PDA

View Full Version : Does the Gas You Buy Support Terrorsm?


Ann
04-03-02, 08:23 PM
We have heard concern from some people that those who oppose terrorism should avoid all unnecessary driving because all or most oil and therefore gas comes from nations that support or condone terroristic activities. I haev heard others exress afear that we can be held hostage to our gas tanks and heat and power sources. This was just sent to us. We have not personally verrified the percentages yet but the source is usually accurate. I want to share it here and let you decide if the info is useful to you.

> STOP PAYING FOR TERRORISM!!!!!!
>
> Yisrael Medad of the Begin Center sent the following
> information:
>
> Every time you fill up the car, you can avoid putting
> more money into the
> coffers of Saudi Arabia. Just buy from gas companies
> that don't import
> their oil from the Saudis.
>
> Nothing is more frustrating than the feeling that
> every time I fill-up
> the tank, I am sending my money to people who are
> trying to kill me, my
> family, and my friends. I thought it might be
> interesting for you to know which
> oil companies are the best to buy gas from.
>
> Major companies that import Middle Eastern oil (for
> the period 9/1/00 - 8/31/01).
>
> Shell................ 205,742,000 barrels
> Chevron/Texaco....... 144,332,000 barrels
> Exxon/Mobil.......... 130,082,000 barrels
> Marathon............. 117,740,000 barrels
> Amoco................ 62,231,000 barrels
>
> Do the math at $30/barrell, these imports amount to
> over $18 BILLION!
>
> Here are some large companies that do not import
> Middle Eastern oil:
>
> Citgo 0 barrels
> Sunoco 0 barrels
> Conoco 0 barrels
> Sinclair 0 barrels
> BP/Phillips 0 barrels
>
> All of this information is available from the
> Department of Energy and can
> be easily documented. Refineries located in the U.S.
> are required to state
> where they get their oil and how much they are
> importing. They report on
> a monthly basis.
>
> Keep this list in your car; share it with friends.
> STOP paying for Terrorism.............

Is this something that should affect your gas buying decisions? You decide.

Flannel Avenger
04-04-02, 11:41 PM
I'm not sure if that information is current, because Amoco and BP have merged. But I do share the sentiment.

I favor making the oil in ANWR available for use by Americans. Even if we don't start pumping right away we need the infrastructure in place.

selah
04-05-02, 12:25 AM
I favor making the oil in ANWR available for use by Americans. Even if we don't start pumping right away we need the infrastructure in place.


Even though the oil wouldn't be useful for about 15 years, and even then could only provide a maximum of 10% of what America currently uses for 10 years? Also, while they are "only" wanting to drill on a small portion of the ANWR, it is on the water and very diverse biologically. Sorry I don't remember the statistics, but it's something like 80% of the plant and animal populations in the whole ANWR live in that small section of it. Drilling there would do permanent damage to that natural habitat and thus probably cause most of the species of animals living there to die. I personally don't think that's good stewardship of God's creation.

Flannel Avenger
04-05-02, 01:40 PM
I think that we have the capacity to get the oil without harming the critters living there.

And should something happen and the Arabs cut us off some is better than none. Why wait for a catastrophe to act?

selah
04-05-02, 06:44 PM
Looking at past statistics of damage to the earth, inevitable oil spills, etc. around oil drilling facilities, I am not quite as optimistic as you about the damage that would be done to ANWR. I also think that losing all of our middle eastern oil sources (which are not our only source of oil) would be a pretty tricky thing to work out whether we had the little bit from ANWR or not. I don't think that's worth the risk of damage and the money it would take to drill in ANWR. I still take the stance that it's not good stewardship.

But perhaps on this one, we'll just have to agree to disagree :)

Flannel Avenger
04-05-02, 10:47 PM
I agree to disagree.

:D

Multimom
04-06-02, 09:29 AM
Sorry Guys check this one out at www.snopes.com.

The gist of the point is that because of the way the oil industry transports oil, there is no way to know for certain where your oil came from and whether or not it is importated.

Also, there at that site on this one, it lists the actual places we export from and how much we export from that country and it seems that we get the majority of our oil from Canadian sources.

Boycotting these companies won't change a thing. The truth is once oil enters this country, it is shown as being received from its bill of lading place (meaning whereever in North America) it landed.

I'll be back in a minute an post the story on this one on another thread.

Check on things. www.snopes.com is one of the most up to date urban legend websites I've found.

Back shortly with the scoop.

cujo95
04-07-02, 10:43 PM
Does the gas we buy support terrorism?

Not as much as some of the hot air that comes from our politicians.---

Like the hot air that comes from the Bush administration- that we are in a war against all terrorism, YET, we try to put a ball and chain on Israel's own war on terrorism. Instead of telling them to do what we are doing, we tell them to "cease fire" and "negotiate" with these Palistinian murderers.
Maybe we ought to follow the same bad advise we give Israel and negotiate with the forces of Ben Laden.

Islamic terrorism- whether Palistinian or otherwise-has but one goal: the total anialiation of Israel and ultimately all non-Moslims.

Political, diplomatic, and military weekness- whether from Israel or the United States-does far more to support terrorism than buying Arab oil ever can.

Flannel Avenger
04-08-02, 12:10 PM
I agree. All Israel is doing is the exact same thing we have been doing to Al Quaida.

By going after terrorist in Palestinian controlled areas, Israel is probably doing us a big favor.

Shatzi
04-08-02, 09:50 PM
> Nothing is more frustrating than the feeling that
> every time I fill-up
> the tank, I am sending my money to people who are
> trying to kill me, my
> family, and my friends.

Nooooo...I'm sorry, but that's a really, really, not-nice, prejudiced thing to say. Since when are all Middle Easterners terrorists? How can someone make a statement like this? It's like saying not to buy food at McDonalds, because the sketchy kids (well some of them are sketchy) who work there will go out with their paychecks and do...bad things. No, you shouldn't buy food at McDonalds because it's just yuky. But I digress. My point is, just because there are a couple of radical groups in the Middle East, that doesn't mean that every single human between Europe and Asia who is trying to make an honest living wants to kill you, your family, or your friends.

Moving on, I'll comment on the Wildlife Refuge issue. 'The capacity to get the oil without harming the critters living there.' is completely and utterly NON EXISTANT. This isn't poking a little hole in the ground and sending a kid out to the pump to fill up a bucket. This is cutting massive roads through a WILDLIFE REFUGE, hauling in TONS of noisy, pollution-spitting equipment, tearing out trees, tearing up the earth...it's just bad. Bad bad bad! And I have literally cried thinking about the horror of this possiblilty. Please, don't tell me an oil operation won't harm the environment unless you've taken an environmental issues course. Or try three years of them. -.-
I think the oil supply from the Middle East will hold up for a long time to come, it's not just 'easy' for them to cut us off, they depend on us just as much as we depend on them. Besides, we're coming up with electric cars and special fuel cells and all kinds of new stuff. If we focus on developing new technologies instead of drilling, we won't even need oil. ;P

Flannel Avenger
04-09-02, 03:01 PM
Iran and Iraq are trying to organize the Arab states to cut off anybody who supports Israel. I don't know how successfull they'll be, but that kind of talk supports the idea that we need access to our own oil reserves.

The bottom line is, if we were to lose our oil people are going to die. We use this resource to power our electrical plants and to heat our homes. People will freeze in the winter and the sick and elderly will die in the summer from heat. Not to mention the effects that skyrocketing gas prices would have on our transportation infrastructure. We wouldn't be able to get items from point a to point b. Items like food and clothes.

This issue is a lot more complex than it will hurt animals in the artic. And I still think that we can drill for oil without destroying a habitat.

selah
04-09-02, 05:02 PM
Shatzi has a good point. In Envr Sci 101 I learned that in North Dakota alone there is enough harnessable wind power to power the entire united states!! We just need to give money to the scientists who know how to do it.

Why don't they have the money? The oil companies have lots of power so they control the politicians who are of course not going to then give money to the competitors of the oil companies!

The bottom line is, it's ridiculous to destroy ANWR permanently for less than 10% of the oil America needs for a measly 10 years, when we can permanently harness enough power to fuel the entire country forever some other way!!

Flannel Avenger
04-09-02, 05:05 PM
But the problem still remains that it's just not getting done. The money to develop alternative energy sources just isn't being invested on a large enough scale to make these alternatives available in the near future.

Currently, our only real alternative to petroleum based energy is nuclear energy.

Flannel Avenger
04-09-02, 05:32 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,49900,00.html

trixiepup
04-09-02, 06:18 PM
many americans are wasteful, and don't take good care of the things they have. our society emphasizes the disposable.

when i was in germany a few years back, it was totally different. things are taken care of from generation to generation, and they do not have the dependence on as many machines and products.

for instance, dryer sheets. not a big thing, but a lot of people wouldn't even consider giving up this perfumed thing that makes their laundry smell like a chemically engineered backyard. in germany, people don't use those thigns. they really dry stuff outdoors (in the country areas) or in the house in city areas.

or packaging for items purchased. in america, you get an equal amount of packaging to product (or more packaging than product in the case of software and things like that). in germany, loads of packaging is a bad move for the company. customers won't buy it, because they refuse to pay to dispose of it.

the solution to energy and human health and welfare problems does not exist in digging up more limited resources. we should make better use of the things we have, and work towards conserving the worlds resources.

fyi, an interesting, somewhat, but not really, related book that i'm reading right now is _fast food nation_ it's a good read.

selah
04-09-02, 09:44 PM
Actually Flannel, I think the website you gave us supports the view of funding renewable resources. It seems to me like the real answer is not to be dependent on oil at all; and not to be dependent on other countries for our energy. Here are two options:

1. drilling for oil in ANWR: permanently destroys part of God's creation and only provides 10% of the oil America needs for 10 years. Leaves America still depending on outside resources for over half of the energy it uses.

2. funding projects to harness wind and solar energy. The technology already exists, all they need is money. Makes America independent of other countries for its energy needs.

One option destroys part of God's creation, one doesn't. One provides a very limited resource (non-renewable), one is completely unlimited (renewable). One makes us dependent on other countries, the other makes us independent. It seems completely clear to me which of the two options is better for the earth and America's national security.

Saying, "the money's not going to renewable resources so we might as well drill in ANWR" doesn't come close to convincing me. I'll do everything I can to support what I know is the right decision no matter how dismal it looks because of "big oil" getting all the money and political power.

selah
04-09-02, 09:49 PM
Thanks for the perspective, Trixiepup. It makes me really sad sometimes the way America lives, in our consumeristic, disposable way of life. We are so wasteful--and I believe that it is a sin. God entrusted his creation to us and we are flippantly destroying it--and then so many of us are completely unwilling to even consider that possibility let alone admit it!

The most frustrating thing ever is when societal mores condone a sin; even in the Christian culture. Racism, slavery, things like that come to mind. I believe this is an analogous situation.

Flannel Avenger
04-09-02, 09:50 PM
That's not what I said. I said that the kind of money that is needed to get these renewable energy sources up and going in the near future just isn't being spent. If we were to lose access to foriegn oil sources the implications for our country would be extrordinarily bad.

I think that solar energy is viable, but not in the near future. I think that wind power is not a viable source. I would go for Hydroelectric power and solar power.

There is no reason why we can't extract the oil without harming the environment. Do you really think that we can put a man on the moon and not extract a little bit of oil without devastating an environment.

Flannel Avenger
04-09-02, 10:56 PM
Ah yes, I forgot about my favorite source of alternative power: The Fuel Cell. Reacting hydrogen and oxygen to get energy with the only byproduct being water. I'd like to buy one now, but it's cost prohibitive. Hopefully, they'll find a cheap catalyst to put in them and they'll become available on a mass market.

Alas, I think that they don't have enough money invested to get the research done in the near future.

butterfly
04-10-02, 03:31 AM
Sorry, I know I'm jumping in a little late in the game here, but I have a couple of questions. First, Flannel you said this:

Originally posted by Flannel Avenger
There is no reason why we can't extract the oil without harming the environment.

Can you explain to me how you'd do that? Could you also explain how you compare the moon to the Alaskan Wildlife Refuge? Thanks.:)

The next question is just a general one, and maybe a little dumb. I was just wondering why it is people are saying that if your sources of oil are from the Middle East then you are funding terrorism? I realise there are many terrorist groups but how would the money get to them? Wouldn't it go to the oil companies and the government? Please explain.

Flannel Avenger
04-10-02, 11:46 AM
The Bin Laden fortune came from Saudi government contracts, and the Saudi government funded those contracts with oil money.

The moon came in as a technical example. Why can we send men to the moon but not extract oil without harming an environent? As for the other methods, it's been a while since I read about it and I will have to find and reread whatever it was I read...

trixiepup
04-10-02, 03:01 PM
to be truly ethical and helpful to poor people, it might be better to not use oil based products at all....

many of the countries that gain most of their revenue from oil exporting still have a great deal of their people living in poor conditions (lack of health care, low literacy rates, etc). the money from the oil generally ends up in the hands of a few wealthy families. these families may help the local economy, but they generally do not, relying on imported "luxury" products because they can afford it.

these actions further lessen the country's goal of economic health, because the local products are generally foods and textiles (things that don't export well enough to earn high prices on the international markets).

but if oil is no longer bought from different countries, they have nothing really valuable to export in the world market, of if they do export, other countries can do it cheaper.

it becomes a giant catch-22, and doesn't really benefit a whole lot of people long term. i wish there was an easy solution, but there isn't one. every action we take as a nation affects people in other countries, both directly and indirectly.

Flannel Avenger
04-10-02, 10:25 PM
Another issue is that a lot of the oil exporting middle eastern countries are not free. Islam is the state religion, and women have to wear those funny looking robe things.

I think that giving money to these governments should cause little warning flags in our minds to go off almost as much as the idea of giving money to terrorists.

selah
04-10-02, 11:55 PM
That's not what I said. I said that the kind of money that is needed to get these renewable energy sources up and going in the near future just isn't being spent. If we were to lose access to foriegn oil sources the implications for our country would be extrordinarily bad.

Right. But ANWR wouldn't give us oil for about a decade anyway, and even when it does it's a very minimal amount. With ANWR or not, we'd have a problem. I fail to see how drilling in ANWR is a very good answer.

I think that solar energy is viable, but not in the near future. I think that wind power is not a viable source. I would go for Hydroelectric power and solar power.

Why do you think wind power is not a viable source? I admit I'm not a scientist out in the field but I tend to trust them when they say they can do it. I also think, as I said above, if we're talking about an issue of immediate danger to our oil supply then drilling in ANWR isn't the answer either.

There is no reason why we can't extract the oil without harming the environment. Do you really think that we can put a man on the moon and not extract a little bit of oil without devastating an environment.

First of all, we've done lots of damage to the earth in the past with drilling. The roads alone would cover acres and acres of land, the pollution given off would devastate the species there, and there are inevitably oil spills. Given the tremendous damage to the earth in the current drilling of oil going on now, I'd say the burden of proof is on you that we wouldn't damage the earth. Just taking the roads and buildings alone, I can't really see how we can drill oil without them; and yet you can't deny that that is harmful to fragile organisms.

Also, I don't see how getting to the moon has anything to do with extracting oil. It is analogous to saying of two five year olds, "she can tie her shoe, why can't he skip?" One child's fine motor skills (finger dexterity) has nothing to do with the other child's large motor skills (leg movement). Nasa's ability to create spacecraft that can (usually) safely get us to the Moon doesn't have anything to do with a big oil company's ability to drill for oil without harming the environment. Would you care to explain?

I'm also wondering if you can explain to me how having 10% of the oil America needs for less than 10 years, and not being able to see any of that until about 2010 is really going to help much with our national security and energy needs if we were to be cut off by Middle Eastern countries. Or perhaps you just disagree with my statistics? If that's the case I can dig up references.

Isn't it funny how we said we'd agree to disagree and yet here we are still discussing this? But I do feel like we keep saying the same things over and over and I have yet to hear you address my specific points about the limitations of drilling in ANWR; and I'd really like to hear your thoughts on that.

Flannel Avenger
04-11-02, 10:55 PM
I was agreeing to disagree until other people came :angel: (that's right, blame somebody else, in the great tradition of humanity, ever since Adam blamed Eve and Eve blamed the snake)

Anyway, I have enough research to do for school that I don't care to get into a big debate. I really feel that cutting out mideast oil sources whenever possible is imperitive.

As for wind, the wind doesn't always blow, wind power generation equipment is an eyesore, and I think that fuel cells and solar cells are far more space efficient.

butterfly
04-12-02, 12:16 AM
Oh phooey, and here I was all ready to jump in. Oh well, I supposed you gotta what you gotta do. Good luck with all your papers and such. :)

selah
04-12-02, 10:36 AM
Hey Butterfly, I'm not sure if your post means you're in agreement with me but either way; I'm still interested to hear what you have to say on the subject! I'm always interested in learning more about ANWR, energy suplies, oil drilling, etc.

Take care.

carrie
04-21-02, 10:48 AM
The oil we get from those countries is not bought. It is exchanged for food and medical supplies. They don't get money out of it. They get the things they need to live