb Gadaffi but never set foot in Libya".
Why was this the case? Because no Muslim likes an occupation army in his country. This resentment for European and American presence is tempered by oppressive French and British rule during their colonial foray at emùpire-building, which now is continued by America's aggressive economic empire building.
It can also be seen in how the UN voted for Palestine's presence as non-member observer: America, and its main trade partner Canada, and a handful of Latin American nations friendly to the US due to tourist dollars. In contrast, the rest of the world backed Palestine, thanks to the work of pro-Palestine organizations and people both in Canada and around the world.
Returning to Benghazi, I am thankful to Paula Broadwell for whistle-blowing regarding the cover-up by Obama, falsely attributing the loss of American lives at the embassy on an anti-Muslim movie by Coptic Christians eager to engage Salafi oppressors in their home nation of Egypt.
The fact still remains that America complied by Libyan demands to not place an occupation force to guard its national asset in Benghazi.
My guess is, Libya feared exposure of munitions recovered from Gadaffi stockpiles making its way into Syria through the Qaeda network to replenish Qaeda militants in Syria, whose job is to attack both Syrian rebels and the Assad government troops so as to prepare the country for the Muslim Brotherhood to rule as it had in Egypt.
It would be embarassing for America to realize that Libya fought this civil war, not just because Gadaffi was oppressive during his regime but because he dared to share the oil wealth in a socialist manner in the Alberta tar sand way, by giving every Libyan a share of oil profits. Additinally Gadaffi wanted to create an Arab gold currency standard. However, Libya fell to rebel troops who most likely had moral support from Big Oil interests through their lobbyists in DC.
So the propaganda in the article below is interesting in pretending America had no interest in Libya. It's stupid for mass media to continue to deny that America's interest in Iraq, and even in Libya, is due to Big Oil pressuring Washington to feed America's hunger for oil.
As for Afghanistan, the reason there is murky but the invasion caused heroin exports to Europe and the US to rise, along with the other cash crop, cannabis. So most likely it was to increase funds for black-ops in the region. ;)
Reference:
analysis of Obama's Light Footprint in Middle East: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/18/world/middle-east-challenges-obamas-light-footprint.html?pagewanted=2&_r=0
Why was this the case? Because no Muslim likes an occupation army in his country. This resentment for European and American presence is tempered by oppressive French and British rule during their colonial foray at emùpire-building, which now is continued by America's aggressive economic empire building.
It can also be seen in how the UN voted for Palestine's presence as non-member observer: America, and its main trade partner Canada, and a handful of Latin American nations friendly to the US due to tourist dollars. In contrast, the rest of the world backed Palestine, thanks to the work of pro-Palestine organizations and people both in Canada and around the world.
Returning to Benghazi, I am thankful to Paula Broadwell for whistle-blowing regarding the cover-up by Obama, falsely attributing the loss of American lives at the embassy on an anti-Muslim movie by Coptic Christians eager to engage Salafi oppressors in their home nation of Egypt.
The fact still remains that America complied by Libyan demands to not place an occupation force to guard its national asset in Benghazi.
My guess is, Libya feared exposure of munitions recovered from Gadaffi stockpiles making its way into Syria through the Qaeda network to replenish Qaeda militants in Syria, whose job is to attack both Syrian rebels and the Assad government troops so as to prepare the country for the Muslim Brotherhood to rule as it had in Egypt.
It would be embarassing for America to realize that Libya fought this civil war, not just because Gadaffi was oppressive during his regime but because he dared to share the oil wealth in a socialist manner in the Alberta tar sand way, by giving every Libyan a share of oil profits. Additinally Gadaffi wanted to create an Arab gold currency standard. However, Libya fell to rebel troops who most likely had moral support from Big Oil interests through their lobbyists in DC.
So the propaganda in the article below is interesting in pretending America had no interest in Libya. It's stupid for mass media to continue to deny that America's interest in Iraq, and even in Libya, is due to Big Oil pressuring Washington to feed America's hunger for oil.
As for Afghanistan, the reason there is murky but the invasion caused heroin exports to Europe and the US to rise, along with the other cash crop, cannabis. So most likely it was to increase funds for black-ops in the region. ;)
Reference:
analysis of Obama's Light Footprint in Middle East: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/18/world/middle-east-challenges-obamas-light-footprint.html?pagewanted=2&_r=0
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)