Let's Start World War III! Get ready To Rumble!

Mictlantecuhtli · February 11, 2016, 2:21pm

Still, I don’t understand why nobody hasn’t bombed out the New York Stock Exchange while it is in full occupying session.

I don’t understand why nobody hasn’t assassinated a Federal Reserve Chairman yet with a high powered sniper assault rifle.

I don’t understand why nobody hasn’t open fire on a Goldman Sachs bank killing a bunch of its employees with a vice president or CEO involved.

Meno2 · February 11, 2016, 2:25pm

Maybe because they still recall the sad fate of the unibomber!

Mictlantecuhtli · February 11, 2016, 2:26pm

Maybe but really at this point whoever fires the first shot would be providing a real public service.

Mictlantecuhtli · February 11, 2016, 2:31pm

K: says the psychopath who needs long term psychology help.

Kropotkin
[/quote]
Yes, yes, you certainly like calling me a bunch of names.

What I’ve noticed however is that you always stray away from a debate or argument with me.

The reason for this is because you have nothing in your mental arsonal to even compete against me with. You have nothing.

Moreno · February 11, 2016, 2:42pm

You haven’t done this and you seem to have a high estimation of your own abilities.
So you can look at the reasons why you have not done these things and get some good guesses about why others have not.

Mictlantecuhtli · February 11, 2016, 3:35pm

Alas, I would need manpower, military high grade arms, and the financing to pull off such an operation. I unfortunately have none of the above at the moment. If I did however…

I’m just dreaming of individuals with those resources that might pull those things off in my absence.

I mean, there has to be somebody, right?

Mictlantecuhtli · February 11, 2016, 4:40pm

Saudi Arabia Makes “Final” Decision To Send Troops To Syria As US, Russia Spar Over Aleppo Strikes

As you might have heard, the opposition in Syria is in serious trouble.

Last summer, Bashar al-Assad’s army was on the ropes, as the SAA fought a multi-front war against a dizzying array of rebel forces including ISIS. Then Quds commander Qassem Soleimani went to Russia. After that, everything changed.

As of September 30 the Russian air force began flying combat missions from Latakia, rolling back rebel gains and paving the way for a Hezbollah ground offensive. Once Moscow had stopped the bleeding for the SAA (both figuratively and literally), Iran called up Shiite militias from Iraq who, alongside Hassan Nasrallah’s forces, pushed north towards Aleppo.

Now, the city is surrounded and the rebels are cut off from their supply line to Turkey. In short: it’s just a matter of time before the opposition is routed.

So much for President Obama’s “Russia will get itself into a quagmire” line.

The only thing that can save the rebels at this juncture is a direct intervention by the groups’ Sunni benefactors including Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar, and Turkey.

That, or an intervention by the US.

Both the Saudis and the Turkey have hinted at ground invasions over the past two weeks and just this morning, a sokesman said Riyadh’s decision to send in troops was “final.”

But direct interventions are tricky. Russia has never denied it intends to bolster Syrian government forces against the rebels, all of whom Moscow deems “terrorists.” On the other hand, Washington, Riyadh, Doha, and Ankara cling to the notion that while they don’t support Assad, they’re primary goal is to fight ISIS. Well ISIS is in Raqqa, which is nowhere near Aleppo, meaning there’s no way to help the rebels out in their fight against the Russians, Iranians, and Hezbollah under the guise of battling Islamic State.

Against that backdrop we found it interesting that Moscow and Washington are now delivering conflicting accounts of airstrikes in Aleppo on Wednesday. The Pentagon, without specifying what time the strikes allegedly took place, says Russia destroyed the city’s two main hospitals.

Defence Ministry spokesman Igor Konashenkov notes that Warren didn’t provide either hospitals’ coordinates, or the time of the airstrikes, or sources of information. “Absolutely nothing,” he said, describing Warren’s report.

The Kremlin, on the other hand, says US warplanes conducted strikes at 1355 Moscow time. “Two U.S. Air Force A-10 attack aircraft entered Syrian airspace from Turkish territory,” Konashenkov said in a statement. “Reaching Aleppo by the most direct path, they made strikes against objects in the city.”

“Only aviation of the anti-ISIS coalition flew over the city yesterday,” he added.

“When asked on Wednesday whether the U.S.-led coalition could do more to help rebels in Aleppo or improve access for humanitarian aid to the city, Pentagon spokesman Colonel Steve Warren said that the coalition’s focus remained on fighting Islamic State,” Reuters wrote on Thursday. The group is "virtually non-existent in that part of Syria,” Warren said.

Right. Which makes you wonder what two US Air Force A-10 attack planes were doing bombing in and around Aleppo. Is the US set to conduct airstrikes in support of the rebels, thus marking a fresh and exceptionally dangerous escalation of hostilities in the country?

As for what exactly it was that the US warplanes struck, Konashenkov will have to get back to us. He’s too busy winning a war to care right now:

“I’m going to be honest with you: we did not have enough time to clarify what exactly those nine objects bombed out by US planes in Aleppo yesterday were. We will look more carefully."

Below, find excerpts from “Will Russian Victories In Syria Spark A Regional War?” by Yaroslav Trofimov as originally published in WSJ

Defying U.S. predictions of a quagmire in Syria, Russia is achieving strategic victories there with this month’s Aleppo offensive. The question now is whether this is a turning point that hastens the five-year war’s end or the trigger for a counter-escalation that will drag other regional countries into the conflict.

Few expect that Moscow’s main target—the moderate rebels backed by Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the U.S.—would now be forced settle the conflict on the Kremlin’s, and Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s, terms.

“Their victory in Aleppo is not the end of the war. It’s the beginning of a new war,” said Moncef Marzouki, who served in 2011-14 as the president of Tunisia, the nation that kicked off the Arab Spring, and who recently visited the Turkish-Syrian border. “Now, everybody would intervene.”

To be sure, Turkey and Saudi Arabia have few easy options to counter Russian military might in Syria. But because of national pride—and internal politics—neither can really afford to have the rebel cause in which they have invested so much wiped out by Moscow and its Iranian allies.

While the Obama administration has long been determined to minimize U.S. involvement there, for Turkey and Saudi Arabia the prospect of Syria falling under the sway of Russia and Iran would be a national-security catastrophe.

“The whole situation, not just for Turkey but for the entire Middle East, would be reshaped. The Western influence will fade away. The question is: Can we accept Russia, and the Iranians, calling the tune in the region?” said Umit Pamir, a former Turkish ambassador to NATO and the United Nations.

zerohedge.com/news/2016-02-1 … eppo-strik

Mictlantecuhtli · February 11, 2016, 5:04pm

Mictlantecuhtli · February 11, 2016, 5:07pm

Mictlantecuhtli · February 11, 2016, 5:09pm

Mictlantecuhtli · February 11, 2016, 5:50pm

Iran unofficially tells Saudi Arabia to fuck off in Syria. Epic Shit throwing commences.

Iran Holds Nothing Back: “It’s A Suicide Mission That Will Have A Very Dark End”

Earlier today we reported that Saudi Arabia has made a “final” decision to invade Syria.

Of course they won’t use the term “invade.” They’ll say the same thing the US says, which is that they need to send in a limited number of ground troops to help fight ISIS.

The timing of the announcement quite clearly suggests that the Saudis are going to try and shore up the rebels who are facing imminent defeat at Aleppo where Hezbollah, backed by Russian airstrikes, is about to overrun the opposition.

That outcome is unacceptable for the Saudis, who have been funding and supplying the Sunni opposition in Syria for years. For Turkey, it’s pretty much the same story. How Riyadh and Ankara plan to assist the rebels while maintaining the narrative that they’re only in the country to fight Islamic State is an open question, but one thing is for sure: it’s do or die time. In the most literal sense of the phrase. “Publicly, Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Bahrain are calling for troops to be deployed as part of the US-led international coalition already ranged against Isis,” FT wrote, earlier this week. “But regional observers say the moves are cover for an intervention to help the Syrian rebels.”

“If Saudi and Turkish forces were deployed at Syria’s northwestern border crossings with Turkey, for example, they would be inside Russia’s operational theatre,” The Times continues. “This would be a total nightmare for the US,” said analyst Aaron Stein, of the Atlantic Council in Washington. “What happens if Russia kills a Turk? They would be killing a Nato member.”

Yes, a “total nightmare” for the US and to let one Iranian military source tell it, a “total nightmare” for the Saudis as well. Read below to see what Tehran thinks about Riyadh’s chances of securing a desirable outcome in Syria (note the reference to Saudi Arabia and Islamic State’s shared ideology):

Via Al-Monitor quoting unnamed Iranian military personnel:

"It’s a joke. We couldn’t wish [for] more than that. If they can do it, then let them do it — but talking militarily, this is not easy for a country already facing defeat in another war, in Yemen, where after almost one year they have failed in achieving any real victory.”

“The Saudis might really take part in this war. Such a decision might come from the rulers of the kingdom without taking into consideration the capabilities of their troops, and here is where the tragedy would occur. They are not well-trained for such terrain. I’m not sure if they sorted out the supply routes they would use — this is assuming that they would only fight [IS] — but it’s obvious they [want to] implement their agenda, after their proxies failed.”

“This would mean a regional war. Mistakes can’t be tolerated, especially with the tension mounting around the region. It’s not about Iranians, but about all troops on the ground fighting with the Syrian army. How would the Syrian army deal with a foreign country on its soil, without its permission, and maybe aiming [guns] at them? That would be an occupation force. Can the Saudis control their army? Who can guarantee that some of them might not defect and join [IS]? They have the same ideology and they hold the same beliefs, and many of them are already connected [to IS].”

“The Saudis are simply putting themselves in a very weird position that might have a very dark end. The worst thing is that the implications aren’t only going to affect the region, but world peace.”

zerohedge.com/news/2016-02-1 … y-dark-end

Meno2 · February 11, 2016, 6:37pm

In a struggle of good over evil, good wins. Christ will soon come back to earth, in the shape of the antichrist, and there will be peace at least for some time. By that time , travel through time will afford the changing of the future by manipulating the past. This is possible now, and we are creating multiple futures now, with loaded indeterminacy. All the indetermination can be pro-programmed, the closer the event becomes technically foreseeable and the program adjusts and re-calculates the most feasible option. (Unless Al turns hostile). The closer uncertainty, the farther the reach of the re-program, by virtue of the gravity of the situation. After that period of tribulation, the Christ will defeat the Antichrist.

Mictlantecuhtli · February 11, 2016, 7:04pm

Hilarious.

Your god is about as real as the Easter Bunny. Sorry, nobody is coming to save you or anybody.

You’re going to be sadly disappointed.

If you’re looking for evil look inside yourself along with the rest of humanity. The real face of the devil if one ever existed to begin with…Good? I assure you there is none.

Meno2 · February 12, 2016, 12:50am

Suppose a super singularity, as both : the symbol of the manifestation and its negative. Now this cycle may seem inestimable, but, in the way things work, it is but a moment, per perception. In that sense, consciousness is the only condition of existence. Existence is a quality which determines consciousness, and reversals. In this sense,good and evil, Progression and Regression serve proto-typically as the opposites. God and the devil, viewed in this manner, present a particularly poignant cyclical representation. Of course, Ha Ha Ha, (ahem- clears throat) things can take a far less obscure course, if the anthropomorphic way is disregarded as archaic and dated.

Mictlantecuhtli · February 12, 2016, 1:05am

Believe in what you want. I know you won’t listen to what I have to say on the subject.

I still say you’ll be sadly disappointed.

Mictlantecuhtli · February 12, 2016, 1:14am

Russian Prime Minister Warns There Will Be A “Permanent World War” If Saudis Invade Syria

If you frequent these pages you know why Riyadh (and Ankara for that matter) is considering the ground option. The effort to oust Bashar al-Assad and the Alawite government was going reasonably well right up until September. Sure, the conflict was dragging into its fifth year, but Assad’s army was on the ropes and absent a miracle, it seemed likely that his government would fall.

As it turns out, Assad did indeed get a miracle from above although instead of divine intervention it was Russian airstrikes which commenced from Latakia starting on September 30. Contrary to The White House’s prediction that Putin would find himself in a “quagmire,” Russia and Hezbollah have rolled up the opposition and are preparing to recapture Aleppo, the country’s largest city and a major commercial hub. If that happens, the rebellion is over.

That would be a disaster to the rebels’ Sunni benefactors as it would mean Iran will preserve the Shiite crescent and its supply lines to Hezbollah. It would also give Tehran bragging rights in the bitter ideological war with Riyadh. Simply put, that’s unacceptable for the Saudis and so, it’s time to call upon the ground troops.

But this isn’t Yemen where the Iranians are fighting via proxies. If the Saudis start shooting at the IRGC or at Hezbollah in Syria it’s just as likely as not that the two countries will go to war and just like that, you’d have the beginning of World War III.

Don’t believe us? Just ask Russian PM Dmitry Medvedev.

“If Arab forces entered the Syrian war they could spark a new world war," Medvedev warned on Thursday. “Ground offensives usually lead to wars becoming permanent". Here’s what else he told Handelsblatt:
"The Americans and our Arabic partners must think hard about this: do they want a permanent war?”

 

"Do they really think they would win such a war very quickly? That's impossible, especially in the Arabic world. There everyone is fighting against everyone... everything is far more complicated. It could take years or decades."

 

"Why is that necessary? All sides must be forced to the negotiating table instead of sparking a new world war."
Yes, “all sides must come to the negotiating table.” Of course that’s easy for Medvedev to say. After all, it’s a lot easier to sit at the table when you’ve already won and are negotiating from a position of strength.

That is, there won’t be anything left to negotiate in a couple of weeks if things keep going like they’re going. What Moscow pretty clearly wants to do is crush the opposition in Aleppo and then discuss how to proceed with some kind of political “agreement” that will prevent whatever remains of the rebels from launching a prolonged war of attrition involving periodic attacks on government forces.

In any event, don’t say Russia didn’t warn everyone when the Saudis and the Turks end up setting the world on the road to a global conflict. Below, find excerpts from an interview The Atlantic conducted with Andrew Tabler of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

Kathy Gilsinan: I wanted to start with what the significance of Aleppo has been to the Syrian uprising up to this point.

Andrew Tabler: Aleppo is Syria’s largest city. It’s the commercial hub. It is extremely important, particularly to the opposition, because Aleppo, along with the other northwestern cities, have been some of the strongest opponents to the Assad regime historically. I think the decision in 2012 to take [the city] was one of the first real major offensives of the armed opposition in Syria. And they hoped that by denying the regime Aleppo, it would set up an alternative capital and allow for a process where the Assad regime’s power was whittled away. Since that time, it has instead been one of the most bombed, barrel-bombed, and decimated parts of Syria, and now is much more like Dresden than anything else.

Gilsinan: If Aleppo falls, walk me through what happens next. First, how would it change the balance of power, within the civil war, between the rebels and the regime?

Tabler: I think it would cement the regime’s hold on “essential Syria”—western Syria, perhaps with the exception of Idlib province [to] the south [of Aleppo]. But basically you would have the regime presence from Aleppo the whole way down to Hama, Homs, and Damascus, and that’s the spine of the country, and that’s what concerns the regime and the Iranians in particular. It would then allow them to free up forces, potentially, to go on the offensive elsewhere, directly into Idlib province, most likely, and then eventually into the south. Then after that they could turn their attention finally to ISIS.

Gilsinan: And then what happens to the regional balance of power within that war?

Tabler: It would be a tremendous loss for the U.S. and its traditional allies: Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Jordan. It’s already been extremely costly for most of those allies, but it would be a defeat [in the face of] the Russian-Iranian intervention in Syria. This would also be a huge loss for the United States vis-à-vis Russia in its Middle East policy, certainly. And because of the flow of refugees as a result of this, if they go northward to Europe, then you would see a migrant crisis in Europe that could lead to far-right governments coming to power which are much more friendly to Russia than they are to the United States. I think that is likely to happen.

Gilsinan: So it changes the entire orientation, not just of the Middle East, but of Europe as well.

Tabler: It will soften up American power in Europe, yeah. And put into jeopardy a lot of the advances in the NATO-accession countries, which are adjacent to Russia, as well.

zerohedge.com/news/2016-02-1 … nvade-syri

Meno2 · February 12, 2016, 5:10am

Good analysis Hahaha, but incomplete. The struggle in the Middle East is more complicated then the above description makes it .

USWorld report reports, based on defense Dept analysis, suggests the following scenario to the above description.

Russia may be in for a quagmire, long term, if it cannot bring all parties to the table. Russia’s objectives differ from Syrias, as Syria in a winning situation would become reluctant to negotiate, which is Russia’s aim. A drawn out affair would be, on the other hand difficult for Russia to sustain, where the rebels in a weakened position, would force Assad’s hand to sustain a fighting position, to placate the differing elements within that country. Russia would be involved in a drawn out war, for which she is not presently prepared for.

American presence in Iraq was vastly larger then Russia’s, and has had much more experience in dealing with factions there.

Further, if the Rebels are severely weakened, they will diminish American importance as a viable opponent, and they would go after the Russians. Although Syria welcomes Russian help, Assad may not be happy for an early Russian withdrawal, in case of a failure of negotiations.

All these variables are well understood by all parties, including the US, and therefore the exclusion of careful planning, may become an asset, and not a liability vis, Consequent US-Saudi influence, as equalizing the Russian-Irani one.

Therefore an emerging stability based on both views may be necessary to prevent an overwhelming power shift to the other side, because the real enemy here, is ISIS, and all parties are pretty well acquainted with that also.

Mictlantecuhtli · February 12, 2016, 5:27am

jerkey:

Good analysis Hahaha, but incomplete. The struggle in the Middle East is more complicated then the above description makes it .

USWorld report reports, based on defense Dept analysis, suggests the following scenario to the above description.

Russia may be in for a quagmire, long term, if it cannot bring all parties to the table. Russia’s objectives differ from Syrias, as Syria in a winning situation would become reluctant to negotiate, which is Russia’s aim. A drawn out affair would be, on the other hand difficult for Russia to sustain, where the rebels in a weakened position, would force Assad’s hand to sustain a fighting position, to placate the differing elements within that country. Russia would be involved in a drawn out war, for which she is not presently prepared for.

American presence in Iraq was vastly larger then Russia’s, and has had much more experience in dealing with factions there.

Further, if the Rebels are severely weakened, they will diminish American importance as a viable opponent, and they would go after the Russians. Although Syria welcomes Russian help, Assad may not be happy for an early Russian withdrawal, in case of a failure of negotiations.

All these variables are well understood by all parties, including the US, and therefore the exclusion of careful planning, may become an asset, and not a liability vis, Consequent US-Saudi influence, as equalizing the Russian-Irani one.

Therefore an emerging stability based on both views may be necessary to prevent an overwhelming power shift to the other side, because the real enemy here, is ISIS, and all parties are pretty well acquainted with that also.

Your post sounds like Amerian centric propaganda from CNN.

America’s influence in Iraq is disappearing at fast pace since the new Iraqi government is making strides geopolitically with Iran, China, and Russia.

Russia along with the Iranians and Hezbollah are almost done succeeding with their military campaigns in Syria with Assad’s military forces hence why the doublecross rhetoric of Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Israel, United States, and U.S. controlled ISIS is going full retard.

Meno2 · February 12, 2016, 5:49am

The point is that no one view is satisfactory , but that all views, including the above have to be incorporated in a solution. The trouble is, as far as solutions go, Arab sentiments and tribalism so, may prevent such. Russia/Iran is acutely aware of not being able to omit the US/Saudi powerhouse, it’s simply definitive, that
in any peace agreement or actual engagement, the
fall of Aleppo can not be the end of the story. Protract ing fight is it in the interest of the great powers, but Syria can not go that route, because of
internal dissidence and political gambits occurring
there. There are no right or wrong views, as equally, solutions.

Meno2 · February 12, 2016, 6:10am

Just in: ceasefire signed by all parties involved in the struggle in Syria.