Are we sure we want to start World War III?

Are we sure we want to start World War III?

By Dark Politricks

This is the question we should be debating when we talk about Syria, especially after this latest chemical weapon attack.

So far the claims that the attack was carried out by President Assad's forces have not been proved and seeing that the history of previous claims has actually led to the door of the rebels we should be wary about jumping in head first.

Why President Assad would attack defenceless woman and children with chemical weapons instead of the rebel forces I have no idea.

He knows that Obama and the west has made "chemical weapons" their red line and even though we have backtracked from storming into Syria on previous occasions we have been funding and supporting the rebels covertly for some time now.

However with politicians in the USA, UK and France all getting war crazy after the latest attack we should be very wary of attacking Syria without 100% proof that:

a) Assad was behind the attacks and

b) We are prepared to see high-tech Russian made missiles flying all over the middle east.

Rep. Eliot Engel, D-N.Y., the top Democrat on the House Foreign Relations Committee, is telling TV stations that Obama should ignore the War Powers Act, as he did over Libya and go straight into Syria first and ask Congress for permission later.


And the UK's foreign secretary, William Hague, is indicating that the axis of war, USA, UK and France could go it alone in Syria without consent from the UN. He told the BBC today that:

"Diplomacy has not worked in Syria" and that:

"We, the United States, many other countries including France, are clear that we can't allow the idea in the 21st century that chemical weapons can be used with impunity," as well as implying that military action could be taken “without complete unity on the UN Security Council” and stressed that such action would be “in accordance with international law”.

He also parroted the official line, that has yet to be proven, that the main suspect behind the attack is indeed the Syrian regime and there was “no other plausible explanation”.

Obviously this is biased and playing to one point of view, a western imperialist one, that ignores past facts and uncomfortable truths about the nature of the rebels we are so eager to back in Syria.

An earlier independent UN investigation into the use of chemical weapons by the former Swiss attorney-general Ms Del Ponte suggested that previous chemical weapon attacks were carried out by Syrian rebels NOT the forces of President Assad.

She claimed that there was “strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof” that the rebels had used the nerve gas Sarin. However this point of view was obviously dismissed out of hand by the axis of war as it didn't fit their desired outcome.

I can only suspect that the "independent" investigators sent to examine recent claims of a chemical weapon attack have been picked more "thoroughly" this time.

This comes on top of a recent raid by Turkish security forces who found a 2 kg cylinder filled with sarin gas after searching the homes of Al-Nusra Syrian militants. The raid was carried out in the southern provinces of Adana and Mersia and the gas was allegedly going to be used to carry out a chemical attack in the southern Turkish city of Adana.

Russia Today, although not exactly fair and biased when it comes to their allies, as is the BBC, FOX or CNN, recently reported that the Syrian army had found a huge chemical weapons factory just outside Damascus.

Obviously this news wasn't reported much on western TV.


We also have proof that talk of a "false flag" attack to pin blame on Assad and make an attack on Syria possible is not so far-fetched after all.

Hacked emails from defense contractor Britam revealed a plan which was apparently “approved by Washington” and funded by Qatar, to stage a chemical weapons attack in Syria.

This false flag attack is something many people have warned about and it would provide the war mongers the perfect excuse to start their next war of distraction. If you haven't seen this point of view being espoused on mainstream media then you are getting your news from the wrong sources, alternative media sites have been talking about this possibility for years now.

I most recently talked about our hypocrisy in supporting al-Qaeda linked terrorists in Syria, which follows on from our support of them in Libya, Kosovo and back into time.  It seems we are fond of using al-Qaeda as the bogeyman to strip our liberties at home but support them in any way possible to destabilise our enemies abroad.

Washington's Blog gave a great breakdown on the doubt cast about the recent chemical weapons attack recently and included quotes from experts in chemical weapons use.

John Hart, head of the Chemical and Biological Security Project at Stockholm International Peace Research Institute said he had not seen the telltale evidence in the eyes of the victims that would be compelling evidence of chemical weapons use.

“Of the videos that I’ve seen for the last few hours, none of them show pinpoint pupils… this would indicate exposure to organophosphorus nerve agents,” he said.

Gwyn Winfield, editor of CBRNe World magazine, which specialises in chemical weapons issues, said the evidence did not suggest that the chemicals used were of the weapons-grade that the Syrian army possesses in its stockpiles.

“We’re not seeing reports that doctors and nurses… are becoming fatalities, so that would suggest that the toxicity of it isn’t what we would consider military sarin. It may well be that it is a lower-grade,” Winfield told AFP.

Even the Israeli paper Haaretz cast doubts on the Syrian army being behind the attack.

Western experts on chemical warfare who have examined at least part of the footage are skeptical that weapons-grade chemical substances were used.

Dan Kaszeta, a former officer of the U.S. Army’s Chemical Corps and a leading private consultant, pointed out a number of details absent from the footage so far: “None of the people treating the casualties or photographing them are wearing any sort of chemical-warfare protective gear,” he says, “and despite that, none of them seem to be harmed.” This would seem to rule out most types of military-grade chemical weapons.

Additional questions also remain unanswered, especially regarding the timing of the attack, being that it occurred on the exact same day that a team of UN inspectors was in Damascus to investigate earlier claims of chemical weapons use.

It is also unclear what tactical goal the Syrian army would have been trying to achieve, when over the last few weeks it has managed to push back the rebels who were encroaching on central areas of the capital. But if this was not a chemical weapons attack, what then caused the deaths of so many people without any external signs of trauma?

So it seems that despite doubts by many, the axis of war are scheming and getting ready it seems to launch another war in breach of international law. We should be thinking twice about the consequences of such actions as it could be the "big war of distraction" that many have been waiting for.

Russia has already claimed it would supply advanced missile systems to Syria including missiles that "never miss their target", and whilst Putin has claimed that Israel wouldn't be attacked if they stayed out of the conflict it is obvious by their attacks into Syria so far that this would be unlikely.

Therefore a full-scale war with Iran, Syria, Hezbollah and maybe Russia on one side, with the axis of war, Israel, al-Nusra Front, al-Qaeda and the Free Syrian Army on the other seems likely.

Even I had to read that sentence a few times when I wrote it!

Are we really prepared to fight alongside al-Qaeda linked rebels? The same people we blame for 9.11 and the war on terror?

Are we prepared to go to war to support the same sort of people who beheaded a UK soldier, Lee Rigby, on the streets of London only months back? People like these?




And Russia isn't going to play nice this time.

Putin has passed on diplomatic messages to the axis of war claiming that they will supply weapons that have never been seen in the Middle East before.

These will include top of the range, S 400 system has a range of over 400 miles and is considered more than a decade ahead of the most advanced US counterpart. Syria is already, along with Iran, likely to have the older S 300 missile system installed and ready for use.

Russian S-400 Missile System

Russian Barrel 24 Launchers

It seems that years ago the Soviets and then Russians, adopted a new tactic, instead of the cold war, gun for gun, tank for tank race with NATO. Instead of building and maintaining a huge expensive arsenal they instead looked for weaknesses in their opponents defences and then came up with ways to exploit them.

It seems that with their new range of missiles that they may have done that, although I'm sure with the amount of money the USA spends on its military it won't have sat back and just allowed the Russians to implement superior weapons that could defeat them.

However from talk on various military and defence sites it does seem that the Russian's do have some of the top anti-ship missile technology available on the planet at the moment.

Missiles such as the SS-N-22 "Sunburn" which has a speed of Mach 2.5 or 1500 miles an hour, uses stealth technology and has a range up to 130 miles. They also have the "Yakhonts",  SSN-X-26 cruise missile which has a range of 185 miles and could make all US / NATO ships in the Persian Gulf or Mediterranean vulnerable to attack.

Whilst the US has been installing new anti-aircraft missile defence systems the missiles they are likely to face have never been tested in combat in real situations therefore until that time comes theoretical debates on defence system websites will be just that.

However despite the two armies never having actually "faced off", so to speak, if the war in Syria heats up enough we might be crazy enough to see who's missile system really is the best.

Are we really willing to risk a possible World War just to support a civil war we have no right being involved in?

Are we prepared to be called "hypocrites" again for breaching international law, ignoring the UN and choosing who can and can't start wars in the world?

And do we really want to risk a major war all on unproven evidence of a chemical weapons attack that in all likelihood was a staged attack by the rebels?

It seems that whenever a big peace talk, convention or inspection in Syria is about to happen a new "major crime against humanity" just happens to occur. Is this just luck or are the Syrian rebels trying to force our hand by using false flag attacks to pin the blame on Assad?

Before we are willing to risk the lives of millions shouldn't our politicians be 100% sure that their facts over this attack are right first?  

View the orginal article Are we ready to go to war with Russia over Syria? at darkpolitricks.com.