|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
 Posted: Sat Oct 20, 2007 7:36 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Quote: |
Fueling Terror
"...the hijackers, 15 hijackers who are Saudis, they studied this thinking -- destructive thinking -- in Saudi Arabia. They spent a few months in Afghanistan. But they lived their life, they studied this in government mosques. [..] Government curriculum inspired what happened in New York." - PBS interview with Ali Al-Ahmed, executive director of the Saudi Institute
Much has been reported about the complex system of terrorist financing and the money trail facilitating the September 11 terror attacks. Individuals and charities from the Persian Gulf--mainly from Saudi Arabia--appear to be the most important source of funding for terrorist organizations like Al-Qaeda. According to an October 2002 Council on Foreign Relations report of an Independent Task Force on Terrorist Financing, Osama bin Laden and his men have been able to accumulate millions of dollars using legitimate businesses such as charities, nongovernmental organizations, mosques, banks and other financial institutions to help raise and move their funds.
How does it work? Take Saudi Arabia for example. This Gulf monarchy is a rentier state in which no taxes are imposed on the population. Instead, Saudis have a religious tax, the zakat, requiring all Muslims to give at least 2.5 percent of their income to charities. Many of the charities are truly dedicated to good causes, but others merely serve as money laundering and terrorist financing apparatuses. While many Saudis contribute to those charities in good faith believing their money goes toward good causes, others know full well the terrorist purposes to which their money will be funneled.
What makes penetration and control of money transactions in the Arab world especially difficult is the Hawala system--the unofficial method of transferring money and one of the key elements in the financing of global terrorism. The system has been going for generations and is deeply embedded in the Arab culture. Hawala transactions are based on trust; they are carried out verbally leaving no paper trail.
The Saudi regime has been complicit in its people's actions and has turned a blind eye to the phenomenon of wealthy citizens sending money to charities that in turn route it to terror organizations. Furthermore, Saudi government money funneled into madrassas where radical anti-Americanism is propagated has been instrumental in creating an ideological climate which generates terrorism.
Former CIA director James Woolsey described the Saudi-sponsored Wahhabism and Islamist extremism as "the soil in which Al-Qaeda and its sister terrorist organizations are flourishing."
Barrels and bombs
It is no coincidence that so much of the cash filling terrorists' coffers come from the oil monarchies in the Persian Gulf. It is also no coincidence that those countries holding the world's largest oil reserves and those generating most of their income from oil exports, are also those with the strongest support for radical Islam. In fact, oil and terrorism are entangled. If not for the West's oil money, most Gulf states would not have had the wealth that allowed them to invest so much in arms procurement and sponsor terrorists organizations.
Consider Saudi Arabia. Oil revenues make up around 90-95% of total Saudi export earnings, 70%-80% of state revenues, and around 40% of the country's gross domestic product (GDP). In 2002 alone, Saudi Arabia earned nearly $55 billion in crude oil export revenues. Most wealthy Saudis who sponsor charities and educational foundations that preach religious intolerance and hate toward the Western values have made their money from the petroleum industry or its subsidiaries. Osama bin Laden's wealth comes from the family's construction company that made its fortune from government contracts financed by oil money. It is also oil money that enables Saudi Arabia to invest approximately 40% of its income on weapons procurement. In July 2005 undersecretary of the Treasury Stuart Levey testifying in the Senate noted 밯ealthy Saudi financiers and charities have funded terrorist organizations and causes that support terrorism and the ideology that fuels the terrorists' agenda. Even today, we believe that Saudi donors may still be a significant source of terrorist financing, including for the insurgency in Iraq."
If Saudi Arabia is the financial engine of radical Sunni Islam, its neighbor Iran is the powerhouse behind the proliferation of radical Shiite Islam. Iran, OPEC뭩 second largest oil producer, is holder of 10 percent of the world뭩 proven oil reserves and has the world뭩 second largest natural gas reserve. With oil and gas revenues constituting over 80 percent of its total export earning and 50 percent of its gross domestic product, Iran is heavily dependent on petrodollars. It is a hotbed of Islamic fundamentalism and supporter of some of the world뭩 most radical Islamic movements such as the Lebanese Hizballah. Iran뭩 mullahs are fully aware of the power of their oil. Its supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei warned in 2002: 밒f the West did not receive oil, their factories would grind to a halt. This will shake the world!?As the world뭩 demand for oil increases, Iran grows richer --Iran뭩 oil revenues have jumped 25 percent in 2005뾞nd more than able to snub the U.S. and its allies in their efforts to prevent Tehran from developing nuclear weapons.
The line between the barrel and the bomb is clear. It is oil wealth that enables dictatorial regimes to sustain themselves, resisting openness, progress and power sharing. Some semi-feudal royal families in the Gulf buy their legitimacy from the Muslim religious establishment. This establishment uses oil money to globally propagate hostility to the West, modernity, non-Muslims, and women.
This trend is likely to continue. Both the International Energy Agency and the Energy Information Agency of the U.S. Department of Energy currently project a steady increase in world demand for oil through at least 2020. This means further enrichment of the oil-producing countries and continued access of terrorist groups to a viable financial network which allow then remain a lethal threat to the U.S. and its allies.
Drying the swamp
There are many strategies proposed by counter-terrorism experts to obstruct terrorist financing. Many of them are effective and, indeed, some of the steps that have been taken since September 11, such as freezing bank accounts and improving the scrutiny over international monetary transfers, contributed to a reduction in Al-Qaeda's financial maneuverability. But the only way to deal with the problem strategically is to reduce the disposable income and wealth generation capacity of terrorist supporters.
Hence, America's best weapon against terrorism is to decrease its dependency on foreign oil by increasing its fuel efficiency and introducing next-generation fuels. If the U.S. bought less oil, the global oil market would shrink and price per-barrel would decline. This would invalidate the social contract between the leaders and their people and stem the flow of resources to the religious establishment. It will likely increase popular pressure for political participation, modernity and reformed political and social institutions.
Reducing demand for Middle East oil would force the petroleum-rich regimes to invest their funds domestically, seek ways to diversify their economies and rethink their support for America's enemies. Only then financial support for terrorism could radically diminish. |
http://www.iags.org/fuelingterror.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
ernie
Joined: 05 Aug 2006
Location: asdfghjk
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 20, 2007 4:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
you keep posting articles that everybody agrees with: that we need to use alternative fuels and reduce consumption...
however, your point is that taxes should be increased to make this happen, a position which you are not doing a good job of defending...
why would we increase taxes when we could easily decrease them (by eliminating subsidies) and have the same result? this is the point you need to address... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 20, 2007 6:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="ernie"]you keep posting articles that everybody agrees with: that we need to use alternative fuels and reduce consumption...
| Quote: |
however, your point is that taxes should be increased to make this happen, a position which you are not doing a good job of defending |
...
Cause private industry is not going to do it any time soon.
Raising gasoline and oil taxes
1) cuts consumption
2) would provide funds for alternative energy research
Private industry is better than the govt doing it but govt sponser research works too. The Manhattan Project wasn't done by private industry. Every weapons system that the US miltary has is sponsered by the US governmet . Government support works not as well as the market but it works - to say it never does and can't is just false.
| Quote: |
| why would we increase taxes when we could easily decrease them (by eliminating subsidies) and have the same result? this is the point you need to address... |
What subsidies are you talking about.
At any rate why would cutting subsides cut usage?
I don't know what subsidies you have in mind.
But let me guess .
Stop building roads? That would not cut what people use right now. And Idon't think idea anyway. If a new road is more direct will people use more or less gas.
Stop giving tax breaks to oil companies who get oil in the US?
That means they will get more from the mideast. NOT A GOOD IDEA.
Mass transit? Will people use more or less w/o it? That means they will drive more.
Alternative energy could come up with non oil sources.
One of the problems with Hydrogen cars is there is no infrasturcture to store and transport it. If the US had it Hydrogen cars all of a sudden look much better.
Alernative energy and cutting the price of oil ought to be one of the top priorties for the US , not now but yesterday.
That comes before reforming the economy - way before. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 23, 2007 6:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
Clean energy starts here. FutureGen.
FutureGen is a public-private partnership to design, build, and operate the world's first coal-fueled, near-zero emissions power plant, at an estimated net project cost of US $1.5 billion. The commercial-scale plant will prove the technical and economic feasibility of producing low-cost electricity and hydrogen from coal while nearly eliminating emissions. It will also support testing and commercialization of technologies focused on generating clean power, capturing and permanently storing carbon dioxide, and producing hydrogen. In the process, FutureGen will create unique opportunities for scientific exploration, education, and stakeholder engagement.
http://www.futuregenalliance.org/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 23, 2007 2:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| FutureGen is a public-private partnership |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ernie
Joined: 05 Aug 2006
Location: asdfghjk
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 23, 2007 4:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| if it's such a great idea, why does the industry need government subsidies? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 23, 2007 5:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ernie wrote: |
| if it's such a great idea, why does the industry need government subsidies? |
At first it is real expensive to start stuff up but the more it is done it gets cheeper.
Private industry doesn't want to take all the risk upon themselves. That is why the govt has to be involved.
| Quote: |
Economies of scale
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
� Ten things you may not know about Wikipedia �Jump to: navigation, search
The increase in output from Q to Q2 causes a decrease in the average cost of each unit from C to C1.Economies of scale characterizes a production process in which an increase in the scale of the firm causes a decrease in the long run average cost of each unit.
Economies of scale can be enjoyed by any size firm expanding its scale of operation. The common ones are purchasing (bulk buying of materials through long-term contracts), managerial (increasing the specialization of managers), financial (obtaining lower-interest charges when borrowing from banks and having access to a greater range of financial instruments), marketing (spreading the cost of advertising over a greater range of output in media markets). Each of these factors reduces the long run average costs (LRAC) of production by shifting the short-run average total cost (SRATC) curve down and to the right.
This should not be confused with increasing returns to scale which is represented by the SRATC where simply increasing output within current capacity reduces the short run cost per unit.
This is, of course, an extremely simplistic example and, in real life, there are countering forces of diseconomies of scale. As these forces balance, an optimum production volume can be found (referred to as constant returns to scale).
This principle can be equally applied to an organization resulting in firms within a particular industry tending to be similar sizes. Economists have studied this effect as the theory of the firm.
A natural monopoly is often defined as a firm which enjoys economies of scale for all reasonable firm sizes; because it is always more efficient for one firm to expand than for new firms to be established, the natural monopoly has no competition. However, standard economic theory also holds that on account of the unique shapes of the natural monopoly's LRAC and SRAC, it can never experience economic profit and thus requires subsidies or other government intervention to remain profitable.
In the short run at least one factor of production is fixed. Therefore the SRAC curve will fall and then rise as diminishing returns sets in. In the long run however all factors of production vary and therefore the LRAC curve will fall and then rise according to economies and diseconomies of scale.
There are two typical ways you can have Economies of Scale: 1. High fixed cost and constant marginal cost 2. Low or no fixed cost and, declining marginal cost |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economies_of_scale
It is a great idea not only economically but also strategically.
The US doesn't need to wait for 150.00 dollars a barrel oil to see that it is good thing.
Furthermore each dollar the US spends on imported oil goes to the enemy. Sure one can make money by doing business witht the enemy but that is why the US makes it illegal.
Every day the US imports oil from the mideast the terrorists get more money.
Anyway once the infastructure is up and running then alternative energy works. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 24, 2007 10:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Clean energy starts here. FutureGen.
http://www.futuregenalliance.org/[/quote]
Question for Ron Paul supporters.
If the US had a lot of power plants like this one would the US be worse off or better off? Would the US use more oil or less oil? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sincinnatislink
Joined: 30 Jan 2007
Location: Top secret.
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 24, 2007 10:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ontheway wrote: |
| Al Qaeda is a socialistic organization. They are attempting to bring their own version of religious socialiam to the Arab world. If you support socialism, you ARE Al Qaeda. Liberty or Death. There is no middle ground. |
Ever read something retarded enough that you really hope they're kidding? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2007 11:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Shame on Ron Paul |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 03, 2008 1:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| If Chavez could vote and he could not vote for himself he would vote for Ron Paul. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2008 11:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ron Paul and alternative energy. They don't go together. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Beeyee
Joined: 29 May 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2008 3:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| Ron Paul and alternative energy. They don't go together. |
Good. There's plenty of oil, we might as well use it up. And then, when we release a ton of carbon dioxide, you know, that gas that plants consume, the world will get warmer. What's not to love?  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2008 3:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| thanks for keeping the post going. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Beeyee
Joined: 29 May 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2008 3:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| You're welcome sweety x |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
