What do you fear most - Big Oil or 'Terrorism'?

[Dover]

Relative to potential for destruction to our environment and overall harm to our citizens, which poses the greatest concerns? I could, perhaps, include other large corporate entities whose damage to health, culture, environment, etc. is more subtle, but equally severe. So I'll provide that option as well.

[haikugal]

1. Aren't they the same thing?

[Dover]

4. That was an option in the poll...n/t

[BrklynLiberal]

5. My opinion too

They are irrevocably intertwined...one resulting from, and initiating the other.

[pscot]

2. K&R

This is the first time I've ever recced a poll.

[L0oniX]

What's the difference?

[stray cat]

3. Big oil can be regulated if politicians act - telling a terrorist no is a joke

[Lorien]

11. We create terrorists when we occupy their Nations and steal their oil. nt

[aquart]

13. No terrorist ever destroyed an ocean. What they do is pitiful in proportion.

After Katrina, I was embarrassed that anyone would even mention 9/11. When has a terrorist taken out a city?

You really need to stop buying the hype.

[AnArmyVeteran]

6. Hayward is to BP, as Bin Laden is to Al Qaeda

But BP is driven only by greed, while at least Al Qaeda are driven by principle. Yes, the 'principles' Al Qaeda has are mutant and evil, but they are principles. They have no regard to acquiring great wealth at any expense. British Petroleum is completely void of principles. That makes they more evil than Al Qaeda. They destroy for money, one of the most repulsive forms of evil.

Ecoterrorism is BP's business. They couldn't care less if they destroyed the world as long as they made a quick term profit doing so.

[aquart]

24. Those "principles" are about acquiring power.

It's not the same as money but you'd be surprised how one leads to the other. An audit of Yasser Arafat's little fifedom would have been very enlightening. Or do you believe that the embassies in 94 countries were all freebies?

If al qaeda doesn't seem money driven, please remember that bin Ladin is a spoiled rich boy and acquiring money never needed to be his agenda.

[AnArmyVeteran]

28. Al Qaeda members aren't rich. They are driven/manipulated by religious 'principles'

I know Bin Laden is wealthy, but the main goal of Al Qaeda is not accummulation of wealth. Their members believe their rewards are in the afterlife where they will be rewarded with 72 virgins, no cash. A suicide bomber isn't concerned with any monetary gain. Obviously the dead can't spend money. I agree leaders in both have varying degrees of lust for power. Al Qaeda is not motivated by money but they use money to terrorize. Money to them is a tool, a means to an end. BP's lust is purely for money. It's their only objective and they will use any means to get more and more wealth. And with their accumulation of wealth they also acquire power. They use both their money and power to purchase officeholders and write or change the laws in any country where they want to do business. Multinational corporations have no allegiance to any country and because they are not confined by any borders they are more powerful than governments of most countries. We can see how corporate-created deregulation has so destroyed our country.

I believe the leadership in both organizations are very similar in one distinct area, they are sociopaths with absolutely no regard for anyone else. Neither has the capacity to have empathy or compassion for other human beings. If they did they would not conduct their 'businesses' with total disregard for others. After BP caused the Gulf disaster all BP's leaders could do was lie, evade and run from responsibility. Hell, even Al Qaeda accepts responsibility for the terror they create. In a warped sense that makes them more 'honest' than BP executives.

And remember, no suicide bomber has ever whined about 'wanting their lives back' after they have destroyed the lives of so many innocent people.

Have a good weekend...

[FBI_Un_Sub]

7. Some talking heads and analysts

say that "Big Oil" (directly or indirectly) funds terrorists.

[BrklynLiberal]

10. ...and if one thinks carefully....was it not the quest for oil that first brought us into the

nations that are now the places where the "terrorism" with which we are now confronted, originated?

[FBI_Un_Sub]

14. Just go back to the Sykes-Picot (Secret) Agreement

and look at

1. A Peace to End All Peace: The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East by David Fromkin,
   
2. Empires of the Sand: The Struggle for Mastery in the Middle East, 1789-1923 by Efraim Karsh and Inari Karsh
   
3. Michael T. Klare - about 5-6 books
   

[jwirr]

8. Terrorism may just be part of the fight against big corporations. On

9/11 they hit many large corporations by hitting both the twin towers and the pentagon. Most of us would not choose their form of attack but it is inevitable that some will.

[Robb]

18. Wait, whaat?

...You think Al Qaeda was trying to stick it to Exxon?

[jwirr]

26. It has been suggested that the terrorist were angry about troops stationed

in Saudi Arabia - to fight the ME wars over oil. But if you look at their anger against our (the Great Satan) way of life - being outsourced through globalization - then it is not far fetched that the attack was against those corporations inside the towers as much as it was against anything else American. Kind of "The Ugly American" revisited. We are not winning hearts and minds in any part of the world with the way we treat people. We have been monopolizing the ME for years. They cannot be all that happy about it.

[Lorien]

9. Four people are actually most afraid of "terrorists?"

guys, TURN OFF FOX! You'll feel much better for doing so.

[Mz Pip]

12. The Cheney family

is just checking in.

[Dover]

15. Perhaps those who chose 'terrorists' could explain their choice?..n/t

[amyrose2712]

17. Wow. nt

[fishbulb703]

22. lol, I'm more afraid of lightning nt

[rrneck]

16. You can shoot a terrorist.

At least you get a stand up fight. A corporation has no body to send to jail and no soul to send to hell.

[Robb]

19. "A corporation has no body to send to jail and no soul to send to hell."

That is some awesome right there. :thumbsup:

[rrneck]

27. Thanks, but I can't take credit for it.

It's from this documentary.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0379225/

Since the late 18th century American legal decision that the business corporation organizational model is legally a person, it has become a dominant economic, political and social force around the globe. This film takes an in-depth psychological examination of the organization model through various case studies. What the study illustrates is that in the its behaviour, this type of "person" typically acts like a dangerously destructive psychopath without conscience. Furthermore, we see the profound threat this psychopath has for our world and our future, but also how the people with courage, intelligence and determination can do to stop it.

[Dover]

20. True. Corporations are inherently undemocratic and nonrepresentative in their governance.

And the larger they are the more they become sovereign entities, unto themselves. I'm quite sure they would reject global regulatory bodies
the same they reject national regulation.

[PufPuf23]

21. The Big Oil / MIC Complex is Terror Incorporated marketed by M$M

Voted for big corporations.

[fascisthunter]

23. I Chose the Third one Down BUT think big corporations and big oil are one in the same

I would also add that big corporations with the aid of governments have plenty of culpability in terrorism itself. Look what big oil has done to the middle east with of course the aid of various governments around the world. When you continuously prop up warlords and dictators in order to appease business interests in your own country, you pretty much become a prime motivator and target of natives who turn into terrorists.

It's not "THE" rule I'm sure, but it does seem to be one reason for terrorist itself. Colonial American was at one time labeled terrorists too... I'm just pointing out that sometimes the word is used to oppress one group while alienating them from others who could possibly become sympathetic to their plight.

Who pays in the end? Not the unfettered and coddled free-market(the upper classes), but the consumers of their goods and services. Lot's of blame to go around, but when looked at closer we see consumers as mainly uniformed and ignorant, whereas big corporations along with a government's grace's know exactly what they are doing and what repercussions we may all experience.

It's a topic most avoid due to obvious reasons.... very uncomfortable topic.

[Dover]

25. ...and the early settlers/government framed Native Americans as 'terroritsts' too.

So it's nothing new. A handy way to demonize whole groups toward some self-serving end. Fear and loathing; it's such an easy tool for manipulation of the masses.

That's why there has been such an effort to exploit fears/anger and demonize political and other groups within contemporary America as well - to polarize groups much as they do with counter intelligence in foreign countries to stir things up and redirect anger, resistance, focus.

[DailyGrind51]

29. What was the name of the film in which Marlon Brando, as an oil tycoon says, "We ARE the Arabs!"?

[Scuba]

30. Without big oil, there would be no terrorism.

[Radical Activist]

31. Coal and the climate change crisis endanger the lives of hundreds of millions.

It dwarfs everything else on your poll. Coal is the number one contributor to global warming. It already kills thousands of people every year and threatens far more animals than the gulf spill. I know the pictures of birds covered in oil are dramatic but it's a friendly hug compared to what mercury from coal plants is doing to far, far more birds.

I guess people are drawn in by dramatic images. It's like the bright shiny object you use to distract a baby. But coal if the far more effective killer even if you don't notice it.

[Dover]

33. True. I guess I'd put Coal in the 'large corporations' category in #3

Their effect is subtler but just as, or more, severe...although pictures of mountaintop mining are anything BUT subtle! Extremely disturbing and blatant evidence of the sheer madness or our policies, energy practices and utter irresponsibility and irreverence toward the Earth and everything upon it.

[Radical Activist]

34. I believe Mountaintop removal is worse than the Gulf gusher.

It may take decades, but the ocean will eventually recover. Those mountains will NEVER come back. The Appalachians will never be the same. It's the worst environmental crime of this century.

Ending mountaintop removal is one of the best things Obama has done since taking office. It's strange that hardly anyone noticed it.

[Dover]

36. He took some steps in the right direction, but hasn't ended mountaintop mining.

From the WSJ

The new initiative consists of coordinated actions by the Interior Department, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

The Interior Department said it would more stringently apply existing rules that set up buffer zones protecting rivers and streams, and reassert oversight of state enforcement. The EPA said it would more closely scrutinize permits governing the disposal of rock and other debris in valleys, seeking to end a type of permit that environmentalists say takes a rubber-stamp approach to waste disposal. Both agencies may seek new, tougher regulations.


..snip..

Environmentalists welcomed the Obama administration's actions, but said that the White House didn't go far enough. Among other things, environmentalists want assurances that the Obama administration will reverse a Bush-era rule from 2002 that added mining waste as a type of "fill" material permitted in streams.

..snip..

Coal is at the heart of a major political debate in Washington, D.C., because it accounts for half of all U.S. electricity. But it is also linked to global warming - accounting for about a third of U.S. carbon-dioxide emissions - and other types of environmental damage. Its complicated role has posed impediments to another Obama administration goal of mandatory reductions in greenhouse-gas emissions.

To clear such a measure through a key House panel last month, some $113 billion in incentives for coal technology and producers was added, more money than for renewable energy or oil and natural gas producers.


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124473555683706587.html

[Radical Activist]

37. Yes he did end it That's an outdated article.

Earlier this year he changed the fill rule environmentalists mentioned in the article. You can't do mountaintop removal after those two rule changes. He didn't do a big press conference and shout about it, but he effectively ended it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-biggers/breaking-news-appalachian_b_522109.html

It's a shame that so few people know it. I think it's one consequence of the decision most left pundits made to always attack Obama's shortcomings without celebrating his progressive victories.

[Dover]

39. My apologies. I completely missed that rather huge bit of news!

Thanks for bringing that to my attention.

I certainly hope this is the beginning of the end of it.

So has there been any more mountaintop removal since this went into place?
Or is it effective yet?

I think this news deserves to be sung from the highest mountain tops!

[kgnu_fan]

32. Big Oil is the Terrorism all over the world, destroying everything

[Prophet 451]

35. Large corporations

Of which, Big Oil is one subsection.

[gleaner]

38. I chose the large corporations option.....

in their own way they are terrorists and they can do more to destroy us and the world than most invading armies or lone attackers.