It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Making Sense of ISIS in MEXICO.

page: 2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 31 2014 @ 03:02 AM
edit on 31-8-2014 by stirling because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 31 2014 @ 03:09 AM
Good thread.

I think the problem with selling the IS bogeyman is that attacking the West is actually very low priority compared to establishing the caliphate.

Don't get me wrong, they would if they could - it's just a poor use of their resources at this time.

Not that it'd matter in the case of a false flag, of course.

posted on Aug, 31 2014 @ 03:18 AM
it would appear you have done your homework on this one.....nice...

now we get to wait and see what unfolds

posted on Aug, 31 2014 @ 04:19 AM
a reply to: loam

That's an awful lot to consider and the same for reading around the issues.

It wouldn't surprise many if the US managed to justify a politically expedient move into Mexico. It'd be electorate gold dust if it was framed as a way to minimise illegal immigration. Likewise, if it was pitched as a solution to a potential domestic threat by terrorists, that'd be acceptable as long as the threat had a scale.

On the other hand, I wonder if your concerns are overly-elaborate? Mexican politicians might well be currently averse to allowing US investment, but how long would that last? How much incentive ($$$) would tip them over? They are right (imo) in seeking to restrict the ownership to Mexico as it's a life-line and guarantee of future prosperity. Unfortunately they are not in a strong position to hold on to their principles and may have to be accommodating.

All of which is to ask the question of whether the States would benefit by a business approach rather than annexing northern Mexico?

As I was reading around your OP it's hard to find solid evidence that IS are in Mexico. DHS denies the claims of a credible threat and the FBI seem likewise bemused. It looks like the IS threat is one of those whereby some assish politician demonstrates their ignorance by making fear-inducing claims minus evidence.

If we whittle away the IS aspects in your OP, you've definitely made a case that the US will be very, very interested in such wealth and potential stability on its doorstep. If Mexico could put its house in order, it'd have the means to become an economic and independent powerhouse of the Americas.

posted on Aug, 31 2014 @ 04:26 AM
a reply to: Kandinsky

If Mexico could put its house in order, it'd have the means to become an economic and independent powerhouse of the Americas.

and that would ruffle a few feathers now wouldn't it ?

posted on Aug, 31 2014 @ 04:36 AM

originally posted by: Kandinsky
1. If we whittle away the IS aspects in your OP, you've definitely made a case that the US will be very, very interested in such wealth and potential stability on its doorstep.

2. If Mexico could put its house in order, it'd have the means to become an economic and independent powerhouse of the Americas.

1. Wouldn't it make sense though that the cartels would be all up in that? Somehow I fail to see how that wealth, in that location, would bring stability at all. In fact, on the contrary, imo. If you think Ciudad Juarez is bad now, wait till the cartels figure out that there are a gadzillion dollars of shale gas down there. It won't be pretty.

2. Boy wouldn't that be nice. That means up to 30 million illegals would flee back across the border into Mexico and American labor wages could go back up? Or is that statement too racist?

posted on Aug, 31 2014 @ 04:55 AM
a reply to: TrueAmerican

With all that potential for wealth, any black market figures would have to be interested in leveraging an interest. Legitimate money.

The stability factor isn't beyond reach although it's hard to see how it could be attained whilst the war-on-drugs continues. It's like Mexico can do whatever it takes to dampen corruption and negate the influence of cartels and none of it takes effect whilst that massive incentive waits beyond the border.

On a side-note, having a bunch of terrorist assholes running through the channels used for smuggling would be catastrophic for business. That leaky old border would get a lot less leaky as soon as a car-bomb came through it.

posted on Aug, 31 2014 @ 04:56 AM
a reply to: TrueAmerican

All the more reason to have a pretext to secure the zone. We'll be doing it for the Mexican people. *wink* *wink*

The Bush Administration spun it this way during the Iraq war:

Military forces also will ''secure Iraq's oil fields and resources, which belong to the Iraqi people, and which they will need to develop their country after decades of neglect by the Iraqi regime,'' Mr. Rumsfeld said.


Just replace the words Iraq/Iraqi for Mexico/Mexican and see how it reads.

Let's also remember for context that 79 percent of the Mexicans polled said crime was the big problem and one third of them would migrate to the United States if an opportunity presented.

It almost sounds like we would be welcomed with open arms.
edit on 31-8-2014 by loam because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 31 2014 @ 05:20 AM
I think you did a great job of putting this thread together, and it is not often that I see someone truly trying to "connect the dots." Sort of like how Mel Gibson did it in "Conspiracy Theory," lol. I think it would make much more sense that ISIS is not in Mexico, and that they could be used as a pretext for something else. I mean if ISIS is being used for a pending false flag, or as a pretext for something in the Middle East, why not get the most bang for your buck? Even if there aren't any false flags in the works involving the US where ISIS is concerned, it would be foolish to let a good crisis go to waste right? So I can totally buy that portion, the false flag idea in general. It is something that actually does occur, as all should know by now. Occasionally false flags can even be proven to have been false flags.

Let's say that things occur like you've postulated. So we have US troops in Mexico, where they most likely will have run-ins with drug cartels. I see one of two things happening. Either the cartels simply back off and do not attempt to engage US troops, which is the most likely outcome as long as they have no problems moving their product into the US. If the CIA runs some deal to allow cartel drugs through the border despite a heavy US military presence, then things should not escalate between the cartels and the military. But there are various cartels, and they would at the very least start fighting each other even harder if suddenly one group gained a monopoly on smuggling in the US. This could cause other cartels to initiate violence against the US.

But let us assume that the US closes most of the cartel routes, or even actively tries to shut them down in certain border cities. In this case it is extremely likely that the cartels would fight the US troops. They would not do so as long as they were still getting the same amount of drugs into the US, but if that stopped there would be nothing holding them back from initiating violence. And I think we will have a very hard time combating them if things escalate that far.

It will be much worse than Iraq ever was, and many more US troops are likely to die in a much shorter period of time. And those young citizens will be driven to the cartels to fight the Americans, but it is hard to say how many will welcome the US or be opposed to them. Occupation of another nation creates guerilla or partisan fighters, plain and simple. The cartels recruiting is already going well, as it is money for those doing the work. Good money in some cases. They have plenty of weapons, and a whole, whole lot of money. The main problem the US would face is war in urban centers. It would be virtually impossible to use bombs in a Mexican city without huge collateral damage. I don't think the US would do this, and the Mexican government wouldn't stand for it, and before you know it there would be a real war between our two nations. It would not be that far-fetched if the US started killing civilians.

So troops would be at an immediate disadvantage, as cartel fighters would use the tried and true strategy of hiding amongst the civilian population. Easy to do in Mexico, and they've been doing where the Mexican authorities are concerned anyway. What would happen would be violence on a greater scale than that seen when Pablo Escobar declared war on the Columbian government, in which hundreds of cops were killed in a very short time. US troops would be shot at from all places, meaning any time they got out of a vehicle they would be vulnerable. And they could not even shoot back if the cartels were smart, and were only engaging in populated areas. They don't care so much about civilian casualties. They don't care at all in fact.

My point is that I see something like this turning into something very bad. Bad to the point that there is only one way to remedy the situation, if your hypothesis is true. And that would be to allow the cartels a corridor to move their illegal drugs into the United States. That would be the only way for the US to avoid what I described above. That, or not mess with them in the first place. But if the cartels are used as any sort of pretext, then they will have to be engaged. So the US would be better off using ISIS as the excuse, and not the cartels. Sparking violence with them cannot work out for the US at all. Unless the government doesn't care about many soldiers getting killed and injured, which is what will happen. And the cartels will not be eliminated. The US still hasn't learned its lesson about warfare against an insurgency. It usually cannot be won, and if it can, it will take a very long time.

posted on Aug, 31 2014 @ 09:21 AM
a reply to: loam

We can only pray that nothing of the sort will or can happen, however.

.....Judicial Watch as per Wikipedia

Judicial Watch is a politically conservative government watchdog group. According to its mission statement, it "advocates high standards of ethics and morality in America's public life and seeks to ensure that political and judicial officials do not abuse the powers entrusted to them by the American people."[a]

[a] from Judicial Watch

About Judicial Watch

Judicial Watch, Inc., a conservative, non-partisan educational foundation, promotes transparency, accountability and integrity in government, politics and the law. (b)

(b) but only when the Democrats are in power

posted on Aug, 31 2014 @ 11:58 AM
We should only annex Mexico's Northern States Security.

Our Border is impossible to defend. As you go South into Mexico it narrows.

Lots on new immigrants don't want to be here they have no security at home.

They are not chasing the American Dream. They are running for their lives.

Seems like our front yard would be a priority. We should help Mexico.

The Mexican Government is incapable of riding it's Country of these Drug Lords.

Interesting Thread....S&F

posted on Aug, 31 2014 @ 02:05 PM
a reply to: loam

The only reason I am still here is for threads such as yours loam, awesome theory.

A couple points I'd like to add but haven't verified to a great degree is that shale gas extraction was researched greatly by Sandia Labs(well known DoD firm) and also if I remember correctly it can by harvested by horizontal drilling. Now I don't know how far they can do this, but could one conceive due to proximity, they can locate on US soil and stretch under into mexico with their drills? Again not an expert on this, but I think shale gas runs horizontally in bands subsurface opposed to natural gas which is more in pockets.
Would be a sneaky game of 'snatch and grab' if it could be done correctly.
Also I heard rumors(somewhere in the million ATS threads on Israel a few weeks ago) that the Israel/Palestinian conflict was over these same shale gas deposits in Gaza. Birds of a feather as they say. . .

posted on Aug, 31 2014 @ 04:24 PM
What I've tried to suggest in this thread is that it's NOT about ISIS, it's NOT about the drug cartels, and it's NOT about border security.

It's about the shale gas reserve.

If you think 18 trillion cubic meters worth of shale gas reserve right accross the Texas border isn't entising enough of a goal, then let me walk you further down the Rabbit Hole.

As I've already explained, the whole of Europe's shale gas reserve is estimated to be only about 13 trillion cubic meters. The United States has a similar number at 13.65 trillion cubic meters. China has 25.08 trillion cubic meters. (Link.)

And Russia has nearly the whole world over a barrel. Is it any wonder we are seeing Putin make the bold moves he's made?

Russia doesn't really need the Ukraine's gas. It's more about preventing Europe, or anyone else, from getting it from anyone but Russia.

This article is from yesterday:

Europe will be Russia's hostage over gas supplies for at least another decade

Policymakers will have no choice but to continue buying gas from Russia until at least the mid-2020s and "potentially much longer", according to Fitch

Europe will remain heavily reliant on Russian gas for at least another decade, according to a leading rating agency.


Europe already buys a quarter of its gas from Russia, and analysts expect consumption to increase by a third by 2030 as economies recover from the debt crisis and gas-fired electricity generation replaces old coal and nuclear power.

Analysts said it would be difficult for countries to secure alternative sources of supply in the medium term, leaving them at risk of being "held hostage by dominant suppliers", including Russia.

"Any attempt to improve energy security by reducing European reliance on Russia would require either a significant reduction in overall gas demand or a big increase in alternative sources of supply, but neither of these appears likely," Fitch said in a report on Tuesday.

But Europe is trying:

Ukraine crisis sharpens focus on European shale gas

As tensions between Moscow and Kiev spark concerns over a possible cut in Russian gas to Europe via Ukraine, European Union officials this week identified shale gas drilling as one of the "indigenous sources of energy" that can help reduce such imports.

Significantly, EU politicians left shale out of tougher rules on exposing the environmental impact of oil and conventional gas.

Poland also introduced an investor-friendly shale gas bill aimed at cutting red tape and regulatory hurdles.


Britain and Poland have for years pressed for shale gas development to help lessen their dependence on imported fossil fuels.


"Given the absolute necessity for Europe to diversify its sources of supply of gas and to find solutions to the huge energy price differential with its main competitors, we see no alternative but to proceed as rapidly as possible with shale gas exploitation as part of the energy mix in Europe," said Gordon Moffat, director general of steel industry group Eurofer.

And the United States is clearly working very hard to help them:

Vice President Biden has been a frequent flyer to Europe as of late, flying across the Atlantic on a monthly basis since February.

Biden in Romania:

Biden in Romania: 'You can count on us'

Biden said the U.S. would continue to demonstrate that commitment with a stepped-up military presence in Romania, including joint air exercises and visits by U.S. naval vessels to Romanian ports.

And can you guess why?

Chevron starts shale gas drilling in Romania

Chevron has started exploration drilling into shale gas deposits in Pungesti, Vaslui county, eastern Romania.


Chevron has permits to explore for shale gas in northeastern Romania as well as on Romania’s Black Sea coast....

The U.S. Energy Information Administration estimates Romania could potentially hold 51 trillion cubic feet [1.4 trillion cubic meters] of shale gas, which would cover domestic demand for more than a century.

Chevron is the first company that has started to seek shale gas in Romania as the government lifted an informal memorandum that banned any developments in this field this year.

From another article:

Prime Minister Victor Ponta, who was a staunch opponent of the shale gas sector when in opposition, has changed course once he took the top job in government in 2012.


Notice how that works?

Biden in Cyprus:

US vice-president Joe Biden pushes energy cooperation in visit to Cyprus

US vice-president Joe Biden arrived in Cyprus on Wednesday, the most senior US official to visit in more than 50 years, as the quest to find alternative energy routes into Europe focused international attention on the continent's only divided country.

With the discovery of vast reserves of oil and natural gas deposits in the eastern Mediterranean, the visit highlights the growing importance Washington has given to the region following the crisis in the Ukraine. If unlocked, the hydrocarbons have the potential to substantially reduce Europe's reliance on Russia for energy supplies.

edit on 31-8-2014 by loam because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 31 2014 @ 04:24 PM
Biden in Ukraine:

Biden Offers Ukraine U.S. Help on Energy, Aid Allocation

U.S. Vice President Joe Biden will announce a package of technical assistance focused on energy and economic aid distribution during a two-day visit to Ukraine that began on Monday, a senior administration official said.

Biden is the highest ranking U.S. official to visit the country since the crisis with Russia erupted months ago.

...But during talks with Ukrainian leaders on Tuesday he will announce U.S. assistance, primarily of technical know-how to boost energy efficiency as well as production in Ukrainian natural gas fields and extraction of "unconventional" gas resources, a senior administration official told reporters traveling on board the vice president's plane.

From the White House:

FACT SHEET: U.S. Crisis Support Package for Ukraine

A technical team will also engage the government on measures that will help the Ukrainian government ensure swift and environmentally sustainable implementation of contracts signed in 2013 for shale gas development.

And then there's this interesting piece of information from the Wall Street Journal:

Biden's Son, Kerry Family Friend Join Ukrainian Gas Producer's Board

Vice President Joe Biden's son and a close friend of Secretary of State John Kerry's stepson have joined the board of a Ukrainian gas producer controlled by a former top security and energy official for deposed President Viktor Yanukovych.


Hunter Biden, a lawyer by training and the younger of the vice president's two sons, joined the board of directors of Ukrainian gas firm Burisma Holdings Ltd. this month and took on responsibility for the company's legal unit, according to a statement issued by the closely held gas producer.

His appointment came a few weeks after Devon Archer —college roommate of the secretary of state's stepson, H.J. Heinz Co. ketchup heir Christopher Heinz—joined the board to help the gas firm attract U.S. investors, improve its corporate governance and expand its operations. A State Department spokesman declined to comment.

So given all that's going on over there, why would anyone expect us to ignore such a significant opportunity in our own backyard?

For anyone who thinks Obama doesn't have it in him to participate in such a thing, let's hear what he has to say about the shale gas revolution in his 2014 State of the Union address:

All of this activity and public statements of support aren't just coincidence.

This is REALLY IMPORTANT to the United States.

Report: U.S. shale gas boom drives $120B in LNG export projects

In the United States alone, 31 facilities have applied for federal approval to build export facilities, which condense natural gas into a liquid before it’s shipped overseas via tanker....

The potential impact could be huge.

...their combined capacity could export nearly 30% of U.S.-produced gas by 2020. Much of this gas is extracted from shale deposits via the combined use of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing or fracking.

edit on 31-8-2014 by loam because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 31 2014 @ 05:50 PM
Here's something else that's very important (also from this month) worth considering:

Mexico signs energy reform into law ending 76yr monopoly

Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto signed into law Mexico’s historic energy reform bill that will allow foreign companies access to oil and gas fields in the country.


The new law doesn’t just break the monopoly on foreign companies, but now domestic private oil and gas firms will be able to operate in direct competition with Pemex. Before, private companies were only allowed to do work for Pemex under service contracts.

And guess what Russia is doing?

Russia’s Lukoil was one of the first companies to forge a relationship with Pemex, and in January agreed to a joint venture exploring and extracting oil.

See also, Lukoil ventures into Mexican oil

What does it mean when Russia's second largest oil company comes to play in the United States' back yard?

Is that provocation enough?

edit on 31-8-2014 by loam because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 31 2014 @ 06:30 PM
a reply to: loam

Bingo. Nailed it.

From what you've posted it looks to me that the Saudis and most likely Mossad are stearing their boys "Isis" towards creating havoc in Mexico aimed at the endless supply of material there.

They wouldn't want us to quit relying on their oil. Then who would do their dirty work or really care about the strategic advantage of keeping Israel alive any longer.

posted on Aug, 31 2014 @ 07:05 PM
In my best Darth Vader voice from Empire Strikes Back:

"All to easy"

Meaning it is all very believable and could happen with little to no effort.

posted on Aug, 31 2014 @ 08:33 PM
Here's something to consider. We've known for a few years now that Hamas has been working closely with Mexico's drug cartels and teaching them how to dig tunnels. Congressional reports show that more and more Mexicans are showing up in Texas prisons with tattoos written in Farsi. Hamas has to be an enemy of ISIS. If ISIS ever makes headway, it's inevitable that Iran will be at the top of their list in getting rid of those pesky Shiites and preparing for a Sunni takeover of their Islamic State. What are the chances that Iran supported Hamas is setting up ISIS to keep them out of Iran since they're trying to take over Iraq and Syria??!!

edit on 31-8-2014 by Deetermined because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 31 2014 @ 08:47 PM
I think the assumption that we need more natural gas is wrong. We have enough already to last 200 years. The problem is, not enough gas and oil, the problem is too much. We need to keep production down, and prices high to hurt China. We're fighting an economic war with China right now.

Iraq was all about oil after all, but not us getting oil. It was all about keeping China from getting access to Iraqi oil. Look who ISIS is attacking. Only two country's. Iraq, and Syria. Two country's we want regime change in. Why not Jordan? Why not Turkey? Why not Israel? Because they're our allies.

We want Iraq to stay a waste land so they can't pump oil out of the ground, so China can't get it, and prices stay high.

ISIS is our mad dog lackey.

posted on Aug, 31 2014 @ 09:00 PM
a reply to: loam

Long indeed, but you warned us at the beginning of your thread. When I got to the end and digested the information, I do believe you have made a lot of sense to me. Also, consider all the anti-illegal sentiments going around right now. A lot of people don't like illegal Mexicans taking our jobs and taxing the welfare system, bringing in diseases, etc. I can see a lot of frustrated and angry people being behind kicking some Mexican butts south of the border to curb the immigration somehow. Based on your theory, it would fit that the current administration is allowing the illegals in to instigate the situation before green lighting the false flag and annexing the oil/shale areas of Mexico.

The colorful map drew me in to read the whole thing and got me thinking a little more.

Being into maps, I did some checking and find it interesting to compare the shale oil deposits map

With the Keystone Pipeline map

and a NAFTA super highway map

I sense a pattern here, one that seems to connect to your theory.
edit on 31-8-2014 by MichiganSwampBuck because: added extra points

new topics

<< 1    3  4 >>

log in