Terror Attacks

[kent_white]

Interesting debate.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LgcmZD7JF1w

Why ask him for an example and then cut him off when he gives an example?

[miamiwhite]

Why ask him for an example and then cut him off when he gives an example?

There was a quite heated decent debate on a news bulletin down under between two leading Muslims, will try and dig it out.

[miamiwhite]

There was a quite heated decent debate on a news bulletin down under between two leading Muslims, will try and dig it out.

And just for Enzo.....there's a bit of Wallabyism in it........

[miamiwhite]

http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/tv/morning-shows/muslim-leaders-clash-in-fiery-debate-on-sunrise/news-story/6b12d1ea61b82dca878d702e2fcba7e9

[Mounts Kipper]

https://au.tv.yahoo.com/sunrise/video/watch/35631801/heated-argument-erupts-as-australias-muslim-leaders-address-manchester-attack/

 

 

Tells you all you need to know about Islam.

[worthy10]

Correct.

 

In simple terms, it stems from jealousy at our freedoms and the success they have brought. They stare out from their dusty shitholes and fucking hate the fact our democratic way of life and our progression have worked, whilst their obsession with a fucking 1500 year old book and inability to liberalise holds them back.

 

I'm talking about the extremists here. The moderate Muslims seem able to have a successful society that goes hand in hand with their beliefs.

 

Worth remembering that ISIS kills way more Muslims than non-Muslims.

 

And for the same reason.

 

Green eyes.

 

Thick cunts,

[worthy10]

Nail on the head.

[jules_darby]

Liam Fray did don't look back in anger (which seems to have been adopted as the song of post-tragedy solidarity) tonight with 50k pissed up idiots joining in. Was superb.

[Boothy]

Some good debate on here. In my opinion it would be fairly ignorant to downplay the proliferation of Wahhabism (the most prevalent 'version' of fundamentalist Islam). Actually, Wahhabism views Sufi and Shia muslims as kafir, and therefore fair game like all other non-Muslims. At its core is religious fundamentalism, the subjugation of women and political intolerance. The underlying issue here then is the sponsorship of Wahhabism by Saudi Arabia in every country and every community. That's why you hear of the sectarianism mentioned on that radio call in, because the rise of Wahhabism is a danger to Sunni, to Shia, to Sufi, to Jews, Christian's, women, children, blacks, whites, browns, yellows... pigs. It doesn't really matter who you are because the religion is so introspective and binary on the issue of non-belief.

 

It is going to be a perpetuating cycle whilst the world relies on Saudi oil and boost the coffers of a subversive religious ideology. There are lots of socio-economic dichotomies occurring in relation to the Middle East (in particular Saudi) that are contributing to conflict and sectarianism in the region and beyond. The irony is that the establishment in Saudi have lost their grip somewhat on Wahhabism and now we see the froliferation of extremist fundamentalist ideology in almost anywhere you can find a Muslim.

[birch-chorley]

Oil is becoming less and less important

 

We should be encouraging fracking in the UK as much as possible, make the most of our own natural resources, use the natural gas under our feet to create the majority of the power that we need for our homes, transport etc

 

America are already heading down this path, many others will follow if they have the resources

 

Oil from the Middle East could be largely irrelevant within a generation

Edited May 28, 2017 by birch-chorley

[jayjayoghani]

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-40058074

[Boothy]

Oil is becoming less and less important

We should be encouraging fracking in the UK as much as possible, make the most of our own natural resources, use the natural gas under our feet to create the majority of the power that we need for our homes, transport etc

America are already heading down this path, many others will follow if they have the resources

Oil from the Middle East could be largely irrelevant within a generation

With respect, I don't think that is accurate in the slightest. Whilst oil production and useage is as difficult a forecast as can be predicted, economics isn't quite as difficult to grasp. Saudi oil is the third cheapest to produce (stick a spade in the sand and you hit black gold), and they have the largest reserves of oil (20%) of oil proven reserves. This makes them the largest producer and exporter of oil. US reserves are also large, but the cost is exponential compared to Saudi. Fair enough, this makes the US self sufficient but there are far more super powers that have little resource that are hungry and that appetite is only going to increase. The cost of US exports will not compete with Aramco. I think it's a tad myopic to speak in terms of oil simply from a US/UK perspective. By the way the UK already has the highest production costs against dwindling reserves. We also have far more geopolitical issues with fracking than the US will ever face and fracking production costs in the UK will eclipse those of the US, even if it ever becomes viable.

 

Personally I think GCC oil only ever becomes irrelevant when the dependency for fossil fuel is balanced. Even then that would mean some sort of self sufficiency for Western nations in terms of oil useage (not natural gas). Saudi will still boom because over supply of oil will mean dirt cheap energy for the East and Africa, they will always buy the cheapest. It will be generations before Saudi oil becomes irrelevant.

[birch-chorley]

You seem to know what your on about

 

I'm basing what I said on the fact that oil consumption in the developed world is reducing, I'm sure it's less now than it was 10 / 20 years ago. Some of it driven by economic downturns, some by new sources of energy and finally technology

 

I'd say the fact that the we need less each year points to it becoming less and less important

 

Granted the developed nations such as China will be using more and more as their economies grow rapidly but where the developed world goes the developing nations tend to follow. I believe global consumption will reach a plateau as it has done in Europe and the US and then it will decline

 

I don't think it's going to be more than a couple of decades until all cars / trucks are fully electric.

 

In terms of generating the electricity I can see the hotter countries generating a huge amount through Solar with the way that technology is developing. Countries such as the UK have resources such as fracking, I'm led to believe it's very viable as it stands as long as you can get the nimby's out the way

 

I think your underestimating the pace at which technology is evolving and it will allow a higher degree of energy self sufficiency across the planet

 

Ok - irrelevant was probably not the right word to use but it certainly will become less and less important

[Boothy]

I think you are right, there is a general downward trend in oil consumption. But there is a massive upward trend in China and other emerging economies. China probably consumes over 2/3 of the oil that Europe does, so there is some context. The Chinese energy mix is also heavily biased toward coal and this is one of the focal points of re-aligning their consumption. 

 

The basic point is that if oil became even moderately irrelevant, that would mean a fundamental change in every single aspect of the way all countries are ran. Oil is intertwined with absolutely everything that happens. Progressive economies like Germany and Japan for instance may ebb away at the status quo but it is a drop in the ocean without China, the United States and India also curbing their usage.

 

I'm sure at some point the energy storage question for renewable's will be cracked and that will change everything, but I don't think that is necessarily going to fall into an arc of progressive technological developments. Even then there would be serious political repercussions to such a monumental shift, as I mentioned earlier.

 

Anyway, all it is some form of (very slightly informed) opinion...

 

I would recommend this for reading around the subject:

 

 

Empires in Collision:

 

https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/r.html?C=11P1MGQVK7Z7I&K=A3MF955VC47U40&R=1UJ0UU8DR0CVB&T=C&U=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.co.uk%2Fdp%2F1908531630%2Fref%3Dpe_385721_37986871_TE_item&A=PRHA7YPAIAOLLIPQAPHLBIASLTYA&H=6SFZQASARWAWTFASIDGZB5JS0RKA&ref_=pe_385721_37986871_TE_item

[only1swanny]

That interview..

 

Guy comes on.. "there is an issue with Islamic culture"

 

Presenter " Name one"

 

Guy " seen it all over the country"

 

Presenter " Name one"

 

Guy " When i was at school the muslims treated women like shit"

 

Presenter, " That's not the direction we are taking with this debate, goodbye"..

[madthatter]

 

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p02gyz6b/adam-curtis-bitter-lake

 

I think you will find it fascinating viewing and I hope others who want to gain a better understanding of what is really going on that most mainstream media tend to shy away from, will give it a view also.

 

I like his films but he could do with being a bit more succinct and less 'artsy', imo.  Great points, that many could do with hearing; but they're not that accessible for the mainstream, I would say, in the style he chooses.

 

In a nut shell, oil and $$$ are allowing/have allowed Wahhabism to go unchallenged by the west . . . quelle surprise   

Edited May 28, 2017 by madthatter

[madthatter]

Why ask him for an example and then cut him off when he gives an example?

 

Thought that myself - BBC does that a lot though.

 

Really poor piece of interviewing/journalism

[madthatter]

While I'm on one . . . think I've found Bolty or one of his mates

 

 

I quite like his speech, to be fair, but is there need for the face cover?

Edited May 28, 2017 by madthatter

[tomy taylor]

While I'm on one . . . think I've found Bolty or one of his mates

 

 

I quite like his speech, to be fair, but is there need for the face cover?

Might have had too much vitamin D lately

[birch-chorley]

I like his films but he could do with being a bit more succinct and less 'artsy', imo. Great points, that many could do with hearing; but they're not that accessible for the mainstream, I would say, in the style he chooses.

 

In a nut shell, oil and $$$ are allowing/have allowed Wahhabism to go unchallenged by the west . . . quelle surprise

What we don't know for sure is what the alternative would have looked like

 

Can anyone honestly say that things would have been better had we not let the Saudis do what they want in return for oil

 

What would the price of oil been, what would the impact of been on the economy, would a worse economy have led to even more conflicts in the developed world

 

Many people say with confidence that foreign policy has been poor but in reality nobody knows for sure what lay behind door number 2

 

In reality we came very close to WW3, this time with Nuclear weapons so the fact we avoided it is a good thing perhaps the foreign policy in the Middle East helped avoid further conflicts in the west

Edited May 29, 2017 by birch-chorley

[madthatter]

The only thing we can't do is u sweat and what the alternative would have looked like

 

Can anyone honestly say that things would have been better had we not let the Saudis do what they want in return for oil

 

What would the price of oil been, what would the impact of been on the economy, would a worse economy have led to even more conflicts in the developed world

 

Many people say with confidence that foreign policy has been poor but in reality nobody knows for sure what lay behind door number 2

 

In reality we came very close to WW3, this time with Nuclear weapons so the fact we avoided it is a good thing perhaps the foreign policy in the Middle East helped avoid further conflicts in the west

 

How about this for starters

 

http://www.corp2020.net/entries/general/ford%E2%80%99s-ethanol-and-rockefeller%E2%80%99s-gasoline-who-won-who-lost-and-why-

 

I hear your point though but it's no excuse for what has been allowed to happen, imo.

[miamiwhite]

Some good debate on here. In my opinion it would be fairly ignorant to downplay the proliferation of Wahhabism (the most prevalent 'version' of fundamentalist Islam). Actually, Wahhabism views Sufi and Shia muslims as kafir, and therefore fair game like all other non-Muslims. At its core is religious fundamentalism, the subjugation of women and political intolerance. The underlying issue here then is the sponsorship of Wahhabism by Saudi Arabia in every country and every community. That's why you hear of the sectarianism mentioned on that radio call in, because the rise of Wahhabism is a danger to Sunni, to Shia, to Sufi, to Jews, Christian's, women, children, blacks, whites, browns, yellows... pigs. It doesn't really matter who you are because the religion is so introspective and binary on the issue of non-belief.

It is going to be a perpetuating cycle whilst the world relies on Saudi oil and boost the coffers of a subversive religious ideology. There are lots of socio-economic dichotomies occurring in relation to the Middle East (in particular Saudi) that are contributing to conflict and sectarianism in the region and beyond. The irony is that the establishment in Saudi have lost their grip somewhat on Wahhabism and now we see the froliferation of extremist fundamentalist ideology in almost anywhere you can find a Muslim.

Some cracking posts from you Boothy today, especially the above one.

 

The stand out part certainly being their total indiscrimination of basically all mankind. They have no specific target, anyone is fair game.

One of my mates is a political historian/lecturer at a Uni on the other side of the Pennines(not Huddersfield nor a season ticket holder), she has had many conflicts/debates with certain visiting speakers/preachers. The level of belief from and tunnel vision from those 'guest' speakers was/still is quite staggering according to my friend.

As Madhatter also rightly says the lack of mainstream coverage re the oil and dollars is unchallenged, and no surprise whatsoever.

The money involved is breathtaking and speaks volumes for the elite on all sides.

 

I'm trying to find an article from a couple of years ago, where the Russians embarked on a plan known as "funnelling" which basically sees them very cleverly and strategically driving ISIS towards Saudi Arabia where the mother of all battles ensues between the Kingdom and ISIS, before Putin's chaps come in and clean up.

As I say, a very intelligent and master plan by Putin's men, which whips out so many evil bastards in the process.

[kent_white]

While I'm on one . . . think I've found Bolty or one of his mates

 

 

I quite like his speech, to be fair, but is there need for the face cover?

'Me and my forefathers have paid the ultimate price'

 

Isn't death usually the ultimate price?

[madthatter]

Some cracking posts from you Boothy today, especially the above one.

 

The stand out part certainly being their total indiscrimination of basically all mankind. They have no specific target, anyone is fair game.

One of my mates is a political historian/lecturer at a Uni on the other side of the Pennines(not Huddersfield nor a season ticket holder), she has had many conflicts/debates with certain visiting speakers/preachers. The level of belief from and tunnel vision from those 'guest' speakers was/still is quite staggering according to my friend.

As Madhatter also rightly says the lack of mainstream coverage re the oil and dollars is unchallenged, and no surprise whatsoever.

The money involved is breathtaking and speaks volumes for the elite on all sides.

 

I'm trying to find an article from a couple of years ago, where the Russians embarked on a plan known as "funnelling" which basically sees them very cleverly and strategically driving ISIS towards Saudi Arabia where the mother of all battles ensues between the Kingdom and ISIS, before Putin's chaps come in and clean up.

As I say, a very intelligent and master plan by Putin's men, which whips out so many evil bastards in the process.

 

 

Aye, but it can all get a bit tin-foil hat if you're not careful.

 

When you look at the bigger picture though it's harder to not see how the military, industrial complex is the real power broker here.  Trouble is, the beast has to feed on oil . .  .

 

Irony is we all probably loathe spending hours every day sat in a crawling car park breathing in the shite-filled fumes

 

re. the last bit - I could well see that.  From what I see of Putin he's far from wet behind the ears.  The problem for 'us' then is Russia become the top dogs . . . the commie bastards.

Edited May 28, 2017 by madthatter

[madthatter]

https://au.tv.yahoo.com/sunrise/video/watch/35631801/heated-argument-erupts-as-australias-muslim-leaders-address-manchester-attack/

 

 

Tells you all you need to know about Islam.

 

It seems as if they are arguing over different interpretations of the Qur'an.  Not that unlike Christians from yesteryear.

 

The fella on the right was spot on though and if you watched till the end you see he's got some fair abuse off other Muslims for speaking out.  Here's the rub for me though; you can see the other fella agreed, in part, but couldn't allow himself to acknowledge what he must see as a slur on his faith.  I think this is what we're seeing in Didsbury Mosque etc

 

They don't condone it but they wash their hands of it, so to speak.

 

To use a Christian analogy -

 

 Man 1 ' . . . he took my brothers eye, that's why I blinded him - it's OK it says so in the Bible.'

 

Man 2 'But Jesus said turn the other cheek so . . .'

 

All comes down to how you interpret one man's interpretation of divination . . . or bollocks, in easy speak.

 

I agree wholeheartedly that Muslim communities are the only ones who can really be pro-active in addressing this (in the west).   Been apparent for a long time imo.

Edited May 28, 2017 by madthatter