Guest essay by Eric Worrall
h/t JoNova – The Ecologist speculates that the aim of the ISIS terrorists, who have claimed responsibility for the recent Paris terrorist atrocity, might have been aimed at protecting ISIS’ oil business from an anticipated new climate agreement.
According to The Ecologist;
Is it a coincidence that the terrorist outrage in Paris was committed weeks before COP21, the biggest climate conference since 2009? Perhaps, writes Oliver Tickell. But failure to reach a strong climate agreement now looks more probable. And that’s an outcome that would suit ISIS – which makes $500m a year from oil sales – together with other oil producers.
…
But we must also ask: Why Paris? And why now?
Yes, France has been especially active in its air strikes against ISIS in Syria. And yes, there there is a huge reservoir of discontent among the socially excluded youth of the banlieue, the concrete jungle of impoverished outer suburbs that surround Paris and other big cities – where ISIS can perhaps find willing recruits to its ranks.
But is that all? In just a few weeks time, the COP21 climate conference will take place, in Paris, the biggest such event since COP15 in Copenhagen six years ago. The event offers the world a desperately needed opportunity to reduce its carbon emissions and limit global warming to 2C.
And that’s surely something the attackers, or at least their (presumably) ISIS commanders, must know all about.
Read more: The Ecologist
This line of reasoning is deeply flawed. ISIS are not a legitimate supplier of oil, they are oil smugglers. If a future climate agreement were to place a prohibition on oil, or slap on a massive global carbon tax, the black market price of oil would skyrocket – groups like ISIS would make a fortune, helping oil consumers avoid carbon taxes which legitimate providers would have to pay. It seems much more likely that ISIS didn’t know or didn’t care about the COP 21 climate conference, or who knows – perhaps the recent atrocity was just a prelude, a distraction from a much bigger planned attack on world leaders, when they gather in Paris.
The Green party spokesloon says it was all the Jews and Big oil’s fault.
http://order-order.com/2015/11/18/official-green-party-spokesman-isis-funded-by-rothschilds/
A rare glimpse in the mindset of the alarmists. There’s a word for it in the dictionary: “deranged”.
“All of the attackers from Friday’s massacre in Paris so far have been identified as European Union nationals, according to a top EU official.”
http://www.mintpressnews.com/all-paris-attackers-identified-so-far-are-european-nationals-not-refugees/211347/
ralfellis
November 18, 2015 at 2:04 am
Shooting up Parisians is quite a logical act for ISIS.
Eventually the world will end, before that there will be a war where the unbelievers are united against the Caliphate.
The more countries that unite against ISIS and swarm over them, the more likely the final war and defeat of the unbelievers.
This will come to pass and will prefigure the end of the world.
So ISIS is acting to bring about the world’s end, Armageddon,which justifies their actions.
So, which country will be the first to step up and cut off the ISIS oil field revenues of half a Billion Dollars, by bombing the oil fields?
@simple-touriste
“November 21, 2015 at 8:29 pm
Why do you need a transcript of conspirational ramblings?”
I’m guessing you’re referring to the interview I described above.
1. I like to know what’s going on before forming a judgment. I can’t imagine how an intelligent person can consider a conversation they can’t understand “boring” and “conspirational [sic] ramblings”.
2. it interests me to see what a journalist in Germany can say on a broadcast without losing his job or career.
But I’m also interested in the psychopathology of “skeptics” who have no problem swallowing whole their government’s conspiracy stories about enemy countries and groups, yet consider the same government liars and cheats when it comes to the “skeptic”s own favourite hobby horse.
Anyone having even a nodding acquaintance with the history of Europe over the last millenium knows that governments are not only the target of conspiracies, but hatch their own regularly. Why is it that these pseudo-skeptics only apply the term “conspiracy theory” to suspicions directed at their own government and its allies?
Seems to me this is simply shamelessly sucking up to Big Brother, except when it’s actually Big Brother’s little paid helpers spreading the word.
Heard of Wikileaks yet?
“swallowing whole their government’s conspiracy stories about enemy countries and groups”
like what?
“that governments are not only the target of conspiracies, but hatch their own regularly”
like what?
“it interests me to see what a journalist in Germany can say on a broadcast without losing his job or career”
Journalists can host this kind of buffoons in most countries. Not a problem.