Sec Kerry just said ISIL is being funded by a Mozul bank they took over and by selling oil...

[ChisolmTrailDem]

He was asked point-blank by Sen Durbin how ISIL was being funded. Kerry flat out said that ISIL was not being state-funded.

So, what of the recent posts here in GD (as an OP and subthreads) that pin the rise of ISIL on Saudi Arabia?

According to this hearing, Saudi Arabia is our ally and King Abdullah has sworn his allegiance to the coalition and has offered whatever assistance we need.

Anyone else following this hearing with Sec Kerry?

[gordianot]

1. Those who buy the oil are also a problem.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

2. Durbin tried to suss that out but Kerry danced around it. Durbin wanted to know what countries were

buying the oil and Kerry mumbled something about borders and trucks and such.

[Aerows]

3. I agree.

Who is buying oil from them?

ETA: And what funds and methods of transport are they using in these transactions? Somebody with an IQ over 50 should know, being as physically moving large quantities of oil isn't exactly like dealing cocaine.

It seems to me that would be the place to start cutting off the head of the snake rather than confronting them with our military.

I do not believe for one moment that no one knows who is purchasing the oil and how it is getting from point A to point B.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

6. Sen Markey just flat out said, as if matter-of-fact, that the oil is going out at the rate of $1-3ml

into .... Turkey.

For what it's worth.

[Aerows]

7. Aren't they supposed to our allies?

With friends like that ...

[amandabeech]

10. Turkey is our NATO ally,

but they are of no help in this case.

They are trying to get rid of Assad and will support, sort of, anyone who will do that.

They also have 40-some diplomatic personnel from their Mosul consulate who are being held as hostages by ISIS/L, including the families of diplomats.

They also don't want to empower the Kurds, who control the southeastern portion of their country. They are afraid that the Turkish Kurds will want to join the Iraqi and Syrian Kurds in forming a new country of Kurdistan.

It's all very murky.

[Glimmer of Hope]

16. There must be a way to stop them, right?

[Aerows]

17. You would think

being as they are a NATO ally. I don't understand why we don't try something other than going in and bombing the place or arming others to shoot the place up instead of ... I don't know, something diplomatic and economic? The oil doesn't get there via the oil fairy.

[amandabeech]

19. Stop who?

Assad, ISIL, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Turkey, the Kurds?

A part of me just wants to send all of them to some sort of cram course in basic manners and conflict management.

[Aerows]

20. I'd like to do that

and send some of our own politicians and personnel that haven't met a war they didn't like along with them.

[amandabeech]

22. Sounds good! n/t

[Historic NY]

21. Time to target the trucks...

the oil trail is the money trail.

[Thav]

27. They don't have "ISLAMIC STATE PETROLEUM" painted on the side

The oil is sold because it has paperwork that looks legit. So the oil looks like its coming from an official source. From a report I heard on NPR, the oil is in trucks with forged or false paperwork. But that really doesn't explain how the money is getting to the extremists. I'm pretty sure a driver isn't handed a case full of cash for the oil. Maybe they are.

However it's happening, stop the money and you stop the group.

[Aerows]

4. I don't know about you

but I've seen the logistics involved in transporting large quantities of oil and gas. It takes a little bit more infrastructure than selling pot or a used car.

You need LARGE moving storage containers to sell oil to the tune of $1 million a day, and you need partners willing to buy it from you. Oil doesn't just suddenly reappear somewhere else without anybody noticing that it was moved. Common sense would tell you that if our CIA *doesn't* know who is buying it and how it is getting there, then we are spending WAY too much damn money on people that can't figure it out.

The whole thing stinks.

[wandy]

5. So.... The ISIS war machine is funded by OIL............

History does repeat itself now doesn't it.
We used to know what to do when someones war machine was dependent on Oil.

Bombing Raid on Ploesti, 1943

Ploesti was a vast complex of oil refinery facilities located some 30 miles north of Bucharest, Romania. It supplied an estimated sixty percent of the refined oil necessary to keep the German war machine running. In the words of Winston Churchill, Ploesti was "the taproot of German might." It was a strategic target whose destruction allied planners hoped would deliver a severe blow to Germany's ability to carry on the war.

http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/ploesti.htm

Of course we would never do that today. Some of the real forces both domestic and multinational that set U.S. policy would become extremely unhappy. It would be considered an unprovoked attack on British Petroleum.
War is a bad thing but if you must, it is not a sport. The only rule is to not loose. Their are no winners.

[Anansi1171]

8. Cant provide the links right now, but ISIS was being...

...funded by wealthy conservative(Wahhabi) private donors from the gulf arab states, at least up until the fall of Mosul.

ETA: They are the second "existential threat" to the US, funded largely by wahhabi gulf money.

[Aerows]

9. Likely still are

This is about Saudi Arabia wanting to off Assad but insisting that the US get our hands dirty instead of their own.

[amandabeech]

11. Ironically, Assad and the Iranians really want to fight ISIL.

The new Iraqi PM announced today that he did not want foreign troops (meaning Saudis and other Sunni Arabs) in his country but would like to partner with Assad and Iran to fight ISIL.

The majority of Iraqi Muslims are Shia, like the Iranians, and are in alliance with the Alawite Shia offshoot in Syria, of which Assad is a member.

The Gulf States including Saudi Arabia are Sunni, like ISIL.

We want to work with the Sunnis but not the Shia because of the US gov. opposition to Syria and Iran, even though those two countries are the most opposed to ISIL.

[Aerows]

12. What a mess.

Let's plunge right in and start arming everyone while hoping it will turn out okay.

[amandabeech]

15. I don't see much possibility for a positive outcome for the US here.

Add to everything going on there the fact that Hagel and the Joint Chiefs don't seem to be on the same page as Obama and Kerry with respect to ground troops. The former seem to think that we'll probably have to put some in and the latter deny it.

All I can say is, "Just don't do it, guys."

[Aerows]

18. You and me both! n/t

[karynnj]

25. I seriously do not see a gap between Hagel and Kerry and Obama

The biggest difference is that Hagel and the Joint Chiefs were hit with hypothetical situations -- and they answered that there could be situations that could lead to ground troops.

The point is that ground troops are NOT in the current plan and there are good reasons for that. The difference is that the administration is now using the "we won't discuss hypothetical possible situations" rather than refusing to rule out - under every possible circumstance, even if unforeseen.

[amandabeech]

26. What you write sounds correct,

but it's not what the media is saying, as I'm sure you're aware.

[Anansi1171]

14. I agree wholeheartedly. My conjecture is to watch

..the ground game: the mobilizations for ISIS by the US and for the Ukraine by Russia (what, like the third "humanitarian convoy" rolls into Eastern Ukraine this week).

Assad is a proxy for Russia and Iran and ISIS sure provides good excuse to launch NATO strikes in Syria. ISIS also provides a convenient excuse for the US Military to stage in Iraq for strikes in Iran ( and into Eurasia). This is open source and well documented planning from the Global War on Terror.

In brief since I must go, its too convenient. This is not Michael Corleone bemoaning that every time I get out, they keep pulling me back in.

This is everything the Project for a New American Century wanted. They just had to send the script back for rewriting a few times.

[Dems to Win]

13. Nice fairy tale Kerry is peddling

ISIS was not self-funding in the beginning; they got their seed money from the Saudis, courtesy of Bandar Bush.

From The Atlantic :
" Qatar’s military and economic largesse has made its way to Jabhat al-Nusra, to the point that a senior Qatari official told me he can identify al-Nusra commanders by the blocks they control in various Syrian cities. But ISIS is another matter. As one senior Qatari official stated, “ISIS has been a Saudi project.”

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/06/isis-saudi-arabia-iraq-syria-bandar/373181/

Both the Saudi state and rich Saudis fund the mosques and madrassas worldwide that teach boys to kill for Allah.

IF the Saudi king is on board with destroying ISIS, then there is no need for US involvement. Saudi Arabia has plenty of US-supplied aircraft and weapons; let the Saudis fight and beat ISIS.

I am disgusted that US troops are once again putting their lives on the line to save royal Saudi butt. I am not buying the nicery-nice lies about the Saudis that Kerry is spouting.

[karynnj]

24. Kerry's response began - "At this point, we don't believe it IS state funded ..."

Last edited Thu Sep 18, 2014, 11:27 AM - Edit history (1)

Note that is speaking of the present point in time. In fact, one of the things that Kerry was sent to the middle east was to get the countries to first stop ANY support - funding or encouraging people to join. Note that Kerry is NOT saying that no one in the area ever gave them money. He was speaking of the current situation.

The rest of his answer dealt with the oil smuggled out and the bank. He also spoke of money being sent via various media, including internet appeals - and that they were working to stop that.

Here is the link - start at 2:10 or so to get the Durbin question and Kerry answer. http://www.foreign.senate.gov/hearings/united-states-strategy-to-defeat-the-islamic-state-in-iraq-and-the-levant

PS Listening to the early responses, Kerry did speak of the history in response to Menendez and Corker at the very beginning. He then did speak of how some of the countries in the region - in an attempt to fund the strongest opponents to Assad DID fund both Al Nusra (which is AQ) and ISIL.

In context, that is why his response to Durbin was about where we are at this point in time. That makes sense as the solution has to include stopping the region's support - financially and in giving any encouragement - of ISIL and getting them to make a complete 180 on ISIL to lead the challenge against them. That is why he was speaking of trying to stop any efforts they have to raise money and the concern on their getting money from areas they won and through smuggling.

[karynnj]

23. Kerry's response began - "At this point, we don't believe it IS state funded ..."

Note that is speaking of the present point in time. In fact, one of the things that Kerry was sent to the middle east was to get the countries to first stop ANY support - funding or encouraging people to join. Note that Kerry is NOT saying that no one in the area ever gave them money.

The rest of his answer dealt with the oil smuggled out and the bank. He also spoke of money being sent via various media - and that they were working to stop that.