Terror Alert may be downgraded from “beheading” to “plastic swords”

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

Go down

Terror Alert may be downgraded from “beheading” to “plastic swords”

Post by veya_victaous on Wed Oct 08, 2014 10:06 am

Terror Alert may be downgraded from “beheading” to “plastic swords”

When Mustafa Dirani’s home was raided in September, the heavy throng of police were photographed taking a sword from his home. Even though his home was searched for 8 hours with items seized by the police, Dirani was released without charge.

It may be because the sword taken from his home was plastic. Not only was the sword plastic but it is so ubiquitous in Shiite homes that it would have been immediately discounted as evidence if the police had someone with community knowledge with them - probably the same people who could tell the police that it’s rare to find a Shiite terrorist - almost as rare as finding a Shiite sword sharp enough you could “cut a cucumber with it”

The Australian Federal Police will not confirm the sword is plastic nor will they return it, quite possibly because Scott Morrison is still playing with it in his Super Security No Julies Allowed Mega Mecha Awesome Christified Agency.

No word on whether George “Bigot” Brandis is expanding ASIO’s powers to raid homes for party poppers and unattended showbags but Miranda Devine is going undercover to find out what it’s like to be a slice of Fairy Bread left on a ping pong table.

by Amy Gray, more here
http://www.thevine.com.au/life/10things/10-things-its-the-mostly-good-news-20141008-288077/?utm_source=thevine&utm_medium=featured-rotator&utm_campaign=internal-testing

_________________
My job is to travel the world delivering Chaos and Candy.

We don't know the Questions... does that means we cannot seek the Answers?
avatar
veya_victaous
The Mod Loki, Minister of Chaos & Candy, Emperor of the Southern Realms, Captain Kangaroo

Posts : 18743
Join date : 2013-01-24
Age : 35
Location : Australia

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Terror Alert may be downgraded from “beheading” to “plastic swords”

Post by veya_victaous on Wed Oct 08, 2014 10:26 am

Macquarie University Muslim students sent someone out into the streets to hector Muslims and for once it wasn’t a Daily Telegraph reporter. Their social experiment was to perform racial taunts in public and gauge the public response as part of the Association for Islamic Awareness Week's "iSlamPhobia”.

What happened? Some took photos but most arked up in the most Australian way possible.


The gulf between Murdoch Media and regular Aussies is becoming apparent, this video makes me proud to be Aussie....

_________________
My job is to travel the world delivering Chaos and Candy.

We don't know the Questions... does that means we cannot seek the Answers?
avatar
veya_victaous
The Mod Loki, Minister of Chaos & Candy, Emperor of the Southern Realms, Captain Kangaroo

Posts : 18743
Join date : 2013-01-24
Age : 35
Location : Australia

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Terror Alert may be downgraded from “beheading” to “plastic swords”

Post by Guest on Wed Oct 08, 2014 10:43 am

So let me get this straight, one person is released out of many arrested and now a conspiracy is abound around plastic swords, you cannot make it up how silly some conspiracies are, what about the others arrested?
Have they been released?

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Terror Alert may be downgraded from “beheading” to “plastic swords”

Post by veya_victaous on Wed Oct 08, 2014 11:18 am

many arrests????  um 3 arrests out of 30 raids
all but 1 has been released and the one that wasn't has been held on DRUGS charges.  So 30 Raids, NO terrorists found... Accept the 800 balaclava wearing automatic weapons toting thugs that dragged innocent families out of their beds in the middle of the night so the gov't could make a political statement and try and build up discord in the community to distract them (you know who else did this and you know it is wrong) from the "mishandling of the economy" which look an awful lot like corruption at the highest levels.

A FAMILY caught up in Australia’s biggest counterterrorism operation is reportedly set to launch legal action, claiming to have been unfairly targeted.

The brothers, aged 15 and 14, and their mother have told Fairfax Media they were mistreated as police took 12 hours to search their home in Sydney’s southwest but found nothing.

Using the name Mohamed, the older of the brothers says he was woken at 4.30am by men in balaclavas who bashed the door in and dragged his mother out of bed without giving her a chance to cover herself.

Mohamed claims she was also punched because she tried to resist, and that he and his brother were handcuffed during the ordeal. “They bought in dogs to smell the place, they bought in metal detectors, they scratched the doors, they dug up the backyard, they looked through all the books and they found nothing,” he told the Sydney Morning Herald.

“Even if they found one thing, they would have charged us.” The paper says the family of three will launch a civil suit in the NSW Supreme Court this week.

Their home was one of 16 raided by state and federal police before dawn on September 18, but they were not detained or charged and they still have not been told why they were raided.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/terror-raid-family-to-sue-police/story-e6frg6n6-1227082054383

THIS is why the new terror laws are bullshit they FUCK UP so royally and they want to pass laws to make it illegal to publish the actual numbers because after 30 homes raided they only find 3 they can arrest, 2 of which have already been dismissed (like the OP said because it was a blunt plastic sword)  It is pretty obvious to anyone with half a brain that That the Raids have been a media beat up to try and get Aussies to be Racist like the rest of you, Apparently we don't Unreasonably fear enough and Murdock doesn't like it. AS continually said and now proven by reality THE LAWS WERE A SCAM they are stealing rights fro no good reason, Even the supposed 'terror threats' were actually made up by the gov't and ASIO and have since been proven to be as REAL as the plastic sword. (cause literally what has ended up being a PLASTIC sword was the most advanced weapon the supposed 'terror cell' possessed)

_________________
My job is to travel the world delivering Chaos and Candy.

We don't know the Questions... does that means we cannot seek the Answers?
avatar
veya_victaous
The Mod Loki, Minister of Chaos & Candy, Emperor of the Southern Realms, Captain Kangaroo

Posts : 18743
Join date : 2013-01-24
Age : 35
Location : Australia

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Terror Alert may be downgraded from “beheading” to “plastic swords”

Post by Guest on Wed Oct 08, 2014 11:26 am

So only one has been released, what about the others?

You see this is a shortsightedness on your part Veya, thinking every person is all love and flowers in their hair, which is far removed from the reality and you are now trying to go off a daft view, because one person has been released is a view to back your arguments?
Sorry it is not and never will be, you can keep your views, but the safety of the other millions of Australians is far more important that your childish rants. The reality is there are extremist Muslims out there in this world, lucky, hundreds of millions are not, but certainly thousands are.

Basically you are saying if there is a threat and intelligence on a plot, we should just ignore.

They should make that a master card advert

Priceless


Last edited by Didge on Wed Oct 08, 2014 11:28 am; edited 1 time in total

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Terror Alert may be downgraded from “beheading” to “plastic swords”

Post by Guest on Wed Oct 08, 2014 11:27 am

There were 15 people arrested by the way, not 3.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Terror Alert may be downgraded from “beheading” to “plastic swords”

Post by veya_victaous on Wed Oct 08, 2014 11:47 am

No 15 RAIDS only 2 arrests (sorry I was wrong it wasn't 3) AND the terrorism offence is the PLASTIC SWORD so NO legitimate terrorist charges at ALL!!!!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Australian_terror_raids
Following the raids, two people were charged, one with terrorism offences and the other for possession of an unauthorised firearm.[2]



Didge you are just a fool, anyone with half a brain can see it is bullshit. You are literally making up shit know to try and justify your illogical hatred of Muslims and hatred of Freedom (why would you support jailing of Journalists? removal of protections for the innocent)... It is men like you that let Hitler pass the laws that let them kill their Jews (you seem not to care since this time it is Muslims)

_________________
My job is to travel the world delivering Chaos and Candy.

We don't know the Questions... does that means we cannot seek the Answers?
avatar
veya_victaous
The Mod Loki, Minister of Chaos & Candy, Emperor of the Southern Realms, Captain Kangaroo

Posts : 18743
Join date : 2013-01-24
Age : 35
Location : Australia

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Terror Alert may be downgraded from “beheading” to “plastic swords”

Post by Guest on Wed Oct 08, 2014 11:54 am

The raids, with at least 800 heavily armed officers, led to 15 arrests.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-29245611



Wrong again Veya and I have no hate of Muslims, maybe you can show me one post where I state I hate Muslims?
I actually defend them from daft claims and poor stereotypes, showing your arguments are nothing short of childish. I have never seen all Muslims as a problem, what I do see as a problem is ideologies like Salafism, which is being exported and has created much of the extremism today, which you would understand if you had studied it, being as they butcher Muslims as well. Why also would I be calling for action in Syria and Iraq to also defend Muslims from genocide? It shows your arguments are childish and make view points if anyone disagrees they are racist which is absurd, as again I see humans as one race and live for the day they live as one race in peace.
If you are naive to think there is no extremists or terrorist in your country, then you are entitled to be ignorant, that is your issue not mine.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Terror Alert may be downgraded from “beheading” to “plastic swords”

Post by veya_victaous on Wed Oct 08, 2014 12:15 pm

And no I don't think it is all flowers but AGAIN unlike you I am not a coward that is ruled by fear i can use logical and reason and COUNT to look a figures and say "that is ridiculous why would we want to give up all this good stuff for such a minuscule threat. literally every woman in the nation is over 1000 times more likely to be killed by her HUSBAND than a terrorist, Every Australian is at least 7 times more likely to be eaten by a shark than die by terrorist. we are about 50 times more likely to be killed by a Cow than a terrorist!!!!
FUCK ME DIDGE WHAT A HUGE THREAT I AM SUPPOSED TO BE SHITTING MY PANTS IN TERROR ABOUT

The Idea that this was done for the Safety OF Millions of Aussies has been PROVEN to be bullshit!!! as the gov't has already caused about 30 times more deaths through suicide due to the cuts that made because of a Budget crisis that IT ALSO MADE UP and is now saying "forget that we want to blow stuff up we have plenty of cash"
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/no-new-taxes-to-pay-for-iraq-war-tony-abbott-20141007-10r4vo.html#ixzz3FSoyuEZ1

_________________
My job is to travel the world delivering Chaos and Candy.

We don't know the Questions... does that means we cannot seek the Answers?
avatar
veya_victaous
The Mod Loki, Minister of Chaos & Candy, Emperor of the Southern Realms, Captain Kangaroo

Posts : 18743
Join date : 2013-01-24
Age : 35
Location : Australia

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Terror Alert may be downgraded from “beheading” to “plastic swords”

Post by veya_victaous on Wed Oct 08, 2014 12:19 pm

that BBC thing is just WRONG so 15 people the police questioned were arrested?


More than 800 police were scrambled to launch pre-dawn raids across Sydney and Brisbane, searching 25 homes in two states, detaining and questioning 15 men and charging two, including Azari, for terrorism offences.

A sword was seized in Marsfield in Sydney's north-west; machetes, balaclavas, a gun and ammunition in Brisbane. .

What exactly motivated the quick-fire call for terror remains unclear, although the conversation came just days after Australia announced its commitment to send 600 military personnel and military aircraft to the Middle East to prepare to wage war on Islamic State.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/terror-raids-the-rising-fear-in-sydneys-suburbs-20140919-10jctz.html#ixzz3FVo8af6m

_________________
My job is to travel the world delivering Chaos and Candy.

We don't know the Questions... does that means we cannot seek the Answers?
avatar
veya_victaous
The Mod Loki, Minister of Chaos & Candy, Emperor of the Southern Realms, Captain Kangaroo

Posts : 18743
Join date : 2013-01-24
Age : 35
Location : Australia

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Terror Alert may be downgraded from “beheading” to “plastic swords”

Post by Guest on Wed Oct 08, 2014 12:24 pm

Oh my more childishness.
I do not live by fear, where you have policies put in place is for the benefit of the people of  nation against perceived threats, whether real or not. The reality is there is a threat, what level of that threat will be different in each country, but there certainly is a threat. That is not cowardly or living in fear but placing policies to defend against if necessary where there is one. Now we can argue at the level and extent of the polices, but to say there should be no policies is not only absurd but on the realms of lunacy. If you back the view there is no threat, which clearly you do think there is a threat but that it is minimal, then it would make you cowardly also by your logic, which shows you do not think through any of your views. 

Nobody is saying you should shit your pants, us Brits have lived through decades of actual terrorism, that has cost many lives and yet we do not live in fear and get on daily with out lives. We do though recognise there is a threat and that measures should be put in place. I was very much against the stop ad search policy on terrorism, as I knew it would be not effective to the point nobody was every convicted out of hundreds of thousands of stop and search for an act of terrorism and that to me, intelligence is the key to thwarting any attempted attacks .

So again you have not the first clue behind my view points or what I agree or disagree on, this has nothing to do with fear, but being well prepared against real threats, of which in this country, our security service has been very effective at thwarting.

If you continue with the immature rants, the discussion is over, as your counters are very much childish and irrational. If you want to be adult, will continue tomorrow.

Goodnight

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Terror Alert may be downgraded from “beheading” to “plastic swords”

Post by veya_victaous on Wed Oct 08, 2014 1:50 pm

Didge wrote:Oh my more childishness.
I do not live by fear, where you have policies put in place is for the benefit of the people of  nation against perceived threats, whether real or not. The reality is there is a threat, what level of that threat will be different in each country, but there certainly is a threat. That is not cowardly or living in fear but placing policies to defend against if necessary where there is one. Now we can argue at the level and extent of the polices, but to say there should be no policies is not only absurd but on the realms of lunacy. If you back the view there is no threat, which clearly you do think there is a threat but that it is minimal, then it would make you cowardly also by your logic, which shows you do not think through any of your views. 
Are you Saying We didn't have police before the New Terror Laws??? confused confused confused You see the reason why what you wrote is Crap is that WE HAVE POLICE WE HAVE STRONGER LAWS THAN THE UK ALREADY WHY DO WE NEED NEW STRONGER ONES that are now 2 steps in front of the UK , So yes I am saying IF you already have sufficient protection(0 dead, 0 attacks on Australian soil implies that) and you are then going to surrender more freedoms for NO ADDITIONAL PROTECTION but a lot of additional Risks and potential for abuse then you are a STUPID COWARD

Nobody is saying you should shit your pants, us Brits have lived through decades of actual terrorism, that has cost many lives and yet we do not live in fear and get on daily with out lives. We do though recognise there is a threat and that measures should be put in place. I was very much against the stop ad search policy on terrorism, as I knew it would be not effective to the point nobody was every convicted out of hundreds of thousands of stop and search for an act of terrorism and that to me, intelligence is the key to thwarting any attempted attacks .
WE ALREADY HAVE HIGHER MEASURES THAN THE UK YOUR POINT IS BEYOND IRRELEVANT

So again you have not the first clue behind my view points or what I agree or disagree on, this has nothing to do with fear, but being well prepared against real threats, of which in this country, our security service has been very effective at thwarting.
NO so again you don't have a clue to the fact WE ALREADY HAD LAWS HIGHER THAN YOUR
If you continue with the immature rants, the discussion is over, as your counters are very much childish and irrational. If you want to be adult, will continue tomorrow.
I don't want to continue because you are an arrogant racist bigot OR you cannot count SIMPLE as that. AS you literally have Produced No Valid point for a single part of your argument and YOU are plain WRONG. I produce Numbers time and time again that show your statement to be FALSE and you just keep parroting it ... Bird brain.
At least Smelly Bandit had the Balls to Admit he was a racist


Goodnight

_________________
My job is to travel the world delivering Chaos and Candy.

We don't know the Questions... does that means we cannot seek the Answers?
avatar
veya_victaous
The Mod Loki, Minister of Chaos & Candy, Emperor of the Southern Realms, Captain Kangaroo

Posts : 18743
Join date : 2013-01-24
Age : 35
Location : Australia

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Terror Alert may be downgraded from “beheading” to “plastic swords”

Post by >THE Ben Reilly< on Wed Oct 08, 2014 3:47 pm

People keep ignoring my call for a War on Heat, but I swear, it's gonna save a lot more lives than any War on Terror if we do it right ...


_________________
“And it's been a long time, Lord, since I sat down and had a cry.”

Cody Jinks
avatar
>THE Ben Reilly<
Cowboy King. Dread Pirate of the Guadalupe. Enemy of the American people.

Posts : 24856
Join date : 2013-01-20
Age : 44
Location : Funkytown, Texas

View user profile http://www.newsfixboard.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Terror Alert may be downgraded from “beheading” to “plastic swords”

Post by Guest on Wed Oct 08, 2014 6:32 pm

All I read from Veya was this:

Blah blah blah, rant, rant, scream and scream, racist, racist, racist.
Jesus wept, somebody get that boy a real education.



Okay Ben, your argument is yet again absurd, how many people have died in Syria, because of terrorism?
How many so far this year in Iraq?
This is not just about our nations, but countless ethnic and religious peoples in both nations being slaughtered, many of who are also Muslims. So your point is beyond silly and insulting to the many people suffering, because this is what this really is about, saving many from genocide in the war on terror.
The thing is in this country we have had terrorism for decades, it does not make people cower in fear, the opposite, but that does not mean we should not have measures against terrorism, to use how other people die is I am sorry silly Ben and you know this to be true, when you are equating murder to things that can be out of a persons hand like accidents.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Terror Alert may be downgraded from “beheading” to “plastic swords”

Post by >THE Ben Reilly< on Wed Oct 08, 2014 6:49 pm

But that's just the thing -- we fear (and invest billions in fighting, and thousands of lives) stuff that has a one-in-20-million chance of killing us while not doing more to keep people from dying of something as stupid as heat.

Every year in Texas, thousands of elderly people die during heat waves because either they don't have AC, they don't have the awareness that they're becoming overheated, or (as I saw first-hand) their younger relatives who pay their bills actually tell them not to turn it on because the bill will be bigger.

If we were really all about saving lives, you'd think we'd do more to fight heart disease and heat deaths and not worry so much about something that kills less than lightning strikes do.

Instead, we have come up with a world that includes stuff like these things:



... to rain fiery death on, mostly, innocent people who happen to have last names you can't pronounce without sounding like you're clearing your throat, and worship a funny god that is nothing like our totally rational god, and that put funny things on their heads and just so happen to mostly live atop a bunch of precious oil.

Come on, man -- you really don't think we've gotten something seriously wrong along the road to where we are now?

_________________
“And it's been a long time, Lord, since I sat down and had a cry.”

Cody Jinks
avatar
>THE Ben Reilly<
Cowboy King. Dread Pirate of the Guadalupe. Enemy of the American people.

Posts : 24856
Join date : 2013-01-20
Age : 44
Location : Funkytown, Texas

View user profile http://www.newsfixboard.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Terror Alert may be downgraded from “beheading” to “plastic swords”

Post by Guest on Wed Oct 08, 2014 7:00 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:But that's just the thing -- we fear (and invest billions in fighting, and thousands of lives) stuff that has a one-in-20-million chance of killing us while not doing more to keep people from dying of something as stupid as heat.

Every year in Texas, thousands of elderly people die during heat waves because either they don't have AC, they don't have the awareness that they're becoming overheated, or (as I saw first-hand) their younger relatives who pay their bills actually tell them not to turn it on because the bill will be bigger.

If we were really all about saving lives, you'd think we'd do more to fight heart disease and heat deaths and not worry so much about something that kills less than lightning strikes do.

Instead, we have come up with a world that includes stuff like these things:



... to rain fiery death on, mostly, innocent people who happen to have last names you can't pronounce without sounding like you're clearing your throat, and worship a funny god that is nothing like our totally rational god, and that put funny things on their heads and just so happen to mostly live atop a bunch of precious oil.

Come on, man -- you really don't think we've gotten something seriously wrong along the road to where we are now?



So you are equating the power of the Sun, to humans who are extremist now?
Ben you need to study the history of the region to understand the problems, which the west had the same problems of which still persist today in Northern Ireland for example. To ignore this is ignoring all the facts. There is no doubt some of the conflicts have helped play a part by the extremists using this as a propaganda tool, but again, for example Tibet has been occupied and under oppression for years, where it is estimated over 1 million people have died, do you see people committing suicide bombing in the name of Buddhism?

No

The reality is many people are suffering in the Middle East due to the different views of religion, where again Salafism, views Non-Muslims as enemies, but other Muslims sects, you need to understand the problem, so if you do not believe me, hear it from another Muslim. I do not agree with all his views, but his understanding of Salafism, should make you sit up and listen.










In the wake of September 11, 2001, and with America mourning and in shock, the
'Islam is evil' narrative fit more neatly into the political and media landscape than engaging in a deeper discourse. Instead of identifying the true root of extremist ideology, one that pushes a tiny fringe toward violence, the Western mindset chose to stare the problem in the eye and then look the other way. The real problem only needs a little deduction: What do the Taliban, Osama Bin Laden, Nigeria's Boko Haram, all of the the 9/11 terrorists, the 7/7 bombers, Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, Somalia's Al-Shabab, Al-Nusra Front, and the many ISIL supporters and sympathizers from Western countries, all have in common? Remember, it can't be 'Islam', since most of their victims are Muslims themselves.

The answer is Salafism; an exclusivist, puritanical, coercive, misogynistic school of thought, espousing a misguided creed that oozes with hate from every orifice. Its superficial theology derives from the teachings of a particularly severe religious reformist who lived in central Arabia in the mid-eighteenth century named Bin Abdul Wahhab (hence the alternative appellation 'Wahhabi'). Salafism considers all other Islamic sects which refuse to adhere to their interpretation of the Quran to be innovators and idolators. Shias, for instance, are seen as heretics of the worst kind, whose murder guarantees entry to paradise! The intolerant doctrines and teachings of Bin Abdul Wahhab feature prominently in ISIL literature and is now part of school syllabus for both ISIL controlled regions as well as the Saudi department of education!

Through a pact with the 'House of Saud', Wahhabism became a state-sponsored religion, and in exchange for creating submissiveness (divinely mandated, as in Paul's Epistle to the Romans), Wahhabism receives unlimited financial support and protection from the government (said to be %1 of oil exports). Despite everything the Saudi PR machine churns out, the unholy alliance means militant fanaticism veiled with Islam is the oil kingdom's second largest export and with funding from petroleum exports, the movement underwent "explosive growth" beginning in the 1970s and now has worldwide influence.

The Salafi movement was largely tamed by the Saudis. That is, until 9/11 when they seem to have lost legitimacy with militant Wahhabis who grew away from "The King is God's shadow on earth" doctrine. So while they enjoyed the marriage of convenience to the House of Saud, they always fantasized about creating a caliphate, resembling what they see as the purest manifestation of divine will for mankind; that of the early Companions. An epoch where the loudest sounds were the clamor of swords and the cracking of the whip. This euphoric reverie will continue to attract young Muslims from around the world, unless the root cause is addressed.

Yet, having witnessed the horrors associated with militant fanaticism, Western governments remained unashamedly deferential to the oligarchs in Riyadh, the West's foremost "allies" in the Arab world. Mercenary and duplicitous to the core, the Saudi political establishment has been subsidizing the Salafists with oil money, providing them with the freedom to spread their venomous hate across the globe.

A quick look at Saudi Arabia and it becomes clear as daylight that we are aligned with the wrong side:

It is a country so totalitarian, the whole nation is officially named after the family of beduins who came to rule it after a long, bloody conquest. To put that into perspective, imagine the US and UK were named Bushistan and Blairia!

The official country emblem consists of two crossed swords with a palm tree in the space above. The culture of beheadings and dismemberment is, thus, entrenched by insignia as well as law.

It is a country which has no constitution and no elections. Laws are enacted by royal decrees and ratified by a toothless parliament whose members are installed by the monarch. The king holds absolute power on all public affairs, including the appointment of chiefs of individual tribes. Women are not allowed to drive, and even travel is permitted only with a male relative. If this is how the Sunni citizens are treated, you can only imagine what the Shia face on a daily basis. The country's most senior Shia faith leader Ayatollah Nimr al-Nimr was violently apprehended for demanding the most basic rights for all citizens. In his public sermons al-Nimr repeatedly condemned violence and called for peaceful protests, but is now facing "death by crucifixion" on charges of "creating public descent and insulting the king"!

It is said, with friends like these, who needs enemies? This is especially true of Saudi Arabia. A country which gave the world sadistic fanatics the likes of whom our generation has never seen, and terrorists whose savagery puts Hollywood's most vile antagonists to shame. A nation which institutionalizes ideological hatred of the other and resists any and all calls for reform away from its medieval system of government cannot be partner to combating terrorism. The only hope rests in the proliferation of true democracy in the region.

But if allowing Saudi Arabia to embrace democracy is too hard for western policymakers to swallow, then at least fight dogma with intellect. A military campaign, even with a global coalition, cannot by itself eradicate this poisonous ideology which has the potential to create, blue-eyed, blonde-haired suicide bombers in every western capital. This war cannot be won with Hellfire missiles alone, and due to the conservative nature of Saudi society, liberal voices will not undo Salafi fundamentalism. Instead, right of center, but anti-Salafi reformist Sunnis like Hassan Bin Farhan [https://twitter.com/HsnFrhanALmalki] and others must be sought to counter the growing threat.

Of course, Saudi rulers, having invested hundreds of millions of dollars in lobbying firms in Washington and London, an army of reporters and analysts will attempt to argue that the regime is the only hope the world has for ISIL's containment. But that is both false and dangerous. False because clearly their containment policy (if anything of the sort even exists) hasn't worked and has even fueled the flame of militant Salafism. Dangerous, given the unholy alliance between Wahhabism and the House of Saud continues to underpin the political establishment to this day. Saudi policies in Yemen, Syria, Iraq, and Bahrain have helped engulf the region into chaos. The ISIL ideology has its appeal in Saudi Arabia because it projects the image of what the country is today, but without the corrupt 15,000 member royal family, so keeping them on life support only serves to exacerbate the natural but acute autoimmune reaction.

We simply need to open our eyes and see the problem as it is. The thread that connects almost all so-called "Muslim" terrorists is militant Salafism. The same violent ideology that the late Saudi crown prince and the royal family's most influential ideologue Nayef Bin Abdul Aziz referred to when he said "the state of Saudi Arabia is a Salafi state. We will forever remain as such and shall never deviate from our Salafi roots as it is the source of our pride and greatness".

Follow Sayed Mahdi al-Modarresi on Twitter:




http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/sayed-mahdi-almodarresi/isil-extremism-terrorism_b_5943880.html?utm_hp_ref=uk

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Terror Alert may be downgraded from “beheading” to “plastic swords”

Post by >THE Ben Reilly< on Wed Oct 08, 2014 7:02 pm

People kill in the name of Buddhism, Hinduism and every other "ism" we've invented No

_________________
“And it's been a long time, Lord, since I sat down and had a cry.”

Cody Jinks
avatar
>THE Ben Reilly<
Cowboy King. Dread Pirate of the Guadalupe. Enemy of the American people.

Posts : 24856
Join date : 2013-01-20
Age : 44
Location : Funkytown, Texas

View user profile http://www.newsfixboard.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Terror Alert may be downgraded from “beheading” to “plastic swords”

Post by Guest on Wed Oct 08, 2014 7:08 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:People kill in the name of Buddhism, Hinduism and every other "ism" we've invented No


Yes they do in Burma, that is correct, there is very real oppression of Muslims there, which the world needs to do something about, also in China, but again it goes against the doctrine of Buddhism, where again the central tenants of this faith are peace. What you are missing in Islam, is there is armed Jihad and martyrdom in its doctrine, all you need is for people, which is happening, being fed that the west and others are at war with Islam, they view then that they are defending their faith according to scriptures Ben. They are being mislead of course, but the point you are missing is that it is only a small step to make this believable and compatible with the religion, hence why some Muslims have been attracted to its cause.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Terror Alert may be downgraded from “beheading” to “plastic swords”

Post by Original Quill on Thu Oct 09, 2014 3:46 am

Didge wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:People kill in the name of Buddhism, Hinduism and every other "ism" we've invented No


Yes they do in Burma, that is correct, there is very real oppression of Muslims there, which the world needs to do something about, also in China, but again it goes against the doctrine of Buddhism, where again the central tenants of this faith are peace. What you are missing in Islam, is there is armed Jihad and martyrdom in its doctrine, all you need is for people, which is happening, being fed that the west and others are at war with Islam, they view then that they are defending their faith according to scriptures Ben. They are being mislead of course, but the point you are missing is that it is only a small step to make this believable and compatible with the religion, hence why some Muslims have been attracted to its cause.

That is so much bullshit, ethnocentric crap. All religions have the metaphor of battle in their doctrine. There is a song about Christianity...it goes: Onward, Christian soldiers, Marching as to war, With a cross of Jesus, Going on before... That is a song about armed warfare and martyrdom, and indeed it has a reality in the Crusades.

Indeed, Christians are being misled today...into another gratuitous war by conservative elements in the West. They are being deceived into believing that Muslims have a peculiar penchant for "Jihad and martyrdom" and that we must send our sons and daughters to be killed in a ritual sacrifice called making the world safe for freedom and democracy. It is a small step for these conservatives to motivate the herd-like people in their communities, despite a historical reality of what they are doing being torture, rape, kidnapping and mass genocide.

Works both ways, innit?

_________________
“Little thieves are hanged, but great thieves are praised.” — Old Russian proverb, offered by Vladimir Putin to Donald J. Trump, Helsinki, July, 2018.

"I don't stand by anything."  ― Donald Trump, interview with John Dickerson, 5.1.17...

“That's libertarians for you — anarchists who want police protection from their slaves.” ― Kim Stanley Robinson, Green Mars

Someone is above the rule of law in America.
avatar
Original Quill

Posts : 25902
Join date : 2013-12-19
Age : 53
Location : Northern California

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Terror Alert may be downgraded from “beheading” to “plastic swords”

Post by Guest on Thu Oct 09, 2014 4:05 am

Original Quill wrote:
Didge wrote:


Yes they do in Burma, that is correct, there is very real oppression of Muslims there, which the world needs to do something about, also in China, but again it goes against the doctrine of Buddhism, where again the central tenants of this faith are peace. What you are missing in Islam, is there is armed Jihad and martyrdom in its doctrine, all you need is for people, which is happening, being fed that the west and others are at war with Islam, they view then that they are defending their faith according to scriptures Ben. They are being mislead of course, but the point you are missing is that it is only a small step to make this believable and compatible with the religion, hence why some Muslims have been attracted to its cause.

That is so much bullshit, ethnocentric crap.  All religions have the metaphor of battle in their doctrine.  There is a song about Christianity...it goes: Onward, Christian soldiers, Marching as to war, With a cross of Jesus, Going on before...  That is a song about armed warfare and martyrdom, and indeed it has a reality in the Crusades.
Complete babble, so you use other religions, which I never denied others have aspects of warfare where Judaisms has the worse called herem, which is genocide, but I would love for you to show me the warfare aspects of Jainism and Buddhism?
Indeed, Christians are being misled today...into another gratuitous war by conservative elements in the West.  They are being deceived into believing that Muslims have a peculiar penchant for "Jihad and martyrdom" and that we must send our sons and daughters to be killed in a ritual sacrifice called making the world safe for freedom and democracy.  It is a small step for these conservatives to motivate the herd-like people in their communities, despite a historical reality of what they are doing being torture, rape, kidnapping and mass genocide.

Works both ways, innit?

So your argument was irrelevant being as I already know others have aspects of war, though many in the west do not hold literal beliefs anymore, which is where the problem stems from. Within Islam is the belief of Jihad ad martyrdom, which is used by extremists, with the central core beliefs in Islam around defending. You need to understand theology before you enter a debate on this with me Quill.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Terror Alert may be downgraded from “beheading” to “plastic swords”

Post by Guest on Thu Oct 09, 2014 4:09 am

You do realise Islam is not a pacifist faith Quill?

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Terror Alert may be downgraded from “beheading” to “plastic swords”

Post by Original Quill on Thu Oct 09, 2014 4:22 am

Do you realize that Roman Christianity is not a pacifist faith, Didge?

All of the major religions are, or have been platforms for war.

_________________
“Little thieves are hanged, but great thieves are praised.” — Old Russian proverb, offered by Vladimir Putin to Donald J. Trump, Helsinki, July, 2018.

"I don't stand by anything."  ― Donald Trump, interview with John Dickerson, 5.1.17...

“That's libertarians for you — anarchists who want police protection from their slaves.” ― Kim Stanley Robinson, Green Mars

Someone is above the rule of law in America.
avatar
Original Quill

Posts : 25902
Join date : 2013-12-19
Age : 53
Location : Northern California

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Terror Alert may be downgraded from “beheading” to “plastic swords”

Post by Guest on Thu Oct 09, 2014 4:25 am

Original Quill wrote:Do you realize that Roman Christianity is not a pacifist faith, Didge?

All of the major religions are, or have been platforms for war.

Oh now major religions lol

Is not Buddhism and Jainism both major religions, they have millions of followers?
Show me their platforms of war in their religious works?

I never claimed Roman Christianity was not a pacifist religion, read my last post, which clearly you did not.
To use other religions is irrelevant, we know they have aspects of war and violence, this though is about Islam, where many still hold literal beliefs and where religion still has power.
The bases of core elements of Islam is being used by the extremists, there is no denying this, to claim otherwise is denying parts of the Quran.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Terror Alert may be downgraded from “beheading” to “plastic swords”

Post by Original Quill on Thu Oct 09, 2014 4:52 am

Your last post is as boring and repetitive as all your others. Lol.

The point is there is nothing to single out Islam as being any more violent than any other belief system.  ISIL is just a bunch of Hells Angels on the loose.  We have them in this country...they are called the KKK, among others.  You have them too.

The ISIL is no more distinctly Muslim, than the KKK is distinctly Christian.  They are just bad apples in the barrel.

_________________
“Little thieves are hanged, but great thieves are praised.” — Old Russian proverb, offered by Vladimir Putin to Donald J. Trump, Helsinki, July, 2018.

"I don't stand by anything."  ― Donald Trump, interview with John Dickerson, 5.1.17...

“That's libertarians for you — anarchists who want police protection from their slaves.” ― Kim Stanley Robinson, Green Mars

Someone is above the rule of law in America.
avatar
Original Quill

Posts : 25902
Join date : 2013-12-19
Age : 53
Location : Northern California

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Terror Alert may be downgraded from “beheading” to “plastic swords”

Post by Guest on Thu Oct 09, 2014 6:34 am

it seems to have escaped your attention Quill, ben and veya...that these isil bods have control over a substantial area of the middle east, over a substantial economic area too...and are busily(and successfully) interested in increasing that area....will you eventually stop appologising and appeasing when they take jordan...or eleswher..or will you still sit there...smug on your isolated continents saying "its nothing for us to be concerned with".
Idiots

It is exactly the same attitude that has now resulted in the feral youth of today holding the attitude "i can do as i like. that has resulted in at least two generations of youth with no respect, no self respect and no discipline or self discipline. For whom education and learning is to be despised and "bein fick is good wot". For whom there is no such thing as a deterrent, where prison is a holiday camp and no matter how violent their crime the likelyhood of a severe sentence is remote....

well I should watch this decrepit (your view not mine) island carefully over the next few years....

we (by that read most people) have had a bellyfull of the liberalist progressive  crap.....
and those of us who are educated can see  a better way.....

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Terror Alert may be downgraded from “beheading” to “plastic swords”

Post by Original Quill on Thu Oct 09, 2014 6:49 am

victorisnotamused wrote:it seems to have escaped your attention Quill, ben and veya...that these isil bods have control over a substantial area of the middle east, over a substantial economic area too...and are busily(and successfully) interested in increasing that area....will you eventually stop appologising and appeasing when they take jordan...or eleswher..or will you still sit there...smug on your isolated continents saying "its nothing for us to be concerned with".
Idiots

It is exactly the same attitude that has now resulted in the feral youth of today holding the attitude "i can do as i like. that has resulted in at least two generations of youth with no respect, no self respect and no discipline or self discipline. For whom education and learning is to be despised and "bein fick is good wot". For whom there is no such thing as a deterrent, where prison is a holiday camp and no matter how violent their crime the likelyhood of a severe sentence is remote....

well I should watch this decrepit (your view not mine) island carefully over the next few years....

we (by that read most people) have had a bellyfull of the liberalist progressive  crap.....
and those of us who are educated can see  a better way.....

Or...maybe us liberalists have had it with your fuck-all wars that do nothing and end up in the same place you started--short a little of my money, btw.

I'm like your father: tell me where you are going before I give you the keys to the car! Fuck ISIL, there will be another party next weekend.

_________________
“Little thieves are hanged, but great thieves are praised.” — Old Russian proverb, offered by Vladimir Putin to Donald J. Trump, Helsinki, July, 2018.

"I don't stand by anything."  ― Donald Trump, interview with John Dickerson, 5.1.17...

“That's libertarians for you — anarchists who want police protection from their slaves.” ― Kim Stanley Robinson, Green Mars

Someone is above the rule of law in America.
avatar
Original Quill

Posts : 25902
Join date : 2013-12-19
Age : 53
Location : Northern California

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Terror Alert may be downgraded from “beheading” to “plastic swords”

Post by Guest on Thu Oct 09, 2014 7:53 am

Original Quill wrote:
victorisnotamused wrote:it seems to have escaped your attention Quill, ben and veya...that these isil bods have control over a substantial area of the middle east, over a substantial economic area too...and are busily(and successfully) interested in increasing that area....will you eventually stop appologising and appeasing when they take jordan...or eleswher..or will you still sit there...smug on your isolated continents saying "its nothing for us to be concerned with".
Idiots

It is exactly the same attitude that has now resulted in the feral youth of today holding the attitude "i can do as i like. that has resulted in at least two generations of youth with no respect, no self respect and no discipline or self discipline. For whom education and learning is to be despised and "bein fick is good wot". For whom there is no such thing as a deterrent, where prison is a holiday camp and no matter how violent their crime the likelyhood of a severe sentence is remote....

well I should watch this decrepit (your view not mine) island carefully over the next few years....

we (by that read most people) have had a bellyfull of the liberalist progressive  crap.....
and those of us who are educated can see  a better way.....

Or...maybe us liberalists have had it with your fuck-all wars that do nothing and end up in the same place you started--short a little of my money, btw.

I'm like your father: tell me where you are going before I give you the keys to the car!  Fuck ISIL, there will be another party next weekend.

untill they start bringing their nukes and bio weapons to YOU ....then we will hear a different tune......

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Terror Alert may be downgraded from “beheading” to “plastic swords”

Post by veya_victaous on Thu Oct 09, 2014 9:05 am

victorisnotamused wrote:it seems to have escaped your attention Quill, ben and veya...that these isil bods have control over a substantial area of the middle east, over a substantial economic area too...and are busily(and successfully) interested in increasing that area....will you eventually stop appologising and appeasing when they take jordan...or eleswher..or will you still sit there...smug on your isolated continents saying "its nothing for us to be concerned with". the thing is we could do that, it is a valid option for our nations, I don't think it is the right one but not because of any impact it will have on us, more morally wrong since we over threw Saddam
Idiots

It is exactly the same attitude that has now resulted in the feral youth of today holding the attitude "i can do as i like. that has resulted in at least two generations of youth with no respect, no self respect and no discipline or self discipline. For whom education and learning is to be despised and "bein fick is good wot". For whom there is no such thing as a deterrent, where prison is a holiday camp and no matter how violent their crime the likelyhood of a severe sentence is remote.... Funny that In Australia at least ALL crime but fraud has decreased per capita EVEN though Police say the reporting is greatly improved

well I should watch this decrepit (your view not mine) island carefully over the next few years....

we (by that read most people) have had a bellyfull of the liberalist progressive  crap.....
and those of us who are educated can see  a better way.....
LOLZ fine prove it Rolling Eyes cause over the past 25 years we (and USA over 75 years at least) have thrashed the shit out of you in economic, social, trade, infrastructure investment in large part thanks to the fact that we have embraced the 'progressive crap' (your view not mine) tongue tongue tongue tongue tongue tongue tongue tongue tongue tongue tongue tongue tongue tongue

_________________
My job is to travel the world delivering Chaos and Candy.

We don't know the Questions... does that means we cannot seek the Answers?
avatar
veya_victaous
The Mod Loki, Minister of Chaos & Candy, Emperor of the Southern Realms, Captain Kangaroo

Posts : 18743
Join date : 2013-01-24
Age : 35
Location : Australia

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Terror Alert may be downgraded from “beheading” to “plastic swords”

Post by Guest on Thu Oct 09, 2014 9:12 am

victorisnotamused wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Or...maybe us liberalists have had it with your fuck-all wars that do nothing and end up in the same place you started--short a little of my money, btw.

I'm like your father: tell me where you are going before I give you the keys to the car!  Fuck ISIL, there will be another party next weekend.

untill they start bringing their nukes and bio weapons to YOU ....then we will hear a different tune......


Exactly and some Muslim nations have them already, and if you fail to stem the advance of IS, then on their be it as they say Victor. Like I said , this is the exact same attitude when Hitler came to power and nothing was done until it was too lat and he had built up a formidable army.
When will people learn?

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Terror Alert may be downgraded from “beheading” to “plastic swords”

Post by Guest on Thu Oct 09, 2014 9:20 am

Original Quill wrote:Your last post is as boring and repetitive as all your others. Lol.

The point is there is nothing to single out Islam as being any more violent than any other belief system.  ISIL is just a bunch of Hells Angels on the loose.  We have them in this country...they are called the KKK, among others.  You have them too.

The ISIL is no more distinctly Muslim, than the KKK is distinctly Christian.  They are just bad apples in the barrel.

What a very naive view point of religion, when nobody is discounting again other faiths where there is violence, not sure how many times I have to state this until it sinks, in and it seems to be your only counter. We know others are, this is the point, they are all bad, from Judaism, to Christianity, the simple fact is these two religions have little power anymore, the only place they still have some influence is in your nation. The reality is and has always been with those who hold a literal view point and in all of them, there is divine scriptures that allow for violence. Again you seem so simple minded here to understand the two main problems here really took off when Muslims started to protest for democracy and progression, which sadly fell flat, because those holding the literal view in the extreme, fought back against this.
Again you are just ignoring the fact the only difference between what IS believe to others Muslims, is how they define who is innocent, IS chooses to believe all are enemiess trying to attack them, they then use the view of defense which is applicable in Islam, all of which seems to go over your head. The reality is there is no current major issue in Christianity at the moment because it has fuck all power, many Muslim countries though are ruled with the view of their deity as divine law, all of which again escapes you. There are dangerous Christian groups in the US who follow Dominionism, but they have little chance of swaying opinion, but are still a threat, but nothing like the extremist Salafist movements
So your counters on other faiths are utterly irrelevant and you need to start waking up to the actual problem here. I mean has it escaped your attention, how many different extremist groups have popped up in so many countries following the same Salafism doctrine?

Take your time on that one.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Terror Alert may be downgraded from “beheading” to “plastic swords”

Post by veya_victaous on Thu Oct 09, 2014 11:19 am

veya_victaous wrote:
Macquarie University Muslim students sent someone out into the streets to hector Muslims and for once it wasn’t a Daily Telegraph reporter. Their social experiment was to perform racial taunts in public and gauge the public response as part of the Association for Islamic Awareness Week's "iSlamPhobia”.

What happened? Some took photos but most arked up in the most Australian way possible.


The gulf between Murdoch Media and regular Aussies is becoming apparent, this video makes me proud to be Aussie....

Update on the Video

Bugger Team Australia, it’s time for Team Be A Decent Human Being And Be Respectful To Everyone No Matter Where You’re From. The team name could do with some work, but you get the idea.

Recent newspaper headlines might suggest otherwise, but a social experiment conducted by student Kamal Saleh shows that a lot of Aussies are actually pretty great.

Saleh, who studies media and law at Macquarie University, used hidden cameras to film the reactions of passers-by when they witness anti-Muslim abuse in Sydney. The responses were beautiful, as many people rushed over to confront the abuser or to usher the victims away.

Saleh has said, “We did not expect every single person that witnessed the attack to intervene. It was an overwhelming response. It reaffirmed our view of humanity”.

Saleh later posted on his Facebook, “I'm not going to lie... the lady at the end of this video almost made me cry


This social experiment was possibly one of the most eye opening experiences ever. EVERY SINGLE PERSON STOPPED and interfered. NOWHERE ELSE IN THE WORLD have we seen such a response!

This video is hard proof that the Australian public do not welcome hate against Muslims. Yes it does occur. But it is clearly not welcome. ‪#‎Respect”

_________________
My job is to travel the world delivering Chaos and Candy.

We don't know the Questions... does that means we cannot seek the Answers?
avatar
veya_victaous
The Mod Loki, Minister of Chaos & Candy, Emperor of the Southern Realms, Captain Kangaroo

Posts : 18743
Join date : 2013-01-24
Age : 35
Location : Australia

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Terror Alert may be downgraded from “beheading” to “plastic swords”

Post by captain on Thu Oct 09, 2014 11:34 am

veya_victaous wrote:
veya_victaous wrote:


The gulf between Murdoch Media and regular Aussies is becoming apparent, this video makes me proud to be Aussie....

Update on the Video

Bugger Team Australia, it’s time for Team Be A Decent Human Being And Be Respectful To Everyone No Matter Where You’re From. The team name could do with some work, but you get the idea.

Recent newspaper headlines might suggest otherwise, but a social experiment conducted by student Kamal Saleh shows that a lot of Aussies are actually pretty great.

Saleh, who studies media and law at Macquarie University, used hidden cameras to film the reactions of passers-by when they witness anti-Muslim abuse in Sydney. The responses were beautiful, as many people rushed over to confront the abuser or to usher the victims away.

Saleh has said, “We did not expect every single person that witnessed the attack to intervene. It was an overwhelming response. It reaffirmed our view of humanity”.

Saleh later posted on his Facebook, “I'm not going to lie... the lady at the end of this video almost made me cry


This social experiment was possibly one of the most eye opening experiences ever. EVERY SINGLE PERSON STOPPED and interfered. NOWHERE ELSE IN THE WORLD have we seen such a response!

This video is hard proof that the Australian public do not welcome hate against Muslims. Yes it does occur. But it is clearly not welcome. ‪#‎Respect”
It made me feel such pride being an aussie. Did you see that lady at the end, she had some big balls. Good on her!
avatar
captain

Posts : 760
Join date : 2013-02-13

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Terror Alert may be downgraded from “beheading” to “plastic swords”

Post by veya_victaous on Thu Oct 09, 2014 12:27 pm

@Captain Jane
Yep if only more people would join 'Team Be A Decent Human Being And Be Respectful To Everyone No Matter Where You’re From'. Much better than fools with divisive Rhetoric telling us the solution to hate from some little group is to practice more hate ourselves.

I'm Glad So many Aussies are Standing up a telling the Gov't and media to stop with the Bullshit. (unfortunately Abbott is a racist and the most extreme RW PM we have had in my life time) It has raised a lot of Questions about 'what is good?' we can see the hate from the Abbott Gov't and Murdoch Press which no local events warrant and Australia is Uniting is Saying "they are not good people, you are not good Mr Abbott so YOU have no right to call others out as evil" we can see the Vast majority of Muslims like Most people are actually good and just want safety, security and prosperity.
What is good? well most Aussies agree standing up for those weaker than yourself and Kindness in general, being tolerant and accepting of people for who they are, allowing people to indulge in their Individuality and Humanity (to the extent that it does not hurt others).

_________________
My job is to travel the world delivering Chaos and Candy.

We don't know the Questions... does that means we cannot seek the Answers?
avatar
veya_victaous
The Mod Loki, Minister of Chaos & Candy, Emperor of the Southern Realms, Captain Kangaroo

Posts : 18743
Join date : 2013-01-24
Age : 35
Location : Australia

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Terror Alert may be downgraded from “beheading” to “plastic swords”

Post by veya_victaous on Thu Oct 09, 2014 2:54 pm

It seem even in the USA Toddlers are significantly more dangerous than terrorists

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/guns/toddlers-killed-more-americans-terrorists-did-year

In 2010, 13,186 people died in terrorist attacks worldwide, while 31,672 people were killed with firearms in America alone


Listed below are the 11 gun fatalities I found where a preschooler pulled the trigger (from Jan. 1 to June 9, 2013). Starting with a list of five toddler shooting deaths The Jewish Daily Forward published in early May, I unearthed six additional cases. This tragic, unthinkable event has happened every month, like clock-work.

Jan. 10: 6-year-old playmate shoots and kills 4-year-old Trinity Ross, Kansas City, Kan.

Feb. 11: 4-year-old Joshua Johnson shoots and kills himself, Memphis, Tenn.

Feb. 24: 4-year-old Jaiden Pratt dies after shooting himself in the stomach while his father sleeps, Houston.

March 30: 4-year-old Rahquel Carr shot and killed either by 6-year-old brother or another young playmate, Miami.

April 6: Josephine Fanning, 48, shot and killed by 4-year-old boy at a barbecue, Wilson County, Tenn.

April 8: 4-year-old shoots and kills 6-year-old friend Brandon Holt, Toms River, N.J.

April 9: 3-year-old is killed after he finds a pink gun that he thinks is a toy, Greenville, S.C.

April 30: 2-year-old Caroline Sparks killed by her 5-year-old brother with his Cricket “My First Rifle” marketed to kids, Cumberland County, Ky.

May 1: 3-year-old Darrien Nez shoots himself in the face and dies after finding his grandmother’s gun, Yuma, Ariz.

May 7: 3-year-old Jadarrius Speights fatally shoots himself with his uncle’s gun, Tampa, Fla.

June 7: 4-year-old fatally shoots his father, Green Beret Justin Thomas, Prescott Valley, Ariz.

_________________
My job is to travel the world delivering Chaos and Candy.

We don't know the Questions... does that means we cannot seek the Answers?
avatar
veya_victaous
The Mod Loki, Minister of Chaos & Candy, Emperor of the Southern Realms, Captain Kangaroo

Posts : 18743
Join date : 2013-01-24
Age : 35
Location : Australia

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Terror Alert may be downgraded from “beheading” to “plastic swords”

Post by >THE Ben Reilly< on Thu Oct 09, 2014 6:31 pm

What we're seeing is the teachings of Islam being twisted by violent people, just as the teachings of every religion have been twisted toward violence throughout history -- "they don't worship the true God, they must die."

Islam teaches that violence is acceptable in self-defense. It's kind of a weird position if you're raised to believe in the sky-daddy who says don't ever, ever hurt others -- and particularly if you're among the small minority that actually believes in that.

If you don't/can't understand why Middle Eastern Muslims have felt like they have to defend themselves from the West, you're ignorant.

If you are, just record your ignorance here and I'm sure there will be plenty of members who will helpfully illustrate to you the past century of violence that has been carried about by Western nations against Muslim people. To put it bluntly, Muslims in the Middle East have really not had to stretch logic in order to make their argument that the West has it in for them.

The tragic misunderstanding is that we in the West don't, for the most part, really butcher their people because of their religion, but because they happen to be standing on top of the oil reserves we want ...

_________________
“And it's been a long time, Lord, since I sat down and had a cry.”

Cody Jinks
avatar
>THE Ben Reilly<
Cowboy King. Dread Pirate of the Guadalupe. Enemy of the American people.

Posts : 24856
Join date : 2013-01-20
Age : 44
Location : Funkytown, Texas

View user profile http://www.newsfixboard.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Terror Alert may be downgraded from “beheading” to “plastic swords”

Post by Guest on Thu Oct 09, 2014 11:58 pm

That has to be the most contradictory counter you have made Ben, one of which is actually ignoring history, where you seem to arguing for the justification of retribution based around, where we try to minimize civilian causalities in conflicts we went into to help a nation.

The view behind oil is nothing short of complete bollocks, as I dare anyone here to show me what benefit the US has received in Oil from Iraq, since they freed the people from the dictatorship of Saddam?

What you are doing Ben is making a mockery of Liberalism, because no Abrahamic faith is okay or even a tolerant religion, in fact the first defined racism found in history is found within the Old Testament, where Jews are placed above others. Now lets get one thing straight, there is millions that follow all 3 and have no issue, with people following these faiths, but to try and paint some false picture that the doctrine behind these religions is okay and place blame on the west for centuries old conflicts between Sunni and Shia's is complete nonsense. The reality is people keep making poor excuse, where history has shown for centuries countless conflicts based around literal beliefs, where religion holds power, and that is where your problem is, no matter which of the 3.

Now going to war due to a lie was wrong, but basically it shows that once the Iraqi's were free, they started fighting between themselves, again due to religious conflict of the 2 sects. So you are faced with a dilemma Ben, was it better under a genocidal dictator for the Iraqi's, were he gassed Kurds butchering thousands, started conflicts that caused countless deaths or better when the Allies freed the Iraq people, of which Sunnis and Shia's, with centuries of hate between them, fueled by both Salafism from Saudi and Iran pulling the strings of Shia extremist, decided to throw this opportunity of peace away, to continue butchering each other, over who follows the right version of Islam?

You see the poor claim made around the western people being to blame here is not only false, but ignoring the blatant issue here of two ideological groups ( a minority in both Sunni and Shia communities) intent on armed Jihad against each other. Not only this, you only have to see after the Arab spring, where countless protests for progression and Democracy have failed, where the core problem is an element of those with literal beliefs within Islam again fearing the loss of religious control, from the two main sects. To cast this on the west, ignoring the root cause of the problem, two Islamic sects at each others throats, is insulting the many victims cased by the ideology of both.

Nobody denies the West has made mistake, so has the East, where Islam had been spread over 80% by the sword, were as bad as the West with Slavery, to the extent, using history as you are poorly doing shows how one sided you are looking at this, when I can throw way more into the mix. That achieves nothing, if you are failing to recognise where the problems are. .

Many other nations have been liberated or occupied, how many have then carried suicide bombings, not only in their own nations, but countless others?
How many have moved on without countless violence, shall we start with Japan and Germany for starters?
Look even at Israel and you start to see a pattern, many Muslim controlled nations seem incapable of concessions and negotiation. That is not a problem for all Muslims, they are not to blame, Islam is to blame for their view point thinking lands, they themselves once conquered can never be conceded and thus have a view point to continually fight for them.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Terror Alert may be downgraded from “beheading” to “plastic swords”

Post by Original Quill on Fri Oct 10, 2014 2:43 am

victorisnotamused wrote:untill they start bringing their nukes and bio weapons to YOU ....then we will hear a different tune......

Understand the Law of Inevitability.

Baladi D wrote:
Law of Inevitability

A few years back I was working in a Bank back in Bangalore. As with most jobs in the world this was a job filled with pressures of facing customers and relentless questions. And on bad days, anyone would cop it in plenty. As a young officer, I was eager to provide the best service possible and ensure that the customer in front of me went away happy. But a few of the cases it did not happen. Sometimes it was due to my inexperience, a few times because of circumstances well beyond my control. On one such occasion, it was a saturday and it was a very busy day at the branch. Saturdays are usually the worst in a bank branch. And this was an exceptionally bad saturday. The queues had grown so long that it stretched well outside the branch. Customers were naturally irate and started shouting and groaning. I was feeling miserable sitting there in the front desk and trying very hard to control things. I always like to be in charge of things and take control of situations. And this situation was no exception. And to top it all, the system also slowed down and then completely died down. Now there was pandemonium in the branch. Customers were yelling at us and each one of the staff bearing the brunt of it. At this point there was an elderly gentleman sitting in front of me. He wanted a DD printed and I was fidgeting around the desk trying to get the system to respond to my actions. In between I looked apologetically at this gentleman and said sorry. He simply smiled. This went on for about 15 minutes. I was increasingly getting agitated. I was hoping the system would restart. The simple thought of being helpless and not being able to resolve the issue was driving me mad. At this point, the elderly gentleman asked me my name and started a conversaton. He said,

"I can see that you are extremely stressed. Why is that?"

I replied, " What to do sir, it is a very busy morning an there are so many people who are waiting for us to do our jobs and I feel I am letting them all down"

He smiled again and said "Ok. So why are you unable to help them? "

I broke from my persistent fidgeting of the system and looked at his face. It was a very benign face filled with a wonderful glow that I can't quite explain. In all sincerity I replied, " The system is down since the last 20 minutes and all transactions have ground to a halt. I feel as a banker I should be in control."

He replied " Look Balaji, I can appreciate your eagerness. I also understand your need to be in control all the time. But do you realize there are somethings that are inevitable and no amount of fretting and fidgeting will solve it?".

http://countrybrute.blogspot.com/2007/12/law-of-inevitability.html

_________________
“Little thieves are hanged, but great thieves are praised.” — Old Russian proverb, offered by Vladimir Putin to Donald J. Trump, Helsinki, July, 2018.

"I don't stand by anything."  ― Donald Trump, interview with John Dickerson, 5.1.17...

“That's libertarians for you — anarchists who want police protection from their slaves.” ― Kim Stanley Robinson, Green Mars

Someone is above the rule of law in America.
avatar
Original Quill

Posts : 25902
Join date : 2013-12-19
Age : 53
Location : Northern California

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Terror Alert may be downgraded from “beheading” to “plastic swords”

Post by Guest on Fri Oct 10, 2014 3:05 am

Wow, how absurd.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Terror Alert may be downgraded from “beheading” to “plastic swords”

Post by >THE Ben Reilly< on Fri Oct 10, 2014 6:03 am

Yes, the Iraq War was a war for oil, and it was a war with winners: Big Oil.

It has been 10 years since Operation Iraqi Freedom's bombs first landed in Baghdad. And while most of the U.S.-led coalition forces have long since gone, Western oil companies are only getting started.

Before the 2003 invasion, Iraq's domestic oil industry was fully nationalized and closed to Western oil companies. A decade of war later, it is largely privatized and utterly dominated by foreign firms.

From ExxonMobil and Chevron to BP and Shell, the West's largest oil companies have set up shop in Iraq. So have a slew of American oil service companies, including Halliburton, the Texas-based firm Dick Cheney ran before becoming George W. Bush's running mate in 2000.

The war is the one and only reason for this long sought and newly acquired access.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/19/opinion/iraq-war-oil-juhasz/

Didge, sounds like you've got some studying to do. I'm actually biting my tongue a bit; let me just ask that we keep this debate civil, please.

_________________
“And it's been a long time, Lord, since I sat down and had a cry.”

Cody Jinks
avatar
>THE Ben Reilly<
Cowboy King. Dread Pirate of the Guadalupe. Enemy of the American people.

Posts : 24856
Join date : 2013-01-20
Age : 44
Location : Funkytown, Texas

View user profile http://www.newsfixboard.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Terror Alert may be downgraded from “beheading” to “plastic swords”

Post by Guest on Fri Oct 10, 2014 6:07 am

Ben_Reilly wrote:
Yes, the Iraq War was a war for oil, and it was a war with winners: Big Oil.

It has been 10 years since Operation Iraqi Freedom's bombs first landed in Baghdad. And while most of the U.S.-led coalition forces have long since gone, Western oil companies are only getting started.

Before the 2003 invasion, Iraq's domestic oil industry was fully nationalized and closed to Western oil companies. A decade of war later, it is largely privatized and utterly dominated by foreign firms.

From ExxonMobil and Chevron to BP and Shell, the West's largest oil companies have set up shop in Iraq. So have a slew of American oil service companies, including Halliburton, the Texas-based firm Dick Cheney ran before becoming George W. Bush's running mate in 2000.

The war is the one and only reason for this long sought and newly acquired access.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/19/opinion/iraq-war-oil-juhasz/

Didge, sounds like you've got some studying to do. I'm actually biting my tongue a bit; let me just ask that we keep this debate civil, please.


Sorry Ben, you failed to answer my point, where again a news report shows how poor your understanding is here:

Those who claim that the U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003 to get control of the country's giant oil reserves will be left scratching their heads by the results of last weekend's auction of Iraqi oil contracts: Not a single U.S. company secured a deal in the auction of contracts that will shape the Iraqi oil industry for the next couple of decades. Two of the most lucrative of the multi-billion-dollar oil contracts went to two countries which bitterly opposed the U.S. invasion — Russia and China — while even Total Oil of France, which led the charge to deny international approval for the war at the U.N. Security Council in 2003, won a bigger stake than the Americans in the most recent auction. "[The distribution of oil contracts] certainly answers the theory that the war was for the benefit of big U.S. oil interests," says Alex Munton, Middle East oil analyst for the energy consultancy Wood Mackenzie, whose clients include major U.S. companies. "That has not been demonstrated by what has happened this week."


http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1948787,00.html




Again I challenge anyone to show where America benefited from the Oil of Iraq?

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Terror Alert may be downgraded from “beheading” to “plastic swords”

Post by Guest on Fri Oct 10, 2014 6:10 am

Civil?
Since when have I been rude to you?
Nice that you point this out to me and not others, blimey, no matter my points stand and if you are as biased on pulling me up, the I know where we stand.
Be interested when you tell others like your own moderation team in Veya to do so the same.

I disagree with your view points, that does not mean I am not being civil, and if I think some of them are bollocks I will say so, where as seen the view on oil is bollocks, Jesus get a grip Ben,

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Terror Alert may be downgraded from “beheading” to “plastic swords”

Post by Guest on Fri Oct 10, 2014 6:46 am

So Ben, if this war was about Oil, why is America getting less from Iraq, than before 2003?


 
Top 10 Sources of US Crude Oil Imports in 2013 (million barrels per day).




Furthermore, the United States fully supported the United Nations’ oil embargo against Iraq, imposed when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1990, despite the reality that we were far more dependent on imported oil then than we are now. We continued to support it even when it was revealed that the eventual softening of those sanctions, known as the oil for food program, revealed that Russia, France and a number of other nations were collaborating with Saddam Hussein to violate sanctions in return for billions of dollars of ill-gotten gains. Of the 52 countries named in a report compiled by former Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker detailing the scandal, only 28 even wanted the evidence, and the United States led the way in prosecuting those implicated.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Terror Alert may be downgraded from “beheading” to “plastic swords”

Post by >THE Ben Reilly< on Fri Oct 10, 2014 7:15 am

First of all Didge, any failure of U.S. oil companies to win contracts in Iraq doesn't actually prove the war wasn't fought for oil. The war did in fact privatize their formerly nationalized oil reserves.

Second -- I think your news is out of date (it was published in 2009). I found these items which point to U.S. oil firms doing business in Iraq. It's important to remember that before, no non-Iraqi oil firm could do business there:

Updated Nov. 28, 2013 1:48 p.m. ET
Exxon Mobil Corp. XOM -2.92%  agreed to sell stakes in its West Qurna-1 oil project in Iraq to PetroChina Co. 601857.SH +0.38%  and PT Pertamina (Persero) of Indonesia.

Exxon said Thursday that PetroChina would take a 25% stake in the project and Pertamina would take a 10% stake. The West Qurna-1 field is located near Basra in southern Iraq. It is one of several big fields that Western oil companies agreed in 2010 to help Iraq develop.

After selling the stakes, Exxon will retain 25% of the field and continue as its operator. The rest of the field is owned by Royal Dutch Shell RDSB.LN -2.07%  PLC and Iraq's state-owned South Oil Co.
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304017204579225492213548538

This sheds some more light on the auction you mentioned and shows that U.S. companies will make tens of billions of dollars:

The auction’s outcome helped defuse criticism in the Arab world that the United States had invaded Iraq for its oil. “No one, even the United States, can steal the oil,” the Iraqi government spokesman, Ali al-Dabbagh, said at the time.

But American companies can, apparently, drill for the oil.

In fact, American drilling companies stand to make tens of billions of dollars from the new petroleum activity in Iraq long before any of the oil producers start seeing any returns on their investments.

Lukoil and many of the other international oil companies that won fields in the auction are now subcontracting mostly with the four largely American oil services companies that are global leaders in their field: Halliburton, Baker Hughes, Weatherford International and Schlumberger. Those four have won the largest portion of the subcontracts to drill for oil, build wells and refurbish old equipment.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/17/business/energy-environment/17oil.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

So Americans are indeed benefitting quite a bit from it, but I'll point out that I never claimed it was fought so Americans could have the oil. The Bush administration invaded Iraq on behalf of the petroleum industry, not for the American people.

From my CNN source above:

In 2000, Big Oil, including Exxon, Chevron, BP and Shell, spent more money to get fellow oilmen Bush and Cheney into office than they had spent on any previous election. Just over a week into Bush's first term, their efforts paid off when the National Energy Policy Development Group, chaired by Cheney, was formed, bringing the administration and the oil companies together to plot our collective energy future. In March, the task force reviewed lists and maps outlining Iraq's entire oil productive capacity.

Planning for a military invasion was soon under way. Bush's first Treasury secretary, Paul O'Neill, said in 2004, "Already by February (2001), the talk was mostly about logistics. Not the why (to invade Iraq), but the how and how quickly."
In its final report in May 2001 (PDF), the task force argued that Middle Eastern countries should be urged "to open up areas of their energy sectors to foreign investment." This is precisely what has been achieved in Iraq.

_________________
“And it's been a long time, Lord, since I sat down and had a cry.”

Cody Jinks
avatar
>THE Ben Reilly<
Cowboy King. Dread Pirate of the Guadalupe. Enemy of the American people.

Posts : 24856
Join date : 2013-01-20
Age : 44
Location : Funkytown, Texas

View user profile http://www.newsfixboard.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Terror Alert may be downgraded from “beheading” to “plastic swords”

Post by Guest on Fri Oct 10, 2014 7:54 am

So your argument is now benefiting a bit?
Really?
Your claim was we went to war for the oil, even though no US company has the monopoly on any Iraq oil?
Sorry that shows there is no case for the claim the war was about oil, because if it was, it stands to reason America  would  maintain a stranglehold on both their supply and production.
It does not and the fact is oil imported from Iraq is less than what it was in 2003, which dispels any myths claimed from the left.

There is certainly some truth to going to war based around economic stability, where America is reliant on the dollar being stable in increasing oil fluctuations, but again even this does not stand up to scrutiny, as oil quadrupled in price, before any recession hit.

You see the case for oil is nothing short of a myth, America has not benefited in any shape or form, with oil from the invasion of Iraq, it has even decreased what it imports showing it is nothing short of an ill conceived fabrication by the left. All your sources are views, not facts, I have given you facts of which it is China, Russia and France that have benefited from Ira oil, not the US

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Terror Alert may be downgraded from “beheading” to “plastic swords”

Post by Guest on Fri Oct 10, 2014 8:02 am

‘War for Oil’ — The Notion That Will Not Die
By Dr. Stephen J Sniegoski | My Catbird Seat | March 11, 2014

Those who claim that the United States went to war for oil seem to assume that since Iraq has huge reserves of oil, gaining control of that resource must have been the reason that the United States invaded the country. As the most prominent intellectual exponent of that view, Noam Chomsky, has put it:

Of course it was Iraq’s energy resources. It’s not even a question. Iraq’s one of the major oil producers in the world. It has the second largest reserves and it’s right in the heart of the Gulf’s oil-producing region, which U.S. intelligence predicts is going to be two thirds of world resources in coming years. [1]

Operating from that assumption, the proponents of the war-for-oil thesis have endeavored to produce evidence that proves it, at least in their eyes.

I have offered counter-evidence in my book, The Transparent Cabal: The Neoconservative Agenda, War in the Middle East, and the National Interest of Israel, and elsewhere to show that the existing arguments in support of the oil-war thesis just do not provide anything close to compelling proof. [2]

The fact that Iraq has a large amount of oil does not mean that the oil companies would necessarily push for war; instead, they could seek to exploit that oil in peaceful ways.

Indeed, the companies were pushing for an end to sanctions against Iraq. A Business Week article in May 2001, for example, reported that the easing of sanctions on “rogue” states “pits powerful interests such as the pro-Israeli lobby and the U.S. oil industry against each other. And it is sure to preoccupy the Bush Administration and Congress.” [3]

In short, an easing of sanctions supported by the oil companies, which would enable them to have access to Iraq’s oil, would serve to strengthen Saddam and make it more difficult to overthrow his regime, which was the goal of the neocons, a leading element of the Israel lobby.

Moreover, the oil companies were quite fearful of the impact of war on oil production. According to oil analyst Anthony Sampson in December 2002, “Oil companies have had little influence on U.S. policy-making. Most big American companies, including oil companies, do not see a war as good for business, as falling share prices indicate.” [4]

Fareed Mohamedi of PFC Energy, a consulting firm based in Washington, D.C., that advised petroleum firms, stated that “[t]he big oil companies were not enthusiastic about the Iraqi war,” maintaining that “[c]orporations like Exxon-Mobile and Chevron-Texaco want stability, and this is not what Bush is providing in Iraq and the Gulf region.” [5]

Despite the lack of solid evidence, and the existence of contrary evidence, the war-for-oil argument just will not die, for various political, psychological, social, and economic reasons.

It fits the prevalent belief in the rapacious nature of capitalist companies, and it is also a safe view to hold — it is doubtful that anyone ever lost a job or a friend for blaming the oil interests, unless one were actually employed by an oil company. In contrast, the explanation involving the neoconservatives and Israel represents a dangerous taboo.

Given the strong attraction of the oil argument, therefore, it is appropriate to examine a prominent piece of purported evidence used by its adherents. Thus, this article will look at the role of the National Energy Policy Development Group, which President George W. Bush created in his second week in office. The group had as its purpose the creation of a national energy policy for the United States. Chaired by Vice President Dick Cheney — who in the war-for-oil scenario is assumed to be an archetypal oil man — it would be dubbed the Cheney Energy Task Force.

As Cheney’s biographer Barton Gellman points out, the task force became, in many respects, a “creature of Cheney’s worldview.” [6] De-emphasizing conservation and environmental protection, Cheney believed that the United States needed a “near-term boost in domestic energy production,” which had suffered from over-regulation. [7] In short, Cheney’s view on energy production coincided with that of the producers of fossil fuels. And in developing the energy policy, he would consult closely with leading figures in the fossil-fuels industry while giving short shrift to the opinions of environmentalists, with whom he rarely met.

Perhaps because of the biased nature of the sources of his information, but also in line with his expansive view of the executive branch’s prerogatives, Cheney kept the meetings secret, and only as a result of legal efforts was any information about them revealed to the public; and even then it was far from everything. It was that secrecy that the war-for-oil theorists fell upon in order to substantiate their claim that the oil interest played the leading role in bringing about the U.S. attack on Iraq.

To the adherents of the thesis, it seemed apparent that the secrecy meant that something very ominous had been discussed in those meetings that could not be made known to the public, and the most ominous development in the early Bush administration was assumed to be the planning for the attack on Iraq.

Now, there is plenty of evidence that such planning was underway, and in fact had already been made, by the neoconservatives, with whom Cheney was certainly in league and whom he had actually brought into the Bush administration. However, there is no evidence that an attack on Iraq garnered substantial support from the oil industry. Far from pushing for war, industry representatives publicly supported the elimination of sanctions on Iraq (and elsewhere) so that they could have access to oil.

Moreover, they were concerned about any form of instability in the Middle East, fearing that war would disrupt the extraction and transportation of oil. Thus, ex-President George H.W. Bush and his cronies, who according to the oil-war scenario are associated with the war on Iraq, were at least cool to the war.

Brent Scowcroft, for one, was actively opposed. Scowcroft had been the elder Bush’s national security advisor and during the run-up to the 2003 war sat on the board of Pennzoil-Quaker State. [8]

As an aside, let me deal with the implication that the oil companies were advocating war only in secret meetings with high Bush administration officials, with their pro-war views unknown to the media.

That invisible approach is highly unlikely. Any contention that the oil interests primarily work behind the scenes is belied by the fact that they have been quite visible indeed in their public advocacy on many issues: fracking regulations; the termination of restrictions on the export of American-produced crude oil; the Keystone XL pipeline; regulations on refineries; and opposition to limitations on the use of fossil fuels because of “climate change” (anthropogenic global warming). And as mentioned, the oil companies were visible in their public opposition to the existing oil sanctions in 2001. The oil companies have been not only quite vocal in those matters but also far from successful in getting their way.

The war-for-oil theorists’ suggestion that the oil interests could be more successful taking an invisible approach instead of a public one does not seem plausible. The neocons had developed and publicized their Middle East war agenda before 2001; once George W. Bush took office, they openly promoted an attack on Iraq, both in the media and from their key positions in the administration. All of that being so, it is reasonable to believe that it was their efforts that accounted for the U.S. attack. There is no need to posit any undocumented, invisible support from the oil lobby; by the standards of proof in argumentation, the neocon explanation fits the simplicity principle of Occam’s razor. In an example of reverse logic, proponents of the oil thesis deny, ignore, or at least downplay the role of the neocons in bringing about the war on Iraq.

Despite counter-evidence, proponents of the war-for-oil thesis claim to find solid evidence for the coming invasion in the documents produced by the Cheney Energy Task Force. Some war-for-oil proponents, for example, have cited the maps of Iraqi oil fields used by the task force as evidence of plans for how those fields would be divvied up among U.S. companies. As the result of a court order, Judicial Watch, a conservative legal group, obtained a batch of task force-related U.S. Commerce Department papers that included a detailed map of oil fields, terminals, and pipelines, as well as a list titled “Foreign Suitors of Iraqi Oilfield Contracts.” But the papers obtained also included a detailed map of oil fields and pipelines in Saudi Arabia and in the United Arab Emirates, as well as a list of oil and gas development projects in those two countries. The U.S. secretary of commerce said there were also maps of other key oil-producing regions of the world, including Russia, North America, the Middle East, and the Caspian Sea region. It seems quite reasonable that a task force on energy would seek clear knowledge about the key global locations of oil production. [9]

Strategic-Energy-Policy-Challenges-for-the-21st-CenturyIraq is barely mentioned in the final report from the Cheney task force, but it is given more, though still quite limited, attention in a report, “Strategic Energy Policy: Challenges for the 21st Century,” by an Independent Task Force sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations and the James A.Baker III Institute of Public Policy.

According to the Baker Institute, that task force was “comprised [of] 52 prominent Americans from government, industry, and academia … [and] offered 110 recommendations to the Cheney task force and U.S. Congress regarding steps to build a comprehensive energy policy and national consensus.”

The chairman of the task force was Edward L. Morse, an energy economist and at the time an advisor at Hess Energy Trading Co. During the Carter administration he served as deputy assistant secretary of state for international energy policy, from 1979 to 1981.[10]

Adherents of the oil-war argument have connected the Baker report to the Cheney task force and have interpreted its few references to Iraq as indications of the forthcoming American invasion. [11]

The Baker group urged four “immediate steps”; one such step, labeled “Deter and Manage International Supply Shortfalls,” was in five parts; the Iraq issue was merely one of those five parts. The “immediate steps” were “to be considered in the very short term to assure that appropriate mechanisms are in place to deal with potential supply disruptions and to buffer the economy from adverse impacts of price volatility.” [12]

The recommendation pertaining to Iraq read: “Review policies toward Iraq with the aim to lowering anti-Americanism in the Middle East and elsewhere, and set the groundwork to eventually ease Iraqi oil-field investment restrictions.” The report acknowledged that “Iraq remains a destabilizing influence to U.S. allies in the Middle East, as well as to regional and global order, and to the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East. Saddam Hussein has also demonstrated a willingness to threaten to use the oil weapon and to use his own export program to manipulate oil markets.” [13]

The report stated that “[t]he United States should conduct an immediate policy review toward Iraq, including military, energy, economic, and political/diplomatic assessments.” [14] The emphasis, however, was not on military action against Iraq but on a sanctions policy toward Iraq that was better-coordinated with other countries, the existing sanctions being perceived as harming the Iraqi people without effectively weakening Saddam’s power and ability to acquire weaponry.

“The United States,” the report thus maintained, “should then develop an integrated strategy with key allies in Europe and Asia and with key countries in the Middle East to restate the goals with respect to Iraqi policy and to restore a cohesive coalition of key allies…. Actions and policies to promote these goals should endeavor to enhance the well-being of the Iraqi people. Sanctions that are not effective should be phased out and replaced with highly focused and enforced sanctions that target the regime’s ability to maintain and acquire weapons of mass destruction. A new plan of action should be developed to use diplomatic and other means to support U.N. Security Council efforts to build a strong arms-control regime to stem the flow of arms and controlled substances into Iraq.” [15]

The Baker report continued: “Once an arms-control program is in place, the United States could consider reducing restrictions on oil investments inside Iraq. Like it or not, Iraqi reserves represent a major asset that can quickly add capacity to world oil markets and inject a more competitive tenor to oil trade.” [16]

The report acknowledged that if a diminution of the sanctions led to an increase in Saddam’s oil revenues, he “could be a greater security threat to U.S. allies in the region if weapons of mass destruction (WMD) sanctions, weapons regimes, and the coalition against him are not strengthened.” Nonetheless, it supported making a change since the continuation of the “oil sanctions is becoming increasingly difficult to implement” and “Saddam Hussein has many means of gaining revenues, and the sanctions regime helps perpetuate his lock on the country’s economy.” [17] A one-sided reading of that passage alone might seem to include war as one alternative to the existing sanctions, but, in fact, the report explicitly prescribed narrowing the scope of sanctions.

The Baker Institute report’s fundamental concern that “energy disruptions could have a potentially enormous impact on the U.S. and world economy, and … affect U.S. national security and foreign policy in dramatic ways” [18] would suggest that the United States not engage in military adventures that could destabilize the region. The U.S. invasion of Iraq certainly did cause such destabilization and explains why the oil interests and the traditional American foreign-policy establishment in general were cool or opposed to the attack on Iraq. [19]

Now, once it had become clear that the United States would attack Iraq, and certainly after it actually had invaded, one may assume that the oil companies would want to take advantage of the situation and jockey for a favored position in postwar Iraq. But that does not somehow prove by itself that the oil interests pushed the country into war. And as it happened, the U.S. government did little to guarantee a favorable position for American oil companies after the war. As I pointed out in The Transparent Cabal, the U.S. government never made plans (much less implemented such plans) to dominate Iraq, to the extent of being able to control Iraq’s oil for its own benefit and that of its oil companies at the expense of the Iraq government and people. To exercise any permanent control of Iraq’s oil reserves, Washington would have had to turn the country into a virtual colony (which would have been very difficult, if not impossible). [20] It was inevitable that an Iraqi government with any type of autonomy would sell oil leases to the highest bidder.

Under the oil argument, the violence and political resistance that sprang up in Iraq during the occupation thwarted the U.S. plan to control oil. The likelihood of such internal violence, however, was fully recognized in a number of pre-invasion government studies. [21] About the only ostensibly knowledgeable group that claimed otherwise was the neocons, and if their expressed view here is accepted as a candid account, it seems necessary to accept also their public pronouncements about establishing democracy and ridding Iraq of WMDs as reasons for the war.

When Iraq began to sell oil leases to foreign companies in 2009, only a very few went to American companies while a disproportionate number went to America’s major rivals, China and Russia. That could hardly be a goal of American foreign policy. One reason given for those countries’ success has been that their companies were government-owned or government-supported, and thus could better afford to incur risk and accept low profits than their American counterparts, which were strictly private. [22] Of course, if the U.S. government really fought a multi-trillion-dollar war for the purpose of gaining control of Iraqi oil for its companies, one would expect it to subsidize any oil leases in Iraq by American companies, the cost of which would pale beside the overall war costs.

In sum, there does not seem to be any real evidence that Washington went to war against Iraq to enhance the profits of the oil industry, or control oil for the United States, nor is there any logical reason to think that would be the case. Nevertheless, as I indicated at the beginning, there are strong political, psychological, social, and economic motivations for maintaining that belief, especially as opposed to the non-P.C. and rather dangerous alternative view to which I adhere — focusing on the role of the pro-Israel neocons. In most cases, those concerns are far more important in determining the prevalence of any view in modern America than logic and evidence, even for that very small minority of the population with high intellectual ability who are actually knowledgeable about the issues.

http://alethonews.wordpress.com/2014/03/19/war-for-oil-the-notion-that-will-not-die/

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Terror Alert may be downgraded from “beheading” to “plastic swords”

Post by >THE Ben Reilly< on Fri Oct 10, 2014 8:06 am

No, again Didge -- I didn't say the war was to benefit American oil companies (though you must be pretty well-off if you consider $10 billion-plus in contracts "a bit"). It was to benefit Western oil companies, which it has, and to de-nationalize Iraq's oil reserves, which it did.

And obviously you don't have to actually consume the oil or even own it to benefit, as many American companies are going to get rich simply drilling for it.

The tragic misunderstanding is that we in the West don't, for the most part, really butcher their people because of their religion, but because they happen to be standing on top of the oil reserves we want ...

_________________
“And it's been a long time, Lord, since I sat down and had a cry.”

Cody Jinks
avatar
>THE Ben Reilly<
Cowboy King. Dread Pirate of the Guadalupe. Enemy of the American people.

Posts : 24856
Join date : 2013-01-20
Age : 44
Location : Funkytown, Texas

View user profile http://www.newsfixboard.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Terror Alert may be downgraded from “beheading” to “plastic swords”

Post by Guest on Fri Oct 10, 2014 8:12 am

So it was no benefit to America, thus America did not go to war to benefit other nations either, so the view on oil is nothing short of complete nonsense made up by the left with no evidence.
I suggest you read my previous article, as it shows how absurd the view is that it was about Oil

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Terror Alert may be downgraded from “beheading” to “plastic swords”

Post by >THE Ben Reilly< on Fri Oct 10, 2014 8:37 am

Sorry, there's far too much contradictory evidence that points to oil as the reason for the war. Here's some more:

And what happened at President Bush's very first National Security Council meeting is one of (former Bush Treasury Secretary Paul) O'Neill's most startling revelations.

"From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go," says O'Neill, who adds that going after Saddam was topic "A" 10 days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11.

"From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime," says Suskind. "Day one, these things were laid and sealed."

As treasury secretary, O'Neill was a permanent member of the National Security Council. He says in the book he was surprised at the meeting that questions such as "Why Saddam?" and "Why now?" were never asked.

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying 'Go find me a way to do this,'" says O'Neill. "For me, the notion of pre-emption, that the U.S. has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do, is a really huge leap."

And that came up at this first meeting, says O'Neill, who adds that the discussion of Iraq continued at the next National Security Council meeting two days later.

He got briefing materials under this cover sheet. "There are memos. One of them marked, secret, says, 'Plan for post-Saddam Iraq,'" adds Suskind, who says that they discussed an occupation of Iraq in January and February of 2001.

Based on his interviews with O'Neill and several other officials at the meetings, Suskind writes that the planning envisioned peacekeeping troops, war crimes tribunals, and even divvying up Iraq's oil wealth.

He obtained one Pentagon document, dated March 5, 2001, and entitled "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield contracts," which includes a map of potential areas for exploration.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/bush-sought-way-to-invade-iraq/

Review policies toward Iraq with the aim to lowering anti-Americanism in the Middle East and elsewhere, and set the groundwork to eventually ease Iraqi oil-field investment restrictions. Iraq remains a destabilizing influence to U.S. allies in the Middle East, as well as to regional and global order, and to the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East. Saddam Hussein has also demonstrated a willingness to threaten to use the oil weapon and to use his own export program to manipulate oil markets. This would display his personal power, enhance his image as a "Pan Arab" leader supporting the Palestinians against Israel, and pressure others for a lifting of economic sanctions against his regime.
The United States should conduct an immediate policy review toward Iraq, including military, energy, economic, and political/diplomatic assessments. The United States should then develop an integrated strategy with key allies in Europe and Asia and with key countries in the Middle East to restate the goals with respect to Iraqi policy and to restore a cohesive coalition of key allies. Goals should be designed in a realistic fashion, and they should be clearly and consistently stated and defended to revive U.S. credibility on this issue. Actions and policies to promote these goals should endeavor to enhance the well-being of the Iraqi people. Sanctions that are not effective should be phased out and replaced with highly focused and enforced sanctions that target the regime’s ability to maintain and acquire weapons of mass destruction. A new plan of action should be developed to use diplomatic and other means to support U.N. Security Council efforts to build a strong arms-control regime to stem the flow of arms and controlled substances into Iraq. Policy should rebuild coalition cooperation on this issue, while emphasizing the common interest in security. This issue of arms sales to Iraq should be brought near the top of the agenda for dialogue with China and Russia.

Once an arms-control program is in place, the United States could consider reducing restrictions on oil investments inside Iraq. Like it or not, Iraqi reserves represent a major asset that can quickly add capacity to world oil markets and inject a more competitive tenor to oil trade. However, such a policy will be quite costly as this trade-off will encourage Saddam Hussein to boast of his "victory" against the United States, fuel his ambitions, and potentially strengthen his regime. Once so encouraged and if his access to oil revenues were to be increased by adjustments in oil sanctions, Saddam Hussein could be a greater security threat to U.S. allies in the region if weapons of mass destruction (WMD) sanctions, weapons regimes, and the coalition against him are not strengthened. Still, the maintenance of continued oil sanctions is becoming increasingly difficult to implement. Moreover, Saddam Hussein has many means of gaining revenues, and the sanctions regime helps perpetuate his lock on the country’s economy.

Another problem with easing restrictions on the Iraqi oil industry to allow greater investment is that GCC allies of the United States will not like to see Iraq gain larger market share in international oil markets. In fact, even Russia could lose from having sanctions eased on Iraq, because Russian companies now benefit from exclusive contracts and Iraqi export capacity is restrained, supporting the price of oil and raising the value of Russian oil exports. If sanctions covering Iraq’s oil sector were eased and Iraq benefited from infrastructure improvements, Russia might lose its competitive position inside Iraq, and also oil prices might fall over time, hurting the Russian economy. These issues will have to be discussed in bilateral exchanges.

From: Report of an Independent Task Force
Sponsored by the
James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy of Rice University
and the
Council on Foreign Relations

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3535.htm

Throughout the lead-up to the war and well past the fall of Baghdad, oil was the great unmentionable.

But now Bush himself is mentioning it.

At his press conference on Wednesday, he brought up the dirty little word three times as a reason for the United States now to stay in Iraq.

“We can’t tolerate a new terrorist state in the heart of the Middle East, with large oil reserves that could be used to fund its radical ambitions, or used to inflict economic damage on the West,” he said the first time.

“Extreme elements” in Iraq “want to control oil resources,” he said at second reference.

“They’ve got the capacity to use oil as an economic weapon,” he said the third time.

http://www.progressive.org/news/2006/10/4064/so-now-iraq-oil-bush-admits

_________________
“And it's been a long time, Lord, since I sat down and had a cry.”

Cody Jinks
avatar
>THE Ben Reilly<
Cowboy King. Dread Pirate of the Guadalupe. Enemy of the American people.

Posts : 24856
Join date : 2013-01-20
Age : 44
Location : Funkytown, Texas

View user profile http://www.newsfixboard.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Terror Alert may be downgraded from “beheading” to “plastic swords”

Post by Guest on Fri Oct 10, 2014 8:47 am

You are ignoring all the evidence Ben which clearly refutes your claims, you like the world with Bush claiming WMD, have been bought by a complete lie, sorry to burst your bubble, but you have nothing accept circumstantial claims. The evidence clearly shows the Oil companies did not want war, but sanctions lifted and to benefit that way, the war had the opposite affect and as seen America has not benefited.

You have been suckered into a poor myth Ben, sorry, that is the reality of the situation.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Terror Alert may be downgraded from “beheading” to “plastic swords”

Post by >THE Ben Reilly< on Fri Oct 10, 2014 9:06 am

You're not using a lot of logic here, sorry. First off, I am not weighing in either way on whether the oil companies wanted war -- I'm arguing the Bush administration wanted it.

The fact that the U.S. didn't see a big inrush of Iraqi oil after the war is still not proof that the war wasn't started because of oil. Let's say I break into your house and try to rob you. If for some reason I'm unable to take your possessions, that is not in any way evidence that I didn't intend to rob you, right?

Look, I admit that the overall big picture is murkier than simply saying it was or was not started to get at Iraq's oil. I've done some reading that actually suggests that while one faction within the Bush administration did indeed want to start the war to open up the Iraq oil spigots to the rest of the world, there was another faction (which was rather heavily invested in OPEC) that didn't want to open up the spigots for fear that their oil profits would crater:

I'd already had in my hands a 101-page document, another State Department secret scheme, first uncovered by Wall Street Journal reporter Neil King, that called for the privatization, the complete sell-off of every single government-owned asset and industry. And in case anyone missed the point, the sales would include every derrick, pipe and barrel of oil, or, as the document put it, "especially the oil".

That plan was created by a gaggle of corporate lobbyists and neo-cons working for the Heritage Foundation. In 2004, the plan's authenticity was confirmed by Washington power player Grover Norquist. (It's hard to erase the ill memory of Grover excitedly waving around his soft little hands as he boasted about turning Iraq into a free-market Disneyland, recreating Chile in Mesopotamia, complete with the Pinochet-style dictatorship necessary to lock up the assets – while behind Norquist, Richard Nixon snarled at me from a gargantuan portrait.)

The neo-con idea was to break up and sell off Iraq's oil fields, ramp up production, flood the world oil market – and thereby smash OPEC and with it, the political dominance of Saudi Arabia.

General Jay Garner also confirmed the plan to grab the oil. Indeed, Garner told me that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld fired him, when the General, who had lived in Iraq, complained the neo-con grab would set off a civil war. It did. Nevertheless, Rumsfeld replaced Garner with a new American viceroy, Paul Bremer, a partner in Henry Kissinger's firm, to complete the corporate takeover of Iraq's assets – "especially the oil".

But that was not to be. While Bremer oversaw the wall-to-wall transfer of Iraqi industries to foreign corporations, he was stopped cold at the edge of the oil fields.

How? I knew there was only one man who could swat away the entire neo-con army: James Baker, former Secretary of State, Bush family consiglieri and most important, counsel to Exxon-Mobil Corporation and the House of Saud.

(One unwitting source was industry oil-trading maven Edward Morse of Lehman/Credit Suisse, who threatened to sue Harper's Magazine for my quoting him. Morse denied I ever spoke with him. But when I played the tape from my hidden recorder, his memory cleared and he scampered away.)

Weirdly, I was uncovering that the US oil industry was using its full political mojo to prevent their being handed ownership of Iraq's oil fields. That's right: The oil companies did NOT want to own the oil fields – and they sure as hell did not want the oil. Just the opposite. They wanted to make sure there would be a limit on the amount of oil that would come out of Iraq.

There was no way in hell that Baker's clients, from Exxon to Abdullah, were going to let a gaggle of neo-con freaks smash up Iraq's oil industry, break OPEC production quotas, flood the market with six million barrels of Iraqi oil a day and thereby knock its price back down to $13 a barrel where it was in 1998.

http://www.gregpalast.com/how-george-bush-won-the-war-in-iraq-really/

Now, that's from Greg Palast, who I always find you should take with a grain of salt, but his reporting at least is logical and many sources back up the individual claims.

Bottom line -- whether it was about more oil on the global market or not, whether the U.S. benefitted from the privatization of Iraqi oil, or other countries did -- oil was still the primary reason for the Iraq war.

_________________
“And it's been a long time, Lord, since I sat down and had a cry.”

Cody Jinks
avatar
>THE Ben Reilly<
Cowboy King. Dread Pirate of the Guadalupe. Enemy of the American people.

Posts : 24856
Join date : 2013-01-20
Age : 44
Location : Funkytown, Texas

View user profile http://www.newsfixboard.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Terror Alert may be downgraded from “beheading” to “plastic swords”

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum