|
|
|
BLACK-GOLD BLUES U.S.-Saudi oil imports fund American mosques Hijackers' homeland has pumped millions into some of largest Islamic centers here Posted: April 22, 2002 1:00 a.m. Eastern By Paul Sperry © 2002 WorldNetDaily.com Every time you fill up your tank, you may be helping to finance an Islamic mosque in America. If that sounds far-fetched, consider this: Some of the largest mosques and Islamic centers in America are funded by the royal government of Saudi Arabia, which gets most of its revenues from oil exports. And America is its biggest customer. "You certainly can say that U.S. oil purchases end up funding U.S. mosques," said Daniel Pipes, a former State and Defense department official who now heads the Middle East Forum in Philadelphia. So what? More and more, Saudi is embracing a radical and acutely violent strain of Islam called "Wahabbism," one that is spreading rapidly from its borders. Most of the Saudi people adhere to this increasingly anti-American sect. Saudi was home to 15 of the 19 Sept. 11 hijackers, as well as their leader, Osama bin Laden. And it has been a reluctant ally in America's war on terror. Now federal authorities are investigating whether Saudi laundered money to Islamic terrorist groups through U.S.-based Muslim charities. Some 80 groups have recently received subpoenas for financial records. Of the more than 1,200 mosques in America, more than 80 percent have been built within the last 20 years - thanks in large part to Saudi money, according to Reza F. Safa, author of "Inside Islam." "Saudi Arabia alone has spent $87 billion since 1973 to spread Islam throughout the United States and the Western hemisphere," Safa said. For example, King Fahd of Saudi pledged as much as $8 million to build a new mosque at the site of the Masjid Bilal Islamic Center, the large black mosque in South Central Los Angeles. Last year, Saudi's Islamic Development Bank committed an additional $295,000 for the construction of the Bilal Islamic Primary and Secondary School. Bilal is just one of many black mosques funded by Saudi. Most of them, including Bilal, are associated with Imam W. Deen Mohammed, head of the Chicago-based Muslim American Society, or MAS, which has been credited with helping convert more than a million U.S. blacks to Islam. A spokesman for the group said "hundreds of American mosques are associated with" MAS, explaining that each major city has "one main mosque and two or three smaller centers in the suburbs." The Chicago area, for example, has a MAS mosque and three related centers, he says. Black converts make up the fastest-growing segment of the Muslim population in America. An estimated 60 to 90 percent of all U.S. converts to Islam are black, Safa says. "Eighty percent of these converts were raised in the church," he added. Christianity Today predicts that if the conversion rates continue, Islam could become the dominant religion in black urban areas by 2020. Nation of Islam Mohammed originally took over the Nation of Islam after the death of his father, Elijah Muhammad, who founded the group. A rift with Louis Farrakhan, then a rising Nation of Islam star, led him to found MAS, which is considered less radical than Farrakhan's Nation of Islam today. But Pipes notes that Mohammed has recently been steering MAS toward fundamentalism to cater to the growing number of immigrants attending his mosques. His for-profit Collective Purchasing Conference, also based in Chicago, sells members orthodox Muslim clothing and "halal" meats butchered according to the Koran, the sacred book of Muslims. Mohammed's father, Elijah, "hated" the U.S. and celebrated when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, Pipes said. He was arrested and served three years in jail for draft evasion. Though he expressed "shock" at the Sept. 11 terrorism, W. Deen Mohammed didn't categorically condemn the attacks in a statement to MAS members. That Saudi Arabia is stoking the black Muslim movement in America does not comfort Islam-watchers, given growing resentment of Saudis toward the U.S. - which, as it happens, dovetails with black attitudes, recent polls show. Sixty-four percent of Saudis have an "unfavorable" view of the U.S., according to a Gallup poll taken December and January, after the terrorist attacks. That compares with 57 percent of black Muslims who think America is an "immoral society," according to a Zogby International poll taken November and December. Black attitudes Like the Saudis, the vast majority of black Muslims oppose U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Fully 70 percent, in fact, blame the Sept. 11 attacks on that policy, the Zogby poll says. Echoing Saudis, most black Muslims say America should stop aiding Israel and support a Palestinian state. Tellingly, the Saudi government prevented Gallup from asking the following questions of its citizens: Is U.S. military action in Afghanistan morally justifiable? Do you believe news reports that Arabs carried out the Sept. 11 attacks? Do you like or dislike President Bush? Analysts speculate Saudi officials feared the answers would make their country look like it hates its putative ally. That's actually not far from the truth, judging from recent actions. Since Sept. 11, Saudi has refused to let the U.S. use its bases as staging areas for military operations in Afghanistan, and now it's saying the bases are off-limits for any military campaign against Iraq. "We will not accept in our country even a single (American) soldier who will attack Muslims or Arabs," Saudi Defense Minister Prince Sultan said late last year. Saudi also has been slow to freeze financial assets of terrorist groups, forcing President Bush to plead for cooperation. (Bush's family and friends have been in business with the Saudi government for years.) Little known is that Saudis have been accused of involvement in two terrorist attacks on Americans in Saudi Arabia - the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Dharhan, which killed 19 U.S. airmen, and the 1995 bombing of a Riyadh military center that left five Americans dead. Even less known is that Saudi-born bin Laden had closer links to Saudi intelligence than to the CIA during the Afghan-Soviet war. During the '80s, he was "effectively working as an arm of Saudi intelligence," said Peter Bergen, author of "Holy War Inc.: Inside the Secret World of Osama bin Laden." Bin Laden comes from a wealthy and connected Saudi family, as did some of the hijackers. Still over a barrel Despite Saudi Arabia's growing anti-American extremism, attempts to reduce U.S. dependence on Saudi oil have fallen flat. America imports more than half its oil supply, and Saudi is its biggest overseas supplier, shipping more than 1.5 million barrels here a day, according to the American Petroleum Institute. (Canada is actually America's biggest overall foreign supplier.) API and the Energy Department don?t break out U.S. purchases of Saudi crude by oil-and-gas company. But of household names, Shell Oil buys the least Persian Gulf (of which Saudi is the largest producer) oil, Energy says. Chevron, Exxon and Amoco buy the most. Last week, Senate Democrats and a handful of eco-friendly Republicans killed a proposal in Bush's energy plan to open up the Alaskan wilderness reserve to oil drilling. Curiously, the initiative went down without much more than a whimper from the White House. Opening up the area to exploration would produce an estimated 6 billion to 16 billion additional barrels of domestic crude - potentially replacing all of what America imports from the Saudis for the next 30 years, according to the National Center for Public Policy Research. That would, in turn, dry up some major Saudi money for mosques and the spreading of Islamism in America. With the defeat of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge drilling bill, Alaskan caribou are safe. Question is, are Americans?
81 responses total.
At the rate at which the oil would have been extracted, drilling in ANWR, when it eventually came into production (years from now), would have reduced our dependence on foreign oil by 2%. A drop in the bucket. Also, before anyone goes out thinking that they should buy their gas from Shell, you should be aware that the logo on the gas station sign doesn't have anything to do with whose refinery the gas comes from.
Hang on. Are people really just figuring out that the Saudis send money to mosques in America?
Shocking, isn't it? Here's another shocking revelation: Did you know Americans send money to churches overseas?
BASTARDS!
And most of that money sent to America to build mosques IS SPENT ON AMERICAN BUILDING MATERIALS AND LABOR. What is going to happen next?
This response has been erased.
Actually... it's not entirely that innocent. The Saudis offer money on the condition that the mosque they're funding becomes more Wahhabist. The Islamic Center of Ann Arbor used to let men and women worship in the same room until they took Saudi money. (I think it was the one here.)
We have other laws concerning illegal deeds. It is not illegal to worship in different rooms, as far as I know. (It is just stupid.)
> Opening up the area to exploration would produce an estimated 6 billion > to 16 billion additional barrels of domestic crude - potentially > replacing all of what America imports from the Saudis for the next 30 > years, according to the National Center for Public Policy Research. That makes the range of estimates of economically feasibly retrievable crude in ANWR from 0 to 16 billion barrels. Obviously, the only numbers being presented are those which support whichever viewpoint the presenter is pushing. I think it is high time that the US government stops treating religious institutions as special entities and revokes their tax-exempt status. If we're going to have fight all these military actions because of God, then we'd damn well better get the insitutions selling God to help pay for them.
Re #8: I didn't say it was illegal, I just said it wasn't innocent. The
price tag to get Saudi money is to sign on to Saudi ideology.
That's something those of us who aren't Wahhabi Moslems should be
concerned about, because Wahhabis don't co-exist with members of
other Islamic denominations, not to mention non-Moslems, well at
all. Basically, the Saudis are spending money on US mosques to
try to make US Moslems more fundamentalist and less tolerant.
When you get down to it, we're supposed to drill in the Alaskan
Wildlife refuge because The Saudi's don't like us. We will, of course, protect
the environment of Alaska when we do so.
And current5 policy from the White House Permits the dumping of Coal
Mining waste into Streams and rivers. It was justified because we had to
"Bring ERA standards and rules in line with the Practice of the ARMY COrp of
Engineers. (yes, i DO have the order right.) Various Environmental
organizations in litigation with the coal industry, are not all that happy
about the change in policy.
Neither am I. of course, Dubya's recent press appearnces have stated
he's pro-environment.
Re #0: Like I said: FIGHT TERRORISM, BOYCOTT OPEC OIL. Unfortunately for the point the author was trying to make, ANWR is a red herring. It would take ten years to come on-line and wouldn't make more than a blip in global oil prices (which is where Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Iran make their money; they don't care who buys it). We could do many times as much damage to their bottom line by increasing the mileage of our vehicles and driving less.
And we all know that 'driving less' just is not going to happen unless we CANNOT get the fuel.
What a silly article. I especially enjoyed the "57% of all Black Muslims think America is an immoral society" statistic. Thank you, Captain obvious. I would be extremely surprised if the percentage of Southern Baptists who think the same thing isn't a lot higher.
and why wouldn't it be? by the standardss of 'morality,' (choose your version) the majority (over 50.1%) ARE inside the fold of (either ) immorality or ammorality. shit, just look at the faculty and staff and students of UM! gelinas knows - details not forthcoming (yet).
Re #13: No, it wouldn't take anything like that. A hike in prices of a buck or so per gallon would cut driving mileage quite a bit. Remember the summer of 2000? People cut back to the minimum when prices topped two bucks a gallon, and they'd do it again. If such conditions continued it would affect housing and commuting too. People would also get interested in vehicles with REALLY good mileage. VW demoed a little thing not long ago. 2-seater tandem, graphite body over a magnesium frame, 300 cc 9 horsepower diesel yielding a top speed of about 74 MPH... and *234* miles per gallon at top speed (0.99 liters per 100 km). If most people drove things like that we could double miles driven and still cut vehicular fuel consumption by about 4/5. (The oil states would become ghost nations, and deservedly so.)
Wow, it'd be neat to rod out that little puppy. Imagine the horsepower
to weight ratio ...
wouldn't put a dent in commercial traffic, so your estimate is a bit pie- in-the-sky...
Plus, it would kick driving fatalities through the roof.
That's not an absolute. There are plenty of motorcycle drivers on the road and, while fatalities/mile are probably higher for them than for people in trucks, they are not so much higher to discourage motorcycles. Their biggest general drawback, however, is weather exposure, so there could be plenty of small efficient enclosed cars that get great mileage without increased fatality rates unrelated to driver error. Truck drivers just use that as an excuse to support their fuel-wasting behavior.
Lightweight construction is going to increase driver and passenger fatalities, unless there's some way to make it as safe in an impact as cars now are. That's pretty much a given. Motorcycles aren't exactly analogous -- and the increased fatality rate for motorcycles might actually turn out to be lower than it would for vehicles like the kind we're talking about, simply because motorcycles require extra training (admittedly not much) and usually aren't driven in bad weather, and these cars will be. Don't misunderstand me -- I'm not advocating SUVs, which I think are an abomination, I'm just pointing out a problem with the car Russ describes.
The first rule is, don't have impacts. Most people don't have impacts.
There are ways to make lightweight vehicles extremely safe. Open-wheel race cars have been doing it for years. The challenge would be to fold that into a practical passenger vehicle.
Re #18: Commercial traffic could be a lot better streamlined than it is, cruise a bit slower, and/or move to rails. From what I've been able to glean from various sources, the typical semi-rig has at least twice as much drag as it really has to, and maybe more like 3-4 times. There are also serious possibilities with hybrids; if you plug into the electric mains at every major stop and that carries you for the next ten miles without the main engine, that's a huge amount of commercial traffic that moves without oil. Re #19: SUVs are no safer than regular cars. They roll over far more frequently, especially in single-vehicle accidents, and rollovers are one of the most hazardous events in any vehicle. Most SUV designs should have been prohibited because of safety concerns to other vehicles; their bumpers are far too high. $2.50/gallon gasoline would address this problem by getting people to leave those SUVs parked except when absolutely necessary, and retire them sooner. If they aren't moving, they aren't a danger. Re #20: Motorcycles are lucky to get 50 MPG; a person sitting upright is fairly draggy. It's not too surprising to me that VW was able to get better than 5 times that (the test drive from the plant to the show burned 0.89 liters/100 km, or 264 MPG).
My point about motorcycles concerned safety more than efficiency, but they are still pretty efficient. How do you propose to make the electricity for those hybrids? From natural gas, I presume. But that can be used directly as fuel with greater efficiency. Hybrids are most efficient when using electricity generated and used in the vehicle itself, especially by recovering energy when braking.
There was just an article mentioning that auto insurance is spiking right now, partly due to maintenance of artificially low premiums and partly due to the prevalence of SUVs. A quote of one insurance rep mentioned that if an SUV runs a red light (and I've seen them come awfully close), the car they crash into is a complete write-off, and the SUV is still expensive to repair.
If everyone drove them, it wouldn't kick driving fatalities through
the roof, nor insurance costs, however.
Why are people assuming I'm advocating SUVs? I'm not, I'm just advocating against ultralight cars like the ones Russ was talking about.
re#27: Not practical so long as semis share the roadways.
Hybrids run off the same fuels as conventional cars -- that's one of their big attractions. Hybrids are a neat idea, and I hope they become more popular. Main problems include considerable extra complexity (& initial cost/maintenance), and less practical as an overall car (at least part of the overall efficiency of this latest batch of hybrids is due to them being designed as an extremely streamlined 2-seater -- a hybrid SUV would not be nearly as impressive in terms of efficiency & performance.)
The Honda hybrid is a 2-seater, but the Toyota is a fairly normal 4-seater, I think. I'm not sure if the existance of semis on the road is an argument against ultra-light cars. If you are hit dead-on by a semi, the advantage of being in a Mazda Protege rather than a well-built utlra-light car are probably marginal. You're toast either way. The bigger difference is probably in hitting things more SUV sized.
The difference is that if you're in an ultra-light car, being hit by a Mazda Protege has the same effect as being hit by a semi.
In addition, an ultra light is much more effected by the 'draft' caused by a moving semi.
Why? They would presumably be smaller, so would have decreased forces on them from the wake. As long as the tires hold it should not make much difference what is the mass of the veehicle.
They might not be that much smaller, though, given that they still have to hold passengers. A lot of it depends on design, of course, but in general lighter cars are a lot more vulnerable to aerodynamic problems.
Wouldnt an ultra-light car be very useful for city driving though. It seems that one of those would be at least as safe as riding a bike or a moped on the street? If gas prices got high enough, you would see people choosing those kinds of vehicles more. Heck, you'll see people riding their bicycles more too.
But WHY would a light car be more vulnerable to aerodynamic problems? I can see that they would be more easily rocked (tilted), but should that be a problem?
Re #25: You're wrong about efficiency. An auto engine can get perhaps 30% efficiency, but a combined-cycle gas-turbine powerplant can easily beat 50% and at least one has been specced to hit 60%. In theory, you could get twice as many miles from natural gas burned in a stationary powerplant than from natural gas burned in a vehicle. Co-generated electricity has an effective efficiency of nearly 100% minus transmission losses; if you are using space heat, it makes a huge amount of sense to generate electricity from the fuel and then heat with the waste of the generator. Otherwise you just burn fuel in one place to make electricity and throw the waste heat away, then burn more fuel for the heat you need. This is also true of use in a vehicle; it's more efficient to burn fuel where you can use heat and send electricity to run a vehicle than it is to burn fuel in a vehicle and throw the waste heat away. And did I mention that grid-charged hybrid vehicles could run on energy from coal, nuclear, wind, hydro and solar? All of these could displace oil, and at least one of the above is bound to please some constituency. Re #28: Ultralights are one thing, but the PNGV was supposed to produce a FULL SIZE 4-door sedan that would get 80 MPG. You'd get a full measure of crash-worthiness out of something that size, on less than 1/3 of the fuel consumption of the average US vehicle. If you charged from the grid you could cut oil consumption much further, up to 100% on short trips. Re #30: Funny, but the auto companies disagree with you regarding performance. The Dodge Ram Contractor Edition has the same performance with a 4.6 liter as the 5.7 liter standard version, and the Ford Escape hybrid would have achieved what, 40 MPG with the same performance? One thing people don't seem to get is that electric powertrains often have sparkling performance; the GM EV-1 can out-run many Corvettes up to 60 MPH. The only problem is energy storage (range), and a hybrid option deals with that.
Re #31: The new hybrid Honda Civic is also a four-seater. The Insight was just their first effort, not the end of the program. Re #35: My experience is that problems with semi wakes have more to do with the surface area to weight ratio of a car than weight by itself. My Honda Civic is pushed around a little by semi wakes, but not dramatically. Wakes were much more of a problem in full-sized vans and minivans I've driven, in spite of their much higher weight, because they have so much surface area. They would literally rock from side to side when following a semi, because of the eddies thrown off by the back of the trailer. Crosswinds also were troublesome. When a solar car race was held in Australia, one of the safety checks the cars had to pass was they had to tolerate being passed by a "road train" without becoming unstable. Australian road trains often have four or five trailers and travel at up to 80 mph. If those dinky 300 pound solar cars could be made to handle being passed by one of those beasts, it should be possible to make a lightweight passenger car that can handle our garden-variety semis.
| Last 40 Responses and Response Form. |
|
|
|
- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss