Sources for Peikhoff's article on Terrorism

[Caramello]

I have frequently read Peikhoff's article "End States That Sponsor Terrorism", available on http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=2635.

I find it hard to find sources that really support a lot of claims implicit in his article. Those include:

- The West had valid property rights on Mideast oil, the locations have NOT been taken away from any private person by means of post-WWI division of land and

they have NOT been taken away by the West by means of initiation of force.

- "The Muslim countries embodied in an extreme form every idea--selfless duty, anti-materialism, faith or feeling above science, the supremacy of the

group--which our universities, our churches, and our own political Establishment had long been upholding as virtue."

Where do you get the material, translations of those head-of-states' speeches, plans, intentions, data on the general attitude of people in those countries,

support for the notion that these are Muslim views, not fundamentalist? That people in these countries do not only support "the greater jihad", but

also are in favour of the destruction of the West? Support for the notion, that it is really the PEOPLE that want that, not only a minor group of fundamentalists?

- Terrorists exist ONLY because of the states that sponsor, sanction and support them. The financial power of private supporters, millionaires, inside and abroad

doesn't really matter.

- The fundamentalist's motive is NOT poverty, NOT Western presence in the middle east, but the creation of Allah's world empire.

I'm asking for sources not in the form of other people's claims, but by generally accepted, known facts.

Edited November 16, 2007 by Caramello

[KendallJ]

I find it hard to find sources that really support a lot of claims implicit in his article. Those include:

- The West had valid property rights on Mideast oil, the locations have NOT been taken away from any private person by means of post-WWI division of land and

they have NOT been taken away by the West by means of initiation of force.

You must not have looked very hard then on this particular topic. Almost every large oil field known was originally developed by US or European oil companies. THey brought the technology to search for and develop those oil fields. Once found, most all were pressure into slowly conceding portions of it over to the governments fo the countries they were in, sometimes even as outirght nationalizations, but most often as "pressure" for a portion of the profits.

If you look across the globe, most the worlds producing oil assets are state-owned. Do you think that is because government is exceedingly efficient at petroleum discovery and exploration? Search the history of all of these and you'll find major use of force to obtain that position. And of course our govt did nothing during those events, except help oil companie capitulate.

My mom was teaching in an international school for expats of Gulf Oil in Bolivia. From her school room she watched the Bolivian army march in and nationalize (read: steal) the Gulf assets. The most recent example fo this was the Russian govt forcing Shell oil to reneg its controlling stake in the Sakhalin Island development project. That was this year.

Saudi Aramco, Iraq, Iran, Venzuela, go look up nationalization, and you'll see they all did it. Also you'll see Rand make the same claim if you look for her Donahue interview on YouTube.

[Caramello]

You must not have looked very hard then on this particular topic. Almost every large oil field known was originally developed by US or European oil companies. THey brought the technology to search for and develop those oil fields. Once found, most all were pressure into slowly conceding portions of it over to the governments fo the countries they were in, sometimes even as outirght nationalizations, but most often as "pressure" for a portion of the profits.

If you look across the globe, most the worlds producing oil assets are state-owned. Do you think that is because government is exceedingly efficient at petroleum discovery and exploration? Search the history of all of these and you'll find major use of force to obtain that position. And of course our govt did nothing during those events, except help oil companie capitulate.

My mom was teaching in an international school for expats of Gulf Oil in Bolivia. From her school room she watched the Bolivian army march in and nationalize (read: steal) the Gulf assets. The most recent example fo this was the Russian govt forcing Shell oil to reneg its controlling stake in the Sakhalin Island development project. That was this year.

Saudi Aramco, Iraq, Iran, Venzuela, go look up nationalization, and you'll see they all did it. Also you'll see Rand make the same claim if you look for her Donahue interview on YouTube.

Yeah, but that wasn't really my question. My question was, how these Oil fields were aquired by those oil companies, did it take place by initiation of force? Didn't those locations BELONG to someone before they were taken from those oil companies? Were are the sources confirming the status of ownership of those locations BEFORE those oil companies took over?

[KendallJ]

Yeah, but that wasn't really my question. My question was, how these Oil fields were aquired by those oil companies, did it take place by initiation of force? Didn't those locations BELONG to someone before they were taken from those oil companies? Were are the sources confirming the status of ownership of those locations BEFORE those oil companies took over?

Well, barring the fact that I didn't see a question mark anywhere in your statement, that's answered quite clearly if you go looking for what I suggested. However, since you seem unwilling to do that...

It's not an issue of property rights in the sense of owning the land, but in the sense of owning the right to develop those assets and keep the profits from that development. That can be established by a develpoment agreement with the owner of the land. However, if that agreement is breeched after the asset is developed then that is a violation of the original right that was agreed to contractually. In addition if the improved assets that the developing party built are forcibly taken from them, as in the case of nationalization, then that is clearly a violation of property rights.

Edited November 17, 2007 by KendallJ

[softwareNerd]

My question was, how these Oil fields were acquired by those oil companies, did it take place by initiation of force?

What exactly would you classify as an initiation of force? For instance, most of these countries in the middle east were run by some type of monarch. Foreign oil companies would approach the monarch and get a "concession", allowing them to explore and drill for oil. Most of these concessions were to consortiums of oil-companies -- essentially, the foreign companies formed a consortium rather than competing among themselves as to who could pay off the monarch the most.

I'm not sure where you would look online, but I believe the book "The Prize" - by Daniel Yergin might have some of what you're looking for. If you search online, try looking for terms like "early middle east oil concessions", "Iraq Petroleum Company", and "middle east red line agreement".

[TheEgoist]

I have frequently read Peikhoff's article "End States That Sponsor Terrorism", available on <a href="http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=2635" target="_blank">http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=2635</a>.

I find it hard to find sources that really support a lot of claims implicit in his article. Those include:

- The West had valid property rights on Mideast oil, the locations have NOT been taken away from any private person by means of post-WWI division of land and

they have NOT been taken away by the West by means of initiation of force.

- "The Muslim countries embodied in an extreme form every idea--selfless duty, anti-materialism, faith or feeling above science, the supremacy of the

group--which our universities, our churches, and our own political Establishment had long been upholding as virtue."

Where do you get the material, translations of those head-of-states' speeches, plans, intentions, data on the general attitude of people in those countries,

support for the notion that these are Muslim views, not fundamentalist? That people in these countries do not only support "the greater jihad", but

also are in favour of the destruction of the West? Support for the notion, that it is really the PEOPLE that want that, not only a minor group of fundamentalists?

- Terrorists exist ONLY because of the states that sponsor, sanction and support them. The financial power of private supporters, millionaires, inside and abroad

doesn't really matter.

- The fundamentalist's motive is NOT poverty, NOT Western presence in the middle east, but the creation of Allah's world empire.

I'm asking for sources not in the form of other people's claims, but by generally accepted, known facts.

As is the main focus in this thread, I'll address the oil Nationalization ( Theft ). In 1908 the Anglo-Persian Oil Company ( Later BP ) got permission and a grant from the then Shah of Iran to drill for oil. Up until this time, oil was a non-issue to the people of Iran. The contract was guaranteed for at least 60 years, but in 1951 the Iranians wanted to nationalize the oil fields. Without permission from the company or the country of it's origin, Iran confiscated the fields for themselves and made it a national commodity. We all know of what happened next with the old Iranian government being overthrown and replaced with a new Western-friendly Shah. In 1979, during the Islamic Revolution, the oil fields were again nationalized and the company received no compensation whatsoever.

This is the basic story of all the middle east. Iran set an example and before the 1950s were out everyone was demanding that the Government take over oil fields. This is all pretty well documented stuff. Besides installing the Shah in Iran, I think Iran is totally at fault here.

[Caramello]

This is the basic story of all the middle east. Iran set an example and before the 1950s were out everyone was demanding that the Government take over oil fields. This is all pretty well documented stuff. Besides installing the Shah in Iran, I think Iran is totally at fault here.

Talking about installing the Shah, I think a lot of people would then argue that Britain initiated force against Iran by installing Pahlavi, making sure someone would make oil consessions for those oil companies. That the British forced the Iranians to be governed by someone who would give those potential oil fields "away", instead of letting the Iranians themselves decide about their government.

Edited November 24, 2007 by Caramello

[DarkWaters]

Talking about installing the Shah, I think a lot of people would then argue that Britain initiated force against Iran by installing Pahlavi,

The emphasis is mine. Why do you perceive this to be an initiation of force and not a retaliation?

If you want another source on the history of United States involvement in Middle Eastern oil interests, I highly recommend the appropriate chapters in Michael Oren's Power, Faith and Fantasy: America in the Middle East: 1776 to Present.

Actually, I remember the story about the risks entrepreneurs took to strike oil in the Arabian Peninsula to be quite heroic.

Edited November 24, 2007 by DarkWaters