Mystery Sponsor Of Weapons And Money To Syrian Mercenary "Rebels" Revealed

Tyler Durden's picture

Previously, when looking at the real underlying national interests responsible for the deteriorating situation in Syria, which eventually may and/or will devolve into all out war with hundreds of thousands killed, we made it very clear that it was always and only about the gas, or gas pipelines to be exact, and specifically those involving the tiny but uber-wealthy state of Qatar.

Needless to say, the official spin on events has no mention of this ulterior motive, and the popular, propaganda machine, especially from those powers supporting the Syrian "rebels" which include Israel, the US and the Arabian states tries to generate public and democratic support by portraying Assad as a brutal, chemical weapons-using dictator, in line with the tried and true script used once already in Iraq.

On the other hand, there is Russia (and to a lesser extent China: for China's strategic interests in mid-east pipelines, read here), which has been portrayed as the main supporter of the "evil" Assad regime, and thus eager to preserve the status quo without a military intervention. Such attempts may be for naught especially with the earlier noted arrival of US marines in Israel, and the imminent arrival of the Russian Pacific fleet in Cyprus (which is a stone throw away from Syria) which may catalyze a military outcome sooner than we had expected.

However, one question that has so far remained unanswered, and a very sensitive one now that the US is on the verge of voting to arm the Syrian rebels, is who was arming said group of Al-Qaeda supported militants up until now. Now, finally, courtesy of the FT we have the (less than surprising) answer, which goes back to our original thesis, and proves that, as so often happens in the middle east, it is once again all about the natural resources.

From the FT:

The tiny gas-rich state of Qatar has spent as much as $3bn over the past two years supporting the rebellion in Syria, far exceeding any other government, but is now being nudged aside by Saudi Arabia as the prime source of arms to rebels.


The cost of Qatar’s intervention, its latest push to back an Arab revolt, amounts to a fraction of its international investment portfolio. But its financial support for the revolution that has turned into a vicious civil war dramatically overshadows western backing for the opposition.


In dozens of interviews with the FT conducted in recent weeks, rebel leaders both abroad and within Syria as well as regional and western officials detailed Qatar’s role in the Syrian conflict, a source of mounting controversy.

Just as Egypt and Libya had their CIA Western-funded mercenaries fighting the regime, so Qatar is paying for its own mercenary force.

The small state with a gargantuan appetite is the biggest donor to the political opposition, providing generous refugee packages to defectors (one estimate puts it at $50,000 a year for a defector and his family) and has provided vast amounts of humanitarian support.


In September, many rebels in Syria’s Aleppo province received a one off monthly salary of $150 courtesy of Qatar. Sources close to the Qatari government say total spending has reached as much as $3bn, while rebel and diplomatic sources put the figure at $1bn at most.


For Qatar, owner of the world’s third-largest gas reserves, its intervention in Syria is part of an aggressive quest for global recognition and is merely the latest chapter in its attempt to establish itself as a major player in the region, following its backing of Libya’s rebels who overthrew Muammer Gaddafi in 2011.

That, sadly, is not even close to half the story. Recall from Qatar: Oil Rich and Dangerous, posted nearly a year ago, which predicted all of this:

Why would Qatar want to become involved in Syria where they have little invested?  A map reveals that the kingdom is a geographic prisoner in a small enclave on the Persian Gulf coast.


It relies upon the export of LNG, because it is restricted by Saudi Arabia from building pipelines to distant markets.  In 2009, the proposal of a pipeline to Europe through Saudi Arabia and Turkey to the Nabucco pipeline was considered, but Saudi Arabia that is angered by its smaller and much louder brother has blocked any overland expansion.


Already the largest LNG producer, Qatar will not increase the production of LNG.  The market is becoming glutted with eight new facilities in Australia coming online between 2014 and 2020.


A saturated North American gas market and a far more competitive Asian market leaves only Europe.  The discovery in 2009 of a new gas field near Israel, Lebanon, Cyprus, and Syria opened new possibilities to bypass the Saudi Barrier and to secure a new source of income.  Pipelines are in place already in Turkey to receive the gas.  Only Al-Assad is in the way.


Qatar along with the Turks would like to remove Al-Assad and install the Syrian chapter of the Moslem Brotherhood.  It is the best organized political movement in the chaotic society and can block Saudi Arabia’s efforts to install a more fanatical Wahhabi based regime.  Once the Brotherhood is in power, the Emir’s broad connections with Brotherhood groups throughout the region should make it easy for him to find a friendly ear and an open hand in Damascus.


A control centre has been established in the Turkish city of Adana near the Syrian border to direct the rebels against Al-Assad.  Saudi Deputy Foreign Minister Prince Abdulaziz bin Abdullah al-Saud asked to have the Turks establish a joint Turkish, Saudi, Qatari operations center.  “The Turks liked the idea of having the base in Adana so that they could supervise its operations” a source in the Gulf told Reuters.


The fighting is likely to continue for many more months, but Qatar is in for the long term.  At the end, there will be contracts for the massive reconstruction and there will be the development of the gas fields.  In any case, Al-Assad must go.  There is nothing personal; it is strictly business to preserve the future tranquility and well-being of Qatar.

Some more on the strategic importance of this key feeder component to the Nabucco pipeline, and why Syria is so problematic to so many powers. From 2009:

Qatar has proposed a gas pipeline from the Gulf to Turkey in a sign the emirate is considering a further expansion of exports from the world's biggest gasfield after it finishes an ambitious programme to more than double its capacity to produce liquefied natural gas (LNG).


"We are eager to have a gas pipeline from Qatar to Turkey," Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani, the ruler of Qatar, said last week, following talks with the Turkish president Abdullah Gul and the prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan in the western Turkish resort town of Bodrum. "We discussed this matter in the framework of co-operation in the field of energy. In this regard, a working group will be set up that will come up with concrete results in the shortest possible time," he said, according to Turkey's Anatolia news agency.


Other reports in the Turkish press said the two states were exploring the possibility of Qatar supplying gas to the strategic Nabucco pipeline project, which would transport Central Asian and Middle Eastern gas to Europe, bypassing Russia. A Qatar-to-Turkey pipeline might hook up with Nabucco at its proposed starting point in eastern Turkey. Last month, Mr Erdogan and the prime ministers of four European countries signed a transit agreement for Nabucco, clearing the way for a final investment decision next year on the EU-backed project to reduce European dependence on Russian gas.


"For this aim, I think a gas pipeline between Turkey and Qatar would solve the issue once and for all," Mr Erdogan added, according to reports in several newspapers. The reports said two different routes for such a pipeline were possible. One would lead from Qatar through Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iraq to Turkey. The other would go through Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and on to Turkey. It was not clear whether the second option would be connected to the Pan-Arab pipeline, carrying Egyptian gas through Jordan to Syria. That pipeline, which is due to be extended to Turkey, has also been proposed as a source of gas for Nabucco.

Based on production from the massive North Field in the Gulf, Qatar has established a commanding position as the world's leading LNG exporter. It is consolidating that through a construction programme aimed at increasing its annual LNG production capacity to 77 million tonnes by the end of next year, from 31 million tonnes last year. However, in 2005, the emirate placed a moratorium on plans for further development of the North Field in order to conduct a reservoir study. It recently extended the ban for two years to 2013.

Specifically, the issue at hand is the green part of the proposed pipeline: as explained above, it simply can't happen as long as Russia is alligned with Assad.

So there you have it: Qatar doing everything it can to promote bloodshed, death and destruction by using not Syrian rebels, but mercenaries: professional citizens who are paid handsomely to fight and kill members of the elected regime (unpopular as it may be), for what? So that the unimaginably rich emirs of Qatar can get even richer. Although it is not as if Russia is blameless: all it wants is to preserve its own strategic leverage over Europe by being the biggest external provider of natgas to the continent through its own pipelines. Should Nabucco come into existence, Gazpromia would be very, very angry and make far less money!

As for the Syrian "rebels", who else is helping them? Why the US and Israel of course. And with the Muslim Brotherhood "takeover" paradigm already tested out in Egypt, it is only a matter of time.

According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, which tracks arms transfers, Qatar has sent the most weapons deliveries to Syria, with more than 70 military cargo flights into neighbouring Turkey between April 2012 and March this year.

Perhaps it is Putin's turn to tell John Kerry he prefer if Qatar was not "supplying assistance to Syrian mercenaries"?

What is worse, and what is already known is that implicitly the US - that ever-vigilant crusader against Al Qaeda - is effectively also supporting the terrorist organization:

The relegation of Qatar to second place in providing weapons follows increasing concern in the West and among other Arab states that weapons it supplies could fall into the hands of an al-Qaeda-linked group, Jabhat al-Nusrah.

Yet Qatar may have bitten off more than it can chew, even with the explicit military Israeli support, and implicit from the US. Because the closer Qatar gets to establishing its own puppet state in Syria, the closer Saudi Arabia is to getting marginalized:

But though its approach is driven more by pragmatism and opportunism, than ideology, Qatar has become entangled in the polarised politics of the region, setting off a wave of scathing criticism. “You can’t buy a revolution,” says an opposition businessman.


Qatar’s support for Islamist groups in the Arab world, which puts it at odds with its peers in the Gulf states, has fuelled rivalry with Saudi Arabia. Qatar’s ruling emir, Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani, “wants to be the Arab world’s Islamist (Gamal) Abdelnasser,” said an Arab politician, referring to Egypt’s fiery late president and devoted pan-Arab leader.


Qatar’s intervention is coming under mounting scrutiny. Regional rivals contend it is using its financial firepower simply to buy future influence and that it has ended up splintering Syria’s opposition. Against this backdrop Saudi Arabia, which until now has been a more deliberate backer of Syria’s rebels, has stepped up its involvement.


Recent tensions over the opposition’s election of an interim prime minister who won the support of Syria’s Muslim Brotherhood has also driven Saudi Arabia to tighten its relationship to the political opposition, a job it had largely left in the hands of Qatar.

What Saudi Arabia wants is not to leave the Syrian people alone, but to install its own puppet regime so it has full liberty to dictate LNG terms to Qatar, and subsequently to Europe.

Khalid al-Attiyah, Qatar’s state minister for foreign affairs, who handles its Syrian policy, dismissed talk of rivalry with the Saudis and denied allegations that Qatar’s support for the rebels has splintered Syria’s opposition and weakened nascent institutions.


In an interview with the Financial Times, he said every move Qatar has made, has been in conjunction with the Friends of Syria group of Arab and western nations, not alone. “Our problem in Qatar is that we don’t have a hidden agenda so people start fixing you one,” he says.

Sadly, when it comes to the US (and of course Israel), it does have a very hidden agenda: one that involves lying to its people about what any future intervention is all about, and the fabrication of narrative about chemical weapons and a bloody regime hell bent on massacring every man, woman and child from the "brave resistance." What they all fail to mention is that all such "rebels" are merely paid for mercenaries of the Qatari emir, whose sole interest is to accrue even more wealth even if it means the deaths of thousands of Syrians in the process.

A bigger read through of the events in Syria reveals an even more complicated web: one that has Qatar facing off against Syria, with both using Syria as a pawn in a great natural resource chess game, and with Israel and the US both on the side of the petrodollars, while Russia and to a lesser extent China, form the counterbalancing axis and refuse to permit a wholesale overthrow of the local government which would unlock even more geopolitical leverage for the gulf states.

Up until today, we would have thought that when push comes to shove, Russia would relent. However, with the arrival of a whole lot of submarines in Cyprus, the games just got very serious. After all the vital interests of Gazprom - perhaps the most important "company" in the world - are suddenly at stake.

Finally, one wonders just what President Obama and Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan were really talking about behind the scenes.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
kill switch's picture

I should be shocked????

quintago's picture

There's a historically relevant reason we support rebels which have proven to be savages and whose execution style killings are well advertised. Natural Resources. Unfortunately for the men and women of our armed forces, Syria will not fall under the leadership of the idiotic Arabs and Turks.

The Israelis see the writing on the wall, and not surprisingly don't want the extremists in power. That's why they attacked the Syrian military base; they didn't want those weapons falling into the hands of the rebels.

Ironic how Israel and Iran are on the same side on this one. They have common interests here, along with the Russians who don't need competition for their gas product.

This is one conflict that is extremely underestimated with regards to its potential to turn into a regional conflageration of epic proportions.

RMolineaux's picture

Quintago  -  I believe you are mistaken in your analysis.  Israel's air attacks so far have been against sophisticated weapons temporarily stored in Syria in transit to Hezbollah, the Shiite force in southern Lebanon which fought Israel to a standstill in a recent conflict.  Hesbollah has been supporting the existing Syrian government.  Israel's intentions are not clear, as they may prefer to support the "known devil" Assad rather than unknown islamist rebels.  Israel knows it can never occupy Syria, but may be attempting, along with the US, to install a new government on the Jordanian model.

LetThemEatRand's picture

FTFM.  Follow the fucking money.  Or gas/oil which is usually one and the same.  The rest is propaganda for the sheep.

LetThemEatRand's picture

This is not my beautiful oil field!

MeMadMax's picture

There's a religous aspect to this that is guiding the pawns on the ground as well. The general population in quatar and syria are predominately Sunni. But however, syria is led by the shiites, and quatar has a sunni kingdom like saudi arabia.

The sunni and shiites kill each other more than what the americans, russians or any other country have, combined...

I say let them kill each other off.......

Element's picture

That makes slightly more sense than the pipeline theory.

What all the pipeline theory affectionados and follow-the-money argumentation seems to forget is that massively destabilizing a region like this leads to one thing;

A massively destabilized region (Libya is just a foretaste of much worse that would occur in Syria).

Now try building and operating a pipeline economically and efficiently and reliably in the aftermath, and see what happens.

Sorry to complicate such a pretty thesis.

Matt's picture

How much geopolitical expertise do the Qatarians, Saudis, et al really have? How much nation building and counter-insurgency have they dealt with? You may be overestimating the competence of some of the players involved.

Element's picture

But that is the very point I made above (and see further down the thread).

The Qataris and Saudis would not be able to deal with the destabilization and damage they created, let alone build and operate a pipeline amid it to supply gas or oil reliably to Europe through it, and protect it and its workers.

At least not for a very long time.

So why would they or are they spending $3 billion defeating their own alleged aim and economic/greed motivation?

They aren't, it makes no economic sense, unless their aim is not (at least not initially) about building a pipeline.

So can we look at the full range of motives, because there is at least one.

[I also don't for one second think its humanitarian sympathy for the Syrian people in operation, have you seen the videos of what their mongrel freedom fighters are doing to people?]

TheFourthStooge-ing's picture


I also don't for one second think its humanitarian sympathy for the Syrian people in operation, have you seen the videos of what their mongrel freedom fighters are doing to people?

You mean the cannibalism, or have they further descended to depths of depravity which approach those of Vichy DC?

Seer's picture

I understand what you're trying to say here, and I agree that on-face it doesn't make sense, BUT... I recall someone in the Bush administration claiming that they'd be fine if everything turned to crap vis a vis the Afghan war.  I believe that the underlying thought is that things are/were already tenuous and were likely only going to get worse, and that one is better to stir the chaos in the direction that is most beneficial for oneself.

Iraq was more about control than in freeing up oil for the markets.  That is, in the short-term oil flow wasn't a biggie; what mattered is that one had their hands on the valves and not some "other."  This is pretty much Russia's stance with Cyprus: it was more important to hold the Cyprus NG reserves off-line than to open up the valves.  If the Russians lose the Cyprus gambit their control over sales to Europe will, eventually*, drop significantly.  This is the same for Qatar.

* Sales are going to keep going down anyway because of continued contractionary forces.  Margins will get toasted.  You know, all the result of economies of scale in reverse.  All the reason why holding on to existing sales levels is SO important.

It's the battle for supremacy of the heroin dealers.  And when it comes down to only one?  And when everyone becomes an addict and then all start to teeter on the most probably outcome of collapse (the outcome for the heroin addict isn't good)?  Strength through exhaustion!

Element's picture

Good point Seer, the Machiavellian aspects may be part of it. Looking at it objectively, there's a huge sectarian element in what's occurring that is rapidly intensifying, but that of course can be a tool used to get the control you mentioned.

Thing is Hezbollah are clever and yet they've been drawn right into this, out of the need to protect their arms sources and routes and thus the Shia status-quo in Damascus. I'd love to fully know what Hezbollah really makes of who and what are behind this 'rebellion'. I've been monitoring their comments and so far they seem to be saying its firstly Israel, then the US/NATO money and training/support and political cover, then the Gulf-State Sunni and Lebanese sectarian fighters have moved in, already intent on wiping out all Shia and Christians from the country, with the Turks and Kurds ready to slice off whatever they can in the north and north east. And all the while, Turkey pretends to not be ratcheting-up and encouraging the violence, whenever it can. 

And this general Hezbollah view, is actually a lot like what RT have also been saying, for months. So are they wrong? Frankly, I have no trouble seeing Israel as being a major actor, instigator and enabler. Israel absolutely wants to eliminate Shia Hezbollah in both south and north east Lebanon, and how better to do that than to set up a full-blown sectarian mass-slaughter, to try and take down all the Shia in Syria and Lebanon, over the next few years of fighting?

I suspect that's how both Damascus, and Russians, and Iran view what's happening.

In which case, what are the Russians, and the Iranians, and potentially the Chinese, going to do about this?

I don't think anyone on the ground is thinking in terms of the geopolitics of pipelines. They all know that its coming down to an epic Shia verses Sunni slaughter, while Israel is set to gain massive strategic benefits from such an ultra-violent slaughter of Shia in Syria and Lebanon. For Israel, this is the next best thing to attacking Iran! And just like Hezbollah were inevitably sucked-in to Syria, the Iranians also will be sucked-in to Syria.

This is very dangerous, in my view.

Then the Russians and Chinese will draw a line, and anything can happen.

Seer's picture

It all comes down to survival, and the world currently depends on the "global economy," in which case nearly all negotiations are based on business dealings.

The folks holding shoulder-rockets are merely marketing fluff.  Oh, sure, they DO exist, but these folks, all this extraneous stuff, is about driving the best deal.

I don't think anyone on the ground is thinking in terms of the geopolitics of pipelines. They all know that its coming down to an epic Shia verses Sunni slaughter, while Israel is set to gain massive strategic benefits from such an ultra-violent slaughter of Shia in Syria and Lebanon. For Israel, this is the next best thing to attacking Iran! And just like Hezbollah were inevitably sucked-in to Syria, the Iranians also will be sucked-in to Syria.

It's not about the people "on the ground."  All have been programmed to do the deeds tasked by their overlords.  Think about Oliver North: the overlords were wanting to capture market in South America (keep the commies out); Ollie and Co. wold proclaim the fighting to be about fighting communism, which at one level WAS correct, but this was only the cloth used to cover the reality that it was not so much about discouraging communism as it was about opening up markets (and, yes, communism doesn't provide for good market opportunities).  This may seem subtle, but it is not.

The POINT is NOT about eliminating others so much as it is about having and controlling resources.  Yes, if one takes resources away from someone else then that clearly leaves the "someone else" in a (more likely) subjugated position.

That tensions are centered in the Israeli/Palestinian struggles cannot be denied.  Further, if one were to really look under the hood one would find that this is all based on resource issues: go ahead, google "Israel water Palestinians"; and we already know that there are tussles for land (also a "resource").

We all get the noise from TPTB and start believing what we hear.  We do NOT get to hear what TPTB are actually saying/planning.  Secularism doesn't have the market cornered as far as a need for resources: ALL power must be able to deliver resources necessary to keep its subjects pacified/controlled.

tango's picture


Syria is a perfect demonstration not of geopolitical wrangling but what happens when a tiny minority religious sect gains secular control over the other 90%.   It was a storm waiting to erupt and is only a continuation of the Shia-Sunni slaughter that has continued for centuries.  Neither considers the other to be true Muslims and have acted accordingly.  Islam has yet to undergo a Reformation / rise of religious tolerance.  In fact, in most areas it is getting worse. 

Sandmann's picture

Time to take over Qatar and Saudi Arabia. Their population can join the Palestinians. Saudi Arabia needs toppling before the Fanatics get control. It is tiresome letting The Family finance Fanatics in The West to keep them away from Riyadh and Jeddah and buying up Western politicians as their patsies.

We should offer Iran and Iraq to Russia and China and take The Gulf and Saudi Arabia into The New Empire

tango's picture

Look for Saudi Arabia - indeed the entire Middle East - to drop in influence and importance as the US oil comes on line.  What possible reason would we care about primitive, tribal religious fanatics in the desert other than their oil.  I see zero contributions to medicine, engineering, finance, science or entertainment from that part of the world. 

TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

Element said:

Now try building and operating a pipeline economically and efficiently and reliably in the aftermath, and see what happens.

Sorry to complicate such a pretty thesis.

Yes, rationally it appears to be a foolhardy plan. Fortunately, the murderous emirs that run Gutter, the apostate shayks that run Arabia, and the soulless ghouls that run the US and Israel would never let greed cloud their good judgement.

Every day, the governments of Gutter, Israel, Arabia, and the US work diligently (and successfully) at making themselves objects of hatred for increasing numbers of people around the world. With so many people justifiably motivated to seek revenge, and so many miles of pipelines passing through remote areas, and so many different weapons being gifted to "freedom fighters" in the region, those pipelines will make some juicy targets of opportunity.

I'd be surprised if the net delivery over ten years surpassed the uninterrupted equivalent of what could be delivered through a garden hose.

And that's only half of it. Gutter has been a gleeful participant in the GCC (Gulf Criminal Caliphate) war against Iran for abiding by the terms of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. When the co-caliphs (US and Israel) decide to attack Iran openly, Iran will respond.

The Iranians have no doubt ascertained that the Liquefied Natural Gas terminals in Gutter, if struck by missiles, would blow up real good.

Element's picture

I can't argue with what you say, because I can't think of any 'rational' reason for what they're doing, except maybe that they're religious extremist kooks on a crusade to wipe-out apostates and wayward Shiite blasphemers, and maybe some hazy pretension about destiny and virgins, or something. But more likely just scads of $$$, and bragging-rights at the Mosque.

For sure Iran is going to smash the Gutter economy and state at some point given what they are doing. And if we had any decency we'd stop them right now, but our Govts are playing the ultimate game of divide 'n conquered, and the average Arab is not bright enough to realize they have bought into a lethal mixture of BS, and swallowed it, hook, line and sinker.

Seer's picture

I think that you're shouldering WAY too much of this on religious divides.

The world is finite.  Because of this there is a limited amount of natural resources.  Most in the ME are one-trick-ponies, in which case their fossil fuels are VERY precious.  The rest of the world which is addicted to fossil fuels, and is broke, is doing what most junkies in need of a fix do- attempt to rob others.  When these reserves drop the one-trick-ponies collapse: the riders/heroin junkies move on to other one-trick-ponies, until, that is, there are no more.

Yeah, there's greed; there's religious views; there's a variety of sub-plots going on.  But, these ALL ride on top of the MAIN DRIVER: we all live on natural resources; our current model DEMANDS fossil fuels.

Be careful of the images that are sewn into minds, as they are fabrications to weave you into a deception, a deception that one is never aware they are part of.

Element's picture

Sure, I know that's correct, no question, nevertheless, it is being organised and expressed, at this point, along clear lines of a sectarian conflict (for now). That can certainly change.

Seer's picture

Maybe it's me, I'm having a hard time keeping track of the players here...

I am commenting based on what I see as the TRUE, rather than MARKETED, reason for these tensions.  There are tons of different marketing stories, but really only ONE true story.  By "true" I am implying that it passes the logic test.

TRUE: Food, Water and Shelter are fundamentals.

Beliefs: People Have to have iCrap

Under "Beliefs" we have what boils down to marketing propaganda.  I will certainly not dispute that many people "on the ground" will make assertions of beliefs and act upon them.  This, of course, does NOT make such assertions true (only thing logically true would be that they believe such, not that it IS such).

The MARKETED story was WMD in Iraq, and this resulted in people "on the ground" signing up to fight "ragheads."  George Washington (of ZH contributor fame) has clearly documented the stated TRUTH by MANY top leaders.

So, it is my contention that the "leaders," the ones who ultimately push the go-buttons (for war) are driven to do so based on strategic reasons having to do with resources and that they SELL such actions based on "beliefs" (marketing fluff, which may or may not be backed by long-running story-lines).

I'd be curious whether anyone could find an example of a war in which case the victor didn't partake of any of he spoils.  I suspect that this could happen, though I find it far more likely that any given war has the victor sucking up spoils.

Element's picture

Seer, you constantly make that point and has any one argued that it isn't so, at a fundamental level? Not that I've seen. To me the resources issue goes without saying, its obvious for all human beings. But it doesn't actually explain much of what happens, and why wars develop in the way that they do.

The Resources argument is much too simplistic and broad-brush to explain almost any of what is happening, day to day, what is actually motivating people to act. For instance, I could rightly say, "Don't you know that during a war the vital resources of life needed to keep one living often plummets, drastically, and stays low or at unsurvivable levels for extended periods?"

So where's the "resource-fight" logic now? So why even start, and then further intensify wars, in a step-wise fashion when it actually removes and eliminates the resources you need now to even live, and wrecks the people and places that you care about deeply?

So "resources", as an argument, does not explain the warfare event itself. It doesn't actually explain almost any of why the war is happening in the way that it does, but that's the understanding level you'd need to be a 'seer', of where it's going.

(BTW, TPTB's packaging and presentation is certainly not what I'm interested in, just the reverse)

Lebensphilosoph's picture

Humans don't ned any reason to want to kill each other.

Seer's picture

Now you've done it, you've brought Ned into this thing.  Damn you!

HardAssets's picture

"Peak Oil" and so many scarcity memes are used to control people. Oil is the second most abundant liquid on the planet, second only to water. Research Russian abiotic oil and gas production. Research the fact that oil fields are 'popping up' in new places all over the world.

they destablize the Middle East and Central Asia in order to disrupt the flow of that on which they base their fiat money (the 'petro-dollar').  Its the reason why they tried to push the 'global warming' fraud.  If oill iisnt really scarce, you can try to limit its use by saying CO2, which we all breath out - is a poison.  They have dumbed down people in public schools long enough to have such an obvious lie be accepted by too many of them.

The West created Al Qeada and runs them. They are using Al Qeada in Syria now and made sure they got anti aircraft missiles. This is tied into the whole Benghazi affair and why their was a stand down. Hint:  missiles, ambassador, kill the messenger

Some people really need to get up to speed on this stuff. The information is all out there. Thats why they hate the internet.

TheFourthStooge-ing's picture


Oil is the second most abundant liquid on the planet, second only to water. Research Russian abiotic oil and gas production.

Why yes, yes of course...

HardAssets's picture

lol   knee jerk reaction to what youve always been 'taught' ?

From USAF Col Fletcher Prouty - - - liason officer to CIA at highest levels of US government:

Do some further research on this topic including the recent work by F William Engdahl and the Russian research I mentioned.

Particularly amusing is the YouTube interviews of Col Prouty where he talks about a petroleum conference he attended with a scientific genius who smashed the arguments of the brain washed geologists who only knew how to parrot what theyd 'learned'

It doesnt take much brains to be a parrot.

TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

Do some further research on flow rates and you might learn why abiotic oil doesn't need to be disproven to be rendered irrelevant.

HardAssets's picture

So what point are you trying to make ?  You believe the 'Peak Oil' meme ?  How about 'Global Warming' ?  How is abiotic oil 'irrelevant' ?  What are your sources ?

Element's picture

It is not a matter of belief, (belief is for the desperate), it is a matter of evidence. (BTW, I've corresponded directly with Beloslav and Tassos long before all the lunatics on the internet got interested in the abiotic oil theory-fad).

Seer's picture

"Peak oil" is based on the notion that the planet is finite.

Do you believe that the planet is infinite?

Do you believe in basic math, exponential functions?

People will look to profit on any side of a trade.  This doesn't make them bad OR good.  I still believe that the market forces DO win out.  Those on the "losing" side conjure up all sorts of cover reasons for their failures, as they need to mute any pain/rage in their investors, and or continue to solicit for investors (could be a scheme- all ARE until there's a realized and proven production output).

Nothing will replace the existing fossil fuels as an energy source allowing for growth.  This means that when conventional fossil fuels hit decline (which they will because the planet is finite) that is it for growth.  It does NOT mean that some other fuel source won't exist, it just means that any such source wouldn't be able to provide for growth, and, there's a possibility that it just is not available in sufficient quantity to achieve economies-of-scale positive margins to support sustained production.

Abiotic oil isn't irrelevant, it's just that it's highly unlikely that it could ever provide energy at the levels that today's conventional fossil fuels do, and unlikely that it would be able to provide for continued growth (exponential growth is a dead-end on a finite planet).

Element's picture

I'm a geologist HA. If I ever find a mantle-sourced igneous granitic pluton with a liquid hydrocarbon pool within it I'll take the abiotic theory very seriously. But given such has never been found, by anyone, ever, and as those are the rock types that originate from below the earth's crust in the mantle, and that oil reservoirs are never found within them, just brine water and their associated hydrothermal systems, then I don't expect I'll ever loose a job for still thinking abiotic oil is a clearly false theory, and not even an interesting or intelligent one. Oil does not just "pop-up" everywhere, all large reservoirs of oil are found within sedimentary trap structures, not within igneous liquid systems at the tops of plutons, and not in deep-origin volcanics, nor their inclusions either.

HardAssets's picture

If youre a Western geologist youre likely already disqualified. It isnt very often that original thinking comes from within the ranks of those who are so good at learning what theyve been taught.

But perhaps you can answer me this. I'd really like to have your viewpoint and I welcome opposing ones well thought out and presented. I'm not a specialist in the field, but logical thought and rational argument are universal, learned skills. They are the foundation on which the scientific method was later built.  I'm not impressed by b.s. or techno-babble designed to intimidate, however. Ad Hominem attacks are boring and a waste of time.  So communicate this in a way that a non-specialist can comprehend. - - - How do you explain extremely deep wells far below where any dinosaurs or other creatures lived ?  Have you read the accounts which attempt to link the volume of oil in existing fields to the amount of organic matter that would have died off and decayed in order to account for the fossil origins theory of oil ?  What is your opinion of this ?  And what is your opinion on the early history of the theory of the fossil origin of oil ?  Do you know that history ?   thanks

Element's picture

Given you're not a geologist your assessment of geology is not significant, is it? And given I'm at zh this should be an indication I'm not a convention mainstream thinker, more a heretic really. So I'm someone more likely to have a look at abiotic oil theories and assess them according to field-relations, petrology and geochemistry. And I did look into it, about 15 years ago, and concluded it was false. I am aware of deep continental drilling programs, the Russians got down to about 10.4km in about 1989 from memory. I know about what has been found and in what structures. But I don't discuss a wall to wall scientific-jargon filled discipline like geology with anyone who does not even have a basis to understand what is being said. It would be like trying to talk to you in another language. Probably no geologist would talk to you in plain English about it, any more than a surgeon is likely to engage in a technical discussion of operating-room techniques with a checkout girl at the local supermarket. She would have no basis to understand what he was saying. So if you're really interested in the topic, you'll have to get a formal education so you can address and assess that yourself, if you still wish to at that point.

Acet's picture

Judging by the downarrow you got, and the uparrows the poster above got, ZH is full of couch-geologists who think they know best.

In fact, the place seems full of people smart enough to know a little bit about lots of little things but having nowhere near enough knowledgable about most of them to know just how much they don't know: Dunning-Kruger Effect at it's best.

What is especially interesting (from a sociological and psychological point of view) is to see how so many of them have solved their internal mental conflict of thinking they know a lot and yet knowing little by saying to themselves that having formal training in an area is actually a bad thing and that all formally trained specialists are part of enormous cabals trying to "hide the truth" from everybody else.


Element's picture

It's because we get invisible blinkers from <Gasp!> education, and once you get infected by the <Gasp!> education meme it's all over, you actually get very rapidly more ignorant than before. Only intensive overdosing on YouTube can bring you back to your senses at that point. I've been told by an expert that I'm a sufferer of Dunning-Kruger Effect, and I'm inclined to agree, but what do I really know. :)

Seer's picture

And I sometimes believe that it's got a lot to do with people unknowingly being victims of self-deception, of so not being able to accept some reality that they construct some other non-reality and rationalize it as reality.

About "education," I was just commenting to a friend about a mutual acquaintance's behavior of not accepting information from others- I said that one isn't born knowing things, that in order for things to happen one has to acquire the knowledge/skill/information from someone else.

I find that many people attempt to do battle against what they don't like, arriving poorly armed and using all sorts of excuses for why they really aren't prepared.  I UNDERSTAND the notion of wanting to do battle against something that isn't liked, but I think that most people (everyone?) are WAY better off NOT battling and to instead use their energy to create/do what they think is right.  And I think that the real crux of the issue is that underneath it all the issue has more to do with folks not knowing really HOW to create/do- it's easier to tear something down than to build something.  I don't think that such people could hold up their own creations to the same levels of scrutiny that they apply to others.

Element's picture

You're firing on all cylinders tonight Seer.  /thumbs up

Seer's picture

" I'm not a specialist in the field, but logical thought and rational argument are universal, learned skills."

Excellent, I agree!

Logical question: Is or is not the planet finite?

Seer's picture

"How do you explain extremely deep wells far below where any dinosaurs or other creatures lived ?"

How do you explain the existence of God?

We can get into a point where there is NO answer.  This mostly happens when we lose track of What Is The Question.

At some point one just has to settle for accepting what IS.  And for those that cannot?  I see no obstructions: people are pretty much free to invest in whatever.

There are claims that there's all kinds of great stuff out on other planets, and while this gets past the problematic issues associated with the FACT that the earth is finite, it still is pretty much meaningless due to basic energy equations (EROEI)- how much energy do you need to assert in order to garner said stuff?

Ask ordinary oil drillers (not the corporate execs or the scientists) what it's like to drill for oil WAY down into the earth.  Deepwater Horizon was something like 35,000' deep.  The equipment and materials necessary for such are put under EXTREME forces (extreme cold and extreme heat).  There ARE limits.  The greater the depths the greater the sophistication of the equipment and materials necessary for extraction.  This also means a LOT more energy costs in the development and manufacture of equipment and materials.

As an investor looking to invest in new energy, please give your best pitch as to why I should invest my money with you instead of say some project to obtain energy sources from another planet?  I need to compare all of this against potential investments in conventional energy.

Nassim's picture


Take a look at the gas pipeline that precipitated the US involvement in Afganistan. Unocal (now part of Chevron) has Karzai as its Afghan partner. Go figure.

Of course, what you wrote about the security of gas pipelines is quite correct. Go tell that to American politicians.

Seer's picture

I think that sometimes the strategy is not so much to "win" as it is to not "lose."  It's control of turf, and perhaps not so much about the control over the ability to secure a pipeline as much as to not allow the "opposition" to do the same (in this case that would be Russia).

Element's picture

Cheers Nassim,

The US Govt is busy with the pullout that you're having when you aren't having a pullout.

Carzeye is going to have his hands full staying alive soon. Stability is not coming back to Afghanistan for years. As soon as the soldiers leave the money is getting pulled from the local economy, and down it will go. But as the war will be officially "over", so the revolution will not be broadcast, etc.

Seer's picture

"Stability is not coming back to Afghanistan for years."

And one has to wonder what "stability" really means here/there!  I suspect that it'll never really be "stable" there given it's perpetual importance as a trade route (Khyber Pass; oil pipelines...).

All that will have been accomplished is to further instill the notion of war.  I'd hope that all NGOs would also disappear (from ALL outside entities, not just the US or the West).

tango's picture

None of those countries (Syria, Iraq, Afghan, etc) can be stable for obvious reason - artificial borders and nationhood is trumped by tribe and religion.  Syria was controlled by a tiny religious minority who controlled all the power jobs (army, secret police, intelligence). Afghanistan is truly a tribal culture with no allegiance to central power. Iraq, outside Baghdad, is the same - warlords, tribes, personal armies. It was absurd to think these areas could be "stabile" except throught authoritarian means. 

Sandmann's picture

Afghan is not a country it is on overlap-zone boredered by  Iran, Pakistan and Central Asia. It is a series of hill tribes that the world passed by and is unevolved

thisandthat's picture

If Syria falls, Jordania will probably be next in line - it's a western pawn regime, and has had more coup attempts than probably all other states in the region combined.

tango's picture

Jordan has shown that she can be ruthless when required.  When the Palestinians tried to overthrow the kingdom, they did not hesitate to slaughter thousands of their fellow brethren.  I doubt that mood has changed. 

thisandthat's picture

Palestinians are refugees; Jordanian regime has been protected by both the US and SA for being pro-western and a monarchy; if things go other way than expected.. or they no longer are important, they'll be on their own against those they're currently feeding in Syria, US stile.