Wondering how languish views SA's attempt to cripple both the Iranian and the US oil industry....
Today, the Saudi market is plummeting: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-01-17/iran-stocks-head-for-highest-since-august-after-sanctions-relief
Futile. The oil will still be there when they want to increase prices.
Whatever topples that kleptocracy the sooner the better; pity it's citizens and the wider Middle East will probably have to suffer.
Quote from: mongers on January 17, 2016, 02:00:22 PM
Whatever topples that kleptocracy the sooner the better; pity it's citizens and the wider Middle East will probably have to suffer.
Have to disagree there. Lets get Syria and Libya sorted out first.
Quote from: Hamilcar on January 17, 2016, 12:57:26 PM
Wondering how languish views SA's attempt to cripple both the Iranian and the US oil industry....
Today, the Saudi market is plummeting: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-01-17/iran-stocks-head-for-highest-since-august-after-sanctions-relief
You might want to re-read that article you linked to. It says nothing about "SA's attempt to cripple both the Iranian and the US oil industry." Probably a good thing, as the whole "it's not the Chinese drop in demand that's lowering oil prices, but a weird conspiracy to do the impossible" shtick is old and tired.
SA would probably not try to 'cripple" a US oil industry that's making record field production of oil. They'd wait until the US oil industry wasn't at its strongest.
Canadian oil industry has certainly taken a hit, regardless of the cause being Chinese demand down, Saudi conspiracy or whatever else.
Quote from: PRC on January 17, 2016, 07:31:18 PM
Canadian oil industry has certainly taken a hit, regardless of the cause being Chinese demand down, Saudi conspiracy or whatever else.
That's true, but Suadi conspiracies against Canada just don't have the cache conspiracy theorists demand.
Quote from: grumbler on January 17, 2016, 07:23:25 PM
You might want to re-read that article you linked to. It says nothing about "SA's attempt to cripple both the Iranian and the US oil industry." Probably a good thing, as the whole "it's not the Chinese drop in demand that's lowering oil prices, but a weird conspiracy to do the impossible" shtick is old and tired.
SA would probably not try to 'cripple" a US oil industry that's making record field production of oil. They'd wait until the US oil industry wasn't at its strongest.
Hamilcar did read the article that he linked to. In his first sentence, he wasn't referring to the article, he was referring to rather widespread speculation that Saudi Arabia is increasing production to lower the price of oil to simultaneously hurt Iran (which is in need of higher prices) and stop significant production in NA (both Canada and the US) by keeping prices at a level so that production there is unprofitable (production costs are much higher than in Saudi Arabia). Unfortunately to understand this, you would need to have some understanding of what is going on in world oil market, and the discourse surrounding it.
Yeah, but that doesn't cripple the US oil industry. One of the nice things about resource extraction is that the product is still there even if you aren't in production. So long as you keep hold on the land and maintain the infrastructure you can go back into production when the market is better. Fortunately the Iranians (and the Russians) are so reliant on oil money they can't just lay off workers and idle their fields. They need to be producing all the time. Even if they aren't making as much cash. A resource based economy really sucks. Iran and Russia both have the technical expertise to change their economy, but that's difficult and dangerous and quick oil money is so seductive.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 17, 2016, 08:24:36 PM
Yeah, but that doesn't cripple the US oil industry. One of the nice things about resource extraction is that the product is still there even if you aren't in production. So long as you keep hold on the land and maintain the infrastructure you can go back into production when the market is better.
a) I think that is right.
b) The counterargument is that production is extremely capital intensive and long term in nature. So yeah, the oil is still there, but the entities that invested in the projects expecting $100/barrel oil are losing a fortune. When the price of oil creeps back up to where it may be profitable again, investors will be a bit more gun shy about ramping up production. Or so the argument goes.
Quote from: alfred russel on January 17, 2016, 08:30:10 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 17, 2016, 08:24:36 PM
Yeah, but that doesn't cripple the US oil industry. One of the nice things about resource extraction is that the product is still there even if you aren't in production. So long as you keep hold on the land and maintain the infrastructure you can go back into production when the market is better.
a) I think that is right.
b) The counterargument is that production is extremely capital intensive and long term in nature. So yeah, the oil is still there, but the entities that invested in the projects expecting $100/barrel oil are losing a fortune. When the price of oil creeps back up to where it may be profitable again, investors will be a bit more gun shy about ramping up production. Or so the argument goes.
The capital intensive part is on the front end, building the stuff, buying the equipment, drilling the holes etc. After that it costs much less. If the first company that built it goes bankrupt another one will buy the stuff and sit on it.
Quote from: alfred russel on January 17, 2016, 08:03:20 PM
Hamilcar did read the article that he linked to. In his first sentence, he wasn't referring to the article, he was referring to rather widespread speculation that Saudi Arabia is increasing production to lower the price of oil to simultaneously hurt Iran (which is in need of higher prices) and stop significant production in NA (both Canada and the US) by keeping prices at a level so that production there is unprofitable (production costs are much higher than in Saudi Arabia). Unfortunately to understand this, you would need to have some understanding of what is going on in world oil market, and the discourse surrounding it.
Ah, so "widespread speculation" counts as fact for you (and Hamilcar), eh? Unfortunately for you conspiracy wackos, I know a bit more about the world oil market, and the economics of it, than you do. I note and reject your attempt to save your argument and counter mine by trying to shift the goal posts to "North American" rather than "US" oil (despite Hami's clear mention of "the US oil industry" as a target).
The problem with the conspiracy theory is that Iran's ally, Iraq, is the country that is increasing production, not Saudi Arabia. Saudi production did return to 2012 and 2013 peak levels of production (north of 10m bbd) for periods in 2015, but isn't at that level now, and 2015 production was much like that of 2012 and 2013. The Saudi oil output data just doesn't fit your conspiracy.
Further, while tar sands oil production is certainly vulnerable to the current crude oil price slump, typical American oil fields are not. The expense in US oil isn't production, but discovery. The UK, Brazil and Nigeria find oil much more expensive to actually bring to market than does the US. They are the ones that are being hit by the oil price slump.
Now, this isn't to say that Saudi Arabia isn't being as foolish in their energy production decisions as US and other oil companies are, by responding to a price slump by increasing or maintaining production of an irreplaceable product. But that's mere greed and stupidity. Never attribute to malice that which can adequately be explained by stupidity.
I'll give you and Hami that same consideration.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 17, 2016, 08:42:07 PM
The capital intensive part is on the front end, building the stuff, buying the equipment, drilling the holes etc. After that it costs much less. If the first company that built it goes bankrupt another one will buy the stuff and sit on it.
The theory isn't to stop any exploitation of fields already in production--both today and in the indefinite future--but to prevent future development of new fields where that front end investment hasn't been made.
Quote from: grumbler on January 17, 2016, 08:46:47 PM
Ah, so "widespread speculation" counts as fact for you (and Hamilcar), eh? Unfortunately for you conspiracy wackos, I know a bit more about the world oil market, and the economics of it, than you do. I note and reject your attempt to save your argument and counter mine by trying to shift the goal posts to "North American" rather than "US" oil (despite Hami's clear mention of "the US oil industry" as a target).
The problem with the conspiracy theory is that Iran's ally, Iraq, is the country that is increasing production, not Saudi Arabia. Saudi production did return to 2012 and 2013 peak levels of production (north of 10m bbd) for periods in 2015, but isn't at that level now, and 2015 production was much like that of 2012 and 2013. The Saudi oil output data just doesn't fit your conspiracy.
Further, while tar sands oil production is certainly vulnerable to the current crude oil price slump, typical American oil fields are not. The expense in US oil isn't production, but discovery. The UK, Brazil and Nigeria find oil much more expensive to actually bring to market than does the US. They are the ones that are being hit by the oil price slump.
Now, this isn't to say that Saudi Arabia isn't being as foolish in their energy production decisions as US and other oil companies are, by responding to a price slump by increasing or maintaining production of an irreplaceable product. But that's mere greed and stupidity. Never attribute to malice that which can adequately be explained by stupidity.
I'll give you and Hami that same consideration.
What is your problem? I haven't even made an argument in this thread. I was only trying to stand up to (rather pathetic) online bullying, from a cranky old troll with apparently nothing better to do than derail promising threads on an internet forum.
Quote from: alfred russel on January 17, 2016, 08:48:03 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 17, 2016, 08:42:07 PM
The capital intensive part is on the front end, building the stuff, buying the equipment, drilling the holes etc. After that it costs much less. If the first company that built it goes bankrupt another one will buy the stuff and sit on it.
The theory isn't to stop any exploitation of fields already in production--both today and in the indefinite future--but to prevent future development of new fields where that front end investment hasn't been made.
I don't think that has happened in history. The low gas prices in the 1980's didn't prevent new fields to open up in the 2000's.
Quote from: grumbler on January 17, 2016, 08:46:47 PM
I know a bit more about the world oil market, and the economics of it, than you do.
Grumbler knows all! He really should start every post with, "I know a bit more about x and y then you do."
Example: "I'm sorry Malthus, but I know a bit more about Canadian law then you do".
Quote from: alfred russel on January 17, 2016, 09:00:42 PM
What is your problem? I haven't even made an argument in this thread. I was only trying to stand up to (rather pathetic) online bullying, from a cranky old troll with apparently nothing better to do than derail promising threads on an internet forum.
Yes, you have made arguments in this thread. The reason that the "bullying" you think you saw was "pathetic" was, of course, that it was not bullying at all. It was merely reporting that a linked-to article didn't address the question being asked ("Wondering how languish views SA's attempt to cripple both the Iranian and the US oil industry..."). There is no evidence whatever that there is such an attempt, and the evidence shows, in fact, that such an attempt would not work, because there are multiple oil sources far more vulnerable to price drops than the US (even if Saudi Arabia had the capacity to lower oil prices).
Sorry if the truth derails your "promising" conspiracy thread. Not sorry if you see the deliverer of the bad news as a "cranky old troll." I revel in your pathetic insults.
Quote from: alfred russel on January 17, 2016, 08:30:10 PM
b) The counterargument is that production is extremely capital intensive and long term in nature. So yeah, the oil is still there, but the entities that invested in the projects expecting $100/barrel oil are losing a fortune. When the price of oil creeps back up to where it may be profitable again, investors will be a bit more gun shy about ramping up production. Or so the argument goes.
My understanding is that exploration is massively capital intensive and front loaded but production is not.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 17, 2016, 09:59:00 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on January 17, 2016, 08:30:10 PM
b) The counterargument is that production is extremely capital intensive and long term in nature. So yeah, the oil is still there, but the entities that invested in the projects expecting $100/barrel oil are losing a fortune. When the price of oil creeps back up to where it may be profitable again, investors will be a bit more gun shy about ramping up production. Or so the argument goes.
My understanding is that exploration is massively capital intensive and front loaded but production is not.
That is correct. IIRC, 60-70% of the "average total cost per barrel" that oil companies estimate comes from exploration costs. Offshore oil is probably closer to 50-50.
Saudi Arabia is being hurt worse by cheap oil than anyone, because so much of their revenue comes from oil. At their current rate of depletion, their fiscal reserves will be gone in less than five years. Kuwait and the Emirates diversified years ago and can keep this up for decades, if not indefinitely.
Saudi oil is the cheapest to produce, but mere production is only a small part of their oil economy.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 17, 2016, 08:24:36 PM
Yeah, but that doesn't cripple the US oil industry. One of the nice things about resource extraction is that the product is still there even if you aren't in production. So long as you keep hold on the land and maintain the infrastructure you can go back into production when the market is better. Fortunately the Iranians (and the Russians) are so reliant on oil money they can't just lay off workers and idle their fields. They need to be producing all the time. Even if they aren't making as much cash. A resource based economy really sucks. Iran and Russia both have the technical expertise to change their economy, but that's difficult and dangerous and quick oil money is so seductive.
It depends on fixed costs. The higher the fixed costs of oil extraction and exploration, the more effective the predatory pricing strategy is. And it pays off in multiple ways; not only do you bankrupt the marginal players altogether, but going forward you make future players think twice about investing and raise perceived risk.
Quote from: grumbler on January 17, 2016, 08:46:47 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on January 17, 2016, 08:03:20 PM
Hamilcar did read the article that he linked to. In his first sentence, he wasn't referring to the article, he was referring to rather widespread speculation that Saudi Arabia is increasing production to lower the price of oil to simultaneously hurt Iran (which is in need of higher prices) and stop significant production in NA (both Canada and the US) by keeping prices at a level so that production there is unprofitable (production costs are much higher than in Saudi Arabia). Unfortunately to understand this, you would need to have some understanding of what is going on in world oil market, and the discourse surrounding it.
Ah, so "widespread speculation" counts as fact for you (and Hamilcar), eh? Unfortunately for you conspiracy wackos, I know a bit more about the world oil market, and the economics of it, than you do. I note and reject your attempt to save your argument and counter mine by trying to shift the goal posts to "North American" rather than "US" oil (despite Hami's clear mention of "the US oil industry" as a target).
The problem with the conspiracy theory is that Iran's ally, Iraq, is the country that is increasing production, not Saudi Arabia. Saudi production did return to 2012 and 2013 peak levels of production (north of 10m bbd) for periods in 2015, but isn't at that level now, and 2015 production was much like that of 2012 and 2013. The Saudi oil output data just doesn't fit your conspiracy.
Further, while tar sands oil production is certainly vulnerable to the current crude oil price slump, typical American oil fields are not. The expense in US oil isn't production, but discovery. The UK, Brazil and Nigeria find oil much more expensive to actually bring to market than does the US. They are the ones that are being hit by the oil price slump.
Now, this isn't to say that Saudi Arabia isn't being as foolish in their energy production decisions as US and other oil companies are, by responding to a price slump by increasing or maintaining production of an irreplaceable product. But that's mere greed and stupidity. Never attribute to malice that which can adequately be explained by stupidity.
I'll give you and Hami that same consideration.
I have no dog in this argument, I don't know much about it and it doesn't particularly interest me.
But what the fuck is the matter with you? Do you think the tone you're using is in any way appropriate here? There is something seriously, seriously wrong with you, but whatever it is, taking it out on posters who have done nothing other than start a civil conversation is beyond pathetic. You are one seriously toxic poster here.
Quote from: DGuller on January 17, 2016, 10:58:28 PM
But what the fuck is the matter with you? Do you think the tone you're using is in any way appropriate here? There is something seriously, seriously wrong with you, but whatever it is, taking it out on posters who have done nothing other than start a civil conversation is beyond pathetic. You are one seriously toxic poster here.
Thanks for the free psychoanalysis, dad, but I'll pass on your moralizing. I think my tone here fits in well with Languish. It would probably fit in better if I joined you in telling people I don't know that "there is something s something seriously, seriously wrong with you," but I'll leave that to you. I don't have the ego, or the stomach, for it.
Quote from: grumbler on January 17, 2016, 11:04:40 PM
I think my tone here fits in well with Languish.
You sure about that? I don't think coming into innocuous threads with assholiness dialed up to 11 fits at all here. We may be rough with each other occasionally, but we're not psychos flipping out for no reason at all. Present company excluded, of course.
Quote from: grumbler on January 17, 2016, 10:35:30 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 17, 2016, 09:59:00 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on January 17, 2016, 08:30:10 PM
b) The counterargument is that production is extremely capital intensive and long term in nature. So yeah, the oil is still there, but the entities that invested in the projects expecting $100/barrel oil are losing a fortune. When the price of oil creeps back up to where it may be profitable again, investors will be a bit more gun shy about ramping up production. Or so the argument goes.
My understanding is that exploration is massively capital intensive and front loaded but production is not.
That is correct. IIRC, 60-70% of the "average total cost per barrel" that oil companies estimate comes from exploration costs. Offshore oil is probably closer to 50-50.
You know, I said it first in this thread, but you didn't say I was correct. :cry:
Quote from: DGuller on January 17, 2016, 11:12:01 PM
Quote from: grumbler on January 17, 2016, 11:04:40 PM
I think my tone here fits in well with Languish.
You sure about that? I don't think coming into innocuous threads with assholiness dialed up to 11 fits at all here. We may be rough with each other occasionally, but we're not psychos flipping out for no reason at all. Present company excluded, of course.
grumbler knows a bit more about assholiness than you do.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 17, 2016, 11:24:48 PM
Quote from: grumbler on January 17, 2016, 10:35:30 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 17, 2016, 09:59:00 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on January 17, 2016, 08:30:10 PM
b) The counterargument is that production is extremely capital intensive and long term in nature. So yeah, the oil is still there, but the entities that invested in the projects expecting $100/barrel oil are losing a fortune. When the price of oil creeps back up to where it may be profitable again, investors will be a bit more gun shy about ramping up production. Or so the argument goes.
My understanding is that exploration is massively capital intensive and front loaded but production is not.
That is correct. IIRC, 60-70% of the "average total cost per barrel" that oil companies estimate comes from exploration costs. Offshore oil is probably closer to 50-50.
You know, I said it first in this thread, but you didn't say I was correct. :cry:
Dorsey said you were, though. :hmm:
Quote from: DGuller on January 17, 2016, 11:12:01 PM
You sure about that? I don't think coming into innocuous threads with assholiness dialed up to 11 fits at all here. We may be rough with each other occasionally, but we're not psychos flipping out for no reason at all. Present company excluded, of course.
I'm sure. I don't think coming into a thread with personal insults and claims that another poster has "something seriously, seriously wrong" (aka "with assholiness dialed up to 11") is very cool. That behavior's just an example of "psychos flipping out for no reason at all" . It doesn't fit at all here, but I'll encourage you to do it, because your hyperbolic outrage is a hoot.
I called you out on your bad behavior. It wasn't in retaliation on an attack on me, but it was far from unprovoked.
And yes, something is seriously wrong with you. Normal people, even ones with really difficult personalities, do not act this way. I know there is zero chance that at this moment you will take anything I say to heart, but hopefully after some reflection some message will get through that maybe you are conducting yourself in a less than dignified manner.
So are we seeing another event of the same proportions as 2008 (talking both of Middle Eastern and Asian markets now), or will we simply have these bubble bursts every few years from now on and this is the new normal?
Quote from: Martinus on January 18, 2016, 01:39:46 AM
So are we seeing another event of the same proportions as 2008 (talking both of Middle Eastern and Asian markets now), or will we simply have these bubble bursts every few years from now on and this is the new normal?
Not every decrease in asset prices is a bubble bursting.
Quote from: Tyr on January 17, 2016, 02:42:16 PM
Quote from: mongers on January 17, 2016, 02:00:22 PM
Whatever topples that kleptocracy the sooner the better; pity it's citizens and the wider Middle East will probably have to suffer.
Have to disagree there. Lets get Syria and Libya sorted out first.
Toppling that Saudi kleptocracy will go a long a way to sorting Syria & Libya.
Quote from: DGuller on January 18, 2016, 12:35:44 AM
I called you out on your bad behavior. It wasn't in retaliation on an attack on me, but it was far from unprovoked.
And yes, something is seriously wrong with you. Normal people, even ones with really difficult personalities, do not act this way. I know there is zero chance that at this moment you will take anything I say to heart, but hopefully after some reflection some message will get through that maybe you are conducting yourself in a less than dignified manner.
There is a zero percent chance I will take any of your raging to heart. It is vague and thus seems wholly insincere. it is way out of proportion to the statement it ostensibly refers to, and it commit the very sins it ostensibly attacks.
Now, you may, indeed, believe that you possess the ability to see into the hearts of men and "know" from the extremely tangential contact you have with me here that "something is seriously wrong" with me, but that's a delusion you should just hug to your chest while you rock back and forth mumble over and over again how much smarter than everyone else you are. It doesn't carry the slightest weight with me.
Quote from: Martinus on January 18, 2016, 01:39:46 AM
So are we seeing another event of the same proportions as 2008 (talking both of Middle Eastern and Asian markets now), or will we simply have these bubble bursts every few years from now on and this is the new normal?
As Yi says, this wasn't asset bubble bursting, but simply a slowdown in demand (not just China, but also all the nations supplying raw materials to China) combined with an increase in supply (new technology). No one was buying up oil or oil futures in anticipation of a steady increase in price.
China's economic woes have been compounded by the government's intervention in the market, creating a pent-up demand to sell. A crash of some sort is inevitable, but doesn't have to be disastrous if it is prepared for properly. It will be very painful no matter what.
Quote from: PJL on January 18, 2016, 07:57:29 AM
Toppling that Saudi kleptocracy will go a long a way to sorting Syria & Libya.
That would depend on what it was replaced with. The Saudi regime is status quo oriented; a successor that was change oriented would create the opposite of the result you want.
Quote from: alfred russel on January 17, 2016, 09:00:42 PM
Quote from: grumbler on January 17, 2016, 08:46:47 PM
Ah, so "widespread speculation" counts as fact for you (and Hamilcar), eh? Unfortunately for you conspiracy wackos, I know a bit more about the world oil market, and the economics of it, than you do. I note and reject your attempt to save your argument and counter mine by trying to shift the goal posts to "North American" rather than "US" oil (despite Hami's clear mention of "the US oil industry" as a target).
The problem with the conspiracy theory is that Iran's ally, Iraq, is the country that is increasing production, not Saudi Arabia. Saudi production did return to 2012 and 2013 peak levels of production (north of 10m bbd) for periods in 2015, but isn't at that level now, and 2015 production was much like that of 2012 and 2013. The Saudi oil output data just doesn't fit your conspiracy.
Further, while tar sands oil production is certainly vulnerable to the current crude oil price slump, typical American oil fields are not. The expense in US oil isn't production, but discovery. The UK, Brazil and Nigeria find oil much more expensive to actually bring to market than does the US. They are the ones that are being hit by the oil price slump.
Now, this isn't to say that Saudi Arabia isn't being as foolish in their energy production decisions as US and other oil companies are, by responding to a price slump by increasing or maintaining production of an irreplaceable product. But that's mere greed and stupidity. Never attribute to malice that which can adequately be explained by stupidity.
I'll give you and Hami that same consideration.
What is your problem? I haven't even made an argument in this thread. I was only trying to stand up to (rather pathetic) online bullying, from a cranky old troll with apparently nothing better to do than derail promising threads on an internet forum.
He'll be dead soon enough, just ignore him till then, then post something a bit insincere in the Grumbler RIP thread.
Usually it's Marti having these January/February winter blues meltdowns. :lol:
Go get some outdoors sunlight and eat some steak guys. ^_^
Quote from: Legbiter on January 18, 2016, 08:29:38 AM
Usually it's Marti having these January/February winter blues meltdowns. :lol:
Go get some outdoors sunlight and eat some steak guys. ^_^
:yes:
Quote from: mongers on January 18, 2016, 08:26:38 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on January 17, 2016, 09:00:42 PM
Quote from: grumbler on January 17, 2016, 08:46:47 PM
Ah, so "widespread speculation" counts as fact for you (and Hamilcar), eh? Unfortunately for you conspiracy wackos, I know a bit more about the world oil market, and the economics of it, than you do. I note and reject your attempt to save your argument and counter mine by trying to shift the goal posts to "North American" rather than "US" oil (despite Hami's clear mention of "the US oil industry" as a target).
The problem with the conspiracy theory is that Iran's ally, Iraq, is the country that is increasing production, not Saudi Arabia. Saudi production did return to 2012 and 2013 peak levels of production (north of 10m bbd) for periods in 2015, but isn't at that level now, and 2015 production was much like that of 2012 and 2013. The Saudi oil output data just doesn't fit your conspiracy.
Further, while tar sands oil production is certainly vulnerable to the current crude oil price slump, typical American oil fields are not. The expense in US oil isn't production, but discovery. The UK, Brazil and Nigeria find oil much more expensive to actually bring to market than does the US. They are the ones that are being hit by the oil price slump.
Now, this isn't to say that Saudi Arabia isn't being as foolish in their energy production decisions as US and other oil companies are, by responding to a price slump by increasing or maintaining production of an irreplaceable product. But that's mere greed and stupidity. Never attribute to malice that which can adequately be explained by stupidity.
I'll give you and Hami that same consideration.
What is your problem? I haven't even made an argument in this thread. I was only trying to stand up to (rather pathetic) online bullying, from a cranky old troll with apparently nothing better to do than derail promising threads on an internet forum.
He'll be dead soon enough, just ignore him till then, then post something a bit insincere in the Grumbler RIP thread.
Just locking in this "advice."
Quote from: grumbler on January 18, 2016, 08:19:26 AM
Quote from: PJL on January 18, 2016, 07:57:29 AM
Toppling that Saudi kleptocracy will go a long a way to sorting Syria & Libya.
That would depend on what it was replaced with. The Saudi regime is status quo oriented; a successor that was change oriented would create the opposite of the result you want.
But the status quo has failed. Backers in Saudi Arabia (and the other Gulf States) are the source of most of the Islamist terrorist funding (including ISIS), directly or indirectly. Destroying that source would help, so any alternative would be better.
Quote from: PJL on January 18, 2016, 10:11:06 AM
But the status quo has failed. Backers in Saudi Arabia (and the other Gulf States) are the source of most of the Islamist terrorist funding (including ISIS), directly or indirectly. Destroying that source would help, so any alternative would be better.
The Saudi regime isn't the source of most of the funding for Islamic terrorists and ISIS. The people that you would risk putting in power in SA by overthrowing the regime are, and you propose to risk giving those people control not only over their private funds, but the government's funds as well. I propose that this is a bad idea. The Saudi regime is neither a true ally nor a friend of the West, but any replacement regime is likely to be worse.
Quote from: grumbler on January 18, 2016, 10:19:30 AM
Quote from: PJL on January 18, 2016, 10:11:06 AM
But the status quo has failed. Backers in Saudi Arabia (and the other Gulf States) are the source of most of the Islamist terrorist funding (including ISIS), directly or indirectly. Destroying that source would help, so any alternative would be better.
The Saudi regime isn't the source of most of the funding for Islamic terrorists and ISIS. The people that you would risk putting in power in SA by overthrowing the regime are, and you propose to risk giving those people control not only over their private funds, but the government's funds as well. I propose that this is a bad idea. The Saudi regime is neither a true ally nor a friend of the West, but any replacement regime is likely to be worse.
I didn't say the regime itself officially supported them, I said backers, of whom some are in the regime, who support these on a personal level. And I disagree that any replacement would be worse, Saudi Arabia are basically no better than ISIS. If anything I think ISIS would be slightly better as they are in favour of a centralised religious authority (the Cailphate) which IMO would in the long run be a moderating influence in the region. Right now, the decentralised system that's in place means that no matter how radical a group becomes there will always be some other group that will be even more radical. Whereas a central authority like in Iran would at least keep some order on the terrorists they back.
Quote from: PJL on January 18, 2016, 11:18:38 AM
Saudi Arabia are basically no better than ISIS.
I bet there are some foreign aid workers, Coptic migrants, Yazidi child brides, and at least one Jordanian pilot who might disagree.
Quote from: PJL on January 18, 2016, 11:18:38 AM
I didn't say the regime itself officially supported them, I said backers, of whom some are in the regime, who support these on a personal level. And I disagree that any replacement would be worse, Saudi Arabia are basically no better than ISIS. If anything I think ISIS would be slightly better as they are in favour of a centralised religious authority (the Cailphate) which IMO would in the long run be a moderating influence in the region. Right now, the decentralised system that's in place means that no matter how radical a group becomes there will always be some other group that will be even more radical. Whereas a central authority like in Iran would at least keep some order on the terrorists they back.
You don't think any Saudi regime can be worse than the current one. I disagree. In fact, I think that all of the likely alternatives are worse.
I also disagree that ISIS represents a stabilizing/moderating influence in either the short term or the long.
But I guess we will have to agree to disagree.
Quote from: grumbler on January 18, 2016, 09:11:29 AM
Quote from: Legbiter on January 18, 2016, 08:29:38 AM
Usually it's Marti having these January/February winter blues meltdowns. :lol:
Go get some outdoors sunlight
:yes:
Fuck you and your Icelandic Legbiting friend.
Why does he bite legs anyway? Is he a midget? :hmm:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 18, 2016, 11:40:26 AM
Why does he bite legs anyway? Is he a midget? :hmm:
Steak is hard to come by in Iceland. Legs have to do. ;)
Quote from: grumbler on January 18, 2016, 11:37:13 AM
Quote from: PJL on January 18, 2016, 11:18:38 AM
I didn't say the regime itself officially supported them, I said backers, of whom some are in the regime, who support these on a personal level. And I disagree that any replacement would be worse, Saudi Arabia are basically no better than ISIS. If anything I think ISIS would be slightly better as they are in favour of a centralised religious authority (the Cailphate) which IMO would in the long run be a moderating influence in the region. Right now, the decentralised system that's in place means that no matter how radical a group becomes there will always be some other group that will be even more radical. Whereas a central authority like in Iran would at least keep some order on the terrorists they back.
You don't think any Saudi regime can be worse than the current one. I disagree. In fact, I think that all of the likely alternatives are worse.
I also disagree that ISIS represents a stabilizing/moderating influence in either the short term or the long.
But I guess we will have to agree to disagree.
Well name those alternatives, if you think they will be worse than the current regime. And a caliphate would be a better in the long run (20-30 years).
When it comes to which regimes are preferable, it's not a simple thing. On the one hand, you can look at dictators like Hussein, Assad, Mubarak, and Qaddafi, and conclude that things were better with them firmly in power. Things went to shit when they were removed or seriously challenged. On the other hand, it's not a sustainable situation. Their misrule is what was constantly adding fuel to the eventual Arab Spring conflagration.
Quote from: Martinus on January 18, 2016, 01:39:46 AM
So are we seeing another event of the same proportions as 2008 (talking both of Middle Eastern and Asian markets now), or will we simply have these bubble bursts every few years from now on and this is the new normal?
Overreacting much? It's just grumbler being grumbler.
Quote from: PJL on January 18, 2016, 12:04:51 PM
Well name those alternatives, if you think they will be worse than the current regime.
Homie don't play those games. If you want to name alternatives that you think will be better, we can discuss those and I will name the ones I think will be worse. But we're not going to spend the next ten exchanges with me defending my choices and you merely attacking them.
QuoteAnd a caliphate would be a better in the long run (20-30 years).
There is no way a Sunni Caliphate will even have finished their war to conquer the Shia and convert or kill them in the next 20-30 years, let along conquer all the remaining Muslim and non-Muslim countries. The Caliphate will may get nuked in the next 20-30 years and achieve "moderation" in that sense (they'll be dead and so not radical), but that's the only moderation in their future that I can see. ISIS is not a moderating influence and cannot, by their very ideology, become one.
I never said ISIS would be moderating, just that they would be slightly more moderate than Saudi Arabia. But even Iran hegemony would be preferable to either.
The least worst outcome at the moment is reinstating military juntas all over the place. At least they seem the most secular form of government that will realistically get in the region any time soon.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 18, 2016, 11:28:59 AM
Quote from: PJL on January 18, 2016, 11:18:38 AM
Saudi Arabia are basically no better than ISIS.
I bet there are some foreign aid workers, Coptic migrants, Yazidi child brides, and at least one Jordanian pilot who might disagree.
It's not like the Saudi regime doesn't execute people for fucked up reasons, or countenance sexual slavery.
Not to make light of ISIS' abuses at all, but the Saudis are pretty nasty.
At least in Saudi Arabia people have their day in kangaroo court before they're executed.
:w00t:
Quote from: PJL on January 18, 2016, 12:49:59 PM
I never said ISIS would be moderating, just that they would be slightly more moderate than Saudi Arabia. But even Iran hegemony would be preferable to either.
I disagree, and think that you really don't follow the news if you think ISIS is more moderate than the current Saudi Arabian regime. The Saudis are pretty despicable, but they are in favor of peace and stability. ISIS is in favor of war, terrorism, and insurrection. ISIS also does the whole genocide and slavery thing, which is worse than anything the Saudis do. Ask the Yezidis which regime is more moderate.
Quote from: Jacob on January 18, 2016, 12:55:02 PM
It's not like the Saudi regime doesn't execute people for fucked up reasons, or countenance sexual slavery.
Not to make light of ISIS' abuses at all, but the Saudis are pretty nasty.
Who was the last person burned alive by orders of the Saudi regime? When was the last legal slave auction in Saudi Arabia?
I know moral relativism is all the rage, but the Saudi leaders, nasty as they are, are far closer to our values than to ISIS's. There's no question that the world and the locals would be better off if the Saudi regime controlled SA, Iraq, and Syria than if ISIS controlled those three places.
WTF?
Saudia Arabia is no kingdom of light and freedom, but they are nowhere even in the ballpark of ISIS.
They don't line people up by the dozens and machine gun them out of hand, for example.
It kind of sickens me to even have to elucidate the difference. Saudi Arabia is fucked up, but they are in fact a nation of laws and order. Fucked up laws, granted, but there is no comparison between them and ISIS, which is a "nation" only in name, and one that operates completely on the basis of terror and fear.
Quote from: Berkut on January 18, 2016, 01:16:21 PM
WTF?
Saudia Arabia is no kingdom of light and freedom, but they are nowhere even in the ballpark of ISIS.
They don't line people up by the dozens and machine gun them out of hand, for example.
It kind of sickens me to even have to elucidate the difference. Saudi Arabia is fucked up, but they are in fact a nation of laws and order. Fucked up laws, granted, but there is no comparison between them and ISIS, which is a "nation" only in name, and one that operates completely on the basis of terror and fear.
I would disagree. They're about the same. See this list:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fimages%2Fuser3303%2Fimageroot%2F2015%2F01%2F20150123_saudi.jpg&hash=30073e27c776352a00edd28553308ef84f47127d)
Not to mention Saudi Arabia has a history of demolishing historic sites (and not just Jewish ones either, we're talking demolishing the site of the Prophet Mohammeds home in Mecca). Also quite a few countries in recent history have done kangaroo courts, and operated on the basis of terror and fear. You could argue that Stalinist Russia was the worst example in modern history (certainly comparable to Saudi Arabia & ISIS). And people in Europe 20 years ago (former Yugoslavia) were massacring people like ISIS are doing now.
I'm not a moral relativist, but the horrors of ISIS compared to others in the region have been overplayed. The Syrians, Saudia Arabia, Iran have all been pretty horrible to their own people over the recent past. See for example the 'terrorist' executions in Saudi Arabia a few weeks ago.
That is how they treat criminals.
Nothing about how they treat people who've done nothing wrong.
Seriously. The Saudis are bad. No doubt. But ISIS are a whole other level. It's like comparing Mussolini to Hitler.
Saudi Arabia punishes gays with flogging. It's pretty bad.
Daesh punishes gays by pushing them off of a ten story building. It's unbelievably horrific.
Quote from: Barrister on January 18, 2016, 01:49:10 PM
Saudi Arabia punishes gays with flogging. It's pretty bad.
Daesh punishes gays by pushing them off of a ten story building. It's unbelievably horrific.
Flogging is in practice death penalty in most cases.
Quote from: Tyr on January 18, 2016, 01:41:40 PM
That is how they treat criminals.
Nothing about how they treat people who've done nothing wrong.
Seriously. The Saudis are bad. No doubt. But ISIS are a whole other level. It's like comparing Mussolini to Hitler.
Not really. It's like comparing Stalin to Hitler.
Quote from: Tyr on January 18, 2016, 01:41:40 PM
That is how they treat criminals.
Nothing about how they treat people who've done nothing wrong.
There's plenty of human trafficking in Saudi Arabia, as I understand it. I don't think the victims have done anything wrong.
Quote from: Martinus on January 18, 2016, 01:52:54 PM
Not really. It's like comparing Stalin to Hitler.
:lol:
Quote from: Jacob on January 18, 2016, 01:55:08 PM
Quote from: Tyr on January 18, 2016, 01:41:40 PM
That is how they treat criminals.
Nothing about how they treat people who've done nothing wrong.
There's plenty of human trafficking in Saudi Arabia, as I understand it. I don't think the victims have done anything wrong.
Not to suggest Saudi Arabia treats everyone nicely.
But again, Daesh are on another level. They don't give a fuck what the world thinks and slaughter and enslave to their hearts content.
Quote from: Jacob on January 18, 2016, 01:55:08 PM
There's plenty of human trafficking in Saudi Arabia, as I understand it. I don't think the victims have done anything wrong.
Legal human trafficking, as you understand it? It is legal for Sunnis to enslave non-Sunnis in ISIS.
I mean, there's plenty of human trafficking in Britain. Is Britain worse than ISIS, too?
Quote from: Martinus on January 18, 2016, 01:51:29 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 18, 2016, 01:49:10 PM
Saudi Arabia punishes gays with flogging. It's pretty bad.
Daesh punishes gays by pushing them off of a ten story building. It's unbelievably horrific.
Flogging is in practice death penalty in most cases.
Are we talking about "in practice" then?
"In practice" ISIS has murdered out of hand probably now into the tens of thousands of people over the last decade.
They as a matter of routine simply line people up near a handy ditch and machine gun them all down.
They kill wholesale. Saudi Arabia, at best, engages in retail killing under some bizarre and medieval code of law that at least provides some fig lead of due process.
ISIS simply defines their chaotic evil malevolence as "the law" and does whatever it likes, at a scale that is not matched anywhere right now.
In practice, there is zero comparison in any meaningful sense.
It's more a 150+ billion dollar gamble on their part, made up of around $80 billion of US arms* and $70 of Saudi foreign aid.
The gamble being can arming yourself to the teeth and exporting your ideology via 'foreign aid', much of that being promoting Wahhabi islam, be a method of keeping things stable at home?
Or is it another rotten door waiting to be kicked in?
*goodness knows how much British, French, Canadian etc weapons bought, probably at least the US figure.
Quote from: PJL on January 18, 2016, 01:38:43 PM
I would disagree. They're about the same. See this list:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fimages%2Fuser3303%2Fimageroot%2F2015%2F01%2F20150123_saudi.jpg&hash=30073e27c776352a00edd28553308ef84f47127d)
Not to mention Saudi Arabia has a history of demolishing historic sites (and not just Jewish ones either, we're talking demolishing the site of the Prophet Mohammeds home in Mecca). Also quite a few countries in recent history have done kangaroo courts, and operated on the basis of terror and fear. You could argue that Stalinist Russia was the worst example in modern history (certainly comparable to Saudi Arabia & ISIS). And people in Europe 20 years ago (former Yugoslavia) were massacring people like ISIS are doing now.
I'm not a moral relativist, but the horrors of ISIS compared to others in the region have been overplayed. The Syrians, Saudia Arabia, Iran have all been pretty horrible to their own people over the recent past. See for example the 'terrorist' executions in Saudi Arabia a few weeks ago.
Let's not use bumper stickers as evidence, okay?
Mohammed's home in Mecca wasn't destroyed (though his home in Medina was turned into a library). Lots of places in Mecca have been paved over as the Saudi regime foolishly tried to exploit the Haj for commercial gain. Destruction of historical sites in ISIS is done for religious reasons.
And to call the legal system of Stalin's Russia "comparable" to that of Saudi Arabia is like saying the Holocaust is "comparable" to 9/11. It is a breathtakingly inaccurate comparison. So is the breezy "comparison" of ISIS actions with the Balkan Wars of the 1990s. Just saying shit to say shit doesn't persuade. None of the horrific actions undertaken by thugs in the Balkans was legal according to any government there; the horrific actions of the thugs that run ISIS are legal and often obligatory.
Saying that the Saudi regime is worse than ISIS because "the Syrians, Saudia Arabia, Iran have all been pretty horrible to their own people over the recent past" is pretty much the definition of moral relativism, no matter how much you deny that you believe in it.
Quote from: Martinus on January 18, 2016, 01:51:29 PM
Flogging is in practice death penalty in most cases.
Not true.
Quote from: grumbler on January 18, 2016, 02:20:36 PM
Quote from: Martinus on January 18, 2016, 01:51:29 PM
Flogging is in practice death penalty in most cases.
Not true.
Yeah, they tend to space out the floggings over the course of days or weeks so they don't kill the person. Grumbler is right, ISIS and Saudi Arabia are not comparable (Stalin and Hitler aren't really comparable either). ISIS is an expansionist, slave holding genocidal regime. And Saudi Arabia is not. Here's the big hint, there are 100,000 Westerners who freely work in Saudi Arabia. I don't think there are any in ISIS. It's the difference between working in some backward shit hole where you have to watch your back and play by stupid rules, and simply having your head sawed off on camera.
Can we at least agree that when it comes to Western standards of human rights, Iran, warts and all, is still much much better than Saudi Arabia?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 18, 2016, 01:57:48 PM
Quote from: Martinus on January 18, 2016, 01:52:54 PM
Not really. It's like comparing Stalin to Hitler.
:lol:
I think it's an apt analogy. Hitler, like ISIS, killed you just for being of a wrong ethnicity - there was nothing you could do. Stalin, like Saudis, was technically someone you could live with - as long as you lived in abject submission and fear. Both were monsters.
Quote from: Tyr on January 18, 2016, 01:41:40 PM
That is how they treat criminals.
Nothing about how they treat people who've done nothing wrong.
So where do gays fall in your cretinous analogy? Criminals or people who have done nothing wrong?
Quote from: Martinus on January 18, 2016, 03:01:37 PM
Quote from: Tyr on January 18, 2016, 01:41:40 PM
That is how they treat criminals.
Nothing about how they treat people who've done nothing wrong.
So where do gays fall in your cretinous analogy? Criminals or people who have done nothing wrong?
Your cretinous question assumes that one cannot be a criminal without doing something wrong. Talk to a lawyer for some amusing stories of people or businesses that have broken laws while doing nothing wrong.
Quote from: grumbler on January 18, 2016, 04:05:28 PM
Quote from: Martinus on January 18, 2016, 03:01:37 PM
Quote from: Tyr on January 18, 2016, 01:41:40 PM
That is how they treat criminals.
Nothing about how they treat people who've done nothing wrong.
So where do gays fall in your cretinous analogy? Criminals or people who have done nothing wrong?
Your cretinous question assumes that one cannot be a criminal without doing something wrong. Talk to a lawyer for some amusing stories of people or businesses that have broken laws while doing nothing wrong.
It's a good thing you are in this together with Tyr and Raz. It's like the trifecta of Languish idiots.
Quote from: mongers on January 18, 2016, 08:26:38 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on January 17, 2016, 09:00:42 PM
Quote from: grumbler on January 17, 2016, 08:46:47 PM
Ah, so "widespread speculation" counts as fact for you (and Hamilcar), eh? Unfortunately for you conspiracy wackos, I know a bit more about the world oil market, and the economics of it, than you do. I note and reject your attempt to save your argument and counter mine by trying to shift the goal posts to "North American" rather than "US" oil (despite Hami's clear mention of "the US oil industry" as a target).
The problem with the conspiracy theory is that Iran's ally, Iraq, is the country that is increasing production, not Saudi Arabia. Saudi production did return to 2012 and 2013 peak levels of production (north of 10m bbd) for periods in 2015, but isn't at that level now, and 2015 production was much like that of 2012 and 2013. The Saudi oil output data just doesn't fit your conspiracy.
Further, while tar sands oil production is certainly vulnerable to the current crude oil price slump, typical American oil fields are not. The expense in US oil isn't production, but discovery. The UK, Brazil and Nigeria find oil much more expensive to actually bring to market than does the US. They are the ones that are being hit by the oil price slump.
Now, this isn't to say that Saudi Arabia isn't being as foolish in their energy production decisions as US and other oil companies are, by responding to a price slump by increasing or maintaining production of an irreplaceable product. But that's mere greed and stupidity. Never attribute to malice that which can adequately be explained by stupidity.
I'll give you and Hami that same consideration.
What is your problem? I haven't even made an argument in this thread. I was only trying to stand up to (rather pathetic) online bullying, from a cranky old troll with apparently nothing better to do than derail promising threads on an internet forum.
He'll be dead soon enough, just ignore him till then, then post something a bit insincere in the Grumbler RIP thread.
I have been waiting for this but the moment is not coming. :(
Quote from: grumbler on January 18, 2016, 04:05:28 PM
Quote from: Martinus on January 18, 2016, 03:01:37 PM
Quote from: Tyr on January 18, 2016, 01:41:40 PM
That is how they treat criminals.
Nothing about how they treat people who've done nothing wrong.
So where do gays fall in your cretinous analogy? Criminals or people who have done nothing wrong?
Your cretinous question assumes that one cannot be a criminal without doing something wrong. Talk to a lawyer for some amusing stories of people or businesses that have broken laws while doing nothing wrong.
Or watch the Netflix documentary "Making a Murderer"
Quote from: grumbler on January 18, 2016, 04:05:28 PM
Quote from: Martinus on January 18, 2016, 03:01:37 PM
Quote from: Tyr on January 18, 2016, 01:41:40 PM
That is how they treat criminals.
Nothing about how they treat people who've done nothing wrong.
So where do gays fall in your cretinous analogy? Criminals or people who have done nothing wrong?
Your cretinous question assumes that one cannot be a criminal without doing something wrong. Talk to a lawyer for some amusing stories of people or businesses that have broken laws while doing nothing wrong.
:secret: Martinus is making that exact point.
Now, if you communicated your critique in your post in non-insulting terms, you would find it easy to own up to misunderstanding and move on. But now that you made a dickish post, the option of walking it back is not open to you, so from here on you have to pretend that you caught Martinus saying something stupid.
Quote from: Martinus on January 18, 2016, 02:55:39 PM
Can we at least agree that when it comes to Western standards of human rights, Iran, warts and all, is still much much better than Saudi Arabia?
I'm not so sure about that. My view from thousands of kms away is that they are probably comparable.
Quote from: Martinus on January 18, 2016, 04:07:57 PM
Quote from: grumbler on January 18, 2016, 04:05:28 PM
Quote from: Martinus on January 18, 2016, 03:01:37 PM
Quote from: Tyr on January 18, 2016, 01:41:40 PM
That is how they treat criminals.
Nothing about how they treat people who've done nothing wrong.
So where do gays fall in your cretinous analogy? Criminals or people who have done nothing wrong?
Your cretinous question assumes that one cannot be a criminal without doing something wrong. Talk to a lawyer for some amusing stories of people or businesses that have broken laws while doing nothing wrong.
It's a good thing you are in this together with Tyr and Raz. It's like the trifecta of Languish idiots.
It's a good thing you are in this as much as I am, so the "idiot" labels fits in at least one case. It is possible to commit an act which is criminal, and yet have done nothing wrong. As I said, any good lawyer could tell you that.
Quote from: Martinus on January 18, 2016, 04:09:39 PM
Quote from: mongers on January 18, 2016, 08:26:38 AM
He'll be dead soon enough, just ignore him till then, then post something a bit insincere in the Grumbler RIP thread.
I have been waiting for this but the moment is not coming. :(
I am quite confident I will outlive both you and mongers. :) I won't celebrate either of your deaths, though. Celebrating the death or potential death of forum members may be acceptable to DGuller and you two, but it isn't to me.
Quote from: Martinus on January 18, 2016, 02:55:39 PM
Can we at least agree that when it comes to Western standards of human rights, Iran, warts and all, is still much much better than Saudi Arabia?
My read is that Saudi is worse on the vice stuff and Iran is worse on the political repression stuff.
Quote from: grumbler on January 18, 2016, 04:26:39 PM
Quote from: Martinus on January 18, 2016, 04:09:39 PM
Quote from: mongers on January 18, 2016, 08:26:38 AM
He'll be dead soon enough, just ignore him till then, then post something a bit insincere in the Grumbler RIP thread.
I have been waiting for this but the moment is not coming. :(
I am quite confident I will outlive both you and mongers. :) I won't celebrate either of your deaths, though. Celebrating the death or potential death of forum members may be acceptable to DGuller and you two, but it isn't to me.
:huh: I don't think I ever said anything about your death, or what I would do in the event of it. Other than maybe in jest, as part of the age joke.
No matter how unpleasant the person, it's in bad taste and bad karma to wish someone's death, not to mention it's plain dumb given that I post under my real name.
Now, if you find a post where I do do that, I will apologize. If you don't, then maybe you ought to do that yourself.
Quote from: DGuller on January 18, 2016, 04:17:28 PM
:secret: Martinus is making that exact point.
Now, if you communicated your critique in your post in non-insulting terms, you would find it easy to own up to misunderstanding and move on. But now that you made a dickish post, the option of walking it back is not open to you, so from here on you have to pretend that you caught Martinus saying something stupid.
:secret: Actualy, he wasn't. He was implying that gays in SA are not criminals because they have done nothing wrong, and yet are punished under Saudi law. Now, it is absolutely true that homosexuality should not be criminalized or even stigmatized, but the larger point that cherry-picked similarities in penalties under criminal law does not make two countries equivalent in barbarity is quite valid.
Quote from: grumbler on January 18, 2016, 04:33:23 PM
Quote from: DGuller on January 18, 2016, 04:17:28 PM
:secret: Martinus is making that exact point.
Now, if you communicated your critique in your post in non-insulting terms, you would find it easy to own up to misunderstanding and move on. But now that you made a dickish post, the option of walking it back is not open to you, so from here on you have to pretend that you caught Martinus saying something stupid.
:secret: Actualy, he wasn't. He was implying that gays in SA are not criminals because they have done nothing wrong, and yet are punished under Saudi law. Now, it is absolutely true that homosexuality should not be criminalized or even stigmatized, but the larger point that cherry-picked similarities in penalties under criminal law does not make two countries equivalent in barbarity is quite valid.
He was responding to Tyr, who implicitly divided people into those who are criminals, and those who did nothing wrong.
Perhaps you should lecture Martinus about gratuitous name-calling like you're doing to grumbler. Tyr's comment may have been misguided, but hardly "cretinous".
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on January 18, 2016, 04:44:02 PM
Perhaps you should lecture Martinus about gratuitous name-calling like you're doing to grumbler. Tyr's comment may have been misguided, but hardly "cretinous".
One at a time, one at a time. Yes, you are right, both were wrong.
Quote from: Martinus on January 18, 2016, 01:51:29 PMFlogging is in practice death penalty in most cases.
That's not actually the case. The Saudis actually work to make it so it isn't so. Yes, being flogged 400 times is a death sentence if it's actually carried out all in one day. To avoid it being a death sentence they stagger the floggings, over months and years, and require a doctor to look at the prisoner to confirm they're ready for the next round. High lash-count sentences are also very regularly commuted after a few rounds of lashes have gone out. It's covered somewhat extensively here (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2008/11/how_many_lashes_can_one_man_take.html).
I don't like Saudi Arabia, but it's a much better place to visit than ISIS controlled territory.
Quote from: alfred russel on January 17, 2016, 08:48:03 PMThe theory isn't to stop any exploitation of fields already in production--both today and in the indefinite future--but to prevent future development of new fields where that front end investment hasn't been made.
Shale oil projects tend to be low capital investments to start up, and only take a few weeks. Instead of more traditional plays where you have a concentration of capital intensive infrastructure, shale fields are exploited by lots of small wells that can be brought on very quickly and cheaply. As some of the marginal shale players in the United States have gone out of business, it's mostly been oil majors who have bought up their land rights, companies that will easily have the resources to get new wells online when the time comes.
Amnesty International has reported that Iran has carried out a staggeringly high (https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2015/07/irans-staggering-execution-spree/) number of executions in 2015. According to Amnesty the majority of those executed have been executed on drug charges.
I think we can only agree that "Iran is more sympathetic to liberal Westerners" I think because in the 1950s they elected a socialist leader that eeeevil United States saw removed from power and replaced with an evil dictatorial Shah. That somehow excuses the illiberal monsters that took over Iran in the Revolution. Whereas Saudi Arabia's regime is just a long continuation of a series of Arab monarchical leaders that have ran portions of the area for generations, so there is no linkage to an ignoble beginning that can be blamed on America and Britain so that means Saudi Arabia is somehow much worse. I'm not going to pretend to understand the logic, but much like Saudi Arabia Iran is a place where even minorities can get along fine if they follow the very strict rules. If they don't, they suffer horribly and injustly. ISIS controlled territories are places where minorities (depending on which type) are subject to summary execution, legalized sexual enslavement and etc. It's really not the same.
Quote from: Martinus on January 18, 2016, 03:01:37 PM
Quote from: Tyr on January 18, 2016, 01:41:40 PM
That is how they treat criminals.
Nothing about how they treat people who've done nothing wrong.
So where do gays fall in your cretinous analogy? Criminals or people who have done nothing wrong?
Criminality isn't about right or wrong, it's about what's criminalized or not. So in Saudi Arabia now, or the UK of the 1960's, homosexuals are/were criminals. Whether or not they had done nothing wrong is a moral question, not a legal one.
And Tyr didn't make an analogy, cretinous or otherwise.. He made 2 straight-forward statements. He possibly could have worded them better, maybe something like this:
Both Saudi Arabia and ISIS impose harsh penalties for breaking various laws, including laws which criminalize things we in the West feel should not be crimes in the first place. The Saudi regime does not generally execute or deal out other criminal punishments to people who have not broken their laws; ISIS does, on a large scale.
Quote from: DGuller on January 18, 2016, 04:31:29 PM
:huh: I don't think I ever said anything about your death, or what I would do in the event of it. Other than maybe in jest, as part of the age joke.
No matter how unpleasant the person, it's in bad taste and bad karma to wish someone's death, not to mention it's plain dumb given that I post under my real name.
Now, if you find a post where I do do that, I will apologize. If you don't, then maybe you ought to do that yourself.
If you are going to ride that high, high horse and attack me as having "something seriously, seriously wrong" because I point out that I know more about global oil markets than those who believe that Saudi Arabia is trying to "cripple... the US oil industry," then your silence in the matter of mongers and marti's glee at the prospect of a member's death says volumes. Once you take up the mantle of forum nanny, you can't not act without giving tacit approval to all of the acts that you don't respond to. If you to try to argue otherwise you are revealed as a hypocrite who was posting purely to attack me and not to enforce your own values.
Yeah, it sucks, but that's the price you pay for deciding to climb up on that horse.
Quote from: dps on January 18, 2016, 05:06:47 PM
Quote from: Martinus on January 18, 2016, 03:01:37 PM
Quote from: Tyr on January 18, 2016, 01:41:40 PM
That is how they treat criminals.
Nothing about how they treat people who've done nothing wrong.
So where do gays fall in your cretinous analogy? Criminals or people who have done nothing wrong?
Criminality isn't about right or wrong, it's about what's criminalized or not. So in Saudi Arabia now, or the UK of the 1960's, homosexuals are/were criminals. Whether or not they had done nothing wrong is a moral question, not a legal one.
And Tyr didn't make an analogy, cretinous or otherwise.. He made 2 straight-forward statements. He possibly could have worded them better, maybe something like this:
Both Saudi Arabia and ISIS impose harsh penalties for breaking various laws, including laws which criminalize things we in the West feel should not be crimes in the first place. The Saudi regime does not generally execute or deal out other criminal punishments to people who have not broken their laws; ISIS does, on a large scale.
Thank you for taking the time to spell that out. Maybe DGuller will read this as well.
Quote from: grumbler on January 18, 2016, 05:15:06 PM
Quote from: DGuller on January 18, 2016, 04:31:29 PM
:huh: I don't think I ever said anything about your death, or what I would do in the event of it. Other than maybe in jest, as part of the age joke.
No matter how unpleasant the person, it's in bad taste and bad karma to wish someone's death, not to mention it's plain dumb given that I post under my real name.
Now, if you find a post where I do do that, I will apologize. If you don't, then maybe you ought to do that yourself.
If you are going to ride that high, high horse and attack me as having "something seriously, seriously wrong" because I point out that I know more about global oil markets than those who believe that Saudi Arabia is trying to "cripple... the US oil industry," then your silence in the matter of mongers and marti's glee at the prospect of a member's death says volumes. Once you take up the mantle of forum nanny, you can't not act without giving tacit approval to all of the acts that you don't respond to. If you to try to argue otherwise you are revealed as a hypocrite who was posting purely to attack me and not to enforce your own values.
Yeah, it sucks, but that's the price you pay for deciding to climb up on that horse.
:hmm: Search results didn't yield anything?
Quote from: Martinus on January 18, 2016, 03:01:37 PM
Quote from: Tyr on January 18, 2016, 01:41:40 PM
That is how they treat criminals.
Nothing about how they treat people who've done nothing wrong.
So where do gays fall in your cretinous analogy? Criminals or people who have done nothing wrong?
:rolleyes:
Jesus you're dumb sometimes
Quote from: Tyr on January 18, 2016, 05:41:40 PM
Quote from: Martinus on January 18, 2016, 03:01:37 PM
Quote from: Tyr on January 18, 2016, 01:41:40 PM
That is how they treat criminals.
Nothing about how they treat people who've done nothing wrong.
So where do gays fall in your cretinous analogy? Criminals or people who have done nothing wrong?
:rolleyes:
Jesus you're dumb sometimes
I do not approve of this behavior. :mad:
Quote from: Martinus on January 18, 2016, 04:07:57 PM
Quote from: grumbler on January 18, 2016, 04:05:28 PM
Quote from: Martinus on January 18, 2016, 03:01:37 PM
Quote from: Tyr on January 18, 2016, 01:41:40 PM
That is how they treat criminals.
Nothing about how they treat people who've done nothing wrong.
So where do gays fall in your cretinous analogy? Criminals or people who have done nothing wrong?
Your cretinous question assumes that one cannot be a criminal without doing something wrong. Talk to a lawyer for some amusing stories of people or businesses that have broken laws while doing nothing wrong.
It's a good thing you are in this together with Tyr and Raz. It's like the trifecta of Languish idiots.
I didn't say anything that wasn't true. :huh:
Quote from: dps on January 18, 2016, 05:06:47 PMBoth Saudi Arabia and ISIS impose harsh penalties for breaking various laws, including laws which criminalize things we in the West feel should not be crimes in the first place. The Saudi regime does not generally execute or deal out other criminal punishments to people who have not broken their laws; ISIS does, on a large scale.
But that's like saying Nazis would not send innocent people to death camps - only those that were declared outlaws/criminals by their laws. This kind of reasoning is a highly offensive case of moral equivalency to me.
For the record, I don't think ISIS is executing people who have not broken their laws either. They simply say they are following the law of sharia, that allows them to execute, say, war prisoners or unbelievers.
That is why, ultimately, legal positivism/legalism is a moral and philosophical dead end - if you consider some act of authority more acceptable, only because it is sanctioned by law (and you completely ignore what the law actually says) you end up with nazism or fundamentalism. You need to introduce the concept of natural law, which means that there are cases where the statute law is so far beyond the pale, it can no longer be considered lawful and ceases to have any intrinsic value. Both Saudi Arabia and nazi Germany are examples of regimes where this is the case.
Edit: And I also dispute the last sentence of your post - if you actually follow what Saudi Arabia does, there are many cases where they sentence, imprison and execute, for things like "witchcraft" or "blasphemy", people who are in fact just engaging in public debate on politics or religion, or protests that are not themselves criminalised.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 18, 2016, 04:27:36 PM
Quote from: Martinus on January 18, 2016, 02:55:39 PM
Can we at least agree that when it comes to Western standards of human rights, Iran, warts and all, is still much much better than Saudi Arabia?
My read is that Saudi is worse on the vice stuff and Iran is worse on the political repression stuff.
Saudis are crucifying people who participate in anti-government protests. Still worse in my book than whatever Iran does.
Ok let me put it in a way you nerds will understand: Saudi Arabia is Lawful Evil, ISIS is Chaotic Evil. I know some neckbeards like you sometimes had a boner for Lawful Evil, but to me both are just as evil.
And Iran is lawful evil, yet you're willing to recognize differences in degree there.
Quote from: Martinus on January 19, 2016, 01:51:58 AM
But that's like saying Nazis would not send innocent people to death camps - only those that were declared outlaws/criminals by their laws. This kind of reasoning is a highly offensive case of moral equivalency to me.
I don't see how you can make this horrific analogy when it flies in the face of known historical details; that the Nazis did not pretend that the Jews, Gypsies, etc were criminals who had done something wrong; they sent them to the camps because of who they were. In the same way, ISIS persecutes jews, Yezidis, etc because of who they are, without the slightest pretense that they have violated the law.
QuoteFor the record, I don't think ISIS is executing people who have not broken their laws either. They simply say they are following the law of sharia, that allows them to execute, say, war prisoners or unbelievers.
For the record, you think poorly. Sharia "allows" none of these things.
Quote from: Martinus on January 19, 2016, 02:03:39 AM
Saudis are crucifying people who participate in anti-government protests. Still worse in my book than whatever Iran does.
They've sentenced one person* to crucifixion (and that's crucifixion following decapitation, so not the same as Roman/Christian crucifixion). That's pretty barbaric, but its a penalty in Iran, too. It's just that Iran, like SA, commutes the sentence before it is carried out.
* (though there is evidence that SA has, in fact, crucified the corpses of the perps of a recent robbery/murder).
Quote from: grumbler on January 19, 2016, 07:32:35 AM
For the record, you think poorly. Sharia "allows" none of these things.
So you are now an expert on Sharia, too? :lol:
Quote from: Martinus on January 19, 2016, 07:50:47 AM
Quote from: grumbler on January 19, 2016, 07:32:35 AM
For the record, you think poorly. Sharia "allows" none of these things.
So you are now an expert on Sharia, too? :lol:
No, I am simply not ignorant regarding Sharia law, like you. :lol:
Quote from: Martinus on January 19, 2016, 02:05:03 AM
Ok let me put it in a way you nerds will understand: Saudi Arabia is Lawful Evil, ISIS is Chaotic Evil. I know some neckbeards like you sometimes had a boner for Lawful Evil, but to me both are just as evil.
Let me put it this way to you:
Saudi Arabia, no matter what their laws are, does not actually inflict more than a tiny fraction of the actual human suffering and misery that ISIS does.
There is a difference between theoretical moral outrage from your comfy chair, and actual real world misery based on things that are actually happen to actual, real people. The real world is actually not a Dungeons and Dragons game.
Look nobody is saying that Saudi Arabia is nice place, or that they aren't backward fuckwits. But they are backward fuckwits we can deal with, that aren't conquering territory, they aren't committing genocide and they aren't enslaving people. I strongly suspect you are looking at this through the lens of homosexual rights, which are not good in either place but that's not the end all of government.
Marty, I think it was you who brought up Hitler and Stalin, and I think that's a good analogy (though you equated the two and I do not). Why is Stalin better then Hitler? Well, Hitler's plan was to exterminate 80% of the Polish population and reduce the rest of serfs. Stalin planned to kill only about 1% of the Poles and then oppress the rest. If Hitler's plan went through you likely would never have been born. Poland under Stalin, you do get to be born, see the the Soviet Union fall and post on Languish.
ISIS like Hitler, exterminates, enslaves and conquers. Saudi Arabia, like the Soviet Union is cruel and oppressive, but if you keep your head down you have good chance to survive.
Amazing that there's still Communist apologists.
Quote from: The Brain on January 19, 2016, 10:08:13 AM
Amazing that there's still Communist apologists.
Amazing that you posted such a
non sequitur.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 19, 2016, 09:46:02 AM
......
Marty, I think it was you who brought up Hitler and Stalin, and I think that's a good analogy (though you equated the two and I do not). Why is Stalin better then Hitler? Well, Hitler's plan was to exterminate 80% of the Polish population and reduce the rest of serfs. Stalin planned to kill only about 1% of the Poles and then oppress the rest. If Hitler's plan went through you likely would never have been born. Poland under Stalin, you do get to be born, see the the Soviet Union fall and post on Languish.
.....
But what if Hitler went on to invent Languish?
edit:OK, on 2nd thoughts maybe he did?
So this thread isn't about the Aramco flotation?
Not clear to me that the Saudis had another viable move, BTW. From the 11/2014 OPEC meeting to 9/2015 (the latest data), Saudi production is up 550K barrels a day. But Iraq is up 1 million. It seems very unlikely that Saudi restraint would have kept down Iraqi production growth.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 19, 2016, 09:46:02 AM
Poland under Stalin, you do get to be born, see the the Soviet Union fall and post on Languish.
:hmm: :unsure:
Quote from: Razgovory on January 19, 2016, 09:46:02 AM
Look nobody is saying that Saudi Arabia is nice place, or that they aren't backward fuckwits. But they are backward fuckwits we can deal with, that aren't conquering territory, they aren't committing genocide and they aren't enslaving people. I strongly suspect you are looking at this through the lens of homosexual rights, which are not good in either place but that's not the end all of government.
Marty, I think it was you who brought up Hitler and Stalin, and I think that's a good analogy (though you equated the two and I do not). Why is Stalin better then Hitler? Well, Hitler's plan was to exterminate 80% of the Polish population and reduce the rest of serfs. Stalin planned to kill only about 1% of the Poles and then oppress the rest. If Hitler's plan went through you likely would never have been born. Poland under Stalin, you do get to be born, see the the Soviet Union fall and post on Languish.
ISIS like Hitler, exterminates, enslaves and conquers. Saudi Arabia, like the Soviet Union is cruel and oppressive, but if you keep your head down you have good chance to survive.
Ok so I guess we are in agreement then. As I said I do recognise difference between Saudis and ISIS and to me it is comparable to Stalin vs. Hitler. Similarly, while I do see the difference between Stalin and Hitler, I refuse to engage in a "Stalin was better than Hitler" exercise - both were monsters.
At least with Stalin and Hitler, the West allied with Stalin only to the extent it needed to beat Hitler - the alliance with the Saudis is much more morally turpid.
Saying "both were monsters" is unhelpful. Idi Amin and the Boston strangler were monsters. You chances of being killed by Albert DeSalvo and while in Boston is much lower then your chance of being killed by Idi Amin in Uganda. You are using broad terms to encompass things of different magnitude, different modus opperendi, different standards and different actions.
If you walked into ISIS territory, you'd almost certainly be kidnapped and immediately killed. In Saudi Arabia you would not. If you started committing blasphemy in Saudi Arabia they might punish you, but in all likely hood the Polish government could get you out of there. In ISIS territory you would already have been kidnapped and killed. If you started to have sex with men in Saudi Arabia the Saudi government probably wouldn't know, but if they found out you might be punished but once again your Polish citizenship may save you. In ISIS territory you wouldn't have the chance due the immediate capture and execution. Any requests from the Polish government would fall on deaf ears.
Quote from: Berkut on January 19, 2016, 08:33:04 AM
Saudi Arabia, no matter what their laws are, does not actually inflict more than a tiny fraction of the actual human suffering and misery that ISIS does.
does that include or exclude the misery the Saudi's have wrought by exporting Salafism to all four corners of the world?
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on January 19, 2016, 02:10:06 PM
Quote from: Berkut on January 19, 2016, 08:33:04 AM
Saudi Arabia, no matter what their laws are, does not actually inflict more than a tiny fraction of the actual human suffering and misery that ISIS does.
does that include or exclude the misery the Saudi's have wrought by exporting Salafism to all four corners of the world?
A good point, but somewhat indirect of what we are discussing.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 19, 2016, 09:46:02 AM
ISIS like Hitler, exterminates, enslaves and conquers. Saudi Arabia, like the Soviet Union is cruel and oppressive, but if you keep your head down you have good chance to survive.
Given the choice, I'd much rather take my chances on surviving in Saudi Arabia than in Stalin's USSR.
Quote from: dps on January 19, 2016, 04:50:44 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on January 19, 2016, 09:46:02 AM
ISIS like Hitler, exterminates, enslaves and conquers. Saudi Arabia, like the Soviet Union is cruel and oppressive, but if you keep your head down you have good chance to survive.
Given the choice, I'd much rather take my chances on surviving in Saudi Arabia than in Stalin's USSR.
Well, yeah.
Interesting thread idea...what utter hellhole would you choose to live in?
Pol Pot's Cambodia may be the worst for most of Languish. The USSR wouldn't be so bad if you avoided the Lenin/Stalin era. I tend to think Saudi Arabia isn't as bad as the press--my college roommate lived there for a while and said that while it sucks, it isn't nearly as bad as people imagine (he works for the state department).
USA is least bad hellhole?
I mean yeah it sucks that I need to get permission for four different groups of bureaucrats before I can put a solar panel on my own roof, but at least they won't steal my house and send me off to work in a rice paddy because I'm too intellectual.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 19, 2016, 05:04:52 PM
USA is least bad hellhole?
I mean yeah it sucks that I need to get permission for four different groups of bureaucrats before I can put a solar panel on my own roof, but at least they won't steal my house and send me off to work in a rice paddy because I'm too intellectual.
I was thinking in terms of Nazi Germany vs. Stalin's USSR vs. Pol Pot's Cambodia vs. N. Korea in the past 65 years vs. a coal mining town in England during the Thatcher regime.
:lol:
:XD:
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 19, 2016, 05:04:52 PM
USA is least bad hellhole?
I mean yeah it sucks that I need to get permission for four different groups of bureaucrats before I can put a solar panel on my own roof, but at least they won't steal my house and send me off to work in a rice paddy because I'm too intellectual.
Come on man, you're making it too easy for us. :D
Fair enough. :lol:
:hmm: How insulting would it be to live under Khmer Rouge and do just fine?
Quote from: DGuller on January 19, 2016, 05:55:55 PM
:hmm: How insulting would it be to live under Khmer Rouge and do just fine?
When the second American revolution purges the nation of intellectuals, it'll be interesting to see who's left and how they respond.
Quote from: mongers on January 19, 2016, 05:27:49 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 19, 2016, 05:04:52 PM
USA is least bad hellhole?
I mean yeah it sucks that I need to get permission for four different groups of bureaucrats before I can put a solar panel on my own roof, but at least they won't steal my house and send me off to work in a rice paddy because I'm too intellectual.
Come on man, you're making it too easy for us. :D
Keep in mind that the Khmer Rouge considered you an intellectual if you could read and write and too Westernized if you wore glasses. Not a place any of us with bad eyesight would want to live.
Though I guess chucking your glasses in order to keep your head would at least mean you wouldn't have to see some of the fucked up shit that went on there.
Quote from: dps on January 19, 2016, 08:55:57 PM
Keep in mind that the Khmer Rouge considered you an intellectual if you could read and write and too Westernized if you wore glasses. Not a place any of us with bad eyesight would want to live.
Though I guess chucking your glasses in order to keep your head would at least mean you wouldn't have to see some of the fucked up shit that went on there.
Thank hod I got lasik and no one would mistake me for an intellectual. I might have a chance to pull through.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 19, 2016, 11:57:05 AM
Saying "both were monsters" is unhelpful. Idi Amin and the Boston strangler were monsters. You chances of being killed by Albert DeSalvo and while in Boston is much lower then your chance of being killed by Idi Amin in Uganda. You are using broad terms to encompass things of different magnitude, different modus opperendi, different standards and different actions.
If you walked into ISIS territory, you'd almost certainly be kidnapped and immediately killed. In Saudi Arabia you would not. If you started committing blasphemy in Saudi Arabia they might punish you, but in all likely hood the Polish government could get you out of there. In ISIS territory you would already have been kidnapped and killed. If you started to have sex with men in Saudi Arabia the Saudi government probably wouldn't know, but if they found out you might be punished but once again your Polish citizenship may save you. In ISIS territory you wouldn't have the chance due the immediate capture and execution. Any requests from the Polish government would fall on deaf ears.
This line of reasoning is disgusting. It never even crossed my mind to consider both regime from my perspective of a white Westerner just visiting them. If you followed that logic, then North Korea is also a nice place.
Seems rather practical to me. Since neither of us are citizens in either state which place would automatically kill you seems relevant.
Quote from: Martinus on January 20, 2016, 01:35:07 AM
This line of reasoning is disgusting. It never even crossed my mind to consider both regime from my perspective of a white Westerner just visiting them. If you followed that logic, then North Korea is also a nice place.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.kinja-img.com%2Fgawker-media%2Fimage%2Fupload%2Fs--Ofp_kHXs--%2F19e2en1mflkshjpg.jpg&hash=98cba571575688e58ff5ee22ca15df0467825fcd)
Iran has killed plenty of people for totally non-violent political crimes. It's really weird to me Marti wants to say ISIS and Saudi Arabia are essentially the same (since to be frank his analogy of Hitler and Stalin compares two roughly equivalent monsters, albeit the former is more notorious, which isn't the same thing as more evil) but that Iran isn't as bad. He refuses to note the serious differences in life under ISIS vs Saudi Arabia as being worthy of viewing the two countries differently but he for some reason is more than willing to embrace Iran as much better despite being told it's not that different from Saudi Arabia.
It's almost like there's no logical consistency here at all, and he's entire opinion is based on the sort of simplistic images overlaid with text that have been shared in this thread to compare ISIS/SA.
Marty simply wants Western (that is to say, American) foreign policy to change on what ever whim he happens to have today. Right now he was to piss off Muslims by having the US kill millions of them by nuking their holy sites. Presumably this will somehow change Immigration crisis in Europe for the better somehow.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 20, 2016, 10:17:16 AM
Marty simply wants Western (that is to say, American) foreign policy to change on what ever whim he happens to have today. Right now he was to piss off Muslims by having the US kill millions of them by nuking their holy sites. Presumably this will somehow change Immigration crisis in Europe for the better somehow.
It would make him happy and that is what counts.