The Real News delves into the operations of Daesh: who’s funding them, and how they are getting their war matériel. Obviously, the idea that they’re generating their own income is false. Their operations are too expensive to be fueled by a few captured oil wells, and they possess none of the engineering know-how needed to run them anyway. And it seems unlikely that any oil they smuggle could bring in that kind of cash (half a million dollars a week); not only that, but anyone could readily boycott them unless they sold the oil for rates so low that it wouldn’t cover their expenses.
So whose oil money is really financing the terrorist mafia? Kuwait, Qatar, the UAE, Bahrain…and Saudi Arabia. In short, the usual suspects. The last, in particular, supplies not only money, but ideological underpinnings (Wahhabism) to destabilize a region that might otherwise become an oil competitor, not to mention a bastion of modernity (and a threatening example for the Saudis, in particular, who are obsessed with keeping their kingdom in the hands of the vast and convoluted al-Saud clan, and who rely on religious fundamentalism and gross human rights abuses to do so).
And how is that money reaching Daesh? Again, the familiar old way: Illegal hawala money networks. Hawalas in themselves are not unlawful, and there is Koranic sanction for them — but such a network is only as lawful as its users. And in the case of Daesh and its supporters, it is clearly criminal, since all moneys passed on in this manner end up supporting crimes against humanity.
The CIA and the US State Dept. know all this. So, no doubt, do all the key European intelligence agencies. So why are they doing nothing? Could it be because they are all so heavily invested in propping up Israel and the House of Saud (whose sons are now rapidly aging and dying off, with much uncertainty as to who will inherit the throne)? Could it also be because now, it would be too embarrassing to admit that all coalition efforts at régime change — in Iraq initially, and now in Syria — are epic failures? They all seem committed to a course which is not only a losing proposition, but a criminal one. And yet, it is one that is highly profitable for a few: the Saudi royal family, certainly. But not only them. The old Military-Industrial Complex, as ever, has a hand in it; if one were to actually see the make of the weapons Daesh uses, many of them would probably turn out to be made in Israel or the US. Or one of their European allies.
Likewise, the hallmark of the intelligence services is on Daesh’s modus operandi. Trained professional death-squads, waging mass terrorism in the heart of at least two great European cities? Not exactly a ragtag band, are they? These are no illiterate desert camel jockeys, long on fanaticism and short on everything else; these are obviously people who have had extensive intercourse with the spooks. Their uniforms, their gear, their discipline — all of that had to come from somewhere, and I doubt very much that it originated spontaneously in the rubble of BushCo’s ruined Iraq. It all had to come from somewhere outside their purported area of origin. I don’t think they stitched those professional-looking black gimp-suits together themselves, do you?
Most of all, I can’t help feeling that these terror attacks have been permitted to happen for the benefit of certain parties who are not entitled to any such thing. Paris has been heavily policed since the massacre of Charlie Hebdo. French intelligence has been in contact with other European agencies, constantly. They make a big deal out of how intensely they co-operate with, say, the Germans, who alerted them to more than one terror risk in recent months. It seems a bit hard to believe that they could fail at such a critical time: right on the eve of the Paris climate summit.
On the other hand, what more plausible — and conveniently timed — reason to ban the progressive mass demonstrations that the French are so famous for? Already there is talk of banning encryption — the tool of greatest use to those who, like Edward Snowden, have whistles to blow against the intel apparatus. The (allegedly) Daesh-affiliated terrorists did not use encryption themselves, so this is an ominous sign. Claiming peaceful demonstrations (and independent outcry from disaffected agents) to be an inadmissible security risk would effectively quash all protest if the climate summit ends up being yet another big bust. Which, to my ever-cynical eye, it seems right on course to be.
I’d like to hope I’m wrong about all this. But it all looks just a bit too coincidental — and familiar — to be a true coincidence, don’t you think?