ESOCommunity

that does not show where ISIS oil is going to. Wont find that online

iwillspankyou wrote:this does not say anything about where isis oil is going to!

Look back a few posts.

you just dont know - dont pretend that you do - nobody realy knows - and the ones who do - dont give theyr tell theyr secret - or else

black money and black oil -ist mafia

Metis wrote:

iwillspankyou wrote:this does not say anything about where isis oil is going to!

Look back a few posts.

why do we even need oil anymore? cant they make cars that run on hydrogen now?

fightinfrenchman wrote:

Metis wrote:

iwillspankyou wrote:this does not say anything about where isis oil is going to!

Look back a few posts.

why do we even need oil anymore? cant they make cars that run on hydrogen now?

Yes, you could run a car on hydrogen. However, if you take a college course in chemistry you will learn why it's not very efficient to do so.

If you are really interested:

http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=9991
http://www.afdc.energy.gov/pdfs/hyd_eco ... iasson.pdf

Metis wrote:

fightinfrenchman wrote:

Show hidden quotes

Metis wrote:

iwillspankyou wrote:this does not say anything about where isis oil is going to!

Look back a few posts.

why do we even need oil anymore? cant they make cars that run on hydrogen now?

Yes, you could run a car on hydrogen. However, if you take a college course in chemistry you will learn why it's not very efficient to do so.

If you are really interested:

http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=9991

yes gasoline is more efficient but it also creates pollution leading to climate change. shouldn't we try to avoid that?

We were so close to a good discussion...

samtheham wrote:We were so close to a good discussion...

Unfortunately good discussions are usually not encouraged here. The mods locked the famous Nazi and abortion threads, where many walls of text resided.

samtheham wrote:We were so close to a good discussion...

The points you brought up were so spot on that the rest backed off.

Thats not sarcasm, I really did find your post very good and completely agree.

that's old. I do not think this graph is even close to the reality

iwillspankyou wrote:you just dont know - dont pretend that you do - nobody realy knows - and the ones who do - dont give theyr tell theyr secret - or else

American intelligence has a pretty good idea of where IS oil goes because they track the movement of every truck in the area. Just yesterday a convoy of fuel trucks destined for an IS camp was destroyed in an airstrike. The US is hesitant to bomb the oil fields and oil trucks themselves because it's mainly civilians working them.

If you were too lazy to look back and find my previous post on the matter, I said that the IS oil was mainly being smuggled into Turkey, Jordan, Syria and Iran. Just as some British and American companies were conducting business with Germany during WWII, the Syrian government buys oil from IS, even though they are fighting them.

“There’s a business opportunity, there’s a need for both of them,” Danny Glazer, the assistant secretary for terrorist financing at the U.S. Treasury Department, says in the BBC2 documentary, “World’s Richest Terror Army.”

france buys oil from ISIS even though they are fighting them

samtheham wrote:@Dolan
why is sharia law prevalent? There must be a reason. I think it is because misguided Western foreign policy in the past century has ostracized the muslim world to the extent that extremists have gained extreme influence. Iran is a good example, in the 50s, Iran elected a president in its first democratic election in its history. However, the CIA quickly overthrew him because he was against Western oil interests and replaced him with a puppet. This puppet ostracized many Iranians to the point where the Iranian revolution gained steam in '79, and now we're left with Ayatollah Kohmenei.

Saddam Hussein, as terrible as he was, was a secular leader. The U.S. overthrew him, and what replaced the power vacuum? Islamic extremists who were able to exploit the masses using the outrage about the unprovoked U.S. invasion.

Seeing a theme here? The West doesn't have a great track record in the region, and people there are eager to differentiate themselves from values they associate with the West as a result. As a result, things like Sharia law and Islamic fundamentalism (i.e. separation from Western values of equality and compassion) have gained a lot of traction. It's a real pity.

*Incoming wall of text, because the subject is very complex*

Iran is an exception and they act like an exception. As you probably know, they are not so popular among other Muslim Arabic states in the area and they're not even trying to be. They are not even Arabic, they are Persian, and they do have this attitude which makes them sound elitist among other neighbouring countries. Which is why most of their neighbours don't like Iran.
Iran is in a separate camp in the Middle East, together with Syria and Lebanon. Have you noticed that Saudi Arabia refused to allow Syrian refugees on its territory, but Europe opened its borders to them? Well, this is a long story, but this shows how much "brothers of the same religion" actually support each other when times get tough. So Saudi Arabia just threw some oil money at Jordan to host Syrian refugees in camps and called it a day.

I seriously doubt that the US involvement in Iran really had an impact in the Arab world in terms of anti-West motivation, because of this reason (Iran is not considered an Arab state). It's still relevant to keep Iran in the debate because obviously they are a state in which politics and law are under Islamic authority. But as far as I know, they don't lead any holy war against the West. Maybe against the US, which until recently was their arch-enemy, but the US is not the entire West. Neither is Iran a typical Islamic state. And maybe the new leadership in Iran might change direction (or maybe they just pretend to).

So, there is a complicated 3-way relation in the Middle East, relative to the West. On one hand there is the Iran-Syria-Lebanon camp which, although Muslim states, don't have good relations with other Arab Islamic states, like Saudi Arabia. On the other hand, there is the Saudi Arabia - Kuweit - The Emirates - Bahrain - Jordan - Qatar camp, which are US allies. What they share is their common hatred of Israel, what divides them is their relation with the USA. Egypt has also been a close US ally before the Arab spring.

Now let's go back to what you said, that Islamic radicalisation was created by Western foreign policy.

The US intervened against Saddam when he broke international law and invaded Kuweit. That was a justified intervention. Although, they should have never entered Iraq, their mission should have stopped there. Obviously the US didn't save Kuweit out of pure altruism, they saw an opportunity there and they quickly jumped at the occasion to plant troops in Kuweit. Surprise surprise, Kuweit turned from a pre-intervention Russian-ally to a post-intervention US ally. The next interventions and the invasion of Iraq were huge mistakes, which turned a stable country into a perpetual warzone. Let's say Iraq is a case which could prove your point that Western intervention could have created the motivation for radicalisation. However, sharia law was applied way before that, it didn't start with the US/Allied intervention in Iraq.

But, moving on to other Arab Islamic states, how did Western foreign policy engender Islamic radicalisation in Saudi Arabia? The sharia law was applied and still is applied in Saudi Arabia, there doesn't seem to be any link with the otherwise good relations they have with both the USA and the other Western allies. Weirdly enough, Al Qaeda was founded by Osama bin Laden, which hailed from a rich Saudi family, even though there was no direct connection with what was happening in his own country.

At the opposite end of the spectrum is Afghanistan, a much poorer country than Saudi Arabia, which also had good relations with the US before the war on terror. How was the mujahedin radicalisation in Afghanistan caused by Western foreign policy in this country before the war against terror? It is a well-known fact Al Qaeda set up its camps there way before the war on terror began. And the Taliban movement started among Muslim students in Afghanistan way before any Western troops got on the ground. In fact, the Afghan mujahedin movement started as a response against Soviet Russia's occupation.
Same for the sharia law, which was in full-force way before any Western intervention. Should I remind you that the US actually was an ally of Afghanistan in their war against Soviet Russia too? Where was that bad track record of Western policy in Afghanistan which caused both Muslim radicalisation and terrorism?

You might have a point about post-war Iraq and newer types of terrorism like ISIS, but your argument doesn't explain how Islamic-inspired terrorism actually appeared. And there doesn's seem to be any actual direct relation between any Western intervention and the fact that the Sharia law has been applied for centuries in Arab countries. It wasn't like all Arab states moved away from it and suddenly, after the West intervened in Iraq, they all went back to applying sharia. On the contrary, in the case of Afghanistan, the return to radical Islam seems to have been caused by the war with Soviet Russia.

I think sharia has nothing to do with Western foreign policy. Sharia is applied even in non-Arabic Muslim states like Indonesia. There's no actual relationship between something that the West did and sharia being applied in a country with an Islamic majority.

Secondly, I think that the beginnings of Islamic terrorism (Al Qaeda) have more to do with the US policy of support for Israel. I don't think Islamic-inspired terrorism started as an attempt at reciprocating any damage done by the West in the Middle East, since there wasn't really any when Al Qaeda was founded (before the Iraq invasion).

Thirdly, one of the reasons Afghan mujahedins used to motivate their return to a radical Islam was their rejection of nationalism and socialism, which they considered to be non-Muslim forms of politics. They took their inspiration from an Islamic theorist called Sayyid Qutb, who was very popular among radicals in Afghanistan, including Al Qaeda followers. They also preached a return to the old sharia laws, as a way to preserve their Muslim ways of life against the threats of a materialistic civilisation such as the West. So it seems, it wasn't the West's policies in the Arab world which radicalised them, but Soviet Russia's occupation of Afghanistan, the US support for Israel's occupation of Palestine and lastly their contempt for the Western ways of life.

So, it's a wholly different picture from simply saying that Western policy in the area created Islamic-inspired terrorism.

tedere12 wrote:that's old. I do not think this graph is even close to the reality
france buys oil from ISIS even though they are fighting them

Provide some sources to support your beliefs and claims.

Dolan wrote:

samtheham wrote:@Dolan
why is sharia law prevalent? There must be a reason. I think it is because misguided Western foreign policy in the past century has ostracized the muslim world to the extent that extremists have gained extreme influence. Iran is a good example, in the 50s, Iran elected a president in its first democratic election in its history. However, the CIA quickly overthrew him because he was against Western oil interests and replaced him with a puppet. This puppet ostracized many Iranians to the point where the Iranian revolution gained steam in '79, and now we're left with Ayatollah Kohmenei.

Saddam Hussein, as terrible as he was, was a secular leader. The U.S. overthrew him, and what replaced the power vacuum? Islamic extremists who were able to exploit the masses using the outrage about the unprovoked U.S. invasion.

Seeing a theme here? The West doesn't have a great track record in the region, and people there are eager to differentiate themselves from values they associate with the West as a result. As a result, things like Sharia law and Islamic fundamentalism (i.e. separation from Western values of equality and compassion) have gained a lot of traction. It's a real pity.

*Incoming wall of text, because the subject is very complex*

Iran is an exception and they act like an exception. As you probably know, they are not so popular among other Muslim Arabic states in the area and they're not even trying to be. They are not even Arabic, they are Persian, and they do have this attitude which makes them sound elitist among other neighbouring countries. Which is why most of their neighbours don't like Iran.
Iran is in a separate camp in the Middle East, together with Syria and Lebanon. Have you noticed that Saudi Arabia refused to allow Syrian refugees on its territory, but Europe opened its borders to them? Well, this is a long story, but this shows how much "brothers of the same religion" actually support each other when times get tough. So Saudi Arabia just threw some oil money at Jordan to host Syrian refugees in camps and called it a day.

I seriously doubt that the US involvement in Iran really had an impact in the Arab world in terms of anti-West motivation, because of this reason (Iran is not considered an Arab state). It's still relevant to keep Iran in the debate because obviously they are a state in which politics and law are under Islamic authority. But as far as I know, they don't lead any holy war against the West. Maybe against the US, which until recently was their arch-enemy, but the US is not the entire West. Neither is Iran a typical Islamic state. And maybe the new leadership in Iran might change direction (or maybe they just pretend to).

So, there is a complicated 3-way relation in the Middle East, relative to the West. On one hand there is the Iran-Syria-Lebanon camp which, although Muslim states, don't have good relations with other Arab Islamic states, like Saudi Arabia. On the other hand, there is the Saudi Arabia - Kuweit - The Emirates - Bahrain - Jordan - Qatar camp, which are US allies. What they share is their common hatred of Israel, what divides them is their relation with the USA. Egypt has also been a close US ally before the Arab spring.

Now let's go back to what you said, that Islamic radicalisation was created by Western foreign policy.

The US intervened against Saddam when he broke international law and invaded Kuweit. That was a justified intervention. Although, they should have never entered Iraq, their mission should have stopped there. Obviously the US didn't save Kuweit out of pure altruism, they saw an opportunity there and they quickly jumped at the occasion to plant troops in Kuweit. Surprise surprise, Kuweit turned from a pre-intervention Russian-ally to a post-intervention US ally. The next interventions and the invasion of Iraq were huge mistakes, which turned a stable country into a perpetual warzone. Let's say Iraq is a case which could prove your point that Western intervention could have created the motivation for radicalisation. However, sharia law was applied way before that, it didn't start with the US/Allied intervention in Iraq.

But, moving on to other Arab Islamic states, how did Western foreign policy engender Islamic radicalisation in Saudi Arabia? The sharia law was applied and still is applied in Saudi Arabia, there doesn't seem to be any link with the otherwise good relations they have with both the USA and the other Western allies. Weirdly enough, Al Qaeda was founded by Osama bin Laden, which hailed from a rich Saudi family, even though there was no direct connection with what was happening in his own country.

At the opposite end of the spectrum is Afghanistan, a much poorer country than Saudi Arabia, which also had good relations with the US before the war on terror. How was the mujahedin radicalisation in Afghanistan caused by Western foreign policy in this country before the war against terror? It is a well-known fact Al Qaeda set up its camps there way before the war on terror began. And the Taliban movement started among Muslim students in Afghanistan way before any Western troops got on the ground. In fact, the Afghan mujahedin movement started as a response against Soviet Russia's occupation.
Same for the sharia law, which was in full-force way before any Western intervention. Should I remind you that the US actually was an ally of Afghanistan in their war against Soviet Russia too? Where was that bad track record of Western policy in Afghanistan which caused both Muslim radicalisation and terrorism?

You might have a point about post-war Iraq and newer types of terrorism like ISIS, but your argument doesn't explain how Islamic-inspired terrorism actually appeared. And there doesn's seem to be any actual direct relation between any Western intervention and the fact that the Sharia law has been applied for centuries in Arab countries. It wasn't like all Arab states moved away from it and suddenly, after the West intervened in Iraq, they all went back to applying sharia. On the contrary, in the case of Afghanistan, the return to radical Islam seems to have been caused by the war with Soviet Russia.

I think sharia has nothing to do with Western foreign policy. Sharia is applied even in non-Arabic Muslim states like Indonesia. There's no actual relationship between something that the West did and sharia being applied in a country with an Islamic majority.

Secondly, I think that the beginnings of Islamic terrorism (Al Qaeda) have more to do with the US policy of support for Israel. I don't think Islamic-inspired terrorism started as an attempt at reciprocating any damage done by the West in the Middle East, since there wasn't really any when Al Qaeda was founded (before the Iraq invasion).

Thirdly, one of the reasons Afghan mujahedins used to motivate their return to a radical Islam was their rejection of nationalism and socialism, which they considered to be non-Muslim forms of politics. They took their inspiration from an Islamic theorist called Sayyid Qutb, who was very popular among radicals in Afghanistan, including Al Qaeda followers. They also preached a return to the old sharia laws, as a way to preserve their Muslim ways of life against the threats of a materialistic civilisation such as the West. So it seems, it wasn't the West's policies in the Arab world which radicalised them, but Soviet Russia's occupation of Afghanistan, the US support for Israel's occupation of Palestine and lastly their contempt for the Western ways of life.

So, it's a wholly different picture from simply saying that Western policy in the area created Islamic-inspired terrorism.

Dude what's with the wall of text.

evilcheadar wrote:Dude what's with the wall of text.

Ah, the Twitter generation.

Metis wrote:

evilcheadar wrote:Dude what's with the wall of text.

Ah, the Twitter generation.

I was joking, as he warned us in the first part of the post, but I know you didn't catch that.

Love these walls o text

Metis wrote:It's always bemused me how so many people will moan and wail about how their ancestors conquered and oppressed some poor peaceful peoples and how they should somehow atone for this. Do you think those "poor peaceful peoples" wouldn't have done the same if they had been able to? If my distant ancestors stopped the Romans dead in their tracks then power to them. If my countrymen fought for four hundred years to conquer a continent then power to them too. The best men won. If you don't like it then feel free to try to retake your land.

[Much Words, very Doge, such Wow]
Let's throw away any sense of morale and say that everything done or achieved is justified, only because if they weren't deserving they wouldn't have achieved it. "Wouldn't have done the same if they had been able to" What do you mean? Everybody capable of doing something will do it? This is wrong because humans are capable of more things than they have time for, thus making your argument logically flawed.
"If you don't like it then feel free to try and retake your land." So we can't even express dissatisfaction anymore? If we're not happy with something, do we have to resolve it? What if you're unhappy about something which you have no control over; By your argumentation you can't be unhappy about it because you aren't able to change your situation. Genius.

I'm a fallibilist through and through, I am not sure about how much I truly know about immigration and immigrants and how much is wrong. Yet so far I am under the impression that most people in this thread see immigrants as a distinct group of people and the description of the group is true for every member of the group. This is not true at all.
If you had bad experiences so far with people belonging to this rather unclear group called immigrants, this only means that some people "causes trouble" and also belong into the group. Should we judge and decide for each individual in the group of immigrants because some people belonging to it cause trouble? I don't think so.
Now some people happen to belong to the Islamic faith and also to the group called immigrants. Do the actions of some people of the group, who also happen to be of Islamic faith, tell us anything about the Islamic faith? Not really.

I'd say that the people which belong to the group called immigrants, who complain about their treatment are the ones who were able to afford their whole trip. The poorer people affected the most by the wars and fights down there either lack the possibility or the ability to reach middle Europe.

@_venox_ "Wouldn't have done the same if they had been able to" What do you mean?

If, say, the Aztecs had developed military technology more advanced than that of 1400s Europe and then sent explorers across the Atlantic, they definitely would have tried to conquer wherever they landed, just as they did in the New World. I can't think of a single culture that has not tried to conquer somebody if they were powerful enough to do so. It's interesting though that this might have ended up being a "War of the Worlds" situation as even with more advanced military technology Old World diseases would still have defeated them.

Metis wrote:

@_venox_ "Wouldn't have done the same if they had been able to" What do you mean?

If, say, the Aztecs had developed military technology more advanced than that of 1400s Europe and then sent explorers across the Atlantic, they definitely would have tried to conquer wherever they landed, just as they did in the New World. I can't think of a single culture that has not tried to conquer somebody if they were powerful enough to do so. It's interesting though that this might have ended up being a "War of the Worlds" situation as even with more advanced military technology Old World diseases would still have defeated them.

I can help you: the current western culture does not try to take over countries whenever it can.

Jerom wrote:

Metis wrote:

@_venox_ "Wouldn't have done the same if they had been able to" What do you mean?

If, say, the Aztecs had developed military technology more advanced than that of 1400s Europe and then sent explorers across the Atlantic, they definitely would have tried to conquer wherever they landed, just as they did in the New World. I can't think of a single culture that has not tried to conquer somebody if they were powerful enough to do so. It's interesting though that this might have ended up being a "War of the Worlds" situation as even with more advanced military technology Old World diseases would still have defeated them.

I can help you: the current western culture does not try to take over countries whenever it can.

I don't know, America has a nasty habit of invading people. I wonder if Metis is pro or against this kind of militaristic, imperialist behavior.

Jerom wrote:I can help you: the current western culture does not try to take over countries whenever it can.

Along with IS, Russia seems to be trying to take over as much territory as the rest of the world will let them. However, physical conquest is not the only type of conquest there is. Fundamentalist Muslims and Christian alike are still trying to gain as much ground as they can. And, while Communism has become much less of an issue, there is still a war being waged between individual rights and totalitarianism.

fightinfrenchman wrote:America has a nasty habit of invading people. I wonder if Metis is pro or against this kind of militaristic, imperialist behavior.

An invasion is a military offensive in which combatants of one geopolitical entity aggressively enter territory controlled by another such entity, generally with the objective of either conquering, liberating or re-establishing control.

America may invade, but it's not been to conquer for over a hundred years. Name one European country that hasn't tried to invade another sometime in its history or sent troops to help another do so.