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

Perhaps I have got it wrong all this time.

page: 1

log in


posted on Nov, 19 2015 @ 07:31 PM
I feel like a bit of an idiot.

Well, let me say that again. I Potentially feel like a bit of an idiot.

In the big wide game of conspiracies it's always hard to believe or no believe. Unless we are presented with firm facts accompanied by a photo of someone or something caught in the act we tend to give it a skeptical flick. I too have been tarred with that brush.

Take for instance ISIS,IS, ISIL whatever you want to call them. It would be all so easy to believe what the MSM portrays and be sucked into thinking that these guys started this all alone in response to Asad and his filthy regime.

But something today got me thinking.

Now, I'm not poking the stick at America here, far from it, but they have been a bit oil hungry in the past. All I used to hear was "The war is just about oil" or "They only went there for the oil".

Now what we have is IS gaining funding from profits made on oil and petroleum and this is where it started to click.

Weeks before the attacks that killed 129 people in Paris, U.S. warplanes resumed sorties above Syria and Iraq, targeting anew oil fields and other parts of a vast petroleum infrastructure that fuels—and funds—Islamic State, one of the richest terrorist armies the world has known.

These airstrikes were launched not because U.S. officials were prescient.

They came after the Obama administration found and quietly fixed a colossal miscalculation. U.S. intelligence had grossly overestimated the damage they’d inflicted during airstrikes on the militants’ oil production apparatus last year, while underestimating Islamic State’s oil revenue by $400 million.

According to U.S. Department of the Treasury officials and data they released in the wake of the Paris mayhem, the terrorist group is actually taking in $500 million from oil a year.
What’s more, just a few hours before the first Islamic State suicide bomber blew himself up outside the Stade de France on Nov. 13, U.S. Army Colonel Steve Warren conceded at a press briefing that some American airstrikes disrupted IS oil operations for no more than a day or two.

(Treasury officials, who are charged with leading the administration’s war on Islamic State’s finances, declined to comment specifically on whether Abu Sayyaf’s ledgers were at the root of their new estimates, but the agency has said the figures are extrapolated from the militant group’s oil earnings from a single region in a single month earlier this year.)

The Obama administration “misunderstood the [oil] problem at first, and then they wildly overestimated the impact of what they did,” says Benjamin Bahney, an international policy analyst at the Rand Corp., a U.S. Department of Defense-funded think tank, where he helped lead a 2010 study on Islamic State’s finances and back-office operations based on captured ledgers.

He says the radical revision on oil revenue came after Treasury officials gained new intelligence on Islamic State’s petroleum operations—similar to the ledgers Rand used for its study—following a rare ground assault by American Special Operations Forces this May. U.S. forces, operating deep into the group’s territory in eastern Syria, targeted and killed an Islamic State “oil emir,” a man known by the Arabic nom de guerre Abu Sayyaf, Pentagon officials said at the time.

So, what got stuck in my head was the silly notion that the Americans have been reluctant to place boots on the ground because they wanted IS to do there dirty work for them. i.e. Take over oil installations, develop and maintain them.

I notice that what damage they have inflicted on these installations has been light at best / almost nil damage. Also, the bombing of transporters has also been light in order to minimise disruption.

So my question is, is this proof that IS in a unknowing manipulated puppet of the US and that once the US see's IS has taken control of significant areas of the oil field, they will make their strike and take over said areas?

I can't see how it would play out any other way?

Or......has this been an obvious thing all along and I've been blind?
edit on 19-11-2015 by CaptainBeno because: spelling

posted on Nov, 19 2015 @ 07:36 PM
I look at it this way, the U.S. (Primarily) assumed because they're Muslim they're stupid. If we give them millions in war machinery they use it as war machinery. Never did they stop to consider half, if not all the ISIS moderates they were dealing with not only have a western education but have some business acumen as well, divesting the revenue and strengthening their hand from our tax dollars.

As far as wondering if you've been dumb all along, as yourself one question every time an event unfolds and broadcasted on your TV. Who benefits fro the event? And what is the narrative being used. Once you recognize the narrative being fed to you and you correlate that with who benefits, what you'll discover is every single time the person who benefits is never in line with the narrative given.

Who is being portrayed as the victim? Are they the victim? Did they deserve it? Is it even possible to achieve what is being said. Rationalize it and come to your own conclusion, you don't need us.
edit on 19-11-2015 by Rosinitiate because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 19 2015 @ 07:39 PM
a reply to: CaptainBeno

Saying anything to avoid saying what it really is
isn't saying anything.

edit on Rpm111915v45201500000033 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 19 2015 @ 07:43 PM
a reply to: Rosinitiate

Thank you.

posted on Nov, 19 2015 @ 07:44 PM
a reply to: randyvs

Haha. Yes I see what you mean (I think)
Cheers for the input

posted on Nov, 19 2015 @ 08:12 PM
a reply to: CaptainBeno

You're welcome.

But one last piece of advice, don't take advice from me.

I'm true to my feathers. A dodo through and through.

posted on Nov, 20 2015 @ 08:59 AM
a reply to: CaptainBeno

It's not about is about the N.W.O. and control. Oil is just their cover story.

posted on Nov, 21 2015 @ 09:32 AM
a reply to: Metallicus

The wrestlers!? You're kidding me with this aren't you? Sorry.. I had to.

Oil, gold, control.. homoerotic wrestling.

posted on Nov, 21 2015 @ 09:45 AM

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: CaptainBeno

It's not about is about the N.W.O. and control. Oil is just their cover story.

Agree. It's so much more than oil.

There are no mistakes being made. Everything is going exactly according to plan.

posted on Nov, 21 2015 @ 09:48 AM
The problem with bombing oil installations is they can be replaced with cheap, quick. and primitive. Most of it is under ground, and all you need to fix it is some cheap steal. This the US learned in WW2. Of course they not close to producing what they could if they had modern equipment and they are literally working with pots and fire but they do what they must. The US has change tactics and began going after trucks transporting the stuff but, with that part of the worlds long history of smuggling that is not likely to help to much. Of course looking at ISIS financing has shown oil is only 25% of of their earnings anyway. Taxing the population is the real golden goose.

new topics

top topics


log in