threegee Posted August 22, 2014 Report Share Posted August 22, 2014 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vic Patterson Posted August 22, 2014 Report Share Posted August 22, 2014 Ransoms and dodgy countries would be my guess! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Symptoms Posted August 22, 2014 Report Share Posted August 22, 2014 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vic Patterson Posted August 22, 2014 Report Share Posted August 22, 2014 north American tar sands. That should read OIL SANDS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Symptoms Posted August 23, 2014 Report Share Posted August 23, 2014 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ex Bedlingtonian Posted September 1, 2014 Report Share Posted September 1, 2014 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-29004253 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vic Patterson Posted September 1, 2014 Report Share Posted September 1, 2014 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create a free account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now