It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Get it? Got it? Good !!
Originally posted by sueloujo
Iran is backing Assad. Gulf States are against Assad.
Assad is against the Muslim Brotherhood. Muslim Brotherhood and Obama are against General Sisi.
But.. Gulf States are pro Sisi..which means they are against Muslim Brotherhood.
Iran is pro Hamas, but Hamas is backing Muslim Brotherhood.
Obama is backing Muslim Brotherhood, yet Hamas is against the U.S.
Gulf States are pro U.S....but Turkey is with Gulf States against Assad yet Turkey is pro Muslim Brotherhood against General Sisi and General Sisi is being backed by the Gulf States.
Get it? Got it? Good !!
Assad is against the Muslim Brotherhood
Muslim Brotherhood and Obama are against General Sisi.
Obama is backing Muslim Brotherhood, yet Hamas is against the U.S.
Iran is pro Hamas, but Hamas is backing Muslim Brotherhood.
Gulf States are pro U.S.
Turkey is with Gulf States against Assad yet Turkey is pro Muslim Brotherhood against General Sisi and General Sisi is being backed by the Gulf States.
Gulf States are pro U.S
Originally posted by sueloujo
reply to post by Lone12
I didn't want to get too deep!
LENDING
Syria : Lending By Volume (Millions Of US Dollars)
The World Bank does not have any recent lending to Syria.
World Bank
Delayed Article IV Consultation with Syria
Press Release No .13/294
August 2, 2013
On July 26, 2013 the Executive Board of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) was informed that there could not be a briefing to the Board with an assessment of economic developments and policies in Syria, whose Article IV consultation is delayed by 26 months, due to a lack of adequate information that would allow staff to make such an assessment.
International Monetary Fund
^ see who's not a member and see where recent wars are ?
Role in banking supervision
The BIS provides the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision with its 17-member secretariat, and with it has played a central role in establishing the Basel Capital Accords of 1988 and 2004. There remain significant differences between United States, European Union, and United Nations officials regarding the degree of capital adequacy and reserve controls that global banking now requires. Put extremely simply, the United States, as of 2006, favoured strong strict central controls in the spirit of the original 1988 accords, while the EU was more inclined to a distributed system managed collectively with a committee able to approve some exceptions.
The UN agencies, especially ICLEI, are firmly committed to fundamental risk measures: the so-called triple bottom line and were becoming critical of central banking as an institutional structure for ignoring fundamental risks in favour of technical risk management.
Bank for International Settlements
A characteristic of the global financial and economic crisis that erupted in 2008 is that central banks have usurped the role of policy maker in sovereign states from the politicians. In the absence of coherent economic and fiscal policies in the United States, Japan, the eurozone and United Kingdom, central bankers have employed their power over the printing press with unprecedented vigor, unleashing a tidal wave of liquidity in a desperate effort to stave off a global economic depression. With the manipulative aplomb of a snake charmer, they have sought to push down interest rates to a point where short-term rates in most advanced economies are at virtually zero, while arousing confidence from investors and consumers who would have otherwise have little to cheer about.
The central bankers, in the minds of many, are the heroes of the economic crisis, supposedly saving the global economy from credit atrophy and demand destruction while the feckless politicians stood by helplessly. In case you would otherwise be unaware of the supposedly epic achievement performed by the central bankers, they have engaged themselves in a massive public relations drive during the crisis, paralleling their mega-liquidity dumps, seeking to persuade the public that central banks have become the new temples of salvation in an otherwise bleak economic and fiscal dystopia.
Have Central Banks Gone Too Far? A Warning From the Bank for International Settlements
Originally posted by sueloujo
Iran is backing Assad. Gulf States are against Assad.
Assad is against the Muslim Brotherhood. Muslim Brotherhood and Obama are against General Sisi.
But.. Gulf States are pro Sisi..which means they are against Muslim Brotherhood.
Iran is pro Hamas, but Hamas is backing Muslim Brotherhood.
Obama is backing Muslim Brotherhood, yet Hamas is against the U.S.
Gulf States are pro U.S....but Turkey is with Gulf States against Assad yet Turkey is pro Muslim Brotherhood against General Sisi and General Sisi is being backed by the Gulf States.
Get it? Got it? Good !!