• Argentas is creating a next generation payment network and distributing some of their future global currency to early adopters. This all is by invitation only and I have a limited number of invitations. Act fast as the distribution amounts decrease over time, and my invitation link may expire too - don't miss this unique opportunity! Here is my invitation link: https://argentas.io/users/invite.php?invite=366E683898

    UPDATE: 1 Invite Left!

    #AXU #Argentas #ARG #ETH #BTC #XLM #Stellar #altcoin #token #ico #money#luxury #cryptocurrency #cryptotrading #cryptomarkets #forex #forextrading #trading #finance #invest #win #first #entrepreneur #success #millionaire #billionaire #gold #1 #fintech #bitcoin #cryptocurrency #blockchain #token #bounty #airdrop #money #decentralized #argentina #turkey #mexico #venezuela #brazil #rio #india #korea #japan #colombia #peru #bolivia #chile #thailand #malaysia #egypt #morocco #algeria #southafrica
    Argentas is creating a next generation payment network and distributing some of their future global currency to early adopters. This all is by invitation only and I have a limited number of invitations. Act fast as the distribution amounts decrease over time, and my invitation link may expire too - don't miss this unique opportunity! Here is my invitation link: https://argentas.io/users/invite.php?invite=366E683898 UPDATE: 1 Invite Left! #AXU #Argentas #ARG #ETH #BTC #XLM #Stellar #altcoin #token #ico #money‬ #luxury #cryptocurrency #cryptotrading #cryptomarkets #forex #forextrading #trading #finance #invest #win #first #entrepreneur #success #millionaire #billionaire #gold #1 #fintech #bitcoin #cryptocurrency #blockchain #token #bounty #airdrop #money #decentralized #argentina #turkey #mexico #venezuela #brazil #rio #india #korea #japan #colombia #peru #bolivia #chile #thailand #malaysia #egypt #morocco #algeria #southafrica
    1
    0 Comments 0 Shares
  • Argentas is creating a next generation payment network and distributing some of their future global currency to early adopters. This all is by invitation only and I have a limited number of invitations. Act fast as the distribution amounts decrease over time, and my invitation link may expire too - don't miss this unique opportunity! Here is my invitation link: https://argentas.io/users/invite.php?invite=366E683898

    UPDATE: 1 Invite Left!

    #AXU #Argentas #ARG #ETH #BTC #XLM #Stellar #altcoin #token #ico #money#luxury #cryptocurrency #cryptotrading #cryptomarkets #forex #forextrading #trading #finance #invest #win #first #entrepreneur #success #millionaire #billionaire #gold #1 #fintech #bitcoin #cryptocurrency #blockchain #token #bounty #airdrop #money #decentralized #argentina #turkey #mexico #venezuela #brazil #rio #india #korea #japan #colombia #peru #bolivia #chile #thailand #malaysia #egypt #morocco #algeria #southafrica
    Argentas is creating a next generation payment network and distributing some of their future global currency to early adopters. This all is by invitation only and I have a limited number of invitations. Act fast as the distribution amounts decrease over time, and my invitation link may expire too - don't miss this unique opportunity! Here is my invitation link: https://argentas.io/users/invite.php?invite=366E683898 UPDATE: 1 Invite Left! #AXU #Argentas #ARG #ETH #BTC #XLM #Stellar #altcoin #token #ico #money‬ #luxury #cryptocurrency #cryptotrading #cryptomarkets #forex #forextrading #trading #finance #invest #win #first #entrepreneur #success #millionaire #billionaire #gold #1 #fintech #bitcoin #cryptocurrency #blockchain #token #bounty #airdrop #money #decentralized #argentina #turkey #mexico #venezuela #brazil #rio #india #korea #japan #colombia #peru #bolivia #chile #thailand #malaysia #egypt #morocco #algeria #southafrica
    1
    0 Comments 0 Shares
  • Argentas is creating a next generation payment network and distributing some of their future global currency to early adopters. This all is by invitation only and I have a limited number of invitations. Act fast as the distribution amounts decrease over time, and my invitation link may expire too - don't miss this unique opportunity! Here is my invitation link: https://argentas.io/users/invite.php?invite=366E683898

    UPDATE: 1 Invite Left!

    #AXU #Argentas #ARG #ETH #BTC #XLM #Stellar #altcoin #token #ico #money#luxury #cryptocurrency #cryptotrading #cryptomarkets #forex #forextrading #trading #finance #invest #win #first #entrepreneur #success #millionaire #billionaire #gold #1 #fintech #bitcoin #cryptocurrency #blockchain #token #bounty #airdrop #money #decentralized #argentina #turkey #mexico #venezuela #brazil #rio #india #korea #japan #colombia #peru #bolivia #chile #thailand #malaysia #egypt #morocco #algeria #southafrica
    Argentas is creating a next generation payment network and distributing some of their future global currency to early adopters. This all is by invitation only and I have a limited number of invitations. Act fast as the distribution amounts decrease over time, and my invitation link may expire too - don't miss this unique opportunity! Here is my invitation link: https://argentas.io/users/invite.php?invite=366E683898 UPDATE: 1 Invite Left! #AXU #Argentas #ARG #ETH #BTC #XLM #Stellar #altcoin #token #ico #money‬ #luxury #cryptocurrency #cryptotrading #cryptomarkets #forex #forextrading #trading #finance #invest #win #first #entrepreneur #success #millionaire #billionaire #gold #1 #fintech #bitcoin #cryptocurrency #blockchain #token #bounty #airdrop #money #decentralized #argentina #turkey #mexico #venezuela #brazil #rio #india #korea #japan #colombia #peru #bolivia #chile #thailand #malaysia #egypt #morocco #algeria #southafrica
    1
    0 Comments 0 Shares
  • Argentas is creating a next generation payment network and distributing some of their future global currency to early adopters. This all is by invitation only and I have a limited number of invitations. Act fast as the distribution amounts decrease over time, and my invitation link may expire too - don't miss this unique opportunity! Here is my invitation link: https://argentas.io/users/invite.php?invite=366E683898

    UPDATE: 1 Invite Left!

    #AXU #Argentas #ARG #fintech #bitcoin #cryptocurrency #blockchain #token #bounty #airdrop #money #decentralized #argentina #turkey #mexico #venezuela #brazil #rio #india #korea #japan #colombia #peru #bolivia #chile #thailand #malaysia #egypt #morocco #algeria #southafrica
    Argentas is creating a next generation payment network and distributing some of their future global currency to early adopters. This all is by invitation only and I have a limited number of invitations. Act fast as the distribution amounts decrease over time, and my invitation link may expire too - don't miss this unique opportunity! Here is my invitation link: https://argentas.io/users/invite.php?invite=366E683898 UPDATE: 1 Invite Left! #AXU #Argentas #ARG #fintech #bitcoin #cryptocurrency #blockchain #token #bounty #airdrop #money #decentralized #argentina #turkey #mexico #venezuela #brazil #rio #india #korea #japan #colombia #peru #bolivia #chile #thailand #malaysia #egypt #morocco #algeria #southafrica
    1
    0 Comments 0 Shares
  • And global oil markets Solar storm studio price $3.60 How do you think is it important what are the limits minimal value Solar storm studio limited to $3.60 extra! Bechar , Algeria https://online-stock-exchange.com/stocks/SSS/r302859_/Algeria.html
    to your success! @ionelui
    And global oil markets Solar storm studio price $3.60 How do you think is it important what are the limits minimal value Solar storm studio limited to $3.60 extra! Bechar , Algeria https://online-stock-exchange.com/stocks/SSS/r302859_/Algeria.html to your success! @ionelui
    0 Comments 0 Shares
  • "So far, no one has been able to explain why these colonists cannot just be moved over to the next Arab country that isn’t in the middle of an American-Israeli orchestrated political crisis.

    Tunisia, Algeria and Morocco are all stable countries, but that would defeat the whole purpose of this operation, which is to drive White people into minority status in the lands they have occupied for millennia." - Daily Stormer

    https://dailystormer.name/open-arms-migrant-vessel-headed-for-italian-island-after-judge-overrules-salvini/
    "So far, no one has been able to explain why these colonists cannot just be moved over to the next Arab country that isn’t in the middle of an American-Israeli orchestrated political crisis. Tunisia, Algeria and Morocco are all stable countries, but that would defeat the whole purpose of this operation, which is to drive White people into minority status in the lands they have occupied for millennia." - Daily Stormer https://dailystormer.name/open-arms-migrant-vessel-headed-for-italian-island-after-judge-overrules-salvini/
    0 Comments 0 Shares
  • March 26, 2019
    America’s 233-Year-Old Shock at Jihad
    By Raymond Ibrahim
    Exactly 233 years ago this week, two of America’s founding fathers documented their first exposure to Islamic jihad in a letter to Congress; like many Americans today, they too were shocked at what they learned.

    Context: in 1785, Muslim pirates from North Africa, or “Barbary,” had captured two American ships, the Maria and Dauphin, and enslaved their crews. In an effort to ransom the enslaved Americans and establish peaceful relations, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams -- then ambassadors to France and England respectively -- met with Tripoli’s ambassador to Britain, Abdul Rahman Adja. Following this diplomatic exchange, they laid out the source of the Barbary States’ hitherto inexplicable animosity to American vessels in a letter to Congress dated March 28, 1786:


    We took the liberty to make some inquiries concerning the grounds of their [Barbary’s] pretentions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury, and observed that we considered all mankind as our friends who had done us no wrong, nor had given us any provocation. The ambassador answered us that it was founded on the laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Musselman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise

    One need not conjecture what the American ambassadors -- who years earlier had asserted that all men were “endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights” -- thought of their Muslim counterpart’s answer. Suffice to say, because the ransom demanded was over fifteen times greater than what Congress had approved, little came of the meeting.

    It should be noted that centuries before setting their sights on American vessels, the Barbary States of Muslim North Africa -- specifically Tripoli, Algiers, Tunis -- had been thriving on the slave trade of Christians abducted from virtually every corner of coastal Europe -- including Britain, Ireland, Denmark, and Iceland. These raids were so successful that, “between 1530 and 1780 there were almost certainly a million and quite possibly as many as a million and a quarter white, European Christians enslaved by the Muslims of the Barbary Coast,” to quote American historian Robert Davis.

    The treatment of these European slaves was exacerbated by the fact that they were Christian “infidels.” As Robert Playfair (b.1828), who served for years as a consul in Barbary, explained, “In almost every case they [European slaves] were hated on account of their religion.” Three centuries earlier, John Foxe had written in his Book of Martyrs that, “In no part of the globe are Christians so hated, or treated with such severity, as at Algiers.”

    The punishments these European slaves received for real or imagined offenses beggared description: “If they speak against Mahomet [blasphemy], they must become Mahometans, or be impaled alive. If they profess Christianity again, after having changed to the Mahometan persuasion, they are roasted alive [as apostates], or thrown from the city walls, and caught upon large sharp hooks, on which they hang till they expire.”

    As such, when Captain O’Brien of the Dauphin wrote to Jefferson saying that “our sufferings are beyond our expression or your conception,” he was clearly not exaggerating.

    After Barbary’s ability to abduct coastal Europeans had waned in the mid-eighteenth century, its energy was spent on raiding infidel merchant vessels. Instead of responding by collectively confronting and neutralizing Barbary, European powers, always busy quarrelling among themselves, opted to buy peace through tribute (or, according to Muslim rationale, jizya).

    Fresh meat appeared on the horizon once the newly-born United States broke free of Great Britain (and was therefore no longer protected by the latter’s jizya payments).

    Some American congressmen agreed with Jefferson that “it will be more easy to raise ships and men to fight these pirates into reason, than money to bribe them” -- including General George Washington: “In such an enlightened, in such a liberal age, how is it possible that the great maritime powers of Europe should submit to pay an annual tribute to the little piratical States of Barbary?” he wrote to a friend. “Would to Heaven we had a navy able to reform those enemies to mankind, or crush them into nonexistence.”

    But the majority of Congress agreed with John Adams: “We ought not to fight them at all unless we determine to fight them forever.” Considering the perpetual, existential nature of Islamic hostility, Adams may have been more right than he knew.

    Congress settled on emulating the Europeans and paying off the terrorists, though it would take years to raise the demanded ransom.

    When Muslim pirates from Algiers captured eleven more American merchant vessels in 1794, the Naval Act was passed and a permanent U.S. naval force established. But because the first war vessels would not be ready until 1800, American jizya payments -- which took up 16 percent of the federal budget -- began to be made to Algeria in 1795. In return, over 100 American sailors were released -- how many died or disappeared is unclear -- and the Islamic sea raids formally ceased. American payments and “gifts” over the following years caused the increasingly emboldened Muslim pirates to respond with increasingly capricious demands.

    One of the more ignoble instances occurred in 1800, when Captain William Bainbridge of the George Washington sailed to the pirate-leader of Algiers, with what the latter deemed insufficient tribute. Referring to the Americans as “my slaves,” Dey Mustapha ordered them to transport hundreds of black slaves to Istanbul (Constantinople). Adding insult to insult, he commanded the American crew to take down the U.S. flag and hoist the Islamic flag -- one not unlike ISIS’ notorious black flag -- in its place. And, no matter how rough the seas might be during the long voyage, Bainbridge was required to make sure the George Washington faced Mecca five times a day to accommodate the prayers of Muslims onboard.

    That Bainbridge condescended to becoming Barbary’s delivery boy seems only to have further whetted the terrorists’ appetite. In 1801, Tripoli demanded an instant payment of $225,000, followed by annual payments of $25,000 -- respectively equivalent to $3.5 million and $425,000 today. Concluding that “nothing will stop the eternal increase of demand from these pirates but the presence of an armed force,” America’s third president, Jefferson, refused the ultimatum. (He may have recalled Captain O’Brien’s observation concerning his Barbary masters: “Money is their God and Mahomet their prophet.”)

    Denied jizya from the infidels, Tripoli proclaimed jihad on the United States on May 10, 1801. But by now, America had six war vessels, which Jefferson deployed to the Barbary Coast. For the next five years, the U.S. Navy warred with the Muslim pirates, making little headway and suffering some setbacks -- the most humiliating being when the Philadelphia and its crew were captured in 1803.

    Desperate measures were needed: enter William Eaton. As U.S. consul to Tunis (1797–1803), he had lived among and understood the region’s Muslims well. He knew that “the more you give the more the Turks will ask for,” and despised that old sense of Islamic superiority: “It grates me mortally,” he wrote, “when I see a lazy Turk [generic for Muslim] reclining at his ease upon an embroidered sofa, with one Christian slave to hold his pipe, another to hold his coffee, and a third to fan away the flies.” Seeing that the newborn American navy was making little headway against the seasoned pirates, he devised a daring plan: to sponsor the claim of Mustafa’s brother, exiled in Alexandria; and then to march the latter’s supporters and mercenaries through five hundred miles of desert, from Alexandria onto Tripoli.

    The trek was arduous -- not least because of the Muslim mercenaries themselves. Eaton had repeatedly tried to win them over: “I touched upon the affinity of principle between the Islam and Americans [sic] religion.” But despite these all too familiar ecumenical overtures, “We find it almost impossible to inspire these wild bigots with confidence in us,” he lamented in his diary, “or to persuade them that, being Christians, we can be otherwise than enemies to Mussulmen. We have a difficult undertaking!” (For all his experience with Muslims, Eaton was apparently unaware of the finer points of their (Sharia) law, namely, al-wala’ wa’l bara’, or “loyalty and enmity.”)

    Eaton eventually managed to reach and conquer Tripoli’s coastal town of Derne on April 27, 1805. Less than two months later, on June 10, a peace treaty was signed between the U.S. and Tripoli, formally ending hostilities.

    Thus and despite the (rather ignorant) question that became popular after 9/11, “Why do they hate us?” -- a question that was answered to Jefferson and Adams 233 years ago today -- the United States’ first war and victory as a nation was against Muslims, and the latter had initiated hostilities on the same rationale Muslims had used to initiate hostilities against non-Muslims for the preceding 1,200 years.

    Sources for quotes in this article can be found in the author’s recent book, Sword and Scimitar: Fourteen Centuries of War between Islam and the West; 352 pages long and containing over a thousand endnotes, it copiously documents what many in academia have sought to hide: the long and bloody history between Islam and the West, in the context of their eight most landmark battles. American Thinker reviews of the book can be read here and here).

    Exactly 233 years ago this week, two of America’s founding fathers documented their first exposure to Islamic jihad in a letter to Congress; like many Americans today, they too were shocked at what they learned.

    Context: in 1785, Muslim pirates from North Africa, or “Barbary,” had captured two American ships, the Maria and Dauphin, and enslaved their crews. In an effort to ransom the enslaved Americans and establish peaceful relations, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams -- then ambassadors to France and England respectively -- met with Tripoli’s ambassador to Britain, Abdul Rahman Adja. Following this diplomatic exchange, they laid out the source of the Barbary States’ hitherto inexplicable animosity to American vessels in a letter to Congress dated March 28, 1786:

    We took the liberty to make some inquiries concerning the grounds of their [Barbary’s] pretentions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury, and observed that we considered all mankind as our friends who had done us no wrong, nor had given us any provocation. The ambassador answered us that it was founded on the laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Musselman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise

    One need not conjecture what the American ambassadors -- who years earlier had asserted that all men were “endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights” -- thought of their Muslim counterpart’s answer. Suffice to say, because the ransom demanded was over fifteen times greater than what Congress had approved, little came of the meeting.

    It should be noted that centuries before setting their sights on American vessels, the Barbary States of Muslim North Africa -- specifically Tripoli, Algiers, Tunis -- had been thriving on the slave trade of Christians abducted from virtually every corner of coastal Europe -- including Britain, Ireland, Denmark, and Iceland. These raids were so successful that, “between 1530 and 1780 there were almost certainly a million and quite possibly as many as a million and a quarter white, European Christians enslaved by the Muslims of the Barbary Coast,” to quote American historian Robert Davis.

    The treatment of these European slaves was exacerbated by the fact that they were Christian “infidels.” As Robert Playfair (b.1828), who served for years as a consul in Barbary, explained, “In almost every case they [European slaves] were hated on account of their religion.” Three centuries earlier, John Foxe had written in his Book of Martyrs that, “In no part of the globe are Christians so hated, or treated with such severity, as at Algiers.”

    The punishments these European slaves received for real or imagined offenses beggared description: “If they speak against Mahomet [blasphemy], they must become Mahometans, or be impaled alive. If they profess Christianity again, after having changed to the Mahometan persuasion, they are roasted alive [as apostates], or thrown from the city walls, and caught upon large sharp hooks, on which they hang till they expire.”

    As such, when Captain O’Brien of the Dauphin wrote to Jefferson saying that “our sufferings are beyond our expression or your conception,” he was clearly not exaggerating.

    After Barbary’s ability to abduct coastal Europeans had waned in the mid-eighteenth century, its energy was spent on raiding infidel merchant vessels. Instead of responding by collectively confronting and neutralizing Barbary, European powers, always busy quarrelling among themselves, opted to buy peace through tribute (or, according to Muslim rationale, jizya).

    Fresh meat appeared on the horizon once the newly-born United States broke free of Great Britain (and was therefore no longer protected by the latter’s jizya payments).

    Some American congressmen agreed with Jefferson that “it will be more easy to raise ships and men to fight these pirates into reason, than money to bribe them” -- including General George Washington: “In such an enlightened, in such a liberal age, how is it possible that the great maritime powers of Europe should submit to pay an annual tribute to the little piratical States of Barbary?” he wrote to a friend. “Would to Heaven we had a navy able to reform those enemies to mankind, or crush them into nonexistence.”

    But the majority of Congress agreed with John Adams: “We ought not to fight them at all unless we determine to fight them forever.” Considering the perpetual, existential nature of Islamic hostility, Adams may have been more right than he knew.

    Congress settled on emulating the Europeans and paying off the terrorists, though it would take years to raise the demanded ransom.

    When Muslim pirates from Algiers captured eleven more American merchant vessels in 1794, the Naval Act was passed and a permanent U.S. naval force established. But because the first war vessels would not be ready until 1800, American jizya payments -- which took up 16 percent of the federal budget -- began to be made to Algeria in 1795. In return, over 100 American sailors were released -- how many died or disappeared is unclear -- and the Islamic sea raids formally ceased. American payments and “gifts” over the following years caused the increasingly emboldened Muslim pirates to respond with increasingly capricious demands.

    One of the more ignoble instances occurred in 1800, when Captain William Bainbridge of the George Washington sailed to the pirate-leader of Algiers, with what the latter deemed insufficient tribute. Referring to the Americans as “my slaves,” Dey Mustapha ordered them to transport hundreds of black slaves to Istanbul (Constantinople). Adding insult to insult, he commanded the American crew to take down the U.S. flag and hoist the Islamic flag -- one not unlike ISIS’ notorious black flag -- in its place. And, no matter how rough the seas might be during the long voyage, Bainbridge was required to make sure the George Washington faced Mecca five times a day to accommodate the prayers of Muslims onboard.

    That Bainbridge condescended to becoming Barbary’s delivery boy seems only to have further whetted the terrorists’ appetite. In 1801, Tripoli demanded an instant payment of $225,000, followed by annual payments of $25,000 -- respectively equivalent to $3.5 million and $425,000 today. Concluding that “nothing will stop the eternal increase of demand from these pirates but the presence of an armed force,” America’s third president, Jefferson, refused the ultimatum. (He may have recalled Captain O’Brien’s observation concerning his Barbary masters: “Money is their God and Mahomet their prophet.”)

    Denied jizya from the infidels, Tripoli proclaimed jihad on the United States on May 10, 1801. But by now, America had six war vessels, which Jefferson deployed to the Barbary Coast. For the next five years, the U.S. Navy warred with the Muslim pirates, making little headway and suffering some setbacks -- the most humiliating being when the Philadelphia and its crew were captured in 1803.

    Desperate measures were needed: enter William Eaton. As U.S. consul to Tunis (1797–1803), he had lived among and understood the region’s Muslims well. He knew that “the more you give the more the Turks will ask for,” and despised that old sense of Islamic superiority: “It grates me mortally,” he wrote, “when I see a lazy Turk [generic for Muslim] reclining at his ease upon an embroidered sofa, with one Christian slave to hold his pipe, another to hold his coffee, and a third to fan away the flies.” Seeing that the newborn American navy was making little headway against the seasoned pirates, he devised a daring plan: to sponsor the claim of Mustafa’s brother, exiled in Alexandria; and then to march the latter’s supporters and mercenaries through five hundred miles of desert, from Alexandria onto Tripoli.

    The trek was arduous -- not least because of the Muslim mercenaries themselves. Eaton had repeatedly tried to win them over: “I touched upon the affinity of principle between the Islam and Americans [sic] religion.” But despite these all too familiar ecumenical overtures, “We find it almost impossible to inspire these wild bigots with confidence in us,” he lamented in his diary, “or to persuade them that, being Christians, we can be otherwise than enemies to Mussulmen. We have a difficult undertaking!” (For all his experience with Muslims, Eaton was apparently unaware of the finer points of their (Sharia) law, namely, al-wala’ wa’l bara’, or “loyalty and enmity.”)

    Eaton eventually managed to reach and conquer Tripoli’s coastal town of Derne on April 27, 1805. Less than two months later, on June 10, a peace treaty was signed between the U.S. and Tripoli, formally ending hostilities.

    Thus and despite the (rather ignorant) question that became popular after 9/11, “Why do they hate us?” -- a question that was answered to Jefferson and Adams 233 years ago today -- the United States’ first war and victory as a nation was against Muslims, and the latter had initiated hostilities on the same rationale Muslims had used to initiate hostilities against non-Muslims for the preceding 1,200 years.

    Sources for quotes in this article can be found in the author’s recent book, Sword and Scimitar: Fourteen Centuries of War between Islam and the West (https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0306825554/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0306825554&linkCode=as2&tag=raymondibrahi-20&linkId=0f925201768b161ae319879bb3fdf1d7); 352 pages long and containing over a thousand endnotes, it copiously documents what many in academia have sought to hide: the long and bloody history between Islam and the West, in the context of their eight most landmark battles. American Thinker reviews of the book can be read here and here).



    Read more: https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/03/americas_233yearold_shock_at_jihad.html#ixzz5wReVKssJ
    Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

    https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/03/americas_233yearold_shock_at_jihad.html
    March 26, 2019 America’s 233-Year-Old Shock at Jihad By Raymond Ibrahim Exactly 233 years ago this week, two of America’s founding fathers documented their first exposure to Islamic jihad in a letter to Congress; like many Americans today, they too were shocked at what they learned. Context: in 1785, Muslim pirates from North Africa, or “Barbary,” had captured two American ships, the Maria and Dauphin, and enslaved their crews. In an effort to ransom the enslaved Americans and establish peaceful relations, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams -- then ambassadors to France and England respectively -- met with Tripoli’s ambassador to Britain, Abdul Rahman Adja. Following this diplomatic exchange, they laid out the source of the Barbary States’ hitherto inexplicable animosity to American vessels in a letter to Congress dated March 28, 1786: We took the liberty to make some inquiries concerning the grounds of their [Barbary’s] pretentions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury, and observed that we considered all mankind as our friends who had done us no wrong, nor had given us any provocation. The ambassador answered us that it was founded on the laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Musselman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise One need not conjecture what the American ambassadors -- who years earlier had asserted that all men were “endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights” -- thought of their Muslim counterpart’s answer. Suffice to say, because the ransom demanded was over fifteen times greater than what Congress had approved, little came of the meeting. It should be noted that centuries before setting their sights on American vessels, the Barbary States of Muslim North Africa -- specifically Tripoli, Algiers, Tunis -- had been thriving on the slave trade of Christians abducted from virtually every corner of coastal Europe -- including Britain, Ireland, Denmark, and Iceland. These raids were so successful that, “between 1530 and 1780 there were almost certainly a million and quite possibly as many as a million and a quarter white, European Christians enslaved by the Muslims of the Barbary Coast,” to quote American historian Robert Davis. The treatment of these European slaves was exacerbated by the fact that they were Christian “infidels.” As Robert Playfair (b.1828), who served for years as a consul in Barbary, explained, “In almost every case they [European slaves] were hated on account of their religion.” Three centuries earlier, John Foxe had written in his Book of Martyrs that, “In no part of the globe are Christians so hated, or treated with such severity, as at Algiers.” The punishments these European slaves received for real or imagined offenses beggared description: “If they speak against Mahomet [blasphemy], they must become Mahometans, or be impaled alive. If they profess Christianity again, after having changed to the Mahometan persuasion, they are roasted alive [as apostates], or thrown from the city walls, and caught upon large sharp hooks, on which they hang till they expire.” As such, when Captain O’Brien of the Dauphin wrote to Jefferson saying that “our sufferings are beyond our expression or your conception,” he was clearly not exaggerating. After Barbary’s ability to abduct coastal Europeans had waned in the mid-eighteenth century, its energy was spent on raiding infidel merchant vessels. Instead of responding by collectively confronting and neutralizing Barbary, European powers, always busy quarrelling among themselves, opted to buy peace through tribute (or, according to Muslim rationale, jizya). Fresh meat appeared on the horizon once the newly-born United States broke free of Great Britain (and was therefore no longer protected by the latter’s jizya payments). Some American congressmen agreed with Jefferson that “it will be more easy to raise ships and men to fight these pirates into reason, than money to bribe them” -- including General George Washington: “In such an enlightened, in such a liberal age, how is it possible that the great maritime powers of Europe should submit to pay an annual tribute to the little piratical States of Barbary?” he wrote to a friend. “Would to Heaven we had a navy able to reform those enemies to mankind, or crush them into nonexistence.” But the majority of Congress agreed with John Adams: “We ought not to fight them at all unless we determine to fight them forever.” Considering the perpetual, existential nature of Islamic hostility, Adams may have been more right than he knew. Congress settled on emulating the Europeans and paying off the terrorists, though it would take years to raise the demanded ransom. When Muslim pirates from Algiers captured eleven more American merchant vessels in 1794, the Naval Act was passed and a permanent U.S. naval force established. But because the first war vessels would not be ready until 1800, American jizya payments -- which took up 16 percent of the federal budget -- began to be made to Algeria in 1795. In return, over 100 American sailors were released -- how many died or disappeared is unclear -- and the Islamic sea raids formally ceased. American payments and “gifts” over the following years caused the increasingly emboldened Muslim pirates to respond with increasingly capricious demands. One of the more ignoble instances occurred in 1800, when Captain William Bainbridge of the George Washington sailed to the pirate-leader of Algiers, with what the latter deemed insufficient tribute. Referring to the Americans as “my slaves,” Dey Mustapha ordered them to transport hundreds of black slaves to Istanbul (Constantinople). Adding insult to insult, he commanded the American crew to take down the U.S. flag and hoist the Islamic flag -- one not unlike ISIS’ notorious black flag -- in its place. And, no matter how rough the seas might be during the long voyage, Bainbridge was required to make sure the George Washington faced Mecca five times a day to accommodate the prayers of Muslims onboard. That Bainbridge condescended to becoming Barbary’s delivery boy seems only to have further whetted the terrorists’ appetite. In 1801, Tripoli demanded an instant payment of $225,000, followed by annual payments of $25,000 -- respectively equivalent to $3.5 million and $425,000 today. Concluding that “nothing will stop the eternal increase of demand from these pirates but the presence of an armed force,” America’s third president, Jefferson, refused the ultimatum. (He may have recalled Captain O’Brien’s observation concerning his Barbary masters: “Money is their God and Mahomet their prophet.”) Denied jizya from the infidels, Tripoli proclaimed jihad on the United States on May 10, 1801. But by now, America had six war vessels, which Jefferson deployed to the Barbary Coast. For the next five years, the U.S. Navy warred with the Muslim pirates, making little headway and suffering some setbacks -- the most humiliating being when the Philadelphia and its crew were captured in 1803. Desperate measures were needed: enter William Eaton. As U.S. consul to Tunis (1797–1803), he had lived among and understood the region’s Muslims well. He knew that “the more you give the more the Turks will ask for,” and despised that old sense of Islamic superiority: “It grates me mortally,” he wrote, “when I see a lazy Turk [generic for Muslim] reclining at his ease upon an embroidered sofa, with one Christian slave to hold his pipe, another to hold his coffee, and a third to fan away the flies.” Seeing that the newborn American navy was making little headway against the seasoned pirates, he devised a daring plan: to sponsor the claim of Mustafa’s brother, exiled in Alexandria; and then to march the latter’s supporters and mercenaries through five hundred miles of desert, from Alexandria onto Tripoli. The trek was arduous -- not least because of the Muslim mercenaries themselves. Eaton had repeatedly tried to win them over: “I touched upon the affinity of principle between the Islam and Americans [sic] religion.” But despite these all too familiar ecumenical overtures, “We find it almost impossible to inspire these wild bigots with confidence in us,” he lamented in his diary, “or to persuade them that, being Christians, we can be otherwise than enemies to Mussulmen. We have a difficult undertaking!” (For all his experience with Muslims, Eaton was apparently unaware of the finer points of their (Sharia) law, namely, al-wala’ wa’l bara’, or “loyalty and enmity.”) Eaton eventually managed to reach and conquer Tripoli’s coastal town of Derne on April 27, 1805. Less than two months later, on June 10, a peace treaty was signed between the U.S. and Tripoli, formally ending hostilities. Thus and despite the (rather ignorant) question that became popular after 9/11, “Why do they hate us?” -- a question that was answered to Jefferson and Adams 233 years ago today -- the United States’ first war and victory as a nation was against Muslims, and the latter had initiated hostilities on the same rationale Muslims had used to initiate hostilities against non-Muslims for the preceding 1,200 years. Sources for quotes in this article can be found in the author’s recent book, Sword and Scimitar: Fourteen Centuries of War between Islam and the West; 352 pages long and containing over a thousand endnotes, it copiously documents what many in academia have sought to hide: the long and bloody history between Islam and the West, in the context of their eight most landmark battles. American Thinker reviews of the book can be read here and here). Exactly 233 years ago this week, two of America’s founding fathers documented their first exposure to Islamic jihad in a letter to Congress; like many Americans today, they too were shocked at what they learned. Context: in 1785, Muslim pirates from North Africa, or “Barbary,” had captured two American ships, the Maria and Dauphin, and enslaved their crews. In an effort to ransom the enslaved Americans and establish peaceful relations, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams -- then ambassadors to France and England respectively -- met with Tripoli’s ambassador to Britain, Abdul Rahman Adja. Following this diplomatic exchange, they laid out the source of the Barbary States’ hitherto inexplicable animosity to American vessels in a letter to Congress dated March 28, 1786: We took the liberty to make some inquiries concerning the grounds of their [Barbary’s] pretentions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury, and observed that we considered all mankind as our friends who had done us no wrong, nor had given us any provocation. The ambassador answered us that it was founded on the laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Musselman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise One need not conjecture what the American ambassadors -- who years earlier had asserted that all men were “endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights” -- thought of their Muslim counterpart’s answer. Suffice to say, because the ransom demanded was over fifteen times greater than what Congress had approved, little came of the meeting. It should be noted that centuries before setting their sights on American vessels, the Barbary States of Muslim North Africa -- specifically Tripoli, Algiers, Tunis -- had been thriving on the slave trade of Christians abducted from virtually every corner of coastal Europe -- including Britain, Ireland, Denmark, and Iceland. These raids were so successful that, “between 1530 and 1780 there were almost certainly a million and quite possibly as many as a million and a quarter white, European Christians enslaved by the Muslims of the Barbary Coast,” to quote American historian Robert Davis. The treatment of these European slaves was exacerbated by the fact that they were Christian “infidels.” As Robert Playfair (b.1828), who served for years as a consul in Barbary, explained, “In almost every case they [European slaves] were hated on account of their religion.” Three centuries earlier, John Foxe had written in his Book of Martyrs that, “In no part of the globe are Christians so hated, or treated with such severity, as at Algiers.” The punishments these European slaves received for real or imagined offenses beggared description: “If they speak against Mahomet [blasphemy], they must become Mahometans, or be impaled alive. If they profess Christianity again, after having changed to the Mahometan persuasion, they are roasted alive [as apostates], or thrown from the city walls, and caught upon large sharp hooks, on which they hang till they expire.” As such, when Captain O’Brien of the Dauphin wrote to Jefferson saying that “our sufferings are beyond our expression or your conception,” he was clearly not exaggerating. After Barbary’s ability to abduct coastal Europeans had waned in the mid-eighteenth century, its energy was spent on raiding infidel merchant vessels. Instead of responding by collectively confronting and neutralizing Barbary, European powers, always busy quarrelling among themselves, opted to buy peace through tribute (or, according to Muslim rationale, jizya). Fresh meat appeared on the horizon once the newly-born United States broke free of Great Britain (and was therefore no longer protected by the latter’s jizya payments). Some American congressmen agreed with Jefferson that “it will be more easy to raise ships and men to fight these pirates into reason, than money to bribe them” -- including General George Washington: “In such an enlightened, in such a liberal age, how is it possible that the great maritime powers of Europe should submit to pay an annual tribute to the little piratical States of Barbary?” he wrote to a friend. “Would to Heaven we had a navy able to reform those enemies to mankind, or crush them into nonexistence.” But the majority of Congress agreed with John Adams: “We ought not to fight them at all unless we determine to fight them forever.” Considering the perpetual, existential nature of Islamic hostility, Adams may have been more right than he knew. Congress settled on emulating the Europeans and paying off the terrorists, though it would take years to raise the demanded ransom. When Muslim pirates from Algiers captured eleven more American merchant vessels in 1794, the Naval Act was passed and a permanent U.S. naval force established. But because the first war vessels would not be ready until 1800, American jizya payments -- which took up 16 percent of the federal budget -- began to be made to Algeria in 1795. In return, over 100 American sailors were released -- how many died or disappeared is unclear -- and the Islamic sea raids formally ceased. American payments and “gifts” over the following years caused the increasingly emboldened Muslim pirates to respond with increasingly capricious demands. One of the more ignoble instances occurred in 1800, when Captain William Bainbridge of the George Washington sailed to the pirate-leader of Algiers, with what the latter deemed insufficient tribute. Referring to the Americans as “my slaves,” Dey Mustapha ordered them to transport hundreds of black slaves to Istanbul (Constantinople). Adding insult to insult, he commanded the American crew to take down the U.S. flag and hoist the Islamic flag -- one not unlike ISIS’ notorious black flag -- in its place. And, no matter how rough the seas might be during the long voyage, Bainbridge was required to make sure the George Washington faced Mecca five times a day to accommodate the prayers of Muslims onboard. That Bainbridge condescended to becoming Barbary’s delivery boy seems only to have further whetted the terrorists’ appetite. In 1801, Tripoli demanded an instant payment of $225,000, followed by annual payments of $25,000 -- respectively equivalent to $3.5 million and $425,000 today. Concluding that “nothing will stop the eternal increase of demand from these pirates but the presence of an armed force,” America’s third president, Jefferson, refused the ultimatum. (He may have recalled Captain O’Brien’s observation concerning his Barbary masters: “Money is their God and Mahomet their prophet.”) Denied jizya from the infidels, Tripoli proclaimed jihad on the United States on May 10, 1801. But by now, America had six war vessels, which Jefferson deployed to the Barbary Coast. For the next five years, the U.S. Navy warred with the Muslim pirates, making little headway and suffering some setbacks -- the most humiliating being when the Philadelphia and its crew were captured in 1803. Desperate measures were needed: enter William Eaton. As U.S. consul to Tunis (1797–1803), he had lived among and understood the region’s Muslims well. He knew that “the more you give the more the Turks will ask for,” and despised that old sense of Islamic superiority: “It grates me mortally,” he wrote, “when I see a lazy Turk [generic for Muslim] reclining at his ease upon an embroidered sofa, with one Christian slave to hold his pipe, another to hold his coffee, and a third to fan away the flies.” Seeing that the newborn American navy was making little headway against the seasoned pirates, he devised a daring plan: to sponsor the claim of Mustafa’s brother, exiled in Alexandria; and then to march the latter’s supporters and mercenaries through five hundred miles of desert, from Alexandria onto Tripoli. The trek was arduous -- not least because of the Muslim mercenaries themselves. Eaton had repeatedly tried to win them over: “I touched upon the affinity of principle between the Islam and Americans [sic] religion.” But despite these all too familiar ecumenical overtures, “We find it almost impossible to inspire these wild bigots with confidence in us,” he lamented in his diary, “or to persuade them that, being Christians, we can be otherwise than enemies to Mussulmen. We have a difficult undertaking!” (For all his experience with Muslims, Eaton was apparently unaware of the finer points of their (Sharia) law, namely, al-wala’ wa’l bara’, or “loyalty and enmity.”) Eaton eventually managed to reach and conquer Tripoli’s coastal town of Derne on April 27, 1805. Less than two months later, on June 10, a peace treaty was signed between the U.S. and Tripoli, formally ending hostilities. Thus and despite the (rather ignorant) question that became popular after 9/11, “Why do they hate us?” -- a question that was answered to Jefferson and Adams 233 years ago today -- the United States’ first war and victory as a nation was against Muslims, and the latter had initiated hostilities on the same rationale Muslims had used to initiate hostilities against non-Muslims for the preceding 1,200 years. Sources for quotes in this article can be found in the author’s recent book, Sword and Scimitar: Fourteen Centuries of War between Islam and the West (https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0306825554/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0306825554&linkCode=as2&tag=raymondibrahi-20&linkId=0f925201768b161ae319879bb3fdf1d7); 352 pages long and containing over a thousand endnotes, it copiously documents what many in academia have sought to hide: the long and bloody history between Islam and the West, in the context of their eight most landmark battles. American Thinker reviews of the book can be read here and here). Read more: https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/03/americas_233yearold_shock_at_jihad.html#ixzz5wReVKssJ Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/03/americas_233yearold_shock_at_jihad.html
    America’s 233-Year-Old Shock at Jihad
    The United States’ first war and victory as a nation was against Muslims after the latter had initiated hostilities on the same rationale Muslims had used to initiate hostilities against non-Muslims. 
    WWW.AMERICANTHINKER.COM
    1
    0 Comments 0 Shares
  • If Trump Wants to 'Talk About Our Missiles,' Says Iranian Foreign Minister, US Must Stop Pouring Theirs Into Middle East
    https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/07/16/if-trump-wants-talk-about-our-missiles-says-iranian-foreign-minister-us-must-stop
    Jake Johnson, staff writer

    Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif said Monday that if President Donald Trump truly wants to engage in good-faith negotiations over Iran's ballistic missile program, his administration must stop selling tens of billions of dollars in weapons to Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and other U.S. allies in the Middle East.

    Zarif, who is in New York on United Nations business, told NBC's Lester Holt that the influx of American weapons is "making our region ready to explode."

    "If you want to discuss ballistic missiles, then we need to discuss the amount of weapons that are sold to our region," said Zarif. "Last year, Iran spent $16 billion altogether on its military. We have a 82 million population... The United Arab Emirates, with a million population, spent $22 billion. Saudi Arabia—with less than half of our population—spent $67 billion, most of them are American [arms]."

    "So if they want to talk about our missiles," Zarif added, "they need first to stop selling all these weapons, including missiles, to our region."

    Watch the full interview: https://www.nbcnews.com/nightly-news/video/extended-interview-iranian-foreign-minister-zarif-speaks-out-63903301808

    Zarif said Iran would be open to negotiating over its ballistic missile program and restarting talks with the U.S. on the nuclear agreement—which President Donald Trump violated last May—if the White House lifts economic sanctions, which are primarily harming ordinary Iranians.

    "It is the United States that left the bargaining table, and they're always welcome to return," said Zarif, who described the Trump administration's sanctions as a form of warfare "whose main target is not military personnel, but civilians."

    Khury Petersen-Smith, the Michael Ratner Middle East Fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies, echoed that point in Foreign Policy in Focus on Monday.

    "The U.S. is brutalizing ordinary Iranians," wrote Petersen-Smith, "even as its actions and rhetoric are driving toward a more serious military confrontation."

    Zarif's comments come just a week after Trump threatened to "substantially" intensify sanctions against Iran. As NPR reported last week, "Trump wants to force Iran to accept a tougher deal and include other requirements that restricts Iran's ballistic missile program and end its aid to its military proxies in other parts of the Mideast."

    When Holt asked Zarif about Iranian "proxies" in the region, the foreign minister responded with a series of questions of his own.

    "Let me ask you—who's bombing Yemen?" asked Zarif. "Why do you have chaos in Libya? Is Iran involved in Libya? Is Iran involved in Sudan? Is Iran involved in Algeria? Why do we have all this turmoil? I believe if you want to look at the right place for those who have malign activity in our region, the United States needs to look at its own allies, not at Iran."

    Zarif's call for Trump to stop pouring weapons into the Middle East come as the U.S. president is attempting to bypass Congress to sell billions of dollars in American-made missiles and other weaponry to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.

    The House of Representatives is expected to vote this week on a series of measures that would block the Trump administration's arms sales. The Senate passed the measures in a bipartisan vote last month, as Common Dreams reported at the time.
    If Trump Wants to 'Talk About Our Missiles,' Says Iranian Foreign Minister, US Must Stop Pouring Theirs Into Middle East https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/07/16/if-trump-wants-talk-about-our-missiles-says-iranian-foreign-minister-us-must-stop Jake Johnson, staff writer Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif said Monday that if President Donald Trump truly wants to engage in good-faith negotiations over Iran's ballistic missile program, his administration must stop selling tens of billions of dollars in weapons to Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and other U.S. allies in the Middle East. Zarif, who is in New York on United Nations business, told NBC's Lester Holt that the influx of American weapons is "making our region ready to explode." "If you want to discuss ballistic missiles, then we need to discuss the amount of weapons that are sold to our region," said Zarif. "Last year, Iran spent $16 billion altogether on its military. We have a 82 million population... The United Arab Emirates, with a million population, spent $22 billion. Saudi Arabia—with less than half of our population—spent $67 billion, most of them are American [arms]." "So if they want to talk about our missiles," Zarif added, "they need first to stop selling all these weapons, including missiles, to our region." Watch the full interview: https://www.nbcnews.com/nightly-news/video/extended-interview-iranian-foreign-minister-zarif-speaks-out-63903301808 Zarif said Iran would be open to negotiating over its ballistic missile program and restarting talks with the U.S. on the nuclear agreement—which President Donald Trump violated last May—if the White House lifts economic sanctions, which are primarily harming ordinary Iranians. "It is the United States that left the bargaining table, and they're always welcome to return," said Zarif, who described the Trump administration's sanctions as a form of warfare "whose main target is not military personnel, but civilians." Khury Petersen-Smith, the Michael Ratner Middle East Fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies, echoed that point in Foreign Policy in Focus on Monday. "The U.S. is brutalizing ordinary Iranians," wrote Petersen-Smith, "even as its actions and rhetoric are driving toward a more serious military confrontation." Zarif's comments come just a week after Trump threatened to "substantially" intensify sanctions against Iran. As NPR reported last week, "Trump wants to force Iran to accept a tougher deal and include other requirements that restricts Iran's ballistic missile program and end its aid to its military proxies in other parts of the Mideast." When Holt asked Zarif about Iranian "proxies" in the region, the foreign minister responded with a series of questions of his own. "Let me ask you—who's bombing Yemen?" asked Zarif. "Why do you have chaos in Libya? Is Iran involved in Libya? Is Iran involved in Sudan? Is Iran involved in Algeria? Why do we have all this turmoil? I believe if you want to look at the right place for those who have malign activity in our region, the United States needs to look at its own allies, not at Iran." Zarif's call for Trump to stop pouring weapons into the Middle East come as the U.S. president is attempting to bypass Congress to sell billions of dollars in American-made missiles and other weaponry to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. The House of Representatives is expected to vote this week on a series of measures that would block the Trump administration's arms sales. The Senate passed the measures in a bipartisan vote last month, as Common Dreams reported at the time.
    If Trump Wants to 'Talk About Our Missiles,' Says Iranian Foreign Minister, US Must Stop Pouring Theirs Into Middle East
    "If you want to discuss ballistic missiles, then we need to discuss the amount of weapons sold to our region."
    WWW.COMMONDREAMS.ORG
    1
    0 Comments 0 Shares
  • Citing $69 Trillion Price Tag by 2100, Moody's Warns Central Banks of Far-Reaching Economic Damage of Climate Crisis
    https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/07/03/citing-69-trillion-price-tag-2100-moodys-warns-central-banks-far-reaching-economic
    Jessica Corbett, staff writer

    Noting previous warnings that the human-caused climate crisis could cause trillions of dollars in damage to the global economy by the end of the century, a new report from Moody's Analytics explores the economic implications of the international community's failure to curb planet-warming emissions.

    Moody's Analytics chief economist Mark Zandi told The Washington Post—which first reported on the new analysis—that this is "the first stab at trying to quantify what the macroeconomic consequences might be" of the global climate crisis, and it comes in response to European commercial banks and central banks. The climate emergency is "not a cliff event. It's not a shock to the economy. It's more like a corrosive," Zandi added. But it is "getting weightier with each passing year."

    The financial research and consulting firm's analysis (pdf) highlights a few key projections from a report published last October by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC): if the average global temperature soars to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels—the lower limit of the Paris climate agreement—the cost to the global economy is estimated to be $54 trillion in 2100, and under a warming scenario of 2°C, the cost could reach $69 trillion.

    Moody's—whose clients include multinational corporations, governments, central banks, financial regulators and institutions, retailers, mutual funds, utilities, real estate firms, insurance companies, and investors—notes researchers have found that "warming beyond the 2°C threshold could hit tipping points for even larger and irreversible warming feedback loops, such as permanent summer ice melt in the Arctic Ocean."

    One of the key takeaways, the report emphasizes, is that economically, "the more draconian effects of climate change are not felt until 2030 and beyond. And they do not become especially pronounced until the second part of the century."

    "That's why it is so hard to get people focused on this issue and get a comprehensive policy response," Zandi told the Post. "Business is focused on the next year, or five years out."

    "Most of the models go out 30 years," he said, "but, really, the damage to the economy is in the next half-century, and we haven't developed the tools to look out that far."

    Responding to the Post report, which emphasized Moody's warning of the anticipated damage to the global economy, some advocates of ambitious global action to slash human-generated greenhouse gas emissions pointed to recent findings from climate experts that the world's temperature could rise 3°C or higher by 2100, implying that the economic costs could exceed the IPCC's upper estimate.

    Linking to the Post report, Defend Our Future—a project of the Environmental Defense Fund that aims to empower young people interested in advancing climate and clean energy solutions—tweeted: "There is no denying it: The longer we wait to take bold action to curb emissions, the higher the costs will be for all of us."

    Moody's analysts examined the climate emergency's expected economic damage across six impact channels—sea-level rise, human health effects, heat effect of labor productivity, agricultural productivity, tourism, and energy demand—and created forecasts through 2048.

    "This analysis reveals that some countries are significantly exposed to rising temperatures while others, particularly in Northern Hemisphere climates, are well insulated," the report says. Those at the greatest risk, analysts found, are "countries in hot climates, particularly those that are emerging economies such as Malaysia, Algeria, the Philippines, and Thailand, and oil producers such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Oman."

    On the agricultural front, rising temperatures are expected to impact both the health of farmworkers and crop yields, which particularly threatens less-developed nations that are economically dependent on farming. Echoing a U.N. report published this week, Moody's notes that "heat stress, determined by high temperature and humidity, lowers working speed, necessitates more frequent breaks, and increases the probability of injury."

    The report says that in terms of human health, the number of heat-related deaths worldwide is expected to increase as the global temperature does, and a hotter world "can lengthen the season and increase the geographic range of disease-carrying insects such as mosquitoes, ticks, and fleas, allowing them to move into higher altitudes and new regions."

    Recognizing some limitations of its analysis, Moody's acknowledges that "there are a number of factors that were not considered in this work. The foremost of these is the increasing frequency and severity of natural disasters." The report points to a U.S. government calculation that in the United States alone, disasters caused more than $300 billion in damage in 2017.

    As the environmental legal organization Earthjustice concluded in response to the report, "We literally cannot afford inaction on this crisis."
    Citing $69 Trillion Price Tag by 2100, Moody's Warns Central Banks of Far-Reaching Economic Damage of Climate Crisis https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/07/03/citing-69-trillion-price-tag-2100-moodys-warns-central-banks-far-reaching-economic Jessica Corbett, staff writer Noting previous warnings that the human-caused climate crisis could cause trillions of dollars in damage to the global economy by the end of the century, a new report from Moody's Analytics explores the economic implications of the international community's failure to curb planet-warming emissions. Moody's Analytics chief economist Mark Zandi told The Washington Post—which first reported on the new analysis—that this is "the first stab at trying to quantify what the macroeconomic consequences might be" of the global climate crisis, and it comes in response to European commercial banks and central banks. The climate emergency is "not a cliff event. It's not a shock to the economy. It's more like a corrosive," Zandi added. But it is "getting weightier with each passing year." The financial research and consulting firm's analysis (pdf) highlights a few key projections from a report published last October by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC): if the average global temperature soars to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels—the lower limit of the Paris climate agreement—the cost to the global economy is estimated to be $54 trillion in 2100, and under a warming scenario of 2°C, the cost could reach $69 trillion. Moody's—whose clients include multinational corporations, governments, central banks, financial regulators and institutions, retailers, mutual funds, utilities, real estate firms, insurance companies, and investors—notes researchers have found that "warming beyond the 2°C threshold could hit tipping points for even larger and irreversible warming feedback loops, such as permanent summer ice melt in the Arctic Ocean." One of the key takeaways, the report emphasizes, is that economically, "the more draconian effects of climate change are not felt until 2030 and beyond. And they do not become especially pronounced until the second part of the century." "That's why it is so hard to get people focused on this issue and get a comprehensive policy response," Zandi told the Post. "Business is focused on the next year, or five years out." "Most of the models go out 30 years," he said, "but, really, the damage to the economy is in the next half-century, and we haven't developed the tools to look out that far." Responding to the Post report, which emphasized Moody's warning of the anticipated damage to the global economy, some advocates of ambitious global action to slash human-generated greenhouse gas emissions pointed to recent findings from climate experts that the world's temperature could rise 3°C or higher by 2100, implying that the economic costs could exceed the IPCC's upper estimate. Linking to the Post report, Defend Our Future—a project of the Environmental Defense Fund that aims to empower young people interested in advancing climate and clean energy solutions—tweeted: "There is no denying it: The longer we wait to take bold action to curb emissions, the higher the costs will be for all of us." Moody's analysts examined the climate emergency's expected economic damage across six impact channels—sea-level rise, human health effects, heat effect of labor productivity, agricultural productivity, tourism, and energy demand—and created forecasts through 2048. "This analysis reveals that some countries are significantly exposed to rising temperatures while others, particularly in Northern Hemisphere climates, are well insulated," the report says. Those at the greatest risk, analysts found, are "countries in hot climates, particularly those that are emerging economies such as Malaysia, Algeria, the Philippines, and Thailand, and oil producers such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Oman." On the agricultural front, rising temperatures are expected to impact both the health of farmworkers and crop yields, which particularly threatens less-developed nations that are economically dependent on farming. Echoing a U.N. report published this week, Moody's notes that "heat stress, determined by high temperature and humidity, lowers working speed, necessitates more frequent breaks, and increases the probability of injury." The report says that in terms of human health, the number of heat-related deaths worldwide is expected to increase as the global temperature does, and a hotter world "can lengthen the season and increase the geographic range of disease-carrying insects such as mosquitoes, ticks, and fleas, allowing them to move into higher altitudes and new regions." Recognizing some limitations of its analysis, Moody's acknowledges that "there are a number of factors that were not considered in this work. The foremost of these is the increasing frequency and severity of natural disasters." The report points to a U.S. government calculation that in the United States alone, disasters caused more than $300 billion in damage in 2017. As the environmental legal organization Earthjustice concluded in response to the report, "We literally cannot afford inaction on this crisis."
    Citing $69 Trillion Price Tag by 2100, Moody's Warns Central Banks of Far-Reaching Economic Damage of Climate Crisis
    "There is no denying it: The longer we wait to take bold action to curb emissions, the higher the costs will be for all of us."
    WWW.COMMONDREAMS.ORG
    1
    0 Comments 0 Shares
  • Greta Thunberg Thanks OPEC Chief for Suggesting Climate Campaigners Pose 'Greatest Threat' to Oil Sector
    https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/07/04/greta-thunberg-thanks-opec-chief-suggesting-climate-campaigners-pose-greatest-threat
    Jessica Corbett, staff writer

    Swedish teen activist Greta Thunberg turned to Twitter Thursday to thank a key fossil fuel leader for suggesting that climate campaigners—including youth who have joined the global "Fridays for Future" movement Thunberg inspired with her school strikes outside Sweden's parliament last year—greatly threaten the oil sector.

    "Thank you!" tweeted Thunberg, whose climate leadership earned her a nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize this year. "Our biggest compliment yet!"

    Earlier this week, after a meeting of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) in Vienna, the organization's Secretary-General Mohammed Barkindo reportedly claimed that "unscientific" attacks by climate activists are "perhaps the greatest threat to our industry going forward."

    According to the Agence France-Presse report which Thunberg linked to on Twitter:

    Barkindo said that as extreme weather events linked to the climate crisis became more common, "there is a growing mass mobilization of world opinion... against oil."

    "Civil society is being misled to believe oil is the cause of climate change," he said.

    He said children of some colleagues at OPEC's headquarters "are asking us about their future because... they see their peers on the streets campaigning against this industry."

    Barkindo added that the "mobilization" against oil was "beginning to... dictate policies and corporate decisions, including investment in the industry."

    Although he did not mention any specifics, Barkindo also said that "we believe this industry is part of the solution to the scourge of climate change."

    OPEC's mission "is to coordinate and unify the petroleum policies of its member countries and ensure the stabilization of oil markets in order to secure an efficient, economic and regular supply of petroleum to consumers, a steady income to producers, and a fair return on capital for those investing in the petroleum industry."

    The energy organization's 14 member nations are Algeria, Angola, Congo, Ecuador, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Libya, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, and Venezuela.

    Bill McKibben, co-founder of the advocacy group 350.org, tweeted a message to activists Thursday in response to the OPEC chief's remarks: "Wow! Wow! Wow! ...Thanks everyone for your good work!"

    Barkindo's comments come as the youth movement—also commonly called #SchoolStrikeForClimate—is planning a worldwide strike for September, and amid mounting research on how the fossil fuel industry endangers the planet. A study published in the journal Nature on Monday warned that existing dirty energy infrastructure jeopardizes the Paris climate agreement target of limiting warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels.

    "The new study reiterates that visionary climate solutions must justly transition away from fossil fuels, starting with an acknowledgement that 1.5°C carbon budgets must account for planned and new emitting projects," Tamara Toles O'Laughlin, North America director for 350[dot]org, said in a statement Wednesday.

    "This report reinforces the need for complete economic restructuring by way of a Green New Deal that creates millions of jobs for workers in a 100 percent renewable economy and actively keeps fossil fuels in the ground," she added. "We stand by the science, and furthermore demand that fossil fuel billionaires pay for the damage they have caused to people and planet."
    Greta Thunberg Thanks OPEC Chief for Suggesting Climate Campaigners Pose 'Greatest Threat' to Oil Sector https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/07/04/greta-thunberg-thanks-opec-chief-suggesting-climate-campaigners-pose-greatest-threat Jessica Corbett, staff writer Swedish teen activist Greta Thunberg turned to Twitter Thursday to thank a key fossil fuel leader for suggesting that climate campaigners—including youth who have joined the global "Fridays for Future" movement Thunberg inspired with her school strikes outside Sweden's parliament last year—greatly threaten the oil sector. "Thank you!" tweeted Thunberg, whose climate leadership earned her a nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize this year. "Our biggest compliment yet!" Earlier this week, after a meeting of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) in Vienna, the organization's Secretary-General Mohammed Barkindo reportedly claimed that "unscientific" attacks by climate activists are "perhaps the greatest threat to our industry going forward." According to the Agence France-Presse report which Thunberg linked to on Twitter: Barkindo said that as extreme weather events linked to the climate crisis became more common, "there is a growing mass mobilization of world opinion... against oil." "Civil society is being misled to believe oil is the cause of climate change," he said. He said children of some colleagues at OPEC's headquarters "are asking us about their future because... they see their peers on the streets campaigning against this industry." Barkindo added that the "mobilization" against oil was "beginning to... dictate policies and corporate decisions, including investment in the industry." Although he did not mention any specifics, Barkindo also said that "we believe this industry is part of the solution to the scourge of climate change." OPEC's mission "is to coordinate and unify the petroleum policies of its member countries and ensure the stabilization of oil markets in order to secure an efficient, economic and regular supply of petroleum to consumers, a steady income to producers, and a fair return on capital for those investing in the petroleum industry." The energy organization's 14 member nations are Algeria, Angola, Congo, Ecuador, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Libya, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, and Venezuela. Bill McKibben, co-founder of the advocacy group 350.org, tweeted a message to activists Thursday in response to the OPEC chief's remarks: "Wow! Wow! Wow! ...Thanks everyone for your good work!" Barkindo's comments come as the youth movement—also commonly called #SchoolStrikeForClimate—is planning a worldwide strike for September, and amid mounting research on how the fossil fuel industry endangers the planet. A study published in the journal Nature on Monday warned that existing dirty energy infrastructure jeopardizes the Paris climate agreement target of limiting warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. "The new study reiterates that visionary climate solutions must justly transition away from fossil fuels, starting with an acknowledgement that 1.5°C carbon budgets must account for planned and new emitting projects," Tamara Toles O'Laughlin, North America director for 350[dot]org, said in a statement Wednesday. "This report reinforces the need for complete economic restructuring by way of a Green New Deal that creates millions of jobs for workers in a 100 percent renewable economy and actively keeps fossil fuels in the ground," she added. "We stand by the science, and furthermore demand that fossil fuel billionaires pay for the damage they have caused to people and planet."
    2
    0 Comments 0 Shares

No results to show

No results to show

No results to show

No results to show

No results to show