Islam Dupes Liberal Pacifists

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

raildogg

Lifer
Aug 24, 2004
12,892
572
126
Tuesday 22nd February, 2005

Ansar al-Islam recruiting in Europe grows
Big News Network.com Saturday 19th February, 2005 (UPI)

Europe is emerging as one of the most fertile recruiting grounds for radical Islamists bent on terrorism, western authorities say.

Intelligence officials report an increasing number of recruits from Sweden to Italy are making their way to Iraq under the auspices of Ansar al-Islam, a once-obscure Kurdish group that has evolved into a global network of jihadists, the Washington Post said Friday.

Typical Ansar recruits are young Muslim men of Middle Eastern descent living in Europe. European authorities say that recent Ansar activity includes the following:

-- One of Ansar's top commanders in Iraq, Abu Mohammed Lubnani, once operated as an armed robber in Denmark;

-- Swedish police arrested four Ansar members for allegedly helping to plan twin bombings that killed more than 100 people on Feb. 1, 2004, in the Iraqi city of Irbil; and

-- German police said they broke up a hastily arranged plot by three Ansar members to attack interim Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi during a visit to Berlin.

Ansar is very good -- a leading power -- in terms of mobilizing followers to fight the Americans in Iraq, said Guenther Beckstein, interior minister for the German state of Bavaria.

Text

-------------

More proof of outside interference in Iraq. This isn't the only case where outside influence is causing chaos and death in Iraq. Iran and Syria are the other two evil forces that are hell-bent in trying to destroy Iraq.

Of course this thread isn't about Iraq. But it shows you that there are sick people out there trying to kill innocent people all in the name of Islam. Or their distorted version of Islam.



Vol. 4, No. 18 16 February 2005


How Egypt Molded Modern Radical Islam
Zvi Mazel
Former Israeli Ambassador to Egypt and Sweden


*

The basic ideology of political Islam - which was adopted later by all radical groups - finds its origin within Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood.
*

During the 1940s the Muslim Brotherhood turned into a powerful extra-political force, leading a campaign of violence and assassinations that eventually brought about the Free Officers revolution in 1952, thus ending the sole liberal experience in Egypt's history. Later it also turned against Nasser and tried to kill him in 1954 but failed. Nasser declared the organization illegal and arrested 60,000 people, condemning its leaders to death.
*

President Sadat released the members of the Muslim Brotherhood in 1971 and let them widen their influence over Egyptian society. He believed at the time that he needed them to fight his opponents, the remnants of the Nasser era that he wanted to obliterate.
*

An Egyptian jihad group that had declared war against what it called a non-Muslim government of Egypt assassinated Sadat in October 1981, but failed to carry out the coup d'etat it had planned to follow the killing. President Mubarak proclaimed a state of emergency which remains in effect twenty-four years later, meaning that the danger is still there today.
*

In the mid-1990s al-Gamaa al-Islamiya waged what may have been the first large-scale organized war between a government and a Muslim terrorist group that wanted to destroy it and its economy from the inside by killing officials and tourists in order to create a new Muslim society. In 1995 they tried to kill Mubarak in Addis Ababa.
*

It was believed that Egypt had overcome the onslaught of the radical Islamic groups after the massacre of foreign tourists at Luxor in 1997. However, the bombings at Sinai resorts in October 2004 reveal that the disciples of radical Islam are still active.


The Mission of Radical Islam

Islam as viewed by the radicals is not just a religion or religious narrative like Judaism or Christianity. It is a divine program conceived to be implemented on earth. The Muslims were entrusted with the task of carrying out this great mission. The beginning of its successful implementation was at the time of the Prophet and the establishment of the Muslim core state in Yathrib, the original name of Medina before the hijra, the migration of Prophet Mohammed from Mecca to Medina.

What distinguishes this divine Islamic program is the holiness of its source, described as being the perfect and complete authority in all places, at all times, for all peoples. The most important commandment for a Muslim is to labor ceaselessly to implement this program and ensure its success. Sayyid Qutb summarized it in his call to Muslims to interfere in other countries' affairs in order to impose Islam on them - either through demonstration of its superiority, by convincing, or through the sword and the spear. The ultimate purpose of the Islamic program is to eliminate all the gods so that the world only worships Allah, and to crush the regimes of these countries so that they pay tribute to the Muslims and become subservient and humiliated. This is radical Islam in the eyes of the Islamists, as described by Egyptian liberal thinker Sayyid al-Kimni.1

The Origins of Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood

The bombings at Sinai resorts in October 2004, which killed 34 people and destroyed a wing of the Taba Hilton Hotel, have turned the spotlight again on the activities of Islamists in Egypt. There had been a tacit belief among observers that Egypt had overcome the onslaught of the radical Islamic groups after the Luxor massacre of 58 foreign tourists and four Egyptians on November 17, 1997. However, a closer look reveals that the disciples of radical Islam are still active and that the Islamist current in Egypt is still simmering, even under harsh pressure by the authorities. It may erupt again, either ignited from abroad by an international Islamist organization such as al-Qaeda, or from inside Egypt. Since many Egyptians are losing any hope for significant reform in the political and economic system, they are turning more to the Muslim Brotherhood, which offers the hope of redemption through Islam.

When we speak of radical Islam, we are referring to a number of organizations that have engraved on their banner their intent to implement the rule of Islam within their country, and also to impose Islam on the world at large. At first this involved the Muslim Brotherhood, and later the jihadists separated off from the Brotherhood.

The basic ideology of political Islam - which was later adopted by all radical groups - finds its origin within Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood. The Brotherhood was founded in 1928 by Sheikh Hassan al-Banna in the city of Ismailia, on the banks of Suez Canal. It began as a kind of youth club where the Sheikh used to preach about the need to introduce moral and social reform into Egypt and the Arab world. Basically, it was a reaction to British occupation and the penetration of Western values into Arab society. The larger background was the collapse of the Ottoman Empire - the last Muslim empire - a few years before, and the abolition of the caliphate by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk in 1922, who sought to build a secular state on the ruins of the empire.

In the beginning, al-Banna's brand of Islam seemed peaceful. However, this did not last long since at the core of his belief stood the universality of Islam and its inclusiveness: religion and state are one. This required restoration of the caliphate - the creation of an Islamic state comprised of all Muslim countries, ruled by an Islamic government, based on shari'a, the religious law of the Koran.

Another disturbing characteristic of the Muslim Brotherhood is its xenophobic nature, which translates into anti-Semitism and anti-Christian preaching and activity.

In Egypt the Muslim Brotherhood soon became involved in politics and turned to violence. During the 1940s it established a special apparatus - al-Tanzim al-Has - that initiated a campaign of terror against the government and assassinated a number of political personalities, among them two prime ministers. It soon became the most powerful extra-political force in Egypt, threatening the regime and wrecking havoc in the country.

This campaign of terror is considered one of the important factors that led to the Free Officers revolution in 1952, thus putting an end to the only liberal experience in Egypt's history, initiated by the Wafd party. Later the Muslim Brotherhood became disappointed in Nasser's socialist and secular policy; it turned against him and tried to kill him in 1954 but failed. Nasser's reaction was brutal, declaring the organization illegal, arresting 60,000 people and putting them into camps. Its leaders were tried and condemned to death, thus ending the first chapter of radical Islam in Egypt.

Sadat Frees the Muslim Brotherhood

The rise of Sadat to the presidency in 1970 led to the arrival of a new brand of radical Islam. The jihadist groups born in Nasser's prison camps in the 1960s were inspired by Qutb's ideology, openly professing violence in order to impose an authentic brand of Islam not only on Egypt but also all over the world.

President Sadat released the members of the Muslim Brotherhood in 1971 and let them widen their influence over Egyptian society, but he remained quite suspicious of them. He did not allow them to regain their legal status but left them in limbo - active and infiltrating civilian and religious organizations but without the possibility of reviving their old framework as a political party or legal NGO. Sadat believed at the time that he needed them to fight his opponents on the left, the remnants of the Nasser era that he wanted to obliterate. Apparently, he was not aware that some of the Brothers had been converted to more extremist views, urging limitless violence to promote their goals.

Sadat twice changed the constitution of Egypt to appease them. In 1970, even before he freed them from the camps, Sadat added a clause declaring Islam as the state religion. After the secularism of Nasser this was very significant. It further stipulated that the shari'a is a source of legislation. The radicals and the Muslim Brotherhood were not satisfied and in 1980 Sadat changed the same clause to emphasize that shari'a is the main source of legislation. But this did not convince them and they killed him one year later.

Immediately after the release of the imprisoned Muslim Brotherhood members in 1971, a number of extremist groups were formed: Al-Takfir wa al-Hijra, Hizb al-Tahrir al-Islami, and al-Gamaa al-Islamiya. Al-Takfir wa al-Hijra declared all Egyptian society to be infidel. In the beginning they did not preach violence but were very radical in their thinking. Later, they became involved in the abduction and killing of a former minister of religious endowments, for which their leader, Shukri Mustafa, was arrested, tried, and hanged. All of the groups retained the concept of takfir, declaring infidel, but not necessarily referring to all of society.

The violence continued and culminated with a jihad group that declared war against what it called a non-Muslim government of Egypt. Their activity peaked with the assassination of President Sadat in October 1981, but they failed to carry out the coup d'etat they had planned to follow the killing. President Mubarak proclaimed a state of emergency and began a relentless war against them, a war that is not over yet.

With the assassination of Sadat, another phase of radical Islam came to an end. However, the march of development in Egypt and its opening to the West were also obstructed. Mubarak continued the peace with Israel and deepened Egypt's relations with the West, but he remained very cautious, trying to find the balance between the pressure of Islam and its radical dissidents, and Western values and technology.

The drive for world jihad was next given impetus by the Iranian revolution and the Afghanistan war, moving its center out of Egypt. From 1980 jihad organizations began appearing among the Palestinians in the territories. In Lebanon it is the Hizballah.

Then came al-Qaeda led by bin Laden. For the first time, an international jihadist organization was making a major effort to operate in many different countries, Muslim and non-Muslim. Still, the ideology of al-Qaeda is from the Egyptian Ayman al-Zawahiri, one of the leaders of the Egyptian jihad group. He and a number of his colleagues fled from the authorities after the assassination of President Sadat and went to Afghanistan.

The War of al-Gamaa al-Islamiya

In the mid-1990s al-Gamaa al-Islamiya waged a war against the Egyptian government and the economy of the country, especially targeting tourism, Egypt's main source of foreign currency. This may have been the first large-scale organized war between a government and a Muslim terrorist group that wanted to destroy it and its economy from the inside by killing officials and tourists in order to create a new Muslim society. They created an atmosphere of fear and insecurity, and in 1995 they tried to kill Mubarak in Addis Ababa. More than one thousand people died during this brutal war. Many were Coptic Christians who had become a prime target for al-Gamaa. In the end, the terrorists were eventually crushed.

Later, probably under the influence of the terrible massacre in Luxor, al-Gamaa al-Islamiya's imprisoned leaders proclaimed a ceasefire. After a period of reflection and debate among religious personalities, they even professed to repent, and most of them were released. However, the jihad group members that assassinated Sadat have not been freed because the authorities consider them much more extreme in their positions, and fear their connection to al-Qaeda and its operation in many countries.

The Muslim Brotherhood Today

The Muslim Brotherhood still does not exist legally in Egypt, but its members have become very active on educational and social issues. They have also founded charity, youth, and student organizations throughout the country. In many respects they are doing the government's job in these fields and have gathered many supporters. Should there ever be free elections in Egypt, their political force is estimated at about one-third, a force to be reckoned with. They make enormous efforts to penetrate key political organizations such as the professional associations. They have taken over the engineers' and doctors' groups and are powerful in the journalists' and lawyers' associations.

They have even found a way to put their representatives into parliament, either through agreements with opposition parties like the Wafd in 1984, or as independent candidates. They try to give the impression that they are distancing themselves from violence and are now adepts of democracy, but they continue to believe in the sovereignty of God and the implementation of the shari'a. They overtly proclaim their support for terrorist operations in Israel and Iraq. The Egyptian government distrusts them, based upon the past, and Egyptian law forbids the establishment of political parties based on religious platforms. From time to time the press reports on the arrest of a group of Muslim Brotherhood members for subversive intentions.

In 1998, a group of the Brotherhood tried to set up a supposedly moderate Islamic party, the Wasat party, but the government rejected its demand to be legalized. At present the Muslim Brotherhood is trying to reach an agreement with one of the opposition parties in order to be able to present its own candidates in the parliamentary elections in November 2005.

The Radical Jihadist Groups Today

The violent groups of radical Islam are also still active, and the authorities periodically arrest their members. They include the Wa'ad group in September 2002, a jihad group in October 2002, the Qutbion in April 2003, jihad again in September 2003, Hizb al-Tahrir al-Islami in March 2004, and even a new al-Takfir wa al-Hijra group in 2004. Egyptian security has them under control, but they still exist.

The attack in Sinai in October 2004 was the first time that a radical group succeeded in carrying out an important operation since the 1997 massacre in Luxor, despite the strict control of the Egyptian Mukhabarat. While we don't yet know who sponsored this operation, we do know that, according to Egyptian NGOs, at least 3,000 people were arrested and interrogated. Habib al-Adli the Egyptian minister of interior, foresees the aggravation of terrorism and the use of more terrible weapons by international groups.

Egypt, Hamas, and the Israeli Withdrawal from Gaza

Egypt is today facing a difficult dilemma regarding Hamas and its possible connection to radical Islam on Egyptian territory. Hamas is another offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood, established in 1980 and striving both for the destruction of Israel and the establishment of a Muslim state.

The disengagement initiative of Prime Minister Sharon came as a surprise to Egypt and constitutes a challenge for its security establishment, since it is expected that Egypt will have to take responsibility for watching the border together with Israel. Until now, Egypt has chosen to ignore the weapons smuggling from Sinai to Gaza, which complemented its policy of total support for the Palestinian cause and its unwillingness to confront Hamas terrorists and their allies inside Egypt. But once Israel is out of Gaza, the border and what happens inside Gaza will become an Egyptian concern as well. Now that Abu Mazen has been elected, the Egyptians would like to see him disarm the armed factions, especially Hamas and jihad groups, and take control of the Gaza Strip. This would lessen the potential of weapons smuggling and the chances of confrontation with Hamas and jihad organizations and their radical colleagues in Egypt itself. This is why Egypt is involved in such a complex and lengthy negotiation with Israel and the Palestinian Authority.

At the same time, every day, a few dozen anti-Semitic and anti-Israel articles appear in the Egyptian media, lying, exaggerating, and distorting the reality about Israel. Mubarak could have stopped it if he wanted to, but in a cynical way it serves his policy of a cold peace. He may now regret this a bit because he would like to warm up relations, but this is very difficult after so many years of hatred and incitement.

The Continuing Threat of Radical Islam

Radical Islam has been active in Egypt for the last 75 years and has had a direct influence on that country's political life and economy. In fact, it has been and remains an important obstacle to development in Egypt. The Muslim Brotherhood is alive and kicking, and continues to infiltrate the political arena and strengthen its position. In addition, the radical groups of al-Gamaa were not completely crushed, and they are still trying to regroup and reorganize.

Observers foresee no imminent danger of major disturbances in Egypt today. However, in the continued absence of economic progress and a relaxation of the political system, disorder might occur, which the Muslim Brotherhood could join and intensify. In addition, there is always a danger that a radical group might carry out new operations, as occurred in Sinai. There is also a possibility that an organization like al-Qaeda might make contact with extremists inside Egypt. We should remember that the Egyptian Muhammad Atta was the head of the 9/11 team, and that Ayman al-Zawahiri is bin Laden's chief deputy. It is known that many Egyptians from the jihad group joined al-Qaeda, and that al-Qaeda has tried to make contact with Hamas.

To protect itself, Egypt has an omnipresent security service and maintains emergency rule twenty-four years after the assassination of President Sadat, meaning that the danger of radical Islam remains serious.

Text

--------------------------

Spot on. Also, Iran was a huge factor in the current radical turn in Islam, among some members of the religion. We underestimate the importance of the Iranian revolution, however historians will look back and see that it may very well be one of the culprits in modern Muslim extremism.
 

Ldir

Platinum Member
Jul 23, 2003
2,184
0
0
Originally posted by: raildogg
Tuesday 22nd February, 2005

Ansar al-Islam recruiting in Europe grows
Big News Network.com Saturday 19th February, 2005 (UPI)

Europe is emerging as one of the most fertile recruiting grounds for radical Islamists bent on terrorism, western authorities say.

Intelligence officials report an increasing number of recruits from Sweden to Italy are making their way to Iraq under the auspices of Ansar al-Islam, a once-obscure Kurdish group that has evolved into a global network of jihadists, the Washington Post said Friday.

Typical Ansar recruits are young Muslim men of Middle Eastern descent living in Europe. European authorities say that recent Ansar activity includes the following:

-- One of Ansar's top commanders in Iraq, Abu Mohammed Lubnani, once operated as an armed robber in Denmark;

-- Swedish police arrested four Ansar members for allegedly helping to plan twin bombings that killed more than 100 people on Feb. 1, 2004, in the Iraqi city of Irbil; and

-- German police said they broke up a hastily arranged plot by three Ansar members to attack interim Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi during a visit to Berlin.

Ansar is very good -- a leading power -- in terms of mobilizing followers to fight the Americans in Iraq, said Guenther Beckstein, interior minister for the German state of Bavaria.

Text

-------------

More proof of outside interference in Iraq. This isn't the only case where outside influence is causing chaos and death in Iraq. Iran and Syria are the other two evil forces that are hell-bent in trying to destroy Iraq.

Of course this thread isn't about Iraq. But it shows you that there are sick people out there trying to kill innocent people all in the name of Islam. Or their distorted version of Islam.

Summary: Dubya scorns world opinion and international law, invades and occupies Muslim country based on lies, kills thousands of innocent Muslims, uses Geneva Conventions as toilet paper. Muslims around the world react by taking up arms against us, global terrorism futures up sharply. Bush apologists clueless and in denial, sputter stupidly about making world safer when they did exactly the opposite.


----------------------
Bush Apologists of America (BAA): pulling the wool over their own eyes since 1980
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: Ldir
Originally posted by: raildogg
Tuesday 22nd February, 2005

Ansar al-Islam recruiting in Europe grows
Big News Network.com Saturday 19th February, 2005 (UPI)

Europe is emerging as one of the most fertile recruiting grounds for radical Islamists bent on terrorism, western authorities say.

Intelligence officials report an increasing number of recruits from Sweden to Italy are making their way to Iraq under the auspices of Ansar al-Islam, a once-obscure Kurdish group that has evolved into a global network of jihadists, the Washington Post said Friday.

Typical Ansar recruits are young Muslim men of Middle Eastern descent living in Europe. European authorities say that recent Ansar activity includes the following:

-- One of Ansar's top commanders in Iraq, Abu Mohammed Lubnani, once operated as an armed robber in Denmark;

-- Swedish police arrested four Ansar members for allegedly helping to plan twin bombings that killed more than 100 people on Feb. 1, 2004, in the Iraqi city of Irbil; and

-- German police said they broke up a hastily arranged plot by three Ansar members to attack interim Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi during a visit to Berlin.

Ansar is very good -- a leading power -- in terms of mobilizing followers to fight the Americans in Iraq, said Guenther Beckstein, interior minister for the German state of Bavaria.

Text

-------------

More proof of outside interference in Iraq. This isn't the only case where outside influence is causing chaos and death in Iraq. Iran and Syria are the other two evil forces that are hell-bent in trying to destroy Iraq.

Of course this thread isn't about Iraq. But it shows you that there are sick people out there trying to kill innocent people all in the name of Islam. Or their distorted version of Islam.

Summary: Dubya scorns world opinion and international law, invades and occupies Muslim country based on lies, kills thousands of innocent Muslims, uses Geneva Conventions as toilet paper. Muslims around the world react by taking up arms against us, global terrorism futures up sharply. Bush apologists clueless and in denial, sputter stupidly about making world safer when they did exactly the opposite.
Poor Dubya. Didn't he know it was all butterflies, kite flying, peace, and love in the ME before he so rudely interrupted?
 

Ldir

Platinum Member
Jul 23, 2003
2,184
0
0
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Ldir
Originally posted by: raildogg
Tuesday 22nd February, 2005

Ansar al-Islam recruiting in Europe grows
Big News Network.com Saturday 19th February, 2005 (UPI)

Europe is emerging as one of the most fertile recruiting grounds for radical Islamists bent on terrorism, western authorities say.

Intelligence officials report an increasing number of recruits from Sweden to Italy are making their way to Iraq under the auspices of Ansar al-Islam, a once-obscure Kurdish group that has evolved into a global network of jihadists, the Washington Post said Friday.

Typical Ansar recruits are young Muslim men of Middle Eastern descent living in Europe. European authorities say that recent Ansar activity includes the following:

-- One of Ansar's top commanders in Iraq, Abu Mohammed Lubnani, once operated as an armed robber in Denmark;

-- Swedish police arrested four Ansar members for allegedly helping to plan twin bombings that killed more than 100 people on Feb. 1, 2004, in the Iraqi city of Irbil; and

-- German police said they broke up a hastily arranged plot by three Ansar members to attack interim Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi during a visit to Berlin.

Ansar is very good -- a leading power -- in terms of mobilizing followers to fight the Americans in Iraq, said Guenther Beckstein, interior minister for the German state of Bavaria.

Text

-------------

More proof of outside interference in Iraq. This isn't the only case where outside influence is causing chaos and death in Iraq. Iran and Syria are the other two evil forces that are hell-bent in trying to destroy Iraq.

Of course this thread isn't about Iraq. But it shows you that there are sick people out there trying to kill innocent people all in the name of Islam. Or their distorted version of Islam.

Summary: Dubya scorns world opinion and international law, invades and occupies Muslim country based on lies, kills thousands of innocent Muslims, uses Geneva Conventions as toilet paper. Muslims around the world react by taking up arms against us, global terrorism futures up sharply. Bush apologists clueless and in denial, sputter stupidly about making world safer when they did exactly the opposite.
Poor Dubya. Didn't he know it was all butterflies, kite flying, peace, and love in the ME before he so rudely interrupted?

Yes, because I said something like that. :roll: Idiot. I would point out your reply is a diversion and a strawman, but calling your posts that is redundant. You are the queen of avoiding honest discussion. Go cluck in OT where you belong.


---------------------
Bush Apologists of America (BAA): pulling the wool over America's eyes since 1980
 

GreatBarracuda

Golden Member
Mar 1, 2004
1,135
0
0
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Poor Dubya. Didn't he know it was all butterflies, kite flying, peace, and love in the ME before he so rudely interrupted?

So if it isn't all "butterflies, kite flying, peace, and love", does he have some god-given right to interrupt whenever/wherever he pleases?
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: GreatBarracuda
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Poor Dubya. Didn't he know it was all butterflies, kite flying, peace, and love in the ME before he so rudely interrupted?

So if it isn't all "butterflies, kite flying, peace, and love", does he have some god-given right to interrupt whenever/wherever he pleases?
No. If he did we'd probably be invading far more places than just Iraq and Afghanistan right now. And once again people disregard that there is a serious and dire problem in the ME with people who want to kill us all, who have wanted that for longer than Dubya has been in power, and will go to practically any means to do so.

Go ahead and ignore that though because I know it totally fvcks with your hyperbolous rants against Bush. Let your hate and political bias be your guide instead so you can sacrifice this country to get a temporary warm fuzzy and feel good about yourself knowing that the rest of the world adores you. Except it would be hard to get a warm fuzzy and bask in that adoration when you're dead. So make your choice.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
It's not nuclear science to figure out who cultivated Islamic extremism, it just takes an attention span greater than a gnat's, and a basic understanding of history.

Even given the Iranian example of Shia extremism in the fall of the Shah and the results detrimental to US interests, the Reagan admin chose to enlist their Saudi friends to exploit Sunni extremism in ousting the Soviets from Afghanistan. Madrasses and refugee camps sprung up all over pakistan, sponsored by the US, and Saudi money, training mujahedin, even using radical islamic texts furnished by the US.

Despite extensive promises, once the Soviets were out, the US did very little to help the Afghans, allowing the more radical elements, the Taliban, to take control. Who cares, right? They're on the other side of the world, right? Screw 'em. Pawns are expendable.

Fast forward thru the Clinton Admin, who simply accepted and extended the mess left behind by the Reaganites, to the Bush Admin, whose efforts aren't much better wrt Afghanistan. For them, Afghanistan was a mere necessity, the real prize being Iraq. You don't have to look much beyond the relative expenditures and rush to invade Iraq to get the picture... That's not to say nothing has been done, but the possibilities are much narrower when the bulk of funding and effort is diverted elsewhere...

Here's a nice little pre- 9/11 piece of the puzzle-

http://www.thebulletin.org/issues/2001/jf01/jf01stern.html

Radical Islam hasn't duped Liberal Pacificists, at all, they've duped Right Wing American Reactionaries all along...

 

Tommunist

Golden Member
Dec 1, 2004
1,544
0
0
Every organization has a ?mission statement? and terrorists are no different. What is their goal? They have only one: ?The overthrow of the godless regimes and their replacement with an Islamic regime.? The terrorists have some other minor goals, but they are all in place to achieve the main goal of world domination. In case no one has noticed, Islam considers America one of those ?Godless regimes.?

The parallels are interesting here. Just like the our gov't, the terrorist leaders fill everyone's heads with BS so that they can meet their needs which have nothing to do with their "mission statement." OBL and the others realize that overthrow of western gov'ts is incredibly unlikely but telling all of their minions that this is their goal seems noble to them I'm sure. Kind of like how we are spreading "freedom."
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
It's not nuclear science to figure out who cultivated Islamic extremism, it just takes an attention span greater than a gnat's, and a basic understanding of history.

Even given the Iranian example of Shia extremism in the fall of the Shah and the results detrimental to US interests, the Reagan admin chose to enlist their Saudi friends to exploit Sunni extremism in ousting the Soviets from Afghanistan. Madrasses and refugee camps sprung up all over pakistan, sponsored by the US, and Saudi money, training mujahedin, even using radical islamic texts furnished by the US.

Despite extensive promises, once the Soviets were out, the US did very little to help the Afghans, allowing the more radical elements, the Taliban, to take control. Who cares, right? They're on the other side of the world, right? Screw 'em. Pawns are expendable.

Fast forward thru the Clinton Admin, who simply accepted and extended the mess left behind by the Reaganites, to the Bush Admin, whose efforts aren't much better wrt Afghanistan. For them, Afghanistan was a mere necessity, the real prize being Iraq. You don't have to look much beyond the relative expenditures and rush to invade Iraq to get the picture... That's not to say nothing has been done, but the possibilities are much narrower when the bulk of funding and effort is diverted elsewhere...

Here's a nice little pre- 9/11 piece of the puzzle-

http://www.thebulletin.org/issues/2001/jf01/jf01stern.html

Radical Islam hasn't duped Liberal Pacificists, at all, they've duped Right Wing American Reactionaries all along...
bin Laden didn't hate the US until he took his plan to use the Afghan majahideen to oust Saddam from Kuwait to the Saudi Defense minister (on multiple occasions) and was flatly refused. That refusal incensed him and he turned his anger on the US for fvcking up his great plan.

So excuse me if I don't exactly cotton to his little termper tantrum.
 

GreatBarracuda

Golden Member
Mar 1, 2004
1,135
0
0
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
No.

Good. At least you admit that. Yes, there are those who want to see America annihilated, but the threat has been blown out of all proportions to say the least.

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Go ahead and ignore that though because I know it totally fvcks with your hyperbolous rants against Bush. Let your hate and political bias be your guide instead so you can sacrifice this country to get a temporary warm fuzzy and feel good about yourself knowing that the rest of the world adores you. Except it would be hard to get a warm fuzzy and bask in that adoration when you're dead. So make your choice.

That hints more at how you feel about me than my actual views. I'm not the who wants to "sacrifice this country". I feel no loyalty towards America, why should I? It is your enlightened president who is hell bent on damaging America's reputation and credibility through a policy of pre-emptive wars and disregard for international law.

I'll be dead when my time comes. I'm not afraid of death. In the meantime, you can take comfort and feel all warm and fuzzy in the adventures of your president and we'll see where it gets you.
 

0roo0roo

No Lifer
Sep 21, 2002
64,795
84
91
Good. At least you admit that. Yes, there are those who want to see America annihilated, but the threat has been blown out of all proportions to say the least.

you think? how many people planned how long for 9/11 and went to their deaths carrying it out?
what can a simple dirty bomb do?
 

ahurtt

Diamond Member
Feb 1, 2001
4,283
0
0
Originally posted by: loki8481
Originally posted by: loki8481
wwjd?

edit: seriously.

anyone?

it strikes me that when Jesus was faced with people who wanted to kill him, his reaction was not to launch a preemptive strike. naturally, none of us are as close to God as Jesus, but as Christians, shouldn't we try our hardest to live in the spirit of his teachings?

So in other words, "what would Jesus do?" Jesus died for our sins. It'd be a shame to let that go to waste by letting them destroy us now wouldn't it? Plus, Jesus had super powers so he wouldn't stay dead. I don't know anybody else who has that power. Kinda makes you wonder. . .if Jesus knew his dad would just resurrect him after he was crucified then was it really a sacrifice he made? Who knows, maybe he didn't know. . .waiting for lightning bolt. . .

[Edit] Better to do unto others BEFORE they do you in I say.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: GreatBarracuda
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
No.

Good. At least you admit that. Yes, there are those who want to see America annihilated, but the threat has been blown out of all proportions to say the least.
Appafrently I haven't been clear enough and you don't understand where I'm coming from. Those striking directly at America are just the beginning and are not the real, long term threat. They are amerely n advanced warning. The real threat is the creep of Islamic theocracy across the globe and it's headed this way.

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Go ahead and ignore that though because I know it totally fvcks with your hyperbolous rants against Bush. Let your hate and political bias be your guide instead so you can sacrifice this country to get a temporary warm fuzzy and feel good about yourself knowing that the rest of the world adores you. Except it would be hard to get a warm fuzzy and bask in that adoration when you're dead. So make your choice.

That hints more at how you feel about me than my actual views. I'm not the who wants to "sacrifice this country". I feel no loyalty towards America, why should I? It is your enlightened president who is hell bent on damaging America's reputation and credibility through a policy of pre-emptive wars and disregard for international law.

I'll be dead when my time comes. I'm not afraid of death. In the meantime, you can take comfort and feel all warm and fuzzy in the adventures of your president and we'll see where it gets you.
Our "enlightened President" is doing what he has to do to stem the rising tide and nip it in the bud before it completely gets out of control. Islamic theocratic rule is spreading and the results are not pretty. Hey, I have no allegiance to Canada either but the last thing I'd want to see is Canada become a Muslim theocracy itself. I doubt you would either, unless you're a Muslim of a slightly more radical bent. Are you? And if it comes to Canada or the US going down that route, who do you think is going there first? So, if you think about it, our enlightened President is doing Canada a favor while he saves his own country too.

Just keep that in mind before you determine how I feel about you, K?
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Our "enlightened President"
Psst, it's light headed not enlightened.
I was only quoting another. It's not a term I'd personally apply to Bush in reality or sarcasitically.

Besides. It appears, for once, he actually isn't doing too terribly bad on his trip to Europe. It still doens't make me like the guy, but at least he's trying and being a bit more successful than his usual bumbling self.
 

GreatBarracuda

Golden Member
Mar 1, 2004
1,135
0
0
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
The real threat is the creep of Islamic theocracy across the globe and it's headed this way.

So who exactly is trying to bring Islamic theocracy to America? Granted, there are a few radical groups who want to impose their views on the world, but it begins and ends here. There's nothing to suggest that it's a global phenomenon. It's the Bush administration's job to present it as such. ;)

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Our "enlightened President" is doing what he has to do to stem the rising tide and nip it in the bud before it completely gets out of control.

Iraq posed no threat to the U.S. You've been around here long enough, you should know that. What your president is doing is exploiting the resources of a country and establishing a firm footing in the Middle East for further control.

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
So, if you think about it, our enlightened President is doing Canada a favor while he saves his own country too.[/b]

The last time I checked, Canada didn't invade a country illegally, nor did its foreign policies create more terrorists or make the world more unsafe. So as a Canadian: thanks, but no thanks.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: GreatBarracuda
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
The real threat is the creep of Islamic theocracy across the globe and it's headed this way.

So who exactly is trying to bring Islamic theocracy to America? Granted, there are a few radical groups who want to impose their views on the world, but it begins and ends here. There's nothing to suggest that it's a global phenomenon. It's the Bush administration's job to present it as such. ;)
It's not just America. It's the whole world. Do a bit of looking around since the 70's and check out how many governments in the ME and Asia are now Islamic theocracies.

It's a large movement with a lot of support among Muslim intellectuals as well, so this is not any sort of tin-foil beanie talk. It's real, it's happening, and if we don't put a stop to it it will proliferate because recent history has demonstrated that very thing. It is gaining in strength. If we don't do something now, you may not see the results of inaction in your lifetime but your children or their children will.

http://www.islamicthought.org/ks-ci-obit.html

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Our "enlightened President" is doing what he has to do to stem the rising tide and nip it in the bud before it completely gets out of control.
Iraq posed no threat to the U.S. You've been around here long enough, you should know that. What your president is doing is exploiting the resources of a country and establishing a firm footing in the Middle East for further control.
I so wish people would pull their head out of the Arab sand and see thaqt being in Iraq is not about Iraq. There's a much broader scope to this occupation that is meant to impact the entire ME.

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
So, if you think about it, our enlightened President is doing Canada a favor while he saves his own country too.[/b]

The last time I checked, Canada didn't invade a country illegally, nor did its foreign policies create more terrorists or make the world more unsafe. So as a Canadian: thanks, but no thanks.
Whine about the temporary inconvenience if you like. Complain about the death, the supposed bullying, etc. imo, that's so incredibly myopic though. I hope we can talk about this 10 or 20 years down the road because when this all unfolds you just may have a different perspective on things by then.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
From TLC-

"bin Laden didn't hate the US until he took his plan to use the Afghan majahideen to oust Saddam from Kuwait to the Saudi Defense minister (on multiple occasions) and was flatly refused. That refusal incensed him and he turned his anger on the US for fvcking up his great plan. "

Your ignorance is profound, your knowledge of the history of radical islam taken straight from the Bush Admin's revisionist history of the World. Try this for starters, then Google up < Osama Bin Laden mujahedin>

http://www.peaceplangroup.assets.org.uk/osama.htm

 

GreatBarracuda

Golden Member
Mar 1, 2004
1,135
0
0
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
I so wish people would pull their head out of the Arab sand and see thaqt being in Iraq is not about Iraq. There's a much broader scope to this occupation that is meant to impact the entire ME.

Ok, I'll pull my head out of the sand only if you remove the wool that's over your eyes.




History Will Show U.S. Lusted after Oil
by Linda McQuaig

Decades from now, historians will likely calmly discuss the war currently raging in Iraq, and identify oil as one of the key factors that led to it.

They will point to the growing U.S. dependence on foreign oil, the importance of oil in the rising competition between the U.S. and China, and the huge untapped store of oil lying unprotected under the Iraqi sand. It will all probably seem fairly obvious.

Just don't expect to hear this sort of discussion now, however, when it might actually make a difference.

In fact, a year-and-a-half into the U.S. occupation of Iraq, with the carnage over there spiralling ever more out of control, don't expect media discussions of Iraq to stray much beyond the issue of "fighting terrorism."

Indeed, while ordinary people around the world apparently suspect Washington was motivated by oil, not terrorism, there continues to be a strange unwillingness in the mainstream media to probe such a possibility.

Perhaps it simply sounds too crass.

It implies that those at the very top of the U.S. government willingly sacrificed countless lives to further a cause that has nothing to do with liberty or democracy.

This sort of allegation certainly doesn't fit with the respectful, even deferential approach generally taken in the U.S. media towards George W. Bush, just chosen Time magazine's Man of the Year.

Raising the oil factor also perhaps sounds unsophisticated. Some commentators, like syndicated columnist Gwynne Dyer, scoff at the notion of an oil motive, suggesting it's not necessary to invade countries to get their oil: "You just write them a cheque."

But buying oil isn't the goal; getting control of it is.

Dyer's cheque-book solution wouldn't have solved much back in 1973, when the Arab oil embargo temporarily left the U.S. unable to satisfy its voracious appetite for oil.

That created a deep sense of vulnerability ? a rare experience for the world's most powerful country. Preventing the U.S. from ever being vulnerable like that again has been a key objective of American strategic planners ever since.

The 1973 embargo sparked a new hawkishness in Washington. An article in the March, 1975, issue of Harper's, titled "Seizing Arab Oil," unabashedly outlined plans for a U.S. invasion to seize key Middle East oilfields and prevent Arab countries from having such control over the modern world's most vital commodity.

The author, writing under a pseudonym, wasn't just any old right-wing blowhard; it turned out to be Secretary of State Henry Kissinger.

But seizing Arab oilfields was too risky as long as the Soviet Union existed. The Soviet collapse in 1991 opened up new possibilities.

Kissinger's old idea was taken up with new interest by a small group of right-wing Republicans who, in the late 1990s, formed the Project for a New American Century (PNAC). In a 1998 letter, the PNAC urged President Bill Clinton to overthrow Iraqi president Saddam Hussein, whose potential control over "a significant portion of the world's oil" was considered a "hazard."

One could dismiss the PNAC as just another group of right-wing blowhards ? except that the group included Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz, who became key figures in the Bush administration and principal architects of the Iraq war.

Is it really such a stretch to imagine that, only a few years after forming the PNAC, oil was still on their minds?

"The plan to take over Iraq is a revival of an old plan that first appeared in 1975. It was the Kissinger plan," James Akins, who served as U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia under Kissinger, told me in an interview in Washington in 2003.

Dyer insists that the Iraq invasion wasn't about oil, but about extending U.S. power. But these goals go hand in glove.

Gaining control over oil is crucial to extending U.S. power, and will be even more so in the coming years as the world's easily-accessible oil reserves are depleted, creating ever fiercer competition for what remains.

All this will make controlling the Middle East that much more crucial. Or, as Cheney put it in a speech to the London Institute of Petroleum in 1999, when he was CEO of oil giant Halliburton: "The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies."

Now that he's vice-president, Cheney no longer talks about the Middle East as "the prize." He talks about it as the place terrorism must be confronted.

Call me unsophisticated, but it seems to me that politicians often try to disguise what they're really up to, and we have to wait decades for historians to point out the obvious.

Linda McQuaig is a Toronto-based author and commentator.

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1226-24.htm

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Whine about the temporary inconvenience if you like. Complain about the death, the supposed bullying, etc. imo, that's so incredibly myopic though. I hope we can talk about this 10 or 20 years down the road because when this all unfolds you just may have a different perspective on things by then.

We'll see how temporary this "inconvenience" is when the next 9/11 happens. No, I'm not wishing one upon you. Thanks to George, it's just a matter of when.
 
Aug 14, 2001
11,061
0
0
The last time I checked, Canada didn't invade a country illegally, nor did its foreign policies create more terrorists or make the world more unsafe. So as a Canadian: thanks, but no thanks.

It probably does create some terrorists out of Afghanistan and for supporting Iraq in a financial sense.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
From TLC-

"bin Laden didn't hate the US until he took his plan to use the Afghan majahideen to oust Saddam from Kuwait to the Saudi Defense minister (on multiple occasions) and was flatly refused. That refusal incensed him and he turned his anger on the US for fvcking up his great plan. "

Your ignorance is profound, your knowledge of the history of radical islam taken straight from the Bush Admin's revisionist history of the World. Try this for starters, then Google up < Osama Bin Laden mujahedin>

http://www.peaceplangroup.assets.org.uk/osama.htm
Yeah, right Jhhnn. My info comes from Bush. LOL.

If you absolutely must know, that tidbit of information comes from that radical, extreme right-wing organization called PBS, specifically the Frontline series on Islamic Extremism in Saudia Arabia.

So gg on yet another in a long line of lousy accusations.

Now please do preach to me about ignorance a little more, with your doltish elitist attitude dripping from the sides of your mouth. :roll:
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: GreatBarracuda
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
I so wish people would pull their head out of the Arab sand and see thaqt being in Iraq is not about Iraq. There's a much broader scope to this occupation that is meant to impact the entire ME.

Ok, I'll pull my head out of the sand only if you remove the wool that's over your eyes.




History Will Show U.S. Lusted after Oil
by Linda McQuaig

Decades from now, historians will likely calmly discuss the war currently raging in Iraq, and identify oil as one of the key factors that led to it.

They will point to the growing U.S. dependence on foreign oil, the importance of oil in the rising competition between the U.S. and China, and the huge untapped store of oil lying unprotected under the Iraqi sand. It will all probably seem fairly obvious.

Just don't expect to hear this sort of discussion now, however, when it might actually make a difference.

In fact, a year-and-a-half into the U.S. occupation of Iraq, with the carnage over there spiralling ever more out of control, don't expect media discussions of Iraq to stray much beyond the issue of "fighting terrorism."

Indeed, while ordinary people around the world apparently suspect Washington was motivated by oil, not terrorism, there continues to be a strange unwillingness in the mainstream media to probe such a possibility.

Perhaps it simply sounds too crass.

It implies that those at the very top of the U.S. government willingly sacrificed countless lives to further a cause that has nothing to do with liberty or democracy.

This sort of allegation certainly doesn't fit with the respectful, even deferential approach generally taken in the U.S. media towards George W. Bush, just chosen Time magazine's Man of the Year.

Raising the oil factor also perhaps sounds unsophisticated. Some commentators, like syndicated columnist Gwynne Dyer, scoff at the notion of an oil motive, suggesting it's not necessary to invade countries to get their oil: "You just write them a cheque."

But buying oil isn't the goal; getting control of it is.

Dyer's cheque-book solution wouldn't have solved much back in 1973, when the Arab oil embargo temporarily left the U.S. unable to satisfy its voracious appetite for oil.

That created a deep sense of vulnerability ? a rare experience for the world's most powerful country. Preventing the U.S. from ever being vulnerable like that again has been a key objective of American strategic planners ever since.

The 1973 embargo sparked a new hawkishness in Washington. An article in the March, 1975, issue of Harper's, titled "Seizing Arab Oil," unabashedly outlined plans for a U.S. invasion to seize key Middle East oilfields and prevent Arab countries from having such control over the modern world's most vital commodity.

The author, writing under a pseudonym, wasn't just any old right-wing blowhard; it turned out to be Secretary of State Henry Kissinger.

But seizing Arab oilfields was too risky as long as the Soviet Union existed. The Soviet collapse in 1991 opened up new possibilities.

Kissinger's old idea was taken up with new interest by a small group of right-wing Republicans who, in the late 1990s, formed the Project for a New American Century (PNAC). In a 1998 letter, the PNAC urged President Bill Clinton to overthrow Iraqi president Saddam Hussein, whose potential control over "a significant portion of the world's oil" was considered a "hazard."

One could dismiss the PNAC as just another group of right-wing blowhards ? except that the group included Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz, who became key figures in the Bush administration and principal architects of the Iraq war.

Is it really such a stretch to imagine that, only a few years after forming the PNAC, oil was still on their minds?

"The plan to take over Iraq is a revival of an old plan that first appeared in 1975. It was the Kissinger plan," James Akins, who served as U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia under Kissinger, told me in an interview in Washington in 2003.

Dyer insists that the Iraq invasion wasn't about oil, but about extending U.S. power. But these goals go hand in glove.

Gaining control over oil is crucial to extending U.S. power, and will be even more so in the coming years as the world's easily-accessible oil reserves are depleted, creating ever fiercer competition for what remains.

All this will make controlling the Middle East that much more crucial. Or, as Cheney put it in a speech to the London Institute of Petroleum in 1999, when he was CEO of oil giant Halliburton: "The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies."

Now that he's vice-president, Cheney no longer talks about the Middle East as "the prize." He talks about it as the place terrorism must be confronted.

Call me unsophisticated, but it seems to me that politicians often try to disguise what they're really up to, and we have to wait decades for historians to point out the obvious.

Linda McQuaig is a Toronto-based author and commentator.

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1226-24.htm

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Whine about the temporary inconvenience if you like. Complain about the death, the supposed bullying, etc. imo, that's so incredibly myopic though. I hope we can talk about this 10 or 20 years down the road because when this all unfolds you just may have a different perspective on things by then.

We'll see how temporary this "inconvenience" is when the next 9/11 happens. No, I'm not wishing one upon you. Thanks to George, it's just a matter of when.
Got any actual facts why the US is there instead of some left-winger's article from an extreme left-wing site?

Sheesh, shall I rebutt you with something from the Freepers and assume you know nothing because you don't agree with their radical BS?
 

GreatBarracuda

Golden Member
Mar 1, 2004
1,135
0
0
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Got any actual facts why the US is there instead of some left-winger's article from an extreme left-wing site?

I wondered how long it would take to get to this point. Questioning the sources ... the easy way out ;)

No. Not unless you consider the Toronto Star, the most widely read Canadian newspaper "extreme left-wing".
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: GreatBarracuda
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Got any actual facts why the US is there instead of some left-winger's article from an extreme left-wing site?

I wondered how long it would take to get to this point. Questioning the sources ... the easy way out ;)
It's an op-ed peace posted on one of the most biased lefty sites around next to the DU. And it's yet another in the long line of people claiming the US is there to steal their oil, taking quotes out of context while bringing up the spectre of Cheney and Halliburton.

"No Blood For Oil!!!" ::yawn::

No. Not unless you consider the Toronto Star, the most widely read Canadian newspaper "extreme left-wing".
Right wing in Canada is left-wing in the US. Left-wing in Canada is, even further left in the US.

Is the US really in Iraq for oil? Are we really going to spent hundreds of billions of dollars to secure something we could have ultimately bought much cheaper by not invading? If OBL hadn't pulled his stunt on 9/11 would we be in the ME right now? Absolutely not, even if Bush and Co. wanted to do that because he never would have generated public support for it ad the public would have demanded his head on a platter if he tried.

So regardless of all the lefty bobbleheads and waqggletongues, this was not about the oil. Understanding that does require a modicum of logical analysis to reason that out though, so maybe that's where the left is failing in this case? Logic and analytical pov's really don't seem to be their strong point. They're so emotional baby. :music:
 

GreatBarracuda

Golden Member
Mar 1, 2004
1,135
0
0
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Is the US really in Iraq for oil? Are we really going to spent hundreds of billions of dollars to secure something we could have ultimately bought much cheaper by not invading?

Yes. It's always been about the oil. There's nothing I can do if you choose to ignore the obvious.

It's the Oil, Stupid

Markets of Mass Destruction

By JASON LEOPOLD

Why is it so difficult to accept the fact that America's thirst for oil is the primary reason for waging a war against Iraq? For months, foreign journalists have reported that the United States has been running low on oil--a fact--and only by using military force in Iraq would the U.S. be able tap into the region's oil wells to meet the threat of supply shortages here.

But to try and argue in the mainstream media that the U.S. is only interested in starting a war with Iraq because of its vast oil supplies and you're immediately branded a conspiracy theorist. That's why most U.S. journalists don't even bother to explore the possibility, according to media experts.

"The media doesn't want to cross the president," said Sherry Bebitch Jeffe, a media expert and senior scholar at the University of Southern California's School of Policy, Planning and Development. "I've only seen one or two articles in the mainstream media about oil being the reason for a war against Iraq. There is not real investigative reporting in the mainstream media here because reporters don't care or have the kind of energy necessary to investigate thoroughly that oil could be behind a war with Iraq. But it's appropriate to ask that question and debate it."

Even a mountain of evidence prepared by Bush's cronies that proves the Administration discussed military action in Iraq prior to the September 11 terrorist attacks in an effort to secure oil from the region is not enough to sway Western journalists who instead report that Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction is the reason behind a possible U.S. led initiative to attack the country. But that's not accurate nor is it the truth. Simply put, demand for oil in the U.S. has reached an all-time high. We can no longer depend upon the Oil Petroleum Exporting Countries, or OPEC, to increase production to quench our thirst and make up the shortfall by the embargo the United Nations placed on Iraqi oil after the first Gulf War. The only solution is to tap into new sources. That's where Iraq comes in and it's the reason the U.S. is prepared to launch a full-scaled attack on the country.

Since the United Nations embargo on Iraqi and Kuwaiti oil in August 1990, some 5 million barrels per day of oil has been removed from the market. Other OPEC countries increased their production capacity to make up the shortfall.

Since the embargo, however, "the resulting tight markets have increased U.S. and global vulnerability to disruption and provided adversaries undue potential influence over the price of oil. Iraq has become a key "swing" producer, posing a difficult situation for the U.S. government," according to an April 2001 report that was used to help shape Bush's National Energy Policy.

In order to set the stage for securing Iraqi oil the U.S. should "review policies toward Iraq to lower anti-Americanism in the Middle East and elsewhere; set the groundwork to eventually ease Iraqi oil-field investment restrictions," the report says. 'Like it or not, Iraqi (oil) reserves represent a major asset that can quickly add capacity to world oil markets and inject a more competitive tenor to oil trade."

The Washington, D.C. Council on Foreign Relations, whose members include Vice President Dick Cheney and former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, and the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy prepared the report, Strategic Energy Policy, Challenges for the 21st Century. Key executives in the energy industry helped prepare the report, including former Enron Chairman Kenneth Lay, who according to the New York Times, is under investigation for selling his stock in the disgraced energy company shortly before it imploded in a wave of accounting scandals in October 2001.

In Bush's State of the Union address last month, he said he would ask Congress to approve research into using alternative fuels, such as hydrogen, to be used for developing a new type of automobile, which the President lifted directly from the Baker report.

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfield has been asked numerous times whether the U.S. is after Iraq's oil supplies and if that's what is driving this war. Rumsfield's most recent response to the question was "absolutely not."

Yet the Baker report suggests that the U.S. should explore the possibility of a regime change in Iraq, line up "key allies" in Europe and Asia and "target (Iraq's) ability to maintain and acquire weapons of mass destruction" as the reasons behind attacking the country all in an effort to import oil into the U.S.

"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," according to the report. "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."

The report also says that once an arms control program is in place the once an arms-control program is in place, the U.S. could consider reducing restrictions on oil investments inside Iraq, a move the Bush administration is against.

"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," the report says. '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 sanctions, weapons regimes, and the coalition against him are not strengthened. Still, the maintenance of continued oil sanctions is becoming increasingly difficult to implement."

"Until the emerging constraints are overcome, government will need to increase its vigilance and be prepared to deal with sudden supply disruptions. The consequences of inaction could be grave," according to the report. .

Russia's resistance to back the U.S. in a war against Iraq has more to do with how adding capacity to world oil markets will hurt Russia's economy than with the absence of a smoking gun that proves Iraq has weapons of mass destruction.

"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," according to the report. "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."

Jason Leopold can be reached at: jasonleopold@hotmail.com

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now of course you're gonna go ahead and dismiss it as leftist propaganda. But before you do that ... how about "a modicum of logical analysis"?