A different slant on extremism?

[cee-dee]

I can't recall this being mentioned before but with all this religious extremism coming from radicalised "followers" of one particular cult, I wondered how they're being funded and by whom?

Who pays for the weapons and ammunition plus all the peripherals? Where are they made, how do they get to those extremists? Who has enough money to literally throw in to such conflicts?

There are really unpleasant conflictss in the Middle East and Africa and I wondered if it was being financed from where it all began, further East? Has anyone else had similar thoughts?

[**caution**opinion_ahead]

---

@bookhunter2007 wrote:

 Cee-dee, I thought the object of this thread was to try and gain some sort of understanding as to how  "religious extremism" came from radicalised "followers" of one particular cult and how they are funded. So am I right in assuming this 'debate' has now been simply reduced as to whether Qutb was a "nice" person or not? LOL Ironically, by reducing this 'debate' to a dumbed-down superficial view of Islam (we'll ignore the numerous different denominations within it hey?) and its influential figures you're actually proving Qutb's theories right. And for the record he probably was a complete **bleep**. That doesn't mean to say he didn't have a point, or that his narrative has been significantly influential. And Nasser was plotting to stitch-up Qutb before the assassination plot. MI6 also wanted to take out Nasser, but that's beside the point.

It's very easy to criticise "other" cultures and/or religions for their "extremist" aspects - this can be either religious violence underpinned by politics (ISIS, Boko Haram) or cultural aspects (FGM, so-called honor crime), to which most would agree is abhorrent. However, looking at 'our' own culture it very easy to dismiss unsavoury aspects. For example, you don't tend to see many devout Muslims shoving pint glasses into each other's faces on a Friday night or filling up A&E departments as a result of alcohol. I certainly don't feel 'responsible' for this, do you? Nor do I think this behaviour is replicated by the majority of "Westerners". 

You mention "choice" but is it really that straightforward? Many youngsters today face a hellava lot of peer-pressure to conform to latest fashions, or obtain some other sort of narcissistic 'trophy' to prove their worth. And this is all whilst competing against the impossible of airbrushed role models. Is it any wonder there are so many self-esteem issues and eating disorders affecting people when socialised in such an environment?  I for one can't really blame those who try to reject such values, however any "sympathy" evaoporates when arriving at the other extreme of imposing political violence or abhorrent cultural practices to hammer home this 'rejection'.

---

Some fair points, but ... overindulging in alcohol and causing damage to yourself and possible collateral danger to a few others (eg if you get behind the wheel of a car or start a fight) is wholly different from setting out to make whole sections of society do something (or stop them doing something) as religious groups do.

To my mind, if a religious person chooses to fast or follow rituals or abstain from certain behaviours, they are completely free to do so.  Where it all gets objectionable is when others are dragged in against their will (or, in the case of children, without any say), and where human rights are seen as entirely secondary to the desires of the religious for others to do and say and think as they do.

[cee-dee]

Going back to my OP about funding, I see reports that those "radical fanatics" are making a lot of money from selling oil and ransoms paid for hostages.

As to the oil, where's it going? How's it getting there? The oil as it comes out of the ground needs refining, where's that being done? On top of that, who's paying for it, how and where?

Surely there's several routes that should be closed both for the oil and the money? If the oil's being bought knowing it's source, are the buyers as unscrupulous as the fanatics?

Are the fanatics as radical as they portray themselves or are they just criminals using the situation as a cover for their murderous activities on their way to creaming off as much money as they can before they sneak away in to "obscurity" with their ill-gotten gains once civilised society eventually puts a stop to them?

Lots of questions there? Any answers?

Now, hostages. People who put themselves in harms way (for whatever reason) should be under no illusions that they're on their own, go "there" at your own risk, wherever "there" might be?

[**caution**opinion_ahead]

It's complicated, CD.  Undoing the money trail would be very difficult and full of surprises.  I think you would find a whole lot of pension investment is in things that may seem a bit dubious ethically to the contributors ... but, of course, you never know where the money has been and few could afford to send back their pension on the basis that it had been linked with arms manufacture, say.

It would seem simple enough to say just don't trade with any country or group or company that overrides human rights in the name of profit or power.  But, in reality, that would never happen, cos not everyone is bothered about these things.  Or, at least, not bothered enough.

[cee-dee]

OK, that's as maybe but the oil and the weapons still have to be moved somehow.

If they know where the oil comes from (and not "out of the ground!") how does it leave there? Who carries it? Where does it go to? You can't hide the oil under your jacket or on the back of a pick-up so whatever's used to shift the stuff has to be a pipeline and/or a ship.

As to the weapons, they have to get to the radicals somehow and again any quantity is surely in some sort of vehicle/container(s)/ship so how is it they say they can "read a newspaper from space" but can't follow the trails of oil or weapons?

[**caution**opinion_ahead]

They could follow the trail ... but there is no will to do so, because the trade makes a lot of money for a lot of people.

We could refuse to trade with countries with poor human rights records.  We don't ... because not everyone cares more about people than money.  It is the same with oil, guns, drugs, whatever.  Money is more "valuable" than people or ideals to those sections of society who run things for their own benefit. 

[upthecreekyetagain]

Doesn't take long to get a few answers - just Google [ISIS oil exports]

"Officials from the Iraqi oil industry have said that ISIS reaps $1 million per day in Iraq in oil profits and that if they get the Syrian fields in [areas where they're advancing], the total would be $100 million per month for both Iraq and Syria combined. They sell it for $30 a barrel because it's a black market. It's not pegged to international standards for oil prices, which are over $100 a barrel. The oil is bought through Turkey from Syria, and it's sold to black market traders who function throughout the Levant."

http://www.syriadeeply.org/articles/2014/07/5856/isis-3-million-day-selling-oil-analysts/

[cee-dee]

That's as maybe (or maybe not) but like I said, you can't hide the oil under your jacket and it's no good straight out of the ground, it needs refining.

How does it get from one place to another and why isn't it being stopped?

[joamur_gosof]

I had to pop back as I have a theory on why the trail is ''unknown''..it is unknown to the us as its not reported,but very known to the them as cautions says and she is right that money is deemed more valuable than people.

My theory goes like this........Iran, Russia,and China want a new monatary system within their spheres..USA don't want this (explain why they care in a mo)

Saudi likes its partnership with USA on oil for gold and guns because gold and guns give them control of the middle east ( a kind of United arab states (without much consent of most of the Arabs)

It works like this ,Saudi are the USA's eyes on the ground around its petro dollary (they are also its most brutal allied force.)

When the 'lets make a new currency ' as we are fed up of USA federal reserve controlling the whole show showed momentum and possibly Europe breakaway the USA decided to run an oil pipeline through saudi and syria,cutting russia out of the enery market (oil/money market) for Europe...hence no Europe break away possible.

USA do not want to allow Europe an escape route as Europe owes them trillions upon trillions...A bit like gov promised you will work and supply to pay off the debt (plus next 150 years of folks too)

Things got a little out of hand when Saudi told USA they will let the pipe line go ahead through there country but it will cost them big time (this is normal relations) but USA is skint thanks to its bankers loaning Europe all bill gates money lol sooooo what to do what to do 🙂  well first up was a coup of Syria ..that is a little sandy hill the saudis wouldnt mind but cant have thanks to Russia support (russia has Ukrain for fuel lines) so the dirty deal is made Al quiad (or saudi cia) are allowed the go get on Syria...........all goes horribly wrong when Europe mainly, demanded concrete proof (not another Tony liar Iraq they yelled) and lo and behold ..oops wasn't the Syrians after all call off the 'OBAMA BOMB SQUAD'' ..it was Al quiadywaddy.

Russia then sees whats what and Us are real pi..ed as they like to say...so they help and support a little ''ARMED'' group who want Russia out of Ukrain (call it petty tit for tat by a big baby that always wants its own way...for thats what it is)

Russia out manouver USA and actually for first time ever get overwhelming Europe support  (people not politicians ,they are different altogether) so Usa are again pi,,ed especially at its biggest borrowers..You can catch up from there on newsnight...

Soo what has all this 3rd world war got to do with ISIS  (?? who ? hourus's sister ???? lol)  and how they get away with bloody murder let alone be given a made up name by media and,how they have channels to refine and supply oil and people and weopons and drugs etc to other mafia/black marketeers ,/gangsters ..call em what you like but mainly evil b's who put money over life (as caution rightly says) well its because its in the vested interest of USA (world police) and therefore yours if your european,so having all the refineries ,labs and manufacturing of the western world at your disposal  (blind eye mind) its fairly easy.

All countries being terrifed beyond our knowledge are Muslim so who's being terrorized in the name of Islam most...who has turned Europe well and truly against muslims ? Who has the go ahead to secure all muslims and non muslims from the evil threat of muslims and who stands to gain from muslim OIL countries  (very important that bit)  being irradicated from Islam. Must be the Islam following muslims then musnt it .

A recap short summary then

Russia and Iran ,with interest from China and Europe try to undermine the federal reserve (western world bank HQ) 

USA pi,,ed about it and go to war

Saudis brutal regime let loose on everyone but mainly muslim oil countries (cause they are infidels as well as they are muslims and should know better than trying to be happy and un islamic... chapter 6 section 9 bit anyway)

Horrendous unvillified attacks against humanity and innocents of non muslim countries

Everyone wants end of it all ant to all live in peace without oppression

USA to be fair has borrowed everyone everything trying to bring this Utopia about and has imo the right to be annoyed we swayed away after the dosh was spent...but hey is all this really necassary ? 

And to answer some questions now..well yes some countries believe this petro dollar lifeline is worth the odd blind eye .

Well thats my theory anyhow 

[upthecreekyetagain]

---

@cee-dee wrote:

That's as maybe (or maybe not) but like I said, you can't hide the oil under your jacket and it's no good straight out of the ground, it needs refining.

How does it get from one place to another and why isn't it being stopped?

---

Again Google gives the answer

"Through a rough and dangerous process, ISIS refines some of the production in makeshift refineries. It reportedly sells the products to local consumers (for small-scale electricity generation), the Syrian regime (in exchange for immunity against air strikes) and black marketeers. It also exports crude oil from the Omar field to Turkey in tanker trucks that it owns. Some queues of tanker trucks have been reported to extend 2 kilometres. The sale price is estimated between $10-22 per barrel when sold through the rebel oil trading hub of Manbij, but likely fetches higher if trucked to Turkey directly. There have been reports from Turkish authorities of plastic pipelines being laid by the group, crossing over the border to Turkey."

http://www.chathamhouse.org/expert/comment/15203

[**caution**opinion_ahead]

---

@joamur_gosof wrote:

A recap short summary then

Russia and Iran ,with interest from China and Europe try to undermine the federal reserve (western world bank HQ) 

USA pi,,ed about it and go to war

Saudis brutal regime let loose on everyone but mainly muslim oil countries (cause they are infidels as well as they are muslims and should know better than trying to be happy and un islamic... chapter 6 section 9 bit anyway)

Horrendous unvillified attacks against humanity and innocents of non muslim countries

Everyone wants end of it all ant to all live in peace without oppression

USA to be fair has borrowed everyone everything trying to bring this Utopia about and has imo the right to be annoyed we swayed away after the dosh was spent...but hey is all this really necassary ? 

And to answer some questions now..well yes some countries believe this petro dollar lifeline is worth the odd blind eye .

Well thats my theory anyhow 

---

And if people won't turn a blind eye, blind them properly, either with the threat of terrorism (you only have to kill a few to reach the many, the key being keeping it unpredictable for maximum effect) or war, both backed (either openly or more sneakily) by the blind eye turners.

So, the solution.  Well, either we have to manage without the oil (which would bankrupt us in short order and, when push came to shove, I think you'd find a lot of people suddenly became a whole lot less concerned about human rights abuses in the face of a bankrupt nation and the loss of developed-world conditions here) or we use it and focus people's minds elsewhere.  Ah yes, religious differences will do nicely cos anything can be done in the name of religion and anyone challening the situation is being disrespectful of others' right to power over the masses via hijacking rational thought.

All that said, none of it is new or specific to our time.  Humans will always fight for resources and power is a powerful resource.  Whilst this struggle used to be on a local(ish) level, now it is international.  That's the main difference ... together with the fact we now have weapons of mass distruction to jolly it all up a bit.

[bookhunter2007]

---

@**caution**opinion_ahead wrote:

Some fair points, but ... overindulging in alcohol and causing damage to yourself and possible collateral danger to a few others (eg if you get behind the wheel of a car or start a fight) is wholly different from setting out to make whole sections of society do something (or stop them doing something) as religious groups do.

---

Do they? As I pointed out earlier I think it’s a tad simplistic to simply reduce it to a “religious issue”. However, when religion, politics and nationalism become institutionally intertwined into an aggressive form – THAT’s when real problems arise. E.g:

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/07/06/womans-attempt-to-troll-liberals-backfires-when-someone-noti...

On the flip side, countries such as North Korea and China could be seen as repressive – yet there’s not a single Bible, Torah, or Koran in sight justifying this repression. In fact historically, they've tended to be quite hostile to religion.

---

**caution**opinion_ahead wrote

To my mind, if a religious person chooses to fast or follow rituals or abstain from certain behaviours, they are completely free to do so.  Where it all gets objectionable is when others are dragged in against their will (or, in the case of children, without any say), and where human rights are seen as entirely secondary to the desires of the religious for others to do and say and think as they do.

---

Fair point – esp when children are involved, but surely this also applies to lifestyle choices people make – religion or no religion. As in the case of alcohol consumption, which causes far more deaths and injuries than terrorism.

On another note, I see world leaders are lining-up to "pay their respects" to the now-deceased leader of a country where Christianity is banned and bloggers get flogged:

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/01/why-is-westminster-abbey-honouring-the-king-of-a-co...

[upthecreekyetagain]

---

@bookhunter2007 wrote:

---

On another note, I see world leaders are lining-up to "pay their respects" to the now-deceased leader of a country where Christianity is banned and bloggers get flogged:

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/01/why-is-westminster-abbey-honouring-the-king-of-a-co...

---

The very same politicians who if they did have the moral compass to distance themselves, and us, from such countries and isolated them by not buying their oil would soon be voted out of office as petrol prices rose!

Easy to shift blame to politicians when really all they are doing in most cases is what will keep them in office.

[**caution**opinion_ahead]

---

@bookhunter2007 wrote:

---

@**caution**opinion_ahead wrote:

Some fair points, but ... overindulging in alcohol and causing damage to yourself and possible collateral danger to a few others (eg if you get behind the wheel of a car or start a fight) is wholly different from setting out to make whole sections of society do something (or stop them doing something) as religious groups do.

---

Do they? As I pointed out earlier I think it’s a tad simplistic to simply reduce it to a “religious issue”. However, when religion, politics and nationalism become institutionally intertwined into an aggressive form – THAT’s when real problems arise. E.g:

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/07/06/womans-attempt-to-troll-liberals-backfires-when-someone-noti...

On the flip side, countries such as North Korea and China could be seen as repressive – yet there’s not a single Bible, Torah, or Koran in sight justifying this repression. In fact historically, they've tended to be quite hostile to religion.

---

Oh, certainly the "religious" aspect is only a part of the whole.  But it is a particularly potent part because it creates an us/themness, whilst at the same time making it acceptable to deny human rights to the "thems", and its hold can be very easily spread across borders and continents.  Its grip is not specific to one country.  Whilst non-religious repressive regimes do exert similar pressures to conform, there is always hope of release as political leaders can die or get overthrown and a new order may follow ... or may not, of course, but the opportunity is there whereas overthrowning a religion is more difficult.

So, for example, radical religious leaders can have a hold on people across the globe, and can, therefore, cause the human rights of others to be denied in countries far from their base.  In contrast, authority in, say, North Korea, has little sway anywhere except within its immediate surroundings. 

---

@bookhunter2007 wrote:

---

**caution**opinion_ahead wrote

To my mind, if a religious person chooses to fast or follow rituals or abstain from certain behaviours, they are completely free to do so.  Where it all gets objectionable is when others are dragged in against their will (or, in the case of children, without any say), and where human rights are seen as entirely secondary to the desires of the religious for others to do and say and think as they do.

---

Fair point – esp when children are involved, but surely this also applies to lifestyle choices people make – religion or no religion. As in the case of alcohol consumption, which causes far more deaths and injuries than terrorism.

---

Alcohol and religion have things in common.  Both are addictions.  Both change the brain. Both are often indulged in within group settings and tend to have a more potent hold because of this.   But I don't think people who drink set out to kill or injury, whereas terrorists do just that.  Also, alcoholics are not trying to make others become alcoholics.  There's no coercion to join in.  No one has ever come to my door and asked why I'm a teetotaller and tried to persuade me to take up drinking. 

[**caution**opinion_ahead]

---

@upthecreekyetagain wrote:

---

Easy to shift blame to politicians when really all they are doing in most cases is what will keep them in office.

---

Ideally politicians should do what is right ... not what will keep them in office.

[cee-dee]

Elected politicians are supposed to be there to represent the view of their electorate and on that basis are supposed to do what their electorate want not "what is right" or what they think is right.

[malacandran]

Elected politicians, are supposed to act in the best interests of the people they represent.  This means, that the politicians must sometimes disregard what the electorate think.  Because the electorate may not be in a postion to judge,  what's best for them.

[cee-dee]

This thought that "we know what's good for you" is wrong.

Politicians are not elected the do that or represent themselves, they're elected to represent their electorate.

[malacandran]

That's what I said.  A politician shouldn't be a mere " parrot", repeating the voice of his voters.

The politician's job - is to use his superior mind,  to determine what is actually in the best interest of his voters.  Not, what the voters think.

[cee-dee]

I'm sure many of the electrorate would quickly vote for someone else if a politician dared to say that he knew best and wasn't going to be a parrot repeating the voice of his voters.

[malacandran]

Well, there you have it in a nutshell, cee-dee.

No modern politician dares say or do anything, which might result in him not getting re-elected. That's the basic flaw of democracy.