| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
boggsman1
Joined: 24 Jun 2002
Posts: 9120
Location: at a computer
|
 Posted: Tue Feb 24, 2015 12:36 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| mrgybe wrote: | | boggsman1 wrote: | "For Musk it certainly has"
OR ANYONE who decided to buy the shares at 31 , where it sat for a YEAR! a 7 bagger in two years. If you shorted XOM , and used the funds to buy TSLA, you'd be up 740% since March 2013. that aint chopped liver, sir! |
What about the people who bought at $279? The vast majority of investors didn't buy at $31. They bought at much higher prices egged on by hyperventilating commentary from market "experts" who don't care about business fundamentals, only about quick profits. Once again, the professional investors (and Musk) profit from smoke and mirrors and the suckers are left holding the bag. Maybe Musk will turn this around. We'll see. |
thats certainly true.....by the time the talking heads on CNBC are blabbing the real investors are seeking the exit door. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
MalibuGuru
Joined: 11 Nov 1993
Posts: 9300
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
isobars
Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 20935
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 26, 2015 12:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The collective and individual directors of all U.S. intelligence agencies publicly declare that Americans are in more imminent danger today than in any prior time in our lifetime.
Obama's SecState-on-a-string Kerry says we're the safest we've ever been.
Somebody's just lying. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wynsurfer
Joined: 24 Aug 2007
Posts: 940
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 26, 2015 1:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| or maybe delusional. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17747
Location: Berkeley, California
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 26, 2015 1:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Always an impeccable source by Isobars, eh?
| Quote: | | Paul E. Sperry is a conservative pundit, author, investigative journalist, and Stanford University Hoover Institute media fellow. |
I scare myself....
What I have read is that the core of ISIS/ISIL is only about 20,000 folks, and that many of them were purged out of power in Iraq in the deBathification effort by Georgie Porgie and his neo-cons.
Is there anything more insightful coming from the right beyond fear mongering? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mrgybe
Joined: 01 Jul 2008
Posts: 5180
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 26, 2015 3:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
"When the final accounting is done, 2014 will have been the most lethal year for global terrorism in the 45 years (since) such data has been compiled,"
National Intelligence Director James Clapper on the Hill today. Perhaps slightly more credible than something someone read somewhere. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
boggsman1
Joined: 24 Jun 2002
Posts: 9120
Location: at a computer
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 26, 2015 4:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Epic Fail? I dont think so
March 6, 2009 NAZ 1289
Feb 26, 2015 NAZ 4987
wowza |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mrgybe
Joined: 01 Jul 2008
Posts: 5180
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 26, 2015 4:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| March 10, 2008 NAZ 5,132. I wonder how important Nasdaq performance will seem, if you, or a family member, are killed or maimed by a suicide bomb at the Apple store? Those people you dismiss as inconsequential desert dwellers in used Toyota pick ups seem have to extended their reach don't they? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
boggsman1
Joined: 24 Jun 2002
Posts: 9120
Location: at a computer
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 26, 2015 4:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I assume you meant 2000? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17747
Location: Berkeley, California
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 26, 2015 4:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Never one to trouble himself with details, or us with more than talking points, mrgybe describes the world as more dangerous than ever. Perhaps. Perhaps he is bolstering his defense investments, or perhaps all conservatives hate the present and long for some golden past. One thing is clear, we will repeat mistakes until we develop some greater understanding. More than a one liner. This, from Al Jazeera, seems interesting:
| Quote: | Marwan Bishara is the senior political analyst at Al Jazeera.
Four years ago, when the Arab Spring blossomed, the US, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the al-Qaeda network that dominated the Middle East during the previous decade were forced into retreat and retrenchment.
US President Barack Obama took the backseat and only reacted to the momentous changes in the region between 2011 and 2013. For the Obama administration, the problem wasn't the positive change taking shape, but rather the discomfort of losing control over events.
The ayatollahs, who repressed Iran's Green Revolution in 2009, became more isolated with the outbreak of the Arab revolution against dictatorship and autocracy.
Riyadh lost some of its most valuable allies like Hosni Mubarak of Egypt as its Sunni nemesis, the Muslim Brotherhood, began to gain power. And al-Qaeda & affiliates became ever more discredited and isolated, leading many observers to predicted their demise.
Inside Story - Has the Arab Spring widened the Arab divide?
Even Israel's (false) pretensions of being the "only democracy" in the region lost their effect, as its occupying regime was exposed to be integral to the old order; a chronic violator of human rights.
The rebound
However, two years later, the seasons began to turn as counter-revolutionary forces - the dark forces of the old Arab world - began to organise and conspire against the young voices of freedom and justice, whether in Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Libya or elsewhere.
Washington, Tehran, as well as Tel Aviv and al-Qaeda took advantage of the ensuing chaos to advance their own agendas.
And a year later, they rebounded and began to dominate the region once again under the pretext of the danger of the newly found Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant group and its affiliates.
Meanwhile, Daesh, ISIS, ISIL, IS - or whatever its name - broke away from al-Qaeda to become the definitive regional, and even global threat.
Its pornographic barbarity provided a new bloodier banner for al-Qaeda affiliates throughout the region, with a prime real estate location to erect a whole new caliphate on Syrian and Iraqi soil.
In the process, the rise of ISIL gave a whole new momentum to American and Iranian interventionism in the greater Middle East.
ISIL replaced al-Qaeda as the new pretext for pre-emptive and revenge air strikes, redeployments, war, and occupation.
Thanks to ISIL, the main losers of the Arab Spring emerged as the new hegemons.
Moreover, ISIL became the alibi or the justification for all regional warmongers to carry any atrocities.
Regimes in Syria, Iraq, and Egypt exploited the scourge - or the pretext - of terror to justify repressions and murder on a large scale. Revenge bombings and attacks became the new rule, as international law took the backseat in the Middle East.
The question one must ask is not who's behind the rise and expansion of ISIL, but rather what led to its rise and what helps it withstand the international coalition's bombings and pressures.
And the non-Arab powers took advantage of ISIL to reshape their strategies, redraw maps and even reinvent relationships. As the New York Times put it: US and Iran Both Attack ISIS, but Try Not to Look Like Allies.
Likewise, Israel exploited the world's preoccupation with ISIL to attack the Gaza Strip, take over more Palestinian lands and deny Palestinians their basic rights with no repercussions, even when it turned its back to Washington.
This strange, even spectacular turn of events led many to question the mystery surrounding ISIL. Who's behind it and why? Are those benefitting from it, behind it?
Invisible hands behind ISIL?
Iran's first female vice president, Masoumeh Ebtekar, singled out the United States and the CIA as the progenitor of ISIL. And Iran's former Iranian minister of intelligence, Heydar Moslehi, went further by arguing that Mossad, MI6, And CIA created ISIL, or Daesh.
Sudan's President Omar al-Bashir agreed. He told Euronews this week that America's CIA and Israel's Mossad are behind Boko Haram and ISIL.
"I said CIA and the Mossad stand behind these organisations. There is no Muslim who would carry out such acts," he said. (Bashir also blames the US and Israel for the ICC's 2013 warrants accusing him of responsibility for war crimes, crimes against humanity and acts of genocide.)
And so does Fidel Castro. He believes that Israel and certain American elements are behind ISIL.
Others believe the opposite; that it's actually Iran that's culpable. Former Syrian National Coalition President Ahmad Jarba insisted that Iran is behind rise of ISIL.
Could "Quds Force be behind the ISIL in Iraq?" asked one observer.
And yet, more than a few argued that the Saudi Arabia stood behind ISIL. Then Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, claimed in a statement last summer that the Saudis were supporting ISIL and "facilitating genocide".
A former US general, Wesley Clark, reckons it's all part of an ongoing strategic conflict: "Our friends and allies funded ISIL to destroy Hezbollah."
For Clark, radical Islam is not the issue per se, as it's been generally exploited for strategic ends. For example, according to him: "The United States used radical Islam to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan. We begged the Saudis to put the money in; they did."
And the seasoned journalist, Patrick Cockburn, the author of "The Jihadis Return: ISIS and the New Sunni Uprising", claimed that Saudi Arabia "helped ISIL take over north Iraq". He cited British intelligence sources that believe the Saudi plan goes back a decade.
Is "the enemy of my enemy my friend" or my enemy? Or could it be both, depending on the level of cynicism involved?
Clearly, those who highlight the savagery of ISIL seem to also be benefitting most from it.
Conspiracy or consequence?
Most of the claims about the responsibility for the rise and spread of ISIL are either ideologically driven, or pure speculation.
It's not clear how any one of these prime suspects would be willing or able to put an organisation like ISIL together. Money is not nearly enough to sustain or explain its drive.
Even if ISIL proves day-in day-out to be at their service; providing them with pretexts for any policy and every action, it doesn't prove that any of these players are behind its rise.
In short, benefitting from ISIL's actions doesn't necessarily translate into creating it.
The question one must ask is not who's behind the rise and expansion of ISIL, but rather what led to its rise and what helps it withstand the international coalition's bombings and pressures.
Obama, as I explained a few days ago, gave his own explanation for the rise of ISIL; one that included dictatorship, sectarianism, alienation and marginalisation of Arabs and Muslims.
Seasoned former UN diplomat Lakhdar Brahimi, who served as special envoy to Afghanistan and Syria, and was somewhat close to the Washington circles, said this week that there was "no doubt that the original sin which led to the emergence of ISIL is the US-led invasion of Iraq. There was no justification for the war in Iraq, and we all suffer the consequences".
To be clear, Brahimi later clarified: "I don't mean the US created ISIL, but the conditions following the invasion led al-Qaeda to come to Iraq and for ISIL to gain power."
To sum it all up, the US occupation of Iraq, the Iranian manipulation of instability in Iraq and Syria, the cruelty and brutality of dictators like Bashar al-Assad, and the sectarian cynicism that followed are certainly to blame.
But there's more…
Marwan Bishara is the senior political analyst at Al Jazeera.
The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial policy.
Source: Al Jazeera |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
|
Search
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Register
