How exactly is ISIS a threat to our Vital National Interests?

[4321lynx]

It's much easier to deny the problem than accept that we are facing a situation with no good answers.

The 'rabbit hole' is definitely much deeper than what the West is prepared to admit at this time. Global Jihad is a monster with a lot of heads* which will regenerate out of the ashes again and again if the correct causes are not identified clearly and dealt with (the theological element should necessarily be introduced in the equation as a main factor, islam is not peace, 'melting pot' factor or progress catalyser and it is a huge fallacy to believe that it can be easily lumped together with Christianity and Judaism, thus as easily to be 'tamed'). No one rational denies the existence of other factors (political, economical, social and so on) but the theological factor is decisive to understand the behaviour coming out of the muslim world (lack of self-criticism etc) and the very poor assimilation of the values of Enlightenment in spite of centuries now of exposure to Modernity. Sadly people in the muslim world are not in command of islam, as a certain propaganda claim, but the other way around; the forces of progress are too weak at the moment to finally bring the Islamic world in the 21st century and make future falls toward the past unlikely (i'm afraid the muslim communities in the West, especially Europe, are not an exception).


*some may be incapable to attack the non muslim world at the moment (like ISIS or even some 'peaceful' 'moderate friends' of the West) but they won't hesitate to do that once in a strong position, even in the absence of any provocation

The classical manual of the Hanafi school of law, the Hedaya, clearly states that jihad is to be fought against infidels even if they are not the aggressors:

"The destruction of the sword is incurred by infidels, although they be not the first aggressors, as appears from various passages in the sacred writings which are generally received to this effect."193

The Shafi‘i manual, Reliance of the Traveller, states:

"The caliph makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians (provided he has first invited them to enter Islam in faith and practice, and if they will not, then invited them to enter the social order of Islam by paying the non-Muslim poll tax… while remaining in their ancestral religion)… The caliph fights all other peoples until they become Muslim…"194

The vast majority of contemporary Muslim scholars hold to his classical Islamic theory of war, a theory which presumes that war against non-Muslims would be essentially unrestricted. This was the policy of the Islamic empire under which the theory developed.

- Global Jihad, chapter 5

in fact aggressive jihad was common along the history of islam and the medieval Islamic law permitting it is still largely with us, any parts overlooked at the moment can be easily reactivated upon the needs of muslims (ISIS actions are by no means un-Islamic)

YESSS!!!
AGREE 100%

And all Muslims know it even if they protest to the contrary. Those Muslims who say it is un-Islamic are either
1.indulging in a-historic wishful-thinking, hoping "it will go away",
or
2.deliberately misleading the gullible (and wishful-thinking) general Infidel public.

Infidel world leaders preaching that Islam is a peaceful religion are either ignorant of history or wish to hide the truth from their people, not wanting to precipitate anti-Muslim sentiment among the public. We all know what 'we' ( the Europeans; white Americans in North, Central or South America; brown Hindoos etc) are capable of in the way of religious or racist violent actions or reactions. Not a pretty picture.

 

[Canard DuJour]

How exactly is ISIS a threat to our Vital National Interests?

Because if and wherever they get their Islamic State, they'll nationalise their oil and refuse to sell it to America at any price. They'll sell it instead to China, Japan, India, EU (possibly excluding UK) ..any number of willing takers, probably not in dollars. Like Iraq was about to do via a UN-sanctioned deal when it suddenly became urgent to invade because of WMD no one could find. Even if they're not about to force an Islamic State, such policy probably has broad enough Islamic/arab support across ethnic divides that advocacy threatens the US.

Though the U.S. is a top producer of crude oil, its current rate of petroleum consumption is between 18 and 19 million barrels of oil per day, and its domestic production cannot handle the demand, hence its reliance on imported oil. As President George W. Bush stated in his 2006 State of the Union Address to the nation: “Keeping America competitive requires affordable energy. And here we have a serious problem: America is addicted to oil, which is often imported from unstable parts of the world” (January 31, 2006). From the mouth of the nation’s top leader, the U.S. suffers from an addiction. Most modern machinery runs on oil and its utility is seen in everyday products from plastics to cosmetics, from paint to lubricants, and, most especially, as a source of fuel for the modern combustion engine. Over time, to feel “normal”, the addict develops an abnormal psychological dependency on the addictive substance and will utilize any means to obtain the drug in spite of cultural or moral restraints. In the case of oil, this abnormal dependency has led the United States to engage in bribery and corruption to obtain oil, from control of markets to the exclusion of countries from such commerce, from the overthrow of regimes deemed belligerent because of their attempts to take control of their own oil resources to outright murder, assassination, and war. Indeed, few Americans today doubt that the recent eight-year war on Iraq (2003-2011) was conducted primarily to obtain oil. And this is why veteran scholar on the politics of oil, Dr. Michael Klare, concludes in a recent article that: “the Strait of Hormuz will undoubtedly remain the ground zero of potential global conflict in the months ahead” (January 31, 2012).

When a U.S. President refers to the necessity to import oil from “unstable parts of the world,” what he means is that some regions of the world are asserting their sovereign right to control their natural resources, e.g. oil, and they are neither subordinate nor answerable to the U.S. government, especially as regards how much oil is produced and available for purchase on world markets and how much they wish to charge for this oil—hence, the nomenclature of “instability”.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/america-s-dependency-on-middle-east-oil/30177​

(..as others point out)

 

[Deepak]

Because if and wherever they get their Islamic State, they'll nationalise their oil and refuse to sell it to America at any price. They'll sell it instead to China, Japan, India, EU (possibly excluding UK) ..any number of willing takers, probably not in dollars. Like Iraq was about to do via a UN-sanctioned deal when it suddenly became urgent to invade because of WMD no one could find. Even if they're not about to force an Islamic State, such policy probably has broad enough Islamic/arab support across ethnic divides that advocacy threatens the US.

Though the U.S. is a top producer of crude oil, its current rate of petroleum consumption is between 18 and 19 million barrels of oil per day, and its domestic production cannot handle the demand, hence its reliance on imported oil. As President George W. Bush stated in his 2006 State of the Union Address to the nation: “Keeping America competitive requires affordable energy. And here we have a serious problem: America is addicted to oil, which is often imported from unstable parts of the world” (January 31, 2006). From the mouth of the nation’s top leader, the U.S. suffers from an addiction. Most modern machinery runs on oil and its utility is seen in everyday products from plastics to cosmetics, from paint to lubricants, and, most especially, as a source of fuel for the modern combustion engine. Over time, to feel “normal”, the addict develops an abnormal psychological dependency on the addictive substance and will utilize any means to obtain the drug in spite of cultural or moral restraints. In the case of oil, this abnormal dependency has led the United States to engage in bribery and corruption to obtain oil, from control of markets to the exclusion of countries from such commerce, from the overthrow of regimes deemed belligerent because of their attempts to take control of their own oil resources to outright murder, assassination, and war. Indeed, few Americans today doubt that the recent eight-year war on Iraq (2003-2011) was conducted primarily to obtain oil. And this is why veteran scholar on the politics of oil, Dr. Michael Klare, concludes in a recent article that: “the Strait of Hormuz will undoubtedly remain the ground zero of potential global conflict in the months ahead” (January 31, 2012).

When a U.S. President refers to the necessity to import oil from “unstable parts of the world,” what he means is that some regions of the world are asserting their sovereign right to control their natural resources, e.g. oil, and they are neither subordinate nor answerable to the U.S. government, especially as regards how much oil is produced and available for purchase on world markets and how much they wish to charge for this oil—hence, the nomenclature of “instability”.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/america-s-dependency-on-middle-east-oil/30177​

(..as others point out)

Iraq and Syria produce just under 4% of the world's oil, and oil is a fungible commodity. They could take their proverbial ball and go home, and it wouldn't really affect anything - since theoretical oil consumption by China from IS offsets purchases they make from other sources.

And Globalresearch.ca is a wretched hive of scum and conspiracy theory that thinks HAARP is a tsunami machine.

Turkey apparently is highly concerned by US access to IS oil. http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...dc0b16-d084-456e-a969-21a2621dfaf6_story.html
'Dat oil' says UAE http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Midd...emale-F-16-pilot-stirs-debate-in-Muslim-world
Hezbollah paraphrases Baron Harkonnen 'The oil must flow' http://www.algemeiner.com/2014/09/2...trike-on-islamic-state-target-in-syria-video/

 

[Canard DuJour]

Because if and wherever they get their Islamic State, they'll nationalise their oil and refuse to sell it to America at any price. They'll sell it instead to China, Japan, India, EU (possibly excluding UK) ..any number of willing takers, probably not in dollars. Like Iraq was about to do via a UN-sanctioned deal when it suddenly became urgent to invade because of WMD no one could find. Even if they're not about to force an Islamic State, such policy probably has broad enough Islamic/arab support across ethnic divides that advocacy threatens the US.



(..as others point out)

Iraq and Syria produce just under 4% of the world's oil, and oil is a fungible commodity. They could take their proverbial ball and go home, and it wouldn't really affect anything

Yeah I know, but the threat is of it spreading throughout the region including Saudi Arabia where revolution is now not inconceivable. Either an Islamic state or a secular Arab nationalist one would implement somesuch policy, and it'd be a gamechanger.

- since theoretical oil consumption by China from IS offsets purchases they make from other sources.

(not sure what this means)

And Globalresearch.ca is a wretched hive of scum and conspiracy theory that thinks HAARP is a tsunami machine.

I wouldn't know and will take your word, but that article doesn't seem unreasonable. There can be no proof of why US gov'ts are apparently so intent on ME military presence and propping up the world's last absolutist monarchy. But neither the military threat, the humanitarian or the liberty-and-democracy stories stack up.

Turkey apparently is highly concerned by US access to IS oil. http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...dc0b16-d084-456e-a969-21a2621dfaf6_story.html
'Dat oil' says UAE http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Midd...emale-F-16-pilot-stirs-debate-in-Muslim-world
Hezbollah paraphrases Baron Harkonnen 'The oil must flow' http://www.algemeiner.com/2014/09/2...trike-on-islamic-state-target-in-syria-video/