Charles Pierce: There Is Only One Way to Defeat ISIS

[phantom power]

These are a few things that will not solve the terrible and tangled web of causation and violence in which the attacks of Friday night were spawned. A 242-ship Navy will not stop one motivated murderous fanatic from emptying the clip of an AK-47 into the windows of a crowded restaurant. The F-35 fighter plane will not stop a group of motivated murderous fanatics from detonating bombs at a soccer match. A missile-defense shield in Poland will not stop a platoon of motivated murderous fanatics from opening up in a jammed concert hall, or taking hostages, or taking themselves out with suicide belts when the police break down the doors. American soldiers dying in the sands of Syria or Iraq will not stop the events like what happened in Paris from happening again because American soldiers dying in the sands of Syria or Iraq will be dying there in combat against only the most obvious physical manifestation of a deeper complex of ancient causes and ancient effects made worse by the reach of the modern technology of bloodshed and murder. Nobody's death is ever sacrifice enough for that.

...

Abandoning the Enlightenment values that produced democracy will not plumb the depths of the vestigial authoritarian impulse that resides in us all, the wish for kings, the desire for order, to be governed, and not to govern. Flexing and posturing and empty venting will not cure the deep sickness in the human spirit that leads people to slaughter the innocent in the middle of a weekend's laughter. The expression of bigotry and hatred will not solve the deep desperation in the human heart that leads people to kill their fellow human beings and then blow themselves up as a final act of murderous vengeance against those they perceive to be their enemies, seen and unseen, real and imagined. Tough talk in the context of what happened in Paris is as empty as a bell rung at the bottom of a well.

...

It's not like this is any kind of secret. In 2010, thanks to WikiLeaks, we learned that the State Department, under the direction of then-Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, knew full well where the money for foreign terrorism came from. It came from countries and not from a faith. It came from sovereign states and not from an organized religion. It came from politicians and dictators, not from clerics, at least not directly. It was paid to maintain a political and social order, not to promulgate a religious revival or to launch a religious war. Religion was the fuel, the ammonium nitrate and the diesel fuel. Authoritarian oligarchy built the bomb. As long as people are dying in Paris, nobody important is dying in Doha or Riyadh.

...

It's time for this to stop. It's time to be pitiless against the bankers and against the people who invest in murder to assure their own survival in power. Assets from these states should be frozen, all over the west. Money trails should be followed, wherever they lead. People should go to jail, in every country in the world. It should be done state-to-state. Stop funding the murder of our citizens and you can have your money back. Maybe. If we're satisfied that you'll stop doing it. And, it goes without saying, but we'll say it anyway – not another bullet will be sold to you, let alone advanced warplanes, until this act gets cleaned up to our satisfaction. If that endangers your political position back home, that's your problem, not ours. You are no longer trusted allies. Complain, and your diplomats will be going home. Complain more loudly, and your diplomats will be investigated and, if necessary, detained. Retaliate, and you do not want to know what will happen, but it will done with cold, reasoned and, yes, pitiless calculation. It will not be a blind punch. You will not see it coming. It will not be an attack on your faith. It will be an attack on how you conduct your business as sovereign states in a world full of sovereign states.

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a39727/paris-attacks-middle-eastern-oligarchies/

[riderinthestorm]

1. +10 million!!!! Starve the beast

The candidate that argues for this approach tonight will truly be the one who wants to shut down this madness

[phantom power]

2. I've believed for a long time that a law-enforcement approach to terrorism is the right one.

Not an approach based on war. But that would threaten the people with all the power, and it wouldn't line the pockets of the military industrial complex.

[riderinthestorm]

3. Yup, it's the only way

I'll be watching for the candidate tonight who pledges to find the funding sources and cuts them off.

Oh, it will be ugly since so many are our "friends " (cough) but that candidate will be the one whose really serious about ending ISIS.

[tomp]

88. law enforcement is controlled by governments.

do you think we get justice from law enforcement in other matters today? if we did the bankers would have already been busted as would the entire bush cheney cabal just to name a few. the entire system must change before law enforcement can be trusted to do what is needed.

[valerief]

98. Cuz war is most certainly a racket. nt

[Fast Walker 52]

36. I so agree... but the right wants blood

they are losing their shit over something that didn't even happen in the US.

[renate]

4. I read this because I like Charlie Pierce, but wasn't expecting to find the answer

But this really does seem like the most efficient way of handling this, as well as being the least bloody.

[Downwinder]

5. Had our Veterans/Armistice Day parade here today.

Not one peace sign in the whole thing.

[Fred Sanders]

16. I am with you...the day should be Peace Day, not an apology for war, which is what it is.

[Beartracks]

103. *Armistice* Day originally promoted peace.

If I recall, it was set on the date that WW1 ended, and was a day to reflect on how war is not the answer to anything. (I'm greatly generalizing from memory, rather than checking Wikipedia). But in the latter half of the 20th century, it got a name-change and focused more and more on veterans and their service -- and, most recently, the expression of flag-waving "support-the-troops" nationalism -- and less about how to prevent making veterans in the first place.

=================

[flamingdem]

6. .. good luck w that whiles we're still dependent on oil nt

[closeupready]

8. Yes.

[rjsquirrel]

23. Dependent?

The US is now a net exporter.

[happyslug]

77. Not yet, the US was expected to be a net exporter but never happened

Last edited Sun Nov 15, 2015, 01:22 AM - Edit history (1)

Check the Energy Information Agency for details.

In 2007 US NET imports peaked at about 13 million barrel a day. In 2015 those are done to less than 4 million barrels a day. This the result of BOTH Gulf of Mexico production AND fracking. Fracked oil was expected to peak in 2017 and then go into a rapid decline. That was based on the price of oil staying over $50 a barrel. The price is almost down to $20 a barrel and fracking wells are NOT being drilled.

If the rate of new fracking wells had been maintained the US would have become a net exporter in 2016. That dependent on the price staying up and it did not. Thus the US never did become a net oil exporter and does not appear that will be the case even if the price of oil goes back up. The reason for this is oil from fracking has a short life of production, fracking wells last less then five years in production. There was a small window where the US could have exported oil but that window is rapidly closing.

Now National Gas production from fracking is thought to increase even after 2017 and as such has been viewed as a possible export. Oil from Canada was also seen as a possible export. Oil on the other hand was viewed as a net export maybe for 18 months starting in late 2016. Some experts said the window was less then a year but no one with a background in oil production expected it to last into 2018.

The desire to return to the days prior to 1969 was great (1969 was the last year the US was a net Oil exporter, something the US had been from 1859 till 1969). It was more wishful thinking, given the huge drop in net imports after 2007, then reality. Just a comment that the US remains a net oil importer to this day.

[Duppers]

78. solutions?

Also, what about post #28?

Thanks.

[happyslug]

93. I support Five dollar federal gasoline tax.

If you increase the tax 10 cents a month for five years that comes to $4.80, along with the present 18.4 cents a gallon tax will take the total to almost five dollar a gallon.

This will discourage buying fuel inefficient vehicles, get people to look at how the get to work, school and shop and other methods of cutting fuel usage. The five dollar tax can be used to help build new transit systems. A tax increase that discourage oilbusecis the best way. For those people who HAVE to use oil will still be able to get the oil but those people will also change if they can.

[rjsquirrel]

86. Sorry

but I believe if you count gas and coal we are now a net exporter of carbon based energy as of last spring. Not oil alone, true. But it's all the same poison.

[happyslug]

92. The US has been exporting coal since the 1800s

Coal from the Pittsburgh seam of coal has been exported since the 1800 for it is considered the best coal for steel making. Pittsburgh actually import western coal for electricity production while exporting its own coal.

The biggest problem with coal is production in term of energy peaked in 1998. Production in terms of tons has increased since then for the US is mining poorer and poorer coal. The US is also exporting this Western lignite coal. Thus you are correct in that the US is a net carbon exporter but my point is the US is net oil importer and when it comes to foreign policy especially in the terms of oil and the middle east that is the big factor.

[riderinthestorm]

100. But only about 13% of our oil now comes from Gulf States

By using our reserves and ramping up imports from friendly neighbors such as Canada and Mexico we should be able to reduce our dependence on crude from that region of the world.

Yes there'd be some pain but the economic effect can be mitigated imo.

The long term gain would be reducing our presence in the region which would have its own economic benefit.

[happyslug]

104. The US was only importing 10% of our need in 1973

Last edited Mon Nov 16, 2015, 03:39 PM - Edit history (2)

And most of that was from Mexico and Venezuela in 1973, yet the US ended up with gas lines. A 5% drop in world wide oil production would be enough to cause a shortage and that would drive up prices till enough people stop buying oil. The problem is the group of people who will stop buying oil when the price gets to high are US minimun wage workers. That is what happened in 2008, the price of oil reached the point where American minimum wage earners were reaching the point where they choice was food or fuel to get to work. They were reaching the point where they had no money for anything else, except rent and utilites and when rent and utilities are not paid they have no home.

I did the calculation at that time and if someone was earning minimum wage and living in public housing and drove to and from work (which most minimum wage earners do for the jobs are in the suburbs NOT the inner cities and such jobs do not have public transit at the times these workers need it for example janitors who get off work one or two o'clock in the morning) the price of gasoline reaches minimum wage the choice, once rent and utilities are paid is limited to food or fuel. They do not have enough money for both and pay their rent and utilities.

At present that the the "cap" on oil prices. Once that group can no longer afford fuel they stop buying gasoline and demand for oil drops. Most Americans earn more then minimum wage but it is an example of how a mere change in just 5% of demand or supply will lead to change of increasing oil price to a decreasing fuel prices and vica versa.

Please note exporting countries report exporting about 5% more oil then importing counties report being imported. While no one admits it, the difference appears to be fuel used by the US Military. Unless the oil actually enters US territory the US does not report it as an import. At the same time those imports into US bases overseas are NOT reportedvby those nations as imports. Thus that oil is counted by no one as imports.

Most of that "lost" oil is from the mid east to Europe, Japan and other areas with US bases. Thus the US is buying more then the 13% of middle east oil the US is admitting to importing. There is an old saying "figures don't lie, but liars figure" watch certain cited statistics, make sure the stat is saying what you think it is saying. The 13% importing number is accurate but excludes that missing 5%. Worse that 5% is on world wide oil exports while the 13% is on US imports only. That 5% may triple US buying of mid east oil.

I bring up the above for oil can be shipped almost anywhere to the highest bidder. Thus if we cut off mid east oil will Europe, Japan, Korea and China not out bid the US for Mexican, Venezuela, Canadian and Russian oil? I think the answer is a yes. Worse do we want Europe and Japan dependent on Russian oil? I suspect that answer is NO, so the US will agree to export even US oil to Europe, Japan and Korea. Thus the US price for gasoline will hit $10 a gallon for the US will HAVE to adopt whatever is the world wide price of oil will be. Any effort to end the funding of these radicals will require at least a boycott of Persian Gulf oil. Given the subsequent drop in supply from the Middle East, US minimum wage earners will no longer be the price "cap" on the price of oil world wide. Thus I am looking at $10 a gallon and that is just a guess.

Thus my first choice is a five dollar a gallon gasoline tax. It provides the incentive to get Americans to buy less oil and the revenue to fund alternatives to oil base transportation. It would be the first step in any effort to end funding to these radicals, but I suspect a US invasion will also be required, an invasion of the northeast part of Saudi Arabia for that is where the oil is.

Here is the my calculations on Minimum Wage Workers:

1. Minimum wage is $7.15 per hour
2. In a 40 hour work week, 52 weeks in a year, the work year is 2080 hours (40 hours x 52 = 2080).
3. A minimum wage worker thus earns only $14,872 per year (2080 hours x 7.15 per hour).
4. If such a worker is in public housing, he or she MUST pay 30% of total income for rent and utilities (and Utilities are defined as heat, electricity, water, sewerage and garbage disposal only). Thus a Minimum Wage Worker must pay $4461.60 in rent ($14,872 x .30), that leaves $10,401.40 for all other bills).
5. Breakfast can be had for $2 a day, Lunch $3 a day, dinner $5 a day, thus a typical person living inexpensive, but cost effective lifestyle will spend $10 a day for food, which comes to $3650 a year. That reduces money for everything else to $6760,40.
6. Minimum wage earners pay Social Security Taxes, 7% of income and State and local Taxes. In my state that comes to 5.07% (3.07% for the State of Pennsylvania, 2% for the local Government). Thus 12.7% of any minimum wage worker income is reduced by such taxes, even when the Federal Government says such income is 'Tax Free' for federal income tax purposes. Remember this is 12.07 of TOTAL income or the $14,872 above. That taxes paid is $1795.05. That leaves $4965.35 for everything except food, housing and taxes.
7. The typical driver of a car drives about 15,000 miles a year, the Insurance companies say 12,000. I notice I drive about 20,000 miles myself.
8. The average car in the US gets about 20 miles to the gallon. Most low income people end up buying five to ten year old cars, often older. Till the last few years that was the average car for NEW cars, thus today (2015) you are finally seeing some of the better fuel economy car getting to low income people. The problem is people from East Asia and Southern Europe will pay more for a small cars then will Americans so many US small cars end up in those two places when they hit 10 years of age. Thus Low Income Americans end up buying mid size or large cars for those are NOT popular overseas (except in South American and the Mid East, but both are low volume car buyer areas).
9. The typical car of a Minimum Wage American worker gets 20 miles to gallon and he travels 15,000 miles a year. 15,000 miles divided by 20 mile per gallon comes to 750 gallons of gasoline that person uses in a year.
10. $4965.35, the income after rent and food, divided by 750 gallons equals about $6.20 a gallon.
11. If we look at INSURANCE, MAINTENANCE etc of a car that runs at least $1000 a year (minimum coverage). That drop the income available for fuel to $3965.35 or about $5.29 a gallon.

As I mentioned, the above ignores anything else a person may want to buy, like clothing, shoes etc. Such a person gets almost NO food stamps, for at full time minimum wage, food stamps tends to drop to Zero (if Children are involved, continues to higher income, but at reduced rate so at minimum wage Food Stamps for such children do NOT equal what such children eat, all of this is to keep Federal Spending down). Under ACA most minimum wage workers have some health care through welfare, but NO welfare cash benefits.

Please note most of the Vehicles Minimum wage workers are driving are marginal. My father use to call them inspection specials, good from one inspection to the next (At the second inspection something major has to be replaced, brakes, springs etc). Thus such workers end up trading in the old car for one that passes inspection this year OR coming up with the money to get the car repaired enough to pass inspection. That money comes out of the money for fuel.

Thus in 2008, such workers started to drop out of the work force as Gasoline went over $4 a gallon. Those other costs, that I ignored in my calculations, came into play.

Just a comment that when Gasoline starts to go up, the "Cap" on the present price of gasoline are the above minimum wage workers and they stop buying well before gasoline gets to $5 a gallon (they stop buying at about $4 a gallon). Thus the top price for Gasoline is $4 a gallon but only for a brief time period.

Right now, the price of oil has been dropping, but that is about reached its bottom. Many of the marginal producers of oil are capping their wells. They can not make profit at these prices and thus no longer selling. Sooner or later we will hit a point where enough of these marginal producers drop out of selling oil, and the subsequent fall in supply will lead to an increase in price. The demand for oil exceeded supply from about 2002 till 2008 and during that period the price of oil slowly increased but hit its limit as for the first time ever (Since 1859 when oil was first drilled for in Pennsylvania) the US actually had a DROP in oil usage. That drop has continued to this day, increasing the pressure on the price of oil to fall. This up and down in prices is typical of an energy source whose price is NOT controlled and the price of oil is NOT controlled today. Thus expect ups and down in price from $2 a gallon to $5 a gallon. That will be the new normal, the days on a price for gasoline lasting for decades is long gone.

[Capt.Rocky300]

28. And part of the new budget deal....

sells off some of our Strategic Oil Reserve.

[flamingdem]

30. Hmm, then why kiss up to the Saudis

I'm guessing it's military reasons, esp. in Quatar.

[Ikonoklast]

71. Not at all. The despots in SA need us to stay in power.

The House of Saud needs us waaaay more than we need anything from them, including oil.

[closeupready]

7. Sounds good, but how do you make that happen?

Like it or not, these financiers are - in terms of today's economy - an integral part of how things work in the world. If the response were this simple, it would have happened YEARS ago.

Simplistic opinion. But K&R for the thought behind it.

On EDIT, Post #6 puts it even more succinctly.

[phantom power]

17. I think it starts by letting people know what we want.

And by that I mean people in power, but also just people. I bet that it simply hasn't occurred to most people that an approach based on something besides open warfare is possible, because nobody ever talks about it except a few Dirty Hippies(tm).

Beyond that, I don't know. I guess the principle of trying to be the change we see in the world applies. Don't enlist in the military. Try to reduce use of oil.

[Mnpaul]

47. Kerry was able to do it to BCCI

even though others in his party fought against it.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0409.sirota.html

[Akamai]

9. Terrific! You're getting at the very root of the problem, and want to yank it completely out.

I would really, really like to know what Florida US Sen. Robert Graham wants released about the saudi and other involvement in 9-11.

Thom Hartmann on his radio show quite often says that Pres. Eisenhower was the last honestly elected Republican president. Following Johnson, son was declared president but he can I to me

Following Johnson, Nixon won the presidency but he did so by committing treason. He plotted with the North Vietnamese in Paris, telling them not to go along with a peace treaty outlined by Pres. Johnson. He said that if they did not go along with the terms of the agreement, he, and send, would reward them. If you go to http://www.commondreams.org/views/2014/08/12/george-will-confirms-nixons-vietnam-treason, you learn more about this. (With Pres. Johnson telling Republican Senator Dirksen that this was treason, index, and agreeing with him.)

Next Republican President was Pres. Reagan who won by having the Ayatollah delay releasing the American hostages held in Iran. "Iran’s ex-President Bani-Sadr, in criticizing inaccurate history in “Argo,” says most Iranian officials wanted a quick end to the 1980 U.S.-Iranian hostage crisis, but Ronald Reagan’s presidential campaign struck a deal with Ayatollah Khomeini to delay the hostages’ release, reports Robert Parry.(https://consortiumnews.com/2013/03/07/october-surprise-and-argo/).

Reagan's VP Bush won the presidency next, but he doesn't count really, as he would not have won it without Reagan's perfidy.

Come we now to Monkey-Boy George W, who won it because his brother knocked more than 50,000 voters off the voting rolls in Florida. In addition, in 2004, apparent shenanigans in Ohio and other states.

It also now appears that Republican voting fraud has taken place in Kentucky and other states (look at the "down ticket" voting results), and that such fraud has taken place for over 10 years.

How can you tell the Republicans are lying? Their lips are moving.

[happyslug]

76. Nixon's offer was to the SOUTH Vietnam Government

It was still treason but Nixon' s offer was to the South Vietnam Government so they would not agree to any proposed cease fire.

[Akamai]

87. You are correct! I got carried away thinking of Nixon's gall. Thanks for

Correcting me on this.

[hifiguy]

10. A sound strategy, but there is just one problem.

The money trails always, ALWAYS lead back to Saudi Arabia, the anus mundi, and other oil-rich, Wahhabist/fundamentalist Gulf states.

And no president of either party will EVER allow the world to say even so much as "boo" to the KSA and its vile, corrupt "royal" family of parasitic turds.

It ain't gonna happen.

[passiveporcupine]

34. Are you including Bernie in that?

Because I'm not so sure he won't just upset the apple cart. But whether or not congress will allow it is another thing.

[hifiguy]

35. I am not absolutely sure, but I tend to think he might be the only person

capable of overturning the status quo, that is if anyone can.

[SusanCalvin]

38. Exactly. No way that government should be our bestest buddy.

Except for oil/money, of course.

[hifiguy]

44. Author and former NYT correspondent Steve Kinzer

argues, in his book "Reset" that the natural allies of the US in the region are Turkey and Iran rather than KSA and his thesis makes a lot of sense, historically and geopolitically.

[SusanCalvin]

49. Just based on my limited current knowledge I agree. nt

[Demeter]

55. Not Ergodan!

He's trying to re-establish the Ottoman Empire. He is a villain to the world and to his own people.

[FlatBaroque]

11. The only war I would support is a full-on bombing of Saudi Arabia.

[hifiguy]

21. If there is an actual locus of evil in the world,

it is definitely Saudi Arabia. Not much doubt about that.

[smirkymonkey]

52. +1000

[shenmue]

26. Me too

[SusanCalvin]

50. The perps would flee and the peons would take it in the shorts.

As usual.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

12. YES YES YES

Europe was at war for hundreds of years -two really big ones - the middle east has that to look forward to. The spillover will not be pleasant but it is for them to come to terms with.

We lost our chance at peace when we elected raygun and turned away for encouraging third world development.

The blind support for Israel has just inflamed the situation.

Bottom line - bush opened Pandora's box - forces are at work that cannot be managed.
We can not impose rational solutions on others - it must come from themselves.

History will have to run it's course.

You want an answer???

Saudi Arabia - Iran - Jordan - Kuwait - UAE - Turkey - Israel - Egypt - must take the all who want to come to their country and all that want to leave the greater middle east.

The waste lands that are left must be starved of everything.

[Paladin]

13. Thanks yet again, Charlie Pierce. (nt)

[cantbeserious]

14. It Is Increasingly Clear That HRC Must Withdraw From The 2016 Election For Her Role As A Neocon

eom

[rjsquirrel]

24. It is increasingly clear

how idiotic some are on DU.

And I'm a Bernie guy.

[tecelote]

15. Thank you for posting this!

Follow the money. Stop the business of war. Hold people accountable.

[Hekate]

18. KnR for Charles Pierce

[snappyturtle]

19. Sounds to me like Charlie is blaming other countries for the problems

the world is experiencing. I think that's beyond hypocritical. Maybe the U.S. should quit arming foreign nations period and aiding 'moderate' rebel groups, etc. More U.S. hubris. imho

[Duppers]

79. well, he did say this...

"And, it goes without saying, but we'll say it anyway – not another bullet will be sold to you, let alone advanced warplanes, until this act gets cleaned up to our satisfaction."

[snappyturtle]

91. When I read that statement the word "until" popped out. That's is

what I disagree with.

[Laughing Mirror]

85. "You can't defeat your enemy if you're arming them and helping them at the same time.

It makes no sense to me whatsoever."
Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, D-Hawaii, Armed Services Committee.

"It is important for us to recognize first and foremost: a) who are enemy is and b) what our mission is. Our mission is to defeat our enemy, not to take action that is counterproductive to that mission and help our enemy get stronger. It is a very simple premise, and I think it's important for us to focus on that."

US must stop illegal war to overthrow Assad in Syria
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017305112

[snappyturtle]

90. Thank you for the excellent video link. nt

[longship]

20. A great read. R&K nt

[salib]

22. It always bothers me when the news talks about capturing oil wells from ISIS

Who is buying this oil from ISIS? Who is maintaining the equipment, the pipelines, the tanker trucks? How do those trucks get to someplace to sell this stuff? Why are we allowing this?

[rjsquirrel]

25. There's answers to those questions eom

[annabanana]

27. Truly the only solution.. . . n/t

[GliderGuider]

29. Pierce is one of the sharper pencils in the box. Thanx! nt

[n2doc]

31. Exactly.

Of course, there is one Candidate for President who has a huge conflict of interest here, having a charity which has received millions from these same oil sheiks. And I see the Defenders out today Defending, as usual.

The other long term solution is to become a nation using 100% renewable energy sources, or at the very least no longer importing any oil. Cut off their funds and let them sink back into the middle ages if they don't change.

[Duppers]

80. ding, ding, ding!! ^^^^^ +100, n2doc

Best reply I've read in the thread so far.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

32. Arms sales is the American Way.

[og1]

33. Your wrong that it is not driven by faith!

These atrocities are driven by faith the Islamic side by the fundamentalist Wahhabi who are Sunni by faith. And their so called Semitic brothers the Ashkenazi Northern European Jew who is a Zionist and wants a very fragmented Middle East! And let us not forget our theocratic republicans and Democrats who worship the ground that these two faithless faiths walk on! It is America who bankrolls the Israelis with weapons in return for political support and the studies who sell their blood oil only in American dollars. The world sold its soul when the U.S. dollar became the worlds reserve currency. What was it Putin said a few weeks back" don't you realize what you have done!" Well we have opened Pandors box of Islamic and Zionist jihadists!

[Catherina]

39. That's not faith. That's politics

[skepticscott]

41. Baloney

What else but religion motivates people in such a bloodthirsty and single-minded way? Ignorant people who say this is all about politics and not religion (and who mouth the usual "it's complicated" pap) ignore the simple and obvious fact that political power is NOT an end in itself. People who seek political power by force have a purpose in mind, and their purpose in this case is to impose and enforce the hegemony of their own brand of religion. That's what's at the end of the rainbow. Sucking up to their god and trying to force everyone else to.

[Duppers]

81. the religious are always the delusional and the scammed, willing to kill and die.

The political scammers and the religious scammed have different motivations. The scammers benefit financially but without the delusional, religious fanatics they use as ready tools, their scams would not work. So, yes, it does indeed come down to religion.

I do not think most political powers care that much about religion but about keeping their wealth and power. They use religion and the religious as tools -- these tools are core and essential to their power.


Would the rightwing survive in this country without the religious being scammed into voting for Wall Street bankers and the MIC?


As the rational saying goes, you'd never convince atheists to fly planes into a buildings.

[olegramps]

95. I agree. Perhaps its an attempt to shift the blame from religion to politics.

The Islamists' sole determination is to impose their religion on every living man, woman and child. They view anyone who opposes their goal to establish a theocracy as an enemy of their faith and an enemy worthy of death. We are not immune to this threat. It is little different than what the extreme right wing Republicans preach when they want to make their interpretation of the Judeo-Christian teachings the law of the land. This message is preached daily by the Christian Ayatollahs who are intent of destroying secular government which they view as un-godly atheism. Superstitious beliefs are the plague of mankind and the real enemy of peace.

[bvar22]

97. It is not about religion,

unless your religion is MONEY.
Unfortunately, for many Western & Eastern Leaders, it IS ALL about the money.

[Marr]

101. Good point. /nt

[hifiguy]

43. ISIS is explicitly fundametal/9th century Islamist.

They make no bones about it.

And the ME has been a tribal slaughterhouse for 1000 years, as I discuss upthread.

[Blue_In_AK]

37. This is one of the best things I've read today. N/t

[Enthusiast]

57. I thought the same. nt

[restorefreedom]

40. yes, starving the beast is bloodless and effective

but it doesn't make the mic any garbanzos, ya know?

think of the 1% er contractors, won't anyone think of them?

[McKim]

42. Excellent Post of The Year

I am grateful for this excellent post. This is what must be done. And thanks also to Akkat for his statement about how all this has little to do with religion. It is all about politics and resource wars.

[Iwillnevergiveup]

45. Under those crisp, dazzling white Saudi robes

hang filthy, treacherous hands.

K&R

[MisterP]

46. heck, everyone knows their beheadings and crucifixions are a bit AHEAD of IS

[kacekwl]

48. The problem is that any investigation will most certainly

lead back to the US government among others. Money is the root of all EVIL. Revolution is the only way.

[SusanCalvin]

51. Course it will.

Too bad those with money/influence/name virtually never pay for their misdeeds.

[Doctor_J]

64. that's why it will never happen

[Enthusiast]

53. Wow! That is good!

Of course the US military/political establishment will have a much different opinion.

[840high]

54. ....x10+

[ck4829]

56. And if governments are unable or unwilling to do this, then maybe citizens should find ways

[malaise]

58. What if money and weapons are coming from Western governments? n/t

[politicman]

59. agree up until the last paragraph

I was completely agreeing with the article up until the last paragraph.

It's all fine and dandy to say lets just freeze the assets of these countries, but that won't solve anything in regards to terrorism.
All it will do is add yet another reason for them to attack us, give them another weapon to fight us by giving them yet more justification to convince new recruits into their ranks.

When will we get it through our thick heads that we can't beat terrorism through military or financial means, we need to take away their justifications that attract new members from our own societies.
Without a justification to convince new recruits into their ranks, terrorist numbers will slowly dwindle and die out in future.

[pa28]

60. Hopefully Bernie takes this angle at the debate tonight. Pierce is right yet again.

[NuclearDem]

61. Anyone who says "there's only one way" or "it's simple"

when discussing any sort of policy, foreign or domestic, either doesn't know what they're talking about or is lying.

Yes, keeping Saudi Arabia and Qatar from funding ISIS would help, but it's not the only way by any stretch of the imagination.

[riderinthestorm]

63. We also need to reduce the global demand for oil by massive investment in renewables

We also need to do better at non-violent methods of winning the hearts and minds of those in the ME through humanitarian and educational efforts.

I'd also propose that countries take a smarter approach to integrating their dis-affected immigrant communities instead of marginalizing them.

So yeah, I agree. There's so much more that can be done.

What are your suggestions?

(I hope you weren't advocating for more military action since we now have a demonstrable track record of failure doing that).

[Paka]

62. Time indeed to stop.

Pitiless against bankers and those who invest in murder. The invasion of Iraq set the stage; we can't change that. But we can starve the beast and go after the funding.

[mountain grammy]

65. K&R

I couldn't agree more.

[EndElectoral]

66. Thanks and good post.

[blackspade]

67. Holy crap that is some brilliant writing.

THIS:
It came from countries and not from a faith. It came from sovereign states and not from an organized religion. It came from politicians and dictators, not from clerics, at least not directly. It was paid to maintain a political and social order, not to promulgate a religious revival or to launch a religious war. Religion was the fuel, the ammonium nitrate and the diesel fuel. Authoritarian oligarchy built the bomb. As long as people are dying in Paris, nobody important is dying in Doha or Riyadh.

[99th_Monkey]

68. This is so fucking spot-on, I don't have words. And Charlie isn't the only one who's saying this

It was the crux of my OP here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027345149

and is also essentially what Bernie has been saying about the ME.

Thank you for this OP. Hopefully a least a shred of common sense and clarity will prevail ..
like it didn't when GWB was peddling his "let's attack Iraq" bullshit, and way too many
Congress Critters voted FOR it, including HRC.

[Scuba]

69. This assumes TPTB want to put ISIS out of business. Pretty naive.

[ChiciB1]

70. Problem We Have Is Who Is Listening?

I fear too many will see HILLARY as the one with experience. What THEY WON'T DO, is look at what her EXPERIENCE did to help this mess keep going.

[bullwinkle428]

72. Wished I could give extra recs for this. Glad I've got the chance!

[azureblue]

73. Perhaps

It's time to be pitiless against the bankers and against the people who invest in murder to assure their own survival in power. Assets from these states should be frozen, all over the west.

Perhaps we should start with the United States. 9/11 was a retaliation for US meddling in the mid East. And how did Bush respond? By attacking the wrong country, and killing thousands of civilians, which begat ISIS. The attack on Iraq was a planned attempt to take the country's oil, a plan Cheney had before he even took office.

[Duppers]

74. BRAVO!

And who has the guts to do this?

We know WHO!

- the fringe candidate, that's who.

[leveymg]

75. 200th rec. But, I've been saying this for almost 15 years

Going after the money is the only thing that hasn't failed in the War On Terror because it has never been attempted. Time is about up.

[Betty Karlson]

82. Yes! A thousand times yes! eom

[applegrove]

83. People in the middle east paying proper income taxes

Last edited Sun Nov 15, 2015, 08:43 PM - Edit history (1)

will stop ISIS. Then the countries will be able to afford enough rule of law to stop graft. SUCCESS THAT IS AWARDED BY MERIT, not corruption or customary law, will give hope. They need democratic institutions. American corporations there should pay decent income tax to local government in the ME as well.

[Live and Learn]

84. Excellent! nt

[raouldukelives]

89. Huge K&R!

Investors in murder. We have so, so many. Whether from the MIC, big oil, denial of health care, private prisons, crushing of third world workers and fledgling democracies and the continuing massive denial of climate change. The main driver of refugees today and most certainly tomorrow. The phrase "We ain't sen nothing yet." springs to mind.

Our children will most assuredly be paying for the sins of their fathers. Sadly, they will have nothing to pay for them with but their short and miserable lives.

[CRH]

94. Very good thread, with a lot of different perspectives of history,

I would add for consideration, the following.

Kennedy was preparing to pull advisers from Viet Nam shortly before his assignation. This all changed when Johnson replaced him as President, Viet Nam escalated through Johnson's six years and the four years of Nixon. During this period the national debt exploded and the money collected from social security was used to service the debt, for political buy now pay later treachery. The country was bankrupt with war deficits and in the worst recession since the depression.

Then Nixon trashed Breton Woods removing the dollar from the gold standard in favor of a fiat currency and economy based of promises rather than commodities and production. This devalued the Middle East oil producing monarchies holdings in US investments. The reaction was the oil embargo that incidentally, destroyed any hope for the Carter administration to start rebuilding the economy. US Government bonds were paying double digit interest, inflation was rampant. During this turmoil the dollar was resuscitated with an OPEC agreement making the dollar the only currency oil could be purchased, and the reserve currency of nearly every country in the world. The petro dollar had supplanted the gold standard.

This gave the US tremendous credit as a government, society and economy. This credit allowed the infrastructure both physical and economic to be built out benefiting not just the standard of living of the society but gave new legs and funding to the MIC in pursuit of global hegemony.

All of this was possible because the OPEC petro dollar arrangement, and the largest supplier in OPEC was and is Saudi Arabia.
Every time we have found the House of Saud financing terrorism it has weathered the news cycle and the American three day span of attention, then escaped consequence in the US corporate congress that tables in committee any attempt of redress. 'National Security' shouts down all investigations, the United Nations security council emasculates any global solutions with a veto, and status quo is protected.

To seriously go after terrorism the US would have change the way we govern, our foreign policy, and our methods of business. Terrorism is a state sponsored strategy and effect, used by many countries, but none more than the US hegemonic MIC and economy.

Try out Pogo for a solution. I have seen the enemy, and he is us.

[Ferd Berfel]

96. This is an Article to Send to your Republican firends before

They start rolling on the floor, foaming at the mouth, whining about Kristian Persecution, calling for 'boots on the ground' and nukes. Excellent analysis!

[DirkGently]

99. Charlie is right on target here. n/t

[Hiraeth]

102. Thank you, Charles Pierce for writing this and thank you phantom power, for posting it. K&R

[colsohlibgal]

105. Say It Charlie

If only we had a real MSM. If we did Charlie, Cenk, Keith, Thom, Chris Hedges, Noam, could be doing some real reporting and commentary. Instead we get a so called "liberal" station, MSNBC forbidding it's talkers to discuss in any way the TPP. Or do any real other reporting

Then there is a Fox News and their ilk playing the Goebbels role in the propaganda that may do us in.

But thanks for a jolt of reality Charle Pierce.