The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
I've been trying to find out more about when he said this and what the original context was, but it's hard to search for now because the Interwebs are full of people talking about oil actually reaching $144. But it seems to have come from a 1999 interview with Al Jazeera correspondent Jamal Abdel-Latif Ismail. This article in a journal published by the US Army ("Military Review") describes the interview and the book that the correspondent wrote later. The petro-politics matter comes up at the end, on page 6 of the Web version, and the syntax is a little jumbled so it's hard to figure out what he means:
Ismail describes Bin-Laden's belief that America robs Saudi Arabia of its oil wealth. Bin-Laden explains that during the reign of King Faisal, the United States paid only 70 cents per barrel [of oil]. In the 1973 oil crisis, the Muslims asserted their economic power using oil as a weapon, and prices began to rise to $40 per barrel. When the [oil] prices leveled off to $36, the United States pressured Gulf countries to increase their production to lower prices. Bin-Laden labels this "the great swindle." Doing basic math, Bin-Laden explains that from $36 the price was lowered to $9 per barrel, he relates the retail price at $144 per barrel, or a loss of $135. He multiplied $135 by the 30 million barrels produced in the Islamic world daily, totaling a loss of $4.5 billion per day for Muslim nations. He breaks down the loss over 25 years to $30,000 for every Muslim man, woman, and child. Although this is an oversimplification of petroleum production and evolution of agreements between oil companies and oil-producing nations, it is highlighted to demonstrate the skill with which Bin-Laden panders to the disenfranchised, giving them an alternate history.
So it sounds from that like he thinks oil is just intrinsically worth $144 a barrel, but there are obviously some translation problems and it's just paraphrased here. I'm looking for the original interview in Arabic to see if I can figure it out, but I'm kinda busy today too.
by ARGeezer - May 24 2 comments
by DoDo - May 23 41 comments
by Nomad - May 10 14 comments
by JakeS - May 15 7 comments
by Metatone - May 14 85 comments
by ARGeezer - May 16 15 comments
by gmoke - May 17 2 comments
by DoDo - May 12 11 comments
by ARGeezer - May 242 comments
by DoDo - May 2341 comments
by gmoke - May 172 comments
by ARGeezer - May 1615 comments
by JakeS - May 157 comments
by Metatone - May 1485 comments
by DoDo - May 1211 comments
by Nomad - May 1014 comments
by Migeru - May 78 comments
by marco - May 782 comments
by Migeru - May 6100 comments
by Ted Welch - May 35 comments
by afew - May 341 comments
by ceebs - May 26 comments
by gmoke - Apr 301 comment
by Frank Schnittger - Apr 3067 comments
by joelado - Apr 2954 comments
by Metatone - Apr 2854 comments
by ATinNM - Apr 275 comments
by ceebs - Apr 265 comments