Who Is Funding Is?

[threegee]

So... the very latest bogy is ISIL, IS, or whatever they are calling themselves this week.  Come in al-Qaeda, your time is up!

 

Our politicos have something else to protect us from at vast expense (note the warnings of IS terrorism spreading to UK streets); our security services can once again justify their shady dealings; and, our armament makers get a boost to their flagging share prices.

 

There's one thing we aren't being told though: where does IS get its massive funding?  It is very well organised, and some serious seed funding came from somewhere.  IS didn't simply spring into existence from another dimension in the cosmos. Our senior politicos have certainly been told, but they choose not to pass on this crucial snippet of info.

 

Of course the only way to a cure to (and prevent the reoccurrence of) a cancer is to clinically seek the source.  If your only visible concern is to be treating the symptoms, and you steadfastly ignore the root cause - even any mention of a possible root cause! Then there's always the suspicion that you yourself might just have an interest in a "snake-oil" factory, or may be uncomfortably close to someone that does!

 

These days we are very quick to apply economic sanctions to people we don't ordinarily get on with very well and simply suspect of dodgy dealings with "terrorism".  Why is IS proving an exception to this?

[Vic Patterson]

Ransoms and dodgy countries would be my guess!

[Symptoms]

Take your pick from any of the oil rich states (many reports suggest Saudi is knee-deep in it) or the military industrial complex.  In the medium term however, once the Yankees have become self-sufficient again in hyrdro-carbon production (oil from the huge deposits of north American tar sands and gas from their fracking operations), my hunch will be that they'll just nuke the whole of the Middle East and be done with it.  

[Vic Patterson]

 north American tar sands.  

That should read OIL SANDS 

[Symptoms]

Or even bitumen sands ... but my tar sands is fine:

 

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/tar-sands-and-keystone-xl-pipeline-impact-on-global-warming/

 

http://www.greenpeace.org/canada/en/campaigns/Energy/tarsands/

 

http://ostseis.anl.gov/guide/tarsands/

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_sands

[ex Bedlingtonian]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-29004253

[Vic Patterson]

The terms "Oil sands†are used in a positive light, "Tar sands†are usually negative! The bituminous deposits are a major resource to Alberta, Canada and the rest of the world.

Oil being produced by a civilised country using the latest environmental techniques available, while developing and implementing the highest possible standards in the World.

I'd suggest not believing most of the publications coming out of the U.S.