• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Merged What's happening in the Middle East?

Libya is now in the civil war mode, could easily fall apart. Meanwhile a much bigger event is developing: Saudi-Arabia:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/markets/8358176/Saudi-Arabia-contagion-triggers-Gulf-rout.html

Saudi Arabia contagion triggers Gulf rout, By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard

The latest sell-off was triggered by the arrest of a Shi’ite cleric in the Kingdom’s Eastern Province after he called for democratic reforms and a constitutional monarchy. The province is home to Saudi Arabia’s aggrieved Shi’ite minority and also holds the country’s vast Ghawar oilfield, placing it at the epicentre of global crude supply.

“Unrest in this region can have fatal consequences for the world,” said JBC Energy. “The plunge on the Saudi stock exchange can be interpreted as a sign of waning trust.”

In Bahrain, the island nation’s Sunni elite holds sway over a Shi’ite majority that is denied key jobs and has a token political voice, making it a trial run for Saudi Arabia’s near-identical tensions in the Eastern Province.

Yesterday I paid 90 euro (126 $) to fill my car's 53 liter tank. That's an all-time record (9.0 $/gallon). That's the Libya effect only, merely 1% of global supply.

I am an adherent to the peak-oil theory. The theory says that more than half of total global oil resources have been consumed. This oil was by and large consumed since the 1960's by a few hundred million Europeans, either in America or in Europe. Moreover the oil consumed represented the easy 'low-hanging fruit': just drill a hole in the sand and the oil will spray out. That is no longer the case. It will take ever more trouble to meet demand, like drilling under kilometers of water, like in the Mexican Gulf, with all the hazards that come with that sort of enterprise, as we have recently seen. Now there are far more potential consumers for the 2nd half of the oil pie. That means that the corresponding consumer time will be far less than the 50 years of the first half. At far higher production costs at that. And that is under the assumption that no political turmoil will stop producing oil.

And that is not going to happen as the developments in the ME now show us. 1 barrel of oil represents the equivalent of 2 years a manual slave labour (that is btw the real reason why slavery in the US was abolished: it was put out of business by the rise of applications of hydrocarbons in the North). And as such, even when the price will rise to 1,000$ a barrel, there still will be (some) demand for it.

The oil age is over now. And as a consequence the car age is over. In the coming years Joe Six-pack will abandon his car. If Saudi-Arabia falls, the car age will be over in a few months. We will see the rise of car-pooling, possibly enforced by the government, as a temporarily counter-measure to keep the economy going. We will see the rise of more fuel-efficient cars. But it will merely mean delay of execution. The stupidest investment a westener can do now is to buy a new standard car.

And since energy is necessarily used in all aspects of the economy (production, transport), we will see the rise of prices of all commodities. Already the rise of food prices as a consequence of the rise of energy prices has caused uproar and instability in the 3rd world and this is only the beginning. It is not going to be pretty.
 
Last edited:
As to what is going on in the Middle East, I invite you to watch the following video, which is purported to have taken place in Libya in the past week or so, and consider the following two points.

http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=2HiUMlOz4UQ&vq=large

Observation number 1: the guys with the AK-47s have taken care to make sure they are surrounded/in the midst of, a general crowd of unarmed citizens. I don't think that is accidental. This is a very small engagement (there is a bit of return fire coming the other way, you see that in the sparks late in the video).

Observation number 2: these people are morons (the bystanders) and the guys shooting are utter amateurs. Any regular force, even modestly trained in small unit tactics, would turn then into rotting hamburger in fairly short order.

The rebels against Gadhaffi do have the advantage of a number of soldiers who left the government side and are fighting against it. I expect their professionalism and tactical ability is variable, from the very good to the raw conscripts. Who these numbnuts are in the video I am not sure, but they do not seem to comport themselves as regulars.
 
Last edited:
As to what is going on in the Middle East, I invite you to watch the following video, which is purported to have taken place in Libya in the past week or so, and consider the following two points.

http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=2HiUMlOz4UQ&vq=large

Observation number 1: the guys with the AK-47s have taken care to make sure they are surrounded/in the midst of, a general crowd of unarmed citizens. I don't think that is accidental. This is a very small engagement (there is a bit of return fire coming the other way, you see that in the sparks late in the video).

Observation number 2: these people are morons (the bystanders) and the guys shooting are utter amateurs. Any regular force, even modestly trained in small unit tactics, would turn then into rotting hamburger in fairly short order.

The rebels against Gadhaffi do have the advantage of a number of soldiers who left the government side and are fighting against it. I expect their professionalism and tactical ability is variable, from the very good to the raw conscripts. Who these numbnuts are in the video I am not sure, but they do not seem to comport themselves as regulars.

The link shows a trailer for a BBC documentary.

The Libyan army is one of the worst performing in the world. Arab armies in general are hopeless but Libya's is especially bad. They lost a war against tribal groups in Chad that used pick-up trucks.

The rebels got their training by watching American action movies. But considering they have numbers on their side, and that the Libyan army can't fight, that may be good enough.
 
Last edited:
As to what is going on in the Middle East, I invite you to watch the following video, which is purported to have taken place in Libya in the past week or so, and consider the following two points.

http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=2HiUMlOz4UQ&vq=large

Observation number 1: the guys with the AK-47s have taken care to make sure they are surrounded/in the midst of, a general crowd of unarmed citizens. I don't think that is accidental. This is a very small engagement (there is a bit of return fire coming the other way, you see that in the sparks late in the video).

Observation number 2: these people are morons (the bystanders) and the guys shooting are utter amateurs. Any regular force, even modestly trained in small unit tactics, would turn then into rotting hamburger in fairly short order.

The rebels against Gadhaffi do have the advantage of a number of soldiers who left the government side and are fighting against it. I expect their professionalism and tactical ability is variable, from the very good to the raw conscripts. Who these numbnuts are in the video I am not sure, but they do not seem to comport themselves as regulars.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations

Please don't tell it to the ADL that you got it from me but Egypt has an average IQ of 83. Libya likely has a similar figure, so what do you expect? Libya's relative wealth stems from oil, discovered and produced by westerners. 1 million barrels a day. Think that away and you will have a desert, camels and tents. And that's Libya/Arabia for you.

Well-known Arabian proverb:
My grandfather rode a camel. My father rode in a car. I fly in a jet airplane. My grandson will ride a camel.

My cynical correction: replace grandson with son.
 
Last edited:
i.q. tests are culturally biased, and are not reliable measures of intelligence for other than white, christian, middle classed people.
Wrong, yet again.

Take out "Christian" and you might have a leg to stand on, unless you want to suggest that all Jewish (and for that matter, Hindu) IQ scores are utterly irrelevant.

But then, accuracy has never been your strong suit.
 
Wrong, yet again.

Take out "Christian" and you might have a leg to stand on, unless you want to suggest that all Jewish (and for that matter, Hindu) IQ scores are utterly irrelevant.

But then, accuracy has never been your strong suit.

i was a teacher for many years.
in that time, i had many native students.
iq tests were no measure of their intelligence at all.
perhaps 'christian' was not accurate, but certainly, most iq tests are biased towards 'western' culture.
 
Last edited:
i.q. tests are culturally biased, and are not reliable measures of intelligence for other than white, christian, middle classed people.

If we can expand 'cultural bias' from IQ tests to industrial society, science, technology, moon landings, etc., then you have point we can agree on. All achievements of white, christian, middle classed people.

Besides, who are we to judge that a culture based on industrial society, science, technology, moon landings is superior to a penis sheath society? Are we not in the end all equal?

*** This message was offered to you for free by the ADL. Help the ADL fight bigotry, white supremacism and antisemitism! ***
 
Last edited:
my 35 years experience as a classroom teacher refutes that.
iq tests are only valid within the confines of cultural relevance.

Every country on this planet has universities, a European institution and every advanced society like non-western Japan and China have universities populated by intelligent people with high IQ's (120 as a minimum). IQ and intelligence are universal concepts. Only intelligent people, that is with a large enough IQ elite, are able to bring a payload in space, white or yellow or brown. So much for 'cultural bias'. The 'cultural bias' concept was coined by the Jewish invented 'cultural antropology' (Boas) to counter racism and the further the Jewish agenda of creating a single global power structure (with the Jews at the top). It is another form of cultural marxism.

Do you really think that counting from 1..100 only has meaning within a 'white, christian, middle class context'?

No?

So why can't we ask a, say black African, who can count from 1..100 (most can) to guess what figure comes next?

1, 4, 9, 16, ...

But this is off-topic. Discussion about IQ and race here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=194169

I have no time for that discussion.
 
Last edited:
So why can't we ask a, say black African, who can count from 1..100 (most can) to guess what figure comes next?

1, 4, 9, 16, ...

But this is off-topic. Discussion about IQ and race here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=194169

I have no time for that discussion.

I.Q. tests rely on more than the ability to count.
your biases are painfully clear in your many posts in this forum.
i have no time for that discussion.......with you.
 
Do you really think that counting from 1..100 only has meaning within a 'white, christian, middle class context'?

No?

So why can't we ask a, say black African, who can count from 1..100 (most can) to guess what figure comes next?

1, 4, 9, 16, ...

IQ tests are generally administered against the clock. As such, it's a huge advantage when you are presented with a list of numbers you have seen again and again and again.

If you think your example was culturally neutral, then you aren't as smart as you think. I can name a hundred different types of numbers. My familiarity with those categories is a huge advantage when it comes to solving 'problems' like the one you listed. Hardly a brain teaser. I literally didn't have to do anything more than read it -- that's how familiar it was.

Jesus, dude, at least you could have tried:

2, 9, 28, 65, ...


But this is off-topic. Discussion about IQ and race here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=194169

I have no time for that discussion.

Of course you have no time for discussion.
 
The link shows a trailer for a BBC documentary.

The Libyan army is one of the worst performing in the world. Arab armies in general are hopeless but Libya's is especially bad. They lost a war against tribal groups in Chad that used pick-up trucks.

The rebels got their training by watching American action movies. But considering they have numbers on their side, and that the Libyan army can't fight, that may be good enough.

This.

Gadaffi's army:
Badly trained, mostly badly equipped, some decent armoured vehicles.
They have an air-force, though.


The rebels:
A lot of regular army gone over to the other side, still badly trained.
But also a lot of really motivated kids. Some of Colonel Whackjob's strongholds have been overrun by 15-year-olds with AK's.
They have the numbers and the motivation, but have to cross a massive desert and have no planes at their disposal.
They do have slightly more small-arms than Hunter S. Thomson's vacation home.
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom