Natural Resources Role in the Wars

Historic documents record that the main reason for war between kingdoms or territorial regions in the past was natural resources. Nations would fight for the natural resources, and in most of the cases, the stronger nations would take over the weaker ones in order to have control over the natural resources. However, we live in an era of empowerment through knowledge, and this has completely changed the concept of war. Powerful nations can no longer attack the weaker ones without any proper justification as it used to happen in the past. Things are rapidly changing, and the days when India was considered a country of spices and South America a region of gold is long gone. Technology has led countries to improve their economy in a faster and more efficient way. Soon after the world discovered oil and its importance, it started to focus more on its acquisition. In this study, the researcher seeks to confirm the claim that natural resources come with the price of constant wars instigated by both internal and external players.

In 1980, a border war started between Iraq and Iran. The two countries with large oil fields engaged in a prolonged war for about 8 years, after which they agreed to end the bloodshed. They sought to find a solution to the conflict about the natural resources along their borders. Two years after the truce between these two countries, Iraq took over its south neighboring country Kuwait, with the intentions of taking over the oil fields and paying the debts that slowed the growth of their economy. The United States, along with other counties, intervened and liberated Kuwait in 1991. Because of this support, this oil rich country became an ally to the West because it was convinced that it was capable of protecting it from the aggressive neighbors. Since the discovery of oil in the Middle East, the region has known no peace as terror groups and governments constantly engage in wars in an attempt to control the oilfields. Although the region accounts for over 66% of oil reserves of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, this resource has not benefited the region because of the constant wars. Instead of these rich natural resources acting as the economic boosters, they have acted as the reason that makes the region a good target for the terror groups. Some of the leading world powers such as the United States, United Kingdom, France, and Russia have started conspiracy by linking Al-Qaeda, and other groups of terrorists that have been funded by them as a reason behind invasion in some of these countries with the claim of freeing the world. A good example was the 9/11 attacks on the United States’ soil that was directly linked to the terror groups operating in these oil-rich countries. The following are some of the questions that many critics have been asking. Will the world shift away from the Middle East once they dry out their oil resources? Are the Arabs the main reason for 9/11 attacks on the American soil?

According to Pensador (1), the need to conquer Middle East increased following the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. The decline of the Ottoman Empire created a room for many European countries to spread their kingdoms into the Middle East, especially after the discovery of oil. However, the case is very different now, and the powerful nations can no longer attack this region for the sake of acquiring its natural resources. The rich oil reserves in the region have attracted the world powers in the recent times as the value of oil increases with time. According to Cooper (1), the United States will soon switch to be a major global exporter of oil following the discovery of more oil fields both on the mainland and its offshore territories. The scholar says that by most accounts the United States will soon shift from being the world’s largest importer of petroleum products to being a major global exporter. However, there seems to be a disagreement between scholars on when and how the United States will change its involvement in the Middle East. The United States’ presence in the Middle East has only increased in the past few decades since the end of the Cold War. Snyder (1) says that the media has been depicting the people of Middle East as criminals in most of their movies, something that the world has ignored for a very long time. This act was very common in the 1990s when most of the American films focused on the war in the Middle East, and some scholars believe that this might have motivated terrorist attack against the US in September 11, 2001. According to Barry (1), “The false framing of the Middle East as a terror infested region is an attempt by the leading world powers to assert their control over the natural resources in the region.” Any critic who challenged these established ideas was considered an anti-West crusader or terrorists’ sympathizer. Some scholars agree on the reasons for the United States’ involvement in the Middle East, and the importance of this part of the world to them.

According to Chin (1), the United States trained the hijackers in their military base. The scholar says that there have been claims that these hijackers must have received their training at Air War College in Montgomery. Newsweek interviewed a former navy pilot who once claimed that the U.S military had nothing to do with the attack. The navy pilot claimed that they always trained pilots from other countries on a mutual government to government agreement, and this did not imply that they trained them to attack the country. The pilot said that they had trained pilots from Iran and many other nations in the Middle East and across the world. However, Shah (1) has other facts that are disagreeing with the claims of Chin. According to this scholar, all of the hijackers were on business visas and only one entered the United States on a student visa. All of them were in the United States as international students, but it is strange that only one of them had a valid student visa. The other members of the gang came to this country on valid business visas. According to Shenon (1), there are records that strongly suggest that the CIA tried to recruit two of the hijackers. However, when the agency was summoned to appear before a commission of inquiry on the attack, it claimed that it did not have the knowledge about the existence of the criminals in the country, and that it had no plans of recruiting them as their spies.

The Central Intelligence Agency operations is well known for its secrecy and getting the job done (Shenon 1). There has been a claim that Pavitt, the CIA Deputy Director for Operations knew about the attack before it took place. Pavitt made a speech in which he clearly acknowledged that the Central Intelligence Agency had knowledge of the attacks before it took place. However, months later, the Bush administration came up with the idea of ‘intelligence failure.’ This claim was a contradiction of the information from various intelligence bodies across the world that stated that they had suspected an impending attack on the U.S. soil, and had communicated with the relevant authorities in the country. There have been other claims that organizations in the United States including the Wall Street had the knowledge about the imminent terrorism.

The article by Shirkey (1) says “Some investigative journalists, political activists, and radio talk show hosts did a great job in digging and revealing facts that show that it was an inside job.” A report from Watson (1) says that some investors have yet to claim more than $2.5 million in profits that they made purely because of their prior knowledge about the pending attacks. Some sources, which are familiar with trades and the market data, have confirmed this claim saying that these profits were abnormal given the short period they were made. Given that the identities of the investors have never been known to the public, critics have maintained that they must have known about the pending attack.

The American media played a major role in brainwashing the public about the real events that took place during the attack, and the real perpetrators of the attack. According to Marrs (58), “The media is very powerful in the formation of public opinion.” They have the responsibility of informing the public about the events that take place in the country and around the world. Public opinion is always shaped by the information they receive from the mainstream media. Following the attack on Pentagon and the World Trade Center, the American media failed to look into the issue critically and make well-informed reports. They heavily relied on the information that was provided to them by the government agencies without making their own independent research. This largely made the public to be convinced that the message from the government agencies was valid. Although it is the duty of the media to be responsible in their reporting, this does not mean that they are barred from conducting independent research and report on their findings. People who claimed that there was a conspiracy in the attacks were never given media coverage.

According to Olmsted (75), “There has been a conspiracy story about the events that preceded the attack, and the activities that took place during the day of the attack.” The scholar questions the possibility that the CIA and other government agencies were aware of the incoming attack on the American soil. The attack was well planned and highly sophisticated making people to question the claim that the government agencies were not aware of it. There must have been close coordination between the government officials and the employees of the airline companies to make this attack successful. How the terrorists entered the planes with weapons almost at the same time without being detected is a question that many stakeholders still question. The manner in which the attacks were executed showed a common pattern, confirming the coordination by people who were responsible to maintain security in the country. Marrs (92) says that the claim that the third plan had its planned strike aborted because of the effort of the passengers on board still remains controversial. It was claimed that this third plane was targeting the Whitehouse. However, many still believe that it was part of the plan to hide some facts about the attack.

The events that took place soon after the attack strongly suggest that the government of the United States was fully aware of the attack. In less than one month after the attack, the US troops invaded Afghanistan in a systematic manner with the claim of fighting terror. According to Olmsted (37), “It is interesting how the government of the United States reasoned out and concluded that the terrorists were harbored by the Afghan government.” Prior to the attack, Afghan had shown little interest in developing any ties politically or economically with the United States. This explains why the United States was swift with the attack on the country. The American troops replaced the regime that it considered hostile with puppets that did what was instructed of them by the West. A country that was self-supporting was forced to rely on the United States for almost everything. This opened ways for the United States to control its rich oil resources for over ten years. In March 2003, the US troops invaded Iraq, still on its War on Terror that was started following the September 11 terrorists’ attack on the American soil. The War on Iraq, another oil rich country, took another decade. Just like Afghanistan, Iraq’s dictatorial regime was replaced by a government that was pro-West. Once again the United States had access to the rich oil reserves in this Middle East country. Pakistan was not spared from this war. In fact, ten years after the attack, it was claimed that American forces found and killed Osama bin Laden in this country, another oil rich nation in Middle East. This destabilized the country to a great extent. Saudi Arabia narrowly escaped this attack because of lack of strong reasons that would justify it.

The happenings of 9/11 were enormous and the body of proof that the administration and other organizations within the government were engaged is as well massive (Swami, Chamorro‐Premuzic, and Furnham 749-761). The challenge in summing up the information is that the extent of the operation and its conspiracy are immeasurable. It is difficult to progress in a straight stride, and that makes it difficult to generate an easy account. The North Tower seemed to be literally exploding as it collapsed with riddance of material from a high point of the tower. On this note, Chandler raises a question: “How could heavy steel members be thrown sideways so fast when even the downward collapse had not picked up very much speed? (par. 5).” The happening was not constant with solely gravitational crumple. Different pictures and recordings of the fall of the North and South Towers illustrate waves of parallel mass eruptions that race down the walls of the towers, almost keeping the speed of material falling outside the towers, well away from the reality of the attack itself.

The irruptions seem to emanate from a number of floors simultaneously, which is not constant with the notion that the riddance contained wreckage blown out of storey-by-storey as they flattened out (Chandler par. 4-12). Other than the enormous evidence of ejections, numerous pictures and videos reveal individual, centered, and prompt ejections of bits and pieces many stories underneath the position of collapse. The aforementioned occurrences are simply explicated as explosive ejections and are not persuasively elucidated as running jets of compacted air. The inadequacy of reasons behind the collapse has been meticulously documented, faced differing opinions, obfuscated, and justified. It is argued that jet fuel would have burned up in less than fifteen minutes (Swami and Coles 560-563). The inferno in the towers was mostly workplace fires. It was not an intense one like that ignited by petrol.

Heat from either office fires or jet fuel is inadequate to soften, or even disastrously abate, the huge steel columns sewing together the heart of the towers. Though the fires and atmospheric heat were uttermost hot, the huge columns of steel would taper the heat and not increase the temperature of steel satisfactorily. For steel to heat to same degree as that of the atmosphere, a lot of heat is required, but the heat during the 9/11 lasted for only a short period (Chandler par. 6). There are pictures and videos of a female leaning on a beam and gesturing in the hole where one of the planes bumped into waiting to be saved. The presence of the woman in the tower acts as a proof that the heat on the tower where the crash and the fuel had their maximum effect had dropped, and the air and heat on steel were not very high as a person could move about and hold on the steel. The temperatures were nowhere near extremely hot to bring about the source of the collapse of the steel columns (Chomsky 49-56).

On the contrary, Simons argues that the collapse of the buildings was not an inside job (par. 1-23). Some studies affirm that 9/11 was an inside job since the jet fuel fires, with heat well below the melting point of steel would not have the capacity of rigorously destroying the steel structure of the Twin Towers in a way that could result to their fall. Nevertheless, Simons affirms “it is more than enough (par. 4).” He further states that jet fuel burns merely at temperatures that do not have to be hot enough to melt steel, and cause the destruction as steel suffers half of its strength at moderate temperatures and could become weak to support the building. In accordance with some arguments, there are affirmations that the collapse of Building 7 was not due to fire but a controlled destruction (Huddy and Feldman 455). Simons refutes such claims and states “Building 7 was at first damaged by falling debris, and then the building endured a fire that raged for more than 7 hours (par. 13).” He further supports a report by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) that there was already a severe physical deterioration prior to the crumple of the building.

Even though most people have witnessed the destruction of Twin Towers, the majority of individuals have by no means witnessed, or known, concerning the fall of Building 7, a forty seven-storey building (Chandler par. 10). For the people that saw or heard of the collapse of Building 7, the occurrence took them into the 9/11 reality. Building 7 collapsed in the nightfall of 9/11, although it was not struck by a plane and had fires on just a few stories. The fall of Building 7 appeared like a controlled destruction; it was bottom-up destruction, which appeared as if the building was just descending into the soil (Wood, Douglas, and Sutton 767-773). As the building collapsed, the roof line remained in one piece insinuating that the inception of the destruction was concurrent across the entire breadth of the building, and it went down in freefall, meaning that it encountered no resistance. All concerning the damage signifies controlled destruction and the 9/11 commission avoided the mention of Building 7 with the main National Institute of Standards and Technology investigation presenting no clarification for its fall.

As noticeable as all the happenings of 9/11 is the presence of substantiation showing the collapse of the 9/11 buildings as an inside job. Moreover, the security cameras at the surrounding gas points and restaurants that could have shown the Pentagon crash were instantly obscured and kept back from public view. The obliteration of proof was not simple error or negligence by the Giuliani management; it was carried out regardless of a public protest from firefighters and other people who issued fuming objections. The technical detectives for the 9/11 have come under inquiry (Jones 359-371). The National Institute of Standards and Technology acted as the government organization charged with the task of investigating the collapse of the buildings. The report by the National Institute of Standards and Technology concerning Building 7, which was issued for public remark, asserted that the fall of Building 7 stayed approximately 40 percent longer than a freefall crumple; this was evidently a fake assertion. A freefall can only take place if every opposing force has been eliminated at once across the entire breadth of the building (Chandler par. 15-17). The National Institute of Standards and Technology declined to even search for proof of explosives, which shows that the NIST is evidently taking part in the cover-up.

It is clear from the above analysis that scholars and experts in various fields agree that the truth about the September 11 attack has never been revealed. Some experts claim that rich oil reserves in the Middle East could be the leading reason for the attack. Since the formation of the Arab World in the 1980s, the media has brainwashed the public, always associating Islam and Middle East with terrorism. This discussion strongly suggests that the West will seek to control this region as long as it still has rich oil reserves. Other arguments affirm that the 9/11 attack, and particularly the collapse of the buildings, was an inside job. This study confirms the thesis, which says that natural resources come with the price of constant wars instigated by both internal and external players.

Works Cited

Barry, John. “Alleged Hijackers May Have Trained At U.S. Bases.” Newsweek 2010: 1. Web.

Chandler, David. Why I Am Convinced 9/11 Was an Inside Job. Architects and engineers for 9/11 truth 2014. Web.

Chin, Larry. “CIA Admits Foreknowledge of 9-11.” CIA Admits Foreknowledge of 2013: 1. Web.

Chomsky, Noam. 9-11: Was There an Alternative? New York, NY: Seven Stories Press, 2011. Print.

Cooper, Beth. “10 Surprising Social Media Statistics That Might Make You Rethink Your Social Strategy.” Huff Post 2013: 1. Web.

Farley, Robert. “9/11 Hijackers and Student Visas.” FactCheckorg. N.p., 2013. Web.

Huddy, Leonie, and Stanley Feldman. “Americans respond politically to 9/11: understanding the impact of the terrorist attacks and their aftermath.” American Psychologist 66.6 (2011): 455.

Jones, Laura. “‘How do the American people know…?’: embodying post-9/11 conspiracy discourse.” GeoJournal 75.4 (2010): 359-371.

Marrs, Jim. The Terror Conspiracy: Deception, 9/11 and the Loss of Liberty. New York: Disinformation, 2006. Print.

Olmsted, Kathryn S. Real Enemies: Conspiracy Theories and American Democracy, World War I to 9/11. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. Print.

Pensador, Ray. “Research Study Explains How U.S. Media Brainwashes The Public.” Daily Kos 2013: 1. Web.

Shah, Anup. “Middle East.” – Global Issues 2011: 1. Web.

Shenon, Philip. “An Explosive New 9/11 Charge.” The Daily Beast 2011: 1. Web.

Shirkey, Zachary. “Growing Energy Security Won’t Let Washington Turn Its Back on a Crucial Region: America Can’t Escape the Middle East.” The National Interest 2013: 1. Web.

Simons, Jay. Top 5 Reasons 9/11 Was NOT an Inside Job! History Rundown 2013. Web.

Snyder, Michael. “Five Shocking Examples of Government Corruption That Will Blow Your Mind.” The Economic Collapse 2011: 1. Web.

Swami, Viren, and Rebecca Coles. “The truth is out there: Belief in conspiracy theories.” The Psychologist 23.7 (2010): 560-563.

Swami, Viren, Tomas Chamorro‐Premuzic, and Adrian Furnham. “Unanswered questions: A preliminary investigation of personality and individual difference predictors of 9/11 conspiracist beliefs.” Applied Cognitive Psychology 24.6 (2010): 749-761.

Watson, Paul. “Al-Qaeda Mastermind Invited To Pentagon After 9/11.” Prison Planetcom 2010: 1. Web.

Wood, Michael, Karen Douglas, and Robbie Sutton. “Dead and Alive Beliefs in Contradictory Conspiracy Theories.” Social Psychological and Personality Science 3.6 (2012): 767-773.