Daesh has used, from the outset, modern weapons and techniques few people know about.
These are weapons resources that only the five largest powers have, three of them are in the EU.
The training of terrorists can only have been carried out by Israeli, North-American or North-European specialists.
How did Daesh buy all this without these contacts?
Who,in the West, would profit by selling training and arms to Daesh?
Three investment funds which have the majority of votes in military equipment manufacturers.
This thesis has now been proven. For nine years the United Kingdom, France and Germany have been reducing their budgets for defense and police equipment.
This displeased the three funds, major shareholders of the manufacturers.
Other countries that also have cut back on their military spending did not account for a huge sales volume compared to these four which also have the best information systems in the world.
It is said that 9/11 could have been avoided, that there were indications of plans for terrorist acts, but that nothing was done.
It is said that many other attacks also could have been avoided, but little was done. Now, after recent terrorist acts in the UK and in France, we find that there already were suspicions about the perpetrators.
"Who in the West, would be interested in selling training and arms to Daesh?
What happened in the US and in most European countries since 9/11was a massive sale of airport equipment to control the public; intelligence agencies could have tracked suspects and individuals of interest for a fraction of the cost, just 1.2%.
US, UK, French and German plants are the largest makers of equipment and weapons.
These countries benefit the most from defence and police spending.
Where do most attacks occur? Why not in Israel, Daesh's greatest enemy? Or in Saudi Arabia, the greatest friend of the four? Or in Turkey, the big target for territory conquest? Or in geostrategic Greece? Athens and Istanbul have populations much larger than Nice and Manchester.
"Why was Trump’s first foreign visit to sell arms to Saudi Arabia? To create jobs in the US, to reduce the use of drugs - to calm tensions between Republican voters and others would fulfill his promise."
Who analysed the best day and best time for these terrorist acts to have the greatest media impact? It was necessary to shift voters to prioritise money for weapons at a time of austerity whcih was imposed by speculative funds that lent more than was prudent to fund high public spending 0over the last decades.
Why London? It was precisely London that cut its budget for weapons and police equipment. Israel's weapons budget is already large, it has never been reduced as is the Turkish budget. Greece has no funding for more weapons.
Are these diabolic thoughts? Only those who know personally the managers of these speculative funds can evaluate these beings. Are they humans?
A scientific research paper by Hannes Grassegger and Mikael Krogerus shows how Alexander Nix of Cambridge Analytics manipulates TV messages.
“This company helped Trump win the election" said the Spectator, “funded by secretive hedge-fund billionaire Robert Mercer."
In which companies does this fund have the majority of votes? Easy to answer!
Trump made many promises in his campaign. Why now has he focused on selling weapons while requiring NATO to pay for them?
Could they sell more weapons to the drug cartels without these conflicts? What is key for those in charge, security or money?
Could Daesh have managed to engineer all this without the support of western strategists?
Jack Soifer, 2017
Comments
Arms Manufactures need wars to replenish sales and stocks. Odd that we go looking for weapons of mass destruction in the middle east. Yet we find nothing to surgest they were ever there.. .
TO COIN AN OLD PHRASE YOU REAP WHAT YOU SO...